Interior Ministry prevents children of Palestinian residents of Jerusalem from receiving legal status in Israel

In May 2002, the government of Israel decided to freeze the handling of requests by Israeli residents for family unification with Palestinians from the Occupied Territories . At the same time, the Interior Ministry began to implement a new policy: the status of minor children who were born abroad, or registered in another population registry, would be handled in the framework of a request for family unification. It should be stressed that this policy has been applied also to children of residents who live in Israel with their resident parent.

In July 2003, the government's decision was enshrined in the Nationality and Entry into Israel (Temporary Order) Law, 5762 – 2003. The Law was extended a few times, and is now valid until January 2007. Despite the changes made to the Law in August 2005, the Law – and the interpretation given it by the Interior Ministry – denies many children, those with one parent who is a resident of Israel and the other a resident of the Occupied Territories , the possibility of obtaining a permanent status in Israel .

According to the 2005 amendment, children between the ages of fourteen and eighteen, to whom the Law applies, are not allowed to obtain a status in Israel , even if they live inside Israel with a parent who is a resident of Israel . They are only entitled to a permit to stay temporarily in Israel . This permit is given for short periods, of three to six months, and does not entitle the minor to any social rights. What happens when the children turn eighteen – whether the permit to stay will continue to remain in force, or whether they will no longer have a right to it - remains unclear. In the latter case, they would have to leave their home in Israel , or in East Jerusalem, or, alternatively, live under the threat of deportation to the Occupied Territories at any time.

As for children under the age of fourteen, the Law allows granting them status in Israel , but the Interior Ministry issues them only a "temporary-resident" visa. This visa entitles the child to all the social rights to which permanent residents are entitled (among them social security and national health benefits), but the visa is good for only two years. The Interior Ministry refuses to indicate how the it will treat these children after the two years have expired: will it upgrade their status to permanent resident or will it take away their "temporary-resident" status?

One way or the other, whether to obtain a temporary-resident visa for a child under fourteen, or to obtain a permit to stay in Israel in the case of children from fourteen to eighteen, the parent who is a resident of Israel must prove that the child's center of life is located inside the State of Israel.

In May 2006, the High Court of Justice rejected several petitions opposing the Law, among them petitions filed by Adalah, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel , and HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual. The petitions were heard by an expanded panel of eleven justices. In fact, six of the eleven justices accepted the petitioners' argument that the Law disproportionately violated the constitutional right to family life and to equality. In rejecting the petitions, the court accepted the state's official explanation that the sole purpose of the Law was security related. It should be mentioned that during the legislative hearings and in public statements, state representatives and cabinet ministers did not hesitate to point out the real objective of the Law, which was – and is – primarily demographic, i.e., to preserve the Jewish majority in Israel.

HaMoked's petition dealt with the unique harm to children of residents of East Jerusalem who are married to residents of the Occupied Territories . In their decision, the justices, almost without exception, ignored the Law's threat to the future of these children. Justice Cheshin held in his opinion that the arrangement regarding them was "satisfactory." Justice Miriam Naor, one of the justices in the majority rejecting the petitions, specifically stated in her opinion that consideration should be given to raising substantially the age of minors to whom the prohibition under the Law does not apply.

The consequences of the Law are harsh, especially for children living with their parents pursuant to a temporary-stay permit, and to those over the age of eighteen, who live with their parents without a permit. The Law essentially affects the ability of the children to move about freely. Many of these children are delayed and harassed at checkpoints between the West Bank and Israel , particularly at checkpoints entering and exiting East Jerusalem , despite the permits in their possession. The Law also prevents children over eighteen who are living with their parents but do not have a permit from living a normal life – working, marrying, and the like – alongside their families and without the constant fear of deportation. In addition, the Law and the Interior Ministry's policy, which discriminate between children of different ages, result in many families in which siblings hold different statuses: some are permanent residents, others are temporary residents, and some hold temporary permits. This situation impairs family stability and relations among the family members.

The best interest of the child, a guiding principle in Israeli and international law, requires the state to give the interest of the child utmost consideration in making decisions and establishing policies that relate to children living under its jurisdiction. The principle requires that the state enable the child to grow up in a stable and supportive family environment. Israel, as a matter of social and legal policy, and as part of the protection that society must give to relations between the custodial parent and his or her child, has adopted the principle that the child is given the status of his or her custodial parent, where the parent is a resident of the state, provided that the child lives with that parent inside the state's borders. However, in the case of the children of Palestinian permanent residents who live in East Jerusalem , these principles bear no weight.

The Law's denial of the possibility of obtaining permanent residency in Israel constitutes a prolonged breach of the rights of these children and of their families. The Law critically affects the right to family life, a component of the right to dignity, which is enshrined in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty , inasmuch as it prevents the children and their parents from maintaining a proper and stable family life. In addition, the Law affects the ability of resident parents to carry out their obligations to their children. Israel 's obligation to respect the right to family life and not to interfere arbitrarily in family life is also enshrined in international human rights law.

The Law creates de facto discrimination between the children of Palestinian residents and citizens of Israel, to whom the Law denies the rights derived from the principle of the best interest of the child, and children of residents and citizens who are not Palestinians, who benefit from the fruits of the best-interest-of-the-child principle. Furthermore, application of the law to children, who represent no threat to public safety, exposes the nakedness of the declared objective, which was and remains, officially, security.

HaMoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual and B'Tselem call on the Knesset to repeal the Law. At least, its sweeping application to minors should be repealed. The Interior Ministry must promptly start registering children again, in an efficient manner based on the merits of the particular case, recognizing the right of all residents and citizens of Israel to live with their children where they choose.