Conversion in Israel's Law Of

CEU eTD Collection BOUNDARIES In fulfillmentIn requirements partial for the ofdegree the of OF

BELONGING: CONVERSION IN ISRAEL’S LAW OF RETURN INLAWBELONGING: ISRAEL’SOF CONVERSION Adviso Nationalism Studies NationalismProgram Studies Central European University European Central r: Professor MichaelL.r: Professor Miller Budapest, HungaryBudapest, Tiffany Pransky MasterArts of Submitted toSubmitted 2012 By

CEU eTD Collection claims and conversion, through people Jewish being of marker important the by Return of Law the reciprocal this Israel, and people Jewish the to connection a have they feel individuals in coverage Jewish be to claims their or applications their denied. was Return of Law the under self individuals Israel. which to in cases immigrate contested to right the has Jew every that states law Abstract Supreme Court Court Supreme is based historical upon a Israel’s Law of Return has been at the center of debate both inside and outside of Israel. of outside and inside both debate of center the at been has Return of Law Israel’s .

Ther English e are many factors involved. factors many are e stig s h Hg Cut f Justice) of Court High the as (sitting -

agae Jewish language the Interior Ministry Interior the the and ethnoand underlying rationale for rejection or acceptance or rejection for rationale underlying seems

This research seeks to explain why the state has not accepted not has state the why explain to seeks research This

press -

- identified as Jews, but but Jews, as identified

cultural religiouscultural perspective. and the interpretation of the Law of Return by justices of justices by Return of Law the of interpretation the and o be to

The most important factors important most The usd o Israel of outside

tann o retaining or attaining i

okn a tre urm Cut ae ad their and cases Court Supreme three at looking duiaig co adjudicating .

hs ae wl so ta while that show will paper This their applications for immigration for applications their However,

co a are tse claims. ntested

nnection to the Jewish Jewish the to nnection

hr hv been have there the feeling implementation of implementation of an applicant’s an of is not always not is

The

many most

The CEU eTD Collection Bibliography Chapter 5: Conclusions Chapter 4: Chapter 3: Chapter 2: Chapter 1: Background Introduction Table of Contents Further Comparison The Role the of Interior Ministry Later Developments Media Coverage The Judgment The Case Identity Recognition and Media Coverage The Ruling The Case Media Coverage Decision Handed Down Belongingor Severed Ties LegislativeIntent The Question theof Case Research Aim Methodology and Abstract

Miller v.Minister the of Interior Oswald Rufeisen v. Minister theof In Beresford v. Minister theof Interior ......

......

of Beresfordof and Miller

......

...... (1986) ......

...... (1989 ...... terior ...... ii ......

)

......

...... (1962) ......

......

55 52 49 48 47 45 42 41 41 38 36 34 28 28 23 22 20 19 17 15 .

5 2 1

CEU eTD Collection wishing to immigrate to wishing Israel. to individuals to level emotional and practical a both on Return of Law Israel’s of significance the rej as this takes Jew, a as citizenship to right a has and Jewish is he stateLaw will of the Judaism.the Israelhe convert have Return, to of to under [to status change to wants he “If stating, Chief Authority Immigration the with visa temporary a given Return. of Law the under citizenship Israeli granted be not will he that hears he automatic almost Im the with and scene a IsraelIn citizenship. to immigrate to right the Jews gives Return of Law the stated, there” settle to “desire a express who Jews to given Jew, a as citizenship a to Israel. in heads kibbutz and Poland, Lublin, in convent Ursuline an at service mass last his leads sixties, the who tragically in had perished priest. Catholic couple. Polish parents his II, War World of beginning the at but parents, Jewish thirties. his in was he until however, Jewish, was he that know not did Israel. to immigrate to Poland in life his behind leaves he as film) the in Yaakov as to referred (often documentary Introduction

What makes his personal story unique is that he claims to be both Catholic and Jewish. and Catholic both claims be to thathe is storymakes personal unique Whathis The film begins over fifty years after that dark time in history as Yaakov, now in his his in now Yaakov, as history in time dark that after years fifty over begins film The Roma Father

a Jew], he knows what he has to do.” to has he what knows he Jew], a Torn

ihu kolde f i aoto o hs eih eiae h ltr eae a became later he heritage, Jewish his or adoption his of knowledge Without It was only at the age of thirty of age the at only was It

oee, i “ih o return” of “right his However, , is a man with an unusual story. unusual an with man a is ,

l Jkb Weksler Jakub uld

Holocaust. migration Authority Chief, Yaakov shows disappointment as disappointment shows Yaakov Chief, Authority migration - azie, h mi sbet f h feature the of subject main the Waszkinel,

- five that Yaakov learned about his Jewish parents Jewish his about learned Yaakov that five

1 To be considered a Jew in order to immigrate to immigrate to order in Jew a considered be To

–

The film follows Father Weksler Father follows film The h right the to immigrate to Israel and obtain and Israel to immigrate to gave him up to be adopted by a a byadopted be to up himgave ection.

–

e a br t two to born was He

This story illustrates illustrates story This was denied. Simply denied. was

Yaakov, believing Yaakov, believing

Rather, he is he Rather, - Waszkinel - length

CEU eTD Collection University of Washington Washington UniversityPress, 2010), 27 of Israel,” in 1 Jews. considered not are they identification, consequently, Jewish state? the and people Jewish the to belonging of boundaries the of perceptions the about us tell cases these Israel in groups various by given answers debate. Jew” and people Jewish the to belonging of boundaries Return. of Law Israel’s of application the of limits the tested Jews Research andAim Methodology automatic granted was not citizenship. t other religion a to converted had he because Israel of State the the during him. against ruled Court Supreme Israeli the Holocaust, Jews of hundreds of lives the saved and youth, his in Zionist a been had mother, Court. Supreme the to appealed he denied, being Weksler, bywent name. another to converted later II, War (make Israel World to immigrate to before attempted and Poland Catholicism, in parents Jewish two to born was who str a such

Gad Barzilai,Gad “W eti idvdas h self who individuals Certain Diaspora which in cases Court Supreme three analyzing closely be will I thesis, this In Weksler Jakub Romauld of situation exact the Though Brother Daniel applied to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return in 1958. in Return of Law the under Israel to immigrate to applied Daniel Brother ange story is not without precedent. without not is story ange Boundaries Identity Boundaries Jewish of

Gad Barzilai argues that the the that argues Barzilai Gad ho Is aJew? and Citizenship Law Communities, Categories, Boundaries, ho in

Famously, he became known asFamously, Brotherknown Daniel. became he - dniy s es ae en od ht despi that told been have Jews as identify

, ed. Susan and A., ed. Naomi Glenn Sokoloff B. (Seattle: -

42. reflect their attempts to mark boundaries. mark to attempts their reflect

usin Wo s Jw” s o a ttc one static a not is Jew?” a is “Who question Thus they are excluded from the right entitled to all to entitled right the from excluded are they Thus

There was another man named Oswald Rufeisen Rufeisen Oswald named man another was There 2

were implicated in the controversial “Who is a is “Who controversial the in implicated were Despite the fact that he was born to a Jewi a to born was he that fact the Despite

He would not be recognized as a Jew by by Jew a as recognized be not would He aliyah - Waszkinel is certainly atypical, atypical, certainly is Waszkinel ). han Judaism, and therefore, he he therefore, and Judaism, han

Oswald Rufeisen, much lik much Rufeisen, Oswald

hs cases These

otse the contested e hi self their te 1

What do What

, After

and sh e -

CEU eTD Collection y nlzn te uig ad rs cvrg o te he Spee or dcso revolving decision around Court Supreme three the of coverage press and rulings the analyzing By t of analysis my in perspectives different New York.communityOrthodoxgeared in thetowards publication perspective replicating their to due (sometimes London the after (UK) London in published analyzed Press C Jewish weekly the newspapers, Jewish manylocal to stories providing service cable a (JTA), more cases. but Diaspora, Jewish the in J Diaspora case at looked the I importantly, to reactions and cases the reconstructing to the in become analyzingwhen clear return of right the Jews

severalEnglish JerusalemPost, –

a e York New (a the right of return. of right the For the American perspective, I reviewed articles from the the from articles reviewed I perspective, American the For analyzewill thesis This the Law of Return and the contentious “Who is a Jew” debate Jew” a is “Who contentious the and Return of Law the hronicle The Jewish Chronicle, Jewish The s

vary

, the , - at times. at lies in the in lies language Jewish newspapers published outsi published newspapers languageJewish

which is an Israeli an iswhich . -

ae wel) ad h monthly the and weekly), based Since I will also be referring to two other two other Since referringto be will also I Ohio Jewish Chronicle Jewish Ohio -

ae newspaper. based I

This is most clear in the case of the the of case the in clear most is This will argue will ir

the cases.the differing

three

the oldest continuously published Jewish newspaper Jewish published continuously oldest the ws pes to press ewish court case rulings and will and caserulings court

- that the answer to w to answer the that based English based

JTA conceptions of conceptions

he press coverage of the Israeli Supreme Court cases. Court Supreme Israeli the of coverage press he

editorials) and cover the the cover and editorials)

While papers often report very similar stories stories similar very report often papers While (a Columbus area Jewish newspaper), Jewish area Columbus (a 3

e ter nepeain and interpretation their see - language paper). These articles contributed contributed articleslanguageThese paper). belonging Commentary hy have hy de of Israel (with the exception of the (with Israelof de Jewish Chronicles Jewish survey Jewish Press Jewish

to the Jewish people. Jewish the to

these individuals individuals these I will highlight some of these somehighlightwillthese of I Jewish Telegraphic Agency Telegraphic Jewish , this thesis this ,

the responses to the casesthe to responses the magazine. ae vns editorial events, same , which produces a a produces which ,

, I will , I indicate rmn o the of framing remains n diin I addition, In been denied been The Pittsburgh Pittsburgh , which ,

Jewish within is will is

CEU eTD Collection final case Miller Shoshana am 1970 the after occurred menti already pr Diaspora Jewish the case legal return. of right were immigration) for (applicants petitioners the that view Minister’s Interior chapters following the in detail more in citizenship and immigration people. Isra of scope the

chapter chapter

with deals which legislation and Return of Law the describe will I chapter, first the In

was about, was will close with conclusions will with close oned

Descriptions of the the of Descriptions el -

Diaspora relations and and relations Diaspora Oswald Oswald

and which will be contrasted with the Beresford case in case Beresford the with contrasted be will which ess understood the case outcome to mean to outcome case the understood ess then then before contextualizing before en Rufeisen cover mn t te a o Return of Law the to dment just age of the Supreme Court cases Court Supreme the of age

case.

ice opinions from their judgments their from opinions ice and observations to show how the justices either affirmed or rejected the rejected or affirmed either justices the how show to inter

The - 4 Jewish disputes over who belongs to the Jewish the to belongs who over disputes Jewish

following

the cases. the about the

two chapters cover cases which which cases cover chapters two . I will I

C .

atr three hapter Chapter two Chapter

threemain cases. then then in the press the in

the fourth chapter. fourth the look a look

will ineligible will will describe the describe will t the court cases court the t

reveal will show what show will

analyze the the analyze what the the what

for the the for

The

CEU eTD Collection 50. Cultural Patterns Social and 5 Reinharz, eds., 4 Reinharz, eds., 3 World Modern the 2 o “everyLaw, Citizenship 1952 an as country this to come to right the has vote. unanimous a Eretzstate Israel.” in nation modern a into them turn to aimed and people one constitute accepted Jews that reality movement historical and ideology an ideology. “as Zionist Smooha, the Sammy to states legislation “Zionism,” of piece this of centrality the overestimate to difficult or Jewswhereverthe reaffirmedmay they Israel’s that and every be” to “gatesare open Jew.” Ingatheri the for and immigration Jewish for open be will “Israel states, that Declaration the of section the quoted Minister, Prime Ben David Return, of Law the as known legislation of piece proposed Israel. of State the Chapter 1:Background

ther words, the Law of Return states that every Jew has the inherent right to immigrate to Israel,immigraterightinherent the to to everyhas statesthat Jew Law Return the words,ther of Smooha, “Jewish EthnicitySmooha, “Jewish Israel: or Symbolic in Real?,” “David Ben “David Ben “Proclamation Stateof the of Israel (Ma raison

On July 5, twoBen afterJuly days 5, On Ben address, his In Ben David 1948, 14, May On

d’être - - Gurion: Address Gurion: the the Addressto Knesset Law and Flohr on (July in: 1950),” of3, Return The Jew in the World Modern The Jew in the World Modern The Jew in

of the state. the of

, 629 The law, as it it as law, The

hn drsig h Kest Ire’ p (Israel’s Knesset the addressing When 5

- 630. - Gurion also stated that the Law of Return embodies the main mission main the embodies Return of Lawthe that stated also Gurion 4

, eds. Uzi, eds. Rebhun and ChaimWaxman, University (Brandeis Press),

This reflects the major objective of Zionism. objective of major reflectsthe This

oleh to theto the Knesset Law and Flohr on (Julyin: 1950),” of3, Return was formulated in 1950, begins with the statement, “Every Jew Jew “Every statement, the with begins 1950, in formulated was

ng of the Exiles.” the of ng

under the Law of Return shall become an Israeli national.” Israeli an becomeshall Return ofLaw the under - - Gurion’s address, the Knesset passed the Law of Return by LawReturn the ofKnesset address, passed Gurion’s the Gurion read aloud the Declaration of the Establishment of of Establishment the of Declaration the aloud read Gurion y 14, and Flohr y in: Reinharz,1948),” 14, eds., oleh oleh , 632. , 631. 5

(immigrant)

He emphasized that Israel is a “state for all all for “state a is Israel that emphasized He in J in ,”

rimn) w yas ae o the on later years two arliament) ewish Israelewish in and according to Section 2 of the the of 2 Section to according and

Therefore, it would be would Therefore, it - uin te Israel’s then Gurion, : Contempo

h ie and idea the The Jew in The rary 3

In -

CEU eTD Collection 11 Also,Kraines, 4. 10 Vol. 39:1233:1240. 9 8 7 Yfaat Oxford:LevyWeiss Berghahn and (Newand York 82. Books, 2002), Multiethnic,” in 6 Judaism. to converts who one or mother Jewish a to born is who one is Jew laws. national secular, Israel’s of purpose the for Israel,” of “Sages the abroad, and Israel from Ben Minister Prime by led Jew. committee, a a resolution, is who deciding for criteria the over disagreed leadership isamatterIsraeliwhich restwell society divides Jewry. asthe that asof world the accident; no was omission the that claimed have a was there felt legislators the because Jew. defined not was term the if questioned a considered it who define not did state” “Jewish the in citizenship the Jewish of Israel and Diaspora. and state, Jewish the be to created was the Israel. in naturalization” and “constitute migration Law Citizenship the and Return of Law the together immigrating. upon citizenship automatic them grants Law Citizenship the and

Sapir, Sapir, IsWarhaftig, aJew?,”“Who 24. Ben ItsYfaatGolem How Creator, Weiss, “The or and the

Ibid., Ibid., p. 179. Joppke, - Porat and Turner, and Porat h mte bcm a oe dsue n h gvrmn a government the in dispute open an became matter The and immigration Jewish facilitate to 1950 in created legislation the enough, Strangely How Deal Court with That PrimarytheShould a Question Legislature Avoid?a Seeks to Selecting Originby Selecting

Challenging Ethnic Citizenship: Israeli Perspectivesand German The Impossible Dil

The Contradictions IsraeliThe of Citi

, 176 7

178. emma 6

established These laws work in concert to express the fact that Israel factthat expressthe to concert in work Theselaws See also, See also, Sinclair, , 6 - 8. 8. for their opinions on how one should define a Jew a define should one how on opinions their for 6

The overwhelming majority concluded that a that concluded majority overwhelming The a formal, legal connection between the State the between connection legal formal, a - Israeli legislature Israeli uin akd vr ot Jws scholars Jewish forty over asked Gurion,

Jewish Nation Jewish zenship Jewish Association Jewish Law Studies , 11. te n o te 90 when 1950s the of end the t

State Became In In

avoided defining a Jew, Jew, a defining avoided ea gonwr for groundwork legal an an

9 need for it, for need attempt to find find to attempt While some have have some While Consequently, the the Consequently,

, ed. Daniel Daniel , ed. Consequently, 8

others XI, XI, a , CEU eTD Collection 14 13 12 the largely isin aJew”“Who politicized debate. another. read Jew” a is Who on Ruling Court Supreme Jew”one a read is Who wer they what exactly was that supposed have might one case, the covering headlines newspaper at glancing Yet, unanswered. leftlegislature the that Jew?”question a is “Who the to answer an adjudicating Shifma Pinhas suggests reasons,” issue,” explosive ideologically in ruled Supremethe petiti Court religion. without but nationality by Jewish as registry the Ministry in children Interior the order to Court Supreme the to applied Shalit Benjamin children the register not would clerk registration the but registry, family. a started and Israel, to returned case latter Interior of Jew.” two of advent the with 1960s registration. notif government

Shifman, “On Conversions Not in Accordance Not in Conversions Halakhah,”Shifman, “On 65. with Sinclair, Kraines,

The first case was the aforementioned Brother Daniel case, or or case, Daniel Brother aforementioned the was case first The The Supreme Court did not want to appear to be deciding upon a “socially divisive and and divisive “socially a upon deciding be to appear to want not did Court Supreme The the in heights new reached Jew a of definition government’s Israeli the over Debates

Jewish Law Association Law XI Studies Jewish The (1962), and the second case was case second the and (1962), novd n sal nvl fie wo a mrid non a married had who officer naval Israeli an involved

At time, writtenlaw. that however,into was not it e deciding upon. deciding e

Impossible Dilemma e te e Itro Mnsr ta tee ee h sadrs t hud s in use should it standards the were these that Ministry Interior new the ied

Jewish Telegraphic Agency Telegraphic Jewish

Supreme Court cases revolving around the question of “Who is a is “Who of question the around revolving cases Court Supreme

13 “Israel’s Supreme Court to Hand Down Milestone Decision on Decision Milestone Down Hand to Court Supreme “Israel’s oner’s favor, but based a technicality. but oner’son favor, based

o hy re t hd ter eiin eid “technical behind decision their hide to tried they so , 46. n. 14

He attempted to register his children in the population the in children his register to attempted He h Cut insi Court The Benjamin Shalit v. Minister of Interior of Minister v. Shalit Benjamin , 2. 7

article.

Thus, the Shalit case became impli became case Shalit the Thus, utd ht t a n intention no had it that nuated

“World Jewish Leaders Debate Israel JewishDebate Leaders “World

in the way the father wished. father the way the in 12 Oswald

By a five to four vote, the vote, four to five a By - eih oa abroad, woman Jewish

Rufeisen v. Minister v. Rufeisen to to

(1969). register his his register - cated legal legal

The

of of

CEU eTD Collection 19 18 17 16 15 o proportion high a have to known waswhich Union Soviet the from immigration facilitateJewish to enacted was return of right the of expansion this are they not or (whether Jews of members family religion. law), “ word Hebrew another of member a not is religion.” who and Judaism to converted become has or mother Jewish th “For clarified, amendment “offering foryet everyone,” a bit one. no satisfying law. into enacted hastily was Return. of Law the under immigrate to Jew a of family the for provision additional more Jew a define would that d Court’s the reversing passed was legislation new unless coalition government the from resign would it announced

Weiss, Kraines, Joppke, IsAdo aJew?AboutSee Nothing.” “Who Maoz, Much Kraines, 18

On the other hand, section 4A(a) of the Law of Return also extended the right the extended also Return ofLaw the 4A(a)of section hand, other the On the of 4B Section amended. was Return of Law the 1970, 10, March on Nevertheless, Party Religious National the case, Court Supreme publicized highly the of wake the In with the added clarification that a Jew cannot belong to or be a member of another another of member a be or to belong cannot Jew a that clarification added the with

“The Golem How Nation or “The Its Creator, Jewish and the Selecting Originby Selecting hs a Thus, The Impossible The Dilemma Impossible The Dilemma hal achah halachic halachic

ecision. ” literally means “the way” and describes traditional Orthodox religious Orthodox traditional describes and way” “the means literally ” definition of a Jew became codified into secular Israeli law (the (the law Israeli secular into codified became Jew a of definition e purpose of this Law, ‘Jew’ means a person who was born of a a of born was who person a means ‘Jew’ Law, this of purpose e

, 180. 16 15 -

or h rslig opoie mnmn hs en ecie as described been has amendment compromise resulting The As a compromise, the Cabinet proposed a piece of legislation of piece a proposed Cabinet the compromise, a As -

es sn te rtra f rhdx eiiu lw wt an with law, religious Orthodox of criteria the using less , 121. , 54.

halachically 17

f mixed families.mixed f

Jewish). - State Became Multiethnic.” 19

Amnon Rubinstein notes Rubinstein Amnon Yfaat Weiss argues that argues Weiss Yfaat

The proposa The

of return to return of

l CEU eTD Collection Avoid? 23 22 Multiethnic,” 94. 21 Section under 4A in Judaism,convertsthe law as to defined increasinglyof an of large number 20 Reform Movement. the wit States United the in Judaism to converted who Colorado from woman a Miller, Shoshana which changed which delineate not did who person a or mother Jewish a to born either is who crisis,” which in continues conversion forms this different day. to matter. contested a been has Return of Law the under immigration t Nonetheless, state. Jewish the in citizenship to right automatic one. Orthodox phrase “according to the add to tried have who Yisrael) Agudat and Party Religious Orthodox National the (like parties political of members by often quite Return, of Law the change to Knesset the in proposals was law the when debate public a changed, to lead not did return of right the of extension this that

Sapir, Sapir, Oscar Kraines, in Quoted regardingMuch expansion debates came Law the of of the Return later decades as two aresult , Vol. 39:1233:1239. el wt te eonto of recognition the with dealt The root of the problem lies problem the of root The 1970, since amended been not has Return of Law The How Deal Court with PrimaryShould a Questi a 20 h usin rm wo s Jw t “h i a convert.” a is “who to Jew” a is “who from question the

whereas the matter whereas ofdefinition the of the a Jew certainly did. Weiss, Its “The GolemCre and e usin f hc cnesos o uas ae eonzd o Jewish for recognized are Judaism to conversions which of question he

uh n diin ol ecue non exclude would addition an Such

(a) The Impossible DilemmaThe

of the Lawof the of Return.

halacha

She immigrated to Israel in 1985, but the administrative clerks refused to refused clerks administrativethe but 1985, Israelin to immigrated She conversions conversions

” to th” to

“ e legislation would restrictdefinition which of an the a Jew to

non in the fact that the Law of Return defines a Jew as someone someone as Jew a defines Return of Law the that fact the in ol e recognized. be would non - Jews -

, 77. -

being rhdx conversion Orthodox ator, ator, or Jewish How Nation the ”

- 9

those a to born Jewish those neither

permitted to immigrate Israel thepermitted to in 1990s to 22

hs atmt hv nt en successful. been not have attempts These converts - on That That the Legislature on Seeks to Orthodox Jewish converts from the the from converts Jewish Orthodox

n h wrs f ienSpr this Sapir, Gideon of words the In

but

to Judaism, but the legislation the but Judaism, to to Judaism was the case of of case the was Judaism to

23 there have continually been been continually have there 21

n urm Cut case Court Supreme One t a be dbe “the dubbed been has It - State Became mother nor hin hin

CEU eTD Collection 26 actually that a many organization refersspecific Jewsaffiliated to Messianic with. are not 25 Publications, 2000). Daniel in found B. be Sinclair, ed., 24 of “members are Jews Messianic that determined judges the since case their lost Beresfords The Court. Supreme Israel’s to case Consequently, applications. their rejected Ministry Interior the however, madeattempt Shirley was byGary Jewish afrom coupleAfrica. Messianic and Beresford, South Israel to immigrate to attempted instead. Christian becoming while Jewish be to ceases t both challenge Jews Christianity.” Gentile into assimilation “refuse and traditions Jewish to on hold but religion.” another of “membersthemsel not are they Jesus, in belief their despite that claim who descent Jewish of individuals of number growing a been have there decades, few a disqualifies membership such Return, of Law the of amendment subsequent the and case Daniel Brother the of precedent the Judaism from conversion grounds Jewish. as her register

Juster and Hocken, and JewishJuster “The Movement: Messianic An Introduction,” 6. groupReferring as the for “Jews Jesus” to The English translation English of B In the 1980’s, the Beresfords attempted to make to attempted Beresfords the 1980’s, the In Jesus, in faith to come have who Jews those comprises movement Jewish Messianic The relates Return of Law the over contestation Another ves Jewsas Messianic .

he Christian and Jewish notions that when a Jew believes in Jesus, he/she Jesus, in believes Jew a when that notions Jewish and Christian he

She petitioned the S the petitioned She –

or, as the law states it, membership in another religion. another in membership it, states law the as or,

eresford v. Minister of the Interior v. of Minister eresford or Jewish believers in Jesus. Jewish believersor in

The court’s judgment was handed down on December 25, 1989. 25, December on down handed was judgment court’s The Jew from receiving automatic citizenship in Israel. in citizenship automatic receiving from Jew – Jewish Law Association Law XI,Studies Jewish

oe ucsfly bt tes not. others, but successfully, some upreme Court and won her case, again, o again, case, her won and Court upreme

is possibly the mostis possibly title the problematic the since 10

aliyah 25 nme o tee niiul have individuals these of number A

to a different type of conversion conversion of type different a to

(immigrate to Israel). to (immigrate (translated from (Global Scholarly(Global

n sc unsuccessful such One

the couple took their their took couple the

Piske Din Piske They refer to to refer They

According to According 26

n In the past the In

Messianic Messianic

In Israel, Israel, In technical

) can –

CEU eTD Collection Human 184. Rights,” 30 No. (1998), Vol. 1, 159 2 Chaimabove Immigration,”Gans, and “Nationalism and critiques articlesboth justifications and see Law on of Nahshon of the Perez Return, article cited 29 28 Jewish 2007),Publishers, 266. 27 previou any waiving Israel, in settle to desire a having Hebrew, of knowledge some having residence, permanent to entitlement years, five preceding the of out three for country by nationality citizenship.” of acquisition the regarding Barak Daphne the atindeed, Law the centerhas been often debate. Return of of public opposed. and criticized, scrutinized, being continually is Return of Law the Consequently, a almost that discretion ministerial substantial of Law the Return that contends Perez Nahshon return,” of “right the by besides Law, Citizenship thewill following analyzed chapters. be in well. as applications, these rejected Ministry a Beresfords the Afterwards, religion.” another

Barak for example,Ilan scholar recommendsPappe, revoking isone that lawcompletely. the Perez,Law “Israel’s 19. Return,” of H.Stern, David Israel’s Citizenship Law (also tra (also Law Citizenship Israel’s citizens acquire and Israel to immigrate to ways are there Though is - Erez, “Israel: Citizenship and Immigration and “Israel: the LawVise Citizenship Erez,of in Security, Nation

sals mirto plc bcue te imgain as r “aey sd u to due used “rarely are laws immigration other because policy immigration Israel’s

- rz ald “eta” iiesi lw ih poiin o a nvra nature universal a of “provisions with law citizenship “neutral” a called Erez auaiain f eti cniin ae e, nldn lgl eiec i the in residence legal including met, are conditions certain if naturalization Messianic Movement Awith Judaism: Modern Ancient Past an

- 180.

nslated as Nationality Law), on the other hand, is what is hand, other the on Law), Nationality as nslated 30

h lw ulns ht pro my ban Israeli obtain may person a that outlines law The 27 lways blocks the granting of Israeli citizenship.” Israeli of granting the blocks lways

11 In addition to the Rufeisen case, these two cases cases two these case, Rufeisen the to addition In pplied for permanent residence, but the Interior the but residence, permanent for pplied

Ethical Ethical Theo ry and Moral Practicery and

hip, as described in the in described as hip,

(Messianic s citizenship, s ality, and

For For 29

, And 28

CEU eTD Collection 33 32 NationhoodCitizenship FranceG in and and 31 casea on claims at look must Joppke. Christian writes in state the “drags however, Return of Law the of target the identifying and claims inconsequential. not is Jewish being the fulfill to needing from Law. Citizenship Jews the under exempts out laid requirements Return of Law the return, of right the through formu the upon deciding when Knesset the in discussion of topics main the of one was Minister Inter the of role the stated, Weiss Yfaat as however, Return, of Law the In Return. of Law the for which Ministry, Interior the of discretion Law isbythe Citizenship the grantingcitizenship the section ofunder outlines, As this Israel in reside permanently, found in Daphneunlike those Barakother countries, Israel. of State the loyaltyto of oath an declaring and

Weiss, “The Golem and Its Creator, or How the Jewish Nation Jewish the How or ItsCreator, Golem and Weiss, “The Law of Entry (1952) Lawdelineates the of(1952) types Entry of visas and Interior permits the grantsMinister a good For morediscussion of the less restrictive conditions, see or Brubaker, naturalization lation Lawoflation the of Return. While acceding to citizenship under the Citizenship Law may be an anomaly unless it is it unless anomaly an be may Law Citizenship the under citizenship to acceding While Israel issue of nationalityby the th Ministerof (a),the subsection of requirements the meets he and naturalization, for applied has person a Where determine Ministry Interior the start, a For

State agencies, such as the Jewish Agency and the Ministry of Interior, of Ministry the and Agency Jewish the as such agencies, State 32 - o h mry eri o eaiig niiul iett’ claims,” ‘identity’ individual examining of terrain murky the to

by and the and hand, on other ofCitizenship Law Section 5(b) the adds:

was granted the power to implement the laws. the implement to power the granted was - case basis to sort out between those who qualify and those wh those and qualify who those between out sort to basis case 33

It also suggests that someone has the task of checking checking of task the has someone that suggests also It a certificate of naturalization. e Interior, if he thinks fit to do so, shall grant him him grant shall so, do fitto thinks ifhe Interior, e ermany 12

Th s whether or not an individual is entitled to entitled is individual an not or whether s - , 33 Erez contends that they are not easily that theyErezmet. contends are not 31 - State Became Multiethnic.” State Became us, the affirmation of a person’s claim to to claim person’s a of affirmation the us,

While the requirements in the law are not not are law the in requirements the While – 34. -

Jews.

“Ethnicity

- ae screenings,” based

The same is true true is same The

o CEU eTD Collection 36 accobelonging and isaJew”However, today, suggests, “who as as understood cultural the debates ethnicity isoften markersnationality, “ethnicity.” havingcustoms, of common these or none but constitute 35 34 havefullnot control over checking claims claims. contested adjudicate jurists and laws, the implements agencies.” state in minded stands differently rules selection of “implementation the stated, Joppke analyzing. Christian be will I that cases the in role important an plays Minister, Interior who upon depending contro time, with change Ministry Interior the of regulations the but nation, changing Ministry.the Interior policies of the confli new that see can we amendment, 1970 the since Return of Law immigration. regulates and to empowered is and immigration and citizenship of acquisition to related laws the of enforcement return.” of “right the for applicants of the at stands regime, citizenship consideration. may into taken be not. do

Joppke, JoppkeChristian explains mark that possible Joppke, enact regulations concerning its implementation, it essentially controls access to citizenship to access controls essentially it implementation, its concerning regulations enact s h Itro Ministry. Interior the ls 34 n fet te iity f neir cs s gate a as acts Interior of Ministry the effect, In Israel’s of vanguard the as acting clerks individual of comprised Ministry, Interior The

Unlike most other immigration laws, immigration other most Unlike Selecting Originby Selecting Originby Selecting rding to self rding to

Consequently, though there has been no change in the wording of the the ofwording the in change no been has there Consequently,though

, 174 , 174

identification. 35 Thus, we find that the Interior Minister, and particularly the the particularly and Minister, Interior the that find we Thus, gates “which are open to Jew,” in order to check identity claims identity check to order in Jew,” to open are “which gates

– – 175. 175.

eiltr fruae h lw, h Itro Minister Interior the laws, the formulate Legislators

– ic te neir iity s epnil fr the for responsible is Ministry Interior the Since

the cou the

See ers of ethnicityrace, ers of include language, religion, however, in Israel, in however, 13

Joppke, rts get as well. involved, - epr o ebrhp n h Jewish the in membership to keeper Selecting Originby Selecting 36

Thus, the Interior Ministry does does Ministry Interior the Thus, religious views and affiliation and views religious cts arise depending upon depending arise cts

, 4

the crossfire of of crossfire the - 5.

However, as as However,

CEU eTD Collection conversion to Judaism, to endingconversion case and withthe Jews. of Messianic afore the of conversions analysis an to turn will I chapters, next Now that some of the background on the legislation and cases has been addressed, in the in addressed, been has cases and legislation the on background the of some that Now –

einn wt te rte Dne cas Daniel Brother the with beginning 14

, hn okn a a ae bu Reform about case a at looking then e, - etoe cut ae daig with dealing cases court mentioned

CEU eTD Collection 1971, 1971, 1 Volu 38 37 Bar Israel register. population the in religion by Christian but nationality by Jew a as registered be to and Return of Law the under thi immigrate wasto Daniel, granted permission Israel. to Father now Rufeisen, Oswald church, Catholic the and government Polish the from permission join to day. which hoped one he Palestine in aknowing had chapter it Order, Carmelite the joined he 1945, in and Christianity, to converted he there, hiding While se was he and liquidated. be to about was ghetto the that Mirtown the ofJews notifythe to was able timehe which duringmilitary police, German the for War. World Second the of outbreak the before to able not was but Palestine to immigrate to planned later and youth, a as organization Zionist a in involved was Poland, in parents Jewish Orthodox fiction.” than “stranger is really truth sometimes Chronicle involved. was he which in case Court Supreme the of explanation an precedes Chapter 2:

The case in English iscontained English The in case in Leo “The Amazing Heiman, Daniel,” Brother ngs did not go according to plan. according go to ngsnot did

me, byAsheredited FelixLandau and Peter Elman (Jerusalem:MinistryThe of Justice), Finding himself in German in himself Finding Father Daniel Father life the reason, good For - 35. - Yehuda, the Minister of the Interior, was “inclined to grant this unusual application, unusual this grant to “inclined was Interior, the of Minister the Yehuda, U) rt i 15, ie er pir o i cut ae hs igah rvas that reveals biography his case, court his to prior years five 1957, in wrote (UK)

[Hereinafter: [Hereinafter: ntenced to death; to ntenced Oswald Rufeisen v. Rufeisen Oswald Minister Interior ofthe

was to lead a Carmelite Monastery in H in CarmeliteaMonastery lead wasto

e a rfsd both. refused was He Selected Judgments Selected

but h but - - story of Oswald Rufeisen, later to become Father Daniel, ofte Daniel, Father become to later Rufeisen, Oswald of story occuppied terr occuppied

Upon e escaped to a convent, where he remained for over a year. a over for remained he where convent, a to escaped e Selected Judgments of the Judgments Selected of Israel of Supreme Court arrival

His involvement in the Jews’ escape was discovered, was escape Jews’ the in involvement His ]

15 According to to According itory, he managed to obtain a job as a translator a as job a obtain to managed he itory, The Chronicle Jewish

in Israel, he applied for an immigrant for an certificate Israel, applied he in

Oswald Oswald

uesn was Rufeisen aifa upon immigrating to Israel,b immigrating to aifa upon T he

eih Chronicle Jewish 38 , 4 October , 4 33. 1957,

Afteryea

(1962) on n12 t two to 1922 in born rs of waiting for waiting rs of

The (UK), Mr. Mr. (UK), , Special

Jewish

ut n

CEU eTD Collection 44 43 42 41 40 39 forty Israel,” of “Sages the of opinion the for asking Ben Minister Prime crisis, coalition 1958 June the resolve to order in government, so. do should clerk registration desired parents if March,1958. Jew,”in a asregistered be shall Jewa is he thatfaith good in declaring definition. religious a toward howev ministry, interior the within department Jews. are they that declaration their to according registry matter. the on views conflicting had R (National head department Registry Population the and party) HaAvoda Ahdut citizenship). formal than community or people, group, ethnic trans cards. identity the on and registry population the in “nationality” recording for aggravpolitical issueliable to a became case Daniel’s Father question, Jew?’ a is ‘Who the over crisis government the with but

Joppke, Ibid., 287. Ibid. Joppke, Kraines, Israel“Should Accept Apostates?” lated as “le’um” in Hebre in “le’um” as lated

The “Who is a Jew” controversy to which Bar which to controversy Jew”a is “Who The Selecting Originby Selecting Originby Selecting The Impossible The Dilemma

and the situation created hot debates within the Knesset. within createddebates hot the situation and to register their child as a Jew, even if one of the parents was not Jewish, the Jewish, not was parents the of one if even Jew, a as child their register to

ate the crisis, and the was, crisis,ate application and the therefore, rejected.”

, 178. , 178. w, which Oscar Kraines explains Kraines Oscar which w, ”

42 n poiin te ainl eiiu Pry eind rm the from resigned Party Religious National the opposition, In

In response, the Interior Minister ordered, “Any person person “Any ordered, Minister Interior the response, In , 2. Also, Kraines, 41 The Jewish Chronicle The

Until 1958, officials had registered Jews in the population population the in Jews registered had officials 1958, Until

16 er, “attempted to move the registration practice practice registration the move to “attempted er,

The Impossible DilemmaThe - - Yehuda referred began over the regulation the over began referred Yehuda five Jewish scholars and religious leaders religious and scholars Jewish five , September 23 22. 1960,

h ha o te ouain registry population the of head The 40

is more akin to the idea of an an of idea the to akin more is h Itro Mnse (f the (of Minister Interior The

As previo - Gurion wrote a letter letter a wrote Gurion , 2.

(“Nationality” is (“Nationality” usly mentioned,usly eligious Party) eligious

Likewise, Likewise,

CEU eTD Collection Selected Judgments Selected Israeltheof of SupremeCourt 49 48 47 converted to registry.population Decemberhe 1959, ordered “religion” indivisiblemakingnew in the directives, “nationality”and 46 Judaism to converted or mother registeredcould be as aJew. See Joppke Jewish a of born person a only that declaring 1960 in registry 45 majority the representing return.” of right the to entitled Jew a considered be still could Catholicism The Question ofthe Case Minister The theof Interior Jew. a as card identity and certificate immigrant an Minist Interior the reverse to court the asking Jew. converted a of cause the to sympathetic less much was opponent his point, this by but battle, in locked became he Thus, matter a “as Jew a as recognized be to fight his abandon to refused and return of right the to entitled be should he insisted Daniel Father naturalization, through citizenship reject certainly elections, National after of MosheReligious 1959 the Shapiro appointed Minister Party, “will the referring. world. the across

English translation English of Joppke, Israel“Should Accept Apostates?” Fatherto Unbeknownst Daniel,notlon noprtn te eea rsos, Be response, general the Incorporating The main question that came before the court was “wheth was court the before came that question main The as but reapply, to planned Daniel Father

Selecting Originby Selecting

another Kraines, religion.

t” n n at h did. he fact, in and it,” 45

This was the government crisis government the was This Likewise, registration clerksfromwereregistration Likewise,restricted who registeringa person

H.C. 72/62 - . pno, eiiiey nwrd n h negative. the in answered definitively opinion,

, 177.

Father Daniel’s recourse was to turn to the courts. the to turn to was recourse Daniel’s Father

Oswald v. Rufeisen Minister the Interior of The Jewish Chronicle The Impossible Dilemma 46 , Selecting Origin, by , Selecting g Minister Shapiro after in became Moshe Interior

n hl Fte Dne cud tep t oti Israeli obtain to attempt could Daniel Father While - uin ae u nw ietvs o h population the to directives new out gave Gurion er’s decision and compel the ministry to grant him grant to ministry the compel and decision er’s 17

The , 2, , 2, 10.

to which Interior Minister Bar Minister Interior which to Thus began the case the began Thus

Jewish Chronicle Jewish

[hereinafter: , September 23 22. 1960, , 20

178 - 21. - er a Jew who had converted to converted had who Jew a er 179.

Sele

stated, the new Interior new the stated,

of cted Judgments cted Oswald Rufeisen v. Rufeisen Oswald 49

48 in in

hogot the Throughout

utc Silberg, Justice of principle.” of Landau,

He filed suit, filed He -

Yehuda was Yehuda ]

CEU eTD Collection 50 and religion as well.nationalitywas addressed, past. historic their and people Jewish instead question, but who if severedofbelongs, questioned askingwith the it a “convert”had ties nation. Jewish the therefore, and people, Jewish the with and centeredwhether a identThe can “convert” “apostate”belongsquestion upon second to or it? interpret to supposed they are how “Jew,” word the of definition the of omission glaring a is int the was what asked first The answeredJustice no. Cohn Jews? all to open was declared Israel of state the that the “deprive to Return of Jew.” a as “right his of Lawpetitioner” the interpret to permissible is it whether asked hand, other e judges other two Jew. a as petitioner the recognize to refuse will state yes.resounding Silberg’ Justice immediately, it answer not did home?” returning Jew a as stranger…but a as not dreams, his of land the of citizen a become to and loves he which people the with identified completely be to life his of desire “b can Daniel), Father of (instead Daniel Brother called he whom petitioner, five over case. the presiding judges howe case, the of question the judgment,

Selected J Selected There were four main recurring questions guiding the judges in reaching their judgment. their reaching in judges the guiding questions recurring main four were There the whether asking terms, personal more in question the posed eloquently Silberg Justice udgments

Yes, he could be denied. be could he Yes, ventually answered yes. answered ventually

, 2.

ent of the legislators who drafted the Law of Return. of Law the drafted who legislators the of ent

Additionally, Justice Cohen asked, “Shall we close t close we “Shall asked, Cohen Justice Additionally,

h qeto o wheth of question The

Justice Berinson asked a similarquestion a asked Berinson Justice e, a re was ver,

This was the majority the was This

s answer to this question was a clear and and clear a was question this to answer s

- Like Justice Silberg, Justice Berinson and Berinson Justice Silberg, Justice Like As the sole voice of the minority opinion, opinion, minority the of voice sole the As formulated several different ways by the the by ways different several formulated

h tid vle fo te former the from evolved third The r n cn eaae h Jewish the separate can one er - opinion.

Justice Cohn, on the on Cohn, Justice e denied the burning the denied e – 50

whether thewhether

Since there Since Though he he Though he gates” he ify

CEU eTD Collection 54 53 52 51 Interior the of discretion the to Minister. Jew” a is “Who of question the left Knesset the that noted he legislators, the of intent the at looking in but Jew, a is who deciding in element “essential” interwoven.” inseparably and are nationalism sources, religion these in and derived, is content its which from past the of sources interpreted. be should and enacted was Return of Law the freedom.” political restorationof and it to return to hoping and praying of spirit that “in shaped was people Jewish the of identity political and religious, spiritual, the dep change, could which individual, an of feelings” “subjective the upon rely to Ministry Interior the for intended not had bou objective some certify and establish “to desired justices other the Jewishness, of interpretations” so. do to law under permitted sett to wishes and Jew a as test.” “subjective a to according “Jew” of determination the keep to intended had legislature the Jew, a is who decide to criterion or definition a of absence the in the legislativeaccount the specialfor behind Jew provision purpose Legislative Intent

Ibid Judgments Selected Brother Marc Daniel,”Galanter,on “A Dissent Judgments Selected ndaries to thendaries to concept of Jewishness.” . , 22. Contradicting Cohn’s “subjective test” theory, Justice Landau asserted that the legislators the that asserted Landau Justice theory, “subjectivetest” Cohn’s Contradicting into taking means, “Jew” term the what asked justices the of each another, or way one In

, 23. , 17. ending upon the mood of the individual. the of mood the upon ending

le in Israel, supported by the act of immigrating there, he should be should he there, immigrating of act the by supported Israel, in le

While Justice Cohn was open to “the wide variety of of variety wide “the to open was Cohn Justice While 54

52 utc Berins Justice

Commentary on felt the Jewish religion was an an was religion Jewish the felt on

The law “cannot be severed from the the from severed be “cannot law The , Julyp. 16. 1963, 53

If an individual self individual an If s.

Justice Landau declared that that declared Landau Justice

Justice Cohen assumed Cohen that Justice

It was in th in was It

is “spirit” that“spirit” is - identifies identifies CEU eTD Collection 61 60 59 58 57 56 55 point the from Jew a remained Christianity to converted who Jews that world the of Jews tell not could Israel of State “The argued, Attorney State the as just people, Jewish the to belonging as as convert people.” Jewish the to belonging a regard to “unable are they that is denominator common one the that concluded academ contemporary to terms.” contradictory are Christian and “Jew that belief” rooted “deeply the hold intellectuals to people” “simple from everyone heritage,” ancestral their deny nor past historic the from off themselves cut “don’t they that is share Israel Belong judgesthe common accurately the term.ofusage reflected the acceptance, group to weight most the gave reasoning of line kn “simple Jew.” a by understood is it as meaning” “ordinary its or parlance” “common to according

Ibid., Ibid., 13. Ibid Ibid., 12. Judgments Selected Ibid., 12. Brother Marc Daniel,”Galanter,on “A Dissent Judgments Selected ow the essential content of the term?” the of content essential the ow 55 . , 3.

utc Sleg ocue ta te n tig l Jw ars te siiul ano” in rainbow” “spiritual the across Jews all thing one the that concluded Silberg Justice cont Silberg Justice It should be interpreted in a sense understood by Jews because “who better than they can theycan than better “who because Jews by understood sense a in interpreted be should It ing or Severed Ties 58

hc Bohr ail a oe y con by done had Daniel Brother which

, 10. , 10. ics, stating that an “apostate” continues to be treated as a Jew, a as treated be to continues “apostate” an that stating ics,

ended the legislators had intended the term “Jew” to be interpreted be to “Jew” term the intended had legislators the ended

59 Thus, the question became whether Jews can regard a conver a regard can Jews whether became question the Thus,

Justice Silberg cited scholars, ranging from Talmudic sages sages Talmudic from ranging scholars, cited Silberg Justice

As Commentary 20

Commentary etn t Christianity. to verting

writer, Marc Galanter later stated, this this stated, later Galanter Marc writer, 56 57 , July16. 1963,

but Galanter questioned whether questioned Galanter but

e anand that maintained He

but he he but t CEU eTD Collection 68 67 66 and Herzlthoughts 65 64 63 Agency 62 “destroyed (meaning f “because “meshumad” called is religion his changed has who Jew a Hebrew, community. the to belong not does “common” “ ofopinion the or today.” of Jews the of majority overwhelming well. as nation, the thus and people, Jewish the of petiti the that maintained Landau Justice culture,” and fate same the share who people of community “a nation, a of definition Ruppin’s Arthur Jews.” brother his and himself between barrier a erected has “hereligion, his changing Jewis the of body organized the into integrated fully be longer no now “can belonging. national his affect not did views religious his Law the which people his of past national the from off Ha’Am, Ahad “joins” and another.people his sociologists, and historians, people.” Jewish the to belonging of view of

Selected Judgments Selected fromQuoted Judgments Selected themHe modern explains, quotes as because, he Ha’Am’sZionismAhad isa“synthesis”of Summarized by Silberg in “Israel’s ClaimsHears SupremecaseWho Convert Court He of isaJew,” “Israel’sHears Supreme Claims Who of Court Case Convert He isaJew,” , 20 November, 20 1962. Citing the founding fathers of Zi of fathers founding the Citing rom a national point of view, he is regarded as having destroyed himself” and is “lost is and himself” destroyed having as regarded is he view, of point national a rom 65

of Return gives expression.” gives Return of The Jewish Struggle for JewishSurvival. Struggle The

Justice Landau also concluded that a Jew who changes his religion “cuts himself himself “cuts religion changeshis who Jew a that concluded also Landau Justice ’s vision.

, 23. , 22.

Selected Judgments Selected Also reported the in

ordinary Jew” is that Brother Daniel, through act Daniel,through of conversion, his Brother ordinary Jew”isthat the State Attorney argued that an apostate or convert “abandons” “abandons” convert or apostate an that argued Attorney State the

By Brother Jewish Danielleft actconversion, the people. the of

utc Brno add ht t s o oniec ta in that coincidence no is it that added Berinson Justice and and ns sclr eihntoaim uha Hrl and Herzl as such nationalism) Jewish (secular onism

Thus, he disagreed with Brother Daniel’s claim that that claim Daniel’s Brother with disagreed he Thus, ceases thereby to be a Jew in the national sense to sense national the in Jew a be to thereby ceases 21 68 , 9.

62 Pittsburgh JewishPittsburgh Chronicle

codnl, e ged ih ibr ta the that Silberg with agreed he Accordingly,

oner excluded himself from the common fate common the from himself excluded oner

eyn uo ra upon Relying 67

This, he claimed, is the “feeling of the the of “feeling the is claimed, he This,

Justice Landau further added, a convert a added, further Landau Justice bbinical literature, Jewish Jewish literature, bbinical JTA Jewish Telegraphic Jewish

h community.” h three days , 20 Nov, 20 1962. 66

Quoting later.

By By

64 ”

)

CEU eTD Collection 72 71 70 69 Daniel Brother of claim the rejected “thereby and Return, of Law the under Jew a considered be citizenship. Decision Handed Down by citizenship. renouncing his Poland with links” “severed and people Jewish the to belonged he that authorities Polish emphasized. judgment the sense, national the in Jew a as people.” his “spurn people Jewish the to soul and heart bound Jew national a as himself regard to manifestation “external “or conviction belonging again. and again self explicit Daniel’s Brother case, the in because especially one, interesting an is Catholicism to conversion his of virtue by people “them” movement. nationalist Jewish religion, language, its people, Jewish the of history the by influenced nation.” the to

“Israel Supreme Court “IsraelRejects Supreme for Court Application Citizenship,” Convert’s Ibid., 1 Ibid., 25. Judgments Selected n fu t oe uig te urm Cut eetd rte Dne’ apiain for application Daniel’s Brother rejected Court Supreme the ruling, one to four a In Je the from himself separated Daniel Brother whether and belonging of question The –

- between Christians and between Jewish Christiansand community.the , a , 2, 2, 27.

72 nd Justice Berinson recounted “proofs” that Brother Daniel “never ceased by inner inner by ceased “never Daniel Brother that “proofs” recounted Berinson Justice nd

It 69

ruled that Brother Daniel, a Jew who voluntarily converted to to voluntarilyconverted who Jew a Daniel, that Brother ruled

Brother Brother asserted that had Daniel C his In these statements we can see that the justices’ conceptions of the nation are nation the of conceptions justices’ the that see can we statements these In 70

.” “Even after embracing Christianity,” he states, Brother Daniel, did not did Daniel, Brother states, he Christianity,” embracing after “Even .” To the contrary the To , 32.

Additionally, they strive to reinforce a barrier between “us” and and “us” between barrier a reinforce to strive they Additionally, - declaration of belonging to the Jewish people is reiterated reiterated is people Jewish the to belonging of declaration -

after becoming a Christian, he proudly identified himself himself identified proudly he Christian, a becoming after 22

hristian faith did faith prejudice did not nationalhristian his

Brother Daniel unequivocall Daniel Brother and Zionism and JTA , 7 Dec, 7 1962. Christianity –

the modern the y stated to stated y

cannot cannot

wish CEU eTD Collection 77 76 75 74 73 an opinions, different the between connections drew justice, each from quotes choice out picked arguments, main the recapped Israel. of outside and inside both discussion much of subject a be to continue would ca the of summary a provided magazines and newspapers Media Coverage dilemma vexto “continued Israeli society.” considered still is Christianity to Jew?’” A th in definition binding legally a provide would Court Supreme the that Israel who is than one. agreed. they Return, of Law the of purposes we “but stated, line Attorneyin withthe ofplea theState the hearing. during ineligible. one made religion another to conversion that ruled Court the Jewi of purpose the for that was this declaring law. Israeli secular but law religious to according case the deciding not were they that agreed justices the of terminology,all religious and sources religious nationality.” by Jew a remained he that

“Case Define DanielHelps of Father a ‘Jew,’” Kraines, Ibid. forSee, example,MonkaJew,” isNot “Catholic Kraines,

fe te uget a hne dw, eea Jws (n a ubr f non of number a (and Jewish several down, handed was judgment the After I n the words of Oscar Kraines, “I Kraines, Oscar of words the n

The Court, however, confined itself to the narrow issue of whether a Jew who converts who Jew a whether of issue narrow the itselfto confined however, Court, The The Impossible The Dilemma DilemmaImpossible

know who is not is who not know

, 24. –

d pointed to something distinct or interesting about them, such such them, about interesting or distinct something to pointed d a Jew in Israeli secular law. secular Israeli in Jew a an apostate.” , 28.

73 t had been hoped by both re both by hoped been had t

While the ruling is filled with copio with filled is ruling the While 76

In doing so, it defined ‘Who is Not A Jew’ rather rather Jew’ A Not is ‘Who defined it so, doing In sh immigration under the secular Law of Return, of Law secular the under immigration sh 23 75

Pittsburgh Jewish ChroniclePittsburgh

The majority of the justices decided that for the majority that for the justices decided the The of The

Jewish Chronicle e s hy a “o ob” h case the doubt” “no had they as se

“We do not know who who is aJew,”not know “We he do 74

As a result, the “Who is a Jew” a is “Who the result, a As The paradoxical outcome after after outcome paradoxical The ligious and secular Jews in Jews secular and ligious

The judgment followed followed judgment The , December14 1962. , 28 Dec, 28 1962. is case of ‘ of case is us references to to references us 77

The papers papers The - Jewish) Who is Who

CEU eTD Collection 79 78 Return. of Law the in “Jew” case the after issues unresolved two to with closed editorial th havethought would one case. the of facts the into going before theme Jew” a is “Who Crusades Jewish of past dark a into back looking of one people. Jewish the of common a and traditions shared having with do to more had Justice Cohen: petition. “reluctant feels he but criteria,” “every by Jewish is Daniel Brother view, sensitive more Berinson’s Justice quoted also “becom Chronicle Jewish judgment. the of out airlifted when severe unnecessarily sound could which statements as

“Case Define DanielHelps of Father a ‘Jew,’” Monk a“Catholic isNot Jew,” Another Another One locked. word. a say befo opened be would gates the faith, his conceal cross, religion. Gentile a in belief professing and chest his on cross a with priest, a of robes the in clothed come had petitioner the Inter the of Minister the but had door petitioner the The on Jew. knocked every to open were doors its proclaimed had State The e an occasion to defile the name and meaning of the concept of a Jew.” a of concept the of meaning and name the defile to occasion an e

Likewise, -

to confirmto view his t Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle Jewish Pittsburgh

itbrh eih Chronicle Jewish Pittsburgh

(UK), for example, quoted Silberg’s statement that he does not wish this to this wish not does he that statement Silberg’s quoted example, for (UK),

The

u h cm oel ad icrl ad hrfr fud h gates the found therefore and sincerely and openly came he But 79

It also drew attention to an underlying theme in Silberg’s comments comments Silberg’s in theme underlying an to attention drew also It eih Chronicle Jewish e answer to the ‘Who is a Jew’ question would be easy,” it began. it easy,” be would question Jew’ ais ‘Who the answerto e

This was done in 1970 with the amendment to the Law of Return of Law the to amendment the with 1970 in done was This

hat a Jew cannot remain and becannot a aJew a Jew.hat Christian The

Jewish ChroniclJewish - JTA aahae a ogat smahtc ttmn by statement sympathetic poignant, a paraphrased

feature, stated the ruling showed that being Jewish Jewish being that showed ruling the stated feature, ril itoue te or’ jdmn wt the with judgment court’s the introduced article - 24 - Christian relations, which included pogroms and and pogroms included which relations, Christian onig statement sounding

Pittsburgh Jewish ChroniclePittsburgh

If he would take off his robes, hide his his hide robes, his off take would he If e , 14 December, 14 1962. ior had not responded because responded not had ior heritage, as well as being a member a being as well as heritage, –

re him and no one would one no and him re

“By this time in Jewish history, Jewish in time this “By is, eal dfnn te word the defining legally first, –

ht n i on personal own his in that ly bound” to reject the the reject to bound” ly

, 28 Dec, 28 1962.

In contrast, they contrast, In

The The – .

CEU eTD Collection Pittsburgh JewishPittsburgh Chronicle 84 Considering Citizenship Law Change Avoid in to Abuses,” the future,in however,was changehave to Knesset Law the of the Return. 83 1963. 82 Chronicle 81 80 recognized motives be asulterior wanting aJew. to behind this of author Return, of Law the under citizenship receive he insisted Daniel Brother that mentioned “long Daniel. attractedhad internationalsome attention, very of it thepetitioner. towards sympathetic judgment. the of wake the in Ministry Interior Israel’s of image the up press. the the to it announce to opportunity took Minister Interior the year, following the of August in procedures naturalization the ci Daniel naturalization. of process ordinary Brother grant to willing was he declared publicly Minister appeal, of possibility no had Daniel Brother He that “easily,” can, “notunder Law law…the unique just of Retur question “no citizenship. Daniel Brother granting was accomplished be to yet matter second The

“Part “Part End: IsaWithoutof an Convert a from Story Minister Moshe Interior for realShapira’s solution av DanielGiven“Brother Israeli Not ‘Law Citizenship, but Under of Return,’” Monka“Catholic Rejects isNot ‘Jew’: Application, Apostate’s Supreme Court Daniel,”“Brother -

Also in Also in awaited” decision that a convert to Christianity is certainly not a Jew. a not certainly is Christianity to convert a that decision awaited”

One article in the in article One and visa, immigrant an Daniel Brother grant to refused Minister Interior the though Even The article “Who is a Jew?” announced that Israel’s Supreme Court handed down the down handed Court Supreme Israel’s that announced Jew?” a is “Who article The , 14 Dec, 14 1962. , ” Jewish Press Jewish Ohio Jewish Chronicle the article suggested, suggested, article the Pittsburgh JewishPittsburgh Chronicle

Jewish Press Jewish

article went beyond this to advance the claim that Brother Daniel had had Daniel Brother that claim the advance to this beyond went article , 23 Nov 1962. , 23

When Brother Daniel was granted Israeli citizenship through citizenship Israeli granted was Daniel Brother When

Brother Daniel would and could become an Israeli citizen. Israeli an become could and would Daniel Brother “The Week,”Word’s August 1963. 23 , however, was anything but sympathetic towards Brother towards sympathetic but anything was however, , 82

See also, “DefinitionSee also, of a Jew,” is public announcement may have been used to keep to used been mayhave announcement public is 81 25

after the Supreme Court decision, the Interior Interior the decision, Court Supreme the after , December14 1962.

Judaism Still Jewish Judaism Still oiding such an “embarrassing such oiding situation”

The o JTA , 21 March , 21 1963. rdinary is unaware the citizen of n.”

iesi truh the through tizenship – See, “Israel Brother Daniel’s case Daniel’s Brother

Time

Court to Decide,”Court While other article other While JTA

, 7 Dec, 7 1962.

” , 19 August , 19 The Jewish

There was was There

the

CEU eTD Collection 88 87 86 85 standard single a how remain their expand and express to converts encourage would that interpretation an by served “better be not it would survival, Jewish promote to wanted really distorted. and disconcerting severance” of “talk courts the found claim.” convert’s the against estoppels of “kind a as works that suffering eveirreligious, or a Jewishness.” as of Judaism requirement to adherence of modicum a “even rejected court the though disqualification,” reasoning. of line justices’ laundry a with judgment the of analysis critical justices. the for edition summer of the writing 1963 MarcGalanter, in Israeligovernment missionary all to of the the Holy halt activities in Land.” solemn the is “it author, the concluded court, in defeated been have proselytizers the Jew. a as recognized is priest Catholic a even “victims”theirthat to out point could judgmen the “utilize to hoped Land.” Holy “our in activities missionary strengthen to were motives real Daniel’s real

Ibid., Ibid., 14. Ibid., 15. Brother Marc Daniel,”Galanter,on “A Dissent is aJew?”“Who threat posed by Brother Daniel and the real reason real the and Daniel Brother by posed threat diinly gnrlztos ae bu cnet, aatr ttd epaie Jewish emphasized stated, Galanter converts, about made generalizations Additionally, the of author the While

In his article, “A Dissent on Brother Daniel,” Mr. Galanter provided an in an provided Galanter Mr. Daniel,” Brother on Dissent “A article, his In n anti n Jewish Jewish Press

– - religious,” in religious,” thebut end, becameit mattered. religion clear that

religious, ethnic or political or ethnic religious,

He had a qualm w qualm a had He

Or, as in the words of Justice Silberg, a Jew may be “religious, “religious, be may Jew a Silberg, Justice of words the in as Or, t to entice Jews to convert.” to Jews entice to t , 14 December, 14 1962. eih Press Jewish ith the fact that the decision amounted to “religious to amounted decision the that fact the ith

26 ril ws rtcl f rte Dne’ motives, Daniel’s Brother of critical was article

Commentary - it f ht e osdrd itks n the in mistakes considered he what of list

– Commentary

can encompass everyone who belongs to belongs who everyone encompass can

for his persistency, he asserted. he persistency, his for

If the court ruled in their favor, they favor, their in ruled court the If ing ties to Jews?” to ties ing , July 1963,

magazine, He questioned if the justices the if questioned He 14.

85 87

saved his criticism his saved r Glne also Galanter Mr. 88

He then asked asked then He

But now that now But

duty of the the of duty Christians 86

Brother

- depth

CEU eTD Collection 91 90 89 arose aftewhich Jew determiningisJewish, be should who not Daniel’sclaim rejectedThe they Brother justices because dec weight what of and history the (lookingpast) on current to theybe to public believed opinion. precedent.any or statute to use. standard argues. he Jews,” “should and Jews all for created people. Jewish the

Ibid., Ibid., 11. Ibid., 16. Ibid., 16. What the justices becomes clearin case the could theirbuild not argumen isthat

91 r the Law of Return was Lawr the Return amended of

The important question for Mr. Galanter, then, is who should decide which decide should who is then, Galanter, Mr. for question important The Some would be excluded if one standard is used, but the Law of Return was Return of Lawthe but used, is standard one if excluded be would Some

Consequently, some decided based on abstract notions, suchConsequently, abstract as the on based notions, some decided

be kept open to the complexities of the changing experience of of experience changing the of complexities the to open kept be halacha 27

In In the next section,willa to we case turn ided that the common, ordinaryided t upon t upon

CEU eTD Collection 95 I.D. Cards,” Nixes‘Convert’ on 1987. atchange rabbi conversions,”Also, “Orthodox hints on Jan 94 byraised a case,” U.S.emigrant’s 93 ‘Convert’ I.D. Cards,” On XI, Studies 92 regi to not decision the that stated (UK) card. identity her on and register population the in Jew a as her register about theone citizenship right to to about one “convert.” qualifi one her with grant only to decided citizenship, Peretz Itzhak Minister Interior favor, Miller’s Ms. in ruling court a of suit. filed Miller Ms. complying, officer. the to certificate conversion her presented she though even Return of Law the under citizenship complications. some into Reform a in Springs Colorado synagogue. in Judaism to converted had Shoshana immigration, her to The Case Chapter 3

forSee, example, Interior over Minister “Clash a Conversion: Reform Resigns,” Peretz N.Ostling, Richard Questions about “Israel’sCrisis: Jewish identity Conversion New are the Interior Shoshana H.C. 239/86 Millerv. Minister of Jewish Law Association Law Jewish

1987.

One 1986 article referredOne 1986 also difficultiesher to obtaining cit

On April 10, 1986, the Couthe 1986, April 10, On ShoshIn 1985, She was told she would need to have the Rabbinate valida Rabbinate the have to need would she told was She

And “ShamirAnd Accepts Peretz’sResignation,” 93

92 121

Thus, the ministry’s tactical move in response to the suit transformed her case from from case her transformed suit the to response in move tactical ministry’s the Thus,

After Miller emigrated from the United States to settle in Israel, however, she ran she however, Israel, in settle to States United the from emigrated Miller After : .

Miller v. Interior ofthe Minister [hereinafter:

ana Israel immigrated Miller to Law under the of Return.

Ohio Jewish Jewish Chronicle Ohio h Itro Mnsr rfsd o eitr e a a e ad rn her grant and Jew a as her register to refused Ministry Interior The , 12 Jewish Law Association Law Jewish

9 - Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio 130.

Trying to avoid a hearing and possibly fearing the implications the fearing possibly and hearing a avoid to Trying Time rt ordered the Interior Minister to explain why they should not not whyexplain should they to MinisterInterior the rt ordered cation cation

, 19 January, 19 1987. -

akn hr dniy ad ih h eta word extra the with card identity her marking identitycard tr non ster 28

, 11 Dec., 11

See also, “IsraeliSee Nixes also, High Court - , December 11 1. 1986, Ohio Jewish Chronicle Pittsburgh JewishPittsburgh Chronicle rhdx ovrs dates converts Orthodox

. In 1986, 1986, 1. registration.

(1986) Sinclair,

izenship: “Israeli High Court izenship: te her conversion. her te

Jewish Law Association 94 95

The , January 15 1987.

Jewish Chronicle Jewish Threeyears prior

ak o the to back , 5 February, 5

Instead of Instead JTA , 2 , 2

CEU eTD Collection 104 103 102 101 100 Pending,” 99 1986. 98 97 96 Marriages. of Registrar the by upon relied even and agencies, government purposes. statistical for solely used not is p a as such information, that was practice proposed this for forward put Minister 1986. 23, June on hearing Court Supreme the at disclosed was card.” identity the on ‘Jew’ ne proposed word the after ‘convert’ word the add the could whether Ministry issue: one to itself restricted court “the Israel, in recognized are conversions of the that indicate would register conversion.” by Jewish theis applicant but Jewish, as register population the in registered be would conversion a following Jew a as registered be to “wishes who Miller Miss like person any the included information they convertedthat not by rabbi.” been Orthodox had an obstructive.” offici many Ministry, the over took Shas since Return…but of Law the under 1984. appointme

“Reform ‘a Converts Yoram Court “Ministry Kessel, by Convert,” to istaken US “Reform ‘are Converts Jewish’,” an is OrthodoxShas political Israel religious party in

Ibid., Ibid., 123. Association Law Jewish Landau, “’Who Hearing,”David is Jew’ Flares Issue Court atSupreme “Reform ‘AreJewish’,” Converts Association, Law Jewish 97

Responding to Miller’s to Responding “In the past, officials have registered all newcomers, including Reform converts, as Jews Jews as converts, Reform including newcomers, all registered have officials past, the “In nt of Shas of nt The Jewish Chronicle The w policy, which was to apply to all converts all to apply to was which policy, w 98

Prior to this, “such immigrants had been registered as Jews, although their files their although Jews, as registered been had immigrants “such this, to Prior 96

re Jewish’” re Jewish’” Party leader Rabbi Itzhak Peretz as the Minister of Interior in December in Interior of Minister the as Peretz Itzhak Rabbi leader Party , 122.

121

appeal . , Dec5 1986.

The Jewish Chronicle The 100 The Jewish Chronicle The The Jewish Chronicle The

Instead of dealing with the substantive issue of what types types what of issue substantive the with dealing of Instead to the Supreme Court, the Court, Supreme the to 103

Sometimes the information is used by other other by used is information the Sometimes

, December5 1986. , December5 1986. - , December5 1986.

Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox or Conservative, Reform, The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The 102

Interior Minister proposed that proposed Minister Interior

One justification the Interior Interior the justification One JTA,

Also in “Still Also in als there have been been have there als

25 June 25 1986. 104 erson’s religion, erson’s 99

, April 25 The Interior Interior The 101

The

CEU eTD Collection 110 109 Press Converts,” 108 Jew 107 Converts,” 106 D Denies 105 This,make surprisingly, did not waves. big ask.” to be might it business whose “those for cards identity their in numbers of code a via were identifiable individuals those registrarand the in noted already were halacha” to “according this, instituted. to prior been that mentioned not had but case, Miller the to response a Jewish someof world,” the stated. threatens thus the and supportthatthe Israel people unityfrom Jewish of enjoys the order.” “unacceptable and abroad. Israeland lines in across denominational protests” avalanche of convertswithout adequate inquiry. registrar marriage mislead to want not did it claimed Minister

“Still “Reform“Still Pending” and ‘are Jewish,’” Converts “Peretz Discriminati Denies “Protests MountAgainstGil Ministry’s Sedan, Id Interior Cards Stamp on of Jewish “Reform, U.S.DenounceLeaders I.D. in Conservative‘Convert’ Cards,” on Stamp “Protests MountAgainstGil Ministry’s Sedan, Id Interior Cards Stamp on of Jewish Yoram convert,” “Row Kessel, over ish Chronicle ish osraie oeet i te ntd tts n Cnd soe u aant the against out spoke Canada and States United the in movements Conservative , 4 July, 4 1986. Only one UK one Only an “drew it out, got cards identity on “convert” word the of inclusion the of news When iscrimination,” iscrimination,” JTA JTA , 27 June 1986. , 27 June 1986. , 27 , July3 1986, 1.

Jewish Chronicle Jewish 107

The Jewish Chronicle The Requiring the addition of the word “convert” would do “serious harm to to harm“serious do would “convert” word the of addition the Requiring

conversions which could not be verified to have been performed been have to verified be not could which conversions

on,” on,” Also, “Protest OrderStamp to ‘Convert’ ID Cards,” on

108 105 The Jewish The Jewish Chronicle

article The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The

, 11 July 1986. suggests that the “convert” stamp was proposed as proposed was stamp“convert” the that suggests 30

The Jewish ChronicleThe Jewish , July11 1986.

, 27 June , 27 1986, 2. 109 s into performing marriages of of marriages performing into s

Also, 106

h Jws Chronicle Jewish The Leaders of the Reform Reform Leadersthe of , 5 Dec, 5 1986.

See also “PeretzSee also

every quarter Jewish Jewish Ohio Ohio

110

CEU eTD Collection

“Reform Library.Virtual Judaism,” Jewish MayAccessed 13 2012. “Reform, U.S.DenounceLeaders I.D. in Conservative‘Convert’ Cards,” on Stamp to Order Stamp“Protest ‘Convert’ ID Cards, On sh Chronicle, sh In July, articles about the “convert” stamp on identity cards graced the front page of of page front the graced cards identity on stamp “convert” the about articles July, In 3 July3 1986. , July, 3 1986, 1.

3 July3 1986, 1. orm movement adopted the patrilineal descent policy descent patrilineal the adopted movement orm

quoted Schindler, “This….requirement flies in the face of 3,000 years of years 3,000 of face the in flies “This….requirement Schindler, quoted

111

ho n Pittsburgh and Ohio

en ovre t Judaism.” to converted been Also, “’Convert’ IDsparks Cards on protests,” new

- Jewish mothers)Jews. Jewishas orm movement by Rabbi Alexander Schindler, president of president Schindler, Alexander Rabbi by movement orm ” Pittsburgh Jewish ChroniclePittsburgh 31

Jewish Press, Jewish - odd ttmn, Nw h Orthodox the “Now statement, worded eih Chronicle Jewish

attached to the status of a convert.” a of status the to attached 113

_0017_0_16561.html>.

Franklin Kreutzer, international international Kreutzer, Franklin This went against the prevailing prevailing the againstwent This

4 July Also, 4 3. 1986, s articles referred to to referred articles s , 3 July, 3 1986. -

they recognized the recognized they Ohio Jewish Ohio Pittsburgh Pittsburgh Ohio Ohio

112 Also,

) (

It is is It The

CEU eTD Collection The Jewish Chronicle The Or ID sparks Cards on protests,” new 117 1986. 116 115 Converts,” 114 ag arguing in vociferous Minister). Interior of Chronicle Chronicle Jewish Torah.” the of histor ‘the violates “which order the of rescinding a demanding Harabonim, Agudas the policy. O of reaction the reactions, Conservative and Reform Paralleling reasons. different very for but leaders, Conservative and Reform as just idea the condemned from keep s to Israel other in establishment legitimizing Orthodox the by used being was policy new the that rejec increaseConservative to movement’s attempts the

der to Stamp to ‘Convert’ ID Cards, der on Yoram Convert,” “Row Kessel, over OrderRequirin Stop “Seek to Landau, “’WhoDavid is Hearing,” a Jew’Flares issue atSupreme Court “Protests MountAgainstGil Ministry’s Sedan, Id Interior Cards Stamp on of Jewish halacha t this second t this

The “Orthodox was Interior of Ministry the that fact the Despite

denouncing the regulation to add “convert” to id to “convert” add to regulation the denouncing

(hs s h sm rao Jsie ln a Otdx ug, ae rld gis the against ruled later judge, Orthdox an Elon, Justice reason same the is (This ” JTA eih Press Jewish rthodox leaders in Israel and abroad and the growing number of rabbis protesting rabbis of number growing the and abroad and Israel in leaders rthodox 116 , 27 June 1986 , 27

- Former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren, was quoted in in quoted was Goren, Shlomo Israel, of Rabbi Chief Ashkenazic Former 117 class and worseclass and citizenship.” type branded (UK), the the (UK),

In other words, Orthodox leadership in both Israel and in the Diaspora were were Diaspora the in and Israel both in leadership Orthodox words, other In ras f Judaism, of treams , 26 Dec.3. 1986, ainst the proposed policy because differentiating between a convert and and convert a between differentiating because policy proposed the ainst

eerd o h Aeia ad aain no o Otoo Rabbis, Orthodox of Union Canadian and American the to referred Jewish Press Jewish

g ‘Convert’ Israeli Identity On Cards,” Pittsburgh Jewish Pittsburgh Chronicle

Jewish Press The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The 115 , and in a front page article in the the in article page front a in and ,

ay edr wti te rhdx movement Orthodox the within leaders many 32

aliya , 4 July and “Convert Home,”, 4 1986; Returns eih Press Jewish h

and declared, “Conservative Jewry will “ConservativeJewry declared, and entity cards, stating it is in “violation in is it stating cards, entity

114 , 27 June Also,“’Convert’, 27 1986, 2. , 3 July, 3 Also,“Protest 1. 1986,

- controlled” and suggestions and controlled”

rt aot h negative the about wrote Jewish Press Jewish JTA Pittsburgh Jewish Pittsburgh , 25 June , 25 1986. ical tradition ical , 11 July, 11 The

CEU eTD Collection 122 1986, 1. 121 120 Press Jewish 119 118 are Jews. conversions Orthodox undergo who individuals only view, their in because, Return of Law the amend ( kehalacha” case? Miller Shoshana the by re actual angle not are converts Orthodox Orthodox the depicting articles perspective, Conservative Jew.” converted a as or Jew, a asregister to him forbidden by conducted ‘conversion,’ called ceremony the Reform Covenant, ofdesecrators the Conservative the and a undergone has who gentile “a that Eliahu Chronicle mitzvoth.” of acceptance require not does it because joke a just is conversion Reform “a view, Orthodox) (the “our” in that stated Rabbinate Chief immorality.” of “act an and “mockery” a are conversions Reform that state to on went word ideaaddingthe of against t policy. Ministry’s Interior the denounced they why was this and non his of convert a “reminding or birth by Jew a hey thewereattesting to legitimacy Conservative of or Reform conversions.

“Move on “MoveConverts Thwarted,” on by Shas I.D.“Israeli Cards” Nixes Supreme‘Convert’ Court on Ibid. “Court Upholds Aryeh Julius, ReformAnger Giyur; Mounts “Reform ‘are Converts Jewish’,” the Law of Return so only Orthodox conversions to Judaism would be recognized under recognized be would Judaism to conversions Orthodox only so Return of Law the The

U) utd saeet ae y sals ehri he Rbi Rbi Mordecai Rabbi Rabbi, Chief Sephardi Israel’s by made statement a quoted (UK) eih Press Jewish halachic , Dec5 1986.

ovrin o Judaism). to conversion

quoted Israel’s Chief Rabbi Avraham Shapiro stating that he was was he that stating Shapiro Avraham Rabbi Chief Israel’s quoted

Amending the Law of Return to ensure that conversions are “giyur are conversions that ensure to Return of Law the Amending ly Jewish at all. at Jewish ly “ The Jewish Chronicle The convert The Jewish Chronicle Jewish The ”

to the identity card from the very beginning, but he but veryfrom the identitybeginning, the card to

33 n te wrs te wse t se h Knesset the see to wished they words, other In

And their solution to the whole dilemma posed posed dilemma whole the to solution their And

- Jewish origin” was forbidden by forbidden was origin” Jewish 121

Likewise, in Nove in Likewise, , Dec5 1986. 122 Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio

Thus, in contrast to the Reform and Reformthe and contrast to in Thus, , is not a Jew, or a convert, and it is aJew, it a, isnot convert,and or in Religious Religious in Communities,” , 6 November, 6 1986. 119

B y no means did this mean this did means no y

- mhszd ht non that emphasized mber 1986, 1986, mber

, December11

The halacha

120 Jewish

The The , 118 -

CEU eTD Collection Pending,” 127 1986, 1 126 125 124 123 Israel debate in Diaspora.both and the ofrecognition non placed and question Jew” a is “Who the revived the Miller, Shoshana to referred Return of Law the amending about debates or case court the to referring headlines newspaper treated differently Jewsactions status past as other reminded of be their or than non or Jew. a as born someone and Almighty”) the of laws the path. legislature.” of discretion registration). person’s a to “converted” word the adding as (such status personal or religion, nationality, individual’s an documenting when Law” the in specified au the have not does Interior the of Minister permitted. not was the registrarthat was Shamgar, Meir Justice Court, Supreme the of President population the by stated as conclusion, government official the to “convert” word The Ruling

“Shamir Accepts Peretz’s Resignation,” “Shamir Resignation,” Accepts Peretz’s Nixes“Israeli I.D. Cards,” High Court ‘Convert’ on Ibid. Ibid., 123. Jewish Law Association Law Jewish

His stance was that no distinction should be made between converts (“a person w person (“a converts between made be should distinction no that was stance His rncly Mle ws eidd f en a ovr again convert a being of reminded was Miller Ironically, ru Court the decision, unanimous a in 1986, 2, December On . , 130

The Jewish Chronicle The 124 -

131.

the person administering the register: the scope is set in advance by the the by advance in set is scope the register: the administering person the Justice Elon explained how he arrived at the same conclusion, but via a different a via but conclusion, same the at arrived he how explained Elon Justice

- Orthodox conversions.

Studies

, Dec5 1986. “Reform , 128. 127

126 convert” from the US. the from convert” Ohio Jewish Ohio Jewish Chronicle

Thus, she found she midst found Thus, herself of the a very in public

hrt “o d ay diinl eal eod that beyond detail additional any add “to thority 34

her in the center of a controversy over the the over controversy a of center the in her Ohio Jewish Jewish Chronicle Ohio

diinly cnet sol o be not should converts Additionally,

, 15 January, 15 1987. 123 Unfortunately, her court case court her Unfortunately,

led that the addition of the the of addition the that led

It is “not a matter for the the for matter a “not is It n again. and , 11 December, 11

Most of the the of Most

Also, “Still - Jews. ho adopts ho

125 The

CEU eTD Collection 134 February3 1988 133 132 Press Jewish 131 “Reform Quit,” The Win to Spurs Peretz Convert 130 129 128 a as her registered had it whether back report to Ministry Interior the requiring Court Supreme after year one over 1988, Miller”to carda ID new issue to obligation immediate its of “relieved was Ministry Interior the country, the left Miller Ms. to time and leeway extra Ministry Interior new the giving States. United the in Ju to conversions overseas all approve and review courts rabbinic Israel’s having (by case Miller the with for hoped they that goal same the achieve would which legislation through push to hoping protest in resigned orders, court Jews.” converts as of registration denied cases test more six introducing by victory court its up follow “would it decided over from far was return of right converts’ Conservative life.’” arrangemy and down settle will ‘I decision. the about happy’ ‘very was she joy…said with weeping Miller, “Miss “Dutch Court Rule “Dutch Court to on ‘Who is aJew’ case,” David Landau, “CourtDavid Orders That Non “ConvertLeave May Israel,” “Court Upholds Aryeh Julius, Reform “Shamir Resignation,” Accepts Peretz’s Nixes I.D Israeli Court ‘Convert’ High on “Reform ‘are Converts Jewish’,” daism). Shoshana Miller left Israel after the court decision in order to be with her sick fatherback sick her with be to order in decision court the after leftIsrael Miller Shoshana 2nd, December on down handed was decision the After 131 , Dec5 1986.

e dprue o te .. dfue” h cnrvry vr h ruling, the over controversy the “diffused” U.S. the for departure Her she won her case, her won she

129

133

Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle Pittsburgh

Meanwhile, Interior Minister Peretz, unwilling to comply with comply to unwilling Peretz, Minister Interior Meanwhile, and did not register her as a Jew in the population registry. the population Jewain as registerher not did and o h ruling. the to The Jewish Chronicle The 128 Giyur; Anger Mounts in Religious Religious Anger in Communities,” Giyur; Mounts -

Ohio Jewish Ohio Jewish Chronicle orthodox Convert As Miller Be Listed Jewish,” But her personal battle and the battle for Reform and and Reformfor battle the and battle personal her But however, however, . Cards,” 35 130

Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle Jewish

eezs at, hs o te te hn, was hand, other the on Shas, party, Peretz’s Miller’s lawyer obtained an order from the the from order an obtained lawyer Miller’s Ohio Jewish Press Jewish Ohio . , December5 1986.

The Reform (Progressive) movement movement (Progressive) Reform The comply with the court ruling. court the with comply , January22 1987. The , 15 January, 15 1987. , January8 1987.

Jewish Chronicle Jewish , 11 December1. 1986,

, 12 Nov 1987. , 12

‘Now,’ she said, she ‘Now,’

Also,

re ported, ported,

JTA Since Since 134

132 In In ,

CEU eTD Collection 140 139 138 137 after ruling. Miller the theresuggested that were MishmarKibbutz Hanegev. Kibbutzconverts Gonen, living Julia Moscowitch, on Miss and Murilo and Varela of of Brazil, 136 Feb Section, 5 1988, 4. 135 extreme case court one decision, article Orthodox the “the declared, say the fight.”battle, lost not they “skirmish, a as such words using controversy. Jew” a is “Who the over Diaspora the example. Orthodox between clash as the casea Miller describe for cemeteries, Jewish in buried being converts Reform of “danger” the of spoke who officials quoting even outlooks, antagonistic such presented articles the with movem Reform affiliated individuals to Rabbis Chief Israel’s from everyone including sources, of exception. no was outcome Media Coverage earlyconverts in Februaryyear. as Jews of that other and wouldregisterher he the Supreme told Court registryCahana Yehoshua population the Jewess.

“Conservative, Reform Hail High Court Ruling,”“Conservative,Hail High Court Reform “ConvertHaim Impasse,” Shapiro, Deal “Conversion Haim Angers US Shapiro, Jews,” “Reform ‘are Converts Jewish,’” sincefirstThesewere the Mill applications the “CourtConvertsHaim Intervenes on Behalf,” Shapiro, h nwppr rils rsn a wide a present articles newspaper The tension. and conflict of stories present Newspapers 135 iw o te or’ dcso i te ilr case. Miller the in decision court’s the on views

Though it had not yet complied with the court orders from the case, now, t now, case, the from orders court the with complied yet not had it Though 138

n i te ntd tts n the on States United the in ent and a “showdown” between the Israeli Supreme Court and the Chief Rabbinate Rabbinate Chief the and Court Supreme Israeli the between “showdown” a and

fifteen converted

As previously mentioned, the newspapers quoted from an assortment an from quoted newspapers the mentioned, previouslyAs A

Pittsburgh Jewish Pittsburgh Chronicle “ih, “tuge” cah” n “ofit” hs atr the after Thus, “conflict.” and “clash,” “struggle,” “fight,” ” The Jewish Chronicle The The Jewish Chronicle Jewish The 139

Furthermore, they depicted the court case as a battle, battle, a as case court the depicted they Furthermore, olim 136 36

(immigrants) apply waiting to for identity cards

“

er casethe registration of about non range of opposing positions, contrasting the the contrasting positions, opposing of range

ovr sap issue. stamp” convert Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio

and non and The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The , December5 1986. The Jewish Chronicle Jewish The

The coverage of the court case and its and case court the of coverage The

article on the article22 on , March 27 1987.

- o eape tog te Reform the though example, For Orthodox movements in Israelmovements Orthodox in and

Eve 137 , Dec 11 1986, 1. nd

June , 12 1987 a ti pit the point, this at n

Dozens of articles articles of Dozens

of January 1987 of January 1987 , Foreign News, Foreign - Orthodox he hea he .

d of d 140

CEU eTD Collection halacha,” see “Seven Diaspora Jewish Leaders Urge Shamir and Likudhalacha,” see Jewish Leaders “Seven Diaspora Urge to and Refrain Shamir from 148 147 Press Jewish 146 145 144 143 1987. 142 141 movement. recognition of their and Israel in establishment rights.” full and recognition for struggle our in stage “a as decision court the hailed movement Progressive movement.” our of rights the recognizing officially Re the for spokesman decision. Court Supreme the with people” “Chabad of common ground. found no and Orthodox between differences the emphasizeto continued article the Jew’” a is ‘Who of question the overfactions religious Jewish between conflict emotional and bitter a resolving towards step “small a being ruling landmark establishment.” Orthodox the by condemned “angrily pluralism. for victory people,” Jewish the “enraged” orders establishment. Orthodox court the out carrying “progress,” as ruling Miller the saw movement

On On delegitimation or wouldresult disenfranchisement in that defining a“according to Jew I.D.“Israeli Cards” Nixes Supreme‘Convert’ Court on “Court Upholds Aryeh Julius, Reform Religious Anger in Communities,” Giyur; Mounts Ruling,”“Conservative,Hail High Court Reform I.D.“Israeli Cards” Nixes Supreme‘Convert’ Court on Ruling,”“Conservative,Hail High Court Reform Orgel,Hugh “Cl “ConvertLeave May Israel,”

147 , Dec5 1986.

Thus, for many, this case represented represented case this many, for Thus, 142

the American Conservative and Reform Judaism movements applauded the applauded movements Judaism Reform and Conservative American the ash Over a Interior Over ReformMinister ash Conversion: Resigns,” Peretz

143 form movement in Israel stating, “This is another phase in the process of process the in phase another is “This stating, Israel in movement form 145

141

Likewise, the decision was “hailed in liberal and secular circles” but but circles” secular and liberal in “hailed was decision the Likewise,

Additionally, the

While Peretz believed the Miller ruling “threatens the survi the “threatens ruling Miller the believed Peretz While

148 the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle Pittsburgh

eom n Conservative and Reform n - Orthodox viewpoints which did not suggest they had had they suggest not did which viewpoints Orthodox Jewish Press Jewish 37

Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio 146 144

Likewise, Rabbi Moshe Zemer of the the of Zemer Moshe Rabbi Likewise, a ran an article which the anger describes articlewhich an ran

The article ends with a quote from a a from quote a with ends article The

O Jewish Chronicle Ohio huh the Though agr ate ewe te Orthodox the between battle larger hio Jewish Chronicle hio , January 22 1987. oeet worldwide movement ho ae rfr t the to refers paper Ohio , Dec11 1986. , Dec11 1986.

, Dec11 1986. , Dec11 198 JTA val of the the of val

seeking , 2 Jan Jan , 2

CEU eTD Collection 1986. 153 152 Id Cards on Stamp Converts,”of Jewish of Return,” 151 Chronicle 150 149 Law Court Amendment,”for Rabbincal LawAmending the of Return,” accept does aspeople not a Jew.” convert a such accept to immoral, indeed impossible, is “It convert. Reform Agency identity. Jewish of question the about framework larger the in case the presents also coverage newspaper the recognition, and legitimacy about it making and Judaism and out shut delegitimized.” feel who Jews Diaspora by institutions its and Israel of support the damage “irreparably would unity.” Jewish “imperil or division cause would one Orthodox the to Jew a of definition the Israel. of State the with relationship their affect negatively would favor, their in go not did it if decision, the that implied they Thus, of support their to sought establishment movement. their delegitimizing Orthodox the way one was conversions Conservative and Reform Identity and Recognition

“Israeli Supreme Court Nixes ‘Convert’ on I.D.“Israeli Cards” Nixes Supreme‘Convert’ Court on “Reform Quit,” win spurs to Peretz Convert “Seven Diaspora Jewish leaders urgeto Likud Refrain Shamir and from LawAmending the Intact:“Shamir with Coalition LikudWants Woos “Who’sa Jew,’” Judaism,” Young, “ConvertsDavid to

freape ttdta eezrsge rte hncnimteJws dniyo a of identity Jewish the confirm than “rather resigned Peretz that stated example, for , n diin to addition In recognition of issue The , 28 May, 28 1987. JTA , 7 July, 7 1987.

” sal wehr t a i edn pooin of promotion ending in was it whether Israel, 152

Dissimilarly, the the Dissimilarly,

oncig h Mle cs t “ate” ewe ifrn sras within streams different between “battles” to case Miller the connecting

151

Also, Gil “Protests Sedan, Against Mount Ministry’s Interior

JTA As previously mentioned, some threatened that this would affect would this that threatened some mentioned, previously As

153 eae sr so fr isoa er wo et questioning felt who Jewry Diaspora for spot sore a became , 22 July, 22 1987

Likewise, some suggested that altering that suggested some Likewise, Ohio Jewish Chronicle Jewish Ohio JTA J The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The TA

, 24 July, 24 1987. , 27 June 1986. , 27 38 The Jewish Chronicle

. Orgel, Also,Hugh to Continues Push “Shas Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio

quoted Israel’s Chief Rabbi stating, stating, Rabbi ChiefIsrael’s quoted

hm lre at f h Jewish the of part large a whom , Op aliyah - Ed, April Ed, 25 1986, 18. , 8 January, 8 1987. Pitts

The The r iaca support. financial or burgh Jewish burgh or further narrowing further or Jewish , December11

Telegr

aphic 150 149

CEU eTD Collection 155 154 It continues, verydetail ofbecause the strongthe opinion author (unknown) holds, auspices.” converted or mother Jewish a of born either someone as Jew a of absolute definition an for circles Orthodox in agitation renewed to lead “inevitably will ruling the that Supreme the Court decided upon. Chronicle identity. identity.” Jewish of determination the for struggle the in fight to “pays it that is case the from learned lesson the that and world,” i Jewish determines what of question the over struggle continuing a in “skirmish a was case Miller the

“Still “Still Pending,” YosefGoell, Identity,”of “Question Jewish conversion which will not fragment this shrinking, divided people even further. Until even people divided shrinking, this of fragment not coalescence will which a conversion by prayerfully non resolved, be and to Orthodox have will issue the day, One hands rabbinof the are divorce, and marriageincluding status, personal matters of all every self almost even or Jewry, Soviet of behalf on for consequences dire the non with of aspect bridged, be never would which definition. halachic Reform the of by millions even Jewish those “non are people of who Jewish Jews category the new from off a split establish would it time but first Jews,” the for it would only Not A in Identity” Jewish of “Question article The dentity in the new reality of a largely secular Jewish state and Jewish people in a moderna in people Jewish and state Jewish secular largely a of realitynew the dentityin

The article added, “There will certainly be more battles.” more be certainly will “There added, article The n article which began, which article n

(UK) continued to depict the case as an identitarian issue much larger than the issue the than larger much issue identitarian an as case the depict to continued (UK) This, it states, would be “catastrophic.” be would states, it This,

then, all except those committed to zealotry for zealotry’s sake must speak must sake zealotry’s for zealotry to committed those except all then, The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The

- religi ate. ous Jewish life, from fund from life, Jewish ous - orthodox on basic procedures for marriage, divorce, and and divorce, marriage, for procedures basic on orthodox

“Israel is embroiled in the issue of ‘Who is a Jew?’ a is ‘Who of issue the in embroiled is “Israel

154

hs fr hm te or bat court the them, for Thus, , 5 Dec, 5 1986. - defense. The 39

155

Jewish C Jewish

The Jewish Chronicle Jewish The It is worth quoting from the article in more in article the from quoting worth is It -

raising for Israel to joint activities joint to Israel for raising

It is not even necessary. even not is It hronicle

It would create a schism schism a create would It

As we can see, the the see, can we As , January2 1987.

tle was really over Jewish Jewish over really was tle –

by law by (UK) suggested that suggested (UK)

In Israel, In ne Orthodox under - - J

ewish in the in ” The Jewish The

suggested suggested

CEU eTD Collection Minister Minister theof Interior 158 1986, 1. 157 156 the These and continuing contemporary Law reflect examples the overthe some of debates of Return non or conversions,” situation. contrived extremely an to issue cases. court more several with decades two next Israel in conversions Judaism within movement Israel, in establishment Judaism. non of recognition the and identity Jewish about questions to legislation f “Who larger the to case the tie to difficult not was it that clear is it registry, population the and cards identity to information additional adding non on identity. Judaism Jewish and of conversions streams various the of viewpoints conflicting the presenting matters, identitarian or recognition about it making or

For example,For I.D.“Israeli Cards” Nixes Supreme‘Convert’ Court on “Still Pending,” recognition recognition of the non discuss While of results the summarized articles several Though hurl us over cliff the self into would who those against as survival, Jewish is destination whose road that for up

ing

the case was framed as a battle between Diaspora Judaism and and Judaism Diaspora between battle a as framed was case the vrtig rm rpsd hne t te a o Rtr ad te Israeli other and Return of Law the to changes proposed from everything Shas v.D Shas The Jewish Jewish Chronicle The , however ,

- rhdx conversions Orthodox

(1995),

- i irector the Population of Registry Orthodox movements Israel in t also became about recognition of the Jewishness of an entire entire an of Jewishness the of recognition about became also t .

Na’amat v. Minister the Interior of a nt h ls cs t da wt te eonto o Reform of recognition the with deal to case last the not was The 157

- “conversion crisis,” as it wa it as crisis,” “conversion Whil destruction. , 5 Dec, 5 1986. e the Supreme Court limited the case to the issue of of issue the to case the limited Court Supreme the e

h cs dat ih h rcgiin f “stop of recognition the with dealt case The

is a Jew”question a is conducted outside of Israel by Israeli residents. residents. Israeli by Israel of outside conducted 40

156 158

The 2004 The many

Ohio Jewish Chronicle Ohio the Supreme Court decision without decision Court Supreme the

(1987), (1987), tesd hs ise i adto to addition in issues these stressed - 2005 Tushbeim cases brought the brought cases Tushbeim 2005 , making the case fertile grounds fertile case making the , s dubbed, continued on into the into on continued dubbed, s (2002) Pessaro .

- rhdx tem in streams Orthodox - Goldstein v. Goldstein , December11 h O the - Orthodox rthodox - over CEU eTD Collection Association in translation 161 Beresford 160 4. 1989. 159 citizenship receiving from one disqualifies which religion,” another of “members considered disagree religion” b imm to eligible not were Beresfords the that argued Minister Interior the descent, by Jewish both were Shirley and Gary The Case new immigran make to applied had who Africa Jews. Messianic of return consider already was Justice of Court High the as with, deal to case legal another want not did Ministry Interior the that seemed It tourists. later was which “would a dubbed reporter one whom Marlow, Mrs. this, husband. Christian her with Israel to traveling Jew, Messianic a Marlow, Mrs. Chapter ec

H.C. 265/87 H.C. 265/87 Alexander, “MessianicHaim Remain Country,”Allowed in Jew to Shapiro, ause of their religious beliefs. religious their of ause

Also, Haim “W Shapiro, The legal proceedings of the Beresfords began in March 1987. March in began Beresfords the of proceedings legal The 1989, In d. , 110.

– Consequently, t Consequently,

]

4 hitaiy t b exact. be to Christianity, Sinclair, : t status while Israel touristt status in visas. on The Unpromised Land: The Land: The Unpromised Messianic Jews Struggle of Gary & Shirley

Gary Lee Beresford &Gary Lee Beresford Beresford v. Interior ofthe Minister

The Jerusalem Post Jerusalem The cancelled.

Jewish Law Association Law Jewish XI, Studies

This gae ne te a o Rtr sne hy ee o ogr Jews longer no were they since Return of Law the under igrate he case revolved around whether or not Messianic Jews were to be be to were Jews Messianic not or whether around revolved case he 159

ould Settlersbe Rejected,”ould Nevertheless, she and her husband decided to come to Israel as as Israel to come to decided husband her and she Nevertheless, was the the was aliyah

T he Interior Ministry claimed they were “members of another another of “members were they claimed Ministry Interior he

reported that border police at Ben at police border that reported Shirley Beresford v. Beresford Minister the Interior of Shirley

cas

in their home country, but after being denied, applied for applied denied, being after but country, home their in s Torah As e of Gary and Shirley Beresford, Beresford, Shirley and Gary of e ing ing 41

another case another

- bevn Msinc es te Beresfords the Jews, Messianic observant

- be settler,” recei settler,” be The Jewish Chronicle The 27 -

63 on the right of entry and right of right and entry of right the on .

(19 [hereinafter: Jerusalem Post Jerusalem 89) - 160 Gurion airport detained airport Gurion ved an immigrant visa, immigrant an ved

Despite the fact that that fact the Despite a couple from South South from couple a Jewish Law Law Jewish , March 31 1989,

Months prior to prior Months . English . English , March 14 161

CEU eTD Collection 163 162 dynamic law. ofcriteria religious instead secular a is law the religion. phr this adding whenlegislators the ofintention the history,and Judaism,Jewish to according LawReturn of the another religion. to to (born Jew” a “born anyone disqualifies which (a), 4A Section Return Jews. as Israel immig to entitlement their of terms in nothing to amounted feelings and practices these Israel. supported parents, Jewish two to the born observed both Beresfords, The Beresfords. the of practices and beliefs petition wasBeresfords’ dismissed. bec return of right the to entitled not are The Judgment say least. the to significant, be to prove would standards immigration authorized nationally the mismatching Return. of Law the under

Ibid, Ibid, 33. Ibid, 59. In his judgment, Justice Elon interpreted the expression, “member of another religion” in religion” another of “member expression, the interpreted Elon Justice judgment, his In three the 1989, Day, Christmas On –

He argued that despite the pseudo the despite that argued He neither as a Jew as defined in Section 4B, nor as the family member of a Jew under under Jew a of member family the as nor 4B, Section in defined as Jew a as neither

abt ad itr lw, et srn cneto t te eih epe and people, Jewish the to connection strong a felt laws, dietary and Sabbath

ase. In fact, the Beresfords were doubly ineligible to immigrate under the Law of of Law the under immigrate to ineligible doubly were Beresfords the fact, In

However, since they were to be considered “members of another religion,” religion,” another of “members considered be to were they since However, 163

national law and should rightfully be interpreted accordininterpreted rightfullybe should and law national

Justice Barak rejected Elon’s interpretation of the term “Jew” according to according “Jew” term the of interpretation Elon’s rejected Barak Justice 162

ne oe te ea rmfctos f esnl identifi personal of ramifications legal the more, Once

In the ruling, two justices outlined what they saw as the main outlinedwhat the ruling, twoas justices theyIn saw the

ause they are “members of another religion.” another of “members are they ause

- - judge panel ruled unanimously that Messianic Jews Messianic that unanimously ruled panel judge halachic 42

definition of “Jew” in the Law of Return, Return, of Law the in “Jew” of definition

a Jewish mother) who converts who mother) Jewish a g to secular to g

Thus, the Thus, - liberal rate to rate cation cation - CEU eTD Collection 170 169 168 167 166 165 164 the from “departed have religion, their change who Jews or Jews, Messianic that and people Jewishof people.” the entity historical from the severance “meansa Jesus in beliefthat Werblowski, stating quoted also history.” of wheels the back turn to asking are Jews “Messianic continued, he nation,” of members the and sect this of members between separation total and opposition people.” Jewish the of world the from expelled were sects these Jewish the of entity People.” historical the from departure a Jesus…involves in “Belief judgment.” its made already has “History reiterated, Elon studies, religious of field the in academics other o history” of “facts the to Jews remaining upon based normative a to Jew a of definition subjective the change to was 1970 in Return interpretation.” to open “forever ever flexible, this for him criticized “ever street. the on person average the of views the with line

Ibid., Ibid., 37, 60. Ibid., 36. Ibid., 38. Ibid., 37. Ibid., 55. Ibid., 45. Ibid., 58. dy e” ol se h Brsod a a mme o aohr religion.” another of “member a as Beresfords the see would Jew” day y In this way, both justices indicated any belief in Jesus equals a severance from the Jewish Jewish fromseverancethe a equals Jesus anyin belief justicesindicated way,both this In about feelings” “subjective Beresfords’ the called he what compared Elon Justice in be then would religion” another of “member of interpretation secular Barak’s Justice 167

“Su halacha

bjective feelings bjective

. 166

170

This is reminiscent This of opini

” 165

cannot changecannot

In his view, the legislators’ intent when am when intent legislators’ the view, his In - hnig rtro fr eiig h i a e wih is which Jew a is who deciding for criterion changing r “historic reality.” “historic r 43 two thousand years thousand oftwo history,

ons expressed the in Brotherons Danielcase. 164

And he concluded that at this point, an point, this at that concluded he And

Quoting Professor Werblowski and Werblowski Professor Quoting 168

“After two thousand years of of years thousand two “After

ending the Law of of Law the ending he said, “whereby “whereby said, he -

objective one one objective utc Elon Justice h Jewish the 169

Barak Barak

CEU eTD Collection 177 176 175 174 173 172 171 secular state’s the with along Return mus one Return, of Law the interpreting rights of greatest thegrant to “wishes it whom person the identify to designed was Return of Law the but example, for Israel, in citizenship implications.” indirect and reaching is. Jew”actually a be to himselfdeclares who everyone that legislators of Bara Return.” of Law the of substance the constituting those as “such Jews, to granted rights social legal to entitled not are and Jews called longer no are Jew, a born are they though Apostates, weaved the judgment.was throughout people, Jewish the from separated have Jews Messianic that idea the othering, and separation of people. Jewish the of fate the with lot their in throws person a indicates Israel. in Jews of “fate” the from separation means also This corpus.” Jewish the from themselves removed have who and members, its amongst counted religi Jewish that stating “history,” of forces the to authority and power immense affords again once Elon them.” from off himself cut “actively and community Jewish the of part be to wish Jewish the of ways the of ways

Ibid., Ibid., 51. Ibid., 59. Ibid., 34 Ibid., 56. Ib Ibid, 42. Ibid., 34 k mentioned the Landau judgment in the in judgment Landau the mentioned k id., id., 43. utc Eo as quot also Elon Justice

- -

35. 35. n n hsoy dtrie h, rm h vepit f uas, otne o be to continue Judaism, of viewpoint the from who, “determine history and on

d h Bbe n rbii sucs o pa aot apostates. about speak to sources rabbinic and Bible the ed community.” 176 -

national aspirations for the ingathering of Jews, which is which Jews, of ingathering the for aspirations national

t eemns hte oe h one whether determines It t understand the intended target group of the Law of of Law the of group target intended the understand t 171 Rufeisen – 44

Converts from Judaism from Converts the right of immigration to Israel.” to immigration of right the

case, stating that it was “not the intentionthe “not was it that stating case,

Conversely, conversion to Juda to conversion Conversely, as the automatic right to to right automatic the as 174 , they concluded, they ,

Such claims have “far claimshave Such

This continued theme theme continued This 177

And when And 172

Justice Justice do not not do ism 175 173 - -

CEU eTD Collection 182 181 180 179 178 community. Jewish the from withdrawal a constituted this that and conclusi the emphasizing judgment, again, “decades the that The comparing justice, each of judgment break a including judgment, the of overviews comprehensive Media Coverage case, “achieve central the to state.” destiny the of v aspirations” national Israel. of State the of founders faith. their the distanced had but Jews once were who Beresfords Judaism. to convert that hopes the with Israel to immigrate to wishing families marriage Je of members family to extended was return of right the that added Elon and legislators Return its to…distort included.” not those for “not

Ibid., Ibid., 55. Ibid., 51, 54. Ibid., 41. Ibid., 43. Ibid., 56. Jewish Telegraphic Agency Telegraphic Jewish the court has definitely decided who is who decided definitely has court the h Jrslm Post Jerusalem The

In reaching his decision, Barak also considered the intentions of the legislators and legislators the of intentions the considered also Barak decision, his reaching In what it says, in order to be counted be to order in says, it what

- long” controversy over “Who is a Jew” has not yet been resolved, but but resolved, been yet not has Jew” a is “Who over controversy long”

180

ia Jewish immigration to Israel, to immigration Jewish ia It was not intended to facilitate the immigration of individuals like the the like individuals of immigration the facilitate to intended not was It –

amongst who are to those entitled benefitfrom provisions.” its

178

n the and

began by invoking the “Who is a Je a is “Who the invoking by began h pee f eilto, e rt, a fruae t “secure to formulated was wrote, he legislation, of piece The Justice Elon also declared, “It is not right for the Petitioners Petitioners the for right not is “It declared, also Elon Justice on that the Beresfords were “members of a different faith” different a of “members were Beresfords the that on Justice Barak’s Justice eih eerpi Agency Telegraphic Jewish not 45 –

182

a Jew.a against the will of the initiators of the Law of of Law the of initiators the of will the against

He drove home this He severalpoint home drove this times.

secular secular 181 mselves from the Jewish people through people Jewish the from mselves

It also extracted quotes directly from the from directly quotes extracted also It

or quoting Justice Agranat in the Shalit Shalit the in Agranat Justice quoting or and Elon’s and - down of the reasoning behind the behind reasoning the of down w” theme w”

It highlighted other quotes quotes other highlighted It in

religious interpretations. religious

time, non time, eiee te mos the delivered s o ep mixed help to ws - question. - es would Jews

It stated It 179

once

- t

CEU eTD Collection 185 184 Jerusalem Post 183 Jew. a as recognized be to wanting behind motives ulterior had Daniel Brother suggested that convert to ploy a and Return of Law the under immigrating by state the from “benefits” receive to sham a is Jews as representation stated. resident Jerusalem a proselytize,” be. to claim they who not are they because but beliefs their of because not is it country, the leave Beresfords societies. the by produced literature Christians. Protestant are Beresfords the that contends nuanced. more are others though perspective, to wrong but sincere between somewhere be to and disingenuous deceitful. seen and evaluated were claims these self justices. the of conclusions they theThus, conflict subjectiveattention to the between the and feelings drew the petitioners of Post Jerusalem it.” Agency on Telegraphic themselves force to right no have nation…and Jewish 2,0 by history of wheels the reverse to attempt petitioners “The as, such judgment, Elon’s Justice from

“Who is aJew?”“Who JewsMichael Kauffman, “Messianic are Christians,” Jews’ ‘Messianic Rules Eligible to“High Immigrate Law Court are not under of Return,” - identification as Jews was not the way to determine whether or not they were. they not or whether determine to way the not was Jews as identification 00 years. 00 Som strongly e

Te peed o e es n re t drv cert derive to order in Jews be to pretend “They , December26 1989.

, that the Messianic Jews consider themselves to be part of the Jewish people. Jewish the of part be to themselves consider Jews Messianic the that , But the Jewish people has decided…..that (Messianic Jews) do not belong to the to belong not do Jews) (Messianic decided…..that has people Jewish the But The Jewish Press Jewish The

ihihe te at ht h Brsod “nit hy r Jews are they “insist Beresfords the that fact the highlighted - odd pno pee i the in pieces opinion worded

h jsie age th argued justices The

, 14 Dec, 14 1962. Jews. Another stated that if the Israeli government makes the the makes government Israeli the if that stated Another 184

This is reminiscent of the piece in the the in piece the of reminiscent is This

hs rtr niuts ht h Brsods self Beresford’s the that insinuates writer This 46

ly Jms f ol, nln, o example, for England, Poole, of James Lloyd

at the Beresfords’ “subjective feelings” and and feelings” “subjective Beresfords’ the at

euae Post Jerusalem Jerusalem Post

e kos bcue e oios th monitors he because “knows” He i mtra bnft ado to and/or benefits material ain 183

Additionally, the the Additionally, , Opinion, April 5 1993.

en oad h latter the toward lean

Nevertheless, Nevertheless, Jewish Press Jewish ,” and and ,” Jewish the 185

e -

CEU eTD Collection to grant it. to wishes and theit to right bestowupon from person this withhold it who those may to Minister determinewho Ministry the Interior residenceget permanent visas,may but 188 187 186 naturalizatio for application the of submission the of day the preceding permanently, Israel in reside to entitled cond stated. he law,” the with accordance in it to respond non enables c petitioners the suggested Later Developments theoften caserightpresent as mo be to tend pieces opinion the of interpretation. their give and case the value and assessment of sort some fr include to interesting or important is think they what decide must aftermath. its and case the covering article aut apostates, Such “through their beliefs Jewish destroy to seek nation.” the Anti suggested the of Silverberg Israel by written piece opinion an Similarly,

hors of the opinion pieces show more bias and make more value more make and bias more show pieces opinion the of hors As Association Law Jewish Israel Jews,” “Messianic Silverberg, itions one must meet in order to naturalize under the Citizenship Law include: one must be be must one include: Law Citizenship the under naturalize to order in meet must one itions explained reallyexplained lawyer, byone Israeli knows no by what an Interior policy isused the huh h Brsod dd o qaiy s es o te ih o rtr, utc Elon Justice return, of right the for Jews as qualify not did Beresfords the Though case. Beresford the on perspective interesting another provide pieces opinion Such

t he Beresfords “came to Israel specifically to spread the word of their belief in Jesus.” in belief their of word the spread to specifically Israel to “cameBeresfords he - Jews to naturalize. to Jews

, 40. ud pl fr citizenship for apply ould -

versus

“The Minister of the Interior will consider the application and application the consider will Interior the of Minister “The - judgment was made was judgment re critical, either of the Beresfords or the government. the or Beresfords the of either critical, re -

wrong, good wrong, In their evaluation of the outcomes of the case, the authors the case, the of outcomes the of evaluation their In Jerusalem Post Jerusalem 188

While no article can truly be free of bias bias of free be truly can article no While n ms b i Ire fr he ot f ie years five of out three for Israel in be must one 47

- versus 187

, Opinion, April 30 1993. ne te 92 iiesi Law Citizenship 1952 the under

– - As previously mentioned, some of the the of some mentioned, previously As bad.

the opinion pieces skip most facts of facts most skip pieces opinion the

om the case, which suggests which case, the om - judgments than the average the than judgments n, and if the person meets person the if and n, - 186 missionary Task Force Force Task missionary

m wish not does it

someone

which

They

The The

CEU eTD Collection 191 190 a foreignbe national upon b lawthis the individualmust renounce isthat their prior “henationality prove that will or cease to 189 the amend to campaigning ministry. the over control Shas critique, this Besides proselytizing.” all of resentment deep and converts of abhorrence “traditional a of because Inte ‘non of thousands of immigration the permit to continues it while IDF, the in served who children including Israel, resi permanent refuse to nonsensical The Role ofthe Interior Ministry acquire to makes difficult it bymeans than citizenship other the Law of Return. that claim Perez’s Nashon support to example one be may it However, stay. to appeal their rejected and requirement, residence the fulfill to impossible it making Beresfords, the of visas obstacle. another into ran Beresfords the saga, Beresford Minister. Interior the of decisions so.” do to fit thinks he “if naturalization, of certificate a issuing by (citizenship) nationality Israeli requirements, other) (and these

“Israel’s non “Son InformedHaim hisMessianic Mother,” Shapiro, on Unlike immigration underLawmajor caveat the ofone attaining Return, under to citizenship rior Ministry being run by the “haredi Shas party” which rejected the Beresfords’ application Beresfords’ the rejected which party” Shas “haredi the by run Ministry being rior

hs gi w se te prospe the see, we again Thus Se One ea atce cvrn te ilr case Miller the covering articles veral

ril o te Beresford the on article - Jewish Dilemma,” - eih eaie o Irei citizen. Israeli of relatives Jewish

however, 190

t s o cer pn ht rud te rjce ter applications. their rejected they grounds what upon clear not is It ecoming Israeli an national.” eiiin f Jw n h Lw of Law the in Jew a of definition

hardly any mention wasmademention In anyofhardly the

189 t th At

Therefore, it is not surprising that in the next chapter in the in chapter next the in that surprising not is it Therefore, the Minister of the Interior Interior the of Minister the Jerusalem Post Jerusalem t f en al t imgae o sal eed uo the upon depends Israel to immigrate to able being of ct ec t te eefrs wo ae first have who Beresfords, the to dency sm tm a te ilr case Miller the as time same e

case etoe te neir Ministry Interior the mentioned 48

o te te hand, other the on ,

, JanuaryOpinion, 19 1993. ”

The Interior Ministry did not extend the extend not did Ministry Interior The

hs i dcae, s h rsl o the of result the is declares, it This, Jerusalem Post may

Return

choose to grant the person person the grant to choose

terior Ministry. , oue o te mat of impact the on focused

h Shas the

y dig h phrase the adding by h Itro Ministry Interior the , 4 February, 4 1993.

- ,

ere relatives degree

party stating,

a been had

I is “It

191

CEU eTD Collection Jewish Press Jewish 194 Chronicle Converts,” 193 192 community. Jewish Messianic the than larger much is case, Miller the in interested be would who those Diaspora, less as viewed was case Beresford case. Miller Further Comparison of Beresford and Miller thedefeated in Knesset. Knesset the ‘Mi and door.” back the by law Jew’ a is ‘Who Ministry’s about the stories Israel. to “return” to converts those of right the and overseas conversio of recognition the end would amendment. 1970 the since Return of Law halacha.” to “according

Aryeh Julius, “Court Upholds “Court Upholds Aryeh Julius, Reform “Protests MountAgainstGil Ministry’s Sedan, Id Interior Cards Stamp on of Jewish Ruling,”“Conservative,Hail High Court Reform - his political party hoped hoped party political his hu Yehudi’ (Who is a Jew) amendment to the Law of Return would so would Return of Law the to amendment Jew) a is (Who Yehudi’ hu Media coverage of the Beresford case is modest in comparison to the highly the to comparison in modest is case Beresford the of coverage Media in reports Certain , 6 Nov, 6 1986. attempt to add the word “convert” to identity cards was a way to “push through the through “push to way a was cards identity to “convert” word the add to attempt JTA .

194 , Dec5 1986. The smaller The

, 27 June 1986. , 27 The proposed legislation was supported by most Orthodox most by supported was legislation proposed The Miller

An estimate number of Messianic Jews in Jews Messianic of number estimate An

case aboutwith information the legislation andproposed vice

Orthodox political parties in Israel had wished to add this phrase to the to phrase this add to wished had Israel in parties political Orthodox - newspapers newspapers cl fcvrg my niaedfeet things. different indicate may coverage of scale

to overcome the the overcome to

Also, “MoveConverts on by thwarted,” Shas - about the Miller case, however, case, Miller the about controversial. 193

Giyur; Anger Mounts in Religious Religious Anger in Communities,” Giyur; Mounts By adding the word “convert,” word the adding By ns conducted by Reform and Conservative rabbis rabbis Conservative and Reform by conducted ns 192 recognition of non of recognition

49 It was clear that the addition of the three words three the of addition the that clear was It

Ohio Jewish Ohio etil, h Rfr cmuiy n the in community Reform the Certainly,

the world at that time was around around was time that at world the

- Thus, many articles connected connected articles many Thus, Chronicle Orthodox conversions Orthodox suggested that the that suggested Interior Minister Interior

, Dec 5 1986, 1.

Perha meday be passed by by passed be meday rabbis but was later later was but rabbis The Jewish Jewish The ps, overall, the the overall, ps, - versa. - publicized publicized

until the until Interior Pere

tz tz CEU eTD Collection 195 evening. the of end the at discussion a with night efforts, missionary counter and groups the not.” do about and awareness not are they but Judaism, or Jews for speak they that and Jewish are Jes they for that claim who there Jews out pretenders are themselves there Jeshua, B’nai or call Jews, Messianic Christians, they Whether Jew? a not is who “Guess begins, Chronicle Jewish same as case thethe court time period anti of plethora the miss to difficult be would the from absent was it and case, Miller Orthodox the Chronicle Jewish on buried or paper the in article the of placement and title, the naturallywell less be Return.” of Law the amend to demands Orthodox on bearing “no had decision Court High the that stated example, for case, ha would it impact practicalin terms. people. 400,000

Haim Shapiro, “Son InformedHaim hisMessianic Mother,” Shapiro, on On January 25, 1990 (just one month after the Beresford ruling), for example, the the example, for ruling), Beresford the after month one (just 1990 25, January On font article, the of length the in reflected also is story a weight or importance The assumed the reflect may coverage in difference the that is theory related but alternate An page twelve. page Jewish Press Jewish 195

and and

nldd n ril ette, Bt Sao t Hs: Te agt s You.” is Target ‘The Host: to Shalom “Beth entitled, article an included However, it would be difficult to determine which case impacts more people people more impacts case which determine to difficult be would it However, ve on Israeli society or the Diaspora at Diaspora the or society Israeli on ve

- covered. The

Whereas the Miller case often made front made often case Miller the Whereas Jewish Chronicle Jewish .

It is likely that a less politicized, less controversial co controversial less politicized, less a that likely is It In general, I found fewer articles about the Beresfo the about articles fewer found I general, In

, however Jewish Press Jewish

(UK) - 50 . missionary and anti and missionary

, for example, it did not make the front the make not did example,forit , In a very different context, over in New York, York, New in over context, different very a In –

whether it is on the front page, for example, for page, front the on is it whether

and and Ohio Jewish Chronicle Jewish Ohio - Jerusalem Post large.

h UH ws otn a movie a hosting was UAHC the

One article on the Beresford the on article One - - Jews for Jesus articles from articles Jesus for Jews page news of the the of news page , 4 February, 4 1993. rd case than the than case rd urt case would case urt altogether. s Hebrew us, Pittsburgh

o bring To - - page of pageof size of size Ohio

It It It CEU eTD Collection cases found,court Messianic not can articles about Jews are present. community. Jewish the to. opposition in be to people are and Jews actually not are Jesus for Jews or Jews Messianic that is message clear the articles, such counsel needs know anti and speech free about laws. discrimination York New of (JCRC) Council Relations Community Jewish Missionaries.” the Jewish Press Jewish

This article was article This

ran a fronta ran

ing as a result of being victimized by a cult or missionary groups.” missionary or cult a by victimized being of result a as ing The article ends with contact information in case “you or anybody you you anybody or “you case in information contact with ends article The

The examples of this go on and on. and on go this of examples The - page article on February 3, 1989, entitled “JCRC Wins Case AgainstentitledWins“JCRC Case 1989, February 3, pagearticleon about a suit filed by the organization Jews for Jesus against the against Jesus for Jews organization the by filed suit a about

The articles portray them as though theypresen though as them portray articles The 51

Thus, even when stories about the about stories when even Thus,

t a threat to threat a t

From From - CEU eTD Collection 197 196 anyJewish community were acceptable forthe of Law Return. ( before petitioner unde reason technical a on part, however, with Jewish. not are Israel HolyLand.” York New the in Jew” a is Israelin Christians professing remains mother Jewish a to born someone that view Orthodox longer no were individuals werethough rejected, Jewish born to parents, fortheir r directly questio right. the granted been have Return, of Law Israel’s in reflected as Israel, to return to right their was it believed who Jews Chapter 5

Shas v.Minister the InteriorShas of is aJew?”“Who r the Law of Return Return of Law the r halacha and wih has which n

rs c Press a been has exiles" of "ingatheringof notionThe fet Jw i te Diaspora the in Jews affects Reform

abroad 196 , which Reformconversionsare which , : Conclusion

vrg of overage

According to the Orthodox viewpoint, conversions must be performed in accordance in performed be must conversions viewpoint, Orthodox the to According ) is ) osdrd Jews considered converts the

Jewish Jewish Press lyd n motn role important an played that

Brother Daniel Brother

These issues invoked the highly debated and controversial “Who is a Jew” a is “Who controversial and debated highly the invoked issues These Reform conversions are a threat to the Jewish people and Reform converts Reform and people Jewish the to threat a are conversions Reform

– would be would h cs o Rfr conversions Reform on case the Jewish Press Jewish –

u lc o dfnto hd o sopd h cut rm uig gis a against ruling from court the stopped not had definition of lack but the legislators had not defined which conversions would be recognized be would conversions which defined not had legislators the o

r anything close to it it to closeanything r s . , 14 December, 14 1962.

hs s neetn bcue t iegs rm the from diverges it because interesting is This

recognized

case ihn t imgae o Israel to immigrate to wishing

expressed, Christians have ulterior motives in living in in living in motivesulterior have Christians expressed, ).

In the Miller case, however, conversions performed in in performed conversions however, case, Miller the In not.

in in as Jews under the Law ofReturn Law the under Jewsas 52

As As

sal politics, Israeli

did not please them either. themplease not did a later n integral part of Zionist ideology, but not all all not Zionistbut ideology,of part integral n

Supreme Court Court Supreme

revealed

a Jew a

eligious beliefs, but the answers to the question question the to answers the but

. .

h Orthodox the T However, the idea of having of idea the However, here have been cases were were cases been have here case

As the article, the As ruling .

This was based, in in based,was This and

perspectiv

consequently, confirmed, predominant

“Who ( e “our 197 in in

CEU eTD Collection 199 198 the in explicit the (which Zionist a being nor rejected, and expressed was opinion minority his self all for intended identification. Jewish de avoid irrelevant. is identification declared “convert.” a of the people. Jewish the to belonging this of but is atthe course, Interiorof discretion the Ministry. the from people. Jewish off oneself cutting constituted conversion religious when centuries previous from it indeed, marginal, “ the with them made views religious parents, Jewish to

Ibid., Ibid., 13. Joppke, notions of Jewish of notions One other interesting feature of the cases is that it becomes clear that an applicant’s self applicant’s an that clear becomes it that is cases the of feature interesting other One What Iro

aling with Brother Daniel’s self Daniel’s Brother with aling people with thpeople mar nically, t nically, Selecting Originby Selecting

these ginal question of exiting Jewry, exiting of question ginal

law, the justices used their used justices the law, Today, however, this has othe has this however, Today, Nevertheless

he he case - also shows that today, the boundaries of the group are not all too different too all not are group the of boundaries the today, that shows also identified Jews who tied their fate with the rest of the the of rest the with fate their tied who Jews identified

199 history and the and history two two e affiliations religious wrong s

huh utc Chn a sgetd ht h Lw f eun was Return of Law the that suggested had Cohen Justice Though to down boil

cases Writing in in Writing

, 178. ,

that that h judgments the eiinr wr i al cases) all in were petitioners The

deal with individuals who were of Jewish descent, i.e. born i.e. descent, Jewish of were who individuals with deal understanding of a of understanding judgments w judgments Commentary is -

identification by deciding that a c a that deciding by identification

how conception of who belongs to the Jewish people, and people, Jewish the to belongs who of conception ” r implications r

ineligible religion or belief or religion 53 Christian Joppke remark Joppke Christian reinforced

it became clear became it ere not based on Jewish religious law, but on but law, religious Jewish on based not ere

magazine,

had “cut themselves “cut had off

“common for the right of return. of right the for

–

religious definition of a Jew and and Jew a of definition religious

Marc Galanter noted that the courtthe that noted Galanter Marc

it can it mattered. effects differing conceptions of conceptions differing effects

that neither self neither that Jew

block access to citizenship, to access block ” ed.

or the religious concept religious the or When things were not not were things When onvert is incapable of incapable is onvert 198 . Jewish people, after people, Jewish ”

While this may be be may this While

This cases This - identification identification

dealt dealt - CEU eTD Collection Jewish communitiesiswhat mattered.Jewish to connection ultimately, the Jewish people by birth or or birth by people Jewish the

by conversion in in conversion by one of the recognized the of one CEU eTD Collection Maoz, Asher. “Who Is a Jew? Much Ado About Nothing.” In In Nothing.” About Ado Much Jew? a Is “Who Asher. Maoz, AsherFelix. Landau, Oscar. Kraines, and Daniel, Juster, Hocken. “The Movement:Peter Jewish An Introduction”, Messianic 2004. Christian. Joppke, Brother Daniel,"on Galanter, Commentary, Marc,"ADissent 1963. July ——— Rogers. Brubaker, Holzman Yifat and Bryna, Bogoch, Ben in Law Citizenship and Communities, Boundaries, Categories, Jew?: a Is “Who Gad. Barzilai, Barak In Intellectuals.” Israeli Among Debate Jew’ a Is ‘Who “The Gabor. Balazs, Ale adr Linda. xander, - Porat, Guy, and Professor Bryan S Turner. S Bryan Professor and Guy, Porat, - Erez, Daphne. “Israel: Citizenship and Immigration Law in the Vise of Security, Security, of Vise the in Law Immigration and Citizenship “Israel: Daphne. Erez, Bingham, 2000. 75 Sinclair, Israel of State the in Identity Jewish and Policy Judicial Law, XI: 1971. 1976. Harvar Nation 379 the and Comparativ Citizenship, “Immigration, . Press, 1992. 24 S Israeli an of Representations Media & 2011. Francis, Sokoloff, 27 In Israel.” HumanNationality, Rights.” and University, European Central Studies Project, 2009. Jewish CEU the Beresford

(2010): 423 – 407.

d University 2005. d Press, , ed The Impossible Dilemma: Who Is a Jew in the State of Israel? of State the in Jew a Is Who Dilemma: Impossible The

. Baltimore, Lederer Maryland: Publications, 1994. Messianic Selecting by Origin: Ethnic Migration in the Liberal State Liberal the in Migration Ethnic Origin: by Selecting onais f eih Identity Jewish of Boundaries Hsoia Analysis.” Historical e

ited V:7 Michael L.Miller, Andrasby Kovacs and – iiesi ad ainod n rne n Germany and France in Nationhood and Citizenship h Upoie Ln: h Srgl o Msinc es ay Shirley & Gary Jews Messianic of Struggle The Land: Unpromised The – 1. G 119. 42. Seattle:42. Washin University of Selected Judgments o Judgments Selected –

445.

lobal Scholarly Publications: State University of New York at at York New of University State Publications: Scholarly lobal - Gazit. “Clashing Over Conversion: ‘“Who Is a Jew”’ and and Jew”’ a Is ‘“Who Conversion: Over “Clashing Gazit.

I - con Bibliography f the Supreme Court of Israel of Court Supreme the f nentoa Sociology International upreme Court Decision.” Court upreme

6, (January6, no. 1 184 2008): 55 The Contradictions of Israeli Citizenship Israeli of Contradictions The

, edited by Susan Anita Glenn and Naomi B. B. Naomi and Glenn Anita Susan by edited ,

gton gton Press, 2010. - tt i Fac ad emn: A Germany: and France in State

Jewish Law Association Studies Association Law Jewish

5, no. 4 (December 1990): 1990): (December 4 no. 5, – 22. 22. 2005

Int J Semiot Law (2011) Law Semiot J Int . Transaction Publishers, Publishers, . Transaction

– , edited by Daniel B. B. Daniel by edited , Hrad University Harvard . 192. . Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, .

Jewish Studies at Studies Jewish -

2007. Budapest:2007. Bloch Pub. Co., Pub. Bloch . Taylor .

CEU eTD Collection Reinharz, eds., Ben World Modern Proclamati Torn Nation Jewish the How or Creator, Its and Golem “The Yfaat. Weiss, Comparis a Citizenship: to “Access Patrick. Weil, In Jew?” a Is “Who Zera. Warhaftig, In Real?” H. David or Stern, Symbolic Israel: in Ethnicity “Jewish Sammy. Smooha, ed. B., Daniel Sinclair, N Conversions “On Pinhas. Shifman, Sapi Justification.” Qualified a Return: of Law “Israel’s Nahshon. Perez, - r, Gidon. r, Gurion, David. Gurion, . Directed byKertsner. Israel, Ronit 2011. y ail ey n Yat es, 82 2002. Weiss, Yfaat and Levy Daniel by Multiethnic.” for International Endowment Peace, 2001. Today Scholarly2000. Publications, Jewish 2007. Publishers, CulturalContemporary Patterns Social and in the Identity Israel State of Scholarly2000. Publications, XI Studies Association Journal Vanderbilt Law,of Transnational n.d. Illustration. an as Jew a Is Who over Controversy Israeli The Avoid? 3, 2011). http://mj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/02/03/mj.kjq032.short. on of the State of Israel, May 14, 1948. In Flohr and Reinharz, eds., eds., Reinharz, and Flohr In 1948. 14, May Israel, of State the of on

eie b Ae Aenkf ad og lsee. ahntn .. Carnegie D.C.: Washington Klusmeyer. Doug and Aleinikoff Alex by edited , How Should a Court Deal with a Primary Question That the Legislature Seeks to Seeks Legislature the That Question Primary a with Deal Court a Should How , 629 The Jew in the World Modern The Jew in Me -

630.

Address to the Knesset on the Law of Return, July 3, 1950. In Flohr and Flohr In 1950. 3, July Return, of Law the on Knesset the to Address sai Jdim A oen oeet ih n nin Past Ancient an with Movement Modern A Judaism: ssianic In In Challenging Ethnic Citizenship: German and Israeli Perspectives EthnicCitizenship: Israeli and Challenging German

eih a Ascain tde X: a, uiil oiy n Jewish and Policy Judicial Law, XI: Studies Association Law Jewish , edited by Daniel B. Sinclair, 65 Sinclair, B. Daniel by edited ,

. Global Scholarly 2000. Publications,

Audiovisual Source Audiovisual Primary Sources ot in Accordance with Halakhah.” In In Halakhah.” with Accordance in ot eih a Ascain tde XI Studies Association Law Jewish , 631

– 56 0. e Yr ad xod Brhh Books, Berghahn Oxford: and York New 103.

- 632. , 47 on of 25 Nationality Laws.” In In Laws.” Nationality 25 of on

–

80. Brandeis 80. UniversityPress, 2004.

– 73. Bingham University: Global Global University: Bingham 73. Modern Judaism Modern

Vol. Vol. 39:1233. Vol. Vol. 23 , es n Israel: in Jews - The Jew in the in Jew The tt Became State eih Law Jewish – Messianic . 6 Global 26. Citizenship

(February

, edited , edited

CEU eTD Collection v. (Goldstein) Pessaro H.C. 1031/93 (1995) of Interior Minister 661 the 49(4) P.D. ShasH.C. 264/87 GaryH.C. 265/87 v. & (1987) Interior, ShirleyMinister Beresford of the 793 43(4), P.D. Miller (1986)Shoshana H.C. 239/86 et 436 ofInterior v.40(4) al.,P.D. the Minister v.Shalit H.C. 58/68 M RufeisenH.C. 72/62 ofInterior, v.(1962)Minister the 16 P.D. 2428 RegistryPopulation 5725 Law, IsraelEntry Law, 5712 into Law,Citizenship 5712 (Amendment Law ofno. 2) Return Law of5710 Return, TIME Jewish Chronicle (UK)The JewishPittsburgh Chronicle Jewish Chronicle Ohio Telegraphic AgencyJewish (JTA) Press Jewish Jerusalem Post Commentary

v. Director Director of th - 1950 - inister of the Interior P.D. 23(2) 447 (1969) 447 23(2) Interior inister of the P.D.

1952

- 1952

(Also, NationalityLaw - 1965

e Authority Population Israeli Supreme Court CasesIsraeli Supreme Court Newspapers and Magazines and Newspapers

5730

- 1 970 Legislation

5712

P.D. 43(2) 43(2) 728 P.D. - 1952)

(1987)