Animal Farm: A Coalition of Horror against a Hysterical Opposition (Column 532)

With God’s help

Disclaimer: This post was translated from Hebrew using AI (ChatGPT 5 Thinking), so there may be inaccuracies or nuances lost. If something seems unclear, please refer to the Hebrew original or contact us for clarification.

This time I’m hitting you hard. Because of its length, I first thought to split this column in two, but in the end I decided that wouldn’t do justice to the argument, since presenting the full picture matters here. So here it is before you, my second manifesto (the first appeared in column 500). And just as I did in the first, so I do now: I shoot evenly at both sides of the dispute. Before you fire off an angry talkback about my “leftism” (or my “rightism”), I highly recommend reading to the end, despite the length, to see the whole picture. May we have success.

“Out of the storm”

In the land of the dwarfs there’s a noisy commotion, armies don uniforms and go off to war. After the establishment of the current coalition of horrors, on the most recent Thursday yet another nail was driven into the apocalypse unfolding before my astonished eyes: a new-old government was formed. No wonder criticism is swelling and raging, with apocalyptic prophecies about the destruction of democracy and the state being proclaimed far and wide. And this morning (Thursday) that only intensifies in light of the High Court of Justice hearing on the appointment of Deri and the (non-personal) “Deri Law.”

At the outset I’ll note that I too think the government that was formed (which in my view is staffed by quite a few intelligent and capable people—more so, in my estimation, than other alternatives currently available) represents a moral low, disgraceful cynicism, and an insult to intelligence of a sort we haven’t seen here in a long time (and there is indeed plenty to compare it to in the past). At the same time I think much of the criticism of it is unprincipled, merely incendiary, and focused on irrelevant matters (much ado about very little). So I want to give a survey—balanced, but lashing out without favors to either side—of the coalitionary horror on the one hand and the oppositional hysteria on the other.

I will also preface what I’ll return to at the end. In my opinion, the disputed issues are relatively marginal. These disputes fuel themselves, and the more one side becomes extreme and unprincipled, the other side responds even less principled, which in turn fans the flames more and more—thus every mouse becomes an elephant. Liberal leftists persecute the conservative right in a very illiberal manner, and it’s no wonder the latter responds with absurd counter-measures. The reverse happens as well. Cool, balanced thinking can show us how high we’ve climbed up our trees and how relatively marginal our real disagreements are—maybe helping both the hysterics and the horrors climb back down.

The background to this column is a series of WhatsApp experiments I ran with a good friend who is very liberal and a clearly active man of the left. To our surprise, we reached very broad agreements about what is proper and improper, and even more so about what is acceptable and unacceptable. It’s important to understand that parts of my positions that he does not deem “proper” can still, after our discussion, become “acceptable” in his eyes—and that too is something. At least he can live with such decisions when they’re made by a majority (which cannot be said for some decisions being made now). I stress: I’m not speaking about style but about substance. I’m not speaking about invective and the style of discourse but about its contents. If we focus on substance and think about it coolly and logically rather than brawling, we’ll discover distances shrink drastically.

Again and again I reach the conclusion that similar experiments would greatly benefit our public discourse, though the chance of that is near zero (one of the main aims of this modest site). My assumption is that people of common sense will reach conclusions not so far from each other if they are willing to listen with an open heart. More broadly, I’ve written more than once that in philosophy and ethics there are almost no polar disagreements; I think the same holds in ideology and politics. The noise and commotion result from the absence of dialogue and an attachment to slogans and placards. Given our current state (with all of us up trees), the chance is sadly near zero, but it’s not upon me to finish the work, nor am I free to desist from it.

On Right and Left

This government is anything but a national right—neither “to the full” nor “to the empty.” It contains quite a few left-leaning features, and central components that are anything but national. For example, here you’ll find a clear presentation of Degel HaTorah’s principled refusal to sit on the security cabinet, on the grounds that they are not citizens of the State of Israel but of the Land of Israel and of the Almighty (behold the so-called “national camp”). True, there are right-wing elements in the government (as in the previous one), but I doubt how far their agendas will be realized in practice. We will quickly discover there is a reality here, not only parties and slogans—and perhaps that’s a good thing. So the statement that what has actually been formed is a kind of populist left government is no less accurate than calling it a fully right-wing government.

From this you can see that criticisms of this government aren’t necessarily coming from the left. Not everyone who opposes Bibi or the Haredim is left, despite what those parties tirelessly try to sell us. It’s more accurate to describe the struggle as a war between horror and hysterical opponents. Not promising for either side. Horror is undesirable, but irrational hysteria is not a recommended way to confront it. I, for one, am troubled precisely by the leftish features in the new coalition—those that advocate centralizing various aspects of our lives, denying freedoms (mainly of Haredim and those needing religious services), granting unreasonable support to parasitic, non-productive populations not in order to lift them out of their situation but to entrench it. I’m troubled by populist (and left-ish) promises with no economic or other feasibility (I mean the promises themselves; in many cases they won’t be realized), by control over our way of life, marriage and prayer rites, and by the threat all this poses to society and to the public purse now and in the future (since sadly some promises will indeed be carried out). In short, my critique of the government comes mainly from the right and less from the left. So spare me the accusations of leftism (which, even if true, are slogans, not arguments).

The hysteria

Before my critiques of the coalition presented below, I must preface: most of the criticisms being voiced are hysterical, baseless, and unfounded. Contrary to the cries of doom, I’m fairly sure Bibi’s appointment as prime minister will not change much regarding his trials. Nor do I see a great chance of some apocalypse befalling civil rights and democracy. I think almost no one, from any side, truly wants such an outcome. Racism likely won’t reign here either (the proportion of racists in the new government is quite low, though it exists). Oh, and fear not: the general education system will not be affected or changed in any way (not for the better either), except for the Haredi system, which will deepen its failures with over-funding. You know what? Even our failing judicial system will not collapse; actually, it might even strengthen and improve in several aspects in which it has struggled to date (the guiding lines presented yesterday by the new Justice Minister Yariv Levin are mostly reasonable and acceptable; the package as a whole is less so). There are even aspects of the new government’s policy that might give reason for hope, like governance and security. But I don’t expect substantial improvement there under the new rule either (let me remind you: the May 2021 riots occurred under Bibi, Bennett, and Smotrich). Time will tell. All this greatly troubles the opposition, but it’s not what troubles me.

There are some aspects, admittedly quite minor, in which the declarations (if realized) would actually correct past wrongs—and there there’s even a chance it will happen (because it really should). They’ll permit the use of public facilities for gender-separate events; more gender-separate beaches will open; perhaps some improvements will come in the legal system and in its relations to the government and Knesset (following the aforementioned press conference by Yariv Levin, it appears they’re serious—see caveat in column 517)[1]; they’ll open discussion of conversion therapy, of trans and queer phenomena, and lower, somewhat, the LGBTQ and progressive tyranny that sets the terms of public discourse on these topics, and more.

None of this stops critics from lumping these together with the more problematic steps expected. In their eyes everything is horror; the hoofbeats of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are already sounding. So why do I too view this coalition as horrifying? Because despite the critics’ hysteria, there are indeed a few serious problems (as they say: the fact you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you). I must say their essence is conduct rather than outcomes. I don’t foresee harsh, irreversible outcomes to most of this government’s policies; but its conduct, its agenda (most of which won’t be realized), and of course its staffing are the main problem. Beyond that, some harmful results are expected from what will be implemented, as I’ll detail now.

What, then, is horrifying here

First of all, the very appointment of such a crew—an astonishing blend of the corrupt, benighted and primitive, petty and vindictive—is a primary harm, even if it yields no concrete outcome. Consider changing Basic Laws without a moment’s thought and without staff work, just to seat a twice-convicted criminal as a minister, and just to split portfolios, ministries, and powers without logic and without any substantive review (likely with significant administrative downsides)—that’s problematic in itself, not only in its results. Someone convicted of tax crimes will be the finance minister who prosecutes us for tax offenses and demands that we obey the laws—especially the tax laws. And I haven’t even mentioned the inciting, corrupt prime minister we’ve received again.

The scandalous way laws have been passed for conjunctural needs has already eroded the rule of law for years, as governments play with the legal system at will and according to their needs, changing it without thought, without staff work, and without regard for the state’s real needs. I’ve written more than once that one of our regime’s foundational problems is that in Israel there are only two branches of government: the judiciary and the executive. Because Israel lacks a Knesset (in the real sense), we have no legislative branch and no independent sovereign (see, for example, column 300), and thus the government does as it pleases with us and with the Knesset, without any check or protection from the Knesset (and soon with less oversight from the courts; it seems some yearn for us to be left with a single ruling branch). The main problem in all this is not the outcomes but the conduct itself—though in the long run there will also be problematic effects on the rule of law and public trust in it.

It’s hard to see how one can take seriously laws enacted so scandalously. I find it hard to believe citizens won’t draw the obvious conclusions and try as much as possible to circumvent the laws, beyond what already happened. For instance, to evade taxes, or to avoid military service. If law-makers are above the law, and if laws are made with no connection to the state’s or the public’s interest but only to personal (not even sectoral) interests, I see no value or logic in expecting any citizen to obey them. I don’t see why taxpayers, especially large business owners, would continue throwing large sums into the public coffers when it’s clear that much of the money is used mainly for harmful, corrupt aims of parasitic, self-interested groups that contribute almost nothing to the coffers they plunder—to swallow their money. If I were a tycoon, I suppose I would do all I could to avoid it (yes, many try even now, but I expect much more. Not all of them are wicked. I personally know some righteous people who pay taxes and don’t try to evade them out of civic commitment). Similarly, I don’t see why youth would be motivated to enlist when there is a privileged group receiving a sweeping, utterly illogical exemption from service, and all this with ever more generous, indiscriminate funding (and I am indeed in favor of a reasonable quota of exemptions; see column 34). So even if in the short term nothing dramatic happens, if these processes continue, I do expect long-term consequences.

Beyond the looming budget hole from funneling billions to baseless, irrational purposes, it’s hard to see moral or economic sense in groups contributing almost nothing to GDP taking over the coffers and emptying them for their needs. Yes, it’s perfectly legal—but it’s utterly illogical and unethical. We can’t ignore data on the Haredim’s negligible contribution to GDP (which, in my impression, is borne mainly by secular Israelis and, among them, by leftists beyond their share of the general population). Think of the appalling Shas videos about the cost of living that make Der Stürmer pale with envy (I highly recommend watching, for example, this one), remembering that it’s produced and circulated by a party whose entire mission is to entrench the poverty and backwardness of its voters and of the population at large. They create poverty and backwardness and then “care” for the weak and “invisible” in a way that ensures they will always remain so (to fulfill the verse “the poor shall never cease from among the land.” Restoring the crown to its former glory, did I mention?). They repeatedly push transfer payments that will never give any citizen fishing rods—heaven forbid—but only fish, at the expense of those being fished.

Note that the vile video above speaks of pet ownership as a typical secular-antisemitic trait—and then you immediately grasp how the counter-steps arrive: there’s no sweeter revenge on antisemites than imposing an exorbitant, unrealistic levy on pet ownership (see here). Someone must fund the increased yeshiva stipends, right? Again, this too of course won’t happen (likely just trolling—see here for Shay Niv’s comments), just like most coalition agreements, because, thank God, there’s also reality on the field of our battered pitch. But the very discourse and conduct are a moral horror, vindictive meanness, and unprecedented intellectual lowness.

These delusional groups freely label various measures as antisemitic and then launch a total war against them. Thus the tax on disposables and sugary drinks became red rags before the Haredi bull—veritable 17th-century decrees in our day. One can debate whether the state’s role is to paternalistically impose health through additional taxes or otherwise (opinions differ worldwide), but for the Haredim such measures are inherently illegitimate, seen as distilled antisemitism. Hence their cancellation is a Jewish day of victory. For some reason the plastic bag law and bottle deposit law passed quietly for them, though based on a very similar rationale. Oh, I forgot—those weren’t imposed by Lieberman (the “new Hitler,” in Haredi argot which, as is known, tends toward understatement and reasonableness). It’s a crazy world, and it turns out many bubble-dwellers buy this infantile incitement.

Consider, for example, the demagogic comparison between the funding (which I support) the previous government earmarked for Arab citizens (following its predecessor, which had already decided so)—which of course Bibi and his friends continue to lie about in terms of scope (but which, I estimate, they too will pass)—and the current massive budgets (which I strongly oppose) being transferred to the Haredim. Again and again we’re told that if Arabs “get,” then Haredim should “get” too (unlike the “leftists” Bennett, Sa’ar, and Lapid, who “gave only to Arabs”). One need not have passed kindergarten to grasp how foolish that comparison is. For those who don’t understand (and it turns out there are quite a few toddlers among us), I’ll elaborate.

We can divide a state’s budgetary investments into three categories: beneficial, necessary, and harmful. Beneficial funding contributes to future GDP (infrastructure, access to education, etc.). Necessary funding is directed to necessary goals even if it doesn’t contribute to GDP (e.g., support for the elderly or disabled, perhaps also cultural investments). Harmful funding is expenditure that, beyond wasting money per se, is meant to produce negative, harmful results with no current or future benefit—a measure with all the downsides.

In this terminology, the budget for Arab citizens was meant to improve their economic and educational situation and integration into general society, address violence in Arab society, and thus bring long-term social and economic benefit to them and to all of us: increased output and reduced violence, perhaps also some increase in identification with the state and reduced feelings of discrimination. That sort of funding is expected from a right-wing government (which is why I think Bibi will continue it). One can’t deny there are perfectly reasonable worries about its use. I’m far from thinking it will all go to terror, as Bibi’s propagandists threaten, but I do think some improper or unhelpful uses will likely be made. In any case, at least by its stated aims, this belongs in the beneficial category. By contrast, almost every shekel now given to the Haredim is dedicated to weakening them economically, educationally, and vocationally; to separating them and preventing their integration into general society; and to pushing them backward as far as possible. These budgets are meant mainly to continue the control of their corrupt, benighted political establishment, enabling it to keep its people in a chokehold (which, frankly, they deserve, since they voted for that junta). The (not great, to be sure) progress achieved regarding them in recent years is now in real danger. Needless to say, the contribution of this budget to current (and of course future) GDP is negative. It’s an “investment” where every penny yields negative returns. No wonder some call it “output-eroding funding” (as opposed to necessary funding that also reduces output but for justified reasons). Needless to say, this is, of course, distinctly left-wing activity. I recently heard in an interview with Yehuda Sharoni (Maariv’s economic reporter) that the coalition agreements promise Agudat Yisrael alone the equivalent of ~40 billion shekels. It’s signed in the agreements, but we can rely on Bibi that this will of course not be fully realized. Still, these are the orders of magnitude and this is the conduct.[2] Now revisit the comparison between Arab funding and Haredi funding and consider what you think of it.

But my main concerns relate to religion–state issues and what will happen to the Haredim themselves, not to direct effects on general society (though I already discussed the indirect, long-term social and economic impacts). Effects on the status of women (such as their ability to serve in various religious roles), the functioning of rabbinical courts, staffing the Chief Rabbinate with benighted conservatives (a continuation of what we’ve had), deepening the Haredi establishment’s control over its people (the “kosher” cell-phone reform), blocking the paths of enlistment and education for Haredim who want them, continued persecution of ex-Haredim, harm through continued strengthening of conversion and kashrut monopolies, and much more. It’s worth noting what has emerged in recent days—that this government is acting to preserve legacy cellular infrastructure (for the sake of “kosher” phones) in a way that will prevent the country from advancing to 4G–5G networks needed for fast, modern devices, which will seriously harm us and output.

Canceling the kashrut reform was the first step of the coalition and new government, in partnership with the Chief Rabbinate. The conversion reform will of course not happen either. Various Western Wall arrangements and the attitude toward non-Orthodox Jewish movements will only regress. All these are expressions of a coalition of political horrors with rabbinical horrors that, in remarkable cooperation, bring upon us a frenzied conservative darkness. The Rabbinate and the government, hand in hand, have democratically seized power and the coffers, collaborating to create regression (what has recently been dubbed “regressive derangement”) and to extend their distorted norms over the religious aspects of our lives. One must understand that at least for some in this gang (the Haredim), this cooperation does not stem from genuine belief that kashrut will improve (there are naïfs who truly believe so; the Rabbinate has always proven itself an effective, professional body—ask the Haredim who so support it why they insist on consuming only private kashrut in addition to the Rabbinate). This is about jobs and control through entrenching the conservative-Haredi monopoly in key positions. In short, they will use secular leftists’ money to persecute them and strengthen Haredi separatism from them.

Chillul Hashem (Desecration of God’s Name)

I decided to dedicate a separate section to this aspect of the horror, due to its importance and essential nature. Generally I strongly oppose using “Chillul Hashem” as an argument against worthy—even legitimate—religious steps. It’s a common tool among religious leftists, and at times the sense is that “Chillul Hashem” serves as a fig leaf for the desire to curry favor. I oppose such considerations about conversion, Shabbat, observance, etc. Yet one cannot deny that such considerations are important in halakhah and at times decisive—even when opposing legitimate steps—and certainly when opposing the horrors I described.

From all I described (just the tip of the iceberg), a picture emerges of a terrible desecration of God’s Name being caused and to be caused. Think of the big picture: the religious and Haredi parties, of all shades (!), have united to zealously enthrone criminals and indictees over society and the state, and to brazenly plunder the public coffers for delusional, benighted aims and to fortify their civil privileges and special rights. In this framework, Aryeh Deri and Bibi swear allegiance to serve the State of Israel and guard its laws (which they themselves set at will). Spare me. In their hypocrisy the Haredim appoint an openly gay Knesset Speaker, then ostentatiously turn their heads aside when he gives his opening speech (see here, and Rabbi Amar’s critique here), as if their hands were not in it. But when Sabbath-breakers and adulterers rise to speak and lead us by their agency and power, none of them turns his head, of course. Apparently their captive public buys it. See the absurdity: we’ve reached a point where the state’s hope for sane, enlightened steps and for preventing part of this darkness rests with Bibi and his gang. Unbelievable—but alongside the others, Bibi is the enlightened part of this coalition.

Here, for example, is a column I just received by one Ofri Ilani (see also here), and I gather there are many others like him among the public:

I wrote to the person who sent me this column that I have similar feelings, even if you can gather that they stem from somewhat different reasons (though fairly close). For me, Judaism is faith, not merely an ethnic culture (which in my view has little value), and therefore I have no option to abandon it. I do, however, have the option to abandon the deranged groups that have seized it and are perceived (with some justice) as representing it. But I dedicated the first manifesto to that.

In my estimation, what I quoted above is not a standard leftist, secular despair. It reflects authentic feelings that exist to some extent even in me, because sadly this time they are justified. I think we must take seriously a situation in which the actions of the religious public arouse, abroad and at home (among secular Jews and among the sane segment of the religious public), feelings that identify Judaism with corruption, brutishness, and privilege. This time it can’t be pinned on antisemitism alone. Even someone who justifies parts of the government’s steps cannot deny that these feelings have real basis.

I know that God and the Torah are the last things that interest this band of “righteous” who take Judaism’s name in vain. Not coincidentally, in Israel and around the world, religious Jews are now becoming synonymous with corruption, primitivism, and racism—and to a considerable extent with justice (beyond the exaggerations, which I’ll address later). To our shame, many of the ignorant (including rabbis and public leaders) in the religious and Haredi worlds are exulting and proclaiming “ours has triumphed,” whereas in truth the formation of this disgraceful government is a historic rupture that calls for rending one’s garments. The day the government was formed should be set as a day of fasting and lamentation over a desecration of God’s Name the likes of which we haven’t seen since the state’s founding and long before. If you next hear an “X, how pleasant are his deeds” about any representative of the religious parties in the Knesset—please notify me. If there is a World to Come and reward and punishment, as these folks tell us, I wouldn’t want to be around when they receive what’s coming to them (though I won’t deny some schadenfreude).

The problem with hysterical critiques

Despite the harsh criticism I’ve dealt out here, note that the aspects involved are quite specific: they concern conduct more than outcomes, and the rather minor results that will come will concern mainly the Haredi public, which will eat what it has cooked (and indirectly all of us, in the longer term). The historical pendulum will likely keep swinging; subsequent governments will fix what this one distorted, and so on ad nauseam. As I wrote above, most of the fears expressed in the media and street do not concern these aspects; in my eyes they express groundless apocalyptic hysteria.

Undifferentiated hysteria neutralizes the ability to voice real critiques. When people cry “the destruction of democracy” over every legitimate and even desirable step the government declares, or even over a step whose harm is minor, the correct, substantive critiques are not heard or accepted. People ascribe everything to leftist hysteria—and to a large extent rightly so—the boy who cried wolf.

Indeed, it seems our leftist cousins have now completely lost what little connection to reality they had—and thus the correct criticisms that should be levied at this coalition of horrors (some of which I listed) aren’t heard. These hysterical, unintelligent critics shoot themselves—and all of us—in the foot. I was just sent an op-ed in Haaretz,[3] titled “Still not like in dark regimes,” where Carolina Landsmann, who appears to be decidedly left, warns that these hysterical, false critiques also harm our global image (including that bizarre New York Times piece, which surely feeds on the hysterical portrayals read in Haaretz).

The rest of the column is dedicated to three concrete examples of hysterical criticism. It was important for me to state my principled view of this government of horrors before addressing the opposition’s complaints. Even if the critics are headed in the right direction (in my view), and perhaps precisely because of that, we should put things in proportion to distinguish between the genuine and the counterfeit and make the discussion saner, more balanced, and more substantive.

Two for the price of one: Merav Arlosoroff on numerus clausus and apartheid

Merav Arlosoroff published a screed in Calcalist here, arguing that the new government’s policy combines numerus clausus and apartheid. Well then, all the dark regimes now have something to aspire to. Let’s examine her two claims.

Numerus clausus is setting limited admission quotas for students based on belonging to an ethnic or religious group. In parts of Europe this was done to Jews. Arlosoroff claims the expected decision to prefer military veterans for university admission is de facto numerus clausus. Such a step, she says, is directed mainly against Haredim and Arabs, but since Haredim hardly seek university admission, de facto it’s numerus clausus against Arabs.

This preposterous argument suffers from several serious methodological problems. First, numerus clausus is not judged de facto unless you have proof that the outcome was intended in advance. By her logic, locating a university in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem is numerus clausus against those in the periphery. Not to mention numerus clausus against children who can’t get in. If the consideration is substantive, and the problematic outcomes are only a side effect, you can’t call it numerus clausus. Moreover, one can study in colleges as well as universities; but in universities students receive government subsidies. It is entirely reasonable to give preferential funding to those who gave three years of their lives and/or risked their lives in the army, over those unwilling even to perform national service in their own communities (Haredim and Arabs, as well as Jews who dodge service). True, the practical effect disfavors Arabs—but the step is justified, and again the effect is only de facto. Those who won’t agree with the step because of its outcomes still cannot deny its logic and legitimacy. By the way, Arabs can perform national service, and I assume those who do will receive parity with Jewish servers. They don’t do it, and then they wail as usual. And leftists as usual side with the “weak,” in their familiar way of practicing the racism of low expectations. Moreover, such a policy “disfavors” quite a few Jews who dodge service—so it’s hard to call this an anti-Arab step. That’s for “numerus clausus”; now to our favorite, “apartheid.”

Arlosoroff claims the government plans to stop the over-funding given to Arabs and Arab municipalities, and thereby discriminates against Arabs. Behold apartheid, in the hysterical left’s version. A grave slander upon South Africa. For Ms. Arlosoroff’s information, there is a logical and conceptual problem here: canceling affirmative action is not discrimination but entirely legitimate policy. If there is discrimination, it stems from prior governments’ policy; affirmative action is not a basic right. If Arlosoroff had pointed to current discriminatory treatment there might be room for discussion—though even budgetary discrimination is not necessarily apartheid—especially when aimed at a hostile population that has tried and still tries to annihilate us (I do not claim all Arabs are terrorists; but the collective is our declared enemy). That does not justify discrimination, but it certainly renders it more understandable and further from apartheid. Beyond that, again: canceling affirmative action is simply not apartheid. Incidentally, in recent days it’s been reported that Bibi plans to transfer the same budget to Arabs, as he has decided and done in the past (ignoring his lies and demagogic, violent incitement against them during the previous government).

Of course one can debate each of these steps—ethically and consequentially. Perfectly legitimate debate. For example, I truly support massively increasing support for Arab citizens, but equally support preference for military veterans. If Bibi ultimately transfers the budget to Arabs, then on both counts I would be with him—on the “apartheid” and on the “numerus clausus.”

I ask myself: from whence grows this demagogic, hysterical critique? It’s wild incitement, quite typical of leftist punditry (and in truth also of Bibism). I suppose there’s a bias that begins with real criticisms and worries about the new government and, in the leftist way (and Bibist too), instantly turns into “apocalypse now,” whether or not there’s any basis. Arlosoroff’s article is a paradigmatic model for dozens and hundreds of fear-mongering pieces now being published, all seeking to destroy the government of horrors but actually shooting its opponents in the foot. After reading a ridiculous, biased, unintelligent article like Arlosoroff’s, no wonder even substantive critiques (like mine) are immediately classified as hysterical leftism. The “boy who cried wolf” syndrome, as I said.

Now to the second example: the “discrimination law.”

Background to the discussion of the “Discrimination Law”

What has dominated headlines in recent days (until last night when the discussion shifted to judicial reforms) is the amendment nicknamed the “Discrimination Law.” Critics claim it would allow service providers (physicians, business owners, psychologists, etc.) to act in a discriminatory manner under cover of law—i.e., to refuse service to those they dislike or whose values differ from theirs. The carnival around the “Discrimination Law” is a towering peak of groundless hysteria and demagoguery.

It’s worth understanding the background. Some years ago there was a case of a print shop in Beersheba refusing to provide service to the LGBTQ community requesting flyers for their event. The owner refused, claiming it violated his values, and was sued. The court fined him, and naturally it caused a great uproar. It was seemingly a case of progressive coercion that unjustifiably favored the client’s values over the provider’s, and in effect sought to force him to act against his conscience (see column 296).

In that column I cited a well-known case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court about a Christian baker named Phillips who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple in Colorado. His argument to the prospective clients was very relevant here: “I can make you a birthday cake, cookies, or brownies,” he told them, “but I can’t make a cake for a same-sex wedding.” Phillips’s case wound through the courts for about three years (2012–2015). At first the Colorado court ordered the baker to bake for such events and to change his policy. This was affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. But eventually the U.S. Supreme Court reversed and recognized the baker’s right to freedom of religion (and also freedom of expression; if a cake counts, then a sign all the more so), and ruled that this outweighs the value of preventing discrimination.

In her ruling the Israeli judge wrote that things are different here because we have an anti-discrimination statute obligating her to rule as she did. But as I explained in that column, to my best judgment the statute doesn’t truly mandate that. It’s a rather sweeping interpretation by the judge herself; in that sense, the American precedent is indeed relevant. I am not impressed that our situation is essentially different.

The current amendment arises from conservative religious anger at that case and others like it (for some reason, liberals were silent in a thousand tongues here; in fact, they didn’t remain silent—they preached for ignoring others’ values, like banning gender-separate events in public facilities, and more). I think any rational person understands this amendment is called for, as it corrects a very faulty state. Even the moniker “Discrimination Law” smuggles in a “liberal” (so-called) connotation; in my view it’s a law in favor of respecting the values of different groups. A deeply liberal law. I’m entirely for it.

Now I want to revisit a distinction I made in that column and sharpen it for our case.

A distinction between the nature of the service and the identity of the recipient

A very basic distinction, oddly absent from almost all the critics’ “discussion.”[4] There’s an essential difference between refusing service to someone because they are LGBTQ—which is inherently improper—and refusing to provide service to LGBTQ activities because they contradict the provider’s values—which is entirely proper. To my judgment, everyone should agree to this regardless of their view of the phenomenon itself. If the print shop refused to provide printing service to a person because of his sexual orientation—that would be improper discrimination. But if it refused to provide service for an LGBTQ movement conference promoting its values—this is perfectly legitimate. The second case is not discrimination of any kind. The client’s values do not override the provider’s; liberty should be granted equally to both. I can’t see how anyone calling themselves liberal fails to recognize this distinction.

Everyone understands a physician may refuse to perform an abortion when his conscience forbids it. Another example: suppose at some point an effective conversion therapy for sexual orientation is found (assuming anyone would dare report such knowledge, since that would be strongly tabooed), and a doctor refuses to provide it to someone who wants it. I suspect even the great liberal sages would side with him and argue passionately for his right to act according to his values. For the benefit of the Haaretz readership, more examples: what about printing invitations for a racist organization’s conference? Must every printer produce invitations for Lehava or even a neo-Nazi group? And what about printing their brochures? What would our liberal cousins say about printing invitations or baking a cake for the infamous “wedding of hate”? I allow myself to assume they’d certainly defend the provider’s right to stand on his values. So where did that liberalism go when it comes to other groups’ values?

Rocinante and the windmills

The example most invoked these days is that of a doctor who won’t treat LGBTQ patients. There are letters by physicians and fervent declarations opposing the law, as if they are fighting a holy war for righteousness, justice, and ethics. We were solemnly read the Hippocratic Oath, and one could be impressed by festive loyalty rituals to liberal values. Add to that the letters from businesspeople, pilots and officers, jurists, and more. Perhaps most prominent was the storm, only a few days ago and already forgotten, around Avi Maoz. The hysterical letters and protests by educators, principals, and municipal leaders arose against the imaginary threat of Avi Maoz receiving responsibility for the Education Ministry’s enrichment programs. Here, finally, we have a truly benighted and racist person, with appalling views and severe detachment from reality. But of course he posed no real threat to anything (see for example here in Davar, not suspected of closeness to the Noam party). That didn’t prevent all freedom fighters from standing as one to wage a hysterical holy war. No wonder the storm passed as it came—and so will all current tempests.

All these try to instill in us the sense that we’ve been blessed with thousands of Joan of Arcs, Emile Zolas, Nelson Mandelas, and Martin Luther Kings under every leafy tree. A truly impressive cohort of martyrs. Well, no wonder—we are the chosen people, after all. There are only two minor differences between all these ass-riding paladins and the original Joan and Emile: in our case there’s not a gram of price they are willing and/or will be required to pay for their “stalwart courage,” and there’s also no real enemy to fight. Poor Israeli Rocinante, forced to carry all these Don Quixotes as they march to total war against the fearsome windmills of their imagination. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at these pathetic, pitiable spectacles.

A glance at medical ethics

Returning to doctors and psychologists—our cousins somehow forgot (not for the first time; see e.g. column 225) that clause 16 appears in the Israel Medical Association’s ethical code (read aloud in the Knesset by Michal Waldiger—see here, and needless to say it continues to be gloriously ignored in the public debate):

16. A physician’s refusal to provide medical treatment.

1. The physician is permitted not to provide medical treatment at the patient’s request if the request contradicts his professional judgment, conscience, or faith. In such circumstances, the physician shall, as far as possible, refer the patient to another appropriate physician.
2. The physician shall oppose medical treatment forced upon him for administrative or economic reasons if such treatment contradicts his professional judgment or conscience.

Thus medical ethics itself recognizes this distinction as basic. It’s common sense, understood by any reasonable person. So why the outrage? Pure, groundless incitement, nothing more.

Of course one can raise slippery-slope concerns that this law will lead to discrimination based on the recipient’s identity, especially in light of past statements by its promoters and their associates. But the proposers themselves (Orit Strock and Simcha Rothman) repeatedly clarify that this is not their intent—yet interviewers won’t let them speak (see, for example, this interview with Amalia Duek, who refuses to understand the basic, self-evident distinction). Needless to say—none of that helps. The “liberal” justice warriors will continue their deranged campaign to force people to act against their conscience.

The discrimination paradox

The crowning peak of this bizarre carnival is an amusing phenomenon I’ll call the “discrimination paradox.” Some righteous souls outdid all others and announced they would not provide services to bodies that practice discrimination in providing services. See here, for example, the “courageous” step by Discount Bank, whose ethics and morality are always lights unto its path—especially when this “remarkable courage” yields free PR (for the absurdity see Ofra Lax’s segment here) and costs not a gram (if only because it will never be implemented). But Discount isn’t the only brave one in our Sodom. Facebook—the charity—joined the party and so did others, including a group of justice-seeking, ethical attorneys (but apparently not the sharpest pencils in the box), who published the following letter:

What righteous folk! Note they do not announce they won’t discriminate even if the law allows it—that isn’t stated at all. On the contrary: they absolutely will. How do I know? Because the letter says exactly that: they intend to use the law to discriminate against people solely for their views—and, ironically, this is written as part of their opposition to the “discriminatory law.” I rubbed my eyes in disbelief. While opposing the law, they announce they will discriminate based solely on worldview. Moreover, they don’t distinguish between services that violate their values (i.e., that would assist discrimination those entities practice) and denial of service to entities just because they are discriminatory. The upshot is that these esteemed jurists oppose a just, rightful law that contains not a whiff of discrimination, while the measure they take is itself crude discrimination—under the banner of fighting discrimination. Apparently even the sky is not the limit for folly and tendentiousness. You might want to keep that list of signatory firms; if any of us ever needs a lawyer, it’s useful to know in whose hands not to place the case (or is that unlawful discrimination based on ability—“ability-ism”?).

The fanatical brainwashing sweeping along our “liberals” has turned them into an extreme church no less than the religious churches they attack. It’s hard to believe this reflects their true intelligence level. The alternative conclusion is that the most basic capacities for thought and distinction are completely neutralized within that church. Now try to present a substantive critique of government policy and point to real problems when those are your “colleagues.” You present as an idiot among idiots and have no chance to gain even a crumb of attention.

A note on the gray zone

Undeniably, many gray cases exist in the realm of discrimination. Consider hosting an LGBTQ couple in a hotel. By hosting them the owner enables actions that, in his view, are forbidden. Does this fall under discrimination by client identity, or under refusal due to the nature of the service itself? Not simple. How about printing an invitation for a science-popularization event held under the auspices of an LGBTQ organization with its logo? Even baking a cake for a wedding, as in the American case, isn’t easy. Beyond that, clearly one can hide racist motives under the pretext of value-based objections. But to my judgment such concerns don’t justify forcing someone to act against his values. We need to think how to define the law and prevent problematic cases. But as always, we mustn’t let the black zone conquer the white in the name of worry over gray. I’ve noted more than once David Enoch’s point that “slippery-slope worries” are themselves a slippery slope that paralyzes us too often.

Another example: consider someone whose racist values forbid marriage between Mizrahi and Ashkenazi, or between a Hasid and a Lithuanian Jew. Should the “Discrimination Law” protect him too?! In my view, yes. With all the contempt and rejection I feel for such values, I think I must not force someone to act contrary to his values. Likewise in marriage, it’s unreasonable to force a rabbi to marry a kohen to a divorcee, a Jew to a gentile, or a same-sex couple; I hope (though I’m not certain) even great liberals wouldn’t support that. Of course it’s important to provide these populations with alternative options outside a rabbi’s auspices—something our conservative intellectuals don’t always ensure. I think this, among other things, drives the unreasonable demands of the “liberals.” Again, you can see that on this playing field there are hardly any righteous on either side.

Even regarding the print-shop case, I saw a few days ago a clip by Haim Levinson in which he quotes the ruling, claiming the judge (religious, he says) justified the fine because the discrimination there was based on the client’s identity, not the nature of the service; hence she fined them. From what I’ve read (see again column 296), I was not at all persuaded. But this deserves checking, since we must beware of drift in both directions. Either way, what matters for us is that, in principle, one should not coerce someone to provide a service that violates his values—and the gray zone requires careful case-by-case handling.

Finally, I’ll end with another example of inflammatory criticism—this time from both sides.

The “beasts’ parade”

In recent days Rabbi Mazuz’s remarks about homosexuals and their “parades of beasts” were published. These remarks evoke in me a sense of revulsion toward the speaker, who clearly does not understand the phenomenon and speaks without comprehension. Style is not the issue (I certainly have no standing to scold others for coarse style), though referring to a person’s orientation (as opposed to opinions or behavior) as “disgusting” or “repugnant” is truly improper. See also Rabbi Amar’s remarks in this context (to me more severe and problematic). The tone and tenor of both again illustrate the gap between Torah knowledge and talent and plain logic and common sense. Recall these words come a few years after a murder occurred at such a parade in Jerusalem.

Having said all that, despite my complete lack of sympathy for the rabbis’ remarks, I must draw a distinction. In many cases (and as far as I understand, also for Rabbi Mazuz), the reference is to the parade, not to people. Calling the parade a “beasts’ parade” doesn’t necessarily mean gays are beasts. Just as when I say someone behaved like a beast, it doesn’t mean I view him as a beast. This is harsh criticism of behavior, not necessarily a description of the person. The term “beast” or “bestial” doesn’t necessarily refer to the LGBTQ demand for rights and protest against their treatment (which to me are entirely legitimate and justified), but to the manner in which it is carried out in some of these parades (mainly in Tel Aviv, but not only). Many people—like me—who watch some pride parades are filled with disgust. The flaunting of sexuality is indeed bestial behavior (to remind us: only beasts mate in public; shame and modesty are human traits). These are repugnant provocations in the public domain, imposed on the general public who do not wish to see them, including children. That may justify calling it a “beasts’ parade.” Moreover, license for provocation should not be reserved for only one side in this game.

True, norms of modesty differ between sectors; but the marchers’ lack of consideration (I refer to those parades conducted provocatively) for many people’s norms—especially when done blatantly in public—can justify such expressions. I suspect many liberals would join such a description for an act of full sexual intercourse in public. In Rabbi Mazuz’s eyes (and a little in mine), the Tel Aviv parade is quite similar. Still, a few caveats: first, this doesn’t characterize all parades in the country—some are very moderate and focus on the message and rights rather than on flaunting sexuality. Second, remember this is a reaction (wild and improper) to long-standing discrimination, still ongoing—often inspired by the same conservative folk now protesting against it. The provocations are meant, among other things, to jab at those they see as discriminators, which is understandable even if not acceptable. Again we see both sides fueling each other’s attitudes; I’ll return to this.

I do think Rabbi Mazuz’s words involve improper generalization and implied degradation, seemingly born of ignorance of the phenomenon and perhaps prejudice (and also a mistaken categorical conflation between halakhic prohibition and moral baseness, as seen in his attitude toward Amir Ohana). Still, examined on their own, at least parts of his words are within a reasonable border.

Nor is his claim that it’s a disease problematic to me. I’ve explained more than once (see e.g. columns 25–26) that the term “disease” is a matter of perspective, so it needn’t carry any negative connotation. Someone who believes the act is religiously and/or morally forbidden will indeed regard the phenomenon as a disease—just like kleptomania, a tendency to desecrate the Sabbath, an obsessive desire to eat pork, or any other negative inclination. Those who see the orientation neutrally or positively, of course, won’t see it as a disease. Thus the term “disease” merely expresses one’s stance toward the phenomenon (pro or con), and nothing beyond that. The automatic offense in debates around this seems to me like a tool for silencing—though at times the use of the term “disease” is exactly that (for those who use it know what reactions it will arouse, even if unjustly).

In this example we see inflammatory rhetoric from both sides of the divide. A more balanced view could yield mutual understanding and more measured, reasonable criticism with a chance of acceptance. I’ll stress again what I’ve written repeatedly: I’m not dealing with style but with content and arguments. Questions of style are tactical; hence they don’t interest me much.

Conclusion: back to conduct and discourse

So what did we have here? A heated struggle between a benighted coalition of horrors and a hysterical, biased (and far from liberal) opposition. Both sides talk nonsense and do nonsense—and above all don’t reason. It’s very hard to insert substantive arguments into this inflamed, unprincipled “debate.” In my opinion, the core problem is not positions but the mode of discourse—the shouting and silencing that prevent level-headed examination and formulation of positions. The positions are an outcome and a symptom of the discourse.

If the discussion were substantive and people were willing to think a moment—to raise arguments and give reasons before writing hysterical, pathetic protest letters—then (recalling my WhatsApp experiments) it would become clear that the gaps between the sides aren’t so great. In most areas the disagreements aren’t that big, and extreme steps by both sides usually occur as reactions to the other side’s extremism. The hysterical side fuels the horrific side, then the latter becomes more hysterical, which increases the horror—and back again. Understand that in the past there were statements by Smotrich and Ben-Gvir that indeed deserved to be called “racist,” though I think they have since moderated and not only tactically but in essence (see column 507). So it’s no wonder the world senses—even if wrongly in my view—that beneath the legitimate steps in the “discrimination law” lie racist motives, and responds hysterically.

Personal legislation by Bibi’s opponents itself triggers an even more extreme counter-reaction (including, again, personal legislation by the other side), which again outrages—and so on. Likewise, the steps of progressives who seize norms and public discourse and deny Haredim rights (like using public facilities and public funding for gender-separate events, separate study in academia, etc.) beget extreme counter-steps (most of which won’t be realized) from the other side—like a 30,000-shekel tax on having cats. Lieberman’s attitude toward Haredim (even if not baseless) arouses their hysterical counter-reaction, which turns disposables and sugary drinks into a battle over a Jewish article of faith against an antisemitic persecutor (whereas charging for bags and bottles is merely unpopular policy)—and so on.

To understand the conduct, see for example this article describing the to-and-fro color changes in the Transportation Ministry under ministers Michaeli and Regev (including a festive press conference to announce it), and marvel at the stupidity on which these “ladies” are spending their time, energy, lack of talent—and above all our money. If you wish, here are more pearls here from our transportation minister Miri Regev about Greater Tel Aviv (of course none will be realized). Why think deeply or do staff work if you can just let a spoiled child spout populist slogans, brawl with leftists, and commit a multi-billion-shekel attack on Tel Aviv?! Likewise, Smotrich’s first step as finance minister is canceling the disposable tax (after deep study, staff work, and impact review), and the religious affairs minister’s first step is canceling the kashrut reform at a festive ceremony in the Chief Rabbinate’s office (surely after they deeply examined the implications in the half hour since taking office). I suspect even this cohort of the challenged doesn’t think these are the most necessary steps—but the brawling matters to them far more than substance. It reminded me how we once laughed/cried when the corrupt council head of Yeruham, who replaced his loathed predecessor, surprised us all overnight by repainting all the street rails (installed by his predecessor). Now this nonsense happens turbo-charged at the national level. Did it happen—or was it a dream?!

One cannot fail to mention in this context the “wondrous victory” and “public sanctification of God’s Name” by our Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir, who went up to the Temple Mount the day before yesterday (Tue., Jan 3) like a thief in the night through a side gate for a few minutes and fled immediately, then proudly announced that with this we defeated Hamas. I protest the ongoing discrimination on the Temple Mount and the capitulation to Hamas, and I also think the left’s repeated warnings about the collapse of the Middle East and the entire universe (see “Har Homa”)—repeatedly disproven—are hysterical. Still, such a Pyrrhic “victory,” a spectacular capitulation to Hamas as here—I can hardly imagine. Because of their small threats, a minister in Israel’s government must sneak in for a few minutes at dawn using a decoy operation involving the entire system up to and including the prime minister, just to plant a flag on the other team’s turf. A truly marvelous display of sovereignty. Who could see this and still claim we aren’t sovereign there?! Clearly, yet again, we are playing children’s games of who is stronger and who won and who surrendered—games of sneaking in and stealing the flag—instead of dealing with substance. Here too both sides share in the hysteria and childish foolishness.

So what’s the prospect?

Perhaps I’m naïve, but I suspect on both sides there are (well-hidden) quite a few sane people. We don’t see them because this discourse drags everyone to places that, absent it, they themselves would understand and agree are unworthy. I estimate a rank-and-file Haredi understands that parasitism and sweeping shirking of burden are not moral conduct and that he is not truly comfortable with it. At times his reaction—both extreme and offended—results from that discomfort and a lack of better answers to his critics. I’m fairly sure he also understands that a society built on coercion, on narrowing horizons, and on clamping down on anyone who thinks a bit differently—one that has serious problems in the realm of harassment and sex crimes, private gangs of thuggish enforcers, and many “virtues” and their deficits—is far from a model society, despite its (real) merits. Likewise, I believe a reasonable secular liberal understands that such capture of discourse and norms and public resources and the shape of the public square is unworthy. Deep down he also feels there is no such thing as a secular Judaism without Torah and halakhah, and that he takes Judaism’s name in vain. The profusion of writing and talk about “secular Jewish identity” (which yields mainly empty, circular slogans) testifies to that feeling’s strong presence. I also think a sane liberal would even agree to the distinction I presented above regarding the “Discrimination Law.” Every person—even non-Haredi—understands that today’s core studies and education system don’t bring us to lofty pinnacles of achievement and scholarship, and that our secular society is also far from being an open, tolerant, enlightened model society. Moreover, I’m quite sure—naïf that I am—that deep down both sides want to be such: tolerant, open, educated, wise, enlightened, contributing to society, good and considerate.

But we’ve all climbed trees because of steps and counter-steps, and now the storm howls around us—much ado about almost nothing. What’s called here “discourse” or “public debate” consists of media proclamations and collective hysterical, self-righteous letters from the gut, filled with slogans, without discussion, argument, or reasoning. The sense is that everything is agendas and there’s simply no one to talk to. Amid the cacophony of hysterical cries, I can hardly discern one substantive argument—something with a reasonable explanation—from either side. The emotional shouting from the gut deafens the ear and drives normal people to close up in despair.

As I wrote at the start: if we could manage a sane conversation, we’d find the disagreements aren’t as polar as they seem; usually what one side sees as necessary and proper, the other would at least see as acceptable. The escalation that drives us up trees none can defend might be averted; we’d return to ordinary political disputes—without apocalypses, without horrors, and without hysterias. How do we get there in the age of shouty, populist social networks—in the age of “media” without communication? I don’t know.

Finally, like Cato the Elder, I can’t avoid noting that this too relates to our prevalent preference for Hasidic “vorts” and existential psychologism over logical philosophical considerations, conceptualization and analysis, and systematic intellectual study. From this I infer that publishing a long, exhausting column (that also manages to anger all sides) on an obscure site won’t really change the situation. I simply see no other way to try.

And to the listener—may it be pleasant.

[1] As I wrote there, every clause in the proposed reform sounds reasonable to me and defensible in democratic theory; but the package is very problematic—especially in our circumstances, with only two branches and a coalition that may be quite unrestrained.

[2] Part of this goes to commemorating Haredi figures (Rabbi Ovadia and the Lubavitcher Rebbe), and my understanding is that we’re talking about very large sums there as well.

[3] Many of the sources I cite are Haaretz pieces; I use them even though a subscription is required to read in full—mainly because my debate partner (mentioned above) sends them to me.

[4] See, however, here a rare column by Zohar Lederman that recognizes this and writes in Haaretz much like what I write here.