The State responded on Friday morning to the numerous petitions filed to the High Court of Justice against the government's decision to limit the supply of fuel to Gaza and dismissed them as 'irrelevant' due to Attorney General Menachem Mazuz's decision to suspend the defense ministry's use of the tactic.
However, said State representatives, there is no legal clause preventing Israel from taking such action.
The prosecution detailed the guiding principles of any future reduction in the supply of fuel, stating that Israel would refrain entirely from limiting the supply of cooking gas and would gradually reduce the supply
of diesel fuel (used, among other things, in ambulances, public transportation and power stations) in a manner that would "downsize the potential harm to the humanitarian situation."
The prosecution also stressed that limiting the supply of fuel was an entirely reversible process.
The State further said that despite the attorney general's decision to put the move on hold, it was completely within the boundaries of the law. "The alternative to limiting the supply of fuel is a far-reaching military operation in Gaza, one that will lead to casualties on one or both sides.
For the time being it is clear that economic sanctions are the correct and proportional alternative," wrote the prosecution.
The State also said that the decision to limit the supply of fuel to Gaza comes as a response to the
incessant rocket attacks from its territory against Israel. The cut does not constitute a collective punishment, the prosecution said, not should the court weigh in on a matter that was security and political matters.
RSS
