The state acknowledged a sense of “shame and failure” before the High Court of Justice on Monday over an operation to return a Palestinian family to its home in Jalud that ended with its evacuation under attack, as the justices questioned why the residents remained displaced and their homes had burned despite an order intended to protect them.
The Monday hearing returned to the case of three Palestinian petitioners whose homes near the West Bank village, south of Nablus, had been taken over by Israeli extremists. Seven weeks after the court ordered authorities to secure their return, the discussion concerned how to protect workers repairing the damaged houses before the residents could live in them again.
“Sometimes, even when time is needed, there is no time,” Justice Dafna Barak-Erez told the deputy commander of the IDF’s Judea and Samaria Division, pointing to the residents’ inability to live in their homes and the destruction of their property.
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit and Justice Yechiel Kasher also sat on the panel.
Attorney Ghiath Nasser, representing the petitioners, said the case had begun before the houses burned and had now reached a worse position. His clients still wanted to return, he said, and the destruction had not changed that demand.
High Court orders state to secure Palestinian families' return and restore access to homes
On September 6, the court ordered authorities to coordinate the petitioners’ return within 14 days, provide security, and allow in equipment and supplies needed to repair the homes and restore water and electricity. It also required the state to explain why it should not restore access to the homes and remove roadblocks.
The attempted return took place on the night of September 28-29. More than 100 Israeli extremists attacked security forces and prevented the Tubasi family from remaining at home. Three Border Police officers were wounded, and the family’s two houses were burned.
In their account filed with the court, the petitioners described arriving to find broken windows and doors and damaged electrical connections. Within minutes, a crowd began attacking the house with stones. Soldiers gathered the family in a corner to protect them before evacuating them in an armored vehicle under continued stone-throwing.
The state’s October 8 response described Border Police officers shielding the residents with their bodies after exhausting crowd-control ammunition. It said Israelis entered the houses while the family was inside, and the brigade commander ordered the residents evacuated for their protection.
At Monday’s hearing, state attorney Avi Milikovsky acknowledged the operation had ended in failure but rejected the suggestion that this reflected indifference to the court’s order. Officers had risked themselves to protect the residents, he said.
The homes were now burned and unsuitable for an immediate return, Milikovsky told the court.
Dispute over damage assessment delays repairs to Palestinian homes in Jalud
Nasser said his request to bring in engineers to assess the damage had gone unanswered. Milikovsky said coordination was being handled through the military’s local liaison office, which had conducted a damage-assessment visit.
Amit distinguished a brief inspection from the protection needed for sustained repairs. Workers would need to remain at the houses over a period of time, he said. Barak-Erez said that protection was an integral part of allowing the residents to return.
The justices also sought an explanation for Nasser’s allegation that the September fire burned for seven hours without being extinguished.
“If soldiers can be there, fire engines can be there too,” Barak-Erez said after the deputy division commander referred to the difficulty of bringing Israeli fire engines into Area B, where the houses are located.
The officer said he needed to check what happened in this specific incident rather than give an improvised answer. Milikovsky proposed providing a supplementary written response.
Kasher also asked how the third petitioner’s house had subsequently burned. Nasser had informed the court that Tawfiq Shweiki’s home caught fire on October 24, after settlers had been staying there. Responsibility for that fire remained disputed; Nasser told the justices he did not know who had burned the house.
The deputy division commander, identified as Col. A., said the army was bound by the law and responsible for creating conditions for the families’ safe return. The outposts in the relevant Area B sector should not exist, he said.
He cited arrests, search warrants, vehicle seizures and repeated operations against the outposts, while describing competing demands arising from attacks elsewhere, the olive harvest and the election period. A lasting return required preparation, intelligence and forces to protect both the repairs and the families, he said.
Barak-Erez also challenged the failure to meet the original deadline.
“If it is 14 days, it is not 15 or 16,” she said, adding that an extension should have been sought in advance. “That is not the biggest problem in this case; it is only the symptom.”
Petitioners seek NIS 50,000 daily fine as state disputes contempt sanctions
The petitioners have sought enforcement through contempt proceedings, including a daily NIS 50,000 fine. The state opposes that request, arguing that it acted to carry out the order and that the failed operation does not justify contempt sanctions.
Asked to give a timeframe for the preparations, the officer estimated up to 30 days, while stressing that operational circumstances could affect it. His estimate was not a new court deadline.
Amit closed the hearing by saying a decision would follow.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.
Follow us on GoogleSource: The Jerusalem Post · SARAH BEN-NUN
At a glance
- Topic
- World
- Country
- 🇮🇱 IL
- Publisher language
- EN
- Added to Allnira