At this time, the High Court is hearing the petition of Adv. Tomer Warsaw, who specializes in immigration law, against the outline of Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked restricting the entry of refugees from Ukraine.
Last week, Shaked announced a significant expansion of the outline in question.
The discussion is broadcast live on the "Israel Today" website.
The amended petition following the amendment, supported by the Ukrainian Embassy in Israel, states that Israel must accept Ukrainian citizens seeking to enter the country without a visa as the agreement between the countries applies and that any outline that categorically grants Ukrainian citizens entry into Israel should be anchored in a government decision.
The petition also noted Israel's commitment to international law and the Convention on the Status of Refugees.
On Friday, the state sent its response to the amended petition, which states that the petition should be rejected in the absence of any reason for the court's intervention.
"The petition concerns the public of foreign citizens who are not in Israel, and who, like any foreigner, have no vested right to enter the State of Israel."
The state further noted that the refugee public has the option of being absorbed into European countries and gaining status there and that there are another 2,100 places out of the quota set for 5,000 non-Jewish Ukrainian refugees and have no relatives in the country so the petition refers to a theoretical situation.
"Contrary to what is claimed in the petition, this is not a question of violation of rights - which is not established at all, but of the issue of its policy regarding the entry into Israel of foreign nationals who have no affiliation with Israel, in view of the war in Ukraine. Of the discretion devoted to the competent bodies in the Government of Israel, who are subject to a wide range of discretion in such matters,
In response, Advocate Tomer Warsaw said that Minister Shaked's fear of the border breach is puzzling because it turns out that since the beginning of the war, nearly a month, fewer Ukrainian citizens (7,900) entered Israel than every month in the five years before the corona crisis (average 11,000 tourists).
Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, Photo: Oren Ben Hakon
It was also said that the claim that Ukrainian citizens would settle in Israel is not based on the data, as these show that 99% of all Ukrainian tourists who entered Israel in the five years before the Corona crisis - left it.
Advocate Warsaw argues that the real purpose of the outline and the requirement for prior entry clearance is to refuse the entry of Ukrainian citizens without effective judicial review, since while abroad, there are many obstacles to attacking refusal in Israeli courts.
It was also noted that in view of the temporary protection granted in Europe and which includes a year of residency alongside many rights, it is clear that those who choose to come to Israel are only related to relatives and friends in Israel to receive emotional support and should be allowed to do so.
As for the "threat" of the refugees to absorb the aliyah, Advocate Warsaw noted that according to published data, since the beginning of the war, only 3,650 immigrants have been absorbed, so it is clear that this is an idle claim.
"We showed in the petition that the outline of the interior minister was done without authority and in violation of the agreement between the countries and the entry order into Israel. Now, we also showed that there was no factual basis for both the quota and the decision to require entry The Ministry of the Interior - as well as public opinion - will be based on facts and figures and not on fears of a "flood of threatening refugees." Aid to Ukrainian citizens does not in any way pose a threat to Jewish hegemony in Israel, nor does it prevent the absorption of returnees from Ukraine.
Advocate Amichai Weinberger, an expert in administrative and public law, explains: The likelihood of the Supreme Court intervening in this issue is low, because refugee immigration policy issues are significant issues of foreign and domestic policy that are at the heart of government authority. This is a very broad discretion on the subject, moreover it is not an issue that can be compared to the issue of the status of the infiltrators which dealt with the principles of human dignity and liberty at which time the Supreme Court saw fit to intervene.
At the same time, there are many intermediate options in which the court may demand clarifications from the state or demand answers regarding various objective issues arising from the petition, such as the visa exemption agreement that exists between Israel and Ukraine, for example.
It should be noted, however, that this agreement may allow for an exemption from entry visas but these are for tourism purposes.
A status that does not necessarily address the needs of those seeking asylum in Israel.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us