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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government of Israel. Therefore, in our examination of the contrasting military considerations in this case, we give special weight to the fact that the commander of the area is responsible for security. Having employed this approach, we are of the opinion – the details of which we shall explain below – that the petitioners have not carried their burden, and have not convinced us that we should prefer the professional expert opinion of members of the Council for Peace and Security over the security stance of the commander of the area. We are dealing with two military approaches. Each of them has military advantages and disadvantages. In this state of affairs, we must place the expert opinion of the military commander at the foundation of our decision. The Proportionality of the Route of the Separation Fence 48. The second question examines the proportionality of the route of the separation fence, as determined by the military commander. This question raises no problems in the military field; rather, it relates to the severity of the injury caused to the local inhabitants by the route decided upon by the military commander. In the framework of this question we are dealing not with military considerations, but rather with humanitarian considerations. The question is not the proportionality of different military considerations. The question is the proportionality between the military consideration and the humanitarian consideration. The question is not whether to prefer the military approach of the military commander or that of the experts of the Council for Peace and Security. The question is whether the route of the separation fence, according to the approach of the military commander, is proportionate. The standard for this question is not the subjective standard of the military commander. The question is not whether the military commander believed, in good faith, that the injury is proportionate. The standard is objective. The question is whether, by legal standards, the route of the separation fence passes the tests of proportionality. This is a legal question, the expertise for which is held by the Court. I dealt with this issue in Physicians for Human Rights, stating: Judicial review does not examine the wisdom of the decision to engage in military activity. In exercising judicial review, we examine the legality of the military activity. Therefore, we assume that the military activity that took place in Rafah was necessary from a military standpoint. The question before us is whether this military activity satisfies the national and international standards that determine the legality 42
of that activity. The fact that the activity is necessary on the military plane, does not mean that it is lawful on the legal plane. Indeed, we do not substitute our discretion for that of the military commander’s, as far as it concerns military considerations. That is his expertise. We examine the results on the plane of the humanitarian law. That is our expertise. Id, paragraph 9. This applies to the case before us. The military commander is the expert regarding the military aspects of the separation fence route. We are experts regarding its humanitarian aspects. The military commander determines where, on hill and plain, the separation fence will be erected. That is his expertise. We examine whether this route's harm to the local residents is proportional. That is our expertise. From the General Approach to the Specific Petition 49. The key question before us is whether the route of the separation fence is proportionate. The question is: is the injury caused to local inhabitants by the separation fence proportionate, or is it possible to satisfy the central security considerations while establishing a fence route whose injury to the local inhabitants is lesser and, as such, proportionate? The separation fence which is the subject of this petition is approximately forty kilometers long. Its proportionality varies according to local conditions. We shall examine its proportionality according to the various orders that were issued for the construction of different parts of the fence. We shall examine the legality of the orders along the route of the fence from west to east (See the appendix to this decision for a map of the region.) This route starts east of the town of Maccabim and the Beit Sira village. It continues south to the town of Mevo Choron, and from there continues east to Jerusalem. The route of the fence continues to wind, and divides the Israeli towns from the Palestinian villages adjacent to it. It climbs Jebel Muktam in order to ensure Israeli control of it. As such, it passes the villages of Beit Likia, Beit Anan, and Chirbet Abu A- Lahm. After that, it advances east, separating Ma’aleh HaChamisha and Har Adar from the villages of Katane, El Kabiba, and Bidu. The fence continues and circles the village of Beit Sourik, climbing northward until it reaches route 443, which is a major traffic route connecting Jerusalem to the center of the country. In its final part, it separates the villages Bidu, Beit Ajaza, and Beit Daku from Har Shmuel, New Giv’on, and Giv’at Ze’ev. 43
Page 1: Judgments of the Israel Supreme Cou
Page 5 and 6: Introduction This volume is a compi
Page 7 and 8: Israel's Security Fence HCJ 2056/04
Page 9 and 10: months after the decision, the gove
Page 11 and 12: eached new heights of violence. In
Page 13 and 14: (4) The fence, like the other obsta
Page 15 and 16: fence, and will be called to locati
Page 17 and 18: to make it possible are illegal. Se
Page 19 and 20: they intend to erect permanent chec
Page 21 and 22: prior to reconvening, we granted (o
Page 23 and 24: and not a security border. The secu
Page 25 and 26: See HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government
Page 27 and 28: a system of roads can be done for r
Page 29 and 30: y local inhabitants, and that this
Page 31 and 32: The obligations and rights of a mil
Page 33 and 34: person and the inviolable character
Page 35 and 36: Gasser, Protection of the Civilian
Page 37 and 38: injury to the individual must do so
Page 39 and 40: starting point is the assumption, w
Page 41: the area. We stand, therefore, befo
Page 45 and 46: will be affected by the route of th
Page 47 and 48: Our answer to this question necessi
Page 49 and 50: of the two villages to its lands, b
Page 51 and 52: eveals that along this part of the
Page 53 and 54: seen, it is possible to lessen this
Page 55 and 56: lives of the local inhabitants caus
Page 57 and 58: 76. Is the damage caused to the loc
Page 59 and 60: Order no. Tav/110/03 81. This order
Page 61 and 62: We are aware that this decision doe
Page 63 and 64: infrastructure” - limiting its ab
Page 65 and 66: HCJ 7957/04 1. Zaharan Yunis Muhamm
Page 67 and 68: grenades, shooting attacks, mortar
Page 69 and 70: (2) The obstacle built pursuant to
Page 71 and 72: to us, part of the separation fence
Page 73 and 74: allows residents of the enclave to
Page 75 and 76: judgments that were handed down sin
Page 77 and 78: 16. It is sometimes necessary, in o
Page 79 and 80: are occurring, and that therefore i
Page 81 and 82: a necessary deduction as the milita
Page 83 and 84: Even if the military commander acte
Page 85 and 86: The rights granted to Israelis livi
Page 87 and 88: the point of view of a state's righ
Page 89 and 90: shall be protected especially again
Page 91 and 92: preservation of the order and safet
Page 93 and 94:
78 “Al Taliyeh” Weekly v. The M
Page 95 and 96:
issuing the orders or in the proces
Page 97 and 98:
D. The Advisory Opinion of the Inte
Page 99 and 100:
Gush Etzion settlement bloc and the
Page 101 and 102:
of Nazlat Issa, where a wall 800 m
Page 103 and 104:
data, along with the high cost of t
Page 105 and 106:
3. The Legality of the Fence in Int
Page 107 and 108:
the wall, many Palestinians will li
Page 109 and 110:
uilding of a wall) fall within self
Page 111 and 112:
Beit Sourik Case. The ICJ held that
Page 113 and 114:
data is wide and deep. This differe
Page 115 and 116:
minimal factual basis is manifest,
Page 117 and 118:
necessary for achieving the securit
Page 119 and 120:
the information relayed to the ICJ
Page 121 and 122:
upon highway 6 - terrorist infiltra
Page 123 and 124:
However, this statement - which exp
Page 125 and 126:
is approximately 1,200). The enclav
Page 127 and 128:
threatens to disenfranchise them of
Page 129 and 130:
3. The State's Response 84. In its
Page 131 and 132:
opened under highway 55. Fourth, Th
Page 133 and 134:
which will be decided in the perman
Page 135 and 136:
time, surveys along the planned rou
Page 137 and 138:
The seamline area is intended to bl
Page 139 and 140:
the separation fence had not yet be
Page 141 and 142:
living primarily from growing sheep
Page 143 and 144:
the Ras a-Tira gate, the Habla gate
Page 145 and 146:
een shot on it from the direction o
Page 147 and 148:
Justice A. Procaccia I concur in th
Page 149 and 150:
characterize the factual aspect of
Page 151 and 152:
worship, because Bethlehem had turn
Page 153 and 154:
of Jerusalem’s municipal border.
Page 155 and 156:
of movement would be impinged upon
Page 157 and 158:
in which it attaches to the tomb. I
Page 159 and 160:
decision to pave the road and erect
Page 161 and 162:
worshippers from terrorist attacks,
Page 163 and 164:
intention to alter the route, and e
Page 165 and 166:
Freedom of religion and worship . .
Page 167 and 168:
private and public property and fre
Page 169 and 170:
freedom located at the highest leve
Page 171 and 172:
p. 369; H.C.J. 4044/93 Salomon, at
Page 173 and 174:
person to leave the country is diff
Page 175 and 176:
“separation obstacle” route sep
Page 177 and 178:
Reduction in the severity of the ne
Page 179 and 180:
19. Petitioners further argue that
Page 181 and 182:
that the solution chosen by respond
Page 183 and 184:
The "Early Warning" Procedure HCJ 3
Page 185 and 186:
Supreme Court Justice Beinish, conc
Page 187 and 188:
A. The Petition and the Course of i
Page 189 and 190:
for any military acts such as 'the
Page 191 and 192:
efore there is a need to use force,
Page 193 and 194:
more people regarding the use of Pa
Page 195 and 196:
14. Petitioners argue that one can
Page 197 and 198:
17. Respondents contend that the us
Page 199 and 200:
21. Just as it is clear that an arm
Page 201 and 202:
a zone in which combat activity is
Page 203 and 204:
the family members living in the ho
Page 205 and 206:
of the very protected resident who
Page 207 and 208:
accompanied by armed army forces, t
Page 209 and 210:
Prisoner Release HCJ 1671/05 Almago
Page 211 and 212:
HCJ 1671/05 Almagor - Organization
Page 213 and 214:
ecommendations for release were not
Page 215 and 216:
is unreasonable. The demand that tw
Page 217 and 218:
taking risks. That, it seems to me,
Page 219 and 220:
Palestinian Islamic organization, H
Page 221 and 222:
HCJ 11026/05 A v. 1. The Commander
Page 223 and 224:
easonable basis for the assumption
Page 225 and 226:
grants the military commander the a
Page 227:
decision is reasonable, and that th
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?