The Day After Hitkansut

I really don't want to write about this. The very thought scares me to death. Nevertheless, I think it needs to be out there.

At present, over 60,000 Jews live beyond the "fence" or "wall" or whatever you want to call it. This includes two of my best, closest friends (and I don't have many of those). They are all living there "on borrowed time", in territory that will not be Israeli under any feasible settlement, permanent or otherwise. As crazy as it sounds, we need to take into account the possibility of another forced "hitnatkut". Whether it happens because of international sanction, agreement or otherwise makes no difference. It makes no difference if it happens in five years or thirty - it's coming.

This has nothing to do with the question of whether such a move is "right". I doubt the fact that the Gaza hitnatkut was a disaster is much comfort to the thousands of families who are still without permanent homes. Now multiply that by a factor of 10 and you get what we will be facing if and when it hits yosh.

Let me repeat that number again: 60,000 (if it were up to the "green line" fetishists it would be closer to 400,000, but that doesn't seem as likely). Men, women, children. People whose lives and incomes are tied up in the houses and communities built over time. Now imagine all that erased.

So what's your solution, smart guy?

I don't have one. I just know that we need to start preparing solid, detailed back-up plans for The Day After. I know we can't rely on the government, and I'd rather see those hurt be able to rebuild their life again as quickly as possible.

In Israeli terms, I'd rather we be smart than right (al tehiyeh tzodek, tehiyeh chacham).

An Open Letter on Operation Cast Lead

To: Professor Daniel Statman, Haifa University

Dear Sir,

I read with much interest your response to Prof. Asa Kasher's article on the IDF's conduct in Operation Cast Lead from a 'moral warfare' point of view. You claim to be among the 'moderate voices' who voice reasonable doubts about the IDF's conduct, as opposed to the "functional pacifists" both here and abroad by whom Israel can do no right. Nevertheless, you claim, your doubts remain as is. I will address your critique in its two main aspects: the evidentiary and the theoretical.

Evidentiary Arguments

As far as evidence goes, your excessive, almost wholesale reliance on the report of "Breaking the Silence" on Cast Lead is curious, to say the least. Breaking the Silence is an "issue NGO"; its purpose is to prove its predetermined positions as much as possible (in this case, that the IDF is a ruthless, inhumane monster of an army). As Prof. Kenneth Anderson, a former human rights activist and current international law scholar has pointed out, NGO reports are very much like one-sided prosecutor's briefs, filled to the gills with supporting evidence, but completely lacking when it comes to contradictory evidence or even taking arguments for the other side into account.

It is because of this that I find the fact that the picture emerging from the testimonies to be "almost uniform" to be highly suspect. It sounds like (again, this is my instinctive feeling) that "Shovrim Shtika" looked for corroborating testimony to its own prejudices rather than a genuine cross-section. I am not, God forbid, saying these testimonies are false, just that they are not "smoking guns". Thousands of soldiers participated in this operation; only a professional investigation can determine whether "Shovrim Shtika" is representative or not.

Theoretical

In your letter, you rail about the position according to which soldiers should take no risks to avoid hurting enemy civilians. You argue (as do your colleagues, Profs. Avi Sagi, Noam Zohar and others) that soldiers should take "some risk" (A very vague and undefined term) to avoid harming enemy non-combatants. You claim that there is sufficient room between occasionally letting terrorists go to avoid harming civilians (your position) to letting everyone go to avoid harming any civilians (the European position). No offense, Prof. Statman, but I consider this to be a cheap cop-out. It may make you and your colleagues feel better, but it is useless as a guide for commanders on the ground.

Let's say that I could somehow wave a magic wand and make every commander, junior and senior, agree with your "some risk" position. What exactly is to prevent them from being ridiculously over-cautious and rarely ordering an attack for fear of possibly harming civilians, to the detriment of the whole operation? After all, they all know that both international law scholars and philosophy professors such as yourself are busy second-guessing their every move. Why take the risk of condemnation and possible criminal prosecution? Why do so, when even by us there are professors who believe that sometimes "defeat is the desirable moral outcome [sic!]"? If fear of malpractice suits paralyze doctors, all the more so should not such fears paralyze commanders?

[This is not unprecedented; similar command dithering has happened when commanders feared high soldier casualties - at the first assault on Petersburg in the Civil War, for instance.]

Also, I don't understand why you make no effort to differentiate between intentional harm to civilians and unintentional (inevitable or not) harm to civilians (the so-called "double effect"). This refusal to see a distinction between the two is the lot of the self-same ultra-hostile voices abroad you yourself condemn. If you share their positions and place the entire moral responsibility for harm to civilians on Israel and none on Hamas/Hizbullah, then I frankly fail to see a difference between you and Goldstone.

Conclusion

All this is as nothing to the most serious problem, and that is how the IDF is supposed to effectively wage war (i.e. achieve victory) under the increasing constraints which you place on them. After all, without the possibility of accomplishing something – a cease-fire, a victory, the saving of lives – one could plausibly argue that ANY offensive is immoral since it serves no real purpose. While you claim to not be a "functional pacifist", I believe that you and your colleagues are coming dangerously close to that definition.

I'd like to hope that I am wrong about you, even totally wrong. I would like nothing better than to know that people such as yourself know the difference between abstract ideals and harsh reality; that you know not to be utopian and one-sided in your moral demands. This country needs moral consciences that can give constructive and realistic moral criticism as opposed to the self-declared Jermiahs who pine for "peace on earth".

Unfortunately, your letter has not eased my doubts on the subject. Like your own qualms about the IDF during Cast Lead, they remain in force.

Sadly yours,

aiwac

Mizrachi Jews

[OK, now that I've gotten my rather depressing political rants out of my system, we can return to our regularly scheduled programming. – aiwac]

In my first post on Israeli MO policy, I brought up the touchy issue of interaction with that vague population of Jews in Israel which defines itself not as "religious" or "secular" but rather "traditional" or "masorti". This amorphous group, largely made up of Sephardic/Mizrachi Jews, has not really been given much academic treatment (on their religiosity) over the years and is often the subject of cliché and generalization. This is beginning to change, and two books have recently come out on the subject.

The first book, "Soft Charedism", is by Dr. Nissim Leon, an up and coming researcher who specializes in the development of that unique blend of Charedi outlook and Sephardi religiosity. Leon is a serious scholar with an understanding of how religion actually works (a rarity nowadays among academics). He discusses the development of Mizrachi Charedism through changes in the Mizrachi shul and siddur, as well as the development of a cadre of Mizrachi yeshiva bachurim that grew over time. Highly recommended.

The second book is by Dr. Yaacov Yedgar, a researcher previously known for his analysis of the changing of the national ethos form 1967 to 1995. His study, called simply 'The masortiyim in Israel', is based on thorough interviews of with self-identified 'traditionalists'. While I am less familiar with Yedgar's work and am a little skeptical as to how many people are "consciously" and "ideologically" masorti, his study sounds like a good start on the subject at least.

Unfortunately, both these books are only available in Hebrew...unless someone could take the challenge of translating them...:)

Desperation or Derangement?

The new Hebrew Azure is out, with plenty of goodies - including a very enlightening article about the differences between value-laden education and education that focuses solely on equality. I would like to dedicate this post to another enlightening article by Asaf Sagiv on the mentality of the radical Israeli anti-Zionist left.

Sagiv, editor of Azure, is in my opinion a brilliant and erudite intellectual historian. His essays explaining the thought of various radical thinkers are always clear, concise and fair. Even if one doesn't agree with the views of his subjects, and I certainly don't, he succeeds in presenting their side of things in easy-to-understand manner.

Sagiv tries to explain the position of radicals like Adi Ofir, Yehouda Shenhav (this is how Shenhav spells his first name in English) and Ariella Azoulai as one not of hatred, or self-hatred, but rather of despair. The radicals have convinced themselves that the entire Zionist enterprise is one long act of evil and oppression, one which cannot be separated with "cutting-off points" like the 1948 refugee problem or the six-day war. The differences between "green-line" Zionists and settlers are for them purely cosmetic; the entire state and Zionist society is one large empty void, a dark void so malevolent it conjures up horrifying 1984-esque images of a totalitarian atomizing state that will snuff out all hope.

Having convinced themselves of Israel's unredeemable nature, these radicals are focused entirely on the act of destruction (or deconstruction) of the void, withdrawing completely from any attempt at reform. The attempts at boycott, of derision and violent anti-Zionist rhetoric; these are the acts of people who have become so ostensibly desperate that they believe that only through negation and destruction – "resistance" in their terminology – can anything be accomplished.

So far, this is Sagiv's take. While I'm sure many if not most radicals believe in this vision, I cannot help but see the underlying pathology of radicalism that taints their view of the world. Radicals tend to see things in essentialist terms that often have only tenuous ties to real life; Israeli radicals are no exception. They have no interest in real life, in facts, in shades of grey and actual people. They remind me of many a Russian radical pre-1917 who claimed to speak as "the general will" of the people or the proletariat despite having never actually gained their consent to act on their behalf.

The examples are strewn throughout Sagiv's article. They refer to "the state" as an idea and not the actual state and how it functions, either then or now. The 1948 Palestinian refugee problem is a cosmic event made with a Zionist wave of the hand and not a messy, complicated process borne of a violent national conflict. Actual positive reforms and changes that help the disadvantaged mean nothing to them, since there is either total equality or total darkness. One gets the impression from much of the rhetoric that the Zionist project has to do with a great cosmic clash between Good and Evil rather than serious disputes between fallible human beings. Under such conditions, their despair stems, in my opinion, not from objective reality, but from the underlying assumptions that guide their thought, a mirror image of their essentialist view of how they think Zionism works.

So what am I saying? It's simple. While radicals may be convinced that their's is a position of despair, I argue that this despair is borne of a view of the world that cannot possibly actually deal with the world as it is, with its flaws and foibles. It is a pathology, a powerful and intoxicating philosophical drug that both convinces the bearer of his righteousness and absolves him of the need to get his hands dirty. These people put on themselves the mantle of prophets speaking His word, only they replace themselves with the actual Almighty Blessed be He.

Against people like that, we need to marshal the reformers and the centrists, people of action and not just pure vision. We need more realists. We need more Yaacov Lozowicks and Shalem Centers, more people who deal with the real world and its problems, who can offer real-life solutions and not utopias and apocalyptic visions.

We need to deal with the world as it really is, not as we think it should be.

The Pointlesness of It All (The IDF and Goldstone)

Yaacov Lozowick has a nice discussion of the IDF's thorough response to the Goldstone Report. The army clearly made a concerted effort to adress the specific accusations made therein. I salute Avichai Mendeblit, the Army JAG (and an Orthodox Jew, BTW), for his work. Nevertheless, I am not rejoicing, important a step though this may be.

The first reason is that thorough studies like this should have been made (even if only for internal purposes) from the outset of the 2nd intifada. Instead the army stuck its head in the sand, only beginning to conduct systematic investigations and explanations many years later (e.g. the Gaza beach incident). As things stand now, only the "prosecutor's version of events" (i.e. the various NGO reports) for the IDF's conduct during Intifada II is publicly and easily available. Journalists and future historians will only have this version of events when evaluating the army's conduct. The (military) losers have written almost the entire first draft of this part of history, a fact that was completely avoidable if the government had taken serious steps to counter them.

The second reason I am not happy is because a substantial portion of the intellectual elite in Israel dealing directly with war and warfare have become what George Wegel calls "functional pacifists". This is not an insignificant fringe group; it consists of most Israeli international law professors, some philosophy professors and even one ex-general. As "functional pacifists" they give lip service to the right of Israel to defend itself and no more. As far as they are concerned, any military attack on cities or areas which are thiock with civilians is immoral a priori, irrespective of the steps taken to minimize civilian deaths. Since terrorists almost always meld with the population, this is an effective granting of complete immunity to one side, who may now do what they want to the enemy with impunity.

Some say this outright (as Gordon did), others so restrict the rules of engagement and increase the degree to which soldiers must endanger themselves to avoid civilian deaths so as to make military efforts costly, ineffective and ultimately pointless (which raises the question of whether it renders the attack itself immoral). Indeed, every time we've had intense engagements in a civilian-heavy - in 2006 and 2009 - said functional pacifists have merely tightened the screws and make it even more impossible to actually wage war against terrorists (The following article is a good example of such).

As far as this group is concerned, the moral onus is completely, and always, on Israel, no matter what. Hizbullah and Hamas either bear no responsibility for creating this morally horrible situation, or they are condemned with a few mealy-mouthed words meant to conceal the critique of Israel. In short, as far as this group is concerned, Israel may not conduct war unless it is completely surgical; anything less is off limits.

As long as there are not more people like Asa Kasher who calls for a more balanced approach, as long as the discourse is dominated by "functional pacifists", all the efforts in the world to fight morally will not make one bit of difference - not to this group, and certainly not to people abroad. Until then, Mendeblit's heroic efforts will accomplish little.

On Hitchazkut and Hozka

Whenever the debate about the "slide to the right" comes up in the Israeli media, one of the most common replies of the "rightists" goes something like this: Jews are being mitchazek! They are being more careful about halacha. How can this be a bad thing? (I will leave aside the question of what is and what isn't halacha proper)

My reply to this is simple: I do not have, nor could I have, any problem in principle with Jews personally strengthening their religiosity. If you feel you have found the necessary courage and strength to move forward in your avodat hashem, well, I salute you. Good luck.

My problem, and the problem of many of those who attack the 'slide', is not with hitchazkut or Jews being more frum in general. It is rather with the attitude of many such Jews toward those who are less observant, less frum than they. Either out of a sense of entitlement or genuine religious zeal, many of these frummer yiddin thumb their noses and hold not-so-observant Jews in utter contempt.

The examples of this are legion. The kid who comes home from yeshiva and disrespects his parents. The use of derogatory terms toward Rabbanim that hold to a different hashkafa (JB being a prominent example of this), or to different branches of Orthodoxy (what greater insult can there be but mizrochnik?). The refusal to eat in other frum Jews' homes simply because it's not "their hechsher" (I'm not talking here about the genuine halachic sefekot, but the "it's not ours" kind). I'm sure all of us have heard or seen these things too many times.

More than this, though, it is the attempt to force halacha, or one's understanding of halacha, down people's throats that has caused such antipathy towards Judaism, even in Orthodox segments. Too many mithazkim and frummer yiddin have come to the conclusion that it is their right, nay their duty, to make their poor benighted brethren see the light through coercion.

The result is evident everywhere. Weddings now adhere to ever stricter standards of hafrada for fear of the zealots. Tombs of the greats, like the Rambam and Shimon hatzadik, have been made practically intolerable for women who pray there because of an extremely stringent view of tzni'ut. Violent demonstrations and assaulting fellow Jews is apparently OK if it's done in the name of Shabbat.

I can not stress enough how destructive attempts at increased halachic coercion are to Jews, both the less observant and the non-observant. They accomplish the exact opposite – seething hatred and contempt for Judaism. There are tens thousands of Jews, here and in the states, who are looking to improve their Jewish identity. The one option they will not explore is Orthodoxy, precisely because of the degree of social coercion and disgusting treatment of people who cross the line. There are thousands of Orthodox Jews who completely leave religion every year because too many Orthodox educators think that bullying and halachic zero-tolerance is the way to go.

It goes that I do not object to hitchazkut, but I am four-square against the means that are employed. These methods are completely illegitimate in my view. I don't think I can come up with better examples of mitzvah haba'a beaveirot (the plural is intentional) than the above stories.

We must actively fight those who do this tooth and nail, at every turn. Not because h"v, we object to the goal, but because accomplishing this by force completely destroys the purpose. It does more than just alienate. Force and violence make the very ma'aseh pasul.

People should do mitzvot meyir'at hashem, not meyir'at thugs who use His name in vain.

Halachic Policy: Decision Making

A commenter on this blog argued that I speak in terms that are too general, and that I don't sufficiently deal with the problems in praxis. To this charge I plead "Kind of Guilty". While I have tried to bring up issues and make some concrete suggestions for issues (see my posts on sex-ed, for instance), it is true that I did not discuss every single problem that could come up in practice.

There are a number of reasons for this: 1) Blogs are a good medium for bringing general ideas or sources, not for detailed discussion. I doubt many people have the energy to read posts the length of a web page. 2) My ideas are still under-developed (this blog is a medium for sharpening them) 3) I don't pretend to have all the answers for every problem.

The purpose of my posts on this blog were to demonstrate that "it's not so simple" is an argument that cuts both ways. The arguments in favor of kula on issues of contention are serious ones that cannot be airily dismissed any more than arguments lechumra. My point was to attack the very idea of "instinctive" policy, either rightward or leftward. It thus follows that I am four-square against the idea of "blanket" rulings. I consider such attitudes to be an abdication of responsibility, a demonstration of contempt for actually grappling with complicated real-life decisions.

While I hope to discuss more specific issues later on, I thought I might in the meantime tentatively suggest guidelines for proper halachic public policy decision making, regardless of the case or the outcome:

1) Deliberation: A Jewish judge must render decisions beyishuv da'at and after careful consideration. All the more so a Rabbi or communal leader; whose policy decision(s) can affect as many as hundreds of thousands of people. Such acts should never be done by "shooting from the hip" or on impulse, but rather after a thorough examination.

2) Informed Decision: People who render decisions should know all the facts before deciding. These are real cases and real people, not theoretical Talmudic abstractions; they should be treated as situations to be investigated, not abstract problems with nothing but sefekot. Most "What If" questions can easily be solved by making inquiries, quiet or otherwise. For instance, doubts as to whether the women soldiers would dress tznius or whether there would be anti-Rabbinic rhetoric at the Lamed-Heh could have easily be resolved with a few phone calls to the event organizers. The rule is simple: no "shemas" allowed in halachic public policy.

3) All Sides: Decisions should be based on a consideration of all the arguments for and against various courses of action. These considerations should include not only strictly formal halacha, but also the broader considerations that inform halacha (takana she'ein hatzibur yachol la'amod ba, hillul hashem &c).

4) Reasoned Explanations: No more "because I say so" decisions. All decisions should be published, explaining what course of action was taken and why.

Don't Just Preach, Practice (Part III: Women's Rights)

[In light of the recent Bnei Akiva "walkout" disgrace, I decided to speed up writing this post. I hope the point gets across. – aiwac]

In one of the comments to My Obiter Dicta's post on MO, the author asked about the connection between the status of women and MO. What has one got to with the other, he wondered? Well, unfortunately, it has everything to do with MO and the difference between it and the Charedi outlook. Simply put, there is an inverse correlation between rightwing religious stringency and the status of women. The higher the former, the lower the latter. Would that this were not so, but it is.

Hafrada buses, tznius standards that become more insane every year (with more and more RWMO people following suit), obedience brainwashing (esp. in Israeli seminaries) on a level that would not happen in the most stringent boys' yeshiva – these are all the inevitable result of the RW view of women gone haywire. The argument is always the same – avoid nisyonos! Yetser Hara! Having neglected education of women in Europe to the point that a huge number of women assimilated; many are now overcompensating by trying to shove women into an isolation chamber.

Of course, we are told, it is all halacha – woman is erva – her voice, increasingly every inch of her body and more. People who launch this crusade can quote me chapter and verse of all the "right" halachic opinions, no doubt considering the various leniencies to be barely "bedi'eved" and certainly one should aim to hide women as much as possible. The ever-increasing shrinkage of ground for women in the area of the kotel is evidence enough of this. Even in our circles, the aim to separate as many activities as possible grows in strength every year (Recently, they separated psychometric classes!!!!).

In my opinion, the issue of women's ordination and aliyot is entirely secondary and peripheral to this RW crusade to push women out of the public square entirely - out of sight, out of mind. Next to this, the question of "shira chadasha" and Maharat may be interesting from an academic point of view; it may even lead to the breakaway of some of the feminist elite. But the issue of stringent separation and increasing religious misogyny (because that's what it is) outside the shul is something which adversely affects all women, including those who have no interest in changing halachic norms. The main danger for MO women lies not in feminism, but in a renewed chauvinism. Not in the minority of "gender studies" women who make a lot of noise, but in the Rabbis and teachers who consider WOMAN to be the cause of all disaster.

I am not a Blu Greenberg-ite. I know that even when there is a Rabbinic will, there is not always a halachic way. But I refuse to swallow the idea that every last halachic norm of tzniut of the 16^th century is unchanging and untouchable. I refuse to accept that women's singing is always erva, that it is justified to keep covering women up far beyond what is necesarry. I refuse to accept this method of chumra-by-proxy where self-important men make themselves feel holier-than-thou by making the women cover up rather than work on themselves.

If this makes me post-Orthodox, then so be it. I'm not going to watch this abuse any longer and keep silent.