Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within ...

42,000 dunams of their lands are affected. The obstacle itself passes over
4,850 dunams, and will separate between petitioners and more than 37,000
dunams, 26,500 of which are agricultural lands that have been cultivated for
many generations. Access to these agricultural lands will become difficult and
even impossible. Petitioners’ ability to go from place to place will depend on a
bureaucratic permit regime which is labyrinthine, complex, and burdensome.
Use of local water wells will not be possible. As such, access to water for crops
will be hindered. Shepherding, which depends on access to these wells, will
be made difficult. Tens of thousands of olive and fruit trees will be uprooted.
The fence will separate villages from tens of thousands of additional trees.
The livelihood of many hundreds of Palestinian families, based on agriculture,
will be critically injured. Moreover, the separation fence injures not only
landowners to whom the orders of seizure apply; the lives of 35,000 village
residents will be disrupted. The separation fence will harm the villages’ ability
to develop and expand. The access roads to the urban centers of Ramallah
and Bir Naballa will be blocked off. Access to medical and other services in
East Jerusalem and in other places will become impossible. Ambulances will
encounter difficulty in providing emergency services to residents. Children’s
access to schools in the urban centers, and of students to universities, will be
impaired. Petitioners argue that these injuries cannot be justified.
10. Petitioners’ argument is that the orders are illegal in light of Israeli
administrative law, and in light of the principles of public international law
which apply to the dispute before us. First, petitioners claim that respondent
lacks the authority to issue the orders of seizure. Were the route of the
separation fence to pass along Israel’s border, they would have no complaint.
However, this is not the case. The route of the separation fence, as per the
orders of seizure, passes through areas of Judea and Samaria. According to
their argument, these orders alter the borders of the West Bank with no express
legal authority. It is claimed that the separation fence annexes areas to Israel
in violation of international law. The separation fence serves the needs of the
occupying power and not the needs of the occupied area. The objective of the
fence is to prevent the infiltration of terrorists into Israel; as such, the fence is
not intended to serve the interests of the local population in the occupied area,
or the needs of the occupying power in the occupied area. Moreover, military
necessity does not require construction of the separation fence along the
planned route. The security arguments guiding respondents disguise the real
objective: the annexation of areas to Israel. As such, there is no legal basis for
the construction of the fence, and the orders of seizure which were intended
16