The magic circle: How income-security benefits are denied to the Palestinians of East Jerusalem

Amal then submitted an appeal to the EB Appeals Committee, but here too she encountered various protocol violations. Firstly, although Amal declared she was represented by WAC-MAAN, the Bureau sent...

Amal then submitted an appeal to the EB Appeals Committee, but here too she encountered various protocol violations. Firstly, although Amal declared she was represented by WAC-MAAN, the Bureau sent a fax to the latter about the meeting just two hours in advance. Since the fax was seen at the WAC-MAAN office only after the meeting was already in progress, Amal was unrepresented. At the meeting the Bureau’s representative, Yaacov Beniashvili threatened Amal, prevented her from speaking, and did not permit her to present her claims; also, Amal’s mother tongue is Arabic, and she had no WAC-MAAN representative with her, which meant that Beniashvili was the only available translator. The chairperson was aware of the difficult circumstances. In his decision, he noted, “There may be a problem with the lack of translation to Arabic and from Arabic to Hebrew in this committee’s discussions, and with the fact that the committee used the translation of someone who is party to the dispute.” But for some reason the chairperson did not consider the problem serious enough to warrant canceling the refusal.

Not only did the committee decision ignore protocol, but it also ignored Amal’s claims. WAC-MAAN’s legal department has submitted an appeal at the labor court, protesting the procedures at the EB, including the referral to unsuitable work and the false registration of job refusal, as well as the behavior of the medical committee.

Unjustified withdrawal of income support by the NII following its refusal to enable documents to be submitted; NII’s failure to respond to representatives

Musa’s story

Musa gets the ISB and presents himself at the EB each week. At the end of 2014, he began working at a job they referred him to but was dismissed after just two months. In cases like this, if the jobseeker presents himself at the EB immediately after being dismissed, the NII must continue to pay his ISB. Thus Musa hurried to the EB, and he also submitted the wage slips for the period he was employed.

Nonetheless, the NII withdrew his ISB and told him he would have to submit a new claim because he had not shown up during the two months (the two months he was employed and thus was not required to present himself at the EB, and for which he had submitted wage slips proving he had worked). Musa contacted WAC-MAAN, and it submitted the same wage slips to the NII again, asking that the ISB be reinstated. Meanwhile, the NII gave no response.

At the same time, Musa asked to submit the wage slips again, by hand, at the NII, but the clerks refused to accept them.

WAC-MAAN again contacted the NII, which said it relies on the EB and that therefore the EB must correct the records in order that the ISB be reinstated. But it then became apparent that Musa’s records at the EB were in order: they show that he had presented himself as required and that there is no reason to withdraw his ISB. Although it is not the jobseeker’s responsibility to update the NII regarding the EB records, WAC-MAAN sent the records to the NII four times, by fax and email, but received no response from the NII. Eight months after the documents were first sent, WAC-MAAN representatives met with the NII branch director and discovered that not a single one of the documents had been added to Musa’s file. The director promised to deal with the problem immediately, but the meeting took place on June 29, 2015, and at the time of this report WAC-MAAN has still not received a reply despite further correspondence with the branch director.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Pages ( 10 of 11 ): « Previous1 ... 89 10 11Next »

About Erez Wagner