Background
Ali Muhammad Ahmad Suleiman Razek constructed a car-wash shed, canopy, and concrete floor approximately 132 meters from the security barrier in an area covered by a 2011 military order prohibiting construction. After receiving a stop-work order in April 2024, Razek acknowledged that the work lacked a lawful building permit and requested time to apply for one. An inspection found that he had dismantled the structures himself, and on May 8, 2024, the planning-enforcement subcommittee declined to issue a final stop-work and demolition order. It stated, however, that renewed unauthorized work would lead to another hearing based on the existing stop-work order.
Inspectors found that the construction had resumed by August 26, 2024. That day, the subcommittee issued a final stop-work and demolition order without holding the further hearing contemplated by its May decision. Razek’s permit application was separately rejected at the threshold because the property fell within the no-construction zone and he had not obtained the military commander’s approval to pursue licensing. On October 9, 2024, the parties agreed in a Jerusalem District Court administrative proceeding that enforcement would be suspended until the commander ruled on Razek’s request.
On June 8, 2025, the military commander denied approval, citing the security rationale for the construction prohibition and the risks associated with buildings near the barrier. Razek petitioned the High Court of Justice, arguing that the decision inadequately considered nearby approved village planning, disproportionately impaired his property and livelihood, and favored security concerns despite the absence of any security harm from his structures.
The Court’s Holding
The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the petition. Justice Daphne Barak-Erez, writing for the panel, emphasized that the structures had been built without a lawful permit, including under the applicable Jordanian planning law. Razek had dismantled them after acknowledging the lack of a permit but subsequently resumed construction while the stop-work order remained in force.
The Court also found no basis to disturb the commander’s decision on the merits. The commander had weighed the operational assessment and the security purpose of preserving the barrier’s effectiveness against Razek’s interests. Although the Court recognized the importance of his property rights, it noted that the construction served a car-wash business rather than a residence and held that the commander’s balancing fell within the bounds of reasonableness.
The Court said the subcommittee’s issuance of the final demolition order without the promised additional hearing “raises questions.” But because the petition challenged only the commander’s refusal to grant an exception from the construction prohibition, the Court did not decide the hearing issue. It ordered no costs, citing both Razek’s conduct and the procedural defect concerning the hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A military commander may refuse permission to pursue licensing for construction inside a security-barrier no-construction zone when the refusal reasonably reflects the order’s security purpose and the applicant’s competing interests.
- Unauthorized construction, its voluntary dismantling, and its later resumption while a stop-work order remains effective weigh strongly against judicial intervention.
- A procedural defect in a demolition proceeding does not require relief when the petition challenges a separate administrative decision and does not place that defect before the court for determination.
Why It Matters
The judgment illustrates the substantial weight Israel’s High Court gives to a military commander’s operational assessment concerning construction near the West Bank security barrier. Property and livelihood interests remain relevant, but they may yield where the commander conducts an individualized balancing and the structure is a commercial facility located close to the barrier.
The decision also underscores the importance of framing the requested judicial review precisely. Although the Court identified a potential denial-of-hearing problem in the demolition process, it left that issue unresolved because the petition targeted only the refusal to authorize an exception from the construction prohibition.