[NGFP-BookClub] Israel as theocracy

[ruth gavison]

Again, there are so many threads here that it is impossible to address all
of them without losing effectiveness.
 
I think it might be useful to summarize what emerges from the discussion:
 
1.          There is an issue about Israel's demography and how it relates
to its identity.  This is of course a very critical issue not only in terms
of the internal Jewish debate about Who is a Jew but also concerning the
Jewish-Arab divide. There are many theories about demographic projections in
Israel proper (without the territories captured in 1967).   Non-Jewish
immigrants are now about 5% of the population and will probably not grow.
Arabs are now about 20% and I support the position, described in Metzilah's
position paper on the subject (you can find it on Metzilah's site:
www.metzilah.org.il <http://www.metzilah.org.il/> .) that, given more or
less the current aliyah rates, the Arabs will rise to say 27% percent than
start to slowly go down. The main reason for this is the rapid growth of the
ultra religious community.  It may well be that religious and ultra
religious will be, together, 40 percent of the population in Israel
(compared to about 30 now). This may mean that secular Jews may become a
minority - albeit a strong one - in Israel within two generations!  These
numbers should of course be taken as an important background of the
discussions. And I should add that all demographic predictions may in fact
not materialize, and this had happened often in the Israeli context.  It may
well be the case that patterns of intermarriage may mean that the part of
orthodox and ultra orthodox among Jews in the Diaspora will also rise.  The
debate about Who is a Jew is especially critical for these predictions.
2.          I do not think there is an essentialist answer to the question
who is a Jew.  It is not clear that all those identified as Jews by Jewish
law are indeed Jewish. Some people think that Jewish law sees as Jews all
those born to a Jewish mother, even if they converted.  Most people will not
think that. The Nazis of course did. On the other hand, most people will see
M and his mother as Jews. Even if the COR in Britian did not.  So to be
productive we need to ask why we are interested in answering the question
whether a person is Jewish or not. And whether this is a scientific or
sociological question, or a theological one, or a legal one. 
3.          In most countries, if there is a reference in the laws to
identity, (as distinct from citizenship) - this is a matter of
self-definition or loose usage. In most liberal countries, nothing much
happens if one is identified as a Jew or not by this or that authority.  The
laws of liberal democracies do not make benefits accrue to people because of
their ethnic or religious identity.  We say that these identities are thus
'privatized' by the state.  Of course identity is not a matter of state
recognition. It may be a question of membership in a community or a culture.
But these questions are social and do not ordinarily call for legal
determinations. Jews who care about raising their children Jewish will
usually want their non-Jewish spouses to convert. The quality of the
conversion will be a matter of the parties to decide.  Indeed, the fact that
some orthodox Rabbis think that one can only convert to Judaism if one
adopts an orthodox way of life is a serious problem.  But in all liberal
societies there are rabbis who are much more welcoming.  True, a person
converting in a progressive congregation may find that he is not recognized
as Jewish by the rabbinical courts.  Requiring of orthodox courts to
recognize as Jewish someone who to them is not Jewish is an interference
with their freedom of religion. The more interesting question is what be a
wise route for orthodox religious leaders to take.  This is a religious
question which is hotly debates in both Israel and Jewish communities around
the globe.
4.          We here deal with decision by states, not by religious
communities.  Especially decisions by Israel. 
5.          Most of you agree that the LOR is a legitimate and central law.
If it is then Israel cannot have the freedom not to give a clear and
operative answer to the question who will be eligible to enjoy the
immigration privileges granted by Israel.  The present LOR (after the 1970
amendment) connects the answer to this question to a narrow definition of a
Jew and to extending the privileges to family members of Jews.   Many of you
- and many in Israel - object to that arrangements. For reasons that I find
compelling. However, both David and Barry stressed the weighty reasons -
other than political forces within Israel - that might justify the route
taken by the Knesset.  I think we have said what needs to be said here.
6.          But Israel also has an orthodox monopoly over marriage and
divorce. People not recognized as Jews by the rabbinical courts cannot marry
Jews in Israel, In fact many of them marry outside Israel or live in common
law marriages, widely recognized by the law.
7.          There is also the issue of registration: Israel lists both
ethnicity and religion. And in the past the criteria for registration were
the same for both. So that a person could not be registered as a Jew in his
nationality unless he was also a Jew by religion. Now the rules are somewhat
more relaxed. I do not want to make this too long. The Gavison-Medan
proposal is that registration should be free but transparent so that others
will be able to know if they too think the person who thinks he is Jewish is
in fact Jewish...
8.          In principle, it is not a good idea to let the law decide issues
of ethnic or religious identity. Israel is an interesting case because at
least for immigration it must do so. The arrangement of the LOR exposes the
complexity of the relations in Jewish identity between religion and
ethnicity. Yes, the British case should have been avoided. But it is a
dramatic instance of the complexity. The court's conclusion was an
interference with the religious freedom of the British Rabbinate. But it
forced the Rabbinate to see that once you get privileges from the state -
you must modify your criteria to meet social reality. Excluding M from the
JFS was a mistake by all standards. 
9.          A last word on conversions.  The development within Israel in
which the state religious courts invalidate retroactively conversions
confirmed by an orthodox state court is indeed unacceptable. It only shows,
again, that the state should not as a rule allow religious authorities to
determine status in a way that may interfere with the rights of citizens. It
will be interesting to see if this will bring about a change in Israeli law.
So far it has not.
10.       Finally I want to repeat - all of this does not really decide who
is a Jew. This is a questions decided by individuals and communities in many
different ways. They should be debated and contested as they are even here
among us. Those who feel and want to be Jewish should not let establishments
who wish to exclude them do that. There are many forces within Judaism who
will struggle with them. 
 
Ruth
 
  _____  

From: ngfp-bookclub-bounces at lists.ngfp.org
[mailto:ngfp-bookclub-bounces at lists.ngfp.org] On Behalf Of Barry
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 10:11 PM
To: NGFP Book Club
Subject: RE: [NGFP-BookClub] Israel as theocracy
 
I don't agree Danielle's proposition that 'arguments (about matrilineal
descent) are no longer valid (because) we are in the 21st century with the
benefits of genetics/dna.' 
An Orthodox Jew will assure us that God's law about who is a Jew does not
depend on genetics.  Of course you can reject that approach but you can't
just say the old rules don't apply.  It is a matter of belief - did God tell
us that or not?  The concern of the orthodox is that once we start to change
the rules to suit us, we have changed the nature of Judaism.  If one person
is allowed to change the rules, so can we all, leading to fragmentation and
anarchy.  And we certainly see that fragmentation in the Jewish communities
of today so, to that extent, that orthodox prediction is accurate.  We even
see it within the orthodox communities in Israel where one orthodox rabbi
will declare that conversions by another orthodox rabbi must be treated
retrospectively as invalid.
A less orthodox Jew will 'explain' that the reason for matrilineal descent
is that the mother creates the atmosphere, the practices and procedures in
the household simply because she is in the home more often than the father.
She creates the Jewish home which is the foundation of the Jewish identity
for those who are born Jewish.  This may be changing in some of our
societies but it is still unusual to find a household where the father
creates the home and the mother is out at work.  The DNA argument has no
traction with that view either.
Then we have the view that most Ashkenazim are descended from the Khazars,
but not from any of the 12 tribes - so what does the genetic argument say
there, I wonder?
 
Who is a Jew is an age-old unanswerable question.  I see two different ways
to answer and (of course, being Jewish) I answer this question by posing
other two questions.  The first approach, which many are taking in this
discussion is, 'How do others see me?' or 'Who will accept me'?  The second
question, which I prefer, is 'who do I believe I am?'
 
The British court case is a red herring because our United Synagogue
foolishly allowed us to ask English judges to decide who is a Jew.  Not
surprisingly, their answer has not satisfied anyone.  Our community as a
whole agrees that we need to get this changed, but surprised surprise we
have not been able to agree on how we want to change it.  
 
It seems unfair that those of us who are born Jewish get a 'free pass'  in
that they don't have to believe or act Jewish whereas those of us who want
to join from outside can be presented with an extreme, almost unattainable,
standard.  I find this idea that conversions can be invalidated
retrospectively or endorsed as 'not effective outside Israel' an abomination
but in the confines of strict orthodoxy, particularly with the anxiety to
preserve their way of life from outside influences, it makes a weird kind of
sense.  And if your objective is to preserve the Jewish people, we have to
concede that this method has its flaws but is working better than the
progressive approach
 
I don't think we can learn much from comparisons with how other groups
operate because British, Australians, Greeks, Syrians, Russians and others
don't see themselves as a race or as a religion.  There may be religious
elements in their self definitions, but they are really about nationality.
The Native Indians and similar groups who might offer an interesting
comparison have no country of their own and are sadly fast disappearing.
Israel was conceived as a homeland for all Jews, hence the Law of return
which sits uneasily with religious controls which were will ceded by Ben
Gurion and others 60 years ago, not realising the havoc that it would bring
today.  I think that the only near comparison is that of the Tibetan
community, now in Diaspora.  This is why the Dalai Lama has expressed such
interest in how we Jews managed to retain our identity without a homeland.  
 
When I read Rabbi Shochet's article I thought he was bonkers.  I could only
think that he had been invited to write an article that week and having no
special ideas about what he wanted to say looked for something provocative,
not realising he would be taken too seriously.  He has since been roundly
criticised by just about everybody in the UK and backtracked very quickly.
WE don't need to take this seriously.
 
I agree with isi leibler that 'There is a desperate need to reverse Haredi
control of state instrumentalities'.  But I also think that it is too late.
The demography is clearly against the non-orthodox which we see for example
from the general move to the right in Israeli politics.  For so long as
orthodox families have 10 children from the age of marriage at say 19 and
less orthodox families have three or four children starting at the age of 28
or later, it doesn't take long for the orthodox to be an increasing majority
and to be entitled to democratic control.  What we see in Jerusalem is but a
precursor for the whole of Israel.  (It is only half tongue in cheek that I
have suggested a four state solution because we could then have Gaza,
Palestinian West Bank, a Jewish theocracy of the Jewish West Bank, Jerusalem
& Bnei Brak, and the non observant will keep the beaches and Ashkelon Tel
Aviv Haifa etc which is all they want anyway (ask the average tel aviv
resident when they last saw Jerusalem - the answer is usually a number
measured in years.))
 
Barry
 
Barry Abrahamson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ngfp.org/pipermail/ngfp-bookclub/attachments/20100217/545a02bb/attachment-0001.htm