Case Number
HCJ 3451/02
Date Decided
5-2-2002
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: This petition was submitted during IDF operations against the terrorist infrastructure in the areas of the Palestinian Authority. (“Operation Defensive Wall.”) It concerns the situation in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, in which armed Palestinians had fortified themselves. In the church compound there were also unarmed Palestinians civilians, as well as clergymen. The clergymen, who were not in the same part of the compound as the Palestinians, received food, though the Palestinians did not. Petitioners requested that food be allowed into the compound. They asserted that preventing food from entering the compound was a violation of international law. Respondents reply that they are not preventing the civilians from exiting the compound—indeed, they are encouraging them to do so—and assuring them that no harm shall befall them. In response, petitioners asserted that the armed Palestinians were preventing the civilians from exiting the compound, and that they only way to ensure that food reached the civilians was to allow food into the compound for all inside.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Israel, finding itself in the middle of difficult battle against a furious wave of terrorism, is exercising its right of self defense under the Charter of the United Nations. This combat is being carried out according to the rules of international law, which provide principles and rules for combat activity. The Court found that, regarding the treatment of the armed Palestinians, the State had not violated international law. The problem was with the unarmed civilians inside the Church compound, those that were not connected to terror. The Court held that, in view of the reality in the compound, in which there was a well providing a certain amount of water, and food, even if it was only basic, and in view of the willingness of the respondents to provide extra food to the civilians even if they do not leave the compound, the respondents had fulfilled their obligation under international law.
Keywords
Constitutional Law -- Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, -- Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, International Law -- Occupied territories
Recommended Citation
Barak, Aharon; Beinisch, Dorit; and Englard, Izhak, "Almandi v. Minister of Defense" (2002). Translated Opinions. 42.
https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/iscp-opinions/42
