Land Confiscation Introduction 35 Petitions from affected residents filed against such land seizures were dismissed based on the Supreme Court reasoning that the seizure was legal because the colonies themselves offered important military and defense functions.129 Since 1979, however, Israel has not established colonies on land that was confiscated for military needs following the judgment in the Elon Moreh Case.130 The facts are as follows: On June 5 1979, Brigadier General Eliezer, commander of the Judea and Samaria Area, signed Land Seizure Order No. 16/79 which ordered that an area of some 700 dumums on a hill near the village of Rojeb, near Nablus, be ‘seized for military needs’. 17 petitioners from the village-owned lands registered in the Nablus registries after having gone through the land registration process.131 What set this case apart was the fact that in this instance a few Israeli colonists were listed as petitioners in addition to Palestinians. Colonists did not wish to categorize colonies as fulfilling a ‘temporary military need’. Rather, they saw colonies as permanent establishments.132 In particular, this argument severely undermined the ‘military necessity’ pretext for establishing this colony. The Court was obliged to order the Israeli Military to dismantle the colony and return the confiscated land to its owners. Further, the Court held that: [T]he decision to establish a permanent community which was designated, in advance, to stand permanently, even beyond the period of the military administration established in Judea and Samaria – comes up against an insurmountable legal obstacle...133 While this case signaled the end of colony building on lands confiscated for ‘military needs’, it did not stop the confiscation under the ‘military needs’ procedure for other purposes. One such purpose is for the building of by-pass roads.134 These bypass roads allow Israeli colonists to travel through the occupied territory and between colonies and Israel, preventing Palestinian traffic from passing through the colonies, while maintaining an “internal fabric of life” within the colony blocs.135 Palestinian residents have previously petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court against the confiscation of lands for these bypass roads, but, in the Wafa et al. Case the 129 Salama Et Al. V. Minister of Defence Et Al., 34(1) Piskei Din (HCJ 1978). 130 Dweikat Et Al. V. Government of Israel Et Al., 34(1) 1: (Hereafter: Elon Moreh). 131 Dweikat Et Al. V. Government of Israel Et Al., 34(1) 1. 132 Dweikat Et Al. V. Government of Israel Et Al., 34(1) 1:21–22. 133 Dweikat Et Al. V. Government of Israel Et Al., 34(1) 1:22. 134 B’Tselem, Land Grab, 50. 135 State Comptroller, Annual Report (Jerusalem, 1998), 1032–1033.