Home
About IDI
IDI Press
Education
Debate
Research
By Ido Rosenzweig and Yuval Shany

Introduction

President of the Supreme Court, Justice Dorit Beinisch

On 2 June 2010, the Israeli Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice (HCJ), published its decision to reject several petitions related to Israel’s treatment of foreign civilians who participated in the Gaza Flotilla.[1] The petitions, which varied in nature and ranged from a demand that Israeli stop its operations against the humanitarian flotilla to a demand that Israel refrain from releasing the flotilla's participants and press criminal charges against them.

In this article, the IDI's Terrorism and Democracy Newsletter presents a short discussion of the HCJ decision to reject the petitions. Since the flotilla incident relates to a conspicuous counter-terrorism measure – the naval blockade on Gaza – an analysis of its aftermath will contribute to a broader understanding of Israel’s counter-terrorism policies.

Background

On 31 May 2010, a flotilla of six ships attempted to violate the naval blockade imposed by Israel on the Gaza Strip. The ships were intercepted by the IDF (the takeover of one ship – the Mavi Marmara – turned violent and resulted in the death of nine civilians and the injury of several civilians and IDF soldiers), [2]  and all six ships were diverted to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection of the goods on board. Upon arriving at the Ashdod Port, the foreign passengers of the ships were presented with a choice of leaving Israel immediately, or remaining in detention in the custody of the Israeli authorities.

Following these events, several petitions were submitted to the HCJ. The first petition, submitted on the morning of 1 June 2010, claimed that the Israeli government and the IDF had committed serious crimes during the takeover operation, and requested that the HCJ issue Habeas Corpus orders to release all the passengers who had been detained at the time. [3]  Later that same day, another petition was submitted by Adalah and other human rights NGOs, asking the Court to order the State to provide information about the detainees and their whereabouts. [4]  Another petition submitted by Al-Jazeera [5]  requested the immediate release of the media personnel that were on the ships. However, since the media personnel were released during the hearing of the petition, the petition was withdrawn.

On 1 June 2010, the Israeli Government issued a statement declaring that all the foreign participants of the flotilla would be released immediately and deported from Israel. Following this announcement, three petitions were filed asking the HCJ to order the State to refrain from releasing the detainees. [6]  The request was mainly based on the claim that these people had committed felonies and must, therefore, be interrogated before being released, at the very least.

In its response to the first two petitions, [7]  the State asked the Court to reject the petitions, claiming that the aim of the naval blockade is to prevent the entry of firearms and other war materials into the Gaza Strip, since they could be used for terrorist attacks against Israel and its citizens. According to the State, the blockade was established in accordance with the customary rules of international humanitarian law, and the real purpose of the flotilla was to violate the blockade under the false pretense of a humanitarian mission. The State also justified the use of force by its soldiers upon boarding the Mavi Marmara as an act of self-defense in response to the violent attacks against them, and claimed that responsibility for the grim results of the clashes rests with the organizers of the flotilla and the participants who attacked the Israeli soldiers.

After intercepting the flotilla and docking the ships at Ashdod Port, the foreign passengers were required to disembark from the ships and were treated in accordance with Israeli law, which provides for the deportation of foreign persons who do not possess an entry permit into the State, and for their detention until their deportation.

Since all the petitions were urgent and related to the same detainees, the HCJ decided to conduct a unified hearing for all of the petitions. Following this hearing, the HCJ published its decision to reject all the petitions on 2 June 2010.

The Decision

The President of the Supreme Court, Justice Dorit Beinisch, writing for the Court, introduced her opinion by stating that due to the urgent nature of the cases, the Court would not address the legality of the naval blockade, the events which took place on board the Mavi Marmara, or the allegations against the Israeli citizens who took part in the flotilla. Moreover, since the Government decided to release all foreign nationals and to notify the relevant diplomatic delegations of its decision, the first two petitions were no longer relevant. 

With regard to the decision to release the foreign nationals without initiating criminal procedures against them, Justice Beinisch held that this decision lies completely within the discretion of the Attorney General and barring exceptional circumstances, the HCJ would not interfere with his decisions on this matter. Since the Attorney General seems to have taken all relevant considerations into account, including the diplomatic implications of detention, in reaching his decision, the Court found no grounds to intervene.

Notes

  1. http://elyon2.court.gov.il/files/10/690/041/N04/10041690.N04.htm

  2. For a discussion of the Gaza Flotilla and an analysis of the legal framework, see this issue of the Terrorism and Democracy Newsletter.

  3. HCJ 4169/10 Yiftah Cohen  v. Minister of Defense.

  4. HCJ 4193/10 Adalah v. Minister of Defense.

  5. HCJ 4220/10 Al-Jazeera v. IDF.

  6. HCJ 4221/10 Yakutial Ben-Yaacov v. Israel Police, HCJ 4240/10 Shurat Hadin – Israel Law Center v. Attorney General, HCJ 4243/10 Almagor v. Prime Minister.

  7. www.mag.idf.il/SIP_STORAGE/files/0/790.pdf  <Hebrew>