uabb domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /var/www/sites/lawfirmbackup_200125/wordpress/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6131For the Ethiopian community, Aliyah (immigration to Israel) is not a simple thing. The Ethiopian community is known for its rich Jewish history and strong Zionist sentiments, but also for Israel\u2019s disappointing attitude toward its members, especially regarding Aliyah and the Falash Mura<\/a>. \u201cGer Gorer\u201d (i.e., relatives of converts to Judaism being allowed to make Aliyah) is a concept from the Law of Return, subject to legal interpretation, that greatly influenced the Falash Mura immigration: first it allowed most family members of the Falash Mura to immigrate to Israel, and, later, under the new narrow interpretation of the law, caused problems for the Falash Mura themselves regarding immigration to Israel.<\/p>\n The concept of \u201cGer Gorer\u201d is based on the interpretation of the Law of Return<\/a> (Amendment No. 2, 1970). Section 4A states: \u201cThe rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712\u20131952, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other enactment, are also vested in a 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, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his religion.\u201d<\/p>\n The debate revolves around the question of whether or not the term \u201cchild of a Jew\u201d requires the child\u2019s father to have been Jewish at the time of the child\u2019s birth in order for the child to be eligible to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. In other words, may a convert to Judaism (a \u201cGer\u201d) bring their family to Israel with them (\u201cGorer\u201d, literally “dragging along”) or must the convert establish a new family that will be entitled to a legal status in Israel?<\/p>\n Our law firm specializes in immigration to Israel. This article by lawyer Michael Decker reviews Israel\u2019s attitude toward the Ethiopian community regarding immigration and conversion to Judaism, and explains how to help relatives in Ethiopia immigrate to Israel<\/a> in the current situation.<\/p>\n Broad Interpretation and Narrow Interpretation<\/strong><\/p>\n There is no dispute about the fact that the Falash Mura are descendants of the \u201cBeta Israel\u201d Jewish community who have already immigrated to Israel. But during the previous century, the conditions of the Jews in Ethiopia were unbearable, which forced some of them to convert to Christianity. Many of the city people converted so that they would be allowed to attend higher-education institutions, and even more of the village residents converted to Christianity because it gave them a much higher chance of surviving within the Christian majority.<\/p>\n In 1972, the then Attorney General and later President of the Supreme Court, Meir Shamgar, ruled that the term \u201cchild of a Jew\u201d does not refer exclusively to children whose father was Jewish at the time of the child\u2019s birth. Consequently, the right to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return<\/a> depended on the father\u2019s religion at the time when the child wished to immigrate to Israel, not at the time of the child\u2019s birth. This meant that Falash Mura immigrating to Israel under the Law of Return based on being the child or grandchild of a Jew, and subsequently converting to Judaism<\/a>, could bring their own children and grandchildren along with them even if those children or grandchildren were not Jews and did not undergo conversion to Judaism. This was the interpretation for about 30 years \u2013 until, in 2001, the then Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein, who later also became a Supreme Court judge, changed it.<\/p>\n In a discussion held at the Attorney General\u2019s office at the time, initiated by the Ministry of Interior and other government ministries, it was argued that many of the Falash Mura who convert to Judaism seek, through the conversion process, to grant their relatives rights under the Law of Return, and there are so many of these relatives that they may make up to 70% of the Ethiopian immigrant population.<\/p>\n Therefore, the interpretation of Section 4A in the Law of Return was re-examined, and Rubinstein ruled that anyone who was non-Jewish at the time of birth of their child and later converted to Judaism would not be allowed to bring their child with them when immigrating to Israel (if the parent themselves are, at the most, a Jew’s grandchild and not a Jew’s child), since the child is not considered a Jew\u2019s child or grandchild, and is therefore not entitled to immigrate under the Law of Return. A petition was filed with the Supreme Court<\/a> against this opinion, but the petition was deleted and Rubinstein\u2019s legal opinion is followed to this day.<\/p>\n In general, the High Court of Justice (HCJ) aligned with this new policy. For example, in April 2014, the HCJ in case 7638\/10<\/a> rejected a petition filed by Shlomo Elmo Tefera, who immigrated to Israel and converted to Judaism, against the Minister of Interior and the Population Directorate requesting that his daughter be allowed to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return by virtue of being the daughter of a Jew (\u201cGer Gorer\u201d clause). In a unanimous decision, Justices Elyakim Rubinstein, Yitzhak Amit, and Uri Shoham wrote the following (translated into English): [It is not conceivable that anyone who converts to Judaism after immigrating to Israel may bring all their previous descendants with them under the Law of Return. In this case, the petitioner came to Israel as a Christian in 1992, and converted to Judaism in 1997, about five years after his arrival in Israel and about ten years after the birth of his daughter… The interpretation that was proposed by the respondents is consistent with the purposes of Section 4A].<\/p>\n Similarly, in August 2013, the HCJ rejected the petition of a Christian Ethiopian citizen who illegally immigrated to Israel through Egypt and was subsequently arrested. He requested to be allowed to immigrate under the Law of Return for the purpose of reunification with his mother, who had converted to Judaism in Israel (HCJ case 3203\/10<\/a>). The court discussed the question of whether a non-Jew whose mother immigrated to Israel and then converted to Judaism is entitled to legal status in Israel by virtue of Section 4A of the Law of Return. In the court decision, Supreme Court vice-president Miriam Naor and Justices Zvi Zylbertal and Noam Sohlberg stated, inter alia, the following: [The petitioner was born in Ethiopia before the mother of the petitioner\u2014who was Christian\u2014entered Israel. She herself received legal status in Israel by virtue of being married to the grandson of a woman who converted to Judaism, in accordance with the \u201cGer Gorer\u201d clause, and therefore cannot use the same rule to bring additional relatives to Israel with her. The \u201cGer Gorer\u201d clause cannot be used over and over again. Consequently, the Court ordered the petitioner to pay legal expenses in the amount of ILS 7,500].<\/p>\n However, this did not bring a final end to the Falash Mura\u2019s ability to immigrate legally. Besides the Entry into Israel Law, it is also possible for anyone who cannot immigrate under the Law of Return to try obtaining a permanent residence permit from the Minister of Interior, if the Minister is convinced that the person who wishes to immigrate must be allowed to do so for humanitarian reasons, for the purpose of family reunification<\/a>. This is a much more limited and complicated possibility, because it does not automatically grant the right to immigrate but, rather, requires proving that the particular individual who wishes to immigrate must be allowed to do so for justified humanitarian purposes. In addition, it is very difficult to appeal against the decision of the Minister of Interior on the matter, since the law grants the Minister the right to consider each case and decide when justified humanitarian reasons exist.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\nAppeals to the Supreme Court Against the New Interpretation of the \u201cGer Gorer\u201d Clause<\/strong><\/h4>\n
\u201cGer Gorer\u201d and Issues of Conversion to Judaism<\/strong><\/h4>\n