I have always found it curious that Jews are described as being Jewish. I have no accounts of Catholics being called Catholicish or Protestants being called Protestantish. I could on. Being "ish" connotes being "somewhat like". Being "foolish" for example is being somewhat a food. Reddish is being somewhat red.The only example I could find that is innocuous is British. What's the point, you say?
I have always held that being Jewish is nine parts tribal and one part religious. We have all the attributes of being a tribe: we mutilate our young through circumcision, we have elaborate celebrations of boys and girls who gain adulthood, marriages are performed as a public (tribal) display of bonding, etc. Being part of the tribe is traced through matrilineal lines because patrilineal lines are uncertain. We almost always know who the mother is. If the mother is Jewish then the child is Jewish: no questions asked. Until recently.
The state of Israel was founded by Theodore Herzl who wanted a home for the Jews. Not necessarily religious Jews but all Jews. Herzl was, himself, quite assimilated and, at first religious Jews were not overjoyed by the identification of Israel as the home for the Jews. They had religious qualms having to do with the messiah. The first Jews of the state of Israel were anything but religious. They identified with being Jewish (somewhat Jews) but drew the line at religious observance. No one wore are kippah (small head covering) and certainly the girls were anything but modest. The army was a great leveller and Israeli Jews (and other non-Jewish) citizens benefited from their army contacts. There was a small Jewish settlement in Jerusalem by religious Jews who, notwithstanding the fact that they lived there, refused to recognize Israel on religious grounds. Everyone was happy with that arrangements.
In the early 1970s things changed radically (pun intended). Ex-Israeli religious Jews began to take an avid interest in Israel as a place where non religious Jews could be "converted". They made their mark in politics where they funded political parties who had strong religious beliefs. The fragmented voting system in Israel did the rest. Soon, religious Jewish parties were able to form a government. The price for this kind of aid was that religious people did not have to serve in the army (though many serve in the medical corps), rabbis were institutionalized as quasi-civil servants and religious Jews were allowed to settle in the "occupied" territories. The latter was fuelled by religious American Jews who asserted that Jews were promised all of Israel--including the West Bank or Samaria. The rest, as they say, is history.
From my reading it is only a small number of Israeli Jews that are at all religious. However, religious Jews have become the tail that is wagging the dog. They have mandated "who is a Jew" in challenging religious conversions by rabbis who are not "Jewish enough". Because rabbis are quasi-functionaries, those citizens who are not "Jewish enough" are forced to go to Cyprus to marry. There has been some discussion about who is "Jewish enough" to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Until recently the religious faction has been seem by ordinary Israelis as a quaint wrinkle in the general fabric of society. That is until recently. Religious Jews have now been given to striking out against those who are deemed to be dressed immodestly (spitting at young girls by religious extremists is now in vogue), or who desecrate the Sabbath by driving or going to the beach. While Israel is a free society where one can express his or her opinions freely (two Jews, three opinions) there are many who are calling for some definition of where religious rights impinge on the freedom of others. The recent spitting incident and a further incident where a young women was strongly urged to go to the back of the bus as a sign of "respect" for religious men on the bus. Both incidents made international news.
I have always been a strong proponent of litigation as a means of settling the rights and obligations of various factions in society. I declare my bias as a lawyer. When corrupt legislatures refused to deal with the tobacco industry civil litigation brought the industry to heel whereupon legislatures jump in, both feet. If Israel is not to become Iran (G-d forbid) there has to be some demarcation between the synagogue and the state. The recent incident is a good place to start. In the one case, spitting, the remedy is for assault; in other bus case, the remedy is for another kind of assault: harassment. In both cases, religious Jews should pay a hefty fine as punitive damages--some indication by the courts that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. In the case of rabbis who proclaim who is and who is not Jewish a constitutional challenge is in order. There will come a time when the West Bank settlers will have to have their legal rights defined as it is related to living on land that is clearly, legally, not theirs. The alternative to these legal definitions is anarchy.
To sum up, being Jewish embraces those who are religious and those who are somewhat (the "ish") religious and those who are not at all religious but are clearly identifiable (by themselves or others) as Jews. The problem is mainly Israeli because there is enough civil and religious pressure in the West to allow all forms of Jewish expression to stand side by side. But the Israeli problem has a strong effect on non Israeli Jews. If Israel is a place where all Jews can return, circumscribing these rights affects everyone. If I have a "right of return" I believe that I have that right unconditionally. A right that can't be taken away from a rabbi-functionary.
What has this to do with my many friends who are not Jewish? The imposition of one's religious will on another is not limited to Israel. Witness the latest crowd running on the Republican ticket who want to be President. No one is "Christian" enough. What happens if one of these candidates is (God forbid) elected. The whole national will have to genuflect a la Tim Tebow. Only a glance of most of the Muslim countries discloses practices that are biblical (don't get caught stealing if you want your right hand). The Israeli problem is a small one compared to some of the others. However, if you have a free country (such as Israel) you need to make sure that the law protects religious diversity. It's a slippery slope if it does not.
Bernie.
No comments:
Post a Comment