On October 27, 2015, HaMoked filed a
petition against a demolition order issued for a housing unit in Nablus, the home of the family of one of the suspects in the killing of Mr. and Mrs. Henkin on October 1, 2015. The family's apartment is located on the first floor, above the ground floor, in a four-story semi-detached building, in which live many other occupants. HaMoked argued that demolishing that floor could cause serious damage to the adjacent units and leave many innocent people without a roof over their heads.
In its response dated November 3, 2015, the state rejected alternatives to the current demolition plan, such as a sealing or partial demolition, claiming: "the demolition of the housing unit is required due to the overall relevant circumstances, including engineering, practical and operative considerations, as well as deterrence”.
The state also argued that the demolition plan was “drafted by professionals, qualified engineers, appointed by the military commander following accurate mapping of the housing unit and with consideration for its structural characteristics and its location”. On the method of demolition, the state noted: “Linear-cutting charges of the designated modular breaching-frame type will be used. These will be sealed using a sandbag in order to reduce collateral damage”. According to the state, this method is “expected to prevent damage the constructive elements of the building, barring one column that is adjacent to the balcony of the terrorist’s unit; damage to which is not expected to affect the rest of the building”.
The state agreed “ex gratia” to repair the building or compensate its owners should it sustain damage as a direct result of the demolition – subject to an evaluation by a state appointed assessor, on condition that “the deficiency in the operation was not the result of disturbances, riots or any other resistance encountered by the forces on the ground”, and provided the owners do not receive compensation from the Palestinian Authority or any other entity. The state also stipulated that “compensation will be awarded subject to the provisions of Section 5b of
Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law – according to which the state cannot be held liable for damage caused to persons who are “active in or members of a terrorist organization”. These conditions render the consent to compensate meaningless.
In direct continuation of the tight schedule it imposed on the petitioners, the state now asked the court "to issue its ruling as soon as possible... considering the great importance of maximum deterrence of additional potential terrorists”.
