Peace in the Middle East?: A Home for East Jerusalemite Palestinians

An article written by Dov Lieber titled “Dramatic Ruling Paves Way for Thousands of East Jerusalemites to Regain ResidencyRights” was featured in the Times of Israel on March 22. The article includes a description of the Israeli Jewish Supreme Court decision to revoke the permanent residency status of indigenous East Jerusalemites. In a precedent-setting unanimous decision, the three justices of the case, Uzi Fogelman, Menachem Mazuz, and Miriam Naor decided to restore the rights of indigenous East Jerusalemite residents. Lieber states the justice’s decision to consider East Jerusalemites as native-born, rather than as a foreigner, with regards to restoring their residency rights. For instance, Justice Fogelman stated that the status of East Jerusalemites is unique for they have special ties to Israel; he explains that either they may have been born in Israel, or they may have familial ties to the land. Supreme Court president Naor agreed with this logic, but added that each case would need to be reviewed in order to identify the individual’s merits.

Lieber describes the complex history of the revocation policy in the conclusion of his article. He states that when Israel seized the territory of East Jerusalem in 1967, the Israelis did not want to extend citizenship to the residents, and the residents did not desire to be considered as citizens of this illegal Jewish state. To solve this dilemma, the Israeli authorities decided to conduct an impulsive census of the East Jerusalem residents; only those who registered for the census were granted “permanent residency status.” Even so, this residency status was akin to that which is granted to non-Jews who moved into Israel under the “Entry into Israel” law of 1952; this strict edict regarding residency in Israel was applied to foreigners as well as native-born East Jerusalemites. The law states that the East Jerusalemites have the right to apply for citizenship, but it allows the Interior Ministry to restore or remove permanent residency status. According to the article, the Interior Ministry began revoking residency statuses in 1995 and continued through 2008. Lieber adds that in recent years, East Jerusalemite permanent resident statuses and applications for citizenship have decreased substantially. Nevertheless, Israeli law states that there are two ways in which an East Jerusalemite can forfeit this resident status; either by residing in another country for more than seven years, or by having citizenship in a foreign country. Israel’s Interior Ministry excuses the harsh laws by stating that not only must Israel abide by their residency laws, but also it must ensure that Palestinians who claim to live in East Jerusalem are actual residents, rather than West Bank residents who claim residency in order to access Israeli services.

The article details the story of Akhram Abdalhak, the Palestinian native who is seeking to renew his Israeli residence with the help of Israeli lawyers. Originally a Jerusalem native who moved to America at the age of 9, Abdalhak desired to move back to Jerusalem about 20 years ago. However, according to Israeli law, he was no longer an Israeli resident, and thus would be considered an illegal resident. Abdalhak moved to East Jerusalem, regardless of the illegal status he and his family would have. It was his affinity for the land, and the residency with which his parents had that prompted his return to Israel. In 2014, he appealed the Supreme Court to restore his residency status, but was denied. According to the Israeli authorities, Abdalhak had been living in Jerusalem illegally since 1997 for his residency had been removed 27 years earlier due to his residency and citizenship in the United States. Additionally, his two wives and 10 children resided with him illegally in Israel. Nevertheless, Justice Fogelman argued that Abdalhak’s time spent in Israel proves his commitment to cherishing the land; thus, the 20 year span of illegal residency was used to his benefit. When Abdalhak appealed the Supreme Court on March 15, he received his residency status once again, with a unanimous ruling.

According to Lieber, as well as other articles on the same topic, the laws of any other foreigner in terms of residency status applied to residents of East Jerusalem. Additionally, these residents had been having their residency statuses revoked for decades. As a result, these East Jerusalem residents had a growing concern of their welfare in the territory. Nevertheless, this groundbreaking rule now recognizes the “unique” status of East Jerusalemites who are natives to the land. The three Supreme Court justices on this case finally extend the right of residency to the residents of East Jerusalem. The superiors agree that these residents are natives to the land and have an affinity for it; therefore, they can receive residency status once they prove that they intend to live in the area and are not a threat to the citizens’ security. This law, which was enacted due to the persistence of Abdalhak and his lawyers, should offer the East Jerusalemites some respite. However, the author makes note of the comments of Adi Lustigman, one of Abdalhak’s lawyers. She states that although this law has been enacted, “only time would tell if the apparent precedent will hold.” Consequently, Lustigman is insinuating that the law seems to offer respite to the fear of Palestinians; however, one may not know if Israeli authorities will surely enact the law in its totality.

The author of the article, Dov Lieber, is an avid writer for The Times of Israel with regards to Arab affairs. His qualifications seem to be his degree in History of the Middle East, as well as his residency in Jerusalem. On the one hand, when comparing this article, written by Lieber, with an article of the same topic written in Haaretz, both include the same factual details. For example, both articles use terms such as “special circumstances” and “unique” when describing the legality of East Jerusalemites’ residency in their native state and “precedent- setting” when describing Akhram Abdalhak’s court case. Additionally, the history of the territory with regards to the Arab population is similar in both articles. Both articles include the fact that when East Jerusalem was annexed in 1967, the population was regarded as permanent residents, as opposed to citizens or native residents. Furthermore, a second article also describes these Palestinians as indigenous to the land of East Jerusalem; as such, their rights should not be compared to that of non-Jewish foreigners who immigrate to the territory. On the other hand, Lieber’s job description is a “correspondent for Arab affairs;” as such, the focus of the article is on the underlying issues of Israeli law as it pertains to East Jerusalem residents specifically. For instance, Lieber states that Akhram Abdalhak’s case is an underdog case for he had been living in America for a number of years, had an American citizenship, and had been living in Israel illegally for 20 years. Yet Lieber also quotes Menachem Mazuz, one of the Supreme Court justices who resided on the case. Mazuz says that Abdalhak’s situation is unique for not only is his family indigenous to the land, but also Abdalhak’s affinity for the land is proven by the number of years that he has been residing in it—illegally. Consequently, one may deduce that the article states the facts with regards to history and Israeli law; additionally, it takes care to note the viewpoint of both Israelis as well as Palestinians.

With this article, Lieber’s goal is to elaborate on the plight of the Arab population in East Jerusalem; to inform the public of the facts. For instance, Lieber dedicates an entire subheading to describe the “evolution of the revocation policy.” This information is factual, as stated in the previous paragraph; however, it seems to be biased toward the unfair policies created by the Israeli authorities which target the East Jerusalemites. It reiterates the fact that the “Entry into Israel” law of 1952 law is unfair for it equated the residency status of foreigners who wanted to move to Israel with that of native East Jerusalemites. The law also gives the Israeli government the ability to remove their residency status. Additionally, Lieber includes the statements of Adi Lustigman, one of Abdalhak’s immigration lawyers. She states that this new law should come as a sigh of relief for East Jerusalemites who constantly feared the threat of resident status. However, she also cautions that the enactment of the law is not guaranteed; “only time will tell.” Moreover, three out of four photos in which Lieber includes in the article depict the humanity of the East Jerusalem population. The first photo depicts Muslims who are praying their Friday afternoon services, amid Israeli security. The second photo depicts Palestinian children playfully posing for a photo on a block of cement that was placed there by Israeli security. The third photo depicts Palestinian school girls in front of their school, clad in modern uniform. The juxtaposition of peaceful East Jerusalemites with the controlling, armed Israeli activity is implicit in these photos. The illustrations offer the idea that East Jerusalem is a territory of Palestinian harmony that is constantly threatened by the presence of Israeli authority. As such, the photos included in the article shed a positive light on not only the Arab population of East Jerusalem, but also the Supreme Court decision to revoke the permanent residency status of indigenous East Jerusalemites. Therefore, although the article is not biased, for it provides factual information and does so in a manner that focuses on the Arabs’ justified right to live as permanent residents in East Jerusalem. These residents are described as indigenous to the land and have a genuine affinity for it. In his article, Dov Lieber articulates his support for the Supreme Court ruling by including historical facts which underscore Palestinian victimization throughout Israeli history, and by providing photos that depict Palestinians of East Jerusalem in a positive light. However, by including the statements of lawyer Adi Lustigman, Lieber questions the supposed effectiveness of the law.