Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law
|This article is part of a series on the
politics and government of
The Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) 5763 is an Israeli law first passed on 31 July 2003 and most recently extended in June 2008. The law makes citizens of Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, the West Bank and Gaza Strip ineligible for the automatic granting of Israeli citizenship and residency permits that is usually available through marriage to an Israeli citizen (i.e. family reunification).
The law originated in a 2002 Cabinet order freezing the issue of citizenship on family reunification grounds between Israeli citizens and residents of Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and areas governed by the Palestinian National Authority. The law was extended in mid-2005 but limited its scope to those families where the husband is under 35 years of age and the wife is under 25 years old. In the interim the law was tested against Israel's Basic Laws, which operate in a manner similar to a constitution, when the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, filed a 2003 petition to have the law struck down.
The law was upheld in a split 6-5 High Court decision rendered in 2006, but the decision criticized a number of aspects of the law. In particular, the minority judgement, written by Chief Justice Aharon Barak, emphasized the temporary nature of the law's effect, arguing that "the appropriate goal of increasing security is not justifying severe harm to many thousands of Israeli citizens."
A draft bill to replace the law rather than seek a second renewal following the expiry of its application in January, 2007, sought to expand the areas targeted by the law beyond Palestinian Authority-controlled areas to include other regions with which Israel is in a state of military conflict.
The law was challenged again in 2007. A number of human rights organisations and public figures petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the law violates the right to family life and the right to equality of Palestinian citizens of Israel. In 2012, the Court issued its decision rejecting the petitions and confirming the constitutionality of the law. The majority of the Court ruled that there was no violation of the right to family life or the right to equality. They further stated that to the extent that these rights are violated, the violation is considered proportionate and therefore justified according to section 8 of Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. The majority justices explained that the Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are considered to be "enemy nationals". This, for the majority, is considered a relevant distinction that justifies the law.
The outcome and the reasoning of this ruling by the Supreme Court has been criticised because of its negative implications for the constitutional rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel. The majority justices in this decision treated the rights of the Palestinian citizens of Israel as though they are an immigrant non-citizen group and not a homeland indigenous minority. The Court also discussed the role of demographic considerations and showed inclination to accept restricting the rights of the Palestinian citizens in order to preserve a Jewish majority among the population in Israel. It is argued that the arguments and justifications used by the Supreme Court provide the building blocks for a legal framework that explicitly institutionalises separate hierarchical categories of citizenship.
Critics argue that the law is discriminatory because it disproportionately affects Israeli Arabs, since Israeli Arabs are far more likely to have spouses from the West Bank and Gaza Strip than other Israeli citizens. Such critics have included the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which unanimously approved a resolution stating that the Israeli law violated an international human rights treaty against racism; and Amnesty International, which has argued that "[i]n its current form the law is discriminatory and violates fundamental principles of equality, human dignity, personal freedom and privacy, enshrined in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, as well as the right of children to live with both parents, and other fundamental rights enshrined in international human rights treaties to which Israel is a party and which it is obliged to uphold." When the law was renewed in June 2008, the publisher of the Israeli daily Ha'aretz argued that its existence makes Israel into an apartheid state.
In January 2012, Arab Knesset member Jamal Zahalka expressed concern that the law would lead to large-scale emigration of Arab Israelis from Israel into Palestinian Authority areas, and claimed that Israel was taking advantage of the Supreme Court's decision to bring about an exodus of Arabs from Israel.
- Amos Schocken,Citizenship law makes Israel an apatheid state, Ha'aretz, 27 June 2008
- Ben Lynfield. "Marriage law divides Israeli Arab families". Christian Science Monitor.
- Ben Lynfield (15 May 2006). "Arab spouses face Israeli legal purge". Edinburgh: The Scotsman.
- Yoav Peled, “Citizenship Betrayed: Israel’s Emerging Immigration and Citizenship Regime,” Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 8:2, 2007, pp. 333-358.
- Ilan Shahar. "Gov't seeks to extend order that can curb Arab family reunification". Haaretz.
- HCJ 466/07 Gal'on v. Minister of Interior' 'http://elyon2.court.gov.il/files/07/660/004/O30/07004660.O30.htm
- Yoav Peled, The Challenge of Ethnic Democracy: The State and Minority Groups in Israel, Poland and Northern Ireland (Routledge, 2014), p. 142.
- Mazen Masri, "Love Suspended: Demography, Comparative Law and Palestinian Couples in the Israeli Supreme Court", Social & Legal Studies (2013) 22(3) 309–334. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2330291
- "Israeli marriage law blocks citizenship for Palestinians". San Francisco Chronicle. 2003-08-01.
- "UN blasts Israeli marriage law". BBC News. 2003-08-15.
- "Briefing to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women". Amnesty International. June 2005.