Abolish the Law of Return, Yaron London wrote here Monday. He noted that three Arab-Israeli organizations made this proposal recently and explained that it would be worthwhile to accept it, "not in order to placate the Arab population but because it would be good for the Jews." Really?

Abolishment of the Law of Return would not suffice to placate these three organizations, but there is no doubt that they would welcome it – and this fact alone negates its chances of being beneficial to the "Jews." This is not because of the Arab-Jewish demographic balance in Israel necessarily being a zero-sum game, but rather, because of the first clause in the Law of Return and what David Ben Gurion said at the Knesset at the time the law was enacted on July 5th 1950.

Every Jew is entitled to come to Israel as a new immigrant, Ben Gurion said, adding that the law does not grant rights on behalf of the State, but rather, provides a legal basis to the basic Zionist idea and fundamental right of every Jew to enter the country and reside there. "The right to return preceded the state," he said.

Damage would be far greater than benefit

Ben Gurion made this statement five years after the end of the Holocaust that beset the Jews because of their religion (based on a broader definition of "who is a Jew".) He said this against the backdrop of the urgent need he felt to quickly increase the Jewish population in Israel. He spoke knowing full well that Jews in prosperous countries would not be in a hurry to take advantage of the law. Yet, without relating to this, he announced that the Law of Return expresses the primary existence of this country, here, as a national homeland for the Jewish people.

This reasoning is obviously not evident to the compilers of the "Future Vision of the Palestinian Arabs in Israel," who wrote that "Israel is the outcome of a settlement process initiated by the Zionist Jewish elite in Europe and the West and realized by colonial countries contributing to it and by promoting Jewish immigration to Palestine in light of the results of the Second World War and the Holocaust."

This reasoning is probably unacceptable in the eyes of a few unrestrained Israeli writers (Benny Tziper, for example, who several days ago compared "after Auschwitz" to "after the founding of the State of Israel".)

But those who think that Ben Gurion's basic idea is still relevant, cannot support the abolishment of the Law of Return and the symbolic meaning such a measure entails. The damage to the Jews would be far greater than the benefit. Moreover, there is not a single "practical" benefit involved in the abolishment of the Law of Return that cannot be achieved without abolishing it.

The Law of Return in essence entitles every Jew who comes to Israel the right to an "oleh visa and certificate." It has no mention of a passport or the right to vote, to be elected for the Knesset or eligibility for absorption rights. It also has no mention or limitations regarding the immigration to Israel of non-Jews or their civil rights.

All these issues are specified in other laws - from the civil law to the various election laws. Many of these laws require serious amendment and are open to such amendments, which are slow in coming. But not a single amendment was prevented due to the content of the Law of Return, and more importantly – because of its existence. Here is another reason – minor in its significance – not to touch this Zionist law.