العربية
HE
العربية
HE
Every year, the military commander denies requests by thousands of West Bank residents to travel abroad, citing security grounds.
However, the reasons for these refusals are generally not disclosed to West Bank residents or their representatives. Often, the State provides only a general statement that “your departure from the Area poses a security risk,” without indicating whether the grounds for the restriction are new, how serious the risk is, or even whether it concerns the individual or a family member. Yet when those barred from travelling can challenge the decision in court, and the nature of the security information emerges during the proceedings, it often proves insufficient to justify infringing their right to freedom of movement, whether because it is scant, outdated or indirect.
For example, blanket travel bans are imposed on close relatives of prisoners released under prisoner exchange deals and deported to foreign countries.
The wife of one such prisoner recently contacted HaMoked for assistance in travelling to Jordan and then to Egypt to reunite with her husband. Throughout his imprisonment, they had been unable to live together as husband and wife and exercise their right to family life. After she was twice prevented from leaving through the Alenbi Crossing, ostensibly due to a “security ban,” HaMoked contacted the military’s center entrusted with removal of travel bans on her behalf on April 9, 2026. This body is responsible for reviewing and lifting security bans on travel abroad by West Bank residents.
HaMoked requested further details about the decision to prevent her departure and asked that it be reversed. Two days later, it received the following response: “The resident [ID number]’s request to lift the ban on travel abroad was denied. You are the wife of a terrorist operative deported abroad.” This response offered no concrete explanation of any security risk associated with her departure, referring only in general terms to her marriage to a prisoner released under a prisoner exchange deal.
HaMoked’s petition
On May 11, 2026, HaMoked filed an administrative petition seeking to allow the woman to leave the West Bank and requiring the authorities to explain the travel ban, clarifying the nature of the evidence and whether it concerned her personally. HaMoked emphasized that the obligation to state reasons for decisions is a basic duty of state authorities. This duty is directly linked to the petitioner’s right to be heard, since individuals cannot defend themselves against allegations without knowing their basis. Although security considerations may limit this duty, they cannot justify generic responses that render it meaningless.
HaMoked also noted that the duty to provide reasons is recognized in internal procedures pertaining to travel bans published by the respondent itself, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT). These procedures require that anyone whose request to lift a ban is denied receive a summary detailing the reasons for the refusal. HaMoked added that the generic justification for the ban raised serious concerns that it was based not on a tangible security risk, but on a desire to punish the woman for her husband’s actions.
The judgment
In its judgment of July 26, 2026, which addressed this petition together with that of another woman in similar circumstances, the Court granted the petitions and ordered the State to allow the women to leave the West Bank, subject to signing an undertaking that they would not return for four years from the date of departure. The judge emphasized that although security considerations may, in some cases, outweigh the rights to freedom of movement and family life, each case must be examined individually, taking into account the degree of risk and how concrete it is. Under Israeli law, this is known as the “genuine and serious concern” test.
After reviewing the classified material, the judge found that the security information concerning each of the women was, in her words, “extremely scant,” and insufficient to establish a “genuine and serious concern” that their departure would harm state security.
In this landmark ruling, the Court, for the first time, approved the departure from the West Bank of women married to prisoners deported under prisoner exchange deals, after hearing the position of the security agencies. The ruling is significant because it defines the legal framework for restricting the right to freedom of movement and establishes that each examination must consider the seriousness of the risk, rather than merely the existence of security material. It may serve as a legal precedent enabling HaMoked to challenge further cases in which arbitrary travel bans are imposed on the wives of deported prisoners.
