The High Court of Justice on Wednesday ordered Israeli authorities to assist residents of the Palestinian Bedouin herding community of Ras Ein al-Auja in the Jordan Valley in returning to the area, and instructed the state to submit an update within 60 days detailing enforcement actions taken to ensure security there.
The decision was issued by a panel headed by Deputy Supreme Court President Noam Sohlberg, along with Justices Alex Stein and Gila Kanfi-Steinitz, following a petition filed by residents of Ras Ein al-Auja, together with the Center for the Development of Peace Initiatives, a civil group.
According to the ruling, the IDF’s West Bank commander, the Civil Administration, and Israel Police are required to provide assistance, in advance coordination, to enable the petitioners’ return to a defined area of Ras Ein al-Auja.
The court further ordered the state to submit, within 60 days, an update detailing enforcement measures taken during that period “to ensure security.”
The petition was filed in March 2025 by six residents of Ras Ein al-Auja, a Bedouin herding community located in the Jordan Valley, together with the Center for the Development of Peace Initiatives.
Petitioners argue conditions around bedouin community deteriorated
Petitioners argued that conditions in and around the community had deteriorated to the point that residents left the area, and asked the court to intervene.
The petition cited repeated confrontations between residents and Israeli civilians from nearby grazing outposts, damage to infrastructure, interference with grazing activity, and theft of livestock.
In its submissions to the court, the state rejected the characterization of the events as forcible displacement. State representatives argued at a hearing last week that no formal eviction had occurred, that residents were not barred from returning to the area, and that security forces operate there to prevent friction and respond to complaints.
The state further maintained that any return to the area would require coordination with security authorities.
The court did not issue findings on responsibility for residents’ departure, nor did it adopt the petitioners’ legal framing in full.
The decision also did not order the dismantling of any outposts, did not declare the area closed to Israeli civilians, and did not issue a permanent injunction. Instead, it focused on two operative steps: assistance with return, subject to advance coordination, and a time-limited reporting requirement on enforcement actions.
The ruling does not specify what form such assistance must take, nor does it enumerate particular enforcement measures beyond the obligation to report.
Civil group Looking the Occupation in the Eye said on Thursday that the court had “rightly placed responsibility on the state to restore the village’s residents to their homes.”
The organization alleged that throughout the legal proceedings, the state had presented “false information” to the court, adding that, had it not done so, “the grim outcome in which village residents fled out of fear of settlers and the army might have been prevented.” These claims were not addressed in the court’s ruling.
The group further said that residents’ return would not be possible unless the state ensured what it described as “minimal conditions,” including restricting Israeli civilian access to the area, a permanent military or police presence tasked with protecting residents, and permission for residents to rebuild their homes.
“Absent the state’s willingness to meet these conditions,” the statement said, “any decision on the matter will be meaningless.”
The organization also cited remarks made Tuesday by IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, who said that commanders, soldiers, and security bodies have “an operational and moral duty to act immediately and not stand idly by when identifying illegal acts by violent groups, and to protect uninvolved civilian populations.”
The group said the court’s ruling should now be translated into action.
The High Court’s decision leaves the matter under judicial supervision pending the state’s update on enforcement, due within 60 days. The content of that update - and the extent to which it enables residents to return to Ras Ein al-Auja - will determine whether further proceedings are required.