High Court rejects petitions against fence
Supreme Court President Beinish declares 'route is based on security considerations, need to protect the residents of Efrat; military commander is authorized to build a security fence for that purpose'
The High Court of Justice rejected petitions against separation fence works in the area of the Efrat settlement in Gush Etzion.
The petitions were filed by Palestinians who claimed that the state's decision to build the fence in that area expropriated residents from the land that is their source of livelihood.
Supreme Court President Judge Dorit Beinish wrote in the verdict that "the question of the legality of the settlement of Israeli residents in Efrat is not up for discussion today. This question does not effect the military commander's responsibility to protect the lives, security and honor of each and every one of the Israeli settlers, and he is authorized to build a security fence for that purpose."
Beinish further wrote that "the route is based on security considerations due to the need to protect the safety and security of the residents of Efrat. At the basis of the construction of the fence stands a security need". Following the rejection of the petitions, the interim order forbidding the continuation of works in the area was cancelled.
In November last year, a special nine-judge High Court panel, headed by former Chief Justice Aharon Barak, ruled that the route of the West Bank separation fence in the Bir Naballah area north of Jerusalem was legal, thus rejecting five petitions filed on the matter.
The decision to build a segment of the fence around Jerusalem was aimed at preventing the infiltration of terrorists into the capital; it was further decided that the first section would separate Givat Zeev and Ramallah, while the second would come between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.
Former High Court President Aharon Barak wrote: "The Military Commander has to weight conflicting options. Maximal defense of security is meant to be bound to immeasurable harm to Palestinian residents, and abstention from harming Palestinian residents is meant to greatly threaten security. The solution to this conflict is not a matter of all or nothing. The solution is in finding a balance between the conflicting interests."
