close
The Sanhedrin English The Sanhedrin English
Search

Difference between revisions of "Hachrazah 5770 Cheshvan 24"


m
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
Email: dbtc@actcom.com 47 Rachel Imeinu St. Jerusalem 93228<br>
 
Email: dbtc@actcom.com 47 Rachel Imeinu St. Jerusalem 93228<br>
 
</center>
 
</center>
 +
 +
 +
24 Cheshvan, 5770
  
 
<center>
 
<center>
Line 19: Line 22:
 
The lawyer, Visulai, set that the plan is against the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which has no planning mention that Jerusalem be the holy city for the Jewish nation, that all the Jewish holy places are classified in it as public open areas, including the Temple Mount, which is not mentioned at all in the plan, and there is no plan to it and its surroundings in particular in the plan.  As above, regarding the Mount of Olives, regarding planning of the Old City and every other historic site in the city.  Among the other faults that were noted:
 
The lawyer, Visulai, set that the plan is against the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which has no planning mention that Jerusalem be the holy city for the Jewish nation, that all the Jewish holy places are classified in it as public open areas, including the Temple Mount, which is not mentioned at all in the plan, and there is no plan to it and its surroundings in particular in the plan.  As above, regarding the Mount of Olives, regarding planning of the Old City and every other historic site in the city.  Among the other faults that were noted:
  
In the plan, there are no transportation connections to the east, north, or south, and it is presented as a dead end road.
+
* In the plan, there are no transportation connections to the east, north, or south, and it is presented as a dead end road.
There is no planning or even conceptual relation to the future of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and the capital of the Jewish Nation.
+
* There is no planning or even conceptual relation to the future of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and the capital of the Jewish Nation.
The defining interest of the plan is to connect as much Arab population in to the greater Jerusalem municipality as possible, and to diminish the Jewish neighborhoods by cutting down on their area, and changing the zoning laws to their disadvantage.  As opposed to that, it will increase the area of the Arab neighborhoods, whose population in any event ignores the building laws (which lessens the ability to actualize this plan), and thus helps in the division of Jerusalem.
+
* The defining interest of the plan is to connect as much Arab population in to the greater Jerusalem municipality as possible, and to diminish the Jewish neighborhoods by cutting down on their area, and changing the zoning laws to their disadvantage.  As opposed to that, it will increase the area of the Arab neighborhoods, whose population in any event ignores the building laws (which lessens the ability to actualize this plan), and thus helps in the division of Jerusalem.
There is no enough addressing, and it is proper to include the expected growth for the next century which comes from this plan.
+
* There is no enough addressing, and it is proper to include the expected growth for the next century which comes from this plan.
There is not proper addressing the needs of pilgrims and tourists in Jerusalem – accessibility, lodging, tourist services.
+
* There is not proper addressing the needs of pilgrims and tourists in Jerusalem – accessibility, lodging, tourist services.
Matters of industry and labor and markets in Jerusalem are not described as a need for the wider national population but rather as a matter of hi-tech.
+
* Matters of industry and labor and markets in Jerusalem are not described as a need for the wider national population but rather as a matter of hi-tech.
Topics of the ultra-orthodox population are estranged and there is not proper consideration in regard to the natural growth of this population.
+
* Topics of the ultra-orthodox population are estranged and there is not proper consideration in regard to the natural growth of this population.
 
The Sanhedrin supports its objection with many documents as evidence and the correctness of its arguments.
 
The Sanhedrin supports its objection with many documents as evidence and the correctness of its arguments.
  

Latest revision as of 13:26, 11 November 2009

Informal translation from Hebrew of the 24 Cheshvan, 5770 (11 November 2009) statement:

BDNS.gif
Special Court for Matters Concerning the Nation and the State
Tel: 02-5661962, cell 050-6733831, fax: 057-7976007
Email: dbtc@actcom.com 47 Rachel Imeinu St. Jerusalem 93228


24 Cheshvan, 5770

The Objection of the Sanhedrin to the Regional Outline Program of the City of Jerusalem was heard by representatives of the National and Regional Committees for Planning Jerusalem’s Outline Program

On the 21st of Cheshvan 5770 (Novemeber 8th 2009), the objections of the court of the Sanhedrin to the Regional Outline Program of the City of Jerusalem was heard by the researcher, lawyer Talma Duchan and an additional representative of the regional committee.

The inviters opened with an apology for the sudden invitation, which was received on November 3rd, 2009, according to them, they lost the objections and the declarations that were submitted a year and a quarter ago, and only found them with great difficulty and by coincidence, and therefore only invited the last objectors for a hearing and in a sudden way within five days of the invitation’s sending. The objectors: The Sanhedrin, by means of Rabbi Dov Stein, Sanhedrin Secretary, architect Gideon Charla”p, lawyer Aviad Visulai, and professor Hillel Weiss presented essential and purposeful faults worded in to the outline program, and are aimed against the Jewish interest, which disqualifies the outline plan at its basis.

The lawyer, Visulai, set that the plan is against the Basic Law: Jerusalem, the Capital of Israel, which has no planning mention that Jerusalem be the holy city for the Jewish nation, that all the Jewish holy places are classified in it as public open areas, including the Temple Mount, which is not mentioned at all in the plan, and there is no plan to it and its surroundings in particular in the plan. As above, regarding the Mount of Olives, regarding planning of the Old City and every other historic site in the city. Among the other faults that were noted:

  • In the plan, there are no transportation connections to the east, north, or south, and it is presented as a dead end road.
  • There is no planning or even conceptual relation to the future of Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and the capital of the Jewish Nation.
  • The defining interest of the plan is to connect as much Arab population in to the greater Jerusalem municipality as possible, and to diminish the Jewish neighborhoods by cutting down on their area, and changing the zoning laws to their disadvantage. As opposed to that, it will increase the area of the Arab neighborhoods, whose population in any event ignores the building laws (which lessens the ability to actualize this plan), and thus helps in the division of Jerusalem.
  • There is no enough addressing, and it is proper to include the expected growth for the next century which comes from this plan.
  • There is not proper addressing the needs of pilgrims and tourists in Jerusalem – accessibility, lodging, tourist services.
  • Matters of industry and labor and markets in Jerusalem are not described as a need for the wider national population but rather as a matter of hi-tech.
  • Topics of the ultra-orthodox population are estranged and there is not proper consideration in regard to the natural growth of this population.

The Sanhedrin supports its objection with many documents as evidence and the correctness of its arguments.

The Sanhedrin raised a conceptual plan of its own on the matter of planning of Jerusalem and handed it over to the committee.

The lawyer, Visulai demanded from the head of the committee to give an opportunity for objectors to appear before the national committee, to which the criticisms will be transferred. The committee representative rejected this demand.

A second representative (who is a professional planner) said that she did not plan at all for this type of criticism and that she did not come prepared.

The objectors suggested to convene an additional meeting after the planner prepares herself, a matter that was rejected resolutely by the representative of the national council, the lawyer Talma Duchan.

The objectors joined, in the last few days, other bodies that criticized the program, but not in front of the regional committee, like Mr. Aryeh King, The Israel Land Fund, and groups of the builders of the Old City, headed by Mr. Matti Dan, and received much assistance from them in preparing the details of the explanation of the objections.

All of these groups will cooperate amongst themselves, publicly, legally, and politically, to remove this plan from the agenda, which only came in to being in order to steal Jerusalem from the sovereignty of the Jewish Nation, and to cancel its value and holiness.

Rabbi Professor Hillel Weiss – Speaker of the Sanhedrin
Rabbi Dov Stein – Secretary of the Sanhedrin

Click here to see the Hebrew version

References


This ruling in the news