Category Archives: Israel

   The controversy in Emanuel has certainly generated acrimony but even more confusion. What exactly happened is itself disputed, as is the essence of the dispute. What is certain is that this event illuminates some of the most pressing issues in the Jewish world, is not easily resolved, and might be a watershed moment. Or not. What follows is a preliminary analysis, because the true story has not fully emerged, and might never.

     The thumbnail sketch certainly sounded awful. As reported in the secular press, Ashkenazi parents in Emanuel, a largely Charedi settlement, refused to allow their children to study or socialize with Sefaradi girls in the same school. They even built a wall that divided the campus, and decreed there be separate lunch hours and recess time lest any mingling took place. After a lawsuit, Israel’s High Court ruled that the school must be integrated, and held in contempt (and jailed) parents who refused to comply with the Court order. Immense demonstrations ensued, by Charedim against the court, mainly in Yerushalayim and Bnai Brak, against the intervention of the secular court system in a Torah-education matter.

     Obviously, the secular media, willfully or not, followed the template of the American South, and trotted out terms like “separate but equal,” “segregation,” Bull Connor,” “racism,” and the like – and so got the story wrong. It seems that the dispute was not at all Ashkenazi v. Sefaradi; three of the families whose parents went to prison were Sefaradim. The “offensive” school in question has roughly a 27% Sefaradi population, and the school “discriminated against” has roughly a 33% Ashkenazi population. So racism was patently not the issue, although the accusation is so trite and familiar that it alone is tantamount to a conviction and sentence, and provoked a stream of lamentations about racism in the religious world. Good penance for the self-flagellation, or anti-religious, set.

     The real issue, apparently, is troubling for a different reason: the segregation was mandated because of religious differences between the parent bodies and hashkafot (world views) of the two schools. Parents who wanted their children to attend the “Charedi” school had to abide by a series of personal restrictions in their home life. The precise nature of those restrictions is unknown to me, but I can easily guess most of them – dress code, television, etc. The inability to create two completely separate schools led to the physical divisions on the school property, followed by the parental complaints about discrimination, the lawsuit and decision, and protests. Charedim do not take kindly to being ordered to compromise their religious practices, and especially by those – and Israel’s High Court is notorious in its disdain for the sanctity of Torah and the world-view of religious Jews (charedi, modern, or right-wing) – who do not share their core values.

     All sides are to blame for this fiasco, and the black eye given to Torah. The High Court’s involvement was a typical mistake; its tolerance for Torah is so infinitesimal that its decisions in this realm could never be accepted, no matter what they decided. They simply have no credibility, justifiably so, and most religious Jews – Chareidim or not – challenged to follow the Torah’s mandates or the dictates of this Court – so relentlessly anti-religious for many years – will obviously choose to obey the Torah, and not really think twice about it.

     But, what exactly was the great religious principle at stake here ? Certainly, parents have the right to create their own educational framework and insist on even very restrictive behavioral norms – but not when the school is publicly funded. Private schools have greater flexibility, and even if this particular Charedi school is somewhat autonomous, the government that provides the funding has the right to expand the student population, within reason.

     And there is the crux of the problem as I see it: were the differences between the religious standards in the two “schools” sufficient enough to warrant two separate schools  – and to build a wall between the schools – as if the less rigorous group is ritually impure ? Shouldn’t Jewish education encompass the notion of “love of all Jews” – not in theory but in practice, and especially all Jews who are committed to halacha ? Jewish law and practice are not so monolithic (to be sure, neither is it completely open-ended) that it cannot tolerate slightly different standards of practice, and even lower standards. Must we identify and isolate from religious schools children of parents who have a television or internet access in their homes, or whose the mothers don’t cover their hair or whose sleeves expose their forearms, or eat Rabbanut hashgacha, or serve in the army, or don’t serve in the army, or plan on learning full-time, or plan on working full-time ?

     One of my great teachers once said that there are Jews who act as if there are only 12 or 13 Jews in the whole world – only their tiny group constitutes the “true believers” – and everyone else is either illegitimate or inferior. But that is not how we were created; G-d formed us as a nation with all types of people, who would interact, learn from and try to better each other. That is why we were divided into twelve tribes, and why those tribes included great Torah scholars, farmers and craftsmen – and pious people, learned people, impious people and ignorant people. But we remain a nation, and that is best fostered by integration, not segregation.

     Saddest of all is that the protests, even if warranted, bring to the fore the great flaw of Charedi life and lifestyle – and interpretation of Torah. Advice in a nutshell: it is impolitic to bite the hand that feeds you. With an unemployment rate of close to 65% of males between the ages of 25-65 (astounding, and the highest in the industrial world), Charedim are financially sustained by a larger community that is growing more and more resentful of their antics, even as they are ignorant of their enormous contributions. Chesed is great, and Chevra Kadisha is wonderful, but those are not jobs that put money on the table. To vent against a society that works and fights for Charedim, when they largely absent themselves from these nation-building tasks, is imprudent, to say the least.

     To say the most, it puts the Torah in a negative light, broadcasting to the world – Jewish and general – that the Torah is incompatible with life in a modern state. It says, in essence, that a modern state cannot defend itself or support itself according to the laws of the Torah, and the Torah’s ideals can never be the foundation or governing policy of a real nation. That is heresy, but it is difficult to refute the charge that the Charedim are primarily responsible for fostering that heresy in our world.

    I understand their grievances, their antipathy to the High Court, and their fears of eroding the high standards they seek for themselves by interacting with society. But you can’t build a wall in a schoolyard and expect the insulted to pay for it and guard it. You can’t withdraw from the world because of fear. You can’t educate your children to be unproductive in society and expect others to foot the bill in perpetuity. Great acts of personal kindness cannot substitute for “you are praiseworthy when you eat the fruits of your own hands” (Psalms 128:2). Dedication to Torah study must accompany the obligation to love all Jews, especially when those differences are nuances and not fundamental principles of Judaism (and even in the latter case, the obligation remains to love those Jews as well). Otherwise we run the risk of disassociating ourselves from other Jews based on the minutiae of hat size or shape, following this Rebbi or that one, or other small things that become magnified amongst people that are so similar but do not at all define the individual’s spiritual state.

    We should remind ourselves that there is a prohibition to be poresh min hatzibur (separate oneself from the community), and that tzibur includes – as the acronym would have it – tzadikim, beinonim v’resha’im – the righteous, the intermediates and (even) the wicked. There are no “wicked” in this tale, and that should make it easier for all involved to co-exist, to build together, and to live and learn together, all for the glory of Hashem, His Torah and His people.

     President Obama’s friendly outreach to PM Netanyahu strikes me as primarily an appeal to a domestic Jewish audience – whose liberal component is deeply troubled by Obama’s tone and substance toward Israel  – rather than a genuine attempt to mend fences with Israel and conduct himself as one would expect from a friend and ally. With Obama’s poll numbers declining, he needed to shore up his Democratic Jewish support that had bottomed after he was misled into believing that the leftist Jews with whom he surrounds himself are representative of the Jewish – even liberal Jewish – community. They are not, despite their protestations.

       The attempted “charm offensive” began several weeks ago. It included reaching out to US Rabbis for private meetings and the exchange of clichés and platitudes, meetings that – unlike President Bush’s outreach – did not actually include a meeting with the president himself, and now has culminated in what is being billed as a “friendly” meeting (as if that is something unusual), that will even include the presence of a photographer, perhaps a flashy smile, and, if Netanyahu plays his cards right, an entrance through the front door of the White House in daylight instead of the standard (for Israel’s prime minister) rear door entry in the dark of night.

       Yet, even this invitation was muffed by the White House. Note the contrast in the invitations of Netanyahu and PA ex-president Abbas (who still functions as ra’is despite the fact that his term lapsed more than a year ago, but who’s counting anyway ?). Netanyahu was “invited” in a throwaway line by Rahm Emanuel who was visiting Israel: “Since you’ll be in Canada next week, stop in…” or something to that effect. The Abbas visit, in two weeks, was announced in a formal statement issued from the White House, with pomp and solemnity. There was no such formal White House statement for Netanyahu.

       The Prime Minister should have said “no, thank you… not this time, perhaps in a few months.” He should have deflected this invitation by saying: “Mr. President, your invitations are always welcome and our friendship is strong, sincere and true. But it is not right for me to impose myself on you for a third visit, while you – a world traveler, including across most of the Arab world – have yet to visit me in my humble and holy land. So let us plan a date for your visit, and we shall talk then…” He should not come because the Obama administration is locked into a mindset that is detrimental Israel’s survival: “peace” is on the horizon and it will only be won through Israeli concessions. However that sentiment is couched and colored (the Arabs will renounce terror, incitement, or the wearing of white robes), the bottom line is all tangible concessions must come from Israel. And every new concession is just the prelude to the next round of concessions.

     Israel could benefit from some benign neglect, at least until the harmful dynamic  is halted or reversed. An interesting commentator wrote (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=176586) that Netanyahu’s primary goal today should be domestic stability (especially including that of his government) and that Israel would do well to avoid any diplomatic initiatives for the foreseeable future. Every Israeli diplomatic initiative in the last thirty years has left Israel in an impaired strategic posture at its conclusion, as if often winds up negotiating with itself and against itself. Passivity has its place, and even words matter.

      Be careful what you say. Surrender begins insidiously, with words that Israel interprets as innocuous even as the enemy and its acolytes invest them with great significance. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 102a) states that “brit keruta lasfatayim” – there is a covenant made with the lips. Whatever people say will be fulfilled in some form, and not always as they intended.  In 1978, Menachem Begin agonized over accepting one phrase in the Camp David Accords, acknowledging the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.” He didn’t believe they had any rights to the land of Israel, much less legitimate ones. He was convinced to sign (foolishly), likely by advisor Aharon Barak, who later became the irksome President of Israel’s High Court of Justice, who told him that the phrase “legitimate rights,” absent any real definition, meant nothing,  and were just empty words.

    Not quite. The phrase was almost universally perceived to reflect the “national” rights of an Arab people to the land of Israel, and the rest is inglorious history. Within twenty years, the idea of a Palestinian state went from being anathema to the civilized world and synonymous with a wish for Israel’s destruction to Israel’s being anathematized by the civilized world (and the uncivilized) for its failure to create a Palestinian state, even though it is still synonymous with a wish for Israel’s demise.

   Therein rests the danger as well in Netanyahu’s embrace of a conditional Palestinian state last June. Not many remember or care what his conditions were; all people consider is that there few credible leaders in Israel now – right or left – who oppose a Palestinian state. The natural question then becomes: why is Israel obstructing the creation of a Palestinian state that they themselves have endorsed ? That question is difficult to answer convincingly to a world that has tired of Israel’s security laments, and that question – sure to be raised by Obama to Netanyahu next week – weighs like an albatross around Israel’s neck. So why go to a White House altogether ? To coordinate a joint attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities ? That’ll be the day.

    Words matter. Words create psychological realities that are often then translated into physical realities. Sure, Netanyahu relieved US and some domestic pressure by this concession, but at what cost? When words are used as concessions, to thwart the relentless pressure coming from our enemies and their supporters, the consequences are profound. The only answer is not to become tired, not to become so fatigued that surrender seems like the only reasonable option. In this, the Talmud guides us as well (ibid 104b): “kal hamaitzik l’Yisrael eino ayaif,” whoever oppresses Israel does not become weary. The enemy is inexorable, and is emboldened when he sees that Jews are tired (as Ehud Olmert infamously said five years ago). But knowing that their relentlessness is a given – and that our passion must exceed theirs – means that we must be vigilant in giving no quarter practically or even verbally. “No” (or “no, thank you”) is also an answer.

     So, you are always welcome here, Mr. Netanyahu, but you need not jump just because Obama tells you to jump. He is busy anyway cleaning up the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that his daughter Malia has been hectoring him about (shades of Amy Carter’s youthful obsession with “nucular proliferation” that bedeviled her father). Let Obama clean up the mess in the Gulf, and when those waters are again pristine, he can try to clean up the mess in the Middle East. Otherwise, there are hazardous and choppy waters ahead for Israel.