Dear Shadow Minister,

You really have become pathetically transparent my friend. To hurl 'anti-Semitic' and 'racist' slurs invariably means you are trying to cover an argument that is rubbish.

To be forced to use them both in the one sentence usually means that the argument that follows is going to be utter bollocks and you dutifully delivered.

“I would say that a youngster that pledges allegiance to the IDF for a limited time in a support role will have mixed loyalties at that point. However, if he does not take Israeli citizenship and decade later runs for parliament it would take a lot to show that his loyalties lay elsewhere.”

The youngster in question does not only pledge allegiance to the IDF does he. He also pledges to loyalty to the State of Israel and to “even sacrifice my life in the defense of my homeland and the freedom of Israel.”

He is declaring Israel his homeland. There is nothing 'mixed' about it. Then you say if this person wants to saunter into the Australian Parliament 10 years later nothing needs to be said or done? What a terrible argument. Surely at a bare minimum this person should have to renounce that earlier oath and reaffirm his or her loyalty to this country. Or is it just because they are Jewish they should be treated differently. You sir really are a bigoted person.

Finally this nonsense; “your implication that the Australians who had their identities stolen were Israeli spies is disgusting”

How bloody ludicrous could you be? An Israeli spy giving up his personal passport to assist in an assassination? No, however the Huffington Post queried “were they acting as sayanim, the Hebrew word for helpers, whom the Mossad relies on across the globe to provide shelter, money, and logistical support... in this case identity. A sayan, singular for sayanim, must be 100% Jewish, and in many cases a dual national.”

A perfectly reasonable question except blinkered sycophants like yourself.

Now be realistic: A young person pledging allegiance to anything, doesn't mean, analyse, attach significance or even understand anything they are told to say - they've got other things on their minds.

Perhaps they want to stay away from the parents, or perhaps they are told by their parents to go, perhaps it's something romantic, whatever, then some adults tell them to swear such-and-such - they might as well have been told to jump around 3 times on one foot and say: "I'm a rooster, I'm a rooster, I'm a rooster", which they would have done just the same.

SR,

As MP swears allegiance on taking office, this overrides the oath of loyalty pledged by a teenager for the duration of a 15-month non-combat "camp". As this commitment does not extend to citizenship, anyone a decade later trying to challenge in court this person's entitlement to run for parliament would struggle.

Secondly, as you raised the issue of Jews serving in Israel you are the bigot. I simply responded to the senario that you presented. I don't see this being a problem in any other state that shares Aus values and is not proscribed.

That you unquestioningly echo this "question" of the involvement of Australian dual nationals originated from Jamal Dajani (a vocally anti-Israeli Palestinian) speaks more to your bigotry than against it. That these dual citizens travelled to Israel is known, and thus Mossad would have their passport details. That the Mossad would burn their "helpers" would be ludicrous to all but Palestinian sycophants.

Dear Yuyutsu,

The American in the above blog was a university graduate before joining. I think it is a hard stretch to claim such a person “doesn't mean, analyse, attach significance or even understand anything they are told to say”.

Dear Shadow Minister,

See above. Why did you pull 'teenager' out of your proverbial? Oh yes, that is right – unscrupulous deflection is your default method of defending the indefensible. And this was not a training camp. He was stationed in occupied territory doing heavily armed patrols.

And what is this? “As MP swears allegiance on taking office, this overrides the oath....”

Go and read the Australian constitution again my friend. It surely couldn't be clearer.

“Any person who: (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power.”

You are basically saying an Australian university graduate who has made acknowledgment of allegiance to a foreign power is under no obligation to publicly renounce it before taking a seat in our Federal Parliament?

Bloody hell the contortions sycophants like yourself make are breath-taking.

Just a heads up my friend, for many years we used to be able to have a constructive conversation on this forum until the day you accused me of being a Jew hater and refused to retract it. You have continued to do so at every opportunity. I'm wondering if you find the result edifying.

Dear SteeleRedux,

«The American in the above blog was a university graduate before joining. I think it is a hard stretch to claim such a person “doesn't mean, analyse, attach significance or even understand anything they are told to say”.»

Sorry, as I have not read all the comments, it is my fault of not being aware that we are discussing a particular case of a particular American with a particular blog, rather than foreign soldiers in general.

If the person is a university-graduate, then it is indeed unlikely that they cannot understand the oath, but it is still possible and likely that they do not attach significance to it, as well as other mitigating factors.

One thing you should realise, is that soldiers do not make such oaths before joining the army, but during, after completing some training. Normally, a soldier would not even be aware that they will be required to make an oath until close to that time. Also, they do not actually say the oath because it would be too long: they stand, sleep-deprived, in a long line and are called one by one to raise their hand and say "I swear".

Obviously they get no opportunity to negotiate the words of their oath - they are COMMANDED to make it. Refusal to swear would result in court-martial and incarceration - well perhaps in the case of a non-citizen American they could be saved that and sent instead on the first plane home.

I am saying this because many years ago I also was a conscript. I was in the army against my will. When it was time to make an oath of allegiance, I said the words "I Swear" out loud, then added softly "that I am not a cat".

Dear Yuyutsu,

You big pussy you ;)

You wrote;

“but it is still possible and likely that they do not attach significance to it, as well as other mitigating factors”

Larrisa Waters certainly did not intend to be regarded as a Canadian when she was born to Australian parents in that country, one she left when she was 11 months old. She left parliament because she had not forsworn that tie, as tenuous as it was, to a foreign power.

I'm afraid someone of voting age who swears an oath of allegiance to a foreign power and is determined to fight for that country at risk to their own lives should not be deemed to have less responsibility and less requirement to actively forswear that allegiance before taking a seat in our Federal Parliament than she did. End of story.