High Court Rejects Ra'am Petition to Restrict Minister Ben Gvir's Enforcement Powers
The High Court of Justice rejected a petition by Ra'am and MK Mansour Abbas seeking to restrict enforcement and demolition powers held by Minister Itamar Ben Gvir during the election period.
The High Court of Justice rejected a petition filed by the United Arab List (Ra'am) and MK Mansour Abbas against National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, the Israel Police, and the Israel Land Administration. The petitioners sought to restrict enforcement powers regarding planning, building, and public land evacuations during the election period for the 26th Knesset, demanding that enforcement be limited only to exceptional and urgent cases to prevent alleged political exploitation.
The petition alleged that Minister Ben Gvir was utilizing enforcement powers, particularly home demolitions in Arab communities, as a campaign tool ahead of the upcoming elections. According to the petitioners, enforcement actions intensified in recent weeks without proper justification, accompanied by propaganda videos featuring the minister. They argued this constituted unlawful use of public resources for election campaigning, a conflict of interest, and unequal enforcement that could hinder citizens from voting.
Respondents argued that the petition should be dismissed outright as generalized and lacking factual foundation, and on its merits, as there was no ground for judicial intervention in law enforcement policies. They clarified that no enforcement operations are planned for election day, which is a official day off, and that enforcement policies remain consistent and systematic.
Justice Gila Canfi-Steinitz ruled that the petition must be dismissed on procedural and substantive grounds. The court noted that the request regarding election day enforcement became moot after respondents confirmed no operations would take place. Furthermore, the judge emphasized that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient factual basis for claims of politically motivated escalation, and underscored that the judiciary does not routinely interfere with the discretionary powers of law enforcement authorities.
