SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Fevers

POLITICS JANUARY 25, 2012

Fevers

BY LEON WIESELTIER

“The list of controversies grows weekly,” Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner, filing from Jerusalem, write in The New York Times. “Organizers of a conference last week on women’s health and Jewish law barred women from speaking from the podium, leading at least eight speakers to cancel; ultra-Orthodox men spit on an eight-year-old girl whom they deemed immodestly dressed; the chief rabbi of the air force resigned his post because the army declined to excuse ultra-Orthodox soldiers from attending events where female singers perform; protesters depicted the Jerusalem police commander as Hitler on posters because he instructed public bus lines with mixed-sex seating to drive through ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods; vandals blacked out women’s faces on Jerusalem billboards.” And a distinguished professor of pediatrics whose book won an award from the Ministry of Health was instructed that she could not sit with her husband at the ceremony and that a male colleague would accept her prize for her because women were forbidden from the stage. Bronner’s and Kershner’s report provoked widespread revulsion. Revulsion was followed by apologetics, as it was pointed out (by the press spokesman of the Israeli Embassy, for example, in a letter to the Times) that “the vast majority of Israeli women ... enjoy full and equal rights unrivalled anywhere in the Middle East—indeed, in most of the world.” That is true, and not at all trivial. But the spirit of criticism must not desist. Like all liberal societies, Israeli society contains anti-liberal elements, and these anti-liberal elements, both religious and secular, have become increasingly prominent, and increasingly wanton, and increasingly sickening, recently. This anti-liberalism cannot be conspiratorially imputed to foreigners or enemies: Jews are doing this to Jews. The odious misogyny of the ultra-Orthodox is certainly not typical of Israeli life, from which the ultra-Orthodox have anyway seceded (except to exploit the welfare system, which magically makes practical men out of zealots); but more needs to be said. There has occurred a renascence of Jewish fanaticism in the Netanyahu years.

 

THE ORIGINS OF the inflammation may be located in religion and in politics. “Discrimination against women goes against the tradition of the Bible and the principles of Judaism,” Benjamin Netanyahu, who is plainly disgusted by these developments, asserted last week. Alas, he errs. There is no equality between men and women in traditional Judaism, in theory and in practice. The enfranchisement of women in Jewish religious life has been accomplished by movements and institutions that have broken with the inherited understandings or (these are the really valiant ones) have striven to stay with the canonical authorities and interpret them to meet the needs of the individual and the community without betraying the principles of the tradition, somehow mixing decency with fidelity; and there has been some progress, though it catches hell. In Judaism, commentary has always been the most common expression of originality, which is how Jewish law has evolved. I am not referring to the ultra-Orthodox, of course, though there are distinctions to be made even among them: some haredi rabbis, including the greatest one of all, have shown glimmers of compassion for women and tried to mitigate their doctrinal contempt for secular Jews. (It is a heavy lift. “Only one who believes in the God of Israel and in the Torah of Israel is entitled to be called by the name ‘Jew,’” an extremist rabbi declared in the 1920s; and in 1987, working with such an exclusivist standard, a haredi publicist announced that the Jewish population in the world was roughly one million. Our worst enemies never eliminated so many of us.) The real challenge for traditional Judaism, in Israel and in America, is that the problem of the ultra-Orthodox is increasingly the problem of the Orthodox. In recent decades we have witnessed what one scholar has called the haredization of Orthodox Judaism. It is a miserable sight. The evidence for the surrender to the radicals is everywhere, but it is most obvious in the continued obeisance of the Orthodox rabbinate to the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, the most poisonous and illegitimate institution in the Jewish world, which has been taken over by haredi forces. (The Chief Rabbi condemned some haredi violence last week. In the deathless words of another contemporary originalist, whoop-de-damn-doo.) Anyway, all this is beside the point. The debate must not be about the place of women, or unbelievers, in Judaism. The debate must be about the place of Judaism in Israel. No rabbis have the authority to settle that question. The secular space that defines a democratic polity exceeds their hoary reach. That is the blessed rupture that they will never undo. It cannot be argued or spat away.

 

BUT ISRAELI POLITICS is open to these closers. The perverse system awards large influence to small parties, which means that the long-term interest of the state often conflicts with the short-term interest of its politicians. There is no constitution. (Thousands of years of Jewish jurisprudence, and no constitution!) And nobody ever suffered political damage by pandering to obscurantism and folk religion. That is how gender segregation came to some of the public sphere of a secular state; and how the Ministry of the Interior fell into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood—excuse me, I mean Shas—and now allows the Chief Rabbinate, in its most recent display of cruelty, to control the definition of religious identity in its policy toward conversions throughout the Jewish world. Elsewhere in the vile orbit of radical Judaism certain rabbis have issued racist anti-Arab rulings and even speculated about the circumstances in which Jewish law would justify the preemptive murder of non-Jewish children. But the religious ultras are not the only ones who are wild. Extremist settlers have resorted to violence against Palestinians and mosques, and also attacked an Israeli army base. And in the Knesset secular patriots propose bills that would outlaw foreign funding to, and oppressively tax, human-rights NGOs, and would tighten libel laws so as to impede Israel’s deliciously free press. All these developments differ in many respects, but the pattern is hard not to see. There are fevers on the right, anti-democratic fevers. These are the excrescences of Benjamin Netanyahu’s base. The prime minister has not translated personal disgust into political disgust. The outrage is not that these forces have gone too far, but that they have gone anywhere at all.

Leon Wieseltier is the literary editor of The New Republic. This article appeared in the February 16, 2011 issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 133 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

133 comments

good and worrisome article. A minor caveat: “Only one who believes in the God of Israel and in the Torah of Israel is entitled to be called by the name ‘Jew,’” I don't find this extremist if you consider it from the standpoint of religion. I could not call myself Roman Catholic if I did not believe in Jesus or the Bible. Yes, I understand that Judaism is also an ethnicity (with a language and culture all its own), hence making a distinction between religious Judaism and ethnic Judaism unfortunately lends itself to labelling those who do do so as extremist. Would that there were two words, with Judaism referring to the religion and Israeli referring to the language and culture. I say the article is worrisome because I am afraid that due to demographics that the Ultra-orthodox will only grow and grow (due to their fecundity) with a long term stranglehold on Israeli politics. Democracy becomes meaningless if the majority impose tyranny on their own people, ratifying it by plebiscite every few years. otoh, I find it likely that such a society would finally find approval amongst the Arab Sheiks and their own medieval ways.

- blackton

January 26, 2012 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, Blackton, that from a religious point of view "one who believes in the God of Israel and in the Torah of Israel is entitled to be called by the name ‘Jew,’” But Judaism isn't just a religion it's also a culture and Jews are a people like the French or the Irish. That ultra-Orthodox have decided to "copyright" the word Jew so that it applies only to them doesn't prove that they are right. That aside, the article is worrisome because the Orthodox only have the power allotted to them by the secular government and as Wieseltier makes clear Netanyahu has been doing one thing with reference to these religious bigots and saying something else. The social psychology engendered by the settlements (especially the religious settlers) in Israel has been devastating for liberal principles. Netanyahu's position has always been on the side of the settlers. And each year that passes these settlers keep upping the ante. This has paralyzed Netanyahu who seems to have lost control over his government allowing the extremists in his coalition to set the agenda. He has also allowed himself to be emotionally blackmailed. (No Jew likes to be called a Nazi and these extremists will call anyone opposes them a Nazi.) I am therefore not looking for help in the fight against bigotry from his government. The only hope as I see it will come when his government is defeated in the next election. Any new government will have to tackle settlements as well as religious extremism. Theirs will be an unenviable task.

- arnon

January 26, 2012 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The ultra left never understands. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4183574,00.html Bibi has been re-elected With a large majority as head of the Likud.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 1, 2012 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The ultra left never understands. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4183574,00.html Bibi has been re-elected With a large majority as head of the Likud.

- JAIMECHUCH

February 1, 2012 at 12:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leon has generously shared his rage in this incoherent article; he has carelessly and hysterically flung accounts, of varying accuracy and reliability, of some current events at the reader and, then, reports that he has discerned a pattern. What are the "ultra-orthodox"? Though it is an obvious point, Leon's assessment that the Chareidim are not liberals is correct. They are not, however, "rightists" or "right-wingers." Leon has demonstrated that he is incapable of differentiating between a trend enjoying significant support and an episode or two that, though troubling, are likely isolated and unrepresentative. If one purports to favor democracy, broad enfranchisement, one cannot disparage the system that delivers the untidy results. There is a lot to be said for a two-party system, on the American model, and such a system might be better for Israel, but one should fully appreciate that it would mean the end of political representation for many minority interests and, thus, a retreat from democracy.

- NR060167

February 1, 2012 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wieseltier demonstrates how little he understands Israel and the relations between it's secular society and the Haredi. Responding to Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner's whining about "Israeli society contains anti-liberal elements" which Bronner and Kershner just recently noticed, Wieseltier cries crocodile tears about the deterioration of Israeli liberalism without noticing that he too has become part of a new weapon to attack Israel. Is this something new that those paragons of virtue discovered? This supposedly new idea that 17 century Lithuanian shtetl has problems coexisting with a modern state? Wow, we are impressed by your perception yingaleh. Have you protested against this shtetl in your own Brooklyn neighborhood or is it only the Israeli version that offends your sensibilities? Have you heard about this kerfuffle yingaleh "Hasidim Vs. Cyclist War Rages On In Williamsburg" If not, here is the link for you, try it you'll like it: http://gothamist.com/2011/05/04/hasidic_cyclist_williamsburg_war.php

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 1, 2012 at 1:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

An unusually succinct Wieseltier post! My Jewish friends (usually a beginning to a racist comment) are taken aback when I mention Israel, Zionism, or issues concerning that area. Strangely enough, they don't care either way. That doesn't mean that it doesn't matter, but that it is the domain of the elites.

- Sancho

February 1, 2012 at 1:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think now we know why the Tea Party pandering candidates for the GOP nomination are tripping over one another to be the most unquestioning in their support for Israel. It takes a tribalist the know a tribalist. And the mindset that would declare no one but the ultra-Orthodox can be a Real Jew is the same one that would declare no one but a Republican or a right wing conservative can be a Real American.

- TedFrier

February 1, 2012 at 6:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with makpver that Wiesletier does not really understand Israeli society. Unlike makover (I think) i tend to locate Wieseltier's blind spots not in his political inclinations but in his Ashkenazi upbringing which, as he is a Diasporic Jew, has not evolved much since the fifties. I've got a lot to say about it but I also don't like to talk about it as it would suggest I blame him for being racist or something. I don't, really. I just wish he would have the proper humility to accept that he is simply too far removed from Israeli society to properly comprehend its dynamics. I find his reading of Israel not so different from the way Middle Eastern Arab Muslims read American society, which they do not and cannot understand. The author of this article does get it: http://www.jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/item/whos_afraid_of_israels_belief_in_god_20120130/ "Eighty percent of Jewish Israelis believe in God. Eighty-eight percent of Americans also believe in God (according to PEW’s US Religious Landscape Survey), 72 percent of American Jews believe in God (according to the same PEW study). Where’s the problem – that Israelis are more like Americans and less like Europeans? “There once was a secular majority and it no longer exists”, wrote an Israeli novelist (Haaretz again, no English translation at the time of writing). Well – not true. Maybe 60 years ago there was a secular majority for a short period of time, but Israel’s society has been more traditional than Israel’s press for quite a long time. The “secular majority” was fiction. There was no majority – there were religious, and secular, and many people in between. If one wants to consider traditional Israelis “secular”, one has a secular majority – if one counts them as religious, one has a religious majority. "

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 8:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well said arnon.

- WandreyCer

February 1, 2012 at 10:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This isn't a Jewish phenomenon, this is a human nature phenomenon. Segregate all Jews, or Catholics, or evangelicals, or Muslims, or atheists, or Republicans, or libertarians, or whatever in one place and the most committed (which is to say extreme) will rise to the top.

- rayward

February 1, 2012 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My sympathies are with the Palestinians, and I support a 2 state solution on the 67 border, meaning a complete evacuation of the settlements. Having said that, I see the Israeli religious/nationalist right taking the country over a cliff. The 2 state solution is dead, no Israeli government will evacuate 500k settlers, and the country is drifting further away from its secular origin. There are now large expat Israeli communities in the US, these are mostly secular educated professionals. Is Israel in the long run in trouble when 50% of its school children now are either Haredi or Muslim? Is Israel becoming too "different" from American sensibilities for the next generation of American Jews to have much sense of identification with it? In 2050, 65% of the population from the Jordan to the Sea is Palestinian, what then? Israel has a window to make a 2 state deal, but the only kind of 2 state deal that Bibi would take no Palestinian will accept. They will suffer another generation of occupation before taking that.

- nayyer_ali

February 1, 2012 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Speaking of excrescence, Leon Wieseltier fits the bill when it comes to this publication. He starts with what most Israeli's have to endure the Haredim, Jewish religious extremists better compared to the Wahabi of Saudi Arabia. From to "settlers violence" never mentioning PA horrible support of Arab terror best exemplified by Abbas himself glorifying slitting of the throat of a 3 month baby, her parents and a sibling. Missiles rain on Israel for years. As for NGO's money perverting the Israeli political system put on notice in Israel that this has to stop just like it is in the USA. From the writing of Wieseltier, he should be registered as a foreign agent for the PA or at least the Iranian Mullah's.

- Poupic

February 1, 2012 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: Where’s the problem – that Israelis are more like Americans and less like Europeans? In a word, yes! In education Christianists are trying to dismantle science and reason in favor of creationism and fairy tales. In vast sections of Republican America it is practically a crime just to be a minority, including being a Jew. It is not a question of faith though as much as it is of the attitude of the faith holder and whenever I go back to visit the states I am sickened by the petty assholery of so many people of supposed faith. makover, that is an insane equivalence. Jews represent a very small percentage of America, I lived in Jersey for many years in one of the few areas where Jewish people were semi-predominant, the idea that I should protest whatever slight accommodations in my daily life would have been absurd, (oh my God, traffic was busy on Friday afternoon before sundown, bfd) after all 99% of the rest of the land area in the US is Jewish free, let them have a tiny sliver in which to live.

- blackton

February 1, 2012 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

oh, and as to the bike lane "controversy" of makover, give me a break, this is not Hasidim versus bike riders, it is pedestrians and school bus drivers versus bike riders. I ride a bike all the time, I don't have a car, but I always yield to pedestrians, nor do I ride like a bat out of hell. A lot of bike riders are idiots, darting in and out of traffic, acting recklessly, so why would anyone protest their right to act like jackasses?

- blackton

February 1, 2012 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not only is Wieseltier (or his piece?) an "excrescence," it's pretty obvious that he goes to fancy-dress balls in an SS uniform and sings the Horst-Wessel-Lied in the shower in the morning. Without doubt he is not only a foreign agent for the Iranian Mullahs and the PA, but he was almost certainly the principal advisor in developing an antisemitic version of The Muppet Show for Palestinian TV, and the word on the street is that he was also the key liaison between Walt and Mearsheimer, or possibly even between Mearsheimer and Walt. He clearly will not be satisfied until Israel is dismantled and the region returned gift-wrapped to a revived Ottoman Empire (clearly where Erdogan is heading, some might say).

- ironyroad

February 1, 2012 at 10:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "Wieseltier demonstrates how little he understands Israel and the relations between it's secular society and the Haredi." Makover complains that the NY Times doesn't excoriate Egypt because it elected the Muslim Brotherhood and other religious extremists (and I agree). Yet he also complains because the NY Times excoriates religious extremists in Israel. The Ny Times is inconsistent and should be criticized but if you want them to criticize religious extremism then you should accept their criticism of the ultra Orthodox in Israel. btw: the relationship between Haredi and secular society in Israel is not hard to understand. I suspect that Wieseltier who studied there knows more about this than some people would like to believe. It's the fact that he got it right that makes some here nervous. The ultra Orthodox are as great a danger to Israel as are the Islamic fanatics.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 11:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sad that all religion eventually ends up with bullies attacking women, which has nothing to do with God and never has. Once anyone finds a way to justify spitting on an eight year old little girl or bullying a woman out of a professional conference, they have manifestly lost God.

- WandreyCer

February 1, 2012 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, too funny.

- blackton

February 1, 2012 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Blackton: "Noga: Where’s the problem – that Israelis are more like Americans and less like Europeans? In a word, yes! In education Christianists are trying to dismantle science..." According to Rosner's stats: ""Eighty percent of Jewish Israelis believe in God. Eighty-eight percent of Americans also believe in God " Does that mean that 88% of Americans are " Christianists ... trying to dismantle science etc"? You did not read my source. You did not understand the argument. BTW, is it now an intellectual crime to believe in God? Let me calm down your fears. No haredi agenda is about to take over school curricula. I foresee quite the opposite happening. That haredi schools will be forced to include core studies (math, science, history) in their curricula. And, btw, Haredi traditions that the men go to yeshiva to study Torah while the wives are busty bringing in the income create some very interesting phenomenon in Israel: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/arab-women-and-haredi-men-must-join-the-workforce-1.397577 "This all leads to the main reason why the incidence of poverty in Israel is so high. It is the low rate of employment among two population groups - ultra-Orthodox men and Arab women. Ultra-Orthodox men must be encouraged to go out and work through subsidizing their professional training, giving them the opportunity to study for the matriculation exam and at an academic preparatory course, and stopping the granting of stipends to most married yeshiva students. The Arab women must be encouraged by providing them with employment skills, subsidizing day care centers, granting stipends for them to complete their studies at elementary and high school, and building industrial zones close to Arab towns. " http://www.matrix.co.il/en/Experts/Pages/Ultra-OrthodoxWomen.aspx "Most of the ultra-Orthodox women currently employed at the development center have an academic degree ( either a bachelor’s degree in computer science, or a degree in computer engineering) and have undergone professional training at John Bryce (Matrix’s sister company), while adapting their practical knowledge to that required by the industry. "

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 11:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nope, makover. Doesn't cut it. The dispute about cyclists, although it occurs in a predominantly Hasidic Jewish community in Brooklyn, has zero to do with religion. It is about conflicts between bikers and pedestrians. Period. Any Orthodox Jewish man in Brooklyn who spat on a child could be expect prompt arrest for assault, an possibly charged with a civil rights violation as well if it could be established that the act were motivated by religious hatred toward a supposedly insufficiently observant Jew. Trying to compare the climate in the US regarding the role of religion in public live to that in Israel would be, well, just about like comparing Israel to Saudi Arabia, a comparison that the usual suspects would immediately brand as anti-Semitic and an attack on the legitimacy of the Jewish state. I don't regard the Haredi as Jewish and have no interest in what they think about Jews, Judaism or anything else. They are just as wacko and just as odious as the religious fanatics of other faiths. I am concerned that they not be able to force their religious practices on anyone else, whether here, in Israel, or elsewhere. The same concern I would have about similar imposition by religious wackos of other faiths. Freedom of religion includes freedom not to practice religion, or even to practice a religion of one's own invention. Those who expect to have their freedom to practice protected must extend the same freedom to others and live with the fact that other people do not believe as they do.

- roidubouloi

February 1, 2012 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The presence of a large community of expat Israelis in New York is easy to note. I hear Israeli Hebrew constantly on the sidewalks and in the subways and buses. One wonders why they don't want to live in Israel. Or at least this one wonders.

- roidubouloi

February 1, 2012 at 11:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The following is a partial translation of the first part of an article by the Israeli journalist Ben Dror Yemini. He is addressing the recent scandals involving Charedim behaving badly, that shook Israeli society out of its usually docile acceptance of its beleaguered life. __________ "Israel is in the throes of a much needed culture war, but not because someone spat on an eight year old girl or another yelled at a young girl who sat in the front of the bus. We need a culture war in order to rescue the state of Israel from becoming a state of minorities, while the majority is trampled upon. The problem does not lie in a lawless fringe group of zealots, who do not recognize the state of Israel. The problem is the thousands and hundreds of thousands who are excused from proper schooling, military service, or the workforce. The segregated sidewalks or buses are not even the cherry on top of the rotten icing. That’s not the problem. The problem is rooted in those who join the chorus of condemnations while shoring up the status quo. These include Shas and the PM, and others. Many members in the Charedi camp are fed up with the deformed social structure they inhabit. While they want to lead a religious life, they also are not afraid of English or History studies. They want to do military service, be part of the workforce and are willing contemplate substantial reform to the conversion concept. Let’s not be mislaid here. Rabbi Amsalem, of Shas, is not some wild weed in Judaism. The entire Shas party is a weed. It was Maimonides who wrote that “he who decides that the study of Tora excludes working for one’s living, and is willing to live on charity alone, is tantamount to heretic and a scoundrel to the Tora”. In the matter of segregation between men and women, they know how to be disciples to Maimonides. In that respect they remained in the Middle Ages. Contrary to high and mighty declarations, and illusions, when it comes to sharing space with the Charedi population, the option of shared communities is implausible. Secular, observant or traditional Israeli Jews will not dare reside at the heart of a Charedi community. Charedim, by contrast, are allowed to settle anywhere. This works well as long as they are the negligible minority. It becomes a problem when they multiply. Then they coercively wish to impose their ways upon others. The conclusion is that we must separate. Observant Jews, secular Jews, traditional Jews, Right-wing or left-wing Jews, all can live together. But this is impossible with the Charedim. It is not possible to co-mingle with them. This is the situation not only in Nigeria where various groups slaughter each other, or in Somalia where everyone blows up everyone else. But also in Britain and Sweden. It doesn’t work in Yavne-El, a township that gained much notoriety during the nineties due to the invasion by the Bratslav Chassidim. Problems only got worse over the years. However, the allegation -- promoted by predictable articles in the media – that this separation is de-facto racism is total nonsense. All those authors who make these allegations themselves live in neighbourhoods where others share in the same culture; they do not live among at the heart of a Charedi or an Arab neighbourhood. They wouldn’t want to live there. So let them not waste our time with ”racism” claims. Those who are interested in partnership are welcome. One condition applies: that it be a two-way street, not a unidirectional exchange. Partnership between a man and his horse is regulated as between humans and beasts. And even that is being disputed nowadays. It ought to be completely clear, though, that this is not a model for partnerships among social groups. Separation among the different communities does not exclude partnership and solidarity, but only when it is reciprocal as between equals. Whoever is funded by public, tax-payers’ money must be required to assume their share of the general burden. There are rights, but then, there are responsibilities as well, such as national or military service, working for a living, or paying taxes. Solidarity – absolutely. Parasiticality – absolutely not. Inbuilt into the structure of democratic societies is tolerance towards those who are different and “others”. This is the correct form. Still, a certain adjustment is called for. For example, we will happily accept and welcome emissaries from Kfar Chabad if they wish to speak at a Raanana center, provided a secular group from Raanana is allowed to make its case at a center in Kfar Chabad. No more uni-directional rights. No more taking advantage of liberal rights in order to put an end to liberal society. This applies to any type of fundamentalist group. What they don’t want done to them, they should not be doing to others. Mixed societies can thrive peacefully only if those who join them share in a certain ethos. Secular people who try to live in the midst of a Charedi suburb are not about freedom of residential choice but a provocation. It’s the same as with Jews who insist on residing in the midst of Hashiloach Village or Arabs who want to implement the “Right of Return” in Israel proper. The national idea – and most countries in the world are nation-states – is based on communities sharing in a common ethos. Such an ethos can be culturally authentic or something that has evolved and consolidated over time. Communities are also self defined. There is no racism in the idea of people wishing to live in a culturally, religiously or nationally, familiar public space. It is the weaker segments in society who always pay the price for the attempted co-mingling of communities. The strong and enlightened elites, as we know, are quite successful in preserving the boundaries of their own homogeneous living. If the elites have a right to choose their quality of life, a life that includes separation, they should not moralize different principles to others. And like the Old Cato, I will recapitulate with the inevitable conclusion: Israel is a minoritocracy, not a democracy. Only a reform of the governance system will correct the warp that allows a few, relatively minor, pressure groups to trample upon the rights of the majority through political extortion. Until such a reform takes place, the current struggle will yield three indictments against three spitters or rioters, but for Israeli society, and especially its women, no good news will be forthcoming." __________________________ This article from the Jerusalem Post tries to unravel the very complex tangle of beliefs, mindsets, ways of life and behaviours involved in the kerfuffles: _____________________ "JUST AS important, however, the secular interpretation of events is sometimes no more accurate. Many secular Jews possess the absurd belief that all haredim, or even all religious Jews, are of the same mindset as the extremists. Former Meretz Party chairman Yossi Sarid declared that Judaism itself halachically mandates such behavior (!), and that all religious parties should be disqualified from the Knesset. The widespread talk against religious Jews is no less offensive than the curses heaped by haredi extremists upon others. This also has the effect of encouraging the wider haredi world to adopt a siege mentality and prevents them from acknowledging any wrongdoing in their own camp – which in turn lends credence to the secular charge that haredim are indeed all of the same mindset. Thus, the ultra-secular and the ultra-Orthodox are locked into a vicious cycle which brings out the worst in each. Yet another interpretation of events was apparently held by the groups that joined the rally in Beit Shemesh, who portrayed the issue as one relating to women. But aside from the question of whether some of them were seeking to force a rift between Netanyahu and his coalition, even those genuinely motivated by a desire to improve the status of women were missing the point." ________________________ These two articles are just a very random sampling of how Israelis are trying to fashion their democracy in such ways as can be both fully democratic and Jewish. What captivated my attention in Ben Dror Yemini's article is his somewhat fumbling but worthy attempt to deal with an issue I have been thinking about more and more recently. That is the knotted issue of solidarity in our current multicultural ambiance. He says explicitly what the problem with solidarity is, namely, that it seems to flow, expected to flow, in one direction, from the mainstream majority to minorities. To this he says, no. No solidarity without reciprocity. When a minority expects to be accommodated on principles that are not only unshared by the vast majority but are reviled by it, then there is a place to ask by what right, and to resist.

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The problem does not lie in a lawless fringe group of zealots, who do not recognize the state of Israel." The ultra-orthodox do not recognize the state of Israel? Is this because they believe that only the Messiah can re-institute Israel, or is there another reason? And if they in fact do not recognize teh legitimacy of Israel and her right to exist, why do they live there? It seems for someone who dedicates their life to the expression of their faith that living in a place they believe exists contrary to the will of God doesn't make a great deal of sense. And what is the supposed religious justification for the misogyny? There are many instances of women in what us Christians refer to as the Old Testament holding prominent places in society, they were lauded as prophets, etc. Anyway, these are snark-free questions, so forgive any unintended offense, for any who care to respond.

- Tristan

February 1, 2012 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roi: "Last year the religious group complained to the community board that many of the young, female cyclists who rode through the neighborhood were "hotties," who "ride in shorts and skirts," both of which are against their dress code." From Huff post. I wonder about all those Americans on the streets of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, speaking American English. What, they don't want to live in the Goldeneh Medineh? Did God forbid, they wanted to marry a Schwartze so their outraged parents sent them to Israel? By the way, if I remember well from my past visits to the big apple, more than spitting occurs there on regular basis: "Prospect Park West has been the most active front in the Brooklyn bike wars for months but look out, here comes Bedford Avenue again! In late 2009 the Department of Transportation painted over a fourteen-block stretch of a bike lane along in South Williamsburg, and without a line in the asphalt, Hasidic motorists are harassing, threatening and fighting cyclists in the street." Or how about this:"NPR aired a brutal story today about two former Hasidic boys who were sexually abused as youngsters—one at the mikvah and the other at his school. Joel Engelman’s tale is particularly troubling and evokes memories of the Catholic clergy sex abuse scandal. Shame. A code of silence. Fear of God and man." I see that roi has the monopoly on the United States. He alone approves who is welcomed and who is not.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 1, 2012 at 1:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with those who welcome Wieseltier's post. I have never seen a more vicious and hate filled ironyroad, which they don't call him for nothing. The influence of religious zealots in Israel is indeed worrisome and they need to be brought into line obeying the same laws all Israelis obey, required to serve in the army and arrested and prosecuted aggressively to inhibit their acts of civil infraction. They should not have a whit of ability to impose their their views, fanatical or not, on others and should like all groups in liberal democracy leave others to their belief or non belief. Israel needs better to separate synagogue and state. I like this in Wiseltier's post. ...the ultra-Orthodox have anyway seceded (except to exploit the welfare system, which magically makes practical men out of zealots); but more needs to be said. There has occurred a renascence of Jewish fanaticism in the Netanyahu years... and this speaks to a real ground for criticism of Netanyahu's supiness in the face of these nuts. Finally I'd like to see the answer to this apt formulation as it applies to the exceptionalism accordered to ultra religious Jews in Israel: ...Freedom of religion includes freedom not to practice religion, or even to practice a religion of one's own invention. Those who expect to have their freedom to practice protected must extend the same freedom to others and live with the fact that other people do not believe as they do... Any takers? I wouldn't think so.

- basman

February 1, 2012 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

basman: I am in agreement with you on this issue. Ben Gurion was the one who instilled this in the Israeli law and we have been abused by the Haredim for 64 years. That's why I am surprised that New York times has suddenly discover it and Wieseltier is similarly outraged. Where have you been all those years?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 1, 2012 at 2:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

...Where have you been all those years?... Fighting for justice and getting my accounts paid.

- basman

February 1, 2012 at 2:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tristan: The ultra-orthodox do not recognize the state of Israel? Is this because they believe that only the Messiah can re-institute Israel, or is there another reason? And if they in fact do not recognize teh legitimacy of Israel and her right to exist, why do they live there? It seems for someone who dedicates their life to the expression of their faith that living in a place they believe exists contrary to the will of God doesn't make a great deal of sense. You asked a question so I'll try to answer it. I think their opposition is indeed based on the Messiah. I personally think it's battered-wife syndrome, that the Jews have been oppressed by the other nations for centuries, therefore it must be G-d's will that the other nation are able to oppress the Jews. That is, until He shows otherwise, by sending the Messiah. Thus, actions to undermine the other nations' ability to oppress the Jews before G-d sends the Messiah are a rebellion against G-d's will. It should be noted that this only applies to establishing sovereignty, it does not apply to living in the land of Israel. And what is the supposed religious justification for the misogyny? There are many instances of women in what us Christians refer to as the Old Testament holding prominent places in society, they were lauded as prophets, etc. Codification of social mores from the time of the establishment of the religious legal system. Beyond that, I think that there's an emphasis on identity practices, that is practices which distinguish between members and non-members of the group, over non-identity practices. Thus rules regarding business conduct get short shrift because they are not identity practices since every group has rules regarding ethical business practices. Also, until the latter half of the 19th century, gender roles was not an identity practice because everyone had distinct roles for men and women. However, with the suffragette movement, outside society has moved to reduce the scope of roles that are specifically male or female, thus making the religious practice of making a distinction an identity practice. With that, no measure is too extreme to show that unlike the outsiders, the holders of the maintain the proper roles between men and women.

- sighthnd

February 1, 2012 at 3:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sighthnd may be correct in his conjecture. In 2008, I participated in Jerusalem Day's traditional annual ritual: The March to Jerusalem in Montreal. Along the 10 km route which ambled among Cote St. Luc's and Hampstead's, a group of Naturei Karta was standing in demonstration mode, holding signs that denounced Israel and Zionists as the great heretics against Hashem. These signs were punctuated by Palestinian flags. Having grown in Israel, where the Jerusalem Naturei-Karta were in the habit of flying black flags on Israel's Independence Day, where they refuse to pay taxes and their lingua franca of choice is Yiddish , I am usually left quite unfazed by such demonstrations. I categorize them as the kinds of social or cultural manifestations which I will never be able to understand (something along the lines of Reverend Wright's "God Damn America" position). I mean, how can you possibly explain a sign that recommends: "Jews submit to the nations of the world, from Canada to Palestine"? Who, in their right minds, would choose dhimmitude over independence and freedom?

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That's why I am surprised that New York times has suddenly discover it and Wieseltier is similarly outraged." It is fashionable to be outraged at Israel and whatever excuse is welcomed. When people cannot be outraged for any real reason, they go look for it in the "tzitziot". How different is this from the way the hated charedim treat Israeli society in general, as a menace to God and Judaism, I don't know. I call it Israel derangement syndrome. It can express itself in the most absurd accusations. Here is an example of the latest charge: http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2012/01/de-nada-ilse.html "Dutch lady spends some time in Israel, while pregnant. She goes through the usual rigmarole of prenatal tests, is diagnosed with some virus which is subsequently taken care of. Eventually, she gives birth to a healthy baby and here it starts: she pens an article The chosen people have to be perfect. It's her unique way to thank the Israeli medical establishment, I guess. With statements like this: To be pregnant in Israel is comparable to a military operation. Countless echos and blood tests should produce the perfect baby, nothing can be left to the luck of the draw. The state demands healthy babies and a lot of them too. Or like this: What makes things even more emotionally charged is the Israeli demand to produce many children." Please note how a well functioning health care system that actually goes out of its way to make absolutely certain that babies are born healthy is thus being demonized as a Nazi-like institution obsessed with "perfect babies". Another bizarre accusation: The latest outlandish example comes from City University of New York Professor Sara Schulman "who is feverishly anti-Israeli to the extent of advocating the boycott of Israeli universities based on the standard Islamist-Leftist accusation of Israeli Apartheid." Her complaint: "Writing in The New York Times, Schulman accuses Israel of Pinkwashing, namely using its gay-tolerant policies as a propaganda tool to oppress Palestinians: Last year, the Israeli news site Ynet reported that the Tel Aviv tourism board had begun a campaign of around $90 million to brand the city as “an international gay vacation destination.” The promotion, which received support from the Tourism Ministry and Israel’s overseas consulates, includes depictions of young same-sex couples and financing for pro-Israeli movie screenings at lesbian and gay film festivals in the United States…. The growing global gay movement against the Israeli occupation has named these tactics “pinkwashing”: a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violations of Palestinians’ human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life.. " ____________ So here is Wieseltier outraged by too much piety and here is an academic outraged by too much tolerance and here is a Dutch journalist outraged by Israel's too good pre-natal care. And they all put their outrage to good use, don't they? Because it so fashionable, fun and useful to throw darts at Israelis, they make such soft and yielding targets.

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 3:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course it is all Netanyahu's fault, Charedi misogyny, too much hospitality for gays, all too meticulous care of pregnant women. It all hangs together, or as the French say: 'Un système où tout se tient... "

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 3:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover says roi: "Last year the religious group complained to the community board that many of the young, female cyclists who rode through the neighborhood were "hotties," who "ride in shorts and skirts," both of which are against their dress code." From Huff post. So what? Some of the awful Orthodox "complain" here about other people's dress? These people say sll sorts of things that I find appalling. Does this imply that such complaints receive any recognition by authorities or that any lawless behavior by the Orthodox, whatever the motivation, is tolerated? The are entitled to their noxious opinions. That is hardly the issue. Since makover sees some analogy between Jewish Americans who live in Israel, where they are still invited to come and spend their social security or even to make aliyah while still in their working prime, and Israelis who have left Israel for the US, I guess we are to understand that they come here out of solidarity with the American people and the desire to be part of the American tradition and community to which they belong, no? Or, looked at the other way, if the number of Americans in Israel were anything like the percentage of Israelis living in the US, almost 2% (taking the entire Israeli population as the denominator), you would have about 6 million Americans there. The total number of Americans living abroad is 1.3%. The question is not why Israelis are permitted to live here (to which I surely have no objection assuming they have obtained the required visas), but why so many leave Israel.

- roidubouloi

February 1, 2012 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some also move to Canada apparently.

- roidubouloi

February 1, 2012 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And I won't be moving back any time soon, roi. I don't feel like being incinerated. I guess you hold that against me. What, a Jew, and afraid of a little nuclear fire?

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 4:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sighthnd, I always really admire your responses, but I just do not find this to be an answer: And what is the supposed religious justification for the misogyny? "There are many instances of women in what us Christians refer to as the Old Testament holding prominent places in society, they were lauded as prophets, etc. Codification of social mores from the time of the establishment of the religious legal system. Beyond that, I think that there's an emphasis on identity practices, that is practices which distinguish between members and non-members of the group, over non-identity practices. Thus rules regarding business conduct get short shrift because they are not identity practices since every group has rules regarding ethical business practices. Also, until the latter half of the 19th century, gender roles was not an identity practice because everyone had distinct roles for men and women. However, with the suffragette movement, outside society has moved to reduce the scope of roles that are specifically male or female, thus making the religious practice of making a distinction an identity practice. With that, no measure is too extreme to show that unlike the outsiders, the holders of the maintain the proper roles between men and women." Again, this is not an answer or rather it is a small element of a larger human catastrophe. The rise in violence and hatred towards women in Israel is quite recent, not the product of long term changes in society. I don't see how or why this ever applies to identity. In all fairness, these are not your question to answer as they are almost rhetorical in nature on my part. I despair. I despair to see it happen anywhere because of what it says about that society. Its a neon sign that states that basic decency and egalitarism, "enlightenment values" if you will (which I always assume Israel was proudly founded upon, as was America, hence our closeness) are being allowed to deteriotate. No one knows more than Jewish people that the extremists in any group are not to blame for this sort slow deterioration right in front of G-d and the whole world, it is the fault of good people who watch and allow it to continue. And that is what is shockingly happening in Israel. Any studies on genocide, war, always include steps and violence towards women is always one of the first. The question should be : HOW is it that women, women's bodies and sexuality become battlefields? How does this canary in a coalmine signifier begin and what can individual citizens do to stop it?

- WandreyCer

February 1, 2012 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh yes roi just doing his job. Keeping the American Jewish community pure from the influence of the Ost Juden. Very commendable. "we are to understand that they come here out of solidarity with the American people". No roi, they come "to get your mama". "Or, looked at the other way, if the number of Americans in Israel were anything like the percentage of Israelis living in the US, almost 2% (taking the entire Israeli population as the denominator), you would have about 6 million Americans there. The total number of Americans living abroad is 1.3%." and now roi's favorite pass time: Lies, damn lies and statistics.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 1, 2012 at 4:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

WandreyCer's comment is a good illustration of where Wieseltier's incomprehension of Charedim in Israel can be put to good use in the service of the demonization of Israel. All of a sudden, it is "women, women's bodies and sexuality become battlefields" and a sure sign that Israeli society is turning towards genocide. Good work, Mr. Wieseltier.

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 4:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And what is the supposed religious justification for the misogyny?" You think I'm justifying it? More like arguing that the chareidim are fetishizing previously existing social mores while railing against the social mores of today. To explain does not mean to justify. Hopefully the wider Orthodox community will learn to distinguish between what religious Jews have always done because that was the prevailing practice of the surrounding society and what religious Jews have always done because of divine commandments. As for the rise in violence against women (I'm not sure I would characterize it is hatred), the underlying issue is the expectation that women play a particular role in the social order with the only recent manifestation being the use of violence to express outrage over that order being violated. As for identity, allow me to explain: three centuries ago, no Jewish congregation would have thought to have a woman address the community on a matter. This does not say much about Jewish religious practice because no other society would have thought to do so either. Now fast forward to the feminist movement. Suddenly, general society started to allow women to take public leadership roles, thus the absence of such in traditional Jewish circles became a distinguishing feature of traditional Jewish practice. As a distinguishing feature of religious practice, it became a focal point of maintaining Orthodox identity. You can argue that something else is at play or that it is odious (to which I would certainly agree), but its veracity is unrelated to whether or not it is odious.

- sighthnd

February 1, 2012 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Ben Gurion was the one who instilled this in the Israeli law and we have been abused by the Haredim for 64 years. That's why I am surprised that New York times has suddenly discover it and Wieseltier is similarly outraged. Where have you been all those years?" W discovered nothing, "recently." He has written about it in the past. Since I don't read the NY Times every day I don't know if they have written about this or no. I assume that Makover has been a daily reader of that paper for the last 50 years. As for the behavior of the Haredim it's been disgraceful since the first day they allowed their children to throw stones at cars on the Shabbat. No one would have tolerated Arab children throwing stones at cars but they turned a blind eye to the children of the "self righteous." This has been going on for two or three generations. When children grow up throwing stones with impunity is it any wonder that they will spit on an eight year old girl? Also the Haredim like the Arabs don't recognize Israel as a Jewish State but they do take money from the very Jews they don't recognize and who have been putting their lives on the line to protect these ungrateful self righteous wretched assholes.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "And I won't be moving back any time soon, roi. I don't feel like being incinerated. I guess you hold that against me. What, a Jew, and afraid of a little nuclear fire?" What a cowardly reason for not living in Israel. I don't live there because I have family commitments here but I know lots of people (some very close to me) and if I thought they were in danger of being nuked I would either try to get them to leave or else I would join them. Noga's comment which doesn't surprise me is beyond hypocritical.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sighthnd, the Haredim hate the modernity and they hate Israel because it was and is part of modernity. However, they live of the fruits of modernity which makes them hypocrites.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Check your history and facts Noga and tell me I'm wrong. This trend is quite simply not justifiable in any sense. Or are you saying that Israeli society is above accountability for its growing mysoginy? If so, why?

- WandreyCer

February 1, 2012 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't see where Wieseltier's incomprehension about the ultra religious is evident. I'd think he knows more about them than most. I also don't see where Jill's comment comes to Israel turning toward genocide. Wonder what I'm missing. And I'd put it differently: "Good work Mr. Wieseltier."

- basman

February 1, 2012 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks basman -- you see how I'm trying! I think there's a very thin line to maintain -- and it's not easy -- between tolerance of a particular minority group's cultural/social/religious principles and practices and the gradual encroachment of such practices upon arenas that would, in most modern democracies, be thought of as a public sphere. And the public sphere in such a democratic political system should be free for those who do not subscribe to any smaller group's particular principle or practice. So it's one thing for e.g. a group to hire private buses to transport its members back and forth in ways that could conflict with the open-seating arrangements of public transport vehicles; it would be quite another for a municipal authority to give in to pressure from such a group and try to enforce a gender-based seating arrangement on selected bus routes just because such routes go through "their" neighborhoods. There's no difference between such an approach, as I see it, and the attempts by Muslim cab drivers at Minneapolis airport a few years ago to selectively accept or refuse fares based on whether the passenger had a duty-free bag with alcohol or a dog. The cab drivers were licensed by the city and were supposed to obey the law, not introduce religious tests for fares.

- ironyroad

February 1, 2012 at 5:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sighthdn - My apologies, I do not think you are justifying growing mysoginy in Israel. I'm curious about one of your distinctions: how to you not characterize violence towards women as hatred? How could anyone choose to spit on a young girl and not hate her? Here's what I mean about identifiable "steps" in deteriorating society, from a political psychology perspective: what explicitly changed recently that allowed basic gender norms to begin to be enforced through violence? (I say this as I watch the trends towards religious extremism bloom here in America too, I expect to see spitting scenes here soon too - and not just men doing it). I'm still having a hard time seeing what the 1960's has to do with this in anything but the most cursory, texbook explanation sort of way. Why would men feel so comfortable screaming at women on buses NOW? What changed? This all seems absolutely brand new to me. It makes me very sad.

- WandreyCer

February 1, 2012 at 5:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry Itzak and Noga, I am quite sloppily harkening back to a polticial psychology degree I studied for at the New School several years ago. My advisor was a survivor of the Shoah (who had a heart attack right after 9/11, which devastated me) and taught me so much about systematically identifying how genocides occur. These attacks on women would fit her models very clearly and it scares me. I still miss her. However, I should never bring up that word lightly, and I don't, without being able to explain myself better. My apologies for my insensitivity.

- WandreyCer

February 1, 2012 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: I haven't been reading NY Times for fifty years but on and off for at least 20 and I can assure you that their interests in Israel are limited only to items they can criticize. I strongly believe that the catalyst for W's sanctimonious outrage is by his own admission Kirshner's and Bronner piece in the Times. I will be the first one to admit that the Haredim are a bone stuck in Israeli throats but their mishigas is nothing new. It has been going on for at least as long as I can remember and probably longer. Only the interest in them has peaked since the media has run out of righteous, peace seeking Palestinians. We have lived with them and learned to dismissed them. Also let me add that the comparisons between the treatment of the stone throwing Palis and the stone throwing Lithuanian nuts are unfair. The Israeli police treats both the same way.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 1, 2012 at 5:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am with Arnon on Noga's reasons for not living in Israel. I am sorry but fear as a reason is terrible. I am Roman Catholic but if I could get a good job in Israel I would live there in a second, it would be incredible to live in the heart of world history. And I know I face more danger living down here in Oaxaca then I would have living in Israel. Ever once in a while narco traffickers kidnap people off of buses and force them to become mules or shoot them. Since I don't have a car any long distance I travel is by bus. But I sure as hell am not going to be scared out of this country by them so don't accuse me of not wanting to walk the walk.

- blackton

February 1, 2012 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Believe me, makover. I understand how taxed you are by anything that resembles an actual fact. They are so inconvenient for you. I take it from your response that you don't think that the reasons that American Jews move to Israel are comparable to the reasons that Israelis move to the US and don't want to acknowledge that the numbers are, relative to the size of the population of Israel, quite large. But you have nothing at all to say about the causes for this emigration. The usual. The numbers leaving Israel for the US now exceed the numbers leaving the US for Israel (don't know about Canada). Are the all avoiding nuclear holocaust like noga? Is this an argument for discouraging aliyah in order to ensure the survival of the Jewish people or merely an idiosyncracy?

- roidubouloi

February 1, 2012 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Check your history and facts Noga and tell me I'm wrong." What facts am I supposed to check? That in Israel, "women, women's bodies and sexuality become battlefields" and that this is a sure sign that Israeli society is turning towards genocide? I would suggest that when you make these kinds of sweeping accusations you should come equipped with some real hard evidence and statistics. Do you think Swedish society is turning towards genocide? It is a society where violence against women is a great concern. Read my comments in this thread, carefully, if you are really interested in understanding Israeli society's problems rather than using some sensationalist stories to demonize it.

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I strongly believe that the catalyst for W's sanctimonious outrage is by his own admission Kirshner's and Bronner piece in the Times." You are dead wrong about this. W. is anything but sanctimonious. What do you know about him? Have you read any of his books. He has written about the Haredim off and on for many years. In any case, let's assume that he got outraged by an article in ghe NY Times, how does that make him sanctimonious? Like most people who don't want to face up to an issue you attack the messenger and not the people how perpetrate the outrage. A few years ago there was an film about called "חופשת קיץ" 'ןאי ג" which detailed with meticulous exactitude the life of one Haredi family. The people who made the movie were part of that community and they didn't preach (in fact they presented the community respectfully. I say this because it's not as if people haven't been talking about these issues. It's been around and it's only gotten more outrageous as I assume you know. Stop blaming W for writing about it. He should be commended and not attacked. and Btw if you think Marty Peretz doesn't share W. sense of outrage you haven't been paying attention to his writings.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"How could anyone choose to spit on a young girl and not hate her? " It would be reasonable to say that they hate the individual they are spitting at. However, attributing the hatred is a different story. If she had been walking through dressed as they dress, they would have had no objection. Thus, the basis of their animus is adherence, or lack thereof, to their interpretation of religious dress requirements. As awful as having an expectation that women should be forced to dress like that, let alone responding to non-compliance by spitting, it is of a different category from hating them just for being female.

- sighthnd

February 1, 2012 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sighthnd, I wouldn't try to get into the minds of people who spit on young girls or call them "Pritzes" (as they did to my little girl here in Montreal). The thing is they are not representative of any recognizable community I know. The solution lies, as I tried to say when I quoted Yemini's article, in writing a constitution for the Jewish state in which the religious parties will have no more say than their proportionate percentage in the population. I wouldn't mind if American constitutional scholars will be asked to contribute. But the process has to be an authentic Israeli-Jewish one. Why is it so hard to do?

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 6:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"It would be reasonable to say that they hate the individual they are spitting at. However, attributing the hatred is a different story." Re-read out loud what you have written, and tell me if it isn't sickening sightnd? What is worse spitting on a human being you don't hate or one something you do hate? Worse still is justifying such sickening actions. People who live in an ideologically controlled environment tend to say that they have noting personally against the person they stone, spit, kick, or shoot. It's all just what they have to do to people they deem inferior, threatening, subversive, or non-human. To the person at the receiving end it doesn't matter if the hand that launched the stone hate he or if he did it because he was just doing what his religion/ideology demanded of him. I took you for someone smarter than a mere mouthpiece for absurd justifications. How wrong I was!

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 7:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At last something by Noga i can mostly agree with: "The solution lies, as I tried to say when I quoted Yemini's article, in writing a constitution for the Jewish state in which the religious parties will have no more say than their proportionate percentage in the population. I wouldn't mind if American constitutional scholars will be asked to contribute. But the process has to be an authentic Israeli-Jewish one."

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

F/O, arnon.

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 7:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

F/O back to you, Noga.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 7:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ferinuff

- noga1

February 1, 2012 at 7:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, since you seem to agree with the creature, then tell me what this means, "the religious parties will have no more say than their proportionate percentage in the population." Is she talking representation in the knesset? Or their mark on the constitution? Which could lead to all sorts of ugly laws. Sorry, I'm just not getting what this means. Also, they're a sizable majority. A constitution needs to protect the rights of minorities, but that's not what the creature seems to be suggesting.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 1, 2012 at 9:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Arnon, since you seem to agree with the creature, then tell me what this means, "the religious parties will have no more say than their proportionate percentage in the population."" Great question Molly: I said " i can mostly agree with." The part you quoted was what I had in mind of something I couldn't agree with. But then it depends on what Noga meant by "no more to say than the percentage of the population." If she meant the right to apt out of some equal rights clause then hat. I wouldn't agree with that; neither do I think a minority has the right to impose upon itself the right to restrict individuals within their own community to access to education, to access to public transportation, and to be visible on a public stage among many other civil rights.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 10:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What does F/O mean? Something like "felicitous observation"?

- basman

February 1, 2012 at 11:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

roidubouloi said (much earlier) "Freedom of religion includes freedom not to practice religion, or even to practice a religion of one's own invention. Those who expect to have their freedom to practice protected must extend the same freedom to others and live with the fact that other people do not believe as they do." This illustrates the problem with accepting an absolute definition of "freedom of religion", because it becomes a logical absurdity to have complete freedom of religion if YOUR religion says that no other religion can be tolerated. Thus a reasonable society MUST limit religious freedom to exclude the imposition of your beliefs on me. Israel must tell these "ultra-orthodox" idiots that they may NOT behave in this despicable manner, regardless of their interpretation of their religious texts, even if their interpretation happens to be, in whatever sense, "correct".

- cf1125

February 1, 2012 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The phrase "freedom of religion (is addressed to sovereigns (governments) and it means that a government (sovereign) has no right to interfere in the practice of religion by citizens (people-- not exactly the same thing). People then can choose how and if to practice a religion. Hence there is nothing absurd in the term "freedom of religion" since it's not addressed to religion nor even to individual religious people. Of course individual people are told their government has no right to interfere in their worship or lack of worship. The role of government here is to protect the rights of its citizens to practice religion as they see fit.

- arnon

February 1, 2012 at 11:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here in the United States where there has been a right of "free exercise" enshrined in the Constitution for more than 200 years, the courts have a lot of experience in defining the boundary between church and state. The right of free exercise includes freedom of belief and the right to religious practice that does not run afoul of any general law, but no exemption from the duty to observe laws of general applicability, including certainly laws that prevent assaults upon or threats to other people or denying them access to "public accommodations" on the basis of their religion, or lack or religion. Thus, the right to practice one's own religion most certainly does not permit any interference with anyone elses practice or non-practice or participation in public life and in the rights shared by all. It has required some thought over the years, but turns out not to be all that complicated. No matter what you believe, you still have to pay your taxes. You cannot deny your children medical care. You still have to provide for their education. You cannot spit on people. You can wear strange clothing all you want, but you cannot walk nude through the streets even if god tells you to. And if someone else is legally clad, you cannot mess with them. If their sight offends you, tough. Close your eyes. In fact, even if someone else is not legally clad, you still cannot mess with them. You have to call the cops.

- roidubouloi

February 2, 2012 at 12:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or, even if you believe that the sexes should be separated on public transport vehicles, you cannot force that separation on municipal vehicles even if the city routes pass through the neighborhood you reside in. If your community hires private buses to be set up that way, that's fine. But that should be at that community's expense, not the general society's. As in the example of the Muslim cab drivers at Minneapolis airport a few years ago. They may have disapproved of alcohol and dogs, but they were offering a service as licensed drivers of the city, and should not have been permitted to impose religious tests on potential fares.

- ironyroad

February 2, 2012 at 2:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony addresses the phrase of the First Amendment referred to as the "Establishment clause," the prohibition against official establishment of religion, which is distinct from "free exercise." Of course, the two get mingled when people try to have the government afford them a special privilege regarding their free exercise.

- roidubouloi

February 2, 2012 at 6:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mollysimon: You can read my earlier comments in which I quoted Ben Dror Yemini. It can enlighten you a bit. It's funny you asking arnon to clarify what I meant. But maybe it wasn't a genuine question, just another "clever" attempt to empty your bile in my direction. As always your presence lights up any conversation in this place. And the others coming out of the woodwork. Must be the winter blues making everyone so bored with themselves. Sunlight lamp, 10 minutes in the morning, does wonders to the cantankerous mood. Anyway, I'm wondering what the real discussion is all about. There is no disagreement among any of us about the basics. Yet there is a pretense and an insistence that some of us are not really saying what we so obviously are saying. Why is that, I wonder. Why does ironyroad, for example, keep explaining to us that gender-segregated buses are wrong. Don't we all know and agree that they are wrong and out of place in a proper democracy? So why keep making this argument at least twice as if someone here is arguing against this position? It's not really about segregated buses is it? It is about something else altogether. Discussing Israeli society in terms of segregated buses and young girls being spat on seems to bring some comfort to some people, especially some of the Jewish commenters. A debased society does not invoke compassion, does not merit support. Think about it.

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 6:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

arnon: I know Wieseltier well enough and it is sad that somebody who wrote this: http://www.tnr.com/article/washington-diarist/magazine/96120/justice-jebusites-nusseibeh-grossman-storace-end-land is engaging in this kind of hysteria. By the way, I think much of his writing is kind of sanctimonious. But of course I attribute it to my own moral shortcomings and depravity. The outrage against the Haredim in Israel is pretty universal but that is not what is discussed in Wieseltier piece. Wieseltier claim is the rise of a far right in Israel. Reading this one might think that a fascist state is rising instigated by the hordes of Lubavitchers and Satmaris. Nothing is further from the truth. All those application of US constitutional law to Israeli case are completely irrelevant. The Israeli political system is different and operates differently. In addition, Jewishness has unique aspects that are not duplicated in other religions. Israel is after all a State of the Jews.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

February 2, 2012 at 7:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makover, it's not "hysteria to point out what is going on. This is not how hysteria works. Hysterics usually try to avoid facing up to reality. Do you think W. is avoiding reality? One way of ding this is by exaggerating what W said: "Wieseltier claim is the rise of a far right in Israel. Reading this one might think that a fascist state is rising instigated by the hordes of Lubavitchers and Satmaris. Nothing is further from the truth." This comment reflects a mind incapable of quiet reasoning. When you are ready to talk seriously about events in Israel let me know. If you think W. is just another Israel basher then ignore him. Your anger and reaction to this article can be read as a form of hysteria. You keep coming up with reasons (no of them convincing) why W. should not have written about the Haredi challenge to Israeli democracy. And why do you think that the man who wrote his criticism of Nusseibeh's views and said: "MEANWHILE, IN The New York Review of Books, where a good word about Israel must never be said, David Grossman is denounced as an apologist for Israeli racism..." should have written this? And what makes you think that

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 8:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Rightwing jurisprudes also get exercised at the notion that American law has anything to learn from precedents in other countries where similar problems have been addressed. Of course, the American Constitution has no application in Israel (Is that perhaps why so many Israelis are moving here?). But there is 200 plus years of legal experience with the concepts of free exercise of religion and non-establishment of religion. Perhaps the fact that American jurists, some of them extremely brilliant, have been working out the problems that arise for all that time means that places come more recently to face these issues could learn something from the answers they have hit upon. Except not the Jews apparently. Too special. Seems to me that Moslems also like to claim that human rights are an alien concept that don't apply to their world either. They are also fond of claiming that whatever the outcome of a democratic choice the make, say in Gaza, it deserves respect from the rest of the world for that reason alone, as if any choice that emerges from the popular will, or a purportedly democratic process, must be a just outcome to which we all owe obeisance.

- roidubouloi

February 2, 2012 at 9:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Leon Wieseltier is a product of his environment. A Jewish intellectual from a Jewish minority. His main audience is American, leftist/centrist, democrats. The way I see it, he is a member of a besieged minority whose lack of security in spite of great successes is almost palpable. As a member of a minority he has to be on his best behaviour all the time, vis a vis the majority. He enjoys a certain privilege and prestige which he does not want to lose. I wouldn't compare Wieseltier by any means to Isaiah Berlin but Berlin's honesty might help explain Wieseltier's unfathomable need to excoriate Israeli society for the sins of a few zealots which Israeli society has managed thus far to keep in check without any help from American Jews. From her article “Individuality, Nationality, and the Jewish Question” Joan Cocks writes about Isaiah Berlin: “Berlin repeatedly represents England as a liberal and tolerant society in which Jews could feel themselves equal to all other citizens. Nevertheless, the realities of English anti-Semitism should make us wonder … Berlin resembles the assimilating Jews he describes in "Jewish Slavery and Emancipation," who for survival's sake had "to make themselves familiar with the habits and modes of behaviour" of Gentile society, to "get this right" and "not miscalculate." … Berlin’s remark, so incongruous with his long and happy existence at the pinnacle of English society, that Marilyn Berger reports in her New York Times obituary for him. "... one has to behave particularly well ... [or] they won't like us." When.. "it was suggested to him that he was surely the exception ... he had an immediate response: 'Nevertheless, I'm not an Englishman, and if I behave badly...'" Jews are not allowed to behave badly, or hold illiberal or unpopular opinions. As Jews, they merit a special opprobrium and an extra intensity of scorn when they do. Berlin understood what was required. Wieseltier, too. The difference between their responses explains why the one is a genuinely great thinker while the other, tragically, is more of a sanctimonious rhinoceros. In other words, nothing he wrote here is of any use for Israel, as its society's different segments flex their muscles. Nothing at all. It only serves and can be understood as a fulmination meant for internal American consumption.

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 11:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Basman, if you're there, this is totally off-topic but I thought you'd be interested in an Etta James fact I heard on NPR: Apparently, the Rolling Stones paid for her rehab in the seventies.

- MOLLYSIMON

February 2, 2012 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Baked Chicken recipe: Ingredients 2 tablespoons olive oil 1 clove garlic, minced 1 cup dry bread crumbs 2/3 cup grated Parmesan cheese 1 teaspoon dried basil leaves 1/4 teaspoon ground black pepper 6 skinless, boneless chicken breast halves Directions Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Lightly grease a 9x13 inch baking dish. In a bowl, blend the olive oil and garlic. In a separate bowl, mix the bread crumbs, Parmesan cheese, basil, and pepper. Dip each chicken breast in the oil mixture, then in the bread crumb mixture. Arrange the coated chicken breasts in the prepared baking dish, and top with any remaining bread crumb mixture. Bake 30 minutes in the preheated oven, or until chicken is no longer pink and juices run clear.

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Leon Wieseltier is a product of his environment. A Jewish intellectual from a Jewish minority. His main audience is American, leftist/centrist, democrats. The way I see it, he is a member of a besieged minority whose lack of security in spite of great successes is almost palpable." This is a generic answer by those who can't face any criticism of Israel even by someone who has been and continues to be a supporter. The idea that American Jews (who have a lot of faults as a community) is a beleaguered community is pretty hysterical in the clinical sense of the term.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Trust arnon to dismiss any view he cannot abide as rooted in mental illness. Does it remind anybody of a once famous totalitarian system's way of dealing with different positions?

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 1:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'd like to jerk arnon's chain a bit further: http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/147247/ "But most of them can’t, because it’s the Israeli perspective itself that they find so threatening — that same Israeli challenge that for generations has been suggesting that having our own country is better for us spiritually, culturally, and physically, than not having one. Suddenly, people who usually champion Jewish self-criticism circle their wagons. Remember the outrage when the author A.B. Yehoshua likened Jewish identity in the diaspora to a jacket that can be taken off at will? Sorry, Jeffrey Goldberg, this has nothing to do with Netanyahu (as he implies in his headline), for assimilation of American Jewry troubles Israelis on the left just as much as those on the right. The hyper-sensitivity to criticism is unfortunate, because these ads inadvertently offer a real opportunity for discussion among American Jews, who should be desperate for new perspectives on their future, wherever they may come from. And so, as a public service, I toss out the following smoke bombs — a list of potentially offensive statements that could legitimately be seen as deducible from the American Jewish outrage, but whose central aim is to stoke a more fruitful debate: Many American Jews, who justify saying the most outrageous things about Israel on the grounds that “self-criticism” among Jews is good, cannot handle criticism of them coming from Israel — even if that criticism is implicit and made in Hebrew. Instead of asking whether there’s truth to the criticism, they reflexively guffaw at Israeli “ham-handedness” (love it!) and blame Netanyahu. Many American Jews, suddenly realizing that there exists another Jewish perspective that is judging them, cannot stand having their assimilation statistics revealed or discussed by others “in public,” as it were. Many American Jews have so little historical self-awareness, or cultural coherence, that they must express their outrage in places like the Atlantic and the Daily Beast, for fear that otherwise most Jews will not read them. What does that say about Jewish identity in America? Many American Jews cannot imagine that there’s something really special in Israeli identity, and that Israelis are right to try and protect it by discouraging this new form of intermarriage. The very idea sends a shiver down the American Jewish spine — but isn’t it based on the very same cultural protectiveness that causes American Jewish leaders to discourage the old kind of intermarriage, with non-Jews? Many American Jews cannot countenance the possibility that the time of their leadership of world Jewry is reaching its end, or that the main language of Jewish culture, of music and literature and poetry and film, has shifted from English to Hebrew, or that the richest experiences of Jewish life today are happening overseas. Faced with actual criticism from any non-American Jews, they blow a fuse at the thought of losing the leading role."

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I'm not arguing against gender separation on public transport as an issue in and of itself or because anyone here is for it. I was using it as an example of the church/state distinction as it was mentioned specifically in LW's piece, and I was comparing it to the controversy over Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis. The two cases seem comparable -- not identical, but comparable -- for pretty obvious reasons. So I can't see what I'm doing that's so objectionable.

- ironyroad

February 2, 2012 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A few impressions from reading the comments. Wieseltier's writing here should not br written off by a kind of vulgar post modern reductionism as is done in the first paragraph of 02/02/2012 - 11:27am EDT. His arguments and opinions should be judged on the merits regardless of how he is situated. The speculating about and assertion of why he writes what he does is simply another form of avoiding what he says on the merits. The argument against his position, which I didn't at first fully appreciate, is not a defence of the ultra religious as such but, rather, that the issues and challenges they present to Israel is nothing new and they become a pretext for bashing Israeli society as a whole. So, the argument continues, Wieseltier distorts his pretext, making it larger than it is, by taking some sensational examples and exaggeratiing their significance into an upward trend.  If mine is a correct reading of this line of argument then the issue is empirical, at least to some extent: is the influence of the religious and non religious ultra right on the discernible rise either as a numeric thing or as, despite the sheer numbers, a matter of vital influence. Here I think that Wieseltier's argument is two fold with the second fold not being sufficiently appreciated in the argument against him from both "it's an old story" and from irrelevant zealotry.  Ultimately someone will show a more exhaustive presented case for the rise Wiesletier inveighs against given his space constraints and form of his diarist entry pieces. But it my reading of his piece he does a good job with his examples of highlighting an evidently growing problem. And I have not seen a counter argument that makes the case otherwise rather than merely asserting it's nothing new or that the examples are exceptional outliers.  The second fold is that Israeli and Jewish liberals should always be for marking extremists, putting them in their place by lawful remedy, and arguing for and working for the predominance of liberal values including religious freedom and anti religious establishment, and for which values the wisdom, including jurisprudential wisdom, of other liberal societies can be instructive. As Wieseltier says: ...But the spirit of criticism must not desist. Like all liberal societies, Israeli society contains anti-liberal elements, and these anti-liberal elements, both religious and secular, have become increasingly prominent, and increasingly wanton, and increasingly sickening, recently... and as he tellingly says: ...The debate must be about the place of Judaism in Israel. No rabbis have the authority to settle that question. The secular space that defines a democratic polity exceeds their hoary reach. That is the blessed rupture that they will never undo. It cannot be argued or spat away... I repeat my comment that in writing this piece Wieseltier has done good work and I'll add that find this more clearly written and plain spoken (and without sanctimony) than is usual for him but with no sacrifice of his first rate intelligence and wisdom.

- basman

February 2, 2012 at 2:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Off topic. Molly, how can I not come back if you're around. Thanks for the info about the Stones paying for her seventies rehabilitation. I didn't know that. She was to my ears one of the great American popular singers of the last fifty years or longer. She owned the songs she sang by making them her own and she could sing in a variety of popular genres with commanding authority. She did a tribute album to Billie Holiday which was unerring in capturing Billie Holiday's incredibly rendered world weariness of her later years, strung out and falling apart. I said to someone else that I hope she finds the peace that eluded her in tormented life, for all her great vocal talent.

- basman

February 2, 2012 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "Trust arnon to dismiss any view he cannot abide as rooted in mental illness. Does it remind anybody of a once famous totalitarian system's way of dealing with different positions?" Noga, can'r argue facts so she results to posting insults and recipes.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 3:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Does it remind anybody of a once famous totalitarian system's way of dealing with different positions?" Does Noga have a "different position?" She assured us above that we all agreed on fundamentals. But being Noga its possible she was lying. Never take anything Noga says at face value. She says she one thing (that she disapproves of the Hardim then she truns around and protects them from criticism. She reminds one of the commie fellow travelers who did everything possible of shielding the Bolsheviks from criticism. The target is different but the tactics are the same. Noga accuses people who criticize those who spit on an eight year old girl of being totalitarians. That's rich. It's the Haredim, the people she is protecting and their allies in the Netanyahu government, who have a totalitarian mindset.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 3:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"So I can't see what I'm doing that's so objectionable." I need to requote myself yet again: "It's not really about segregated buses is it? It is about something else altogether. Discussing Israeli society in terms of segregated buses and young girls being spat on seems to bring some comfort to some people, especially some of the Jewish commenters. A debased society does not invoke compassion, does not merit support. Think about it." How long a discussion would it take to make a point about the controversy over Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis? Who is even interested? You know why there is so little interest, except maybe on Right-wing radio host programmes? Because no one thinks this minor phenomenon is any threat to American democracy. All this fuss about lawless charedi behaviour, which has been around for as long as I remember, is because it happens in Israel. I follow Abukhalil's "news service" and you find there a similar obsessive scrutiny of anything negative that happens in Israel as if it is another example of Zionist perfidy. He was also much "concerned' about women's status in Israel. When the same emphasis is to be found in Wieseltier's posts, I begin to wonder what is really going on. And when I see you treat the subject as if it were of some constitutive importance, (after all you have already repeated your argument three times at least), I wonder even further. Again, think about it.

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Noga, can'r argue facts so she results to posting insults and recipes." arnon hasn't got a clue. This comment seals the matter.

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, Wieseltier's point is that right-wing lawlessness, including that of the religious right, is tolerated in Israel be a right-wing government. What is so hard to understand? As for the insecurity of American Jews and our need to say only the "right" things, this really is hysterically funny. Who has been more critical of the American establishment over the past, oh, I don't know, 100 years or so, than the Jews? Maybe what we need is some Arab necks we can put our boots on so that we can feel secure, like Israeli Jews.

- roidubouloi

February 2, 2012 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"by a right-wing government"

- roidubouloi

February 2, 2012 at 5:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "I need to requote myself yet again:" Again? That's all you do. You talk only to like minded clones as all totalitarians do, repeating the party line.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Er . . . not exactly. We had an extensive discussion with several participants about the Minneapolis cab issue on the CR board, Noga, and it flowed into other topics, for example, Canadian law on religious courts for certain kinds of litigation and street brawls in Australia over Muslim immigrant objections to bikinis (or something similar). Not Rush Limbaugh -- rather, you, me, and lots of other nice people. Again, the parallels regarding claiming special rights in law seem obvious to me, and I doubt I'm alone in that.

- ironyroad

February 2, 2012 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I have been criticized for not being militant enough against Islam (because I've known in America Muslims who did not seem full of hate, with inaccurate and unfair charges that I then whitewash Islam). The issue seems to be more cogently discussed as fundamentalism vs. humane religiousity and human secularism. Everyone here is more informed than I about Israel and the Middle East, so in my ignorance I continue to think if it walks like a fundamentalist fanatic and talks like a fundamentalist fanatic, it's a fundamentalist fanatic, whether it's a Christian fundamentalist fanatic or a Muslim fundamentalist fanatic or a Jewish fundamentalist fanatic or an atheist fundamentalist fananatic. We need a solution. I suggest sending them to Antarctica as a "holding camp" until Newt become governor of the Moon and needs his first settlers and immigrants. He can then sort it all out.

- skahn

February 2, 2012 at 8:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

skahn "I have been criticized for not being militant enough against Islam..." Really, I thought you are criticized for being a dumb ass who thinks the earth revolves around you.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 8:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: Please. CR was 6 or 7 years ago. And you are avoiding my main point, which may have got lost among all the complaints. Here it is: "Because no one thinks this minor phenomenon is any threat to American democracy. All this fuss about lawless charedi behaviour, which has been around for as long as I remember, is because it happens in Israel. I follow Abukhalil's "news service" and you find there a similar obsessive scrutiny of anything negative that happens in Israel as if it is another example of Zionist perfidy. He was also much "concerned' about women's status in Israel. When the same emphasis is to be found in Wieseltier's posts, I begin to wonder what is really going on. And when I see you treat the subject as if it were of some constitutive importance, (after all you have already repeated your argument three times at least), I wonder even further."

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 9:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BTW, in Canada there is such a concept as "special accommodation" of minorities' more unusual requests from the public sphere. Some cases involved Outrement Chassidim. Others - Muslims. I don't recall any great concern on TNR about the health of Canadian democracy as a result of these accommodations (which I personally objected to, provided they were denied to all unusual requests not just those pertaining to the Chassidic community).

- noga1

February 2, 2012 at 9:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.tabletmag.com/news-and-politics/89769/herzliya-diary-3/ "Feb. 2, 2012: Stanley Fischer, the governor of Israel’s Central Bank, delivered a harsh message yesterday to Israel’s ultra-Orthodox and Arab citizens: Stop having so many children and get to work. OK, Israel’s banker-in-chief didn’t put it quite that way in his keynote speech on the second day of the Herzliya conference, Israel’s premier national-security gathering. Fischer instead called the skyrocketing growth of these two distinct minorities “unsustainable.” He expressed particular concern about the ultra-Orthodox, who don’t work or serve in the army but receive a disproportionate share of government benefits." I expect that the usual blind mice will call Stanley Fischer an antisemite, or self hating Jew.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 9:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "BTW, in Canada there is such a concept as "special accommodation" of minorities' more unusual requests from the public sphere. Some cases involved Outrement Chassidim. Others - Muslims. I don't recall any great concern on TNR about the health of Canadian democracy as a result of these accommodations (which I personally objected to, provided they were denied to all unusual requests not just those pertaining to the Chassidic community)." What a dumb comparison.

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So much for reasonable accommodation: "Quebec health board not obliged to accommodate minorities" "The Opposition called on the Quebec government to clamp down on so-called reasonable accommodation of minority groups after the province's human rights commission ruled that the health insurance board has no obligation to satisfy religious or cultural preferences." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/16/reasonable-accommodation-ramq-health-board.html "Canadians want limits on accommodating minorities - SES Research/Policy Options Survey" http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/topics/show/49

- arnon

February 2, 2012 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon, why must you be so fact-based?

- MOLLYSIMON

February 3, 2012 at 1:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"And you are avoiding my main point, which may have got lost among all the complaints." I'm not avoiding your main point, Noga, I'm ignoring it because it doesn't apply to me. I don't gaze at events in Israel with "obsessive scrutiny" looking for "Zionist perfidy" (indeed I regard myself as sympathetic to Zionism). I'm simply noting a parallel between the things LW describes and an example drawn from recent American history in order to make a point about religious vs. civil rights -- which, it seems to me, is the larger framework of the discussion.

- ironyroad

February 3, 2012 at 3:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A recent essay in Commentary chimes in with Wieseltier's concerns over the religious nuts: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-ultra-orthodox-on-the-warpath/ and which goes some distance to make the case for the seriousness of the problem the nuts pose, as Wieseltier says, and therefore counter argues the case that they are exceptional and outliers.

- basman

February 3, 2012 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

At last, even Commentary has come to its senses with regard to Hitchens: "Such excess (of praise) obscures the most obvious conclusion we can draw from Hitchens’s politics, which is that he was a crank. In the early 1980s he was convinced that the Reagan administration had colluded in the Soviet Union’s downing of the airliner KAL 007. A few years later he was a vigorous promoter of the “Secret Team” theory that fit the Iran-contra scandal into a world-girding conspiracy of international bankers and private militias. A handful of memorialists dismissed his hatred of Bill Clinton as a lapse in judgment, but maybe you had to be there to see how unhinged it was: He really did believe that Clinton had been an accessory to the murder of a pair of hillbillies back in Arkansas. And the Queen, that “whore,” was almost as evil as the Albanian dwarf." http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/why-they-wept-for-hitchens/ "After his death, I puzzled over the universal praise and its intensity. I thought of his charm, his learning, the preternatural fluency of his writing. But surely mere talent and amiability weren’t enough to indemnify him so thoroughly among the journalistic class that memorialized him so excessively. No, that required fame, the ultimate inoculation." As Saul Bellow would have said, he was famous for becoming famous.

- arnon

February 3, 2012 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/02/iraqs-occupier.html "Dr Sabah Salih, Professor of English at Bloomsburg University, Pennsylvania, writes an appreciation of the late Christopher Hitchens: On December 15, the world lost its most effective anti-totalitarian voice. But the loss was especially hard on Kurdistan. No writer offered a more robust and intellectually convincing argument for ending the occupation and abuse of Iraq by Saddam than Hitchens. Salih evidently sees another reality than that which blocked the vision of so many opponents of the Iraq war. (Via." There is no equal to Hitchens today. None who can match his linguistic brilliance, his sturdy ethics, his unflinching honesty, his capacity for deep and enduring friendships. http://www.tabletmag.com/arts-and-culture/books/86541/the-tenth-man-2/ " ... he was the English-speaking world’s most prominent left-wing journalist and intellectual; then came 9/11, which inspired a strange conversion—all of a sudden Hitchens was chastising his former ally Noam Chomsky, unceasingly polemicizing against the outrages of Islamic fundamentalism or, as he frequently preferred, “Islamofascism,” and tacitly endorsing the re-election of George W. Bush (only four years after he supported Ralph Nader!). By 2006, when he received the New Yorker treatment, his profile’s subtitle articulated the confusion felt by the political class: “How a former socialist,” it promised, “became the Iraq war’s fiercest defender.” It’s a classic story of a radical’s life, with a bizarre and unexpected epilogue that took up his final decade."

- noga1

February 3, 2012 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga as usually post some irrelevant links. I posted the Commentary piece because that magazine published some very pro Hitchens articles when he died. I therefore came as a surprise that they published a piece so critical about him.

- arnon

February 3, 2012 at 8:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Inserting an article about Hitchens into this thread is about as relevant as talking about a jazz singer who died, or a recipe for baked chicken.

- noga1

February 3, 2012 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And more relevant than posting recipes.

- arnon

February 3, 2012 at 9:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

- noga1

February 3, 2012 at 10:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "You are not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?" You are not even a mediocre judge of excellent cutlery.

- arnon

February 3, 2012 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It appears that Wieseltier's article wasn't tough enough: "Rabbi Lior compares Obama to villain Haman" "Meretz MK calls for investigation against rabbi who called US president a "Kushi"; Lior brands Europeans as "Nazi collaborators."" http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=256358

- arnon

February 3, 2012 at 10:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga1, felicitous observation.

- basman

February 3, 2012 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S. The late great E.J. wasn't a jazz singer to be sure but she did have more soul and substance in her left ear lobe than some here have in their entire chicken baking bodies.

- basman

February 3, 2012 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"In an Israeli Court verdict that dealt with a bus driver calling a security guard in a university "Cushi", Judge Yitzhak Milnov wrote the following words: "The term "Cushi" is considered, by the Israeli society as a whole, to be a Pejorative term and an insult, usually meant to defame a person for his dark-skinned color, and to mark him as an "exceptional", and as an inferior person to a lighter-skinned individual. It is a racist slur, meant to humiliate and degrade the receiver, solely because he belongs to the Falasha ethnic group. This accordingly falls into the fourth alternative category of the definition of "Defamation" in provision 1 of the law (an expression meant to "defame a person for his race, descent, religion, residence or sexual orientation")." (wiki)

- noga1

February 3, 2012 at 11:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For anyone interested http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/feb/23/new-world-william-carlos-williams/

- basman

February 4, 2012 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "In an Israeli Court verdict that dealt with a bus driver calling a security guard in a university "Cushi", Judge Yitzhak Milnov wrote the following words…” I am looking forward to Kiryat Arba's Chief Rabbi Dov Lior also being condemned by a judge.

- arnon

February 4, 2012 at 1:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is well known that Israel justice system is corrupt, politicized and far to the right.

- noga1

February 4, 2012 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Furthermore, the American president who rules the seven seas must be very humiliated and hurt by what some rabbi in a two-bit Israeli townlet says about him. http://moderntribalist.blogspot.com/2006/08/palestinian-cartoon-shows-condoleezza.html In a functioning democracy, what should be the punishment for such a speech? Perhaps we can get some enlightenment from a precedent case: "We encourage development of a free press, but along with those freedoms come certain responsibilities," said department spokesman Sean McCormack. "Secretary Rice is focused on doing her job. She knows that the United States is doing the right thing." Mr. McCormack also said that Miss Rice "has a great working relationship with President Abbas" and "a great deal of personal respect for him." The Palestinian Authority official daily, Al Hayat Al Jadida, published articles last week that called Miss Rice "the Black Lady" and "raven," according to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli group. "Beware of this black spinster," the newspaper said. "We don't want to say 'the black widow' out of respect for her femininity and intelligence." The cartoon of a pregnant Miss Rice appeared in Al Quds, another Fatah-controlled newspaper regarded as moderate by Washington. Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell gave the publication two interviews during his tenure, in 2002 and 2003." I expect Obama's spokesperson to declare that Obama has a great working relationship with Netanyahu and a great deal of personal respect for him.

- noga1

February 4, 2012 at 5:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "It is well known that Israel justice system is corrupt, politicized and far to the right." Typical, right wing response: exaggerate and ridicule but don't deal with the issue.

- arnon

February 4, 2012 at 9:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh arnon, you disagree? I thought that's what you meant when you castigated Israel's judicial system. Or were you thinking that free speech is free speech, even when you don't like what is said? I'm terribly confused now. Do tell us what you think should be done to the rabbi from Kiriat Arba who called Obama a "Kushi". Is there a tree tall enough to hang him from, in your frenzied mind? How about quartering and drawing? Would that do?

- noga1

February 4, 2012 at 9:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga is out of her mind. She really believes her inventions.

- arnon

February 4, 2012 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yawn.

- noga1

February 4, 2012 at 11:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The nut, yawns!

- arnon

February 4, 2012 at 11:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"The Palestinian Authority official daily, Al Hayat Al Jadida, published articles last week that called Miss Rice 'the Black Lady' and 'raven,' according to a translation by Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli group." Isn't "raven" a word that is/was used in Arabic to denote black Africans from the south? Although it has some negative connotations, I seem to remember reading that there was at one time a small group of poets in Arabic who were ethnically sub-Saharan African and took on the name "ravens" as a badge of pride.

- ironyroad

February 5, 2012 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, if you are looking to mitigate for the Palestinians then let me just say that "kushi" is not necessarily a pejorative term, it depends on context and intention. It is just the biblical word for an Ethiopian, and by extension, a dark skinned person. Kushim is how we called African Americans when they were called Negroes in America. By then there was some taint attached to the word so that when I was in elementary school we were told by the teachers that we should not call black people "Kushim" as it was inaccurate, but Africans. There were many Africans in our country then (from Kenya, Uganda, Tanganica) , come to study our agricultural ways. We were taught to sing African liberation songs one of which I can sing even now. This exchange does not work all the time and for all cases. In summer when I was deeply tanned people said I was "kushit" but it was not meant as a derogatory term or a compliment but rather as a statement of fact.

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 8:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 “ "kushi" is not necessarily a pejorative term, it depends on context and intention.” It’s up to the person being referred to as “Kushi” to decide if it’s pejorative or not. It’s not up to an expatriate Israeli with a guilty conscious living in Canada to decide. There is no context in which President Obama is referred to as a “Kushi” that it’s not pejorative. Obama’s father wasn’t from the land of “Kush” nor was Obama born there. The good Rabbi meant it as an insult there is no getting around that.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 12:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"... with a guilty conscious living in Canada to decide. " What's a "a guilty conscious"?

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 1:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would also propose to you that no one who has a clue about Hebrew can afford to take offense at a Hebrew word. Aren't suggesting we get rid, delete, excise the word "kushi" from the Hebrew dictionary just because some people use it pejoratively? You seem to have real trouble understanding what I write, arnon. There is very rarely any correspondence between what I say and what you re-create in your responses. It is a typical feature of the hysterics and deep insecurity I was speaking of earlier, with regard to some (many) American Jews. So eager you are to prove to whoever it is you need to prove yourself to that you are oh-so-tough on what you think are Israeli transgressions vis a vis Obama. I see a real psychological problem here. And not much faith in democracy, obviously. Do you realize that you have absolutely nothing useful or illuminating to say?

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 1:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You seem to have real trouble understanding what I write, arnon." You seem to have trouble understanding what you read, Noga. \You are one of the most transparent posters here.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You are one of the most transparent posters here." I should hope so. Why wouldn't I be transparent? I don't lie and I don't try to adjust my opinions to what seems to be the popular need. I try to express my understanding and knowledge of the facts as best I can. That types like you and a few others cannot understand this is your problem, and your ethical flaw. So, what's "a guilty conscious", arnon? Care to explain? Did you use the wrong word, maybe? And what's "guilt' doing in this conversation about what the rabbi of Kiriat Arba said about Obama? How am I guilty, or supposed to feel guilty about it? Or did you mean that the way you were taught, any Israeli living outside Israel should be encouraged to go back where they came from, by any means possible? Is that it?

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come on, Noga, you have built this fantastic universe where any Jew who is even mildly critical of some aspect of Israeli politic is either a "self-hating Jew," an antisemite, or a Jew living in an hostile environment trying to fit in. You then spend more than a hundred hours trying to prove that he is either misinformed, wrong, or too stupid to know (Noga) reality from fiction. If it turns out that Noga reality is the same as fiction you will spend another hundred posts proving that "reality" is not real. I exaggerate but only slightly. This is the result of the expatriate Noga living feeling guilty because she isn't living in her homeland because she is afraid of getting killed. (Incinerated is the word she used.) OK, this should be the occasion of another hundred posts by Noga. Let the torrent of posts begin.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Come on, Noga, you have built this fantastic universe where any Jew who is even mildly critical of some aspect of Israeli politic is either a "self-hating Jew," an antisemite, or a Jew living in an hostile environment trying to fit in." Such a robust statement should be very easy and simple to prove and support. I expect you to be able to show that what you are asserting is true, by quoting directly and accurately from my many comments. They are all here, all over the place. So let's see you make a case for your observation. And let's not talk about hundreds of posts, shall we? You know what they say about people who live in glass houses. ("Let the torrent of posts begin." On this page thus far there are 11 comments by arnon and 11 comments by noga. Perhaps arnon has a definition for "comment" that applies to mine and different definition that applies to his.) And btw, I still don't see what you you meant by ""a guilty conscious" or what guilt has to do with anything discussed in this thread. I still expect a clarification.

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep 'em coming, Noga.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 3:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I take it you are not going to support your accusations and robust statements. Not surprised. The braggadocio is always the last resort of the impostor and liar.

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 3:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga1 "I take it you are not going to support your accusations and robust statements. Not surprised. The braggadocio is always the last resort of the impostor and liar." I have accused you of being a deluded nut. Do you expect me to try and prove to a nut that she is a nut? For anyone, reread the comments by Noga on this thread and focus on the way she handles any opposing comment, if you want prove.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Noga, keep you belligerent posts coming.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 4:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No. Here is what you accused me of: "Come on, Noga, you have built this fantastic universe where any Jew who is even mildly critical of some aspect of Israeli politic is either a "self-hating Jew," an antisemite, or a Jew living in an hostile environment trying to fit in." It is up to you now to prove that I accuse "any Jew who is even mildly critical of some aspect of Israeli politic is either a "self-hating Jew," an antisemitic, " Here is how you do it: First, find a comment made by a Jewish poster which is "mildly critical of some aspect of Israeli politic" Then find my response to that comment where the term "self-hating Jew," or "an antisemitic, " makes an appearance. And your case is made.

- noga1

February 5, 2012 at 5:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Go screw, nut case.

- arnon

February 5, 2012 at 7:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close