the de-haredization of a neighborhood

This is the "pashkevil" thrown around in Givat Shaul nowadays.

Givat Shaul is a neighborhood in Jerusalem. It is a Haredi neighborhood right by the entrance to the city. It borders on Kiryat Moshe which is mostly a National Religious neighborhood. At the top of the road continuing out of Givat Shaul is the famous Merkaz Ha'Rav (Kook) yeshiva, which is the premier yeshiva in the Dati Leumi world.

It seems that a number of families connected with Merkaz Ha'Rav have moved down into the Haredi neighborhood of Givat Shaul. The sign above condemns their attempts to make changes in the neighborhood and their attempts to muscle in. The sign asks if their public school system which has already become bankrupt of values and whose alumni have already abandoned all memories of Judaism, now they want to bring that to our neighborhood?

It also asks if their mixed educations which contains no Torah and no derech eretz and whose students have taken every "infection" from the Middle East, should be an example for our children?

The pashkevil closes cynically and hurtfully "Go to Chomesh and Gush Katif and leave us, residents of Givat Shaul, alone." It is a hurtful statement because they are suggesting that the dedication to the land is what caused their failures (true or perceived) in the notes within the letter, i.e. regarding the failure to educate their children and keep them on the path of Torah.

Many neighborhoods in Jerusalem and other places have been "haredized". A few haredim move in to a secular or national religious neighborhood, often because of cheaper real estate prices. Life moves on and over time slowly but surely more and more haredim trickle into the neighborhood. Eventually they reach a sizeable minority and they start making their requests. They want a shul of their own. They want a school of their own. They want a certain road closed on shabbos. They want the local swimming pool to have more hours of separate swimming. Etc.

Eventually they become the majority because other people do not want to live with them and move away. Once they are the majority, they take control and nobody can stop them. They generally then are not quite as accommodating to the other people who are now in the minority. They will make the local pool only separate swimming and refuse requests to kep a few hours of mixed. they will close more roads, or the whole neighborhood, for shabbos. they will take over the school buildings and shuls.

A haredi neighborhood being taken over by others is actually pretty rare, as it generally happens the other way.

Now that it is happening to them, they cannot take it. They put up rude and hurtful signs like the one above. If such arguments were used against them in other neighborhoods, they would fight back saying they paid for their apartments just like everybody else. they have rights like everybody else. It is a democracy and they can live wherever they want.

It is when they feel threatened that the truth comes out... Let's see how they respond when the arguments are made to them....

Jonathan Rosenblum wrote an article in his column this past week questioning the methods used when taking over a neighborhood by Haredim. He gives examples of how they slowly take control claiming rights when they are the minority and then refuse to provide those same rights and considerations to others once they are the majority. Part of it is based in an element of "religious coercion".

But considering the methods used, Rosenblum suggests, it is no wonder that there are other situations in which the Haredi requests are rejected by the local populace, as they know what it will eventually lead to.

Rosenblum says he does not know the answer to the question if these methods are appropriate or even desired. He adds that our actions should however take into consideration the effect they will have on the impression left and the influence upon the non-religious public. He quotes the Hazon Ish who held that nowadays the rule of "Moridin V'ain Ma'alin" (you can throw a heretic into a pit to die and not remove him if you already find him there) does not apply nowadays in a time of Hashem's presence being hidden. By implementing such halacha, the Hazon Ish says, we would cause more damage than good as it will be perceived as an act of cruelty. The goal of the law in that case was to protect the wall of mitzva fealty, but nowadays it would just cause more breaches.

Similarly, the Hazon Ish held that we are allowed to call up to the Torah people who openly desecrate shabbos, despite the halacha saying otherwise. He explained that the purpose in rejecting these people and not allowing them to be called to the Torah was to protect shabbos and be a sort of rebuke that would urge them to keep shabbos, as they would feel as if they are out of the community, beyond the pale as it may be. Nowadays where the desecrators are the majority, rejecting them will not be perceived in the way it was meant to be, rather would only cause more hatred.

So, when the Haredim take over a neighborhood using methods that are at best questionable and at worst against halacha, against morality and against social norms, they should not be surprised when those methods are used against them.

But even worse is when they feel they have everything coming to them, then they feel they have the right to act like this in other neighborhoods but they reject those that try to move into their own neighborhoods, as happened in the letter at the top of this post.