The Jewishness of Israelis: Responses to the Guttman Report

Preface

Preface The question of the religious attitudes and behavior of Israelis Jews has long exercised the Israeli public. People are interested in religious behavior, especially in comparing their own with that of others, but there are social and political reasons that also account for this interest. First of all, media reports and surveys of Israeli public opinion suggest that there is a great deal of tension between religious and nonreligious Jews. Part of this tension is attributed to the necessity for people whose styles of life are different to live and work together. But it is exacerbated by the sense of many Israelis that religious Jews constitute a small minority of the population and possess undue influence in Israeli politics. The standard estimate of the percentage of religious Jews in Israel hovers around 20 percent of allJews, though it is sometimes reported as even lower. That being the case, it is often charged by both the media and politicians of the secular left that "religious" legislation , that is, legislation that imposes restrictions on public life in Israel such as closing of theaters and coffee houses on the Sabbath (restrictions which have recently been eased), or banning public transportation on the Sabbath , or the requirement that all marriages betweenJews be performed in accordance with Jewish religious law, is unfair and "undemocratic." This legislation is generally termed, "religious coercion." The label alone gives a good sense of how it is viewed in the media and by large numbers of Israelis . Religious parties, it is charged, represent less than one-fifth of the population but form a balance of power between the two major parties and thereby succeed in imposing their demands on all Israelis. The Guttman Institute study on the religious attitudes, beliefs, and behavior of Israeli Jews provided the fullest source of data about how IsraeliJews behave religiously, what they believe, how they viewJews of different religious orientations, and what role they feel religion ought to play in public life. It is, therefore, not at all surprising that the study received widespread attention. xvii xviii Preface The report eschewed the labels of "religious" and "secular." It suggested , at least by indirection, that IsraeliJews cannot be dichotomized in this manner. Instead, it reported its findings in terms of levels of religious observance. It found that IsraeliJews can be ranged along a continuum in terms of their religious practice. In general, the report found, Israelis were far more traditional in their behavior and beliefs than had heretofore been imagined, and, in the words of the report itself, "the rhetoric of polarization" within Israeli society between observant and nonobservant was exaggerated, at least from a behavioral point of view. Although the report occasioned an enormous amount of commentary and discussion, it received relatively little attention in the United States, even in Jewish circles. Our original purpose in preparing this volume was to afford the English-speaking reader access to the major findings of the Guttman Institute report and to a cross section of the commentary accorded that report by both the Israeli media and leading Israeli intellectuals. We anticipated producing an edited volume in which our own contribution would be rather modest. As the volume developed we found that the primary materials we had intended to present required interpretation. Indeed, a more careful look at the material suggested that its findings had, at least in part, been misunderstood. Furthermore, we found that our own reflections on the report led us in directions we had not, heretofore, anticipated. As we became more involved in the project of presentation, the volume became more and more of a commentary and reflection by us on both the Guttman Report and on its reception in Israeli society rather than a detached exposition of the report and its reception. In other words, there is more of Liebman and Katz in this volume than we had initially intended. Nevertheless, we hope there is enough primary material to allow the reader to judge our interpretive effort for him/herself. The first chapter simply reproduces the Highlights booklet referred to in the Foreword by the AVI CHAI Foundation. In addition, the Appendix contains ten of the papers presented at the Van Leer conference, held in December of 1993. That conference brought together leading Israeli intellectuals to discuss the report and its implications for Israeli society . We chose those papers, half the number actually circulated, which in our opinion represented the range of responses by the Van Leer invitees , to the report. Chapters 2...