Background
The petitioner, Salman Karshan, constructed a concrete fence around his property in the West Bank, located approximately 278 meters from the security barrier. The construction was done without a building permit in an area governed by a military order that prohibits construction near the barrier (the “Seam Zone”). The petitioner claimed he was unaware a permit was required for a mere fence and that its purpose was to protect his land from trespassers.
In March 2023, Israeli authorities issued a work-stoppage order, followed by a final demolition order. Karshan subsequently applied for a retroactive building permit in June 2024. After procedural delays and a separate administrative court filing, the application was ultimately brought before the IDF Military Commander for the West Bank. On June 8, 2025, the Commander denied the permit, stating that a concrete structure so close to the barrier “materially harms the security effectiveness of the barrier” and endangers civilians and security forces. Karshan then petitioned the High Court of Justice to overturn the Commander’s decision and the resulting demolition order.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, denied the petition, upholding the Military Commander’s decision. The Court found no grounds to intervene. It began by noting that the fence was built illegally, without a permit, in violation of Jordanian planning law which remains in effect in the area. The application for a permit was only filed retroactively, after a demolition order had already been issued.
The Court held that the Commander’s decision was reasonable. It was based on the specific characteristics of the structure, its proximity to the security barrier, and an updated security assessment, especially considering the heightened security situation since October 7, 2023. The Court affirmed the purpose of the construction-prohibition order, which is to “maintain the security effectiveness of the security barrier.” Since the structure was not used for housing, the Court found that the infringement on the petitioner’s property rights, while not insignificant, did not outweigh the pressing security concerns. The Court also pointed out that the petitioner had refused a reasonable compromise offered by the state: to replace the concrete fence with a mesh one, which would have both protected his property and complied with security requirements.
Key Takeaways
- The Israeli military has the authority to prohibit or restrict construction near the West Bank security barrier for security reasons.
- The High Court of Justice affords significant deference to the security assessments of the military commander when reviewing challenges to such decisions.
- Constructing a structure without a permit and only seeking retroactive approval after a demolition order is issued substantially weakens a petitioner’s legal position.
- A petitioner’s refusal to accept a reasonable compromise that could satisfy both their needs and the state’s security requirements may be held against them.
Why It Matters
This case reaffirms the broad discretion granted to the IDF military commander in the West Bank on matters deemed to have security implications. It demonstrates the high bar petitioners face when challenging planning and construction decisions that the state frames as necessary for security. The court’s deference to the military’s judgment, particularly in light of the security circumstances mentioned in the state’s response, is a consistent feature of its jurisprudence in this area. The ruling illustrates the ongoing legal tension between private property rights and national security imperatives in the West Bank, with security concerns frequently prevailing.