May 5, 2025
Aviad Visuli, Attorney
Tom Nisani, Beyadenu CEO
In the past six months, Supreme Court case 4897/24 was conducted. Filed by “Beyadenu Returning to the Temple Mount” against the removal of Jewish ascenders from the Temple Mount, specifically against the removal of the organization’s CEO, Tom Nisani, due to a “campaign to encourage raising the Israeli flag on the Temple Mount,” and against police policies on the Mount.
As expected, the Supreme Court rejected the petition but simultaneously established a “legal framework” that obligates the police whenever it wishes to exercise restrictive authority against Jewish ascenders on the Temple Mount.
Key Legal Insights:
- The Supreme Court unequivocally reaffirmed that the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount is a fundamental constitutional right (“Basic right”, which must not be violated), and again recognized it as a place protected under the Protection of Holy Places Law (1967).
What does this mean in practice? Any restriction or infringement of the right of Jews to pray on or enter the Temple Mount may constitute a criminal offense. Additionally, any person who desecrates the sanctity of the site (for example, playing soccer on the Temple Mount) must face criminal prosecution (“Whoever who desecrates a holy place or harms it in any other way is liable to seven years imprisonment”)!
Full law: here
- The Supreme Court ruled that police have the authority to restrict entry (meaning, to ban Jews) from the Temple Mount under two cumulative conditions:
a. When there is a near-certain probability of severe harm to security and public order.
b. When there is solid and up-to-date factual basis.
In other words: When the police want to remove an individual from the Temple Mount, they must prove a solid and up-to-date intelligence-based factual evidence basis, and demonstrate a “near-certain probability of severe harm to security and public order.”
- The Supreme Court ruled that henceforth, it will not be permissible to remove Temple Mount ascenders if there is any suspicion against them of committing an offense for which they were detained or arrested. Until now, police would sometimes detain ascenders at the station on some criminal suspicion and take the opportunity to administratively remove them from the Temple Mount. The Supreme Court creates a separation between these cases!
If an ascender to the Temple Mount is detained or arrested at the station and the officer informs them that they are suspected of an offense, the officer is prohibited from issuing a removal order from the Temple Mount or conducting a pre-removal hearing.
- For the first time, the Supreme Court ruled that contrary to the state’s position over the years that the “political echelon” determines the restrictions on the Temple Mount, the police now bear full responsibility for all restrictions purportedly arising solely from security needs.
The Supreme Court effectively places full responsibility on the police, which can no longer hide behind claims of “instructions from the political echelon”! This includes numerous restrictions mentioned in the petition by “Beyadenu” and its Attorney Aviad Visuli, such as extending opening hours of the Temple Mount, allowing prayers on the Mount, ending the escorting of groups, security checks for Muslims entering the Temple Mount, ending administrative removals, and more.
