BACKGROUND
Separating The Historical
From The Hysterical
Questions and answers about Israel's Law Of Return, and the
decades-long effort to define Who Is A Jew.
GARY ROSENBLATT
Editor
or who has been converted according
to Halachah.
But the majority of Jews, in the
age of secularism and pluralism, have
come to believe that a Jew is someone
who says that he is Jewish.
In the State of Israel, this dilem-
ma was heightened by the fact that
Jewish identity included citizenship,
nationality and religious affiliation.
In addition to the Law of Return, two
other relevant laws governed issues
related to identity. The 1952 Citizen-
ship Law automatically granted
Israeli citizenship to all Jewish im-
migrants under the Law of Return,
and the Rabbinical Courts Law gave
the religious authorities in Israel con-
trol over marriage and divorce.
There are children of non-Jewish
mothers in Israel who speak Hebrew,
are educated in the spirit of Jewish
history, serve in the army to defend
Israeli nationalism. Are they to be
considered as Jews?
It was not long before the courts
were asked to decide whether the
Halachic definition applies, or
whether anyone who declares himself
to be a Jew would qualify under the
Law of Return.
uch has been written
about the Who Is A Jew
controversy in Israel and
America in recent weeks,
but misunderstanding and
confusion abound.
Why are some Orthodox leaders
so insistent on changing the Law of
Return? Would a change in the law
make non-Orthodox Jews second-class
citizens? What solutions could
possibly appease both sides?
The issue is more of symbols and
perceptions than practical results. If
proof is needed, consider that virtual-
ly every American Jewish leader tak-
ing a position, from the Lubavitcher
Rebbe to the leader of the Reform
movement, has made the point that
the definition of Who Is A Jew should
not be decided by a political body like
the Knesset. And yet it seems certain
that if the issue was removed from the
Knesset and given over to the rab-
binate to decide, the end result would
be exactly the same as the status quo
— namely, that conversions performed
by non-Orthodox rabbis would not be
accepted.
And if conversions performed by
non-Orthodox rabbis are not accepted
now, why are some Orthodox pushing
for the amendment? If it ain't broke,
why are they fighting to fix it?
Just what is all the commotion
about?
A close look at the history of the
Law of Return and the political,
religious and emotional controversies
it has sparked may shed some light
on the current crisis.
pli
What is the Law of Return?
One of the earliest and most basic
laws of the State of Israel, the Law of
Return was passed by the Knesset on
July 5, 1950 (the anniversary of the
death of Zionism's founder, Theodor
Herzl), and declares that every Jew
has the right to settle in Israel and
be granted automatic citizenship, giv-
ing legal confirmation to the age-old
Jewish yearning for the return to
Zion.
104
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1988
(
When did the Supreme Court
first rule on who is a Jew?
The law abolished all restrictions
on Jewish immigration and retroac-
tively validated the immigration of
every Jew who had entered the coun-
try. "This law," said Prime Minister
David Ben-Gurion in presenting it,
"lays down not that the State accords
the right of settlement to Jews
abroad, but that this right is inherent
in every Jew by virtue of his being a
Jew if it be his will to take part in set-
tling the land. This right preceded the
State of Israel; it is that which built
the state."
How does one determine
who is a Jew?
Defining who was a Jew was
religiously simply but difficult in
every other way — historically, legal-
ly, politically and popularly.
Halachah (Jewish law) states that
a Jew is one born of a Jewish mother
Since the Law of Return failed to
define the term "Jew" in its national
(ethnic) sense, it was inevitable that
a case would arise to test the defini-
tion. The Supreme Court made its
first attempt to define this national
term in the famous Brother Daniel
case of 1958.
A Polish Jew named Oswald
Rufeisen had taken refuge in a Polish
monastery during World War II and
had subsequently converted and
become a Carmelite monk. He
adopted the name Brother Daniel
and, still considering himself a Jew,
came to Israel to live.
When the authorities refused to
allow him entry as a Jew, he appeal-
ed to the courts. His argument was