The plot thickens. In our last episode of “As the Jewish World Turns,” the once
sacrosanct maxim “we are one” was being attacked by Knesset members promoting
legislation on conversion that threatened to alienate vast numbers of Jews
around the world. With tension over the issue reaching a crescendo, Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu orchestrated a dramatic end-of-season cliffhanger by
keeping the proposed law from coming to a vote until the Knesset recessed for
the summer – leaving a large audience of avid Israel-watchers waiting
breathlessly for the show’s next installment.
This week the drama resumed
with an unexpected twist, boosting Israel’s media rating once again and assuring
our beleaguered nation yet another chance to be crowned “the country the world
most loves to hate.”
Even as Jewish leaders were still struggling to
defuse this spring’s “who is a Jew?” crisis, the prime minister overloaded them
a new one by raising the no less complex issue of “what is a Jewish state?”
He
did this by advancing legislation requiring non- Jews wishing to become citizens
to declare their loyalty to Israel “as a Jewish and democratic
state.”
Sorry, but this time the director has lost me
entirely.
ONE, THE proposal is oxymoronic, not to mention
duplicitous. Equality is fundamental to democracy, yet this declaration,
purportedly intended to uphold that very value, tramples on it instead. Only
non-Jews would be required to pledge their allegiance to Israel as a Jewish
state, thereby instantly turning it into a nondemocratic one. Doublespeak at its
finest. Words, in the words of George Orwell, “deliberately constructed for
political purposes.”
Two, it’s not sensible. Don’t get me wrong. I firmly
believe in Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
I was one of the
authors of the Jerusalem Program adopted by the World Zionist Organization in
2004 that calls for “strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic
state.”
But that same manifesto also calls for making of that state “an
exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character... rooted in the
vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of
the world.”
There needn’t be a disconnect between the two phrases, but
this week the cabinet created one.
In this newly proposed loyalty oath,
does “Jewish state” refer to a political entity inherently belonging to the
Jewish people – in which case we are back to grappling with the question of who
is a Jew, not to mention ignoring the Palestinians’ legitimate claims to
portions of the land. Or perhaps it refers to a state based on Jewish values, or
maybe Jewish law? Is it a country in which Bible is history, or metaphor? Maybe
it means a state which guarantees a Jewish majority – leaving open the question
of how a growing non-Jewish minority might eventually have to be dispensed
with.
All these options are open to innumerable interpretations and
multiple manifestations. As a non-Jew I certainly wouldn’t pledge allegiance to
a Jewish state until I knew just what “they” had in mind. I probably wouldn’t do
it then either, even if I’d had every intention of being a loyal citizen. There
are some things that are just too hard to say. For God’s sake, Jews in America
are incensed by morning prayers in public schools even when their own children
are excused from attending them. And how many Jews would be prepared to live
anywhere where they had to swear loyalty to Christendom, even if guaranteed full
equality and religious freedom?
Three, it’s not wise. Passage of this amendment
to the Citizenship Law is a gratuitous and blatant provocation. And one
with no positive practical implications. Any idea of how many non-Jews
actually become naturalized citizens each year? A maximum of 200 to 250,
primarily after marrying into the families of Arab citizens. Clearly our
prime minister and foreign minister don’t really fear that their disloyalty
would topple the Jewish state. The animosity and sense of estrangement that
their initiative will breed at home, and the legitimacy it will lend to our
detractors abroad, constitute a far greater danger to our survival.
BUT
PERHAPS I am being overly sensitive, a bleedingheart liberal concerned about
defending everyone else’s rights but not his own. So I decided to investigate
the matter to gain a little perspective and accessed the oaths required of
naturalized citizens in a dozen countries: the United States, the United
Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Jamaica, the
Philippines, Singapore, Norway and Romania. Turns out they have a number of
things in common.
None of them require fidelity to a Jewish state. That’s
not the surprising part. What I didn’t expect to discover, however, is that
neither do any of them require faithfulness to any other religious, ethnic or
social group.
Nor do any of them define their countries in such
terms.
What naturalized citizens in these places are required to do is
declare their commitment to the state and its laws, and – in some cases – the
monarchy. Some also require an undertaking to fulfill one’s duties and
obligations, or to abide by the constitution and uphold the values embodied
therein – though those values are never defined more specifically than by the
terms “democracy” and “human rights.”
Furthermore, none of these
countries include in their process of naturalization any phrase that in any way
would distinguish between, cause discomfort to or create dissonance for
applicants of different ethnic, religious or national origins.
Of course,
another thing these countries have in common is that no one is challenging their
legitimacy. While not a minor point, and certainly not one to be dismissed
cavalierly, the way to counter this vile campaign against our very right to
exist is not by providing our adversaries with fuel for their fires. There is a
large discerning and undecided public out there – including many thousands of
our own youngsters – whose opinions matter to us and who just might be swayed
against us by our adoption of a law easily interpreted as racist or
undemocratic.
I am also concerned about losing even some of our loyal
sponsors with the direction in which things are moving. As one problematic
episode after another airs, they are becoming increasingly hesitant about
backing our product, and finding it progressively more difficult to stand up for
our cause.
For all these reasons, it is urgent that we rally against the
passage of this legislation. Though approved by the cabinet it has yet to be
approved by the Knesset.
It is not too late to remind Binyamin Netanyahu
that if over the last six decades we had invested more in assuring the equality
of our minorities and the development of a society that engendered the
allegiance of all its citizens, we would have a far more authentically Jewish
state than we do at present, and one in which we would not have to worry about
legislating loyalty. As he found a way to hold off one impending crisis last
spring, perhaps our prime minister can still be persuaded to find a way to hold
off the one that is now looming.
In the meantime, please stay tuned in. Anything could happen in the next
episode of “As the Jewish World Turns,” and rumors have it that there
might even be a role opening up for you.
The
writer is the vice chairman of the World Zionist Organization and a
member of the Jewish Agency Executive. The opinions expressed here are
his own.
keepdreamingjpost@gmail.com