Israel's Left Targets Loyalty Oath Plan
At its weekly Sunday meeting, the Israeli cabinet approved a bill which would require new citizens to pledge loyalty to a “Jewish democratic state”. As the AP reported, the legislation, which still requires passage by Israel’s parliament before becoming law, has triggered charges of racism by Arab politicians who claim that it would undermine the rights of its Arab minority. “Its sole purpose is to solidify the inferior status of Arabs by law,” says Arab Knesset member Ahmad Tibi who calls the proposal “a provocation”.
Jewish Israelis have made similar charges. Hagai El-Dad of the Association for Civil Rights in Israel claims,
The new version [of the naturalization oath] crosses the line from what is commonplace in democracies to what is commonplace in countries that Israel would not want to associate with. It is one thing to require adherence to the law; it is another altogether to demand that free individuals sign on to a specific ideology or identity – and specifically one with particular religious content.
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responds, “The state of Israel is the national state of the Jewish people and is a democratic state in which all its citizens – Jews and non-Jews – enjoy full and equal rights.” Indeed, the AP report acknowledges, “Few non-Jews apply for Israeli citizenship so if the bill passes into law, the legislation wouldn’t affect Arab citizens of Israel, who make up 20% of the population.”
Marc Schulman who blogs on Israeli affairs articulates a common criticism of Israel’s behavior.
The law, which will affect almost no one, only does damage to Israel. Labor cabinet members and [Benny] Begin, [Michael] Eytan and [Dan] Meridor of the Likud voted against the legislation saying it was absurd to pass a law that does nothing but hurt Israel’s image. All the PR efforts in the world will not help if the government keeps taking action that hurts Israel’s image worldwide. It is one thing when Israel has to take actions to insure the security of its Israel citizens, but when Israel takes action to fulfill the political needs of either Lieberman or Netanyahu it is simply inexcusable.
Schulman makes a good point. But here’s a question. Why should a law that affects almost nobody trigger worldwide wrath against Israel? As Evelyn Gordon points out, writing at Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog, the term “Jewish and democratic”, is not tied to a specific ideology or political position, as El-Dad and other opponents of the naturalization oath claim. Rather, the language has been lifted from Israel’s Basic Laws where the term has been enshrined since 1992. Therefore, the revised wording of the citizenship pledge, would do nothing more than require new citizens to swear allegiance to the constitution, Gordon claims. Many other western democracies make similar demands of individuals petitioning for citizenship. For instance, as Gordon notes, the United States requires those becoming citizens to “support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”
In an editorial, the Jerusalem Post also takes the position that the proposed new language for the oath of citizenship falls well within the bounds of what is generally regarded as acceptable around the world:
Like other peoples, including the Palestinians and the nearly two dozen Arab countries, Jews have the right to self-determination that protects its unique national attributes. …
While Jews multiple identities as a religious group, a nation, an ethnic group, and their connection of nationhood with a particular territory set them apart from other peoples, their demand for political autonomy is not exceptional.
Evelyn Gordon asserts, “If you can’t bring yourself to swear allegiance to the constitution of the country you’re seeking to become a citizen of, you don’t deserve to be given citizenship. That’s the rule throughout the democratic world, and there’s no reason why Israel should be exception.”
One need not be a fan of Foreign Minister Lieberman to appreciate the absurdity of holding him responsible for Israel’s poor international image. There are good reasons not to like Avigdor Lieberman. But is he really anywhere as repugnant as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, Robert Mugabe, or Kim Jong Il? Why are there calls for disinvestment from and boycotts of a democracy like Israel and not for similar action against the nations over which these despots rule?
Why is it that leftists like El-Dad claim to worry about the supposed fragility of democracy and the alleged anti-Arab racism of Lieberman while at the same time calling for the unconditional handover of the West Bank? Especially when they know that such a move would ethnically cleanse Jews and handover the land to a Palestinian kleptocracy that has shown itself – since it assumed power in the West Bank in 1993 -- to be anti-Semitic, inefficient, and corrupt?
In fact, Israel was the target of an unfair international campaign of vilification long before Lieberman even lived in Israel. It can be traced at least as far back as the infamous “Zionism Equals Racism” campaign in the mid-1970s.
In a meeting this weekend, Lieberman told the foreign ministers of France or Spain to solve Europe’s problems before pointing the finger at Israel. Lieberman saw to it that his comments were leaked to the press, which may have been a mistake. But in the end, Lieberman’s lecture was a refreshing and much-needed protest against the blatant hypocrisy of many international leaders regarding Israel.
With the ongoing onslaught against Israel in the arena of international public opinion, any individual statement or action by the government or one of its officials likely can have only a minimal impact on Israel’s overall standing in the world. On the other hand, the whole rationale for political Zionism has always to give the Jewish people control over their own fate. Given these origins, it’s disappointing to see some of Israel’s traditional supporters now council the Jewish state to adjust its policies to placate its adversaries.
The construction of new apartments in Jerusalem and the wording of a citizenship oath may seem like trivial issues, with which to easily appease critics without compromising interests. However, if Israel is seen to be caving in on anything over which it rightly exercises sovereign control, the international pressure on it will only increase.