Center for the Defence of the Individual - In response to HaMoked's petition demanding that a bride and her parents be permitted to travel from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank for the wedding, the state demanded that the Petitioners deposit a NIS 20,000 guarantee ensuring that after the wedding they would all return to the Gaza Strip, including the bride: The state accuses HaMoked of disingenuous behavior by concealing the true relief requested in the petition which, according to the state, is the “change of residence” from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank
العربية HE wheel chair icon
חזרה לעמוד הקודם
19.06.2008

In response to HaMoked's petition demanding that a bride and her parents be permitted to travel from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank for the wedding, the state demanded that the Petitioners deposit a NIS 20,000 guarantee ensuring that after the wedding they would all return to the Gaza Strip, including the bride: The state accuses HaMoked of disingenuous behavior by concealing the true relief requested in the petition which, according to the state, is the “change of residence” from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank

On 17 April 2008 HaMoked submitted a petition on behalf of a resident of the Gaza Strip who wished to enter Israel in order to travel to the West Bank to attend her own wedding and to begin an ordinary married life with her partner, who lives in the West Bank. The Petitioners’ parents, who live in the Gaza Strip, also requested to travel from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank in order to attend their daughter’s wedding. In the petition, HaMoked emphasized the Petitioner’s right to choose her partner and maintain a family life. HaMoked also argued that since Israel controls the crossings into and out of the Gaza Strip, it bears responsibility for maintaining rights derived from the Petitioners’ right to freedom of movement. 

In its response to the petition, the state accused the Petitioners of acting disingenuously and claimed, inter alia, that HaMoked concealed the Petitioner’s true intention, which is to move to the West Bank (or, as the state puts it – “to change residence.”) To this end, the state claims, special permission must be received and a “permit to be present” in the West Bank must be secured. The state claims that the need for such permits is established in the Closed Areas Order of 1967, and in an order from 1988 suspending the general entry permit into the West Bank. In an unprecedented step, the state informed the Petitioners that it would permit them to travel to the West Bank and participate in the wedding ceremony provided they deposit the sum of NIS 20,000 as a guarantee of their return to the Gaza Strip. The state’s intention is to all three Petitioners, including the bride. 

In its response, dated 1 June 2008, HaMoked claims that the state’s arguments lack any legal basis. Forty years have passed since the order referred to by the state was enacted, and during this period not a single Palestinian was required to obtain a permit “to be present” in the West Bank. Moreover, since the implementation of the interim accord, the previous provisions on the matter are no longer relevant. In practice, there is no legal provision today prohibiting a Palestinian whose registered place of residence is in the Gaza Strip from moving to the West Bank and settling in the area, or vice versa. Neither is a Palestinian required to receive any authorization from Israel in order to change his or her registered address. In addition, there is no legal basis for Israel’s demand that a Palestinian hold a “permit to be present” in the West Bank. The only permit required by a Palestinian wishing to move from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank is a permit to enter and pass through Israel. Furthermore, HaMoked emphasizes, the demand to secure “permits to be present” in the West Bank is a new one that was introduced in November 2007; no changes were made in military legislation before it was raised. 

For the present, the court has accepted the state’s proposal that guarantees be deposited, pending a decision on the principled subject of change of address from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. The court further ruled that the state must forward a detailed procedure and the grounds for the policy formulated in the procedure relating to the passage from the Gaza Strip of spouses wishing to be united in the West Bank. 

Israel cannot freeze the Petitioners’ family life. Human life and family life continue by their very nature. Even during periods of conflict, couples continue to marry, to start families, and to have children. Not only is Israel not entitled to ignore this, but it bears an obligation to do all it can to enable the continuation of normal life. 

To view the petition dated 17 April 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view the state’s response dated 5 May 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view the Petitioners’ response to the state’s response dated 1 June 2008 (Hebrew) 

To view the state’s complementary response dated 5 June 2008 (Hebrew)