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.

Not Simple, but Necessary: Why NOT Isolation?

I'm pretty sure I know what you're thinking: OK, you've explained the logic of isolation. Why do you think it such a bad thing? Indeed, at first glance, the isolation-only policy seems to work, at least in the short-term. It's quick, easy, and ostensibly doesn't require any hard choices or risks. Anything and everything that is perceived to be "dangerous" is banned or cut off. Halachic decisions are always "lechol hade'ot" (lehumra, of course), thus presumably removing doubt. It would seem this is the "magic cure".

The problem is that this "cure" is an illusion, and a very dangerous one. Short of going to live in the desert as hermits (the Qumran option) or running away to a deserted island, the world outside, both the good and the bad, will get in. All the charamot and pashkvilim in the world cannot stop the Internet, for instance, from infiltrating the overwhelming majority of religious households. These influences are going to increase the more people need to go to work and feed their families. The walls are crumbling, and the result will not be pretty.

I remember reading about a Charedi Jew who complained to a Zionist acquaintance that the latter made the very existence of the Jewish people contingent on the existence of the State of Israel, a very dangerous gamble. Yet people on the RW commit the exact same error, by making the further existence of religious Jewry contingent on the single, brittle line of defense of isolation. Once that line is breached, and it will be breached, tens of thousands of Jews will find themselves without meaningful religious and psychological defenses. I dread to think of the consequences.

Yet the damage can be seen already now, before the deluge. As with every movement that uses only a single method to deal with everything; whenever a problem arises, they just use more of the same. Like a doctor who only prescribes more and more of the same medicine despite the lack of results, the Charedi leadership (re: the Askani middlemen) simply do more charamot and more issurim. The result is an ever-increasing intolerance for anyone who hasn't met that standard.

Two types of populations lose out: those who leave and those who stay. Those who leave will often do so because of the claustrophobic environment and complete lack of freedom. Worse, many if not most will completely leave Judaism, as they have been taught that there are only two options: charedi (or RW) or secular – there is no middle ground. Those who stay will suffer because of the ever-increasing social policing, which creates a situation where many stay not because of fear of God, but fear of the kono'im.

Isolation is one of the tools to deal with modernity, but using it as the only tool is destructive and self-defeating. Effective in the short-term, it causes long-term problems which isolators are not equipped to handle.

So what other options are there? On that and more in the coming posts.

aiwac

Not Simple, but Necessary: Why Isolation?

[If there's one thing I've learned from the brilliant and irreverent Evanston Jew, it is the importance of empathy towards those with whom you disagree, even if virulently. If you truly understand where your rival is coming from, then a genuinely constructive dialogue can potentially commence. The following is an explanation of the RW impulse against integration and interaction with non-Orthodox Jews. I will explain why I believe this impulse does much more harm than good in the following parts of this series. - aiwac]

For decades, liberal and moderate religious Jews have bemoaned and decried the increasing dogmatism and stringencies that have taken root among the rising force of RW Charedim and RWMO Jews. It's a "new/modern phenomenon" they cry, not the "real thing". This debate, sparked by the programmatic essays of Yaacov Katz and Haim Soloveitchik, continues to run round in circles to this day, each side clinging to their positions for dear life.

All of this may be true, but it is ultimately useless, because it ignores the very real psychological and religious forces behind this drive to the right. Put bluntly, the RW Jews may be factually "wrong", but theirs is nevertheless a perfectly natural and understandable human reaction to the infinite challenges of modern life to a life led by Torah and Mitzvot, even if I believe it to be mistaken. Consider, if you will, the fact that pre-modernity, most Jews were Shomer Torah and Mitzvot to some extent, even if many were lax or not knowledgeable on the fine points. By the time of WWII, the situation was completely reversed. As of this writing, roughly 90% of the world's Jews are not actively Orthodox, a statistic which is not likely to change in the near future.

That small portion of Jewry that held fast to Orthodoxy literally saw the religious world around them collapse. Suddenly everything they held dear – from the existence of God to the authorship of the Chumash, the morality of halacha and the relevance of Torah to the modern world – was increasingly dismissed not just by non-Jews but also fellow tribesmen. Even Jews who grew up in a religious atmosphere or went to a religious school had the unpleasant experience of seeing most of his or her classmates "leave the faith". David Ben-Gurion's famous quip that "everyone who grew up in Plonsk, became a kofer" may not be strictly correct, but it certainly speaks of the atmosphere of the time.

We can thus begin to understand the isolation impulse. Having often seen this collapse for themselves, or their parents having seen it, they want to ensure their own children do not have to endure such tests and possibly go "off the derech". We can thus understand that the problem that sparked this ever-increasing impulse of isolation is very real.

Nevertheless, I think the solution is dangerously flawed, for reasons I will go into another time.

Shabbat Shalom

aiwac

Ich Bin Ein Realist

Benjamin Kerstein has been one of my favorite authors on the web ever since his days on the Anti-Chomskyite blog. His essays, whether on film or current affairs, are always a joy to read. So my decision to disagree with him completely is not one that was taken lightly.

Recently, Kerstein reviewed a book by the well-known radical Barbara Ehrenreich, in which the latter conducts a full-scale assault on the American "feel-good" industry. Kerstein bemoans the fact that Ehrenreich simply replaces one kind of rose-colored fantasy to a more left-wing one. Instead, Kerstein suggests an attitude of "healthy pessimism", one fully attuned to the horrors of reality.

Excuse my French, but I think this idea is complete bullshit. As one who has struggled with the demons of depression for half his life, I find the idea of a "healthy" approach to life which mainly sees the bad stuff to be a contradiction. There is nothing healthy about pessimism. Indeed, pessimism, with its constant searching for the flaws, its refusal to see the good or to discount it, does not admit of a "healthy" disposition. Much like boundless optimism, it is a monster that feeds on itself, until all obstacles have been removed and the victim descends into a fantasy land, or hell, of his own making.

I think a much better cure for the "feel-good" industry is my own version of realism. Realism, according to my understanding, understands that there is both good and bad in the world, and that no amount of one cancels out the other. We realists work to increase the good and bemoan the bad, but we do not let ourselves get carried away by either. We are not God.

Realists, moreover, have a sense of humility about their ability to perceive the world and its direction. Optimists think things are great and getting better; pessimists think the opposite. Realists aren't sure; we hope things will get better, but we prepare for the worst. We do not pretend to take on the role of angry prophet or revolutionary, preferring instead the more mundane but satisfying task of the good, normal human being.

The only way to see the world "as it is" is to take off both the rose-colored and the black-colored glasses and use our own, limited eyes to see all the colors.

Not Simple, but Necessary: Introduction

A way back, I began a series of posts on how to actually practice Modern Orthodoxy in Israel, rather than just talk about it. The first post, on the necessity for integration and social interaction with "traditional" Jews, sparked a veritable firestorm. Comments, both positive and negative, taught me a great deal about the various positions in this fight. I even tried to "get into the head" of RWMO Jewish parents' objections to integration a few posts back.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the sense that interaction and integration with non-Orthodox Jews, in all its various forms, is THE hot-button issue of the day. More than "religion and state" or the Greater Land of Israel; how we regard the Jewish world outside us – both its ideas and its people, promises to be the main ideological battleground in the coming years.

In light of this, I intend to try and explain why I think the approach of controlled exposure to the "outside world" is preferable (notice I didn't say "right", this issue not being black-and white) to the current attitude of self-isolation. What will follow is a thorough, point-by-point, post-by-post discussion of the issue from my own perspective.

I will ask that those who comment read posts carefully and patiently before writing. Also, I would ask that if you disagree, that you provide viable, reasoned alternatives. Constructive dialogue is eminently preferable to a shouting match.

Translate! (On YU and Israel)

YU recently declared a "cross-pollination" program whereby students from the states will visit specially-tailored programs in Israel and implement lessons form there back in the US. All well and good, but this seems to me to be investing far too much energy in the wrong direction. A far more effective method for cultural "cross-pollination" is that time-honored method of translation.

It is translation that has made that Rav's works (and others such as Eliezer Berkowitz) increasingly accessible and read in Israel. It is translation that allowed for greater connection to tefila via Artscroll and Koren. Famous Israeli authors like Amos Oz, AB Yehoshua and Rav Chaim Sabbato are all readable in the US thanks to translation. There are few greater and more effective ways of spreading ideas and conducting dialogue than breaking down language barriers.

There are huge cultural and religious treasure troves that are desperately needed on both sides of the pond, yet continue to founder at the docks for lack of a translation boat. I can not begin to describe how much the Orthodox Forum book series, for instance, would help provide for a much more informed discussion in Israel on issues such as family life, spirituality and modernity. Conversely, thinkers such as Rav Shagar, Rav Yuval Sherlo, Eliezer Goldman, Rav Dr. Michael Avraham and others could surely do the same if only we could let them.

I disagree that money is a barrier. If we can find the money to send thousands of people to Israel and vice versa, we can certainly find the money to ensure translation. If we can translate the Rav's works, there's no reason we can't do that with others as well. (This might even help to provide parnassa for the many educated talmidei chachcmim here, who will no doubt charge less than what it would cost in the states...) Perhaps we should even establish a fund for the translation of important thinkers and book series (Any suggestions on a name?).

We have plenty of people - we need to work harder on the spread of ideas. So pick up the gauntlet, YU, and let the translations begin!

Some Thoughts on Critique And Ideological Rigidity

One of the problems of being a Centrist MO Jew in academia is that the overhwelming majority of professors (esp. philosophy) who deal with Jewish subjects are doctrinally LWMO and beyond. My problem is not with the positions per se, but with the ideological monotony that results. Academia claims to be a place for the free flow of ideas, but I have difficulty taking this seriously when most walk in lockstep with liberalism to the exclusion of all else. Anyone who holds different positions (i.e. to the right) on issues of religion immediately feels the need to hide them and follow the herd.

This results in a glaring academic double standard. Rav Kook, for instance, is often the subject of withering critique. Even Rav Soloveitchik can be treated with fresh eyes. In the meantime, however, LWMO heroes like Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Rav Hayimm Hershinzon and Eliezer Goldman are treated too often with fawning adoration that borders on sycophancy. I've lost count of "academic" books on HaKibbutz HaDati that felt like they were written by the Kibbutz HaDati academic fan club. To read some of the pieces on Leibowitz, you'd think the author of the piece was a chossid writing about their Rebbe. If the work done on Goldman so far is to be believed, he was the most brilliant, flawless thinker since the Rambam. Religious academics rightly decry fawning hagiography of "gedolim" in right-wing circles, yet they seem blissfully unaware when they do the exact same thing to their own people.

My point in all this is that there may be diversity in MO, but it is of an increasingly sectarian nature. RWMOs and LWMOs mostly talk amongst themselves, make arguments that could only convince the convinced and in general do not really try to seriously engage other ideological or religious camps. They each have their own institutional strongholds - for RWMO it is usually yeshiva, for LWMO it is university. The seperation is so thorough that there isn't even a "dialogue of the deaf". I don't think anyone benefits from this intellectual and ideological stagnation. Surely it would be better if more public debates and discussions, face-to-face and in print, took place than the present territorialism.

[While I'm wishing for the impossible, i'm looking for a job in translation/indexing/editing. I have substantial experience in these fields on an academic level. Feel free to leave information in the comments section]

Empathy for an Opponent (On RWMO)

[The following letter is fictional, but I believe the sentiments are real. I intend to try and deal myself with the issues here in a later posting - aiwac]

Dear Dr. Aviad Hacohen,

I read with some interest your article against the phenomenon of self-segregation in our circles. You complain of our establishing "committees" for screening potential candidates, our sending kids to religiously selective schools, our intolerance for more lenient standards of religiosity. You wax poetic over the non-democratic, perhaps even illegal nature of many of these activities, citing the undoubted value of democracy and equality in our fair state of Israel. Yours is but the latest in many an argument presented by Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah against our behavior. What is missing from your critique, indeed, from all the critiques, is any real empathy with our situation or allaying of our fears.

We live in a world dominated with kefira and te'avon, Dr. Hacohen. You are asking us to risk ourselves and the religious well-being of our children to this atmosphere. Waxing lyrical about Achdut, the necessity of everyone having "different opinions" and so forth doesn't cut it and never will. It would be one thing if you and your LWMO colleagues worked on ways for us to deal with the various challenges to faith and halacha; if you genuinely believed in your program of "religious innoculation" enough to give us more than slogans. Instead you ask us to expose ourselves to the same ill wind that turned halachic Jewry into an insignificant minority in the space of a few generations, and you give us nothing to defend ourselves except snide contempt along the lines of "other people managed" or "I'm still religious, you should be able to deal also".

This perhaps is the worst part of your and your colleague's critiques - your snide elitism and complete lack of empathy for people who struggle. You will offer all the sympathy in the world to people who have fallen out of faith or who don't believe. For us, you have nothing but hatred and contempt, perhaps ocassional pity; but never compassion. You apparently neither understand nor care what it is like to see a third of your class year "take off the kipa" in school or in the army, except perhaps to dismiss it or even praise the "plurality of opinions". Exponentially more energy is invested in your circles to proving the connection between "Judaism and pluralism" and "Judaism and democracy" than formulating anything resembling a convincing argument for remaining an Orthodox, halacha-abiding Jew.

If your purpose is merely to "preach to the converted", then fire away. But if you and your associates wish to convince me, or indeed anyone else who wishes to retain the ember of Torah, then you will have to do more than show us a few bumper-sticker slogans with your nose stuck in the air. Until then, Dr. Hacohen, I ain't buying.

An RW Parent

Between Halacha and Halachic policy

Hirhurim has caused quite a stir with a list defining "post-Orthodox" Jews. Others have already pointed out the problematic nature of this list, and I will not retread this ground at present, though I might deal with some of the specific points at a later date. I am concerned with something else - what should be the social and halachic policy towards those who have ostensibly "crossed the lines", wherever those lines may be. Do we not let them come to our home? Daven at our shul? Teach our children or run our towns? This is not a simple question, and it is one of critical import when it comes to our relationship to Jews outside "our circles". All of us need to decide if and when "crossing lines" necessitates social shunning and when it calls for a different approach.

Anyone familiar with the world of law will tell you that there is a big difference between the laws on the books and how, and when they are enforced. The same is true of halacha - there are sins which are not considered to be beyond the pale and those that are. More importantly, there are differences of opinion between Ashkenazim and Sefaradim on how to treat sinners, especially today when 90% of World Jewry is not shomer Torah U'Mitzvot.

Ashkenazi Orthodoxy for the most part simply seperates itself from line-crossers as beyond the pale. People who cross the lines in any way are thrown out or kept out of schools, towns and shuls. The attitude is simple: "my way or the highway". Sefardim take a different approach. They keep the bridges open, letting them come to shul and say kiddush even if they might drive there or perform a marraige even if they might not keep family purity laws.

Many in the Ashkenazi (academic) camp have mistaken this openness towards sinners for tacit acceptance of the sin. Nothing could be further from the truth. No Sefardi Rabbi will ever say that Chillul Shabat is anything other than a grevious sin. What they do have is a lenient policy of open bridges towards the sinners. Making the best of a bad situation, they prefer "my door is always open" to "my way or the highway". In this manner, errant Jews might keep at least some of the Mitzvot, rather than be forced to choose between being 100% religious and 100% secular (i.e. what happens in Ashkenazic communities). Said Jew might be much more willing to conduct lifestyle ceremonies with an Orthodox Rabbi or send their kids to get a religious or at least traditional education. At minimum there will be much less animosity towards the house s/he has left.

Regardless of where the boundaries should be placed, we need to stop being so trigger-happy towards those who have transgressed them. Educators, parents, communities and Rabbis should think long and hard about what is genuinely considered beyond the pale, and even then at least dispense with the "one strike and you're out" policy. We've already lost too many good Jews to complete alienation with our "no-tolerance" methods. Perhaps it's time we took a different approach.

Achdut is not Achidut

There is no area in which MO/RZ Rabbis feel a greater sense of inferiority towards Charedim than in the field of halakha and halakhic public policy. Ever since we established our own yeshiva system in the US and especially in Israel, there was always this feeling that we were playing second fiddle to the great "black-hat" world.

This feeling expresses itself mostly in the constant need for approval on the part of the non-Zionist/non-Modern Rabbinic elite. We jump and quote every authority who supported or honored Rav Kook, who supported secular studies or dabbled in philosophy. More than that, we do not dare take halakhic positions without achieving Charedi consent in the name of "Achdus", that mythical white elephant according to which halacha is perfectly uniform and unchanging, no disagreements involved.

It is a white elephant for two reasons:

First, the idea of a perfectly exact halacha is a myth made of whole cloth. There may have been (and to some extent, there still is) tentative agreement on the essentials and the ground rules, but as long as Toshba has existed, so have severe and powerful disagreements, big and small. These run from halachic minutae to issues of belief. Differences of geography (Ashkenaz and Sefarad and everything in between), temprament (rationality vs mysticism and so on), and culture (minhag vs written law) have always foiled any and all attempts to "unify" Jewish practice and belief beyond the basic ground rules.

The second reason, a corollary really, is that halachic achdut between MO/RZ Jews and Charedim on issues of contention is impossible. It can never happen, not now and not in a hundred years. It can not happen even if both camps were staffed with ge'onim on the level of Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. We differ irreconcilably on too many issues, to the point that we are pretty much two seperate edot.

The only way to ensure halachic "achdut" is to submit to the most virulent, extremist halachic positions. Unanimity, and even near-unanimity, can only be achieved by submitting to the dictates of Reb Nachum the zealot. One need only witness the rewriting of the positions of Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik to understand the absurdity of hoping for a unifying posek or godol hador.

Nowhere has this need for achdut caused more damage than conversion, both in the US and especially in Israel. The intentions are pure, but the result is an ever-increasing war against anyone to the left of the Rev Nachums of the world as invalid to the point of conversion invalidation.

So what's the solution? Simple. Return to the diffuse model of old, where each kehila decided its own parameters (within halacha, broadly defined). This will include issues of kashrut, conversion and so on.

You will reply that this will lead to machloket, of people not marrying each other, of not eating in people's houses. Too late, they already do so. The game of frum one-upsmanship has long since killed the idea of any kind of unity. The seperations are over and done with, and I, for one, am sick of kow-towing to Reb Nachum in the name of a false and useless Achdut.