Bereaved parents: “Revoke terrorists’ residency status”

Updated: Feb 11


Hodaya Nechama Asoulin, Hy”d; Photo courtesy of the family

Sunday, February 21, 2021, 14:40 In light of a decision by Interior Minister Aryeh Deri to grant alternative residency status to the terrorists who murdered their children, Honenu Attorney Menasheh Yado wrote a letter to Minister Deri on behalf of the bereaved parents of Hodaya Nechama Asoulin, Hy”d, who was seriously injured in a 2011 terror attack at a bus stop outside of the ICC building in Jerusalem and remained comatose until succumbing to her injuries six years later, and on behalf of the parents of Tal Karmen, Assaf Tzur and Yuval Mendalovitch, Hy”d, who were murdered in a terror attack on the no. 37 bus line in Haifa in 2003. In his letter, Yado requested that Minister Deri reject the Attorney General’s opinion and cancel the decision to give the terrorists an alternative residency status, or at least reduce it to a lower status. The alternative residency status, which is classified as A/5 and grants the terrorists rights to social services and additional rights, such as National Insurance benefits, is in place of their permanent residency status which was revoked. Yado reminded Minister Deri that he is not obligated to accept the Attorney General’s opinion and that the Palestinian Authority grants the terrorists large payments – the Palestinian Authority pays them salaries – as a prize for their acts of terror: “This is a well-oiled and organized operation that rewards and encourages acts of terror, murdering Jews, and attacks on the State of Israel.” See here for more details. The letter focused on the terrorists Azhak Tahar Salah Arafa, one of the terrorists behind the 2011 attack outside of the ICC building, and Munir Rajbi, one of the terrorists behind the no. 37 bus attack, who receive salaries from the Palestinian Authority. Yado: “Receiving payment for terror constitutes a crime according to the Counter-Terrorism Law and also additional crimes, such as belonging to a terror organization. These are on-going and recurring crimes. It is inconceivable that the Minister [Deri] would grant temporary residency status, with all of its inherent rights, to active members of a terror organization who acquired their status by murdering or abetting the murder of Jews.” Yado mentioned that over the years since the attack, Arafa has received 350,000 NIS and additional stipends for his prison canteen account from the Palestinian Authority. Based on these payments, the legal claim is that in light of the salaries which the PA pays the terrorists and the financial support of their families, the terrorists are able to receive residency status from the PA and so there is no need for the State of Israel to grant them any status and their residency status may be completely revoked. The terrorists mentioned in the letter never apologized or showed remorse for their acts, noted Yado and added that Salah Arafa regretted that not enough Jews have been murdered in terror bomb attacks and that Rajbi is scheduled to be released in 2023. Yado then explained the need to cancel the alternative residency status of Rajbi: “Revoking his residency is necessary to remove his freedom of movement and eliminate his danger to Israel as a released terrorist.” Yado emphasized that the Attorney General’s opinion to grant the terrorists residency status was given without justification and therefore according to the parameters of administrative law it is an unreasonable opinion, and not only that, the Attorney General completely ignored the highly significant and consequential fact that the same terrorists to whom he recommended granting temporary residency receive salaries from the PA. This disregard of such an important factor is also sharply contrary to the standards of administrative law. Honenu Attorney Menashe Yado: “When we began contending with the recommendation by the Attorney General to grant the terrorists temporary residency status, we reasoned that the decision sharply damages Israel’s national interests. However, when we examined the proceedings in depth we saw that the decision also violates the standards of sound government. It is illogical for the Attorney General, whose status and validity stem from the principle of sound government, to use his authority in blatant opposition to the principles of sound government, especially in order to grant terrorists the rights to social benefits.”

6 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All