On Labeling, Fair and Unfair (On Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah)

Seth Kadish brought up an important point, one which I hope to deal with at some point - that of the halakhic and hashkafic boundaries of MO. In the meantime, however, I wish to address another issue. I stand accused of "paslanut" - of deligitimizing and mislabeling the Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah movement as "hard left". With regard to the first charge, deligitamization, I emphatically plead "Not Guilty". If I were interested in deligitamizing them, I would have used terms like "neo-Reform", "de-facto Conservative" and all the other well-known epithets. I did not say they are not part of us, merely that they are very far to one side. As for the second charge, I still answer with a slightly more qualified "not guilty", and stand by my argument that they are on the far left of the MO spectrum.

It is true that SOME of Ne'emanei Torah Va'Avodah's public policy positions are indistinguishable from what used to be mainstream but a few decades ago. Minimizing of seperation of sexes unless halakha specifically calls for it, integration with the rest of Jewish society, an open and positive attitude (albeit a guarded one) towards secular studies and sciences - these are indeed issues with which they and I share a common ground. They are also quite brave in trying to face many of the questions we have not yet dared to ask. Nevertheless, it is at this point that the common ground ends, and here's why:

Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah has no real boundaries to its left religiously, in much the same way the Charedi community has no real boundaries to its right. You will often find them in the news bashing (often rightly) the right-wing of our community for its segregationist tendencies and lack of opennes. I have yet to see anyone in that group make anything resembling the anti-Right effort against people in the religious left along the lines of "that's going too far". This in spite of the fact that the group has existed since 1978. Read any given issue of the NTV journal De'ot and you will read articles written by people who are absolutely enamored with liberalism, individualism, pluralism and any and all Jews to their left - traditional, secular or otherwise. The same cannot be said with regard to their views of halakha or hashkafa, or Jews to their right. The old Mafdal was divided into "right", "center" and "left" groups that often counterbalanced one another. NTV seems to be made up of people who are left and more left.

This is to say nothing of their persistent ideological myopia, a bygone product of another age. They speak in slogans and general lofty principles, but they either ignore or dismiss fears regarding religious fortitude. The issue on education exemplifies this approach, cherry-picking cases of educated (both Torah and secular studies) MO teachers as an example of how things were pre-Noam and Lamerchav, even though most of the teachers of that period were actually grossly underqualified. The period of integrated schools is portrayed as a veritable paradise, completely ignoring the massive "horadat kipa" that took place at the time. Some even celebrate it, "pluralism" being a principle that overrides all else. One would have expected a more hard-nosed realist approach to the subject, specifically addressing and developing coping methods for maintaining religiosity. Instead, they pay merely lip service to it, ultimately only preaching to the converted.

It is no surprise, then, that NTV boasts a vocal fringe that constantly pushes the religious boundaries leftward or crosses them outright. Two examples will suffice: In the articles dealing with Biblical Criticism, no-one even so much as tries to defend the traditional position. Instead, the Documentary Hypothesis in whatever variation is either partially or completely accepted (to be fair, Rav Breuer's shitat habehinot is given a fair hearing as well). A letter to the editor of the journal even waxed poetic about the beauty of the "allegory of Sinai". This is to say nothing of the positions of Dr. Moshe Meir, member of NTV's executive. From questioning revelation to endorsing an idea of a "secularized religiosity", his positions as espoused in De'ot and Maqor Rishon are quite radical. Don't get me wrong - a lot of the questions they raise deserve serious attention. But to claim that these are "mainstream" or "centrist" ideas is to close one's eyes to the truth.

When they are called on things like this, NTV members often get defensive, throwing curveballs to deflect from the problem. "I'm just as religious as you" or "stop judging people with a 'dos-meter'" are two of my favorite feints. Obviously, neither argument addresses the problem - NTV's almost cavalier attitude towards halakha and Ol Malchut Shamyim as contrasted to their fervent defenses of liberalism. It is as if Torah is completely subservient to Avodah (all the "-isms"), and at most a personal issue.

I wish I was wrong in my diagnosis. I wish non-fringe NTVers would come down from the clouds and realize that reality, especially religious reality, is messy, difficult and dangerous. I wish they would switch Martin Luther King (I have a dream) for a bit of Churchill (I have nothing to promise you except blood, sweat and tears). I wish they would show anything resembling empathy towards those of us who have real reason to fear the dissolution of what's left of halakhic Judaism.

Since none of that seems to be in the cards, I hold fast to my position that NTV is hard-left. Ve'hamotzi me'chavero alav hara'ayah.

What's in a name? On the term "Modern Orthodoxy" in Israel

"Eizehu Chacham? Halomed Mikol Adam (Who is smart? He who learns from all people)" - Avot 4:1

Today I discussed blogging about Modern Orthodoxy with a colleague at work. While interested, she recoiled from the word "orthodoxy", stating that she preferred the tried and true "dati le'umi" (national-religious) instead. While I suggested a few alternatives such as "dati moderni" (modern religious) and "dati leumi moderni" (national modern religious), I had to concede that she had a point. Thinking it over, I realized that this might not be the best term to describe MO in Israel.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that the word orthodoxy (pronounced "ortodoxia" in Hebrew) is not very friendly-sounding; in fact it's quite scary when you think about it (it has a tough, German ring to it). Moreover, Orthodoxy is a term used more often by its opponents than its adherents (who preferred terms like "Torah-true"), both when it first came on the scene in Europe and nowadays. Its purpose was, then as now, to seperate adherence to halakha from the term religion, with the idea that they are merely one religious strain among many. While "Orthodoxy" as a concept is well-established and comfortaably used in America, its use here is of relatively recent vintage. Until a couple of decades ago, you were either Charedi (ultra-Orthodox), "religious" (moderate Halakhic/Orthodox), traditional or secular. Conservatives and Reforms were identified by strain, religious Jews were not. Now, when it IS used, it is almost always meant as a term of derision and distance, as in "I'm not one of THEM". I have to wonder whether it would be playing into the hands of such people by using that term, so harsh to the untrained ear, to describe our world-view.

The second reason is that most non-English speaking Jews in Israel have little to no understanding of what Modern Orthodoxy is. What understanding they have is often skewed. For instance, in the comprehensive Hebrew language website on Israeli society, Modern Orthodoxy is identified almost exclusively with would be known in America as the "hard left" of MO - academics like Profs. Noam Zohar and Moshe Halbertal, Ne'emanei Torah Ve'Avodah, and so on. The problem is not that there IS a hard-left wing, but that anyone identified with "Modern Orthodoxy" would be immediately "tagged" as such, thus delegitimizing them in the eyes of others (like the "neo-Reform" slur).

All this may sound like pointless semantics; in truth, it is anything but that. Keep in mind that if we want to be more than a small, insignificant American curio in these parts, we are going to have to do more than win "hearts and minds" among the Hebrew-speaking religious Jews in Israel. We will eventually need to gain both visibility and legitimacy in the general popular (Hebrew!) Israeli discourse, and like it or not, "labels" and "user-friendliness" count for a lot here.

So should we still stick with Modern Orthodoxy and change the public perception of it? Or maybe we should try another term? Suggestions are more than welcome.

Don't Just Preach, Practice (Part I: Less Observant Jews)

My Obiter Dicta has begun a critical discussion regarding the importance of introducing Modern Orthodoxy into Israel. I thought I might join the discussion from time to time and add my take on the issue from one specific vantage point - the issue of doing, not just believing. This time round we will discuss the issue of less observant Jews, often referred to as "traditional/masorti" Jews.

Orthodox Jews in Israel have a strange love-hate relationship with masorti Jews, many (though by no means all) of whom come from the Middle East and North Africa. On the one hand, we fought tooth and nail to ensure that many receive minimal religious education in the early years of the state when overwhelming secularism was the rule, both in the classroom and on the street. We count them among our "allies" in the debates regarding the Jewish nature of the country. Yet when it comes to accomodating them on a societal and individual level, we have failed them miserably. Abandonment may sound like a strong word, but it is apt in this situation.

Dr. Matityahu Dagan, a former head of Religious Education for the state, described in his panoramic book how exactly we did that. Put bluntly, Jewish educators in the Masorti-majority schools made little effort to improve the lax religious education given there. In the first generation of the state, Ashkenazim and Masortiyim were geographically seperated, with the result that most Ashkenazim learned with their peers and Masortiyim did likewise. When Masorti Jews started to move into better neighborhoods, the "frumer" and better-off Ashkenazi Jews panicked. The sight of their children learning with kids whose parents didn't keep Mitzvot, and whose children's observance was often lax, triggered the same Pavlovian reaction that led them to protect their children from the hard-core secularist Jews. "Private", "exclusive" and "highly selective" schools - both elementary and secondary became the norm. The latest uproar over education of Ethiopian Jews is simply the latest expression of that fear.

Make no mistake, I believe in the idea of a "khinuch dati". I hold no truck with fantasists who claim that if only we had ensured the same type of education for everyone (a pet peeve of Haaretz and the liberals) then all would be well. There is an unbridgebale chasm between those who believe in God and the Torah and those who do not. To pretend that both can be given the same exact education (necesarily the lowest common denominator) without massive defection to the secular majority betrays a stark naivete about the facts of life. This is not to say that we do not have common ground, or that we cannot fruitfully coexist. It is just that certain differences can not be bridged.

But the idea that living and learning alongisde Masorti Jews is the same thing religiously as doing so among open atheists and secularists is to me a horrible Hillul Hashem. It is also a declaration that we are just as pathetically spiritually weak as the Haredim, many of whom make every effort to avoid people who are not "Me-anshei shelomeinu". Apparently, for all our alleged openness, we are just a bunch of cowards. Anyone who doesn't cover their hair or dress tzniut enough, plays soccer on Shabbat or doesn't make it to shul except on holidays is the equivalent of an apikores lehach'is. Our children, even when they're teenagers or in the army, are so pathetically weak spiritually that the first contact with anyone not like them will make them drop the kipa like a piano. If that's the case, what the hell was the point of all that Torah study?!

So what does all this have to do with doing? It's simple. Stop blabbing about "Achdut Yisra'el" and put your money where your mouth is. Live in places that have a wide scale religiously, especially in the North and the South. Stop hiding in a bubble. Invite Jews over to your house for Shabbat even if it means they might drive (leave the option for not being mehalel Shabbat open). Let your kids play with them. Let them come to your Shul even if they don't show up with a kipa or in jeans. Accept them with open arms and help them rather than scorn them if they falter. Wish them a Shabbat Shalom when you pass them by. Channel Rav Aryeh Levin rather than the Brisker Rav.

I can hear the objections coming out already. My children will stop being religious. I'll be mesaye'a yedei ovrei aveirah. Neither argument works with me. Your children are at risk of stopping to be religious the minute they are born into a world dominated by kefira, both of the low (te'avon) and high (philosophy) variety. It is your job as a parent to work on his/her spiritual well-being and not "take the easy way out" by trying to shunt him into a glorified incubator. At least that's what you should do if you genuinely consider yourself non-Haredi. As for mesaye'ah yedei ovrei aveirah, I have two responses to that: 1) "Chalel alav Shabbat echad cedei sheyekayem Shabatot harbeh" - you never know whether your actions will encourage people to come closer to Judaism or at least ensure their children receive a religious education 2) Kidush Hashem - Even if that doesn't pan out, just causing people to say "zo Torah vezo sechara" or some variation thereof with delight is reward enough.

There is no need to give sins a liberal-religious rubber stamp. All we need to do is keep the door open, standing in front with a tray of cookies, a siddur and a smile on our faces.

UPDATE: Dov makes an important point, one I wish to discuss. Obviously issues of serious halakhic import such as Jews driving on Shabbat can not be solved simply with the conceptual statements I quoted above. My point was more to give an ideological underpinning to halakhic kulas that might allow for inviting Jews like that under certain circumstances. It was not, h"v, to replace halakha but to reinforce a certain way of halakhic thinking against the "always be makhmir" types.

OTOH, no offense, Dov, but I think "solid Torah learning" is a cop-out. Who makes the call when it comes to "solid Torah learning"? The Charedi-exclusivist camp that calls the Rav "JB" and spits on and insults every Rav, no matter how great, who dared to be pasken lekula, especially in our community (just look at the assault on Shabbat elevators, which were allowed based on solid Torah learning but unacceptable to the machmir croud)? Just what would constitute acceptable "solid Torah learning"?!

I think this kind of thinking is exactly what paralyzes us - the fear of "ma yomru". "Solid Torah learning" should be halakha and hashkafa solidly grounded in the sources, but not afraid to openly and unapologetically go in other directions if the situation calls for it. We need independent poskim (poskim, not "wooly-headed left ideologues", as you so quaintly put it), even mavericks, who can help us wade through the difficult territory that is MO.

UPDATE II: Quite a number of comments have come up on the education integration issue. While I agree that it is a serious challenge, doing nothing but kvetching about the situation doesn't help. If anyone who reads this post has better ways of reaching out to Am Yisra'el MO style than what I suggested, then by all means, share with us.

Remember, it is better to light a candle than curse the darkness.

More Nobel Prize Idiocy

OK, now I know who's going to be the new darling of the left-wing for the next decade and a half.

Remember, folks, being brilliant in one area of knowledge does not prevent you from being completely a complete neophyte in others.

You can't make this &$%! up...Or Money and Prizes for Nothing

Barack Obama has just won the Nobel Peace Prize after having accomplished...nothing at all in that field. At least Jimmy Carter and Yasser Arafat had actual TREATIES in hand before they were given their awards...

Living in Different Time Periods

I recently had the dubious pleasure of reading through a learned analysis of why American Jews are "falling out of love with Israel". It was not the article that bothered me; Sarna, as always, delivered a tightly argued, convincing and well-written discussion of how Jews have had difficulty with Israel's behavior, both real and alleged, post-1982. Rather, it was wading through the comments ("talkbackim", we call them in these parts) on the article itself. Most of those that commented on the article made me realize that more than there is a difference of mentality between American and Israeli Jews, they both use different historical lenses.

Put bluntly, American Jews are still living either in the 1980s, when the Lebanon War and the First Intifada convinced many that Israel was either partly or mainly at fault for the continuation and even the origin of the conflict, or the 1990s, when peace was supposedly around the corner, and every delay was the fault of a recalcitrant Israel. I still remember how victims of terrorist attacks in the halcyon Rabin days were called "victims of peace" (the term "korbanot" in Hebrew has even worse connotations).

Indeed, many of the old arguments are still being used: This is a simple territorial issue like the peace with Egypt and Jordan; the Palestinians are essentially defenseless; all offers of negotiation are made in good faith and at least worth pursuing; Israel is racist; the choice whether to make peace lies entirely in Israel's hands etc etc etc. Stop me if you've heard this all before.

American Jews' problems is that (most) Israelis have a different historical perspective - that of the second Intifada post-Camp David. There we learned that peace is not entirely in our hands - the Palestinians can always say no; that negotiations can be interpreted as simply a sign of weakness, used to buy time to arm or pocket concessions without promising anything in return; we learned that the Israel-Palestinian conflict (as opposed to the ones with Egypt and Jordan) is NOT just about territory but about millions of "refugees" and the Palestinian concept of "historical justice" etc. There were, and are die-hards here who also continue to place the blame solely on us, but it's hard to hear them over the noise of the suicide bombings and flying rockets.

While American Jews seem stuck in conceptions of "justice" (a subjective term if there ever was one), we Israelis have long since moved on to a more sober view of reality. We no longer think in terms of peace, justice etc. Read any political discussion in Hebrew, and you'll notice how much it depends on hard-nosed realist analysis of the actual facts, rather than idealistic debates. Here, we deal with the real, not with what "should be". We know that Palestinians can lie just as much as we can; that Hezbollah is a well-trained army division funded by Iran, not some rag-tag group of peasant guerillas; and few, if any, seriously belive that even a full territorial withdrawal behind the green line will "end Palestinian terror and rejectionism" - so far it's been just the opposite.

So how can one bridge this divide? I'd like to propose something rather simple - that American Jews visit and talk to Israelis. Just like that. Not political or cultural leaders, or reporters and foreigners - everymen and women in various parts of the country. There you'll learn, just like you want us to learn about the Palestinians, that Israelis are not all foaming-at the-mouth racist oppressors. That we'd gladly negotiate a deal if we could be certain that we'd then be left alone and not get shot at or blown up. That most of us are not militarized Spartans; that we'd much rather be trekking in India or South America or getting a high-tech degree. That we might be more amenable to "critique of our policies" if you'd stop insisting the Palestinians are blameless innocents and that we are only human beings trying to cope in very difficult circumstances, rather than superhuman beings from another planet. That the "Jewish" part of the "Jewish and Democratic" equation is still very important to most of us, and ignoring that will make whatever democratic critiques you have fall on deaf ears.

Then maybe, just maybe, we'll both stop looking throgh distorted lenses and see reality for what it is - both light and shadow. This is the essence of true "maturity".

The pre-'67 utopia

I have made mention before of the tendency of many old-timers in Israel to bemoan the supposed paradise that was pre-'67 Israel. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in discussions of religious-secular relations. To hear some people talk, you'd think there Israel was a veritable convivencia (like the other supposed paradise in Ummayad Spain) for religious and secular Jews alike. Everyone got along just swimmingly. There were no controversies over the forced secular education for Eastern Jews who came here. The 1958 "Who is a Jew" controversy which reverbrates to this day never took place. The seeds for the infamous Langer controversy were not sown prior to 1967.

No-one had to fight tooth and nail to ensure minimal religious education for those who wanted it and ensure that a religious soldier could serve without eating non-kosher food or doing unnecesarry duties on Shabbat. Everyone was perfectly confident in their religiosity and did not feel the need to hide his kipa by wearing a cap for instance. The oh-so-moderate Mafdal didn't try to insist on seperate IDF units for religious Jews to prevent there being a peer-pressure caused mass defection to the secular side. In fact there was no horadat kipa at all.

Secular Jews, in turn, just loved us. They didn't consider us an anachronism that will die out in a generation or two. When ultra-secular Jews screamed 'religious coercion', they weren't referring to the moderate Mafdal with its religious legislation, they only meant the Charedim with the Shabbat riots. Many secular Jews weren't taught to despise the very use of the word "Jew" and preferred "Hebrew" or "Israeli", becoming increasingly alienated from, and disgusted with their own cultural heritage. In fact between 1948 and 1967 the entire WASP population (Western, Ashkenazi, Secular, Protectionist) was just waiting for some form of "Aron Sefarim Yehudi" type feel-good cultural Judaism.

I'm sure you've understood by now that I consider the above description to be a load of hogwash. Nostalgia is a particularly insidious and decietful illusion, possessing as it does a kind of comforting fantasy-land. But this particular fantasy has little basis in reality, and no amount of selective memory of isolated cases can change that.

To those who will reply that things were still better then, I will say this. Let us agree with this assertion for the sake of argument (for I do not consider it to be true). It is like the incessant comparing of Jews under Muslim and Christian rule, where the former mostly humiliated us and ocassionaly killed us and the latter did both in spades. It's like saying it's better to be crippled than dead. Obviously if given a choice many would choose the former, but only an idiot would say they preferred this option to actually being able to walk.

To those of you who are academically-minded and you still think life was perfect in that time - here's your chance. Conduct a thorough social-historical investigation of religious life in Israel between 1948 and 1967. Don't cover just the political aspects, but also social interaction - both contacts and conflicts. Did everyone mingle freely or were there boundaries? Did everyone always just "agree to disagree"?

There are many more questions, but what I'm looking for here is proof, rock-solid, incontravertible historical evidence that there was peace in the land between religious and secular Jews before the Six Day War. I want to also know that this was not due to the overweening submissiveness of the former or the hope of the latter that we'll just die out.

Until then, the above post is my story, and I'm sticking to it.

The Great Abandonment, or Why I Mourn on Tisha Be'Av

It's not the state of Jerusalem today, which puts the lie to "charev veshamem". More Jews live there and more Torah is learned than at any time in its history. It's not shi'abud malchuyot - we are no more enslaved to superpowers than any other small country - all of whom are independent. It's not the temple, at least not in the way most people understand. The destruction of "etzim ve'avanim" is merely the external manifestation of something far more unsettling - the feeling of abandonment of Am Yisra'el by God.

Anyone who reads Eicha will notice that, in addition to hair-raising descriptions of the depradations the Jews suffered at the hands of the Babylonians, there is a sense of abandonment. If you pay close attention, you can almost hear Yirmiyahu crying desperately to the Heavens for some sign, some assurance that he's there, that he hears us, that it will be OK in the end. Where once there was the confident, certain word of God is now only the desperate, doubt-ridden plea of the Man of Faith, who longs for His word.

In every generation since the great abandonment until modern times, Jews have cried out to the Heavens to understand Why; only to be met with silence. Things became even worse in Modern times, as the silence has allowed doubt and denial to turn the overwhelming majority of Jews away from Him. Those that remain have nothing to answer when asked "Where is God". Rather than being able to say "why, right here", we only hem and haw and squirm. Without God's presence, it is exponentially harder to defend against the constant intellectual and academic charge that "what you see is what there is" and that all of Judaism is man-made, no revelation required. Every generation of ORTHODOX Jews undergoes a constant, uphill struggle to get them to keep the faith. All these things can be traced back to the Great Abandonment.

I know all the explanations. Hester Panim. We're not children, we're grown-ups and we should not have to be coddled with constant appearances. It's a nisayon; there will be great rewards for those who hold up to it etc etc. Many will berate me for even suggesting the idea.

I don't want to hear it. I can't hear it. Not today. For just as one can not, should not try to console one whose meto is mutal lefanav, so I cannot be consoled on the day I am reminded of the day God shut me and the rest of us out. THAT is the main, most horrible tragedy - the destruction of the temple is a mere technicality, a logical end to this process. As the whole purpose of the Mikdash was "veshachanti betocham", once that's gone, the Temple is meaningless.

I say this out of the same despair mixed with hope one finds in Eichah. Mine is not a tefila sedura but a desperate, pained cry for God's presence, for him to reveal himself. I can only hope that he'll listen.

Let's Try Another Tack (on Shidduchim)

Stop me if you've heard this before:

He/she is smart, funny, good-looking, loves life, warm etc etc...

I think we can all agree that it's gotten stale. Even if it were true of everyone (it isn't), we have long since reached the point that we're all basically the same in CV terms (or roughly so). If we're all the same, what's the point? Why should I bother?

This is where I would like to suggest reversing the question. In other words, instead of telling about his/her good points, I want people to tell me about her flaws and imperfections. You heard me - what makes her tick? Is she a neat freak? Does she still step over cracks in the sidewalk or "eat her peas one at a time" (Seinfeld)? Does she have a tattoo or is she scared to death of needles?

Perfect people don't exist, but more importantly, they're boring and unrelatable. I have always had disdain for the perfect/savant hagiographic stories of gedoilim who were always presented as angels on earth. My heroes are ones who had to struggle with flaws and either overcome or manage them. Human heroes are infinitely preferable to me than marble statues.

It's no big deal to "put yourself" out there when you sound just like everyone else. There's no real risk involved - but also no real possibility either. Revealing imperfections (assuming they're not life-threatening or involve real mental insanity) can only help give me and others something to latch onto, a solid toehold in a cracked mountain rather than a futile climb up a sheer, flawless cliff. Good attributes make us attractive, but flaws are what make us really interesting.

So what about me? Well, I'll show you mine if you show me yours...

The Other "Right Wing"

Israel, at least at the level of its ruling elites - legal, media, academia - is staunchly, dogmatically liberal-democratic. From a country brought up on the socialist ethos, the Marxist dialectic and social solidarity, we have become permeated with concepts such as 'the rights discourse' and privatization. Individual rights and freedom and free enterprise as well as their radical offshoots such as anti-nationalism/clericalism/militarism are by now so ingrained in elite discussions that they are practically articles of faith. Even arguments for socialist policies are framed within the context of expanded indivdual rights. Many on the 'right' see this as the victory of the 'left' (read Mapainicks/Labor etc). Nothing could be further from the truth. It is, in fact, a testament to the complete ideological victory of the civilian/liberal/progressive Right Wing of Israeli politics.

What? That can't be! After all, the 'right' is the Likud, the Etzelnicks, the Greater Land of Israel messianic types! To which I will reply, rubbish and poppycock. Contrary to the simplistic dichotomy of left/right common in most discussions of Israel, both the so-called right and left are divided amongst themselves on quite a number of issues. A good example on the left was the difference between MAPAI's ambivalent-to-hostile attitude towards the USSR as compared with MAPAM and more left-wing parties. The split in the right is far less known outside Israel, and that is the topic I wish to discuss.

Yes, the right includes the Revisionists, Herut, Begin and the various land of Israel parties. However, ever since the establishment of the Zionist movement, and especially the Yishuv during the British Mandate, there existed alongside this ideological wing another form of 'right wing' (Indeed Gahal/the Likud was a merger of most of both wings). They came under different names and titles over the years - 'civilian parties', 'liberals', 'General Zionists', 'Progressives' and the like. Some leaned more towards MAPAI, others had sympathies towards Revisionist and later Herut, still more tried to straddle the line. They were perpetually splitting into factions, frustrated at their complete inability to wrest control from the dominant 'leftists' (sound familiar?). They had two newspapers which best espoused their views - Haboker and, you guessed it, Haaretz.

Unlike left-wing parties, which first built institutions and organizations and then went out to expand their ranks, by the 'civilians' it worked the other way around. This right wing never posessed an ideologue on the level of Berl Katznelson, Zeev Jabotinsky or Rav Kook. Their party leadership and organization was often weak and fractured; their positions on many issues 'moderate' but often vague and undefined. Yet they remained a force to be reckoned with, because of their powerful economic and cultural voting base, until eventually their positions became absolutely supreme.

So what was the force behind this right wing? The electoral base of the 'civilians' came, then as now, primarily from what is now called 'the State of Tel Aviv' area - the urban populace living in the vicinity and satellite cities of the First Hebrew City. These were the shopkeepers, the petty bourgeois and the well-to-do. Industrialists and farmers, lawyers and bankers, they not only represented a large section of the population, but also a disproportionate percentage of its national wealth. In municipal elections they either won or always represented a serious challenge to MAPAI. In national elections, they never came that close, because their image as representing the 'fat cats' did not endear them to the rest of the populace.

Elections are not the only measure of success, however. People who talk of the MAPAI 'Worker's Stream' of education's tend to forget that during the Mandatory period, the 'general stream' of the 'civilians' educated half the Yishuv's children. It is unlikely this situation changed, at least ideologically, for those who learned in the State of Israel in greater Gush Dan. As more and more of the veteran Ashkenazi (and Mizrahi) population moved towards white-collar jobs and became lawyers, judges and reporters, the influence of the 'civilian' position grew until it became the dominant position.

So what did/does the 'civilian right wing' believe in? Many will use the nebulous term 'moderation', but this is an optical illusion. They were 'moderate' on issues that didn't threaten their core beliefs, much like the Mafdal on security pre-'67. When it came to those issues, such as the Mafdal regarding 'Who is a Jew', they were no less militant than anyone else. So what were those issues?

1) Individual freedom and rights - especially, but not only free enterprise and free markets. One of the few consistent themes of 'civilian' policy was removal of restrctions on trade, currency exchange etc. As their most famous slogan went - Tnu Lichyot Ba'aretz Hazot (roughly: Make this country liveable)!

2) Balanced Budgets - the fight against spending and what seemed like has a long history dating from Tel Aviv's municipal policy against deficit spending. This 'rational' dogma led, among other things to Haaretz's war against unrestrained aliya, culminating in Amos Elon's openly racist dispatches from Morocco as documented by Avi Picard (Israel 10: 117-143).

Over time, other principles crept in, such as a rigidly 'civilian' identity anathema to the concept of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic state. The concept of a constituion also eventually became an article of faith. The attitude of the early civilians towards Jewish religion - both on the ideological level and as a societal and political issue is a lacunae that demands to be filled. Suffice to say that I highly doubt the present open contempt and disdain of the 'civilian' Haaretz towards Judaism came out of nowhere, or simply because of their anti-occupation stance.

So there you have it. We are a country dominated by a center-right liberal-cosmopolitan ideology masking itself as left-wing because of a dovish stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The 'civilians' have earned their victory fair and square; Tel Aviv has left both Jerusalem and Degania eating its dust. Whether we are better off because of it, is another matter entirely.

The Realistic Jew

Thoughts of a realistic Modern Orthodox Zionist Jew

Over the past couple of weeks I've been boning up on my ideological literature from both the Haredi and Liberal-MO world views. Slowly I came to the realization that I could not wholeheartedly accept either position. Thus this statement of thoughts and principles was born:

I am a realistic Jew. Life is complicated, even chaotic for me. My beliefs are a mess of contradictions, struggles, doubts and debates. I prefer their continuation than any pat answer. Allow me to demonstrate:

I believe the Messiah will come. I just have no idea when.

Corralary: I have no idea whether the State of Israel really is Atchalta Degeula or not. This has no bearing on its importance for the Jewish people, or on the need to say Hallel for such a wonderful gift.

I don't know why God allowed the Holocaust to happen; If He Himself offered to tell me, I don't think I'd want to know.

People who endlessly debate why more Jews weren't saved by the Zionists/Haredim/Allies etc, ought to remember this paraphrasing of George Picket (who, when asked who's fault it was that Pickett's Charge failed, said):

"I always thought the Yankees (Read: Germans and their collaborators) had something to do with it"

Left and Right

Ideologues on both the left and the right claim to have all the answers (or answer in singular). Some claim the mantle of Gadol Hador, others that of Jeremiah. Having not received any word of God lately, I have no such lofty pretensions. Life is never as simple for me as it is for such people.

If I have a serious question of faith which I can not answer, I do not immediately assume it means there is none. It may be that I just haven't found it yet. The question will be placed in a tzarich iyun gadol or teiku until something new comes along. Furthermore, I don't know if I'll ever actually find the answer, but I refuse to stop looking and I refuse to concede defeat.

Others, especially on the left, may call this cowardice. If so, I am honored to be in the company of many great 'cowards' - such as the Rambam - who, unable to decisively prove their position against another, preferred to err on the side of God. He deserves the benefit of the doubt.

I do not believe in the 'one great idea' that binds all. I do not believe religious Judaism is only about Eretz Yisra'el, Torah study or what have you. I consider the idea that Judaism is simply a religious rubber stamp for humanism/liberalism/socialism/'social justice' etc to be both pathetic and insulting to my intelligence. My religion is one that laughs at any attempt at simplification.

Corralary: Hardalim and Liberals tend to forget that Moshe brought down TWO tablets from Sinai. The former ignore the one on the left, the latter the reverse (including the historic preamble).

Haredim accept a morally difficult halakha without qualms. Liberals simply abolish it or ignore it. If I can't find a way out, I will accept - under protest.

Secular Jews

I don't believe a pre-Messiah Medinat Halakha will make all the Jews become religious. I don't believe 'seperating church from state' will have any effect in that direction either.

I refuse to use violence or coercion against a fellow Jew who transgresses mitzvot. This would be against my beliefs as a religious Jew.

I also refuse to ever state that the secular position which denies God (or at least his commandments) is 'just as legitamite (one assumes correct)' a position as my own with how to be a Jew. This would also violate my beliefs as a religious Jew.

I do my best to be accomodating and respectful towards my secular colleagues. I do so not in the vain hope that any of them will ever be hozer bitshuva or in the belief that 'we are both right equally (see above)'.

My goal is much more modest - to get secular Jews to respect people like me, nothing more.

The IDF a la Ethan Bronner, Part I: Jewish-Israeli Veteran-Secular Society

If an alien from Mars were to land here and get his info solely from Ethan Bronner's article, he would get the impression that the IDF was mostly composed of "secular, liberal, educated kibbutniks" and now is in danger of a takeover by "religious right-wing nationalists". It's a perfect journalistic set-up, filled with a clear good (former)/bad (religious) dichotomy as well as all the right buzzwords (liberals and Western, nationalists and right-wing). Unfortunately for Ethan Bronner, things are a great deal more complicated.

Contemporary and past Jewish-Israeli society is not monolithic, but rather a society fragmented along a number of lines - ethnic (Ashkenazi, Mizrahi, Russian) and religious (secular, traditional, religious, haredi) and political (right-left, liberal-socialist), some of which have hardened over time, other softened. Even the sub-groups mentioned have other sub-groups, so to speak of a monolithic "secular, Western" and, one assumes, leftist and peacenik majority is to make a statement that has little basis outside the journalistic bubble of Tel Aviv.

Kibbutzniks, past and present, were never more than a small minority of the Israeli population. They may have been over-represented in the combat units and among junior and senior officers, but to say that they "dominated" is a bit of a stretch. The rank and file was always more variegated and representative, and it included Ashkenazim and Mizrahim, urbanites and farmers.

More importantly, that segment of Israeli Jews that can be positively identified as veteran and "secular" (kibbutzniks included) has undergone a number of sea changes. These are amply documented by Professor Oz Almog in his famous two-volume Farewell to Srulik. Put bluntly, the ethos of the moral, self-sacrificing tiller of the land has long since been replaced by a self-centered, careeristic individualist. As Gideon Katz and Charles Liebman have demonstrated, secular Jewish society (again, kibbutzniks and former kibbutzniks included) is torn between those who still want to maintain a Jewish identity and contribute to society to those who mostly care about their own careers and welfare.

This means less and less are willing to spend time and volunteer for regular army service or officers' training when there are much more attractive options in civilian life. Even blatant draft-avoidance for careeristic purposes doesn't carry the stigma it once did, if the fawning media treatment of Israeli celebrities is any indication. If other segments of Israeli society are becoming over-represented in the IDF, it is because the former elites voluntarily left their station, not because of some conspiratorial coup d'etat.

Once again, I have referred only to that section of veteran Ashkenazim mentioned in the article, without discussing the fact that there are many secular Jews on the right of the spectrum (mostly Likud etc). This is also without discussing the very large Mizrahi and Russian contingents, who are deserving of treatment on their own.

So where does that leave the evil "religious nationalists"? More on that in the next post.

The IDF a la Ethan Bronner, Introduction

My Obiter Dicta recently fisked an article by Ethan Bronner, desribing the takeover of the IDF by "religious nationalists" from the hand of liberal kibbutzniks. The trigger for this? The hotly debated testimonies regarding alleged war crimes commited by IDF soldiers during Operation Cast Lead. Apparently only datiyim do such things...

The article is a horrible example of how easy it is to smear a whole community, using half-truths, unproven generalizations and catchy buzzwords (liberal, nationalist). Even more infuriating is the fact that Bronner didn't bother to interview genuine experts on the subject of religious Jews in Israel such as Prof. Stuart Cohen or Prof. Asher Cohen. Instead, he spoke only with people on the hard left of the political spectrum (Prof. Moshe Halbertal, Prof. Yaron Ezrahi).

In attempt to partially rectify the impression one gets from this and other such articles, I will be posting on the various issues brought up by the article on an individual basis. My hope is that people will come away with a more nuanced understanding of Israeli society than is portrayed in the press.

The Crime that Never Was (On Communist Crimes Denial)

Tens of millions were murdered in its name through forced famine, murder and expulsion. Hundreds of millions more were subject to impoverishment and mass abuse of their human rights, on a scale never known in the democratic world. Life for all but the self-appointed leaders was one of hardship and repression.

No, I am not talking of fascism or even hard nationalism. I am referring to the victims of those who lived and those who are still living in states with a professed communist ideology. I do so because no-one in Israel, especially on the left or in academia seems willing or able to do so.

We have scholars and intellectuals calling for recognition of the Armenian genocide. We even have those who lehavdil claim Israel should stop its alleged "Nakba denial" and commemorate the Paletinians. However, I have yet to hear of anyone suggesting we should dedicate time and effort to commemorating the many people and peoples who were victims of communist atrocities.

This has been building up in me a long time. It started when a teacher of mine dismissed communist crimes with the excuse "I wouldn;t want to live there, but at least they narrowed the [socioeconomic] gaps" and at least "the leaders didn't live that well". Prying a little deeper, all the usual excuses came out: Lenin wanted something else. Stalin was nuts, Mao was nuts and so forth. Look how "good" Cuba is. Pitiful stuff that would be laughed out of court when it comes to Nazis is apparently acceptable when it comes to Communists. In another instance, a teacher of mine went on and on about the dangers of nationalism. When I mentioned communism, he gave me a blank stare and then excused it as simply "a dictator" who rose up, as if there was no underlying ideology.

Apparently intelligent people are meant to believe that all the communist leaders, subordinates, soldiers and carriers-out were all, at different times and in different places, seized by a mass psychosis. None of them was driven by ideology or capable of making moral choices. Forget the evidence. Forget the facts. They "meant well". They "really believe in what they do". They "dream of a better world", so to hell with all the people who need to be destroyed to get there. If all the excuses fail? Pretend it never happened.

Words can not describe how much I detest people willing to defend the crimes of genocide, democide and mass repression committed in the name of the "well-meaning ideology", all while condemning every supposed crime of democracies.

No-one who is genuinely serious about human rights in Israel can avoid the challenge of making "communist crimes denial" as illegitamite as Holoaust denial. We can start by translating "The Black Book of Communism", but to avoid the issue is, for me, tantamount to justifying it.

We screamed "never again". It's time we proved we meant it.

Be A Mentsch

We are now in the month of Elul, the month of self-reflection and teshuva. Hundreds, maybe thousands of shi'urim will be given in yeshivas, shuls, homes across the world about the 'need to change'. Pundits, religious and secular will soon be giving their opinion about what needs to be changed, though it's usually someone else - 'society-at-large', 'the government' - who need to do the changing.

Usually, this demand for change will be all-encompassing and immediate. Social Justice now. No road deaths now. No Loshon Hara now. Often terms like revolution will be used. It's as if nothing short of total change is enough.

Personally, I despise this attitude, regardless of its origin. For one thing, it's extremely unrealistic. It's the religious equivalent of telling someone who does some phycical exercise to do olympic-level sports at the drop of a hat. It's not just that people who try to undergo an "instant" revolution are doomed to failure. It's also the fact that many are likely to give up self-improvement altogether, since the benchmark, set at "perfect" or "near-perfect", is impossible to reach anyway.

There's something else, too. Nothing is easier in this world than to give 'society' musar without changing oneself. Talk is cheap, and the internet has made it even cheaper. There are few things I find more detestable than people who speak high-mindedly about humanity, human rights and human dignity, but who treat actual flesh and blood human beings horribly.

So when I read yet another pundit talking about how we need to inclucate "values" into society, I say let's try teaching our kids, and ourselves, to be mentsches first. All that high-minded talk about midos and kavod ha'adam is worse than worthless if kids won't give a seat to an elderly person on the bus, greet people besever panim yafot and at least try to refrain from hurting others. Ona'at Devarim (hurting someone else emotionally through hurtful words) is no less a lav than other sins.

It doesn't have to involve a great revolution either. The real test of whether one has really changed is in routine times, doing "routine" good acts or avoiding "routine" bad ones. Not during Elul or Tishrei, when everyone's on the spiritual mend, but during Tevet, Heshvan, and all those other "dull" months when it's easy to slip back into bad habits.

There's no need to change everything at once, either. My Ram's Ram had the best advice possible: change one thing during the year, and stick to it. It can be smiling when saying hello or thinking twice before saying something hurtful (especially if it's an attempt at frumkeit one-upsmanship). Maybe try to help people who look like they need help rather than walk by them thinking "it's someone else's problem".

Today, I saw a regular guy volunteer to offer his seat to an old man on the bus. No one asked or suggested to him to do so. To me, "little" acts like this contribute more to kavod ha'adam than all the lectures, articles and books written on the subject.

So please, before we go around trying to "repair" the world, let's try to make it liveable first.

Musings of A Gifted Human Being

I have to be the best. At everything I do. Ever since I was a kid, I usually got compliments for my grades and intellectual achievments. When I wasn't doing well, I would be told "you're so capable", "you have so much to give" and so on. They meant well, but it paralyzed me.

I have to be the best, because I can't imagine just being good. It's all or nothing. Either I ace, or I'm deficient, worth less somehow. I'd be a disappointment to my parents, my teachers, my classmates rooting for me. I'd be "wasted potential". In conversations around the cofee table, they'll talk about me with a sigh. That boy, he really could have been something.

My MA has to be a masterpiece. Because the subject is so hot-button. Because my advisor, one of the most brilliant minds in the country, believes I can do it. I'm so afraid of letting him down.

I have to ace every paper, impress with every presentation. Any criticism immediately cancells out all the praise. If 99% liked my paper and 1% hated it or belittled it, the other 99% doesn't count. I have to have everyone's adulation. Without it, I'm nothing.

The present-day Orthodox Jewish world is no help at all in this regard. Our "heroes" are picture perfect. Tzadikim who never made mistakes or savants who could memorize the Shas. All the rest of us are sneered upon. "Baalei Batim", people who do "mehkar" and so on. Even actual poskim are a few rungs lower on the ladder. God forbid actual public service and messy reality interfere with pure otherworldly matters.

I hate them. I hate the people, both in the religious and secular world, who will tolerate nothing but marble models and Greek gods. Mostly, I hate them because they make me hate myself even more, because I know I can never measure up to such ideals. I can barely begin many a paper for so long because I know, or am afraid that it will never come out as pristine and perfect as it seemed in my head. Even now, I'm thinking about all the possible critiques of this post.

I don't know what to do, really. It feels like a trap with no way out.

וכל המוסיף גורע

I was going to write a post about the Giyyur controversy, but I think the following poem, published in Hebrew by Tzur Ehrlich in this week's Makor Rishon, says it all:

בלבן רומנטי, בשדמות בית-לחם. סבתא-רבה רות הולכת עם דוד.

רות, עמך עמך ואת צריכה ללכת. אל תשירי שיר לנין במואבית.

מי גיר אותך? מתי באת לביקורת? הגואל שלך המרה שלוש שבועות.

למה נין מזרוחניק? מה עשית בגורן? איזו מין תורה קיבלת בשבועות?

רות, את קשה. את כמו ספחת. רות, להתיר אין שום דעה.

רות, מה מציץ לך מהמטפחת. למה מטפחת בלי פאה?

רות, לא נבחנת על כל הלקט. רות, את נפסלת. את רות בלאי.

רות, את אינפקציה, את דלקת, או עצי-רות אולי.

סבתא-רבא רות שמעה ולא החליטה אם לשוב מואבה עם דוד נינה

או למצוא רב שליט"א מאסכולת ליטא שיסכים בסוף לתת לה חנינה

בקצירת העומר היא כמהה כמוה לא להישלל בידי בית דין אלים.

היא, ובית דוד, וכל אשר כמוה ועמו עמינו: רבבות עולים

רות, את צריכה גיור לחומרא. רות, הדיין כבר לא בגיל.

רות, גיוריו של חיים דרוקמן לא נכללו בדיל

רות, בית דוד מדי ציוני. רות, בית ישי לא משלים מנין.

רות, בית שמאי, בית תהיו-כמוני, בא להדפך באמת בנין.

רות, אלמנת כליון. רות, וכמותה מיליון.

רות, לא ה"חי" בתליון. קובע, כי אם המחשוף.

רות, את אינך מיוחסת. רות, את בנאחס מנחסת.

רות, פה אין חן ואין חסד. רות, סוף.

ממקור ראשון

A letter to the someone I haven't met

To whoever you are,

I suppose you'd like to know a little bit about me. Well, I'm not going to read off my CV. I'm sure you'll agree with me that if you've read one, you've read them all. I won't tell you how I "have a great love of life", a "sense of humour" or how I like movies and books. I'm here to tell you about me, not Joe P. Average.

Well, here goes:

We'll start with what I am not. I am not a knight in shining armour, a gallant flawless prince who'll sweep you off your feet. I am not Brad Pitt or the next Gadol HaDor. I do not conform to the fantasies we create of our future spouse. I can not "promise a rose garden" of a relationship, and even roses have thorns.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I can start telling you what I am. I am a young adult, relatively mature for my age and with a penchant for deep introspection. I am quite knowledgable in some areas of life, though in others I could use some catching up. I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge for its own sake; I like to hope I "infect" people with this particular "bug".

Though I am not Brad Pitt, I am not bad-looking. I like to think that I carry myself pretty well, and I can be a great conversationalist on various deep subjects, though I have little patience for chit-chat and small talk. I hate large crowds, but I like small groups of people.

My life has not been a cakewalk, though not a running disaster. I have known my share of crises and moments of despair. I like to think I came out of these with a greater appreciation for life and all the good things we take for granted. I can't stand people who look at the world with nothing but cynicism; people who do nothing but criticise and make everyone else miserable. I like to help people; I often hope that at least some of the advice I've given people over the years has helped them along their journey, maybe even preventing them from making some of the mistakes I've made.

I love music. Not a generic "love of music", but music that touches the soul and makes it sing. Music like the symphonies of Mozart, the Romantic masterpieces of Chopin, or the beautiful jazz of Louis Armstrong. I like the kind of music that lets you along for the ride rather than artifically pull on your heart strings. I also love movies that make you think and reflect - I refer to films like the Shawshank Redemption or the Usual Suspects.

I am looking for you because quite frankly I'm tired of being lonely. I want a life partner in every sense of the word, capable of both physical and emotional intimacy. I want to be able to love and be loved. I want someone I can talk to, share good times and bad, raise a Jewish family together.

I think that's enough for now.

Wherever you are, if you're out there, please give me a real chance.

Shabbat Shalom, AIWAC

The Desire to Belong (Orthodox Academic Journal, Part II)

We want to be loved by our peers. It's a basic psychological need. Usually, we find some area in which we excel - sports, intellect, socializing or otherwise and "show it off" so people can "ooh" and "aah". Eventually, we find "our" crowd, that group of people with whom we feel "at home".

I thought that home was academia. Maybe I was wrong. I didn't realize just how much I am represent an insignificant minority. I am a Modern Orthodox Jew. I disagree emphatically with the idea that "sociological" (i.e. without kabalat ol mitzvot) conversion is enough. I also disagree with the notion that whatever is "liberal", "pluralistic" or "universal" is always good or that whatever is "conservative" or "particularistic" is always bad. I also think that the Haredi stranglehold on the Rabbinate and halakhic thinking is a disaster for the Jewish people in Israel and has caused nothing but hillul hashem and hatred towards Orthodoxy as a whole. Consequently, I don't follow the "dogma" of either camp and am forced to feel defensive and uncomfortable in either setting.

It's not just that, though. I never realized, or maybe I didn't want to know, how much non-religious Jews lump all Orthodox Jews in the same group. There I am, a university student with years of experience in secular self-education, and I may as well just walk around with Haredi garb for all the difference it makes. My (big) kippa is just so much window-dressing. There's no-one that I know to talk to here. There's no support system for religious students dealing with issues like this - everyone, including people on the teaching staff, seem to all deal with this on their own with varying degrees of success. Suffice to say that I am afraid many of us are "burned" religiously even if we still have a kipa over our heads.

After years of searching, I still often feel very alone. To be sure, I have my family, who are all very supportive and helpful. Maybe I should give up looking for "my crowd". Maybe such a thing doesn't exist, at least for me. Which brings me back to the original problem - what the hell am I doing here?

Good Revisionism, Bad Revisionism

"It's Time for Another Good Idea, Bad Idea" - Animaniacs

Revisionism. The word itself makes many an historian salivate. The thought of being able to up-end established scholarship and popular perceptions of what happened in the past is a great temptation for those of us wanting to quickly establish ourselves in the scholarly community. Unfortunately, the desire to do so contains many pitfalls, so I have written up a list comparing what I consider to be "good" revisionism - i.e. revisionism that contributes to academic debate and thought, and "bad" revisionism - the type that's good for juicy newspaper interviews, but not much else. Enjoy.

The "Official" Version: A simplistic black-and-white morality tale where the "establishment" is always the "good guy" and right, and its enemies are always the "bad guys" and wrong.

Good Revisionism: A careful, objective analysis of all sides, taking into account context, contingency, zeitgeist and other factors before arriving at a reasoned judgment.

Bad Revisionism: A simplistic black-and-white morality tale where the "establishment" is always the "bad guy" and wrong, and its enemies are always the "good guys" and right.

Good Revisionism: History ("what happened") is the primary concern. Historiography (how it was written) and collective memory (what people think happened) is a secondary concern that must not affect the historical analysis.

Bad Revisionism: Historiography/collective memory are the primary concern. History is thus dependent on what people think happened, regardless of what actually happened.

Corollary: Good revisionism considers "mythbusting" to be incidental (even if it's a nice added bonus) to the primary task of the research. Bad revisionism is obsessed with rebutting popular conceptions of history, and not so much with what actually happened.

Good revisionism: Causes most reasonable people to think and consider your arguments, even if they disagree.

Bad revisionism: Convinces those who were already convinced, usually because of previous political convictions and prejudices. Happy "revising". AIWAC