Background
Five petitioners challenged notices announcing the intended demolition of six agricultural sheds adjoining the village of Zubeidat and located approximately 20 to 77 meters from Highway 90. The structures stood within the area covered by Building Prohibition Order No. 1/96 (1996). The petitioners did not dispute that they had constructed the sheds without the military commander’s approval, which was required for an exemption from that order.
The petitioners objected to the demolition notices and sought approval excluding the structures from the building prohibition. The military commander rejected their objections in November 2025, concluding that the structures’ characteristics and proximity to a major traffic route created a security risk because they could be used by others for unlawful purposes. The petitioners then sought relief in the High Court of Justice, which temporarily barred demolition while the case was pending.
The petitioners argued that demolition would seriously impair their families’ livelihoods, that the Palestinian Authority had authorized the structures, and that the sheds were agricultural rather than residential. They also emphasized the village’s preexisting development and nearby structures against which demolition notices had not been issued. The commander responded that officials had individually assessed the sheds’ use, dimensions, construction stage, topographical implications, and location near Highway 90, and had balanced those matters against the petitioners’ interests.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously dismissed the petition, finding no ground to intervene in the military commander’s decisions. Section 332 of the Security Provisions Order (Judea and Samaria) (No. 1651), 2009 authorizes the commander to prohibit construction in a specified area when necessary for regional security or public order and requires the commander’s approval before a permit may be issued for a structure within such an area.
The Court explained that the building prohibition serves a security purpose: structures close to major West Bank traffic routes may facilitate attacks, conceal attackers, or impede preventive operations. When deciding whether to exempt a structure, the commander must balance the concrete security considerations supporting the prohibition against the applicant’s individual interests and those of local residents. Because such assessments lie within the commander’s military and security expertise, judicial review is deferential.
Here, the record showed an individualized assessment based on a complete factual foundation. The commander considered the structures’ physical features, dimensions, agricultural use, geographic location, proximity to Highway 90, the presence and age of other nearby village buildings, and the anticipated harm to the petitioners. The Court did not independently resolve the parties’ disagreement concerning the commander’s authority in Area B or treat the age of nearby buildings as dispositive; it held only that the petitioners had shown no defect warranting intervention and no inadequacy in the reasons given.
Key Takeaways
- Structures within a military building-prohibition zone require the military commander’s approval even when an applicant seeks an exemption after construction.
- Courts accord broad discretion to military security assessments but examine whether the commander used an adequate factual foundation and balanced security needs against affected private interests.
- The petition and interim-relief request were dismissed, the temporary demolition restraint was canceled, and the petitioners received 20 additional days to prepare; no costs were awarded.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited scope of judicial intervention in individualized security-based building decisions near major West Bank roads. Its holding rests on the adequacy of the commander’s factual inquiry and balancing in this case, rather than on an express ruling about Area B jurisdiction or a categorical rule governing older neighboring structures.