Center for the Defence of the Individual - Of the wonders of the Supreme Court: legal remedy has been granted, the petition has been dismissed
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
08.01.2012

Of the wonders of the Supreme Court: legal remedy has been granted, the petition has been dismissed

A Palestinian farmer lives in a village near Tulkarem. Israel completed the construction of the separation wall in that area in 2003. The wall was built inside the West Bank, and separates the man's home from his farmlands. Israel has designated this section of the West Bank which lies west of the wall, "the seam zone". This zone, declared by the military to be a closed military area, is open to Israelis and tourists, but not for Palestinians – who owns these lands – who must obtain military permits to enter there.

Since 2009, the farmer has repeatedly applied to the military for an entry permit to cultivate his farmlands. On July 6, 2011, as no response had ever arrived, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to order the military to issue the man a "seam zone entry permit". The petition asserted that the military was violating various basic rights of the petitioner in an excessive and unbalanced manner, and contrary to the state's declarations to the courts, and to the decisions of the HCJ.

In its response to the petition, the state contended that the petitioner's applications had been denied under military procedures, "due to the large number of holders of entry permits to the seam zone for the purpose of cultivating the land of the petitioner's family". Recall, this area, wherein the military imposes restrictions on the access of Palestinians, is an inseparable part of the occupied West Bank.

In the hearing, held on July 27, 2011, Justice Vogelman said to the State Representative "it appears that the court's rulings should be less lenient with you, and you forget that these are residents of the Area, and that this territory we accepted for practical reasons". Supreme Court President Beinisch added that "entry to the area should not be problematic".
 
The ruling was issued that same day. The justices determined that the state's decision to deny the petitioner an entry permit to his farmlands "cannot stand". However, the justices contradicted themselves in the same sentence, dismissing the petition because "[...] we assume that following our recommendation in today's hearing [...] the respondents will reconsider their position and allow the petitioner's entry to cultivate the plot in the possession of his family".
 
On January 3, 2012, after added delays by the military, the farmer received a temporary entry permit for six months to cultivate his farmlands.

Related documents

No documents to show