Israel ad the U.S.

[Alessan]

@Noone Special

You live in Haifa? 'Cause I’d say it’s been more like a quarter of a century since I last saw the red flag…

Dani

Good guess - grew up on the Carmel. Moved out in 2000, but the family’s still there.

(They didn’t call it “Red Haifa” for nothing.)

[Malthus]

@BrainGlutton

As a matter of fact, yes. No cite, but I’ve studied Israel’s history and I’ve heard some Palestinians interviewed on All Things Considered, and it appears that from the beginning there has been a minority strain in Palestinian political thought that has always wanted a united, secular democratic state of Palestine, with Jews and Muslims living together and sharing power. And in my view that would be preferable to a two-state solution. Especially as it would almost certainly put an end to Israel as a Jewish state in the religious sense, as distinct from the national sense. Really, why is a state like Iran, governed by mullahs, any less of an abomination to the modern world than a state like Israel, where rabbis play a prescriptive role in the government? A two-state solution, on the other hand, would leave things in Israel as they are now – while relegating the Palestinians to an isolated microstate that, even if nominally independent, would not be economically viable.

I disagree with your characterization of Israel being a theocracy on par with Iran, and wonder what support you have for the observation that Rabbis play a “prescriptive” role in the Israeli government.

[MrDibble]

@BrainGlutton

Israel is a democracy, yes, in the same way South Africa under apartheid was a deomocracy for the enfranchised – the white and “colored” populations.

That’s “coloured” - and I must correct you on this…Coloured and Indian South Africans were never truly enfranchised - there was a sham “tricameral” parliament from '86 to '92, as well as Black “homeland” rulers, but the coloured and Indian chambers were completely toothless, and the homeland (“bantustan”) rulers were petty stronman dictators, and all three lots were seen as the quisling jokes they were by the general population.

I know, I am a coloured South African who grew up during the struggle years. While I don’t support their terrorist activities, I do believe Palestinians are victims of a religious and ethnic oppression every bit as bad as apartheid ever was.

[Zahava424]

Was that just a nitpick on whether to use the American or European spelling of “colored” (or coloured)? Or is there a significance to the spelling of the term?

[BrainGlutton]

@Malthus

I disagree with your characterization of Israel being a theocracy on par with Iran, and wonder what support you have for the observation that Rabbis play a “prescriptive” role in the Israeli government.

No, of course Israel is not a theocracy in the way Iran is a theocracy, but it has definite tendencies in that direction. To some extent, Talmudic law is public law. All kinds of things are shut down, by law, on the Sabbath. When the state has to decide whether two people are legally married, they look to the rabbis. When the state has to decide who is or is not a real Jew for purposes of the Law of Return, they look to the rabbis. Yeshiva students enjoy a special exemption from the military service that is compulsory for everybody else. I say that each and every bit of this is completely unacceptable to modern civilization, especially as defined by a society like the U.S. which purports to be founded on complete separation of church and state. Furthermore, non-Jews will always be second-class citizens, to some extent, in a state which is officially committed to religious Judaism the way Israel is. To make matters worse, in Israel, religious Judaism means only Orthodox Judaism. In Israel there are Orthodox Jews and there are secular Jews, but there are practically no Reform Jews, no people who are religious but willing to make compromises. (Maybe I’m wrong about this, I’ve never been to Israel, but that’s what I’ve heard several times on All Things Considered.) The sooner all involvement of rabbis in Israeli law and government is completely done away with, the better for Israel and for the world. If a one-state solution could help bring that about, that’s just one more reason to support a one-state solution.

[Noone_Special]

OK, I’m not really sure where to start on this…

@BrainGlutton

No, of course Israel is not a theocracy in the way Iran is a theocracy, but it has definite tendencies in that direction.

More like a tendency in the other direction. Israel started out with far too much religion in its political system, and is currently in the process of slowly removing it.

To some extent, Talmudic law is public law.

Not that I know of. there are some laws that echo religious practices, but no laws that I am aware of that have been lifted verbatim from the Talmud.

All kinds of things are shut down, by law, on the Sabbath.

Still somewhat true, but far less so than in the past. give it 10-15 years and Shabbat mandatory closure may well be a thing of the past. Also, it isn’t like the USA didn’t have “Blue Laws” for the longest time…

When the state has to decide whether two people are legally married, they look to the rabbis.

No. They look to the secular court. If they are deemed to be married according to Jewish law, then the act of divorce has to be made by a religious tribunal - which is probably what got you confused.

When the state has to decide who is or is not a real Jew for purposes of the Law of Return, they look to the rabbis.

absolutely not true - the law of return is specifically not worded to include an Orthodox Religious definition of “Who is a Jew”. This has been a sore point with “The Rabbis” for the last 50 years…

Yeshiva students enjoy a special exemption from the military service that is compulsory for everybody else.

All too true But even this may be about to go the way of the Dodo within the next 10 years or so…

Furthermore, non-Jews will always be second-class citizens, to some extent, in a state which is officially committed to religious Judaism the way Israel is.

Untrue. These “Second-class citizens” are free to vote and be voted for, and are quite sell represented in the Knesset. Also, to the extent that, say, marriage and divorce are still religiously regulated, these things are regulated not “According to Jewish law”, but “According to the religion of the person in question.” Still needs to be fixed, I agree with you, but has nothing to do with some kind of visualized “opression of religious minorities”

To make matters worse, in Israel, religious Judaism means only Orthodox Judaism. In Israel there are Orthodox Jews and there are secular Jews, but there are practically no Reform Jews, no people who are religious but willing to make compromises. (Maybe I’m wrong about this, I’ve never been to Israel, but that’s what I’ve heard several times on All Things Considered.)

Also somewhat true, but irrelevant - Reform Judaism just hasn’t really picked up here; we have the option of national, secular identification for those who don’t want to identify religiously - and the reform movement is, IMO, a way of doing this for Jews outside Israel, who don’t really want any part of the religious extremist thing, but for whom this option is not so readily available.

The sooner all involvement of rabbis in Israeli law and government is completely done away with, the better for Israel and for the world.

Absolutely agreed!

If a one-state solution could help bring that about, that’s just one more reason to support a one-state solution.

Now that’s already throwing the baby with the bathwater, IMO. I think Israel must remain a culturally “Jewish” country - this is our Raison d’etre, after all. I want to live in a society where most of the other people have this background in common with me. I just don’t want anyone (myself included) to be forced by law to observe any part of that background…

Dani

[MrDibble]

@Zahava424

Was that just a nitpick on whether to use the American or European spelling of “colored” (or coloured)? Or is there a significance to the spelling of the term?

[hijack]It was a light-hearted bit of humour before my main point - but “coloured” in SA is not just a skin colour descriptor, like it would have been in 60’s USA. It’s a cultural signifier too, and many a “coloured” person is darker than many a “black” person, but would never consider themselves black. It’s got to do with language, culture, history, religion even. So as a name, rather than a descriptor, I think it behooves people to spell it like the people themselves would, no?
One thing I think a lot of African American (heck, all American) visitors here fail to realise, is that, typically, AfrAms have a lot more in common with “coloured” South Africans than with Black africans - both are rootless, ex-slave, more than a little mixed, there’s a strong similarity in the ghetto cultures of both…but when AfrAms come here, they always take the Black township tours, none of them go into the Flats or the Bo-Kaap. I guess the real African cousins are too close to home?
[/hijack]

[cmkeller]

BrainGlutton:

All kinds of things are shut down, by law, on the Sabbath.

That’s right. In America, all public offices are closed on Sunday. In the Jewish State, it’s Saturday. If there was going to be a public day off per week no matter what, why not align it with the majority religion? That’s hardly an example of encroaching theocracy.

When the state has to decide whether two people are legally married, they look to the rabbis.

Or to the religious authority of whatever religion the partners are involved in.

When the state has to decide who is or is not a real Jew for purposes of the Law of Return, they look to the rabbis.

And who else should they look to?

Yeshiva students enjoy a special exemption from the military service that is compulsory for everybody else.

I believe that divinity students have special draft exemptions (when there’s a draft on) in other countries as well, including the US.

I say that each and every bit of this is completely unacceptable to modern civilization, especially as defined by a society like the U.S. which purports to be founded on complete separation of church and state.

Given the above responses, why? I’m especially interested to know why the Sabbath thing bothers you so much. After all, if one day a week all government operations will be closed anyway, why in the world is it so terrible to choose that one day out of seven to align to the Jewish character of the state? On the contrary, to do otherwise would be to specifically SPITE that character, and furthermore, incovenience the Orthodox population, whereas the non-Orthodox population is no less inconvenienced by Saturday closings as they would be by Sunday or Monday, etc closings.

Furthermore, non-Jews will always be second-class citizens, to some extent, in a state which is officially committed to religious Judaism the way Israel is.

Not true. Non-Jewish citizens of the State of Israel have the same rights as Jewish ones.

To make matters worse, in Israel, religious Judaism means only Orthodox Judaism. In Israel there are Orthodox Jews and there are secular Jews, but there are practically no Reform Jews, no people who are religious but willing to make compromises.

That’s right. Israelis generally believe in doing something completely, or not doing it at all. No one compels them to be Orthodox, and no one tells them they can’t be Reform if they want to. But somehow, the secular Israelis for the most part seem to feel that they don’t want “religion with compromises.” They either want religion, or they don’t.

To be fair, there are really historical rather than ideological reasons for the lack of a significant Reform presence in Israel. First of all, Reform was very anti-Zionist until the mid-30s, by which time the main Ashkenazic (European-descended) immigrant communities were established, so the early communities were either Orthodox or totally secular. Second of all, Reform never existed in the first place amongst the Sephardic (Middle-Eastern) communities from which many of today’s Israelis emigrated in the early 1950’s. (In fact, far from the state being religiously coercive, the state had, back then, a program of *de-*religionizing those Sephardic immigrants, to the point that babies were kidnaped from their religious parents and sent to non-religious families or orphanages to be raised!) Thirdly, the main purpose of Reform for most of those who made the choice to join the movement (i.e., not those who are Reform simply because their parents raised them as such) was to maintain a sense of Jewish identity in a non-Jewish general society without the demands of Orthodox religion. In a country where the majority is Jewish anyway, the sense of identity is strong enough without the need to join a formal non-Orthodox sub-group of Jews.

[BrainGlutton]

Since the title of this thread is “Israel and the U.S.,” I think everyone interested in it should read “The Jewish Divide on Israel,” by Esther Kaplan, an article in the July 12, 2004 issue of The Nation. Link:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040712&s=kaplan

From the article:

. . . AIPAC and the Conference of Presidents, along with their powerful fellow travelers, Christian Zionists, have forged a bipartisan consensus in Washington that Middle East policy must privilege the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel. In practice, this solid consensus means putting Israeli security before peace; supporting even such extreme Israeli measures as the separation wall and assassinations; and delegitimizing the Palestinian leadership. In AIPAC’s view, even Bush’s unambitious Middle East “road map” conceded too much to the Palestinians. Until the late 1980s, when the PLO publicly affirmed Israel’s right to exist, such positions may truly have represented the vast majority of American Jews. But ever since the 1993 Oslo Accord proved that negotiations were possible, surveys have consistently found that 50 to 60 percent of American Jews favor ending the occupation and dismantling settlements in return for peace.

<snip.

But tens of thousands of American Jews have had a very different response to the failed talks and the new Palestinian uprising. They began to ask heretical questions about whether former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, or Oslo, had really offered Palestinians a viable state, and whether the harsh occupation was to blame for rising Palestinian anger. Most American Jewish peace organizations had closed up shop during the hopeful Oslo years, so these marginalized doves started almost from scratch, launching dozens of local and national organizations dedicated to ending the occupation. “Since the intifada began, the mantra in the American Jewish community was that Israel’s existence was being threatened and we had to stand by the government of Israel no matter what it did. This idea, brilliantly manipulated by the Israeli government, became sacrosanct,” says Marcia Freedman, a former Knesset member who co-founded one of these new groups, the Chicago-based Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, in 2002. “There just happens to be a very right-wing government in Israel that does not support a two-state solution, so this lockstep solidarity gave that government carte blanche support.” The new grassroots efforts are determined to revoke that carte blanche. Brit Tzedek already has chapters in twenty-seven cities; Michael Lerner’s Berkeley-based Tikkun Community and the Oakland-based Jewish Voice for Peace, which just went national in May, have joined the few remaining older peace outfits like Americans for Peace Now (APN) and Arthur Waskow’s Philadelphia-based Shalom Center to create an incipient counterforce, which exists almost entirely outside official Jewish channels.

Some of the new groups, like Brit Tzedek and Tikkun, consider themselves to be strongly pro-Israel but seek to radically redefine the term. (“So the definition of being pro-Israel is to be pro-Sharon?” asks Tikkun’s Deborah Kory. “Well, maybe assassinating a guy in a wheelchair is not the best thing for Israel.”) Others, like New York City’s Jews Against the Occupation, define themselves as pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian, and are open to the idea of a single, binational state. Most of the new organizations are explicitly Jewish, but American Jewish activists have also been central players in the founding of multiethnic organizations like the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), which sends international observers, about a fifth of whom are American Jews, into the occupied territories, and the Washington, DC-based US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, which advocates divestment from Israel bonds. And they are becoming increasingly visible. In March one older peace group, Rabbis for Human Rights of North America, sent an open letter to Sharon protesting Israel’s house-demolition policy, which was signed by 400 rabbis, including leaders of some of the largest congregations in the country; in April Brit Tzedek organized 10,000 US Jews to sign another open letter, this one calling on Israel and the United States to fund the relocation of Jewish settlers from the occupied territories to Israel.

Over the past three years, these organizations have lobbied Congress, picketed Israeli consulates, initiated campus divestment campaigns, set up informational listservs and held hundreds of vigils and teach-ins. Though they lack support from major Jewish donors or Jewish foundations, their numbers are fast approaching AIPAC’s 65,000 members (APN has some 25,000 supporters, Brit Tzedek another 17,000 and so on), and polls show that there is tremendous room for growth. When former Israeli and Palestinian officials crafted the Geneva Accord last year as a model peace agreement, an APN survey found that five times more American Jews supported the plan than opposed it. AIPAC, on the other hand, dismissed Geneva as irrelevant and used its political muscle to block a mild Congressional resolution applauding the “courage and vision” of those who fashioned it. It turns out that far from being more unified than ever in support of Israeli policies, American Jews are as polarized on Israel as Americans as a whole are polarized about George W. Bush.

[Malthus]

@BrainGlutton

No, of course Israel is not a theocracy in the way Iran is a theocracy, but it has definite tendencies in that direction. To some extent, Talmudic law is public law. All kinds of things are shut down, by law, on the Sabbath. When the state has to decide whether two people are legally married, they look to the rabbis. When the state has to decide who is or is not a real Jew for purposes of the Law of Return, they look to the rabbis. Yeshiva students enjoy a special exemption from the military service that is compulsory for everybody else. I say that each and every bit of this is completely unacceptable to modern civilization, especially as defined by a society like the U.S. which purports to be founded on complete separation of church and state. Furthermore, non-Jews will always be second-class citizens, to some extent, in a state which is officially committed to religious Judaism the way Israel is. To make matters worse, in Israel, religious Judaism means only Orthodox Judaism. In Israel there are Orthodox Jews and there are secular Jews, but there are practically no Reform Jews, no people who are religious but willing to make compromises. (Maybe I’m wrong about this, I’ve never been to Israel, but that’s what I’ve heard several times on All Things Considered.) The sooner all involvement of rabbis in Israeli law and government is completely done away with, the better for Israel and for the world. If a one-state solution could help bring that about, that’s just one more reason to support a one-state solution.

Well, others with more knowledge have replied. Have you changed your opinion?

One point struck me with particular force - the “closing down on Saturday = lurching towards theocracy”. May I ask where you live? I live in Toronto, Canada - and Canada can hardly be described as having “definite tendancies towards theocracy”. Yet, to this day, loads of stuff shuts down on Sunday - the Christian sabbath. Have I been wrong all this time, and without my knowing it, Canada
has theocratic tendancies?

Using this to draw a parallel with Iran, even a tenuous one, is just absurd. There are plenty of realissues to take issue with Israel over. Comparing Israel to Iran just isn’t going to wash, with anyone who knows anything about the two countries - it is pretty insulting to those who have fled the insanities of the Iranian theocracy (like my best friend’s wife).

[DSeid]

So can the Israelis please expound upon the state of secular-religious relations and power in Israel today. How has Sharon’s recent positioning of himself as pushing for withdrawl even if unilateral, despite its lack of approval among many of the religious parties and his own party, but with its approval by the vast majority of the more numerous secular Jews, effected the power balance?

If there was peace tomorrow how what would the nature of Israel as a Jewish state look like? Jewish as a cultural motiff? Some semblance of religious influence on Israeli law? Jewish as a “people” or as a religion or as a tribe? Or just a state where the majority happens to be Jewish for now and so is very friendly to Jewish interests and perspectives?

I dunno and am looking to be informed, but I’ve had the impression that there has been a collision on hold between Israel as a modern democratic secular state, and Israel as a state for those of the Jewish faith. A collision postponed by the battle for survival and the battle for a secure place to live. But one that will at some point be fought. Is this impression totally specious?

[BrainGlutton]

@Malthus

Well, others with more knowledge have replied. Have you changed your opinion?

Yes, it appears some of my information was out of date and I overestimated the intrusiveness of Jewish religious law into Israeli public life – but not by much. See DSeid’s post above. And I don’t think I’ve overestimated the political importance of Jewish religious beliefs in Israel. Some conservatives actually think all of Palestine should be theirs because God promised it to Moses and Abraham.

@Malthus

One point struck me with particular force - the “closing down on Saturday = lurching towards theocracy”. May I ask where you live?

I live in Florida. I have no problem with businesses closing on Saturday and/or Sunday because of custom – who expects a bank to be open on Sunday? It’s just part of the modern American tradition of “the weekend.” But it always makes my blood boil when it is required by law – e.g., with respect to the liquor stores in some counties around here.

[DSeid]

Brian, I’ve travel through parts of Florida (the Sarasota to Ft Meyers area - my in-laws have a place near there, close to Englewood) and it sure seems like a theocracy to me.

In terms of political and cultural influence lots of rural (and especially Southern rural) America functions that way no matter what the law says, and elements of the Right would certainly like the US to function more as a Christian country than it does at a Federal level. But this thread is about Israel so I’ll shush ma mouth.

[spingears]

The full title is:
“Tales from the Time Loop: The Most Comprehensive Expos of the Global Conspiracy Ever Written and All You Need to Know to Be Truly Free”

The author David Icke writes a lot of books. Check out the titles.

[vanilla]

He’s loopy, all right.
But I had thought he would be accurate about some governmental things.
I see, thanks to the straight dope, he was off about Israel.
By the way,Israel to him, is different from Zionism, which is ruled by lizards.
For sure.

[Guinastasia]

vanilla, he’s loopy about EVERYTHING. The man once claimed to be Jesus.

He’s completely batshit.

[Noone_Special]

@DSeid

So can the Israelis please expound upon the state of secular-religious relations and power in Israel today.

Slowly and without fanfare (and that’s important!) inching towards a fully secularized private sector. You are right about the public sector lagging behind - but then again, where does it not?

How has Sharon’s recent positioning of himself as pushing for withdrawl even if unilateral, despite its lack of approval among many of the religious parties and his own party, but with its approval by the vast majority of the more numerous secular Jews, effected the power balance?

Pretty much irrelevant. I’d say it’s more that Sharon’s ability to talk about and work towards separation, including some withdrawal, have been brought about by the gradual decline in religious political clout; not the other way around.

If there was peace tomorrow how what would the nature of Israel as a Jewish state look like? Jewish as a cultural motiff? Some semblance of religious influence on Israeli law? Jewish as a “people” or as a religion or as a tribe? Or just a state where the majority happens to be Jewish for now and so is very friendly to Jewish interests and perspectives?

A little bit of all of the above. Hard for me to say exactly how much of each and in which walks of life - although most “blue law” analogs are pretty much moot already (i.e., they still sort of exist, and every so often a store open on Saturday will be slapped with a fine that might amount to 5% of the additional revenue from a single Saturday… you can see how this doesn’t really have much effect, right?)

I dunno and am looking to be informed, but I’ve had the impression that there has been a collision on hold between Israel as a modern democratic secular state, and Israel as a state for those of the Jewish faith. A collision postponed by the battle for survival and the battle for a secure place to live. But one that will at some point be fought. Is this impression totally specious?

Actually, the “collision” is taking place already - except it’s more like tectonic plates than like racing cars. Every so often there’s a local “earthquake” (some court desicion, another shopping mall open on Saturday…) - the weak ones never make a headline outside of the immediate area, the weakest aren’t even noticed by most people here - but on the whole things just inch along without much of anyone noticing the day-to-day, year-to-year motion. And the motion is nearly all in the direction of secularization of society.

Dani

[BrainGlutton]

@Noone Special

Actually, the “collision” is taking place already - except it’s more like tectonic plates than like racing cars. Every so often there’s a local “earthquake” (some court desicion, another shopping mall open on Saturday…) - the weak ones never make a headline outside of the immediate area, the weakest aren’t even noticed by most people here - but on the whole things just inch along without much of anyone noticing the day-to-day, year-to-year motion. And the motion is nearly all in the direction of secularization of society.

Dani

While this is going on – is there any similar tectonic (or maybe faster) motion in Israeli’s attitudes towards the prospect of giving up the Occupied Territories? And if so, in what direction is it moving?

[DSeid]

There is and has been a broad acceptance of giving up almost all of the occupied territories for some time now. In truth ever since they were occupied. A vocal but powerful minority thinks otherwise and they are increasingly marginalized. There is also broad acceptance that there is no one to deal with in good faith and that even if there was they would be unable to deliver on any promises. Therefore unilateral disengagement is Israel’s only option. Obviously a unilateral deal won’t give the Palestinians as much as a negotiated settlemen would have, but maybe once they have to deal with the realities of trying to run an autonomous area the will see the value of working and dealing with their neighbor to the west. Maybe then a Palestinian leadership concerned with the future can emerge.

BTW, as to the groups you mentioned in a past post. No great change here. American Jews have never been monolithic. We, with a great plurality, support Israel’s right to exist. We support Israel’s need to defend itself. We long for a peaceful longterm solution to the conflict that makes for a secure state for Israel and an fair solution to just grievances of the Palestinian refugees. And we disagree amongst ourselves about exactly what is justified in the name of security and what is a just solution. Many of us have seen much to be critical of in the Sharon government (and more to be critical of in the USA government); blind unquestioning support is and has been rare. But few are essentially anti-Israel like the groups that you mention seem to be. They are the margins.