The barrier's objective is to increase supervision and control over Palestinians' entry into Israel. The plans never materialize.

Article from "Haaretz" newspaper, December 11th 1995.
Article from "Haaretz" newspaper, December 21st 1995.

The seam zone is defined on the map as an area located on both sides of the Green Line. The plan purports to prevent Palestinian infiltration from the West Bank (including the "Jerusalem envelope") into Israel, and to implement a "regime" enabling effective action in order to "prevent, obstruct, and undermine" infiltration and prevent illegal presence in Israel.

The Israeli security cabinet proclaims that "in order to improve and reinforce readiness and operational capabilities in coping with terrorism, and to frustrate, obstruct and prevent the infiltration of terrorist activity from the areas of Judea and Samaria into Israel”, the military and the police will prevent the passage of Palestinians from the West Bank into Israel and Jerusalem – other than in humanitarian and exceptional cases.

The petitioners – villagers whose lands were requisitioned for the construction of the separation wall by virtue of military orders – assert that the seizure conflicts with the decision of the Israeli Government, and that it was performed without delivery of prior notice to the owners and without the required permits. The seizure of lands contradicts the law in the area and the norms of international law, and constitutes an attempt to annex lands and establish permanent boundaries outside of negotiations.

Many such orders are issued in the following months, expropriating hundreds of acres of Palestinian-owned lands along the entire planned route of the barrier.

The justices endorse the state's position that the wall’s route was determined according to the need for topographic control, a security zone and minimal damage to cultivated lands – unrelated to any political motivation. The court rules that "the respondents' [Israel’s] decision did not include any flaw which would justify our intervention".

The government is presented with the security concept of the seam zone, the Jerusalem envelope and the eastern security zone. Israel approves "the construction of security fences and obstacles, with the objective
of reducing infiltration by terrorists from Judea and Samaria into Israel".

The report focuses on aspects of the project relating to the security of Israeli citizens and the activities of the Israeli security forces. The State Comptroller completely ignores the severe infraction of the human rights of OPT residents caused by the wall.

The B'Tselem report concludes that the separation wall – which Israel plans to build inside the West Bank – will turn dozens of Palestinian communities into enclaves, trapped between the wall and the green line, and will separate villages from their farmlands west of the wall. B'Tselem claims the planned route ignores human rights considerations and is guided by extraneous considerations, among them, the desire to leave as many settlements as possible west of the wall, facilitating their annexation to Israel.

The UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) concludes that the separation wall has a harmful effect on the rights of Palestinians relating to lands, water access, health care, employment and education. 

The UN determines that the construction of the “seam zone” and the wall has all encompassing repercussions on the life of Palestinians, in particular, on their rights to freedom of movement and access to health care and water. 

The government proclaims "every effort will be made to reduce as much as possible disturbances to the daily life of Palestinians following the construction of the barrier".

The permit applies to "three categories of human beings"(sic): tourists, Palestinians with permits for employment in settlements, and Palestinians with permits for entry into Israel.

HaMoked argues that the construction of the wall inside the occupied territory contravenes the principles of international law. HaMoked challenges the declaration of the “seam area” as a closed zone, and asserts that the permit regime effectively institutes apartheid and subjects West Bank Palestinians to blatant inhuman, immoral and illegal discrimination. The petition is founded on the provisions of international law relating to belligerent occupation, among them those of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention and the Rome Statute.

The organization asserts that the intermittent opening of the gates infringes on the fundamental rights of tens of thousands of Palestinians, making their lives intolerable. 

The petitioners request the court instruct Israel to dismantle segments of the wall which violate the residents' rights and expropriate dozens of acres of Palestinian farmlands in order to expand settlements, unrelated to any security needs.

The organization asserts that the military closure of the area infringes on Palestinians’ basic rights, particularly the rights to freedom of movement, dignified existence and family life. 

The HCJ rules that under the test of proportionality – based on international humanitarian law and Israeli administrative law – the damage to the local residents is disproportionate to the security benefit gained by the wall's construction. However, in opposition to the petitioners’ claim, the court holds that the reason for constructing the wall is security related rather than political.
In light of the ruling, interim orders are issued in several petitions, suspending further construction of other wall segments. Many petitions are granted, and the court rules that the route devised by Israel disproportionately infringes on the rights of the Palestinian residents. Israel is compelled to dismantle the wall and devise an alternative route which is less injurious to the residents.

The International Court of Justice rules that Israel must dismantle the wall and compensate the Palestinians injured by its construction; and that the UN General Assembly and the Security Council should consider further action to put an end to the illegal situation. 

The government determines that the wall will be constructed "with diligence, to minimize to the utmost ability its impact on the daily life of Palestinians, following the criteria prescribed in the HCJ decisions".
Nonetheless, under the revised plan, 85% of the route still trails inside the West Bank, rather than along the Green Line.

During the proceeding on HaMoked's petition against the segment of the separation wall near the villages of ‘Azzun and An Nabi Elyas, the state admits that the route was chosen according to the unapproved expansion plan of the Zufin settlement. This contradicts the state's earlier contention, given in the framework of the initial petition on this matter, that the route was only dictated by operational security considerations (on the basis of this position, the petition was rejected).
The court grants HaMoked's petition, orders to dismantle a segment of the wall, and condemns the state’s conduct: "a grave phenomenon has been exposed in the petition before us. In the first petition, the Supreme Court was not presented with the full picture […] The petition before us points to an event that cannot be tolerated, whereby the information provided to the court did not reflect all of the considerations taken into account by the decision-makers". The court orders the state to pay the petitioners’ expenses in the sum of NIS 50,000. 

The court rules that the route disproportionately infringes on the rights of the Palestinian residents in the villages trapped inside the enclave, severed from the rest of the West Bank, and orders Israel to dismantle the wall in the area and to plan a route which is less injurious to the Palestinian residents.
However, the court also rules that according to international law, the military commander is authorized to erect the wall inside the occupied territory for the purpose of protecting settlers.
In the ruling, President Barak avers that the HCJ and ICJ judgments share a common normative foundation, and that the difference in the conclusions results from the different factual basis presented to each court.

HaMoked amends the petition following the HCJ ruling of September 2005 that the military commander is authorized to erect the wall inside the occupied territory in order to protect settlers.
HaMoked argues that this regime is a legal apartheid that establishes a distinction between two kinds of people in the seam zone: Israelis and tourists, who freely travel in, around and out of the zone; and local Palestinians, for whom the area is closed and who must obtain various permits in order to enter, leave, work and sleep in the area,. This regime contravenes international humanitarian and human rights law and its implementation may be considered a war crime.

The Supreme Court Justice further adds that: "the current route of the fence also leads one to wonder about the security advantage it provides. It is undisputed that the route passes mostly through topographically inferior territory […]. It endangers the forces patrolling the route".

The set of standing orders is presented in the framework of HaMoked's petition against the permit regime. The set prescribes, inter alia, the conditions for obtaining various seam zone permits and documents. It is worth recalling that the seam zone is a part of the West Bank, fenced in by the Israeli separation wall, and that any Palestinian who lives in or seeks entry to the seam zone must endure needless burdens and bureaucratic obstacles placed by Israel in order to obtain the required permit.

Three years after the verdict, and only following HaMoked's application for an order for contempt of court, Israel begins dismantling the wall around the villages of 'Azzun and An Nabi Elyas. The justices determine that "this sort of conduct cannot be accepted. The judgments of this court are not recommendations and the state is bound by duty to respect them and implement them with […] speed and efficiency". The court instructed the state to pay the petitioners’ expenses to the sum of NIS 20,000.

After the construction of the separation wall, thousands of Palestinian farmers ended up with their homes on one side of the wall and their farmlands on the other.
Many who filed applications for seam zone entry permits in order to farm their lands were refused or received no answer. HaMoked argues that Israel unreasonably and disproportionately infringes on the farmers' rights to freedom of movement, freedom of property and freedom of occupation.

The petitioner is detained at the checkpoint almost daily. The petition stresses the harm caused to the petitioner's livelihood and freedom of movement. HaMoked asserts it is illegal for the military to detain a person who seeks to travel from one place to another inside the occupied territory.

HaMoked contends that in preventing the couple from living under the same roof, their basic right to family life and the petitioner's freedom of movement are drastically injured. HaMoked stresses that it entirely opposes the permit regime, and that had the military followed its own orders, the permit would have been issued long ago and the severe violation of the couple's rights would have been avoided.   

The petitions are rejected despite the court's decision that "the application of the permit regime, with the requirement to receive permits in order to enter and exit the zone, constitutes a clear restriction of the freedom of movement of the Area's residents in this zone, and restricts their access to their homes, lands, and businesses located inside the seam zone". 
The petitioning organizations, HaMoked and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, criticize the judgment: the court has avoided addressing the legal arguments regarding systemic discrimination. The High Court of Justice has legitimized institutional and systematic discrimination intended to deprive Palestinians of their lands rather than increase security.