No, Homesh is area C under full Israeli control. Jews and Arabs are allowed to visit. This is unlike area A and B where Arabs (including Israelis) may visit but are forbidden for Jews.

WHATS THE BIG DEAL Let them stay under their own accord 100% percent NO ARMY OR POLICE for protection

coming back to Homesh.

it is determined based upon whether or not there is imminent danger to civilian population based upon the military security situation. Therefore, the army may at any time in any location declare a closed military zone. For example a closed military zone may be declared for Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. Past examples include: 1991 during Gulf War w/in green line certain cities were declared closed military zones. and during the late 1980s the time of the first intifada certain areas of Jerusalem were deemed closed military zones. Therefore number 2 your comment is not relevant.

see firsthand pictures of the trips to Homesh at orangeisrael.org and click on past events

Be careful what you say. What happened in the North last year -with army protection?. When will you elite northeners realise that Homesh is just the same as Kiryat Shmoneh. Most of you supported the expulsion of Jews from Gush Katif and Shomron. What happened? Measure for measure. Close to a million had to leave the north a year later (albeit temporarily) But be warned. Do not wish on others which you do not wish upon yourselves.

Good for the judge.Homesh was always a stupid political law and his in5terpitation puts a end to The ccorrupt olmert and co.sick idea.Hope the people go back and build Israel

regarding the separation barrier in the occupied territories. So the Juvenile court has to mature to adult phase Before being negated.

Also, both the ICJ advisory opinion and the Supreme Court's ruling were based on the same normative parameters - humanitarian law. In int'l law, humanitarian considerations are examined in the context of military necessity. The ICJ, however, did not examine Israel's security needs vis-a-vis the fence, since they did not not mention terror a single time (unless quoting the question that was posed to them by the UN general assembly). Instead, they chose to use softer language and call deliberate attacks on civilians 'armed attacks' or 'violence'. Given that, prior to the construction of the fence, dozens of terrorists got into Israel and TARGETED these aforementioned civilians, which is ALWAYS illegal under international law, this seems like a pretty critical omission. As such, the advisory opinion is one-sided and bogus. Not that this matters since, as stated, it is NON-BINDING.

the rule stressed the illegality of the barrier. being advisory does not mean Israel is not guilty. being advisory does not mean it can not be taken to the UN or other jury bodies. It's only due to the technicality; the Int'l court has no executive system, and before all Israel did not declare in advance that it would bind by the court decision. That's because Isarael is ready to drop any morality by the false excuse of keeping security, but in fact it's keeping occupied land. Go to the title of the advisory opinion, it has been stated clearly The Occupied Palestinian Territory.