country with the consequence that the resident spouse could lose their residency status; to abandon the family unification process and instead seek renewable short-term visitor permits; or, lastly, the non-resident spouse could remain “illegally” in the occupied Palestinian territory after the expiration of their permit. Many chose the last option, subsequently living their lives in constant fear of arrest and deportation. In August 1993, the family unification procedure was again changed. In the context of the peace talks, Israel announced that a more benevolent policy would be implemented towards family unification and the granting of visitor permits. The new measures decreed that an annual quota of approvals for family unification applications would be established.75 With the introduction of this quota, for the first time Israel recognized marriage per se as a basis for the acquirement of permanent residency status without demanding satisfaction of other additional administrative or “humanitarian” conditions. However, the State Attorney’s Office was quick to emphasize that this change of policy did not represent a relaxation of the State’s belief that family unification was a benevolent act granted by Israel, rather than an entrenched human right.76 The initial quota was set at 2,000 persons per year, with assertions from Israel that the size of this quota would be reviewed periodically, with adjustments made according to necessity. This quota was divided into 1,200 applications for the West Bank and 800 for the Gaza Strip. Though no official data was provided as to the number of family unification applications submitted following the introduction of this system, Israel admitted that the annual quota was insufficient to meet demand, with applications being forwarded for handling the following year, and sometimes two years after initial submission.77 The result was thousands of Palestinians unable to obtain family unification, and with non-resident spouses still required to reside outside of the occupied Palestinian territory until a final decision was made on their application, these individuals were left in limbo, once more facing impossible decisions as to their future. The application process was long and opaque, and in the event of the application being rejected, no explanation was given, nor any indication as to the criteria upon which an application was considered. With the signing of the Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip commonly known as Oslo II in 1995, control of the population of the occupied Palestinian territory register was transferred to the newly-formed Palestinian 75 Family unification requests filed by those included within the High Court of Justice Population were not included in the annual quota. 76 Sarhan et al v. Commander of IDF Forces in Judea and Samaria et al (HCJ 1992). 77 Yael Stein, The Quiet Deportation: Revocation of Residency of East Jerusalem Palestinians, 10. 31