Conference taveng::bagels

    replaces .1

    Bob,

    Yes we do wish.  The situation there has (in my not too humble
    opinion) gotten out of hand.  The intermixing of religion and
    political leverage tends to do bad things to both religion and
    politics.

    SET FLAME ON

    For example, we are by Jewish law forbidden to remind a convert
    of his/her conversion.  In Israel the Ultra-Orthodox minister Peretz
    would have put the word convert on identity papers.  This flies in
    the face of the laws which he claims to uphold.

    SET FLAME OFF

    You should not take it that I am anti-Orthodox or anti-religious but
    rather that I am for seperation of religion and government.

    Gavriel

    I'm not going to spend much time here discussing this issue since
    we went into it at length in an earlier note (one that had many
    numerous and lengthy replies to it).  I've stated my opinions of
    the Agudat Israel, and I think they're known to many here, suffice
    it to say I'm not among their fans.
    
    You must remember that separation of church and state is looked
    upon by these people as an alien and western idea, hence a secular
    and decadent idea.  You can scream as long and loud as you want
    from over here, but unless you gain power (and that's the name of
    the game) then you can't expect to effect any change.
    
    re: -1
    
    I presume that by your reference to Rav Peretz, you are referring
    to the Shoshana Miller case.  Of course I personally dislike Peretz,
    but Ms. Miller didn't do much to aid her case by leaving the country.
    Also, after reading the profile of the Rabbi who converted her in
    Colorado, he struck me as someone who is sort of flippant.  Of course
    this doesn't give Peretz permission to go ahead and label the identity
    cards of converts with that distinction.
    
    I just don't have the koach to reply to this topic anymore, but
    to anyone who has lived in Israel for a long period of time, the
    "arrangement" of 1948 was destined to break down sooner or later.
    I just hope that blood does not have to be shed to decide the outcome.
    
    David

    RE .3
    
    What I' refering to is the latest in the "Shabbas" (i.ei Shabat)
    wars that are making international news of late.  The power of the
    Ultra Orth. is certainly not a new topic; however, noise is (personal
    opinion) becoming problem and an embarassment to us as a world
    community.  I spent some time there this summer and was amazed how
    disruptive the Shas Party et al were to the country.  I also find
    it amazing how their 5 votes in the Knesset are so sought after.
    Their "who is .
    100jew" fight leaves little doubt in my mind that I
    a Reform Jew, am not!
    
    The above should read "Who Is A Jew"
    Their stoning of autos traveling on Shabat is an afront to anyone
    wishing to live as a free citizen, their wanting Jerusalem for their
    very own, their refusal to pay taxes and serve in the IDF has alienated
    almosty all of the secular community.  It's no wonder that the secular
    community is so angry; amongst other things, its also a clear case
    of "Representation Without Taxation"! One cannot help but wonder
    if the Ultra Orth are behaving like real parasites!
    
    Bob
    
    
    

    What strikes me as scary, is that some of the Ultra-Orthodox
    leaders, their methods and their pronouncements, do not appear 
    to me to be much more different than the Ayatollah and the edicts 
    of the Moslem fundamentalists in Iran.
    
    If there is too much internal strife in Israel, I feel that 
    America, as a country, may be put into a situation of lending
    financial and military support to a people and government teetering
    on the brink of a civil/holy war.
    
    American Jews, in particular, are turned-off to religious fanatics,
    regardless of what religion the zealots are espousing. If they per-
    ceive Israel to be run by a bunch of religious "loonies", I think
    that much of the money raised from American Jews will severely
    dwindle.
    
    When James Michener wrote "The Source" in the mid 1960's, he alluded
    to what he saw as the problems emanating from a state run by both
    religious and secular factions. How prophetic his words were.
    
       Alan
     

    Hi
    	I was surprised to learn recently that a fringe minority of
    ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel in fact oppose the presence of the
    State of Israel and that they had petitioned the UN (!!!) to declare
    Israel non-existant! Is this true? What is their objection? 
    	Could someone suggest any books that would explain to me (an
    English speaking goy!) about Zionism, the Reform Vs. Conservative
    Vs. Orthodox issues and their impact on the State of Israel?
    
    Regards
    -parthi

       re .0, .4:
       
       Did something happen to change your mind in the couple of hours
       between the two notes that you wrote?: 
       
       .0> ...but please, NO NAME_CALLING... 
       
       .4> One cannot help but wonder if the Ultra Orth are behaving like
       .4> real parasites! 
       
       --Mr Topaz

    You're right...I apologize.
    BUT, I did say "they were behaving like parasites", I di not say
    that they were parasites. A subtle, but significant difference.
     I'll tell you, I find the situation exasperating; These are my
    people, and I love them, but I think I don't like them for what's
    happening.
    
    Bob
    
    

    Do metaphors count?

    Although I promised to not comment on this, sometimes my impulses
    get the better of me.
    
    I think the international media (primarily American) is taking this
    new term "ultraorthodox" and painting an image of two camps, secular
    and "ultraorthodox".  They don't account for mainstream Orthodox
    in Israel, and what their views are, etc.  I'm not underating the
    threat to Israeli democracy that this vocal minority present, but
    I'm also saying not to paint an entire movement with the same brush.
    
    People's rights to observe or not observe Shabbat should be respected.
    However if you want to try to mold Israeli society into the image
    of American society where religion and state are completely separate,
    then you're wrong.  It reminds me of the views of some in the Hashomer
    Hatzair movement in the early years of the state, they wanted Israel
    to be their little Jewish Soviet Union.  But at least those people
    were living inside of the country, and tried to effect change from
    within.
    
    David 

    there seems to be some criticism of the ultra ortodox in isael form
    certain readers. i think that we have to keep in mind is that the
    only way to make a change is to be one of the players, that is living
    in israel as was mentioned in .10. and since the vast majority of
    jews that leave israel for the west happen to be secular and
    conversely the vast majority of jews that make aliyah happen to
    be religious. this ultimately gives the religious the larger role in shaping
    israeli society
    
    if secular jews want a secular israel or reform and consevative
    jews want more say in israeli society then we will have to start
    making aliyah in the mases to make changes. but i don't think that
    will happen since i don't even think aliyah is even encouraged
    or for that matter even considered by the majority of the leadership
    of the reform and conservative movements. i am also including in
    these movements of course the rabbis, who do in all fairness promote
    occasional trips and seminars. 
    
    
    

There are many kinds of "orthodox Jews". What I have to say here
refers to the 'Agudat Israel' plus the 'Neturei Karta' type of
orthodox (yes, I know they are not the same; but - aren't they,
really?). 

From preceding replies, I get the feeling that people fail to
appreciate what we are dealing with here. These orthodox people do
not think the same way most of us do. They are fanatics. When you
tell them you have a freedom of choice, they do not even comprehend
what you are talking about. 

From their point of view, NO ONE has freedom of choice. It's their
responsibility to show others THE WAY; forcibly, if necessary. From
their point of view, any atrocity is kosher, it it forces someone
into THEIR truth. It's OK to stone a physician's car (on the Shabat,
yet) who by mistake drove through their street (they were violating
a very basic law, "Pikuakh nefesh dokhe Shabat", meaning that life
and death matters override the Shabat). It's OK to smuggle Swiss
watches through customs (customs is an arm of secular Israel). It's
OK to kidnap a boy away from his parents, if that will lead to the 
kid getting the RIGHT education. 

Based on that, no dialog is feasible, or, indeed, possible. Exactly
the same as if 'us' and 'them' didn't talk the same language.
Exactly the same as if two totally alien cultures were colliding
here. 

All this leads to something we do not like to talk about. We,
therefore, pretend it isn't there. But, perhaps it's time to face
it: all this leads to hatred. We are talking about over 90% of the
population hating less than 10% of the population. Sounds familiar? 

In my last visit to Israel (December last year) I heard new
expressions. "Dros Kol Dos" means run over the orthodox with your
car. Slightly anti-Semitic, no? And "Hashmed Kol Khared" means the
same thing without specifying the method of extermination. This was
coming from family and good friends, who talk about the orthodox
Jews and do not know whether to laugh (as if it's a joke), cry
(because it's a national tragedy), or puke (because, that's how they
naturally feel when it comes to these orthodox people). 

Result: Jerusalem was the most expensive city in Israel, also the
fastest developing, only a several years ago. Today, I am told,
apartments are available for immediate occupancy, at low cost. There
is definitely a large movement away from the city. Every Israeli I
have talked to mentioned The Orthodox as the reason. 

We all know that many Israelis --oops... ex-Israelis-- live in these
united states. There's a myriad of reasons why people that were
brought up on the idea that leaving Israel amounts to treason, have
chosen to immigrate away. Somewhere in that jungle of reasons, the
orthodox Jews of Israel play a prominent role. 

It's difficult for me to speak against the orthodox - my own
grandfather, a man I dearly loved,  was a Rabbi. I would have liked
to mention at least one positive thought concerning the orthodox
Jews of Israel. I promise to post it here, as soon as I manage to
come up with one. 

-- Ron 

re .12 
    it is true that there is a small group of ultra orthodox jews
    that are anti zionist but they are few in number.the vast majority
    of orthodox jews that i have known happen to be very zionistic
    in the old fashioned way they live it, that is they live in israel.
    according to what i have read the most decorated soldiers in the
    idf happen to be religious as compared to early years of the state
    when it was the jews from the kibbutzim who were considered to be
    the best soldiers. i also now israelis in the states and though
    the secular ones were annoyed by the ultra orthodox i don't think
    these negative feeling extended to modern orthodox jews. as i
    understand it their main reasons for leaving was the same reasons
    we americans are all here that is to live the good life. where
    there aren't the problems that of couse exist in israel(military
    training,hi taxes,threat of war,lower standard of living ect..).
    that is why i think the orthodox tend not to leave,sure they want
    to be as comfortable as the next,but they have other overriding
    commitments. that is why they tend to stay and the secular leave
    a secular jew could hypothetically grow up feeling the same way
    as an italian feels growing up in italy. he may be a very proud
    italian and proud of italy. but if things are not going well in
    his country he as many other immigrants will set his eyes on other
    horizons ie. america. the orthodox will have as i said earlier other
    reasons for staying. and of course that is not to say that secular
    jews are not as zionistic as the orthodox. there are in fact
    many more secular jews in israel than orthodox. and i am not for
    one minute questioning anyone's feelings toward israel(who the hell
    am i i live rite here to)i just wanted to add a different perspective
    in defense of the orthodox
    
    as far as the orthodox movement in the states and in general is
    concerned. i have great admiration for them.they are the only active
    growing movement. their community has virtually no problems of crime
    or drugs and assimilation is of course vitually nonexistent. while
    their community seems to be intact the conservative and reform 
    movements seem to have no credibility. i have been to conservative
    synogoues that have on paper thousands of members but if one would
    come to services on any particular day one would barely see enough
    for a minion. there is of course one one exception, the high holy days
    when the rest of the membership shows up in their best. 
                                                                   
    

    re: .12
    
    I have to agree with most of what he said.  Generalizations about
    the "ultra-orthodox" (G-d, how I hate that term!) cannot be applied
    to orthodox in general.
    
    Yes many Datim have distinguished and continue to distinguish
    themselves in military service.  However I would depart from one
    comment he made, and that is that kibbutznikim still are the people
    who lead the army in the front-line combat units, and form a good
    percentage of the officer corps.
    
    David

    This note is reserved for David Cherson.

    re: -1
    
    And just what do you mean by that?
    
    Anonymous

    8-}  

    Most of the secular Israelis I have spoken to would never dream
    of turning Israel into a secular state, such as we have here in
    the US. The very essence of Israel is its Jewishness. However, this
    does not mean that the state of Israel should be governed by the
    ultra right, or the ultra left.. just that is should be governed
    by Jewish principles. These principles, by the way, tend to be extremely
    practical and flexible when it comes to working towards the welfare
    of people. I believe that many of the extremists have forgotten
    this.
    
    Jack

    RE: .18
    
    So how do you propose to remind these "ultra's" of basic Jewish
    principles?
    
    Reasoning with them doesn't seem to do it.
    
       Alan
    

	RE: .12, .13

	I have a problem with labels because I know an awful lot of Jews
	who are officially Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist,
	Secular, etc., who do not fit the stereotypes usually associated
	with those labels. I have, in my own family, a whole range of these
	types, including "orthodox" Reform and "modern (=reform?)" Orthodox,
	as well as "black-hat" Orthodox and "polydox" Reform.

	I know Orthodox communities that are disappearing as well as ones
	that are thriving.  The same is true for other groups (one
	interesting phenomenon is the proliferation of the havurah movement).
	Also, there has been a significant increase in Reform and Conservative
	affiliation in Israel.

	I agree with .12 that there are those who "know" the "Truth" and
	therefore have no doubt about what is "right," a phenomenon that
	is difficult (but not impossible) to comprehend.  It is important
	to understand these people in the context of Israeli politics, since
	they play a significant role, out of proportion to their numbers.
	It is also important to distinguish subgroups, since there are
	significant differences in behavior.  The Orthodox movement is not
	monolithic and it is not useful to tar the many peace loving members
	of that group with the brush of intolerance exhibited by the
	SHAS types.

    To answer one of the original questions:
    
    Why are there Jews in Israel who do not want the State of Israel
    to exist?
    
    Because they believe that the Messiah must come before Israel
    can be re-built.  Since the Messiah is not here yet, any human
    attempt to re-create the Israel destroyed two thousand years ago
    is doomed to failure and an abomination (because the attempt
    amounts to a claim that men can do it without the aid of the
    Lord).  Clearly, until the current State of Israel is destroyed,
    the Messiah cannot come....
    
    The above is my understanding of the position--it is neither
    an authoritative statement nor my own opinion.

    				-John Bishop

    
    I do  agree with the fact that the ultra-orthodox extremism isn't
    acceptable. It is true that some religious parties like Shas or
    Agudat-Israel aren't zionist and don't accept Zionism. And I think
    that a minority can't stand against the democratic laws of the
    majority.
    
    But we must not forget some important facts :
    
    1. From the begining of the Zionism history, religious groups were
    present. The MAFDAL remains the most important religious party and
    is a strong zionist group.
    
    2. From the begining of the zionism, it was clear to every body that
    Israel will be a jewish state. Zionism without judaism ...?
    
    3. The extremism of some religious groups is as bad as the extremism
    of some anti-religious groups.
    
    4. What had allowed the jews to remains jewish since 2000 years
    despite assimilation, destruction, Golah ...? 
    
       The extremism of some religious groups is perhpas responsible for
    that survival. No ?
    
    
    Shalom.
    Henry-Michel, Paris
    

    I really think there are two issues being presented here. One is
    political, and one is philosophical.
    
    In the political realm, the extremists, on both sides, have the
    power they do because of the state of the Israeli political system.
    Due to the ability of almost anyone to get elected (I believe to
    get a seat in the Knesset only takes about 1% of the population
    to vote for you), almost any extreme group can find the required
    votes. Once elected, and particularly if the group has several seats,
    they can wield incredible power far above their stature. This is due
    to the need for coalition governments so that a majority can be
    formed. All kind of promises are made in this process.
    
    I think the only way to resolve this is to change the form of
    government. The US system, with all its faults, works reasonably
    well because of the limited number of parties. This allows for a
    majority party to rule. Although compromises are still made, they
    do not have to include the fringe elements. If Israel were somehow
    to adapt their system to make it more difficult for small parties
    to get elected, and to have only a few parties, I think you would
    see a vastly different situation. Of course, in order to do this,
    election reforms would have to be voted by the Knesset, and these
    would be totally against the self interest of many of the elected
    members. Catch 22!

    The Ideological issue is a problem which I believe can not be resolved.
    The extremist positions, again on both sides, can only be confined
    within the definitions of the laws which the people of Israel deem
    appropriate. I do not believe that you can easily change the opinions
    of rational people, let alone irrational ones.
    
    Only my opinion.
    Jack

re: Note 352.6 by ANGORA::PKANDAPPAN >

>    	Could someone suggest any books that would explain to me (an
>    English speaking goy!) about Zionism, the Reform Vs. Conservative
>    Vs. Orthodox issues and their impact on the State of Israel?
    
	Parthi,

	I don't know how much you've read about Israel or Jewish history,
or what kind of background you have in sociology, but I'll offer a short
list:
	General background:  H. H. Ben-Sasson, ed., A History of the
			Jewish People.  Harvard U. P.  1976
			(trans from the Hebrew.  An overview of Jewish
			 history from an Israeli perspective.  See Ch 58ff
			 for a general history of the Zionist movement.)
	The role of the land: Lawrence A. Hoffman, ed. The Land of Israel;
			Jewish Perspectives.  U. of Notre Dame P. (Yes, you
			read it correctly. It is published under the auspices
			of N.D.'s Center for the Study of Judaism and
			Christianity in Antiquity.)  1986
			A collection of articles showing the evolution of
			Jewish attitudes toward the Land of Israel through
			the ages.
	Modern Zionist ideology:  Shlomo Avineri, The Making of Modern Zionism;
			The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State. Basic
			Books. 1981
			A survey of key thinkers in the origin and development
			of the modern Zionist movement.
	Religious conflict:  Norman L. Zucker, The Coming Crisis in Israel;
			Private Faith and Public Policy.  M.I.T. P. 1973
			A discussion of theopolitics in Israel.  Although
			many of the details have changed slightly since
			the book was written, the problems are still the
			same.


	If I can be of further help, please contact me.

					Aaron

    Re: .22
    Contrary to what Mae West used to say..."everything in excess is
    not wonderful" thus any extremism is harmful, whether it comes from
    Khomeini or from the "haredim".
    It is indeed scary to have hear Mr. Porush declare in an interview
    that he was sorry that the initial Zionists did not go to Uganda
    rather that Israel. He further announces that if the "heretics"
    do not cease their movies, there would be a war! A WAR!?! These
    benzonahs have the nerve not to serve in Zahal and now they want
    to declare a war? 
    Having seen some of these enlightened people at work during my last
    visit home, they will succeed in making Jerusalem and then the rest
    of Israel unlivable by their complete intolerance. They must be
    stopped! and NOW.

    
    Re: .22
    
    But do you clearly mean by stopping extremism NOW ? What practical
    decisions ?
    
    I think that the strenght of a democracy is its hability to accept
    a "piece of extremism".
    
    Shalom
    Henry-Michel, Paris
    

    The way to resolve this is by reworking the electoral system we
    have in Israel. The system and the government created by the current
    electoral procedure is a nightmare. Example: before a crucial vote,
    MK have to fly back urgently from wherever they happen to be in
    order to support the party line since the whole coalition hangs
    often on one vote.
    The fact that the religious party has a seat in the government,
    so be it if they are duly elected. However, given the fact today
    that a few thousand votes puts someone into the Knesset, and then
    knowing that the two major parties (themselves coalitions of smaller
    parties!) need each and every vote, will basically hold the country
    to ransom (see the stoppage of El Al flights, who is a Jew, movies
    etc...) demanding more and more.
    Judaism has always prided itself in tolerance, it is now apparent
    that for this minority this is no longer the case. Today it is movies
    in Jerusalem, football in Ramat-Gan and tomorrow we'll have separate
    beaches and...chadors!
    If they object to movies, they shouldn't attend! But the height
    of incomprehension was a policeman yelling at an utra-orthodox saying
    "...**** it's because of you I'm desecrating MY sabbath"!
    Since the above will take time, my answer is send in the army and
    ship the whole lot to Teheran! (Kidding...but only just)

    Maybe not Tehran but how about the Straits of Hormuz.
    
    I would think that the ?people? of Israel should sit down and think
    about what they have and should appreicate what they achieved.
    
    People who want more and more.... end up with much much less.
    
    Good Day,
    Salam and
    Shalom
    
    Sultan,
    (just my opinion)

RE: .27

>    If they object to movies, they shouldn't attend! 

There you go again. You guys still misunderstand what this is all
about. It's not as if the orthodox want to forgo movies on the
Shabat (they don't go to the movies on week days, either). What they
want, is to prevent  Y O U   from going. To them, your freedom of
choice is meaningless, as are your rights. 

You cannot deal with a cultural clash by limiting your point of view
to one of the involved cultures only (that's exactly what the
extreme orthodox are doing). However, once you fully analyze the
situation with this understanding in mind, you will realize that the
options in this case are very limited. 

-- Ron

    What is getting lost in this dialogue about what should be illegal
    activities on the Sabbath is that not everyone who lives in Israel,
    or even in Jerusalem, is even Jewish.  The Armenian Christian
    community, for example, has lived in Jerusalem for an awfully long
    time, having been chased out of their own homeland.  To everyone's
    credit, that community seems to be on good terms with their neighbors
    of all persuasions, but it doesn't make sense to require them to
    live by some super-strict interpretation of Jewish religious laws
    - these people aren't Jews, by any group's definition of who is
    or isn't Jewish.  Sigh.
    
    We were very careful to stay away from "dangerous" areas after about
    11 am on Fridays in Jerusalem; some areas not only throw rocks at
    lost foreigners who inadvertently violate the local interpretations
    of religious law, but also start their Sabbath restrictions several
    hours before the "one-hour-before-sundown" that most of our friends
    observe.  Basically, we didn't dare get lost!  That doesn't seem
    very reasonable to me.  It is very hard for us liberal American
    Jews, who grew up in a culture where religion is usually not mandated
    by the government, to understand the point of view.  Trying to
    understand it may be good for us, but I have to admit that I really
    was afraid, and really did do my best to avoid confrontations, coward
    that I am.
    
    The only place I really ran into trouble was actually not a Jewish
    area at all, and some of you will probably say that I should not
    have attempted to get in anyhow.  The guard at one of the mosques
    decided that the sleeves on my dress were too short (that dress
    had already "passed" for several different mosques elsewhere, and
    most of Jerusalem except for areas where women have to swelter in
    high necks, long sleeves, and opaque stockings - which we knew about
    ahead of time, although I did get incredibly HOT).  Of course, he
    ran up to me swearing in Arabic and grabbing and dragging me away
    - and none of us know a word of Arabic, so it took a while to figure
    out what I had "done", and I was pretty angry at being singled out,
    since my clothing was about the same as what all the women in our
    little group were wearing.  I think he may have gone after me because
    I was by far the tallest of us, so I was much more obvious if I
    was "in violation" of the local women's clothing restrictions.   (I
    was angry anyhow that the requirement to wear hot clothing only
    applied to women in most areas - the Middle Eastern idea of men
    being very weak and prone to "sin" if they should see a woman's
    wrist, neck, or ankle (poor roasting, sweltering woman!) is very
    strong amongst some groups, and it is very hard to avoid offense
    when you are tired of these restrictions.)
    
    Anyhow, sad to say, the various Jewish factions are far from the
    only fanatics in Jerusalem...  I wish all these groups believed
    that the Messianic Era would be helped by their efforts to establish
    peaceful relationships with each other, but that is a a very liberal
    interpretation that isn't at all popular with some groups.  Sigh.
                                              

The following four articles appeared in the Jerusalem Post, International
Edition for week ending August 22, 1987.  I hope you read them....because it
took me a very long time to type them in......

No! NO! Not since August 22nd!

HAREDIM SEEKING TO MAKE US INTO AMISH
Jewery, says Jacob Neusner, should "turn its back" on ultra-Orthodox.

The representation of Tora-true Judaism by the haredim is sound on every
point.  Knowledgeable people can quote chapter and verse in Talmudic writings
in support of their position on all matters.  On issue after issue they 
represent the Tora---oral and written---precisely as the received, classical
sources portray it.

And that is precisely why the policies and programme of the ultra-Orthodox,
and therefore of the Judaism of the oral and written Tora offer no meaningful
option to Jews in the world today.  I do not say to "Orthodox" or "religious"
Jews, but to any Jews.  The appeal of the haredim is that they portray
"Judaism", or the Tora, more authentically than anyone else, more so than
Western or Modern Orthodoxy, more so than the Zionist-religious parties.
And that appeal, to the spiritual and the romantic in us all, is very real.
It is why they are growing through conversion to their brand of Judaism of
the religious-Zionist and the secular alike.

However, the 95% of the Jews who instinctively reject the haredi reading of
the Tora make a sound judgment.  The claim to authenticity requires us to
ask whether the Tora, as the haredim represent it, can serve in the 21st
century.  And I think it cannot.

The Tora, as the haredim read it (rightly, as I said) omits all systematic
doctrine on three critical matters of contemporary life: politics, economics,
and science.  Therefore, Jews who act according to the precepts of the Tora,
oral and written, live only a partial life and, in effect, dismantle the
Jewish state.

Jews living in the Gola with no position on politics, economics and science
must simply retreat into ghettos, having no way to cope with the formative
forces in the world today.  The haredim want to make us all into Amish, and
the Jews are not going to agree, even though more than a few would like to
walk out on the world as it is.  

The three most powerful and formative forces in all human civilization today
are democracy, capitalism, and science, and on those three subjects, authentic,
classical Judaism, accurately represented by the haredim, either has nothing
at all to say, or simply says the wrong thing.

We cannot look to the haredim for intelligent public policy.  The haredim can
make their extravagant claims on the rest of the Jewish people only by relating
to us as follows: we do the politics, the economics, and the science, so they
can live out their private lives in a corner.  Abandon the Jewish state and give
up all public life: that is the message of their authentic Judaism, with its
staggering silence on democracy, capitalism, and science and technology.

We look in vain in the Talmud and related writings for a political theory
that fits the politics of a democratic state.  If the haredim gain in politics,
it will bring democracy in the state of Israel to an end, pure and simple.

We find nothing in the sources that makes possible scientific inquiry, that
is, systematic formulation of theory and empirical testing of hypothesis.
When philosophy, including science, found a place within Judaism, it was
only because of the entry of modes of thought deriving not from Talmudic
but from Greek and Islamic sources.  And they were perceived as alien.
The great philosophers and scientists did not come from the circles who studied
ONLY the Tora, and Tora institutions did not produce philosophy and science.
The haredim have nothing of interest to say to the world of science and
technology, nor do they believe they have anything to learn from it.  But
that is where the world is made today.

Systematic thought on economics, such as the Mishna assuredly presupposes,
had by the end of Talmudic times given away to an essentially magical
conception that if one studies Tora, economic questions will solve themselves.
Rational decision-making, the conception of a market and of a
market-economy---these find no place in the (at best) petty entrepreneurial
thinking of the Tora in its authentic mode.  Consequently, Judaism as the 
haredim accurately represent it is silent on questions of economics.  How
can people utterly ignorant of economics pretend to govern a modern state
or to lead the Jewish community overseas?

Modern Orthodoxy in the U.S., the Orthodoxy of Bar Ilan University and
Yeshiva University, and of the Israeli Zionist_Religious parties, have all
made ample room for science, democracy, and economic theory in the curriculum
of the academy, and also in formulation of public policy  (though here, the
Zionist-Religious parties seem to leave such matters to the partners in
whatever coalition gives them their annual prohibition of pork or its 
counterpart).  Western Orthodoxy appears to be losing out to the claim of
Tora-true authenticity set forth by the haredim.

It is pure romanticism or utter fantasy to opt for the authentic, merely
because it is true about the things of which it speaks.  Jewish public life,
both in the Gola and in the Jewish state, must also ask about the ominous
silences.  The Judaism of the Talmud represented by the haredim, simply 
cannot and will not work, not because it is wrong or humanly deficient, 
but because it falls silent when the work of the world has to be done.

No state can work without well-crafted public policy, without economic policy,
without access to science and technology.  Any lingering appeal of the haredim
to that isolationism that makes us Jews want to turn our backs on the world,
any deep impulse in us all to be only Jewish, always Jewish, and in the right
way, the way of the Tora of Sinai---any appeal to that profound sense in us
all of our Jewishness as our fate, faith and destiny will have to compete
with another appeal.

It is the appeal to the simple fact that, if we are going to live in the
21st century, we require not only the Tora but also economics, politics,
science and technology.  World Jewery has no choice but to turn its back on
the haredim, as they have turned their backs on the 21st century---and for
precisely the same reason.

They are right, and therefore must reject them and their authentic Tora.
After all, there were valid reasons for inventing Reform Judaism and the
Orthodoxy of Samson Raphael Hirsch, the religious-Zionist parties, the
Reconstructionist Judaism, Jewish socialism, secular Judaism and Yiddishism,
and all the rest.  Their haredi opposition rightly claimed that they were not
authentic.  And the opposition was right.  But Reform Judaism and Western
Orthodoxy and the religious Zionists had still more reason on their side,
because they were, and remain, relevant.  And the haredim still have nothing
whatsoever to say on urgent issues of the hour.

PROF. NEUSNER DIRECTS THE PROGRAMME IN JUDAIC STUDIES AT BROWN UNIVERSITY
IN PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND

**************************************************************************

THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG
Eliezer Whartman is disturbed by the "passivity" of non-Orthodox Jews in the
face of the "savage onslaught by the Israeli religious establishment.

"DELIGHT among American Jews" was the way in which the article on the
defeat---with the help of five Arabs and a Druse---of the "Who is a Jew"
amendment was headlined.  It may have been an accurate description of the 
leaders of American Jewery's response to the Knesset vote, but to Conservative,
Reconstructionist and Reform Jews in Israel who have for 40 long years been
the victim of an unrelenting savage onslaught by the religious establishment,
it was a hollow victory, for the bill was only the tip of the iceberg.

But most disturbing has been the passivity shown by the non-Orthodox leadership
in the Diaspora.

The Who is a Jew (or, more accurately, Who is a Rabbi?) bill affects only a
handful on non-Orthodox converts who seek to settle or marry in Israel.  That
the attempt to disqualify Conservative and Reform conversions was voted down
is all to the good---but it does not strike at the root of the evil --- the
unacceptable status quo which, without the Who is a Jew amendment, has made
pariahs of Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Jews in Israel, turning
them into second class Jews, a sort of DHIMMI in the eyes of the ruling
religious establishment.

Despite the ringing assertion in Israel's Declaration of Independence that
all citizens are entitled to freedom of religion and conscience, the distinction
between citizen and citizen began with the establishment of the State.  In
1948, the British Mandatory laws stipulating that the administration of all
Jewish religious affairs was to be under the control of the chief rabbinate
was carried over to the Jewish State.

Religious parties, as a condition for entering the provisional government
and all successive coalitions, demanded the preservation of this status quo.
It has continued to this day.  Ever since the establishment of the State, the
Orthodox establishment has rejected Conservative and Reform Judaism, denying
to Conservative and Reform Jews the same rights accorded to Orthodox Jews.

Reform and Conservative rabbis in Israel are not recognized by the state,
cannot serve on religious courts and municipal religious councils, and cannot
officiate at weddings and funerals.  Unlike the Orthodox, their communities
do not receive state assistance in the construction and maintenance of their
synagogues.  They are unable even to initiate a discourse with the chief 
rabbis, nor can they establish a forum where representatives of Orthodox and
non-Orthodox communities can discuss theological differences.  State salaried
rabbis and functionaries publish announcements in the press, paid for with 
public funds, warning Jews not to attend Conservative and Reform religious
service, describing their non-Orthodox rabbinical colleagues as "a dangerous
element in our midst who woo Jews away from our holy Tora.

Apart from denying basic rights to non-Orthodox Israeli Jews, rabbinical
authorities do not accept the conversions and divorces of immigrants to Israel
performed abroad by Conservative and Reform rabbis.  Israeli rabbis do not
accept the testimony of non-Orthodox rabbis abroad verifying the Jewishness
of their ex-congregrants wishing to marry or divorce in Israel.

Aside from a few disgruntled Conservative and Reform Jews in Israel, the
situation is tolerated in this country, the only land in the free world
where a Conservative and Reform rabbi is unable to perform his duties.
Yet there is barely a murmur of protest from the political parties, including
those who pride themselves on their liberal, socialist outlook, from academics,
from jurists, from the president, from the Israel Civil Liberties Union, from
liberal organizations, etc.  It is easier to get their ear about the infringement
of Arab rights than about the violation of Jewish rights.

Neither of the two major parties, partners in the "national unity" government,
has ever challenged the status quo.  Both sides entered the coalition 
government together with their religious partners to whom they had pledged
that there would be no deviation from the status quo.

It is astonishing that Conservative, Reconstructionist and Reform Jews abroad
have remained almost totally quiescent in the face of the onslaught against
them.

There is a time hallowed maxim in the U.S., the slogan which launched America's
War of Independence against England: "No taxation without representation!"

Anyone familiar with the United Jewish Appeal knows that American Jews are
TAXED to support Israel.  Woe to the doctor, lawyer, businessman, artisan, etc.
who would defy his colleagues, tightly organized according to professions,
and refuse to make an acceptable "gift" to the UJA.

Most UJA contributions are a form of taxation.  But there is no representation.
Jews in the Diaspora who are incensed about ethical and religious shortcomings
in Israel are told by Israeli leaders that if they want to express an opinion,
they should come and live here.

According to this logic, Jews living outside the USSR have no right to tell
the Soviet government how it should treat Jews in the Soviet Union---and
this goes for Israeli leaders as well.

Diaspora Jews have a tool, and they must use it.  Every outraged Conservative
and Reform Jew should announce the next time that he is solicited for his gift
to Israel that he will deduct 10 percent from his previous contribution, and
earmark it for educational, social and settlement programmes of the Conservative
and Reform movements in Israel.  By doing so, he will be following in the
footsteps of the Orthodox who, by and large, earmark their gifts for religious
institutions.

Israel is approaching its 40th birthday.  What is needed today is mutual 
respect between Israel and the Diaspora, and that will lead to mutual
responsibility.

EXCERPTS FROM AN OP-ED PIECE IN THE JERUSALEM POST.  THE WRITER IS EDITOR
OF THE ISRAEL PRESS SERVICE, AN INDEPENDENT SYNDICATE.

*******************************************************************************

TILTING AT WINDMILLS

"The political system has ceased to function," says the dean of the Tel Aviv
University law faculty, Prof. Uriel Reichman.  Few men in Israel today would
contest the basic soundness of his judgment.

When state matters of great pith and moment are put off for decision by 
sectional pressure until hell freezes over, and at best are decided by party
fiefdoms masked as cabinet departments or by a cabinet and a Knesset hoodwinked
and blackmailed by special interests, the conclusion is inescapable that the
rot has set in so deeply the system is no longer in working order.  And that
people of goodwill and intelligence should band together to help it function
again.

This is what Prof. Reichman and three of his law faculty colleagues, aided
by other experts both Israeli and foreign, set out some 20 months ago to
achieve: a draft constitution for the State of Israel.

The product of their joint effort is now before the public.  It is the first
fully-fledged draft constitution since the late Leo Kohn's nearly four decades
ago, and it proposes a radically new design for an Israeli polity, the hallmark
of which is order combined with liberty rather than wild anarchy crossed with
willful coercion.  The Jewish state would, in other words, remain liberal
and democratic, with equality before the law for once constitutionally assured
to all its people by means of a bill of rights, but it would be a 
well-functioning state.

Whether the constitutional means devised by the Reichman team are adequate
for securing these noble ends, is, of course, a matter for debate.  Some
will argue that it goes much too far in this direction or that, others that it
does not go nearly far enough.


ANON

********************************************************************************

ON THE MARCH

The question raised by the past weekend's haredi rioting in Jerusalem is not
whether movies should be allowed to be screened at the Beit Agron Cinema on
Friday night or Saturday afternoon.  Or allowed when they are preceded by
lectures designed to meet the requirements of an old municipal by-law that
bans movie-showing in Israel's capital on Shabbat.  That question will, or
at least should be, settled in a court of law.

The far larger issue that now urgently calls for an answer is whether 
Jerusalem will remain Israel's national capital or whether it will, under 
violent pressure by rampaging haredi crowds, be turned into a copy of Bnei
Brak.

Governing Jerusalem peacefully might seem to be a mission almost impossible.
to have achieved the modicum of peaceful coexistence between Jews and Arabs
and between secular and Orthodox Jews that has marked Teddy Kollek's two
decade-long stewardship as mayor, is an extraordinary achievement.  It rests
on the implicit assumption that all sections of the city's population, no matter
what their attitude to Israel as a state may be, are entitled to equality
in the enjoyment of fundamental civic rights.

In fact the mayor has consistently bent over backwards so as to lend no colour
of credence to any charge of discrimination against the ultra-Orthodox.  If
an ultra-Orthodox neighbourhood known to abominate Mr. Kollek's Zionist
convictions wished to block its entry and exit routes on Shabbat, it was
authorized to do so, even if those routes passed through non-Orthodox areas.

Haredi appetite, however, has been growing with the eating.  Spurning as
sacrilege all modes of Jewish life that do not correspond to their own, the
ultra-Orthodox, evidently confident of the sympathy of the merely Orthodox,
have lately been making it stridently clear that, as far as they are concerned,
they are to be the sole arbiters of Jewishness fit for Jerusalem.  

They, who care not a whit about digging up the country's past, are alone to
decide which areas of Jerusalem are diggable and which are not.  They, who
close their eyes to sports, are to determine whether or not a stadium is to
be built in Jerusalem the noise of which might reach their ears, however
distantly.  And they, who forbid their children to watch films, are to lay
it down when and under what conditions the movie-going majority of the city's
Jews may see Lassie at Beit Agron.

It is time they were told, in the plainest terms, that their Shabbes is not
the Shabbat of sovereign, independent, forward-looking and law-abiding Israel,
and that their stetl-style Jewishness, fully entitled as they are to it, will
not be made obligatory for Israel's capital as a whole.

Unfortunately, a few score secular---mainly CRM and Mapam---hotheads helped
confuse the issue by trying to break up a haredi demonstration near Beit Agron
on Friday night.  They were, however, far outdone by the police who, rather
than drive the point home to the rioters that this is not "their" town, worked
to clear Jaffa Road of innocent strollers Saturday afternoon because they 
"annoyed" the haredim by their loose summer attire and their smoking cigarettes.

But to let Jerusalem, Israel's capital, drift into dominance by haredi culture
is unpardonable and unthinkable.  Meanwhile it's happening.

ANON

RE:.30 by CADSYS::RICHARDSON

>    What is getting lost in this dialogue about what should be
>    illegal activities on the Sabbath is that not everyone who
>    lives in Israel, or even in Jerusalem, is even Jewish.

Tourists may wonder how come this situation (10% of the population
overruling the 90%) has been allowed to continue for so many years.
I think the reason is that most of the Jews in the 90% group really
want Israel to be a Jewish state. Not a theocratic, ultra-orthodox,
compulsory type of Jewish state - but Jewish, non the less. There is
a nationalistic side to being 'a Jew' and most Jewish Israelis would
like to retain this, perhaps with some Traditionalism, as well. 

For example, we'd like to see the Shabat as the day of rest. Many
would like to see stores and business closed on the Shabat. But -
we'd also like to see Cinemas and public transportation on that day.

I believe this is the reason the point you mention above got lost. 


>    ... the Middle Eastern idea of men
>    being very weak and prone to "sin" if they should see a woman's
>    wrist, neck, or ankle

I have a (thank heaven) short story to illustrate this point. 

Several years ago, I was on the train from Tel-Aviv to Haifa. Next
to me sat a Hassid, totally immersed in a book he was studying.
Opposite me was a man, reading a newspaper, with a toddler in his
arms. She was maybe a year and a half or two years old. Eventually,
the girl started to roam around. She climbed all over me and finally
reached the Hassid. He recoiled and with one blow, smashed the baby
to the floor. 

The baby wasn't really hurt, but was very frightened, and naturally
started to holler something awful. The father dropped his newspaper,
picked up the kid with one arm and proceeded to become violent with
the Hassid with the other. Everybody had a hard time quieting him
down and saving the Hassid's life. Through all the commotion, the
Hassid kept muttering (half to himself and half to us): "Assur!
Isha!" (It is forbidden! A woman!). 

-- Ron

re:  .-1

>>			... Through all the commotion, the
>>Hassid kept muttering (half to himself and half to us): "Assur!
>>Isha!" (It is forbidden! A woman!). 


	The only answer I can make to this is to paraphrase one of
	Dennis Prager's lectures (sorry, I don't have the exact
	text in front of me!):

	"One of the main reasons that being religious is not popular is
	that many religious people are not nice".

I can't apologize for that Chasid's behavior. He was simply wrong, in
several ways. His behavior was inexcusable. And, he should have known
better. 

	BUT: I hope that you won't draw an "inductive proof" from that
	story... 

/don feinberg