Who is a Jew - right of return to Israel

[rosends]

Israel was founded on the right of Jews to emigrate not practitioners of Judaism. The nazis did not care who was a practicing Jew and that was the basis of the post-holocaust rule that created a refuge for survivors. I believe that the legal classification for the right of return came from the Nazi classification of a Jew who was a "Mischling" of the second degree by having one Jewish grandparent.

Again, therefore, not related to who is practicing or what kind of practicing, but about lineage (or conversion) conforming to Jewish law.

Thus we see a secular state of Israel becoming a religious state with strict religious rules of who is allowed to emigrate and become a citizen.

well, it isn't becoming a religious state, but there is and has been a constant tension in terms of the integration of certain religious ideas into the fabric of the legal system. Citizenship rules and guarantees to particular groups are not unique to Israel - many countries have repatriation laws.

 

[stvdv]

The 1950 right of return did not use the strict definition of who is a Jew for immigration to Israel. This is now controversial. It goes along with the ultra-Orthodox not thinking of Conservative and Reform folk as really practicing Judaism. It reminds me of the Islamic fanatics who attack those who they consider to be not really Muslims.

I 100% agree

The same as:
"My Way The Highway"
"All are equal...Jews are more equal"

Much better would be:
"All are 'human' , hence all are equal"

 

[Sedim Haba]

If you're talking about Palestinians, you're essentially suggesting that people who have lived there for generations just up and go elsewhere—if they even have a place to go to....

That's just the thing tho, many of them have NOT been there for 'generations',
the surrounding nations gathered up their 'undesirables' and PLACED them there as
a bulwark against Zionism. That's the true reason all those 'refugee' camps for
Palestinians still exist... those nations don't want them back. It's tragic really,
these people have been used as pawns by their own supposed 'brothers'.

But as to the OP, yes, the Law of Return is just a small part of the real dilemma:
'Who is a Jew?' And this is the greatest stumbling block which will ultimately
destroy Israel, both the nation and the people.

And that will please those who say "Peace is the answer" and go on about 'Sincere Prayers'
...but are actually little better than Nazis, and will celebrate Israel's end. Hell has a place 4U.

 

[Lyndon]

hell is for fascists, be they jewish or otherwise

 

[Harel13]

If you're talking about Palestinians, you're essentially suggesting that people who have lived there for generations just up and go elsewhere—if they even have a place to go to. I have no idea how this makes sense to anyone who also argues that Jews need refuge and a state to belong in, unless one also believes that Palestinians are somehow less human or deserving of rights than Jews.

I was simply using your argument. So, what's the demarcation line between giving people their land and not given people back their land? Do I have a right to kick out the Polish family who settled on my great-great-grandparents' property in Poland during WWII and only paid my great-grandfather a measly equivalent of 300$ compensation when he came to see if anything was left of their property (and consider that most Jews didn't even get that)? What about Jews in Arab countries who had make a run for it without most of their belongings when the State of Israel was created because mobs launched pogroms there? Do the Native American have a right to all the land conquered or bought off of them by the United States over the years? What about the long-exiled government of Tibet? What about Muslims who are descendants of Muslims who lived in Islamic Spain, do they have a right to Spanish property? What about Spanish citizenship? If we were to identify descendants of the Khazars, would we give them back Khazaria? What if people started identifying as descendants of the ancient hunter-gatherers, would they be entitled to roam wherever they would like around the world, including private property, taking whichever plants they would like for themselves and hunting whatever prey they would like, endangered or otherwise?

Why don't Jews have a right to their land which was taken from them by successive conquering empires, but Arabs do, despite it either being bought from them or conquered during war? It was not ""stolen"".

Do I think there's a simple solution? No, that would be childish. But your own view is severely flawed, and at least as long as I've been here, it has remained rigidly so. Get back to me maybe when you've figured out a logical demarcation line between "they can" and "they can't".

 

[Lyndon]

You'll stop at nothing to justify your leaders oppression of the native Palestinian people, you can't just invade a country and claim it belongs to you because your ancestors lived there thousands of years ago, that just BS pure and simple

 

[Harel13]

You'll stop at nothing to justify your leaders oppression of the native Palestinian people, you can't just invade a country and claim it belongs to you because your ancestors lived there thousands of years ago, that just BS pure and simple

Please quote or tag people you're replying to, otherwise it looks like you're talking to yourself.

To your reply - it has long been evident to me that you know close to nothing about the subject. What is this country that supposedly invaded another country?

 

[Debater Slayer]

That's just the thing tho, many of them have NOT been there for 'generations',
the surrounding nations gathered up their 'undesirables' and PLACED them there as
a bulwark against Zionism. That's the true reason all those 'refugee' camps for
Palestinians still exist... those nations don't want them back. It's tragic really,
these people have been used as pawns by their own supposed 'brothers'.

Some of Israel's policies have also displaced many Palestinians and driven them to seek refuge elsewhere, but the Arab world has indeed tragically failed the Palestinian people. Make no mistake, though: the actions of unelected, tyrannical leaders and their apologists often don't remotely express the values and sentiments of other segments of Arab populations, whether concerning matters related to the Arab-Israeli conflict or otherwise.

 

[Lyndon]

Please quote or tag people you're replying to, otherwise it looks like you're talking to yourself.

To your reply - it has long been evident to me that you know close to nothing about the subject. What is this country that supposedly invaded another country?

Oh so you're the judge and arbiter of decency, Jews never invaded Palestine they peacefully immigrated then peacefully evicted the Palestinians from the land that belongs not to the natives but the invaders, with the help of the other invaders the British.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I was simply using your argument. So, what's the demarcation line between giving people their land and not given people back their land? Do I have a right to kick out the Polish family who settled on my great-great-grandparents' property in Poland during WWII and only paid my great-grandfather a measly equivalent of 300$ compensation when he came to see if anything was left of their property (and consider that most Jews didn't even get that)? What about Jews in Arab countries who had make a run for it without most of their belongings when the State of Israel was created because mobs launched pogroms there? Do the Native American have a right to all the land conquered or bought off of them by the United States over the years? What about the long-exiled government of Tibet? What about Muslims who are descendants of Muslims who lived in Islamic Spain, do they have a right to Spanish property? What about Spanish citizenship? If we were to identify descendants of the Khazars, would we give them back Khazaria? What if people started identifying as descendants of the ancient hunter-gatherers, would they be entitled to roam wherever they would like around the world, including private property, taking whichever plants they would like for themselves and hunting whatever prey they would like, endangered or otherwise?

Why don't Jews have a right to their land which was taken from them by successive conquering empires, but Arabs do, despite it either being bought from them or conquered during war? It was not ""stolen"".

Do I think there's a simple solution? No, that would be childish. But your own view is severely flawed, and at least as long as I've been here, it has remained rigidly so. Get back to me maybe when you've figured out a logical demarcation line between "they can" and "they can't".

To avoid repetition, a post I made in another thread addresses this point:

The right to self-determination isn't what's in question here; it's Israel's increasing establishment of illegal settlements and implementation of policies that make life increasingly difficult for Palestinians.

There's a vast spectrum of potential solutions between the extremes of "all of Israel is a Jewish state" and "every single Jew must be kicked out of Israel."

 

[RestlessSoul]

‘Any Jew’ surely means any Jew, does it not? Attempts to refine an inclusive principle into an exclusive one, seem to run contrary to the original intention. That much appears unequivocal, to this Gentile observer.

 

[Harel13]

Oh so you're the judge and arbiter of decency, Jews never invaded Palestine they peacefully immigrated then peacefully evicted the Palestinians from the land that belongs not to the natives but the invaders, with the help of the other invaders the British.

I never stated anything of the sort. But as I have recommended in the past, I will recommend again: Go learn some history. Jewish immigration to the Land of Israel had rarely been "peaceful", but with enough cash incentives, the Ottomans were willing to fork over entry passes. During the Mandate years, there were quotas. Not every Jew was allowed in. The gates were locked completely during WWII and in the years that followed leading up to 1948.
As for the Arabs, again, I never stated eviction was peaceful. But an olive branch was extended to them, despite all of their rioting and stealing and murdering in previous years. The Jews wanted to start with a clean, peaceful slate. But war erupted even before the state was officially created. Maybe read up a bit on what happened in the Gush Etzion region. And when war comes, what do you think - the Jews were going to let the Arabs march them into the sea? They fought back. And war is as war does, and that includes conquest of enemy territories. Some Arabs joined Israel. Many Druze chose to side with Israel, after a period of conflict between the two groups. They are all full citizens. So, I pose the question again: Jews have lost their property countless times worldwide. Often they were loyal citizens or neutral bystanders, not enemies. Why do they have less right to their property than these Arabs who made it clear from day 1 that they were enemies?

 

[Harel13]

To avoid repetition, a post I made in another thread addresses this point:

The right to self-determination isn't what's in question here; it's Israel's increasing establishment of illegal settlements and implementation of policies that make life increasingly difficult for Palestinians.

There's a vast spectrum of potential solutions between the extremes of "all of Israel is a Jewish state" and "every single Jew must be kicked out of Israel."

So, to summarize even further: You don't know what the demarcation line is.
Your differentiation between the Arabs you support and the Jews you do not support is arbitrary. I would even venture to say that it is also greatly influenced by the increasing victimization that these people have ""enjoyed"" for many decades now from hateful warmongers such as UNWRA.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So, to summarize even further: You don't know what the demarcation line is.
Your differentiation between the Arabs you support and the Jews you do not support is arbitrary. I would even venture to say that it is also greatly influenced by the increasing victimization that these people have ""enjoyed"" for many decades now from hateful warmongers such as UNWRA.

Demarcation of what? I'm unclear on what your objection is. I specifically oppose Israel's policy of continual expansion and discrimination against Palestinians. These are not vague policies.

Whatever UNRWA's stances are, they clearly haven't forced Israel to act in any specific way, at least regarding recent expansion efforts. Their stances don't change that Israel could be pursuing much fairer and more humane policies but isn't doing so for one reason or another.

 

[Harel13]

‘Any Jew’ surely means any Jew, does it not? Attempts to refine an inclusive principle into an exclusive one, seem to run contrary to the original intention. That much appears unequivocal, to this Gentile observer.

I don't really know how things are in Britain, but I will try to give an American parallel: American lawmakers and other individuals involved in the legal world often debate the issue of "what did the Founding Fathers mean when they said X" or "what did the Founding Fathers mean when they including in the Constitution Y". This is similar: The question being asked here is: What did the first government of Israel mean when they said they would allow all Jews to come to Israel. I.e., "who is a Jew?"

Now, besides that, the law as it is contains a clause called in Hebrew סעיף הנכד - Se'if Ha'neched, or the Grandchild Clause. This allows descendants of Jews (sons/daughters and grandchildren (but not further down)) who are not Jews themselves (again, whatever that means) to also make aliyah, i.e., immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship. When the state was created, 99.99% of the people who were interested in immigrating and becoming Israeli citizens were Jews who could also claim and generally provide documentary and testamental proof of being descendants of Jews on both sides, so the above-mentioned clause was not a problem in terms of preserving the Jewish identity and majority of the country.

However, since then, Israel has managed to become a successful country in many terms, and now many non-Jews have an interest in immigrating to Israel. That is exactly what happened when the Iron Curtain went down. Hundreds of thousands of former USSR citizens looking for a better life swarmed Israel. Many of them had only a Jewish father or Jewish grandfather and did not even identify as Jews in the slightest, which, from what I gather, was considered problematic even in the eyes of Reform and Conservative Judaism of the time.

A recently conducted study has revealed that there are some 4.8 million people worldwide today who could attain citizenship in Israel via this clause, while not having even the slightest connection to any form of Judaism. This, of course, poses a major danger to the Jewish identity of the country, which is the reason it was even founded.

These, essentially, are the main issues that are being debated. There are also some minor ones, but I won't get into those now.

 

[Harel13]

Demarcation of what? I'm unclear on what your objection is. I specifically oppose Israel's policy of continual expansion and discrimination against Palestinians. These are not vague policies.

I don't know what discrimination you're talking about. You are fully aware, I'm sure, that these people are not citizens of Israel and never have been, though they were offered that chance in 1948, and they rejected the offer. So this is not discrimination between different citizens. It's a differentiation between people who are citizens and people who are not. Exactly like any other country in the world.

My objection is that from a long-term historical perspective, any new settlements that Jews build in the Land of Israel are being built on a land that has belonged to them for millennia. You object to this because you think it is not right to push people off of their land - and I agree. But these Arabs are not the original owners of these lands, so what makes them more entitled to the land than previous owners? They did not buy the land. They took it by force just like previous conquerors. You have yet to explain why they have more right to the land than any other group in the world throughout history that has had land taken from them by various means.

Whatever UNRWA's stances are, they clearly haven't forced Israel to act in any specific way

That's because they can't, thank God.

Their stances don't change that Israel could be pursuing much fairer and more humane policies but isn't doing so for one reason or another.

While they themselves lounge about victimizing these poor people instead of actually helping them. Why is there a special refugee organization in the UN for these Arabs and another one for the millions of other refugees worldwide? Patently ridiculous. And if you do some research, you'll see that their policies for assisting these people are completely different. There's nothing in UNWRA about helping them get citizenship in other countries. So, refugees for over 70 years, not a single Middle Eastern country willing to give them equal rights. Utterly ridiculous. And the blame rests squarely on Israel's shoulders? What a load of hooey.

 

[jbg]

If you're talking about Palestinians, you're essentially suggesting that people who have lived there for generations just up and go elsewhere—if they even have a place to go to. I have no idea how this makes sense to anyone who also argues that Jews need refuge and a state to belong in, unless one also believes that Palestinians are somehow less human or deserving of rights than Jews.

Why is it that every other "people" have the right to move for their own reasons, or as necessitated by historical events or even weather, and the Jews don't have that right?

That's just the thing tho, many of them have NOT been there for 'generations',

Many came to perform paid labor for incoming Zionist settlers.Their descendants made a decision to fight rather than join the nascent nation.

And that will please those who say "Peace is the answer" and go on about 'Sincere Prayers'...but are actually little better than Nazis, and will celebrate Israel's end. Hell has a place 4U.

That kind of "peace" is the peace of the grave; cemeteries are very peaceful, reflective places.

 

[Shaul]

The very idea of a state granting special treatment to some people based on ethnic or religious identity—be it Islamic, Jewish, or otherwise—strikes me as supremacist and dangerous. Israel is an apartheid state whose current structure needs to be fundamentally reformed if it is to become an egalitarian, humane state.

All countries control their borders and immigration. Many, if not most, countries include ethnicity among their criteria. Jewish, as used by the State of Israel's immigration system, is an ethnic tribal definition, not a religious one in actuality. That is, an irreligious Jew (G-d forbid) is eligible for immigration. So anyone that wants to single out the State of Israel's immigration criteria because it includes the use of ethnicity is wrong to do so. And anyone that exclusively targets the State of Israel for doing so is themselves racist or discriminatory. Furthermore, the State of Israel is not, and never has been an apartheid state. Indeed calling the State of Israel an apartheid state is libelous. But many of its detractors who insist that the land of Judea and Samaria must be "Judenrein" and/or want to isolate and marginalize the State of Israel are themselves guilty of practicing apartheid.

 

[wellwisher]

This is a political question with religious roots. The 1950 right of return did not use the strict definition of who is a Jew for immigration to Israel. This is now controversial. It goes along with the ultra-Orthodox not thinking of Conservative and Reform folk as really practicing Judaism. It reminds me of the Islamic fanatics who attack those who they consider to be not really Muslims. Of course the actions are different but the basic orientation is the same: who is OK and who is not. But violence is building in Israel over this clash.

Israel’s far right targets Law of Return to restrict Jewish immigration

Bezalel Smotrich, Religious Zionism’s leader, promised earlier this month to change Israel’s immigration policy, which was passed unanimously in 1950 to deliver on the promise of a Jewish homeland in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

“It is a social and Jewish time bomb that must be dealt with,” Smotrich said of the policy in an interview with the ultra-Orthodox radio station Kol Barama this month.

Israel’s Law of Return guarantees citizenship to any Jew, from any country in the world, who is able to prove a connection to at least one Jewish grandparent. It enabled the immigration of some 900,000 Jews from other parts of the Arab world, more than 1 million Jews escaping the collapse of the Soviet Union, and tens of thousands fleeing religious persecution in Ethiopia.

But Avi Maoz, head of the ultranationalist Noam party, said in a recent statement that the policy “is absurdly used to bring gentiles into the State of Israel, and to systematically lower the percentage of Jews in the State of Israel. It’s time to fix this thing, and that’s what we’ll do.”
...
According to data from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, most of the Jews who have immigrated to Israel from former Soviet countries would not have qualified under Maoz’s proposed criteria, which is based on halacha, or Jewish law, rather than state law.
...
The rift between American Jews and Israel has been widening for a long time, according to Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents the largest denomination of Judaism in the United States but is considered illegitimate by the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel.
...
At last month’s Rosh Hodesh prayer, activists holding umbrellas emblazoned with the slogan “When we pray, it soars” were physically assaulted by unidentified men who wrestled away the umbrellas, breaking some of them.

Women of the Wall will start its first day of self-defense training on the day the new government is sworn in.

One of the problems is there were twelve tribes of Jacob; Israel, with Judah only one of the twelve tribes. There is a track of land that is reserved for each of the twelve tribes.

There is no problem with Jews migrating to their parcel; labeled Judah below, but expansion into the territories of other tribes may be temporary. Jerusalem is within the borders of the tribe of Benjamin.

The twelve tribes were scattered with only Judah finding it way home, so far. Prophesies has the remaining tribes finding their way home.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

This is a political question with religious roots. The 1950 right of return did not use the strict definition of who is a Jew for immigration to Israel. This is now controversial. It goes along with the ultra-Orthodox not thinking of Conservative and Reform folk as really practicing Judaism. It reminds me of the Islamic fanatics who attack those who they consider to be not really Muslims. Of course the actions are different but the basic orientation is the same: who is OK and who is not. But violence is building in Israel over this clash.

Israel’s far right targets Law of Return to restrict Jewish immigration

Bezalel Smotrich, Religious Zionism’s leader, promised earlier this month to change Israel’s immigration policy, which was passed unanimously in 1950 to deliver on the promise of a Jewish homeland in the aftermath of the Holocaust.

“It is a social and Jewish time bomb that must be dealt with,” Smotrich said of the policy in an interview with the ultra-Orthodox radio station Kol Barama this month.

Israel’s Law of Return guarantees citizenship to any Jew, from any country in the world, who is able to prove a connection to at least one Jewish grandparent. It enabled the immigration of some 900,000 Jews from other parts of the Arab world, more than 1 million Jews escaping the collapse of the Soviet Union, and tens of thousands fleeing religious persecution in Ethiopia.

But Avi Maoz, head of the ultranationalist Noam party, said in a recent statement that the policy “is absurdly used to bring gentiles into the State of Israel, and to systematically lower the percentage of Jews in the State of Israel. It’s time to fix this thing, and that’s what we’ll do.”
...
According to data from Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, most of the Jews who have immigrated to Israel from former Soviet countries would not have qualified under Maoz’s proposed criteria, which is based on halacha, or Jewish law, rather than state law.
...
The rift between American Jews and Israel has been widening for a long time, according to Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism, which represents the largest denomination of Judaism in the United States but is considered illegitimate by the Orthodox rabbinate in Israel.
...
At last month’s Rosh Hodesh prayer, activists holding umbrellas emblazoned with the slogan “When we pray, it soars” were physically assaulted by unidentified men who wrestled away the umbrellas, breaking some of them.

Women of the Wall will start its first day of self-defense training on the day the new government is sworn in.

I don't care. I just want my government to stop supporting it and involving us in this crap by stealing our taxpayer dollars to prop up foreign countries who don't give us a damn thing in return. We send Israel billions each year and bend over backwards, even allowing the scandal of foreign lobbyists to buy off US "elected representatives", meanwhile they spy on us and commit atrocities. If God is truly with them, they'll be just fine without us. Americans need that money much more.

Oh, and if ethnic Europeans or white people spoke like that Avi guy, they'd be called Nazis and racists - probably by people like Avi, although white people are in a worsening demographic decline. Love the double standards.