العربية
HE
العربية
HE
The appellant, a Palestinian resident and a Moroccan citizen, is the owner of construction companies and other businesses in the Gaza Strip. He recently learned that he is suffering from pancreatic cancer, a disease with a low recovery rate. The medical reports in his case stated that he must undergo an urgent operation to remove the malign tumor and commence chemotherapy. The only treatment the appellant is receiving in the Gaza Strip is painkillers, which cannot make the slightest contribution to treating his condition. Since there is no hospital in the Gaza Strip capable of treating such diseases, the appellant requested permission to travel to Jordan, where the Arab Medical Center stated its willingness to accept him for treatment.
Following the violent incidents in the Gaza Strip in June 2007, the Israeli military closed the border crossings. Patients were left without proper medical treatment and many residents lost their livelihood. Despite the closure of the crossings, the military established criteria in various cases permitting Palestinians to leave the Gaza Strip. Persons holding foreign citizenship, or who contribute to the Palestinian economy, or who require urgent medical treatment were allowed to leave the Gaza Strip through Erez Crossing. Although the appellant meets all these conditions, his request was rejected, as was a request from HaMoked on his behalf.
In a petition filed on 31 October 2007, HaMoked argued that the military was acting in a disproportionate and arbitrary manner in preventing the appellant from receiving vital medical treatment intended to save his life. The military’s obligations under international humanitarian law and Israeli law are clear: Regulation 46 of the Hague Convention imposes an unrestricted obligation on the occupying power to respect human life; Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention establishes that protected persons are entitled to respect for their persons; Article 2 of the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty seeks to ensure that the dignity of a human per se shall not be injured.
On 6 November 2007 the military announced that it would permit the appellant to leave the Gaza Strip. Despite this announcement, however, the appellant’s departure was not arranged and he remained in the area without proper treatment. On 20 November 2007 HaMoked filed an urgent application to schedule a hearing. In the application, HaMoked notes that the State Prosecutor’s Office repeatedly promised that the matter would be processed urgently. On 12 November 2007 the state even declared that the appellant would be permitted to leave the next day through Kerem Shalom Crossing. Investigations by HaMoked revealed that the passage of individuals through Kerem Shalom Crossing is impossible; moreover, no steps had been taken to coordinate the appellant’s passage with the Egyptian side.
On 19 November 2007 the State Prosecutor’s Office announced that it was still unclear whether or not the appellant would be permitted to travel via Erez Crossing and Allenby Bridge or via Kerem Shalom Crossing. The authorities claimed that the appellant had no inherent right to enter Israel, and that if he did so he would endanger state security. The days continued to go by, and the appellant continued to wait for lifesaving medical treatment.
Following an urgent application from HaMoked for a decision to be made in the petition, the court scheduled a hearing for 29 November 2007. On 28 November 2007 the State Prosecutor’s Office again announced that it was opposed to the appellant’s leaving via Erez Crossing, but added that it had no objection to his leaving through Kerem Shalom Crossing to Egypt and then continuing to Jordan.
At the hearing on 29 November 2007, the court decided that if the appellant did not cross through Kerem Shalom by 2 December 2007, it would convene the following day (3 December 2007) to discuss his original application to cross via Erez Crossing and Allenby Bridge.
On 3 December 2007 the appellant left the Gaza Strip via Erez Crossing, arrived at Kerem Shalom Crossing and crossed into Egypt, where he will undergo medical examinations before continuing to Jordan for treatment.
We must emphasize that the appellant’s case could have been resolved over a month ago. Despite the incomprehensible claims by the state that the appellant posed a security threat and could not be permitted to enter Israel, he eventually left via Erez Crossing as he originally requested. His travel within Israel took place in a guarded bus.
Read the court’s decision dated 29 November 2007 (Hebrew)
Read the army’s notification dated 28 November 2007 (Hebrew)
Read HaMoked’s notification dated 20 November 2007 (Hebrew)
