BOUNDARIES OF BELONGING: CONVERSION IN ISRAEL’S LAW OF RETURN By Tiffany Pransky Submitted to Central European University Nationalism Studies Program In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Advisor: Professor Michael L. Miller Budapest, Hungary 2012 CEU eTD Collection Abstract Israel’s Law of Return has been at the center of debate both inside and outside of Israel. The law states that every Jew has the right to immigrate to Israel. However, there have been many contested cases in which individuals self-identified as Jews, but their applications for immigration under the Law of Return was denied. This research seeks to explain why the state has not accepted their applications or their claims to be Jewish by looking at three Supreme Court cases and their coverage in English-language Jewish press outside of Israel. This paper will show that while individuals feel they have a connection to the Jewish people and Israel, this feeling is not always reciprocal. There are many factors involved. The most important factors are the implementation of the Law of Return by the Interior Ministry and the interpretation of the Law of Return by justices of the Supreme Court (sitting as the High Court of Justice) adjudicating contested claims. The most important marker of being Jewish seems to be attaining or retaining a connection to the Jewish people through conversion, and the underlying rationale for rejection or acceptance of an applicant’s claims is based upon a historical and ethno-cultural religious perspective. CEU eTD Collection i Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... i Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1 Research Aim and Methodology............................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1: Background ................................................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2: Oswald Rufeisen v. Minister of the Interior (1962) ................................................................... 15 The Question of the Case ........................................................................................................................ 17 Legislative Intent .................................................................................................................................... 19 Belonging or Severed Ties ...................................................................................................................... 20 Decision Handed Down .......................................................................................................................... 22 Media Coverage ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Chapter 3: Miller v. Minister of the Interior (1986).................................................................................... 28 The Case ................................................................................................................................................. 28 The Ruling .............................................................................................................................................. 34 Media Coverage ...................................................................................................................................... 36 Identity and Recognition ......................................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 4: Beresford v. Minister of the Interior (1989) .............................................................................. 41 The Case ................................................................................................................................................. 41 The Judgment .......................................................................................................................................... 42 Media Coverage ...................................................................................................................................... 45 Later Developments ................................................................................................................................ 47 The Role of the Interior Ministry ............................................................................................................ 48 CEU eTD Collection Further Comparison of Beresford and Miller ......................................................................................... 49 Chapter 5: Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 52 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 55 ii Introduction Father Romauld Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel, the main subject of the feature-length documentary Torn, is a man with an unusual story. The film follows Father Weksler-Waszkinel (often referred to as Yaakov in the film) as he leaves behind his life in Poland to immigrate to Israel. What makes his personal story unique is that he claims to be both Catholic and Jewish. He did not know that he was Jewish, however, until he was in his thirties. He was born to two Jewish parents, but at the beginning of World War II, his parents gave him up to be adopted by a Polish couple. Without knowledge of his adoption or his Jewish heritage, he later became a Catholic priest. It was only at the age of thirty-five that Yaakov learned about his Jewish parents who had tragically perished in the Holocaust. The film begins over fifty years after that dark time in history as Yaakov, now in his sixties, leads his last mass service at an Ursuline convent in Lublin, Poland, and heads to a kibbutz in Israel. However, his “right of return” – the right to immigrate to Israel and obtain citizenship as a Jew, given to Jews who express a “desire to settle there” – was denied. Simply stated, the Law of Return gives Jews the right to immigrate to Israel and almost automatic citizenship. In a scene with the Immigration Authority Chief, Yaakov shows disappointment as he hears that he will not be granted Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. Rather, he is given a temporary visa with the Immigration Authority Chief stating, “If he wants to change status [to a Jew], he knows what he has to do.” To be considered a Jew in order to immigrate to the state of Israel under the Law of Return, he will have to convert to Judaism. Yaakov, believing CEU eTD Collection he is Jewish and has a right to citizenship as a Jew, takes this as rejection. This story illustrates the significance of Israel’s Law of Return on both a practical and emotional level to individuals wishing to immigrate to Israel. 1 Though the exact situation of Romauld Jakub Weksler-Waszkinel is certainly atypical, such a strange story is not without precedent. There was another man named Oswald Rufeisen who was born to two Jewish parents in Poland before World War II, later converted to Catholicism, and attempted to immigrate to Israel (make aliyah). Oswald Rufeisen, much like Weksler, went by another name. Famously, he became known as Brother Daniel. Brother Daniel applied to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return in 1958. After being denied, he appealed to the Supreme Court. Despite the fact that he was born to a Jewish mother, had been a Zionist in his youth, and saved the lives of hundreds of Jews during the Holocaust, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled against him. He would not be recognized as a Jew by the State of Israel because he had converted to a religion other than Judaism, and therefore, he was not granted automatic citizenship. Research Aim and Methodology In this thesis, I will be closely analyzing three Supreme Court cases in which Diaspora Jews tested the limits of the application of Israel’s Law of Return. These cases contested the boundaries of belonging to the Jewish people and were implicated in the controversial “Who is a Jew” debate. Gad Barzilai argues that the question “Who is a Jew?” is not a static one, and answers given by various groups in Israel reflect their attempts to mark boundaries.1 What do these cases tell us about the perceptions of the boundaries of belonging to the Jewish people and consequently, the Jewish state? Certain individuals who self-identify as Jews have been told that despite their self- CEU eTD Collection identification, they are not considered Jews. Thus they are excluded from the right entitled to all 1 Gad Barzilai, “Who Is a Jew? Categories, Boundaries, Communities, and Citizenship Law in Israel,” in Boundaries of Jewish Identity, ed. Susan A. Glenn and Naomi B. Sokoloff (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010), 27-42. 2 Jews – the right of return. I will argue that the answer to why have these individuals been denied the right of return lies in their differing conceptions of belonging to the Jewish people. This will become clear when analyzing the cases. This thesis will analyze three court case rulings and will survey the responses to the cases in several English-language Jewish newspapers