As part of the gradual preparation for the incorporation of the American ripeness doctrine into Israeli law, it has been justified on a number of grounds. A fundamental discussion of the scope of the doctrine may be found in three important legal cases, which coined the term “the ripeness doctrine, Israel style.” A review of these cases reveals that while there is widespread consensus among the Israeli Supreme Court justices regarding the actual adoption of the ripeness doctrine, there is disagreement – and even confusion – regarding the manner of its implementation. In this article, I would like to present a principled position that opposes the adoption of the American ripeness doctrine in Israeli constitutional law. This position rests on four main arguments: (1) no methodology whatsoever has been employed to incorporate the American ripeness doctrine into Israeli constitutional law; (2) the objectives underlying the ripeness doctrine, as presented by the Court, even if worthy and correct in themselves, do not compel the incorporation of the American doctrine into Israeli law; (3) the adoption of the ripeness doctrine in Israeli law, including its development in terms of scope and application is ambiguous, replete with inconsistencies, and creates legal uncertainty; and, (4) it seems that the incorporation of the ripeness doctrine into Israeli law is motivated by the judiciary’s desire to avoid conflict with the political authorities, principally the legislature, particularly in light of ongoing political threats to curtail the Court’s powers.
Mohammed S. Wattad,
"UFO": When the American Doctrine of Ripeness Visited Israel,
9 Penn. St. J.L. & Int'l Aff.
Available at: https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/jlia/vol9/iss1/5