Israel
- Law of Return
The Law of Return (Khok
ha-Sh'vut) is Israeli legislation that allows Jews to settle in Israel
and gain citizenship. It was the first law passed by the Knesset after
the establishment in 1948 of the State of Israel. While the original law
was enacted to remove barriers for entry to Jewish refugees from around
the world, its continued status is controversial in relation to
Palestinian Arab refugees from present-day Israel.
Supporters of the Law of Return claim that in order to understand the
Law, one must comprehend the political context in which it was written.
At the time of the measure's adoption in 1950, only five years had
passed since the end of World War II and the Holocaust, events which
occasioned upon European Jews incalculably large losses of family
members, friends, communities, and livelihoods. This context also
included consideration of a consistent pattern of persecution of Jews in
virtually the entire diaspora.
Jewish immigration to Palestine was not only seen as the fulfillment of
a religious cultural vision, but as the only viable option for Jews
seeking refuge from anti-Semitic persecution. While other states had
denied the mass immigration of Jewish refugees, forceful Zionist
advocates in Palestine had become symbolic of both a literal
interpretation of the cause for a Jewish homeland and a tangible and
immediate means for continued survival.
The Law
The Law of Return and the Law on Citizenship were enacted by the
Knesset, Israel's Parliament in the summer of 1950 (on the Jewish
calendar, 20th Tammuz 5710). These two pieces of legislation contain
expressions pertaining to religion, history and nationalism, as well as
to democracy, in a combination unique to Israel. They do indeed grant
preferential treatment to Jews "returning" to their ancestral homeland.
The purpose of the Law of Return, like that of the Zionist Movement, was
to provide a solution to the Jewish people's problem - to establish a
home for the entire Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel.
In the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist
Movement's "credo" as pledged in the Declaration of Independence.
The Law of Return declares that Israel constitutes a home not only for
the inhabitants of the State, but also for all members of the Jewish
people everywhere, be they living in poverty and fear of persecution or
be they living in affluence and safety. The law declares to the Jewish
people and to the world that the State of Israel welcomes the Jews of
the world to return to their ancient homeland.
Controversy
Critics claim that the Law of Return is part of a larger system of
"institutional apartheid", whereby Jews in Israel are given superior
civil and social rights over Arabs. They further claim that the purpose
of the Right of Return runs counter to the claims of a democratic state.
Defenders of the law propose two basic arguments:
* That special privileges to one group (i.e., Jews) does not necessarily
or automatically discriminate against another. Israel has residency and
citizenship laws for non-Jews that are equivalent to those in other
liberal democracies.
* That while the purpose of the Right of Return is to keep Israel
predominantly Jewish, the policy that it represents is legitimate and
justified. In a world where Jews have been persecuted, the concept of a
maintaining a Jewish state is necessary for the survival of the Jewish
people generally and to provide a safe haven for Jewish refugees in
specific cases.
In addition, defenders point out that several countries provide special
immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these
countries. For example, Germany allows ethnic Germans from Eastern
Europe residency and citizenship rights.
In Israel, a debate continues to rage over the Law of Return. Some
people wish to retain it as it stands, others want to modify it, and a
small minority want to abolish the Law completely. Those who would
abolish the Law believe that it grants Jews rights that members of other
groups governed by the State of Israel do not have, a situation which
would be contrary to the spirit of a modern liberal democracy. They
further claim that although the law did indeed contribute to immigration
and absorption when Israel was established, it is no longer needed.
Detractors state that Israel is "Jewish and democratic" not just
democratic, that it was established as a Jewish state and a refuge for
the Jewish people, not as a pale copy of other world states.
Whether or not the Law of Return is just in general, critics also point
out that Israel should provide similar privileges to Palestinian
refugees.
Advocates for the Palestinian people cite several international
resolutions and mandates supporting their own "Right of Return", such as
United Nations Resolution 3236 of 1974, which: "Reaffirms also the
inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and
property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for
their return." Similarly, international law states that refugees are
entitled to return to the land from which they fled.
Detractors from the Palestinian position argue that:
* UN General Assembly resolutions merely express the political
convictions of a simple majority in the assembly and do not approach the
status of international law.
* A just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem must take place
in a broader context that includes consideration of Jewish refugees from
Arab countries, the ability and willingness of Arab countries to absorb
their Palestinian brothers
* Most importantly, that Israel can not make concessions that would
endanger its very survival. An influx of hostile Palestinians to Israel
now would seriously endanger the state's security, so a peaceful
resolution must precede any such arrangements.
Detractors state that the General Assembly resolutions are neither
binding nor rooted in international law, since the Palestinian Arabs who
fled did not flee from an established country, but at that time,
disputed territory.
Applicability
See also Who is a Jew
Amongst those who are in favor of retaining the Law, controversy exists
over its wording. The Law's definition of a "Jew" and "Jewish people"
are subject to debate. Israeli and Diaspora Jews differ with each other
as groups and among themselves as to what this definition should be for
the purposes of the Law of Return. Additionally, there is a lively
debate over the meaning of the terms "Jewish State" and "State of the
Jews."
Discussion around the Law and its wording constantly reappears on
private and public agendas in Israel and in the Diaspora. The Knesset
has repeatedly debated proposals to amend the Law of Return, and it has
indeed been amended a number of times over the years. These
modifications reflect the changes that have taken place in Israeli
society, the shifts that have taken place in political dialogue both
inside Israel itself, and the political discourse between Israel and the
Diaspora. The present law constitutes an expression of permanent trends
as well as of the Israeli legislative system's ability to adapt itself
to changing circumstances.
It is not only the Knesset, however, which has been repeatedly obliged
to directly or indirectly address these issues. Over the years, many of
Israel's interior ministers have examined the issue of the Law of Return
and wavered as to how to apply it. The judiciary has also been called
upon to express an opinion on matters relating to the Law. This burning
and recurrent question in the country's political dialogue not only
reveals but also exacerbates differences of opinion between Israelis.
One central issue is who has the authority over determining the validity
of conversions to Judaism for purposes of immigration and citizenship.
For historical reasons, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, under the Israeli
Ministry of Religious Affairs, made this determination, but this
arrangement is in question. This practice has met opposition among
non-Orthodox religious leaders both within Israel and in the diaspora.
Several attempts have been made to resolve the issue, the most recent
being the Ne'eman Commission, but an impasse persists.
On March 31, 2005, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled 7-4 that all
conversions performed outside of Israel would be recognized by the
authorities under the Law of Return, notwithstanding the Ne'eman
Commission's view that a single body should determine eligibility for
immigration. Orthodox religious leaders objected vehemently to this
ruling, arguing that it would lead to fraudulent immigration
applications.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return
Back to Israel
|
|
