A substantive oath of allegiance
The demand for a pledge of allegiance is justified, but it is not too late to choose language that is less vulnerable to criticism.
By Shlomo AvineriIt is not surprising that the cabinet debate on the Immigration and Citizenship Law did not focus on the bill itself, which sought to develop a comprehensive immigration policy for the first time, but on the nature of the pledge of allegiance for those wishing to become naturalized Israeli citizens. The ministerial team headed by Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman proposed that the text include a pledge of allegiance to the State of Israel "as a Jewish and democratic state." Since most of those to whom this may apply will be immigrants from the territories or Arab states wishing to marry Israeli Arabs, the matter is clearly sensitive.
The proposal can be criticized on two levels. First, should candidates for naturalization be required to make a pledge with substantive content beyond a general pledge of allegiance to the laws of Israel, and if so, is the proposed text justified? In its July 18 editorial, "Loyalty to the state is enough," Haaretz asserted that a general pledge is enough and that any additional detailed content is unjustified. Sounds pretty logical, but the question is, what happens in other democratic countries? Maybe something can be learned from them?
 |
Yaakov Neeman. |
| Photo by: Daniel Bar-On |
It turns out it is precisely democratic countries that are open to immigration that require candidates for naturalization to make pledges that deal with values and political principles these nations see as central to their worldview. In Norway the formulation is: "I pledge loyalty to my country Norway and to the Norwegian society, and I support democracy and human rights and will respect the laws of the country." In Britain: "I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values." In Australia: "I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect." In South Africa: "I will ... uphold and respect its Constitution and commit myself to the furtherance of the ideas and principles contained therein."
In the American oath of allegiance there are echoes of the justification of the republican form of government, which grew out of the rebellion against the British monarchy: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty ... that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies ... that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law ... that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by law." This is far-reaching language because it made it possible to strip the citizenship of immigrants who refused to serve in the army or were perceived as members of groups whose aims contradicted the constitution, such as anarchists, Nazis and Communists.
These examples suffice to show that it is precisely democratic states that require candidates for naturalization to accept the conceptual principles of the country whose citizens they want to become.
The question that remains is whether the expression "Jewish and democratic state" is the right formula. Intelligence and Atomic Energy Minister Dan Meridor felt that this language is an unnecessary provocation of Israel's Arab citizens, and he is right. In "A Strategy for Immigration Policy to Israel," a position paper issued by The Metzilah Center that I authored with Amnon Rubinstein, Ruth Gavison and Liav Orgad, we proposed a formula that requires acceptance of "the legitimacy of the State of Israel," since that is precisely what Israel's enemies wish to deny it.
What's more, anyone who opposes such a formula (and there are such extreme elements among Israeli Arabs ) will thus prove that he is not interested in civil rights but the denial of Israel's legitimacy. The demand for a pledge of allegiance with substantive content is therefore acceptable and justified, but it is not too late to choose language that is both more substantive and less vulnerable to criticism.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
The two sins of Zionism. 1. It is racist 2. The racism is justified by an imagined history about a nation living in exile and returning to its home land. No I don't make this stuff up, try picking up Prof Shlomo Zand latest book "When and How was the Jewish nation invented" Basically the native people of this land are now being asked to pledge loyalty to the settlers who took over.
Why not have 2 oaths of allegiance? One, taken at 16 years of age, makes you a citizen of Israel with all the current attendent military/social obligations and political freedoms and the other, also taken at 16 makes you a Permanent Resident of Israel without military/social obligations but with right of residence, work, study, passport, travel, property etc, but no vote for the Knesset. This latter oath makes it easy for those arabs within the state who hate Israel to get on with their lives while the rest of the nation, which includes arabs and non Jews who don't hate Israel can also get on with their lives. No need for haters of Israel to have representatives in the Knesset. This would be a useful torpedo sent out to the 'demographic destruction of Israel' policy which is so popular with so many arabs.
No blood ties necessary. No similarity in DNA necessary. No ties to the land necessary. No marriage to a Jewish person necessary. That Israel was deemed a 'Jewish' State raises all manner of problems that have not been surmountable in 62 years and will not be surmountable in the future, because it is quite simply, at odds with the notion of a true democracy. It is one of the errors of judgment Israel's early leaders made in forming the Jewish homeland 'state' . Another being the obvious fact that Israeli Jews would no longer be able to settle anywhere in Palestine.....http://wp.me/pDB7k-pE
New Canadians and members of the Canadian Armed Forces and Police swear not to Canada but to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. This is not so bad as she really is a nice little old lady after all, but God, please save her for a long time to come, because when she goes we will have to swear to Big Ears,otherwise known as Charles.
The loyalty of Israel is based on 'race', 'ethnicity' and worse 'religion' are against the basic principles of democracy. Israel is fascist and apartheid regime that occupies a land of Palestine and it has no peace agenda.
How about us religious types who are only allowed to pledge our allegiance to heaven? What happens when such a law violates a key judeo-christian teaching?
Why should somebody like the impressive and courageous Hanin Zoubi, whose ancestry in al-Nasirah and Palestine goes back to the era of Jesus, be required and asked to pledge allegiance to a "Jewish Democratic state" (any state based on religion is never truly democratic) by the Russian immigrants, like Lieberman and the Russian Likud female member, whose ancestry is located in Moldova and the former Soviet Union.
People coerced against their will are of the same opinion still.
Wow, can they really strip them of their citizenship? My uncle, who was born in the US was blacklisted but not stripped of citizenship. And he served in the US military in WWII - as an officer. And the Rosenbergs weren't stripped of their citizenship, they were just killed. Israel and a lot of other countries, in fact most countries in the world protested - to no avail.
No other country asks it's minority population to pledge loyalty to another religion thus further marginalizing it. Please!
You didn't mention that you have to pledge allegiance to the queen as well - whilst standing in front of a huge photo of her!
'"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty ...' That would seem to include Israel.
Shlomo Avineri does not explain why he prefers a pledge to the 'legitimacy of the State of Israel' over a pledge to Israel 'as a Jewish and democratic state.' He surely is not quarreling with the ideal of Israel as a 'democratic state'--so it must be the other part of the formula that he finds troubling--and his omission here is itself troubling.
Only problem with the reference to Norway is that the country doesn't require a pledge... it is voluntary...!
I guess someone needs to do a little more research before the next article :p
religious terms. This is the key difference between the oath naturalized American citizens take and the one proposed by Mr. Neeman.
I have yet to see the printed copy of the proposed pledge in its entirety. Is such copy available to the public? Why are you afraid to print it? Could it be that the 'pledge' is not as offensive as you want to pretend that it is? Show some courage, some of that 'democratic' spine that you profess and print the latest version of the pledge for all of Israel to see and decide upon for themselves if they can live with it.
I.e., it only applies in actual Sovereign Israeli Territories.
It applies in case the law will be approved to the pre 67 borders. These are currently accepted Israel borders. 48-67 borders, even if they are cease fire borders, are unquestionable Israel sovereignty.
What could be more reassuring for a foreigner than a formula that respects his rights ex pluribus unum on the one hand and secures the emphasis of the state he connects hi/herself to - is a Jewish state? suppose we suggested the recognition of Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the Jesish people? The real problem , and I reiterate it in a Catonian way (after Marcus Porcius Cato the elder) , is the poor jewish demography.
...a liberal democracy in form. There is no reason on earth why one who wishes to become either a resident or a citizen of Israel shouldn't be expected to accept the nature and form of the State of Israel. And if that person refuses, well then that person has the option of continue to be the resident or the citizen of the country or territory from whence he/she comes. It is that simple, and this simplicity is applicable worldwide. To demand that Israel be singled out and not expect the allegince of new comers is motivated by the refusal to accept Israel's right to be, to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people, and such a motive is not good enough.
For all those denying the possibility of a state being at the same time Jewish and democratic I say - that's your problem. We need a Jewish State, have a Jewish State and must be assured of it's continuity for all time. Two things needed, loyal citizens and a Constitution to make sure minorities have equal rights. Yes, Israel is unique among democratic nations but let's not forget the unique history of the Jewish people both ancient and recent.
...precisely because a constitution, one that is respected among nations, would provide equality to all citizens...Israel is NOT about that. Now, if you call Israeli policy towards Palestinian muslims and christians, or the Israeli occupation, somehow consistent with Jewish values, then perhaps you should shop for a new religion....From what I know about Judaism, Israel doesn't follow those values at all.
Pledging allegiance is a daily routine in American schools and anyone seeking citizenship of any country should swear to support the basic values of that society. America may have a separation of church and state but the pledge includes 'one nation under G-d' and the phrase 'in G-d we trust' is on American money. The state of Israel is founded on the basis of G-d's covenant with the Jewish people combined with the recognition of the United Nations that there should be a Jewish state. Many countries, such as Great Britain have established churches and are no less democratic for that.
the god bit in the pledge was added during the mcarthy era to try to weed out communists, and the god phrase on our currency is a relic of days long gone past. Both mean very little to the vast majority of americans. very weak argument
the god bit in the pledge was added during the mcarthy era to try to weed out communists, and the god phrase on our currency is a relic of days long gone past. Both mean very little to the vast majority of americans. very weak argument
The author makes comparisons with other western democracies. Yet those western democracies define their state as the state of all its citizen. Israel defines itself as the state of a sub group of its citizens, and yet demands full loyalty from the other citizens, this I think is not fair, the loyalty should go both ways, citizen to state and state to citizen.
try to ask arab citizens of israel to serve in the israeli army and see how loyal they are.
the druze & bedoiun, stalwarts of the IDF!
the druze & bedoiun, stalwarts of the IDF!
The author is equating Israel Arabs (Palestinians) to new naturalized citizens, yet Palestinians lived in this country before the establishment of the state of Israel, and further more than have been already granted citizenship in 1967. The law then is not about terms of granting citizenship to potential naturalized citizens (e.g. new Jewish immigrants) but terms for stripping citizenship of existing citizens, who were born and lived all this live in this country.
Israeli arabs are not palestinians, they are arabs. "yet Palestinians lived in this country before the establishment of the state of Israel," Those Palestinian where Jews, and after the six-day war in 1967, they so-called Palestinians arrived and this time the where Arabs. All inhabitants of Mandate of Palestine 1922 - 1948 were Palestinians, but not to be confused whit today’s so-called Palestinians.
The whole point of this loyalty oath is not to find a means to integrate Arabs, but to create a pretext to KEEP THEM OUT. Zionists do not want more Arabs, they want less - and that's the point. Their challenge, therefore, is to create an oath that LOOKS democratic, but is in practice anything but. Please consider that the same people who are pushing for an oath are the same people who want to place Israeli Arabs under Palestinian citizenship as part of a final status deal. There is not one bit of effort that is being made to reconcile with Israeli Arabs or treat them as equal citizens. This is rather part of the concerted and coordinated effort to marginalize them in order to force them out - the exact same thing, in fact, that Israeli is doing to their brothers and cousins in Gaza.
As long as they don't have to move; and it is the border that moves; what's wrong with that
In those areas of Israel where the Arabs resent the Jewish character of Israel, I say let them stay on their land and be reunited with their Palestinian brothers and sisters. What can be wrong with that? Those Arab-Israelis who appreciate the character of Israel should be full citizens with full rights and obligations.
If you are required to make a pledge of loyalty to xxxxx (fill in the blanks) then does making that pledge make you a member of xxxxx? Pledging loyalty to the "laws of the state" makes you a fully-fledged law-abiding citizen. Pledging loyalty to a "democracy" makes you a fully-fledged participant in the democratic process. But does pledging loyalty to a "Jewish state" turn you into a "Jew"?
No one disputes that European countries have a broadly Christian history and tradition. No one doubts that Islamic countries have a broadly Islamic history and tradition. Arabs, however, do dispute that Israel reflects a broadly Jewish heritage and tradition. That's why Israel must state the obvious.
Does pledging loyalty to a Hungarian state make you Hungarian
The citizens of Hungary are called 'Hungarians' and those of Japan, 'Japanese'. That's what happens in all normal countries. What is your problem? You seem to have the Zionist trouble of confusing ethnic origins, religion, nationality and citizenship.
Loyalty to to the jewish democratic state does not make anyone into a Jew. It implies acceptance that a newcomer is entering into a jewish democratic state, where there are citizens that maybe jewish or not and enjoy liberal rights and in some cases group rights. I can be a religious traditionalist person that wants to live in a "religiously" secular France and I will have to pledge loyalty to the secular state, which means among other things that my "religiosity" should be limited to the private sphere. Do I have complains against that????? The gates are open to go somehwere else. What is not clear about this??????
pledging to israel makes u israeli, not jewish. 20% of israeli citizens are not jewish, just like not all hungarian citizens are ethnic hungarians.
that's all israel does, huh? reflect a broadly Jewish heritage and tradition? Gimme a break. Your attempt to transplant the arguments made by christians in the US arguing for the destruction of the wall between church and state are ludicrous in the Israeli context. The quality of life one has in Israel, what rights one enjoys, are determined by whether or not one is Jewish.
Yes, the difference is that there are no limits on the majority in Israel, unlike the other named democracies. There is no constitution in Israel that would have to address this. There is not even the rule of law in Israel, but military authority over and against minorities. Democracy??? The definition eludes me. What Jewish traditions dominate? Certainly not the diasporic tradition of justice, nor the Torah's warning to welcome the stranger. Militarism, ultra nationalism and exclusionary ideologies are not Jewish traditions or historical legacies---and a democracy they do not make.
It seems that these arguments are confusing these two distinct yet separate categories. Some countries are defined by civic nationalism and others are more defined by ethnic or even racial categories. Where does Japan fit into this?
.... that Israel separates out the notion of "nationality" from "citizenship", and that is something that "western" states simply do not do. You do know, don't you, that in Israeli law there is no such thing as an "Israeli national"? It simply does not exist, even though Israeli law does recognize "Israeli citizenship".
because you are becoming a JAPANESE or a HUNGARIAN citizen -- but obviously the pledge makes an Arab not a JEWISH, but an ISRAELI citizen. Your attempted abalogy says it all about not seeing the difference.
How about 'when in Israel"? Israel is unique she allows many faiths to practice in a Jewish majority Nation. Does Saudi Arabia allow other religions to practice undisturbed in Arabia? A loyalty oath is the first thing a citizen swears to or why live there? If you will not be loyal to your home Nation, move.
freedom of religious practice is allowed in Israel. Then why, when I was visiting Jerusalem as a Christian, was I spat on by six Haredi's, four of them Rabbi's? All cursing me for being a Christian. Dream on Petra.
I was abused as a Jew in the US. Too bad for me and too bad for you. But that doesn't characterise the country at all. Try to think straight, Michael.
when did this abuse take place? 1962, at some WASP country club? sorry, i don't want to trivialize any discrimination/abuse you suffered, but there is no way you can compare the commonplace abuse and disdain the haredi direct towards outsiders to whatever tiny remnant of anti-semitism remains in the US. The former is virulent, the latter hardly exists
Right on! Tell'em like it is!
The comparison tells precisely the opposite. In none of the examples from other countries the person has to vow allegiance to something which he or sshe is not part of or will never be part of. Immigre's in Norway become Norwegians, in the U.S. they become Americans, but Arabs who are not Jews will never become Jews. To let them swear to "a Jewish state" is certainly not in line with what normal democracies ask.
and not Jewish character
Did you hear what Marroco immigrants have to pass through if they want to become citizens in the Nethelands. Lets suppose that you are a traditionalist non liberal person that a demand to allegiance to a liberal constitution might be considered by you as an insult.? What do you do in that case? Isn't that the problem that part of Muslims have in western societies? Muslims would want very much to live in countries in where freedom of religion would mean exactly what it means in the United States for example. However, in European countries it means differently. European countries demand allegiance precisely to a national demos, which Muslims find quite difficult to do. In the jewish democratic state, a person should vow allegiance to the subtance of the state. That is a jewish state in which people who are not jewish have and should have individual rights, some times group rights and cultural rights. What is the problem or the difficulty with that? I have seen Algerians French that can hardly utter the words of the French national anthem in a football game, and they are still French citizens and must to vow loyalty to the French secular state . For them to vow loyalty to a secular state probably is worst that vowing loyalty to a Jewish state. Normal democracy indeed. That is what a majority wants.
Would that word, "legitimacy", outlaw Azmi Bishara's party ("Balad") which strives to create "a state for all its citizens"? Would that word outlaw the democratic effort by Israel's Arab citizens to gain rights equal to Israel's Jewish citizens? Or does the word mean that any non-Jew (a Palestinian refugee, let's say) who wishes to become a citizen has to agree to live as a dhimmi, or a second-class citizen, or an untouchable, or a slave?
Tis is what Norway, Britain, US and other democratic countries are.
To have all those Israel Arabs citizens who now declare they are from palestine think twice. There is nothing wrong for us to be the only Jewish state in the world with minorities whichare treated equally. Then minority citizens in their turn have to be loyal to the state, share in the burdens and plights and in return there will be equal rights. Pay your taxes, go to the army and such....
Once you define a state by religion any citizen not of that religion is by definition a second-class citizen.
According to UN Res. 181 Israel is a Jewish state.
Loyalty to the State is a Joke. Israel is a multi-cultural, multi-religious Jewish dominant state with a 'class-system' where there is no equality and justice for all ... and it is NOT a Democracy although (Christian) Zionists and other irritating people keep repeating it 'ad nauseum' . The typical hereditary character trait is > not accepting other peoples views or culture but always trying to change things. E.g. through Marxism, socialism, bolshevism, espiranto, new religions etc. and infiltrating every facet of society and trying to change it to your 'standards'. Even jumping onto Buddhism and trying to 'analyze' it and adding cabbalistic ideas. It is of no use looking at other countries and its democratic principles because you are going to interpret it your own way and change it and use it to dominate, instruct, and indoctrinate 'lower classes'. These are the hereditary traits of the temple priest (Kohen). It will not change and people will always rebel and be called Anti-Semites ... for ever .....creapy ya ?? it is not fair for the common people, Jew or Gentile. To know thyself leads to true freedom. For what it is worth, for people are not born to hate. Shalom.
There is nothing profane in saying "Jewish State", is that not what we have been fighting for all this time? Why is it OK to have dozens of Christian, Muslim nations, to have Buddhist nations and even Hindu nations, but not one Jewish one? Israeli Arabs live in a Jewish state, live with it.
especially in the Zionist context. Look, the problem is simply that Israel cannot demand that the world respect its wishes. Legitimacy is a quality that Israel has to earn through its actions. Earned by, for example, getting rid of the obnoxious "unrecognized villages" inside of its borders, and stop defining the whole non-Jewish population as a "demographic threat". If Israel treated its non-Jewish citizens as equal human beings, then maybe it wouldn't have to resort to Orwellian loyalty oaths that will only further erode its legitimacy in the eyes of the world.
As long as you decide that not all people who live in Israel qualify to be Jews you are not living in a Jewish state. You are living in a state where the population is predominantly Jewish. When you demand that all other groups of people in the country pledge allegiance to the dominating group you are trampling all over their rights. A democratic state is supposed to represent all of the people, not just the largest group. And there are no democracies that demand that the citizens are loyal to Christianity or any other religion, that goes against the foundation of democracy. Israeli Arabs live in Israel, live with it.
loyalty to the flag implies loyalty to Christianity as many European flags have crosses on them, as the Nordic countries, Malta etc. Germany has a cross as its emblem for its armed services.
and stay inside your own borders. Qatzrin is not inside those borders---it is in occupied Syrian heights.
Is it Hebrew? ..is it the joy of driving to the beach on Saturday rather than Sunday? Is it a Jewish majority? a Jewish President? Are non Jews "guests" or part and parcel of the state that does have certain elements inherited from "jewish" culture? Thank G`D we are more liberal than the French who are so rabidly "french" that they fear head coverings in public.
The fact that a flag has a cross on it in no way implies (except to someone looking for an excuse to complain) that to be loyal to the country means a loyalty to Christianity.
a Jewish state means a non-Islamic state, those Arabs that are so affronted by the word Jewish in the pledge will understand that the Islamic fight against Jews is no longer his business.
uses five-pointed starts, does this make all Aussies jews? Can all 25 million they all make aliyeh? The use of crosses, stars, etc. is merely historical - only G-d is immutable.