Demolition of Mercaz Harav terrorist's home authorized
High Court denies appeal by father of Alaa Abu Dheim, who murdered eight yeshiva students in Jerusalem 10 months ago. Two of four floors of the family home to be permanently sealed off
The High Court of Justice on Monday denied a petition filed by the father of the terrorist who carried out an deadly attack at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem about 10 months ago against the decree to demolish his house.
Alaa Abu Dheim appealed the Home Front Command's decision to destroy two of the four floors of his family's home. On Monday the final decision was made to give the green light to seal off permanently two floors of the house by filling them in with cement.
Blood stained book at Mercaz Harav following terrorist attack (Photo: Avi Ohayon)
In March 2008, Abu Dheim infiltrated the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva (rabbinical seminary) in Jerusalem, spraying gunfire that murdered eight yeshiva students and wounded dozens of others.
An Israel Defense Forces officer who arrived on the scene shot and killed the terrorist. Abu Dheim lived with his family at the Jabel Mukabar neighborhood of east Jerusalem, together with his father, brothers, and sisters.
Following the terror attack, a mourners' tent was set up at the terrorist's home, where Hamas and Hizbullah flags were raised, which helped the defense establishment identify the family with the terrorist.
The Home Front Command chief, relying on the opinions of the chief of staff and the defense minister, decided to exercise his authority to destroy two of the floors of the house in which the terrorist resided.
Abu Dheim's father appealed the Home Front Command's decision with the High Court of Justice, claiming that his son had no connections with Hamas and that it was not within the authority of the Home Front Command chief to issue a demolition order on his house.
The court rejected the father appeal and his claims that Israel had changed its policy since 2005 and no longer engaged in the policy of destroying terrorists' homes.
The prosecution argued that this particular case was extreme in its severity such that it would be apt to invoke Ordinance 119, which allows for the demolition of terrorists' homes.
The court also ruled that it is not fitting to intervene in the Home Front Command's change of policy, or lack thereof.
