West Bank settlement (Archives)
Photo: Reuters
State to court: Construction freeze legal
High Court hears State's response to Legal Forum for the Land of Israel's claim that construction freeze is illegal. 'Overall political benefits to Israel outweigh any individual damage,' says rebuttal
The Cabinet's decision to issue construction freeze orders to West Bank settlements is legal, a State representative argued before the High Court Thursday.
The hearing saw the State file a rebuttal to a petition by the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel against the cabinet's decision to order a temporary settlement freeze and the GOC Central Command's subsequent warrants.
Protest
Efrat Weiss
Thousands gather near Prime Minister's Residence to protest construction freeze in settlements, carry signs saying, 'No entrance for Bibi's inspectors'. Samaria Regional Council head says, 'Bibi, we will build with or without you'
The petitioners further claimed that the GOC Central Command, which is in charge of the area, does not have the authority to issue such warrants. The argument rejected by the State, which claimed that the very nature of the Command's authority in the West Bank allows its chief to issue such orders.
The support its claim, the State cited the 1982 eviction of Yamit, a settlement which was located in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula – an area ceded to Egypt as part of the Israel-Egyptian peace deal. The warrants for Yamit's eviction were issued by the GOC Southern Command.
Rescinding the orders will effectively annul the decision to halt settlement construction, said the State, resulting in political damage to Israel: "The overall diplomatic benefits outweigh any individual damage… These warrants are a step meant to cement Israel's commitment to the peace process and its hope that it would reignite the direct negotiations with the Palestinians.
"Any massive construction, sanctioned by an interim order will irrevocably hinder efforts to resume negotiations," it said.
The State also addressed the petitioners' claims that they were not given enough time to appeal in advance; saying "political sensitivities" and concerns that "certain elements" will use such time to form new realities on the ground, prevented the government from informing the public of its decision ahead of time.
