wedding great 88 248.
(photo credit: Courtesy of Jason Hutchens)
Two courts in separate cases rejected the state's refusal to allow Palestinians
to continue living in Israel with their spouses and participate in the gradual
procedure for obtaining permanent residential status.
In the first case,
on Tuesday, Deputy Supreme Court President Eliezer Rivlin rejected an appeal by
the state to hold another hearing before an expanded court, after a panel of
three Supreme Court justices had decided to allow Balal Daka to continue living
in the country.
Daka married her husband, Manar, in 1996. Two years
later, she applied for residential status according to family reunification and
entered the process whereby she was given temporary residential status and her
case was to be re-examined each year for five years. If she completed the
procedure, she was due to receive permanent residential status.
her first year in the graduated procedure, the Knesset approved an amendment to
the Citizenship Law, preventing new applicants for family reunification to apply
for the procedure and freezing the progress of those already in it.
minister of interior ordered Daka to leave Israel on the grounds that she had
relatives involved in terrorism – a criterion that was introduced in the new
Daka appealed the decision and her case reached the Supreme
Court for the first time. In a unanimous decision, the court upheld her
request to stay with her husband.
Justice Ayala Procaccia wrote that in
balancing the Palestinian woman's right to family life as opposed to the
public’s right to security, the security consideration should overrule the right
to family life only in cases where there was “a probability close to certainty”
that the person posed a danger.
Procaccia also wrote that the rights of a
person who had already begun the graduated process involved in family
reunification were stronger than those of someone who had applied but whose
application had not yet been processed.
Daka had already been living in
Israel for 14 years.
The state’s request for a second hearing was based
on the claim that Procaccia and the other justices had introduced new
principles. One of the first principle was that a person posed a security threat
only if there was probability close to certainty that he did.
ruled that Procaccia had also stressed that each case had to be judged on its
In the case of Daka, the state had brought no proof that she or
her family threatened Israeli security and therefore there was no question of a
“probability close to certainty” that she posed a threat.
case, Haifa District Court Judge Ron Shapira accepted a petition by Jihad Nasser
and rescinded the state’s refusal to allow him to remain in Israel according to
the family reunification procedure. Nasser is married to an Israeli woman from
the Arab village of Jatt and is the father of four children. He is a merchant
who has a home in the the West Bank village of Atil and travels back and forth
between his home and Israel with an entry permit granted him by the
Nasser had already been accepted into the family reunification
procedure, but the Ministry of Interior canceled it and refused to grant
entry permit, even though the army continued to do so.
represented by attorney Zvi Rish, said that the Interior Ministry had
Nasser a fair hearing before discontinuing the family reunification
had failed to take relevant facts into consideration. Shapira said the
had not questioned or investigated the claims of the Shin Bet (Israel
Agency) that the Palestinian husband posed a security threat.