Is Israel Cultivating A Neglectful Society?

Having returned to Israel after more than 20 years I find the most disturbing development in the country is the absence of government officials who know how to steer through the beaurocratic channels.  There seems to be a lack of civil servants who understand the systems.  I offer some cases in point:

I recently stood in an office of Betuach Leumi where a mother with two children was reduced to screaming in the centre of the room because her purse had been stolen along with her mobile phone and she had no-one to help her find money to shelter the children for the night.  This woman was passed from desk to desk and no-one knew what to do.  Having come from Britain I am amazed by the lack of emergency social aid systems available in Israel.  Any city, and many towns in Britain have homeless units where emergency funds are available to offer enough cash to provide shelter for up to a week at a time,without the need of a permanent address. 

 Another shock I've had recently is being made aware of a woman in Jerusalem with four children who has an abusive husband.  Yes, she is a religious woman and she has to contend with extreme societal pressure from her immediate community to "hold the marriage together" but, when I enquired as to whether housing couldn't be arranged in an emergency battered woman's shelter I received blank stares.  Such shelters are [unfortunately] readily available in Britain and many are very modern and comfortable to lessen the stress of the move for the children involved. 

 Yes, Israel has an enormous military budget.  Yes, many of its inhabitants are living below the poverty level.  But where are the systems necessary for emergency situations?  And, more importantly, where are the people who understand the workings of the systems in place?  They were there at one time.  From the beginnings of the state they were an integral part of the government. 

I have been told that due to the great influx of the Russian Olim the systems were stretched to breaking.  But, I have seen that the Russian Olim generally are employable and employed and that they contribute well to society.  So, what happened?  What happend to the wonderfully informed Sochnot representatives of old?  I remember them well.  Why have they not passed on their knowledge and abilities? 

Do you have any evidence of Israel being neglectful other than a few isolated stories?  Are there any statistics available re: child neglect in Israel compared to other coutnries?  It seems you are making rather broad judgments about a culture without backing up the underlying facts supporting your conclusion.

--Z

Sociological explanations do not ride in the same epistemological boat as those in the hard sciences. You don't demonstrate their truth so much as present a compelling argument for looking at things in the way you propose.

That said, I propose that being at war is not an ennobling experience. Being the architects of the particular sort of war that Israelis have conducted for decades-the brutal occupation and cleansing of another people's land-is many times worse. This sort of thing ultimately brutalizes the occupier as well.

I'm sort of shocked that Tamar could wonder aloud about the trend she thinks she sees without referencing perhaps the single most defining aspect of Israel's political culture-that it has been for most of its existence an occupying power.

For some interesting thoughts on how this fact may contribute to the coarsening of national character, see Warschawski's Towards an Open Tomb.

Of course, Ismail, I'll have to disagree. Not entirely, mind you. But as much as you seem to hate qualified distinctions, I still think it's important to point out a few of them here. Sorry to do that to you.

While it's true that brutality brutalizes the reluctant brute, it's not as if every ethically suspect policy undertaken by Israel was decided in the name of national greatness, or in the spirit of nihilistic schadenfreude, with Wagner playing in the background. Many involved questions of a truly existential sense of plight - whether you think those concerns were warranted or not. There were surely many (too many) Israelis, ordinary citizens and leaders, who were cut from a mold much worse. But for every one of them, there was a lefty, Meretz/Communist type who did not such an unsubstantial job of trying to balance them out in the national discourse, in the political arena, and in the "national character", as you put it.

Every thing I've witnessed about Israeli society suggests that it has indeed been coarsened by militarism, as much as it has by the innumerable and barbaric acts of terrorism taken against it, so I don't disagree with you there. But I've never seen anything to indicate that the population wouldn't make substantial compromises and concessions if it felt it could do so on a pragmatic basis. The bulk of the Israeli electorate wants nothing to do with an occupation. But far from embracing a "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" mindset, they remain fully cognizant of what human gains would be required for withdrawals and other changes in strategy (if not tactics) to be justified. And of course, the people most affected by that of which you speak, are those who, by their very own experiences and direct participation, have been some of the most willing to speak out about what is going on. That deserves credit as well, even if you might think that to grant such credit would change nothing. I think that it recognizes that they are capable of making at least a few of the changes you would like to see, and not just available for moral condemnation and rebuke - even if those things have their purpose as well. 

Well, Isaac, it seems to me that your second paragraph simply restates the hoary Zionist trope that the highly sensitive and intrinsically ethical Israelis are sometimes forced by the death-loving Arab hordes to cross the occasional moral boundary. Much against their will, mind you.

This was a self-serving lie when Golda Meir, that pillar of ossified smegma, opined that, while she might forgive the Palestinians for killing Israeli children, she could not forgive them for forcing the Israelis to kill Palestinian kids. Oh, wait, Golda, there are no Palestinians, are there? You said so yourself.

You will have to demonstrate exactly how Israeli security depends upon the 40 year subjection of an entire population; while you seem to take this as a given, some of us are not so inclined.

You end up asking me to congratulate Israel for having some citizens, perhaps most citizens, who endorse an end to the occupation. I applaud their enlightenment, but I don't see how that should extend to diminishing by one iota my condemnation of Israel. If strong political condemnation had to be reserved for only those states without a single redeeming particle, we'd all be pretty quiet, wouldn't we?

My opposition to the Iraq war isn't diluted a bit by my recognition that some US soldiers help provide medical or educational or nutritional help to Iraqis, nor by there being some thoughtful and conflicted individuals wearing the uniform who question their presence there. As is the case with the "good Israeli", the humane soldier's internal psychological state interests me less than her behavior, i.e., how well she serves the interests of empire/occupation.  

oh shut up u queer (u cant deny ur gay ur the only articulate -however wrong- arab/muslim out there

Although I have an unerring eye for design, listen with empathy and patience and boast unparalleled culinary skills, I'm afraid I'm boringly straight in the schlong and cooter department.

Hope this doesn't disturb your dreams too badly. 

Dude ur so deep in the closet ur finding Christmas Ramadan presents

 hope that doesnt disturb ur dreams too badly 

So many questions.....why the continued delusional fascination with my personal life? I'm unemployed, I beat my wife, now I'm gay. What gives with that? Why the association of my being articulate with gayitude? Why make being gay an accusation at all, as though that would be a decisive blow (sic) against my political beliefs?

Oh, yeah....because you're a primitive who can't stand my exposure of Zionist brutality but are unable to actually mount a counterargument.

And you might want to think about coming up with your own lines. If you parrot mine, you'll sound literate and people might, you know, think you like sucking dicks or something. 

yeah because "hope that doesnt disturb ur dreams too badly" was a literary  masterpiece,absolute genuis that i couldnt help but parrot

but i actually have no problem with ur exposure of zionist brutality (sic) just find a muslim site to spew ur views on that particular topic (while ur at it share ur views on y'know gay marriage,human rights and all that jazz)

heres hoping u dont get stoned (via cyberspace of course) 

Enough. Tamar brought up a serious topic and some orangutan has hijacked her thread. I apologize for feeding the monkey and thereby participating in the hijack.

By the way, Tamar, why is it that you so infrequently join in the conversations you initiate? Or is my impression incorrect? 

ismail youre a self righteous  asshole with a one track mind answer this ;why cant you spout youre crap on muslim sites why bother us here?

There are a few reasons I don't often respond in comments.  First--I'm a busy person.  I'm writing this from the airport, which seems to be where I spend a good chunk of my time these days.   I carve out time to write posts every day, but comments could easily take another hour, and I'm not always prepared to spend that time.  Second, comments are often unintelligble, rude enough that they don't dignify a response, or not particularly interesting.  When I do see a comment that I think makes a good point in a way that isn't abusive or overdone, and that inspires me to think differently about my original point, I do respond, though sometimes I email that person privately instead of sharing it with the whole world.  Usually, though, I find that what I've written is all I want to say about the subject.  I may continue thinking about it, and be interested in the opinions that show up in the comments, but unless it's really revolutionary I don't think it's worth it to restate my position over and over again.  I do correct people when they make untrue statements about others or me, just for the sake of honesty and reputation.

Thanks for asking, though.  I promise I do read all of the comments, and appreciate the conversation. 

If Jewcy lets the "comments" by the other "Anonymous" and the super-clever "DieHipsterScum" stand, they may as well change the comments policy to say, "please be as non-productive, abusive and homophobic as possible." 

i actually am in agreement with some of ismails views but it seems all he does is vilify israel unfairly which is why people dont take him seriously .let him lay some of the blame on the Palestinians side and then maybe hes worth a debate but as it stands he comes off looking like an anti semite looking to provoke people

I fail to see how a couple of isolated cases of neglect somehow impugn Israeli society as a whole.  The author seems to be suffering from a form of intellectual laziness

"i actually am in agreement with some of ismails views"

Excellent. Which views would those be?

"...all he does is vilify israel unfairly ..." 

Please point out which specific comments are unfair. I maintain that I vilify Israel with complete fairness.

"...let him lay some of the blame on the Palestinians side..."

OK. I blame the Palestinians for making a stupid deal at Oslo which demanded nothing of their occupiers but ceded much. I blame the quisling Abbas for spending most of his time guaranteeing the safety of his people's occupiers instead of doing what leaders are supposed to do-making the safety of his people his chief concern.

These are not what you had in mind, of course, and I'll certainly give you that the Palestinians have made political and ethical blunders along the way. But I reject the whole mindset behind your comment. Generally, we don't have trouble selecting the malefactor in a political dispute. This doesn't mean that the aggrieved party is without fault, just that, on the whole, we see one party as more responsible for the mess. I say again, this is an entirely commonplace observation about political differences. Only when Israel/Palestine comes up does this preposterous demand that each condemnation of Israel be counterbalanced by an equal and opposite condemnation of Palestine rear its wooden head, like some geopolitical Newtonian law.

I have much more respect for folks who say that, on the whole, most of the trouble in the Middle East is due to the Palestinians, period. They're wrong, but at least they're playing by the rules. Sadly, this nutty "balance" demand is found in all sorts of Zionist discourse; note the insistence that plays, lectures, etc. taking a pro-Palestinian stance be coupled with Zio-friendly ones. Where else do we find such ridiculous formulae?

"...he comes off looking like an anti semite..."

You guys don't disappoint, do you? I was wondering how long it'd take for the anti-Semite accusation to appear. Are you not embarrassed to haul out this cowardly trope? Please cite one instance-just one-of any of the numerous comments I've made here which might be considered by a rational person to be anti-Semitic. There is no such instance, of course, but guys like you just can't help yourselves-you read a serious and robust political criticism of Israel and instead of addressing the particulars, you shame yourselves with reflexive name-calling.  

"Please point out which specific comments are unfair. I maintain that I vilify Israel with complete fairness"

I hope you were being typically satirical bitter ;  because its kinda hard to vilify fairly  

"OK. I blame the Palestinians for making a stupid deal at Oslo which
demanded nothing of their occupiers but ceded much. I blame the
quisling Abbas for spending most of his time guaranteeing the safety of
his people's occupiers instead of doing what leaders are supposed to
do-making the safety of his people his chief concern."

you know full well what i blame them for and it aint for abbas's guarantee of safety for israel (just curious ;who do you think needs that guarantee more?)

 "I'll certainly give you that the Palestinians have made political and ethical blunders along the way."

So would you categorize suicide bombings as a political or "ethical blunder"?.........

And yes you come off looking like an anti-semite.Dont give me that tired crap about separating anti zionism from anti semitism. I dont believe that you can look at this objectively and separate jew from israeli .

Oh and with regards to what views of yours i agreed with ;it was a while ago and i couldnt be bothered to remember it .youre a smug sanctimonious prick and not worth the effort. (cue ismail taking the high road )

"Please point out which specific comments are unfair. I maintain that I vilify Israel with complete fairness"

I hope you were being typically satirical bitter ; because its kinda hard to vilify fairly

"OK. I blame the Palestinians for making a stupid deal at Oslo which
demanded nothing of their occupiers but ceded much. I blame the
quisling Abbas for spending most of his time guaranteeing the safety of
his people's occupiers instead of doing what leaders are supposed to
do-making the safety of his people his chief concern."

you know full well what i blame them for and it aint for abbas's guarantee of safety for israel (just curious ;who do you think needs that guarantee more?)

"I'll certainly give you that the Palestinians have made political and ethical blunders along the way."

So would you categorize suicide bombings as a political or "ethical blunder"?.........

And yes you come off looking like an anti-semite.Dont give me that tired crap about separating anti zionism from anti semitism. I dont believe that youre capable of looking at this objectively and separating jew from israeli .

Oh and with regards to what views of yours i agreed with ;it was a while ago and i couldnt be bothered to remember it as youre a smug sanctimonious prick and not worth the effort. (cue ismail taking the high road ..........................or not; hes been known to let his bitchiness out on occasion )

Looks like anon was so proud of his silly comments that he posted them twice.

I thank him for his utterly non-responsive musings. He has cemented the last few bricks into place and thus has walled up his credibility, like some hapless Poe victim, for all time.

He has the thanks of a grateful world.

PS- For those unfamiliar with him, when anon says "sanctimonious", he means "smarter than me".

"Looks like anon was so proud of his silly comments that he posted them twice"

It was actually due to a messed up internet connection but thanks for addressing my points in a manner befitting youre age 

PS for all those unfamiliar with him,Ismail uses big words to overcompensate for having a small dick 

"...Ismail uses big words to overcompensate for having a small dick"

Actually, none of the words I use are particularly big ones. I do note, however, that you used the unnecessarily lengthy "overcompensate" when "compensate" would have been more correct. Given your theories of word use, I wonder what you are telling us about your own phallic heft.

But enough...I know when I am beat. The "small dick" comment was a clearly decisive move; in this one deft maneuver, you have parried my every argument and shown that you are the better man.

Gee, accusing my opponent of having a small dick....why didn't I think of that?  

Apparently I underestimated the smallness of said dick...............

Ismail, Anon's replies were not all that unsubstantive. I think your response is actually not doing much justice to your previously stated purposes for joining the thread.

As for thinking that the Palestinians have nothing to answer for, that they are not helped by first identifying and then distinguishing between their political and ethical "blunders", that vilification reflects fairness as a motivation, or that the political environment among the Palestinians is not worth mentioning, I'll leave all that to you and anon to battle out. You seem to be doing a vigorous enough job maintaining that such concerns are beneath your dignity to address and worthy of no responses other than ad hominem distractions. But I do have a question of my own, if I may. And that is your contention that it is important to make sure that one party to a dispute or conflict is assigned at least 51% blame/responsibility. I'm not sure where you got this idea, which seems about as definitive an example of a "geopolitical Newtonian law" as a "geopolitical Newtonian law" could be defined, should such things exist. It's certainly not a very defensible view according to any historiographical analysis. 

Your respect for die-hard ideologues notwithstanding, the fact is that recognizing the wrongs of more than a single party to a conflict establishes credibility in looking at something objectively - an aim whose importance I'm not sure you understand. Maybe this predisposition reflects your uniquely held perspective on rights which you previously characterized as "absolute", which could be the case in a world in which no one's rights ever come into conflict with anyone else's rights, I suppose. An interesting proposition, but not one that you can credibly expect to go without the extraordinary burden of serious legal challenges based on centuries of practical jurisprudence and legal scholarship, let alone widespread acceptance. 

And one other thing, although I assume you're well-intentioned in distinguishing between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, your unwillingness to accept the concept of ethnicity, let alone the fact that the Jewish people are widely defined as an ethnicity, puts your views in a rather extreme and much less defensible category. Some anti-Zionists reject the concept of the nation-state altogether. But from what you've written here, it seems that you do not. You have expressed that ethnicities should hold no legitimacy in determining the criteria of nation-states generally. This was also what the Soviets believed, much to their later discredit by ethnic Lithuanians, Latvians, Estonians, Khazakhs, Turkmen, Uzbeks, Armenians, Georgians, Azeris, etc., etc., etc. who fought for their own freedom and finally gained their independence after the collapse of the Soviet Empire under the weight of its many, many other discredited notions that defined it ideologically. 

The only way in which the Jews differ is that their religion, like that of the Japanese (Shinto) and Tibetans (Tibetan Buddhism), becomes a unique and rather characteristic trait among them as an ethnicity by virtue of the fact that other ethnic groups don't share that specific religion with them. But unless you want to argue that Japan or Tibet (or the countries of the former Soviet Union, for that matter) are not entitled to statehood due to their unique religions, then it seems that you might want to clarify your anti-Zionist views in such a way that accounts for ethnicity. Surely you wouldn't want someone who opposes the concept of the state altogether to deny one the Palestinians without clarifying their beliefs on whether the Palestinians at least constitute a nation within the current geopolitical system, as Golda Meir refused to do. (Obviously this was the context of her remark - that they did not exist as a nation. She was not stating that individual human beings who collectively referred to themselves as "Palestinians" didn't exist).

Oh, and "ossified smegma"? I'll have to admit that you seem more acquainted with the bone-like properties of certain body fluids than I ever will be! No anti-"gay" comment there. I just thought it was an odd construction... at least in a verbal sense.