Center for the Defence of the Individual - Security forces announce intention to demolish the family home of assailant in the Har Nof attack within 24 hours: HaMoked petitions HCJ to prevent the demolition
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
07.07.2015

Security forces announce intention to demolish the family home of assailant in the Har Nof attack within 24 hours: HaMoked petitions HCJ to prevent the demolition

On December 31, 2014, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) rejected the petitions HaMoked filed against Israel’s decision to demolish the homes of two East Jerusalem residents who had carried out the attack at the synagogue in Har Nof, Jerusalem. The court accepted the state’s arguments that the demolitions were a deterrent rather than a punitive measure, and ruled that given the grave actions of the two perpetrators, there was no reason to refrain from the demolition. However, for many months the state refrained from executing the orders for the demolition of the two homes, located in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Jabal al-Mukabber, probably, out of concern that the act might bring unrest back to East Jerusalem.

On July 1, 2015, six months after the judgment was issued, security forces sealed the home of one of the assailant’s family. The action left six people, the perpetrator’s parents and four siblings, who have done nothing wrong, without a roof over their heads.

On July 7, 2015, security forces arrived at the second perpetrator’s home and conducted measurements. They told family members that they would be back on the following day to demolish the top floor, where the perpetrator’s widow and three underage children live. At the same time, security forces also surveyed the home of the shooter of right wing activist Yehuda Glick, located in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Abu Tor, likely in preparation of sealing of the room where the shooter had lived.

At noontime that same day, HaMoked filed an urgent petition to the HCJ against the demolition of the Jabal al-Mukabber home. HaMoked recalled that the state justified house demolition under Regulation 119 of the Mandate-era Defense (Emergency) Regulations as meeting the imperative need to deter potential attackers. However, deterrence cannot still be claimed eight months after the attack was carried out. HaMoked argued that executing the demolition order today was nothing but an act of vengeance.

The court dismissed the petition a few hours after it was filed. The justices ruled that “once the order was upheld by this Court, the timing of its execution is generally at the discretion of the Respondent according to the particulars of time and place.”

Related topics