[Avodah] Court retroactively revokes conversions

[Daniel Eidensohn]

R' Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I understand that many RZ rabbis follow the view of Rav Goren zt"l
> that in EY the rules of conversion are different than in Chu"l.
> Specifically, Rav Goren held that in Chu"l kabballas ol mitzvos is
> me'akev because there is no national identity in Chu"l and we fear
> that they had converted for an ulterior motive and that they will
> revert to their gentile roots once that ulterior motive disappears.
> However, in Israel, the view of the Yerushalmi is to be followed that
> the ikkar of geirus is joining the Jewish people, and in EY there is
> no chashash that they will go back to being goyim...
>
> While I personally am uncomfortable with this view, I respect the
> rabbanim involved and consider this to be an issue of eilu v'eilu
> divrei elokim chayim.
>   
What does this have to do with eilu v'eilu? Do you personally consider 
the views of all rabbis valid? For example do you also hold that R' 
Rackman's beis din provides a legitimate solution to agunos? Or do you 
agree with R' Marc Angel that there is no need that gerim accept the 
obligation to keep mitzvos?

In addition do you agree that those converted according to Rav Goren's 
view - become goyim when they leave the country?

R' Jonathan Rosenblum 
<http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2007/06/26/responding-to-some-critics/>wrote: 
"One of Rabbi Goren’s other halachic innovations, recognized by no other 
/posek/, was to condition /geirus /performed by him on the ger remaining 
in Israel. Apparently, he felt that non-observant gentiles could become 
Jews in Israel but not abroad. The bearers of such certificates of 
geirus have created a great many problems for /batei din /abroad when 
they came bearing Rabbi Goren’s “conditional” /geirus/."

Daniel Eidensohn