Scout,

I mostly concur with Yuyutsu, but I'm not sure how a grandmother's hypothetical conversion would affect you.

From a Jewish religious perspective, even if your mother's mother had converted to another religion, she and your mother and you would remain Jews.

In terms of Israeli law, conversion would make Grandma ineligible under the LOR (but she might still be permitted to become an Israeli citizen -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Rufeisen ), but I don't see how this would affect your or your mother's rights, unless you practiced Grandma's religion, and thus were also a sort of "convert" away from Judaism.

"Grandma converted" is similar to the situation of the Falash Mura, a group of ~20,000 Ethiopians whose Jewish ancestors converted to Christianity ~100-200 years ago. The Israeli government has ruled that they are eligible for immigration under the LOR, and has started bringing them to Israel. A number of factors may be relevant in this case -- that the original conversions were under duress, that the group remained endogamous, and that they no longer practice Christianity and wish to return to Judaism.

Strewth,

Maybe something like that, but your formulation is overly simple (everyone has a biological connection to everyone else), and puts the cart before the horse.

Consider this: Armenia's Declaration of Independence declares that "Armenians living abroad are entitled to the citizenship of the Republic of Armenia" and its constitution states that "individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure".

Would you say that the key to acquiring Armenian citizenship through a simplified procedure is to be of Armenian origin? Perhaps, but it sounds rather awkward. It's simpler and more straightforward to say that if you are of Armenian origin, you're entitled to Armenian citizenship through a simplified procedure. Quite similar to Israel's LOR.

Also, your formulation ignores that the LOR is only one avenue to Israeli citizenship. We also have a "regular" naturalization procedure that does not depend on one's Judaism or relationship to a Jew. True, non-LOR immigration isn't called "return" but this is just semantics.

sganot,

At last, "maybe something like that." Convince us that this isn't racism enshrined in law, aka apartheid.

Strewth,

Apartheid is the segragation and inferior treatment of those who are already residents of a given country. It has nothing to do with the question of who is allowed to live in that given country to begin with.

About racism, Sganot for example has just mentioned the "Falash Mura": those Ethiopians are totally black, but their skin-colour makes no difference at all. Also, with racism one cannot do a thing to change it: one always dies in the same race that s/he was born - but not so with nationality.

The Law-of-Return simply recognizes that all Jews are former Israeli citizens, and are therefore entitled to request their resumption of citizenship, which just like in Australia, is easier to get than a brand-new citizenship.

Instead of going round and round, I also have two Yes-No questions for you:

Do you accept that Jews are a nation?
Do you accept that Jews are entitled to have an independent state of their own (please ignore for now the issue of location and borders, just assuming that wherever it is, they outright own the land of that state)?

Strewth,

1)The burden of proof is on you to convince us that it is racism. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that…

2)Jews are not a “race” (really an artificial construct and hang-up of the West that hardly plays a role in this conflict).

3)Israel is the Jewish homeland, and its LOR gives immigration privileges to Jews and their close relatives. It discriminates on the basis of nationality, not race. In fact, all law and policy everywhere controlling immigration and citizenship discriminates, often on the basis of nationality. Lex sanguinis is a well accepted basis for citizenship.

International law permits such discrimination if it isn’t against any particular nationality (the LOR isn’t). From the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: “Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as affecting in any way the legal provisions of States Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.”

The list of states whose immigration/citizenship laws discriminate in favor of a particular ethnic group is very long. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

Is it “racism enshrined in law” or what you incorrectly call “apartheid” when all these other countries do it, or only when Israel does it?

Yuyutsu,

While I agree with the thrust of many of your arguments, a few corrections are in order:

1)The LOR does not define “who is allowed to live in” Israel. It simply eases the immigration of Jews and their close relatives. Israeli law does not exclude anyone on the basis of nationality, race, religion, etc.

2)To say that “all Jews are former Israeli citizens” and that the LOR lets them “request their resumption of citizenship” sounds anachronistic and overly figurative to me. It is enough to say that the LOR gives Jews a right to Israeli citizenship.

3)I look forward to Strewth’s answers to your questions, but I would word the second question differently, eliminating “just assuming that wherever it is, they outright own the land of that state”. This part introduces unnecessary confusion and ambiguity. Sovereignty and land ownership are completely different issues.

Sganot,

I agree with your comments, it is just that you seem to be a lawyer and I am not, so I just write in plain human terms...

I personally believe that a reasonable group of people that own and live on a contiguous piece of land should be allowed to declare themselves an independent state if they so wish - how much more so a nation that existed for thousands of years. What I tried to do in my question to Strewth is to isolate the principle of Israel's right to exist from the current Israeli-Arab conflict, in order to determine what exactly it actually is that drives Strewth so bitterly against Israel.

Yuyutsu & sganot

Thank you for your replies.

This family history is a bit ancient. I would probably have difficulty proving my Jewish heritage; my great grandmother was from a wealthy family, ran off with the coachman (my great grandfather) was subsequently ostracised by her family. Then my grandmother, who was born in England ran off with a rather spunky Aussie soldier in WW1, and was, ironically, disowned by her (coachman) father. As for religion, my grandfather was baptist, but more in a social sense than a formally religious sense.

I assume that my great grandmother simply followed the religion of her husband, so formal Judaism was lost along the way. I know this really has nothing to do with the murky world of war, but appreciate the info.

I still believe in a two state system for Israel and Palestine and believe that it is more about power (economic & oil) that is the true obstacle to peace in the M.E., than religion. Religion is just being used as both the catalyst and excuse - as always.