The entire country is in turmoil in the face of the "Century Plan," which includes American consent to apply sovereignty to vast territories from Area C. Certainly, applying sovereignty is a formative historical event. Some will support and some will oppose, man by his ideological, political, economic and political stance. But in the legal field there are two questions. One - is the government allowed to apply sovereignty or is it mandatory to get the Knesset's approval? Second - Is the current government, a transitional government, allowed to make such a dramatic move before the elections?

Under the present circumstances, the answer to both of these questions is positive. If the government recognizes a political opportunity window to implement a sovereignty process, and believes that the opportunity window may close until a new government is formed, its right - and even its duty - to immediately implement sovereignty through a government decree that does not require the Knesset's approval.

In order to understand the government's authority to apply Israeli law to territories in Judea and Samaria, it is worthwhile to look at how the trial was applied in Jerusalem in 1967. , The government issued an order that applied Israeli law to East Jerusalem.

A constituent event such as applying the state's law to additional land ropes would probably require reference from the Knesset. But this reference has already been given. The Knesset has recently enacted the law that states that its law will apply in Mandatory Israel west of Jordan. It required only one additional condition of government approval through an order for any territory cell to which Israeli law would apply. Therefore, when the government applied the Jerusalem law in 1967 through a government decree, and if the government applies the law in other areas of the valley or Judea and Samaria in 2020, it does not make a dramatic move contrary to the Knesset's position. Moreover, if the current Knesset has a majority who opposes a law that the Knesset passed in 1967, it can abolish the law, as long as it did not, applying sovereignty through a government decree is the implementation of Knesset legislation.

As for a transitional government, Basic Law: The government adopted the conclusions of the Branson Commission, and stated in Article 30 that the transitional government will have the full powers of a normal government. The same is true of many other countries, especially the US. However, the High Court has ruled that the government's discretion during a transition government is reduced, according to the test of reasonableness, so as not to set up final facts before the next government.

The question of whether the High Court should intervene in reasonable political decision-making, such as applying sovereignty, requires consideration. But the High Court ruling also states that a transitional government may and must act under urgent needs. Reasonable considerations are not just about creating finished facts for a future government through decision-making, but also about creating finished facts for a future government through failure to make a decision and not taking advantage of an opportunity window.

Therefore, if the government recognizes in President Trump's Centennial Plan a limited window of political opportunity to apply the law in areas that the legislature has already explicitly authorized to apply, then legally, in its authority to do so as a transitional government.

Dr. Aviad Bakshi is the head of the legal department at the Ecclesiastical Forum