In June 2007, HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ), in a demand to revoke the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) insofar as it applies to minor children of permanent Israeli residents. The thrust of the petition was the argument that by applying the Law to minors, the children of permanent Israeli residents are left without status, and as a result also without basic rights.
For additional information on
the general petition to cancel the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law insofar as it applies to children.
On April 17, 2011, HaMoked requested to
submit a supplementary brief to the court. The brief concerns the redefined term of "Resident of the Area", introduced in the 2005 amendment to the Temporary Order, and to its interpretation by the Supreme Court in the
Hatib judgment.
Section 1 of
the amended Temporary Order of 2005, defines a "Resident of the Area" as "a person who is registered in the population registry of the Area and also a person who resides in the in the Area although he is not registered in the population registry of the Area, and with the exception of a resident of an Israeli settlement in the Area”. In January 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in the Hatib case that the language of the amended Law compels that the Temporary Order be applied to any person who is registered in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), even if he has no actual ties thereto. The language of the text, said the court, excludes any "range of linguistic possibilities".
HaMoked argues that the definition of "Resident of the Area" is incommensurate with the purpose of the Law – or rather, with its the security purpose, professed by Israel - and with the obligation to interpret a text in accordance with the fundamental values of the Israeli legal system, including the desire and need to fulfill the values of justice, morality, and human rights.
In the 'Aweisat judgment rendered in 2006, the Supreme Court ruled in relation to the previous version of the Law, that the expansive interpretation of the term "Resident of the Area" – such that that the Temporary Order applies to any child who is registered in the OPT - does not express the proper balance between the security purpose of the Law and the need to protect the constitutional right to family life to the extent possible. Hence, the Supreme Court accepted that a person who is merely registered in the OPT, but has no daily ties thereto, and poses no security threat, cannot be considered a "Resident of the Area", as defined in the Law, solely based on his being registered in the OPT.
It is certain that the proper balance struck in the
'Aweisat judgment, between the legislative purpose and the protection of human rights, is also required in the reality of the amended Temporary Order. And yet here, the court ruled it could not favor an alternative restrictive interpretation. The language of the Law limits it to an exclusive interpretation: the sweeping application of the Law to any registered person. Therefore, HaMoked argues that this interpretation, forced upon the court by the revised language of the Law, fails in both purpose and proportionality.
HaMoked reminds that the arrangement pertaining to children within the Law is sweeping and causes collective and, unavoidably, broad injury. The Temporary Order violates the rights of the children of East Jerusalem residents, the right of family life, and the principle of the child's best interest. This is an injurious, disproportionate and discriminatory Law, recently exposed as demographic-racist. It must therefore be erased from Israel’s Book of Laws and discrimination and human rights violations must be brought to an end.
