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.

Jewish Activists and the Gaza Blockade.

 In the article called “Jewish Gaza-Bound Activists: IDF used excessive force in naval raid”, the journalist Yanir Yagna  reports that the Israel Defense Force is responsible for using excessive force to take over the ship.  The boat was carrying nine Jewish activists, and had set sail from Famagusta harbor located in Cyprus. The activists were hoping to breach the blockade that Israel had set up outside of Gaza, on September twenty sixth two thousand ten. The Israel Defense Force issued a statement that they had “peacefully boarded” the Jewish aid boat and that “it is currently being led to the Ashdod seaport along with its passengers.”  However, the nine passengers did not agree with the Israel Defense Force’s report of how the ship was seized. Yonatan Shapira one of the passengers of the ship and a former Israel Air Force pilot stated that “no words to describe what we went through during the take over.”   Yonatan also claimed that the activists were met with extreme violence from the Israel Defense Forces, even though the activists were displaying no violence themselves.  He claims that he was beat and hit with a taser gun by one of the soldiers. Yonatan’s description varies a lot from what the Israel Defense Forces spokesman is saying happened.  Nevertheless he and the other eight activists stand proud of their efforts to breach the blockade. He issued a statement saying that Israel’s siege on Gaza is an immoral, un-Jewish, crime that must me spoken out about.

            Yonatan’s claims against the Israel Defense Forces are being conformed by other sources as well. Eli Usharov, a reporter for Israel’s channel 10 also conformed that the take over was very brutal, even though the violence was unnecessary.  However, Usharov also said that “the activists managed to have a serious heart-to-heart with the troops once they were all placed on board the military vessel, and that “overall the atmosphere was good””.  Another source named Reuben Moscowitz, who was also one of the activists aboard the boat, was shocked that the soldier’s could be so violent to their fellow Jews. Moscowitz is a Holocaust survivor, and compares the blockade of Gaza to his experience in the concentration camps. Moscowitz states that he “cannot live with the fact that the State of Israel is imprisoning an entire people behind fences.” 

            The reliability of this article seems to come from very direct sources. The journalist seemed to have a lot of information and personal recollections of events that took place. He took the time to get direct quotes from the activists that were involved, and provided their names as well as other information about them. He also gave a quote that showed the Israel Defense Forces side of the story.  Overall the reliability of the article seemed strong.  He also did a good job at providing more then one source of information. When he was describing how the activists were unfairly treated, the fact he had three sources saying that the soldiers acted in a violent manner gave the activists more validity then the Israel Defense Forces. Though the author does not say that he is taking a particular side of the issue, and writes very objectively, you can infer from his sources that he is defending the activist more then he is the Israel Defense Forces. He uses the quotes and the backgrounds of the activists to draw the reader into the story and cause the reader to relate more with Yonatan, Eli, and Reuben then with the nameless and faceless Israel Defense Force.

Missing... But Not Forgotten.

The article that I choose to read had a huge affect on me as I was reading it. The article was about a young Israeli solider named Gilad Schalit. Gilad has recently been named Jerusalem Post’s person of the year and stands as symbol of sacrifice for many Israelis. His story however, does not have a happy ending thus far. About four years ago on June 25, 2006 Gilad was taken hostage by Hamas during a cross boarder raid. His parents pleaded for his safe return the very next day June 26, their desperation was felt across all of Israel. Hama’s however made it very clear that Gilad would not be released unless Israel’s government agreed to release every underage female Palestinian prisoner, as well as, one thousand other prisoners; many of whom where being held in Israeli prisons on terror charges. Since that horrifying day four years ago Gilad’s parents Noam and Aviva Schalit have bargained and begged the Israeli government to take action in their son’s safe return. Though no action to have Gilad returned has yet been taken, Noam and Aviva have never spoken an unpatriotic word about Israel, and even encouraged their younger daughter to enroll in the army also. Their undying patriotism and strength gives many Israelis hope and encouragement. Many look up to Gilad as a symbol of strength and patriotism, and think about him as they send their own children off to join the army after high school. Gilad’s whereabouts are currently unknown, and he has had no medical care since he has been taken hostage in 2006. And the terms of his release divide many Israelis, faced with the option of freeing thousands of potentially deadly prisoners… for the return of one of their own sons, a young solider who was standing up to defend the country HIS country, THEIR country.


Gilad’s story affected me on many personal levels. It is hard for me being an American, growing up in a safe and sheltered environment, to put a face on war. Reading about Gilad made me realize how real war really is. It made me realize that he was not that much different then myself. And that he too did not imagine this to be his faith. I felt the frustration in the words that the Daniel Gordis the author of this article wrote. His undying passion and anger about how long Gilad has been prisoner is clearly felt. It was almost as if Gilad was apart of Gordis’s own family. In fact more then once he mentioned “Gilad has become OUR son.” A son of Israel, someone whose name is mentioned in thousands of synagogues around the world, a son who has become a house hold name and hero to millions of Jewish people around the world. As I read the article I could feel the emotion that was put into each line of this memorable story. I began to want to know more about Gilad and how he ended up with this unimaginable faith. As I looked on the internet I found pictures and even a video of Gilad. As I watched this video I felt like each of us should take the time to watch it, and put a face to war. To see that Gilad Schalit is not that different from each of us, he is young, smart, and has his whole life in front of him. But he has not been free for the past four year. He cannot go out and live his life, and purse his dreams, fall in love, or even see his family. He is trapped-waiting for an ending to this nightmare, which has not come for four years.