DOCSLIB.ORG

1 the Supreme Court in the Capacity of the Hight Court of Justice High Court of Justice 7385/13 High Court of Justice 8425/13 B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 the Supreme Court in the Capacity of the Hight Court of Justice High Court of Justice 7385/13 High Court of Justice 8425/13 B THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAPACITY OF THE HIGHT COURT OF JUSTICE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 7385/13 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 8425/13 Before: The Honorable Chief Justice A. Grunis The Honorable Senior Associate Justice M. Naor The Honorable Justice E. Arbel (retired) The Honorable Justice S. Joubran The Honorable Justice E. Hayut The Honorable Justice Y. Danziger The Honorable Justice N. Hendel The Honorable Justice U. Vogelman The Honorable Justice I. Amit Petitioners in High Court Eitan – Israeli Immigration Policy Center, et al. of Justice 7385/13 Petitioners in High Court 1. Zari Gebreselaissie of Justice 8425/13 2. Tadros Habithamarim 3. The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants 4. The Association for Civil Rights in Israel 5. ASSAF- Aid Organization for Refugees & Asylum Seekers in Israel 6. Kav LaOved – Worker’s Hotline 7. Physicians for Human Rights in Israel 8. ARDC – African Refugee Development Center Requesting to join in High 1. Kohelet Policy Forum Court of Justice 8425/13 as 2. Concord Center “Amici Curiae”: v. Respondents in High Court 1. The Israeli Government of Justice 7385/13 2. The Prime Minister 3. The Minister of Defense 4. The Minister of Interior 5. The Minister of Public Security 6. The Minister of Finance 7. The Minister of Justice 1 8. The Minister of Economics 9. The Administrator of the Population and Immigration Authority 10. The Attorney General to the Government 11. The Head of Border Control in the Ministry of Interior Respondents in High Court 1. The Knesset of Justice 8425/13 2. The Minister of Interior 3. The Minister of Defense 4. The Minister of Public Security 5. The Attorney General to the Government Opposition to the Order Nisi Date of the Sessions: 22 Tevet 5774 (May 25, 2013) 4 Nissan 5774 (April 1, 2014) In the Name of the Petitioners in High Court Adv. Doron Taubman Justice 7385/13: In the Name of the Petitioners in High Court Adv. Oded Peller, Adv; Yehonatan Berman; Justice 8425/13: Adv. Anat Ben-Dor; Adv. Elad Kahana; Adv. Assaf Wiezen; Adv. Osnat Cohen-Lifshitz In the Name of the Respondent in High Court Adv. Dr. Gur Blei Justice 7385/13: In the Name of the Respondents in High Court Adv. Yochi Gennisin; Adv. Ran Rosenberg; Justice 8425/13: Adv. Yitzchak Barret; Adv. Noam Moulla In the Name of Respondent 1 requesting to join Adv. Ariel Erlich; Adv. Dr. Avishay Bakshi as “amicus curiae” in High Court Justice 8425/13: In the Name of Respondent 2 requesting to join Adv. Avinoam Cohen as “amicus curiae” in High Court Justice 8425/13: JUDGMENT 2 Justice U. Vogelman Table of Contents I. Introduction ……..………………………………………..…………………………..4 II. Ruling in the Adam Case……………………………………..……………………….6 III. Amendment 4, the Legislative Process, the Principles of the Amendment and its Application……………………………………………………………………………8 IV. The Petitions before Us ………………………………………………………………9 A. Summary of the Claims of the Petitioners in High Court Justice 7385/13 ………9 B. Summary of the Claims of the Petitioners in High Court Justice 8425/13…...…10 The State’s Position……………………………………………………………..11 C. The Knesset’s Reaction ………………………………………………………...14 D. Parties Requesting to Join as Amici Curiae……………………………………..15 V. Deliberation and Ruling …...……………...………………………………………...16 A. High Court Justice 8425/13……………………………………………………..16 1. The Constitutional Analysis………………………...………………………16 2. The “Infiltrators” Phenomenon, Applications for Asylum and their Contents ……..………………………………………………………..20 (a) Background – the “Infiltrators” Phenomenon………………………….20 (b) The Dimensions of the Phenomenon - A Recent Glance………...........28 (c) Interim Summary……………………………………………………….30 3. Article 30A of the Law………………………………………………..….…31 (a) The Infringement on the Constitutional Rights……………………...…34 (b) “ For a Proper Purpose” ……………………………………….……….36 (i) Identification and Exhaustion of the Departure Channels for Deportation…………………………………………………….36 (ii) Preventing the Recurrence of the “Infiltrators” Phenomenon………………………………………...…………37 (c) Proportionality ……………………………………………..…………..38 (i) The Rational Relationship Test ………………………..……………38 (ii) The Least Offensive Measure Test ………………….……………..41 (iii) The Proportionality Test in the Strict Sense…...…………………..44 (d) The Remedy…………………………………………………………….51 4. Chapter 4 of the Law………………………………………………………..53 (a) The “Holot” Residency Center ...………...…………………………….55 (b) Millin Academy ………………………………………………………..59 (c) Infringement on Rights and the Structure of the Examination ………...60 (d) “For a Proper Purpose” …………………………………………….…..61 (i) Preventing Settling Down and Integration into the Work Force ………………………………………….…………….…62 (ii) Response to the Needs of the ”Infiltrators” …………………...62 3 (iii) An Additional Claimed Purpose: Encouragement of “Voluntary” Returns ……………………………………………...…………64 (e) The Arrangements of Chapter 4 of the Law -A Concrete Examination. 64 (i) Mandatory Reporting in the Center – Is It Really “Open”? ..…68 1) The Infringement on the Constitutional Rights …………..71 2) The Constitutional Right for Human Dignity …………….72 3) Proportionality ……………………………………………76 a) The Rational Relationship Test ………………………76 The Least Offensive Measure Test ...…………………77 b) The Proportionality Test in the Strict Sense ……….…78 (ii) Management of the Residency Center by the Israeli Prison Service and the Authority of the Prison Guards ………………82 (iii) Restriction of the Duration in the Residency Center and Grounds for Release ……………………………………………….……87 1) The Infringement of the Constitutional Rights……………87 2) Proportionality ……………………………...…………….91 a) The Rational Relationship Test ………………………91 b) The Least Offensive Measure Test……………………91 c) The Proportionality Test in the Strict Sense…..………92 (iv) Transferring an “Infiltrator” to Detention …………………….94 (1) The Infringement of the Constitutional Rights…………..101 (2) The Constitutional Right of Due Process……………..…101 (3) Proportionality…………………………………………...109 a) The Rational Relationship Test………………..…….109 b) The Least Offensive Measure Test…………………..110 c) The Proportionality Test in the Strict Sense………....110 (f) Chapter 4 in its Entirety and the Proportionality Requirement……….112 (g) The Remedy…………………………………………………………...115 (h) Following the Aforesaid ..………………………………………….…116 (i) Final Comments ………………………………………………………121 VI. High Court of Justice 8425/13 – Summary………………………………………...125 VII. High Court of Justice 7385/13……………………………………………………...127 VIII. Prior to Closing the Deliberations………………………………………………….128 IX. Summary ………………………………………………………………………..…129 I. Introduction Over the last few years, tens of thousands of “infiltrators” from Eritrea and northern Sudan have entered into the State of Israel. The executive branch and the legislative branch were requested to cope with the consequences of this phenomenon in several manners – by means of establishing a “physical barrier” in the form of a fence on the southern border of the country and by means of what may be referred to as “normative barriers” through amending the legislation. The Petitions before us place criticism on two constitutional arrangements which were determined in primary 4 legislation regarding this matter. By virtue of the first arrangement it is possible to detain “infiltrators” in detention, who have had a deportation order issued against them for a period of one year and by virtue of the second arrangement it is possible to order the transfer of the “infiltrators” to an “open” Residency Center for an unlimited period of time. Are these arrangements constitutional? These are the questions pending our decision. 1. The two Petitions before us were set for a hearing before the extended panel and their review has been consolidated (according to the decision from December 25, 2013). The first petition (High Court of Justice 8425/13) criticizes the constitutionality of the Law for the Prevention of Infiltration (Offenses and Jurisdiction) (Amendment No. 4 and Temporary Order), 5774 – 2013, legislation ledger 74 (hereinafter: Amendment No.4 or the Amendment to the Law) due to the infringement of the “infiltrators” rights. The second petition (High Court of Justice 7385/13) primarily criticizes the manner in which Amendment No. 4 is applied, whereby the basis of the claim is that the State is not acting sufficiently to secure the rights and safety of the South Tel Aviv residents as a result of the “infiltrators” phenomenon. 2. In the last few years, tens of thousands of people entered into Israel by means other than border patrol stations. In 2012, prior to the legislation of Amendment No. 3 of the Law for the Prevention of Infiltration (Offenses and Jurisdiction) (Amendment No. 3 and Temporary Order), 5772 – 2012, legislation ledger 119 (hereinafter: Amendment No. 3) the “infiltrators” were placed in detention by virtue of the Law of Entry into Israel, 5712 – 1952 (hereinafter: Law of Entry into Israel), but were released after a relatively short period of time in light of the restrictions on the duration of detention according to the arrangements which are set in the Law of Entry into Israel. The legislation of Amendment No. 3 was designated to apply a unique, strict statutory arrangement upon the “infiltrators”, more so than the arrangement applicable to the “infiltrators” by the virtue of the Law of Entry into Israel, in particular in light of the difficulty of clarifying the identity of those individuals that entered into the territory of the country without any identification documents and in an unrecorded fashion; in light of their entry to Israel which in the outset was unlawful (explanatory notes for the Proposal of the Law for the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TUC 2016 Delegation to Palestine and Israel
    TUC solidarity: Palestine & Israel General Council delegation report January-February 2016 TUC 2016 delegation to Palestine and Israel A TUC delegation to Palestine and Israel took place in 2016. When Congress originally called on the General Council to send such a delegation, it had been hoped that it could visit Gaza to identify what the TUC could do to help lift the blockade. The positions of the Israeli and UK governments made it impossible to arrange such a delegation, so plans were put in place to visit Palestine and Israel instead. The delegation took place from 31 January and 3 February 2016, consisting of Paul Nowak (Deputy General Secretary TUC), Sally Hunt (General Council Spokesperson on International Relations), Christine Blower, Hugh Lanning (Chair of the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign) and Sean Bamford (Policy Officer TUC). The delegation met with the Palestine General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) in Nablus, the Palestinian Authority Deputy Minister of Labour, the Governor of Nablus, UNOCHA, the British Deputy Consul-General in Jerusalem, the PPSWU in Hebron, the Mayor of Bethlehem (and a visit to a refugee camp), Defence for Children International – Palestine, representatives of APHEDA and Ma’an, Histadrut and Kav LaOved (names and acronyms are explained in text below). On the morning of 1 February the delegation was due to meet the Palestinian Prime Minister, Mr Rami Hamdallah, in Ramallah where the Palestinian Authority is based. Earlier that day at a check point outside Ramallah a Palestinian policeman shot and injured three Israeli soldiers and was himself shot dead. Understandably, Mr Hamdallah had to pull out of the meeting with the TUC delegation.
    [Show full text]
  • Emblem of the State of Israel]
    Unofficial translation [Emblem of the State of Israel] In the Supreme Court Sitting as High Court of Justice HCJ 2293/17 Before: Honorable President E. Chayut Honorable Vice President H. Meltzer Honorable Judge N. Hendel Honorable Judge U. Vogelman Honorable Judge Y. Amit Honorable Judge N. Solberg Honorable Judge G. Kara The Petitioners: 1. Esther Segai Gersagher 2. Zaga Kibrum Mahrtav 3. Salomon Kasa 4. Samson Maspan 5. Ibrahim Yossef Mohammad Ahmad 6. Yohanes Fresney 7. Yakob Jamal 8. Kav Laoved 9. ASSAF - Aid Organization for Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Israel 10. The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants 11. Association for Civil Rights in Israel 12. ARDC – African Refugee Development Center 13. Physicians for Human Rights–Israel 14. Israeli Restaurants Association -Versus- The Respondents: 1. Knesset 2. Minister of Interior 3. Minister of Finance 4. Minister of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services 5. Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank 6. Eitan – Israeli Immigration Policy 1 7-42. Sinoni Ayala and 35 others Parties requesting to join as 1. Israel Women's Network amici curiae: 2. IATCH-MAACHI Women Lawyers for Social Justice 3. Achoti (Sister) - for Women in Israel 4. The Center for Eritrean Women in Israel 5. UNITAF 6. Women's Spirit: Financial Independence - for Women Victims of Violence 7. ADVA Center 8. Economic Empowerment for Women 9. Her Academy: School for women returning to the employment market 10. Arous Elbahar Association for Women in Jaffa 11. No'am - Association for Arab Women Center Objection to making the order nisi a decree absolute Dates of sessions: 3 Av 5777 (26.7.2017) 17 Kislev 5778 (5.12.2017) 12 Av 5778 (24.7.2018) 2 Iyar 5779 (7.5.2019) On behalf of Petitioners 1-13: Adv.
    [Show full text]
  • Violations of the Right to Medical Care for Palestinian Workers Employed in Israel
    Violations of the Right to Medical Care for Palestinian Workers Employed in Israel Research and writing: Noga Kadman Translated by: Nadav Amir Edited by: Chris Whitman Violations of the Right to Medical Care for Palestinian Workers Employed in Israel Research and writing: Noga Kadman Translated by: Nadav Amir Edited by: Chris Whitman “This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Kav LaOved and can in no way be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.” Photo credit: Hanna Zohar (cover), Activestills (back cover) All rights reserved KavLaOved ©2105 2 Contents Introduction 4 Background 5 Data and Developments 5 Denial of Rights and Pay 7 Lack of Health Insurance in Israel 10 Sick Leave Payment Collected but not Given to Workers 13 Workplace Accidents 14 Background and Data 14 Evacuation of Injured Palestinian Workers to Hospitals 18 Recognition of Workplace Accidents and Receipt of Injury Benefit 19 Medical Attention and Covering Costs Following the Accident 22 Recognition of Disability and Provision of a Disability Benefit 24 Denial of General Disability Benefits 25 The Equalization Surcharge – Collected but not Implemented 27 Occupational Health 30 Conclusions and Recommendations 32 3 Introduction The number of Palestinian workers employed in Israel has doubled in recent years, and is now estimated at around 100,000. Palestinian workers employed in Israel are not eligible for the health insurance in Israel, except in regards to work accidents (but at lesser conditions than those of Israeli and foreign workers). This is the case despite most of them have work permits, and despite the fact that payments for national insurance and health coverage are deducted from their salaries every month.
    [Show full text]
  • To Securely Donate Via "Israel Gives"
    View On Web Here’s what’s on the agenda for today’s monthly update. KavLaOved’s survey shows that the majority of Thai agriculture workers in Israel receive less than the legal minimum wage. Jean Trapal, a caregiver, tearfully describes the caregiving job in first­person. Our new training series in workers’ rights for Palestinians women took off last month. The training is part of a larger project funded by the European Union called “Dignity at Work.” The Majority of Thai Workers Receive Less than the Legal Minimum Wage – Law Enforcement is Nowhere to be Found. KavLaOved’s survey among Thai agriculture workers yielded some very alarming results. Eighty­three percent of respondents reported that they do not get minimum wage and 48% reported that they have to work seven days a week. Ninety percent of respondents stated that when they approached the agency tasked with assisting them in addressing labor rights violations and asked for assistance in addressing these illegal work conditions, no help was provided. As the survey shows, employers in the agriculture sector suffer almost zero legal consequences for their large­scale labor law violations. The Population and Immigration Authority (PIBA) reports an ongoing decrease in official investigations regarding agricultural workers’ rights. Our monitoring efforts confirm this—we see fewer and fewer financial sanctions being imposed on exploitative employers. For instance, according to the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Social Services, in 2019 only two employers in the agriculture sector were sanctioned due to workers’ rights violations. Click here for the full report (Hebrew). Jean Trapal, a caregiver, provides a window into the life of a caregiver.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel 2020 Human Rights Report
    ISRAEL 2020 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Israel is a multiparty parliamentary democracy. Although it has no constitution, its parliament, the unicameral 120-member Knesset, has enacted a series of “Basic Laws” that enumerate fundamental rights. Certain fundamental laws, orders, and regulations legally depend on the existence of a “state of emergency,” which has been in effect since 1948. Under the Basic Laws, the Knesset has the power to dissolve itself and mandate elections. On March 2, Israel held its third general election within a year, which resulted in a coalition government. On December 23, following the government’s failure to pass a budget, the Knesset dissolved itself, which paved the way for new elections scheduled for March 23, 2021. Under the authority of the prime minister, the Israeli Security Agency combats terrorism and espionage in Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. The national police, including the border police and the immigration police, are under the authority of the Ministry of Public Security. The Israeli Defense Forces are responsible for external security but also have some domestic security responsibilities and report to the Ministry of Defense. Israeli Security Agency forces operating in the West Bank fall under the Israeli Defense Forces for operations and operational debriefing. Civilian authorities maintained effective control over the security services. The Israeli military and civilian justice systems have on occasion found members of the security forces to have committed abuses. Significant human
    [Show full text]
  • B'tselem Report: Dispossession & Exploitation: Israel's Policy in the Jordan Valley & Northern Dead Sea, May
    Dispossession & Exploitation Israel's policy in the Jordan Valley & northern Dead Sea May 2011 Researched and written by Eyal Hareuveni Edited by Yael Stein Data coordination by Atef Abu a-Rub, Wassim Ghantous, Tamar Gonen, Iyad Hadad, Kareem Jubran, Noam Raz Geographic data processing by Shai Efrati B'Tselem thanks Salwa Alinat, Kav LaOved’s former coordinator of Palestinian fieldworkers in the settlements, Daphna Banai, of Machsom Watch, Hagit Ofran, Peace Now’s Settlements Watch coordinator, Dror Etkes, and Alon Cohen-Lifshitz and Nir Shalev, of Bimkom. 2 Table of contents Introduction......................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter One: Statistics........................................................................................................ 8 Land area and borders of the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea area....................... 8 Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley .................................................................... 9 Settlements and the settler population........................................................................... 10 Land area of the settlements .......................................................................................... 13 Chapter Two: Taking control of land................................................................................ 15 Theft of private Palestinian land and transfer to settlements......................................... 15 Seizure of land for “military needs”.............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Int Cescr Ngo Isr 47 9135 E
    בצלם - מרכז המידע הישראלי לזכויות האדם בשטחים ר.ע( .) ﻤﺭﻜﺯ ﺍﻝﻤﻌﻠﻭﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﺴﺭﺍﺌﻴﻠﻲ ﻝﺤﻘﻭﻕ ﺍﻹﻨﺴﺎﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺭﺍﻀﻲ ﺍﻝﻤﺤﺘﻠﺔ- ﺒﺘﺴﻴﻠﻡ B’Tselem – The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories Information for the Consideration of Israel Submitted to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 47th Session, (14 November - 2 December 2011) September 2011 B'TSELEM - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories has earned international recognition as the leading source of information regarding human rights in the Occupied Territories. Founded in 1989 to monitor, document and advocate to improve the human rights situation in the Occupied Territories, B’Tselem publishes comprehensive reports on a wide variety of human rights issues, organizes public advocacy campaigns, and serves as an important source of information for journalists, researchers and the diplomatic community at the national and international level. B’Tselem has also pioneered the use of video as a tool to foster accountability and bring human rights messages to new audiences. רחוב התעשייה , ד.ת . ŹŷŵŷŶ , ירושלים ŵŹŷŵ ט, לפון ŴŶ ) źŻŷŹŹ ) , פקס ŴŶ) źŻŸŵŵŵ) Hata’asiya St. (Ÿth Floor), P.O.Box ŹŷŵŷŶ, Jerusalem ŵŹŷŵ, Tel. (ŴŶ) źŻŷŹŹ, Fax (ŴŶ) źŻŸŵŵŵ [email protected] http://www.btselem.org SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Article 11: The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living Israel’s control of the land and water resources in the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea undermines the right of Palestinians to an adequate standard of living. Israel has closed off 77.5 percent of the land area to Palestinians (see map 1 below).
    [Show full text]
  • November 27, 1980 30¢ Per Copy
    R . I . J ewish Hi s torical ? Assoc iat i on 11 130 sessions stre e t Provide n ce , RI 0 2906 Support Jewish Read By Agencies More Than 40,000 With Your ·· ISLAND People Membership THE ONLY ENGLISH-JEWISH WEEKLY IN R. I. AND SOUTHEAST MASS VOLUME LXVIII, NUMBER 2 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1980 30¢ PER COPY Prov. Man Elected Begin May Resign, Call Early Elections Head Of Schechter Day School After Another Narrow Confidence Vote ,\ ltchael Bohnen. son of Rabbi and Mrs J E R US AL E M ()TA) - Premic· r dectdC'd •t the la>t m1nutr t,, ,h,tatn m .. n and 1t app,•Jrs thJt his da\S are num­ El, Bohn,•n. has been elected President of the Mc nachem Begin wou ld be inclined to resign Eltahu. Ah,·a s chairman, .,.,d toda\ h.­ bc·rrd "' J m,·mht-r of lfrnit Solomon Schecht,,r Day School of Greater Boston and call earl y ei<'ctions if his government is had no e,planat,on for Assad \ b.. hav1nr, al­ uibor Part, edun,t lo Topple Bej(in "nee again reduced lo a slender maiorily of tC'r the three lact,on m mbt-" d=dcd un­ '-lean" h,k tbe uihor PJrt, oppos1t1on 1 three, as happened when ii ba rely su rvived a animou1" to vote a,z;ainsl the j?;OH'ffim(_ nl prq·,.1nnsc lo loppl, Rt·~in 11; ,R:OH·mment no-confidcncf' vole in Kn esset last week J f \ \:e11mJn I\ ou,tc--d from J ft.nil a_\ d Shimon Pn, • the part,, liad,r, said toda1 w,ult of his volc JRJ.m,t the go,emmt'nl_ one This was made clear by a ,ource close to thJt 1t I urizcnt tn hnn~ Israel "b,d, under morl' Knl'\<<·I vote h3\e to I,., c,-,untcd Begin foll owi ng the .S7-.S4 vo te on moti ons of .-,II pro~·r t"'('Onom1c m.inajtcmenl •• no-confidence in t hC' ~OVl'rn ment · s econom ic a1sa1n,t the coal1t11m "hen!"•cr the· chanCf' lk <tatcd that " "c intend to mtmduc-,, J poli cies ariS('s lo force 1h H-<-iRnat,on and tngR:er earl~ planned N.nnom,.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel's Soviet Immigrants
    4 ISRAEL’S SOVIET IMMIGRANTS Dr Neill Lochery, Director of the Centre for Israeli Studies at University Israel’s Soviet College London, has been conducting research on the impact of Russian immigrants on contemporary Israeli politics. Below, he considers the degree Immigrants to which they have become assimilated within Israeli society and their influence on the political agenda. HE arrival of Israel’s Soviet immigrants It was within the context of need that the political and economic conditions in Russia and their assimilation into Israeli society first members of this Aliyah were welcomed meant that many Jews decided to remain in Tduring the 1990s is one of the most at Ben-Gurion airport in Tel Aviv in 1988. For the countries of the former Soviet Union important developments in the State of Israel, Yitzhak Shamir, the then Israeli prime (FSU). Unlike previous Aliyahs who generally and for the prospects of finding an accord minister, their arrival was a boost to his cut their ties with their countries of origin, between Israel, the Palestinians and the wider widely declared goal of settling extensively in this group has maintained close ties with the Arab world. Like most aspects of the the West Bank and Gaza Strip in order both to motherland. Many immigrants still have development of Israel the arrival of this new change the demographic balance in these family in the FSU and return for holidays, Aliyah (wave of Jewish immigrants) has areas that heavily favoured the Palestinians, shopping and family events. The ever- brought challenges, problems and unforeseen and to make it extremely difficult for these growing numbers of flights between Tel Aviv, consequences.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Agricultural Settlements in the West Bank
    HUMAN RIPE FOR ABUSE RIGHTS Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Agricultural Settlements WATCH in the West Bank Ripe for Abuse Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Agricultural Settlements in the West Bank Copyright © 2015 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-32392 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org Ripe for Abuse Palestinian Child Labor in Israeli Agricultural Settlements in the West Bank Summary ......................................................................................................................... 1 International Law Violations .....................................................................................................4 Expanding Settlement Agriculture, Restrictive Anti-Palestinian Policies .................................... 6 Palestinian
    [Show full text]
  • African Migration to Israel Debt, Employment and Remittances
    African Migration to Israel Debt, Employment and Remittances Rebecca Furst-Nichols and Karen Jacobsen January 2011 We began to learn about the experience of Sudanese refugees in Israel as a result of our ongoing 1 research in Cairo on Sudanese refugees.0F In November 2010, one of the authors (Furst-Nichols) from the Feinstein International Center traveled to Israel to conduct a scoping study to better understand the livelihoods and protection issues confronting Sudanese and Eritrean migrants and 2 asylum seekers1F in Israel. This report is based on her qualitative research from November- December 2010. We are very grateful for the support of the organizations and individuals in Israel who shared their views and experience with us, and to the Swedish International Development Agency, which supports the Feinstein Center’s work on refugees in urban settings. Summary of main findings Legal status – Sudanese and Eritreans make up the two largest African groups in Israel and share a similar legal status. Most have temporary protection in the form of 2A5 conditional release visas, renewable every three months. The Israeli government has not clarified their official rights however, and holders of the 2A5 visa live under the constant threat that protection will be revoked. A few thousand Africans in Israel have residence permits or six-month working visas, granted to specific groups in 2007 and 2008. Routes – Most new arrivals come directly from Sudan and Eritrea, passing through Cairo for a few days only (earlier migrants to Israel had often lived in Cairo for many years). Bedouin smugglers are paid between $350 and $7,000 dollars for guidance across the Egyptian Sinai to the Israeli border.
    [Show full text]
  • Fuchs V. Prime Minister.Pdf
    466 Israel Law Reports [2004] IsrLR 466 HCJ 5261/04 Advocate Yossi Fuchs v Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon HCJ 5262/04 Advocate Naftali Gur-Aryeh and another v Prime Minister of Israel and another HCJ 5263/04 Yitzhak Vazana and others v Prime Minister of Israel and another HCJ 5264/04 Advocate Ben-Zion Gispan v Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon and others HCJ 5317/04 Minister of Tourism, Binyamin Elon v Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon The Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice [26 October 2004] Before President A. Barak, Vice-President E. Mazza and Justices M. Cheshin, J. Türkel, D. Beinisch, A. Procaccia, E.E. Levy Petition to the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice Facts: The prime minister wished to promote a political plan, known as the ‘disengagement plan.’ In order to ensure that a majority of the Cabinet would support HCJ 5261/04 Fuchs v. Prime Minister 467 the plan when it was brought to a vote, the prime minister removed two ministers from office two days before the vote was scheduled to be held. The petitioners attacked the constitutionality of the prime minister’s action on both technical grounds and substantive grounds. They argued, inter alia, that it was improper for the prime minister to remove two ministers from office because they opposed his plan, in order to create an artificial majority in the Cabinet in favour of the plan. Held: The Supreme Court held that the discretion of the prime minister when exercising his power to remove ministers from office was very broad, and that the removal of ministers from office in order to further a political plan that the prime minister regarded as essential for the welfare of the State of Israel fell within the zone of reasonableness for his action in removing the ministers from office.
    [Show full text]