Talk:Israeli citizenship law

This review is transcluded from Talk:Israeli citizenship law/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Artem.G (talk · contribs) 14:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I will be reviewing this article!

The article seems to be well-written and well-sourced; I will post some of my (minor) comments below, and would check the sources in the next few days. Artem.G (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking a look!

Comments/questions:

• The only real question I have is about this sentence: "Conscription is mandatory for all male and female Jewish citizens, and male citizens of Druze and Circassian descent; Arab citizens and Haredi/ultra-orthodox Jews are exempted." - as far as I understand, Conscription is mandatory for all non-Jewish citizens (for example, Armenians), and for children and grandchildren of Jews, too. And for Haredi/ultra-orthodox Jews there is no exemption by the citizenship law, but there is one by Tal Committee#Tal Law. I will check your sources, but can you please also check these facts?

• "Jewish" here doesn't refer to people practicing Judaism, but people who are legally part of the Jewish nationality/ethnic group according to the government. I can't find specific literature on the enlistment of other ethnicities other than the common exceptional cases already listed here. If you find anything, we can change this up. As for your comment on the lack of exemption listed in the Citizenship Law, I'll answer with the question below.

• You're right, even the Israeli army website gives the same info regarding the conscription. Though it's strange for me, but sorry for that point, your writing was correct and sourced. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• 'Israeli citizenship law' and '1952 Citizenship Law' are the same, but capitalized differently. Should it be so?

• The two terms are related but very different. "Israeli citizenship law" refers the entire body of legislation and jurisprudence concerning citizenship in Israel. The 1952 Citizenship Law is one specific piece of legislation that is part of "Israeli citizenship law" generically. When "Citizenship Law" is capitalized, it's referring to that one specific law. Regulations on conscription would fall into "citizenship law" in the generic sense. Horserice (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

• This one is a bit confusing: the article title is "Israeli citizenship law", but in the infobox it's "1952 Citizenship Law", that's why I asked whether it's the same. I'll look through the sources, so let it be for now as it is; it's probably correct and justified. Artem.G (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've checked nearly half of the sources, and everything seems to be fine, sources are reliable and every claim is sourced; no OR was found; no images - so no problems here; you have very clear writing, and everything is done according to MoS; lead is ok. I see no reasons why it is not a GA. So, congrats, it's   GA now! Artem.G (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, thanks for taking the time to review it! Horserice (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Someone with editing rights should fix a typo, "conversative" should be "conservative." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.165.244 (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. Horserice (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses-2022-03-10/

This should be inserted in the "Spousal access to citizenship" section. --2A02:1810:BC04:4B00:88A9:1A3:54C4:BB4F (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

the 3rd paragaraph of the intro states that non jews , esp palestinians, may have trouble getting citizenship this seems to understate how hard it is for palestinians to get citizenship, eg a palestinian MARRIED to an Israeli citizen cant get citizenship,iirc, the new law https://cyprus-mail.com/2022/03/10/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4700:1F70:78E5:69EA:DFD9:557B (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Horserice: Why exactly are we omitting this section? That summary, in of itself, is not really a self-contained explanation. Aren't the rights and obligations of citizens pertinent here? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's probably my fault as I wondered whether it should be removed (here). It still think it's not worth being mentioned in the lede but because the "Terminology" section says citizenship refers to the set of rights and duties a person has in that nation then we may need a "Rights and duties" section. However, other citizenship articles I (quickly) checked didn't have such as section.

(Also, conscription is mandatory for all permanent residents of Israel, even non citizens. While Arab Muslims and Christians (but not Druze) aren't conscripted, even if citizens. So the link to citizenship isn't direct and obvious.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Ok, if it's part and parcel of a review process, I leave it to participants. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:23, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can the article better explain that this is an honorific, and why. Otherwise, article looks very good. Well done again. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

• The lede should specifically describe the case of Palestinians. Grouping them in the "non-Jews" is POV in this context since they form such a large fraction of the "non-Jews" and this language is often used to erase the history of Palestinians in the region.

• Added specific mention.

• The reference to the 1948 refugees as a "hostile population" is certainly POV.

• Changed wording to clarify that the Israeli government viewed them as hostile. I would anyways dispute this as being POV since the two sides had just fought a war. It would be merely descriptive to say that the post-WWII German people were a hostile population to the Allied occupation force.

• Describing the exclusion of refugees from returning as "justified" is also POV. We should not be trying to justify actions of states.

• Changed wording on this to clarify that it was the Israeli government justifying this action.

• "While Jordan lost control of the West Bank to Israel" is awkwardly avoiding saying that Israel took over the West Bank.

• The subject of that sentence is Jordan, but if flipping that makes it less controversial to you, I've changed it.

• The "Qualification under right of return" section makes no mention of the Palestinian population which is not allowed to return under the Law of Return.

• A Palestinian right of return is already briefly mentioned in the "Status of Palestinian Arabs" section. I don't think that a specific mention of the Palestinian population belongs in the section on qualification since they do not meet the basic requirement under Israeli law of being Jewish or descended from Jews. There is already a full article on the Palestinian right of return and further discussion belongs there.

• Referring to Palestinians living in the West Bank awkwardly as "resident in the Judea and Samaria Area (administrative division for the West Bank under Israeli law) outside of Israeli settlements" is glaringly POV.

• I mean... this just reflects how that law was written. The actual text of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law refers to the West Bank as the Judea and Samaria Area. Since this article is about Israeli law, it makes sense to reference that legislation.

So I am adding the POV tag DMH43 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

a455bcd9 — Hawkeye7 — Mike Christie — Dudley Miles — Ceoil: pinging FAC reviewers in case any of you want to chime in. Horserice (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert on the topic, but Horserice's replies (and edits in response to the comments) seem reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Mike Christie. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. It currently says

"Palestinians resident in the West Bank and Gaza Strip regions of the former mandate largely remain stateless." But there is no source for this information. That is because it is untrue. The Palestinians living in the West Bank fall under the authority of the Palestinian Authority which issues it's own passports. As seen here (https://palestinianaffairs.state.gov/message-to-u-s-citizens-u-s-citizens-with-a-palestinian-authority-pa-id-passport-can-apply-for-permits-for-short-term-visits-to-israel/) these are considered valid identification and travel documents by the US. Please remove the quoted section since it is untrue. Thanks and have a nice day. 1Rudster (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

agreed this isnt properly sourced or explained. Instead we should say something like:

However, the same laws that privilege Jews exclude Palestinians who were forced to flee their homes in 1947-1952, stripping them of their former status and denying the internationally-recognized Palestinian right of return^[1]

DMH43 (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe a call out on a Palestinian right of return belongs in the lead. While this issue is important, I will stress again that this article is about Israeli law and there is already a full article on the Palestinian right of return. There is also already a paragraph in this article that specifically discusses the systemic exclusion of Arabs from Israel at the time of the country's establishment. Horserice (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

To respond directly to your point about passports, holding a travel document is not the same as having a state: "Moreover, since the Palestinian Authority does not have sovereignty over any territory, such passports cannot confer citizenship on their holders."^[2] DMH43 (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Elaborated on statelessness in the Status of Palestinian Arabs section. Information in the lead does not necessarily need to be cited there per MOS:LEADCITE. Changed lead to specifically call out status of pre-1948 Palestinians who remained resident in Israel. Horserice (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

i think this rephrasing is appropriate, thanks DMH43 (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Partly done: Closing per discussion. Goldsztajn (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

"In the Israeli context, nationality is not linked to a person's origin from a particular territory but is more broadly defined. Although the term may be used in other countries to indicate a person's ethnic group, the meaning in Israeli law is particularly expansive by including any person practicing Judaism and their descendants."

Can someone explain why this is described as "broadly defined" and "particularly expansive"? Is this language used in the sources? On reading this description, neither characterization seems appropriate since the definition of nationality in this context seems exclusionary rather than "broad" and "expansive". DMH223344 (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

A base condition for being a national of other countries is having a connection to the territory of those countries, whether by birth in that country or descent from someone who was born in that country. Israeli citizenship law allows persons with absolutely no tie to the territory of Israel to become citizens by virtue of their membership in the Jewish religion, making it expansive from the perspective of other nationality laws. Horserice (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't sound "broad" or "particularly expansive" though, especially since a large portion of those with Israeli citizenship are not considered Jewish nationals. In some sense it's more accurate to say that nationality is very narrowly defined in Israel, since the israeli supreme court has repeatedly rejected the idea that an israeli nationality even exists. DMH223344 (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since any person could convert to Judaism, every person on Earth could theoretically acquire Israeli citizenship (obviously unlikely but the point still stands). I fail to understand how you don't see this as expansive? Your point that non-Jews make up a significant portion of the Israeli citizenry doesn't take away from that. Israeli citizens consist of: Jews and non-Jews with a territorial connection to Israel, as well as any Jewish person in the world who intends to immigrate to Israel. It's the inclusion of this last group that makes the definition broad. Horserice (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The statement in question is about nationality, not citizenship. DMH223344 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh you're right, I misread it.

If we take a step back and apply this to another group, it would sound like an expansive definition. What if the definition for members of the Chinese nationality included not only people with an ethnic Chinese background but also anybody who converted to Taoism? Horserice (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also please check this: https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/palestinian-requests-to-convert-to-judaism-rejected-automatically-449987

Of course what you claim about "every person on Earth" is not in fact true. DMH223344 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are indeed those restrictive requirements for conversion to Judaism in Israel, but one could attempt a conversion in another country. Horserice (talk) 00:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

When you say "broad" and "expansive" that suggests that the requirements are strictly loser than other notions of nationality. In this case it is of course not strictly loser, just different. So "different" would be more appropriate than "broad" and "expansive". DMH223344 (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article says that "Any Jew" can Emigrate to Israeli. It should explain what this means in legal terms. Religious or ethnic Jew? The law must exist and be clear.

Linking to a wiki article that is extremely general and has not been written in this context is not useful in any way. It could even be viewed as POV 184.22.156.147 (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Who is a Jew? article could be improved, yes. However, it certainly seems relevant. Additionally, I agree that the article proper could have its definition clarified.

Please elaborate on how the linking is WP:POV?

TypistMonkey (talk) TypistMonkey (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply