Beyond the Cusp

July 9, 2012

Israeli Draft Law After Repeal of Tal Law

Former Supreme Court President Dorit Benish’s term as the highest judicial figure in Israel was a gift that just kept on giving. Even now, months after she retired and was replaced by Justice Asher Dan Grunis, there remains one monumental challenge from one of her final acts, repealing the Tal Law which allowed adult Hareidim Torah Scholars to be excused from IDF and Public Service. Since the repeal of the Tal Law there has been a feeling of impending doom as the different political camps hold tight to their various views, many of which are completely at odds with the rest. The religious parties are insisting that a new law be enacted which would continue to allow the exemption for all Hareidim who are engaged in Torah studies. The national Zionist camp insists that should the Hareidim be included in the mandatory service, either military or public service, then so should the Arab, Muslim, Christian, Druze, and all other peoples even to the smallest minority groups (I believe that would be the members of the Bahá’í Faith). The leftist elites are boisterously protesting for an immediate forced induction into the IDF of all being of military age Hareidim immediately or arrested and sentenced to extreme terms of imprisonment even before a new law has been debated, let alone constructed through the legislative process. And the Hareidim are split with the majority remaining mostly silent and choosing not to enter the fray while a fair number are boisterously adamant that they should retain their preferential status and some even declaring intent to take the consequences for their refusal to enlist or serve if drafted. All of this begs a number of questions in order to clarify what has become a hot potato which many news sources within Israel claim has the potential to fracture Prime Minister Netanyahu’s coalition so completely that it will cause a vote of no confidence, calling for early elections.

What is interesting, even if predictable and expected, are the cross accusations coming out of this debate. The liberal leftists claim that almost every Hareidim has been abusing the Tal Law and were not seriously studying Torah but instead using an appearance of Torah study in order to avoid any form of mandatory service. The Hareidim and the national Zionists have refuted this claim pointing to the significant increase of Hareidim and Orthodox Jews who have voluntarily enlisted in the IDF, many of whom chose to serve in the combat and elite units. The truth in this argument is that there has been a marked increase in Hareidim and Orthodox enlistments in addition to the Hesder Yeshivas which take a middle of the road approach with the students splitting their time between IDF service and Torah study. These Yeshivas do not serve in the IDF for as long as a regular inductee due to the sharing of their time between two mutually exclusive obligations. It is rather difficult to have your head buried in intricate Torah commentaries while also practicing marksmanship at the rifle range, even trying such would result in people getting seriously injured. There has been one additional consequence of the current increase in Hareidim and Orthodox Jews serving in the IDF and the idea of forced service placing a sizable increase in Hareidim and Orthodox Jews serving in the IDF that comes from the liberal feminists. Since the Hareidim units are required to be all male, the feminists have complained that enlisting more Hareidim into the IDF will actually hurt female enlistment and opportunities. Even when it is pointed out that the majority of the Hareidim enlistees choose to serve in combat arms where so few women serve that it should not pose any unsolvable difficulties for women; the feminists present an argument that it would be an impediment if women should suddenly decide en masse to be recruited into combat arms units.

Equally resolute, the national Zionists hold that should the Hareidim be pressed into service, even against their will, that Arabs and others who either are not required to do any volunteer service or groups that have found political protection or an option not to serve at all be equally pressed to serve. The majority from this camp is not demanding that the Arab and other minorities be forced to join the IDF should doing such offend their social, political, moral or religious sensitivities, but for them to, at a minimum, do public service. Some have proposed that such enlistees be assigned to perform their public service in their home communities and by doing such extend the ability of the State of Israel to better serve the entirety of its population. The response to this proposed solution from the extreme left has been near apoplectic rage asserting that removing the privileged status of complete deferment from the Arab community would be not simply unthinkable but cataclysmic in its nature. The retort from the national Zionists has been to continue to promote the ideal of what is good for the goose is good for the gander or something like that. This particular part of the debate will likely prove to be the most difficult to find an agreeable and workable compromise that will be acceptable to both sides. The ultimatum that the new law only applies to Hareidim and Orthodox Jews and allows the Arab Israelis to continue to have no obligation for service may result in Kadima departing the coalition it just recently joined. It is this potential for a split that has so excited Labor Party Leader Shelly Yachimovich that she has started announcing her intent to propose a motion of “no confidence” against the Netanyahu Government and even promise her constituency that early elections are right around the corner. Her exuberance will prove to be overly optimistic as even should the entire twenty-eight seats Kadima holds leave the current coalition; it will simply leave the original coalition’s narrower majority in place and the Netanyahu Government would stand.

How will all of this tumult work itself out? There are likely as many different opinions and possibilities as pebbles in the Negev Desert. It makes no difference which side appears to be the most logical, or the most equitable, or the most feasible; it will most likely be the most cumbersome, unworkable, complicated and illogical collection of seemingly contradictory definitions that will inevitably be produce such that everybody appears to have gotten what they insisted included while effectively not changing much if anything at all. Such is often the result of any legislation pounded and crafted by a parliamentary coalitional government which is comprised of so many varied parties from widely divergent viewpoints and constituencies all vying for their own specific interests. This was evidenced by how quickly the Plesner Committee fell apart with one party after the other dissolving their participation over the intransient positions taken by the leadership. This same stubborn, resolute resolve by the Kadima membership and perfectly embodied in their leader, Shaul Mofaz, has been evident for all to see as Kadima Chairman Mofaz has thrown down the gauntlet threatening to bring down the government should the position held by the membership of Kadima be enacted with no amendment thus allowing for a law which will enforce strict and extreme punishment on Hareidim and Orthodox Jews who refuse IDF service while not only not making a single demand upon Arabs or other minorities, but actually strongly restating their preferential treatment under the law. Just like Labor Party Leader Shelly Yachimovich, Kadima Chairman Shaul Mofaz also holds the mistaken belief that the coalition cannot stand should Kadima pull their support from the government. This prevailing mistaken hope that Kadima has sufficient seats in the Knesset to bring down the government and force early election is simply another symptom that seems to be common among people who enter into politics that the entire governing bodies would be unable of accomplishing anything without their individual input and approvals. I’m sure there is a word for such thinking, and I believe it is megalomaniac. There is also a phrase for the usual actions produced by a parliamentary government, and I believe that is complicated, nonsensical gibberish.

Beyond the Cusp

March 4, 2012

The Israeli Supreme Court and the Arab Test

A small storm brewed over the swearing in ceremony of the new Israeli Supreme Court President, Judge Asher Grunis, when at the conclusion of the ceremony one of the Supreme Court Justices refused to sing the Israeli National Anthem, Hatikvah. The judge in question is the sole Arab justice in the Israeli Supreme Court, Judge Salim Jubran. This sparked sharp reactions both calling for Judge Salim Jubran’s head to the other extreme insisting it was within his rights under freedom of speech. Israel does not have an actual constitution and uses a core set referred to as the basic laws as a theoretical framework for governance. This means that in Israel free speech is not codified within the law but has been an accepted right by the majority of the people and government, though there have been occasional debates on exactly how far free speech should be allowed before something is truly out of bounds. The refusal of a Supreme Court Judge to participate in the singing of the Israeli National Anthem sparked exactly this debate.

 

What was somewhat peculiar about this particular case was the divide between those who supported the right of Judge Jubran and those calling for his resignation did not follow any particular political lines. Where there were the expected nationalist and some religious politicians who called for censure or demanded resignation, one also found others from these same camps joining with the voices of the liberal camp in vociferously protecting the right for him to not sing the National Anthem. One point which was central to the argument is the fact that Hatikvah is, in part, themed about the hope of the Jewish people to return to their homeland after a lengthy exile. While this is expressed, no part of Hatikvah suggests in any way, shape, or form to belittle or restrict any others from sharing in the freedoms and rights of an Israeli citizen. Hatikvah is an expression of hope and rejoicing in the coming of the promised return which the sages have always held would come and had been the central hope of prayers over the centuries spent in the Diaspora. The song specifically mentions Zion and Jerusalem as being the promised lands where the Jews were returning to practice their Judaism as had been the Jewish heritage before the Roman conquest and scattering of the Jews.

 

What was of particular note in this entire affair was the complete lack of coverage by the mainstream press outside of Israel. This was peculiar as usually anything which stirs even the slightest controversy, especially if it is between the Jews and the Arabs, is immediately spread across the front pages of the news in Europe and the United States and it drives complete hours and often days of debate over what the significance of the controversy could have on the “Peace Process”. Yet, here we have a debate over the rights of an Arab to conscientiously decline to sing Hatikvah, the Israeli National Anthem, as part of an official event where the person in question is a member of the Israeli Supreme court. What could be a better set of circumstances than to have an Arab who is a sitting Justice of the Israeli Supreme court in a discourse over whether or not he has the right to refuse to sing the county’s National Anthem when it is part of an official function of the Supreme Court. I have my theories on why this was not covered throughout the world and instead completely and utterly ignored by the mainstream press. To cover this story one would be forced to admit and even emphasize that the Israeli Supreme Court has as one of its Justices an Arab Judge sitting on the bench. To give such coverage to an Arab Supreme Court Justice on the Israeli Supreme Court might become a significant story in a completely separate way, namely that the Arab Israelis truly do have the same rights and privileges as a Jewish Israeli even to the point of serving on the Israeli Supreme Court. A story such as this would put to lie to all the previous stories which were slanted in order to give the impression that Israel was an apartheid state which refused to give their Arab citizens equal rights and treatment under the law. The entire apartheid myth would come crashing down and the truth would have been exposed had this story reached the general public, and when it comes to Israel the press cannot allow the truth to get in the way of their continuous damnation of the Jewish State. Maybe this case of the rights being upheld for an Arab Justice who sits on the Israeli Supreme Court not being covered is not so mysterious after all.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.