Talk:Law of Return

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Law of Return is part of WikiProject Palestine - a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page where you can add your name to the list of members and contribute to the discussion. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Palestine articles.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.


Israel Portal
Law of Return is part of WikiProject Israel, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, 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 (Drop-Down Menu):
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.


Contents

[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]

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


[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.

[edit] Section on Controversy

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

I think you have the edit history wrong. I removed one section - the one labeled "palestininas" This section is not at all about the Law of Return, nor is it about Palestinian's view of the LoR, or their critiqu. It is about Palestinians wanting a "Right of Return" . This section has nothing to do with the LoR, and does not belong in this article. Isarig 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. This article is about the Law of Return, not the Palestinian claim of a "Right of Return". There is a Right of Return article, perhaps the material might fit there. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If you think you can pretend that I am somehow confused about the subject of this article as a way of dismissing complotely legitimate additions to this article, you would be mistaken. In the section Controversy, critique of the Law of Return appeared as three sections, one of which was entitled Palestinians. That section claimed to represent Palestinian critique of the Law of Return; however, the presentation of the Palestinian critique was 2 sentences, while its refutation was more than 10. I expanded that section, adding information about how Palestinians note that the Law of Return is particularly offensive to them considering their own denied right of return. Perhaps I require one or two more sources explicitly making that connection, but deleting the entire section is totally wrong and uncalled for. Both of you have done this to me than once this last week with more than one article. And while you could cite that as evidence of my making inappropriate additions, I think most familiar with your editing styles will instantly recognize that its trenchant POV that leads you to trecklessly thwrow away fully cited, relevant information. I am reverting. Start indicating exactly what specific sentences, words, or sources are inappropriate. And let's work from there. Tiamut 17:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The section you are adding is inappropriate not because it is lacking one or two sources, but because the entire text is talking about the Palestinian Right of Return, and not at all about the "Law of Return". Also, your attribution of bad intentions to other editors violates WP:AGF and doesn't contribute to a positive atmosphere here. I'm sorry to say that I don't see this being productive until you stop thinking that everyone else is out to get you, and instead perhaps consider that everyone else may actually have a valid concern, to which we can respond by working together instead of against each other. Until then, TewfikTalk 17:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, what happened was I was in the middle of making my edits to that section, when the work was reverted. I hadn't finished making my point about the relationship of the material to article, missing the critical introductory sentence and sources now provided at the beginning and end of the stuff I originally posted. I only realized just now when I was in the middle of doing an overhaul to the section just now, rather than a simple revert. I got the revert illness I guess. (It's catchy you know. Especially when you spend hours researching and editing only to have it thrown away before even getting to finish what you started). I suggest that all you trigger-happy reverters of new material, show a little more patience, and try to understand what an editor is adding to an article rather than assuming you know immediately that it has no relation to anything. Please, work on the rebuttal to the arguments I presented in that section rather than censoring out a totally valid addition to the "Controversy" section of this article. C'mon. Tiamut 18:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Support for a Palestinian "Right of Return" belongs in the Right of Return article, if anywhere. Moreover, the section you added was almost pure original research; almost none of the arguments presented referred back to the Law of Return, but to other documents. Jayjg (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
That's just not accurate Jayjg. I'm sorry. I added more than reference that specifically cited the Law of Return and the Right of Return. And I would find better ones, if you would only hold off your reverts for a moment. You also totally ignored the context I laid out above, acting as though I am the only one who thinks this material should be included when it was already alluded to, though not fleshed out in the previous versions. I am really disappointed by the way you wikilawyer when info does not jive with your POV. It happens in every article I have the misfortune of finding you editing in. I tried to assume good faith, but you've intervened too many times, almost always in support of deleting info that represents the Palestinian POV. Sad, really. Tiamut 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Censorship? What would be appropriate is a short paragraph detailing Palestinian criticism of the Law of Return. What you have included is a detailed entry on the Palestinian Right of Return, as well as counterarguments. None of that belongs. TewfikTalk 20:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would work on such a paragraph, if I wasn't already doing that, and having my work undone, rather than say edited down by someone like you, who seems to have a problem with it. And by the way, the counterarguments were ALREADY THERE. I DID NOT ADD THEM NOR DID I ADD THE SECTION ON PALESTINIANS (Note, I am not yelling, just trying to emphasize a fact that you and Jayjg both keep overlooking). You cannot totally delete a section that was already there, simply because I added to it. That the counterarugments specifically responding to the right of return were already there, means that someone must have removed the Palestinian critique that had mentioned this point, previously. Don't you get it? I am not against cutting the section down, but I won't keep letting you delete info that was there for months and months and only became offensive to you after I made the Palestinian critique in the section stronger. This is totally unfair, smacks of bad faith editing rank with POV and I am going to report both you and Jayjg if you don't both cease and desist from you obfuscation immediately. Fair warning. Tiamut 21:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it was there before doesn't mean it should remain there, with or without your additions. It's completely beside the point, and you're yelling at each other for nothing. Focus on why it should or shouldn't be there, regardless of who added it or when - it's irrelevant. okedem 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Okedem, I have. And with all due respect, that argument is rather intimately related to what the section looked like before I began editing it. This is what it looked like before: [2]. There wasn't even a source articulating the link between the argument of the Right of return and that of the Law of Return, and yet no one deleted it then. Additionally, all of the critique was unsourced. All I did was add info and find sources that make the link. Its well-known that Palestinian critique of the Law of Return is based in their order desire to return. Its good to source this (which I have done). The sources make the link between this right, and its roots in international law, and its non-fulfillment as being a reason that the Law of Return is viewed as so offensive. This is all relevant information to a section entitled "Controversy". This is an explanation of part the controversy. Notice that I didn't delete the unsourced, uncited material that critiqued the Palestinian position. I tagged it. Instead of rising to the challenge and articulating the opposing POV, others chose to delete the section in its entirety and use my additions as an excuse to question the vaildity of the inclusion of the material in the article at all. I should note that this info has been in the Controversy section, as far back as May 2006 (Ionly checked that far, it could be farther). It was placed in a sub-category entitled Palestinians on August 7 2006 by Barabara Shack [3]. So for 8 months this sub-section existed, referencing the Right of return without anyone deleting it and now it's all been deleted. Forgive me, Okedem, but I find it a little strange to say the least, that the Wikipedia community decides to reward people's taking on the improvement or expansion of existing sections by deleting the entire section in question after not taking the slightest interest in it for 8 months. And with the support of an administrator no less. And when I ask for people to collaborate, they instead wikilawyer and revert and try to shut down debate of the direct relevance of the content. Or pretend that the sources cited don't make a link between the Law of return and the Right of Return. Is this right? I don't think so. Tiamut 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
The critique, as it were, of the Law of Return is not articulated in the "Right to Return," and if you think about it you'll find that either could exist without the other. Even if Israel closed its doors to any further Jewish immigration tomorrow by repealing the Law of Return, the Palestinians wouldn't abandon their claims to the "right of return." It all sounds like a pissing contest when juxtaposed as you're trying to, and that does neither side any good. --Leifern 00:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Tiamut, the history of the section doesn't really matter; the material there was mostly original research that didn't even refer to the Law of Return, but instead asserted a Palestinian Right of Return. If some reliable source has made the arguments you are trying to make, then cite them. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I have laready provided direct links to at least two articles that make tie criticism of the law of return to the right of reutrn. But here's another by Edward Said published in al-Ahram newspaper, [4] and he states: "We Palestinians ask why a Jew born in Warsaw or New York has the right to settle here (according to Israel's Law of Return) whereas we, the people who lived here for centuries, cannot. After 1967, the issue between us was exacerbated," and further, "The Law of Return for Jews and the right of return for Palestinian refugees have to be considered and trimmed together. Both the notions of Greater Israel as the land of the Jewish people given to them by God and of Palestine as an Arab land that cannot be alienated from the Arab homeland need to be reduced in scale and exclusivity." There are many more such sources, but you seem to missing the point which is that this kind of information is relevant to this article and was already there without being sourced. I just sourced it and exapnded it and continue to try to do so, while having my edits reverted on a really rathewr spurious basis. All sigificant OVs about the Law of Reutrn should be represented. Palestinians have a POV on the issue which is both significant, relevant and well-documented. It should be included. Tiamut 10:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Let's take a look at the paragraph you were trying to insert. The first three paragraphs are pure original research; none of the sources used refer to the Law of Return at all. The fourth paragraph finally becomes somewhat relevant, where there is a peripheral mention of this issue by "Eva Bjøreng, Secretary General in Norwegian People's Aid and Steinar Sørlie, Secretary General in the Norwegian Refugee Council.", in an article that is, at best, misinformed. The second reference, written by the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee also briefly mentions the Law of Return. That's it. And I must say, it's odd that you would use two non-Palestinian sources to try to support what you claim is the "Palestinian POV". Jayjg (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, that there is some relation between the two arguments is relevant, and should perhaps be articulated into a short sourced summary, but the current extended passage refers exclusively to the Palestinian Right of Return, and should if anywhere be included there, and not here. TewfikTalk 17:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
   There is a lack of balance in the controversy section heavily weighted towards defending the law of return against criticism.66.162.71.130 02:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I have summarized the Palestinian criticisms ont he law of return into a succint paragraph that sources the laws and resolutions cited. There was a section called Palestinians in the conroversy section before. It was deleted by Isarig after I tried to expand it. This new edit took some time to construct and I would appreciate that it be included. It is short, well-sourced, relevant and adds balance to the section. Thanks for your consideration. Tiamut 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be shrot and wwell sourced, but it is still irrelvant. Palestinians want a Right of Return - fine. There's an article on that in WP. This article is about tehLoR, and WP is not a soapbox for Palestinian politics. 19:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The only peripherally relevant sourced part in your section is a link to a MFA document taht says "The main criticism raised against the Law of Return is that is discriminates against Arabs and especially against Palestinian refugees who wish to return to their former homes in Israel." - this is already stated in the first para of teh "Controversy" section. Isarig 19:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In a section entitled Controversy, there are approximately six lines devoted to critique of the Law of Return. The other 80% of the article is composed of material under sub-sections entitled: "Defenders of the Law of Return propose three basic arguments" and "Similar Laws in Other Countries" and "Debate in Israel". That's it. There was a section entitled "Palestinians". I began adding material to that section and you began deleting it, and then the entire section was deleted by another editor. The sum result has been a total lack of balance to Controversy section which is there is represent criticisms to the Law of Return, and not merely refute arugments not even represented there. And it is not WP:SOAP to include six lines to a section some 60 lines long that outlines the criticisms of some 4.5 million people who are indirectly affected by this legislation, i.e. Palestinian refugees. It's fully relevant, it meets WP:NPOV by providing balance to the section. Please reconsider. Tiamut 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
One can take the viwe that even having a controversy section is POV and WP:SOAP, when , as the article clearly spells out, there are simailar laws in many other European countries, which have no articles associated with them, let alone a "controversy" section dedicated to criticizing them. Instead, they are treated with dignity, respect and understanding, as a natural way to "give members of the Diaspora the right to immigrate to their kinstate.", as the Repatriation laws article explains. In fact, that same article goes on to say "Repatriation laws are generally not controversial. The exception to this is the Law of Return in Israel." - smacks of clear discrimination and anti-Israeli bias, wouldn't you say? The Palestinian demand for a RoR does not derive from or depend upon the LoR. If Israel would anull the LoR tomorrow, would that make the Palestinian demand go away? Of course not. The 2 are not related, other than as a polemical, soapboxing way for the Palestinains to make their demand heard. This might be fine for grandstanding at a UN conference, but has no place here. Isarig 20:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the law of return does not allow Palestians to return to their birthplace is a notable argument. The inability of Israel's supporters to tolerate this criticism on the pages of Wikipedia shows their fear of any criticism stemming from their basic insecurity. ابو علي (Abu Ali) 20:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You are encouraged, yet again, to review WP:NPA and stop commenting on editors, their alleged motivations or their psyche. The argument that the LoR does not allow Palestians to return to their birthplace already appears in the article - it is in the first para of the 'Controversy" section, as I pointed out to Taimut (when you are recruited to revert changes on a page, it helps when you actually read the page first). I am not opposed to criticism, (even when the criticism's very existance is POV and discriminatory, as I've described above) - but I'm opposed to turnign this article into yet another pro-Palestinian soapbox. Isarig 20:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's review

This is the edit now in question:

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

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

The problem is that this is not a criticism of the LoR beyond what's already in the article - it is a polemic, that seeks to make the irrelevant (to this article) point that Palestinians want and deserve a RoR. As I wrote, the two are not related other than through these polemics - you would not give up the demand for a RoR, regardless of the LoR. Sometimes irrelevant junk stays in articles for months before it is cleaned up - this seems to have happened here. That is not however a reason to keep irrelevant junk in the article once it is noticed. Isarig 02:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. How is it polemical exactly? It's all fully sourced to reliable sources that make the direct link between the law of return and the right of return. It's five sentences long in a section where 50 sentences offer arguments against criticisms to the law of return that are not even represented. It's not irrevelant junk at all. It provides balance as per WP:NPOV and it meets WP:ATT and it is certainly not WP:SOAP as you stated earlier. Please think again. Tiamut 02:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's polemical in that the 2 are not related - the 2 issues are just being juxtaposed in order to make a point - that if Jews have a LoR, Palestinians should have a RoR. whether or not these polemics are sourced (either to polemicists making that point, or in this case- as an OR stringing together of unrelated sourced material) is beside the point - it is still irrelevant soapboxing. Isarig 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any of it is WP:OR, and I have placed the relevance of each source in the section above that I am proposing for inclusion in brackets, italicized. You might not like the fact that Palestinian critique the Law of Return in this way, but they do, as per sources provided that meet WP:ATT. No amount of bad faith accusations like WP:SOAP or or invocations of the word "polemical", can alter that reality. Tiamut 02:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Non o fthis is a criticism of the LoR. It is soapboxing that argues that becuase Jews have the LoR, Arabs should have the RoR. That is not a critique - that is soapboxing. It may be ok for a UN conference, not for an encyclopedia. Invoking UN resolution 194,or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which of course say not a word about the LoR, and claiming that the LoR violates them is a clear cut case of OR. Your friend Abu Ali gave you some good advice - give it a rest. Isarig 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
My good friend Isarig, I am glad you pay such attention to what I write. But the section is worthy of inclusion in the article, and has therefore been reinserted.ابو علي (Abu Ali) 06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
You forgot to mention any argument other than your POV. You are simply making another attempt to turn this article into Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which it is not and should not be. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
And you are simply trying to whitewash the "Controversy" section by disallowing material on directly relevant to the topic and section at hand. What's your argument against inclusion exactly besides your accusations of POV pushing which violate WP:AGF? Tiamut 10:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
In order to accomodate some of Isarig and Humus Sapiens objections, I have further pared down the section and merged it with the material at the top of the section, eliminating the sub-section entitled "Palestinians" and removing links to general assembly resolutions not directly cited in the sources provided making the link between the Law of return and the Riht of return. What remains is fully backed by the sources cited and is emminently relevant to the preceding paragraph. Note that more than half of the "Controvery" section (even with this latest addition) is devoted to refuting the criticisms. For the sake of balance per WP:NPOV which exhorts us to represent all significant viewpoints, I would hope that others would agree that this new addition should stay. Tiamut 10:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Isarig. I have made a number of changes to accomodate your objections (which I have to note have been rather excessive). Instead of acknowledging "improvements" or rewarding these efforts with discussion or compromise, you simply reverted again, under the heading NPOV. This is ridiculous considering that there are 5 lines of critique and 50 lines of rebuttral in a section entitled "Controversy". I'm reverting your edit. Please discuss your specific problems with the addition as it is now before reverting again. Thank you. Tiamut 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not "simply revert" again, and I'd appreciate it if you did not misrepresent my actions, as it makes it hard to AGF with regard to your own actions. I have kept most of your recent edits in there as a compromise, even though I still say none of it belongs here, but removed the OR and soapboxing: The RoR is a demand the Palestinians are making, not an undisputed fact that they have, but more importantly , the references to UN resolutions upholding this are entirely irrelevant to the LoR and make no mention of it. The description of th eLoR as institutionalized discrimination' is a Palestinian POV, and needs to be represented as such, not as neutral observation. Please do not revert this again, as I may have 2nd thoughts about compromising with you at all, given this attitude. Isarig 15:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You're right. I owe you an apology. You did not simply revert again. I jumped the gun on that one: When I didn't see any discussion of your edit in the talk, I wrongly assumed you just reverted. I can actually live with your compromise edit. I think it understates the depth of the Palestinian objection, but it's not an unfair representation. Please accept my sincere apology. Tiamut 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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


[edit] So how do you prove you are Jewish?

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

Usually, by presenting records concerning your parents' or grandparents' religion. Many countries used to keep such records, and even if they didn't, there may be other evidence, such as Jewish marriage certificates, papers concerning ceremonies, like a Bar Mitzva, proof that your ancestors (at least) were active in the local Jewish community, etc. In the absence of such evidence, there are other ways, but I don't know enough about them. okedem 12:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm much too secular to have that stuff lying around I'm afraid. I just had a conversation with my friend (a non-practicing Catholic), and he seems to know the Tanakh better than I do (?). He calls the Christian bible "Judaism lite for Gentiles (with colour supplement)" :-) I don't think I would like to be the man behind the immigration desk at Ben Gurion. 160.84.253.241 14:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strong sympathy implying POV!

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

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

[edit] "other means of acquiring citizenship"

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

You're correct. I've removed the word "birth" from the sentence. okedem (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm curious about the "naturalization" route as well. Jews get citizenship via the law of return. Is it actually possible for non-Jews to naturalize (in the absence of marriage ties)? Has this ever happened? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes, certainly. Possible, and happened in the past. Not common, but does happen. For instance, some of the children of immigrant workers are eligible to become permanent residents, and after a few years can apply for citizenship, like the naturalization route of many other countries. okedem (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen proposals for it to happen in the future, but I wasn't aware that it has already happened in practice. Here's a link to a Haaretz article from last summer, which says that it will be possible under certain conditions to get citizenship after IDF service. But given the time frame, I doubt that anyone would have gone through the process yet. Anyway, perhaps the article is useful as a reference. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yea, that's about the young kids now, but Israel has had smaller numbers of immigrants in the past, and some got citizenship in this route. okedem (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] External links

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

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

[edit] Messianic Jews

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