The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories

CHAPTER NINE House Demolitions

House demolitions and deportations are the most extreme security measures used against individuals by the military authorities. The frequency with which the authorities have employed house demolitions has varied over the years. According to official sources, 1,265 houses were demolished in the first fourteen years of the occupation.1 Use of the measure diminished in the late 1970s and early 1980s;2 after the start of the Intifada, its use increased. According to an NGO report, from the beginning of the Intifada until the end of November 1991, the number of houses demolished was 443 and the number of houses fully sealed was 277.3 Sealing and demolition of houses have generated a large volume of petitions to the High Court of Justice. Although some of these petitions were submitted during the mid-1970s, the first judgment of the Court was not delivered until the middle of 1979.4 Petitions submitted prior to this case were settled before the decision stage, generally when the authorities declared that they had no intention of demolishing the petitioner ’s house.5 LEGAL BASIS The formal legal authorization for house demolition or sealing is to be found in regulation 119 of the Defense Regulations, 1945. This regulation states: A military commander may, by order, direct the forfeiture to the government . . . of any house, structure or land from which he has reason 145 CHAPTER NINE HOUSE DEMOLITIONS to suspect that any firearm has been illegally discharged, or any bomb, grenade or explosive or incendiary article illegally thrown, or any house, structure or land situated in any area, town, village, quarter or street the inhabitants or some of the inhabitants of which he is satisfied have committed, or attempted to commit, or abetted the commission of, or been accessories after the fact to the commission of, any offense against these regulations involving violence or intimidation or any military court offense; and when any house, structure or land is forfeited as aforesaid, the military commander may destroy the house or the structure or anything in or on the house, the structure or the land. Where any house . . . has been forfeited . . . the military commander may at any time by order remit the forfeiture. The sanction provided for in this regulation is composed of two elements : forfeiture of the house, structure, or land and demolishing or otherwise dealing with the forfeited property. The regulation itself mentions only the most extreme measure—demolition—but after ordering forfeiture the military commander may decide on a less extreme step, such as sealing all or part of the house. This sanction may be imposed if the property itself was used as the base for shooting firearms or throwing grenades, explosives or firebombs. However, it may also be imposed because inhabitants of the town, area, village, quarter or street in which the house is situated were implicated in violent offenses. In practice, the military authorities have not imposed the sanction unless the person involved in the violence was an inhabitant of the house that was to be forfeited and sealed or demolished.6 In the early years of the occupation, the authorities claimed that house demolitions were only used when the inhabitants of the house were connected to the offense committed by a member of the family.7 I have no way of checking whether this policy was indeed followed at that time. What is clear, however, is that since 1979 (when the Court delivered its first decision relating to house demolitions), no connection has been required between the occupants of the house and the offense (as opposed to the offender). The Court itself has explicitly ruled that the measure may be employed even when the other members of the household were not aware of the acts of the perpetrator.8 NATURE OF SANCTION As a starting point for a discussion of house demolitions, it is essential to distinguish between demolition of a house as an operational or preventive measure and its demolition as a punitive reaction to commission of an act. In the latter case the authorities do not claim that the house itself interferes with military operations or that the site is needed for mil146 THE OCCUPATION OF JUSTICE itary purposes. Regulation 119 appears in the Part 12 of the Defense Regulations that deals with “Miscellaneous Penal Provisions.” Demolition of a house under this regulation is therefore clearly a punitive sanction imposed in response to an act committed by...