Israeli Academic Extremism
The Protests to the Citizenship Law
by the Israeli Left Draws the Ire of other Academics
If there were an annual award for hypocrisy, the Israeli leftists
now protesting a proposed amendment to the Citizenship Law would
surely have this year's title sewed up. The rhetoric has been
utterly over the top: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel
called
the amendment "anti-democratic"; author Sefi Rachlevsky termed it
"fascist"; Prof. Gavriel Solomon even
compared it to the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/10/11/israel%E2%80%99s-left-swearing-allegiance-to-constitution-is-fascist%E2%80%99/
Israel's Left: Swearing Allegiance to Constitution Is 'Fascist'
Evelyn Gordon
10.11.2010
If there were an annual award for hypocrisy, the Israeli leftists
now protesting a proposed amendment to the Citizenship Law would
surely have this year's title sewed up. The rhetoric has been
utterly over the top: the Association for Civil Rights in Israel
called
the amendment "anti-democratic"; author Sefi Rachlevsky termed it
"fascist"; Prof. Gavriel Solomon even
compared it to the Nazis' Nuremberg Laws.
Here are the actual facts. The amendment would require naturalized
citizens, who are currently required to take an oath of allegiance
only to the State of Israel, to instead swear allegiance to Israel
as a "Jewish and democratic state." That phrase first entered the
law books in 1992, when two new Basic Laws on human rights defined
the country as a "Jewish and democratic state."
According to both Israel's Supreme Court and to all the leftists now
vigorously protesting the proposed amendment, the 1992 Basic Laws
are part of Israel's constitution: they supersede all ordinary
legislation, and the Supreme Court has the right to overturn
ordinary legislation that it deems in contravention of the Basic
Laws. Indeed, the only people who challenge the Basic Laws'
constitutional status are conservatives, who argue that laws passed
by less than a quarter of the Knesset do not meet the minimal
procedural requirements for constitutional legislation.
But if you assume, as the entire left does, that these laws are part
of Israel's constitution, then the proposed amendment does nothing
more than require naturalized citizens to swear allegiance to
Israel's constitution.
And that, needless to say, is no more than virtually every other
Western democracy requires. The U.S., for instance,
requires naturalized citizens to swear to "support and defend
the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against
all enemies, foreign and domestic." Indeed, the U.S. goes well
beyond that: it also, for instance, requires naturalized citizens to
commit to do both army service and civilian national service "when
required by the law." Israel requires no such pledge of its
naturalized citizens.
So why do Israeli leftists object to something so seemingly
innocuous? Because many of those who would be required to take the
new oath are Palestinians who marry Israeli Arabs and then seek
Israeli citizenship. These Palestinians object to recognizing Israel
as a Jewish state, as do their Israeli Arab partners. Leftists thus
argue that the law is discriminatory, forcing naturalized
Palestinians to swear allegiance to something that violates their
own beliefs.
But there's a very simple answer to that. If you can't bring
yourself to swear allegiance to the constitution of the country
you're seeking to become a citizen of, you don't deserve to be given
citizenship. That's the rule throughout the democratic world, and
there's no reason why Israel should be an exception. And in Israel's
case, swearing allegiance to the constitution means acknowledging
the country as a "Jewish and democratic state."
It takes real creativity to portray an oath of allegiance to the
constitution as "fascist." But then no one ever accused the Israeli
left of lacking creativity.
|