Varied interests, so have a look around! âĄď¸JewishâĄď¸ â¨Bi⨠(If I liked/reblogged a ton of your posts in a row, itâs bc I fell down a rabbit hole, sorry!)
To borrow a point I made elsewhere on the kneejerk qualification that "not all Jews are Zionist"...
What was at one time a reasonable qualification on the basis that it is true that a minority of Jews identify as Non-Zionist, Post-Zionist, and Anti-Zionist etc, it has since become an unreasonable kneejerk qualification. The pervasive use of the qualification now has been to qualify that some Jews are a socially allowable sub category of "Jew" as opposed to the disallowed morally reprehensible (((Jew))).
In the current climate of hate and violence against the Jewish community globally, being justified in the name of "anti-zionism" the qualification is at best gauche.
It is explicitly zionist. When the Jews of Anatevka are fleeing, Yenta states she is moving to the Holy Land, and this is met with bittersweet congratulations from Tevye and Golde. Happy for her, sad that they will likely never see her again (Tevye, Golde, and their youngest two daughters are moving to America.)
some people will be like âI wonder why fanfic writers donât share their works anymoređâ and then this is them when a writer is kind enough to share something they write â as a hobby, for their own enjoyment â with them for free.
some people really donât realize how privileged they are that they get fanfics for free. imagine having access to something for free because someone is kind enough to share it with you⌠and then being rude, entitled and an ungrateful pos to that person who was kind enough to share their creation with you for free
âalmost 1 year is a lil too much for meâ fuck off. fanfic writers donât owe you anything. one of my favorite fics was updated after 13 years, and what I did is that I thanked the author for choosing to continue the work, I didnât act like a spoiled toddler by asking why they didnât update sooner. and even if a writer chooses to abandon their fic permanently with no explanation, that is their choice, their hobby, their decision. they donât owe your entitled ass anything.
you people let tiktok rot your brains to the point you see everything as content farm and engagement. not a piece of art created by the artistâs love and passion. itâs dystopian.
Soo I have a blood kink... someone reported a post about it like this one time and I got a message from tumblr asking if I was okay and how to get help if I needed it. Was actually cool I didn't know it was a thing that tumblr would do and until now didn't know exactly why that had happened other than something with that post but not that they had this whole set up
Youâre Daniel, you just got turned and try to clean up a bit to forget about your deadbeat maker who ran away and left you behind. In one of the boxes you stored up your closet you find pictures from the best summer of your life. During a trip to the south of France you and your ex wife met a beautiful stranger and had the craziest most amazing threesome ever. For a long time, this guy was the only safe, sort of middle ground topic you could brush on the phone after divorcing Alice when you tried to keep in touch for your girls. Neither of you could remember his name, and now youâre 73, your eyes are purple and orange, and your realize that beautiful stranger was fuckass Armand. The tantrum you throw on the vampire mental hotline is the worst ever heard in the history of fledglings. Every vampire on earth stays quiet in contemplation for an hour after that.
Im too lazy to clean the sketch so have wobbly lines⌠bon appÊtit
@anthropologist-on-the-loose get peer-reviewed because your shared experience with the subject of the painting really heightened the emotional impact of this artwork for me ( An impact which was already high tbh. The idea that Pompeii was built by generations, buried by generations, uncovered by generations. What if I just started screaming and never stopped. )
But it was buried by generations! Yes, it was buried in a volcanic eruption, but it was also figuratively buried. Over the centuries the location of Pompeii was lost, and it was found again by accident during construction projects. The ruins were not conclusively identified as the city of Pompeii until the 18th century (more than a millennia and a half after the eruption!) and it has been excavated ever since. People have been digging there since before the formation of the United States.
I actually do think itâs better for abusers and abusive characters to realize the harm their past actions caused and seek to do better than be literally or metaphorically executed for their crimes
I think itâs better for abusers and abusive characters to realize the harm their past actions caused and seek to do better than be literally or metaphorically executed for their crimes.
I think itâs better for abusers and abusive characters to realize the harm their past actions caused and seek to do better than be literally or metaphorically executed for their crimes.
Something about how society cares more about punishing the wicked than about making the world a better place, and how many people really struggle to shake that.
I feel like such an asshole saying this but it hurts so fucking bad seeing people celebrate other indigenous peoples practicing and reclaiming their pre-colonial cultures, but when we do it we're called evil, propagandists, oppressors, and we're murdered over it, and people cheer on our murderers, the same people who have been murdering us and segregating us for 100s of years. They hate us when we refuse to assimilate or adhere to their warped view of what Judaism is. But it seems we are the only ones who are denied the right to our culture by so-called leftists.
That's the thing, anon. I don't think they actually do care.
I think many leftists don't actually see value in indigenous cultures. Their "support" is shallow, more "anti-their-own-culture", or "day at a cultural festive" support, then an actual advocacy for space for these indigenous cultures.
Like, how many actually acknowledge the amount of variation in indigenous cultural cultures there are, and what that would mean for everyday life? How many actually preach the practicalities of living alongside another culture (this time, indigenous), that is everyone will have to abide by the secularist idea of live and let live, no matter their "cultural practices"? Are these ideas that are brought up, at all?
Like despite their "celebrations", which is not interchangeable for actual space to exist in public life btw, they actually have no fucking clue or care for why supporting indigenous cultures is "good". To them, "supporting indigenous cultures" is a shallow virtue signal, so they can deem themselves as "compassionate" to others.
As someone who has thought about it. I think indigenous cultures are a net-positive because 1) land and nature is often more respected as cultural pillars, so a) a worldview that demands expansionism is less common, which keeps borders stable and limits the killing of others for more land, and b) the nature on that land is legally more protected because it holds cultural importance, so more non-human life gets to live in their natural habitat; and 2) diversity only happens if a community can self-determine (not just on a national scale) and exclude others, and I want to live in a diverse world.
I think true diversity, of world view and cultural practices, is what makes human beings so interesting. I want more of it and I want it to be healthy for the humans involved.
But do you think the leftists who claim to be "pro-indigenous" rights or cultures, have actually thought about any of this? It's why they cannot see the hypocrisy in their own actions. They haven't thought harder about it than: to be considered a good person, I need to support the "little guy".
And if that is the extent of their "support": It abandons indigenous people as soon as they are not regulated to powerless entities, hence the hatred of Israel despite the fact that we are best case scenario and the intended outcome for any successful indigenous land-back movement.
On one hand, viewing indigenous cultures of "worthy of celebration" but more importantly, worthy to hold space in public life - is an first important step. But, that does not make someone pro-indigenous rights, or whatever, that is at most someone curious about indigenous rights.
To me? If you don't actually care about *insert social cause*, don't pretend to. I feel like it dilutes, if not actually sullies, the actual cause if you make make wild and deranged statements in support of that cause.
I do think these "pro-indigenous celebrations" should actually use the opportunity and educate those that did show that shallow interest, to help it not be shallow next time. I don't know why they wouldn't.
Is it a lack of time? Is their support shallow? Are they scared of being demonized, as is socially acceptable to do, to Israelis and Jews when we succeeded in our indigenous land-back movement? Is the true support lost in the statements and behaviors of shallow "supporters"?
Whatever the "reason", it is fucking annoying, and it's completely valid to be pissed at how shallow it all currently is.
I think the âsupporting the âlittle guyââ is a huge and under-emphasized part of this. ďżź
Supporting, or claiming to support, an indigenous group when they are small and powerless and there is no risk of your support causing them to actually gain any meaningful amount of sovereignty⌠thatâs risk free. Whatever. You can give all the lip service you want to them and the beauty of their culture and everything and you, as a hypothetical western leftist and/or Islamist, will never have to risk anything in your life meaningfully changing. Not the laws you live under, nor (probably more importantly) your comfortable power over that group.
Many other groups find Israel threatening not because it has ever been aggressive, but because of what it represents. If the Jews can return and claim sovereignty in their homeland after 2000 years, why not other groups who have suffered colonialism and dispossession for less time? Why not Yazidis or Choctaw or MÄori? And THATâs the problem for Western and Arab states in particular. Israel isnât a threat (as much) because of what it could directly do, but because of what it represents to the other indigenous groups whom they actively keep downtrodden. ďżźďżź
And even aside from that, being able to take comfort in oneself being part of a much stronger group is quite powerful. People donât want to lose that. Becoming on equal terms with someone who you could previously ignore if they wanted something inconvenient is difficult.
I am halfway remembering an old quote used by I think feminists in like the 2010s about how when youâre used to standing over somebody, equality feels like oppression. And yeah, itâs that. ďżź
I was going to make a list of states younger than Israel, but it quickly got to be over 100 entries. So instead, here is a list of states meeting the following criteria: 1) younger than Israel 2) were not declaring independence from France, the British Empire, or the USSR 3) still in existence 4) widely recognized as a state*
*some countries are recognized by only themselves or by only one or two other countries. They are not on this list.
--North Korea (1949)
--South Korea (1949)
--Bhutan (1949)
--Indonesia (1949)
--Libya (1950)
--Sudan (1956)
--Cameroon (1960)
--Togo (1960)
--Somalia (1960)
--Samoa (1962)
--Burundi (1962)
--Rwanda (1962)
--Jamaica (1962)
--Trinidad and Tobago (1962)
--Tanzania (1964)
--Singapore (1965)
--Nauru (1968)
--Equatorial Guinea (1968)
--Bangladesh (1971)
--Guinea-Bissau (1974)
--Mozambique (1975)
--Cape Verde (1975)
--SĂŁo TomĂŠ and Principe (1975)
--Papua New Guinea (1975)
--Angola (1975)
--Suriname (1975)
--Marshall Islands (1986)
--Micronesia (1986)
--Namibia (1990)
--Yemen (1990, itself made up of states younger than Israel)
--Slovenia (1991)
--Croatia (1991)
--Republic of Macedonia (1991)
--Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992)
--Czech Republic (1993)
--Slovakia (1993)
--Eritrea (1993)
--Palau (1994)
--Timor-Leste (2002)
--Montenegro (2006)
--Serbia (2006)
--Kosovo (2008)
--South Sudan (2011)
I guess none of those are legitimate countries either.
oh my goodness, one of dian fosseyâs first close up observations with gorillas happened when she was trying to climb a tree to see them better, but so badly that by the time sheâd gotten up the entire group had come out of hiding to look at her: âNearly all members of the group had totally exposed themselves, forgetting about hiding coyly behind foliage screens because it was obvious to them that the observer had been distracted by tree-climbing problems, an activity they could understand.â
[Image transcript: porch. The group had been day-nesting and sunbathing when I contacted them, but upon my approach they nervously retreated to obscure themselves behind thick foliage. Frustrated but determined to see them better, I decided to climb a tree, not one of my better talents. The tree was particularly slithery and, try as I might, no amount of puffing, pulling, gripping, or clawing succeeded in getting me more than a few feet aboveground. Disgustedly, I was about to give up when Sanwekwe came to my aid by giving one mighty boost to my protruding rump; tears were running from his eyes as he was convulsed in silent laughter. I felt as inept as a baby taking its first step. Finally able to grab on to a conveniently placed branch, I hauled myself up into a respectful semislouch position in the tree about twenty feet from the ground. By this time I naturally assumed that the combined noises of panting, cursing, and branch-breaking made during the initial climbing attempts must have frightened the group on to the next mountain. I was amazed to look around and find that the entire group had returned and were sitting like front row spectators at a sideshow. All that was needed to make the image complete were a few gorilla-sized bags of popcorn and some cotton candy! This was the first live audience I had ever had in my life and certainly the least expected.]
imagine some freakish not-a-human alien THING has shown up out of nowhere and is trying to get into your office building to study you. but it has no idea how to get past a revolving door. it tries for three hours. by the time it finally understands the concept of a revolving door and squeeze into the building everyone in the office is crowded into the lobby to watch and call helpful suggestions. itâs conclusively determined that the alien is definitely not a threat, except maybe to itself.
From the blog of Mike Offner at The Times of Israel
Thought I remembered this one, bunch of NOT Jewish people out there running the show with jvp or something like that, should just hand the operation over to the Neturei Karta group instead.
One update everyone wants to hear is that the vote has been delayed at the Prime Minister's instructions due to outcry from diaspora Jewry. So keep kvetching.
On Shavuot, Jewish tradition celebrates the story of Ruth, emphasizing choice, loyalty, and belonging as the central qualities shaping the b
On Shavuot, Jewish tradition celebrates the story of Ruth, emphasizing choice, loyalty, and belonging as the central qualities shaping the boundaries of the Jewish community. A proposed amendment to the Law of Return would go against this spirit â everything you need to know about the bill and the history on the issue.
Full article from the Israel Democracy Institute below the cut.
Amid the current political turmoil and ahead of the Shavuot holiday, the government has once again debated MK Simcha Rothmanâs proposed amendment to the Law of Return, dealing with the question of âWho is a Jew?â and, more fundamentally, whether Judaism should be defined only according to halakha (Jewish religious law). The proposed amendment received enthusiastic support from Minister of Justice Yariv Levin, Minister of Environmental Protection Idit Silman, and Minister of National Security Itamar Ben Gvir (âa rare opportunityâ), as well as from MK Avi Maoz (âa historic opportunityâ). However, it was ultimately delayed on the Prime Ministerâs instructions out of concern over the reaction of Diaspora Jewry.
What, in fact, lies at the heart of the dispute over the question âWho is a Jew?â What did David Ben-Gurion actually think about the issue? And would Ruth, the heroine traditionally associated with the festival of Shavuot, be able to convert to Judaism in present-day Israel?
What Is MK Rothmanâs Proposed Amendment to the Law of Return?
The bill proposed by MK Simcha Rothman, which as noted was discussed by the government last week, seeks to change only a single word in the Law of Returnâbut carries dramatic implications. The Law of Return (1950) establishes the right of Jews to immigrate to Israel and receive citizenship there. Ben-Gurion stated, with humility, that it is not the state that grants Jews the right to settle in Israel; rather, every Jew already possesses an inherent citizenship that merely awaits realization.
The original law did not explicitly define the term âJew.â In 1970, an amendment added the definition that a Jew is âa person born to a Jewish mother or who has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion,â without specifying the nature of the conversion process. In practice, two different definitions of âwho is a Jewâ subsequently developed in Israel. One is the Orthodox-halakhic definition, which primarily governs matters such as eligibility for marriage through the Chief Rabbinate. By contrast, the definition used for population registration and eligibility for citizenship under the Law of Return evolved into a broader civic-cultural definition that also includes individuals who converted through non-Orthodox Jewish movements.
The proposed bill seeks to resolve the tension between these two definitions by applying the halakhic definition of Jewishness to matters of registration and immigration as well. The proposed wording states that a Jew is âa person born to a Jewish mother or who has converted according to halakha and is not a member of another religion.â As a result, Reform and Conservative converts would no longer be eligible to register as Jews or receive Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
What Did Ben-Gurion Think About the Question of âWho Is a Jewâ?
The explanatory notes accompanying the bill claim that its purpose is to restore matters to their original state and that it reflects a return to the principles and historical legacy of Ben-Gurion and Israelâs founders. But was this truly Ben-Gurionâs view? Well, no, not exactly. Ben-Gurionâs conception of Jewish identity was deeply rooted in the biblical narrative, particularly the story of Ruth, who joined the Jewish people after declaring, âYour people shall be my people, and your God my God,â rather than through the later-developed halakhic conversion process. For Ben-Gurion, the primary test of Jewish belonging was a familyâs establishment of life in Israel and its choice to live as Jews.
During the intense political crisis surrounding the âWho Is a Jew?â question in the late 1950s, Ben-Gurion emphasized that in Israelâs Declaration of Independence, âwe proclaimed freedom of religion and conscience, and did not determine that the state of the Jews would be a halakhic state ruled by rabbis.â
Why Was No Definition of âWho is a Jewâ Included in the Original Law?
The original lawmakers were deeply divided over the question of who qualifies as a Jew. Ultimately, just as they chose to postpone the adoption of a constitution to a future date that has yet to arrive, they similarly deferred resolving the definition of Jewish identity. Ben-Gurion sought to separate the debate from the enactment of the Law of Return itself, which he wanted to expedite in order to encourage the ingathering of exiles. In the Israeli reality, especially on issues of religion and state, it was often more convenient not to decide.
Yet the political crisis soon erupted. In 1958, Interior Minister Israel Bar-Yehuda of the Ahdut HaAvoda party issued internal directives instructing population registry officials to register as Jewish anyone who declared themselves to be so in good faith. Until then, in the absence of a legal definition of âJew,â no formal policy had existed, and decisions were made by registration clerks and interior ministers on a case-by-case basis.
The crisis led the National Religious Party (Mafdal) to leave the government, forcing Ben-Gurion to retreat from Bar-Yehudaâs directives. However, the manner in which he responded underscores his opposition to absolute religious-halakhic dominance over the question of âWho is a Jew?â Rather than empowering the Chief Rabbinate to decide the matter, he appointed a ministerial committee headed by himself, which referred the question to fifty âJewish sagesâ in Israel and the Diaspora, including intellectuals, rabbis, and juristsâreligious and secular, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike. In doing so, he expressed his view that Jewish identity is not solely a halakhic issue, but also a broad national, civic, and cultural question: âThe unity of the Jewish people cannot endure except through acceptance of the fact that profound disagreements divide us, and through mutual respect.â
After most of the responses from the Jewish sages reflected an Orthodox position, and after the crisis led to the formation of a new government in which Haim-Moshe Shapira of Mafdal became Interior Minister, Shapira issued a directive instructing officials to register as Jews only those who met the halakhic definition. Nevertheless, contrary to the claim made in the explanatory notes of the current bill, this outcome represented a political concession born of a coalition crisisânot a faithful reflection of Ben-Gurionâs actual position.
Moreover, in 1970 the Knesset amended the Law of Return by adding both the so-called âgrandchild clauseâ (granting the right to immigrate to anyone with at least one Jewish grandparent) and a formal definition of Jewishness. Yet even then, the phrase âaccording to halakhaâ was deliberately omitted. The law stated only that a Jew is âa person born to a Jewish mother or who has converted and is not a member of another religion.â The amendment was intended to overturn the Supreme Courtâs ruling in the Shalit case, which distinguished between religion and nationality and held that the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, though lacking a formal religion, could nevertheless be registered as belonging to the Jewish nationality. The amendment prevented this split identity, but it did not establish that conversion had to be halakhic.
Over the yearsâand especially since the political upheaval of 1977 that ended a nearly 30-year rule of the left wing Labor Partyâmany political attempts have been made to add the words âaccording to halakhaâ to the law. Yet every prime minister, from both the Right and the Left, refrained from doing so. In practice, if the current proposal is adopted, it would constitute a revolution in relation to all previous decisions on the matter, rather than a return to any prior arrangement.
What Types of Conversion Currently Exist and Are Recognized in Israel?
Within Israelâs religious establishment, in matters such as marriage, divorce, and burial, only officially conducted Orthodox conversions are recognized. According to the Israel Democracy Instituteâs Statistical Report on Religion and State, the average number of official conversions over the past decade in Israel has been approximately 3,000 per year, about two-thirds of them through the state conversion system and roughly one-third through the military conversion framework. In addition, the rabbinical courts approve approximately 100 more Orthodox conversions each year that were conducted privately or abroad.
By contrast, for civil purposes such as population registration and eligibility for citizenship under the Law of Return, Israel also recognizes conversions conducted within the country and in Jewish communities abroad that did not receive approval from the religious authorities. In Israel these include conversions through the private Orthodox âGiyur KaHalakhaâ initiative (an average of 220 annually), the Reform movement (234 annually), and the Conservative movement (92 annually).
Under the Law of Return, as noted, a person who converts abroad is eligible for Israeli citizenship. Over the years, the courts have gradually expanded recognition of non-Orthodox conversions. In 1986, it was ruled that a Reform conversion conducted abroad entitled a person to be registered as Jewish in Israel. Three years later, Supreme Court President Meir Shamgar further held that a conversion certificate issued by a Jewish community abroad was sufficient for registration as Jewish. In 1995, this jurisprudence was extended to include recognition of Jewish status following non-Orthodox conversions conducted within Israel itself.
Against the backdrop of these rulings, and in light of the immigration of roughly one million individuals eligible under the Law of Return from the former Soviet Union, the state conversion authority (1995) and the Neâeman Commission (1997) were established to address the issue of conversion while attempting to balance the interests of the liberal Jewish movements and Israelâs rabbinical conversion courts. Additionally, during the course of the affair, Interior Minister Eli Yishai of the Shas party ordered the removal of the nationality designation from Israeli identity cards altogether.
The next stage in this process came in 2005 with the recognition of so-called âjump conversionsâ (where the conversion process takes place in Israel but the formal conversion itself occurs abroad). In 2016, it was further ruledâin relation to a convert who had undergone conversion before a private Haredi rabbinical courtâthat in practice, any rabbinical court operating within a recognized religious community could have its conversions recognized.
The growing plurality of conversion frameworks has also been reflected in regulations issued by then-Sephardi Chief Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar, which prevent the High Rabbinical Court from retroactively invalidating conversions performed by other rabbinical courts (following rulings in 2008 and 2009 that had annulled conversions). It was also reflected in the establishment of private Orthodox conversion courts not recognized by the stateâspecifically the âGiyur KaHalakhaâ (conversion according to Jewish Law) initiative operated by the ITIM organizationâwith the support of leading rabbis from the Religious Zionist community. Finally, in 2021, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized Conservative and Reform conversions conducted in Israel for purposes of the Law of Return as well, granting eligibility for full Israeli citizenship and not merely registration in the population registry.
In several of the more recent cases, the Court delayed ruling for 7 years (Rodriguez), 10 years (Regachova), and even 16 years (Dahan), while petitionersâ cases remained pending in anticipation that the legislature would resolve the matter. Yet the Knesset repeatedly avoided making a decision, just as it had done in the early years of the state. Likewise, the recommendations submitted in 2018 by the Moshe Nissim Commission, established by the government to formulate a solution to the conversion issue, were never adopted.
Do Supreme Court Rulings Reflect Public Opinion in Israel?
Public opinion data indicate that many Israelis recognize non-Orthodox conversions, reflecting broader support for a national-cultural-traditional conception of Jewish identity that is not strictly halakhic. The Israel Democracy Instituteâs Annual Report on Religion and State shows that 46% of Jewish Israelis recognize a person who underwent a non-Orthodox conversion as Jewish, compared to 39% who would not recognize such a conversion. Among secular Jews, 73.5% would recognize the person as Jewish, while among traditional, non-religious Jews the figure stands at 48%.
With regard to a person born to a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, however, the halakhic positionâthat such a person is not Jewishâis reflected among roughly two-thirds of the public (65%, compared to 28% who would recognize them as Jewish). Among secular Jews, 47% would recognize such a person as Jewish.
Does the Proposal Change the âGrandchild Clauseâ in the Law of Return?
This proposal is unrelated to what is commonly known as the âgrandchild clause,â which is the subject of a separate legislative proposal that has also been under public debate for many years. The proposed amendment to the grandchild clause seeks to limit the ability to extend eligibility under the Law of Return to children, grandchildren, and the spouses and children of descendants of an eligible Jewâin effect, up to the fourth generation.
A survey conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute found that about half of Israeli Jews believe repealing the grandchild clause is intended to preserve the Jewish majority in the state. At the same time, a similar proportion believe such a repeal could undermine the Zionist principle of encouraging Aliyah (immigration to Israel) and the ingathering of exiles, and would significantly reduce immigration to Israel.
How Could the Proposal Affect Relations Between Israel and Diaspora Jewry?
In practice, concern over this issue has been the main factor preventing passage of such legislation over the years. It was also the reason why no halakhic definition of conversion was included in the 1970 amendment to the Law of Return, and why Diaspora Jewish communities engaged in extensive lobbying and advocacy efforts directed at Israel.
If the addition of the words âaccording to halakhaâ were interpreted by the Chief Rabbinate as referring exclusively to a stringent Orthodox standard, it could bring about a profound change: individuals whose eligibility for citizenship under the Law of Return is based on a non-Orthodox conversionâor on an Orthodox conversion not recognized by Israelâs rabbinical courtsâcould lose their eligibility for Israeli citizenship.
Most American Jews, the largest Jewish community outside Israel, are not Orthodox. According to a Pew Research Center survey, only 9% of American Jews identify as Orthodox, while 37% identify as Reform, 17% as Conservative, and roughly one-third who are unaffiliated. Rates of intermarriage are also high: 61% of Jews who married since 2010 married non-Jews, and among non-Orthodox Jews the rate is 72%. Consequently, restricting recognition under the Law of Return of non-Orthodox conversions would not affect only a small group of converts, but rather broad circles of families and communities throughout the United States and the wider Jewish Diasporaâand, indeed, the very scope and character of the Jewish people itself.
The question of whether, and to what extent, Diaspora Jewry should be involved in decisions made by the State of Israel on issues affecting them remains controversial within Israeli society. Nevertheless, there is broad public recognition that the Law of Return requires dialogue with Diaspora Jewry. A survey by the Israel Democracy Institute found that 46% of Israeli Jews believe representatives of Diaspora Jewish communities should participate in Knesset discussions concerning the Law of Return, compared to 40% who believe they should not.
Who Would Decide What Constitutes a âConversion According to Halakhaâ?
âHalakhaâ is a dynamic concept that has been interpreted in a variety of ways throughout Jewish history. Accordingly, even if the proposed legislation were adopted, it would likely not bring about âan end to the ongoing dispute,â as claimed in the billâs explanatory notes. The proposal seeks to promote conversion âconducted according to traditional Jewish halakhic rulings, as established in the Mishnah, the Talmud, and Jewish tradition throughout the generationsâ (as stated in the explanatory notes). This approach ignores the fact that halakhic rulings have never been uniform, and that the enduring dispute stems from the diversity of conceptions of Jewish identityâa diversity that will inevitably continue to exist.
In reality, attitudes toward conversion during the Mishnaic and Talmudic periods, and throughout much of Jewish history, differed significantly from the standards currently practiced in Israelâs Orthodox conversion system. The Talmud, for example, describes the conversion process as extremely minimal. If a person sought to convert even after being warned that joining the Jewish people could be difficult and painful, the rabbinical court would merely inform them of some of the commandments and of reward and punishment, andâsubject to circumcision (for men) and mikveh (ritual immersion)ââthey accept him immediately⌠without excessive demands and without meticulous scrutiny.â The convert undertakes to observe the commandments going forward and is not judged based on past conduct, becoming âlike a Jew in every respect.â
These minimal criteria are met by Reform and Conservative conversions in Israel, as well as by the conversions performed in most Jewish communities around the world. By contrast, Israelâs state conversion authority imposes requirements far more stringent than those accepted in âtraditional Jewish halakhic rulings,â demanding that converts demonstrate actual observance of religious commandments in practice rather than merely committing to future observance. Even so, Israelâs rabbinical courts sometimes cast doubt on the validity of state conversions and military conversions alike.
What Can We Learn Today from the Biblical Story of Ruth?
On Shavuot, Jewish tradition specifically celebrates the story of Ruth, emphasizing choice, loyalty, and belonging as the central qualities shaping the boundaries of the Jewish community. Ruth joins a family and a people and also embraces their religious world. The order of this declaration perhaps points toward a broad interpretation of Jewish identity, one that emphasizes its national-cultural dimension alongside its religious one.
There is concern that the proposed legislation does not seek to restore this tradition, but rather to struggle against it.
hang on i'm gonna cry a little thinking abt how g-d promised avraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the stars in the sky and now among millions of descendants there are thousands who literally carry his name, go up to the torah as b'nei avraham v'sarah. that's our mom and dad!
wanna cry a little more? think about how Avraham and Sarah both had trouble believing they could have a child at their advanced age, and then think about how many many centuries later they are still having children who carry their name.
"I do know about racism, it's very real, such as when white people are hated and discriminated against by the woke left, racism is very real and it happens to both white people and black people." -What dipshits deadass sound like these days (while receiving raucous applause)
i am an american who has never once seen eurovision in my life but im listening to the music from it just for fun and like. the way people are so violently hateful towards israelis is already insane racist xenophobic antisemitism but something i keep thinking: literally every other country that has ever been in that competition has done the same or, in most cases, WORSE than whatever israel has done.
like ok spain is boycotting? spain who colonized entire continents? ethnically cleansed indigenous people for centuries? had the fucking inquisition? spain the country that burned jews alive???
ok what about germany lol??? if you really hate jews and the holocaust isnt a bad enough thing that germany did then maybe consider their colonialism and violence in africa???
portugal who did the same shit as spain????????
turkiye has been in it, what about the armenian genocide? what about their current policy of violence against kurds??
sweden??? sweden's treatment of Sami?? Norway?? Finland???
the united fucking kingdom????
Australia?????
FRANCE?????? ITALY??????
fucking POLAND?????????
zero consistency. yet literally every comment or review on a song by an israeli musician is "this is slop", "this is hasbara", "this is meant to normalize apartheid and colonialism and genocide", "this is as garbage as all israeli art ever is garbage and so is their food and culture and everything"
-XYZâs grandparents escaped Auschwitz and immigrated to America and became Chabad shlichim. XYZ was born at 770. Their parents are a rabbi and rebbetzin in a large Jewish community in LakewoodâŚâŚâŚ.theyâre of Jewish descent.
i came across this one the other day. her given surname was cohen and she is descended from 23 generations of rabbis but whoâs to say how she identifies really
but later on they clarify that she freed herself from being âethnically chargedâ so itâs all good now
My professor met Judy Chicago at the Venice Biennale this year. Judy told her how important it is to be Jewish and proud especially in this world that we live in.
Judy would be so disappointed to read her own Wikipedia page.
