Has ruling on stripping terrorists of citizenship emptied the existing law of meaning?
By: David Isaac
The Israeli Supreme Court’s July 21 ruling upholding a law under which convicted terrorists may be stripped of their citizenship has angered many in Israel’s nationalist camp, who argue that the ruling actually renders the law toothless.
The “Citizenship Law,” originally formulated in 1952 and which has since undergone amendments, permits the state to revoke citizenship for activities loosely defined as “breach of trust,” which include acts of terrorism.
The Supreme Court appeared to endorse the law in the opening sentence of its ruling, which states, “There was no constitutional flaw in the arrangement that makes it possible to revoke the citizenship of a person who has committed an act that constitutes a breach of trust against the State of Israel.”
Indeed, some right-wing politicians praised the decision. “Finally justice will be done here and it will be possible to deny citizenship to terrorists. I welcome the decision of the Supreme Court, for its determination that the state is allowed to deny citizenship to those convicted of harming its security,” said Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman.
However, Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked hinted that something was amiss: “The Supreme Court confirmed the obvious—whoever acts deliberately to harm the State of Israel cannot be part of the community of its citizens. However, unfortunately, the Supreme Court adopted an interpretation that is contrary to the language of the law and must grant terrorists a different permanent status in Israel.”
Menashe S. Yado, an attorney for Honenu, a Zionist legal aid organization, who represented a group of bereaved families in the case, went still further, telling JNS that the court in fact “emptied the law of meaning.”
The ruling requires the state to offer terrorists “permanent residency” to replace the revoked citizenship, and demands that terrorists receive the same social benefits they would have been eligible for as citizens, he explained.
“The law was meant to deter terrorists from carrying out attacks … so as not to take advantage of their citizenship and Israeli residency in order to betray the country and carry out attacks against it,” he said.
“The Supreme Court simply neutralized any realistic possibility of revoking citizenship. It ruled out the law’s intention to deter, prevent and punish. It said the intention of the law is purely declarative, so that even if a person is deprived of citizenship, one must also ensure that he receives all the rights a citizen receives,” Yado added.
‘It’s just a statement’
The court argued in its ruling that leaving someone stateless creates “tension with various provisions in international law,” and that “a permanent residence permit” would resolve the matter.
Amir Fuchs, a senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), opposes the idea of revoking citizenship and considers the law “unconstitutional” because it “offends human dignity” and contradicts international agreements.
However, he praised the court’s decision that a person whose citizenship is revoked must be provided with permanent residency.
“It has to be stressed that the original law did not grant the right to permanent residency,” he told JNS. “They [the court] interpreted, or kind of manipulated, the interpretation of the law, so in case there is a use of this removal of citizenship it would be constitutional. The verdict made it a more proportional solution,” he said.
Fuchs disagreed that the law was meant as a deterrent or punishment. “It’s just a statement that, because of such a grave offense, it is not logical that someone will remain the citizen of the state,” he said.
(JNS.org)
