Silwad
באדיבות יש דין
State tells court to butt out
High court shouldn't be imposing timetable for razing possibly illegal fence, State says
The High Court of Justice should not be imposing a timetable for razing a possibly illegal security fence in the West Bank, government representatives told the court Thursday.
The comments were made as the State filed a High Court rebuttal to a petition filed by Yesh Din – Volunteers for Human Rights, on behalf of the residents of the Palestinian village of Silwad, northeast of Ramallah, who asked the court to order the razing of a fence built near the village.
The State argued that the defense establishment has certain priorities when enforcing zoning and building guidelines in the West Bank and therefore cannot be rushed into tearing down the fence.
The Silwad petition was filed in December 2009, claiming that guard dogs, an illegal fence and blocked roads restrict the Palestinian farmers' access to their lands, which are adjacent to the West Bank settlement of Ofra.
Israeli authorities, namely the IDF, ignored the illegal fence erected by the settlers, said the petition.
The State asked the court to dismiss the petition, saying that Israeli authorities have just begun preparatory work meant to address claims of illegal fencing around Israeli communities in the West Bank, including the Silwad one.
The work, added the State, aims to map existing fences and set guidelines for dealing with illegal fencing. The State asked the court to allow the preparatory work to run its course, at the end of which the petitioners would be briefed of the results.
In any case, added the State, the IDF would be the one to determine zoning guideline execution priorities, and the razing of any fence found to be illegal would be subject to a schedule set by the military.
Attorney Shlomi Zecharia, for the petitioners, called the rebuttal "outrageous," adding that, "for the past eight years the State has done nothing to stop this illegal activity and facilitate the farmers' access to their land… thus hindering their livelihood, in clear violation of previous High Court rulings."
