израильская политика

[avva]

Десятки муниципальных раввинов в Израиле подписались под религиозным постановлением, которое запрещает сдавать квартиры в аренду неевреям. (англ.)

Нет слов.

(... и ведь все эти мерзавцы, что интересно, все эти "муниципальные раввины" - государственные служащие. Все они живут на в том числе и мои налоги).

Понятно, что нормальной реакцией на это было бы немедленно уволить всех подписавших это письмо. Понятно, что в нашей стране, к моему сожалению и стыду, это не случится. Но какое-то локальное приближение к этому должно существовать. Как-то в этом направлении надо пытаться двигаться. Я не знаю в точности, как. Может, поощрять своими голосами те партии, которые обещают бороться с этой дрянью. "Шинуй" в свое время разбазарила свой политический капитал и почти ничего не сделала; возможно, пришло время для еще одной попытки, не знаю. Но что-то пытаться делать надо. Потому что если закрывать на все это глаза, то через какое-то время мы действительно будем жить в Иране, не преувеличивая.

P.S. Для не-израильтян, немного конктекста: речь идет о прокламации, которая с точки зрения закона никого не обязывает. Религиозные евреи, которые уважают подписавшихся под ней раввинов, могут считать ее для себя обязательной.

Comments

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

If the Arab is a Muslim, this Talmudic law against renting to the idolaters does not even apply to his family. How can it "racially discriminate" against your neighbors that are presumably Muslim? Nowhere does the Talmud teach that the Ismaelites should be insulted, harassed, or persecuted. Let's not make things up. If these rabbis invent new laws, this is one thing. Then their inadequacy as rabbis is legitimate concern. If they explain Rabbinical law to their congregation (and this law can disagree with the popular mood - there was no age in history when some part of it did not) this is a different matter. Then they did not do anything wrong, you see. I am sorry that I upset your wife, but if Jews are demonized for being Jews in Israel, this does not look good. Every time I talk to my Israeli friends about the past, I notice the same thing: when they remember the war or some great ordeal their faces change. They tell me how all people came together, how all discords were forgotten, etc. You do not need Arabs to be that. If you will be that, there will be no problem with the Arabs. None. Isaiah put it much more eloquently. He observed the final stages of the implosion and knew what he was talking about. I am sorry I upset your wife, but I am only a conduit for this message. The "modern political issue" is not modern, is not political, and it is not an issue. The "thugs" you want to stop are your brothers on whose love your future is entirely predicated. What is there not to understand or debate?

[nu57.livejournal.com]

I am not upset by your sermon, just amazed.

Let me answer you just on facts, leaving aside the preaching aspects.

> If the Arab is a Muslim, this Talmudic law against renting to the idolaters does not even apply to his family. How can it "racially discriminate" against your neighbors that are presumably Muslim? Nowhere does the Talmud teach that the Ismaelites should be insulted, harassed, or persecuted. Let's not make things up.

Do you believe for a minute their letter deals with Talmudic aspects, specifing that it concerns only "idolaters"? "Dozens of Israel's municipal chief rabbis have signed on to a new religious ruling that would forbid the rental of homes to gentiles in a move particularly aimed against Arabs. The rabbis' letter, which was first published months ago and reprinted in October, urges Jewish owners of apartments to reconsider renting their properties to Arabs since it would deflate the value of their homes as well as those in the neighborhood.
"Their way of life is different than that of Jews," the letter stated. "Among [the gentiles] are those who are bitter and hateful toward us and who meddle into our lives to the point where they are a danger."
You still don't see "how it can racially discriminate against our neighbors", whether they are Muslims, Christians or ateists? Don't you think that "deflating the values of our homes" has nothing to do with Talmud?

Now, the letter originates from Safed, "a city that has seen an increase in its Arab student population that is enrolled at the town's local college". So, it's not just aimed against Arabs, but mainly against that part of Arabic community which we would strongly prefer to prevail over those who teach their children hatred and misery. How is such incitement consistent with Torah?
Don't you see how it can evoke a bloodshed, at least in the long run?

> Then their inadequacy as rabbis is legitimate concern.
Oh yes it is. But do you still believe it's the only concern about them, considering that they occupy municipal posts?

They cause hatred not only against Arabs. Ostracizing one's neighbors and acquaintances (Jews) who sell or rent to an Arab, reporting them to the community, distancing themselves from them, refraining from doing business with them, denying them the right to read from the Torah etc. - how about that? Do they help our "people to come together and to forget all discords" as you'd like us to do?

>Jews are demonized for being Jews in Israel, this does not look good
Do you still think these rabbies are "demonized" and, if they are, they are demonized just for being Jews?

>...they explain Rabbinical law to their congregation (and this law can disagree with the popular mood - there was no age in history when some part of it did not)
Unfortunately, it - or whatever they pass off as the Rabbinical law - quite agrees with the popular mood. That's a problem.


…

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I repeat that I would like to read the verdict. This is a newspaper rendition of the letter. I'd like to see what is the reasoning. Muslim Arabs cannot fall under this law unless for some reason they are considered idolaters. In principle, only those who demonstatively break the Noahide Laws can be so considered. This does not seem to be the case here, because it is a blanket ruling. Since the times of Rav Kook the Ishmaelites in Palestine are given residence status as far as this law goes and are not considered idolaters. Municipal rabbis cannot change this status by their edicts. So I do not follow this text. The Rabbis are not real estate agents and the prices of property should not be their concern. It is a puzzling document. If they are wrong, they are wrong.

In my view, yes, this is the only concern. If you want rabbis rubber-stamping popular opinions, do not have rabbis at all. You badly need just such rabbis. If you think that the prophets were popular, you are quite mistaken. Isaiah, for example, was sawn in half while alive. If the rabbis are demonized because they are rabbis teaching the sections of Gemara that are not to the liking of secular Jews, of course, this is demonization. Being a rabbi does not mean catering to liberal attitudes. If these rabbis are expected to change their verdicts because they are paid from municipal taxes, such rabbis are not needed to anyone. So it is only about one thing: are they correct from the stanpoint of Rabbinical law. If they are improvising on the fly, they are bad rabbis and should be let go.

We have a somewhat similar situation with some judges appointed for life. If they interpret law correctly nothing can be done about it, and they are paid from our taxes. Unlike rabbis they make decisions for everyone. Their opinions can be very unpopular and even unjust, but such is life. Some things cannot be helped.

I do not see how is their ruling "agrees" with the popular mood. You guys are crying bloody murder for the third day. I imagine what happens when there are disgreements!

As for the chosen method: ostrakism, I agree with you. This seems inappropriate and unwarranted. To tell you the truth I do not think these are very good rabbis. But that is not what irked me. Just looked how many people said that even if the ruling were specifically about idolters they would still hate the gut of these "haremongering" rabbis. So it is not the detail of the verdict (which is what I find important) it is the very fact that rabbis did not produced the expected opinions which is found heinous. There was I guy openly saying that he faults rabbis for not selectively reading the Mishnah. I.e., the rabbis were indeed faulted just for being rabbis. Maybe you don't do that. The others just did.

[i_eron]

Yes, there is this romantic nonsense popular among the Israeli Jews, about how a war "makes us all forget our differences". This has nothing to do with the issue. It is normal and desirable to have differences of opinion. This is also not about "demonizing Jews for being Jews". We just do not like government officials preaching racial hatred. If you think that preaching racial hatred is an essential part of "being a Jew", then our opinions about Judaism differ significantly. You know much more about it, of course, than I do. But I am acquainted with many "observing" Jews that do not feel any compulsion for hate talk. Perhaps they are not good Jews then.

>If you will be that, there will be no problem with the Arabs.
I am sorry, I do not get your meaning. What do you mean by "problem with the Arabs"? Our inability to provide full de-facto equality to Arab citizens? The terrorism problem? The wars with the totalitarian regimes around us? You see, there are some Arabs I have no problem with. And some others that I do. And still others that have a problem with me. These are all different people and different problems. I do not see how stamping out "differences among Jews" may help any of these problems. I rather see how it might do the opposite.

>The "thugs" you want to stop are your brothers on whose love your future is entirely dependent.
I disagree. Our jails contain murderers, rapists, ugly despicable people. Did you know, we have a proper mafia in Israel, with criminal dons, contract killings and passer-by casualties. Do I also depend on their love?

Please understand, I have nothing against Judaism and rabbis. This is not about rabbis or Talmud teachings. If you build your impressions about Israel from "talking to your Israeli friends" or perhaps from blogs such as avva's, then your view is not balanced. We have many Jews here that are willing to hear incitement about Arabs and act on it. In contrast to you, they do not care about the incitement being theologically correct. BTW, my Arab neighbors are mostly Christian, and this does not matter to me one bit. Unfortunately, this also does not matter to our thugs, despite the Talmudic teaching. Their hatred is purely xenophobe and nationalist, nothing religious about it, the religiosity here is just a pretense. These rabbis use it for their political power. It is not the question of them being theologically right or wrong. They are bad rabbis because they abuse their status for political gain.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

If by racial hatred you mean not willing to house idolaters, then it is an essential part of Judaism. If by preaching racial hatred you mean reminding people of the Mishnah, then you have take it on the chin and eat it. You would never have your current ideal of racial harmony if the rabbis were only allowed to preach what agrees with the fashionable prejudice of their time. You view the function of the rabbis as reenforcing your own views with some mumbo-jumbo from dusty books, all because they are supported from your taxes. If that is the expectation then little wonder that you have such rabbis as these municipal rabbis. You get exactly what you deserve.

There is no problem with the Assyrians. There is no problem with the Babylonians. There is no problem with the Greeks. There is no problem with the Romans. There will be no problem with the Arabs.

>>Do you depend on their love?
Like you do not know the answer. Like you do not know that you are not going to treat the Arabs better than you are treating each other.

I've been to Israel and I've seen what I've seen. I do not need any extra material than the last paragraph of your comment. If you guys will keep ascribing lowly motives to each other and accuse each other of xenophobia, hatred and what not, then the romantic nonsense will be done with. All of it, to the last stone.

[gomberg.livejournal.com]

Methinks, one could have summarized this discussion in many fewer words :)))

I am afraid, once again, your tendency to see people as good (in accordance w/ some deep, though, possibly, not fully known, notion of Good), seems to many a bit difficult to reconcile with the observed facts of individual behavior :))

[i_eron]

Yes, I am a cynic. I see clearly how this "reminding people of Mishnah" make their indiscriminate secular xenophobic hate grow. The willing recipients of this message do not care about the Arabs being idolaters or not. They do not care about the specific religion of these Arabs, be it Christian. Muslim or Druze. They only care about them being non-Jewish, in the secular sense. They hear about "not letting the house to idolaters", but this helps them, for example, not allowing Arabs to get good jobs.

For its recipients this is not a religious message, it is only dressed up as such. But somehow I must believe that for the rabbis it is a wholly religious conclusion, and these naive saints are unaware of the ugly consequences of their action. Sorry, I shall remain a cynic in this.

You know, in our prisons many secular Jewish criminals become observant Jews. This is viewed kindly by the prison service and has implications for the parole decisions. It is strange how often a cynical "religious dressing up" is not seen through by even very smart people.

I see, I must "love" even a murderous drug-dealer Jew more than even a loyal Israeli Ph.D. Arab. Well, I am an imperfect Jew, no doubt about that.

I hear often enough that "we must forget our differences". For some strange reason this message is always meant as a demand for people like me to accept the views of the "religious" far right, never the other way round. Since I see many "religious" people including rabbis that are not preaching hate, I conclude that this hate is not essential for a good Jew. This means that my being a Jew does not demand from me to accept hateful ideas. This also means that the rabbis that do preach hate, do it on their own inclination, they are not automata messengers of God's will.

It is appropriate that we have had this discussion during the cheerful Hanukkah holiday. These days we were celebrating how 2200 years ago Jews like these rabbis have murdered Jews like me. It was their best attempt at reaching that elusive "Jewish unity". The Temple was purified then. But somehow not much good resulted from it. And now we sing the beautiful Hanukkah songs to the tunes that have originated among the XV-century Germans. In the long run xenophobia has no future.

[i_eron]

You have stated several times that you wish to see the "ruling" itself, not the newspaper reports. I could not find a full text, but here is a half-legible photocopy by a sympathizing reporter.

http://www.hakolhayehudi.co.il/?p=1346

I guess we should believe that his citations from the rabbis' letter are accurate. I shall try to translate. The letter says:

"We reply that it is forbidden by the Torah to sell a house or a field in Eretz-Israel to a non-Jew [nokhri]... Also evil upon evil a seller or a lender of an apartment to them in a region that Jews live in, causes a great damage to his neighbors, since their way of life is different from Jews, and between them are such that are enemies to us and interfere with us even up to danger to life..."

Also the letter says that selling an apartment to a non-Jew hurts the seller's neighbors economically.

The letter does not distinguish between "idolater" non-Jews and other non-Jews. It is understood by sympathizers to include Arabs of all faiths and also all foreign workers (most of which are Christian). The letter is signed by the chief rabbis of Ramat-ha-Sharon, Ashdod, Herzliya, Kfar-Sava, Yavneh etc.

This letter is in support of the view expressed by the chief rabbi of Zefat. The chief rabbi of Jerusalem Old City and Yaakov Yosef, the son of the famous former chief rabbi of Israel Ovadia Yosef, are also among the signatories. All these rabbis command a significant political support.

Some of the most important haredi rabbis have refused to sign the letter and have criticized its calls. Among them the rabbi Elyashiv, and the rabbi Steinman. They have reportedly (http://www.mako.co.il/news-israel/local/Article-c7100af9b6ccc21004.htm) called this letter an irresponsible nationalist provocation.

I am happy to agree with rav Elyashiv and rav Steinman.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

OK, that's what I wanted to see. My hunch about which part of the Talmud this comes from proved correct. Also, as I expected there is no specific mention of the Arabs. Also, what was a gentile in translation is not a goy but nokhri. Thank you very much.

Either these Rabbis are incorrect in their interpretation of the tractate (demonstratively so, because it contradictes Rambam's) or the translators/interpretors are wrong in rending this document. "Nokhri" is used in 'Avodah Zarah in reference to idolaters only. This term does have the broader meaning of non-Jew but only because in the olden times all non-Jews in Israel were idolaters. This is clumsily written letter because it leaves ambiguity on the most important poin for laity. The intention of the tractate and the Mishnah is unambigous. If these non-Jews do not worship idols, this law does not apply to them. The reasonable thing to do would not be cry to heaven but require these rabbis to disambuguate their ruling. The problem is not that it is "irresponsible nationalist provocation" but that, quite simply, it is either sloppily and ambigously written or incorrect. "Sympathizers" that you mention might be reading in this letter what is not there. As you mention there is an influx of foreign labor from Asia, I can imagine that some of these might be idolaters. Then the concern of these rabbis is entirely understandable. The "economical" part is a puzzler, I agree.

A lot of good can be done simply by having a discussion in good faith, where every side hears each other clearly.

[i_eron]

I do not know enough about Judaism to be able to judge whether the letter is correct theologically. However, I do have some idea about some of the signatories. They are not the most respected and learned rabbis, but political trouble-makers. I also have some idea about the sort of public that will read it. I am sure that the letter was "either sloppily and ambiguously written or incorrect" on purpose, because it's intention was hate-mongering and not popularization of well-developed Jewish religious thought. I have reached my conclusion about this letter much the same way you did with this "seminal paper". I am happy to see that the respected rabbis have characterized this letter the same way I did.

The little I know about Judaism includes a dim understanding of the spiritual difference between the ways of Judah Maccabee and the ways of Yohanan ben Zakkai. Perhaps you are right - the old confrontations do come back sometimes and history does have something to teach us. Judah Maccabee has had his cruel "purifying" victory, but it was the gentle victory of Yohanan ben Zakkai that has prevailed. I hope this time we shall skip the "purifying" part.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

Rabbis cannot play word games and get away with it. The disambiguation will be required, and then the truth will come out. I am not running around shouting that the "seminal paper" is crap and the authors need be hanged on the lamp posts as an example to all. There is a due process for rectification of errors and in the end only what is rejected via this process is meaningful, the rest is opinion. This is true for science, and it is equally true for Judaism. Just wait and see.

[i_eron]

Well, we haven't had to wait long: Public invited to inform on those renting to Arabs

There already are calls, just as I thought, for everybody to anonymously inform on Jews renting to Arabs. The names of the offenders will then be made public for all to condemn. It is "assimilation" they fear, not idolaters. Does this ring any bells for you, or do you still think that the rabbis did publish their letter in true faith?

Any such renter can surely expect ostracism and harassing. I hope at least that there will be no lynchings, in the manner of Palestinians.

I believe rabbis should be responsible for the consequences of their actions, just like everybody else. Yes, there are respected rabbis that has already correctly called this letter an "irresponsible nationalist provocation". Perhaps in the end their opinion will result in "rectification of errors", so Judaism will correct itself. But the political and criminal damage by then will already be done. This is why we are offended by the letter and demand the resignations. Nobody is blaming Judaism, we just blame the specific trouble-making politicians that have signed the letter.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I do not know how is this organization is connected to these particular rabbis. I expect the clarification to come from these rabbis, because it is their verdict, or higher up. The way I read their letter, it has absolutely nothing about not renting to Muslim Arabs (per our exchange). I see newspapers, zealots, etc. interpreting their letter in this particular way. This does not tell me whether it was intended to be interpreted in this way or people just read it in this way because they want to read it this particulate way. I believe that only people who stamped this letter can tell what did they actually mean by it. If they refuse to tell or tell different things, then you do have a serious rabbi issue. If you have rabbis that go against the Mishneh Torah and 1000+ year old tradition of interpretation of Avodah Zarah that excludes from its scope the Ishmaelites then you have a big problem indeed.

I'll make my own prediction. These rabbis will either tell that it does not apply to the Arabs (de facto admitting that they failed to write a competent rabbinical verdict) or begin contort trying to explain why it applies to all Arabs (in my view, this is simply impossible as a blanket statement) never keeping their story straight even among themselves. In both cases they will discredit themselves - not in your eyes, but in the eyes of people listening to them. As I said, you only need to wait.

[i_eron]

Hm. So, you do not expect them to just sit back and enjoy the mess.

Of course, some attempts to comment and "explain" and confuse are probable. This would just add more air-time to these attention-seeking politicians.

But they will not write a letter with the same well-known signatories, not say clearly that those who have understood them as calling for harassment have understood wrongly, etc.

If the same list of signatures will appear on a letter of the same status as the original that will state clearly that the hate-mongering interpretations are wrong, I shall accept that I was wrong about the intentions of these rabbis. But I shall still demand their resignation because of the political and criminal damage caused by their actions.

Once again, one does not need to be knowledgeable in Jewish law to know that the letter does not express the mainstream Jewish position. We shall know them by their fruits.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

You are speculating what will happen. Let's wait and see.

Had these municipal rabbis written in their letter that they specifically mean, say, Vietnamese migrants practicing animism rites, the reaction would still be an outcry; there would be numerous jeremiads against the rabbinical preaching hate -- and the rest of it. Had it been the mainstream position, little would change as far as the reaction goes. Come on.

[i_eron]

1. You are wrong. Suppose there would be a halakhic ruling about Vietnamese workers. A proper ruling by proper rabbis, not like this one that insults my intelligence. I would respectfully hear it and try to understand it. Then I would very calmly conclude that here I have another small ethical issue in Judaism I find difficult to accept. It is of little practical importance. I believe that a country has every right to decide whom to invite, just as I decide whom to invite to my house. Our country is defined as one "for the Jewish people" even by the hated UN. I think that minorities are beneficial, but I am against a massive immigration by non-Jews. For me it is for cultural reasons, for others it is for religious reasons. If the rabbis would show their reasons are truly religious (for example, prove they are not racist by allowing an odd Vietnamese in, say, on condition of a giyur), I would have no problem with such ruling, even if not identifying with its ideology.

2. It seems once again that you are not arguing with me, not even with a typical secular Israeli, but with a silly stereotype of a left-wing American. Most of us do not see anything wrong with our country being "predominantly Jewish", or with a "racist" Law of return. Most of us are even against re-settling Palestinian refugees within our borders. We currently have some debate about how to repatriate illegal African infiltrators, but only a very small minority would welcome them without limit instead. From a liberal point of view selective immigration is very much different from inequality of citizens.

3. The trouble seems to be "idolaters" living close to Jews. I would classify this as a legitimate religious concern. A ruling by rabbis reminding Jews that it is wrong to live alongside any "idolaters" would not seem aggressive or hate-mongering. It would seem impractical, but that is another matter. Our kosher army includes "idolater" soldiers, our mixed cities have minorities, we have mixed marriages and so on. I do not consider this a problem in itself, but I see that the rabbis might.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

I do not see how such a ruling touches on the immigration issue one way or the other. No one forces the idolaters to rent from religous Jews. It would be odd to stipulate that a converted Vietnamese is allowed to live among the Jews, because it is self-evident.

I do not recognize your portrait and I think you are mistaken that a more specific ruling would result in a very different outcome. But I take it back nonetheless, because I do not want to debate counterfactuals. I shouldn't've made this comment, and I apologize.

[i_eron]

The ruling is presumably not just for religious Jews, but for all Jews. In Israel there is no clear divide. Secular Jews that absolutely do not believe in God, never light candles and never fast on Yom Kippur are a small minority. I am personally acquainted with several Jews that mostly do not observe, but do respect rabbinical advice and would surely be influenced by a ruling such as this.

Foreign agricultural workers can probably be usually housed separately from Jews. Probably an Arab or a Druze must then be asked to pose as the nominal owner of such houses. But if the renting is not allowed (and a foreign worker clearly cannot afford to buy an apartment, which is probably similarly forbidden anyway), then most of other foreign workers are left with little option. The problem is mostly economical - after all, they may chose a different country to work in (it would be a pity). It becomes humanitarian if a child is born to such worker.

But if the renting is not allowed to Arab citizens, it is quite a different thing. This is their country too. This would effectively keep them segregated, locked in their villages. It is unacceptable.

Note that the ruling does not prevent Jews from renting (or buying) from Arabs. Strange, no? It would have resulted in the same kind of proximity. According to these rabbis Jews can slowly replace Arabs in all the mixed cities, in a one-way process. It is just ugly politics, nothing else.

[shkrobius.livejournal.com]

OK, so R Aharon Lichtenstein has made more-or-less the same points I've made. He showed why this ruling is either incorrect or irresponsibly ambiguous;
via http://community.livejournal.com/ru_judaizm/1029651.html
That's the right way. If I were one of these rabbis I'd be red in face with shame. Reading such a response is about as bad as it gets in their world.

[i_eron]

>>If I were one of these rabbis I'd be red in face with shame. Reading such a response is about as bad as it gets in their world.

But these rabbis are different from you. They do not much care about being theologically correct. They care about their political power, about maximizing their following among people that would seize any excuse to hate and harass. Your idea about "their world" is far from reality. The world of R Yaakov Yosef is not the same as the world of R Aharon Lichtenstein.