The HCJ approved two punitive demolition orders, one partially; Justice Vogelman: “a distinction should be made between general awareness on part of the family members… and their actual knowledge of a concrete plan”

On July 24, 2016, the HCJ handed down its judgment on HaMoked’s petitions against two punitive demolition orders issued for homes in Yatta and Khirbet Raka’a in Hebron District, where lived two young men accused of having committed an attack against Israelis in Tel Aviv on June 8, 2016. The justices approved both demolitions but limited the scope of the demolition order issued for the home in Khirbet Raka’a to just one of the two targeted floors.

In the unanimous judgment, the justices pronounced the state’s decision to demolish two floors of the home in Khirbet Raka’a – i.e., both the suspect’s apartment and his parents’ apartment – unbalanced, and stressed that “care should be taken to abide by the principles of reasonableness and proportionality even when dealing with a severe and murderous attack”. Earlier on, during the court hearing and following HaMoked’s arguments, the justices urged the state to demolish just the top floor, where the young man had lived, but the state declined, and insisted on demolishing both floors.

Justice Shoham justified the approval of the demolition orders thus: “there are grounds for the assumption that the atmosphere prevailing at the assailants’ homes encouraged them in some degree or other to be involved in security activity against Israelis”. This is not the first time the HCJ has justified punitive demolition by, inter alia, attributing “constructive knowledge” to the uninvolved family members, finding that they should have known about the assailant’s intentions.

In this context, Justice Vogelman noted, “without setting it in stone”, that a distinction should be made between family members’ foreknowledge and knowledge after the fact, and also between the perpetrator’s perspective and “general awareness on part of the family members” on the one hand, and the family’s actual knowledge of a concrete plan to perform an attack, on the other.

The court decided the temporary orders issued in the petitions were to expire ten days from the date of the judgment.