Writing the main opinion, Justice Yael Willner ruled that preparations for repeated rocket attacks posed exceptional danger, justifying the apartment's demolition despite the attack being thwarted.
Follow us on GoogleThe High Court of Justice on Thursday upheld an order to demolish the West Bank apartment of a Palestinian man accused of organizing an attempted rocket attack on Modi’in Illit, ruling that the exceptional severity of the acts justified demolition, even though no one was killed or injured.
Justices Yael Willner, Yechiel Kasher and Ruth Ronnen unanimously rejected a petition by the man’s wife and two children. The order covers only the apartment where the family lived in the village of Kafr Nima near Ramallah, rather than the entire building, which belongs to the wife’s father and houses other relatives.
The ruling concerns Abdullah Mahmoud Saud al-Khatib, who faces charges including attempted intentional killing, weapons offenses, and membership in an unlawful association.
According to the indictment as described in the judgment, Khatib formed a cell to carry out repeated rocket attacks on Israeli targets, built rockets and launch systems, and conducted tests. On September 17, 2025, two cell members acting under his direction positioned two rockets near Modi’in Illit and took the steps needed to launch them toward the city.
One rocket fell, damaging the other’s launch mechanism. Neither was launched toward the city.
Failed rocket attack posed exceptional danger, Willner rules
Writing the main opinion, Willner rejected the family’s argument that the operation had remained at the planning stage. She pointed to the cell’s systematic preparations, its stock of rockets and explosives, and its intention to launch every few days. She found that the failure to cause casualties did not erase the exceptional danger posed by those acts.
The order was issued under Regulation 119 of the British Mandate-era emergency regulations, which permits the confiscation and demolition of homes in specified circumstances.
Willner acknowledged that demolition orders generally follow attacks causing death or serious injury. However, she cited an earlier ruling upholding demolition over an attempted mass-casualty bus bombing in which no one was hurt, explaining that exceptionally grave acts can justify the measure even without casualties.
The family argued that destroying their home would amount to collective punishment, challenged the measure’s legality and deterrent value, and stressed that the wife and children had neither participated in nor known about Khatib’s actions. They alternatively sought to limit the measure to sealing one room.
Willner rejected the broader legal challenges on the basis of existing case law. She acknowledged the severe consequences for the children but concluded that the circumstances justified demolition of the apartment.
Ronnen joined the result “not without hesitation,” emphasizing that a family’s lack of knowledge or involvement matters when assessing whether demolition is proportionate.
Justice questions deterrent value of demolishing uninvolved family's home
People cannot be deterred from failing to prevent an attack they neither knew nor could have known about, she wrote. Destroying an uninvolved family’s home could also weaken the incentive for relatives to discourage attacks by suggesting that their conduct makes no difference.
Nevertheless, Ronnen found that Khatib’s clear residential connection to the apartment, the extreme seriousness of the alleged acts and the decision to limit demolition to that apartment justified leaving the order in place.
The military had initially sought to demolish the entire ground floor but excluded a neighboring empty apartment after the family objected. The judgment also cites engineering measures intended to minimize damage to the rest of the building and nearby properties.
The court rejected a separate challenge to the roughly 11-month delay between the attempted attack and the demolition notice. The state attributed the delay to wartime demands and the need for individual approval from the prime minister and defense minister because the attack had caused no casualties.
According to the state’s submissions, the National Security Council was still working on a general policy for demolitions following attacks without casualties. The court accepted the explanation for the delay and left the apartment’s demolition order intact.
Follow us on GoogleSource: The Jerusalem Post · SARAH BEN-NUN
At a glance
- Topic
- World
- Country
- 🇮🇱 IL
- Publisher language
- EN
- Added to Allnira