The fuss about 'pluralistic prayer' at the Kotel (Western Wall)
I am sure that many of you, particularly in the US where the reactions have been shrill, have heard the fuss about the government 'abandoning' an agreement to facilitate 'pluralistic' prayers at the Western Wall. There's a lot of misinformation about this decision in the media. This video, which I found on Facebook last night, does a great job of clarifying what's really going on.
Let's go to the videotape (I included the entire Facebook post):
Another article, that destroys the claims about 'mixed prayers' being policy at the Kotel during the Mandatory (pre-State) period appears here:
Few seem to recall that the conflict between Arabs and Jews in
British Palestine was directly related to the Kotel and Jewish demands
for prayer rights there. The 1929 riots and pogroms against Jews was due
to a conflict at the site and was referred to as the “Wailing Wall
disturbances” for many
years. According to an article on the subject, “The issue of Jewish
rights of worship at the Wailing Wall flared up as a result of an
incident on 24 September 1928 when the screen separating men and women
at the Wall was removed by a British police officer in the midst of
prayers on Yom Kippur.” Before 1967 Jews were forbidden from bringing
many prayer items to the site. The lack of separation between men and
women was not because Jews didn’t want separation, but because they were
forbidden to change the site, because it was run by the authorities and
Muslim religious leaders saw it as being owned by Muslims. Colonial
authorities ran the Wall.
Let’s read on regarding the 1928 incident: “The ensuing outcry of
world Jewry and the Zionist movement in the wake of the screen incident
was accompanied by an increasing Jewish challenge to the status quo
rights of worship at the Wall, as well as demands for possessing the
Wall and its surrounding area. Indeed, during the 1920s a number of
Zionist and Jewish leaders sought to expand the Jewish standing and
rights of worship at the Wall.”
So at the heart of the Jewish and Zionist demands for increased
rights to the Wall was the demand to separate men and women as in
traditional Orthodox services. Wait a sec. But I thought the “good old
days” back then men and women prayed together? Actually they only prayed
“together” because Jews were forbidden from making any changes to the
site by the British, who were listening to the Islamic Wakf and its
demands for a “status quo.”
In the summer of 1990, before we made aliya, Mrs. Carl and I and the then-three children spent half a day with an organization that was creating the priestly garments and the vessels for the Temple - may it be restored speedily and in our time. The highlight of the day (for us) was when they showed us a model of the wash-basin and asked who knew how the Kohain (priest) stood when washing from the wash basin. Son # 1, child # 2 - then just short of 5-years old - immediately reached down and grabbed his ankles with his hands. We snapped a picture, and it instantly became the talk of the pre-1A class at YKP, where he went to school at the time.
The place we visited that day is known as the Temple Institute. On Sunday morning, the Leftists at Army radio (yes, even IDF radio is dominated by the Left) reported with horror that the Temple Institute is receiving government funding. No, it's not a huge amount, but it's enough to set the chattering classes into a tizzy. Fortunately, the government agencies in question aren't saying 'we didn't know.' Instead, they are defending the funding. For now.
The Education Ministry responded to the Army Radio report, saying:
“The nonprofit meets criteria for receiving subsidies that go toward
instructing students who visit the institute, and this has been the case
for over 10 years now.”
“The Temple Institute deals with
research, and it is supported by the ministry in accordance with
professional criteria that has nothing to do with directly supporting
the individual who heads it,” a Culture and Sport Ministry spokesperson
said in response.
“Thus far we have found nothing that would
raise suspicions of incitement or anything unusual as it relates to the
temple. In light of the Army Radio report, it is the ministry’s
intention to bring this matter to the attention of our legal
department.”
The Temple Institute responded:
“For over 25 years the Temple Institute has stood at
the forefront of research, education and preparation towards the time of
the rebuilding of the Holy Temple,” a spokesperson for the Temple
Institute told The Jerusalem Post. “The Institute's efforts have been
recognized and awarded by Israel's Ministry of Education. Its
trailblazing educational materials and scholarly publications have
revolutionized these difficult areas of Torah knowledge for young and
old alike.”
“Over one million people from all over the world, of
every background and religion, have visited the Institute's exhibition
located in Jerusalem's Old City," the spokesperson said. "The Temple
Institute's website is the most popular and educational web site on the
subject of the Holy Temple in the world."
"The rebuilding of the
Holy Temple, called by the prophet Isaiah a 'house of prayer for all
nations,' is a positive commandment, and the vision of the Temple's
rebuilding, which will usher in an unparalleled era of world peace and
harmony, is the central theme of the entire Torah. The Temple Institute
is proud to represent the concept which has been heartfelt prayer of the
Jewish people for two millennia.”
Any Jew who goes to synagogue prays for the restoration of the Temple. Orthodox Jews pray for it at least three times a day. As far as I know, prayers for the restoration of the Temple continue to appear in prayer books of the Conservative movement as well. While the Reform movement originally removed all references to the Temple, that was part and parcel of their removing the land of Israel (pre-state) from their prayers. But the land of Israel was restored to the Reform prayer book many years ago and I believe that the Temple was restored then too (caveat - I have not seen conservative or reform prayer books in recent years).
Let's be honest with ourselves. When the Temple is rebuilt, it is going to be rebuilt on the very same mountaintop where the dome of the rock and the al-aqsa mosque sit today. By definition, the rebuilding of the Temple, which is something we pray for every day, means no more false religions on the Temple Mount. And while no one is suggesting that we send the IDF to clear the Temple Mount tomorrow morning (maybe we should), we should not fool ourselves that we are praying for something else when we say in our prayers, "And may our eyes see when You return to Zion with mercy."
If the Israeli government cannot support an organization that is educating people about Jewish belief in our future, I have to wonder by what right the Israeli government calls itself a Jewish government.
Most Israelis think views of American Jews on 'peace process' should not be taken seriously
When I saw the headline of this article - 32% of Israelis think US Jews should stay out of peace process - I was going to headline my post "That's all?"
But then I saw the blurb under the headline:
Poll finds nearly a quarter of Israelis are against accepting input from American Jewry on religious issues, but 66.3% of Israelis see the US Jewish community as having a positive influence on Israel's national security.
I decided that the 'nearly a quarter' was even more suspicious, and decided I'd better read the article before I start posting. Iwonder if the JPost editor who wrote the headline did the same....
Of the Israelis polled, 31.9 percent think Israeli
leaders should not take into account the positions of American Jews on the peace
process at all, and 33.6% said US Jewry’s views should be considered to a small
extent. Only 21.6% called for those views to be taken into account to a great
extent, and 9.4 to a very great extent.
In other words, 65.5% of Israelis think that American Jews' opinions on the 'peace process' should be given little or no account. And that's as it should be. It's our lives on the line - not yours (or theirs).
And on the religious issue...
On religious issues, such as
conversion or the government’s relations with the Conservative and Reform
movements, 24% of Israelis were against taking US Jewry’s positions into
account, and 30.6% said they should be considered to a small extent. Still,
Israelis are more willing to accept input from American Jews on religious issues
than on the peace process, with 25.1% saying it should be taken into account to
a great extent and 15.2% responding to a very great extent.
In other words, 54.6% of Israelis think that American Jews' opinions on conversion and on the Conservative and Reform movements should be given little or no account. And again. If you want to have the right to express an opinion about how we run our country, you ought to live here.
Yes, I express opinions about the US all the time. But I still file tax returns in the US every year and I'm still entitled to vote in the US (at least in federal elections). Let me stop filing tax returns and I won't have any more right than a Kenyan to express an opinion about the US.
And by the way, we still love you anyway, and we want you to love us too.
According to the poll’s results, 66.3% of Israelis see the
Jewish community in the US as having a very or somewhat positive influence on
Israel’s national security.
In addition, 76% of Israelis responded that
American Jewry’s support for Israel in the future will remain at the level it is
today or even grow stronger. However, when asked whether American Jews feel a
meaningful connection to Israel, 51% felt that half or less than half of US
Jewry feel that connection.
But love us like you love your adult children who make their own decisions, and not like your younger children for whom you still decide everything.
You will recall that I reported on Thursday that the 'Palestinians' are objecting to reconfiguring the area around the Kotel (Western Wall) to allow for an 'egalitarian' prayer area. Evelyn Gordon has a great idea to make this a teachable moment for American Jews.
[I]deally, I’d like every Reform or Conservative congregation in
America to discuss this question with its membership–for two reasons.
One is that the new egalitarian section seems to matter more to
American Jews than to Israelis, since Israel’s Reform and Conservative
movements are so much smaller (about 7 percent
of all Israeli Jews). Therefore, it’s only fair to get their input
before making any decision. The more important reason, however, is that
this could provide a genuine teachable moment in the kind of trade-offs
Israelis face every day in dealing with the Palestinians, to which
liberal American Jews–i.e. the majority of the American Jewish
community–have lately grown increasingly unsympathetic.
Most liberal American Jews have two
main demands of Israel: They want it to recognize the non-Orthodox
denominations, and they want it to make peace with the Palestinians,
right now. The latter demand isn’t confined to fringe anti-Israel
activists; it’s routinely voiced by long-time Israel supporters like Rabbi Eric Yoffie or Leon Wieseltier.
So I’d like all these Jews to seriously consider this question: When
these two primary demands conflict, what do you do–capitulate to the PA
in the interests of “peace” and give up on being able to pray at the
Western Wall in your own fashion, or insist on your rights at the Wall
at the cost of further antagonizing the Palestinians, for whom
modifications of the Western Wall Plaza are no less objectionable than
new outposts in the heart of the West Bank?
Dilemmas no less wrenching confront Israel every day in dealing with
the Palestinians, but because they don’t affect American Jews directly,
the latter are often too quick to accuse Israel of being intransigent
over a trivial point it should just concede in the name of peace. They
deplore Israel’s refusal to agree to a border roughly along the 1967
lines, not understanding the enormous security risks this creates; they
deplore Israel’s refusal to release murderers to woo
the Palestinians to the negotiating table, not understanding the major
role freed prisoners have repeatedly played in fomenting new terrorism;
they deplore Israel’s reluctance to redivide Jerusalem, not
understanding how unlikely it is that the city would remain open
afterward, or how devastating a repartition would therefore be.
Yair Lapid may have spoken very nicely to that group of Haredi (ultra-Orthodox) Jews that I showed you right after the election. But deep down, he's still Tommy's son. And to understand Yair Lapid's real positions, you have to know a little bit about his father, Tommy. This is from a post I did several years ago.
Not everyone has been pleased with the new olim (immigrants). In July
2002, nearly 400 American immigrants arrived in Israel at the height of
the 'Palestinian' war against the Jews. What could be more inspiring to a
country under siege, and in the throes of a long-term recession, than
400 Jews choosing voluntarily to plight their troth to Israel’s future?
These immigrants were not fleeing for their lives, but rather choosing
to enter a war zone. Most of them left behind secure jobs to come to a
country with unemployment at over 10% and rising.
Not
surprisingly, their arrival occasioned a great deal of fanfare. But a
few days before their plane touched down, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
published an article on Beit Shemesh, the planned destination of many
of the immigrants. In that article, then-Shinui leader Tommy Lapid
complained that North American aliyah is overwhelmingly religious. He
added for good measure, "Quite frankly Israel could do without
[religious North American Jews]." (Shinui was an anti-religious Israeli
political party).
Lapid subsequently clarified that he did not
mean to single out religious North American immigrants. In his opinion,
Israel could do without charedi (ultra-Orthodox) immigrants wherever
they come from; indeed it could do without the charedim that were
already here.
Yair seems to feel the same way. He tells Haredim that they've won enough that they can relax their guard and not worry about being assimilated, rails at how much the country spends on religious education, and yet... (Hat Tip: Shy Guy).
Lapid declared that his political agenda includes making the Reform and
Conservative movements – both popular in the United States – equal to
orthodox Judaism in terms of state support.
State support? As in money? So that's the agenda - take the money from the Haredi yeshivos and build reform and conservative temples all over the country?
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
“I want to do everything in my power to ensure the equality between
all movements of Judaism in the state of Israel, Orthodox, Conservative,
or Reform,” he declared. “In conversions, in budgets, in the eyes of
the law. No one can claim ownership over the Jewish God.”
“Small, old, petty politics cannot determine something that is eternal as is the Jewish identity, this is just wrong,” he added.
There are other things that concern Lapid.
He also spoke of his determination to negotiate with the Palestinian
Authority for the creation of an Arab state in Judea and Samaria, a
point that he has previously stated is a key condition to his
partnership in any coalition.
Failure to separate from the Arab population of Judea and Samaria
(Shomron) would mean that Israel ceases to be a Jewish state, he argued.
You will note also that Lapid credits the leaders of organizations who have presided over an intermarriage rate in excess of 50% for 'saving the Jewish identity.' SAVING WHAT????
All of which made me wonder about... Naftali Bennett.
Bennett leads a party that until recently was known as the National Religious Party. That party, now known as Jewish Home, is said to have a pact with Lapid that one will not go into the government without the other. In fact, a short while ago, a free newspaper was delivered to my house in which Shas leader Eli Yishai complains that the pact between Jewish Home and Lapid's Yesh Atid (There is a Future) party is 'stronger than he thought.' Really?
The National Religious Party - the group that sees the State of Israel in religious terms - is going to be a part of overseeing the dismantling of the Chief Rabbinate? The National Religious Party, which for 65 years symbolized the role of Orthodox Judaism in the State is now going to vote for funding for conservative and reform temples? And you wonder why Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had such nasty words for Jewish Home during the election (and yes, I heard people say that they would have voted for Jewish Home but for Rabbi Yosef's command not to)?
And you, Eli Yishai, you didn't understand until now why the non-Haredi public is fed up with paying 70% of its income in taxes to support yeshiva students some of whose heads aren't really so into studying Torah after all? You didn't think that the students who work under the table on the side and who are 'carried on the rolls' of yeshivas without ever being there weren't going to come back to bite us?
I know that's not a fair description of all of the yeshiva students or even a majority of them. Most of them - at least most of the ones with whom I come into contact - are very serious about their studies, but even one who is taking money from the State to support his studies and not studying is one too many and reflects poorly on those who are studying seriously.
And so - Eli Yishai, Naftali Bennett and the MK's of United Torah Judaism (who really do take their orders from their rabbis), can we get together and save our society before we end up with Tommy's plan?
A report on a survey of rabbinical students at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS - Conservative Judaism's seminary) shows an astounding number of young rabbis and future rabbis adopting anti-Israel positions because they have difficulty reconciling support for Israel with liberalism.
At first blush, the report purports to show what one would hope to find among the rabbinate: a solid Jewish identity and strong attachment to Israel. On closer examination, this identity appears increasingly filtered through a universalistic and liberal political perspective. Among American Jews as a whole, according to the Pew Forum, 38 percent identify themselves as liberal; 39 percent call themselves moderate. In contrast, 58 percent of the Conservative rabbis surveyed—and 69 percent of the rabbinical students—called themselves liberal. It's hard to defend the center when you're not in it.
These rabbis and rabbinical students are "pro-Israel," but they are redefining what "pro-Israel" means. As liberals, they hold an optimistic view of human nature: Though Palestinian leaders see their conflict with Israel as a zero-sum game, it seems hard for the rabbis to acknowledge this grim fact. Instead, they get their understanding of events in Israel from ideologically reinforcing left-oriented sources: liberal media outlets, Facebook posts, and Haaretz. These sources help explain the conspicuous disconnect between the next generation of Conservative rabbis and mainstream American Jews on the subject of the Arab-Israel conflict. More than three-quarters of American Jews, according to the latest American Jewish Committee survey, believe that the Arabs' goal is not merely the return of the "occupied territories" but the actual "destruction of Israel." Only 30 percent of the JTS rabbinical students agreed with a similar statement.
Indeed, fully 12 percent of the rabbinical students are "uncomfortable" with Israel's being a "Jewish state." To individuals with this universalistic bent, moral relativism comes more naturally. Most of the future rabbis—all of whom have studied in Israel—do not see Palestinian leaders as their enemies. A majority, 56 percent, say the Palestinian side is no "more to blame" than Israel for the ongoing conflict. Sure, Hamas dominates Gaza. Yes, the West Bank Fatah leadership refused to negotiate with the Netanyahu government during a ten-month settlement freeze. Even so, a majority of the rabbis wants an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, with "land swaps" and a freeze on any "expansion of settlements in the West Bank."
Compare these views with the position of most American Jews in the face of unremitting Palestinian intransigence: 55 percent, according to an AJC poll, oppose a Palestinian state. In equally stark contrast, most Israelis, regardless of their political views, simply do not believe that today's Palestinian leadership is capable of making peace with Israel.
The JTS survey elicited the opinion of 68 percent of the rabbinical students that the "settler movement"—not just extremist settlers, mind you—is a "threat." The survey did not bother to ask whether the Palestinians should be required to accept Israel as a Jewish state (the position of 96 percent of American Jews) or whether Mahmoud Abbas should abandon his demand for a Palestinian "right of return." The survey tells us that 72 percent of the rabbinical students have engaged in efforts at dialogue with Arabs: Some head to Ramallah for the opportunity to socialize with Palestinians, while others take excursions to West Bank Arab villages with New Israel Fund-supported activists. The survey says nothing about any commensurate efforts by the rabbis to understand the "settler mindset." Many report having visited a "settlement"; but the definition of "settlement" and the auspices under which the visits were made are left to our imagination.
We can guess the reasons for the disparate treatment of Palestinians and settlers. The rabbis believe AIPAC is not liberal enough. J Street, whose platform practically mirrors that of the Palestinian Authority, is closer to their hearts, with 58 percent approval. At 80 percent approval, the New Israel Fund is the absolute cat's meow.
The 63-year-old Zionist enterprise is a work-in-progress. No Israeli would suggest it is beyond criticism. But 30 percent of Reform rabbinical students return from Israel feeling "hostile" or "indifferent" toward the Jewish state; now we learn that 53 percent of JTS rabbinical students are "sometimes" or "often" ashamed of Israel. Is it the ultra-Orthodox stranglehold on state-controlled religious life that alienates them? Too bad, then, that so few future Conservative rabbis volunteer extensively at Conservative-affiliated Masorti congregations in Israel.
Seminaries and professors have been unable or unwilling to provide their students with the moral compass needed to navigate between worthy universalistic values and particularistic Jewish standards. By the time they get to seminary, it may be too late. Most of today's rabbinical students did not attend Jewish elementary or high schools, though they are likely to have attended Camp Ramah. The attitudes revealed in the JTS survey hammer home the need, now more than ever, for the community to find ways to provide its youth with, yes, a parochial education.
While I am strongly in favor of Jewish (i.e. parochial) education for all Jews, I'm not sure I buy the line that this happens before they get to JTS. If that's true, why do rank-and-file Conservative Jews (unless their views are radically different from other American Jews) hold such radically different views than the rabbis and rabbinical students? Who is running their Israel program and what is their political affiliation?
There's a lot to be investigated here. The question is whether anything can be salvaged before these people are placed in charge of the Conservative movement.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
