Israel's Deportation of four Palestinian politicans from East Jerusalem would violate the Road Map
Marian Houk
June 27, 2010
Why such jaded indifference to deportation?
Four Palestinian politicians from East Jerusalem - Mohammed Abu Tir, Mohammed Totach, Khaled Abu Arafa, and Ahmed Atoun -- all affiliated with Hamas, were ordered by Israeli police in early June to turn over their Jerusalem ID cards, which are also their residence permits, and told they must leave "the country" within a month.
Two weeks ago, the Israeli human rights organization Adalah petitioned to the Israeli Supreme Court to stop the expulsions.
Just a week ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition now on an urgent basis -- because it has already scheduled a hearing in September to take up an appeal against the revocation of residency.
Meanwhile, of course, the "deportation" orders may be carried out. But, according to the Supreme Court, that's no big deal -- it is not irreversible.
But the men may be obliged to pay for the costs of their deportations, and for the many extra costs that will be associated with their dislocation to a new place, whatever that may be...]
Though deportation orders were issued, the four men were then jailed. They have only recently been released. So, on top of a long imprisonment, they are now facing "deportation".
See our earlier reports here, where we wondered: "Deportation" from East Jerusalem — to where? To Gaza? To the West Bank? To the Galilee (Israel)? To Europe?
And another in a "Round-up", here, where we noted East Jerusalem Palestinians have been given the right, under the Oslo Accords, to vote in Palestinian Authority elections (though there are multiple practicle obstacles)...
There's also a general one about deportation as a violation of the Road Map, here, where we observed that right up there, at the start of Phase I, under the heading "Security", the Road Map says that: the "GOI [Government of Israel] takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations"...
What is the reason for the deportation orders against these four Jerusalem politicians? Actually, it is not even because of their affiliation with Hamas. No, rather it is because they were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council, a body created by the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, on a ticket organized by a political party, Change and Reform, that was formed by Hamas (which rejects the Oslo Accords) in order to participated in January 2006 elections. To the surprise of everyone, from the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Condoleezza Rice, to Hamas leaders themselves, Hamas won a majority of seats in the PLC, or parliament.
Most of the elected Hamas parliamentarians were detained and jailed by Israel in the months following the 2006 elections, a policy which brutally but cleverly paralyzed the Palestinian Legislative Council from voting or even from meeting, for lack of a quorum.
Meanwhile, during the same post-election period in 2006, the Israeli Interior Ministry decided to revoke the residency of members of the Palestinian parliament. The only ones affected by that decision are those living in East Jerusalem. According to the Interior Ministry's 2006 decision, the four men "were deemed to be residents of Israel and, therefore, obliged to be loyal to Israel".
A petition was filed immediately, at that time (in 2006), to the Israeli Supreme Court, and it is still pending.
Meanwhile, the world turns, Hamas won a military struggle with Fatah/Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007, and became what is called by other Palestinians the "de facto" rulers in the Gaza Strip. In response, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved a short-lived National Unity government and asked Salam Fayyad to become Prime Minister in a Hamas-free "Emergency Government" which has twice been extended. Fayyad himself, and several other current and past members of his government, are residents of East Jerusalem, but no deportation orders were issue against them -- of course, they are not affiliated with Hamas...]
It is a terrible thing to be expelled from one's home, and homeland, severed from family and friends.
The loss of all the things one is fond of, and gets used to in daily life, is total. There is a loss of doctors, banks, employment, favorite foods and newspapers and books -- even language.
All the things one gets used to in daily life are gone.
And why is there such reticence to protest?
The preferred Palestinian position is to speak about a violation of human rights, and of international law -- for which there are countervailing arguments of security, and military necessity...
On Friday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received the four men in his office in the Muqata´a in Ramallah, and told them that he is following up on the matter "with sincerity and sensitivity considering its significance".
This would be the least he could do, considering that the basis for the 2006 order for their deportation was their "membership in the Palestinian Legislative Council, a 'foreign parliament' ... which indicated that their allegiance was to the Palestinian Authority", according to Adalah.
Few people remember -- and if they do, they do not think it is worth the bother to mention (human rights and international law are thought to suffice, and while they are arguments of conscience, they have rarely prevailed before) -- that Israeli deportation of Palestinians is a specific violation of Phase One of the Road Map.
For those who care about the Road Map -- and number one, the U.S.A., trailed reluctantly by the other three members of the Quartet (the Europeans, Russia, and the UN) -- this should be one of the main immediate considerations.
That nobody else makes any inconvenient reminder works out perfectly. It will pass in a fog of frowns and furrowed brows.
But the lives of those affected are devasted. The authorities that carry these measures out believe they are validated. And many thousands of others are put at risk, and into a state of permanent fear and dread.
Today, Amira Hass reported on the imminent threat of deportation facing four Hamas-affiliated politicians from East Jerusalem (three of whom were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council, or PLC, in January 2006).
The argument of the Israeli authorities, as she reports, dates back to those 2006 elections.
Amira Hass wrote today that: "Two weeks ago attorneys Fadi Qawasmi and Usama Sa'adi [.b. - nfor Adalah, with the support of Adalah Attorney Hassan Jabareen and Attorney Oded Feller of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)] filed a motion for an injunction that would prevent the men from being expelled before the court hears their petition against the revocation of residency, scheduled for September 6. But last Sunday Beinisch ruled that there was no point in issuing the requested injunction because 'this is not an irreversible measure'. Meaning that even if deported they could appeal if the High Court of Justice strikes down the revocation of residency. But the High Court seems to be in no hurry. Only two sessions have been held since the petition was filed, in August 2006".
Hass added that according to attorney Hassan Jabareen of Adalah, "It's a central tenet not to deport before hearing [the arguments of the candidate for deportation - A.H.]. In the mass expulsion of Hamas members in 1992 they stopped the buses to allow High Court justices to hear the petitions. This is the first time a court doesn't issue an injunction before hearing a petition against expulsion".
Jabareen also told her that: "This is the first time since 1967 that residency is being revoked for breach of trust, whose definition is very vague. Until now residency was revoked for procedural reasons, because of an ostensible "severance of [the] connection to Jerusalem." If this decision is final, the conclusion is that residency can be revoked from any Palestinian engaging in public political activity. Today it's a Hamas member, tomorrow they'll revoke the residency of a Fatah member, or a senior PA adviser. Or a Palestinian journalist"... [Why did he mention only a Palestinian journalist? - M.H.]
She reported that Mohammed Abu Tir noted: "The whole world, led by America, demanded that Abu Mazen [Abbas] hold elections, aware that our participation was a condition for holding these elections. They didn't say in advance that the price of participation was revoking residency"...
Amira apparently met the other three politicians on Wednesday "in an East Jerusalem hotel. Telephone calls interrupted constantly. Abu Arafa, who proved to be a comedian, told one caller, 'We're hiding in a safe place'."
Then, he added, they have always been willing to pay a price for their chosen path, but "expulsion from our home? By what law?"
As Amira Hass' article in Haaretz today explains: "The 1952 Entry into Israel Law, which grants residency permission to non-Jewish immigrants to Israel, was extended to Palestinians from East Jerusalem when it was annexed. This law gives the interior minister the authority to revoke the residency permit. 'The State of Israel has always used a restricted approach regarding the revocation of residency', particularly in East Jerusalem, the state said in its response to the petition [on behalf of these four East Jerusalem politicians]. But in the case of the petitioners, the moment they entered the [Palestinian] Legislative Council and the government, 'on behalf of the Hamas terror organization, which is hostile to Israel... they very seriously violated their minimal obligation of loyalty to the State of Israel... to the citizens and residents of the State of Israel', the state's response said. The attorneys representing the petitioners, Adalah and ACRI have many arguments regarding the legality of applying the Entry into Israel Law to individuals who were born in this country. 'It was Israel that entered [East Jerusalem]', they say. They also point to the international pressure on Israel to hold elections in the PA. But above all, they reject as illegal the demand 'for loyalty of the occupied to the occupier'. In the eyes of the world, the attorneys say, East Jerusalem was and remains occupied territory. 'The Hague rulings, the Fourth Geneva Convention, explicitly state that the occupying force cannot demand loyalty from people who are under occupation, either in the military or the ideological spheres', Jabareen said".
She reported that Abu Arafa is at pains to point out: "We're not in despair and we're not frustrated ... On the contrary. We expect that by expelling us Israel will be doing another foolish thing that will move the entire world. Every decision it makes leads to another failure. When it expelled the Hamas members in 1991, everyone wanted to meet with them. Hamas became stronger, and in the end Israel was forced to bring them back".
Totah added" "If we're expelled, our voices will be heard everywhere. What is there to fear? What do we have left? They arrested us, took our ID cards, they'll expel us. What remains is to die".
Atoun said: "We're convinced that in the final analysis the international balance and the map of global interests will change, and Israel will be judged in light of them."
This is all reported in Amira Hass' story today, posted here.
Very good. Do these guys think that by taking a long historical view they are scaring Israeli officials, who will then reflect and reconsider?
They shouldn't bet on it.
Two elected West Bank mayors [Hebron and Halhoul] and one religious figure [from Hebron] were deported in May 1980 [to Lebanon, which no longer is a convenient dumping ground since the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon in May 2000]. Earlier, the same Mayor of Hebron was banned by Israel from travelling to address the UN Security Council in New York. There were several UN Security Council resolutions calling for their immediate return. [On two of these resolutions, the U.S. abstained. In a third resolution, the U.S. voted in favor, so it was adopted unanimously. In this resolution, the Security Council called upon Israel, "the occupying power" to adhere, in all the Arab territories occupied in June 1967 -- including the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem -- to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, relative to the protection of civlian persons in times of war] Then, the two mayors and the Sheikh timidly started a hunger strike, sitting in the UN headquarters building itself, in New York -- in the Security Council antechamber, in fact. They were quietly and diplomatically persuaded, with the intervention of the UN's then-Chief of Protocol (Aly Teymour, of Egypt), to leave, which they did on Christmas eve, and hardly anyone noticed.
Five years later, on 5 August 1985, the Los Angeles Times reported that: "Israel's Cabinet on Sunday ... resolved to revive other, long-unused sanctions against terrorism-related activities. The moves, announced after the regular weekly Cabinet meeting, appeared to be a minimal response by Prime Minister Shimon Peres' national unity coalition to three recent killings apparently motivated by Palestinian nationalism and resulting in a public clamor for harsher measures against terrorism. The Cabinet decided to revive administrative detention and deportation of Palestinian Arabs in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip who are deemed to be security risks. Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are subject to Israeli, rather than military, law and will therefore not be liable to the same penalties ... Detention orders must be approved by a military judge ... Nearly 900 Palestinian Arabs were deported in the years immediately after Israel's capture of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War. But none are believed to have been expelled since May, 1980, when two former West Bank mayors--Mohammed Milhem of Halhoul and the the late Fahd Kawasmeh [of Hebron] --were deported after the slayings of six Jewish settlers in Hebron. That incident resulted in clarification of the accused's right to appeal a deportation order to the Israeli Supreme Court. [Though then-Cabinet Secretary Yossi] Beilin [later head of the Israeli team supporting the "Geneva Initiative"] emphasized Sunday that the appeal option remains, but he added that the state attorney's office will do what it can to expedite judicial proceedings in expulsion cases up to the final stage". This can be viewed here.
How many more Palestinian lives will be devastated and wasted while international actors of high principle keep silent as human rights and international law are violated -- and the Road Map they drafted as both "a carrot and a stick" to both sides in this conflict remains a dead letter?
Four Palestinian politicians from East Jerusalem - Mohammed Abu Tir, Mohammed Totach, Khaled Abu Arafa, and Ahmed Atoun -- all affiliated with Hamas, were ordered by Israeli police in early June to turn over their Jerusalem ID cards, which are also their residence permits, and told they must leave "the country" within a month.
Two weeks ago, the Israeli human rights organization Adalah petitioned to the Israeli Supreme Court to stop the expulsions.
Just a week ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear the petition now on an urgent basis -- because it has already scheduled a hearing in September to take up an appeal against the revocation of residency.
Meanwhile, of course, the "deportation" orders may be carried out. But, according to the Supreme Court, that's no big deal -- it is not irreversible.
But the men may be obliged to pay for the costs of their deportations, and for the many extra costs that will be associated with their dislocation to a new place, whatever that may be...]
Though deportation orders were issued, the four men were then jailed. They have only recently been released. So, on top of a long imprisonment, they are now facing "deportation".
See our earlier reports here, where we wondered: "Deportation" from East Jerusalem — to where? To Gaza? To the West Bank? To the Galilee (Israel)? To Europe?
And another in a "Round-up", here, where we noted East Jerusalem Palestinians have been given the right, under the Oslo Accords, to vote in Palestinian Authority elections (though there are multiple practicle obstacles)...
There's also a general one about deportation as a violation of the Road Map, here, where we observed that right up there, at the start of Phase I, under the heading "Security", the Road Map says that: the "GOI [Government of Israel] takes no actions undermining trust, including deportations"...
What is the reason for the deportation orders against these four Jerusalem politicians? Actually, it is not even because of their affiliation with Hamas. No, rather it is because they were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council, a body created by the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, on a ticket organized by a political party, Change and Reform, that was formed by Hamas (which rejects the Oslo Accords) in order to participated in January 2006 elections. To the surprise of everyone, from the U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Condoleezza Rice, to Hamas leaders themselves, Hamas won a majority of seats in the PLC, or parliament.
Most of the elected Hamas parliamentarians were detained and jailed by Israel in the months following the 2006 elections, a policy which brutally but cleverly paralyzed the Palestinian Legislative Council from voting or even from meeting, for lack of a quorum.
Meanwhile, during the same post-election period in 2006, the Israeli Interior Ministry decided to revoke the residency of members of the Palestinian parliament. The only ones affected by that decision are those living in East Jerusalem. According to the Interior Ministry's 2006 decision, the four men "were deemed to be residents of Israel and, therefore, obliged to be loyal to Israel".
A petition was filed immediately, at that time (in 2006), to the Israeli Supreme Court, and it is still pending.
Meanwhile, the world turns, Hamas won a military struggle with Fatah/Preventive Security Forces in Gaza in mid-June 2007, and became what is called by other Palestinians the "de facto" rulers in the Gaza Strip. In response, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas dissolved a short-lived National Unity government and asked Salam Fayyad to become Prime Minister in a Hamas-free "Emergency Government" which has twice been extended. Fayyad himself, and several other current and past members of his government, are residents of East Jerusalem, but no deportation orders were issue against them -- of course, they are not affiliated with Hamas...]
It is a terrible thing to be expelled from one's home, and homeland, severed from family and friends.
The loss of all the things one is fond of, and gets used to in daily life, is total. There is a loss of doctors, banks, employment, favorite foods and newspapers and books -- even language.
All the things one gets used to in daily life are gone.
And why is there such reticence to protest?
The preferred Palestinian position is to speak about a violation of human rights, and of international law -- for which there are countervailing arguments of security, and military necessity...
On Friday, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas received the four men in his office in the Muqata´a in Ramallah, and told them that he is following up on the matter "with sincerity and sensitivity considering its significance".
This would be the least he could do, considering that the basis for the 2006 order for their deportation was their "membership in the Palestinian Legislative Council, a 'foreign parliament' ... which indicated that their allegiance was to the Palestinian Authority", according to Adalah.
Few people remember -- and if they do, they do not think it is worth the bother to mention (human rights and international law are thought to suffice, and while they are arguments of conscience, they have rarely prevailed before) -- that Israeli deportation of Palestinians is a specific violation of Phase One of the Road Map.
For those who care about the Road Map -- and number one, the U.S.A., trailed reluctantly by the other three members of the Quartet (the Europeans, Russia, and the UN) -- this should be one of the main immediate considerations.
That nobody else makes any inconvenient reminder works out perfectly. It will pass in a fog of frowns and furrowed brows.
But the lives of those affected are devasted. The authorities that carry these measures out believe they are validated. And many thousands of others are put at risk, and into a state of permanent fear and dread.
Today, Amira Hass reported on the imminent threat of deportation facing four Hamas-affiliated politicians from East Jerusalem (three of whom were elected to the Palestinian Legislative Council, or PLC, in January 2006).
The argument of the Israeli authorities, as she reports, dates back to those 2006 elections.
Amira Hass wrote today that: "Two weeks ago attorneys Fadi Qawasmi and Usama Sa'adi [.b. - nfor Adalah, with the support of Adalah Attorney Hassan Jabareen and Attorney Oded Feller of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI)] filed a motion for an injunction that would prevent the men from being expelled before the court hears their petition against the revocation of residency, scheduled for September 6. But last Sunday Beinisch ruled that there was no point in issuing the requested injunction because 'this is not an irreversible measure'. Meaning that even if deported they could appeal if the High Court of Justice strikes down the revocation of residency. But the High Court seems to be in no hurry. Only two sessions have been held since the petition was filed, in August 2006".
Hass added that according to attorney Hassan Jabareen of Adalah, "It's a central tenet not to deport before hearing [the arguments of the candidate for deportation - A.H.]. In the mass expulsion of Hamas members in 1992 they stopped the buses to allow High Court justices to hear the petitions. This is the first time a court doesn't issue an injunction before hearing a petition against expulsion".
Jabareen also told her that: "This is the first time since 1967 that residency is being revoked for breach of trust, whose definition is very vague. Until now residency was revoked for procedural reasons, because of an ostensible "severance of [the] connection to Jerusalem." If this decision is final, the conclusion is that residency can be revoked from any Palestinian engaging in public political activity. Today it's a Hamas member, tomorrow they'll revoke the residency of a Fatah member, or a senior PA adviser. Or a Palestinian journalist"... [Why did he mention only a Palestinian journalist? - M.H.]
She reported that Mohammed Abu Tir noted: "The whole world, led by America, demanded that Abu Mazen [Abbas] hold elections, aware that our participation was a condition for holding these elections. They didn't say in advance that the price of participation was revoking residency"...
Amira apparently met the other three politicians on Wednesday "in an East Jerusalem hotel. Telephone calls interrupted constantly. Abu Arafa, who proved to be a comedian, told one caller, 'We're hiding in a safe place'."
Then, he added, they have always been willing to pay a price for their chosen path, but "expulsion from our home? By what law?"
As Amira Hass' article in Haaretz today explains: "The 1952 Entry into Israel Law, which grants residency permission to non-Jewish immigrants to Israel, was extended to Palestinians from East Jerusalem when it was annexed. This law gives the interior minister the authority to revoke the residency permit. 'The State of Israel has always used a restricted approach regarding the revocation of residency', particularly in East Jerusalem, the state said in its response to the petition [on behalf of these four East Jerusalem politicians]. But in the case of the petitioners, the moment they entered the [Palestinian] Legislative Council and the government, 'on behalf of the Hamas terror organization, which is hostile to Israel... they very seriously violated their minimal obligation of loyalty to the State of Israel... to the citizens and residents of the State of Israel', the state's response said. The attorneys representing the petitioners, Adalah and ACRI have many arguments regarding the legality of applying the Entry into Israel Law to individuals who were born in this country. 'It was Israel that entered [East Jerusalem]', they say. They also point to the international pressure on Israel to hold elections in the PA. But above all, they reject as illegal the demand 'for loyalty of the occupied to the occupier'. In the eyes of the world, the attorneys say, East Jerusalem was and remains occupied territory. 'The Hague rulings, the Fourth Geneva Convention, explicitly state that the occupying force cannot demand loyalty from people who are under occupation, either in the military or the ideological spheres', Jabareen said".
She reported that Abu Arafa is at pains to point out: "We're not in despair and we're not frustrated ... On the contrary. We expect that by expelling us Israel will be doing another foolish thing that will move the entire world. Every decision it makes leads to another failure. When it expelled the Hamas members in 1991, everyone wanted to meet with them. Hamas became stronger, and in the end Israel was forced to bring them back".
Totah added" "If we're expelled, our voices will be heard everywhere. What is there to fear? What do we have left? They arrested us, took our ID cards, they'll expel us. What remains is to die".
Atoun said: "We're convinced that in the final analysis the international balance and the map of global interests will change, and Israel will be judged in light of them."
This is all reported in Amira Hass' story today, posted here.
Very good. Do these guys think that by taking a long historical view they are scaring Israeli officials, who will then reflect and reconsider?
They shouldn't bet on it.
Two elected West Bank mayors [Hebron and Halhoul] and one religious figure [from Hebron] were deported in May 1980 [to Lebanon, which no longer is a convenient dumping ground since the Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon in May 2000]. Earlier, the same Mayor of Hebron was banned by Israel from travelling to address the UN Security Council in New York. There were several UN Security Council resolutions calling for their immediate return. [On two of these resolutions, the U.S. abstained. In a third resolution, the U.S. voted in favor, so it was adopted unanimously. In this resolution, the Security Council called upon Israel, "the occupying power" to adhere, in all the Arab territories occupied in June 1967 -- including the West Bank, which includes East Jerusalem -- to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, relative to the protection of civlian persons in times of war] Then, the two mayors and the Sheikh timidly started a hunger strike, sitting in the UN headquarters building itself, in New York -- in the Security Council antechamber, in fact. They were quietly and diplomatically persuaded, with the intervention of the UN's then-Chief of Protocol (Aly Teymour, of Egypt), to leave, which they did on Christmas eve, and hardly anyone noticed.
Five years later, on 5 August 1985, the Los Angeles Times reported that: "Israel's Cabinet on Sunday ... resolved to revive other, long-unused sanctions against terrorism-related activities. The moves, announced after the regular weekly Cabinet meeting, appeared to be a minimal response by Prime Minister Shimon Peres' national unity coalition to three recent killings apparently motivated by Palestinian nationalism and resulting in a public clamor for harsher measures against terrorism. The Cabinet decided to revive administrative detention and deportation of Palestinian Arabs in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip who are deemed to be security risks. Jewish settlers in the occupied territories are subject to Israeli, rather than military, law and will therefore not be liable to the same penalties ... Detention orders must be approved by a military judge ... Nearly 900 Palestinian Arabs were deported in the years immediately after Israel's capture of the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War. But none are believed to have been expelled since May, 1980, when two former West Bank mayors--Mohammed Milhem of Halhoul and the the late Fahd Kawasmeh [of Hebron] --were deported after the slayings of six Jewish settlers in Hebron. That incident resulted in clarification of the accused's right to appeal a deportation order to the Israeli Supreme Court. [Though then-Cabinet Secretary Yossi] Beilin [later head of the Israeli team supporting the "Geneva Initiative"] emphasized Sunday that the appeal option remains, but he added that the state attorney's office will do what it can to expedite judicial proceedings in expulsion cases up to the final stage". This can be viewed here.
How many more Palestinian lives will be devastated and wasted while international actors of high principle keep silent as human rights and international law are violated -- and the Road Map they drafted as both "a carrot and a stick" to both sides in this conflict remains a dead letter?
Print
Email
