Apartheid légal: Les Palestiniens mariés à des Israéliens ne pourront plus résider en Israël

LE MONDE | 17.05.06 | 13h33 • Mis à jour le 17.05.06 | 13h33
JÉRUSALEM CORRESPONDANTE
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/imprimer_element/0,40-0@2-3218,50-772679,0.html

En tant que juriste, Mourad Al-Sana avait confiance en la justice de son pays. Mais, dimanche 14 mai, les espoirs de cet Arabe israélien d'origine bédouine se sont évanouis. La Haute Cour de justice israélienne a rejeté la pétition d'associations de défense des droits de l'homme demandant l'annulation d'une disposition à la loi sur la citoyenneté qui rend extrêmement difficile la possibilité pour le conjoint palestinien d'un citoyen israélien de résider en Israël.

La famille Al-Sana vit dans une ville du Néguev depuis trois ans. Abir, la femme de Mourad, est originaire de Bethléem, en Cisjordanie. A ce titre, elle est considérée comme ressortissante d'un "pays ennemi" et, depuis un amendement d'urgence voté en 2002, n'a quasiment aucune chance d'obtenir un droit de résidence permanente en Israël et, a fortiori, la nationalité israélienne.

Régulièrement, elle demande un permis de "résidente temporaire", et, malgré la nationalité israélienne de son mari et de leurs enfants, elle ne peut espérer une mesure de regroupement familial. Son seul document officiel est une interdiction d'expulsion. Son âge, 30 ans, la met à l'abri d'un renvoi vers les territoires occupés, car le texte prévoit que les femmes palestiniennes de plus de 25 ans et les hommes de plus de 35 ans ne sont pas systématiquement expulsés.

Comme les Al-Sana, quelque 5 000 couples mixtes connaissent les aléas de cette précarité institutionnelle. Faute de papiers, Abir ne bénéficie pas du système de santé israélien et n'a aucune chance d'exercer son métier de professeur. L'option de vivre en Cisjordanie, recommandée par nombre d'hommes politiques israéliens à leurs concitoyens arabes, choque Mourad: "Je suis israélien ; ici, c'est mon pays, pourquoi devrais-je le quitter à cause d'un texte raciste ?" D'autant que cette solution ne peut s'appliquer aux rares couples mixtes juif israélien-palestinien. Pour des "raisons de sécurité", les juifs n'ont pas le droit de vivre dans les villes palestiniennes. C'est ce que la justice a affirmé à Jasmin Avissar, une juive mariée à un homme de Ramallah, Oussama Zatar. Lui ne peut entrer en Israël, et ils sont donc officiellement condamnés à se rencontrer aux check-points. D'autres ont fait le choix de vivre illégalement en Israël.

Les juges de la Cour suprême n'ont pas tenu compte des drames personnels engendrés par ce texte. "Les bienfaits et la sécurité que la loi sur la citoyenneté procure aux habitants d'Israël surpassent les dommages occasionnés aux quelques citoyens israéliens mariés à des Palestiniens", ont-ils estimé. Mais, au-delà des considérations sécuritaires, ce texte, en filigrane, entend aussi préserver un autre principe: "le maintien d'une majorité juive" dans le pays. Car, selon le quotidien Haaretz, parmi les dizaines de milliers d'Arabes qui ont obtenu la nationalité israélienne dans le cadre du regroupement familial depuis 1967, seuls 26 ont été interrogés pour des liens supposés avec le terrorisme. "Si les intentions de ce texte étaient uniquement sécuritaires, ajoute Mourad, il suffirait que les autorités contrôlent la personnalité des candidats à l'entrée en Israël. Or il s'agit avant tout d'une discrimination à l'égard de la communauté arabe du pays."

Les députés arabes israéliens et une partie de la gauche ont déploré la décision de la Haute Cour de cautionner "une loi ancrée dans le racisme", selon les termes d'un député juif du Meretz (gauche). Le ministre de la justice, Haïm Ramon, a annoncé un nouveau "toilettage" des règles d'immigration en Israël, promettant des critères équivalents pour tous. Il a néanmoins précisé qu'"un Etat souverain a le droit d'empêcher les citoyens d'un Etat ennemi d'obtenir un statut sur son territoire".

Mourad espère seulement que, lors du renouvellement annuel de l'amendement de 2002 et lors des discussions sur une hypothétique nouvelle loi, le gouvernement et les députés "retrouvent leur bon sens".

Stéphanie Le Bars
Article paru dans l'édition du 18.05.06


Haaretz Last update - 12:52 18/05/2006
Barak believes court will overturn Citizenship Law if MKs extend statute
By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=717223

Supreme Court President Aharon Barak wrote in a private letter this week that even though his opinion was voted down in Sunday's High Court of Justice ruling upholding a ban on family unification, most of the other justices agree with his position that the law violates constitutional rights and is not proportional.

He said they also agreed that if the Knesset were to extend the validity of the Citizenship Law in its current format, the court would apparently overturn it.

"As you can see, technically, my view lost, but in substance, there is a very solid majority to my view that the Israeli member of a family has a constitutional right to family unification in Israel with a foreign spouse, and that the statute is discriminatory," Barak wrote Monday in an email that has reached Haaretz. "I also have a bare majority that the statute is not proportional, and therefore, unconstitutional." Barak sent the email to a friend of his, a law professor at Yale University.

Barak's position is liable to have decisive ramifications regarding the continued legal-judicial conduct related to the Citizenship Law. It is likely to influence whether the government asks the Knesset to extend the law, whether the Knesset would agree to such a request, and whether additional petitions would be submitted against the law should it be extended in two months. If additional petitions are filed in August, Barak, who is slated to retire shortly, will still be on the court.

He refused to comment on the email, saying it was a personal letter.

The High Court ruled 6-5 to reject seven petitions against the amendment to the Citizenship Law, which prevents Palestinians married to Israeli Arabs from becoming Israeli citizens or permanent residents. Barak wanted to overturn the ban, arguing that the law violates the right to equality and family life, which he said were covered by the Basic Law on Human Dignity. He also said the violation was not "proportional," and therefore, unconstitutional. Justice Mishael Cheshin disagreed, and wrote the majority opinion upholding the ban on family unification.

"My dear friend," wrote Barak. "You may be interested in a very important case which was delivered the day before yesterday by my Court... In my opinion, I decided that the right to family life is a constitutional right of the Israeli partner or his/her child. This right includes not just the right to marry, but also the right to live in Israel. I also decided that the statute discriminates against Arabs, since all those who seek family unification from the West Bank are Arabs. As we do not have a special section in our Bill of Rights dealing with family rights or equality, I decided that those rights are part of our right to dignity."

Barak also described the positions of the 10 other judges on the panel.

"The second major opinion was written by my colleague Cheshin," Barak wrote. "He decided that there is no constitutional right for family reunification in Israel, and that even if there is such a right, there is a good justification for its breach, because of security. One judge supported his reasoning. Three judges concurred with me on the violation of the rights, but agreed with Cheshin on the proportionality issue."

Referring to Justice Edmond Levy, Barak wrote: "The eleventh judge agreed with me both on the violation of the rights, and on the missing justification. He thought that individual checking is a less restrictive mean which can achieve the same results as a blank prohibition, and he made several suggestions to this effect. He, however, refused to sign my conclusions that the statute is unconstitutional and void, because of the fact that the statute expires anyway within two months. He said that if the statute is renewed, his remark should be taken into account, and he joined thus to Cheshin's judgment in deciding to dismiss the cases."

Barak also referred to comments Justice Minister Haim Ramon made Monday, in which he said that, as the court president wrote, "if the Parliament will try to enact again the statute without any change, there is a high probability, according to the views of the Court, that the statute will be unconstitutional."

A Supreme Court spokeswoman speaking on behalf of Barak said Thursday's Haaretz report distorted text written in an email and presented it as if it was Barak's position on the issue - while Barak had not explained what was his position on the new legislation.

"The correspondence included an objective description of the court ruling that anyone who read the justices' explanations could see. Barak's position on the matter was already published in the explanation of the ruling. In the vent that the matter should again be brought before the court, it will be examined in accordance with the circumstances," the spokeswoman said.


Haaretz Last update - 02:12 15/05/2006
Analysis / No need to rush on immigration policy
By Shahar Ilan
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=715796

An ironclad law of Israeli government states that a cabinet that can formulate a policy months from now will not do so today. The Citizenship Law approved by the High Court of Justice yesterday will expire in another two months. But the court ruling gives the cabinet more time. Therefore, if drafting an immigration policy was previously one of the most pressing matters on the cabinet's agenda, now there is time.

How much time? Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, who thought the law should be abolished, ruled that the state should be allowed eight months to draft a new policy. Justice Edmond Levy, whose vote was pivotal in approving the law, allotted the Knesset nine months to formulate an improved law. In other words, the government has less than nine months.

In two months, the Knesset will probably extend the Citizenship Law for at least six months. That does not, of course, mean that Israel will have an immigration policy in early 2007. It is entirely possible that in the interim, nobody will do anything, or the cabinet will fail to agree on policy and the law will be extended again.

Justice Minister Haim Ramon declared that immigration ought to governed by a Basic Law. Why a Basic Law? It is hard not to see this as an assertion by Ramon that immigration policy should be determined by the Knesset, without High Court interference.

However, the chances of the Knesset passing a Basic Law on immigration are slim. It was Ramon's good friend, Aryeh Deri, who proclaimed that Shas would not permit the Ten Commandments to be passed as a Basic Law. Deri is not around anymore, but it is doubtful that Shas's suspicion of Basic Laws has decreased. Besides, it does not make much sense to legislate immigration policy as a Basic Law without putting the Law of Return into it. And, as we know, nobody dares touch the Law of Return.

Ramon talks about settling the matter without discriminating against this or that sector, in the spirit of Holland and Belgium. Holland is considered an enlightened Western country, but its immigration policy is among the toughest in Europe. When Ramon uses it as an example, he is actually saying that the intention is to close the gate in an egalitarian manner - not only to Palestinians, but to everyone. The likely basis will be the recommendations of the Rubinstein Committee, which proposed stiffening the policy on spousal immigration from anywhere in the world and severely restricting it from hostile areas, such as the Palestinian Authority.

Yesterday's ruling thus has great constitutional importance, but its practical significance is limited. It is doubtful that there are many issues that elicit such broad consensus in the political system as that of closing the gates to family unification. The question of whether this is done through a discriminatory law like the Citizenship Law or a more general law, as Ramon suggests, is less important, practically speaking. The principle is the same: The gates will close.


Haaretz Last update - 02:12 15/05/2006
For Murad and Abir al-Sana, ruling means the end of hope
By Relly Sa'ar
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=715797

Attorney Murad al-Sana was optimistic until 10 A.M., when the expanded panel of 11 High Court justices rejected several petitions to allow Arab citizens of Israel the right to family life with their Palestinian spouses.

Al-Sana, 34, was critical of the ruling that Supreme Court President Aharon Barak had read out to the packed courtroom an hour before, in which the court declined to annul the emergency regulation preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from receiving legal status in Israel. "For me, the High Court was the last shield of civil rights," he said. "After the petition was rejected, I lost all hope."

Al-Sana, who works for Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, which filed the petition together with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), said that the ruling means "the end of the road for me and my wife."

Murad and Abir married three years ago. Abir, 30, is a former resident of Bethlehem and a lecturer in social work at Al-Quds University in Abu Dis. According to al-Sana, since their marriage, Abir has lived in Israel on a temporary residency permit that is renewed once a year. Like many other Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens, she cannot work in her profession or obtain national health insurance. However, because of her age, she is not expected to be deported, since amendments that the Knesset passed last summer allow women from the territories over age 25 to live with their Israeli husbands on temporary residency permits.

Despite the ruling, al-Sana expressed hope that "perhaps the time is coming when Knesset members will come to their senses and annul the racist law that damages the right to family life." And although the High Court ruling makes it impossible for Abir al-Sana to utilize her academic skills or practice her profession in Israel, her husband is not considering a move to Bethlehem. "I am a citizen of Israel and a resident of the state," he says. "Israel is my homeland, and no one will force me to leave the country."

The new regulation allowing temporary residence above a certain age was to have remained in place until March, but was extended due to the elections.

At the beginning of August, the Knesset will have to decide its stand on the matter. "Until a different law is passed, requests for family unification will be dealt with according to the lenient amendment to the Citizenship Law," Sabin Hadad, spokesperson for the Population Administration, said yesterday.

Unlike al-Sana, Professor Yaffa Zilberstein, dean of Bar-Ilan University's law school and a former member of the advisory council that prepared a report on immigration policy for the state, believes that "the government and the Knesset must not only extend the emergency law, but revise it in keeping with the report."

Zilberstein, an expert in international law, added: "In the chapter of the report dealing with marriage and family unification, full recommendations were given that can be applied to Palestinian couples, beyond the High Court's decision."