“I swear to respect the laws of the United States as a white and democratic state.”
Or, how about: “I swear to respect the laws of the United States as a Christian and democratic state.”
Maybe this one? “I swear to respect the laws of the United States as a male and democratic state.”
Or this? “I swear to respect the laws of the United States as a heterosexual and democratic state.”
There are people, *ahem* Glenn Beck and the Tea Partiers, in the States that would be down for any and/or all of those statements to be added to the loyalty oaths new Americans recite upon being granted citizenship (yes, we have loyalty oaths too). But rational human beings who understand the importance of a truly liberal democracy (not liberal as in Pelosi, but liberal as in the opposite of illiberal democracy) understand that there is a dissonance in each of those statements. Though, let’s face it, they’re all true; straight, white, Christian men are privileged in this country. But to put it in our loyalty oath would be giving such privileges and inequities (further) institutional legitimacy and finality.
Most of us, especially American Jews, would fight tooth and nail against such an affront to reason, human decency and democratic values (especially to the second line in the list above). So, why is it OK for Israel to do it?
Earlier this week, Bibi’s cabinet approved an amendment, now headed to the Knesset, that would require non-Jews seeking citizenship to recite a new iteration of the loyalty oath:
“I swear to respect the laws of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
So, the Israeli state would give legitimacy to the idea that you (the non-Jew) can live here, but you’re not really one of us. We don’t really trust you. You will never belong. You will never be equal. You will always be suspect. You will always be Other.
I get it, Bibi. I really do. You’re trying to balance and navigate a fragile coalition cabinet held together by a thread. Avigdor Lieberman is certifiably nuts, but you’re trying to gain some concessions from the far-right ultra-nationalists. It’s all politics. Give them a largely symbolic victory and maybe you can make a very practical move to extend the moratorium on building in the settlements. But this isn’t right.
For the record, I find the idea of loyalty oaths anywhere rather unsettling. Psychoanalyze away. But, as loyalty oaths go, this proposal is particularly repugnant. It sets finality to the Palestinian Question. If the Israeli government adopts such a measure, they tell the world: To hell with it! We have no desire for reconciliation, peace or compromise on anybody’s terms but the far right’s. We have no desire to see an inclusive and diverse secular democracy. We have no desire to recognize the pain or legitimacy of displaced Palestinians or Arab-Israeli citizens. We have our sandbox and we’re not gonna share it without a recognition that non-Jews are second-class and live at the pleasure of the Jewish state. Unfortunately, this is true regardless; Palestinians in Israel are second-class.
This is the wrong direction. It is not a solution. It will only serve to cause more pain and violence. I will reiterate what I have said before: Only together, calmly and rationally, with respect to both sides emotional investment in the issue at hand, can we evan begin to think about solutions to this conflict that can best serve all parties involved.
Calmness and rationality go out the window unless we begin from a standpoint where everyone at the table is equal.
