As is my habit following almost every article I write for The New York Times, this post will address some of the comments and questions I received from readers of Can a Book Threaten Israel’s Jewish Identity?, an article that was published last week.
The article deals with an Israeli debate about which I already wrote here several weeks ago. Israel's Education Ministry decided to disqualify a novel from being included in school curriculums because of its theme: a love story between a Jew and an Arab, a story that – according to the Education Ministry – “threatens the separate identity” of Jews and Arabs.
The NYT article said this:
Jews in Israel are safe from persecution and — unlike their brethren in other countries — do not assimilate. They can’t assimilate because they are about 80 percent of the population, and they don’t intermarry because the vast majority of other citizens of Israel are Arabs, with whom Jews have contentious relations. Also, marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew is not even legally possible.
This is a blessing for Jewish continuity — but apparently it’s also a curse for Jewish self-awareness in Israel. When the flap over “Borderlife” forced Israeli Jews to take a position on the highly complicated matter of assimilation and intermarriage, many of them proved unequipped to deal with it.
My main complaint was:
Many Israelis felt the need to adhere to one of two artificial choices: Either support banning the book or endorse marriages between Jews and non-Jews.
Here are some comments and questions from readers, and my responses:
A Facebook friend wrote:
How is this not racism? Would you not be offended if someone told you that he would not marry a Jew?
Answer: I would be offended if someone told me he would not marry a Jew. I would not be offended if someone told me he would only marry someone who has the same religious-national background.
There is a huge difference between singling out a group – I would not marry a Jew, an Arab, a Christian, a Buddhist – and wanting to continue your own heritage by marrying in the religion. What I say in the article is quite simple: Israel was established as a Jewish State, and what we call “Jewish continuity” is clearly part of its mission statement. Can Judaism continue when Jews marry out in great numbers? That is a matter of great debate. But clearly, it is simpler, easier, and more coherent if they do not.
A reader commented:
That Israel would not legally allow a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew is a disgrace to the country and proof that Israel is not a truly liberal society. How can we as American Jews support a country whose values are so different than ours?
Answer: Marriage law in Israel is problematic. For various reasons, some of which are political, some cultural, Israel still entrusts religious courts (the Rabbinate for Jews) with the authority over marriage and divorce. Is this an ideal situation? Many convincingly argue that it is not (here is one such paper – I was involved in editing its Hebrew version). Is this a disastrous situation? Well, I have yet to meet an Israeli that could not find a solution for himself-herself and get married to the person of his-her choice. So the bottom line is this: Israel would be better off if it changed the current legal situation to something else. But clearly, for most Israelis this doesn’t seem to be an urgent priority.
Regarding the second part of this comment – how can American Jews support Israel and all that jazz – I’d like to refer the reader to an article I wrote a while ago: Scenes from a Marriage. This isn’t about marriage laws in Israel – it is about the strange marriage between Israel and American Jews, and the short message I try to convey in this article is pretty simple: Israel has no alternative to American Jews, and American Jews have no alternative to Israel. So, as I wrote back then: “Here is the choice that you – we – face: You can choose a volatile, turbulent, angry, loving, tense, reciprocally beneficial, difficult, wonderful relationship – or you can give it up. In that case, Israel will lose its first circle of supporters along with the concern, the participation in its joys and sorrows, and the contributions it makes, both material and in spirit. The Jews of the world – those who choose to distance themselves from Israel – will also lose, and accordingly deprive themselves of, the concern, the participation in joys and sorrow, and the contributions both material and in spirit.”
A reader (Naomi, and I suspect she is Israeli) asked by mail:
But is this book good enough to be included as mandatory reading for high school children?
Answer: This was not the subject of my article. Generally speaking, I would prefer that high schoolers read the classics, or at least a book that proved to withstand the test of time, before they read contemporary literature. So I would probably not include this book in the curriculum – but for totally different reasons.
A reader asks:
Can’t you see that Naftali Bennett [the Education Minister] is turning Israel into a theocracy?
Answer: No, I can’t see that. What I see is an Education Minister that is doing some good things and some bad things, that is making some mistakes and also making an effort to improve the ministry of which he is in charge. My article was critical of Bennett, but making him the reincarnation of Satan does not work for me. He is a politician of a certain party. He was elected and appointed to be the Education Minister. He has an agenda, and his mandate is to try and implement that agenda – as politicians are supposed to do. Do I like his agenda? When Bennett decided to emphasize the study of mathematics in high schools, I liked it. When Bennett falsely accused author Dorit Rabinyan that she is smearing the IDF in her book, I thought he behaved badly. In fact, I think Bennett owes Rabinyan an apology for the preposterous allegations he made against her.
Then again – Bennett is a leader of a party with an agenda. Some people dislike his agenda. They want to fight against it. This is all fine and clear. These people portray his every move as a dangerous blow to Israel’s democracy – because they think that is a useful tool with which to delegitimize his every decision. But in fact, it is not useful. It is harmful. By hinting that all political views and all agendas except their own are illegitimate and undemocratic some of these people and groups are pushing other Israelis away and making them wonder about their own democratic sentiments. They contribute much more than Bennett does to the erosion of democratic sentiments in Israel.
If you want to read some more about this harmful process of declaring Israel undemocratic whenever someone does something incompatible with someone else’s agenda, read my article: Next time you hear someone declaring Israel’s democracy is in mortal danger…
Dave Goldstein asked (via mail):
How do you know that Israelis do not want to intermarry – maybe they would if they legally could?
Answer: Israelis are hardly immune to intermarriage. They are less likely to intermarry because of the special circumstances of their lives – living in a Jewish-majority country, and having non-Jewish neighbors with whom they have a “conflict.” But in fact, as I demonstrated two years ago, “quite a few” Israelis would “gladly intermarry.”
Here is what I wrote based on results of a survey that asked Israelis about interfaith marriages:
Jewish Israelis were asked about intermarriage and gave answers that prove the point: had they had the opportunity to intermarry, they would do exactly what American Jews do. The more religiously committed of them would refrain from looking for a non-Jewish spouse, while a majority of the less religiously committed would have no problem with intermarriage.
What do we learn from the numbers of this poll when it comes to the story of the book Borderlife? One thing: the Ministry of Education is not completely mistaken in fearing that Jewish identity in the Jewish State is not as strong as it wants it to be.
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.