العربية
HE
العربية
HE
In January 2007, the father of the petitioners in this case moved from Gaza to Ramallah for his work. The mother suffers from Behcet disease, a rare and complex inflammatory condition, and was also obliged to move to the West Bank in order to undergo medical treatment, in the hope that she would soon be able to return home to her children. Her condition failed to improve, however, and she was obliged to remain in Ramallah for further treatment. On 30 December 2007 HaMoked contacted the Gaza DCO urgently, asking that the couple’s children be reunited with their parents as soon as possible. No reply was received, and on 23 January 2008 HaMoked petitioned the HCJ on behalf of the four children demanding that they be provided with entry permits in order to cross Israel and reach their parents in Ramallah.
On 31 January 2008 the state filed its response to the petition, arguing that the petitioners were seeking to exploit the difficult situation in which they found themselves for the sole purpose of “changing their place of residence” to the West Bank. The state argued that the mother’s condition did not require her to remain in the West Bank. This claim was based on a telephone conversation between the Legal Advisor for the West Bank and the Health Coordinator in the Civil Administration, Ms. Dalia Bassa, without the mother having been examined by a physician on the state’s behalf. The state added that as and when it was presented with medical documents testifying to an unequivocal medical necessity for the mother to remain in the West Bank, it would be willing to permit the children to cross to the area. This would be conditional on an undertaking by the mother to return to the West Bank with her children on completion of treatment. While in the West Bank, she would receive permits whose renewal would be examined from time to time.
The petitioners forwarded additional documents concerning their mother’s condition via HaMoked. On 12 February 2008 the state again argued that the appellants were merely seeking “to change their place of residence from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank” – as if the children were not living on their own in the Gaza Strip and did not wish to live together with their parents. The state added that the “Health Coordinator” in the Civil Administration had stated that the additional medical documents added nothing, and that “the condition of the petitioners' mother does not require her to remain in the West Bank of all places.” Only the Health Coordinator could explain the basis for this assertion.
HaMoked filed its response on 13 February 2008, clarifying that the medical documents presented by the petitioners clearly show that it is important in medical terms that the mother continue her present treatment in the same location and with the same physician. Interruption of the current course of treatment is medically undesirable. Of the available options, HaMoked added, the possibility that the children should travel to the West Bank to be with their parents is preferable to the state’s proposal that the sick mother should interrupt her treatments and return to the Gaza Strip. On 20 February 2008 HaMoked filed a supplementary response detailing the opinion of a social worker who is acquainted with the children. The social worker emphasized that the children were in a difficult and serious condition. They were neglected, had distanced themselves from their friends, were afraid of human contact, suffering from separation anxiety, and on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Accordingly, the social worker established that it was extremely urgent that they be reunited with their parents.
Following a hearing on 21 January 2008, the court established that the children could travel to the West Bank and stay with their parents. This was conditioned on their mother’s signing an undertaking to return to the Gaza Strip with the children on completion of medical treatment.
