A High Court of Justice panel has asked farmers from the West Bank village of Yatta to withdraw a petition against settlers who allegedly seized their lands – despite the state’s admission that the Palestinians proved their legal attachment to the land. The State Prosecutor’s Office said the Palestinians should pursue the matter by civil legal action, and the High Court panel’s request that they withdraw the petition indicates that it agrees.

This could signal a change in the High Court and State Prosecutor’s Office position of recent years, and it comes amid repeated, increasing incidents of settlers seizing control of Palestinian land.

Last Wednesday, Justices Miriam Naor, Uzi Vogelman and Zvi Zylbertal considered the petition of the Hushiya family of Yatta, represented by attorneys Avital Sharon and Quamar Mishirqi-Asad of Rabbis for Human Rights. The petition concerns 300 dunams between the settlement of Susya and the unauthorized outpost of Mitzpe Yair, and another 900 dunams of pasture. The petition argues that the settlers launched violent attacks on family members, preventing them from getting to their agricultural land and using the pasture for their herds. The petitioners demanded that the authorities guarantee their freedom of movement and evacuate the settlers.

Attorney Amir Fisher, who represented the Susya settlement, the South Hebron regional council and three settlers, argued on their behalf that the lot was purchased in 1991 by Yair Har Sinai, who was murdered in 2001, but the attorney did not present any documents to back this claim.

Sharon and Mishirqi-Asad relied on a 2011 state decision which determined that in view of the situation in the West Bank, and in light of how IDF forces often deny Palestinians access to their lands, Israelis using disputed land must prove that they took it over legally and present purchase deeds; it would not suffice for them to prove they were using the land (which would protect them, according to Ottoman law that is still valid in the West Bank). The 2011 ruling explicitly stated that the Ottoman law “damaged public order since it encouraged trespassers to take control of lands under cover of the security situation.”

While admitting that the Palestinian petitioners had proved “substantial administrative” attachment to the lands, the state argued that the use of the land by the settlers hasn’t changed since the 1990s, and therefore decrees allowing army commanders to evacuate trespassers within five years of their takeover of the land should not be issued.

The petitioners presented evidence that the land seizure did not occur as early as the 1990s, but Naor said she would not hear evidence regarding ownership, but only examine whether the IDF and Civil Administration should take administrative steps to evacuate the settlers. The Palestinian petitioners’ attorneys said they would oppose the High Court panel’s request that the petition be withdrawn.