Challenge no.60

Israel's battle to get the "foreigners" out of the Holy City

"Haider" in Jerusalem

Israel is determined to maintain a substantial Jewish majority in Jerusalem. To this end it uses a variety of devices: it plans development in such a way as to exclude as many Arabs, and include as much territory, as possible; it confiscates Arab land or classifies it as "green", meaning that building is not permitted on it; it refuses building permits to growing Arab families, putting young couples under pressure to leave. Another method is to manipulate the rules concerning residential status. This is our topic here.

The annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967 contradicted a principle basic to international law: No nation may gain territory by conquest. Such territory is rather to be considered as "occupied", and the rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to it.

But Israel annexed East Jerusalem, as well as 17 nearby villages. It then conducted a census. Those who were present received Israeli identity cards. The state could also have imposed citizenship on its new subjects, but it chose first to demand a loyalty oath - which most refused. Their status, therefore, remained obscure. On the other hand, Israel was quick to grant them freedom of movement to Jordan. This was done by means of "exit permits", which included the right to return within a specified period. (Otherwise few would have accepted them.) As the years went by, various changes were made in the arrangement, but in essence it did not alter: the exit permit was in effect for three years, and you could extend it by three more - either by coming back or by sending it to family members residing in Jerusalem, who could go and get the extension for you. If you failed to return before the final extension expired, you would lose your right to reside in the city.

The legal standing of Arab jerusalemites remained unclear until the eighties, when the High Court came to a decision in the case of nonviolent activist Mubarak Awad. The status of such people, the Court declared, should be based on the law concerning entry into Israel. Accordingly, East Jerusalemites would be defined as "permanent residents". The High Court further determined that permission to settle here permanently has two dimensions, legal and practical. First, de facto residence in Israel does not entail the right to live here, unless the Minister of Interior expressly grants permission to do so. Second, such permission becomes void if a person does not actually put it into effect. Therefore, whoever shifts the center of his life outside Israel loses the right to come back and live in it.

An interesting twist! It was not the East jerusalemites who had entered Israel - Israel had entered them! Their status ought to be determined in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention concerning occupied territory, and not on the basis of Israel's immigration laws! But as the gentlemen of Japan once said, "You don't understand these things."

The demographic result of the Court's decision is clear. An Arab who migrates out of Jerusalem loses the right to return. On the other hand, an Arab who migrates into Jerusalem cannot gain the right to live in it without the formal approval of the authorities.

In 1995, under the Labor government, Interior Minister Haim Ramon decided to carry the Awad decision several steps further. There were two target groups: first, those Palestinians who had long lived abroad, but who had always taken care to renew their documents in time; second, those who had moved to other parts of the Territories, including certain neighborhoods in the Jerusalem area that had not been annexed to Israel (e.g., e-Ram, parts of Kalandia, al-Azariyah, and most of Abu Dis). Both these groups, said Interior, had shifted the "center of their life" outside Israel. The fact that they had acted in accordance with the well-known rules, allowing them to keep their residency rights, was no longer deemed relevant. Some had even returned to the city after a period of absence and had been living in it for many years, receiving services from the Interior Ministry - yet because they had once lived outside, their permits now became invalid. On losing their rights, many had no place to go. This was especially true for those who had been expelled from the Arab oil states at the time of the Gulf War and had returned to live in Jerusalem. The Interior Ministry, ignoring their plight, confiscated their Israeli identity cards and issued them orders to leave Jerusalem within fifteen days.

One of the groups hardest hit by the change in policy consisted of women who had married non-Jerusalemites. Ignoring their right to family unification, the Interior Ministry had always refused to grant their husbands the status of residents. The latter had to leave. The position was: "A woman follows her husband." For this reason such women were forced to move to their husbands' localities, whether in the Territories or abroad. Most took care, indeed, to return to the city to extend or renew their documents, and often, too, to give birth there, in order to expedite the registering of their children as Jerusalem residents. Then, in 1994, Interior announced what seemed to be a softer policy: women in this situation might, after all, request Jerusalem residency for their husbands in the framework of family unification. In the following year, this turned out to be a trap. When women came to apply, the clerks demanded proof that Jerusalem had been the center of the family's life throughout the years of the marriage. Those women who had obeyed the rules and left the city, "following their husbands", now had to prove that they had always been there. They had to bring tax receipts, rental contracts, electric bills, the children's report cards and so on. If they could not do so (and of course they could not), then they themselves, as well as their children, lost their Israeli identity cards - and the right to reside in Jerusalem.

The office of the Interior Ministry in East Jerusalem also began to demand such proofs as a condition for providing basic services. To register a child, or a marriage, or simply to replace a lost or damaged identity card, the Arab resident had to present the documents listed above and more, showing that he or she had lived in the city for many years without interruption. Instead of providing services, Interior assumed the role of detective, trailing people with the aim of revoking their rights.

This process came to be known as "quiet deportation". In response, a coalition of Palestinian and Israeli human rights organizations undertook an international campaign opposing the policy. The Center for the Defense of the Individual, together with b'tselem, published reports on what was happening. In 1998 eleven families and five human-rights organizations petitioned the High Court of Justice on the matter.

These pressures had an effect. Most important of all, perhaps, was the fact that the Palestinians, instead of obediently leaving the city, held on tooth and nail. Many who had left made haste to return and began amassing documents to demonstrate how central Jerusalem was in their lives. Those whose rights had been annulled did not make haste to leave, for they knew they could not come back. Thus, the change of policy functioned like a boomerang, increasing the Arab population of East Jerusalem.

In response to the public pressure, after years of draconian measures, the previous government softened them. If you move to one of the nearby towns, it announced, you will not lose your right to reside in Jerusalem, as long as you keep other connections to the city. At the time of this writing, other changes are underway. In October 1999, the present Minister of the Interior, Natan Sharansky, announced he was canceling the policy of the previous four years, saying that an "appropriate connection" to the city would suffice for the preservation of residency rights. The announcement did not improve matters at once. In the last few weeks, however, there has been perceptible change. Persons whose residency rights were repealed in the past have begun to receive them again - as well as Israeli identity cards - provided they can demonstrate that they have lived in the city for at least two years. The new procedures are not yet clear, and it is hard to know what to expect. Given the flip-flop history of the Interior Ministry, one knows that the door that opens today may close tomorrow - may even become a trapdoor. The lines in front of the Interior Ministry in East Jerusalem begin forming, nowadays, at three in the morning.