Adalah Petitions Israeli Supreme Court on Behalf of Hebron Municipality and Displaced Residents: Halt Forced Displacement, Demolitions and Movement Restrictions in the City
On Thursday, 29 October 2026, Adalah petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court on behalf of the Hebron Municipality and seven residents of the city’s Ein Deir Baha and al-Jaldeh neighborhoods demanding an end to the forced displacement of residents from their homes, the demolition of civilian structures and the sweeping movement restrictions the Israeli military has imposed on the city and its residents and access roads.
Adalah asked the Court to issue an interim injunction barring the military from carrying out these actions. Adalah also demanded regular and safe passage for medical teams, emergency vehicles, municipal workers and vehicles providing essential services, including waste collection.
The Israeli military launched this operation on 23 October 2026, after a shooting attack by a resident killed two soldiers. According to testimonies obtained by the petitioners, soldiers ordered hundreds of families out of their homes late at night, with little warning, and barred them from returning until further notice. Troops demolished civilian buildings and seized homes, turning some into military posts. Hebron Municipality figures show that within days the number of affected families climbed from 488 (3,171 people) to 780 (4,969 people).
The petitioners stressed that the restrictions also harm residents who remain at home: they block or hinder access to medical care and emergency services and disrupt municipal services. Citing municipal data, the petition notes that the road closures have left some 1,200 tons of waste piling up in the city, creating a serious public health hazard.
The petitioners argue that the military’s conduct and the mass displacement violate international humanitarian law, including the prohibition on forcible transfers of protected persons under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The law permits temporary evacuation only in narrow, exceptional circumstances, when the population’s security or imperative military reasons demand it. The petitioners contend that the military has offered no concrete justification for forced displacement on this scale, and that the open-ended ban on return, combined with the damage to homes, places the displacement well outside the narrow exceptions permitted by law.
The petitioners further argue that destroying civilian property and seizing homes violates the Hague Regulations and Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbid the destruction of property unless military operations make it absolutely necessary. Taken together, and in light of senior Israeli officials’ calls to “exact a price” for the shooting attack, these measures amount to collective punishment, which Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits. By sealing off residential neighborhoods and restricting movement indefinitely, the military is also violating residents’ freedom of movement and their access to essential services. Adalah argued that these measures breach Israel’s obligations as an occupying power, including its duty to protect the civilian population and to ensure that civilian life continues as normally as possible.
Case Citation: HCJ 83781-10-26 Hebron Municipality v. Minister of Defence
