People of Israel #4 - Prostitution

“An estimated 700 massage parlor/brothels operate in the country [Israel], with 250 in Tel Aviv alone. The sex-for-sale trade is blatant and lucrative” (Rosenthal, 371).

According to Miri Hasson’s article on ynetnews.com, “thousands of women are being smuggled into Israel creating a booming sex trade industry that rakes more than USD one billion a year.” The Parliamentary Inquiry Committee found that 3,000 and 5,000 women are smuggled to Israel annually and sold into prostitution. It is reported that 10,000 women reside in about “300 to 400 brothels throughout the country.” Many of the prostitutes are foreign being brought in from Ukraine, Moldova, Uzbekistan and Russia. These women are said to “work seven days a week for up to 18 hours and of the NIS 120 paid by customers, they are left with just NIS 20, while the rest of the money is passed on to their traders.

Rosenthal writes the story about Dalia, who talks about the foreign prostitutes, “they want the blondes, the exotic-looking ones, the Natashas, the Valentinas…these ‘tourist’ girls come here illegally and work for almost nothing. They’re driving us [Israelis] out of business” (Rosenthal, 373). Rosenthal writes that the Russian mafia or Organizatsia now controls most prostitution in Israel; “police estimate at least 85 percent of the women have arrived illegally from the republics of the former Soviet Union” (Rosenthal, 373). In comparison to Israeli prostitutes, Dalia states that “‘they’re [foreign prostitutes] afraid of their pimps, they’re afraid of the police. They can’t explain how they arrived in Israel. They’ll do anything to make money… we [Israeli prostitutes] don’t have to worry about being deported… we can say what we feel. If our pimps don’t split the money fair, we complain. If they don’t give us decent working conditions, we complain. Massage parlors don’t want to hire us, they want the ‘tourists’. We’re too much trouble’” (Rosenthal, 374).

Vered Lee, a Haaretz Correspondent, writes that owners of massage parlors aka brothels forbid prostitues working in them to use condoms because in a police raid they would be evidence that the establishment is for paid sex. An interview with Revital, 33, who has worked in such parlors for the last four years states, “I live in fear of police raids and don’t even have basic protection. Some clients bring their own and then it’s all right. Sometimes I hid condoms in my bra or in a paper but it always involves fear – either from the owner who might catch me or from not using the condom.” Though, the massage parlors say "No sex, No release" on their doors, often the client and the girl are both naked. The client is allowed to stroke her during his massage and if he offers her more money, they can engage in sexual intercourse.

Attorney Nomi Levenkron of the Hotline for Migrant Workers believes that this whole situation is a reflection of the police’s inadequacy in enforcing the law because they hunt the prostitutes instead of the brothel owners and pimps.

It seems that everyone [including the cops] understand that these “massage parlors” are not ordinary spas. Why is it that proper law have not been enforced? At the same time, how will the cops enforce laws in regards to help women forced into prostitution due to human trafficking and deal with the Israeli prostitutes who [seem] to make good living and generally like what they do? If the police know about these kinds of operations, they must have been bribed. The mafia must have control of the police and thus why they only go after prostitutes and not the brothel owners/pimps.

Peoples of Israel #3 - Druze Women & Divorce

According to Rosenthal, “A woman can initiate divorce proceedings and has the right to her own property; if a young mother dies, her children and property revert to a woman on her side of the family. However, like Muslims, Druze are strongly patrilineal and, like Islamic judges, Druze his wife fails to bear children, especially sons. And if a widow remarries, her late husband’s family frequently gets custody of her children” (Rosenthal, 294).

Hiham Arayda, 38, has been divorced for 12 years. For her personal experience she was able to obtain a divorce easily with the help of her family. She told them that she was “returning home” as to not give anyone the inclination that she was engaging in affair as a reason for the divorce. Afterwards, she then had to deal with the obstacle of fighting for custody of her children. According to Rosenthal, “A woman can initiate divorce proceedings and has the right to her own property; if a young mother dies, her children and property revert to a woman on her side of the family. However, like Muslims, Druze are strongly patrilineal and, like Islamic judges, Druze his wife fails to bear children, especially sons. And if a widow remarries, her late husband’s family frequently gets custody of her children” (Rosenthal, 294). However, in Arayda’s case, over a series of months she was able to obtain custody of all her four children one at a time. Arayda talks how due to custom, many divorced women are required to leave the home as the couple cannot see each other. However, she states that “the villages today are large, and lack public transportation, employment and public housing. The problems for a divorced woman in the village are greater than for women in the city, but the have no possibility of leaving.”

Arayda states that “to live as a divorced woman is worse than being a widow, who is at least regarded with some pity. A married woman is sometimes expected to suffer violence in order to preserve the family, and most of all not to divorce.” As stated in Rosenthal, “the honor of Druze women is so sacrosanet that they are not required to have photos on official Israeli documents’ Druze religious judges waive the requirement because having her picture taken means shaming a woman’s honor” (Rosenthal, 300). Women who have shamed the family are “potential victims of family ‘honor killings’” (Rosenthal, 300). Rosenthal uses the story of Ibtihaj Hassan who had divorced her husband and wanted to move away in which she eventually married outside the faith to a Bedouin. Her younger brother tricked her that her family had forgiven her and once she had returned home she was publically stabbed in the stomach by her brother. However, this was seen with encouragement as onlookers called him “Hero, Hero! You’re a real man!” (Rosenthal, 300) It is generally not seen as a “bad murder” but an “honor killing” to cleanse the tainted family name. Rosenthal writes that some men still believe in an ancient Arabic proverb: “Grass grows quickly over blood that has been shed honorably” (Rosenthal, 301).

Arayda, now is a public speaker at a seminar which is in “cooperation of the Women Lawyers for Social Justice association, the Law School at Haifa University and Kayan, a Haifa organization promoting the rights of a civil society, to bring awareness about Druze women.

Peoples of Israel #2- Orthodox Gay Jews

There is new attention to the difficult subject of Jewish homosexuality that throws open difficult questions about the biblical writings on the subject. This blog will draw on diverse approaches to the history of homosexuality and its origins by examining biblical passages. In addition, an understanding of how Jewish communities have played a role in contributing to sexual discrimination and also assisting in accepting these individuals will be assessed. The understanding of homosexuality in the Jewish community and society’s affect on individual’s psychology will be a key axis around which this blog is formed.

Rosenthal writes that Orthodox Jews, “The residents-most of them Sabras, including laptop-toting civil servants, scientists, politicians, and high-tech executives-regard themselves as modern Orthodox Israelis showing the same idealistic, self-sacrificial spirit of the (mostly secular) Zionist pioneers who built the country. In fact, religious settlers are the most well-known of Israel’s (most nonsettler) Orthodox population (Rosenthal, 196). She continues to write that these people live in an area that is “biblically rich and emotionally charged, a place where scriptures, historical narratives, and nationalisms are tangled in a lethal embrace (Rosenthal, 196).” So then the question arises, how do Orthodox gay Jews live in such an area? How do they keep their religious identities?


According to VOA.com, the gay pride parade held in Jerusalem in July of 2010, which included approximately 3,000 Israelis angered Orthodox Jews who held signs that read “Sick perverts, get out of Jerusalem.” And to many Orthodox Jews they would agree as this is considered an abomination as according to the Bible. The Parade was seen as “homosexual rights vs. religion.” The march ended with a memorial service at Israel’s parliament for two Israelis that were killed in a shooting at a gay club in Tel Aviv. Gay rights activist, Gher, hopes that religious leaders will understand and learn from that event explaining that constant preaching of homosexuality being an “abomination” will lead to violence. According to the web source, 1,500 Israel police officers were present to guard the Gay Pride Parade.

(The following is a video that displays the parade & the Ultra-Orthodox Jews protesting against it)



The website, My Jewish Learning has an article called “The Gay Orthodox Underground”, that illustrates several individual’s personal struggles to accept their sexuality while being a good orthodox Jew. These individuals display a strong sense of passion for their religion, a religion that very blatantly forbids homosexuality. Many of these people have been rejected from their families and communities. Their pain then leads them to try and find a balance between being true to themselves which is that they are gay and also Jewish. Despite their rejection, they have a high resilience to keep their faith.

The basic issue is whether any homosexual behavior may be viewed as appropriate. According to Harry Woggon, a straightforward reading of the biblical text seems to indicate that homosexuality and homosexual acts are forbidden for Jew and Christian alike. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, it is written:


And you shall not cohabit with a male as one cohabits with a woman; it is an abomination…And if a man cohabits with a male as with a woman, both of them have done an abominable thing; they shall be put to death; their blood falls back upon them.




However, he explains that “if one is honest to Scripture, tradition, reason, and modern scholarship, the matter is not so simple.” Therefore, he then asks “what is homosexuality and what are homosexual acts?” Rabbi Steven Greenberg, the first open gay rabbi, writes that these “feelings” are “natural urges from God” and that nothing can explain why another man enjoys physical affection with another man and nothing can truly explain why some men enjoy physical affection with women. That sexuality as a whole is innate, and “both heterosexuality and homosexuality are natural.” Though biblical writings view homosexuality with severe disapproval, “a spirit of tolerance and compassion is also voice in them.” According to Ruben Schindler’s article “Homosexuality, the Halacha and the Helping Professions” from the Journal of Religion and Health, it is suggested here that Jewish law placed "overt homosexuality in the category of illness to evoke compassion for it."

According to "LGBT topics and Judaism," more progressive movements of Judaism believe homosexuality today was not understood when the Bible was written so the Biblical prohibition of homosexual acts needs to be adapted. In Conservative Judaism, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards affirmed its traditional exclusion on homosexual conduct by approving same-sex unions, and ordaining openly gay clergy. In comparison, Reform Judaism has rejected the traditional view of Jewish Law on this issue of homosexuality. They view “Levitical laws as sometimes seen to be referring to prostitution, making it a stand against Jews adopting the idolatrous cults and practices of the neighboring Canaanite nations rather than a blanket condemnation of same-sex intercourse or homosexuality.” Finally, Reconstructionist Judaism sees “homosexuality as a normative expression of sexuality and welcomes gays and lesbians into Reconstructionist communities to participate fully in every aspect of community life.” Due to the fact that these religious movements are incorporating homosexuality as a cultural norm, it displays how contemporary orthodoxy is willing to be somewhat flexible and pragmatic in the face of modernity.

Peoples of Israel Post #1- Mordechai Vanunu & Military

Mordechai Vanunu is the most infamous whistle-blower in modern Israeli history. Ynetnews attempts examine whether he was a “nuclear whistle-blower or peace activist fighting against a worldwide nuclear armament race.”

According to the article, he began working at the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission’s Negev facility, as a nuclear technician. In 1985, Vanunu was fired from IAEC but prior to leaving he was able to obtain two (2) film rolls of the compound layout. He immigrated to Australia, converted to Christianity and then began contacting several media outlets. In September 1986, Vanunu went to Londay to give the Sunday Times the photos he had collected of the facility and gave information about Israel’s nuclear weapons program.

Once the Israeli defense establishment learned of the pending publication, a Mossad tracking unit was set forth where Vanunu was lured and captured in Rome. The Sunday Times published the story after Vanunu’s disappearance and reported that Israel was in possession of hydrogen and neutron bombs.

Vanunu was sentenced to 18 years in prison, all to be served in solitary confinement for espionage and treason.

Vanunu’s clear motives for whistle-blowing are unclear. Groups dedicated to stopping a worldwide nuclear race came to his aid over the years to better his confinement & release. They believe that he told his story for the greater good of the public. Yet other spectators believe his motives were monetary & revenge as the article states “he was promised a hefty fee of $75,000 by the Sunday times; and the animosity he had toward the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission for firing him.”  Vanunu, himself, claims that it was “pure ideology” to bring acknowledgment to Israel’s nuclear policies and to stop the nuclear race.

According to Richard T. DeGeorge’s Business Ethics, whistle-blowing can be defined in such a way that it is always “morally permissible or always morally obligatory.” Initially, however, we can probably believe as “morally neutral the act of an employee making public a firm’s internal operations, practices, or policies that affect the safety of a product” (DeGeorge, 302). In some cases, “whistle-blowing may be morally prohibited, in some cases it may be morally permissible, and in others it may be morally mandatory” (DeGeorge, 302).

The view that whistle-blowing is always morally prohibited is the more widely held view. There is a strong tradition within “American mores” against telling or ratting-out on others. There is the phrase “Don’t wash your dirty linen in public” and though a person may whistle-blow to the public/media, that person is generally ostracized, not only by the management of the firm but also by fellow employees. This whistle-blower is perceived “as a traitor, as someone who has damaged the firm-the working family-to which he or she belongs” (DeGeorge, 303). In so doing, he or she has hurt and offended most of those within the firm.

Rosenthal writes that "nothing unites this contentious country [Israel] more than a belief in the importance of the army” (Rosenthal, 49). The reason for this is because “Israelis have always lived in a state of war, or semiwar, in a country that has never had permanent borders. Israel has the world’s highest percentage of veterans, with most Jewish and Druze men having fought in two or three wars” (Rosenthal, 50). With a country always living in "war-like" conditions or having a fear of war, there is a great trust/belief in the country's military as well as the government. To many Israelis, Vanunu is considered one of the biggest traitors in modern Israeli history for exposing its country's secrets to the press. Though he said his motives were for the greater good, he has offended many of Israel's citizens who have a strong sense of nationalism and loyalty to the state of Israel.

Abbas vows to pressure U.S. to stop Israel settlement construction

Reuters writes in his article how the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas expects United States’ intervention in Israel settlement building in the West Bank. Abbas, who wants to negotiate peace talks, states that Israel is “still putting obstacles.” It is stated that the Palestinians called off peace negotiations with Israel shortly after the freeze on the new home building in the settlements expired and resumed.

In response to this, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has resisted United States’ influence and rather stated that “the Palestinians should recognize Israel as a Jewish state to secure such a gesture.” At a news conference with the Finnish President Tarja Halonen, Abbas discussed about “Palestinians’ long-standing rejection of that idea, which would amount to a major concession on an issue at the heart of the six-decade old conflict.”

Arab leaders are permitting the United States one month to convince Israel to halt settlement building on “land it has occupied since the 1967 Six-Day war.” Abbas hopes to facilitate the tension between the two countries by discussing with Israel the issues of borders and securities as soon as they halt settlement building.

So then based on Reuters’ article, how can two stubborn nationalities with a strong sense of nationalism having to share a carved up Palestine live in peace? The author emphasizes on the Arabs want to make peace talks and how the Israelis “put obstacles” in the way to prevent such discussions.

Reuters writes in his article that the “heart of the six-decade old conflict” is the Palestinians refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state. According to the Bickerton/Klausner book, A History of The Arab-Israeli Conflict, the basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two extreme nationalisms. Regardless of the historical origins of the quarrel, the rights and wrongs of the promises and counter-promises, “and the international intervention incident to the Mandate, there are now in Palestine some 650,000 Jews and 1,200,000 Arabs who are dissimilar in their ways of living and, for the time being, separated by political interests which render difficult full and effective political cooperation (UNSCOP’s Plan of Partition with Economic Union of 1947).”
 

(The first Arab-Israeli war enabled the new state of Israel to extend its territory southwards into the Negev desert, eastwards as far as the Dead Sea, and northwards up to the Lebanese border.)

In reaction, Arabs believed that the struggle of the Arabs in Palestine had nothing in common with anti-Semitism. The Arab world had been “one of the rare havens of refuge for the Jews until the atmosphere of neighbourliness had been poisoned by the Balfour Declaration and the aggressive spirit the latter had engendered in the Jewish community (UNO Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question).” The claims of the Zionists had “no legal or moral basis.” The case was based on the association of the Jews with Palestine over two thousand years before. On that basis, the Arabs would have better claims to those territories in other parts of the world such as Spain or parts of France, Turkey, Russia or Afghanistan, which they had inhabited in the past.

Peace negotiations need be discussed as well as discussing borders to facilitate the tensions. As simple as this may sound, it is not. How does one overcome a six-decade of mishaps? Construct more treaties? Get more international involvement? How can there be a peace talk when each side has their own agendas? Each side wants their own land. Hence, the reason why Abbas is so determined to discuss borders because the Arabs want their land back and the reason why the Israelis refuse because they want to keep what they got. A six-decade old grudge between the Israelis and Arabs will prevent them from living in true peace. As many know, people will not change their mentalities unless they want to change.

“When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace.” – Jimi Hendrix

Animal Cruelty in the practice of Kapparot

"This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace."


It is stated (in the article) that since the sixth century, the ceremony of transubstantiating one’s sins into a body of a chicken citing the incantations "This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace" and then slaughtering it, which traditionally is acted out in the days leading up to Yom Kippur, has prevailed among Jewish communities.

According to the Jonah Mandel’s article, Senior Rabbi Aviner sends SPCA Israel letter, video explaining why according to halacha it is wrong to use chickens in pre-Kippur atonement rite. Other rabbis such as Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of the Shulhan Aruch), the Rashba and Nahmanides are among those that object for reasons such as “potentially problematic slaughtering, the non-Jewish superstitious character of it, and the unnecessary cruelty inflicted on the animals at a time of year that ought to be marked by mercy and benevolence.”

(Youtube video Kapparot in Jerusalem)

Modern practices include the exchanging of the fowl for grain, money or giving charity.  The SPCA sent out requests to many of the country’s leading rabbis, and was “happy to receive a clear voice of support from Aviner, one of the most influential rabbis and educators in the national-religious sector.”  According to the article, "Aviner leads the reader through the halachic discontent over the use of chickens in the kapparot by beginning with Rabbi Karo, the ultimate halachi source for Sephardi Jewry, who called it the custom of the Amorite – simply put, a superstition.”

To further encourage their cause, SPCA Israel members toured Shuk Hatikva in south Tel Aviv dressed in blood-red shirts with images of slaughtered chickens. They hoped that with the ghastly images, it would persuade those practicing to substitute chickens with charitable money. These tours were not welcomed by the chicken slaughterers in the market, however, according to Mandel, only harsh words were exchanged.

(SPCA Israel's video against the use of chickens in Kapparot)

Based on Mandel's written work, he writes how some Rabbis and various groups agree that the use of chickens in Kapparot is animal cruelty. Whether or not the author is genuinely upset in regards to the chickens is subjective, but what can be said is that Mandel felt that this particular issue deserved to be written about. Therefore, who is morally responsible for these actions?

According to the definition of Dignity of Persons, "it is the act in which you may treat humanity whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as means only (Phil 305 lecture)." Simply put that one must take into account people for who they are and therefore treat them for who they are versus what they are. Hence the golden rule, treat others as you would like to be treated. When taking into account the ordeal of the chickens, many practicing individuals will argue they are animals and there is no difference between slaughtering the chickens for religious practices or buying KFC. In addition, though the chickens are slaughtered for religious practices, the bodies are donated for food and thus cannot be seen as wasteful or animal cruelty.

(PETA video against the use of chickens in Kapparot)

There is a line that the man states in the video located on the article’s link, that only with the actual slaughter may one exchange blood and therefore receive the chicken’s strength. This line bothers me, “with the actual slaughter can one receive the chicken’s strength.” It reminds me of a similar practice in China, where people boil cats alive because only with the struggle of the dying cat does the individual eat its strength. I find it extremely inhumane. 

Another issue that bothers me is the incantations themselves, "This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This rooster shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace." Why couldn't an individual just STRIVE to live a good life in general where one did not have to sacrifice a chicken? Chickens are looked down upon since they are common food, however, let's take this into consideration:


"This is my exchange, my substitute, my atonement. This puppy shall go to its death, but I shall go to a good, long life, and to peace."

Now if people used puppies in the Kapparot there would be a HUGE uproar. Why? Because puppies are not common food (maybe to some Asians it is) but they are commonly seen as cute pets. Yet why is the chicken not respected? Also, does this mean if a murderer had a chicken waved around his head... does this mean that he can go and live a good life because the chicken now has his sins??? I HOPE not! I do not question the different cultural practices of others. However, I do question it if it involves animal cruelty. Boiling cats alive, waving around frantic chickens prior to cutting their heads off is inhumane. 






God loved the birds and invented trees.  Man loved the birds and invented cages.  

~Jacques Deval, Afin de vivre bel et bien

Arab and Jewish Tension

In an article written by Gil Ronen, it describes the tension and violence between the Arabs and Jews living in Palestine. According to the article, Jews have faced numerous cases of harrassment by the Arab residents. It states that "nonstop rock-throwing attacks by Arabs against Jews in the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik led to the wounding of an eight-year-old Jewish boy Sunday afternoon." The boy was treated by Magen David Adom emergency services and survived the attack with various afflictions to the face.

Various documentation also portrays Arab children throwing rocks at Jews and damaging property. In addition, it displayed a Jewish individual being attached verbally and physically by a group of Arabs.

Jewish residents believe that the police fail to act accordingly with Arab aggression because of "pressure applied by the radical Left 'both above ground and behind the scenes.'" It is then said that the police are unable to properly assist the Jewish residents from the various attacks because of their fear of confrontation from the extreme Left.

The author of this particular article, focuses on the trials and challenges faced by the Jewish community. Yet it fails to display what actions or reactions the Jewish community has done in response to the harrassment. Were there any counter-attacks on the Arabs from the Jews? Possible verbal & physical harrassment as well (see left picture)?

I cannot help but ask myself what part did the Jewish community play to egg on the tension between the Arabs. What are the reasons for such aggression showed by the Arabs? Why do they feel they are entitled to purposely show verbal and physical violence to another human being? Despite Jewish assumptions, what are the real reasons for law enforcements not properly handling the situation?

I do sympathize with the plight faced by the Jews, however, I believe there are always two sides to one story.



"The truth is rarely pure and never simple." - Oscar Wilde