RSS
Street fights over prayer offer liberal Israelis a chance to define a Judaism they can believe in
(JTA) — Israeli, observant Jews living in the United States, and especially here on the West Coast, are aware of the time difference between them and Israel at the beginnings and endings of holidays. While Israel celebrates — or commemorates — meaningful days, I’m behind, still preparing. So unlike my family and friends in Israel who observe Yom Kippur and found out only after their sundown what transpired on Monday in Tel Aviv, I read reports and watched videos of the clash between secular and religious Jews in Dizengoff Square as it unfolded.
Feeling both devastated by the ruining of Yom Kippur prayers and angry at the provocation and manipulation by those who organized the Tel Aviv services, I entered Judaism’s holiest day with a heavy heart and teary eyes.
And yet, in the days since, I also found some reason for hope that this painful moment was a watershed in Israel’s path, in which secular Israeli liberals may claim Judaism on their own terms, despite a religious establishment that sees Orthodoxy as its only legitimate expression.
In brief, Rosh Yehudi (translated “Jewish head”), an organization whose goal is to spread Orthodox Judaism in secular Israel, received approval from the Tel Aviv municipality to conduct Yom Kippur services in Dizengoff Square. These services have been taking place since the early days of the pandemic, and many people — observant and secular alike — attend them. This year the municipality approved the services so long as they would not include a mechitza, a physical divider separating men and women, a decision that the courts supported. The context of the city’s decision was the ongoing assault by the government and its followers (in the name of religion) on the core values of Israeli liberals — specifically gender equality.
Rosh Yehudi declared it would abide by this condition and many people who just wanted to pray came to its services. Yet right after Yom Kippur started, religious activists — supported by the police on site — created a makeshift divider out of Israeli flags. In response, secular protesters, many of them affiliated with the mass movement to protest the government’s efforts to weaken Israel’s judiciary, interrupted the services by whistling, chanting “Shame!” and removing the makeshift divider, ultimately stopping the services. Similar protests of public Orthodox Yom Kippur services took place at other sites throughout Tel Aviv and other predominantly secular cities within Israel.
For decades, Yom Kippur in Israel has been a unique day. Despite a lack of laws regulating the day, no cars are seen on the roads. Praying, biking, walking and talking, observant and secular Jews mix in the streets and synagogues across Israel. But the events of the last nine months in Israel destroyed that fragile harmony.
Israel is once again caught in a war of narratives. Is it a story of Orthodox activists defying the court’s decision and intentionally causing provocation, forcing gender segregation in the bastion of Israeli secularism? Or is it a story about how Israeli liberals, protesters and the left hate religion and religious Jews?
Setting aside the blame game, the events of Yom Kippur raise two sets of questions for Israel’s future. The first is the nature of the Israeli public square as it relates to Israel’s Jewish character. What should be the boundaries of tolerance to illiberal practices such as gender separation when they are a part of a religious practice? Was the city right to limit the traditional form of Orthodox prayer due to the public nature of the space? Were the protesters wrong in not respecting this tradition? Should attempts at the religionization of the public sphere and political climate be ignored or taken into consideration?
The more profound question — and the one that is much harder to answer — revolves around the nature of Judaism itself. Who claims what in the name of Judaism will have lasting repercussions for the future of Israel long after the particulars of this year’s Yom Kippur are forgotten? And to that end, I want to suggest that a possible change is afoot in how secular Israeli liberals see Judaism.
For decades, Israel has been caught in a social dichotomy: right-wingers are seen as conservative and religious or traditional, whereas left-wingers are seen as liberal and secular. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embraced this dichotomy as early as 1997 when he claimed that the Israeli left “had forgotten what it means to be Jewish.” He doubled down on this view at the end of Yom Kippur this year when he stated, “The leftists had rioted against Jews.”
This dichotomy is also promoted by the Israeli left. About a week ago, former Meretz leader Zehava Galon shared the following post on X: “The problem with Israeli society is the assumption that there is wisdom in Judaism even though it is a manifest of Orthodox Jewish men who weren’t particularly smart. It’s time for us to realize that … their cart is full of inciting and dangerous nonsense, and it’s time we left it on the side of the road.” Galon represents the view of many in the Israeli liberal camp today who say they are ready to abandon Judaism, which they equate with Orthodoxy interpreted in the most extreme way.
Indeed, for decades haredi and Religious Zionist rabbis and politicians in Israel have sought to dictate only one option for Judaism: an uncompromising religious Orthodoxy. This conception profoundly contradicts the values of Israeli liberals, and therefore many like Galon say they reject Judaism in any form. But in doing this, Israeli liberals also allow the most extreme elements within Israeli Judaism to deepen their grip and shape Judaism as they see fit.
As a result, secular Israeli liberals reduce themselves to a marginalized minority within Israeli society, the majority of whose members seek a connection to tradition and Judaism and distance themselves from values that run counter to it. Surveys show that only a minority of the general Israeli public supports the protesters’ actions on Yom Kippur, regardless of the motivations or provocations of the services’ organizers. If faced with an either/or choice between a discriminatory version of Judaism and universalist liberalism, the Israeli majority will choose the former.
For a long time, only a minority of Israelis actively worked against this dichotomy. Liberal Religious Zionist, Conservative and Reform Jews, as well as Jewish Renewal activists, mostly stood alone in trying to create and defend a liberal Israeli Judaism. But in the aftermath of Yom Kippur, this might be changing.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid shared on X that his neighbor didn’t fast on Yom Kippur for the first time in 30 years to spite the other camp. His response was telling: “You lost. You gave them ownership of your Judaism.” He went on to offer the following observation:
We don’t have anything to prove. And we don’t need anyone’s approval that we are good Jews. We have our own version, no less whole. The version that says that we chose to live in this country because we have roots here. That the Bible is our book, that the Hebrew of Ezekiel and Isaiah is the language of our dreams, that we are part of a community that has memories and commitments. We are the flag bearers of a Judaism that is not messianic, not racist, not arrogant and not violent.
Unlike Galon’s view that implicitly rejects all Judaisms because of how Orthodox Judaism is interpreted today by the government and its followers, Lapid offers an alternative vision by laying claim to a more expansive version of Judaism, whether based on beliefs, culture and/or a shared history.
A nascent but growing chorus of voices in Israel is creating just such an alternative. At nearby HaBima Square in Tel Aviv, a Conservative, egalitarian service took place at the end of Yom Kippur. The Neilah prayer that closes Yom Kippur started with 20 participants and ended with 300. Secular neighborhoods in northern Tel Aviv have plans to build a public secular sukkah and conduct egalitarian Hakafot (dancing with the Torah) on Simchat Torah. And as a response to Police Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s ultimately abandoned plans for a prayer/provocation on Dizengoff Square, the protest movement offered public, egalitarian prayer on HaBima Square Thursday night, which hundreds attended.
Two days after Yom Kippur, Magi Otsri, a writer and legal scholar and one of the protest movement’s leading online figures, posted a short video that went viral. In it, Otsri notes that Israeli Orthodoxy’s unwillingness to change the halacha of separating men and women during prayer is based on sexist, power-based notions of women created by men. She asserts that in the past biblical rules were easily changed when it suited religious decision-makers. What’s fascinating is that the secular, Tel Aviv-based Otsri uses arguments that were until now only employed by people internal to Orthodoxy (such as religious feminists). Referring to religious mechanisms for bypassing the prohibition on making loans with interest and the religious rules of war, Otsri is not making her argument on strictly liberal grounds but employing the language of Judaism.
Today, more than ever, Israeli liberals are at a crossroads. In the past nine months, they have articulated a Zionism they have embraced and claimed as their own. Will they leave Judaism behind, or will they claim it too?
Given the rate of shocking events in Israel, discerning social trends in Israel from afar can be overwhelming. But amid the conflicting narratives and deafening discourse, I want to encourage those who care about Israel to listen for and encourage the softer and more subtle sounds of Judaism in the words and deeds of Israeli liberals.
The events on Yom Kippur might lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy of a religious war, where Israeli Judaism will be lost to the hands of religious extremists and Israeli liberalism will disconnect entirely from Judaism. Such an outcome is desired by some in both the Orthodox and liberal camps, not to mention the government. But this is not a foregone conclusion, as the words and deeds of Israeli liberals after Yom Kippur reveal. There is an alternative: a more humanistic and pluralist vision of Judaism that Israeli liberals ought to embrace and nurture if they want to win over Israeli society to their vision of the future.
In Jewish tradition, the High Holidays are days of judgment for the past year and a time for resolutions for the coming year. According to tradition, divine judgment starts on Rosh Hashanah, but the verdict is only submitted for enforcement on the last day of Sukkot, or Hoshana Rabbah — to give people every last chance to set a new course.
The events on Yom Kippur were undoubtedly heartbreaking, but we are still only halfway through the High Holidays. There is no better time in the Jewish calendar for Israeli liberals to change the trajectory of Israeli Judaism. As a member of the protest movement posted the day after Yom Kippur, “The protest movement should do for Judaism what it did for the flag. Embrace [it]. Hard.” Instead of blaming the people or groups responsible for the old dichotomy, we just might be witnessing Israeli liberals taking responsibility for a Judaism they believe in.
—
The post Street fights over prayer offer liberal Israelis a chance to define a Judaism they can believe in appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7
The garden of Temple Sholom Synagogue in Vancouver is a serene and contemplative place to remember the horrific events of Oct. 7, 2023—and the Israeli civilians, soldiers and foreign nationals who […]
The post Letter from Vancouver: A monument draws on Jewish tradition to remember victims of Oct. 7 appeared first on The Canadian Jewish News.
RSS
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank
Israeli tanks are being moved, amid cross-border hostilities between Hezbollah and Israel, in the Golan Heights, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Jim Urquhart
The terms of the newly minted ceasefire agreement to halt fighting between Israel and Hezbollah amounts to a defeat for the Lebanese terrorist group, although the deal may be difficult to implement, according to two leading US think tanks.
The deal requires Israeli forces to gradually withdraw from southern Lebanon, where they have been operating since early October, over the next 60 days. Meanwhile, the Lebanese army will enter these areas and ensure that Hezbollah retreats north of the Litani River, located some 18 miles north of the border with Israel. The United States and France, who brokered the agreement, will oversee compliance with its terms.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW), in conjunction with the American Enterprise Institute’s Critical Threats Project (CTP), explained the implications of the deal on Tuesday in their daily Iran Update, “which provides insights into Iranian and Iranian-sponsored activities that undermine regional stability and threaten US forces and interests.” Hezbollah, which wields significant political and military influence across Lebanon, is the chief proxy force of the Iranian regime.
In its analysis, ISW and CTP explained that the deal amounts to a Hezbollah defeat for two main reasons.
First, “Hezbollah has abandoned several previously-held ceasefire negotiation positions, reflecting the degree to which IDF [Israel Defense Forces] military operations have forced Hezbollah to abandon its war aims.”
Specifically, Hezbollah agreeing to a deal was previously contingent on a ceasefire in Gaza, but that changed after the past two months of Israeli military operations, during which the IDF has decimated much of Hezbollah’s leadership and weapons stockpiles through airstrikes while attempting to push the terrorist army away from its border with a ground offensive.
Additionally, the think tanks noted, “current Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem has also previously expressed opposition to any stipulations giving Israel freedom of action inside Lebanon,” but the deal reportedly allows Israel an ability to respond to Hezbollah if it violates the deal.
Second, the think tanks argued that the agreement was a defeat for Hezbollah because it allowed Israel to achieve its war aim of making it safe for its citizens to return to their homes in northern Israel.
“IDF operations in Lebanese border towns have eliminated the threat of an Oct. 7-style offensive attack by Hezbollah into northern Israel, and the Israeli air campaign has killed many commanders and destroyed much of Hezbollah’s munition stockpiles,” according to ISW and CTP.
Some 70,000 Israelis living in northern Israel have been forced to flee their homes over the past 14 months, amid unrelenting barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones fired by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Hezbollah began its attacks last Oct. 8, one day after the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas’s invasion of and massacre across southern Israel. The Jewish state had been exchanging fire with Hezbollah but intensified its military response over the past two months.
Northern Israelis told The Algemeiner this week that they were concerned the new ceasefire deal could open the door to future Hezbollah attacks, but at the same time the ceasefire will allow many of them the first opportunity to return home in a year.
ISW and CTP also noted in their analysis that Israel’s military operations have devastated Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. According to estimates, at least 1,730 Hezbollah terrorists and upwards of 4,000 have been killed over the past year of fighting.
While the deal suggested a defeat of sorts for Hezbollah and the effectiveness of Israel’s military operations, ISW and CTP also argued that several aspects of the ceasefire will be difficult to implement.
“The decision to rely on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) and UN observers in Lebanon to respectively secure southern Lebanon and monitor compliance with the ceasefire agreement makes no serious changes to the same system outlined by UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war,” they wrote.
Resolution 1701 called for the complete demilitarization of Hezbollah south of the Litani River and prohibited the presence of armed groups in Lebanon except for the official Lebanese army and the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).
This may be an issue because “neither the LAF nor the UN proved willing or able to prevent Hezbollah from reoccupying southern Lebanon and building new infrastructure. Some LAF sources, for example, have expressed a lack of will to enforce this ceasefire because they believe that any fighting with Hezbollah would risk triggering ‘civil war,’” the think tanks assessed.
Nevertheless, the LAF is going to deploy 5,000 troops to the country’s south in order to assume control of their own territory from Hezbollah.
However, the think tanks added, “LAF units have been in southern Lebanon since 2006, but have failed to prevent Hezbollah from using the area to attack Israel.”
The post Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Deal ‘Tantamount to a Hezbollah Defeat,’ Says Leading War Studies Think Tank first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future
A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.
Here’s a fact from history you may not know. In 1667, the Dutch and the British struck a trade deal that, in retrospect, seems so bizarre that it defies belief.
As part of the Treaty of Breda — a pact that ended the Second Anglo-Dutch War and aimed to solidify territorial claims between the two powers — the Dutch ceded control of Manhattan to the British.
Yes, that Manhattan — the self-proclaimed center of the universe (at least according to New Yorkers), home to Wall Street, Times Square, and those famously overpriced bagels.
And what did the Dutch get in return? Another island — tiny Run, part of the Banda Islands in Indonesia.
To put things in perspective, Run is minuscule compared to Manhattan — barely 3 square kilometers, or roughly half the size of Central Park. Today, it’s a forgotten dot on the map, with a population of less than 2,000 people and no significant industry beyond subsistence farming. But in the 17th century, Run was a prized gem worth its weight in gold — or rather, nutmeg gold.
Nutmeg was the Bitcoin of its day, an exotic spice that Europeans coveted so desperately they were willing to risk life and limb. Just by way of example, during the early spice wars, the Dutch massacred and enslaved the native Bandanese people to seize control of the lucrative nutmeg trade.
From our modern perspective, the deal seems ridiculous — Manhattan for a pinch of nutmeg? But in the context of the 17th century, it made perfect sense. Nutmeg was the crown jewel of global trade, and controlling its supply meant immense wealth and influence. For the Dutch, securing Run was a strategic move, giving them dominance in the spice trade, and, let’s be honest, plenty of bragging rights at fancy Dutch banquets.
But history has a funny way of reshaping perspectives. What seemed like a brilliant play in its time now looks like a colossal miscalculation — and the annals of history are filled with similar trades that, in hindsight, make us scratch our heads and wonder, what were they thinking?
Another contender for history’s Hall of Fame in ludicrous trades is the Louisiana Purchase. In 1803, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was strapped for cash and eager to fund his military campaigns, sold a vast swath of North America to the nascent United States for a mere $15 million. The sale included 828,000 square miles — that’s about four cents an acre — that would become 15 states, including the fertile Midwest and the resource-rich Rocky Mountains.
But to Napoleon, this was a strategic no-brainer. He even called the sale “a magnificent bargain,” boasting that it would “forever disarm” Britain by strengthening its rival across the Atlantic. At the time, the Louisiana Territory was seen as a vast, undeveloped expanse that was difficult to govern and defend. Napoleon viewed it as a logistical burden, especially with the looming threat of British naval power. By selling the territory, he aimed to bolster France’s finances and focus on European conflicts.
Napoleon wasn’t shy about mocking his enemies for their mistakes, once quipping, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.” But in this case, it’s tempting to imagine him swallowing those words as the United States grew into a global superpower thanks, in no small part, to his so-called bargain.
While he may have considered Louisiana to be a logistical headache — too far away and too vulnerable to British attacks — the long-term implications of the deal were staggering. What Napoleon dismissed as a far-off backwater turned out to be the world’s breadbasket, not to mention the backbone of America’s westward expansion.
Like the Dutch and their nutmeg gamble, Napoleon made a trade that no doubt seemed brilliant at the time — but, with hindsight, turned into a world-class blunder. It’s the kind of decision that reminds us just how hard it is to see past the urgency of the moment and anticipate the full scope of consequences.
Which brings me to Esav. You’d think Esav, the firstborn son of Yitzchak and Rivka, would have his priorities straight. He was the guy — heir to a distinguished dynasty that stretched back to his grandfather Abraham, who single-handedly changed the course of human history.
But one fateful day, as recalled at the beginning of Parshat Toldot, Esav stumbles home from a hunting trip, exhausted and ravenous. The aroma of Yaakov’s lentil stew hits him like a truck. “Pour me some of that red stuff!” he demands, as if he’s never seen food before.
Yaakov, never one to pass up an opportunity, doesn’t miss a beat.
“Sure, but only in exchange for your birthright,” he counters casually, as if such transactions are as common as trading baseball cards. And just like that, Esav trades his birthright for a bowl of soup. No lawyers, no witnesses, not even a handshake — just an impulsive decision fueled by hunger and a staggering lack of foresight.
The Torah captures the absurdity of the moment: Esav claims to be “on the verge of death” and dismisses the birthright as worthless. Any future value — material or spiritual — is meaningless to him in that moment. All that matters is satisfying his immediate needs.
So, was it really such a terrible deal? Psychologists have a term for Esav’s behavior: hyperbolic discounting — a fancy term for our tendency to prioritize immediate rewards over bigger, long-term benefits.
It’s the same mental quirk that makes splurging on a gadget feel better than saving for retirement, or binge-watching a series more appealing than preparing for an exam. For Esav, the stew wasn’t just a meal — it was the instant solution to his discomfort, a quick fix that blinded him to the larger, long-term value of his birthright.
It’s the classic trade-off between now and later: the craving for immediate gratification often comes at the expense of something far more significant. Esav’s impulsive decision wasn’t just about hunger — it was about losing sight of the future in the heat of the moment.
Truthfully, it’s easy to criticize Esav for his shortsightedness, but how often do we fall into the same trap? We skip meaningful opportunities because they feel inconvenient or uncomfortable in the moment, opting for the metaphorical lentil stew instead of holding out for the birthright.
But the Torah doesn’t include this story just to make Esav look bad. It’s there to highlight the contrast between Esav and Yaakov — the choices that define them and, by extension, us.
Esav represents the immediate, the expedient, the here-and-now. Yaakov, our spiritual forebear, is the embodiment of foresight and patience. He sees the long game and keeps his eye on what truly matters: Abraham and Yitzchak’s legacy and the Jewish people’s spiritual destiny.
The message of Toldot is clear: the choices we make in moments of weakness have the power to shape our future — and the future of all who come after us. Esav’s impulsiveness relegated him to a footnote in history, like the nutmeg island of Run or France’s control over a vast portion of North America.
Meanwhile, Yaakov’s ability to think beyond the moment secured him a legacy that continues to inspire and guide us to this day — a timeless reminder that true greatness is not built in a moment of indulgence, but in the patience to see beyond it.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post What Nutmeg and the Torah Teach Us About Securing a Long-Term Future first appeared on Algemeiner.com.