Kinship and the State
The relevance of kinship to the state of Israel is evident in two interrelated topics, namely
marriage and the Law of Return. As stated already, laws concerning personal issues
(marriage, divorce and burial) were transferred from civil to the rabbinical courts, in order to
make a compromise between the religious and secular elements discussing the identity of the
state (Juusola 2002: 43, Kimmerling 2001: 108). Issues such as marriage and conversion are
relevant to kinship, and as we see in the case of the Law of Return, kinship becomes
important regarding citizenship.
The Law of Return, dating from 1950, with two amendments made in 1954 and 1970, states
that “1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh1” (Law of Return [from
here on LoR). The right to immigrate can be refused, if the Minister of Immigration (from
1954 onwards “the Minister of the Interior” considers the applicant to be “engaged in an
activity against the Jewish people” or “likely to endager the public health or the security of
the State” (LoR). The amendment of 1970 specifies the role of the members of familiy:
“4A. (a) The rights of a Jew under this Law and the rights of an oleh under the
Nationality Law, 5712-1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any other
enactment, are also vested in a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a
Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew,
except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his
religion. [my emphasis]” (LoR).
By the definition given in the Law of Return “Jew” means a person born of a Jewish mother
or has become converted into Judaism and is not a member of another Religion.
Baruch Kimmerling (2001: 183) states that the Law of Return (and the Law of Citizenship)
are based not only on the theological definition of Judaism, but are in accordance with the
Nazi Nuremberg Laws, in order to grant citizenship to anyone, who has suffered persecution
as a Jew under World War II or the Holocaust, even if that person did not fall under the
theological definition of Jewishness. Therefore these laws also redefine the boundaries of
Judaism according to Kimmerling (2001: 183).
Obviously the Law of Return is of immense importance, since Israel is a fairly new settler
state, with many of her citizens being born somewhere else and having immigrated to the area
slightly before or after the founding of Israel, with especially big immigrant waves from Arab
1
oleh (hebrew): a Jew immigrating, into Israel (Yakobson & Rubinstein 2001: 8)
countries right after the founding of Israel and later “Russian” Jews, which is the largest
ethnic group having immigrated to Israel (Kimmerling 2001: 94, 139).
Because of its importance, the Law of Return is also a topic of much debate in Israel and
among Jewish diasporic communities. The law splits opinions with Israeli Arabs seeing it
favouring Jewish immigrants at the cost of non-Jewish Israeli citizens, other Israelis see it as a
obstacle for liberal democracy, others see it as a natural phenomenon of a nation state, overtly
religious fear that the law grants citizenship to people who are not “proper Jews” (either for
not being Jewish or for not following the halakha2).
For example Alexander Yakobson and Amnon Rubinstein (2001: 1) argue, among others
against Baruch Kimmerling, that “Israel’s laws of “kin repatriation” are not unusual if
compared to other nation states. In this debate over repatriation and the “right to return”
kinship is at least spoken of as a symbol. Like Yakobson and Rubinsten (2001: 6) show, that
also the European comission, when talking about the same issues, speak about “the
connection between ethnic national groups […] and their “kin-states” ”. Indeed, Yakobson
and Rubinstein (2001: 11, 21) claim on the basis that many European nations “maintain an
official bond with their kinfolk […] beyond their borders [my emphasis]” and for Israel to do
the same “is natural”.
Another source of much debate and an interesting case regarding kinship is the immigration
of two distinct groups into Israel: immigrants from the former Soviet Union and from
Ethiopia. Kimmerling (2001: 139) argues that Russian-speaking immigrants from the former
Soviet Union were taken not only for “idelological and sentimental reasons”, but also in order
to increase the Jewish population vis-à-vis the Arabs. But the “Russian” immigrants did not
just provide “security and settlement”, but also changed the Israeli society in many ways. The
oriental Jews (sephardim), voting for different parties (religious, right-wing) than the usually
upper and middle class European Jews (ashkenazim) (traditionally voting for left-wing and
labour) were alarmed by the large immigrant group culturally similar to the Israeli ashkenazis.
Another cause of alarm was that due to the Law of Return a substantial part (up to one
quarter) of the “Russians” were not halakhic Jews. The Russian immigrants have also
supported more individualist values, and have demanded less intervention by authorities in
2
halakha: The right practice. The entity formed by the Jewish religious law, consisting of all the commandments
that a Jew must follow (Juusola & Huuhtanen 2002: 313).
what they see as personal matters, namely individual and family matters. (Kimmerling 2001:
139, 141, 143, 142).
Kinship seems to be even more important in the case of Ethiopian Jews, the Falashas.
Ethiopian Jews were “rescued” to Israel from Ethiopia mainly in the 1970’s (Kimmerling
2001: 149). The Ethiopians, coming from a very different cultural background than Israelis, or
other immigrants from either Europe or Arab countries, faced problems in adjusting to the
Israeli society. For example, their “Jewishness” was not unquestioned by the Orthodox
establishment, and they had to go through a ceremony of conversion, even though they were
Jewish (Kimmerling 2001: 150).
Most interestingly though, the new immigrants were
required to adopt family names (and take Hebrew first names), which they considered as
hurtful to their self-image. Even more importantly the Israeli authorities, tried to promote
earlier (“veteran”) Ethiopian immigrants as leaders of the Ethiopian communities. This
involved the construction of new kinship units, that served the “need and rubrics” of the
Israeli bureaucratic system. On the other hand, even though nearly the whole Falasha
community was brought to Israel, an unknown number of relatives were left behind. It is also
argued that the peer group took the place of families for young Ethiopian immigrants who had
arrived without their families. (Kimmerling 2001: 150, 151, 157, 159).
Both groups were taken into Israel on the basis of the Law of Return, and both groups were
regarded as Jewish and thus related (remember the term “kin-state”) in some way, at least
symbolically through their religion, to the Jews in Israel. And many, especially in the case of
Russian-speaking immigrants, were granted citizenship because of the kinship ties mentioned
in the law of return. The Russian-speaking immigrants, even though admitted into the country
on the basis of kinship, have questioned the states right to interfere with what they regard
family matters. Kinship has been also very important in the case of the Falashas. Coming
from another culture, their concepts of kinship and relatedness have been different from the
Israeli conceptions, and to integrate them according to the conditions of the state, these
concepts had to be deliberately changed and rearranged.