T. Belman, They could submit many rightwing bills and Yamina and New Hope would support them. In fact, the way to bring this government down quickly is for the Right to initiate rightwing Bills which Bennett and Saar couldn’t do on their own. That would incense the Left. If the Joint List can support the government so can the right.
I say this without knowing how Bills reach a vote in Knesset. Anybody?
Bill would grant state greater powers to limit immigration and expel illegal residents, permanently enshrine Citizenship Law.
Arutz Sheva Staff , Jun 17 , 2021 10:12 PM
Opposition Knesset members today (Thursday) submitted a draft bill aimed at regulating Israeli immigration policy and, moreover, the law prohibiting the unification of Palestinian Arab families in Israel.
The Likud has announced that the opposition will advance a ‘right-wing’ law on curbing Arab immigration to Israel: the Basic Law on Immigration to Israel.
The bill is sponsored by MKs Simcha Rotman and Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism), Amir Ohana (Likud), Amichai Chikli (Yamina), Uriel Bosso (Shas), Yitzhak Pindros (United Torah Judaism) and Yinon Azoulay (Shas).
The bill will, for the first time in a Basic Law, lay down the general rules regarding entry into Israel, who will have the powers to prohibit entry into Israel, the manner in which entry into Israel may be prohibited, and the manner in which the citizenship of an Israeli citizen may be revoked.
Among the sections of the proposed Basic Bill, it is stipulated that there is no eligibility for temporary residency status, permanent residency or citizenship in Israel, except by virtue of law. The Interior Minister shall prescribe in regulations, with the approval of the Interior Committee, the rules for entry into Israel; A person who is not a citizen or resident of Israel will not be able to apply to the courts in order to obtain a permit to enter Israel; The State of Israel will remove from Israel anyone who enters the country illegally or who stays in Israel illegally, the state will encourage the departure of illegal residents, even if for various reasons there is no ability to remove them.
In addition, it is proposed that the State of Israel be authorized to stipulate that funds, from any source, that accrue to an illegal resident will be held, in whole or in part, in trust by the State of Israel and given to the illegal resident only after he leaves the State of Israel, and that the Knesset of Israel may prescribe in law cases in which Israeli residency or citizenship will be revoked.
The chairman of the “Religious Zionism” party, MK Bezalel Smotrich, said that “the current temporary order to prevent family unification rests on chicken legs and has perforated over the years like Swiss cheese. Under its auspices, thousands of Palestinians are naturalized each year through a series of exceptions. For the first time in years, there is a solid right-wing majority in the Knesset that allows the enactment of the Basic Law on Immigration by a large majority that will preserve the Jewish majority and Israel’s security.”
“We call on all right-wing parties in the Knesset to unite around the bill submitted today by MK Simcha Rotman and representatives of the right-wing factions, thus showing responsibility for the future of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and maintaining its security. The Basic Immigration Law can be enacted soon, before the existing temporary order expires,” added MK Smotrich.
The initiators of the proposal said: “The right-wing party and Ayelet Shaked have pledged to promote the Basic Law on Immigration in the election campaign. It is not possible to allow that in order to maintain a coalition with anti-Zionist elements, the government will promote a temporary provision in a patchwork manner instead of ensuring that Israeli immigration policy is Zionist.”
@Bear Klein
Well, Bear, because I had a senior moment that lasted longer than a moment, it would seem 🙂
I thank you for your persistence and your correction stands noted as it is only 1/6 of the Gov’t’s numbers, but still too many, for me. But, I do thank you for your attention to correct my error in this.
@Ted, I hope you are correct that New Hope, Yamina, and Yisrael Beitenu would support constructive legislation for the betterment of the country.
Coalitions have rules allowing which bills the Speaker will bring up for votes and when.
The Coalitions focus legislatively will be pass a budget in the first 100 days that is a two year budget. Next will be bills that the Coalition has agreed to as part of their Agreement.
Of course the opposition will try and distract and make them look bad with the intention of ousting them.
@Ted
The more I think of your comment, Ted, the more attractive it becomes in light of this unpleasant reality of the Right in opposition. The Right lie in opposition and can not afford to be seen to be called to Bennett for his defense. But they could propose such Right wing legislation that Bennett could not dream of passing without them due to his need of his varied support of Center, Left and Arabs. It would be a rally of the Right wing, not behind Bibi or Bennett but a common ideology – sort of a momentary alignment of the splintered Right. That could prove quite successful for the state, should the base policy of egos and personality conflicts remain in check and not ruin such a potential win for the Nation, again. Brilliant idea!
@Peloni JOINT LIST IS NOT PART OF THE COALITION so why are you counting them as part of the Coalition and government.
@Edgar G.
Yes, Edgar, another very good point, nothing happens in a vacuum and context is significant. So, it is well to be concerned of possible errors in judgement, as Solomon may not have always been wise. But only a proper footing, based on experience and a view of the forest rather than the twigs can hope to keep the nation on its desired path.
Yes, Bear, I did note earlier that I included the Joint Lists as they are not likely to afford a single Zionist thought amongst them, and that would bring the number to 16 (or 15 with an abstention) and a full 1/4 of the Gov’t players. But the difference is neither great or specifically relevant. It is a good cut of the cake and not a few hands short of the whole. But as you say, I think I have had my fill of this analysis.
@ Peloni
Meretz has 6 seats
Raam has 4 seats
Total 10 seats
That is about 15% or 1/6 roughly not 1/4 or 25%. Not ideal no matter the number.
Lieberman in the past would have voted for proposed bill whether we like him or not or what he may correctly or incorrectly be blamed for.
So if Bibi had brought up the bill it would have easily passed.
Now I will bow out of this discussion.
@Edgar G.
You are quite precise and accurate in displaying a much better discernment of this term than my description affords. Consequently, I gladly defer to your more accurate definition that is grounded in the actual meaning of the word anti-Zionist than my ham-handed attempts to adopt a more simplified and less precise description of these actors and was, therefore, very wide of the mark of reality, Edgar.
I appreciate your observation of my error. It is funny how hard it can be to trade one term for another without loss of a proper context, and, hence, either the word or its precise meaning should be adopted without any attenuation of either. I am reminded of a quarrel that I had with a family member over Nixon and his anti-Communist standards that was the foundation of his career only to be the cause, with time, of the Chinese dominance in the US.
The phrase ‘only Nixon could go to China’ was always a troubling one, because as a confirmed anti-Communist, his judgement on how to handle the Communists should have been sufficient enough to direct these relations on a proper and safe course. But it was not. In truth, the phrase of ‘only Nixon could go to China’ displays the fact that only an affirmed anti-Communist could open the door from within a non-Communist nation for a peaceful Chinese approach and conquest of their capitalist rival, the USA.
Adelai Stevenson or George McGovern could never do this and succeed without such discord as it would give them and the nation reasons of concern of the impossibly impolitic imagery of a liberal playing this role. Indeed, Nixon many years later, prior to his death acknowledged the error of his actions to the benefit of the Chinese.
But if a definition of anti-Communist was replaced with the synonymous definition as you afforded with anti-Zionist, all would have been well and well served, as no man should be perceived so far to the Right or Left that an inconsistency in their their actions should be easily ignored in preference of some term, poorly applied. So thank you for your wise delineation of a distinction that appears as a nuance in terms but may belie anything but a nuance in significance.
I can see, from the comments of certain posters, that, within another week or two, Netanhayu will have progressed from being a.Right Wing PM to being an extreme Leftist. For some, he already is.
Regardless of what the puny opinions from we posters amount to, He, the PM, regardless of his deep Zionist roots and beliefs, MUST take into considerantion his inter-party coalition agreements, and make sure that even those violent anti-Zionist elements in the opposition are not unduly harrassed.
Else, the International Community watchdogs, always slavering and pulling at their leashes, would, (and do) descend on Israel like smarms of locusts. Part of his skills are used to deflect these nuisances, which are a constant progression, sometimes consecutively, often concurrently. The guy, like a joggler, looks as if he uses 4-5 hands, in HIS case heads (meaning intelligent political savvy).
All this public political output, deludes those already more than willing to be deluded.
@BEAR and others
You ask (Peloni) who are the Anti-Zionists….Allow me to give MY answer. All those whom are willing to give the YESHA Arabs and other infiltrator groups, a piece of Eretz Yisrael. This act or intended act, is positively Anti-Zionist.
Israel is for JEWS, and others come to Israel by it’s permission only, like any NORMAL sovereign state. Besides, the San Remo Conference leading to the LoN British Mandate of 1922 and subsequent transferral to the UN when founded, is irrevocably valid. Endorsed by the 51 sCivilised Nations after WW!-except Germany and the Turkish Ottmoman Epire, which no longer existed at War’s end. It ws also unanimously ratified by both Houses Of the US Congress and signed into US Law.
I think I stated clearly that the anti-Zionist elements that I referenced include Meretz and the Brotherhood who together generate 16 seats of this gov’t’s support – if I conflated anything it was the inclusion of the Joint Lists with the Brotherhood, which to a apoint is inaccurate, but close enough to reality that I ignore the nuance. These members are 16 of the 60 seats and this is a full 1/4.
I do not conflate them with the anti-Nationalists that you term as ‘left of center’. So no clever debate tactics to be seen here, not by me in any case. I think these are fair concerns even if they are not to be answered. And this is in complete disregard of Bibi’s lack of a proper hand off – which I did state as well. The welfare of the State and security matters should not be something for any of these men to abuse without notice, not just Bibi. I, for one, would hope that all could agree to reserve such ‘clever debate tactics’ for issues of low concern, not state security.
I think I was clear that the anti-Zionist elements that I referenced included Meretz and the Brotherhood. I do not conflate them with the anti-Nationalists that you may be terming left of center. So no clever debate tactics to be seen here, not by me in any case. I think these are fair concerns even if they are not to be answered. And this is in complete disregard of Bibi’s lack of a proper hand off – which I did state as well. The welfare of the State and security matters should not be something for any of these men to abuse without notice, not just Bibi. I, for one, would hope that all could agree to reserve such ‘clever debate tactics’ for issues of low concern, not state security.
The bill that the opposition has introduced is damage control to show that they don’t prevent the extension or passing of the citizenship law introduced by the government but merely introduce a much better law than the “leftists” in the new government.
It is a distraction from the task of the voting on the extension of the citizenship law that the opposition refused to support.
It is also designed to make the opposition appear super “rightist” which it is not.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, it is also designed to interfere with the tasks that the new government has to accomplish and to waste as much time as possible because the opposition wants to force this government to collapse.
If the new government fails to pass a budget within 100 days, the Knesset will be dissolved.
This is the same trick (failing to pass the budget) that Netanyahu played on Gantz in order to prevent him from becoming prime minister.
It is much more important right now to just push through the extension bill and continue on to the budget which they have only 100 days to complete rather than fight and argue for weeks about this new comprehensive reform bill which makes no immediate difference to anyone and may actually make things worse in the long run.
I am wondering whether their “all-encompassing law”, if passed, would be able to severely restrict aliyah and the possible illegal entry (out of desperation) into Israel (the “Jewish” country) of the Jews persecuted in the Diaspora?
I don’t want the place to be turned into another Mandatory Palestine.
I mean, the Jewish state hasn’t been encouraging aliyah as it is, it seems to be a lot more interested in making life cozy for their 2 million Arabs.
Imagine if Israel now had 2 million more Jews, most of them living in Judea and Samaria!
I am starting to think that the parties in the opposition are so corrupt that they should be dismantled and most of their members should be barred from ever entering any government positions.
@Peloni who are anti-Zionists please? Are you conflating all to the left of center as Anti-Zionists? Have you changed the subject or created a red-herring to steer the discussion away from why Bibi never brought this bill up during his 12 years running the Knesset? Seems so! Clever debate tactic. Anyway I am dropping this thread, I stand by my points which I think are solid.
But is it really rational that a member of the ‘far right’ as you say, and his membership in the settlements would suggest, would prefer the appeasement of the Brotherhood who lies a constant threat to everyone over the continued support/subsidizing of the Heredi? The Brotherhood was his choice of partner. And too, Meretz over Likud. I am not unaware of the great insult that unresolved matters build within the heart of an idealogue.
But the alliance of these anti-Zionists who number nearly 1/4 of this gov’t and places Abbas in the service of the state? These are tolerable measures? But not Bibi? Not the Heredi? Such right wing inconsistencies seem undermined by these not insignificant positions for anti-Zionists within a Zionist nation at the whim of a supposedly far Right Zionist. Bennett had no choice but this bad bargain due to the valuations of these players. But Lieberman and others were working off something other than a ‘far right’ agenda in striking this arrangement, as far as I can deduce.
@Peloni
Lieberman lives in a “settlement” is super hawkish and is very right-wing. I do not like the guy but that is who he is. He got pissed at Bibi for curtailining what he was trying to do as Defense Minister and being too soft on Hamas. Also he wanted the Haredi do some service plus other things on the state religious specter.
Bibi is to the left of Lieberman in practice. He just appeases the Haredi and Lieberman stopped doing that.
I am aware that the Left comprises many shades and degrees and so, you may be correct in this view, but, in the 34th Knessett, the phrase “all right wing and religious” suggest, correct me if I am wrong, the inclusion of Lieberman and Israel Beitineu. I know you see them as Right wing, but there was such a great political bias between these players that it has ultimately brought us to the burden of a gov’t including Brotherhood and Meretz. So I would suggest the use of this term is less than certain in my mind as to the role of political agreement with his great nemesis. But, I do see your point as likely convincing, nonetheless.
@Peloni those governments when needed approved the bill to extended limitations on Palestinian unification. Also some of the centrists (they are different than Meretz) would also be in favor of legislation like this. Also the 34th government was all right wing and religious.
Bibi talks far right-wing when running for office and governs as a centrist. That is probably why a bill like this was never enacted. If he had wanted it to pass over the course of 12 years it would have. It is coming up now for the reasons I stated earlier.
This is a fair question. Netanyahu has held the premiership since early 2009, and if we were to consider this fact and this fact alone this question would remain unanswered and the implication would be certain.
But, as I have noted in a conversation with another member on this site regarding Netanyahu’s leadership in that time, his leadership was not absolute and was dependent upon Leftist for most of these years, such as Kadima and Labor and Yesh Atid, and then, over the past several years, others, such as Gantz and Lieberman whose support of such Right wing legislation is not certain in my mind at minimum. Also these latter two groups have clearly had seen fit to deny Netanyahu victory in their wars of ego/gripes, so there ability to deny such legislation could have also been a consideration. Just some thoughts.
Interesting why did the Likud never propose such a law when they were in power for 12 consecutive years.
Why are they proposing it now? Is it for the good of the nation (hopefully)?
Are they trying to drive a wedge inside the new coalition (most likely)?
Is it cover for opposing the coalition bill which they actually are in favor (most likely)?
I’d like to see the whole thing but it sounds like a good bill.