Case Number
HCJ 2597/99 , HCJ 2859/99
Date Decided
5-31-2005
Decision Type
Original
Document Type
Full Opinion
Abstract
Facts: The petitioners were lawful non-Jewish residents in Israel. They studied Judaism in various frameworks in Israel, and went abroad for a short time to undergo the ceremony of converting to Judaism in various Jewish communities outside Israel. Upon their return to Israel, they applied to the Ministry of the Interior (the first respondent) to be recognized as Jews for the purposes of the right of immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return, 5710-1950. The first respondent refused to recognize the conversions of the petitioners, on the ground that the petitioners did not join the communities that converted them, but returned immediately to Israel after the conversion ceremonies.
Held: (Majority opinion — President Barak, Vice-President Emeritus Mazza, Vice-President Cheshin and Justices Beinisch, Rivlin, Naor and Hayut) A conversion that is performed abroad within the framework of a ‘recognized Jewish community’ by the religious organs of the community that are competent for performing conversions should be recognized by the respondents for the purposes of the Law of Return. The ground for refusal, that the petitioners did not join the communities that converted them, was unreasonable, since the petitioners wished to join another Jewish community — the Jewish community in Israel. Consequently the petitions should be granted and the petitioners recognized as Jews for the purpose of the Law of Return.
(Minority opinion — Justice Procaccia) The combination of the spiritual act of joining the Jewish people with the acquisition of a civil status under the Law of Return and the right of citizenship in Israel, for someone who converts abroad while living in Israel, creates a dilemma. It mixes two worlds that should be kept distinct. The state has a duty to supervise the acquisition of citizenship, and to prevent the abuse of conversion in order to obtain citizenship by means of the Law of Return. The state should formulate a comprehensive policy that will regulate the conditions required for the purpose of recognizing conversions of an Israeli resident that are conducted abroad. The state’s criterion that a convert abroad should join the community that performed the conversion is a reasonable criterion for examining whether a conversion is genuine, although not necessarily the sole criterion. Since the first respondent has not yet formulated a comprehensive policy in this sphere, the petitioners’ conversions have not yet been properly examined. The petitions should therefore remain pending for an additional period, while the respondents formulate a comprehensive policy for recognizing conversions abroad of Israeli residents.
(Minority opinion — Justice Levy) The process of conversion involves a recognition of the right of every convert to return to Israel, which, except in rare cases, is equivalent to receiving Israeli citizenship. It is only natural that granting citizenship should be controlled by a state authority. The first respondent has no expertise in the field of the validity of conversions. It follows that the state is obliged to avail itself of another party that has expertise in this regard. The court has the tools to decide the question of the validity of the conversion, and it is therefore enjoined to turn to a state authority that has expertise in this field. Such an authority is the new state conversion system, which is capable of publishing, after extensive investigation, a list of Jewish communities abroad whose conversion processes will be recognized, so that there will be no question of the validity of their conversions.
(Minority opinion — Justice Grunis) The requirement that the state imposed for recognizing conversion of the kind that the petitioners underwent is reasonable. The possibility of receiving ‘instant’ citizenship by virtue of the right of return, easily and without commitment, is likely to lead to the occurrence of problematic and unseemly phenomena.
(Minority opinion — Justice Emeritus Türkel) The very important questions in this petition lie entirely within the spiritual realm. These questions have no legal solution and they cannot be resolved by a judicial determination. The court is not required to decide them merely because the petitioners chose to seek the court’s decision. Therefore the court should refrain from making a decision. The decision ought to be made following a thorough study of all the opinions and beliefs of all the sectors of the public, and with a joint effort to reach a broad consensus. The proposal of Justice Levy, that the new state conversion system should be authorized for these purposes, should be adopted.
Petition HCJ 2859/99 granted by majority opinion (President Barak, Vice-President Emeritus Mazza, Vice-President Cheshin and Justices Beinisch, Rivlin, Naor and Hayut), Justice Emeritus Türkel and Justices Procaccia, Levy and Grunis dissenting.
Petition HCJ 2597/99 became redundant since the petitioner received citizenship while it was pending, and the petition was therefore dismissed.
Keywords
Constitutional Law -- Law of Return, Jewish Law
