Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case

Introductory Note

This table has been prepared to facilitate access to materials related to the Israeli Supreme Court’s (the “Supreme Court”) judicial review and scrutiny of the Security Fence project.

This table presents 38 decisions of the Supreme Court in response to 66 separate petitions, and, as such, is not intended as an exhaustive list of all petitions filed or pending regarding the Security Fence. Indeed, as stated by retired Chief Justice Aharon Barak in Court ruling in 2006 (HCJ 5488/04), “[s]ince the time the government decided to erect a Security Fence 115 petitions were submitted to this court 28 of them concluded in settlements or were otherwise withdrawn. 46 petitions remain….” Since that statement in 2006, many new petitions have been submitted. In addition this table does not reflect the outcome of numerous petitions filed to the Supreme Court which were settled between the parties.

For convenience, the table includes brief English summaries of the Supreme Court’s decisions. These summaries include English unofficial translations of the Supreme Court’s decision. For ease of reference, the select quotations of the Supreme Court’s decisions are marked in italics. These abstracts are provided to promote a better understanding of the scope and depth of Israeli judicial review of the Security Fence. Obviously, however, reviewing the primary sources would provide a more complete understanding of this topic. While some of the landmark decisions have been translated by the Supreme Court, and are available in English (see rows 2, 4 and 5), the majority of the Supreme Court’s decisions referenced below are in Hebrew. For ease of reference the final column of this table contains links to the full Court rulings as available on the Israeli Supreme Court website.

For those interested in this area of Israeli jurisprudence, the following complementary resources are available:

(1) Article entitled, “Israel’s High Court of Justice and the Security Fence”, available on the website of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/2012/11/HCJ_and_Security_Fence.pdf

(2) Webpage of the Israeli Supreme Court entitled, “Judgments of the Israel Supreme Court: Fighting Terrorism within the Law”: http://elyon1.court.gov.il/verdictssearch/EnglishVerdictsSearch.aspx

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case

1. HCJ 8172/02 Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices I. Engelard and A. Procaccia) Ibtisam Mohammad Ibrahim et al. v. Two petitions were brought against seizure orders issued by the Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank for the purpose The Commander of the of the construction of the Security Fence. After considering the factual and legal basis of the claims of both parties, the Court IDF Forces in the West ultimately rejected the petitions. Writing for the majority, Justice Beinisch expressed the following: Bank "In its response [to the petitioners], the State detailed at length the efforts made to minimize the damage caused by the Fence to

residents of the Area. Thus, for example, efforts were made to have the Fence pass, to the extent possible, through lands which

HCJ 8532/02 are not privately owned and through lands not cultivated and efforts were made to avoid separating between landowners and

Rasheed Abed el their land. Similarly, the State set forth an array of measures that will be taken for the purpose of minimizing damage in those (4 Pages) Salam Salame et al. v. cases where damage to residents cannot be avoided. By way of example - providing compensation to owners of seized lands,

The Commander of the efforts to replant trees in alternative locations as opposed have those trees cut down, and the construction of entrance gates to Online Link IDF Forces in the West allow residents access to their lands. Similarly, the Respondents have demonstrated their willingness to resolve concrete Bank et al. problems on the ground after affording the landowners the opportunity to submit reservations as to the route of the seizure. During the proceedings before us, counsel for the State declared that even at the present stage the State would be willing to take into consideration any concrete problems that the residents raise before the relevant operational entities and military authorities if such problems can be resolved on the ground without undermining security."

2. HCJ 650245/ Landmark decision available in English and outlined in "Israel's High Court of Justice and the Security Fence," an

Beit Sourik Village article available at http://mfa.gov.il/MFA_Graphics/MFA%20Gallery/2012/11/HCJ_and_Security_Fence.pdf English Council v. 1. The Government of Israel (47 pages) 2. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Online Link Bank

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case 3. HCJ 940/04 Justice A. Procaccia (Concurring, Justices M. Naor and E. Hayut) Abu Tir et al. v. The Military Commander Eleven Palestinians, residents of Israel residing in the villages of Um Tuba and Tzur-Bahar (both included in the municipal in the Area of Judea boundaries of Jerusalem), submitted a petition for alteration of the route of a section of the Fence which had been previously and Samaria et al. planned following lengthy negotiations between the State and representatives of the local Palestinian village, claiming that the planned route would interrupt their access to several agricultural fields and five buildings in their personal or their family's possession, that were located to the East of the Fence . The five Respondents in this case included the IDF and four Palestinians. The five Respondents stated that the current route had been carefully planned over a long period of time (verify)through the extensive collaborative efforts of the IDF and local Palestinians including the petitioners, and that acquiescing to the petitioners at such a late stage would cause irreparable damage that is disproportionate to the damage incurred by the petitioners as a result of the current route. Justice Procaccia reviewed the extensive process of planning, constructing and then rerouting of the fence to accommodate the requests of the representatives of the local village. After a full review Justice Procaccia held in favor of the Respondents, the IDF and the four Palestinian residents of the village who would have been adversely affected if the petition was accepted.

“The current route of the fence, which the petitioners seek to change, replaced the original route (hereinafter – the “Original Route”). Under the Original Route, as previously planned, the vast majority of the houses and lands belonging to residents of Tzur-Bahar remained to the east of the Fence. In consequence, 33 residents of the village submitted a petition to this Court in (15 Pages) HCJ 9156/04 to bring about a change to the Original Route of the Fence (hereinafter – the “Previous Petition”). Over the course of the proceedings in that petition the Military Commander (hereinafter – the Respondent) agreed to adjust the Original Online Link Route in order to fulfill the main demands of the residents of the village. An agreement was reached between the Respondent and the village representatives, and this agreement was awarded the status of a court ruling by this Court on 30.12.03. … Back in 23.09.03 the residents of the village filed legal proceedings in the Magistrate Court to appeal the Original Route. As can be seen from the submission of Respondents 2 to 5, the village council of Tzur-Bahar made contact with all of the residents whose homes and lands were east of the Original Route, offering them to take part in the activities of the council to re-route the Fence. Similar contact was made with the petitioners but they refused to cooperate or present their claims to the Village Council (Section 6 of the response of Respondents 2 to 4). The activity of the village council lasted for three months and the related legal proceedings were transferred to the District Court and, finally, to the High Court of Justice. Throughout the entire period, the petitioners stood by passively, refused to take part in the proceedings, failed to present their claims and abstained from taking part in the activities of the Village Council regarding the Fence. After an interlocutory order was issued in the Previous Petition, negotiation over rerouting of the Fence took place between the Village Council and the Respondent, during which a proposal for an alternative route was brought to the common knowledge of the residents of the Village. Ultimately, the Village Council and the competent authority had reached an agreement, which was validated as a Court Decision on 30.12.03. A month later, the petitioners filed their petition, requesting the alteration of the route recently concluded…

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case … Given the nature of the object of the dispute, a construction of a Security Fence intended for the prevention of terrorist acts, and the pressing Military Necessity at the core of this action, failing to raise any demands to Reroute the Fence during several months, poses a significant subjective letches. … While the alternative route being offered [by the petitioners] indeed minimizes damage to buildings and lands of the petitioners, it damages the lands of Respondents 2 to 5, who view themselves as parties to the arrangement reached between the village council and the Respondent concerning the new Route. … The new route properly balances between security concerns and the needs of the majority of the village residents and to change the route today would unlawfully violate the legally acquired expectations [of all of the Respondents]." 4. HCJ 1890/03 Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices E. Rivlin and E. Hayut) Bethlehem Municipality et al. v. 1. The site known as Rachel's Tomb--situated on the outskirts of Bethlehem approximately 500 meters south of the municipal State of Israel boundary of Jerusalem--is believed to be the tomb of the Biblical matriarch Rachel and is considered the third holiest site in Ministry of Defense Judaism. 2. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky – IDF Because of the persistent terror attacks by Palestinians on Jewish targets since September 2000, and following the discovery of a English Commander in Judea terror cell that intended to attack a bus of Israeli worshippers on their way to the tomb, the Respondent issued an order to seize and Samaria land in order to pave a bypass road that would allow worshippers to travel safely to Rachel's tomb. A dialogue ensued between (44 pages) the State and the petitioners, The State, in designing the bypass road, included several walls/shields to protect the civilians on the bypass road from shooting attacks. Petitioners argued these shields would cause harm to six houses and several offices and shops Online Link in Bethlehem. The Order to seize land was amended twice to address concerns raised by the petitioners, these changes included removing some of the planned walls to ensure free and direct access from these buildings to Bethlehem without any need to pass through a roadblock,. Nevertheless, despite these adjustments, petitioners maintained that the Order infringed on their freedom of movement and property rights.

The Supreme Court, after a full review of the case on it is merits, and rejected the petition, after finding that the solution adopted by the State ensured the worshippers' freedom of worship without violating the essence of the petitioners' freedom of movement and property rights. 5. HCJ 7957/04 Landmark Decision available in English and outlined in article, Israel's High Court of Justice and the Security Fence, English Zaharan Yunis available at http://www.mfa.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/A803F29A-5BC3-4A60-A2BE- Muhammad Mara'abe 99E6CC66BA6B/0/HCJ_and_Security_Fence.pdf et al. v. The Prime Minister of Israel et al. (66 pages)

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case

Online Link

6. HCJ 026545/ Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and A. Procaccia) Beit Sira Village Council et al. v. The In a joint petition filed by Palestinians and Israelis, the Court was asked to consider whether a particular section of the Fence Government of Israel caused disproportionate damage to local Palestinian and Israeli residents residing in the Palestinian village of Beit Sira, the et al. Israeli town of Maccabim, and the city of Modiin. Chief Justice Barak explained:

"Following the Court ruling regarding Beit Sourik, the Respondents reevaluated the route of the Fence in the area relevant to HCJ 9055/05 the petition. It was decided to change the route so as to minimize the damage caused to residents of the village… It was decided Neot Reut Society et al. to shift the route of the Fence towards the West, to distance it from the Beit Sira village, and to bring it as close as possible to the v. The Prime Minister outer periphery of Judea and Samaria (West Bank). A portion of the Security Fence passes through territory of the State of et al. Israel, South of the town Maccabim. In a separate section of the route, adjacent to homes in the town of Maccabim, the route slightly draws away from the border of Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and ends up approximately 75 meters from it…petition (6 pages) HCJ 5683/04 is dismissed because the demands of the petitioners have been satisfied as a result of the considerable changes

made to the original route of the Fence". Online Link

Ultimately, the second petition – filed by Israeli residents of the town Maccabim, who claimed that the modified route of the Fence, passing only dozens of meters away from their houses, does not meet the security concerns and needs of the residents of Maccabim, as the short distance between the houses in the East of Maccabim and the Fence cannot ensure the prevention of lethal gunfire towards these houses, and opposing the limitation of their freedom of movement due to the seizure and closure of the adjacent road 3 to Israelis – was dismissed by the Court as well.

The Supreme Court ruled that the State's decisions made in connection with the Fence in the relevant area were reasonable. Indeed, the Court explained, in light of the many changes and adjustments made to the original route of the Fence, the State ensured that the petitioners experienced only minimal damage and that due compensation, in the form of alternative lands, was offered.

7. HCJ 6336/04 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice M. Heshin and Justice D. Beinisch): Mahmood Musa et al. v. The Prime Minister Petitions had been filed by the chairmen of the villages Rafat and Dir Balut, a resident of Dir Balut, the Israeli Society for the et al. Promotion of Human Rights and the Jerusalem Center for Human Rights, requesting the Supreme Court to order that the Fence (6 pages) be rerouted so as to mitigate the damage caused by the Fence to the property of the petitioners. However, as part of a major reevaluation of the Fence route conducted by the government in response to the Alfei Menashe precedent (in which the Supreme Online Link

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case Court determined that according to rules of Belligerent Occupation the Military Commander, based on military-security considerations, is authorized to order the construction of a Security Fence in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and seize for this purpose private property. However the Military Commander is also subject to Israeli Administrative Law. Therefore, the Supreme Court determined that according to Israeli Administrative Law as well as Public International Law the Military Commander must apply proportionality when balancing military concerns on the one hand, with the rights interests and needs of the Palestinian civil population on the other hand. The application thereof of the principle of Proportionality directs the Military Commander ordering the construction of a Security Fence to choose a route which accomplishes the security interest while inflicting the least damage on the rights of the local civil population), the Israeli authorities on their own initiative decided to amend the route in the area that was the subject of this petition. As confirmed by counsel of the petitioners, the amended route significantly mitigated the damages originally predicted by the petitioners.

"Following the ruling in the case regarding Beit Sourik (where Supreme Court instituted guidelines to the Military Commander in applying proportionality in planning the route of the Fence, so that a minimal damage will be inflicted on the rights of the civil population while still achieving the construction of a Security Fence pursuant to military-security considerations), the route of the Fence to the West of the villages was changed and it was shifted [further] West (hereinafter – the amended route). The amended route begins at the intersection of the lands of the village Rafaat with the western section of Al Zaveya, approximately 1,600 meters from the village homes and about 2,800 meters from the "Green Line" (the 1949 armistice line between Israel and Jordan). It continues towards the southeast for a short distance and then winds towards the southwest for approximately 4.5 kilometer. The Southernmost part of the amended route is approximately 100 meters from the "Green Line" …Following our ruling (dated 15.09.2005) in HCJ 7957/04 Zaharan Yunis Muhammad Mara'abe v. The Prime Minister of Israel (not yet published) (hereinafter: the Alfei Menashe Case), the Respondents reexamined the amended route and had it remain unchanged...Counsel for the petitioners, in her integrity, pointed out that the amended route represented a dramatic difference in contrast with the route of the original order. The damage inflicted upon the texture of life of the inhabitants of the Palestinian is minimal, and that she does not have any general reservations against the administration of passage permits of the gates (which were incorporated into to the Fence as part of the amendment of the order). Her main argument was that the land remaining to the West of the Fence should be minimized and that the route of the Fence must be adjacent to the Judea and Samaria Border (i.e. the "Green Line"). The Counsel admitted that she did not have an alternative route proposal, supported by an advisory opinion of experts, in response to the Supreme Court inquiry … In their response and arguments the Respondents argued that the amended route of the Fence around the (petitioners) villages was proportional according to the legal standards set out by the Supreme Court in the Beit Sourik and Alfei Menashe Cases.Moreover, The Respondents argued that the purpose of the amended route of the Fence is a military purpose – the security and defense of the population of the area of Gush Dan (Tel Aviv Metropolis area). The Fence is situated in vicinity of Rosh Haain, and close to Tel Aviv area populating the vast majority of Israel's population. The land remaining to the West of the Fence is designated as a security zone in which security forces can apprehend terrorists infiltrating the Fence near Israel's most

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case populated area.

… Based on the material brought by both parties before us and after hearing the arguments of each side, we were convinced that the amended route of the Fence was based on military necessity and security considerations. We were also convinced that this route falls within the criteria of "the Zone of Proportionality" and therefore does not justify our intervention. The amended route is constructed on "state property". It does not seize private property, most of the land remaining to the West of the Fence is "state property" or "government property", according to Declarations made in the year of 1990.This land is utilized by the army as a military practice area. Most of it is not cultivated, except for a field of 273 dunams and an additional field of 4 dunams. The entrance to the land West to the Fence is regulated by two agricultural gates built in the Fence. The petitioners counsel raised no arguments regarding the passage permit arrangement (in these gates). 8. HCJ 3680/05 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice M. Heshin and Justice E. Rivlin) Teneh Village Council Residents of the Jewish village, Teneh, petitioned the Supreme Court to have the Security Fence rerouted so as to place the v. The Prime Minister village on the south side (the "Israeli side") of the due to security concerns. The Supreme Court ruled that the route proposed by et al. the petitioners would cause more inconvenience to local Palestinian residents than the inconvenience caused to the Jewish residents as a result of the current route. "The original route of the Fence in this area, as included in Government Decision No. 883, dated 1.10.2003, was intended to pass to the north of the village Teneh and establish a barrier between it and the Dhahiriya village. Following a reanalysis of the Fence's route which was conducted subsequent to the ruling on the matter of Beit Sourik, a new route, by virtue of Government Decision No. 3283, dated 20.2.2005, was established. This route was shifted towards the South (9 pages) … Online Link The Petitioners maintained that routing the Fence south of the village Teneh, will endanger and expose its residents to terrorism… The petitioners notes that in four different occasions in the period of 2003-2005 gunfire was directed at vehicles driving in roads near the village of Teneh. … However,.. Shifting the Fence north would require the local Palestinians to pass through check points which would, in turn, harm their freedom of movement and their freedom of occupation." 9. HCJ 4825/04 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice (Ret.) M. Heshin and Justices D. Beinisch, A. Procaccia, E. Mohammad Halled Levy, A. Grunis, M. Naor, E. Hayut and Y. Adiel) Alliyan et al. v. The Prime Minister et al. Residents of local Palestinian villages of Budrus and Shukba, located West of the Palestinian City of Ramallah and adjacent to (14 pages) the Israeli city of Modiin, petitioned the Supreme Court after property was seized for the Fence's construction.

Names of Parties and Abstract Case File & Case Reference Link to Case HCJ 4938/04 Online Link Shuqba Village "The original route planned for the Fence in the area of the village, as affirmed in a Government Decision in October 2003, was Council v. the changed prior to the submission of this petition. To further limit damage to the petitioners it was changed again following the Government of Israel submission of the petition and once again prior to the ruling issued in the case regarding Beit Sourik…Erecting the Fence in the et al. area of Budres requires causing damage to dozens of trees, seizing a strip of property…and dividing a similar strip of property which remains to the west of the Fence. Constructing the Fence in the area of Shuqba requires the transfer of olive trees, as well as leaving a segment of the property to the west of the Fence. Notwithstanding, it cannot be said that these damages case harm which is disproportionate. Indeed, it is not as if thousands of dunams of land are being requisitioned or thousands of trees are being uprooted – the damage to property is immeasurably less significant and as a result of the damages appropriate compensation is being paid. The system of permits established allows access to those lands left to the west of the Fence. Furthermore, the route of the Fence in the area of the villages does not cut off the village residents from essential services, it does not leave any Palestinian residents in the Seam Zone, and it does not create a "significant suffocating grip which considerably adversely affects day to day life" (Compare the matter of Beit Sourik, 855; Alfei Menashe, paragraphs 102-110)."

10. HCJ 11651/05 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices A. Rivlin and A. Procaccia) Local Council Beit Arye v. The Two separate petitions were filed - one by Israeli residents of the Beit Aryeh village and one by local Palestinian residents – and Commander of the were combined and adjudicated before the Court. It was argued that the Fence route caused disproportionate damage to local IDF Forces in the West Israelis and Palestinians. In considering the joint petitions, Chief Justice Barak stated: Bank "The damage caused to the petitioners is not so heavy and severe to the extent that it can be considered disproportionate. As is well known, in consideration for private lands seized and trees transferred or uprooted, commensurate compensation will be (8 Pages) HCJ 1998/06 paid. The route of the Fence includes agricultural gates through which there is access to the agricultural lands left on the Village Council Aboud "Israeli" side of the Fence. The Fence route does not disconnect the petitioners from sources of income or other essential Online Link et al. v. the services. The route of the Fence does not encircle Palestinian towns and does not create any enclaves. It does not create a Seam Government of Israel Line and it does not create a "significant suffocating grip which considerably adversely affects day to day life" [compare the et al. matter of Alfei Mensashe, paragraphs 102-110]. Under these circumstances, we have not found that there exists a wrongdoing which justifies our intervention regarding the planned Fence route."

11. HCJ 7138/04 A petition was submitted to the Court by residents of the village Hizma as a result of anticipated adverse affects of the Security Mwafak Khatib et al. Fence. Subsequent to this petition, the Israeli authorities contacted the parties and it was agreed to repeal the petition based on an v. The Prime Minister amicable out of court resolution: of Israel et al. " 1. On June 3, 2008, the parties notified the Court that they had come to an arrangement as follows: "Entry to the portion of Lot 31 located to the west of the Security Fence and which is not included in the Expropriation Order for Road No. 45, shall be allowed through the agricultural gate that is located on the land of Hizma, north of the lot, in accordance with the usual passage arrangements at the agricultural gates. At those times when the agricultural (2 pages) gate is closed, the owners of the lot will be able to pass through the Bahurim crossing point, in coordination with the Jerusalem Region Coordination and Liaison Administration, for the purpose of reaching the lot. Should it be determined Link to that the owners of the lot are abusing the entry permits to the border zone in order to enter Israel, their passage through Original the Bahurim crossing point shall not be permitted, this being after notice is given, in advance, to counsel for the lot's (Hebrew) owners." 2. Subject to this arrangement, and with the consent of the parties, the Petition shall be struck out, without an order for costs. 3. The application for the refund of the court fee shall be referred to the Registrar of the Supreme Court for his decision. 4. Accordingly, the proceedings that appear in the heading shall be closed."

12. HCJ 11205/05 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices E. Rivlin and S. Joubran) Eizariya Village Council et al. v. The The petitioners argued that the route of the Fence adjacent to their village would cause disproportionate damage. A primary Government of Israel argument was based on the fact that the proximity of the Fence to the village would severely prevent potential future expansion and development of the village. The Court ultimately rejected the petition and explained that in light of the temporary nature of et al. the Fence, the villagers would be entitled to revisit the Court in the future if and when formalized plans for village expansion came to fruition. At such a juncture, Chief Justice Barak explained, the Court could order that the Fence be adapted accordingly.

"The Fence route does not leave Palestinian residents in the Seam Line. The route does not "imprison" private agricultural lands and it does not damage access their routes. It doesn't require for any trees to be uprooted. The route does not create a barrier (10 Pages) between the local residents and their lands. It does not create any difficulty accessing sources of income and does not disconnect the village residents from essential services. In light of all of this, the immediate and direct damage caused to the property of the Online Link Palestinian residents and to their way of life is minimal. Damage caused as a result of the possibility for village expansion reflects a fear only relevant in the future. When taking into consideration that the Fence is only temporary in nature (see the matter of Alfei Menasheh, pargraph 100) this factor bears limited weight. Considering the various issues, it cannot be said that the damage to the residents of Eizariya constitutes disproportionate damage….In summary, we did not find a cause for intervening in the discretion of the military commander regarding the route of the Fence in the area of the Eizariya village. This conclusion at which we have arrived is based on an assumption that there remains no change whatsoever concerning the hilltop

of "Rass Eizariya" - no change from a planning [and development] perspective and no change regarding the hilltop's actual use. Thus, in any case in which there is a change to the current situation, such as, for example, obtaining a special city planning permit for the expansion of Eizariya village, a change to the city plans of Ma'ale Adumim or the execution of construction works, the option is available to the petitioners to return to the Court and request an evaluation of the proportionality of the Fence."

13. HCJ 11395/05 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and A. Procaccia) Mayor of Sebastia Municipality et al. v. Palestinians who felt that they had been disproportionately adversely affected as a result of the Fence surrounding their villages The State of Israel et and lands submitted this petition. Chief Justice Barak explained:

al. "We have accepted the position of the military commander according to which the Security Area [surrounding the Israeli town] and the protective area it creates is necessary in order to afford the town of Shavei Shomron the required security and protection (6 Pages) against infiltration of terrorists and other terrorist activity. And that erecting the Fence closer to the homes of the towns would not afford these protections….In contrast damage to the petitioners is not so severe so as for it to be disproportionate. For the purpose of constructing the Fence a relatively small portion of land was seized. In consideration for this property, and in return Online Link for the trees which will be transferred or uprooted, commensurate compensation will be paid. Agricultural gates are included throughout the route of the Fence which allows access to the agricultural lands left inside of the Fence. The argument was not raised that these arrangements are insufficient for the petitioners. The route of the Fence in this area encircles the Israeli town. It does not encircle the towns of the petitioners, and it does not disconnect the petitioners from other towns, from sources of income, or from other essential services. Under these circumstances, we have not found there to be an injustice which warrants Judicial intervention regarding the planned route of the Fence" 14. HCJ 6451/04 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and A. Procaccia) Mahmood Halwa et al. v. The Prime Minister Eleven residents of the Annta village petitioned the Court for it to require the Respondents to amend the seizure order and reroute et al. the fence in order to avoid any property damage. Several negotiations between the parties lead to several amendments to the seizure order such that it no longer caused any damage to three of the petitioners. Following these negotiations, the Court was (10 pages) convinced that the Respondents did all that was feasible to mitigate damage to the petitioners and that any further change in the route would pose an indefensible and unacceptable risk to the Israeli residents of Jerusalem's Pisgat Ze'ev neighborhood. Online Link

15. HCJ 396/05 Chief Justice A. Bark (Concurring, Justices S. Joubran and E. Hayut) Shaker Salame Salem Elrazikat et al. v. The As part of the Fence project, the Respondents intended to relocate a terminal used for traveling between Israel and the West Government of Israel Bank. Three Palestinians, who owned land which was to be seized throughout the construction of the new terminal and the local (11 Pages) et al. Fence sections, petitioned the Court for it to require that the new terminal be shifted 500 meters west of the intended construction site. After considering the factors, the Court ruled in favor of the Respondents and concluded that there was no viable geographic alternative for the construction of this essential and complex project. Notwithstanding, the Court recognized that the damages Online Link

would be proportionate to local security concerns only on condition that the government remained committed to assisting and accommodating those local residents adversely affected:

"Our conclusion is that we have not found cause to intervene in the discretion of the military commander, not with regards to the new location chosen for the Terkumiyah Terminal and not with regards to the adjacent Fence route. This decision is based on an assumption that so long as the New Terkumiyah Terminal is not yet operational, the movement of the petitioners to the west side of the Fence, for agricultural related purposes, will be ensured and accommodated – as stated in our decision dated 13.2.2005. We are similarly under the assumption that the petitioners shall retain full access to their lands which, while they may be on the east side of the Fence, are located in extremely close proximity to the route of the Fence and the Terminal. To the extent that these assumptions do not withstand the test of reality, the opportunity is open for the petitioners to return to the Court. This is the case as well with the regards to future arrangements associated with permitted movement through the New Terminal, regarding which the current petition was not concerned. To the extent that the above are not sufficient for the petitioners, they retain the right to return to us."

16. HCJ 399/06 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and E. Rivlin) Susya Cooperative Residents of the Israeli town, Susya, petitioned to the Court in order that the Fence be rerouted to include their town on the Agricultural Society et Israeli side of the Fence. Their petition was rejected by the Court. Chief Justice A. Barak explained that: al. v. The Government of Israel et al. "After the reevaluation of the route of the Fence which was conducted subsequent to the matter of Beit Sourik, Government Decision No. 3283 (dated 20.2.2005) established the new route of the Fence in southern Hebron region. The Fence route was shifted southwards, and is essentially adjacent to the Green Line…The balance weighed by the Military Commander between security needs and the rights of the local Israeli and Palestinian residents is proportionate. The current route adequately fulfills the security related purpose of the Fence. The added safety to Susya which would result if the route were to be changed as (7 pages) sought by the petitioners would not be proportionate to the damage which the changed route would cause to local Palestinians. The Military Commander can fulfill his responsibilities towards the safety of the petitioners to an acceptable degree even if the town lies north of the Fence. The special security area which will be erected surrounding the town, with its array of security Online Link measures, sufficiently, in the opinion of the Military Commander, counters the security threats aimed at the town. Regarding his conclusion on this matter, which is entirely within his assessments and military expertise, the Court does not find cause for judicial intervention."

17. HCJ 1348/05 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch, A. Procaccia, E. Levy, A. Grunis, M. Naor, S. Joubran, E. Dr. Shaher Hayut and D. Berliner) Abdelkader Shatiya et al. v. The State of This petition concerned a stand-alone Special Security Area intended to provide safety to the approximately 20,000 residents of (16 pages) Israel et al. the West Bank city of Ariel. Prior to the petition, the Israeli government conducted organized tours of the Special Security Area and invited local Palestinians to voice concerns with the project. Those concerns which could not be amicably resolved were Online Link

HCJ 3290/05 brought before the Court. Ultimately, the petitioners claimed that the construction of this Special Security Area was intended to Ahmed Abed el Rahim establish political borders, in contravention to principles of public international law, and that the specific route chosen would Buzya et al. v. the State cause disproportionate damage, on account of the Palestinian owned agricultural fields which would be left within the perimeter of Israel et al. of the Security Area. The Court rejected the petition and stated that the purpose of the construction of the Special Security Area and the Security Fence was to mitigate the ongoing deadly violence targeted at the residents of Ariel and not to establish any form of political border. Furthermore, with regards to the specific route chosen, the Court explained that:

"The route of the fence encircles the Israeli town. It does not encircle the towns of the petitioners and does not create any enclaves. The route does not disconnect the petitioners from any other towns, from sources of income, or from other essential services. The route does not damage existing pathways; it does not separate Palestinian villages; and it does not damage the possibility for expansion of any of these villages. Appropriate compensation will be paid in exchange for private lands seized and trees transferred or uprooted. Agricultural gates have been incorporated throughout the route which allows access to those agricultural lands left within the perimeter of the fence.

Under these circumstances, we have not found cause to intervene in the current route of the fence. This decision is based on the nature of the security perimeter as currently planned. To the extent that seizure orders are issued in the future for the purpose of attaching the fence surrounding Ariel to the Security Fence surrounding Judea and Samaria (West Bank), access to this Court remains open to the petitioners. …. Moreover, our conclusion regarding the petitions is based on the assumption that no change occurs to the current status regarding use of those lands within the fence as well as with regards to the residents' access of those lands. In any instance of change to the current situation, the petitioners may return to the Court for a reevaluation of the route. "

18. HCJ 5624/06 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and E. Rivlin) Municipality of Beit Ummar et al. v. The Petitioners argued that the construction of a Special Security Area encircling the Israeli town of Carmei Tzur, north of Hebron, Commander of the was illegal. The petition was based on the following two avenues of reasoning: (1) the Palestinian property requisitioned for this IDF Forces in the West purpose constitutes disproportionate damage; and (2) the Israeli town was unlawfully established and, consequently, the Bank et al. construction of the Special Security Area to protect it should be viewed as unlawful. The Court rejected both arguments and stated, (7 pages)

"The question of the legality of the towns of Israeli residents in the Area is not the subject of our current deliberation. This question does not bear effect on the responsibilities of the Military Commander to, under the laws of belligerent occupation, Online Link protect the lives, security and dignity of each and every one of the Israeli settlers. This safeguarding falls on the shoulders of the Military Commander. 11. As per the question of the proportionality of the Special Security Area, after hearing the arguments of the parties, and after reviewing the material presented to us, we are of the opinion that under these circumstances, the balance conducted by the

Military Commander between security needs, rights of the Palestinian (protected) residents, and rights of the Israelis, was considered in a proportionate manner. We accept the position of the Military Commander according to which the Special Security Area and the protective zone it creates are essential for the purpose of providing the town of Carmei Tzur with requisite safety against infiltration of terrorists and other terrorist activity. We have been convinced that the construction of a fence in closer proximity to the homes of the town would not provide the required security against such risks. We have been further convinced that a technological Special Security Area surrounding the entire town will not suffice as it would not offer the opportunity to respond appropriately to warnings against infiltrations. Under these circumstances, the alternatives being presented by the petitioners do not fulfill the security related purposes inherent in the foundation of the Special Security Area to the same extent as the Special Security Area established by the Military Commander. We rest assured that under these circumstances that damage to the petitioners is proportionately appropriate in relationship to the security interests stemming from the Special Security Area. The purpose of the fence is to protect the lives of the Israeli residents from terrorist activity. The utility foreseen is, therefore, immense. In contrast, the damage to the petitioners is not so extensive and severe as to be disproportionate. For the purpose of the construction of the fence itself a relatively small portion of land was seized. In exchange for this land the Respondents are prepared to pay commensurate compensation. Agricultural fences will be included throughout the route of the fence through which to allow access to the agricultural lands within. It was not argued before us that these measures are insufficient for the needs of the petitioners. The route of the Special Security Area encircles the Israeli town. It does not encircle the towns of the petitioners; it does not disconnect the petitioners from other settlements, from sources of income, or from other essential services. Under these circumstances, we have not found an injustice which warrants our intervention with regards to the route of the planned Special Security Area."

19. HCJ 1073/04 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and E. Levy) Omar Salame et al. v. The petitioners, Arabs who are permanent residents of Israel, petitioned the Court for the Fence to be rerouted so as to include The Commander of the their homes on the "Israeli" side of the Fence. The area in dispute is within the Jerusalem municipality and the petitioners argued Central Command et that cutting them off from the rest of the city would cause disproportionate damage. Throughout the course of the deliberations, al. the Respondents committed to the petitioners that they would ensure that easy access would be provided to and from the main city of Jerusalem via a crossing point which would be open for pedestrians, excluding vehicles, 24 hours a day. The petitioners asked that the Court require the Respondents to either reroute the Fence entirely or, alternatively, allow vehicular access through the special crossing point. After considering the relevant factors, including the many accommodations made by Israeli authorities, chief Justice A. Barak ruled in favor of the Respondents, subject to their ongoing support of the petitioners and other (10 pages) various criteria:

"The petitioners bear the status of permanent residents of Israel. Their day to day life is based on their tight nexus to Jerusalem. Online Link The Fence severs the chain of territory between Jerusalem and the homes of the petitioners, despite the fact that they are located in the municipality. It prevents unrestricted passage, lacking oversight, from the neighborhood to Jerusalem. Under these circumstances, the Respondents are obligated to ensure that arrangements be made for passage [through the crossing] and that a system of reasonable access to Jerusalem by the petitioners be established, in such a way so as to mitigate, to the extent possible, any damages to them. The current position of the Respondents regarding passage arrangements, as formed over the

course of the deliberations, fulfills these conditions. A gate was constructed in close proximity to the homes of the neighborhood allowing passage on foot and using vehicles. The passage on foot is allowed all hours of the day. Passage of vehicles is allowed during daylight hours. In this way the Respondents fulfill their obligation to mitigate, reasonably and to the extent possible, any damage to the petitioners. In consideration of the operational and topographic factors in the location, we have been convinced that there is no room to intervene in the discretion of the Respondents to forbid vehicular passage during the hours of darkness." 20. HCJ 5495/06 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and A. Procaccia) The Company Fund An Israeli NGO involved in purchasing property in the West Bank petitioned the Court to have the route of the Fence shifted in Near the Israeli order to avoid damage to seven separate units of its property. The Court rejected the petition. Among the Court's considerations Academy Ltd. v. The was the fact that the alternatives presented by the petitioner would cause damage to local Palestinian property while, at the same (4 Pages) Minister of Defense et time, insufficiently serve the security interests of the local residents. The Court emphasized that the petitioner maintained the al. right to seek legal recourse in the event that it felt that adequate compensation had not been offered in exchange for the seized Online Link land.

21. HCJ 6027/04 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and A. Rivlin) Taleb Hussein R'dad, This petition was filed as a result of the seizing of approximately .39 square km (390 dunam) of property for the construction of Head of the Alzawiya the Fence. After the initial petitions were submitted, the Respondents agreed to conduct a joint tour of the planed Fence route and Village Council, and to attempt to resolve any concrete issues. A tour was conducted on 30.6.2006 and discussions ensued. As a result of these the Non-Profit Profit activities, the Respondents significantly rerouted the Fence. Following additional tours and discussions, there nevertheless Jerusalem Center for remained certain areas of disagreement which were ultimately brought to the Court. Chief Justice A. Barak ultimately accepted Legal Assistance and the position of the Respondents and concluded that as a result of the aforementioned negotiations and repositioning, the Fence Human Rights v. The was currently routed in way which properly balanced between the conflicting interests and that further amending the route would Minister of Defense et undermine vital security interests. Alternatives suggested by the petitioners were considered by the Court and, in light of al. testimony of the military experts, deemed to insufficiently provide safety to local Israelis.

"We do not take lightly the damage which the petitioners will incur as a result even of the Fence route, even as currently (12 pages) amended. However, we have been convinced that under the relevant circumstances the damage to the petitioners is proportionately appropriate to the security interests stemming from the Fence. Erecting the Fence results from a critical security need. The Fence constitutes a central ingredient in Israel's fight against Palestinian terror. Its purpose is to protect the lives of Online Link the Israelis from terrorist activity. It envisioned utility is, therefore, immense. In contrast, the damages incurred by the petitioners are not so extensive and severe so as to be disproportionate. The route of the Fence does not leave Palestinian residents in the Seam Line. The route remains adjacent to the Trans-Samaria High Way to the extent possible.

The route of the Fence does not encircle the Alzawiya village and it does not create any enclave. The route doesn't disconnect the petitioners from other towns, sources of income, or from other essential services. The route does not damage existing pathways, does not create separations between Palestinian villages and it does not damage potential for any future expansion of the villages. In exchange for private lands seized and trees transferred or uprooted commensurate compensation will be paid. An agricultural gate has been incorporated into the route through which to allow access to lands left on the "Israeli" side of the

Fence. In light of all of this, the immediate impact on the property of the Palestinian residents and on their day to day life is not disproportionately damaging. Under these circumstances, we have not found cause to justify our intervention regarding the route of the Fence. This conclusion is based on the current format of the Security Fence. It is based on the assumption that no change occurs with regards to the Palestinians' access to the Samaria region and, in particular, to the township of Sa'alafit. Our decision is based furthermore on the assumption that the petitioners will retain reasonable access to their properties through reasonable arrangements of passage through the Security Fence. To the extent that these assumptions fail to withstand the test of reality; with regards to any change in the current situation; and to the extent that future seizure orders are issued for the purpose of erecting an additional fence in the western part of Samaria, the option remains open to the petitioners to return and submit petitions to the Court."

22. HCJ 426/05 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and E. Rivlin) Bidu Village Council et al. v. The Government Seven petitions contesting the route of the Fence adjacent to their properties were considered jointly by the Court. Five were of Israel et al. submitted by municipal councils of local Palestinian villages and two were submitted on behalf of local Israeli towns. The former group of five petitions asked that the Court require the route to be shifted closer to the Israeli towns while the two Israeli HCJ 1767/05 petitions sought, with the aim of increasing safety of local Israeli residents, for the route to be shifted in the opposite direction. Local Council Har- As Justice A. Barak states in the opening paragraph of the decision, "Accommodating one petition will increase damage to the Adar et al. v. The petitioners in the other". Opposite these two groups, the respondent (the relevant military commander) argued that the route Ministry of Defense chosen properly balanced between the conflicting interests. The respondent explained that as a result of the Beit Sourik precedent, the route had been reevaluated and, as a result, shifted closer to the two Israeli towns. It was explained that this shift, HCJ 2223/05 while decreasing the extent of security for the residents of the Israeli towns, enabled the government to avoid seizing larger Yoseph Kendil et al. v. amounts of Palestinian lands. To ensure that this new route would minimize the impact to local Palestinians, the respondent The Commander of the explained that it had, inter alia, begun paving a new bypass road which would compensate for transportation interruptions (15 pages) IDF Forces in the West resulting from the new route. Finally, the respondent concluded, due to a variety of topographical and technological factors, Bank further shifting the Fence towards the two Israeli towns would expose residents to indefensible risks of direct gunfire, infiltrations, and other likely terrorist activities. Online Link HCJ 8264/05 Ahmed Hadur et al. v. The Court ultimately accepted the arguments of the military commander and concluded that submitting to the Israeli petitioners The Commander of the would cause disproportionate damage to Palestinian property and submitting to the Palestinian petitioners would give rise to IDF Forces in the West disproportionate risks to the local Israeli residents. Bank "14. We do not take lightly the damage which will be caused by the construction of the Fence pursuant to the new [post-Beit HCJ 8265/05 Sourki] route. However, we have been convinced that there exists no other route which would cause less damage while, Saker Abdullah et al. concomitantly, realizing the security related necessities. Indeed, it may not be said that under the given circumstances the v. The Commander of damage to the petitioners is disproportionate to the security related benefits stemming from the Fence. The purpose of the Fence the IDF Forces in the is to protect the lives of the local Israeli residents from terrorist activities. The expected utility is, therefore, immense. In West Bank contrast, the damages expected to be incurred are not so extensive and severe so as to be disproportionate. This case does not

deal with the seizing of thousands of dunams of land or with the transfer of thousands of trees. In exchange for private lands HCJ 8226/05 seized and trees transferred or uprooted commensurate compensation will be paid. Agricultural gates have been included Ahmed Jamal et al. v. throughout the route of the Fence which afford access to agricultural lands remaining on the "Israeli" side of the Fence. The The Commander of the route of the Fence does not encircle Palestinian towns and does not create any enclaves. Movement of the residents of the IDF Forces in the West petitioning villages to the area of Bir Na'Ballah will be allowed via a road which the Respondents are paving between Bidu and Bank El-G'ib. The Respondents committed themselves to alleviate difficulties and facilitate, to the extent possible, the residents of the village Nebi Samuel who will be left within the Seam Line. Their movement to the area of Bir Na'Ballah will be allowed in an HCJ 11409/05 entirely unhindered manner. Under these circumstances, we have not found any cause justifying our intervention regarding the Danny Azriely v. The planned Fence route. We repeat that those who see themselves as adversely affected by the arrangements made regarding the State of Israel et al. agricultural gates retain their rights and may always return and seek recourse from this Court.

15. The petition of the [Israeli] residents of Har-Adar (HCJ 1767/05) and the [Israeli] residents of Mevaseret Tzion [HCJ 11409/05) shall be denied. The Respondents did indeed admit before us that the new route provides inferior security in comparison with the original route. Nevertheless, we have adopted the position of the military commander according to which the new route adequately provides security to the Israeli towns. Obviously, it would be possible to further mitigate the security risks to the residents of Har-Adar and Mevaseret Tzsion by shifting the route northwards in the direction of the adjacent Palestinians; it would of course be possible to further minimize security risks if the Fence were to encircle additional lands. However, all such acts would entail causing severe damage to local Palestinians residents. We accept the approach of the Respondents according to which the added security which would be gained for the residents of Har-Adar and Mevaseret Tzion by amending the route according to their request is not reasonable in light of the additional damage which would be caused to the Palestinians as a result of the changed route. The Respondents clarified that they will reanalyze the route of the fence if it becomes evident that the new route cannot provide security to the Israeli towns. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the new route adequately reflects the proportionate balance of the conflicting factors. Therefore, as regards to these petitions, we have found no cause to intervene in the discretion of the military commander. "

23. HCJ 2942/05 Chief Justice (Ret.) A. Barak (Concurring, Chief Justice D. Beinisch and Justice A. Procaccia) Dr. Naphs H'ader Three Israeli towns, located in West Samaria, suffered ongoing terrorist attacks. In one of the towns, for example, three separate Mansur et al. v. The terrorist shooting attacks cost the lives of 19 residents and injured many more. As a result, the Israeli government decided to Government of Israel encircle these settlements with fences which would form Special Security Areas, which could in the future be connected to the et al. overall Security Fence Project. The petitioners in these three joint cases constituted approximately 30 individuals, all

representing Palestinians adversely affected by the construction of the fences. Relying primarily on the ICJ Advisory Opinion HCJ 4050/05 (18 pages) regarding the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the petitioners submitted Ahsan Abed Alletif that the Special Security Areas were in fact part of the overall Fence project and their construction, consequently, would Hussein et al. v. The Online Link contravene international law. Specifically, the petitioners argued that the hidden agenda behind the Fence was to effect an illegal Government of Israel annexation of territory and to unilaterally establish political borders. Secondly, the petitioners argued that even if the et al. aforementioned premise is rejected by the Court, the three specific seizure orders, pertaining to the peripheral areas of the three

Israeli towns, would cause disproportionate damage to local Palestinians.

HCJ 3877/06 Sammi Issa Asaf et al. The Court reviewed the various arguments through the guiding principles set forth in the Beit Sourik precedent. Accordingly, v. The Government of Justice A. Barak explained, the state is prohibited from considering political factors when engaging in activity in the West Bank Israel et al. and may only take into account (1) the security of the State of Israel; (2) the wellbeing of local Palestinians residents; and (3) the wellbeing of local Israeli residents.

Based on the evidence presented, the Court ultimately rejected claims that the construction of the Fence, and the three Special Security Areas, was intended to advance a non-security related agenda. The Court further concluded that the specific routes of the three Special Security Areas would proportionately balance between conflicting interests. Finally, the court emphasized that in the event that any changes occur with regard to local Palestinian urban, agricultural, travel, or other needs, or with regard to any other factor - including, for example, a future decision to attach the Special Security Areas to the Security Fence - the parties would be free to return and seek recourse from the Court.

24. HCJ 4289/05 Chief Justice (Ret.) A. Barak (Concurring, Chief Justice D. Beinisch and Justices E. Rivlin, A. Procaccia, E. Levy, A. Bir Naballah Local Grunis, M. Naor, S. Joubran and E. Hayut) Municipality et al. v. The Government of Through five separate petitions, 150 Palestinians and Israelis asked that the Court require the government of Israel to incorporate Israel et al. a variety of revisions in the construction plans associated with the erection of the Fence surrounding Jerusalem. Through these many petitions a variety of intersecting and conflicting requests were presented to the Court, all proposing alternatives which HCJ 4457/05 they felt would more proportionately accommodate their interests. Over the course of this petition the Court considered, for Bir Nabala Village example, (1) whether the proposal of the Respondents to pave new bypass roads would adequately compensate for the roadways Council et al. v. The which would be closed as a result of the construction of the Jerusalem sections of the Fence; (2) whether land was seized to the Government of Israel minimal extent possible while preserving the critical security concerns of the local Israeli residents; (3) the extent of access the et al. Palestinian petitioners would have to agriculture remaining on the "Israeli" side of the Fence, etc. Based on the evidence presented, the court ultimately rejected the petitions. However, it noted that the petitioners could turn to the court in the future to (34 pages) HCJ 3139/06 evaluate the question of potential damage as a result of the agriculture gates set up by the military. Residents of Almuahel Online Link Neighborhood v. The Government of Israel et al.

HCJ 3632/06 Itzhak Levit et al. v. The Prime Minister of Israel at al.

HCJ 3900/06 Giv'at Ze'ev Local Municipality v. The Minister of Defense et al.

25. HCJ 3758/04 Chief Justice A. Barak (Concurring, Justices D. Beinisch and A. Procaccia) Tzabari Mohammad Ahmed Aghreiv v. The An original seizure order issued by the Respondents was unilaterally cancelled as a result of renewed scrutiny of the Fence Government of Israel conducted by the Respondents following the Beit Sourik precedent. This second order, while alleviating other damages, gave et al. way to the two petitions submitted to the Court and heard jointly in this case. One petition was filed by a local Palestinian property owner and an additional one was filed by the community counsel of an adjacent Israeli town. Specifically, to protect a HCJ 5170/06 particularly exposed Israeli town, fences had, in the past, been erected on three sides of the Palestinian petitioner's home. The Giv'on HaHadasha - home, located within the Israeli town, was connected to the local Palestinian village via a "security corridor". The new route of Communal Settlement the Fence would restrict access to the nearby Palestinian village and to an additional home owned by the petitioner in which his v. The Minister of children reside. As a result of this recognizably difficult predicament, the Respondents, prior to the submission of the petition, Defense et al. conducted several negotiations with the Palestinian petitioner. Over the course of these negotiations, Respondents offered the petitioner alternative living arrangements and compensation for losses incurred. These and similar offers were rejected and ultimately the Respondents proposed the following: (1) the Respondents would take down the fences currently surrounding the home and in their place construct a system of "indicative" measures (i.e. a delineation marked by technological sensors and other obstacles, as opposed to concrete physical barriers), (2) a unique gate, to which the Palestinian petitioner would hold a key and (7 pages) be free to fully control, would be installed in the section of the Security Fence between the home and the village, and (3) a security surveillance camera would be installed above the gate to monitor those crossing to and from the home. The Palestinian Online Link petitioner agreed to have the fences reconstructed (no. 1 above), but felt that the construction of the gate would disproportionately impede access to the village and that the camera would constitute an invasion of his personal privacy. At the same time, the Israeli petitioner argued that the installation of a gate in the Security Fence, which their fellow petitioner could, theoretically, leave open at all times, would not provide adequate security to the local Israeli residents. Indeed, it was submitted, a surveillance camera alone could not offer enough security to the local Israeli residents.

Ultimately, the Court rejected both petitions and accepted the position of the Respondents according to which their proposed framework of arrangements reflected, in the most proportional way possible, the proper balance of all relevant conflicting interests. Removing the gate and the camera from the relevant section of the Fence would create an indefensible risk to the lives of the local Israelis, while other more invasive measures to protect to settlement would bring about an unacceptable degree of damage to the Palestinian petitioner.

26. HCJ 5488/04 Chief Justice (Ret.) A. Barak (Concurring, Chief Justice D. Beinisch and Justices A. Procaccia, E. Levy, A. Grunis and E. Elram Local Hayut; Partially dissenting, Justice M. Naor) Municipality et al. v. The Government of Before delving into the details of the various petitions considered in this case, Justice A. Barak explained that, "[s]ince the time Israel et al. the government decided to erect a Security Fence 115 petitions were submitted to this court 28 of them concluded in settlements or were otherwise withdrawn. 46 petitions remain…." Barak explained that the instant petitions were unique in three respects: (1) HCJ 6080/05 these petitions concern urban as opposed to agricultural life; (2) the majority of the petitioners are Arab Israeli Residents who Dr. Ahmed Bader have chosen to reside in the Territories; (3) the western segment of the Fence concerned in this case regards sections entirely Muselmani et al. v. within Israel. The petitioners, both Israelis and Palestinians, questioned the legality of the specific areas of the Fence (as well as The Government of the Fence in general) and presented opposing alternatives which, the parties respectively claimed, would more proportionately Israel et al. balance between the conflicting interests. After reviewing each section of the Fence, the Court agreed to approve the arrangement proposed by the Respondents. In concluding, the Court reminded all parties that they would be free to return and HCJ 3648/05 petition the Court in the event that the arrangements proposed by the Respondents turned out to insufficiently accommodate their Meliha Tamer et al. v. needs. The Government of (39 pages) Israel et al. Justice M. Naor dissented in part with respect to one particular section of the fence challenged before the Court. She explained that under the circumstances, the damage caused to residents of Jerusalem would be less severe than those caused to the residents Online Link of its peripheral neighborhoods. Realizing the difficulties in any decision made with regards to the Fence, Justice Naor explained that:

"2. [t]he Fence, regardless of where it passes, will impact the fabric of life. In one way or another it causes difficulty to those seeking to travel to their places of employment or to their homes. It impacts students, family ties and culture. It often requires seizing property and damaging ownership rights – it injures the country landscape. It stands as a constant and painful reminder that the nations of the land have not yet succeeded in living in the land in peace. And, however, the Fence is critical, indeed, for the defense of those who need protection against terrorist attacks. The choice of where to lay down the fence is often a choice between evils, but it is an unavoidable choice which must be made. We can only wish that better days will dawn upon us, days in which fences will not be necessary for personal security. However, for the time being, such days cannot be seen on the horizon."

27. HCJ 8414/05 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice E. Rivlin and Justice A. Procaccia) Online Link Ahmed Issa Abdalla Yasin v. The The petitioner, the director of the municipality of the Palestinian village Bili'in, argued that the relevant section of the Fence had (2 pages) Government of Israel been planned based on illegitimate factors - primarily considerations concerning future expansion of an outer neighborhood of the Israeli city of Modi'in. The petitioner posited that due to this illegitimate factor, relating to Israeli urban planning as opposed et al. to legitimate security and human rights interests, an unnecessary amount of Palestinian property had been seized. In response, (8 pages) Respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed due to severe delays in its submission, as a result of the "clean hands Online Link doctrine" and inappropriate behavior of the petitioner, and, finally, due to a previously signed agreement between the parties

relating to relevant section of the Fence. Substantively, the Respondents argued that the route was chosen due to the increased (25 pages) security benefits it provided, both to current and potential future residents of the Israeli city. Beyond the government Respondents, several real estate companies joined the proceedings and argued that acceding to the petitioner's request would Online Link cause them irreparable damage. These companies purchased property from local Palestinian landowners and had recently invested significant sums of money based on their understanding that the relevant section of the Fence route, which had already been the subject legal proceedings, would not be changed.

The Court ultimately adopted the position of the petitioner and reemphasized the point that the military commander, when routing the Fence, may only take into account (1) legitimate security concerns, and (2) the rights of the local residents. Foreign considerations, such as those relating to urban needs of Israeli cities, may not play a role in routing the Fence. Therefore, the Court required the government to shift the Fence westward, away from the Palestinian village, and reconsider the route, while taking into account that, as the Court ruled, the current route of the Fence fails to meet the proportionality test established it Beit Sourik.

"35. … As is known, the planning of the route of the Fence should not be based upon a desire to include on the "Israeli" side land to be used for future town expansion, especially when such expansion isn't intended in the near future. … 40. … The Respondents must reconsider the current route and examine an alternative which could provide security to the residents in the western segment of "Matityahu East" and which would be less damaging to the residents of Bil'in. We are aware of the fact that such a change cannot take place in a single day as this issue requires the dismantling and reconstructing the Fence in certain areas. In light of the ongoing impact on the residents of Bil'in, the Respondents are required to engage in the revaluation within a reasonable time frame."

The above ruling was issued in September, 2007. Consequently, an alternative route was proposed by the Respondents. On December 2008, the petitioners returned to the Court and again received a ruling which required further adjustments to the Fence.

28. HCJ 2645/04 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice E. Rivlin and Justice A. Procaccia) Faress Ibrahim Nasser et al v. The Prime The petition involved petitions by both Palestinian and Israeli residents in the area of Dir Kadis and Modi'in Illit, as well as real Minister of Israeli et estate and development companies with interests in the area. Each party raised conflicting claims that the route of the Security al. Fence, which had already been altered several times, should be changed in a manner that would minimize harm to each of the (22 pages) parties. Ultimately, the Court dismissed all of the parties' claims: 1213/06 Online Link Tzipha International "40. In summation, the First Route, supported by the [Israeli] City Council of Modi'in Illit and the real estate companies, would 1994 Ltd. et al v. The indeed mitigate damage to these petitioners. Notwithstanding, this would cause substantial harm to the Palestinian villagers. It Commander of the would enhance the immediate and direct damage to farmers from the Dir Kadis village, regarding whose rights the Respondents

IDF Forces in the West also have an obligation to protect. The First Route does not, therefore, minimize damage to the generality of the population - Bank et al. whose wellbeing must be clearly taken into account by the Respondents. Under these circumstances, we have not found a cause to intervene in the weighing conducted by the Respondents between security considerations and the conflicting rights of Dir HCJ 1780/06 Kadis residents, residents of Modi'in Illit and the real estate companies. The decisions made by the military commander were Modi'in Illit Local made after considering the spectrum of relevant circumstances and after being guided by the parameters established by this Municipality v. The Court regarding the Security Fence. Indeed, the task of the military commander is not easy. He must find the delicate balance Commander of the between conflicting needs and interests. We have been impressed by the sincere desire of the military commander to identify this IDF Forces in the West balance, while remaining willing to make changes to the original plans to arrive at a balanced solution. Under the instant Bank et al. circumstances – the balance as conducted is proportional, and, in any event, does not extend beyond the parameters which we see fit to respect."

29. HCJ 2577/04 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice E. Rivlin and Justice A. Procaccia) Taha Al Huaja et al. v. The Prime Minister of Following the Beit Sourik ruling, and in an attempt to reduce the harm caused to local Palestinian and Israeli residents, the route Israel et al. at issue in this petition was reexamined and, for the second time within a year, shifted south.

The Court agreed with petitioners' claims that a certain segment of the Fence disproportionately caused damage to local (24 pages) Palestinian residents. In ruling, the Court accepted the position of the Respondents that the original route offered the most security to local Israelis but emphasized that security considerations alone cannot serve as the basis for routing the Fence. Online Link Instead, the Court explained, there are times in which safety of local Israelis will be moderately impaired in order to accommodate rights of other local affected persons.

30. 3HCJ 834/07 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices A. Procaccia and E. Hayut) 0Mahmud Mohammad (9 pages) Rashid Takatka et al. In this petition the Court ruled that the Respondents had appropriately balanced between the conflicting rights of the local v. The Government of residents. Accordingly, Chief Justice D. Beinisch refrained from intervening in the military commander's decision with regard to Online Link Israel et al. this section of the Fence.

31. 3HCJ 10309/06 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice E. Rivlin and Justice A. Procaccia) 1Alfei Menashe Local Municipality v. The In light of, inter alia, commitments of the Respondents to incorporate agricultural gates and other similar solutions to concrete Government of Israel problems, the Court felt that adequate relief had been granted. The temporary nature of the Security Fence contributed, in part, to et al. the Court's conclusion in this case, according to which the military commander's decision was reasonable. (16 pages)

HCJ 10714/06 Online Link Yassin Yunes Mohammad Maraba et

al. v. The Government of Israel et al. 32. 3HCJ 1361/08 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices E. Arbel and H. Meltzer) 2Filandendrom 12 Ltd. v. The Commander of A private Israeli company submitted this petition, calling for the Court to intervene and require that the Fence be rerouted in a (9 pages) the IDF Forces in the section adjacent to the Israeli city of Modi'in. The petitioner owned land which would be separated from the Israeli city due to West Bank et al. the Fence. The Court dismissed the request and explained that the damage to the petitioner and the adverse impact to its property rights could not justify the damage which would be caused to the local Palestinian residents if the petition were to be granted. Online Link

33. 3HCJ 6193/05 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices E. Levy and A. Grunis) 3Ras Hamis Village Residents Council et "4. Against these [seizure] orders, the petitioners submitted an appeal to the Appeals Committee, in accordance with the Law al. v. The Competent regarding the Requisitioning of Property in Times of Emergency, 1949, located adjacent to the Magistrate Court of Tel-Aviv Authority by the Law Jaffa (hereinafter – the Appeals Committee), pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of the Property Requisitioning Law. The Appeals for Requisition of Committee considered the arguments of the petitioners and decided to dismiss the appeal and confirm the route of the Security Land Settlement Fence as it had been established by the Director General of the Ministry of Defense. At the same time, the Committee ruled that the current route of the Fence would continue to be considered [legally] proportionate only on condition that the terminal being planned in this section be expanded in such a way that it could facilitate the crossing of 5,000 people per hour during rush hour (6:00 – 8:00) – such that the time that residents of the Reches Shuafat neighborhood would have to wait to pass to the western side of the Fence, where the city services which they require are located, would be reasonable, which according to the Committee could not be more than 20 to 30 minutes. (15 pages) … Therefore, in consideration of the ruling of the Appeals Committee, requiring the State to construct a terminal which would allow the crossing of 5,000 people per hour during rush hour (6:00 to 8:00), something which will ensure short and reasonable Online Link waiting times at the checkpoint, we conclude that the impact to the petitioners is proportionate in relation to the need to realize the security purposes underlying the route of the Fence." … 22. … In regard to our case, the petitioners did not sufficiently convince the court to adopt a view which is contrary – from a security perspective – to that of the security authorities. Moreover, the process of establishing the route of the Fence in the area relevant to this petition was protracted, and it included consultations with all elements of the security authorities, including the highest echelons, and even with the petitioners. The route of the Fence in the area concerning this petition had been shifted many times in order to arrive at a solution which would limit as much as possible damage to the petitioners…"

34. 3HCJ 11344/03 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices A. Procaccia and E. Levy) 4Faez Salim et al. v. The Commander of the Four petitions were submitted to the Court regarding the route of the Fence erected in 2003 in and around the Palestinian cities of IDF Forces in the West Tul Karem and Qalqilya. Three of the petitions were submitted by Palestinians and a fourth petition was submitted by an Israeli Bank municipal council on behalf of local Israeli residents. One of the Palestinian petitions requested that the Court intervene and require the relevant military command to ease its permit requirements and more freely allow local civilian Palestinians to pass HCJ 10905/05 through the Fence. The other three petitions concerned various sections of the local segment of the Fence. As background, the The Mayor of Jayyous Court noted that some of the Palestinian petitioners had filed a nearly identical petition with the Court in 2002. That petition, et al. v. The Prime however, was obviated due to a commitment by the respondent in 2002 to accommodate the petitioners' requests. The Court in Minister of Israel et al. 2002 emphasized that the petitioners reserved all rights to reappear in Court and, indeed, in 2003 the above petitions were filed. After the petitions were filed in 2003, the government of Israel, in light of the Beit Sourik case, reanalyzed the route and the HCJ 11765/05 permit system and in 2004 and 2005 incorporated significant changes in and around the areas of the above petitions. When the Head of Hirbat Jebara above petitions were resubmitted, raising new claims and concerns, the Respondents once more, in 2006, proposed an adjustment Village Council et al. v. to the route of the Fence. Ultimately the Court ruled that based upon its new proposal for the Fence route and local agricultural The Prime Minister of gates, the Respondents had proportionately balanced between the conflicting interests concerned. Furthermore, the Court Israel et al. explained that as the new route had not yet been erected, claims that the local military's permit and agricultural access arrangements were overly restrictive were premature. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that the state would cover legal fees of the HCJ 8109/07 Palestinian petitioners and would be committed to ensuring that their rights and access to lands not be affected throughout the (24 pages) Kokhav Ya'ir Local course of the dismantling of the old Fence and the construction of the new one.

Municipality v. The Prime Minister of "47. In summary, the route with which this petition was concerned has undergone significant updates and changes. Many Online Link Israel et al. changes have also occurred with regards to the arrangements for passage through this section of the Fence, of which many further changes are anticipated to take place following the erection of the [Respondents' new] proposed route of the Fence. The new passage arrangements must be considered after the changes which are to occur together with the erection of the proposed route and, therefore, they should not presently be deliberated. Regarding the establishing of the route, there were indeed initial flaws which in the process of establishing the instant route of the Fence, when considerations were taken into account which related to the security of neighborhoods which had not yet been built, and an appropriate balance was not conducted between security considerations and considerations of the rights and fabric of life of the local Palestinian residents. Nevertheless, over the course of time which has passed since the submission of the petitions, the sections of the route of the Fence at issue here have been changed to the extent that they now embody the relevant considerations – and those alone. The new route which does not take into account unimplemented plans for future expansion of Israeli towns and which does place extensive amounts of land on the eastern side of the Security Fence, reduces to a significant extent the Seam Line in this area. This route falls within the spectrum of proportionality left to the discretion of the state, and we have therefore not seen fit to intervene.

48. Until the culmination of construction of the Fence pursuant to the new route and until the original Fence is dismantled we have not found any reason to worsen the passage arrangements which currently exist and to allow the closure of gate 753,

located west of H'irbet G'abara and used by the village residents of H'irbet G'abara, Tzur, and A-Ras, as the State requested. This is due to the fact that no one [including the Respondents] question[s] the illegality of the current section of the fence regarding which the gate has been established and which severely impedes on the fabric of life of the local village residents. To the extent that this section of the Fence is dismantled expeditiously, the ongoing operation of the gate will be rendered unnecessary. We therefore rule that until the current Fence is dismantled the gate must be left opened pursuant to the arrangements now in place. The Respondents can, obviously, amend the security arrangements during the Interim Period, to the extent necessary.

Pursuant to all that has been mentioned above, the petitions are hereby rejected. The interim order which was issued (HCJ 11765/05) on 4.1.2006 is void. The state must compensate the expenses of the villages which petitioned in this proceeding in the amount of NIS 20,000." 35. HCJ 8222/08 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices A. Procaccia and U. Fogelman) Davka Company Ltd. V. The Commander of Following a renewed scrutiny process conducted by the government, an amended route of the Fence was established in the the IDF Forces vicinity of a certain Palestinian village in Samaria. According to the relevant government decision, "[the government] sees importance in the continuation of the Security Fence project…while acting diligently to mitigate, to the extent possible, its

impact on the way of life of the Palestinians, pursuant to the criteria outlined by the HCJ" (Government Decision 3283). Several HCJ 9113/08 petitioners, compromised of Palestinians, Israelis, and a variety of legal persons, protested the new route before the Court. The Oranit Local Palestinian petitioners felt that the new route, while less damaging to their interests, could be constructed further from their (22 pages) Municipality et al. v. homes and lands. The Israeli petitioners, on the other hand, presented conflicting claims and felt that the new route should not, The Government of for a variety of reasons, replace the original route. Israel et al. Online Link The Court ultimately accepted the position of the Respondents who explained that this critical section of the Fence was being HCJ 9144/08 built in an area densely populated by Palestinians and Israelis alike. The Court agreed that there was very little room for Azmi Sudaki Ahmed maneuvering and that the reconsidered route reflected the most correct balance between the many conflicting interests. It further Salame et al. v. The explained that the damage to Palestinian residents in the region must be as limited as possible, and that "as a result, in some State of Israel et al. cases, we must make do with security solutions which are not the optimal solutions."

36. HCJ 3937/07 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Justices E. Levy and A. Grunis) Beit Sahour Municipality et al. v. A local Palestinian village council petitioned the Court requesting it to require the Israeli government dismantled and reroute a The Prime Minister of section of the Fence in and around Jerusalem. Among the Respondents' arguments was that the petition should be dismissed in Israel et al. limine due to its severe delay in submission. Nevertheless, the Respondents committed to the petitioners that they would include a (11 pages) crossing gate in the relevant section of the Fence to accommodate requests by local residents to access certain lands on the other side of the Fence. Online Link

The Court recognized that there existed legal grounds to dismiss the petition. Indeed, the petition was filed with the court after

approximately five years of planning and construction by the Respondents. Nevertheless, the Court, applying its right of judicial discretion, decided to allow the petition and consider the substantive arguments presented. This, the Court said, was due to the importance of Israeli judicial review vis-à-vis all elements of the Security Fence – regardless of procedural wrongs by petitioners. In considering the arguments, the Court agreed that due to topographical constraints no other viable route existed. Furthermore, the route chosen was deemed by the Court to constitute a proportionate balance of the various conflicting interests; the lands regarding which access would be restricted were not agricultural; there would be crossing gates to accommodate local residents; access of local residents to essential services such as healthcare and schools would not be restricted; etc. Thus, the Court ultimately dismissed the petition, while emphasizing that the dismissal was based on the Respondents fulfilling their commitments regarding the crossing gate.

"19.In summation, we have not found cause to intervene in the decision of the Respondents which led to the erection of the Fence pursuant to the current route. We have been convinced that the military commander acted within his authority, in light of the military-security needs which the Fence aims to fulfill, and in light of the fact that the route established balances between the various considerations in an appropriate manner. Our position takes into account, inter alia, the commitment of the Respondents to operate the agricultural gate so that it will grant residents of Beit Sahour access to their property in the Seam Line, to the extent that such access is requested by the residents, regardless of whether such access has been utilized up until now. In addition, the possibility of permitting residents, based on need and after checks, to enter the agricultural areas located at a distance from the Seam Line with their vehicles, and to the extent they deem it necessary, must be considered".

37. HCJ 4387/06 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice E. Rivlin and Justice A. Procaccia) Mes'cha Village Council et al. v. The Petitioners in this case, the council of a local Palestinian village and an Israeli NGO, asked that the Court order that a certain Prime Minister of section of the Fence be dismantled and rerouted. The petitioners explained that: (1) the Fence had been constructed overly distant from nearby Israeli towns as a result of illegitimate considerations of Israeli residential expansion, as opposed to security related Israel et al. concerns; (2) Palestinian land had been disproportionately left outside the Fence; (3) the Fence had been causing disproportionate harm to a certain Palestinian family whose home had been disconnected from the local village due to the Fence. Before (15 pages) presenting counterarguments, the Respondents requested that the petition be dismissed due to serious delays of the petitioners, which could cause the state of Israel to incur severe and disproportionate costs. While agreeing that the delay of more than three years undoubtedly caused ostensible grounds for dismissal, the Court ruled that the petition should be considered substantively Online Link due to public policy considerations.

Throughout the course of the proceedings, the Respondents made several commitments which, in the opinion of Court, would mitigate damages to local Palestinians. This included increasing the operating hours of the agricultural gates, considering placement of additional gates, paving a new access road and tunnel which would connect the residents of the village to their

agricultural lands on the opposite side of the Fence, and other similar activities. After considering these commitments and the array of conflicting interests, the Court rejected the petition.

14. … In our case, the financial damage to the state as a result of the delay is significant. The erection of the Fence cost millions of Shekels and its shifting to an alternative route, for which additional property would be seized, would require the state to engage in an immense financial investment, one which would even cause damage to other property owners. Ostensibly, this set of facts and the severe delays justify rejecting the petition. However, in consideration of the need to mitigate the significant damages to the rights and fabric of life of those property owners who have been impacted by the construction of the Fence, as detailed below, and in light of the public interest of great importance inherent in this petition, we have not refrained from considering this petition substantively". ... 23. Beyond the general damage to the residents of the village, it is important to mention the uniquely severe damage caused to the A'amar family. Accordingly, due to the extremely close proximity of their home to the homes of the [Israeli] town of Elkana the route of the Fence passes between their home and the rest of the homes in the village, causing it to be left on the "Israeli" side of the Fence…As we have been informed, because of the exceptional case which has formed, it was decided that a variety of measures would be taken in order to balance the severe impact caused to the A'amar family and in order to minimize limitations on their freedom of movement. Thus, for example, a gate was established which is monitored by a camera to prevent terrorist entities from passing through towards the [Israeli] town Elkana. The A'amar family has a key to the gate and they are entitled to unrestricted use of and passage through the gate.

38. HCJ 1882/08 Chief Justice D. Beinisch (Concurring, Deputy Chief Justice E. Rivlin and Justice E. Arbel) Abed El'rahman Shaeb Regev Nazer et The head of the Tzapha Village Council and four other local Palestinian residents submitted this petition in regard to a particular al. v. The State of 3.2 kilometer section of the Fence. An overlapping petition, involving the same segment of the Fence and some of the same individuals, had been previously filed but during a hearing before the Court on 16.12.05 the petitioners agreed to withdraw their Israel et al. claims in light of commitments they received from the respondent, the State of Israel. Shortly thereafter, on 22.12.05 some of the same residents of the same village submitted a petition regarding the same section of the Fence. An interim cease and desist order was initially issued by the Court which caused the state to cease constructing the Fence in the relevant area. Ultimately, (11 pages) however, the petition was rejected and construction of the Fence recommenced. Three years later, in early 2008, the petitioners returned and requested once again that the Fence be dismantled. The state argued that the petition should be dismissed in limine due to this issue having been previously resolved by the Court, due to severe delays in submission, and for a variety of other Online Link reasons. The Court rejected this contention and decided to substantively consider the petition. In doing so, the Court ultimately ruled that due to security concerns only the slightest shifting of the Fence would be possible, something which provided minimal marginal relief to the petitioners. Nevertheless, the Court required the Respondents to mitigate the damage to the residents of the Tzapha village by increasing the frequency and hours of operation of the existing agricultural gates.

16. The route of the Fence causes damage to the residents of the Tzapha Village. This damage is a result of the seizure of lands for the purpose of the construction of the actual Fence, of the uprooting of trees found in the path of the route, and of leaving cultivated agricultural lands to the west of the fence – in the "Seam Line". Access to these lands has been limited to passage through an agricultural gate intended to serve permit holders only and which is not continuously opened, this [contributes] to all of the hardships entailed in this. Is this damage proportional? … 23. Nevertheless, [despite formally rejecting the petition,] in light of that which was mentioned and in consideration of the extent of damage to the petitioners as described above, we are of the opinion that the times and hours of operation of the existing agricultural gate in the area must be extended and that the possibility of incorporating an additional gate must be considered – all must be done in coordination between petitioner 1 and the state and in accordance to the needs of the petitioners. It is of particular importance to ensure the petitioners' ease of access from their residences to their lands throughout the plowing season and olive harvest periods. We are of the opinion that this would noticeably minimize the damage to the petitioners, and in any event – a realistic alternative cannot be found which would further limit damage to the petitioners while avoiding causing additional damage to them and to other Palestinian residents.

* Please note that the summaries, translations, and additional information provided above is intended solely for the purpose of providing access to relevant materials for those interested in this area of Israeli jurisprudence. This document should not be relied upon as legal advice and should not be viewed as an official document.