The lie behind 'genetic citizenship'

Israeli academics at two conferences at prestigious universities -- Harvard University and the European University Institute in Florence -- recently attacked Israel over its "plan" to submit a proposal to test new immigrants from Russia to determine whether they were Jewish. This is truly a terrible accusation that portrays Israel in the most racist and negative light.

As usual, the Israeli researchers were sharp and left a deep impression on the hearts and minds of dozens of conference goers, some of them well-known and influential academics. There was something strange about the attack of the educated: Not one of the academics bothered to quote precisely what the "proposal" was or to detail who suggested it, nor did anyone note where and how it came about. Simply stating the charge was enough to satisfy them.

When they were asked to provide a basis for their accusations, they pointed to an article written by two Harvard professors published in an Oxford University journal under the damning title "Genetic Citizenship: DNA Testing and the Israeli Law of Return." The article's abstract asserts that Israel "recently announced that it may begin to use genetic tests to determine whether potential immigrants are Jewish or not."

It certainly sounds terrible, but anyone who read the article -- much like those who investigated the cries of the Israeli academics at Harvard and in Florence -- was met with a strange phenomenon: The declarations of fact made by all these academics have no scientific proof supporting them. The truth becomes clear in the article, which does not refer to Israel's Law of Return, but discusses one young woman who asked to participate in the Taglit-Birthright Israel program, which offers free trips to Israel to young Jews around the world.

The woman's story appeared on the The Times of Israel English news website and Israeli media outlet NRG. It describes how the woman, Masha Yakerson, came to Taglit-Birthright's St. Petersburg offices with her Jewish father, Dr. Shimon Yakerson, requesting to sign up for the 10-day tour of Israel. Yakerson, who was apparently born outside wedlock, had her birth and Judaism registered only when she was three years old. Someone from the Taglit-Birthright organization reportedly told her father that in a case such as this, pertaining to immigration, the daughter needed to prove that she was in fact the daughter of the person seeking to make aliyah, and that such proof was required by the Israeli Consulate in St. Petersburg, apparently in accordance with Interior Ministry instructions.

The Interior Ministry does in fact have guidelines, similar to others accepted in various Western countries, for determining the paternity of children born out of wedlock and not registered at birth as the children of the man claiming to be their father. But the reason for this is concern over potential kidnapping or illegal child trade.

In other words, the important researchers -- both American and Israeli -- simply did not bother to read the full article in the Israeli newspaper, and read only the misleading headlines. Regardless, the Harvard academics asserted that "the Israeli state recently announced that it may begin to use genetic tests to determine whether potential immigrants are Jewish or not." From there, the scholars drew a parallel to social theorist Michel Foucault's claim that some governments manage their populations with the use of "biopolitics." The article also brings to mind another scholar who claims that Israel's strategy is to expand the Jewish population via artificial insemination (presumably involving the Jewish gene). These are extremely serious accusations, but they have no basis apart from a misunderstood headline.

The Law of Return, and reality

The truth lies elsewhere, and I will explain why:

1. There is no proposal to amend the Law of Return to include genetic testing.

2. Taglit-Birthright is not an Israeli organization, but a body that operates under the guidelines of a steering committee made up of American Jews.

3. In contrast to what was written in the article, Taglit-Birthright has never requested genetic testing, and it allowed the young woman to take part in the trip. Her sister even immigrated to Israel. In addition, many participants in the Taglit-Birthright trips are not Jewish according to the partially halachic definition adopted in the Law of Return in 1970.

4. In Israel, there are no DNA tests without court approval. These tests are only conducted when no other evidence of lineage can be found. In my opinion, when it comes to immigration to Israel, a mother's declaration regarding the identity of the Jewish father is sufficient -- and there is no need for further proof.

5. There is no genetic test that proves conclusively whether someone is Jewish or not. There are certain tests for the genetic continuity of Kohanim (the Jewish priestly bloodline) and of various Jewish communities, and these prove the exceptional similarity between Jews and Palestinian Arabs.

6. It has been clearly proved that not everything written by Harvard professors is absolute truth.

7. National identity is not determined by genetic origin, but by a person's or a community's identification. The definition of a Jew used in the Law of Return is very regrettable -- a Jew is a person born to a Jewish mother -- but immigrants from Russia are not required to prove this via DNA testing,

8. The time has come to adapt the definition in the Law of Return to suit reality and to consider anyone who belongs to a permanent Jewish community a Jew. This has nothing to do with the academic propaganda campaign against Israel's supposed genetic testing of new immigrants.

***

With that, two points should be made: First, introducing the halachic test of Judaism that requires a Jewish mother into the Law of Return -- due to the National Religious Party-Labor Party alliance in 1970, and in opposition to the stance of late Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion – was a bad mistake that isolated Israeli Jews from Jews in America and around the world.

Second, there is still something to the genetic discourse: There is a genetic trait among Israeli academics of the anti-Zionist variety that makes them avoid reading any material that could disprove their propaganda against the State of Israel and instead settle for reading newspaper headlines, as long as these serve their purposes.

Prof. Amnon Rubinstein is an author and professor at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya, a former education minister and Knesset member, and an Israel Prize laureate in Law (2006). www.amnonrubinstein.org.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו