At 02:43 PM 10/22/99 -0400, you wrote: >BN: >. . . Shahak convincingly argues that racism and a pre-Enlightenment world >view are endemic to orthodox Judaism as it is practiced in Israel today. >Note that there is no separation of religion and state in Israel, so that >this is a matter of no small social consequence. For example, the vast >majority of land in Israel is reserved for use by Jews only. . . . >>>>> > >Shahak is a heroic figure, but I think you're >misinterpreting him a bit. Is your characterization based on having read the work I cited? If not, on what? Perhaps we can get him to intervene, (like Marshall McLuhan in "Annie Hall") I'm really lost as to what you are arguing here and what relevance it has to the point at hand. You don't really claim any expertise on Judaism in Israel, which is fine, BTW being Jewish does not make you an authority, but then you proceed to argue by analogy that something that's true some Jews in the U.S. (e.g. you) is also true about Jews in Israel. But if you had read Shahak's work, you would know that a recurring theme for him is that Jews in the U.S. falsely assume that Jews in Israel are like them -- for example, he asserts that Judaism as it exists in Israel never experienced the Jewish Enlightenment. It's your business whether or not you want to read Shahak, but it's not cricket for you to claim that I'm misinterpreting him when you haven't read his work. I recommend the book to you, it's short. >We're got some excess conflation here. From Judaism >the religion to Israel the state. Jews in Israel who >are religiously observant tend to be orthodox, but a Almost all religious Jews in Israel are orthodox. Reform and Conservative Judiasm scarcely exist in Israel. They have no political power and no legal recognition. In the United States the situation is the opposite: Reform is the largest, followed by Conservative, then Orthodox. The Reform and Conservative traditions arose in the West and reflect influences of the Enlightenment and modernized Christianity. Note that for the orthodox structure in Israel, Reform and Conservative Judaism is not real Judaism. Reform Judaism is not recognized by the state of Israel as real Judaism, whereas orthodox Judaism is recognized as real Judiasm. Recall that a person converted to Judaism by an orthodox Rabbi is eligible to claim Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return; but a person converted to Judaism by a Reform Rabbi is not recognized as a Jew by the Israeli state and thus is not eligible to claim Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return. This is a matter of considerable friction, as evidenced by the decision of the Jewish community in San Francisco a few years back to redirect its giving away from Israel. (To the the credit of said community, there were other issues, such as frustration over the intransigence of the Israeli government in its negotiations with the Palestinians.) >high proportion (maybe 50%?) are not observant but secular. A true fact, but irrelevant. >There is no middle ground analagous to conservative >and reform traditions in the U.S. Of the Israeli >orthodox Jews, a subset have theocratic ambitions. A meaningless statement. Not clear what you mean by "theocratic ambitions." "a subset" implies, "not all do" (although not in the mathematical sense of the term.) so? Israel is a country in which discrimination against non-Jews is codified in law, and in which the Jewish religion (orthodox version) has significant powers codified in law. The Ashkenazi and Sephardic Chief Rabbis are government officials. And so on. Israel is not a theocracy, but it is not a secular state either. >Privilege for Jews in Israel does not stem from their >religious commitment, but from their nominal religious >identification. Very big difference. My identification >is Jewish, but the only time you'll catch me in a >synagogue is for well-catered weddings and bar mitzvahs. >Founders of Israel were secular Jews and strongly opposed >by the orthodox of pre-WWII. Until recently, an orthodox >sect gathers once a year in Brooklyn and burned the >Israeli flag; maybe they still do -- I haven't paid >attention lately. >My reading is that for the secular originators of Zionism, >Judaism was more a marker than a matter of faith -- >a symbol useful for nationalistic purposes. Cooptation >of the orthodox by the Zionist right wing was as much >opportunistic as anything else. Among other things, >Jewish fundamentalism of a certain type supplies a >rationale for annexation of territory "from the Nile >to the Euphrates" which is lacking in law. What is the significance of the above? The founders were secular, but used religion for nationalist purposes. So? Suppose you found out that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson didn't really believe in God. The significance of this fact would be... Religious nationalism has been encouraged in Israel by the state, with predictable consequences. Whether the founders really believed in the kosher laws is irrelevant. >Presently, increasing secularism in Israel is setting >the orthodox teeth on edge, but the implications of >this for Jewish privilege embedded in the state are >less significant (though not entirely insignificant). If by secularism one means non-observance, that's one thing. If by secularism one means progress towards secularizing the state -- that is, making the state a state of its citizens, rather than a Jewish state -- that's another thing entirely.
