Home Demolitions: ‘Blame Israel First’ Media Fail to Adequately Explain Complex Issue

From time to time, the issue of home demolitions by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) becomes the focus of media reporting on Israel. As with so much related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the practice has proven divisive, with its fair share of proponents and detractors. On one hand, some say, demolitions serve as a deterrent and aid the prevention of additional terrorist attacks, especially emanating from the West Bank. On the other hand, some human rights organizations view demolitions as an illegitimate form of “collective punishment.”

While home demolitions have been an IDF counterterrorism strategy for decades, the issue occasionally garners international attention. For instance, in July 2021, the IDF demolished the West Bank home of Mantasser Shalabi, a US citizen responsible for fatally shooting 19-year-old Yehuda Guetta at Tapuah Junction in the West Bank on May 2, drawing criticism from the Biden administration.

While the official IDF policy is to deter future terrorist attacks by demolishing the homes of Palestinians who commit murderous acts against Israelis, Shalabi’s case was unique in that the home was occupied by his estranged wife and three children, all of them American citizens. At the time, State Department Spokesman Ned Price said, “we attach a good deal of priority to this, knowing that the home of an entire family shouldn’t be demolished for the action of one individual.”

Yet, despite US efforts to prevent the demolition, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett made clear that Jerusalem would not modify its approach because, in his view, it would potentially put Israelis in danger.

Background on Home Demolitions

Home demolitions in the region began towards the end of the British Mandate after the British high commissioner of Palestine initiated emergency defense protocols in 1945. Regulation 119(1) gave the British army permission to destroy homes and other buildings as a form of punishment for illegal actions.

With Israel gaining control of the West Bank — also known as Judea and Samaria — and Gaza during the Six-Day War in 1967, the IDF was charged with administering the territories, including the large civilian population. Almost immediately, the IDF employed demolitions as a punitive measure in response to terrorism. After demolishing over 1,400 houses, the practice was largely discontinued by the early 1970s.

Although implemented occasionally between 1987 and 1992 as a result of the First Intifada, the IDF did not formally begin home demolitions again until 2002, after a terrorist attack at the Hebrew University during the Second Intifada which left nine students and staff members dead.

Despite the condemnation of human rights organizations, the Israeli government has repeatedly stated that home demolitions are crucial to the safety and security of the country. For example, in response to questions related to the August 2020 demolition of a home in which a terror suspect’s wife and eight children still resided, Defense Minister Benny Gantz tweeted:

Demolition of houses for deterrence is an important tool in the war on terror and I hope that the High Court will approve the request and adopt the position of the defense establishment.”

Similarly, former Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu previously declared: “My policy as prime minister is to destroy the homes of terrorists, and I intend to continue with it.”

Types of Demolitions

There are three main categories of demolitions carried out by the IDF: precautionary, punitive, and administrative. Precautionary demolitions, or “clearing operations,” are used to prevent terrorist groups from having locations to shelter snipers or act as operational bases. For their part, punitive demolitions involve sealing or razing the homes of Palestinians suspected of or convicted of terrorism. Finally, administrative demolitions relate to homes or buildings built without permits.

Since 2002, the number of demolitions per year has fluctuated, ranging from as low as 218 in 2003 to 1,094 in 2016. As of July 2021, 531 homes had been destroyed, and, since 2009, there have been some 7,800 structures demolished. For the most part, the demolitions occur in Area C of the West Bank, though there have also been instances in eastern Jerusalem, which Israel considers part of its undivided capital.

Of all demolitions, administrative demolitions make up the biggest part, significantly due to the fact that many illegally built homes that had been previously destroyed are rebuilt and razed again.

For example, residents of the West Bank Bedouin settlement of Al-Araqib claim that the site has, as of May 2021, been demolished 186 times. However, the numbers alone don’t tell the full story. In reality, the settlement hasn’t been repeatedly destroyed. Instead, caravans and temporary structures illegally located without planning permission are removed, and then put back up, only to be removed again weeks, months, or years later. 

What the Critics Say

While advocates of home demolitions believe that the policy is critical to maintaining Israel’s national security, critics, especially rights groups, claim that it comprises a human rights violation.

According to Human Rights Watch, in 2018 an estimated 15 to 20 percent of all homes in the West Bank had been built without permits, either because peoples’ applications were rejected or owners did not even bother submitting the required documentation to receive a license. This left approximately 60,000 to 70,000 homes at risk of administrative demolitions.

Additionally, HRW views punitive demolitions as a form of collective punishment, harming the families of suspected terrorists even in cases in which they had nothing to do with the crimes. The group has specifically called for the State of Israel to “end discrimination in the application of planning, permit, and building laws and regulations subjecting Palestinians to discriminatory permit refusals and demolition orders.”

Meanwhile, Amnesty International regularly blames Israel for demolishing homes as a means of effectively confiscating land. 

Adding to the complexity of the issue, numerous Israeli legislators and judges have also spoken out against home demolitions. Regarding the above-mentioned case that prompted Gantz’s tweet, Israeli Supreme Court Justice Menachem Mazuz wrote that, “the serious harm done to innocent family members cannot be ignored — those to whom no involvement in the attack is attributed.”

Legal Justification of Home Demolitions

Nevertheless, many Israeli politicians argue that home demolitions are legal and courts have repeatedly rejected petitions for the policy to be suspended.

In one ruling, judge Noam Solberg explained the logic behind house demolitions:

In their farewell videos, suicide bombers have emphasized the benefits their families would receive, as a kind of compensation for their deaths, and even described how the thought that their family would benefit was at the forefront of their minds, together with the act itself. By placing special emphasis on the home of the terrorist’s family, the terrorist organizations themselves mark the ‘soft underbelly’ where deterrence may be effective.

“It appears from the file that the demolition of terrorist homes will add to the cost-benefit analysis made by a potential terrorist, the knowledge that his relatives will pay a price for his actions.… However, the deterrence was intended not only to directly affect the terrorist’s way of thinking, but also to dissuade him from his actions by involving his family members.…

“The fear of the destruction of their home is intended to harness the potential terrorist’s family to realize its influence in the desired direction, to prevent it from forming an immediate circle of support, and thus to divert it from taking part in terrorism or supporting it. Therefore, deterrence contributes, even if only slightly. This little, in the circumstances of time and place, can at times be a decisive factor.” –HCJ 8091/14 HaMoked and others v. Minister of Defense and Commander of the Armed Forces in the West Bank, December 31, 2014 (Hebrew). 

Indeed, the Israeli Supreme Court just recently ruled against a petition to overturn the government’s decision in the aforementioned Shalabi case. 

The petitioners — including Shalabi’s estranged wife and Israeli rights group HaMoked — pushed the notion that Shalabi was rarely at his West Bank home and suffered from mental illness. However, the court ruled that the demolition could proceed since Shalabi was in the home in the weeks leading up to the attack, and that there was not enough evidence to suggest that he was mentally ill.

Furthermore, Israeli officials assert that home demolitions are legal from an international standpoint under article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, drawn up in 1949. This section established that:

 Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

By outlining the exception allowing destruction as acceptable if deemed essential for safety and security purposes, some argue that the IDF is authorized to continue targeting the homes of terrorists.

Justification for this is also drawn from numerous studies that have demonstrated that home demolitions do, in fact, deter future terrorism, and punitive house demolitions during the Second Intifada caused an immediate, significant decrease in the frequency of Palestinian suicide attacks.

Furthermore, according to data from Israeli Security Agency Reports, between 2000 and 2005 the number of suicide attacks by Palestinians decreased as the number of punitive home demolitions increased. Even so, the IDF has acknowledged that “it is impossible to know the exact figures of potential terrorists that have been deterred from perpetrating attacks by this prevention tactic.”

Additionally, Israel is not the only country to view damaging or loss of property as a means of preventing illegal acts. In the United States, between 2000 and 2020 the US government seized at least $68.8 billion worth of property from suspected criminals.

Regardless of where one stands on the matter, it is clear that home demolitions have been repeatedly reviewed by the Israeli court system. As such, the media’s myopic reporting on the matter constitutes another case of shoddy journalism, if not overt anti-Israel bias. News outlets are required to provide the public with the full story, no matter its complexity, and that includes noting that Israeli actions play a role in curbing terrorism.

Featured Image: Hazem Bader/Getty Images