One trend is in favor of an increasing Haredi population and “Haredism” (ultra Orthodoxy) in general. This trend is fed by the political situation, by the birth rate and natural increase of the Haredi sector, and by massive religious processes based on education, promoted by the establishment, and even related to the human mind’s way of work.

The opposite trend contributes to decreasing in “Haredism”. It is fed by the need for economic resources, by the State of Israel’s defense risks, and by the progress of science, technology and communication, which make it ever more difficult to isolate oneself in a ghetto.

– * — * –

I can think of several different scenarios to come. Which one will really happen? Time will tell.

The ‘Stable’ scenario: The conflicting trends will eventually result in a sort of equilibrium, in which there will remain a large but fixed percentage of Haredi people, and the state will not look significantly different than nowadays.

The ‘Iranian’ scenario: The Haredi increase of two more decades will results in Haredi majority within the establishment, followed quickly by a theocratic Orthodox Jewish state. Many of the secular people will escape while they still can. Will there eventually remain a small allowed secular community? The Haredi god only knows.

The ‘Tel Aviv State’ scenario: The Haredi increase of two decades will result in such theocracy, but also in a spinoff of ‘Tel Aviv State’, which will constitute a questionably-independent secular entity.

The ‘Ottoman’ scenario: The Haredi increase and the secular escape will weaken the State of Israel to such extent that will make it easy for neighboring radical Islamic forces to take over. Israel will turn into an Islamic Palestine, under which the Jewish Haredi sector will live in peace.

The ‘Utopian’ scenario: The increase in Haredi pressure will cause many to come to their senses in time. Forcing appropriate laws of core education and equal rights and duties will start to turn things over. Haredi birth rate will reduce, education will increase, and Israel will eventually become a better place.

The ‘Apocalyptic’ scenario: The Haredi issue will not make it in time, since other more global events will take place and require treatment (extreme global warming, the Yellowstone volcano eruption, a worldwide epidemic, …)

Choose you favorite scenario. In the meantime, and against ny will, I put my money on the Ottoman.

Those with sharp observation skills may come up with theories that connect all of the above. The second item, for example, may represent a divine punishment for the third one. Joking aside, public transportation in the modern state of Israel is far from being modern. It represents a combination of poor planning, hypocrisy, and political abuse.

Poor planning, because my mother in law cannot visit her grandchildren in the weekend. Yes, she can take a taxi, as some religious wise asses mentioned to me one day. Come to think of it, she can rent a private bus or a muscular person with long distance running skills to carry her. There are many other theoretical solutions I’m sure you can think of.

Even poorer planning, because I cannot give up my private car, even if I plan never to leave Tel Aviv. How on earth will I be able to go to places on Saturday? Don’t tell me. I can take a taxi.

Hypocrisy – because those who enforce this ridiculous situation would not use trains and busses anyway, on weekends. They don’t care about themselves. They care about me. And my mother in law. In some lucky places in Israel there are some remains of public transportation during the weekend. No heavenly lightning has yet interfered with that service, and not a single religious person has been forced to do anything against their will.

Even more hypocrisy, because young people who have good time on Friday evenings find themselves without affordable means of going back home. So they drive back home, which is one of the main reasons for weekend accidents. Religion is very keen on saving lives, but not when it comes to busses on Friday evening. Taxis are more acceptable by the Orthodox Jewish God.

And political abuse, because this whole saga is a result of secular parliament members fighting for their seats. They, of course, don’t typically need the public busses on Saturday. They visit their grandchildren with the cars I pay for, with my income tax.

Talking is cheap, you know. Similar argumentation of symmetry can be used in many circumstances not approved by most religious and secular people alike. Imagine a serial killer arguing the symmetry between gun shooting and cellphone radiation. Thing is, the very act of claiming something has a totally different significance if claimed by an individual (even one that carries some academic degree), or by the scientific community as a whole, based on scientific methods.

Things are not symmetric when it comes to complying with the scientific methods. You cannot “believe” in evolution or “disbelieve” in it, same way you cannot choose to “believe” or “disbelieve” in the earth circling the sun. Obviously you can still claim it doesn’t, for what it’s worth. The reason for the asymmetry has to do with the way science and scientific disciplines produce their claims, which by definition avoids conflicting statements to be tagged as ‘true’ at the same time.

A good and short discussion about it may be found in the IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution:

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and (ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.

Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political – contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.

While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

In most Western countries with Christian orientation, the question itself is pretty obvious. ‘Belief in God’ for a typical American would usually be accompanied by some common Christian behaviors, and since many of these are optional, it could be translated into simple everyday habits. Nothing special that can be recognized by an outsider, unless they specifically ask.

Not so for an observant Jew. The amount of strict rules enforced by Orthodox Judaism is enormous, many of which are directly related to how one is dressed, how they talk, what they eat, you name it. Hence, asking a Jewish person ‘are you religious’ – seems unnecessary. If they are, you quickly see it without asking.

So far, the minority of Israeli citizens of Jewish origins would answer ‘yes’ and be classified that way. Yet, a recent survey revealed 80% of Israeli Jews ‘believe in God’… What is the meaning of this? How can one define him or herself as ’secular’ and believe in God at the same time?

I suppose the explanation has to do with both the way we are brought up and the way our mind has evolved, but whatever the reasons are, the road from ’secular but believe in God’ to ‘religious’ is pretty clear. It is that road that poses the real danger to the future of modern Israel.

Try to criticize religion, especially the Middle-Eastern ones. Soon you’ll find yourself as the target of various accusations, which may start with ‘hatred’ and end with ‘Anti-Semitism’ and ‘Islamofobia’. Religions are not very tolerant of criticism, and that is an understatement.

The issue has two different aspects. One of them pertains especially to Orthodox Judaism. While extreme Islam simply tells you to fight the heretics, there are several ancient Jewish rules that tell you to hate them. You are explicitly told to hate those of your own people who do not follow divine orders. You are supposed to hate those who do not ‘believe in God’, and so on. In fact, since the verb ‘to hate’ is so often mentioned, it gets a whole new interpretation, more associated with behavior than with feelings.

The other aspect even looks more important to me. I have many love ones with whom I sometimes argue. Show me one person who doesn’t. When we do argue, we often do so because of some occasional ‘hatred’, so to speak, to something someone just did or said. Some of my love ones also possess certain long-lasting qualities that I specifically hate. On the other hand, there are a few people I really hate, literally. For all that, I can put my finger on specific qualities associated with them that I actually like.

To sum it all up, there is a clear distinction between people and their specific behaviors. Between the actual persons and the contents. My criticism of religions is rarely of the people themselves, it is much more of the religious contents. I hereby declare I truly hate some of these contents. There are some I also love, I admit not too many.

But please do me a favor: Don’t blame me for things I don’t do!

Perhaps the most striking attribute of a legend is to assign human-like behaviors to other “things”. These can be animals, plants, and of course silent objects (where does Bugs Bunny fit in this classification?). Some call it ‘personification’, and others would use the term ‘anthropomorphism’ (look up Google for the difference).

The most interesting usage of personification stories involves fooling around with the personification issue itself. Take Pinocchio for example: He (it?) started his (its?) way as a wooden puppet being assembled by a skilled carpenter. In the end… well, we all know what happened. Want another example? How about The Sorcerer’s Apprentice? That is a fine example of splitting one conscious mind into several. Who Framed Roger Rabbit set the standard for a mixed human-cartoon plot. And the list grows on and on.

The ancient Greek mythology, and for that matter, many ancient mythologies, made use of their own Pinocchios, building, destroying, bringing to life, and shutting down each other. Some of these mythologies really made it to the top with Pinocchio making Geppetto, as in God making man in his workshop: First version from earth, second version from a rib.

Many legends have managed to remain under the ‘legend’ tag. Some have managed to escape.

The origins of this absurd rule are not necessarily the same as its current strict interpretation. It was probably aimed at some specific prayer (not that this meaning was somewhat more justified). Still, nowadays it has evolved to forbid any male Orthodox Jew to listen to a woman sings. It’s still ok to listen to a woman talks. Yay.

One wouldn’t really care that much about religious oddities, but it seems once you try to avoid them – they chase you wherever you are. The recent huge debate in the IDF (Israeli army) is not ‘how to tackle terror’ or ‘what to do with Iran’s nuclear effort’, but rather: Are male soldiers allowed to leave official ceremonies where and when women sing? The strongest and most modern army in the middle-east is developing high-tech anti-missile defense, but is afraid of songs. Perhaps this should be the new Hammas weapon at hand – it seems more effective in driving away soldiers, than the old fashioned ballistic pipes filled with explosives.

One should also research the unclear boundaries defined by modern technologies: Is a woman’s voice still forbidden if distorted by audio-processing software? Is a man’s voice ok if made higher in pitch by the same software? What about artificial text-to-speech results? Rest assured, there will be a good religious verdict for each. God’s taste in voices cannot be left to coincidence.

Of course there are things I strive to change, like the separation of “church and state” and of course the history of this place has been very chaotic. Yet, looking forward into the future, I will generally look for political solutions along the above-described lines. That doesn’t mean I’m not ready to compromise on things, but as long as the main theme is preserved, and as long as the so-called “other side” is ready to compromise as well.

Many Israelis regard the Arab-Israeli conflict (and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in particular) as “the” most important issue to be solved, this way or the other. I have two important observations about this:

1. I think the internal problems of Israel, especially its gradual falling into religion, are much more dangerous to its existence. Not only an ever decreasing portion of the population actually contributes to progress, but soon the main issue will be not “who will defend the country” but rather “will there be anything worth defending”.

2. Very naively, if “both” sides somehow become convinced to shift from fanatic religious world-views into more rational and educated opinions, it looks as if the conflict is going to dissolve naturally. Instead of fighting over whose god is stronger, people may, just may, talk some sense into things.

With that in mind I wish everyone a happy Jewish new year and Shana Tova!

The protest is generally based on economy issues. The middle class finds it harder than ever to survive these times, let alone acquire a decent place to live. Thoughts about modest prosperity have become more like dreams. One can often hear arguments about overblown taxes, wrong priorities, etc.

These claims are typically right. About one third of the country population has gradually become the actual tax-payers and those that serve their country… in more than one meaning (referring also to spending precious years in the defense forces).

Alas, something is missing. The essence of “social justice” is equality. The criteria for taking and giving money should be relevant and objective. Easing the tax burden of sick people is an example of a good criterion. Ignoring certain civil duties of people who study religion in “Yeshiva” is not, and the list is long.

The problem is: You hardly hear any talks of equal rights and equal duties. Sometimes it looks like the protesters are ready to settle on some financial solutions. How come there is a demand for “social justice” but hardly any mention of equality? Could it be because people have been trained for years to take such unequal attitude for granted?

Read my lips: Solving social differences with a simple movement of resources from one place to another, is a short term solution. It’s a temporary pain relieving treatment for a patient that suffers from cancer. The pain is due to return, and perhaps even in a bigger form. Establishing relevant, objective and equal criteria, is the real cure for the disease.

Let’s take Belgium for instance: You can be a Belgian citizen, while from the ethnic point of view you may be Flemish or Walloon, or perhaps an African immigrant. From the religious point of view, you may be a Christian, or perhaps you are a Muslim. Of course you may be an atheist and enjoy a healthy set of values. All these words are different, each set reside on different axis.

The same goes for other lucky groups of people. If you’re an Arab, statistics show you are most likely to be a Muslim, but there are many Christian Arabs and those with other religions. Again there are also some lucky atheists.

However, things come to a total confusion when talking about Jews. Many people call themselves ‘Jews’ while declaring they are not religious at all. Some insist there’s no way of being Jewish unless you believe in the Jewish god, obeying his alleged commands. I’ve found out at least five very different definitions for the term:

1. The Orthodox Jewish definition is trying to be very clear: You are a Jew if your mother was a Jew, or if you so-called “converted” to Judaism in the Orthodox way. This of course is a recursive definition, because now we have to examine your mother’s Jewishness, which is essentially the same task. Not to mention some awkward situations that arise when the two parents hold different religions, which have different rules for this topic.

2. The linguistic definition determines you are “Jew” if you are a descendant of the old tribe of Judea. Hence, perhaps many of the “Cohen’s” and “Levi’s” are not Jews, as they’re known to be descendant of the old Hebrew tribe of Levi. Yet this is from their father’s side… How confusing…

3. The Nazis had another clear-but-recursive definition of what a ‘Jew’ is. It was more-or-less someone with Jewish ancestors 2 generation before. Thus someone could be a ‘Jew’ according to Hitler, but not according to the Rabbi.

4. And there is the common definition: The Jewish “people”, from the ethnic point of view. Not clearly defined, certainly has nothing to do with “religion”, but very practical. The problem? Someone can be a Jew according to this definition, while know nothing of Jewishness, have no Jewish friends whatsoever, and be a total stranger.

Personally I think the best definition is the cultural one. The Jewish culture is many things: It contains the various branches of the Jewish religion, the Hebrew language, the geographical linkage with Israel, the Jewish holidays and literature, etc. I would easily define someone as a ‘Jew’ even if he/she has Christian parents, he/she has never “converted” and not religious at all, but truly shares the same culture with me. I would not define a total stranger as a ‘Jew’ just for having a Jewish mother by some chance.