 The court ruled that the construction of the barrier for security reasons would be legal even though it would be illegal for political, economic, or social purposes.Since the court accepted the respondent's argument that the part of the barrier under discussion was designed for security purposes, this claim of the petitioners was lost.The petitioners "by pointing to the route of the Fence, attempt to prove that the construction of the Fence is not motivated by security considerations, but by political ones" argued that if the Fence were primarily motivated by security considerations, it would be constructed on the Green Line.