Subsequent to the court's ruling, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has agreed to hold an additional cabinet vote on the matter.
Three justices - Edmond Levy, Elyakim Rubenstein, and Edna Arbel - voted to conduct another hearing on the petition against the destruction. Four, however - Chief Justice Barak, Dorit Beinish, Ayala Procaccia, and Asher Gronis - ruled that the subject had been exhausted and that the government could go ahead with its destruction.
Atty. Gilad Corinaldi of Jerusalem waged the legal struggle on behalf of the petitioner Rabbi Yishai Bar-Chen of the ex-northern Gaza community of Nisanit. He said this evening, "This is a decision that will have tragic implications, and is a dangerous precedent in terms of church-and-state relations. The Supreme Court ignored the opinion of the Torah world, as expressed in the rulings of virtually all the Torah giants of our generation. It did so in an insensitive matter, and especially as this concerns a question that is totally and absolutely Halakhic [Jewish legal] and religious."
Corinaldi had some harsh words for other sectors: "Not only the Supreme Court is to blame. The religious and hareidi publics, and the rabbis, must make a genuine self-accounting as to why such a clear and unanimous Halakhic ruling was sounded so late in the game."
Gush Katif spokesman Eran Sternberg said, "Together with the synagogues in Gush Katif, also being destroyed are our last vestiges of trust in the Supreme Court - trust which was already wobbly as a result of the entire expulsion process. This decision would not have shamed any anti-Semitic court in the world..."
The Supreme Court had been asked to decide between official government policy and the rulings of the Chief Rabbis. The government decided several weeks ago that following the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, all houses and synagogues would be razed, while 154 public structures would be spared. The latter includes community centers, schools, the regional council building, and even at least one swimming pool. However, for fear that the synagogues would be desecrated by the Arabs, it was decided that they must be destroyed beforehand.
Government spokesmen have also explained that they do not want Jews attempting to return to the buildings in the future.
The Chief Rabbinate, on the other hand, ruled unanimously that desecration at the hands of non-Jews is better than destruction at the hands of Jews. The rabbis stated that a Jewish body - whether the State or individuals - must have no hand in the destruction of a synagogue. The rabbis also added that Jewish communities around the world had warned that their own synagogues would be endangered if Israel razes its own.
Atty. Corinaldi summed up this point in his brief by writing, "The terrible precedent of destroying synagogues in an official manner by the Israeli government representing the Jewish and democratic state, and via the Israeli defensive army - would undoubtedly have grave ramifications for many synagogues around the world. On the other hand, even if they are destroyed by Arab vandals, let it be their sin - while the negative precedent of Jews carrying out the destruction will be avoided."
The Court recommended on Tuesday that the government ask the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. and other international elements to help secure the safety and sanctity of the structures.
Among those involved in contacts of this nature were Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Shas Party Chairman MK Eli Yishai, and Natan Sharansky. Rabbi Amar was reportedly in touch with the King of Morocco, and Yishai with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's administration. Sharansky and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, asked Bush Administration officials to make their aid to the PA contingent upon a PA commitment to preserve the synagogues.
Atty. Corinaldi called upon Prime Minister Sharon and President Katzav to act to change the decision, even though it is scheduled to be implemented as early as tomorrow. "Even if only a few of the synagogues remain, such as the large ones in N'vei Dekalim, that will be better than nothing," he said.
He also noted that destroying the synagogues at this hour, with Arab snipers waiting to attack, might endanger the forces.
"Contacts are still ongoing with the Palestinian Authority," Corinaldi noted, "and the last word has not yet been said. But even if this fails, future generations should know that this decision was not made without a strong fight on our part."
Before the ruling was released, Corinaldi told Arutz-7, "As I wrote to the judges themselves, the eyes of the Jewish world are raised to the gates of the Supreme Court at this difficult and fateful hour. This is a weighty decision that requires strong shoulders, and will leave the Supreme Court's imprint on Jewish life in Israel, as well as in Jewish history throughout all coming generations."
The majority opinion explained the ruling as having been made "despite the great importance and sensitivity of the matter," because the question involved only whether the government decision was legal according to accepted legal standards.
The minority opinion, on the other hand, was that another hearing should be held, because of the issue's great importance and sensitivity, as well as its broad Halakhic, national, international and Jewish ramifications. The three judges wrote that the issue should therefore not be judged only according to the narrow criteria of routine decisions. "It is such a weighty decision that it justifies a reconsideration of the legality of the government decision."
Three justices - Edmond Levy, Elyakim Rubenstein, and Edna Arbel - voted to conduct another hearing on the petition against the destruction. Four, however - Chief Justice Barak, Dorit Beinish, Ayala Procaccia, and Asher Gronis - ruled that the subject had been exhausted and that the government could go ahead with its destruction.
Atty. Gilad Corinaldi of Jerusalem waged the legal struggle on behalf of the petitioner Rabbi Yishai Bar-Chen of the ex-northern Gaza community of Nisanit. He said this evening, "This is a decision that will have tragic implications, and is a dangerous precedent in terms of church-and-state relations. The Supreme Court ignored the opinion of the Torah world, as expressed in the rulings of virtually all the Torah giants of our generation. It did so in an insensitive matter, and especially as this concerns a question that is totally and absolutely Halakhic [Jewish legal] and religious."
Corinaldi had some harsh words for other sectors: "Not only the Supreme Court is to blame. The religious and hareidi publics, and the rabbis, must make a genuine self-accounting as to why such a clear and unanimous Halakhic ruling was sounded so late in the game."
Gush Katif spokesman Eran Sternberg said, "Together with the synagogues in Gush Katif, also being destroyed are our last vestiges of trust in the Supreme Court - trust which was already wobbly as a result of the entire expulsion process. This decision would not have shamed any anti-Semitic court in the world..."
The Supreme Court had been asked to decide between official government policy and the rulings of the Chief Rabbis. The government decided several weeks ago that following the expulsion of Jews from Gaza, all houses and synagogues would be razed, while 154 public structures would be spared. The latter includes community centers, schools, the regional council building, and even at least one swimming pool. However, for fear that the synagogues would be desecrated by the Arabs, it was decided that they must be destroyed beforehand.
Government spokesmen have also explained that they do not want Jews attempting to return to the buildings in the future.
The Chief Rabbinate, on the other hand, ruled unanimously that desecration at the hands of non-Jews is better than destruction at the hands of Jews. The rabbis stated that a Jewish body - whether the State or individuals - must have no hand in the destruction of a synagogue. The rabbis also added that Jewish communities around the world had warned that their own synagogues would be endangered if Israel razes its own.
Atty. Corinaldi summed up this point in his brief by writing, "The terrible precedent of destroying synagogues in an official manner by the Israeli government representing the Jewish and democratic state, and via the Israeli defensive army - would undoubtedly have grave ramifications for many synagogues around the world. On the other hand, even if they are destroyed by Arab vandals, let it be their sin - while the negative precedent of Jews carrying out the destruction will be avoided."
The Court recommended on Tuesday that the government ask the Palestinian Authority, the U.S. and other international elements to help secure the safety and sanctity of the structures.
Among those involved in contacts of this nature were Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar, Shas Party Chairman MK Eli Yishai, and Natan Sharansky. Rabbi Amar was reportedly in touch with the King of Morocco, and Yishai with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's administration. Sharansky and Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, asked Bush Administration officials to make their aid to the PA contingent upon a PA commitment to preserve the synagogues.
Atty. Corinaldi called upon Prime Minister Sharon and President Katzav to act to change the decision, even though it is scheduled to be implemented as early as tomorrow. "Even if only a few of the synagogues remain, such as the large ones in N'vei Dekalim, that will be better than nothing," he said.
He also noted that destroying the synagogues at this hour, with Arab snipers waiting to attack, might endanger the forces.
"Contacts are still ongoing with the Palestinian Authority," Corinaldi noted, "and the last word has not yet been said. But even if this fails, future generations should know that this decision was not made without a strong fight on our part."
Before the ruling was released, Corinaldi told Arutz-7, "As I wrote to the judges themselves, the eyes of the Jewish world are raised to the gates of the Supreme Court at this difficult and fateful hour. This is a weighty decision that requires strong shoulders, and will leave the Supreme Court's imprint on Jewish life in Israel, as well as in Jewish history throughout all coming generations."
The majority opinion explained the ruling as having been made "despite the great importance and sensitivity of the matter," because the question involved only whether the government decision was legal according to accepted legal standards.
The minority opinion, on the other hand, was that another hearing should be held, because of the issue's great importance and sensitivity, as well as its broad Halakhic, national, international and Jewish ramifications. The three judges wrote that the issue should therefore not be judged only according to the narrow criteria of routine decisions. "It is such a weighty decision that it justifies a reconsideration of the legality of the government decision."