Legal Advocacy

Occupied Territories

Denial of Medical Treatment for the Sick and Wounded, Access of Medical Personnel and the Right to Burial of the Dead. This petition was filed with LAW in 4/02 against the Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank. The petition argued that by refusing permission for medical personnel to enter the Jenin refugee camp and Nablus, the Israeli army prevented medical treatment and the evacuation of the sick, wounded and dead. Because of curfews, sieges and ongoing fighting, families were unable to properly bury their dead. The army's actions violate the rights of the wounded to bodily integrity, and of the deceased to dignity. The army's refusal to allow families to bury their dead expeditiously and in a dignified manner is disproportionate, an arbitrary act of revenge, and without justification. The petition was dismissed in 4/02. The Supreme Court stated that: “Our fighting forces are obliged to apply humanitarian rules which refer to treating the injured, in the hospitals and the bodies of the dead. Wrongful use of medical teams and of hospitals and ambulances obliges the army to act in order to prevent such activity; however, this by itself, does not allow a sweeping violation of humanitarian rules. In fact, this is also the declared position of the state.”

(H.C. 2941/02, Badia Ra'ik Suabta and LAW v. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank; and H.C. 2936/02, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel v. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank)

Demolition of Homes in the Jenin Refugee Camp. This petition was filed with LAW in 4/02 against the Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank. The petition argued that the army is demolishing homes in the Jenin refugee camp using bulldozers, shells fired from tanks, and missiles launched from helicopter gun ships, failing to give Palestinian residents any prior notice, the right to be heard, or any time to escape from their homes prior to the demolitions, resulting in the loss of life and injury. These actions resulted in loss of life and injury to Palestinian civilians, some of who were buried under the rubble of their homes. The army has a duty to respect the residents’ rights to life, well-being and human dignity, and is prohibited from destroying civilian infrastructure and property in the camp. The state argued that the army “is making every effort to avoid hurting innocents,” and that before demolishing homes, the army broadcast warnings to residents. State admitted that in some cases, bulldozers began demolishing houses even before the residents had left. Petition dismissed 4/02, with the Court accepting the state’s claims.

(H.C. 2977/02, Adalah and LAW v. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank).

Targeting of the Civilian Population in the West Bank by the Israeli Army Targeting of the Civilian Population in the West Bank by the Israeli Army. This petition was filed jointly with LAW and ACRI in 4/02 against the Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank and the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army. The petition argued that the army has attacked numerous civilian targets throughout the West Bank, including houses, schools, roads, hospitals, churches, and mosques, as confirmed by media reports, eyewitness testimonies, and the army itself. It also argued that the assault on the civilian population, infrastructure and property and against the lives and bodies of civilians is unreasonable and disproportionate, and was carried out with excessive force. The petitioners sought an immediate end to the shelling and striking of civilians and civilian targets, as the army is prohibited from indiscriminately attacking against civilian targets. The Supreme Court accepted the army’s response that it was making every effort to prevent and minimize harm to civilians. The petition was dismissed in 4/02.

(H.C. 3022/02, LAW, ACRI, and Adalah v. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank, Yitzhak Eitan, and Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, Shaul Mofaz)

Planned Burial of Palestinians in Mass and Anonymous Graves and Refusal to Allow Humanitarian Organizations to Enter the Jenin Refugee Camp. Organizations to Enter the Jenin Refugee Camp. The petition was filed with LAW in 4/02 against the Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank. Based on media reports, it appears that the army was collecting dead bodies on the outskirts of the Jenin refugee camp with the intention of burying them in mass, anonymous or numbered graves. The army refused to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Palestine Red Crescent Society, or any other humanitarian agency to enter the camp for over nine days. The army's refusal to allow families to rapidly and respectfully bury their dead according to religious customs infringes on the rights of the deceased and their families, is disproportionate, and is an arbitrary act of revenge. The army’s actions violate previous commitments made before the Court to avoid severe violations of international humanitarian law, and thus, as the army is in control of the Jenin camp, the army is in contempt of court. Supreme Court granted petitioners’ motion for injunction to stop any burials. Supreme Court fixed responsibility on the army, accompanied by the ICRC, for identifying and documenting the bodies; once this is done, they should be given to family members for burial as quickly as possible. The state admitted that the army began evacuating bodies without immediately contacting relevant Palestinian organizations. The petition is dismissed in 4/02.

(H.C. 3116/02, Adalah and LAW v. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank).

Seven Human Rights Organizations Demand that Israeli Army Stop Using Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields. In 5/02 Adalah filed a petition on behalf of LAW, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, B’Tselem, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, and HaMoked, against the Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank, the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, the Minister of Defense, and the Prime Minister. The petitioners argued that the Israeli military’s practice of using of Palestinian civilians as human shields and/or hostages throughout the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) constitutes inhumane treatment and violates the right to life, physical integrity, and dignity. The petitioners further argued that this practice is “grave breach” of the Geneva Convention (IV) – 1949, and thus amounts to a war crime. At the petitioners’ request, the Court issued an injunction in 08/02 prohibiting the use of civilians in IDF military operations. In 11/02, Adalah submitted to the Court a motion of contempt again the respondents providing evidence to demonstrate that the Israeli army violated the Court’s injunction.

In 1/03, the Court narrowed the injunction to allow the use of “Operation Order – Prior Warning” where, if the commander determines that the situation does not pose a risk to the civilians, a Palestinian civilian gives his or her consent to assist the IDF during a military operation. In 4/04, Adalah submitted a motion for an injunction to prohibit the use of the “prior warning order.” In 8/04, Adalah submitted to the Court an additional motion of contempt against the respondents, citing substantial evidence of violations by the Israeli army of the Court’s injunction barring the use of “human shields.” In 9/04, Adalah again challenged the use of the “prior warning order” before the Supreme Court, emphasizing it still amounted to the use of civilians during military operations. The Court did not issue an injunction, instead ordering the military to report back within 90 days on the implementation of the order in the field.

Result: In 10/05, the Supreme Court accepted Adalah’s original petition and declared illegal the IDF’s practice of using civilians as human shields, including the “Operational Order – Prior Warning.” The Court determined that this procedure is in breach of international law as “assistance” still amounts to the involving of civilians in military operations.

H.C. 3799/02, Adalah, et. al. v. Yitzhak Eitan, Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank, et. al. (decision delivered 6/10/05)

Update: In 11/05, the Attorney General submitted a motion to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Minister of Defense and the Israeli army requesting a second hearing before an expanded panel of the Court, arguing that the precedent-setting decision is legally flawed. The Court gave the original petitioners 60 days to respond to the state’s request. In 2/06, Adalah responded to petition, arguing that the Court should dismiss the petitioners’ request for a second hearing on the grounds that the Court’s original ruling was in accordance with domestic and international legal principles and jurisprudence and that the Israeli army has consistently violated and continues to violate the Court’s injunctions and rulings prohibiting the use of Palestinian civilians in military operations.

In 2/06, the Supreme Court rejected the Attorney General’s petition requesting a second hearing.

In 2007, Adalah has asked the AG and the Chief Military Advocate General to open investigations into various recent instances in which the Israeli army has used Palestinian civilians as human shields. Adalah is continuing to monitor developments in these cases.

For more information:
  Adalah's Briefing Paper: "The Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields by the Israeli Army" - February 2005
  Adalah's Special Report on the Use of Palestinian Civilians as Human Shields by the Israeli Army

Inhumane Treatment of Palestinian Detainees at Ansar III Detention Center. H.C. 5591/02, Adalah et. al. v. Yuni Ben David, Military Commander of Ansar III et. al. Inhumane Treatment of Palestinian Detainees at Ansar III Detention Center. The petition was filed in 6/02 on behalf of seven Palestinian detainees and ten Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations challenging the inhumane detention conditions of approximately 500 Palestinian detainees held at Ansar III Detention Center. Petitioners demanded that the Supreme Court intervene and order the Military Commander of Ansar III and the Minister of Defense to improve the conditions in the facility. Conditions in Ansar III failed to meet even minimum standards for detention under both Israeli and international law. The ten named NGO petitioners are: Adalah, LAW, HaMoked, B'Tselem, Addameer, Al Haq, Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling, Nadi el-Asseer, PCATI, and PHR-I. Detainees are held in tents open on all four sides, affording them no protection from the elements; they are not given proper beds; they are not provided with sufficient amounts of cold water and hot food; and they are denied sufficient supplies and facilities to maintain basic hygiene. The state responded to the petition in 9/02 claiming that it should be dismissed on the grounds that the conditions at the detention center were not unreasonable, and in fact, were similar to that of soldiers; and that while some improvements could be made, the matter was one of resources.

Result: The petition was dismissed in 12/02. The Supreme Court requested that the army improve certain conditions at Ansar III. At this time, the number of Palestinian detainees held at the facility had increased to 1,050. The Court noted that many of the individuals held at Ansar III are administrative detainees, and as such, should be held under conditions no worse than those afforded to other prisoners. The Court found that while initially the conditions at Ansar III were sub-standard, they had since been upgraded to meet or exceed these requirements. The Court also suggested that: (i) an administrative body should be established to deal with the detainees’ day-to-day problems (e.g., food, clothes, etc.); and/or (ii) responsibility for the facility should be transferred from the army to the Prison Authority, which is more experienced in balancing questions of security and prisoners’ needs.

(H.C. 5591/02, Adalah et. al. v. Yuni Ben David, Military Commander of Ansar III et. al.)

Challenging the Israeli Army’s Use of the “Military Necessity” Exception to Justify its Home Demolitions Policy In 5/04, Adalah, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights – Gaza (PCHR) and Al-Haq filed a petition and a motion for injunction to the Supreme Court against the IDF Major General – Central Command, IDF Major General – Southern Command, the Chief of Staff, the Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister. Ten individuals from the south of Rafah also joined the case as petitioners one month later. The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to define, for the first time, the scope of the legal term “absolute military necessity” invoked by the army to justify its policy of extensive home demolitions in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs). According to UN reports submitted by the petitioners to the Court, between September 2000 and December 2004, some 4,170 Palestinian homes were demolished by the Israeli military; 60% of which were destroyed as part of "clearing operations" to meet Israel's alleged military needs. In Gaza alone, as part of these "clearing operations," the Israeli military has demolished 2,540 housing units in which 23,900 Palestinians lived.

H.C. 4969/04, Adalah, et. al. v. IDF Major General, Central Command, Moshe Kaplinski, et. al. (decision delivered 17 July 2005).

For more information:
Update to Adalah's Briefing Paper: The Israeli Army's Exploitation of the "Absolute Military Necessity" Exception to Justify its Policy of Home Demolitions in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories: Case Developments from October 2004 to June 2005 - July 2005

Adalah's Briefing Paper: The Israeli Army's Exploitation of the "Absolute Military Necessity" Exception to Justify its Policy of Home Demolitions in the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories - February 2005

  Adalah's Special Report on the Israeli Military's Home Demolitions Policy in the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Cancellation of Racist Law Preventing Palestinians from Claiming Compensation from Israel. Petition submitted in 9/05 by Adalah, HaMoked and ACRI on behalf of the three organizations, Al-Haq, The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights, The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and Rabbis for Human Rights. The petitioners demanded that the Court declare void new amendments to the Civil Wrongs (Liability of the State) Law. These latest amendments, passed in 7/05, deny residents of the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs), citizens of “Enemy States,” and activists or members of “a Terrorist Organization,” the right to compensation from the state of Israel for damages caused to them by the Israeli security forces, including those damages caused to them outside of the context of a military operation (with some minor exceptions). They further grant the Minister of Defense the authority to proclaim any area outside of the state of Israel a “Conflict Zone,” even if no war-related activity has taken place there, which denies those injured in the area the right to seek compensation from Israeli courts. The Law operates retroactively in cases of damages sustained since the beginning of the second Intifada in 9/2000.

In the petition, the nine human rights organizations emphasized that the Law grossly violates the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, which apply in the OPTs. It also breaches basic rights in contravention of Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, and is therefore unconstitutional. The petitioners also argued that the articles of the Law de facto terminate monitoring of the Israeli military’s activities in the OPTs, discourage investigations and bringing those responsible for cases of death or injury before the courts, including in cases in which damages were caused by the random or deliberate opening of fire, torture and abuse, and looting and theft of civilian property. The Law thus violates the fundamental rights to life, bodily integrity, equality, dignity and property, as well as the constitutional right of access to the courts. The petition stressed that the violations entailed by the law are gross, as they deny in a sweeping manner the awarding of any remedy for the breach of fundamental rights, and that this denial is tantamount to a denial of the rights themselves.

Result: In 12/06, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling delivered by nine justices, decided that the State of Israel cannot exempt itself from paying compensation to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza who have been harmed by the Israeli military, invalidating a provision of the amendment. As a result of this ruling, Palestinians who have been harmed by the Israeli military since September 2000 can again seek compensation in Israeli courts. However, the Supreme Court also decided not to strike down another provision of the law that provides that Israel does not have to pay compensation for damages caused in military operations since September 2000, for “a citizen of an Enemy State” or “an activist or member of a Terrorist Organization.” The Court left this provision intact but open for future legal challenges, ruling that the petitioners did not bring enough factual material before the Court concerning the applicability of this provision. Therefore, in the future, individuals can bring cases before the Israeli courts to challenge the constitutionality of this provision.

H.C. 8276/05, Adalah, et. al. v. The Minister of Defense, et. al. (petition accepted)

Challenging Cancellation of Residency Status of Palestinian Parliament Members from East Jerusalem. Legal opinion filed in 5/07 jointly with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) to the Supreme Court as amicus curiae in the case of an appeal by four members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) residing in East Jerusalem against the cancellation of their residency in Israel. The Interior Minster decided to cancel their status in 6/06 for “breach of trust” following their election on the list of Hamas in the 1/06 elections to the PLC. Adalah and ACRI argued that the Interior Minister’s decision gravely violates the parliamentarians’ rights, including their constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty and property, and their and their families rights to family life. and presented arguments concerning the special complexity of the issue of the cancellation of the status of residents of East Jerusalem in general, which is occupied territory under international law, and of the East Jerusalem residents elected to the PLC in particular. The organizations stressed that Israel permitted them to vote and be elected in the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council and in the selection of the Chairman of the Palestinian National Authority: only after the petitioners were elected, and because the election results were not welcomed by the government of Israel, did it decide to cancel their residency status, thus severely violating their rights. Further, the cancellation of status due to “breach of trust” is an extreme, sweeping and draconian measure, to which there are less severe alternatives under the criminal law, and that the authority to take such a measure should lie only with the judiciary, which operates according to explicit primary legislation.

The legal opinion was submitted as part of case H.C. 7803/06, Khalid Abu Arafeh, et al. v. Minister of Interior (case pending).

Demanding Criminal Investigations for Killings and Extensive Home Demolitions in Rafah, Gaza in 2004. Petition filed to the Supreme Court in 4/07, together with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (Gaza) and Al-Haq (West Bank), demanding the opening of criminal investigations into the killing of civilians and extensive home demolitions which resulted from two military operations in Gaza – “Operation Rainbow” (18-24 May 2004) and “Operation Days of Penitence” (30 September-15 October 2004). “Operation Rainbow,” led to many civilian killings, including at least 17 children, and to the demolition of 167 homes, inhabited by 379 families, comprised of 2,066 individuals in densely-populated areas of Rafah, Gaza. The main purpose declared by the Israeli military and government for the operation was to locate weapons-smuggling tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. During “Operation Days of Penitence” in northern Gaza many civilians were killed, including at least 27 children. In addition, 91 homes were demolished, inhabited by 143 families, comprised of 675 individuals, and serious damage was cased to an additional 101 homes, inhabited by 833 individuals. The declared purpose of this operation was to stop the launching of Qassam rockets into Israel.

The petition contains extensive domestic and international documentation, which clearly shows that the conduct of the Israeli military and the intentions behind the two military operations constitute criminal behavior mainly illegal reprisals and cleansing areas of civilian buildings. It also contains documentation of the extensive international criticism of the Israeli military and the government voiced shortly before and during the military operations. Among those individuals and organizations who condemned the military action were the UN Secretary General, the UN Security Council, the US, the EU, various UN envoys and Special Rapporteurs, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), and Amnesty International. Adalah argued that the acts committed by Israeli military commanders and officers in both of these operations amount to criminal offenses under Israeli domestic and international law, and that those responsible must be prosecuted and held accountable. In both operations, the Israeli military carried out willful killings and the extensive and wanton destruction of civilian property, classified as grave breaches under the article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and are therefore considered war crimes.

H.C. 3292/07, Adalah, et al. v. The Attorney General, et al. (case pending)