Yesh Din v. Israel Defense Forces Commander in the West Bank
Israel Supreme Court
HCJ 2164/09 (2011)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In the late 1960s, the Israeli military began occupying what became known as the occupied Palestinian territories, an area that included the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In the 1970s, after Israeli military administration of the area was established, Israel engaged in various commercial activities, including mining quarries in the West Bank. In 2009, the Palestinian territories remained occupied, and the Israeli military administration was still mining. The Yesh Din Association (Yesh Din) (plaintiff), an association promoting human rights, filed a petition against the Israel Defense Forces commander in the West Bank (IDF commander) (defendant), seeking an order mandating the cessation of all quarrying operations by Israeli-owned quarries in the occupied area. Yesh Din argued that the mining violated Article 55 of the Hague Convention Respecting Laws and Customs of War on Land because mining minerals necessarily damaged the capital of the occupied territory. The IDF commander argued that reasonable usage of minerals in an occupied territory was permissible. He also argued that such usage was particularly appropriate in the Palestinian territories given the occupation’s lengthy duration and the fact that the quarries employed local Palestinians and generated funds used by the military administration to benefit the occupied area. The Supreme Court of Israel considered the parties’ arguments.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Beinish, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 918,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,300 briefs, keyed to 1,000 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

