On October 2, 2018, the Appeals Tribunal discussed appeals submitted by HaMoked against the Minister of Interior's decision to revoke the stay permits granted to four Palestinians as part of family unification processes. The only crime of the four, who have been living in East Jerusalem for years, is their second and third degree family tie to the assailant who committed an attack on January 8, 2017 in the Armon HaNatziv neighborhood in Jerusalem. This is the second round of appeals submitted by HaMoked on their behalf, following a ruling by the Appeals Tribunal that the Minister's original decision-making process was flawed, but simultaneously leaving the door open to initiating new proceedings against the four.
During the hearing, HaMoked maintained that the decision to revoke the permits for the sole purpose of creating deterrence is fundamentally flawed, illegal and contrary to precedent. The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law ("Temporary Order"), by virtue of which the permits are issued, empowers the Minister of Interior to cancel a family unification process based on a clear and genuine threat stemming from the permit recipient him or herself, or from a first degree relative, and not for any other purposes, such as creating deterrence. The Minister of Interior himself accepts that the four residents themselves pose no danger, either direct or indirect, and HaMoked therefore argued that the Minister's decision was clearly made without authority, and must be cancelled.
The state claimed that the Minister's authority to revoke the permits stems from the Entry into Israel Law, however HaMoked argued that this law does not apply to Palestinians from the occupied territories, who are granted stay permits in Israel by virtue of the Temporary Order. Seeing as residents of the occupied territories are not granted permits by virtue of the Entry into Israel Law, it is clear that their permits cannot be revoked based on it.
Finally, HaMoked claimed that the state's request to present classified material to the Tribunal should not be discussed before a decision is made regarding the Minister's authority to revoke the permits. If the state's decision was made without authority, presentation of the classified material on which it is allegedly based could harm and contaminate the process. HaMoked further emphasized that security officials have previously presented information on the matter that later turned out to be fundamentally incorrect, putting in question the credibility of their opinion on this case.
The Tribunal announced that a decision regarding the presentation of classified material and the question of the Minister's authority would subsequently be issued to the parties.