On August 30, 2015, HaMoked filed two urgent petitions to the High Court of Justice (HCJ) against the military’s decision to demolish the apartment in which lived the assailant in the attack at Alon Shvut junction on November 10, 2014.
One petition was filed on behalf of the assailant’s wife and two small children who have no other home, and
the other on behalf of eight other families who live in the same building, whose homes and belongings are liable to be damaged by the demolition.
Following the
objections to the demolition HaMoked had filed on August 24, 2015, the military undertook to perform the demolition “manually”, using “mechanical means”, in order to prevent the entire structure’s collapse. However, the military refused to present a concrete demolition plan for the examination of an engineer on the petitioners’ behalf. The military also refused to guarantee that no damage would be caused to the adjacent apartments; and instead, offered only to address in “real time” the occupants’ concerns about the safety of their apartments.
HaMoked reaffirmed that demolishing homes is an acceptable punitive act that harms innocent people and constitutes a grave breach of international law. HaMoked also contended that the intended demolition not only contradicts the principle of the child’s best interests but also constitutes an unbalanced measure, inter alia, due to length of time since the attack and the heavy sentence imposed on the assailant.
With respect to the state’s claim that house demolition is an effective means of deterrence against “potential assailants”, HaMoked stressed that this claim has never been proved and that the events in reality suggest the opposite. HaMoked recalled that in dismissing the public petition against the punitive demolition policy, the High Court justices noted that in future cases, the state would be asked to present concrete evidence as to the actual level of deterrence achieved by house demolitions.
Following the petitions, the court issued a temporary order, instructing the state to refrain from demolishing the apartment pending another decision. The state was directed to submit its response by September 9, 2015.
