document they signed. The majority of the women did not read Hebrew, or even Arabic, therefore they were unaware of the severe consequences of signing the document. The Israeli Court accepted the petitioner’s arguments and ruled in favor of a “procedure to return their citizenship” for the seven women, but rejected the broader appeal by ACRI, to retroactively reinstate all citizenships for Palestinians affected by the same policy.54 This policy is in clear contradiction to the Convention of Reduction of Statelessness which posits that a state should not permit renunciation of nationality in a situation where no other nationality is possessed or acquired, and that a national shall not lose his nationality, so as to become stateless, on the basis of departure from that state.55 In addition, the policy also contradicts the Convention on the Nationality of Married Woman, which protects women’s nationality in the event of their getting married or divorced.56 Conclusion The right to residency status is the condition for accessing many other rights. Since 1967, more than 14,000 Palestinians lost their residency status and right to live in East Jerusalem.57 The great numbers of people who hold no status under Israeli law are not eligible for health services, cannot enroll in schools, open bank accounts, work legally, own property, obtain a driving license or travel documents. This policy of residency revocation has significantly altered the demographic composition of Jerusalem and indicates a broader ongoing forced population transfer policy. The attempts of the Israeli authorities to alter the legal status of Jerusalem and its Palestinian residents are in breach of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.58 In particular, the demographically-motivated policies breach Article 49 – prohibiting individual or mass forcible transfers – and Article 50, requiring the registration, care and education of children. The Israeli policy of residency revocation is evident discrimination against thousands of Palestinian residents of Jerusalem, and in clear contravention of the 54 Dunya ‘Abed v. Minister of the Interior, 55(5) 778 (HCJ 2000). 55 UNHCR - United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Convention of Reduction of Statelessness, 1961, http://www.unhcr.org/3bbb286d8.html. 56 United Nations, Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, 1957, https://treaties.un.org/doc/ Treaties/1958/08/19580811%2001-34%20AM/Ch_XVI_2p.pdf. 57 B’Tselem, “Statistics on Revocation of Residency in East Jerusalem.” 58 On 30 July 1980 the Israeli government issued the Basic Law: Jerusalem, Capital of Israel, where article 1 stipulates that, “Jerusalem, eternal and indivisible, is the capital of the state of Israel,” which was condemned by the United Nations Security Council resolution 478 stating that, “all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying power, which have altered or purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in particular the recent ‘basic law’ on Jerusalem, are null and void and must be rescinded forthwith.” 27