On January 21, 2016, the
Minister of Interior revoked the permanent Israeli status of four youths from East Jerusalem accused of involvement in attacks against Israelis, on the grounds of “breach of allegiance to the State of Israel”. The decision, which followed the security cabinet’s resolution to employ punitive measure against Palestinians assailants or suspected assailants, was made despite the fact that criminal proceedings were then taking place against the four.
Following the Minister’s decision,
HaMoked petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) on February 28, 2016, against the revocation of permanent status of the four youths – and of East Jerusalem residents in general – on the grounds of “breach of allegiance”. HaMoked asserted, inter alia, that the status of permanent Israeli residency was given to the East Jerusalem population by virtue of its being indigenous, as part of the 1967 annexation of the eastern city, without it then entailing any obligation of allegiance – unlike citizenship. Furthermore, the Entry into Israel Law, which regulates the status of residency, gives the Minister of Interior a general authority to revoke status but does not establish any specific criteria for it; whereas the Citizenship Law provides that a person left stateless following the revocation of his/her Israeli citizenship due to “breach of allegiance”, is still entitled to receive permanent residency status. This clearly demonstrates that allegiance to the state is not a component of permanent status. HaMoked noted moreover that the residents of East Jerusalem are protected persons owing to the unique status of East Jerusalem, and as such, are protected from deportation under international humanitarian law.
In
its notice to the court of April 25, 2016, the state asked to submit its response to the four youths’ petition only after the HCJ issued its judgment in the general petition dealing with revocation of permanent status for breach of allegiance.
On September 13, 2017,
judgment was issued in the general petition, in which the court ruled that the Minister of Interior did not have the authority to revoke permanent status on the grounds of breach of allegiance. And yet it ruled that in the specific case of the individual petitioners – four East Jerusalem residents who had been elected in the Palestinian Authority elections, whereupon their permanent status had been revoked about a decade ago – the cancelation of the Minister’s decision must be suspended for six months, to allow the Knesset, if it so wished, to enact a suitable preliminary arrangement, following which the Minister would decide anew about the status revocations.
Thereupon, on October 23, 2017, the state asked the HCJ to delete the petition concerning the four youths and postpone the cancellation of the decision to revoke their status by six months, as was done in the general petition. In
its response of November 5, 2017, HaMoked objected to postponement in this case, asserting that the postponed cancellation in the other case purely stemmed from its specific circumstances.
On November 5, 2017, the HCJ deleted HaMoked’s petition, noting in
its judgment that the state declared the Minister’s decision concerning the four youths would be effectively cancelled at the end of six months from the date of the judgment in the general petition.
