In addition to a Supreme Court ruling Tuesday calling for the demolition of buildings in Beit El, Samaria, another new Supreme Court ruling demands the state present the legal standing of 17 buildings in the "Path of the Fathers" area between Hevron and Kiryat Arba in Judea.
Yehuda Puah, Chairman of the B'Tzelmo organization, told Arutz Sheva that the ruling against the historical "Path of the Fathers" area where the Jewish patriarchs lived in Biblical times is nothing but simple racism against Jews on the part of the court.
Puah noted that no demolition order has been issued against the 17 buildings yet, with the state being ordered to respond within three months to a petition of the radical Peace Now group against the buildings. However, based on previous outcomes of similar rulings, he argued "this is racism."
He pointed out that the Supreme Court, in its rulings, does not examine the legal facts regarding who has ownership of the land, "but rather who is Jewish or Arab."
While a ruling stating that buildings were put on private land appears straightforward, Puah pointed out that in the rulings the Supreme Court regularly declares that it does not even know if the land belongs to Jews or Arabs, but nevertheless gives a demolition order.
"When someone comes to make justice they need to clarify the facts," he said. "You can't demand the destruction of someone's house without clarifying who the land belongs to. The court should check who it belongs to, and not arbitrarily determine that it's Palestinian land."
Legal precedent shows that in cases that do not consist of Jewish versus Arab claims on the land, the Supreme Court thoroughly clarifies the legal ownership according to Puah. He brought the case of Moshe Zar's suit against the town of Barkan for buildings on his land as an example, in which the court said that demolition could not be carried out because families are living there, and instead Zar was compensated for his land.
A separate law for Judea-Samaria Jews?
"A chain of rulings on Migron, Givat Ulpana, Ofra and apparently also on Beit El show that they claim 'private land' without knowing whose," said Puah. "You can't demolish when (an infraction is done) in innocence. In cases like that they compensate."
He continued, explaining, "that's the law in the entire country. I live in a building in Afula that went three meters over its boundaries, and no one is thinking to demolish because they know it was built innocently, and therefore at the most there's compensation; but whole communities are erased on the Supreme Court's orders. This process is unprecedented. It's a draconic persecution of residents."
Puah argued that the Supreme Court does not listen to the position of the residents of Jewish towns it orders demolitions against, but rather at the most listens to representatives of the towns – completely unlike court procedure when the residents are Arab.
"The residents aren't even a side in the petition. They don't check who lives there and what they have to say."
Bringing another example, he pointed out that in the case of demolishing the home of the terrorist who tried to assassinate Yehuda Glick, all members of the terrorist's household were discussed, analyzing to what extent each one lived in the building and if they supported the shooting that left Glick critically wounded – in the end only the terrorist's room was sealed.
"There they check each one, but with the residents (of Judea-Samaria) they don't look at who they are, as if they aren't relevant and don't have human rights. The Supreme Court hunts down the weak, abuses them and doesn't listen to them. In Ofra all of the claims were heard together and not each resident's (claim) individually, and the court rejected them all together."
Puah charged, "that's racist discrimination…it's a shame that no one is saying this because everyone is afraid of the Supreme Court that controls everything…but those who read the rulings will see these things black on white."