Law of Return does not increase flght risk

The prosecutor's argument in the Rubashkin case, as reported, is indeed
troubling on several levels. As for the facts:

1. Israel's Law of Return is not unique. Several countries have similar law=
s
granting preferential immigration status to persons with historical or
ethnic ties to the country, among them, Germany, Ireland, India, Greece,
Turkey, UK, Poland, Lithuania, Serbia, Norway, Belarus, Finland, The Czech
Republic, Bulgaria, etc. Some of these laws are quite broad, while
others only grant a right to permanent residency, others wave minimum
residency requirements for citizenship, and others are limited to
those descended from a grandparent who was a citizen. I have heard that
Spain - in which the Historical Memory Law went into effect this month,
granting a right of return to refugees of the Franco era and their
descendants - also has a shortened residency requirement for granting
citizenship to Jews of Sephardic descent.

2. The Law of Return does not turn Israel into a "city of refuge".
Citizenship is not automatic and the Minister can refuse to grant a Teudat
Oleh, e.g. where a person is deemed a danger to the welfare of the state.
Thus people with communicable diseases, suspected criminals, and fugitives
from justice cannot count on the law of Return as a passkey to Israel. In
the case of a fugitive, it is likely that were he to land in Israel, he
would be put on the next plane back to the US. One might also recall that
Meyer Lansky was deported the US (he was not subsequently convicted of any
crime).

3. Between 1978 and 1999, Israeli law prohibited the extradition of Israeli
citizens. This was a cause of some tension between Israel and the US
inasmuch as the law was at odds with the 1963 Extradition Treaty between th=
e
US and Israel. I would point out that this, too, was not entirely an
anomaly. Many European states (e.g. France, Germany, Switzerland (whch has =
a
specific clause to that effect in its extradition treaty with the US)) do
not extradite their citizens. Article 16 of the German Constitution
(Grundgesetz) specifically forbids extradition of German citizens. That
article was at odds with Germany's obligations under the European Arrest
Warrant Convention (which was ruled unconstitutional by the German
Constitutional Court). The German Constitution was recently amended to allo=
w
extradition of German citizens to EU countries and international tribunals.
German citizens cannot be extradited outside of the EU.

The Israeli law came under harsh internal criticism in the wake of the
Sheinbein case. Samuel Sheinbein, whose grandparents were Israeli, was
suspected of murder and - at the advice of his father (a lawyer) - fled to
Israel. Technically, Sheinbein was a citizen of Israel. The Attorney Genera=
l
(Elyakim Rubenstein) was of the opinion that the exemption from extradition
applied only to citizens who had a real tie to Israel and not to people lik=
e
Sheinbein. The Supreme Court ruled (3-2) that Sheinbein could not be
extradited (interestingly, he was represented by David Libai, who as Justic=
e
Minister had insuccessfully urged the Rabin government to change the law).
Sheinbein - who was a minor - was tried in Israel and was sentenced to 24
years in prison in a plea bargain.

In response to the Sheinbein case, the law was amended. Since 1999, Israeli
citizens can be extradited to countries with which Israel has an extraditio=
n
treaty (e.g. the US), with the proviso that if the person is a citizen AND
domicile of Israel, then if convicted and sentenced to prison, he may
request that his sentence be served in Israel (as was recently the case wit=
h
Zev Rosenstein. Note also the extradition of Daniel Weiz to Canada. Weiz wa=
s
an Israeli citizen serving in the IDF at the time of his extradition. He wa=
s
subsequently acquitted by the Canadian court). It should be noted that this
proviso regarding citizens is the rule under EU law as well. It should also
be noted that. in Israel, this proviso applies only to domiciles. Moreover,
the Supreme Court has ruled that being a fugitive from another state weighs
heavily against a finding that a person is a domicile of Israel.

Bottom line, Solomon Rubashkin may be a flight risk, but nothing in the Law
of Return or the Israeli Extradition Law can be construed to contribute to
that risk.

In light of several recent high-profile extraditions to the US (e.g.
Rosenstein), and the pending extraditon of Meir and Yitzhak Abergil
(currently in custody awaiting extraditon to the US), the prosecutor should
have known better, and the argument seems inflammatory.

Avinoam