Abraham’s Loyalty Oath
8 Heshvan 5771 / 16 October 2010
Rabbi Daniel Cotzin Burg
There is an instance in every dramatic narrative in which the protagonist has to make a difficult choice: will he rise to the challenge of the moment, moving along the narrative arc of the story, fulfilling his purported destiny or will he go astray, lose his way and wander off into the murky unknown? It is this moment, too, which helps the reader to know what to expect in the coming pages. In other words, will this story have a happy ending or is this a tragedy we’ve been reading all along?
If the hero of Genesis is Abraham, than this week’s parasha is his moment. Having sent our hero and his family on a journey, God now spells out the particulars of the divine commitment to this new relationship. “Al tirah Avram, do not be afraid Avram, anochi magen lach, I will be your shield; Your reward will be very great!” And when Abraham professes his confusion at this promise - seeing as he is no spring chicken and has no progeny to carry on the nascent faith -God reassures him, telling him that his offspring will be as numerous as the stars in the sky.
And now is the moment. What will his response be? Will Abraham accept the challenge? Will he continue to follow this new and singular deity, eschewing the pagan traditions of his birthplace? Of course, Avram does rise to the challenge. And the Torah tells us, “He put his trust in the Lord, and God [He] reckoned it to his merit.” It is the seminal statement of the parasha. A statement of faith, a statement of allegiance. I dare say, an oath of loyalty.
Loyalty oaths have been the topic of conversation this week, haven’t they? What happened? The Israeli cabinet voted to consider a law which would require non-Jewish immigrants to swear allegiance to Israel as a “Jewish and democratic state.” The concern, of course, is that Israel faces what Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon called “the greatest de-legitimization campaign of any nation.” Now, I’m not typically one who subscribes to this type of alarmist talk, but I have to tell you: I think Mr. Ayalon happens to be right. Agree or disagree with certain Israeli government policies, but the vitriolic protests, the old anti-Semitic canards, the clear double-standard to which Israel is regularly subjected by the UN Security Council, by various NGO’s and heads of state are disturbing at best, insidiously distrustful at worst.
The question for us, though, on this Shabbat Lech L’cha when the Torah first mentions the Land of Israel as a Jewish homeland, is not whether Israel is often judged unfairly. It is. Some may protest Arabian policies as intolerant or even inhumane, but to my knowledge there are no protests against Saudi Arabia for being a “Muslim State.” And who is picketing England or Spain or Italy for having state religions? Many countries offer general freedom of religion but few have the American “wall of separation” between church and state. What then is the pertinent question? It is the following and it, I would suggest to you, is twofold. First, is a policy of demanding loyalty oaths in line with the vision of a Jewish democratic state? And, second, ought the American Jewish community have something to say about this at all?
The truth is that we have been conspicuously quiet on Avigdor Lieberman’s aspiration to institute this loyalty oath. The JTA headline this week (10/12/10) read: “Loyalty Oath Law, Causing Stir in Israel, Met By U.S. Jewish Silence.” Yes, a few organizations and individual leaders have spoken out, but most American Jewish institutions have not. Why? There seems to be a range of explanations, but one of the reasons many are hesitant to speak up is that loyalty oaths for new citizens are hardly a new or uncommon phenomenon! The United States requires one as do most Western democracies. Israel, too, has required an oath of allegiance since 1952 which states: “I will be a loyal national of the State of Israel.” The proposed addition, then, are the words “Jewish and Democratic” as well as a commitment to abide by Israel’s laws.
But even those who are uncomfortable with the new language have greater concerns about criticizing policies of the Israeli government when they, themselves, don’t live in Israel. So, let’s talk about that for a moment. Is it okay to critique from afar? I would submit to you that informed, respectful and constructive critique is not only appropriate, but far from undermining Israel’s credibility, it is a strength! Those who wish to judge Israel unfairly will always do so. Those people who are willing to look at the anguish with which not just Israelis, but Jews around the world, approach the prospects of anyone suffering within a Jewish state are bound to see a nation trying desperately to do right in the most challenging of situations. But despite this, I would argue that speaking up is not primarily about the world’s perception of Israel at all, but about Israel’s position in the world Jewish community. If, for example, Israel is to remain truly relevant to American Jews, then American Jews and Jewish communities must remain in conversation with Israel. Or as Israeli Rabbi Anat Hoffman has put it, “Israel is way too important to be left to Israelis.”
So if questioning Israeli policies is kosher, what about the substance of this bill? Are loyalty oaths a good idea or not? After all, oaths are not anathema to Jewish tradition. Parashat Naso includes the law of the Nazirite who takes an oath to swear off wine, shaving and contact with the dead. In the book of Samuel, Chanah swears an oath to dedicate her son, should she conceive, to God. There is an entire tractate of the Talmud dedicated to the topic of oaths and oath-taking. And, as I already mentioned, Israel has had a loyalty oath on the books for decades.
And yet, I would argue that Jewish tradition harbors a deep anxiety about oaths. With regard to the Nazirite vow, for example, the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 9:1) asks, “The Torah hasn’t forbidden enough already that you want to add to it?!” The Babylonian Talmud goes even farther addressing oath-taking in general: “Whoever takes an oath,” we read, “even if he fulfills it, is called sinful” (Nedarim 77b). Even the Torah (Deuteronomy 23:23) itself seems to shy away from oaths. “V’chi techdal lindor, lo yiyeh v’cha cheit, You incur no guilt if you refrain from vowing.” Oaths, it seems, are an invitation to trouble.
But there is another layer of Jewish tradition that speaks even more directly to Yisrael Beiteinu’s version of the loyalty oath. The whole point of this proposed law is to establish Israel as a Jewish state, a worthy goal no doubt. But just as our tradition teaches us mitzvah ha’ba b’aveirah, a mitzvah that one achieves through a transgression is no mitzvah at all (Talmud Sukkah, ch.3), so too, it is no great achievement to demand loyalty to the Jewish state while flouting the very Jewish values that undergird Israel’s mandate.
There is a difference, my friends, between Jewish values and theocratic ones. Characterizing Israel as a Jewish state, homeland to Jews and governed, at least in part, with Jewish teachings in mind means, among other things, that Israel must remain tolerant of its minority populations. Look at the verses which follow soon after Abraham’s profession of loyalty to God in our parasha: “Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years” (Gen 15:13). This theme, that we were strangers in a strange land, should be familiar to you. In fact, this is one of the most common themes in the Bible. Not fewer than 36 times we are reminded of the fact that we were once oppressed at the hands of a powerful ruler. And this geographical and narrative truth comes with a mission which we are enjoined to accept: “You know the feelings of a stranger,” we read in Exodus, “for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (23:9).
Indeed, we were strangers in many lands, not just in Egypt but in countless countries, provinces, kingdoms and empires. And in many, if not most of these places, our ancestors were forced to pay homage to oppressive regimes. Our people time and again were victims of far too many hegemonies demanding, if not religious conversion, at least fealty to the throne! I do not believe that Israel is in danger of remotely approaching the deleterious regimes that plagued our people in centuries past. But, they (and we who love Israel) can do better than a mandatory loyalty oath which, rather than respect and honor the stranger, does violence to Israel’s unique position as the only true democracy in the Middle-East. That’s a strong statement, so let me explain what I mean. The current loyalty oath is administered only to non-Jewish immigrants to Israel, not to Jews making Aliyah. Unlike other democracies, there is an almost subliminal message here: Jews, by virtue of their pedigree are already committed to Israel, others must profess their allegiance. This message, while perhaps true in many cases, reinforces perceptions that Israel treats non-Jews as secondary citizens. By and large, I honestly don’t believe that it does – in fact non-Jews, in some ways, have more religious freedom than, for example, Conservative Jews. But politics is perception, and requiring an oath of loyalty, only by non-Jews to a “Jewish State,” may undermine the very goal of such an oath. This is why the Anti-Defamation League has suggested that the oath be stated by all new immigrants, Jews and non-Jews alike.
But this might not go far enough. If there must be an oath, it seems to me that it ought to be reflective of our Jewish values of inclusion and awareness of the stranger. I actually like Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposed version which calls Israel “the nation state of the Jewish people which grants full equality to all of its citizens.” This would be a way of reinforcing both Israel’s Jewish character and her Jewish and democratic values.
And this brings me to my final point. Israel, like most countries in the world, has its fair share of immigrants: those who come on work visas, to study in universities or, in Israel’s case, to live in a land which is considered sacred by much of the world’s population. And those non-Jews who wish to become citizens are afforded the right to vote as in any other democratic state. And Israel has a fierce commitment to free speech and freedom of the press. Once you arrive in Israel, you have every right to protest and to speak up against the government. We might not like what is being said, sometimes by Jews and non-Jews alike, but we, the Jewish population of the Diaspora, should be proud of a Jewish homeland which espouses democratic values. Mandated speech, though, is not the hallmark of a free society. If it must be so, as in the case of loyalty oaths, I would humbly suggest that these statements sound a bit more egalitarian and less Orwellian. That would be good for Israel and good for the Jews.
In recent months, large segments of the American Jewish community have mobilized on two important issues with regard to Israel: the ill-constructed “Rotem” conversion bill and the multiple arrests of women whose sole crime was to don a tallit at the Western Wall. In each of these issues, American Jews have clearly stated that our loyalty, though not contingent on specific policies, is bolstered and deepened by Israel’s increasing commitment to be a homeland for all Jews and all Judaisms. Hevre, we ought not be silent on this issue either. The State of Israel, like Abraham in his time, stands at a crossroads, a watershed moment of which this proposed law is symptomatic. Will the Jewish democratic homeland continue to live out its Jewish and democratic values? Will the protagonist of the miraculous story that began in 1948 continue to walk the righteous path? Israel is not perfect, but no hero ever is. The mark of a hero is her growth, her continual evolution while retaining the aspiration and drive to do good. This Shabbat, we begin the story of a land and its 4,000year-old relationship with a people called the Jews. You might be wondering, will the story have a happy ending? None of us can know for sure. But I, like my father Abraham before me, have faith that it will.