High Court Upholds Apartment Demolition Order over Failed Modi'in Illit Rocket Attack

Israel's High Court of Justice has upheld an order to demolish the Kafr Nima apartment of Abdullah Mahmoud Saud al-Khatib, who is accused of organizing an attempted rocket attack on Modi'in Illit. In an October 29 judgment, Justices Yael Willner, Yechiel Kasher and Ruth Ronnen unanimously rejected the petition brought by his wife and two children. The failed launch caused no deaths or injuries.

The petition and the order before the court

The case, HCJ 33193-09-26, was brought by Israa Abu Aadi and her children against the military commander for the area and the defense minister. It challenged a confiscation and demolition order issued under Regulation 119 of the 1945 Defense Emergency Regulations. The justices were reviewing that administrative order while the accusations against Khatib formed the factual background.

The apartment is in a building owned by the wife's father, with other relatives occupying separate units. The final order applies to the apartment where Khatib lived with his immediate family. The rest of the building, including a neighboring empty apartment, is outside its scope. That limitation became a significant part of the proportionality assessment.

The attempted launch had reached the execution stage

The judgment recounts an indictment alleging that Khatib assembled a cell, manufactured rockets and launching equipment, and carried out tests in preparation for repeated attacks. On September 17, 2025, two members acting under his direction positioned two rockets near Modi'in Illit and performed the steps needed to launch them toward the city.

One rocket then fell and damaged the operating mechanism of the other, preventing either from launching toward the city. Willner rejected the family's characterization of the episode as a plan that had remained unrealized. In her analysis, the accumulated equipment, tests and actions at the launch site demonstrated an operation that had advanced well beyond a general intention.

Why the absence of casualties did not settle the case

Willner acknowledged that demolition orders generally concern attacks that killed or seriously wounded people. She nevertheless concluded that exceptionally grave attempted attacks can meet the threshold for using Regulation 119. She referred to an earlier case involving an attempted mass casualty bus bombing in which nobody was hurt.

The court focused on the potential consequences of the alleged rocket operation and the intention to repeat launches. Its reasoning attached weight to the nature of the acts and their danger even though a technical failure prevented the intended result. The judgment left the order in force on the particular facts of this case.

The family challenged the impact on uninvolved residents

The petitioners argued that demolition would punish family members who had neither participated in nor known about the alleged conduct. They challenged the measure's legality and deterrent value, and proposed sealing one room as a less damaging alternative. Willner rejected the broader legal arguments by reference to existing case law while acknowledging the serious effect on the children.

Ronnen agreed with the outcome but raised a concern about the deterrence argument. Family members cannot be expected to prevent acts of which they had no knowledge, she reasoned. She also questioned whether harming uninvolved relatives could weaken their incentive to discourage attacks if their own conduct appeared unable to affect the eventual treatment of their home.

A narrower order mattered to the result

Ronnen ultimately relied on the exceptional severity of the alleged acts, Khatib's clear residential connection to the apartment and the decision to limit demolition to that unit. Her concurrence shows that agreement on the final result came with different emphasis on the harm to relatives and the reasons for accepting it.

The military had originally included the entire ground floor. After the family's objection, it removed the neighboring empty apartment from the order. The judgment also describes engineering precautions intended to reduce damage to other parts of the building and nearby property. Those steps narrowed the contemplated measure before the court delivered its decision.

The court accepted the explanation for the delay

The family separately challenged the roughly 11 months between the attempted attack and the demolition notice, arguing that the passage of time weakened the claimed deterrent purpose. The state attributed the delay to wartime demands and the need for individual approval by the prime minister and defense minister because the attack had caused no casualties.

The judgment accepted that explanation. The Jerusalem Post's November 1 report also noted the state's account that the National Security Council was working on a broader policy for cases involving attacks without casualties. The holding in this case was immediate and specific: the family's petition was dismissed, and the order concerning Khatib's apartment remained valid.