A number of orthodox parties attempted to have the Law of Return amended, to prevent the right of non-Orthodox converts to be automatically admitted to Israel under that law. Mr. Peres replied on behalf of the government and called for "restrained and tolerant pluralism - not the imposition of outlooks - is today required for the survival of the Jewish people and for the creation of content filled aliyah " The motion was defeated by 61 to 47. In his reply Mr. Peres also called for Jewish unity, the major tasks ahead of all Jews, wherever they live. Text:
We live in a new era in the annals of the Jewish people: The uniqueness of the People of Israel among the nations faces new tests; and the independence of the Israeli people in their land faces new challenges.
Even as the shadow of the holocaust still attends our life; even as the gates of the Soviet Union remain closed before our brethren; even as Jewish communities in the Middle East still seek a path to the homeland - our Jewish existence is already threatened by the danger of assimilation that stems from abundance; and by the danger of the alienation that stems from detachment.
Even as threats exist still over Israel's security; even as we must deal with the work of forging dispersions into a single people - we must already build a new economy that will cope with the economies of the world, and we must already repulse tendencies towards rift in the nation, and a tendency towards deviation from its democratic regime,
Is this a time of division for Israel, or a time of unity for our people?
Must we today vanquish and rend, or are we today duty-bound to cultivate the common denominator and close ranks?
Must we - religious, traditional, secular - make an effort to maintain a common life despite the difference in Halakhicdefinitions, or are we to aggravate those definitions and risk tearing the nation to pieces?
Trenchant debates are conducted among us. Trenchant debates such as these were conducted throughout Jewish history. Sometimes they enriched the Jewish people with their content, sometimes they split the nation into tribes. Our true historical lesson lies not in closing mouths but in blocking rifts.
There is a Knesset. There is a Rabbinate. The Knesset must decide in national and political matters. The Rabbinate may issue religious rulings.
The Knesset must not decide on the Halakha, and the Knesset must not cast off its responsibility for the co-existence of our people. The Knesset must not thrust into a corner minorities possessing a Halakhic outlook in a generation marked chiefly by aliya from all sectors of the nation. To the contrary: Let there come Jews of different conscience and outlook, and let the Rabbinate disseminate its views among them by means of conviction and education, in pleasant ways, by peaceful paths.
Restrained and tolerant pluralism - not the imposition of outlooks - is today required for the survival of the Jewish people, and for the maintenance of content-filled aliya to Israel.
Because the Law of Return has a state aspect and a Halakhic aspect. It has an abstract point and it has a practical consideration. The state aspect ends with passport and visa. The Halakhic aspect is an immeasurable process. The abstract aspect is a subject for deliberation among Torah sages; the practical aspect is expressed in isolated cases of doubt among the new immigrants, in the face of a danger of the boycott of entire streams in Judaism, streams whose main parts are abroad and the minority here at home.
Every Jew is obligated to solidarity vis-a-vis the fate of every other Jew. And the State of Israel is obligated to responsibility for all the communities of the people of Israel, even outside it. The State of Israel lives with face towards the Jewish people. It lives with its demand to our people, all our people, to come to Israel and live there.
The Law of Return, then, relates to a very small number of Jews who have already arrived in Israel. But it is of major consequence for important streams in the life of the diaspora. Do we want to cut them off instead of convincing them?
I want to ask our friends from the religious factions a frank question: Do you have an interest, here and today, in harming the increasingly strong bond of the Reform stream and the Conservative stream with Zionism, with Israel?
To the contrary: convince them. Don't distance them.
As a Zionist I am fearful of exile. I believe that the future of Judaism and the future of the Jews will be guaranteed in the nation here, in Israel. But until then, until the Jews come, I absolutely reject the severing of dispersions from the Jewish people, I reject the issuing of commands that will enfeeble our ability to turn to them and demand that they come to Israel.
This house must not be transformed from a house calling on Jews to come, into a house tearing the Jewish people into those failing away and those becoming isolated.
By nature, a Jewish citizen in the State of Israel lives between two circles: The circle of the State of Israel and the circle of the Jewish people.
As for the state, this is a state which according to its declaration of independence is the state of the entire Jewish people, and the state of all the citizens living in it. This is a Jewish state in its composition, and a Jewish state in its values, whose democratic character is assured because it resolved to grant freedom of conscience and freedom of religion to all its citizens - Jews, Moslems, Christians, Druze or non-religious. No one is discriminated against in the state because of his religious stance. And if one is a Jew, one may be observant, or traditionalist, or secular. No one can deprive a person of the right to be religious in the way he finds fit, or to force the 613 commandments on those who do not so desire.
The Declaration of Independence is a declaration of the belongingness of the State of Israel to the Jewish people. And an Israeli passport is a declaration that an Israeli is a citizen of a free and democratic state.
In matters of religion every citizen of Israel may affiliate himself with the religious institutions he wishes. And Israeli law contains an explicit reference to the Rabbinate. But Israeli law need not decide with respect to Rabbinate matters outside Israel. The Knesset cannot decide with respect to the religious streams in the United States, or take the place of the Chief Rabbinate in the Soviet Union. After all, we are dealing not only with the question of "Who is a Jew" but with the question of who the Rabbi is who converts to Judaism in the diaspora.
Are we to lay down a decision in Israel which in any case will not be acceptable to all of the dispersions? And will the actual result of such a decision not be to distance entire streams from us, to place obstacles in the way of the return, and to impose a decision via the law on a question that is in Halakhic dispute?
I call on both the Rabbis and the representatives of the religious parties: Look for ways to dialogue, and do not block paths on the road towards maintaining what little we possess in terms of unity and tolerance.
Look for a road to the heart of the people, do not make do with recruiting forces for a premature decision.
For the central issue of the generation is not exhausted by asking "Who is a Jew." This will be a Parliamentary decision that is remote and detached from the hurts of reality, from the true question of Judaism in our time: The question of "What is a Jew.
It is incumbent upon us all to enlist all our human resources and the sources of our national energy in order to eradicate the consuming affliction: Assimilation. Only a common effort to search for the secret of the Jewish essence will ensure the continued Jewish existence of future generations.
For the sake of this emergency task, bear proudly your uniqueness, bear responsibility our unity.