Ref: 45/2015
Date: 23 July 2015
Time: 11:00 GMT

In another decision that aims to implement Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territory (oPt), the Israeli Supreme Court rejected yesterday a petition filed by HaMoked – Center for the Defense of the Individual to allow the children of Ghassan Abu Jamal to stay in Jerusalem under the guardianship of their mother, Mrs. Nadia Abu Jamal. The Court gave the family a time limit until the beginning of October to leave to the West Bank. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) reiterates that Israeli government employs the highest judicial body in Israel to legalize its decisions that violate the minimum rules of the international humanitarian law and international human rights law.

The Supreme Court held a hearing on Wednesday morning, 22 July 2015, to consider the petition filed by HaMoked – Center to allow Ghassan Abu Jamal’s children: Walid (6), Salma (4) and Mohammed (3), to stay with their mother in their family’s house in their village in Jerusalem where they grew up. During the hearing, it was explained to what extent it is important for the children to stay with their mother and family in the city and that displacing them would separate them from their relatives and friends, deny them their health and national insurance allocation, prevent them from joining their schools and aggravate their psychological conditions they have been experiencing since the killing of their father.

Mo’aweya Abu Jamal, the children’s uncle, said to a PCHR fieldworker that after hearing pleas, the judge refused to allow Nadia Abu Jamal to stay in Jerusalem for whatsoever reason she has, therefore, according to the law, the custody over children would be given to the mother after the father had died. This means the children and their mother would be displaced to the West Bank. He added that the judges verblly suggested during the hearing that custody over children could be given to their relatives so they could stay in Jerusalem. The family was shocked to hear that and said, “How can we take the children from their mother after their father passed away? And how can we do that to the mother who lost her husband, house and residency in Jerusalem with her family?” HaMoked filed a petition to the Supreme Court to allow Ghassan’s wife to stay only in Jabal al-Mukaber village and give her a residency permit in the village, but the petition was rejected too.

It should be noted that Israeli authorities denied the three children medical treatment in Israeli hospitals and health care centers although Walid suffers from a cardiac problem and Mohammed suffers from a neurological one and both of them need special health care and follow-up. Furthermore, by the end of May, the Supreme Court approved the decision of the Israeli Interior Minister to expel Nadia Abu Jamal from the city and cancel the family’s reunion permit given to them from the Israeli authorities.
Nadia Abu Jamal from Eastern al-Sawahrah village and holding the West Bank ID card got married to Ghasan Abu Jamal in 2002 and applied for a “family reunion”, but her application was rejected. However, she obtained a residence permit to be able to stay in Jerusalem and travel between the city and the West Bank via the main checkpoints only. The residency was being renewed annually. It should be mentioned that Ghassan Abu Jamal along with ‘Oday Abu Jamal carried out an attack on a Jewish synagogue near Deir Yasin area, west of Jerusalem, in November 2014. A week after the attack, the Israeli Interior Minister decided to cancel the wife’s residence in Jerusalem.

PCHR condemns the Israeli Supreme Court’s decision to expel members of the Abu Janal from Jerusalem and:

1. Emphasizes that East Jerusalem is an occupied city and all the measures taken by the Israeli authorities after the city was occupied in 1967 do not change its legal status as an occupied territory. Thus, displacing Abu Jamal family from Jerusalem is considered a forcible displacement and is part of the policy of collective punishment practiced by those authorities against Palestinian civilians in the oPt.
2. The Israeli Supreme Court’s decision violates basic rules of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
3. Calls upon the High Contracting Parties1949 Fourth Geneva Convention to fulfill their obligations under Article 1; i.e., to respect and to ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances. PCHR believes that the conspiracy of silence practiced by the international community encourages Israel to commit more violations of the international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including measures to create a Jewish demographic majority in occupied East Jerusalem.