Law of Return: Encyclopedia II - Law of Return - Controversy

Law of Return - Controversy

Critics claim that the Law of Return is part of a larger system of discrimination ("institutional apartheid"), whereby Israeli Jews are given superior civil and social rights over Israeli Arabs. They further claim that the purpose of the Law of Return runs counter to the claims of a democratic state.

Others point to the fact that some countries explicitly bar Jews from obtaining or maintaining citizenship in their respective constitutions. The Israeli constitution explicitly states the exact opposite: that Jewish foreigners along with their relatives are eligible for positive discrimination because they can obtain automatic naturalization.

Defenders of the Law of Return propose two basic arguments:

• That special privileges to one group (i.e., Jews) does not necessarily or automatically discriminate against another. Israel has residency and citizenship laws for non-Jews that are equivalent to those in other liberal democracies. As well, they argue that these kinds of laws are common and consistent with international law, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article I(3) which allows for preferential immigration treatment of some groups, provided there is no discrimination against a specific group.

• That while the purpose of the Law of Return is to keep Israel predominantly Jewish, the policy that it represents is legitimate and justified. In 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. Here defenders cite the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Article I(4), which allows for preferential treatment for some groups in order to remedy past discrimination.

In addition to Israel, several other countries provide immigration privileges to individuals with ethnic ties to these countries (so-called leges sanguinis). As examples:

• Section 116 of Germany's constitution allows people of "ethnic German origin" from Eastern Europe residency and citizenship rights.
• Section 375 of the Greek citizenship law confers automatic citizenship to people of "Greek nationality" if they enlist in military service.
• Section 25(1) of the Bulgarian constitution gives people of "Bulgarian origin" special access to obtaining Bulgarian citizenship.
• Section 13(3) of the Armenian constitution confers automatic citizenship on a "native Armenian" living in the Armenian republic.
• Section 18a of the Finnish foreigners' law states that a person from the Soviet Union who is of "Finnish origin" may, along with their spouse and children, receive permission for permanent residence and citizenship.
• Section 14a of the Irish citizenship law of 1986 grants the interior minister authority to confer automatic citizenship on any applicant of "Irish origin or affiliation".

They also cite many other countries with similar laws, including Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Croatia[1]. Similiarly, the Liberian constitution (currently defunct and being rewritten) allows only people "of Negro descent" (regardless of ethno-national affiliation) to become citizens. All these peculiar citizenship laws seem to have been enacted by states wishing to guarantee a safe-haven to diaspora populations assumed to be living under precarious conditions.

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 a small minority want to abolish the Law completely. Those who would abolish the Law believe that it grants Jews rights that members of other groups governed by the State of Israel do not have, a situation which would be contrary to the spirit of a modern liberal democracy. They further claim that although the law did indeed contribute to immigration and absorption when Israel was established, it is no longer needed. Detractors state that Israel is "Jewish and democratic" not just democratic, that it was established as a Jewish state and a refuge for the Jewish people, not as a pale copy of other world states.

Whether or not the Law of Return is just in general, critics also argue that Israel should provide similar privileges to Palestinian refugees.

Advocates for Palestinians cite several international resolutions and mandates supporting their own claim of a "Right of Return", such as United Nations Resolution 3236 of 1974, which: "Reaffirms also the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return." Similarly, international law states that refugees are entitled to return to the land from which they fled.

Detractors from the Palestinian position argue that:

• UN General Assembly resolutions merely express the political convictions of a simple majority of governments in the assembly and do not approach the status of international law.
• In any event, international laws on refugees do not apply to descendants of refugees.
• A just resolution of the Palestinian refugee problem must take place in a broader context that includes consideration of Jewish refugees from Arab countries, as well as the ability and unwillingness of Arab countries to absorb their Palestinian brothers
• Most importantly, that Israel can not make concessions that would endanger its very survival. An influx of hostile Palestinians to Israel now would seriously endanger the state's security, so a peaceful resolution must precede any such arrangements.

Detractors note that the General Assembly resolutions are neither binding nor rooted in international law, since the Palestinian Arabs who fled did not flee from an established country, but at that time, disputed territory.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Controversy", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki