Follow-up Seminar for Foreign Missions by the Lobby for Palestinian Women’s Rights in Jerusalem, 3 July 1997  

The first seminar, conducted on 16-12-1996, had concluded with the call that “a strong position by foreign governments is vital” (see ARTICLE 74/18). This second follow-up seminar aimed at updating about new developments and at evaluating the achievements in the struggle against ID card confiscations. Speakers were Dr. Abdallah Abu `Id, who presented the position of international law on Jerusalem, and Atty Usama Halabi, with an analysis of the position of the Israeli High Court on the policy of ID card confiscations (see below). Participation by foreign missions and international organizations was weaker than expected, also due to bad timing. The outcome of this seminar was rather discouraging: while local diplomats remain interested, their governments have abstained from implementing the pressure required to halt this Israeli policy. 

Confiscation of IDs, the Revoking of “Permanent Resident” Status by Ministry of Interior, and the Israeli Supreme Court Approval (an Update) 
by: Usama Halabi, Adv. (L. LM) 
Prepared for the seminar conducted by the Lobby for Palestinian Women’s Rights in Jerusalem 

1. ”Mubarak Awad” Case (1988) 
In the “Mubarak Awad” case [1] , the Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ruled inter alia, that the Israeli laws and administration apply to the “eastern part of Jerusalem” and thus, the eligibility for the right of residence (of Palestinian Jerusalemites ) and the loss of this right must be decided in accordance with Entry into Israel Law of 1952 [2] and with the Entry Into Israel Regulations of 1974 issued in accordance with the said law. The Court rejected the argument that Palestinian Jerusalemites (who did not enter into Israel but rather Israel “entered” into their home town) have a special status which provides them with “quasi citizenship” or “constitutional residency” that cannot be revoked by the Minister of Interior [3]. The Court added that inhabitants of East Jerusalem have not received Israeli citizenship by nationalization, reside in Israel (i.e. in East Jerusalem) according to a residency permit, and that every person who was included in the Population Census of June 1967, is considered to have been possessing a permanent residency permit since then [4]. According to Article 11A of the Entry Into Israel Regulations, a permanent resident of East Jerusalem will be considered to have changed his/her domicile and to reside in another country, (and thus as having lost his/her right of permanent residency) if he/she has: 
a) stayed out side Israel for at least seven years, 
b)obtained a permanent residency permit in another country, 
c) obtained citizenship of another country by nationalization. 

Given the fact that Mubarak Awad had resided outside Jerusalem (his home town) for more than ten years, settled in the USA, married an American, and obtained American citizenship before he returned to Jerusalem and petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court, the Court ruled that he had lost his right of permanent residency in Israel (i.e. in East Jerusalem), and thus the Minister of Interior could expel him from the country [5].  

2. ”The Sheqaqi” Case (1995) 
On 6 June 1995, the Israeli High Court of Justice in the “Sheqaqi” case [6] expanded its ruling in the “Mubarak Awad” case by deciding that a Jerusalemite loses his/her right of residence even if none of the three categories mentioned in the said Article 11A of the Entry Into Israel Regulations apply to him/her. The Court said: “The fact of residing in a state outside of Israel can also be determined by other facts not mentioned in regulation 11A of the said Regulations. The appearance of a new reality, replacing the reality of permanent residency in Israel, might be clearly indicated by circumstances other than those mentioned in regulation 11A of the said Regulations” [7] (emphasis added U.H.). The Court disregarded the fact that the petitioner left Israel with a valid “Exit Permit” and entered Israel by a valid “Entry Permit”, and decided that she had lost her right of residence because she had stayed outside of Israel for six years and given birth to three children while in Syria with her husband (who had been deported some years before). 

3. The “Bustani” Case (31 December 1997) 
Until mid-1995, confiscation cards (IDs) and revocation of “Jerusalem residence” status had been applied from time to time mainly against Arab Jerusalemite who had lived in another country (other than Jordan) for a long time and who usually had obtained a passport of that country. However, the Israeli Ministry of Interior changed its policy by mid-1996, and at present, this measure is being intensively used against any Jerusalemites whose “center of life is not in Israel”, including Jerusalemites who have moved to Jordan for work purposes or family reasons (a Jerusalemite wife married to a Jordanian). It has been used even if they left Jerusalem and have come back to it legally and within the time limits set forth in the “Exit Card” provided by the Interior Ministry itself [8].  In its decision in “Bustani”, the Israeli High Court disregarded the fact that the Bustani family (all of which hold Israeli ID’s) have used - for years - valid “Exit Cards” when entering and leaving Israel, and neglected the fact that following the occupation of East Jerusalem in June 1967, the Israeli Government adopted an “open bridges” policy. Accordingly to this policy, Palestinian Jerusalemites could leave Jerusalem to study, work, and even live in Jordan or the Gulf states without harming their right of residence in the city, as long as they complied with the limitations set forth in the “Exit Card” i.e. if they came back to Jerusalem within a three years period. The Court ruled, inter alia, approving the position taken by the Ministry of Interior, that: 
“ The Petitioner’s claim that, as long as he had an exit card an complied with its provisions he had the right to permanent residency in Israel, is unfounded. Even his argument hat the decision of the Respondents in his case results from a “change of policy” is baseless. Indeed, as a rule, an exit card is issued to one who is a permanent resident and has a permanent residency permit. However, where residency ceases and the permanent residency expires, the existence of a valid exit card is also insignificant.” [9] 
In its decision, the Court emphasized that the petitioner had been living with his wife and their two children in Amman, had worked there for years and thus his center of life was in Jordan. The Court added that (even annual) summer-visits of the petitioner to Jerusalem do not change the fact that the “center of his life” is not in Israel - Jerusalem. 
The new policy is applied also to Jerusalemites who live outside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, especially women married to non-resident husbands and living in Ramallah, and other neighboring Palestinian towns and villages such as ar-Ram, al-Ezarieh etc.[10]  According to Shlomo Matania, who served as acting director of the Population Registrar Office in East Jerusalem, the basis for this new policy is directives issued by the Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Interior to cancel the resident status of those who are registered, but whose “center of life” is not in the city [11]. Finally, in a letter of 19 September 1996, the Ministry of Interior through the Registration and Passports Department expressed its position that any Jerusalemite who lives in the “territory” (= West Bank) more than seven years ceases to be an Israeli resident [12].  

4. The Ameera Case (3/1997) [13] 
Until June 1994, family reunification applications submitted by Jerusalemite women for their husbands were not collected by the Ministry of Interior and if collected, they were denied because of the policy according to which only husbands could apply for family reunification for their wives. When the Ministry of Interior decided to change its policy and to treat husbands and wives equally, hundreds if not thousands of Jerusalemite women living in Jordan and other Arab states, came back to live in Jerusalem with their families, including their non-resident husbands. One of those women is Mrs. Sahar Ameera. Mrs. Sahar Ameera married a Jordanian citizen in 1984. Between then and August 1994, she entered Jerusalem and left it legally almost every year on a valid “Exit Card”. On 1 September 1994, she submitted a family reunification application for her husband for the second time (first time was in 1987) and remained in the city. On 19 November 1996, the Ministry of Interior decided to reject the application and notified Mrs. Ameera that she had lost her right of residency in Israel. Mrs. Ameera petitioned the Israeli High Court. The Court approved the Ministry’s decision and ruled that Mrs. Ameera had lost her status as a permanent resident in Israel, because her “center of life” had changed in 1984 for a period of ten years. Therefore, the petition was rejected. It should be noted here that neither the Ministry of Interior nor the Court counted the last three years during which the petitioner and her nuclear family have been living in Jerusalem. It seems that, according to the Israeli position, once the “center of life” of a Jerusalemite is moved to another country, it can never be changed to be in Israel again! 

Close Remarks 
The final status of Palestinian Arabs living in East Jerusalem will not be determined until the final status of Jerusalem is agreed upon during the final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Therefore, the Palestinian Authority, as well as NGO’s (local and international) and the international community must raise the demand for maintaining the status quo of Palestinian Jerusalemites living outside the Jerusalem municipal boundaries (whether in the West Bank or elsewhere), and call upon the Israeli government to refrain from canceling the permanent residency status of Jerusalemites until the negotiations on the final status are concluded and a final settlement of the question of Jerusalem is reached. In addition, all efforts should be made to support the draft law initiated by MK Azmi Bishara from the National Democratic Alliance (and supported by another 13 MKs from different parties) which aims to amend Article 11 of the Law of Entry into Israel of 1952 so that “... The Minister of Interior shall not revoke a permanent residency permit of a person of whom one of his/her parents was born in Jerusalem” [14]. The proposed amendment, if passed, may not solve all problems connected with residency in Jerusalem, but it will give a solution to a big portion of the problem. It is thus an important step in the right direction and should be supported. 
 

[1] H.C. 282/88 Mubarak Awad v. Prime Minister of Israel et. al.  
     42 Supreme Court Decisions, at 224  
[2] Published in “Sefer-Ha-chukkim” No.11 of 15th of Elul, 5712 (5th of September, 1952), p.345. 
[3] “Mubarak Awad”, supra note 13, at 430 
[4] “Mubarak Awad”, supra note 13, at 431 
[5] Ibid., at 344. 
[6] H.C. 7023/94 Fatiya Sheqaqi v. Minister of Interior , (not yet published). 
[7] Supra note 18, at 3. 
[8] The “Exit Card” serves in the same time as an “Exit Permit” and as an “Entry Permit”. 
[9] See: H.C. 7952/96 Fares Bustani v. Minister of Interior et. al. (not yet published) at p.5 of the Court opinion. 
[10] See: “The Trap is Closing on Palestinian Jerusalemites” Memorandum No.1/96, Badil Resource Center. Bethlehem, at 15-17 (1996) 
[11] See: “Action Alert” Issued by Alternative Information Center, Jerusalem (30-3-1996). 
[12] The letter was sent to Adv. Lea Tsemel and the author has a copy in his files. 
[13] H.C. 8827/96 Sahar Ameera v. Minister of Interior, court ruling on March 23, 1997 (not yet published). 
[14] The said draft law will be in the Knesset on July 9, 1997.