The Supreme Court severely criticized the closure of agricultural territory in the West Bank, and demanded that the state specify the steps it intends to take to secure the olive harvest and free passage to the land throughout the year, and to clarify how it intends to enforce the law on Israeli lawbreakers in the occupied territories
The Supreme Court justices, Dorit Beinisch and Salim Joubran, yesterday (11.9.05) voiced severe criticism of Israeli security services’ policy of closing off agricultural land in the West Bank and denying Palestinian farmers access to their land for the majority of the year. They also criticized the fact that even when even when the land is not officially under closure, it is often closed, de facto, in response to violence perpetrated by Jewish settlers, or as a result of an ad hoc decision taken by the army. The criticism was voiced during the hearing of a petition submitted by ACRI and the organization, Rabbis for Human Rights in the midst of the olive harvest, almost a year ago. In the petition, that was submitted on behalf of five West Bank Palestinian local councils against IDF and police commanders in the West Bank, the court is asked to issue a ruling permitting the entry of these village residents, and other Palestinian residents of the West Bank, to their land throughout the year, and in particular during the plowing season and the olive harvest. The court is also asked to order the army and police commanders in the area to use all the means at their disposal to prevent attacks and harassment against Palestinian farmers by Jewish settlers, and to ensure that Palestinian residents of the West Bank can work their land safely. The petition was submitted by ACRI Attorney Limor Yehuda. Upon the conclusion of the hearing, Justices Dorit Beinisch, Salim Joubran and Eliezer Rivlin, allocated 15 days to the state to provide a detailed response to the concerns raised by the petitioning organizations, and for the provision of detailed information of the planned deployment to protect the upcoming olive harvest that will be begin in a week. An additional hearing is expected to be held after the state has submitted its clarifications. The court also ordered the state to provide a detailed explanation within 40 days of its law enforcement policy in the occupied territories regarding violence perpetrated by the settlers.
Justice Beinisch emphasized in the hearing, that the state’s response to the court did not provide any evidential basis attesting to its claim of a connection between the closure of the territory and potential attacks against Jewish settlements and illegal outposts in the area. She further added that this consideration has arisen even before the question of the legality of the closure, which is designated to protect the illegal outposts, has been dealt with. The need to protect the lives of the residents of these outposts, as long as they are not evicted, she further emphasized, does not justify the imposition of disproportionate limitations like preventing [farmers] from working on their land or in their orchards, especially as there are alternative methods of protecting them. Maybe those ten caravans do have to be protected in an area like that, but it must be without closing the surrounding agricultural land, Beinisch stated. Justice Joubran added that there is a need for the army to undergo a drastic change in conception. If there is a fear of terrorist action, he explained, the residents of the Jewish settlements could be warned and told not to leave their houses, rather than preventing farmers from earning a livelihood.
Attorney Limor Yehuda emphasized both in the petition and the hearing, the need to enforce the law in the occupied territories and to prevent injury to Palestinians during their agricultural harvests. She provided the justices with examples of instances in which the security services did not act against attackers, even when they were present at the site, and in some cases the soldiers or police took action against the Palestinians under attack, either by separating them from their land, or by carrying out arrests among the victims of the violence. The instances in which charges have been brought against violent Jewish settlers are extremely meager, even in comparison to the numbers that were caught “red handed” and/or were even detained or arrested. She further emphasized the importance of making clear to the soldiers or policemen of all ranks that their job includes the protection of Palestinian residents from violent attacks. In addition to which all orders for the closure of agricultural land should be cancelled, as should the closure of additional territory that is carried out in the absence of any formal order by the army (something that is continually happening even though it contravenes the specific undertakings by the state in the presence of the court). Attorney Yehuda also made clear the need for effective supervision by the state of weapons owned by Jewish settlers who are suspected of carrying out violent acts. Even the areas security coordinators who are employed by the army, issued weapons and are authorized to use them, Yehuda adds, frequently use these weapons for illegal acts against Palestinians. The petition also point out the critical need for permanent and well trained security personnel to guard and protect farmers and their land in light of the numerous incidents of arson, the uprooting or clearing of trees, and crop stealing.
The petition was submitted when it became clear that during this olive harvesting season, as in previous ones, the military forces are denying access to the harvesters to large areas of their agricultural land. Entry is permitted only through advanced coordination with the army, and only during the harvesting season, which severely undermines the quality of the crop. A delegation of representatives of Rabbis for Human Rights who provided daily assistance during the harvest, discovered whole areas in which either there was no harvest or the crop was seriously damaged. The army claimed, then, that the territory was closed to protect the Palestinians from attacks by Jewish settlers, a claim the state has since been withdrawn. The petition further attacks this illegitimate mode of action that represents a violation of the rights of the victim instead of acting against the perpetrator. The written response, that was submitted by the appellants two months ago, stated that the IDF commander for Judea and Samaria ordered the closure of certain territory, which belongs to residents of the petitioning villages, and to prohibit the entry of its owners to it. According to the state, the closure of the territory was necessary to protect the Israel settlements in the area. Its written response further adds that the majority of the territory (including 1,197 dunams [1 dunam = 4 acres]) that the army intends to close, is intended to protect illegal outposts. Attorney Yehuda further adds that according to the comments made on behalf of the state, it is asking for the formal endorsement of an illegitimate perception, according to which it has acted over the last few years, which has authorized and provided additional encouragement to Israeli lawbreakers. The position of the state, as it is presented in its written response, is that in the event that an Israeli places a caravan on a hilltop, state authorities will do nothing to remove the individual in breach of the law, but instead will declare the hilltop and the agricultural land that belongs to the areas’ Palestinian residents, a “dangerous area” that must be closed to Palestinians in order to protect that particular Israeli.
The petitioning organizations added a statement of opinion prepared by security experts, as an additional appendix to their response, which was submitted before the current hearing. The opinion states that the preferred alternative, from a security perspective, is the placement of appropriate security personnel in the conflict areas throughout the year. The experts make clear that by taking various security steps, that are well known and recognized by the security forces, it is possible to bring about an immediate improvement to the security situation and public order in the area, and will contribute to the establishment of a deterrent.
last updated : 12/09/05
