BADIL

Maysoun Mufid Najib Arafat, age 32, born in Libya and Ma’moun Hassan Zeidan Arafat, age 31, born in Nablus, were married in Nablus in 1986 and have a son, Khaled, age 4. From 1986 to 1989, Maysoun was here legally on visitor’s permits (living “inside” for three months until her permit was renewed again). In February 1989 her visit permit expired, and she did not attempt to renew it (which was common at that point in the Intifada). She remained in Nablus on an expired permit.
In August 1991 Ma’moun went to the civil administration to get travel documents for his parents. The civil administration made granting his parent’s documents conditional on Maysoun’s paying NIS 4,680 for not having renewed her visit permit (an illegal sum; she was legally obliged to pay NIS 154 for each 6 month period she had failed to renew - amounting to NIS 770 for those 2 1/2 years) or on her leaving without having to pay the fine.
Maysoun left on August 12, and was made to pay NIS 210 at the bridge. As soon as she was out, they were told that ‘she was never getting back in’.
Ma’moun applied at the civil administration for another visitor’s permit but was denied. On November 1 Hotline sent a letter to the legal advisor. In mid-November a letter came from the legal advisor stating that she must be allowed to return. But the civil administration said that their computer file stated that she was never to return. Ma’moun protested that the legal advisor had given a letter approving her return, the file was then sent to the military governor. On November 20 the decision came from the military governor that she could return. Ma’moun went and got a visit permit good from the beginning until the end of December. Maysoun stayed an extra week in Jordan, but when she tried to cross the Allenby bridge December 14, her visit permit was torn up and she was told by the bridge authorities that she was ‘never coming back here.’ Ma’moun went back to Hotline, where they called the legal advisor, the legal advisor said it had been a ‘small technicality’, that the authorization was sent to the Damya bridge, but since the Damya was closed from December 12, she went to the Allenby bridge. The legal advisor said that he had to talk to a specific person at the Allenby, and that the matter would be straightened out.
On December 20 Ma’moun got another visit permit which his mother took to Maysoun in Amman. This time at the bridge, on December 22, her permit was not torn up, but she was told again that she ‘will never be allowed to enter’.
From that point on it was 3-4 calls a week to the legal advisor. In mid-January the legal advisor finally responded that it was not a ‘simple technical mistake’, but that in fact the Shabak wanted to look at the case again. She had never been in jail, but Ma’moun had been sentenced to months in 1985, and had been held in administrative detention for 5 months in 1988-89. They had tried to get Maysoun to collaborate in 1989, but she had refused.
In mid-February, after a waiting period of about 3 weeks, the legal advisor gave verbal confirmation that she would be allowed back in, but Ma’moun had to wait for the approval in writing. Despite the fact that legal advisor’s letter never came, he obtained a visit permit on March 10, just as the bridge reopened after having been closed for over a month. The permit was effective as of March 24 (‘because there was so much traffic on the bridge once it reopened’) and on March 26 Maysoun crossed without problem.
After 7 months and 3-4 days of work on the case a week, she is here on a 1 month visit permit carrying NIS 5,000 guarantee, and it remains to be seen whether she will receive the regular 6 month visit permits due her.
 

ACRI’s litigation concerning family reunification in the Occupied Territories began when it petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice (H.C. 1979/90). The state answered the petition (June 3, 1990) with a commitment to solve the humanitarian issue raised by granting permanently renewable “visitor’ status to the non-resident wives and children of residents of the territories. On June 5, 1990, the High Court decided that the new policy should be tested as it develops in practice, and rejected the petition.
In practice, six month visitor permits were issued at a reduced fee to the wives and minor children of residents, and these specific permits were renewed.