Political Rabbis

The upcoming elections for the Chief  Rabbis of Israel is generating a lot of press. It started near the last Israeli (national) elections with the jockeying for which candidate for the Ashkenazi post would be supported by which party. Then it was the composition of the committee to elect the Rabbis and the number of women appointed.

In that regard, MK Elazar Stern (Hatunah) appealed to the committee that elects the chief rabbi

 demanding the disqualification of five of the 150 candidates for the committee, due to convene at the end of July. Stern said the rabbis of Rehovot, Rishon Letzion, Ashdod and Ashkelon do not recognize the state's institutions of conversion to Judaism and prevent residents of their cities who have converted though these institutions from registering for marriage.

He also wrote:

The damage to the converted testifies that these rabbis are unfit to serve as members in the election committee and influence the outcome of the election for chief rabbis, who are supposed to be attentive to the needs of society ... Their refusal to recognize national conversions to Judaism makes them practically unqualified to be involved in such a national process. The membership of these rabbis in the electoral committee should be canceled, thus preventing the ongoing debasement of the institution of the Israeli chief rabbinate. 

Recently, it shifted to the race for the Sephardi Chief Rabbi. Haaretz has been particularly active in "spilling ink" over this race.

In Sunday's paper [14.July.2013], it was reported that Ovadia Yosef has decided to back his youngest son, Yitzhak Yosef to be the next Sephardi Chief rabbi. The "preferred" candidate, Avraham the Chief Rabbi of Holon, is under police investigation for breech of trust. Avraham Yosef candidacy is also being challenged by woman's groups for his anti-women statements and positions.

As if one child of a former Chief Rabbi isn't enough, the son of Mordechai Eliyahu--Shmuel, the Chief rabbi of Safed--has also come under fire particularly for his racist anti-Arab comments, including urging Jews not to rent apartments to Arabs. While he wasn't reprimanded/suspended/removed from office, his candidacy for chief rabbi was challenged and referred to to the Attorney General. He has denied engaging in anti-Arab activities. 

• Among the statements attributed to Eliyahu was one in a 2002 interview to the right-wing Arutz Sheva media outlet, in which he reportedly said that all of the Arab students at the Safed Academic College should be thrown out. "Yes, I am saying this explicitly and am not afraid of anyone," he was quoted as saying, adding "only those who direct their loyalty to the state are entitled to study."
• In a 2004 interview to Israel Radio, Eliyahu said: "It is forbidden to sell an apartment to an Arab. Let them live in their own area. We [will live] in our area."
• In 2010, he was quoted in Haaretz as saying in reference to Arabs: "I don't expect them to feel that they belong. They are guests [here]."

For these (proported) statements, Haaretz in an editorial claiming he was unfit to be chief rabbi.

Yet,  in his response to the AG 'letter of inquiry' Shmuel Eliyahu wrote:

“I didn’t understand the problem with some of what you showed me and asked me about,” ...  “Do I as a rabbi have to explain why I object to marriages between Jews and non-Jews? Do I have to respond when asked why I object to same-sex marriages or why I support people becoming observant?”

In reference to his more controversial statements, he suggested that he was either misquoted or never even wrote it,

Some were never said by me, and some were said in contexts that were radicalized and presented out of the Torah context in which they were said 

there “is a very high probability” that responses to questions posted on the Kipa religious website had not actually been written by him, because the responses were posted in 2006 (and he claimed he stopped answering questions on the site in 2002).

His office, just before Tisha B'Av issued the following statement:

Weinstein "had chosen to conduct a field court martial trial for Rabbi Eliyahu and has turned himself into the prosecutor, judge and hangman," and in an "unprecedented step, without authority, without a hearing, and without verifying the allegations, created a new reality in which a candidate that is not favored by the legal elite will not receive a [legal] defense from the authorities"

Not sure it addresses the issue of his statements, but it does create a smoke screen.

Unfortunately, the AG cannot prevent Shmuel Eliyahu from standing for election as the Sephardi Chief Rabbi--it's not considered a government job, however, maybe it'll convince the electors to consider another candidate.

That the two leading candidates for Sephardi rabbis are terrible, I can't agree with Eric Yoffie that the Chief Rabbinate needs to be disbanded. Yes, the chief rabbinate has fallen into disrepute and, yes, as Carlos Strenger wrote "Extremist rabbis don't represent Judaism" his own biases cause me to reject his message.

While I might be able to agree with (taking out "anachronistic"),

The current waves around the election of Chief Rabbis in Israel prove how totally anachronistic this very institution is. Anyone who has followed the recent hustling and the power-struggles in this election campaign cannot but agree. Every political party meddles in these elections, and the results are in part mind-boggling ...

I have a lot of trouble with:

Even though Bennet seems worldly, educated and sophisticated, he shows dangerous signs of totalitarian thinking in his politics, if he actually believes that Israel needs a central authority that defines “Jewish values and the love of the land of Israel.” Judaism has never had the type of polit-bureau that defines ideological doctrine, and there is absolutely no reason for anything of the sort to start now.
But it should be made clear that neither Bennett’s party nor the likes of Rabbis Eliyhahu and Rabbi Ronsky represent Judaism as a whole. In fact they represent a rather narrow group: less than 15 percent of Jews worldwide define themselves as orthodox – and a large proportion of modern orthodoxy would find their views unacceptable. And the large majority of Jews worldwide are vehemently opposed to the ethnocentric and often-racist views these Rabbis endorse. The opposite is true: Jews in the Diaspora, primarily in the US have been at the forefront of human right causes including the civil rights movement.
While the proportion of Israelis holding such universalist values may be smaller than in the Jewish Diaspora, Rabbis Eliyahu and Ronsky do not represent the Israeli mainstream either. Israel’s legislation has been progressive in many ways. It has for example been very gay-friendly for decades, and a large proportion of Israelis are open to the world, curious and liberal rather than tribal, ethnocentric and reactionary. The problem is that Jewish moderates make a lot less noise than the extremists – with dire consequences.
Israel will have to choose at some point to which part of the world it wants to belong: to the West that has implemented separation of religion and state, or to the Islamic World that still has a long way to go until it realizes that politics and religion need to be separate.
The Western world has gone through a long and painful process that started with the ending of the dreadful Thirty Year War that left large parts of Europe destroyed in 1648. It began to realize that religion and politics must be separated. The process of getting there took centuries, but it is essential to modernity.

He's thrown the baby out with the bath water.

That said, the office is indeed in trouble. Adding to the mess is that the current Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi is under police investigation. But, that's another story.

Talking to the wall

Attended my first flash mob event last night. It was a quickly organized rally protesting Anat Hoffman's arrest at the Kotel [The Western Wall--a retaining wall from the Second Temple built during Herod's reign] last Tuesday evening for leading the Hadassah women in reciting shma while wearing a tallit [prayer shawl].

The incident raised a lot of anger among Diaspora Jews. The USCJ [United Synagogue for Conservative Judaism] organized a global flash mob for 13:00 EDT.

Her arrest raises a number of issues for me the way Israel addresses religious pluralism, the role/place of the Kotel in Israeli/Jewish affairs and separation of religion and state (aka "Church-State" issues).

While the specific facts, details of exactly what occurred are difficult to know, it seems fair to say that:

• Anat Hoffman was wearing a tallit (against the strict understanding of the law),
• the police have been, of last, actively arresting women for wearing a tallit during the monthly Women of the Wall [WOW] prayers (they meet every Rosh Hodesh),
• Anat Hoffman and WOW are interested in 'pushing the envelope' as far as possible with women's prayer activity at the Kotel, provoking haredi sensibilities to change the "status quo",
• the Israeli police are not "the best and the brightest" among security forces and thus can act in appropriate ways,
• the police took their orders from the Rabbi of the Kotel (with the acquiescence of the political and higher up police officials) as opposed to engaging their own discretion,
• the police unnecessarily roughed up Anat Hoffman,
• the haredim [ultra-Orthodox Jews] have "captured" the effective control of the Kotel through coalition politics, their regular use of the area (as opposed to other groups who don't come every day) and playing the mythological historical card that the area was always a place of (only) strict Orthodox halakhic practice. They expect to fully dictate the rules of usage for all visitors.

Instead of the Kotel serving as a reminder of the Temple and its role of creating peace (among the nations), it's become a battle site to work out Israeli and Jewish issues surrounding the Jewish life and practice. Instead of a place to express religious feelings it's a place to exercise political power. Whatever awe the remnant of the (Second) Holy Temple evokes among its visitors, it has become an awful experience to pray there. It's a place I generally avoid visiting.

The place belongs to the entire Jewish People. As such, provisions need to be made to ensure that every Jew, regardless of their religious orientation, has a place to show their reverence for the site. Under Israeli control/administration, the plaza behind the Wall itself was expanded to accommodate almost any size group. The State [of Israel] holds its annual Remembrance Day ceremony there, the army has its induction ceremony for the Paratroopers there, and until recently many other groups held ceremonies there too.

Within the last few years, some of the plaza has been taken over by the expansion of the mehitza [divider between praying men and women]. From a place that historically had no physical divider between men and women (see pictures of the Kotel from the late 1880s and pre-1948) to a place where men and women are actively discouraged mingling by obsequious "ushers" and "rules of conduct" issued by the Rabbi of the Kotel. Religious demands have encroached upon public space.

With the haredi political parties effectively holding the balance of power in successive Israeli governments, government officials including top bureaucrats (and the Courts) have acquiesced to their (unreasonable) demands and a mostly secular public has remained generally apathetic to demanding changes to make the system less biased. The long term haredi hegemony has displaced a Zionist rabbinate/bureaucracy with a haredi one that respects less non-haredi views and behaviors.

What does this mean?

First of all, there's a growing disconnect between the "believers" and the "non-believers" and little effort or mass of people seeking to close the gap. This encourages greater alienation and disrespect of The Other. Instead of discussions where people speak WITH each other, there are arguments where people scream AT each other.

The mixing of religion and politics means that sanctity acquires a secular identity and secular issues take on religious connotations. Mudslinging becomes an activity with "holy mud" and realities and meanings lose any sense of clarity.

Coming to the Kotel and discussing its use becomes an exercise of talking to a wall. Instead of a unifying experience with other Jews and Jewish history it has become an exercise in separation and alienation. An expression of triumphalism among individuals. A zero-sum gain for all (or no one).

When I talk to the Wall, I want G-d to listen and if I speak loud enough to have others respond to my plea instead of hearing my own echo.

Eyes on the prize

The Jewish Daily [English] Forward had an interesting article "Occupation Divides Israeli Protest Movement: Will Efforts To Broaden Focus Lead to Marginalization?" addressing the social protest movement in Israel, which recently renewed its active protest activities from last summer.

Last summer's protest focused principally on affordable housing and lowering the cost of living (food, public transportation, etc.). Tent cities were established throughout the country and thousands--estimated at close to half a million--marched in solidarity. In response, the (national) government established a study commission (Trajeman) to address social welfare issues. With the issuance of its report and government approval, the status quo was returned.

The sense of frustration was reinforced when several other national issues come to the fore; the need to reformulate a draft policy (which currently provides either a long-term deferral or exemption to haredi men, and a total exemption of Arabs by the IDF/military), corporate/economic concentration. And, the proverbial issue of "The Palestinian Territories".

Earlier this month, thousands marched to demand the implementation of a new national service policy--haredim to serve in either (specially designed) military units or a national/civilian service program, Arabs commit to civilian service corp (within or outside their communities)--which was being 'debated' by the cabinet/government.

Others, though are trying to move the social protest movement into a different direction, grafting a call to end the (Israeli) occupation of Judea & Samaria/The West Bank (and some changes in the Gaza policy as well).

As Nir Nader, a leader of the "No Social Justice Without Ending the Occupation" protest rally said:

You can’t have social justice for just 7 million people who are Israeli citizens — you have to take everyone under Israeli rule into consideration

The issue, has served to divide more than united the social protest movement.

Some more centrist protestors are taken aback by talk of the occupation. “It seems to me like an attempt to hijack what we have here for a narrow agenda. I don’t agree with their politics and they shouldn’t bring it in,” said Jonathan Divish, a 29-year-old accounts clerk from Jerusalem, who attended the larger, draft-themed July 7 demonstration. [Idan] Miller (a leader of Common Denominator, which organized the pro-draft/national service rally) believes that the demand to withdraw unilaterally is too simplistic, “when there’s a real fear that if we withdraw from [the West Bank] we will be attacked like from Gaza.”

It's even been divisive for the left-wing political community. Dov Khenin, a representative of the far-left Hadash party and one of the most popular politicians at last year’s demonstrations, argues

[T]hat focusing on the occupation is detrimental to effecting real social change. In his view, parties in Israel lack any impetus to formulate social policies that appeal to the public, because they know that they win or lose elections based on issues related to the conflict. “Israeli governments are elected not on social and economic issues, [but] rather on the dilemma of the territories and peace, and this is why the highly capitalist policies of the last 20 years continued,” 

If the goal of the social protest movement to affect change in the Israeli society, it's imperative to keep the message simple and focused, and, actively avoid splintering the voice and demand for change. The more complicated and multifaceted the message, the easier it'll be to have the government/opinion makers drive a wedge into the movement (and its momentum) as well as moving the movement "off message." If last year's protest which were fairly cohesive produced little real change, all the more so, if the protesters engage in grape-shot this summer.

If the goal is to make socioeconomic issues a real determining factor in the next elections--currently scheduled for mid-2013--it's essential to keep it as the central focus of the protest leaders. Eyes on the prize, otherwise, you'll just be sticks in the mud.

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.

Gold dust in my eyes ...

Nir Barkat won the Jerusalem mayoral race handily, garnering 51% of the vote to Meir Porush's 41%. While it wasn't the revolution as portrayed by the press, it was a welcome sign that the rule -- or at least the mayor's chair -- has returned to secular (non-haredi) hands. What was truly amazing is the voter turnout -- almost all Jews(the Arabs boycotted the election) -- was 42%. The Barkat campaign workd hard to bring out the secular vote and the haredi communities were split leaving some to not vote (their Rabbis told them nothing) and others like the Ger Hasidim to actually vote for Barkat!


Several days later (though not yet appearing on the City of Jerusalem website), the results of the council elections appeared: UTJ (Ashkenazi Haredi) garnered 8 seats, Barkat's group 6, Shas (Sfardi Haredi) 5, NRP and Meretz each 3, Hitarut Yerushalayim 2 and Likud, Israel Beitaynu, Piskat Ze'ev and L'mayan Yerushalayim all received one seat.

What does all this mean?

1. A non-haredi government/coalition is possible. Excluding UTJ and Shas the coalition would still have 18 seats (out of 31).
2. Should the NRP + another party refuse to join, Barkat will not have a ruling majority. Creating a majority will require enticing a religious party to join at the cost of 'paying their price'.

In the case of 2, I fear a repetition of the governance of the last 20 years (the tail-end of Kolleck until present). Any and all attempts by Barkat to revitalize the city--principally by making Jerusalem a more modern and open city--culturally, commercially will fail. The city will continue its free fall and remain an economically distressed area and the non-haredi populations will continue to flee the city.

He will also need to devise a way to make an end run around the council to achieve his goals.

While it was wonderful that Barkat was able to get out the vote for the election, I'm not sure people are willing to be actively involved as "change agents" for the entire (or even part) of the five year term of office.

Unless Barkat establishes a truly supportive city council coalition, it'll be SOS (same old s*****). It won't even be a reformation, never mind, a revolution.