Ma'ale Adumim Mayor Accuses Attorney General of Political Maneuvering Over E1 Construction Freeze

The mayor of Ma'ale Adumim, Guy Yifrah, has sharply criticized the Attorney General's decision to freeze construction in the E1 area, calling it a political move designed to avoid appeals until after the upcoming elections. Yifrah stated in an interview that the decision, which halted a tender process already underway, is absurd and not based on legal grounds, suggesting it erodes public trust in the legal advisory system. He argued that the political decision to build in E1, located between Ma'ale Adumim and Jerusalem, was made a year ago, and the subsequent professional procedures, including tender preparation and land appraisals, were proceeding at a normal pace. Yifrah emphasized that the Attorney General's intervention is inappropriate as it concerns a political decision, not a legal one, and noted that there has been a political consensus, including with the Americans, to proceed with the project for thirty years.

Yifrah further explained that the freeze creates uncertainty for developers, who are already facing potential international sanctions, and that the delay will cause the city to lose out on an NIS 8 million government housing incentive for 2026 if construction doesn't commence. He revealed that Ma'ale Adumim has filed a petition with the High Court of Justice, presenting comparative data to demonstrate that the construction pace is standard for such projects and not politically motivated. The petition also cites a new law limiting the Attorney General's authority to instruct professional bodies, arguing that her directive to the Israel Land Authority to remove the construction from tender sites oversteps her bounds.

While Yifrah expressed limited hope for the High Court to overturn the decision, he pointed to a record number of instances where judges have reversed the current Attorney General's rulings, which he interprets as evidence of her unprofessional and political conduct. He described the situation as judicial intervention in a professional process, calling it an absurdity. Yifrah also highlighted the timing of the decision, made on the eve of a holiday and just before a tender was set to open, preventing a timely appeal, which he termed a political snatch.