In my understanding, my colleagues are raising another argument according to which the detention of the infiltrators is without reason. The assumption behind this argument is that for the time being, no permanent legal solution is expected for the infiltrators in custody. Against this background, it seems, my colleagues believe that detention even for a period of a few months is an unjustified punishment, detention without benefit. The problem is that this factual assumption is incorrect, in my opinion. One of the reasons for this has to do with the characteristics that distinguish Israel with regard to the phenomenon of infiltration.
For obvious reasons, as mentioned, there are many difficulties in reaching an agreement with neighboring countries regarding a regional settlement of the issue of infiltrators. This is due to the number of infiltrators, and mainly due to the geopolitical situation prevailing in our region. The state argued before us that despite the difficulties, quite a few attempts are being made to formulate solutions in this direction. Thus, during the first half of 2014, about 4,800 infiltrators left Israel (see paragraph 39 of my colleague Justice's opinion A. Fogelman). The government and the Knesset are constantly working to find solutions. There is a sincere and clear desire to solve the situation, while taking into account and coping with the difficulties.
This is the situation in Israel, and this must also be taken into account when considering the duration of the period of custody. Let me put it this way: If the legislature had insisted on its demand to keep an infiltrator in custody for three years, a constitutional difficulty would have arisen. This is what we have discussed In a High Court of Justice case Adam. But this is not the case. As an appropriate response, and while balancing the need to deal with the phenomenon of infiltrators and the manner of treatment derived from Israel's unique characteristics, a maximum threshold of one year for detention was chosen. The totality of the circumstances leads to the conclusion that this period of time is appropriate and proportionate and meets constitutional review.