Welfare Minister Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party) says that there is no reason to rush up the legislation of the proposed Disengagement Bill, and has asked Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz for an extension.
The bill, which contains close to 140 clauses and is outlined in 89 pages, was submitted to the Cabinet ministers for their perusal just two days ago, and Prime Minister Sharon hopes to hold a vote on it three weeks from then. However, Orlev notes in a letter to Mazuz, "of the 21 days that were allocated for the ministers to read and study it, only 4 working days remain, given all the holidays in between."
"This is a very long and complex bill," writes Orlev, who is strongly against the disengagement, "and no one can be expected to seriously review it in just four days. I also see no objective reason why there must be such a panic and a prevention of a serious discussion in the government offices regarding such an important bill. It is an unprecedented law, that is a highly sensitive issue and must be widely and comprehensively discussed. I am sure that you will not lend your hand to this 'grab' and to the prevention of a fair discussion on this law - at least as exists for all other proposed bills."
The proposed law states that residents will have only two years from the day of the evacuation to submit a request for compensation, and only 45 days to appeal a decision regarding eligibility for such. It further stipulates that after a date set by the Prime Minister, anyone who enters or remains in the areas designated for evacuation will be subject to three years in prison - or five, if he is armed with a gun or knife. Also subject to these punishments are those who:
* "interfere with security officers who are in the process of removing, destroying or sealing off a property to be turned over [to the PLO] or to be evacuated;"
* those who take part in a disturbance - "namely, a gathering of three persons or more that is disturbing the peace" - with the goal of interfering with these orders; or
* unseal a building that was sealed off for this purpose.
Another clause provides that after the evacuation date, the residents will have no claim to any of their moveable possessions remaining in the areas. Israel Radio legal commentator Moshe Negbi said this week that he expects the law, if passed, to be challenged in the Supreme Court. "It appears to clash with and contradict the basic right of a citizen to own his property," he said, noting other problematic clauses as well.
The bill, which contains close to 140 clauses and is outlined in 89 pages, was submitted to the Cabinet ministers for their perusal just two days ago, and Prime Minister Sharon hopes to hold a vote on it three weeks from then. However, Orlev notes in a letter to Mazuz, "of the 21 days that were allocated for the ministers to read and study it, only 4 working days remain, given all the holidays in between."
"This is a very long and complex bill," writes Orlev, who is strongly against the disengagement, "and no one can be expected to seriously review it in just four days. I also see no objective reason why there must be such a panic and a prevention of a serious discussion in the government offices regarding such an important bill. It is an unprecedented law, that is a highly sensitive issue and must be widely and comprehensively discussed. I am sure that you will not lend your hand to this 'grab' and to the prevention of a fair discussion on this law - at least as exists for all other proposed bills."
The proposed law states that residents will have only two years from the day of the evacuation to submit a request for compensation, and only 45 days to appeal a decision regarding eligibility for such. It further stipulates that after a date set by the Prime Minister, anyone who enters or remains in the areas designated for evacuation will be subject to three years in prison - or five, if he is armed with a gun or knife. Also subject to these punishments are those who:
* "interfere with security officers who are in the process of removing, destroying or sealing off a property to be turned over [to the PLO] or to be evacuated;"
* those who take part in a disturbance - "namely, a gathering of three persons or more that is disturbing the peace" - with the goal of interfering with these orders; or
* unseal a building that was sealed off for this purpose.
Another clause provides that after the evacuation date, the residents will have no claim to any of their moveable possessions remaining in the areas. Israel Radio legal commentator Moshe Negbi said this week that he expects the law, if passed, to be challenged in the Supreme Court. "It appears to clash with and contradict the basic right of a citizen to own his property," he said, noting other problematic clauses as well.