Category Archives: Current Events

One of the intellectual joys here in Israel is the ubiquity of conferences on the great issues of the moment. They seem to take place somewhere every day, or at least every few days, and attract a great variety of rabbis, ministers (i.e., ministers in government, not churches), Knesset members, professors, and thinkers. One such kenes, conference, took place a few days ago, hosted by the Yeshivat Hasder of Rishon Lezion, and was entitled, “Torah va-chaim,” or “Torah and Life,” and I happily attended.
No heading could sound more generic, but the specific theme was the integration of Torah values and ideals in the general society especially in light of the presence of secular Israelis whose vision of Shabbat differs from that of the Torah world. In other words, how does a Jewish state observe Shabbat, and not just a state of Jews? To be sure, this is a debate that has been taking place for 70 years, if not 700 years, and each generation wrestles with Shabbat issues in its own way that are in some respects similar and in others dissimilar to the struggles of previous generations.
For example, most Israelis enjoy the concept of Shabbat as a day of rest and leisure, a day to pursue other aspects of life than simply the earning of money and the production of goods. That definition obviously includes Torah-observant Jews but also many non-observant of halacha. But one familiar refrain in recent years has been the claim of some that they enjoy Shabbat by “shopping,” going to the malls and just spending time there, if not also money. But how can they shop if Israeli law mandates that stores be closed on Shabbat?
This came to a legal skirmish very recently. Despite the law, some stores in Tel Aviv and elsewhere have been willing to – illegally – open on Shabbat, and pay the fines for said violation. It is an extremely cost-effective act; the fines are rare, not very high when they are imposed (which in Tel Aviv was not that often), and the income generated by sales far exceeded the fines. Other merchants sued, claiming that they were being placed at an economic disadvantage by not being open on Shabbat, but they themselves did not want to open on Shabbat – some for religious reasons but most because they simply wanted a day of rest. They did not want to be slaves to the material world, and felt that it is their right – guaranteed by the law – not to have to work seven days a week.
Concomitant with this was the growing reality that businesses that were open on Shabbat, illegally, would only hire workers who were willing to work on Shabbat and thereby openly discriminating against religious Jews and others who would not work on Shabbat. What an anomaly! In New York, New Jersey and most elsewhere in the US, no employer has the right to insist on Shabbat work, and dismissal for refusal to work on Shabbat is a human rights violation and regularly, and successfully, litigated. In Israel, no such protection exists (!) because the law itself bans Shabbat work.
Several months ago, the High Court ruled that the Shabbat laws must be enforced, that stores must remain closed, and that the fines for violation must be sufficient enough to serve as a deterrent. (Enforcement remains an issue.) But note another irony: the Court’s ruling was not based on Shabbat as a religious ideal, i.e., that Jewish law prohibits Shabbat labor. That undoubtedly would have been a losing argument in that secular body. But as the complaint was phrased in secular language – the rights of workers – the Court upheld the Shabbat laws as a cornerstone of human rights in a modern state.
Almost all the secularists on the conference panel approved of the decision, although perhaps it is unfair to label as secular those who perceive the value of Shabbat even if they observe it in a somewhat unconventional way.
The issue that kept recurring was the secular dilemma. Everyone knows what they – and other Jews – can’t do on Shabbat, but what can they do? Assuming that they are not going to the synagogue (but I have also seen well known “secular” Israelis in shul on Shabbat as well, davening like everyone else and not in attendance because of any particular event), what can they do if they can’t shop, and there is no public transportation, and cultural or entertainment venues are closed?
There has been a suggestion made in the last few years, and agreed to by a number of prominent Israelis across the societal spectrum who signed a “covenant” to permit the opening of places of entertainment and culture – theaters, museums, libraries and the like, loosening the restrictions on public transport, etc. while keeping Shabbat in the public domain or official facilities. Known in Israel as the “Gavison-Medan Covenant,” it was drafted and signed by Ruth Gavison, a law professor, and Rav Yaakov Medan, the Rosh Yeshiva of Har Etzion, and is uniquely Israeli. People who have no official role in society – without any legislative or judicial function – came together to resolve the debate but without any real authority to do anything about it except have the media depict it as a real agreement. (Similarly, the Geneva Initiative of Yossi Beilin of more than a decade ago purported to settle the conflict in the Middle East once and for all; of course, he had no authority to agree to anything on behalf of anyone, and yet his work product is still cited approvingly by the Israeli Left.) Such is unimaginable from an American perspective.
Nonetheless, several of the rabbis participating in this conference agreed with the “covenant,” and were willing to accommodate secular Israelis’ desire for cultural events on Shabbat, with some indifferent to the desecration of Shabbat and others on condition that Shabbat violations are not blatant. Fortunately, MK Tzipi Hotoveli, the Deputy Minister of Transportation, star of the Likud, and a religious and proud Jew, rose to the occasion and, in effect, chastised the rabbis for their willingness to forego the public observance of Shabbat. She, for one, is not, as to her a Jewish state is unthinkable without public observance of Shabbat. Granted, no one wants to make private transportation unlawful on Shabbat – that awaits the Sanhedrin and the Messianic era – but she found it objectionable that she had to defend Shabbat when some liberal rabbis are ready abandon it to curry favor with their fellow liberals. That doesn’t mean women can or should be rabbis, but as we know, “The wisdom of women builds the house…” (Mishlei 14:1). Women can and often do have a greater innate sensitivity to certain Torah values than do men.
It need only be mentioned that, in the grand style of Israeli “negotiations,” all the concessions came from the traditional element, none from the secular group – except, I suppose, their agreement not to riot or file suit about the existence of any remaining restrictions, at least for the time being. For sure, these concessions, if ever implemented, will be pocketed and serve as the basis for any future covenants. That should sound eerily familiar. (Another irony is that Ruth Gavison, although nominally secular, is one of the few professors and legal elites that is a political right-winger.)
Thus one flash point will be the unfortunate opening planned in the near future of a pedestrian mall at the old railway station in Yerushalayim. Under the pretense that several people will walk around on stilts (“entertainment”), shopping stalls will be open for business. It is an obvious disgrace, surely to be litigated to an unhappy ending. And, in response to the tedious howls of “religious coercion!” if the place will be shuttered, one participant – Uzi Dayan, leading security official for years and today a fairly traditional Jew – simply noted that all laws are coercive, by definition. That is why they are “laws,” and not suggestions. I add that those who want to “coerce” Haredim into the military must surely be aware of that. Apparently, the “majority” does reserve itself the right to use religious “coercion” when it suits them; a different grouping of much the same people should not protest when such is used against them. It merely reflects the will of the majority, which, after all, is a tenet of democracy.
Three longtime olim from Ethiopia – a rabbi, a politician and a journalist – spoke about their often unhappy experiences with the Israeli religious establishment and the rest of Israeli society. (Interestingly, all the secular participants wore kippot out of respect to the place and the topic, but not the latter two Ethiopians.) All three had marvelous senses of humor and at times very compelling stories, but their indictment of Israeli society as racist and their complaints about their absorption and subsequent treatment fell flat. In classic Israeli style, they were each heckled by audience members (indeed, there is no time allotted for questions; people just yell out a question while the speaker is speaking). Here, their complaints were greeted with shouts from the audience. “Stop whining!” yelled one older oleh from Iraq, “We were given almost nothing when we came!” An immigrant from Yemen hollered: “You don’t how good you had it compared to the way we were treated!” Publicly chastised, the three Ethiopian-Jews were made to feel like full and equal members of Israeli society, which, I suppose, is also progress.
In the lexicon of the left, repeated several times here, what was most important was the “conversation,” that people are talking about these issues. Indeed, the recognition that all Jews – of whatever level of observance – have a shared destiny is itself inspiring and needs reinforcement. And as Rav David Lau, the new Chief Rabbi, concluded the proceedings, all Jews have a share in the land of Israel and nothing is more important than finding a way to live together in harmony, peace and mutual respect.
Another week, another kenes.

As a young attorney a few decades ago, I was trying a case of child neglect in the Family Court. The mother testified (trying to excuse her neglect) that she had been beaten regularly by her husband – weekly or monthly – for six or seven years. “Did you ever call the police?” I asked. “No.” “Well,” I said trying to impeach her credibility, “why would stay for years with a man who was beating you?”
The wrath of the court fell on me. I was called to the bench, where the judge asked me: “Counselor, haven’t you ever heard of the ‘battered wife syndrome’?”
Indeed, I hadn’t, but quickly gained an education. There are women, I was told, who routinely live with abusive husbands. They stay because they can’t afford to leave, because they always think the situation will improve and the last beating is the last beating (until the next one, and that becomes the “last” one), because there can be long periods of domestic tranquility punctuated by explosions, or because they have low self-esteem and on some level “feel” that they deserve the beatings by provoking their malevolent husbands or by not being sufficiently good wives.
Obviously, it is irrational, and almost inexplicable to an outsider with a healthy psyche and a normal, healthy way of looking at the world.
Welcome to Israel, afflicted with the “battered-country syndrome.” There is really no rational explanation why a nation would enter into negotiations with an enemy sworn to its destruction, when any outcome of those negotiations will redound to its detriment, and almost immediately. Furthermore, the very notion that Israel should have to bribe its evil interlocutors to come to the negotiation table by releasing another 104 murderers of Jews is beyond bizarre, beyond explanation, and only attributable to a virulent strain of a mental illness that is unprecedented and, as yet, untreatable. It is painfully obvious that no other country on earth ever has or ever will agree to liberate the murderers of its own citizens simply to purchase the right to have an enemy negotiate them into further concessions and weakness.
It is mindboggling. How would the US respond if Iran insisted, as the price of negotiations on its almost-finished nuclear program, that the US release Dzokar, the Boston Marathon bomber? The depraved absurdity speaks for itself. And Israel is releasing 100 Dzokars.
Note as well that the Obama administration, in pressuring Israel to free terrorists, refused to release Jonathan Pollard imprisoned now for almost 29 years. They would not consider it, despite the fact that Pollard has no blood on his hands, unlike the Arab murderers being released some of whom were involved in absolutely brutal slayings of innocent civilians. Only Israel, suffering from the battered-country syndrome. (And what does it say about the Arab society that demands freedom for these killers and celebrates them as heroes? But that is a different syndrome altogether.)
Israel’s response can only be the result of a mental illness because neither the negotiations nor the release make any sense – in timing or in execution. The Middle East is aflame – a tinderbox of violence and hatred. Three times as many Syrians have been killed by each other in the last two years than “Palestinians” have been killed by Israelis in 65 years, and few of those Palestinians were innocent of any wrongdoing. Egypt is in the midst of a civil war. Northern Africa is Islamasizing. Jordan fears for its future, as the unrest to its north and the radicalization of Islam that surrounds it threatens the stability of its monarchy. Gasoline prices in the United States have doubled – yes, doubled – since Obama took office.
And John Kerry can find nothing better to do than browbeat Israel into negotiations with its enemy, and at the price of freeing murderers as well? Kerry has made six trips to the region in his attempts to jumpstart these talks, which do not lead to a good place for Israel. There are only two possibilities ahead: either Israel makes more territorial concessions that further weaken it, strengthen the Arabs, and demoralize its Jewish population, or Israel makes no concessions and is blamed for the lack of peace in the Middle East and beyond. How is it possible that its government can be so obtuse and behave in such a shameless way?
Surely, PM Netanyahu knows the disadvantages of pandering to terrorists; he even wrote a book on it. And, of course, he has long insisted, quite passionately and eloquently, as is his wont, that “there will be no pre-conditions for negotiations!” That robust declaration, apparently, holds true – until it doesn’t. Does he believe that peace will come as a result of these talks? Does he believe that the US will give Israel a green light to attack Iran, or even attack Iran themselves? Does he believe that Israel cannot any longer bear the absence of negotiations? Does he believe that the same three people who failed in their last round of negotiations five years ago will now suddenly succeed, and the Arabs will morph into the Swiss? Does he believe that the European Union will renounce their hateful boycott of Israel? (Why not make that an Israeli pre-condition for negotiations??)
None of the above is credible in the least, and the ongoing weakness is only attributable to the battered-country syndrome. Just like the battered-wife blames herself for the violence, thinks she can improve the situation by making unilateral changes, lacks self-esteem, and therefore endures the violence, injury, emotional and verbal abuse and degradation that is her fate – so too Israel.
Only a country that lacks self-esteem willingly surrenders its land to its enemies; that diminished self-worth is only possible among those who deny the divine promise of the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Only a battered-country blames itself for Arab unhappiness and discontent, and thinks it can solve all its neighbors’ problems. Only a battered-country will tolerate rockets on its citizens’ heads, endure terror for years without responding, and then regret and apologize for its forceful response when it does happen. (Just like the battered wife will often regret defending herself against her abusive husband.)
Just like battered women have been known to seek out cosmetic surgery in order to please their husbands (new face, new look, new start), so too, only a battered country will make surgically excise parts of its homeland in order to please, or even just temporarily mollify, its abusers. And just like the battered wife always feels that relief is just around the corner, so too the battered country feels that peace is attainable, juuuuuuuuuuuust around the corner. It’s entirely visible, like any mirage.
The battered wife accepts repetitive cycles of abuse and tranquility, but always lives in fear of the abuse and thinks she can somehow avert it by changing something, anything. But the same story repeats itself again and again – like here, the same faces emerge once again: Livni, Molcho, Erakat, Indyk. Expect Dennis Ross to make a cameo, and Shimon Peres to take a bow at some point. And where is Hanan Ashrawi?
The battering husband never makes concessions, because he thinks he does nothing wrong. Fault lies only with the misbehaving, unsatisfying, failed wife. So, only Israel, the battered country, must make concessions. The only Arab concession –having to sit in a room for a short time with the accursed Jews – is bought at the price of freeing murderers of Jewish men, women and children. The battered country makes concessions in order to forestall terror and violence, because it thinks that it is responsible for the distress of the “husband,” and because it does not really believe it is entitled to a peaceful, tranquil existence, a normal life, as other countries have. It does not really believe it deserves such a life, and so it does everything it can to undermine it, and at every opportunity.
And then the terror resumes, and the heartbreak of expulsions and the denial of rights to its citizens recur. Just like the battered wife often takes out her frustrations on her children (as in the case above), so too the battered country abuses its citizens, expels them from their homes, expects to stomach terror, massacres, bombings and shootings, and exults in its victimization. After all, it deserves it.
The battered country, like the battered wife, thinks it cannot live without the “husband.” But the healthy know that the dependency is unhealthy and reversible. Thus, every country pressured by the Obama administration thumbs its nose at it; only the battered country is incapable of standing up for its interests and saying a polite “no.”
The greater irony here – and what underscores the illness –is the superfluity of it all. Israel is today living in relative peace and prosperity, much more than any other nation in the region and more than in most of the world. The “Palestinians” are a spent force, characterized by Bret Stephens in the Wall Street Journal just three weeks ago as a “boring” people, whose affairs do not really interest the world or have any impact on global affairs. Watching the Israeli news the last few days, it was surprising that these negotiations barely rated mention in the first half-hour. The only outcry – from the pockets of normalcy that remain – was over the impending release of the Arab murderers. The cause of the Palestinians is not even in the top five interests of the Arab world today; it is probably not in the top fifty of important world concerns.
So why do it?
The Oslo process also began when the Arabs were in political decline. Their civil war had petered out, with Israeli casualties in the years before Oslo numbering annually in the twenties. (After Oslo, there was an awful spike in terror and casualties.) Now again, terror is at an all-time low, notwithstanding the recent increase in shootings, stabbings, and, in the last few days again, rockets. Why should Israel indulge Kerry, revive the dormant Arab cause, punish its own citizens, and weaken itself in the process? Why not just do as the battered wife should do – leave her abusive husband until he gets help, or just leave him altogether – as in “peace is not possible in this generation with these Arab leaders; let us focus instead on co-existence”?
It is inexplicable, as inexplicable as the battered country syndrome.