Attorney General's Office Attacks Adalah and ACRI for Seeking to Overturn Interior Ministry's Decision to Revoke East Jerusalem Residency Status of Palestinian Parliament Members
Adalah: The Attorney General Office's response is unprofessional and indicative not only of a lack of understanding of the essence of human rights, but it also exploits human rights within the prevailing political circumstances for the purpose of shifting the discussion from rights to the criticism of human rights defenders. Thus the AG attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court justices to discourage them from dealing with the issues raised before them professionally, on the basis of Israeli and international law.
On 29 May 2007, the Israeli Attorney General's (AG) Office submitted its response to the amicus brief filed by Adalah and the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) to the Supreme Court regarding the case of members of the Palestinian Legislative Council residing in East Jerusalem against the revocation of their residency in Israel. In his response, the AG attacked the human rights organizations, claiming that they �live in peace with the possibility that the Palestinian Prime Minister or members of the Palestinian Parliament from Hamas issue orders to fire Qassam rockets at Sderot, and issue orders not to release Gilad Schalit [an Israeli soldier captured in Gaza in June 2006], and kill as many Israeli citizens as possible, according to Hamas' view, and at the same time enjoy the status that Israel grants to members of the Palestinian Parliament who are residents of Jerusalem, and to enjoy the national insurance payments and total freedom of movement within Israel, which constitutes a danger to the citizens of the state...� The AG added that, �The legal opinion of Adalah and ACRI is just a legal opinion and lacks any legal basis, is immoral, and contradicts the basic principles of the law, freedoms and human rights, and is therefore a danger to public safety and security.�
Adalah emphasized that the canceling of the residency status of the Palestinian Parliamentarians residing in Jerusalem is tantamount to expelling them from their homeland, which is in breach of international and Israeli law. Palestinians living in Occupied East Jerusalem are there by virtue of birth, which is different in nature than the types of residence permits that are granted to immigrants. Residents of East Jerusalem never entered Israel and acquired the status of immigrants, and their status was never made conditional to any terms.
In the amicus brief, filed by Adalah and ACRI on 9 May 2007, the organizations argued that the Israeli Interior Minister's decision to revoke their residency status violates the constitutional right of the Members of Parliament to continue to live in their place of residence and homeland without the threat of expulsion. The expulsion of a person from his place of permanent residence violates his constitutional rights to dignity, personal liberty and property. The minister's decision also violates the rights of the Members of Parliament as well as the rights of their family members to family life by preventing them from continuing to live together in East Jerusalem without the danger of separation.
The human rights organizations also stressed in the amicus brief that the issue entails a particularly complex status, because East Jerusalem is occupied territory under international law and the residents of East Jerusalem are protected residents. Moreover, the State of Israel � from the Oslo Accords � has allowed the Palestinian residents of the eastern part of the city to vote and to run in the elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Presidency of the Palestinian National Authority. Only after the petitioners were elected, and because the election results were not welcomed by the government of Israel, did it decide to cancel their residency status, thus severely violating their rights.
The opinion further argues that the revocation of residency due to �breach of trust� is an extreme and sweeping measure that does not meet the test of proportionality. The cancellation of status for this reason is a draconic measure that is characteristic of dark and totalitarian regimes. The state must not cancel a person's residency due to suspicions that have arisen against him. There are many means of enforcement less severe than revoking residency status that are available to the state under the criminal law, which is the sole suitable means to denounce prohibited actions, as long as there is evidence of a criminal act. The organizations explain that the wide authority to cancel residency, with which the Interior Minister believes he is invested, is draconian and should not be accorded to any one person, but may only lie with the judiciary.
The amicus brief was submitted as part of case H.C. 7803/06, Khalid Abu Arafeh et al. v. The Minister of Interior.
The parliamentarians concerned - Mr. Muhammad Abu-Teir, Mr. Ahmad Attoun, Mr. Muhammad Totah and Mr. Khaled Abu-Arafeh, who is also the Palestinian Minister of Jerusalem Affairs - were all elected on the list of Hamas (Change and Reform) in the January 2006 elections to the Palestinian Legislative Council.
Following the release of the AG's response to Adalah and ACRI, eight Israeli human rights organizations: Amnesty International (Israel Section), B'Tselem, Gisha, PCATI, HaMoked, Yesh Din, Physicians for Human Rights, and Rabbis for Human Rights, sent a letter of protest to the AG and the Justice Minister. The aforementioned organizations demanded that three parallel courses of action be pursued: the initiation of proceedings against the lawyers working in the AG's office who are involved in this issue, to include a public apology and their dismissal from their positions; the holding of a session between human rights organizations and officials from the AG's office and the Justice Ministry in order to coordinate and develop a broad outline for action; and educational work for employees in the AG's office and the Justice Ministry in the subject of human rights and the role of human rights organizations in the state.
The human rights organizations also recommended that a senior state prosecutor be appointed in order to assume the position of a mediator between human rights organizations and representatives of the AG's office and the Justice Ministry.
