The Supreme Court ruling essentially allows recognition of alternative conversions \u2013 those conducted in Israel but not defined as Orthodox.<\/p>\n
The appeals, which were filed 15 years ago by appellants who underwent conversion in the Conservative and Reform communities in Israel, were accepted by majority opinion. The appellants demanded recognition of their Reform and Conservative conversions conducted in Israel, as well as application of the status granted them by the Law of Return.<\/p>\n
It is important to note the judges\u2019 emphasis in their ruling that it applies to the civil-public question of the status granted the appellants under the Law of Return, and that the Court is not ruling on the religious question of who is a Jew.<\/strong><\/p>\n Before the current ruling, the Interior Minister recognized conversions that were conducted by Reform and Conservative communities abroad, with the converts from these communities eligible to make aliya under the Law of Return<\/a>. The new ruling states that even if the conversion is conducted in Israel, the converts can obtain citizenship under the Law of Return.<\/p>\n The judges explained that after waiting than 15 years for the legislative branch to act on this issue, to no effect, and given that the issue affects the rights and status of the appellants and many more like them, they had no choice but to make a judicial ruling.<\/p>\n The decision was made a majority vote, supported by 8 of the Supreme Court justices \u2013President Esther Hayot, Neal Handel, Uzi Fogelman, Yitzhak Amit, Dafna Barak Erez, George Karra, Anat Baron and David Mintz against the dissenting vote of Justice Noam Sohlberg, who agreed with the decision but held that the ruling should take effect with a delay of 12 months from the establishment of the next government.<\/p>\n In the Interior Minister\u2019s response to the appeals, he did not respond to the core issue; he did not even claim an essential difference between the governmental Orthodox conversion and the conversion, also performed in Israel, in the Reform and Conservative congregations. Moreover, for purposes of the Law of Return, the Interior Minister already recognizes conversions conducted in these congregations abroad.<\/p>\n In their decision, the judges also noted that the non-Orthodox congregations in which the appellants converted are based in Israel, with a Jewish identity and fixed community management frameworks: \u201cThe conversion process in them is done by a religious entity who is certified to do so in the community he serves, according to set standards. These congregations, as already ruled, are \u2018part of the central streams of world Judaism\u2019 \u2026 as long as the legislative body has not determined otherwise, anyone converting in a Reform or Conservative congregation in Israel should be recognized as a Jew regarding the Law of Return.\u201d The Supreme Court emphasized that its decision does not come to prevent the Knesset from adding to or changing the concept of conversion in the Law of Return.<\/p>\n Supreme Court President, Justice Esther Hayot, said, \u201cThe purpose of the Law of Return is to encourage every Jew \u2013 whether born as a Jew or someone who chose to join the Jewish People via conversion \u2013 to make Aliya and settle in Israel. The recognized Jewish community test fulfills this purpose, and at the same time it is an objective test of public recognition for the conversion process so as to ensure that the recognition is egalitarian and focusing on the community, and not on the geographical location where the convert underwent conversion.\u201d<\/p>\n In her arguments, Justice Dafna Barak stated, \u201cthe question of \u2018who is a Jew who converted\u2019 regarding the Law of Return, which has been laid before us and on which we are required to rule, is not a religious question, but rather a civil-public one.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice Baron ruled: \u201cAn affirmative answer to this question is required by previous rulings issued before this Court, where it was determined that the Chief Rabbinate does not have a monopoly on recognizing someone who underwent a conversion process as \u201cJewish\u201d in terms of the Law of Return. We do not find a clear reason in the respondent’s arguments before us that there should be a different law for someone belonging to a Conservative or Reform congregation, as long as the person underwent an organized conversion process in Israel in a recognized Jewish congregation.\u201d<\/p>\n The Law of Return, which was passed in 1950, shortly after the establishment of the state, defined who is a Jew eligible to make aliya to Israel<\/a> from anywhere in the world and receive citizenship, and who is not — in this context, which descendants of Jews would be eligible, who would not be after converting to another religion, and on the basis of what criteria.<\/p>\n The law announced, already in Section 1, that \u201cEvery Jew is eligible to make aliya\u201d but intentionally did use the Orthodox rabbinate\u2019s definition of the concept \u201cJew\u201d.<\/p>\n The issue of citizenship and the halachic question arose as early as 1962, when the Supreme Court ruled in Rufeisen v. the Interior Minister (72\/62)<\/a> that someone born to Jewish parents and converted to Christianity was not eligible to make aliya and receive Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. This was despite the fact that from a halachic perspective, a Jew remains Jewish even if he converts to another religion.<\/p>\n In 1970 the Knesset amended the Law of Return, adding Section 4b which states that \u201cfor the purposes of this law, \u2018a Jew\u2019 is someone who was born to a Jewish mother or converted, and does not belong to another religion.\u201d Thus the Knesset chose not to add a specific definition to the term \u201cconverted\u201d such as \u201cby halacha\u201d or \u201caccording to the Chief Rabbinate\u201d, instead leaving the term open to interpretation.<\/p>\n The Supreme Court has since heard many cases dealing with precisely this interpretation, and time after time has called on the legislative body, that is, the Knesset, to say its piece, but in light of various political conditions, the Knesset has repeatedly declined to deal with this.<\/p>\n In accordance with the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling, in 2005 the Interior Minister began to recognize conversions conducted in Reform or Conservative congregations abroad, but not in Israel. After the Supreme Court rejected these appellant\u2019s plea, they appealed to the Court to determine whether they were eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return. In parallel the Court also outlined who is outside this definition, including messianic Jews (Supreme Court Beresford 265\/87<\/a>). The Court determined that a messianic Jew is in fact Christian and therefore he is a member of another religion who, according to the Law of Return, is not eligible for aliya after converting out of the Jewish religion.<\/p>\n![\"alternative](\"https:\/\/lawfirmbackup_200125.k1uagm.ap-southeast-2.wpstaqhosting.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/back-of-attastor-talking-to-magistrate-in-court-300x189.jpg\")
<\/p>\nRecognition of alternative conversions conducted in Israel<\/strong><\/h4>\n
History of abstention<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Recognition of alternative conversions conducted in Israel<\/strong><\/h4>\n
Court rulings<\/strong><\/h4>\n