The case was brought before the High Court on 29 February by villagers from Bayt Surik, Biddu, al-Kabiba, Ka'ane, Bayt Anan, Bayt Laqia, Bayt Ajaza, and Bayt Daku challenging the seizure of their lands and the disproportionate hardship caused by the wall's route; the defendants (““respondents””) were the Government of Israel and the military commander of the West Bank. Unlike the International Court of Justice at the Hague, the High Court was not called upon to consider the wall as a whole, but only a 40-km stretch (out of the 832-km total length) northwest of Jerusalem. The court ruled without deliberation in favor of Israel's right to build the wall on West Bank lands and the security nature of the project. Most of the opinion concerned the legality of the specific route. The court considered six separate orders pertaining to different segments of the wall and ruled that disproportionate hardship was caused to the inhabitants along about 30 km. For these segments, the court ordered the military commander to ““consider alternatives which, even if they result in a lower level of security, will cause a substantial (even if not complete) reduction of the damage to the lives of the local inhabitants”” (para. 76). In compliance with the order, the IDF on 8 July finalized a proposal for a new path for the wall in the Bayt Surik area, but Prime Minister Sharon and Defense Minister Mofaz had not formally approved it by the end of the quarter. The full text of the court ruling can be found on the High Court's Web site at

This content is only available via PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.