From
Challenge # 82
November - December 2003
human rights
Israel Amends its
Citizenship Law
A Wall
Through Arab Families
Michal Schwartz
On July 31, the Knesset amended the Citizenship Law (1952),
denying citizenship to applicants who are spouses of Israelis if
these spouses come from the West Bank or Gaza. The amendment will
stand for at least one year and then come up for renewal. It will
immediately affect more than 20,000 families, while limiting the
marital prospects of many more. |
NO ISRAELI LAW prevents Arab citizens from marrying
Palestinians of the Occupied Territories. A new amendment to the
Citizenship Law, however, makes such marriages impossible unless the Arab
citizen leaves Israel. It freezes all naturalization procedures aimed
toward family unification, where these concern Palestinians who have
already married Arabs in Israel. It even forbids their continuing to
reside in Israel as non-citizens. It does not help if the spouse has long
been living here, has children here, and was well underway toward family
unification.
The new amendment places such "mixed" couples
before difficult choices: Either the Palestinian living in Israel must
become illegal and go underground, or the family must split, or – and this
would appear to be the law's hidden intent – the entire family must pull
up stakes and move to the Occupied Territories.
Laundering the words
The heart of the new amendment may be found in
Article 2: "During the period that this law remains in effect… the
Minister of the Interior will not grant a resident of the region
citizenship according to the Citizenship Law, nor will he give him a
license to reside in Israel according to the Law Concerning Entrance Into
Israel, and the [military] commander of the region will not give said
resident a permit to overnight in Israel according to security regulations
in the region."
In order to blur the racist overtones, the
amendment is formulated in "newspeak". Instead of admitting that the
measure singles out a particular national group, instead of saying quite
simply, "Palestinians of the Occupied Territories," the legislators write
"a resident of the region." The "region" is then defined as one of the
following: "Judea, Samaria, or the Gaza district." The Jewish settlers
there belong, however, to a separate category: in defining "a resident of
the region," the legislators qualify: "except for a resident of an Israeli
locale in the region."
The law serves as a means of collective punishment
against all Arab citizens of Israel who may wish to marry Palestinians
from the Territories. They may marry anyone else, just not those. The
sanctity of the family, a value recognized in international law (in
Israeli law too) as a fundamental right, here receives a peculiar pruning.
The amendment does make exceptions, however: for
collaborators, that is, any resident of the region "who identifies with
the State of Israel and its goals, when he or a member of his family has
taken concrete action to advance the security, economy or any other matter
important to the State."
The Interior Minister may also grant exceptions, at
his discretion, to persons who wish to enter Israel for less than six
months.
The reason is demography
The proponents of the amendment justify it on
security grounds. In fact, former Interior Minister Eli Yishai already
froze all procedures for family unification back in May 2002, after a
suicide attack at the Matza Restaurant in Haifa. The perpetrator was the
son of an Arab woman with Israeli citizenship and a man from the
Territories.
A close look, however, reveals that the security
pretext is false. Prior to this amendment, the procedures for gaining
citizenship answered all security concerns. These procedures included many
phases, lasting on average more than four years. During this application
period, the authorities investigated every possible factor, security or
criminal, that might be grounds for denying citizenship. (We encountered
one case where the applicant underwent 38 security checks.) The lengthy
waiting period also sufficed to test whether the marriage was fictive or
real.
Another thing belies the claim of security: As
mentioned, the new amendment does not prevent a Palestinian from entering
Israel to work or receive medical treatment. Such a person is not
considered a "ticking bomb". He turns into one, however – according to the
amendment – the moment he wants to establish a family. Thus every Israeli
citizen who enters a romantic relationship with a Palestinian from the
Territories becomes, by that fact, suspect of plotting a terrorist act.
Even Knesset member Ruby Rivlin, a certified right-winger, criticized the
law on this point: "It says everyone is guilty until proven otherwise."
(Knesset Committee of the Interior, July 21.) That did not keep Rivlin
from voting in favor.
The motive for the amendment has nothing to do with
security but everything to do with demography. (The Arab citizens
made up a sixth of Israel's population twenty years ago; today, despite
the influx of a million immigrants from the Soviet Union, they are a
fifth.) Knesset member Gideon Ezra laid the demographic cards on the table
at a meeting of the Interior Committee on July 29: "We are a Jewish State
that wants to make it possible for the citizens of the State of Israel to
live with the people they love and want. It is unthinkable that the State
of Israel will be the state that takes in, while Judea and Samaria will be
the state that spews out. It is unthinkable that, in the end, we will also
be asked to bring back the settlers from Judea and Samaria. The State of
Israel does not intend – and the government of Israel certainly not – to
create here a Right of Creeping Return."
On the Road to Apartheid
Despite the attempt to clothe the amendment in the
guise of security, it has come in for a storm of condemnation. Knesset
member Ahmed Tibi, who is married to a woman from Tulkarem, asked if his
children would lose their citizenship. The European Union sent an official
protest (leading to an Israeli charge of interference in its internal
affairs). The US announced it would check whether the law discriminates
against Palestinians. The UN Conference against Racism called for its
cancellation. The anticipation of this storm did not prevent 53 Knesset
members from approving the measure (versus 25 who opposed). Its
parliamentary shepherd was Interior Minister Avraham Poraz of Shinui, a
party that prides itself on promoting citizens' rights.
The Association of Civil Rights in Israel has gone
to the High Court in an attempt to forestall implementation of the
amendment, but the court has been in no hurry to consider the matter. Its
foot-dragging does not bode well.
Nor is that all. According to Ha'aretz (May
28), the Interior Ministry is preparing an additional amendment, refusing
to grant automatic citizenship to a child one of whose parents is a
resident of the Territories. The initiators of the new measure are Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon and the heads of the state security apparatus. The
Attorney General, Elyakim Rubinstein, has voiced his support.
None of this need surprise us. The
amendment that has already passed, as well as the one to come, fits quite
neatly with the current erection of a physical barrier between Israel and
the Palestinians, which Israel also seeks to justify on security grounds.
In the present instance, Tibi points out, the wall passes right through
families. Along with military escalation, there is also escalation in the
law books. Here Israel limits the marriage prospects of a million of its
citizens. If another land were to pass such a law, limiting the marriage
prospects of Jews, what an outcry there would be!n
Among the surprise supporters of the amendment we find Ruth
Gavison of the Hebrew University's Faculty of Law. Gavison was
president of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel from
1996-1999. She writes that the concept of a Jewish state, which she
accepts, logically entails the new amendment to the Citizenship Law.
She is correct, but the amendment precisely demonstrates the racist
character of the concept. |
n
"I live in perpetual uncertainty. It's not clear whether
they'll let me be with my family or whether they'll separate us. I've
become a temporary person."
Photo by Eldad Rafaeli. There is no connection between
those photographed and persons mentioned in the article.
Three Instances
1.
Temporary person
S. is a West Bank resident married to an
Israeli citizen. They have three children. "This was not an arranged
marriage," he says, "but a marriage of love." They were wed in 1997. A
year later he received a temporary permit to work in Israel ("Before
that I worked illegally"). In 1999 he got a temporary identity card,
enabling him to live and work here. He managed to renew it four times
until the freeze went into effect.
S says: "When I want to enter the West Bank
to visit my relatives, the soldiers treat me as an Israeli and keep me
from going in. I have to sneak around them. When I want to come back
to Israel, they treat me as a Palestinian and raise obstacles. I
suffer in both worlds. I live in perpetual uncertainty. It's not clear
whether they'll let me be with my family or whether they'll separate
us. I've become a temporary person."
2.
Humiliation at the Damascus Gate
In 1990 H. of Bethlehem wed a woman from
East Jerusalem, where they have lived since then. We should note that
the Arabs of East Jerusalem are not citizens, rather "permanent
residents". In order to maintain even this status, they must
constantly demonstrate that their lives are centered in Jerusalem.
This involves endless bureaucratic wrangling. They have a blue Israeli
identity card, but no Israeli passport. They may vote in local
elections only. Palestinians from the Territories have green (formerly
orange) ID cards. If they want to get the blue one, they have to
undergo family unification.
In 1994 H. began the procedures toward the
blue ID, but although he has presented abundant documentation showing
Jerusalem as the center of his life, he has still received no answer.
In 1997 he got a temporary license to work in Israel, which he has to
renew bimonthly. This means standing in the notorious line of the
Interior Ministry in East Jerusalem. In the year 2000 he received the
right to reside in Jerusalem, which he has to renew each year. The law
allows one to apply for permanent residence after five years on a
temporary basis. When he finally was able to do so, in November 2002,
the deep freeze was already on. He missed the train.
Says H., "More than once the soldiers made
me get down from the bus and stand with hands raised at the Damascus
Gate in the blazing sun. I live in suspense. When I visit my family in
Bethlehem, I don't know if I'll get home to my wife and children. This
is no life."
3.
Abortion at the checkpoint
M. is a Jerusalem resident, married to a
Hebronite. The two live with their children in Anatha, which is
divided between the annexed part of Jerusalem and the rest of the West
Bank – and which therefore has a permanent checkpoint. Here his wife
regularly passes through the nine circles of hell. In 1996 M. applied
for family unification, which would gain her permanent residency.
Three years later she got a permit allowing her to dwell temporarily
in Israel. This she must renew annually. Occasionally there were
bureaucratic delays; in 2002, for instance, her permit was not
renewed. For a long period she was forced to go about without
documents.
"Last January," reports M., "my wife was
stopped at the checkpoint. She was in the advanced stages of
pregnancy, but despite this the soldier wouldn't let her in. She had
to take a roundabout way by foot, following a hazardous trail. A few
days later we discovered that the fetus was dead. A check-up showed
that it had died on the day they harassed her at the checkpoint."
n
|
[Home
| This Issue | Archive|
Subscribe]