MK Betzalel Smotrich submitted on Thursday an urgent request to join as a respondent in the request of the owners of 9 homes in Ofra slated for destruction to seal, rather than destroy, the homes - in light of the Regulation Law.
The Regulation Law, recently passed in the Knesset, seeks to protect thousands of Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria which were built with government backing and lacked absentee land claims, but against which there are now property claims.
Smotrich said that he submitted his request after finding the interpretation of the Regulation Law presented by the Attorney General to the Supreme Court, according to which the Law cannot protect the Ofra homes from destruction, to be flawed.
In his request, Smotrich noted that he himself phrased the Law, therefore he feels a need to stand before the Supreme Court judges in order to prevent a faulty interpretation being given to the Law - which will similarly affect the application of the Law in the future.
According to Smotrich, “as the one who phrased the Law, I feel it to be my duty to appear before the Court in order to explain clearly what the legislator’s intention was. In my eyes, the State is giving a faulty interpretation to the intention of the legislator in its response and, in so doing, errs in the resulting consequences for the nine houses in Ofra. In my petition, I made clear that, despite the fact that the Regulation Law does not cancel decided verdicts, it certainly enables the normalization of the nine homes and, therefore, there is no doubt that it creates a change in circumstances. Therefore, it is fitting that the Court allow the full extent of the normalization process and, afterward, decide the verdict anew.”
“The Attorney General has expressed his opposition to the Law more than once, and he has worked - and is working - towards its constriction. In light of this, it is fitting that the Court at least hear the words and intentions of the legislator, which is completely different from the State’s response. The Knesset and the government made the Regulation Law out of a deep understanding of its significance and consequences. I hope and believe that the Court will seriously address the legislative branch’s decision and will be interested in hearing the intentions of the legislator himself,” he added.
Smotrich emphasized further, “there is no greater conflict of interest than allowing the Attorney General, who opposed and opposes the Law with all his might, to represent the State in matters related to the Law and its interpretation. After all, it is clear that the Attorney General will do everything he can to give the Law a constricted interpretation that empties it of its content.”