Retired District Court Judge Uri Struzman has joined the critics of the Supreme Court ruling on Peace House in Hevron, which required removing the building's residents. Judge Struzman was among the judges who presided over one of the cases used as precedents and quoted by Supreme Court Judge Ayala Procaccia in her decision.
In a critical article written by Judge Struzman, he reviews that case (entitled Mishmar Ayalon) and proves that the decision there actually contradicts Judge Procaccia's ruling in the Hevron case, and cannot possibly be used as a precedent for her ruling.
"If the Mishmar Ayalon case should obligate the Supreme Court in dealing with the area under contention in the Bayit HaChum ('The Brown House' - a reference to Peace House) until the issue is clarified, they would have had to prevent removing the residents from the building," writes Judge Struzman. However, he concludes, Justice Procaccia misinterpreted the significance of the fundamental principle which can be drawn from that case, as well as from the other case (Hamotral HaKafti) used in her decision.
Judge Struzman also mentions that that Procaccia herself participated in a third similar case (RY"A 5518/98). In this decision, Judge Procaccia did not conclude that the situation must be returned to its original state prior to 
It is surprising that Judge Procaccia's decision on the Hevron buildng does not follow her previous decision.
judicial clarification of the issues, but merely called it "accepted procedure." In addition, the other judges on that panel, Judge Engelard and the Court President Barak, agreed with her approach. Struzman says it is surprising that Judge Procaccia's decision on the Hevron buildng does not follow her previous decision in a similar case.
In light of the precedents, "the Supreme Court should have refrained from a decision based on the principle that 'the time has passed,' and referred the case to the district court to decide the question of temporary holding of the building," writes Judge Struzman, and concludes with pointed words: “As the present court has not done this... it is not strange that the settlers are screaming that justice has not been served, and that the judges’ political opinions were the basis for their decision."
It should be noted that Judge Struzman does not relate at all to inaccuracies and biased points that appear in the section of the ruling dealing with the facts presented to the court and that led to its decision. He is unaware of them and therefore assumes that what is presented is accurate. His conclusion shows that even on the basis of the biased facts presented, which are contested by the defendants, the Supreme Court decision is incorrect from a legal standpoint.