The Israel-Palestinian conflict is typified by periodic outbreaks of violence and terror carried out against Israel’s citizens within Israel by Palestinian terror groups and individuals. Such violence has included suicide attacks by Palestinian residents of the West Bank areas of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip.
Tragically, many acts of terror have been carried out by those possessing Israeli identity cards attained through marriage and family unification with Israeli Arab citizens or residents. They took advantage of their newfound Israeli citizenship, which enabled unrestricted movement between Palestinian-controlled areas and Israel.
During the height of the violence in what became known as “the second Intifada” (2000 – 2003), the Israeli government, attempted to prevent abuse of its citizenship and rights of residence. It decided to realize its sovereign prerogative – a prerogative held and applied by every sovereign state – and limit the acquisition of Israeli citizenship and residence rights by enacting the “Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order), 2003.” 1
The law aimed to temporarily limit the granting of citizenship and residence permits to Palestinian residents of the areas through family unification.
In light of its temporary nature, the law has been periodically extended and also amended to provide exceptions, such as allowing applications by women over the age of 25, men over the age of 35, and children under 14, in order to prevent separating them from their families. In 2007, it was further amended to cover requests for citizenship through family unification between Israeli Arab citizens with citizens of the enemy states of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.
As reported in the Jerusalem Post on July 5, 2021, Israel’s Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, while presenting the law for renewal by Israel’s Knesset, claimed that the majority of terrorist attacks carried out within Israel by Israeli Arabs were committed either by individuals who obtained some form of status in Israel through family reunification under the Citizenship Law or their offspring. 2
The article referred to a 2018 report by the Israel Security Agency that since 2001, some 155 individuals involved in terrorist activities had obtained entry to Israel under family reunification laws.
The law was and is considered necessary to maintain national security in light of violence by hostile elements against Israel’s public. It has also been presented as a source of stress and inconvenience for Israeli Arabs and their Palestinian partners from the adjacent West Bank and Gaza Strip, who have not been involved in acts of terror, inasmuch as it influences how or whom they decide to marry. As such, the law is seen by political and human rights critics as a measure restricting basic human rights involved in family unification and designed to restrict the growth of Israeli Arab s. 3
On the other hand, supporters of the law justify its continued security necessity in light of the ongoing hostility, incitement, and violence by Palestinian leaders and terror groups and governments hostile to Israel, such as Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. They also consider that in such a state of political and security instability, enabling marriage between Israel’s citizens and residents with those of a hostile entity may prejudice security and public safety. 4
Others view the necessity for the law as a means of preserving the demographic structure of Israel’s population.
The Israeli human rights group Adalah challenged the validity of the law in 2006 in the Supreme Court of Israel. In a 6-5 decision, the court ruled to uphold the law. While acknowledging the negative effect on the human rights of those Israeli Arab citizens prevented from family reunification, the court nevertheless viewed the continued periodic need to extend the validity of the law as necessary for Israel’s security. 5
Following the recent election of Israel’s new government and related internal political controversies, the Knesset was unable to achieve the majority required to renew the validity of the law, meaning the restrictions on attaining Israeli citizenship and right of residence have been lifted and are no longer valid.
The citizenship law and the process of renewing the periodic limitation on granting citizenship to residents of the territories seeking to gain citizenship through marriage to Israeli citizens have attracted a spate of criticism – international and local – by political elements intent on seeking to harm Israel.
A typical example of such blind, uninformed, and overtly biased criticism is seen in a tweet dated July 12, 2021, by Michigan Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, known for her fixation and hostility toward Israel: 6
Such criticism needs to be addressed in light of its misguided, misleading, and inappropriate nature.
There is no questioning the basic and inherent right of all to nationality, as set out in Article 15(1) of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 7 together with the rights of individuals and groups to move from country to country.
Furthermore, based on their sovereign interests, countries have a parallel right and sovereign prerogative to either permit such entry, to prevent it, to limit it, and to determine the status of such people within their territory.
Such situations involve the basic elements of international relationships – the human rights of people to a nationality, to move, migrate, seek refuge and safety, and to establish homes and settlements, on the one hand, and the sovereign rights and prerogatives of countries to open their borders, accept and absorb them, or to close their borders and limit their entry, on the other.
International law and state practice recognize that foreign nationals have no intrinsic right to enter a country. Every state has the sole right to determine who is entitled to enter its territory and to set immigration quotas based on security, public interest, and other relevant considerations. These limitations may involve some element of denial of human rights in the exercise of such discretion.
International practice has, over the years, developed a wide range of recommendatory instruments that attempt to steer a middle ground between the sovereign prerogative of states to determine whom they will allow into their territory and human rights obligations to employ reasonable practices vis-à-vis those requesting citizenship and migration. 8
One of the most recent and detailed international documents that addresses the dichotomy between human rights of peoples to migrate and to acquire citizenship, and sovereign rights of states to regulate, accept, or prevent it is the “UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” appended to UN General Assembly Resolution 73/195 (2018) of December 19, 2018. 9
While this “Global Compact” reflects a consensus within the international community as to ways to manage the migration issue, it is not a binding international instrument. It reaffirms the sovereign right of states to determine their national migration policy and their prerogative to govern migration within their jurisdiction, in conformity with international law.
As such, it distinguishes between regular and irregular migration status, including taking into account different national realities, policies, priorities, and requirements for entry, residence, and work, in accordance with international law.
In drafting this document, some states (Iceland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, and Denmark) recorded their position that the document creates no new legal obligations for states, nor does it affect international customary law or treaty commitments. They saw it as confirming the sovereign right of states to determine their migration policies in conformity with international law. 10
The United States, in opposing adoption of the instrument, asserted:
Decisions about how to secure its borders and whom to admit for legal residency or to grant citizenship are among the most important sovereign decisions a State can make and are not subject to negotiation or review…. In sum, the Global Compact strikes the wrong balance. Its pro-migration stance fails to recognize that well-managed, legal immigration must start and end with effective national controls over borders.
Similar positions were expressed by France and Jordan. 11
Canadian restrictions to granting of citizenship include security reasons such as espionage, subversion (attempts to overthrow a government, etc.), violence or terrorism, membership in an organization involved in human or international rights violations including war crimes, crimes against humanity, being a senior official in a government engaged in gross human rights violations or subject to international sanctions and organized crime. 12
UK conditions for refusal to accept entry and citizenship are set out in its 1971 Immigration Act and include “where the applicant’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good because of their conduct, character, associations or other reasons (including convictions which do not fall within the criminality grounds),” conviction of a criminal offence for which they have received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more; a persistent offender who shows a particular disregard for the law; or has committed a criminal offence, or offences, which caused serious harm or where the applicant is, or has been, involved in a sham marriage or sham civil partnership, or where the person’s presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. 13
Italy denies citizenship for crimes against international or local personages; crimes against the political rights of citizens; intentional crimes for which the law provides for a sentence of three years imprisonment or more; non-political offense with a custodial sentence of more than one year by a foreign judicial authority if the sentence has been recognized in Italy. 15
Spain requires a criminal records certificate for those seeking to immigrate above the age of 18. 16
Greece denies citizenship to those having been involved inter alia in crimes against the regime, treason against the country, homicide, and dangerous physical injuries, crimes relating to drug dealing and trafficking, money-laundering, international financial crimes, crimes against sexual freedom, and financial exploitation of sexual life. 17
Belgium requires a certificate attesting to the lack of any convictions for crimes or offenses under common law. 18
The Netherlands refuses citizenship by those convicted of a war crime or a crime with a terrorist motive that seriously harms the interests of the Kingdom. 20
The United States denies citizenship inter alia to those advocating the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force or violence or other unconstitutional means, unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer, sabotage, writing or publishing written or printed matter, advocating or teaching opposition to organized government. 21
Israel’s sovereign prerogative to restrict the acquisition of its citizenship and residence in its territory is no different from the practice of other sovereign states seeking to restrict immigration and acquisition of citizenship by elements that could potentially constitute a threat to their security and public order.
The history of abuse by some Palestinians of their Israeli citizenship acquired through family unification for purposes of terror and the constant incitement and financial incentives to terror by the Palestinian leadership, leave Israel little choice but to temporarily maintain restrictions on the acquisition of its citizenship. This is despite the regrettable harm that it may cause to those genuinely seeking family unification.
Regretfully, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib and her ilk choose to continue with their illogical fixation of unjustifiably criticizing Israel. Michigan, from where Tlaib was elected, has a Palestinian community, but it is dwarfed by first, second, and third generations of Syrian/Lebanese (120,000), Iraqi/Chaldeans (100,000), Jordanian/Palestinians (25,000), and Yemeni (15,000). 22 One may wonder if she speaks out as loudly about the massacres in Syria, the ethnic cleansing of the Chaldeans, or the iron grip of Iran/Hizbullah on Lebanon.
