Ruth Gavison just wrote one of the only sufficiently nuanced and appropriately balanced pieces I have read on the issue of the proposed pledge of allegiance for immigrants who want to become Israeli citizens. Too many issues in this conflict are used as weapons from the left or the right to score points.
In critiquing some of the elements of the approach at present but also dismissing blanket accusations against this law, she writes:
A nation is under no obligation to grant citizenship to anyone and it most certainly does not have to grant citizenship to an individual who is opposed to key elements in its creed. A nation is under no obligation to "volunteer" to accept those how object to its fundamental goals as residents or citizens, nor does it have to accept those who will become a financial, social or political burden.
People interested in the issue should carefully read her piece.
For those who think Gavison is a right wing militant trying to justify Lieberman’s rants, here is some context: I took a course from Gavison back in 1989 when I was studying at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and she had a reputation for being a bit of a radical leftist. The truth, as always elusive on these issues, was that Gavison was a principled academic who, like with this article, called it like she saw it, even if she angered people on the “left” or on the “right.” By no means perfect (as the issue itself is a difficult one), this piece is good food for thought.
[Read more →]