Oath of Allegiance – Itamar Ben-Gvir and His Mentor, Rabbi Meir Kahane
- Idan Yaron
- Mar 21
- 7 min read
Foreword
On March 19, 2025, two months after resigning from the government, Itamar Ben-Gvir once again swore his allegiance oath. During the minister's oath of allegiance, all opposition members left the plenary session in protest
Oath of Allegiance
The "Oath of Allegiance," recognized in Israel and around the world, is a ceremonial declaration of loyalty. According to Article 14 of the Basic Law: The Government, the Prime Minister must swear the following oath: "I undertake, as Prime Minister, to remain loyal to the State of Israel and its laws, to faithfully fulfill my duties as Prime Minister, and to uphold the decisions of the Knesset."
A minister, such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, is required to swear a similar oath:"I undertake, as a member of the government, to remain loyal to the State of Israel and its laws, to faithfully fulfill my duties as a member of the government, and to uphold the decisions of the Knesset."
Echoes of the Past
The inauguration of Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, coinciding with the renewed conflict in the Gaza Strip, evoked memories of a similar event involving his mentor, Rabbi Meir Kahane, more than 40 years ago.
Rabbi Kahane served only one term in the Knesset (the Eleventh Knesset, August 1984–November 1988). He did not achieve the same high-ranking status as his protégé, who went on to become a government minister, despite Kahane's declared ambition "to be Prime Minister of Israel."
The Office of the State Attorney later noted (in the context of Baruch Marzel's disqualification from running in the elections for the Sixteenth Knesset) that upon Kahane's election to the Knesset, "he and his movement intensified their racist activities. Kahane published and disseminated his ideas in writing, used the Knesset platform to deliver inflammatory speeches against the country's Arab citizens, circulated bills with racist content, claimed the right to spread his racist ideology through state media, abused his parliamentary immunity, and incited conflict among Arab residents during visits to their communities, attempting to 'persuade' them to leave Israel."
Following the disqualification of his movement – based on Section 7a of the Basic Law: The Knesset, enacted specifically for this purpose – and in an election appeal to the Supreme Court (1/88, October 18, 1988), the Court rejected the appeal with the following determination: "What brings enmity and discord and deepens division – a call for the violent denial of rights, for the systematic and deliberate humiliation of defined segments of the population identified on a national-ethnic basis, and for their degradation in a way horrifyingly reminiscent of the worst examples experienced by the Jewish people – all of these are sufficient, based on the extensive material submitted to us, to substantiate a conclusion of incitement to racism. The intensity of the appellant's actions, the extremism in his presentations, and the serious distortion of the character of the state and its institutions resulting from these actions collectively give them the overwhelming severity sufficient to uphold The Central Elections Committee's decision."
At his very first Knesset session (August 13, 1984), Rabbi Kahane deviated from protocol. When called, like all other members, to swear allegiance as required by Section 14 of the Basic Law: The Knesset, he responded to the oath by declaring, "I pledge," and immediately added the verse: "I will always obey your law, for ever and ever" (Psalms 119:44). His addition caused a commotion in the plenary hall. However, after a brief discussion, the Speaker of the Knesset accepted the oath "out of doubt," citing precedents where members had added "I pledge, with God's help," which had not been considered a breach of protocol.
Rabbi Kahane himself "removed the doubt" about two years later, when he was sued to renounce his American citizenship on the grounds that someone who swore allegiance to a foreign country could not be a citizen of the United States. The rabbi – whose ties to the United States were no less, and perhaps even stronger, profound than those to Israel, where he found an attentive ear and open wallets – argued in a court in the United States that he had not sworn the Knesset oath, as it was prescribed; this was to reflect his opinion that his primary responsibility was to the laws of God.
When it became clear to the Speaker of the Knesset, Shlomo Hillel – a staunch opponent of Rabbi Kahane, who had abhorred his path from the beginning – that the rabbi's intention was to condition his loyalty to the laws of the state on them not being in conflict with the laws of the Torah, he sought the opinion of the Attorney General at the time, and of others. In accordance with their opinion, the Speaker of the Knesset invited Rabbi Kahane to swear his loyalty oath anew. At this stage (June 16, 1987), Rabbi Kahane filed a petition with the High Court of Justice. He requested that the Supreme Court grant him relief by ordering the Speaker of the Knesset to provide a reason why he would not cancel his intention to call him to swear again.
Before the date set for the hearing of the petition (early June 1987), Rabbi Kahane complied with the Speaker of the Knesset's invitation; but after reading the text of the oath, contained in Section 14, Rabbi Kahane returned and declared – as he had announced in advance – in the same form as before, with the addition of the aforementioned ruling from the Psalms. The Speaker of the Knesset immediately ruled that "the oath was null and void and was judged to be an invalid declaration. Therefore, [Rabbi Kahane] will be deprived of his rights, and he will not be able to act as a member of Knesset."
The High Court of Justice (400/87, June 29, 1987) ruled: "The addition of a verse from the Book of Psalms, with the hidden intention of placing the law of the Torah above the laws of the state, is an invalid act, and even tainted with dishonesty, which is not befitting the behavior of an elected member of the people." Therefore, the court required Rabbi Kahane – if he wanted to be a member of Knesset – to take the oath of allegiance again properly. With the rejection of his petition, Rabbi Kahane was forced to take the oath of allegiance again – this time without additions.
Many members of Knesset saw Rabbi Kahane as a scoundrel out of disgust, and they used to walk out of the plenary while he was speaking – as they did at the oath of allegiance, of his protégé, Itamar Bo-Gvir, these days. Because of this predicament, Rabbi Kahane was often required to use the expression, "Mr. Chairman, empty Knesset."
Amendments Requested for the Oath of Allegiance
The procedures for the oath of allegiance of KM were set forth in the law (1994), as follows: "The Speaker of the Knesset, or the acting Speaker of the Knesset, shall read the oath of allegiance to the KM, and each of them shall stand up, one by one, and declare: 'I pledge.'"
In Amendment No. 23 (1996), it was stipulated – following accumulated experience – in Section 15 that "(a) a member of the Knesset shall declare allegiance… (b) the procedures for the oath shall be determined by law." Section 16 specifically stipulated, regarding "failure to declare:" "If the Speaker of the Knesset calls on a MK to swear allegiance, and the member fails to do so, the member shall not enjoy the rights of a MK as long as he has not declared."
The Qualification of the Kahanist Movement and Minister Ben-Gvir's Oath of Allegiance
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu qualified the Otzma Yehudit party – and by implication the entire Kahanist movement – by including it in his coalition.
Benjamin Netanyahu has pledged, time and again, that Itamar Ben-Gvir will not serve as a minister in the government he forms. For example, in a television interview (mid-February 2021), Netanyahu stated firmly that "Itamar Ben-Gvir is not qualified to be a minister... He can be many things, but he will not be a minister." At the same time, Ben-Gvir himself later claimed that senior Likud party officials told him that if he agreed to enter a government with Mansour Abbas [An Israeli Arab politician, leader of the United Arab List and representative of the party in the Knesset], he could "accept any ministerial position in the State of Israel, except for the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Justice." These promises of positions are more indicative than anything of the legitimization process that Itamar Ben-Gvir underwent at the hands of the Prime Minister.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exerted heavy pressure to ensure the connection between the Otzma Yehudit party and Bezalel Smotrich's Religious Zionist Party, thereby ensuring Itamar Ben-Gvir's entry into the Knesset. His involvement was not marginal, but truly decisive. He pushed with all his might for the union and even offered Bezalel Smotrich portfolios in the government and one seat from the Likud list in exchange for his agreement.
Likud spokesman Yonatan Urich issued a statement (mid-February 2021), which stated: "Itamar Ben-Gvir is not running alone. He is part of Religious Zionism. It is our partner and will be in a coalition with us when he forms a fully right-wing government." According to Itamar Ben-Gvir himself, even earlier, "Netanyahu pushed for us to be there, and expressed his voice time and again that we should be part of this bloc."
This position of Netanyahu was fundamentally different from that of another Likud prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, who said upon Rabbi Meir Kahane's entry into the Knesset that he was a "dangerous figure." While Yitzhak Shamir sent a message that Rabbi Meir Kahane's ideas were not legitimate as part of the social and political discourse in Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu went a long way to normalize those ideas and perceptions, and brought them in through the front door, as part of the legitimate public discourse in Israeli society.
Finally, as a minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir is required to uphold the commitment "to remain loyal to the State of Israel and its laws." This is a challenge whose fulfillment, in practice, requires proof.
