HCJ 10650/03 Abu Gwella et. al v
HCJ 10650/03 Abu Gwella et. al v
HCJ 10650/03 Abu Gwella et. al v
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
116. The duty of a parent to his children and the prohibition on neglecting them are firmly<br />
established in Israeli Law. For example, Section 15 of the Capacity and Guardianship<br />
Law, 5722 – 1962, whose heading is “functions of parents,” states:<br />
The guardianship of the parent sh<strong>al</strong>l include the duty and<br />
the right to take care of the needs of the minor, including his<br />
education, studies, vocation<strong>al</strong> and occupation<strong>al</strong> training and<br />
work, and to preserve, manage and develop his property; it<br />
sh<strong>al</strong>l <strong>al</strong>so include the right to the custody of the minor and<br />
to d<strong>et</strong>ermine his place of residence and the authority to act<br />
on his beh<strong>al</strong>f.<br />
Section 323 of the Pen<strong>al</strong> Law, 5737 – 1977, states:<br />
It is the duty of a parent or person who has responsibility<br />
for a minor, being a member of his household, to provide<br />
the necessaries of life for such minor, to care for his he<strong>al</strong>th<br />
and to prevent him being abused or from suffering physic<strong>al</strong><br />
injury or other harm to his well-being and he<strong>al</strong>th, and is<br />
held to have caused any consequences which result to the<br />
life or he<strong>al</strong>th of the minor by reason of not fulfilling the said<br />
duty.<br />
See, further, Section 373 of the Pen<strong>al</strong> Law.<br />
117. The Law prevents the parent from acting in accordance with these duties. Thus, the<br />
Law forces the parents into being lawbreakers.. Even worse, the Law thwarts the<br />
primary soci<strong>et</strong><strong>al</strong> entity to protect the person, life, and dignity of children.<br />
The harm is especi<strong>al</strong>ly grave in that, <strong>al</strong>ong with enactment of the Law, the state<br />
restricts the entry of Israelis into P<strong>al</strong>estinian population centers in the Gaza Strip and<br />
the West Bank.<br />
The right to equ<strong>al</strong>ity<br />
118. In revoking the discr<strong>et</strong>ion of the Minister of the Interior to arrange the status of<br />
residents’ children born in the Occupied Territories, the Respondents unlawfully<br />
discriminate and do not provide equ<strong>al</strong> treatment to Israeli residents of Arab descent<br />
married to <strong>al</strong>iens in comparison with other residents of Israel, who live in Israel and<br />
outside its municip<strong>al</strong> borders. In this context, it should be emphasized that the status of<br />
these persons is not acquired as a result of their arriv<strong>al</strong> and s<strong>et</strong>tlement in Israel by free<br />
choice (such as pilgrims, Black Hebrews, and the like). Rather, Israel made them<br />
43