THIS WEEK'S TRIBUNE  THIS WEEK'S TRIBUNE Court rules against residents near archaeological dig
|
|
Court rules against residents near archaeological dig |
|
|
|
|
Written by --
|
|
Tuesday, 20 October 2009 |
|
JERUSALEM-TORONTO – The Archaeological Research currently taking place in the ‘Walls Around the Old City’ national park at the City of David in Jerusalem is in the public’s best interests, according to an Israeli Supreme Court decision regarding two recent petitions against the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA).
The petitions were submitted by residents living near the excavation site. According to a press release issued by Yaen Vered, the IAA representative in Canada, it is the IAA’s opinion that “these residents are being incited by other factors whose considerations are political and improbable.”
In a telephone conversation with the Jewish Tribune, Jon Seligman, Jerusalem regional archaeologist for the IAA, explained that the objections being raised in the petitions would not ordinarily be of interest to a resident.
“For example, much of the court case concerns the way the IAA issues licenses,” he said. “This has no relevance to a resident and there definitely had to have been some outside influence.”
Ninety per cent of the area’s residents are Muslim Arabs. Ten per cent are Jewish. There are no Christians.
The press release stressed that the ongoing archaeological discoveries exposing the history of Jerusalem are “of utmost importance to the Jewish people in particular and world culture in general.”
A most recent example of the historical findings is a large and impressive mikvah (ritual bath) from the end of the Second Temple period uncovered in archaeological excavations the IAA is carrying out in the Western Wall tunnels, in cooperation with the Western Wall Heritage Foundation.
“The picture that was presented to us shows that the damage to the property rights of the petitioners – as much as such damage does indeed exist – is minor,” stated Justice Edna Arbel in her ruling.
“The petitioners did not argue that any damage was caused to their houses and the respondents explained that the activity on the land is indeed underground, but does not extend as far as the houses of the petitioners…. When the petitioners failed to point out real damage to their property, it seems that there is no justification in harming or restricting the public interest….”
Arbel recommended that the petition be rejected and the petitioners be required to pay the attorney fees of each of the respondents for the sum of 10,000 NIS and court expenses. |
|
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 28 October 2009 )
|
|
|
|
