In the years I lived in Sweden, I had a girlfriend who didn't work. She was a housewife. One day, a friend told me, in a moment of candor, that she had become accustomed to being constantly asked "what she was sick about" in salon conversations and social events. The company's premise is that if it doesn't work, there should be an objective reason for it, preferably one backed up by medical documents.
A generous state can only exist in such a climate: a climate in which the vast majority of citizens are unanimous about the relationship between citizens and the state, the duties of citizens and the role of the state. Unanimity on what constitutes appropriate behavior, what aspirations a person deserves, what is the desired family size, and what constitutes a good education.
When all these things are more or less clear and agreed, the state can pay, and the government that institutes generous welfare policies will continue to enjoy public support. But when there is no agreement, and when there are large parts of society that lead completely different lifestyles from each other, the generosity of the state becomes a double-edged sword, creating growing feelings of bitterness, exploitation and deprivation. Sound familiar?
In a large study, a Belgian professor named Wim van Orschott examined the attitudes of European citizens towards welfare recipients. He found remarkable consistency in people's attitudes, with no significant difference between those living in rich countries like Sweden and Switzerland and those living in poorer countries like Greece or Spain, and no difference between Eastern and Western Europe, or between "right-wing" and "leftist" countries: the average European citizen is sympathetic to the idea of government support for those who are unable to work, whether because of old age or disability or illness.
But there is one parameter that causes a steep decline in this affinity, if not a complete crash: the selection parameter. According to the average European, a person who voluntarily chooses a non-economic lifestyle should not be entitled to state support. European elected officials are well acquainted with this sentiment, and act on it when they approach shaping welfare, labor or immigration policies; They understand that you have to be sensitive when it comes to public patience.
If there's one thing we've learned from the protests of the past few months, it's that public patience has run out. The feeling of "sucker" can perhaps – uncertain – be tolerated when it comes to recruitment to the IDF and reserve service, say, especially if the recruits (and their families) feel meaning and fulfillment in their military service. But there is no heroic, noble or Zionist aura in being a "sucker" for paying taxes. The gap between those who fill the state coffers and those who do not is always a platform for social division, but when the non-fulfillment is done by choice, it is impossible to continue with the agenda.
The Basic Law: The Torah Study of Haredi MKs, which sought to equate yeshiva study with IDF service, caused a storm even among those who do not have an ounce of anti-Harediness, and proved once again that much of the tension hovering over Israeli society depends on the question of "who pays for it."
It has nothing to do with the public's attitude toward tradition, Torah and Torah learners. Most Israeli citizens would have no problem with the fact that hundreds of thousands of large and low-income families live here, were it not for the knowledge that a significant part of the public coffers is naturally directed to allowances and payments for those who have "chosen a life of poverty."
The answer is not in forcing change on Haredi society, but in changing our perception of the public purse: it needs to fund as little as possible, from a humble and sober perspective that understands that in a heterogeneous and diverse society like Israel, there is no partition policy that will not benefit one sector and harm another. The protest raised the need to reduce the government's wingspan and give it legitimacy to deal only with narrow areas of civil services: security, law, infrastructure, transportation, and regulation. How ironic that one of the most prominent bodies promoting this policy is the Kohelet Forum.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us