person:yehuda weinstein

  • Israel’s attorney general backs officer’s libel suit against ‘Jenin, Jenin’ director

    Avichai Mendelblit cites ‘public interest’ to explain his decision to support a second civil lawsuit against Mohammed Bakri for his 2002 documentary

    read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.830284

    In an unusual move, the attorney general is to support a defamation of character lawsuit by a reserve officer against the director of the controversial 2002 documentary “Jenin, Jenin.”
    Avichai Mendelblit’s office said in a statement Wednesday that he decided to support the suit against Mohammed Bakri because of the public interest in the case.
    While Israeli law allows the attorney general to take sides in a civil suit if the case involves the public interest, in practice the privilege is rarely exercised.
    In November 2016 Nissim Meghnagi sued Bakri for 2.6 million shekels (around $745,000).
    Meghnagi took part in Operation Defensive Shield, the military operation in the West Bank refugee camp in Jenin that was the subject of Bakri’s film.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    In his suit, Meghnagi claims that he appears in and was named in the movie, and that the film libeled Israeli soldiers by presenting them as war criminals.
    Bakri argues that the purpose of the suit is persecution and political silencing, and says the case is without merit.
    The movie makes no accusation against Meghnagi, says Bakri: The camera panned the plaintiff for mere seconds, and he cannot be identified as the person behind the deeds described in the movie.
    On Thursday the District Court of the Central District is scheduled to hear Bakri’s request to reject the lawsuit.
    Mendelblit’s announcement throwing his weight behind the suit followed requests from Meghnagi himsef and from Israel Defense Force Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot.
    Five years ago, a district court, ruling on a lawsuit by five soldiers who participated in Operation Defensive Shield, found that Bakri had slandered soldiers but the plaintiffs were not slandered personally. The Supreme Court upheld the decision.
    Then-Attorney General Menachem Mazuz sided with the soldiers.
    The court said that plaintiffs who did not appear in the documentary had no grounds for personal damages, but it also ruled that the movie constituted “libel, at the base of which is bad faith and a deliberate tendency to distort things.” Three times the plaintiffs appealed for another hearing, with Mazuz’s support, to no avail.
    Mendelblit said in his announcement that in contrast to the previous proceedings, this plaintiff actually appears in the movie while the narrator accuses the Israeli soldiers of looting. Hence his support for Meghnagi, a lieutenant colonel in the reserves, in the context of public interest. Mendelblit noted that the movie is still bring distributed and shown.
    “Jenin, Jenin” was first screened in April 2002 at the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem cinematheques. In November 2002, the Israel Film Council banned its distribution to Israeli theaters. The High Court of Justice voided that decision on the grounds of freedom of expression, bucking the council and also the attorney general. “Israeli society can cope with expressions of this sort,” the court ruled.

    In 2014, then-Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein rejected pleas by representatives of soldiers and their families to open a criminal investigation into Bakri, pursuant to libel law. With that, he was in agreement with his two predecessors.

  • Israel’s Security Cabinet Sets 4-year Minimum Sentence for Stone-throwers
    Cabinet also clarifies rules of engagement, which now allow police to open fire when lives of officers or civilians are at risk, Netanyahu says.

    Barak Ravid 24.09.2015 20:27
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.677421Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.677421

    The security cabinet has decided to issue a temporary order that would set a four-year minimum sentence for stone- and firebomb-throwers, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bureau said Thursday. The order is to remain in effect for three years.
    Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein voiced opposition to legislating minimum sentencing for such crimes, instead recommending a temporary order that would remain in effect for a year. However, the cabinet decided to issue the order for three years at Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s insistence.
    Officials who took part in the meeting noted that the ministers accepted the attorney general’s position that the minimum sentencing would only apply to adults who throw stones and firebombs. They also accepted his recommendation to leave a loophole that would allow judges to deviate from the minimum sentence as long as they can justify it. 
    The prime minister’s bureau noted the minimum sentence constitutes just a fifth of the 20-year maximum sentence for throwing stones and firebombs.
    At the conclusion of Thursday’s meeting, Netanyahu said that his cabinet wishes to change what has become the “norm,” where one "can hurl these lethal and murderous objects without response and without being foiled."
    According to the prime minister’s bureau, part of the meeting focused on clarifying the rules of engagement, and conveying these rules to the police. The ministers were presented with scenarios in which opening fire is justified, i.e. when the life of a police officer or a civilian life is at risk. The ministers were also explained the limitations of opening fire.
    “Until recently, police officers would open fire when their own lives were at risk,” Netanyahu said. “From now on, they will be allowed to open fire – and they will know they have a right to do so – when anyone’s life is in danger.” 
    The cabinet also decided to take measures against minors over the age of 14 who throw stones, as well as their parents. The measures include revoking stipends of parents whose children are sentenced to prison. The cabinet will examine the legality of fining parents to minors aged 12-14, and imposing bail on parents to minors under the age of 12.
    At the end of the meeting, Netanyahu addressed the unrest on Temple Mount, asserting that Israel is maintaining the status quo.
    “Any claims about our intentions to harm sites holy to Islam are nonsense,” he said. “We are not the ones to change the status quo. Those who take pipe bombs to mosques are the ones changing the status quo.”
    He said Israel will take action to maintain law and order and called on the Palestinian Authority to “stop the wild incitement.”

  • Israel’s attorney general to block coalition deals aimed at funding settlements - Israel - Israel News | Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.655665

    Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein is expected to oppose any distribution of funds as part of Likud’s coalition agreements with Habayit Hayehudi and United Torah Judaism, particularly those earmarked for the World Zionist Organization’s Settlement Division.

    In an opinion published in February, Deputy Attorney General Dina Zilber wrote that the government must stop funding the Settlement Division, either through the general budget or directly to the department. Consequently, the 2015 budget will not include funding of the division.

    Weinstein approved the opinion and is therefore expected to oppose its contravention in the coalition agreements.

    Under the coalition agreement signed between Habayit Hayehudi and Likud late last week, 50 million shekels (around $13 million) will be added to the budget of the WZO’s Settlement Division, which funds infrastructure for West Bank settlements and which Agriculture Minister-designate Uri Ariel will control.

    According to a directive issued by the attorney general in April with regard to political agreements with funding ramifications, money is not to be earmarked in a way that gives the sense that it “belongs” to parties or factions, and a political agreement is not to be implemented at all if it earmarks funding to a specific entity.

    The directive was issued out of concern that such earmarking of funds could make the receiving entities dependent on the parties that wrote the agreement “to their benefit,” and could also often constitute a cover for personal or political gain. The directive requires professionals in the various ministries to weigh in on any such political agreements before they are signed.

    Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government faces its first challenge even before being sworn in later this week. Netanyahu will have to ensure that all 61 members of the coalition vote to amend the Basic Law on the Government tomorrow, in order to enable an increase in the size of the cabinet. Only then will Likud begin to hand out portfolios.

    This morning, the outgoing cabinet will be asked to approve Netanyahu’s request to postpone implementation of the clause restricting the cabinet to 18 members. Netanyahu will also ask the cabinet to allow him to renew the controversial tradition of appointing ministers without portfolio to his new cabinet, along with increasing the number of deputy ministers.

    The outgoing cabinet is expected to ask the Knesset to move these amendments ahead by expedited legislation, and to vote on the second and third readings as early as Monday. MK Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) said Saturday that his faction would petition the High Court of Justice against the move.

    As part of the coalition agreement, Likud and Habayit Hayehudi also agreed on the appointment of a team to review ways to legalize unauthorized settlement outposts and unauthorized buildings within settlements. The government has not promised to renew construction in West Bank settlements and in Jerusalem, despite Habayit Hayehudi’s demand for such a commitment.

    The outposts team – which is likely to include the cabinet secretary, a representative of Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, and two representatives of Justice Minister-designate Ayelet Shaked and Ariel – will only have three months to formulate its recommendations.

    The coalition agreement features a special arrangement whose purpose is to prevent Shaked from obtaining total control of the Ministerial Committee for Legislation (the body that determines which bills the coalition will advance and which will be blocked). As justice minister, Shaked will chair the committee.

    Likud took action to curb her power out of fear she will delay legislation that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports, or accelerate the passage of controversial draft laws behind his back. Under the coalition agreement, Netanyahu will appoint a deputy to Shaked, with whom she must coordinate the committee’s agenda. “If the deputy requests that a vote be delayed, it shall be delayed until a new arrangement is agreed between the deputy and the chairwoman of the committee, or until the prime minister decides otherwise,” the agreement states.

    Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett requested a billion-shekel addition to the budget of the Education Ministry, which he will head, but in the end his party will be allotted 630 million shekels to support its goals in the areas of education, welfare, settlement, culture, religion and agriculture. The money will come out of coalition funds that, prior to the 2013 election, Bennett referred to as “pocket change.”

    The coalition agreement also stipulates that the government is “to examine claims of a rise in illegal missionary activities in Israel and the steps to deal with them, as needed.” Likud and Habayit Hayehudi also agreed to establish a forum for communication among the parties in the coalition on the issue of religious services.

    The Gush Katif Heritage Center, meanwhile, will be allotted a three-year budget of 15 million shekels that will also cover the costs of commemorating the 10-year anniversary, later this year, of the disengagement from the Gaza Strip.

  • Beaucoup d’Israéliens font appel à des mères porteuses au Népal.
    Au lendemain du séisme, ces femmes seraient autorisées à venir en Israël

    It takes an earthquake in Nepal to talk about surrogacy in Israel - World - Israel News | Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/.premium-1.653963

    In the wake of Saturday’s earthquake in Nepal, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein’s approval of a plan permitting surrogate mothers in Nepal who are carrying the fetuses of Israeli parents to enter Israel is a reflection of the ethical and legal complications involved in international surrogacy.

    The surrogate mothers in Nepal carrying Israeli fetuses, who are Indian citizens, will be required to appear before the local Israeli consular official, and to state that they are seeking to come to Israel of their own free will. The consul will advise the women of the risks involved in flying while pregnant, and will verify that no undue influence has been exerted on the women to get them to travel to Israel in advance of delivering the babies that they are carrying.

  • With Zoabi’s suspension, Knesset moves toward fascism - Opinion Israel News | Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.607924

    On Monday, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein decided not to open criminal proceedings against MK Haneen Zoabi (Balad) for saying that the kidnappers of Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar and Naftali Fraenkel weren’t terrorists. Weinstein noted that in that same interview she voiced her objection to the kidnapping, creating a “real doubt” about whether her statement broke the law; moreover, he said, indictments that restrict speech should be rare. But he added that his decision dealt only with the criminal aspects, and not the administrative or ethical ones.

    Yesterday, the Knesset Ethics Committee used that statement to justify its decision to suspend Zoabi from plenum debates for six months, based on a law allowing MKs who violate the Knesset’s code of ethics to be suspended. Usually this panel only discusses statements made within the Knesset itself. It’s not the committee’s job to punish an MK for making political statements, however unpopular, and especially not when they were made outside the Knesset.

    The committee based itself on a rule stating that an MK “is a public trustee whose duty is to represent his electorate in a way that promotes human dignity, social progress and the good of the state.” Though MKs can act on their own interpretation of the good of the state, it said, Zoabi’s statement, made at a very sensitive time, did not promote the good of the state, violated her obligation as a public trustee and undermined public faith in the Knesset.

    In short, Knesset members believe there’s only one permissible view of what constitutes the good of the state, and not only does the majority determine what it is, but it also tries to prevent anyone with a different view from expressing it. This reveals a lack of understanding of substantive democracy and effectively replaces it with a dictatorship of the majority. There’s no one view of “the good of the state” in controversial issues, and anyone who says there is, while denying others the right to differ, is paving the way to fascism and tyranny.

    One can disagree with Zoabi’s statement, but it was legal. Since she didn’t voice support for the abduction, she wasn’t supporting terror. Nor did another statement cited by the committee, one in favor of “popular resistance,” constitute a call for violence; as Zoabi has stressed repeatedly, it’s a call for nonviolent resistance.

    The Ethics Committee must not become a forum for political persecution where the majority imposes its views on the minority. Letting the panel punish MKs for their views may well violate their substantive parliamentary immunity, which is supposed to protect them from legal repercussions for voicing opinions in the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties. Initially, this immunity was granted to protect MKs from political persecution by the executive, but today, protecting them from persecution by their colleagues is no less important. The High Court of Justice has stressed the importance of this immunity in preserving MKs’ independence, and especially in protecting the minority from the majority.

    The last Knesset also stripped Zoabi of some of her parliamentary privileges, including her diplomatic passport, over her participation in a Turkish-sponsored flotilla to Gaza that turned violent. This decision was challenged in a High Court petition which argued that substantive immunity protects MKs not only against indictment, but also against sanctions imposed by the Knesset. The deliberations lasted three years, until the 18th Knesset was dissolved in 2013, at which point the court dismissed the petition on the grounds that it was now purely theoretical. It thereby missed an opportunity to state explicitly that the Knesset can’t punish MKs for political statements. It must be hoped that this time, it will overturn the Ethics Committee’s decision swiftly.

    This decision appears to be part of a broader persecution of Israel’s Arab minority. The committee was used to delegitimize certain views, while not imposing sanctions on other MKs who made offensive statements – like Avigdor Lieberman, who called for boycotting Arab businesses, or Miri Regev, who called asylum seekers a “cancer.” The severity of the punishment also bolsters this contention. When former MK Menachem Porush termed Justice Mishael Cheshin “a pig,” the committee made do with a reprimand, and when former MK Aryeh Eldad said that anyone who cedes territory deserves death, he was suspended for just one day.

    It’s regrettable that Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein – unlike his predecessor Reuven Rivlin, now the president, who spoke out against political persecution of Arab MKs in general and Zoabi in particular – was the person who led this latest move against Zoabi. This unacceptable and discriminatory decision, which seeks to impose artificial boundaries on the political discourse, is another stage in the dismantling of Israeli democracy.

    #Israël #Fascisme #Totalitarisme #Discrimination #Apartheid #Gaza #Palestine

  • #Israel calls off minister sex abuse probe
    http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/israel-calls-minister-sex-abuse-probe

    Israel has called off an inquiry into alleged sex offenses by Energy Minister Silvan Shalom, an expected candidate for the presidency, the justice ministry announced Wednesday. Attorney general Yehuda Weinstein said Shalom was immune from prosecution under Israel’s statute of limitations, since an alleged incident dated back more than 10 years, the ministry said. Police questioned Shalom in late March over what media said were suspicions of sexual assault against a female employee in 1999. read more

    #Top_News

  • AG: Bill against pro-boycott Israel groups is unconstitutional
    Haaretz
    By Revital Hovel and Jonathan Lis | Dec. 15, 2013
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/1.563537

    A controversial bill that would penalize any non-profit organization if one of its executives calls for a boycott of Israel is to be discussed Sunday by the Ministerial Committee on Legislation. The proposed law - which Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein has described as unconstitutional - would levy a tax of 45 percent on any donation from foreign political entities to NPOs, if one of the organization’s managers has expressed support for a boycott, divestment or sanctions against Israel or its citizens.

    The bill, sponsored by the Yisrael Beiteinu and Habayit Hayehudi parties, will also apply to those groups in which one of its leaders has called to put Israeli soldiers on trial in international bodies, or supports an armed struggle by an enemy country or terrorist organization against the State of Israel.

    Weinstein will submit his formal opinion to the Ministerial Committee, saying that if the bill is made into law and challenged in court, he will not be able to defend it. The attorney general said that the bill infringes on a number of constitutional rights enshrined in Israel’s Basic Laws, including freedom of expression and freedom of association. He said what was presented as a tax hike was in his view a de facto fine intended to create a chilling effect on donations to the non-profits in question, which would harm freedom of expression in Israel. “Limiting donations and harming non-profit organizations’ free speech, and in general harming human rights is something done by a group of countries that it is doubtful that Israel wants to join,” said Weinstein. He added that even if the purpose of the bill was proper, which he said he doubted, it exceeded any sense of proportion because of the serious ramifications it was likely to cause.

    The issue of proportionality is important because under Israeli law the state may undertake an act that harms a right in one of Israel’s Basic Laws if it is consistent with the values of the State of Israel, intended for a proper purpose and the harm done is proportionate.

    The explanatory preface to the proposed law states it “wants to reduce the involvement of foreign policy entities in Israeli democracy, which is conducted via financial support for non-profit organizations, whose goals, or activities in practice, grossly exceed the limits of the Israeli democratic discussion and are an attempt to cause real harm and are a significant and serious interference in the basic characteristics of the State of Israel and its sovereignty.”

    If the Ministerial Committee votes to give the bill government backing, it will then go to the Knesset later this week for its preliminary reading.

    Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who chairs the committee, is expected to oppose the bill. She called the bill undemocratic and inappropriate yesterday. If the committee does approve the bill today, Livni is expected to appeal the vote.

    In 2011, a similar bill was proposed by MK Faina Kirschenbaum (Yisrael Beitenu), that would have levied a 45 percent tax rate on donations from foreign states to organizations not supported by the State of Israel. Weinstein warned at that time that the bill was unconstitutional, but Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that in principle he supported the bill with some adjustments, including distinguishing between organizations whose activities focus on human rights and those that are identified with political causes. In the end, Netanyahu froze the bill and it did not advance in the Knesse

  • Soldiers’ benefits mustn’t come at the expense of Israel’s minorities
    discriminations contre les Palestiniens et... contre les juifs orthodoxes
    Editorial
    Haaretz, 29th of October 2013
    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.554919

    The softened version of the Contributors to the State bill, which was approved Monday by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation, was supposed to eliminate the worst of the discriminatory excesses of the original version of the draft law. The constitutional flaws of the bill’s earlier version were pointed out by Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein, among other.

    The original bill, which was sponsored by coalition chairman MK Yariv Levin, was also approved by the ministerial committee, over the opposition of Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Finance Minister Yair Lapid and Health and Minister Yael German. Its provisions included preferential treatment for military or civilian national service veterans in admission to higher education, in government hiring (and wages and benefits), and in residential building rights. Weinstein ruled that the bill would cause injury to population groups that already suffer from severe discrimination and would violate the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Freedom.

    The new version, which was drafted in consultation with Knesset legal advisor Eyal Yinon, provides for “softer” benefits, such as letting soldiers in uniform jump the queue at entertainment venues, giving preference to military or nonmilitary veterans in allocating university housing and limited preference in real estate tenders. Nevertheless, it seems as if Levin and many cabinet ministers still haven’t grasped the ethical failure such a law’s very existence entails.

    The Contributors to the State bill in effect constitutes systematic discrimination, in every walk of life, against entire population groups that are by law exempt from compulsory military or civilian national service. No democracy can accept such discrimination, especially when it affects already disadvantaged communities, namely Israeli Arabs and ultra-Orthodox Jews. The fact that military service is compulsory for a large part of the population does not justify a law that would have far-reaching consequences on civilian life, far beyond the military realm.

    Many cabinet ministers have declared a fervent wish for more Arabs and Haredim in the workforce, even calling this goal a “national project” that could have a dramatic impact on the national economy.

    Blind, a priori discrimination is not the way to achieve this integration. It will only create alienation and anger in these communities, sending the message that the state is lending a hand to their discrimination.

    It is indeed worthy to reward those who contribute to the state through military or civilian service, but the way to do so is not by discriminating against other groups. The cabinet and Levin must draft a new bill that would recognize the contribution of veterans, such as paying higher salaries to soldiers during service. That is the only way the benefits offered in this bill will outweigh its costs.

  • Israel’s AG: Absentee properties in East Jerusalem can be confiscated - National Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/israel-s-ag-absentee-properties-in-east-jerusalem-can-be-confiscated.premiu

    A law allowing Israel to confiscate “absentee” properties may continue to be applied to Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein said in a legal opinion.

    Weinstein’s opinion goes against the decisions of his predecessors, including Meir Shamgar, who said as far back as 1968 that the Absentee Property Law should not be applied in Jerusalem, and Menachem Mazuz, who served as attorney general immediately before Weinstein.

    According to the law, which was passed in 1950, any person living in an enemy state or outside Israel is considered an absentee, and his property goes to the Custodian of Absentee Property, today a body within the Justice Ministry.After the 1967 Six-Day War, residents of the occupied territories who held property in Jerusalem found they had been deemed absentees without ever leaving their homes.

    The decision over the application of the law in East Jerusalem has significant implications for Jewish settlement in the city’s predominantly Palestinian neighborhoods. Over the years, the Absentee Property Law has become a tool for right-wing groups seeking to increase the Jewish presence inEast Jerusalem. These groups ask the custodian to expropriate houses whose residents are in the West Bank and then rent the premises from the custodian, usually for a nominal fee.

    The Iyad family from the Palestinian town of Abu Dis, for example, owned the Cliff Hotel, which is 200 meters from their home. Because the Jerusalem municipal boundary runs between their home and the hotel, the custodian in 2003 declared them absentees and transferred the hotel to the state’s ownership. The hotel now stands deserted.

    In another example, a family, represented in Monday’s hearing by attorney Sami Arshid, lives in an older part of the Beit Hanina neighborhood, located in the West Bank, but owns property in a newer part of the neighborhood, only a few hundred meters away, within Jerusalem’s boundaries. The family’s Jerusalem home was taken by the state.

    Although in 1968, Shamgar, then the attorney general and later a Supreme Court justice, ordered that the law not be applied to East Jerusalem, with the establishment of the Likud government in 1977, the law came back into force. The pendulum swung back again in 1992, under then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, but in 1997, restrictions on the law’s application were once again loosened, and in 2004, under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the cabinet decided, against the position advocated by the Justice Ministry, to restore all the custodian’s powers with regard to property in Jerusalem.

    In 2005, Mazuz wrote a sharply worded letter as attorney general ordering that the law not be applied in Jerusalem. "The application of the powers of the Custodian of Absentee Property to properties in East Jerusalem raises many serious legal difficulties regarding the application of the law and the reasonableness of its decision, and … the obligations of the State of Israel toward the traditional principles of international law," he said. 

    In 2006, then-District Court Judge Boaz Okun also ordered the law not be applied in Jerusalem, but at the end of that year, the state appealed Okun’s rulingto the Supreme Court.

    Two weeks ago, an expanded bench of Supreme Court justices held a hearing regarding an appeal of four cases in which East Jerusalem properties belonging to residents of the Palestinian territories were confiscated based on the Absentee Property Law. During the hearing, the justices ordered Weinstein to appear before them in person to explain his position. On Tuesday, the state prosecutor informed the court that the attorney general had approved the application of the law in Jerusalem.

    “[Guidance} was sought from the attorney general on the topic, and it was decided that the indeed the legal status was that the properties located in East Jerusalem, with their owners residents of the Judea and Samaria region, were absentee properties,” the state prosecutor said. “This the language of the law and the ruling of the High Court of Justice show.”  

    Nevertheless, the attorney general said the four cases that reached the Supreme Court should be referred to a special committee that operates based on the Absentee Property Law to examine the possibility of releasing the properties from the hands of the custodian and returning them to their original owners. The Palestinian plaintiffs objected to this solution, because it would entail legal recognition of the confiscation of their properties and require the filing of special requests to have them released.

    The state prosecutor announced the entire issue will be brought to the attention of the political echelon. The next Supreme Court hearing is scheduled for this September, when Weinstein will be expected to appear.

  • AG: State fails to handle construction violations in settlements - Israel News, Ynetnews
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4382804,00.html

    Yehuda Weinstein urges defense minister to ensure criminal enforcement of planning and construction violations in West Bank, which he says go largely unpunished

    Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein sent a letter to Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon on Tuesday accusing the defense establishment of dragging its feet in relation to regulation over illegal construction in West Bank settlements, Yedioth Ahronoth reported.

    “There is hardly any criminal enforcement of planning and construction violations in Judea and Samaria, this largely due to the lack of an investigative body charged with handling the issue,” Weinstein wrote.

    He is demanding that Ya’alon ensure criminal enforcement of planning and construction violations in the West Bank without delay.

    In his letter, Weinstein noted that last year the State had testified in the High Court of Justice that defense forces are working on reinforcing its inspection unit in the Civil Administration.

    #colonies-Cisjordanie

  • Supreme Court orders Israel’s AG to explain law allowing confiscation of Palestinian land in Jerusalem - National Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/supreme-court-orders-israel-s-ag-to-explain-law-allowing-confiscation-of-pa

    The Supreme Court on Monday discussed a controversial law that allows the state to confiscate “absentee” property in Israel, a ruling which critics say allows the state to appropriate land and buildings belonging to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who were unlucky enough to live on the wrong side of the municipal boundaries following the Six-Day War.

    At least two attorneys general and a district court judge have over the years come out against the law. The hearing on Monday came after the state appealed to the Supreme Court to vacate a district court’s ruling that the law not be applied in Jerusalem.

    In an unusual step, an expanded bench of seven justices headed by Supreme Court President Asher Grunis asked Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein to appear personally to explain the state’s position.

    Attorney Avigdor Feldman said during the hearing that according to the letter of the law, even an Israeli settler who lives in the West Bank and has property in Israel is considered an absentee and so has to worry about the state confiscating his property.

    The purpose of the Absentee Property Law, passed in 1950, was to take possession of property in Israel that belonged to Palestinian refugees. According to the law, any person present in an enemy country or outside Israel is considered an absentee, and his property goes to the Custodian of Absentee Property, today a body within the Justice Ministry.

    After the Six-Day War, residents of the occupied territories who held property in Jerusalem found they had been deemed absentees without ever leaving their homes. The Iyad family from Abu Dis, for example, owned the Cliff Hotel, which is 200 meters from their home. Because the municipal boundary runs between their home and the hotel, the custodian in 2003 declared them absentees and transferred the hotel to the state’s ownership. The hotel now stands deserted.

    In another example, a family, represented in Monday’s hearing by attorney Sami Arshid, lives in an older part of the Beit Hanina neighborhood, located in the West Bank, but owns property in a newer part of the neighborhood, only a few hundred meters away, within Jerusalem’s boundaries. The family’s Jerusalem home was taken by the state.

    Over the years, the Absentee Property Law has become a tool for right-wing groups seeking to increase the Jewish presence in East Jerusalem. These groups ask the custodian to expropriate houses whose residents are in the West Bank and then rent the premises from the custodian, usually for a nominal fee. That is how many of the Jewish settlements in Palestinian neighborhoods in Jerusalem came into being.

    Many judicial officials view the application of this law in Jerusalem as morally and legally problematic, because unlike Palestinians who fled the country during war to countries at war with Israel, the Palestinian property owners in these and many other cases are under Israeli military rule in the West Bank and sometimes live only a few meters from the home that has been taken from them.

    Although in 1968, then-Attorney General Meir Shamgar ordered that the law not be applied to East Jerusalem, with the establishment of the Likud government in 1977, the law came back into force. The pendulum swung back again in 1992, under then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, but in 1997, restrictions on the law’s application were once again loosened, and in 2004, under then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the cabinet decided, against the advice of the attorney general, to restore all the custodian’s powers with regard to property in Jerusalem.

    In 2005, then-Attorney General Menahem Mazuz ordered that the law not be applied due to “its many legal difficulties” involving “the obligations of the State of Israel to international judicial rules and customs.”

    In 2006, then-District Court Judge Boaz Okun also ordered the law not be applied in Jerusalem, but at the end of that year, the state appealed Okun’s ruling. Among the state’s claims was that the Palestinian Authority is a foreign political entity and therefore residents of the territories are absentees.

    At Monday’s hearing, the justices suggested to representatives of the Palestinian families whose property had been taken that they apply to the custodian’s committee to have the expropriations reversed. The representatives refused, saying that doing so would recognize the legality of the custodian’s actions.

    The justices are to make a ruling at a later date.

    #confiscation-de-terres #Jerusalem #Loi-Propriété-absents #

  • Israel tourists face email inspections
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/24/israel-tourists-email-inspections

    Israel’s internal security agency has been authorised to demand “suspicious” foreign travellers open their personal email accounts for inspection on entry to the country.

    Shin Bet officials have been given approval for such action in what they deem to be exceptional cases by Israel’s attorney-general, Yehuda Weinstein, despite a petition to overrule the measure by a leading civil rights group.

    “The threat of using foreign citizens for terrorist purposes is a growing trend,” said Nadim Avod, a lawyer in the attorney-general’s office. “Searching an email account is to be carried out in exceptional cases only after suspicious or pertinent information has been identified.”

  • Shin Bet can continue to access tourists’ emails upon arrival at Ben-Gurion, AG says - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/shin-bet-can-continue-to-access-tourists-emails-upon-arrival-at-ben-gurion-

    Responding to petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein chooses not to interfere with security procedure, stating it’s ’performed only in exceptional instances, after other relevant incriminating indications are found.’

  • Attorney General orders a halt to Israel’s deportation of Eritrean migrants Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/attorney-general-orders-a-halt-to-israel-s-deportation-of-eritrean-migrants

    Under no circumstances will Eritrean nationals in Israeli custody be sent “to any destination outside Israel’s borders” until Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein further clarifies the relevant legal issues, he declared Monday.

    Weinstein, via his deputy, Dina Zilber, sent a letter to this effect to the director of the Interior Ministry’s Population, Immigration and Border Authority, Amnon Ben Ami.

    Weinstein’s order was issued in response to a report Monday on Haaretz’s Hebrew website about the case of an Eritrean migrant whose “voluntary departure” from the country clearly went awry.

    The man, T.H., had been given a choice by the Israeli authorities of “volunteering” to be sent to Uganda or spending three years in jail. But upon arrival in Uganda last Thursday he was refused entry, and the Ugandan authorities put him on a plane to Cairo. He was still being detained at Cairo International Airport Monday.

  • His death reveals how at any moment, a Palestinian can be randomly killed, labeled as a terrorist and have their death dismissed.

    Petition: Israel’s State Prosecutor, Yehuda Weinstein: Bring Criminal Charges against Ziad Jilani’s Killer, Maxim Vinogradov

    Change.org

    http://www.change.org/petitions/israel-s-state-prosecutor-yehuda-weinstein-bring-criminal-charges-against-zi

    Ziad Jilani was a dedicated, loving father and husband who was murdered by Maxim Vinogradov, a member of the Israeli border police, because he got in a small car accident.

    Since the beginning of the second Intifada at least six thousand four hundred and forty four Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli security forces. During this time no Jewish Israeli soldier has been charged with murder for killing a Palestinian.

    Message from Moira:

    My beloved husband, Ziad Jilani, was executed by Israeli Border Policeman, Maxim Vinogradov on June 11, 2010. There is undeniable evidence that my husband was lying unarmed and wounded on the ground, posing no threat when Israeli Border Policeman Maxim Vinogradov shot him point blank in the head. Despite the multiple contradictions, revisions and blatant lies in the testimony of the soldier who killed him, exposed by the autopsy, the Israeli authorities have closed the case against Maxim Vinogradov and his commander Shadi Kheir Al-Din.