9

I saw this on Facebook today in the wake of the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage.

enter image description here

While the world celebrates gay marriage victory:

In Israel, you can marry anyone as long as he/she not Palestinian. : According to the 2003 Citizenship Law, citizens of Israel who marry Palestinians will have to emigrate in order to live with their spouses. Their spouses will not be granted residency or any rights within Israel.

The practical meaning of the law is that Palestinian citizens of Israel who marry Palestinian non-citizens (from territories controlled by Israel), won’t be able to live with their wives or husbands.

If they want to unite, they will have to leave the country.

By doing so, the law achieves two racist objectives against members of the Palestinian minority:

(a) it prevents non-Jews from entering the country and applying for permanent residency or citizenship, and

(b) it makes it harder for Israeli Palestinian citizens to build families in their own community or in their own country, thus encouraging them to leave Israel. Palestinian citizens (not including those under military occupation) comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population. : On the other hand: the Israeli Law of Return gives the right to any person from anywhere on earth to come to Israel and claim citizenship only based on that person belonging to the Jewish faith regardless of their connection to that land. And of course that person can marry anyone except a Palestinian.

Is this claim true?

  • 3
    Is there an implied claim in this post that it's unusual for countries to not automatically grant residency to the spouse of a citizen? – Andrew Grimm Jun 28 '15 at 4:42
  • 1
    @AndrewGrimm I think the implied claim is slightly more specific: that it's unusual for countries to not automatically grant residency to the spouse of the citizen based on the current citizenship of the spouse. (Whether that's true or not I have no idea.) – Chris Hayes Jun 28 '15 at 8:44
  • 3
    @ChrisHayes - for accuracy, you should amend this to " that it's unusual for countries to not automatically grant residency to the spouse of the citizen originating from a country considering itself at war with you and whose laws officially proclaim the goal of your country's destruction, based on the current citizenship of the spouse in a country 70% of whose population openly advocate a full destruction of your country". More reflective of actual situation, now. – user5341 Jun 30 '15 at 6:36
  • There are many claims in the quote. – gerrit Jun 30 '15 at 13:04
  • 8
    There's a big difference between being forbidden to marry a Palestinian and not giving that Palestinian residency rights. – DJClayworth Jun 30 '15 at 16:33
25

Let's address the claim piece by piece, in context:

  • While the world celebrates gay marriage victory:

    Well, at least parts of the world other than Palestine, whether it be Gaza (where you get 10 years of prison officially for gay sex) or West Bank (where you merely live in a society that - according to Pew poll in 2014, has only 1% of people who find homosexuality morally acceptable, and a overwhelming 94% morally unacceptable)

    In contrast, Israel's latter # from same poll is 43%, with 52% either approving or not caring either way.

  • In Israel, you can marry anyone as long as he/she not Palestinian.

    False.

    For one thing, a Jew isn't allowed to marry a Halachic non-Jew (even if a non-"Jew" is a Russian of Jewish cultural but not religiously-defined origin) - src. The state doesn't issue marriage licenses - only Rabbinical court does. And they only do issue when two Halachic Jews marry.

    Ironically, any Muslim in Israel (including Israeli Arabs of course) has it somewhat easier and less discriminatory - any marriage OKed by an Islamic religious authority is automatically valid in Israel. (Admittedly, I don't quite know the full nuanced rules/restrictions that Muslim authorities use, but almost certain I don't need to cite that marrying an Israeli Arab to Palestinian Arab is OK by them).

    Most importantly, "as long as he is not a Palestinian" is false: Palestinians aren't the only ones who have additional restrictions on immigrating their spouses: so do any other enemy states (Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq and more):

    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). (src)

    Notice another minor falsehood? The claims states "can marry... except". The law says "Can marry, always. What happens with immigration after marriage, we get to decide". It's an immigration law, not a marriage law.

    • Now, for a little bit of context of why Palestinians are included into the list of "enemy states":

      • 70% of whose population openly support full destruction Israel according to the polls. That's full destruction, not just armed struggle to "liberate 1947/1967 borders".

        But now, a clear majority (60% overall, including 55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza) say that the five-year goal "should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea."

        For example, just one-third said that a two-state solution "should be the end of the conflict." Nearly two-thirds said "resistance should continue until all of historic Palestine is liberated." And only a third said that "it might be necessary to give up some of our claims so that our people and our children can have a better life.

        Similarly, only a third said that a two-state solution would be their leadership's final goal. Instead, almost two-thirds said it would be "part of a 'program of stages,' to liberate all of historic Palestine later." (all 3 quote from poll here)

      • Palestinian national charter still (despite Clinton and Arafat's English-only statements to the contrary) contains the goals of destruction of Israel (articles 19, 20, 21, 22). For those skeptical that I got it from Zionist-mistranslated version? WhoIs says that domain is owned by Palestinian Affairs Council.

        Here's #19:

        The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of Israel is null and void from the very beginning, whatever time has elapsed because it was done contrary to the wish of the people of Palestine and their national right to their homeland and contradicts with the principles embodied in the charter of the UN, the first of which is the right of self- determination

      • We won't even go into the fact that FATEH isn't the only and permanent ruler of PA, and Hamas - who are likely to win any elections - has a far less gentle wording in their governing documents regarding Israel (src).

  • According to the 2003 Citizenship Law

    True but misleading.

    While it is, indeed, carrying the name of "Law", it is a Temporary cabinet order (USA equivalent of Presidential Executive Order, not a law passed by a legislative branch), which sunsets every 2 years.

    Also, temporary is important - it requires explicit extension (2003 version was yearly; not sure about 2007 or later). And it was amended (in favor of reducing restrictions on Palestinians by age) on some of those renewals, so they aren't merely pro forma.

  • , citizens of Israel who marry Palestinians will have to emigrate in order to live with their spouses. Their spouses will not be granted residency

    Partially true but misleading.

    • They won't be granted automatic residency merely by fulfilling the usual immigration conditions. However, the bill merely gives the government the right to veto in cases it wants to, on a case by case basis:

      The bill gives Israel the right to reject an applicant who meets all the criteria.

      It doesn't say that they should be rejected 100%.

    • Moreover, and more importantly (see below for rationale), as of 2008, that is only applicable to young (<35 male or <25 female) couples, who are more likely to be interested in terrorist activity based on demographics profile:

      In mid-2005 certain provisions were relaxed to enable family reunification in cases where the husband is at least 35- and the wife at least 25-years-old (src).

    • And, of course, as discussed above, it's not aimed at "Palestinians", but citizens of many many states considered hostile to Israel. For contrast - it doesn't include Jordan, despite it having a very sizable Palestinian population.

  • or any rights within Israel.

    I'm unsure but let's assume that's true-ish, for lack of proof to the contrary ATM. If you aren't allowed to immigrate, presumably you have little rights.

    Having said that, "any rights" wording is a great exaggeration - a spouse would have some rights, assuming they manage to slip into the country illegally - same rights as any other illegal immigrants have, which are NOT insignificant. For that matter, same rights as a Russian Jew (who's not Halachically jewish) would have if they were to marry Israeli Jew in-country in a civil ceremony but whose visa expires.

  • The practical meaning of the law is that Palestinian citizens of Israel who marry Palestinian non-citizens (from territories controlled by Israel), won’t be able to live with their wives or husbands. If they want to unite, they will have to leave the country.

    Technically, the facts are true. the context and conclusion are false.

    See above. The practical meaning is that a specific demographic cohort of people who - by a supermajority - reject Israel's right to exist, AND have a history of engaging in terrorism when allowed into Israel - will be restricted from entering Israel under the guise of "marriage". This doesn't apply to slightly older married couples, who are presumably less of a terrorist risk.

    It also isn't (as discussed above) limited to Palestinians, and includes other hostile nationals (and doesn't include Palestinians living in non-hostile nations).

  • By doing so, the law achieves two racist objectives against members of the Palestinian minority:

    False.

    I won't even go into the ridoculous "racist" BS, considering both Jews and Arabs are racially semitic and therefore any enimity between them can be classified as anything else but racist (that's like accusing British and French during 100-years-war of being racist, except they were probably more ethnically diverse from each other. That's a guess and I don't have a citation).

    However, the main objective of this law was explicitly specified, as well as its origin, back in 2002, to be prevention of such unification as a vehicle to get terrorists into the country:

    On May 2, 2002 the government decided for the first time to freeze all family reunification proceedings between residents and citizens of Israel and residents of the PA, on the grounds of "increasing involvement by Palestinians from the region [i.e. the PA - Shahar Ilan] with Israeli identification cards as a result of family reunification, who exploited their status in Israel to engage in terror activities." (src).

    I have asked a question on Skeptics.SE to clarify whether the quote above is accurate, and the answer is "Yes":

    From the start of 2001 until 2004 23 Palestinians who got Israeli citizenship or residence through the family reunification process (FRs), were uncovered/arrested for being recruited by the terror infrastructure in the territories [West Bank and Gaza] and were involved in committing and executing terror attacks against Israeli targets within the Green Line.
    In total FRs were involved in 3 suicide bombings which killed 16 Israeli citizens.

  • (a) it prevents non-Jews from entering the country and applying for permanent residency or citizenship, and

    False.

    It allows any other non-jews (of any race, including samesuch Semitic Arabs from non-enemy states) to do so. Ref: Israel Citizenship law, Ch 7 and Ch 5. The Temporary Order being discussed excluded hostile nationals from that Chapter 7, explicitly

    During the period in which this law shall remain in force, despite what is said in any legal provision, including article 7 of the Citizenship Law, the Minister of the Interior shall not grant the inhabitant of an area citizenship on the basis of the Citizenship law, and shall not give him a license to reside in Israel on the basis of the Entry into Israel Law, and the Area Commander shall not grant a said inhabitant, a permit to stay in Israel, on the basis with the security legislation in the area. (unofficial translation of initial 2003 law)

  • (b) it makes it harder for Israeli Palestinian citizens to build families in their own community or in their own country, thus encouraging them to leave Israel.

    Partially true.

    False if you're a part of a family above the safety-appropriate age cutoff (male >35, female >25). False if your spouse is an Palestinian (or anyone else) from non-enemy country. E.g. you can marry American-Palestinian and immigrate them.

  • Palestinian citizens (not including those under military occupation) comprise roughly 20 percent of Israel’s population

    Let's assume true, because it's irrelevant either way and I don't see the need to to test it. If that's false, there's no meaningful difference to the rest of the claim.

  • On the other hand: the Israeli Law of Return gives the right to any person from anywhere on earth to come to Israel and claim citizenship only based on that person belonging to the Jewish faith

    True and false.

    • Originally it was false: Law of Return wasn't based on faith at all - merely on heredity (later amended to be 1/8th or more Jewish blood - in symmetry with Nurenbergh laws).

    • It was later (1970) amended to allow converts to Judaism, who have no Jewish ancestry.

      Curiously enough, I was never able to find any rule that prohibits Palestinians who convert to Judaism to claim the right of return under the same law, so the latter faith-based amendment isn't discriminatory against Palestinians either.

  • *regardless of their connection to that land.

    Mostly false

    Discounting a later-added faith-based conversion caveat (also available to Palestinians who convert), the main Law of Return has very clear connections for people allowed to that land - their ancestors lived there for several thousand years. Far longer than Arabs who immigrated less than 2000 years ago.

  • And of course that person can marry anyone except a Palestinian

    False, on many accounts. See referenced details above.

    • They can marry anyone, period. Including a Palestinian (except to be valid in Israel the marriage would have to be to Palestinian convert to Judaism, OR happen outside Israel - which is true for ALL non-Halachic Jews, not just Palestinians, including even people who are included in Law of Return, ironically :)

    • They can even bring their spouse to Israel if the spouse aren't a member of a hostile state (not simply "not a Palestinian"), or is of age above cutoff demographics for likely terrorist actor even if they are from PA.

  • 2
    +1 for looking at the wider nonsense that the claim was couched in. BTW I'm not sure if section 2 of the law includes the entry into Israel Law. It casts a pretty wide net in dispermitting their entry. – Adam Phelps Jun 30 '15 at 11:39
  • 6
    This answer would be much better if it used a neutral tone. FAQ: When is it appropriate to “be a dick” on Skeptics? – Sklivvz Jun 30 '15 at 12:35
  • 2
    @Sklivvz - a mild bit of 2 words of sarcasm in 1 paragraph of a 2 page answer seems a wee bit too little to claim it's "not a neutral tone". If you have concerns about specific wording outside the Pew poll number irony, you're welcome to provide constructive suggestions and I'll try to edit. – user5341 Jun 30 '15 at 12:42
  • 4
    @DVK Most of your responses lack citations: 1. "The state doesn't issue marriage licenses", 2. "That's full destruction, not just armed struggle", 3. "it is a Temporary cabinet order", 4. "the bill merely gives the government the right to veto in cases it wants to", 5. "that is only applicable to young couples", 6. "a specific demographic cohort of people who - by a supermajority - reject Israel's right to exist,", 7. "AND have a history of engaging in terrorism", 8. "It allows any other non-jews to do so", and all statements following that one. – gerrit Jun 30 '15 at 13:16
  • 2
    -1 I think the answer is in there somewhere, but I find it impossible to sort through all the editorializing. I suggest deleting all the opinion and political commentary, and simply answering the question. – Mark Jul 3 '15 at 14:20
11

The claim is somewhere between being untrue to being misrepresenting.

the TL;DR version:

  • In Israel the only marriage possible is religious marriage, so you can't marry anyone you want.
  • According to the law, residence/citizenship will not be granted to spouses of Israeli residents/citizens if they are Palestinians (i.e. "citizens" of the PA) living in the territories (West bank and Gaza), or if they are citizens of other enemies states, defined in the law as Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. This does not apply to Palestinians who are citizens of other nations, such as Jordan.
  • Also according to the law, there are exceptions.
  • The reason for the law, as stated in its bill, as well as in the three times the law was upheld by the Israeli supreme court, is a security reason.
  • The law is not permanent, it's temporary and must be renewed each year, because of the reason standing behind it. Once the security need doesn't apply anymore the law will not be renew and will expire.

  • Palestinians who got Israeli citizenship through the family reunification program take active role in attacks against Israel, exploiting their status.

Longer Version:

The marital law in Israel is a religious one, you can only marry through your religions community which makes the claim "In Israel you can marry anyone" false.

Just to give a quick summery of people who can't marry in Israel: People of different religions, people who don't want a religious ceremony, people who can't marry because the religion doesn't allow them to marry (Like, a Cohen and a divorcee, a Cohen and a converted Jew, or a mamzer in Judaism). This obviously includes gay marriage.

Israel however does recognize marriages that were preformed abroad even if they wouldn't be allowed in Israel (including Gay Marriage). More information can be found on the Wikipedia page dedicated to marriage in Israel.


From looking in the claim one will assume that the law addresses race or ethnicity, while the law doesn't specify ethnicity. The law is applied the same regardless for the ethnicity of either one of the partners, it would apply to a Jewish Israeli marrying a non Arab living in the territories. As the law clearly states (articles 1 and 2):

"אזור" – כל אחד מאלה: יהודה והשומרון וחבל עזה "תושב אזור" – מי שרשום במרשם האוכלוסין של האזור, וכן מי שמתגורר באזור אף שאינו רשום במרשם האוכלוסין של האזור, ולמעט תושב יישוב ישראלי באזור.

2.בתקופת תוקפו של חוק זה, על אף האמור בכל דין לרבות סעיף 7 לחוק האזרחות, שר הפנים לא יעניק לתושב אזור או לאזרח או לתושב של מדינה המנויה בתוספת אזרחות לפי חוק האזרחות ולא ייתן לו רישיון לישיבה בישראל לפי חוק הכניסה לישראל, ומפקד האזור לא ייתן לתושב אזור היתר לשהייה בישראל לפי תחיקת הביטחון באזור.

Which translates to:

Area - Each one of these: Judea and Sameria [The west bank] and the Gaza Region [The Gaza strip]

Resident of the area - who ever is registered in the civil registry of the area, and whoever lives in the area even if they are not registered in the civil registry of the area, excluding residents of Israeli settlements of the area.

During the time that this law is in affect, despite what is said in article 7 of the citizenship law, the minister of interior will not grant citizenship according to the citizenship law, and will not grant residency licence to live in Israel according to the law of entry to Israel, to a resident of an area, or to a citizen or resident of a country listed in the appendix, and the commander of the area will not grant a resident of the area a permit of stay in Israel according to the military legislation in the area.

The law clearly states that the only qualifiers for the law are place of residence and/or citizenship, and the law doesn't have any ethnic/racial criteria. This is important, as the claim tries to portray the law as a racial law. As DVK noted in his answer, people of Palestinian ethnicity who are not residents of the territories, for example Palestinians from Jordan, can apply for residency/citizenship through the family reunification program.


To elaborate on the intent behind the law,

The intent behind the law is purely for security reasons. As stated clearly in the original bill:

מאז פרוץ העימות המזוין בין ישראל לפלסטינים אשר הוביל בין השאר לביצועם של עשרות פיגועי התאבדות בשטח ישראל, מסתמנת מעורבות גוברת והולכת בעימות זה של פלסטינים שהם במקור תושבי האזור, אשר נושאים תעודות זהות ישראליות בעקבות הליכי איחוד משפחות עם בעלי אזרחות או תושבות ישראלית, תוך ניצול מעמדם בישראל המאפשר להם תנועה חופשית בין שטחי הרשות לישראל. לפיכך, ובהתאם להחלטת הממשלה מס' 1813 מיום 12.5.2002 (להלן - החלטת הממשלה), מוצע להגביל את האפשרות להעניק לתושבי האזור אזרחות לפי חוק האזרחות, לרבות בדרך של איחוד משפחות, ואת האפשרות לתת לתושבים כאמור רישיונות לישיבה בישראל לפי חוק הכניסה לישראל או היתרי שהייה בישראל לפי תחיקת הביטחון באזור

Since the eruption of the armed conflict between Israel and the Palestinians [the second Intifada], which brought, among other things, to dozens of suicide bombings in the territory of Israel, growing involvement of Palestinians who are residence of the area [The West Bank and Gaza] originally who carry Israeli ids due to family reunification processes with citizens or residence of Israel, is emerging, exploiting their status, which allows them free movement between the territories of the PA and Israel.

According to this, and with accordance with the governments decision number 1813 from 12/5/2012, it is suggested to limit the the possibility to give residents of the area citizenship according to the citizenship law, including by way of family reunification, and the possibility to give the mentioned residences licences to reside in Israel according to the entry to Israel law, or permits to stay in Israel according to the military legislation.

The original law had few exceptions:

  • For the purpose of medical treatment.
  • For the purpose of working in Israel.
  • For temporary reason, as long as the total time will not exceed 3 months.
  • If they are sympathizing with the state of Israel and its goals, and they, or their family member (partner, parent, child) have made an actual action to promote the safety, economy or other important matter of Israel.
  • To prolong the validity of a licence obtained before the gov. decision came into affect.
  • To give permit for temporary licence for someone who have filed a request before the gov. decision came into affect.

And in 2005 and 2007 the law was amended and more exceptions were added:

  • Male partners over the age of 35.
  • Female partners over the age of 25.
  • A minor younger than 14, whose legal guardian resides lawfully in Israel.
  • A minor older than 14, whose legal guardian resides lawfully in Israel, unless the permit to stay in Israel will not be renewed if the minor was not residing in Israel.

And the maximum time for a temporary permit was prolonged from 3 to 6 months.

Those exceptions are very important, as the law actually allows for Palestinians to get citizenship through the family reunification program, with the exception of younger people who are more prone to terrorist activities. Also, it allows for people to get citizenship by doing something that benefits Israel, and showing in this way that they are not inclined to terrorist activities.

The law has an exception for the exceptions, as it states that even people who fall under the exceptions will not be granted a permit if the minister of the interior, or the commander of the area find them to be a security threat.

There is another exception which states that if the foreign citizen is a citizen of Syria and the partner is a member of the Druze community and resides in the Golan Heights, the minister of interior may regard this as a special humanitarian reason.

In addition to the law itself, we have its interpretation by the Israeli supreme court. The law was reviewed by the Israeli supreme court in 3 different occasions: 2005, 2007 and 2012. Each time the law was upheld it was upheld due to security concerns. An excerpt from what Judge Rubinstein wrote in the 2012 decision:

לישראל - כמו לכל מדינה, ולא כל שכן בהיותה שרויה במצב מלחמה - זכות להגביל כניסתם של נתיני אויב אליה, כדרך שעושות מדינות רבות. הזכות להביא נתיני אויב ארצה, להבדיל מעצם הזכות לנישואין, אינה בעיני זכות חוקתית. אכן, קל יותר על פי נטיית הלב היה לומר, כי החוק בו עסקינן אינו חוקתי; ברם, בנסיבות הבטחוניות הקיימות, הגבלת זכותם של אזרחי ישראל להשיג אזרחות ישראלית בעבור בני זוגם או בנות זוגם תושבי האזור אינה פוגעת בזכות חוקתית".

Israel - like any state, especially when it's in a state of war - has the right to restrict the entrance of enemy subject, as many states do. The right to bring enemy subjects to the country, unlike the right to marry, isn't in my view a constitutional right. Indeed, it would be easier to go after the heart and say that the law is unconstitutional; but, under the existing security circumstances, the restricting the right of Israeli citizens to get Israeli citizenship for their partners, who are residence of the area, does not hurt a constitutional right.

And judge Grunis wrote:

יש להעמיד על כפות המאזניים פגיעה זו בזכות לחיי משפחה של אזרחים ישראלים מול הפגיעה הוודאית, על יסוד ניסיון העבר, בחייהם ובגופם של אזרחים ישראלים. העמדה הזו מובילה, לטעמי, לדחיית הטענות בדבר פסלותו של החוק.

This hurt to the right for family life of Israeli citizens should be weighted against the certain hurt, according to past experience, in the lives and body of Israeli citizens. This stand leads, in my view, to rejecting the claims about the invalidity of the law.

source

Not only the supporters claim that the reasons behind the law are security, Also opponents of the law agree that the law comes to serve a security purpose, but believe that the implementation is too broad. In this article (in Hebrew) by Barak Medina, a law professor and then the vice dean (he would become the dean in 2009) of the law faculty of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem he discusses the ruling of the supreme court in 2006, claiming that the law is over reaching, discriminatory and will result in more harm than good, but he does acknowledged that the reasons for the ruling of the supreme court are security concerns.

Also, the temporal nature of the law should (in my view) be taken into account. The law has an expiration date, and needs to be renewed every year. Which means that the law isn't meant to be permanent and to change Israel's immigration policy, but comes to fixed a temporary problem, which, once fixed will make the law unnecessary and it'll expire.


Finally, as the whole reasoning behind the law is security issues, some examples of the threat it tries to prevent should be given.

As I elaborated in the answer to this question, A report by the ISA(Shabak) summarizing the first four years of the second Intifada (2001-2004) states that in those years 23 Palestinians who got Israeli citizenship or residency through the family reunification process (RFs) were uncovered/arrested. And that in total in that time period RFs were involved in 3 successful suicide bombings, killing 16 Israelis. The report states that they take part as both attackers and planners of attacks, in infiltrating terrorists, logistic support, intelligence gathering and as recruiters.

As prominent examples 4 cases are given:

  • The Matza restaurant bombing where an FR suicide bomber killed 16 Israelis.
  • The 2003 line 6 bus suicide bombing where an Israeli FR transported a suicide bomber who blew up a bus in Jerusalem, killing 6 Israelis, one foreign citizen and injuring 20.
  • The arrest of an FR who was supposed to smuggle a cur bomb and a suicide bomber to Israel.
  • The arrest of an FR who was caught helping with the transportation of a terrorist who was on his way to commit a shooting attack on a shopping mall in Hadera.

In 2006, Yuval Diskin, then the head of the ISA, revealed in a discussion of the internal affairs comity of the Knesset that 11% of the involved in terrorist attacks are Palestinians who got Israeli citizenship/residence through the family reunification program. Also adding that since the start of the second Intifada (until then) 16 family reunifications were connected to suicide bombing in one way or another, killing 19. And that in 2004 6 family reunification cases were involved in attacks, which comprise 11% of the family reunifications of that year.

He also said that analyzing the profiles of terrorists reveals that 97% of offenders are males between the ages of 16 and 35 and females under the age of 25, which is the reason that people older than those ages for each sex were exempt by the revision of the law in 2005.

source

Just to point that it's not so ancient history:

In 2012, during operation pillar of defense an Israeli citizen who got his citizenship through marriage and family reunification put a bomb on a bus in Tel Aviv, injuring 29 people. (source)

In the same year ISA arrested an Israeli citizen through FR who was planning, together with two other non Israeli Palestinians to execute an attack on an IDF post near Nablus. The ISA claims that their activity was enabled thanks to his Israeli citizenship, among others. (source)


The full text of the law (in Hebrew) can be seen here. An article summarizing the law by a law firm that (according to them) specializes in family reunification of Israeli with Palestinians can be seen here (also in Hebrew).

Most sources are in Hebrew, and the English translation was done by me. Where braces ([]) appear in the text, they contain a clarification note by me that doesn't appear in the original text.

9

The answer seems to be Yes, mostly.

Note that I'm examining the claim:

According to the 2003 Citizenship Law, citizens of Israel who marry Palestinians ... will not be granted residency or any rights within Israel [on the basis of the marriage].

Further note that by Palestinians they are referring to current residents of "Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip", except for the Israeli settlements in these regions.

I think the "no rights" part was just hyperbole (as is much of the rest of the claim's context as DVK notes in his answer). But, it does seem to be the case that they will not be granted permanent residency or citizenship based on the marriage.

BBC : UN blasts Israeli marriage law

On 31 July the Israeli parliament approved a law preventing Palestinians married to Israelis from gaining Israeli citizenship or residency.

Excerpt from the actual UN notes:

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CONCLUDES SIXTY-THIRD SESSION

Also during this session, the Committee adopted a declaration calling upon Israel to revoke its Temporary Suspension Order of May 2002, enacted into law as the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (Temporary Order) on 31 July 2003, which suspends for a renewable one-year period, the possibility of family reunification, subject to limited and discretionary exceptions, in the cases of marriages between an Israeli citizen and a person residing in the West Bank or Gaza, and to reconsider its policy with a view to facilitating family unification on a non-discriminatory basis.

Excerpts from actual Law as translated on Israel Official site:

"area" - any one of the following: Judea and Samaria, and the Gaza Strip;

...

"inhabitant of an area" - including anyone residing in the area, even though he is not registered in the population register of the area, and excluding the inhabitant of an Israeli settlement in the area.

...

During the period in which this law shall remain in force, despite what is said in any legal provision, including article 7 of the Citizenship Law, the Minister of the Interior shall not grant the inhabitant of an area citizenship on the basis of the Citizenship law, and shall not give him a license to reside in Israel on the basis of the Entry into Israel Law, and the Area Commander shall not grant a said inhabitant, a permit to stay in Israel, on the basis with the security legislation in the area.

...

This law shall remain in force until the end of a year from the day on which it is published, but the Government is entitled, with the approval of the Knesset, to prolong its validity by order, from time to time, for a period that shall not exceed one year on each occasion.

Note: I'm not sure when it was most recently extended.

  • 8
    Why does the linked page have a title of "Israeli Citizenship Laws are Unconstitutional" when the cited text says that the Israeli Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law? – Andrew Grimm Jun 28 '15 at 4:34
  • 3
    I miss some history references. Why the law was created in the first place? Were there Palestinians abusing the law by fake marriages? – Sulthan Jun 28 '15 at 9:44
  • 2
    @Sulthan My completely un-researched understanding is that they have a democracy and the ruling power represents Jewish political interests. So they want to keep as many Jewish voters as possible to maintain party power. – Adam Phelps Jun 28 '15 at 12:17
  • 1
    They also want to prevent the Palestinian population from growing because if the Palestinian minority becomes a majority within Israel proper (i.e. not counting occupied Palestine), that threatens the zionist nature of the Jewish state. – gerrit Jun 29 '15 at 9:37
  • 4
    @AdamPhelps - It's interesting how you can make an objectively-sounding "well-sourced" answer, by not noticing the fact that of the two sources you cite, one is an Iranian attorney's opinion based on last name's distribution, and one Palestinian attorney's opinion. No biases there, I'm sure :) [edited to reflect that I incorrectly assumed editorial intent that wasn't there] – user5341 Jun 30 '15 at 8:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .