[updated] A question of allegiance.. and of common sense

A 'loyalty oath' bill has recently passed an important hurdle in the Knesset on its way to becoming a law.  Naturally, MKs of the Arab parties in the Knesset lost no time in losing their collective minds over the matter.  

How dare the Israeli government demand that people becoming citizens declare an oath of loyalty?! After all, by word and deed, many of these same Arab MKs have demonstrated that they consider it their Allah-given right to be actively disloyal to the State of Israel while benefiting from its protections and largess.

Personally, I think the loyalty oath law could be written in a more universal and inclusive way so as to make it less potentially offensive to the Arabs. 

For instance, as currently written, only those becoming citizens outside the framework of the Law of Return(i.e. non-Jews) would be required to take a loyalty oath. The assumption being that Jews making aliyah under the law of return are somehow already making a defacto pledge of loyalty. This assumption is flawed for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that there is currently no shortage of Jews around the world who are openly antagonistic to the goals and existence of the Jewish State.

So as far as I can see, there would be no downside to making the loyalty oath compulsary for all new citizens, not just non-Jews.

Also, I see no added value in including the idea of swearing allegiance to Israel as a Jewish State, since the Jewish nature of Israel is already embedded in the nation's laws.  So by swearing to uphold the laws of the land you are already recognizing the state as a Jewish one.

[side note:  The same can be said about this nonsense of demanding that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish State.  All we should demand is that they recognizee the State of Israel.  Once they do so, all that matters is how we define ourselves.]

But hey... those are just some of the many reasons I'm not in the Knesset.

But getting back to the Arab opposition to the very concept of a loyalty oath, what is confusing to me is the way the issue is presented in the media.  To a casual, uninformed reader, it would appear that Israel is preparing to impose a fascist policy that is antithetical to modern democracies... as if no other country in the progressive western world requires such an oath.    Hmmmmmm.

U.S. Oath of allegiance made by all naturalized citizens:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God

U.K. oath of allegiance taken by naturalized citizens

I _____ swear by Almighty God [alternate: do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm] that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law. I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.

[Note:  The same oath is given in Canada with the exception that one may opt to say it in badly pronounced French]

Norwegian Oath of allegiance (translated)

As a citizen of Norway I pledge loyalty to my country Norway and to the Norwegian society, and I support democracy and human rights and will respect the laws of the country.

Australian Pledge of Commitment

From this time forward, under God,
I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people,
whose democratic beliefs I share,
whose rights and liberties I respect, and
whose laws I will uphold and obey.

I could go on, but you get the point.   You want to sleep warm and comfy under the blanket of a country's laws and protections?  You must swear to uphold and abide by those laws, and to be a loyal citizen.

But in the end, all this talk of oath-taking comes down to the central issue of what value the oath taker places on his/her 'word'.    This was most recently highlighted in the sentencing of Times Square bomber Feisal Shahzad last week:

While speaking to the court about how how Islam would ultimately conquer the west, Shahzad was interrupted by the jusge who asked him if he had sworn allegiance to the U.S. when he became a naturalized citizen the previous year. 

Shahzad responded, "I did swear, but I did not mean it".

And therein lies the problem of demanding that Muslims take an oath of loyalty (or of any sort, for that matter).  According to Islam, a Muslim may tell a lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or the well-being of Islam, is threatened. There is an excellent discussion of the status of lies and lying in Islamic law here that our lawmakers would do well to read.

In another recent trial of a Muslim accused of terrorism - this one in Virginia - the prosecutor made the following statement to the jury:

"The Qur'an says that "any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief - except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty" (16:106). So those who utter unbelief under compulsion are exempt from the dreadful penalty. How can someone who believes this be expected to honor an oath to tell the truth on the witness stand, when to do so could put him in jeopardy?"

Apparently the jury agreed, because the defendant was convicted [source]

This all comes down to something called 'Hudaibiya' which is the concept that gives Muslims the right - even the obligation - to lie to infidels.

The word 'Hudaibiya' itself refers to a truce Mohammad made with a certain Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah, wherein Mohammad ordered Muslims to lie to the Jews and say they renounced Islam so they could infiltrate as spies, and setup an ambush to break the truce.

[Here is the source for that quoteas well as the history behind the practice of "Hudaibiya".]

Bottom line, IMHO, arguing over the implementation of a loyalty oath is an exercise in futility much like arguing over how many fairies can dance on the head of a pin... for the simple reason that it presupposes that fairies actually exist.

BTW, lest anyone think I'm simply a bigot, I hold no illusions about the oaths given and taken by non-Muslims either.  In most legal systems witnesses and defendants are required to take an oath to tell the truth.  Some systems provide protections against self incrimination under oath, but even that is a flimsy shield to hide behind since it reveals nearly as much as it obscures.

But in practice, most guilty people (and those with their own agenda and/or ulterior motive) lie under oath in order to achieve their own aims.  And one would have to admit that there is little downside to doing so. 

If you are acquitted based on perjured testimony, you still get to to go free.  And if you are convicted, the court is unlikely to go to the time and expense of charging you with the additional count of perjury when they presumably have you on something more serious.

So where do I stand on all this oath-taking, finger-crossing, etc.?

I believe that all citizens of Israel  - Jews and non-Jes alike... particularly those aspiring to hold public office - should be required to take a loyalty oath similar to those taken in the UK, US and other western democracies. 

Does it matter whether those taking these oaths actually mean it?  Of course not.  But, it does give some teeth to the treason laws if/when, by word or deed, a citizen of the State of Israel is found to be acting against the interests and/or security of the State.

Now you say something.

Update:  My friend Lynn, the owner and operator of the excellent 'In Context' blog offered the following correction (which I deeply appreciate):

First, greetings and best wishes.
 
And now a respectful correction.  There is no "concept" or "practice" in Islam known as "Hudaibiya."  That Live Leak page you link to is repeating a fallacy which has somehow started spreading on the internet that confuses the invocation of the Treaty of Hudaibiya (which it more or less correctly describes), with the concept and practice of "taqiyya," which refers to permissible or obligatory deception in the service of Islam.  The latter is also the concept that was referred to (but mentioned by name only in the comments) in the Jihad Watch article you linked to.  Robert Spencer has, however, posted a great deal specifically about the practice of taqiyya (here, for example), the existence of which, consistent with its own precept, is often denied by those who practice it.
 
There's also an excellent article about it here.
 
As for the Treaty of Hudaibiya and its use by Israel's enemies, Daniel Pipes published this fine exposition about it more than a decade ago.  Again, it is often invoked as a sort of code, as it was by Arafat, to indicate to the Muslim audience that the words of "peace" one is speaking to a non-Muslim audience are only a matter of delay and deception.
 
In summary, it would probably be correct to say that the invocation of the Treaty of Hubaibiya is often used as a tool in the practice of taqiyya.  But they are not and do not refer to the same thing.  I hope this is helpful.