At this time, the High Court held a hearing on the petitions against the ratification of the agreement with Lebanon in the dispute over Israel’s economic and territorial waters on the northern border. The hearing was broadcast live, after the High Court accepted Globes’ request on the matter.
The hearing is held before the senior panel of judges: President Esther Hayut and judges Uzi Fogelman and Noam Solberg.
● The government to the High Court: there is an urgency to sign the agreement with Lebanon now
● The High Court approved Globes’ request to broadcast the hearing on the petitions against the maritime agreement with Lebanon
● Were all the international agreements in the past brought to the Knesset for approval? We checked
● Walking between the drops: the ombudsman refuses to take an unequivocal position on the gas agreement
● The government confirmed: the Knesset will not vote on the agreement with Lebanon
Yesterday (Wednesday), the government submitted its response to the petitions to the High Court against the decision not to approve the agreement in the Knesset. In the response, it was claimed that there is a unique window of time that allows for an agreement to be reached and is expected to be closed before the elections, and that failure to reach an agreement has security implications. The Knesset, attorney Sagit Afik, presented yesterday its position according to which it is appropriate to bring the agreement before the Knesset.
Last week, High Court Judge David Mintz rejected the request of the Kohalat Forum and the Levi organization for an interim injunction against the approval of the maritime border agreement with Lebanon. Judge Mintz determined.
In the petitions submitted by the Kohalat Forum and the Lavi organization, it is claimed that the Supreme Court previously ruled that the Knesset must supervise political affairs during a transitional government. It is further argued that the government must refrain from approving an agreement that involves the depredation of territory in which the law and jurisdiction of the State of Israel applies. According to the claim, this agreement requires a majority of 80 Knesset members or holding a referendum.
In the opinion of the Legal Adviser to the Government Gali Beharve-Miara regarding the agreement, it was stated that she recommends bringing it to the Knesset for approval. However, she pointed out that there is no legal impediment to being satisfied with the government’s approval and placing the agreement in the Knesset. The position was submitted as part of a petition against the approval of the agreement by the government.
“There is no legal obligation to bring this type of agreement to the Knesset for approval. Besides, in light of the special nature of the agreement and the significant proximity to the elections, bringing it to the Knesset is the preferred and appropriate option, although there is no legal impediment to taking an alternative of submitting the agreement to the Knesset for a period of two weeks.” The ombudsman added that the decision on which of the ways to act should be made by the government.
The government decided to be satisfied with the ratification of the agreement by the government after the agreement was placed on the Knesset table for only two weeks without a vote of the Knesset plenum on the ratification of the agreement.