Theft of Cows Belonging to a Palestinian Farmer by Soldiers

Soldiers leading the cows from the pen owned by the petitioners to the civilian truck

About a dozen armed and uniformed soldiers arrived at a barn belonging to a Palestinian family in the West Bank, handcuffed the barn owner and his son, broke through the barn's fences, and loaded the cattle belonging to the family onto a civilian truck that arrived at the scene escorted by military jeeps. Social media posts from a group that aids settlers in pursuing agricultural projects (legal and illegal) indicate that the herd was transferred to Israeli settlers, under the guise of recovering stolen property.  

Repeated appeals by ACRI to the military demanding the return of the herd to its owners received no substantive response. Therefore, ACRI petitioned the Supreme Court on behalf of the family, demanding that the Military Advocate General and the Commander of Military Forces in the West Bank be ordered to return the stolen cattle herd, or to present a legal order detailing the grounds for the seizure of the cattle herd by the soldiers. 

The petition describes the violation of the owners' rights to property and livelihood caused by the theft of the herd, as well as an infringement on their right to human dignity. The arbitrary seizure carried out with the use of violence and threats against the owners is a clear indication of the absence of any legal authority for these actions—in short, it is simply theft.  

Even in cases where there is legal ground for the confiscation of money or property belonging to Palestinian residents, military procedures require that the soldiers carrying out the confiscation provide the owners with a report detailing the authority under which it is being carried out, the grounds for the seizure, and documentation of the confiscated property. No such report was given to the petitioners. The petition also points out that the conduct of the offending soldiers is alien to any basic legal, moral, or humanitarian principles, and reflects a callousness and intoxication with power. 

In the preliminary response submitted by the state in December 2025, it admitted that the soldiers acted without authority, and that "this should be condemned." But regarding ACRI's demand that the herd be returned to its owners, the State claimed that this would fall under the authority of the police, not the army. In our response from January 2026, we stood by our demand, and argued that in the case of a violation of rights by a governmental agency committed without authority, the one that caused the injustice and acted without authority is obligated to correct the injustice.

At the end of January, a hearing on the petition was scheduled for May 4, 2025. ACRI appealed to the court with an urgent request to issue an interim order that would obligate the army to keep the stolen herd of cows in its possession and ensure the wellbeing of the animals until the hearing, in order to prevent the herd from being transferred and ultimately render it impossible to locate and return to its owner. Alternatively, we requested that the hearing be scheduled sooner, since every day that passes increases the violation of the rights of the petitioners and the fear of the loss of the herd.

Only in March 2026, months after we submitted the petition, did the State notify us that the police opened an investigation.

Following a hearing, the Supreme Court ordered the State on March 23, 2026, to provide the petitioners with the names and details of the settlers to whom the herd was transferred, and to propose an outline to compensate the petitioners for the unlawful damage to their property. The court noted that this was an incident "with serious characteristics, considering that enforcement actions were taken without authority."

The State provided the names of the two settlers who had contacted the army regarding the herd, and they were later added as respondents to the petition. However, the State refused to compensate the petitioners or to return the cattle, claiming that the ownership was disputed and the petitioners could embark on civil proceedings. in June, the police announced that they had closed the investigation due to a lack of evidence. One of the settlers later informed the court that he had received ten calves that were taken from the petitioner, but that six had already been sold, two had died, and only two remained in his possession. In light of this information and the fact that it was no longer possible to trace the cattle that were taken and return it, we requested that the petition be struck while preserving the petitioners' rights to begin other legal proceedings.

On July 23, 2026 the Court determined that although the petitioners could no longer be granted practical relief within the framework of the petition, the military's conduct was fundamentally wrong, regardless of the issue of who owned the herd. The Court sharply criticized the fact that the State was seemingly satisfied with expression regret, and did not provide satisfactory answers regarding the responsibility of the soldiers involved or the steps taken to prevent similar instances, did not see fit to update the petitioners about the investigation, and left the petitioners without any remedy for the clear damage caused by an illegal action. The Court resolved the State could have been expected to offer some form of compensation without forcing the petitioners to file a civil lawsuit, and that the case should serve as a lesson for soldiers regarding their authority and actions. The petition was dismissed while preserving the full rights of the petitioners, and the State was ordered to pay the petitioners 20,000 NIS.

HCJ 53449-11-25 T.A. v. Commander of Military Forces in the West Bank  

Attorney: Reut Shaer  

ACRI’s petition, November 18, 2025 (Heb) 

Preliminary response from the State, December 2025 (Heb)

Petitioners' response to the State, January 2026 (Heb)

Petitioners' request for an interim order or an earlier date for the hearing, January 2026 (Heb)

State's response, February 2026 (Heb)

State's response, March 2026 (Heb)

The decision, March 23, 2026 (Heb)

State's response, June 2026 (Heb)

Judgement, July 23, 2026 (Heb)

The petition was written with the assistance of legal intern Yaser Abu Areesha