Background
The petition was brought by the Municipality of Taybeh–Ramallah and 13 individual petitioners against the Commander of IDF Forces in the Judea and Samaria Area, the Head of the Civil Administration, the Commander of the Binyamin Police, and the Legal Adviser for the Judea and Samaria Area. The petitioners sought a conditional order concerning protection of their rights in connection with land at issue in the proceeding. Advocate Nasri Amar represented the petitioners; Advocates Yonatan Berman and Yadid Or represented the respondents.
The panel consisted of Justice Daphne Barak-Erez, Justice Yael Willner, and Justice Alex Stein. The hearing took place on 5 November 2026. The court stated that the proceeding had been pending for more than a year and that steps already taken had not produced sufficient practical results in protecting the petitioners from infringement of their rights.
On 23 July 2026, an order had been issued declaring the relevant area a closed military zone. According to the court, that measure did not provide an adequate remedy. The petitioners identified numerous incidents in which the order’s instructions were allegedly violated, their rights were harmed, and no meaningful enforcement followed.
The Court’s Holding
The court issued a conditional order requiring the respondents to appear and explain why they should not take effective measures to secure the petitioners’ access to the lands, remove trespassers from them, and protect the petitioners. The order expressly includes carrying out arrests in appropriate cases involving persons who enter the closed military zone unlawfully. A responding affidavit must be filed by 10 January 2027.
The court’s stated concern was the adequacy of enforcement, not a final adjudication of the underlying land rights. It found that the respondents’ update notice, filed late on the morning of the hearing, presented only a partial picture and left questions unanswered. The notice stated that when an unauthorized person is found in the closed zone, even when aware of that status—for example, after repeatedly returning to the location—the person is “detained.” The court said no explanation had been provided for why an arrest is not made in such circumstances or whether this reflects a policy of avoiding arrests for violations of area-closure orders. It described that question as apparently material to maintaining public order in the area.
The court also recorded a statement made at the hearing in response to arguments raised: Israeli civilians invited by the applicants may seek permission to enter the closed zone. A request may be submitted by local residents through the Coordination and Liaison Administration, or directly by the Israeli civilians concerned. The court stated its assumption that such requests would be decided with appropriate speed and ordered a short update by 12 November 2026 addressing submission procedures and the short timeframe for answering requests in the ordinary course.
Key Takeaways
- The conditional order concerns effective access to the lands, removal of trespassers, protection of the petitioners, and arrests in appropriate cases of unlawful entry into the closed military zone.
- The court did not finally determine the petitioners’ underlying rights or order a particular arrest in an individual case; it required the respondents to justify the absence of effective measures.
- The respondents’ responding affidavit is due by 10 January 2027.
- A separate short update on entry-permit procedures and response times is due by 12 November 2026.
Why It Matters
The decision shows the High Court of Justice pressing for practical enforcement after concluding that an existing closure order had not adequately addressed repeated alleged violations. Its immediate focus is the respondents’ explanation and implementation of effective measures, including the circumstances in which unlawful entry should lead to arrest rather than merely detention.
The court also addressed a distinct access issue by recording the availability of permits for invited Israeli civilians and requiring prompt clarification of the application process. The conditional order leaves the merits for further proceedings while imposing concrete deadlines for the respondents’ affidavit and the procedural update.