Description

By Society of St. Yves/PNN

On Tuesday, 12th of February 2013, the final hearing for the case of the Cremisan Valley against the Separation Wall was held in front of the Special Appeals Committee in the Magistrate Court in Tel Aviv. Advocate Manal Hazzan-Abu Sinni from the Society of St. Yves on behalf of the Salesian Nuns Convent and Advocate Ghiath Nasser on behalf of the land owners gave their closing arguments in a session lasting seven hours.

This final hearing took place after a series of court sessions that started in 2006, when the plans for the construction of the wall were submitted and the military seizure orders for the Cremisan Valley lands were handed over.

The courtroom was crowded due to the importance of the case. Auxiliary Bishop and Vicar General of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, William Al-Shomali, Beit Jala's Parish Priest, Father Ibrahim Shomali, and Beit Jala's Mayor Dr. Nael Salman came to observe the proceedings.

Further representatives of the German and French Embassies and other organizations including UNRWA, CIDSE, Kairos Palestine and the Applied Research Institute- Jerusalem (ARIJ) were in the audience, as well as journalists. Since the court room was very limited in places, a number of the land owners and observers were not allowed inside.

Advocate Ghiath Nasser, who has been in charge of the case for seven years, initiated the proceedings. He refuted the security claims for the current route of the wall and underlined his arguments with maps and charts provided by the ARIJ. He emphasized a military expert's opinion stating that building the wall on the other side of the valley adjacent to Gilo will provide better security conditions and reduce the damage to the citizens of Beit Jala.

Nasser claimed that the real motive behind building the wall in its current suggested route is to seize as much Palestinian land as possible and to connect the two settlements of Gilo and Har Gilo. The Supreme Court confirmed in previous verdicts that building the wall cannot be used as a strategy for seizing lands and expanding settlements. Nasser emphasized that the Ministry of Defense did not conduct sufficient surveys in Cremisan and did not consider the damage the wall would inflict. Therefore, the ministry should change the route in the area and build further away where the damage to the structure of life of the Palestinian society will be less.

The court then proceeded to hear the final arguments of Advocate Manal Hazzan-Abu Sinni on behalf of the nuns. Advocate Hazzan based her arguments on international humanitarian law and human rights. She pointed out that the Salesian nuns joined the case at a late stage after they had realized that their position was being misrepresented in front of the court. Therefore the nuns, represented by the Society of St. Yves, decided to join the court proceedings to provide a full picture of their position and contribute to achieving justice.

Hazzan-Abu Sinni explained that the structure of life in the Cremisan Valley is unique. Building the wall will damage this by limiting the freedom of religion for the Christian community, affecting the right to education and depriving the economic development of the Christian minority in Cremisan. The wall will isolate the people from their lands and threaten the existence of the Salesian Nuns Convent and School. Hazzan described how the convent and the Don Bosco School serve the local community in a very unique way and have helped raise a generation that values love and respect. She pointed out that building the wall around the convent will prevent it from continuing its mission, which will negatively influence the Christian community in Beit Jala.

Hazzan emphasized that international human rights law protects the unique structure of religious minorities, here in particular the Convention for Economical and Social Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since Israel signed these conventions, it is bound to respect these rights. Therefore it has to refrain from building the wall in its current route and find an alternative that will protect these basic human rights.

Hazzan pointed out that building the wall around the school and having a gate next to it will put the children in danger should any confrontations or clashes occur with the army. This will likely lead this educational institution, which provides free elementary education, to be forced to close.

Finally, Nasser and Hazzan-Abu Sinni referred to a report by environmental expert Professor Judi Green, highlighting the importance of the area both historically and environmentally. Prof. Green explained the agricultural significance of the valley and stated that building the wall on the other side of the valley, which is barren, would lessen the damage.

The state attorney replied on behalf of the Ministry of Defense claiming that the wall does not create a permanent border, as the Israeli intent for the wall is for security and not to seize Palestinian land. He stated that the the status quo in the valley will be preserved through building an agricultural gate which will guarantee access for the farmers to their lands, compensating the land owners for their losses and relocating any affected trees according to the wishes of their owners to reduce the damages.

The state attorney tried repeatedly to understate the importance of the Church representatives and representatives of Embassies in the court room.

He tried to downplay the importance of the Salesian convent by doubting that any members of the local community use it as a place for praying. He also stated that the land owners are currently acting illegally by accessing what they claim to be their lands. These lands lay inside the State of Israel, and people need already now permits to access them. He stated that the people are unwilling to accept the fact that they need permits to access what they feel is their land.

The state attorney finally referred to building the wall around the Salesian Convent and School by saying: "The road to the school is open, and all schools are surrounded by fences, why all this fuss about the wall?!"

He added that several attacks and shootings occurred in the area during the 1980's and during the Second Intifada. The latest incident he quoted was from 2008.

The session ended with no decision by the court. A decision will be issued after the committee completes a review of all the documents from this case, which has lasted seven years.