General alert

Couldn't pass on the opportunity to comment on the firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal (commander of all U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan) by US President Obama yesterday.

Obstinately, because of the candid and critical comments attributed to him and his aides in a recent Rolling Stone magazine article, The Runaway General.

While I haven't yet read the article, I'm still not convinced that his firing was appropriate or even necessary.

Yes, the war effort in particular and military policy is the purview of the civilian authorities; i.e. the "Commander-in-Chief " US President, his Cabinet and advisors. And, yes, McChrysal was impolitic in publicly airing his--and his aides--critical and negative opinions of the president and his extended civilian team of advisors. However, was it really a fire-able offense?

Was it more an issue of trying to change team leaders in the face of unsuccessful military campaign in Afghanistan? Punishment for not toeing the line vis-à-vis the Administration plans? Was it personal? Was it just an excellent opportunity for Obama to demonstrate he's really decisive and able to get angry (in response to the criticism about his handling of the BP oil spill)?

I don't see the situation in the same light as Harry S Truman's firing of Gen. Douglas McArthur (you think there's a bias/prejuice against the Mc people??). In that case, there was a clear refusal to carry out a Presidental order. Here's there's a question about the development of policy. Once issued, he pursued the order vigourously and in good faith.

It's becoming clearer that despite the 'primitive' nature of Afghanistan, it has defeated the two greatest modern military machines, the USSR in the 1980s and the USA in the 2000s. The counter-insurgency approach only works if you can get the support of the local/indigenous population. Currently, the US/NATO forces are views not as liberators but just another foreign occupying force. The political/social culture continues unabatedly. Unless, its essence is deciphered by the NATO forces quickly and soon, the war (assuming it's directed at Al Quada and its Taliban supporters) will be a complete failure.

So, I wish Gen. David Petraus the best of luck in his new assignment. One only hopes, he'll be able to convince his civilian supervisors how to adjust their war plans to better ensure victory or plan for a dignified withdrawal of forces. His legacy is at stake.

Full Court Press

Last week was a difficult one for the haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") community vis-à-vis the Israeli judiciary. Last Monday, 14.June, the High Court of Justice ruled that state stipends for married yeshiva students [kollel] were unconstitutional.

As reported by Haaretz, the Court ruled that

the provision of state stipends to adult yeshiva students violates the principle of equality stipulated in the budget foundation law as well as legal precedents.

The following day, Tuesday the 15th, the Court announced that unless the parents desegregate the school in Immanuel, they will be held in contempt of court and will be sentenced to two weeks in jail. While the latter decision/announcement generated more outcry, it's worth looking at the former issue as well as the common denominator between the two before examining the Immanuel situation.

The common denominator between the two is the lack of political will by the government/national bodies to set appropriate limits. Due to political considerations--creating and maintaining a government by courting and placating the haredi political parties--rather than any overarching policy or economic consideration, societal needs (and the budget to support them) are skewed away from the general public towards a special interest group. While, we’re currently speaking about the haredi-non-haredi world especially in the education area, the issue applies in other areas of Israeli life too; the military, conversion and public life (marriage and divorce), settlement policy …

The stipend issue reflects how political considerations trumped rational government policy considerations.

The government in response to the petitioners argued

that the underlying purpose of the allocation was not economic, but rather ideological, with the goal of encouraging religious study.

The Court, in response ruled

that the purpose of the stipend was clearly economic even if the income support also served to encourage religious study, and as such there is no justification for discriminating between yeshiva students and students at other institutions.

The Court's rationale, as expressed by its President Dorit Beinish

the purpose of the studies is not relevant to the issue of economic assistance. "The need for income support is identical whether the student is enrolled at an institution of higher education or a conservative institution of religious studies, or a married student at a kollel," she wrote, adding, "Because of their studies, none of these students can support themselves through work. But under the current legal situation only one of these groups is entitled to receive income support payments."

The sole dissenter, Justice Edmond Levy (a religious Jew and deeply involved in the Immanauel decision) argued that

the budget law reflects policies and goals that are entrusted to the cabinet and the Knesset, rather than the court.

While, I agree with Levy's general rational and that it adds fodder to Shas Chairman Eli Yishai (MK, Interior Minister and a Deputy PM) attempt to redress the issue in the Knesset, it also reflects how skewed the decision-making procress is.

Yishai is quoted as saying

'The High Court ruling is a blow to the spiritual status quo of the nation of Israel' ... Shas intends to introduce a bill that would maintain the status quo with regard to income support for married yeshiva students or alternatively to address the issue through the Economic  Arrangements Bill, the supplementary legislation that accompanies the annual state budget. 'The Knesset will fix this.'

Unfortunately, the Knesset won't really fix anything and any attempts to do so will be accompanied by threats of leaving the government if its needs aren't met.

This brings us to the Immanuel "crisis".

It has generated a great deal of reaction for the last week or so. The Jerusalem Post itself as of 22.June list 67 separate articles.

At its core, the issue revolves around the desire of Ashkenazi haredim, actually Slonim Hassidim, to establish a separate educational track (and now a institution) from their Sephardic neighbors for their teenaged daughters at a local Beit Yaakov high school.

The Ashkenazi parents present the issue as one of cultural difference, the need to have their daughters learn with other girls whose families share the same religious philosophy and life style (no TV, dress code). As one Slonim parent said

It may seem strange to you that we make such an issue out of whether the girls are allowed to keep a collar button open or not, whether they’re allowed to roll up their sleeves or not, whether their socks cover their legs completely or not, but for us, it’s like heaven and earth.

As such, they view the court decision

as a case of reverse religious coercion. 'If the Supreme Court ordered you to educate your children in a way you could not tolerate, would you agree?' ... 'This is a religious war'

The Sephardi parents see the see the issue as racism--the refusal to accept Sephardim as equals.

As reported by Larry Derfner "This is a religious war" in the Jerusalem Post Magazine of June 11,

Last August, Justice Edmond Levy wrote for the three-justice panel: “In the case before us, it is easy to see that the aim of the rules was plainly and simply to separate the girls of the hassidic (Ashkenazi) sector from their Sephardi peers... This was not coincidental and proves, like 1,000 witnesses, the discriminatory aims of those who initiated the separation.”

At the time, there was literally a wall dividing the hassidic from non-hassidic streams in the settlement’s Beit Ya’acov girls’ elementary school. Two years earlier, the town’s hassidic parents, along with some Sephardi allies, had prevailed on the principal to allow them to divide the school into two: a strict hassidic stream and a less strict, non-hassidic one. They built a wall in the middle of the school corridor as a well as a fence in the middle of the playground so there would be no contact between the girls on either side. To prevent the girls from even making contact with each other through the fence, the hassidic parents covered it with blue-and-white fabric.

Meanwhile, the hassidim did not comply with the court order to integrate, sending their daughters to a “pirate” school instead. The court threatened to fine the parents, as well as the haredi school system to which they belong, and even put the parents in jail if they didn’t integrate their daughters in Emmanuel.

The primary mover to petition the state for redress has been Yoav Laloum whose story is told in last Friday's (18.June) Haaretz.

For Laloum, he paints the picture as

discrimination against the Mizrahi public [which] is only part of a profound problem in Haredi society, which is itself based on racism. The other problem is the increasing religious extremism that Ashkenazim are forcing on the entire Haredi public.

If that's isn't racism, what is it? Everyone knows that there's racism that is reflected in discrimination in the Talmud Torah schools, the [teachers] seminars, ... the problem here is deeper. It's a matter of Ashkenazi control and hegemony. A relatively small community that is trying to impose its extremist lifestyle on all of society. In Immanuel there are 30 Hasidic families, as compared to a Sephardi public of 500 families.

... the entire debate between us revolves around whether the girls' blouses will be buttoned up to the wrist or 10 centimeters below the elbow. There's no argument about the fact that everyone, all the parents, meet the stringent requirements of halakha. We're not talking here about Shabbat observance, yes or no. The argument is about stringencies. If you want stringencies, impose them on yourself. Once and for all, you have to understand that if the father wears a blue shirt that doesn't make the home any less a house of Torah. I have no problem if every group establishes a school. We didn't stop them from establishing a school on their own, we stopped them from taking control of an existing school, which receives [state money]. It was a hostile takeover and we had to act.

Based on what I've read, I am persuaded to agree with Prof. Menachem Freidman (Bar Ilan University and the leading authority on haredi society) who suggested that the Sephardi presentation of the facts is closer to the truth. He further posits

Hassidic movements like Slonim have a whole culture, a tradition, and their general feeling is that Sephardim are culturally inferior – not only in Emmanuel, but throughout haredi society. In non-haredi society, too, but not as much, ... And the tragedy is that many religious Sephardim have accepted this. The better students, the children of successful or scholarly religious Sephardim, don’t want to study in Sephardi schools. For them, getting into an Ashkenazi yeshiva is a symbol of success.

Another angle to the story is the role of government funding of education, including the haredi Independant Education system.

Friedman argues that the Education Ministry, backed by the Supreme Court, has the full right to insist on integration at Beit Ya’acov because the school, like all schools in the haredi Independent Education system, are funded 100% by the state.

'If they want to do like Natorei Karta and the other ultra-haredi communities that refuse all government funding, that set up their own privately funded schools, then the hassidim in Emmanuel can set any rules they want, discriminate any way they like, according to the law,' says Friedman. 'But they’re not a private school, they’re a state-funded school, so they don’t have that privilege.'

Meanwhile the the Ashekenazi haredi population, in part abeted by the Shas leadership--especially Rav Ovadia Yosef--, have taken to the streets to protest. When the men (fathers) went to jail for contempt of court the Deputy Minister of Education, Meir Porush (Degel Torah, a haredi party) as a form of protest (to the Court and the government) set up his office in front of the jail. He's still in office.
Where's Bibi and why hasn't he fired Porush and imposed government discpline? Has he discided that political expendicy --preserving his government--permits him to "sell out" the rest of the country values. Short-term politics trumps long term needs.
 
It's best summed up by the difference in actions and words of Justice Edmond Levy.
 
Levy in his Stipend Law decision wrote

Torah study is a commandment, and both the Knesset and the cabinet have asserted that it should be funded by placing on the public the burden of providing an income for Torah students. It is a values-based decision that is grounded in the recognition that Torah study is vital to the Jewish people, and I do not believe that the court has the authority to change it. In addition, very modest sums are allocated for this purpose, with the aim of ensuring only the most basic necessities.

Yet, in in the Immanuel case, where he was the lead Justice, he responded to the Ashekenazi parents lawyer suggesting that the issue was one of freedom of the parents to determine (in consultation with their Rabbi), he's quoted as saying

The issue at hand is a ruling handed down by a court. No ruling by a court, certainly not one by the Supreme Court, is subject to approval by anybody, not even a religious authority. A ruling does not require the approval of this or that rabbi.

If the rule of law is to prevail and if the welfare of the entire country is to be promoted instead of catering to special interests (and the squeakiest wheel), the government and Israel must start with restoring order in Immanuel. Otherwise, it could (and will) spread like a wild fire through the country.