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.
“In contrast, research seems to indicate that negative consequences for their families can restrain potential terrorists from committing acts of terror.” Hi Sheri - can you please share the research that seems to indicate this? Thanks!
We should not deporting any Muslims to Gaza. They have proven unable/unwilling to live in peace with next door Israel. Rather, let's deport those still there to their Muslim counterpart countries (Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, et al). The simplest method is to put them into planes, give them parachutes and drop them into those countries. There's no need to be hassled or blocked at the borders by using busses or trucks.
No matter what we do, the world will scream ... so let them. They have not been helpful in dealing with the problems, so let's deal with it ourselves.
Stupid bill. If they are citizens then pass a law that if they knew of a terror act put them in jail for failing to stop the act. its aiding and abetting. Create a obligation under law to stop the terror if it can be proven that they knew of it. I dont know how you can justify deporting a citizen from a country. There can also be monetary punishment for the failure to act as well. Not sure how deporting these people to gaza or anywhere else will help.
Well said, doesn't seem thought through thoroughly.
Revoking citizenship for violating said laws would be an appropriate consequence and leave them on the hook to find a new place on their own and not provide the theatrics of the visuals of them being taken away.
But there would be theatrics of them being shipped to gaza with international media and other attention. If just being sent to prison in Israel, then not only could ISrael control media access in the prison, they could also just talk about antiterror laws and responsibility of citizens. Like other democracies do.
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..
It's a dilemna, that's for sure. But note that Sweden has recently started deporting undesireable Muslims with "extremist" views and no one batted an eyelid, yet, as lightheartedly predicted, there is uproar if Israel even considers such a remedy. (Especially in Israel!)
Forget Gaza, for now at least, it is a warzone, period.
Deporting people for criminal, terrorist-related issues is not an unreasonable thing to do and please, don't forget that even jailing them in Israel attracts the world's condemnation. It is particularly noteworthy that Yair Lapid's party voted en masse against this bill yet voted for something similar in the past, much like in the fairly recent Judiciary disputes.
The problem is where do you deport them to?
I'm not sure how Israel can best approach this problem, especially if there is no political concensus, but the problem does need addressing urgently. I am not a great advocate of the death penalty in normal circumstances but I do wonder if bringing in the death penalty for terrorist-related offences shown to be an attack on Israel's sovereignty might just prove to be the best deterence in the long run?
I realise the bill's passed but was thinking they could do with the main opposition party on board, so nobody can pretend it's just an "extremist" measure? I can't honestly see any country taking them tbh. I think the death penalty for antizionist terrorism has a better chance of working.
I tend to agree with you. About Yesh Atid-- nobody can take their opposition to this bill seriously since since Lapid said he was going to oppose every bill tabled by the coalition or coalition members because he wants to bring down the government. Unfortunately, all but one Yesh Atid MK followed party discipline.
Terrorism in general Israeli society is a source of shame and not pride for the rest of the family and most proclaim loudly and quickly that they knew nothing of the intent to commit the act (even before this law was proposed).
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.
There are no minutia in this law. I wrote down everything the law says. I suppose it will get amended in time as cases may be brought before a court that will reject the suits for reasons you mention in your comment.
Perhaps it is not even necessarily meant to be applicable in fact and is just a make-it-seem-we-can-actually-do-something-to-reduce-domestic-terrorism statement.
“In contrast, research seems to indicate that negative consequences for their families can restrain potential terrorists from committing acts of terror.” Hi Sheri - can you please share the research that seems to indicate this? Thanks!
We should not deporting any Muslims to Gaza. They have proven unable/unwilling to live in peace with next door Israel. Rather, let's deport those still there to their Muslim counterpart countries (Syria, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, et al). The simplest method is to put them into planes, give them parachutes and drop them into those countries. There's no need to be hassled or blocked at the borders by using busses or trucks.
No matter what we do, the world will scream ... so let them. They have not been helpful in dealing with the problems, so let's deal with it ourselves.
Parachutes are expensive
Would you suggest we skip the 'chutes'?
How dare you suggest that I’m not a nice person 😂😂😂
Stupid bill. If they are citizens then pass a law that if they knew of a terror act put them in jail for failing to stop the act. its aiding and abetting. Create a obligation under law to stop the terror if it can be proven that they knew of it. I dont know how you can justify deporting a citizen from a country. There can also be monetary punishment for the failure to act as well. Not sure how deporting these people to gaza or anywhere else will help.
Well said, doesn't seem thought through thoroughly.
Revoking citizenship for violating said laws would be an appropriate consequence and leave them on the hook to find a new place on their own and not provide the theatrics of the visuals of them being taken away.
But there would be theatrics of them being shipped to gaza with international media and other attention. If just being sent to prison in Israel, then not only could ISrael control media access in the prison, they could also just talk about antiterror laws and responsibility of citizens. Like other democracies do.
If Israeli prisons were like prisons in Iran, perhaps.
I agree the law does not seem well enough thought through.
If no other country accepted them, they would just remain in Israel stateless and that would be impossible to maintain, I think.
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..
We need that in America.
It's a dilemna, that's for sure. But note that Sweden has recently started deporting undesireable Muslims with "extremist" views and no one batted an eyelid, yet, as lightheartedly predicted, there is uproar if Israel even considers such a remedy. (Especially in Israel!)
Forget Gaza, for now at least, it is a warzone, period.
Deporting people for criminal, terrorist-related issues is not an unreasonable thing to do and please, don't forget that even jailing them in Israel attracts the world's condemnation. It is particularly noteworthy that Yair Lapid's party voted en masse against this bill yet voted for something similar in the past, much like in the fairly recent Judiciary disputes.
The problem is where do you deport them to?
I'm not sure how Israel can best approach this problem, especially if there is no political concensus, but the problem does need addressing urgently. I am not a great advocate of the death penalty in normal circumstances but I do wonder if bringing in the death penalty for terrorist-related offences shown to be an attack on Israel's sovereignty might just prove to be the best deterence in the long run?
The difference is that Sweden is deporting them to the countries from which they originated.
Lapid, in fact, stated in the past he was in favour of this exact measure.
There is sufficient political consensus in Israel for this measure since it passed 61-41. And there is still a death-penalty bill coming up a vote.
I really don't know how this bill would be applied if no other country would accept them. Trudeau might, but he will not be in power soon.
I realise the bill's passed but was thinking they could do with the main opposition party on board, so nobody can pretend it's just an "extremist" measure? I can't honestly see any country taking them tbh. I think the death penalty for antizionist terrorism has a better chance of working.
I tend to agree with you. About Yesh Atid-- nobody can take their opposition to this bill seriously since since Lapid said he was going to oppose every bill tabled by the coalition or coalition members because he wants to bring down the government. Unfortunately, all but one Yesh Atid MK followed party discipline.
You might end up deporting a lot of old ladies. The mothers of the terrorists almost always praise their deeds.
The mothers of terrorists in the Palestinian Authority do and I think some of them only do it because they have to because the society there would not let them do otherwise. I wrote about that elsewhere: https://www.israeldiaries.com/mothers-martyrs-excusing-promoting-terrorism/
Terrorism in general Israeli society is a source of shame and not pride for the rest of the family and most proclaim loudly and quickly that they knew nothing of the intent to commit the act (even before this law was proposed).
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.
These are important points you add.
There are no minutia in this law. I wrote down everything the law says. I suppose it will get amended in time as cases may be brought before a court that will reject the suits for reasons you mention in your comment.
Perhaps it is not even necessarily meant to be applicable in fact and is just a make-it-seem-we-can-actually-do-something-to-reduce-domestic-terrorism statement.