Israel’s High Court of Justice on Thursday upheld an order to demolish a Palestinian man’s apartment in the West Bank over his alleged role in organizing a failed rocket attack on Modi’in Illit. The three justices unanimously dismissed a petition from his wife and two children, finding that the exceptional seriousness of the alleged acts justified demolition even though nobody was killed or injured.
The case involves Abdullah Mahmoud Saud al-Khatib, who faces charges of attempted intentional killing, weapons offenses and membership in an unlawful association. The demolition order applies to the family’s apartment in Kafr Nima, near Ramallah. Other relatives live in the same building, which is owned by his wife’s father, but the order does not cover the entire property.
According to the indictment outlined in the judgment, Khatib assembled a cell intended to conduct repeated rocket attacks against Israeli targets, constructed rockets and launch equipment, and carried out tests. On September 17, 2025, two members operating under his direction placed two rockets near Modi’in Illit and took the necessary steps to fire them toward the city. One rocket fell and damaged the launch mechanism of the other, preventing either from being launched toward the city.
Justice Yael Willner, who wrote the principal opinion, rejected the family’s contention that the operation had never progressed beyond planning. She cited the organized preparations, accumulated rockets and explosives, and plans to launch attacks every few days. In her assessment, the lack of casualties did not diminish the exceptional danger. Justices Yechiel Kasher and Ruth Ronnen joined her in rejecting the petition.
The military issued the order under Regulation 119 of the British Mandate-era emergency regulations, which allows confiscation and demolition of homes in specified circumstances. Willner acknowledged that such orders usually concern attacks resulting in death or serious injury. She nevertheless pointed to a previous decision allowing demolition after an attempted mass-casualty bus bombing that injured no one.
The family challenged the measure as collective punishment and disputed its legality and deterrent effect. They said the wife and children had no involvement in or knowledge of Khatib’s activities, and alternatively requested that only one room be sealed. Relying on existing case law, Willner dismissed the broader legal arguments. She recognized the severe impact on the children but found demolition justified.
Ronnen supported the outcome “not without hesitation,” stressing that relatives’ lack of knowledge or participation was relevant to proportionality. She reasoned that people could not be deterred from failing to stop an attack they had no way of knowing about. Demolishing an uninvolved family’s home might also undermine relatives’ incentive to discourage attacks if their behavior appeared irrelevant. Nevertheless, she accepted the order because of Khatib’s clear residential connection, the gravity of the allegations and its limited scope.
The military originally sought demolition of the entire ground floor but removed a neighboring vacant apartment from the order after the family objected. The judgment also described engineering precautions intended to reduce damage to the remaining building and surrounding properties.
The court also dismissed a challenge to the approximately 11-month interval between the attempted attack and the demolition notice. The state cited wartime demands and the need for individual approval from the prime minister and defense minister because there had been no casualties. It said the National Security Council was still developing a general policy for such cases. The court accepted that explanation and upheld the apartment’s demolition order.
