Loyalty oath is not about Arabs, it’s about hatred of liberal values

Dear Strenger will be very useful if you can explain to us,what is "today" fascism. I remember what was in Mussolini days,but today ,in Israel,what is to be a fascist !!?? Yours drdanielito

It's less hatred of liberal values and more fear of them. Populist ultra-nationalists like Lieberman and anti-modern religious ideologies seek to protect themselves from open rational debate because it will also cast great doubt on their positions. It is certainly possible to remain religious and politically conservative in an open intellectual environment, but its much harder to sustain the credibility of "essentialist" extremism. It all starts with Israel's tribal education system. It is certainly legitimate to have religious schools but all school children should have to confront in a serious way, the opinions and outlooks of those different from them. The right to promote certain religious or nationalist beliefs needs to be balanced by the duty to listen and engage with others who think differently. Those of us with "faith" should have the faith that our core beliefs are not so tenuous that they cannot deal with engaging with others who do not share them.

When I became citizen here in the US I had to pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states. So this is hate of liberal values?

It's more than your statement that Jews have enjoyed the fruits of the Enlightenment. They were instrumental in the thinking that inspired it and moved it along. This makes it even more disturbing that Israel is moving backward toward the bottleneck of hyper-nationalism that one had hopes the world had moved through. This is yet another reason to distinguish Israeli leadership thinking and world Jewry thinking. The former has left the port of the latter and is headed for the rocks.

As an "opinion piece", an article by Mr. Strenger gets no priority from Haaretz on publishing the comments by readers, and most of the comments are thrown away, along with most of all comments. The result is very little feedback, and Mr. Strenger remains in the dark of night regarding his influence on readers' thoughts. A comparison with the number of published comments on Mr. Burston's articles may be "illuminating". There are many more responses to Burston than to Strenger. Why is that? Is the Burston style so much better? The obvious answer is that the number of comments has little to do with quality. Mr. Burston is right there in the Haaretz building, and the moderators respond to his needs. If they don't, he does it himself. And this is the way you should act, Mr. Strenger. Better tell Haaretz that there will be no new article before the old one gets its full set of comments. You will be happier, and your style will improve too.

This law will gradually turn other nations against their own Jewish citizens. When it becomes clear that Israel is discriminating against the rights of its own Jewish citizens, as well as of those of Arabs and others, then other nations' right-wing zealots will join the party within their own borders. Is this new law ultimately part of a long-term plan to force most of the rest of the the world's Jews to emigrate to Israel? Cause, that's what's going to result, forcibly or not.

Tattoos? Sorry, been there done that and I already have one.

The New Soviet Man, born and raised under the Communist system, does not understand the basics of western culture. When the rulers form a new privileged class, people learn to look down on their "inferiors" and racism develops. Settling disputes by brute force is also in the soul of the New Man. Of course law is simply the means for the Dictatorship to control the masses, and the masses are supposed to subvert the law in a way that will make them appear blameless.. Trying to explain law to the Homo Sovieticus is like trying to explain colors to a blind man. As far as Lieberman, can he understand that the West Bank is occupied territory under international law, and that the occupier is forbidden from building settlements there and causing a transfer of his own (Israeli) population to the occupied territory, even by enticing them to buy cheap housing? I guess he understands this as law, but law is supposed to be subverted at your convenience, so what's the problem, you stupid Homo Sapiens?

Let us look at the composition of Israeli Jews today: 1. The former Soviets constitute about 20%. They grew up under a totalitarian regime and tend to prefer strong leaders and a brute-force approach. 2. The Sephardim (from Islamic states), constitute about 1/3 of the Jews. They tend to hate Arabs, their former oppressors, tend to be more emotional people, and their grounding in democracy is still weak. Shasniks are of course worse in this respect. 3. Religious Ashkenazis, including Haredim, about 10% of the Jews (as estimated by Knesset representation, which minimizes their numbers because they have many children). Haredim and the religious are messianists and believe in Divine Law as superior to state law.// Altogether we have about 2/3 of the Jews with hardline tendencies, based on cultural and religious background. To them one could add the secular Ashkenazi right-wingers like Netanyahu, and you see that Israel is facing a democratic crisis. The big question is: How did the State manage to be formed as a Democracy in the first place. The easy answer is the main non-democratic forces were not yet citizens: The Russians, Sephardim, Haredim, and even moderate religious, had a small and negligible representation in the 1948 Yishuv. They are now ready to destroy what their more democratic brothers have established.

stop lying about the nature of Fascism and Liberalism.... you are getting it all wrong!!!!

As far as the existence of Israel is concerned, they don't have any. Liberals would rather push through their defeatist agenda than see Israel thrive.

As far as the existence of Israel is concerned, they don't have any. Liberals would rather push through their defeatist agenda than see Israel thrive.

I just don't see where the problem lies. Here in the UK, those who become citizens have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. For those in overseas territories, the following pledge must be read: 'I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.' Why would this cause any citizen a problem? It certainly doesn't cause a fuss here. In other situations, we do it all the time: when I became a magistrate, I had to affirm my loyalty. Could I have been trusted if I'd refused to do so?

it's about exclusivity,peace evasion,irritation,provocation-the maintenance of an uncomfortable,(potentially self destructive)status-quo,forever.

There is one major objective common to Israel Beitenu and Shas, namely make life in Israel, for it's arab citizens, as miserable as possible; so much so that the only issue will be to go away and no matter where.

did not reach all countries. Catherine the Great was not able to adopt them. Napoleon also was hostile to Russia and wanted to keep them out of Europe and push them into the East "where they belonged." Countries in the Middle East also did not adopt ideals from the Enlightenment. If you trace all liberalism from the Enlightenment, some countries did not adopt the ideals. Authoritarian personalities also have more prejudice; those who follow a father figure, and perhaps some countries remained more authoritarian. Anyway I found Russia history very interesting; how Catherine and Peter could not incorporate European liberal ideas.

you've got it completely wrong. It's not about liberalism, it's about sovereignty. Lieberman believes in the national interest of sovereignty and when european nations interfere in Israels interests and Lieberman believes they are working against israel, he will speak up and put them in their place. Israeli politics has been dictated by outside sources more then anything. Lieberman is trying to break free from the hold of outside countries on Israeli policy. Imagine if israel or any other country told the U.S or european union what to do? The term "chutzpa" is more relevant to this discussion. This is a nonsense.

i am tired of these fascism cries. it's nowhere around here, except for the minds of ultra-liberals. the useless loyalty oath is pretty benign and acceptable. after all, if you want to become a citizen of israel, defined as jewish and democratic, there should be no problem for you to say that. it's just the number of those refusing to take the oath will be zero. even our worst enemies like our social benefits... re; spain and france, Lieberman’s disdain for these ideas breaks through at every possible moment: lately he has insulted French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner and Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos, telling them they should take care of their own problems in Europe before they come to advise Israel. - well, he's got point here. i don't remember bibi or lieberman going to spain trying to mediate the basque problem...

For the past 12-13 years now, the term liberalism has been used to define the character of far left leaning adherents on a variety of platforms. The left of today has been hijacked by a fanatic element that interprets liberalism far differently than how the overwhelming majority of citizens view it to be. This is not only true in Israel but the world all over. The progressive ideas pushed by the fringe left have left nation states in limbo and societies clearly divided. The latter is evident from the situation in most of Europe, the United States, Israel, Australia, and many other places. The liberalism of the past decade is viewed as an insurgence of socialist/communist doctrine attempting to creep its way into the democratic process. Most are simply not interested in going down that destructive path.