Anti-Semitic BBC branding Israel as "Jewish state" once more

[Nessus]

Israeli cabinet backs controversial Jewish loyalty oath
The Israeli cabinet has approved a controversial bill that would require all non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state".

The law, which has angered Israel's Arab minority, still has to be passed by the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

A similar measure was rejected by the cabinet in May 2009.

If approved, the new law will affect a small number of non-Jews who seek Israeli citizenship.
Correspondents say it will mainly apply to Palestinians married to Israelis who seek citizenship on the basis of family re-unification, foreign workers, and a few other special cases.

Arabs make up 20% of Israel's population.

The proposal, which is being backed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had been welcomed by right-wing ministers in the 30-member coalition cabinet, including ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

Mr Lieberman's Yisrael Beitenu party made the oath the centrepiece of its campaign in the 2009 election, which eventually led to it becoming the second largest member of the governing coalition after Mr Netanyahu's Likud.

Pay-off demand

Israeli media reported that all five ministers from the left-leaning Labour party voted against the proposal, as did three members of Netanyahu's own Likud.

Before the vote, Labour ministers had said they expected a new freeze on settlement building as a pay-off should the law come into effect.

This is a key Palestinian demand in the current peace talks.

But both Mr Netanyahu and Yisrael Beitenu denied any deal involving an extension of the partial settlement freeze on Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The recently renewed peace talks are at risk of collapse over ongoing Jewish settlement building in the occupied West Bank, with the Palestinians threatening to walk out unless the freeze is reinstated.

Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is one of Israel's key demands in any eventual peace deal with the Palestinians.

To that end, Mr Netanyahu has rejected the right of return of Palestinian refugees, calling it a device to destroy the state of Israel by demography.

The Palestinians, in the form of the Palestinian Authority, have agreed to recognise Israel as a state, but have rejected the demand to recognise its Jewish character.

Also, the issue of requiring some citizens - mainly Israeli Arabs - to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has proved deeply divisive within Israeli society.

In proposing the requirement, right-wing parties had focused on perceived disloyalty among Israeli Arabs, drawing widespread criticism as well as support.

Don't these people have any shame? How awful is it to call a nation a Jewish nation just because the nation itself demands it from would-be citizens? The roots of anti-Semitism run deep and are mischievous; I hope people can see through this flagrant display of Jew-hate on the part of the BBC and realize that Israel really isn't a Jewish state, or if it is, it certainly shouldn't be called one!

[Hazir]

Yeah well, that whole 'Jewish State' whining was ridiculous then and it will be even more so now. Israel has been the 'Jewish State' from the day of its conception and the day it's no longer a Jewish State it might just as well end existing.

[Being]

...require all non-Jews taking Israeli citizenship to swear loyalty to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state"

Democratic? I'm pretty certain democracy implies political equality even in that part of the world.


edit: When they say non-Jews, do they refer to Jews by heritage or Jews by religion?

[Steely Glint]

That thread was amongst the funniest on the old CC.

[wiggin]

Democratic? I'm pretty certain democracy implies political equality even in that part of the world.


edit: When they say non-Jews, do they refer to Jews by heritage or Jews by religion?

*shrugs* I'm not a big fan of Yisrael Beiteinu or this loyalty oath nonsense, but there is no problem of a Jewish democratic state, nor does it somehow take away from political equality. Gadi Taub, a left wing professor at Hebrew University, has written a number of cogent pieces addressing this common misconception. Most nations today have a developed ethnic (and often religious) national identity that is not shared by all of its residents, but are definitely vibrant democracies (the US is in some ways a glaring exception to this general rule). While I think the oath bit is needlessly divisive and meaningless, it is not fundamentally acknowledging something undemocratic. His basic ideas are in these links:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...707301,00.html
http://www.gaditaub.com/eblog/the-id...ocratic-state/
http://www.gaditaub.com/eblog/are-li...-jewish-state/

You can also read up on early Zionist thinkers who were stressing that Judaism is not merely an ethnic identity or a religious one, but primarily a national identity (Ahad Ha'am has some great pieces on this, but you can find it pervading much of late 19th century/early 20th century Zionist literature). Thus, a 'Jewish democratic state' is no different from an 'Italian democratic state' or a 'German democratic state'; minorities who are not ethnically/culturally/nationally German or Italian are still protected and have just as much political freedom, but that doesn't take away from the national character of the state.

edit: also, about the little thread Nessie is referencing. I agree the debate there was largely over a silly issue (and there are much better beefs with the BBC's Middle East coverage), the point wasn't that Israel isn't a Jewish state or that you can't call it that. Rather, it was that Israel was specifically mentioned as the Jewish state in a sea of other listed countries that were not given a moniker based on their religious or national affiliation. Nevertheless, I assume such distinctions are largely irrelevant to what was clearly intended as an amusing aside.

[Loki]

I'm curious to see if Avoda is correct in this being the price for another settlement freeze. If so, I hope it's a pretty long freeze...

[wiggin]

Hardly. This was part of the original coalition agreements that got YB into the government in the first place.

For that matter, Netanyahu isn't too keen on a new freeze. In his view, he gave Abbas 10 months to seize the opportunity, who then dawdled until there was only 1 month left. He feels no urge to stick out his political neck over what he sees as Abbas' intransigence.

[Loki]

Why else would Avoda vote for this?

[wiggin]

They didn't. 5 Labor cabinet members (including Barak) voted against the motion. Barak dragged his heels a bit, mostly because he wants to keep the Defense Ministry and a say in the peace process, but they voted against it.

[Loki]

Odd. I believe BBC reported that they did.

[wiggin]

The BBC was wrong.

Barak claimed he would have voted for it if the language of the oath was changed to something like 'upholding the values of the State of Israel Declaration of Independence' (not too dissimilar from other oaths of citizenship; e.g. the US has following the Constitution) and applied equally to Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants. But after his suggestions were ignored, he and four other Labor cabinet members voted against it.

[Lewkowski]

I'm pretty certain democracy implies political equality even in that part of the world.

No it doesn't. Democracy doesn't imply political equality. If 51% of the population vote to take away the rights of 49% of the population its still a Democracy.

This is of course why pure democracy or pure representative democracy is bad and why America rocks for having a constitution where 51% of the people can't take away the guns of the other 49%.

[Dreadnaught]

Agreed with Wiggin —*and I find it more offensive when people are offended at the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. As if the Jews uniquely should be required to live within a nation-less nation.

[Being]

Agreed with Wiggin —*and I find it more offensive when people are offended at the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. As if the Jews uniquely should be required to live within a nation-less nation.

I'm not buying the nationality argument because Israeli is the nationality not Jewish. Most Jews in Israel come from other nationalities including Russian, German, Polish, the list goes on. When they moved to Israel their nationality changed from Russian, German, Polish...to Israeli. Their nationality did not change from non-Jewish to Jewish.

[Dreadnaught]

No, they were always nominally Jewish, that's why they moved to Israel.

Israel is just the name of the state. Without getting into too much about the meanings behind the words, but they juggled with a number of different names which sound weird in retrospect, such as "Judea", etc.

[Being]

No, they were always nominally Jewish, that's why they moved to Israel.

Do you mean U.S. Christians that become Israeli citizens change their nationality from American to Jewish?

[Loki]

I'm not buying the nationality argument because Israeli is the nationality not Jewish. Most Jews in Israel come from other nationalities including Russian, German, Polish, the list goes on. When they moved to Israel their nationality changed from Russian, German, Polish...to Israeli. Their nationality did not change from non-Jewish to Jewish.

In both the Russian Empire (and Soviet Union) and the Ottoman Empire, "Jew" was a nationality, and considering that those are the places where most Israeli Jews came from, I think your explanation lacks merit.

[littlelolligagged]

Everyone in Israel is not Jewish...

but how many US Christians do you know that have become Israeli citizens, Being?

[Dreadnaught]

Do you mean U.S. Christians that become Israeli citizens change their nationality from American to Jewish?

Any of them who did probably converted to Judaism, yes.

[Being]

Any of them who did probably converted to Judaism, yes.

So you see the Jewish State as a religious affiliation rather than heritage. Is that correct?

[Loki]

We've been through this before. The idea of a Jewish people has pre-nationalist roots, which means who is and is not a Jew is not defined entirely in nationalist terms. It's defined mainly in terms of loose adherence to a culture, which occurs either as a result of matrilineal descent or conversion to the Jewish culture, which entails belief in the Jewish God.

[Nessus]

The idea of a Jewish people has pre-nationalist roots, which means who is and is not a Jew is not defined entirely in nationalist terms.

Tautological kitty is tautological I can kinda get what you're saying but you might want to phrase it more clearly so it doesn't look like a rules-lawyering apologia.

[wiggin]

I'm not buying the nationality argument because Israeli is the nationality not Jewish. Most Jews in Israel come from other nationalities including Russian, German, Polish, the list goes on. When they moved to Israel their nationality changed from Russian, German, Polish...to Israeli. Their nationality did not change from non-Jewish to Jewish.

Bullshit. Though they may have been Jews residing in various countries (and even had citizenship in later years, though rarely equal citizenship), they generally had either a dual nationality or a primarily Jewish nationality. You could make the same argument about many Israeli Arabs - they do not have an Israeli national identity (whatever they may believe that to be) but rather a pan-Arab or Palestinian nationality. Doesn't change their place of residence or citizenship.

As I mentioned, Ahad Ha'am spent a lot of time on this point. In the wake of the Jewish enlightenment, many Jews were not religious and had little ethnic Jewish identity, yet still they maintained a stubborn sense of being 'Jewish'. Ginsberg went to great lengths to argue that the ties binding Jews together across borders and (lack of) religious practice were fundamentally national in nature. The proof, he argued, was in France (see the essay 'Slavery in Freedom', published in 1891). There, Jews were required by societal decree to suppress a second nationality above the French one in exchange for full emancipation. Jewish French intellectuals then took pains to express their pan-Jewish solidarity and identity as an outgrowth of religious feeling, which was quite at odds with their secular assimilated lifestyles. Ginsberg heaped contempt upon this moral and intellectual slavery required by denying a Jewish nationality.

Do you mean U.S. Christians that become Israeli citizens change their nationality from American to Jewish?

Taking citizenship isn't the same as joining a nation (and it's frequently impossible to do so, in fact). Becoming a citizen of the Jewish state hardly makes you any more Jewish than becoming a citizen of Germany makes you a German.

[Dreadnaught]

So you see the Jewish State as a religious affiliation rather than heritage. Is that correct?

It's not an either or. It's both for some. One for others. And yet another for others. That's why, as a state, Israel casts a fairly wide net on defining who is a "Jew" in terms of the bureaucracy. Though of course this leads to endless political fights.

[Loki]

Tautological kitty is tautological I can kinda get what you're saying but you might want to phrase it more clearly so it doesn't look like a rules-lawyering apologia.

The point is that many people conceive of ethnicity and nationality in terms that did not exist prior to the 19th century. Any identity that was formed before the age of nationalism would be more idiosyncratic in character.

[Being]

Taking citizenship isn't the same as joining a nation (and it's frequently impossible to do so, in fact).

Yes it is. The whole point of taking citizenship is to join the nation and share its laws and values.

Becoming a citizen of the Jewish state hardly makes you any more Jewish than becoming a citizen of Germany makes you a German.

Yet this law would require new citizens to swear they will not conflict with the Jewishness of the state.

[Nessus]

The point is that many people conceive of ethnicity and nationality in terms that did not exist prior to the 19th century. Any identity that was formed before the age of nationalism would be more idiosyncratic in character.

I guess, but even before that there were religious identity movements among the oppressed in this nation and that, had the dice rolled differently it'd be "ethnic christians" in a Mohammedan Europe fighting for their own parcel of land. And now that nationalism as you define it is actually here and shaping the way most people think, we have to try and work around that cognitive pain; that's why Jews have been seen as a a fifth column in all the big powers of the 20th century.

[wiggin]

Yes it is. The whole point of taking citizenship is to join the nation and share its laws and values.

No. Nationality != citizenship (outside of legal circles). I'm surprised you don't see this. People up in Basque country may be Spanish citizens but they sure as hell have a different national identity. People take citizenship for any number of reasons. They may wish to join a nationality (or they may already be in that nationality, and just wish to formalize a relationship or get political rights) but that's irrelevant to whether citizenship is the same thing as nationality.

Yet this law would require new citizens to swear they will not conflict with the Jewishness of the state.

Not precisely, but in principle, yes. So what? It doesn't make you Jewish, it's just that you recognize that the national identity of Israel is Jewish.

[agamemnus]

*facepalm*

Not precisely, but in principle, yes. So what? It doesn't make you Jewish, it's just that you recognize that the national identity of Israel is Jewish.

[Being]

I am against having "under God" in the pledge and I am against having "In God We Trust" on our currency but at least we don't force persons of different religions to swear to not conflict with our Christian identity. It's kinda lame to make anyone swear to an identity they don't share.