Integration vs Separation. In praise of Separation

By Ted Belman

A year and a half ago, Dialog conducted a survey of Israeli Jews which was reported on in an article in Haaretz, entitled  “Most Israeli Jews wouldn’t give Palestinians vote if West Bank was annexed”:

“The majority of the Jewish public, 59 percent, wants preference for Jews over Arabs in admission to jobs in government ministries. Almost half the Jews, 49 percent, want the state to treat Jewish citizens better than Arab ones; 42 percent don’t want to live in the same building with Arabs and 42 percent don’t want their children in the same class with Arab children.

“A third of the Jewish public wants a law barring Israeli Arabs from voting for the Knesset and a large majority of 69 percent objects to giving 2.5 million Palestinians the right to vote if Israel annexes the West Bank.

“A sweeping 74 percent majority is in favor of separate roads for Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank. A quarter – 24 percent – believe separate roads are “a good situation” and 50 percent believe they are “a necessary situation.”

“Almost half – 47 percent – want part of Israel’s Arab population to be transferred to the Palestinian Authority and 36 percent support transferring some of the Arab towns from Israel to the PA, in exchange for keeping some of the West Bank settlements.”

The results of this survey should not be viewed with western eyes but with Middle East eyes.

For most of America’s existence, immigrants to America came from Europe or the Spanish countries to the south.  In both cases the immigrants shared the same culture and religion. They were all absorbed into the melting pot and became Americans. Millions of Jews immigrated to the US between 1880 and 1920 and, despite anti-Semitism and discrimination, prospered.  America stopped Jewish immigration during the twenties, thirties and most of the forties. Thereafter discriminatory laws were removed and anti-Semitism was frowned upon. Most Jews assimilated by emaciating their religion. Orthodox Jews rejected assimilation but they too prospered in America. Orthodox Judaism and America accommodated each other.

With the end of colonialism, Europe accepted many immigrants from the third world, most of whom didn’t share their culture, values or religion. So instead of the melting pot, Europe embraced multiculturalism which was based on “the preservation of different cultures or cultural identities within a unified society as a state or nation.” The ultimate aim was to integrate the new immigrants into society.

But it didn’t work.

Zvi Mazel, a fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and Israel’s former ambassador to Sweden, Romania and Egypt  said in a YNET interview:

” [the Swedes”]create[d] a situation in which any new immigrant can live in the country for a long period without finding work. There are those – mostly Muslim – that do not wish to integrate into society, and prefer to live in ghettos at the fringe of the city,”

“[Muslims] are unwilling to assimilate into Swedish society despite all the incentives and benefits they received.”

Muslims are not prepared to live by the values of the enlightenment and instead insist on Sharia Law being recognized as the value system for Muslims and eventually for everyone.

The same goes for all the other countries in western Europe.

In 2010, Angela Merkel, declared multiculturalism, a failure and said that Germany must force them to learn German and to integrate into society at large.

Two years ago, Nicolas Sarkozy, likewise declared multiculturalism a failure.  He  said ;

“we’ve been too concerned about the identity of the new arrivals and not enough about the identity of the country receiving them.

“Our Muslim compatriots should be able to live and practice their religion like anyone else … but it can only be a French Islam and not just an Islam in France.”

This means that Sharia Law must defer to French law.

David Cameron, who also declared it a failure, put it this way:

“We have tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values. We have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and the mainstream.”

“We’ve been too cautious, frankly even fearful, to stand up to them. If we are to defeat this threat, I believe it’s time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past. Instead of ignoring this extremist ideology, we as governments and societies have got to confront it, in all its forms.”

In line with this new thinking, Cameron ordered an investigation into the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in Great Britain after the revelation of evidence that the Egyptian-government-designated terror group planned an attack that killed three British tourists in Egypt in February. The Muslim Brotherhood are now threatening violence in Britain.

But contrary to such thinking, Sharia Law continues to make inroads into the UK legal system.

These problems exist though the percentage of Muslims in these societies is between 5% and 10%.  Even if immigration is slowed by the destination country, the percentage of Muslims is sure to increase due to their much higher birth rate.

America is not immune to these problems although they are only beginning. Now that President Obama has installed a multitude of Muslim Brotherhood people in many departments including, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, and Justice and has opened the doors wide for increased Muslim immigration, we can be sure that the US will catch up with Europe.

Israel is subject to a different reality.  20% of its present population are Arabs, 90% of whom are Muslims.  If Judea and Samaria were to be annexed the percentage would go up to 33%. While Europe is greatly concerned now with their Muslim problem, you can be sure that Israel is much more concerned, given the much higher percentages and given the fact that their Muslims are being indoctrinated to want the destruction of Israel and incited to support violence and terror. Is it any wonder that Israelis feel the way they do.

The Muslims in Europe want to live separate and apart according to their own ways.  The same goes for Israel’s Muslims. While Jews in America and Europe see themselves as part of the broader society, Jews in Israel are in the majority and want nothing more than to have separation between them and the Muslims.  Thus the findings of this survey.

Of course there are Muslims in Europe, America and Israel who want to be part of the larger society and who wish to assimilate to some degree.  Their freedom of choice is severely limited though, by community pressure.

In both Europe and America, the goal is integration.  But this is only possible if one accommodates the other. But the only accommodation we have seen so far is the enlightenment accommodating to Sharia law. The west must take a stand in defense of their identity and values.

The more tolerant we are to alien values, the more we undermine our own values and identity. (See: Tolerance and Inclusiveness, vs Justice).    Even Huffington Post says Obama and Kerry Are Going Too Far To Prove We Are Tolerant and Inclusive.

But why should the guiding principal be integration rather than separation?

The law in America in the first half of the twentieth century upheld the principal of “separate but equal”.  Then in 1954, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the law and held in Brown v The Board of Education:

“Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group.

“We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. “

But it should be noted that this landmark decision was limited to separation of races in the field of public education. It says nothing about the separation of members of different faith communities.

Separation in itself is not a moral question but a cultural question. Both Islam and Orthodox Judaism believe in the separation of men and women to different degrees. Beyond that, both Britain and America had private schools for girls and for boys and still do..  And this separation in some cases continued even into universities. It was not only OK to separate boys from girls but advisable as well.

The Amish in America and Europe as well, live totally separate from society at large and no one criticizes them for it. They live this way in order to maintain their values and their communities. They do so while totally accepting the laws of the land.

The same could be said for various religious orders such as for Monks, Nuns and Hareidi Jews.

Freedom of religion in the US is ensured by the First Amendment to the Constitution which provides “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  Nevertheless, the US courts have prevented the free exercise thereof by outlawing certain practices like polygamy which is contrary to the laws of the US. The Court stated that “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices.” This Amendment in effect has created a “wall of separation between church and state”.

All Islamic countries reject this principle and to one degree or another identify themselves as Islamic states subject to Sharia Law. The Constitution of Iraq was drawn up with the aid of American constitutional experts after the invasion of Iraq. It provided that, “Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation” and “No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.” It also provides that “No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established”. I fail to see how Islam and democracy are not in conflict. No one questions whether any Arab state is both democratic and Islamic. Being Islamic only is good enough.

This Constitution also “guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and guarantees the full religious rights of all individuals to freedom of religious belief and practice such as Christians, Yazedis, and Mandi Sabeans.”, but not of Jews.  But such provisions are ignored in practice.

The constitution of Iran declares Iran an “Islamic republic” subject to “Qur’anic justice”.  In the recently approved constitution for Eqypt , there is “a guarantee of equality between the sexes and an absolute freedom of belief, but Islam is the state religion.” Quite contradictory don’t you think.

Zionism gave birth to Israel. Israel was to be the national home of the Jews subject to the religious and civil rights of other people living there.  Contrary to the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate, Israel has granted citizenship to the Arabs living there. Now the government of Israel is demanding that it be recognized as  “the nation-state of the Jewish people”. Israel is not a Jewish state in the way Iraq is an Islamic Republic. The Israeli left want it to be a state of all its citizens, but they are very much in the minority.

I find nothing wrong with Jews or Arabs wanting to live in exclusive communities and to go to parochial schools. But there should also exist larger communities where anyone can live and there should also exist public schools for those who want them. Beyond that no one should be discriminated against and the state must protect their rights.  But Israel should have rules about what the Arabs can teach in their mosques and schools.

In my essay, The Historical Jesus, I wrote:

Strangely we must go all the way back to the Book of Numbers in the Torah where it is written “the people began to commit harlotry with the daughters of Moab. And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their Gods, and the people did eat and bow down to their gods”. G-d was angered by this and ordered Moses to kill the wayward Israelites and the Torah states that four and twenty thousand were killed by Moses. One Israelite took a Midianite woman into the sanctuary before Moses and the congregation and fornicated there with her. Phinehas, the grandson of Aaron, in a moment of zeal killed them both and G-d rewarded “him and his seed after him, the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was jealous for his G-d”. In Psalm CVI, we read that “his zeal was counted unto him for righteousness”.

These writings are the origin of the attitude that Jews must not have intercourse with gentiles for it would pollute them. Also that G-d rewards those who are zealous for the law and brook no compromise.

[..]

The occupation of Judea by the Greeks (333 BCE) not only resulted in the Hellenization of the Jewish establishment but also the Hellenization of Jewish religious practices. This Hellenization was not unlike the intercourse with the Moabites described above. The masses led by the Maccabees rose up (167 BCE) and defeated the Greeks over a period of 30 years and cleansed the Temple of their pollution. The masses yearned for a return to the purity of the Jewish people and the Jewish religion. All foreign influences had to be expelled. Chanukah as you may know, means “rededication”.

[..]

Josephus reports in Antiquities that a movement began at this time among the people “who had an inviolable attachment to liberty” and were “zealous for the law”. He further notes that “the nation was infected by it to an incredible degree.”.

Thus the stage is set for an endless succession of revolts culminating in final Uprising in 66-70 CE.

On the one side we find the spiritual successors to Phinehas and the Maccabbees who were messianic, nationalistic, anti-foreign, anti-accommodationist and zealous for the law.

On the other side we have the Romans supported by the establishment i.e. Herodians, Pharisees and Saduccees. They were all accommodationists or as some historical writings put it, “seekers after smooth things.”. To the nationalist camp this was a betrayal of the worst kind and was “breaking the law”. They resented the foreign king Herod, the foreign appointed High Priest and sacrifices in the Temple by and on behalf of foreigners. They also resented that the Jewish daughters of Herod were marrying blood relatives contrary to Mosaic Law. They referred to them as prostitutes. In the Gospels, Jesus is shown to be befriending or eating meals with “prostitutes” and “tax collectors” whereas in reality it was the actions of these “prostitutes” and tax collectors which so offended the nationalist camp.

[..]

In the tradition of Phinehas and the Maccabees, James (the brother of Jesus) viewed the Romans and the Herodians as polluting the Temple. He held that Jews should not fraternize with the foreigners which included breaking bread with them. Paul on the other hand argued that the Law no longer applied and that anything could be eaten with anyone and circumcision was no longer necessary. Paul wanted gentile converts to be converted without the necessity of circumcision and bondage to Mosaic law and went so far as to argue that the Law no longer applied to Jews. James found it necessary to advise all communities in his movement that he in effect sets the party line and to police Paul.

Alas the Romans destroyed the Temple and massacred over one million Jews. Many were taken into slavery in Rome. From then on,  the Jews lived separate and apart. The Enlightenment in the seventeenth century, began the breakdown of the walls of separation at least for some. The Nazis ended this movement toward integration and imposed an extreme separation resulting in the Holocaust.

Liberal Jews in the US and in Europe today are assimilation at ever increasing rates. Only a Jewish embrace of our old time religion will secure the Jewish future and for that matter the survival of Israel as the state of the Jewish nation.

Will that be separation or integration?