Israel Debates Scrapping Law of Return's "Grandchild Clause" Amid Political Tensions

Contentious proposal to restrict immigration eligibility gains momentum in Knesset, sparking fierce debate over Jewish identity and Israeli citizenship

Israel's government has renewed a heated debate over one of the country's most fundamental laws, as far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties push to eliminate the "Grandchild Clause" from the Law of Return that has allowed people with Jewish grandparents to immigrate to Israel for more than five decades.

The controversial proposal, which would dramatically restrict immigration eligibility, has gained significant political momentum and could pass when it comes up for debate again in approximately two months, according to Israeli media reports.

What's at Stake

The Law of Return, passed unanimously by the Knesset on July 5, 1950, declares that "every Jew has the right to come to this country as an oleh [immigrant]". Twenty years later, in 1970, the law was amended to extend these rights to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and has voluntarily changed his/her religion".

This amendment, known as the "Grandchild Clause," currently allows anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent to immigrate freely to Israel and obtain citizenship, provided they do not practice another religion.

Far-right Noam Party leader Avi Maoz proposed the amendment to eliminate this clause in a heated Knesset session in May 2025, arguing that the change would "prevent one of the greatest absurdities in the Israeli law book — that the most explicit Jewish law gives sweeping permission for non-Jews to enter the country's gates".

Political Momentum Builds

Unlike previous attempts to change the law, this proposal appears to have substantial support within the current coalition government. Most coalition parties are expected to vote in favor of rescinding the grandchild clause when it is brought back for debate in two months, according to a report by the public broadcaster Kan.

The only significant obstacle to the legislation is a coalition agreement that gives veto power to Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar and his New Hope party. However, Sa'ar's party is on the verge of merging with Likud, at which point he will lose that veto power, the report indicated.

The ultra-Orthodox Shas and United Torah Judaism parties, along with the far-right Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit factions, have all backed the proposed changes as part of their coalition agreements with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party.

The Numbers Behind the Debate

Supporters of the change point to demographic shifts in immigration patterns as justification for the amendment. Data shows a dramatic change in the religious composition of immigrants from the former Soviet Union: in 1990, 93.1% of FSU immigrants were Jewish (172,419 immigrants), but by 2005 only 42% were Jewish (3,958), and by 2020 only 28.3% were Jewish (3,113), with the rest (7,898) mostly defined as holding no religion.

During the recent Knesset debate, United Torah Judaism's Deputy Transportation Minister Uri Maklev charged that the current law allows for religious fraud, saying "There could be a person who goes to church every Sunday with his parents, who comes and says he wants to enter as a Jew".

Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi added that "this historic compromise was meant to help grandchildren who are persecuted because of their Judaism. No one dreamed full-fledged gentiles would come in - not fleeing persecution but for economic reasons".

Fierce Opposition

The proposal faces strong resistance from immigrant communities and their political representatives. Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman, whose party's base consists largely of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, responded forcefully: "7,000 soldiers in active service whose fathers or grandfathers were Jewish have enlisted for the state, fight and defend us, and dozens of them fell in Operation Iron Swords. In their actions, they've proven they are far more Jewish than any draft dodger who undermines Israel's security".

The debate has taken on particular poignancy given the ongoing war, with MK Vladimir Beliak of Yesh Atid noting that "forty immigrant soldiers were killed in the war, over 400 were wounded".

Yisrael Beytenu party chief Avigdor Liberman has characterized the fight as fundamental to Zionism, stating: "We will focus on fighting a change to the Law of Return, one of the bedrocks of Zionism. In our view, changing the Law of Return is like changing the anthem, the flag and all other symbols of the state".

Historical Context and Symbolism

The 1970 amendment was "the result of a political compromise that sought to reduce tensions after the 'Shalit affair'" and "deliberately left the issue of conversion vague". Many believe the amendment was inspired by the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws, which established that anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent would be considered Jewish under Germany's racial purity laws.

The symbolic weight of the law extends far beyond immigration policy. As Intelligence Minister Elazar Stern noted at a recent conference: "The debate is about who today has the right to be a significant part of the Jewish people".

Public Opinion Divided

A 2020 poll by the Jewish People Policy Institute found that 49% of Jewish Israelis believe the Law of Return should be left as is, while 11% supported restricting immigration to only children of Jews, and 24% said only people who are themselves Jewish should be permitted to freely immigrate.

International Implications

The proposed changes have raised concerns among international Jewish organizations about Israel's relationship with the diaspora. Representatives from the Jewish Agency have expressed "deep concerns about the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora" should this proposal go through.

What Comes Next

The Knesset committee has decided to debate the proposal once again in a month's time, setting up what promises to be one of the most contentious legislative battles over Jewish identity and Israeli citizenship in decades.

The outcome will not only determine who can immigrate to Israel in the future but also send a powerful message about how the Jewish state defines itself and its relationship with Jews around the world. As the debate intensifies, it threatens to become a defining issue for Netanyahu's coalition government and Israel's conception of Jewish peoplehood in the 21st century.

The debate reflects broader tensions within Israeli society about religion, state, and identity that have only intensified since the October 7 attacks and the ongoing war in Gaza, where immigrant soldiers have served and died alongside their native-born counterparts.