The Jewish Community of Hebron
November 21, 2008
Retired Judge Uri Struzman joined harsh criticism of Supreme Court ruling dealing with Beit HaShalom
(Retired) District court judge Uri Struzman joined harsh criticism of the Supreme Court ruling dealing with Beit Hashalom in Hebron. Judge Struzman participated in one of the cases used by Supreme Court Judge Ayala Procatzia and quoted in her decision. In a critical and scholarly article written by Judge Struzman, he reviews that case (“Mishmar Ayalon”) and proves that it actually contradicts Judge Procatzia’s ruling in the Hebron case, and definitely cannot be used as a precedent for her ruling. “If the Mishmar Ayalon case should obligate the Supreme Court in dealing with the area under contention in the “Bayat HaChum” (Brown House – referring to Beit HaShalom) until the issue is clarified, they would have had to prevent their removal from the building,” writes Judge Struzman. However, in fact, the Judge contorted the significance of the fundamental principal which can be concluded from that case, as with the other case (“Hamotral HaKafti”), which Procatzia also utilizes in her decision.
Judge Struzman also mentions that that Procatzia herself participated in a third parallel case (RY”A 5518/98). In this decision, Judge Procatzia did not conclude that the situation must be returned to its previous position prior to a judicial clarification of the issues, as a necessary obligation, rather as “an accepted procedure.” In addition, the other judges on that panel, Judge Englard and the Court President Barak agreed with her approach. It is very strange that Judge Procatzia’s decision on Beit Hashalom, does not agree with her previous decision in a parallel case.
In light of previous precedents, “the Supreme Court should have refrained from a decision based on the fundamental of “the time has passed,” and to refer the case to the district court to decide the question of temporary holding of the building,” writes Judge Struzman, and concludes with pointed words: as the present court has not done this,… it is not strange that the settlers are screaming that justice has not been served, rather that the judge’s political opinions have been the basis for their decision.”
It should be noted that Judge Struzman does not relate at all to twists and lies that appear in the section dealing with the factual side of the court decision. He is unaware of the twists and lies and therefore assumes that what is presented is accurate, and also concludes that on the basis of the facts presented in the decision, from a legal standpoint, the supreme court decision is contorted and a sham.