This week we encountered two stories involving people whose ability to return or make their home in Israel and the West Bank was challenged. One involved a Palestinian family trying to return to their home in the West Bank. The other involved two Jews seeking to immigrate to Israel through the Law of Return. The circumstances are very different, but both raise an important question: Who is viewed as legitimate in the eyes of Israel’s current government, and who is viewed as a threat?
The first story involves the Al-Tubasi family from the Palestinian village of Jalud. In July, the family was forced from their home due to settler violence so severe that staying would have risked their lives. After months of legal procedures, an Israeli court ordered that the settlers be removed, clearing the way for the Al-Tubasis to return home. This week, they attempted to return under the protection of Israeli security forces. More than 100 settlers attacked the home, injuring Israeli soldiers and ultimately preventing the family from returning.
In a very different context, two Jewish applicants seeking to make Aliyah under Israel’s Law of Return reportedly had their immigration approvals revoked after authorities became aware of their work as peace activists, including participation in protective presence with Palestinians in the West Bank. The applicants and their organizations say the decisions are connected to their activism.
These cases are obviously not equivalent. Each situation is governed by different legal frameworks and histories. But taken together, they raise a broader question about how the government determines boundaries of belonging in Israel and the West Bank and what happens when political activism and identity become entangled with assessments of security.
Israel has legitimate and profound security concerns. But security cannot become a justification for treating an ever-expanding range of people as threats. When does a security concern become dangerously broad? Does criticism of the military on social media constitute grounds for revoking citizenship? Can peaceful political activism become grounds for barring entry to the Jewish state? More and more, we are seeing examples of democracy and security being leveraged as weapons against individuals who don’t toe the political line.
These are precarious questions for any democracy. A healthy democracy must be able to distinguish between genuine security concerns and peaceful dissent. A democratic Israel should protect the rights of people who challenge the government, including those who criticize its military policies or advocate for the rights of Palestinians.
A democratic Israel should protect both Jewish diversity of thought and Palestinian belonging. The right to return home and the right to immigrate under Israel’s laws should be governed by clear and consistent standards rather than political loyalty. Security and democracy are not competing values. Israel is strengthened when it protects both.
Leave A Comment