At Request of Defense Ministry, Israeli Planning Authorities Impose a "Security Strip" Between Umm al-Fahem and Nearby Jewish Village, Restricting the Palestinian City’s Expansion

On 24 December 2025, the National Committee for Planning and Building of Preferred Housing Complexes (PHCC) approved the “Ein Jarar” expansion plan for Umm al-Fahem, a large Palestinian town in northern Israel. The PHCC included a 80-meter-wide "security buffer" between the city and the road leading to the nearby Jewish village of Mei Ami. This "security strip" was added at the request of the Ministry of Defense after the plan was already submitted for the planning committee, public objections were filed and heard.  

The “security buffer” removes areas from Umm al-Fahem that were designated under the original plan for residential, commercial, industrial, and public buildings. Also, due to the buffer, a number of existing buildings - which were eligible in the original version of the plan - have been marked for demolition, following the new plan.

In its decision, the committee dismissed the vast majority of objections, including those submitted by Umm al-Fahem Municipality, as well as by Adalah, the Arab Center for Alternative Planning, and Sikkuy-Aufoq on behalf of the National Committee of Heads of Arab Local Authorities. The only exception involved specific amendments to the buffer, which now prevent the demolition of the five existing buildings that the original plan had permitted but were partially slated for demolition due to the imposition of the security buffer. 

Background

Plan 1077 (“Ein Jarar”), covering an area of 2,600 dunams (approx. 642 acres) in the southern neighborhood of Umm al-Fahem, aimed to legalize approximately 3,600 existing housing units and adding  1,200 new units on state land plus 1,700 units through densification, alongside new public and commercial development. In addition, the plan includes upgrades to Route 6535 and constructing a promenade along it.

The government declared the area a "Preferred Housing Complex" in 2017, and by 2022, the original plan, fully coordinated with and accepted by the Umm al-Fahem Municipality, was deposited for public review.

The Imposition of the “Security” Buffer

During the objections process, the nearby Jewish village of Mei Ami demanded a buffer between Umm al-Fahem and Route 6535, the road leading to their village. They cited several reasons, including the need for a "green buffer" to separate the city from the village, claiming that reducing this strip could harm "good neighborly relations" and increase "the potential for safety and security risks." This request was initially rejected by the investigator appointed to review the objections. He concluded that the existing topography already created a natural level separation between the city and the road, rendering a buffer zone unnecessary. This professional stance was supported by the PHCC’s own staff. The investigator submitted these recommendations on 15 March 2023.

However, on 13 June 2024—over a year after the investigator’s report—the Ministry of Defense suddenly raised a new demand. The Ministry demanded an 80-meter buffer zone, but only on the Umm al-Fahm side, citing "security considerations." In response to this sudden demand, the PHCC ordered the plan’s republication to include this restrictive strip.

The Legal Objection: Arbitrary Planning and Discriminatory Impacts

In July 2025, Adalah, the Arab Center for Alternative Planning, and Sikkuy-Aufoq (on behalf of the National Committee of Arab Local Authorities) submitted a formal objection to the new buffer zone. They argued that the addition was arbitrary, lacked a professional planning basis, and disproportionately harmed Umm al-Fahem’s residents.

The objection detailed that the 80-meter buffer removes vital land designated for the city’s development, including 51 dunams for housing, 14 dunams for commerce, 16 dunams for public buildings, 10 dunams for open public spaces, and 7 dunams for public buildings. The objection claims that the changes harm the proper urban development of the city without any justification.

Crucially, the objection noted that the lands of the buffer zone are mostly privately owned, with only 29% owned by the state. Furthermore, the buffer reverses the legalization of approximately 13 inhabited buildings; these structures were slated for regularization under the original 2022 plan, but are now marked for demolition.

The objectors emphasized that the PHCC adopted the Ministry of Defense’s position, which cited a vague "potential for safety interference along the road”, without any independent scrutiny. By relying on this generalized rationale, the decision implicitly labels the residents of Umm al-Fahm as an inherent security risk solely due to their proximity to the road, a claim the objectors argue is rooted in discriminatory perspective.

The objectors argued that the buffer zone was effectively intended to enforce spatial separation between Arab and Jewish communities. After the nearby village of Mei Ami’s request for separation from Umm al-Fahem was officially rejected, the Ministry of Defense intervened to frame this demand as a security issue, effectively labeling Umm al-Fahem residents as a potential security threat solely because of their proximity to the road. The committee and planning authorities adopted this position wholesale, without independent review, without weighing other planning considerations, and without regard to actual conditions on the ground. The 80-meter width of the “security buffer” was imposed uniformly, resulting in parts of existing houses being slated for demolition. According to the objectors, this approach constitutes a disproportionate infringement of constitutional rights with no legitimate planning purpose. 

Decision 

In its final decision, the PHCC accepted the plan and rejected the organizations’ objection. The committee granted only minor amendments to prevent the demolition of five specific buildings partially intersected by the buffer, leaving the restrictive impact of the 80-meter strip intact.

The PHCC’s decision to adopt the Ministry of Defense’s position sets a dangerous precedent. It signals that planning in Palestinian towns is subordinated to racially discriminatory "security considerations," even when those plans are intended to address historical housing injustices. The organizations are currently considering further legal action to challenge the plan.