A panel of the High Court of Justice heard arguments on Monday in a petition challenging what Palestinian residents describe as the effective disappearance of the Bedouin herding community of Ras Ein al-Auja, in the southern Jordan Valley area of the West Bank.
The bench - Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg, and Justices Alex Stein and Gila Kanfi-Steinitz - said it would issue a decision at a later date.
The hearing took place just days after the last families left the area, following what petitioners describe as months of sustained harassment and pressure linked to nearby Israeli settler grazing outposts.
“We’re asking the court to do what the state said it would but didn’t - to close the area to Israeli civilians and make it possible for the residents to return,” said attorney Shlomo Lecker, who represents several of the families.
The petition was filed in March 2025 by six residents together with the Center for the Development of Peace Initiatives. It describes what petitioners characterize as a prolonged pattern of grazing takeovers, obstruction of access routes, infrastructure damage, livestock theft and intimidation - centered on the establishment and expansion of outposts in areas adjacent to the community.
A 'quiet expulsion'
Petitioners argue that the cumulative effect amounted to a “quiet expulsion”: not a formal evacuation order issued by the state, but a situation in which daily life became untenable, while authorities failed to prevent conduct that ultimately led families to leave.
According to the petition, the situation escalated significantly in late 2024 and early 2025, with new outposts erected in December 2024 and January 2025 on land used by Ras Ein al-Auja residents for grazing. All such outposts are illegal under Israeli law, and there are no authorized settlements or legally sanctioned outposts in the disputed area.
Maps and photographs submitted to the court depict settler structures, animal pens and access paths encroaching on traditional grazing lands, as well as flocks grazing near water sources relied on by the community.
The petition further alleges that settlers repeatedly entered grazing areas with large flocks, blocked roads, and interfered with access to basic infrastructure. According to sources involved with the community, residents have also faced repeated disruptions to water access and damage to solar panels used for electricity - panels supplied by humanitarian organizations rather than the state.
One of the most serious incidents cited in the petition occurred on March 7, 2024, when approximately 1,500 sheep and goats belonging to Ras Ein al-Auja residents were allegedly stolen. The petition identifies Avishai Hurvitz, described as the operator of a nearby outpost, as a central figure in repeated confrontations, and claims that complaints filed with police did not result in effective enforcement - a characterization that the state disputes.
Lecker told the court that residents have been unable to herd on their grazing lands for close to a year.
In a clarification filed on January 27, the state acknowledged an inaccuracy in an earlier submission, informing the court that while the IDF had not initially been aware of residents leaving the area following incidents on December 31, 2025, it later emerged that some families began leaving as of January 8, 2026, with departures continuing in subsequent weeks.
At the same time, the state stressed that it remains unclear whether the departures are temporary or permanent, noting that residents have left and returned in past incidents as well.
A state representative told the court that the West Bank presents complex legal and operational challenges, and that the tools available to authorities vary by area. He emphasized that the state did not sanction a forcible eviction and is not preventing families from returning, adding that any return would require coordination with security authorities.
State rejected claims of violence
The state has rejected claims that the situation involved violence, maintaining that security forces operate routinely in the area to prevent friction, respond to complaints and protect all residents. It has also argued that several allegations raised by petitioners were examined and not substantiated.
The petition asks the court to order the military commander to declare the area surrounding Ras Ein al-Auja a closed military zone to prevent Israeli civilian entry, dismantle illegal outposts and prevent their re-establishment, provide effective protection for residents, and enforce the law against those involved in alleged criminal acts.
Lecker said petitioners later sought a narrower interim remedy - a limited closure around residential areas rather than grazing lands - in an effort to test whether families could safely return.
“We are talking about a community that posed no harm to anyone,” he said. “This is displacement based on ethnic origin, carried out through criminal acts - not through any stated policy of the state.”
After the hearing, Lecker said the opportunity for a meaningful remedy may already have passed. “The damage is already done,” he said. “There is a real question of whether families would even want to return.”
Barak‑Erez remarked during the hearing: “People don’t just leave their homes.”
The events in Ras Ein al-Auja echo developments in other Palestinian herding communities in the Jordan Valley and central West Bank. In 2023, residents of Al-Mu’arrajat East left their homes following repeated incidents of settler harassment and pressure. In that case, the High Court declined to issue an interim order, and the displacement ultimately became permanent.
Petitioners in the Ras Ein al-Auja case argue that the court is now confronting the same dynamic - one in which the absence of timely judicial intervention allows de facto displacement to harden into irreversible fact.
Speaking to The Jerusalem Post, Doron Meinraht, a reserve colonel and co-founder of the civil society group Looking the Occupation in the Eye, said residents’ complaints went unanswered, and that in his view conditions on the ground continued to deteriorate even after the petition was filed.
The state, for its part, maintains that it is fulfilling its obligations, and that the petition presents an incomplete and, in some respects, inaccurate picture of conditions on the ground.