"Due to the reduction of the probable cause": the judge's message to the "Rosh Yehudi" organization; Minister Arbel attacked

Following the "Rosh Yehudi" petition, the district court judge asked today (Friday) to come to an understanding regarding the Sukkot events. The judge of the District Court in Tel Aviv decided that he would not issue an interim order in light of the request of a Jewish head, but asked the parties to come to an agreement "in the spirit of the holiday." The judge asked the parties to meet "immediately" and reach an understanding for the benefit of all Tel Aviv residents.

The spiritual occupation and the real estate activity: who is behind the "Rosh Yehudi" organization?
After the storm of Kippur: the sanctions imposed by the Tel Aviv Municipality on a "Jewish head"

A Jewish leader said following the decision: "Tel Aviv municipality canceled the events for us because they chose the side of the gods and blame the victim, the protesters who came to the square had a goal to destroy the prayer and it doesn't matter in what way. We are ready for talks with the municipality to reach agreements on how to manage the events and ask for conduct Matters on the part of the Tel Aviv Municipality".

Minister of the Interior Moshe Arbel on Judge Magen Eltovia's decision to review the annulment of the reason for reasonableness also on the decision of a local authority: "A day when a judge in a district court does not know the plain language of a fundamental law is Yom Kippur for the system. The judicial system desperately needs trust and that is not how it is built." .

• Sukkot 2023: entry and exit times of the holiday and its laws

Although the third amendment to the Basic Judiciary Law explicitly states that the reason for reasonableness will be reduced only in relation to government decisions only, Judge Magen Eltovia wrote that it is possible and not possible to review the reasonableness of the Tel Aviv Municipality's decision due to the reduction of the reason for reasonableness.

"Furthermore, even if there is someone who claims that the respondent's decision is unreasonable, even though 14 this is not the case, doubts arise as to whether the Court of Administrative Matters currently has the authority 15 to intervene in this decision in light of the change in the law regarding the reason for reasonableness. I want to say that even if 16 arguments are accepted The petitioners, it is doubtful whether I have the authority to cancel the decision of the 1st or 17th respondent to intervene in her judgment or to order her to act as the petitioners' position, and this requires review."