For a selection of cases in which Honenu Attorneys represented Jews detained on or near the Temple Mount, please click here.
Monday, October 3, 2022, 15:33 On Monday, October 3, Jerusalem Magistrates Court Judge Amir Shaked rejected a request by the police to distance Temple Mount activist Emanuel Brosh from the area of the Eastern Wall and the Muslim Quarter and ordered his unconditional release from remand. This was the fourth hearing held on the matter of Brosh's shofar-blowing at the Eastern Wall. Judge Shaked also imposed payment of 2,000 NIS compensation to Brosh on the police. In his decision, Judge Shaked ruled that blowing a shofar at the Eastern Wall does not constitute any violation of the law. Knesset Member Simha Rothman (Religious Zionism) attended the hearing in support of the activist and also spoke before the court. Honenu Attorney Daniel Shimshilashvili represented Brosh.
Recently, Brosh came to the area of the Eastern Wall several times to blow a shofar and was detained on site. The police tried repeatedly to ban him from the site. However, the Jerusalem Magistrate and District Courts rejected the various requests from the police, and in doing so, determined that there are no grounds to prohibit blowing a shofar in the area of the Eastern Wall.
On Sunday (October 2), Brosh came to the area of the Eastern Wall accompanied by MK Simha Rothman and attempted to blow a shofar but was detained. At the following hearing, Judge Shaked wrote in his decision that he does not see any suspicion that Brosh violated any law and cited that no document was presented to him indicating that the suspect (Brosh) had violated the public order. In conclusion, Judge Shaked unconditionally released Brosh and ordered the police to pay him 2,000 NIS in compensation within 30 days.
Honenu Attorney Daniel Shimshilashvili, who is representing Brosh, stated, "The police repeatedly and blatantly violate legal decisions relating to freedom of worship at the Eastern Wall. I am pleased that the court fully agreed to our request and rejected the request by the police. The court ruled that there was no reasonable suspicion of violating the law and leveled strong criticism at the police. The police would do well to draw the correct conclusions and to devote their resources to those attacking Jews."