The Jerusalem District Court has reversed an earlier decision by a lower court and ruled that right-wing Temple Mount activist Yehuda Glick will not be allowed to enter the Temple Mount compound until further notice.
Judge Carmi Mossek explained that the situation at this location is explosive and that Glick’s presence there was inflammatory, particularly since he was accused of assaulting a woman on one of his visits there. The judge commented that “there is a risk of violence breaking out if the respondent returns to the compound before the end of legal proceedings in his case.”
Glick has not yet said whether he would appeal to the Supreme Court.
Glick was initially removed from the Temple Mount after being charged with assaulting a Muslim woman there, causing her bodily injuries. A month ago, a Magistrate’s Court partially accepted his appeal against his removal from the site, allowing him a visit once a month, without a mobile phone with which he used to document what was going on there. Glick was also prohibited from making loud proclamations while visiting the site.
Glick argued then that he was less dangerous due to his medical condition, following injuries he sustained in an assassination attempt last fall. He was gravely injured after being shot at close range by a terrorist.
Glick turned to the District Court, appealing the restrictive measures imposed on him by the Magistrate’s Court, which included authorizing the police to determine when he could visit the Mount. The judge rejected his appeal and restored things to their prior status, as had long been requested by the police.
“The danger of similar events occurring there has not passed and there is no justification to cancel or change the conditions set earlier, according to which the respondent be removed until the end of all pending legal proceedings against him” determined Mossek on Wednesday.
He argued that the bottom line is that Glick is accused of assaulting a woman while visiting the Temple Mount. “Thus, he cannot be considered a regular plaintiff seeking his rights to visit the compound, but as someone who allegedly caused the events attributed to him in the indictment. Thus, the court has to carefully consider the issue, among other reasons due to the explosive situation there. This has bearing when considering granting permission to someone who allegedly committed violent acts there.”
Mossek rejected Glick’s argument that the long period that elapsed since his initial removal from the compound justified a re-examination of his case. He quoted Glick’s words in court, in which he said that he “considers his role as someone who needs to register what happens there, to document and see if there are unjust things happening there that contravene Israeli law.”
The judge said that “these words raise concerns about a possible outbreak of violence if the respondent returns to the site before his case is addressed in court.”
Want to enjoy 'Zen' reading - with no ads and just the article? Subscribe todaySubscribe now