On 22 December 2005, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel submitted joint concluding arguments to the Supreme Court of Israel on petitions demanding the cancellation of the racist amendment to the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (also known as the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law). This initial amendment, which was first enacted in July 2003, anchored into law a prior government decision approved in May 2002. This legislation denies any possibility of formal residency status being granted to Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza who are married to Israeli citizens or residents. The concluding arguments were written by Advocates Hassan Jabareen and Orna Kohn of Adalah, and Advocates Sharon Avraham-Weiss and Dan Yakir, Chief Legal Counsel of ACRI. The organizations argue in the legal filing that contrary to the state`s representations, the law and its subsequent amendments lack any substantive factual basis.
These two petitions, as well as other petitions filed challenging the law, were submitted more than two years ago and were argued before an expanded panel of 13 Supreme Court justices. In July 2005, the Knesset decided to extend the validity of the law, although it is defined as a “temporary order,” and to introduce new amendments to it, which some state officials described as a means of “easing the impact of the amendment.” The petitioners emphasized in the concluding arguments that the new amendments do not change the racist nature of this legislation, which applies only to Palestinian spouses and is based on their national origin. The new “amendments” continue to deny Palestinian spouses any formal residency status in Israel: only temporary residency permits may be granted, and even these permits are only given in a few instances. Therefore, Adalah and ACRI argued that the main challenge to this legislation – that the law is unconstitutional as it discriminates on the basis of national origin – remains pending for deliberation by the Supreme Court. Moreover, in addition to discriminating on the basis of national origin, these new amendments also discriminate on the basis of age and gender, factors of great influence in deciding whether or not to grant temporary residency permits to Palestinian spouses in Israel. The new amendments also include a definition of perceived “danger” that is based solely on family ties, which is in effect, a form of illegitimate collective punishment.
Adalah and ACRI argue in the concluding arguments that the data presented to the Supreme Court by the state actually proves that the amendment was approved with no factual basis. The amendment set a minimum age threshold as a pre-condition for submitting applications for temporary residency permits in Israel at 35 years of age for Palestinian men and 25 years for Palestinian women. In its response to the Court, the state explained that this threshold age requirement is based on the “consistent involvement” of Palestinian spouses under these ages in terror attacks that were either carried out or thwarted.
However, data submitted by the state about one month ago, following a specific request by the Supreme Court, is shocking in many ways as it contradicts the state’s claim. According to the state’s submission, the statistics show that only 25 Palestinian individuals who received status in Israel, from thousands who received such status pursuant to “family reunification”, were questioned on suspicion of involvement in terrorist activity over the last five years. Amongst them, 24 were men, and one was a woman. No information was made available by the state as to the nature of the accusations levied against these individuals, how many were charged, or how many were indicted or convicted. In addition, only two individuals, of the thousands who were granted formal status, have been added to the list of people interrogated over the last two years, one individual each year. These facts clearly contravene the state`s claim of “consistent involvement” in terrorist activities.
The minimum age threshold of 25 added to the amendments as a pre-condition for the issuance of a temporary residency permit for women was determined without any factual basis at all. Only one woman who was granted this residency status has ever been interrogated for involvement in terrorist activity. On the basis of this one woman – whose age was not mentioned in the state’s response – there can be no justification for the targeting of an entire population of Palestinian women who received formal status in accordance with the family reunification naturalization procedure. In addition, in regard to the minimum age requirements for Palestinian men for whom “intelligence information” is liable to associate them with terrorist activity, it is blatantly apparent that the age thresholds set forth in the legislation are completely arbitrary. Thus, this is another clear example of collective punishment with no substantive foundation.
ACRI and Adalah also argue that the state failed to provide clear figures regarding the number of individuals who have submitted residency status requests within the framework of family reunification. The state has also quoted contradictory statistics on different occasions of the number of applicants for family reunification that have been approved since 1993, with the figures ranging from 5,400 to 21,300. The petitioners contend that these confusing figures exemplify the sense of “chaos” surrounding the state’s “factual” data, and reinforce the demonization of those members of the Palestinian population who have requested residency status in Israel. Although the state has no substantive information, the organizations added, it did not prevent the state from using this inexplicable data as a basis for harmful legislation, which severely violates basic human rights including the right for family life, freedom, equality, dignity and privacy.
In the light of these arguments, as well as the fact that for the last three and a half years families have been forcibly separated without justification, Adalah and ACRI ask that the Supreme Court void the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law and declare it to be unconstitutional.
H.C. 7052/03, Adalah, et. al. v. The Interior Minister, et. al. (case pending)
H.C. 8099/03, Association for Civil Rights in Israel v. The Interior Minister, et. al. (case pending)
last updated : 28/12/05
