Loyalty or Discrimination?

Jonathan Lis and Barak Ravid are the authors of an article about the controversial proposal to change the law of citizenship in Israel. The article entitled, “Cabinet Expected to back Proposed Loyalty Oath Law”, reflects on the proposal of Justice Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is suggesting a change in the the requirements for a non-Jew to become a citizen of Israel. If the change to the Law of Citizenship is passed it will require any non-Jew wishing to become a citizen to vow loyalty to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” The proposal has a lot of support and is expected to pass in the cabinet. However, the bill is considered discriminatory by the Labor Party which “supports the policy of social pluralism and equality.”  Many labor ministers are announcing that they will oppose the bill because  it will affect the “fate of all” of the Jewish citizens of Israel because now they will “be living in a new, officially approved ethnocratic, theocratic, nationalistic and racist country”. Israel’s Declaration of Independence includes, “the principle of equality, which prohibits discrimination and calls for full integration of the state’s Arab citizens.”  However, the original Law of Return which was passed in 1950 only gave Jews, those of Jewish ancestry and their spouses the right to migrate, settle and gain citizenship in Israel. This law combined religion, history, nationalism and democracy. The Law of return did not require for the immigrant to pledge loyalty and allowed any Jew regardless of affiliation, but restricted immigration to Jews only. This law was also challenged by Palestinian refugees who also claim a right of return to Israel. It often was challenged and labeled as offensive and ethnically discriminatory. In 1970 The Law of Return was amended and allowed even non Jews to immigrate to Israel also. This included converted Jews, children born to Jewish fathers, spouses of Jewish citizens and those who were born Jewish but converted to another religon. This allowed more immigrants to come but was still considered very discriminatory.   Because of this the Labor Party wants to make sure that Israel's future cannot be label as discriminatory towards anyone else. They believe that this new proposed change will only add to the discrimination that many non-Jewish immigrants already feel or have previously felt. The leaders of the opposition are Issac Herzog, Avishay Braverman and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer (who will not be attending the meeting, where the decision whether or not to pass the law will be made.) Some of the Likud ministers such as Dan Meridor and Benny Begin are also expected to vote in opposition to the change, but many of their final votes still “remain unclear.”  Others such as Defense Minister Ehud Barak support the amendment but have concerns and reservations. Ehud Barak has not yet revealed if he will vote for or against the change. Those close to Barak say that he does not oppose the amendment and does not consider it problematic. However, Barak issued a statement saying that, “this is a matter of conscience and as such I will allow the Labor ministers to vote in line with their conscience.” Barak’s main issue with the law is that he thinks it should reference Israel’s Declaration of Independence. Braverman and Dan Meridor have both lashed out against Barak’s unknown position on the law. Braverman accused Barak of “abandoning the values of Labor” and called the proposal “a stain on the government of Israel.”  Meridor is also siding with Braverman by arguing that “such an amendment to law could severely damage relations with the Arab population in Israel.” Meridor is expected to try to persuade the Likud ministers to delay the vote. Another opponent to the amendment is Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, who argues that there is no need for this law, because Israel is already respected as a Jewish and democratic state. And that by adding any additions to any of the Laws “can only be harmful.”  Arguments that ever since Beitenu came into government there have been more “loyalty laws” passed, which might be considered “to be discriminatory against Israel’s Arab citizens.”  Rivlin also points out that, “This law…could arm our enemies and opponents in the world in an effort to emphasize the trend for separatism or even racism within Israel.”

          Lis and Ravid did a good job finding direct quotes from the ministers that were in opposition to the proposed change to the Citizenship Law. They had a lot of quotes that showed the negative aspects of passing this law. However, if they had provided more sources for those in support of the Law they might have done a better job at informing the reader of both sides of the story. Because of their focus on those that are expected to vote against the law, it can be implied that they also do not agree with the change to the Law. Even though Lis and Ravid did not give their specific opinion on the issue, the fact that they did not get quotes from those in support of the Law shows that they were trying to make the reader feel in opposition to it also. Nevertheless, they provided many direct quotes from many different sources. They also provided links that gave me more information on the Law and the reasons why the Labor Party does not support it.  This made me feel as if they had done a lot of research when writing this article. The article also did a good job in staying on topic and providing the reader with greater understanding about how the change would make Israel seem more discriminatory and racist then if we just left the law as is.