Planning, Restrictions Building Land Permits Confiscation on Use and and Home Access Demolitions Introduction 99 military justification.”338 Furthermore, the Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states that: “[T]here is no problem in destroying a building in which the enemy forces are hiding, or that is likely to serve as a hiding-place for the enemy’s troops.”339 Appealing ‘security’ demolitions In 2002 the Israeli Supreme Court, ruled that the Israeli Military must provide Palestinians with an opportunity to appeal demolitions based on “security needs”.340 The ruling did not issue guidelines for deciding appeals and undermined the universality of the ruling by promoting the rhetoric of military necessity: the opportunity for appeal must be provided, “unless this would endanger the lives of Israelis or if there are combat activities in the vicinity.” Further, in the Court’s ruling it stated that advance notice did not need to be awarded if it would hinder the success of the demolition.341 This caveat awards the military an avenue for refusing appeal in nearly any case. In most instances that the appeal process is initiated, the Supreme Court sides with the military’s definition of security needs.342 In effect, the Israeli Military Commander acts according to his own discretion and without judicial oversight in choosing and implementing demolitions that are not subject to legal appeal or deliberation. The case of Adalah, et. al. v. IDF Major General, Central Command, Moshe Kaplinski, et. al343 challenged Israel’s exploitation of the term “absolute military necessity”. Petitioners argued that the military should refrain from demolishing houses in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip on the grounds of military needs because, alone, it is an insufficient basis for demolitions of protected persons’ homes. The petitioners requested an explicit definition of “military necessity”, which Israel has never specified. On 13 July 2005, the Supreme Court did not deliver such a definition and dismissed the case on the expectation that the Israeli military would refrain from a policy of home 338 State of Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School (1998), 62; available from http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_il. 339 State of Israel, Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, 2006, 39. 340 David Kretzmer, ‘The Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel’, International Review of the Red Cross 885 (March 31, 2012): 224. 341 Amnestry International, ‘Israel and the Occupied Territories Under the Rubble: House Demolition and Destruction of Land and Property’ (May 2004), 32; available from http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/ asset/MDE15/033/2004/en/2193fae2-d5f6-11dd-bb24-1fb85fe8fa05/mde150332004en.pdf. 342 In HCJ 2977/02 the Israeli Supreme Court dismissed a petition to intercept the mass-scale demolition of homes in Jenin largely based on its agreement with the IDF on the military necessity justifying the military’s demolition, not providing prior notification to the residents and lack of appeal process. See: Adalah and LAW V. Commander of the Israeli Army in the West Bank (HCJ 2002). 343 Adalah, Et. Al. V. IDF Major General, Central Command, Moshe Kaplinski, Et. Al (HCJ 2005).