Urgent  Issue of Palestinian Residency in Jerusalem 

2nd Revised Edition (June 1994)

by Nathan Krystall
 

Table of Contents  

Preface  

I. Introduction 

• The Israeli Annexation of East Jerusalem 
• Permanent Residency of East Jerusalem Residents  

II. Problems of Residency and Family Unity for East Jerusalem Families  

1. Jerusalem Families who were Separated from their Families as a Result of the 1967 War  
2. Revocation of permanent Residency according to Regulation 11  
3. Restrictions on Travel Abroad or East Jerusalem Residents  

a) exit permits 
b) Laissez-Passer's

4. Problems of Non-Permanent Resident Spouses 

a) non-permanent resident husbands 
b) non-permanent resident wives

5. Problems Concerning the Registration of Children 

a) children born in Jerusalem 

i. both parents are permanent residents 
ii. father is a permanent resident and mother is not 
iii. mother is a permanent resident and father is not

b) children not born in Jerusalem, one or borth parents are permanent residents 
c) children born to permanent residents who are residing outside of Jerusalem

6. Problems Concerning Family Reunification for Other Relatives: Brothers, Sisters, Parents, etc. 
7. Problems Concerning Visit Permits

III. Related Issues 

1. Attempts to Sever East Jerusalem Residents from the City 

a) Denial of Housing and Basic Services 
b) Municipality Tax (Arnona) 
c) National Insurance 
d) Income Tax Filing 
e) The Military Closure

2. Bribery and Intermediary Payments

IV. The Peace Talks  

V. Conclusion  

Footnotes  
  
  

Contents  

Preface  

The Israeli occupation has fragmented the lives of Palestinian people living in Palestine into three general categories, all of which have three separate legal realities: Palestinian living inside 1948 Israel; Palestinians in the 1967 occupied West Bank and |Gaza Strip; and Palestinians living in occupied East Jerusalem.  Most recently, a fourth category has been added - Palestinians living in the 'autonomous' areas of the Gaza Strip and Jericho. 

The longstanding residency problems of West Bank and Gaza Strip residents are known to everyone involved with the issue of the Israeli occupation. In an earlier study that we published about a year ago, we showed that Palestinian Israeli citizens also have serious residency problems, despite their being citizens of the state. The status of Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem, following the annexation of 1967, has long been different from the status of the rest of the occupied Palestinians.  In many aspects their status is better to a certain degree than that of the residents of the rest of the Occupied Territories, because the lives of the Palestinian East Jerusalem residents are not subject to the arbitrariness of the military authorities and the military orders, but to Israeli law.  

However, as we showed in the aforementioned study, the issue of residency is one of the issues in which discrimination between Jews and Palestinians is most glaring.  In practice, a person who is not Jewish does not have guaranteed rights in matters relating to residency and family unity. One of the basic principles of Zionism and of every Israeli government has been to ensure a large Jewish majority in the State of Israel's sovereign territory; whence the many difficulties of non-Jewish citizens to impart residency rights to their relatives.  

The problem is even worse regarding East Jerusalem residents who are not Israeli citizens because, following the annexation decision, as Permanent Residents of the State of Israel , they have even less rights than the Palestinian Israeli citizens.  It is possible to ascertain that, concerning residency and family unity, the situation of Palestinian East Jerusalem residents is even more difficult than that of the rest of the occupied Palestinians.  The reason for this is simple; while, in the eyes of Israeli governments, the future of the Occupied Territories remains an open question, Jerusalem is "unified for eternity as the capital of the Israeli state."  Therefore, every additional Palestinian in East Jerusalem disturbs the "demographic balance" between Jews and Palestinians in the State of Israel.  

This is the context for the cruel policy of limiting Palestinian East Jerusalem residents' rights of residency and family unity, and for the creation of an intolerable situation for the majority of the people tied to Jerusalem but, through various administrative means, severed from the city by the Israeli occupation.  

This study is intended to explain the legal status of East Jerusalem residents, as it relates to their resident rights and those of their families.  Not only is the Alternative Information Center's Family Reunification Project interested in adding to this contribution to the present discussion around the status of East Jerusalem and its inhabitants, but also in raising the awareness of many progressive Israelis, and those internationally, that are not always aware of the actual meaning of the annexation of Jerusalem as it relates to the human rights of the majority of the city's people.  Likewise the Alternative Information Center's Family Reunification Project would like to provide the Palestinian public with general information on the subject of residency in East Jerusalem in order to encourage its struggle for the defense of its rights.  

Michel Warshawski   
Family Reunification Project   
Alternative Information Center   

I. Introduction  

The Israeli Annexation of East Jerusalem  

During the June 1967 war Israel occupied the West Bank, including East Jerusalem and its residents, which had been administered by the Jordanian government since 1948.  At the outbreak of the war, approximately 80,000 Palestinians were living in what the Jordanian administration considered to be East Jerusalem. (1)  Thousands of residents fled or were forced out of the city by the Israeli Defense Forces during the war and thousands more were, at the time, working in Jordan and in other Arab states.  In the same month the Israeli government made a formal decision to annex East Jerusalem.  

The former Jordanian municipality of East Jerusalem comprised only 8.5% of the 71,000 dunums (approximately 17,500 acres) which were annexed.  The rest of the area included land from 28 villages and from the towns of al-Bireh, Bethlehem and Beit-Jala.  One of the government planners' central criteria was to include as much land, and as few Palestinians, as possible in "unified" Jerusalem. (2)  Plans exist to expand the administrative area of Jerusalem northwards past Ramallah, eastwards towards the Jordan Valley and southwards towards Hebron.  This would expand greater Jerusalem to 27%-28% of the West Bank. (3)  

Despite the Israeli annexation, International Law recognizes East Jerusalem as occupied territory in the same way that the rest of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Southern Lebanon "security zone" are occupied territories.  Similarly, International Law classifies East Jerusalem residents as civilians under military occupation. (4)  International Law experts also maintain that, in the case of annexation, peoples of annexed territories should be given citizenship automatically by the annexing state; it is not the obligation of an annexed people to request citizenship. (5)  

The Israeli government, however, had no intention of registering tens of thousands of new Palestinian citizens of Israel.  This follows from the aim of all Israeli governments, and that of the Zionist leadership before it, to increase the number and proportion of Jews living in Palestine/Israel and to decrease the proportion, and the number, of Palestinians.  Therefore, the Israeli government made East Jerusalem Palestinians a standing offer of citizenship.  In this way the government effectively put the ball in the East Jerusalemites' court knowing that they would not return it, because if they were to request Israeli citizenship it could be interpreted as an acquiescence to annexation.  Furthermore, East Jerusalemites have no desire to be a part of Israel in which, by it's own praxis and definition as a Jewish state, they would be, at most, second-class citizens. (6)  

Since 1967, East Jerusalem residents have fought hard against Israeli control and against Israel's attempt to sever them from the rest of the West Bank.  Try as they might to retain their connections with the West Bank, in anticipation of a Palestinian state, and to maintain their separation from the Israeli state, East Jerusalem Palestinians are forced into daily contact with Israeli government clerks, police officers and soldiers.  However, just as Israel separated Palestinians who found themselves inside the 1948 borders from the rest of Palestine, the government has, for all intents and purposes,  "closed off" East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank.  Israel has thus created a separate legal reality for Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem from that of Palestinians in the rest of the Occupied Territories. (7) 

Permanent Residency of East Jerusalem Residents  

After the Israeli annexation the government conducted a census, which recorded 66,000 Palestinians living in East Jerusalem. (8)  44,000 people were living in what had been, before 1967, East Jerusalem.  The other 22,000 were living in the rest of the area that was annexed by Israel. (9)  These 66,000 people were classified as Permanent Residents of Jerusalem.  Any East Jerusalem resident who was not recorded in the census was required, in order to legally reside in their home, to submit an application for family reunification to the Ministry of the Interior.  Until this day, any Palestinian who is not classified by the Israeli government as a Permanent Resident of East Jerusalem - including spouses, children and other relatives of East Jerusalem Permanent Residents - must apply for family reunification to legally reside there.  The decision to grant or to deny these applications is, according to Israeli law, ultimately at the discretion of the Interior Minister, who is not required to justify refusal of a request for family reunification.  

Internationally, Permanent Residency is usually the status given by a state to foreigners who decide, and are permitted, to permanently reside in that state.  Permanent Residency is also frequently a transitional status from non-citizen to citizen.  This status assumes that the person is a citizen of, and his or her home is in, another country.  Obviously, this is not the case of Palestinians of East Jerusalem; Jerusalem is their present-day and their ancestral home.  In contrast, almost any Jew from anywhere in the world can enter Israel and, under the Law of Return, automatically become an Israeli citizen. (10)  

Palestinians who were subjects of the former Jordanian administration of the West bank, including East Jerusalem, hold Jordanian passports.  Many Jewish Israelis hold this fact up as evidence that Palestinians' national home is Jordan, and as justification for treating them as guest workers, denying their civil rights, and even deporting them.  In part to discourage this Israeli point of view, King Hussein of Jordan severed administrative ties with the West Bank in 1988.  

To help understand the official Israeli stance regarding East Jerusalem Palestinians, it is instrumental to examine the Supreme Court ruling in 1988 against Mubarak Awad.  Mr. Awad had petitioned the Israeli government's cancellation of his Permanent Residency status and the government's subsequent action to deport him.  Awad's appeal was rejected and he was deported.  Here are extracts from the Court's decision, written by Judge Aharon Barak:  

"I do not accept the argument according to which ... the status of East Jerusalem residents is a special one and they are granted the special status of quasi-citizenship or constitutional residency ... As it is well known, and for reasons which are linked to the interests of East Jerusalem residents themselves, they were not granted Israeli citizenship against their will and they were given the choice to ask for Israeli citizenship according to their will.  Because they declined to ask for Israeli citizenship, it is difficult to accept now the argument for quasi-citizenship in which there are rights and no duties.  
... In this context the plaintiff's [Mr. Awad's] attorney claimed that it's unreasonable to base the residency of East Jerusalem residents only on the Laws of Entry to Israel, because the result would be that the Interior Minister could, with one word, deport all East Jerusalem residents by canceling their Permanent Residency permit.  This argument is baseless.  The authority to cancel a residency permit does not transform Permanent Residency into a charity.  Permanent Residency is according to law and only outstanding reasons could justify the use of this authority. (11)  

Barak further claims that Israel does not discriminate - Permanent Residency is grant to residents of East Jerusalem just as it is granted to foreigners who decide to permanently reside in Israel.  Such professed liberalism as Barak's flatly denies that Jerusalem is the rightful home of Palestinians, and sets a legal precedent for treating East Jerusalem residents as foreigners.  In contrast, Mubarak Awad's demand is clear: As long as Israel's occupation of East Jerusalem continues, its residents require a quasi-citizenship that will recognize, among other things, their inalienable right to reside in Jerusalem.  It is sheer hypocrisy to apply the Laws of Entry to Israel to a people under occupation; East Jerusalemites did not enter Israel, Israel entered them.  When such attitudes and policies towards Palestinians are taken into consideration along with the aforementioned Law of Return, the conclusion is inescapable.  According to Israeli law and policy, only a person who is Jewish has an inalienable right to live in Israel/Palestine.  

The arrangement whereby East Jerusalem residents are non-citizens of Israel suits the interests of the Israeli government and helps to satisfy the Zionist public.  Since the annexation, the Israeli government policy has been to limit the percentage of Palestinians residing in Jerusalem to that which was recorded in the 1967 census (24%) despite the fact that the Palestinian population growth rate is higher than the Jewish one.  This has been achieved, both through means that are documented in this report, and through massive Jewish settlement in the annexed area.  In June 1993, the Israeli government proudly announced that the Jewish population in East Jerusalem - 155,000, half of whom have settled there since the beginning of the Intifada in 1987 - had surpassed the Palestinian population in the same area of 150,000. (12)  

As Permanent Residents, Palestinian East Jerusalemites do not have rights under law which are equal to those held by Israeli citizens, but are still subjected to Israeli administration, laws and taxes.  Permanent East Jerusalemites cannot vote in national elections, nor may they work in many government positions.  They are supposedly entitled to receive National Insurance benefits - a right which is, more often than not a struggle.  

By classifying East Jerusalem residents as Permanent Residents the Israeli government has tried to project a semblance of legality on the annexation; at the same time the government has denied these same residents their civil, political and human rights.  Among the rights that East Jerusalem residents are denied is their right to residency and family unity, which is the central subject of this report.  

II. Problems of Residency and Family Unity for East Jerusalem Families  

The  main address for people who wish to apply for travel abroad or for family reunification is the Interior Ministry.  There is only one Interior Ministry office in East Jerusalem, and on a given day lines of waiting people stretch down the street outside.  It should be remembered that, in addition to the many hardships that Palestinian families face due to the occupation, bureaucratic ordeals add to the frustration.  Applicants are forced to wait in long lines, deal with rude clerks, and to return time and time again with requested, and often unnecessary, documentation.  

For the procedures discussed  below, applicants must present a series of documents such as ID cards, birth certificates, passports and marriage contracts.  Sometimes residents are not in possession of these documents, often due to inherent problems of living under occupation, so they must acquire them, whihc is costly.  Furthermore, every application costs what is a prohibitive sum to most families.  A family reunification application costs 295 shekels (almost 100 dollars), non-refundable if the application is refused. (13)  Often, people apply several times for family reunification, and are denied each time.  Applicants  must wait months, sometimes years, for official responses.  Sometimes no official response is ever received.  

It is possible to quote certain Israeli laws that affect the residency and family unity of East Jerusalem Palestinian residents, but the majority of the following Interior Ministry policies are unwritten.  These policies can be ascertained by the experiences of the residents themselves, of human rights workers and lawyers, and from the odd comment by Israeli officials.  When asked recently to explain how Israel could have no set policy for East Jerusalem residents, after 26 years of call them residents of Israel, Mr. Yosef Tov, the Assistant Director of Population Administration, claimed that "some things take time."  When asked to describe certain unwritten policies regarding residency and family reunification for East Jerusalem Palestinian  residents, even if they are unwritten policies, Mr. Tov refused, saying that these are "internal policies." (14)  

It is impossible to discuss Palestinians' applications to the Interior Ministry without also noting the major role played by the Shabak, the Israeli General Security Service.  All applications for family reunification, visit permits and exit permits are processed by the Shabak.  Often, applicants who are rejected have a "security" file with the Shabak, or a file exists on one of their relatives.  This type of collective punishment, where the Shabak will hound a family for years, is one of the security service's notorious tools of repression.  However, many applications are rejected with no such prior "security" records.  Often such applicants are asked if they will collaborate with the authorities, and it is known that people who co-operate have a good chance of their applications being successfully processed.  Therefore, as the Shabak no doubt reasons, the higher the number of refused applications, the higher the number of potential collaborators.  A more obvious related function of the Shabak is to provide the pretense of "security" - a word that guarantees the sanction of the Zionist public - for political policies such as attempting to curtail the number of Palestinians in Israel/Palestine and to limit and monitor their movements.  

A major tool used for such monitoring is the identity (ID) card.  Israeli authorities require members of the public to carry ID cards on their persons at all times.  The Israeli ID card heirarchy is as follows: blue cards, specifying the 'nationality' of the bearer to distinguish between Jews and non-Jews, for Israeli citizens (the two main 'nationalities' being 'Jewish' and 'Arab'); blue cards for permanent residents indicating, for example, their East Jerusalem residency; orange cards for West Bank (outside of Israeli defined Jerusalem) and Gaza Strip residents, indicating their place of residence and their religion; green cards for persons considered by Israel to be 'security risks.'  Children are generally registed on at least one of their parents' ID cards.  Attached to the ID cards, people must carry any permits they are issued, such as visit permits, permits to enter Jerusalem and Israel, and on. 

Soldiers posted at over a hundred checkpoints surrounding, and within, the Occupied Territories routinely demand that Palestinians present their ID cards for inspection.  Failure to present the proper papers results in harassment, heavy fines and/or imprisonment.  Through this monitoring of ID cards, Israel is better able to control the Palestinian population and to separate Palestinian families. 

1. Jerusalem Families who were Separated from their Families as a Result of the 1967 War  

As already mentioned, thousands of Jerusalem residents left or were driven out of Jerusalem during the 1967 war and thousands of more were working abroad.  A few residents of the Old City were allowed to return to East Jerusalem as part of the 14,000 - out of over 400,000 Palestinian refugees created by the 1967 war - repatriated refugees.  According to the Oslo agreement, the issue of '67 Palestinian refugees has been assigned to a four-party committee consisting of Egyptian, Jordanian, Israeli  and Palestinian negotiating teams.  As yet, no date or place has been determined for this committee's first meeting.  It remains to be seen whether or not refugees from the Jerusalem area will be included in the discussions. 

Here is the experience of Muhammad Husseini, as cited in Danny Rubinstein's book The People of Nowhere, who applied for permission to return to Jerusalem after the war:  
  

"After the Six-Day War (sic) the Israeli Military government tried to limit the number of Palestinian returning to the Occupied Territories and especially to East Jerusalem, which was quickly annexed to Israel. When Mohammed Husseini received permission to return to the West Bank, he was issued an Israeli identity card establishing him as a resident of Jericho (where the Husseini family also has holdings). Sometime later he insisted upon receiving a document attesting that he was a resident of Jerusalem, where he in fact makes his home. The State of Israel refused to comply, for Israeli officials had been given clear instructions to reduce as much as possible the number of Arabs carrying Israeli documents identifying them as residents of Jerusalem. Muhammad Husseini approached a senior official in the Interior Ministry, a Jew of Polish origin, and explained that he was a bona fide resident of Jerusalem. the official looked at his papers and pronounced: "You are not a Jerusalemite." The astonished Husseini  replied: "If I am not a Jerusalemite, who is? You?"   "Yes, me," the official declared, "and you are not."

Problem: Tens of thousands of Palestinians and their families, separated from East Jerusalem as a result of the 1967 war, have been, and are still being, denied the right to return and live in their homes.  

International Law: By denying and hindering the repatriation of Palestinians who were dispersed as a result of the 1967 war (and the 1948 war), Israel contravenes Article 74 of Protocol 1 of the 1977 addendum to the Fourth Geneva Convention:  

The High Contracting Parties and Parties to the conflict shall facilitate in every possible way the reunion of families dispersed as a result of armed conflicts and shall encourage in particular the work of the humanitarian organizations engaged in this task in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol and in conformity with their respective security regulations.  

2. Revocation of Permanent Residency According to Regulation 11  

Law: Regulation 11 of The Law of Entry to Israel states that:  

If a Permanent Resident:  

1. lives outside of Israel (including East Jerusalem) for more than seven years
2. becomes a permanent resident of another country
3. applies for citizenship in another country s/he is liable to lose his/her status as a Permanent Resident of Israel. The law regards East Jerusalem as part of Israel, and the rest of the West bank and the Gaza Strip as foreign territory.

(a) Revocation of East Jerusalem Residents' Right Who Move to Live Abroad 

Problem: The Israeli government has used Regulation 11 to prevent thousands of Palestinians from Jerusalem from living in their homeland.  The conditions in Regulation 11 have no bearing on the intention of a person to return to his/her home, a fact of which the Israeli government is very aware: Jewish Israelis have no limitations on the length of time they may stay abroad or in regards to acquiring dual citizenship.  Many Palestinians travelling abroad are not aware of these conditions on their East Jerusalem residency, and only hear about them after their Jerusalem IDs have been revoked.  
 

Case: Mubarak Awad, whose appeal to the Israeli Supreme Court was mentioned in the introduction, was born in Jerusain 1943. After the Israeli annexation of East Jerusalem he was counted in the 1967 census and was classified as a Permanent Resident of Israel, with residency in Jerusalem. In 1970, he traveled to the United States for studies where he completed: a B.A. degree in 1973; a M.A. degree in 1978; and doctoral studies in 1982. In 1978 he received American citizenship. Over these years in which he was studing in the United states he returned to Jerusalem many times and in 1978 he was wedded in Jerusalem.             In 1987, Mr. Awad applied to the Interior Ministry for a new Israeli permanent resident I.D. card, because his original I.D had been cancelled. The Interior Ministry rejected his application, saying that he had ceased to be an Israeli resdient. Since he had been forced to enter Israel on a tourist visa, he applied for a six month extension of the visa.  This application was also rejected and the Intrior Ministry told him to leave Israel before his visa expired on 20 November 1987. On 5 May 1988 the Interior Ministry issued an order to deport him. He was arrested, after which he promptly appealed both the deportation order and his arrest. In the decision to reject his appeal, the Supreme Court stated that not only was Mr. Awad being deported because his tourist vis had expired, but also due to his political activities, namely his resistance to the Israeli occupation of the Weat Bank and Gaza.

(b) Revocation of Jerusalem Residents' Right Who Move to Live in the West Bank 

For many reasons, including the unavailability and high cost of housing in Jerusalem, many Palestininas from East Jerusalem choose to live outside the city. 

In any interaction with the Interior Ministry and Civil Administration personnel, residents must present their ID cards.  When these authorities notice that people are living outside of Jerusalem, but possess permanent residency, they often attempt to exchange their blue (Jerusalem) ID with an orange (West Bank) ID card.    
 

Case: Ezieh Salah, from Beit Safafa in Jerusalem, formerly possessed a blue Jerusalem ID card.  In the early 1970s while she was residing in Bethlehem, she gave birth to two sons, Raeed and Anwar.  At the time of the children's births, Ms. Salah's husband, who had an orange West bank ID card, was living in Jordan.  The authorities refused to register the children in Jerusalem on Ms. Salah's ID card, or in the West Bank, on Mr. Salah's ID card, and to this day they remain, at the ages of 19 and 21, unregistered and without IDs.  The parents have applied many times to register their children, but none of their applications were ever answered.  In 1993, Ms. Salah went to the Civil Administration and was told that her children would be registered, but that she had to leave her Jerusalem ID card with the administration officers.  However, Raeed and Anwar were never registered, Ms. Salah's Jerusalem ID card was never returned, and instead she was given a West Bank ID card.

Problem: Whatever Israel's designs may be on the West Bank outside of East Jerusalem, for legal purposes the authorities presently regard it as being foreign territory. Regulation 11 therefore applies to East Jerusalem residents who move outside the city, and the authorities consistently use this regulation to revoke their Jerusalem ID cards and replace them with West Bank ID cards. 

3. Restrictions on Travel Abroad or East Jerusalem Residents  

Palestinian East Jerusalem residents travelling abroad mainly do so via the Allenby Bridge or the Ben Gurion Airport.  Residents departing from the Ben Gurion Airport require a laisser-passer, whereas residents travelling over the Allenby Bridge require exit permits.  ASs mentioned previously, most East Jerusalem residents are Jordanian citizens.  A large number of them have relatives and other social and economic ties to Jordan, and are entitled to education and medical care there.  As such, many East Jerusalem residents need to make frequent visits to Jordan.  Also, many East Jerusalem residents travel to other Arab states via Jordan for employment and higher education, because these opportunities are limited, due to economic and political reasons, in Palestine/Israel.  Some simply wish to go on holiday.  Whatever the reason for their wanting to go abroad, their right to travel is restricted by the Israeli government.  

(a) Exit Permits   

All East Jerusalem Permanent Residents require an exit permit to travel over the Allenby Bridge into Jordan, as do West Bank and Gaza Strip residents.  There have been numerous instances in which permit-holders were not informed that their permits would expire, or that they would be denied re-entry, after a certain number of years.  Until recently, the insturcitons on a exit permit created the false impression that it would be possible for the bearer to renew it after the three-year expiration date.  Only in 1993 were the instructions clarifed.  Many such Jerusalem residents are still trying to return.  

The present policy is that exit permits are valid for three years.  The permits can be extended for an additional three years, requiring the family of the permit-holder to submit an application for extension for each of those three years.  If the permit is not renewed, or if the resident stays abroad for more than six years, it is likely that s/he will be refused re-entry.  Thousands of Jerusalem residents who have 'lost their IDs' in this way are still trying to return. 

In 1992 the Hotline: Center For the Defence of the Individual published a comprehensive study of the restrictions on travel abroad that have been imposed on East Jerusalem and West Bank Palestinians.  The report is based on requests for exit permits filed through the Hotline in 1991.  The main findings of the report that pertain to East Jerusalem residents are as follows:  

• Hundreds of residents holding exit permits and other required documentation being turned back from the Allenby Bridge.  After these people appealed to the authorities through Hotline, 70% received an answer that "there is nothing preventing their departure";
• According to a directive apparently instituted in April 1988, every male East Jerusalem resident between the ages of 18 and 36 wishing to leave the country must stay abroad for nine months or more;
• Some applicants receive exit permits on the condition that they will remain abroad for a period of years;
• Some applicants were compeltely refused exit;
• Urgent requests and requests to leave for medical treatment are generally met with prolonged delays and callousness;
• When the applicants decided to appeal to the High Court, security officials usually retreated from their position barring, or hindering the applicants' exit. (15)

The report states that the policy that sets a minimum period on the stay abroad of residents is an attempt to coerce them into voluntary exile.  There is no doubt that a major aim of this policy is to increase the chance that residents will settle down in another country.  Hotline reports that, whereas in the West Bank the Civil Administration has slightly relaxed its conditions on young Palestinian males traveling abroad, the Interior Ministry is continuing its restrictive policy for East Jerusalem residents.  

(b) Laisser-Passer's  

Permanent Residents are not entitled to Israeli passports.  Therefore, an East Jerusalem Palestinian traveling abroad through Ben Gurion airport must obtain a laisser-passer (as must West Bank and Gaza Palestinians).  This travel document, under Israel's entrance regulations, is valid only for one year and must be renewed at the end of this period or the Permanent Resident risks losing his/her residency rights.  However, cases have been reported of Israeli embassy clerks refusing to renew laisser-passer's even within the one-year period.  After a year has lapsed, the standard procedure is to refuse to renew the laisser-passer.  If the Jerusalem resident holds a Jordanian passport, s/he might be able to obtain a visit permit and to reach Jerusalem by way of the Allenby Bridge.  If the resident obtains a passport of an "Israel-friendly" country, s/he must be able to visit on a tourist visa.  Once in Jerusalem, the resident must apply to the Interior Ministry for a reinstatement of Permanent Residency status.  If the application is rejected, the resident may face deportation.  
  

Case: Ziad Latif (his real name is not used for reasons of confidentiality) left in 1983 to study in the United States. Before he left, the Interior Ministry only give him a laisser-passer on condition that he leave his Jerusalem I.D. card at the Ministry. Mr. Latif studied for four years in the U.S., and when he went to the Israeli Embassy to obtain a travel visa to return home, he was told that he has lost his right to live in Jerusalem. Mr. Latif is unable to even obtain a temporary visit permit to enter Israel and reach Jerusalem. His family feels that the government's refusal to let him return is connected to the fact that Mr. Latif's brother is on the General Security Service's list of wanted persons.

Problem: As in the case of travel abroad through the Allenby Bridge, the Interior Ministry places severe restrictions on the freedom of East Jerusalem Palestinians to travel abroad via Ben Gurion airport, which they must use to fly abroad from Israel/Palestine.  Conditions are often placed upon their receipt of a laisser-passer; either the resident accepts the conditions or his/her exit is barred.  Some residents are outright refused a laisser-passer.  Even when the resident is abroad, his/her return is dependent on the yearly renewal of the laisser-passer.  The failure to do this, often due to the manipulations of Israeli Embassy clerks, has made refugees of many East Jerusalem Palestinians.  

International Law: "Universal Declaration of Human Rights: in the International Bill of Human Rights:  

Article 12  
1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his [sic] residence.  
4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.  

Article 13  
2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.  

4. Problems of Non Permanent Resident Spouses  

Palestinians - whether they are Israeli citizens or are residents of the West Bank or the Gaza Strip - are the only people in the world (besides, perhaps, South Africa) who, after marrying, are not necessarily permitted by the governing authorities to reside in their homes with their spouses.  Recently, the Israeli Civil Administration in the Occupied Territories has taken minimal steps to allow Palestinians, excluding East Jerusalmites, to live with their non-resident spouses.  In November 1992 the Israeli state Legal Advisor agreed to allow West Bank and Gaza Strip residents' spouses, who were residing in the territories before September 1992, to remain there under renewable six-month visas.  In the framework of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, an annual quota of 2,000 families to be granted family reunification was established for, among others, spouses of residents of the Occupied Territories not belonging to the above category.  However, East Jerusalem was not included in this agreement 

In April 1994, the Interior Ministry informed human rights lawyers of a new, and slightly improved, policy which, as detailed below, was quickly cancelled.  According to the April policy, upon application for family reunification for their non-residnet spouses, whether they held a foreign passport or were residents of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem residents were able to submit an additional appolication, costing 80 NIS.  This second application was for a six-month visa that, if approved, would allow the spouse to remain in Jerusalem for the time that the family reunification application was pending.  If the spouse proved that s/he was employed in Jerusalem, a B-1 visa/round-the-clock entry permit with a work permit would be issued; if not, s/he would receive a B-2 vias/round-the-clock entry permit without a work pmerit.  

While this change did not guarantee a more lenient policy regarding the approval of family reunification applications, it did promise to ameliorate the situation for couples unable to live together in Jerusalem, and for those in which a spouse is living in the city illegally.  Consequently, hundreds of people flooded the Ministry of Interior offices with applications for both family reunification and the six-month visas, costing a total of 430 NIS.  At the beginning of May 1994 the Ministry, offering no reasons, cancelled the new policy. 

The current situation, as far as can be ascertained, is that spouses of foreign passport holders may still apply, along with an application for family reunification, for a six-month Jerusalem visa (without a work permit), but West Bank and Gaza Strip residents may not.  The Ministry has not yet returned the tens of thousands of shekels that it charged for the useless applications, at a time when the financial situation of most Palestinians is especially bad, due to the near total closure of Jerusalem and areas inside the Green Line. 

West Bank and Gaza Strip residents married to Jerusalem permanent resdients may apply at their local Israeli civil administration for an entry permit to Jerusalem, valid round the clock and for a duration of three months.  However, the applicant must prove that s/he resides in Jerusalem, which is extremely difficult for someone who only resides in the city illegally, if at all.  Also, many residents are hesitant to go to the civil administration, because any such contact invites all types of harassment by the Israeli officials.  Finally applicants considered to be - or connected with someone considered to be - a 'security risk', are routinely denied permits.  As a result, the number of non-resident spouses of Palestinian residents of Jerusalem allowed to reside in the city is very limited.  Many of the three-month Jerusalem entry permits which are issued to non-resident spouses limit the bearer to only being in Jerusalem between the hours of 5 am and 7 pm. 

The next two sub-sections distinguish between permanent resident wives applying for their non-resident husbands and vice-versa.  Such a distinction is necessary, due to the Interior Ministry's policy of discrimination along gender lines. 

(a) Non Permanent Residents Husbands  

Policy: The Interior Ministry's well known, however unwritten, policy is to refuse Permanent Residency to husbands of East Jerusalem Permanent Residents.  The Ministry's longstanding rationale is that traditionally, in Arab society, a wife moves to live in her husband's domicile.  (See ACRI appeal below).  
  

Case: Mahmoud Ahmad Arikat Mahmoud Ata Arikat have been married since 1969, and they have five children. Ms. Arikat is registered as a Permanent Resident of Jerusalem. Mr. Arikat is not registered despite the fact that his home is in Abu Dis, part of which is considered by Israel to be in Jerusalem and the other part in the West Bank. Mr. Arikat went to work in Kuwait in 1965 and was there during the 1967 census, so he did not receive an I.D. card from the Israeli  government. Three of their children are registered on Ms. Arikat's I.D.card, but two of the children, Mahmoud and Amna are not registered. After thy were married in Abu Dis in 1969, Mr. Arikat continued to work in Kuwait, and the Arikat family returned every year to their home in Abu Dis.Since the expulsion of Palestinian from Kuwait in the wake of the Gulf War, the family has lived permanently in Abu Dis. Ms. Arikat submitted two applications to the Interior Ministry for family reunification for her husband and for Mahmoud and Amna, first in 1989 and again in 1991, and was refused both times.             Mr. Arikat has since been residing on one and two month visit permits issued by the Interior Ministry, which have been very hard to obtain. Not long ago he paid 200 dollars to an "intermediary" in order to obtain a permit. Due to his visitor status, Mr Arikat has remained unemployed for the last two years. His family is being forced to spend the money that he was able to save from his 28 years of work in Kuwait. He fears that if the situation continues, the money will all be spent. Mr. Arikat also fears that if his visit permit is not renewed soon, he will be deported. All of his family, and his property, is in Abu Dis. The Arikat's are also very concerned that their son, Mahmoud, now 18, will be deported.

  
In 1993 the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) entered a petition to the Supreme Court against the Interior Ministry on behalf of Belinda Gharbit and her husband Mark James:  
  

  
The basis of ACRI's petition is that the Interior Ministry's family reunification policy regarding spouses is discriminatory.  The petition notes that the Director of Population Administration, David Efrati - in a meeting on 17 February 1993 with human rights lawyers - detailed the government's family reunification policies.  According to these policies, the spouses of Israeli citizens can become Permanent Residents as long as they won't affect the security, health or peace of the State.  Likewise, according to these policies, the wives of male Permanent Residents of East Jerusalem can become Permanent Residents; but the husbands of East Jerusalem Permanent Residents cannot become Permanent Residents. (16)  

ACRI notes that this policy violates the principle of gender equality that Israeli law subscribes to.  The petition also points out that the discriminatory policy is based on the assumption that an Arab wife moves her center of life to that of her husband; however, in Belinda Gharbit's case, her center of life remains in Jerusalem for professional, economic, family and cultural reasons.  

The above case clearly demonstrates that the policy in question is not designed, as the government cliams, to be sensitive to Palestinian familial traditions.  Moreover, it helps to realize Zionist aims in two ways.  Firstly, it helps to serve the longstanding Israeli government policy of limiting the number of Palestinian residents in Jerusalem.  Secondly, it is aimed at keeping Palestinian men, who are in Israeli eyes seen as a threat to national security, at arms' length from the Jewish population living inside the pre-1967 borders.  

As a result of this policy of denying their applications, many Jerusalem women do not even bother submitting family reunification applications so that their husbands may join them in East Jerusalem.  Some do, however, and the Ministry does not warn them that their applications have no chance of being accepted.  Many women eventually leave Jerusalem to live with their husbands in the West Bank, as this is the only way that they can live together and legally, as far as the Israeli authorities are concerned.  They do not know that they, in this way, forfeit their chances of obtaining family reunification for their husbands in the future because they are no longer able to prove that their center of life is in the city.  Moreover, they run a severe risk of losing their status as Jerusalem permanent residents.  Lawyers who deal with family reunification sometimes suggest that such women apply once so that their cases are on record, pending possible policy changes in the future.  

(b) Non Permanent Resident Wives  

Policy: The Interior Ministry policy is to grant East Jerusalem husbands' applications for family reunification for their wives, providing the husband is residing in East Jerusalem and not elsewhere in the West Bank.  In practice, these family reunification applications are usually approved.  However, there are also numerous cases of East Jerusalem husbands' applications being refused.  Here are two such cases, in both of which the husbands from Jerusalem are ex-political prisoners. 
  

Case: Mahmoud Salamat was born in Jerusalem in 1948 and is a Permanent Resident, registered and living in Jerusalem.  He and his wife, Rabiha, who is from Deheishe in the West Bank, were married in 1986. He applied twice for family reunification, first in 1986 and again in 1987, and both times was refused without any explanation. The Salamat's two children, aged six and four, live with Mr. Salamat in Jerusalem and go to school there. Ms. Salamat, not being a Permanent Resident of Israel, cannot legally live in Jerusalem with her family. Mr. Salamat is sure that the Interior Ministry rejected his applications as a punishment for his past political activities:              "In 1968 I was arrested and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment for membership in an illegal organization. I served 17 years and was released in 1985. I was imprisoned again for ten months at the beginning of the Intifadah. I don't believe I committed any crime. Still, say I did commit a crime. A person can't be punished twice for the same crime. I was punished and now they are collectively punishing my wife, my children and me. I know of twelve Jerusalem residents - all ex-political prisoners - who have applied at least once for family reunification for their wives, and all their applications were refused. One man was released from prison 19 years ago and since then he has not been politically affiliated nor has he a police record, and his five applications for family reunification for his wife have been refused. One applicant was told his application would be granted immediately if he agreed to collaborate with the authorities. The right of a family to live together is a right under international law, it is a human right. It's not a right that belongs to Israel and is hers to give us or to take away from us."           While Mr. Salamat was relating his story, he was waiting at the National Insurance Institute (NII) to speak with a clerk regarding his claim for the monthly children's allowance that all parents who are citizens and Permanent Residents of Israel are entitled to receive. He later emereged from the office with a letter from the NII saying that his claim had been rejected because he is not a resident of Israel and his children don't reside in Israel. It will take Mr. Salamat several months to go through the procedures of proving that he and his children are indeed residents of Jerusalem.

  
Problem: The decision to grant or to deny applications for family reunification remains at the ultimate discretion of the Interior Ministry.  Often, as in these caes, the Ministry denies applications for nebyulous "security reasons."  As Mahmoud Salamat clearly states, the government's refusasl to let him reside with his family in Jerusalem is, in fact, collective punishment.  
  

In the fall 1994 the Alternative Information Center initiated an international campaign to pressure the Interior Ministry to grant family reunification for the Salamat and Abu-Diab families, and seven other families who are facing similiar problems. The campaign is also intended to raise awareness about pressing issues, residency being one of them, faced by Palestinian residents in Jerusalem.  Despite letters from Israeli Knesset members and from abroad, the Interior Ministry has not yet taken steps to alter its unjust policy. 

International Law: The Convention on Nationality of Married Women:  

Article 3, Paragraph 1  
Each contracting state agrees that the alien wife of one of its nationality may, at her request, acquire the nationality of her husbvand through specially privileged naturalization procedures.  The granting of such nationality may be subject to such limitations as may be imposed in the interest of national security or public policy. (17)  

5. Problems Concerning the Registration of Children  

Law: Regulation 12 in the Laws of Entry to Israel states that: "A child who is born in Israel, and to whom Paragraph 4 in the Law of Return does not pertain [i.e. the child is not Jewish], will be issued a status in accordance wtih that of his/her parents; where the parents do not have the same status, the child will receive the status of his/her father or guardian except if the other parent opposes this in writing, in which case the child will receive the status of one of his/her parents, as determined by the Minister."  

(a) Children born in Jerusalem  

Policy: The Interior Ministry's unwritten policy is as follows.  When a baby is born in Israel, or in East Jerusalem, the hospital has a legal duty to report the birth to the Interior Ministry. (18)  The hospital is required to submit a form detailing the particulars of the baby and his/her parents, including an identification number for the baby.  This form must then be sent to the Population Registry and the child will be registered according to Regulation 12.  A child who for some reason is not registered must be registered according to the Late Registration regulations. (19)  

i. A Child Born in Jerusalem Whose Parents are Both Permanent Residents of Jerusalem  

In accordance with the above stated law and policy, children of Permanent Residents should automatically be registered upon birth as Permanent Residents.  Still, there are many documented cases of hospitals, contrary to the law and stated policy, not reporting the briths of children of East Jerusalem parents.  In these cases, the parents then need to apply to register the children under the Late Registration regulations.  If both parents are Permanent Residents, once they have presented documentation proving that they are indeed the parents of the child, they generally encounter no difficulties registering the child under the Late Registration regulations.  However, the Interior Ministry often informs parents that they may only register a child under the Late Registration regulations for the first two or three years after the child is born, after which they will have to apply for family reunification and pay the 350 NIS fee.  This practice contradicts Israeli law. 

ii. A Child Born in Jerusalem whose Father is a Permanent Resident of Jerusalem and Mother is Not  

Again, according to Regulation 12 and the stated policy, a child born in Jerusalem whose father is a Jerusalem Permanent Resident should be automatically registered as a Permanent Resident.  However, as in the above category, hospitals sometimes do not report the births of such children to the Population Registry.  Still, children of fathers who are Permanent Residents are generally easily registered under the Late Registration regulations, again as in the above category.  

iii. A Child Whose Mother is a Permanent Resident of Jerusalem and Father is Not   

Policy: As mentioned, until recently hospitals were instructed by the Interior Ministry not to report the births of a child whose mother, but not father, is a Jerusalem Permanent Resident.  After a prolonged effort on this issue by NGOs, the Interior Ministry established a new policy.  Now the Interior Ministry says it follows an unwritten policy whereby a child whose father is not an East Jerusalem resident will be registered in Jerusalem provided two conditions are fulfilled:  

1. It can be proved that the child's mother's domicile, or center of life, is Jerusalem, i.e. she pays municipal taxes, her other children are enrolled in a Jerusalem school, etc.
2. The father agrees in writing that the child is to be registered in Jerusalem. (20)

Problem:  Despite the Interior Ministry's stated policy, many children who fulfill the criteria set by this policy are not being registered in Jerusalem.  Instead, they are registered in the West Bank or not at all.  Problems families face include:  

1. Hospitals are not informed of the latest Interior Ministry policies.
2. Difficulty in convincing the Interior Ministry that the mother's domicile is Jersalem, even when she is in possession of the required documentation.
3. Non-registration of East Jerusalem children, or their registration in the West Bank.  The Ministry clerks in Jerusalem, either because they are not aware of the above policy or for other reasons, refer the mother to register he child in the West Bank.  Once a child is wrongly registered in the West Bank, it is a very lenghty process to have him/her re-registered in Jerusalem. 

         
(b) Children Not Born in Jerusalem, One or Both of whose Parents are Permanent Residents   

The Child Registration Laws do not specifically outline what the procedure is when children of Jerusalem Permenent Residents are born outside of Israel, including East Jerusalem.  This gap in the law has been interpreted by the Interior Ministry as the child not having the right to the status of one, or both, of his/her parents as a Permenent Resident of Jerusalem.  Relying on this interpretation, the Interior Ministry says that such parents must apply for family reunification and their applications will be dealt with in a shortened procedure.  It must be proved that the family's domicile is Jerusalem and, in the case of only the mother being a Jerusalem resident, the father must consent in writing to the request for the child's Jerusalem Permanent Residency.  
         
(c) A Children Born to Permanent Residents who are Residing Outside of Jerusalem  

If the child of Jerusalem Permanent Reisdents residing outside of Jerusalem is born in Jerusalem, there are usually no problems in registering the child in Jerusalem.  However, if the child is born outside of Jerusalem, it is very difficult for the parents to register the child in Jerusalem.  This is due to the Interior Ministry's policy requiring parents, in order for their children to be registered in Jerusalem, to prove that their center of life is in Jerusalem.  The predicament of the Salah family, described in Section 2(2) also illustrates this problem. 

International Law: By not allowing East Jerusalem residents to automatically live with their children in East Jerusalem, the Israeli government violates the United Nations Convention On the Rights of the Child, which it endorsed in 1991.  The Convention states that it is a child's right to be cared for by his/her parents, and the State's obligation to further both parents' familial responsibility to supervise the growth and development of the child.  Furthermore, the Convention states:  

Article 9  
1. State Parties shall ensure that a child shall not be separated from his or her parents against their will, except when competent authorities subject ot judicial review determine, in accordance with applicable law and procedures, that such separation is necessary for the best interests of the child ...  

Article 10  
1. In accordance with the obligation of State Parties under Article 9, paragraph 1, applications by a child or his or her parents to enter or leave a State Party for the purpose of family reunification shall be dealt with by State Parties in a positive, humane and expeditious manner. [28 I.L.M. (1989) 1457]  

6. Problems Concerning Family Reunification for Other Relatives: Brothers, Sisters, Parents etc.   

The Interior Ministry claims that relatives other than the applicant's spouse or children may receive family reunification.  However, it is known that these relatives stand almost no chance of being granted the right to live with their families in East Jerusalem.  Sometimes Palestinians over the age of 60 - i.e. people who are not perceived as a security threat or as the source of further demographic increase - are granted Permanent Residency in East Jerusalem.  On the whole, though, relatives other than those in East Jerusalemites' immediate families have no chance of being permitted to live in East Jerusalem.  

7. Problems Concerning Visit Permits 

Relatives of East Jerusalem permanent residents, many who have already been denied residency in Jerusalem, amy receive visit permits of up to three months.  Until now, these permits have been granted almost exclusively in the summer months, and sometimes for a period shorter than the standard three months.  Very frequently a relative might be allowed to visit outside of the summer months as part of what the Interior Ministry recognizes as being "special humanitarian cases".  The family is frequently required to deposit a guarantee of over one thousand dollars as collateral to ensure that the visiting relative will leave before expiry of the permit. 

As mentioned in Section 4, since spring 1994 the Interior Ministry has been implementing a new policy, according to which foreign spouses of Jerusalem permanent residents may apply for six-month visas, which are valid for as long as their family reunification applications are pending.  Relatives other than spouses of Jerusalem residents are not included in this policy while, in the rest of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, similar arrangements cover all relatives who entered the country between 1990 and August 31, 1993. 

III. Related Issues  

1. Attempts to Sever East Jerusalem Residents from the City  

In numerous ways, the Israeli government coerces and pressures Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to move beyond the city limits and then attempts to disconnect them from the city.  Tens of thousands of East Jerusalem residents and their families are living in the West Bank, in the immediate environs of East Jerusalem. 
     
(a) Denial of Housing and Basic Services 

Interconnected wtih the problems of residency is the issue of housing shortages and overcrowding in East Jerusalem and the lack of basic services, all of which serve to lower the quality of life of the residents there.  As a direct result of Israeli house demolition, land expropriation, and restrictive and discriminatory housing policies, an estimated 21,000 Palestinian families are homeless or inadequately housed in East Jerusalem and are forced to live in caves and tents or to double and triple-up with other families. (21) 

On May 3, 1994 Jerusalem mayoral advisor on Arab Affairs Amir Heshin publicized the findings of a report that, according to him, had been swept under the carpet two years earlier by former mayor Teddy Kollek. (22)  The report compared municipal expenditures in West Jerusalem to those in East Jerusalem, not including Jewish settlements there.  "We found that in the total municipal budget only 2%-12% (and in most caes the figures are closer to 2%) were invested in infrastructure in East Jerusalem," Heshin said.  "The situation has not changed since the report was published.  "The report stated: 

In half of the neighborhoods in the eastern city there is no organized sewerage system and other parts are in severe need of repair ... Half of the [water] system needs replaced and there are severe drainage problems. 

Other serious problems regarding maintenance and lighting were also mentioned in the report.  Heshin's disclosures should not be interpreted as being part of a new plan to ameiorate conditions for Palestinians in East Jerusalem, but rather as a depiction of how the Likud mayorality in Jerusalem, headed by Ehud Olmert, is merely following in Kollek's footsteps. 

Since 1967, Israel has confiscated 40% of the annexed East Jerusalem land area.  Moreover, Israeli law gives backing to the expropriation of private property.  For example, the Absentee Property Law, which stipulates that any property, the owner of which was "absent" on 15 May 1948, is liable to be seized.  This law is applied in East Jerusalem, despite the fact that Israel did not occupy it in 1948.  In addition, Israel defines almost half of East Jerusalem land as 'unplanned', forbidding Palestinians from building on it.  The end result is that Palestinians are permitted to build on only 14% of the land in East Jerusalem, much of which has already been built up. (23) 

The government's confiscations and urban planning are designed to build "Jewish neighborhoods" and settlements that encircle the greater Jerusalem area.  According to the Jerusalem municipality, 31,143 housing units are planned for Jewish Israelis in "Jewish neighborhoods".  The majority of these, 17,710, are planned for East Jerusalem and are designed to house around 70,000 Israeli settlers.  15,210 units are planned for Palestinians in "Arab neighborhoods".  The Ministry of the Interior has yet to approve the building of 10,000 housing units for Palestinians in East Jerusalem because former Housing Minister, Ariel Sharon, thought they might encourage Arabs from the West Bank to live in Jerusalem.  This apparent indefinite delay is despite the municipality's original insistence, in 1981, on the immediate need for 18,000 units for East Jerusalem Palestinians. (24)  The above-mentioned government report states that between 1967 and 1991, the Israeli government and the Jerusalem municipality built 40,000 apartment units in the city's Jewish sectors, but only 555 units in its Palestinian sectors. 

Following the signing of the Oslo Agreement, the Israeli government has substantially stepped up the pace of settlement-building in the Greater Jerusalem area.  This intensification has been well-documented by several human rights institutions, both local and international.  Also, the rates of land expropriation and tree uprooting, and the rate at which land is turned over for used by settlers, has considerably increased.  For the coming period, Israel is planning to build more settlements for Jews in East Jerusalem than in West Jerusalem. 

Since Palestinian East Jerusalem residents are forbidden from building on most of the open land in East Jerusalem, and from living in West Jerusalem, their options for building houses are very limited.  They can build in small, already built-up areas.  However, the lack of land alloted for building makes this land very expensive.  Or they can build without the permission of the authorities, but they face the likelihood that such houses will be demolished and they will be penalized with a heavy fine.  The current rate of Israeli demolition of Palestinians' homes in East Jerusalem is about 50 per year. (25) Or finally they can build elsewhere in the West Bank, outside of the Jerusalem municipality, playing into the hands of the Israeli policy to push them out of the city.   Increasingly more people are forced to rent houses and apartments, but the severe demand for housing pushes up rental prices.   

It is clear that the Israeli government, through its land and housing policies, has created an environment that makes it unfeasible for many residents to continue to live in East Jerusalem.  When residents decide to live outside of East Jerusalem, they run the risk of being bureaucratically and physcially separated from their homes in Jerusalem.   

(b) Municipality Tax (Arnona)  

The Jerusalem municipality tax is another policy tool used to encourage Palestinian emigration from Jerusalem.  Applying the tax to Palestinians is illegal under international law which prohibits the imposition of new taxes by the occupying power.  The Fourth Geneva Convention further stipulates that all taxes collected in an occupied area be spent in the same area.  Palestinians pay 26% of the cost of municipal services but receive just 5% of those services.  Also, they are placed in hihg-paying tax categories despite their relative inability to pay.  55% of Palestinians in Jerusalem are behind in their arnona payments.  To encourage Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem, Jewish settlers are exempted from municipal tax for five years and after this period are only charged a reduced rate. (26)  

(c) National Insurance  

East Jerusalem residents must make National Insurance payments as if they were citzens of Israel.  The NII, in turn, is supposed to make payments to certain sectors of the East Jerusalem population, as it does to the Israeli population.  These sectors include: people who are elderly, widowed, unemployed, permanently disabled; children; mothers (childbirth fees and maternity leave); and injured workers.  

In 1967, the NII opened a branch in East Jerusalem and started to make payments to residents included in the 1967 census, and to those who received Israeli ID cards even if they lived outside of Jerusalem.  In February 1973, a law was passed that guaranteed National Insurance payments to all those with Israeli IDs who had consistently paid their NI dues, including those people who moved to live outside the Jerusalem municipality.  This law was passed to appease the fears of those people who were afraid they would lose their rights if they moved outside of Jerusalem at a time that the municipality was directly encouraging people to do so.  This "encouragement" took the form of inadequate housing and municipal services (see above), human rights abuses, and the municipality's "Build You Own Home In Al-Azariah" campaign. (27)  

Many people decided to move to Al-Azariah and other areas surrounding Jerusalem and recieved NI payments until 1984.  Then the NII began to change its policy: Children born after their parents moved from Jerusalem did not receive National Insurance payments.  Soon afterwards, all Jerusalem residents and their families, numbering around 1,500, who had moved to Al-Azariah, Al-Ram, and Bahiat el-Barid stopped receiving payments.  The NII considered all the payments to these people since the time of their move to be a mistake since, according to the office, they were no longer Jerusalem residents.  The decision was not made based on individual cases.  Rather, it was decided to terminate the payments collectively. 

The residents appealed to regional and national employment courts, but their claims were deferred.  Their case was finally taken to the High Court.  The judges recommended that the NII representatives reconsider their position.  In February 1993 it was finally announced that the residnets' NI payments would be resumed.  At the end of 1993 the NII was still looking for a separate office in East Jerusalem to process these cases and no payments had yet been received by the residents. 

The National Isurance laws are very complex, and there are many conditions that East Jerusalem permanent residents must fulfill before they receive the benefits for which they are eligible.  Permanent residents living outside of Jerusalem often only receive the benefits that they were already receiving before they moved.  For example, a man received disability payments while he was living in East Jerusalem.  He started to live in Ramallah, after which he reached the age of 65, the age at which he should start to receive a pension for the elderly.  However, unless he fulfills additional stringent conditions, he will not receive the pension. 

Another problem affecting all Palestinian East Jerusalem residents is the lengthy periods that they wait before beginning to receive their payments.  The NII takes a very long time before deciding whether or not to grant the payments.  For example, it usually takes between one and one and a half years for a widow to receive payments after her husband dies (whereas Israeli citizens usually wait only two or three months).  NII officials regularly explain their defaulting on NII payments with the justification that their investigators are unwilling to venture into East Jerusalem due to the 'insecure' situation there - so it is impossible, they say, to verify a family's circumstances.  It must be remembered that NI payments are intended for people who are economically deprived and cannot affort to wait for months let alone years, for the money that is their due. 

(d) Income Tax Filing 

There is an increasing pattern on the part of the government of filing the income tax returns of Jerusalem permanent residents who have moved to the West Bank in offices in the West Bank instead of in East Jerusalem.  This is yet another facet of the government's program to gradually relocate East Jerusalemites' center of life to the West Bank. 

(e) The Military Closure 

Until the Persian Gulf War in 1991, only people who were considered security risks were forbidden by the Israeli government to cross into 'Greater Jerusalem' from the West Bank.  During the Gulf War, the government imposed a total military closure on the Occupied Territories.  Gaza and West Bank residents could only cross the check points into Jerusalem with a permit from the Civil Administration.  Gradually, tens of thousands of people received permits, mainly work permits, to cross into Israel every day. 

In March 1993 the Israeli government once again imposed a total military closure on the Occupied Territories, and once again people had to apply for permits to cross into Jerusalem.  The number of West Bank and Gaza Strip workers employed in East Jerusalem and inside Israel - formerly 120,000 - was cut by over 50%.  West Bank residents and their Jerusalem relatives, from whom they were forced to live separately, were effectively severed from each other.  Also, as in the case of Afaf Abu-Diab  many relatives of Jerusalem residents could not leave Jerusalem out of the knowledge that they would not be able to return.  In June 1993 the Civil Administration announced that it would grant three-month Jerusalem entry permits to West Bank residents whose spouses are permanent residents of East Jerusalem.  These permits are only valid during the day and the holder must leave East Jerusalem before seven o'clock each evening.  Also, there are many reported cases of people being refused these permits or only being granted permits valid for a few days or weeks instead of for three months.  The closure was gradually relaxed so that, by the end of 1993, men over the age of 40 and women no longer required permits in order to enter Jerusalem. 

Following the February 25 Hebron massacre, Israeli imposed another total closure for almost two months.  In April, 1994, Israel issued a few thousand work permits to Palestinian workers to ward off the negative effects of the closure on Israel's agricultural and construction industry. 

Again, the closure was gradually relaxed until the situation in June, 1994 was as follows: children under the age of 15 and women did not officially require entry permits, and 45,000 day work permits had been issued.  The strictness with which this most recent closure was enforced was striking.  Daily, soliders and police rounded up hundreds of Palestinians who desperate to earn money, made their way around the check-points.  Unprecedented fines and prison terms were imposed on these 'offenders.' 

The services of human rights agencies, including those working on residency and family unity issues, have been severaly hindered by these closures.  Many people in the West Bank cannot reach Jerusalem, where most human rights agencies are based, to receive information and advocacy, to deliver affidavits, and so on.  Also, many human rights workers from the West Bank cannot get to their offices in Jerusalem. 

In short, the ongoing and, according to the government, permanent military closure has made more acute the problems faced by Jerusalem families, including those of residency and family unity.  Moreover, the closure has, for all intents and purposes, severed Jerusalem - the political, economic, religious and cultural capital of Palestine - from the majority of Palestinians.  The effect has been devastating for people both inside and outside Jerusalem, making it even harder for them to resist repressive Israeli policies. 

2. Bribery and Intermediary Payments 
  
The following exploitative practice is reportedly widespread, not only in East Jerusalem but also in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.  Often, people claiming to be lawyers approach family members who are having difficulties regarding family reunification, exit permits and visit permits.  These intermediaries offer their services - help in procuring residency or a visit permit - for a fee of up to thousands of dollars.  Despite the prohibitive expense, some families resort to this channel of family reuniification, many after already applying through official means.  Sometimes, after making these payments, a family's application is successsful, sometimes not.  It is strongly suspected that much of the money paid to these intermediaries finds its way into the pockets of Interior Ministry and Civil Adminsitration officials.  A recent article on this matter reads:  

The ranks of the fixers [intermediaries] include both Jews and Arabs.  Many of the Jews are former employees of the intelligence services or the military administration.  They are already well-acquainted with the relevant administrative procedures and personnel ... Arab collaborators also join the ranks of the profession, usually after they have been exposed.  Sometimes they receive permission to act as mediators ... in semi-official fashion, as a reward for assistance rendered to the state.  They receive applications from people who know about their closeness to the establishment, but they do not transmit them directly to the Ministry of the Interior, but bring them to their police or shabak controllers, who obtain the permits for them. (28) 

The article claims that fixers can make up to tens of thousands of dollars a month in bribes. 

IV. Peace Talks 

The issue of family reunification is being handled in the framework of the Refugee Working Group in the multilateral negotiations.  Progress has been excruciateingly slow, and the Israeli team is only willing to offer piecemeal compromises. 

The situation of East Jerusalem residents will be dependent on the agreement, if and when one is reached, regarding the final status of Jerusalem.  The issue of Jerusalem, along with other crucial issues such as 1948 refugees, have been tabled for discussion til 1997.  This postponement has served to legitimize, for the time being, Israel's repressive and illegal policies of obstructing family unity, massive settlement, military closure and more, are daily increasing the hardships of Palestinian resdients of East Jerusalem.  This, in turn, will push more Palestinian residnets out of the city and will cause more of them to request Israeli citizenship as a means of helping them to survive on 'Israeli territory.' (29) 

Meanwhile, the Israeli team has agreed, in principle, that decisions and policies regarding family reunification shhould apply irrespective of the applicants' "place of origin and status." (30)  Although no explicit reference to Jerusalem was made by the Israeli team, this statement has been interpreted by the Palestinian team as an Israeli acquiescence to including Jerusalem residents in all new policies regarding family reunification.  However, no concerete measures have been taken toward this end. 

Barring spectacular future developments, it will still be very difficult for Palestinians to be granted family reunification in Jerusalem, and the Israeli Iterior Ministry will remain the sole authority responsible for all population affairs connected to the city. 

V. Conclusion  

East Jerusalem Palestinians find themselves in dual role, both of which they are trying to cast off.  
First, they are part of the West Bank population under Israeli military occupation.  Second, they are part of the Israeli State, although Israel is the only party that believes that this is an official, and permanent, state of affairs. Both roles subject them to repression and discrimination without due process of law. Similarly, both roles contribute to violations of their rights of residency and family unity. As regards these rights, it is the role as part of the Israeli State that is likely to plague East Jerusalem Palestinians for the foreseable future; because of the realization of these rights is diametrically opposed to Israel's policies and plans.  The fulfillment of these basic rights would necessitate the repatriation and return to Jerusalem of many thousands of Palestinians who are currently residing in the rest of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and abroad.  It would also entail the natural and unimpeded growth of the city as the center of Palestine.  Israel's designs on East Jerusalem, as its eternal capital, compel the reverse situation: limiting the Palestinian population while continuing the rapid settlement of Jews.  As this is written, the Housing Ministry is planning more housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem than in West Jerusalem.  No doubt, Israel's vision is to subdue East Jerusalem Palestinians as a minority of Israeli Greater Jerusalem, much as it attempted to do with the Palestinian minority that remained within its borders after 1948.  While it might start to release control over the population in the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank, Israel is tightening its grip on East Jerusalem. 

As such, Palestinian families in East Jerusalem are falling victim to the demographic war the Israeli state has waged on their home.  The various bureaucratic procedures listed in this report are part of Israel's tools for both limiting East Jerusalem's Palestinian population and for separating its families. 

The conclusion is clear: only when East Jerusalem will be an integral and central, part of an independent Paelstinian state will the Palestinians who live there be able to fully realize their rights of residency and family unity. 

Footnotes 

(1) Abu Lughod, Janet.  "The Demographic Consequences of the Occupation," ed. Nasser Aruri, Occupation: Israel Over Palestine (London: Zed Books, 1984). 
(2) de Jong, Jan. "Jerusalem: A City Under Siege," Challenge vol 3, no. 1. 
(3) Co-ordinating Committee of International NGOs (CCINGO) report Occupied East Jerusalem (Jerusalem) September 1993. 
(4) UN General Assembly Resolutions 181, 2253 and 2254. 
(5) See Professor Denstein on international law. 
(6) Up until recently, even in the exceptional case that an East Jerusalem Palestinian requested Israeli citizenship, the government was very reluctant to grant it.  Recently, following the Oslo Agreement, the govenrment has been encouraging, through a shortened procedure, the 'Israeli naturalization' of East Jerusalem Palestinians. 
(7) In this report the term 'Occupied Territories' referes to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem. 
(8) Abu Lughod, p. 257. 
(9) Romann, Michael, Living Together Separately: Arabs and Jews in Contemporary Jerusalem (Princeton: Princeton University Pess, 1991), p. 19.  Statistics are difficult to obtain for the number of people who were living in the area beyond the Jordanian defined municipality of Jerusalem that was annexed by Israel; however, it is known that the Israeli carried out large-scale deportations from Jerusalem in the days immediately following the 1967 war. 
(10) The phrasing almost any Jew refers mainly to the ongoing conflict over Ethiopian Jews' immigration to Israel. 
(11) Israeli Supreme Court petition 282/88. 
(12) Ha'aretz (6 July 1993) 
(13) The average weekly wage for a full-time Palestinian worker in East Jerusalem is under 250 shekels. 
(14) Interview with Mr. Tov (4-8-93) 
(15) Hotline: Center for the Defense of the Individual, Restrictions on Travel Abroad for East Jerusalem and West Bank Palestinians (Jerusalem, 1992). 
(16) Supreme Court petition 2797/93. 
(17) Of course, the Israeli government claims that there is a connection between their discriminatory policies and national security.  However, the government would be hard pressed to explain these same connections without resorting to baseless and racist assumptions. 
(18) Until recently, hospitals were instructed not to report the births of a child if only his/her mother was a Palestinian Permanent Resident of Jerusalem.  As a result, many children born in Jerusalem remain unregistered. 
(19) From protocol, prepared by the Quaker Service Information and Legal Aid Center, East Jerusalem, of meeting on February 17, 1993, between Interior Ministry officials and human rights lawyers. 
(20) Ibid.. 
(21) Palestine Human Rights Information Center (PHRIC) Statement, Statistics on Israeli House Demolition and Planning Policy in East Jerusalem, June 1994. 
(22) Ha'aretz (4 May 1994) 
(23) PHRIC statement. 
(24) CCINGO report. 
(25) PHRIC. 
(26) CCINGO report. 
(27) Halabi, Usama.  Jerusalem: The Effects of Israel's Annexation of Jerusalem on the Rights and Position of its Arab Population. (East Jerusalem: PASSIA, 1990), in Arabic. 
(28) Hillel Cohen, "Bribery Inc.", Kol Ha'ir (23-7-93). 
(29) The summary statement of the October 12-14, 1993, Tunis meeting of the Multilateral Working Group on Refugee Issues. 
(30) The Interior Ministry announced that an average of 60 applications per month are currently being submitted by East Jerusalem Palestinian residents for Israeli citizenship.