The law of return which you keep referring to is not a religious law. It is a law set forth by the State of Israel to ensure that all Jews have the right to live in Israel. The law does not require that a Jew be religous. Only that he or she be a Jew (and as set forth below, not even that). And I would disagree with your assertion that Reform Jews don’t practice Judaism. The law of return is not based on halacha. It is a secular law. It is over-inclusive and accepts many who are not jewish under halakic law.
Who is a Jew is a question that even Jews can’t seem to agree on. One reason that the legal definition is interesting is because it forces a determination one way or another whereas in other circumstances the matter can be left ambiguous. So although it is supposedly a “secular” law, the secular law does make a religoius distinction. (If it were purely a racial distinction then a DNA test would be performed.)
(And just to simplify matters, let’s discard gentile converts to Messianic Judaism. I’m not sure who takes them seriously. The question here is about halakha Jews who profess Jesus as Messiah and, for purposes of simplicity and clarity, let’s assume that they are keeping Torah laws.)
The general tone of your posts seems to be critical of the prohibitions of the law of return, when in fact the law of return is incredibly inclusive. You should also know that if you are a messianic Jew, which is another religion for the purpose of the law of return, but you have or had a parent or grandparent who was Jewish, you are permitted to live in Israel under said law. It is only a person who was never jewish under the overly permissible guidelines set forth in the Law of Return, who converts to Messianic Judaism, who cannot avail themselves of the law.
You are mistaken, I am only critical of Kaninchen’s evasions on these matters. In fact, contrary to her claims, I have absolutely no issue with Jews defining who is Jewish, either legally or religiously. And while I am skeptical that modern Israel is the safest place for Jews I certainly don’t intend to second guess Zionism here because I do support it in principle.
But if Messianic Jews are being excluded because they profess Jesus as messiah, why cover up that fact with double talk and evasions? And if national (secular) preservation is the goal then why exclude them?
And it does seem that they are being excluded. Here is what wikipedia has on the subject:
The Supreme Court of Israel ruled in 1989 that Messianic Judaism constituted another religion, and that people who had become Messianic Jews were not therefore eligible for Aliyah under the law.[8]
On April 16, 2008, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled in a case brought by a number of people with Jewish fathers and grandfathers whose applications for citizenship had been rejected on the grounds that they were Messianic Jews. The argument was made by the applicants that they had never been Jews according to halakha, and were not therefore excluded by the conversion clause. This argument was upheld in the ruling,[9][10] and the government agreed to reprocess their applications.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Return#Messianic_Jews
The first paragraph seems pretty straightforward. The second is pretty contorted but it also does not allow Jews (i.e. according to halakha) who subsequently profess Jesus as messiah to be eligable for Aliyah.
This supposedly secular law is making a legal determination of religious affiliation. I suppose we would have to look at the judgement in detail to figure out what “Messianic Jew” means, legally and precisely and what about it constitutes “another religion” but that is exactly what is being evaluated here.
There is a simlar controversy over non-Orthodox conversions but that’s another matter.
Now if we move away from the Israeli law of return and look, instead, at other real world judgements the criteria will change slightly but the same issues will hold.
But the most consistent answer I’ve seen is that Messianic Jews are not Jews, that, as the Israeli court determined, they are another religion.
