Would you believe Israeli Defense Minister and former socialist labor leader Amir Peretz criticizing a wealthy citizen for being charitable because it's the job of the state, and only the state, to help individuals who need it? Sheesh!
Defense Minister Amir Peretz on Thursday blasted business tycoon Arkady Gaydamak for financing a free weekend in Eilat for 800 residents of the rocket-battered western Negev town of Sderot.
"The state of Israel does not allow rich men and philanthropists to gain control from the distress of citizens," said Peretz. "This phenomenon cannot continue. We will prepare an organized and established plan to alleviate these residents so they will not need to knock on the doors of philanthropists."
One thing I've noticed in my frequent contacts with Israel and Israelis (being married to an Israeli) is that the Israeli state managed to severely damage the philanthropic impulse that once dominated Jewish life. A combination of statism taught in public schools, combined with the prevalent (and understandable) idea that one is owed something by the state after years and years of military service, has led many Israelis to conclude, completely contrary to Jewish tradition, that charity and volunteerism is for suckers. You can see how the attitude of folks like Peretz doesn't exactly help.
Related Posts (on one page):
- More on Milton Friedman and Israel:
- Milton Friedman on Israel and Jewish Support for Socialism:
- Talk about your tired Socialism:
DB, I think you are missing one important element of this. Gaydamak is not just any billionaire philanthropist - he is a Russian billionaire philanthropist. Israel has not comfortably accepted Russian immigration, the attitude being that "these people haven't fought in our wars, they shouldn't just be able to come here and prosper." It's not as bad now actually, now that Russians *have* fought in one of Israel's wars.
Still there are major tensions between sabra and members of the Russian aliyah. People like Gaydamak make old school Israelis like Peretz particularly uncomfortable. Many Russian-Jewish oligarchs who tried making their way in Israel have been turned away, largely due to the influence of monopolists like Bezeq and Hapoalim.
So I think that the concern Peretz is expressing is not purely socialist. It's colored by a bit of xenophobia as well.
Growing up, I was taught that "Next year in Jerusalem," said during the Passover seder, is a hope for freedom and peace for all people, and that God's chiding of the angels for rejoicing at the drowning of the Pharaoh's army is an example of the attitude one is supposed to have to any suffering (even justified suffering caused by oneself). I'm always disappointed to find that Israel's sufferings have caused it to take a very different view. If even some Israelis aren't Israeli enough, then it is truly proof that no matter the size or composition of the group, it can divide into mutually antagonistic parts.
I think that's what he clearly was implying, an echo of what I heard from Hillary and Co.
Your assertions aren't true, at least the part about the charedim hating the Israeli public. They feel misunderstood, under attack, etc., but hating Jews who, forgive me, don't know any better, is forbidden. There is, after all, a mitzvah of ahavat Yisrael. Please see the link I've made to this post.
After years of hateful secularist propaganda blaming the charedim for all of Israeli society's ills, it is unsurprising the many non-dati Israelis hate the charedim. Perhaps seeing the relativly mild left-liberal bias of the American media towards conservatives might give you insight.
During the Lebanon campaign, the charedi papers were full of the stories of acts of lovingkindness done by charedim for their less-religious bretheren. Schools were turned into shelters for displaced non-religious families from the North. Food and medical supplies were brought into the shelters by chesed organizations for those who couldn't or wouldn't go south for safety.
Shabbat Shalom
It harkens back to the WWII tradition of COs, pacifists, Quakers, etc serving as unarmed medics on the front lines. A much better example than the post-Vietnam tradition of "resistance".
It's not an obvious or even reasonable conclusion that acts of charity should be preserved for the state, but I can imagine someone might look at Lebanon and worry that charitable acts can be leveraged into "control" over local populations -- particularly in a region where strong feudal tendencies persist at the local level.
Thoughts?
But there are plenty of Peretz types even here in the USA. Shift your focus a bit and consider some of the reactions to Wal-Mart's $4 drug plan as captured in today's Boston Globe:
"Consumer advocates and healthcare economists said that while lower prices will benefit some consumers, especially those without insurance, discount programs like BJ's and Wal-Mart's will not likely have a major impact on the retail drug industry because they exclude brand-name treatments and many generics. Of the 10 most-prescribed drugs in the United States as tabulated by IMS Health, a market research company, only the antibiotic amoxicillin is available for $4 at BJ's and Wal-Mart.
...
"It's going to save money for consumers, but there are just lots and lots of generic drugs that are not on the list," said Ron Pollack , executive director of Families USA , a nonprofit healthcare advocacy group in Washington."
Complain, complain, complain. Obviously the Wal-Mart plan is not philanthropy, but it's certainly helping more people get drugs cheap than the advocacy groups do.
No surprise Peretz doesn't like him.
Ah, so that explains his philanthropy!