February 22, 1993
'MESSIANIC JEWS'
A. Background
The Beresfords were born to Jewish parents in South Africa. In 1985 the
couple applied for immigrant visas, and their application was turned down
on the grounds that they are Messianic Jews. In 1986 they arrived in
Israel as tourists, and another application for immigrant visas was
refused for the same reason. An appeal to the High Court of Justice was
rejected in 1989. Half a year later, the couple again appealed to the
High Court, and only a few months ago this appeal was also rejected. The
Beresfords have been staying in Israel on tourist visas, and these visas
will expire on February 20, 1993. Two other families of Messianic Jews
the Kendalls and the Speakmans joined the Beresfords' second suit and
therefore also have the same status now.
The Beresfords have asked to immigrate to Israel as Jews under the Law of
Return. The law defines a Jew as a person who was born to a Jewish mother
or who converted to Judaism. The law also guarantees citizenship under
the Law of Return to relatives of Jews, so that families can stay
together despite differences in religion. (This is why many immigrants
from the CIS are issued immigrant visas even though they are not Jewish.)
However, a person who was Jewish and converted voluntarily to another
religion is deemed to have thereby declared his or her desire to
dissociate from the Jewish people; consequently, the Law of Return does
not apply to such a person.
The Beresfords belong to a group that believes that Jesus is the Messiah.
This belief is what marks the clear separation between Judaism and
Christianity. Belief that Jesus is the Messiah cannot be reconciled with
Judaism. The couple chose this faith, and the State of Israel respects
their choice. However, they are not considered Jews, since they have
voluntarily converted, and they are therefore not eligible to move to
Israel as Jews.
The Beresfords' application for permanent residency in Israel was also
rejected. They claim that they were turned down because of opposition to
their faith. This is not the case: the application was rejected because
they do not meet the general criteria that the State of Israel uses in
deciding on eligibility for a permanent residency visa. The court
stressed this point, ruling that 'the contention that the appellants'
being 'Messianic Jews' was an extraneous consideration in the
respondent's decision is groundless. This fact is not an issue in
considering permanent residency under the Law of Entry into Israel. The
respondent's aforementioned policy applies equally to all nonresidents,
whether they are 'Messianic Jews' or members of any other sect, who are
ineligible for immigrant visas under the Law of Return. It does not come
into play and did not come into play against the appellants, but it
neither is nor should be a factor in their favor.'
The fact that members of their group are residents and citizens of Israel
further refutes the couple's contention. In the cases of these
individuals, there were other circumstances that justified giving
citizenship or residency, and their religion was not an obstacle. Like
most countries, Israel reserves the right to approve or reject the right
of residency of foreigners. Ms. Beresford claimed that being kept away
from two of their sons, who are Israeli citizens, will cause her profound
emotional harm. The Minister of the Interior went beyond the letter of
the law and disclosed, for the court's review, the criteria by which
family-reunification decisions are made, i.e., an adult parent who is
alone and has no children abroad. Ms. Beresford is not alone, and she has
four children abroad. She does not meet the criteria for permanent
residency. Her status is the same as that of any non-Jew who wishes to
settle in Israel.
The High Court considered the couple's case twice. Six different judges
reached the same conclusion the Beresfords are not eligible to settle
in Israel, neither as immigrants nor as permanent residents. The Supreme
Court is one of the central pillars of the rule of law in Israel. The
Beresfords have exhausted their prerogatives in the Israeli judicial
system, prerogatives given them in full fairness. When they failed,
however, they declared that they would not comply with the court's ruling
and would not leave Israel when their visas expired.
Ms. Beresford's attempt to justify remaining in Israel on humanitarian
grounds by citing the importance of her relationship with her sons is
surprising. The issue has had reverberations all over the world, and
Israel has been asked many questions in the matter. But the sons, who are
Israeli citizens, and whose separation from their mother, she claims, may
cause her profound emotional harm, have never appealed to any government
agency. This silence on their part casts the veracity of the mother's
claim into doubt.
After the end of the deliberations, Ms. Beresford's mother, who has been
an Israeli citizen for five years, asked to be able to reunite with her
daughter because she needs her assistance. The family neglected to
mention that the mother did not live in Israel after she became a
citizen; she arrived only recently, after the appeals failed.
As for the charge that Israel is carrying out 'deportations' the
tourist visas were extended again and again. The Israel Ministry of the
Interior let the families remain here for the duration of the hearings,
and extended their visas for four months after the end of the hearings so
that they could get organized. It even acceded to a request to extend the
visas for an additional month. When the month ends on February 20
the visas will expire, and if the families have not left by then, their
presence in the country will be illegal. These families are no different
from any tourist who is issued a tourist visa for a limited amount of
time. If the families leave Israel on time, they will be able to visit
the country again.
B. Points to Stress
1. Israel does not discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation or
creed. Christian and Muslim citizens and permanent residents of Israel
enjoy full equal rights.
2. Messianic Jews also live in Israel with equal rights. (There are over
2,000 such people.) The families discussed here have never been citizens
or permanent residents, but only tourists. Israeli law does not entitle
them to Israeli citizenship.
3. This is not a deportation of citizens or residents. It is a removal
from Israel of foreign tourists whose visas have expired.
4. Every democratic country in the world reserves the exclusive right to
determine who is eligible to enter its territory and who is eligible for
citizenship or residency. These families do not meet any of the criteria
stipulated in the law. The humanitarian grounds that, the families claim,
justify their remaining in Israel were investigated seriously by the
court and the Government and were found unpersuasive.