ACRI petitioned the Supreme Court on the 26th of December 2006 to demand the implementation of the Court’‘s decision that was issued in September 2005 in response to the original petition against the route of the section of the Separation Barrier in the area of Alfei Menashe, and the revocation of the land expropriation order that was issued to facilitate the construction, which does not comply with the principles of the Court`s ruling. The petition, that is directed against the Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria and the Local Council of Alfei Menashe, was submitted by Attorney Michael Sfard in the name of ACRI, and on behalf of the five Palestinian villages that are trapped in the enclave created by the Barrier: Ras A-Tira, Wadi A-Rasha, Arab Abu-Farde, Arab a-Ramadin, Ma’‘arat a-Daba. Attorney Sfard emphasizes the fact that it took a year and three months for the state authorities, who are responsible for the planning, to decide upon an alternative route. This alternative route not only fails to ease the severe violations that were the subject of the first petition, but is also liable to result in other numerous violations in all aspects of the residents’‘ lives. In view of the great deal of time that has passed since the Separation Barrier was first built around the villages, approximately three and a half years ago, and the issuance of the previous decision, ACRI asked the Court to hold the hearing of this current petition at the earliest possible date.
In September 2005 the Supreme Court accepted most of the legal claims in ACRI’‘s petition, and rejected the existing route of the Barrier in the area of Alfei Menashe. The original route of the Separation Barrier created an enclave which imprisoned within it five Palestinian villages, severely violated the rights of the residents, cut them off from the rest of the West Bank, and in many cases also from their agricultural lands. Despite the fact that the administrative work that has been carried out since the issuance of the decision has taken such a long time, it resulted in a route that is very similar to the previous one, which was rejected, and is extremely problematic. It still traps two of the villages on the “Israeli side” of the Barrier and cuts the villages off from large parts of their agricultural lands. Likewise, the proposed route serves aims that were declared illegitimate by the court, as they do not serve any security objectives, but rather the interests of future Jewish settlement and the annexation of territory to Israel. The petition further claims that the expropriation order that was issued in accordance with the “amended route”, is illegal for four reasons: a) the new route will result in a de-facto annexation of occupied territory, which is prohibited by International Humanitarian Law; b) large sections of the route will involve the expropriation of lands which are not necessary for military purposes, as required by International Humanitarian Law; c) the chosen route violates the principle of proportionality as defined in the Supreme Court ruling; d) the route does not comply with the stipulations of the Supreme Court ruling on the first petition (H.C.J. 7957/04). Moreover, the solution being formulated by the military authorities regarding the two villages that were not removed from the enclave (Abu-Farde and Arab a-Ramadin) is a shameless one that is based on population transfer. Although this transfer has been presented as “voluntary” and “consensual”, in fact the villages are being pressurized into accepting a process of immoral and illegal transfer of protected persons from their land.
If the proposed route is accepted and implemented, the petition adds, it will cause severe damage to the daily lives of the residents of the villages, who will be denied free access to their agricultural lands, which will be located on the other side of the Barrier. In addition, the proposed road that is slated to adjoin the settlement of Karnei Shomron, and which is an integral element of the new route, will have a severe impact on the residents of the villages, as large parts of the residents` land will be situated between the Barrier and the road and will therefore be rendered useless.
The proposed route will also result directly in the destruction of 1400 acres of cultivated land, and will cause a great deal of damage, indirectly, to large tracts of land. This is in addition to the destruction of some 2000 acres of agricultural land that is required for the construction of this section of the barrier.
The “amended” route of the Barrier places it in extremely close proximity to the homes of the residents, something that has already been proven to pose a real danger to their lives by a number of cases in the past in which villagers were shot and killed. Any movement close to the Barrier, which is almost on top of their homes, arouses the suspicion of the soldiers` and others guarding the Barrier. In some cases this has resulted in the security forces opening fire. In addition to these violations, the Barrier will continue, even in its amended form, to infringe the basic rights of the residents to pursue a livelihood, freedom of movement, access to medical services, including ambulances, as well as religious and educational services. The children will be forced to pass through the Barrier in order to reach their schools and will not be able to return home during the day (in an emergency for example), nor will their parents be able to reach them at school.
In light of that set forth above, the Court is asked to order the cancellation of the expropriation order, which was issued to comply with the “amended” route, and that the Barrier be constructed in accordance with the stipulations of the Supreme Court’‘s ruling on the first petition.
last updated : 26/12/06
