Do you think Sharon saw Gush Katif in purely strategic terms, as a means to absorb and deflect terror attacks before they reached Israel proper? Clearly, he was not ideologically committed to the settlement enterprise, or he would not have ordered the evacuation at the end.
He was absolutely ideologically committed to the settlement enterprise, something he had proved repeatedly throughout his career. It seems that he ordered the evacuation to stay out of jail and/or to keep his sons out of jail, proving that family comes before nation, a very middle eastern concept.
The same Ariel Sharon who crossed the suez canal and trapped the Egyptian army in Sinai? They must have had the goods on him. Fortunately, Netanyahu was not cowed by the same threats.
I have to admit, as an casual, outside non-religious observer, that 20 years ago I thought that the Gaza disengagement was a calculated risk that might improve Israel's diplomatic standing and offered some possibility of advancing peace. I was totally wrong and it's clear now that it did the exact opposite. Now if Israel fails to annex at least some portion of Gaza and resettle it, it will again surrender its deterrence for some ephemeral public relations gain. So rather than caving in to international pressure and saying Israel won't remain in Gaza, Bibi (or any elected government) should announce to the world that if Israel is attacked from any territory, no matter where it is, it will seize it, annex and settle it permanently. But Israel is world's worst negotiator and instinctively offers up at the start of every negotiation what it just earned in blood and treasure- for the elusive sacred cow of "Peace." No, not even peace-- the mere promise of it.
True. But it is necessary to face the issue and seek a solution moving forward. And that solution cannot be the exclusion of the Divine. Faith ≠ naïveté. This much I know is true.
This is how I enframe the entire series, with the final post (due soon) to attempt to demonstrate a perceptible Divine Presence even during the worst of the attack, seen as a continuation of the most difficult and painful characteristic of the Jewish story.
Does anyone see a connection between lack of aggressive fighting spirit, and a commitment to feminism in the army, that women should be put into combat units, and also into many non-combat activities?
I suspect that the vast majority of those responsible for the poor policies described in this article are also committed to the advancement of women in the army, and a majority in the advancement of gay rights, and denial of any religious element to the Jewish claim to the land.
Can you point me to one single international Christian banking system that facilitates usury-free loans?
Why isn't there a international unity in Christianity conference annually to promote the unified One voice of Truth from the crucifixionists?
I like what the Mormons have done with your belief system, they've got ritual undergarments, wholesome youth from a rainbow coalition of Nations eagerly evangelicized and proselytized and somewhat colonized as Christians do. A Mormon massacre thus lending Credence to the traditions of Christianity with its inquisitions, burnings at the stake, pogroms against Jews or other crucifixionists, a beautiful Temple and best of all they consider other cross worshipers to be gentiles. 😉
The crucifix is a torture device and is affixed to many gentile homes to symbolize the good feels that a tortured Jew on a stick brings them, what else could it be?
Nothing says failed Messiah like needing to return a second time to accomplish what wasn't accomplished the first and many people say the reason it's called the crucifixion is if it was real it would be called the crucifact.
Many say that trinitarianism is more similar to Hinduism and the commonalities of theophagy with other faiths are rare and extremely unique, if not disturbing.
31,000 flavors of jezeusian delusional mythology illustrate the phenomenon called Christianity
What the heck is it? Talking in tongues handling snakes grifting off parishioners or banging boys in the butt for decades under the auspices of holy Rome, with intervals of persecuting Jews after running up debts with them so as to power grab their property and women and kids. So many aspects of krampus worship and Easter egg bunny consumption and the delicious awareness it takes to name the day that your field Messiah died Good Friday 🙄
Estimates of 100 million Jews thriving have been made if not for the depredations and degradations and horrors of Christian persecution of the Jews.
So many EX Christians proclaim their happiness once they've renounced the delusions of jezeusian mythology or even better convert to Judaism.
Rabbi tovia singer elicits praise and commendations from followers of all faith along with whiny nonsensical gibberish-oriented he is because we say so moanings about the failed Messiah but he truly eloquently illustrates the truth of the one true faith over and over.
Jews for Judaism is eloquent and terrific in refuting the inconsistencies incoherences misquotes misappropriations and general disorder of the so-called New testament which relies on the Torah and tanakh for its truth but denies them, nothing but continuing paradoxes conundrums and confusions thus reflected by you commenting parasitically with your agenda of the crucifix wielding goitard come to scold sneer scoff like only the denizens of goitardia can
"Can you point me to one single international Christian banking system that facilitates usury-free loans?"
No I can’t. Christianity does not condemn or forbid usury or interest the way the Tanakh does. Only Torah laws that are explicitly reaffirmed in the New Testament are obligatory for Christians.
I don’t believe that major banks and financial organizations in Israel are interest-free. Are you condemning Christians for not following aspects of Jewish law even Jews freely ignore?
"Why isn't there a international unity in Christianity conference annually to promote the unified One voice of Truth from the crucifixionists?"
For the same reason Orthodox, Reform, Liberal and secular Jews don’t all have a Kumbayah conference to promote the unified truth of Judaism. For the same reason secular leftist Jews don’t hold national unity conferences with conservative nationalists.
Your obviously limited understanding of Christianity seriously diminishes the significance of your comments about Mormons.
About such alleged traditions of Christianity as “inquisitions, burnings at the stake, pogroms against Jews or other crucifixionists,” you may know that such activities are more traditionally associated with Catholicism than with Protestantism – and I, like many others, consider the church of Rome to be a false church and repudiate it utterly.
The cross was a common Roman means of execution, but a cross with the image on Christ on it is not a device used to torture anyone, so your comment that it is a torture device is frankly ridiculous. And again, that is a Catholic device, not a Protestant one.
About the need for a second return indicating a failed Messiah, don’t even some aspects of Jewish tradition distinguish between the Messiah Ben David who rules victoriously, and the Messiah Ben Joseph who is afflicted?
Christ’s death on the cross and subsequent resurrection has some clear references in the Jewish scriptures, for example Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, which many Christians study more carefully than you do I think.
Many say that Trinitarianism is similar to Hinduism? Many people deny the Torah as well. So? Now that I think of it, many people say that Israel is a racist, imperialist apartheid state currently practicing genocide. I don’t believe that, and have often defended the right of a Jews to their state, but “Many say . . . . ” However, truth is not decided by majority vote.
“31,000 flavors of jezeusian delusional mythology” don’t illustrate the phenomenon called Christianity any more than the many different varieties of Judaism among a much smaller number of people demonstrate the essential falsehood of Judaism.
“Talking in tongues”? Didn’t the prophet Daniel interpret something written on a wall in an unknown spiritual language? There are different approaches to that practice today.
Handling snakes? A violation of scripture. As Christ said when tempted to do something reckless to demonstrate his faith, “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” That is practiced by a vanishingly small minority of people who have the name of Christians.
Sexual abuse of children is not a uniquely Christian sin, but insofar as it is protected by Rome, that has nothing at all to do with biblical Christianity, the Church of Rome being a false church. Same for the medieval practices of persecuting Jews after running up debts, not a common practice in the Protestant countries.
Krampus worship? Christmas is not a biblically mandated holiday, and easter eggs and bunnies have zero biblical basis. “Good Friday” is also not a biblical term.
“Estimates of 100 million Jews thriving have been made if not for the depredations and degradations and horrors of Christian persecution of the Jews.” Are you leaving God out of this equation? He has preserved the Jewish people in faithfulness to his promise to Abraham, maybe not to the degree or extent you would do if you were the sovereign master of the universe, but enough for his purposes. And how many Jews have been lost through unforced assimilation? Very many, especially if you include imaginary projections of their descendants.
I hope you are not going to try and include the 20th-century Holocaust of the Jews in such calculation. National Socialism was the direct result of a century and more of secular repudiation of biblical Christianity, and introduced many new ideas unheard of in previous centuries.
Ex Christians proclaiming their happiness? I have read testimonies of Jews who converted to Christianity. Human happiness can be very deceptive.
You may be aware that many people who dismiss Christianity as mythology do the same with Judaism.
"Rabbi tovia singer elicits praise and commendations from followers of all faith along with whiny nonsensical gibberish-oriented he is because we say so moanings about the failed Messiah" – that seems incoherent to me. As to him eloquently illustrating the truth of the one true faith over and over, I have read a couple of books arguing for the superiority of traditional Judaism over Christianity, and found them unconvincing.
All of these secrets will be revealed after the resurrection from the dead and the day of judgment.
Your mischaracterizations of Christianity are disappointing but not surprising. Scorn, hostility and contempt are not qualities that encourage fair and impartial analysis. The canonical Christian writings in what we call the New Testament reaffirm many truths of Torah and Tanakh, and many Christians, myself among them, believe that the historical books from Genesis to Kings and Chronicles are divinely inspired records of historical fact, that God appeared to Moses literally on Mt. Sinai and gave him the laws of written Torah (oral Torah being a mere fabrication, utterly void of substance), and that the Israelites were delivered from bondage in Egypt exactly in the manner described.
There are I believe many Jews who are hesitant about affirming that God literally appeared to Moses and spoke with him as described in Torah. Am I a better Jew than they are if I believe those things?
Your claim that the Christian Bible is nothing but paradoxes, conundrums and confusions shows that your understanding of the subject is very limited – and, of course you are aware of the many criticisms people today direct against the God of the Tanakh.
As to my “commenting parasitically,” the owner of the site is free to block me any time he likes – but that is one of the main purposes of the comment section, to allow for all sorts of input. And, my comment was not scolding, sneering or scoffing. Perhaps you didn’t read it objectively because you were too upset. I was commenting on the secular modernism which eats at Israel and the West like a cancer from within.
That's all you have to say? You ignored many basic points.
As to deflecting, it is a basic Bible teaching that not everyone who says they are a Christian or has the appearance of being a Christian are Christians. The repudiation of the Roman church was a major development in church history (called the Protestant Reformation). It was a series critique of the evils of Rome and not just deflection as you mistakenly assume.
Joe, I have always been against females in combat units but note this: some of the fiercest fighting was done by women. This is a fact. The most famous instance was an all-female tank crew in the southern sector that blew the living crap out of any Gazan that dared cross them. Also, some female pilots in the attack on Iran. Must give credit where credit is due.
To begin with Ehud, I wonder if you accept my contention that the majority of people responsible for such poor and ineffectual policies as you described are people who are committed to feminism in the army, gay rights, and the denial of the religious aspects of Zionism.
In America, many supporters of the worst, most incompetent and destructive national and economic policies also support the LGBT movement, are ardent feminists and gay rights advocates. Their false view of life and of the world leads to social breakdown and to weak and ineffectual policies. It also makes it impossible for them to face difficult issues squarely, because they are blinded by their false ideology.
I have read a little about the Israeli Air Force off and on, and the training courses for male pilots were extremely demanding. Were things made easier for women because of feminist ideology? That has occurred in the US military. And are mistakes and problems caused by women in the military swept under the carpet, as has happened in the US, because the ideology demands it?
This blurring of gender distinctions contributes to homosexuality, since kids are brought up to think boys and girls are basically the same. It contributes to population decline, because women are taught that to be fulfilled as a person they have to compete in men’s positions, and motherhood becomes despised ( and motherhood is not just bearing children, but raising them with love and discipline to become mature and responsible adults. The family is weakened, and I believe the military is weakened as well, by feminism, even if the results are only evident over time.
And these women pilots or tank crews, they are going to be come officers giving men orders. Many people think that would be great. Such role reversal is their dream. But I and many others think women are profoundly different in many ways, and rewriting society to meet the dreams of the feminists is having serious negative consequences.
How did Israel manage to survive this far without women pilots and tank crews?
About women, no doubt women can do a lot of things, but “can” and “should” are two very different things.
I maintain that the spirit of role reversal and unisex is destructive to men, to women, to family and society over time, short term achievements regardless.
I wonder if that was a factor in changing the Moshe Dayan of 1967 to the Dayan of 1973 – his domination by Gold Meir. No doubt there were other factors, but men lose their fighting edge when they are taught that they are the same as women and women can do everything men can do, and place themselves in subordination to women.
Probably. But feminism is dying it's own death. It is woke that is doing the damage, but even that is piggy-backing on the same fundamental human flaws that are portrayed in the Bible. Nothing new under the sun.
There is no feminist current in the Israeli army, as it is presented in the West. There are many girls who want to serve in combat units, which is not always echoed in the army. This is not like Western feminism, where women are trying to achieve new standards and rules. Here, girls want to contribute more to the defense of the country because they believe that they can do it.
Sometimes this is true, sometimes not quite. A very controversial issue is being resolved regarding the tank forces, where women serve at the limit of their physical capabilities, but a more illustrative example is the Navy, where girls have also shown themselves to be excellent in combat, and this is normal practice.
Although women's service in the army is a forced measure in Israeli conditions, it is still a necessity. And as long as this necessity exists, there will be those who want to serve in the combat forces.
Sorry about the delay, I was way behind on my main article, which was lengthy and time consuming, and then I got tangled up in a number of other conversations which were easier to deal with. This is in fact a complex subject.
First of all, I understand Israel is different from the West in many ways. Nevertheless, trends of Western secularism are very popular and influential there, especially among secular Israelis.
Some years ago I was reading a book by an Israeli – I can’t remember his name unfortunately – and he had a chapter about Israel’s gay / dance club / disco scene. He was very happy about young Israelis being able to use drugs, dance, and have casual sex with strangers, and embraced this freedom as opposed to having to live in a bleak garrison state with an oppressive religious tradition.
Also, there is a strong feminist element in modern Israeli society – not exactly like in the west, but there nevertheless. This is best understood by contrasting it with the more traditional roles for women emphasized by the more religious and conservative communities with their emphasis on the value and importance of women as mothers and homemakers.
I don't mean just the ultra-orthodox, but Israelis with strong religious values who are fully active in society. This involves not just doing the chores, but raising children with love, wisdom and guidance in a sound and healthy environment.
Here is a link about feminism in Israel as a whole. The military has not been isolated from this. https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/feminism-in-contemporary-israel The article states that broader roles for women in the Israeli army really increased after the Yom Kippur War.
You state that “There is no feminist current in the Israeli army, as it is presented in the West.” It may not go to the extremes found in the West, but to me, the idea of women serving in combat units, and in many other areas of the military, is feminism. It is role reversal and unisex, meaning that gender differences are social constructs, and that women basically can do anything that men can do.
Before that, the role of women in the military was much more restricted, and I believe that was right, proper, and normal.
There is a different tone and emphasis in Israel, but women in Israel are in fact trying to achieve new standards and rules and have already done so.
“Here, girls want to contribute more to the defense of the country because they believe that they can do it.” How is that different from girls in America who want to be policeman, firefighters, soldiers? They, too believe they can do it. This is commonly – not always but commonly – accompanied by the belief that being at home raising a family is an inferior occupation, and that a woman develops her real potential by competing as a man in a man’s world.
This is commonly accompanied by sexual liberation, the belief that women can find fulfilment in various affairs instead of being oppressed and enslaved by having to be faithful to one man through life.
Some women have been writing eloquently and effectively on Substack about the deception behind this false philosophy of life, including Janice Fiamengo and one other whose name I can’t remember. https://fiamengofile.substack.com/
This is not to deny that there are some more conservative and religious women who want to be in the army, but sexual liberation and denigration of the family are key components in much of this (though Israelis in general still place more of an emphasis on the traditional family and are still less decadent than the West).
Then, there are the many problems of women in these more strenuous areas that are consistently covered up. Women who cannot pass necessary requirements but are passed anyway; police girls who cannot deal with violent criminals; fire fighters who cannot carry people out of a building; soldier-ettes who get pregnant so they can be discharged, then have an abortion – there are many problems that are covered up because it does not fit the narrative.
This is especially true in the military where an officer can ruin his career by pointing out unpleasant realities. There are problems with men and women in close quarters on ships that are covered up, all sorts of extra logistical problems (such as separate quarters and restrooms on ships) because of the myth of feminism which is now a reigning paradigm – not to mention problems with discipline and moral.
They didn’t use to have women so active in the military in Israel, and they didn’t use to have gay rights parades in Israel either. Many don’t see a connection but I do. This breaking down of gender barriers has been very destructive and a great evil.
What if a heroic woman fighter pilot – who got to that position with special help and lowering of standards – slips up with her birth control and gets pregnant? What will she do? Have the child and raise it, ending her career? Or kill the child so she can live out her fantasy of being just like a man?
Girls have shown themselves to be excellent in combat? In going two or three days without sleep and dealing with heavy objects? And what if exceptions or failures are covered up because the army has a conception that must be maintained?
And even if they can do well, can and should are two very different things. I can do a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean I should do them.
What may seem good in the short run can have harmful long term results. Role reversal and unisex are damaging to men and to women, and create or contribute to divorce, immorality, abortion and sexual gender confusion. Men being bossed around by women officers does not exactly hone their fighting edge either.
In the past, men and women had traditional roles not because of an unjust and oppressive patriarchy, but because it was the normal and natural thing to do.
And is women’s service in the army really a necessity? Maybe in support roles, but Israel did alright in its previous wars without the somewhat less than vital contribution of women pilots and women tank crews.
You say it is not feminism. I think it is. It may not go to the most far out extremes of the weirdest Western fanatics, but it is role reversal and unisex nonetheless.
Let's clarify. Classical feminism is a fight for rights. Modern Western neofeminism is a fight for privileges.
The desire of women to serve in elite troops is not a fight for rights, and not a fight for privileges. This is not a women's movement at all, because it is not supported not only by the majority of women, but even by a fraction of a percent of women. On the one hand, this is the satisfaction of the aspirations and ambitions of a small group of people who want this, on the other hand, a PR campaign of people who (for some reason) promote these ideas.
This is not new, it has always been this way and most likely will be so. The majority in the army are skeptical about these ideas, very compelling arguments are made why this should not be done, but as long as there are ambitious women (and this is a positive factor) and people using this for career advancement, advertising and other personal reasons (and this is already a negative factor), this is inevitable.
This is an interesting take, Viktor. If I understand correctly, today, the desire of a woman to have a combat role in the IDF has nothing to do with feminism. Is this what you are saying?
“Let's clarify. Classical feminism is a fight for rights. Modern Western neofeminism is a fight for privileges.”
Classical feminism was very much a 19th and early 20th century phenomenon. Then the focus was more on specific rights, voting, property rights, more educational and job opportunities.
Once these goals were largely if not completely met, the emphasis shifted more in the 60s to liberation from traditional roles (in the 1950s, the majority of American women were housewives, or so I have read). This logically morphed over time into unisex and role reversal, in which all barriers and differences between men and women were to be eliminated.
True, there were always different degrees, but the more radical elements – as is so often the case – pushed and shouted their way to the top, and feminism became increasingly radicalized, including hostility to men and the imaginary patriarchy, as well as contempt for motherhood and traditional ideas of home and family.
As to the desire of women to serve in elite troops, that is the direct result of the feminist revolution. Such claims would not have been made in the 1950s or 1960s. One of the greatest fantasies of modern feminists is that they can do everything that men can do and all differences are merely the result of social conditioning.
In the US, this became official army policy, and success in this area was achieved by lowering standards and helping women in various ways to achieve the desired goal – including covering up of real problems and failures, with success in the program as being essential to career success.
I don’t have any inside information but I did read about how tough and demanding the physical requirements were for Israeli pilots, the elite of the elite. Standards must have been relaxed to meet the needs of feminist ideology, and failures covered up.
As to such things not being supported by a majority of women, the Bolsheviks were a small minority when they seized power in 1917, and today’s most aggressive gender Bolsheviks have a weight and influence out of proportion to their numbers.
This is directly related to the ambitions of a small group of people, but they have influential supporters in high places. Their ideas became official policy of the US military, and I am sure are influential in the Israeli judiciary, news media, government and upper echelons of the military.
You said “The majority in the army are skeptical about these ideas” – not surprisingly, as it is the result of a fantasy world ideology – and “very compelling arguments are made why this should not be done” – but the ideology has captured the top brass and high levels of government and hence it is being imposed by force from above.
You added, “as long as there are ambitious women (and this is a positive factor) and people using this for career advancement, advertising and other personal reasons (and this is already a negative factor), this is inevitable.”
You neglected to mention that the support of men is necessary. All of the gains of women have come with the willing and eager support of men. As to ambitious women being a positive factor, politically aggressive women in America such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and other figures have had an overwhelmingly negative influence – and some high ranking women in America’s military have been overwhelmingly incompetent, promoted to their positions according to ideology, utterly irrespective of competence or merit.
Joe, as the author I am flattered that you are taking the time to comment and ask questions. What you have brought to the discussion deserves a serious response. I am now writing my next piece, and you will see that I am addressing some of the points you raised, but maybe not from the direction that you might expect. Let me get that piece published and we'll take it up from there. Sound good?
In general, I would not directly attribute the failures in Israeli politics to such phenomena as feminism, attitudes towards gays and anti-religion. Indirectly, it is possible that adherents of progressive ideas end up in leadership positions in Israel and this somehow influences, but there is no obvious cause-and-effect relationship.
Is it so far-fetched to claim that the forces of secularism that deny the importance of religion and want to make Israel a secular, Western country, that reject religious law and morality, are at the same time less capable of understanding and properly dealing with the threats Israel faces?
Out of all of the military leaders who were most directly responsible for the failure to understand and deal with the threat of Hamas, how many of them denigrate or downplay the religious and biblical aspects of Zionism; feel that political compromise is the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict; place too much of the blame on Israel; see nothing wrong with homosexuality; and strongly support greater involvement of women in the military?
Of course, there have been short-sighted leaders at all times and places who failed to identify and deal with threats, those are basic human failings, but in our time those human failings are influenced by some specific factors, including western corruption, weakness and decadence which have taken deep root in Israel.
You have greatly confused me by linking secularism and religiosity with the ability of military leaders to fight enemies.
I said from the very beginning that there is no direct connection here and there cannot be, because this is not connected exclusively with Judaism.
The Israeli army strictly observes kashrut, the mandatory presence of religious institutions, including the system of military conversion. I have never heard of any military leader taking an anti-religious position or hindering religious and spiritual work in the army.
That is why I said that there is no direct connection here.
There is also no direct connection with the fact that more religious military leaders better understand the threats to the Jewish state, and secular ones, who see nothing wrong with homosexuality (again, mixing different concepts) and advocate for women's service in the army, will be worse at defending Israel.
Indirectly, I can assume that some of the Israeli military leaders, having gone through American academic institutions, will try to implement the DEI policy, which can cause harm. But this is a special case of protectionism, which can happen to a religious or any other society.
"You have greatly confused me by linking secularism and religiosity with the ability of military leaders to fight enemies."
This is not a simple subject, and I could have elaborated more.
To begin with, there are many factors that go into successful military leadership, apart from secular and religious views.
Napoleon was a very secular man, and yet he was a brilliant general (at least before his final failures). Frederick the Great was also a secular man, a patron of the Enlightenment, and a great commander.
On the other hand, Oliver Cromwell was very religious, as was Stonewall Jackson.
So, we cannot say that “Secularism = weakness” and “Religion = strength” when it comes to military leadership.
But, there are different kinds of secularism. Napoleon and Frederick the Great for example did not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. They did not believe we were only animals existing in a randomly created and purposeless universe. They also did not believe in gay rights, role reversal, unisex and unbridled hedonism.
Modern secularism is uniquely corrosive of character and judgment, and I maintain that the secularist indifference to and even contempt for religion made it completely impossible to understand the deeply Islamic motivation of Hamas. The belief that once they got into power they would settle down and devote themselves to the practicalities of governing showed a shallow and complacent attitude significantly based on a secular world view.
Of course, religious people can be short-sighted and naive as well, there are many factors at work as I said.
"This is not connected exclusively with Judaism."
True, it is not a Jewish issue overall, but in the context of the Israeli army and its policies, I would guess that the demoralizing influence of modern secularism, without the religious values of at least some respect for God and his moral laws (not necessarily all the details of halakha) has weakened the heart and soul the West, and is operative in Israel – to a lesser extent in Israel, but still significantly.
"The Israeli army strictly observes kashrut, the mandatory presence of religious institutions, including the system of military conversion. I have never heard of any military leader taking an anti-religious position or hindering religious and spiritual work in the army."
They are not going to buck the system, and the religious parties still have a lot of clout, and there is also a deeply rooted sense of Jewish culture and custom. But all of those are externals, and not evidence of true religiosity, and I feel safe in saying that a great many secularists in Israel, in and out of the military, who question Israel’s claim to the land, and feel that Israel is to blame for the conflict for not compromising enough, and who feel ridden with Angst about having taken Arab land, have a predominantly secular outlook and do not accept the validity of any biblical claim to the land.
"There is also no direct connection with the fact that more religious military leaders better understand the threats to the Jewish state, and secular ones, who see nothing wrong with homosexuality (again, mixing different concepts) and advocate for women's service in the army, will be worse at defending Israel."
You say there is no direct connection, but I believe there is – intangible, and not always overtly evident, but real nonetheless. As evidence I point to the US Army, where the military leadership that under Obama and Biden was so concerned about DEI, climate change, and the advancement and rights of women and gays and transgenders in the military, was at the same time hopelessly inept in dealing with more real and greater threats. This is because their whole approach to life was blinded by a corrupt, stupid and false ideology.
"Indirectly, I can assume that some of the Israeli military leaders, having gone through American academic institutions, will try to implement the DEI policy, which can cause harm. But this is a special case of protectionism, which can happen to a religious or any other society."
As to Israeli military leaders having adopted American values – not only because of educational experiences in America, but also because of a shared world view – this is not a fault of Judaism. Witness the spread of such soul destroying and spiritually enervating philosophies throughout the West. It is a fault of human nature, which replaces the reality of God and his laws with foolish human pseudo-philosophies (such as Communism, National Socialism, DEI, Unisex and role reversal, and the transgender lunacy).
Has the Israeli military reached the point of decadence that it feels obligated to fund the sex change operations of trans-identifying soldiers? Probably not – present realities do require a greater focus on reality. But the foundation is there.
Besides, I don't quite understand what these "forces of secularism" are that are trying to make Israel a secular country?
Firstly, secularism is not some kind of organization aimed at certain goals, but a way of life. It has always existed to one degree or another.
Secondly, Israel is a secular country. Israel lives by secular laws, observing the religious traditions of not only the Jewish people. Moreover, Israel is now much more religious than in the 60s and 70s, when it won major victories. There have always been many secular people and sentiments in Israel, and this did not prevent the country from forming and developing.
The problem is not that the country is more or less secular or religious. The problem is that the contradictions between these two layers of society are becoming radicalized, which should cause concern for both groups.
I will summarize the main result. The threat to any society (not only Israeli) is not the presence of a secular and religious population, but the radicalization of contradictions between them.
By the “forces of secularism,” I didn’t mean specific organizations, I meant a spirit of the age, common trends of thought that influence large numbers of people, reigning ideas, such as:
A naturalistic view of the universe . . . the irrelevance of God . . . a view of man as the creation of random and impersonal forces . . .the belief in human wisdom as the ultimate source of knowledge . . . the irrelevance of traditional morality and the substitution of new and lawless moralities.
These ideas are pushed by the total culture – media, entertainment, schools. They are in the air but are represented by political parties and organizations dedicated to the propagation of these ideas and all of the lesser ideas that come out of them, often accompanied by a subtle or not so subtle hostility to traditional religious values.
I agree, secularism of some form or another has existed to one degree or another throughout the modern age, from the Enlightenment on (prior to which it may have existed but was not culturally dominant due to the prevalence of religion). But, while it has existed for a long time, it takes different forms in different ages. The secularism of 1800 was obviously different from that of today.
There has been an intensification of this secularism as religious memories wane. The secularists of 1900 were not so in-your-face, not so aggressive and so often overtly hostile to religion. They still had a memory of basic norms which were not flouted as brazenly as they are today. We can’t imagine gay rights parades in Jerusalem in 1900, or 1950, or even more recently.
Israel is to a certain extent a secular country, but nevertheless the religious influence is still deep – but secularism is intensifying in Israel as religious traditions wane in the minds of many people. True, the religious forces have been strengthened in Israel at the same time that secular forces have also been intensifying, leading to an increasing divide between the predominantly secular left and the predominantly religious right.
Even religious groups can be profoundly secular in orientation, as in liberal Protestantism and Catholicism, and liberal Judaism also. These use religious language but at bottom they have worldly agendas.
The earlier secular elements in Israel did not as you say prevent the country from forming and developing, but the secularists of the 1930s, 40s and 50s were far more traditional morally and ethically than many secularists and leftists nowadays. This is due to an increasing virulence of secularism, leading to immoralities and practices that would have been unthinkable to Ben Gurion and the society of his time.
"Secondly, Israel is a secular country. Israel lives by secular laws, observing the religious traditions of not only the Jewish people. Moreover, Israel is now much more religious than in the 60s and 70s, when it won major victories. There have always been many secular people and sentiments in Israel, and this did not prevent the country from forming and developing."
About “The problem is not that the country is more or less secular or religious,” social and political problems in any country are complex, especially in Israel. The conflict between two groups is an issue, but the problem is intensified by the fact that (in my opinion) secularism is becoming increasingly virulent and toxic, inimical to ordinary human decency, liberty and sanity. This is especially true in the US, where the forces of radical leftism would dearly love to impose their bizarre and twisted values on the country by force, and made huge gains in that direction under the presidencies of Obama and Biden.
I am talking about denial of basic freedoms, and attempts to undermine the Constitution and basic liberties, along with aggressive agendas for social change, especially in areas of sexuality and gender that (again in my opinion) are deeply destructive and even overtly evil. Which is not to say that all the religious people wear white hats of course.
In the US, an increasing threat is radical leftists who want to reform our whole society and impose their values by force. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the destructive social values aggressively promoted by radical democrats under Joe Biden.
“The threat to any society (not only Israeli) is not the presence of a secular and religious population, but the radicalization of contradictions between them.”
It is not merely the presence of a strong secular contingent, but rather their aggressive attempts to impose their values on society by force, especially by using the courts to impose out of touch and elitist leftist values that would never be approved by the majority in an authentically democratic process.
I recall a condoleezza Rice moment of GTFO to General Sharon though I recall a photo with her and Olmert finger pointing across a table.
His military accomplishments and brilliance are unsurpassed and I'm curious what pressures are known to have swayed him besides the corruption, Olmert did his time in prison.
Israeli rabbis/ influencers for governmentbucks planted themselves amongst the Gaza settlers and kept them quiet and supplicant as they were expelled.
It's not said often enough that this was the first ethnic cleansing of the 21st century and to give it the Jewish flavor of Jews on Jews
I've listened to Andrew Fox describe IDF military protocol as loose at best so the rigidity of management during crisis seems beyond off..
Incredibly depressing. The leaders who shrugged off the warning signs in the hours before the invasion and those who failed to respond once the massacre was underway - may they never know a moment of peace.
The IDF brass and officer corps after Oslo became computer savvy gardeners who were more interested in mowing the lawn and kissing up to DC than in eradicating terror and protecting the lives of Israelis
Do you think Sharon saw Gush Katif in purely strategic terms, as a means to absorb and deflect terror attacks before they reached Israel proper? Clearly, he was not ideologically committed to the settlement enterprise, or he would not have ordered the evacuation at the end.
He was absolutely ideologically committed to the settlement enterprise, something he had proved repeatedly throughout his career. It seems that he ordered the evacuation to stay out of jail and/or to keep his sons out of jail, proving that family comes before nation, a very middle eastern concept.
The same Ariel Sharon who crossed the suez canal and trapped the Egyptian army in Sinai? They must have had the goods on him. Fortunately, Netanyahu was not cowed by the same threats.
David, you have no idea how much respect I had for the pre-disengagement Sharon.
I still respect him as a military leader. But he didn't kick me out my house.
I have to admit, as an casual, outside non-religious observer, that 20 years ago I thought that the Gaza disengagement was a calculated risk that might improve Israel's diplomatic standing and offered some possibility of advancing peace. I was totally wrong and it's clear now that it did the exact opposite. Now if Israel fails to annex at least some portion of Gaza and resettle it, it will again surrender its deterrence for some ephemeral public relations gain. So rather than caving in to international pressure and saying Israel won't remain in Gaza, Bibi (or any elected government) should announce to the world that if Israel is attacked from any territory, no matter where it is, it will seize it, annex and settle it permanently. But Israel is world's worst negotiator and instinctively offers up at the start of every negotiation what it just earned in blood and treasure- for the elusive sacred cow of "Peace." No, not even peace-- the mere promise of it.
Excellent article. Indispensable reading if Israel is to move forward.
Thanks Stephen.
This is depressing to the bones.
True. But it is necessary to face the issue and seek a solution moving forward. And that solution cannot be the exclusion of the Divine. Faith ≠ naïveté. This much I know is true.
This is how I enframe the entire series, with the final post (due soon) to attempt to demonstrate a perceptible Divine Presence even during the worst of the attack, seen as a continuation of the most difficult and painful characteristic of the Jewish story.
Does anyone see a connection between lack of aggressive fighting spirit, and a commitment to feminism in the army, that women should be put into combat units, and also into many non-combat activities?
I suspect that the vast majority of those responsible for the poor policies described in this article are also committed to the advancement of women in the army, and a majority in the advancement of gay rights, and denial of any religious element to the Jewish claim to the land.
Can you point me to one single international Christian banking system that facilitates usury-free loans?
Why isn't there a international unity in Christianity conference annually to promote the unified One voice of Truth from the crucifixionists?
I like what the Mormons have done with your belief system, they've got ritual undergarments, wholesome youth from a rainbow coalition of Nations eagerly evangelicized and proselytized and somewhat colonized as Christians do. A Mormon massacre thus lending Credence to the traditions of Christianity with its inquisitions, burnings at the stake, pogroms against Jews or other crucifixionists, a beautiful Temple and best of all they consider other cross worshipers to be gentiles. 😉
The crucifix is a torture device and is affixed to many gentile homes to symbolize the good feels that a tortured Jew on a stick brings them, what else could it be?
Nothing says failed Messiah like needing to return a second time to accomplish what wasn't accomplished the first and many people say the reason it's called the crucifixion is if it was real it would be called the crucifact.
Many say that trinitarianism is more similar to Hinduism and the commonalities of theophagy with other faiths are rare and extremely unique, if not disturbing.
31,000 flavors of jezeusian delusional mythology illustrate the phenomenon called Christianity
What the heck is it? Talking in tongues handling snakes grifting off parishioners or banging boys in the butt for decades under the auspices of holy Rome, with intervals of persecuting Jews after running up debts with them so as to power grab their property and women and kids. So many aspects of krampus worship and Easter egg bunny consumption and the delicious awareness it takes to name the day that your field Messiah died Good Friday 🙄
Estimates of 100 million Jews thriving have been made if not for the depredations and degradations and horrors of Christian persecution of the Jews.
So many EX Christians proclaim their happiness once they've renounced the delusions of jezeusian mythology or even better convert to Judaism.
Rabbi tovia singer elicits praise and commendations from followers of all faith along with whiny nonsensical gibberish-oriented he is because we say so moanings about the failed Messiah but he truly eloquently illustrates the truth of the one true faith over and over.
Jews for Judaism is eloquent and terrific in refuting the inconsistencies incoherences misquotes misappropriations and general disorder of the so-called New testament which relies on the Torah and tanakh for its truth but denies them, nothing but continuing paradoxes conundrums and confusions thus reflected by you commenting parasitically with your agenda of the crucifix wielding goitard come to scold sneer scoff like only the denizens of goitardia can
🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱🇮🇱
"Can you point me to one single international Christian banking system that facilitates usury-free loans?"
No I can’t. Christianity does not condemn or forbid usury or interest the way the Tanakh does. Only Torah laws that are explicitly reaffirmed in the New Testament are obligatory for Christians.
I don’t believe that major banks and financial organizations in Israel are interest-free. Are you condemning Christians for not following aspects of Jewish law even Jews freely ignore?
"Why isn't there a international unity in Christianity conference annually to promote the unified One voice of Truth from the crucifixionists?"
For the same reason Orthodox, Reform, Liberal and secular Jews don’t all have a Kumbayah conference to promote the unified truth of Judaism. For the same reason secular leftist Jews don’t hold national unity conferences with conservative nationalists.
Your obviously limited understanding of Christianity seriously diminishes the significance of your comments about Mormons.
About such alleged traditions of Christianity as “inquisitions, burnings at the stake, pogroms against Jews or other crucifixionists,” you may know that such activities are more traditionally associated with Catholicism than with Protestantism – and I, like many others, consider the church of Rome to be a false church and repudiate it utterly.
The cross was a common Roman means of execution, but a cross with the image on Christ on it is not a device used to torture anyone, so your comment that it is a torture device is frankly ridiculous. And again, that is a Catholic device, not a Protestant one.
About the need for a second return indicating a failed Messiah, don’t even some aspects of Jewish tradition distinguish between the Messiah Ben David who rules victoriously, and the Messiah Ben Joseph who is afflicted?
Christ’s death on the cross and subsequent resurrection has some clear references in the Jewish scriptures, for example Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, which many Christians study more carefully than you do I think.
Many say that Trinitarianism is similar to Hinduism? Many people deny the Torah as well. So? Now that I think of it, many people say that Israel is a racist, imperialist apartheid state currently practicing genocide. I don’t believe that, and have often defended the right of a Jews to their state, but “Many say . . . . ” However, truth is not decided by majority vote.
“31,000 flavors of jezeusian delusional mythology” don’t illustrate the phenomenon called Christianity any more than the many different varieties of Judaism among a much smaller number of people demonstrate the essential falsehood of Judaism.
“Talking in tongues”? Didn’t the prophet Daniel interpret something written on a wall in an unknown spiritual language? There are different approaches to that practice today.
Handling snakes? A violation of scripture. As Christ said when tempted to do something reckless to demonstrate his faith, “It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” That is practiced by a vanishingly small minority of people who have the name of Christians.
Sexual abuse of children is not a uniquely Christian sin, but insofar as it is protected by Rome, that has nothing at all to do with biblical Christianity, the Church of Rome being a false church. Same for the medieval practices of persecuting Jews after running up debts, not a common practice in the Protestant countries.
Krampus worship? Christmas is not a biblically mandated holiday, and easter eggs and bunnies have zero biblical basis. “Good Friday” is also not a biblical term.
“Estimates of 100 million Jews thriving have been made if not for the depredations and degradations and horrors of Christian persecution of the Jews.” Are you leaving God out of this equation? He has preserved the Jewish people in faithfulness to his promise to Abraham, maybe not to the degree or extent you would do if you were the sovereign master of the universe, but enough for his purposes. And how many Jews have been lost through unforced assimilation? Very many, especially if you include imaginary projections of their descendants.
I hope you are not going to try and include the 20th-century Holocaust of the Jews in such calculation. National Socialism was the direct result of a century and more of secular repudiation of biblical Christianity, and introduced many new ideas unheard of in previous centuries.
Ex Christians proclaiming their happiness? I have read testimonies of Jews who converted to Christianity. Human happiness can be very deceptive.
You may be aware that many people who dismiss Christianity as mythology do the same with Judaism.
"Rabbi tovia singer elicits praise and commendations from followers of all faith along with whiny nonsensical gibberish-oriented he is because we say so moanings about the failed Messiah" – that seems incoherent to me. As to him eloquently illustrating the truth of the one true faith over and over, I have read a couple of books arguing for the superiority of traditional Judaism over Christianity, and found them unconvincing.
All of these secrets will be revealed after the resurrection from the dead and the day of judgment.
Your mischaracterizations of Christianity are disappointing but not surprising. Scorn, hostility and contempt are not qualities that encourage fair and impartial analysis. The canonical Christian writings in what we call the New Testament reaffirm many truths of Torah and Tanakh, and many Christians, myself among them, believe that the historical books from Genesis to Kings and Chronicles are divinely inspired records of historical fact, that God appeared to Moses literally on Mt. Sinai and gave him the laws of written Torah (oral Torah being a mere fabrication, utterly void of substance), and that the Israelites were delivered from bondage in Egypt exactly in the manner described.
There are I believe many Jews who are hesitant about affirming that God literally appeared to Moses and spoke with him as described in Torah. Am I a better Jew than they are if I believe those things?
Your claim that the Christian Bible is nothing but paradoxes, conundrums and confusions shows that your understanding of the subject is very limited – and, of course you are aware of the many criticisms people today direct against the God of the Tanakh.
As to my “commenting parasitically,” the owner of the site is free to block me any time he likes – but that is one of the main purposes of the comment section, to allow for all sorts of input. And, my comment was not scolding, sneering or scoffing. Perhaps you didn’t read it objectively because you were too upset. I was commenting on the secular modernism which eats at Israel and the West like a cancer from within.
Typical deflectionist misdirections he's not a Christian he's not a Christian they're not a Christian but we're the Christians 🐖💨
That's all you have to say? You ignored many basic points.
As to deflecting, it is a basic Bible teaching that not everyone who says they are a Christian or has the appearance of being a Christian are Christians. The repudiation of the Roman church was a major development in church history (called the Protestant Reformation). It was a series critique of the evils of Rome and not just deflection as you mistakenly assume.
Joe, I have always been against females in combat units but note this: some of the fiercest fighting was done by women. This is a fact. The most famous instance was an all-female tank crew in the southern sector that blew the living crap out of any Gazan that dared cross them. Also, some female pilots in the attack on Iran. Must give credit where credit is due.
To begin with Ehud, I wonder if you accept my contention that the majority of people responsible for such poor and ineffectual policies as you described are people who are committed to feminism in the army, gay rights, and the denial of the religious aspects of Zionism.
In America, many supporters of the worst, most incompetent and destructive national and economic policies also support the LGBT movement, are ardent feminists and gay rights advocates. Their false view of life and of the world leads to social breakdown and to weak and ineffectual policies. It also makes it impossible for them to face difficult issues squarely, because they are blinded by their false ideology.
I have read a little about the Israeli Air Force off and on, and the training courses for male pilots were extremely demanding. Were things made easier for women because of feminist ideology? That has occurred in the US military. And are mistakes and problems caused by women in the military swept under the carpet, as has happened in the US, because the ideology demands it?
This blurring of gender distinctions contributes to homosexuality, since kids are brought up to think boys and girls are basically the same. It contributes to population decline, because women are taught that to be fulfilled as a person they have to compete in men’s positions, and motherhood becomes despised ( and motherhood is not just bearing children, but raising them with love and discipline to become mature and responsible adults. The family is weakened, and I believe the military is weakened as well, by feminism, even if the results are only evident over time.
And these women pilots or tank crews, they are going to be come officers giving men orders. Many people think that would be great. Such role reversal is their dream. But I and many others think women are profoundly different in many ways, and rewriting society to meet the dreams of the feminists is having serious negative consequences.
How did Israel manage to survive this far without women pilots and tank crews?
About women, no doubt women can do a lot of things, but “can” and “should” are two very different things.
I maintain that the spirit of role reversal and unisex is destructive to men, to women, to family and society over time, short term achievements regardless.
I wonder if that was a factor in changing the Moshe Dayan of 1967 to the Dayan of 1973 – his domination by Gold Meir. No doubt there were other factors, but men lose their fighting edge when they are taught that they are the same as women and women can do everything men can do, and place themselves in subordination to women.
Probably. But feminism is dying it's own death. It is woke that is doing the damage, but even that is piggy-backing on the same fundamental human flaws that are portrayed in the Bible. Nothing new under the sun.
There is no feminist current in the Israeli army, as it is presented in the West. There are many girls who want to serve in combat units, which is not always echoed in the army. This is not like Western feminism, where women are trying to achieve new standards and rules. Here, girls want to contribute more to the defense of the country because they believe that they can do it.
Sometimes this is true, sometimes not quite. A very controversial issue is being resolved regarding the tank forces, where women serve at the limit of their physical capabilities, but a more illustrative example is the Navy, where girls have also shown themselves to be excellent in combat, and this is normal practice.
Although women's service in the army is a forced measure in Israeli conditions, it is still a necessity. And as long as this necessity exists, there will be those who want to serve in the combat forces.
This is not feminism.
Kind of agree, Viktor.
Sorry about the delay, I was way behind on my main article, which was lengthy and time consuming, and then I got tangled up in a number of other conversations which were easier to deal with. This is in fact a complex subject.
First of all, I understand Israel is different from the West in many ways. Nevertheless, trends of Western secularism are very popular and influential there, especially among secular Israelis.
Some years ago I was reading a book by an Israeli – I can’t remember his name unfortunately – and he had a chapter about Israel’s gay / dance club / disco scene. He was very happy about young Israelis being able to use drugs, dance, and have casual sex with strangers, and embraced this freedom as opposed to having to live in a bleak garrison state with an oppressive religious tradition.
Also, there is a strong feminist element in modern Israeli society – not exactly like in the west, but there nevertheless. This is best understood by contrasting it with the more traditional roles for women emphasized by the more religious and conservative communities with their emphasis on the value and importance of women as mothers and homemakers.
I don't mean just the ultra-orthodox, but Israelis with strong religious values who are fully active in society. This involves not just doing the chores, but raising children with love, wisdom and guidance in a sound and healthy environment.
Here is a link about feminism in Israel as a whole. The military has not been isolated from this. https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/feminism-in-contemporary-israel The article states that broader roles for women in the Israeli army really increased after the Yom Kippur War.
You state that “There is no feminist current in the Israeli army, as it is presented in the West.” It may not go to the extremes found in the West, but to me, the idea of women serving in combat units, and in many other areas of the military, is feminism. It is role reversal and unisex, meaning that gender differences are social constructs, and that women basically can do anything that men can do.
Before that, the role of women in the military was much more restricted, and I believe that was right, proper, and normal.
There is a different tone and emphasis in Israel, but women in Israel are in fact trying to achieve new standards and rules and have already done so.
“Here, girls want to contribute more to the defense of the country because they believe that they can do it.” How is that different from girls in America who want to be policeman, firefighters, soldiers? They, too believe they can do it. This is commonly – not always but commonly – accompanied by the belief that being at home raising a family is an inferior occupation, and that a woman develops her real potential by competing as a man in a man’s world.
This is commonly accompanied by sexual liberation, the belief that women can find fulfilment in various affairs instead of being oppressed and enslaved by having to be faithful to one man through life.
Some women have been writing eloquently and effectively on Substack about the deception behind this false philosophy of life, including Janice Fiamengo and one other whose name I can’t remember. https://fiamengofile.substack.com/
This is not to deny that there are some more conservative and religious women who want to be in the army, but sexual liberation and denigration of the family are key components in much of this (though Israelis in general still place more of an emphasis on the traditional family and are still less decadent than the West).
Then, there are the many problems of women in these more strenuous areas that are consistently covered up. Women who cannot pass necessary requirements but are passed anyway; police girls who cannot deal with violent criminals; fire fighters who cannot carry people out of a building; soldier-ettes who get pregnant so they can be discharged, then have an abortion – there are many problems that are covered up because it does not fit the narrative.
This is especially true in the military where an officer can ruin his career by pointing out unpleasant realities. There are problems with men and women in close quarters on ships that are covered up, all sorts of extra logistical problems (such as separate quarters and restrooms on ships) because of the myth of feminism which is now a reigning paradigm – not to mention problems with discipline and moral.
They didn’t use to have women so active in the military in Israel, and they didn’t use to have gay rights parades in Israel either. Many don’t see a connection but I do. This breaking down of gender barriers has been very destructive and a great evil.
What if a heroic woman fighter pilot – who got to that position with special help and lowering of standards – slips up with her birth control and gets pregnant? What will she do? Have the child and raise it, ending her career? Or kill the child so she can live out her fantasy of being just like a man?
Girls have shown themselves to be excellent in combat? In going two or three days without sleep and dealing with heavy objects? And what if exceptions or failures are covered up because the army has a conception that must be maintained?
And even if they can do well, can and should are two very different things. I can do a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean I should do them.
What may seem good in the short run can have harmful long term results. Role reversal and unisex are damaging to men and to women, and create or contribute to divorce, immorality, abortion and sexual gender confusion. Men being bossed around by women officers does not exactly hone their fighting edge either.
In the past, men and women had traditional roles not because of an unjust and oppressive patriarchy, but because it was the normal and natural thing to do.
And is women’s service in the army really a necessity? Maybe in support roles, but Israel did alright in its previous wars without the somewhat less than vital contribution of women pilots and women tank crews.
You say it is not feminism. I think it is. It may not go to the most far out extremes of the weirdest Western fanatics, but it is role reversal and unisex nonetheless.
Thank you for your reply.
Let's clarify. Classical feminism is a fight for rights. Modern Western neofeminism is a fight for privileges.
The desire of women to serve in elite troops is not a fight for rights, and not a fight for privileges. This is not a women's movement at all, because it is not supported not only by the majority of women, but even by a fraction of a percent of women. On the one hand, this is the satisfaction of the aspirations and ambitions of a small group of people who want this, on the other hand, a PR campaign of people who (for some reason) promote these ideas.
This is not new, it has always been this way and most likely will be so. The majority in the army are skeptical about these ideas, very compelling arguments are made why this should not be done, but as long as there are ambitious women (and this is a positive factor) and people using this for career advancement, advertising and other personal reasons (and this is already a negative factor), this is inevitable.
This is an interesting take, Viktor. If I understand correctly, today, the desire of a woman to have a combat role in the IDF has nothing to do with feminism. Is this what you are saying?
“Let's clarify. Classical feminism is a fight for rights. Modern Western neofeminism is a fight for privileges.”
Classical feminism was very much a 19th and early 20th century phenomenon. Then the focus was more on specific rights, voting, property rights, more educational and job opportunities.
Once these goals were largely if not completely met, the emphasis shifted more in the 60s to liberation from traditional roles (in the 1950s, the majority of American women were housewives, or so I have read). This logically morphed over time into unisex and role reversal, in which all barriers and differences between men and women were to be eliminated.
True, there were always different degrees, but the more radical elements – as is so often the case – pushed and shouted their way to the top, and feminism became increasingly radicalized, including hostility to men and the imaginary patriarchy, as well as contempt for motherhood and traditional ideas of home and family.
As to the desire of women to serve in elite troops, that is the direct result of the feminist revolution. Such claims would not have been made in the 1950s or 1960s. One of the greatest fantasies of modern feminists is that they can do everything that men can do and all differences are merely the result of social conditioning.
In the US, this became official army policy, and success in this area was achieved by lowering standards and helping women in various ways to achieve the desired goal – including covering up of real problems and failures, with success in the program as being essential to career success.
I don’t have any inside information but I did read about how tough and demanding the physical requirements were for Israeli pilots, the elite of the elite. Standards must have been relaxed to meet the needs of feminist ideology, and failures covered up.
As to such things not being supported by a majority of women, the Bolsheviks were a small minority when they seized power in 1917, and today’s most aggressive gender Bolsheviks have a weight and influence out of proportion to their numbers.
This is directly related to the ambitions of a small group of people, but they have influential supporters in high places. Their ideas became official policy of the US military, and I am sure are influential in the Israeli judiciary, news media, government and upper echelons of the military.
You said “The majority in the army are skeptical about these ideas” – not surprisingly, as it is the result of a fantasy world ideology – and “very compelling arguments are made why this should not be done” – but the ideology has captured the top brass and high levels of government and hence it is being imposed by force from above.
You added, “as long as there are ambitious women (and this is a positive factor) and people using this for career advancement, advertising and other personal reasons (and this is already a negative factor), this is inevitable.”
You neglected to mention that the support of men is necessary. All of the gains of women have come with the willing and eager support of men. As to ambitious women being a positive factor, politically aggressive women in America such as Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and other figures have had an overwhelmingly negative influence – and some high ranking women in America’s military have been overwhelmingly incompetent, promoted to their positions according to ideology, utterly irrespective of competence or merit.
Joe, as the author I am flattered that you are taking the time to comment and ask questions. What you have brought to the discussion deserves a serious response. I am now writing my next piece, and you will see that I am addressing some of the points you raised, but maybe not from the direction that you might expect. Let me get that piece published and we'll take it up from there. Sound good?
Sounds good to me.
In general, I would not directly attribute the failures in Israeli politics to such phenomena as feminism, attitudes towards gays and anti-religion. Indirectly, it is possible that adherents of progressive ideas end up in leadership positions in Israel and this somehow influences, but there is no obvious cause-and-effect relationship.
Is it so far-fetched to claim that the forces of secularism that deny the importance of religion and want to make Israel a secular, Western country, that reject religious law and morality, are at the same time less capable of understanding and properly dealing with the threats Israel faces?
Out of all of the military leaders who were most directly responsible for the failure to understand and deal with the threat of Hamas, how many of them denigrate or downplay the religious and biblical aspects of Zionism; feel that political compromise is the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict; place too much of the blame on Israel; see nothing wrong with homosexuality; and strongly support greater involvement of women in the military?
Of course, there have been short-sighted leaders at all times and places who failed to identify and deal with threats, those are basic human failings, but in our time those human failings are influenced by some specific factors, including western corruption, weakness and decadence which have taken deep root in Israel.
You have greatly confused me by linking secularism and religiosity with the ability of military leaders to fight enemies.
I said from the very beginning that there is no direct connection here and there cannot be, because this is not connected exclusively with Judaism.
The Israeli army strictly observes kashrut, the mandatory presence of religious institutions, including the system of military conversion. I have never heard of any military leader taking an anti-religious position or hindering religious and spiritual work in the army.
That is why I said that there is no direct connection here.
There is also no direct connection with the fact that more religious military leaders better understand the threats to the Jewish state, and secular ones, who see nothing wrong with homosexuality (again, mixing different concepts) and advocate for women's service in the army, will be worse at defending Israel.
Indirectly, I can assume that some of the Israeli military leaders, having gone through American academic institutions, will try to implement the DEI policy, which can cause harm. But this is a special case of protectionism, which can happen to a religious or any other society.
"You have greatly confused me by linking secularism and religiosity with the ability of military leaders to fight enemies."
This is not a simple subject, and I could have elaborated more.
To begin with, there are many factors that go into successful military leadership, apart from secular and religious views.
Napoleon was a very secular man, and yet he was a brilliant general (at least before his final failures). Frederick the Great was also a secular man, a patron of the Enlightenment, and a great commander.
On the other hand, Oliver Cromwell was very religious, as was Stonewall Jackson.
So, we cannot say that “Secularism = weakness” and “Religion = strength” when it comes to military leadership.
But, there are different kinds of secularism. Napoleon and Frederick the Great for example did not believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution. They did not believe we were only animals existing in a randomly created and purposeless universe. They also did not believe in gay rights, role reversal, unisex and unbridled hedonism.
Modern secularism is uniquely corrosive of character and judgment, and I maintain that the secularist indifference to and even contempt for religion made it completely impossible to understand the deeply Islamic motivation of Hamas. The belief that once they got into power they would settle down and devote themselves to the practicalities of governing showed a shallow and complacent attitude significantly based on a secular world view.
Of course, religious people can be short-sighted and naive as well, there are many factors at work as I said.
"This is not connected exclusively with Judaism."
True, it is not a Jewish issue overall, but in the context of the Israeli army and its policies, I would guess that the demoralizing influence of modern secularism, without the religious values of at least some respect for God and his moral laws (not necessarily all the details of halakha) has weakened the heart and soul the West, and is operative in Israel – to a lesser extent in Israel, but still significantly.
"The Israeli army strictly observes kashrut, the mandatory presence of religious institutions, including the system of military conversion. I have never heard of any military leader taking an anti-religious position or hindering religious and spiritual work in the army."
They are not going to buck the system, and the religious parties still have a lot of clout, and there is also a deeply rooted sense of Jewish culture and custom. But all of those are externals, and not evidence of true religiosity, and I feel safe in saying that a great many secularists in Israel, in and out of the military, who question Israel’s claim to the land, and feel that Israel is to blame for the conflict for not compromising enough, and who feel ridden with Angst about having taken Arab land, have a predominantly secular outlook and do not accept the validity of any biblical claim to the land.
"There is also no direct connection with the fact that more religious military leaders better understand the threats to the Jewish state, and secular ones, who see nothing wrong with homosexuality (again, mixing different concepts) and advocate for women's service in the army, will be worse at defending Israel."
You say there is no direct connection, but I believe there is – intangible, and not always overtly evident, but real nonetheless. As evidence I point to the US Army, where the military leadership that under Obama and Biden was so concerned about DEI, climate change, and the advancement and rights of women and gays and transgenders in the military, was at the same time hopelessly inept in dealing with more real and greater threats. This is because their whole approach to life was blinded by a corrupt, stupid and false ideology.
"Indirectly, I can assume that some of the Israeli military leaders, having gone through American academic institutions, will try to implement the DEI policy, which can cause harm. But this is a special case of protectionism, which can happen to a religious or any other society."
As to Israeli military leaders having adopted American values – not only because of educational experiences in America, but also because of a shared world view – this is not a fault of Judaism. Witness the spread of such soul destroying and spiritually enervating philosophies throughout the West. It is a fault of human nature, which replaces the reality of God and his laws with foolish human pseudo-philosophies (such as Communism, National Socialism, DEI, Unisex and role reversal, and the transgender lunacy).
Has the Israeli military reached the point of decadence that it feels obligated to fund the sex change operations of trans-identifying soldiers? Probably not – present realities do require a greater focus on reality. But the foundation is there.
Besides, I don't quite understand what these "forces of secularism" are that are trying to make Israel a secular country?
Firstly, secularism is not some kind of organization aimed at certain goals, but a way of life. It has always existed to one degree or another.
Secondly, Israel is a secular country. Israel lives by secular laws, observing the religious traditions of not only the Jewish people. Moreover, Israel is now much more religious than in the 60s and 70s, when it won major victories. There have always been many secular people and sentiments in Israel, and this did not prevent the country from forming and developing.
The problem is not that the country is more or less secular or religious. The problem is that the contradictions between these two layers of society are becoming radicalized, which should cause concern for both groups.
I will summarize the main result. The threat to any society (not only Israeli) is not the presence of a secular and religious population, but the radicalization of contradictions between them.
By the “forces of secularism,” I didn’t mean specific organizations, I meant a spirit of the age, common trends of thought that influence large numbers of people, reigning ideas, such as:
A naturalistic view of the universe . . . the irrelevance of God . . . a view of man as the creation of random and impersonal forces . . .the belief in human wisdom as the ultimate source of knowledge . . . the irrelevance of traditional morality and the substitution of new and lawless moralities.
These ideas are pushed by the total culture – media, entertainment, schools. They are in the air but are represented by political parties and organizations dedicated to the propagation of these ideas and all of the lesser ideas that come out of them, often accompanied by a subtle or not so subtle hostility to traditional religious values.
I agree, secularism of some form or another has existed to one degree or another throughout the modern age, from the Enlightenment on (prior to which it may have existed but was not culturally dominant due to the prevalence of religion). But, while it has existed for a long time, it takes different forms in different ages. The secularism of 1800 was obviously different from that of today.
There has been an intensification of this secularism as religious memories wane. The secularists of 1900 were not so in-your-face, not so aggressive and so often overtly hostile to religion. They still had a memory of basic norms which were not flouted as brazenly as they are today. We can’t imagine gay rights parades in Jerusalem in 1900, or 1950, or even more recently.
Israel is to a certain extent a secular country, but nevertheless the religious influence is still deep – but secularism is intensifying in Israel as religious traditions wane in the minds of many people. True, the religious forces have been strengthened in Israel at the same time that secular forces have also been intensifying, leading to an increasing divide between the predominantly secular left and the predominantly religious right.
Even religious groups can be profoundly secular in orientation, as in liberal Protestantism and Catholicism, and liberal Judaism also. These use religious language but at bottom they have worldly agendas.
The earlier secular elements in Israel did not as you say prevent the country from forming and developing, but the secularists of the 1930s, 40s and 50s were far more traditional morally and ethically than many secularists and leftists nowadays. This is due to an increasing virulence of secularism, leading to immoralities and practices that would have been unthinkable to Ben Gurion and the society of his time.
"Secondly, Israel is a secular country. Israel lives by secular laws, observing the religious traditions of not only the Jewish people. Moreover, Israel is now much more religious than in the 60s and 70s, when it won major victories. There have always been many secular people and sentiments in Israel, and this did not prevent the country from forming and developing."
About “The problem is not that the country is more or less secular or religious,” social and political problems in any country are complex, especially in Israel. The conflict between two groups is an issue, but the problem is intensified by the fact that (in my opinion) secularism is becoming increasingly virulent and toxic, inimical to ordinary human decency, liberty and sanity. This is especially true in the US, where the forces of radical leftism would dearly love to impose their bizarre and twisted values on the country by force, and made huge gains in that direction under the presidencies of Obama and Biden.
I am talking about denial of basic freedoms, and attempts to undermine the Constitution and basic liberties, along with aggressive agendas for social change, especially in areas of sexuality and gender that (again in my opinion) are deeply destructive and even overtly evil. Which is not to say that all the religious people wear white hats of course.
In the US, an increasing threat is radical leftists who want to reform our whole society and impose their values by force. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the destructive social values aggressively promoted by radical democrats under Joe Biden.
“The threat to any society (not only Israeli) is not the presence of a secular and religious population, but the radicalization of contradictions between them.”
It is not merely the presence of a strong secular contingent, but rather their aggressive attempts to impose their values on society by force, especially by using the courts to impose out of touch and elitist leftist values that would never be approved by the majority in an authentically democratic process.
I recall a condoleezza Rice moment of GTFO to General Sharon though I recall a photo with her and Olmert finger pointing across a table.
His military accomplishments and brilliance are unsurpassed and I'm curious what pressures are known to have swayed him besides the corruption, Olmert did his time in prison.
Israeli rabbis/ influencers for governmentbucks planted themselves amongst the Gaza settlers and kept them quiet and supplicant as they were expelled.
It's not said often enough that this was the first ethnic cleansing of the 21st century and to give it the Jewish flavor of Jews on Jews
I've listened to Andrew Fox describe IDF military protocol as loose at best so the rigidity of management during crisis seems beyond off..
"Toe the line", not "tow the line".
Very depressing. I remember this all too well.
Thanks Chana. I'll correct later.
This essay made me so sad because it ringed of truth. I had never heard of the Kutiel family and the horrifying events at their memorial.
Israel seems to suffer from the same political gulf as the United States.
Eerily similar.
Regarding Hamas / Isis — When you kill them they win.
When you take the land back they lose.
Kill them as needed but push them out now.
Not one more brave IDF grunt should be sacrificed to appease the Jew haters of the world.
Bring back the up armored D-11 bulldozers and start pushing south.
Turn about is fair play- “From the river to the sea” can now have a new meaning.
Simple and true.
She ain’t wrong.
hoax
Meaning?
Incredibly depressing. The leaders who shrugged off the warning signs in the hours before the invasion and those who failed to respond once the massacre was underway - may they never know a moment of peace.
The IDF brass and officer corps after Oslo became computer savvy gardeners who were more interested in mowing the lawn and kissing up to DC than in eradicating terror and protecting the lives of Israelis