T. Belman. I have no trouble having such widows being given Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. But such a law is for the Knesset to pass and not for the High Court to interpret.
Supreme Court ruled that the non-Jewish widow of someone entitled to citizenship may claim citizenship for herself.
Arutz Sheva Staff , Aug 29 , 2021 10:57 PM
Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked
On Sunday, the Israeli Supreme Court issued a ruling that the widow of a person entitled to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return (being either the child or grandchild of a Jew) – no matter whether the widow is Jewish or not – is also entitled to receive Israeli citizenship. The ruling was made by two of the three judges on the court (Justices Yitzhak Amit and Anat Baron); the third judge, Justice David Mintz, dissented.
On Sunday evening, Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked responded to the ruling, writing that, “Once again, the Supreme Court is posturing as the legislature with this attack on the Law of Return, the most important law for the State of Israel.”
She added that, “The committee for the appointment of judges will soon be appointing four new judges to the Supreme Court, and I can assure you that the minority opinion of Judge Mintz will be one of the main considerations of the committee’s members as they select new justices.”
In his ruling, Judge Yitzhak Amit stated that, “The language of the law can abide two opposing positions and it is not possible to reach a single definitive position. The law intends to grant citizenship to the family members of a Jew even in the physical absence of the Jew himself, due to the relatives’ closeness to the Jewish People. In addition, one can argue that the immigration of the widow and her child after the death of the Jewish spouse was something that the law has already envisioned and anticipated.”
On the other hand, Judge Mintz wrote that, “In my opinion, we should tend to the understanding of the law that the widow of a child or grandchild of a Jew is not entitled to receive citizenship. The Law of Return is one of the most important laws we have – some would call it the most important of all, the most fundamental of all our laws.”
@ Although against bringing non Jews into Israel as citizens, my understanding of the Jewish marriage is that it makes “two peopke as ONE’..therefore the non Jewish widow has already the right of citizenship. I could be wrong and am open to correction.
I would rule it thus if a judge.
I don’t see why a widow of a Jew cannot be allowed to become an Israeli citizen and what it has to do with the Law of Return.
What about the Arab families who continually become reunited in Israel by tens of thousands?
Are they better or more desirable than the non-Jewish widows of the Jews?
The Law of Return has been castrated and no longer does what it was intended to do, namely, bring the Jews into Israel (“the Jewish (hah-hah!) country”) when they are in danger in the Diaspora.
In fact, the way it is written, whoever happens to have power is free to interpret it any way he wants.
These days it is the religious who wield that power, and they wish to only let in those Jews who can show at least 2 generations of their families’ attendance in an accepted Orthodox synagogue, at the time when in the US and in Europe Jews are being attacked in the streets.
Instead of ensuring aliyah and building Israel’s economy and infrastructure, Israeli politicians have committed themselves to helping build the PA’s economy!
This is worse than pathetic, it’s shameful!
Israel seems to be much more interested in making life comfy for the 2 million of their Arab citizens and the “Palestinians” of Gaza and Judea and Samaria than in being the Jewish country it was created to be.
I do not rule out that the twisted logic of this Supreme Court decision , could be applied to the return of relatives of Absent Arab who fled israel in 1948 .
If one understand the anti-zionist project , this decision granting rights to a partner of a non existing person could also be applied to the relatives ( a nephew , a grand nephew , further down the line of time than a widow ) of the arabs who left in 1948 : their ancestors had properties left into the custodian of absentees , therefore the mere passing of more than 70 years would not render obsolete their claims .
Reminds us of the problem of: “undocumented immigrant” in the US and BHO’s executive order!