HCJ 9132/07
Jaber Al-Bassiouni Ahmed and others
v
1. Prime Minister
2. Minister of Defence
The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice
[27 January 2008]
Before President D. Beinisch, Justice E. Hayut and Justice J. Elon
Petition to the High Court of
Justice for an Order Nisi and an Interim Order
Israeli Supreme Court cases
cited:
[1] HCJ 3451/02 Almadani v.
Minister of Defence [2002] IsrSC 56(3) 30; [20023] IsrLR 47.
[2] HCJ 168/91 Morcus v.
Minister of Defence [1991] IsrSC 45(1) 467.
[3] HCJ 3114/02 Barakeh v.
Minister of Defence [2002] IsrSC 56(3) 11; [2002-3] IsrLR 39.
[4] HCJ 320/80 Kawasma v.
Minister of Defence [1981] IsrSC 35(3) 113.
[5] HCJ 2901/02 Center for the
Defense of the Individual v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the
[6] HCJ 2936/02 Physicians for
Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the
[7] HCJ 2977/02 Adalah - Legal Center for Arab Minority
Rights in Israel v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank [2002] IsrSC
56(3) 6.
[8] HCJ 3022/02 LAW -
Palestinian Organization for the Defence of Human Rights and the Environment v.
Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank [2002] IsrSC 56(3) 9.
For the petitioners - N. Peleg,
Prof. K. Mann, F. El-Ajou, H. Jabareen, S. Bashi.
For the respondents - G.
Shirman, O. Mendel
JUDGMENT
President D. Beinisch
1. The petition before us is
directed against the respondents' decision to reduce or limit the supply of
fuel and electricity to the Gaza Strip. In their petition for relief from this
court, the petitioners specified primarily the need for various types of fuel
(gasoline and diesel) for the proper functioning of hospitals and water and
sewage pumps, as well as the need for the supply of electricity, whether via
power lines from Israel or through the supply of industrial diesel for
operating the Gaza Strip power plant.
2. The background to the
petition is the belligerent actions that have taken place in the Gaza Strip for
a long period, and the ongoing campaign of terrorism directed against the
citizens of
'The Hamas organization is a terrorist organization that has taken
control of the Gaza Strip and turned it into hostile territory. This organization
perpetrates acts of hostility against the State of Israel and its citizens, and
it bears the responsibility for these acts. It has therefore been resolved to
adopt the recommendations made by the security establishment, including the
continuation of the military and intelligence operations against the terrorist
organizations. Additional restrictions will also be placed upon the Hamas
regime, to the effect that the passage of goods to the Gaza Strip will be
limited, the supply of fuel and electricity will be reduced and restrictions
will be imposed upon the movement of persons to and from the Strip. The
restrictions will be implemented bearing in mind the legal ramifications of the
humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, in order to prevent a humanitarian
crisis.'
The petition is directed against this decision.
3. The petition against the
decision was filed on 28 October 2007 and it was heard on 7 November 2007, in
the presence of the parties. On the date of the hearing the state gave notice
that a final decision as to the implementation of the restrictions on the
supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip had not yet been made; therefore we
only heard argument regarding the restrictions on the supply of fuel. During
the hearing, counsel for the respondents told the court that the state
recognizes that it has an obligation not to prevent the supply of basic
humanitarian needs to the Gaza Strip, and it therefore announced that it would
monitor the situation and ensure that the cuts being made do not affect the
supply of basic humanitarian needs. At the end of the hearing, we ordered the
state to present, within seven days, the data on which it based its assessment
of the impact of reducing the fuel supply to the Gaza Strip, and explain how it
would monitor and check the data of which it intends to make use in safeguarding the humanitarian needs of
the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip.
Reduction of the fuel supply to the Gaza Strip
4. On 29 November 2007 we held,
with regard to that part of the petition relating to the reduction of the fuel
supply to the Gaza Strip, that the fuel that the Palestinian Energy Authority
buys from the Israeli Dor Alon Co., which is distributed by private suppliers
to the highest bidder, with no scale of priorities, may also be distributed in
another manner. We said that the various types of fuel supplied to the Gaza
Strip could be distributed according to a scale of priorities that takes into
account the humanitarian needs of the civilian population, as well as the
functioning of the generators that operate the water pumps and electricity
plants in the Gaza Strip. In our decision we accorded weight to the state's
position that at this time, when belligerent acts and missile attacks are being
perpetrated against Israeli towns, some of the fuel that enters the Gaza Strip
is in fact used for the various purposes of the terrorist organizations; in
such circumstances the reduction of the fuel supply, in the controlled manner
in which it is implemented, is likely to damage the terrorist infrastructures
and affect their ability to operate against the citizens of the State of
Israel, since the amount of fuel that enters the Gaza Strip is supposed to
suffice only for the humanitarian purposes that require the use of fuel. We
were therefore not convinced at that stage, on the basis of the data presented
to us, that the respondents' decision to reduce the amount of fuel allowed into
the Gaza Strip through the border crossings with
Reduction of the supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip
5. The hearing of that part of
the petition that dealt with the reduction of the supply of electricity to the
Gaza Strip required complex factual verification, and we encountered difficulty
in obtaining figures on this issue from the state's representatives. Therefore
the proceedings on this issue were drawn out while on various dates we received
detailed applications from the petitioners and written and oral responses from
the respondents. On 15 November 2007 the petitioners filed an urgent application
for an interim order in the petition, and on 23 November 2007 they applied for
an urgent hearing of the petition in view of the state's notice that as of
December 2007 it would begin to restrict the amount of electricity supplied to
the Gaza Strip. The petitioners argued that it is physically impossible to
reduce the electricity supply to the Gaza Strip without causing power stoppages
in hospitals and interrupting the pumping of clean water to the civilian
population in
6. According to figures that are
not disputed by either party, the amount of electricity needed for the Gaza
Strip at peak times is slightly more than 200 megawatts. Approximately 120
megawatts are supplied by
7. The petitioners argue that
there is no physical way of reducing the supply of electricity to Gaza without
causing power stoppages in hospitals and interruptions in the pumping of clean
water to the civilian population of Gaza; consequently, the implementation of
this decision will cause certain, serious and irreversible harm to the vital
humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip, its hospitals, the water and sewage
systems, and the entire civilian population. In their supplementary pleadings
of 27 November 2007, the petitioners presented detailed arguments regarding the
future reduction of electricity to the Gaza Strip. According to the
petitioners, even at this stage, since the bombing of the local power plant by
the Israeli Air Force in 2006, the Gaza Strip has suffered from a shortage of
electricity that compels the Electricity Distribution Company in Gaza to
introduce electricity stoppages for several hours each day. They argue that even
now the frequent power stoppages affect the functioning of essential services
in Gaza, such as hospitals, because the infrastructure in the Gaza Strip does
not allow for the disconnection of the electricity supply to the civilian
population without disconnecting essential services. Moreover, it was
emphasized that withholding the supply of electricity from the homes of Gaza
residents denies them the possibility of receiving clean drinking water in
their homes and disrupts the functioning of the water and sewage pumps.
8. At a hearing on the petition
held on 29 November 2007 we heard the arguments of the parties. In the course
of the hearing we also heard the respondents' deponents, Col. Shlomi Muchtar,
head of the Operations Department of the Unit for Coordination of Government
Activities in the Territories, and Mr Idan Weinstock, Director of the
Electricity Authority at the Ministry of National Infrastructures. For the
petitioners we heard the second petitioner, Mr Maher Najar, Deputy-Director of
the Water Authority in the Coastal Cities Administration in Gaza. After hearing
the arguments of the parties and their deponents regarding the planned
reduction of the electricity supply to the Gaza Strip, and after receiving the
incomplete facts that were presented to us, we decided to request further
pleadings from the respondents on several points concerning the possibility of
regulating the flow of electricity to the Gaza Strip so that humanitarian needs
will not be harmed. We also issued an order to the effect that until the
aforesaid submissions were received, the plan to reduce the electricity supply
to the Gaza Strip would not be implemented.
9. While the petition was
pending, the petitioners once again filed applications to compel the state to
continue the regular supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip without
restrictions. Their arguments focused mainly on the fact that the local power
plant, which supplies electricity to essential humanitarian facilities, cannot
function properly due to a severe shortage of industrial diesel fuel. They
argue that the amount of industrial diesel that the respondents are allowing to
enter the Gaza Strip is insufficient for the needs of the power plant and does
not allow it to produce the amount of electricity required by the residents of
the Gaza Strip during the winter months. It was argued that the shortage of
industrial diesel caused a reduction of approximately 30% in the amount of
electricity produced by the power plant in the Gaza Strip, which has led to
long electricity stoppages. It was emphasized that the industrial diesel
supplied to the Gaza Strip is used solely for producing electricity at the
power plant. On 9 January 2008 the petitioners filed an update, in which they
said that as a result of the severe shortage of industrial diesel at the power
plant in the Gaza Strip, power stoppages of eight hours every day were being
imposed in central Gaza, and in the city of Gaza itself stoppages were being
imposed for eight hours every two days. It was further alleged that as a result
of the reduction in electricity production, the central hospital in Gaza was
suffering power stoppages of six to twelve hours each day, which disrupted the
functioning of the hospital. On 21 January 2008 the petitioners informed the
court that due to the shortage of industrial diesel, the power plant in Gaza
had stopped the production of electricity entirely, which resulted in a
shortage of approximately 43% of the amount of electricity required by the
residents of the Gaza Strip. They claimed that on 20 January 2008 the
respondents imposed a total ban on the entry of industrial diesel into the Gaza
Strip, and in the absence of reserves this led to the shutdown of the power
plant. In the prevailing circumstances, the petitioners claimed that many
residents of the Gaza Strip had no access to clean drinking water, sewage was
overflowing and residents who so required were unable to operate various items
of medical equipment in their homes.
10. In the wake of the
aforesaid, the respondents filed a further statement, in which they addressed
the various claims and the ongoing changes in the factual position. They said
that at a meeting between the Head of the Operations Department of the Unit for
Coordination of Government Activity in the Territories, Col. Shlomi Muchtar,
and the representatives of the Palestinian Energy Authority, the Palestinians
had said that they were able to regulate loads by reducing the consumption of
electricity in the distribution area of a certain line, and that such regulation
had already been activated; thus, for example, the Palestinian authorities
confirmed that they were able to reduce the consumption on a particular power
line in order to allow the proper functioning of a hospital. We were also
informed that as a result of an arrangement between the Israel Electric
Corporation and the Palestinian Authority in 2005, the supply of electricity
through two of the lines providing electricity from Israel to the Gaza Strip
was limited to eleven megawatts. The respondents admitted that the Nachal Oz
crossing, through which the industrial diesel fuel needed to run the Gaza power
plant enters the Gaza Strip, had indeed been closed for several days, and
therefore the supply of industrial diesel to the power plant in the Gaza Strip
had been withheld during those days. The respondents explained that the closure
of the crossing and the stoppage in the supply of industrial diesel to the
power plant occurred as a result of a very serious rocket barrage against
Israel from the fifteenth and eighteenth of January 2008, during which 222
mortar shells had been fired at Israeli towns near the Gaza Strip, Ashkelon and
Sederot, causing the wounding of seven civilians, many victims of trauma and
considerable damage. Despite that, we were told that it has now been decided
that the amount of industrial diesel supplied to the Gaza Strip will be set at
2.2 million litres a week, as it was before the reduction plan. Regarding the
supply of electricity from Israel, the respondents said that they intend to implement
a gradual reduction in only three power lines, in an amount of 5% of the total
current in each of those lines, so that the amount of electricity supplied
through them will total 13.5 megawatts in two of them and 12.5 megawatts in the
third. The respondents emphasized in this context that the Palestinians
themselves have said on several occasions that they are able to carry out load
reductions if restrictions are imposed on the power lines, so that humanitarian
purposes and needs are not affected. Finally, the respondents said that the
opening of the Rafah crossing into Egypt, which was an action taken
unilaterally by the Palestinians, is likely to affect the entire situation in
the Gaza Strip and all of the obligations of the State of Israel towards the
Gaza Strip, but they added that this is a new development and the matter is
being examined from a factual, legal and political perspective. On 27 January
2008 we held a hearing that focused on the supply of industrial diesel fuel to
the Gaza Strip, at which the parties reiterated their main arguments, as set
out above, and the state announced, as aforesaid, that industrial diesel fuel
was being supplied to the Gaza Strip in the same format as it had in the past.
Deliberations
11. The question confronting us
is whether the various restrictions upon the supply of fuel and electricity to
the Gaza Strip harm the essential humanitarian needs of the residents of the
Gaza Strip. As we said in our decision of 29 November 2007, the State of Israel
is under no obligation to allow an unlimited amount of electricity and fuel to
enter the Gaza Strip in circumstances in which some of these commodities are in
practice being used by the terrorist organizations in order to attack Israeli
civilians. The duty of the State of Israel derives from the essential
humanitarian needs of the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip. The respondents are
required to discharge their obligations under international humanitarian law,
which requires them to allow the Gaza Strip to receive only what is needed in
order to provide the essential humanitarian needs of the civilian population.
12. The State argued before us
that it acts in accordance with the rules of international law and fulfils its
humanitarian obligations under the laws of war. Counsel for the state argues
that these obligations are limited, and they are derived from the state of
armed conflict that exists between the State of Israel and the Hamas
organization that controls the Gaza Strip, and from the need to avoid harm to
the civilian population that finds itself in the combat zone. We should point
out in this context that since September 2005 Israel no longer has effective
control over what happens in the Gaza Strip. Military rule that applied in the
past in this territory came to an end by a decision of the government, and
Israeli soldiers are no longer stationed in the territory on a permanent basis,
nor are they in charge of what happens there. In these circumstances, the State
of Israel does not have a general duty to ensure the welfare of the residents
of the Gaza Strip or to maintain public order in the Gaza Strip according to
the laws of belligerent occupation in international law. Neither does Israel
have any effective capability, in its present position, of enforcing order and
managing civilian life in the Gaza Strip. In the prevailing circumstances, the
main obligations of the State of Israel relating to the residents of the Gaza
Strip derive from the state of armed conflict that exists between it and the
Hamas organization that controls the Gaza Strip; these obligations also derive
from the degree of control exercised by the State of Israel over the border
crossings between it and the Gaza Strip, as well as from the relationship that
was created between Israel and the territory of the Gaza Strip after the years
of Israeli military rule in the territory, as a result of which the Gaza Strip
is currently almost completely dependent upon the supply of electricity from
Israel.
13. In this context, the
respondents referred in their pleadings to various provisions of international
humanitarian law that apply to this case. Inter alia, the respondents referred
to art. 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War, 1949 (hereinafter: "the Fourth Geneva
Convention"), which requires a party to a conflict to allow the free
passage of consignments intended for the civilians of the other party. They
said, however, that this is a very limited obligation, since it only requires a
party to a conflict to allow the unlimited passage of medical equipment, and to
allow the passage of foodstuffs, clothing and medicine intended for children
under the age of fifteen and pregnant women. The respondents also referred to
art. 70 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts,
1977 (hereinafter: ''the First Protocol"), which in their opinion
constitutes customary international law, and which imposes a general and
broader obligation whereby parties to a conflict are required to allow the
rapid and unimpeded passage of essential goods for the civilian population.
Finally, the respondents also referred in their pleadings to art. 54 of the
First Protocol, which prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of
warfare, as well as any attack, destruction, removal or rendering useless of
installations required by the civilian population, including foodstuffs,
agricultural areas and drinking water installations.
14. The state's pleadings in
this regard are based upon norms that are part of customary international law,
which set out basic obligations that govern combatants engaged armed conflict,
and require them to ensure the welfare of the civilian population and respect
its dignity and basic rights. It should also be noted that under the rules of
customary international humanitarian law, each party to a conflict is obliged
to refrain from disrupting the passage of basic humanitarian relief to
populations in need of such relief in areas under its control (J. Henckaerts
& L. Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC, vol. 1,
2005), at pp. 197, 199). In the commentary to art. 70 of the First Protocol,
too, it is stated that arts. 54 and 70 of the First Protocol should be read
together, to the effect that a party to a conflict may not refuse to allow the
passage of foodstuffs and basic humanitarian equipment necessary for the
survival of the civilian population (Commentary on the Additional Protocols of
8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Y. Sandoz, C.
Swinarski, B. Zimmermann, eds., (ICRC, Geneva, 1987), at p. 820).
15. It transpires from the
aforesaid that the respondents do not in any way deny the existence of their
humanitarian obligations, which require the State of Israel to allow the
passage of essential humanitarian goods to the Gaza Strip, and to refrain from
deliberately inflicting damage on humanitarian facilities. According to the
respondents' arguments, which they supported with affidavits and statements of
the responsible authorities, not only are the respondents allowing the transfer
essential goods to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, but they also
regard this as a humanitarian obligation for which they are liable pursuant to
international law and to a cabinet
decision. The respondents emphasized, however, that this does not
require them to allow the passage of non-essential goods or of goods in amounts
that exceed what is required for basic humanitarian needs: this is the core of
the disagreement between them and the petitioners.
16. In this last respect, Col.
Nir Press, the commander of the Coordination and Liaison Authority, appeared
before us during the final hearing and supplied details of the relevant data
and information upon which the respondents rely. Col. Press clarified the
statements made on behalf of the state, and insisted that the amount of fuel
and electricity entering the Gaza Strip is sufficient for the proper
functioning of all the humanitarian services in the territory; Col. Press
further told us of contact that he made with Palestinian representatives for
the routine monitoring of the functioning of the humanitarian services in the
Gaza Strip. Inter alia, he described how the State of Israel allows the safe
conduct of the sick for treatment in the State of Israel, and the unrestricted
passage of food and medicine, in order to avoid harming the residents of the
Gaza Strip beyond the extent necessitated by the state of armed conflict
between the State of Israel and the Hamas organization. Col. Press admitted to
us that the situation of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip is indeed
difficult, but he also gave examples of exaggerated descriptions published by
the Hamas organization regarding a humanitarian crisis in the region.
17. The main issue remaining
before us, as became clear from the last hearing, is the amount of industrial
diesel fuel required for the operation of the power plant in the Gaza Strip. As
stated above, we were convinced by the respondents' declarations that they
intend to continue to allow the supply of industrial diesel fuel at the same
level as prior to the implementation of the reductions, namely 2.2 million
litres per week. Since it has been clarified that industrial diesel can be, and
is in fact, used solely for the power plant in the Gaza Strip, it can be
assumed that the supply of industrial diesel will not fall short of this
amount. Our enquiry into the matter revealed that the supply of industrial
diesel to the Gaza Strip during the winter months last year was similar to the
amount that the respondents promise to allow into the Gaza Strip at present,
and this fact, too, indicates that it is a reasonable amount that is sufficient
for the basic humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip. Admittedly, for several
days the border crossings were closed and consequently the required amount of
diesel was not delivered, but as we explained, this was due to a temporary
security need caused by a very fierce rocket attack launched against Israeli
towns from within the Gaza Strip. Needless to say that even during this period, when there was
a specific security need to close the border crossings, the State of Israel
continued to supply the Gaza Strip with the same amount of electricity that it
usually provides.
18. As for the revised plan
presented to us, which concerns a five per cent reduction of the supply of
electricity through three of the ten power lines supplying electricity to the
Gaza Strip, to a level of 13.5 megawatts in two of the lines and 12.5 megawatts
in the third, we are convinced that this reduction does not breach the State of
Israel's humanitarian obligations within the context of the armed conflict
taking place between it and the Hamas organization that controls the Gaza
Strip. This conclusion is based, inter alia, upon the fact that the
respondents' deposition reveals that the relevant Palestinian authorities have
said that they have the capability of carrying out load reductions if limits
are placed on the power lines, and they have made actual use of this capability
in the past.
19. It should be emphasized that
during the hearing of the petition the state reiterated its undertaking to
monitor the humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, and in this context we were
informed, in various affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, that this
commitment is being discharged very responsibly and seriously, and that the
security establishment carries out a weekly assessment of the position in this
regard, which is based, inter alia, upon contacts with Palestinian authorities
in the fields of electricity and health, and on contacts with international
organizations. It should be noted in this context that from the hearing of this
issue before us, as well as from other cases in which an immediate response was
required on matters regarding humanitarian concerns, it became clear that the
parties are capable of reaching understandings and arrangements in these
matters. Indeed, a solution in the form of communication between persons
designated by the security establishment and those entities who maintain
contact with them and inform them of the essential basic needs is the best way
of finding speedy solutions to concrete problems that arise from time to time;
that is evident from the fact that even before the matter came to court, the
state announced, of its own initiative, that it was renewing the supply of
regular diesel fuel, which is required, inter alia, for ambulances and
operating generators in hospitals, in the same amount as prior to the
reduction, as well as the supply of industrial diesel. These facts show that
the state is indeed monitoring the situation in the Gaza Strip, and allowing
the supply of the amount of fuel and electricity needed for the essential humanitarian
needs in the region.
20. We have said on more than
one occasion that we do not intervene in the question of the effectiveness or
the wisdom of the security measures adopted by those responsible for security,
but only in the question of their legality. Our role is limited to judicial
review of compliance with the provisions of Israeli and international law that
bind the State of Israel, which, according to the declaration of the
respondents, are being scrupulously observed by the state. In this regard it
has been said in the past that in times of war legal norms continue to apply,
and the laws of war should be observed. In HCJ 3451/02 Almadani v. Minister of
Defence [1] we held, in a similar context, that:
'Israel finds itself in severe combat with rampant terrorism. Israel
acts pursuant to its right to self-defence (see art. 51 of the Charter of the
United Nations). This combat is not conducted in a normative void. It is
conducted pursuant to the rules of international law, which determines
principles and rules for conduct of combat' (Almadani v. Minister of Defence
[1], per President Barak; see also HCJ 168/91 Morcus v. Minister of Defence
[2], at p. 470).
And in a judgment concerning the humanitarian obligations of the State
of Israel during the combat operations carried out in the 'Defensive Shield'
campaign, we said:
'Even during periods of combat the laws of war should be upheld.
Everything should be done in order to protect the civilian population (see HCJ
2901/02 Center for the Defense of the Individual v. Commander of the IDF Forces
in the West Bank [5]; HCJ 2936/02 Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of
the IDF Forces in the West Bank [6] ;
HCJ 2977/02 Adalah - Legal Center for
Arab Minority Rights in Israel v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank
[7]; HCJ 3022/02 LAW - Palestinian Organization for the Defence of Human Rights
and the Environment v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank [8])' (HCJ
3114/02 Barakeh v. Minister of Defence [3] ).
21. Indeed, in times of war, as
in our case, the civilian population unfortunately finds itself in a combat
zone, and it is the first and main victim of the state of hostilities, even
when efforts are made to limit the harm caused to it. In the territory of the
State of Israel too, in an era of terrorist attacks that have been continuing
for years, the immediate and main victim of the state of hostilities is the
civilian population. But as far as the acts perpetrated against Israel are
concerned - this is not accidental harm or collateral damage, but frequent
terrorist attacks that directly target the civilian population with the
intention of harming innocent civilians. This is the difference between the
State of Israel, a democratic state fighting for its survival by the means that
the law provides, and the terrorist organizations that seek to destroy it:
'The state is fighting in the name of the law and in order to preserve
it. The terrorists fight against the law and in violation thereof. The war
against terrorism is also the struggle of the law against those who seek to
undermine it' (HCJ 320/80 Kawasma v. Minister of Defence [4], at p. 132; see
also Almadani v. Minister of Defence [1]).
In this case, the facts that were presented to us, as set out above,
show that the State of Israel accepts and respects the rules prescribed in the
laws of war, and it is committed to continuing to supply the amount of fuel and
electricity needed for the essential humanitarian needs of the civilian
population in the Gaza Strip.
22. In conclusion, we reiterate
that the Gaza Strip is controlled by a murderous terrorist organization, which
acts relentlessly to inflict harm on the State of Israel and its inhabitants,
violating every possible rule of international law in its violent acts, which
are directed indiscriminately at civilians - men, women and children. Despite
this, as we said above, the State of Israel is committed to fighting the
terrorist organizations within the framework of the law and in accordance with
the provisions of international law, and to refrain from intentional harm to
the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. In view of all of the information
presented to us with regard to the supply of electricity to the Gaza Strip, we
are of the opinion that the amount of industrial diesel that the State said it
intends to supply, as well as the electricity that is continually supplied
through the power lines from Israel, are capable of satisfying the essential
humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip at the present.
Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the petition is denied.
Justice E. Hayut
I agree.
Justice J. Elon
I agree.
Petition denied.
23 Shevat 5768
30 January 2008