by Jonathan Rosenblum
May 21, 2006
The two most fundamental animal instincts are that of self-preservation and reproduction. Human beings are different, as the Western European countries demonstrate. They are already experiencing negative population growth. And the level of defense spending of NATO bloc members raises a serious question as to whether anything could provoke Western Europe to defend itself militarily.
Israel faces immediate security threats far greater than any Western European country, and can even less afford any waning of the healthy impulse towards self-defense. This week’s Supreme Court decision upholding (barely) a temporary law denying residency in Israel to residents of the Palestinian Authority by virtue of "family reunification" demonstrates, however, how weak that instinct is among our elites.
Seven out of eleven justices determined that the law violates the Basic Law on Human Dignity. (Two of those seven, however, declined to strike down the law on the grounds that it is due to expire on June 30.)
No country in the world grants residency to citizens of states with which it is in a state of belligerency. That is elementary common sense. And it is elementary common sense that the Palestinian Authority is such a state. Its democratically elected government refuses to recognize Israel, and legitimizes terrorism against Israeli citizens as acts of self-defense.
Since the onset of Oslo, the official Palestinian media and educational system have whipped the population into a frenzied death cult glorifying the killing of as many Israelis as possible, even at the cost of one’s life. What sense does it make to offer admission to those raised in such an educational system, or to require the Israeli government to demonstrate on a case by case basis that any particular resident of the PA represents a threat? Over 10% of Israeli Arabs guilty of terrorism against Jewish targets were in Israel by virtue of "family reunification."
Both Court President Aharon Barak, who argued that security concerns were not sufficient to justify the law, and retiring justice Mishael Cheshin, who argued the opposite, assumed that demographic considerations could not justify the law. Why not?
We are constantly being told that the "demographic threat" is the greatest threat Israel faces. That was the primary justification offered for the Gaza withdrawal and Prime Minister Olmert’s convergence plan.
Preservation of Israel’s status as a Jewish state mandates control over immigration designed to maintain a large Jewish majority. Between 1994 and 2003, when the current citizenship law went into effect, over 140,000 residents of the PA were granted residency in Israel. And that number does not even Palestinian children registered on the identity cards of Negev Beduin – a widespread practice. These 140,000 new residents will reproduce at a rate over twice as high as the Jewish birthrate. Their children will continue to celebrate Israel’s independence as the Naqba, even as they are supported from the State’s coffers.
Even the Europeans have begun to awaken to a future in which their major cities have are majority Moslem. In response, they have tightened immigration restrictions, including the grant of residency by virtue of marriage. And they have employed explicitly racial and economic criteria in doing so.
Would Zahava Gal-On describe Denmark as no longer a "democracy?" Would Justice Barak be as quick to condemn Danish and Dutch of violations of "human dignity?"
receive the latest by email: subscribe to the free jewish media resources mailing list