The incident began when a man named Reuven Paul, who owns a property in eastern Jerusalem, turned to the District Court with a complaint against the United Nations for housing its personnel on his property. The Court held hearings on the matter, at the end of which it ruled that the UN must either evacuate the premises or pay Paul a sum of two million dollars.
When the Foreign Ministry staffers heard of the ruling, they realized with concern that it might impair Israel's relationship with the UN. The Ministry asked the Court to freeze the ruling so that it could be appealed, and the Court agreed.
Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz did not suffice with this, however. He presented the court with documents signed by representatives of the State of Israel granting the UN immunity from Israeli court decisions. Mazuz said that the ruling against the UN should therefore be annulled altogether, and he asked the Court to do so.
The District Court judge reviewed the case, and ruled that the UN's immunity does not include private claims against the UN.
But Mazuz did not give up. He appealed once again to the Court, claiming that he is motivated by the "weighty ramifications on Israel's foreign relations." The appeal is now awaiting another hearing by the Court.
Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen notes that this is the second time in four months that the UN is seeking to actualize its "right" to be above the law in Jerusalem. In November 2004, Jerusalem City Councilman David Hadari complained that the UN was illegally building a new large structure in Maalot Dafna, near Ramat Eshkol and Ammunition Hill. Then, as well, he found that the authorities were unwilling to take action – and even after they grudgingly issued a stop-work order, the construction continued, and continues today.
Hadari has now written a letter to A-G Mazuz, asking to "review our obligations towards the UN. We must demand that the UN's judicial immunity apply only in cases where the UN is acting in good faith and without having been warned beforehand by the relevant authorities. We must make it clear that the judicial immunity we grant the UN does not justify continuous nose-thumbing at our laws and impairing of our sovereignty."
Hadari's letter also relates to the case of the UN's ongoing illegal construction in Jerusalem: "The UN is building illegally in Maalot Dafna in Jerusalem, without having received any permit or authorization from the Jerusalem Municipality, and in blatant violation of the laws of the State of Israel. Despite my many queries on this issue, and despite the duly-issued stop-work orders, the UN has continued to act as it pleases, all because of the judicial immunity granted it by the State of Israel."
The Attorney-General's request that the District Court freeze its decision against the UN's presence in Reuven Paul's private property is pending.
Mazuz recently drew right-wing ire when he threatened to prosecute anti-disengagement road-blockers on charges of "endangering public safety" – charges that could net violators 20 years in prison.
"Mazuz is a danger to democracy," said MK Benny Elon (National Union). "With his campaign of fear and encouraging arrests without trial, he is simply trying to shut people up. Where was he when he charged Omri Sharon with collecting illegal campaign contributions, while leaving his father, the Prime Minister, out of it? What, Ariel Sharon knew nothing? He didn't call to thank anyone? ... And what about Sharon's agreement to give over security control of Jericho to the PA, against the army's recommendations, merely to allow Dov Weisglass' clients to open the casino there? Is there nothing there to investigate?"
When the Foreign Ministry staffers heard of the ruling, they realized with concern that it might impair Israel's relationship with the UN. The Ministry asked the Court to freeze the ruling so that it could be appealed, and the Court agreed.
Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz did not suffice with this, however. He presented the court with documents signed by representatives of the State of Israel granting the UN immunity from Israeli court decisions. Mazuz said that the ruling against the UN should therefore be annulled altogether, and he asked the Court to do so.
The District Court judge reviewed the case, and ruled that the UN's immunity does not include private claims against the UN.
But Mazuz did not give up. He appealed once again to the Court, claiming that he is motivated by the "weighty ramifications on Israel's foreign relations." The appeal is now awaiting another hearing by the Court.
Arutz-7's Shimon Cohen notes that this is the second time in four months that the UN is seeking to actualize its "right" to be above the law in Jerusalem. In November 2004, Jerusalem City Councilman David Hadari complained that the UN was illegally building a new large structure in Maalot Dafna, near Ramat Eshkol and Ammunition Hill. Then, as well, he found that the authorities were unwilling to take action – and even after they grudgingly issued a stop-work order, the construction continued, and continues today.
Hadari has now written a letter to A-G Mazuz, asking to "review our obligations towards the UN. We must demand that the UN's judicial immunity apply only in cases where the UN is acting in good faith and without having been warned beforehand by the relevant authorities. We must make it clear that the judicial immunity we grant the UN does not justify continuous nose-thumbing at our laws and impairing of our sovereignty."
Hadari's letter also relates to the case of the UN's ongoing illegal construction in Jerusalem: "The UN is building illegally in Maalot Dafna in Jerusalem, without having received any permit or authorization from the Jerusalem Municipality, and in blatant violation of the laws of the State of Israel. Despite my many queries on this issue, and despite the duly-issued stop-work orders, the UN has continued to act as it pleases, all because of the judicial immunity granted it by the State of Israel."
The Attorney-General's request that the District Court freeze its decision against the UN's presence in Reuven Paul's private property is pending.
Mazuz recently drew right-wing ire when he threatened to prosecute anti-disengagement road-blockers on charges of "endangering public safety" – charges that could net violators 20 years in prison.
"Mazuz is a danger to democracy," said MK Benny Elon (National Union). "With his campaign of fear and encouraging arrests without trial, he is simply trying to shut people up. Where was he when he charged Omri Sharon with collecting illegal campaign contributions, while leaving his father, the Prime Minister, out of it? What, Ariel Sharon knew nothing? He didn't call to thank anyone? ... And what about Sharon's agreement to give over security control of Jericho to the PA, against the army's recommendations, merely to allow Dov Weisglass' clients to open the casino there? Is there nothing there to investigate?"