Summary
Commander of the IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria (respondent 2, named in the judgment as Major General M. Kaplinsky and, at paragraph 17, as Lieutenant-General Moshe Kaplinsky) whose seizure orders and separation fence route were challenged in the Beit Sourik case (Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, lines 370-419).
Details
- The Court requested his comments on the Council for Peace and Security affidavit on March 17, 2004 (paragraph 17).
- In his affidavit of April 15, 2004 (sections 22-23) he stated the fence’s objective is to contend with Palestinian terror and prevent unchecked passage into Israel and infiltration into Israeli towns in the area, and that the topographic route was determined on that security consideration; his considerations were topographic control, as flat a route as possible for surveillance, and a security zone to delay infiltration (paragraph 29).
- In his affidavit of April 19, 2004 (section 4) he testified “it is not a permanent fence, but rather a temporary fence erected for security needs”, testimony the Court said it had no reason not to give full weight (paragraph 29).
- During the hearings he was willing to change part of the route, especially adjacent to and east of Har Adar and adjacent to Beit Sourik and Bidu (paragraph 20).
Related pages
Beit Sourik Village Council v. Government of Israel, Beit Sourik case, Israel Defense Forces, Council for Peace and Security