Following Adalah's Intervention, Interior Minister to Re-Examine Ban on Family Unification Law

On 16 January 2005, Adalah sent a letter to the new Interior Minister of Israel, Ophir Pines-Paz, requesting that he intervene immediately to terminate the process of amending and extending the “Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) – 2003” (renewed 2004) (hereafter: “the Law”). The Law prohibits the granting of any residency or citizenship status in Israel to Palestinians from the 1967 Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPTs) married to Israeli citizens. Originally enacted for one year, in July 2004, the Knesset extended the Law's validity for an additional six months. In December 2004, the legal advisor to the Interior Ministry drafted a proposed bill that would re-extend the validity of the Law, as well as establish even more stringent conditions on Palestinians who wish to obtain status in Israel through family unification.

On 17 January 2005, following the letter, submitted by Adalah Attorney Orna Kohn, Minister Pines-Paz announced the suspension of all legal procedures connected with the new proposed amendments to the Law in order to examine them thoroughly. As the Law in its current form is due to expire in early February 2005, in the interim period the Minister may seek a shorter three-month extension, with the intention of formulating his own new policy on family unification.

In the letter, Adalah noted at the outset that Minister Pines-Paz's own Labor Party had led the opposition to the racist Law, which violates the constitutionally-protected rights to family life, human dignity, equality, liberty, and privacy. The Law also flagrantly discriminates on the basis of nationality and ethnic origin against Palestinian citizens of Israel – who are overwhelmingly the Israeli citizens who marry Palestinians from the OPTs – and against Palestinians from the OPTs, and is disproportionate to the alleged security reasons cited by the government to justify its enactment. Adalah also emphasized that the Law has gravely harmed thousands of Palestinian citizens of Israel married to Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip and their families. It has forced families to live under constant fear of separation, while in many other instances it has compelled spouses to live apart and torn children away from their parents.

Adalah pointed out that in December 2004, a thirteen-justice panel of the Supreme Court of Israel postponed the delivery of a final judgment on petitions filed in 2003 challenging the constitutionality of the Law and demanding its annulment, including one submitted by Adalah. The Court reasoned that the delay was necessary in order allow the government time to amend the Law, at its request, given the difficult questions that it raises. The Law is not an ordinary statute, the Court noted, and “justifies special treatment.”

Regarding the specific changes proposed, Adalah argued that they do not address the problematic nature of the Law, but rather add other grave constitutional defects. For instance, one of the proposed amendments further strips the Interior Minister of his authority to give temporary permits to stay in Israel, and transfers that power to the military “regional commander." Another of the proposed amendments constitutes discrimination based on age and sex, by setting arbitrary and unreasonable conditions relating to age. Here, the amendment proposes the granting of permits only to Palestinian women aged 25 years and over and Palestinian men aged 35 years and over, without establishing any factual basis for the relevancy of age, or the distinction drawn between women and men. Adalah also contended that the proposed amendment contains a presumptive conclusion regarding the collective security risks posed by Palestinians. In this case, the proposed change provides that Palestinians may be prohibited from staying in Israel, not only on the grounds that he or she creates a security risk, but also where, in the “opinion of security officials,” he or she and/or his or her family constitute a security threat to the State of Israel. Adalah argued that the proposed amendment effectively negates the presumption of innocence and the principle of individual responsibility, as well as violates the fundamental rights of a person based solely on the individual's family ties, even in the absence of any relationship with his or her relatives.

Adalah Attorney Orna Kohn and Adalah General Director Attorney Hassan Jabareen petitioned the Supreme Court of Israel immediately after the Knesset enacted the Law in July 2003. The petition was filed by Adalah in its own name and on behalf of two families affected by the Law, the Chairman of the High Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel, and nine Arab members of Knesset (MKs), against the Interior Minister and the Attorney General. Six additional petitions were subsequently filed against the Law to the Supreme Court by the Meretz political party; the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI); and private lawyers. The Supreme Court joined all of these petitions for hearings and final judgment.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the Human Rights Committee (HRC); the European Parliament; international human rights organizations including the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch; and Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations and legal academics have all called upon Israel to revoke the Law.

See H.C. 7052/03, Adalah, et. al. v. Minister of Interior, et. al. (case pending).

For more information, see Adalah's Special Report on Family Unification.