The Haredim Conundrum

Bernard Avishai at TPMCafe reports on a telling story about an Intel facility in Israel. Last Sabbath, ultra-orthodox Haredi rabbis and their disciples descended upon the Intel compound and vandalized it. After a meeting with the Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and Knesset Speaker Ruby Rivlin, who Avishai calls "rightists tied to Haredi voters," the groups came to an agreement. Only 20 of the usual 120 employees would come to work on Saturdays and none of them would be Jewish. But, as Avishai informs, the compromise apparently did not go far enough and the Haredi "mobs were back yesterday demanding a complete shut down."

The Haredi Jews present a difficult conundrum for the Jewish State of Israel. On one hand, they claim that studying Torah is their profession. And, after all, what Jew can be against that? But on the other hand, studying Torah is their profession. In other words, they don't work. According to data from the Israeli and Housing Construction Ministry, approximately 70% of Haredi men are unemployed.

Not only do they fail to contribute to society in any material way, but Israel society actually has to pay them through various welfare programs. In fact, according to Meirav Arlosoroff, the Haredi Jews are offered such a large subsidy to study Torah that they have no economic incentive to seek regular employment. While there has been discrimination against the Haredim in the workplace, it is clear many are quite happy living off the largess of the state.

Beyond economics, the Haredim conundrum plays directly into the Israeli struggle of how to define the Jewish State and Judaism more generally. Ask a typical Haredi rabbi in Meah Shearim and he'll define Judaism in exactly the same way a rabbi would have in 17th century Eastern Europe. Obviously, most Jews in Israel (and elsewhere) have trouble with such an uncompromising definition.

The problem is not in the difference in opinion, but in the suggestion that Haredim maintain the sole prerogative to define Judaism to the exclusion of other equally-valid possibilities. It is this belief in their exclusive right to define Judaism that motivates their "defense" of the Sabbath, as exemplified with the protests at Intel (or, for anyone secular who has ventured too deeply into Haredim territory, the all-too-real threat of rock throwing).

I visited Israel for the first time this summer after an extended stay in the Arab world. Coincidentally, I visited at the same time the Haredim were protesting a parking lot that was open on the Sabbath. It is odd to admit that, after exploring countless Arab neighborhoods, I felt the most unwanted when visiting Haredi areas. But it is downright sad to admit that, after visiting so many mosques, I felt the most alien when visiting the epicenter of Judaism - the Wailing Wall - surrounded by Haredim, Jews that I do not fully understand nor fully understand me.


Below, I've added a picture from my excursion into Meah Shearim. Among other announcements, a flier exclaims, that people are "murdering" the Sabbath and calls for protests.

Scary Muslims in Sweden?

This video recently came to my attention through the Jewish grapevine about the threat of Islam in Malmö, Sweden:




Understandably, any Jew watching this clip would feel alarm. But there's more to this clip than the narrative it tells. I'll begin with its source: CBN. The Christian Broadcasting Network was founded by the conservative televangelist Pat Robertson. As a representative of the far-right evangelical Christian community, he is accustomed to inciting controversy for his views. Among other examples, he suggested Ariel Sharon was punished by God after suffering a stroke:



And in case you don't trust MSNBC, here's a clip from CBN two days after 9/11 with Pat Robertson and his ally Jerry Falwell. Not only do they claim God allowed the terrorists to attack us because we haven't pursued their ultra-conservative Christian agenda, but Falwell says we probably deserved it.




That clip was filmed more than a year after Sen. McCain called Robertson and his ally Jerry Falwell intolerant and wrongheaded during the 2000 presidential campaign (though he has since backtracked). The point is Robertson views the world through a religious lens - one most of us would not agree with.

As such, when we watch anything from CBN, we need to filter their narrative to determine what we should accept as fact and what we should evaluate as opinion. Of course, this advice holds true for any news source, but for CBN it is especially important. Unlike other news sources that strive for fair and balanced reporting - or at least claim to do so rhetorically - CBN has no qualms in admitting it adheres to an evangelical Christian perspective.

So let me provide another perspective from a Muslim friend who actually lives in Malmö. As the CBN video claims, there has been a large influx of Muslim immigrants to Sweden, as well as other Scandinavian and European countries. Many have come because of wars in Iraq and the Balkans or because of persecution in their home countries. However, as she told me, "there is no risk that Muslims will take over Sweden, EVER." Even in Malmö, there is only one mosque outside the city "since the people didn't want one and especially not close to the center."

Muslims face many challenges in Sweden. Many immigrants live in slums, not only because they can't afford better, but because "some areas won't accept immigrants." Meanwhile, Muslims in Denmark face special legal difficulty bringing their spouses to Europe. As such, they often live in Sweden while working in Denmark, further adding to the swell of immigrants in Malmö.

Denmark is now "very open" about their racism, as shown by the firebrand anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders, who pretended to tear a Qur'an in half in his documentary Fitna. Importantly, Wilders has strong ties with the Swedish Democrats (SD) party and the International Free Press Society quoted in the CBN clip. According to my friend, SD is a racist party and no other Swedish party is "willing to talk to them [and] the newspapers won't publish anything that has to do with them." Importantly, there is a mainstream Christian party called the Christian Democrats.

As for the demonstrations shown in the CBN segment, they occurred during the war in Gaza and tempers were running high. Nonetheless, my friend insists they weren't violent as the clip implies, but were instead just the result of "stupid youth" getting together. Nor do Jews get physically attacked all the time, as CBN claims.

What I find ironic is that, in a clip that seeks to expose discrimination against the Jewish community, discrimination against Islam lurks beneath the surface. As my friend points out, "he clearly thinks all Muslims are bad and that Islam is a threat." The problem is not that the clip identifies some Muslims behaving badly, but that it generalizes that behavior to all Muslims. Bill O'Reilly on Fox News has made that same point several times in light of Robertson's claims that Islam is a violent religion that seeks global domination. For example, see this recent segment below (or this one here).





In an interesting article on YNet, Rabbi Levi Brackman asks whether Israelis should accept the friendship of American Christians. He eschews the Islamophobia of Pat Robertson and others like him who condemn all Muslims as violent: "good people will study their holy books and only see goodness and love within its pages. Evil people, conversely, will see, within the same book, a mandate to hate, murder and terrorize." As such, Rabbi Brackman urges us to "be wary of those intolerant people who use their religion to look down upon and be intolerant of others." Luckily, there are many people "who care for what is good and right no matter which religion they believe in or from what part of the world they come."

Lucky indeed.

Thinking About the Temple Mount

Earlier this week, I called out the Lebanese newspaper The Daily Star for mislabeling Israeli soldiers as "Jewish troops." It was a clear example of journalism gone awry.

While writing the post, I almost included another example of sloppy journalism, but I left it out for stylistic reasons. So I'm glad that Evelyn Gordon at Commentary has spotted the same mistake and taken the effort to correct it.

In a recent New York Times article, Isabel Kershner reviews an interesting new book about the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, entitled "Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem's Sacred Esplanade." According to Kershner, the book combines Muslim, Christian and Jewish experts to discuss the "history, archaeology, aesthetics and politics of the place that Jews revere as the location of their two ancient temples, and that now houses the Al Aksa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam."

Everything was going great until I reached this sentence: "The lack of archaeological evidence of the ancient temples has led many Palestinians to deny any real Jewish attachment or claim to the plateau."

While there's no question some Palestinians have dubiously questioned the Temple Mount's Jewish roots, Kershner unfortunately phrases the sentence to imply that there is, in fact, a paucity of evidence. Except there is plenty of evidence.

As Gordon points out, the Jewish temple is "well-documented in extant writings from the period" and there are several walls still standing. I have physically touched the evidence, walked around the evidence and ventured beneath it - as have millions of other tourists who visited the Western Wall. It's existence is not in question to anyone who can see.

Gordon goes on to explain why such an important archaeological site has not received the amount of archaeological scrutiny it deserves. Namely, since the 1967 War and the capture of East Jerusalem, Israel has allowed the Temple Mount to remain under Muslim authority, making excavations impossible due to political and religious sensitivities.

And then Gordon makes a mistake, I believe, more damaging than the New York Times article she sets out to correct. She writes, "perhaps Jerusalem needs to rethink its tactics - and start demonstrating the Jewish connection to the Mount in actions rather than words [...] letting Jews pray on a designated section of the Mount devoid of mosques would be an excellent place to begin."

This would undoubtedly start the Third Intifada. As is, tensions are incredibly high throughout the Holy Land. Palestinians and Israelis are already clashing over the Temple Mount, with Muslim leaders calling to "defend the Temple Mount from conquest by Jews" as right-wing Jews flock to the Mount to raise holy hell. Meanwhile, scholar Steven Cook concluded this week that "a third intifada is likely to erupt in the near future" if the political situation continues to deteriorate. Nor should we forget what instigated the Second Intifada: Ariel Sharon's ill-fated visit to the Temple Mount.

In other words, the gasoline has already been poured over the tinder. All we're waiting for is a spark, one that Gordon seems ready to provide.

In the long-run, sure, it seems fair to let Jews pray on the Temple Mount in a cordoned-off section. After all, it's both a Jewish and a Muslim holy site. But until cooler heads prevail, political realities dictate otherwise.

*FYI, I read another bad idea today. From Sarah Palin. She argues for continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank because Israel's population "is going to grow [...] in the days and weeks and months ahead." Blake Hounshell at Foreign Policy does a good job summing up why that's a horrible idea.

When Leads Mislead

According to Reuters, Israeli soldiers killed a Palestinian and wounded two more near the Gaza border on Friday. An Israel Defense Forces spokeswoman stated the soldiers opened fire after suspecting the Palestinians were planting explosives near the security barrier. In turn, Hamas claimed that the wounded teenagers were out on a hunting trip.

The Lebanese English-language newspaper The Daily Star also reported on the same shooting. In fact, the paper printed the syndicated version of the Reuters article verbatim. Well, that is, except for the title.

In the original Reuters version, the title reads, "Israel kills Palestinian in Gaza confrontation." But The Daily Star editors opted for, "Jewish troops shoot Palestinian dead in Gaza confrontation."

Calling Israeli soldiers "Jewish troops" is both misleading and damaging.

It misleads because many non-Jews serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israeli Druze and Circassian men fall under mandatory conscription laws like any Jewish Israeli. Furthermore, many Bedouin voluntarily join the IDF, often as a means of social mobility. Non-Jewish IDF soldiers have risen to highest ranks of the military, disproportionately volunteer for combat positions, and have fought and died for the state of Israel. Therefore, it's no surprise that IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has praised minorities in the military, specifically calling the Druze "our generation's Maccabees."

It damages because it perpetuates the widespread conflation of Judaism and Zionism. For one, some of Israel's greatest critics are Jewish while some of its strongest supporters are not. But more importantly, it recasts the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a political struggle of competing nationalisms into a religious struggle of irreconcilable faiths. While we can compromise to find a political solution, only God can resolve a dispute between religions.

*Out of curiosity, I also checked Al Jazeera English, which reported "Israeli troops kill Palestinian."

Jewish Settlers Save Gay Palestinian

YNet reports on "such a remarkable story [that] could only happen in the midst of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." A young gay Palestinian named T, who has been living in Israel with his Israeli partner of ten years, recently returned to the West Bank to visit his ailing father. Because the local Palestinians do not approve of his sexual orientation, T met his father outside of their village for safety. When T tried to return home to Israel, security forces did not allow him to cross the border for purported security reasons.

T was stuck in no-man's land, trapped between overzealous border officials and homophobic neighbors. So he turned to the only other person he knew in the area: an orthodox Jewish settler. Thus, for the past ten days, the gay Palestinian T has found refuge within a Jewish West Bank settlement. A remarkable story indeed.

Writing at the Commentary blog, David Hazony argues this story teaches that "what makes them [Palestinians] different from us [Israelis/Jews] is not merely quaint or alien but reprehensible. That we are in effect extending a hand of tolerance to those who expressly renounce tolerance, and who make little effort to hide their murderous side."

There is no doubt Arab and Muslim homosexuals face tremendous difficulties. Sometimes their existence is denied, as Iranian President Ahmadinejad has ridiculously claimed. More often, they confront religious, social and political persecution. And too often, they face a fate far worse. In Iraq, for example, the marauding Mahdi army has tortured and murdered homosexuals using most gruesome, unspeakable methods.

But Hazony lets Israel somewhat off the hook here. While homosexuals in Israel enjoy far more freedom and acceptance than the Muslim world (and even the U.S.), there are still problems. Take, for instance, the recent shooting at a Tel Aviv gay youth center that left two dead and many more wounded. The incident sparked massive outrage and spurred Israeli politicians of all persuasions to take a firm stand in favor of homosexual rights. Thus, Israel isn't special because its homosexual population does not face persecution, but because there is a societal and political consensus to fight for their equal rights.

Hazony took a wrong turn by viewing the story of T through the lens of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and thereby compelling him to try to score political points for Israel. In fact, besides T's inability to re-enter Israel, the story has very little to do with the conflict.

Instead, we should take the story for what it is: an uplifting story of how religious Jewish settlers likely saved the life of a gay Palestinian man because of the common humanity they share. Furthermore, we should draw inspiration to continue fighting for the human rights of all people, regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality and sexual preference, no matter where those rights may be threatened.

Woman Divorces over Gitmo Nickname

According to Al Arabiya, a Saudi woman has filed for divorce after discovering her husband stored her name in his cell phone as "Guantanamo." The husband claimed he stored the name to protect her identity, in case prying eyes might learn her number when she called.

Such nicknaming is apparently common practice for Saudi husbands, but most men choose less offensive names for their wives. However, one man interviewed, Khaled Omar, said he stored his wife as "salary" because "she has no mercy when it comes to spending."

So what do we learn from this?

For one, men do stupid things no matter where they're from. And then they get caught. Two, women don't like it when they're compared to an infamous prison that denies basic due process to some of the world's most dangerous terrorists. But, if you trust Mr. Omar, they do like shopping (I would add that most Gulf Arabs love shopping, not just the women).

But on a more serious point, the article notes the woman, who is currently 30 years old, has been married for 17 years. In other words, she was married at the age of 13. Yet for Al Arabiya, this uncomfortable fact is not worth mentioning.

Child marriage is a persistent problem in Saudi Arabia, as well as some other countries in the region. Just last month, a 12 year old Yemeni girl died during childbirth. In Saudi Arabia specifically, several high profile cases of child marriage have sparked debate within the Kingdom. In one case earlier this year, a judge annulled a marriage between an 8 year old girl and a 50 year old man. A strengthening women's movement and increasingly assertive press have begun to highlight such egregious cases.

Now, the Saudi government is considering setting a minimum age for marriage at 18 years, but has faced opposition from powerful, conservative religious leaders. Importantly, Saudi Arabia is a party to the Convention on the Rights of Child, a legally binding international treaty protecting the rights of minors. Yet, the country has been slow in meeting the convention's provisions.

While Islam is often used to justify child marriage by conservatives, it is not inherently an Islamic practice. There is currently an intense, internal debate about when marriage should be considered appropriate. For example, take a look at this article about child marriages in Malawi and the religious argument it sparks, with both sides citing religious sources.

One of the main points of contention is the Prophet Mohammed's marriage to one of his wives, Aisha, who was likely only nine years old when the marriage was consummated. Many Muslims argue that morality evolves with history. Therefore, what was acceptable in 7th century Arabia may no longer be acceptable in the 21st century. But some conservative Muslims, who believe the Prophet's life set an eternal exemplar of righteousness, argue that Islamic morality was perfected in the 7th century and will never change. Thus if Mohammed married a child, it is moral to do so now.

The debate over polygamy follows a similar structure. Over the course of his lifetime, Mohammed married eleven women. However, the Qur'an also clearly states that a man should never have more than four wives at one time and can only marry additional wives if he can manage to treat them all equally and fairly. Importantly, many men in the Old Testament also had multiple wives, but years ago Judaism and Christianity eliminated polygamy as modern morality evolved. Now, Islam is currently undergoing a similar process, but the answer is far from settled.

Let Them Wear Veils

The Grand Imam of Egypt's al-Azhar University, Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, recently told a female student to remove her niqab (a veil that covers the face) during a lecture, ostensibly because he had trouble hearing her. After he faced outrage from conservative Muslims, Sheikh Tantawi went ahead and banned the niqab from the university. Now, a group of Egyptian MPs, lawyers and human rights group have sued the Sheikh to reverse the decision.

The New Republic's Marty Peretz took this development as an opportunity to blast President Obama for his speech in Cairo, where the President said, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." According to Peretz, "President Obama's indiscriminate endorsement of these curtaining contraptions is an intrusion into an active debate in the Muslim world, a reckless intrusion." Furthermore, Peretz suggests Sheikh Tantawi's decision is a "retort to Obama's intrusion."

I have to disagree on this one. President Obama sought to heal the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world in Cairo. For too long that relationship has been governed by mutual fear, instead of the "mutual interest and mutual respect" President Obama seeks to cultivate. Given Obama's purpose in Cairo and the millions of Muslim Americans the President represents, he has every right to speak about the veil. After all, why wouldn't the President speak about America's fundamental values of democracy, liberty and, yes, religious tolerance?

Part of the process of ameliorating our relationship must begin with the recognition that the veil is a legitimate symbol of Muslim piety. Many Muslim women choose to wear the veil, in the exact way many Orthodox Jews choose to wear kippot. There is no moral difference. However, there are certainly Muslim women who are forced to wear the veil against their will. Clearly, this is unacceptable and the U.S. must push for their right to dress as they please.

While Peretz brags about how many books he's read on the topic, he clearly hasn't spoken to many Muslim women. When I attended President Obama's speech at Cairo University (Peretz mistakenly says the speech took place at al-Azhar), it was obvious to me how excited the Muslim women were to hear the President's support for the veil. The comment drew some of the loudest applause of the entire speech. Nor were the women all conservative Muslims. Roughly half were students of the secular Cairo University, while many more women included Egypt's pop singers, movie stars and socialites (not exactly known for their religiosity).

Furthermore, it's outlandish to think Sheikh Tantawi would make such a fundamental decision only to retort the American president, as Peretz dubiously claims. After criticizing President Obama for inserting himself into an internal Muslim debate, Peretz oddly minimizes the validity of that debate with such an accusation. In addition, while al-Azhar University is considered one of the premier institutions of Sunni thought, it simultaneously carries a stigma of too closely following the Egyptian government line. It is impossible to understand the niqab ban without considering the long-lasting struggle between the Egyptian regime and Islamism. Just last week the Egyptian government detained 24 members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the leading Islamist opposition group.

When Westerners like Peretz fixate on the veil while discussing women's rights, they do little to help real Muslim women. In fact, they only obfuscate the real problems Muslim women face every day, like economic inequality and insufficient education. That is the ultimate tragedy of arguments like the one Peretz lays out. Out of a desire to help, he only hurts the cause.

To see what real Muslim women are like, check out this photo album of Saudi women from Time Magazine and read this article by Sumbul Ali-Karamali about a recent Muslim women's rights conference in Malaysia. And if you're really interested, I wrote a comment to that article as well.