In the framework of HaMoked's petition, the State vehemently objected to the exit of a senior physician from Hebron to attend a professional conference abroad: The security services' forceful objection was discovered, in retrospect, to be completely unfounded, and a few rudimentary documents were enough to cancel the decision

Last February (2009) the petitioner, a resident of Surif in the Hebron area and director of the intensive care unit at the Hebron Governmental Hospital, attempted to go abroad in order to participate in important professional training in Jordan. However, when he arrived at the Allenby Bridge he was told, to his surprise, that he is "precluded from travelling abroad", and he returned home. When he was subsequently invited to attend two professional conferences abroad, the petitioner appealed to the District Coordination Office (DCO) in his area, and submitted an objection against the preclusion. His case was considered, but the security services' response was again negative.

Due to the importance of the petitioner's ability to go abroad to participate in professional training, on 8 June 2009, HaMoked petitioned the Court. In the petition, the petitioners claimed that the security services' refusal to permit the phyisician – who has never been arrested – to go abroad to participate in professional training is a gross violation of the army's obligation towards the petitioner under Israeli law, international law and human rights law. The refusal also constitutes a blatant infringement on the physician's freedom of occupation and freedom of movement, since he must, by virtue of his profession, participate in various conferences and other kinds of professional training. More importantly, the army's refusal to allow his exit for the purpose of professional training abroad damages his professional ability to assist patients in need of his services. Thus the army is also violating its obligation as an occupying power, to facilitate normal life for the population under its control.

Even after the submission of the petition, the State Attorney's Office responded that the security services were adamant in their refusal to permit the petitioner's exit from the West Bank, claiming that he is "a Hamas operative, one of the managers of the orphan association in Surif".

Once this information was revealed, HaMoked sent a letter to the State Attorney's Office, refuting every detail of the information that the security services relied on: the orphan association was shown to be a legitimate association, affiliated with the Palestinian Authority; the petitioner has not been employed there since September of last year, and he is an active member of Fatah, not Hamas (without stating a position at this stage as to the question of whether it is appropriate to impose severe restrictions on a person due only to his affiliation with this or that organization).

Following the letter, the State Attorney's Office announced, on 21 June 2009, that the petitioner would be allowed to go abroad, and HaMoked requested that the Court delete the petition.

The security services screened the physician three times, and in all three times, concluded that his exit must be prevented for "reasons of security"; a single letter by HaMoked was enough to nullify these reasons.

This case, like many other cases HaMoked handles, raises serious concerns regarding the policies of the security services, which prevent Palestinians from leaving the territories to travel abroad, as well as regarding the seal of approval which the judiciary provides for the excessive and irresponsible use of preclusion "for reasons of security".