The ultra-Orthodox lawmakers are seeking to restrict immigration only to people born to Jewish parents – not those with a Jewish grandparent – or who have converted to Judaism because of the assumption that Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu will eventually be forced to comply with all of their demands because he has no other factions to rely on.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
There are three million people in the world whose parents are not Jewish, but whose grandparents are or were (or at least one grandparent) that are eligible to make aliyah under the Law of Return. In some years, they made up the majority of immigrants to Israel. Most of them integrate into society, learn Hebrew, identify with our culture and serve in the IDF. And most of them are not interested in converting because they are not religious and do not want to make commitments they might not keep.
Only those who oppose Zionism can propose such a change to the Law of Return. It should be rejected completely and our doors should remain open to all who consider themselves Jewish, and there is no reason to doubt their intentions.
Meanwhile, on Nov. 22 the world will mark 55 years since the adoption of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, the only document to date adopted by the international community that outlines a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Egypt and Jordan accepted it immediately, while Israel hesitated – in view of an ongoing debate between the Right and Left with regard to the legal status of the West Bank – but adopted it, as did the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1988.
Many praised the resolution because it seemingly met the needs of all involved: on the one hand, it reiterated the principle of not taking land by force, and on the other, linked disengagement from the territories to a peace agreement.
The problem is that both Israel and Palestinians, as well as those who drafted the resolution, believed that it would only take several years to reach an agreement. Little did they know that 55 years later the status of the West Bank would still be undecided.
Israel would go on to often refer back to the resolution. The three decisions of the Arab League leaders at the 1967 Khartoum Summit– no recognition, negotiations, or peace agreement with Israels – allowed it not to withdraw from the territories, which is also when it felt free (contrary to international law) to settle them.
As long as there is no peace with the Palestinians, does the resolution grant legal backing and the right for Israel to continue its actions? The Palestinians' referral of the matter to the UN is a legitimate move, and Israel does not have to repeat the mistakes of the past and boycott the institution.
It previously paid the price for refusing to cooperate with the committees, which could have been avoided. If the Israeli government decides to cooperate, it will be entitled to appoint its own judge to the court. This is a significant advantage. Israel should think twice before automatically rejecting the idea.
Lastly, in 2006, Netanyahu headed a party that had 12 members in the Knesset. He was then the leader of the opposition, of which I was also a member as the head of the Meretz party. In one of our private meetings, I asked Netanyahu why he did not convene all opposition lawmakers to coordinate more effective parliamentary activity.
He replied that he did not wish to invite the Arab parties. I told him that even under his own rationale, there is still a big difference between establishing coalitions with certain parties versus simply coordinating with them. He was not convinced. Prime Minister Yair Lapid will make a grave mistake if he follows in Netanyahu's footsteps and boycotts those who might help him in the opposition.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
