Monday Mar 09, 2009
Posted by David Turner
For the second time in little more than a year an influential Israeli politician appears intent on turning Israel's Law of Return into a political football. This week Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit suggested revising or abolishing the Law. In December 2007, Knesset Constitution and Law Committee chairman Menachem Ben-Sasson decided he would rush a constitution through his committee in time for Israel's Independence Day. A key element of the new constitution was a modification of the Law of Return to conform to Halacha. As if all Jews living today, in Israel and the Diaspora, are Orthodox and share a single set of beliefs, rituals and traditions.
Monday Dec 17, 2007
Posted by David Turner
In a previous submission, Hands off the Law of Return , respondents covered the spectrum of issues related, it seemed to me, to the title, but few spoke of the issues raised in the article itself. For instance, why was the Law and its Grandparent Clause among the first Basic Laws enacted by the new State of Israel, why was this law considered a priority? Why, if it was to be the gatekeeper regarding persons to be granted instant refuge and citizenship did it not defer to Halacha, Jewish traditional law, defining a Jew as born of a Jewish mother? Why instead was the Law written to include the child of a single Jewish grandparent, regardless of the grandchild's present religion, as gateway to Jewish identity for purposes of refuge? All of these questions relate back to the foundations of Zionism, to the very need and quest for a state of the Jews.
I
Religious Jews had, as far back as the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman dispersion, returned to Zion in small numbers to fulfill the Halachic injunction to physically live on the land. With the Enlightenment, Europe broke the bonds of Christian theocracy and emancipated the Jews. For the first time in the Diaspora, Jews were accepted as equals and citizens in the lands of their residence. But with "European enlightenment" came a new theory of Jewish difference. No longer seen through the lens of religion, Jews were now designated biologically different, a race separate from their neighbors. And the secular version of anti-Judaism, racial antisemitism was born. Faced with this new and even more virulent discrimination and persecution, Jews came to realize that ,even as they were now granted civil citizenship in their countries of residence they were still, and would always remain the 'Other', foreign in the eyes of their hosts and neighbors.
Monday Dec 10, 2007
Posted by David Turner
The Law of Return is the single most important document defining the character of the Jewish State and its relationship with the Jewish People. The move to amend it represents the most serious assault on that relationship since Ben-Gurion proclaimed statehood in 1948.
Menachem Ben-Sasson, chairman of the Knesset Constitution Committee announced that he would hold 12 hours of discussions with the intention of cobbling together a constitution in time for Israel?s 60th Independence Day celebration. Among the controversial issues the committee is to consider is a ?compromise? version of the Law of Return. According to Ben-Sasson all sides will be taken into consideration, all sides will be represented in the final document. This is not encouraging since ?all sides? to be considered includes the Rabbinate?s push for a Halachic-only definition of 'Who is a Jew'. Such a definition would potentially alienate the majority of Jews living in the Diaspora. The third rail of Israeli-Diaspora relations, Who is a Jew must have no place in redefining the Law of Return.
|
 |
About this blog
Guest Blog
Your turn to share your thoughts on the universe. This forum is open to all our readers and contributors. Have your say by sending your post to the Blogs Editor.
|
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Recent Comments
David W. Lincoln Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: It has been said that things equal to the same thing, are equal to each other. Muslims claim to be monotheists. Let them prove it in the light of the double standard (at the very least) they employ when it comes to the redressing of man's inhumanity to man. Now, Jew & Christian can agree on "The Abolition of man" by C.S. Lewis (at least, I think so), because a gauge can be used for each area of life. Given that each area of life is accountable to the same standard, they are equal. Which counters those who would put gov't, or church, or economy ahead of other areas.
David USA: All this palavering is unnecessary. All that is need is eradicating the mutual vilifications in each religion's scriptures. That goes for New Testament, Talmud and Koran.
|
|
Comments (20)