## Facts

- Palestinian village councils and landowners northwest of Jerusalem petitioned against land-seizure orders issued to build a roughly 40-kilometer segment of a separation barrier in the West Bank.
- The respondents were the Government of Israel and the military commander of the area, acting under asserted powers in territory held in belligerent occupation.
- The barrier project was justified as a security measure to prevent attacks against Israeli civilians during a period of sustained violence beginning in 2000.
- Petitioners alleged the planned route would sever communities from significant agricultural lands, wells, and roads, and would materially impede movement to workplaces, schools, medical services, and East Jerusalem.
- Third parties, including security professionals, supported alternative routes that purportedly would reduce harm while maintaining security benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether the military commander in occupied territory has legal authority to seize private land to construct a security barrier under the law of belligerent occupation and Israeli administrative law.
2. Whether the barrier and its route served a permissible security purpose rather than impermissible political aims such as annexation or permanent border-setting.
3. Whether the specific route unlawfully burdened the local population because the harm was disproportionate to the security benefit.

## Decision

- The court held the military commander had authority, under the law of belligerent occupation and Israeli administrative law, to build a security barrier and to take measures necessary for security, including temporary land seizure.
- The court accepted that the barrier’s aim in this case was security, not annexation or the setting of permanent borders.
- Applying a structured proportionality analysis, the court concluded that substantial portions of the chosen route imposed excessive harm on local residents relative to the incremental security gain.
- The court invalidated the challenged orders for significant parts of the route (approximately 30 kilometers of the 40-kilometer segment) and required reconsideration and rerouting of those sections.

## Legal Principles

- In belligerent occupation, the military commander’s powers are temporary and are limited to proper administration of the area and security needs; political goals (including annexation or permanent borders) are impermissible considerations.
- The commander must balance military/security necessity against the rights and needs of the local inhabitants under the applicable norms of occupation law and domestic administrative law.
- Proportionality requires: (1) a rational connection between the measure and the security objective, (2) selection of reasonably available means that cause less harm while achieving the objective, and (3) a proper balance between the severity of civilian harm and the importance of the security benefit.
- Even when a security measure is lawful in principle, a particular route or implementation is unlawful if it fails proportionality because less harmful alternatives can provide comparable security or because the civilian burden is excessive.

## Conclusion

The court validated the military commander’s authority to construct a security barrier in occupied territory for genuine security purposes, but ordered major revisions because the selected route in the Beit Sourik area disproportionately harmed Palestinian residents in relation to the added security benefit.


Beit Sourik Vill. Council v. Gov’t of Isr., HCJ 2056/04 (Isr. 2004)