ERUSALEM, June 30 — The Israel Supreme Court ruled today
that the barrier the Army is building along the West Bank to wall
off Israelis from terror attacks must take into account the needs of
Palestinian farmers and others who would be cut off from lands they
need for their livelihoods.
The decision by the three-judge court did recognize that Israel
has a legitimate security rationale for building a barrier and can
expropriate plots of land in the West Bank for it. But the court
said the Army high command "has a legal duty to balance properly
between security considerations and humanitarian ones."
The barrier's current path, the court ruled, requires seizing
tens of thousands of acres of land that "would generally burden the
entire way of life in petitioners' villages."
The decision, technically affecting only eight Palestinian
villages with 35,000 residents northwest of Jerusalem and only 25
miles of the barrier, sets a precedent for how Israel can go about
completing the structure, which is already one quarter built. The
entire barrier, when completed, would run for 437 miles from the
northern West Bank, wrap around some settlements like Ariel quite
deep in occupied territory, and stretch down to the southern rim of
the West Bank.
In most areas, the barrier consists of an electronic fence with
coils of razor wire, adjoining trenches and guard towers, but about
five percent consists of concrete walls rising upwards of 20
feet.
The ruling, however, did not address whether the barrier could
extend deep into Palestinian territory to protect Israeli
settlements like Ariel. But legal experts said the court would
closely scrutinize any challenged sections to make sure they conform
to principles set down in today's ruling.
The decision set off measured satisfaction in the hardscrabble
village of Beit Sourik, whose village council was the chief
petitioner in the case. Its farmers protested that they would be cut
off from most of the terraced land on which they grow olives, grapes
and figs.
"We looked at the wall as a catastrophe for our village because
we have high unemployment and if some people get income it was the
result of farming," said the mayor of Beit Sourik, Mohammed Kandil,
in an interview in his office here.
"They want to confiscate and steal the land," the mayor said.
"Security is a pretext."
There was also glee in the adjoining Israel town of Mevasseret
Zion, whose Israeli residents had joined the Palestinians in arguing
that a fence rising between them would actually increase animosity
and thereby lessen the sense of safety. Just last week, children
from the two towns joined together to fly kites as sign of the
friendly relationship between them that would be damaged by the
construction of too invasive a fence.
The Ministry of Defense said it would abide by the ruling and
re-draw 18.6 miles of the 25 mile section of the fence to comply
with the court principles. It would also have to move 1.9 miles
already built. The ministry had contended in court that it drew the
route to create enough distance and take in the right topographical
features to stop potential gunfire emanating from the village or the
approach of a suicide bomber. It is likely that in a new mapping for
the barrier some farmland will still be taken, but the petitioners
believe it will be a lot less than the original route.
Israel says that the barrier is strictly a security measure,
intended to prevent Palestinian suicide bombings and other attacks,
and that it could be moved or torn down at a later date.
Palestinians denounce it as a land confiscation that would greatly
disrupt the lives of many Palestinians and complicate efforts to
establish a Palestinian state.
The Bush administration has said that it does not object to the
barrier in principle, but believes that it should be on, or very
close to, the borders Israel had before the 1967 war in which
Israel, trying to forestall attacks from its neighbors, captured the
West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
.gif){kind=spacer}
