Israel is a country that has historically lacked outside support and has historically been internally divided. This week, a piece of Israeli legislation has threatened to legally “tear apart the Jewish people” (Bronner) . The bill originated from Israel’s persistent “conversion problem”; hundreds of thousands of Jews who have immigrated over the past three decades are not religious and are therefore not considered Jewish by the ulta-orthodox rabbinate (Mynott) . In fact, most of Israel is secular; immigrants are culturally Jewish, meaning that their parents and grandparents were Jewish, but they do not partake in serious religious practices. Consequently, the Diaspora has had trouble obtaining legal Jewish marriage certificates, legal rights to a spot in a Jewish cemetery, and the like. In order to alleviate this issue, the Knesset (Israeli government) wrote a “conversion bill” that would give local rabbis the power to declare Israeli citizens Jewish. “About 400,000 [of these] people…are part of the state of Israel; they join the army, they live here, they contribute to the economy. I am trying to make it easier for them to convert,” announced David Rotem, an Israeli parliamentarian (Mynott) .
Getting this bill through the Knesset, however, would require the support of religious political parties. These parties did not want to support the bill until an amendment was made: only the chief rabbinate can have the power to declare someone a Jew. Seeking the parties' approval, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to their condition. This means that, if the bill passes as is, “all Jewish births, marriages, and deaths- and the right to decide who is Jewish- will reside with a small group of ultra-orthodox rabbis in Israel” (Mynott) .
Getting this bill through the Knesset, however, would require the support of religious political parties. These parties did not want to support the bill until an amendment was made: only the chief rabbinate can have the power to declare someone a Jew. Seeking the parties' approval, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to their condition. This means that, if the bill passes as is, “all Jewish births, marriages, and deaths- and the right to decide who is Jewish- will reside with a small group of ultra-orthodox rabbis in Israel”
Photo from Bangitout.comAmerican coverage of Israel often focuses on how Israeli events are affecting the US. In this case, such coverage actually affected the bill’s progress. “The chief Rabbinate is controlled by …the Haredi extreme right-wing element of Orthodoxy, which is often unwelcoming [even] to Orthodox people who are outside their camp” (Weiss) . Israel and the US have the world’s largest Jewish populations, and, according to the Haredi, nearly all American Jews and most of the Diaspora are not considered Jewish. Not only would this bill hinder the power of local rabbis in Israel, but American rabbis would no longer be able to tell US Jews that they are welcome in Israel. This has outraged thousands of Jewish organizations in the US, prompting a cornucopia of emails to Prime Minister Netanyahu. Netanyahu responded by putting the bill away for six more months.
The New York Times explained why this “crisis…was averted” (clearly, the Times is on the side of the mainstream Jew); Netanyahu is currently negotiating with President Obama over Israeli-Palestinian peace, and he cannot afford to lose the support of the American Jewish community. The Times finished off its article with a reference to an opinion column in The Jerusalem Post that presents the bill as a “global crisis…that is ripping Israeli-Diaspora relations” (Bronner) .
USA Today stayed true to its tabloid history by making its article about the conversion bill a bit flashier; its title screamed that “Israel’s ultra-orthodox …[are] threatening to split [the] world[‘s] Jewry,” and it claimed that “they are eagerly working to delegitimize the rest of us”. While this is true, none of the other papers used such language. The paper also included a dramatic anecdote about a man who served in Lebanon and then was not allowed to have a Jewish wedding. However, USA Today also made serious points not mentioned elsewhere. It explained that, by passing the conversion bill, Israel would “shoot itself in the foot economically” by making Americans feel unwelcome. Furthermore, it clearly explained that, since Netanyahu needed the support of the religious parties, he had no intention of stopping the bill until Americans stepped in. Netanyahu was attempting to please everybody. Lastly, it made reference to Israel’s past to provide historical context: “the vision of Israel’s founders was of a secular state, not one ruled by a handful of theocrats”(Wildman) .
BBC presented the most objective article. It explained that the bill’s authors had good intentions, and that they were trying to do something about the “…400,000 people who came to Israel who, according to Jewish law, are not Jewish.” It also used mainstreaming by writing about a Jewish girl who immigrated to Israel from the former USSR, and who was not allowed to have a Jewish wedding unless she could provide photos of her family and evidence of her Jewish ancestry. If she could not, she was required to live in complete orthodoxy for one year before her rabbi could “declare” her a Jew (Mynott) .
Yediot Aharonot, a widely read Israeli newspaper printed in Tel-Aviv, much like our New York Times, wrote that some Israeli political parties, such as the Shas, did not agree to the “compromise” that turned the bill into what it is today. They were not even part of the decision to postpone the bill. In fact, they wanted the bill to be passed quickly, but only if the bill promotes Jewish unity. Surprisingly, Yediot Aharonot simply said that Netanyahu “had no intention of letting the bill pass into a law,” without explaining that he had actually been pressured into postponing the legislation and that he initially took no action. Furthermore, the paper quotes a Sephardic Rabbi who said that the “reform Jews had taken advantage of the political situation to pressure Netanyahu”(Sofer) .
Interestingly, The Jerusalem Post, another Israeli paper, also portrayed the ultra-orthodox community as fair and compliant. The Post wrote that the orthodox party agreed to halt the bill. It did not emphasize the political pressure that the party had put on the Prime Minister. It did, however, explain why Netanyahu calmly postponed the bill for a lengthy, six month period; the Knesset is about to go on a four month long recess(Mandel) .
The English version of Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper, is published and sold with the International Herald Tribune(BBC News) . It’s known for its liberal political commentary, and so it covered the conversion bill with an opinion article. The article was written by Avraham Weiss, a liberal orthodox Jew, who believes that such “coercion [actually]…turns people off Judiasm- and specifically orthodoxy.” Weiss sees the bill as a historical mistake, and that conversion should be encouraged through openness.
The American papers were quick to blame the ultra-orthodox for the changed bill, while the Israeli papers actually portrayed the orthodox in a more favorable light. The Israeli papers, however, were better able to explain the situation in the Knesset. All three non-Israeli papers used Israeli sources; the Times referred to The Jerusalem Post, and USA Today and BBC quoted Israeli experts and citizens. The Israeli papers did not need to do that for credibility, and so they focused on finding sources within their government.
I chose to write about the conversion bill because my visit to Israel last month taught me a lot about Israel’s diversity. At any given moment, there were at least three different newspapers on my uncle’s kitchen table. If passed, this bill will directly affect my Jewish identity, my desire and ability to return to Israel, and my extended family’s status in their own country.
As the saying goes, “two Jews, three opinions.”
The New York Times explained why this “crisis…was averted” (clearly, the Times is on the side of the mainstream Jew); Netanyahu is currently negotiating with President Obama over Israeli-Palestinian peace, and he cannot afford to lose the support of the American Jewish community. The Times finished off its article with a reference to an opinion column in The Jerusalem Post that presents the bill as a “global crisis…that is ripping Israeli-Diaspora relations”
USA Today stayed true to its tabloid history by making its article about the conversion bill a bit flashier; its title screamed that “Israel’s ultra-orthodox …[are] threatening to split [the] world[‘s] Jewry,” and it claimed that “they are eagerly working to delegitimize the rest of us”. While this is true, none of the other papers used such language. The paper also included a dramatic anecdote about a man who served in Lebanon and then was not allowed to have a Jewish wedding. However, USA Today also made serious points not mentioned elsewhere. It explained that, by passing the conversion bill, Israel would “shoot itself in the foot economically” by making Americans feel unwelcome. Furthermore, it clearly explained that, since Netanyahu needed the support of the religious parties, he had no intention of stopping the bill until Americans stepped in. Netanyahu was attempting to please everybody. Lastly, it made reference to Israel’s past to provide historical context: “the vision of Israel’s founders was of a secular state, not one ruled by a handful of theocrats”
BBC presented the most objective article. It explained that the bill’s authors had good intentions, and that they were trying to do something about the “…400,000 people who came to Israel who, according to Jewish law, are not Jewish.” It also used mainstreaming by writing about a Jewish girl who immigrated to Israel from the former USSR, and who was not allowed to have a Jewish wedding unless she could provide photos of her family and evidence of her Jewish ancestry. If she could not, she was required to live in complete orthodoxy for one year before her rabbi could “declare” her a Jew
Yediot Aharonot, a widely read Israeli newspaper printed in Tel-Aviv, much like our New York Times, wrote that some Israeli political parties, such as the Shas, did not agree to the “compromise” that turned the bill into what it is today. They were not even part of the decision to postpone the bill. In fact, they wanted the bill to be passed quickly, but only if the bill promotes Jewish unity. Surprisingly, Yediot Aharonot simply said that Netanyahu “had no intention of letting the bill pass into a law,” without explaining that he had actually been pressured into postponing the legislation and that he initially took no action. Furthermore, the paper quotes a Sephardic Rabbi who said that the “reform Jews had taken advantage of the political situation to pressure Netanyahu”
Interestingly, The Jerusalem Post, another Israeli paper, also portrayed the ultra-orthodox community as fair and compliant. The Post wrote that the orthodox party agreed to halt the bill. It did not emphasize the political pressure that the party had put on the Prime Minister. It did, however, explain why Netanyahu calmly postponed the bill for a lengthy, six month period; the Knesset is about to go on a four month long recess
The English version of Haaretz, Israel’s oldest daily newspaper, is published and sold with the International Herald Tribune
The American papers were quick to blame the ultra-orthodox for the changed bill, while the Israeli papers actually portrayed the orthodox in a more favorable light. The Israeli papers, however, were better able to explain the situation in the Knesset. All three non-Israeli papers used Israeli sources; the Times referred to The Jerusalem Post, and USA Today and BBC quoted Israeli experts and citizens. The Israeli papers did not need to do that for credibility, and so they focused on finding sources within their government.
I chose to write about the conversion bill because my visit to Israel last month taught me a lot about Israel’s diversity. At any given moment, there were at least three different newspapers on my uncle’s kitchen table. If passed, this bill will directly affect my Jewish identity, my desire and ability to return to Israel, and my extended family’s status in their own country.
As the saying goes, “two Jews, three opinions.”
BBC News. The press in Israel. 8 May 2006. 23 July 2010
Bronner, Ethan. Israel Puts Off Crisis Over Conversion Law. 23 July 2010. 23 July 2010
Mandel, Jonah. Haredim reject conversion bill freeze. 23 July 2010. 23 July 2010
Mynott, Adam. Row rages over defining who is a Jew. 20 July 2010. 23 July 2010
Sofer, Roni. Shas: We didn't agree to conversion compromise . 23 July 2010. 23 July 2010
Weiss, Avraham. A divisive blow to Judaism. 23 July 2010. 23 July 2010
Wildman, Sarah. Israel's Ultra-Orthodox Reject the Diaspora, Threatening to Split World Jewry. 19 July 2010. 23 July 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis bill will not pass solely because of the Israeli army. The army is the most important entity to the country, and most of the people are secular "Jews." I agree with Weiss' commentary of Haaretz. If religion is forced on them, they will most probably resent the country. I went to Israel last month as well, and was with a few soldiers. Some of them did not even get bar mitzvahed.
ReplyDeleteI understand why the Israeli papers are able to cover the stories with a better understanding. For one, they are there. Also if this bill passes it will affect them more than any one else in the world.