“I pledge allegiance to the flag .”
ost of us have grown up swearing our loyalty to the United States. However, America’s invaluable tolerance allows individuals to abstain from reciting the pledge. Let’s pretend for a second, though, that this oath became mandatory for citizenship: I can imagine some might raise objections, especially with the whole “under God” part. Now, what if instead of “under God,” our oath of loyalty went so far as to name a specific religion?
Our first reaction would be that this demand is undemocratic. However, that hypothetical description is exactly what Israel, a self-proclaimed democracy, requires of its citizens if they want to either become a citizen or maintain voting rights. As of October, all citizens and would-be citizens must affirm that Israel is a “Jewish and democratic state” under a new loyalty oath. This might sound hypocritical to an American audience that values the separation of church and state as a cornerstone of our democracy.
Although Israel is touted as the only democracy in the Middle East, the character of its democracy perhaps makes it unique. It’s unfair to compare Israel’s democracy to that of the United States, as the very rhetoric of its foundation fundamentally sets it apart. The proposed state was first described, in 1947, as “a Jewish state in the land of Israel.” For Israel, religion comes first and democracy must therefore mold itself to incorporate the Jewish character of the state. But can a democracy truly flourish when it has to accommodate a state religion?
Israel’s 62 years of existence have attempted to answer that question. At first, Israel integrated the Christian and Muslim Palestinians who were not expelled in the War of 1948. And up to this point, the assimilation of non-Jewish citizens had continued steadily, with many immigrants coming from Russia, Eastern Europe and North Africa for economic opportunities as opposed to religious freedom. But with the new mandatory oath of allegiance, new none Jewish immigrants will have to pledge themselves to a state identity that forever renders them outsiders.
The current contradiction in Israel, a democracy with a state religion, reminds me of our own university’s attempts to balance its Jesuit identity with the diversity of its student body. As Georgetown evolves in modern times, it attracts more and more students for reasons other than its theological values. But a student who expects his or her university to provide access to birth control pills and condoms on campus or who takes offense at seeing a crucifix in each classroom need not apply.
This has been Israel’s attitude regarding its new citizenship oath: know what you’re signing up for, either accept Israel’s Jewish identity or rethink your decision to live here. But, unlike those who choose to attend a Jesuit university for a limited period of time, many of Israel’s citizens, such as the nearly 20 percent non-Jewish Palestinian population who lived there long before the creation of the Jewish state, did not choose to become Israeli citizens.
According to its Declaration of Establishment, Israel ensures “complete equality of social and political rights” to all its citizens “irrespective of religion” and will “guarantee freedom of religion.” But the loyalty oath seems to fundamentally contradict these assurances. The foundation of Zionism was fundamentally secular and, at that time, there was a bold line between a state of Jews and a Jewish state. But that line has gradually been erased. Law and almost every aspect of public life in Israel enshrine Jewish values, so how does a non-Jewish Israeli citizen fit in and identify with the state?
In a country with a declared state religion, safe-guarding religious freedom is much easier said than done. In public opinion polls, the majority of non-Jewish Israeli citizens did not object to a “Jewish and democratic state” with guarantees of minority rights. Unfortunately, the practical details of this concept remain elusive. The Israeli government, regardless of its purported guarantees of equality, significantly better serves Jewish citizens than those who do not identify as such.
While tangible government influence on daily life is an important measure of the “Jewish and democratic” nature of Israel, the psychological divide of a country that excludes its religious minorities is an even more serious issue. In its current condition, Israel compromises its democratic nature through the overarching presence of Judaism in its public sphere. Eventually, Israel itself will have to decide where its loyalty lies.
Elise Garofalo is a junior in the College. She can be reached at garofalothehoya.com. TIN CAN TELEPHONE appears every other Friday.
“
