Кіріспе
Элиаким Рубинштейн (13 маусым 1947 жылы туған) – Израиль Жоғарғы Сотының бұрынғы вице-президенті. Ол 1997 жылдан 2004 жылға дейін Израильдің Бас прокуроры қызметін атқарған. Рубинштейн, бұрынғы Израиль дипломаты және ұзақ жылдар бойы мемлекеттік қызметте болған адам, осы елдің ішкі және сыртқы саясатында маңызды рөл атқарды, әсіресе Мысыр және Иорданиямен бейбіт келісімдер жасауға көмектесті.
Ерте өмір
Тель-Авивте туып, Гиватайимде өскен ол Тель-Авивтегі Циельтин діни жоғары мектебін бітіріп, Иерусалимдегі Еврей университетінде бакалавр (1969) және магистр (1974) дипломын алды.
Мансап
Рубинштейн заңгерлік мансабын бастады, 1970 жылдардың ортасында Қорғаныс және Сыртқы істер министрліктеріне заң кеңесшісі болып қызмет етті. Оның дипломатиялық мансабы 1977 жылы басталды, содан бері 1979 жылға дейін ол Израиль делегациясының мүшесі болды, екі ел арасындағы Камп-Дэвид келісімдеріне қол қойылғанға дейін Египетпен бейбіт келіссөздерге қатысты. Келісімдер аяқталғаннан кейін, 1980 жылы ол Сыртқы істер министрлігінің бас директорының көмекшісі болып тағайындалды, ол Египетпен қарым-қатынасты қалыпқа келтіруді жүзеге асырумен айналысты. 1980 жылдардың басында ол Сыртқы істер министрлігінде түрлі лауазымдарда жұмыс істеді, ал 1985-1986 жылдары Вашингтондағы Израиль елшілігінің миссия меңгерушісінің орынбасары болды. 1986 жылы ол Министрлер кабинетінің хатшысы болып тағайындалды және осы қызметінде Израиль-Америка қарым-қатынастарына қатысты түрлі мәселелермен айналысты. 1991 жылы ол Израильдің бейбіт келіссөздер тобының мүшесі ретінде Мадрид бейбіт конференциясына қатысты, ол (Израиль делегациясының төрағасы болды) 1993 жылғы Осло келісімдеріне жол ашты, бұл ізраил-палестина қақтығысындағы маңызды қадам болды. Осы келіссөздер аяқталғаннан кейін, ол 1994 жылы Израиль мен Иордания арасындағы бейбіт келісімге қол жеткізуге мүмкіндік берген Иорданиямен бейбіт келіссөздерге қатысқан Израиль делегациясына төрағалық етті. Содан кейін ол 1995 жылдан 1997 жылға дейін Иерусалим облыстық сотының судьясы, кейін Израильдің бас прокуроры болып қызмет етті, ол 2004 жылдың 25 қаңтарына дейін осы лауазымды иеленді. Ол Израильдің Жоғарғы соты туралы бірнеше кітап жазды, әсіресе иудаизмнің Израильдің саяси және құқықтық өмірімен байланысына ерекше назар аударды. Ол либералды реформатор ретінде танылды, діни плюрализмді қолдап, иудаизмнің барлық бағыттарын ұсыну үшін православие иудаизмінің қалыптасқан күштеріне қарсы тұрды. Оның ең маңызды жетістігі – Реформа және Консервативті иудаизмнің Иерусалимнің діни кеңесіне өкілдерін кіргізу болды, бұрын ол толығымен православие дінінің бақылауында болған. Ол Батыс қабырғаның бір бөлігін православие емес діндарларға ашуды ұсынды, бірақ бұл әлі күнге дейін сәтті болған жоқ. Рубинштейнге Израильдің биліктің жоғарғы лауазымдарындағы тұлғаларына қатысты істерде тым тартымсыз немесе шешім қабылдауға кешіккендігі үшін сын айтылды. Ол, әсіресе, премьер-министр Ариэль Шарон мен оның ұлы Ғиладқа қатысты сыбайлас жемқорлыққа байланысты қылмыстық істерді тым баяу тергегені үшін сынға ұшырады. Рубинштейннің бас прокурор лауазымынан кеткеннен кейін, мемлекеттік прокурор Эдна Арбель Шаронды пара алу айыбымен сотқа беруді ұсынды, бірақ Рубинштейннің орнына келген Менахем Мазуз Шаронды және оның ұлдарын ақтады, жеткіліксіз дәлелдер болғандықтан сыбайлас жемқорлық туралы айыптарды қарастырмады. 2004 жылдың мамыр айында Рубинштейн Израильдің Жоғарғы сотына тағайындалды. 2015 жылдың қаңтар айында ол Соттың вице-президенті болып тағайындалды, ол 70 жасқа толғанға дейін, 2017 жылға дейін осы лауазымды атқарды.
Бас прокурор ретінде
Рубинштейн либералды реформатор ретінде танылды, ол православие дінінің қалыптасқан күш-қуатына қарсы шығып, діни плюрализмді қолдады, соның арқасында Иудаизмнің барлық бағыттарын ұсынуға тырысты. Оның бұл жолындағы ең маңызды жетістігі – Реформа және Консервативті Иудаизмнің Иерусалимнің діни кеңесіне өкілдер жіберуі болды, бұрын бұл кеңес толығымен православиеліктердің бақылауында болған. Ол Батыс қабырғаның бір бөлігін православиелік емес дін өкілдеріне ашуды ұсынды, бірақ бұл әлі іске асырылмады. 1999 жылы Рубинштейн Сефардилердің бұрынғы бас раввині, ультра-православтық «Шас» партиясының негізін қалаушысы және рухани жетекшісі Овадия Йосефтің Жоғарғы Сот судьяларын «зұлымдар», «бос сөзді және ойсыз» және басқа да қатал сөздермен атағаны үшін тергеу жүргізбеуге шешім қабылдады. Бірақ бір жылдан кейін ол рабби Йосефтің зайырлы білім беру министрі Йосси Саридті Мысырдан шығу кітабындағы перғауынмен теңестіріп, оны Естер кітабындағы Хаман сияқты «жер бетінен жою керек» дегенінен кейін тергеу жүргізуге бұйрық берді. 2000 жылдың қаңтар айында Рубинштейн президент Эзер Вейцманнан 450 000 долларды досынан «сыйлық» ретінде алғанын Кнессетке және салық органдарына хабарламағаны туралы ақпарат баспасөзде жарияланғаннан кейін қаржылық құжаттарды ұсынуды сұрады. Алты айдан кейін Вейцман отставкаға кетті. Осыған қарамастан, Рубинштейнге Израильдің биліктегі шенеуніктерге қатысты істерде тым тартыншақтық танытқаны және әсіресе премьер-министр Ариэль Шарон мен оның ұлы Ғиладқа қатысты жемқорлыққа байланысты айыптаулар бойынша тым баяу әрекет еткені үшін сын көп болды. Бас прокурор лауазымынан кеткеннен кейін бірнеше апта өткен соң мемлекеттік прокурор Эдна Арбель Шаронды пара алуда айыптауды ұсынды. Алайда, Рубинштейннің бастапқы күмәні кейіннен оның орнына келген Менахем Мазуздың жеткіліксіз дәлелдерге байланысты Шарон мен оның ұлына жемқорлық айыптамаларын қоймауымен расталды. 2003 жылғы заң шығарушы сайлау науқаны кезінде Бас прокурор Рубинштейн Орталық сайлау комиссиясының антисионистік «Балад» партиясы мен оның жетекшісі Азми Бишараны, сондай-ақ оңшыл «Ямин Исраел» партиясының Барух Марзелін сайлауға қатысуын тоқтату туралы шешімін қолдады, бірақ ол Ахмад Тибиді Ясир Арафатты жария түрде қолдағаны үшін, оны терроризмді жақтау деп есептегендіктен, оның кандидатурасын қабылдамау туралы шешімге қарсылық білдірді. Комиссия өз шешімін Кнессет туралы негізгі заңның 7-бабына сүйендірді, онда Кнессетке кандидаттар мемлекеттің еврейлік және демократиялық сипатына қарсы шығуға, расизмді уағыздауға немесе жау мемлекеттің немесе террористік ұйымның қарулы шабуылдарын қолдауға құқығы жоқ делінген. Рубинштейн тіпті Бишараға тыйым салуды қолдау үшін Шин Бет жинаған ақпаратты Сотқа ұсынды (содан кейін ол 2006 жылғы Ливан соғысы кезінде «Хезболлаға» кеңес бергені және араб көмек ұйымдарынан миллиондаған шекел ұрлағаны үшін елден қашып кетті). Алайда, «Балад», Бишара және Марзельге сайлауға қатысуға рұқсат берілді, өйткені Жоғарғы Сот оларға қатысты шешімдерді жоққа шығарды.
Тарихи маңызды шешімдер
CA 4243/08 бағалаушы қызметкер Дэн аймағы Верд Периге қарсы 2009 жылғы 30 сәуірдегі: Рубинштейн төрт әріптесіне қосылып, Тель-Авив аудандық сотының жұмыс істейтін ата-аналарға бала күтіміне кеткен шығындарды салықтан шегеруге рұқсат беретін маңызды шешімін қолдады. Өзінің келісетін пікірінде ол Ливавицкий реббесі Менахем Мендель Шнеерсонның Халахадағы қайырымдылық міндеттемесі туралы түсініктемесін келтірді, яғни еврей діни заңындағы осы міндетті Израильдің азаматтық құқығына қатысты қолдану қажеттігін айтты және былай қорытындылады: мәтін= Көрініп тұрған сурет – Халаха қажетті шығындарды, оның ішінде қамқоршыға төленген ақыны, ондықтан (ма’асер кесафим) шегерім жасауға жарамды деп санайды, ал біздің жағдайға ұқсастығы айқын.
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
HCJ 746/07 Раген Транспорт министрлігіне қарсы 2011 жылғы 5 қаңтардағы: Жоғарғы сот атынан сөйлеген Рубинштейн, қоғамдық автобустардың харедимдердің (ұлта-ортодоксалдық) қысымына басып, жолаушыларды жыныс бойынша бөлуге рұқсат беруге құқығы жоқ екенін, АҚШ азаматтық құқық қозғалысын үлгі ретінде келтірді: мәтін= Қоғамдық көлік операторы, кез келген адам сияқты, әйелдерге олар әйел болғандықтан қайда отыру керектігін бұйыруға, сұрауға немесе айтуға құқығы жоқ. Олар қалаған жерде отыруы керек. Осы жолдарды баса айтып отырғанда, 2010 жылы мұндай жағдайға түсініктеме берудің қажеті болғанына таңғаламын. 1955 жылы Алабама автобусындағы расистік сегрегацияны жойған афроамерикандық Роза Паркстің күндері қайта келді ме?
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
HCJ 6298/07 Ресслер Кнессетке қарсы 2012 жылғы 21 ақпандағы: Рубинштейн Жоғарғы соттың көпшілігімен бірге «Таль заңы» конституцияға қайшы екенін жариялады. Бұл заң Израиль қорғаныс күштерінде (ИДҚ) міндетті әскери қызметтен ультра-ортодоксалдық еврейлерге ерекше босатуды және Израиль арабтарына міндетті әскери қызметті ұзартуды көздейді. Діни көзқарастары бар Рубинштейн, өзінің жазбаша шешімінде дәстүрлі еврей мәтіндерінен көптеген үзінділерді енгізді. Бұл бұрынғы бас раввин Йосефті Жоғарғы сотты «бөтендердің соты» деп атауға, Рубинштейн мен оның әріптестерін «зұлым» деп айыптауға және оларға синагог дұғаларын басқаруға рұқсат бермеуге итермеледі. мәтін= Дегенмен, шындықты мойындауымыз керек, басқа елдердегі еврей хареди қоғамынан айырмашылығы, онда тек бірнеше дарынды адамдар ғана өмір бойы Тораның көлеңкесінде өмір сүре алатынын түсінеді, Израильде бүкіл күрделі әлеуметтанулық жүйе құрылды, тіпті оның басшылары жүректерінің түбінде жақсы емес және орынсыз екенін біледі, өйткені әскери борыштан мыңдаған адамдар иешиваларда отырады, бұл олардың орны емес. Егер олар ИДҚ-да қызмет етсе және басқалар сияқты жұмыс істеп, Тораға уақыт бөлсе, мемлекетке, қоғамға және өздеріне де пайдалы болар еді.
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
HCJ 3094/11 Ибрагим Фархуд Абу аль-Киан және басқалар Израиль мемлекетіне қарсы 2015 жылғы 5 мамырдағы: Умм аль-Хиран ісі бойынша шешім қабылдағанда Рубинштейн былай деп жазды: мәтін= Мемлекет даудағы жерлердің иесі, олар келісім процесінің шеңберінде оның атына тіркелген; тұрғындар жерге ешқандай құқық алған жоқ, бірақ оларды [ешқандай рұқсатсыз] қоныстандырды, оны мемлекет заңды түрде жойды. Мұндай жағдайда алдыңғы соттардың шешімдеріне араласудың еш негізі жоқ.
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
CA 3094/11 Аль-Киан Израиль мемлекетіне қарсы 2015 жылғы 5 мамырдағы: Аль-Аракеб ісінде сот 2007 жылғы Біріккен Ұлттар Ұйымы Бас ассамблеясының «Жергілікті халықтардың құқықтары туралы» Декларациясы және 1992 жылғы Австралия сотының жергілікті халықтардың құқықтарын қолдайтын шешімі міндетті емес және бекітілген халықаралық әдет-ғұрыптық құқықты көрсетпейтінін мәлімдеді. Өзінің шешімінде Рубинштейн, судья Нил Хенделмен бірге, ауылды алып тастауға келісім берді, былай деп атап өтті: Бұл қуу емес және иемдену емес, бірақ ұсынылған эвакуация көшіру, құрылыс, өтемақы және үйлер мүмкіндігі туралы әртүрлі ұсыныстарды қамтиды, қатысы бар заңсыз ауылдардың тұрғындарының көпшілігі көшірілетін Хура қаласындағы немесе Хиран қауымдастығында, ол салынуы тиіс.
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
Бір айдан кейін ол Израильдің Бас раввинатының қатысуынсыз тәуелсіз конверсиялық соттар арқылы иудаизмге айналған иммигранттарды елдің қайтару заңы бойынша еврей ретінде тану керек деген шешімге көпшілікпен қосылды. HCJ 4374/15 Сапалы үкімет қозғалысы Израиль премьер-министріне қарсы 2016 жылғы 27 наурыздағы: Рубинштейн Израильдің табиғи газ жоспарын жарамсыз деп таныған Жоғарғы соттың шешімін жазып, апелляция берушілерге қолдау білдірді, оның ішінде Израильдегі сапалы үкімет қозғалысы, Израильдің қоршаған ортаны қорғау одағы және Израильдің еңбек партиясы мен Мерец. Бұл шешімді премьер-министр Беньямин Нетаньяху сынға алды, ол «сот шешімі Израиль мемлекетінің газ қорын дамытуға үлкен қауіп төндіреді. Израиль - сот ісінің шектен тыс араласуымен бизнес жүргізу қиынға соғатын мемлекет». Рубинштейн былай деп жазды: мәтін= Жоспардың осы тарауындағы тұрақтылық шарты, онда үкімет он жыл бойы заң шығаруды тоқтатып қана қоймай, сонымен қатар жоспардың ережелеріне қарсы кез келген заңға қарсы күрес жүргізуге міндеттенеді, биліксіз анықталды және ол қабылданбайды. Бұл әкімшілік құқық бойынша әкімшілік биліктің сот төрелігін шектеуге тыйым салу туралы жалпы қағидаға қайшы келеді. Үкіметтің шешім қабылдамауды және әрекет етпеуді шешуге билігі жоқ.
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
HCJ 5304/15 Израиль медициналық қауымдастығы Израиль Кнессетімен 2016 жылғы 11 қыркүйектегі: Рубинштейн, Жоғарғы соттағы басқа судьялармен бірге, терроризмге қатысты айыптар бойынша түрмеге қамалған палестиналық аштыққа шыққандардың талаптарын қабылдаудан бас тартты, олардың дәрігерлермен күштеп тамақтандыруға рұқсат беруге қатысты заңға түзетулерге наразылық білдірді. Түзетуді конституциялық деп жариялаған Рубинштейн, сот атынан былай мәлімдеді: аштыққа шыққан адам – қалыпты пациент емес, өзінің өмірін қауіпті жағдайға әдейі және ерікті түрде қоятын адам, наразылық білдіру немесе жеке немесе қоғамдық мақсатқа жету құралы ретінде. Сондай-ақ ол Франция, АҚШ, Австралия, Германия және Австрия заңдарындағы ерекше жағдайларда күштеп тамақтандыруға рұқсат берілетінін атап өтті. Сонымен қатар, ол Еуропалық адам құқықтары сотының тиісті шешімдері күштеп тамақтандыруға толығымен тыйым салмайды деп мәлімдеді. Қауіпсіздік мәселелері өздігінен күштеп емдеуді қолдануды қажет етпесе де, Рубинштейн, емдеуші дәрігер пациенттің денсаулық жағдайының ауыр екенін және өміріне қауіп төнуі мүмкін екенін немесе емдемеу пациентті қайтымсыз салдарға ұшыратуы мүмкін екенін анықтаған жағдайда, мұндай мәселелерді ескеруге болады деді. Кейбір ізраилдік құқық қорғау ұйымдары мен апелляция беруші Израиль медициналық қауымдастығы (ИМА) сот шешіміне қарсы болды. ИМА өзінің мүшелеріне оны елемеуге нұсқау беретінін мәлімдеді. «Бұл медициналық этика заңнан жоғары тұратын жағдай, және дәрігерлерге біз жеткізгіміз келетін хабар күштеп тамақтандыру – азаптауға тең және ешбір дәрігер оған қатысуы тиіс емес», деді қауымдастықтың президенті.
text= The emerging picture is that Halakha regards necessary expenses, including expenses for a caregiver, as appropriate for deduction from the basis of tithes (ma’aser kesafim), and the analogy to our case is clear.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Assessment Officer Dan Region v. Vered Peri
HCJ 746/07 Ragen v. Ministry of Transport of January 5, 2011: Speaking for the High Court of Justice, Rubinstein ruled that public buses could not bow to pressure from Haredim (ultra Orthodox) Jews and segregate passengers by gender without their consent, citing the American civil rights movement as his precedent:
text=A public transportation operator, like any other person, does not have the right to order, request or tell women where they may sit simply because they are women. They must sit wherever they like. As I now read over these lines emphasizing this I am astounded that there was even a need to write them in the year 2010. Have the days of Rosa Parks, the African American woman who collapsed the racist segregation on an Alabama bus in 1955, returned?|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Haaretz
HCJ 6298/07 Ressler v Knesset of February 21, 2012: Rubinstein sided with the High Court's majority declaring the so called Tal Law unconstitutional. The law provided special exemption from mandatory military service in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to ultra Orthodox Jews and extended mandatory military service to Israeli Arabs. Rubinstein, who is religious, included numerous texts from traditional Jewish texts in his written ruling. This prompted former Chief Rabbi Yosef to label the High Court "a court of gentiles," call Rubinstein and his colleagues "wicked" and declare that they should not be allowed to lead synagogue prayers. text=Nevertheless, we need to admit the truth, [that] unlike in Jewish Haredi society in other countries, which has understood that only a few brilliant individuals can live under the tent of Torah all their lives, in Israel a whole complicated sociological system has been built that even its leaders know, deep in their hearts, is not good and not appropriate, that because of military duty thousands of people sit in the yeshivot, where it is not their place These people, if they served in IDF, and if they worked like any other person while also making time for Torah would be efficient both to the state, to their community and to themselves.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Resler v. Knesset
While sitting on the High Court, Rubinstein ruled in favor of evicting residents of two of the 46 unrecognized Bedouin villages inside Israel that were established illegally, without official administrative or planning approval. HCJ 3094/11 Ibrahim Farhood Abu al Qi’an et al v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In ruling on the case of Umm al Hiran, Rubinstein wrote:
text=The state is the owner of the lands in dispute, which were registered in its name in the framework of the arrangement process; the residents have acquired no rights to the land but have settled them [without any authorization], which the state cancelled legally. In such a situation, there is no justification for intervention in the rulings of the previous courts.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=i24news
CA 3094/11 Al Qi'an v. the State of Israel of May 5, 2015: In a case involving Al Araqeeb, the court stated that the 2007 United Nations General Assembly’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and a pro indigenous peoples’ rights 1992 Australia court ruling were not binding and did not reflect codified customary international law. In his decision, Rubinstein, together with Justice Neal Hendel, approved the removal of the village, stating:
Blockquote|text=This is not expulsion and not expropriation, but the proposed evacuation involves various proposals of moving, construction, compensation and the possibility of homes, whether in the town of Hura where most of the residents of the illegal villages involved will be moved, or in the community of Hiran, which is to be built.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein and Neal Hendel|source=The Jerusalem Post A month later, he joined with the majority in another landmark ruling that held that immigrants who converted to Judaism through independent conversion courts outside the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel must be recognized as Jews under the country's Law of Return. HCJ 4374/15 The Movement for Quality Government v. The Prime Minister of Israel of March 27, 2016: Rubinstein wrote the High Court's decision invalidating Israel's natural gas plan, siding with the appellants, which included the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, the Israel Union for Environmental Defense, and the Israel Labor Party and Meretz. The ruling was criticized by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said in response that "the court's decision seriously threatens the development of gas reserves of the State of Israel. Israel is seen as a state in which excessive judicial intervention makes it difficult to do business with." Rubinstein wrote:
text=The stability clause in this chapter of the plan, in which the government undertakes for a decade to not only not legislate but to also fight any legislation against the plan’s provisions, was determined without authority – and as such is rejected. It was determined in contrast to the general principle of administrative law regarding the prohibition of shackling the authority’s ability to judge. The government does not have the power to decide not to decide and not to act.|sign=Elyakim Rubinstein|source=Yedioth Ahronoth
HCJ 5304/15 Israel Medical Association v. Israel Knesset of September 11, 2016: Rubinstein, joined by other justices on the High Court, denied petitions on behalf of Palestinian hunger strikers imprisoned on terrorism related charges, challenging an amendment to the law that permits their force feeding by physicians. Declaring the amendment constitutional, Rubinstein, writing for the Court, declared that a hunger striker "is not an ordinary patient but a person who knowingly and willingly places himself in a dangerous situation as a protest or a means of attaining a personal or public goal." He also noted that laws in France, the United States, Australia, Germany, and Austria enable forced artificial feeding under exceptional cases that vary from country to country. Moreover, he argued, relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights do not completely prohibit forced feeding. Although security considerations by themselves do not justify the use of forced treatment, Rubinstein stated, such considerations may be weighed when a treating physician has already determined that the prisoner’s medical status is grave and that there is a real danger to his or her life or that lack of treatment will expose the prisoner to an irreversible serious handicap. Certain Israeli human rights organizations and the appellant, the Israel Medical Association (IMA), opposed the Court's decision. The IMA announced that it would instruct its members to ignore it. "This is a case in which medical ethics unequivocally trump the law, and the message we wish to convey to physicians is that forced feeding is tantamount to torture and that no doctor should take part in it," stated the association's president.
Жеке өмір
Рубинштейннің әйелі Мириам да адвокат, мемлекеттік прокурор кеңсесінің азаматтық істер бөлімінің бұрынғы директоры және күйеуі сияқты Иерусалим аудандық сотының бұрынғы судьясы. Олардың төрт қызы болды, олардың бірі Сари 2016 жылғы 25 қазанда 39 жасында қатерлі ісіктен қайтыс болды. Екі кішкентай қызының анасы Сари, ата-анасы сияқты заң білімін алып, адвокаттық емтиханды тапқаннан кейін лицензия алған адвокат болды, содан кейін Сыртқы істер министрлігіне кадет ретінде қабылданды. Елаким мен Мирам Рубинштейннің 11 немересі бар.