Center for the Defence of the Individual - Human rights organizations have issued their response to a new procedure published by the military regarding overseas travel by Palestinian residents: The organizations argue that the military is ignoring the problems raised in their petition. The military is seeking to free itself of criticism of its actions by human rights organizations and to end the involvement of attorneys and the Court in its decisions
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
17.03.2008

Human rights organizations have issued their response to a new procedure published by the military regarding overseas travel by Palestinian residents: The organizations argue that the military is ignoring the problems raised in their petition. The military is seeking to free itself of criticism of its actions by human rights organizations and to end the involvement of attorneys and the Court in its decisions

On 20 February 2008 the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, HaMoked, and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel submitted their response to a procedure published by the State in the framework of the petition against the wide-ranging restrictions imposed on the movement of people who have been blacklisted by the Israeli Security Agency (ISA). Among other demands, the Petitioners asked that the military enable residents of the Territories to inquire whether there is a security impediment to their leaving the area ahead of time, rather than arriving at the Allenby Bridge only to learn that they cannot travel abroad. The Respondents stated that they were preparing a new procedure on this matter. 

On 21 January 2008 the State Prosecutor’s Office presented the new procedure. A review of the document reveals that the procedure is contrary to the basic principles of proper administration as detailed in the petition; formalizes unjustified and unreasonable injury to human rights; and, under the cloak of a “reform,” actually exacerbates still further the situation faced by residents of the Territories wishing to travel abroad. Rather than addressing the substantive problem, the procedure seeks to free the authorities of the “irksome burden” of intervention by human rights organizations, attorneys, and the court. 

Moreover, before the 30 days granted to the Petitioners to respond to this procedure had passed, and before the Court had discussed and ruled on the matter, the military began to implement the procedure and create facts on the ground. A letter sent to the organizations from the Legal Advisor for the West Bank stated that appeals submitted to the office would no longer be processed. If the legal advisor implements his “threat” and refuses to process appeals submitted by Palestinian residents who have been denied permission to travel abroad, a further exacerbation can be expected in the scope of injuries to residents of the Territories whose right to freedom of movement and overseas travel has been denied. Accordingly, the Petitioners asked the Court to issue an interim order freezing the introduction of the new procedure and leaving the existing situation intact pending its ruling in the petition.