A series of legal findings that appear in the High Court's decision on the petition against a deal between the government and former residents of Amona may in the future actually benefit Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria.
The majority's opinion in the ruling, which supported the cancelling of the Amona deal, was published today (Thursday) for the first time on the Kan Bet channel.The decision was written by deputy chief justice Salim Joubran and surprisingly, despite the unfavorable outcome, it contains a long list of determinations that could benefit Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria.
The first significant statement in the judgment is that the military commander in Judea and Samaria is authorized to make use of absentee property for the benefit of the Jewish population of Judea and Samaria.
In an unprecedented manner, and contrary to the prevailing view of both the Justice Ministry and left-wing organizations, Justice Joubran asserts that the right to use private Palestinian land without taking ownership and paying for the right of use is not prohibited under Article 46 of the Hague Regulations.
In this context, these two elements, the right to use without expropriating ownership and payment for this right of use, are important elements in the Regulation Law, which is currently on the High Court's docket in two petitions submitted to the court.
In contrast to the position of left-wing NGOs, Joubran stated that the military commander in Judea and Samaria is entitled to enact laws for the benefit of the Israeli population for humanitarian reasons, and that this right is included in the powers vested in the military commander.
Joubran further stated that the land seized in such an order could also be used for used undesirable to its lawful owners, as long as they receive adequate compensation.
The ultimate reason for cancelling the outline, according to the ruling, was the manner in which the procedure was carried out, while undermining the right of Arab residents who objected to the procedure, as well as the disproportionality of the expropriation versus the benefit that might have resulted from it.
Judge Hendel, in a minority opinion, believed that these defects were not serious enough to disqualify Amona's layout, but he remained a lone opinion in opposition to his two colleagues.