Israel is exploring the idea of creating a loyalty oath which defines Israel as a "Jewish" state. The Palestinians have declared that they will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Within Israel, people on the far left and impressionable children have protested the idea. Around the world there has been mention of this idea attached to words like racism.
Have any of these people protested Iran's name as the "Islamic Republic" of Iran? Do the Palestinians not deal with Iran because they have their religion/ethos in their name?
Ok, so Iran is a country run by a committee of dictators. Maybe not the best example. What about the Vatican, also known as the Holy See. What about all the lands named after saints?
Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_country_name_etymologies and you will see that many countries and lands are named after gods or tribes. It just so happens that except for the Catholic and Islamic named lands, many of the names are old enough that no one remembers those gods or tribes.
The fact is Israel has every right to call herself whatever she likes and demand loyalty oaths no different then the Pledge of allegiance in the United States which had the phrase "under God" added to it by a reverend. The pledge can be heard in public classrooms from sea to shining sea each morning.
If Israel can do nothing right she should stop listening to people who tell her she is always wrong.
3 comments:
Re: Iran - Even if the analogy is a good one (which, as you point out, it isn't), saying that something is OK because someone else is doing it is not a good argument. It just gives the protesters one more thing to explain (i.e., why it's OK for them but not for us).
Re: The Holy See - It's not a country, it's an area controlled by the Catholic Church, and has diplomatic relations with other countries. Not a relevant comparisson.
Re: countries named after gods - Noone is objecting to the name "Israel"; they are objecting to passing a law having new immigrants pledge allegiance to Israel as a Jewish country.
There are so many things wrong with the protesters' logic. Why you focus on these irrelevant points is beyond me.
Yoni,
Iran: I think that if society accepts a behavior it is acceptable behavior. Its a minor point but I've always disagreed with the argument that you can't look at the general behavior of society to decide what is "right" or "wrong." In fact, in each era, that is exactly how we all decide what is right and wrong, no matter what country or religion, we base our behaviors on the overall action wich are accepted or rejected by our societies.
Holy See/Vatican: Diplomatic relations is exactly the point. Countries accept a region without question which is governed by explicit and exclusive religion.
Implied in the name Jewish is an understanding that the ethnicity is based on the historical acceptance of a Jewish God. Any debate on the existence or meaning of Jewish is an internal matter. But as it affects a loyalty oath for new immigrants, there is an implication that one be loyal to the rules of the tribe which stems from the long history of belief in this Jewish God.
For example, my wife's grandmother is Australian. A few years back Australia held a vote on whether to break from the English Monarchy. My Nana in law voted to keep the queen because when she landed in Australia after the Shoa she took an oath of loyalty to the crown of England. The queen is also the head of the anglican church. So while she did not take an oath of loyalty to the Anglican Church specifically, she did take an oath to be loyal to the leader of the Anglican Church.
But seeing as we probably agree more than we disagree, and that it was most likely my ham fisted writing which has caused some miscommunication, what else do you find wrong with the protester's logic?
Yoni,
Iran: I think that if society accepts a behavior it is acceptable behavior. Its a minor point but I've always disagreed with the argument that you can't look at the general behavior of society to decide what is "right" or "wrong." In fact, in each era, that is exactly how we all decide what is right and wrong, no matter what country or religion, we base our behaviors on the overall action wich are accepted or rejected by our societies.
Holy See/Vatican: Diplomatic relations is exactly the point. Countries accept a region without question which is governed by explicit and exclusive religion.
Implied in the name Jewish is an understanding that the ethnicity is based on the historical acceptance of a Jewish God. Any debate on the existence or meaning of Jewish is an internal matter. But as it affects a loyalty oath for new immigrants, there is an implication that one be loyal to the rules of the tribe which stems from the long history of belief in this Jewish God.
For example, my wife's grandmother is Australian. A few years back Australia held a vote on whether to break from the English Monarchy. My Nana in law voted to keep the queen because when she landed in Australia after the Shoa she took an oath of loyalty to the crown of England. The queen is also the head of the anglican church. So while she did not take an oath of loyalty to the Anglican Church specifically, she did take an oath to be loyal to the leader of the Anglican Church.
But seeing as we probably agree more than we disagree, and that it was most likely my ham fisted writing which has caused some miscommunication, what else do you find wrong with the protester's logic?
Post a Comment