Deportation to Gaza: Hmmmm is that still an option?
Before Oct 7th, those who expressed hatred toward Israel, whether Arabs or Jews, may have been told they should be sent to Gaza. Now there is a law that says that.
A new bill for deportation of terrorist families from Israel was voted into the law books late last night (7 Nov 2024). Under the new legislation, under certain conditions, certain family members can be deported from Israel for a certain period of time while maintaining their citizenship. I have read the law as it passed and I will share with you what it says. But first, my reaction to it is: Really? Deportation to Gaza? Is there still a Gaza to deport anyone to?
Not so long ago, and perhaps even during this past year of war, when we would hear people, Jews or Arabs, express extremely anti-Israel attitudes, we might hear them admonished with the quip: “You should go to Gaza.” But, for all intents and purposes, it now appears there is no Gaza for them to go to. I do not suppose it can be considered ethical or moral to send anyone to Gaza today given that it is almost totally a war zone and the deportee would probably have to try to find an empty tent somewhere to live in.
The law does stipulate that the deportee need not go to Gaza but to some other destination, under certain circumstances, and I bet that is what most would decide but it is not clear what countries would accept them. Given that most Gazans today would not mind being deported elsewhere themselves, it is likely that we will see deportees asking for that option.
This raises the question regarding whether or not the Knesset will actually carry out the law (and that is if the Supreme Court does not find a way to cancel it). In his response to the passing of the law, Betsalmo CEO Shai Glick calls on the government to ensure that it is acted upon and not just passed into the statutes. He writes:
This is an ethical law of the highest order. Finally there is a law that takes care of the human rights of Israeli citizens and not the human rights of terrorists and their supporters and we call on the Israeli government to continue enacting laws that harm terrorists and their families.
The ‘Choose Life Forum,’ that was a partner in the development of this law, wrote on their X account:
The law for deporting families of terrorists that passed tonight in the Knesset is an important step and a cornerstone in a package of deterrence laws of the 'Choosing in Life' forum of bereaved families and victims of terrorism. As MK Cohen rightly said: "We choose life with this law. We love our children and we will make the terrorists pay a heavy price."
On 9 Oct, while the bill was still in committee, Meirav Hagag, mother of Shir Hagag, who was murdered when a terrorist rammed his truck into a crowd in Jerusalem said:
Yesterday in the Knesset committee in the discussion regarding deportation of terrorist families, sitting in front of me are the legal advisers, the security personnel, and the Shin Bet and I feel that we are transparent in their eyes that we are not at all of interest to them. And that they do everything to prevent terrorists from being deported, not to mention their families.
According to the Jerusalem Post, the Shin Bet wanted to restrict this law to parents who hold dual citizenship only and they expressed the fear that this law will increase unrest rather than deter terrorists (note: the same argument — fearing violent uprest — was put forth when Trump announced that the USA was going to move their embassy to Jerusalem).
In contrast, research seems to indicate that negative consequences for their families can restrain potential terrorists from committing acts of terror.
Leader of the Opposition Yair Lapid said his faction would opposing the bill and 23 of the 24 Yesh Atid MKs did carry out their threat to vote against it. Wanting to bring down the government, he declared that he would vote against the coalition in every bill tabled. Interestingly, according to a report in the Jerusalem Post, in the 20th Knesset (2017), he very clearly supported a similar bill.
An “X” search regarding this law does not pull up anyone, Jew or Arab, who is willing to speak out against the law. Maybe I need to keep looking. If you find something, please link me to it in the comments.
Who voted against the law
61 MKs voted in favour of the law and 41 against.
Here is the official record of those who voted against the law. Below the table I organized them by party membership.
Hadash-Ta’al: Ahmad Tibi, Aida Touma-Suleiman, Ofer Cassif, Youssef Atauna
Israel Resilience Party: Benny Gantz, Gadi Eisenkot, Pnina Tamano-Shata, Hili Tropper, Orit Farkash-Hacohen, Alon Schuster
Joint List: Ayman Odeh
The Democrats: Merav Michaeli, Naama Lazimi, Gilad Kariv, Efrat Rayten
United Arab List: Waleed Taha, Iman Khatib-Yassin
Yesh Atid: Yair Lapid, Karine Elharrar, Vladimir Beliak, Meirav Ben-Ari, Ram Ben-Barak, Simon Davidson, Boaz Toporovsky, Moshe Turpaz, Meir Cohen, Meirav Cohen, Ron Katz, Yorai Lahav-Hertzanu, Yaron Levi, Mickey Levy, Tatiana Mazarsky, Shelly Tal Meron, Yoav Segalovich, Yasmin Fridman, Matti Sarfati Harkavi, Idan Roll, Elazar Stern, Michal Shir Segman, Naor Shiri
The law itself
If you can read Hebrew and want to read the law as it passed, click: link to the law.
(I have explained how bills become laws in Israel in this article.)
Initiators of this law
Likud: Hanoch dov Milwidsky, Eliyahu Revivo,
Yisrael Beitenu: Avigdor Liberman, Oded Forer, Evgeny Sova, Sharon Nir, Yulia Malinovsky, Hamad Amar
Otzmah Yehudit: Almog Cohen,
Definitions of terms used in the law
‘Terrorist organization’ is used here as defined in the Law on the fight against terrorism, 2016. Briefly, the law defines a terrorist organization as one that has been so defined outside of Israel as such and/or, within Israel, as a group of people who either commit a terrorist act or help others do so whether or not the group engages in legal activities alongside the acts of terror or assistance to terror.
‘Act of terror’ is used here as defined in the Law on the fight against terrorism, 2016. Briefly, the law defines an act of terror as an action intending to incite fear in the public, to cause or threaten to cause injuries, property damage, or damage to infrastructure, or to force a government or nongovernment body to do something or refrain from doing something for one or more of political, religious, nationalist or ideological motives.
‘Family member’: parent, sibling, offspring, spouse or common law partner.
‘Terrorist’ is defined as an individual who committed an act as of terror.
Justification for deportation
One of these is true:
the family member knew in advance, or should have known, about the plans to commit the terrorist act and did nothing to prevent it, including notification to the police or other security service;
following the terrorist act, the family member expressed support for the act or identification with it and/or published statements praising, sympathizing or encouraging acts of terror or a terrorist organization.
The deportation and time limits
Upon becoming aware of the above, the Interior Ministry has the authority to order the deportation of the relevant family member or members either to Gaza or to another destination, depending upon circumstances (such as that Gaza is no more?)
An Israeli citizen can be deported for a period between 7 and 15 years; a temporary or permanent resident of Israel can be deported for a period of between 10 to 20 years.
Before the deportation has final approval, the relevant family member/s must be summoned to a hearing within 20 days of its issuance whereby they can argue against their deportation. Within 14 days following the hearing, the Minister will notify the family of its decision and, if their appeal is rejected, the deportation order will be signed.
The police will be authorized to carry out the arrest and ensure the deportation.
What do YOU think about this law?
Israel is not supported on the Substack payment platform; therefore, I set up a way to make one-time or repeated donations in your own currency using Paypal (Buy me a Coffee, below) or the Ko-fi payment platform here. Isbraelis can send me a private message for another option.
Articles will always be free for all subscribers but a paid subscription or donation is a way to help me sustain myself while doing all the work involved in putting these articles together and would be greatly appreciated.
Thank-you to all those who have supported my work by subscribing and/or by donating coffees.
I think it’s a deterrent bill with little teeth.. how do you prove someone “knew about a terrorist act and did nothing”? And yes, deportation to a war zone makes no sense.. hopefully the bill deters and does little else.. it does seem to be a boon for immigration lawyers whose billable hours may skyrocket.. but, I must admit.. emotionally it sounds terrific… help a terrorist, destroy your life..
Of interest would be what is the Burden of Proof required for justification for deportation. In the United States there are two standards for most evidentiary issues - the criminal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The civil standard is a much lower burden - more likely than not (51%-49%). This is very important because what does "should have known" mean in justification 1, or expressions of support in justification 2? While there are plenty of blatant examples, there are plenty that are not. This is why the evidentiary standard is important. More likely than not would strike me as way too low for deportation.
Also not clear is what happens if a parent knew but a child did not? Can the parent be deported but the practical effect is that the child is too? And where would they go, at whose expense, and what would happen to their assets? - Egypt refused to take Gazans in distress from the war, I doubt they would take deported Israeli citizens. And, I wonder, what would happen to their debts. Would debts be absolved or attempted to be collected from people kicked out? Perhaps the answers to these questions and the like are in the minutia of the law - but altogether what might seem good in theory (interesting comment above that Sweden has a law of this type), I am guessing would present a host of issues in practice for all but the worst examples. All made much worse if the standard of evidence is more likely than not rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Especially, because the law is applying to citizens rather than residents.