DOCSLIB.ORG

The Demolition of Homes in the Israeli Occupied Territories

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Demolition of Homes in the Israeli Occupied Territories The Demolition of Homes in the Israeli Occupied Territories Dan Simont I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 2 II. T1m DEMoLIIoN PRACTICE ...................................... 7 A. Definition .............................................. 7 B. Historic Roots 8...........................................8 C. The Demolition Policy.......................................... 9 D. Legal Justifications ........................................ 15 I. T1m LEGAL SYSTEM IN THE OCCUPmD TERRiTORmS ....................... 18 A. InternationalLaw ......................................... 18 B. Principles of Israeli Law ...................................... 21 C. The Israeli Supreme Court..................................... 22 IV. THE ISRAELI SUPREME COURT ON HOME DEMoUImONs ..................... 27 A. Demolitions in the Absence of JudicialReview ....................... 27 B. Establishment and Expansion of the Demolition Doctrine .................. 28 C. Mixed Jurisprudenceand the Chilling Effect ................ : ........ 32 D. Demolition JurisprudenceAnalyzed ............................... 37 1. Expansive Interpretationof Article 119 ........................ 37 2. Cursory Discussions...................................... 39 3. Palliatingthe Harshness of the Measure ......................... 41 E. Questions of Legitimacy ..................................... 44 V. INTERNATIONAL LAw ........................................... 46 A. The Local Law Doctrine ....................................... 46 B. Collective and Non-Individual Punishment........................... 53 1. Article 50 of the Hague Regulations and Article 33 of the Geneva Convention 53 2. Juggling with Justifications................................. 57 3. Home Demolitions as Non-Individual Punishments ................. 60 C. Three Shadow Doctrines ....................................... 65 1. Destruction of Private Property .............................. 66 2. Confiscation of Private Property ............................. 70 3. Absence of Due Process .................................. 72 VI. CoNcLusIoN ............................................... 75 t LL.B. 1986, Tel Aviv University; MBA 1988, INSEAD, France; S.J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School; former attorney for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel; Major (Res.) Israeli Defense Forces. I am deeply grateful to Professor Henry Steiner, who advised, guided, and encouraged me during the writing of an LL.M. thesis, on which this article is based. Many thanks to Professor Pnina Lahav for her generous support and assistance. I thank also Joshua Schoffrnan, David Kretzmer, Dov Seidman, Yochai Benkler, Celia Fassberg, Eyal Zamir, Kim Treiger, and Omri Ben Shahar for reading parts of the paper and for their helpful comments. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School, where I began researching these issues. YALE JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 19: 1 I. INTRODUCTION On December 6, 1983, a bomb exploded in an Israeli bus traveling through Jerusalem, killing six passengers and injuring some fifty others. Three years later, an Israeli military court found two Palestinian residents of the West Bank' guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Their homes were then demolished pursuant to an order issued by the Military Com- mander.2 The confessions upon which the convictions were based implicated a third person, Nader Jaber, who had fled to Jordan. At the time of the bomb explosion, he had been living with his wife in a room on the roof of his parents' house in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Fearing that his home would be demolished, Nader's father, Ramzi Jaber, petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court for an injunction against a potential demolition order.' His fears were confirmed when the Military Commander requested approval for the exercise of his authority under Article 119 of the 1945 Defense (Emer- gency) Regulations (1945 DERs).4 Article 119 authorizes the confiscation and destruction of houses in which either an action violating a security-related law was committed or a person who committed such an action resides.5 The Military Commander sought to destroy the room on the roof of the Jaber family's house and to seal up the second floor.6 Jaber pursued three arguments. First, he argued that the order should not be issued before a criminal court established his son's guilt. The Court, 1. This Article generally refers to the Israeli-occupied regions by the names that are most commonly used in the international debate: "West Bank," "Gaza Strip," or "the Occupied Territories." The biblical terms "Judea" and "Samaria" - as the West Bank is officially called in Israel - are used as they appear in quoted texts or in formal titles. This Article also uses the terms "occupied territories," "military government," "occupying power," and "occupant" as they are normally used in international law. 2. The Military Commander of the Israeli Defense Forces in the Judea and Samaria Region issued the Order. According to international custom, occupied territories are governed by army officers appointed by the occupying army. These military commanders normally establish military governments and execute their policies through them. The Military Commanders of the two regions are hereinafter referred to as Military Commanders. Israel has also established a Civil Administration, which is responsible for the civil and economic facets of its rule. 3. Before August 1989, homes were demolished without giving their residents prior notice. See infra text accompanying notes 157 to 160. 4. 1442 Palestine Gazette, Supp. No. 2, at 1055, 1089 (Sept. 27, 1945) [hereinafter 1442 Palestine Gazette], as amended by 1600 Palestine Gazette Extraordinary, Supp. No. 2, at 1159 (July 31, 1947) [hereinafter 1600 Palestine Gazette]. 5. For a discussion of Article 119, see infra part II.D. 6. The Military Commander explained that he had originally intended to demolish the entire three story structure, but because "Nader had not been living there since 1984 ... and ... due to technical reasons it would have been impossible to destroy the second floor without ruining the other floors.., and since two other families lived in the building ... [he decided] ex gratia ... to settle for the demolition of the room on the roof and the sealing of the secondfloor." Brief for the Military Commander at 4, Jaber v. Commander of Central Command, 41(2) P.D. 522 (1987) (HCJ 897/86) (This and all other quotations in this Article have been translated by the author.). According to the Military Commander's brief, the ground floor was used for storage, Nader's parents and siblings lived on the first floor, one of his brothers lived on the second floor with his wife and son, and Nader and his wife resided in the room on the roof. Id. 1994] Home Demolitions referring to the language of Article 119, responded that "the Military Commander does not need a judicial conviction, neither does he constitute a court himself. He need only determine whether a reasonable person would have found the information before him to be sufficient evidence. No doubt, this standard was met in the case before us."7 Second, Jaber claimed that his son should not be considered an "inhabitant" of the family's house, since he had been living outside the country for almost two years when the demolition order was issued. The Court dismissed this claim by ruling that Article 119 does not require continuous residency!s Finally, Jaber argued that the demolition practice is fundamentally inconsistent with the international law of belligerent occupation. In so doing, he set out to overturn a dozen of the Court's previous decisions. Jaber argued that demolitions violate the Regulations Annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague Regulations),' and two articles of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention). 10 An opinion of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) supported Jaber's petition, asserting that Article 53 of the Geneva Convention prohibited the demolition of private property, as performed by the Military Govern- ment." Most of the Court's three-page decision focused not on these legal challenges, but rather on the importance of demolitions as a means of deterring future offenses. The Court addressed the international law claims only cursorily: "With all due respect to the [ICRC] legal opinion, the question before us does not concern the interpretation of Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention." It stated that international law instructs occupying powers to preserve local law that precedes an occupation and concluded simply, "Article 119 constitutes part of the law that was in force in the Judea and Samaria Region ... and we have not been presented with any legal reasons why it should now be deemed invalid."' 2 The Court thus rejected the international law claims without explaining why local law should take precedence over substantive international law, without discussing Article 53 7. The Court stated that it relied on the "very detailed account of his convicted accomplices depicting Nader's involvement" in the act. Jaber v. Commander of Central Command, 41(2) P.D. 522, 524 (1987) (English excerpt in 18 ISR. Y.B. HUM. RTs. 252 (1988)). 8. Id. at 525. 9. Regulations Annexed to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2295, T.I.A.S. No. 539 [hereinafter Hague Regulations].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The-Legal-Status-Of-East-Jerusalem.Pdf
    December 2013 Written by: Adv. Yotam Ben-Hillel Cover photo: Bab al-Asbat (The Lion’s Gate) and the Old City of Jerusalem. (Photo by: JC Tordai, 2010) This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of the authors and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position or the official opinion of the European Union. The Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) is an independent, international humanitarian non- governmental organisation that provides assistance, protection and durable solutions to refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide. The author wishes to thank Adv. Emily Schaeffer for her insightful comments during the preparation of this study. 2 Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 2. Background ............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Israeli Legislation Following the 1967 Occupation ............................................................ 8 3.1 Applying the Israeli law, jurisdiction and administration to East Jerusalem .................... 8 3.2 The Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel ................................................................... 10 4. The Status
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Alternative Report Submitted by The
    Joint Alternative Report submitted by the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) and Al-Haq to the Human Rights Committee on the occasion of the consideration of the Third Periodic Report of Israel Israel’s violations of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with regard to house demolitions, forced evictions and safe water and sanitation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel Submitted June 2010 COHRE and Al-Haq are independent non-governmental organisations in UN ECOSOC Special Consultative Status Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................3 2. ISRAEL’S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IN THE OPT........................................4 3. FORCED EVICTIONS AND HOUSE DEMOLITIONS .............................6 3.1 Punitive House Demolitions..................................................................................6 3.1.1 West Bank ......................................................................................................6 3.1.2 Gaza .............................................................................................................11 3.2 Administrative House Demolitions......................................................................16 3.2.1 West Bank...................................................................................................16 3.2.2 Israel: Mixed Cities.....................................................................................24 3.3. Other Forced Evictions......................................................................................25
    [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]
  • Through No Fault of Their Own: Punitive House Demolitions During
    בצלם-מרכז המידע הישראלי לזכויות האדם בשטחים (ע.ר.) B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Information Sheet November 2004 Through No Fault of Their Own Punitive House Demolitions during the al - Aqsa Intifada Researched and written by Ronen Shnayderman Edited by Yehezkel Lein Data coordination by Suhair ‘Aabdi, Yael Handelsman, Sohad Sakalla Fieldwork by ‘Atef Abu a-Rob, Musa Abu Hashhash, Salma Dab’i, Iyad Haddad, Zaki Kahil, Mazen al-Majdalawi, ‘Abd al-Karim a-S’adi, Suha Zeyd Translated by Zvi Shulman Cover photo: Palestinian boy removes family possessions from the ruins of his home, in Bethlehem, which the IDF blew up on 15 June 2004 (Magnus Johansson, Reuters) ISSN 0792-8114 B ’ TSELEM Information Sheet November 2004 Through No Fault of Their Own Punitive House Demolitions during the al-Aqsa Intifada B’TSELEM - The Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories was founded in 1989 by a group of lawyers, authors, academics, journalists, and Knesset members. B’Tselem documents human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories and brings them to the attention of policymakers and the general public. Its data are based on independent fieldwork and research, official sources, the media, and data from Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations. How long does it take to demolish a house? It takes a year to build it. Sometimes a hundred years. And there are some houses that have always been there. How long does it take to demolish a house? Less time than is spent thinking about whether it should have been demolished.
    [Show full text]
  • Jewish Law and Current Legal Problems
    JEWISH LAW AND CURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS JEWISH LAW AND CURRENT LEGAL PROBLEMS EDITED BY NAHUM RAKOVER The Library of Jewish Law The Library of Jewish Law Ministry of Justice The Jewish Legal Heritage Society Foundation for the Advancement of Jewish Law PROCEEDINGS of the First International Seminar on The Sources Of Contemporary Law: The Bible and Talmud and Their Contribution to Modern Legal Systems Jerusalem. August 1983 © The Library of Jewish Law The Jewish Lcg<1l Heritage Society P.O.Box 7483 Jerusalem 91074 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 9 GREETINGS OF THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE, Moshe Nissim II LEGAL THEORY Haim H. Cohn THE LESSON OF JEWISH LAW FOR 15 LEGAL CHANGE Meyer S. Feldblum THE EMERGENCE OF THE HALAKHIC 29 LEGAL SYSTEM Classical and Modern Perceptions Norman Solomon EXTENSIVE AND RESTRICTIVE 37 INTERPRETATION LAW IN CHANGING SOCIETIES Yedidya Cohen THE KIBBUTZ AS A LEGAL ENTITY 55 Reuben Ahroni THE LEVIRATE AND HUMAN RIGHTS 67 JUDICIAL PROCESS Haim Shine COMPROMISE 77 5 POLITICAL THEORY Emanuel Rackman THE CHURCH FATHERS AND HEBREW 85 POLITICAL THOUGHT LAW AND RELIGION John Wade THE INFLUENCE OF RELIGION UPON LAW 97 Bernard J. Meis/in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN AMERICAN 109 LAW PENAL LAW Ya'akov Bazak MAIMONIDES' VIEWS ON CRIME AND 121 PUNISHMENT Yehuda Gershuni EXTRADITION 127 Nahum Rakover COERCION IN CONJUGAL RELATIONS 137 SELF-INCRIMINATION Isaac Braz THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF­ 161 INCRIMINATION IN ANGLO-AMERICAN LAW The Influence of Jewish Law Arnold Enker SELF-INCRIMINATION 169 Malvina Halberstam THE RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING 177 INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS U.S. Law Compared to Ancient Jewish Law Stanley Levin DUE PROCESS IN RABBINICAL AND 191 ISRAELI LAW Abuse and Subversion 6 MEDICAL ETHICS David A.
    [Show full text]
  • Prof. David Kretzmer
    David Kretzmer Curriculum vitae Personal Details Institutional Address: School of Law Sapir Academic College Home Address: 11 Aminadav Street Jerusalem Tel: 972-2-6729930; Fax: 972-1532-6729930; Mobile: 972-52-3836475 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Present Positions Bruce W. Wayne Emeritus Professor of International Law, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; Professor of Law, Sapir Academic College Academic and Professional Qualifications LL.B., LL.M. (Jerusalem), Dr.Jur. (York University, Canada) Member, Israel Bar Honorary Degree Dr. Jur. Honoraris causa, Faculty of Law, Potsdam University, 2006 Positions in Hebrew University Louis Marshall Chair of Environmental Law (1975 – 2000) Vice-Dean for Student Affairs, Faculty of Law (1981-84) Member, Central Academic Committee (1991-1995) Member, Central Executive Committee (1995-1998) Chairperson, Central Disciplinary Tribunal for Academic Faculty (1993 – 2001) Academic Director, Center for Human Rights (1993-1997) Bruce W. Wayne Professor of International Law (2000-2006) Inter-University Positions Academic Director, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University (1997 – 2000) International Positions UN Human Rights Committee: Member (1995 –2002) Special Rapporteur for New Communications (2000/ 2001) Vice-Chairperson (2001/2002). Commissioner, International Commission of Jurists (2003- 2018) Positions Held at Other Academic Institutions Fellow, Center for Advanced Engineering Studies, MIT, Cambridge,
    [Show full text]
  • The Legality and Materiality of the Israel/Palestine Separation Barrier
    Legalizing the Barrier: the Legality and Materiality of the Israel/Palestine Separation Barrier † YISHAI BLANK SUMMARY INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 310 I. THE HYBRID NATURE OF THE BARRIER: MATERIALITY AND LEGALITY ........ 312 A. The Barrier’s Materiality ............................................................................. 313 B. The Barrier’s Legality ................................................................................. 316 C. The Barrier’s Hybridity: Legality and Materiality, Old and New .......... 322 II. THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE BARRIER ............................................................... 325 A. The Evolution of the Legal Challenges Against the Barrier .................... 326 B. The Jurisprudence of the Barrier ............................................................... 329 1. Proportionality/Authority.................................................................... 329 2. Transiency/Permanence ....................................................................... 331 3. Balancing/Trumping ............................................................................. 333 4. Details/Structure ................................................................................... 334 5. Security/Politics..................................................................................... 336 C. The Missing Legal Argument: Any Barrier is Illegal .............................. 336 1. Why Are Barriers Undesirable?
    [Show full text]
  • "The War of the Torah": the Israeli Religious Peace Movements' Struggle for Legitimation
    "THE WAR OF THE TORAH": THE ISRAELI RELIGIOUS PEACE MOVEMENTS' STRUGGLE FOR LEGITIMATION Gerald Cromer Since the Six-Day War, religious Zionism has been increasing ly identified with the ideology of the Complete Land of Israel (Er etz Yisrael Hashlema). The maximalist stance on the territorial issue has become depoliticized and achieved a taken-for-granted status. The religious peace movements have interpreted privileged texts and politicized the annual cycle offestivals in an attempt to break this ideological hegemony and to show that their more dov ish stance is also grounded in an authentic reading of Jewish tra dition. However, they have failed to create the cultural resonance that is an essential prerequisite for success. The Long Journey to the Right With the signing of the armistice agreements in 1948, the question of Israel's boundaries disappeared from the public agen da. The right-wing Herut movement continued to dream and sing about "the two banks of the Jordan," but for all intents and pur poses the subject was no longer relevant. Only after the Six Day War, nearly twenty years later, did it become a live issue again. The debate as to whether the territories that came under Israeli jurisdiction had been liberated or occupied was not just a Jewish Political Studies Review 13:3-4 (Fall 2001) 159 This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.72.226 on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:42:46 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 160 Gerald Cromer semantic one; it reflected the conflicting opinions about their fu ture and that of Israeli society as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestine: Israeli Collective Punishment Against Palestinians Constitutes a War Crime
    United Nations A/HRC/33/NGO/114 General Assembly Distr.: General 9 September 2016 English only Human Rights Council Thirty-third session Agenda item 7 Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories Joint written statement* submitted by the International Organization for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (EAFORD), Arab Organization for Human Rights, Indian Movement "Tupaj Amaru", International- Lawyers.Org, Union of Arab Jurists, non-governmental organizations in special consultative status, International Educational Development, Inc., World Peace Council, non- governmental organizations on the roster The Secretary-General has received the following written statement which is circulated in accordance with Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31. [01 September 2016] * This written statement is issued, unedited, in the language(s) received from the submitting non- governmental organization(s). GE.16-15675(E) A/HRC/33/NGO/114 Palestine: Israeli Collective Punishment against Palestinians Constitutes a War Crime Introduction: For decades, the occupied Palestinian people have suffered from grave human rights violations due to Israel’s oppressive and unjust practices. Among the unfair acts against the occupied population is the ongoing Israeli policy of collective punishment, through the demolitions of the family houses of those accused or suspected of carrying out attacks against Israelis. This practice results in the total devastation of completely innocent families, who have nothing to do with the alleged attacks. The latest such demolition took place in Hebron, West Bank, on 30th August 2016, raising serious concerns regarding this collective punishment policy against innocent civilians which is a war crime under the provisions of International Law.
    [Show full text]
  • It Is Fitting That We Come Together Today, on the Day the Members Of
    I would like to begin by thanking David Berger and the other Keshet organizers for allowing me to submit a paper to be read to you in my absence. I am, regrettably, unable to be in New York today, but am grateful for the honor of having been asked to participate in this way, nevertheless. My talk is entitled: Svara, Queers, and the Future of Rabbinic Judaism According to Masechet Sanhedrin [5a], there are two requirements for one who wants to exercise rabbinic authority—one must be both gamirna and savirna. Now, what do these Aramaic terms mean? Gamirna implies that one has to have amassed sufficient knowledge or learning. Basically, they gotta know their stuff. And savirna implies they have to have the ability to exercise svara. But what is this svara that is so crucial to functioning as a rabbi and to interpreting God’s will? It seems pretty straightforward: svara, the ability to be “savir,” “reasonable.” The capacity to reason. But, actually, svara is much more complicated, and, it turns out, is not only a prerequisite for those aspiring to rabbinic authority, but is probably the most significant source of Jewish law we have. After the destruction of the Second Temple, our founding Rabbis increased the number of places to which they could turn to discover God’s will—that is, the sources of Jewish Law—from one to five. In addition to our old standby—a verse in the Torah, which they called kra (and which legal scholars call midrash)—they added ma’aseh (precedent), minhag (custom), takkanah (legislation) and last but not least, svara.
    [Show full text]
  • The Labor Party and the Peace Camp
    The Labor Party and the Peace Camp By Uzi Baram In contemporary Israeli public discourse, the preoccupation with ideology has died down markedly, to the point that even releasing a political platform as part of elections campaigns has become superfluous. Politicians from across the political spectrum are focused on distinguishing themselves from other contenders by labeling themselves and their rivals as right, left and center, while floating around in the air are slogans such as “political left,” social left,” “soft right,” “new right,” and “mainstream right.” Yet what do “left” and “right” mean in Israel, and to what extent do these slogans as well as the political division in today’s Israel correlate with the political traditions of the various parties? Is the Labor Party the obvious and natural heir of The Workers Party of the Land of Israel (Mapai)? Did the historical Mapai under the stewardship of Ben Gurion view itself as a left-wing party? Did Menachem Begin’s Herut Party see itself as a right-wing party? The Zionist Left and the Soviet Union As far-fetched as it may seem in the eyes of today’s onlooker, during the first years after the establishment of the state, the position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union was the litmus test of the left camp, which was then called “the workers’ camp.” This camp viewed the centrist liberal “General Zionists” party, which was identified with European liberal and middle-class beliefs in private property and capitalism, as its chief ideological rival (and with which the heads of major cities such as Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan were affiliated)­.
    [Show full text]
  • Inventing Judicial Review: Israel and America
    INAUGUARL URI AND CAROLINE BAUER MEMORIAL LECTURE INVENTING JUDICIAL REVIEW: ISRAEL AND AMERICA Robert A. Burt* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. THE FIRST GENERATION: TOWARD AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY .............................................. 2017 A. The Impact of the 1967 War on Israeli Jurisprudence .................................................... 2027 1. Jurisdiction over the Occupied Territories ....... 2029 2. The Knesset Acts ............................... 2034 B. The Court's Initial Response ......................... 2036 1. Shalit v. Minister of the Interior ................. 2036 2. Bergman v. Minister of Finance .................. 2043 3. Bergman and Marbury .......................... 2047 4. Jurisdiction over the Territories and Marbury .... 2049 II. THE SECOND GENERATION: THE AMERICAN WAY ...... 2051 A. The Definitive Emergence of Judicial Review in A m erica ............................................ 2051 B. The Israeli Supreme Court Charts Its Path ........... 2066 1. Israel's Dred Scott ............................... 2067 2. Judicial Injunctions to Tolerate the Intolerant ... 2077 3. The Promise and Problems of Judicial Independence ................................... 2084 C. The Convergence of Israeli and American Doctrine ... 2091 * Southmayd Professor of Law, Yale University. This Article is an expanded version of the Inaugural Uri and Caroline Bauer Memorial Lecture delivered at the Benjamin N. Car- dozo School of Law of Yeshiva University on October 11, 1988. I am especially indebted to Justice Aharon Barak, Professor Kenneth Mann of the Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law, and Dean Stephen Goldstein of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law. Although none of them is responsible for the substance of this Article, without their generous assistance it would not have been written. I am also particularly grateful to two Yale Law School students, Stephen Sowle who helped me with the American historical sources and Joel Prager who gave me access to material only available in Hebrew.
    [Show full text]