I found this article deeply disappointing. A normally nuanced and thoughtful Amit come across how a Guardian writer would talk about Israel.
What troubled me was the feeling that the normal obligation to understand people before judging them had been suspended.
The choice of opening photograph is revealing. A sweeping history of Haredi political life is introduced with an image of a man throwing something during a Mea Shearim riot. If an article about Religious Zionism opened with an image of "settler terrorists", many readers would immediately recognise how that framed the entire community before the argument had even begun.
I would also genuinely appreciate the source for the claim that Rabbi Shach dismissed the Six-Day War victory as a “fluke” in which “the wicked Zionists happened to prevail.” Rabbi Shach may have denied that the victory vindicated Zionism or represented the beginning of the Redemption. But that is very different from regarding a major historical event as an accident. Such a claim is difficult to reconcile with the central place of Divine providence in his worldview. What is the original Hebrew source and wording?
The treatment of the Chazon Ish’s conversation with Ben-Gurion is similarly dismissive. His argument was that observant Jews regarded themselves as bound by inherited obligations they had no authority to discard. Therefore, when those obligations collided with the wishes of people who did not consider themselves similarly bound, the greater room for accommodation lay with the latter. One can disagree with that argument, but comparing the encounter to George Washington and the cherry tree avoids engaging with what he was actually saying.
The cumulative language is also hard to overlook: Holocaust survivors rebuilt their families and Torah institutions “perhaps too well”; Rabbi Ovadia Yosef spent his career “nursing” grudges; Rabbi Shach was building an “empire”; Haredi politicians are “mercenary kingmakers”; and students look up from their learning mainly to “protest and riot.” This reads less like an attempt to understand a community and more like a decision to view it through the most cynical possible lens.
With Yom Kippur approaching, I hope the authors will reread the piece and consider its language and framing. Like anyone else, Haredim also deserve to have their positions represented accurately before their beliefs and motives are judged.
I live in ramat gan on the border with Bnei brak. There has to be a decision and the state must gain sovereignty over the city and enforce draft laws. Fascinating article.
Excellent article on the Haredi community who developed the philosophy of sloth which worked well for a while but as their percentage in the total
Population grows and grows, they will either become part of Israeli society or destroy Israel as the Finacial implications of their position will become untenable for the country.
I understand the concern about long-term economic sustainability, and it deserves a serious discussion. But a “philosophy of sloth” is a profoundly unfair description of Haredi life.
The Haredi ideal is to build life around Torah, family, mitzvot and responsibility to others. It has produced generations of intense scholarship and an extraordinary culture of chesed. Major Israeli organisations such as Yad Sarah, Ezer Mizion and Ezra LeMarpeh grew from that world. Anyone who knows the community from within sees families living modestly, women and many men working extremely hard, full-time Torah scholars keeping demanding schedules, and neighbours supporting one another in remarkable ways. One may question how many men should learn full-time or how that learning should be funded, but it is not laziness.
There are real questions about employment, education and public funding. As the Haredi population grows, those questions become more urgent, and the community will have to respond to them. But Haredim are already part of Israeli society. Their acceptance should not depend upon abandoning the beliefs that make them Haredi.
Most of all, the growth of Jewish families should not be spoken about as something that will “destroy Israel.” Israel’s challenge is to encourage greater economic participation while preserving the world of Torah and chesed that Haredim rebuilt after the Holocaust. We can debate policy honestly while recognising that Israel would be spiritually and socially poorer without that contribution.
The fact that I’m going to have to re-read this to sort it out says a lot about the situation in Israel! It also helps me understand the intense feelings of a couple of my friends in Israel. Thank you!!!
Not sure I would call it a screed but agree that the in-depth review of Haredi participation in Israeli politics was a bit tedious and did not add much to understanding the current situation. What would (IMHO) be more interesting and valuable is an analysis of if / how the Haredi electorate is fracturing and how the various parties are dealing with including Haredi parties in their coalition math.
You're good Amit . To say the least .
I found this article deeply disappointing. A normally nuanced and thoughtful Amit come across how a Guardian writer would talk about Israel.
What troubled me was the feeling that the normal obligation to understand people before judging them had been suspended.
The choice of opening photograph is revealing. A sweeping history of Haredi political life is introduced with an image of a man throwing something during a Mea Shearim riot. If an article about Religious Zionism opened with an image of "settler terrorists", many readers would immediately recognise how that framed the entire community before the argument had even begun.
I would also genuinely appreciate the source for the claim that Rabbi Shach dismissed the Six-Day War victory as a “fluke” in which “the wicked Zionists happened to prevail.” Rabbi Shach may have denied that the victory vindicated Zionism or represented the beginning of the Redemption. But that is very different from regarding a major historical event as an accident. Such a claim is difficult to reconcile with the central place of Divine providence in his worldview. What is the original Hebrew source and wording?
The treatment of the Chazon Ish’s conversation with Ben-Gurion is similarly dismissive. His argument was that observant Jews regarded themselves as bound by inherited obligations they had no authority to discard. Therefore, when those obligations collided with the wishes of people who did not consider themselves similarly bound, the greater room for accommodation lay with the latter. One can disagree with that argument, but comparing the encounter to George Washington and the cherry tree avoids engaging with what he was actually saying.
The cumulative language is also hard to overlook: Holocaust survivors rebuilt their families and Torah institutions “perhaps too well”; Rabbi Ovadia Yosef spent his career “nursing” grudges; Rabbi Shach was building an “empire”; Haredi politicians are “mercenary kingmakers”; and students look up from their learning mainly to “protest and riot.” This reads less like an attempt to understand a community and more like a decision to view it through the most cynical possible lens.
With Yom Kippur approaching, I hope the authors will reread the piece and consider its language and framing. Like anyone else, Haredim also deserve to have their positions represented accurately before their beliefs and motives are judged.
I live in ramat gan on the border with Bnei brak. There has to be a decision and the state must gain sovereignty over the city and enforce draft laws. Fascinating article.
Very interesting read. Thank you.
Excellent article on the Haredi community who developed the philosophy of sloth which worked well for a while but as their percentage in the total
Population grows and grows, they will either become part of Israeli society or destroy Israel as the Finacial implications of their position will become untenable for the country.
I understand the concern about long-term economic sustainability, and it deserves a serious discussion. But a “philosophy of sloth” is a profoundly unfair description of Haredi life.
The Haredi ideal is to build life around Torah, family, mitzvot and responsibility to others. It has produced generations of intense scholarship and an extraordinary culture of chesed. Major Israeli organisations such as Yad Sarah, Ezer Mizion and Ezra LeMarpeh grew from that world. Anyone who knows the community from within sees families living modestly, women and many men working extremely hard, full-time Torah scholars keeping demanding schedules, and neighbours supporting one another in remarkable ways. One may question how many men should learn full-time or how that learning should be funded, but it is not laziness.
There are real questions about employment, education and public funding. As the Haredi population grows, those questions become more urgent, and the community will have to respond to them. But Haredim are already part of Israeli society. Their acceptance should not depend upon abandoning the beliefs that make them Haredi.
Most of all, the growth of Jewish families should not be spoken about as something that will “destroy Israel.” Israel’s challenge is to encourage greater economic participation while preserving the world of Torah and chesed that Haredim rebuilt after the Holocaust. We can debate policy honestly while recognising that Israel would be spiritually and socially poorer without that contribution.
The fact that I’m going to have to re-read this to sort it out says a lot about the situation in Israel! It also helps me understand the intense feelings of a couple of my friends in Israel. Thank you!!!
I would like to present a better translation of the Yiddish proverb mentioned: you cannot dance at two weddings [at the same time].
I wouldn’t call this a screed, either. More like a history and one which I appreciate as providing helpful context to current events
Not sure I would call it a screed but agree that the in-depth review of Haredi participation in Israeli politics was a bit tedious and did not add much to understanding the current situation. What would (IMHO) be more interesting and valuable is an analysis of if / how the Haredi electorate is fracturing and how the various parties are dealing with including Haredi parties in their coalition math.
Was this giant screed really necessary?