The Supreme Court stated that it is convinced that the government had no political motives in erecting the Alfei Menashe fence, but was rather concerned only about the terrorist dangers facing Alfei Menashe and the Israeli areas nearby. Despite this, the the judges stated they were not convinced that the route of the fence adheres to the principles of proportionality, in that it makes the lives of the Arab residents in the enclave very difficult.
In addition, the Court ruled that the existence of a zoning plan by which Alfei Menashe will develop toward the southwest part of the enclave is not a consideration that should be taken into account.
Left-wing figures praised the ruling, while nationalist camp leaders decried it. MK Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party) stated that if a terror attack follows the removal of the fence, the justices of the High Court must be held accountable. Ultra-left Peace Now leader Yariv Oppenheimer said that the decision is "proportional and worthy," and proves that the fence is in many cases based on political considerations.
Professors for a Strong Israel released a statement against the fence; see below.
Alfei Menashe is an Israeli community located approximately four kilometers past the Green Line, in the Shomron region. The fence in question surrounds Alfei Menashe and five PA villages, creating an enclave attached to mainland Israel. The IDF issued permanent-resident cards to the residents of the villages, allowing them to travel freely to other PA-controlled areas via gates in the fence.
The petition, submitted by Arab residents and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, argued that the fence is illegal and must be dismantled and rebuilt on the Green Line, thus leaving the villages out of the enclave. The state responded that the fence was built to prevent terrorist attacks against Israeli cities, and that the route in question was designed to prevent attacks against Alfei Menashe. The state said that it has made a series of improvements in infrastructure and logistics, intended to ease the injury to the residents of the villages.
The ruling, issued unanimously by Chief Justice Aharon Barak and Justices Cheshin, Beinisch, Procaccia, Jubran and others, states that the state must, within a reasonable period, reconsider alternative routes for the fence - and specifically one that would surround only Alfei Menashe and its access road. This option would leave Alfei Menashe, home to close to 6,000 Jews, nearly totally surrounded by PA Arab villages, Netzarim-style.
The court ruled according to a principle it established in previous cases, namely, that two interests must be taken into account in determining the route of the fence: security-military considerations and the human rights of the local Arab population, and that these clashing considerations must be balanced according to the principle of proportionality.
Israel's High Court rejected last year's ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague, which deemed the entire wall/fence illegal. The Israeli court explained this by stating that the ICJ's ruling was based only on the apparent injury to the rights of the PA residents, which itself was based on imprecise information, without dealing with Israel's security-military need to erect the fence.
MK Gideon Saar, the Likud's Knesset faction chairman, said, "The Supreme Court's intervention in the route of the anti-terrorism fence is mistaken and harmful. Setting the route involves complex security and political considerations that are not within the expertise of the Supreme Court."
Former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, head of the extreme left-wing Meretz/Yachad party, said, "The Supreme Court once again reveals itself to be an island of sanity, as opposed to the confused and irresponsible government that changes its decisions every day and constantly harms civil rights. As long as there is no agreement, the only fence that can be built between Israel and the Palestinians must be along the Green Line."
MK Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism) was unhappy with the ruling: "It's not surprising. The Supreme Court is continuing its chain of poor rulings against Jewish values and against national and security concerns of the State of Israel."
MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union), speaking to Arutz-7 from Turkey, took a different approach. "I'm against the fence altogether," he said, "as I am convinced, like most other Israelis, that it is a political fence meant to define the borders of the future Palestinian state and keep most Jewish communities of Yesha out of Israel. Therefore, one kilometer here or there doesn't make a difference. The Supreme Court in general wants to encourage the State to establish the PLO state quickly, and there was really nothing revolutionary about the decision today."
Along these lines, Professors for a Strong Israel released the following statement:
"Terrorism can only be fought by going over to the offensive, not by running away from it, and not by hiding behind a fence. This fence was designed from the start to bring Israel to the Green Line. It has no real security justification; it serves only political purposes. The fence advances the interests of leftist politicians, of the contractors who are being enriched by its construction and by moving it back and forth, and of the mobilized journalists who provide propaganda support. It is time to
stop throwing immense sums of money at the fence and to turn our efforts to more effective means of security."
In addition, the Court ruled that the existence of a zoning plan by which Alfei Menashe will develop toward the southwest part of the enclave is not a consideration that should be taken into account.
Left-wing figures praised the ruling, while nationalist camp leaders decried it. MK Zevulun Orlev (National Religious Party) stated that if a terror attack follows the removal of the fence, the justices of the High Court must be held accountable. Ultra-left Peace Now leader Yariv Oppenheimer said that the decision is "proportional and worthy," and proves that the fence is in many cases based on political considerations.
Professors for a Strong Israel released a statement against the fence; see below.
Alfei Menashe is an Israeli community located approximately four kilometers past the Green Line, in the Shomron region. The fence in question surrounds Alfei Menashe and five PA villages, creating an enclave attached to mainland Israel. The IDF issued permanent-resident cards to the residents of the villages, allowing them to travel freely to other PA-controlled areas via gates in the fence.
The petition, submitted by Arab residents and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, argued that the fence is illegal and must be dismantled and rebuilt on the Green Line, thus leaving the villages out of the enclave. The state responded that the fence was built to prevent terrorist attacks against Israeli cities, and that the route in question was designed to prevent attacks against Alfei Menashe. The state said that it has made a series of improvements in infrastructure and logistics, intended to ease the injury to the residents of the villages.
The ruling, issued unanimously by Chief Justice Aharon Barak and Justices Cheshin, Beinisch, Procaccia, Jubran and others, states that the state must, within a reasonable period, reconsider alternative routes for the fence - and specifically one that would surround only Alfei Menashe and its access road. This option would leave Alfei Menashe, home to close to 6,000 Jews, nearly totally surrounded by PA Arab villages, Netzarim-style.
The court ruled according to a principle it established in previous cases, namely, that two interests must be taken into account in determining the route of the fence: security-military considerations and the human rights of the local Arab population, and that these clashing considerations must be balanced according to the principle of proportionality.
Israel's High Court rejected last year's ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague, which deemed the entire wall/fence illegal. The Israeli court explained this by stating that the ICJ's ruling was based only on the apparent injury to the rights of the PA residents, which itself was based on imprecise information, without dealing with Israel's security-military need to erect the fence.
MK Gideon Saar, the Likud's Knesset faction chairman, said, "The Supreme Court's intervention in the route of the anti-terrorism fence is mistaken and harmful. Setting the route involves complex security and political considerations that are not within the expertise of the Supreme Court."
Former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin, head of the extreme left-wing Meretz/Yachad party, said, "The Supreme Court once again reveals itself to be an island of sanity, as opposed to the confused and irresponsible government that changes its decisions every day and constantly harms civil rights. As long as there is no agreement, the only fence that can be built between Israel and the Palestinians must be along the Green Line."
MK Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism) was unhappy with the ruling: "It's not surprising. The Supreme Court is continuing its chain of poor rulings against Jewish values and against national and security concerns of the State of Israel."
MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union), speaking to Arutz-7 from Turkey, took a different approach. "I'm against the fence altogether," he said, "as I am convinced, like most other Israelis, that it is a political fence meant to define the borders of the future Palestinian state and keep most Jewish communities of Yesha out of Israel. Therefore, one kilometer here or there doesn't make a difference. The Supreme Court in general wants to encourage the State to establish the PLO state quickly, and there was really nothing revolutionary about the decision today."
Along these lines, Professors for a Strong Israel released the following statement:
"Terrorism can only be fought by going over to the offensive, not by running away from it, and not by hiding behind a fence. This fence was designed from the start to bring Israel to the Green Line. It has no real security justification; it serves only political purposes. The fence advances the interests of leftist politicians, of the contractors who are being enriched by its construction and by moving it back and forth, and of the mobilized journalists who provide propaganda support. It is time to
stop throwing immense sums of money at the fence and to turn our efforts to more effective means of security."