Structural Cleavage in the Zionist Congregation

Baheth for Studies   (15-01-2005)

Back to Studies page

* First: Rifts in the Ethnical Structure of the Israeli Society:

1.     Essential Structure and Particularities

2.     Terms of Ethnical Cleavage:

3.     Societal Aspects of Ethnical Cleavage

* Second: Rifts of Ideological Composition

1.     Substance and Particularities

2.     Terms of Ideological Rifts:

3.     Societal Aspects of Ideological Cleavage

* Third: Clefts of Religious Composition

1.     Essential Structure and Particularities

* Terms of Religious Cleavage

* Jewish Religious Confessions:

* Conclusion

Preface

 The definition of society presented by the social intellectual –Harry Johnson- may be one of the clearest definitions that tackled this connotation, in which he pinpointed a group of characteristics that distinguish a society, using a different conceptual terminology used in other societies, such as: “the nation” and “the people”… So, Johnson’s perspective of society is that “it is a community, distinguished by the following characteristics: a specified (land) region, proliferation through sex, a comprehensive culture and independence”.[1]

When penetrating cognitive paths for studying societal set-up in Israel, the researcher’s attention is stuck mostly –in this definition- by the “comprehensive culture” particularity, specifically the culture concept, as being a composite” made up of values, beliefs, norms, mental expositions, emblems, ideologies and other similar mental output”,[2] acquired by the individual, being a member of the society, especially if we add to the “comprehensive culture” the necessity of having historical and civilizational mutuality among all the members who form that society.

Jews, other than “consolidationists”,[3] and particularly Zionists, have used to create a special ideological concept for the significance of “socialistic consolidation”,[4] where they strived –in their reproduction of this concept- to consider Jews from all over the world as “one nation”, who –by mere gathering in one united region (geographically speaking)- will be able to establish a consistent society, by force of oneness of race, religion, history and culture!!!...

It is quite obvious that this “conceptual setup embraces an exaggerated alteration of abstract concepts such as religion, culture and history.” This process implies an attempt to ideologize a group of social, intellectual and historical differences, so as to tune up with the special goals of the Zionist movement which tries hard to resolve “the Jewish problem” by gathering the Jews and by establishing their own peculiar national home country in Palestine.

Between the scientific definitions of society, and the ideologizing Zionist attempts, there floats the objective reality of the societal interior of Israel, which remains closer to being “a social web consisting of disharmonious components that conjoin a hodgepodge of humans, which we could rarely find something similar thereto, in any other country in our contemporary world because it is made up of several Jewish groups and confessions who are of divergent racial and lingual origins, and whom nothing unites other than their belongingness to the Jewish religion. In addition to these groups and confessions, there is an Arab minority which represents Palestine inhabitants who remained after continual killing and expulsion operations directed against the majority of its Arab proprietors, and after plantation of Jewish settlements to give rise to an estate for those Jewish communities therein.”[5]

This disharmonious hodgepodge (in the civilizational sense), which exists within the boundaries of a single geographical extent, is not a cognate mixture, meaning that these groups do not melt to form a unity, they are –in fact- closer to a cumulative mixture, which is similar to geological accumulation and could truly be called “a society of geological structure.”[6] it is a geological cumulative structure, consisting of layers that accumulated on top of one another, where new layers did not cancel the former ones. These layers could be either similar or contrastive, though they are contemporaneous and contiguous but un-interactive. All these layers are called “The Jewish religious echelon.” We could –furthermore- say that the Jewish identities (that form the Jewish society_ are also a cumulative geological structure as well.”[7]

This “accumulated” society had been gathered from “separated Jews” (Shatat), who were scattered in countries all over the world, forming human blocks, most of which were living in seclusion, leading a special distinctive life within the walls of what is known as “the Jewish ghetto”. This appellation was given to “any place in which Jews used to live outside Israel, before the rise of the Zionist state, because they considered all different countries (Shatat) as a ghetto, whether this ghetto was surrounded by physical or moral unseen walls.”[8]

Consequently, it is quite natural that the size of lingual and cultural disparity between the various Jewish factions who flocked to Palestine would be relevant to great number of different numerous societies which they came from. “Seperative life in different parts of the world has led to the rise of the problem of lingual, intellectual and cultural dissociation in Israel, which is quite natural because Israel includes people from about seventy-four countries that are substantially different in language, culture, mentality and thinking, and all of them have to melt in one cultural ambience.”[9]

Within this cumulative “social ambience” it is possible to monitor a group of structures that form the “entire geological structure” which composes the Israeli society. It is also possible to monitor several vertical and horizontal societal rifts (lengthwise and widthwise), inside this accumulating “geological” structure within the Israeli social entirely.”…

The most remarkable rifty societal structures in Israel are those noted in the Israeli social, cultural and political infrastructures…. Which could be listed under the following three headings:

1.                   Ethnical Structure

2.                   Religious Structure

3.                   Ideological Structure

* First: Rifts in the Ethnical Structure of the Israeli Society

1)   Essential Structure and Particularities

The Israeli society comprises a mixture of different interlacing ethnics that grouped within one geographical extent, arriving from over one hundred countries, conjoined –one way or another- by nothing but their belongingness to the Jewish religion, through what remains notable –at the level of “Jewish reunion” in Israel- is that they –ethnically speaking- are split into two main groups:

a.       Sephardim Jews: Which includes Jewish communities coming from Asian and African countries.

b.       Ashkenazim Jewish: Which includes Jewish communities coming from European and American countries (namely North America).

It is worth mentioning here that there isn’t a certain specific standard to distinguish between a Sephardim and an Ashkenazim because both terms have certain common particularities and differences. This is what made researchers in Israel (namely social ones) disagree over a clear and thorough definition of the two terms (Sephardim and Ashkenazim), through the two terms are being used in the conventional sense, based on geographical and social particularities lined to how European or non European is the country from whi8ch the Jewish individual (the Israeli) has come.

Using the above indication, we shall try to define the idioms relating to those two major ethnics in Jewish society, nothing that the main pivot on which this classification will be based, will depend on the geographical origin as well as on the cultural identity of those communities in accordance with the following definitions and particularities:

v             Ashkenazim:

is a Hebraic word which means Germany in Hebrew. An Ashkenazim (according to this denomination) is any Jewish person of German origin. Later on, this naming was commonly used for Jewish existing in northern, eastern and mid Europe, who are also known as “Western Jews”, and whose origin goes lack to the days of the Roman Empire’s expansion over midst Europe. During this period some Jews settled in different European countries, mainly in the Slavian region, to the north of the Black Sea. In the Middle Ages those Jewish communities adopted the “Yedish” language, which is a German language to which Hebraic words had been entered. Thenceforth, those communities were known as Ashkenazim (i.e. Germans).

Those Ashkenazim were recognized –all through their existence in these European areas- by living within their walled quarters, known as “ghetto”. They were isolated from the natives of the countries they lived in. this seclusion continued until the enlightenment period in Europe, i.e. up to the second half of the Eighteenth Century.

On the whole, “Western Jews” and Ashkenazim are two terms, used in Israel, but have one meaning, i.e. to indicate one ethnical groups, especially during the periods that followed the rise of the state (in 1948), where referred to Jews coming from countries whose communities practice the European type of living and thinking.

v             Sephardim:

Sepharad is a Hebraic word that means “Spain” and Sepharadi means “a Spanish” and the plural thereof is “Sepharadim”… This denomination is basically designated to those Jews descending from Jewish communities that had been banished in great numbers from Spain and Portugal by “Inquisition Courts” that had been established in these two countries in 1992.

As a result, a few numbers of Jews living there migrated to Europe, while the majority headed to North Africa and to the Middle East, where they settled –and later on- became part of the countries’ social structure and part of the cultural components as is the case of North West Africa’s Jews, and the Jews who went to Iraq or those who joined their ancestors in Iran as well.

From the idiomatic point of view which prevails in Israel, a South and East European Jew is normally excluded from being a “Sephardim”. It is only those Jews coming from Arab and Islamic countries (especially Asian countries) who are classified as “Sephardim”. The only case in which those Jews are considered “Sephardim” is when dealing with religious and doctrinal jurisprudence of an individual, coming from “South Europe”, in accordance with Jewish Orthodox teachings, because discrepancies between Ashkenazim and Sephardim –in the religious sense- are not the same as those in the ethnical sense.

As a whole, this group is generally characterized by its low economical, civilizational and cultural level on the one hand and undoubted by its conservative religious feature on the other hand. Because this group suffered neither European oppression nor racial discrimination, nor did it support Zionism in its early rise, it became subject to different forms of racial discrimination from Western Jews.”[10]

v             Mezrahim:

Jews of the Arab countries are known by different denominations such as Sephardim (same as Eastern Jews), sons (offsprings) of the Eastern sects, Jews of the East, Asian and African Jews and other namings as well. But “Mezrahim” (in Hebrew) and Eastern (in Arabic) are the most commonly used expressions on the Israeli street, in the academic milieu and among Leftist Political organizations for differentiating them from “Sephardim”, because “Mezah” in Hebrew means “the East” in Arabic. Hence, Mezrahims are Jews coming to Palestine from Egypt, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and some other Arab countries.

2)   Terms of Ethnical Cleavage:

Theoretic innateness of “Ethnical Rifts” between the two main groups in Israel (Sephardim and Ashkenazim) is attributable to the cultural structure which governed the mentality of the communities falling under these two groups. The Ashkenazim (western) for example –who are the basis in this ethnical categorization- look at the “OTHER” through the eyes of the European culture, and thus, the formational process of that “OTHER”, according to the Ashkenazim's mentality, would apply the same cultural and cognitive means that had been specified by the Western culture. This was one of the most influential factors on the (western) Ashkenazim's look at the (Eastern) Sephardim. The picture of the Easterns, presented by the Western culture, was drawn by Orientals who had seen nothing of the Eastern countries (namely Arab and Islamic ones) other than deserts, bedouinism, under development, cultural ignorance and tribal domination, in addition to social inferiority and fascination with the fabulous world and mythology.

On the other hand, apportionment of Jews into two main different and disharmonious categories goes back –civilizationally and historically- to the Middle Ages, i.e. to the time when Jews were split into two groups. Some from the first group chose to stay and live in Western Europe while others chose migrate to Arab and Islamic countries, and to some South European countries as well. Reciprocal reaction between each group and the cultural ambiance in which this group lived created a certain number of contradictory notions and concepts that took the form of inharmonious convictions, cultural and religious rites, language, habits and traditions. Consequently, these differences accompanied both group; i.e. when the Sephara where living in America and in Europe, they refused to accept Ashkenazim in their society and furthermore, refused marriage from them. This status remained as such until the picture was turned upside down round the beginning of this century, where Ashkenazim started to accede foremost positions, power centers and principle posts.

From the historical perspective, related to “religious heritage legitimacy”, the Sephardim Jews consider themselves more high bread, more (religiously) educated and more open minded than their Ashkenazim kinsfolk. This religious legitimacy was of no advantage to the Sephardim within the classes set-up of the Israeli society, because the majority of the “Fathers” of the Zionist Movement which –at the beginning- toiled to establish an institutional frame for the Zionist Project, and –at a later stage- founded the Hebrew state, where graduates of the “religious ambience” which had been headed by “The Ashkenazim Sect”. On the other hand, the Ashkenazim religious current (westerns) formed a significant support to the nationalistic project of the Zionist current, unlike the Sephardim religious current (the Easterns) who were and (part of them) still stand against the Zionist Movement and against the project of establishing the Jewish state.

One of the most prominent terms of the existent ethnical cleaves inside Israel is class constitution within the pyramidical structure of the Israeli society and the three dimensions thereof: Economical casteism, Social casteism and Political casteism. These three casteisms overlap in their daily subsistence and produce different behavior bearings that start with “intellectual phantasm” of the “OTHER” that is sectarianally different. This image applies to many other terms relating to life patterns, residence locale, worship places and even anthropological concepts of cumulative relations between the two main groups.

From this “conceptual structure”, categorization and classification emerge at the social level, where discriminative features –on basis of absolute estimational subjectivity- float on top of the Israeli social wave.

Consequently, a Jew of Asian or African origin is a Sephardim and a Jew of European or American origin is an Ashkenazim, though this classification leads the classifier to a problematic scrutiny on the estimational level, due to the existent flash between “geographical and cultural” view points, i.e. The of Greek, Bulgarian or Italian origin –geographically speaking- are of European origin, but from the cultural point of view are linked to the Eastern culture and are therefore classified as Sephardim in the denominational sense. Within this problematic frame, another paradox is quite noticeable, as a result of differences in civilizational influence, because classification is exercised on consideration that Jews of European roots are effected by the “Christian Civilization”, while those of Asian or African roots are more likely effected by the “Islamic Civilization.”

Generally, terms of ethnical chasms inside the Israeli society become clearer as we ascend towards sectarian collective formations, especially those formed within the Sepharadine circle, because the ruling class was of  “Western” Jews, and hence, it is quite natural that opposing forces rise from their “Eastern” kinsfolk. This has been historically confirmed by the protestation that broke out in the Israeli society and was led by “Eastern” Jews, starting with “Wadi Al Salib” events (July1959), passing to the demonstrations lead by the “Black    “ movement (in the early 70’s) up to the constitution of one of the most important Israeli parties, which relies on the “Eastern Identity”, i.e. “Shass” religious party.

3)         Societal Aspects of Ethnical Cleavage

Right from the rise of the Hebrew state, and until lately, Israel has always been considered –by Eastern Jews- an Ashkenazim state, due to the noticeable differentiation between Eastern and Western Jews inside the Israeli society, to the degree that Sephardim Jews carried out protestations –during the 80’s- reclaiming equity with their kinsfolk, i.e. the Western Jews, “particularly because of the deepened passive Israeli societal attitude towards “Eastern Jews” who were considered discreditable, racists and savages. Such was the case of Moroccan Jews, who were looked upon as criminals[11].

In this manner –and until very recently- most of the leading posts and positions –whether in the government or in parties or even in public establishments- were almost exclusively engaged by Ashkenazim Jews. Furthermore, all preliminary constitutional steps that paved the way for the rise of the state had been carried out by immigrants from Europe and Russia; i.e. the Ashkenazim. Accordingly, there is a sort of noticeable hostility between an Eastern and a Western Jew, because the latter assumed all authority centers in the civil service, the army, education, industry, commerce and finance, the thing which made Eastern Jews feel that they are second degree citizens, and consequently, are victims of Jewish discrimination and arrogance”.[12]

This discordant casteism inside the Israeli society is more likely to have been founded because of the Ashkenazim's disdainful look of the Sephardim. The former sees himself a graduate of countries of civilization, education, enlightenment and culture, while he considers the latter a graduate of Asian or African countries that are know for their primitiveness and ignorance. Owing to the seriousness and significance of this subject, which is part of the project of establishing a Jewish state, which has to be protected and fortified, it was deemed essential –from the Ashkenazim's view point- that they themselves should perform this difficult mission, since they attain the required intellectual and scientific faculties in addition to their monetary capabilities and political influence.

That much of the Ashkenazim's view point was not deemed sufficient, and matters took to theorization and ideologization for this view point, where most of the social studies –dealing with the racial problem in Israel- attributed this problem to the low-grade prestige of the Sephardim and Mezrahim, and not to the racial and class structure of the Israeli society. Shomol Eizenstat and his numerous social researchers students bestowed a rationalistic halo to this ideological cover, presuming the bulk of the cultural arsenal that exists in the American “functional” studies for development and modernization.”[13]

As a natural result of the disharmony that arose between ethnical groups inside the Israeli society, the relation between these groups became controversial instead of being emulative and neighborly. This kind of relation prevailed between religious and secular Jews was well as between Western and Eastern Jews, in addition to the basic discordance between Arabs and Jews. All these struggles and clashes involve civilizational, cultural and class dimensions, the roots of which go deep into the basis of the Israeli structure.

Furthermore, these struggles do not occur because of abstract contemplations and generalities, they are in fact a direct reflection of a struggle over resources due to the political and institutional frame work adopted by this struggle, the thing which makes internal struggle more interactional and effectual to political stability of the governing coalitions.

Yet, because of the political, intellectual and materialistic capabilities of the Ashkenazim group, superiority in this internal struggle went to them. It is noticeable that despite the gap in class-structure and in political decision making, between Western and Eastern Jews, it seems that Eastern Jewish sects tended to fuse into the Western Ashkenazim culture, and abandoned all or almost all their traditional cultural heritage, replacing it with “Western” cultural patterns, and as a result, the Ashkenazim Jewish dominated culturally as well.”[14]

This means that despite discrimination against Eastern Jews, they were able to get to participate in decision-making by waving their own culture and traditions, and by adapting the Ashkenazim attitude. The best to gain mastery in this were Iraqi Jews who outmatched their Eastern kinsfolk, whereas they managed to merge quickly in the Zionist crucible, such that several of them reached important and factional posts.”[15] Hence, the Eastern Sephardim movement which set out to face Ashkenazim racialism did not expand to stand in the face of the state, which they considered “an estate for all Jews”, it rather wreaked its wrath upon occupants of key posts and positions in the state.

Yet, the extensive social and political strife exercised by Eastern Jews allowed them to reduce the size of the gap between Western Jews and themselves, and that is why today –after the rise of the Sephardim powers- social distribution based on ethnic allegiance no more engrosses a fundamental rank in the Israeli societal structure, because the gap that appeared in the very early days of the Israeli state was between poor and helpless Sephardim living in emigrational camps inside Israel on the one hand and an elite well organized and stringent Ashkenazim. This gap originally effected almost all particulars and aspects of life, but nowadays, it has quantitatively and qualitatively become narrower, where it now differentiates –for example- between one who has a computer and another who cannot afford buying one, or between a family that owns two cars and another that has only one, and according to the general norms that differentiate between the two ethnics, this is only looked at as a narrow and reduced margin.

There remains a final remark, which is worth mentioning. It is the existence of a third assemblage besides the Sephardim and the Ashkenazim. This third group is called “Sabbarin Jews”,[16] which denomination is frequently used after the rise of the state in 1948 (as part of the social fusion policy of Jewish emigrants) to refer to Jews –of all Jewish ethnics- who are born in Palestine, and whose father and mother were born there as well, i.e those Jews who are supposed to have merged in the Zionist crucible state and have become Israelis (in the Zionist sense), meaning that they have abandoned their mother culture and adopted this new-coming national crucible culture. Some researchers choose to call them “The Israeli Jews”.

* Second: Rifts of Ideological Composition

1.    Substance and Particularities

The term “ideologically” is one of the social, philosophical and political concepts with no single agreed upon sense. Out of numerous discussions that tackled this expression, we find one political and social approach that seems to favored most. This definition suggests usage of the term “ideologically” “for presenting groups of coherent mental representations, relating to political and social organization and is defined as representational systems that work in the field of political doctrine and symbolic violence.”[17]

In the field of political ideology, political scientists were able to draw-up a definition in which they specified political ideology as being “an orderly arrangement of thoughts and beliefs that explains a person’s attitude towards the society, and leads to adoption of a behavioral pattern which embodies these thoughts and beliefs and agrees these with.”[18]

This definition of political ideology is likely the nearest to what we want to apply when tackling the rifts of ideological composition of the Jewish society in Israel.

Presence of an ideological complex in the Jewish societal structure was not simultaneous with the rise of the Hebrew state in Palestine. Its origins –in fact- go back to the eighteenth century, whence most of the Jews were living in Europe (including Russia) inside their “ghettoes” and their enclosed quarters. But as soon as the “Enlightenment Movement” started to spread out in the Jewish milieu, ideological distinction started to take its course inside the political and social composition of the Jewish.

In the beginning of the Eighteenth Century the majority of the Jews in the world where living isolated inside their “ghettoes” in Europe where very little interaction took place between themselves and the surrounding neighborhood. Jews saw their own affairs within the cult’s limitations, drawing upon the Jewish canons (Halakha), which was composed and developed by Jewish Rabbis over hundreds of years.

In the Nineteenth Century, winds of liberation and nationalistic awakening overwhelmed Europe. These winds penetrated the “ghetto” fences as well. The Enlightenment Movement pushed away the Jewish religion, which had been the major determinant of the Jewish affiliation issue, and introduced the norm “Be a Jewish in your home and a human outside it”, in order to merge the Jews in the “Western” societies where they lived, namely those in East Europe. The Enlightenment movement rejected Jewish isolation and traditions which laymen considered the source of all their sufferings. Jews were divided into two parties, one stood for this enlightenment movement, while the other stood against it.

This division was clearer between East and West European Jews. Jewish clergy men forewarned secular Jewish of religions punishment in case they did not recover their senses and repent. None of the two parties was able to convince the other of the sincerity of its viewpoint, and hence the struggle continued between them[19].

Amid and due to this struggle, more liberal attitudes were born. These attitudes were more liberal towards education, culture, philosophy and theology, leading to the rise of a number of Jewish intellectual movements, some of which followed a liberal religious orientation while others adopted political nationalistic ideologies. As a result of the Enlightenment effect of secular orientations that invaded Europe, plenty Jews gave up strict Orthodox religiosity and tried to merge completely in the broad society within which they were living, inside European countries.

When the Zionist Movement set out to solve the Jewish problem, it ideologically relied on several liberal and secular thoughts and concepts which were far from religion and religiosity. There same thoughts and concepts were what the Zionist movement tried to implement in the new state it had established in Palestine. It tried hard to give the political state a secular (democratic and liberal) identity, similar to that of the liberal Western countries.” But things did not stop at the point which Zionist pioneers had wanted. Presence of another ideological complex –made up of an important pious section- inside the state led to an inevitable ideologized struggle over the state identity.

As this religious class could not be ignored, the Israeli state founders (all of whom were secularists) strived to contain this struggle and to reduce its acuteness. The state leaders –then under leadership of David Ben-Gurion- utilized the virtues, the traditions and the symbols of the Jewish religion, trying to establish religious institutions that are affiliated to the state, in an effort to ensure predominance of their principles after bestowing a sacred halo thereon on the one hand, and to please religious parties and leaders thereof on the other hand.”[20]

But this convolutional containment attempt, adopted by the Zionist leadership to encompass the religious class did not live long because the social and political climates of the Hebrew state were effected by two significant incidents that had a great input and reflections on the unbalanced composition structure between the secular and religious currents.

These two incidents are: the 1967 war and the 1977 elections. In the 1967 war, Israel reached its “utmost expansion on Palestinian territories and on parts of the neighboring countries. The importance of this incident lies in the Israeli army’s capture of the West Bank which was considered by the Jewish religious class a sacred land and a part of Israeli territories. This land seizing operation had a direct effect on activation of religious inspiration inside the Israeli society, where the religious masses looked at what happened as a “miracle” that portends divine salvation of the Jews. The second incidence (1977 election) had its significance as well, being the turning point whence the Labour Party’s leadership of the state was replaced by the Right Wing under leadership of the Likud coalition. This important change in the Zionist structure was accompanied by a change of the religious group’s position, who now sided with and supported the secular rightists. What is more important in this stage is the increase in religious radicalist’s tone, and the wider and active participation of religious powers in the Israeli political affairs. This conversion –in fact- did not reflect convergence between Zionism and religious parties. It reflected a stronger religious presence that started to replace faltering Zionism, where as the new religious parties embraced the Zionist nationalistic aspirations and translated them into religious expressions. In other words, religious parties took hold of secular Zionism, and hence the secular-religious struggle intensified and became unsolvable.”[21]

2.    Terms of Ideological Rifts:

Without much sweat, an observer can discover the “terms” that denote disparities in most internal movements of the Israeli society, resulting from structural differences in thinking and visibility between secular and religious groups, towards several basic and central issues.

The ideological rift is not a fissionable one (sharp-nelled) in the Israeli society. In fact, it is a progressional rift existent between two main intellectually different groups; i.e. the secular group and the religious group, each of which is further split into smaller combinations; i.e. ideological secularists, traditional secularists and center secularists. On the religious side, there is the Orthodox (Haridim) group, the national religious group (Zionists) and the traditionalists etc…

So, there is always large headings that denote the differences between the two above mentioned groups. These beadings from –in both groups- a basic landmark that defines the distance that separates them from the goal they strive to achieve, in implementation of their ideologies.

a.     Identity:

It is quite natural for the Zionist Movement to try to establish a “nationalistic state”, similar –in identity and allegiance- to the Movement itself. But the powerful religious current on the one hand, and the Zionist Movements need to support this current on the other hand demanded granting the religious current past of the “Promised Land”. Despite this barter trade, carried out by “Ben- Gurion” to ensure the religious group’s political support, just after declaration of the state in 1948. Yet, “that convolutional operation had later on led to some confusion –particularly after occupation of 1967 territories- over determination of the state identity; i.e. is it a secular or religious state? It is obvious that the origin of that identity is secular because the ideology on which it was based (The Zionist Movement) during establishment of the state was of a secular dimension, the leaderships that strived to found the state (Hertzle , Ben- Gurion, Wisemann) were secularists as well. Secularists therefore insisted that the state’s identity –nationalistically and not religiously speaking- is based on the morals philosophy, history, the Torah and conjoint destiny, assuring the necessity of keeping away from religious thoughts, religious mode of living and preserving the secular identity in all matters that touch the general outlook of the state.

Later on, as the religious influence in the state institutions increased, and as this religious group expanded inside the Israeli society, this identity became obscure and confusing, especially when several actions, relating to Jewish religious practices became firmly established –whether obligatory or voluntarily- inside the Israeli society.

“All Jewish Israeli –for example- have to follow the Orthodox liturgy in marriage, divorce, registration of births and mortalities. In Israel, there is no civil marriage. Any person unwilling to get engaged in accordance with the Orthodox practices would have to leave Israel (in most cases to Cyprus), and on getting back they are looked upon as a “sinful citizen”. Children of such “unmarried” persons are classified as illegitimate, unless the parents’ marriage has been religiously vindicated and sustained.”[22]

Religious people look at “Israel’s identity” in view of the fact that “religion” and “the state” are one integral social and political unit, and the state must be a religious on,[23] that implements religious codes.

b.     Social Behavior

Social behavior is one of the coarse immature terms that appear in the Israeli society composition, where formation of behavioral structures of the two main groups (secular and religious) within the scope of ideologized patterns, may reach –in some cases- the verge of estrangement between these two groups. Secularists for example tend to adopt the European behaviour patterns (and later on the American pattern) in their personal life, starting with family relations, passing to education and curricula contents, ending with full abidance by national and religious occasions.

Religious groups –on the other hand- do not agree to any personal behavior that does not conform with Jewish religious codes. They believe that the “Halakha” provides the right answers for all aspects of life. They move along two parallel routes to influence the general behavior of the society. They –on the one hand- oppose any of the secularists’ deeds that are incompatible with religious codes. They even issue laws and decrees that support their view point (such as prohibition of breeding pigs all over Israeli lands), while –on the other hand- try to implement religious codes (when they can), as is the case with their continual efforts to prevent the commons from desecrating Saturdays.

Owing to that, disputes between secular and religious groups are never rare. Several incidents recurred on a wide scale, such as throwing stones by strict Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem in protestation against traffic on roads on Saturdays. They as well oppose posters stuck on public busses and indecent clothes that women wear. They also stand against public swimming pools in Jerusalem, where both sexes are allowed on Saturdays.

No doubt these deeds are radical reactions, about which secular authorities can do nothing.”[24]

Regardless of how strongly or delicately these cleavage terms are practiced, what we find in the nowadays Israeli state of affairs is that the developments on the “Social Map” led to one conclusion; i.e augmentation of religious groups’ influence, especially in some big cities such as Jerusalem and “Bani Barak”, the thing which raised the tension acuity between the two main groups (secular and religious) and made many people complain of suffocation imposed on them through practices and decrees which they consider time worn. Opposite this, in Haifa or Tel Aviv for example, the situation is completely different from that in Jerusalem. In such cities, the number of secularists increasingly out matches that of religious people, and this situation allowed issuance of some local decrees that give citizens full freedom to do what they like, without religious restrictions, whereas the Municipal Authority in Tel Aviv proposed a municipal decree that permits opining of amusement places on Saturdays.

3.    Societal Aspects of Ideological Cleavage

In the outer appearance of what the ideological composition of the Israeli society reflects, we find two adjacent trends within the social ambit of the state, and each of them tries to benefit from the other’s presence:

a.             The first trend is related to the legal and institutional aspects of the state and decrees thereof, most of which are of a secular liberal nature, similar to those of West European regimes. Despite the secularity of this trend it tries to benefit it from the Jew’s sacrosanct symbols. The name of the state –for example- is religious, its insignia (the candle stick David’s hexagonal star) is a religious symbol; its holidays are religious, the names of places are religious and the state’s occasions have their religious significance as well.

b.             The second trend is related to Jewish religious rites, ceremonies and obligations, which –due to the political power of religious parties- has become able to find legal cover for itself, especially where matters are related to Jewish personal status and to some Jewish codes that pertain to lawfulness and proscription.

In general, it is possible to monitor –from the inside of this ideological composition- a group of social phenomena resulting from cleavage therein:

v             Religious people tend to live separately in their own geographical areas, where no secularists are permitted, in an attempt to implement their religious practices, even in their private narrow and closed milieu. Religious people live particularly in less luxurious areas and in areas of religious specialty (such as Jerusalem).

v             One of the remarks deduced by social studies in Israel is that friendship relations between secular and religious people is rather absent. Though they meet on streets, at public establishments, at work, in trade and many other places, Yet, they do not home visit each other.

v             Severance many get to the point that blood transfusion and parts transplantation from a secularist to a religious person is proscribed.

v             There are cases of non acceptance of intermarriage between the two groups, whereas each party avoids getting into the other party’s world through the familial door. Religious people are more observant of this phenomenon. Marriage between the two groups does not exceed 1% among religious youths.

v             There is also a central problem, which is the question of who is a Jew, which has become an ideological indicator that reflects the size of dispute and disharmony between secular and religious people. As is known, up to the early 60’s, a Jew was (legally) considered so only if he or she is born of a Jewish mother. Secularists have –since then- been trying to separate between religion and nationality, while religious parties insist that the “state” has the right to decide who is or is not an Israeli citizen, but it has no right to decide who is or is not a Jew. After long lasting argumentation the Orthodox institution had the upper word, and the Jewish identity is being identified on basis of the Jewish religion.

To determine which of the two groups has more supporters or followers within the Israeli society is not an easy test because estimations vary a lot. This variation is attributed to the two following factors:

                  I.             To specify a person is secular or religious is quite a personal matter.

                II.             There is a mix-up between Judaism as a religion and Judaism as traditions because traditions could be religious and could also be ethnical. This depends on the Jewish society an Israeli settler had come from.

So, there is a sort of agreement on dividing the Jewish society in Israel into groups that fall –according to religious commitment- between mere secularism and religious extremism. Yet, according to Israeli sources[25] it is possible to say that 20% of Jewish inhabitants abide by religious duties and ordinances according to their own personal inclinations and traditions (traditionalists), while another 20% are considered absolutely irreligious. Yet, since Israel was founded as a national state for Jews, Saturdays and most religious occasions were assigned as official days-off, and all Jews show full understanding to these occasions, though abidance to precepts thereof is confined to religious people only.

According to the same Israeli sources, secular Jews form the majority of the Jewish society, and this majority leads a modern life, similar to that of Europeans (i.e. without special abidance by religious precepts), though they might abide –to some extent- to religious ordinances. Within this majority, many choose a moderate traditional pattern of life while others may join one of the conservative religious currents.

Despite these softening atmospheres of the religious people’s movement, and with regard to their size and number within the Jewish society, secular intellectuals and thinkers (leftists and rightists) always remind and warn of the seriousness of religious expansion taking place inside the state[26]. Liberal thinkers and progressive strugglers will be in a submitting and subservient position if left alone with the strict and rigorous Judaism.[27]

It remains to point out that the ideological cleft has created large tensile areas and frequent impacts and clashes as well. Those impacts and clashes were classified under the headings “peaceful opposition” and “cold confrontation” until the end of 1995, whence a religious lad assassinated the secular Prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, giving full rein to a new era of secular-religious hatred that betook a different dimension between the two social compositions in Israel.

So, tension areas diversified and varied between the two basic social compositions in Israel, because religion had become the prominent dispute between the two groups. Right from the beginning of the Zionist project in Palestine, there has been friction between secular and religious sections of the society, and this friction has recently changed into a struggle of civilizations, where the Easterns –one after the other- renounced socialism, expatriation and dependence on democracy, retreating to the cozy social conservative spirit and to the religious orthodoxi of their previous rambling life.[28]

* Third: Clefts of Religious Composition

1.          Essential Structure and Particularities

Judaism as a religious trend did not deviate from the general successions which the “religious mind” had passed through, whether linked with “celestial or non-celestial faithfulness”, mainly because Judaism has a long history that stretches back to the early rise of “religious speculation.” This is what made it more adherent to indications and symbols of the Jewish cogitation, where it is possible to observe some of the most prominent particularities of the Jewish religious composition, i.e. the phenomenon of “sectarian and denominational fragmentation, based on the many explanations and interpretations of what is religiously sacrosanct according to Jewish reasoning. It is true that “Jewish religious fragmentation” is of the age of the Jewish religion itself, but what is meant here is the study of this phenomenon from the angle of its relation with internal formations of the Israeli (Jewish) society, where the rise of Jewish sects in the modern age is linked to the Jews’ state of affairs in Europe at the end of the Middle Age and the beginning of the age of enlightenment, specifically during the 18^th and 19^th centuries, with all scientific and industrial developments witnessed during that era, in addition to the political and social revolutions, the build up of secular thinking in Europe and emergence of a new understanding of citizenship, built on a philosophy that does not take religion into consideration in its definition of this citizenship, the thing which allowed Jews to participate therein. But as a reaction to the European non Jewish society’s openness on Jews after the French Revolution in 1789, Traditionalists tried to run away from liberation and mergence by self seclusion, assuring the need to return to solidarity of the sect and its peculiarities, without which Judaism will not survive, and the Jewish people will loose its preference.”[29]

As a reaction to the new European concept of citizenship, there appeared –among the Jews- a religious movement that called for mergence, association and abandonment of ghetto seclusion. It further demanded traditional preparation, based on the Talmud and rabbinic instructions with a modern preparation and education that escorts neoteric notions and rejects some of the traditional concepts that are deep rooted in the Jewish religion. This movement also called for permitting performance of prayers in other than the Hebrew language. The movement also encouraged giving-up obligatory religious hats and intermixation between the two sexes in religious choirs.

Amid those cultural and educational protestations, new Jewish religious movements came to light as an action for adopting the enlightenment course and as a reaction against deserting the roots (origins) adopted by the Jewish religious intellect. Consequently, the following three major cults emerged:

v                  Reformational Judaism

A modern Jewish movement widely spread in the United States and invites Judaism to keep abreast with the developments of the age. It is known as “Reformational Judaism”, in comparison with “Orthodox Judaism”. The reformative current is considered one of the Jewish enlightenment movement off springs. This current appeared among Jews in Europe as a direct effect of the “Haskala”[30] and was effected by the Christian Reformational Movement led by Martin Luther. Reformation widely spread in Europe and formed the main current among European Jews up to 1880. “As a known, reformative educational institutes were established in Europe in that period and teaching of modern languages replaced teaching of the religious Talmud.”[31]

In an attempt to soften the Talmud and the rabbinical directives and interdictions, Reformational Judaism gave the Torah a concept quite contradictory to what is establi8shed in Orthodox Judaism. It denied that the Torah is an inspiration revealed to the prophet in its fixed unchangeable version. It says that the Torah is an afflatus from God, and this afflatus was worded and formulated by man. This characteristic made it (the Torah) come out blunged with historical occasions and humane concepts. Based on this view point, some researchers considered that “the Jewish religion –from the reformative side- is a progressive one which continuously urges for conciliation between its doctrines and its basis on the one hand and requirements and necessities of mentality and reasoning on the other hand. Consequently, this direction stands up for cooperation with other religions, especially Christianity and Islam. Reformational Judaism acknowledges –from the Holy Book- statutes and legislations that suit the modern age and civilization there of, because legislations are “yields of their age” and time, and continuity thereof depends on their spiritual and moral quiddity.”[32]

Therefore, a Jew –according to the reformative trend- has to accept the divine law as long as the historical situations, with which these versions and texts deal, are still existent. When these situations change, legislations should be replaced to suit the new circumstances.

Consequently, all special religious ordains, provisions, rites, rituals and worships that are linked to the state (the kingdom) and the (holy) temple should be dropped with the fall of the state and the temple.

v                  Orthodox Judaism

It is known as the traditional “Rabbinical Judaism”. This movement follows the basis of the Jewish religion as has been understood and approached for ages by Rabbis. Orthodox prevailed in European societies since the destruction of the Temple in the year 70 A.C. up to the beginnings of the Enlightenment Age (Al Haskala) in Europe, i.e. in the Nineteenth Century.

Judaism, now prevailing in Israel is “Orthodox Judaism” which stands in the face of Reformational Judaism; where Orthodoxy looks with doubt and dubiosity at the letter’s presentations and considers them a danger that threats the Jewish religion and the Jewish presence as well. Lest Reformational liberational call leads to apostasy, Orthodox Judaism considered and classified propagandists of the new creeds as dissidents and distructionalists. It urged for reservation of inherited traditions and concepts and called for precise implementation thereof.

v                  Conservative Judaism

In between open Judaism which is affected by the Enlightenment movement, and intransigent Judaism, a third movement appeared. This third movement tried to conciliate between the openness of the Reformatives and the seclusion of the Orthodoxy, and is known as “The Conservative Current” or “Conservative Judaism”.

“Conservative Judaism” is a movement, of limited expansion, prevailing mainly in the United States of America. It calls for softening the strictness of Jewish religious laws, and for introducing some changes to prayers and religious traditions. Yet, it calls for preserving the language of those prayers (Hebrew) and for abiding to religious codes (i.e Saturdays and holidays).

This movement emerged as a “compromising reaction and reconciliational status facing the “Orthodox Movement’s actions against the “Reformational Movement. It calls for acceptance of modern acquisitions, yet , keeping its loyalty to the Torah and to Ribbinic traditions.

This sect could not realize its expected prepvalence, and the number of its followers remained limited. Conservative Jewish in Israel, who summed to 1500 persons in 1976 are closely attached to conservative establishments in America. Although the National Assembly of Conservative Synagogues had joined the “International Zionist Organization” in 1976, the principle Rabbinists –Overwhelmed by Orthodoxy- still deem all decisions, marriage contracts, divorce contracts and all other procedures performed by conservative Rabbis as illegitimate. Contrary to that, the Conservative Movement in Israel lately received some official aids from the Israeli government”.[33]

* Terms of Religious Cleavage

As is the case with all matters that are associated with building up of “intellectual directions”, particularly religious ones, religious cleavage in the Jewish reasoning is as well correlated with interpretative disunity terms of concepts introducing mechanisms and verifications thereof in the Jewish societal composition.

Therefore, items of religious cleavage are adherent –in the first place- to the interpretative meaning of the religious text and are reflected –secondly- on the individual and communal attitudes of the religious Jewish group.

Due to the conceptual introductions that are affected by enlightenment directions inside the Jewish cultural movement, Reformational Judaism ended up with applying relativity to all persuasions. Its followers refuse to believe that all matters relating to religion are sacred and holy, and that is why most of the Jewish religious concepts and tenets are either annulled or amended according to Reformational Judaism convictions.

Some of the annulled or amended concepts and tenets are:

v                  Amendment of the prayers language, permitting recitation thereof in English and in German, after it had been limited to Hebrew.

v                  Cancellation of all class discrimination between parsons and other Jews.

v                  Incorporation of music along with prayers (accompaniment).

v                  Admittance of males and females together into temples (places of worship).

v                  Prohibition of veiling (covering) the head during prayer recitation.

v                  Negligence of various proscriptions stipulated in the Jewish law, especially those relating to food stuff, augury and non appointment of women Rabbis.

v                  Denial of the notion of resurrection and heaven, replacing them with immortality of the soul.

v                  Omission of Saturday ceremonials[34].

Looking at this interpretative perspectives to explain canonical provisions, it is noticeable that “Reformational Judaism” is far influenced by the Christian reformational current (Protestantism). It was not by mere coincidence that emergence of the biggest block of Reformational Judaism happened to be in the United States, the thing that deepened conflict and struggle between the Orthodox direction and itself. Despite its closeness to Zionism and Israel, the Reformational Movement neither enjoys official presence in Israel, nor is it acknowledged by principle Rabbinicals or political authority. Supporters and propagandists of reformation in Israel still struggle to have Israeli political and religious authorities’ acknowledgement.[35]

Facing this, Orthodox Judaism calls for full abidance to rites, ceremonials, formal liturgies and to many behavioral disciplines such as Saturday interdictions and outer appearance (clothing, apparel and hat). “The true nature of classical Judaism (Orthodoxy) can be as easily noticed as was adoption of this law. Faith and principles –excluding national ones- are of an insignificant role in classical Judaism, and ceremonial practice –instead of the significance or principles thereof- come in the first place.”[36]

Since the Jewish majority residing in Israel is secular and irreligious in its most, religious Jews –most of whom are Orthodox- always strive to reserve their inner privacies that relate to habits, traditions, convictions and special social ties, most of which are normally criticized –and sometimes attacked- by the secular majority that dominates the Israeli society. Owing to the negative attitude toward the Jewish state and regulations thereof, religious Orthodox lead a life which is much humbler than that of Secularists, and further more, they are of a poor educational and civizational standard, the thing that kept them standing at the lowest step of the economical ladder.

The reason behind that is attributed to the continual egging –in the Orthodox society- on clinging to and perseverance of the Jewish religion. “Those Orthodox learned nothing but the Torah teachings and therefore, the majority thereof became poor students, untrained to practice any type of works. A typical Orthodox family normally consists of ten members, living in a two or three rooms apartment, where all the neighbors are Orthodox as well. Parents usually look well after their children but sometimes do not feed them well. As for the apartments they live in, they are almost bare of furniture, no pictures or paintings on the walls, televisions are prohibited, children fight day and night, while the father spends most of the day at his religious institute. It is a world of hot religious debates and discussions that gush out over the wretched droughtful ghetto quarters that are overcrowded with Orthodox inhabitants”. [37]

In general, Orthodox Judaism is characterized by its adherence to Jewish liturgical provisions and principles as stated in the Talmud and Torah, and by its strictness in implementation thereof. Orthodox in Israel form more than 90% of the total Jewish population. Orthodox Judaism achieved great success in Israel: It became the official sect in the state (the state does not acknowledge any of the other Jewish currents). This is traceable to the Ottoman era in Palestine, whence they followed “a sectarian system”… and a sect has a crops of clergymen… and Orthodox Jewish h ad a dominant influence over this board. Consequently, with the rise of the state, its government did not recognize but the Orthodox sect, and as such Orthodox Judaism predominated all the Jews in the state.”[38]

·                     Societal Forms of Religious Cleavage

In the “Social Exterior” extending alongside “The Israeli Interior” appears the religious composition of the Israeli society, taking the form of “conceptual cubes”, some of which bear a “mere religious explication” as is the situation between Reformationalists and Orthodox, and in sects, branching from the Orthodox cult, while other conceptual groups proceed from the political consideration which is religiously ideologized, within which we find two trends: The first is “Haredic” religious and the other is “Zionist” religious.

In the most religious manifests we fine that Orthodox Judaism frames the religious life of the state and the population. It is the “holding grip” that dominates provisions and laws related to the individual’s life affairs, putting “the religious authority in the hands of the Orthodox institution. Reformative and Conservative Rabbis, coming –in the first place- from the United States do not perform marriage deeds or any other official tasks that fall within the competence of the “religious authority”. In the Israeli army as well, conservative and reformative Rabbis are not treated as clergymen, they are –in fact- looked upon as secularists. Several attempts to amend the Israeli law to give Reformational and conservative Judaism a rank, similar to that of Orthodoxy's had continually been rejected by the Knesset. Anyhow, the Israeli state did approve and acknowledge all procedures and formalities carried out by non Orthodox Rabbis outside Israel, relating to adoption of Judaism, that had been carried out by non Orthodox Rabbis outside Israel.”[39]

Despite this apparent power, Orthodox Judaism is not a single coherent block as it may seem to anyone outside the ideologized scope of this sect. In fact it is split –like many other sects in the world- into a group of big currents and small groups that entertain contradictory view points either over understanding and explaining Jewish religious texts, or over behaviorisms that are expected to reflect implementation of those texts. Some of the important contemporary Orthodox movements are:

a)                 The “Hasedeem”: It is the name given to followers of Hasediya, the singular of which is “Haseed”. This word is Hebraic that means “A pious and God-fearing person” or a “Jewish sufi” (a Jewish Mystic). Its plural is Hasedeem, which refers to a Jewish group that emerged during the “Hashmonaiem era”. The followers of this group were exorbitant in their piety and devotion, resembling –to a certain extent- Sufism (Mysticism) in Islam”.[40]

Nowadays, it has turned into several groups, scattered all over the world, namely in the United States and Israel. Each of these small groups has got its own Special name, which is normally that of its founder or its "Sheikh"    (spiritual guide). Some of these groups are named after the village or town they were formed in. The Hasedeemes use the "Al Yiddish" dialect, which is a mixture of Hebrew and old German , though they use pure Hebrew in their religious ceremonials, being the language of the Holy Book.

Despite numerousness and plurality of "Hasedeem" groups, the most famous thereof is a group led by a rabbi called Ba'al Shem Tof (Israel Ben Aleasar), in the 18^th century. It is he who had conferred the name "Hasedeem Movement" to the group he was leading. This appellation was passed around to denote pious and devoted Jews, who are faithful to religion, and more over, who are followers of this movement, believing in its ideas and notions"[41].

"Hasedeemes" were divided into two groups. The first is pro Zionism and supports establishment of the Hebrew state on Palestinian land. They consider Zionism a secular atheistic movement that interferes in divine predestination because ( in their viewpoint) salvation of the people  of Israel will come through "Jesus the Savior".

B.           The Mutanagdeem:

It is a religious movement that appeared in the 18^th century as a reaction to "Hasedeem" and its incompatible reading of the Jewish religion.

The word " Mutanagdeem" is Hebraic and its singular is "Metnageed", which means  " opposition, contradiction, and rejection of Jewish Sufism" (Hasediya)[42].It is also known as "The Lithuanian Movement", in remembrance of its geographical region.

Opposition of the "non Hasedeem" Orthodox Jews to the " Hasediya Movement" started when its founder was still alive, whereas a number of Rabbis met in Brodi city of Poland, for issuance of a decision to oust the founder of the "Hasediya Movement". It is said that the ousting was issued in 1757 and was not approved by all "Mutangdeem Rabbis".[43]

Matters between " Mutanagdeems" and "Hasedeems" now are not as bad and hostile as they used to be. Both are now co-existent –especially- in Israel. It is true that the conflict between these two groups had – or almost had- disappeared, yet, we still notice its presence from time to time, through less recurrently and less vigorously.[44]

C- Neturi Karta:

An Aramean word adopted by Hebrew as an expression to mean" City Patrons". This group comprises a small class of religious extremist Jews (The Sekrage) , living in Jerusalem , and claim that they defend the Holy city. They withstand Zionism and oppose the state of Israel.[45]It is a naming that appeared in the Talmud, and was given to those who are entirely dedicated to the study of the Torah.

Today, this name is given – according to followers of the Zionist Movement- to a fanatic extremist sector of Jews in Israel, who do not exceed in the "Mia't Shaa'reem" quarter in Jerusalem. This sector does not recognize "The State of Israel" and stand against using the Hebrew as a conversational Language (being the language of the Holy Book). Those "City Patrons" are anti-Zionists. The are very observant not to buy or rent extorted houses or dwellings.

On every anniversary of the declaration of the Israeli entity, "City Patrons" declare mourning; recite prayers and burn flags to express their opposition to the state. This sect has tried –during the 1948 war- to hoist white flags and surrender to the Jordanian army. They never ever had any doubts that Zionism represents a dreadful sin against Jews' Destiy"[46].

All these movements had branched because of the disparity in the interpretative explication of religious texts.

But there are other religious trends that left the mother denomination's womb after the rise of the Zionist movement due to disparity in "Political explication" built upon the religious text, and related to the question of competence and ability of the "national state" on Palestinian territories.

Partition inside the Israeli society has created two different trends:" The Haredeemes" who are anti Zionists and " The Dateemes" who are pro-Zionists.

1-  The Haredeems:

The word "Hareed" in Hebrew means "a pious godly God- fearing person"[47] and its plural is Haredeem. It is a term used to refer to a "religious Jew who observes the Jewish religious laws and adheres to the codes there of. This term is figuratively used for non-Zionist religious parties such as "Shass Party" and "Yahodat Hatorat" party. The word "Hared" it self is of political rather than religious origin. Sometimes "Haredeems" are referred to as the "Ortodox Forefathers" or "Intransigent Orthodox" so as to differentiate them from "Modern Orthodox". They continually show their discontent with "marginal annotations" because they believe that their sect is the only acknowledged and recognized form in Orthodox Judaism. This vocabulary derivational sensitivity has encouraged the use of the Hebraic Israeli term "Haredi" which is now finding its way into English terminology as well. Haredi , which was originally used in the Torah means "Fear" or "Anxiety", while the one stated in "Ashaya Book" figuratively means "God- fearing"[48].

2-  The Dateem:

The idiomatic meaning of this word is "Religious Zionists" (where Dat means religion) and date means religious. So, linguistically speaking, this term does not differ much from Hareedi, difference falls in their look at Zionism i.e. Harediya is anti Zionism while Datiya is pro Zionism or rather part of it.

Dateemes are the religious Zionists who founded a Zionist current that admits most of the comprehensive basic Zionist predicaments, after giving them an ethnic religious face. The 5^th Zionist conference (1901) adopted a resolution relating to establishment of a religious movement that would take part in polishing the Jewish nationalistic spirits among Jews, i.e to show full coherence of nationalism with religion. Religious Zionists developed this program by putting forth all traditional religious thoughts afte dropping the moral dimension and reserving the ethnic one. This way, they vindicated Zionism to religious people and Zionised the Jewish religion[49].

* Jewish Religious Confessions:

Amid this interwoven tessellated religious composition, we find that there are other smaller religious groups and confessions besides the above mentioned three. Those smaller Jewish confessions are existent –on a lower seal- in Israel and in other countries over the world.

The most important there of are:

a)            "A Karraoun" (The Reciters):

 A faction whose roots go as far as the 8^th Century, and believes in verbatim observance of the Torah (The five books of Moses) being the only and sole source of religious legislation. Though "The Reciters" are considered a Jewish faction and not an independent sect, yet, its followers have their own religious courts and tend to marry from their same faction. Today, there lives in Israel about 15000 of "The Reciters" who populate the area of Al-Ramla, Asdud, and Beer Al- Sabe'.

Some think that those Reciters –due to their rejection of all kinds of falsification – are the most susceptible to apprehension and hence move to the right lane. Al Samawa'l Ben Yahya (an Arab) describes The Reciters and says: " Most of them gradually moved to Islam and only very few remained behind. Those "Reciters" are quite receptive to Islam because they have always been far from Rabbinic jurisprudents who had religiously oppressed this faction"[50].

b)            The Samaritans:

Samaritans consider themselves the real Jews; i.e. real Judaism is theirs. This faction believes only in the Torah. Their sacred place in Jerezim Mountain in Nablus and not in Jerusalem (where the altar is). They also believe that Jerezim Mountain in the place where Abraham immolated (sacrificed) his son Isaac[51], and it is also the place where King Solomon erected the first sacred altar.

Samaritans believe that they are descendants of the ten lost Israeli tribes. They amount to 600 and half of them now live in the city of Keriat Lusa (near Nablus), not far from the summit of Gerezim mountains, while the other half lives in an isolated quarter in the city of Holon, near Tel Aviv.

Samaritans speak Arabic in their daily life and a kind of ancient Hebrew in their religious ceremonials.

These two groups, living in Palestine seem to be the only Samaritans in the world.

* Conclusion

This political gathering of what is known as "the State of Israel" is a unique pattern in the modern age, whether relating to the means and mechanisms employed to conjoin them, or relating to the theorized ideological structures foe erection of the state. But, because of the disparities in the components of this gathering, a number of cleavage elements was brought along.

Every group of this gathering has its approach for meeting with the other groups and is unwilling to renunciate its distinguishing characteristics. These phenomena had led the Israeli composition to be unique and special, where elements of individuality could be noted as follows:

 First: The basic remark is that the Israeli society is a rifty one, due to the variety of groups that had formed their social structure, and due to the diversity of religious and political trends that govern the "cultural and intellectual structure" of individuals in this society.

Second: As for ethnic cleavage which had secreted several political trends (The Labour party is of Ashkenazim majority while the Likud Party is of a Sephardim majority), we notice that disparity between political (non- religious0 groups is not based on deep ideological differences, because most of these groups are Zionist in principles and in tendencies. Political differences are attributable to detailed standpoints relating to the present and future of the state (i.e attitude towards settlement, the Arab- Israeli conflict, withdrawal from Gaza strip and the West Bank and relations with religious parties).

Third: The Jewish society in Israel is a sort of international tessellate where several people from different parts of the world had met together. It includes Russian descendents, comers from Arab countries and Ethiopian descendents. It also has those who are proud of their western association opposite to those who are still attached to their eastern origin. It is those leinsfolks that form the society in Israel, where nothing brings them together other then their belief that they are one nationalistic religion, i.e. Judaism.

Fourth: Though the ideological foundations on which the Hebraic state was erected, were secular and liberal, yet, there still remain many religious aspects that mold the general shape of the state, starting with its name, passing to observance of religious practices and ceremonials (Sanctity of Saturdays, holidays, selling of bacon , etc…) and ending with the unlimited political authority attained by the religious powers inside Israel.

Fifth: The original natives of Palestine – now known as the 1948 Arabs- form about 20% of the total population of the state of Israel, and consequently, form a basic part of the general political gathering of the state. They have their own effective social and political weight, though they are still being looked at as a neglected and ignored class within the Israeli entity. They suffer racial discrimination and class differentiation (i.e. being a Jew and being an Arab). Therefore, Israeli democracy remains between Jews themselves, and is being exploited to secure and safeguard continuity of the rule of the Jewish majority to the entity, preventing other minorities – the largest of which are the Arabs- from getting even to half the way, best that effects the Jewish color of the state, which is considered a red line.

Sixth: The Israeli society- politically and socially speaking- is characterized by continual, consecutive and manifold struggles. There is the secular-religious struggle, the Ashkenazim- Sepharad in struggle, the leftist-rightist struggle and the Arab- Jewish struggle. So, every particularity in the Israeli social and political life has its own consideration in any of the above struggles, the thing which may oblige the same party to have two different standpoints towards the same issue. Therefore, Israel is one of the most peculiar countries in the world:

·                          It is the only country in the whole world that was founded by jumping over the wreckage of a sovereignty that was lost more than 2000 years ago in this part of the world.

·                          It has no sister countries, not only in nationalism but also in religion and language as well.

·                          Most of the Jewish nation (about 75%) in whose names the state was founded are living abroad and do not even think of settling or living therein.

·                          It is the only state that had been founded through a United Nations resolution, despite the opposition of some of the member states.

·                          Israel considers any Jew living in any corner in the world, an Israeli citizen, even without asking him about his stance or position. He is automatically granted citizenship as soon as he arrives to the country and declares himself an immigrant thereto.

·                          From the day it was born and up to 1978 (the year it signed a peace treaty with Egypt – for thirty years) Israel was surrounded by enemy countries.

·                          During forty years of its life, Israel was involved in five wars and in numerous military clashes all along its borders.

·                          Israel has no constitution.

·                          Only two of the countries that have recognized Israel, recognize Jerusalem as its capital, while all the other countries have their embassies in Tel- Aviv.

·                          The current borders of Israel are not final.

Footnotes:

Top