I would go one step further and implement the “no representation without participation” law, which would condition voting rights on the completion of mandatory service, either army or national service.
I’m shocked she was accepted into the army, even noncombat. She probably had to fight to volunteer if she’s that physically disabled as her army profile would be too low.
National service is a fully acceptable alternative. What’s not acceptable is refusing to serve in any capacity.
I'm assuming this is more comforting thought than serious proposal. Winning a political conflict in a democracy by taking away the vote from your opponent is the path toward autocracy.
Why should any citizen of a country enjoy all the rights of citizenship with none of the responsibilities? In the US there are limitations to the voting rights of imprisoned criminals. This is no different.
Because it is a democracy and everyone gets a vote regardless of their contributions. In Israel, prisoners are allowed to vote. In this, case, the Charedim disagree about responsibilities, and in fact the majority coalition seems to be on their side. I agree with you and disagree with the Charedim about their responsibility, but they have a right to vote for what they think that law should be, even if they are completely wrong. That is the basis of democracy.
Are you claiming that the US is not a democracy because felons cannot vote? Interesting.
That’s one approach. However there are other limits imposed on democratic rule - for example, if the majority votes to kill all members of a visible minority, most considering this scenario would not approve. Obviously this is a separate discussion, but a liberal (versus absolute) democracy includes protections of civil/human rights, and an argument can be made that deliberately refusing to fulfill one’s civic responsibilities automatically disqualifies one from enjoying the privileges.
I am just a medical doctor, not a lawyer, so the legal niceties are beyond my pay grade. But it seems like common sense.
It is absolutely a limitation on democracy which is currently being questioned and repealed in many US jurisdictions. In that case, everyone agrees that murder and rape are prohibited and the question is whether loss of voting rights is a reasonable punishment. Here you are trying to exclude your political opponents from voting.
Yes, in democracy, there is the huge risk of the majority denying the rights of minorities. That points to extra-democratic *additional* rights granted to minorities even when the majority wants to abridge them. This proposal to have the majority abridge the voting rights of a minority is precisely one of those cases where democracy slides into an oppression of the minority.
This proposal is the exact opposite of the case where anti-democratic principles like free speech and free exercise of religion protect minorities.
Interesting that you refer to those groups who as a matter of principle are refusing to fulfill the most essential responsibilities of citizenship my “political opponents”.
In the US Vivek Ramaswamy proposed a constitutional amendment that would require citizens aged 18 to 24 to pass a civics test-the same test given to immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship-or alternatively complete six months of military or first responder service, in order to vote before age 25. If neither requirement is met, individuals would have to wait until they turn 25 to vote. This proposal is intended to tie voting rights for young adults to a demonstration of civic knowledge or service.
Could this be challenged in court? Of course. But the fact that it is presented in the first place in the world’s preeminent democracy illustrates this problem is not unique to Israel, although in our case the situation poses an existential risk threat.
I don't consider the Israel of today, the product of democratic decision making, to be a bad outcome. If you mean because you don't like the outcome on this particular issue, then no, that is not a good reason to jettison democracy. There is always a losing side in any system of decision making, but a democratic system ensures that there is always the possibility of correction and preserves legitimacy even for the losers on any given issue.
I think that this is partially correct but oversimplified. You can’t cut off people’s health care. You also will have trouble cutting of other benefits without harming people, especially children, who can’t just suddenly pivot to a different lifestyle that they are neither educated or prepared for. Like it or not, once you’ve created a dependent culture, you now have a moral obligation to deal with that dependency. Certainly you can cut off some things (benefits to the yeshivot themselves). But you can’t help create a way of life and then put those people and their children is a situation where they don’t have enough food or health care. This would have to be done very carefully.
You have to make as many benefits as possible direct government grants. You should not allow the yeshivot to mediate any benefits. The real enforcers of Charedi life are the Roshei Yeshivot and Mashgiach Ruchanim of the satellite yeshivot.
yeah right like the high-tech graduate I have in my house who slaved for three years to finish a degree, worked for nearly a year in TA and has yet to find another job two years later....AI seems to have cut out that line of work
David, God bless him (and I mean that), is a liberal Democrat, and so his gorge rises at the idea of people not getting benefits. Some of us have no such compunctions.
Let's face facts, while David is not Israeli, the decades-long legacy of Israeli socialism did and does a lot to contribute to this problem, by setting up the framework under which it works as well as creating expectations of bennies. The sick irony is that it is the supposedly free-market Likud and other "right-wing" parties that are exploiting that. (Not to mention that the anti-State charedim happily take the treyf money.)
Nachum's relationship to the truth is a little shaky, at least in his online persona (I don't know him ). He doesn't know me at all, but he pretends to (and why would you take someone else's word on who I am?). I'm a conservative anti-trumper.
To your question: It's not OK to say to someone "hey I'll pay for you to have kids without education, go ahead, learn" and then later say "whoops, not really, your kids might go hungry, too bad". I think that most versions of morality would classify that kind of bait-and-swith as problematic. YMMV.
Since you ask about Torah morality, I'll just say that the vast majority of Orthodox Jews don't subscribe to "Torah morality" *if* that is taken in a fundamentalist sense, as things like slavery, polygyny, child marriage, and rape and pillage of foreign cities are not considered moral. I mention that only because the fundamentalist interpretation seems to sometimes be used on this forum (in a very selective manner).
I'm sorry, you've said far too many things here and elsewhere that cast serious doubt on any "conservative" claim you can make.
In any event, as Margaret Thatcher would say, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. And yeah, it then stinks to be the person who was depending on government all that time. When the tide goes down, you see who's not wearing a bathing suit. (As Bernie Madoff discovered in a very different context.) The United States ran out of money a long time ago; I hope not too many people are hurt when reality kicks in.
Of course, anytime anyone tries to cut one dime of the Federal budget you can depend on the media to start screaming about Grandma's pills or Yosemite or Elmo or whatever. (Often aided by bureaucrats who act to cynically inflate the situation.) A good current example is Harvard, sitting on billions of dollars, demanding the government keep subsidizing its anti-Jewish riots or there won't be a cure for cancer.
But the thing about Israel is, left-wing as the media is, it won't present sob stories about suffering charedim, and even if it does, no one will care.
My prediction would be that the representative sample would be considered heroes in the community and this would stiffen their resolve. This approach would also likely not play well even in the non-Charedi world. Let's see what happens.
Charedim are not that isolated from Israeli culture, nor so flexible in their ideology that they would create a new type of hero like that. Charedim are Israeli enough to consider those few jailed as freiers (who nebech, don't have protexia), not heroes. But they remain steadfast in Charedi ideology which only attributes heroism to someone actually sitting and learning. Mere martyrdom for the principle of learning is not itself learning and thus is not heroic.
I think you also have to look at the IDF and determine if they are committed to respecting the needs of the religious soldiers. Recently many reservists in a particular religious unit refused to serve because it was suddenly decided that women were to be added to their unit. The upper echelons of the IDF are still trying to push their own agenda. This only fuels the arguments presented by the chareidi community for not joining the army.
Can you list some examples (or maybe a link to all of them) of how their healthcare is massively subsidized, more than what is stipulated in the Healthcare Law(?)
I don't think the point is that it is "more than what is stipulated in the Healthcare Law", even if it is the same proportion as non-Charedi.
R. Slifkin's point is that they are consumers of the system but not participants, i.e., a drain on the system.
Therefore, even if Israel spends the same proportionally on charedim vs non-charedim, the spending will eventually become unsustainable, assuming that Charedim will continue to grow demographically.
R Slifkin listed quite a number of subsidies and stipends the Charedim get out of proportion to their fraction of the population. If their health benefits are no more than anyone else's, why bother mentioning it at all, especially with the modifier "massive?"
Almost all such subsidies are disguised in narrowly-tailored categories. For example, the half-off on public transit just introduced doesn't *say* "charedi," but it's set up that way. (Fortunately we live in a neighborhood that's next to a charedi one.)
Arab and Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) households are net recipients:
* Lower-income households (bottom deciles) receive significantly more in government transfers and public services than they pay in taxes.
* They receive ~₪4,000–₪6,000 per month more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
Non-Haredi Jewish households are net contributors:
* They pay ~₪6,000 per month more than they receive.
R. Slifkin does propose the following policy adjustments in his article, and I am assuming that this would be based on participation in the IDF(R. Slifkin, feel free to chime in):
And all we need to do is stop giving them all these free financial benefits to draft evaders.
* No stipends for yeshivos - personally agree
* No subsidized daycare - personally agree
* No discounts on national and municipal taxes.
* No subsidized public transport. - personally agree
* No welfare benefits. - Need to understand what welfare in Israel means.
* No subsidized healthcare. - somewhat agree
* No lottery for subsidized housing - strongly agree
* Cancelling their drivers’ licenses would also be a good idea, and one that even charedi roshei yeshiva might support.
There are a lot of other questions about specifics, for example,
* Does this apply to the Arab population? I get that they are a little different, i.e., IDF will not take them, so what should they do to get the benefits?
* Does this apply to people who cannot attend the IDF? ( mental or physical handicap)
* Even "No stipends for yeshivos " is interesting. In Israel, tuition in public universities is heavily subsidized. I can argue that a Yeshiva for 18+ is a type of university.
While I’m sure that last graph is directionally correct, I imagine that part of the discrepancy is the result of differences among the sectors in the average size and age of the families.
Yeah, but the discrepancy is way too large. Charedi families aren't...I can't do the math, but I think they'd have to be ten times the size of others to justify that, at least.
And of course Arabs have big families too, bigger than charedim sometimes.
So it's OK to oppose, say, Yesh Atid or Yisrael Beitenu or Likud or Otzma Yehudit or Hadash or anyone else, but opposing UTJ is suddenly "anti-charedi"?
Who said its ok to "oppose" anyone. First of all, "anti" is a particularly toxic form of opposition. Secondly, its a clear departure from the world of ideas and values, which I had once believed this blog was dedicated to. There's always bias, agendas and way too often acrimony in political advocacy. Definitely when your focus is on taking down the other.
I would go one step further and implement the “no representation without participation” law, which would condition voting rights on the completion of mandatory service, either army or national service.
Apply it to Arabs (which will never happen) and the Right will be happy to support it.
Apply to every young citizen of Israel, Arab and Jew alike.
Only exception if literally at deaths door or in a psych ward.
Seriously, even my nephew with severe congenital heart disease could be a teachers assistant or tutor young kids.
On my commute I see a young female soldier almost bent double by a spinal condition.
I’m shocked she was accepted into the army, even noncombat. She probably had to fight to volunteer if she’s that physically disabled as her army profile would be too low.
National service is a fully acceptable alternative. What’s not acceptable is refusing to serve in any capacity.
I'm sure she fought.
A cousin of mine has a neighbor with Down's Syndrome who did his IDF service.
Kol Hakavod.
Only in the merit of these incredible young men and women will the Jewish people survive.
I'm assuming this is more comforting thought than serious proposal. Winning a political conflict in a democracy by taking away the vote from your opponent is the path toward autocracy.
Why should any citizen of a country enjoy all the rights of citizenship with none of the responsibilities? In the US there are limitations to the voting rights of imprisoned criminals. This is no different.
Because it is a democracy and everyone gets a vote regardless of their contributions. In Israel, prisoners are allowed to vote. In this, case, the Charedim disagree about responsibilities, and in fact the majority coalition seems to be on their side. I agree with you and disagree with the Charedim about their responsibility, but they have a right to vote for what they think that law should be, even if they are completely wrong. That is the basis of democracy.
Are you claiming that the US is not a democracy because felons cannot vote? Interesting.
That’s one approach. However there are other limits imposed on democratic rule - for example, if the majority votes to kill all members of a visible minority, most considering this scenario would not approve. Obviously this is a separate discussion, but a liberal (versus absolute) democracy includes protections of civil/human rights, and an argument can be made that deliberately refusing to fulfill one’s civic responsibilities automatically disqualifies one from enjoying the privileges.
I am just a medical doctor, not a lawyer, so the legal niceties are beyond my pay grade. But it seems like common sense.
It is absolutely a limitation on democracy which is currently being questioned and repealed in many US jurisdictions. In that case, everyone agrees that murder and rape are prohibited and the question is whether loss of voting rights is a reasonable punishment. Here you are trying to exclude your political opponents from voting.
Yes, in democracy, there is the huge risk of the majority denying the rights of minorities. That points to extra-democratic *additional* rights granted to minorities even when the majority wants to abridge them. This proposal to have the majority abridge the voting rights of a minority is precisely one of those cases where democracy slides into an oppression of the minority.
This proposal is the exact opposite of the case where anti-democratic principles like free speech and free exercise of religion protect minorities.
Interesting that you refer to those groups who as a matter of principle are refusing to fulfill the most essential responsibilities of citizenship my “political opponents”.
In the US Vivek Ramaswamy proposed a constitutional amendment that would require citizens aged 18 to 24 to pass a civics test-the same test given to immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship-or alternatively complete six months of military or first responder service, in order to vote before age 25. If neither requirement is met, individuals would have to wait until they turn 25 to vote. This proposal is intended to tie voting rights for young adults to a demonstration of civic knowledge or service.
Could this be challenged in court? Of course. But the fact that it is presented in the first place in the world’s preeminent democracy illustrates this problem is not unique to Israel, although in our case the situation poses an existential risk threat.
"Because it is a democracy and everyone gets a vote regardless of their contributions."
Correct. If that system is producing bad outcomes, seems to me that you should at least consider the possibility of changing it.
I don't consider the Israel of today, the product of democratic decision making, to be a bad outcome. If you mean because you don't like the outcome on this particular issue, then no, that is not a good reason to jettison democracy. There is always a losing side in any system of decision making, but a democratic system ensures that there is always the possibility of correction and preserves legitimacy even for the losers on any given issue.
I think that this is partially correct but oversimplified. You can’t cut off people’s health care. You also will have trouble cutting of other benefits without harming people, especially children, who can’t just suddenly pivot to a different lifestyle that they are neither educated or prepared for. Like it or not, once you’ve created a dependent culture, you now have a moral obligation to deal with that dependency. Certainly you can cut off some things (benefits to the yeshivot themselves). But you can’t help create a way of life and then put those people and their children is a situation where they don’t have enough food or health care. This would have to be done very carefully.
You have to make as many benefits as possible direct government grants. You should not allow the yeshivot to mediate any benefits. The real enforcers of Charedi life are the Roshei Yeshivot and Mashgiach Ruchanim of the satellite yeshivot.
But you can reduce it year by year explaining why. That way they will have time to adjust to a new way of life
Agreed.
Nope. They don't have to be dependent. There are real education and jobs available
yeah right like the high-tech graduate I have in my house who slaved for three years to finish a degree, worked for nearly a year in TA and has yet to find another job two years later....AI seems to have cut out that line of work
>You can’t cut off people’s health care.
Here in America we have a saying: you can just do stuff.
I think this issue will resolve itself:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/ex-chief-rabbi-if-haredi-draft-dodgers-arrested-ultra-orthodox-will-leave-israel/
Yeah, not going to happen.
David,
You said " Like it or not, once you’ve created a dependent culture, you now have a moral obligation to deal with that dependency."
I am curious, what specific moral principle are you referring to?
David, God bless him (and I mean that), is a liberal Democrat, and so his gorge rises at the idea of people not getting benefits. Some of us have no such compunctions.
Let's face facts, while David is not Israeli, the decades-long legacy of Israeli socialism did and does a lot to contribute to this problem, by setting up the framework under which it works as well as creating expectations of bennies. The sick irony is that it is the supposedly free-market Likud and other "right-wing" parties that are exploiting that. (Not to mention that the anti-State charedim happily take the treyf money.)
I was a liberal Democrat but am becoming a Socialist. I am also strongly in favor of ending the Charedi pork barrel.
That's not what pork barrel means.
Nachum,
I don't know David, and I will take your word that David is a Liberal Democrat.
However, that does not answer my question, which moral system says "u now have a moral obligation to deal with that dependency"
Is it Torah morality? Is it some Western Morality?
I am looking for sources.
Saying something is immoral does not make an act immoral; Morality depends on a philosophical, cultural, or religious frameworks.
Hope that clears it up.
Oh, I don't disagree with you.
Nachum's relationship to the truth is a little shaky, at least in his online persona (I don't know him ). He doesn't know me at all, but he pretends to (and why would you take someone else's word on who I am?). I'm a conservative anti-trumper.
To your question: It's not OK to say to someone "hey I'll pay for you to have kids without education, go ahead, learn" and then later say "whoops, not really, your kids might go hungry, too bad". I think that most versions of morality would classify that kind of bait-and-swith as problematic. YMMV.
Since you ask about Torah morality, I'll just say that the vast majority of Orthodox Jews don't subscribe to "Torah morality" *if* that is taken in a fundamentalist sense, as things like slavery, polygyny, child marriage, and rape and pillage of foreign cities are not considered moral. I mention that only because the fundamentalist interpretation seems to sometimes be used on this forum (in a very selective manner).
I'm sorry, you've said far too many things here and elsewhere that cast serious doubt on any "conservative" claim you can make.
In any event, as Margaret Thatcher would say, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. And yeah, it then stinks to be the person who was depending on government all that time. When the tide goes down, you see who's not wearing a bathing suit. (As Bernie Madoff discovered in a very different context.) The United States ran out of money a long time ago; I hope not too many people are hurt when reality kicks in.
Of course, anytime anyone tries to cut one dime of the Federal budget you can depend on the media to start screaming about Grandma's pills or Yosemite or Elmo or whatever. (Often aided by bureaucrats who act to cynically inflate the situation.) A good current example is Harvard, sitting on billions of dollars, demanding the government keep subsidizing its anti-Jewish riots or there won't be a cure for cancer.
But the thing about Israel is, left-wing as the media is, it won't present sob stories about suffering charedim, and even if it does, no one will care.
How about cutting off their benefits AND jailing them AND revoking their citizenship?
How about just executing them, would be a lot simpler and less bother to the taxpayer...the level of vitriol on this blog has just about hit the fan
It's only 'Avi Rosenthall'.
You don't need to jail *all* of them. Just a select representative sample. Let's see how quickly people fall into line.
My prediction would be that the representative sample would be considered heroes in the community and this would stiffen their resolve. This approach would also likely not play well even in the non-Charedi world. Let's see what happens.
A dozen or so would be heroes. A thousand, picked at random, and they'd start getting nervous.
Charedim are not that isolated from Israeli culture, nor so flexible in their ideology that they would create a new type of hero like that. Charedim are Israeli enough to consider those few jailed as freiers (who nebech, don't have protexia), not heroes. But they remain steadfast in Charedi ideology which only attributes heroism to someone actually sitting and learning. Mere martyrdom for the principle of learning is not itself learning and thus is not heroic.
I think you also have to look at the IDF and determine if they are committed to respecting the needs of the religious soldiers. Recently many reservists in a particular religious unit refused to serve because it was suddenly decided that women were to be added to their unit. The upper echelons of the IDF are still trying to push their own agenda. This only fuels the arguments presented by the chareidi community for not joining the army.
Can you list some examples (or maybe a link to all of them) of how their healthcare is massively subsidized, more than what is stipulated in the Healthcare Law(?)
Gidon,
I don't think the point is that it is "more than what is stipulated in the Healthcare Law", even if it is the same proportion as non-Charedi.
R. Slifkin's point is that they are consumers of the system but not participants, i.e., a drain on the system.
Therefore, even if Israel spends the same proportionally on charedim vs non-charedim, the spending will eventually become unsustainable, assuming that Charedim will continue to grow demographically.
R Slifkin listed quite a number of subsidies and stipends the Charedim get out of proportion to their fraction of the population. If their health benefits are no more than anyone else's, why bother mentioning it at all, especially with the modifier "massive?"
Almost all such subsidies are disguised in narrowly-tailored categories. For example, the half-off on public transit just introduced doesn't *say* "charedi," but it's set up that way. (Fortunately we live in a neighborhood that's next to a charedi one.)
Gidon,
The way I read the article, R. Slifkin states facts (1+1 = 2), so when he says,
"Even their healthcare is massively subsidized."
That is a true statement based on this document:
https://www.kohelet.org.il/article/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95/
For example, they conclude that:
Arab and Haredi (ultra-Orthodox Jewish) households are net recipients:
* Lower-income households (bottom deciles) receive significantly more in government transfers and public services than they pay in taxes.
* They receive ~₪4,000–₪6,000 per month more in benefits and services than they pay in taxes.
Non-Haredi Jewish households are net contributors:
* They pay ~₪6,000 per month more than they receive.
R. Slifkin does propose the following policy adjustments in his article, and I am assuming that this would be based on participation in the IDF(R. Slifkin, feel free to chime in):
And all we need to do is stop giving them all these free financial benefits to draft evaders.
* No stipends for yeshivos - personally agree
* No subsidized daycare - personally agree
* No discounts on national and municipal taxes.
* No subsidized public transport. - personally agree
* No welfare benefits. - Need to understand what welfare in Israel means.
* No subsidized healthcare. - somewhat agree
* No lottery for subsidized housing - strongly agree
* Cancelling their drivers’ licenses would also be a good idea, and one that even charedi roshei yeshiva might support.
There are a lot of other questions about specifics, for example,
* Does this apply to the Arab population? I get that they are a little different, i.e., IDF will not take them, so what should they do to get the benefits?
* Does this apply to people who cannot attend the IDF? ( mental or physical handicap)
* Even "No stipends for yeshivos " is interesting. In Israel, tuition in public universities is heavily subsidized. I can argue that a Yeshiva for 18+ is a type of university.
Anyway, just my 0.02
Unfortunately the "Them" says it all my lost friend.
Why? He's not a charedi.
The charedi world haa been explicit about considering the non-charedi world to be "them." https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-trojan-tefillah
While I’m sure that last graph is directionally correct, I imagine that part of the discrepancy is the result of differences among the sectors in the average size and age of the families.
Yeah, but the discrepancy is way too large. Charedi families aren't...I can't do the math, but I think they'd have to be ten times the size of others to justify that, at least.
And of course Arabs have big families too, bigger than charedim sometimes.
Agreed.
I like the idea
your anti-Chareidi political credentials are coming out in full glory
So it's OK to oppose, say, Yesh Atid or Yisrael Beitenu or Likud or Otzma Yehudit or Hadash or anyone else, but opposing UTJ is suddenly "anti-charedi"?
Who said its ok to "oppose" anyone. First of all, "anti" is a particularly toxic form of opposition. Secondly, its a clear departure from the world of ideas and values, which I had once believed this blog was dedicated to. There's always bias, agendas and way too often acrimony in political advocacy. Definitely when your focus is on taking down the other.
The "crucial article" link does not work. Mischief?
That's weird, it works for me.
https://www.kohelet.org.il/article/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A0%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A0%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95/
The link works fine, just that the URL might be too long for some browsers/apps
Or search for it:
על המיסים ועל הנפלאות
The kohelet link doesn't work
The link just above by R' Slifkin worked fine by me. (Use a good browser, like Opera :-) ).