High Court of Justice 8425/13 Eitan Israeli Immigration Policy et al. v. Government of Israel - part 49

"Regarding the implications for the local population, it should be noted that this population continues to face difficulties even these days, since the vast majority of the infiltrators are not in custody, but rather near or on the side of the local population.  Considering this figure; Considering that there are many alternative measures that the state can take in order to deal with these consequences; and taking into account the border fence with Egypt, the construction of which has recently been almost completely completed, and the ability to improve its effectiveness; It cannot be said that the benefit of custody outweighs the severe violation of the constitutional rights of the infiltrators.  Dealing with the phenomenon of infiltration is not simple.  It requires a lot of thought, investment of resources, and intensive care over time.  The difficulties faced by the local residents in the settlement centers of the infiltrators, who are forced to absorb the consequences and consequences of the infiltration phenomenon, require the attention and attention of the authorities.  However, the seemingly simple solution of placing infiltrators in custody is disproportionate and inconsistent with the values of society, law and morality of the State of Israel.  This is a solution that "stains the set of human values that Israeli society esporates" (Kav LaOved II, paragraph 64 of the judgment of Justice Procaccia).  The people of Israel, who have known throughout history many sufferings and hardships and are sometimes forced to wander from place to place, must endure the difficult, courageous and moral struggle against the many foreigners who are currently migrating to the State of Israel to find a cure for their distress, as long as they cannot return to their lands, until they find another suitable place that can absorb them.  This does not mean that it is not possible at this stage to impose on them various restrictions, rules and procedures that will bind them while they are in the host country, including even placing them in custody for a proportionate period of time (see the Tesfahuna case, paragraph 5 of the judgment of Justice Danziger).  However, these restrictions cannot, at least at the present time, reach the point of depriving them of their full liberty for such a significant period of time" (Adam case, para. 114).