Our eyes can see: This reality of uncontrolled waves of infiltration has been accompanied by the creation of real economic and social problems, problems that have made the daily lives of many residents very difficult in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Thus, the demand to formulate a comprehensive solution to the issue of infiltration sprouted on land that is not virgin. The fabric of many lives has been deeply and sustainably damaged. A legitimate and important question is to what extent it would be right to cancel the suffering of one group from the suffering of another.
- On the operational level, I will preface by saying that my opinion is the same as that of President Grunis. I am also of the opinion that the petitions against the Prevention of Infiltration Law (Offenses and Jurisdiction) (Amendment No. 4 and Temporary Order), 5774-2013 (hereinafter: Amendment No. 4) should be dismissed. In my view, there is no reason to order the cancellation of section 30A of the Prevention of Infiltration Law (Offenses and Jurisdiction), 5714-1954 (hereinafter: the Law), which deals with the placement of the infiltrator in custody. This is in view of the shortening of the maximum period of time to a period of one year, compared to the period of time that was the focus of the hearing in the High Court of Justice case 7146/12 Adam v. Knesset [published in Nevo] (September 16, 2013), as well as due to additional protection mechanisms that have now been introduced by the legislature. Chapter 4 of the Law – an open residence center – also passes the constitutional hurdle, with the exception of one aspect – the obligation to appear three times for registration.
The President's approach and reasoning, including the perspective he presented regarding constitutional review and the scope of the constitutional scope granted to the Knesset, are very acceptable to me. In light of the resolute polarization of the President and my colleagues A. Fogelman - I found it necessary to add a few of my own highlights. Some of them deal individually with the two parts of the petition before us – custody and an open residence center, and some of them relate to the principled constitutional approach that arises explicitly or between the lines.