Israeli Interior Ministry Corrects its Data on
Jerusalem ID Card Confiscation
Based on information provided by the Israeli Interior Ministry in Jerusalem to Ha’aretz correspondent Amira Hass, the Ministry has corrected its computer records of ID card confiscations from Palestinian Jerusalemites for the period 1995 – 1999.
The new and corrected official Israeli figures are:
|Year||# of IDs Confiscated|
(i.e. approximately 11,248 directly Palestinians directly affected by the policy of Jerusalem ID card confiscation).
For most of the years, the corrected figures differ only slightly from those published earlier. The only significant difference appears in regards to the year of 1997, for which the Ministry now reports 1067 ID card confiscations, compared to only 606 cases reported previously.
ID Card Confiscation in the Israeli Supreme Court: Follow-up
On 22 April 1999, the Israeli Supreme Court held a first hearing for a public petition, assembled by five Israeli human rights organizations, against the revocation of residency rights from Palestinian Jerusalemites. The hearing was accompanied by a series of local and international lobbying and protest activities organized by 25 Palestinian and Israeli NGOs in the framework of a Campaign to End ID Card Confiscation. At the end of this Supreme Court hearing, the judges ruled that the State was to provide a detailed (case based) explanation of the criteria used to determine whether a persons permanent resident status in Jerusalem had expired, both for the period prior to the current policy (sample years 1989 and 1991) and for the period starting with 1996 (the first year of massive ID card confiscations). Both parties were asked to categorize and pair-up their arguments until August 1999. (For more details on the first hearing see: al Majdal/2, June 99)
By mid-September 1999, the petitioners had not received the State’s report. Also a request for a temporary injunction order against ID card confiscation, submitted to the Supreme Court by the petitioners soon after the April hearing, has – as of yet – remained unanswered.