Justice Dorit Beinish
Photo: AFP
Harsha outpost
Photo: Shaul Golan
Court criticizes State over illegal outposts
Supreme Court president, two other judges give State four months to set timetable for evacuation of 18 buildings in two West Bank outposts. 'It's the State's basic duty to uphold the law and enforce it,' court says
The High Court of Justice on Monday harshly criticized the State's failure to evacuate 18 buildings in two illegal West Bank outposts.
The judges, who were discussing a petition filed by the left-wing Peace Now movement and Dror Etkes, considered issuing an absolute order, but eventually gave the State four more months to detail the results of hearing procedures which will be held for the tenants before the evacuation.
Supreme Court President Dorit Beinish and Justices Elyakim Rubinstein and Yoram Danziger wrote in their decision, "Under these circumstances, in accordance with its own stand, the State should have realized its eviction orders or, at the very least, set a realistic timetable for them, as part of its duty to uphold and enforce the law."
Promise
Defense minister meets with US envoy Mitchell, sees 'progress' in talks although 'there's still a way to go. Mitchell assured by Barak that Israel will dismantle the 23 illegal outposts in space of weeks or months – not years
The petition was filed four years ago and relates to six buildings set up without a license at the illegal outpost of Harsha, east of the Talmon settlement, and 12 buildings set up without a license in the outpost of Hayovel, south of the Eli settlement.
The State claimed that demolition orders had been issued and that the authorities planned to enforce their implementation, in accordance with a plan of action which would be formed later on. The State later said it was mapping the illegal construction and would set a timetable for enforcement actions.
After several delays the State asked for in order to complete the mapping work and set the timetables, last year the State detailed the planned enforcement actions.
"The respondent's desire to execute the required evacuation without using force can be understood. Their approach to set priorities for the enforcement in light of the many steps they must take against the violations of the law in the construction of buildings and illegal outposts, can also be understood," the judges wrote.
They determined, however, that "the development of events so far, since the petition was filed, has been taking more than four years. The State's consistent stand, as presented to the court in its initial responses to the petition, reveals that the discussed buildings were constructed illegally, some on private land, and are therefore subject to demolition orders since 2005."
Despite the harsh criticism, the court expressed its consideration for the fact that the buildings are popular, "and those living in them have their own claims, and there is no disagreement over the fact that those involved in the matter must undergo a hearing procedure before the demolition orders are implemented.
"Therefore, we have decided to refrain from issuing the order this time, but to order the State to launch proceedings ahead of implementing the orders it has issued. Under these circumstances, we have found that before submitting our final ruling on this petition, there is a need to begin the required hearing procedures – without any further delay."
The High Court ruled that the State must submit an update within four months on the results of the hearing procedure, and then announce a timetable for completing the implementation of the orders. The court will then decide how to carry on with the petition.
