The online conference "The Future of Jewish Life in Post-Soviet Countries" has commenced

The Euro-Asian Jewish Congress conference "The Future of Jewish Life in Post-Soviet Countries," organized jointly with the Jerusalem Post, took place online on December 6. Its participants — leading Israeli politicians, lawyers, officials, entrepreneurs, and public figures — discussed the humanitarian crisis in post-Soviet countries that has severely affected local Jewish communities, as well as the challenges this poses for Israel and the organized Jewish world.

The conference was also timed to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, which in the early 90s, following the collapse of the USSR, began its activities with a small delegation of Soviet Jewry within the World Jewish Congress.

“We invited global Jewish leaders to discuss what has already been accomplished and to outline our next steps. I call upon my colleagues: let us unite around the Jewish communities of the former USSR, just as the Jewish world once rallied around Soviet Jewry. Let us assist those who have chosen to make Aliyah, those who have been forced to leave their homes, or those who decide to remain in their communities. It is our duty to support them, whatever their decision may be,” stated the Director General of the EAJC, Dr. Haim Ben-Yakov.

For details on the conference: future.eajc.org

The Jewish Community in the Post-Soviet Space

The ongoing war has taken an extremely heavy toll on the Jewish community of Ukraine, as well as on all citizens of the country. This was stated by Israel's Ambassador to Ukraine, Michael Brodsky, during the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress online conference "The Future of Jewish Life in Post-Soviet Countries." According to him, approximately 16,000 Ukrainians have repatriated to Israel since February 24.

“Nonetheless, Jewish life in Ukraine continues. Most of the community leaders and rabbis remain in the country. Undoubtedly, [the war] represents an immense trauma for all residents of Ukraine, including the Jewish population. From the very beginning of the conflict, the Embassy has assisted the Ukrainian Jewish community alongside local societies and international Jewish organizations. I refer to humanitarian aid and the evacuation of Jewish refugees. Through collaborative efforts, we evacuated more than 15,000 individuals. Some of them are Jews, some are Israelis, and some are Ukrainians who requested evacuation assistance. The current evacuation situation differs significantly from the period when the war began; it is now simpler to leave the country. However, we continue to provide support to the Jewish community and to all citizens of Ukraine.”

Some repatriates from Russia who relocated to Israel over the past year are returning to manage personal affairs. The existence of this phenomenon was confirmed by Israel's Ambassador to Russia, Alex Ben-Zvi, during the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress online conference "The Future of Jewish Life in Post-Soviet Countries." According to the Ambassador, the diplomatic mission of the Jewish State does not possess exact figures.

“Indeed, we are familiar with this phenomenon. We do not have precise figures, as, as I mentioned, there are approximately 30 weekly flights operating between Russia and Israel. We are unable to track who returns and who does not. However, I have encountered individuals who have returned. They departed at the very beginning and returned to settle their affairs. Yes, this occurs. (…) Business, family, education, or difficulties adapting to life in Israel. Some arrived for a few months to wait it out. Others left due to the mobilization situation, and upon realizing the circumstances were not entirely dramatic, decided to return.”

The Law of Return

The Law of Return serves as a vital criterion for self-identity within Jewish communities worldwide. Any potential modification to it will inevitably impact life in the Diaspora. This was stated by the Director General of the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress, Dr. Haim Ben-Yakov, during his speech at the EAJC online conference "The Future of Jewish Life in Post-Soviet Countries." According to him, “individuals seeking to amend the law should proceed with extreme caution.” “Perform a rigorous analysis, and evaluate the scope of your responsibility toward both the global Jewish community and Israeli society,” he remarked.

“Repatriates who arrive under the Law of Return embody—demographically and sociologically—Diaspora Jewry. Therefore, this phenomenon should come as no surprise. I would advise those who seek to amend the law to act with the utmost caution. Perform a rigorous analysis, and evaluate the scope of your responsibility toward both the global Jewish community and Israeli society. Before addressing this topic and behaving carelessly, like a bull in a china shop, attempt to carefully examine the consequences such actions will entail. Ensure the damage does not outweigh the benefits of the proposed changes.

Of course, the Israeli government ultimately has the right to make its own decision; we are a sovereign state. This is how a democratic, liberal state must operate: the parliamentary majority and the government make the decisions. However, in this case, the decisions will ultimately affect Jewish communities. Currently, the Law of Return is a key criterion for self-identity in Jewish communities worldwide. Israeli politicians may not always be aware that to be a member of a given organization in the Diaspora, one must meet the criteria of the Law of Return. For this reason as well, decisions in this area must be approached with the utmost responsibility.”

Natan Sharansky, former Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel ("Sohnut"), commented on statements by Israeli politicians regarding the potential abolition of the “grandparent clause” in the Law of Return. He made the corresponding statement during the Euro-Asian Jewish Congress online conference "The Future of Jewish Life in Post-Soviet Countries." According to Sharansky, “closing the gates to Israel is incorrect, irresponsible, and unwise.”

“Multiple aspects exist here—philosophical, sociological, and historical—regarding how widely Israel should open its gates. I would be prepared to debate this topic and seek a compromise, but when you restrict access in one area, you must provide access elsewhere. Suddenly, everyone has begun discussing how to close access here, there, and everywhere—and all of this is unfolding during a war, when the issue of repatriation has once again become critically relevant for thousands of people in the most dramatic way. It is incorrect, irresponsible, and unwise to rush and close the gates to Israel.”

Simcha Rothman, Member of the Knesset representing the "Religious Zionism" party:

“The Law of Return has a defined purpose: to build the Jewish state as the national homeland of the Jewish people. When we observe figures indicating that among repatriates from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine—countries of the former USSR—over 70% are non-Jews, and the majority of them do not even identify as Jewish or wish to become Jewish, this does not point to difficulties with conversion (giyur). It raised a fundamental question of how well the Law of Return serves its intended purpose. This is particularly striking when contrasted with other nations—such as the United States, France, and North American countries, where we observe a rate of approximately 97%.

We initially admit non-Jews who do not wish to become Jewish, and subsequently, there is talk of a crisis and debate over what to do regarding conversion. This problem should not have been created in the first place, and there would be no need to resolve a crisis of our own making! This is the reason our party intends to abolish the grandparent clause: to ensure that all efforts and resources are concentrated on the Jews who require repatriation.

The State of Israel was established as the homeland of the Jewish people. Its purpose is to serve as a home for Jews. This is not racism; this is the fundamental nature of a nation-state, as is the case with any other nation-state. Some may view nation-states as racist, but that is their concern. The majority of the world's states are nation-states.”

Oded Forer, Minister of Agriculture of Israel, former Director General of the Ministry of Aliyah and Integration:

“Individuals who 'simply want to arrive, receive financial assistance, and leave' will be able to do so even if the law is amended. After all, these individuals include Halachic Jews with the right to repatriation. Naturally, this behavior is unacceptable. We do not provide funds to people who intend to leave. Upon departure, all payments are suspended. Nevertheless, the majority of repatriates remain in Israel, build their homes here, and, of course, contribute to building Israel as a whole. More than one million immigrants from the post-Soviet space have relocated to Israel since the 1990s. They have fundamentally transformed the landscape of Israel, contributing to our security, science, research, and industry. I simply cannot envision Israel in 2022 without Aliyah from the former USSR.

I am deeply concerned by the intentions to amend the Law of Return. One needs only to look at today's discussions in the Knesset on this matter and recall what the founding fathers of the State of Israel said regarding the importance of Aliyah, its absorption, and the mission entrusted to us. Consider a Ukrainian Jew with young children who are not halachically Jewish. When they attend school, they may face anti-Semitic slurs and persecution for their Jewish heritage. Imagine if this individual, whose father is Jewish but mother is not, wishes to bring his young children to Israel—and is unable to do so! His children would not receive citizenship! This presents a profound issue regarding how Israel views itself and how it interprets the spirit established by the Zionist movement. I believe that those who currently seek to modify the law might have denied the right of repatriation to many of Israel's past heroes who performed extraordinary deeds.”

Professor Asher Maoz, Founding Dean of the law school, Peres Academic Center:

“The current reality leaves repatriates in a state of uncertainty: marriage and divorce in Israel are subject to religious law and governed by Orthodox institutions. These circumstances align the rights of those who repatriated as grandchildren of Jews with those who converted to Judaism under Reform and Conservative frameworks. Without doubt, this situation constitutes a ticking time bomb that could detonate if the issue is not resolved in one way or another.

We frequently hear concerns that grandchildren of Jews might abuse the Law of Return—accessing the benefits and privileges of repatriation only to relocate to another country. Such concerns are indeed valid; however, it has not yet been demonstrated that this phenomenon is more prevalent among relatives of Jews than among Halachic Jews themselves. Furthermore, the solution resides in different areas. The right to repatriation can be granted to those Jews and their relatives who express a genuine desire to settle in Israel. While it may be impossible to thoroughly evaluate a repatriate's intentions, it is entirely feasible to strictly monitor all payments and benefits provided to ensure no abuse occurs.”

Aharon Barak, Former President of the Supreme Court of Israel:

In my opinion, there is no necessity to amend the Law of Return—even if it is deemed to infringe upon the right of non-Jews to universal equality. According to the principle of the law, every Jew has the right to repatriate to Israel. My view is based on the fact that the infringement upon universal equality in this case is justified. This justification rests on a reasonable balance between the relative public importance of guaranteeing a Jew the right to repatriation and the relative public importance of guaranteeing equal rights to a non-Jew. Taking into account the right to repatriate to Israel as a resolution for the Jewish people, as declared in the Declaration of Independence, I believe that a reasonable balance lies in Jewish repatriation to Israel on one hand, and in the right to equality for all who reside in Israel on the other. If the Law of Return establishes the values of Israel as a Jewish state while preserving the rights of non-Jews, it recognizes the equality of everyone within Israel, including the rights of minorities.

I have previously noted in a judicial case: “Consequently, there is no contradiction between the values of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and the universal equality of all its citizens. On the contrary, the equality of rights for all within Israel, regardless of religion or nationality, stems from the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”

In my view, there is a strong basis to consider the Law of Return as a Basic Law of constitutional status, possessing a higher standing than ordinary legislation. Therefore, any amendment to the Law of Return requires justification in accordance with the limitation clause (piskayat hagbala). If we accept my assessment that the Law of Return does not violate the universal equality of citizens—or even if we assume that it does infringe upon the constitutionally protected right to equality—this is insufficient to affect its constitutional character, for two reasons.

First, because the Law of Return is an established law exempt from general judicial review. Second, because the current version of the Law of Return is justified, as it expresses the core values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”