BEIRUT

Middle East

Israel court orders government to explain wall route

  • File - The planned route for Israel’s separation barrier would cut through ancient irrigation systems relied upon by the village of Battir.

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israel’s top court has given the government two months to explain why it has not proposed an alternative route for the West Bank wall in a valley near Jerusalem.

The decision, handed down by the high court Monday, relates to an appeal by Palestinian residents of Beit Jala, who say the proposed route will separate them from their olive groves and divide the local Christian community.

The residents say that if the Defense Ministry insists on building through the middle of the Cremisan Valley, it would mean 58 families losing their land and would split the Roman Catholic Salesian order’s properties, leaving a monastery on the Israeli side and a convent on the Palestinian side.

The land in question is a valley between the sprawling settlement neighborhood of Gilo in occupied East Jerusalem, and the smaller West Bank settlement of Har Gilo, just a few kilometers to the southwest.

At a hearing last week, the Council for Peace and Security, a group of former high-ranking security officials, proposed an alternative route for the barrier it said would save most of the villagers’ land and better ensure Israel’s security needs.

The court ordered Monday the Defense Ministry to explain in writing “why other alternatives to the route of the fence were not examined ... and why an alternative route had not been adopted.”

It also asked why four seizure orders that related to Palestinian land in the Cremisan Valley had yet to be canceled.

The ministry has until April 10 to respond in writing.

If the wall is built along the route proposed by the ministry, the villagers and the Salesian order stand to lose 3,000 dunams of land, 700 of which belong to the church.

But if it follows the route proposed by the Council for Peace and Security, no land will be seized, figures from St. Yves Catholic rights group show.

“The court’s decision is an indication that it is not inclined to adopt the state’s position,” said a statement from Zvi Avni, legal council for St. Yves, which represents the Salesian convent and its school.

“We definitely have new hope – the answer of the court is a good sign,” Avni said.

The same court is considering a separate appeal against the barrier’s route lodged by residents of the nearby Palestinian village of Battir, who say the wall will destroy its ancient terraces and a Roman-era irrigation system.

The court Sunday ordered Israel Railways and the Defense Ministry to look into the possibility of removing one of the two railway tracks that run just under Battir as a potential alternative route for the barrier.

“Removing one of the tracks which runs closest to the village would allow the fence to be moved ... by a few meters. Thus, there would be no need to damage the lowest terrace,” the court said, giving Israel Railways until Feb. 27 to respond.

Friends of the Earth Middle East said the court appeared to be “extremely reluctant to let the military remove a single stone terrace.”

“FoEME believes, supported by expert opinion, that due to the topography of the area, it is not possible to build the type of physical structure that the military is proposing without destroying several hundred meters of ancient stone terrace walls,” it said.

Israel began building the wall in 2002 at the height of the second Palestinian intifada arguing, that its construction was crucial for security. But the Palestinians see it as a land grab aimed at stealing part of their future state.

U.N. figures show that Israel has already built around two-thirds of the barrier – a network of towering concrete walls, barbed-wire fences, trenches and closed military roads that will extend 712 kilometers when completed.

Only 15 percent of the wall follows the Green Line, which is recognized by the international community as the border of Israel proper, with the rest inside the Palestinian West Bank.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice ruled that parts of the wall were illegal and should be torn down. But the Defense Ministry insists the route is determined by “specific security considerations” of the area.

 
A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Daily Star on February 05, 2014, on page 9.
Advertisement

Comments

Your feedback is important to us!

We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.

Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.

comments powered by Disqus
Summary

Israel's top court has given the government two months to explain why it has not proposed an alternative route for the West Bank wall in a valley near Jerusalem.

At a hearing last week, the Council for Peace and Security, a group of former high-ranking security officials, proposed an alternative route for the barrier it said would save most of the villagers' land and better ensure Israel's security needs.

The same court is considering a separate appeal against the barrier's route lodged by residents of the nearby Palestinian village of Battir, who say the wall will destroy its ancient terraces and a Roman-era irrigation system.

The court Sunday ordered Israel Railways and the Defense Ministry to look into the possibility of removing one of the two railway tracks that run just under Battir as a potential alternative route for the barrier.

Israel began building the wall in 2002 at the height of the second Palestinian intifada arguing, that its construction was crucial for security.


Advertisement

FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE

Interested in knowing more about this story?

Click here