Legal Action

Israel attempted to deny Gaza residents, some with dual citizenship, travel abroad over claims of incorrect phone numbers

AP 45708-10-21 W.M. v. Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories et al.; AP 62494-10-21 J. v. Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories; AP 5325-11-21 R.H. v. Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories et al.; AP 35300-11-21 A.A. v. Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories et al.; AP 11574-12-20 M.S. v. Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories et al.; AP 49674-12-21; M.S. v. Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories et al.

December 20, 2021

Edit

The Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) often refuses to process applications made by Gaza residents on the grounds that the telephone numbers provided in the applications are incorrect. Gisha’s ample experience shows that these are not incorrect numbers. They are, in fact, the same numbers Gisha uses to speak with applicants when necessary. It appears that the CLA claims that a number is “incorrect” when the Israel Security Agency is not satisfied with communications made through a certain phone number. Palestinians from the Gaza Strip often have to get a new number and provide it to the CLA in order to get their permit. In all the cases that reached Gisha, once a petition was filed, the application was approved, and any claim about the phone number vanished.

W., a Palestinian resident and a Swedish citizen, came to the Gaza Strip in February 2021 to visit his mother, who was ill with COVID-19. He had planned to stay in Gaza for about three months and return to his home and to his work as a social worker. However, from May to August, he was unable to return as Israel closed Erez Crossing during and after the Israeli attacks on Gaza (referred to as Guardian of the Walls). On August 15, 2021, W. requested an exit permit to travel via Allenby Bridge, but Israel did not bother responding, and he missed his flight. He then filed another application.

On October 4, 2021, Israel replied that “the phone number forwarded by the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee (PCAC) is out of order” and that “in order to process the application, a working phone number used by the resident is required.” Though Gisha clarified that the number was working and that it was the same number we used to communicate with W., Israel insisted. W. went out of his way and purchased a new phone line, hoping this would please the authorities, but his application was still not answered, thus, Gisha filed another petition (Hebrew) on his behalf on October 19, 2021.

***

J., a Palestinian resident and a Belgian citizen, lives with his wife and four children in Belgium, where he works as a nurse in a hospital. On July 28, 2021, he entered Gaza through Erez Crossing in order to visit his sick mother. On August 11, 2021, he submitted his first application to return to Belgium, but like the applications that followed, he received no answer. In his applications, J. provided his Belgian telephone number and another phone number that he used during his visit to Gaza.

It was not until October 10, 2021 that J. was told that he had to provide a new phone number, registered under his name with the telephone company. Left with no other choice, J. purchased a new phone line and provided the number to the CLA in the hopes that they would respond to his application. On October 26, 2021, Gisha petitioned (Hebrew) the court after the CLA did not bother responding.

***

R., a Palestinian resident and Turkish citizen, came to the Gaza Strip with her two children for her brother’s wedding. She entered Gaza via Rafah Crossing in July 2021 but could not leave through the Rafah crossing. Over the course of October 2021, she submitted an application for an exit permit to the CLA, via the PCAC. On October 27, 2021, the CLA replied that “the phone number forwarded by the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee is out of order” and that “in order to process the application, a working phone number used by the resident is required.” Gisha clarified that the Palestinian phone number was operational, that we had used it frequently, and that the phone number R. uses in Turkey had also been provided to the CLA. Gisha demanded that the CLA clarify in what way the number was out of order. As no answer was provided, Gisha filed a petition (Hebrew) on R.’s behalf on November 2, 2021.

***

A., who lives in Gaza, made an application to travel to Saudi Arabia with her children in order to be reunited with her partner who lives there. She submitted an application on September 20, 2021, a week after her partner was injured in a serious accident, with an urgent application to receive a permit so she could be by his side. As no response was received, Gisha contacted the CLA on her behalf on November 3 and 10, 2021. After the second application, the CLA responded that “the phone number forwarded by the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee is out of order” and that “in order to process the application, an operational phone number used by the resident is required.” Gisha replied that the phone number provided through the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee was operational and that it was the only number A. had been using. Gisha also stressed that this was a humanitarian request of the highest order, and that the petitioner’s injured partner was scheduled to undergo further surgery. Gisha went beyond the requirement and provided confirmation from the cellular provider, stating the number cited by the petitioner was active and registered in her name. After no response was received, we petitioned (Hebrew) the court on A.’s behalf on November 15, 2021.

***

M., who lives in the Gaza Strip, was accepted to a marketing and digital media graduate studies program. He submitted a request for an exit permit to the CLA via the PCAC on October 18, 2021, to travel via Erez Crossing and Allenby Bridge. The CLA demanded that he supply a different phone number. On November 21, 2021, Gisha clarified to the CLA that M. has had the same number for approximately a decade, and that a previous application he had made to travel to the Canadian Embassy in Israel was approved shortly before with no further requirements. Instead of responding, the CLA once again demanded a different phone number. Therefore, on December 6, 2021, Gisha filed a court petition (Hebrew) on M.’s behalf. After the petition was filed, M. was called in for a security interview on December 14, 2021.

M., a resident of the Gaza Strip who lives in Turkey, entered the Gaza Strip for a visit through Rafah Crossing in July 2021. As she was unable to exit via the same crossing, she had made an application to the CLA via the PCAC on October 20, 2021. On November 17, 2021, the CLA demanded that she provide a new phone number. M. filed another application, in which she provided, in addition to her local number also her Turkish phone number. On December 2, 2021, Gisha also contacted the CLA on M.’s behalf, demanding an urgent response, as her Turkish residency was set to expire if she did not return. On December 7, 2021, the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee informed M. that the CLA insisted on receiving a new phone number. Left with no other option, M. purchased a new phone contract and provided the phone number to the CLA. Even after receiving the new phone number, the CLA still failed to respond, and so, on December 22, 2021, Gisha petitioned (Hebrew) the court on M.’s behalf.

***

After the petitions were filed, the state approved all six petitioners for exit, without any mention whatsoever of faulty phone numbers. The court never addressed Gisha’s arguments, never demanded explanations from the state, and never scrutinized its conduct. Though ultimately, all six petitioners were able to exit, even if at some point allegations of a security ban were made, the arbitrary demand stopped them from exercising their right to freedom of movement for extended periods of time needlessly. The CLA continues to claim, in other cases, that phone numbers are incorrect despite the fact that the court issued a costs order in Gisha’s favor in some of the cases described here.