Can Israel be a Jewish state and a Democracy? -Your take

[Micah]

As I think about Israel's past, and it's future, I can't help but think that democracy just isn't what Israel needs.

From a practical standpoint, some of the policies taken by Israel, however correct I believe they are, aren't democratic. I would like to emphasize that I don't believe such things as expelling terrorists families or policies with leasing propertie to Arabs ect. are wrong. The idea of a Jewish state is very correct indeed, but the steps Israel takes to keep a Jewish majority aren't in my opinion, democratic.

My personal opinion on it is to go back to the beginning of how Israel was when it was first born when Joshua defeated the Canannites. That is, a Monarcy/Theocracy. But, for the time being that really isn't a possibility while Israel is so secular.

So what is your take on this?

[sharonbn]

Micah,

I think your diagnostics are correct. But the solution is way way too extreme.

The government system in Israel is flawed. It requires the PM to maintain his coaltion by contant negotiations with demands of coalition members. The demands never stop, the negotiations go on for the duration of the term and consume way too much of the PM's time and energy.

To solve this problem, the election system was changed but the election system is not the problem. The problem lies in two flaws of the Israeli government and political system:
1. The government members are members of political parties
2. The knesset has the power to disperse the government, remove the PM and call for elections.
The two conditions are the cause why Israeli governments never finish their 4 year terms.
AFAIK, these conditions do not exist in the US political system. The members of the government are personally chosen by the president and the Senate and Congress do not have the power to remove the president. The president can only be removed if found guilty of criminal act.

What we need in Israel is a "presidential" government system, similar to that of the USA and France.
The Israeli PM is elected seperately from the Knesset. He personally chooses his cabinet members without regard to the political map in the Knesset and the knesset cannot disperse the government and call for lections.
These amendments will give the Israeli PM the peace of mind that he has 4 years to implement his vision/plan and will free his resources from political pressure from the many pressure groups.
The responsibility of the knesset is limited to passing rules.

[Mediocrates]

Somewhere around here I raised the issue of constitutions. Clearly a Parliamentary system is becoming a handicap for Israel and there is a need to create an executive branch that does not derive its power from the majority party. Just as clearly though it is vitally important to maintainn parties for that is what legitimizes political dissent and discussion.

[Philip]

Can Israel be a Jewish state AND a democracy? Sure -- it will just have to expel every so often chunks of its population that does not accept it being a Jewish state, just as it did in the beginning. As long as the the majority can be maintained in this way, there is no contradiction between fascism and democracy.

[Micah]

As I said, the solution I proposed is unrealistic at this time.

And I don't see how your solution could be any good. So you assume that when the PM is't in danger of losing his position he won't give into "blackmail?" What happens when a PM like Sharon doesn't have the problem of the labor party threatening to kick him out?

[Vic]

Originally posted by Micah
My personal opinion on it is to go back to the beginning of how Israel was when it was first born when Joshua defeated the Canannites. That is, a Monarcy/Theocracy. But, for the time being that really isn't a possibility while Israel is so secular.

So what is your take on this? Do you have a candidate for the position of the founder of the royal dynasty?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Micah
And I don't see how your solution could be any good. So you assume that when the PM is't in danger of losing his position he won't give into "blackmail?" What happens when a PM like Sharon doesn't have the problem of the labor party threatening to kick him out?

The labour party is not the only problem of Sharon. He has to negotiate between the ministry of treasury and ministry of education, between the ministry of treasury and the national bank, between the the ministry of treasury and religious parties ............... its a wonder he finds time to do ANYTHING else besides domestic politics.

Regardless of what you or I may think of Sharon, he was elected by the Israeli people and should be given at least the chance to realize his vision/plan to end the terror attacks. For that to happen he needs space to operate.

By the way, I believe if Barak was given the same opportunity, may be he would approach Camp David summit in a different manner and maybe the outcaome would be different.

Same can be said for Netanyahu, for Rabin, for Peres ......... they all had to accmodate for domestic politics when realizing their diplopmatic vision.

[danholo]

From a religious point of view, Israel should be a Jewish state, whose laws go by the Torah. Israel is not a state with Jewish laws.
If it were though and the law would be taken by the word the country would be better then many out there.
The goal of the Jewish law is to make a perfect country/nation.
Jewish law is great since, welfare is important, judicial system is almost flawless etc. Even foreigners are accounted for and they must be treated as equals. Though if the foreigner can not act according to a humane moral code (i.e Noahide laws) he is to be banished.
A group of suicide bomber families would not be allowed in Israel fot instance.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by danholo
From a religious point of view, Israel should be a Jewish state, whose laws go by the Torah. Israel is not a state with Jewish laws.
If it were though and the law would be taken by the word the country would be better then many out there.
The goal of the Jewish law is to make a perfect country/nation.
Jewish law is great since, welfare is important, judicial system is almost flawless etc. Even foreigners are accounted for and they must be treated as equals. Though if the foreigner can not act according to a humane moral code (i.e Noahide laws) he is to be banished.
A group of suicide bomber families would not be allowed in Israel fot instance.

A pretty view.
Unfortunately, this is both untrue and unrealistic:
The religious political parties are the hardest pressure group in Israeli politics, taking care of their own with total disregard to secular Jews or other groups.
Making Israel an ultra-religious country will make it similar to Iran, with zero tolerance towards other belifs and other life styles (e.g. homosexualism, abortions, single parenthood, etc.)
and last but not least, imagine if all of the Israelis were orthodox religious - who will be left to serve in the military and defend Israel?

[danholo]

Originally posted by sharonbn


A pretty view.
Unfortunately, this is both untrue and unrealistic:
The religious political parties are the hardest pressure group in Israeli politics, taking care of their own with total disregard to secular Jews or other groups.

It doesn't mean that a Jewish country should act accordingly.


Making Israel an ultra-religious country will make it similar to Iran, with zero tolerance towards other belifs and other life styles (e.g. homosexualism, abortions, single parenthood, etc.)

About the life styles you are correct.
Though the Torah says to respect outsiders as you would yourself. Muslims should be wholeheartedly be welcome in Israel. I guess Haredim just have a stereotype of Arabs:
Arabs sacrifice their children and want to destroy the Jews.


and last but not least, imagine if all of the Israelis were orthodox religious - who will be left to serve in the military and defend Israel?

You telling me that ancient Israel didn't have a military?
In Torah, defence of land is very important. You don't have to be secular to defend your country.
Too bad many Haredim do not join the army. I think military service should be mandatory for them also.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by danholo
It doesn't mean that a Jewish country should act accordingly.[/B]

Yes it does. for two reasons:
1. In ancient times, all Jews were religious. However, for the last 150 year this was not the case. Today, the VAST majority of Jews are secular. Orthodox religious are 15%. Moreover, it is the secular Zionist movement who made independant Israel possible. Many orthodox Jews still oppose the state and its laws.
It would be a historical injustice to make the Zionist creation, the state of Israel, an ultra-religious state.
2. If the representatives of the Jewish religion are the orthodox political parties, than the Jewish faith is indeed primitive and narrow minded. The orthodox political parties are a bunch of greedy, stupid, selfish, criminal gangsters. The secular parties do a MUCH better job of portraing all that's beatiful and wise in the Jewish people.

Originally posted by danholo
About the life styles you are correct.
Though the Torah says to respect outsiders as you would yourself. Muslims should be wholeheartedly be welcome in Israel. I guess Haredim just have a stereotype of Arabs:
Arabs sacrifice their children and want to destroy the Jews. [/B]

I didn't even speak about Arabs. I spoke of Jews who choose to live an alternative life styles. If Israel will become ultra-religious, it will have draconian laws forbidding homosexualism, erotic art, abortions, single parenthood and probably women vote.

Originally posted by danholo
You telling me that ancient Israel didn't have a military?
In Torah, defence of land is very important. You don't have to be secular to defend your country.
Too bad many Haredim do not join the army. I think military service should be mandatory for them also. [/B]

I'm telling you that the orthodox Jews are the parasites of the Israeli society. What happened 2000 years ago bares zero relevance to these people. I'm not only talking about military service. These people do not work, do not pay taxes, do not mix in the cultural and economic fabric of the Israeli society. They wish to distance themselves from everything that even smells as productive community life. They live in self created ghettos. They do, however, receive money from the state, courtesy of their greedy political representatives.

[Vic]

Is one of the problems of the Israeli governmental system a low entrance threshold for participation in the Knesset? It is, if I am not mistaken, 1.5% of total votes. Parliaments of European countries mostly require around 5% for a single party (in theory or in praxis: some have a kind of "winner takes all" system, i.e. the candidates who recieve the most votes for their districts become parliamentarians - with no corrections for the overall votes for their parties). The results are typically parliaments with 2 to 6 parties represented in them. Governments often require merely parliamentary majorities for appointments, important executive decisions, etc. It varies greatly from country to country of course.

It doesn't seem a good idea for a government to act without stringent parliamentary supervision. In fact, it can be one of the most efficient weapons of democratic control. We tend to complain about its weakness, especially where the EU administration is concerned :rolleyes:

From my POV, such a systemOriginally posted by sharonbn
The Israeli PM is elected seperately from the Knesset. He personally chooses his cabinet members without regard to the political map in the Knesset and the knesset cannot disperse the government and call for lections.
These amendments will give the Israeli PM the peace of mind that he has 4 years to implement his vision/plan and will free his resources from political pressure from the many pressure groups.
The responsibility of the knesset is limited to passing rules.can lead to serious mismanagement and corruption of the executive all too easily. The ideal case is IMO between these extremes: government members who are first and foremost government members and not high-ranking party officials, who actually cooperate and do not trespass on each other's territory, their major decisions controlled by a competent and - for the average citizen - transparent parliamentary system.

What would the Israeli political landscape look like if only parties with, say, 5% of the votes would be permitted into the Knesset?

As for,Originally posted by sharonbn
1. The government members are members of political parties
2. The knesset has the power to disperse the government, remove the PM and call for elections.It is the same in many European countries. Re. 2.: Although parliaments do bring governments down from time to time, it doesn't seem much of an overall problem. The most prominent country with a chronically unstable government is Italy. Most of the others seem to function.

Is the problem I have written about here (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=1205) somehow related to the overall governmental system? I cannot seriously imagine any European Foreign Minister giving such interviews to the foreign media without losing his job.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Vic
Is one of the problems of the Israeli governmental system a low entrance threshold for participation in the Knesset? It is, if I am not mistaken, 1.5% of total votes. Parliaments of European countries mostly require around 5% for a single party (in theory or in praxis: some have a kind of "winner takes all" system, i.e. the candidates who recieve the most votes for their districts become parliamentarians - with no corrections for the overall votes for their parties). The results are typically parliaments with 2 to 6 parties represented in them. Governments often require merely parliamentary majorities for appointments, important executive decisions, etc. It varies greatly from country to country of course.

Yes, one of the problems that cuases the Israeli parliament to house over 15 parties is the low entrance threshold. The current threshold allows for parties to have as low as 2 seats. It should be made somewhere in the vicinity of 5%, making minimum size of ~7 seats.

Regarding winner takes all (as in the US), I don't know. Currently, Israeli elections are general (i.e. state encompassing). Although the internal election of the labour party, for instance, are a mix of district and state.

Originally posted by Vic
It doesn't seem a good idea for a government to act without stringent parliamentary supervision. In fact, it can be one of the most efficient weapons of democratic control. We tend to complain about its weakness, especially where the EU administration is concerned

It works fine for the US..... maybe we should try it here. If it doesn't work, we can always go back or try another system. What I do know is that the current system is seriously flawed to the point of crippling the PM from acting decisively.
About mismanagement: maybe. I don't have the experience. But again, the current system leads to "institutionalized corruption" where the PM is subject to blackmail from his coalition members.

[danholo]

Originally posted by sharonbn


Yes it does. for two reasons:
1. In ancient times, all Jews were religious. However, for the last 150 year this was not the case. Today, the VAST majority of Jews are secular. Orthodox religious are 15%. Moreover, it is the secular Zionist movement who made independant Israel possible. Many orthodox Jews still oppose the state and its laws.
It would be a historical injustice to make the Zionist creation, the state of Israel, an ultra-religious state.

Here you are correct. My belief though is that G-d has used the secular to make the new Jewish state. In the end even seculars will be more involved in the Torah, but not in the extreme way.
For instance extreme Jewish laws shouldn't be taken that literally.

I have nothing against homosexuals. The Torah forbids men to have sex with other men. It does not and can not forbid a person to be homosexual. But homosexuality and sex between two homosexual males is somehow entwined and I see it impossible and stupid to put a man to death if he has homosexual relations.

I say, if Israel was a religious state, homosexuals could act as they please. This is not possible though according to ultra-orthodox.
Not all orthodox people are ultra-orthodox though, but I don't think they accept gays.

2. If the representatives of the Jewish religion are the orthodox political parties, than the Jewish faith is indeed primitive and narrow minded. The orthodox political parties are a bunch of greedy, stupid, selfish, criminal gangsters. The secular parties do a MUCH better job of portraing all that's beatiful and wise in the Jewish people.

I don't know much about the ultra-orthdox vs. secular situation in Israel, but I think it's one of the biggest problems in Israel and overall Jewish society.
It is true that many ultra-orthodox are like what you described. Thing is, are they really "good Jews" at all? They have gone a little over the top, IMO. I'd like to be religious and I hope I can one day, but everything has it's limits, no?


I didn't even speak about Arabs. I spoke of Jews who choose to live an alternative life styles. If Israel will become ultra-religious, it will have draconian laws forbidding homosexualism, erotic art, abortions, single parenthood and probably women vote.


Somehow, when I think of Judaism, it doesn't sound this extreme.
I'd make a state with Jewish and secular law in perfect harmony.
I'm in no position to do so though. :)
If I could, I'd probably be stoned to death by some extremists.

I'm telling you that the orthodox Jews are the parasites of the Israeli society. What happened 2000 years ago bares zero relevance to these people. I'm not only talking about military service. These people do not work, do not pay taxes, do not mix in the cultural and economic fabric of the Israeli society. They wish to distance themselves from everything that even smells as productive community life. They live in self created ghettos. They do, however, receive money from the state, courtesy of their greedy political representatives.

All the orthodox and haredim I know in Israel are nice people and they don't fit into your category.
What you mentioned though is a problem. Haredim think they are in some kind of special position while they actually are not.
Why are the government officials in Israel afraid to stand up to the haredim and demand more responsibility from them towards the state? Even if most of them don't accept the present State of Israel, they should do something to help or to be productive.
Thing is, that they don't study anything else but Torah.
But in Torah it is almost a command to do work and then if you are rich SOB and can help the community without much work, then you can focus more on the Torah.
Somehow the balance should be revived.

[Vic]

A question to the American posters,Originally posted by sharonbn
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Vic
It doesn't seem a good idea for a government to act without stringent parliamentary supervision. In fact, it can be one of the most efficient weapons of democratic control. We tend to complain about its weakness, especially where the EU administration is concerned

----------------------------------------------------------------

It works fine for the US..... maybe we should try it here.How much control does the parliamentary system in the US really exercise over the government?

----------------------------------------------------------------

If it doesn't work, we can always go back or try another system. No, you won't be able to go back, this will be the problem. Once the head of the state is offered near-dictatorial power, he won't relinquish it easily. There is a similar development in Italy under way, after decades of political instability comparable in some respects to that in Israel, with Berlusconi trying to accumulate all the political power he can grab. It is very alarming, really, since once the parliament loses power, it would probably take a full-fledged civil war to get it back. What I do know is that the current system is seriously flawed to the point of crippling the PM from acting decisively.
About mismanagement: maybe. I don't have the experience. But again, the current system leads to "institutionalized corruption" where the PM is subject to blackmail from his coalition members. Is it possible to optimize the parliamentary system without bringing down the whole country?

[Micah]

Originally posted by sharonbn
Yes it does. for two reasons:
1. In ancient times, all Jews were religious. However, for the last 150 year this was not the case.

Israel lasted over 400 years as a religious state. It fell because it was becoming more secular.


Today, the VAST majority of Jews are secular. Orthodox religious are 15%. Moreover, it is the secular Zionist movement who made independant Israel possible. Many orthodox Jews still oppose the state and its laws.
It would be a historical injustice to make the Zionist creation, the state of Israel, an ultra-religious state.

I guess if you don't want to follow the laws it would be an injustice. The reason why alot of Orthodox Jews don't move to Israel is because there isn't any point right now. There is no difference between it and America or England. They oppose it because it is secular.


2. If the representatives of the Jewish religion are the orthodox political parties, than the Jewish faith is indeed primitive and narrow minded. The orthodox political parties are a bunch of greedy, stupid, selfish, criminal gangsters. The secular parties do a MUCH better job of portraing all that's beatiful and wise in the Jewish people.

If you see the Orthodox as doing everything for their own personal gain then you have a shallow view of them. Do you think they do everything for themselves and don't care about all Jews?

The description that you gave sounds almost like what I would hear from an antisemetic site. Maybe it is because it is so easy to take everything they do at face value and not think "out of the box?"

And the last part is subjective.


I didn't even speak about Arabs. I spoke of Jews who choose to live an alternative life styles. If Israel will become ultra-religious, it will have draconian laws forbidding homosexualism, erotic art, abortions, single parenthood and probably women vote.

That would be the case. And what would there be to vote about if it was a Monarcy/Theistic government? :p.


I'm telling you that the orthodox Jews are the parasites of the Israeli society. What happened 2000 years ago bares zero relevance to these people. I'm not only talking about military service. These people do not work, do not pay taxes, do not mix in the cultural and economic fabric of the Israeli society. They wish to distance themselves from everything that even smells as productive community life. They live in self created ghettos. They do, however, receive money from the state, courtesy of their greedy political representatives.

I guess you aren't aware of some of the relationship the tribes had with eachother. There are two tribes (I can't remember the names right now) that had a special relationship. One worked for and funded the other tribe so it could study Torah all the time. When most of the Jews in Israel are secular and help to make Israel great, why should the Orthodox when they can be given the ability to study all day?

However, I am opposed to the "ultra" part of the ultra Orthodox. They are very legalistic in many different ways.

But, to get back on track, how can Israel be a JEWISH state and be a democracy with some of the policies it takes?

[Mediocrates]

I think sharonb your view of a 'Jewish' Israel is distorted to some extent. The alternative to a haredi state is still Jewish, unlike anywhere else on earth where the alternative to living in a Jewish community is to live as the lone Jew among Christians. Quite a bit different would you say?

I am not Israeli, clearly but I would say that if 5 or 10%% of the population can make the other 90-95% so unhappy then the secular Jews haven't been activist enough in pressing their agendas. Here where I live in the US there are some very backwards laws having to do with marriage, family law and other things like that. It is precisely because 95% of the people who live here are Christians, most of them Baptists and all of them very conservative, some might say fundamentalist (but they would be wrong on that, still they are very 'hardshell' if you know what the term means). So me agitating for a change in these laws is an interesting position to have but it is ultimately useless.

I would think that if enough people staked out some simple directives one at a time they would have more success than trying to root out the influence of all Black Hats from the government and the general operation of the country. That's just banging your head on a wall.

[NewsGuy]

Yes, of course Israel can be a democratic Jewish state, as it has been since its creation.

Why would there be a question about whether it's possible, when it exists currently?

I think that some people are confusing the concept of theocracy with the concept of a state having a Jewish character.

[Micah]

Israel is democratic, but it does many undemocratic things. This is what I am saying.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Micah
Israel is democratic, but it does many undemocratic things. This is what I am saying.

Which "undemocratic things" in particular? Has the election in Israel been undemocratic?

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Vic
No, you won't be able to go back, this will be the problem. Once the head of the state is offered near-dictatorial power, he won't relinquish it easily.

I think you missed the point I was making.
I didn't propose to give the PM desposit power. The PM will have the same responsibilities and authority as he has today. The only difference is that elections will be held exactely every four years, not every two or two and a half years.
I don't seem to recollect ever a US election being moved to an earlier date. Even when Nixon was diposed that was not a good enough reason to forward the elections.
This breathing space is a blessed thing because it allows the leader to prepare long term plans and take unpopular actions without the sword of elections hanging over his head.

[Mediocrates]

I agree that Parliamentary unicameral systems have problems including all of the ones you point out. I wonder how a country could extricate themselves from those problems? For example the French system is neither US-like nor is it strictly Parliamentary - if someone who knows can explain it in detail perhaps it would help for comparisons' sake. Does the German system have any such hybridization as well?

My point is that the US Federal system might have some difficulty making the transition to a country with a long history of several powerful parties and from what I can see no analogous 'states' with which to contend and clash with as we do.

Of course what they all share in common is that the transfer of power does not require tanks in the streets as it does in so many other places that hold 'elections'.

[Micah]

One thing that comes to mind is the policy of having a Jewish majority in Israel. Taking steps to keep Arabs from becoming a majority in (as I see it) not democratic. Maybe I don't understand enough about it?

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Micah
One thing that comes to mind is the policy of having a Jewish majority in Israel. Taking steps to keep Arabs from becoming a majority in (as I see it) not democratic. Maybe I don't understand enough about it?

So far, Israel has, unfortunately, not taken any steps to prevent its Arab enemies from becoming a majority in the Jewish homeland.

On the contrary: The sad truth is that the Arabs living in Israel receive financial, medical and housing aid to help raise their children. This is true even though the Arabs have a much higher number of children per family than do Israelis, and even though the Arabs do not contribute equally to Israel.

In a sense, Israel is paying to raise the next generation of its enemies.

While I agree that it will soon become a big issue as to how Israel will retain a Jewish majority, as of now, no action has been taken to prevent such a calamity.

And while I am on this topic, I'd also point out again that under international law, Israel is to be a Jewish state. Specifically Jewish as expressly included in UN resolution 181. So, the notion that Israel having a Jewish majority and operating as a Jewish state is somehow undemocratic, is absolutely untrue.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Micah
Israel lasted over 400 years as a religious state. It fell because it was becoming more secular.

That's not how I see it.
Rehavam, the son of Salomon, succeeded his father in ca. 930 BC, and he is 41 y.o. Without losing much time, the new king committed the foolish act that caused the division of the Jewish people and the loss of the ten tribes, who became the kingdom of Israel.
The people were aching under the burden of forced labor and heavy taxes, imposed on them by king Salomon, and already attempted mutiny while under his rule, led by the fierce general Yerovam. The mutiny failed and Yerovam fled to Egypt.

Upon his crowning, Rehavam received the loyalty of the two southern tribes: Judea and Benjamin. He was very much aware of the great unrest among the other tribes, and so went immediately to Shkhem (today’s Nablus), the capital of northern Israel, to get the people’s trust. Upon his arrival, he was greeted by a delegation from the ten tribes, that demanded a relaxation of the hardships imposed by his father. They informed him that if he should meet their demands, they will become loyal subjects and accept his authority. Among the delegates was Yerovam, who was used to signal Rehavam about the seriousness of the demands. Rehanvam was baffled by the demands and asked the delegation to return in three days to hear his response.

In the meantime, the king consulted the elderly advisors who advised him to meet the demands of the people. They added he should sweet-talk his way into their hearts and thus make them slaves for the duration of his rule. Rehavam, who was already possessed with the lust for power, decided this approach did not suit him and went to hear from his childhood friends. They knew his heart’s content and told him what he wanted to hear: he should make no compromise. On the contrary, he will tell the people his demands will be harsher then those of his father. Rehavam, delighted by this advice, faced the delegation after the three waiting days, and bluntly informed them of the hard times they are facing.

The possibility that his subjects might not receive his wrath with humility did not even occur in Rehavam’s mind. It is for a reason he was named “great foolish” in Jewish history. Upon hearing his reply, the people instantly announced their departure from the kingdom and their challenge of the new king.
Rehanvam, with so little wisdom that would surprise Marie Antoinette, choose to commit the single most provocative act that he could have done at the time: he appointed Aduram, former head of the police in charge of forced labor and the symbol of evil in the eyes of the ten tribes, to head the military force set out to quell the rebellion. However, Aduram’s force was too small for the job: the force was defeated and Aduram was stoned to death. The king had to flee the scene back to Jerusalem, where he gathered all the warriors available for him. The ten tribes established the kingdom of Israel and crowned Yerovam as their king.

For the next 17 years, until Rehavam’s death the two kingdoms fought each other and weakened their strength to the point where the vassal countries that were conquered by David – Moav, Edom, Ammon, etc. – rebelled and were able to reestablished their independence. This opened the way for an Egyptian invasion that further diluted the Jewish military strength.

The twelve tribes never reunited. The two countries, absorbed in their struggle, could not hold the Israeli empire that David and Salomon maintained and that stretched from northern Syria to Egypt and held key position in the international trade routes. Eventually, the Assyrians conquered all of the land of Israel and dislocated the ten tribes from their home and spread them across their empire. The ten tribes disappeared into oblivion and became the subject of rumors and speculations throughout history.

Originally posted by Micah
I guess if you don't want to follow the laws it would be an injustice. The reason why alot of Orthodox Jews don't move to Israel is because there isn't any point right now. There is no difference between it and America or England. They oppose it because it is secular.
Fine with me. the orthodox Jews can stay whereever thay are. I manage without them.

Originally posted by Micah
If you see the Orthodox as doing everything for their own personal gain then you have a shallow view of them. Do you think they do everything for themselves and don't care about all Jews?
I believe that the orthodox Jews are not interested in defending, caring and nourishing the state of Israel. They do not contribute to the military, economic or diplomatic strength of Israel. in fact, they are a burdon that the secular Jews have to support, in addition to all other chores.

Originally posted by Micah
The description that you gave sounds almost like what I would hear from an antisemetic site. Maybe it is because it is so easy to take everything they do at face value and not think "out of the box?"
When I see the orthodox Jews think out of their tiny rigid box, when I see them take part in defending the country, take part in the work force, take part in the cultural life of Israel - then I will change my view of them.

Originally posted by Micah
But, to get back on track, how can Israel be a JEWISH state and be a democracy with some of the policies it takes?
Like NewsGuy pointed out, Israel is a Jewish democratic state by its own definition. The state was founded to shelter Jews from prosecutions and to prevent a second holocaust. It still carries this function. The state will even accept those orthodox Jews who are unwilling to come, should the sword of anti-semitism will be raised again.
The state is desgined to house the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. This does not make it necessary for it to become a fundementalist religious state.

[cerulean]

Sharonbn, I very much appreciated the historical part of your post.

In respect to orthodox Jews, I know that at least some are contributing as much as anyone else to Israel's defense and to the economy. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points, but it sounds as if you are condemning all. There are orthodox Jews in the IDF, orthodox Jews in science, orthodox Jews in medicine, etc. Apart from that, I can't imagine Israel without at least some highly observant Jews. Nevertheless, I agree that Israel's generous welfare benefits have had some unfortunate results (just as they do in every country that has them).

[Vic]

Anyone know more about it?A bunch of weirdoes gathered yesterday at a synagogue in Jerusalem and called for the annulment of democracy in Israel. Instead they want a king to be crowned.

http://israeliguy.blogspot.com/2002_08_11_israeliguy_archive.html#80129672

[Micah]

To Newsguy: Where is this resolution 181 so I can check it out? Very interesting to know because I have had arguments with people in the past and they thought that Israel, "This grand democracy, could do something so racist."

To sharonb: I knew our opinions would conflict quite a bit from the start :p.

The history lesson was good, but it was purely because of secular problems. You talked about "lust for power," that is a very secular attitude. I still hold that it was because Israel was becoming too secular for God's taste.

Also, I am disappointed that you don't seem to even want to understand the Orthodox's position. You either ignored and chose not to comment on where I said that two of the tribes in Israel in ancient times had the relationship of one worked, the other studied. You seem to be more inclined to blame them for your woes and ignore the fact that what they are doing they are doing purely for your good and for the good of Israel.

[Mediocrates]

I would ask instead how one believes it is impossible to forge a state with religious underpinnings? How is that somehow MORE successful and viable.

We like to point to modern socialist states or hybrid capitalist states and brag to ourselves how secular we all are, so inclusive, so open to all and all without the shackles of dark medieval superstition. But isn't that little more than an ethic that's already been internalized? Ok so America or Germany or Singapore are ostensibly not religious states but how so? Doesn't the US base it's ethical and judicial system on Judeo Christian ethic? And while the Enlightenment that gave rise to revolution in the 18th C. was not strictly religious and even disavowed itself of mainstream religion, isn't it based on the same foundation?

And then I would point to states that actively stamped out all religious life and see if any of them survived or if they did did they simply replace God with Maximum Leader and Spirit with Cadre or Militia or whatever.

There are basic symbolics in human life and the desire to believe in something compassionate or least gracefully larger than oneself is probably one of them. Before cave dwellers could forge a piece of copper they already believed in the basic dignity of their own life against a backdrop of something spiritual, however they defined it. I can't imagine it's all been wrong so far; we're not that evolved.

So at any rate I'd ask that if you think its possible to have a country that ignores religion I'd ask you if you think it would be inhumane to live in one. To me that would be dystopian.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by Vic
A question to the American posters,How much control does the parliamentary system in the US really exercise over the government?

----------------------------------------------------------------

No, you won't be able to go back, this will be the problem. Once the head of the state is offered near-dictatorial power, he won't relinquish it easily. There is a similar development in Italy under way, after decades of political instability comparable in some respects to that in Israel, with Berlusconi trying to accumulate all the political power he can grab. It is very alarming, really, since once the parliament loses power, it would probably take a full-fledged civil war to get it back.Is it possible to optimize the parliamentary system without bringing down the whole country?

Well the American system is not Parliamentary. There is a distinct executive branch elected independently of the Congress. The term of office is fixed even if party and public support is zero. There is no reformation of government in the sense of a Parliamentary system. Congressional power cannot be subsumed or subverted based on party as each member stands and is elected on his or her own.

There are no no confidence votes and there are as well strict limits on the actual power the majority party can accrue beyond its numerical vote and the ability to appoint committee heads.

Majorities in either Congressional house are not tied to one another, the terms are different as well. The lower house isbased on district population and the upper house is fixed at two votes per state. Washington DC, Puerto Rico and the protectorates have no congressional representation with any actual power.

All Federal Judges including the US Supreme Court are unelected and posted for life barring impeachment. They are recommended by the President and approved by the Senate as are most Executive branch cabinet positions.

The US Supreme Court has the power to strike down any legislation or law or administrative standard or ruling as unconstitutional. It can reverse or endorse any lower court finding. It can determine applicability of laws in different venues and statutes. It can also decide consitutional issues over state laws as well. It does not decide guilt or innocence in any court case.

In civics 101 you are taught that Congress makes the Law, the executive branch enforces it and the judicial branch interprets it.

[Mediocrates]

Is it possible to optimize the parliamentary system without bringing down the whole country?

It depends on the root cause of the problem. In Great Britain there really are only two parties so it's either one or the other. When you introduce 6 or 9 or 15 it tends toward anarchy. It would seem that minor parties need to be weeded out. One way to do this is to have larger voting districts so the ward of "my street and the next one" don't have the luxury of electing one person to the Knesset. I don't know if they redraw them based on census every 10 years but we do so perhaps that is one way to avoid conflict and splintering.

Israel needs an executive branch as much as it needs professional politicians who aren't all from the General Staff. It's important to have stbility enforced by the structure of government and not the person who occupies it.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I agree that Parliamentary unicameral systems have problems including all of the ones you point out. I wonder how a country could extricate themselves from those problems? For example the French system is neither US-like nor is it strictly Parliamentary - if someone who knows can explain it in detail perhaps it would help for comparisons' sake. Does the German system have any such hybridization as well?The basics are here:
Germany (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/citizens/en/fr/01079900.htm)
France (http://europa.eu.int/scadplus/citizens/en/fr/10797.htm)
We can discuss it in more detail.

I am not really sure what you mean by "parliamentary system". It seems that we have a linguistic problem. What I mean can probably be equally well termed "parliamentary component": not the overall governmental system, but rather the parliament as such (election procedures, distribution of seats etc.) and, to a lesser degree, the role assigned to it.

This is getting really interesting :)
I'll write more later.

[Mediocrates]

Ill check them out. I mean Parliamentary as the exact form as in the UK, Israel and other places. Parliamentary systems don't have a strong executive branch. Even though the PM or President may be a strong leader the power is vested in the person not the job or the law. Parliamentary systems elect their own leader internally from the winning party and can be dissolved at any time. Those make it fundamentally different from the US and other similiar systems that have tripartite power sharing among independent executive, legislative and judicial branches.

In exchange for stability we frequently get the leaders we deserve instead of need.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Micah
To Newsguy: Where is this resolution 181 so I can check it out? Very interesting to know because I have had arguments with people in the past and they thought that Israel, "This grand democracy, could do something so racist."
That's why they invented google for.
You can find info and the text of the resolution here (http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0) .

Originally posted by Micah
The history lesson was good, but it was purely because of secular problems. You talked about "lust for power," that is a very secular attitude. I still hold that it was because Israel was becoming too secular for God's taste.
You demonstrate two typical aproaches of the orthodox Jews:
1. All bad human characteristics are secular by nature. Jewish religious people are peace-loving, humane, humble creatures that wish nothing for their personal gain. They never crime, never lust, never stray from the road of good. Secular jews, on the other hand, are greedy, lustfull, narrow-minded, and the source of all the misfortune of the Jewish people. A very popular saying in Jewish religious tradition goes "The people of Israel suffer because thay did not keep the Shabat"
Even if an orthodox Jew strays from the road of good, its because he/she was tempted by the sneaky secular Jews.
2. All tragedy and misfortune that happenned to the Jewish people, are because of religious reasons (God didn't like something thatwe were doing). It is never because of mismanagement, poor planning, human error, etc. We should pray harder and observe the mitzvot more carefully, and all will be amended.

Originally posted by Micah
Also, I am disappointed that you don't seem to even want to understand the Orthodox's position.
The disapointment is mutual. to me, living in Israel, it seems that not only the orthodox Jews don't wish to understand my pov, ideals, emotions and culture, to me it seems they wish to destroy it.
Originally posted by Micah
You either ignored and chose not to comment on where I said that two of the tribes in Israel in ancient times had the relationship of one worked, the other studied.
For this I have two things to say:
1. The bible does not state how did the people of the "working" tribe feel about his arrangement. The fact that such an arrangement was in place does not mean it was welcomed.
2. What was good/acceptable/tolerated in ancient times does not render it acceptable nowadays. mentality, ideals, emotions, rational thought - all these have greatly changed since ancient times and you cannot say what was good then is good now with disregard to all that's changed.

Originally posted by Micah
You seem to be more inclined to blame them for your woes and ignore the fact that what they are doing they are doing purely for your good and for the good of Israel.

Tal's law is clear evidence that no matter how grave the danger Israel is facing, the orthodox jews will not give a finger to help defend the country. Israel is in cultural war between the secular and the orthodox religious.

[Mediocrates]

I can't begin to fully understand what's going on in Israel with this, but in the US, Quakers and Buddists would have exactly the same reaction.

[Micah]

Thanks for the link.

Also, thanks for putting words in my mouth.

And the relationship between those two trives worked for over 400 years, I don't think they had a problem with it.

[eyl]

Originally posted by Micah


Israel lasted over 400 years as a religious state. It fell becaus[QUOTE][B]
The reason why alot of Orthodox Jews don't move to Israel is because there isn't any point right now. There is no difference between it and America or England. They oppose it because it is secular.

For a lot of ultra-orthodox Jews, the modern state of Israel is an act of defiance to God.



If you see the Orthodox as doing everything for their own personal gain then you have a shallow view of them. Do you think they do everything for themselves and don't care about all Jews?


I assume you haven't been following the history of the religous parties in Israel. All of them, with the limited exception of the Mafdal, have taken every opportunity to squeeze funds and other advantages from the government (and ultiamtely, the public) for their electorate. I have seen the ultra-orthodox party use their electorate power to blackmail governments at critical junctures, without regard to how that would effect the rest of the country.


[I guess you aren't aware of some of the relationship the tribes had with eachother. There are two tribes (I can't remember the names right now) that had a special relationship. One worked for and funded the other tribe so it could study Torah all the time. When most of the Jews in Israel are secular and help to make Israel great, why should the Orthodox when they can be given the ability to study all day?

I assume here you're talking about the tribe of Levi. Levi was a unique tribe since it served as a priestly caste. They were much smaller than the other tribes. Regardlesss, we don't know how the other 12 tribes felt about supporting them. (Actually, I'm not sure exactly how much support they were given; if I remember correctly, they were granted a protion of the tithes). At the least, they did more then learn all day. And when push came to shove, they also wielded the sword.

The model I believe most haredim seek is the European one where several "talmididm-hachamim" studied torah and were supported by the community. But those were always very few in number, a few people from each village, not a whole community which enshrines their right to live at the public's expense.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Micah
To Newsguy: Where is this resolution 181 so I can check it out?


http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00ps0

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
While I agree that it will soon become a big issue as to how Israel will retain a Jewish majority, as of now, no action has been taken to prevent such a calamity.

And while I am on this topic, I'd also point out again that under international law, Israel is to be a Jewish state. Specifically Jewish as expressly included in UN resolution 181. So, the notion that Israel having a Jewish majority and operating as a Jewish state is somehow undemocratic, is absolutely untrue. Truth be said, the UN makes no attempts to define "Jewish", which is something to be grateful for. Let's take the present day situation. Statistically, the only Jews in Israel are those according to the Halacha in its traditional interpretation and convertites. Yet there is still a considerable section of Israeli population which is partially Jewish by descent and with a high degree of probabilty perfectly Jewish in the social and psychological sense, yet without the crucial Jewish maternal grandmother. Then there are of course non-Jewish spouses of Jews etc. Such people, I presume, pose little danger to the Jewish character of Israel, yet they are on the wrong side of the statistics. Wouldn't the situation look much better if proper corrections were made? (We have discussed it somewhere on this forum a long time ago)

Originally posted by Micah
One thing that comes to mind is the policy of having a Jewish majority in Israel. Taking steps to keep Arabs from becoming a majority in (as I see it) not democratic. Maybe I don't understand enough about it?I see no real contradiction between Jewishness and democracy. To paraphrase a famous American statement, a Jewish democracy is not a suicide pact. If an Arab majority among Israeli citizens is likely to lead to the oppression of the Jewish part of the population, then it is perfectly legitimate to prevent such a development. This can be very well done within an impeccable democratic framework. You don't need a monarchy for this. You would be simply protecting the legitimate interests of your citizens.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Vic
Truth be said, the UN makes no attempts to define "Jewish", which is something to be grateful for.

That's for sure. It's up to the religious leaders to set their own standards.

But it's clear from the UN resolution that Israel is specifically authorized to act against the possibility of having an Arab majority.

[Vic]

Originally posted by NewsGuy
That's for sure. It's up to the religious leaders to set their own standards.

But it's clear from the UN resolution that Israel is specifically authorized to act against the possibility of having an Arab majority. I don't see what Israel needs this authorization for. The main point is whether or not an Arab majority would present a serious danger for the Jewish population. The current stand is AFAIK that it would. This is IMO an absolutely legitimate consideration on its own. If anyone wants to makes a case against the preservation of a Jewish majority, then it is up to him to prove that an Arab majority would have no negative consequences for Jews in Israel, i.e. for the Israeli society as it is today. This is to a certain degree similar to discussions on immigration and naturalization regulations in Europe. It is commonly accepted that the results should not harm the overall population (I know, we have discussed it: the main problem is the real-world implementation)

[Mediocrates]

Statistically, the only Jews in Israel are those according to the Halacha in its traditional interpretation and convertites. Yet there is still a considerable section of Israeli population which is partially Jewish by descent and with a high degree of probabilty perfectly Jewish in the social and psychological sense, yet without the crucial Jewish maternal grandmother. Then there are of course non-Jewish spouses of Jews etc. Such people, I presume, pose little danger to the Jewish character of Israel, yet they are on the wrong side of the statistics. Wouldn't the situation look much better if proper corrections were made? (We have discussed it somewhere on this forum a long time ago)

A quandry. On the one hand a populace that want's to be identified with Jewishness (as opposed to Judaism) but isn't willing to take the formal steps to that end. On the other hand a set of laws that define citizenship (just like any other country on earth) that are under assault.

The steps to making aliyah are not all that difficult and even if one is not strictly Orthodox, one could if one desires to be a citizen take steps to formalize those requirements. At worst 'conversion' to Orthodox takes about a year which is far less than the period time one would normally take to become of citizen of the US for example. While all the time one could, while pursing that certification live in Israel on a visa for up to 5 years I believe. The point is that the requirements for citizenship ANYWHERE are not trivial. One would assume that for Jews who are already recognized by the law under the law of ingathering have ALREADY spent considerable time in their lives studying, participating and being involved in a vital Jewish community.

I think some of the people here draw too much of a binary distinction between Orthodox and non Orthodox. Truthfully there is Orthodox and there is Orthodox if you see what I mean. You can be talking about hardcore haredi or the difficult ly antizionist Satmars or you can be talking about Lubavitch which contains nonzionist and zionist elements and are by the way some of the most wonderful people I've ever known. I was once a member of a Conservative shul that had an Orthodox rabbi and I've been in Orthodox shuls that didn't give books to women. It runs the gamut, you see.

So in the end the point is, what is the price of inclusion? I think some people are initially put off by the requirements for Israeli citizenship and Israeli law because they assume that naturally that because they view themselves as sufficiently 'Jewish' the reset of the world will too. And this speaks to the heart of the matter. For example it really in the end does not matter that there are 18% non Jews in Israel as long as the character of the nation as a Jewish State is assiduously protected. We are the people of the book and of the law. The law protects us and we must protect the law. That is the price of character; non Jews who wish to live in Israel are free to be non Jews but they must understand what the national character is.

And as a result they fling the race card at us. But there is nothing racial or racist about it. It is about character and survival. Just as in other 'monocultures' like Japan there is no requirement to be "Japanese" but there is a national character that must be adhered to. The law upholds that character. But again there is nothing "R" word about it. Racism occurs when one group oppresses another even if there is zero possibility of one culture being replaced buy another. Jim Crow laws for example, Nuremburg Race Laws and so on. There is a basic requirement to adhere to the character of "Americanism" in lieu of fealty to "a foreign potentate or king" (from the US Citizenship oath) that is not racially American (whatever that would be) but that forms a consensus of what it means to be American. Similarly in Israel there is a basic requirement to meet that consensus in order to qualify.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
A quandry. On the one hand a populace that want's to be identified with Jewishness (as opposed to Judaism) but isn't willing to take the formal steps to that end.Take formal steps to be identified with Jewishness as opposed to Judaism? What could such formal steps be? Push for a change in the resp. laws? AFAIK it is being done already but there is simply no majority for this.On the other hand a set of laws that define citizenship (just like any other country on earth) that are under assault.

The steps to making aliyah are not all that difficult and even if one is not strictly Orthodox, one could if one desires to be a citizen take steps to formalize those requirements. At worst 'conversion' to Orthodox takes about a year which is far less than the period time one would normally take to become of citizen of the US for example. While all the time one could, while pursing that certification live in Israel on a visa for up to 5 years I believe. The point is that the requirements for citizenship ANYWHERE are not trivial. One would assume that for Jews who are already recognized by the law under the law of ingathering have ALREADY spent considerable time in their lives studying, participating and being involved in a vital Jewish community.There are several problems involved. On one hand, Israel offers full citizenship to new immigrants, including the right to vote, IMO much too soon. The typical time frames for acquiring citizenship in decent Western countries, an average minimum of 5 years, are much more appropriate. Judging from my own immigration experience, it takes about three years to be able to make sane decisions as a voter on one's own, size up the political landscape, diverse interest groups, motives, mutual dependencies, etc. correctly, even though I was actually not only quite fluent in several languages quite common around here at the time of my arrival, but also, like many enlightened Soviet citizens of my generation, rather well versed in modern history. Many of us, alas, had to learn that Montesquieu is of little help in everyday life :D . In Israel's precarious situation, a large mass of voters unable to make independent political assessment, lacking knowledge of Hebrew, understandment of the surrounding countries, often without the experience of a Western-type democratic political system is, I daresay, a source of political instability.

There should be one absolutely valid requirement for any new citzen of any democratic country: to be able to make competent decisions independently, intensive formal learning compensating the missing years of social experience. Solid knowledge of the country's official language, permitting immigrants to communicate outside of their narrow group, of history, of the legal and political systems, and, to a certain degree, an understandment of the world politics and of the position of the said country in them. Otherwise the new cititzen is basically none, a marionette of whoever cares to pull the strings. Helpless voters are dangerous because they undermine democratic structures based on "one man, one vote" principle. One can observe it among the so-called "ethnic Germans" arriving to Germany and among some of the former inhabitants of the former colonies in Britain and France (which is, in its turn, part of our "Islamic fundamentalism" problem). Of course, the "natives" are not immune against this either, but on the whole the problem is less among them. All of this quite aside from religious issues.

As for the "other hand" let's start with the basic question: what for? If you define Jewishness over religion, then someone like our fellow poster Sharon is simply not a Jew. Or take myself.

There was once a nice Jewish girl who met a nice Russian boy. The result was an equally nice half-Jewish, half-Russian girl who met a nice Jewish boy. The result is writing this.

At least until the mid-90ies I could have recieved full Israeli citizenship on the spot without ever having heard of the Torah, just by presenting my granny's birth certificate. I would be free to define myself as a militant atheist without any Israeli state institution doubting my Jewishness.

Now let's change my family history a bit. There was once a nice Russian girl who met a nice Jewish boy. The rest remains the same. I would in this case be very much the same person, but this tiny detail would make a world of difference should this imaginary version of myself try to immigrate to Israel. I do, in fact, practice Judaism, if in a rather lax way. But my mind balks at this, and I am not the only one. If, and only if, religious criteria are worth being preserved at all for what is the essentially secular act of awarding citizenship status, why not adopt these of Reform Judaism? They make much more sense.

Or maybe religious influences should be directed where they belong to in most of modern democratic states in general: into the private sphere. The state should accomodate the practices of the religious majority, such as declare work-free days according to them, but in no way try to entice its citizens into choosing religious affiliations of any kind or permit religious citizens a greater degree of influence on state affairs than the secular ones. This would fulfil Theodor Herzl's vision much better, btw. One the other hand, it would purify religious practice, returnung it to what it ought to be: a spiritual experience.

[Vic]

LOL, it's the first time in this forum that I have to split a post because of its length :D

I think some of the people here draw too much of a binary distinction between Orthodox and non Orthodox. Truthfully there is Orthodox and there is Orthodox if you see what I mean. You can be talking about hardcore haredi or the difficult ly antizionist Satmars or you can be talking about Lubavitch which contains nonzionist and zionist elements and are by the way some of the most wonderful people I've ever known. I was once a member of a Conservative shul that had an Orthodox rabbi and I've been in Orthodox shuls that didn't give books to women. It runs the gamut, you see.I can tell you why people like my hypothetical doppelgaenger don't do it. It is a very simple, very basic human emotion: pride. It is not an issue of whether the Rabbi one has to deal with is a likeable person or not (although, for a practical consideration, new immigrants in Israel, often with little money, possibly bound to some tiny town, have little choice: they have to accept the Rabbi within their reach). It is having to do it at all. Why should someone be first forced to declare him/herself to be someone s/he is not (a non-Jew who wants to become a Jew), deny that s/he is what s/he has every right in the world to consider him/herself to be (a Jew), and spend considerable time and effort in pretending to want nothing more in the world than to become someone who is supposed to be her/him, but by someone else's (the Orthodox Jewry's) criteria?

It is, whether nicely handled or not, a deeply humiliating procedure that can leave scars for a long time. Those subjected to it (I mean Jews, not convertites who are complete outsiders, a different story alltogether) often percieve themselves as being delivered to someone's whims, as being coerced into self-denial and pretence, feigning interest for a version of Jewishness they can in no way identify with, and would keep away from, if given the choice. The strain is considerable both for those who view themselves as religious, because they are treated as outsiders, and for those who consider themselves secular: conversion is not restricted to formal learning. Judaism, especially in the Orthodox version, is a way of life, and even such pseudo-convertites are often expected to display some interest in leading it, in worst case their teachers looming over them to decide whether they display appropriate zeal and are worthy of the honour that they, the allmighty teachers, may or may not bestow upon them. And now take, for example, former Soviet citizens arriving in Israel till the early 90ies, traumatized by years of indoctrination forced down their throats, of imposed doublespeak, and maybe you can imagine how they feel about it. By some accounts - as if they were pitched in a religious version of obligatory courses on fascinating subjects like "dialectic materialism", "scientific atheism" and "the history of the communist party": first they had to parrot that they wish nothing more than a worldwide revolution, now they were expected to swear that the most important thing in their lives is keeping an impeccable kosher household.

So what would my alter ego, the one with the Russian granny instead of grandpa do, should s/he have no religious interests, but rather an outlook similar to the one Sharon describes for himself? Grit his/her teeth, play along, bow and scrape, if it needs be, to dispel suspicions about his/her tainted Jewishness, no matter how sickened s/he should feel by the whole situation, nice Rabbi or not, get the desired piece of writing, and, once done, try to forget all of it as soon and as profoundly as possible? Or decide that being classified as "Russian" on paper matters less, especially if his/her social surroundings display no doubts about his/her Jewishness and who cares what the state and the Orthodox Rabbis think about it? To hell with them. (One day, the line goes or used to go, since many are losing hope by now, there will be a really sound secular majority through "Russian" immigration - and then we shall overcome...)

This is why many Jews (yes, Jews; and I am speaking of these I know best: the ones from the fmr. USSR and from Europe) often prefer to risk their lives guarding Orthodox settlements, pay taxes to support Orthodox yeshivas and get nothing in return, yet never to raise a finger for bogus Orthodox "conversions", if they can help it - even if it means being buried in the wrong cemetery or having to go the whole way to Cyprus to marry (I have even heard of "recognized" Jews who do the latter - out of solidarity and protest). They feel simply offended by the idea.

This is not for or against Orthodox Judaism in general, but about basic freedom of the choice.So in the end the point is, what is the price of inclusion? I think some people are initially put off by the requirements for Israeli citizenship and Israeli law because they assume that naturally that because they view themselves as sufficiently 'Jewish' the reset of the world will too. And this speaks to the heart of the matter. For example it really in the end does not matter that there are 18% non Jews in Israel as long as the character of the nation as a Jewish State is assiduously protected. We are the people of the book and of the law. The law protects us and we must protect the law. That is the price of character; non Jews who wish to live in Israel are free to be non Jews but they must understand what the national character is.Again, it begs the question: inclusion where and according to whose criteria? As I have written above, the grandchild of the Jewish girl would be "included" automatically, the grandchild of the Russian girl, all other things being completely equal, wouldn't. And who says that this inclusion is defined by religious criteria only? What about inclusion in the secular Jewish segment of the Israeli society? This should be good enough by all accounts.There is a basic requirement to adhere to the character of "Americanism" in lieu of fealty to "a foreign potentate or king" (from the US Citizenship oath) that is not racially American (whatever that would be) but that forms a consensus of what it means to be American. Similarly in Israel there is a basic requirement to meet that consensus in order to qualify. Is there really a genuine consensus in the current Israeli society for maintaining religiously inspired regulations in what is essentially secular matters? Can, for example, undergoing an Orthodox conversion - even a benevolent one, even according to the somewhat relaxed requirements reserved for "convertites" with Jewish ancestors on the wrong side only - be equaled to the US Citizenship oath, which is swearing allegiance to the state? Orthodox Judaism is AFAIK not exactly something the majority of Israelis, even Jewish Israelis, consider their ultimate common bond. Indeed, if a considerable sector of the population rejects it so violently, as you have seen in Sharon's posts in this thread, then there is something seriously wrong with the notion. I haven't heard of many Americans protesting against "Americanism" as demanded by the Citizenship oath with anything close to such vehemence so far.

Sorry for the long rant.

[Vic]

And as a result they fling the race card at us. But there is nothing racial or racist about it. It is about character and survival. Just as in other 'monocultures' like Japan there is no requirement to be "Japanese" but there is a national character that must be adhered to. The law upholds that character. But again there is nothing "R" word about it. Racism occurs when one group oppresses another even if there is zero possibility of one culture being replaced buy another. Jim Crow laws for example, Nuremburg Race Laws and so on. There is a basic requirement to adhere to the character of "Americanism" in lieu of fealty to "a foreign potentate or king" (from the US Citizenship oath) that is not racially American (whatever that would be) but that forms a consensus of what it means to be American. Similarly in Israel there is a basic requirement to meet that consensus in order to qualify. I think that "racism" is used here in the same way that Nazi comparisons are: to cause maximum offence and injury. For myself, I don't see any serious reason to debate in these terms.

With "Israeli racism", the object of concern is an entirely different one: the Arabs. Both with Israeli citizenship, and, in case of the "binational state" concept, the Palestinians. I.e., in this case this boils down to an Arab majority, which can either come to pass somewhere in the future through a high birthrate in the first case or would be created immediately in the second one.

I am familiar with similar discussions in Europe, being to a certain degree an object of them, if a priviledged one, myself. The quintessence: is the net result of immigration and naturalization of non-members of ethnic majorities positive or negative for the host countries, in what respect and to what extent? If both do cause serious harm, that can in no way be mitigated in advance, then they are unacceptable, if they don't, or most of the harmful consequences can be prevented with little effort, then they should be enabled. It boils down to the practical.

In most cases, it is easy to argue that immigrants usually intend to become part of the society, not implode it. They will stay away from some of the more traditional parts of it, say, national folklore clubs, but so do many genuine "natives". As such, immigrants are actually a modernizing force, since the common denominator between them and the ethnic majority will be the political and the accessible cultural one: language, arts, literature, media etc. The most common cause of the problems is usually incompetence and mismanagement by the host countries, such as the inabilty to distinguish between "good" and "bad" individuals in case of, say, large Muslims communities and, in effect, to separate them from each other socially, the lack of suitable educational approaches for children from non-native speaker families and for grown-ups from different backgrounds on some political and social basics, etc. All of this corrected, which takes not just effort and money, but first and foremost intelligence and common sense, the remaining question is: is the net result beneficial on the long run? The answer is yes.

Now let's try to make the same case for Jews and Arabs in Israel. The following is more guessing on my part, according to what I have read and heard from other people. The overall picture is, I admit, sometimes confusing to me, but maybe this reflects the reality. What changes would take place in the society should there be (on the short or on the long run) an Arab majority? Will they be harmful to the society as it exists now? How strong will that harm be, specifically to the Jews?

For a start, one might take a look at writings that try to make the case for a binational state. They are chilling to read. The main subject is usually how to get the most from Jews to benefit Arabs. I have seen no serious explanations of how Jews, or at least sizeable segments of the Israeli Jewish society should benefit from it, other that in this case the Palestinians would/might graciously agree to abstain from murdering them. Or, in the somewhat whimsical case of Edward Said, well, Jews are much more creative when they are a (slightly repressed?) minority anyway. Would the Arab majority accept the democratic character of the resulting state at all, would it be prepared to pay a high price, if necessary, to preserve it, even if the latter would include fighting against fellow Arabs or bearing the brunt of the world's disdain? Would it harass Jews? Such questions can be put anywhere in the world.

To continue the "European" argumentation: is it possible, on the other hand, that a considerable proportion of Arabs becomes what might be loosely termed Israeli-Jewish, if not explicitly by religion, then on secular terms? Could they become as "Jewish", as, say, our former(?) fellow poster Takeo, appears to be French? Or in the same way that I often observe in mixed marriages, the most common case is that of Russian wives becoming after some time recognizably Jewish in their outlook, social sensibilities, way of thinking, etc., even in their sense of humour? (This can be almost the opposite of religious convertites, who are not Jews in any other respect, btw. I do know some magnificient individuals, but a lot of them are nuisances, often converting for reasons that would be better served by a nice clinical psychologist. For a Jew, there can be little joy in dealing with them. Such people can know everything about kosher laws, but it doesn't prevent them from retaining an antisemitic mindset.) Is it possible to achieve this at a relatively small cost? If yes, the result would be still a distinctly Jewish society, non-accomodating for any kind of anti-Jewish sentiment.

[Adversary2Arabs]

A democracy cannot be a true Jewish state because, well, Judaism has deep roots in monarchies and theocracys - from the time of Saul(when it went from just a theocracy with a governing body to a theocracy with a monarch). Also, it depends on what your definition of Jewish is. Whether it be the Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or Christian ("We're the real Jews"lol - no wonder theres a lot of Cristain comedians.) It should be the Orthodox view and is to a certain extent, but its becoming more and more Reform as time progressed, which is a sad mistake.

Shabbat Shalom.

[elke]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
A democracy cannot be a true Jewish state because, well, Judaism has deep roots in monarchies and theocracys - from the time of Saul(when it went from just a theocracy with a governing body to a theocracy with a monarch). Also, it depends on what your definition of Jewish is. Whether it be the Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or Christian ("We're the real Jews"lol - no wonder theres a lot of Cristain comedians.) It should be the Orthodox view and is to a certain extent, but its becoming more and more Reform as time progressed, which is a sad mistake.

Shabbat Shalom.

I don't see why a Jewish state cannot be a democracy. Theocracy or Monarchy are political systems, not cultural or religious attributes. Judaism has deep roots in monarchies and theocracies because it is old. One can say the same thing about Christianity and Islam - and possibly about other old world religions as well (I don't know enough about them to say so definitively).

Just as it changed after the destruction of the Temple, Judaism is now being challenged to deal with the modern political and cultural norms. The key to any religion's long term survival is its ability to adapt to the prevailing norms as they change. Judaism, up to now, has shown itself eminently capable of this type of adaptation.

Modern day Israel has been around just over 50 years: historically speaking, a blink of an eye. This is hardly sufficient time to adapt the 3500 year old religion and culture to the new reality. This is a profound change: the last time such a major dislocation occurred was nearly 2000 years ago, with the destruction of the Temple and then Diaspora!

What we are observing today is the deep discussion of the very meaning of our culture and civilization. Growing pains are named that for a reason: they hurt. For myself, I prefer these heated discussions and debates over any "peaceful", sheep-like acceptance of whatever "fate" or "karma", or "G-d's Will" from my people.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by elke


I don't see why a Jewish state cannot be a democracy. Theocracy or Monarchy are political systems, not cultural or religious attributes. Judaism has deep roots in monarchies and theocracies because it is old. One can say the same thing about Christianity and Islam - and possibly about other old world religions as well (I don't know enough about them to say so definitively).

Just as it changed after the destruction of the Temple, Judaism is now being challenged to deal with the modern political and cultural norms. The key to any religion's long term survival is its ability to adapt to the prevailing norms as they change. Judaism, up to now, has shown itself eminently capable of this type of adaptation.

Modern day Israel has been around just over 50 years: historically speaking, a blink of an eye. This is hardly sufficient time to adapt the 3500 year old religion and culture to the new reality. This is a profound change: the last time such a major dislocation occurred was nearly 2000 years ago, with the destruction of the Temple and then Diaspora!

What we are observing today is the deep discussion of the very meaning of our culture and civilization. Growing pains are named that for a reason: they hurt. For myself, I prefer these heated discussions and debates over any "peaceful", sheep-like acceptance of whatever "fate" or "karma", or "G-d's Will" from my people.

You know what..................I agree. :) Thanks.

[eyl]

Originally posted by Vic
There was once a nice Jewish girl who met a nice Russian boy. The result was an equally nice half-Jewish, half-Russian girl who met a nice Jewish boy. The result is writing this.

At least until the mid-90ies I could have recieved full Israeli citizenship on the spot without ever having heard of the Torah, just by presenting my granny's birth certificate. I would be free to define myself as a militant atheist without any Israeli state institution doubting my Jewishness.

Now let's change my family history a bit. There was once a nice Russian girl who met a nice Jewish boy. The rest remains the same. I would in this case be very much the same person, but this tiny detail would make a world of difference should this imaginary version of myself try to immigrate to Israel. I do, in fact, practice Judaism, if in a rather lax way. But my mind balks at this, and I am not the only one. If, and only if, religious criteria are worth being preserved at all for what is the essentially secular act of awarding citizenship status, why not adopt these of Reform Judaism? They make much more sense.

You can receive Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return as the grandson of a Jew, regardless of that Jew's gender. The gender matters in determining whether you yourself are a Jew or not (and the Orthodox definition depends on the mother, not the grandmother; in your case you're a Jew because your mother was a Jew, because HER mother was a Jew; the children of your maternal uncle, OTOH, would be Jewish only if your uncle married a Jew), but not citizenship.

[Vic]

Originally posted by eyl
You can receive Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return as the grandson of a Jew, regardless of that Jew's gender. The gender matters in determining whether you yourself are a Jew or not (and the Orthodox definition depends on the mother, not the grandmother; in your case you're a Jew because your mother was a Jew, because HER mother was a Jew; the children of your maternal uncle, OTOH, would be Jewish only if your uncle married a Jew), but not citizenship. Sorry, I haven't expressed myself clearly. Both "cases" would recieve citizenship, but only the first, the real one, would be considered automatically "Jewish". This is what makes little sense to me, since it would be virtually one and the same person in the real world.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Vic
Sorry, I haven't expressed myself clearly. Both "cases" would recieve citizenship, but only the first, the real one, would be considered automatically "Jewish". This is what makes little sense to me, since it would be virtually one and the same person in the real world.

It would be one in the same person, but Israel is "a" and "the" Jewish State. Therefore it uses the Jewish definition. But then Reform and probably Conservative Jews came and once they obtained legal citizenship helped to change the definition of Jew, or at least they helped to recognize (partially) the views of Reform and some Conservative peoples. (That of patrinial decent of "Jewishness").

[elke]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs


It would be one in the same person, but Israel is "a" and "the" Jewish State. Therefore it uses the Jewish definition. But then Reform and probably Conservative Jews came and once they obtained legal citizenship helped to change the definition of Jew, or at least they helped to recognize (partially) the views of Reform and some Conservative peoples. (That of patrinial decent of "Jewishness").

This does not get much play in the English language press, for some reason, but in the Russian publications there is a lot of info on this subject.

Briefly, the reason the rules were adjusted is the Russian Jews. Since the last name comes through the father, if a person's paternal grandfather was Jewish, the grandchild will carry a Jewish last name. It may or may not cause the passport to say that the person is Jewish, but it will certainly make it plain as day to all and sundry that the person has Jewish roots - therefore, making them subject to gross antisemitism.

Intermarriage is a very common scenario in Russia. Most of my cousins, in fact, both in Israel and here, are children of one Jewish and one non-Jewish parent. I would like to mention that all but one of my cousins (out of dozens), identify themselves as Jewish, know the history and culture of the Jewish people, and the Israeli bunch is proudly serving in the IDF, with their non-Jewish mothers cheering them on (while freaking out inside, of course! ;))

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by elke


This does not get much play in the English language press, for some reason, but in the Russian publications there is a lot of info on this subject.

Briefly, the reason the rules were adjusted is the Russian Jews. Since the last name comes through the father, if a person's paternal grandfather was Jewish, the grandchild will carry a Jewish last name. It may or may not cause the passport to say that the person is Jewish, but it will certainly make it plain as day to all and sundry that the person has Jewish roots - therefore, making them subject to gross antisemitism.

Intermarriage is a very common scenario in Russia. Most of my cousins, in fact, both in Israel and here, are children of one Jewish and one non-Jewish parent. I would like to mention that all but one of my cousins (out of dozens), identify themselves as Jewish, know the history and culture of the Jewish people, and the Israeli bunch is proudly serving in the IDF, with their non-Jewish mothers cheering them on (while freaking out inside, of course! ;))

But then my question is - if their parents love Israel and Jews so much, why not convert? I know for some people they beieve in their religion so much that they wouldn't but in that case, they wouldn't have married a Jew then, because "Jews don't go to heaven." - Christianity

[elke]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs


But then my question is - if their parents love Israel and Jews so much, why not convert? I know for some people they beieve in their religion so much that they wouldn't but in that case, they wouldn't have married a Jew then, because "Jews don't go to heaven." - Christianity

Because religion is something that you either have or don't have. It hinges on a belief in G-d. Many of us either don't believe at all, or don't know. Religious conversion under such circumstances would be dishonest, wouldn't you say?

The lack of religion does not stop us from identifying with Jewish nation and culture. Many of my cousins are risking their lives in defense of their people. Isn't it unfair, at the end of the day, to tell them these are not their people they are literally dying to save?

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by elke


Because religion is something that you either have or don't have. It hinges on a belief in G-d. Many of us either don't believe at all, or don't know. Religious conversion under such circumstances would be dishonest, wouldn't you say?

The lack of religion does not stop us from identifying with Jewish nation and culture. Many of my cousins are risking their lives in defense of their people. Isn't it unfair, at the end of the day, to tell them these are not their people they are literally dying to save?

Yes it WOULD be dishonoest. But they still can become Reform Jewish no matter how distant from real Judaism it really is. In Reform Judaism, believing in G-d is optonal - like the rest of the mitzvot.

[Hope]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
A democracy cannot be a true Jewish state because, well, Judaism has deep roots in monarchies and theocracys - from the time of Saul(when it went from just a theocracy with a governing body to a theocracy with a monarch).
Shabbat Shalom.

Shavua Tov.

Well Israel is a democracy and a Jewish state. It exists and was established to include all levels of Judaism by Jews whose authenticity you probably doubt.

If you think that Israel isn't a "true" Jewish state then why do you support it?

Also, it depends on what your definition of Jewish is. It should be the Orthodox view and is to a certain extent, but its becoming more and more Reform as time progressed, which is a sad mistake.

Why should Judaism be determined by the Orthodox view because you like it? Maybe the US is becoming more reformed but Israel isn't. Most of us here are pretty pleased that people are allowed to choose their own level of religiousness and still retain a strong Jewish identity.

[elke]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs


Yes it WOULD be dishonoest. But they still can become Reform Jewish no matter how distant from real Judaism it really is. In Reform Judaism, believing in G-d is optonal - like the rest of the mitzvot.

I am not sure that belief in G-d is optional in Reform Judaism (I know there are other movements where this is true though...)

I don't really know why they wouldn't convert into that kind of offshoot - maybe, they don't feel that it's necessary in Israel, where they are already easily identifiable as Jews? Actually, here in the US, we have a Passover Seder at my parents' house, even if it falls on a weekday, with most of my family that lives in this area (some drive 1 1/2 hour each way to be there, and my trip is 45 minutes each way). We also go to the synagogue nearby for the High Holidays.

One of my uncles' wife, a Russian/Ukranian woman, has helped organize an annual Yom Hashoah memorial event at this Russian Center she goes to in her community (this is in Philadelphia. All I know is that it's for non-Jews - I am not sure exactly what it is...)

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Hope


Shavua Tov.

Well Israel is a democracy and a Jewish state. It exists and was established to include all levels of Judaism by Jews whose authenticity you probably doubt.

If you think that Israel isn't a "true" Jewish state then why do you support it?



Why should Judaism be determined by the Orthodox view because you like it? Maybe the US is becoming more reformed but Israel isn't. Most of us here are pretty pleased that people are allowed to choose their own level of religiousness and still retain a strong Jewish identity.

Because I like it? No, because that is what the original nation Israel was based on. And if you think that it's wrong, then why should Israel be in the land of ancient Israel? Why not in China or Mexico? Because that is the land promised by G-d. Doing what you want is like getting prepaid for a job you do, and then just not doing it. G-d gave us Israel. He also gave us Torah, and commanded us to follow it. You take Israel, but reject Torah? Give me a break.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by elke


I am not sure that belief in G-d is optional in Reform Judaism (I know there are other movements where this is true though...)

I don't really know why they wouldn't convert into that kind of offshoot - maybe, they don't feel that it's necessary in Israel, where they are already easily identifiable as Jews? Actually, here in the US, we have a Passover Seder at my parents' house, even if it falls on a weekday, with most of my family that lives in this area (some drive 1 1/2 hour each way to be there, and my trip is 45 minutes each way). We also go to the synagogue nearby for the High Holidays.

One of my uncles' wives, a Russian/Ukranian woman, has helped organize an annual Yom Hashoah memorial event at this Russian Center she goes to in her community (this is in Philadelphia. All I know is that it's for non-Jews - I am not sure exactly what it is...)

Just found this for you: "That is, they[Reform Jews] will believe in one or no Gods, and their concept of God, if believed in, may well differ significantly from the omnipotent model popularised in Orthodox Judaism and other religions."

FROM http://www.actjewish.org.au/reform_judaism.htm

[elke]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs


Just found this for you: "That is, they[Reform Jews] will believe in one or no Gods, and their concept of God, if believed in, may well differ significantly from the omnipotent model popularised in Orthodox Judaism and other religions."

FROM http://www.actjewish.org.au/reform_judaism.htm

Thanks, A2A! I will check this out further as well...

[Hope]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs


Because I like it? No, because that is what the original nation Israel was based on. And if you think that it's wrong, then why should Israel be in the land of ancient Israel? Why not in China or Mexico? Because that is the land promised by G-d. Doing what you want is like getting prepaid for a job you do, and then just not doing it. G-d gave us Israel. He also gave us Torah, and commanded us to follow it. You take Israel, but reject Torah? Give me a break.

Israel of today is not the Israel of the bible nor was it established to be so. It was established as a haven for all types of Jews. We claimed Israel because of historical, archeological facts and a continuous Jewish presence in Israel for centuries. The inspiration might have come from the bible but nothing more.

You might on a personal level reject Jews who don't fit into a rigid mold but in modern Israel they are accepted.

Yes I have taken Israel as it is for over 20 yrs. by choice and will continue to do so and practice Judaism any way I feel like because I live in the Jewish Democracy of Israel.

I still don't understand why you support the modern state of Israel?

[Vic]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
But then my question is - if their parents love Israel and Jews so much, why not convert? I know for some people they beieve in their religion so much that they wouldn't but in that case, they wouldn't have married a Jew then, because "Jews don't go to heaven." - Christianity I have tried to describe it in my post # 44 (http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=21449#post21449). For anyone with many Jewish ancestors, but unfortunately with the wrong ones, it is an emotionally very trying experience. And, then, again, being Jewish or Israeli does not equal being Orthodox Jewish for everyone. Why be forced into what amounts for such people to a farcical procedure?

[Vic]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
Just found this for you: "That is, they[Reform Jews] will believe in one or no Gods, and their concept of God, if believed in, may well differ significantly from the omnipotent model popularised in Orthodox Judaism and other religions."

FROM http://www.actjewish.org.au/reform_judaism.htm This is plain honesty to me. Religious beliefs are in reality hard to pin down. The strongest zealotry often conceals a void where the quintessence of faith should be. ThisIf a Jew loses faith in God for whatever reason, they do not cease to be Jewish at that instantis a very humane approach, permitting community members to talk openly about their doubts. The result can be a much more genuine religious allegiance than the one often observed in the stronger ritualized, almost mechanical forms of worship, where you either (are expected to declare that you) believe in G'd or get out.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Hope


Israel of today is not the Israel of the bible nor was it established to be so. It was established as a haven for all types of Jews. We claimed Israel because of historical, archeological facts and a continuous Jewish presence in Israel for centuries. The inspiration might have come from the bible but nothing more.

You might on a personal level reject Jews who don't fit into a rigid mold but in modern Israel they are accepted.

Yes I have taken Israel as it is for over 20 yrs. by choice and will continue to do so and practice Judaism any way I feel like because I live in the Jewish Democracy of Israel.

I still don't understand why you support the modern state of Israel?

I support Israel because it is a Jewish state and has the worlds largest concentration of Jews. You obviously just read a few posts from days ago and then post yourself. You seem to have missed a few key posts. And I don't "reject Jews who don't fit into a rigid mold". I accept all Jews as Jews.

[Adversary2Arabs]

Originally posted by Vic
This is plain honesty to me. Religious beliefs are in reality hard to pin down. The strongest zealotry often conceals a void where the quintessence of faith should be. Thisis a very humane approach, permitting community members to talk openly about their doubts. The result can be a much more genuine religious allegiance than the one often observed in the stronger ritualized, almost mechanical forms of worship, where you either (are expected to declare that you) believe in G'd or get out.

In Orthodox Judaism, you don't have to believe in G-d to be Jewish. You can believe in Christianity, Islam, etc. and still be Jewish from the Orthodox perspective. You just cannot be Orthodox Jewish and believe these things. If you are born to a Jewish mother, or convert to Judaism, you are from then on and forever Jewish. It's your job to stay and maintain the Mitzvot.

I think that children brough up in non-Orthodox houses should be given the benefit of the doubt and shouldn't be punished by G-d when he says that you haven't follow His Law. The children brought up secular/Christian (while by Jewish definition is really Jewish)/Reform/etc. are taught believing this is true.

In the case of Palestnians who are brought up believing that hating and killing Jews is not only justified, but a good thing, don't recieve my sympathy because, unless they have serious mental defects should know that murder is murder. IMO, it's up to them whether they want to kill Jews or not. Obviously, not all Palestinains/Arabs kill Jews or think its right, so why do some?

[Mediocrates]

In Reconstructionist Judaism one need not believe in God. Depending on your Orthodox shul they may either assume you do and not even ask or have a don't ask don't tell policy. It depends; there's Orthodox and then there's Orthodox. Perhaps you're familiar with neo Orthodox (Orthodox Union?).

[Vic]

Medioctrates, just like with "conversions":

you don't have to believe in G-d

or

you don't have to declare that you believe in G-d?

Nearly the same all over again. Forcing people in a game of pretence and self-denial, IMO, for the sake of conventions. What's the point?

[Mediocrates]

you don't have to declare that you believe in G-d?

Not strictly speaking, no. You go through the process, go up on the Bima, read from the Book of Esther, perform a few other prayers, immerse in the Mikvah in front of the Bet Din, answer a few questions about the commandments, make an effort to keep kosher and that's about it.

[Jeremie]

Israel is a Jewish State and a democraty for already 54 years...

We vote freely and we face antisemitism all together.

I admit that the proportionnal at the Knesset makes a lot of problems, it gives a lot of power to small structures.. But it's obviously a consequence of TOO MUCH democracy, it will be solved one day, like it was in many countries.

We can be a free country, created for the jews but opened to eveybody, and opened for the arabs who wants to leave in peace with us... But if we do that, we HAVE to be the majority if we want to keep it as a jewish country:

Make your Alyah and make babies, be in love with Israel and with your familly in the same time and at the same place.

Jeremie

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by Adversary2Arabs
I support Israel because it is a Jewish state and has the worlds largest concentration of Jews.
Correction: Israel is the second largest concentration of Jews, with just over 5 milion. There are twice as many Jews in the US.

[Mediocrates]

No there aren't 10 million of us here. A little less than 6

http://www.wjc.org.il/wjcbook/chartmap.htm


Here are the major centers

New York 1,900,000
Los Angeles, California 585,000
Miami, Florida 535,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 315,000
Chicago, Illinois 250,000
Boston, Massachusetts 228,000
San Francisco, California 210,000
Washington, DC 165,000
Baltimore, Maryland 100,000
Detroit, Michigan 95,000
Rockland County, New York 83,000
Orange Country, California 75,000
San Diego, California 70,000
Atlanta, Georgia 67,000
Cleveland, Ohio 65,000
St. Louis, Missouri 53,000
Phoenix, Arizona 50,000
Denver, Colorado 46,000
Houston, Texas 42,000
Dallas, Texas 35,000
Seattle, Washington 29,000
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 28,000
Hartford, Connecticut 26,000

[Vic]

AFAIK, the WJC statistics include only registered members of recognized Jewish communities. In Europe, the proportion of "official" Jews to Jews eligible for Israeli citizenship is estimated roughly at 1:2. If the same applies to the US, then it would make about 10 million.

[Mediocrates]

I think many of those other 4 million would be suprised to learn they are Jewish. They may not have ever been self identified that way. I'm not sure at all what WJC thinks is an official Jew. Elvis was Jewish but never learned anything about it or practiced. Louis Armstrong grew up as the 'adopted' son of an Orthodox family and learned and studied and probably identified with Judaism as much as most Jews I know.

No one really knows what the numbers look like.

It is an enormous tragedy that 60-70% of American Jews are unaffilliated, that no matter how tenuous their own relationship they can't find someplace to roost. From the most liberal Reform to radical Reconstructionist to mainline Conservative to Orthodox, neo Orthodox and Lubavitch and everything in between....

That is why I whole heartedly support Lubavitch; because they have outreach to other Jews. It is absolutely imperative that we welcome these people back in and offer them a supportive non judgmental Jewish home. UAHC (Reform) seems to think that being nearly Protestant is enough to lure Jews back, which it doesn't after B'nai Mitzvah and UJC (Conservative) brings with it a unique blend of too much ritual and bizarre internal politics so it falls on the smallest of the three, the Orthodox to keep Judaism alive.

[Vic]

Actually, many of such "unaffiliated" Jews around here do practice Judaism - they just disagree with community policies on this or other issue, can't stand the Rabbi, etc. On the other hand, many registered community members don't care about Jewishness in any serious form - they stay in the communities for the sake of company ;)

[Mediocrates]

Staying together for the sake of the coffee cake. :p

I've found that the rabbi is the least of the problem. s/he is hired and can be unhired. It's the machers in the temple who think they rule the rest of us I can't stand and can't shut up about.

[Vic]

Care to return to the original subject (government, parliament, election, citizenship, comparisons to Germany and France, state and religion? :)

[Vic]

Hi, Jeremie!Originally posted by Jeremie
I admit that the proportionnal at the Knesset makes a lot of problems, it gives a lot of power to small structures.. But it's obviously a consequence of TOO MUCH democracy, it will be solved one day, like it was in many countries.Got any practical ideas on it?We can be a free country, created for the jews but opened to eveybody, and opened for the arabs who wants to leave in peace with us... In your experience - what is the proportion of Arabs, both with and without Israeli citizenship who dowant to live in peace with Israel? Have they got a chance to control the ones who don't?But if we do that, we HAVE to be the majority if we want to keep it as a jewish country:

Make your Alyah and make babies, be in love with Israel and with your familly in the same time and at the same place.:):):)

[Jeremie]

Hi Vic,

Well, about the Israeli proportionnal system, I think that electing some local representatives to be members at the Knesset would be more clever...

We have more than a milions of Arabs in Israel.. I don't say that they all support Israeli, but they aren't terrorists... They are full israeli citizens. I talk with arabs all the time... jews still very welcomed in some israeli arab villages... They cook very well :)
We can live in peace with them, they are the only arabs in the world who can vote, they are also the ones with the best level of life.

Read this text, it's impressive, by the way... What a paradox, Arabs inside Israel are protected against that:

UN Report calls for Arabian Renaissance

In the just released UN Arabian development report the UN Arabian office calls for an Arabian renaissance to combat "institutional inertia" poverty, the lack of freedom and gender inequality.

After 9/11 the dominant theory explaining the Arabian resentment against the west was the "breeding ground theory".
The theory held that the terrorists motives came from poverty, exploitation and injustice upheld by the west. So the terrorists acted out of resentment and hatred that had its origins in the policies of the west and America in particular.

Although the UN report does not answer this guilt question, it does describe the state of Arabian "human development" affairs. And that doesn't look very good.
In the 22 Arabian countries researched, (1) the factor productivity declined annually by 0.2% in the 1960- 1990 period, while it accelerated in other parts of the world, (2) in 1960 the per capita output was higher in the Arabian countries compared to the Asian Tigers, now it is half that in Korea, (3) in 1960 the productivity of Arab industrial labour was 32% of the North American level. In 1990 it had fallen to 19%.
According to the UN report the human development in the Arab world is a "cause for concern". The indicators show that the Arab region is richer than it is developed. The Arab region limps because of a special kind of poverty: poverty of capabilities and poverty of opportunities.
Not only does the region have to accelerate economic growth to bridge the gap with the rest of the world, it has to address the root causes of its poverty that lies in three main deficits: freedom, women's empowerment and knowledge.
These root causes were analyzed already by Bernard Lewis in his book; What went wrong?. He holds that the Muslim world did not fully modernize because of the cultural inability to (1) change the position of women, (2) to separate religion and the state, (3) to fully grasp the meaning of modernity.
Stanley Kurtz ads in his essay on Lewis another important root cause of the inability for Muslim society to fully adopt modernity. The tribal structure of society.
According to Lewis the Muslim societies should follow the Kemalist (Turkish) example. This would mean: If the fundamental principles by which Muslim society is organized are profoundly incompatible with modernity, a total break with tradition might seem to be in order. But, of course, the very centrality of kin-based structures to Muslim society makes such a break very hard to sustain (as Turkeys Kemalists have discovered of late). (Kurtz)

The UN report advocates exactly such a road of change for the Arab world. It advocates; (1) legal reform, (2) reforming the essence of governance by "activating the voice of the people" through representation, in other words: democratization. (3) Liberating human capabilities by strengthening institutions of local governance, liberating civil- society organizations and fostering free and responsible media.

The report also argues that the Arabian region should be digitizing its cultural heritage and publish it on the internet. Artists, writers, professionals, scholars and students should therefore have the freedom to choose what to publish.
The report reveals a stunning figure. In the last thousand years the books translated into Arabic is 100.000. This equals the translations of Spain in one year. Arabic speaking people must find themselves in a cultural desert.

In essence this report calls for a total revolution of the Arab society. The call of President Bush, in his last speech on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, for reform of the Palestinian Authority is completely in line with the UN report. Although the report says that the ongoing conflict has a very negative impact on the Arabian region, you can not deny that the conditions for peace laid out by Bush are the core argument of the UN report analyzing the bad state of affaires in the Arab world.
Reading the executive summary of the report one can conclude that the part of the "breeding ground theory" in which the west is to blame for creating evil itself by suppressing the Arabian people is nonsense. The problem is far to big and the root causes lay far to deep in Arabian culture and society. To put the blame of poverty and degradation of the Arab world on the west is a diversion of thinking that can only harm Arabians themselves.
Arab Human Development Report

http://www.undp.org/

[Vic]

Jeremie, thanks, someone has already put this report on the forum a long time ago ;)

"I think that electing some local representatives to be members at the Knesset would be more clever..."

What do you mean?

[Jeremie]

Sorry, I'm brand new on that forum... I didn't know :)

In Israel, you have to vote for a political faction in general. Then, following their percentage, they take proportionally from their list of potential members. I think this is a dangerous system, because even a small minority can get a knesset members.. We know that in time of crisis, they can blackmail the main factions to go one side or the other. Shas made it many times these last years.

By electing local representative, it would be as democratic. It would be like "Local prime ministers", they would be send to the knesset. Maires, or any popular local figures may apply... For that we'll have to split Israel in areas and big cities in districts.

In France they use this system. If they had done like Israel, Le-Pen and extrem right would have rule the country for a while.

[mulp]

Is Israel a Jewish state meaning a people who view Israel as a sacred religious heritage granted by God to them forever?

Or is Israel a Jewish state granted by the UN to those who have been persecuted for identifying themselves as being Jewish or who were identified by others as being Jewish even if they were not actually Jewish?

In the US, democracy applies only to "Americans", ie., only US citizens can vote and expect to have other rights under the Constitution, so if I say the US is an American state, this implies that only Americans have real rights. The Bush administration has made it clear that it feels that it can decide the treatment of anyone in the US who is not American without regard to the Constitution, even if they are legally a US resident.

Does Israel being a Jewish state mean that Jews (however defined) have rights and non-Jews have no or limited rights, even if legally an Israel citizen?

It seems to me that Israel is now as Jewish as California is Hispanic, with the difference being that "Jewish" is a term "stolen" to refer to a confused ethnic identity while "Hispanic" is an invented term to refer to a confused ethnic identity.

[Jeremie]

Should I remind you that we have 1 million israeli arabs ? They are regular citizens, they vote and they don't have to do the army... and paradoxaly they are the only arabs in the world who are living in a democracy.

[sharonbn]

Originally posted by mulp
Is Israel a Jewish state meaning a people who view Israel as a sacred religious heritage granted by God to them forever?
That is one reason. The Jews believe in the bible (as do the Christians and Muslims), and it says that the land of Israel was promised to the Jewish people by God.
But it goes deeper than that. Judaism defines not only a religion, but also ethnic identity, much like the French and British (and unlike the Americans, who are yet to form their common ethnic identity.) Jews declare Israel as their homeland, much like France and the UK, much like the Palestinians declare their lands as their homeland. This declaration (not the religious belief) was the basis for the foundation of the Zionist movement 150 years ago and the mass Jewish immigrate to Israel ever since.

Originally posted by mulp Or is Israel a Jewish state granted by the UN to those who have been persecuted for identifying themselves as being Jewish or who were identified by others as being Jewish even if they were not actually Jewish?
That is the reason why the world’s nations supported the foundation of the state of Israel. They realized the necessity of a safe haven for Jews.

Originally posted by mulp
In the US, democracy applies only to "Americans", ie., only US citizens can vote and expect to have other rights under the Constitution, so if I say the US is an American state, this implies that only Americans have real rights. The Bush administration has made it clear that it feels that it can decide the treatment of anyone in the US who is not American without regard to the Constitution, even if they are legally a US resident.
Does Israel being a Jewish state mean that Jews (however defined) have rights and non-Jews have no or limited rights, even if legally an Israel citizen?
You mix two different terms: ethnic identity (like black, British, Jewish) is a social term. Citizenship (like American, British, Israeli) is a legal civil term. Israeli citizenry does not include Jews only. The indigenous population (people who lived on the land prior to the establishment of the state) are also citizens, including Arabs. All Israeli citizens have the same rights and obligations (with the exceptions of law of return and military service.). Non Israelis, like non-Jewish immigrants, may apply for permanent resident status. They are not allowed to vote, but their rights are anchored in the Israeli laws (i.e. the Israeli government cannot “decide the treatment” of such people, whatever it means). Israel also houses a large number of foreign workers, who hold a working permit but no legal citizenry status. These people are subject to governmental policy and decisions.

The state of Israel does declare itself a Jewish state. It expresses this declaration with the law of return (granting immediate Israeli citizenship to Jewish immigrants), with the official educational plan, by making Saturday and Jewish holidays an official vacations, etc.

Originally posted by mulp It seems to me that Israel is now as Jewish as California is Hispanic, with the difference being that "Jewish" is a term "stolen" to refer to a confused ethnic identity while "Hispanic" is an invented term to refer to a confused ethnic identity.
I don’t know what’s the situation of California. Israel is Israeli as much as California is American. Israel is Jewish because the majority of its residents are Jewish, and because of its self definition as mentioned above.
I don’t know what’s confusing about Hispanic, but Judaism is a very well defined and rigid ethnic identity. You either have a Jewish mother or were converted to the Jewish faith.

[5-alef]

Too bad many Haredim do not join the army. I think military service should be mandatory for them also.
AMEN!

[Vic]

An article on the conversion process:

Up Front: An Arduous Journey
Netty C. Gross

Just how hard is it for Russian speaking non-Jews to convert in Chief Rabbinate courts these days? Very. At least that’s one lesson to be learned from Yigal (Igor) Klebansky’s long journey to Judaism.

http://www.jrep.com/UpFront/Article-0.html