The High Court of Justice moved quickly yesterday to reject two separate petitions filed in an attempt to cancel or postpone today’s prisoner and bodies exchange with the Hezbollah.

Justices Theodor Or, Edmund Levy and Esther Hayut turned down the petition filed yesterday afternoon by the International Association of Victims of Arab Terrorism and the Yesha Guards, which argued the decision to go ahead with the release “of hundreds of dangerous terrorists” was “extremely unreasonable.”

A few minutes after that petition was handed in by attorney Baruch Ben Yosef, a second petition was delivered to the court by attorney Ze’ev Dessinger, who argued on behalf of Almagor, another group of victims of terrorism, that the government did not have the authority to free the Arab prisoners because they represent “a clear danger to the security of the state.”

Both petitions also demanded that the court cancel any government plans to release Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese man serving a life sentence for the murder of three people during a seaborne terror attack in Nahariya in the late 1970s. The petitions argued that freeing him would be a contradiction of the government decision of November 2003, not to free Kuntar. The current deal is said to have a second stage in which Kuntar will be released in exchange for new information about what happened to Ron Arad, the Israel Air Force navigator missing since 1986 and last known to be in the hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Lebanon.

After both petitioners made their case, a state attorney, Dina Zilber, argued before the justices that while the government made a difficult decision, “the public interest dictated returning the kidnapped soldiers and civilian. With all due sorrow and pain, the court must be consistent, as in the past, and rule that this is a political matter in which the court does not intervene.”

During the entire hearing, relatives of victims of terrorists who were once held by Israel, released and then committed acts of terrorism again, sat in the courtroom. But after hearing both sides, the justices called a brief recess and upon reconvening issued a short statement saying that “while fully understanding the families, there is no alternative but to reject the petitions.”

The full decision will be released at a later date, the court then said, ending the hearing and the last attempt to halt the prisoner exchange.

The Almagor “Victims of Terror” organization has lodged an appeal with the high court of justice against Israel’s planned prisoner exchange with Hizbullah. Almagor’s attorney, Ze’ev Desburg, is arguing in the appeal that the High Court has already given an opinion in the past that two of the prisoners slated for release, Mustafa Dirani and Sheik Abdel Karem Obeid, constitute a serious threat to the state of Israel and are therefore ineligible for release. Almagor further claims, bolstered by the testimony of relatives of people murdered by terrorists released in previous releases, that the released prisoners pose a threat of becoming repeat offenders.

Attorney Ze’ev Dasburg of Almagor, an organization representing casualties of terror attacks, has turned to the head of the Israel Prison Authority, requesting the names of terror victims be posted on the Internet alongside the names of the terrorists being released in the prisoner deal. Almagor is also demanding the time and place of the attack be posted alongside the name of the responsible terrorist.

The Almagor terror victims’ association has hired Attorney Yaakov Rubin, the former head of Israel’s Bar Association, to represent them before the International Court at the Hague during the discussions on Israel’s security fence. Almagor is seeking to be added to the list of organizations testifying before the international court.

If permitted to make its case before the court, attorneys for Almagor will attempt to show that the Hague court has no jurisdiction to judge matters of national self-defense. Failing an outright dismissal of the case, the organization will seek to demonstrate that the fence is the least of all possible evils under international law, in light of current circumstances. Almagor intends to refer to testimony by leading military experts—official and unofficial—to demonstrate that the fence in its current incarnation is critical for the defense of Israeli citizens.

Meir Indor, one of the heads of Almagor, said that while the fence is not the ideal solution to combat terrorism, “we will not let the hypocrisy run wild at the Hague, and we will see to it that other organizations will join us —including Holocaust survivor organizations, which can remind the Court why it was founded in the first place.”

The Organization of Casualties of Terror Acts in Israel, known by its Hebrew acronym Almagor, announced Friday that it plans to ask the International Court of Justice in The Hague to add the organization as a party in the discussion of the West Bank security fence. The move comes in response to the court’s decision to allow the Arab League to be a party to the hearing.

A spokesman for the organization clarified that “it is not that we are overjoyed at the fence, which cheapens the lives of those living on the other side and gives us a temporary excuse not to eradicate the terror infrastructure, but we cannot allow this unbridled hypocrisy at The Hague. We will ensure that other groups, such as the Holocaust survivors’ organization, attend the hearing, to remind the court what its real purpose is.”

On Thursday, the ICJ authorized the Arab League to take part in proceedings against the fence. The court reached the decision after a request was submitted by the Arab League. The International Court of Justice in The Hague said in a statement the League would be invited to give information in writing and orally.

Responding to the court’s decision, Hassan Abu Libdeh, the director of Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurie’s office, said the Arab League and non-Arab states would make presentations at The Hague.

“This reflects the fact that the wall threatens the peace process and not only Palestinian lives,” Abu Libdeh told Reuters. “It also means that there is a deep belief among the Arabs and the international community that this wall might lead to the expulsion and a new exodus of the Palestinians and therefore create chaos in the whole region.”

Senior ministers will convene next week to decide on the position that Israel will present at a hearing on the legality of the construction of the West Bank security fence, which is scheduled to take place at the end of February at the ICJ at The Hague.

British international law expert Daniel Bethlehem, who will represent Israel in The Hague, suggested that Israel present to the ICJ in writing its opposition to the hearing, and deny the ICJ’s authority to deal with the topic of the separation fence. According to Bethlehem’s proposal, Israel will state that building the fence was justified for security reasons.

Other officials believe that Israel must appear at the ICJ deliberation, scheduled for February 23, to present arguments justifying the country’s right to construct the fence, for reasons of self-defense.

Legal advisors believe that the ICJ judges will determine that the construction of the separation fence contradicts international law.

The High Court of Justice decided Thursday to hold a hearing on the legality of the construction fence where it strays from the 1967 Green Line border, ahead of the ICJ hearing.

Supreme Court Justice Yaacov Turkel said the petition would be discussed before February 15.

The hearing will enable the State Prosecution to hold a “dress rehearsal” for its arguments on the fence in front of an Israeli court, before it goes on to present its arguments in front of an international court.

Most of the petitions submitted to the High Court on the fence deal with the expropriation of Palestinian lands, the deterioration in living conditions of Palestinian farmers who have been separated from their fields, or with the procedures involved in opening the fence gates to allow passage.

The High Court will, however, only discuss the petition from the Center for the Defense of the Individual, submitted by attorneys Michael Sfarad and Avigdor Feldman, which deals with the construction of the fence over the Green Line border, in the West Bank.

The center requested that the hearing take place before February 23, when The Hague debate is scheduled to begin.

“We believe that before an international body discusses the legality of the separation wall… it is worthwhile that the highest Israeli legal body discuss the issue,” the petitioners said.