On Haredim and Conscientious Objection (Column 761)
With God’s help
In this column I want to respond to a claim that was raised against me following the previous column, and then to enter into the issue of conscientious objection (the connection between these two points will become clear later).
The claim against me
In the previous column I stressed the importance of putting myself in the shoes of my disputant, in order to try to achieve several cumulative benefits: 1. To examine whether perhaps I am mistaken and should change my position. 2. Even if I remain with my position, it is possible to improve and balance it in light of counterarguments I had not taken into account. 3. Even if I change nothing in my position, to judge the other charitably (if I were in his place, I too might think that way). 4. And even if none of the above happens, it is possible to understand the other’s error (to recognize his reasoning); he is not necessarily stupid or wicked (holding a stupid or wicked position for no reason).
I had not the slightest doubt that following that column the claim would immediately arise that I ought to do the same toward the Haredim on the question of conscription, and in general. And indeed, entirely unsurprisingly, this came up in several comments (for example here). At least implicitly, they argued that I preach well but do not practice. The assumption is that I do not behave this way toward the Haredim. I will now say a few things about that.
My response
First, I have been there. These arguments were my daily bread for years, and therefore it is hard to claim that I do not know them or do not take them into account when I formulate my position. My claims against the Haredim are not that they have no arguments. There are even a few sound arguments there (fear of spiritual corruption, the desire to rise through Torah study, etc.), alongside many arguments that really are an insult to the intelligence. My claim is that despite those sound arguments, it is clear that the overall rational and decent weighing of the considerations leads to the opposite conclusion. In my view, that weighing is so obvious that one can make serious claims against them even on that score. Beyond that, it is worth recalling that I too am committed to the same system and the same sources (Jewish law), and therefore, as someone arguing with them from within that system, I do not accept the bizarre interpretations they offer of it. In various discussions on the site about the Haredim, I address their arguments on the merits in great detail, so it is incorrect to claim that I do not take them into account when I form a position on these issues.
The conclusion is that, at least with respect to benefits 1-2, I think I have taken them into account. As for benefit 3, I really do judge them favorably to some extent. If I were in their place, it is entirely possible that I too would hold this foolish position (I have already written that in the past I was, to some extent, close to it). And so too regarding benefit 4. My consistent claim is that their position is foolish and wicked, but not necessarily they themselves. Most of the Haredi public, in my eyes, is a collection of people raised captive within a society and a system of wicked and foolish positions. Even their leadership is not entirely to blame. It got trapped in an impossible situation (for which Haredi leadership over the generations bears the main blame) and grew up inside it, and today it is very hard for them to change course without giving up foolish ethoses that have become articles of faith for them. Again, my claim is that their society and ideology are foolish and wicked, but not necessarily the people who make them up. I have written in the past that they are children who have taken themselves captive.
But all of these are secondary points. There are several fundamental misunderstandings in the claims against me regarding the previous column, and more generally:
First, a considerable portion of these predictable claims against me arose because those making them miss an important point that appeared in the appendix at the end of the previous column. My remarks there were not about manners and civility, or the absence of respectful human treatment in our disputes. That does not especially interest me, and certainly is not at the heart of the problem. I was speaking about the need to address considerations on their merits. I explicitly wrote there that if my opponents weigh my arguments, then I have achieved what I wanted. As far as I am concerned, after that they may curse me and my mother, if they still think it appropriate. Therefore, the fact that I speak sharply about the Haredim does not mean that I did not weigh their arguments on the merits. On the contrary, I certainly did weigh them, and it is precisely because of that that I speak about them so sharply. This is not a priori criticism and condemnation, but claims that arose from the substantive examination I made of their arguments, the very examination I demanded that everyone make of the arguments of others.
Second, in column 372, where I dealt with judging the other on his own terms, I explained that one can level critical claims against a person or group even on their own terms if they did not exercise enough thought to understand the problem in what they are doing. So I certainly do have claims against this society, even after I stepped into their shoes and examined their arguments. As noted, the claims are because I examined their arguments, not despite that.
And third, one has to understand that my recommendation to step into the shoes of the other does not mean that as a result he will necessarily come out righteous rather than foolish or wicked. It is an attempt that should be made in the hope that we will discover that this is the case, but the conclusion of that attempt may also be that he really is foolish and/or wicked, just as we thought (see, for example, my replies here and elsewhere). I am not claiming that there are no positions or people in the world who are wicked or foolish. What I am claiming is that not everyone is like that, and therefore it is important to examine the arguments before judging.
Bottom line, I will add something else on the comparative plane. Doctors Without Borders and the Red Cross, for all the anger one may feel toward them, and even if someone decides that they are indeed antisemitic, certainly do not dedicate their lives to antisemitism. They dedicate their lives, energy, and money to saving others. In addition, they are not parasites on their surroundings and do not demand that society maintain them; they do not abuse their own people when they fail to toe the line they dictate; and they are not primitive in their thinking. None of this can be said of the Haredim. Therefore, even if I could understand the Haredim’s arguments, I would still expect that if they choose such a problematic path, they would examine it very carefully, along with the assumptions that lead them to it. That they do not do. On the contrary, they impose on themselves a prohibition against hearing critical arguments and shut themselves inside a sect that does not allow criticism or seeing the other. So there is here a considerable measure of foolishness and/or wickedness, even after I know and perhaps also understand their constraints.
Even so, I thought I would take the opportunity to discuss the Haredi claim regarding conscription from another angle that has not yet been discussed here. This will also serve as another application of my recommendation from the previous column to step into the other’s shoes and seriously examine his arguments.
The petition
The trigger for this column is an article by Or Basok that I read a few days ago (on the site "Local Call," which promotes left-wing views), describing a petition filed by two Satmar Hasidim against the draft order they received. They argued to the army that they wanted a religious exemption on grounds of conscience, and demanded to appear before the Conscience Committee. The army refused (apparently on the ground that this is not a conscientious exemption), and they petitioned the High Court of Justice. The High Court rejected their petition and upheld the army’s decision. The writer there protests this ruling and argues that the High Court in effect determined that Haredim have no right to conscience.
What lies at the basis of the matter is that different people receive exemptions on grounds of conscience. The clearest example is an exemption given to pacifists. How does the case of a pacifist differ from that of a Haredi who is unwilling to enlist on grounds of conscience? Note that the petitioners’ claim was not that The Torah protects and saves (Torah protects and saves), that is, that the Torah student is himself also a soldier, or that there is great value in Torah study that justifies exempting them from the army (that is, that a Torah student is no different from an outstanding athlete or artist who receives an exemption). Neither of those is a claim for conscientious exemption. A conscientious exemption is a demand to exempt someone without his contributing in any alternative way, and also without there being any other value in that for the state or society or for himself. This petition raised a different claim from the usual ones, and therefore it deserves separate discussion: the claim is that their conscience forbids them to enlist in the army, and therefore they should be exempted, just like pacifists. On its face this is a strong claim, and seemingly the writer is right to protest the army’s decision and the High Court’s ruling.
Let me note at the outset that, as far as I have checked, someone who receives a conscientious exemption is not also required to do national service; otherwise the discussion is fairly pointless (since the Haredim are not willing to do national service either). I genuinely do not understand why that is the case. Even if someone cannot serve in the army because he opposes violence, why should he not contribute in hospitals or schools?
Conscientious exemption, anti-militarism, and pacifism
I found a site that describes conscientious exemption as follows (the feminine wording is not meant literally):
Israeli law allows an exemption from military service on grounds of conscience for men and women who are recognized by the army as pacifists. The exemption is granted to candidates for service, as well as to female soldiers and female reservists, who have applied to the army’s Conscience Committee asking it to recognize them as pacifists—and the committee was convinced that they really are such. According to the committee’s definition, a pacifist is someone who opposes every kind of violence and refrains from using violence, including for purposes of self-defense. The committee will not grant an exemption because of a political opinion that opposes the occupation, an anarchist worldview, or any other conscientious worldview, unless these are accompanied by a pacifist worldview. Broadly speaking, these are the two main things the committee examines: whether your worldview is truly pacifist and does not accept violence, and whether you are careful always to act according to your worldview, so that there is no contradiction between your actions and your conscience.
That is, opposition to the occupation, anarchism (non-recognition of the state and of obligation toward it), or other conscientious grounds are not considered grounds that justify an exemption. Only sweeping opposition to violence as such. I saw on the site of the organization "New Profile", which accompanies these people, that they are also asked questions by the committee such as: would you refrain from violent action even if someone threatened your life? Or: why should others die for you? That site instructs the "pacifists" how they should answer those questions (for it is obvious that they would not). I therefore get the impression that in the overwhelming majority of cases pacifism serves as a cover for refusal based on opposition to the army and the state. How many people do you know who would not take violent action if their lives were threatened? Beyond that, the guidance offered to those "pacifists" is really for reasons of political refusal. Pacifism is a fig leaf.
Among other things, they also present on that site questions that arise in the Conscience Committee, such as whether you would object to national service in a non-military framework. This is raised merely as a question intended to clarify the applicant’s motives (since, as I said above, there is in fact no real obligation to serve if he is exempted from the army). The site instructs them how to answer, which once again arouses the suspicion that pacifism here is a fig leaf for political-moral refusal, and that this is also the tendency of the site that accompanies them. They are basically teaching leftists how to get out of service without being pacifists. This whole story seems crooked to me from the root. In the middle of Or Basok’s article about the above High Court case, the site placed a link to another article titled: To break apart the right, the Zionist left needs an alliance with the Haredim. It seems to me the meaning is very clear.
When you look through the site of "New Profile," this is really not exactly leftism. It is an organization that opposes the militarism of Israeli society, and the placing of the army at the center of our society and culture. They point to various failures caused by this, but I found no answer there to the question: what would happen here without an army? Would our enemies evaporate or become vegetarians? In other words, would they be willing to remain pacifists and anti-militarists even when Hamas is on the fences of their own community, or are they relying on other wicked militarists to save them?
Therefore one must understand here the very nature of the exemption granted to pacifists, and then ask how the Haredi conscientious objectors differ from pacifists. The difference of the Haredim is expressed on two planes: whether they should be allowed at all to appear before the Conscience Committee, and if they do appear before it whether they should be exempted. As noted, the army refused even to allow them to appear before the committee, but presumably even if they had appeared there they would not have received the exemption.
Conscientious exemption and pacifism
To understand the essence of true pacifism, I refer you to a wonderful film I saw a few years ago, Hacksaw Ridge. It portrays a man named Desmond Doss, who was unwilling to use a weapon under any circumstances, but nevertheless decided to enlist in the army during World War II and serve as a combat medic. He went into the most dangerous places without a weapon and saved his comrades’ lives with real self-sacrifice. It is simply astonishing. Incidentally, Doss won the Medal of Honor for his military service in the Battle of Okinawa. This is an example of a person who truly and sincerely is unwilling to hold a weapon and use violence, but does not use that as grounds to shirk his obligations. He is willing to help his comrades in every way that does not involve holding a weapon.
To be sure, it seems a bit strange to me that such assistance does not conflict with his beliefs, since his comrades used weapons and killed the enemy. I also do not know what that fellow would have done when facing a real threat to his own life. Would he simply have given up his life and that would be that? Perhaps. But I am fairly sure that our two Satmars here, like the great majority of the other conscientious objectors in Israel, certainly would not.
It seems to me important here to distinguish between psychological pacifism and ideological pacifism. A person may say that he is incapable of holding a weapon. This may perhaps begin in ideology, but it ends in psychology. He is simply not capable of it mentally. With respect to such a person, even if when faced with a threat to his life he would summon the inner strength and respond with a weapon, there is still room to take him into account and give him a role as a combat medic, a clerk, an intelligence soldier, or even national service (if he insists on receiving a role that is not military at all, assuming that his revulsion is directed at the army and not necessarily at holding a weapon). This is simply consideration for people and their distress. Perhaps that was the case with that American soldier, although in the film it is presented as an act of conscience and not as an action born of psychological distress.
Be that as it may, that is not our concern here. We are speaking about a person who objects to it ideologically, not about a person who is psychologically incapable of it. Is there room to exempt such a person from military service?
The importance of the personal question: the categorical imperative
In the question of an ideological pacifist, we must distinguish between two types of ideologies, or two types of people.
The first type is a person who is unwilling to hold a weapon or use violence under any circumstances whatsoever (in those committees, for example, they ask them about vegetarianism). For example, if someone threatened him with a weapon, he would not take up a weapon in order to defend himself and injure the attacker. In my view, such a person certainly should be exempted from service. Such a person is basically saying that, as far as he is concerned, all of us should have refrained from enlisting and fighting and instead died. A somewhat foolish approach, but at least a consistent one. Such an approach (after we are convinced that it is authentic) can and should be respected. Think of an existential threat on the Sabbath. Before the Hasmonean enactment and the exposition of until it descends (see the baraita in Shabbat 19a and Rabbi Goren’s article here), the people were in effect prepared to give themselves over to death rather than fight on the Sabbath. That is pacifism in the essential sense, because they are truly willing to die on the altar of their “pacifist” ideology. But if a person says that he wants others to fight for him on the Sabbath and to exempt him, that is not pacifism and not a justified ground for exemption.
And here we come to the second type. If we are faced with a person who, if his own life were threatened, would respond with violence, I see no reason in the universe to exempt him from military service. Military service is the response of a society that is under military threat, and defense by its nature is collective rather than personal. But that does not really matter. After all, all our lives are under threat, and if you insist on pacifism or conscientious objection, what you are really saying is that others should die for you (since you are not willing to give up your own life for pacifism). That violates the categorical imperative, and therefore it is not a moral claim.
What we have here is the categorical imperative. You yourself would not be willing for this to become a universal law exempting everyone from military service, because otherwise we would all die (and, as noted, you are not willing to die for it). So your refusal is based on there being others who will not refuse and will fight for you. That is plainly immoral. True, in Jewish law it is accepted that one who is stringent will be blessed, but as I have explained more than once (see, for example, in this article), halakhic stringency that is built on the fact that others will not be stringent (for example, refusing to rely on the sale permit during the Sabbatical year) is improper and should not be adopted. In any case, this is another angle from which it again emerges that this refusal is not credible. It is immoral and inconsistent refusal, and therefore in my view it probably serves as a fig leaf for political refusal (you refuse because you oppose the wars of the IDF, not violence or wars in general).
This is essentially the claim against the Haredim: Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?! ("Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?!"). The threat is to all of us, and therefore such a situation should be seen as one of saving life, even if you personally are not at this moment in danger. When a Torah-studying Haredi faces immediate personal mortal danger, will he continue studying or deal with the threat? Now let us assume that dealing with the threat would endanger his spirituality—will he continue studying or deal with the threat? If he would continue studying, then there may be room to consider his request to be exempted from military service. But if not, then he is in effect relying on others to fight for him. That is not an acceptable ideology. By the same token, I too would ideologically prefer that others risk their lives and waste their time on long and annoying military service. Would anyone accept such an argument? Therefore, when you say that you object to military service, you should add a declaration of how you understand the situation (whether there really is a threat here), and what you think should be done in relation to such a situation if it were threatening you personally. The claim that my ideology is to prefer that others do the work is not acceptable.
Pacifism and conscientious objection
Beyond that, there is of course another implication that must be taken into account. If you are exempt from service because of an ideology, your rights should also be curtailed. After all, there is a civic obligation here that you are not fulfilling; if so, you are not entitled to full equality. There is certainly justification for harming various subsidies and budgets, and perhaps even your right to vote (why should you make decisions whose price others will pay?). Not to mention the right to govern (like the Haredi parties, which are now partners in a government that makes the decisions and at the same time evade military service and the fulfillment of civic duties). Someone who is willing to bear those costs—this too is an indication that he really believes in that ideology. This is the rationale of a conscientious objector who pays the price (goes to prison). The price is not only a sanction for disobeying the law; it plays an essential role in the legitimacy of the refusal. If you are willing to pay the price, it is clear that it truly matters to you and that you are not using refusal as a cynical tool. This is a filter for authentic refusers. The same applies to conscientious exemptions.
More generally, I do not understand why there is a difference between a conscientious objector (one who opposes the occupation) and a pacifist. I see no difference between the two, and I do not understand why only the second deserves an exemption while the first must bear punishment. On the contrary, the conscientious objector seems to me far more legitimate, since that really does contradict his conscience. He does not really think there is a threat here, and therefore he does not recognize an obligation to serve in the army in order to remove the threat. The pacifist understands that there is a threat here, but wants others to fight for him (unless he is truly willing to die, as I explained above).
Back to the High Court ruling: the petition
We have reached the conclusion that there may perhaps be room to exempt a true pacifist, that is, a person for whom this is an ideology, but only if he is consistent and willing himself to die on the altar of his pacifism (and does not send others to die for him). But even such a person should be obligated to perform some other service for society, in place of military service. I see no reason whatsoever not to obligate him to civil service that suits his conscience. Moreover, such a person is not entitled to full civic equality, and he must be prepared to pay the price of his ideology. He should also bear the punishment required by law, just like a conscientious objector.
And after all that, Israeli law nevertheless allows pacifists to be exempted from military service. Given that assumption, is there any difference between the conscience of the Haredi who opposes military service and that of the pacifist? As stated, this is a hypothetical discussion in my view, since neither should be exempted. But assuming pacifists are granted exemption, why should a similar exemption not be granted to Haredim? That brings us to the High Court ruling. I have not read it, and therefore I will use the above article as a secondary source.
The petitioners were the brothers Shlomo and Mordechai Heimlich, Satmar Hasidim, who argued that they cannot serve in the army because in the writings of the Satmar Rebbe it is stated that within the framework of the Three Oaths that we were made to swear (Ketubot 111a), there is also a prohibition against rebelling against the gentiles. This, they say, conscientiously forbids them to serve in the army, and they are entitled to an exemption. Or Basok supports this claim enthusiastically. Let me remind the reader that the discussion here proceeds under the assumption (mistaken in my opinion) that pacifists really do deserve an exemption. What does one do with such a claim?
First, there is no need to say that this is a foolish claim from very many aspects. For example: 1. Are the Three Oaths really a source of Jewish law? 2. Is there really rebellion against the nations here? After all, the UN decided to give us a state. 3. Is self-defense against a threat to kill us rebellion against the gentiles? Is there anyone besides the Satmar Rebbe who really interprets those Three Oaths that way? 4. And just as an anecdote, by this they are actually rebelling against the “gentiles” (on their own view) who rule in Israel. Is one allowed to rebel against them? What about the law of the kingdom is law ("the law of the land is the law")? (Ah, I forgot the Ran, who is irrelevant.)
In any event, our discussion here is not about the intelligence of the petitioners and their arguments, but about their rights. Let us assume that they sincerely reached this idiotic conclusion. Are they not entitled to the same consideration as pacifists? That is indeed what Justice Ruth Ronen noted: even if the brothers’ belief rests on faulty reasoning, as long as it is sincere, they are entitled to appear before the committee.
A note of my own: is this not ordinary conscientious objection?
Before I turn to the judges’ reasoning, I must already pause here and wonder about the demand itself. After all, this ground is not similar to pacifism but to ordinary conscientious objection (recall that we are not dealing here with my own approach, which does not distinguish between them, but with the current legal situation in Israel). A conscientious objector is not exempt from military service and is not supposed to appear before the Conscience Committee. Moreover, as I mentioned, he is even punished and imprisoned. Therefore I do not see the basis for the petition even if their arguments were accepted.
The judges’ reasoning
Several arguments appear in the ruling against accepting the petition. The first is that of President Amit, who held that the petitioners are not pacifists, since a claim of a religious prohibition against rebelling against the nations of the world would not apply to service in the Canadian army, but only to the IDF. A strange argument, but its strangeness stems from the strangeness in the law itself, which distinguishes between pacifism and other ideologies. This is not a “new distinction,” as Basok describes it. It has been the policy of the law long before this petition. Amit did not invent it.
Amit and Barak-Erez added the reasoning that the collective character of the brothers’ request negates the possibility that this is a conscientious exemption (Ruth Ronen did not accept this). They belong to Satmar Hasidism, a group all of whose members have the same rationale for exemption, and therefore their request cannot be considered individually, but only as part of the general policy of exemption for the Haredi public, which must be regulated by Knesset legislation and receive the approval of the High Court. Here too there is no substantive distinction, but legally there is certainly logic in it. This is not a personal problem to be solved in court, but a group problem. It should be remembered that in the petitioners’ reasoning they cite the writings of the Satmar Rebbe and not their own personal views. Note that this reasoning says nothing at all about the justice of the petition. It merely argues that as a practical matter such a decision ought to be made by the legislature and not by the court. As an anecdote, it is interesting to note here that the subtitle of the article contains the claim: "It seems that the High Court treats Haredim as a threatening community and not as individuals with rights". That is very strange, since, as the judges themselves wrote, the petition is collective and not personal in its essence. So what is there to say about the rights of individuals in this context?!
There is much logic in not recognizing an opinion that does not stand up to critical examination. Would you accept Reuven’s claim that he is unwilling to serve because his grandmother told him that on every even-numbered day he must go to Tel Aviv in order to improve his luck? A discussion in which you cannot persuade the person that he is mistaken, because he holds a dogmatic position and, in our case, relies on the “divine inspiration” of the Rebbe, is a discussion with a brick wall. If someone is willing to discuss and weigh opposing arguments, one may respect his decision not to accept them. But if someone bases himself on blind loyalty to the arguments of someone else, or really to a group, it is very strange to argue in his favor by severing the rights of the individual from his relation to the group.
Or Basok writes:
In the past, cases were examined of vegans who held that vegan ideology forbids military service, and the High Court never imagined that their case should not be brought before the Conscience Committee merely because of their belonging to the group of vegans. Similarly, the High Court rejected the idea that a woman’s request to be considered for pilot training should be disqualified merely because of her belonging to the group of women, for fear that many more women would also be able to submit such a request, thereby imposing a heavy burden on the army in screening for pilot training.
A rather foolish argument. Vegans do indeed belong to a group, as do women and every human being as such. The question is not whether you belong to a group, but whether your position is based on that belonging or was formed independently. The vegan belongs to the group of vegans because he concluded that they are right. Therefore the belonging is irrelevant to the discussion. But Satmar Hasidim are such by virtue of their birth. Their worldview is such simply because that is what the Rebbe wrote. In that sense, if a Religious Zionist or Lithuanian Haredi young man had petitioned on the basis of the Three Oaths, there would have been no place to reject his petition on the claim that the Satmar Rebbe also wrote this. That is because their position is not such because the Rebbe wrote it. The resemblance here would be created in the opposite direction: they reached that conclusion on their own, and as a result the resemblance was created.
Ruth Ronen also expressed concern about a wave of similar requests that would reach the army wholesale. To elaborate: there is a difference between an exemption given to a single individual or a small group, and an exemption to a large group comprising tens of percent of the population. True, this is not a substantive distinction, but the practical plane has great importance in these contexts (especially if one remembers that the exemption itself contains no logic whatsoever: it applies only to its own specific innovation). That at least means that the problem ought to be placed on the Knesset’s table, not the court’s.
A brief summary
Bottom line, I would say that despite all the above, assuming pacifists are exempted, there is room for the view that we ought also to exempt the Haredim for reasons of conscience (at least if one accepts my claim that there should be no difference between pacifists and conscientious objectors), although the High Court’s ruling is certainly not implausible, especially in light of the current legal situation, which does make such a distinction. But that very conclusion only returns and sharpens the absurdity of the exemption itself (a sweeping exemption, with no alternative requirement whatsoever and no sanctions) that is granted to pacifists, and the absurdity of the distinction drawn between them and conscientious objectors.
A final note: back to the previous column
In my remarks here there were dismissive comments about various claims, such as the claim of the Three Oaths. I also spoke about the fact that various people, Haredim and others, use different pretexts in order to refuse. I now ask you whether, in your opinion, this contradicts what I preached in the previous column. There I explained that one should listen to everyone’s arguments, and that this may lead us to understand him on different levels (see the beginning of this column). I think you can now see that there is no contradiction here, as I also explained at the beginning of this column.
I examined the arguments on their merits here in detail, and on that basis I reached the conclusion that they have no substance. There was here a completely substantive engagement, and the conclusion was that these are arguments that are foolish legally, logically, and morally. Arguments that do not hold water. Here I only wanted to return and say that this is a demonstration of what I wrote in the first part of the column here: there is no connection between substantive engagement with arguments and respecting the person who makes them. I explained there that substantive engagement does not always show that the person is rational, moral, or even consistent, and therefore I will not necessarily find him worthy of respect. What I asked for was not to respect the other, but to listen to his arguments and weigh them on their merits instead of responding to the arguer. That is usually not done, and it is a shame. After we have done that, one may relate to the arguer, and even break into vigorous curses and contempt, as one sees fit. True, after we have listened to the arguments there is a greater chance that this will not happen, but there is no necessity in that. Our attitude to the arguer should come after the examination of the arguments, not that the examination of the arguments be conducted based on our attitude to the arguer.
Discussion
In my opinion, the fact that if someone came to attack a yeshiva student in real life he would defend himself does not necessarily show inconsistency; one could say that this stems from his succumbing to the evil inclination instead of standing by the truth.
Moreover, one can make the distinction as you did.
Even if we assume that they would act violently against someone attacking them, and that this is because of inconsistency, one can still say that from their perspective, if everyone enlisted there would be no army, and that according to their view this is indeed more important than physical life, even though on the individual level it is inconsistent.
According to your approach, what would happen if all the boys did hesder and all the women did not serve in the army? Or even if only one of them did?
Or Bassok was completely right in his criticism of the High Court. Satmar Hasidim fit the description of pacifists, since in their exilic consciousness they would not take up arms even to defend themselves. They are in exile, and exile demands absolute military passivity.
I don’t think this is true of the Haredim in general. In my opinion, most Haredim do not really hold that there is a prohibition on self-defense incumbent upon us, like the Satmars and their fellows. From their perspective, the motivation is preserving Torah scholars, but it is convenient to mix the positions together. They want to preserve Torah scholars, but also the army is a campaign of religious persecution, and the security considerations are not for the sake of Heaven, and so on.
The problem is that mixing the positions makes discussion difficult. The High Court had an opportunity to separate the arguments, and it did not do so. The High Court could have accepted the argument of the Satmar Hasidim and allowed a Haredi who sees the army as religious persecution, or as contrary to his basic exilic outlook, to be released from the IDF on grounds of conscience. Then the High Court would have been consistent with its liberal position. Alongside that, the High Court could, for the reasons you mentioned in the column, have written that the exemption is not absolute, and that the defense minister has the authority to draft those with pacifist exemptions in an emergency, even against their pacifist beliefs, for security reasons. That way the High Court would have thrown the ball back to the defense minister, who according to his discretion would decide how liberal we can afford to be.
Alongside this, the question would remain of how to balance Torah study against the need to participate in defending the nation—a question that applies to all Torah scholars as such, whether they wear a suit and hat or not. The Haredi argument that Torah scholars are exempt from this commandment is unfounded and raises the suspicion that they have turned the Torah into a spade with which to dig.
In fact, if we sharpen the point, things have been turned upside down here. The security consideration is not the High Court’s business but the defense minister’s, since he was entrusted with it by the public and bears responsibility for it on the public’s behalf. The liberal consideration of protecting the individual’s conscience and religious beliefs is דווקא the High Court’s business, and is perhaps the High Court’s only point of merit, yet this is precisely what the High Court ignores. And afterward people wonder why the demand for judicial reform arose.
An interesting point. It really did slip my mind. On second thought, I’m not sure it comes from the same place.
Halakhically, if they are right, then they deserve an exemption regardless of whether they are consistent or whether they themselves believe or do not believe in it. So my feeling is that the Radbaz wanted to prove that it is not correct, not that they themselves are inconsistent.
By contrast, in a democratic state the discussion is only about what you yourself think (whether you deserve an exemption according to your own view), not about what is true.
And why doesn’t his evil inclination operate here? Because there are others dying for him. Even if it is the evil inclination, he does not deserve an exemption.
I didn’t understand the question. Why is it important?
You made me laugh.
As far as I know, Israeli law exempts Druze religious clergy from serving in the army
because religious clergy are forbidden to hold weapons.
And therefore?
Excellent column, thank you very much.
If I understood correctly, then I too agree with the view that conscientious objection should be allowed as long as sanctions are imposed on the objector. The problem with the sanction of denying the right to vote (which is fairly sensible—why should you make decisions that sacrifice lives when you are unwilling to be among those taking the risk?) is that it could lead to quite significant harm to democracy.
If I want to exclude a certain group from the Knesset, religious people for example, I would simply legislate that all food in the IDF must be non-kosher. I assume that you and other religious people would conscientiously refuse such service. Thus religious people would be denied the right to vote in elections, and consequently religious people would be unable to change the law, and in general it would be easier to run the state without them…
Likewise regarding Arabs, leftists, Haredim, etc. It also does not have to be intentional; rather, as a matter of outcome, because of the policy of an occupying army, you would have no leftists with the right to vote, which would lead to even more occupation because their opinion would not be taken into account.
Maybe other sanctions should be considered? For example, not receiving National Insurance benefits and the like?
Because you spoke about the consideration of what would happen if everyone were given an exemption on grounds of pacifism.
Because the danger is not facing him.
Besides, I am not an expert on the evil inclination.
When you look at the Haredim, you see that the mentality of the freeloader and the free rider is the core of their ideology, and not only in the military context.
Other people will support me financially.
The secular.
The wife.
The father-in-law.
Donors from America.
National Insurance.
Other people will protect me.
Other people will ensure the existence of the system that keeps me alive while I am occupied only with receiving goods from it.
You saw this during COVID too.
Mass weddings, mass tishes, and then a nonchalant walk to the hospital in order to receive medical treatment that resulted from their own reckless behavior.
You shut yourselves in your homes and wear masks and give up events—that doesn’t concern me.
But when I arrive at intake in the ER, I want the very best service available.
Also in the draft discourse they explicitly admit that even if they have to sacrifice someone, it will be Sephardim, baalei teshuvah, people from abroad, and the like.
Not a hair on the head of a Lithuanian hooligan will fall.
This is an evil society on another level.
I agree with the arguments. Denial of voting rights is one possible direction to consider, but I did not claim that this is what should be done. Those were examples of possible sanctions. Obviously they need to be weighed and examined before a decision is made.
If everyone demanded hesder tracks, we would have to act equally and allow that for everyone. And if there were a shortage of soldiers, we would have to extend the service. How is that relevant here?
Quoting from the body of the article: "That at least means that the problem should be placed on the Knesset’s table, not the court’s." If so, how is the court permitted to strike down a conscription law, since this is a problem that should be discussed in the Knesset?
Seemingly, the case of the Satmar Hasidim is similar to pacifism for another reason: as you explained, the crux of the exemption for pacifism is built on the fact that he does not benefit from the military service of others, since in his view everyone should refrain from enlisting. Satmar says the same thing: they (= the Old Yishuv) lived here before Zionism, and from their perspective the entire threat of destruction from the Arabs was caused by Zionism, and they would prefer to live here without a state and without an army. Why should they pay for other people’s decisions?
Of course, this argument is not relevant to most Haredim, who do want there to be a state, but for members of the Old Yishuv—who indeed also refrain from taking government budgets—the argument is absolutely valid.
What is the connection? The fact that the matter is entrusted to the Knesset does not mean that what it decides is necessarily lawful. There is judicial review. Even when it strikes down a conscription law, the court sends it back to the Knesset to enact another law that will be legal.
That is not an argument of pacifism, nor of conscientious objection. They claim they are not citizens of the state. As long as they also do not receive the rights, that is fine.
Why is that fine? After all, they share the same threat even without being citizens.
There is room to discuss that. Their claim is that Zionism is what caused the persecution (after all, before Zionism no one ever imagined persecuting Jews!). But you are right that even here it is problematic. In any case, that is not their argument. But in any event it is clear that there is no need or obligation whatsoever to protect them.
Satmar rebels against the nations by unlawfully receiving benefits from the American government.
Of course they can find halakhic justifications, but that still does not remove it from the category of rebellion.
Only here did they become vegans?
And why is the law exempting pacifism lawful?
I changed the wording. Someone who is antisemitic is simply wicked, no matter what he devotes most of his days to. Antisemitism, which is unjustified hatred and the wicked actions that follow from it, shows that the antisemite is not interested in justice. Because justice is not by halves, thirds, or quarters. It only shows that these organizations are not really interested in saving others, but only in their ego (the desire to do important things, in their eyes, with their lives. Other people are only a tool for them to achieve this), and therefore they are fools and wicked. There are many self-righteous people and world-fixers in the world, and they are all wicked.
More power to you, Rabbi.
I would like to comment on the beginning of your remarks. You wrote that the organizations of the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders are primarily concerned with contributing for the sake of others, etc. etc., and not with carrying out antisemitic actions or living at others’ expense. What was actually said there is that the Haredim are primarily concerned with living at others’ expense (that seems to me the most reasonable reading).
I once heard an argument from Rabbi Feivelzon that it is not correct to define the essence of the Haredi public as its egoism. Even if there is egoism in it, that is not what is essential in the Haredi public. The essence of the Haredi public is that it is a public that invests its life in the service of God (even if this is a very narrow service of God, etc. etc.).
Just as a dog differs from a duck in that it has a tail, but the essence of a dog is its head and not its tail, so too in the Haredi public there is egoism, but it is not their essence. Like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders organizations.
Antisemitism is expressed in discrimination: negative and extreme coverage of Jews, and not of other groups in similar situations.
Hatred of Haredim is likewise expressed in discrimination: negative and extreme treatment of Haredim, and not of other groups in similar situations.
Unfortunately, I encounter quite a few religious Zionists who use clean, respectful philosophical language toward their opponents from the political left and even from atheism, but as soon as the matter concerns Haredim, suddenly there is no limit and no restraint to the rod of their tongue: Haredim live out of a "stupid and wicked outlook," they and their rabbis are ignorant, primitive, babies, and so forth… One can easily discern the fact that they would not speak in these terms about other ideological opponents.
In my eyes, this is an irrational expression of hatred, and perhaps also a fulfillment of the sages’ prophecy that at the end of days, the wisdom of scribes will stink and those who fear sin will be despised. The humanity of Haredim is trampled in the Land of Israel, just as the humanity of Jews is trampled in the media of the nations of the world.
"A person should always be among the pursued and not among the pursuers, for there are none among the creatures more pursued than turtle-doves and pigeons, and Scripture deemed them fit for the altar, but not other birds" (Bava Kamma 93). I am a Haredi Jew, and I knowingly chose to be Haredi, so you are welcome to continue hating and disparaging me and my brothers, but please do so openly and not under the cover of philosophy.
The fact that you are Haredi does not exempt you from a basic smidgen of logic (though admittedly this usually is not the Haredi strong suit). You write that I express open hatred toward Haredim and then ask/demand that I not do so under the cover of philosophy. Do the sentences you quoted from me seem to you to be hiding behind philosophy?!
Now a few supplementary lessons to the core curriculum in logic that you are missing. A public service.
Biased coverage and expressions of hatred are two completely different phenomena. Biased coverage involves suppressing facts and presenting reality tendentiously. Expressions of hatred are not about describing reality. If I were to say that Haredim spy for Iran, that would be biased coverage (because there were only a few such cases, and there were also non-Haredim who did this. By the way, I doubt there were any religious-Zionist ones). But when I say that this is a wicked and warped society led by old men who do not understand reality and that follows them and their bizarre principles captive, that is not a biased description of reality but an expression of a position about it, which indeed also includes hatred. Absolutely: “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord.”
But I know that no logical argument will affect the howls of the wronged Cossack. A wicked and warped society that cannot present substantive defenses usually howls. This is an age-old Jewish technique, apparently under Ukrainian influence.
Here is an example of two arrows you shot: "The fact that you are Haredi does not exempt you from a basic course in logic," or "usually this is not the Haredi strong suit."
Do you also write this way in posts dealing with atheists and leftists on the intellectual blog you created?
Would you write to a leftist: "The fact that you are leftist does not exempt you from a basic course in logic"?
Would you write to an atheist: "Usually this is not atheists’ strong suit"?
About how many groups in the world would you make such generalizations, or write such an extreme sentence as: "This is a wicked and warped society led by old men who do not understand reality and that follows them and their bizarre principles captive"?
I think that even if you were criticizing Nazi German society in the 1940s, you would not use such venomous language.
This is the “philosophical” discrimination I was speaking about. Under the cover of justifications and ‘rational’ arguments, you send poisoned arrows at Haredim and Haredi society, as you do toward no other opponent. In my eyes, this is evidence of irrational hatred toward Haredim.
For “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord” — you do not say this about leftists, atheists, deterministic philosophers, or even antisemites. For some reason, only the Haredim merit the most severe curse of God in the world. You have an objective and respectful gaze toward everyone on your blog except Haredim.
I am Haredi, and yet I do not hate you, nor do I hate religious Zionists. Under no circumstances would I use the phrase “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord” about my erring brothers.
I have logical and Torah-based arguments in defense of Haredi society, and also criticism of religious-Zionist society, which in my view is incapable of surviving many generations because of its values, but what would be the point of the discussion? When one hates someone, the arguments will only be a justification for the hatred in one’s heart.
Here comes more howling from the wronged Cossack. I said that logic lessons would not do the work here.
In case I was not clear, my claim was that there exists on your blog a moral fallacy of the double-standard type. In this case—the application of stringent criteria toward one group and lenient criteria toward other groups:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
Behind this fallacy there is of course confirmation bias, expressed in arguments that confirm the prejudice against the discriminated-against group, which in turn justifies negative treatment and venomous expressions against it, while ignoring similar data among other groups that do not receive identical treatment.
For example, the phrase “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord” (Psalms 139:21) is attributed in the sources to people who deny the existence of God: “those wicked men who rise against You to deny providence” (Metzudat David), “those who rebel to deny Your divinity” (Malbim). But for some reason, you do not hate your atheist brothers, and even respect them in your philosophical discussions, whereas your Haredi brothers (who believe in divinity and providence, and at worst merely err in their worldview and political leadership) you choose to hate. That, as I understand it, is a moral fallacy.
Well, I will not quote from Wikipedia but from the Cossack’s manual (attributed to Maharab Chmielnicki of blessed memory, but actually predating the year 580 by many generations):
Section 116. If the Cossack’s howling does not work, accuse the other side of not understanding the depth of your claims (because of the profundity of the concept and the shortness of the comprehender).
117. Afterward, appeal to an authority source (such as Wikipedia) that deals with a generally irrelevant rule.
118. In any case, do not address substantively the arguments raised against you (especially when you have no substantive responses).
Tested and proven.
The cynicism is unnecessary. This is not the claim of the wronged Cossack.
Just as the Jewish people are the most hated people in the world, so the Haredi public is the most hated public in Israel. Statistically, 38% of secular Jews said they hate Haredim, whereas only 2% of Haredim said they hate secular Jews (“The Polarization Index” of the Pnima movement).
I do not hate you, nor do I hate religious Zionists, and most Haredim also do not hate, yet you choose to hate Haredim in a unique and overt way. Do you not see the difference?
Your answer: they deserve it; they are worthy of hatred.
As is known, Jews suffer from exceptional antisemitism, hatred, and discrimination against them. In response, antisemites tend to claim that the Jews are to blame for the hatred directed at them, because it is completely justified and deserved hatred. They claim that Jews use “Jewish victimhood” merely as manipulation, like a wolf in sheep’s clothing, and howl like the wronged Cossack.
Well then, I claim that your hatred toward your Haredi brothers is unjustified. My proof for this is that you use a double standard, and do not display such hatred toward any other ideological opponent—not even atheists who deny all the principles of your faith.
P.S.
I did not quote anything from Wikipedia. Everything I wrote was my own explanation, but it seems that after I identified myself as Haredi, it became very easy to attribute ignorance and blind appeal to authority to me, which proves the point.
As for the cynicism, that is a matter of taste. In my eyes it is very far from unnecessary (“All mockery is forbidden except mockery of idolatry”).
Your claim is entirely the claim of the wronged Cossack. The Haredim rob us, evade every contribution to society, and live at its expense—in other words, they are a robber Cossack—and then they howl that people do not treat them nicely. That is the dictionary definition of a ‘wronged Cossack.’
As for the question why the attitude toward them differs from the attitude toward others—you yourself answered it: because they are parasitic and wicked, and others are not. Not everyone I disagree with is parasitic and wicked. Sometimes he simply thinks differently. So there is no double standard here. One and only one standard.
Thank you indeed for not hating me. Why should you hate me? Because I support you, protect you, and provide for you? That is roughly like a man going out to be executed who says to the court officer, why are you killing me? I am not killing you. By the way, you and your friends most certainly do hate everyone else. You are merely prettifying yourselves.
The Jews suffered discrimination through no fault of their own, and the Haredim most certainly because of the wrong in their own hands.
So the fact that those who hated them explained that the hatred was justified does not impress me. The Nazis also explained that they were right. Does that mean I should accept it? What does one thing have to do with the other? Your logic is truly bizarre.
There is not even a shred of connection to confirmation bias. That is the quote I was referring to. Confirmation bias is the selective choice of facts and evidence that suit you. What does that have to do with the discussion here? You do not understand what you yourself are writing.
And finally, of course you did not address a single one of my arguments; I assume you will continue doing so as well. This is of course in keeping with the instructions in the above-mentioned Cossack manual.
I ask again: besides the Haredim, are there in your world any other idolatries? Any other wicked parasites worthy of generalizations and hatred?
You distorted the verse “Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord” — but according to your conception, are there any haters of God besides the Haredim? Is there anyone worse than them?
How is it possible that only the Jews—sorry, the Haredim—are worthy of your greatest hatred? Do you not ask yourself how it can be that the group you hate most in the world is specifically a group of Torah-studying Jews huddled in kollels and yeshivot?
Haredim do not live in wealth, not for the sake of career or honor, even though there is nothing easier in this life than to live for the advancement of selfish and material goals such as quality of life and honor, for that is the simplest and most natural inclination of human beings. To live as a Haredi is to forgo a high standard of living and material ambitions, to be despised and humiliated in the eyes of secular and religious people who are the majority of the state’s citizens, so you may rest assured that their choice stems from an outlook they truly believe in and are willing to sacrifice for, and they are not shirking public obligations for the sake of “exploiting society” and personal benefit.
Apart from Haredim, is there anyone else whose ideology you disagree with who is worthy of such hatred? For example, do you hate conscientious objectors, leftists who work against the existence of the State of Israel, or even terrorist organizations to the same degree?
You also know that Haredim have a very strong public tendency to volunteer of their own free will on behalf of Israel’s residents (including secular and religious people) through the largest rescue and kindness organizations in our country, and the largest Jewish outreach and education organizations in the world. Does this fact not prove that this is a public that wishes to give? Is there not even one redeeming point that could restrain the level of your hatred toward it?
As one who lives among my own people, and beyond the rabble that appears before the media, the great majority of the Haredi public does not hate secular people or religious Zionists. However, we perceive the state as a foreign body that took over the land, whose intentions and methods are to pave a foreign culture that destroys the Jewishness of the people of Israel, which already led most Eastern Jews away from their religion in the last century, and today leads many religious-Zionists away from their religion. And one should not blame those who leave religion, because it is natural to be drawn after those who possess power and rule. The secular are the ruling majority that determines the character of the state and the law. They control culture, the media, education, the army, and the judiciary in our land.
Haredim were and still are a minority trying to preserve their identity within a majority that does not want that identity preserved. We live in an existential struggle over values that in our eyes are more precious than money and honor, and for the sake of this struggle we suffer and are tormented in poverty, humiliation, and disgrace on a national scale. It is neither easy nor fun to be an avreich in Israel; it is struggle and self-sacrifice in our generation. You do not have to agree with this choice, but are you not capable of understanding it? And if you understand, will you not find that there are in the world people with truly wicked and exploitative aims who deserve your arrows of hatred more than they do?
I agree that Michi’s style toward the Haredim is at times a bit exaggerated and beyond the appropriate proportions, but your accusation that he would not speak similarly toward leftists and atheists is inaccurate. This style of discourse (which is entirely legitimate, and in my opinion even advisable) is directed also toward leftists and atheists, and also toward right-wingers and Haredim, and at times even toward the rabbis of conservative religious Zionism.
By the way, it is not true that Haredim do not hate secular people and religious Zionists. Perhaps they do not have personal hatred toward every secular person individually (and secular people too—usually—do not have personal hatred toward every Haredi), but they look at them with contempt and see them as inferior and pitiable people.
To remove any doubt, I understood your arguments even though I do not agree with them:
– You argued that your hatred toward Haredim is a personal and open stance that does not hide behind philosophy.
– You argued that your hatred of Haredim does not involve biased coverage / confirmation bias, because you are not reporting facts in a biased way or ignoring facts, and in your view the facts justify hatred of Haredim and do not justify hatred of Jews in the world.
Despite being a Haredi lacking core curriculum, and according to your view also a whiner and an idolater worthy of your arrows of hatred and mockery, I am prepared to understand your position.
Now make a slight effort to understand me: I claim a moral fallacy of the double-standard type, in your negative and extreme attitude toward Haredim as compared with other groups—atheists and leftists, and even declared enemies of Israel who act to harm you and your children—who still receive intellectual regard and respectful discourse from you.
For example:
– Where are your unbridled arrows of hatred when it comes to Israel’s elitist judges, who have acquired for themselves an inheritance and dictatorial ownership over the law in Israel?
– Where are your venomous arrows toward tycoons who promote monopolies and evade taxes under the protection of the law, who raise prices and make life harder for millions of residents purely to exploit and increase personal profit?
– In the past you even compared animal suffering in the meat industry to the Holocaust of the Jews in Nazi Germany, and yet I do not see you writing with blazing and consistent hatred toward meat-eaters, a group that in your view is party to a cruel holocaust against helpless creatures solely for exploitation and pleasure. Is this not double morality?
If your greatest hatred is directed toward a closed and poor public that in your view steals a few shekels from your pocket and does not participate in wars to defend your life, that implies that money and personal security are the greatest values, because whoever harms them is worthy of the greatest hatred on your part. Well then, according to that outlook, should you not hate more the tycoons who raise the cost of living, the large companies that have taken monopolies over the Israeli market, or Arab terrorists and extreme leftists who are trying (openly and not indirectly) to undermine your chances of survival in the Land of Israel? Why do you conduct intellectual and respectful discussion toward your greatest rivals and enemies, and instead choose to focus your hatred and slanders on one sole scapegoat—your Haredi brother?
This is my only claim: "You shall not have in your pocket a weight and a weight, a large and a small. You shall not have in your house an ephah and an ephah, a large and a small. A complete and just weight you shall have; a complete and just ephah you shall have" (Deuteronomy 25:13).
P.S.
Elijah the prophet lost his mission after he said: “For the children of Israel have forsaken Your covenant” — “because you accuse My children” (Rashi), and the prophet Isaiah was punished after he said, “and I dwell among a people of unclean lips,” even though they had justified complaints.
Rabbi Abbahu said upon entering Caesarea: “What is this, that we have come up to a city of reviling and blasphemy?” Reish Lakish put dirt in his mouth because: “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not want one who speaks slander about Israel.” If even about intentional sinners God wants us to show compassion and plead in their favor, then why should the blood of Torah-observant Haredim be cheapened without any caution, compassion, or defense? I would recommend that you change your approach toward your brothers, despite the criticism and disagreements. We Jews are brothers, not enemies.
If so, you are retracting quite a few of the claims you raised. Good. Then my lessons have borne fruit, and I am glad of that.
As for understanding your words, I tried and did not really succeed. You repeat the kinds of arguments that have come up here several times already, and I really no longer have the patience to point out the collection of fallacies that appear in them. But at your request, here is the continuation of the lesson.
A double standard can be claimed when there are two parties in the same situation who receive different treatment. That is not the situation here. Israel’s judges are doing their job faithfully according to their understanding. And even if I disagree with some of them on certain matters, the distance between them and the Haredim is hundreds of miles. Besides, we are not talking about an entire community but about a few people.
Tycoons who legally evade taxes—what is the problem with that? Especially since the Haredim who rob them of their taxes give them an excellent reason to do so. Be grateful to them for creating that capital and advancing the economy and paying taxes and thereby supporting all of us. Do you want them to volunteer to pay you more than they owe? Their personal profit is all of our profit. We all live off it. Of course, someone who eats and does not work is incapable of understanding this.
The Haredi public does not merely “steal a few shekels from my pocket,” but conducts itself parasitically and lives at my expense economically and at the expense of my life, as I protect it. And after all that it slanders and disowns and keeps robbing again and again and threatening our very existence. I have never heard such an understatement. When one sees the Haredim here, one understands very well how antisemitism toward Jews could develop over the generations.
Tycoons support me and you, and by no means raise the cost of living. They sustain all our livelihoods. When you contribute what they contribute, I will be happy to hear your opinion of them.
In conclusion, unfortunately we are not brothers at all but enemies. And the cause of that is solely you. These self-righteous sermons are the Haredi way of howling and demanding a treatment they do not deserve. They have honestly earned every scrap of hatred. I am full of appreciation for the public in Israel, which manages not really to hate and persecute them. It is simply inconceivable.
As a final note, I will only say that my hatred and revulsion toward the Haredim is directed toward the society and its views, not toward the individual people.
Individual Haredim are like children captured among the gentiles, and so there is no need to hate them. Some of them are good people who, admittedly, conduct themselves in a parasitic, warped, and wicked way, but with greatly reduced culpability. Except that this society has been taken captive by itself, and therefore they do not have the full exemption of a child captured among the gentiles.
By the way, I wrote this at the beginning of this very column.
Hello,
I understand your arguments, but that does not mean I agree with them. In my understanding, there is biased coverage and confirmation bias on your blog, in the disproportionate concentration on hating Haredim and scrutinizing them, while turning a blind eye to enemies and exploiters who are truly much greater, and for whom you are willing to speak in defense. For now I will focus on my claim of double standards, because I think there are groups that exploit you and threaten your existence many times more, yet you make allowances for them out of intellectual respect for their differing views.
1. “Israel’s judges are doing their job faithfully according to their understanding” — the High Court took into its hands unlawful and unappealable authority, against the political views and will of the majority of the people, who did not elect them and cannot choose their representatives. Their influence on shaping the state is greater than that of the Haredi public. In other words, there exists in Israel a kind of dictatorship in disguise that exists in no other democratic state. Yet nevertheless you judge “Israel’s judges” favorably out of intellectual respect, because they are doing this “according to their understanding.” Look at the double standard: do Haredim not act “according to their understanding”? Do they not form coalitions in the Knesset and achieve their social goals through the laws of the state?
2. “Tycoons who legally evade taxes—what is the problem with that?” — the high cost of living means that our purchasing power declines. Your money is worth less than before, and this is theft from your pocket. You give more and receive less. Selling at inflated prices is monetary exploitation. Monopolies and concentration mean that the market is not free, and you have no choice but to pay more. Despite this, you defend the honor of tycoons who raise prices without justification and without a law to restrain them, and even pity their pennies that are stolen by Haredim.
Please read about concentration and the high cost of living in Israel from the Movement for Quality Government:
https://mqg.org.il/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%96%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A7-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%98%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%94-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA-31223-%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99.pdf
3. Do Israel-hating Arabs threaten your existence more or less than Haredim? Do far-left people who work against the existence of the State of Israel threaten your existence more or less than Haredim?
In your imagination we are enemies, but I am not your enemy, and Haredim are no one’s enemies. Nearly every family in Israel has been helped at least once by Haredi kindness organizations like Ezer Mizion and Ezra LaMarpeh (and in more serious cases by Haredi volunteers from United Hatzalah and ZAKA), and have seen with their own eyes that Haredim love all the people of Israel despite the disagreements.
Here is a question for thought: why do left-wing Jews abroad, self-hating antisemites, tend to hate the State of Israel and Jewish identity?
In my opinion, it is because in their view the Jewish problem will be solved only when there is no longer a distinct Jewish identity. They want the gentile majority to be with them and not against them, to assimilate among them, and for that reason they betray their brothers in the State of Israel. That is my explanation for self-hating antisemitism.
I think a similar phenomenon exists among a number of people from the religious-Zionist public, who want to ingratiate themselves and gain honor from the secular majority in Israel, and therefore find common cause in hating their Haredi, commandment-observant brothers. As I understand it, this is the psychological goal for which they chose from the outset to adopt the values of the state, academia, and the economy, despite the high dropout rates of their children from Judaism.
In practice they do not achieve the goal: just as antisemitism does not spare left-wing Jews abroad, so too in Israel the religious-Zionist public receives contempt as well—in academia too—scorn toward settlers who sacrifice themselves to guard the borders of the land, blocking of careers and military advancement channels, and so forth. In the end, Haredim and religious Zionists are in the same boat facing the secular majority that opposes their religious identity, but many religious people do not recognize this fact and think they will win the lion’s favor if only they join the hatred and struggle against their Haredi brothers.
The Haredi public is the most hated public in Israel, and you choose to be a partner in this extreme hatred for the most banal reasons of the ignoramuses. Why should a thinker not free himself from the consensus and choose a more objective view of reality?
Both Haredim and religious Zionists enjoy privileges that secular people do not enjoy, and receive excess funding for their way of life, at the expense of the secular public, which bears the main burden of earning a living in the state. Beyond that, both Haredim and religious Zionists try to impose their way of life and their faith on the secular public. Therefore both these and those have honestly earned the hatred directed toward them.
Really?! The evil inclination?!
A quote from the article: ‘Now let us assume that dealing with the threat would endanger his spirituality—would he continue learning, or would he deal with the threat? If he would continue learning, there is room to consider his request to be exempted from military service. But if not, then he is in fact relying on others to fight for him.’ I’m only noting that this is the Radbaz’s argument to the Torah scholars in Jerusalem who came to exempt themselves from paying the tax and from guarding the city by virtue of the Gemara in Bava Metzia (the Rabbis do not require protection).