Commentary: Tea Parties and tempests in tea pots

JERUSALEM — While American politics are currently being roiled by Tea Parties, and their capacity to capture Republican Party nominations by individuals who had admitted to an affinity with witchcraft and liked to dress in the uniform of the most reprehensible unit of the Nazi army, Israeli politics are currently being roiled by a tempest in a tea pot, produced by something akin to the American Tea Parties. 

The issue is the so called amendment to the citizenship law, a form of which passed the government requiring non-Jews applying for citizenship to swear allegiance to Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. An article in the New York Times gets the story almost right, but leaves out some critical details that render the whole thing a moment of political blah blah.

One item not emphasized in the NYT article or the simpler versions circulating in foreign media is that the proposal has a long way to travel before it becomes law. As a result of government approval, it may be referred to the Knesset for a first vote, and if it survives that to a Knesset committee likely to bury it, or at least to amend it significantly. If something emerges from a Knesset committee, the proposal must still pass through  additional Knesset debates and votes before becoming law.

In its present version, the proposal amounts to virtually nothing. It indicates that non-Jews wanting to become citizens must swear to the oath about Israel as a democratic and Jewish state. The problem is, almost no non-Jews want to become Israeli citizens. The proposal exempts immigrants who come under the Law of Return, which means that non-Jewish spouses, in-laws, children, and grandchildren of Jews can become citizens without taking the oath. Arabs who come to Israel as the spouses of Israeli Arab citizens are likely to be satisfied with permanent residence, without staining themselves by becoming citizens of Israel with or without an oath.

Those who were prominent in pushing for the amendment are Israeli equivalents of the American Tea Parties, i.e., extremists with a following, but outside the inner loop that makes fateful decisions. Avigdor Lieberman leads the Israel Beitenu Party (Israel our home), supported mostly by right of center immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Among his iconic proposals is the transfer of the cities and towns populated by Israeli Arabs to a Palestinian State in exchange for including West Bank settlements to Israel.

Eli Yishai is the parliamentary leader of the ultra-Orthodox Sephardi Party, SHAS, which in recent years has moved to the right on issues of territory and negotiations with the Palestinians.

Prime Minister Netanyahu supported the proposal, and it carried in a government vote by a substantial majority. However, four leading members of the Prime Minister’s Likud Party have indicated their opposition to the measure. Three are government ministers and voted against the proposal. The fourth is not a member of the government but has the equally important position as chair of the Knesset. None of these men (Dan Meridor, Michael Eitan, Benny Begin, and Reuven Rivlin) are well known outside of Israel, but have established reputations in Israel as leading conservatives and long standing Likudniks. Meridor’s father was a Knesset member and associate of Menachem Begin, and his brother served as ambassador to the United States. Benny Begin is the son of Likud’s mythic founder. The Rivlin family traces its roots to the Middle Ages, and includes on its tree individuals prominent in creating the modern Jewish community in Israel.

It is no surprise that the loudest opposition to the proposal comes from Israel’s Arab politicians, and those outside of Israel who seize on every opportunity to describe Israel in the worse possible terms. Self-appointed Jewish critics of Israel, Israeli Arabs, politicians of Arab countries, and European politicians who use terms like Apartheid in describing the proposal are not bothering to compare its language–still several difficult steps away from enactment–with demands of the Palestinian leadership that its hoped for country be free of Jews, and the law of Jordan forbidding the sale of property to a Jew. Unless a wave of liberalism that I have not noticed has swept through that country usually labeled moderate, violation of its law about selling property to a Jew carries a penalty of death.

Guessing is that Netanyahu supported a meaningless proposal as a bone thrown to the right wing of his coalition to keep them on board in what may be a dicey spell with the Americans. At the start of his government he named Lieberman to the prestigious position of Foreign Minister, but has not given him major tasks dealing with sensitive issues. Netanyahu’s supporters consider him crafty, and those less favorable use slippery as their adjective. 

While some Israelis are shaking in their boots expecting an international ultimatum, others remind themselves that countries with Israel’s military resources are not usually the recipients of ultimatums. And if Arab bombast produces what it generally does, we’ll be in the same place 30 days from now.