Letters, October 22, 2010
Allegiance oath should not just be for non-Jews
I READ your editorial on “An Oath or a Curse?” (AJN 15/10) with interest. Broadly I agree with the views expressed. However, there is another perspective that I would like to share.
I accept the concept that new Israeli citizens be asked to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. What I take exception to is restricting this to non-Jews. The implication is that non-Jews are less loyal to these values than Jews. However, this may be untrue. There are significant numbers of Israeli Jews, particularly among the Charedi community, who express no allegiance to the Israeli state — in fact, they don’t recognise it. Some have gone so far as to attend a Holocaust denial conference as guests of the Iranian President. What kind of loyalty to the Jewish State is that?
All individuals wishing to become Israelis should be asked to take an allegiance pledge, irrespective of religion. To do less is discriminatory. If Israel wishes to be regarded as a democratic Jewish state, the cabinet needs to rethink the implications of this ­legislation.
Diaspora must protest against racist pledge
GEOFF Bloch’s (AJN 15/10) defence of Israel’s ¬≠ill-conceived loyalty oath argues that it need not be applied to Jewish immigrants because their acceptance of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state is axiomatic. Well, if this were so, then surely they would be proud and willing to take the oath. What could be more meaningful as the culmination of aliyah than to swear loyalty to a democratic Jewish state?
The sad truth is that a significant proportion of so-called olim, particularly  from ultra-Orthodox quarters, do not find the proposition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state to be at all axiomatic. Indeed, they are fundamentally troubled by both concepts. So in a perverse irony, non-Jews are expected to swear an oath of allegiance to the Jewish State while Jews are precluded from doing so! It is unedifying to witness the unholy alliance between the extreme right and the Charedi fundamentalists lead this government by the nose.
In reality, the loyalty oath is regressive, racist, politically motivated and counterproductive. One would expect that with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad literally at the doorstep, Israel would find more productive things to do than alienate its friends and divide its citizens. This is a clear instance in which well-meaning Zionists from the Diaspora can and should openly inform the Israeli Government of its folly.
Oath is harmful to equality in Israel
APART from all the negative aspects of Israel’s proposed amendment to its citizenship laws, it appears that the nonsense of this amendment accounts for nothing, as far as Geoff Bloch is concerned (AJN 15/10).
I mean, how can a non-Jewish candidate for Israeli citizenship, by having to declare that Israel is a Jewish democracy, be made to feel equal, when equality is a fundamental tenet of a democracy?
The irony here is that rather than promoting Israel as the Jewish State, which the whole world knows it is, this proposal will push Israel into a state under siege.
Swastika symbol is not always offensive
WHILE I agree with the general sentiment expressed in Kitia Altman’s letter (AJN 15/10), I take strong exception to the sweeping assertion — a quote from the commissioner hearing the case — that the swastika represents the “worst of human nature”.
Unfortunately, in the West, we may never be able to extricate the swastika from the atrocities of World War II, but we must also acknowledge the existence of this symbol dating back at least 8000 years. As the swastika is still in common use today throughout much of Asia, particularly in Buddhist and Hindu cultures, it is grossly insensitive to declare this symbol as nothing but a representation of monstrous cruelty. A sad irony of the West’s ignorance of the swastika is also evident in its frequent use for anti-Semitic vandalism; rarely does the vandal actually manage to scrawl it in the same direction and angle as the one appropriated by the Nazis.
Nevertheless, if we are to truly believe in the value and efficacy of multi-faith discourse, then we would do well to accord respect to the sacred symbols of others as we would wish for our own.
All for a debate but it must be balanced
AN advertisement placed in The AJN (08/10) publicises a talk on Israel’s treatment of its Arab minority. While I am all in favour of an in-depth discussion on Israel’s response to Palestinian attacks, I see from the language used that this meeting was likely to be biased heavily against Israel. Many of the statements in the advertisement are disputed. The language is highly emotive and the reference to the Holocaust is sneaky if not offensive. I have to say that I am not from a family that suffered from the Shoah so my distaste comes not from my personal background, other than from my Jewishness.
I wonder if the organisers realise that a very biased activity like this gives publicity to groups that are totally opposed to a Jewish state and often anti-Semitic. A proper, fair and logical discussion covering both sides would be a credit to our community, the one proposed will add nothing to our understanding, just gives ammunition to our enemies.
Why not highlight all the good Israel does?
“ENOUGH is enough”. This is the title of a large advertisement in The Australian, signed by the Independent Australian Jewish Voices (IAJV).
Now I am returning the same title to them. Everybody is entitled to their opinions, but to advertise it in newspapers is to me a cowardly way to do so.
It has been shown on TV many times how people on the flotilla attacked the Israeli soldiers with iron bars and other tools.
They were warned in advance that they were in foreign waters and that they should turn back. One of their answers was: “Jews, go back to Auschwitz”. Didn’t the members of the IAJV notice it? I wonder how would they react in such a situation.
With the rise of the anti-Semitism around the world, does embattled Israel need this?
Only citizens who live in their own country have the right to criticise it.
Why do those academics not advertise Israel’s courageous medical achievements in Haiti, or the fact that this tiny country accepted refugees from Darfur, or that Israel’s army is the only army in the world that tried to warn their enemies about forthcoming bombardments? I do not recall Hamas doing so before sending rockets to Sderot.
My Jewishness has always been and will remain to be a source of pride, in spite of the fact that I lived through the Holocaust and lost my entire family.
Taking a stand for peace prize winner
THE award of the Nobel Peace Prize to the imprisoned Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo is reminiscent of the case of Carl von Ossietzky, the German peace activist who was awarded the same prize in 1936. He had been arrested by the Gestapo in 1933 and, although very ill, was detained in concentration camps.
When he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nazi government demanded that he should decline it, which he refused to do. He was prevented from travelling to Oslo to receive the prize and the German press was forbidden to comment on the granting of the prize. In addition, the Nazis decreed that in future, no German could accept any Nobel Prize. Carl von Ossietzky died of tuberculosis in 1938.
It is to be hoped that the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize winner will not suffer a similar fate. This could ­perhaps be prevented if all peace lovers were to send suitable protest messages to the Chinese government.
For all this week’s letters, see this week’s issue of The AJN.
comments