DOCSLIB.ORG

Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism Within the Law

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism Within the Law Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within the Law Volume Two 2004-2005 Contents Introduction 5 Israel's Security Fence 7 HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council 7 v. The Government of Israel HCJ 7957/04 Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara'abe 62 v. The Prime Minister of Israel Safe Access to Rachel's Tomb 150 HCJ 1890/03 Bethlehem Municipality et Al 150 v. The State of Israel - Ministry of Defense The "Early Warning" Procedure 183 HCJ 3799/02 Adalah 183 v. GOC Central Command, IDF Prisoner Release 209 HCJ 1671/05 Almagor - Organization of Terrorism Victims 209 v. The Government of Israel Administrative Detention 218 HCJ 11026/05 A 218 v. The Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Areas Introduction This volume is a compilation of several important cases heard by the Supreme Court of Israel on terrorism, security activities and Israeli policy in the West Bank. The previous volume of “Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within the Law,” reported on cases from 1997 to 2004. This successor volume contains cases from 2004 and 2005. The years 2004 and 2005 were significant in the development of Israel’s security policy. First, Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip, removing Jewish settlements and its army presence in the area. Second, these years saw a marked increase in the building of a security fence meant to impede terrorist movement into Israel from the West Bank. Diplomatic efforts were undertaken; a summit was held between Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt, on February 8, 2005. Finally, Israel continued implementing steps to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. These events led to a number of important cases to be presented in the Israeli High Court of Justice. This volume provides a sample of these decisions. The Beit Sourik (June 2004) and Alfei Menasheh (September 2005) cases analyze the legal requirements and rationale behind the security fence. In the Bethlehem Municipality (February 2005) case, the Court explored conflicting rights related to safe access to Rachel’s Tomb in Bethlehem. The Early Warning (October 2005) case looked at the involvement of local residents in terrorist apprehensions. The Almagor (February 2005) case dealt with the legality of the prisoner release action negotiated in the Sharm el-Sheik summit. The final case (December 2005) examined administrative detention of a Hamas militant caught on his way to commit a suicide bombing. The High Court of Justice is one of the roles assumed by the Israeli Supreme Court. In this function the Court reviews the activities of public authorities, including the security forces, to ensure they are in line with the law (see section 15(4)(2) of the Basic Law: The Judiciary). This judicial review is exercised as a first instance. This means that the High Court of Justice is the 5 first court to address the case, and it is not a court of appeal. The High Court of Justice is also the last instance. There is no appeal on the Court's rulings, as it is the highest judicial instance in Israel. Usually the panel is composed of three justices, but for petitions of particular importance, a larger panel with an odd number of justices may preside (to date, up to 15). The High Court of Justice need not adjudicate every dispute brought before it. It has the discretion to establish locus standi (who have the right to initiate a proceeding) and to decide whether a dispute is justiciable (if it is an appropriate case for the Court to address). Over the years the Court has demonstrated a flexible approach regarding locus standi and justiciable doctrines. It has been willing to hear petitions brought by public organizations with no personal interests in the dispute which clearly set out the principle issues of the dispute. The Court has also frequently shown readiness to adjudicate military and security cases. This flexibility forms the basis for the numerous judicial decisions of the Court centering on the war on terror. The High Court of Justice is ever busy adjudicating petitions lodged against public bodies operating in the State of Israel. In addition, it hears petitions by residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip brought against the activities of the Israel Defense Forces and other security bodies in these areas, as well as petitions brought by public organizations (with no personal interests) against these operations. The Court's authority to preside over these cases stems from the view that the security forces operating in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are also public bodies which are subject to the law. This policy, which was crystallized after the Six Day War of 1967, allows Palestinian residents to petition the Israeli Supreme Court and subjects the operations of Israel in the territories to judicial review. Most of the judgments presented in this booklet are an expression of this judicial review. 6 Israel's Security Fence HCJ 2056/04 Beit Sourik Village Council v. 1. The Government of Israel 2. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank The case of Beit Sourik has its origins in September 2000, when the second intifada broke out. Since that date, armed Palestinian groups planned and executed numerous terrorist attacks in Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In thousands of attacks, especially suicide terror bombings, groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Fatah killed more than 1,000 Israelis and wounded thousands more. The attacks that took place within Israel were mostly committed by terrorists crossing into Israel unhindered and illegally from the West Bank. In response, Israel took countermeasures geared up to stop attacks. In the wake of lost life and hardened emotions, the Israeli government decided on June 23, 2002 to build a barrier – a security fence – between the West Bank and Israel. The barrier serves as a temporary measure to provide security against the thousands of armed attacks, however it severely affects the lives of many Palestinians. Many petitioners challenged the building of the barrier – both in general and in specific sections. One of the first petitions challenged the building of a barrier in the area of Beit Sourik, a Palestinian village located on the western side of the West Bank. The Court delayed all other decisions on what come to be known as The Fence Cases pending the general guidance of Beit Sourik. In June 2004, the Court handed down Beit Sourik, the seminal ruling reviewing the legality and proportionality of the fence under international and Israeli law. This case announced the legal standards by which the Court will judge the future cases. 7 The Court rejected the view that security considerations are outside court review. “The military is the expert regarding the military value of the separation fence,” the Court admitted, but “we are experts regarding its humanitarian aspects.” The Court considered two questions in its review: first, does the military have the authority under law to build a barrier in and around the West Bank; second, whether the route of the barrier unjustly violates the human rights of the inhabitants of the West Bank. To this case, the Court applied the international law of belligerent occupation and the law of armed conflict, or international humanitarian law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations. Under these legal doctrines, the Court found that the military is authorized, under established international conventions, to build a barrier in the occupied territory that protects the security of both Israelis and Palestinians. Notwithstanding this ruling, the military would have no authority to build a fence for political purposes. Therefore, the only justified purpose of the fence is the security purpose. Specifically, the international law of belligerent occupation, codified in the Hague Regulations, gives the occupying military the right and the duty to ensure security. The Court accepted the claim of the state that the barrier was meant for security purposes and was not motivated by political considerations of land annexation. The Court went on to scrutinize the specific route of the fence around Beit Sourik by examining the proportionality of the infringment subject to a three test – requiring the military to show that the fence rationally served the declared security purpose, that the path chosen minimized the infringment upon human rights, and that the remaining infringment of human rights was justified by the benefit. Thus, the Court established the legal standard governing future challenges to the route of the barrier. As the opinion makes clear, the Court found that part of the route of the barrier injured the rights of local Palestinians without a sufficiently justified security need. The court ordered a rerouting of the fence. Beit Sourik had an immediate and major effect on the Israeli government's proposed barrier and upon its eventual route. On February 20, 2005, several 8 months after the decision, the government ordered that the security fence be built in such a way as to minimize “the effect on the daily lives of Palestinians, according to the standards outlined in Beit Sourik.” Numerous petitioners sought orders finding parts of the barrier disproportionate, and several have prevailed, altering the route of the fence. At the same time that the Israeli Supreme Court decided Beit Sourik, the International Court of Justice at the Hague considered the matter of the barrier as well, reaching a different conclusion. In the case of Alfei Menashe (HCJ 7957/04), the next case in this volume, given on September 15, 2005, the Israeli Court explains how the ICJ reached a different conclusion using different legal and factual bases.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 8364 Licensed Charities As of 3/10/2020 MICS 24404 MICS 52720 T
    8364 Licensed Charities as of 3/10/2020 MICS 24404 MICS 52720 T. Rowe Price Program for Charitable Giving, Inc. The David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust USA, Inc. 100 E. Pratt St 25283 Cabot Road, Ste. 101 Baltimore MD 21202 Laguna Hills CA 92653 Phone: (410)345-3457 Phone: (949)305-3785 Expiration Date: 10/31/2020 Expiration Date: 10/31/2020 MICS 52752 MICS 60851 1 For 2 Education Foundation 1 Michigan for the Global Majority 4337 E. Grand River, Ste. 198 1920 Scotten St. Howell MI 48843 Detroit MI 48209 Phone: (425)299-4484 Phone: (313)338-9397 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 46501 MICS 60769 1 Voice Can Help 10 Thousand Windows, Inc. 3290 Palm Aire Drive 348 N Canyons Pkwy Rochester Hills MI 48309 Livermore CA 94551 Phone: (248)703-3088 Phone: (571)263-2035 Expiration Date: 07/31/2021 Expiration Date: 03/31/2020 MICS 56240 MICS 10978 10/40 Connections, Inc. 100 Black Men of Greater Detroit, Inc 2120 Northgate Park Lane Suite 400 Attn: Donald Ferguson Chattanooga TN 37415 1432 Oakmont Ct. Phone: (423)468-4871 Lake Orion MI 48362 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Phone: (313)874-4811 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 25388 MICS 43928 100 Club of Saginaw County 100 Women Strong, Inc. 5195 Hampton Place 2807 S. State Street Saginaw MI 48604 Saint Joseph MI 49085 Phone: (989)790-3900 Phone: (888)982-1400 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 Expiration Date: 07/31/2020 MICS 58897 MICS 60079 1888 Message Study Committee, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • At the Supreme Court Sitting As the High Court of Justice
    Disclaimer: The following is a non-binding translation of the original Hebrew document. It is provided by HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual for information purposes only. The original Hebrew prevails in any case of discrepancy. While every effort has been made to ensure its accuracy, HaMoked is not liable for the proper and complete translation nor does it accept any liability for the use of, reliance on, or for any errors or misunderstandings that may derive from the English translation. For queries about the translation please contact [email protected] At the Supreme Court HCJ 5839/15 Sitting as the High Court of Justice HCJ 5844/15 1. _________ Sidr 2. _________ Tamimi 3. _________ Al Atrash 4. _________ Tamimi 5. _________ A-Qanibi 6. _________ Taha 7. _________ Al Atrash 8. _________ Taha 9. HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, founded by Dr. Lotte Salzberger - RA Represented by counsel, Adv. Andre Rosenthal 15 Salah a-Din St., Jerusalem Tel: 6250458, Fax: 6221148; cellular: 050-5910847 The Petitioners in HCJ 5839/15 1. Anonymous 2. Anonymous 3. Anonymous 4. HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual, founded by Dr. Lotte Salzberger – RA Represented by counsel, Adv. Michal Pomeranz et al. 10 Huberman St. Tel Aviv-Jaffa 6407509 Tel: 03-5619666; Fax: 03-6868594 The Petitioners in HCJ 5844/15 v. Military Commander of the West Bank Area Represented by the State Attorney's Office Ministry of Justice, Jerusalem Tel: 02-6466008; Fax: 02-6467011 The Respondent in HCJ 5839/15 1. Military Commander of the West Bank Area 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Arrested Development: the Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Barrier in the West Bank
    B’TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT Human Rights in the Occupied Territories 8 Hata’asiya St., Talpiot P.O. Box 53132 Jerusalem 91531 The Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Tel. (972) 2-6735599 | Fax (972) 2-6749111 Barrier in the West Bank www.btselem.org | [email protected] October 2012 Arrested Development: The Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Barrier in the West Bank October 2012 Research and writing Eyal Hareuveni Editing Yael Stein Data coordination 'Abd al-Karim Sa'adi, Iyad Hadad, Atef Abu a-Rub, Salma a-Deb’i, ‘Amer ‘Aruri & Kareem Jubran Translation Deb Reich Processing geographical data Shai Efrati Cover Abandoned buildings near the barrier in the town of Bir Nabala, 24 September 2012. Photo Anne Paq, activestills.org B’Tselem would like to thank Jann Böddeling for his help in gathering material and analyzing the economic impact of the Separation Barrier; Nir Shalev and Alon Cohen- Lifshitz from Bimkom; Stefan Ziegler and Nicole Harari from UNRWA; and B’Tselem Reports Committee member Prof. Oren Yiftachel. ISBN 978-965-7613-00-9 Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................ 5 Part I The Barrier – A Temporary Security Measure? ................. 7 Part II Data ....................................................................... 13 Maps and Photographs ............................................................... 17 Part III The “Seam Zone” and the Permit Regime ..................... 25 Part IV Case Studies ............................................................ 43 Part V Violations of Palestinians’ Human Rights due to the Separation Barrier ..................................................... 63 Conclusions................................................................................ 69 Appendix A List of settlements, unauthorized outposts and industrial parks on the “Israeli” side of the Separation Barrier .................. 71 Appendix B Response from Israel's Ministry of Justice .......................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Annual Report
    Research. Debate. Impact. 2016 ANNUAL REPORT 1 Table of Contents Message from the President and the Chairman of the Board 4 Sixth Meeting of IDI's International Advisory Council 8 The Center for Democratic Values and Institutions 11 The Center for Religion, Nation and State 23 The Center for Governance and the Economy 29 The Center for Security and Democracy 35 The Guttman Center for Surveys and Public Policy Research 41 IDI in the Media 47 Our Team 50 Our Leaders 51 Our Partners 52 Financials 53 Message from the President and the Chairman of the Board Dear Friends, 2016 was a year of change and upheaval throughout the jobs available to Haredim. The government adopted most of democratic world. Set against the tumult of Brexit and the the recommendations and is now in the process of allocating US elections, Israel seemed at times like an island of stability. a half-billion-shekel budget in line with these proposals. This However, under the surface, Israeli society is changing, and IDI success story illustrates the potential of turning relatively small took on a leading role in identifying those changes and working philanthropic investments into large-scale transformational with policymakers to address them. change by affecting policy and legislation on the basis of outstanding applied research. As the report that follows lays out, 2016 was a year rich in activity and achievements. In this letter, we have chosen to single Several new scholars joined our team in 2016. Ms. Daphna out the impact one program had on government policy in the Aviram-Nitzan, former director of research for the Israel employment area.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel and the Occupied Territories 2015 Human Rights Report
    ISRAEL 2015 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Israel is a multiparty parliamentary democracy. Although it has no constitution, the parliament, the unicameral 120-member Knesset, has enacted a series of “Basic Laws” that enumerate fundamental rights. Certain fundamental laws, orders, and regulations legally depend on the existence of a “state of emergency,” which has been in effect since 1948. Under the Basic Laws, the Knesset has the power to dissolve the government and mandate elections. The nationwide Knesset elections in March, considered free and fair, resulted in a coalition government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the security services. (An annex to this report covers human rights in the occupied territories. This report deals with human rights in Israel and the Israeli- occupied Golan Heights.) During the year according to Israeli Security Agency (ISA, also known as Shabak) statistics, Palestinians committed 47 terror attacks (including stabbings, assaults, shootings, projectile and rocket attacks, and attacks by improvised explosive devices (IED) within the Green Line that led to the deaths of five Israelis and one Eritrean, and two stabbing terror attacks committed by Jewish Israelis within the Green Line and not including Jerusalem. According to the ISA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other militant groups fired 22 rockets into Israel and in 11 other incidents either planted IEDs or carried out shooting or projectile attacks into Israel and the Golan Heights. Further
    [Show full text]
  • “1 EDERAL \ 1 9 3 4 ^ VOLUME 20 NUMBER 47 * Wa N T E D ^ Washington, Wednesday, March 9, 1955
    \ utteba\ I SCRIPTA I { fc “1 EDERAL \ 1 9 3 4 ^ VOLUME 20 NUMBER 47 * Wa n t e d ^ Washington, Wednesday, March 9, 1955 TITLE 5— ADMINISTRATIVE material disclosure: § 3.1845 Composi­ CONTENTS tion: Wool Products Labeling Act; PERSONNEL § 3.1900 Source or origin: Wool Products Agricultural Marketing Service PaS0 Labeling Act. Subpart—Offering unfair, Proposed rule making: Chapter I— Civil Service Commission improper and deceptive inducements to Milk handling in Wichita, Kans_ 1405 Part 6—Exceptions P rom the purchase or deal: § 3.1982 Guarantee— Agricultural Research Service Competitive S ervice statutory: Wool Products Labeling Act. Proposed rule making: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Subpart—V sing misleading nam e— Foreign quarantine notices; for­ Goods: § 3.2280 Composition. I. In con­ eign cotton and covers______ 1407 Effective upon publication in the F ed­ nection with the introduction or manu­ eral R egister, paragraph (j) is added facture for introduction into commerce, Agriculture Department to § 6.104 as set out below. or the offering for sale, sale, transporta­ See Agricultural Marketing Serv­ ice; Agricultural Research Serv­ § 6.104 Department of Defense. * * * tion or distribution in commerce, of sweaters or other “wool products” as such ice; Rural Electrification Ad­ (j) Office of Legislative Programs. ministration. (1) Until December 31,1955, one Direc­ products are defined in and subject to the tor of Legislative Programs, GS-301-17. Wool Products Labeling Act of 1939, Bonneville Power Administra­ (2) Until December 31, 1955, two Su­ which products contain, purport to con­ tion pervisory Legislative Analysts, GS- tain or in any way are represented as Notices: 301-15.
    [Show full text]
  • Biographies Six Solo Exhibitions at Hagar Art Gallery, Jaffa Tal Ben Zvi Biographies Six Solo Exhibitions at Hagar Art Gallery, Jaffa
    Biographies Six Solo Exhibitions at Hagar Art Gallery, Jaffa Tal Ben Zvi Biographies Six Solo Exhibitions at Hagar Art Gallery, Jaffa Curator, editor, text: Tal Ben Zvi Graphic Editing: Dina Shoham Graphic Design: Tal Stern Catalogue Production: Dina Shoham Studio English translation: Daria Kassovsky, Ela Bar-David (pp. E40-E47) Arabic translation: Roaa Translations Structure and language consultant: Gal N. Kusturica Special thanks to Asaf Zippor The curator wishes to thank Sami Abu Shehade and Ihsan Sirri who took part in the Gallery’s activity; the artists participating in this catalogue: David Adika, Anisa Ashkar, Hanna Farah, Tsibi Geva, Gaston Zvi Ickovicz, Khen Shish. Heartfelt thanks to Zahiya Kundos, Sami Buchari, Ela Bar-David, Ruthie Ginsburg, Lilach Hod, Hana Taragan, Tal Yahas, Shelly Cohen, Hadas Maor, Naama Meishar, Faten Nastas Mitwasi and Tali Rosin. Prepress: Kal Press Printing: Kal Press Binding: Sabag Bindery Published by Hagar Association, www.hagar-gallery.com No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, photocopied or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, or otherwise, without prior permission from the publishers. ISBN: 965-90953-1-7 Production of the catalogue was made possible through the support of: Israel National Lottery Council for the Arts The European Union Heinrich Böll Foundation © 2006, Tal Ben Zvi E5 Hagar Art Gallery, Jaffa Forgetting What Cannot be Forgotten Tal Ben Zvi E14 On Hanna Farah’s Distorted E19 On Tsibi Geva’s Lattice E23 On Gaston Zvi Ickowicz’s Buenos Aires E27 On Khen Shish’s Birthday E31 On David Adika’s Portraits: Mother Tongue E35 On Anisa Ashkar’s Barbur 24000 E40 Under the Light of Slumber Or, Hassan Beck’s Private Parking Zahiya Kundos E42 Aber Elr'ol Sami Buchari E48 CVs E51 List of Works Hagar Art Gallery, Jaffa Forgetting What Cannot be Forgotten | Tal Ben Zvi How could you stand life? These days we can stand it because of video; Abu Kamal was right – we’ve become a video nation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Future for Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding
    Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre A future for Israeli-Palestinian peacebuilding Ned Lazarus July 2017 The Israel-Palestine conflict is one of the most heavily researched in the world. Yet a shockingly small fraction of this research focuses on the millions of Israelis and Palestinians who share this land, their relations with one another, and how such relations could be improved so that a breakthrough might be possible. This report is both timely and necessary, and can hopefully provide a blueprint for greater international support of civil society efforts to foster conflict resolution. John Lyndon Executive Director of OneVoice Europe and Research Fellow at Kings College London BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, is an independent British think tank producing research and analysis to increase understanding of Israel and the Middle East in the UK. Fathom: for a deeper understanding of Israel and the region is BICOM’s online research journal, publishing interviews, articles and reviews from a range of Israeli, Palestinian and international contributors. Front Cover Photo: EcoPeace’s Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian directors and staff standing together in the Jordan River as part of their campaign to rehabilitate the river which is dwindling due to diversion of its source waters and pollution. Photograph used by permission of EcoPeace. The Author Ned Lazarus is Visiting Professor of International Affairs at the George Washington University’s Elliott School, and an Israel Institute Teaching Fellow. A conflict resolution scholar, practitioner and evaluator, Ned has conducted evaluative studies of Israeli-Palestinian peacebuilding initiatives on behalf of USAID, USIP and the European Union.
    [Show full text]
  • ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT Human Rights in the Occupied Territories 8 Hata’Asiya St., Talpiot P.O
    B’TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT Human Rights in the Occupied Territories 8 Hata’asiya St., Talpiot P.O. Box 53132 Jerusalem 91531 The Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Tel. (972) 2-6735599 | Fax (972) 2-6749111 Barrier in the West Bank www.btselem.org | [email protected] October 2012 ‐ DRAFT ‐ Arrested Development The Long Term Impact of Israel's Separation Barrier in the West Bank October 2012 Research and writing: Eyal Hareuveni Editing: Yael Stein Data coordination: 'Abd al‐Karim Sa'adi, Iyad Hadad, Atef Abu a‐Rub, Salma a‐Deb’i, ‘Amer ‘Aruri & Kareem Jubran. Translation: Deb Reich B’Tselem would like to thank Jann Böddeling for his help in gathering material and analyzing the economic impact of the Separation Barrier; Nir Shalev and Alon Cohen‐ Lifshitz from Bimkom; Stefan Ziegler and Nicole Harari from UNRWA; and B’Tselem Reports Committee member Prof. Oren Yiftachel. 1 ‐ DRAFT ‐ Table of Contents Introduction Part 1: The Separation Barrier – A Temporary Security Measure? Part 2: The Data Part 3: The Seam Zone and the Permit Regime Maps and Pictures Part 4: Case Studies Part 5: Violations of Palestinians’ Human Rights Due to the Separation Barrier Conclusions Appendix 2 ‐ DRAFT ‐ Introduction This report deals with the Separation Barrier—the largest and costliest infrastructure project Israel has undertaken since the construction of the national water carrier during the 1950s and ‘60s. In June 2002, when Palestinian attacks against Israeli citizens were at their peak, the Israeli government decided to build the barrier and termed it a temporary security measure intended to protect Israel from terrorist attacks from the West Bank.
    [Show full text]
  • Hagefen August 11, 2017
    Hagefen www.gfn.co.il August 11, 2017 MENASHE SECTION Menashe Regional Council chair Ilan Sadeh signs the plan for the new industrial zone: Menashe Regional Council The Industrial Zone in Menashe: Planning completed for the Iron Industrial Zone The Menashe Regional Council has completed planning for the Iron Industrial Zone, with all approvals in hand Architect Leah Perry, engineer for the Menashe-Alona Regional Planning and Building Committee, noted that the land area chosen – part of the Menashe regional jurisdiction between the Menashe Regional Center and the Barkai intersection – is close to the country’s main transportation network, in proximity to the Iron interchange on Trans-Israel Highway 6 as well as Highway 2, Route 65 and Israel Railways. The location is also consonant with the master plan for Wadi Ara development. The industrial zone has a total area of 1085 dunams (c. 268 acres), with 628,000 square meters for industrial and commercial buildings and another c. 15,000 square meters of public buildings. by Yaniv Golan This week Menashe Regional Council chairman Ilan Sadeh and architect Leah Perry, the council engineer for the Menashe-Alona Regional Planning and Building Committee, signed off on the plans, which were forwarded for registration with the Haifa District Planning and Building Committee, prior to final approval of the plans. The Iron Industrial Zone will be shared by six Jewish and Arab local councils in the northern Sharon area of Wadi Ara. The new industrial zone is an initiative of Menashe Regional Council chairman Ilan Sadeh. Behind this project is a unique Jewish-Arab partnership involving Jewish councils – the Menashe regional council and the Harish local council – alongside a series of Arab councils in Wadi Ara – the Umm al Fahm municipality, the Kfar Qara local council, the Basma local council (comprising Barta’a, Ein a-Sahle and Muawiya) and the Arara local council.
    [Show full text]
  • Agellan Commercial Real Estate Investment Trust Annual Information
    AGELLAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST ANNUAL INFORMATION FORM FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2017 March 29, 2018 Table of Contents GLOSSARY OF TERMS .................................................................................................................................... 3 CERTAIN REFERENCES AND FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS .................................................................. 7 NON‐IFRS FINANCIAL MEASURES ................................................................................................................. 8 LEGAL STRUCTURE OF AGELLAN ................................................................................................................. 10 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE BUSINESS .............................................................................................. 12 Three Year History ..................................................................................................................................... 12 Description of the Business ....................................................................................................................... 14 THE REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO ..................................................................................................................... 18 Occupancy and Leasing ............................................................................................................................. 18 Geographic Diversification .......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • City Research Online
    City Research Online City, University of London Institutional Repository Citation: Masri, M. (2013). Love Suspended: Demography, Comparative Law, and Palestinian Couples in the Israeli Supreme Court. Social and Legal Studies: An International Journal, 22(3), pp. 309-334. doi: 10.1177/0964663912472095 This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/id/eprint/4948/ Link to published version: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0964663912472095 Copyright: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to. Reuse: Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. City Research Online: http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/ [email protected] Love Suspended: Demography, Comparative Law, and Palestinian Couples in the Israeli Supreme Court Abstract This article considers a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Israel dealing with the right to family unification of Palestinian citizens of Israel (PCI). By situating the decision in the broader debate on Israel’s constitutional definition as a Jewish and democratic state, the article examines patterns where the definition plays an important role in defining the nature of the citizenship held by PCI, and the limits of their rights.
    [Show full text]