Petition seeks to block yeshiva project for foreign students on east Jerusalem public land

A legal challenge has been mounted against the approval of a plan to construct a yeshiva and dormitory for foreign students on public land in east Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Three nonprofit organizations, Ir Amim, the Sheikh Jarrah Welfare Association, and the Umm Lison Women’s Association, filed a petition with the Jerusalem District Court, seeking to overturn the decision and freeze the project pending a ruling.

The dispute centers on a 4.3-dunam plot on Pierre van Paassen Street, designated as state-owned land with a prior plan for public use. The petitioners assert that this land was originally Palestinian-owned and expropriated by the state for a public building intended to serve local residents. They contend that the district planning committee's decision improperly diverts one of the few available sites for public services in east Jerusalem to a facility primarily serving international students.

According to the petition, east Jerusalem faces a critical shortage of public buildings, with an estimated deficit of 2,000 classrooms based on Jerusalem Municipality data. A professional assessment commissioned by the district committee also confirmed a significant lack of public facilities within Sheikh Jarrah itself. The petitioners point out that the state has previously acknowledged the scarcity of public land as a major obstacle to addressing these shortages.

While the Ohr Somayach institutions, which initiated the plan, received authorization from the Israel Land Authority to plan the project, the land has not yet been formally allocated. The petitioners also noted that explicit references to a yeshiva, study hall, and dormitory were replaced with broader terms like religion, culture, and education during the approval process. However, they argue these changes were superficial, as Ohr Somayach remains the developer and the project's core purpose remains unchanged. The designation of 40% of the plot as public open space, they claim, does not resolve their fundamental objections.