As for Israeli immigration policy, I don’t see it as being any different than equivalent policies in other nations - every country picks and chooses who it will let in based on its own criteria. But let’s admit the truth - immigration policy is one area where Jews have a legal bias in their favor.
Sure. And the reasoning for this bias is sound.
Like the ‘Affirmative Action’ Australia used to enforce prior to enacting the Racial Discrimination Act - otherwise known as the White Australia Policy. rolleyes
I agree. I don’t think Israeli immigration policy is any indication of prejudice. I’m just saying it is an example of an Israeli law which treats Jews and non-Jews in a different manner.
Certainly. Though one should know that the definition of who is a “Jew” is a bit complex - as Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. Thus, one could easily be an athiest and be a “Jew” for the purpose of the Law of Return.
Some other nations have similar laws - I believe that until recently it was easier for “ethnic Germans” to become citizens of Germany than (say) Turks; and in Japan, I belive it can be difficult for non-ethnic Japanese to become citizens.
The policy was enacted in response to the disasters of WW2, when many Jews were fleeing from Europe but there was no-one willing to take 'em in. It proved useful since, when the Shephardim were expelled from much of the ME.
I don’t think it a harshly discriminatory policy, myself. It is a “loophole” in the usual immigration system, and one that obviously could not be expanded to everyone (no country in the world has unlimited immigration), and would be politically difficult to shut basically for historic reasons.
Though it certainly provides fodder for those looking to classify Israel as an “aparthied state”, with I think very little justification.
I never said such countries didn’t exist. I knew someone’d come up with an example and that by doing so they’d make my point for me.
Israel have been accused of that several time
Wasn’t zionism once labeled as racism by UN ?
Yes, and later (UN Resolution 4686) it was revoked – as you would have known if you had bothered to actually read the thread before posting.
You might want to see what the State Department has to say about disparate treatment of religious groups in Israel. In the past, there have been issues with spouses and children (and stepchildren) of Jews who immigrated to Israel as a family unit under the Law of Return being allowed to remain in Israel in cases of divorce, etc., if they do not independently qualify as Jews under Israeli law.
For that matter, I find it repugnant that non-Orthodox Jews are forced to follow Orthodox religious law in matters of family status; there is no such thing as a civil marriage in Israel, for example, so any Jew who objects to being married in an Orthodox ceremony has to leave the country to get married. Same goes for any interfaith (or Godless) marriages.
Regarding civil marriage: yes, you are right. Civil marriages are not allowed in Israel.
First, some historical backgroud:
Under the Ottoman rule (the millet system), all matters of personal status, (not sure about the precise details, but basically things such as marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance etc.), were reserved for the religious authorities of the respective communities – Moslem, Jewish and Christian. The British mandatory authorities have broadly retained the status quo regarding marriage and other personal status matters.
Later, Israeli law maintained quite a lot of the Mandatory Laws (quite a few of these are still in affect to this day).
Later, as the tension between orthodox Jews and non-orthodox Jews grew, the “soothing peaceful midway” had been to maintain the status-quo, which, among other things, maintained marriage rights to the rabbinical system.
In the past few years, the secular Jews’ resentment to this status quo has been growing. I, personally, believe that in the next few years this law will be changes.
Currently, Israeli couples not wishing to an orthodox wedding have two choices:
- Marrying abroad. Israel recognizes civil marriages conducted abroad. About 5-10% of current marriages choose this way according to some (Israeli) sources.
- It is also possible to obtain a legal status of “known in public” (I’m not sure if that’s the correct English term, of if an English term even exists. It means, basically, that “everyone” knows you’re a couple who keep a family live). That usually will be accompanied with a prenuptial agreement and other agreements to establish the monitory standings between the couple. This way, the couple will have basically all (or at least most) of the rights and duties of married couple as far as the state is concerned, without being formally recognized as married.
It may be interesting to know that same-sex couples were recognized in courts to have this de-facto marriage status.
A personal note: I was married in an orthodox marriage, which I don’t conceive to be excessively oppressive. In fact, even given the possibility, I would probably have married this way, as a token of respect for my parents for whom it’s important. But I wholeheartedly support personal choice in this matter. As I said, I believe the status quo in this regard will change in a few years.
Puzzler,
What you describe reminds me very much of the divorce law in the Philippines: can’t get divorced there, the country doesn’t recognize divorces abroad between two Philippine citizens, and does recognize the divorce abroad if a non-Philippine citizen initiated the divorce proceedings.
If the country’s going to recognize it if done abroad, why not go ahead and make it permissible at home?
The “known in public” you describe is almost the same as Common Law Marriage. Not all the states in the United States permit Common Law Marriage; however, they will recognize it from states that do permit it.
A question for you on recognition of divorces abroad: I had read some time ago that Israel only recognizes divorces abroad of Jews if the divorce has been declared by a Rabbi on the Israeli government’s lists of approving authorities for that. What’s the current deal on that?
I’m not Puzzler, of course, but I’ll try to tackle these, too:
No, I’m pretty sure something is being left out here… I think that a religiously-married Jewish couple (marrige recognized in Israel) that up and gets divorced by a Rabbi – that Rabbi has to be recognized by Israeli authorities. But if the wife runs away to 'Vegas and gets a completely legal and binding divorce (recognized by the local government, e.g., the US Federal govt.), then Israel will recognize it, too.
This is OTTOMH, so I may be wrong – but in fits into the general scheme of how marriage and divorce abroad are treated here, and I’m pretty sure my recollection is correct here.
Yes, I’m pretty sure he meant what is known in English as “Common-Law Marriage.”
Just to expand a bit on Puzzler’s post – CLM is so close to “official” marriage in terms of what rights (and duties) the couple has that, in terms of what you get from the State, they might as well be interchangeable. And every time somebody tries to deny a CLM couple a right that an “officially married” couple has, it ends up with a court decreeing one more right that must be given to CLM couples. Which has been cleverly used by some couples (in the manner of the US “Monkey Trials” of the 1920’s) to make sure their rights got written into legal precedent 
You mean this bit?
Seems to me that, according to this document, there were indeed problems with implementation, particularly in relation to ex-Soviet immigrants. They were dealt with through the courts. I do not know for a fact, but can guess (as a result of some experience in the matter), that this discrimination had much to do with the rather bad stereotype of ex-Soviet citizens as basically fraudsters and scammers, resulting in a certain degree of official discrimination against them (since repealed).
Some problems remain, resulting I think from the excessive political power wielded by Orthodox political parties as a result of Israel’s electoral system.
However, the issue is the legitimacy of classifying Israel as an “Aparthied State”, on the basis of this stuff. Which seems to me to be an absurd bit of hyperbole.
Tangentially related anecdote (I think this thread is beyond the point of being hijackable)…
A rabbi of my acquaintance once married a couple in unusual fashion… the groom was a convert to Reform Judaism – hence, not recognized as a Jew by Orthodox authorities and hence ineligible to have a legally recognized religious Jewish wedding in Israel. Nonetheless, he had his heart set on having such a wedding. He did some research and discovered that the great state of Montana allows marriages conducted over the phone or Internet, as long as at least one of the bride, groom, and officiant is in Montana at the time of the ceremony. He then found the only rabbi in Montana and made the arrangements. So, the bride and groom were in Jerusalem, the rabbi was in Montana, and the marriage was recognized as valid in both Israel and the USA.
Also, being married with an Israeli citizen doesn’t give a right of residency in Israel This is an issue in particular for Israeli Arabs marrying Palestinian Arabs, but also can be for Israeli Jews marrying a random foreigner.
True, though that wasn’t what I had in mind when I wrote the above. I was thinking of the inherent injustice in allowing only the most hardcore members of a group to decide the fate of basic life activities (especially ones that aren’t inherently tied to religious observance) not only of all other members of that group, but of compatriots who aren’t members of that group at all.
This article touches on some of the issues I had in mind; why, for example, should a secular, but taxpaying non-Jewish Israeli citizen (or a nonpracticing Jewish one, for that matter) be denied public transportation from Friday afternoon to Saturday night because that is the Jewish Sabbath? Why should a non-Orthodox Jewish woman be prevented from obtaining a divorce if her husband won’t grant her one? And why should people who practice non-Orthodox varieties of Judaism be forced to comply with some its more obscure rituals and requirements in order to go through their normal lives?
Here’s a story for you (apologies for the continued hijack): a former co-worker of mine, L., an East Bloc immigrant to Israel and a Reform (but practicing) Jew, was planning her wedding in Tel Aviv. Apparently the bride-to-be normally meets with the rabbi’s wife to arrange the logistical details, such as the mikvah. (Most Reform Jews have never seen a mikvah, let alone immersed in one after every menstrual period - personally, I would have no idea where to find one in one of the largest cities in the world.) L. was young at the time, maybe 19 or 20, and a recent arrival in Israel, so she didn’t have the past experience of friends or relatives to rely on.
So the first question the rabbi’s wife asks her is what date she has planned for the wedding. L. tells her. The second question: “when was your last period?” Stunned, L. tells her that as well, but what does that have to do with her wedding date, you may ask? Well, the rabbi’s wife counts off days on her calendar and tells L., “X will be your wedding day - you are required to get married on your most fertile night, all the better to be fruitful and multiply as God commanded.” All of L.'s protestations that she had already put down a deposit for the reception hall were of no use. “So what did you do?” I asked her. “I smiled, told her I’d have to think about it, and left,” she said. “Then I went to another synagogue and lied about my last period.”
Is this kind of goofiness really necessary? This is why during the Passover Seder, when my mom gets to the point where people normally wish each other “next year in Jeruslaem,” she usually skips over the page and pours an extra glass of wine.
Who ‘allows’ anything? The orthodox and ultra-orthodox swing their votes in the Knesset as a block. In order to form a coalition, one often needs to play ball with them. But it’s not like they’re just given that power, nor is it as if there isn’t opposition to them, both at home and abroad. Check out organizations like ARZA and IRAC.
For the same reason that in some places here you can’t buy beer on sunday. This is, of course, the problem when we talk about democracy. You can be democratic, as long as you’re our kind of democracy. Your elected representatives can do their best for their constituents, as long as those constituents have goals that are in keeping with other people’s values, etc…
Because that’s how politics work. Donate to ARZA if you live in America, I suppose.
No more necessary than any other absurdities of a republic-style government.
Its more than a loophole, it seems to me that it is the main reason for the existence of the state of Israel? If Jews didn’t need a place where they could go NO MATTER WHAT, then the world needs Israel about as much as it needs a Kurdish state.
I still have trouble with the rationale behind why we put it where we did but if the world hadn’t turned their back on Jews while they were getting exterminated by the Nazis we wouldn’t need an Israeli state.
“We” don’t need any state. What need is there for Belgum, for Mexico or for France? Does the question even come up?
Nor did “we” put Israel where it is. The Israelis did that.
Certainly, the historic reasons why the right of return exists are that this right did not exist in the past (with tragic consequences), and that it has proved useful since - for the Falashas, for the Shephardim, and for the Soviet Jews. Whether it is currently useful is a good question.
My only point is that one thing it isn’t, is proof that Israel is an “apartheid state”.
[Hijack] My sister had a friend (I never met this person and only vaguely remember the details) whose father was Jewish and mother never converted to Judaism. The daughter, who was raised Jewish, tried to immigrate to Israel but was not let in. This always seemed odd to me. Does it ring true?
Also, my grandmother was Jewish; can I immigrate as the agnostic son of Catholics? [End hijack]