Tag: Denial of Entry

Right of Entry: Adnan and Manal

Adnan Muhammad Hasan Khalil, American citizen of Palestinian descent, emigrated from the West Bank as a youth in 1976 and returned ten years ago to get married. At that time, he applied to the Israeli authorities for Family Unification (FU) in order to secure permanent residency in the West Bank. His wife Manal holds a West Bank ID and is not a citizen of the United States. In 1998, Manal was diagnosed with atrophy of the cerebellum and Adnan soon found himself in an unfortunate position, where he was not able to be there for her, as he could not maintain consistent residency in the West Bank. In 2004, as Manal’s condition worsened, she suffered from multiple brain attacks, Adnan overstayed his Israeli tourist visa and has since encountered various problems when trying to re-enter the West Bank. In 2006, he was allowed to enter for only two months, and earlier this June he was denied entry altogether. The Israeli authorities cited Adnan’s prior overstay as the reason for this recent denial. As a result, Manal, accompanied by her two sisters to help her move about, traveled to Jordan to see her husband, but after two months, the prohibitive cost, health conditions and distance from extended family forced her to return to the West Bank.

Manal’s condition is rapidly deteriorating. She is now fully disabled and requires the assistance of two people to move about. Though she has some extended family that can help in a limited capacity, she is essentially living alone with their three children, eldest is 9 years old and youngest is 4 years old, while her husband, Adnan, was unable to join her because of the Israelis abusive policies of entry denial.

Adnan had contacted us for help. Every time we talk to Adnan, he would cry and beg for help to reunite with his disabled wife and young daughters. The Campaign has sent a letter on Adnan’s behalf to the US State Department and US Consulate in Jerusalem. On October 21, 2007, we called Adnan to inform him of steps taken by the Campaign, he expressed happiness because he was contacted by the US State Department. Adnan informed the Campaign that he would contact the State Department with the information they requested on Monday. He was so excited but also scared because the US State Department said that they don’t promise that he would be allowed entry to the West Bank even with their help. We asked him to be optimistic and patient. During the last phone call with Adnan, he could not stop crying, praying for God’s help and explaining how he no longer can live away from his family.

————–
On October 24, 2007, Adnan was shot to death during a robbery of Pampano Beach store at which he worked as a clerk. Manal is begging for your help to get her husband’s body to be repatriated to the West Bank.

This story is one of many! This story is a result of the Israeli Occupation Authorities’ abusive, arbitrary and unbearable policies.

Are we going to sit there and watch?

The Campaign for the Right of Entry to the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt)

MuzzleWatch: Archbishop Tutu barred by U. of St Thomas because of criticism of Israel

by Cecilie Surasky

Rumors have been circulating for some time that Archbishop Desmond Tutu was banned by the University of St Thomas in Minnesota because of statements he made that some consider anti-Semitic. Now it’s official: winning the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t protect you from charges of anti-Semitism if you criticize Israeli human rights violations. Neither, apparently, does being one of the most compelling voices for social justice in the world today, or even getting an honorary degree from and giving the commencement address at Brandeis.

Minneapolis/St.Paul’s City Pages just reported that members of the St Thomas Justice and Peace Studies program were thrilled when Bishop Tutu agreed to speak at the University– but administrators did a scientific survey of the Jews of Minneapolis, which included querying exactly one spokesperson for Minnesota’s Jewish Community Relations Council and several rabbis who taught in a University program– and concluded that Tutu is bad for the Jews and should therefore be barred from campus.

“…in a move that still has faculty members shaking their heads in disbelief, St. Thomas administrators—concerned that Tutu’s appearance might offend local Jews—told organizers that a visit from the archbishop was out of the question.

“We had heard some things he said that some people judged to be anti-Semitic and against Israeli policy,” says Doug Hennes, St. Thomas’s vice president for university and government relations. “We’re not saying he’s anti-Semitic. But he’s compared the state of Israel to Hitler and our feeling was that making moral equivalencies like that are hurtful to some members of the Jewish community.”

St. Thomas officials made this inference after Hennes talked to Julie Swiler, a spokeswoman for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas.

“I told him that I’d run across some statements that were of concern to me,” says Swiler. “In a 2002 speech in Boston, he made some comments that were especially hurtful.””

Just to send the message home, Swiler says:

“I think there’s a consensus in the Jewish community that his words were offensive.”

To be clear here, Swiler and the other rabbis have the right to say whatever they think, though representing those opinions, as Swiler does, as a Jewish consensus, is laughable.

Ultimately, groups like Minnesota’s JCRC, the right wing fringe group Zionist Organization of America, and the increasingly embarrassing Anti-Defamation League, who have all attacked Tutu for his criticism of Israeli policies, will face the consequences of smearing Tutu –a hero to millions and leader of a movement that was known for the massively disproportionate involvement of numerous South African Jews.

But it’s the craven behavior of the administrators of St. Thomas that will likely be a mark of shame for years to come. While it’s understandable, given the Church’s history of virulent anti-Semitism, that a Catholic institution would be extra sensitive about relations with Jews, it’s not clear here that there was any real pressure to cave in to. Did groups threaten to picket? Who knows what administrators were thinking?

Regardless, the backlash has already begun. Marv Davidov, an adjunct professor within the Justice and Peace Studies program said:

“As a Jew who experienced real anti-Semitism as a child, I’m deeply disturbed that a man like Tutu could be labeled anti-Semitic and silenced like this,” he says. “I deeply resent the Israeli lobby trying to silence any criticism of its policy. It does a great disservice to Israel and to all Jews.”

To make matters worse, when Cris Toffolo, the chair of the Justice and Peace Studies program told Tutu what happened and warned him of a possible smear campaign, she was immediately demoted.

Davidov again:

“This is pure bullshit,” says Davidov. “As far as fighting for civil rights, I consider Tutu to be my brother. And I consider Cris Toffolo to be my sister. They’re messing with my family here. If Columbia permits a Holocaust denier [Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to speak at their university, why are St. Thomas officials refusing to let Tutu, an apostle of nonviolence, speak at ours?”

“What happened at the University of St. Thomas is not an isolated event,” says Toffolo. “Until we have an honest debate about U.S. policy related to Israel, and about Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories, the spiral of violence will continue.”

Why Tutu? Why now? Are his statements anti-Semitic?

Bishop Tutu is closely associated with Sabeel, a Jerusalem based Christian liberation theology organization started by Palestinian Anglican pastor Rev. Naim Ateek. Sabeel is “an international peace movement initiated by Palestinian Christians in the Holy Land who seek a just peace based on two states-Palestine and Israel-as defined by international law and existing United Nations resolutions.”The group, and founder Naim Ateek in particular, have come under considerable attack by mainstream Jewish organizations that see their influence on domestic Christian organizations as a threat.

Sabeel works with local Christian partners to hold conferences in major cities across the United States. To the consternation of many, Bishop Tutu will be the featured speaker in late October at the Boston Sabeel conference. The conference title? “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel:Issues of Justice and Equality.”

Members of my group, Jewish Voice for Peace, have spoken at a handful of Sabeel conferences, and our Boston chapter is sponsoring a peace walk at the Boston conference.

As one JVP colleague who participated in several Sabeel conferences told me, she believed that Naim Atteek was guilty, at most, at times of being unaware of Jewish sensitivities around using certain Christian theological language (in fact, she publicly challenged him on this issue), but that he is ultimately advocating for a nonviolent resolution that recognizes the humanity and rights of both Jews and Palestinians. Of that, she has no doubt. (There are, to be sure, plenty of Palestinian sensitivities around language as well, though there is little interest among leaders of a variety of faiths in learning what those might be.)

Interestingly, the same can perhaps be said for Bishop Tutu, whose 2002 Sabeel speech seems to be the primary evidence offered for the cancellation of his talk. It’s impossible to convey the spirit of his talk by quoting only bits and pieces, so read it. Read the whole thing, especially the part cited by St. Thomas’ Doug Hennes where he says Tutu compared Israel to Hitler.

The talk is notable for its philo-Semitism and its equally passionate condemnation of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land and people. For anyone who has been to the Occupied Territories, let alone lived through it, his words of condemnation are impossible to argue with. His language is challenging in part because it is imbued with the disappointment of a Christian raised to look up to Jews, and the heartache of an anti-apartheid leader who was once buoyed by passionate Jewish support. He struggles to make sense of the checkpoints, the home demolitions, the land confiscations, done by a state that says it represents the very same people.

What is clear is that he at times uses language loosely without understanding how it might hurt or offend us Jews. Does that make him an anti-Semite? Of course not. Should he be banned for using a term like “Jewish lobby” that makes many of us uncomfortable? Are you kidding?

Tutu never wavers in expressing his love of and hope for peace and security for both peoples. “Peace based on justice,” Tutu says, “is possible. We will do all we can to assist you to achieve this peace, because it is God’s dream, and you will be able to live amicably together as sisters and brothers. ”

Right to Enter: Israeli Authorities Deny Entry to Clergyman

17 September 2007

In a continuing demonstration of Israel’s arbitrary denial of entry policy, and disregard for the Palestinian population’s right to practice their religion and worship freely, Father Faris Khaleifat, priest of Ramallah’s Greek Catholic Melkite Church was barred entry to the West Bank on Friday, 14 September.

Father Faris, a holder of both Vatican and Jordanian passports, commented: “For the past six years, I have been traveling regularly between the West Bank and Jordan on church affairs without any problems whatsoever.” Just one week ago, Father Faris traveled to Amman for several days and returned without incident. However, on Friday, his multiple entry visa as a clergyman serving in the occupied Palestinian territory, valid until February 2008, was cancelled by Israeli authorities at the Al Sheikh Hussein Bridge without explanation and he was forced to return to Jordan. His de facto deportation has left the Ramallah parish without its sole clergyman.

Father Faris is one of thousands of foreign passport holders who have been denied entry by the Israeli Authorities over the past several years. The priest’s case is just one of numerous incidents of entry denial documented by the Campaign in recent months, demonstrating that Israel’s regulation of entry into the occupied Palestinian territory by foreign nationals remains arbitrary, abusive and internationally unlawful. Even clergymen are not immune. Israel continues to abuse its control over entry, presence and residency in the occupied Palestinian territory in a manner damaging family life, businesses and the religious and social institutions serving the occupied population.

The Campaign calls on third states, religious leaders and congregations worldwide to protest Israel’s actions harming the Greek Catholic Church and to demand a clear, transparent and lawful policy for all foreign nationals wishing to enter the occupied Palestinian territory.

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Contact: Rasha Mukbil, Coordinator, Media Committee
(c) +970-(0)59-817-3953 (email) info@righttoenter.ps

Family Reunification

Date posted: August 06, 2007
By MIFTAH

Since the beginning of Israeli occupation in 1967, all policies towards curbing the process of Palestinian family reunification have greatly threatened normal and stable family life for many. This has been especially true for residents of Jerusalem, whose linkage with the West Bank has been severed, not only geographically but also socially. Families have had to establish two homes, one in Jerusalem and one in the West Bank, which is disruptive to children’s educational process to say the least.

Israel’s policy is far from benign; its control of people’s basic right to choose a spouse and create a family is a malicious attempt to drive people out of the city of Jerusalem, specifically, and even to encourage Arab migration outside the boundaries of Palestinian Authority areas and Israel proper. This “silent transfer” does not get the attention it deserves, because it is just that, a quiet but consistent pressure on Palestinian residents of Jerusalem and Arab citizens of Israel to leave.

Brief Timeline:

1967 – Family unification of a limited number of Palestinian refugees was allowed. 45,000-50,000 persons were approved for family unification between 1967 and 1972 under this policy. The original requests amounted to 140,000 and approval was denied to males between the ages of 16-60.

1973 – Most applications for family unification were denied. The policy was unclear and was done on “strict confidential criteria” . Over 150,000 families put in requests for unification from 1973 – 1982, but only 1,000 requests were approved annually.

1983 – A new policy was set in place to make it impossible to approve requests for family unification. Part of the policy was to deny applicants for family unification a permit to enter to visit his or her family if an application is in the process. The procedure could take a number of years and it was expected that a parent and spouse would want to see their family during that period. As a result, many families either did not apply for family unification in order to secure the right to get a permit or moved to the Occupied Palestinian Territories to be with their spouse, thus risking their own residency rights in Jerusalem. Alternatively, some chose to stay in the city on an expired permit, risking deportation and denial of reentry.

From 1983 to August 1992 only a few hundred requests were approved annually, based largely on administrative and humanitarian needs. This was slightly amended in 1985 to include a provision that stipulates that an applicant must remain away until his or her request is approved. Before 1987, children were automatically registered in their father’s Jerusalem ID, regardless of the status of their mother. After 1987 a new military order forbid registration of a child whose mother is not already a resident.

1993 – An annual quota of 2,000 requests for family unification was implemented starting August of that year; however, the exact number of approved applications is unclear. This new policy restricted requests to those made for a spouse and any child under the age of 16. The previous military order concerning a non-resident mother was annulled, but it was still ignored by the Civil Administration in reviewing cases for family unification.

1995 – After the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, the aforementioned quota system remained in effect, but also included requests coming from throughout the Occupied Territories, including areas under the PA’s control.

1998 & 1999 – The quota system rose to 3,000 per year and according to some figures 3,000 applications in both years were approved.

2000 – The quota system was raised to 4,000 family reunification requests. Despite the rise in the quota, only 3,600 requests were approved that year.

Since 2000, all family reunification requests have been frozen.

2003 – The Knesset enacts the Nationality and Entry into Israel (Temporary Order) Law, 5762-2003 in July. This law effectively annulled all the procedures for family unification. One of the main reasons for this law was on security grounds, especially since “The granting of a permit to stay for the purpose of settling in Israel to a resident of a state or political entity that is in armed conflict with the State of Israel entails a security risk, in that the allegiance and commitment of the said person is liable to be to the state or political entity in conflict with Israel. And because it is possible to pressure a person whose family members continue to live in such a place, to get that person to assist terror organizations, if he doesn’t want any harm to come to his family…”

Process and Procedures:

The Israeli Ministry of Interior very rarely approved applications for family reunification. It imposed strict criteria, often changing rules and policies in the middle of the application procedure. This often meant that the spouse applying for family unification must submit another application based on the new changes. It is a long process with no set timeframe and can drag on for decades. According to Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem it can take ten years on average from the day of submission to the day the family reunification request is finally approved.

Before 1991, many families opted out of the process because there were no movement restrictions between Jerusalem and the West Bank. Early in 1991, however, a new Israeli policy was being enforced, requiring that all West Bank ID holders obtain permits in order to enter Jerusalem and Israel. The introduction of stricter movement measures in 1993 spelled disaster for many families, who had never even contemplated that their lives would be torn apart as such, with one parent on one side of a checkpoint and the other on the opposite side.

During the processing of an application, applicants were not allowed to reside in Jerusalem during that period. On the other hand, if the spouse applying on behalf of their wife was known to be living in the West Bank, his residency rights were jeopardized. This made ordinary family life a challenge.

Families applying for unification were made to jump through hoops, displaying intimate details of their lives for Ministry of Interior officials, only to have even more unreasonable demands made. Proof of residence, producing utilities bills, school registration forms for children, etc. were all requested in addition to many more documents. There was no written policy in the Ministry of Interior and the papers required from each applicant were left to the case file officer to determine.

In addition, the male spouse of a women requesting unification must undergo a thorough security check. If the wife is a West Bank citizen, her Jerusalem ID husband would also need to go through the same background check. After the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000, the process became more difficult in light of “security concerns” as per the Israeli official line. Between 100,000 and 140,000 persons from the Occupied Territories became legal residents in Israel between 1993 and 2003 as a result of the process of family unification. Of these, only 23 persons or 0.02 per cent actually carried out attacks against Israel .

The security reason, therefore, did not appear to be a convincing reason for the difficulties that faced applicants of family unification. Whether in Israel proper or Jerusalem, there are some strong arguments that indicate that the actual reason for the halting of the unification process really has to do with keeping the demographic balance in favor of its Jewish citizens.

Subsequent Israeli Ministers of Interior have implemented different policies with regards to the family unification process. In 2001, Eli Yishai, interior minister at the time actively created obstacles for non-Jewish applicants to receive Israeli residency or citizenship and lobbied in the Knesset in order to set legal policies that would support his decisions. On May 12, 2002 the government decided to freeze all unification cases for the Palestinian spouse of an Israeli citizen or permanent resident (Government Decision #1813). The decision also stipulated the rejection of any new applications. This was followed in 2003 with the Law of Nationality and Entry into Israel (Temporary Order 2003) being enacted and it has been repeatedly extended since then. Its main provisions are based on Government Decision #1813.

The State of Israel considered family unification a subversive method used by Palestinians in order to exercise their “right of return” It also upheld the notion that it was exploitative in nature, as residents and citizens were given access to health and other benefits that were not available in the Occupied Territories. It also became concerned with the fact that there were some applications for family unification for spouses from so called “enemy states” with Israel, such as Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq. Therefore, in January 2007, the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law of 2003 was again extended, to include the aforementioned provision as well as a provision for the Ministry of Interior to reject or accept applications for spouses of countries not on the list based on its discretion.

Human Rights and the Discriminatory Policy regarding Family Reunification:

The Israeli policy to deny reunification and in some cases registration for children is in contravention to Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Government Decision #1813 “severely violates the fundamental rights of individuals to equality, liberty, privacy and family life, as it limits the ability of Israeli citizens’, namely Palestinian citizens of Israel, to exercise these rights based on the ethnicity of their spouses.”

Israeli law discriminates against Palestinians and prevents the right to choose a partner or begin a family, as it “explicitly denies rights on the basis of national origin… Existing families will be broken up and other families will not be established.”

According to Article 23 of the ICCPR of 1966, the family is the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.” Article 10 of the covenant strictly forbids the interference with the “privacy, family, or home of a person.” Although any given country can impose laws in a state of emergency, Israel has imposed a “sweeping infringement of these rights” and does not meet the condition applied for a state of emergency especially since it discriminates heavily among its citizens.

East Jerusalem is classified as occupied territory under International Law; therefore, Israel is prohibited from discriminating against occupied citizens, including their individual and family rights. Israel’s policy clearly victimizes families and denies these very basic rights especially to Palestinian residents of Jerusalem in an effort to drive out as many indigenous Palestinian residents of the city and maintain a Jewish majority.

References and Background:

* Israel and the Occupied Territories – Torn Apart: Families split by discriminatory policies. Amnesty International, July 2004 * Perpetual Limbo – Israel’s Freeze on Unification of Palestinian Families in the Occupied Territories, B’Tselem, Hamoked, July 2006 * Forbidden Families – Family Unification and Child Registration in East Jerusalem, B’Tselem and Hamoked, January 2004 * Jerusalem Residency – Hamoked Activity Report 2004 (http://www.hamoked.org .il/items/12904_eng.pdf) * News Update, 22 January 2007, Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel.

Source: MIFTAH

http://www.miftah.org/Display.cfm?DocId=14464&CategoryId=4

Campaign for the Right of Entry/Re-Entry

A Grassroots Campaign for the Protection of Foreign Passport Holders Residing in and/or Visiting the oPt

Position Statement

To date, Israeli authorities have failed to provide a transparent policy on which foreign nationals wishing to enter or maintain their presence in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt) can rely. Instead, Israel has continued to pursue both policies and practices that fail to comply with International Humanitarian Law. In fact, the de facto policy announced in December 2006 and again in March 2007 signals Israel’s intent to continue to violate international law. The failure of third states to object in such circumstances implies acceptance and violates their own obligations in international law.

Until such time as the Israeli occupation has ended and the sovereign Palestinian right of self-determination is fully implemented, the Campaign takes the following positions regarding Israel’s exercise of discretion over entry into the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), and the corresponding responsibilities of third states:

1. Procedures outlined in announcements by the Israeli Ministry of Defense (December 2006) and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs (March 2007) fail to address a number of critical issues, especially the fundamental issue of how Israel will exercise its discretion over entry into the oPt. (See “Background” section below.)

2. Residents of the oPt, like people the world over, have the right to marry at will and to live together with their families. By maintaining its general refusal to permit foreign nationals to securely and permanently reside with their family members in the oPt, Israel, as the occupying power, is blatantly violating international humanitarian law (IHL). Third states have a duty to ensure Israel’s respect for IHL and to obtain Israel’s compliance in this case, where the means to do so are readily available to them.

3. Third states have an obligation to scrutinize Israel’s exercise of authority and to oppose arbitrary denials of entry and residency that harm Palestinian family life and welfare, including educational and social service institutions and economic development.

4. Third states have an obligation to defend the interests of their own nationals when they are subjected to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment by a friendly state and to protect them against violations of human rights including Israeli use of duress in coercing foreigners to collaborate with the occupier in order to gain entry into the oPt.

5. Third states have an obligation to object when they are provided written statements and clarifications of positions from Israel that embody, or envisage and signal Israel’s intent to take measures that are internationally unlawful. Third state failure to object in such circumstances implies acceptance and violates its own obligations in international law, in particular, the duty not to acquiesce to internationally unlawful acts by other states. The duty of non-acquiescence by third states extends to the failure to react upon notification of the establishment or existence of an illegal policy.

The Campaign urges third states to:

1. Ensure Israeli implementation of the rights to family unity and family reunification and the
establishment of clear and transparent procedures for foreign nationals seeking to reside in the oPt, in keeping with international law.

– obtain Israeli cancellation of CoGAT’s stipulation that foreigners are restricted to a 27-
month, single entry, maximum stay
– demand Israel’s adoption and implementation of a clear, transparent policy for issuing
residency permits to foreign nationals

2. Call for an immediate halt to Israel’s arbitrary and abusive practice of denying entry to foreign nationals traveling to the oPt.

– demand Israel’s adoption and implementation of a clear, transparent policy for unhindered
access to the oPt by foreign nationals
– obtain explicit assurances that people who have previously been denied entry will be
permitted to re-enter the oPt
– end the practice of issuing permits that restrict exit and re-entry
– end the practice of issuing permits of less than three months to those traveling to the oPt
– cease the collective punishment of those whose relatives may have ‘overstayed’ their
original visa duration

3. Apply vigorous scrutiny to cases of denied entry and denied residency in the oPt with a view to promoting Israel’s adoption and transparent application of principles consistent with the internationally accepted rights and obligations of an occupying power.

– set up clear mechanisms for citizens to report and appeal cases of denied entry
– set up clear mechanisms for liaising with Israeli authorities to ensure safe passage to the oPt
for all citizens and ensure the prompt and proper resolution of cases where safe passage has
been hindered
– insist on receiving a formal explanation of each decision taken by Israel to bar any of their citizens from the oPt
– object to all arbitrary denials of entry and residency that harm Palestinian family life,
educational, health and social service institutions and businesses and act to resolve all such
cases of exclusion.

4. Respect the duty of all states not to acquiesce to internationally unlawful acts, bearing in mind that failing to object to prima facie unlawful acts or policies when notified of them implies accepting them as lawful

5. Promote Israel’s compliance with International Humanitarian Law with appropriate and effective tools of persuasion and dissuasion. Take appropriate measures based on reciprocity to ensure that the correct treatment accorded Israeli nationals seeking to enter third countries is reciprocated by correct treatment of their nationals seeking to enter Israel or the oPt

Background

Israel’s arbitrary and abusive exercise of discretion over entry into the oPt continues to cause serious and unjustified harm to Palestinian families, educational and social service institutions and businesses in the oPt. In December 2006, the Israeli Ministry of Defense — Coordinator for Government Activities in the Territories (CoGAT) outlined1 new procedures for entry into the oPt. In March 2007 a similar statement was issued by the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and addressed to third state missions. Despite reported assurances from Israeli officials that under the new procedures entry denials would be based on legitimate security considerations, documented cases of persons denied entry indicate that the practice resulting from the implementation of announced procedures remains arbitrary, abusive and internationally unlawful. Furthermore, persons who fall within the categories that Israel has declared eligible for entry and visa renewal are being barred from doing so in practice.

The two notices issued by Israeli authorities address only the issue of temporary admissions (typically granted for short term family visits, tourism and humanitarian, business, educational or other professional activities). Procedures for granting residency to foreign nationals whose center of life is in the oPt remain unaddressed.2 Israel’s continued refusal to process family reunification applications directly affects as many as 500,000 to 750,000 people who may be forced to leave the oPt to keep their families intact. Together with the many foreign nationals who have established their primary business, investment or professional activities in the oPt, or otherwise aspire to build their lives in the oPt, the new procedures place them, at best, in a state of continuous uncertainty under constant threat of expulsion and exclusion.

Israel’s announcements arbitrarily and unreasonably limit the categories of residents and travelers eligible to apply for permits to the oPt. No provisions are made for the right of dependent children above the age of 16 to reside with their parents in the oPt. Similarly, no provision is made for the eligibility of adult children and siblings, grandparents or in-laws to visit or reside with their families. Such exclusions are devastating to social stability and family welfare in the Palestinian community which relies heavily on the extended family as an essential provider of care across several generations for both the young and the elderly. If a key family member is denied entry, extended family units are often forced to relocate. Also excluded from the list of eligible categories are tourists, putting travelers at risk of being arbitrarily barred from entry and further undermining the already fragile Palestinian economy.

1 On December 28, a letter announcing new procedures for foreign nationals wishing to visit, live or work in the oPt was sent by CoGAT to Dr. Sa’eb Erakat head of the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department, and several diplomatic missions in Tel Aviv, including the German (currently representing the EU-presidency) and US Embassies. On 5 March, the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a similar statement entitled “Transit Policy to the West Bank via Israel.” The letter was again distributed to embassies in Tel Aviv.

2 Those eligible for visa renewals may receive a maximum of 27 months residency followed by a mandatory departure with no assurance of return. Moreover, visa periods are restricted to a single entry.

Additionally, the notices offer no prospective solution to any of the thousands of individuals who have remained in the oPt after the expiration of their original visas owing to the refusal of the Israeli authorities to process duly submitted visa renewal applications. The notices also fail to offer a clear solution for the untold numbers of individuals and their families who have been forced to relocate out of the oPt due to previous entry denials unjustly issued by the Israeli authorities. Finally, the notices provide no indication that foreign nationals seeking entry into occupied East Jerusalem or the Gaza Strip will be eligible to apply for temporary admission or visa extensions.

Failure to implement announced procedures

The limited procedures outlined in the announcements by the Israeli Ministry of Defense (12/06) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (3/07) are not being implemented in a transparent or consistent fashion.

1. Individuals falling within the categories declared eligible by Israel have been denied entry at all major ports of entry — Allenby Bridge, Sheikh Hussein Bridge and Ben Gurion Airport.

2. Documented cases include men, women and children, ranging from 2 to over 70 years in age. The overwhelming majority of documented cases since January 2007 involve US citizens. Citizens of Australia, Canada and EU member countries as well as countries in Latin America, East Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe have also been denied entry.

3. Procedures set out in the announcements are not being implemented in a clear, consistent and transparent manner.

* Individuals at Allenby Bridge who have sought explanation for their denial of entry have been physically abused and forced back into vehicles returning to Jordan.
* Individuals who have previously traveled to the region on a regular basis have been denied entry for the first time. Others who have never visited the country have also been denied.
* Individuals who were denied entry in 2006 and were then able to obtain some form of clearance to enter have again been denied entry in 2007.
* Israeli assurances to third state diplomatic representatives that particular nationals would be granted entry have not been honored in several instances.
* Individuals seeking to apply for permits from Israeli embassies / consulates in their home countries to enter the West Bank (the procedure “recommended” in CoGAT announcement) have been informed upon inquiry that this procedure is not in effect.
* Individuals have been denied entry without access to a CoGAT representative contrary to stipulations in the CoGAT announcement.
* Many of the individuals permitted to enter have been able to do so only through exclusive arrangements – often for fees including sometimes exorbitant fees to lawyers.

Some individuals are being required to provide monetary deposits (between NIS 20,000 and 50,000) to guarantee their departure before the expiration of their visas.

* The duration of visas issued to those granted entry varies widely and is determined without clear reason or explanation. The Campaign’s documentation includes cases of individuals granted visas for as little as one week and suggest that the Israeli authorities are increasingly issuing visas of shorter duration to those indicating the intention to travel to the oPt. This practice also appears intended to frustrate objections by third states to Israel’s arbitrary denials of entry and refusal of residency rights in the oPt

* Despite a limited reactivation of visa extension processes, cases documented by the Campaign suggest that Israel’s granting of visa extensions remains arbitrary. Moreover, permit validity ends upon exit from Israel. Fear of a subsequent denial of entry has caused persons affected by this practice to forgo necessary health care treatments, education, training or economic development activities abroad for fear they will be denied entry on their return.

4. The welfare and integrity of countless Palestinian families continue to be affected by separation or the imminent threat of separation.
* Spouses remain separated despite provisions in the CoGAT announcement for issuing and renewing visas to spouses.
* Young children continue to be separated from their parents and the elderly are denied visits and essential care from their immediate family.

5. The functioning of Palestinian health, educational and social services and businesses continues to be undermined by Israeli practices.

6. Members of the international press have been denied entry to Israel and the oPt.

For more info, contact the Right of Entry Campaign:
059.817.3953
info@righttoenter.ps