Talk:Law of Return
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Israel articles. |
|
Project Israel To-do:
|
|
[edit] What about Italians?
Don't they have a similar preference for non citizens of italien diescent?
I removed this sentence from the article:
Some in the international community consider the name misleading; the law includes Jews who have never lived in the country but does not allow Palestinians to return to their homeland.
This is a general, unsupported claim. Who are these "some"? See Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms.
uriber 09:30, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality
I have a tendancy to be sympathetic to Israel, however the section "Controversies" is horribly slanted toward's "Israel's" side of things - counter-arguments to criticism of the Law of Return is highlighted more than the criticism itself. Critic's opinions (facts about opinions) are brief, while the argument against it is lengthy. Certainly, not a neutral point of view. Rajan Rishayakaran 17:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. This page is garbage. I see a lot of opinion and no citations. The response to the criticism is long to the point of going off on a tangent and detracting from the general readability of the article. All the examples of other countries with similar laws should be replaced by a link to right of return. Any additions to the list of countries should be put there, not here.--Anonymous
[edit] Democracy vs. Law of Return
I am familiar with the argument that giving preference to one particular group of people is incompatible with democracy, but it's a very weak argument, for two reasons:
- Giving preferential treatment to one group doesn't necessarily mean discriminating against everyone else. Every country in the world has laws restricting immigration and naturalization. The Law of Return doesn't make Israel a less welcoming place for non-Israelis in general.
- Most Western countries also accept some level of responsibility for accepting the dispossessed, whether by war, persecution, or discrimination. Israel has simply accepted a greater responsibility than most, on the premise that Jews can not assume to be safe anywhere. If Israel were to say, for example, that American Jews should not be allowed to immigrate freely, whereas Swedish or Argentinian Jews should, it is creating a distinction that would be controversial, to say the least.
This argument is most often brought up in the context of Palestinian Arab refugees, the most common example being "why can a Jew from Brooklyn be offered instant citizenship in Israel when an Arab who was born in Haifa can't." Since the Law of Return doesn't exclude Palestinian Arabs any more than it excludes Swiss Protestants, the problem relates to a separate issue.
-
- The above comparison of a Swiss Protestant to a Palestinian Arab is a weak one, as it ignores the fact that all of the Palestinian Arabs were driven from their homes in the 1948 War for independence. They historically used to live in Israel wheras people from other countries (such as the "Swiss Protestants") did not
- Um, far from "all" of them were "driven" from their homes. Jayjg (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- I just looked up the census statistics, and it seems there was a 14% drop in Arab population in the late 1940s within the current Israeli territory. Djbell 06:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV
This article has a number POV problems and also fails to adequately address the criticisms of the Law of Return by Palestinians and other groups. In order to be more NPOV, the article should include at least the following in a NPOV manner:
- Describe the Law of Return in neutral terms and describe what it was intended to accomplish as stated by Israeli politicians and such at the time it was passed.
- Discuss the problem over the years in defining what is a Jew under the law and how that definitions has change and been expanded since the laws original passage.
- Describe it effect on the make-up of the Israel’s population.
- Describe the various Israeli views of keeping it as is vs. changing in some way, including opinions of Israeli’s who think it should be abolished as no longer necessary.
- Describe the views of Palestinians, Arabs, Americans, Europeans, etc. who view it as discriminatory and incompatible with democracy. One should also include a their view that Israeli immigration law, while not explicitly denying any non-Jewish ethnic group the right to legally reside in Israeli, is still heavily biased towards Jews in it’s interpretation and practice compared with imagration law in Western countries such as the United States.
- Present the Israeli rebuttal to the above argument. Explain the reasons many Israelis argue that it is not discriminatory and not incompatible with democracy.
As it stands, the article comes across as a POV article directed at Jewish students studying Israeli history and not a NPOV article for a general audience. -Cab88
[edit] Broken thought
- "Defenders of the Law of Return argue that abolishing it by eliminating the preference accorded to Jews - even if they are citizens of another country - namely, that when they immigrate to Israel they are entitled to receive immediate Israeli citizenship."
-
- There's a line of thought that got broken off here, and I can't divine what the original author intended. Someone want to fix this? --Penta 19:35, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- I've removed it for now, just to keep the article grammatically correct. I realize this may render the paragraph biased by exhibiting more arguments agains than in favor of the law; whoever wrote the passage should soon fix it. Thanks Mariusk 21:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Similiar laws elsewhere
It seems to me to be worthwhile to add mention of similiar laws in other countries, for comparison. I understand there are similiar laws (preferential granting of citizenship on an ethnic basis) in Germany and in several other European countries. Does anyone have more details on this?--Eyl 07:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I was just on Right of return, which appeared to be a more general article about similar laws in other jurisdictions. So I edited that one to make it more truly international, on the assumption that this article is centred specifically on the Israeli Law of Return. I think that that's a reasonable approach, but leave it to others to agree or disagree. In the meantime, though, my jumping off point on right of return was the bullets listed on this page, and some of that text has now been ported over there. So if people agree about doing this this way, then someone may wish to trim Law of Return to remove redundancies with the now-multijurisdictional right of return article. --AnotherBDA 07:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Broken link
The sentence which enumerates several other countries with the similar laws (Poland ... Croatia) ends with the link which points to expired domain. [1]
[edit] What Are You Trying To Say?
I have read the Law and find it interesting and clear. Its best for the inquisitive mind. I am enligntened by the article. I hope you share this view with me. Subrata.
[edit] Law of return and Nuremberg laws
I doubt the the Law of return was intended to "provide citizenship for anyone covered under the Nuremberg Laws". As anyone can see ( http://www.knesset.gov.il/laws/special/eng/return.htm ) the paragraph about "child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew", which makes the law to "resemble" the Nuremberg laws, was actually an amendament passed in the 1970, when the law already existed for 20 years (a bit too late to "react" to the Nuremberg laws, wasn't it ? ; and while I cannot cite any written source, I've heard that the reason behind the amendament was simply to avoid either "losing" jewish member of mixed families or splitting those families). I think the supposed connection to the Nuremberg laws need some kind of supporting evidence. Bukvoed 09:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tables on right are enormous!
Hey! I have a 1152x864 resolution screen, and *even at this resolution*, the tables on the right, and the usual table on the left(Wikipedia central table with links to Main Page, Community portal, etc.) are taking up more than 60% of the horizontal resolution. This is not acceptable, I am sure you are aware of it. Most people nowadays use 1024x768, but it is advisable to make web-pages acceptable to view at 800x600 - this is even more important for a site like Wikipedia, since this is mainly a text-based webpage, and as such, *should* be enjoyable at much smaller resolutions, too, eg. 640x480. Please correct!! Msoos 15:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. The tables take up half the page. There has to be some other, more practical way of linking this to the two portals. Joffeloff 18:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Way too long
This article is far too long and repeats itself in too many places. Isn't the section under the right of return page enough? It's already longer than that of any other country.
[edit] Wiccan Threefold Rule of Return
I removed a reference to the Wiccan Threefold Rule of Return, which is irrelevant to the article. That concept has a more common name, the Rule of Three, and is sometimes called The Threefold Rule of Return, with a full qualification. It has nothing to do with this article. --Gabi S. 05:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Taking out the huge list of examples
There is a general consensus among the people who have commented in this Talk page that the list of examples is far too long and doesn't really belong in an article on Israel's Law of Return. I agree with their suggestion to remove the examples, and link instead to Right of Return. So that's what I'm doing. Ztrawhcs 21:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Scope of the law
The article needs clarification about who is covered. It quotes the Law of Return as applying to children and grandchildren, but what about more remote descendants? If descent is through the mother's line, I believe that person is considered Jewish.
I looked at this article trying to answer this hypothetical question: A person with a Jewish great-great-grandmother, through the maternal line, has never practiced Judaism, was raised as a member of a different religion, and now self-identifies as a member of that religion. Is such a person eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return? The article as it stands leaves me unclear on this point. Any learning that could be added would be appreciated. JamesMLane t c 19:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- If he is memmber of other religion.He is not allowed to come to Israel via the law.Shrike 07:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Weasel Words
I know that the issue of citation has already come up, but this should be flagged for weasel words like "Critics say" and "Some say" and so forth.
