A Look at the 5784 Yom Kippur “War” (Column 594)
For Elad, who asked for this column
I already thought some time ago about writing something on the Yom Kippur “wars” in Tel Aviv and in general. But tempers were flaring, and perhaps after a few days things would be received a bit more calmly and with more balance. The descriptions I’ll bring here will be schematic and won’t capture the storm in all its glory. Interested readers are invited to search the media. Here I only wish to point out a few important points in the principled debate taking place these days, of which the storms in Tel Aviv are just one expression. I must say there’s nothing significantly novel in what I write; it’s been written before. But perhaps this column will help focus the issue a bit. This column is journalistic in nature. In the next column I’ll dive a little into the more theoretical layer of the discussion.
Background: Rosh Yehudi
The organization Rosh Yehudi has been active in Tel Aviv for quite a few years now. Their concern is bringing people closer to Judaism (not Haredi, and in their words more inclusive). I admittedly don’t much like the laundry-list euphemisms used by such missionary organizations, like the riddle that opens their website:
Rosh Yehudi is a center for self-awareness in the heart of Tel Aviv, providing content, inspiration, and experience for a young audience interested in deepening, learning, and daring to ask essential and fascinating questions that concern us all.
You might try to imagine that they’re dealing with questions of child abuse, the philosophy of morality and existentialism, the nature of mathematics (the question of Platonism), Jewish-Arab relations, or perhaps meditation workshops for self-awareness (I gather that actually does happen there in one form or another. Well, you wanted Judaism in Tel Aviv, didn’t you?) and the like. But if you keep reading you’ll immediately discern the outline of the “solution”:
Rosh Yehudi arose to meet the growing thirst for Jewish identity. All Rosh Yehudi rabbis are committed to the teachings of our master Rabbi Kook, of blessed memory, who educated toward observance of Torah out of fear of Heaven, while listening to the life taking shape here in the Land.
So beyond the genre’s standard word-laundering, we’re speaking about an organization with a laudable aim. They answer a thirst, bring people closer to Judaism, and in the spirit of Rav Kook. Those who know the background know this is an appropriate Zionist response to Haredi outreach organizations (which—aside from the point about Rav Kook—use almost the same words to describe their actions and goals, and I think in practice are no less inclusive and open).
Except that the Judaism they market there isn’t always so pleasant to secular ears. For example, about two weeks ago they brought in Rabbi Yigal Levinstein, known for his pleasant and inclusive views (which in recent years have aroused plenty of criticism in the media and even within the religious public. I’ll spare you my personal opinion), to address the thirsty Tel Aviv public. Unsurprisingly, his arrival sparked near-violent disturbances. In my view, the talk of a lynch was a bit exaggerated and tendentious, but that’s how a mobilized press operates. In any case, despite the condemnation of the person in question and his views, these attacks and protests drew criticism from various quarters. Many spoke of the growing intolerance and the questionable liberalism lately revealed in the first and largest Hebrew liberal city.
Let us turn now to the war itself.
A brief description of events
For several years now, Rosh Yehudi has organized prayers in the public domain intended for those who don’t feel comfortable praying in a synagogue but want a religious experience of praying in the street while holding the leash of the dog lying beside them like a child ingratiating himself before his Creator (remember: this is Tel-Avivian Judaism). This year a prayer was planned for Dizengoff Square (as part of extracting the sparks from the husks), and lo, a few days before Yom Kippur, the Tel Aviv municipality notified Rosh Yehudi there would be no permit to place partitions between women and men in the public domain. After petitions to the courts were denied, including to the Supreme Court (which rejected it on grounds mainly technical), it was agreed they would conduct the prayer without partitions.
But on Yom Kippur eve a very large stage was erected in the square, and at its sides several Israeli flags were placed as a de facto partition. This sparked an uproar among protesters who came to ensure the law was upheld (which, as we all know, is always and only their guiding light), and the commotion continued into Yom Kippur, up to Ne’ilah and beyond. In the end I understand the prayer was moved to a nearby synagogue and its surroundings. This war raised a great clamor in heaven—but also on earth. There were very harsh scenes (see, for example, a description here) that reminded many of pogroms and dark religious persecutions, and I think that’s not entirely far-fetched. People cried there, and it was clear they felt like those Jews abroad who were attacked for their Judaism. Even a few of the toughest and most cynical among our finest reported tears and deep despair following the events. No wonder that, in the wake of the war, many protested the violence, the persecution of Judaism, and the silencing of voices—and once again the so-called “liberalism,” naturally, with many caveats.
Political and social background
For posterity, or for those living among us today but residing on the moon over the past year, it’s important simply to note that all this is taking place against a backdrop of nearly a year of activity by the coalition of horrors and the current government, composed of extreme Haredi elements (some wearing knitted kippot) that have aroused sharp criticism and protest in the streets, which has not abated for almost a year. The protest revolves mainly around the judicial reform they’re trying to advance, but no less around a policy that includes an impressive array of highly problematic steps in the public sphere. Needless to say, not all their steps are problematic, and the protest against them is sweeping and hysterical (every move by the government is presented there as destruction). The protesters and the protest long ago detached themselves from reality (and in so doing lost me—and many like me—entirely).
In any case, the background to the Yom Kippur events I described is the war between the religious-Haredi and anti-liberal coalition (led by the “liberal” movement called Likud) and large parts of the public who deeply dislike it and even see it as an existential and immediate danger to democracy (not really true) and to the state (quite true). The crisis has lasted a year and is very severe, and many (myself included) see in it (in the crisis, not only in the government’s steps) an existential danger to society and even a tangible threat to the state’s survival.
The protests I described against the prayer and the worshippers in Tel Aviv were carried out in the name of gender separation and partitions in the public domain, but we all know that wasn’t the issue. The war there was part of the ongoing protest against the religious and their conduct. The protesters weren’t very interested in partitions, nor in the law and its observance. They wanted to torpedo the prayer itself, or at least push it back into synagogues. In particular they targeted Rosh Yehudi, perceived as part of the hardal (national-Haredi) world and almost as an arm of our benighted coalition. They didn’t want to see it and its activities in a secular city like Tel Aviv, and in this way they also protested the coalition it represents to them. The sanctions the municipality is imposing on the organization for Sukkot have already been published and are under litigation, and more sagas await us. The day’s battle and its evening are not yet over.
Whataboutism: a look at freedom of expression and action
I’ll begin with the pluralism demanded of the municipality and the protesting public. Similar demands arose regarding Ben-Gvir’s marches in Umm al-Fahm and similar events. But similar pluralism should have been extended by the religious-right toward Pride parades around the country. And likewise toward a mixed Reform prayer in the streets of Bnei Brak, in Kiryat Arba, or a Muslim prayer for the welfare of Hamas prisoners in Yitzhar. And what about Christian missionizing across the Holy Land? It’s hard to avoid the impression that the demand for tolerance—and the sense of being offended—on both sides are position-driven. Neither truly applies them to itself. Tolerance and offense are tools in the public struggle and, in my eyes, not particularly authentic. I’m sure the tears and hurt for some were authentic, but that’s only because of a lack of self-awareness and willful disconnect from context. In essence there’s no room here for offense. There was no lynch and no pogrom, and comparisons to Kishinev are demagoguery. Likewise, the protesters aren’t truly concerned with the rule of law (cf. road-blocking), nor did they protest gender separation. They rioted against prayer and religious Jews in the streets of secular Tel Aviv. That’s all. In short, both sides in this story are astonishingly hypocritical—even if, sadly, some are unaware of it.
So you can understand why I’m not greatly impressed by either side’s claims. One can, of course, make various distinctions. For instance, in Yitzhar there is no demand for this type of prayer, unlike Tel Aviv (the fact is many residents came to pray there). Beyond that, Tel Aviv is not a private place (“it’s not their father’s city,” as Zeira of Rosh Yehudi quite rightly said) but a city. Its status differs from that of a settlement, and its streets should be open to every activity and every public. Its residents are also more diverse than those of various towns, contrary to the false representation of a “secular city” (more than once I’ve seen secular people tend to view their living space as secular even when it’s not). But what about Bnei Brak, or Pride parades? Those too are cities. And what about missionizing, which is prohibited by law across the country (apparently there’s demand for it)? Yes, I know, this is a Jewish state—but also a democratic one. In a democratic state there is freedom of expression, speech, and action so long as no one else is harmed. And the fact that someone declares themselves offended to gain privileges is, to me, like Muslims rioting when someone draws a caricature of Muhammad, or Arabs when someone walks past them with an Israeli flag, or Jews when someone walks past them with a Palestinian flag. It’s all really the same. In short, Tel Aviv may not be a secular city, but even if it were, that shouldn’t prevent religious activities in its streets. And likewise in Bnei Brak and Jerusalem.
Both sides in this game are equally hypocritical and demagogic, since the demands for tolerance from all directions are equally justified—and both sides reject them when inconvenient. Therefore neither side is right here. This may surprise you, but there’s something common to both sides in these loud wars: both agree that expression and activities they dislike should not be allowed—at least in the public domain, and preferably beyond. But, ironically, precisely in the principle on which they agree, they are wrong. A democratic state is supposed to allow any activity of any kind in every public space, and not heed the cries of faux-victims or the “offended.” That’s true for Pride parades in Jerusalem, Kahana marches in Umm al-Fahm, separate prayers or speeches by Yigal Levinstein in Tel Aviv, Holocaust denial (see in column 6), missionizing in the Holy Land, and the like. No wonder each side’s intolerance fuels and arms the other (which, of course, suffers from the same intolerance).
That is the nature of free speech and democracy. These social-governmental practices are meant for adults who don’t want some “sages of the generation” (neither Ehud Barak nor Aharon Barak, neither Shikma Bressler, nor Eichler, nor Levinstein) deciding for them what is right and wrong and determining what will be heard in the public domain and what won’t. Everything should be heard everywhere, and people will decide whether they want to listen or not, and whether they accept it or not. That’s the nature of a free and democratic state. Oh, and also a Jewish one. Whoever wishes can, of course, protest to their heart’s content—without violence—against events they deem objectionable, or organize alternative marches, lectures, or prayers according to their taste. The marketplace of ideas and the public sphere should be open to all, and there should be no doubt about any person’s or group’s right to voice an opinion or conduct themselves as they wish. So long as I don’t harm anyone, but only my views “harm” someone—let them take a pill and calm down. The starting point is that everyone has the right to present any opinion and do whatever they wish, anywhere. And again, my words here are directed against both sides of this debate. Neither strives for tolerance; both operate against it and only take its name in vain when convenient.
Of course, now I’ll be asked about a neo-Nazi march through the streets of Bnei Brak (I don’t rule it out. Borderline), or walking fully nude, or even a blatant Pride parade in Meah Shearim (in my view unlikely). True, there is common sense, and it’s hard to permit everything; but the line of common sense lies far beyond the limits each side in the current struggle draws for its own purposes. One can always feign naiveté and depict a separate prayer as equivalent to walking naked—but that’s disingenuous nonsense. Not everything has to be permitted (since sometimes there is harm even if not physical), but almost everything should be. In our parts there is a growing tactical use of “offense” and “harm” to score gains, but that’s a Muslim tactic, and I’d be pleased to see it vanish from our midst. Incidentally, that’s the government’s (and police’s) job: not to capitulate to “feelings of offense” and to deal firmly with those who use them—more or less cynically. The authorities’ weakness in the face of various publics’ “offense” brings upon us today’s abominations. We mustn’t take it into account. Not Muslims on the Temple Mount, not Arabs in Umm al-Fahm, not Jews at the Pride Parade, and not Tel-Avivians regarding prayers—separate or not—at Dizengoff Square.
It’s important to note I’m not using whataboutism in its usual sense here, namely attacking one side by claiming it suffers from the same flaw it imputes to its counterpart. I used whataboutism here only to show that both sides are in exactly the same boat—and to criticize them both. In short, the war over freedom of expression and liberalism ought to be waged by the sane majority against both sides, because in this war they stand together—on the wrong, illiberal side. This is a dark religious war, and that’s how we should see it.
Pogrom feelings
By the way, I can understand the sense of injury and the “pogrom-ish” descriptions of these events. From the photos one could sense the hatred on people’s faces and the disgust they expressed toward religion and religious people in general. The images of (religious) people crying at the event and the shock it caused others seem authentic to me. There was a kind of pogrom here, if only because these events were not a war over ideas on their merits but also—and perhaps mainly—against people and groups.
It reminds me of an unforgettable experience (so why do I need to recall it?) from very many years ago. During Chol Hamoed Sukkot a conference was held at Tel Aviv University titled “Spinoza, the first secular Jew.” I believe I’ve mentioned it here before. It was rather amusing, since between the lines of the supposedly academic lectures it was clear the secular were simply seeking a rabbi and spiritual leader (some in the audience said as much). Among others, Prof. Michael Har-Segor, who headed the League against Religious Coercion, spoke there. He strutted about like a peacock, accompanied by two odd fellows—bodyguards or water-pourers on his hands—and the three of them ranted in an ugly fashion against anything smelling of religion (especially Jewish; he actually showed quite impressive tolerance toward Christianity), like the last of the pogromists. I remember his remarks on stage and then a (horrific) argument I had with him and his two companions in the conference corridors, which stirred very difficult feelings in me. Never in my life had I encountered so directly and so crudely such fierce antisemitic hatred smeared across people’s faces as they “talked” to me—just as my parents described from abroad. It was indeed a painful experience, one that slightly clouds my liberalism and desire to allow freedom of expression for all. I suppose that’s part of what stirred the harsh feelings in the recent Yom Kippur war. And still, in my opinion, even hatred must be free to be expressed, and we must address it in other ways (not by silencing).
Incidentally, the hatred on both sides has been here for a long time already, and the harping on the fact that this was a prayer and on a holy day and other demagogic propaganda lines strikes me as tendentious and unserious. It’s a bit like the ludicrous shock at Baruch Goldstein’s deeds over the fact that he massacred innocent worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs—as if had he killed them in their homes it would have been acceptable. I see no difference between hatred or murder expressed at prayer and hatred or murder otherwise. Such statements are nothing but cynical exploitation of respect for religious feelings for propaganda purposes. In any case, the Yom Kippur events were only one expression—albeit a somewhat extreme one—of the hatred that has been blazing here for some time, and that’s how they should be seen.
A psychological note
Above I spoke about the secular search for a rabbi. I’ll add that, in my view, this also underlies not a few of the current protests. The secular are tired of being portrayed (and of feeling, in practice—and rightly) like an empty cart. The religious have binding values on which one cannot compromise, and the secular feel they must set up an alternative full cart opposite them. But that feeling itself can be interpreted in two ways: one can understand it as a tactic—since it’s a bit hard to fight for a sacred vacuum. But one can also understand it as essence: a claim that there really are secular values (a full cart). I find tactics hard to argue with, since they don’t claim to be honest. But on the substantive level I’ll repeat and say: indeed, the secular cart is empty. Secular people can be wonderful and full of all that is good, brimming with wisdom and fine character traits—but that’s as people. There’s no such thing as secular values, because secularity is a negative state (absence of faith or of religious commitment). A secular person can be full of values, but there are no “secular values,” and therefore, to their regret, it’s impossible and unreasonable to create such a religion. And even liberalism, which is a certain kind of belief (not secular), is not a religion, and I’d expect it to allow grownups who don’t agree with it to conduct themselves as they understand in the public domain.
This sense of vacuum brings people a powerful need to fill their empty cart. So they create a religion for themselves (since, as noted, there’s no such thing as a full secular cart): namely beliefs and values that must be defended with religious zeal, never compromising, fearing every slippery-slope—however slight—just like the last of the religious whom they vilify (and exclude). Now they too have something for which to fight with self-sacrifice. Thus democratic liberalism turns into an intolerant and non-inclusive religion, with fundamental dogmas, with heretics and apostates, with spiritual leaders, with consigning heretics to the pit and silencing mouths—just like every other self-respecting religion. Thus voluntary separation of the two genders in the public domain becomes heresy in a fundamental principle whose “punishment” is roughly death—or at least violent condemnation—something like Nazism for fans of the genre. I’ve just heard of a halakhic dispute among the “greats of the generation” of the anti-government protest about whether it’s permissible to make Nazi comparisons. Now they too have the party of the “comparers” and those who are not.
This may be dime-store psychology, but I have a very clear sense that this is one of the foundations for the secular hysteria over religionization (hadatah), exclusion (hadarah), othering (hazarah), “harvahah,” “havzarah,” “harfiyah,” “hakladah,” and the rest of the h–words (fill in the blank) for which one must “die rather than transgress,” and regarding which clear fences must be erected against every remote fear of a slippery slope. Now we’re all religious; the carts on both sides are full; and now the struggle can proceed on equal terms. At last there is content to our lives. One cannot deny that this struggle provides a sense of satisfaction and fullness to people for whom bourgeois secular life did not offer sufficient spiritual answer. The term “democracy,” used by the protest with no connection to its original meaning, has become a religious banner. The Declaration of Independence has become holy writ, and if there’s a lawyer like Ilan Bombach who dares to criticize it (see here and the stormy reactions in the media), they’re offended like the last of the Muslims whose cheese was moved.
Well then, it’s hard to live a secular life—that is, a life devoid of religious feelings. None of us is perfect, and only a few truly succeed in doing so. Incidentally, I think that I, humble as I am, actually manage it fairly well (I worked on it quite a bit. It didn’t come easily). For me there really isn’t anything that justifies draconian steps and such grievous offense from either side, and I recommend to everyone—that is, to the religious on both sides—to try to reach this blessed “secular” and liberal state. You can believe with perfect faith in something and at the same time be rational, logical, even human and moral. Despite what your gut tells you, and despite the exhortations of politruks on both sides (“If you don’t care, you don’t really believe”—in halakha or in liberalism), there is no contradiction between the two. You don’t have to fall into hysteria to prove serious belief and commitment to something.
If we’re dealing with psychological motives, we can’t avoid returning to what’s been happening in the political sphere over the last year. The clashing sides on this past Yom Kippur are closely identified with the two political camps, which makes it much easier to understand the anger and frustration of the secular side. They feel that others are entering their domain and advancing ideas that persecute them. It’s not just antisemitism, even if at times it looks like it (incidentally, even antisemitism in the past perhaps wasn’t always baseless, as I’ve noted before. Ehud Matot—glad to supply you a quote for your obsessive postings).
It’s important for me to say that these psychological-sociological motives are something I can understand. It’s hard to live in a vacuum, especially when the other side exploits it and demands you compromise all the time because your cart is empty, trying again and again to impose its way on you. But still, understanding is not justification. I do not accept a process that creates religious values ex nihilo just because someone has a psychological need (incidentally, many accuse the religious of exactly that). I too oppose the exclusion of women, but I do not see separate prayer in Dizengoff Square as exclusion, and I would certainly not impose it on women and men who wish it. Let it be for their health. And of course there’s nothing here that would justify “pogroms” (that is, protests that evoke a sense of pogrom). Incidentally, I would also expect the court not to allow this exclusion of the religious. Although the Supreme Court’s decision was mainly technical, I have no doubt there was an agenda in the background as well.
Exclusion and separation in a public space
We’ve arrived at the subject of exclusion. I’ve discussed liberal paternalism here more than once. Those Liberals-In-Their-Own-Eyes graciously impose on grownups who think differently the “correct” way to think and behave. Thus we arrive at bizarre phenomena like banning the rental of a public venue—or even granting approval—for a gender-separate performance by a Haredi singer in a public place. This continues with bans on separate prayer in the public domain as practiced by the people of Israel for many generations. Thus the Hebrew University doesn’t allow female students who wish it to dance separately at a Purim party—all in the name of liberalism. Thus we arrived at the situation where the most sensible decision in the world by the current government (yes, occasionally there are such), which tries to set separate bathing hours at certain nature reserves (after a pilot, with due caution and in very small measure) for people who cannot use these public places in a way that fits their values and are thus excluded from them, becomes an offensive step that arouses mass protests by faux-victims. Apparently that too leads to the end of democracy—like every heretical pip squeak from the wrong religion.
In short, don’t tell me that setting up partitions in Dizengoff Square with everyone’s consent—while allowing anyone who wishes to move about around it freely—truly constitutes a “die rather than transgress” prohibition in the liberal religion. Don’t tell me it strikes at your very soul to that extent. That’s bull I’m not buying, if only because I too am a believer in liberalism—not the religion invented here from nothing, but true liberalism. I’m also not buying the opposition even if the worshippers had indeed occupied the square and people couldn’t pass through during the prayer (the protesters themselves note that in past years they did allow it). There are plenty of events that take over the public domain and limit our movement, and I don’t see how prayer differs from them. And again, I believe that for some people (not necessarily the less intelligent), the feelings of holy anger are authentic—but that’s the result of brainwashing and religious fanaticism of the kind I fight against in the truly religious world (i.e., actual religion, not the liberal one). It’s no wonder I expect (in vain) those who declare they dislike brainwashing, coercion, and religious fanaticism to fight against it even as they do all of it in exactly the same way.
Jewish or democratic state?
It’s important to note that none of this is said in the name of the state’s Jewishness. It has no connection. I’m in favor of liberalism even when it comes to Muslim prayer or missionary parades. I’m entirely in favor of religionization or secularization, proselytizing and repentance or “de-repentance,” in the public sphere. These have all become dirty words in our new religious world. But as a liberal (not religious), I believe the public domain should be a Hyde Park where everyone can speak and act as they see fit—however eccentric or odd—and each of us will let them do so and choose our own path. I’m sick of everyone explaining to others what may or may not be said or done in the public sphere. What’s legitimate and what isn’t. Everything is legitimate so long as you don’t harm someone. Eichler will babble his anti-Zionist drivel (in the name of the national camp, of course), and Levinstein will deliver his foolish lectures and spread his conspiracy theories under every green tree—and no one should be persecuted for it (though one may, of course, protest if one really feels like it). Is there a prohibition on being a fool? There isn’t even a prohibition on being wicked or mistaken, so long as you let others live their lives. Missionizing is not a dirty word. On the contrary: anyone who believes in something—I expect them to try to persuade others to their view. Whether Christian, Reform, Orthodox, Flat-Earther, or vegan. A democratic society of grown, rational people should encourage all this, not ban it.
Of course, none of the warring sides in today’s conflicts can really claim this, since neither is equally liberal, both threaten democracy, and neither lets us live here. But as I wrote in the whataboutism section above, I don’t intend to be a mouthpiece for either side. I claim this against both, in the name of democracy and liberalism—and really in the name of common sense—and it seems to me in the name of the majority, or at least a very large portion of the public. Let us live in peace and stop bothering us all. I don’t want honor for Judaism, nor honor for women, nor honor for religious or secular. I want to live. That’s all. As far as I’m concerned, no one needs to honor me. My late grandmother would have cared so much.
Conclusion
To conclude, I’ll bring here a précis of an article by Itamar Baz published in Ha’Ayin HaShevi’it (a media watchdog site). You’ll see why I wrote at the beginning that there’s nothing very novel here—and also why it’s still necessary. I’ll preface that there are several flaws in this ostensibly objective article. Starting with the use of loaded terms like “missionary activity” and “bringing people back to religion,” which covertly assume these actions are illegitimate and create very clear feelings against them in the biased reader. Continuing with a tendentious and incorrect description of Livskind’s arguments (as if he wrote that a journalist who examines and evaluates facts is taking an unfair path). Continuing with demonizing Israel Ze’ira (an “evil” rich businessman, heaven forfend) and accusing Ariel Schnabel of ignoring this “questionable” facet of Ze’ira, and more. But there’s nothing unusual in that; it’s the standard routine in our journalism—even though from an article in a forum for media criticism I’d expect a bit more critical sense and self-awareness. But our interest here is his central argument.
At the outset he brings statements by various columnists (on the right), particularly Nadav Ha’atzni and Kalman Livskind, who wrote roughly what I’ve written here. They argue that if someone doesn’t enjoy separate prayer, they should be so kind as to pray otherwise or not at all—but not impose their way on others. Our Itamar continues, saying that despite the similarity there’s a difference between Livskind and Ha’atzni:
Despite the similarity, there is a fundamental difference between Ha’atzni’s column and Livskind’s. They hold similar views, but Ha’atzni has a bit more intellectual honesty. He preaches “tolerance,” within which secular Tel-Avivians are asked to accept hardal “Rosh Yehudi,” but clarifies that tolerance should end when the other side tries “to take over public services and resources, or to impose a way of life and dress in public transportation or in the city’s streets.” In his words, Ze’ira’s return-to-religion activists are not such, and therefore did not deserve expulsion.
Livskind, by contrast, is a professional eye-closer. Return-to-religion activists, including Rosh Yehudi, operated in secular cities for years unimpeded, and often even relied on public budgets. In fact—as several columnists note—last Yom Kippur a similar prayer took place in Dizengoff Square and passed without disturbances. What changed is the context.
His main claim is twofold: (1) Livskind (unlike Ha’atzni) does not extend tolerance to the other side and demands tolerance only for his side; (2) Livskind (unlike Ha’atzni) ignores the context—namely the political-legal struggle of the past year—which aroused all these harsh, intolerant feelings.
The problem is that everyone is right. It’s true that it’s wrong to ignore context, and wrong to demand tolerance only of one side—but equally wrong is Itamar Baz’s thinking that these are substantive arguments. This is whataboutism in its usual (and flawed) usage. These are not substantive arguments, for a tolerant and liberal society should conduct debates differently—even when the other side is misbehaving (and indeed it is—but it’s also being hysterically demonized). If you have a political dispute with someone or with any group, conduct it on its merits. You cannot, because of that, silence mouths and prevent entirely legitimate actions by your opponent in the public sphere. You can and should raise arguments, debate, and offer alternatives (a Reform prayer in Bnei Brak, a Pride parade in Jerusalem), but not silence and not prevent the other from living as they understand. By this whataboutist logic, now that the religious are in power they should persecute every secular aspect, silence it, and prevent it by every tool at their disposal—after all, the rules have been broken and the game is off.
In my terms from above, I think our Itamar confuses understanding with justification. I fully understand the feelings of the protesters who blew up the prayer in the square in Tel Aviv, since their opponents are using steps no less problematic in the opposite direction. But still, I do not justify them (nor their opponents). This whataboutism leads us to ruin, since each side now feels the leash is off and anything goes. And if Benny Gantz, who tries to preserve the remnants of the rules of the game, condemns the violence in the square or against Levinstein, he immediately receives ugly slurs as the last of the traitors (see here and here). That’s no way to conduct a discussion. You can’t lament deviations from the rules and, in doing so, annihilate them completely. That applies to both sides. If you’ve nonetheless decided the game is over and therefore you don’t accept its rules (like freedom of speech and worship), don’t complain about those who deviate from its rules and use their governmental power against you.
And finally, I am not speaking of unity, nor in its name. The calls for unity—more or less fake (including prayers at the Kotel and other sticky acts)—are, in my view, whitewash. Indeed there is a majority of the nation opposed to the religious fanaticism of both sides—but when you turn to the two religions now confronting one another, this call is fake. Certainly when you hear it from people who want unity from one side only while continuing in their path trampling others. I have no interest in unity, nor is there any need to bury our heads in the sand and deny its absence and the depth of the rifts. My words here are said in the name of freedom and liberalism—not in the name of unity.
I don’t want you to be united with me. I want you to argue with me, to mock me and belittle me if you think that’s right, to protest and preach against me, to engage in religionization and secularization in the city square, to tussle politically (fairly) for your agendas—but let us live. Perhaps the time has come to organize a prayer at the Kotel against unity and against prayers for unity. I only hope that the believers of the two religions won’t unite to blow it up (oops, I remembered that there are partitions at the Kotel)…
Thus end the journalistic scoldings. In the next column I want to enter a bit into the theoretical dimension of this dispute.
This is a poster published in 1913, around the Hebrew-language controversy with the German, a-Zionist “Ezra” association. Thanks to Chayuta, who photographed this picture yesterday at the museum in Migdal Shalom and sent me the photo.
Discussion
Now both sides (both?) will come and say you’re soft, that you’re ingratiating yourself, that you’re a smart-aleck, etc. etc. And it would be a shame if they did. You wrote well this time.
The subject was the Yom Kippur riots, and therefore I criticized the “liberals” more. In other columns I criticize the conservative-religious camp much more.
A. I wrote that distinction (about turning separation into a religious “thou shalt not” that hurts secular feelings).
B. I didn’t understand this distinction.
Doron, my whole point is that both sides here are one side: the intolerant side. No wonder that side attacks tolerant liberals like me.
My remark was the opposite. In my opinion you criticized the religious much more than was warranted, because of A below.
A. Yes, I saw that; I mentioned it only to argue why there is no symmetry. Because the religious people in Dizengoff did not harm anyone, neither religiously nor liberally.
B. You wrote this too: Zeira did not bring buses of worshippers. If there is a sufficiently large public in Jerusalem demanding a parade, that is one thing; but if some party wants a parade specifically in Jerusalem, that is another thing.
I understood your intention perfectly. And I have bad news for you: you and I are on the same side in this matter. My condolences.
I really don’t understand the insistence on continuing to write here about liberalism when it’s clear this is progressivism. There are progressives here who claim they are liberals. That itself is a problematic misunderstanding. Liberalism = freedom. Progressivism = equality. You really can’t talk to true progressives, because since for them there is no objective reality (being postmodernists), there is also no objective truth and no objective justice, so every word in the language can serve them with whatever meaning they want. True liberals really cannot hold liberalism as a religion, because freedom is indeed a value, but only a means (an essential one) for realizing other values. They will need some other religion to believe in. Therefore, really, if there are true liberals today they are found only in Likud. Everyone else is either progressive or led by progressives and supports their actions. Progressivism is indeed the most fanatical and obtuse religion ever to arise on the face of the earth, and I predict it will bring about World War III, since the war between progressives and everyone else is not only in Israel but throughout the Western world, and even affects its attitude toward the Eastern world (weakening it against the evil powers of the East).
A. I criticized them for their conduct on several different planes, not necessarily over the prayer issue. For example, imposing halakhic marriage and divorce, for example taking exemptions from civic duties at others’ expense, and of course also intolerance toward Reform “missionary work,” etc. So in this column they got much less than they deserve. I explained above why.
B. True, but the analogy is not to Zeira. See the previous section. In the demonstrations against the Supreme Court or against the draft in Jerusalem, did they not bring buses? A strange claim. Demonstrations bring buses.
I understood perfectly well that you understood and that you are on my side. I only noted to you that what you wrote is self-evident from what I wrote.
You took an obvious distinction (which in fact just repeats what I wrote) and managed to twist even that. Likud are liberals about as much as Shas is.
Contrary to your usual habit, I think you are wrong here from beginning to end.
Secular people are not looking for a rebbe. Maybe there are secular individuals looking for a rebbe, but as a group, we are not. I also don’t know anyone among my friends who is looking for a rebbe.
The secular wagon is not empty. You are holding the rope at both ends: if secularity is an ideology, then it has a full wagon with liberalism and pluralism. If secularity is merely the absence of religion, then we have no wagon at all, and obviously it is neither empty nor full. The secular people who blew up the prayer service certainly do have a positive ideology.
“The protesters were not very interested in partitions, nor in the law and its existence. They wanted to sabotage the prayer service itself” – you are right in the first half but not in the second. We wanted to prevent an organization whose aims are despicable in our eyes from holding a “Pride Parade” in Tel Aviv. The prayers indeed passed without trouble in previous years, because people praying really does not bother us.
One of the essential differences between a Pride Parade in Bnei Brak and missionary activity in Tel Aviv is that gays do not want to turn others into gays (and that is also impossible), but rather to protest the discrimination against them. Rosh Yehudi, in the words of its leader, wants to turn us religious.
If praying with separation in Tel Aviv is part of freedom of expression, then shouting “Shame!” is also part of freedom of expression. Attempts at Pride Parades in religious cities, for example Netivot, were suppressed violently. It is not symmetrical.
And the thing you are most wrong about is the psychological source of the anger now. What angers us is that for years the feelings of the religious were stronger, more demonstrative, more demanding, and we gave up principles because at every step it mattered more to the religious than it did to us, and because we are not united (we have no rebbe and we don’t want one), both because our demands are not uniform (because we don’t really have a wagon) and because we have sympathy for your religious feelings. And one day we woke up to discover that our wishes are never realized, and we are fed up with it.
So now we have leaders (not a rebbe), and we have demands (more or less), and we have lost the sympathy. It’s that simple.
So personally I oppose protest that takes the form of disrupting prayer services, but only because it is ineffective and even harmful to my struggle. But opposing Hardali missionary work is not a whim; it is liberalism.
I understand that you understood that I understood that we understood each other. Now try to formalize it 😉
I think the rabbi is of course right in his criticism of what happened in Tel Aviv on Yom Kippur. But I think the rabbi is being too harsh on the protesters: one has to understand what situation they are in. We have a completely corrupt government here, turning us into an exploitative banana republic: corrupt appointments, scandalous transfer of funds, religious coercion, a dramatically expanded and corrupt increase in rabbinic positions funded by—and at the expense of—the very population that is protesting, religious legislation (restrictions at the Western Wall, violence toward the Women of the Wall, religion and state, etc.). The transfer of billions of shekels in harmful ways to those same populations, both in the settlements and worse still in Bnei Brak and Beit Shemesh (schools without core curriculum, kollel men, every other day you hear of another transfer of funds to the parasitic Haredim). All this is routine in the current government (and I am deliberately not even entering the reform issue). It is important to say that the economic burden falls mainly on the very people protesting, while the government merely exploits them corruptly to the last drop of blood. I am not trying to justify it, but what exactly did people expect there? A whole year of abuse and there won’t be incidents like this? I must say to the secular public’s credit that I am shocked such horror-show events have not happened until now. There is a limit to how patient the average secular person can be while taking metaphorical blows from the demographic majority.
Although on a personal level I very much identify with the desire that the street be a kind of huge “Hyde Park” where everyone can freely express their views, isn’t that simply contrary to human nature? Haredim will never accept a Pride Parade in Bnei Brak, and I do not believe secular people will accept over time Hardali outreach in their own districts; as for Muslim prayer in the heart of a Jewish neighborhood (and vice versa), there is nothing to talk about. Human beings are generally tribal and xenophobic, whatever group or ideology it may arise from. Is the vision presented in the column not merely a utopia, nothing more?
Modi, is it contrary to my usual habit to be right, or contrary to my usual habit to be wrong but not all the way?
1. You may not explicitly know secular people looking for a rebbe, but many of them behave as if they are. That is what I was talking about. That conference demonstrated it very well, as did the new religion created in recent years.
2. The secular wagon can be full of value-laden contents unrelated to secularity. But there are no secular values. You can of course define that as no wagon, and that is perfectly fine with me.
3. In my assessment, even those who blew up the prayer service do not have a positive ideology. My claim is that they created one as a response to distress. At least many of them. I find it hard to believe there is anyone whose ideology is not to allow people to pray as they wish in the public domain. And certainly not in the name of tolerance and liberalism.
4. Preventing a Pride Parade in Tel Aviv is a poor metaphor. Because their parade was not about their pride. They prayed; they did not hold an anti-LGBT or pro-Reform parade. But in my view preventing a Pride Parade is also wrong.
5. Turning you religious is a super-legitimate goal. Each of you can decide whether he wants to listen or not. Especially when he is speaking with others and not with you. And by the way, the Pride Parade does want to change the outlook of religious conservatives to be pro-LGBT (or at least not anti-LGBT). There is nothing wrong with that. Public marches are meant to influence public opinion.
6. Cries of “Shame!” are entirely legitimate (even if a bit pathetic in my view). Where did I write otherwise?
7. In the last section you repeat what I wrote:
And the thing you are most wrong about is the psychological source of the anger now. What angers us is that for years the feelings of the religious were stronger, more demonstrative, more demanding, and we gave up principles because at every step it mattered more to the religious than it did to us, and because we are not united (we have no rebbe and we don’t want one), both because our demands are not uniform (because we don’t really have a wagon) and because we have sympathy for your religious feelings. And one day we woke up to discover that our wishes are never realized, and we are fed up with it.
It just seems odd to me that you open this section by claiming that this is where I am most wrong, and then repeat what I wrote.
8. And finally, opposing any kind of missionary activity, religious or secular, is exactly the opposite of liberalism. There is nothing more legitimate than trying to change people’s opinions. Opposing that is gagging speech.
It seems odd to me that you keep repeating what I wrote (not only here) and presenting it as a disagreement with me.
In a certain sense this is indeed a utopia, and that is unfortunate. As I said, I understand too, but do not justify. But it is worth at least holding up a mirror before ourselves and seeing how emaciated the slogans of liberalism and inclusiveness are on all sides.
A little girl, only one, innocent
stood and asked – why?
“Daddy, why is blowing the shofar shameful?”
A question caught on one of the videos. On the night of the pogrom (well, not a pogrom on the Ukrainian scale, but they’re learning)
And all the lions of analytics,
and all the tigers of word-laundering
will gather and explain, explain very well,
that one must take into account … and understand,
and what does a little girl understand
The automatic identification of democracy with liberal democracy is unclear to me. The original democratic system allows one to replace the government at the ballot box. That’s it. The United States of the 1950s was a superb democracy, despite racial segregation.
I do not think secular people are specifically looking for religious lives (that is, at least not as a significant movement but only as isolated individuals), but secular people are definitely looking for an ideology. Without entering the question whether the word “secular” includes only a negative meaning (as in your position) or also a positive one (as in Modi’s), what is clear is that it is very hard to defend your way of life without an ideology that defends you on the political plane. The secular mainly feel (and rightly so) that they are losing in the political arena.
The political arena is precisely what challenges liberal assumptions, because the state is by definition a coercive body (taxes, laws, benefits, etc.). Hence someone who merely wants to preserve his way of life forever will lose in the political arena to someone trying to use the state to coerce others. And from here, I think, also comes the panic, which may be exaggerated but is not fake at all. People with a different ideology are a threat not because of the things they say, which may be offensive or not, but because of how they vote, which may be a significant threat to one’s way of life. In order to unite into a meaningful political force, an opposing ideology is required, and that is basically what we are seeing right now.
For example, even the pilot of designated hours for separation at springs—this is all well and good until an inspector arrives and harms your body or your pocket in order to enforce that law. And I think this is where the symmetry breaks. No matter how much Tel Avivians shout “shame” or demonstrate, they are not using the coercive force of the state to impose an ideology. In fact, what we have seen in the past year (withdrawing investments, refusal to serve) is exactly the attempt to prevent the state from having that coercive power. Liberalism may want a free market of ideas, but the democratic state gives the winner the power to break the market
If so, we pretty much agree about the search and the distress. I did not write that it is specifically a religious feeling, but rather a vacuum in general.
The state does indeed challenge liberalism, but practical liberalism (as distinct from anarchism) recognizes its necessity while striving to minimize its involvement as much as possible, and aspires to an ideological Hyde Park. That is what is not happening on either side of the current divide.
I understand all the fears very well, and I identify with them too. I fear them no less than you do. But if on the strength of those fears people begin persecuting religious worship and religious people, then let them not speak in the name of liberalism, democracy, and tolerance.
No one harms your body or your money in order to enforce separate hours at springs. Where did you draw that nonsense from? How is that different from enforcement of any other law?
And finally, right now the liberals are using the power of the state (the courts and the municipality) to persecute religious worship and religious people. So the symmetry has by no means been broken. In fact, it has never been so complete. Two fanatical, ultra-religious groups are fighting each other by violent means in the name of tolerance. That is exactly my description in the column.
In the name of equality they also prevent women from studying at university in gender-separated settings.
That too is using the power of the state to impose their liberal “faith” on others.
And we have not even spoken about the elephant in the room – religious coercion. As Yeshayahu Leibowitz said—
when claims of religious coercion were raised (by a figure well known for his liberal sermons):
“Talk of religious coercion is an abomination when it is heard from the mouth of one who supports compulsory conscription.”
Rabbi, you wrote something that seems not to accord with reality because of the High Court…
“The weakness of the authorities in relation to the feelings of ‘offense’ of various publics is bringing the current horrors upon us. This must not be taken into account. Not Muslims on the Temple Mount, not Arabs in Umm al-Fahm, not Jews at the Pride Parade, and not Tel Avivians regarding prayers, separated or not, in Dizengoff Square.”
I think that if the state wanted to do what you propose, it would get stuck in the High Court, which would claim that it is forbidden to protest the Pride Parade and forbidden against the Muslims. But against separation it is not equal, of course….
I am of course against the separations of lunatics… but at prayer time it is not appropriate to pray facing a woman’s backside..
In Israel there is a built-in asymmetry in which Muslim/Haredi/Hardali/religious communities use violence to prevent any attempt to present a position unacceptable in their eyes.
It is obvious to all of us what they would do to an innocent group of liberals who tried to put on an anti-religious display on Yom Kippur in a religious town.
It would not end in shouting and shoving but in a full-on right-wing pogrom with piles of corpses.
So after the Muslim-Haredi-Hardali-religious public prevented dealing with uncomfortable opinions in its own home, the Hardalim come in droves to the liberal cities to conquer more territory and more holy land.
Zeira as parable is a settler who took over a space that the Tel Aviv municipality allocated to a synagogue and turned it into his private residence.
Then, after blocking the synagogue with his body, he tries to take over the public domain in order to allow prayer for the masses who found no place in the synagogue.
Zeira of course does not mention that the hard core of his worshippers arrived by personal import from the hills of Samaria (tip for next year: if you want to look like an authentic Tel Avivian, it’s best to leave the gun at home).
Zeira has no respect for prayer or for Yom Kippur; as far as he is concerned he is in a jihad to conquer the lands of the infidels in Tel Aviv, and like the Egyptians in the previous Yom Kippur War he identifies weakness in the Tel Aviv enemy, which is not ready for war on Yom Kippur, and therefore chooses that day for war.
It’s a shame no one heard the little girl, because we shut her in the back in the horribly crowded women’s section, and of course it’s generally a good thing she kept quiet, because “a woman’s voice is nakedness,” but other than that everything is reasonable and sensible.
The little girl did not ask why settlers abandoned the holy soil of Samaria and spent the holy day in the impure soil of Tel Aviv (as they declared time and again).
The little girl did not pause for a moment to wonder why a father who is careful to expel any Arab shepherd who comes within four hundred parasangs of the settlement permits himself to conquer the city’s central square from a public that sees him as its calamity.
But that’s how it is when you are a privileged girl who grows up to be mistress of the land
Hello, and thank you for your remarks.
I would like to note that while secular people speak of the value of hearing different opinions and giving a platform to every side and each person and his own truth—according to their own view, they indeed ought to act that way and allow even those who challenge that line of thought to present their opinions. The Haredi/religious/Muslim/Christian believes there is one truth, and I can understand why they oppose different opinions—they believe these opinions are wrong and misleading, and from the outset they do not uphold the value of hearing other sides. Therefore one cannot come to them with complaints… At most you can ask religious people to recognize differing opinions, but that is certainly not built into their ideology.
You are confusing voicing an opinion with taking action.
You are welcome to open a newspaper at your own expense and express your opinion.
Whoever wants to hear will be able to read.
Conquering Dizengoff Square is not an opinion but a jihadist act of taking over the power centers of the liberal enemy and silencing it by means of stages and partitions.
Dizengoff Square is ordinarily filled with the local population sitting on mats—couples, friends, and families.
On Yom Kippur the square is ordinarily filled with children on bicycles (the holiday commandment in Tel Aviv).
Setting up a stage and taking over the square after expelling the locals is a typical violent action of hilltop youth who are used to expelling the locals and then putting up a “young settlement” in its place.
I would note that the impression I got from reading quite a bit of your writing is that you are a full wagon, and yet you nevertheless created a religion of hatred of Haredim… Sometimes the criticism is justified… and in such cases many Haredim would agree with the criticism… but even in those cases there rises between the lines a hatred and contempt that overflows… criticism expressed with religious fervor
and I am sorry for that
Why do you write that you are not religious?
And what religiosity do you find in liberalism?
Can we have a translation in the body of the film?
1. To whom are the questions addressed?
2. Who wrote that he is not religious?
3. Why is a question being presented here that the whole column is devoted to answering?
First of all, yasher koach on the excellent column. Let me add two anecdotes. A. The following picture, which I photographed yesterday at the Museum of the History of Tel Aviv in Shalom Tower. It was published in 1913.
I couldn’t paste the picture, sorry. I will just add the second anecdote, that when I skimmed the title of this column, I was sure you were writing here memories from the actual Yom Kippur War, from my city Tel Aviv.
“Freedom of expression” that is completely free and ignores its surroundings is a theoretical freedom of expression.
The implementation of an idea has to take reality into account, including the surrounding reality.
Therefore I am not in favor of organizing prayer services in the streets of Tel Aviv when there are people who oppose them.
And I am not in favor of the organization’s activity in Tel Aviv when that constitutes provocation toward some of the residents.
Jewish activity must not cause hatred and disrupt internal peace.
And if such activity is what causes that, then that activity must not be done in the place where that is what it causes.
Democracy and liberalism should not violate the human balance.
And when they do violate it, that indicates a failure in that situation in which they violate it.
First, thank you for the column (and the dedication).
I agree that the protest behaves like a not very successful religion,
but I think that opposite religion as it is expressed in politics, our empty wagon presents one important detail missing from the full wagon, and that is common sense.
Admittedly not everyone uses it, but I will quote my reply to a friend who saw fit to set up S. Bresler (and by the way I highly recommend following her nephew, amir bresler, who is one of the best drummers in the country today, if not in the world) as the counter-position to the government, when she actually serves as a convenient straw man.
I am not interested in discussing either Bresler or Ben-Gvir
I do not listen to, read, or watch Bresler,
Ben-Gvir is a minister in the government, so I am exposed to him more
But we do not live by their words; thank God we have minds to think, eyes to see, and the rest is commentary—go and learn
The picture has now been added at the end of the column (thanks to Oren). It is indeed uncannily apt. Thank you.
1. In my view this is not theoretical, though I am aware that people are not perfect. They have feelings and impulses. But as I wrote above, in my opinion this picture, even if it is theoretical, is very important. At the very least it puts us in front of a mirror so that we stop deceiving ourselves and presenting ourselves as liberals and tolerant people acting for democracy. There is at least somewhere to aspire to.
2. The fact that you or someone else are “not in favor” can be interpreted in two ways: 1. You react emotionally against it. Completely legitimate. 2. You support preventing such activity. Entirely illegitimate.
Recognizing weaknesses is excellent, but not as a basis for acting on the strength of those weaknesses, rather as an attempt to overcome them. For some reason people present their weaknesses as ethical arguments. To me that resembles a rapist justifying his actions by saying he had a strong urge to rape a woman, and perhaps adding that she even behaved in a way he didn’t like.
3. The question whether their activity is morally worthy or not is mainly for them. Our discussion is whether that which is unworthy in my eyes is still entitled to tolerant treatment—in other words, whether I am obliged to allow its existence.
I did not understand the claim.
I didn’t mean to reply in this sub-thread, and I can’t manage to reply to your response…
You presented secularity as an empty wagon, but secularity recognizes one significant value: our responsibility for the world, and an attempt to learn from history in a less selective way. Maybe that is not important.
This connects with my response to my friend: I oppose the government, and I oppose the dominance of the messianic/fascist faction in the government. But I have no problem with separated prayer services (I think it should be regulated in legislation that separation for the sake of prayer is permitted in the public sphere), and I have no principled opposition to separate hours at springs (though I understand secular people whom this greatly annoys, because the status quo certainly should have been opened up long ago, and adding separation while ignoring religious coercion and the fact that a lot of our taxes go to religion is infuriating).
But it is the duty of the moderate public, which is capable of communicating with the other side, to make an effort and do so.
If this is still not clear, I would be glad if you would spell out which claim is unclear
Then we completely agree about what is proper in the public sphere.
As for the secular wagon, everything you described is not a secular value. There are secular people who will adopt it and others who will not. And there are religious people who will adopt it and others who will not.
Given the way Judaism is being conducted and with its representatives, I completely understand the Tel Avivians. The fear that the Haredi-religious gang will one day rule over us frightens me too. (Former Haredi, currently religious.)
They can set new rules in the spirit of the Torah as they understand it, and who knows where it will end…
Just look at how the Haredim behave toward the Women of the Wall on new moons. There we are less shocked, because these bullies are used to the idea that they are allowed.
I agree with every word, if that attitude were directed at those who act that way on the other side. But to treat every religious person and every religious activity that way is problematic.
Liberals in Likud are a sub-movement. Like Yariv Levin, for example, whom you yourself said is a true liberal. Also Israel Katz, and also Netanyahu despite all your mockery of him. In the past there were other Knesset members too. The fact that they cooperate with Shas and therefore do not bring their policy to expression does not mean they are not liberals. It means they are paying a price for cooperating with them. Since the Haredim are still the swing vote (otherwise their price would be much lower), their price rises over time. The mere fact that they are liberals does not contradict the nationalism in them, and therefore this cooperation is much easier than that of the progressives on the left. All the other parties that hate Netanyahu do not really care about progressivism, whose fanaticism currently makes it the greatest enemy of liberals, even more so than the conservatives.
I am sorry to tell you, but in principle there is nothing non-liberal about racial segregation, or segregation on any other basis. The problem was that in practice the public services (and the like) were not provided equally because of the segregation, and therefore it was abolished. But from a liberal standpoint there is no problem with not liking people and not wanting to be in their company. You are allowed to think (from a liberal standpoint) that you are better than others. And the fact that racial segregation was abolished is precisely the sign that the U.S. was already a liberal democracy then. What it was not was progressive, and that was—and still is—a good thing.
Let’s put it this way: I want citizenship to be revoked both from Arabs and from Haredim (who didn’t serve, etc.). No taxes and no services. I have a feeling that the left would oppose this (strongly, because of the Arabs), whereas Likud people would agree. The left does not really care about the injustice of the Haredim’s not contributing to the state compared with what they receive from it as much as it cares about its religion of equality. It would gladly legitimize the Haredim in order to expel settlers (“it would wear a shtreimel,” in Yossi Sarid’s phrase). It hates religious Zionists much more than Haredim, and even more than that it hates Likudniks (“Begin the fascist and murderer”).
Theoretical liberalism does not really interest me.
So if they had done this against a prayer service whose participants are Shas supporters, when they know those are Shas supporters, you would not criticize them?
I would still criticize them, though perhaps less. Supporters are not those who committed the acts. Certainly not the acts you described.
I don’t quite understand you. Do you not hope there will be a majority in the government that will prevent the Pride Parade? True, from the standpoint of liberalism etc. one should not hope for that, but as a religious person do you not hope for it? Perhaps it is not right in this situation for all sorts of reasons, but is that not the hope? In the future that we hope for (at least I do), we will build the Temple and there will be a Sanhedrin, etc., and there will be a group that wants to hold a Pride Parade, or girls who want to walk down the street in swimsuits—will we allow that?
And likewise I am not quite clear on the boundary of liberalism. In the scenario in which you were in control, would you allow Christians/heretics to set up booths trying to persuade people to convert to Christianity/apostasy? And what about booths trying to bring people to repentance? True, from the standpoint of liberalism there is no distinction, but from your standpoint is there no distinction?
1. I certainly very much hope there will not be such a majority. I believe in the values of liberalism and also in the values of halakha, and sometimes there is a clash and the matter requires decision. This is not always simple, and I have discussed it at length in various places (see the series of columns on Modern Orthodoxy and my book Moves Among the Standing).
2. When there is a Sanhedrin, reality will be different, and there is no point dealing with it right now. When we know the reality, we can discuss what is right to do in it. I also dealt with this argument in the aforementioned book.
3. Correct. From my standpoint there is no distinction whatsoever. I oppose using the power of the state for religious purposes, both essentially and tactically.
Revoking citizenship for failure to serve. Sounds very reasonable.
And this is called liberalism.
The next step—revoking citizenship for “non-productivity,” and anyone who does not seem productive enough in the eyes of the politruks will have his citizenship revoked, or at the very least his rights.
(A slippery slope both practically and essentially).
You wrote: “Yes, I know, this is a Jewish state, but also a democratic one. In a democratic state there is freedom of expression, speech, and action, so long as the other is not harmed.”
It is implied by your words that you demand that every condition of a “democratic state” be fulfilled, while a Jewish state is a condition subordinate to the basic premise of a democratic state (and even a liberal one, incidentally), and only once all the conditions of democracy are fulfilled can one turn to the condition of “Jewish.”
I do not know what the requirements of a Jewish state are, and therefore I also do not know whether I want the State of Israel to be such, but it is clear that placing democratic values wholesale above a Jewish state while winking “I know, this is a Jewish state” is mere lip service, covering the fact that there is no intention whatsoever of allowing Jewish values to prevail at times over democratic values.
One possible basic premise of a Jewish state that sometimes compromises with a democratic state: there is no equality between missionary activity toward Judaism and missionary activity toward Christianity. A Jewish state will restrict the democratic possibility of freedom of speech, so long as it concerns persuading people to leave Judaism, just as it can restrict voices calling for the abolition of the state itself (not necessarily that this will happen, but when it does happen it is not an illegitimate act as you present it, but a situation in which the value of equality will not be implemented, given that the state is also democratic and not only Jewish).
Why not? Do rights come without duties? And what does this have to do with politruks? It is supposed to be by the consent of the people
If you meant revoking rights, I apologize for the attack; it is legitimate to revoke rights from someone who does not serve.
If you meant revoking citizenship—it is an illegitimate tool to use against someone who is not an enemy of the people, certainly not in a state based on a shared Jewish identity.
Even regarding revoking rights, there is a certain range beyond which it is no longer reasonable to use deprivation of rights against one who fails to fulfill his duty, even though it is legitimate from the standpoint of logic, and of course legally and juridically (and the more the Haredi public grows and thereby constitutes a greater burden, the more legitimate this demand will be).
And the politruks are the ones who will decide on Sunday that whoever does not serve is not part of the people, and on Monday that whoever does not perform meaningful service is not part of the people, and on Tuesday that whoever does not work 45 hours a week is not part of the people, and so on. Revoking citizenship (and also extreme deprivation of rights) is a very strong and violent tool, and it is not supposed to be used in relation to every social inequality, even if it is done maliciously.
Well, I have written about this quite a bit. Briefly: clearly the state is not Jewish. That is mere lip service. What is called Jewish in the eyes of most of the public is a collection of moral values that have nothing whatever to do with Judaism. Perhaps some folklore, a day of rest on Saturday rather than Sunday, but nothing substantial.
Accepted, but can the working assumption that the majority of the public wants the state to be democratic with a Jewish flavor not lead to an answer that would explain many questions about contradictions in behavior (such as the demand to allow Jews to conduct a Jewish way of life in public space, as opposed to the non-demand to allow Muslims to conduct a Muslim way of life openly in public space)?
I mean that true, the practical applications demanded by the average Israeli citizen are relatively limited, but the idea itself can generate a certain distinction that would be less democratic, yet that would be a result of the Jewish cornerstone assumption in the state as well.
It certainly can. But only at the margins. The Hebrew language, a Sabbath rest day, the Law of Return, and the like. Nothing connected to human and civil rights.
Beyond that, since in my view Judaism does not contradict freedom of expression, including missionary preaching, but on the contrary requires them, then both from the standpoint of the Jewish state and from the standpoint of the democratic state there is no reason to forbid this. But even without me, there is very broad agreement that the state is supposed to allow freedom of religion to all its citizens.
Thank you very much for the article. I agree very much.
This may be a bit off topic, but I have a question about the “Hyde Park” that you wrote you want in the public domain: I too think every person has the right to express his view and that we should allow that. But what about a case in which halakha forbids it? That is, if there is a halakha for the state, for example not to allow missionary activity of idolatry, then that should seemingly “defeat” the right to freedom of expression.
Are there such halakhot? If there were such a halakha, would you support a law forbidding Christian missionary activity (or something similar)? Can there even be halakha for the state at all?
Sorry for diverting the subject, but it seems to me this is something important to address, because at least from the religious side, it doesn’t seem to me they disagree with you up to this point, but only on these issues—the state’s “Jewishness.”
A continuation of my previous comment. And also here: https://mikyab.net/posts/82862#comment-76706
Still, Judge Hadas Ovadia’s ruling is troubling; Justice Amit also said separation == exclusion.
How did they fall into the trap?
I understand that you hold there are cases of es passt nisht in which morality overrides halakha. But still, for someone like me who thinks you are wrong (and seemingly this follows simply from the story of the Binding of Isaac)—does halakha also apply to the state? Should the state fulfill the commandment of destroying idolatry (not allowing Christian missionary activity)? Is it obligated regarding Sabbath desecration and to prevent public transportation (if public transportation indeed harms individual rights)?
Seemingly, for people like me this is a religious duty and not a religious feeling, and they really do act consistently and not only when it is “convenient” for them. They are true liberals, but also true religious people. In my view most of the religious public holds this outlook, so it does not seem to me that the criticism of it is relevant.
So by your view there are no liberals at all. After all, today it is either Arabs or Haredim. In both cases we are talking about increasing allowances and budgets with no return except votes in the Knesset. The Arabs are admittedly not ostensibly in favor of religious laws, but they too have their own rabbis and judges funded by the state. They do not enact religious laws, but in general they are a public of enemies or criminals (protection rackets, financial crime, etc.). There were two truly liberal governments in recent decades: Sharon’s government of Likud, Mafdal, and Shinui (Tommy Lapid’s) in 2003; and Netanyahu’s government of Likud, Yesh Atid, and HaBayit HaYehudi (Lapid and Bennett) in 2013. Both of those governments did many good and justified things to advance liberal economic policy, and fell because of the left and left-wing policy. That is, because the left was willing to sacrifice liberalism on the altar of the gods of the left: the god of peace and the god of equality. And as far as they were concerned, freedom and justice could go to hell.
Sharon’s government fell because of the disengagement, which happened because of the investigation files opened against Sharon (the Greek island affair). The Netanyahu-Lapid-Bennett government fell because Lapid was unwilling to vote for the Nation-State Law. Because he is really a pseudo-liberal, and equality (unjustified equality) was more important to him than all the good things he did regarding the Haredim and the number of ministers, etc. And even if he didn’t believe in that law, he should know there is such a thing as give-and-take in a partnership. He got almost everything from his partnership and wasn’t willing to give anything. Therefore when I hear about true liberals I chuckle. There is no such thing. There is always some god and some religion that will be more important than freedom. You can believe in freedom as an essential means, but not as a value
Do you think there are situations in which we should enforce halakha?
The Binding of Isaac proves nothing whatsoever. There there was a divine command in prophecy. I have dealt with this more than once. What does that have to do with halakha for the state? Of course there are halakhot for a state or a people (public halakhot). But not for a secular democratic state.
Questions that deal with your own outlook are best addressed to yourself, not to me.
As a rule, no.
Hi Rabbi Michi, thank you for the remarks.
As I understand it, the value of “doubt” is secular in essence, since a religious conception must have things to which it relates with certainty. No?
All right, I understand that we disagree regarding clashes between morality and halakha. I am interested in what you think about circumcision, a rape victim forbidden to a kohen, and more.
In any case, that is not what I meant to discuss. I only wanted to say that the liberal religious position really is liberal. It is not equal to the secular one, for the religious really are liberal, but they have a conflicting value—halakha—which defeats liberalism. They do it in pain and with sorrow over surrendering freedom of expression, for example, for the sake of eliminating idolatry. (You can claim they are not really liberals and do not truly feel this inner tearing in deciding between halakha and morality, but that is already psychology, which is probably indeed true of part of the public. But one can still consistently hold a liberal position and yet oppose missionary activity in the street.)
My questions about the state are not questions about my outlook. I brought implications that follow from my outlook, but the question whether the state has halakhot is independent of the question of who “wins” between morality and halakha.
True, this question may not be directly connected to the column, as I already wrote, but in my opinion its implications are connected to your conclusions about the religious public’s liberal consistency.
If the answer is that the state has no halakhot, then what you wrote is correct, and the claims to liberalism from the religious side are a thin cover for fanaticism that opposes hearing the other’s view in the public sphere. But if the state is indeed obligated by halakha, and assuming (which I suppose you would agree is at least possible even if unlikely) that halakha overrides morality—the religious really are liberals. They truly want freedom of expression, but they have a halakhic command that forbids it. Like a Jew who does not want to hurt his son and yet circumcises him.
Why does a secular democratic state not have such halakhot? The fact that the state is secular and democratic does not mean that is how it ought to be. I assume you argue that it is proper for the state to be secular, but why?
Absolutely not. To both sides: not all secular people are skeptics and not all religious people are dogmatists. Besides, doubt is not a value but a cognitive state.
Wouldn’t it be better, instead of telling everyone that each person should do whatever he wants in the public sphere wherever he wants, for each group to speak in its own area the things it believes? For example, you won’t see a Haredi group coming to live in Tel Aviv and saying things opposite to most of the city [especially a city with a clear outlook like Bnei Brak, only on the other side]; rather, it builds itself a safe area where there are clear principles that aren’t debated, like Torah from Heaven and so on. In my opinion the rabbi’s proposal is not practical but just Platonic theory; maybe in a book it is nice, but when giving practical guidance one also has to factor in that human beings are human beings, and they want a protected and quiet place for their outlook, and to be able to raise their children that way without constantly having to justify themselves to others. The rabbi should have attacked the Rosh Yehudi organization: what is it doing in a city with a clearly secular character? Let it open its study hall not in Tel Aviv but in a religious area, and whoever wants to come can come, instead of infiltrating like a group of idiots into a city with a clear character.
As a practical ruling: in any place with a clear character, people from outside have no right to try to change it; only people from within who are part of the community/city do.
You can hold any position and define it as liberal. The gates of formalism have not been locked.
A secular state is a state with many secular people. It is proper that everyone be religious; it is not proper to ignore the reality that this is not the case. And missionary activity is permitted and desirable even if everyone is religious.
No. There is no value to freedom of expression in a place where everyone agrees. Precisely in other places it has value.
Yes, but I am asking whether there are specific situations in which you think halakha should be enforced; hearing that such a thing exists from you sounds a bit strange
How does that contradict what I wrote?
Take your shoes off your feet before you open your mouth against a rabbi and great man like Yigal Levinstein.
He founded one of the most magnificent educational institutions in the country.
A man of kindness and charity.
Teaches Torah to the people of Israel.
A man who educated the best of our sons to reach command positions in the finest front-line units of the IDF
(guess where the commander of Bahad 1 studied).
So one can wonder about his terminology on a very specific issue. But I do not agree with contemptuous remarks like yours, and I hereby lodge a vigorous protest.
Michi, please respond.
Thanks for the column! You took the words right out of my mouth. And with that, one small question:
As a psychology student, I know there is no limit to how easily one can influence a person and cause him to do almost anything one wants. I mean that any group of people, with the right psychological strategies, can “convert” another group to the converters’ opinions quite easily. Thus a certain problem arises with freedom of expression. In your view, should one allow a “Pride Parade” (or something more sophisticated) inside Bnei Brak organized by psychologists, evolutionary biologists, and economists who know exactly the weaknesses of human beings and will touch precisely the right points? And similarly, should one allow Rosh Yehudi to conduct activities in Tel Aviv organized with the best minds in order to persuade people to convert to Judaism? To make this concrete, a few examples: one can press emotional buttons, promise meaning, grant money, vouchers, frighten people, bring singers or celebrities to support it, and so on.
You cannot forbid influence. The next step would be to forbid advertisements or political propaganda made by professionals in order to influence. People need to behave responsibly and know how to examine arguments and positions critically. Whoever does not do so—that is his responsibility.
That all means are fair is one thing.
But are all goals fair?
Is it proper to limit certain topics?
If someone were to give speeches in Dizengoff in favor of murdering LGBT people, should he be allowed to do so?
See the next column.
You equated the two sides and ignored two clear differences:
1. True, I guess Rosh Yehudi do not support the Pride Parade, but they did not blow it up. So true, a refined liberalism would be to support their right to march and Rosh Yehudi are not there, but they are still far more liberal than the antisemites.
2. Rosh Yehudi may not be the most tolerant, but at least they are not hypocrites. The antisemites came in the name of liberalism and as a defense of liberalism and carried out riots against people who weren’t liberal like them.
That’s not true regarding the prayer itself. There was a mixed prayer service afterward and no one tried to blow it up; it was purely the separation and the spread of the phenomenon into different spaces because of forces trying to turn that ancient value into a contemporary norm
You began by saying that both sides are equally intolerant. Afterwards you criticized liberalism a bit more, but then you returned to blaming both sides. I just want to sharpen the point:
In my humble opinion, the two sides are not similar. I support letting a Pride Parade march, but one must remember there are two differences:
A. A Pride Parade hurts religious feelings (why flaunt it, etc.), whereas a prayer service, when there is a group (a broad one) that has organized itself, is not supposed to hurt liberal feelings. So there is no injury here versus injury there in the religious dimension in the case of a Pride Parade (as stated, in the liberal dimension the two things are indeed equal). As long as there is no separation of religion and state in law, then part of the public sphere is also religious (one can argue about the wisdom of that, as is known, and my personal opinion is that after the events of the past year I do not have an ounce of trust in separating religion and state in the State of Israel, because the liberal side is charged with intense hatred of religion—but let’s leave that aside).
B. Another difference is, as you said, that if in Jerusalem 2,000 people were gathering and demanding a parade, that is one thing; and if people are rounded up from all over and it is decided to hold it specifically in Jerusalem, that is something else. In the bottom line it does not matter very much, but a difference is a difference.