Using
the premise of Birthright bringing non-Orthodox Jews to Israel, and claiming
that it is funded by the State of Israel (25% of it is) Chaim Levinson
cries crocodile tears over the fact that Birthright participants’ pitiable ultra-Orthodox
counterparts, who come to study full time at Mir Yeshiva, get “only” two thirds
the stipend that their fellow Israeli-born students get. I assume that this is
based on the fact that the Israeli students have no other source of funding,
i.e, their parents, whereas the authors’ New Jersey cousins presumably come
from a more comfortable background.
But
where Levinson is being willfully obtuse is in ignoring the premise of
Birthright, which is to connect weakly identified young Diaspora Jews with
their Judaism. Therefore comparing it to the Mir Yeshiva is – not to be too
obvious about it – apples and oranges. Assuming that both Birthright and Mir
Yeshiva are worthy institutions, arguing that they should get equal funding a
la Title IX is absurd: Each does widely differing work, aimed at widely
differing demographics. Should Mir students receive the equivalent of the yearly
upkeep of an IDF soldier? Or should they have to pay the same tuition as Israeli
university students? If the latter, should they also have had to serve in the IDF
in order to qualify for state funding?
I’m
not wild about either Mir or Birthright; nor am I wild about my taxes going to
fund either. But I regard Mir as an elite, private institution that should get
little or no state funding; while I regard Birthright as a flawed attempt to
counter assimmilation, but one whose architects I can’t fault for trying. Yet conflating
the two to “prove” that Mir should get equal funding seems strawmanlike, if not
downright devious. Would that we didn’t need Birthright: I’d love to see that
money going to worthy Israeli causes, but Mir is not one of them.
