Introduction 15 Military Order 418, adopted in 1971, transferred the powers of the Ministry of Interior, which included powers of appointment to the relevant bodies, to the Commander of the Israeli Military. The same order removed the planning functions from village councils, transferring these functions to a Central Planning Bureau.54 Through this highly centralized planning system the Israeli authorities inhibited the growth of Palestinian population centers in the occupied Palestinian territory. Military authorities made extensive use of the mechanism of declaring land as ‘State Land’ following the decision in 1979 of the Israeli Supreme Court in the Elon Moreh case.55 In that case the court held that settlements/colonies could only be built on land that had been confiscated for specific purposes insofar as construction was consistent with those purposes. Concerned by the restrictions imposed by this decision, the Israeli authorities sought an alternative means by which to acquire land for the purpose of colony-building. This they found in a provision of the Order-inCouncil enacted under the British Mandate which defined “public lands” as “all lands in Palestine subject to the control of the government” and those “which are or shall be acquired for the public service or otherwise”.56 Taking advantage of the suspension of the land registration process imposed some eleven years earlier, Israeli authorities began to declare vast swathes of land, as ‘State Land’.57 An array of military orders other than those concerned with the process of declaring State Land were also promulgated by the military authorities to facilitate the confiscation, and de facto confiscation, of land. Many military orders have been, and continue to be, issued thus authorizing the confiscation of privately owned land on such purported grounds as military and public needs. It should be emphasized, in this regard, that the Elon Moreh case referred to above involved an unusual degree of conclusive evidence that the purpose for building the colony was inconsistent with the grounds on which the relevant land had been confiscated. In other cases, such as the Beit El-Tubas case,58 the court has shown great deference towards the authorities as regards, for example, what constitutes ‘military necessity’.59 Thus many colonies have been built on lands confiscated for reasons other than the fact that they are declared to be ‘State Lands’.60 Indeed, the vast majority of Israeli colonies in the West Bank 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 B’Tselem, Land Grab: Israel’s Settlement Policy in the West Bank, trans. Yael Stein (Jerusalem, May 2002), 86; available from http://www.btselem.org/download/200205_land_grab_eng.pdf; accessed 24 April 2013. Dweikat Et Al. V. Government of Israel Et Al., 34(1) 1 Piskei Din (HCJ 1979). Bisharat, ‘Land, Law and Legitimacy in Israel and the Occupied Territories’, 539. Shehadeh, ‘The Land Law of Palestine’, 95. ‘Izzat Muhammad Mustafa Duweikat Et 16 Al. V. Government of Israel (n.d.). Bisharat, ‘Land, Law and Legitimacy in Israel and the Occupied Territories’, 537. B’Tselem, Land Grab, chap. 3.