The Law of Return, in its current wording, grants every Jew the right to immigrate to Israel. Moreover, the Law of Return also grants the family members of Jews the right to immigrate to Israel, even if they themselves are not Jewish. As a result, a situation has been created whereby, as of today, there are many citizens in Israel who are related to Jews, yet hold to different religious beliefs. There are also citizens who are devoid of any religion whatsoever. What's more, among mixed families who immigrated into Israel, there are many people who have grown up with a mixed religious worldview. Nonetheless, the uniting factor is that all of the abovementioned are Israeli citizens.

Lately, a troubling situation has arisen. Certain faithful citizens of the nation of Israel have been receiving letters whereby they have been summoned into the offices of the Ministry of Interior in order to review their civil status. What was the transgression of those who received these strange letters from the Ministry of Interior? Have they betray the nation? Do they represent a security threat? Have they ever visited an enemy state of Israel? No. Their only transgression was in relation to matters of personal conscience and their religious worldview. More specifically, they belong to minority religious groups in the nation of Israel such as Evangelical Christians, Messianic Jews, and others.

The aforementioned letter of inquiry is not an indictment wherein the nation is accusing these people of any offenses. Even for the worst offense, a defendant has the right to receive a proper letter of indictment by which he can properly defend himself and present counter-claims.

In this letter of inquiry, there is no mention that the person receiving the letter has the basic right to be represented by a lawyer. Neither is there any warning that this person's citizenship may be revoked. It is simply stated that this person is being summoned before the Ministry of Interior in order "to inquire about his/her status."

In many cases, these innocent citizens have appeared before a registration clerk, who then interrogates them about their religious worldviews, and thereafter demands that they sign a document, of which they are not even given a copy. These citizens subsequently find themselves in a helpless situation, whereby the Ministry of Interior will not grant them many basic services, such as the registration of their children in the population registry, the renewal of their passports, the issuing of new identification cards, and in some cases, the Ministry of Interior even goes so far as to revoke their citizenship and deport them from Israel.

Despite the fact that the nation of Israel recognizes International Law, which considers the right of citizenship as one of the most important of civil rights, and despite the fact that the right of citizenship grants a person many basic privileges in his relationship before the State (not to mention the right to defend himself against the State’s accusations), and despite the fact that the right of citizenship is essential in order to implement the freedom of transportation—it appears that in the nation of Israel, one can lose his citizenship quite easily.

Unfortunately, the abovementioned scenario occurs all too frequently in the democratic nation of Israel – the most "enlightened nation in the Middle East." Additionally, the aforesaid scenario has even happened to citizens who have served in the IDF, having dedicated the best years of their lives to serve their nation. Why? Their religious beliefs differ from those of the majority in the nation of Israel.

In light of this troubling phenomenon, I wish to examine the Israeli law and court rulings which deal with citizenship revocation in Israel. There are two existing laws in Israel which authorize the Minister of Interior to revoke a person's citizenship: section 11 of the Law of Citizenship and section 11 of the Law of Entry into Israel.

Section 11 of the Law of Citizenship indicates three ways wherein an Israeli citizen can loose his citizenship. The first way is to illegally visit one of the enemy states mentioned in section 2a of the Infiltration Prevention Law, the second is to commit treason, and the third is if one's Israeli citizenship was acquired on the basis of falsified information. Section 11 of the Law of Entry into Israel focuses on a person who has acquired citizenship by virtue of the Law of Return, and authorizes the Minister of Interior to revoke a person’s OLEH (immigration) permit/certificate if such permit has been acquired on the basis of falsified information.

What is particularly disturbing about this situation is that there is no codified arrangement regarding the procedural rules whereby the Ministry of Interior must operate in order to revoke someone’s immigration certificate. The authority to examine a person's file and to thereafter make a final decision regarding justifiable causes wherein a person's citizenship can be revoked is given exclusively to the Minister of Interior. In addition, the final process of executing the final decision is also given exclusively to the Minister of Interior. By right (de jure), the law itself does not provide any appeal procedure, even though, in practice (de facto) it is possible to appeal before the Israeli High Supreme Court, due to the legal principle wherein every governmental decision is subject to judicial review of the Israeli courts.

Beyond the fact that the process does not leave room for a citizen to defend himself, the citizen is not even entitled to review his own personal file within the Ministry of Interior in order to ascertain the specific causes for the revocation of his/her citizenship. The Minister of Interior has the authority, according to his personal discretion, to revoke a person's citizenship.

Two court decisions that illustrate the importance of the right of citizenship in the nation of Israel are: Hila Elrai v. Minister of Interior and Israel Law Center v. the Chairman of the Knesset. The importance of this right is so expressed that, even as a result of the most heinous crimes, the Minister of Interior and the judicial authorities are very hesitant to revoke a person's status as a citizen.

The first court ruling deals with the idea of revoking the citizenship of Igal Amir (the assassin of former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin) on grounds of treason for his betrayal and violation of the trust to the nation of Israel. The Israeli High Supreme Court determined that the assassin's citizenship should not be revoked and has elevated the Right of Citizenship to a level of the highest importance, and in the court’s words: "Even though the right of citizenship is not recognized as a basic law, there is no doubt that it is included with the basic rights, among others, because it is the basis for the voting right to the Knesset, wherefrom (Israeli) Democracy is derived. As known, it is the obligation of every governmental office to restrain itself from harming a basic right, including the right of citizenship, unless this is done for a worthy cause and in a measure that is not beyond what is required; all the more so, as it is related to the revocation of one's citizenship, in contrast to a different damage."

The second court ruling deals with the proposed revocation of the citizenship of two Knesset members, Whatal Taha and Jamal Zahalka from the Balad Party, who illegally visited an enemy state. Justice Fugleman, along with the consent of Chief Justice Beinish and Justice Rubinstein, decided that the departure from Israel to an enemy state does not create an automatic prerequisite cause for losing one's citizenship. Justice Fugleman emphasized, in his court decision, the importance of due process before revoking a person's citizenship. He resites in his decision quotations from a former court ruling as follows: "Until the Ministry of Interior will decide to revoke one's OLEH (immigration)/citizenship certificate, and thereafter to deport a person from the country, the factual grounds that are before him need to be as solid as possible, and the right given to a person to plead his case, will be rigorously exercised."

Furthermore, "citizenship grants a person rights and obligations at the highest level and therefore the granting of it, or the revocation of it, needs to be done after a factual and worthy examination."

In light of the exaggerated discretion given to the Minister of Interior in deciding to revoke one's citizenship, former MK professor Amnon Rubinstein submitted a draft law to amend a section of the Law of Citizenship whereby the Minister of Interior's discretion should be limited. In the hearings which followed submission of the draft law, a review was made regarding the legal revocation of citizenship in the USA, England, South Africa, Australia and Germany. These studies revealed that in the abovementioned countries, the legal situation is completely different. Nevertheless, this draft law was not accepted.

My hope is that the citizens of the nation of Israel will awaken to the distortion of the current legal situation, and will call on their government to limit the unrestrained discretionary authority which has been given to the Minister of Interior. Every person has the right to defend themselves against the possible revocation of citizenship - which is an extreme punishment. The assassin of the Prime Minister had the right to defend himself and so did the Knesset members who visited enemy states. This is what was explicitly stated in the court rulings of the High Supreme Court of Justice.

It stands to reason that people who have immigrated to Israel by the Ministry of Interior's determination by virtue of the Law of Return, according to the documents that they have presented, and who have lived in Israel for many years, who have served in the IDF, who pay taxes, whose children have studied in the Israeli school systems, and who have never violated any criminal offense, likewise have this right. These citizens have the right to defend themselves against those who wish to take advantage of the current legal ambiguity, to revoke their citizenship, simply because they belong to different religious minority groups.

I propose that this right should be stripped from the Minister of Interior and should be given to the judicial authorities. If a registration clerk desires to revoke a person's citizenship, it should not be done in a closed, hidden or secretive manner. Perhaps, a proper process would be for the Ministry of Interior to submit a letter of indictment before a court of justice, which would thereby give a citizen the chance to defend himself. Subsequently, a neutral judge would decide according to the evidence, presented before him by both parties.

I urgently call on all those who seek peace and freedom and who appreciate the concept of working together toward an authentic and just democratic State of Israel to engage themselves in order to change these two intolerable existing sections in Israeli law, which permit a government official to deprive citizens of their freedom and liberty without the basic and important right, which all citizens should and must have, of due process.

Michael Decker has a B.A. in law and is currently working at the law offices of Yehuda Raveh & Co. Mike also serves as senior legal activist at the Jerusalem Institute of Justice.

If you are interested in supporting a project to change the current legal situation as mentioned in the article and for more information please contact Michael Decker personally at decker@yraveh.co.il.