+59: High Courts Construing Directives

Unless it is just an emphasis to what the reasoning in the opinion leads, I think that it is unacceptable for a higher court to tell its lower courts that a decision it made should not be construed broadly, or that it has limited scope, and similar restrictions. Otherwise, what is the difference between this power to make exceptions and just doing whatever wanted?   

+58: "Israeli" Vs. "Jewish"

I am thinking if a man suddenly finds out that he came from Jew parents, of course that may change nothing in whatever believe he had already chosen but it is still a fact that should not be denied, how could he express that ancestral belonging when he wants? Actually, even including the person having the Judaism faith, I think that having the forced association implied with the word "Jew" between faith and ancestral belonging as the only way to express ancestral belonging,   could hardly be a healthy thing. I think that the word "Jewish" is too general for expressing ancestral belonging at that level. On the other hand, the word "Israeli" as a reference to being a descendant of Jacob is probably more needed and better fit for the use of this mere ancestral belonging than giving that state the name of that man. The word "Israelite" seems a better fit for belonging to that state if it can still be used. Anyway, even if there is not a ready word for that I think that both surrendering to that forced association or ignoring a fact seen as self related as this could be, because of that association, may both be unhealthy choices. Freud once expressed himself as "Godless Jew", having to show subtracting the faith part of that association.   

Here, in this country, it is important to point out that intending to express existence is a different thing from intending to express separation and contrast.