This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (May 2011)

This article has been nominated to be checked for its neutrality. Discussion of this nomination can be found on the talk page. (May 2011)

The neutrality of the style of writing in this article is questioned. Please see the discussion on the talk page. (May 2011)

Israel

This article is part of the series: Politics and government of Israel

Constitution Basic Laws Jerusalem Law Law of Return Government President (List) Shimon Peres Prime Minister (List) Benjamin Netanyahu Deputy leaders Cabinet Security Cabinet Kitchen Cabinet State Comptroller Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin Members Leader of the Opposition Shaul Mofaz Arab members Knesset Guard Elections Elections in Israel Political parties Elections Law Central Elections Committee Referendums Judiciary Judicial System Supreme Court Dorit Beinisch Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein Subdivisions Districts Local government City council Local councils Regional councils Foreign policy Foreign affairs Israel and the UN Israel and the EU Ambassadors Israeli-Palestinian conflict Arab-Israeli conflict International Law Arab League

Other countries · Atlas Politics portal view talk edit

Aliyah to Israel
Pre-Zionist Aliyah
The Return to Zion Old Yishuv
Before 14 May 1948
First Aliyah · Second Aliyah During World War I Third Aliyah · Fourth Aliyah Fifth Aliyah During and after World War II Bricha
After 14 May 1948
Operation Magic Carpet Operation Ezra and Nehemiah 1968 Polish aliyah 1970s Soviet Union aliyah Aliyah from Ethiopia 1990s CIS aliyah 2000s Latin America aliyah
Concepts
Judaism · Zionism Jewish homeland Jewish messianism Law of Return Galut · Yerida
Persons and organizations
Theodor Herzl · Knesset El Al · Nefesh B'Nefesh World Zionist Organization
Related topics
History of Israel History of Zionism Israeli Jews Jewish diaspora Jewish history Jews in the Land of Israel Religious Zionism Revival of the Hebrew language · Yishuv
v t e

The Law of Return (Hebrew: חוק השבות, ḥok ha-shvūt) is Israeli legislation, passed on 5 July 1950, that gives Jews the right of return and settlement in Israel and gain citizenship.^[1] In 1970, the right of entry and settlement was extended to people of Jewish ancestry, and their spouses.

Law[link]

The Law of Return 5710-1950 was enacted by the Knesset, Israel's Parliament, on July 5, 1950.^[2] The Law of Return declares the right of Jews to come to Israel, claimed to be their ancestral homeland, and to facilitate their immigration. The Law stated: "Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh." Follow-up legislation on immigration matters was contained in the Nationality Law of 1952. The Law of Return was modified in 1970 to include non-Jews with a Jewish grandparent, and their spouses.

The law since 1970 applies to those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or maternal grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages).

Purpose[link]

In the Law of Return, the State of Israel put into practice the Zionist movement's "credo" as pledged in Israel's Declaration of Independence and recognized by the League of Nations in 1922, when charging Britain with the duty of establishing a Jewish National Home, and by the United Nations within the Partition Plan of 1947 which provided for establishment of Israel as a Jewish state.

Eligibility requirements[link]

Those who emigrate to Israel under the Law of Return are immediately entitled to citizenship. However, differences of opinion have arisen as to whether a person who claims citizenship under the Law of Return should be automatically registered as "Jewish" for census purposes. According to the halakhic definition, a person is Jewish if his or her mother is Jewish, or if he or she converts to Judaism. Orthodox Jews do not recognize conversions performed by Reform or Conservative Judaism. However, the Law provides that any Jew regardless of affiliation may migrate to Israel and claim citizenship.

Originally, the Law of Return was restricted to Jews only. A 1970 amendment, however, stated that, "The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law... are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew."

A Jew can be excluded from Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return if he or she is considered to be dangerous to the welfare of the State of Israel. Jews who have a past that involves a serious crime, such as murder, or who are fugitives in another country for any felony (unless they are persecution victims) can be denied the right of return, (e.g. Meyer Lansky, Victor Vancier).^[3] The Law of Return also excludes any "person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion."

The Jewish Ancestry Amendment[link]

The 1970 amendment was induced by the debate on "Who is a Jew" (until then the law did not refer to the question). There are several explanations for the decision to be so inclusive. One is that the Law of Return attempts to provide sanctuary as a citizen in Israel to anyone who would be persecuted under the Nuremberg Laws. As the Nuremberg Laws did not use a halakhic definition in its definition of "Who is a Jew", the Law of Return definition for citizenship eligibility is not halakhic, either. The Law of Return provides sanctuary to anyone covered by the definition under the Nuremberg Laws, but does not automatically presume that the person is halakhicly Jewish for the purposes of laws governing personal status.

Furthermore, the clause in Amendment number 2, 4a, states,

"The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion."^[4]

Therefore a Jew who has voluntarily changed his religion is not considered a Jew according to the law of return, but would have been persecuted as a Jew under the Nuremberg laws regardless of his change of religion, and is still a Jew according to halacha (see "Who is a Jew" - section 1.3 - Jews who have practiced another faith), but is nevertheless ineligible to immigrate under the law of return.

Another explanation is the 1968 wave of immigration from Poland, following an antisemitic campaign by the government. These immigrants were very assimilated and had many non Jewish family members.^[5]

The Israeli Rabbinate is a purely Orthodox body that is far more strict in defining 'who is a Jew'. This creates a situation in which thousands of immigrants who are eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return's criteria, are ineligible for Jewish marriage by the Israeli Rabbinate .^[6]

Demographic explanation[link]

A second explanation is that in order to increase immigration levels so as to offset the "demographic threat" posed by the continuing presence and growth of the Arab population, the law expanded the base group of those eligible to immigrate to Israel.^[7]

Secular explanation[link]

A third explanation promoted by religious Jews is that the overwhelmingly secular leadership in Israel sought to undermine the influence of religious elements in Israeli politics and society by allowing more secular Jews and their non-Jewish spouses to immigrate.^[8]

Followers of Messianic Judaism[link]

The Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 1989 that Messianic Judaism constituted another religion (it is considered by most Christians and Jews to be a form of Christianity), and that people who had become Messianic Jews were not therefore eligible for Aliyah under the law.^[9]

On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in a case brought by a number of people with Jewish fathers and grandfathers whose applications for citizenship had been rejected on the grounds that they were Messianic Jews. The argument was made by the applicants that they had never been Jews according to halakha, and were not therefore excluded by the conversion clause. This argument was upheld in the ruling,^[10][11] and the government agreed to reprocess their applications.

Effect[link]

Since 1950, 2,734,245 Jews have immigrated to Israel.^[12] Hundreds of thousands of non-Jews have received Israeli citizenship, as the law confers citizenship to all offspring of a Jew (including grandchildren).^[13]

Controversy[link]

The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2011)

Claims of Discrimination[link]

Critics claim that the Law of Return runs counter to the claims of a democratic state.^[14][15][16]

Palestinians and advocates for Palestinian refugee rights criticize the Law of Return, which they compare with the Palestinian claim to a right of return.^[17] These critics consider the Law, as contrasted against the denial of the right of return, as offensive and as institutionalized ethnic discrimination.^[18]

In June 2011, the Law came under scrutiny when a gay couple of a Jewish man, and a non-Jewish man made Aliyah to Israel. Although the Jewish man quickly received citizenship, the decision of citizenship for his husband was delayed by the Ministry of the Interior despite the clause in the law saying the spouse of the Jewish immigrant must also be granted citizenship.^[19] Within 2 months, the Ministry of the Interior granted citizenship to the non-Jewish husband as required by The Law of Return.^[20]

Messianic Jews also claim to be discriminated against.

Arguments in support of the Law of Return[link]

Supporters argue that:

1. The Law of Return is not the only way of acquiring citizenship. For example, non-Jews can become citizens by naturalization, residence, or marrying an Israeli citizen. Naturalization, for instance, is available under certain circumstances for the non-Jewish parents of a citizen who has completed his or her army service.^[21] The Law of Return was intended to deal with historic homelessness and persecution of Jews around the world.^[22][23]
2. The right granted to Jews along with their relatives under the Law does not necessarily or automatically discriminate against non-Jews, but is a form of "positive" discrimination. Israel has residency and citizenship laws for non-Jews that are equivalent to those in other liberal democracies. CAMERA argues that the Law of Return is consistent with Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article I(3), which CAMERA says allows for preferential immigration treatment of some groups without discrimination against a particular group.^[24] Thus, CAMERA^[24] and others^[25] argue that other countries, including Germany, provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries (See Right of return and Repatriation laws).
3. While the purpose of the Law of Return is perhaps to keep Israel predominantly Jewish, an argument states that a world where Jews have been persecuted, the concept of maintaining a Jewish state is necessary for the survival of the Jewish people generally and to provide a safe haven for Jewish refugees in specific cases. CAMERA argues the Law of Return is justified under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article I(4), which CAMERA argues allows for affirmative action, because of the discrimination Jews faced during the Holocaust.^[24]
   

   

   A stamp in a passport issuing holder Israeli citizenship based on Law of Return
4. Benjamin Pogrund, director of Yakar's Center for Social Concern in Jerusalem and member of the Israeli delegation to the United Nations World Conference against Racism, calls the law "unfair" from the Palestinian refugees' point of view, but sees the unfairness as having happened in other places too. Pogrund compares the flight/expulsion of Palestinians (both in 1948 and 1967) to Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, India and Pakistan.^[26]

Debate in Israel[link]

In Israel, a debate continues over the Law of Return. Some people wish to retain it as it stands, others want to modify it, and some to abolish the Law completely. Those who would abolish the Law object to it because it grants Jews rights that members of other groups governed by the State of Israel do not have.^[27] Others argue that the law permits the entry of too many non-Jews, thereby undermining its purpose.^[28]

In September 2007, the discovery of a violent Neo-Nazi cell (Patrol 35) in Petah Tikva, made up of teenage immigrants from the former Soviet Union, led to renewed calls amongst politicians to amend the Law of Return.^[29] Effi Eitam of the National Religious Party and the National Union, which represent the religious Zionist movement and have previously attempted to advance bills to amend the Law of Return, stated that Israel has become "a haven for people who hate Israel, hate Jews, and exploit the Law of Return to act on this hatred."^[30] On the other end of the political spectrum, MK Ahmed Tibi of United Arab List and Ta'al criticized the system's double-standard, stating that, "people immigrated to Israel and received automatic citizenship under the Law of Return, while citizens of Nazareth and Tayibe are not allowed to visit their own relatives merely due to the fact that they are Arabs."^[30]

Thirty-six percent of Israelis polled said that deeper background checks on new immigrants would amount to racism against Jews from Russian speaking countries.^[31]

Applicability[link]

See also Who is a Jew?

Amongst those who are in favor of retaining the Law, controversy exists over its wording. The Law's definition of a "Jew" and "Jewish people" are subject to debate. Israeli and Diaspora Jews differ with each other as groups and among themselves as to what this definition should be for the purposes of the Law of Return. Additionally, there is a lively debate over the meaning of the terms "Jewish State" and "State of the Jews".

Discussion around the Law and its wording constantly reappears on private and public agendas in Israel and in the Diaspora. The Knesset has repeatedly debated proposals to amend the Law of Return, and it has indeed been amended a number of times over the years. These modifications reflect the changes that have taken place in Israeli society, the shifts that have taken place in political dialogue both inside Israel itself, and the political discourse between Israel and the Diaspora. The present law constitutes an expression of permanent trends as well as of the Israeli legislative system's ability to adapt itself to changing circumstances.

It is not only the Knesset, however, which has been repeatedly obliged to directly or indirectly address these issues. Over the years, many of Israel's interior ministers have examined the issue of the Law of Return and wavered as to how to apply it. The judiciary has also been called upon to express an opinion on matters relating to the Law. This burning and recurrent question in the country's political dialogue not only reveals but also exacerbates differences of opinion between Israelis.

One central issue is who has the authority over determining the validity of conversions to Judaism for purposes of immigration and citizenship. For historical reasons, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, under the Israeli Ministry of Religious Affairs, made this determination, but this arrangement is in question. This practice has met opposition among non-Orthodox religious leaders both within Israel and in the diaspora. Several attempts have been made to resolve the issue, the most recent being the Ne'eman Commission, but an impasse persists.

On March 31, 2005, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled 7-4 that all conversions performed outside of Israel would be recognized by the authorities under the Law of Return, notwithstanding the Ne'eman Commission's view that a single body should determine eligibility for immigration. Orthodox religious leaders objected vehemently to this ruling, arguing that it would lead to fraudulent immigration applications.

See also[link]

• Aliyah
• Basic Laws of Israel
• Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law
• Palestinian right of return
• Politics of Israel
• Population exchange in the Middle East
• Racism in Israel
• Who is a Jew?

References[link]

External links[link]

• The Law of Return - The text of the law and its various amendments
• Democratic Norms, Diasporas, and Israel’s Law of Return by Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein
• The problem is how to become an Israeli by Amnon Rubenstein, Ha'aretz
• Judt Labels Israel "Anachronistic," Calls for Binational State

Michael J. Sandel (born March 5, 1953) is an American political philosopher and a professor at Harvard University. He is best known for the Harvard course 'Justice', which is available to view online, and for his critique of John Rawls' A Theory of Justice in his Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982). He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2002.^[1]

Education[link]

Born in Minneapolis to a Jewish family, which moved to Los Angeles when he was thirteen. A high achiever, he was the President of his senior class at Palisades High School (1971), graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Brandeis University (1975), and received his doctorate from Balliol College, Oxford, as a Rhodes Scholar, where he studied under philosopher Charles Taylor.

Philosophical views[link]

Sandel subscribes to a certain version of communitarianism (although he is uncomfortable with the label), and in this vein he is perhaps best known for his critique of John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. Rawls' argument depends on the assumption of the veil of ignorance, which he claims allows us to become "unencumbered selves".

Sandel's view is that we are by nature encumbered to an extent that makes it impossible even in the hypothetical to have such a veil. Some examples of such ties are the ties we make with our families, which we do not make by conscious choice but are born with them already attached. Because they are not consciously applied, these ties are impossible to separate from someone. Sandel believes that only a less-restrictive, looser version of the veil of ignorance can be possible. Rawls's argument, however, depends on the fact that the veil is restrictive enough that we make decisions without knowing who will be affected by these decisions, which of course is impossible if we are already attached to people in the world.

Teaching[link]

Justice[link]

Sandel has taught the famous "Justice"^[2] course at Harvard for two decades. More than 15,000 students have taken the course, making it one of the most highly attended in Harvard's history. The fall 2007 class was the largest ever at Harvard, with a total of 1,115 students.^[3] The fall 2005 course was recorded, and is offered online for students through the Harvard Extension School. An abridged form of this recording is now a 12-episode TV series, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, in a co-production of WGBH and Harvard University. Episodes are available on the Justice with Michael Sandel website.^[4][5] There is also an accompanying book, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, and the sourcebook of readings Justice: A Reader.

The popularity of the show is attributed to the discussion-oriented format (the Socratic method)—rather than recitation and memorization of facts—and to Sandel's engaging style, incorporating context into discussion; for example, starting one lecture with a discussion of the ethics of ticket scalping.^[6]

The BBC broadcast eight 30-minute segments from the series on BBC Four starting on 25 January 2011.^[7]

In April 2012, BBC Radio 4 broadcast a three-part series presented by Professor Sandel titled The Public Philosopher. These followed a format similar to the Justice lectures, this time recorded in front of an audience at the London School of Economics. Across three programmes, Sandel debates with the audience whether universities should give preference to students from poorer backgrounds; whether a nurse should be paid more than a banker; and whether it is right to bribe people to be healthy. The programmes were made available for download via the BBC podcast Michael Sandel: The Public Philosopher.

Other teaching[link]

Sandel also co-teaches with Douglas Melton "Ethics and Biotechnology", a seminar considering the ethical implications of a variety of biotechnological procedures and possibilities.

Authorship[link]

Sandel is the author of multiple publications including Democracy's Discontent and Public Philosophy. His Public Philosophy is a collection of his own previously published essays, examining the role of morality and justice in American political life. He offers commentary on the roles of moral values and civic community in the American electoral process – a much-debated aspect of the 2004 U.S. election cycle and current political discussion.

Michael Sandel gave the 2009 Reith Lectures on "A New Citizenship" on BBC Radio, addressing the 'prospect for a new politics of the common good'.^[8] The lectures were delivered in London on May 18, Oxford on May 21, Newcastle on May 26, and Washington, D.C., in early June.^[9]

Public service[link]

Sandel served on the George W. Bush administration's President's Council on Bioethics.

2009 immigration commentary[link]

In 2009, Sandel criticized Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker's free-market immigration proposal. This proposed solution entailed imposing refugee quotas on nations according to their wealth and then allowing countries to pay other, poorer countries to take refugees allotted under their quota.^[10] Sandel concludes that "a market in refugees changes our view of who refugees are and how they should be treated. It encourages the participants — the buyers, the sellers and also those whose asylum is being haggled over — to think of refugees as burdens to be unloaded or as revenue sources rather than as human beings in peril."^[11]

Montgomery Burns character[link]

There is an urban legend that Sandel was the inspiration for the Montgomery Burns character in The Simpsons. The joke, of course, is that Sandel could be the anti-Burns: a moral philosopher who has devoted his life to pondering what is the right thing to do. The rumor derives from the facts that (1) several future writers for Fox’s “Simpsons” likely took his popular course "Justice" at Harvard, (2) Sandel used to make Mr. Burns' hand gesture (before Mr. Burns did), and (3) he shares a receding hairline with the evil-minded cartoon character.^[12][13] The connection has been denied by Simpsons writers.^[14]

Works[link]

• Michael J. Sandel, What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, (April 24, 2012), ISBN 978-0-374-20303-0
• Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, (September 15, 2009), ISBN 978-0-374-18065-2
• Michael J. Sandel, Justice: A Reader, Oxford University Press, (September 27, 2007), ISBN 978-0-19-533512-5
• Michael J. Sandel, The Case against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, (January 31, 2007); paperback (September 30, 2009), ISBN 978-0-674-03638-3
• Michael J. Sandel, Public Philosophy: Essays on Morality in Politics, Harvard University Press (October 31, 2006), ISBN 978-0-674-02365-9
• Michael J. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, Cambridge University Press, (March 28, 1998), ISBN 978-0-521-56741-1
• Michael J. Sandel, Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (February 6, 1998), ISBN 978-0-674-19745-9

Other languages

• Michael J. Sandel, Plädoyer gegen die Perfektion (German), Berlin University Press, (January 1, 2008), ISBN 978-3-940432-14-8
• Michael J. Sandel and Maria Luz Melon, El Liberalismo y los Limites de la Justicia (Filosofia del Derecho) (Spanish), Gedisa Editorial, (November 2000), ISBN 978-84-7432-706-9
• Michael J. Sandel, これからの「正義」の話をしよう――いまを生き延びるための哲学(Japanese),早川書房, (May 5, 2010), ISBN 978-4-15-209131-4; translation of "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?", Farrar, Straus and Giroux, (September 15, 2009)
• Michael J. Sandel, "정의란 무엇인가", 서울: 김영사, (Korean) (May 17, 2010), ISBN 978-89-349-3960-3; translation of "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?", Farrar, Straus and Giroux, (September 15, 2009)
• Michael J. Sandel, 正義：一場思辨之旅 (Traditional Chinese),雅言文化, (March 1, 2011), ISBN 978-986-82712-6-5; translation of "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?", Farrar, Straus and Giroux, (September 15, 2009)
• Michael J. Sandel, 公正：该如何做是好？ (Simplified Chinese),中信出版社, (June, 2011), ISBN 978-7-5086-2755-7; translation of "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?", Farrar, Straus and Giroux, (September 15, 2009)

See also[link]

• American philosophy
• List of American philosophers

References[link]

External links[link]

• Harvard University Bio
• Podcast interview with Nigel Warburton on Philosophy Bites on What Shouldn't Be Sold
• Podcast interview with Nigel Warburton on Ethics Bites on the topic of Genetic Enhancement in Sports
• The President's Council on Bioethics
• FORA.tv The Case Against Perfection
• FORA.tv Michael Sandel on Justice: A Journey in Moral Reasoning at the Aspen Institute, one hour excerpt
• A page of links relating to the 2009 Reith Lectures
• Justice with Michael Sandel, WGBH Boston and Harvard University, complete online video with discussion guides, readings and discussion circle
• Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? on Harvard University's YouTube channel
• Fairness and the Big Society Debate on BBC
• Justice: a series of lectures by Michael Sandel on BBC
• 12 Questions with Michael Sandel: An Art of Theory Interview
• Booknotes interview with Sandel on Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, May 19, 1996.