Supreme Court Rejects Ra'am Petition Against Home Demolitions During Election Period

Israel's Supreme Court has dismissed a petition filed by Mansour Abbas and the Ra'am party that sought to limit home demolitions and enforcement actions during the election period. The petitioners argued that Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who is running in the upcoming Knesset elections, was using his enforcement powers in planning and construction, specifically regarding the demolition of Arab citizens' homes, as a tool for his election campaign. They claimed that enforcement actions by the police, which Ben-Gvir oversees, have intensified in Arab communities in the weeks leading up to the elections without sufficient justification, alleging that Ben-Gvir was present at demolition sites and promoting them through propaganda videos.

The petition further contended that this conduct constituted an improper use of public resources for election propaganda, a conflict of interest, and led to unequal enforcement. It also argued that such actions, especially those scheduled around election day, could hinder Arab citizens' ability to vote. The petitioners also pointed to increased actions by the Israel Land Authority in Arab localities, coordinated with the police, raising concerns about widespread demolitions on election day itself.

In their response, the respondents argued that the petition should be rejected outright due to its general nature and lack of factual basis. They asserted that no grounds existed for intervention in the enforcement authorities' policies. The respondents clarified that no enforcement actions would be carried out on election day, which is a public holiday, by either the Israel Land Authority or the National Enforcement Authority. They also stated that the enforcement policy regarding land issues has not changed and is conducted according to established procedures and priorities.

Justice Gila Kenfi-Steinnetz, writing for the court, noted the petition's lack of sufficient factual evidence to support the claim of a growing phenomenon of politically motivated enforcement during election periods. She also cited delay and failure to exhaust other procedures as reasons for dismissal. The Justice added that even on the merits, the petition should be rejected as there was no cause for intervention, as the court generally does not interfere with the discretion of authorized bodies in setting enforcement policy. She concluded that specific claims of unlawful actions by the respondents could be raised through appropriate channels.