JERUSALEM — Israel’s Supreme Court has defused an issue that would likely have prompted violence days before Israel’s elections.
The high court on Tuesday delayed implementation of a government order to close three offices at Orient House, the Palestinians’ de facto headquarters in eastern Jerusalem.
Ruling on a petition filed by nine Israeli intellectuals, the court gave state and Palestinian officials one week to explain why negotiations to resolve the dispute over the offices had failed.
The petitioners included authors Batia Gur and Amos Elon and Hebrew University Professors Paul Mendes-Flohr and Menachem Brinker, who charged that the decision to close the offices was a thinly veiled attempt by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to get votes in Monday’s election.
The signers, all Jewish residents of Jerusalem, wrote that their petition was submitted “in the name of a large Israeli public living in Jerusalem which is gravely concerned over the making of such a fateful decision at this particular time, a decision which could cause great harm to Jerusalem, its unity, and its inhabitants because of the near-certain threats to public safety.”
The petitioners also argued that the closure could set off violent unrest and pose a danger to the public.
The ruling was greeted with shouts of victory by the Palestinians. They chanted, “We are not afraid of the Israeli threats” and “There is no way but for an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as our capital.”
Strings of newly hung miniature Palestinian flags crisscrossed the front patio of the building, and shiny black cars of European consuls-general filled the lot, as representatives from the European Union, Spain, Turkey, France, and Sweden met inside with Faisal Husseini, the Palestinian official responsible for Jerusalem affairs.
“The high court’s declaration proved that this matter is not a legal problem, but a political one for the elections,” Husseini told reporters invited to the building for a press conference.
But in Netanyahu’s eyes, the issue isn’t dead.
“We are determined that the offices will close down,” he said after the ruling. “We will act cautiously and responsibly…I am doing what the prime minister should do in order to protect Jerusalem’s sovereignty.”
The Palestinians had refrained from appealing to the court, fearing the move would be interpreted as their tacit recognition of Israeli sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem, which Israel captured during the 1967 Six-Day War.
The ruling, which postponed a potentially explosive situation until after Israel’s elections, came after Israeli officials served closure orders on the offices the night before.
The orders were served after Israel and the Palestinians failed to reach an understanding, despite intensive contacts between Public Security Minister Avigdor Kahalani and representatives from Orient House.
According to Israeli media reports, the Palestinians had agreed to transfer the operations of the offices, but they had rejected the Israeli demand to close down the offices.
The reports further said that while Netanyahu had pressed for enforcing the closure orders, Kahalani had argued for giving more time to the negotiations out of concern that sending Israeli police into Orient House would lead to bloodshed.
The court ruling was welcomed by Israeli opposition members, who charged that the prime minister, who has been lagging in opinion polls behind Labor Party candidate Ehud Barak, was trying to force a confrontation in order to take a tough stand on Jerusalem prior to next week’s elections.
Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert also welcomed the ruling.
A member of Netanyahu’s Likud Party, Olmert said he had advised Netanyahu against issuing the orders before the Israeli elections.
Olmert, who may seek the party leadership if Netanyahu loses the elections, said that while under other circumstances closure of the offices would be justified, in the present circumstances it would appear to be politically motivated.
“I am bothered by two things,” Olmert told Israel Radio. “One, that a move which under different circumstances is not only justified but necessary will be interpreted as a political move and will result in a lack of agreement both abroad and in Israel, despite the agreement that exists on Jerusalem, and in this way the struggle for Jerusalem could miss the mark.
“The second thing is, that I have no doubt that under these circumstances there will be Palestinian elements which will encourage a violent reaction on the assumption that responsibility for violence and bloodshed will be perceived by the international community — and perhaps others — as being attributable to political moves by Israel.”