They want to pray at what they consider the holiest part of the Wall. Right now, their rights are denied in favor of the rights of the orthodox. Perhaps if different times of day were allocated to mixed and segregated prayer, both groups’ rights could be satisfied.
To me, it seems no different then if a certain sect’s belief meant that (for example) Ethiopian Jews could not pray at a certain holy location- they had to pray at a segregated area. Perhaps Americans like me have a knee-jerk negative reaction to anything that smells like “separate but equal”.
Ane Hoffman tried to pray at the women part. What the Jewish inquisition did not like was that she and her group used a prayer shawl.
Despite what Terr says, non-orthodox Judaism (which contains many flavors, including Conservative Judaism) is very much trending in Israel. For instance, my children have had a reform bar-mitzva and bat-mitzva, although we’re basically secular. And we do not originate in the US, or any other English speaking country.
The Ultra-Orthodox establishment is hated, and I don’t use this word lightly, by the majority, or even great majority of Israeli Jews. The Zionist-Orthodox that constitute the other branch of orthodoxy are in a crisis. I should remind Terr, claiming the “novelty” of the Reform movement, that the Zionist-Orthodox movement is also “new”, less than 150 years old. And roughly 1/3 of their children veer towards extremist orthodoxy, and 1/3 towards secularism. In addition, a significant portion of the Zionist-Orthodox is heavily Messianic and invested in the West bank (or Judea and Samaria as they are called) ultra-nationalism. By the way, they are dismissed by the Ultra-Orthodox as “kippa srucha” that means “Stinking Kippa” and is a world play from “Kippa Sruga” - knitted kippa.
Women praying at the wall is maybe the least of the religious discrimination and intolerance in Israel. Did anyone know that around half a million people cannot legally marry in Israel and have to go to Cyprus or elsewhere ? This is because they are not Jews according to the Halacha laws as interpreted by the orthodox (i.e. Jewish father, Christian mother or converted to Judaism not by the “right” rabbi, or just cannot prove Judaism well enough) and there is no possibility of civil marriage .
Terr’s claim on a monopoly of knowledge of “what is Judaism” is just a claim. Jews in the centers of Jewish learning in Spain 500 years ago or even the Rambam would not recognize Judaism as practiced and lived by the ultra-Orthodox. They were vastly more open and moderate.
Help me out here. Bob, a Lutheran, converts to Reform Judaism at a Reform synagogue in Poughkeepsie. Despite converting to something that you do not consider to be Judaism, is he a Jew?
Some Jews would dispute that.
Neither he nor I, who converted with a Conservative Bet Din (sp), would have “the right of return” to Israel as Jews. Someone who converted Orthodox would.
No. Same thing, if I decide I am going to create another form of Judiaism, call it “Neoclassical” Judaism, and the conversion procedure consists of kicking someone in the butt. If I kick Bob, a Lutheran, in the butt, he still does not become a Jew.
From what I’ve read, even Bibi has allegedly asked the authorities to come up with a way to solve the problem posed by the Orthodox stranglehold over the wall. So it isn’t as if the issue does not resonate with “the authorities”.
The problem here is that the Holy sites of Jerusalem are a political and social tinderbox and any messing about on some sect’s “turf” is often the signal for rioting or worse. Hence, the first instinct of the Israeli authorities is to support the status quo however unjust it may be to someone - that includes removing “civil disobeyers” even though the cause they fight for may very well be justified.
This isn’t particularly an issue confined to Jews BTW - Muslims and Christians too have their religious status quo upheld by the authoritise (the example of the Dome of the Rock is a case in point - so is the multiple sects of Christians “owning” bits of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre).
While this situation no doubt sucks in cases like this, if the Israelis didn’t take that attitude Jerusalem would soon be overrun by people claiming the right to “occupy” holy sites traditionally accorded to others - for example, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre used to regularly witness riots by groups of monks attempting to claim more “turf”, and there are many Jewish groups who would like nothing better than to oust the Muslims from the Temple Mount (it is, after all, formerly the site of the Temple, and so holy ground for Jews).
All of which, particularly the latter, has the potential for creating much violence in a city where religion is taken very seriously indeed. While it is easy for us North Americans to say, in effect, “well, people should all be allowed to exercise their religious freedom as they see fit and if the religious types get upset about that, too bad”, well, we don’t have to live there and we aren’t likely to be blamed by the entire world if our well-intentioned policies create rioting, murder, and bloody suppression.
How quickly people forget that the “second intafadah” was (allegedly by some) triggered by … a Jew asserting the right of Jews to step foot on the Temple Mount.
Around 4000 people died as a result.
While Sharon may have been “in the right” to visit the Temple Mount, it was exceedingly unwise of him to assert that right in the context.
Are you sure ? Law of return is not identical to orthodox Jewisness; it is a secular law, made by the parliament. For instance one is entitled to Israeli citizenship even if he/she had only one Jewish grandfather. I’m almost sure that reform or conservative conversions would be OK. You wouldn’t be able to marry as a Jew though, since marriage/divorce law can be only religious.
I told you, I am the head of the branch of Judaism called “Neoclassical” Judaism (just because I like that name). The only requirement to convert to it is to accept a kick in the ass from me. I kick you in the ass, you’re a Jew. Are other Jews required to accept my converts as Jewish?
“No true Jew is a convert to Reform Judaism from another religion!”
“Bob is a convert to Reform Judaism from another religion.”
“Then Bob is no true Jew!”
Yep. You’re engaging in semantic sophistry in support of religious bigotry. A better example of the No True Scotsman fallacy I’ve yet to come across.
And neither many orthodox converts, if the converting Rabbi is not “approved” by the Great Rabbinical Court. As you may remember, they even retroactively canceled conversions made by Rabbi Druckman. Who is very Orthodox.
Don’t worry, Terr. We will also fight for you when you’ll be declared a non-jew because you won’t be able to prove that your grand-grand-grand…-grandmother was Jewish.
We are lucky to have a High Court of Justice that sorts these things out, sometimes.
That’s where I entered the conversation. We weren’t discussing the question of whether or not Jewish women should be allowed to pray at the men’s section of the Wailing Wall or anything like that.
It’s worth noting that there is a long and tortured history between ultra-Orthodox Jews and Muslims regarding the Al Aqsa Mosque. Jewish terrorist groups have actually hatched plans to blow it up in a mad quest to “rebuild the third temple”, which they believe the Al Aqsa Mosque lies on it. Various other religious groups have made a point of claiming they were going to place the cornerstone by the Mosque symbolizing the rebuilding of the Third Temple(which of course would mean the destruction of the third holiest site in Islam.
Such behavior has provoked, as intended, riots and dozens killed in the early 90s and eventually similar actions by Ariel Sharon may or may not have provoked another intifada*.
Obviously, a group of Ultra Orthodox Jews entering the Al Aqsa Mosque to pray there or right beside it would be seen as an extremely provocative act and would be seen as an attempt to symbolically claim ownership the site and belief in it’s destruction and replacement with the Third Temple.
Also, despite what Steronz is claiming that, the Mosque is owned(or at least as owned as it can be in the socialist state of Israel) by the Waqf.
The Waqf do not control the Western Wall, though they obviously collaborate with the Jewish religious authorities to make sure that everyone can get to their appropriate religious places without stepping on each others toes.
Access to the Western Wall, I believe is controlled by a combination of the Israeli government and the official ruling Jewish religious body of Israel.
I should have realized the confusion and clarified the mini-hijack going one when you first responded in post 36.
I should have recognized the confusion and made it clear we were discussing the Mosque since obviously the Waqf has no control over the Wailing Wall.
*Not being coy, it’s just that there’s tremendous amount of evidence the Al Aqsa Intifada was going to happen anyway, just it would have had a different spark.
Ah, I see. I thought that was just one of the analogies, and I skipped over it because the Lakota one was easier to address; I didn’t much follow your remaining conversation on the subject. My apologies for getting turned around with what you were saying re: Waqf.
That doesn’t change, however, my objections to your analogy re: the Lakota, or much else of what followed from that.
