HCJ 65644-10-25, Yesh Din v. Military Commander of the West Bank et al.

Date of submission: October 30, 2025

Israeli settlers violently attack Palestinian farmers and harm their property routinely, particularly during the olive harvest. Such incidents include physical violence, damaging trees, setting fires and stealing produce or farming equipment. Simultaneously, the army exercises administrative measures that restrict Palestinians’ access to their land or prevent access altogether. This combination of attacks and administrative measures consistently and systematically harms Palestinians’ right to farm their land and harvest their olives.

The military commander recognizes his duty under international law to protect the right of every Palestinian resident to access and farm his or her land freely and safely. The army is obligated to protect Palestinians farmers, both their person and property.

Before the war broke out in October 2023, the army officially designated parties tasked with handling urgent cases in the West Bank: the Civil Administration humanitarian hotline, District Coordination Offices (DCOs), army brigade war rooms, and the Office of the Legal Advisor – Judea & Samaria (LA-JS) operated as hotlines during various periods for farmers, activists and aid organization workers, providing a response – even if partial – to urgent calls. Since the war broke out, no party is officially tasked with providing emergency responses to urgent calls. Two call centers, in the Civil Administration and the Central Command, operate on a limited basis on weekdays only. Contacting these call centers has proven ineffective.

On October 30, 2025, Yesh Din petitioned the High Court of Justice demanding the army assign an official tasked with and authorized to respond in cases when Palestinians’ rights are harmed and immediate intervention is necessary, and publish contact information in Hebrew and Arabic for parties tasked with handling urgent calls, who shall be on call 24/7.

The petition lists numerous examples of violent incidents perpetrated against Palestinians during the olive harvest and the rest of the year which required immediate response. Because there is no defined or accessible party taking urgent calls 24/7, neither army nor police forces responded to these incidents, and security forces failed to uphold their duty to protect Palestinian farmers who were attacked.

The petition argues that the military commander has a heightened duty of care to provide an effective response to the violation of Palestinians’ human rights given his unique role as the governing authority responsible for both the urgent and routine needs of millions of protected persons. Refraining from designating and tasking a police or army official with receiving information from the field about incidents in which Palestinians’ fundamental human rights are harmed, responsible for responding effectively in urgent cases, effectively creates a barrier between the protected persons and those making decisions concerning them.

When there is no party tasked with protecting Palestinians and their property and authorized to instruct army and police forces in the field to respond to clear-cut human rights violations in real time, the military commander’s declaration that he is upholding his obligations is meaningless.

On November 30, 2025, following a hearing on the petition, the court issued a decision in which it incorporated, among other things, the state’s commitment that “a dedicated police phone line (number 02-6576750) is available to local residents who are not connected to the Israeli telephone infrastructure, and according to the information provided, it will be appropriately published in Arabic on the COGAT website in the coming days.”

Petition status: Pending