Court Overturns Decision to Revoke Residency Permits for Hamas Parliamentarians

Jerusalem, 14 September, 2017 (TPS) -- Israel’s High Court for Justice overturned an 11-year-old decision by then-Interior Minister Roni Bar-On to revoke the residency permits of four east Jerusalem Arabs following their election to the Palestinian parliament as representatives of Hamas.

Khaled Abu-Arfa, Muhammad Abu-Tir, Muhammad Umran Tuttah and Ahmed Muhammad A-Tun were elected to the Palestinian parliament representing Hamas in January 2006 residents of east Jerusalem, were elected to be political party. Shorty after the election, which were held throughout the Palestinian Authority and Gaza in addition to east Jerusalem, the four were arrested by Israeli authorities and Bar-On presented them with an ultimatum: Resign the new positions or forfeit their residency permits allowing them to reside in east Jerusalem. All four refused the ultimatum, and in June, 2006, Bar-On made good on the threat, citing that the four were “key activists in the institutions of Hamas, a terror organization.”

Following their arrest, The group appealed the decision to Israel’s High Court of Justice, and in 2008 they announced that they have resigned from the Palestinian Parliament and asked then-Minister of Interior Meir Sheetrit that he reinstate their residency. The request was denied, and has subsequently been refused by every minister of interior to serve since then.

Writing for the majority decision to overturn the revocation, Justice Uzi Fogelman said that ‘Israeli law does not grant the minister of the interior the authority to revoke a residence permit simply on the grounds of ‘disloyalty’. When it comes to east Jerusalem residents, he added, the impact of revoking a permit is much harsher than it is on ‘regular’ (non-citizen) residents, who received their permit as a result of immigration. The affinity [that natives] of east Jerusalem posses towards their place of residence is not comparable to that of an immigrant. Many of them were born and raised in eastern Jerusalem and have been living there for decades, as have their parents, and often their grandparents.״

Judge Fogelman stressed that the decision should not be viewed as a blow to the State’s  war on terror. ‘It is not lost on me that the petitioners were elected to represent the terror organization Hamas, which denies Israel’s right to exist and strives to wipe it out in an armed conflict. It goes without saying that Israel should not be assisting these efforts. “[But] this decision pertains to the legal status of all east Jerusalem residents, and not exclusively to the issue in question. The decision is not meant to weaken the efforts of the war on terror,  “[But] this decision pertains to the legal status of all east Jerusalem residents, and not exclusively to the issue in question. The decision is not meant to weaken the efforts of the war on terror,” but added that even the war on terror must be fought in accordance with the proscriptions of the law.

“The basic principle is that even in the war on terror the state of Israel limits itself to acting within the boundaries set by the judiciary.

“Protecting the rule of law and recognizing individual liberties is an important point on the agenda of Israeli democracy,” the justice said.