Palestinians married to Israelis lose battle By Corinne Heller Sun May 14, 11:15 AM ET Israel's High Court on Sunday narrowly upheld a law that denies Israeli residency to many Palestinians who marry Israelis, rejecting appeals against a statute critics say violates human rights and is racist. The restrictions, an amendment to Israel's Citizenship Law, affect thousands of Palestinian and Israeli Arab couples. Marriages between Palestinians and Israeli Jews are rare. "The Palestinian Authority is an enemy government, a government that wants to destroy the (Jewish) state and is not willing to recognize Israel," Justice Michel Cheshin said in support of the 6-5 ruling against the appeals. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Aharon Barak said the amendment violated civil rights. "This is a very black day for Israel and also a black day for my family and for the other families who are suffering like us because they have been denied permission to live together," said Muad el-Sana, an Israeli Arab married to a Palestinian woman from the West Bank town of Bethlehem. Israel grants citizenship to anyone who can prove that at least one of his grandparents was Jewish. A fifth of Israel's citizens are Arabs. Some have family ties with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip but Israel bans most Palestinians from its territory on security grounds. Critics call the restrictions collective punishment. The amended Citizenship Law was passed in 2002 at the height of a Palestinian uprising that began two years earlier. It stated that only requests for residency by Palestinian women over the age of 25 and men over age 35 were eligible for approval for security reasons. Israeli authorities say Arabs with residence have taken part in terrorist attacks. Several thousand requests for Israeli residency by Palestinians married to Israelis have been granted in the past decade, but many are temporary. Abeer Baker, a lawyer for the Adalah organization that represents Palestinian-Israeli couples vying for Israeli residency, said the law meant that thousands of "mixed" families would either have to separate or live outside Israel. "The country is basically saying: pack up your stuff and get out of here," she said. "That would mean they would give up their rights in Israel and their historical rights to the land." "INVOLVEMENT IN TERROR" The government could point to only 25 such residents who had been questioned for "alleged involvement in terror," said a statement by Abdalah. The court said the number of residency permits granted to Palestinians married to Israelis must be limited because many who received them later took part in hostile activities. "No one is denying (Palestinians) the right to raise a family, but let them live in (the West Bank city of) Jenin rather than the Israeli-Arab town of) Uhm al-Fahm," Chesin said. Amnesty International has criticized the law saying it institutionalizes racial discrimination. Israelis wanting to join Palestinian spouses in the West Bank and Gaza must get approval from Israeli authorities, who have put strict limitations on access to the areas for Israeli citizens, and the Palestinian Authority. The appeals against the amendment were filed by Adalah, the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, seven legislators and several Israeli-Palestinian couples. Justice Minister Haim Ramon defended the court's decision. "There is no country in the world that must grant entry to thousands of citizens of a country or an entity that is in a state of war with it," Ramon told Army Radio. ------------------------------------------- Israel court upholds law barring Palestinian residency Sun May 14, 10:14 AM ET The Israeli supreme court has narrowly upheld a law aimed at preventing West Bank Palestinians married to Israeli Arabs from obtaining residency in the Jewish state. The court turned down a petition filed by several human rights groups against the law passed by the Israeli parliament last July, which they branded as "discriminatory" and "racist." An expanded panel of 11 justices split 6-5 in rejecting the petition, with court president Aharon Barak supporting it Sunday. The majority opinion stated in the ruling that the Palestinians were "residents of an enemy entity" which potentially threatens Israel's security. Barak nevertheless said these considerations could not justify a broad violation of Israeli Arabs' civil rights, judicial sources said. State representatives told the court that the law was aimed only at preventing Palestinians married to Israeli citizens from entering the country to carry out attacks. According to the Shin Beth domestic security service, some 25 out of nearly 100,000 Palestinians married to Israeli Arabs have been involved in "terrorist activities" in recent years. "This is nothing but a pretext to limit the size of the Arab population in Israel with the use of a racist law which will have tragic consequences on thousands of families," said Orna Cohen, who represented several of the families. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) said that the verdict was a "sad day for democracy in Israel". "The decision not to revoke the law ... is not only blatantly racist, but also undermines the basic tenets of a democratic state by violating the basic right of the state's civilian population to equality in general, and the right to family life to Palestinian citizens of Israel in particular," its chief legal advisor Dan Yakir said. Azmi Bishara, an Arab member of the Israeli parliament, said that the ruling was "discriminatory and motivated by demographics" while masquerading as a security measure. However Immigration Absorption Minister Zeev Boim welcomed the court ruling. "We have to maintain the state's democratic nature, but also its Jewish nature. The extent of entry of in-laws into Israel's territories is intolerable," he was quoted as saying by the Y-net website. The 1.2 million Arabs living in Israel make up nearly 20 percent of the Jewish state's population and, while they enjoy full citizenship in Israel, they are also attached to the neighbouring Palestinians. Before the enactment of the law, a Palestinian living in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip who was married to an Israeli citizen could apply for Israeli residency, which would also allow them other social benefits. ---------------------------------------------------- HRW Says Family Reunification Ruling in Israel is Discriminatory JERUSALEM, May 20, 2006 (WAFA)- The Israeli Supreme Court's decision to uphold a law barring Israeli citizens and their Palestinian spouses from the Occupied Palestinian Territories from living together in Israel constitutes unlawful discrimination that cannot be justified by the country's security interests, Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Friday. HRW said that the legislation, the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 2003, discriminates against Palestinian citizens and permanent residents of Israel on the basis of their ethnic or national origin. Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute the vast majority of Israelis who are married to Palestinians from the Occupied Palestinian Territories. "The Supreme Court has upheld a law that unfairly targets Israeli citizens of Palestinian origin," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at HRW. "This ruling undermines the rights of thousands of Israelis to live together with their families, and the rights of certain Israeli children to live with both parents." "The law denies spouses from the Occupied Palestinian Territories who are married to Israeli citizens or permanent residents the opportunity to acquire Israeli citizenship or residency rights," HRW added. "Normally, foreign nationals married to Israeli citizens undergo a graduated process of residency statuses, with security checks along the way, before ultimately being considered for citizenship after a minimum of four years," it said. "If the foreign spouse is Jewish (or the child or grandchild of a Jew), Israeli citizenship is granted automatically." In a 6-5 decision on Sunday, a Supreme Court panel dismissed a petition calling on the court to overturn the temporary law banning family reunification. The original petitioners, including Adalah (the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel), affected families, and members of the Knesset, argued that the law was unconstitutional in its denial of family rights based on national origin. "A majority of the justices did find that that the current law violates the constitutional right of Israelis to equality and to family life, including the right to live with a foreign spouse in Israel," HRW added. "However, only a minority of the justices felt that the appropriate remedy was to overturn the temporary law." The Israeli Ministry of Justice has argued that Palestinians who gained residency status inside Israel through family reunification have been involved in attacks against Israeli civilians. "However, Israeli authorities claim to have questioned only 26 people who entered Israel under family reunification proceedings on suspicion of abetting terrorism," HRW argued. "It is unclear whether any of those questioned have been charged with an offense." "The ministry also failed to explain why other more targeted security measures, applied on a case-by-case basis, could not adequately address this threat without stripping thousands of families of their rights on the basis of their nationality," it added. Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak, in his opinion for the minority, wrote that "the law is a violation of the right of Arab citizens in Israel to equality." HRW said demographic concerns also cannot justify the discrimination. The Israeli daily, Ha'aretz, reported that during a special meeting to discuss the law on April 4, 2005, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stated: "There is no need to hide behind security arguments. There is a need for the existence of a Jewish state." At the same meeting, then-Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "Instead of making it easier for Palestinians who want to get citizenship, we should make the process much more difficult, in order to guarantee Israel's security and a Jewish majority in Israel." "Israel cannot pursue a desire for a Jewish majority at the expense of the equal rights of its non-Jewish citizens," Human Rights Watch said. ------------------------------------------ AI says Israeli High Court Decision Institutionalises Racial Discrimination NEW YORK, May 16, 2006 (WAFA)- Amnesty International (AI) considered the decision by the Israeli High Court on May 14 to uphold a law which explicitly denies family rights on the basis of ethnicity or national origins is a step further in the institutionalisation of racial discrimination in Israel. In press release issued Tuesday, AI reiterated its call on the Israeli government and on Members of the Knesset to repeal this law and to ensure that any steps taken to address security concerns, including any amendments to the citizenship law, comply with international human rights law - notably the principle of non-discrimination. "The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law" bars family reunification for Israelis married to Palestinians from the Occupied Territories. It specifically targets Israeli Arabs (Palestinian citizens of Israel), who make up a fifth of Israel's population, and Palestinian Jerusalemites, for it is they who marry Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip," it said "Thousands of couples are affected by this discriminatory law, which forces Israeli Arabs married to Palestinians to leave their country or to be separated from their spouses and children," the press release added. "Israeli military law forbids Israelis from entering the main population centres in the Occupied Territories and Israeli citizens cannot join their Palestinian spouses there, and at the same time Palestinian spouses staying in Israel without a permit are constantly at risk of being deported and separated from their families." "Israeli-Palestinian couples would ultimately be forced to move to another country in order to live together - an option which is neither feasible nor desirable for those concerned," Amnesty International said. "In addition, Palestinian Jerusalemites would lose their residency and their right to ever live in Jerusalem again if they move out of the city." Five of the 11 High Court of Justice's judges who ruled on this law on 14 May, including the Court's President, voted against upholding the law, recognizing that it infringes human rights. The Court's President, Aharon Barak, stated that the law violates the right of Israeli Arabs to equality, it added. Amnesty stated: "Indeed, the law violates the absolute prohibition on discrimination contained in international human rights law, notably several treaties which Israel has ratified and is obliged to uphold, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)." It considered the provision in the law which allows for the discretionary granting of temporary residence permits for Palestinian male spouses over 35 and female spouses over 25 is arbitrary in nature and does not alter the discriminatory character of the law. "It will also not benefit the majority of Israeli-Palestinian couples, who marry at a younger age." "Moreover, the permit applications of spouses who meet the age criteria can be rejected on the grounds that a member of his/her extended family is considered a "security risk" by Israeli security services," Amnesty mentioned. "Thousands of Palestinians seeking family reunification prior to the passing of this law were rejected on unspecified "security" grounds in circumstances where the failure to provide detailed reasons for each rejection made it impossible for those rejected to mount an effective legal challenge to the decision." The press release mentioned that the Israeli authorities have sought to justify the law on security grounds but have brought no convincing evidence to substantiate such claims. "Even claims that some 25 people, some of whom were born to Israeli parents and were not in Israel as a result of family reunification, have been involved in attacks in security-related offences, cannot justify denying family reunification to every Palestinian. Doing so is discriminatory and disproportionate and would constitute a form of collective punishment, prohibited under international law. Moreover, statements by Israeli officials and legislators who support the new law indicate that it is primarily motivated by demographic, rather than security, considerations - that is, a determination to reduce the percentage of Israeli Arabs among the country's population." The ban on family unification for Israeli-Palestinian couples, initially introduced by an administrative decision of the Interior Minister in 2002 and subsequently passed into law by the Israeli Knesset in July 2003, is due to be reviewed by the Israeli Knesset next July. ------------------------------------------------- DATELINE JERUSALEM: Immigration Tiff in Israel Splits Justices By Gershom Gorenberg May 19, 2006 Israeli law contains no provision "by which constitutional human rights give way in a time of war," even in a time of fighting terror, Israeli Chief Justice Aharon Barak wrote this week --- taking his stand on one of the critical legal issues in Israel today. Barak's statement was part of a Supreme Court decision on a law barring the naturalization of Palestinians who marry Israelis. Forthright as Barak's declaration might seem, however, the court's overall ruling was far murkier. Six out of 11 justices agreed that the law was too sweeping, violating Israeli Arabs' rights to marry and to equality. And yet, because a swing justice carefully straddled the issues, the court also voted, 6 to 5, to leave the law in force for now. What's more, by concentrating on the security question, the court arguably evaded dealing with an even more difficult problem raised by the law: whether protecting Israel's Jewish majority justifies infringing on the Arab minority's civil rights. In other words, what comes first, being a Jewish state or being a democratic one? The Citizenship and Entry Into Israel Law was first passed by the Knesset as a one-year emergency measure in 2003, and has since been extended several times. The law applies only to West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, blocking the usual process by which a noncitizen who marries an Israeli becomes a temporary resident and, after five years, a citizen. The law's official explanation stated that after the second intifada broke out in 2000, terror groups recruited Palestinians who had gained Israeli identification cards to help carry out terror attacks. With rare exceptions, the Israelis who wed Palestinians are Arab. Such marriages are natural: During the long years when official policy was to make the line between Israel and the territories invisible, to integrate the two economies and to let Palestinians work inside Israel, social ties between Israeli and Palestinian Arabs expanded. Mixed couples took up residence on both sides of the line. More recently, with the economy in the territories deteriorating and travel to Israel sharply restricted, such couples are much more likely to live on the Israeli side. Palestinian spouses who can't gain residency face the constant risk of expulsion. Challenging the law, civil rights organizations argue that it violates the Israeli spouse's right to create a family and that it discriminates against Israeli Arabs as a group. Attorney Orna Kohn of Adalah, an Israeli Arab rights center that filed a suit, estimates that "several thousand" families have been put in limbo by the law, with some husbands and wives forced to live apart from their spouses and children. In response to the legal challenge, the law was softened last summer when it was renewed. It now gives the interior minister discretion to naturalize men over 35 and women over 25 --- considered much lower terror risks. The Supreme Court's long-delayed decision, rendered May 14, pitted two legal titans against each other. Chief Justice Barak, due to retire later this year, is a controversial judicial activist who has sought to extend the court's reach especially by giving wide meaning to the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom, a Knesset-passed bill of rights that has constitutional status. In his lengthy opinion, Barak argued that "the additional security produced by the sweeping ban" on Palestinians "is not proportionate to the added damage to the family life and equality of the Israeli spouses." To balance security and rights, he said, the state needed to screen applicants for naturalization individually. The law, he said, should be overturned. Against Barak stood Mishael Cheshin, deputy chief justice, rendering his final judgment before mandatory retirement. Cheshin rejected Barak's view that a citizen has the constitutional right to bring a noncitizen spouse into the country, stressing that a nation can bar immigration of enemy aliens. And, he stressed, "The state of Israel, as we all know, is at war --- or at the least, near war --- with the Palestinian Authority and the terror organizations operating from it." He wrote that since Hamas's electoral victory in January, "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority... have become one and the same." The law, therefore, could stand. Since four justices agreed with Barak and four with Cheshin, the crucial vote was cast by Edmond Levy, an Orthodox justice known for his frequent dissents. Levy asserted that the law harms "not only couples wishing to marry, but also the democratic character of the State of Israel and the delicate fabric of relations with a not insignificant community living within it." The state, he wrote, must institute individual screening instead. But Levy, preferring judicial restraint, gave the state nine months to change procedures. He let the law stand in the meantime. In practical terms, that meant defeat for the rights groups and families that they represented, while tossing the issue back into the lap of the Knesset and the Cabinet. Reactions were swift. "This is really a racist decision. They've shown us we are second-class citizens, or third class," said Ranit Tabilah of the Galilee Arab town of Shfaram. Her husband, Hatem, is from Nablus in the West Bank. Hatem, an electrician, was legally working for an Israeli firm when he met Ranit in 1999. They married the following year and now have two daughters, ages 5 and 3. Hatem received temporary residency before the citizenship law was enacted, but his status expires in November and he will only turn 35. He won't be eligible to reapply until mid 2007. "He's not interested in politics," said Ranit, a vocational college teacher. "If they thought he was a security threat, they wouldn't have given him a [work] permit before we were married." "This is one of the most disappointing decisions ever handed down by the court," said Dan Yakir, chief legal counsel for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. ACRI also challenged the law. "It's clear," Yakir added, "that the security issue was only a thin veil over the demographic issue": the desire to maintain a Jewish majority by preventing more Arabs from becoming citizens. In contrast, prominent legal scholar Amnon Rubinstein --- a former Knesset member for the left-wing Meretz party --- publicly defended the court's ruling. Rubinstein, now president of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliyah and chair of a government-appointed panel on immigration policy, said that a country has the right to prevent immigration from a hostile entity. The law, he said, should be amended to refer to a state of war rather than singling out residents of a particular territory. Indeed, in the wake of the ruling, Justice Minister Haim Ramon said he would submit a comprehensive immigration bill in the form of a Basic Law, giving it constitutional status and putting it outside of the court's reach. The common denominator of those responses is that Israel faces an immigration issue, not just one of security. The last major Knesset debate on immigration was in 1970, when parliament defined the word "Jew" in the Law of Return and extended immigration rights to non-Jewish children and to grandchildren of Jews. Israel was a poor country then; the thought that it would one day draw economic migrants was unimaginable. Moreover, the problem of maintaining a Jewish majority was raised back then only by the most dovish opponents of keeping the occupied territories. Since the 1990s, though, emigration from the former Soviet Union has brought hundreds of thousands of non-Jews who are eligible for citizenship, by marriage or by Jewish ancestry, under the Law of Return. Israel's leap to a European-level economy also has attracted foreign workers --- perhaps better termed "undocumented immigrants" --- and some have been here for years and have raised children who know no other country but lack citizenship. But while those groups are likely to speak Hebrew and to seek integration into Israel's Jewish majority, Palestinian immigrants nearly always join the Arab minority. Ironically, the same sudden concern with demography that has pushed many rightists to accept the idea of ceding territory has translated into desire to keep Palestinians from gaining citizenship. In the Supreme Court ruling, only one justice, Ayala Procaccia, called attention to that obvious political reality. In the Knesset debate on the Citizenship Law, Procaccia wrote, "the demographic issue hovered over the entire legislative process." She noted that during the debate, two leading Likud figures, Reuven Rivlin, then Knesset speaker, and Gideon Ezra, now Kadima's minister of the environment, warned that Palestinians were using family unification as a means to implement a "right of return" to pre-1967 Israel. Other Knesset members said that the law would stop the "demographic danger." While acknowledging genuine security concerns, Procaccia suggested that their force was lessened by the other issue looming in the background, namely demography. And demography, she implied, could not justify impinging on Arab citizens' rights. Procaccia sided with Barak. Yet the chief justice himself accepted the state's argument that the law was designed solely for security reasons and not demographic ones. Barak thereby sidestepped the demographic question. Judges "are afraid of questions like that," leading legal commentator Moshe Negbi said. "It's a frightening business, because all of us, as people who live here and believe in this country, want to hope that it's possible to sustain a Jewish democratic state. And these questions arouse the fear that maybe that's not true. People prefer to repress them. It's psychological." Yet the court's own decision makes those questions impossible to push aside. Now the politicians must change the law or abandon it. Despite Ramon's declaration, a bill with constitutional status stands little chance. Regular legislation easily could spark new requests for the court to intervene. Barak and Cheshin will be gone, and other justices will have their turn to try to be forthright. --------------------------------------------- Top Israel court backs curb on Arab spouses By Greg Myre The New York Times SUNDAY, MAY 14, 2006 JERUSALEM --- Israel's high court on Sunday narrowly upheld a contentious law that can block Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from moving to Israel to live with a spouse who is an Arab citizen of the Jewish state. In a 6-to-5 ruling, the court rejected claims that the law violated the civil rights of Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel. The majority sided with the Israeli authorities, who say that allowing young Palestinians to move into Israel through marriage poses an unacceptable security risk. "This law prevents family reunification based simply on the nationality of one spouse," said Abeer Baker, a lawyer for Adalah, a legal center representing the couples seeking to live together in Israel. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of couples may be kept apart by the law, Baker said. But precise figures are difficult to come by, she said, because many such couples do not want to be identified for fear of legal problems. Of Israel's seven million citizens, more than one million are Arab. The vast majority of the Arab Israelis have family ties and other relations with the estimated 3.8 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. But Israel has made it increasingly difficult for Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza to enter Israel since the Palestinian uprising began in 2000. The measure ruled upon by the court, which amends Israel's Citizenship Law, has been criticized by human rights groups since it was approved in 2002, at the height of the uprising. Over the years, thousands of Palestinians have been granted residency in Israel as part of family reunification, including marriage. Of this group, about 25 have been involved in terrorism, according to the Israeli authorities. Government lawyers argued that the law was more relevant than ever now that the Palestinian Authority is led by Hamas, the radical Islamic group that has carried out many of the suicide bombings against Israel. "The Palestinian Authority is an enemy government, a government that wants to destroy the state and is not willing to recognize Israel," Justice Michel Cheshin said earlier this year during arguments in the case. Cheshin said that if the couples wanted to be together, they could live in the West Bank rather than Israel. The chief justice, Aharon Barak, dissented, saying "this violation of rights is directed against Arab citizens of Israel." Human rights lawyers argued that Israel already has laws that allow the government to revoke the residency of anyone suspected of involvement in terror. The amended Citizenship Law says that Palestinian men over age 35 and women over 25 may apply to be with a spouse in Israel. However, these requests may be denied and often are. Critics of the amendment assert that it is intended not only for security, but also to limit the number of Arabs living in Israel. ------------------------------------------------------ Israeli high court upholds unification law By Aron Heller, Associated Press Writer | May 14, 2006 JERUSALEM --Israel's high court Sunday narrowly upheld a controversial law that restricts the right of Palestinians to live in Israel with their Arab Israeli spouses and children. The law, imposed in 2002 at the height of Israeli-Palestinian fighting, is believed to have kept hundreds, and possibly thousands, of West Bank and Gaza Palestinians from moving to Israel to live with their families. The law states that only Palestinian women over the age of 25 and men over 35 are eligible to join their families in Israel and eventually receive citizenship. A panel judges voted 6-5 against a petition to strike it down. "This is a very black day for the state of Israel and also a black day for my family and for the other families who are suffering like us," said Murad el-Sana, an Israeli Arab attorney married to a Palestinian woman from the West Bank town of Bethlehem. "The government is preventing people from conducting a normal family life just because of their nationality," el-Sana, one of the petitioners, told Israel Radio. The court had granted el-Sana's wife, Abir, a temporary injunction preventing her deportation. But el-Sana said the high court's ruling made it almost impossible for the couple and their two children, aged 2 years and five months, to continue living together. The government argues the legislation is based on security concerns, but the restrictions also cut to a sensitive demographic issue -- the fear that Israel's Jewish majority could be threatened if too many Palestinians were granted citizenship. In an indication of the issue's divisiveness, the 11 judges took the unusual step of writing their own opinions. State Prosecutor Yochi Genesim said the state has granted 6,000 of 22,000 requests for family unification since Israel and the Palestinians signed an interim peace deal in 1993. The remainder were rejected, some for security reasons, Genesim said. Genesim said the law was necessary to prevent Palestinians from using Israeli residency or citizenship to carry out attacks against Israelis. "Today the war is conducted on the home front. You need creative ways to combat that," she said. Israeli Arabs are free to travel freely throughout the country, something that is difficult, and sometimes impossible, for West Bank and Gaza Palestinians. Zehava Galon, a lawmaker for the dovish Meretz Party, slammed the high court's decision as racist. "We thought that the Supreme Court would be the last bastion and unfortunately, it failed in its mission," Galon told The Associated Press. "The Supreme Court could have taken a braver decision and not relegate us to the domain of an apartheid state." Orna Kohn, an attorney from Adalah, a group that fights for the rights of Israeli Arabs, said the court's ruling trampled on the basic rights of thousands of people. "The bottom line is the Supreme Court of Israel refused to intervene with a law that is racist," Kohn told The Associated Press. ------------------------------------------------------ High Court of Justice narrowly upholds 'family reunification' ban By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and agencies 14/05/2006 The High Court of Justice Sunday narrowly upheld a controversial law that effectively bars some West Bank Palestinians from living with spouses and children in Israel. The case was seen as one of the most important questions the High Court of Justice has dealt with in recent years - petitions to annul an amendment to the Citizenship Law that prevents "family unifications" of Palestinians married to Arab citizens of Israel. An expanded panel of 11 justices split 6-5 in rejecting petitions to overturn the law, passed by the Knesset in 2002 and strongly influenced by the violence of the Intifada, then at its height. In rejecting appeals to the law, the court was seen as stating that Israel has the right to prevent West Bank Palestinians from moving to Israel to unite with their families. The law states that only Palestinian women over the age of 25 and men over 35 are eligible to join their families in Israel, and eventually receive citizenship. Critics of the law have slammed it as racist and discriminatory, and Amnesty International has called for its repeal. The state prosecution, voicing satisfaction at the verdict Sunday, said the decision was made in order to protect Israel's security during time of war. Speaking for the majority, Justice Mishael Cheshin ruled that the law does not harm Israelis' constitutional rights, stating that if the law does to some extent cause such harm, it was "measured." Cheshin was joined by justices Miryam Naor, Asher Grunes, Yonatan Adiel, Eliezer Rivlin and Edmund Levy in rejecting the petitions. Despite voting with the majority, Levy ruled that the law indeed harmed the constitutional rights of family life and equality to an unnecessary extent. Levy added, however, that it was proper to allow the state a period of nine months to formulate an alternative legislative arrangement. Chief Justice Aharon Barak was in the relatively rare position of ruling with the minority. Also favoring rejection of the law were Justices Dorit Beinish, Ayala Proccacia, Salim Joubran, and Esther Hayut. Barak said Sunday that decision to uphold the law infringes on the civil rights of citizens. 'Black day for Israel' "This is a very black day for the state of Israel and also a black day for my family and for the other families who are suffering like us," said Muad el-Sana, an Israeli Arab attorney married to a Palestinian woman from the West Bank town of Bethlehem. "The government is preventing people from conducting a normal family life just because of their nationality," el-Sana told Israel Radio minutes after the ruling was announced. The court had granted el-Sana's wife, Abir, a temporary injunction preventing her deportation. But el-Sana said the high court's ruling made it almost impossible for the couple and their two children, aged 2 years and five months, to continue living together. Petitions were filed in 2003 The petitions were filed in August 2003 by Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel; the Association for Civil Rights in Israel; MKs Zahava Gal-On, Roman Bronfman, Talab al-Sana, Mohammed Barakeh, Azmi Bishara, Ahmed Tibi and Abdulmalik Dehamshe; and several Israeli-Palestinian couples. The petitioners claimed that the law is racist and violates the right to family life, the principle of equality and the Basic Law on Human Dignity and Liberty. The amendment formalized a cabinet decision of May 2002 that froze the graduated process for naturalizing Palestinians who marry Israelis. The amendment was enacted as an emergency order in effect for one year, but it has been extended repeatedly. In July 2005, however, then interior minister Ophir Pines-Paz introduced some changes in the law that slightly eased the restrictions on family unifications. During a debate in February before the High Court was to issue its ruling on the petitions, Cheshin stirred wide debate by saying that Israeli citizens who marry Palestinians should go live in Jenin. "The Palestinian Authority is an enemy government, a government that wants to destroy the state and is not prepared to recognize Israel," Cheshin said during the debate. "It's true that the Palestinians are not a hostile people. But are the State of Israel's defensive efforts against terror attacks, against lone individuals carrying out attacks not a sufficient enough reason to prevent their entry? "Why should we take chances during wartime? Did England and America take chances with Germans seeking their destruction during the Second World War? No one is preventing them from building a family but they should live in Jenin instead of in [the Israeli Arab city of] Umm al-Fahm. The romance is touching but we are talking about life and death and the right to life takes priority," Cheshin said. [NB: Actually, yes, they did take chances with citizens of German descent - that is, they were left alone. (At least by the government - vigilantes were another thing.) It was Japanese-Americans who were interred. And their interment has widely been recognized as horribly wrong. The US government has issued a formal apology to all those interred and offered compensation.] ------------------------------------------------ Israeli-Palestinian couple fight to live together By Allyn Fisher-Ilan | May 17, 2006 RAMALLAH, West Bank (Reuters) - Jasmin Avissar and Osama Zatar fell in love, got married and hoped to live happily ever after -- but she's an Israeli Jew and he's a Palestinian Muslim and now they have nowhere to call home. The couple's "Romeo and Juliet" struggle to live together is a rare tale of cross-border love in a land riven by years of violence between Israel and Palestinians. Avissar, a 25-year-old classical dancer, met Zatar, 26, when they both worked at an isolated animal shelter on the border between Jerusalem and the occupied West Bank. They wed two years ago, but Israel has not granted them permission to live in the Jewish state. So they live in the West Bank city of Ramallah but on borrowed time -- Avissar's Israeli army-issued permit to cross into the Palestinian-run city is temporary. Israel denies residence permits to virtually all Palestinian men under 35 under a law, passed during a 5-year-old Palestinian revolt, aimed at tightening security and preventing suicide bombings. The Israeli military also generally bars Israelis from Palestinian-ruled territory. It is rare for Jews to marry Arabs either in Israel or the occupied territories, and the few who do tend to keep quiet about a union frowned upon by many Israelis and Palestinians. "We're in a Kafka-esque situation. All we want is the right to live together as a married couple," said Avissar, who crosses an Israeli checkpoint almost daily to work as a waitress in Jerusalem. "The authorities are constantly trying to keep us apart," said Zatar, a sculptor who sports a dark ponytail. "We love each other and plan a future together, if we can have one." That "if" rings through their lives -- their uncertain situation makes talking about buying a house, or having children impossible. The couple have appealed to Israel's High Court to force the government to allow them to live together indefinitely, either in Israel or in the Palestinian territories. 'BEING HELD A FOE, HE MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS' Their chances of success are uncertain. On Sunday, Israel's High Court narrowly upheld a law that denies Israeli residency to many Palestinians who marry Israelis, rejecting appeals against a statute that critics say violates human rights and is racist. In the couple's separate petition, lawyer Michael Sfard quotes from Shakespeare's tragic romance, comparing the feud between the Montague and Capulet families to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. "Being held a foe, he may not have access to breathe such vows as lovers used to swear; And she as much in love, her means much less to meet her new-beloved anywhere," Sfard writes, quoting from Shakespeare's play. Sfard argues that under the United Nations declaration on human rights and international law "the appellants have the basic right to live a family life and free choice of spouse." Sabine Hadad, a spokeswoman for Israel's Interior Ministry, said that under Israeli law Zatar was ineligible to apply for Israeli residency. Few exceptions were made, she added. The law was drafted after security officials argued that an earlier policy of granting citizenship or residency to most Palestinians married to Israelis could help suicide bombers enter Israel. Most of those affected are Israeli Arabs who tend to be more likely than Jews to marry Palestinians from the West Bank. Human rights groups estimate more than 25,000 such families often live apart when Israel denies residency to one or more members. "The state has the right not give everyone citizenship, but the way the system works today is racist and harmful," said Sharon Abraham Weiss, a lawyer for the Israeli Association for Civil Rights. Israel grants citizenship to anyone who can prove that at least one of his or her grandparents was Jewish. A fifth of Israeli citizens are Arabs. Weiss accused Israel of restricting visas to Palestinians to limit the number of Arabs who live in the Jewish state, an allegation officials deny. DREAMING OF A DIFFERENT WAY With their lives on hold, Avissar and Zatar have struggled to make a decent living in Ramallah. Zatar has been unable to find regular work, a common problem for many Palestinians in the West Bank's weak economy, even before a U.S.-led boycott on foreign funds to a Palestinian government led by the militant Hamas group. The couple's main income now comes from what Avissar makes serving tables at the Jerusalem coffee shop. But the couple still dream of a happily ever after. Avissar hopes to open a ballet school for Palestinians -- if Israel ever grants her a long-term permit to stay in the West Bank. Her family in Israel has accepted her marriage. Some of Zatar's relatives had accused him of betraying his people by marrying an Israeli; now they accept her. "Many people look at me as a stereotype Israeli, as a potential soldier or settler, just like all Palestinians in the eyes of Israelis are potential terrorists," said Avissar. "We hope to show everyone there's a different way."