العربية
HE
العربية
HE
In April 2022, HaMoked, ACRI, and PHR-Israel petitioned the High Court of Justice (HCJ) to revoke the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) – which was reenacted a month earlier – for being racist and branding all Palestinians as a security threat to prevent them from obtaining family-unification-based residency status in Israel and annexed East Jerusalem. The petitioners also argued that the Law violates a range of basic rights of those who had been allowed to stay in East Jerusalem or in Israel and had become over time de facto residents of the State – with particular harm to women victims of domestic abuse and children growing up with no status in Israel.
Following the December 2022 hearing, the Court instructed the State to submit a notice regarding its willingness to alter the Law on several issues. On July 27, 2023, the State updated, among other things, about its decision to allow granting temporary residency status (an A/5 visa) to women aged 40-50 who are spouses of an Israeli citizen or resident and have been staying in Israel under a military stay permit for at least 10 years (estimated to number 1,300 women).
The petitioners responded that the State had left without remedy most of those harmed by the Law, individuals and families alike, without any real security justification. The organizations added that the limited changes introduced in the Law indicated that many of the remaining restrictions were arbitrary. Therefore, the Court was asked to issue an order nisi and schedule a hearing.
On July 8, 2024, an additional hearing was held, following which the HCJ issued an order nisi ordering the State to explain why the Law should not be voided. The order was based on some of the organizations’ demands, and listed problems relating to those living in Israel for long periods, whether minors, adults undergoing family unification, or those undergoing humanitarian proceedings.
Rather than working to ameliorate these problems, on May 9, 2025, the Knesset passed an amendment to the Law (Section 11a) further restricting family unification. The amendment requires a sweeping denial or revocation of status in cases where a Palestinian spouse, parent or child has a family member – even if a remote one and even if no contact exists – who is involved in “security issues”. The amendment to the Law incorporates a very broad definition of "terrorist" to include minor crimes, and also applies it to Palestinian asylum seekers, victims of violence and crime, and other humanitarian cases. The amendment also establishes that a Palestinian who was in Israel illegally, however briefly and regardless of the reason, will not be able to acquire status in Israel for a period of ten years.
On the following day, the petitioners submitted an urgent request to the HCJ for an interim order to freeze the amendment until a decision is made on the petition regarding the entirety of the law. The petitioners argued that the amendment was to have a dramatic impact on the human rights of people without there being any concrete claims against them concerning involvement in criminal or terrorist activity, and that they would effectively be punished through no fault of their own by not receiving status or by being deported from the country. This would also punish their spouses and children who are Israeli citizens and residents. The petitioners stressed the basic moral principle whereby a person bears responsibility solely for their own actions, and should not be punished for the actions of others. The amendment dictates the opposite, imposing a collective punishment of innocent people.
