Israel argues security fence route necessitated by cost, not security

[JURIST] Lawyers for the state of Israel have argued in court papers filed with the Israeli High Court that moving a portion of the fully-constructed Security Fence [official website] as requested by Palestinian villagers is precluded by cost, said to be the first public admission by Israel that the route of the fence was not solely based on security considerations [IDF fence-routing backgrounder]. Residents of Azun, a Palestinian village cut off by the fence's departure from the 1967 Green Line border, had petitioned the High Court to direct a re-routing of the controversial West Bank barrier [Wikipedia entry]. After a 2004 High Court ruling that prohibited the state from basing barrier location decisions on "political" factors and relocation suggestions made by the International Court of Justice [advisory opinion], Israel had previously maintained that the fence could not be moved as its path was based solely on security. Observers also suggest that the new argument indicates that the Israeli government sees the fence as a long-term, not as a short-term solution as previously asserted. From Israel, Haaretz has more.



 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.