Netanyahu backs Jewish loyalty oath

Einhard

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11491988

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has re-introduced a proposal to require any non-Jew taking Israeli citizenship to swear allegiance to Israel as a "Jewish and democratic state".

The proposal has angered Israel's Arab minority, which makes up 20% of Israel's population.

Labour party ministers, who also oppose the bill, say they expect a new freeze on settlement building as a payoff.

This is a key Palestinian demand in the current peace talks. The Israeli cabinet is expected to back the proposal on Sunday. It then goes before the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

If approved, the new law will affect a small number of non-Jews who seek Israeli citizenship.

It will not affect those who seek citizenship under the law of return which gives people of Jewish ancestry the right to settle in Israel and gain 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.

Possible 'payoff'?

The proposal, which is being backed by Mr Netanyahu, has been welcomed by right-wing ministers.

"Everyone who wants to receive Israeli citizenship must swear loyalty to the state of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," ultra-nationalist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told public radio.

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.

But the Labour Party, the junior coalition partner, has questioned the proposed change to Israel's citizenship law.

"I hope that Mr Netanyahu's support is a payoff to Mr Lieberman, so that the prime minister will be able to extend the freeze without breaking apart his coalition," an unnamed minister told Israel's Yediot Ahronot newspaper.

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

The recently renewed peace talks are currently 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.

Divisive issue

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.

They say it is unnecessary, that it ignores the Israeli-Arab citizens of Israel, and that in effect, it invalidates the right of return of refugees from previous wars.

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.

While I'd be concerned about requiring new citizens to swear an oath to Israel as Jewish, as opposed to Israel itself, it looks as if this might allow Netanyahu to placate his right wing allies and push through a further settlement freeze. If this is the case, then I feel it would be an acceptbale compromise to make, especially as it relates only to new citizens of Israel. However, it might cause problems were some form of right of return to be considered under the current talks, although I'd consider that to be unlikely in the extreme. What do others think? And if we could avoid it degenerating into the usual tit for tat about the situation in the region, it would be helpful.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Hamas are gonna love this.

Jewish state ffs. Maybe Ireland should make anyone wishing to get citizenship here swear an oath to recognise us as a white or catholic state.

The stuff that country gets away with is ridiculous.

Yitzhak Rabin

I don't see how it is in anyway related to the settlement freeze.

Also, I find the oath laughably contradictory. "A Jewish and democratic state" How can it be both? Surely one of the key components of a true democracy is an indifference to race or religion.

metrovelvet

yekahs wrote: »

I don't see how it is in anyway related to the settlement freeze.

Also, I find the oath laughably contradictory. "A Jewish and democratic state" How can it be both? Surely one of the key components of a true democracy is an indifference to race or religion.

When you become a US citizen you have to swear allegiances. In primary school we had to stand up every morning, face the flag, put our right hands on our hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag and to the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands... etc etc.

The Jewish State of Isreal has blurred the lines between religious faith and nationhood and dare I say it race.

So my question is, has Judaism transformed itself from a faith into a nationality?

It is not unusual to swear loyalty to your nation.

irishh_bob

Einhard wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11491988



While I'd be concerned about requiring new citizens to swear an oath to Israel as Jewish, as opposed to Israel itself, it looks as if this might allow Netanyahu to placate his right wing allies and push through a further settlement freeze. If this is the case, then I feel it would be an acceptbale compromise to make, especially as it relates only to new citizens of Israel. However, it might cause problems were some form of right of return to be considered under the current talks, although I'd consider that to be unlikely in the extreme. What do others think? And if we could avoid it degenerating into the usual tit for tat about the situation in the region, it would be helpful.

what makes you believe netanyahu wants to freeze settlements , the guy has always been extreme right himself and has always opposed the idea of a two state solution

Yitzhak Rabin

metrovelvet wrote: »

When you become a US citizen you have to swear allegiances. In primary school we had to stand up every morning, face the flag, put our right hands on our hearts and pledge allegiance to the flag and to the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands... etc etc.

The Jewish State of Isreal has blurred the lines between religious faith and nationhood and dare I say it race.

So my question is, has Judaism transformed itself from a faith into a nationality?

It is not unusual to swear loyalty to your nation.

Absolutely, and if the oath had asked people to pledge an oath to an "Israeli and democratic state" I would have no problem whatsoever.

However by asking its citizens to swear an oath to "Jewish" state, it is either speaking of an ethnicity or a religion, both of which are discriminatory and undemocratic. Thats where I see the hypocrisy.

wes

A terrible idea imho. Asking people to swear to an Israeli state, that is a nation of all its citizens, regardless or race or religion would be more reasonable.

metrovelvet

wes wrote: »

A terrible idea imho. Asking people to swear to an Israeli state, that is a nation of all its citizens, regardless or race or religion would be more reasonable.

I think [open to correction] you have to be Jewish to be a citizen though.

OhNoYouDidn't

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think [open to correction] you have to be Jewish to be a citizen though.

No, but they have tiered civil rights with certain Jews on top, less orthadox in the middle, Christians and then the indgenious Arabs at the bottom.

Nothing at all surprises me about the current Apartheit Israeli state. This seems to be the logical conclusion of recent policies.

metrovelvet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, but they have tiered civil rights with certain Jews on top, less orthadox in the middle, Christians and then the indgenious Arabs at the bottom.

Nothing at all surprises me about the current Apartheit Israeli state. This seems to be the logical conclusion of recent policies.

I wont say what popped into my head after reading that. The ACLU will come after me with a knife and a rope.

BlaasForRafa

wes wrote: »

A terrible idea imho. Asking people to swear to an Israeli state, that is a nation of all its citizens, regardless or race or religion would be more reasonable.

For once I agree with you. This is a boneheaded move by Netanyahu/Lieberman, hopefully the Labor party will stymie it.

metrovelvet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No, but they have tiered civil rights with certain Jews on top, less orthadox in the middle, Christians and then the indgenious Arabs at the bottom.

Nothing at all surprises me about the current Apartheit Israeli state. This seems to be the logical conclusion of recent policies.

I wonder if that will become the paradigm for Jewish communities everywhere.

bernardo mac

It only reminds me to continue to boycott goods from the expansionist and undemocratic State of Israel

The Corinthian

I'm a little confused... are American citizens required to take this oath now too?

BlaasForRafa

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm a little confused... are American citizens required to take this oath now too?

eh? At the moment NOBODY is required to take this oath as it is a proposal, it hasn't even gone for debate in the knesset.

Also, just to clarify, the oath would only apply to new applicants for citizenship in Israel, not to existing citizens.

Yitzhak Rabin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

eh? At the moment NOBODY is required to take this oath as it is a proposal, it hasn't even gone for debate in the knesset.

Also, just to clarify, the oath would only apply to new applicants for citizenship in Israel, not to existing citizens.

Has Israel's Supreme Council no provisions against discrimination based on race/religion?

OhNoYouDidn't

yekahs wrote: »

Has Israel's Supreme Council no provisions against discrimination based on race/religion?

If it does, most ineffective supreme court ever....

Nodin

Einhard wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11491988



While I'd be concerned about requiring new citizens to swear an oath to Israel as Jewish, as opposed to Israel itself, it looks as if this might allow Netanyahu to placate his right wing allies and push through a further settlement freeze. If this is the case, then I feel it would be an acceptbale compromise to make, especially as it relates only to new citizens of Israel. However, it might cause problems were some form of right of return to be considered under the current talks, although I'd consider that to be unlikely in the extreme. What do others think? And if we could avoid it degenerating into the usual tit for tat about the situation in the region, it would be helpful.

Forgetting about any right of return, with 20% of the Israeli population Non-Jewish its absolute madness. How can you command any sort of loyalty from your citizens when they have to essentially pledge loyalty to a state that (proposedly) would be associated with a religon/ethnicity.

And of course for many Jews it drags up the 'Who is a Jew' question again - theres no small degree of friction between the various strands as it is. And what about the non-practicing agnostic/atheist/non-synagogue attending people.....its a can of worms for all concerned.

Yitzhak Rabin

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

If it does, most ineffective supreme court ever....

I know, I just want to hear if they even have a paper adherence to equality, because, if they don't even have that, then they certainly have no basis for calling themselves 'the only democracy in the ME' (leaving aside whatever they do in practice.)

BlaasForRafa

yekahs wrote: »

I know, I just want to hear if they even have a paper adherence to equality, because, if they don't even have that, then they certainly have no basis for calling themselves 'the only democracy in the ME' (leaving aside whatever they do in practice.)

Hmmmm I sense a certain amount of thread creep setting in.

However, as with most things in Israel its a complex question. Israel dosen't have a written constitution but relies on a set of basic laws and legal precedence. The Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty as interpreted by the Supreme Court guarantees equal rights for arab citizens.

I'm sure the usual people will say the usual stuff here but the Israeli Supreme Court is independant of the state and isn't afraid to get stuck into controversial areas as seen in the recent Haredi education controversy. It is the government of Israel that needs to do more to encourage engagement with the arab community and needs to do more to actively help them integrate into Israeli society but with Netanyahu at the helm?....good luck with that.

Yitzhak Rabin

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Hmmmm I sense a certain amount of thread creep setting in.

However, as with most things in Israel its a complex question. Israel dosen't have a written constitution but relies on a set of basic laws and legal precedence. The Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty as interpreted by the Supreme Court guarantees equal rights for arab citizens.

I'm sure the usual people will say the usual stuff here but the Israeli Supreme Court is independant of the state and isn't afraid to get stuck into controversial areas as seen in the recent Haredi education controversy. It is the government of Israel that needs to do more to encourage engagement with the arab community and needs to do more to actively help them integrate into Israeli society but with Netanyahu at the helm?....good luck with that.

With that in mind, surely the new oath would be against The Basic Law of Human Dignity, and if ever passed would be struck out? Does the Supreme Court operate like the ones here, where they are independent of and separate to the Knesset? I'm not sure if you're in Israel, or here, but how do the right wingers defend the proposed oath? I understand, you are not in favour of it, but how do they answer the critics in the Knesset?

BlaasForRafa

yekahs wrote: »

With that in mind, surely the new oath would be against The Basic Law of Human Dignity, and if ever passed would be struck out? Does the Supreme Court operate like the ones here, where they are independent of and separate to the Knesset? I'm not sure if you're in Israel, or here, but how do the right wingers defend the proposed oath? I understand, you are not in favour of it, but how do they answer the critics in the Knesset?

I'm in Ireland but yes the Supreme court in Israel operates much the same as it does here.

The oath is a part of the pushing of Israel is a jewish state thing. The thing about the coalition government in Israel is that its pulling in 3 different directions, Lieberman is way out on the right, Netanyahu slightly more to the centre but still rightist and Barak on the left. And Lieberman simply does not care about the arabs in Israel one little bit.

From the various reports like http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/victory-for-israel-s-right-as-jewish-state-loyalty-oath-nears-vote-1.317565 I'd say that netanyahu probably would have preferred not to go near the oath but he needs Liebermans votes and other extreme nationalist or the government would inevitably fall.

It seems like a settlement freeze may be given to secure agreement from Barak and Netanyahu for this which is at least something.

Einhard

Well, seems like me and Bibi are in a minority of two on this! At the very least, I've managed to get the likes of BlaasForRafa and wes in agreement with each other, which is probably as big an achievement as getting the Palestinians and Israelis to agree with one another!! Has the Nobel Peace prize been awarded yet?!:D

Anyway, I understand why people would be dead set against this, and when I saw the article myself, I couldn't suppress an inner groan. An oath to Jewish state?! What a horrible idea! What on earth is Netanyahu playing at?! It'll set any peace talks back to naught. Etc, etc

However, I think that the context of the situation needs to be taken into account. The peace talks will collapse without an extension on the settlement freeze (and I can't say I'd particularly blame Abbas). That's the worst of all scenarios, and anything else has to be looked at in that light. I believe that Netanyahu himself is amenable to the idea of extending the freeze, but that those to the right in the coalition won't countenance the idea without something in return. The oath is that something in return. And if it allows Netanyahu to extend the freeze, and prolongs the current round of talks towards peace, then I'd welcome such a compromise (with reservations of course). The world is a very messy place, and I sometimes think that 3rd party observers can fail to acknowledge that reality when advocating a moral (for want of a better word) consistency in the face of such real politik.

Also, I think there's a major difference between an oath to a Jewish state as opposed to a Catholic one. Jewishness is as much about ethnicity and culture as it is to do with the trappings of religious dogma. The fact that the term "Jewish atheists" is not regarded as an oxymoron is, i believe testiment to this. Liberal, non practising Jews in New York identify with orthodox Jews in the West bank on a level that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and yet everything to do with Jewishness. So, the oath requiring would be citizens to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has far less to do with religion than might at first appear.

Also, just to clarify, current citizens of Israel would not have to take such an oath, and that includes Muslim and Christian citizens.

OhNoYouDidn't

Einhard wrote: »

Also, just to clarify, current citizens of Israel would not have to take such an oath, and that includes Muslim and Christian citizens.

What about their kids?

Einhard

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

What about their kids?

No. Just anyone who makes the decision to become an Israeli citizen. As far as I could gather from the article. AFAIK, the criteria for the swearing the oath would be the same as that for new citizens to the US.

metrovelvet

Einhard wrote: »

Well, seems like me and Bibi are in a minority of two on this! At the very least, I've managed to get the likes of BlaasForRafa and wes in agreement with each other, which is probably as big an achievement as getting the Palestinians and Israelis to agree with one another!! Has the Nobel Peace prize been awarded yet?!:D

Anyway, I understand why people would be dead set against this, and when I saw the article myself, I couldn't suppress an inner groan. An oath to Jewish state?! What a horrible idea! What on earth is Netanyahu playing at?! It'll set any peace talks back to naught. Etc, etc

However, I think that the context of the situation needs to be taken into account. The peace talks will collapse without an extension on the settlement freeze (and I can't say I'd particularly blame Abbas). That's the worst of all scenarios, and anything else has to be looked at in that light. I believe that Netanyahu himself is amenable to the idea of extending the freeze, but that those to the right in the coalition won't countenance the idea without something in return. The oath is that something in return. And if it allows Netanyahu to extend the freeze, and prolongs the current round of talks towards peace, then I'd welcome such a compromise (with reservations of course). The world is a very messy place, and I sometimes think that 3rd party observers can fail to acknowledge that reality when advocating a moral (for want of a better word) consistency in the face of such real politik.

Also, I think there's a major difference between an oath to a Jewish state as opposed to a Catholic one. Jewishness is as much about ethnicity and culture as it is to do with the trappings of religious dogma. The fact that the term "Jewish atheists" is not regarded as an oxymoron is, i believe testiment to this. Liberal, non practising Jews in New York identify with orthodox Jews in the West bank on a level that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and yet everything to do with Jewishness. So, the oath requiring would be citizens to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has far less to do with religion than might at first appear.

Also, just to clarify, current citizens of Israel would not have to take such an oath, and that includes Muslim and Christian citizens.

Jews for Jesus would also verify this. And that Jewishness comes through the mother's blood. However, it can still come through the line of the mother if the mother converts [at least according to Reformed Judaism.]

Is it a race or a religion? When Hitler said it was a race they said no it isnt. Now it is?

I know human beings are not consistent creatures, but come on. We have to draw the line somewhere.

Yitzhak Rabin

Einhard wrote: »

Also, I think there's a major difference between an oath to a Jewish state as opposed to a Catholic one. Jewishness is as much about ethnicity and culture as it is to do with the trappings of religious dogma. The fact that the term "Jewish atheists" is not regarded as an oxymoron is, i believe testiment to this. Liberal, non practising Jews in New York identify with orthodox Jews in the West bank on a level that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and yet everything to do with Jewishness. So, the oath requiring would be citizens to swear allegiance to a Jewish state has far less to do with religion than might at first appear.

In my opinion it is irrelevant whether it refers to religion or ethnicity. Both are inherently discriminatory. The equivalent for here would be either a catholic state, or, a white state. Both are disgustingly discriminatory.

Einhard

yekahs wrote: »

In my opinion it is irrelevant whether it refers to religion or ethnicity. Both are inherently discriminatory. The equivalent for here would be either a catholic state, or, a white state. Both are disgustingly discriminatory.

Yes, it's a form of discrimination, but of a relatively passive form IMO.

I'm not a fan of national oaths in any form, whether they're to the state, monarch, or whatever, and I don't like this one at all. However, compromises have to be made in the oursuit of peace. Look at the North, where people convicted of murder and bombings were freed, not because of any sense of justice, but to further the process of achieving a lasting peace. On top of that, we have what's probably the only democratic parliament in the world where there is no opposition. But people swallowed such anamolies and blatant injustices in the name of compromise and a better future.

I look at the oath in a similar fashion.

Yitzhak Rabin

Einhard wrote: »

Yes, it's a form of discrimination, but of a relatively passive form IMO.

I'm not a fan of national oaths in any form, whether they're to the state, monarch, or whatever, and I don't like this one at all. However, compromises have to be made in the oursuit of peace. Look at the North, where people convicted of murder and bombings were freed, not because of any sense of justice, but to further the process of achieving a lasting peace. On top of that, we have what's probably the only democratic parliament in the world where there is no opposition. But people swallowed such anamolies and blatant injustices in the name of compromise and a better future.

I look at the oath in a similar fashion.

Thats fair enough but it is highly debatable whether or not this move would lead to peace. IMO Lieberman would do what he can to sabotage the peace talks. Even if he agreed to a temporary freeze of settlements, another obstacle would be thrown in the way.

Einhard

yekahs wrote: »

Thats fair enough but it is highly debatable whether or not this move would lead to peace. IMO Lieberman would do what he can to sabotage the peace talks. Even if he agreed to a temporary freeze of settlements, another obstacle would be thrown in the way.

I understand that people have an issue with the oath, and as you say a renewed freeze doesn't gaurantee that the talks won't collapse next week because of a another issue entirely, but I do believe that these talks have a reasonable chance of achieving something positive. Most of the main players, including I'd say Netanyahu, want them to succeed. And the Americans are bringing huge pressure to bear behind the scenes. Lieberman is a wild card I agree, but I believe that his impulses can be restrained.

Also, I think that were a permanent peace to be achieved, then the need of some within Israel to identify with a Jewish state would diminish, and with time, the oath itself become moot.

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

Is it a race or a religion? When Hitler said it was a race they said no it isnt. Now it is?

Perhaps "ethnic group" is the best description.

Jews have often identified as a people distinct from the rest. Early Jewish religion, for instance, was based on the concept of two wholly different peoples: the Jews and the Gentiles (literally 'non-Jews'): the former favoured by God and the latter condemned (unsurprisingly!). When the Jewish people migrated to Europe they tended to form ghettos within the cities they lived, away from regular non-Jews. Even recently, the brochure for the Culture Night in Cork City said that the Cork Jewish community comprised "94 families" at its peak. It's quite clear that there was a solid thick rarely crossed line where Jewishness and non-Jewishness met.

This sense of separateness seems to me to be one of the defining factors of Judaism, if not now then at least in the past. This separateness hints at something more than mere religion.

Einhard

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

This sense of separateness seems to me to be one of the defining factors of Judaism, if not now then at least in the past. This separateness hints at something more than mere religion.

I'd add that this "togetherness" has been fostered more by a genuine sense of persecutuon over centuries than any real religious identification.

Eliot Rosewater

Einhard wrote: »

I understand that people have an issue with the oath, and as you say a renewed freeze doesn't gaurantee that the talks won't collapse next week because of a another issue entirely

At the end of the day the oath is a mere symbolic gesture than can be rationally ignored. The settlements are far more damaging, and infringe upon the basic rights of Palestinians in a very tangible sense. While both may be divisive, the latter issue is much more important and poses a far greater obstacle to peace.

Eliot Rosewater

Einhard wrote: »

I'd add that this "togetherness" has been fostered more by a genuine sense of persecutuon over centuries than any real religious identification.

I imagine the "persecution complex" is a huge factor in Israel. I know it's very popular these days to heavily criticise Right-wing Israeli politicians and the people that elect them, but if I was living a few miles from a wall that terrorists were in the habit of lobbing rockets over, I don't know if I'd be as rational as people here demand Israelis be. Things are different when the basic safety of you and your family are under threat.

That's not justification for it, by the way, it's just a probable explanation.

metrovelvet

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I imagine the "persecution complex" is a huge factor in Israel. I know it's very popular these days to heavily criticise Right-wing Israeli politicians and the people that elect them, but if I was living a few miles from a wall that terrorists were in the habit of lobbing rockets over, I don't know if I'd be as rational as people here demand Israelis be. Things are different when the basic safety of you and your family are under threat.

That's not justification for it, by the way, it's just a probable explanation.

I dont know if anyone here can know what its like to be surrounded by enemies.

It can make you do things that appear crazy to others.

OhNoYouDidn't

Einhard wrote: »

No. Just anyone who makes the decision to become an Israeli citizen. As far as I could gather from the article. AFAIK, the criteria for the swearing the oath would be the same as that for new citizens to the US.

How do you know how new citizens will be defined?

The criteria are nothing like the US oath - which would be to a Protestant nation.

The issue here is simple. It formailises that its a Jewish nation and if you aren't Jewish you cannot be fully part of that nation. Which is a problem when the indigenous population of the place isn't Jewish

metrovelvet

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

How do you know how new citizens will be defined?

The criteria are nothing like the US oath - which would be to a Protestant nation.

The issue here is simple. It formailises that its a Jewish nation and if you aren't Jewish you cannot be fully part of that nation. Which is a problem when the indigenous population of the place isn't Jewish

We still have to say ..."one nation under God.." in our oath. Thats as Judeo Christian as it gets.

Einhard

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

How do you know how new citizens will be defined?

I'm basing it on the evidence at hand. The article I linked to.

BlaasForRafa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The issue here is simple. It formailises that its a Jewish nation and if you aren't Jewish you cannot be fully part of that nation. Which is a problem when the indigenous population of the place isn't Jewish

Thats rubbish, Israel has always been a jewish state, thats why it was set up and thats what it says in their declaration of independance. It dosen't in any way mean that if you aren't Jewish that you can't be fully part of the nation, it is terrible symbolism though, in a part of the world where symbolism is hugely important and a dumbass political move thats sure to backfire.

This issue of it being a jewish state though is such a given that I don't see why its an issue. Just because its a jewish state dosen't automatically mean that any other groups are discriminated against. Once the correct laws and procedures are in place then it isn't an issue, thats the real thing that people should be concerned about, things that matter to people on the ground as Joan Burton would put it.

The Saint

This is a very regressive step, especially because of who is proposing it as well as its intent. It will do nothing but further alienate Arab citizens of Israel. How anyone can think declaring loyalty to a mojority ethno-religous identity of a state is a good idea is beyond me. As for the suggestion that this will help lead to peace with the Palestinians, I see little chance of this helping in any way. Palestinians will see this as an attack on Arab in Israel and Leiberman is likely to skupper any chance for a real peace should one arise.

Also, people in Israel don't go around quaking in fear at the rabid Arab armies next door. People generally get on with their lives completely oblivious to what goes on in the territories.