العربية
HE
العربية
HE
On 17 April 2008, HaMoked petitioned the HCJ on behalf of a Palestinian who lives in the Gaza Strip and is employed by the Red Cross. The Petitioner received a prestigious scholarship for an MA degree from of the Japanese education ministry. In order to take advantage of the scholarship, the Petitioner must reach Tokyo by the end of April in order to begin a language course in preparation for the studies.
The Petitioner contacted the Palestinian Civilian Committee on 19 March 2008, immediately after receiving final confirmation from the Japanese embassy that he had received the scholarship. However, the committee staff informed him that the Israeli side is not accepting this type of request to travel abroad. HaMoked contacted the DCO in the Petitioner’s case and requested that he be permitted to leave urgently. No substantive reply was received and the Petitioners were left with no alternative but to turn to the court. The Petitioners emphasize that the procrastination by the DCO in issuing its reply, despite the urgent nature of the request, is unacceptable and contrary to the basic obligation of an administrative authority to act with due speed as part of the principles of proper procedure.
HaMoked further notes that there is no need to examine the status of the Gaza Strip under international law in the framework of this petition. It is sufficient that Israel controls movement into and out of the area, and hence bears the authority and the obligation to protect the Petitioner’s right to freedom of movement. This is in keeping with the recent decision of the HCJ that “the principal obligations incumbent on the State of Israel with regard to the residents of the Gaza Strip […] also accrue from the extent of its control […] over the border crossings.”
In its reply dated 27 April 2008, the state argued that the decision in the petition is of a political nature and, accordingly, there is no cause for the court to intervene. The state further argues that the entry of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip into Israel is possible only for the purpose of medical treatment and on special humanitarian grounds; Israel does not bear any legal responsibility to enable entry to its territory for any other reason, and entry to Israel for the purpose of departing for studies abroad is beyond the “humanitarian threshold” as established. The state does not argue that there is any security impediment restricting foreign travel by the Petitioner.
At a hearing in the petition on 28 April 2008, the Petitioners again emphasized to the court that the authorities had not raised any security objection to his departure, and that the Petitioner seeks only to pass through Israel and to exercise the right of passage as recognized in international law. The justices did not, however, see fit to accept HaMoked’s position. Without granting a decision in the matter, they supported the state’s position that this is a policy established in accordance with the existing circumstances, and that the court should not intervene in the matter. Thus the Petitioner, a Palestinian from the Gaza Strip who seeks only to travel abroad in order to study, is left without the ability to realize his rights, for no substantive reason, and due only to the fact that Israel controls the crossings into and out of the Gaza Strip and refuses to permit him, along with many others, to leave the area.
