The Lies And Hyperbole Of The Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis From The USA To Israel --- The rabbis’ letter stated that pressures to increase Haredi participation are part of a “malicious plan” to “gather under their control” the Haredi public — the text does not explain whose control — and “reduce the number of those who observe” the commandments of the Torah.

 

40% of officers training graduates defined themselves as religiously observant so daily joint prayers are held in nearly every medium to large base. PM

 

 

***The Lies And Hyperbole Of The Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis From The USA To Israel*** 

 

The rabbis’ letter stated that pressures to increase Haredi participation are part of a “malicious plan” to “gather under their control” the Haredi public — the text does not explain whose control — and “reduce the number of those who observe” the commandments of the Torah.

Eighteen prominent rabbis associated with the Shas party and the ultra-Orthodox Sephardi movement signed onto a document rejecting any compromise on the conscription of Haredi Jews – including those who are not studying in yeshivas.

Shas rabbis spurn compromise on Haredi draft following High Court ruling

 

As Netanyahu pursues deal with parties, letter by prominent figures with ties to Shas contradicts apparent flexibility that set Sephardi faction apart from Ashkenazi counterpart

Israelis protest outside the home of Shas leader Aryeh Deri, calling for equal conscription laws to be implemented

 

Eighteen prominent rabbis associated with the Shas party and the ultra-Orthodox Sephardi movement signed onto a document rejecting any compromise on the conscription of Haredi Jews – including those who are not studying in yeshivas.

The letter, published Sunday, was undersigned by yeshiva heads and influential rabbis, including Ovadia Yosef — the son of the Chief Sephardi Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who is named for his grandfather, the late leader of the Shas movement and party. The document conveyed a position similar to that of the leaders of Ashkenazi Haredi society, who have rejected any compromise on the issue of military conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jews.

Secular and religious pundits criticized the letter’s message, which they said constitutes a step toward radicalization that does not reflect the wishes of most Shas voters.

“Compromise will lead to ruination,” stated the document, adding that “we will not be deterred from going to prison” and “give our souls bravely and courageously to observe our holy Torah.”

Many promoters of greater participation by Haredim in carrying the burden of national service hope for greater flexibility on the issue in Sephardi society, which is seen as less insular than its Ashkenazi counterpart. Yanki Deri, the son of Aryeh Deri, the leader of the Shas faction in the Knesset, enlisted to serve in the Israel Defense Forces in November, weeks after the outbreak of war with Hamas on October 7.

The document, titled “Clear Instructions in the Face of Rulings on Conscription,” was published as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in Jerusalem with representatives of United Torah Judaism, the Ashkenazi Haredi party, to work out an agreement on last month’s ruling by the High Court of Justice that effectively ended the transfer of subsidies for nearly 50,000 full-time Talmud students.

The state is currently formulating its legal reaction to the ruling, which barred the government from providing funds to ultra-Orthodox yeshivas for students eligible for IDF enlistment.

The rabbis’ letter stated that pressures to increase Haredi participation are part of a “malicious plan” to “gather under their control” the Haredi public — the text does not explain whose control — and “reduce the number of those who observe” the commandments of the Torah.

The document implicitly rejected a compromise offer by Welfare Minister Yaakov Mergi of Shas from February, who proposed in an interview to honor the legally required conscription of Haredi young men who are not studying in yeshivas in exchange for enshrining the controversial exemption of those who are.

This aspect of the letter triggered considerable criticism on Sunday, including by the Movement for Quality Government, which said in a statement that the letter belies the effectiveness and genuineness of negotiations with Haredi leaders on conscription.

Spokespeople for the Shas party told Ynet that the letter surprised them. But some critics, including Shilo Freid, a reporter for the religious Zionist-linked Makor Rishon newspaper, suggested this was part of a doublespeak strategy.

“Unlike the spokespeople, the rabbis from Shas put it on the table. No ‘adapted framework’ and no conscription for those who aren’t studying Torah. These are phrases to placate non-Haredim. In reality, even those who aren’t studying shouldn’t enlist as far as they’re concerned,” Freid wrote on X.

But others suggested that the undersigned rabbis – including Moshe Maya, a senior member of the Shas Council of Torah Sages, the ultimate authority of the movement represented by the party and its Knesset faction, and fellow Council member Reuven Elbaz – are “disconnected” from their movement’s rank and file, as Yediot Aharonot columnist Chen Artzi Sror phrased it.

“Unlike Litvak and Hassidic Haredi Jews who live in a bubble, every Shasnik knows soldiers from very close up and personal. Most have family in the army. They know exactly what the worried mothers look like and pray daily for their cousin or neighbor serving in the Israel Defense Forces. That’s why the rabbis’ position is so outrageous,” she wrote, adding: “This public deserves better leaders.”

Menashe Anzi, a lecturer at Ben Gurion University on the history of Jews in the Muslim world, opined that the letter exposes an internal division within Shas.

“This is the Haredi Sephardi nucleus that was Haredi long before Shas [existed],” he wrote. “The families of Haredi rabbis, like Musafi and Ben Shimon, have been in the Haredi sphere for decades, even longer. Their audiences are Haredi Sephardi. They don’t think of the traditional Jew from Petah Tikva, but of the Haredi from Beit Yisrael,” he added, naming a Haredi neighborhood in Jerusalem.

The letter follows legal action on the conscription of Haredim, which has attracted renewed scrutiny as Israeli society grapples with the burden of the war against Hamas in Gaza and the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The army called up hundreds of thousands of reservists, most of whom have since been discharged, following the October 7 Hamas onslaught and the ensuing war in Gaza.

In their letter, the rabbis addressed the issue of state funding for yeshivas, urging philanthropists to fill the vacuum left by the High Court’s decision to order the state to freeze its funding for those institutions.

“In this fateful time, part of the measures are to deprive the livelihood of
Torah students to harm them and force them to leave to world of the Torah,” the rabbis wrote. “We call on the donors of our people to fund the yeshivas with all their might.”

https://www.timesofisrael.com/shas-rabbis-spurn-compromise-on-haredi-draft-following-high-court-ruling/?utm_source=The+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=daily-edition-2024-04-08&utm_medium=email

Gazans just engaged in the most brutal deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians, and Hamas, the instigator of those attacks, is widely supported by the civilians there. Hamas has indicated great joy at Biden’s remarks, continues to state it will not relent on attacking Israel, and, in fact, after Biden’s remarks, resumed missile attacks on Israel from Gaza.

 

Moral Midgets Cook Up a War Crime

Just days ago, NSC spokesman John Kirby assured the world of the administration’s “unwavering support” for Israel in its fight for survival. President Biden authorized an arms transfer to Israel, including 1,800 MK-84 2,000-pound bombs, 500 MK-82 500-pound bombs, and 25 F-35A fighter jets. Days later, following tragic drone strikes in which seven World Central Kitchen ("WCK") workers perished, the president 

...made clear the need for Israel to announce and implement a series of specific, concrete, and measurable steps to address civilian harm, humanitarian suffering, and the safety of aid workers," according to a White House readout of the call. "He made clear that U.S. policy with respect to Gaza will be determined by our assessment of Israel's immediate action on these steps. 

Citing fake casualty reports generated by Hamas and lies about restricted aid into Gaza, Nancy Pelosi and 37 leftist Democrat Congress members signed a letter to the president and Secretary of State Antony Blinken stating, “we believe it is unjustifiable to approve these weapon transfers until the investigation into the airstrike is concluded … And we again urge you to ensure that any future military assistance to Israel, including already authorized transfers, is subject to conditions to ensure it is used in compliance with U.S. and international law.” 

All this is pretext by an administration that has released billions to Iran, the country that funds the proxy war from Gaza, Lebanon, and Yemen against Israel, and which has done everything it can to hamstring Israeli forces from responding. 

The unfortunate death of the WCK team is hardly rare. The Israeli government responded more quickly and completely than we have during similar incidents, and it doesn’t take a genius to see the Democrats playing to that significant portion of their base, which has revealed itself as deeply antisemitic.

War is Hell

The investigation of the incident revealed that a gunman was seen atop a WCK vehicle earlier, and another was suspected nearby. (It appears that this is normal going with Hamas-posted gunmen at food depot drops.) The logos on the WCK vans were invisible by night to infrared monitoring, and the officers in charge did not follow procedures, procedures set by a military that successfully has done everything possible to minimize incidental civilian casualties in circumstances where the enemy’s cynical plan is to use those civilians as shields. 

Khaled H. Zakariah, a native Egyptian with 14 years of experience in national security and counter-terrorism, points out a significant number of accidental killings of civilians by militaries, including ours, and notes that, if the U.K. and U.S. stopped selling arms to countries responsible, “we would stop manufacturing or buying arms for OUR OWN military, which has repeatedly killed civilians by mistake in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and elsewhere.”

Here’s his list of similar war zone accidents:

• Khair Khana wedding Afghanistan, 2008 – 47 civilians, including women and children
• Al-Adaala Camp Bombing Sudan 1998 -- (number of civilians killed unknown)
• Al-Majalah Airstrike, Yemen 2009 -- 41 civilians, including women and children
• Bola Boluk Airstrike, Afghanistan 2009 -- 27 civilians
• Sanaa Funeral Hall Strike, Yemen 2016 -- at least 140 people were killed and more than 500 injured
• Mansoura Airstrike, Syria 2017 -- deaths of at least 150 civilians, 
• Amran Airstrike, Yemen 2015 -- at least 30 civilians killed
• Ghaziabad, Afghanistan, 2008 -- deaths of at least 90 civilians

Most recently, under the Biden administration, in 2021, a U.S. drone strike in Kabul killed as many as 10 civilians, including seven children. The U.S. responded that it was a “tragic mistake” and no one responsible was punished.

By contrast, Israel has achieved the lowest ratio of civilian casualties in the history of urban warfare. Israeli Defense Force chief Herzi Halevi reprimanded the head of IDF Southern Command, the Division 162 commander, and the Nahal Brigade commander. He also fired the Nahal Brigade commander’s chief of staff. 

Martha MacCallum asked John Kirby why the U.S. was treating the WCK incident so much differently than it did the Kabul casualties and got back the response of a professional weasel:

Kirby answered, “Well, look, these are events that happened three years apart, two different geographic locations, two different countries, two different sets of circumstances, two different types of threat[s] that were being evaluated, and [two completely] different militaries that were involved, with two different chains of command. So, I think we’ve got to be careful comparing both events too closely. We, too, had an independent investigation, Martha, of that incident, and that independent investigator found that there was no need for personal accountability to be had, but did find that the U.S. military needed to make some systemic changes, procedural changes in how we looked at intelligence and acted on that intelligence. The Israelis, similarly, have said the same thing about this event this week with the WCK strike, that they’re going to make some systemic changes. Now, we’re glad to hear that and we’re going to be watching to see what those changes are and how they can put them into effect. But these are two different events.”

MacCallum then cut in to say, “They’re not that different though, John… This was a trigger moment, it appears, for the White House, because, obviously, the momentum has been building to take a harder line against Israel and their tactics, but this was the event that really pushed things over the edge. And so, why is it so different, in terms of what Israel carried out, in the midst of war -- and these aid workers, and my heart breaks for them, as it does for the seven children who were with this man underneath this Hellfire missile -- but the aid workers know that they are in a war zone and that they are taking a tremendous risk, at risk of their own safety.”

Kirby responded, “Yeah, well, first, again, two different incidents. I understand that there [are] similarities here. But it would be, I think, imprudent to try to compare two things that happened three years apart in two different conflicts. That said, the Israelis have said that they made a mistake here. They have come clean about what happened, and we’re going to be looking at their report to see what we think of it as well. And they said that they’re going to improve. They need to improve the de-confliction processes with the aid workers, and that’s going to be important going forward.”

Here are some differences Kirby missed -- Kabul is thousands of miles away from us; Gaza is next door to Israel. Gazans just engaged in the most brutal deliberate attacks on Israeli civilians, and Hamas, the instigator of those attacks, is widely supported by the civilians there. Hamas has indicated great joy at Biden’s remarks, continues to state it will not relent on attacking Israel, and, in fact, after Biden’s remarks, resumed missile attacks on Israel from Gaza.

After the administration’s untoward criticism and the Democrat congressional letter, Hamas turned down yet another Israeli ceasefire offer, and Israel found and retrieved yet another Hamas hostage who had been killed while in captivity.

Words are insufficient to convey my utter disgust at Biden, Kirby, Pelosi, the Squad, and those media that publish Hamas propaganda -- moral midgets all.

 

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2024/04/moral_midgets_cook_up_a_war_crime.html

More than 50 former students of the Yeshiva University High School for Boys allege they were sexually abused by the former principal, Rabbi George Finkelstein, and other staff at the prestigious high school from 1971 through 1992.

Judge rules sex abuse lawsuits against Yeshiva University can proceed 

 

New York Supreme Court Judge Alexander M. Tisch rejected Yeshiva University’s motion to dismiss two lawsuits related to the allegations, opening the way for trial. 

 

 Yeshiva University

 

NEW YORK (RNS) — For decades, students and their parents at a prominent Jewish high school on Manhattan’s Upper West Side have been seeking accountability from Yeshiva University, which runs the school, for allegations of sexual abuse by a former school administrator and other staff.

On Tuesday (April 2), their case received a boost from a New York state court.

In the April 2 ruling, New York Supreme Court Judge Alexander M. Tisch rejected Yeshiva University’s motion to dismiss two lawsuits related to the allegations, opening the way for trial.

More than 50 former students of the Yeshiva University High School for Boys allege they were sexually abused by the former principal, Rabbi George Finkelstein, and other staff at the prestigious high school from 1971 through 1992. They allege that more than 20 students and parents alerted the school to the abuse but that no action was taken to safeguard the students studying there.

The plaintiffs want Yeshiva University to share thousands of pages of documents in order to learn “the identity of individuals at Yeshiva University who had knowledge of sexual abuse, individuals who received reports of sexual abuse, individuals identified as perpetrators, along with names of administrators made aware of abuse, and individual school officials and administrators who failed to protect students or did not respond to abuse allegations,” a statement said.

The child sexual abuse case is one of several brought by Jews against Jewish leaders and institutions during the past couple of decades. The subject, once considered taboo, was first broached by Jewish community newspapers.

In 2000, an investigation by the New York Jewish Week alleged that Baruch Lanner, an Orthodox rabbi and educator, had physically, sexually and emotionally abused young people when he worked as the principal of Hillel Yeshiva High School in New Jersey, a Jewish school, and later as a regional director of the National Conference of Synagogue Youth.

Two years later, Lanner was sentenced to seven years in prison. An official in the Orthodox Union, NCSY’s parent organization, resigned, and the case spurred a reckoning within the wider Jewish community.

An analysis by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency found that at least 150 child sex abuse lawsuits were filed against Jewish institutions in New York from 2019 to 2021, due to the state temporarily abolishing the statute of limitations for sexual abuse claims. It was in this window that the Yeshiva lawsuits were revived, having been previously dismissed on statute of limitations grounds.

The Yeshiva University High School for Boys, also known as the Marsha Stern Talmudical Academy or MTA, was founded in 1916 by the then-president of the Yeshiva University (under a different name at the time) and was the first academic Jewish high school in America. An Orthodox Jewish day school in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Manhattan, it operates as a prep school for Yeshiva University, whose buildings surround its campus.

A 2018 study found that childhood sexual abuse in the Jewish community occurs “across the spectrum of Jewish religious affiliation and greater prevalence among formerly Orthodox individuals. Furthermore, history of childhood sexual abuse was associated with greater risk for psychiatric distress and less religious involvement, however spiritual/religious engagement and belief appeared to facilitate resilience in the context of abuse.”

Mordechai Twersky, the original lead plaintiff who attended the high school in the early 1980s, told Religion News Service that he and the other plaintiffs, some of them with grandchildren of their own, are gratified by the judge’s ruling, but also weary. He first filed suit more than a decade ago.

“We victims, tormented and tired, with some of us quite ill, see a ray of hope in this ruling that justice will be served. The road is still long — perhaps years long — but we will prevail.”

https://religionnews.com/2024/04/04/judge-rules-sex-abuse-lawsuits-against-yeshiva-university-can-proceed/

JUST IMAGINE --- if the Torah contained multiple passages promising Heaven to any rabbi who raped a child. And then imagine that in the aftermath of an endless series of child rapes within the synagogue & yeshiva, more or less every politician, and Jewish & secular academic denied that they had anything whatsoever to do with the “true” teachings of Judaism. That is the uncanny situation we find ourselves in with respect to Islam.

 

The Bright Line between Good and Evil

Sam Harris

April/May 2024

This article was adapted from a transcript of the November 7, 2023, episode of the author’s podcast, Making Sense. Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway, I have differences of opinion on many views of Sam's; on Religion of Judaism in Toto, and on Israel's right to settle the entire land. But I respect him as a brilliant scientist, thinker and philosopher. PM

We have witnessed extreme moral confusion since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking over 200 hostages. Some of it has been just frank anti-Semitism, but much is actual confusion. Most people in the West still don’t understand the problem of jihadism. We often speak about “terrorism” and “violent extremism” generically. And we are told that any link between these evils and the doctrine of Islam is spurious and nothing more than an expression of “Islamophobia.” Incidentally, the term Islamophobia was invented in the 1970s by Iranian theocrats to do just this: prevent any criticism of Islam and to cast secularism itself as a form of bigotry. Islam is a system of ideas, subscribed to by people of every race and ethnicity. It’s just like Christianity in that regard. Unlike Judaism, Christianity and Islam are both aggressively missionary faiths, and they win converts from everywhere. People criticize the doctrines of Christianity all the time and worry about their political and social influences—but no one confuses this for bigotry against Christians as people, much less racism. There’s no such thing as “Christophobia.” As someone once said (it was not Christopher Hitchens, but it sure sounds like him): “Islamophobia is a term created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons.”

In any case, fundamentalist Christians and Orthodox Jews don’t tend to be confused about the problem of jihadism because they understand the power of religious beliefs, however secular people generally are. We imagine that people everywhere, at bottom, want the same things: They want to live safe and prosperous lives. They want clean drinking water and good schools for their kids. And we imagine that if whole groups of people start behaving in extraordinarily destructive ways—practicing suicidal terrorism against noncombatants, for instance—they must have been pushed into extremis by others. What could turn ordinary human beings into suicide bombers, and what could get vast numbers of their neighbors to celebrate them as martyrs, other than their entire society being oppressed and humiliated to the point of madness by some malign power? So, in the case of Israel, many people imagine that the ghoulish history Palestinian terrorism simply indicates how profound the injustice has been on the Israeli side.

Now, there are many things to be said in criticism of Israel, particularly its expansion of settlements on contested land. But Israel’s behavior is not what explains the suicidal and genocidal inclinations of a group like Hamas. The Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad do.

These are religious beliefs, sincerely held. They are beliefs about the moral structure of the universe. And they explain how normal people—even good ones—can commit horrific acts of violence against innocent civilians on purpose, not as collateral damage, and still consider themselves good. When you believe that life in this world has no value, apart from deciding who goes to Hell and who goes to Paradise, it becomes possible to feel perfectly at ease killing noncombatants, or even using your own women and children as human shields, because you know that any Muslims who get killed will go to Paradise for eternity.

If you don’t understand that jihadists sincerely believe these things, you don’t understand the problem Israel faces. The problem isn’t merely Palestinian nationalism, resource competition, or any other normal terrestrial grievance. In fact, the problem isn’t even hatred, though there is enough of that to go around. The problem is religious certainty.

It really is possible to be critical of Israel, and to be committed to the political rights of the Palestinian people, without being confused about the reality of Islamic religious fanaticism—or the threat that it poses not just to Israel but to open societies everywhere. My friend Christopher Hitchens was extremely critical of Israel and openly supportive of Palestinian statehood. But he wasn’t even slightly confused about the problem of jihad.

There have been nearly 50,000 acts of Islamic terrorism in the past forty years—and the French group that maintains a database of these attacks considers that an undercount.¹ Ninety percent of them have occurred in Muslim countries. Most have nothing to do with Israel or the Jews. There have been eighty-two attacks in France and over 2,000 in Pakistan during this period. Want France to be more like Pakistan? You just need more jihadists. You just need more people susceptible to becoming jihadists, which is a transformation that can happen very quickly—just as quickly as new beliefs can take root in a person’s mind. You just need a wider Muslim community that doesn’t condemn jihadism but tacitly admits the theology that inspires it will be true and perfect until the end of the world. You just need millions of people who will protest Israel for defending itself, or call for the deaths of cartoonists for depicting the prophet Muhammad, and yet not make a peep about the jihadist atrocities that occur daily, all over the world, in the name of their religion.

In the West, there is now a large industry of apology and obfuscation designed to protect Muslims from having to grapple with these facts. The humanities and social science departments of every university are filled with scholars and pseudo-scholars—deemed experts in terrorism, religion, Islamic jurisprudence, anthropology, political science, and other fields—who claim that Muslim extremism is never what it seems. These experts insist that we can never take jihadists at their word and that none of their declarations about God, Paradise, martyrdom, and the evils of apostasy have anything to do with their real motivations.

When one asks what the motivations of jihadists actually are, one encounters a tsunami of liberal delusion. Needless to say, the West is to blame for all the mayhem we see in Muslim societies. After all, how would we feel if outside powers and their mapmakers had divided our lands and stolen our oil? These beleaguered people just want what everyone else wants out of life. They want economic and political security. They want to be free to flourish in ways that would be fully compatible with a global civil society, if only they were given the chance. Secular liberals imagine that jihadists are acting as anyone else would given a similar history of unhappy encounters with the West. And they totally discount the role that religious beliefs play in inspiring groups such as Hamas and al-Qaeda, or even the Islamic State—to the point where it would be impossible for a jihadist to prove he was doing anything for religious reasons.

Apparently, it’s not enough for an educated person with economic opportunities to devote himself to the most extreme and austere version of Islam, to articulate his religious reasons for doing so ad nauseam, and even to go so far as to confess his certainty about martyrdom on video before blowing himself up in a crowd. Such demonstrations of religious fanaticism are somehow considered rhetorically insufficient to prove that he really believed what he said he believed. Of course, if a white supremacist goes on a killing spree in a Black church and says he did this because he hates Black people and thinks the White race is under attack, this motive is accepted at face value without the slightest hesitation. This double standard is guaranteed to exonerate Islam every time. The game is rigged.

Do not mistake what I’m saying now for anti-Muslim bigotry. I’m talking about the consequences of ideas, not the ethnic origins of people. Not a word I’ve said, or will ever say on this topic, has anything to do with race. And the truth is, I’m not remotely xenophobic. I’m a xenophile. The Middle East has produced some of my favorite parts of culture—some of my favorite foods, music, and architecture. Despite my better judgment, I absolutely love the sound of the Muslim call to prayer. Everything I’m saying about the problem of jihadism is about the problem of jihadism—the triumphal belief by some percentage of the world’s Muslims that they must conquer the world for the one true faith through force and that Paradise awaits anyone who would sacrifice his or her life to that end.

Of course, many religions produce a fair amount of needless suffering. Consider the pedophile-priest scandal in the Catholic Church, which is something I’ve written and spoken about before, I hope with sufficient outrage. One can certainly argue, as I have, that Catholic teaching is partly to blame for these crimes against children. By making contraception and abortion taboo, the Church ensured there would be many out-of-wedlock births among its faithful; by stigmatizing unwed mothers, it further guaranteed that many children would be abandoned to Church-run orphanages, where they could be preyed upon by sexually unhealthy men. I don’t think any of this was consciously planned; it’s just a grotesque consequence of some very bad ideas. And yet the truth is that there is no direct link between Christian scripture and child rape. However, imagine if there were. Just imagine if the New Testament contained multiple passages promising Heaven to any priest who raped a child. And then imagine that in the aftermath of an endless series of child rapes within the Church, more or less every journalist, politician, and academic denied that they had anything whatsoever to do with the “true” teachings of Catholicism. That is the uncanny situation we find ourselves in with respect to Islam.

 

READ ALL OF IT: 

https://secularhumanism.org/2024/03/the-bright-line-between-good-and-evil/?emci=ab583f8b-c0f1-ee11-aaf2-002248223353&emdi=f2180ca7-c1f2-ee11-aaf0-7c1e52017038&ceid=682868

Speak softly and carry a big nuclear arsenal: Israel must enhance military self-reliance - In an era marked by shifting global alliances and uncertainties, expanding and augmenting Israel’s nuclear arsenal is crucial for safeguarding its future.

 

" Deterrence theory refers to the scholarship and practice of how threats or limited force by one party can convince another party to refrain from initiating some other course of action. The topic gained increased prominence as a military strategy during the Cold War with regard to the use of nuclear weapons and is related to but distinct from the concept of mutual assured destruction, according to which a full-scale nuclear attack on a power with second-strike capability would devastate both parties. The central problem of deterrence revolves around how to credibly threaten military action or nuclear punishment on the adversary despite its costs to the deterrer.^[1] Deterrence is one strategy to achieve peace and avoid conflict escalation in peace and conflict studies. "

 

Israel’s nuclear capabilities, though never officially confirmed, are widely recognized as part of its national defense strategy.

US SECRETARY of State Antony Blinken arrives for the Summit for Democracy, in South Korea this week. The gradual shift in the historic US-Israel alliance has been partly influenced by a greater influence given to the State Department under Blinken, the writer maintains. 

 

 

The alliance between the United States and Israel, established shortly after Israel’s founding in 1948, is a cornerstone of their foreign policies. Rooted in shared democratic values, strategic interests, and a dedication to Middle Eastern security, this partnership has been instrumental in ensuring Israel’s security through military aid, diplomatic support, and collaborative efforts in military exercises, intelligence sharing, and technology. This relationship underscores a mutual commitment to regional peace and stability.

Israel’s nuclear capabilities, though never officially confirmed, are widely recognized as part of its national defense strategy. It is generally understood that Israel possesses a sophisticated arsenal, including nuclear warheads, which serve as a cornerstone of its deterrence policy. Despite the policy of ambiguity, or “nuclear opacity,” this unconfirmed arsenal is a critical element of the Middle Eastern security landscape. It underscores the strategic depth Israel maintains in defense of its sovereignty and security interests in a volatile region.

Shifts in US-Israel ties

However, during the administrations of President Joe Biden and his predecessor Barack Obama, we have witnessed a gradual shift in this historic alliance, diverging from the longstanding support that Israel has traditionally received.

This shift is influenced by evolving demographics and opinions within the Democratic Party and the greater influence afforded to the State Department under Secretary Antony Blinken. A series of recent actions and statements by the Biden administration during the October 7 War underscores this concerning trend.

These include providing Iran with a $10 billion sanctions waiver, imposing sanctions on Israeli Jews, pushing aggressively for a ceasefire, suggesting that Israel’s top priority should be aiding Gazans rather than winning the war, limiting the supply of weapons and munitions, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s unprecedented call for the ouster of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Such actions are proactively undermining Israel’s security and sovereignty and signal a potential shift in the foundational support from its most significant ally.

 

View of the nuclear reactor in Dimona, Southern Israel. 

 

In light of these concerning developments, Israel must swiftly enhance its strategic defense capabilities to solidify its military self-reliance. This necessitates dramatically increasing the number of nuclear warheads in Israel’s arsenal and advancing and diversifying their delivery systems. Such expansion would ensure a robust, multifaceted deterrent capable of securing Israel’s sovereignty and protecting its citizens in an increasingly uncertain geopolitical landscape.

Simultaneously, Israel must strive to maintain and strengthen its alliance with the United States, leveraging diplomatic avenues to revitalize this essential relationship. Enhancing Israel’s defense capabilities and its international alliances are complementary strategies that safeguard its national security interests.

In an era marked by shifting global alliances and uncertainties, expanding and augmenting Israel’s nuclear arsenal is crucial for safeguarding its future. This strategic imperative would ensure that Israel remains a significant power in the Middle East, capable of defending its interests and ensuring the security of its citizens, regardless of the changing geopolitical dynamics.

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-792593?

Using tired anti-Zionist mantras to prop up an indefensible objection to military service may make Bench Kvetchers feel good, but it is nothing more than a hollow farce exploited to shore up an ideology that makes absolutely no sense.

 

From one Haredi man to another 

 

Like it or not, Haredim who live in Israel are as Zionist as any secular Tel Aviv Jew -- they are integral to the Zionist project 

 

Ultra-Orthodox Jews block a road and clash with police during a protest against the drafting of Ultra orthodox jews to the Israeli army, on road number 4, outside the city of Bnei Brak, April 1

 

 

In his op-ed, titled “One Haredi man’s view on drafting yeshiva boys,” Dovid Kornreich claims to articulate a perspective that is deeply rooted in the ideological and religious convictions of the Haredi community, which he says holds a principled opposition to their conscription into the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Kornreich’s argument pivots on the premise that Haredi non-Zionism dismisses the notion of any significance in Jewish territorial sovereignty over the Land of Israel, and therefore prioritizes the preservation of Jewish life above the nationalist ambitions of the Israeli state.

While Kornreich does acknowledge the benefits derived from the state by the Haredi community, he nonetheless critiques the moral and historical underpinnings of Zionism, suggesting it has imperiled Jews globally, and of course in Israel. And although he recognizes that there are existential threats facing Israel, he contends that the refusal of Haredi men to serve in the military is not based on a disregard for national security but in a steadfast adherence to religious ideals and ethical principles.

Kornreich also insists that Haredi reluctance to formally engage with the state’s institutions or to participate in any state-related activities is based on a deeply held view that to do so would be to endorse Zionist ideology and the premise of a Jewish national home in pre-Messianic times. Instead, says Kornreich, if Haredi Israelis are to be a part of Israeli society, they must be allowed to interact with the state strictly on their own terms, without compromising their fundamental beliefs.

I have never met Dovid Kornreich, nor had I ever heard of him before encountering his op-ed. But as one Haredi man to another – albeit as a Haredi who resides outside Israel – I feel compelled to express my profound disagreement with the views he has articulated. Rarely have I encountered arguments in favor of a point-of-view as deeply problematic and as misguided as the ones presented by Kornreich. If I were to be unkind, I would merely dismiss his article as a meaningless “word salad” – but that would underestimate the serious implications of his stance, and the many readers who might take it seriously.

Although, to be perfectly clear: Kornreich’s article is a “word salad” – nothing more, nothing less. The confusion and lack of constructive direction in his arguments is beyond obvious, while the high-handed conviction of their accuracy only makes it worse. His perspective, while claiming to represent a principled stand ingrained in Haredi ideology, is first-and-foremost remarkably self-serving. But what makes it far worse is that it is detached from the complex realities faced by Israel in particular, and the Jewish world as a whole.

Let’s begin with Kornreich’s assertion that “Haredim are not Zionists.” Really? Can one truly argue that disengagement from national symbols, such as not knowing the national anthem or participating in national observances, equates to a complete detachment from the identity of your country? If you vote, hold a passport, speak the language, engage in business, and eagerly avail yourself of the country’s amenities, does this not indicate a form of affiliation?

Like the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand as it attempts to convince itself that danger doesn’t exist, Kornreich’s claim that “Haredim are not Zionists” is a facile but ultimately transparent attempt to ignore the perhaps unpalatable requirement for societal participation and obligations that is no less true for Haredim than it is for every Israeli citizen. Bottom line: Haredim who live in Israel are as Zionist as any secular Tel Aviv Jew – because, like it or not, they are an integral part of the Zionist project that has produced a country and society made up of Jews of all stripes and colors.

Indeed, the Haredi community’s deep engagement with Israeli life suggests a form of Zionism rooted not in political ideology but in a shared commitment to the welfare and future of the Jewish people in their homeland. This engagement is evident in areas ranging from healthcare, where Haredi professionals play key roles, to education and social services, highlighting a broader definition of national contribution.

Then there is Kornreich’s argument that the Zionist movement and the establishment of the State of Israel have escalated the risk to Jewish lives and spurred the greatest source in anti-Jewish violence since WWII. This argument is equally one-dimensional because it simply overlooks the broad spectrum of antisemitism’s long and painful history. It also fails to account for the persistent nature of Jew-hatred, which has continually adapted over centuries, always finding new pretexts for old prejudices.

The implication that Jews seeking to return to, and assert sovereignty over, their ancestral homeland constituted and continues to be the primary provocation for modern antisemitism, neglects the broader context of historical reality. Moreover, to suggest that this somehow excuses Haredim from serving in the military – because they were less enthusiastic or even opposed to Jewish nationalist aspirations before the creation of Israel – is jaw-dropping in its self-serving navel-gazing superficiality.

Jews – both Zionist and non-Zionist – did not merely return to their historical homeland after 1945, which they were fully entitled to do whether they were nationalists or not. They returned to their historical homeland after a serious attempt had been made to exterminate Jews forever, and they sought a safe refuge where they could freely practice their religion and affirm their identity without the shadow of subjugation or discrimination or genocidal intent that had darkened our history for thousands of years. And Haredim were as much a part of this mass migration as every other type of Jew. To now claim that Haredim have no part to play in or obligation towards the country that emerged out of this phenomenon is simply ridiculous.

Kornreich also claims that Zionist Israelis and non-Zionist Israelis are divided over the value of a Jewish state, and he suggests that the non-Zionist Haredi community living in Israel has a dismissive attitude towards the sacrifices that were made historically to establish the State of Israel, and also towards the sacrifices that are made now to maintain Israel’s sovereignty. But this claim is highly misleading, not least because it smacks of raw self-interest. Kornreich seems to be implying that because Haredim don’t value the existence of Israel or the military efforts to secure Israel’s security, they will certainly have no interest in serving in the army.

But the facts are quite different. Haredim, on the whole, are very satisfied with life in Israel and are very eager for the Israel they know to remain as it is. Indeed, the Haredim have never had it so good. Their communities are flourishing in every respect: every aspect of their lives is supported by an array of services and professionals, religious life is rich and vibrant, Haredi numbers are growing exponentially, and Haredi institutions are thriving.

The biggest proof that life is good for Haredim in Israel is that none of them are leaving, even if they have foreign citizenship or can obtain it easily. Kornreich suggests that Haredim, due to their “galut” mindset, do not require statehood for self-worth or dignity. But this overlooks the facts on the ground – Haredim love Zionist Israel, and given the choice of living there or anywhere else, the vast majority of these Israeli “non-Zionists” readily choose Israel as their home.

The idea, therefore, that more than 75 years of statehood hasn’t shifted the Haredi disposition towards Jewish nationalism minimizes the deep connections many Haredim have with the country as it is today, including their own contributions to its society and cultural milieu. It also neglects the fact that the State of Israel represents more than just political sovereignty; it symbolizes a collective endeavor of Jewish revival and resilience that the Haredim are a part of as much as anyone else, even if they conveniently deny that when the topic of military conscription becomes an issue. In which case, for Kornreich to argue that Israel isn’t worth “any significant sacrifice” opportunistically fails to admit the robust presence and success of the Haredi community at the heart of the Zionist project.

Using tired anti-Zionist mantras to prop up an indefensible objection to military service may make Dovid Kornreich feel good, but it is nothing more than a hollow farce exploited to shore up an ideology that makes absolutely no sense. And while it is true that Haredim do not identify with Zionist nationalism in its political form, many if not most of them still deeply value the security, community, and religious freedoms the State of Israel provides, and see themselves as equal citizens of the state along with all their co-citizens.

Kornreich cites historical conflicts and moral dilemmas as a basis for Haredi non-participation in national defense by presenting a selective reading of history that overlooks the inherent responsibilities that come with being a part of a nation-state. Just as I am obliged to fulfill my civic duties as an American citizen, despite any discomfort I might feel regarding historical injustices against Native Americans, so too Israeli Haredim must engage in their civic responsibilities. Their objections to historical aspects of Zionism – whether with reference to the Zionist treatment of fellow Jews, or of Arabs – do not exempt them from the obligations that come with Israeli citizenship.

Moreover, Kornreich’s argument relies on a narrow interpretation of conscientious objection that seems to apply selectively when convenient. If Haredim, as he suggests, are entirely disengaged from the Zionist project, how does one reconcile this with their participation in and benefit from the state’s provisions—be it benefiting from social services and state provided medical services, visiting holy sites under the protection of the IDF, enjoying the security and civic amenities provided by the state, or indeed, the very act of residing within its borders without seeking alternatives.

To claim a principled stance against military service on the basis of historical grievances against Zionism, while simultaneously partaking in the benefits and protections the State of Israel affords, is to engage in a profound contradiction. True conscientious objection, in the strictest sense, would necessitate a total withdrawal from all aspects of society that are safeguarded or enhanced by the actions one morally opposes. Yet, the reality is quite different. Haredim, like any other group in Israel, are deeply intertwined with the state’s fabric—economically, socially, and religiously.

Kornreich’s stance does not fully confront the complexity of these relationships, nor does it account for the shared destiny that binds all Israeli citizens together, regardless of their ideological differences. The challenges faced by the State of Israel are collective challenges, and the defense of the nation is not merely a question of endorsing Zionism but of ensuring the safety and continuity of the Jewish people in their homeland. And if Haredim don’t believe that the Jewish people should live in their homeland under Jewish sovereignty, let them take a principled stand, depart for diaspora shores, and make their lives there.

Ultimately, the refusal to participate in Israel’s national defense, based on historical grievances and ideological differences, overlooks the potential for a more inclusive and multifaceted understanding of Jewish identity and the reality of Jews having sovereign control of Israel—one that transcends political disagreements and religious objections, and recognizes the mutual interdependence of all segments of Israeli society.

The conversation should not be about absolving oneself from shared responsibilities, but about finding ways to contribute to the collective well-being of the nation in a manner that respects diverse convictions while upholding a commitment to the common good. Almost 76 years after the creation of the sovereign Jewish state, the discussion should no longer be about Zionism, but about the future of Jewish life in Israel with the participation and involvement of every segment of the Jewish population. Biting that bullet couldn’t be more critical, and the sooner it happens, the better.

Rabbi Pini Dunner is the Senior Rabbi at Beverly Hills Synagogue, a member of the Young Israel family of synagogues. He lives with his family in Beverly Hills, California. 

 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/from-one-haredi-man-to-another/

“The families of hostages may inadvertently strengthen Hamas - The families of the kidnapped are doing this. They are shooting themselves in the foot. They’re shooting us in the foot. “I want the kidnapped returned, but not at the cost of losing the war.”

 

Nobel Prize laureate: Israel must reoccupy Gaza Strip

 

At the Table: Prof. Yisrael (Robert) Aumann, who won the Nobel Prize for work on conflict, cooperation through game-theory, said Israel should establish military presence in Gaza.

Prof. Yisrael Aumann in his Baka home in Jerusalem.

Israel must reoccupy the Gaza Strip and consider rebuilding Jewish communities in the coastal terror enclave if the country wants to prevent another Oct. 7, Prof. Yisrael (Robert) Aumann says matter-of-factly.

Conversing over cups of slow-brewed, fresh filtered coffee, the 93-year-old Nobel Prize winner is confident that not only must Israel “actually remove Hamas from Gaza” but also learn from its mistake of withdrawing in the first place.

“The event that led to the current situation was the Disengagement,” Aumann says of Israel’s 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza that uprooted 9,000 Jews from their homes – many of whom were once again uprooted after the Hamas massacre. “Let’s draw conclusions from that. It would be wrong to make a repeated mistake. Certainly, we should not do that in the West Bank/Judea and Samaria – whatever term you prefer – and we should not do it again in Gaza.”

Aumann, who won the Nobel Prize alongside Thomas Schelling for their work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis, suggests that Israel establish a military presence in Gaza and explore the possibility of resettling citizens there, similar to what it has done in the West Bank.

“There are people who call what we are doing in the West Bank ‘occupation,’ and it is,” he says. Aumann’s voice is sweet and calm; and the creases near his eyes appear smiling, no matter the subject.

 

Prof. Yisrael Aumann is seen receiving the Nobel Prize in Economics from King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden at the Concert Hall in Stockholm, Dec. 10, 2005.

 

 

“We’ve been [in the West Bank] for 57 years and still have not annexed it,” he says, stroking his long white beard. “It’s not good. We should at least declare our legitimacy. But at least we are there physically. It is more difficult for us to pull out because of those people [living there].

“That’s game theory,” he continues. “We’re giving ourselves an incentive to stay [in the West Bank]. One of the most important principles of game theory is the principle of incentives.”

AUMANN HAS graciously welcomed us into his spacious, well-appointed Baka home. As we enter, we are met with the charm of three delicate white cups adorned with tiny blue flowers, a bowl of buttery sugar cookies, and a small plate of precious dried apricots brought from California by a family member (“the only thing you can’t import from Amazon”). Despite his remarkable intellect and extensive life experience, Aumann’s demeanor remains humble and kind during our two-hour visit.

We sip strong brew and discuss topics ranging from politics and warfare to the Torah. Synchronicity seems to be in our favor: Asking how one who subscribes to game theory would process a chok (Torah commandment without a given/logical reason), we mention the prohibition of shatnez (cloth containing both wool and linen). Aumann then opens a translation of Shaarei Orah and quotes an esoteric passage on the subject he had studied with his grandson that very day.

Aumann: The families of hostages may inadvertently strengthen Hamas

Aumann believes that the intense campaign for the kidnapped is essential, but he worries it may inadvertently strengthen Hamas by showing them the extent of public concern. This could lead to Hamas making unacceptable demands, ultimately harming our war efforts.

The families “are making it clear to Hamas that this is very, very, very important for us, and they are making it clear that it is even more important than it is, and as a result of that, Hamas demands an end to the war. They’re still in power in Gaza, which is something which we cannot possibly agree to,” Aumann says.

“If you want to buy a home at a reasonable price, and you visit the apartment and the real estate agent is there, and the owner is there, you do not go to the porch and say, ‘What a beautiful, grand view.’ That is also game theory; you are giving an incentive to the other side to charge more,” he says. “The families of the kidnapped are doing this. They are shooting themselves in the foot. They’re shooting us in the foot.

“I want the kidnapped returned, but not at the cost of losing the war.”

Aumann admits that “The world is against us.” But he believes that “a bigger problem is that we are against ourselves. We say, ‘Beyachad nenazeach’ [Together we will win]. But we are not beyachad.”

He puts game theory in terms we can understand: A game can involve any number of players, even up to a million, but it has to have at least two, Aumann says. Each player influences others to varying degrees while pursuing different, sometimes opposing, goals. The theory can be applied in various scenarios, from sports like soccer (where teams represent players) to geopolitical conflicts, like the “game” between Israel and Hamas.

The essence lies in strategizing to maximize personal gains while recognizing that others are doing the same.

“You want to do the best for yourself, taking into account that the other players are also trying to do the same – doing what is best for themselves and not for you,” Aumann says. “There are formulas and strategies,” he adds, and as a general rule, you always want to get the most information on your opponent possible.

But the real-world application of game theory can be tricky. “People are not necessarily doing what’s optimal,” he says with a smile.

AUMANN IS the father of five adult children, two stepdaughters, 21 grandchildren, and 38 great-grandchildren. Sadly, his son Shlomo was killed in the 1982 Peace for Galilee operation in Lebanon.

He says only one of his kids is into math; the rest are pursuing other careers. But he’s not disappointed.

“I think people should do what they like to do because what they like to do is what they do well, and what they do well is what they like to do,” Aumann tells us, recounting his childhood in Brooklyn, New York. He says his parents sent his brother to learn accountancy when he wanted to be a journalist. Soon after his brother got his degree, he left accountancy and became a journalist and editor.

“I told my children that we [as parents] had set the buffet: ‘Now you can choose whatever you want from it.’”

Aumann, born in Frankfurt, Germany, says he was not raised in a Zionist household. On the contrary, his parents, who were both religious and educated, were part of Agudat Yisrael and “opposed to Zionism.” But after the War of Independence and the struggle for the state against the British and the Arabs, Israel “caught our imagination, and we made a 180-degree turn.”

His older brother moved to Israel in 1951, and Aumann came five years later. Soon after, his mother made aliyah as well.

“I came at the height of the Sinai campaign, and we drove in a taxi from the Lod Airport to Jerusalem in the middle of the night – a moonless night – without lights,” he recalls. “We were concerned about being bombed by the Egyptian Air Force.”

Then he laughs. Small in stature, his chuckle is soft.

 “You know,” he tells us, “it’s still the same road, more or less. Maybe it’s been improved or widened a bit. And in Jerusalem at the time, there was one traffic light on the corner of Jaffa and King George. And it didn’t work. Nothing has changed.”

Aumann takes us on a tour of his massive, seemingly museum-quality Renaissance-era Italian paintings, each depicting a different biblical scene. He points to the one depicting wise King Solomon “practicing game theory,” illustrating the famous story of two women who both claimed a baby as her own.

An inherited Torah scroll sits in a small ark in the corner of his sitting room; an engraved rendering of the Ten Commandments puts the spotlight on the five dealing with bein adam l’chavero (interpersonal conduct). A small desk houses his computer. Aumann learned to use Zoom during the pandemic and has now perfected his lighting system to ensure he looks his best in interviews, he tells us.

Despite the Gaza war, Aumann says he still believes that peace is possible.

“I am tired of the fighting,” he says. “We’ve been fighting for more than 100 years, and the world has been fighting for thousands of years.

“War has been the one cost of human history. It is terrible,” he continues. “There is enough room for them and us in this country.”

He says that one of the provisions of the Oslo agreement was education: that Israel educate its children to get along with the Arabs and vice versa. But Israel never insisted on this, and “it was a big mistake on our part.”

“In this conflict, both sides promote their goals to the best of their ability, but what are the goals? Our goal is certainly not to destroy the Arabs. Their goal is, but ‘they’ are not necessarily one entity.

“Their children are taught to hate us, they are taught to want to drive us out,” he concludes. “That is what we should change.”

We end the visit on a happy

Note: In response to our question about whether he will be dressing up for Purim, Aumann rummages around in a closet and comes back wearing a colorful jester’s hat atop his head.■ 

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-794770

Bench Kvetchers Gunfight The Israeli Government --- Put Your Money On The Bench Kvetchers! "Zayht nisht mishegenuh" [don't be crazy], ( let them go) "Loz im geyn"

Will Israel's government collapse due to the IDF haredi draft crisis?

 

With Netanyahu famous for pushing off decisions, expect Israel to try to reach an agreement with the bare minimum of haredi commitment.

זאלסט נישט זיין משוגע - לאָזן זיי גיין!

אל תהיה משוגע - תן להם ללכת!

The political ramifications of the High Court of Justice's ruling on Thursday - that beginning on April 1, today, the state can no longer refrain from drafting haredi men into the IDF, and that state funding to yeshivot will cease beginning on April 1 as well - could go in a number of directions depending on developments in the coming weeks.

The previous situation was that yeshivot provided quarterly reports on the number of students, and each student aged 18 and over received a yearly deferral until age 26, after which they received a permanent exemption.

While different sources include different numbers, the total number of yeshiva students is somewhere in the range of 150,000, and the number of students between the ages of 18 and 26 is in the range of 60,000.

How are ultra-Orthodox yeshivot funded in Israel?

The haredi yeshivot have different sources of funding. In general, the smaller a yeshiva is, the more it depends on state funding, a source from one of the haredi parties explained. The funding is provided on a monthly basis. While its cessation for the month of April is unlikely to cause yeshivot to shut down, a few months of blocked funding could cause many to collapse. However, the larger yeshivot that have name recognition and donors will survive financially, the source explained.

State funding for yeshivot is based on a per-student basis, and in many cases yeshivot have students registered who do not actually study there, the source said. He estimated that some 1,500 students in every age group (approximately 12%) already did not qualify for yearly deferrals, and could be drafted into the IDF relatively easily. Some of the yeshivot are entirely fictitious and do not exist in reality, he added. Many haredi businessmen make their livings off of these false reports, and state oversight has not done enough to oppose the phenomenon.

According to the source, one scenario is that the cut in state funding could slice off this layer of "cream," simultaneously saving the state money and freeing up thousands of haredi men for IDF service.

But a different haredi source said simply that "no yeshiva shuts down due to a lack of money," and a third source said that while cutting funds from yeshivot will be difficult for some, most will adapt. This indicates that the political reality is not so simple.

The coalition may attempt to bypass the funding cuts in a number of ways. The cut in funding is only for yeshiva students aged 18-26 who were not given deferrals or whose deferrals have run out, and the coalition can, for example, change the criteria for state funding and balance out the loss by receiving more for students above the age of 26. Alternatively, the state can attempt to funnel the funds to yeshivot via other avenues, such as study grants or "Jewish identity" initiatives.

The Attorney-General's Office addressed these options on Sunday, and according to reports clarified that the state cannot compensate the haredim by finding other funding avenues, and that doing so would qualify as a violation of the High Court's directive to cease funding. A "source close to Netanyahu" said in response on Sunday that it was "unclear what was so urgent for the attorney general to create a schism in Israeli society on the draft issue, after the High Court accepted the prime minister's request to complete a new plan within 30 days with an expanded bench of nine judges. The attorney general's office is not authorized to empty the content of the High Court's decisions."

The comment by this "source close to Netanyahu" referred to the fact that the High Court's directive to cease funding was given as a temporary measure, and that in May an expanded bench of nine justices will decide whether or not to make the measure permanent. This means that while yeshivot are likely to lose funding for the month of April, they can begin to receive funding once again as soon as May if the government can come up with a new proposal for the haredi draft that will earn the support of the attorney general.

Knesset recess may bring about a plan

In the meanwhile, the Knesset will be on spring recess between April 8 – May 19, and the government thus has at least until then before the haredi parties can threaten to disperse the Knesset and go to an election. The legal and political timetable thus gives the government a few more weeks to work on a new, detailed plan for the haredi draft, or, alternatively, figure out new ways to avoid it.

There is room to believe that the government could come up with a plan by May that will lead to more haredim joining national service, and passing it into law in June or July. Netanyahu said in a press conference on Sunday night that the haredi politicians had gone further in negotiations than what he expected, and further than ever before, in what they are willing to concede on the issue. A spokesperson for the Likud said in a phone conversation earlier on Sunday that the government would come up with a detailed plan with an array of options for haredi national service, including IDF service but not exclusively, as well as to offset the inequality of the remaining exemptions based on the formula that "whoever gives more receives more."

On the other hand, the devil is in the details. The result of intense negotiations over the past few weeks was a plan that the finance ministry's legal advisor said did not essentially differ from past plans that failed in drafting haredim, and the attorney general's office said that the plan lacked "basic professional foundations." If this is what the government came up with after weeks of negotiation, there is no guarantee that it will come up with a better plan in the coming weeks.

Another political complication is legislative procedure. If the government cannot come up with a plan that is accepted by the attorney general, it could attempt to bypass the necessity of the attorney general's approval by proposing the new plan as a private bill by one of the Likud's members of Knesset. This is unlikely, however, as private bills face a longer legislative procedure, which gives the opposition more time and opportunities to slow or block it.

In any event, no matter if the bill is sponsored by a private MK or by the government, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman MK Yuli Edelstein (Likud) demanded last week that the bill be prepared in his committee, and not in an ad-hoc committee formed for the specific purpose of a haredi service bill, like the Knesset has done in the past. Edelstein is independent-minded and came out in the past against government policies. He also wields some political clout and could try to lead an attempt within the coalition to vote against the bill if it does not go through his committee. Should the bill reach his committee, he may attempt to alter it in a way that would no longer be acceptable to the haredi parties, and the crisis could begin anew.

Even if the government manages to bypass Edelstein, there are still a number of Likud Knesset members who could oppose a bill that they believe is unsatisfactory. According to a report by KAN News on Monday, Netanyahu and Shas chairman MK Aryeh Deri discussed an option of having MKs from both Israeli-Arab parties not be present at a vote on the bill, so as to ensure that the coalition has a majority. One p[arty, Hadash-Ta'al, responded on Monday that it would not agree to do so and would join the efforts to bring down the government. The second Arab party, Ra'am, did not immediately respond.

The bottom line is that the current crisis is unlikely to bring down the government at least until late May or June, and in the meantime the outcome depends on the government's political will to have haredim commit to national service. With the haredim in power and Netanyahu famous for his knack for pushing off decisions, expect the government to try to reach an agreement with the bare minimum of haredi commitment, while attempting to delay court proceedings as much as possible.

Unlike in the past, however, there is no longer a legal basis for the haredi exemption, and coupled with the cessation of funding for yeshivot, the security establishment in the meantime is required by law to begin proceedings to call up haredi men for service. Without a legislative solution, this could lead to a clash between military recruiters and the haredi public, as well as to mass haredi protests and disruptions. 

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-794704

IDF army service is a Halachic obligation ****** No, there should not and cannot be a blanket exemption for any group among us. That simply increases divisiveness and discrimination and engenders resentment and hatred. That is not the way of the Torah or of Klal Yisroel.

 

IDF army service is a Halachic obligation 

 

The Zvhil-Mezbuz Rebbe of Boston: By Jewish law, every able-bodied Jewish male from the age of 20 is required to serve – period 

 

Ultra-Orthodox soldiers stand on the stage at a Memorial Day service for fallen Haredi soldiers in Jerusalem

 

I will undoubtedly be attacked, discredited and vilified in some circles for expressing this, but I simply cannot remain silent, and indeed I feel it is my obligation to speak out.

I am absolutely disgusted and repulsed by the position of some elected officials, politicians and political parties that there should be a blanket IDF service exemption for haredi men. There is absolutely no justification for such an outrageous and unjustified blanket exemption, either logically or halachically.

From a logical perspective, how can we expect “others” to protect us, defend us, fight for us if we don’t do our part and contribute to and be an active part of that existential requirement? Indeed, if these proponents of an unlimited blanket exemption were to be fully successful in achieving their expressed goal and vision that every Jewish man should devote his life fully and exclusively to study and observance of the Torah, and therefore in their opinion be exempt from IDF service, then ultimately there would then be no “others” at all and who would be left to serve in the IDF and defend Israel then? It makes no sense.

Fifty years ago, as a newly-minted rabbi and lawyer then writing on the Jewish Law of War towards a Ph.D in International Law, I wrote that from an Halachic perspective the Torah, from the Chumash to the Talmud to the Rambam, is crystal clear. Every able-bodied Jewish male from the age of 20 who is not from the tribe of Levi (which includes Cohanim) is required to serve. Period.

There were no blanket exemptions, just various limited exemptions based upon individual special circumstances (such as a husband in his first year of marriage, etc.). And indeed even those limited individual exemptions are only operative in the case of a Milchemes Reshus, a “permissible” or optional war (such as for elective territorial expansion). But critically, when it came to Milchemes Mitzvah, an obligatory war for self-defense, for Israel’s very survival, such as wars we are fighting today surrounded by enemies seeking to destroy us, there were absolutely no exemptions whatsoever, least of all any blanket exemption of an entire segment of the Jewish community. That would be unheard of. Except, evidently, today in some circles.

In addressing the issue of exemptions who are we in the name of the Torah, the Talmud, the Rambam to ignore those very authorities while at the same time encouraging the study of and devotion to those same holy texts?

I was so very heartened and thrilled to see so many haredi young men enlisting in the IDF in the aftermath of the horrible tragedy of October 7th, in the holy Torah-true tradition of Joshua, Yehoshua bin Nun, the first General leading an Israeli army, applying Torah practices to real life. Their actions were an important statement and example of the true values of a Jewish nation and homeland, an example to be encouraged and supported that also has the admirable side-effect of bringing all our people together, healing rifts in our society, and promoting cooperation and unity.

Certainly, accommodations can be made in the IDF, as they already have been, for the needs of Haredi Jews. I understand the concern that Haredi Jews may be exposed to less than authentic practices and views of Judaism, a concern mitigated by the existence of IDF units such as Nachal Chareidi, but even in “mixed” units it is equally possible that the opposite will occur and fighting side by side they will by example and with love attract the non-observant who will discover or rediscover the beauty of the Torah. I was privileged to have a son serving in the IDF, and subsequently fighting in Gaza, who did exactly that.

And if we have so little faith in the commitment and steadfastness of our observant youth and their ability to resist such influences, then the solution is not to isolate or exempt them from IDF service, but rather to support them, prepare them, and strengthen them.

In the Tachanun supplications recited as part of Shachris service each weekday morning, there are three verses addressing Shomer Yisroel, the Guardian of Israel. The first prays that our Guardian protect “she’aris Yisroel,” the remnant of Israel, the second prays to protect “am echod,” one people, and the third prays to protect “goy kadosh,” the holy nation. There is a deep reason for that particular intentional sequence – from remnants to unity to holiness.

If, as the Haredi community and indeed all of us preach, we aspire to be a holy nation, then we must first turn the remnant of Israel that we are into “Am Echod,” a singular, unique, united, one nation, united under the one G-d. One unity under The Unity – that is how we will survive, defeat the enemies that surround us, and thrive. Only as one united nation, with no divisions, no special treatment, nobody exempt.

No, there should not and cannot be a blanket exemption for any group among us. That simply increases divisiveness and discrimination and engenders resentment and hatred. That is not the way of the Torah or of Klal Yisroel. 

Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff, the Zvhil-Mezbuz Rebbe (Admor) of Boston, is the Chaplain of the City of Boston, spiritual leader of Bnai Jacob Synagogue in Boston, and also serves The Jerusalem Great Synagogue in Israel. 

 

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/idf-army-service-is-a-halachic-obligation/