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

The separation fence has already proved its efficacy in areas where it has
been erected. It is important that the fence will also be erected in the region of
petitioners’ villages. Respondents claim that a number of terror attacks against
Jerusalem and against route no. 443, which connects Jerusalem and the city
of Modi’in, have originated in this area. The central consideration in choosing
the route of the separation fence was the operational-security consideration.
The purpose of the fence is to prevent the uncontrolled passage of residents of
the area into Israel and into Israeli towns located in the areas. The separation
fence is also intended to prevent the smuggling of arms, and to prevent the
infiltration of Palestinians, which will likely lead to the establishment of
terror cells in Israel and to new recruits for existing cells. Additionally, the
forces acting along the obstacle, and Israeli towns on both sides of it, must be
protected. As dictated by security considerations, the area of the separation
fence must have topographic command of its surroundings. This is in order
to allow surveillance and to prevent attacks upon the forces guarding it. To
the extent possible, a winding route must be avoided. In addition, a “security
zone” is required to provide warning of possible terrorist infiltration into
Israel. Thus, in appropriate places, in order to make pursuit possible in the
event of infiltration, the fence must pass through the area. An additional
security consideration is the fact that, due to construction of the obstacle,
attempted attacks will be concentrated on Israeli towns adjacent to the fence,
which also must be protected.
13. Respondents explain that, in planning the route of the separation fence,
great weight was given to the interests of the residents of the area, in order
to minimize, to the extent possible, the injury to them. Certain segments of
the fence are brought before the State Attorney for prior examination and, if
necessary, before the Attorney-General as well. An effort is being made to
lay the obstacle along property that is not privately owned or agriculturally
cultivated; consideration is given to the existing planning schemes of
Palestinian and Israeli towns; an effort is being made to refrain from cutting
lands off from their owners. In the event of such a cutoff, agricultural
gateways will allow farmers access to their lands. New roads will be paved
which will provide for the needs of the residents. In cases where damage
cannot be avoided, landowners will be compensated for the use of their seized
lands. Efforts will be made to transfer agricultural crops instead of cutting
them down. Prior to seizure of the land, the inhabitants will be granted the
opportunity to appeal. Respondents assert that they are willing to change the
route in order to minimize the damage. Respondents declare, in addition, that
18