Q&A: The Theory of “Second Israel”
The Theory of “Second Israel”
Question
I’m interested in your opinion about Avishai Ben Haim’s theory of “Second Israel.”
Basically, the theory is that “First Israel” — the Ashkenazi, liberal, anti-religious group — is trying to prevent “Second Israel” — Mizrahim, traditionalists, and Haredim — from participating in the democratic game. They do this through almost complete control of the real centers of power, which are not subject to public election but are in the hands of a closed clique with the same views, like the High Court of Justice, the legal advisory system, the bureaucratic echelon, the media, etc.
And what remains for the people of “Second Israel” is only the elections to the Knesset, so the people of “First Israel” are trying to take away even that right by transferring most of the power to the bureaucratic echelon and the High Court.
That’s the theory in a nutshell, and in my opinion there’s a lot of truth in it.
What does the Rabbi think about it?
Answer
My attitude toward this thesis is very reserved. It is typical Marxist thinking, which sees every position as a cover for a scheme and an agenda. Positions are indeed also driven by power relations and attempts to establish hegemony, but only Marxists see that as the whole picture. See columns 178 and onward.
As for Haredim and traditionalists, this is an ideological dispute, so it is not a matter of exclusion or discrimination but of disagreement. It is legitimate for people who hold a certain worldview to want their worldview to prevail and to prevent the advancement of other worldviews. Don’t the Haredim also try to promote their own views and restrict others? As for Mizrahim (which is an origin, not an ideology), I don’t think this really exists in any significant way. On the margins, of course it happens, from all sides. The “excluded” populations too, insofar as they can, try to take over and narrow the steps of others. The only question is who has the power. Someone who is not in a position of power always finds it easy to accuse those who are there of abusing that power (while in the subtext assuming that if he had it, that wouldn’t happen. See columns 45 and 356, what I brought from the Kuzari).
That doesn’t mean that everything that happens is proper or that there are no such events and conduct. But these Marxist exaggerations are mere demagoguery (maybe it’s worth thinking about what scheme lies behind them and drives them).
Discussion on Answer
“Besides, this theory doesn’t advance anything; on the contrary, it helps people stay stuck in victimhood, and at the same time it does an injustice to many good people in the middle”
Interesting whether you’d dare say that about the feminist struggle or the LGBT struggle too.
Spoiler: definitely not..
There’s a mistake in the theory.
They do it by controlling the centers of power that are subject to public election — that is, the elected officials.
Moshe, what interests me is how you know what Cucumber would dare and would not dare to say. Beyond that, this is not a substantive response. If you have something to remark about what he said — you’re of course welcome to. But if his claim is correct, why does it matter what he would or would not dare to say (even assuming you actually have that information about him)?
Very simple, because that’s part of the issue!
The struggle of blacks, women, and LGBT people is treated as holy of holies. There’s an obligation to discuss them endlessly, beat our chests over the sin, make thousands of media items about them, and publicly stone anyone who dares deny these holy struggles.
On the other hand, regarding the Mizrahi struggle and Second Israel… it’s forbidden to discuss it, there’s no need for a struggle, “everything’s fine,” those who talk about it are “just spreading hatred and hurting people,” etc. etc. etc.
And that’s part of the issue. I don’t know whether Avishai Ben Haim is right in his theory, but when I see the transparent attempt to shut him and his struggle up, it only strengthens my sense that he’s right.
Moshe, I understand that you have frustrations. Maybe they’re even justified (in my opinion, not really). But that’s no reason to take it out on some random person about whom you’ve decided something with no basis whatsoever. Whining is not an argument.
Thank you, Rabbi, for the “understanding”…
But thank God I have no frustrations; I’m not Mizrahi, I’m not even Israeli..
I do hate the hypocrisy that’s celebrating in the streets.
(And I didn’t mean Cucumber specifically; he’s just a symptom of the phenomenon I was complaining about.)
No, he’s not a symptom. That is exactly what I was talking about, and you keep insisting on it. [Beyond that, in my opinion the phenomenon of which he is supposedly a symptom doesn’t really exist either, but that’s a different discussion.]
I never said anywhere that you are Mizrahi. What I said is that you are frustrated and taking it out on someone about whom there is no indication whatsoever that he has any connection to the matter. An Ashkenazi who doesn’t live in Israel can also be frustrated by the situation of Mizrahim in Israel, and if you are an Ashkenazi living abroad, then you yourself are proof of that.
If you want to attack a specific person, you have to show that he protests one phenomenon while himself remaining silent about another, even though the two are equal. A general statement about Israeli society is worthless and, in my opinion, also rather lacking in validity.
And beyond all that, when some question comes up and is being discussed, there’s no point in using the opportunity to attack a person over his opinions, even if it were the right person and those really were his opinions. Raise arguments about the matter itself and about the discussion itself, instead of accusing someone (even with justified accusations). On the margins of your remarks, after you’ve raised arguments, you can accuse — preferably when there is justification — but accusations are not arguments, and therefore they are irrelevant to the discussion.
To Moshe Arbel,
Full disclosure:
I’m a Mizrahi Haredi.
In short, “Second Israel” to the highest standard.
And I truly and sincerely think this theory is not correct, because there are Mizrahim everywhere that is identified with First Israel.
So you’ll ask why that doesn’t come to expression in the various decisions.
I’ll answer briefly regarding the struggle over the centers of power: this is a different failure. Mizrahim, or Second Israel, have always dealt with claims against the existing systems of government (like you hear from every politician/journalist associated with the right), and never tried to create a different consciousness. The discussion always revolves around how left-wing she is and how detached from Jewish tradition he is, but they never tried to create alternative thought or to influence public opinion in different ways. And therefore even when they reach the centers of power, they don’t know how to do it.
(Take Rabbi Ovadia for example: although he fought a great deal against Ashkenazi halakhic hegemony, at the same time he also built an independent system of halakhic rulings.)
Regarding the other areas of struggle that you mentioned (quite apart from what I think about those issues), I definitely think those issues get excessive volume in the media, and they may win on various specific points (for example, surrogacy), but they rather miss their central goal, which is achieving public legitimacy.
Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s how it feels.
Contrary to the demagogic excuses from the left (and the attacks on Avishai Ben Haim), Bibi really does belong to a minority that is excluded in media discourse, and hence the great identification with him.
….Anyone who wants a right-wing government should vote for Bennett and Sa’ar, not for Bibi (who is a centrist in his policy and actions, though in his demagogic rhetoric he of course caters to the right-wing electorate). But voting for him does not express right-wing worldviews, or worldviews at all, but rather a feeling of exclusion and deprivation and a war against the elites (sorry for stealing Avishai Ben Haim’s very correct thesis)[1].
…..
[1] The criticisms and mockery directed at him also express a lack of understanding. People prove to him that Bibi is not an excluded minority, and not even Mizrahi. But all that is irrelevant. Bibi, like Begin before him, is Mizrahi in the sense that he is the main fighter against the Ashkenazi leftist elites who exclude him. In the public consciousness (and also in reality) this is completely true, and does not depend at all on the facts of Bibi’s economic and social situation or on Bibi’s ethnic background. The criticisms of Ben Haim are simply a misunderstanding, at best, or demagoguery and disregard for the reality of consciousness (and the factual reality) at worst.
There’s some saying that any theory that can’t be disproved isn’t really a theory, kind of like the statement that you can’t, etc.
And here, any claim you make to Avishai Ben Haim — for example, a Mizrahi police commissioner or a religious attorney general — he’ll tell you they switched sides,
and in that case the whole theory collapses.
Besides, this theory doesn’t advance anything; on the contrary, it helps people stay stuck in victimhood, and at the same time it does an injustice to many good people in the middle.