English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-04-18 17:26:20 · 8 answers · asked by Gamla Joe 7 in Travel Africa & Middle East Israel

I think part of the Law of Return is a bit hypocritical. On the one hand the 1970 amendment allows spouses, children, and grandchildren of Jews to move to Israel regardless of if the Jew they are related to is living in Israel or if they practice Judaism in any way.
From this one would assume that Israel views Jews as an ethnicity even though ones who are not halacicly Jewish are not marked as such by the Israeli census bureau
On the other hand if an ethnic and halachic Jew converts to another religion then they are eligible under the right of return.
This assumes one is Jewish by practicing Judaism.

All I am saying is that maybe should clearer definition of who is under the law of return.

2007-04-18 18:14:35 · update #1

I hope that addition helps

2007-04-18 18:15:04 · update #2

8 answers

Yes the right of return of the native people of Palestine. Its an international law its law 194. 194 a follow-up to 181 " UN security council"which created both Palestine and Israel and point out the return of
Refugees.
For the last 56 years the Palestinian Refugees are living in a United Nation Refugee Camps waiting for UN to implement the UN Security Council resolutions.

2007-04-19 00:55:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3 7

Hello:

Look, the answer is here:

The law of return allows that any jew, son of a jew, or grandchildren of a jewish emigrate to Israel.

But...it's still missing the definition of who is jew?

And that's the main problem. Israel doesn't say who is jew or who is not, that's why on person converted to jew through reformist has the same right to make "aliya"(emigrate to Israel) that one ultra orthodox jew.

But the other problem is to keep the majority of Israel jew.
If we make more difficult the law of return, the arabs will be more and more.
Jews have in average 2 childrens, arabs 6.

2007-04-20 08:58:26 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes and no. The country was founded on the principle that Jewish people from all over the world would have a nation to return to, to call home or to go to escape persecution. To change that would be to change the fundamental purpose of the nation. Look at another country like the US, at one point 99.9% of current residents were immigrants, now it's one of the hardest countries in the world to immigrate to. What if that was to happen to Israel in a time where there are Jews trying to escape persecution? On the other hand, people are flooding Israel right now in search of a better life and it is a small country to fit that many people.

2007-04-18 17:33:22 · answer #3 · answered by מימי 6 · 3 1

The question of who is Jewish is a very big controversy by itself as the orthodox stream who runs all religious matters in Israel is unwilling to accept other streams such as the reforms. As a consequence a lot of Jews from America are not officially Jewish and have problems of getting religious services etc.
As for Muslims - of course it is unthinkable to allow all the so called "refugees" to return to their long abandoned homes. This would mean the end of the state of Israel as we know it.

2007-04-19 08:24:30 · answer #4 · answered by Mr Y 2 · 1 3

As I understand it, it says that any person who is a Jew may go to Israel and be accepted as a citizen. If that is so, I do not see a problem with it. I am sure it is expensive for Israel, but they seem to have managed all these years, and seem to be quite enthusiastic about it even today. Please forgive me if in my ignorance I have missed something. Please let me know if there is some reason why you believe it should change.
I am at roscoedeadbeat@yahoo.com

2007-04-18 17:48:18 · answer #5 · answered by roscoedeadbeat 7 · 2 1

to boot to PB's and Tehilla's large solutions, enable me cope with this: "human beings won't be able to agree on the thanks to interpret written regulation/custom because it truly is amazingly rigid, compared to oral regulation/custom, which will be changed subsequently without replacing the intentions in the back of it." We Jews spend infinite quantities of time debating the regulation, yet no longer the large products. lots of the controversy is contained in the small information (it truly is named pilpul) and is carried out to make positive that each and each one the data and possibilities are presented to interest. The Talmud (Mishna and Gemara) are not any more changed on the bigger themes, yet as issues replace (sources guidelines, as an celebration), they're frequently taken into consideration and stated. I recommend that you examine somewhat extra from respected internet sites and books!

2016-12-04 07:14:43 · answer #6 · answered by janta 4 · 0 0

If they don't already they should change it so a Jewish person on the run from a serious crime can't get in using it as a ruse to escape justice.

2007-04-19 14:43:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes. I don't think that it should include people who only have one Jewish grandparent. As we see with some of the Russian immigrants who fall into this category, it lends itself to a lot of problems.

2007-04-19 05:31:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

fedest.com, questions and answers