Picture, if you will, a country in which people are forced to be wed and to divorce in religious courts; are unable to marry someone of a different religion; where religious legislation forces a certain weekday as the day of rest and prohibits the opening of most businesses; where state-funded public transportation operates buses in which separation between men and women is strictly kept. Further imagine a country in which the deputy mayor of a municipal authority sets on fire literature of a different religion; a place where one religious institute has a monopoly over burial services. Imagine a place where citizens are not free to choose to be atheists and have their choice respected by their government. Or in other words, imagine Israel, probably the last country in the world to regularly discriminate against Jews.
Judaism forces itself. As far as the Halakha – the Jewish Shari’a, if you will – goes, if one was born to a Jewish mother, one is Jewish, End of story. One can yell until one is blue in the face that one does not believe in God, of any kind; that one does not accept the Jewish faith, that one is, indeed, a true atheist. Judaism doesn’t mind: If your mom is Jewish, so are you. And if you happen to be a female, so will your children be.
Anyone who lives in a semi-sane democracy will just about now raise the question: So what? If I don’t accept Judaism, and don’t see myself as a member of the Jewish religion, why should I care how the Jewish religion sees me? If some guy invents a new religion tomorrow and claims the entire humanity is a part of it, does it matter to you? I mean, that the Jewish Halakha sees me as Jewish should have absolutely no implications as far as I’m concerned, if I happen not to subscribe to Jewish Halakha. They can think that I am a watermelon for all I care, that won’t make me any more or any less of a watermelon. In other words, my self determination cannot and should not be dictated by a book, unless I choose to use that book to determine myself.
For example, think of Jonathan, a young American born to a Jewish American mother. As far as Judaism is concerned, Jonathan is Jewish. As far as Jonathan is concerned, there’s no man on a cloud writing people off to heaven or doom, so he goes on living his life, completely liberated from any responsibility or obligation to the Jewish faith.
Well, not in Israel. Let’s pretend Jonathan lives in Israel, and leads a fairly atheistic life. Good. One day, Jonathan meets Debby, who happens to not have a Jewish mother. They fall in love, and thus they rush to get married. In the US, or any other semi-normal country, that wouldn’t be a problem. A clerk with a dry smile will give them a certificate, and that’s pretty much it. Go on, have kids, live your life, thanks for your time.
Not here. Jonathan and Debby cannot marry in Israel. Their choices are either to get married abroad – Cyprus is a popular destination; so popular, in fact, that marriage tourism is considered a major source of income for the small island – or to have Debby convert to Judaism, a long and quite unstable process. Long, because orthodox conversion – the only type acknowledged by the great demockracy of Israel – takes years; unstable, because the rabbinic courts have shown that they are capable of disqualifying conversions, sometimes years after they’ve been approved. That’s because the only way to get married in Israel is through a religious institution.
So here’s what it boils down to: There are some aspects of life in which the authorities in Israel impose a religious identity over its citizens. We’re talking about marriage, divorce, business days, burial and so on. In these areas, the state of Israel fully accepts the Jewish law which defines every offspring of a Jewish mother as a member of the Jewish faith. Or in other words, in Israel, one cannot choose to not be a member of the Jewish faith.
[...]
About a year ago a local politician in the English town Dartford gathered a few Talmud books and set them on fire in the middle of town. Oh, no, wait, I got my facts wrong. Here’s how it was:
On May 2008 a character by the name of Uzi Aharon, the deputy mayor of Or Yehuda1, had a little bonfire. He sent religious school children – excused from school for this purpose – to gather some copies of the New Testament that’s been handed out to the good residents of Or Yehuda, probably by a chapter of Jews for Jesus. He then set the books on fire. As the books were burning, the children danced around the flames.
Now, obviously, if these were indeed copies of the Talmud, Jews around the world would be talking about anti-Semitism and that local politician would be checking the wanted ads. But they weren’t, so none of this happened. Aharon, a member of the ever-so-racist ultra-orthodox conservative party SHAS, claimed that handing out copies of the New Testament is a missionary activity, and that his actions were meant to save Jewish souls. And if that sounds like one salesman setting fire to the stock of his competitor, well, that’s because that’s what it was.
Obviously, there was much to do about this outrageous deed. Burning books in the Jewish country? That’s unheard of. For example, Dr. Efraim Zorof, the head of the Wiesenthal Centre in Israel, was shocked: he said the deed resonated the Holocaust. He then added:
It would have been more appropriate to find a much more dignified way to get rid of this literature, but the main problem is the missionary activity itself. While we must respect the holy texts of Islam and Christianity, we mustn’t allow missionary activity directed at our youth.
Dear reader, if while reading this quote you thought “Wait, what?”, I want you to know you are not alone. But the fact is this very idea was pretty much the mainstream point of view on the subject: That while burning the literature is a huge problem since it is reminiscent of Nazi anti-Jewish actions, disposing of the New Testament was agreeable, if not down right necessary. When Kobi Arieli (Oh, you must remember this guy), an Israeli ultra orthodox journalist, wrote that had the literature been disposed of otherwise, it would have passed under the radar, he was right.
And why am I bringing up this old story, dusting it up and presenting it to you, dear reader? Well, because of the whole “Missionary” thing. You see, many groups in Israel are involved in some kind of activity meant to spread their religious views. For example, there are the good people who are handing out Shabbat candles at the entrance to supermarkets. Also, the nice men who position themselves in the centers of towns and offer passersby to take a moment and wear phylacteries2. Or the kind people of Chabad-Lubavitch leaving pamphlets explaining how to lead a good Jewish life in people’s post boxes. Then there are the gentlemen who walk up to your car in central junctions, and offer you a CD of this or that Jewish preacher. SHAS, Uzi Aharon’s party, also operates several channels – including its very own chain of schools – in which they try to win back young Jewish hearts. But this activity isn’t viewed as missionary. Why? Because it is directed at Jews. That is, at people who came out of a Jewish uterus.
If trying to convert a Jewish person to Christianity is missionary activity, surely trying to convert an atheist to Judaism is quite the same, isn’t it? Well, apparently not. Because in Israel, the holy trinity – religion, law, society – imposes a religion on every newborn in the country, for life. There’s no choice. There’s no freedom to practice one’s religion because such freedom cannot exist without the freedom not to practice any.
[...]
Enter M. M wanted to go to a highly successful, massively oversubscribed London school: JFS, a state funded faith based state of the art school. Since the school is oversubscribed and defined as faith based, it employs an admission policy which gives an advantage to Jewish children. It is allowed to. M was rejected from JFS on that account: You see, M’s father is Jewish, and M’s mother is a converted Jew. However, she converted in a progressive synagogue, which means the Office of the Chief Rabbi doesn’t acknowledge it. So, as far as orthodox Judaism goes, she isn’t Jewish – and neither is her son.
On June this year the Appeal Court in the UK ruled that rejecting pupils based on their origin isn’t a legitimate faith criteria, but an unlawful race based discrimination. Esteemed judges, the stage is yours:
The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or by conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act.
Amazing. Judaism managed to go through centuries without anyone pointing out to it that the identity of the mother is a racial, ethnic criteria, not a religious one.
This goes way beyond little M and his persistent father. This ruling means a very simple thing: Religion cannot be defined or imposed according to the blood in one’s vessels; it is defined by faith and acceptance. One isn’t born into a religion. How basic.
[...]
But Israel neglects to notice. The orthodox rabbinate holds, by law, great power: It literally controls the Israeli family. In this most private aspect of their lives – the choice of a partner – secular and atheist Israelis are forced to wear a religious identity they do not want. Their world view is disregarded, their right not to accept a religion is waved. They are forced to obey rules and regulations they cannot change, carried out by clerics. And until Israel will learn from the straight forward Appeal Court decision in the UK, it will never be able to offer its citizens true freedom of faith, and the danger of becoming a theocracy will always be there, lurking. And further, Israel will remain the only democracy in the world that infringes on the rights of Jewish people, simply because they’re of Jewish ancestry.
Thank you for that.
Of course, the insanity goes much further than that. I can talk endlessly about the Ministry of Interior obscuring (literally) laws and regulations regarding my right as an Israeli to choose a non-Israeli partner (goes hand in hand with her being no Jewish, or else she’d receive immediate citizenship and all our troubles would go away). I guess hopefully, if it’s harder for me – I’d eventually just break and give up the GOY girl (hmm should I? naah..)
After all, Dutch people are infamous for their struggling economy and infiltrating tactics.
Anyway, thanks for the voice.
Ohad
You’ve pretty much laid out the arguments I make time and time again about Israel being a Theocracy more than anything.
We may vote, but we do not get to chose our own identities.
About marriage and other such things, you could blame the British as well. The system that was in place in ‘48 is the somewhat-orientalist system of tribal courts (I forgot the formal name of this system; Nimrod, do you remember?), and by force of the mythical status quo*, the system was never abandoned.
Nimrod, about the book burning, you forgot the wonderfully cynical statement from back then, that they should have shredded the books, since no one ever said “Where they shred books, they will ultimately also shred people”. This, besides being sharp, also makes fun of the Israeli sentiment that Nimrod describes. The actual *burning* of the books was considered bad; the collection and disposal of them, not so much. I am reminded of the answer you get when you ask an Israeli kid about the lesson of the Holocaust. The lesson of the holocaust is, of course, “There will not be another Holocaust to the Jewish people”.
* Status Quo is a famous fallacy in Israeli politics: status quo cannot change; except when something is “hurtful to the feelings of religious Jews”, in which case status quo can change, because religious feelings are more important. When someone wants to make the state less religious the rule of status quo is always invoked, relying on Israelis’ famously short memory not remembering the previous violations of status quo by the religious factions.
Oddly enough, no one cares about my atheistic feelings.
not very important, but better get the facts right:
actually, the law prohibits trade in a specific say of the week in many western countries, there are good reasons for this, also: people (almost always) value having their rest day together with other people (family, friends). if the exact day is not set, but open to employer-emploee negotiation, many people would find themselves with a rest day they did not want (’You’re day off is thursday’ ‘But my kids get a day off from school on saturday, and my wife’s day off is monday!’ ‘I don’t care. you’re day off is thursday, or you could fing yourself another job’)
@Nadav Perez: Your explanation makes a lot of sense, but only if one does not know that almost the only labour law that is being enforced is the Saturday law. That is, waiters are denied minimum wage, workers are denied the right to organize, the cashiers at the supermarkets still stand (I think?), truck drivers and bus drivers work insane hours, but Saturday? Saturday is enforced, but magically only when the minister of labour is religious.
In an unrelated issue, I just stumbled upon an old but still sharp post of Dubi in which he talks about the book-burning incident discussed in Rod’s post. I’ll allow myself to translate a particularly sharp paragraph from it, and I hope Dubi doesn’t mind. Dubi starts by quoting Dr. Efraim Zorof’s words, some of which are also quoted in Rod’s post, and then writes:
“Zorof’s says that the way in which the books were destroyed “reminds one of dark regimes” (a codename for the Nazis. There were no other dark regimes in the history that the Israeli people learn). As a comparison: if, for example, Israel decides to make the Palestinians dig a big hole in the ground and stand on its ledge, and then has IDF soldiers shoot them — this will be wrong, because that’s what the Nazis did. If, however, we put them on planes and throw them out 30,000 feet up in the air without a parachute, that’s okay, since no Nazi has ever done that.”
Rod also wrote some very strong words in his Hebrew blog, here. The title of the post is “A fire to the goyim” (a word-play on the phrase “A light to the goyim”, traditionally used to describe the Jewish people). More posts by Rod on the subject (all in Hebrew) here
I think the picture of Israel you are painting is too harsh. Your first paragraph is an example of presenting the truth but not the whole truth.
The fact of the matter is that if you choose to, you can openly lead a secular way of life and there is a huge community that does it and places where this is the norm. You will not be prosecuted or discriminated because of it.
Of course I agree that the orthodox institution has too much power, and this is clearly wrong, but getting married in Cyprus is not a big deal, and while uncomfortable, it will not effect your secular way of life.
Also, in recent years there is a trend of pluralism within the orthodox framework, with more streams of Judaism to choose from that attract people who call themselves “secular”. So there is a reason to hope that the hard-core orthodox institution will lose some of its power and might become a more liberal.
Unfortunately or not, Israel’s interpretation of democracy does not include a separation of temple and state, and it seems that most people are ok with that.
@elad-vav: I agree – policy is almost always the product of political alliances. but if this particular aspect of so-called ‘theocracy’ is good from our point of view, why fight it?
@Nadav Perez: the social aspect of the law is indeed positive, the problem, as elad shown is when only one aspect of the law is enforced.
the letter of the law provides the option of working in saturday. workers are supposed to be payed extra and get another day of in the middle of the week. in reality many workers don’t get that.
I see no problem with businesses that choose to operate on saturday. more than that I enjoy those businesses (cafes, cinemas etc.). emphasizing the social aspect of the saturday in hebrew law (the shabbat) is anachronistic (the secular law, if enforced, deals with that) and usually comes as an excuse to trying to enforce the religious aspect of it.
@Nadav Perez: Hmm. I’m looking for countries where public transportation doesn’t on a certain day, or a country where there are no entry on Sunday road signs. In other words, trying to pass religious legislation as social legislation is doomed to failure. Whereas in other countries Sundays are used for leisure and designated so, in Israel it is quite simply not the case.I see it as pure discrimination that my east Jerusalem friend Habib opens his grocery store regularly on Shabbat, but I cannot open my (Virtual, at the moment) shop, based on my ethnicity. You wany Shabbat as a social law, make it such. This isn’t the case.
@Joni: 1. As long as I am forced out of my country, away from my family, friends and colleagues if I want to be wed in a non-religious way, this is discrimination. It’s not just “Uncomfortable”, it’s my country refusing to accept my RIGHT to lead my life faith-free. Further, this is a common mistake: There are some differences in the law between Cyprus-wed couples and rabbinate-wed couples. It has to do with property laws, for example, but not only: Did you know that a Cyprus couple that wants a divorce HAS to go to the rabbinate? Yep, there’s no Cyprus divorce. That if I happen to marry a non-Jew, my children will have no way of getting married in Israel – under current law – they will, in fact, be blacklisted? Sorry, getting married in Cyprus IS a big deal. And I didn’t even mention that the freedom to lead an atheistic life shouldn’t only be given to those who can afford a flight.
2. “Also, in recent years there is a trend of pluralism within the orthodox framework, with more streams of Judaism to choose from that attract people who call themselves “secular”” – Pfft. Misguided and misleading. There’s still no non-orthodox representation in any of the religious countries, there are – thanks to Daniel Friedman – more and more ultra-orthodox rabbinate adjudicators (Dayanim), a non-orthodox wedding isn’t acknowledged by Israeli authorities (Meaning, of course, that I am not even free to choose my faith, and despite the fact the majority of practicing Jews world wide aren’t orthodox).
3. “So there is a reason to hope that the hard-core orthodox institution will lose some of its power and might become a more liberal.” – Rabbi Sherman will be happy to hear this, as this is simply not true.
4. “Unfortunately or not, Israel’s interpretation of democracy does not include a separation of temple and state, and it seems that most people are ok with that.” – That’s poor reasoning. Most people are OK with Arab councils being discriminated against budget-wise, that doesn’t make it right. Minorities, you know, have rights too.
@Or Bareket:
A. AFAIK, the Israeli law does not contain a ’secular part’ and a ‘hebrew law’. The relevant act (חוק שעות עבודה ומנוחה) contains a clause states that every worker is entitled to a 36-hours break on friday, saturday or sunday, depending on his religion. the law does not state wether the reason for this is secular or religious.
B. The law on a day of rest is not enforced – go for a ride in suburban Israel on saturday and see for yourself. But assuming that it is enforced because of the religious aspect – I say welcome. If Shas will start taking Exodus 24, 20 seriously and protect immigrant workers (fat chance), I won’t object on the basis of religion.
C. We apparantly disagree on the social benefit of a common rest day, but this seems too off-topic to start debating it here.
@Rod Avissar: As I said, I agree with your general point.
[...] חדש המציג את הבעייתיות שבתמוקרטיה הישראלית עלה [...]