Background
Jagoub challenged the military commander’s refusal to grant security approval needed to advance a licensing process for land within the area covered by a military order prohibiting construction near the security barrier. The development, approximately 300 meters from the fence, consisted of a concrete structure and greenhouses. After authorities issued a stop-work order in August 2024, a planning subcommittee ordered work stopped and the development demolished within 30 days.
The regional planning office later declined to accept Jagoub’s permit application because the land fell within the construction-prohibition order. Enforcement was temporarily stayed following earlier litigation while requests for exceptions were considered. The military commander denied Jagoub’s request in May 2025, citing the order’s security purpose and the development’s proximity to the fence. Jagoub argued that the risk assessment was flawed, irrelevant considerations had been considered, and his property rights favored permitting the development. He also maintained that part of it had existed since the 1980s, before the order was issued.
While the petition was pending, the commander reconsidered the matter and determined that the order did not apply to the concrete structure because it predated the order. Jagoub was therefore permitted to advance planning proceedings for that structure, but the refusal concerning the greenhouses remained in effect.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition. It held that construction-prohibition orders of this kind serve the legitimate security purpose of preserving the effectiveness of the security fence by preventing nearby construction. The commander had considered Jagoub’s case twice, and the record showed that security—not an improper consideration—was the basis for refusing approval for the greenhouses.
The Court also noted that the development had initially been built without an appropriate application, which Jagoub submitted only after being ordered to demolish it. Because the concrete structure had now been cleared to proceed through planning, the remaining dispute concerned only nonresidential greenhouses. That substantially reduced, though did not eliminate, the interference with Jagoub’s property rights.
The Court criticized the authorities for failing to reconsider the concrete structure before the petition was filed and for inaccurately discussing a different construction-prohibition order in their preliminary response. The error did not affect the outcome because the remaining materials established that the development was governed by the relevant order and that the commander’s decisions relied on it. The interim-relief request was also denied, and no costs were awarded.
Key Takeaways
- Security authorities may deny planning approval for construction near the security fence when the decision is grounded in the applicable prohibition order’s security purpose.
- A structure predating the relevant prohibition order must be assessed separately from later construction on the same property.
- Reconsideration during litigation can narrow or moot part of a petition, while inaccuracies in the government’s response will not require relief if they did not affect the merits.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms the broad weight Israel’s High Court gives to documented security concerns when reviewing land-use restrictions near the West Bank security barrier, particularly for unauthorized, nonresidential construction. At the same time, it shows that authorities must distinguish older structures outside an order’s temporal reach from later development and accurately identify the governing military order.