Case details
Proceeding: HCJ 45184-08-26, Abbad et al. v. Commander of IDF Forces in the West Bank et al.
Panel: President Isaac Amit, Justice Alex Stein, Justice Yehiel Kasher
Hearing date: 27 August 2026
Decision date: 6 September 2026
Representation of the petitioners: Our office, through Adv. Ghiath Nasser
Our office, through Adv. Ghiath Nasser, filed an urgent petition to the Israeli High Court of Justice on behalf of members of the Tubasi family from the village of Jalud and Mr. Tawfiq Shweiki, following the invasion and takeover of the family homes and their surroundings by Israeli civilians, the blocking of access roads, and the ongoing harm to the petitioners’ safety and property.
On 27 August 2026, a hearing was held before a panel headed by President of the Supreme Court, Justice Isaac Amit, together with Justice Alex Stein and Justice Yehiel Kasher. On 6 September 2026, the panel issued its decision, granting an operative interim order as well as an order nisi.
Factual background: a reality of siege and invasion
In its decision, the Court addressed the grave phenomenon of nationalist crime committed by Israeli civilians against Palestinian residents in the West Bank, including “invasion of their homes, prevention of access to their homes, and damage to their property.” The Court noted at the outset that the main sequence of events described in the petition was not substantially disputed by the respondents.
The decision describes how members of the Tubasi family were forced to leave their homes on 22 July 2026 following a violent invasion and acts of intimidation, and how Mr. Shweiki’s home allegedly became a point of presence and positioning for the same offenders. The harassment began in April 2026, with the establishment of a tent on private lands in Area B, and later included threats, roadblocks, stone throwing, damage to property and infrastructure, cutting off the water line, uprooting trees, setting fire to a vehicle, and blocking the access road to the homes — creating what the Court described as “a de facto reality of disconnection and siege around the homes.”
The test of the result: the petitioners’ inability to return “speaks for itself”
One of the most significant parts of the decision is the Court’s adoption of the test of the result. The Court emphasized that “the petitioners have not yet been able to return to their homes. This fact speaks for itself and cannot be accepted.”
This makes clear that the State cannot rely merely on procedures, patrols, or enforcement mechanisms on paper, while in practice the homeowners remain outside their homes and the invaders remain in their place.
The IDF’s responsibility as the sovereign authority: no more passing responsibility between bodies
The Court also addressed the division of responsibility between the IDF and the Israel Police, making clear that overall responsibility cannot fall between the cracks. The Court held that “at the end of the day, the overall responsibility rests with the IDF, since the sovereign authority in the area is the military commander, and he bears responsibility for the security of the local Palestinians.”
This is an especially important determination. It clarifies that even where the police face difficulties operating in Area B, or where there is a division of responsibilities between the authorities, this does not exempt the military commander from his overall responsibility to protect the local Palestinian residents.
Sharp criticism of the lack of effective enforcement
The Court sharply criticized the answers provided by the respondents, stating that “the picture that emerges is very bleak. There are many questions; proper answers — fewer.”
Among other things, the Court noted that no satisfactory answers were given as to why vehicles used by the offenders were not seized or confiscated, and what enforcement measures were taken against offenders who were documented with uncovered faces and whose details were transferred to the authorities.
Main remedies granted in the decision
Operative interim order: The Court ordered the respondents to coordinate with the petitioners a date for their return to their homes within 14 days, including securing their return and allowing them to bring in all equipment and supplies required to repair the homes and the water and electricity infrastructure.
Order nisi: The Court ordered the respondents to explain why they should not act to return the petitioners and their family members to their homes, and why they should not remove the roadblocks and obstacles placed on the access roads to the petitioners’ homes. The respondents were ordered to file their response affidavit by 8 October 2026.
Update to the Court: The parties were ordered to update the Court regarding the petitioners’ return to their homes by 22 September 2026.
Significance of the decision
This is a courageous decision of both principled and practical importance. It marks an important step in addressing situations in which Palestinian residents are effectively dispossessed from their homes as a result of settler violence, while the authorities rely on partial measures that do not achieve the required result.
The decision makes clear that the military commander’s duty to protect the safety, bodily integrity, and property of protected residents is not measured by intentions, statements, or the refinement of procedures — but by the actual result on the ground: whether the homeowners can return safely to their homes, whether access roads are opened, and whether the offenders are effectively removed from the area.
