On December 25, 2014,
following its petition against the deportation from Israel of the widow of one of the assailants in the Har Nof attack, HaMoked presented to the Minister of Interior
its arguments against the Minister's decision to revoke the widow's permit of stay in Israel.
On March 24, 2015, the Minister of Interior published his
decision, holding that there was nothing in HaMoked's arguments to prompt a change of his initial decision. Accentuating the vindictive nature of his decision, the Minister even noted that "just as the overall circumstances will be examined in the case of someone who has been widowed in a natural way, the overall circumstances will be examined in the case of someone who has been widowed in an unnatural way". The Minister also asserted, in blatant disregard of past instances, that the relocation to the West Bank of the widow's children – who are permanent residents in East Jerusalem – would not harm their rights as Israeli residents.
In its response from April 5, 2015, submitted in the framework of petition, HaMoked held that the Minister's additional decision had not rendered the petition moot. HaMoked argued that the Minister's decision ignored a significant part of HaMoked's arguments against the original decision, but requested permission to submit an amended petition within 30 days, should the court decide the petition in its present form had run its course. On April 12, 2015, the court allowed HaMoked to submit an amended petition within 7 days.
On April 16, 2014, HaMoked submitted its
amended petition to repeal the Minister's decision. HaMoked argued that the decision was arbitrary and discriminatory; that it was prompted by extraneous considerations and based on partial and biased facts; and moreover, that it violated the principle of the child's best interests as well as the right to family life of innocent people. HaMoked challenged, among other things, the Minister's assertion that the children's status would not be harmed, and recalled that as soon as the minister's intention to deport the family had been made public, the National Insurance Institute (NII) had hastened to deprive the children of their NII benefits entitlement, and it was only following
HaMoked's intervention that it had later retracted its decision. HaMoked further stated that in other cases of widows who had been married to permanent Israeli residents and had small children, the Minister had consistently allowed them to live on in Jerusalem pursuant to stay permits.
