Talk:Law of Return/Archive 1

What about Italians?

Don't they have a similar preference for non citizens of italien diescent?

I removed this sentence from the article:

Some in the international community consider the name misleading; the law includes Jews who have never lived in the country but does not allow Palestinians to return to their homeland.

This is a general, unsupported claim. Who are these "some"? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.

uriber 09:30, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have a tendancy to be sympathetic to Israel, however the section "Controversies" is horribly slanted toward's "Israel's" side of things - counter-arguments to criticism of the Law of Return is highlighted more than the criticism itself. Critic's opinions (facts about opinions) are brief, while the argument against it is lengthy. Certainly, not a neutral point of view. Rajan Rishayakaran 17:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. This page is garbage. I see a lot of opinion and no citations. The response to the criticism is long to the point of going off on a tangent and detracting from the general readability of the article. All the examples of other countries with similar laws should be replaced by a link to right of return. Any additions to the list of countries should be put there, not here.--Anonymous

Democracy vs. Law of Return

I am familiar with the argument that giving preference to one particular group of people is incompatible with democracy, but it's a very weak argument, for two reasons:

• Giving preferential treatment to one group doesn't necessarily mean discriminating against everyone else. Every country in the world has laws restricting immigration and naturalization. The Law of Return doesn't make Israel a less welcoming place for non-Israelis in general.

• Most Western countries also accept some level of responsibility for accepting the dispossessed, whether by war, persecution, or discrimination. Israel has simply accepted a greater responsibility than most, on the premise that Jews can not assume to be safe anywhere. If Israel were to say, for example, that American Jews should not be allowed to immigrate freely, whereas Swedish or Argentinian Jews should, it is creating a distinction that would be controversial, to say the least.

This argument is most often brought up in the context of Palestinian Arab refugees, the most common example being "why can a Jew from Brooklyn be offered instant citizenship in Israel when an Arab who was born in Haifa can't." Since the Law of Return doesn't exclude Palestinian Arabs any more than it excludes Swiss Protestants, the problem relates to a separate issue.

The above comparison of a Swiss Protestant to a Palestinian Arab is a weak one, as it ignores the fact that all of the Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes in the 1948 War for independence. They historically used to live in Israel wheras people from other countries (such as the "Swiss Protestants") did not

Um, far from "all" of them were "driven" from their homes. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I just looked up the census statistics, and it seems there was a 14% drop in Arab population in the late 1940s within the current Israeli territory. Djbell 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article has a number POV problems and also fails to adequately address the criticisms of the Law of Return by Palestinians and other groups. In order to be more NPOV, the article should include at least the following in a NPOV manner:

• Describe the Law of Return in neutral terms and describe what it was intended to accomplish as stated by Israeli politicians and such at the time it was passed.
• Discuss the problem over the years in defining what is a Jew under the law and how that definitions has change and been expanded since the laws original passage.
• Describe it effect on the make-up of the Israel’s population.
• Describe the various Israeli views of keeping it as is vs. changing in some way, including opinions of Israeli’s who think it should be abolished as no longer necessary.
• Describe the views of Palestinians, Arabs, Americans, Europeans, etc. who view it as discriminatory and incompatible with democracy. One should also include a their view that Israeli immigration law, while not explicitly denying any non-Jewish ethnic group the right to legally reside in Israeli, is still heavily biased towards Jews in it’s interpretation and practice compared with imagration law in Western countries such as the United States.
• Present the Israeli rebuttal to the above argument. Explain the reasons many Israelis argue that it is not discriminatory and not incompatible with democracy.

As it stands, the article comes across as a POV article directed at Jewish students studying Israeli history and not a NPOV article for a general audience. -Cab88

Broken thought

"Defenders of the Law of Return argue that abolishing it by eliminating the preference accorded to Jews - even if they are citizens of another country - namely, that when they immigrate to Israel they are entitled to receive immediate Israeli citizenship."

There's a line of thought that got broken off here, and I can't divine what the original author intended. Someone want to fix this? --Penta 19:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, just to keep the article grammatically correct. I realize this may render the paragraph biased by exhibiting more arguments agains than in favor of the law; whoever wrote the passage should soon fix it. Thanks Mariusk 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Similiar laws elsewhere

It seems to me to be worthwhile to add mention of similiar laws in other countries, for comparison. I understand there are similiar laws (preferential granting of citizenship on an ethnic basis) in Germany and in several other European countries. Does anyone have more details on this?--Eyl 07:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was just on Right of return, which appeared to be a more general article about similar laws in other jurisdictions. So I edited that one to make it more truly international, on the assumption that this article is centred specifically on the Israeli Law of Return. I think that that's a reasonable approach, but leave it to others to agree or disagree. In the meantime, though, my jumping off point on right of return was the bullets listed on this page, and some of that text has now been ported over there. So if people agree about doing this this way, then someone may wish to trim Law of Return to remove redundancies with the now-multijurisdictional right of return article. --AnotherBDA 07:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Broken link

The sentence which enumerates several other countries with the similar laws (Poland ... Croatia) ends with the link which points to expired domain. [1]

Fixed, I think. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What Are You Trying To Say?

I have read the Law and find it interesting and clear. Its best for the inquisitive mind. I am enligntened by the article. I hope you share this view with me. Subrata.

Law of return and Nuremberg laws

I doubt the the Law of return was intended to "provide citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws". As anyone can see ( http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm ) the paragraph about "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", which makes the law to "resemble" the Nuremberg laws, was actually an amendament passed in the 1970, when the law already existed for 20 years (a bit too late to "react" to the Nuremberg laws, wasn't it ? ; and while I cannot cite any written source, I've heard that the reason behind the amendament was simply to avoid either "losing" jewish member of mixed families or splitting those families). I think the supposed connection to the Nuremberg laws need some kind of supporting evidence. Bukvoed 09:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Tables on right are enormous!

Hey! I have a 1152x864 resolution screen, and *even at this resolution*, the tables on the right, and the usual table on the left(Wikipedia central table with links to Main Page, Community portal, etc.) are taking up more than 60% of the horizontal resolution. This is not acceptable, I am sure you are aware of it. Most people nowadays use 1024x768, but it is advisable to make web-pages acceptable to view at 800x600 - this is even more important for a site like Wikipedia, since this is mainly a text-based webpage, and as such, *should* be enjoyable at much smaller resolutions, too, eg. 640x480. Please correct!! Msoos 15:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The tables take up half the page. There has to be some other, more practical way of linking this to the two portals. Joffeloff 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Way too long

This article is far too long and repeats itself in too many places. Isn't the section under the right of return page enough? It's already longer than that of any other country.

Wiccan Threefold Rule of Return

I removed a reference to the Wiccan Threefold Rule of Return, which is irrelevant to the article. That concept has a more common name, the Rule of Three, and is sometimes called The Threefold Rule of Return, with a full qualification. It has nothing to do with this article. --Gabi S. 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Taking out the huge list of examples

There is a general consensus among the people who have commented in this Talk page that the list of examples is far too long and doesn't really belong in an article on Israel's Law of Return. I agree with their suggestion to remove the examples, and link instead to Right of Return. So that's what I'm doing. Ztrawhcs 21:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Scope of the law

The article needs clarification about who is covered. It quotes the Law of Return as applying to children and grandchildren, but what about more remote descendants? If descent is through the mother's line, I believe that person is considered Jewish.

I looked at this article trying to answer this hypothetical question: A person with a Jewish great-great-grandmother, through the maternal line, has never practiced Judaism, was raised as a member of a different religion, and now self-identifies as a member of that religion. Is such a person eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return? The article as it stands leaves me unclear on this point. Any learning that could be added would be appreciated. JamesMLane t c 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If he is memmber of other religion.He is not allowed to come to Israel via the law.Shrike 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I know that the issue of citation has already come up, but this should be flagged for weasel words like "Critics say" and "Some say" and so forth.

Section on Controversy

Isarig, after I added material in direct response to requests for sourced information to support existing arguments on the page you deleted everything I added. Then, after I protested, you restored a minimal part of edits. All of this was done without discussion. Do you care to explain what it wrong about the additions I have made? I have explained in the edit summaries that NPOV is lacking in this section. Defense against critique of ther Law of Return took up three times as much space as articulation of the critique itself. And why did you delete the section on Palestinian critique of the Law of Return. I didn't create the section, it already existed. I simply added to it in response to the article tage requesting citations. Is the UN not a WP:RS? What's going on? Tiamut 10:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you have the edit history wrong. I removed one section - the one labeled "palestininas" This section is not at all about the Law of Return, nor is it about Palestinian's view of the LoR, or their critiqu. It is about Palestinians wanting a "Right of Return" . This section has nothing to do with the LoR, and does not belong in this article. Isarig 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. This article is about the Law of Return, not the Palestinian claim of a "Right of Return". There is a Right of Return article, perhaps the material might fit there. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

If you think you can pretend that I am somehow confused about the subject of this article as a way of dismissing complotely legitimate additions to this article, you would be mistaken. In the section Controversy, critique of the Law of Return appeared as three sections, one of which was entitled Palestinians. That section claimed to represent Palestinian critique of the Law of Return; however, the presentation of the Palestinian critique was 2 sentences, while its refutation was more than 10. I expanded that section, adding information about how Palestinians note that the Law of Return is particularly offensive to them considering their own denied right of return. Perhaps I require one or two more sources explicitly making that connection, but deleting the entire section is totally wrong and uncalled for. Both of you have done this to me than once this last week with more than one article. And while you could cite that as evidence of my making inappropriate additions, I think most familiar with your editing styles will instantly recognize that its trenchant POV that leads you to trecklessly thwrow away fully cited, relevant information. I am reverting. Start indicating exactly what specific sentences, words, or sources are inappropriate. And let's work from there. Tiamut 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The section you are adding is inappropriate not because it is lacking one or two sources, but because the entire text is talking about the Palestinian Right of Return, and not at all about the "Law of Return". Also, your attribution of bad intentions to other editors violates WP:AGF and doesn't contribute to a positive atmosphere here. I'm sorry to say that I don't see this being productive until you stop thinking that everyone else is out to get you, and instead perhaps consider that everyone else may actually have a valid concern, to which we can respond by working together instead of against each other. Until then, Tewfik^Talk 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what happened was I was in the middle of making my edits to that section, when the work was reverted. I hadn't finished making my point about the relationship of the material to article, missing the critical introductory sentence and sources now provided at the beginning and end of the stuff I originally posted. I only realized just now when I was in the middle of doing an overhaul to the section just now, rather than a simple revert. I got the revert illness I guess. (It's catchy you know. Especially when you spend hours researching and editing only to have it thrown away before even getting to finish what you started). I suggest that all you trigger-happy reverters of new material, show a little more patience, and try to understand what an editor is adding to an article rather than assuming you know immediately that it has no relation to anything. Please, work on the rebuttal to the arguments I presented in that section rather than censoring out a totally valid addition to the "Controversy" section of this article. C'mon. Tiamut 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Elizmir, Tewfik, your reverts of the newly formulated passage were done without discussion and after I had posted this request in talk for a more collaborative editing style that builds upon or works on cutting out specific problem sentences or information. It takes longer, yes, but it avoid edit wars. For all your lip service (Tewfik) to wanting to work together, you exhibit nothing in the way of collaboration in your actual editing style. I'm not trying to mean. I'm just being honest. Please. Now, please, (breathe for moment) and consider the following: 1) the section to which the new material is being added is entitled "Controversy" 2) it deals with critique to the Law of Return 3) there was a sub-section entitled "Palestinians" that was lacking in balance in its presentation of the Palestinian critique of the Law of Return 4) Palestinians major critique of the Law of Return is connected to the continuing non-fulfillment of their Right to Return 5) my edit was an expansion of that section with fully sourced material, all reliable sources And now not only to you want to delete what I added, but you have also deleted the entire sub-section entitled "Palestinians", while leaving the rest of the section "Controversy" intact. So now it seems as as if there were no such thing as Palestinian critique of the Law of Return. Do you really think this is fair, encyclopedic? Can you please explain what exactly the problem is with the material I have added? Thank you. Tiamut 19:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Support for a Palestinian "Right of Return" belongs in the Right of Return article, if anywhere. Moreover, the section you added was almost pure original research; almost none of the arguments presented referred back to the Law of Return, but to other documents. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just not accurate Jayjg. I'm sorry. I added more than reference that specifically cited the Law of Return and the Right of Return. And I would find better ones, if you would only hold off your reverts for a moment. You also totally ignored the context I laid out above, acting as though I am the only one who thinks this material should be included when it was already alluded to, though not fleshed out in the previous versions. I am really disappointed by the way you wikilawyer when info does not jive with your POV. It happens in every article I have the misfortune of finding you editing in. I tried to assume good faith, but you've intervened too many times, almost always in support of deleting info that represents the Palestinian POV. Sad, really. Tiamut 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Censorship? What would be appropriate is a short paragraph detailing Palestinian criticism of the Law of Return. What you have included is a detailed entry on the Palestinian Right of Return, as well as counterarguments. None of that belongs. Tewfik^Talk 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would work on such a paragraph, if I wasn't already doing that, and having my work undone, rather than say edited down by someone like you, who seems to have a problem with it. And by the way, the counterarguments were ALREADY THERE. I DID NOT ADD THEM NOR DID I ADD THE SECTION ON PALESTINIANS (Note, I am not yelling, just trying to emphasize a fact that you and Jayjg both keep overlooking). You cannot totally delete a section that was already there, simply because I added to it. That the counterarugments specifically responding to the right of return were already there, means that someone must have removed the Palestinian critique that had mentioned this point, previously. Don't you get it? I am not against cutting the section down, but I won't keep letting you delete info that was there for months and months and only became offensive to you after I made the Palestinian critique in the section stronger. This is totally unfair, smacks of bad faith editing rank with POV and I am going to report both you and Jayjg if you don't both cease and desist from you obfuscation immediately. Fair warning. Tiamut 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it was there before doesn't mean it should remain there, with or without your additions. It's completely beside the point, and you're yelling at each other for nothing. Focus on why it should or shouldn't be there, regardless of who added it or when - it's irrelevant. okedem 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Okedem, I have. And with all due respect, that argument is rather intimately related to what the section looked like before I began editing it. This is what it looked like before: [2]. There wasn't even a source articulating the link between the argument of the Right of return and that of the Law of Return, and yet no one deleted it then. Additionally, all of the critique was unsourced. All I did was add info and find sources that make the link. Its well-known that Palestinian critique of the Law of Return is based in their order desire to return. Its good to source this (which I have done). The sources make the link between this right, and its roots in international law, and its non-fulfillment as being a reason that the Law of Return is viewed as so offensive. This is all relevant information to a section entitled "Controversy". This is an explanation of part the controversy. Notice that I didn't delete the unsourced, uncited material that critiqued the Palestinian position. I tagged it. Instead of rising to the challenge and articulating the opposing POV, others chose to delete the section in its entirety and use my additions as an excuse to question the vaildity of the inclusion of the material in the article at all. I should note that this info has been in the Controversy section, as far back as May 2006 (Ionly checked that far, it could be farther). It was placed in a sub-category entitled Palestinians on August 7 2006 by Barabara Shack [3]. So for 8 months this sub-section existed, referencing the Right of return without anyone deleting it and now it's all been deleted. Forgive me, Okedem, but I find it a little strange to say the least, that the Wikipedia community decides to reward people's taking on the improvement or expansion of existing sections by deleting the entire section in question after not taking the slightest interest in it for 8 months. And with the support of an administrator no less. And when I ask for people to collaborate, they instead wikilawyer and revert and try to shut down debate of the direct relevance of the content. Or pretend that the sources cited don't make a link between the Law of return and the Right of Return. Is this right? I don't think so. Tiamut 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The critique, as it were, of the Law of Return is not articulated in the "Right to Return," and if you think about it you'll find that either could exist without the other. Even if Israel closed its doors to any further Jewish immigration tomorrow by repealing the Law of Return, the Palestinians wouldn't abandon their claims to the "right of return." It all sounds like a pissing contest when juxtaposed as you're trying to, and that does neither side any good. --Leifern 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut, the history of the section doesn't really matter; the material there was mostly original research that didn't even refer to the Law of Return, but instead asserted a Palestinian Right of Return. If some reliable source has made the arguments you are trying to make, then cite them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have laready provided direct links to at least two articles that make tie criticism of the law of return to the right of reutrn. But here's another by Edward Said published in al-Ahram newspaper, [4] and he states: "We Palestinians ask why a Jew born in Warsaw or New York has the right to settle here (according to Israel's Law of Return) whereas we, the people who lived here for centuries, cannot. After 1967, the issue between us was exacerbated," and further, "The Law of Return for Jews and the right of return for Palestinian refugees have to be considered and trimmed together. Both the notions of Greater Israel as the land of the Jewish people given to them by God and of Palestine as an Arab land that cannot be alienated from the Arab homeland need to be reduced in scale and exclusivity." There are many more such sources, but you seem to missing the point which is that this kind of information is relevant to this article and was already there without being sourced. I just sourced it and exapnded it and continue to try to do so, while having my edits reverted on a really rathewr spurious basis. All sigificant OVs about the Law of Reutrn should be represented. Palestinians have a POV on the issue which is both significant, relevant and well-documented. It should be included. Tiamut 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the paragraph you were trying to insert. The first three paragraphs are pure original research; none of the sources used refer to the Law of Return at all. The fourth paragraph finally becomes somewhat relevant, where there is a peripheral mention of this issue by "Eva Bjøreng, Secretary General in Norwegian People's Aid and Steinar Sørlie, Secretary General in the Norwegian Refugee Council.", in an article that is, at best, misinformed. The second reference, written by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee also briefly mentions the Law of Return. That's it. And I must say, it's odd that you would use two non-Palestinian sources to try to support what you claim is the "Palestinian POV". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, that there is some relation between the two arguments is relevant, and should perhaps be articulated into a short sourced summary, but the current extended passage refers exclusively to the Palestinian Right of Return, and should if anywhere be included there, and not here. Tewfik^Talk 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a lack of balance in the controversy section heavily weighted towards defending the law of return against criticism.66.162.71.130 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have summarized the Palestinian criticisms ont he law of return into a succint paragraph that sources the laws and resolutions cited. There was a section called Palestinians in the conroversy section before. It was deleted by Isarig after I tried to expand it. This new edit took some time to construct and I would appreciate that it be included. It is short, well-sourced, relevant and adds balance to the section. Thanks for your consideration. Tiamut 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be shrot and wwell sourced, but it is still irrelvant. Palestinians want a Right of Return - fine. There's an article on that in WP. This article is about tehLoR, and WP is not a soapbox for Palestinian politics. 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The only peripherally relevant sourced part in your section is a link to a MFA document taht says "The main criticism raised against the Law of Return is that is discriminates against Arabs and especially against Palestinian refugees who wish to return to their former homes in Israel." - this is already stated in the first para of teh "Controversy" section. Isarig 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In a section entitled Controversy, there are approximately six lines devoted to critique of the Law of Return. The other 80% of the article is composed of material under sub-sections entitled: "Defenders of the Law of Return propose three basic arguments" and "Similar Laws in Other Countries" and "Debate in Israel". That's it. There was a section entitled "Palestinians". I began adding material to that section and you began deleting it, and then the entire section was deleted by another editor. The sum result has been a total lack of balance to Controversy section which is there is represent criticisms to the Law of Return, and not merely refute arugments not even represented there. And it is not WP:SOAP to include six lines to a section some 60 lines long that outlines the criticisms of some 4.5 million people who are indirectly affected by this legislation, i.e. Palestinian refugees. It's fully relevant, it meets WP:NPOV by providing balance to the section. Please reconsider. Tiamut 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

One can take the viwe that even having a controversy section is POV and WP:SOAP, when , as the article clearly spells out, there are simailar laws in many other European countries, which have no articles associated with them, let alone a "controversy" section dedicated to criticizing them. Instead, they are treated with dignity, respect and understanding, as a natural way to "give members of the Diaspora the right to immigrate to their kinstate.", as the Repatriation laws article explains. In fact, that same article goes on to say "Repatriation laws are generally not controversial. The exception to this is the Law of Return in Israel." - smacks of clear discrimination and anti-Israeli bias, wouldn't you say? The Palestinian demand for a RoR does not derive from or depend upon the LoR. If Israel would anull the LoR tomorrow, would that make the Palestinian demand go away? Of course not. The 2 are not related, other than as a polemical, soapboxing way for the Palestinains to make their demand heard. This might be fine for grandstanding at a UN conference, but has no place here. Isarig 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the law of return does not allow Palestians to return to their birthplace is a notable argument. The inability of Israel's supporters to tolerate this criticism on the pages of Wikipedia shows their fear of any criticism stemming from their basic insecurity. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are encouraged, yet again, to review WP:NPA and stop commenting on editors, their alleged motivations or their psyche. The argument that the LoR does not allow Palestians to return to their birthplace already appears in the article - it is in the first para of the 'Controversy" section, as I pointed out to Taimut (when you are recruited to revert changes on a page, it helps when you actually read the page first). I am not opposed to criticism, (even when the criticism's very existance is POV and discriminatory, as I've described above) - but I'm opposed to turnign this article into yet another pro-Palestinian soapbox. Isarig 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's review

This is the edit now in question:

In their critiques of the Law of Return, Palestinians and advocates for Palestinian refugees point out that the Palestinian right of return remains unfulfilled, [5] (an Israeli government source that states exactly this) despite several international resolutions and mandates that uphold this right; [6] (a Palestinian government document outlining those rights) such as, Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, [7] and United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 194 [8] and 3326[9] The Law of Return when contrasted against the as-yet unfulfilled right of return is cited by Palestinians as a deep offense that amounts to asking them to accept institutionalized ethnic discrimination that privileges the rights of Jews. [10] (an article by a Norwegian People's Aid representative calling the Law Return again the Right of return promotion of an ethnic double-standard) [11] (and a paper that calls the two together racist)

What exactly is the problem? Check the sources. Is it too long? How is it not directly relevant to this section oncontroversy? How is it that a section on Palestinians survived for months there without garnering any interest until I sourced and expanded the material there. Now I am offering this slimmed down version. Please, be reasonable and accept that this critique is related to the topic and section at hand. Tiamut 00:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is not a criticism of the LoR beyond what's already in the article - it is a polemic, that seeks to make the irrelevant (to this article) point that Palestinians want and deserve a RoR. As I wrote, the two are not related other than through these polemics - you would not give up the demand for a RoR, regardless of the LoR. Sometimes irrelevant junk stays in articles for months before it is cleaned up - this seems to have happened here. That is not however a reason to keep irrelevant junk in the article once it is noticed. Isarig 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. How is it polemical exactly? It's all fully sourced to reliable sources that make the direct link between the law of return and the right of return. It's five sentences long in a section where 50 sentences offer arguments against criticisms to the law of return that are not even represented. It's not irrevelant junk at all. It provides balance as per WP:NPOV and it meets WP:ATT and it is certainly not WP:SOAP as you stated earlier. Please think again. Tiamut 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's polemical in that the 2 are not related - the 2 issues are just being juxtaposed in order to make a point - that if Jews have a LoR, Palestinians should have a RoR. whether or not these polemics are sourced (either to polemicists making that point, or in this case- as an OR stringing together of unrelated sourced material) is beside the point - it is still irrelevant soapboxing. Isarig 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of it is WP:OR, and I have placed the relevance of each source in the section above that I am proposing for inclusion in brackets, italicized. You might not like the fact that Palestinian critique the Law of Return in this way, but they do, as per sources provided that meet WP:ATT. No amount of bad faith accusations like WP:SOAP or or invocations of the word "polemical", can alter that reality. Tiamut 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Non o fthis is a criticism of the LoR. It is soapboxing that argues that becuase Jews have the LoR, Arabs should have the RoR. That is not a critique - that is soapboxing. It may be ok for a UN conference, not for an encyclopedia. Invoking UN resolution 194,or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course say not a word about the LoR, and claiming that the LoR violates them is a clear cut case of OR. Your friend Abu Ali gave you some good advice - give it a rest. Isarig 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My good friend Isarig, I am glad you pay such attention to what I write. But the section is worthy of inclusion in the article, and has therefore been reinserted.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention any argument other than your POV. You are simply making another attempt to turn this article into Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which it is not and should not be. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are simply trying to whitewash the "Controversy" section by disallowing material on directly relevant to the topic and section at hand. What's your argument against inclusion exactly besides your accusations of POV pushing which violate WP:AGF? Tiamut 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to accomodate some of Isarig and Humus Sapiens objections, I have further pared down the section and merged it with the material at the top of the section, eliminating the sub-section entitled "Palestinians" and removing links to general assembly resolutions not directly cited in the sources provided making the link between the Law of return and the Riht of return. What remains is fully backed by the sources cited and is emminently relevant to the preceding paragraph. Note that more than half of the "Controvery" section (even with this latest addition) is devoted to refuting the criticisms. For the sake of balance per WP:NPOV which exhorts us to represent all significant viewpoints, I would hope that others would agree that this new addition should stay. Tiamut 10:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Isarig. I have made a number of changes to accomodate your objections (which I have to note have been rather excessive). Instead of acknowledging "improvements" or rewarding these efforts with discussion or compromise, you simply reverted again, under the heading NPOV. This is ridiculous considering that there are 5 lines of critique and 50 lines of rebuttral in a section entitled "Controversy". I'm reverting your edit. Please discuss your specific problems with the addition as it is now before reverting again. Thank you. Tiamut 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not "simply revert" again, and I'd appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my actions, as it makes it hard to AGF with regard to your own actions. I have kept most of your recent edits in there as a compromise, even though I still say none of it belongs here, but removed the OR and soapboxing: The RoR is a demand the Palestinians are making, not an undisputed fact that they have, but more importantly , the references to UN resolutions upholding this are entirely irrelevant to the LoR and make no mention of it. The description of th eLoR as institutionalized discrimination' is a Palestinian POV, and needs to be represented as such, not as neutral observation. Please do not revert this again, as I may have 2nd thoughts about compromising with you at all, given this attitude. Isarig 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I owe you an apology. You did not simply revert again. I jumped the gun on that one: When I didn't see any discussion of your edit in the talk, I wrongly assumed you just reverted. I can actually live with your compromise edit. I think it understates the depth of the Palestinian objection, but it's not an unfair representation. Please accept my sincere apology. Tiamut 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that you are back to your trigger-happy-revert-without-discussion days. Would you care to explain what it WP:OR about what you deleted? I thought that we had come to an amicable agreement on the earlier version, per my comments just above. Tiamut 05:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC) strike that. I'm totally confused. It's time for me to go to bed. You're right again. Im sorry. Tiamut 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

So how do you prove you are Jewish?

Just a thought. If (hypothetically) I was to hop off the plane at Ben Gurion Airport and claim my Right of Return, how would I prove I was Jewish?. Although I 'feel' Jewish from the inside, I don't have anything at all in my posession to say that I am, I don't have a caricature Jewish 'look', and my name doesn't help either. Perhaps Jewishness is just a state of mind :-) I have just asked a friend who was raised a Roman Catholic as a child if he had any way of proving it either, and he said 'no' too... he doesn't carry a 'Catholic Card' or anything. So how do you actually prove you are Jewish?. 160.84.253.241 10:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Usually, by presenting records concerning your parents' or grandparents' religion. Many countries used to keep such records, and even if they didn't, there may be other evidence, such as Jewish marriage certificates, papers concerning ceremonies, like a Bar Mitzva, proof that your ancestors (at least) were active in the local Jewish community, etc. In the absence of such evidence, there are other ways, but I don't know enough about them. okedem 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm much too secular to have that stuff lying around I'm afraid. I just had a conversation with my friend (a non-practicing Catholic), and he seems to know the Tanakh better than I do (?). He calls the Christian bible "Judaism lite for Gentiles (with colour supplement)" :-) I don't think I would like to be the man behind the immigration desk at Ben Gurion. 160.84.253.241 14:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong sympathy implying POV!

In order to understand the Law, one must comprehend the political context in which it was written. At the time of the measure's adoption in 1950, only five years had passed since the end of World War II and the Holocaust. These events caused incalculably large losses of family members and friends of Jews; the events also destroyed communities, and livelihoods. In this context, there was too consistent a pattern of persecution of Jews in virtually the entire Jewish diaspora.

This is really unacceptable by Wikipedia guidelines, "In order to understand the law"???? "one must comprehend"??? must!!! I do not know what to say but this is a 100% POV presentation, actually the writer is not only asserting the sympathy but obliging the reader to comprehend. I will remove this paragraph. The original author can reformulate what he want to to say, but please keep a NPOV and do not require users to comprehend and accept your own opinion. Bestofmed (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"other means of acquiring citizenship"

In the "Defenders" section, there is a line saying that it is possible for non-Jews to acquire citizenship by "birth". In my understanding, this is not true: if a non-Jewish tourist or worker gives birth in Israel, the child is not automatically an Israeli citizen (the way it works in the US). Can anyone provide a source for this claim? I note that the footnote at the end of that sentence is not actually a reference - only a qualification/caveat. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You're correct. I've removed the word "birth" from the sentence. okedem (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm curious about the "naturalization" route as well. Jews get citizenship via the law of return. Is it actually possible for non-Jews to naturalize (in the absence of marriage ties)? Has this ever happened? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, certainly. Possible, and happened in the past. Not common, but does happen. For instance, some of the children of immigrant workers are eligible to become permanent residents, and after a few years can apply for citizenship, like the naturalization route of many other countries. okedem (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen proposals for it to happen in the future, but I wasn't aware that it has already happened in practice. Here's a link to a Haaretz article from last summer, which says that it will be possible under certain conditions to get citizenship after IDF service. But given the time frame, I doubt that anyone would have gone through the process yet. Anyway, perhaps the article is useful as a reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, that's about the young kids now, but Israel has had smaller numbers of immigrants in the past, and some got citizenship in this route. okedem (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

The link I described as BBC was actually BBS, an honest mistake. I have corrected that in the link and edit summary. The article is a good one that gives voice to some of the most controversial law of return and related issues.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That link has almost nothing to offer in relation to the topic of this article. Please review WP:EL prior to adding external links. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Jews

Not sure where it would go or how best to truncate it, if its even possible. Certainly though the ruling is relevant to the article and should be mentioned, at least in a reference. Feel free to modify the presentation of the ruling, unless you believe the ruling has no place at all as a reference on this article. inigmatus (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparison with the Greek law

The Greek nationality law, for example, is typical in permitting the easier acquisition of Greek citizenship by those with a grandparent who was a Greek national. The Israeli law differs from these in not requiring an ancestor who had Israeli citizenship.

It seems obvious to me. Greece now exists for almost 200 years. I think this sentence should be changed. Meursault2004 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"Disputed" Arendt material on "Who is a Jew" Nuremberg Parallel

I've moved the following insertion about Who is a Jew to here for further discussion:

In 'Eichmann in Jerusalem', Hannah Arendt commented on the 'breathtaking naiveté' with which the prosecutor claimed "We make no ethnic distinctions," while, at the same time he denounced the Nuremberg Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor of 1935, which had prohibited intermarriage and sexual relations between Jews and Germans. She felt it was rather ironic, since rabbinical law legally governed the personal status of Jewish citizens, so that no Jew could marry a non-Jew. She explained that it had nothing to do with respect for the faith, but rather that religious and non-religious Jews seemed to think it was desirable to have a law that prohibited intermarriage. She observed that children of mixed marriages were legally bastards, and that if a person didn't have a Jewish mother he could neither be married nor buried. Government officials admitted to her that they were agreed upon the undesirability of a written constitution in which that sort of thing would have to be spelled out.Eichmann in Jerusalem, by Hannah Arendt, Published by Penguin Classics, 1992, Page 7, ISBN 0140187650 When thousands of conversions were recently called into question, an editorial noted that 'permitting gentiles to marry Jews, 'was a colossal assimilation disaster that would destroy the purity of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel' The author noted that if the "converts" had married Jews, sexual relations were prohibited; if a woman had given birth after the conversion, her children were not considered Jewish; if the convert was single and wished to get married, he or she would not be allowed to do so in Israel.Religious affairs: God only knows where this will lead, by Matthew Wagner, Jerusalem Post

This material appears more to be about Who is a Jew than the Law of Return, gives undue weight to editorial opinions, and is clearly a synthesized argument based on multiple sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't give much weight to any of the opinions. I simply wrote about them. Hannah Arendt was writing about the so-called Nuremberg Parallel in state law. The Jewish Virtual Library raises the topic of the problems caused by the Nuremberg definition and the strictness of the Rabbinical Courts on their 'Law of Return' page. They, and the state courts also conflate the question of "Who is a Jew" with the "Law of Return": 'The Israeli High Court of Justice decided on March 31, 2005, to approve conversions in Reform and Conservative ceremonies conducted abroad for fifteen non-Israeli residents who asked to be recognized as Jews in accordance with the Law of Return.'

The Jerusalem Post happened to carry an article discussing the domino effect for issues of personal legal status under state law if conversions done overseas are ruled invalid. It wasn't some ivory tower philosophical discussion about "who is a Jew". It was about the loss of civil and religious rights under state law if people had their conversions ruled invalid by a state-run court. The legal validity of some of the overseas conversions that were conducted by Rabbi Druckmann while he was actually at home in Israel became a state law immigration and nationality status issue under the "Law of Return". I agree there are several sources, but the synthesis was done by the Knesset when the Law of Return was written and used by the state to determine and control personal legal status. Arendt took issue with the Nuremberg principles being used in Israeli state laws, like the Law of Return. Simply proposing a constitution in Israel can still inflame a debate in the Knesset: "There cannot be a constitution in a Jewish and democratic state if it does not defend the unequal values of Judaism - and they are unequal" or "If you want equality in the constitution, it must be limited." MKs debate protection of 'equality' in future constitution. harlan (talk) 05:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The lengthy section by Arendt you inserted does not mention the Law of Return even once. As such, its inclusion, as Jayjg wrote, is clearly a synthesized argument. I am not an editor at the Jewish Virtual Library, so if they conflate two distinct arguments under the same heading, I can't correct that - but I am an editor here, and I can ensure that such conflation does not occur here. Canadian Monkey (talk) 16:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly so. In addition, three different sources have been used to synthesize some sort of criticism of the Law of Return. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no WP:Synth involved at all. This is an article about one of Israel's many laws that make a distinction between individuals on the basis of ethnicity. Hannah Arendt was addressing a claim made by the State's Attorney that we (the Israeli legal system) make no distinctions on that basis. She illustrated the fact that the state's rabbinical authorities do legally discriminate against individuals on a daily basis. "Who is a Jew?" is not a philosophical question that you can exclude from articles on Israeli law. It is a legal question that the Knesset has avoided addressing. It leads to other legal questions that state officials have to answer every day regarding "Who is a "proper" convert?", which leads to the legal question "Who is a proper Rabbi"? and so on. harlan (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I removed the following: "The difference between the Israeli law and the ones mentioned earlier is that the Israeli law allows the returns of former 'nationals' who are Jews only, this right does not extend to non-Jews who may have been born in or resident in what has now become the state of Israel.". The law isn't about the return of "former nationals", it's about allowing citizenship to Jews from outside Israel. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The entire section should have been removed. It is question-begging rhetoric to suggest that a person can forfeit or acquire another nationality by undergoing a religious conversion ceremony. That legal principle does not have any parallel in the laws of the particular countries mentioned in the article. harlan (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That particular legal principle (acquiring nationality via religious conversion) may not have any parallel in the laws of the particular countries mentioned in the article, but that partiucualr aspect of the law is not mentioned in the section you tagged. The fundemantal principle - that people with ethnic ancestary may acquire citizenship - clearly exists in the simialr laws of the countires mentioned. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs were already tagged by someone else. Israel permits people without any previous national or ethnic connection to acquire Jewish nationality and immigrate, for example How 90 Peruvians became the latest Jewish settlers. There is no parallel in the laws of the other countries. harlan (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of any equivalent law in another country. Although technically Jews DO have a previous connection to the nation of Israel, it was just 2000 years ago. ;-) DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Greek Citizenship Code from the website of the US embassy in Athens doesn't mention any "membership in the ethnic and religious community of the far-flung, ancient Greek diaspora", nor does it give any indication whatsoever that "person of Greek descent" in the Code means anything more exotic than the usual "person whose not too remote ancestor was a citizen of Greece". I'm therefore removing the paragraph that starts with "The Israeli law is perhaps most similar to the Greek law".

Also, the website of Finnish Immigration Service states: "Receiving a residence permit depends on the directness and closeness of Finnish ancestry. If the ancestry dates back several generations, a residence permit cannot be granted on this basis," which makes it very much different from Israel's law in question. I won't delete Finland from the list of "Similar laws", but I suspect that the whole list doesn't make much sense, and I hope the editors will consider deleting this whole section. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.125.153 (talk) 12:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved here "A religious and cultural vision" section

I moved this section here for discussion. It seems like an unsourced POV editorial:

Jewish immigration to "Eretz Israel" (The Land of Israel) was not only seen as the fulfillment of a religious cultural vision, but was portrayed as the only viable option for Jews seeking refuge from anti-Semitic persecution. While other states had blocked the mass immigration of Jewish refugees, Zionist advocates in Palestine worked to make a tangible political reality out of the yearning for a Jewish homeland, putting it forward as an immediate means for continued survival.

Here for example are some significant published views expressed by the Zionists leaders themselves about Jews seeking refuge in Palestine. They present a much more realistic view of the fickle nature or selective application of the "right of return" both inside and outside Palestine:

The author's first visit to the East was a professional one, undertaken by instruction of the Council of the Holy Land Relief Fund. Its object was to clear up certain legal difficulties which had arisen on their estates at Jerusalem and Jaffa in consequence of the death of Sir Moses Montefiore in 1888. At that time their only buildings in Jerusalem were the Judah Touro Almshouse and a wind-mill. The vacant land adjoining had been " jumped " by about three hundred poor and desperate Jews who claimed that it had been originally intended for the poor, and they were poor. The journey was successful; the squatters were removed, and their place taken by industrious settlers who, through the agency of two building societies financed by the Sir Moses Montefiore Testimonial Committee, have erected some hundred and thirty decent little dwellings in place of the rude uninhabitable shanties standing there in 1888. The experience was exciting and stimulating, and encouraged the author not only to return to Palestine, but to make quite a number of other voyages to Jewish centres in the Old World as well as the New. "Jews in many lands", Adler, Elkan Nathan, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1905

In 1940 Dr. Weizmann planned on turning away the majority of post-war Jewish refugees. He characterized them as little more than human dust without a viable future:

Dr. Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization and ex-officio President of the Jewish Agency, stated that he had come to this country, with Palestine as always uppermost in his mind, to raise $4,000,000 outside the United Palestine Appeal for strengthening the Jewish community in Palestine. It was to be anticipated, Dr. Weizmann said, that at the end of the war there would be at least 2,500,000 Jews seeking refuge. Of these perhaps 1,000,000 would represent Jews with a future and the others Jews whose lives were behind them - "who were but little more than dust". He believed that it would be possible to settle in Palestine 1,000,000 of these refugees, so far as possible those with a future, one-fourth on the land, the remainder as an addition to the urban population. Foreign Relations of the United States, The British Commonwealth, the Soviet Union, the Near East and Africa, Volume III (1940), page 837

I would suggest that the section simply be eliminated. harlan (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Is there any objection to changing the article to say that it gives the right to live in Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories?93.96.148.42 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the following sentence is definitely not NPOV: "Since 1950 2,734,245 Jews have returned to Israel." From the context, there is no evidence that the Jews referred to had ever been in Israel before. Therefore, giving "return" its common and ordinary meaning, they should not be said to "have returned" to Israel. The sentence's use of "return" buys into the legal fiction of an "ancestral" home common to the curious mish-mash of Jews who according to the article may or may not have Jewish ancestors. The sentence is also improperly referenced to a non-authoritative press release that gives no information about the relevant statistics' sources. Law abounds with legal fictions but that does not mean that Wikipedia should adopt those fictions as true. Marbux (talk) 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I'm deleting the comparison to UK immigration law as factually inaccurate. People with a garndparetnt born in the UK can claim UK citizenship under certain conditions. This law is not restricted to any ethnic, religious, or social group, in the way that the Israeli Law of Return is. The requirement is a Grandparent born in the UK, regardless of their ethnic background or religion. The UK has no immigration or citizenship laws based on ethnicity or religion. The comparison is a complete misnomer. Indisciplined (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the wording of the 1962, 1968, and 1971 acts. No mention is made at any point of any particuilar ethnnicity or ethnic group, rather only to ancestors who held citizenship. A grandparent born in the UK is not even required, a Grandparent naturalised a s UK citizen is fine. Legislation extends to ancestry via adoption, and to step-children. Indisciplined (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of criticism in the lede?

And why is criticism described as "contraversy"?

have added It has been controversial. to the lede. I think this is NPOV, and a reliable source for something that should definately be in the lede.93.96.148.42 (talk) 05:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is there a "list of arguments in favour"

This is a encyclopedia. The list should be removed or renamed. Especially as there is no "list of arguments against".

A list of arguments for the law of return is reasonable as the article details much of the controversy over the law and its application.Mariamcohen (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Not without a list of arguments against the law of return. There is not a neutral point of view if only one side is represented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDiNardo (talk • contribs) 09:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Paragraph

Should we remove the following paragraph: Messianic Jews are discriminated against. They have been declared by law: not considered Jews. Even though their blood and DNA can prove otherwise. They have been discriminated against by a group called the Yad Lecheem current head over the ministry of Interior. Even ones that were not born into a practicing Jewish family, and who are considered by law to be able to become citizens, their applications are often lost in process. Even though they actually do have a right to be in the land Since they never "converted" which amendment 4 of the law of return states this as being a lawful application as long as at least a grandmother is Jewish. Both of these policies have yet to addressed nationally and is hindering Jews who love Jesus from coming to the land. By letting these individuals in, they fear that they would be people who would be out proselytizing. see this link for more details on a case like this: http://www.coisasjudaicas.com/2011/04/messianic-jews-petition-high-court-to.html 206.126.80.161 (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It seems inappropriately biased, Letriste1977 (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality of sections

The neutrality of some of the sections of this article is highly suspect, especially under Controversy, under the sub-headline of "Claims of Discrimination". It makes my skin crawl, it's so blatantly biased. I myself don't have the factual data to remedy this, but I hope there is someone who does and can indeed make this section a NPOV. I'm shocked this page is not more closely monitored, to be honest. Kakasprincess (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be more balanced if it were merged into the main article, Israel and the apartheid analogy? Hcobb (talk) 04:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply claiming a blatent bias without specifically pointing out what particular sections you see as biased, and toward which side, really does nothing to further the improvement of the article. 71.62.249.44 (talk) 09:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Unclear

If a resident Israeli citizen converts to religion not covered by the law of return do they loose their citizenship as a result ? Does it make any difference whether their Israeli citizenship was acquired through birth in Israel, ethnicity or their (original) membership of the Jewish religion ? Could a former citizen be expelled/deported from Israel as a result ? What of Israeli citizens who cease practicing in/believing in Judaism but dont adopt another religion (i.e. become atheist/agnostic/non-practicing) ? 84.13.199.142 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Law of Return Jewish Eugenics: Similar to Goebbels' Nazi Eugenics?

I can't say any more than that because that's it in a nutshell.72.185.1.17 (talk) 14:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.1.17 (talk) 14:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take your anti-Zionist propaganda somewhere else? This is Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.226.54.152 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aww, cute. Anyone notice how he couldn't put "anti-semitism" in since it was an argument against Nazi policies, so he instead chose to use "anti-Zionism". 124.169.221.31 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Harlequin

"Claimed to be their ancestral homeland"

I'm just sort of wondering about the NPOV-ness of this clause in the "Law" section. I guess it's a bit of a politically loaded topic, but does "claimed to be" seem to be just subtly in the direction of "totally not their ancestral homeland"? Maybe it's just me, but I think I detect a hint of passive-agressiveness (for lack of a better term) in that sentence. Thoughts? Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 07:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Law

I don't think it's accurate that Reform or Conservative converts without any Jewish grandparents are allowed to obtain Israeli citizenship in this way. I am taking an Introduction to Judaism course and an Orthodox Rabbi said the only individuals who are eligible are those who can prove, (by way of identity cards?) they have at least one Jewish grandparent, since that was the method used by Nazis during the Holocaust. Also, I think he said Jews of patrilineal descent are not eligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.96.77.24 (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrollary to Prevention of Infiltration Law

User:HDMcQuack deleted the reference to the Prevention of Infiltration Law, which actually is the corrollary to this Law of Return, but without arguing for a better formulation. Both laws together have the effect of securing a Jewish majority population in the State of Israel, so there needs to be an interlink between the corresponding articles on the one and other law. This might be done with a better formulation than the one which I had given, but then I ask the co-contributers to propose a better formulation or to argue in this discussion section for one. --L.Willms (talk) 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to bring a reliable source in support of your edit. You can't just add it without citation like that. Zero^talk 09:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The reliable source is the Prevention of Infiltration Law itself. It is wikilinked, and from there you can read the whole text. The fact is, that the legal means for creating a Jewish majority in the State of Israel are these two laws. They exist, and they are just two sides of the same coin: the one keeps the Arab refugees out, the other invites immigrants from over the world. Do you need a "reliable source" for the statement that the sun exists? You know that the sun exists, even if it is hidden by clouds or hidden by our planet's shadow during the night. --L.Willms (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct that the Prevention of Infiltration Law is the other side of the Law of Return. But you still need a reliable source for that statement since everything in Wikipedia needs a reliable source and we are especially fussy about that rule in articles about contested issues. I'm not arguing with you about the facts, just explaining how things work around here. Poke around in Google Books, it shouldn't be difficult. It is to your advantage, since it is certain that an unsourced statement in the article will sooner or later be deleted by someone. Zero^talk 01:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

?

"... while the Law of Return allows the unrestricted immigration of people which have no relationship with the land they settle into."

This seems rather biased to me, if you were Jewish surely you are descendents of the original inhabitants and therefore a 'relationship with the land'.

But it's not. "My grandma used to live here" is not a valid "relationship with the land". 2crudedudes (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

One-sided

This whole article is massively skewed.

Any criticism of Israel is immediately balanced, however, pro-Israeli arguments are uncontested. There's a whole section for "Arguments in support of the Law of Return" but not against it?

Any criticism is from very generic "Critics of Israel" whereas any defence is attributed to specific notable people (mostly Israeli) 86.188.80.183 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a section titles "Claims of discrimination in relation to Palestinian refugees" before the arguments in support of section. Looks to me to present both. - Galatz^Talk 14:49, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking of controversy, that npov-section tag has been there without fruitful discussion for 5 years now. I'm removing it for the sake of WP:TC: "Cleanup tags are meant to be temporary notices that lead to an effort to fix the problem, not a permanent badge of shame to show that you disagree with the article or a method of warning the readers against the article." Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The use of the word "claim" sounds biased to me, because the supposed "explanation" that Israel gives "France is for the French people" is bogus to begin with. French citizenship isn't limited to ethnic French people. People born in France to non-French parents can become citizens if they choose to when they come of age. That comparison is absurd and clearly doesn't support the use of the word "claim." It is verifiably discriminatory.2crudedudes (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It seems possible that "verifiably discriminatory" is both a legitimate observation, and an ethnocentric judgment call that we apply to a whole range of international issues: The 800,000 expelled Jews from the several Arab countries is "verifiably discriminatory", as is female genital mutilation, women's inequality in Saudi Arabia, or that Jews are not allowed to live in a house in the Palestinian territories for some reason (and certainly not in Gaza, but the UN doesn't seem to mind this discrepancy), but an Arab is allowed to live in a house in Israel. My point is that the egregious quality of any discriminatory practice is scalar, rather than black and white. In other words, it doesn't mean anything if all you intend to imply is "they're bad because they discriminate". The badness or goodness of discrimination seems to be transient and temporo-cultural, rather than a provable absolute morality. I challenge that there is any natural or internationally recognized law that a discrimination is necessarily something that must not happen anytime, anywhere. Ergo, anything more than the simple statement is un-encyclopedic. If it were so, then the international standards are certainly applied deferentially. Rather, the connotations of a discrimination are relevant to the local mores. So, while it might be pointed out that a discrimination exists, I think it should be as brief as possible, otherwise it runs the risk of political POV. As for "France is for the French," I thought I could find a comparable case with Japan ("Japan is for the Japanese"), but it turns out one can gain Japanese citizenship without having to be ethnically Japanese. But, let's posit that the "France for the French" comparison isn't valid. Instead, why not say, "Myanmar is for the Burmese"? ("Foreigners cannot become naturalised citizens of Myanmar, unless they can prove a close familial connection to the country."), and I think it's likely we can find other, similar examples, even if France is not one of them.giggle (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Having just read this article as it stands today, I don't understand accusations of it being one-sided. It does adequately address consequences of the Law of Return...going so into greater detail would likely lead to complaints that the article has an anti-Israel agenda. The article makes multiple references to issues of discrimination related to the Law. What more is required? Ladam11 (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: Debate in Israel

Not sure if this is needed, but I was wondering if someone needs to add some context to the "1 in 3 Israelis" stat. Reading the original source listed, it seems like the public's response to proposed changes was in reaction to a specific crime involving a family that had emigrated from Russia... e.g., is the Israeli public upset about profiling incoming immigrants in general, or just ones from Russia/Eastern Europe/"that area"? In other words, it kind of sounds like a source measuring the public's reaction to something specific is being generalized to incoming immigrants from ALL prospective places... Does that make sense? Ladam11 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

This edit should be reverted, since the Law of Return was enacted by the Knesset. Legislation is enacted by a legislature or the governing body of a country, like a parliament. Also to avoid redundancy in words for the same sentence.--181.1.246.154 (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? Legislation just another word for one or more laws. In this case, the Law of Return is a single law. ImTheIP (talk) 16:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: From the Oxford dictionaries: "legislation: NOUN Laws, considered collectively." The edit is linguistically and functionally equivalent and there is no requirement to revert. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Equivalent laws

This article is about the right of return in Israel. For the equivalent laws in other countries, see Right of return.

The above statement is controversial. It is trivial to find sources claiming the law is unique:

This [Law of Return] unique law grants privileges to Jews who wish to become Israelis but confers no privileges on Jewish citizens as against non-Jewish citizens. Horowitz and Lissak, Studies in Contemporary Jewry: Volume V: Israel: State and Society, 1948-1988

If a law is unique, another law cannot be its equivalent. Ergo, Wikipedia should not claim that the Law of Return is non-unique since Horowitz and Lissak would challenge such a claim. ImTheIP (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not see a conflict between the two statements. Its unique because it is for Jews, but other countries have an equivalent one. However I think the hat note does serve a purpose, perhaps phrased more as "For comparable laws in other countries...." - Galatz^Talk 16:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It is stated in even stronger terms in this source

This unique and unparalleled law forms the basis for the large waves of Aliya that have occurred since the law's passage soon after the formation of Israel. P R. Kumaraswamy, The A to Z of the Arab-Israeli Conflict

It is perhaps so that this article deserves a section in which the proponents of the law can lay out their arguments as to why the law is comparable to immigration laws in other countries. But stating it as an undisputed fact is not right in my opinion. ImTheIP (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, the article states that "Supporters of the law say that it is very similar to those in many European states, which also employ an ethnic component." Stating that claim as a matter of fact is Wikipedia taking sides. ImTheIP (talk) 07:38, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

This law used to be a first or unique, however this is no longer the case - for a long time - e.g. Hungarian nationality law from 1993. Note that since we attribute this statement to supporters of the law, we aren't actually taking sides.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The first line of the article is "For the equivalent laws in other countries" and that sentence has no attribution. The line isn't "For a list of laws proponents of the Law of Return claims are equivalent, see Right of Return." And I can't think of any other Wikipedia page which begins by "redirecting" the Wikipedia reader in a similar fashion. A user on this page wants to read about the Israeli Law of Return, not about Hungarian nationality laws so why redirect him? Seems obvious to me that it is done just to hammer a contentious point home -- that Israel is not unique but other countries have equivalent legislation. ImTheIP (talk) 14:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a hat note - and it is quite common for article names which may cause confusion - in this case due to the general "Right of Return" and no Israeli specific name in the title (as "Law of Return" is the COMMON NAME here). This has nothing to do with a contentious point - but merely to redirect a reader that reached this page by mistake. See Template:About and Mississippi for an example.Icewhiz (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If the purpose of the "hat" is to clear up any confusion, due to articles with similar names, then my changes to it should be appropriate. I suppose it is possible to confuse the two articles because both their names ends with "of Return." But I don't think anyone would end up on this page while looking for, for example, German immigration laws. ImTheIP (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You acted in contravention to the RFC that was just closed there. And actually - if someone looking for a "law of return" to some other country than Israel ends up here (which is actually quite possible - and the hat note is supposed to steer him away) - he is probably looking for a law in another country and not an international humanitarian law concept.Icewhiz (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No, I have not edited this page in contravention to any RFC. The edit to this page was a compromise that both full-filled your desire to "help lost readers" and my desire to keep Wikipedia neutral. The statement that "other countries" have "equivalent laws" is contentious and should not be formulated as a "matter of fact." ImTheIP (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Other countries have laws conferring some right of return. This is what the longstanding hat note is trying to address in term of confusion.Icewhiz (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, that is not the point. We are claiming that other countries have equivalent laws, and I have demonstrated that several scholars disagree with that claim. ImTheIP (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

And many agree.Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I don't dispute that and I'm glad you finally see my point. If some people agree with a claim and some other disagree with it, then the claim is disputed and we are not authorized by policy to state that the claim is true. ImTheIP (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a hat note - if you have an alternative wording for reader direction to laws conferring a right of return in other countries, covered in the wiki article right of return, please suggest such a wording.Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If you see my point, do you understand that this "hat note" violates Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy? (It's a yes/no question) ImTheIP (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

No. I do not agree. However, if you have a better wording that mentions laws in other countries vis a vis right of return to those countries - I am open to improvement.Icewhiz (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Do you understand that more than one writer has called the Israeli Law of Return "unique"? (also yes/no) ImTheIP (talk) 19:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a hat note!!! I have modified the hat note to "possibly similar", not since I agree (more than one writer has claimed the earth is flat, the question is when (in this case the law used to be unique), who, and acceptance) with your line here, but because this is a hat note, a redirection aid for the hapless reader.Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Icewhiz, I also offered a compromise for the "hat note" but you rejected that. If it is merely a "redirection aid," then I don't understand why it is so important to have the text state that other laws are similar. Other formulations can be equally useful for readers who have gotten lost without introducing NPOV issues. While the "possibly similar laws" wording isn't very good, at least it is not completely partisan, so I guess I should thank you for that. ImTheIP (talk) 11:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Whomever lands on "Law of Return" is presumably looking for a law or legislation, and therefore redirecting him to other such (equiv or similar or not) laws would be appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Law of Return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303025500/http://jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/About/Press+Room/Aliyah+Statistics/nov30.htm to http://jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/About/Press+Room/Aliyah+Statistics/nov30.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010906030431/http://www.adc.org/issue_papers/ror/issuepaper30.PDF to http://www.adc.org/issue_papers/ror/issuepaper30.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126182841/http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/YakobsonRubinstein2005.pdf to http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42d75369-d582-4380-8395-d25925b85eaf%7D/yakobsonrubinstein2005.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051127033448/http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=199 to https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101126182841/http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/YakobsonRubinstein2005.pdf to http://www.ajc.org/atf/cf/%7B42D75369-D582-4380-8395-D25925B85EAF%7D/YakobsonRubinstein2005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of Return. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101026064659/http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=575570&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0 to http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=575570&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4&sbSubContrassID=0
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.palestine-un.org/news/may99_cult.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1188392567423

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Notable Persons Excluded

I think this section should include Norman Finkelstein. 82.36.218.232 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not think he has ever applied. He was deported as a visitor due to his alleged visits to Hezbollah.Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Too much hebrew terms in this article, why do OLEH? why not just immigrant? Its unfriendly to read, why can users also downvote articles? wikipedia is such a mess to use or to communicate about, what an antiquated site! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.51.161 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 September 2020

Denial Of Citizenship needs to be updated with a new person:

Hayden B. Siegel, distantly related to Meyer Lansky (through Benjamin Siegel who is was his great uncle and Meyer's cousin) had been attempting to make Aliyah for more than 7 years but was denied Aliyah on Sept 10th 2020 for having the incorrect form during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hayden B. Siegel entered the nation with a letter from the Jewish Agency and Nefesh B'Nefesh stating he needed to go to the Ministry of Interior to complete his Aliyah. Hayden verified this with the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to confirm there were no additional forms or documents needed. Upon arrival Hayden was held at the walkway from the plane for 4 hours and told there was a form he was missing, that the emails and letters would not due. Hayden requested Asylum but was denied. Instead of honoring the Law of Return the Israeli government told Hayden to toss his Torah in the trash and forced him onto an airplane back to the USA.

(This is from the source and I can provide emails and tickets etc as proof that this occurred. Just not sure how?) Heydan Seegil (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Patrol 35 or Patrol 36?

The article on the Neo-Nazi group refers to it as Patrol 36, so the debate section should be updated to reflect this. As of now, the debate section calls the group Patrol 35, not Patrol 36. 165.124.144.171 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed this as well. No one's bothered to correct that in the 16+ months since you brought it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.23 (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Source on definition of Jew for the purposes of this law

The law states "For the purposes of this Law, "Jew" means a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion." (https://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm). It's not clear why this article states you can also be paternally descendent of a Jew, and where the specific requirements on conversion come from. This seems incorrect to me, or at least it needs references. --MartinoK (talk) 08:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

The law distinguishes between who is a Jew and who gets to enjoy the rights of a Jew. It is in Section 4A. Someone whose father (but not mother) is a Jew will not be considered a Jew but will be allowed to enter under the law. Zero^talk 12:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2021

Addition to denial of citizenship section. This is edit is being requested by Hayden B. Siegel who is claiming denial of citizenship and who I attend Synagogue with here in NYC. He said he uploaded this with sources prior, not sure if those can be recovered I didn't see it in the talk? If not I can ask him for them this weekend after Shabbat. See below for the entry:

While no formal denial has been issued as grounds for formal denial have not been met but Hayden B. Siegel has for all intensive purposes has been denied citizenship under the Law of Return. Hayden filed for Aliyah in 5773/2013 in the Houston branch of the Jewish Agency for Israel but never heard back prompting him to refile in the Los Angeles branch of the Jewish Agency in 5778/2018 where again he never received a determination. Hayden was told by the Jewish Agency for Israel, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Israeli Ministry of Health, and the Israeli Consulate that he had all the necessary documentation and needed to proceed to Israel to complete the Aliyah during the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon arrival he was denied entry due to the COVID-19 pandemic despite the government's approval for entry and returned rather violently to the USA against his will. Since then the Jewish Agency for Israel as well as all other branches of the Israeli government have ceased communications breaking Halakha by ignoring the Levi. To this day Hayden has remained a proud and upstanding member of the Jewish community regularly attending Synagogue and on occasion opening his house to Israelis traveling through the USA so that they will have a place to stay. He also as been a very active Jewish Civil Rights advocate stating that 'Israel doesn't care at all about Jews but I do." Trustmeiamright (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

• Note that I've blocked Trustmeiamright as a sock of Heydan Seegil who made the same request on September 20, above.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Law of Return and Jewish DNA

Many people have Jewish DNA according to present DNA analyses. Does the Law of Return apply to those people, even without any other known Jewish heritage? Shai-Huludim (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

No it doesn't. However there is a related matter: a recent highly controversial proposal to use DNA to check the ancestry of people who claim to be Jewish. Maybe it should have a mention in the article. Zero^talk 00:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023

Please remove this paragraph: 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 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. 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.[11]

It is an unsubstantiated claim that is not backed by any evidence and the link to the article is broken. 147.236.178.178 (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The content seems to me to be verified by the source, which is available via this archive link. Let me know if you see something that isn't covered by the source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)