Gantz criticizes Supreme Court: 'Very unfortunate ruling'

DM says he respects all court rulings, but thinks it was wrong in preventing demolition of Amit Ben Yigal's murderer's house.

Mordechai Sones ,

Gantz
Gantz
Flash 90

Defense Minister Benny Gantz criticized the Supreme Court decision to prevent demolition of the house of Amit Ben Yigal's murderer.

"Of course we will respect any Supreme Court ruling, but the ruling that revoked the order to demolish the house of the terrorist who killed the late Amit Ben Yigal is very unfortunate," Gantz wrote on Twitter.

He added that "demolishing houses for deterrence is an important tool in the war on terror. Therefore, I instructed the professionals in the Defense Ministry to contact the Attorney General to submit a request for further discussion of the ruling."

Shas MK Moshe Arbel addressed Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit demanding he immediately submit a request to the Supreme Court for another hearing on the demolition.

"Earlier today, the petition of the Abu Bakr family was received, from whom emerged the despicable killer of Sgt. Amit Ben Yigal, seeking to revoke the demolition order issued for the family home. To complete the picture, it should be noted that the demolition notice was issued only a month-and-a-half after the murder., and that the murder was committed using the structure of the house in question by throwing a cinder block from the roof of the building on the head of the late Amit," Arbel wrote to Mandelblit.

"Judges Mazuz and Kara's majority opinion constitutes a substantial change from the existing ruling that did not intervene at all in the administrative discretion of the authority to order the demolition of the house except in exceptional cases, for example when considerable delay leads to harming the deterrent value of demolition. This is also the opinion of the minority, Judge Wilner, who did not see herself interfering in administrative discretion in this case.

"This new case law justifies at least a request for a further hearing in an expanded panel of judges under section 30 (b) of the Courts Law that provides a further hearing may be set as to whether the case law adjudicated in the Supreme Court is inconsistent with previous Supreme Court case law. Or because the importance, the difficulty, or the renewal of a ruling that has been decided on the matter contains, in their opinion, room for further discussion," he noted.

Arbel added, "In a heartbreaking phone call I made when the verdict came out with my friend Mr. Baruch Ben Yigal, the father of Sgt. Amit Ben Yigal, he asked me in tears for a third that we not let go and remain silent on this issue until justice is served and a hearing is held in expanded composition of judges in the Supreme Court. Not out of lust for revenge, G-d forbid, but out of concern for the Israeli soldiers living among us in the face of significant damage to deterrence as a result of this new and difficult decision, I ask you to apply on behalf of the State as soon as possible for another hearing in an expanded panel of judges in the Supreme Court on this important and difficult issue."



top