Constitution for Israel Projectc/o Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee

The Knesset , 2 Kaplan St . , Kiryat Ben Gurion, Jerusalem

www.cfisrael .org aheilman@knesset .gov.i l fax: +972-2-675-3369

Material by Melitz - Centers for Jewish Zionist Education Israel ’s leading provider of Jewish-Zionist informal

educational services Jerusalem, Tel : +972-2-6216103

www.melitz.org. i l

Melitz

Cen

ters For Jewish-Zionist Education

מכונים לחינוך יהודי-ציוני "ץ

לי מ

The cost of producing these materials was underwritten by the Lil l ian & Martin Steinberg Center in Israel , in cooperation with the American Jewish Congress. The views expressed in these materials are not necessari ly those of AJCongress or the Martin Steinberg Trust .

(c) 2005 Constitution for Israel , Israel i American Jewish Forum. All r ights reserved.

Project Director:Avram Heilman, Constitution for Israel Project

Director of Content & Development:Shira Steinitz, Director of Educational Development, Melitz

Written by: Matt Plenn

Steering Committee: Menachem Revivi - Israel i American Jewish ForumShira Steinitz- Melitz - Centers for Jewish- Zionist Education Avram D. Heilman - Constitution for Israel Project

Professional Consulting and Support :Prof. Steven M. Cohen, The Hebrew University, JerusalemThe Project for Implementation of the Gavison-Medan Covenant

Editorial Board: Dov Rabinowitz, Stephanie Pell , Jul ian Furman

Constitution for IsraelA Joint Project of the Knesset and the Jewish Agency for Israel

Operated in North America by the Israel-America Jewish Forum

A JOINT PROJECT OF THE KNESSET AND THE JEWISH AGENCY FOR ISRAEL

PRESENTED BY THE ISRAELI AMERICAN JEWISH FORUM

A Guided Dialogue

Religion & State

The Law of Return

Constitution for Israel

On behalf of the Israeli American Jewish Forum, we welcome your participation in this historic opportunity as we enter into a dialogue with the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee. As they draft a Constitution for the State of Israel, we have been invited to share our views on a variety of relevant issues and we know that format will prove to be both enlightening and stimulating.Thank you for your input in this exciting and momentous partnership.

All the best, Marvin Lender and Dan Meridor

In May 2003, the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee took on the task of writing a proposal for a full constitution for Israel based on broad consensus. The Committee and the Jewish Agency for Israel agree that since Israel is the democratic state of the Jewish people, it is highly appropriate to bring World Jewry to this table. We invite the input of the Jewish community on those constitutional issues that they find most relevant.

The Constitutional process has already come farther than it ever has in Israel’s history and enjoys strong support from both the left and the right. World Jewish participation will not only enrich this process; it constitutes an historic collaborative effort between Israel and the Diaspora that promises to strengthen avenues of communication between Israel and Diaspora Jewry.

I look forward to developing this unique opportunity for Israel and world Jewry to enter into a dialogue regarding critical issues that will continue to impact the Jewish people for years to come.

Sincerely,

MK Michael EitanChairman of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee

Sincerely,

MK Michael EitanMK Michael EitanChairman of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee

Intro

du

ctio

n

The “Constitution for Israel” discussion kits address some of the main constitutional issues being debated by Israelis and Members of Knesset. These kits will guide you in the study of several central issues, and provide background information to aid you in coming to informed opinions and developing proposals to resolve some of these problems in the framework of a constitution for Israel.

This kit contains material for 4 meetings: two on religion and state and two on the Law of Return). For each subject, the first meeting (or “unit”) is educational and the second more pragmatic. A unit should take approximately 60-90 minutes to run, and contains all texts, questions and talking points necessary for a successful session. Each subject ends with a survey form for participants, and a more substantial facilitator’s feedback forum, which will be used to convey your group’s opinions, conclusions, and recommendations to the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee of the Knesset. The Committee will consider your responses in the course of its debates on these topics in the Knesset.

Before meetings:

• Read through the entire kit (especially the “Facilitator’s feedback form!), and familiarize yourself with its structure.

• Remove the 4-page insert at the center of this kit. This is a useful “map” of the discussion

• Photocopy the necessary source materials from the kit for distribution to the group.

• Be sure to photocopy and distribute the subject introductions (pages 6 - 7 for religion and state, or pages 16 - 17 for Law of Return). You might consider emailing the relevant introductions to discussion participants to review before the meeting. They are available at http://www.cfisrael.org/kit_intros.html.

• Photocopy the survey sheet for distribution to participants.

• Direct participants to www.cfisrael.org, where they can find some more introductory materials to prepare for the discussion.

After meetings:

• Set aside 5 minutes at the end of the meeting for participants to fill out the survey, then collect the sheets and send the results to the CFI office. The address is on the back of this kit.

• Take careful notes on the group’s dynamic and conclusions, according to the instructions in your feedback form. Return this form by mail, fax, or email to the address on the back of this kit.

How to use this kit:

INTRODUCTION

Israel’s Constitutional History:

WE HEREBY DECLARE that, with effect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), and until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the National Council shall act as a Provisional Council of State, and its executive organ ... shall be the Provisional Government of the Jewish State, to be called "Israel". Proclamation of Independence of Israel

Israel’s first elections were not to the Knesset; therewas no such thing. Instead voters chose representatives to the Constituent Assembly, that body charged in the declaration of Independence with drafting a constitution by October 1, 1948. That assembly’s very first act,however, would delay its raison d’être indefinitely.Within two days of its election, the Constituent assembly had disbanded and reformed itself as the first Knesset.After protracted debate, the first Knesset decided todelay writing a full constitution, citing immediate and pressing threats to Israel’s existence, an inability to bridge the religions-secular divide, and the impropriety of drafting a constitution for the Jewish state before world Jewry had had a chance to make Aliyah. The decision to delay, called the Harrari Decision after its initiator, MK Harrari, called for The Constitution, Law and Justice Committee to prepare a draft State Constitution. The constitution will be built chapter by chapter, in such a way that each will constitute a separate Basic Law. The chapters shall be presented to the Knesset when the committee completes its work, and all the chapters together shall comprise the Constitution of the State. There was no hurry, and it took almost ten years for the firstBasic Law to be passed. Since then, subsequent Knessets have enacted a total of eleven Basic Laws, dealing mostly with the structure and powers of the governing bodies and, most recently, certain basic civil rights. The Constitutional Revolution: Or, how the Supreme Court acquired the power of Judicial Review in the absence of a constitution.

Until 1995, it was not clear that the basic laws enjoyed any constitutional supremacy. According to the Israeli

Supreme Court’s interpretation of the constitutional situation, these laws had no greater status than ordinary laws, and thus new laws were held to supercede old ones, even if a new law – passed, for instance, by a 3-2 majority in plenum – contradicted a Basic Law of the State. This is no longer true. In 1992, the Knesset adopted two new Basic Laws concerning human rights (Freedom of Occupation, and Human Dignity and Liberty) which included a novel “limitations clause,” borrowed from the Canadian Charter, which explicitly prevented other laws from infringing on their rights. These laws, which would fundamentally change the legal and political landscape in Israel, were passed shortly before elections in a mostly-empty Knesset. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty passed by a vote of 32-21, with 67 MKs absent; its sister, Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation, was passed 23-0.

In 1995, the Supreme Court made a historic decision in which it established a hierarchy, putting Basic laws on top and establishing the practice of Judicial review of statutes. What this meant was that the Supreme Court had called the eleven basic laws drafted over some 45 years a constitution, and granted itself the power to strike down new legislation which contradicted any basic law. With this “constitutional revolution,” the court created a constitution, unbeknownst to the vast majority of Israelis and the world.

This revolution has had its positive and negative ramifications. Israel’s system of law and basic principlesare stabilized by a “constitution,” but the text is incomplete and unknown to the public. The Bill of rights in the basic laws is unfinished, and the issues of Israel as the state of theJewish people and its fundamental principles are almost

Intro

du

ctio

n

ignored. Finally, the court’s interpretation and application of some of the Basic Laws has alienated Members of Knesset (particularly the Orthodox) who originally supported the Basic Laws themselves in plenum.

The current situation.Israel’s quasi-constitution – the basic laws – suffer from both incompleteness and a lack of legitimacy. Many members of Knesset who voted for the laws expressly rejected the notion that they could be a basis for constitutional powers, and feel the Court has assumed authority not meant for it. The ball, however, is in the Knesset’s court, so to speak.

In May of 2003, the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee decided to complete the task relegated to it in 1949. It would assemble a full constitution, based on the eleven extant Basic Laws, and on substantial discussion of the additional rights and principles that belong in a constitution. Since that day the Committee has held over 80 meetings on the constitution, making this the largest legislative project in Israel’s history. The debates – on the structure of government, separation of powers, civil rights, social and economic rights, state ownership of lands, minorities, and the Jewish-democratic balance – are attended by the Members of Knesset on the Constitutional Committee as well as by a host of academics, experts, representatives of NGOs and think tanks, and even simply interested citizens.

The Constitution for Israel Project.Israel’s constitution will affect more than just those who hold Israeli citizenship on the day it is ratified. Itwill affect Jews the world over – as potential citizens, as ambassadors of good will, as representatives of the Jewish state in their own countries, and as communities who care deeply about the character of Israel. The Constitutional

Committee feels it would be wrong to hold these debates, without inviting world Jewry to the table.

Several months after the beginning of the constitutional debate in 2004, the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee reached an agreement with the Speaker of the Knesset and the Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel to open the constitutional dialogue to Jews from around the world. The Knesset and the Jewish agency see this as a unique and vital opportunity for Israel and

world Jewry to enter into a dialogue regarding critical issues that will continue to impact the Jewish people for years to come. It will serve not only to improve the draft constitution, but also to deepen the relationship between the communities. Such an invitation is an unusual step for a sovereign nation, but Israel and world Jewry have come to realize the extent to which their respective agendas are one agenda.

The Constitution for Israel Project serves as the formal channel of communication between Diaspora Jewry and the Knesset Committee. We are your voice in Israel’s Constitutional debate.

The First Knesset appoints the Constitution, Law, and Justice Committee to prepare a constitution for the state. The constitution shall be built chapter by chapter, in such a way that each of them will constitute a separate Basic Law. The chapters shall be presented to the Knesset when the committee completes its work, and all the chapters together shall comprise the Constitution of the State.

Text of the Harari Decision, June 13, 1949.

Intro

du

ctio

n

Israel’s most pressing existential paradox lies in its definition as a “Jewish and Democratic state.” This formula, upheld in the Declaration of Independence and explicitly stated in numerous laws and writings, sounds to some like a contradiction in terms. How can a democratic state have a preferred religion? What about the separation of Church and State? While there is no clear answer to this question, there is much to suggest that the two are, at the very least, not entirely incompatible.

In the United States, the First Amendment overwhelms the First Commandment. The state is seen as a voluntary alliance of individuals, coming together to advance their mutual self-interest, free of intervention by a central authority. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” the Bill of Rights orders. The theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia, on the far side of the spectrum, show the dangers that America seeks to avoid, but there is much nuanced space in between these two poles. Great Britain – one of the most democratic and secular societies in the world – still boasts an established church whose leader is also the head of state. Many democratic Catholic countries, such as Italy and Spain, display even greater degrees of connection between Church and State. In this light, “Jewish and Democratic”

seems less paradoxical. But where precisely on the Washington-Tehran continuum should Israel sit?Israel guarantees equality under the law to all its citizens, vouchsafing their rights to vote and be elected. The expression of its Jewishness, however, is difficult to define, and Israelis cannot even agree on whether the country should be defined as the “Jewish State” or the “State of the Jewish People.” Is Judaism a religion, a national culture, or an ethnicity? Judaism in Israel is reflected in values, politics, and culture as much as it is in religious practice.

The vast majority of Israelis not only approve of their country’s Jewish cultural identity, they reject the notion that religion and state should be kept entirely separate. Most approve of a Law of Return which gives automatic citizenship exclusively to Jewish immigrants, and most believe the state should fund religious institutions, houses of worship, and cemeteries on an equal basis. Most Israelis identify with the Jewish symbols of the state, the flag and the anthem, and believe that holidays like Shabbat, Rosh Hashana, and Passover should be celebrated in the public sphere. This is because Judaism is a communal religion, with many traditions that cannot be practiced in the privacy of one’s home.

RELIGION & STATE

Introduction

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

Even if religion and state are linked in the Israeli reality – a likely, though by no means foregone, conclusion – Israelis seem unable to agree on the precise role Judaism should play in their society. The controversy centers around two basic questions: what brand of Judaism is to form the basis of public life, and to what extent should Jewish law impinge on the private lives of Israeli citizens?Personal status – for instance, marriage and divorce – is an issue which brings the debate over religion and state to a head.

In Israeli law, marriages are carried out by the sanctioned authorities of each religious community – Muslim, the various Christian denominations, Druze and so on. For Jews, this currently means that marriage and divorce are handled exclusively by the Orthodox Rabbinate. There is no way to conduct an interfaith marriage, and many Israelis whose Jewish status is in doubt are unable to marry at all. Opponents of the status quo argue that this situation harms freedom of religion and infringes upon basic human rights. Yet the recognition of alternative forms of marriage or the introduction of a civil procedure would have far reaching and possibly destructive consequences for the Jewish identity of Israel’s Jewish citizens and the unity of Israeli society. The Orthodox monopoly on marriage, divorce,

and conversion fulfils a “greatest common denominator” need; Orthodox procedures are recognized by all the other streams, but the same cannot be said for any of the others. Losing this greatest common denominator would create an ever-growing subclass of Jews unable to marry their brethren.In recent years, both secular and religious camps have begun to understand the need to compromise. Religious-secular dialogue has produced joint statements of principles and detailed proposals for regulating the relationship between religion and state. Recent months have seen major public figures from the Orthodox establishment coming out in favor of allowing some civil marriage. Yet the controversy over the place of Judaism in Israel is far from over.

In the following two activities, participants will confront the issue of religion and state in Israel by studying the test case of marriage and divorce. Having understood the problems and advantages of the status quo, they will consider the challenge of making the system acceptable to the greatest number of Israeli citizens and concerned Jews around the world, while preserving – and perhaps even strengthening – the country’s Jewish and democratic credentials.

RELIGION & STATE

Talking Points:• Is Judaism a religion, a national culture, an ethnicity, or something else?

• What are the contradictions within Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish and Democratic state? Can those contradictions be reconciled? Can a democratic state have a preferred religion?

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

The Status QuoSome HistoryIn 1949, the four religious parties joined in a temporary coalition for the First Knesset elections. They were prepared to barter their support to Labor, on condition that Labor, in turn, met their essentially religious demands. This Labor Orthodox mariage de convenance affected numerous areas of Israel’s public life. Municipal Sabbath laws were enforced in all the larger Jewish cities except Haifa. Shops, theaters, offices, and public transportation were closedfor the day…. A tacit agreement between the government and the religionists virtually banned the importation of non-kosher meat …. In an interview years later, Ben Gurion explained these concessions:

Mishpaha Hadasha, founded in 1999 by 25 lawyers specializing in family law, protests the fact that there is a steadily increasing number of people in Israel who cannot marry and exercise their right to have a family. The organization’s office received some 10,000 appealsin 2000. The list of categories of marriages barred by Jewish law and other reasons is long. It includes, among others, some 250,000 immigrants from the CIS, who are not Jewish or whose Jewishness is doubted by the religious establishment; many Ethiopian immigrants; marriages prohibited by Jewish halakha [religious

law] such as that of a Cohen [of priestly descent] and a divorcee; marriages involving illegitimate children; mixed couples - and in the future, also the children of Jews and Arabs and of Jews and non-Jews who met abroad or in Israel….Mishpaha Hadasha’s assessment, based on data from the Central Bureau of Statistics and the National Insurance

Institute, is that the classic family unit of a Jewish man and woman married according to Jewish religious law, represents [only] 58 percent of the total population.

A Marriage of Inconvenience: For Many in Israel, Marriage and Family Are Not Legally Recognized. Mishpaha Hadasha is Fighting to Make It Different.

By Joseph Algazy, Haaretz, 21st January 2002.

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

BackgroundTake some time to study this background material on the religious and legal issues surrounding marriage in Israel. Having familiarized yourselves with the information in the pack, choose the most pertinent facts you have encountered and formulate pressing questions raised by your reading.

… When I wanted to introduce national service conscription, the religious parties said they would of course support it but they insisted that all army kitchens be kosher. Kosher kitchens to them were of paramount importance; to me they were of subsidiary interest. It was a price I was prepared to pay for their full-fledged support on a vital defense measure…. In the same way, I agreed not to change the status quo on religious authority for matters of personal status. I know it was hard on some individuals. But I felt, again in the national interest, that it was wise to pay the comparatively small price of religious status quo.

Source: Howard Sacher, A History of Israel (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991)

Talking points• 5% of Israeli Jews define themselves as Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox), 12& as religious, 35% as traditional, 43% as

non-religious, and 5% as anti-religious. (In the United States, 42% of Jews identify themselves as Reform; 38% as Conservative; 7% as Orthodox; and 5% as “Just Jewish.”)

• The vast majority of Israeli Jews who identify as “non-religious” would, if they had occasion to attend services, choose an Orthodox synagogue over a conservative or reform synagogue.

• 78% of Israeli Jews believe the state should have a Jewish but not necessarily a religious character. Even 79%-88% of the non-religious and anti-religious favor an Israel that has a Jewish character.

• Only 50% of Jewish Israelis believe that public life in Israel should be conducted in accordance with Jewish tradition.

• 49% of Jewish Israelis favor the introduction of civil marriage (six percentage points higher than in 1991) even though only 26% consider this a viable option for themselves or members of their families.

• Two thirds of Israeli Jews favor granting the Conservative and Reform movements equal status and funding with the Orthodox.

• Jewish holidays are national holidays, kashrut is observed in the army and all governmental institutions, and the Orthodox rabbinate is state-funded. Most Israelis support this arrangement.

• Israel is a secular state. Many businesses are open on the Sabbath, Gay pride parades are held in several cities, and Jewish law is considered by, but does not bind, the courts.

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

Marriage and Divorce – the current situationAlthough the rights to marriage and family are strongly protected under Israeli law, current policy forbids certain sectors of the Israeli population to marry. Marriage The foundation of this contradiction lies in the fact that the right to marry and divorce in Israel is governed almost exclusively by religious law. Couples of any faith are required to marry according to the religious customs recognized by the State as legally binding. This means, firstof all, that couples can only be married by a recognized faith and by the recognized representatives thereof. For Jews, this means that only Orthodox ceremonies are recognized; those governed by the principles, liturgy and/or clergy of the progressive movements have no legal meaning in Israel. Additionally, it means that couples of mixed faith have no avenue to marry in Israel. Third, it means that no non-religious marriage ceremony exists in Israel. Finally, it means major obstacles for new immigrants with no proof of their religion.

Divorce In the case of divorce, the problem is even more acute. Under Jewish law, for example, women are only free of the confines of marriage after their husband gives thema written legal annulment of the marriage, called a get. Without a get, women cannot be remarried under Jewish law and children born to them are considered illegitimate. Such women (called “agunot”) are left in legal limbo, unable to move forward in their personal lives, “chained” to their husbands. A get must be given voluntarily under Jewish law, and as such the Rabbinate is often reluctant to take action against men who refuse to give them. Such refusal is a clear abuse of women, and the preeminence of the current system in divorce proceedings leads to serious infringements of many women’s freedom in Israel.Because of the limitations on marriage and divorce imposed by the religious court system, significant portionsof the Israeli population are either unable or unwilling to marry in State-recognized ceremonies.

Source: Association for Civil Rights in Israel (online at www.acri.org.il)

1. Civil marriages outside of Israel In 2001:

● 6,856 Israelis married abroad – 8.3% of all Israeli marriages. ● More than half these marriages were held in Cyprus. ● 75% of Israelis marrying abroad were Jewish. ● More than half of Israelis marrying abroad were born in the former Soviet Union. ● Cyprus is the most popular location for such marriages, with 3,756 brides and grooms married there, a tenfold rise from 1990. Source: Central Bureau of Statistics (www.cbs.gov.il) Limitations on the right to marry and objections to the coercion of a religious ceremony have led to the increasing phenomenon of marriages being held abroad…. These marriages are recognized for the purpose of the Population Registry, regardless of whether the individuals in question are Jewish and whether they were legally able to marry in Israel – however the legal effect of these marriages for other purposes is questionable.Consular Ceremonies In instances where one member of a couple is a citizen of a foreign country, the couple may legally marry at the consulate of said country….

2. Private Marriage Ceremonies

In certain cases, couples have held private marriage ceremonies, in accordance with Jewish law but without the presence of a recognized rabbi. These ceremonies have been recognized by the courts in the case of couples who are “unmarriageable” in the eyes of the Orthodox Rabbinate. However, the courts have not been prepared to accept the validity of private ceremonies for couples who are able to marry through the Rabbinate and simply choose not to.Reform and Conservative weddingsReform and Conservative rabbis may not act as marriage registrars in Israel. In practice, couples married in non-Orthodox ceremonies overseas may register their marriage in Israel, as the Interior Ministry is obliged to acknowledge marriages conducted abroad. Couples married by a non-recognised rabbi in Israel have to arrange a civil ceremony overseas, on the basis of which they may record their change of status in the Population Registry.

Alternative solutions

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

3. Development of alternative partnerships

The main legal development in this field relates to theofficial recognition of de facto partnerships, which arenot the result of an official ceremony….Common law marriage Many people are satisfied witha common-law marriage – that is, a family life with no official marriage ceremony and no official record ofmarriage. Some of these feel no need to formalize their marriage, while others who prefer to somehow formally establish their relationship may do so through a written agreement.Common-law marriages receive a certain level of legal recognition. The Supreme Court, in 1993, ruled that

people are entitled to change their name to that of their common-law spouse, one of the main external signs of marriage recognized by society. The court thereby refused to accept the differentiation between legally wedded couples and common-law couples, an indication the court may expand this equal treatment to other issues. Civil Divorce In matters of divorce, the civil legal system is now able to satisfy almost all the practical needs of those wishing to dismantle the family unit as well. Still, an element of religious coercion remains, as only the rabbinical court may grant an actual writ of divorce (get).Source: Association for Civil Rights in Israel (online at

www.acri.org.il - in Hebrew)

People ineligible for marriage and divorce in IsraelThe following statistics emerge from a review of a recent Center for Jewish Pluralism study: • In 2002, there were 246,900 Israeli citizens and residents with no official religious designation, who were entirely

barred from marrying in Israel.• 2,915 Jewish Israelis are included on the Rabbinic Court administration’s list of those specifically barred from

marriage (see directly below).

Reasons a person is “unmarriageable”There are four categories covered by the “unmarriageable” list:

1. Unmarriageable according to Jewish law

This category includes those who either can not marry a specific person, or who cannot marry altogether. Themost prominent example of the first group involvespeople defined as mamzerim (illegitimate children), bornof an extra-marital or otherwise prohibited relationship. Mamzerim may not marry whatsoever according to Jewish law. A second example involves women who are unable to secure a divorce from their husbands – either because their husbands refuse to grant a divorce or because they are incapacitated or missing. It is estimated that 10,000 Israelis fall into this category. Another prominent example involves a divorcee and a Cohen, who may not marry each other according to Halacha.

2. Immigrants not recognized by the Rabbinate as certain to be Jewish

This category includes immigrants listed in the Population

Registry as Jewish, but whom the Rabbinate refuses to recognize as Jews. In this context, one must recall that the Rabbinate conducts an inquiry regarding the religion of every immigrant from the former Soviet Union wishing to marry, which may take months.

3. Israeli Citizens with no Religious Characterization

This category includes Israelis who have no officiallyrecognized religion. This category is composed primarily of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. According to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics, 246,900 Israelis had no official religious characterizationin 2002, and thus are prohibited from marrying a Jewish spouse in Israel.

4. Conscientious “Unmarriageables”

This category includes those citizens who do not wish to participate in a marriage ritual in the context of the state establishments of their religion. These citizens usually wish to hold a civil or alternative religious ceremony. Source: www.youngknesset.org.il

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

Talking Points:• Orthodox marriages, conversions, and divorces are recognized as legitimate by all other streams of Judaism. The

same is not true for Conservative, Reform, or other denominations.

• All marriages performed outside of Israel are recognized by the State, even if they would not have been legal if performed locally.

• Some Israelis feel that abandoning the Orthodox standard will have destructive consequences for Jewish unity in Israel, and that several generations down the line, Jews will be separated into several groups which cannot intermarry.

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

Points of View:1. Moshe Tzvi Neriah (1972) - Rabbi and former National Religious Party Knesset memberThe Torah of Israel is not just a religion – it is a constitution…. Indeed, the Torah of Israel is the national covenant. Since Jewish law does not excuse any Jew - even those who deny their Judaism - from the obligation of fulfilling the commandments, it follows that we mustutilize any possible legal or social means in order to bring about greater ritual observance both by individuals and in the public sphere. … If religion is viewed as a private matter, then we can

understand complaints about “religious coercion;” the proposal to separate religion and state is intended to protect the non-religious citizen, in line with the view that his lack of religiosity neither benefits nor harms the country.However, if we view religion as the heart and destiny of the nation, it is patently clear that national, public values have to take priority over the interests of individuals. Moreover, it is universally accepted that society has the right to impose norms and values on its citizens.

Everyone talks about “tolerance for the sake of Jewish unity, for the sake of unifying the people.” [But] what is unity? A situation in which I divest myself of views and positions in order to preserve uniformity with all the errant masses around me? Uniformity is not unity. Unity is the ability to act together despite dissimilarities and differences, to override disagreements. How is this done? Simply by replacing the principle of tolerance, because it is arrogant, with the principle of pluralism… the acceptance and sanctification of a multiplicity oftruths, where everyone else’s truth has standing equal to my own.A pluralistic society enables those holding every opinion and belief to live as they wish, without compulsion or persecution. The secular Jew is equal to the Haredi …

because all are situated on the same plane, that of equality among individuals and their opinions…. Religion in Israel is far from most Israelis’ spiritual experience. Classical, Orthodox halacha does not answer the needs of the majority of the public which does not believe in God, does not observe the Sabbath, ignores the laws of family purity and eats non-kosher food…. A religious Jewry that is… integrated into the modern world and does not flee from it, and a secular Jewry that is awareof and respects its past and its sources – these are the key to the new Israel, an Israel embodying neither Teheran-style fundamentalism nor identity-shattering, Greenwich-Village-style universalism. This will be a traditional democracy, incorporating the best of democratic dialogue with what is most precious in tradition and heritage.

2. Avraham Burg (2004)- Former Knesset Speaker (Labour Party)

I must stress that ‘a Jewish state’ does not mean an ‘Orthodox state’. The idea of a Jewish state, a nation state of the Jewish People, is in keeping with the principles of democracy. The idea of an Orthodox state,

a state of halacha, is incompatible with the idea of a democratic state and is therefore invalid as an obligatory norm… A democratic state cannot allow discrimination against women or non Jews in the form that is possible

3. Asa Kasher (2000) – Philosophy Professor and Author of the IDF’s Code of Ethics

ProposalsProposed Basic Law: Freedom of Religion and Conscience (Proposal – 24/3/2003)

1. The basic rights of a person in Israel are founded on the recognition of the worth of the human being, the sanctity of that person’s life and freedom, in the spirit of the principles of the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel.

2. The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect Freedom of Religion and Conscience in order to anchor the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State in a Basic Law.

3. a. There shall be no infringement of freedom of religion, belief and conscience of any person. b. No person may be compelled to affiliate to a religion, a religious community or a religious stream. c. A person or community is entitled to freedom of worship and religious observance.

4. There shall be no positive or negative discrimination on the basis of a person’s religion, belief or lifestyle; neither shall a person’s human or civil rights be infringed on this basis.

5. The right of a person or community to maintain a lifestyle according to their conscience shall not be limited, and no lifestyle shall be enforced on any person or community for reasons of religion or religious belief, other than for a proper purpose and limited to the extent necessary to achieve its purpose.

6. A persons’ or community’s religions feelings or conscience shall not be injured other than for a proper purpose and limited to the extent necessary to achieve its purpose.

7. Every adult shall have the right to marry and raise a family in the way he or she chooses, with no limitation on grounds of race, citizenship or religion. Partners shall have equal rights and obligations during a marriage and in the event of its dissolution.

8. Parents have the right to choose their minor children’s education, as long as this does not damage the child or infringe his/her rights.

9. A person has the right to be buried in the manner s/he chooses.10. The State shall fund the religious services of religious communities and streams in an egalitarian manner….

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

Discussion Questions:• What would be the implications of changes to the relationship between Religion and State on Diaspora Jewry? On future

generations of Jews?

• If Israel accepts non-orthodox religious authorities for Jews, do the regulations need to be loosened with regards to other religions’ communities as well? (Eg. Christians, Muslims etc.)

• If the majority of a given religion (Jews, Muslims or Christians) in Israel prefers to maintain an Orthodox monopoly in their own religion, how does this affect other religious communities? Must the State’s policy be uniform across religions?

• What interaction between government and religious life is implied by each perspective?

or even requisite under halacha.… If a person wants to order his life according to the halakhic pronouncements of a particular rabbi, he can do so within given limits, as long as the rabbi instructs him to act in a manner

that does not deviate beyond the limits of democracy…. However, if [the rabbi] instructs him to sell his children into bondage, we would not allow that.

Excerpts from Israel Democracy Institute’s Proposed Constitution – 2005

● The State of Israel is a Jewish Democratic State.● Shabbat and the Jewish holidays are the official days of rest in Israel.● The State of Israel will guarantee the status and independence of religions.● The State of Israel is authorized to fund religious services.● The Holy Places will be protected from desecration, damage and anything that may harm freedom of access of

members of all religions to their Holy Places, or their feelings about these places.● Every person shall have freedom of belief and conscience.● Every person shall have freedom of religion.● No person’s rights shall be denied nor obligations imposed on him/her for reasons which are primarily religious.

Marriage A Civil Family Registry shall be established by the Interior Ministry for those unable to marry within the existing religious framework. This channel will be available only to those unable to marry in the existing framework. Only couples who are not of the same sex may register in the Civil Family Registry.Divorce Couples married within the religious system will be divorced in the same framework. Those registered in the “Family Registry” will be divorced in Family Courts.Religious Services in Israel A new legal entity, the Authority for Religious Services, will be appointed by the Minister of Religious Affairs and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel in accordance with the Rabbinate’s religious rulings. Burial The existing legal arrangement wherein each person (or his family) is entitled to choose his own method

of burial will be preserved. Financing Educational and Cultural Religious Institutions Educational and cultural religious institutions and religious services will be financedcommensurate with “non-religious” cultural institutions. Religious Courts Religious Courts will deal with marriage, divorce, and any other matter brought before them with the consent of the concerned parties.Jewish Law The existing Foundations of Law (1980) law is repealed. The revised version of this law substitutes the words “Jewish law” for the term “Israel’s heritage:” “Where the court, faced with a legal question requiring decision, finds no answer to it in statute or case law orby analogy, it shall decide it in light of the principles of freedom, justice, equity and Jewish law.”

Excerpts from Proposed Religion and State Law – MK Nahum Langental (National Religious Party) – 2000

The Gavison-Medan Covenant: Summary of proposals for regulating marriage and divorce – 2003

By Prof. Ruth Gavison, the Hebrew University, and Rabbi Yaacov Medan, an Orthodox educator at Yeshivat Har Etzion.

● A Basic Law will ensure that every person has a right to raise a family. Details will be established in the law.● A person may receive a marriage license from the state if s/he is single, of age, and is not closely related to the

future spouse. A person will be deemed single if s/he is considered to be so by civil law and according to his/her religious law. Once the license is issued, a person can choose what sort of wedding ceremony s/he prefers, religious or civil.

● Marriages made abroad will be recognized by the state if they are not in violation of the above-mentioned conditions.

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

● Divorces will be executed in civil and religious courts. A civil court may condition the divorce on the completion of a religious divorce.

● The type of marriage and divorce and who sanctioned it will be noted in the personal file of the citizen in the population registry.

Proposal for Couples Registration by Dr. Shahar Lifshitz

(Law Faculty, Bar Ilan University – 2002)

● The Orthodox-religious monopoly over marriages recognized by the State will be preserved.● Couples who wish to have their partnership recognised by law but do not wish to get married will register with

the Couples Registrar as partners. Their status as recognised partners will be recorded in the Population Registry and on their identity cards.

● Limitations on the right to register a partnership will be civil (for example, age of consent, prohibitions on incest and bigamy), not religious. People unable to marry under religious law will be able to register as couples. The right to register as a couple will be open to all and will not be limited to those unable to marry under religious law.

● Couples registration will bring with it all the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage.● In place of divorce, a registered couple will be able to dissolve their partnership in a clear legal procedure through

the courts.

Discussion Questions:• Should Israel have a total “wall of separation” between religion and state, including a non-establishment clause? Or may

Israel fund religious institutions on an equal basis?

• What constitutes a viable and acceptable relationship between religion and State in Israel?

• To what extent should Jewish Law impinge on the private lives of Israeli citizens?

• Who should be able to perform marriage, divorce, conversion and burial in Israel?

Talking Points:• Matters of personal status (e.g. marriage, divorce, burial, conversion) are administered solely by the recognized

clergy of each religion.

• The Orthodox Rabbinate is the sole recognized Jewish clergy in Israel for matters of personal status.

• Many Israelis are troubled by the fact that this prevents interfaith marriages and non-religious or non-orthodox marriage and divorce proceedings (for all religions). In matters of divorce, a Jewish woman cannot divorce without the consent of her husband.

• Because of the limitations on marriage and divorce imposed by the religious court system, significant portions of the Israeli population are either unable or unwilling to marry in State-recognized ceremonies.

• Marriages conducted outside of Israel are recognized by the state regardless of whether the couple could legally have married in Israel. 6,856 Israelis married abroad in 2001, 8.3% of all Israeli marriages.

Relig

ion

an

d S

tate

Zionist ideology was premised upon the reconstitution of the Jews as a free, self-determining nation in their own state. In recognition of this aspiration, Israel’s Declaration of Independence declared that “The State of Israel will be open to the immigration of Jews and for the ingathering of exiles from all countries of their dispersion.” In 1950, this principle was given shape as the Law of Return, enshrining this Zionist principle within Israeli law.

The Law of Return did not stem from ideology alone; it was also a practical measure. In the wake of the Holocaust, the first act of the new Israeli government was to abolish all restrictions on Jewish immigration. Israel, the government declared, would provide Jews the world over with a haven from antisemitism.

The Law of Return has also functioned as a means of maintaining a Jewish majority within the State of Israel by promoting aliyah. During the 1940s and 50s, Israel’s population balance was decisively shifted through the immigration of millions of Jews. Today, even within the pre-1967 borders, more than twenty percent of Israel’s

citizens are non-Jewish. As a result of higher Arab birth rates, the demography of the country continues to shift in their favor.

The Law of Return has not escaped controversy. It has been suggested that an immigration policy which explicitly gives priority to one ethnic or religious group cannot be justified in liberal democratic terms, and is incompatible with Israel’s mandate as a democratic state.

Additionally, the arrival of over a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union since 1989 has demonstrated that unrestricted waves of immigration can place huge economic, social and cultural pressures upon the state (despite the long term benefits of population growth for the Israeli economy).

The immediate and automatic granting of citizenship may also undermine the national identity of the state and its democratic process by enabling new immigrants to influence Israeli politics before demonstrating either their commitment or a basic grasp of the relevant issues.

THE LAW OF RETURN

Law

of R

etu

rn

There is also fierce debate surrounding the question of “Who is a Jew,” and by extension, who is eligible to make aliyah under the Law of Return. At present, the definition is based on Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws: the right of Return is granted to any individual with one Jewish grandparent, or who is married to someone with one Jewish grandparent. As a result, thousands of people with no meaningful connection to the Jewish people theoretically have the right to immigrate.To make matters more complicated, the Israeli Rabbinate, a purely Orthodox body, is far more stringent about its definition of who is a Jew, leaving thousands of “Jewish” immigrants ineligible for marriage and unrecognized by the state authorities.

Despite its centrality to Israel’s civic ethos, the Law of Return exists as a regular law with no special constitutional status. It is therefore vulnerable to the partisan pressures of Israeli politics, and can be amended or repealed by a simple majority vote in the Knesset.

Proposals from across the political spectrum to amend the Law of Return and resolve these issues have included:

● Abolition and replacement with an egalitarian immigration policy.

● Liberalization so as to include all Jews on the basis of self-definition.

● Tightening to include only those whose Jewish status is recognized by halacha.

● Instituting a formal naturalization process including a waiting period and an oath of allegiance before the granting of citizenship.

● Entrenchment as a Basic Law or Constitutional provision that would require a special majority for amendment or repeal.

In these units participants will have the opportunity to study Israel’s immigration policy and the issues associated with it, explore avenues for reforming the Law of Return, and formulate recommendations on the subject for the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee of the Knesset.

THE LAW OF RETURN

Law

of R

etu

rn

Israel’s Immigration Policy - Rationale1. The Declaration of Independence – Israel as the State of the Jewish People

The land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, createdcultural values of national and universal significance andgave to the world the eternal Book of Books. After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel... This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their State is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.The State of Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles….

The Declaration of Independence

2. The Law of Return and Democracy

There are those who argue that the Law of Return is racist, one of the clearest proofs that Arab Israelis are the victims of state-sponsored discrimination. This claim is baseless. The law does not discriminate among citizens. It determines who may become one. The principle of repatriation in a nation state is grounded in both political morality and international law. The United Nations’ 1947 resolution approving the establishment of a Jewish state was meant to enable Jews to control immigration to their country. Similar immigration policies based on a preference for people whose nationality is that of the state

have been practiced in European countries, including many of the new nation states established after the fall of the Soviet Union. The need to preserve a national majority, especially in cases where the minority belongs to a nation that has its own, adjacent state, is not unique to Israel.

Ruth Gavison “The Jews’ Right to Statehood: A Defense” (Azure, Shalem Center, Summer 2003)

3. Israel as a Shelter from Antisemitism

The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations.

The Declaration of Independence

The fact is that the Law of Return is not merely a domestic Israeli issue, but rather the common property of the entire Jewish people, in Israel and in the Diaspora. The Law of Return is not a secular, Ashkenazi or Sephardi invention. It was, even before the establishment of the state, the insurance voucher of every Jew in the world in the event of persecution on account of his or her Jewishness - according to the definition of the persecutors, not byJewish law - guaranteeing that person asylum in the State of Israel.

Eliyahu Salpeter “The Danger of Tinkering with the Law of Return” (Haaretz, December 9 1999)

4. The Demographic Balance

Numbers are not a game with us, my friend, they are a matter of life or death! It isn’t only that we are a pitifully

Law

of R

etu

rn

BackgroundTake some time to study this background material on the religious and legal issues surrounding marriage in Israel. Having familiarized yourselves with the information in the pack, choose the most pertinent facts you have encountered and formulate pressing questions raised by your reading.

small island of Jews in a hostile Arab sea. It isn’t only that in a young country like ours, surrounded by besieged borders, numbers are crucial for an army to be strong enough, for an economy to sustain itself, for towns and villages not to wither on the vine, for institutions to be able to function as they should. It’s also that within our own official borders … we are engaged in a populationrace with an Arab minority whose outcome can prove as fateful to us as that of any military or political development…. The plain truth is that Israel can only continue to behave in a reasonably democratic manner

toward its Arab minority … only if the latter does not grow proportionately so large as to call into question the distinctively Jewish character of the state and ultimately its very existence….Without numbers – and such of them as are needed can come only from the Diaspora, for we cannot start producing them like rabbits – we stand as little chance here in the long run as we would without airplanes or tanks.

Hillel Halkin Letters to an American Jewish Friend (Jewish Publication Society, 1977)

Talking points• The most important mission of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel has always been the “ingathering of the

exiles” and the reconstitution of the Jews as a free, self-determining nation in their own land.

• This mission was given a legal basis in 1950 in the Law of Return, which guaranteed all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel.

• The Law of Return has a practical aspect as well. It is a major tool for maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel.

• 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs. By 2025 that figure is projected to reach 25%.

Discussion Questions:• To what extent is Israel’s immigration policy a suitable one for: (A) A Jewish State; (B) A democratic State? Are there any

contradictions between these categories? Can they be reconciled?

Law of Return – the current situation

Excerpts from The Law of Return (1950, amended 1970)

1A. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh2A. An oleh’s [immigrant’s] visa shall be granted to every Jew who has expressed his desire to settle in Israel, unless

the Minister of Immigration is satisfied that the applicant ● is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or ● is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State…4A. The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Citizenship Law … are also vested in a

child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion. It shall be immaterial whether or not a Jew by whose right a right under subsection 4A is claimed is still alive and whether or not he has immigrated to Israel.

4B. For the purposes of this Law, “Jew” means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.

Law

of R

etu

rn

Excerpts from the Citizenship Law, 1952

1. Israel citizenship is acquired by Return, by residence in Israel, by birth or by naturalization.2. Every oleh under the Law of Return shall become an Israel citizen.3. A person of full age, not being an Israel citizen, may obtain Israel citizenship by naturalization if – ● he has been in Israel for three years out of five years proceeding the day of the submission of his application; and ● he has settled, or intends to settle, in Israel, and ● he has some knowledge of the Hebrew language, and ● he has renounced his prior nationality.Prior to the grant of citizenship, the applicant shall make the following declaration: “I declare that I will be a loyal

citizen of the State of Israel.”

The Conversion DebateThe Law of Return defines a Jew as “A person who wasborn of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion.” But the Law does not define the phrase “Convertedto Judaism.” Does it apply to all “Jews by choice,” whether converted by Reform, Conservative or Orthodox rabbinical courts? Or does it only pertain to those who have converted according to Orthodox halacha?In 1981, religious parties in the Knesset introduced an

amendment limiting the Law of Return’s applicability to Orthodox converts, but the amendment was defeated after fierce opposition by the American Jewish community. In1989, the Supreme Court confirmed that non-Orthodoxconverts from overseas are eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return. However, people who undergo non-Orthodox conversion in Israel have not been included in this category.

High Court In Israel Accepts Some Non-Orthodox ConversionsBy Dan Baron, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 31, 2005

After 22 years of living as an Israeli, Justina Hilaria Chipana can finally consider herself a full-fledgedmember of the Jewish state. The 50-year-old native of Peru was one of 17 petitioners who won High Court of Justice recognition of their non-Orthodox conversions to Judaism on Thursday, in what the Conservative and Reform movements hailed as a breakthrough for efforts to introduce more religious pluralism to Israel. Orthodox rabbis and politicians disagreed.By a vote of 7-4, the High Court ordered the state to recognize “leaping converts”— so called because they study in Israeli institutes but then convert with Reform or Conservative rabbis abroad… But the ruling did not endorse Reform and Conservative conversions performed in Israel. Shas Chairman Eli Yishai called the ruling an “explosives belt that has brought about a suicide attack against the

Jewish people,” according to Ha’aretz. The Orthodox Rabbinate, which controls the observance of life-cycle events in Israel — including births, weddings and funerals — also cried foul.In the United States, reaction to the decision broke along denominational lines. “As a Conservative rabbi, I am of course delighted that the High Court in Israel has mandated the recognition of conversions performed by Conservative rabbis in America,” said Rabbi Joel Roth, a scholar of Jewish law and the former head of the Jewish Theological Seminary’s Law Committee…. “I accept as valid any conversion that complies with halachic requirements, and conversions that do not, I do not accept.”The Orthodox Union, on the other hand, said it is “deeply concerned” by the ruling. “The court’s decision may eventually lead to the division of the people of Israel into two camps. There will be a group of halachically valid

Law

of R

etu

rn

Jews and a group of people who are Jewish only by the ruling of the Supreme Court,” the union said. For the petitioners, however, the ruling was a long-overdue relief. “I always dreamed of really belonging to the country,” Chipana, who first came to Israel in 1983,told JTA. In 1993 she converted at a Reform congregation in Argentina, and filed the lawsuit in 1999. “Now perhaps

it can really happen.”But should she want to marry to her Israeli-born boyfriend, Yosef Ben-Moshe, she will have to go on waiting or do it abroad: The chief rabbinate in Israel remains exclusively Orthodox, and its grip on life-cycle events remains unchallenged….

Talking points:• The Law of Return has been criticized from both Orthodox Jewish perspectives (allowing in as “Jews” persons not

recognized as Jewish by most religious standards), and from liberal democratic perspectives (preferring one ethnic group over others).

• The law of return has been amended twice since its inception: once in 1954 to exclude past criminals who might threaten the public safety; and once in 1970 to include the expanded definition of a Jew the immediate family members who have the right to citizenship under the Law of Return (Section 4A). Prior to this, the law merely stated that “Every Jew has the right…”

• The law of return is not a Basic Law or constitutional provision. It can be overturned by a 2-1 majority in parliament.

Discussion Questions:Which of the following positions do you identify with?

– The Law of Return should recognize anyone who converts to Judaism through a rabbi attached to any of the main streams of Judaism (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Orthodox) whether in Israel or overseas

– The Law should recognize as Jewish only those who convert through an Orthodox rabbinical court

– The Law should recognize all non-Orthodox converts from the Diaspora, but should not license non- Orthodox conversions that take place in Israel

– The Law should recognize as Jewish any person who identifies as such and is active in a Jewish community; the state should not insist on a formal conversion

Which of the following positions do you identify with? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each?

– The Law of Return should be amended so as to apply to Jews only

– Non-Jewish family members should be admitted to Israel only if they have a meaningful connection with the Jewish people or are victims of antisemitism

– The family provisions of the Law of Return should be limited to the immediate relatives of Jewish immigrants or Israeli citizens

– The Law of Return must continue to protect the rights of all potential victims of antisemitism to immigrate to Israel

What might be some of the positive and negative consequences of each of these positions?

Law

of R

etu

rn

Non-Jewish ImmigrationThe Law of Return grants the right to immigrate to Jews, their children, grandchildren, spouses, children’s spouses, and grandchildren’s spouses, providing none of these has voluntarily converted out of Judaism. This formula stems from Israel’s goal of providing a refuge from antisemitism and reflects the fact that the Nazi persecution affected even

people with one Jewish grandparent. Controversy exploded when, beginning in 1989, a wave of immigration from the former Soviet Union brought with it hundreds of thousands of people who many see as non-Jews. Consider these issues in light of the article and questions below:

As more non-Jews come to Israel, Israelis re-examine Russian aliyah By Jessica Steinberg, Jewish Telegaphic Agency, Sept. 10, 2002

Nearly 1 million immigrants have moved to Israel from the former Soviet Union since the floodgates opened in thelate 1980s — and as many as a quarter of them are not Jews according to religious law, experts say.Though immigration has tailed off sharply in recent years, the percentage of non-Jews among the immigrants has risen as high as 70 percent, according to Israel’s chief rabbis. The Interior Ministry puts the figure slightly lower — at 58percent for the first half of 2002 — but still far above whatit was in previous years.The controversy over Russian immigration is not academic. With Israel defining itself as the Jewish state — and withthe rigorously Orthodox rabbinate in charge of issues such as marriage, divorce and burial — an influx of largenumbers of non-Jews raises difficult societal questions.Should non-Jewish immigrants be allowed to undergo Reform or Conservative conversions, for example, or must they go the more demanding Orthodox route? Indeed, some ask, should they have to convert at all? Or are the responsibilities of Israeli citizenship, such as military service, the price of entry to the Jewish people?Russian immigration has “forced Israeli society to findpractical solutions for problems that didn’t exist 10 years ago,” remarks Eli Kazhdan, executive director of Yisrael Ba’Aliyah, Israel’s largest Russian political party. It also has infused the country with a fresh dose of Zionism at a time when patriotism has fallen prey to cynicism in much of Israeli society.While most Israelis generally welcome the idea of immigration, opinions differ widely on the implications of the huge Russian immigration for the Jewish state. Recent immigrants from the former Soviet Union now make up nearly one-sixth of the Israeli population….Certain Israeli leaders, such as Interior Minister Eli Yishai

of the fervently Orthodox Shas Party, and Chief Rabbis Yisrael Meir Lau and Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, want to limit the Law of Return to halachic Jews. Israel cannot continue to bring entire Christian families to Israel, the chief rabbis said, according to Israeli media. Without immediate changes to the Law of Return, Yishai warned, “By the end of the year 2010 the State of Israel will lose its Jewish identity.” Others, such as the chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, Sallai Meridor, are equally adamant that the Russian immigration should continue, but say the current conversion process should be changed to make conversions more available and less degrading. A third stance, taken by Yisrael Ba’Aliyah, holds that the Law of Return shouldn’t be tampered with, but that the time has come for the Jewish Agency to stop actively seeking potential immigrants whose [closest relation to the Jewish people is through a grandparent.] Yet the search for potential immigrants is a crucial one for Israel, as demographic projections show that — absent significantimmigration — Arabs will outnumber Jews between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River within several generations. Israel needs immigrants, and that’s the Jewish Agency’s job, said Mike Rosenberg, head of the Jewish Agency’s aliyah department. “We bring them to Israel, give them a home, a passport, a job. Their absorption is very successful,” Rosenberg said. “They didn’t come to Israel to join the Christian or Arab population. The only thing they’re missing is the stamp of the rabbinate, and the rabbinate isn’t open-minded and willing to let them convert.” Once conversions become part of the absorption process, he said, there won’t be any question of whether Russian immigrants identify or are identified as Israeli Jews….

Law

of R

etu

rn

Fact 1 – World Jewish Population and Immigration to Israel (selected countries)

Country Jewish Population, 2002

% of World Jewry, 2002

# of Immigrants to Israel, 2004

WORLD 13,296,100 100 22485United States 5,700,000 42.9 2194

Israel 5,025,000 37.8 -France 519,000 3.9 2368Canada 364,000 2.7 338

United Kingdom 273,500 2.1 399Russia 265,000 2.0 4091

Argentina 195,000 1.5 488Ukraine 100,000 0.8 3143Australia 99,000 0.7 80

Brazil 97,300 0.7 252South Africa 78,000 0.6 99

* 3800 immigrants arrived from Ethiopia in 2004Source – World Jewish Population (2002) by Professor Sergio della Pergola (www.jafi.org.il) and Ministry of Immigrant Absorption (www.moia.gov.il)

Fact 2

The Population of Israel in 2003 was 6,689,700. Of these 5,129,800 (77%) were Jews and 1,282,800 (19%) were Arabs. By 2025, Israel’s population is projected to be 9,261,700. Of these 6,506,900 (70%) will be Jews and 2,320,000 (25%) will be Arabs.

Source – Central Bureau of Statistics (www.cbs.gov.il)Fact 3

Israel has always been a society of immigrants. In 1948 – 35% of Israelis were native born. This figure rose to 42% by 1972 and to 67% by 2003. Today, half of all native born Israelis are first generation (their fathers were born outside Israel).

Source – Central Bureau of Statistics (www.cbs.gov.il)Fact 4

From 1990-2003, 908,400 people immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union. Of these, 671,800 (74%) were Jews and 236,600 (26%) were non-Jews.

Source – Central Bureau of Statistics (www.cbs.gov.il)Fact 5New immigrants to Israel receive an “absorption basket” of financial support. A new immigrant family receives 29,632 NIS (= 2469 NIS per month over the first year in Israel), plus an additional 6000-9000 for each child depending on age. A single immigrant receives 15542 NIS (= 1295 NIS per month over a year)The average monthly expenditures for an Israeli family of two are 9103 NIS per month, and for a single person household – 5853 NIS per month.

Source - Ministry of Immigrant Absorption (www.moia.gov.il)

Fact 2Fact 2

Fact 3Fact 3

Israel has always been a society of immigrants. In 1948 – 35% of Israelis were native born. This figure rose to 42% Israel has always been a society of immigrants. In 1948 – 35% of Israelis were native born. This figure rose to 42%

Fact 4Fact 4

From 1990-2003, 908,400 people immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union. Of these, 671,800 (74%) were From 1990-2003, 908,400 people immigrated to Israel from the former Soviet Union. Of these, 671,800 (74%) were

Fact 5Fact 5New immigrants to Israel receive an “absorption basket” of financial support. A new immigrant family New immigrants to Israel receive an “absorption basket” of financial support. A new immigrant family

Fact 1 – World Jewish Population and Immigration to Israel (selected countries)Fact 1 – World Jewish Population and Immigration to Israel (selected countries)

Law

of R

etu

rn

Discussion QuestionsWhat problems could be caused as a result of waves of mass immigration? Which of these problems could be solved by a

separation of the immigration and naturalization processes?

Should the State of Israel (the Knesset, courts, government) have a role to play in defining Who is a Jew, or would it be better for the State to refrain from expressing an opinion – for example by accepting people as Jewish based on the declaration of an outside Jewish institution?

Immigrants of debatable Jewish statusThe Law of Return’s provision enabling family members of Jews to immigrate to Israel does not apply if that family member voluntarily converted out of Judaism. But this seemingly clear-cut point raises certain practical ambiguities. What is the status of people whose Jewish connections are unclear or subject to debate? One such group is the Falash Mura, Ethiopians who belong to what they call “Beta Israel” – but who have been Christian for several generations.

The Israeli government has recently decided to enable the immigration of up to 20,000 Falash Mura, but this decision has not met with universal approval. This is due to concerns over the Judaism of the Falash Mura, and the suspicion that there are many more of them than Israel currently predicts.Explore the debates over immigrants of debatable Jewish status by reading the following article and discussing the questions.

Criticism mounts as groups ready for Falash Mura hearing By Dina Kraft, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jan 14, 2004

The plane landed at Ben-Gurion Airport shortly after midnight and the Ethiopian passengers filled the plane’s doorway, lining up to make their way down the stairs and set foot in their new home.

The planeload of immigrants, which arrived in Israel on Tuesday, was the latest in a steady trickle of Falash Mura making their way from Africa to the Promised Land. But their comrades back home are still waiting for that trickle to turn into the wave promised nearly a year ago by the Israeli government. In Israel, criticism about the planned transfer of the Falash Mura community — and the long delay — is mounting. The Falash Mura are Ethiopians whose Jewish ancestors converted to Christianity, many under coercion, but who recently have reverted to Jewish practices. Opponents of their immigration are asking whether the flow ofEthiopians will ever stop and how Israel will finance thetransfer and absorption of the Falash Mura community. Many Falash Mura in Israel accuse the government of dragging its feet since a landmark Cabinet decision last February to bring all the Falash Mura to Israel, but other Ethiopian-Israeli Jews still have doubts about the Falash Mura’s Jewish credentials — even though Israel’s Chief Rabbinate and the three main religious denominations have said they’re Jews….

Some Ethiopian-Israeli Jews say many professing to be Falash Mura are fraudulently claiming Jewish heritage to escape Ethiopia’s crushing poverty.[But] according to a census conducted by groups advocating their immigration, some 26,000 are able to prove maternal Jewish roots and therefore fit the current Israeli government criteria tomove to Israel.Livni has said publicly that the Falash Mura can’t be brought en masse without proper plans and sufficientfunds for their absorption, estimated at $100,000 per person over a lifetime…. Among the government’s critics is Avraham Neguise, executive director of South Wing to Zion, an Israeli advocacy group for Falash Mura. “Putting economic considerations before saving Jews is a crime against Zionism,” he said. “It is very, very difficult to imaginewhy, when they are begging other Jews to come from countries like Russia, America and Argentina, they are raising the question of money for the Ethiopian Jews. I have no doubt there is discrimination,” Neguise said.

Law

of R

etu

rn

Talking points• Many “Jews” who come to Israel under the Law of Return are not recognized by the Israeli Rabbinate, and thus are

unable to marry in Israel.

• Non-Orthodox converts are admitted to Israel under the Law of Return

• According to the Interior Ministry, 58% of immigrants to Israel in 2002 were not Jewish. According to Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, the figure is 70%.

Discussion QuestionsHow should a “Jew” be defined for the purposes of the Law of Return?

What problems arise from the various potential definitions?

How might different definitions of a “Jew” affect the following issues:

- The unity of the Jewish people?

- The Jewish/non-Jewish demographic balance?

- Jewish Pluralism?

- Israel-Diaspora relations?

Hanoch Marmari Former Editor of HaaretzFor the vast majority of Jews who remain in their home countries, Israel is not a long-awaited dream, but a worst-case scenario. Young people send their elderly parents and sick relatives to Israel to benefit from social security,while they migrate to the West or remain at home…. In instead of strengthening us (numerically, economically, militarily), many of the Jewish immigrants arriving in Israel are a burden.I suggest setting a clear, symbolic cut-off point for the Law of Return: 25 years from the State of Israel’s 50th anniversary…. The Law will expire, according to this suggestion, in May 2023, on Israel’s 75th Independence Day.Don’t panic. World Jewry does not have to start packing their bags. They can stay where they are. Their children will grow up knowing they have a decision to make - when they are old enough to do so. Yet the Law’s cut-off

point will sharpen the dilemma already faced by portions of world Jewry and will force them to make a choice: to bind their destiny to Israel or to stay at home….[The expiration of the Law of Return] will make clear that aside from a Jewish people and a Jewish religion and a Jewish minority in other countries, there is also a Jewish State - sovereign, normal, Hebrew-speaking, and with its own minority groups…. It will mean the end of Israel’s economic dependence on world Jewry and the end of the legal connection between Israel and the Diaspora. Of course, the strong, unique link between Israel and world Jewry will not evaporate, and the institutional and cultural connections will continue and deepen. But, conversely, the Jewish Agency will be able to bring its aliyah emissaries back home.

Haaretz, November 11, 1994

Points of View on Law of Return

Law

of R

etu

rn

Ruth Gavison Haim Cohen Human Rights Professor of Law at the Hebrew University of JerusalemIsraeli citizenship is a subject that must be treated seriously, and should require a period of acculturation and a declaration of loyalty to the state before being awarded – even to someone who immigrated in accordance with the Law of Return. We [should] differentiate between Aliyah – fulfilling the right to settle in Israel – and theacquisition of citizenship, which also affords the right of political participation in elections….A person who is eligible to immigrate under the Law of Return … [should] be eligible for naturalization after…

three to five years, after he has made a declaration ofloyalty to the state and demonstrated a certain degree of proficiency in the Hebrew language and… acquaintancewith Jewish heritage, the history of the state and its institutions…. The immigrant’s induction into full mandatory service in the security forces will immediately exempt him from the waiting period and from the other requirements.

From The Gavison-Medan Covenant – Main Points and Principles

1. The Law of Return should be repealed in favor of an immigration policy which does not discriminate on grounds of ethnicity or religion.

2. The Law of Return should be phased out over ten years, with the exception of Jews suffering from persecution who will always be entitled to immigrate to Israel.

3. The Law of Return should be amended so as to include only people who are Jewish according to Orthodox halacha (children of a Jewish mother or those converted by an Orthodox rabbinical court).

4. The Law of Return should be amended so as to include only people who are Jewish according to Orthodox halacha. In parallel, new legislation should provide for the naturalization of members of the Jewish people whom halacha does not recognize.

5. The Law of Return should be liberalized so as to recognize all Jews on the basis of self-identification.

6. The Law of Return’s scope should be widened so as to include not only the grandchildren but the great-grandchildren of Jews.

7. Law of Return should be amended to include only those with a meaningful connection to the Jewish people and to exclude non-Jews with only distant Jewish family connections.

8. All immigrants should be obliged to participate in a 3 year citizenship program including Hebrew, Jewish heritage, and civics studies, at the end of which their naturalization would be contingent upon swearing an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel.

9. Other

Proposals for reforming the Law of Return.

Excerpts from The Gavison-Medan Covenant: Summary of proposals for Return and Citizenship - 2003By Ruth Gavison, Haim Cohen Human Rights Professor of Law at the Hebrew University, and Rabbi Yaacov Medan, an educator at Yeshivat Har Etzion.

A. The Principle of ReturnA Basic Law will be promulgated to the following effect:1. Every member of the Jewish people is eligible to

immigrate to Israel. Specific provisions to this effect will be anchored in law.

2. In this Basic Law, a “member of the Jewish people” is defined as: a. The child of a father or mother who is Jewish according to halakha, or b. An individual who has joined the Jewish people, and who fulfills one

of the following criteria: Leads a Jewish lifestyle, or Suffers persecution on account of being Jewish.

A person who considers himself a member of another religion will not fall under Section 4.

Other laws and regulations will specify that: One way of joining the Jewish people is through

conversion. However, for purposes of being considered a “member of the Jewish people” as defined in this Basic Law, conversion is not the only way to join the

Please choose the reforms which you would like to see implemented. Feel free to formulate other reforms which you believe in but which do not appear on the list.

Law

of R

etu

rn

Excerpts from Proposed Basic Law: The State of Israel as the State of the Jewish People1. The State of Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, and it is the state of the Jewish People.2 a. The state of Israel shall act for the unification of the Jewish People and for the well-being of members of the

Jewish people wherever they may be. 4 a. The State of Israel shall encourage the ingathering of the exiles and Jewish settlement in the Land. b. Every Jew shall have the right to immigrate to Israel, unless the Minister of the Interior states that there is a

high probability that the applicant will endanger the public peace, health, or security. c. Every Jew who immigrates to Israel shall have the right, according to the laws of the state, to Israeli

citizenship. d. Nothing in this Article shall be construed to prevent others from acquiring citizenship according to the

conditions established in law.

Return of the Law of ReturnBy Ilan Marciano, Ynet (www.ynetnews.com), March 13, 2005

Poraz proposes applying Law of Return to great grandchildren of Jews. The Law of Return should also be applied to the great grandchildren of Jews, former interior minister Avraham Poraz proposed Monday in an amendment to the bill… According to the current law, the children or grandchildren of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, or the spouse of a child or grandchild of a Jew has the right to become an Israeli citizen. As a result of this law, says Poraz, great grandchildren of Jews cannot make aliyah to Israel, which in turn can cause them great hardship. Poraz added that cabinet decisions applying the Law of Return to the Falash Mura from Ethiopia gives the law added meaning and discriminates against potential immigrants from other countries.

Discussion Questions:What are the advantages and disadvantages of the various proposals?

• Which of the proposals would have a positive influence on Israel’s Jewish character? Which might damage it?

• What impact would the various proposals have on Israel’s democratic character?

• How do would each of the various proposals affect you as Diaspora Jews or affect your relationship with the State of Israel?

• Which of the following criteria are legitimate elements of a democratic country’s immigration policy?

Criminal record Danger in country of origin Economic status Educational level Ethnicity Health Limit on total number of immigrants National identity Parents’ background Profession Region of origin Religion Other

Jewish people. In any place where there is a distinct Jewish community

with its own mandatory practices that define its identity and its members’ affiliation to it, an individual who consistently follows these practices and is a member of that community will be considered to have joined the Jewish people.

B. Arrangements for Acquiring Citizenship

A person who is eligible to immigrate under the Law of

Return will receive an entry permit into Israel. He will be eligible for naturalization after the passage of… three to five years, after he has made a declaration of loyalty tothe state and demonstrated a certain degree of proficiencyin the Hebrew language and a certain acquaintance with Jewish heritage, the history of the state and its institutions. The immigrant’s induction into full mandatory service in the security forces will immediately exempt him from the waiting period and from the other requirements.

Law

of R

etu

rn

Talking Points and Discussion Questions for the facilitator· There is no formal separation of religion and state in

Israel. Judaism is seen as both the country’s national culture and the institutional religion. As such, it plays a major role in Jewish life.

· Jewish holidays are national holidays, kashrut is observed in the army and all governmental institutions, and the Orthodox rabbinate is state-funded.

Most Israelis support this arrangement. · Israel’s most pressing existential paradox lies in

its definition as a Jewish and democratic state. (pages 2,3)

· Israel is a secular state. Many businesses are open on the Sabbath, Gay pride parades are held in several cities, and Jewish law is considered by, but does not bind, the courts.

· Is Judaism a religion, a national culture, an ethnicity, or something else?

· What are the contradictions within Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish and Democratic state? Can those contradictions be reconciled? Can a democratic state have a preferred religion?

· Matters of personal status (e.g. marriage, divorce, burial, conversion) are administered solely by the recognized clergy of each religion.

· The Orthodox Rabbinate is the sole recognized Jewish clergy in Israel for matters of personal status. (page 5)

· Many Israelis are troubled by the fact that this prevents interfaith marriages and non-religious or non-orthodox marriage and divorce proceedings (for all religions). In matters of divorce, a Jewish woman cannot divorce without the consent of her husband. (pages 5, 6)

· Because of the limitations on marriage and divorce imposed by the religious court system, significant portions of the Israeli population are either unable or unwilling to marry in State-recognized ceremonies. (pages 5,7)

· Marriages conducted outside of Israel are recognized by the state regardless of whether the couple could legally have married in Israel. 6,856 Israelis married abroad in 2001, 8.3% of all Israeli marriages. (page 6).

· To what extent should Jewish Law impinge on the private lives of Israeli citizens?

· Who should be able to perform marriage, divorce, conversion and burial in Israel?

· Orthodox marriages, conversions, and divorces are recognized as legitimate by all other streams of Judaism. The same is not true for Conservative, Reform, or other denominations.

· Some Israelis feel that abandoning the Orthodox standard will have destructive consequences for Jewish unity in Israel, and that several generations down the line, Jews will be separated into several groups which cannot intermarry. (page 8)

· 5% of Israeli Jews define themselves as Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox), 12& as religious, 35% as traditional, 43% as non-religious, and 5% as anti-religious. (In the United States, 42% of Jews identify themselves as Reform; 38% as Conservative; 7% as Orthodox; and 5% as “Just Jewish.”)

· Statistic about the percentage of Israeli Jews who identify as “non-religious” who, if forced to choose a synagogue, would choose an Orthodox one rather than a conservative or reform.

· What would be the implications of changes to the relationship between Religion and State on Diaspora Jewry? On future generations of Jews?

· If Israel accepts non-orthodox religious authorities for Jews, do the regulations need to be loosened with regards to other religions’ communities as well? (Eg. Christians, Muslims etc.)

RELIGION & STATE

· If the majority of a given religion (Jews, Muslims or Christians) in Israel prefers to maintain an Orthodox monopoly in their own religion, how does this affect other religious communities? Must/should reform be uniform.

· Israelis seem unable to agree on the precise role Judaism should play in their society. Controversy centers around two basic questions: what brand of Judaism is to form the basis of public life? And to what extent should Jewish law impinge on the private lives of Israeli citizens?

· 78% of Israeli Jews believe the state should have a Jewish but not necessarily a religious character. Even 79%-88% of the non-religious and anti-religious favor an Israel that has a Jewish character.

· Only 50% of Jewish Israelis believe that public life in Israel should be conducted in accordance with Jewish tradition.

· 49% of Jewish Israelis favor the introduction of civil marriage (six percentage points higher than in 1991) even though only 26% consider this a viable option for themselves or members of their families.

· Two thirds of Israeli Jews favor granting the Conservative and Reform movements equal status and funding with the Orthodox.

· Should Israel have a total “wall of separation” between religion and state, including a non-establishment clause? Or may Israel fund religious institutions on an equal basis?

· What constitutes a viable and acceptable relationship between religion and State in Israel? Please refer to models on pages 10-11?

· There is no formal separation of religion and state in Israel. Judaism is seen as both the country’s national culture and the institutional religion. As such, it plays a major role in Jewish life.

· Jewish holidays are national holidays, kashrut is observed in the army and all governmental institutions, and the Orthodox rabbinate is state-funded.

· Most Israelis support this arrangement. · Israel’s most pressing existential paradox lies in its

definition as a Jewish and democratic state. (pages 2,3)

· Israel is a secular state. Many businesses are open on

the Sabbath, Gay pride parades are held in several cities, and Jewish law is considered by, but does not bind, the courts.

· Is Judaism a religion, a national culture, an ethnicity, or something else?

· What are the contradictions within Israel’s self-definition as a Jewish and Democratic state? Can those contradictions be reconciled? Can a democratic state have a preferred religion?

· Matters of personal status (e.g. marriage, divorce, burial, conversion) are administered solely by the recognized clergy of each religion.

· The Orthodox Rabbinate is the sole recognized Jewish clergy in Israel for matters of personal status. (page 5)

· Many Israelis are troubled by the fact that this prevents interfaith marriages and non-religious or non-orthodox marriage and divorce proceedings (for all religions). In matters of divorce, a Jewish woman cannot divorce without the consent of her husband. (pages 5, 6)

· Because of the limitations on marriage and divorce imposed by the religious court system, significant portions of the Israeli population are either unable or unwilling to marry in State-recognized ceremonies. (pages 5,7)

· Marriages conducted outside of Israel are recognized by the state regardless of whether the couple could legally have married in Israel. 6,856 Israelis married abroad in 2001, 8.3% of all Israeli marriages. (page 6).

· To what extent should Jewish Law impinge on the private lives of Israeli citizens?

· Who should be able to perform marriage, divorce, conversion and burial in Israel?

· Orthodox marriages, conversions, and divorces are recognized as legitimate by all other streams of Judaism. The same is not true for Conservative, Reform, or other denominations.

· Some Israelis feel that abandoning the Orthodox standard will have destructive consequences for Jewish unity in Israel, and that several generations down the line, Jews will be separated into several groups which cannot intermarry. (page 8)

· 5% of Israeli Jews define themselves as Haredi (Ultra-Orthodox), 12& as religious, 35% as traditional, 43%

as non-religious, and 5% as anti-religious. (In the United States, 42% of Jews identify themselves as Reform; 38% as Conservative; 7% as Orthodox; and 5% as “Just Jewish.”)

· Most Israeli Jews who identify as non-religious would, if they needed a synagogue, choose an Orthodox one over a Conservative or Reform one.

· What would be the implications of changes to the relationship between Religion and State on Diaspora Jewry? On future generations of Jews?

· If Israel accepts non-orthodox religious authorities for Jews, do the regulations need to be loosened with regards to other religions’ communities as well? (Eg. Christians, Muslims etc.)

· If the majority of a given religion (Jews, Muslims or Christians) in Israel prefers to maintain an Orthodox monopoly in their own religion, how does this affect other religious communities? Must/should reform be uniform.

· Israelis seem unable to agree on the precise role Judaism should play in their society. Controversy centers around two basic questions: what brand of Judaism is to form the basis of public life? And to

what extent should Jewish law impinge on the private lives of Israeli citizens?

· 78% of Israeli Jews believe the state should have a Jewish but not necessarily a religious character. Even 79%-88% of the non-religious and anti-religious favor an Israel that has a Jewish character.

· Only 50% of Jewish Israelis believe that public life in Israel should be conducted in accordance with Jewish tradition.

· 49% of Jewish Israelis favor the introduction of civil marriage (six percentage points higher than in 1991) even though only 26% consider this a viable option for themselves or members of their families.

· Two thirds of Israeli Jews favor granting the Conservative and Reform movements equal status and funding with the Orthodox.

· Should Israel have a total “wall of separation” between religion and state, including a non-establishment clause? Or may Israel fund religious institutions on an equal basis?

· What constitutes a viable and acceptable relationship between religion and State in Israel? Please refer to models on pages 10-11?

LAW OF RETURN

· The most important mission of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel has always been the “ingathering of the exiles” and the reconstitution of the Jews as a free, self-determining nation in their own land.

This mission was given a legal basis in 1950 in the Law of Return, which guaranteed all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel.

The Law of Return has a practical aspect as well. it is a major tool for maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel.

· 20% of Israel’s citizens are Arabs. By 2025 that figure will reach 25%.

· To what extent is Israel’s immigration policy a suitable one for: a. a Jewish State, b. a democratic state? Are there any contradictions between these categories? Can they be reconciled?

· Under the law of return, any Jew, child of a Jew, grandchild of a Jew, and his or her spouse and minor children are eligible for immediate immigration and naturalization in Israel.

· This definition is derived from Hitler’s Nuremberg Laws, and was expressly designed to protect anyone who would have been persecuted as a Jew by the Nazis.

Talking Points and Discussion Questions for the facilitator

· Immigrants under the Law of Return are extended immediate and automatic citizenship. They may vote and participate fully as citizens without demonstrating commitment, understanding, or even a knowledge of Hebrew.

Many “Jews” who come to Israel under the law of return are not recognized by the Israeli Rabbinate, and are thus unable to marry in Israel.

· Non-orthodox converts are admitted to Israel under the law of return.

· According to the Interior ministry, 58% of immigrants to Israel in 2002 were not Jewish. According to Israel’s chief rabbinate, the figure is 70%.

· How should a “Jew” be defined for the purposes of the Law of Return?

· What problems arise from the various potential definitions?

· How might different definitions of a “Jew” affect the following issues:

- The unity of the Jewish people? - The Jewish/non-Jewish demographic balance? - Jewish Pluralism? - Israel-Diaspora relations?· The Law of Return has been criticized from both

Orthodox Jewish perspectives (allowing in as “Jews” persons not recognized as Jewish by most religious standards), and from liberal democratic perspectives (preferring one ethnic group over others).

· The law of return has been amended twice since its inception: once in 1954 to make slight technical adjustments, and once in 1970 to provide a definition of a Jew as a child of a Jewish mother or a convert, and to extend the law of return to include the family of a Jew, up to grandchildren.

· 1/3 of all Israeli citizens were born outside of Israel, down from nearly 2/3 in 1948.

· Immigrants under the Law of Return are automatically and immediately granted naturalization. Some feel that this exposes Israel to unrestricted waves of immigration, enabling newcomers to determine the future of the country by voting in elections before they have demonstrated their commitment or begun to understand the issues at stake.

· Over 1 million people from the former Soviet Union have immigrated to Israel since 1989. Of these, up to 250,000 are not Jewish according to halacha.

· Immigrants place short- and long-term financial pressures on the state. For instance, an Ethiopian immigrant is expected to cost the state approximately $100,000 over his lifetime.

· What problems could be caused as a result of waves of mass immigration? Which of these problems could be solved by a separation of the immigration and naturalization processes?

· Should the State of Israel (the Knesset, courts, government) have a role to play in defining Who is a Jew, or would it be better for the State to refrain from expressing an opinion – for example by accepting people as Jewish based on the declaration of an outside Jewish institution?

· The law of return is not a Basic Law or constitutional provision. It can be overturned by a 2-1 majority in parliament.

· The Law of Return does not constitute Israel’s entire immigration policy. Other laws allowing or limiting citizenship include the Entrance into Israel Law and the Citizenship Law.

· Russia’s Jewish population in 2002 was 265,000. in 2004, it was the largest contributors of immigrants to Israel, with 4091. The Jewish population of the United States is 5.7 million (more than 20 times that of Russia). In 2004, it contributed 2,194 immigrants. (page 21)

· Please refer to the Proposals for Law of Return Reform (page 22)

· What are the advantages and disadvantages of the various proposals?

· Which of the proposals would have a positive influence on Israel’s Jewish character? Which might damage it?

· What impact would the various proposals have on Israel’s democratic character?

· How do would each of the various proposals affect you as Diaspora Jews or affect your relationship with the State of Israel?