In its 106-page response to the High Court of Justice, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel explains the High Court lacks jurisdiction over the Kosel regarding tefilos and religious practices at the site, basing its legal opinion on an ancient law.
The Chief Rabbinate was responding to a petition filed by Women of the Wall (WoW) and other organizations that favor the establishment of an egalitarian prayer area at the site.
After the cabinet ruled to suspend accepting the compromise agreement to permit the egalitarian prayer area, due to chareidi threats to topple the coalition over the matter. Hence, backers of the move took the case to the High Court in the hope of ruling against the Chief Rabbinate.
In the Chief Rabbinate’s lengthy response, it quotes a 1924 (British Mandate) law which says, “no cause or matter in connection with the holy places or religious buildings or sites in Palestine or the rights or claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine shall be heard or determined by any court in Palestine.”
The response explains that just as the High Court does not intervene in matters of mosques and churches, it may not become involved in matters pertaining to the Kosel.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
In part of the Rabbonim’s objection, they wrote that just like the Israeli Supreme Court can not and will not make prayer in the Dome of the Rock and Al Aksa mosques equalatarian meaning women should pray along side men instead of behind them or that they can not make a rule that one need NOT take off their shoes before praying in a mosque or a similar rule concerning a church in Israel, so too, they can not make rules concerning Jewish traditions that are halachically backed at the Kotel.
Kol HaKovod to the Rabbonim for telling the liberal Supreme Court to mind its own business and not be anti-Jewish!
Bingo!!!
Let’s see how the leftist on the “high” court will twist this argument…
Very logical argument but there are separate laws governing Jewish and non-Jewish religious sites so it will be interesting to see how the Court parses the technicalities of legal jurisdiction or whether they will take the broader policy issues into consideration (at the risk of being targeted as an bunch of “liberal activist judges”).
Do they or anyone else actually expect this to work