• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« Hey Mr Abbas | Main | That Letter »

May 11, 2006


Nili Scham

I have just red about the death of Daniel Wultz - a 16 year old who died of wounds sustained in the Tel Aviv bombing during Pesach. Too often I wonder how terrorists get into Israel if our security is so tight. People always talk about the strictness of checkpoints and how the wall has prevented terrorist entering Israel - and there are statistics to prove it. And so this leads to the assumtion that people of the inside, with Israel citizenship are helping terrorists enter Israel. This has brought a new issue to the forefront - that of citizenship of Palestinians who marry Israeli. The Jerusalem Post reported today that:

"The High Court of Justice decided on Sunday by a narrow 6-5 vote to uphold the existing Citizenship and Entry Law, which prohibits Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens from living within the Green Line. "

The narrowness of the vote shows how controversial this issue is. On the one hand, a security threat and on the other hand the right to family life. It is a interesting issue, so please commment!


I accept the court's ruling. The law does indeed violate human rights but I agree with the judges in the majority that the damage is not disproportional. It only takes one infiltration via this gateway to make the damage "not disproportional."

But another argument stems from the source of the law - was it born from racism?

I believe it was not.

The temporary law took effect due to a suicide bombing in 2002 where 15 Israelis were killed and more than 40 were wounded. The Hamas terrorist who carried out the attack had become a citizen by marrying an Israeli Arab.

quoting from a jpost article in 2004 when the high court extended the law by 6 months

“The new restrictions seem to have had a security impact. General Security Services head Avi Dichter has testified that from the beginning of the current offensive until the new law took effect, 26 Palestinians who had married Israelis were involved in terrorist attacks – compared to only two subsequent cases. Dichter points out that terrorist groups try hard to recruit from among Palestinians who move to Israel, and that their access and mobility will be an even greater asset the more the security fence is completed.”

Women over 25 and men over 35 carry a lower security risk and hence the law does not apply to them.

Btw, since 1994 "family reunification" under Israeli law has allowed over 100 000 Palestinians to immigrate into Israel. The terrorists caught onto it and now everyone suffers. Its part of the price of terrorism.

While suicide bombs continue - i support the law but i acknowledge that it does cause traumatic pain on perhaps thousands of Palestinians who would never dream of being involved in acts of terror.

Nili Scham

Thanks Steve, you really prep your stuff! That statisitcs of 26 Palestinians who married Israelis being suicide bombers is huge. As you said, just one person dying because of a Palestinian getting citizenship this way shows the damage is hugely disproportionate. Though it is evident that the law does violate human rights, its a catch 22 situation. The bottom line is that Israeli lives and security are the most important priorities of Israel.


Pleasure - you come up with great questions about morally taxing issues which need to be discussed :)

The bottom line is that Israeli lives and security are the most important priorities of Israel.

Correct - just as it should be for any country. And its nice to know that these things do get so extensively investigated by our independent courts ensuring that checks are placed on the govt.


Wow, the comments here should be made a feature article. Too good to be relegated to the comments tab of an unrelated article about how the Jews took Israel from Africans, secretly ran the 16th century slave trade, organised World War 2 and voted for the Holocaust at the annual Illuminati Board Meeting.

This just goes to prove that you need an ultimate sock award. You can call it the "SOscars" and have nominees and say things like "May I have the envelope please... and the 2006 SOscar goes to..."

I would love to host the SOscars incidently if you ever get a TV show :)



The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer

  • Comments on this site are the views and opinions of the persons who write the comments and do not reflect the views of the authors of this blog. Comments are often left unmoderated. Should you feel that you have been personally slandered in the comments, please let us know and we will remove the offensive comment.