Professor Gad Saad didn't need the violent protests by progressive students at elite American universities to become disillusioned. The Jewish-Canadian researcher born in Lebanon, considered a pioneer in evolutionary psychology research, has for years seen himself as a whistleblower against forces trying to "kill the West with a thousand cuts," in his words.

To illustrate this, he tells me about a celebratory dinner that took place 23 years ago, honoring one of his students who had completed his doctorate. "Before the dinner, my student called me anxiously: his partner, who was of course also invited, was a student of postmodernism, gender studies, and social anthropology. He was familiar with my opinions, which were already solid at that time, and wanted to make sure I would welcome her. Although I made sure to tell him that this was indeed 'the holy trinity of bullsh*t,' I reassured him that it was his evening and I would maintain complete silence. In retrospect, I don't know why I promised that," Saad says with a smile.

It turned out he's not made of the material that sits quietly in the face of what he characterizes as "intellectual terrorism," or as he writes in his book, "I am not someone who misses an opportunity to mock those who naturally remove their own brain lobes."

During the evening, Saad politely turned to his guest and asked: "As a postmodernist, do you believe there are no universal truths?" When she replied affirmatively, he continued pressing: "So tell me, among Homo sapiens, who gives birth – women or men?" The woman confidently replied that the mythology of one of the ancient Japanese tribes teaches that men actually gave birth to children, "and when you hint at such generalizations," she concluded her argument, "You're essentially keeping women in the kitchen." Saad tried to recover from her response and examine whether she would at least agree with the statement that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, but she replied that the concepts of "sun" and "east" are nothing more than oppressive Western cultural constructs. "And this was in 2002," Saad emphasizes, "when such opinions were still considered extreme. Today, many students at leading universities hold them."

"So anyone with their eyes open," he returns to current events, "didn't really need October 7 to understand that the West is losing its rationality, although the images of transgender individuals joining Islamists across elite American universities indeed illustrated to many what I had been shouting about. Concordia University in Montreal, where I taught for years, was called 'Hamas University'. Already in 2002, they canceled a visit by Benjamin Netanyahu. In my book, I describe the 'parasitic ostrich syndrome' – people who prefer to bury their heads in the sand and not see reality. My book traces the development of these parasitic ideas."

In the eyes of Saad, an evolutionary psychologist currently serving as a visiting professor at Northwood University in Michigan, the main threat to the West lies in "woke" culture, which he says destroys academia and is engaged in the systematic corruption of the two values that led the West to greatness: truth and freedom. Saad's willingness to address controversial topics, combined with his sharp tongue and mocking style toward his opponents, has made him one of the prominent voices in contemporary culture wars; his popular podcast, The Saad Truth, founded in 2017, has garnered over 300,000 followers, and his Twitter account is followed by 1.2 million people.

His bestselling book, published in English in 2020 under the title "The Parasitic Mind: How Infectious Ideas Are Killing Common Sense," has now been translated into Hebrew with the title, "Parasites: How the West Lost Common Sense," and was published by Shibolet. The book received warm recommendations from Canadian conservative thinker Jordan Peterson, and Elon Musk's enthusiastic endorsement also appears on the cover.

One of Saad's main weapons is his charisma and humor. "Yes, I use cynicism and humor. Some ask me, 'Doesn't that hurt your authority as a professor?' Not at all, quite the opposite! Precisely because I'm confident in myself, I can also fool around and mock the foolish. If I lacked confidence, I would play the 'serious professor,' with a pipe and a condescending look. But I'm a regular person with an academic background, and that's what connects people to me."

Could that be why people from the opposing camp also find it difficult to "cancel you"?

"Exactly, it's hard to hate someone with a warm personality and humor. That doesn't mean I don't have enemies – I have many. But I'm not cold and I'm not bitter. Once someone interviewed me, and at the end said: 'I'm really angry at you, I intended to finish this interview hating you, but I really like you.' Those who really listen to me know there isn't a drop of hatred in me. I attack ideas, not people. Besides, I always make sure to present the facts and not just throw words around. I speak confidently because the evidence is on my side."

His satirical style has often led to genuine misunderstandings. In 2018, one of his tweets on Twitter managed to confuse not only Western media but also Muslim media outlets. The incident began when the noted biologist Richard Dawkins commented on Twitter about Winchester Cathedral's bells, comparing them to calls of Allahu Akbar: "I'm listening to the beautiful bells of Winchester, one of our greatest medieval cathedrals. So much nicer than the aggressive 'Allahu Akbar.' Or is that just my cultural upbringing?" In response, Saad tweeted: "Dear Richard, Arabic is my mother tongue. Properly translated, 'Allahu Akbar' means 'We love all people but hold a special fondness for Jews, women, and homosexuals.' Don't worry. It's a message of love, tolerance, and liberalism."

Not everyone understood the irony. Even the respected Newsweek initially reported that Saad had criticized Dawkins' remarks, only correcting the report later when it became clear it was a joke. But the confusion didn't end there. A popular Pakistani newspaper published a scathing article condemning Dawkins' "Islamophobia," quoting Saad's response as evidence. After the newspaper realized the tweet was satirical, all mention of Saad was deleted from the article.

In Saad's view, postmodernism is "the grandfather of all parasitic ideas that have taken over academia. Its claim is that there are no universal truths except for the one universal truth that there are no universal truths. In other words, it collapses into itself right at the starting point. But why let the logic of an old-fashioned person like me bother anyone? Postmodernism has become 'intellectual terrorism': left is right, men are women, up is down, slavery is freedom, war is peace. Under the guise of intellectual depth, postmodernism promoted nihilism that allowed all the other nonsense we see today to flourish in academia."

Some argue that the use of this concept is mistaken, since postmodernism is an ideology that began in the 1970s and doesn't really have any connection to today's wokeism.

Saad disagrees. "Transgender activism wouldn't thrive without the postmodernist assumption that there is no biological truth determining that there are only two sexes – male and female. No, claim the postmodernists, 'sex is a spectrum.' It's like claiming that the number of our fingers isn't a law of nature because some people are born with 11 fingers. Another parasitic idea originating in postmodernism is the claim that there is no human nature or innate biological drives, only social constructs. Or cultural relativism that asks, 'Who are you to determine what is moral?' You mustn't judge a society that performs female genital mutilation, that would be 'cultural imperialism.'"

"According to postmodernism, there are no moral, stable, or epistemological truths – not even musical ones. If I randomly hit objects," Saad wonders as he drums on the table, "who are you to determine that this isn't brilliant music? Who are you to determine that a blank canvas isn't a sublime work of art? In 1996, I visited the Carnegie Museum, paid to see art, and found myself facing a blank canvas. I demanded to see the museum's curator, but they sent someone else who asked how she could help me. 'Why is there a blank canvas here,' I asked. And she answered: 'It causes us to have a fascinating conversation.' This is exactly the attack on common sense that has brought us to the situation we find ourselves in today."

Saad's frequent use of the term "parasitic" for ideas he considers foolish is not coincidental. Saad is considered a pioneer in applying evolutionary psychology to consumer behavior, arguing that biology shapes not only our bodies but also our thoughts and decisions. From the beginning of his academic career, through his tenure as the Research Chair in Darwinian Consumption and Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences at Concordia University, he has confronted the research consensus that viewed humans as creatures existing outside biological logic.

Evolutionary psychology examines how human thinking mechanisms, emotions, and behaviors were shaped by natural selection. Unlike the view that sees humans as a "blank slate," this approach argues that our consciousness consists of adaptive systems that evolved over many years to cope with survival challenges. The research deals with, among other things, emotions like jealousy and guilt, patterns of mate selection, and the development of social relationships. By combining biology, psychology, and cognition, researchers in this field aim to identify universal patterns and explain them as evolutionary adaptations.

This is precisely what makes Gad Saad a stubborn opponent of radical feminism. According to social construction theory, gender differences – for example, in toy preferences – are not innate but rather the result of education and culture. Parents and society, it is claimed, encourage boys to play with trucks and girls with dolls, which leads to gaps between the sexes even in adulthood. In an effort to appear progressive, the toy industry has partially adopted this perspective. However, Saad presents research evidence that undermines these basic assumptions: infants only a few months old – even before they have had time to internalize social messages – exhibit clear gender preferences for toys. The ratio of finger lengths, which reflects levels of testosterone exposure in the womb, is directly related to the preference for trucks among males. Even chimpanzees show similar preferences, pointing to deep biological roots. Saad formulates his conclusion with characteristic sarcasm: "Social construction supporters might argue that the chauvinistic patriarchy has managed to influence primates as well. Never underestimate the delusions and dogmatic madness of those afflicted with parasitic ostrich syndrome."

"How is it possible that brilliant people – economists, psychologists, behavioral researchers – refuse to acknowledge that biology also shapes human consciousness?" he wonders in our conversation. "This was the first time I understood that completely intelligent people can be infected with parasites of foolishness." According to him, for three decades he has seen how ideologies strangle reason and science. "Neuro-parasitology studies parasites that change the brain of their hosts, a common phenomenon in nature. Unlike a regular parasite, which affects the body, a neuro-parasite takes over the brain and changes its behavioral patterns. There is no more precise explanation for the impact of pathological ideas on our culture."

"Take wood crickets for example," Saad uses his favorite example. "They avoid any contact with water, as they fear drowning. But when a 'hairworm' parasite attaches to them, the parasite needs the cricket to jump into water to complete its reproductive cycle. As a result, the infected cricket undergoes a kind of 'zombification' and leaps into the water voluntarily, thereby sacrificing itself for the benefit of the parasite. This is how I perceive progressive students, radical feminists, and even certain liberal Jews. They internalize foreign ideas that lead them to act against their own interests, and essentially commit suicide. Unfortunately, the source of these ideas is academia."

In his book, Saad presents the political imbalance in American universities: a 2018 study that examined 51 out of the 60 leading humanities colleges in the United States found a ratio of 10.4 Democratic professors to one Republican professor. In fact, without the two "exceptional" military colleges, in twenty institutions the percentage of Republican professors was negligible. Saad says that many conservative professors contact him secretly, thank him for his public work, and confess about the silencing they experience – and always ask that he not reveal their identities. "Ideological Stalinism exists daily in academia in North America," he writes.
There are academics, mainly from the conservative camp, who say that academia is already lost.

In various conversations of yours, I hear a more optimistic echo.

"The university is not dying, because most students and professors want to enrich their knowledge and participate in scientific endeavors. But it doesn't take many to contaminate the system, just as on September 11, only 19 terrorists changed the skyline of New York. The solution is twofold: on the one hand, to establish new institutions with correct values and absolute emphasis on freedom of expression and scientific freedom, and on the other hand, to 'vaccinate' existing universities and restore their logic. I don't think academia is lost; we can still change direction."

Israeli academia is also influenced by progressive ideas, but Saad is impressed that from this aspect, our situation is relatively good. "When you live in such a neighborhood, people are much less likely to fall victim to enormous stupidity. You don't have the luxury to waste time on empty discussions. Your dangerous neighborhood gives you a kind of natural immunity against parasitic ideas. Just as anorexia appears only in societies of abundance, parasitic ideas thrive only when you can afford the luxury. In Israel, when reality requires running to shelters, fewer people fall victim to foolishness."

The blindness that liberals and progressives display toward the dangers of Islam is, in Saad's view, one of the most serious manifestations of ignoring facts in favor of ideology. "A Jewish woman, granddaughter of Holocaust survivors, contacted me and told me she has a friend, a doctoral student of Islamic thought, who claims to her that 'Islam loves Jews.' Since I grew up in Lebanon and understand the subject, she asked for my opinion. Instead of starting to present her with countless Muslim sources in Arabic, I sent her a video featuring imams from prestigious mosques, Islamic scholars from Al-Azhar University in Cairo, journalists, politicians, writers, and even children from Muslim countries, as they discuss their attitudes toward Jews. It's difficult to watch this content due to the overwhelming antisemitism. There's a segment where an imam shows photographs of Jewish bones from the Holocaust being dragged by bulldozers into mass graves, and laments: 'Allah, why did you give this pleasure to the Nazis and not to us?' A level of evil that's hard to accept exists."

"After she watched the video, the woman wrote to me: 'You are no different in your extremism from them.' From her perspective, the problem was that I shared this video. In her eyes, the fact that I show reality makes me a hater and racist. About a year ago, that same woman sent me an email acknowledging her mistake and writing that she should have listened to me. I've encountered countless cases like this. I believe that if you approach people with the right persuasion strategies, most are willing to listen."

Many Islamic scholars argue that Islam is too diverse to discuss as a single unit, and according to them, the problems of contemporary Islam also stem from Western influences, such as the combination of Marxism with Shiite ideology, a combination that stands behind the rule of the Iranian ayatollahs.

"This is a classic 'No True Scotsman' fallacy (a logical fallacy where one preemptively prevents the refutation of their claim, for example when stating that 'no true Scotsman' would do a certain action, and thus when presented with Scotsmen who do so, they can claim that they are not 'true Scotsmen'; M.H.). According to this approach, we'll always find a way to claim that leading religious figures like Yusuf al-Qaradawi from Al-Azhar don't represent 'true' Islam, and instead the homosexual who eats pork, drinks vodka, and studies at a Western university is the one who represents 'true Islam.' Similarly, we're told that Khomeini, the Saudi sheikhs, ISIS, or even Muhammad himself don't represent 'true Islam.' It's nonsense."

In the book, Saad presents an analysis conducted on the three canonical texts of Islam: the Quran, the Hadith, and Sharia. It was found that more than half of them are devoted to jihad and negative descriptions of infidels, and that "hatred of Jews (9.3%) is higher in them than in Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'." Saad notes that since September 11, more than 45,000 terrorist attacks have been carried out worldwide in the name of Islam, and mentions the suffering experienced by non-Muslim minorities in Muslim countries.

As an evolutionary psychologist, how can you explain the trend of Islamic expansion, which often leads societies to ignorance, poverty, and violence? Seemingly, it's an ideology that makes it difficult to survive.

"One answer is that most religions offer a solution to the problem of death. Islam, unlike Judaism for example, places strong emphasis on eternal life in the hereafter. Therefore, even if this world is difficult, believers see it only as a temporary stage on the way there. From an evolutionary perspective, Islam is built as a highly successful system of ideas. Biologist Richard Dawkins coined the term 'meme' to describe how ideas spread, and Islam is a very effective memetic system. Unlike Judaism, which is a marketing failure, since it's not missionary and makes conversion difficult, Islam is the most missionary religion in the world. It's enough to declare the 'shahada' before witnesses to become Muslim. That's why there are 125 times more Muslims in the world than Jews."

Saad is a prominent speaker on the dangers of Muslim immigration for the future of Europe, as well as for the future of his country, Canada. We are speaking a few days after an Islamist attack that took place in the city of Villach, Austria, when a Syrian immigrant stabbed to death a 14-year-old boy and wounded five others. The event shocked many, especially because the attacker was documented smiling immediately after the murder. This alongside a recent ramming attack in Munich, and the murder of an anti-Muslim activist in Sweden.

During the riots that took place last summer between Muslims and locals in Britain, you tweeted that in your opinion, a war in Europe with Muslims is already inevitable. What is your opinion now in light of recent developments?

"If European decision-makers continue their current policy toward Islam – it's a 100% certainty. It's like testing the effects of gravity by jumping off a roof. Ideas lead to results, and Islam is a coded system of ideas. When you place Islam in Western conditions, they cannot coexist peacefully over time. True, one can find periods in history when Muslims and non-Muslims lived together, but it was never stable over time. It's like a person before a heart attack; until the moment of the attack, everything seems fine, but in the background, inevitable processes are already developing that lead to collapse. If trends in immigration and Islamic influence continue, Europe will descend into massive violence. And not just Europe, but any place where these processes are occurring. Demographics is a decisive factor; the more Islam there is, the fewer freedoms there are. Either Europeans will wake up or they will become Islamic, like the 56 countries that are part of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation."

Do you think that to stand against the danger of Islam, the West needs to return to religion?

"I don't agree with the view that the only way for people to find purpose, meaning, and comfort is through religion. I understand the tendency to do so, as long as the pursuit of religion doesn't harm the rights of others. My friend Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a harsh critic of radical Islam, left the Muslim world and became an atheist, but when she realized that atheism doesn't provide a unifying glue in the struggle against the Muslim threat to the West, she turned to Christianity. I understand this choice from a pragmatic perspective, but I believe that reason can also connect us, and I call on the West to return to it."

Gad Saad (60) was born in Beirut to a Jewish family that emigrated from Damascus. In the shadow of the bloody civil war that erupted in the country in 1975, his family fled to Montreal, Canada. "We were part of the last group of Jews who remained in Lebanon. Most Jews had already left before us, including my extended family – uncles, aunts, cousins, and grandparents. Most moved to Israel, some to France, and some to Canada."

How was it growing up in Beirut, which was nicknamed "the Paris of the Middle East"?

Saad is skeptical of this comparison. "Yes, Beirut was called 'the Paris of the Middle East,' but it was always conditional. One day it's a place where Jews can live, and the next day it becomes impossible. It's important to understand that tolerance in the Middle East is not like tolerance in the West. My brother, who was Lebanon's judo champion for years, received 'hints' that it was time for him to retire, because it's 'not appropriate' for a Jew to win competitions all the time. When he wasn't ready to retire, he left for France. My older brother left the country with his wife a year before the civil war, and I, a ten-year-old child, stayed with my parents in Lebanon until it was no longer possible to live there."

What do you remember from your time as a Jewish child in Lebanon?

"Even as a child, I knew that trouble could come at any moment. The first case of antisemitism I remember was in 1970, when I was almost six. Egyptian President Nasser died, and throughout Beirut, there were demonstrations and shouting. The slogan that kept repeating was 'Death to Jews.' I remember being confused and asking my mother why they were shouting 'Death to Jews' because of the death of an Egyptian president."

Saad recalls another incident that occurred shortly before the war. "The teacher asked the students to stand up and tell what they wanted to be when they grew up. One said he wanted to be a firefighter, one a doctor, one a police officer. And then one child stood up and said, 'When I grow up, I want to kill Jews.' The class applauded and laughed. That child knew I was Jewish, and that there was another Jewish child in the class besides me, but that didn't prevent him from saying it. The hatred toward Jews was so common and banal that no one even thought it was something unusual. In the Middle East, Jews are always portrayed as absolute evil. If there are floods – it's because of the Jews; if it doesn't rain – it's because of the Jews. Even when there were shark attacks in Egypt, they said the Israeli Mossad trained the sharks to attack Egyptians. Everything is interpreted through the perception that Jews pull the strings."

How do you feel when you see what's happening in Lebanon today?

"Personally, it causes me great pain. I'm sorry that I will never be able to share my experiences of Lebanon with my children. I can't take them to see my school, the bakery where we bought cakes, the soccer field where I played. It's like a distant memory from another life. The reality is that I will never be able to return there. But beyond that, it also hurts to see Lebanon's current state. It's a failed state not only because of religious and sectarian problems, but also because of inconceivable corruption. People have lost all their savings, they can't withdraw money from the bank. I believe that if the Middle East were to free itself from all this madness, it could be an amazing place. It's the cradle of civilization, a place full of history, beauty, tradition, hospitality, and human warmth. But all of this is trampled by wars, religion, and corrupt politics."

When you talk about religions, you sound like an atheist, but you observe the Sabbath and are careful not to eat pork. How do you define your Jewish identity?

"I'm not hostile to religion, certainly not to Judaism. Religion is a wonderful thing because it creates a shared narrative, and from an evolutionary perspective, it has many functional values. My problem is when religion becomes too arrogant and offers a narrative that contradicts science. So if it's about connecting to Jewish identity, there's no one more Jewish than me. But if it means lighting candles at exactly 4:21 p.m., then no. Judaism is a multi-dimensional structure – a people, a lineage, a shared history. In that sense, I am completely Jewish. Two weeks ago, we celebrated my son's bar mitzvah in a completely traditional way – he read from the Torah and I put on tefillin with him. I live my Judaism much more than most Jews in the world, because I had to put on running shoes and flee from those who tried to behead me. So I've done my part."

Last year, Saad published another book, which has not yet been translated into Hebrew, titled, "The Saad Truth about Happiness: 8 Secrets for Leading the Good Life." "If you had asked me after I finished writing 'Parasites' what my next book would be, I wouldn't have told you it would be about happiness. This book grew organically."

Perhaps it came as a reaction, you needed to focus on something more optimistic.

"First of all, that's true, the previous book dealt with what happens to consciousness when it's negatively influenced, so it was nice to write a positive book. But it was really born from many people writing to me and asking: 'What's your secret, professor? How do you manage to keep your sense of humor, how are you always smiling, despite the difficulties you've experienced in life and the difficult subjects you deal with?' So I thought, why not write a book that explains these secrets? At first, I hesitated, because this is probably the most written-about topic since the beginning of philosophy until today. The ancient Greeks already wrote a lot about how to live a good life. The question was whether I could write a book that would be truly unique. I want to believe that I can, and that I bring unique insights combined with ancient wisdom and contemporary science, creating something fresh and new."

What do you see as the central factors for achieving happiness in life?

"One of the things I talk about in the book is the two most important decisions in life, those that can bring you the most happiness – or, unfortunately, the most suffering: choosing the right partner, and choosing the right profession. Meaning in life comes mainly through profession. I argue that the more you succeed in realizing your creativity in your work, the more meaning and sense of existential fulfillment you'll receive – which leads to deeper happiness. What does it mean to realize the creative drive? A stand-up comedian, for example, creates new jokes that didn't exist before, hoping they will make the audience happy. A chef creates new dishes, an architect designs buildings, a writer or researcher creates new knowledge. There are countless ways to satisfy our creative drive, and when we do so, we become immersed in meaning and purpose. This doesn't mean we don't need bus drivers or insurance adjusters, and that their lives aren't important. But how many people really wake up in the morning and say 'I am existentially happy because I am an accountant?' For most, it's simply a job that allows them to pursue other interests. But if your work itself can be a kind of laboratory for creation and innovation, then you've truly won."

Isn't happiness also related to having the right genes?

"I mention at the beginning of the book that about half of the differences in people's level of happiness come from genetics, which still leaves half in our hands. It may be that I was born with a tendency toward optimism and you with a tendency toward pessimism, which gives me an advantage over you – but I can make all the wrong decisions and adopt wrong approaches, and you will do the opposite and reach the peak of happiness much faster than me. So it's really not depressing, but rather a message of empowerment."

The post The Saad truth: Wokeism means burying your head in the sand appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) urged Qatar on Monday to eliminate male guardianship rules that prevent women making independent decisions on basic rights such as marriage, travel and accessing reproductive health care.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

New York-based HRW said that after taking initiatives on women's rights, including on education and social protection, Qatar was now falling behind Gulf neighbors, after Saudi Arabia in 2019 allowed adult women to travel without permission.

One of 50 women interviewed by HRW described females' lives as akin to being "constantly in quarantine." Now 40, her parents had refused to let her accept a scholarship to study abroad.

Unmarried Qatari women under 25 need guardian approval to travel abroad. Women can be subject to travel bans at any age by husbands or fathers, the rights group said.

While there is no law requiring permission to work or pursue higher education, some women said they still needed approval.

"Male guardianship reinforces the power and control that men have over women's lives and choices and may foster or fuel violence, leaving women few viable options to escape abuse from their families and husbands," HRW said.

Qatar's human rights record has been in the spotlight as it prepares to host the 2022 World Cup, especially over migrant workers' conditions for which Doha has launched labor reforms.

Qatar described the HRW report as inaccurate but said it would investigate the cases.

"The government continues to enforce, introduce and expand policies that provide women with freedom and agency to make their own decisions," the Government Communications Office (GCO) said in a statement.

The Qatar Olympic Committee announced on Sunday it would conduct a review to promote gender parity.

Last year, Qatar allowed women to obtain a driving license without permission but, as in other Gulf states, they require guardian approval to marry. Women cannot act as their children's primary guardian, even if they have legal custody, HRW said.

Women are becoming more vocal about their rights, but laws limiting freedom of expression and association, government intimidation, and online harassment remain obstacles, it added.

In 2019, HRW said, women tweeted from an anonymous account about Qatar's guardianship system, but it shut down within 24 hours after cyber security officials summoned one woman.

The GCO did not respond to a request for comment.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Rights watchdog urges Qatar to dismantle male guardianship for women appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As Israel marks International Women's Day, its female population is 4,677,700 strong, data released on Sunday, said. Around 27% of Israel's female population are aged 0 to 14, 60% are aged 15 to 64, and around 13% are aged 65 and over, according to data released ahead of International Women's Day.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

According to the survey's findings, 50.4% of Jewish women aged 25 to 29 were married, compared to 73% of Arab women in the same age group by the end of 2018. In 2008, 53.8% of Jewish and other women and 80.7% of Arab women were married.

Among women aged 45 to 49, 10% of Jewish and other women were single compared to 11.5% of Arab women. In 2008, 6.3% of Jewish and other women and 11.3% of Arab women were married.

According to data released from the Central Bureau of Statistics, the female divorce rate is higher than the male divorce rate across all age ranges. This stems mainly from men's tendency to quickly remarry following a divorce. So, for example, at the end of 2018, 8% of women aged 35 to 39 were divorced compared to 5% of men in the same age group. Among 40- to 44-year-olds, 12.4% of women are divorced compared to 8% of men. Among 45- to 49-year-olds, 16.4% of women are divorced compared to 11.4% of men, and among 50- to 54-year-olds, 18.4% of women and 13.7% of men are divorced.

Women aged 65 and over make up 13.2% of the country's population, compared to 10.7% for men. This is largely due to women's longer lifespan.

Around 89%, or 44,051, of the 49,410 women who married in 2018 did so for the first time.

In 2018, 15,605 women got a divorce. Their average age at the time of divorce was 39.3 compared to 38.1 in 2008.

At the same time, Israel's birthrate remains relatively high, with the average woman expected to have 3.01 children, the highest number among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member-states, where the average is 1.6.

Around 177,500 women gave birth in 2019. Twenty-eight percent of those women gave birth to their first child, 26.1% delivered their second child, and 54.2% gave birth to what was at least their third child.

The average age of women who had their first child in 2019 increased from 25.7 in the early 200s to 27.7 by 2019. At 6.1%, twice as many babies were born to single women in 2019 as compared to 2000.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Poll: Israeli women more likely to remain single after a divorce than men appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"I worked with the organization before this, as head of education and community affairs. The field of progressive and reformed Judaism interests me. Even as a child, I felt that something was missing. Prayers at seminary included songs, but we couldn't be part of a minyan. At age 15, as part of a youth delegation to Florida, I met for the first time a rabbi who wore a kippa but used the phone on Shabbat. I was angry, and he explained that he was a Reform Jews and viewed observing the commandments in a different light.

"In the army I met religious girls from Jerusalem, a stronghold of Orthodox feminism. In Jerusalem, they use both their intellect and their emotions. You can wear trousers ... and be religious. At the Education and Youth Department [of the IDF] I attended Shabbat services wearing my dress uniform. There were 10 girls and three boys there. One of the girls led the prayers, completely naturally. Changes need to be made in the attitude toward women – I need to be counted in a minyan, for example – but it's important to me to keep the mitzvoth. Other than matters of modesty, which aren't an issue for me. Barriers set up 2,000 years ago so a man won't be tempted? I don't count that as a mitzvah. Defining my hair as 'ervah' [something that must be hidden], or my elbow, or my voice?

"As a vegan, I believe that there will be no animal sacrifices in the Third Temple, [as per] Rabbi Kook's vision of vegetarianism and peace. The sacrifices in Leviticus were a response to the ancient conditions in which all peoples made sacrifices and God wanted everyone to stop flocking to paganism. It would be immoral to renew the Passover sacrifice and slaughter a sheep. It's a sheep! The world has changed. Trousers, for example, can't be defined today as 'manly,' as they are in Jewish law, because there are trousers designed for women."

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Q: When I see the Women of the Wall at their regular demonstrations, I see a group of provocateurs who are bothering people who come to pray at the holiest site for the Jewish people.

"We are disturbing their prayers? They're disturbing us! For 31 years we've been holding Rosh Hodesh prayers amid waves of opposition. Women are bused in to harass us. We don't bother anyone else who is praying. Israeli eyes aren't used to seeing women in a tallit [prayer shawl], and certainly not wearing tefillin [phylacteries], and what is different is equated to a 'provocation.' But throwing hot tea on me? Chairs? Arriving by the thousands to crowd around the wall so we won't have room? Physical violence is unacceptable. If anyone asks me questions calmly, I'll answer."

Q: So I'm asking.

"Women of the Wall started as a group of American women who came to Israel for a conference on feminism and Judaism. The hotel where they were staying did not allow them to pray there holding a Torah scroll, so they went to the Western Wall, where they were met with physical and verbal violence and realized that the wall had been re-occupied and was in the hands of a group of strangers."

Q: A group of strangers? We're talking about religious Jews.

"Who don't allow anyone to pray in any different way! I don't want to take anything of theirs away from them. We only want to be allowed to pray in our own way. The Western Wall is a place that we, the people, have made into a holy site and a symbol. It is unacceptable that a group of women not be allowed to pray in their own way. Everything we do is orthodox. Even the rabbi of the Western Wall knows that, and so do the chief rabbis. But the rabbi of the wall agrees to meet with us only if we agree to stop holding our prayers there. You'll sit down with me only if I agree with you? Only if I'm exactly like you?

Q: Do you put on tefillin in just any synagogue? No. You wrap them at the Western Wall. You don't put on tefillin every day, do you?

"I do."

Q: You put on tefillin every morning? If so, you're not Orthodox.

"Of course I am.  Where are my tefillin? (She looks around.) Apparently my husband put them somewhere else, because I can't find them right this second. I'll show them to you in a minute."

Q: You know that according to Jewish law, you're not obligated to put on tefillin.

"I'm not obligated to, but I'm allowed to. I'm allowed."

Q: OK. How many times a month do you put on tefillin?

"How many days are there in a month, not counting Shabbat?"

Q: You get up in the morning and put on tefillin here, at home?

"Yes, Yoni and I take turns."

Q: What? With the same tefillin?

"No, he has two pairs and I have two."

Q: So why the turns?

"To take care of our daughter. She's two and a half. When I'm praying, he's with her, and when he prays, I'm with our daughter."

'Commandments of emotion'

Q: How long have you been putting on tefillin?

"Just a year. It was something I was curious about when I joined Women of the Wall. Once every few months we do like Chabad does, go out and set up stands where women can put on tefillin. That was when I did it for the first time."

Q: Do you put them on because it's a way of getting closer to the Creator, or because you want to create political change in the country?

"Why would I put them on at home, when no one can see me? What political change am I making here? I put them on simply because it's my way of getting closer to God. Women are not obligated to 'time-sensitive' mitzvot. But you sit in a sukka, right? Most women go to hear the shofar blown on Rosh Hashana. We are obligated to, but we want to fulfill those commandments. These are commandments of emotion, of experience, of the senses.

"Barriers set up 2,000 years ago so a man won't be tempted? I don't count that as a mitzvah"

"Think about Sfirat Haomer. Each evening you count, you're expecting – why? For the holiday of the giving of the Torah. Why wouldn't you participate in that? Or reading the Torah, with the beautiful inflections. And they tell you, OK, you have no part in all this. If I don't benefit from my Judaism, from the experience – what kind of Judaism do I have? One without taste, without scent, without feeling, what am I supposed to pass on to my daughter?"

Q: Most Israelis would tell you, 'Do us a favor – leave off the tefillin until you've observed all the other mitzvoth. If you looked like Orthodox women, and you did all the mitzvot and not just "ones of emotion," and you wanted to add to that tefillin – then fine. But [MKs] Michal Rozin and Tamar Zandberg and Stav Shafir, who show up at your provocative "shows" don't lend much credence to the honesty of your intentions.

"Oh, come on. Zandberg came one time and explained that she had come because it was a feminist battle, as well. It's a religious struggle, but also a feminist one."

Q: It is more religious, or feminist?

"Religious. So a woman can pray at the Western Wall. We were at the wall during Slichot, and there was a group of seminary girls there who were singing songs in a big circle. It moved me so deeply. I went up to them and told them that we were from Women of the Wall, and that they were able to sing aloud there because of us. For 31 years Women of the Wall have been fighting so that a woman's voice can be heard at the Western wall.

"It's like the suffragists looking at us today and being amazed that we vote for the Knesset without a second thought. Some of them had their children taken away, some of them were put in prison, some of them were killed. But they [would] look at us today and say, 'It was worth it, our battle paid off.' This is what God is talking about when he says, 'There is hope for your future.'  [Jeremiah 31:17] We're trying to change the picture outside the Western Wall, too. We reach out to the media, to the government, to the High Court. We work on public opinion and visit schools, pre-army academies, and communities."

Q: Israelis who see you say, feminism is fine, but not using sacred objects. Don't come up to us wearing a tallit. Even someone secular – for whom the synagogue he doesn't attend is Orthodox –  doesn't want to see that. So why?

"Because Judaism has been co-opted by one stream."

Q: That's the way it is with all religions. How many female bishops hold Mass? How many female qadis are there in Islam?

"But the countries, other than radical states, aren't nations of one religion that don't allow people to observe their religions in different ways. When my haredi uncle invites me to his son's bar mitzvah, I go knowing that I'll be sitting upstairs [in the women's section]. I don't wear a tallit or tefillin, I sit separately [from the men], eat separately. It's a private event. The Western Wall is not private. Judaism is in the hands of one side because of the monopoly of the rabbinate. The people are voting with their feet and saying, 'We don't want this.' For example, they don't want to get married in the rabbinate. Five and a half years ago, I had the great privilege of not getting married through the rabbinate."

Q: You got married privately? Against the law?

"Yes. A rabbi sanctified our union against the law. We also got married abroad, and we are registered as married in Israel."

"Judaism has been co-opted by one stream"

Q: Let's get back to the Western Wall. There is something known as 'local custom.' You show up somewhere where a custom is in place and feel like changing it.

"A custom of 51 years. Before that, there was no separation between men and women. Before that, no one wore a tallit and tefillin while praying at the Wall, neither men nor women. The Jordanians didn't allow it, and the British didn't allow it, and the Ottomans didn't allow it."

Q: So there's been a local custom for 50 years and you want to shake it up? Why is it so urgent for you?

"Who decided what the local custom would be? The rabbi of the Western Wall, the Chief Rabbinate."

Q: No, so did the people. There is a sector who observes that kind of prayer.

"In 2013 Judge [Moshe] Sobel ruled in the Jerusalem District Court that Women of the Wall were also part of the 'local custom.' Jewish custom is something that develops, that changes with time, according to people's needs. We brought in a new need. A need that both Israelis and Diaspora Jews want to see."

'Third-class citizens'

Q: But there is a solution: a few years ago, the government established the 'Ezrat Israel' section, a half-dunam area [roughly a tenth of an acre] for prayers. It's located along the Western Wall, the same wall. That area is always open, it's available to both men and women, and Torah scrolls are available. And you don't pray there! You called it a "sun deck." The Reform Movement in the US responded that "the Western wall should be open to all Jews, to men and women equally." You won't stop until the Western Wall is in your hands."

"We won't compromise until the government implements the Western Wall framework at Ezrat Israel. The way it looks right now is insulting. It's a third-class area for third-class citizens, so we're demanding that it be refurbished. Secondly, there should be a single common entrance to the Western Wall, not some side entrance for Ezrat Israel so that everyone can decide where to go and have to guess that there's a second prayer area. That would mean moving the entrance to the Western Wall a few meters [yards] back. Third, there must be government funding. And fourth, the area must be managed by Women of the Wall and the pluralistic streams of Judaism, the Reform and Conservative movements. We won't let the rabbi of the Western Wall manage the area."

Q: You're talking like a terrorist organization. Until all your demands are met, you'll stir up provocations and disturb prayer.

"Provocation is a harsh word for prayer, certainly for Jewish prayer at a holy, unifying site. Jerusalem is a city that makes all the Jewish people friends. Jerusalem as a built-up city that has been united. You can't link to just one side of Judaism. I am saying that as an Orthodox woman. It pains me that my Conservative, Reform, and secular friends are treated like third-class citizens in the state of Israel.

"We aren't provocateurs who show up to flip anyone off. If that were the case, we'd have gotten tired of it a long time ago. We are women of faith who have come to pray every month for 31 years, in snow and in heat waves, when there were terrorist bombings and when there were security alerts, even at the cost of personal harm and violence against us. All we want is a respectful place to pray. If and when the Western Wall compromise is implemented, we will agree to a compromise and move to the Ezrat Israel area to pray. Until then, we're at the Western Wall, every single month."

"Jewish custom is something that develops, that changes with time, according to people's needs"

Q: You sound spoiled. There is a very nice compromise and it's a lot more than what existed a decade ago, relatively far from what could be expected from the rabbi of the Western Wall. And you want more and more. It doesn't end.

"There aren't even bathrooms there. It's not accessible for the disabled, for the elderly, for baby strollers."

Q: And until all your terms are met, you aren't willing to pray at Ezrat Israel and prevent this needless friction?

"The friction comes from them. I didn't bring it on myself. They don't like seeing me? They should take a look at themselves."

Q: What does that mean, 'they don't like it'? It's your right to pray vs. his right to pray. He can't pray if there's a woman in a tallit.

"Why not?"

Q: You offend his religious sensibilities.

"The Western Wall is a symbol of the [religious] molopoly that has taken place in Israel. I insist on liberating the Western Wall, and I will use that word – liberate the wall – to throw off that monopoly. Let the Judaism of the haredim be their Judaism, with our blessings and love. I respect it, but my Judaism will be according to my own path. Let others do things their way. We face more opposition than any other organization because we touch on the core of the Jewish people, which is the Western Wall. A man can pray - he has a two-meter-high barrier! It's opaque! He stands on the fence, watching me pray, and says I'm bothering him? He can't see me unless he wants to see me."

Q: Today you want to sit in the women's section wearing a tallit and tefillin. Tomorrow you'll want a mixed-gender minyan, and the day after you'll demand to sit in the men's section.

"I won't want to sit in the men's section, and we won't ask for the barrier to be taken down. I would like it to be in the middle, but that's not what we're fighting for. I am fighting for my right as a woman to hold the Torah in my arms."

Q: Let's say the Ezrat Israel area was put in order and given government funding, and Women of the Wall prayed there rather than at the Orthodox Wall – would you accept that there is [a part of] the Western Wall you don't visit, because it isn't yours – it belongs to someone else?

"That's the compromise that has been reached. A few of the paratroopers who liberated the Wall in 1967 joined our battle and said that they had sacrificed and their comrades had died beside them knowing that the joy of the Jewish people would not be complete until the symbol was in our hands. And now, seeing how it has been re-occupied by a small group, a group of extremists from within our own people? That's not why they liberated the Wall."

Q: After everything you've said, I assume you'll be among the first to support freedom of religious worship and the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount.

"I don't want to get into that issue. Women of the Wall has no stance on the Temple Mount. Jews and Muslims should be allowed to pray there, but I wouldn't want to start World War III. It's too volatile a place."

Q: You're doing that 100 meters away, at the second most-volatile place.

"True, and we always say, the writing is on the wall – blood will be spilled at the Western Wall."

Q: When you pray for the Third Temple to be built, what are you actually praying for?

"World peace. I don't know if there will be a physical Temple on the Mount or not. It certainly won't drop from the heavens and destroy the mosque. I believe that the Temple and a mosque beside each other is realistic. Above all, my battle is dedicated to my daughter. I imagine her bat mitzva at the Western Wall, without shouting, with her holding a Torah."

'It's not a battlefield'

The Western Wall Heritage Foundation issued a statement in the name of Rabbi of the Western Wall Shmuel Rabinovitch in response to the claims made in this interview.

"Women of the Wall have consciously chosen to turn the Western Wall prayer plaza into a battlefield. Their insistence on praying in the traditional women's section rather than any of the alternatives the government and the High Court have offered, shows that the purpose of their activity is provocation, not prayer. We have tried to do everything possible to preserve the prayer plaza as a place for prayer, not a battlefield," the statement read.

"We tried to create a dedicated area that would separate them [the Women of the Wall] from the hundreds of women worshippers who oppose them, and Women of the Wall chose to go in an pray among the other women, against instructions. Complaints of violence have been filed with the police against Women of the Wall.

"The millions of visitors to the Western Wall are happy with it exactly as it is, and flock to it. This small, vocal group, which is demanding to implement its rights at the expense of the many visitors and worshippers, should bow to the desire of an entire people, and devote its energies to more appropriate struggles in other places," the statement continued.

The post 'I came to liberate the Western Wall' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.