by David A. Harris And Doug Lieb Special To The Jewish Week
Avigdor Lieberman has a point.
It is beyond outrageous for Israeli public officials, whether Arab or Jewish, to actively support the enemy during a war. And, in Israel or elsewhere, citizenship should impose certain obligations of connection to the state.
Majority-minority relations in Israel are more challenging than in most other democracies. After all, many Israeli Arabs have ethnic, religious, and even familial ties with Israel’s hostile neighbors. They may feel understandably distanced from the Jewish state, whose character and symbols do not reflect their traditions. And yes, some might even wish Israel’s disappearance.
These are difficult questions. The problem is that Lieberman has promised easy answers — packaged in glib campaign slogans — that seek to exploit Israelis’ fear and uncertainty.
First,
>
Lieberman says he objects only to “violent speech that forms a clear and present danger.” If that were the case, it would be sufficient to simply prosecute incitement. Even America’s expansive First Amendment does not protect speech that poses a clear and present danger.
Instead, Lieberman proposes a loyalty oath, shifting the presumption from innocence to guilt. It would define an entire class of Israelis as suspected traitors. And it would chill Israel’s democratic political debate. After all, some Israelis, from anti-Zionist Jewish religious leaders to post-Zionist intellectuals, do not believe the state should have an officially Jewish political character. How far down this slippery slope is Lieberman really willing to go?
Second, Lieberman says that Jewish as well as Arab citizens will be subject to the test of loyalty. But the tone of his campaign left no doubt that Israeli Arabs, painted with a broad brush, are the true target. How else are we to understand campaign ads with the tagline, “Only Lieberman understands Arabic”?
Regrettably, this crude slogan is consistent with some of Lieberman’s other statements about Israeli and non-Israeli Arabs. In 2003, he suggested drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea. In 2008, he menacingly said that a new government would “take care of” Arab members of Knesset, whose presence in Israel was “temporary.” Last month, he advocated that Israel avoid reoccupying Gaza by fighting Hamas “as the U.S. did with the Japanese in World War II” — that is, with a nuclear weapon.
These words may score points in a political street fight, but they are deeply irresponsible at best, especially from an elected leader. And they cannot be overlooked simply because Lieberman’s party, Yisrael Beiteinu, admirably placed a Druze candidate near the top of its list.
Third, Lieberman’s article tellingly omits one of his central proposals — the physical exclusion of some Israeli Arabs from Israel. Lieberman has advocated an agreed-upon population swap with a future Palestinian state, but he has also, at times, suggested the expulsion of those who do not swear their loyalty.
Israel is a Jewish democracy, and must remain so. The best way to preserve and honor its unique character is by working to integrate, not exclude, its Arab citizens. Even if it seems unrealistic at times, the fullest inclusion of all Israelis should be a fundamental goal of each new Israeli government.
Having said all that, we shouldn’t act as if the sky is falling. Lieberman has served in high office before, and Israeli democracy has more than survived.
But, in presenting a positive message, his essay does not own up to the views he has expressed elsewhere, or, no less important, to the ugly words he has chosen to express them.
To establish the productive ties he seeks with the Obama administration, which will continue to be essential to Israel’s well-being, Lieberman may need to fully embrace his Jewish Week identity — and leave his political stump speech behind.
David A. Harris is the executive director of the American Jewish Committee. Doug Lieb is the executive assistant to the executive director.
Print this Page