HCJ 4239/24 Abu Awwad v. Military Commander in the West Bank

Date of submission: May 22, 2024

The Awwad family resides in a relatively secluded area of Turmusaya, roughly two kilometers from the town center. The Awwad family compound was built in the early 1970s on the family’s privately owned land. Approximately 25 family members currently reside in the compound, including 11 children under the age of 18. Members of the Awwad family earn their living primarily from farming – cultivation of some 2,000 olive trees on roughly one hundred dunams of privately owned farmland around the residential compound. All essential services the family requires, such as grocery stores, clinics, pharmacies and schools, are located in Turmusaya.

Without any warning or lawful authority, in October 2023 Israeli security personnel blocked the only access road leading to the Abu Awwad home with a mound of earth and rocks. That very same month, a military post was erected some twenty meters from the residential compound, supervising all movement to and from the compound. Soldiers informed the family that it would be permitted to walk to and from Turmusaya only, and not allowed to use vehicles. Soldiers forbade the family members to farm their agricultural plots, including during the peak olive harvest and plowing season. In addition, the army banned visitors or service providers from reaching the site, even on foot, at all times. In January 2024, soldiers informed the family that its members were not allowed to leave their homes after sundown. The family found itself under a full siege, supervised tightly by army forces and at the mercy of Israeli security forces personnel.

The restrictions imposed on the Abu Awwad family instantly changed the course of their lives and gravely infringe upon their rights. The prohibition on farming their land has harmed the family’s ability to earn a living, forcing some of its members to seek other work instead. The roadblock and the prohibition on using vehicles has forced the family to walk great distances on a path that became muddy and difficult to navigate in the winter when accessing the most fundamental services. For example, the children have had to walk to school every day and the family members have had to carry food supplies the entire trip home from Turmusaya. Due to the prohibition on visitors, the water supply truck was not allowed to enter the compound and the family had to rely on rainwater for a long period.

On January 15, 2024, approximately 30 Israelis arrived from the direction of the settlement Shilo and invaded the compound. They shattered the houses’ windows, broke solar panels used by the family and sprayed offensive slogans reading “death to Arabs” and “revenge” at the entrance. The assailants carried out the attack with the support of the army, which supervises and controls the entire area. Approximately one week after the attack, a security official from the settlement Shilo came to the family home. He threatened the family, saying it had five days to evacuate their houses and leave the site.

In February 2024, Yesh Din addressed the Military Commander of the West Bank Area and the Legal Advisor – Judea and Samaria on behalf of the family, demanding the barrier be removed, the siege of the family compound be terminated and farming work be permitted to resume. Despite various reminders sent by Yesh Din and the urgency of the matter, for three months Yesh Din’s correspondence was ignored.

On May 22, 2024, the Abu Awwad family appealed to the High Court of Justice with Yesh Din’s assistance, demanding the roadblock be removed as well as the various restrictions the army imposed on the family. The petition argues that the restrictions on the Abu Awwad family since October 2023 lack any genuine military need and therefore violate the provisions of international humanitarian law, by virtue of which the State of Israel controls the West Bank. It also argues that the restrictions violate the army’s obligations to the Abu Awwad family members, who are considered protected persons according to the law of occupation. The petition notes that the siege and prevention of access to farmland “constitute a direct assault on all fundamental human rights, they humiliate and incarcerate the compound’s residents, deny them of their basic liberties without any justification, explanation or expected end date, endanger their health and impede their ability to access rescue and emergency services, hinder access to education for their children, and preclude them from meeting with relatives and friends. These are grievously harmful to all aspects of daily life.”

On August 5, 2024, the State Attorney’s Office submitted a preliminary response to the Court. The response argues that the road was blocked for security needs as part of the “procedure for restrictions on movement”, which allows blocking roads in the West Bank. A military order instructing the road be blocked was attached to the response as an appendix, signed by the regional brigade commander the very same day the response was submitted, ten months after the barrier was erected. The State Attorney’s Office denied the existence of additional restrictions on freedom of movement in the area, including the nightly curfew imposed on the family. It also argued that there was no sweeping prohibition on the family members preventing them from farming their land, and even noted that the commander of the Binyamin Regional Brigade commander instructed the soldiers present in the area not to stop the family members from farming their land. Without this petition it is questionable whether the military commander would have given such clear instructions, which in practice released the family members from the nightly curfew and the prohibition on farming their agricultural plots surrounding their homes they had been subjected to.

On September 23, 2024 Yesh Din submitted the petitioners’ response to the State’s preliminary response. It argues that the army did not provide lawful justification for blocking the road, such as evidence or a real security threat concerning this area. As such, the army merely claimed that the roading leading to the Abu Awwad family homes was blocked because it could possibly serve unnamed hostile parties. Yesh Din’s response noted that this logic is rooted in a racist, discriminatory and wrongful approach, which contradicts both international law and the army’s own procedures. In this context, Yesh Din’s response referred to the fact that hostile parties in fact came from Israeli settlements in the area and carried out acts of terrorism against Palestinian civilians residents of Turmusaya. And yet, of course the Israeli authorities did not block the roads leading to settlements from which Jewish terrorists came.

On December 9, 2024, the High Court of Justice held a hearing in the matters of blocking the main road leading the family compound and closing off farmland surrounding the house during the olive harvest season. According to the army’s position presented at the hearing, an alternative route exists, which is longer, bypasses the roadblock and can be used by the family for traveling to their home. During the hearing, Atty. Shlomy Zachary, the family’s counsel on behalf of Yesh Din insisted that the alternative route is impassable for vehicles and unusable, contrary to the claims presented by the State Attorney’s Office and the army. He also explained that in practice, the closure orders issued by the Military Commander also prohibit travel on this proposed alternative route. Following the justices’ comments on the matter, during the hearing the State Attorney’s Office agreed to issue a permit enabling any individual to reach the family compound.

Following the hearing, the parties agreed to a site visit to examine the proposed alternative route with army officers and representatives of the Abu Awwad family accompanied by Yesh Din. In parallel, on December 8, 2024, Yesh Din submitted an appeal to the Legal Advisor – Judea and Samaria objecting to extension of the timeframe for the roadblock. During the site visit on December 15 with the army representatives, it became evident that as the petitioners initially argued and contrary to the army’s claims, the proposed alternative route does not exist in practice.

A video showing the gate being opened, which was installed to replace the roadblock:

In late December 2024, the army removed the dirt roadblock that had prevented access to the Abu Awwad’s family home for over a year and established an iron gate in its stead. The Abu Awwad family received a key to the gate, affording them or parties on their behalf free access to their home and the surrounding land. Following the hearing, the family members received permission to harvest the olive trees on their land and were thus able to complete the olive harvest, in spite of the army’s previous claims that this was “impossible.”

On 9 February 2025, the judgement was handed down in the petition submitted by the Abu Awwad family. The Court held that the family must be granted free access to their houses and farmland. The justices criticized the army’s conduct against the family and the Court, which included ignoring Yesh Din’s previous correspondence on the matter and presenting erroneous information to the Court. The judgement noted that “providing the remedy to the petitioners involves a strong feeling that these matters could have received a far faster and more effective response through dialog and respectful address of their claims.” Additionally, the Court ruled ILS 20,000 in legal fees in favor of the petitioners. This exceptional judgement was granted on the backdrop of the grave restrictions the army has imposed since October 2023 on Palestinians’ freedom of movement throughout the West Bank.

Petition status: The petition was deleted after the remedies requested by the petitioners were granted