"most nations of the world have moved away from ethnonationalism.."
I know that Western liberals live atop such a high moral mountaintop that they can't always see us mortal humans down here below, but I don't think this edict has yet been received by, say, the Persians, Egyptians, Magyars, Japanese, Saudis etc, not to mention the current leaders embracing Hindu or Turkish or Han or Russian nationalism.
But thanks for this piece, I've been seeing this new foul jargon emanating from our postmodern madrassas, the denunciations of Israel for its supposed "ethnonationalism", once again aimed at making the Jewish state the world's great moral pariah and the Jews reprise their eternal role as humanity's scapegoats.
Western liberals who arrogantly denounce Israel for its "ethnonationalism" remind me of rich kids looking out of a mansion window wondering why those people on the street eating out of garbage cans can't be fed by servants on fine china like they are. Our safe and prosperous nations founded on universalist proceduralism are the result of centuries of European wars and reformations and the idea that nations and their peoples aren't synonymous is very new and has even only been embraced in Western Europe in the past generation or two.
The idea that all countries need to be postnational and open to anyone and everyone—or else be condemned for their NAZISM—is the height of moral arrogance and could only be expressed by a Western child of the 21st century who has no clue how blessed they are to be living lives of unprecedented security and prosperity.
Not everyone has been blessed with the luxury of knowing that no incoming missile or marauder will come to kill them in the night and Israelis or any other people with hostile neighbors shouldn't be denounced for preferring the safety of their tribe and the security of a homeland over the scoldings of Western liberals, who are happy to flaunt principles they've never fought or paid a price for. Telling people they need to risk death because your supposed morality demands it is the height of intellectual imperialism, which means that maybe our anti-imperialist crusaders aren't so different from all the people they claim to hate.
"Around 400,000 Israelis have Jewish ancestry but are not considered Jewish according to halakhah (religious law). Whether the conversion process should be made easier for this population (as well as for interested Palestinians, who themselves often have distant Jewish ancestry) is a separate question."
AFAIK, this figure is actually slightly over 550,000 right now. Israel got a lot of new aliyah as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
As for making conversions to Judaism easier, I suspect that the Haredim will argue that doing so would be contrary to halakha and thus vehemently object to this. Personally, I'm much more concerned about keeping the Grandchild Clause intact than I am about making conversions to Judaism easier. With the latter, these technically-non-Jewish Israelis can simply create a new form of Judaism to suit their own needs, at least in theory:
I mean, the US Reform Jewish movement was previously successfully able to do something similar.
BTW, I myself am an Israeli citizen who personally belongs to this population, along with my entire immediate family. Though all of us have lived in the US since March 2001.
You're likely right that the number is higher now, though for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not including non-Jewish family members of those who made aliyah in the tally. Halakhic tradition is actually more complicated on the subject than Haredi opposition would suggest. For example, Haim Amsalem, an Orthodox rabbi and former MK for Shas, argues for more lenient conversions based on the Jewish concept of zera Yisrael (see https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/We-need-to-embrace-zera-Yisrael).
Regardless of whether this idea gains traction or not, I do think it's in Israel's interest to encourage a civic nationalism accessible to citizens who aren't halakhically Jewish, including Arabs. As we saw on October 7, Israel's enemies don't distinguish between a Hebrew-speaking Jew and a Hebrew-speaking Bedouin. One point of my piece is that ethnonationalism can co-exist with civic nationalism, and that the two are de facto intertwined. In Israel's case, there's no reason why its identity as a Jewish state should be threatened by the presence of a patriotic non-Jewish minority. The key is to encourage that minority's patriotism.
As a side note, though, if we want to be fair, one can create a halakhic basis for anything if one will try hard enough: Patrilineal/bilinear descent, intermarriage, polyamorous relationships and marriages, child sex dolls/robots, et cetera. (Conservative Judaism has a saying: “If there is a rabbinic will, there is a halakhic way!”) The question is whether the devout would actually find it convincing. Right now, the overwhelming majority of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim) are not convinced by Amsalem’s approach. Just like Haim Amsalem himself would not be convinced if US Conservative Judaism decided to make a halakhic argument for patrilineal/bilinear descent and/or intermarriage.
As a side note, aggressively aiming to convert Zera Yisrael defeats the point of both Judaism’s anti-proselytizing nature and the halakhic designation of Zera Yisrael as gentiles in the first place (as per the Mishnah). What’s the point of designating them as gentiles in the first place if you’re so eager to convert them en masse? Might as well go the whole hog and embrace patrilineal/bilinear descent, by that logic, which might have actually been the tradition of the Jews in the pre-Rabbinic era, and is apparently still what the non-Rabbinic Karaite Jews believe in and practice to this very day.
I wouldn't go that far. For a more detailed review of Amsalem's work, see https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/263/the-rock-from-which-they-were-cleft/: "Mekor Yisrael is an invaluable anthology that reproduces (in full) the halakhic writings and responsa of the more than 120 rabbinic authorities upon whom Amsalem drew in writing Zera Yisrael. . . . Amsalem reproduces a sermon by none other than Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, originally printed in the Shas party newspaper, Yom le-Yom five years ago, which argues for leniency and empathy on the part of rabbis in matters of conversion." I doubt you could draw on 120 rabbinic authorities and Israel's former Sephardi Chief Rabbi to support the use of sex robots (though I welcome you to prove me wrong).
The point, I believe, is precisely leniency and empathy when it comes to conversion, not proselytizing. No one is proposing that non-Jewish Russian olim be forcibly converted to Judaism. From the review: "For Amsalem, not only religion, but peoplehood is an indispensable component of Judaism. . . . This is what allows a traditionalist with Zionist commitments such as Amsalem to view the Russian immigrants, who have pledged their very lives and those of their children to share in Jewish fate and destiny as citizens of the Jewish state, as being of the seed of Israel." A conception of conversion that emphasizes Jewish peoplehood as well as religion is quite different than abandoning any consistent standards at all.
BTW, I think that the argument here is that there could be millions of other people who would be willing to move to Israel and Judaize but who are currently denied that opportunity because they lack Jewish ancestry and because conversions to Judaism are discouraged for people without any Jewish ancestry or family ties. For instance, millions of Third Worlders. Why should they be denied this opportunity?
AFAIK, Israel does not allow illegal African immigrants to convert to Judaism in order for them to permanently stay in Israel, and ditto for not allowing Thai, Filipino, Indian, et cetera guest workers to convert to Judaism. At least not usually.
There’s a difference between making conversion easier for non-Jewish Israelis who already live in the country, speak Hebrew, have culturally assimilated, served in the army, etc, and making conversion a matter of pure opportunism. The latter would exacerbate, rather than soothe, Israel’s social divisions. If you haven’t noticed, mass immigration is not exactly a political winner in the West. It’s unclear why a small country that has enough problems already would want to follow a destabilizing path that even peaceful, progressive Europe is starting to reject.
To be fair, though, illegal African immigrants also already live in Israel (albeit illegally), often speak Hebrew, have often culturally assimilated, would possibly be willing to serve in the Israeli army if required, et cetera.
As for immigration being destabilizing, a lot of Europe’s immigration problems probably have to do with Muslims being less culturally compatible with Europeans. But Muslims would be the group that would be least likely to convert to Judaism, due to Islam’s historical strong frowning upon apostasy.
As for child sex dolls, once one embraces the oness argument in regards to male homosexuality, extending it to child sex dolls/robots is very, very easy. After all, if male homosexuals should have the right to a satisfactory sex life because they’re not harming anyone, even though their own desired sex life is halakhically forbidden, then the very same logic should also apply to virtuous minor-attracted persons. If oness (a lifelong urging and temptation for something) is a sufficient reason to excuse gay sex, why exactly wouldn’t it likewise be a sufficient reason to excuse owning and having sex with child sex dolls/robots, provided that this does not place actual children at greater risk of harm? Especially for *virtuous* minor-attracted persons who cannot derive permanent sexual satisfaction from only having sex with other adults?
I’d have more respect for Ovadia Yosef’s views if he didn’t favor repealing the Grandchild Clause of Israel’s Law of Return. This makes me question the sincerity of his views in regards to this.
I agree with the gist of this, but not the title. Aren't you Canadian (originally, at least)? It seems pretty clear to me that there are states which are not ethnostates, and that Canada - like Switzerland or South Africa or even India - is a good example. They're clearly not examples of pure civic nationalism - there's never been such a thing, as you rightly note - but it is a core part of the idea of those states that they do not correspond to one single ethnos.
I’ll grant you that the (snappy) title generalizes in service of a larger point: “ethnostates” are the rule, not the exception. Even then, if you scratch the surface, most of the apparent exceptions are also ethnically based states, just with more than one dominant ethnos. For example, Belgium has formalized its dual ethnonationalisms into a complex and often dysfunctional system of shared governance, not transcended them. So far, at least, it has escaped the fate of Czechoslovakia or, worse, Yugoslavia. But Belgium has an active Flemish separatist movement and could very well still break apart.
I am indeed Canadian (now living in the US), and would liken Canada to this model, with some important differences. Namely, Canada was originally conceived as the homeland of two founding peoples, the Anglos and the French. Quebec remains an “ethnoprovince,” if you will, dedicated to preserving its unique culture. (Yes, this culture is made distinctive by language, but the Quebecois are clearly an ethnic group with a shared origin and identity beyond just speaking French.) Like Belgium, Canada has been able to house a distinctive, non-dominant nation through political accommodation, but the separatist threat ebbs and flows, never disappearing entirely.
English Canada has formally embraced multiculturalism and a civic, pan-ethnic identity. But even then, that civic identity has distinctly British roots. (Canada’s parliamentary system, Remembrance Day, and the stubborn persistence of the monarchy are a few examples.) In my experience, “old stock” Canadians are more ethnically rooted than Americans in the sense that they maintain an English or Scottish identity. There’s still a diffuse sense in which the ethnically British have pride of place as a founding people in Canada, even if it’s impolitic to say so. And as someone of non-Anglo origin whose grandparents actively sought the benefits of British rule, that never bothered me in the slightest.
"most nations of the world have moved away from ethnonationalism.."
I know that Western liberals live atop such a high moral mountaintop that they can't always see us mortal humans down here below, but I don't think this edict has yet been received by, say, the Persians, Egyptians, Magyars, Japanese, Saudis etc, not to mention the current leaders embracing Hindu or Turkish or Han or Russian nationalism.
But thanks for this piece, I've been seeing this new foul jargon emanating from our postmodern madrassas, the denunciations of Israel for its supposed "ethnonationalism", once again aimed at making the Jewish state the world's great moral pariah and the Jews reprise their eternal role as humanity's scapegoats.
Western liberals who arrogantly denounce Israel for its "ethnonationalism" remind me of rich kids looking out of a mansion window wondering why those people on the street eating out of garbage cans can't be fed by servants on fine china like they are. Our safe and prosperous nations founded on universalist proceduralism are the result of centuries of European wars and reformations and the idea that nations and their peoples aren't synonymous is very new and has even only been embraced in Western Europe in the past generation or two.
The idea that all countries need to be postnational and open to anyone and everyone—or else be condemned for their NAZISM—is the height of moral arrogance and could only be expressed by a Western child of the 21st century who has no clue how blessed they are to be living lives of unprecedented security and prosperity.
Not everyone has been blessed with the luxury of knowing that no incoming missile or marauder will come to kill them in the night and Israelis or any other people with hostile neighbors shouldn't be denounced for preferring the safety of their tribe and the security of a homeland over the scoldings of Western liberals, who are happy to flaunt principles they've never fought or paid a price for. Telling people they need to risk death because your supposed morality demands it is the height of intellectual imperialism, which means that maybe our anti-imperialist crusaders aren't so different from all the people they claim to hate.
"Around 400,000 Israelis have Jewish ancestry but are not considered Jewish according to halakhah (religious law). Whether the conversion process should be made easier for this population (as well as for interested Palestinians, who themselves often have distant Jewish ancestry) is a separate question."
AFAIK, this figure is actually slightly over 550,000 right now. Israel got a lot of new aliyah as a result of the Russo-Ukrainian War.
As for making conversions to Judaism easier, I suspect that the Haredim will argue that doing so would be contrary to halakha and thus vehemently object to this. Personally, I'm much more concerned about keeping the Grandchild Clause intact than I am about making conversions to Judaism easier. With the latter, these technically-non-Jewish Israelis can simply create a new form of Judaism to suit their own needs, at least in theory:
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/solving-the-conversion-crisis/
I mean, the US Reform Jewish movement was previously successfully able to do something similar.
BTW, I myself am an Israeli citizen who personally belongs to this population, along with my entire immediate family. Though all of us have lived in the US since March 2001.
You're likely right that the number is higher now, though for the purposes of this discussion, I'm not including non-Jewish family members of those who made aliyah in the tally. Halakhic tradition is actually more complicated on the subject than Haredi opposition would suggest. For example, Haim Amsalem, an Orthodox rabbi and former MK for Shas, argues for more lenient conversions based on the Jewish concept of zera Yisrael (see https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Contributors/We-need-to-embrace-zera-Yisrael).
Regardless of whether this idea gains traction or not, I do think it's in Israel's interest to encourage a civic nationalism accessible to citizens who aren't halakhically Jewish, including Arabs. As we saw on October 7, Israel's enemies don't distinguish between a Hebrew-speaking Jew and a Hebrew-speaking Bedouin. One point of my piece is that ethnonationalism can co-exist with civic nationalism, and that the two are de facto intertwined. In Israel's case, there's no reason why its identity as a Jewish state should be threatened by the presence of a patriotic non-Jewish minority. The key is to encourage that minority's patriotism.
Agreed.
As a side note, though, if we want to be fair, one can create a halakhic basis for anything if one will try hard enough: Patrilineal/bilinear descent, intermarriage, polyamorous relationships and marriages, child sex dolls/robots, et cetera. (Conservative Judaism has a saying: “If there is a rabbinic will, there is a halakhic way!”) The question is whether the devout would actually find it convincing. Right now, the overwhelming majority of Ultra-Orthodox Jews (Haredim) are not convinced by Amsalem’s approach. Just like Haim Amsalem himself would not be convinced if US Conservative Judaism decided to make a halakhic argument for patrilineal/bilinear descent and/or intermarriage.
As a side note, aggressively aiming to convert Zera Yisrael defeats the point of both Judaism’s anti-proselytizing nature and the halakhic designation of Zera Yisrael as gentiles in the first place (as per the Mishnah). What’s the point of designating them as gentiles in the first place if you’re so eager to convert them en masse? Might as well go the whole hog and embrace patrilineal/bilinear descent, by that logic, which might have actually been the tradition of the Jews in the pre-Rabbinic era, and is apparently still what the non-Rabbinic Karaite Jews believe in and practice to this very day.
I wouldn't go that far. For a more detailed review of Amsalem's work, see https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/263/the-rock-from-which-they-were-cleft/: "Mekor Yisrael is an invaluable anthology that reproduces (in full) the halakhic writings and responsa of the more than 120 rabbinic authorities upon whom Amsalem drew in writing Zera Yisrael. . . . Amsalem reproduces a sermon by none other than Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, originally printed in the Shas party newspaper, Yom le-Yom five years ago, which argues for leniency and empathy on the part of rabbis in matters of conversion." I doubt you could draw on 120 rabbinic authorities and Israel's former Sephardi Chief Rabbi to support the use of sex robots (though I welcome you to prove me wrong).
The point, I believe, is precisely leniency and empathy when it comes to conversion, not proselytizing. No one is proposing that non-Jewish Russian olim be forcibly converted to Judaism. From the review: "For Amsalem, not only religion, but peoplehood is an indispensable component of Judaism. . . . This is what allows a traditionalist with Zionist commitments such as Amsalem to view the Russian immigrants, who have pledged their very lives and those of their children to share in Jewish fate and destiny as citizens of the Jewish state, as being of the seed of Israel." A conception of conversion that emphasizes Jewish peoplehood as well as religion is quite different than abandoning any consistent standards at all.
BTW, I think that the argument here is that there could be millions of other people who would be willing to move to Israel and Judaize but who are currently denied that opportunity because they lack Jewish ancestry and because conversions to Judaism are discouraged for people without any Jewish ancestry or family ties. For instance, millions of Third Worlders. Why should they be denied this opportunity?
AFAIK, Israel does not allow illegal African immigrants to convert to Judaism in order for them to permanently stay in Israel, and ditto for not allowing Thai, Filipino, Indian, et cetera guest workers to convert to Judaism. At least not usually.
There’s a difference between making conversion easier for non-Jewish Israelis who already live in the country, speak Hebrew, have culturally assimilated, served in the army, etc, and making conversion a matter of pure opportunism. The latter would exacerbate, rather than soothe, Israel’s social divisions. If you haven’t noticed, mass immigration is not exactly a political winner in the West. It’s unclear why a small country that has enough problems already would want to follow a destabilizing path that even peaceful, progressive Europe is starting to reject.
To be fair, though, illegal African immigrants also already live in Israel (albeit illegally), often speak Hebrew, have often culturally assimilated, would possibly be willing to serve in the Israeli army if required, et cetera.
As for immigration being destabilizing, a lot of Europe’s immigration problems probably have to do with Muslims being less culturally compatible with Europeans. But Muslims would be the group that would be least likely to convert to Judaism, due to Islam’s historical strong frowning upon apostasy.
As for child sex dolls, once one embraces the oness argument in regards to male homosexuality, extending it to child sex dolls/robots is very, very easy. After all, if male homosexuals should have the right to a satisfactory sex life because they’re not harming anyone, even though their own desired sex life is halakhically forbidden, then the very same logic should also apply to virtuous minor-attracted persons. If oness (a lifelong urging and temptation for something) is a sufficient reason to excuse gay sex, why exactly wouldn’t it likewise be a sufficient reason to excuse owning and having sex with child sex dolls/robots, provided that this does not place actual children at greater risk of harm? Especially for *virtuous* minor-attracted persons who cannot derive permanent sexual satisfaction from only having sex with other adults?
I’d have more respect for Ovadia Yosef’s views if he didn’t favor repealing the Grandchild Clause of Israel’s Law of Return. This makes me question the sincerity of his views in regards to this.
I agree with the gist of this, but not the title. Aren't you Canadian (originally, at least)? It seems pretty clear to me that there are states which are not ethnostates, and that Canada - like Switzerland or South Africa or even India - is a good example. They're clearly not examples of pure civic nationalism - there's never been such a thing, as you rightly note - but it is a core part of the idea of those states that they do not correspond to one single ethnos.
I’ll grant you that the (snappy) title generalizes in service of a larger point: “ethnostates” are the rule, not the exception. Even then, if you scratch the surface, most of the apparent exceptions are also ethnically based states, just with more than one dominant ethnos. For example, Belgium has formalized its dual ethnonationalisms into a complex and often dysfunctional system of shared governance, not transcended them. So far, at least, it has escaped the fate of Czechoslovakia or, worse, Yugoslavia. But Belgium has an active Flemish separatist movement and could very well still break apart.
I am indeed Canadian (now living in the US), and would liken Canada to this model, with some important differences. Namely, Canada was originally conceived as the homeland of two founding peoples, the Anglos and the French. Quebec remains an “ethnoprovince,” if you will, dedicated to preserving its unique culture. (Yes, this culture is made distinctive by language, but the Quebecois are clearly an ethnic group with a shared origin and identity beyond just speaking French.) Like Belgium, Canada has been able to house a distinctive, non-dominant nation through political accommodation, but the separatist threat ebbs and flows, never disappearing entirely.
English Canada has formally embraced multiculturalism and a civic, pan-ethnic identity. But even then, that civic identity has distinctly British roots. (Canada’s parliamentary system, Remembrance Day, and the stubborn persistence of the monarchy are a few examples.) In my experience, “old stock” Canadians are more ethnically rooted than Americans in the sense that they maintain an English or Scottish identity. There’s still a diffuse sense in which the ethnically British have pride of place as a founding people in Canada, even if it’s impolitic to say so. And as someone of non-Anglo origin whose grandparents actively sought the benefits of British rule, that never bothered me in the slightest.