cc-wall-by-Ronit-Sela-ACRI
There have been several recent reports that the Israeli government (or the Minister of the Interior) is considering revocation of civil status in Israel from Palestinians involved in terrorist attacks. In addition, another report claimed that the Prime Minister is considering revocation of the residency status of Palestinians living in the East Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the separation wall.
We shall address the legal aspects of such measures, but first wish to stress the following:
The revocation of civil status on grounds of “breach of allegiance” is one of the most severe violations of human rights. Criminal law, and criminal law alone, is the appropriate way to punish those who harm national security. The revocation of civil status is a draconian practice characteristic of totalitarian regimes, a practice which The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) opposes and rejects.
Although Jews have also been involved in and convicted of serious security and criminal incidents, the status of a Jewish citizen or resident has never been revoked on account of a “breach of allegiance.” Each and every time a Minister of the Interior ordered or was reported to be considering an order of revocation, it was regarding Arab citizens and residents. Therefore, status revocation seeks to impart a humiliating and discriminatory message that the status of Arab citizens and residents cannot be taken for granted.
Against this backdrop, we turn to the legal aspects of this measure.
Revocation of Israeli citizenship for “Breach of Allegiance”
The Israeli Citizenship Law allows for status revocation from a person for involvement in terrorism, for treason or espionage, or for acquiring citizenship or residency in Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and the Gaza Strip. The Minister of the Interior must file a request with the Court for Administrative Affairs, and can only do that after receiving approval from the Attorney General. The Law further states that if a person should be left stateless as result of the process, they shall be given a residency permit of some sort in Israel, subject to the court’s judgment.
This process is based on administrative evidence. This means that it is possible to file a request against a person who has not stood trial, if administrative evidence exists of their involvement in such actions. The Law also offers another process for the revocation of citizenship: The Minister of the Interior, with agreement from the Attorney General, may also appeal to the court that had convicted a person of such a felony and request that their citizenship be revoked, in addition to any penalty handed down in the sentencing phase. Such procedures were prescribed in the Law of Citizenship of 2008 and that of 2011. Thus far, to our knowledge, no such legal procedures have been initiated to revoke citizenship.
Prior to the amendment of the Law, the authority to revoke citizenship on grounds of “Breach of Allegiance” was in the hands and judgment of the Minister of the Interior. Minister of the Interior Eli Yishai made use of it twice in 2002. In both cases, those persons whose citizenship was revoked for involvement in terrorism did not appeal to the court. Attorney General Meni Mazuz prevented the Ministers of the Interior who followed Yishai from making use of this authority until the statute was amended and the authority to revoke citizenship was transferred to the court.
Revocation of Permanent Residence on grounds of “Breach of Allegiance”
The Entry to Israel Law and the regulations pursuant to it set the terms of residence in Israel for those who are not citizens; including permanent residents. The largest group of permanent residents in Israel is the residents of East Jerusalem, who received permanent residence following the annexation of East Jerusalem by Israel. It is important to emphasize that the legislation and regulations do not concretely address the residents of East Jerusalem and their particular situation. These were imposed on them as though they had immigrated to Israel and been awarded status by it.
Permanent residents are entitled to most rights enjoyed by citizens, however they are not eligible to vote for the Knesset or to receive an Israeli passport. Their status depends on maintaining their “center of life” in Israel. This status can expire if the person in question has relocated their center of life outside Israel (including to the West Bank,) or if they have acquired citizenship or permanent residence outside of Israel.
The Law and the regulations do not address the possibility of revocation of residence on grounds of “Breach of Allegiance.” Despite this fact, over the past decade Ministers of the Interior have on many occasions revoked the residence of East Jerusalem locals on those grounds. For instance, in 2005 Interior Minister Ophir Paz-Pines revoked the residency of four individuals known as the “Silwan Squad” who were involved in a series of terrorist attacks. In 2006, Minister of the Interior Roni Bar-On revoked the residency of a Minister in the Palestinian Authority government and the Palestinian Parliament Members, for membership in the Hamas organization. These cases are still pending in litigation. The High Court of Justice issued an interim injunction in the appeal of the Minister and the MP’s, ordering the Minister of the Interior to provide an explanation for why this decision should not be overturned, in light of the absence of a legal provision authorizing revocation of the residency of East Jerusalem residents on grounds of “Breach of Allegiance.” The case is being heard by a panel of nine judges and has yet to be decided. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Adalah have joined those proceedings in the capacity of amicus curiae, and have shed light upon aspects pertaining to the unique status of the residents of East Jerusalem and the protections that apply to them according to international humanitarian law.
Revocation of Permanent Residency of those living in neighborhoods beyond the wall
The reports whereby the Prime Minister is considering the revocation of residency of Palestinians living in East Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the separation wall have been vague thus far. Therefore, it is unclear how, or even if, such a plan would be progressed and therefore our discussion of the possible measure is purely theoretical at this point. In our view, this is an empty move intended to instill fear in the residents of East Jerusalem and to reflect Israel’s repudiation of its responsibilities towards them.
The blanket revocation of the residency of tens of thousands of people of a certain nationality or ethnic group, without the provision of an alternative civil status, would be an act reminiscent of the most horrible episodes in history. It is absolutely prohibited by both Israeli law and international law.
Israeli Law
Israeli constitutional law: The Basic Law: Jerusalem Capital of Israel states that the area of Jerusalem is all the area so defined in 1967, and that the city limits of Jerusalem may not be changed, nor may any change be made to the application of Israeli jurisdiction and administration within those limits. In addition, the Basic Law prohibits the handing of any area within Jerusalem to any other party. Any change to the Basic Law requires a majority of all Knesset Members.
Status Laws: As stated above, the permanent residency of the population of East Jerusalem has been granted by law, and is the same in every regard to the status of other permanent residents in Israel. The High Court of Justice has ruled that this is a status that has been granted by right and not on sufferance. The annulment of such status is an individual matter based on the relocation of one’s center of life from Israel for a prolonged period of time, or the acquisition of citizenship or residency outside of Israel. A person living in an area where Israeli law prevails cannot lose their status.
Administrative Law: This relates to a homogenous group that has possessed residency permits for fifty years. It is not reasonable to expropriate their permits in an arbitrary, blanket manner on the basis of their national affiliation.
International Law
International Human Rights Law: Blanket revocation of status from a certain ethnic group constitutes a clear violation of international law (for instance, of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination).
International Humanitarian Law: According to a 2004 ruling by the International Court of Justice regarding the separation wall, East Jerusalem is defined as occupied territory, and the legal measures that Israel has taken to annex the area do not alter that fact. Therefore, East Jerusalem residents are deemed protected residents to whom international humanitarian law applies. Israel is not allowed to leave them without rights.
Israel could withdraw from East Jerusalem, and the residents of East Jerusalem would not necessarily have to remain Israeli residents. However in order to change the status of the residents of East Jerusalem, there must be a diplomatic arrangement in place that would protect the residents’ rights. First, they must be given the option of “entering” into Israel and choosing to remain residents or become citizens, should they so wish. Second, assurances would be needed that they would not remain bereft of all status should they opt not to live in Israel. Meaning that if Israel withdrew and the Palestinian Authority refused to step into Israel’s shoes in these neighborhoods – in fact the Palestinian Authority is not obliged to do so, and is indeed likely to refuse – Israel could not leave tens of thousands of people in the area devoid of all civil status.
