scholarly journals The “Jewish premium”: attitudes towards Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants arriving in Israel under the Law of Return

2022 ◽  
Vol 45 (16) ◽  
pp. 144-167
Author(s):  
Oshrat Hochman ◽  
Rebeca Raijman
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
Jewish Immigrants ◽  
Law Of Return

scholarly journals From Ben-Gurion to Venezuelan Converts

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-108
Author(s):  
Danni Reches
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Jewish State ◽  
Religious Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Jewish Immigrants ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Law Of Return ◽  
State Of Israel

This study analyzes the development of the unique Law of Return (LOR) of the State of Israel. The LOR is aimed at enabling the immigration of all Jews to Israel and can be viewed as an expression of Israel’s ethno-religious self-definition. The analysis includes amendments made to the LOR since its implementation in 1950 to today, and how different groups of Jewish immigrants have been affected by the law. Moreover, this paper introduces a case study that so far has not received the scholarly attention it deserves; the exodus from Venezuela and the particular case of nine Venezuelan converts to Judaism in accordance with the Conservative branch of the religion. The research uncovers that the LOR contains a core contradiction. While it should be assumed that everyone is treated equally before the law, discrepancies in the treatment of different individuals and groups of people with regard to the LOR continue taking place. The differences in treatment are due to the fact that terms such as ‘Jew’ and ‘Jewish convert’ are subjective in accordance withWeber’s theory on ethnicity and the terms have been given different meanings by Jewish religious law, the Supreme Court, and the legislative power. While recognizing that the definition of these terms form the identity of the State of Israel, which is heavily contested between Orthodox religious and secular forces since its establishment as a Jewish State – this study offers suggestions for approaches to dealing with the randomness of the LOR. These consist of two main points: clarifying who should be responsible for verifying the question of who is a Jew, and listing a set of criteria that a person should meet in order to be eligible for the LOR.

From Jewish Messianism to the Law of Return

2011 ◽  
pp. 155-188
Author(s):  
Howard Adelman ◽  
Elazar Barkan
Keyword(s):  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Return

The Meaning and Liberal Justifications of Israel's Law of Return

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 564-602
Author(s):  
Dan Ernst
Keyword(s):  
National Identity ◽  
The State ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Jewish Immigration ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Of Return ◽  
State Of Israel ◽  
Land Of Israel

The Article argues for a new assessment of the significance of Israel's Law of Return—that the Law of Return reflects not the sovereign prerogative of a state to control immigration, but the right of every Jew to settle in the Land of Israel. This understanding of the Law of Return explains why Section 4 proclaims that as far as the Law is concerned, the status of Jews born within the State of Israel is the same as those arriving to Israel from abroad. Resolving the anomaly of Section 4 dispels several misinterpretations of the Law of Return and the critiques of the Law which grow out of these misinterpretations. The Article also surveys and answers several liberal objections to Israel's policy of granting preference in immigration and naturalization based on ethno-national identity and presents an argument, for giving priority to Jewish immigration and naturalization based on the extra benefits (religious, political, and communal) that Jews receive from such immigration and naturalization. Finally, it is submitted that the State of Israel has an obligation of justice to admit Jews into the state as full citizens upon their demand, since this was a reasonable expectation of those in past generations who had contributed to the existence and maintenance of the state.

Judaism's Eternal Triangle

1987 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-323
Author(s):  
Raphael Loewe
Keyword(s):  
Ab Initio ◽  
The Other ◽  
National Sovereignty ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Law Of Return

Twenty years ago I attempted to clarify thinking about Judaism in proposing a more refined terminology which, if properly used, would eliminate the all too frequent fallacies of equivocation by which discussion is bedevilled (‘Defining Judaism:Some Ground-Clearing’, Jewish Journal of Sociology, VII, 2, 1965, pp. 153–75). It is not my purpose here simply to exhume that article: on the other hand, I do not feel that I can usefully begin again ab initio, since the situation has not been radically transformed as it had been in the thirty years preceding 1965. The two decades since and including the Six Days War have witnessed much entrenchment of position, intensification of doctrinaire assertion, and heightening of enthusiasm, but little inclination (until the Lebanon War began to stimulate it in Israel) towards questioning what have become popularly accepted axioms:and it is still the case that anyone who dares to question the assumption that Israeli national sovereignty now is, and for all time will remain, a sine qua non for the survival of Judaism will not get much of a hearing. What I intend here is to reconsider my earlier findings from the angles of belief, authority, and peoplehood, particularly since I feel that the last-mentioned had perhaps been allowed inadequate weight in my previous endeavour. I consequently repeat here, for convenience of reference, the terminological distinctions proposed in that article, together with the tentative working definition of Judaism with which it concluded. I doubt its usefulness, save from a negative standpoint, i.e. what it excludes. But if we are to consider peoplehood, we need to know who, and what, is a Jew: and the only uniquely valid definition of a Jew that satisfies me is a transmitter of Judaism. The question seems to me otherwise meaningless without some terms of reference, e.g. who is a Jew for purposes of joining synagogue X, or speaking for Anglo-Jewry or world Jewry at forum Y, or qualifying for Israeli citizenship under the law of return, etc. Here, then, is my tentative formula:

scholarly journals A Model of the Process of Listening to Simple Rhythms

1989 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-328 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
Hierarchical Structure ◽  
Computer Model ◽  
Organizational Principle ◽  
The Law ◽  
Law Of Return

This article discusses a computer model of the process of listening to simple rhythms. The model consists of (1) a way of dividing the rhythm into appropriate chunks, (2) a means of constructing recognizers for the chunks, and (3) an organization of the recognizers into a hierarchical structure. Each node in the structure is a recognizer for the nodes immediately below it in the hierarchy. The model explains certain aesthetic qualities of music as necessary for the model's efficient function. In particular, the model provides a procedural explanation for what Leonard Meyer (1956) has called the "law of return," which states that an important organizational principle in music is the return to previously heard material after an intervening time during which the material is absent. The model uses points where this occurs to determine the overall structure of the rhythm and to construct a hierarchical description.

Nationalist Priorities and Restrictions in Immigration: The Case of Israel

2008 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaim Gans
Keyword(s):  
Jewish People ◽  
The State ◽  
Right Wing ◽  
Fully Integrated ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Occupied Territories ◽  
The Law ◽  
Draft Bill ◽  
The Right ◽  
Law Of Return

It may be that the appropriate demographic objective of Israel as a country in which the Jewish people realize their right to self-determination is the existence of a Jewish public in Israel in numbers sufficient to allow its members to live in the framework of their culture. It may also be that the appropriate demographic objective of Israel should be the existence of a Jewish majority within it. While I discussed this issue elsewhere; here I discuss the legitimate means for the realization of these goals. Israel’s principal means for realizing these objectives thus far has been its Law of Return and its Citizenship Law. These laws afford every Jew anywhere in the world the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen of the State of Israel. Many liberals and left-wingers consider these laws to be tainted with racism, because they regard any nationally-based preference with regard to immigration to be a form of racism. In the first part of my paper I argue against this position. I offer three justifications for nationality-based preferences in immigration. However, the fact that nationality-based priorities in immigration are not necessarily racist and that there are legitimate human interests justifying such priorities, does not entail that the specific priorities manifested by Israel’s Law of Return and its other immigration and citizenship policies are just. These policies in effect mean that all Jews and only Jews (or anyone related or married to a Jew) have the right to immigrate to Israel and to become fully integrated in Israeli life. In the second part of the paper, I argue that these two aspects of Israel’s immigration policies, namely, its almost categorical inclusion of all Jews and its almost categorical exclusion of all non-Jews, are somewhat problematic. In addition to the Law of Return, a number of additional ways to ultimately increase the number of Jews in relation to the number of Arabs have been proposed and even adopted in Israel in recent years. During the incumbency of the fifteenth Knesset, right-wing Member of Knesset Michael Kleiner tabled a draft bill intended “to encourage people that do not identify with the Jewish character of the state [i.e., Palestinian citizens of Israel C.G.] to leave.” The Israeli Government later tabled a bill—that was eventually passed—to amend the Israeli Citizenship Law in a manner that would deny Arabs who are Israeli citizens and have married Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories the right to live in Israel with their spouses and children. In the third part of the paper, I clarify why in contrast to granting Jews priority in immigration, both the aforementioned laws, namely, Kleiner’s law and the law pertaining to family unification are racist and are therefore morally unacceptable.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document