This position paper presents the IDSF movement’s clear professional and moral position on the bill regarding the revocation of citizenship for terrorists who are citizens of Israel, and the revocation of residency of those with residency status in Israel, who receive salaries from the Palestinian Authority for acts of terrorism they committed. This kind of step reflects a change in perception toward the Palestinian armed struggle against the State of Israel and the perpetrators of terrorism, conveying a clear statement: those who abuse their citizenship or residency in Israel with the aim of harming Israelis as part of their commitment to the Palestinian struggle, can no longer be part of Israel’s society.

This is an unavoidable step, which is part of an overall counterterrorism policy, and conveys a clear moral stance towards terrorists and their exclusion from Israeli society, restoring deterrence, combating the PA’s policy of salaries for terrorists, and no less importantly – justice for the victims and their families in their public struggle for their loved ones. The full package of measures to deter and punish terrorism and terrorism policies must include full enforcement of the Offsetting Law against the Palestinian Authority; the redirecting of terrorist funds to the victims’ families; the deportation or banishment of terrorist to the PA territories; a reexamination of conditions of incarceration in Israel, and the legislation of minimum sentences for terrorist offenses.

This step comes against the backdrop of a broad and rare consensus in the Knesset, across factions and shared by both the coalition and opposition, which reflects a deep public consensus regarding the moral clarity and security and values significance behind this imperative move. At the same time, it comes up for discussion against the background of the recent release of a number of terrorists with blood on their hands, such as Karim and Maher Younis – Arab citizens of Israel who murdered the soldier Avraham Bromberg – as well as the expected release of Munir Rajbi, a Palestinian resident of Israel who assisted in the attack on bus No. 37 in Haifa in March 2003, in which 17 Israelis were murdered.

This paper explains the main points of the bill in its broader context and the security advantages it offers, and briefly reviews of the existing legislation in this matter and the loopholes therein. Additionally, the paper presents a general overview of the Palestinian law regarding salaries for terrorists, reviews precedents from the Western world and Israel for the revocation of citizenship from terrorists as a means of counterterrorism policy, and affirms the clear national and moral statement: The rules of the national game demand the removal from the playing field of terrorists motivated by hostile ideology,  who consider themselves soldiers of an enemy army, and thus join the cause and as such, harmed innocent Israelis. By doing so, Israel in no uncertain terms expresses its refusal to see as part of its society terrorists who undermine that same society and are associated, nationally and ideologically, to Israel’s enemies. They cannot have it both ways: attempting to undermine the State on one hand, and being part of that state while accepting the benefits it provides.

It is a national tool for contending with a national threat, as opposed to criminal tools for dealing with criminal behavior. It reflects a nationalist perception according to which subversion motivated by Islamist ideology, affiliation with the Palestinian Authority, and the adoption of the Palestinian narrative as a motive for action are outside the rules of the game of Israeli society.

Executive Summary

• A bill proposing the revocation of citizenship and residency of terrorists, which includes a clause stipulating the expulsion to the Palestinian Authority territories, is currently being debated in the 25th Knesset and has garnered much support and broad consensus from the house factions, coalition and opposition. The proposal expands the existing law by stating that a person who behaves in a certain manner and is found to have met the following three conditions stated by the law – committing an act of terrorism, serving a prison sentence, and receiving a salary from the Palestinian Authority – will lose his or her Israeli citizenship and be deported to the PA territories.
• The proposal expedites the long administrative process and allocates a timeframe for appeals. It also to restricts the discretion exercised by the Minister of the Interior and the courts. Sentences reviewed in the paper, such as the Mafarja and Abu Arefa rulings by Israel’s High-Court of Justice, demonstrate the necessary legislative clarity for the courts alongside the need to move away from the vague wording toward a clear letter of the law.
• The proposal addresses the shortcoming of the current law, which allowed 1,000 Israeli Arabs and Palestinian residents of Israel to apply to the Palestinian Authority and receive a fixed salary from the Authority in exchange for the acts of terrorism they committed – these constitute 20% of the security prisoners currently incarcerated in Israel.
• In order to receive a salary from the Authority, applicants are required to fill out a special form and attach documents. In our view, signing such a form is tantamount to a waiver of the right to belong to Israeli society and a commitment to belong to the Palestinian society.
• Palestinian law views Israeli Arabs as part of the Palestinian people, which entitles deported terrorists to eligibility for residency with the Palestinian Authority without Israel having to offer them alternative status.
• By granting salaries to terrorists, the Palestinian Authority establishes by law that the terrorist belongs to the PA combat arm, which constitutes conscription into a foreign army and presents sufficient grounds for revocation of citizenship in a number of countries around the world, including 12 European countries.
• The PA allocates an annual budget of some $300 million USD for terrorists’ salaries, under which terrorists such as Munir Rajbi – an accomplice in the attack on bus No. 37 in Haifa – will receive about $300 thousand USD from the PA until his release, in addition to tens of thousands of dollars annually for the rest of his life; And the terrorists Karim and Maher Yunis – who murdered the soldier Avraham Bromberg – received about $1.1 million USD each by the time they were released from prison, and can expect to receive an annual stipend of hundreds of thousands of dollars for the rest of their lives.
• Already in the Abu Arefa case, High Court Justices have ruled that the status of terrorists must be assumed to be that of residents of the Palestinian Authority, and have recognized the security necessity for the revocation of citizenship, such that is customary in Western countries throughout the world.

• There are many precedents in the Western world for revocation of citizenship due to acts of terrorism.
  • Some countries make a distinction between the denationalization of naturalized citizens and the denaturalization for native citizens. In other countries, such as in the Netherlands and Australia, the procedure is the same for both categories.
  • In the United States, the law allows the revocation of citizenship from individuals involved in terrorist activity, and this law was even exercised against Palestinian terrorists who failed to disclose their involvement in such activity at the time of their naturalization, which ultimately led to their deportation to Jordan.
  • In recent years, the laws in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have been significantly tightened allowing the revocation of citizenship of terrorist operatives, providing they have dual citizenship – sometimes at the discretion of the minister without a court sentence. To date, Belgium had already revoked 21 citizenships, France 16 and the Netherlands 23.
  • Australia allows the revocation of citizenship for certain behaviors and for certain convictions, including actions that violate the values of the state, actions that are against the public interest, and involvement in terrorism. To date, 22 citizenships have been revoked in the country.
  • Britain allows the revocation of citizenship regardless of a legal conviction but at the discretion of the Secretary of State.
• There are also many precedents in the Western world for the revocation of citizenship for other reasons.
  • In 10 EU countries, prolonged residence abroad constitutes grounds for the revocation of citizenship.
  • 15 EU countries revoke citizenships in the event of treason or breach of allegiance. The United States and Australia do the same.
  • All EU countries except Croatia, Poland and Sweden allow the revocation of citizenship in case of fraudulent acquisition of citizenship.
  • Other Countries, like the United States, Australia and a host of European countries, condition obtaining citizenship on an oath of allegiance to the state, proof of good moral character and identification with the values of the state.
• The debate regarding rendering a person stateless:
  • The British law is unique in that it allows the revocation of citizenship even when it renders a terrorist stateless (the 2014 amendment to the British Citizenship Law), on grounds of conduct that is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State, and there are reasonable grounds to assume that the person is entitled to citizenship in another country or territory. Thus, for example, the British courts revoked the citizenship of Shamima Begum (who was 19 years old at the time, living in Syria and entitled to a Bangladeshi passport and remained stateless following the ruling of the British Minister and the ratification thereof by the Supreme Court). Another case involves a person of Sudanese origin suspected of acts of terrorism in Somalia, for which his citizenship was revoked and he was forbidden to return to the country – without the right to appeal the ruling. He was entitled to Sudanese citizenship and remained stateless, but has since obtained Sudanese citizenship
  • Contrary to common belief, international law allows, under certain circumstances, to revoke a person’s citizenship or residency at the discretion of the sovereign, even if it renders that person stateless. The UN’s 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness unequivocally states that this kind of action is possible in certain cases of prolonged residence abroad; the nationality has been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud; breach of allegiance; receiving payments from another country in violation of the state’s law (a case that corresponds with the policy of the Palestinian Authority); pledge of allegiance to another country (which corresponds with the signing of the application form for salaries from the PA and enlistment in its combatant sector); a person who repudiates his allegiance to the state, or one who endangers the state’s national interests.
• Ultimately, the Israeli case is unique and the state is not committed to precedents from around the world. Nevertheless, a comparative study shows that these cases present a possible course of action and are acceptable in extreme cases of defensive democracy.
• IDSF-Habithonistim lends its full support to the lawmakers in this regard and calls for the accomplishment of such legislation for the sake of Israel’s security, as part of the deterrence measures against terrorism. This kind of law is also essential in that is serves to sever the payment system to terrorists or at the very least – removing those receiving such salaries from Israeli society. This step will reinforce the security of the citizens of Israel, bring justice to the bereaved families, strengthen national resilience and above all, reflect a policy that is anchored in ethics and serve as a clear national statement in the face of terrorism and its perpetrators.