HaMoked responds to the refusal by the military to permit an Israeli resident to enter the Gaza Strip in order to visit his wife and son: In its surprising response to HaMoked’s petition, the state ignored the appellant’s right to a family life and justified its refusal on far-reaching security grounds, despite the fact that its own response shows that neither the appellant nor his relatives are involved in “terrorist activities”

On 29 August 2007, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ), demanding that an Israeli resident who lives in the city of Rehovot be permitted to enter the Gaza Strip in order to visit his wife and young son who live in the area. The appellants married in 2004 and lived in the Gaza Strip for two years. In 2006, the appellant decided to return to Israel for financial reasons relating to the need to support his family. The appellants maintained frequent and regular contacts; approximately once a month the appellant entered the Gaza Strip and visited his family. Since February 2007, the appellant has submitted several applications to enter the Gaza Strip, but each time was informed by word of mouth that his application had been rejected. Requests by HaMoked also went unanswered for a protracted period. In its petition HaMoked emphasized the appellant’s right to a family life as a basic right protected by Israeli and international law. 

In its response dated 30 October 2007, the state claimed that in accordance with the policy introduced after the Disengagement Plan, Israelis are generally not permitted to enter the Gaza Strip. In its response dated 8 November 2007, however, HaMoked noted that this claim by the state was imprecise, to put it mildly. In fact, the military’s policy regarding Israelis whose partners and children live in the Gaza Strip was to permit entry. Hundreds of Israeli residents married to Palestinians entered the Gaza Strip regularly on this basis. Contrary to the state’s claim, denial of entry in these circumstances is the exception and not the rule. 

A glaring omission in the state’s response was its failure to address the appellant’s right to a family life, as if he wished to enter the Gaza Strip as a tourist. State law prevents the appellant from bringing his family to live with him in Israel, and the state now seeks to prevent him from visiting his wife and son. No serious grounds are presented; the military merely claims that there is a security prevention accruing from “the connections between his relatives and terrorist activists.” In other words, the military has no security claim against the appellant, his partner, or his family. HaMoked argues that extending the circle of prevention to distant and removed relatives of the person wishing to enter the Gaza Strip constitutes collective injury and is inconsonant with the principle of natural justice, which requires that an individual be held responsible and be penalized only for his/her own actions. 

Read HaMoked’s response dated 8 November 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read the state’s response dated 30 October 2007 (Hebrew) 

Read HaMoked’s petition dated 29 August 2007 (Hebrew)