The planned wall will create an enclave, which will cut off Palestinians from their surroundings, and which is liable to fatally undermine all aspects of the Palestinian residents’ lives to the point that they will be forced to abandon their homes and lands
On 23 February 2006, ACRI submitted a petition to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Palestinian residents of the southern Hebron Hills, to prevent the implementation of the plan to construct an internal wall, in addition to the West Bank separation barrier, along the length of the areas` main roads. The petition also asks the court to cancel the land expropriation orders for land owned by Palestinian residents in the area upon which the wall will be constructed. The petition, which is directed against the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Commander in the West Bank, was submitted by ACRI Attorney Limor Yehuda, and asks the court to issue an interim injunction to prohibit infrastructure work or the construction of the wall until a final verdict has been issued on the petition.
The petition is directed against the IDF’s decision to establish a low concrete wall (about 80cm high) in the area of the southern Hebron Hills, on the land of the villages of Yata, Samua, Dahariya, and in the area of the villages of A-tawana, Hirbat Zanuta, Hirbat Alrahav and A-tuba. The proposed wall will block off some 80,000 dunams of land (1 dunam = 4 acres), and will imprison 21 Palestinian communities in an enclave, thereby cutting them off from the closest urban centers which they depend upon for vital public services. The wall will also sever many residents from their agricultural lands. The petition further states that despite the fact that appeals against the wall were submitted, including one filed by ACRI, the construction work that began at the beginning of February has not been halted. Moreover, the IDF`s decision to construct the wall was taken before the local residents were provided with any opportunity to voice their objections. The decision to construct the internal wall followed an earlier decision to change the route of the separation barrier in the area and move it closer to the green line.
The petition further adds that the construction of the wall will result in severe violations of the basic rights of the local population, and will negatively impact their ability to continue living in the area. The petition claims that the decision to construct the wall was not determined by security or military necessity, but rather, was determined by extraneous considerations, primarily the desire to facilitate the future annexation of the territory to Israel. Attorney Yehuda notes that according to the opinion of security experts, the potential damage to security that will be caused by the wall outweighs any potential benefits, an example of which is the fact that the wall will create a contiguous series of convenient shooting positions along the length of the roads.
Once the wall has been erected, the Palestinian residents will be forced to travel the length of the main roads in order to move from one place to another, either via the closest access point or the nearest connecting road. However, during the last few years, the IDF has prevented the residents from using these roads. Attorney Yehuda further emphasizes that the residents of the local villages are dependent on the adjacent urban centers for all aspects of their lives, including access to health care, education facilities, livelihoods, family members and cultural ties. The concrete wall, even at a height of 80cm, will prevent the free movement to central urban communities either by vehicles or by a donkey and cart. Even the local shepherds, whose livelihoods are dependent upon their ability to move freely with their flocks on the land, will not be able to cross the roads with their livestock as they do today. However, the wall will not stop the passage of people who are light on their feet (as a potential terrorist would be expected to be).
The construction of the wall, the petition concludes, will fatally undermine the basic rights of the local residents, including the rights to property, freedom of movement, livelihood, education, health, family life, and dignity. It should be noted that these violations will be in addition to the multiple restrictions that are already imposed on the residents today. The violations are liable to be so severe that they will represent a real threat to the ability of the population to remain and subsist in the area.
On 26 February 2006, the Supreme Court decided to hold an early hearing of the petition and demanded that the state to respond within a week to ACRI`s request for an interim injunction.
last updated : 01/03/06
