Maj.-Gen. Avi Bluth replaced settler Tal Yinon Dardik's full house arrest with a near-total ban on the West Bank, allowing access only to Modi'in Illit where he must report twice daily, after a Jerusalem court struck down the requirement that he live at his mother-in-law's home. The District Court upheld the security justification for restrictions but removed the compelled-location condition, leaving Bluth to set replacement terms. Dardik remains in custody in a separate criminal case and is reported to be on a hunger strike; the case has sharpened political tensions between Defense Minister Israel Katz and Maj.-Gen. Bluth.
Court Strikes Down Location Requirement; Settler's House Arrest Replaced By Near-Total West Bank Ban

The IDF Central Command chief, Maj.-Gen. Avi Bluth, on Monday replaced the full house-arrest order on settler Tal Yinon Dardik with a prohibition on entering nearly the entire West Bank after a Jerusalem District Court struck down the specific location where he had been required to serve the restriction while upholding the security rationale for limiting him.
Under the revised conditions, the military said Dardik is banned from the West Bank except for Modi'in Illit, where he must report to a police station twice daily. The order's original expiration date remains unchanged. Authorities said they might consider easing the restriction if Dardik accepts electronic monitoring.
The change follows a District Court ruling that agreed with security assessments that Dardik poses a significant danger and found administrative restrictions to be justified, proportionate and reasonable. However, the court invalidated the provision that compelled Dardik to live at his mother-in-law's home — a requirement she refused to accept — and gave Bluth time to set replacement conditions.
Honenu, the legal aid organization representing Dardik, said he remained in custody on Monday in a separate criminal case over alleged breaches of the original administrative order and that police prosecutors had not yet filed a notice to release him. The group said Dardik was on his 36th day of a hunger strike. "Every minute that Tal Yinon remains in detention is illegal and inconceivable," Honenu attorney Moshe Polsky said, urging his immediate release.
Dardik faces suspicion of involvement in attacks on Palestinians and other nationalist-motivated offenses, including an alleged incident in March. With insufficient evidence at the time to indict him on those suspected nationalist offenses, Bluth issued an administrative restriction on June 9 following a Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) recommendation. The original order required six months of full house arrest at his mother-in-law's home in the West Bank settlement of Adei Ad.
On July 26, a military appeals committee concluded that intelligence presented by security services supported the assessment that Dardik posed a security risk and justified substantial restrictions, but it struck down the provision forcing him to stay at a private third party's home. Bluth appealed the committee's decision, arguing the panel should have imposed alternative conditions itself; the District Court rejected that appeal and left him free to determine new restrictions.
The case has drawn political attention and intensified a dispute between Defense Minister Israel Katz and Maj.-Gen. Bluth over the use of administrative measures against Jewish suspects accused of nationalist violence in the West Bank. Katz had publicly said the existing order should not be renewed and that no new administrative order should be issued; he instructed the security establishment to pursue other avenues. The military characterized Monday's change as an update to the existing order rather than a new order and emphasized the expiration date was not extended. Honenu has called on Katz to intervene.
Legal Status: Dardik has been charged with six counts of violating a lawful order for allegedly failing to comply with the original house-arrest requirement. The criminal proceeding over those alleged violations remains separate from the question of the administrative restriction's validity and terms, the courts have said.
Help us improve.




























