As politics have been increasingly paranoid around the world, the newest proposal in Israel amp up tensions.
I have been thinking about the ubiquity of paranoid politics, as I wonder whether the Israeli – Palestinian peace process has any chance for success, and as I read the news from Israel concerning a bill that would require non -Jewish immigrants to take an oath of allegiance to “Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
If we aren’t paying close attention, this amendment may seem to be no big deal. After all, hasn’t Israel all along been the Jewish homeland and a democratic state? But a loyalty oath that commits to the official formulation of Israel as a Jewish state is clearly directed at the rights and citizenship status of Israeli citizens of Palestinian origins. Although they are twenty per cent of the population, they are being asked to demonstrate their loyalty, publicly confirming their second class status facing this symbolic act and a variety of other oaths of allegiance.
There is a sense that they are being assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, and they have to demonstrate their innocence repeatedly. Many Israelis and friends of Israel, elected officials, including those inside the ruling coalition, are deeply worried.
The same politicians who came up with this oath have additional proposals, as Gideon Levy, a columnist for the Israeli liberal newspaper Haaretz, puts it “a loyalty law for Knesset members; a loyalty law for film production; a loyalty law for non-profits; putting the Palestinian catastrophe, the Nakba, beyond the scope of the law; a ban on calls for a boycott; and a bill for the revocation of citizenship.”
Some might suggest that Levy is a left wing critic who exaggerates. But Eli Yishai, the Interior Minister, has apparently been working to show that Levy’s worst fears are a reality, bringing paranoid politics to its logical extension, proposing to strip Israelis of citizenship for disloyalty. “’Declarations are not enough in fact against incidents such as [MKs] Azmi Bishara and Hanin Zoabi,’ Yishai said in reference to two Israeli Arab lawmakers, one who is suspected of having contacts with enemy states and the other who took part in a Gaza-bound aid flotilla. “Anyone who betrays the state will lose his citizenship.” (link)
Yishai defines his opponents as enemies, including legitimately elected members of the the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, and the prospects for the continuation of democracy dims.
Levy identifies the looming threat: “Remember this day. It’s the day Israel changes its character. As a result, it can also change its name to the Jewish Republic of Israel, like the Islamic Republic of Iran…From now on, we will be living in a new, officially approved, ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country… ”
Even paranoids have enemies. Israel, to be sure, is threatened by its neighbors and there is ambiguity and ambivalence in the attitudes of Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. But the paranoid style of politics leads threatening problems to define political identity, and makes it next to impossible to deal with complex political challenges, insisting on resolute clarity and steadfastness, where openness to ambiguity and flexibility are the only ways to a democratic and just outcome.
The breakdown of the talks between the Palestinians and the Israelis over settlements is an immediate looming crisis for the Obama administration. It is soberly explained in the American press that Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot be as flexible as the American administration would like because if he is, his coalition will collapse. But it is that coalition, which includes political extremists, some call them Fascists, that is probably the largest obstacle for peace. Think of the people carrying the craziest signs at Tea Party Demonstrations and at the town hall meetings last summer, imagine them included in a governing coalition, with their leader (Avigdor Liberman) as the Foreign Minister. This is the most significant threat to the peace talks, indeed the threat to Israeli and Palestinian democracy and dignity.
Thanks for this piece. I would just add three elements to your reading of Levy’s fears to be a case of paranoid politics which exceeds the undermining of Palestinians rights and identity: (1)Netanyahu requested the justice minister to look into expanding the oath to Jews asking to become citizens: http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/netanyahu-wants-loyalty-oath-bill-to-include-jews-as-well-1.319864 (2) last week a proposal to require loyalty to the state from voters was rejected though is a clear sign of the instability of the political system: http://www.haaretz.com/news/knesset-rejects-proposal-requiring-voter-loyalty-to-state-1.202685
Today I see in Haaretz a proposal to ban East Jerusalem palestinians from tour guiding in Jerusalem, as “tourists should get an Israeli viewpoint” : http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/mks-propose-banning-east-jerusalem-arabs-from-guiding-in-the-city-1.319890
I tend to look at it from a somewhat different angle.
Let me first only add that indeed Netanyahu instructed that any person who becomes an Israeli should make this statement/commitment.
Many countries ask their citizens to pledge allegiance to the state. What is so strange about Israel asking the same? Well, the thing that bothers me – as a secular Israeli Jew – is to what exactly does this conservative clerical government ask people to commit themselves to? to a “democratic Jewish” state. Democracy is not a uniform essence and has changed definitions as well. It is perceived (certainly in many liberal western countries) as a political form of governing that allows, indeed demands, making continuous informed choices, maintaining human rights, equality, justice, respect for minorities, and many attempt to separate politics from transcendental dictates. I hasten to add that it is not entirely clear whether such a separation is sought uniformly by all, or whether it is beneficial or detrimental to liberal democracies, or to religion. In any event, Judaism means many things. In the main, it has at least four major variants: secular, reform, conservative, orthodox and ultra-orthodox. Undoubtedly, the secular and reform variants feel very comfortable with democracy, for almost all practical purposes, conservatives too. The Orthodox and ultra-orthodox have very serious problems with a Jewish democracy. In fact, members of their political leadership stated more than once that they prefer a theocracy (what is referred to as an Halakhic State).
In Israel, a state that did not separate state from religion and has no constitution, the orthodox and ultra orthodox dominate and reign in a number of significant daily areas (food, weekend shopping, marriage, and more), not to mention very strong influence in other areas (e.g., forcing El Al, Israeli airlines, not to fly on weekends). In this country Judaism means Orthodox and ultra-orthodox. And, it means that increasingly so. National, civil and secular Israelis seem to be in a cultural retreat and this vacuum is filed by religion of these variants. That is, and for Jews, there is a shift from Judaism as a cultural entity to Judaism as a religious entity (of the orthodox camp; ultra orthodox versions).
Asking people to commit themselves to an Israel means asking them to commit themselves to state whose major ambiance as “Jewish” is more religious in the orthodox or sect-like ultra-orthodox versions. Now, do you want to pledge allegiance to that?
I am stating all this as a secular Jew and have not even touched two other complex and thorny issues – that of non-Jews that will be required to pledge allegiance to such a political entity and giving an answer to the question of what exactly is the nature of democracy in Israel as compared to democracy in other countries?
Thank you Nachman. I agree with your reading of the ulra-orthodox threat to the identity of the already dialectic ‘Jewish and democratic’ and its secular citizens. However, I don’t think that this (Halachaic state) is Netanyahu’s imaginary of the “Jewish and Democratic” and not of most of the people who voted for him (he has a messianic notion which might prevent him from letting go of the territories, but this is not for here and now)Therein lies the bigger threat that Jeff pointed to, namely of a paranoid, first, then simply nationalistic and fanatic(without the second modifier– democratic) state. So we can ask what went wrong with the “democratic” and how to bring it back to the imaginary universe of Israelis: Jews, Muslims and migrants, and alongside that question worry about the ultraorthodox imaginary, which goes hand in hand with the democratic decline. This is why I put together Netanyahu’s idea to ask for that twisted oath from Jewish migrants (that will totally change the meaning of ‘Aliya’, too) with the ban on East Jerusalem tourguides from guiding tourists.
Being an Israeli Ashkenazi Jew, I often wonder what it feels like to be a Palestinian Israeli/Israeli Arab. It couldn’t feel very welcoming; Definitely not warm and fuzzy.
Now, Arabs encounter the “Jewishness” of the state quite often–when their building proposals get denied, when the expansion of Arab towns is truncated, when job-ads for a restaurant read that the candidate “must be ex-military” (hungry customers, apparently, are very dangerous, requiring military expertise). But when things are left unsaid people can sometimes imagine their lives without constantly confronting their status. In silence, there is some room to imagine yourself as part of the country, to deny that you are a second class citizen.
What this proposal does is to eliminate this possibilitiy of denial. In fact, this is precisely what it is meant to do. As such, this proposal is another little nail in the coffin of a possible “Israeli Arab” identity. Instead of holding on to a semblance of inclusion, an increasingly viable possibility becomes being a “Palestinian with an Israeli passport.”
This is the meaning of the series of acts and proposals Israel is passing, and this, too, might be exactly what its architects aim for. After all, it is part and parcel of the Foreign Minister’s dream of a state “clean” of Arabs, where peace will involve moving Arab-Israeli settlements to the Palestinian state. After all, if they become “Palestinians with an Israeli Passport” it is so much easier to take away the passport.
I am not sure what Bibi’s “vision” (or nightmare ?) is. He probably wants to stay in power and will do what he feels is necessary for that. And yet, he incorporated into his government ultra orthodox parties like Aguda and Shas and these parties, inch by inch, increase the theocratic nature and ambiance of Israel. He had – and still does – a choice of taking Kadima into his coalition instead of these two essentially non-democratic parties but he did not. So whatever ideas he may have, religion (orthodox and ultra orthodox varieties)play a major part in them. Hence, regardless of what image he may have about Israel,theocratic elements that he CHOSE for his coaltion, and gave them central roles and influence (e.g., ministry of the interior to Shas)become major players in what the state of Israel is. That this government with Shas leading the pack, shamelessly, plans to deport a very large number of non-Jewish children one can easily hear the religious drums pounding excuses. I am talking on practical, everyday realities, not ideas or images. Given the strong theocratic influence (in practice) pledging allegiance to Israel these days is – to a very laqrge extent – pledging allegiance to a state whose concept of a democracy is quite different from the concept and practice as we know it in such countries as the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. Ideas are interesting and very important, but practical everyday practices are important too.
Great post Jeff. Thanks.
I think that Netanyahu is defining ‘Judaism’ as an ethnicity, more so than a religion or ethical ideology, in this case. While it does assign an ideology to the state, it may not be a religious ideology. The religious is already apparent in the Israeli political rhetoric of settlements, past wars, and nationalism. Religion is inherent in all politics. Ethnicity, however, is not, which is what is troubling. This oath is a specific move in opposition to ‘Israeli Arab’ political mobilization… An attempt to neutralize elements of (potential) opposition within government and throughout the Israeli political public. Jonathan Cook points out that “this law is unapologetically racist. It applies only to applicants for citizenship who are non-Jews. That is not because, as most observers assume, all Jews in Israel would willingly make the pledge but because one significant group would refuse, thereby nullifying their right to become Israelis. That group is the ultra-Orthodox, religious fundamentalists distinctive for their black dress, who are the fastest growing group among Israel’s Jewish population. They despise Israel’s secular state institutions and would make a loyalty oath only to a state guided by divine law”(http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11573.shtml). This point can be debated but it illuminates a weakness in Israeli politics. There is a clear paranoia (to keep with the theme of the post), especially among Israeli Jews themselves and throughout the coalition government. At some point it may be interesting to discuss further the fragility of many coalition governments throughout the world.