Advertisement

Challenges to Circumcision in Israel

The Israeli Association Against Genital Mutilation
  • Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin
  • Raphi Blustein

Abstract

In Israel, almost all Jewish and Muslim male children are subjected to circumcision. Many Christian male children are circumcised as well. Usually, almost no thought is given to the deed or to its results. It is considered an obligation that cannot be omitted or questioned. Parents who protect their babies from circumcision are subjected to strong condemnation and often also to ostracism from their families. Circumcisers do not provide correct or credible information about the operation or its medical and anatomical implications. They usually perform it without providing any information. They also do not seek the consent of the child’s parents or guardians. Furthermore, circumcisers are not required to provide documentation that informed consent for the operation was legally obtained. There have been well-publicised cases in Israel where it was found, after the surgery had been performed, that the child had been circumcised either against the will of the child’s parents or guardian or in situations where the parents were not united in their view regarding the execution of the circumcision. In one case, for example, two mohels (traditional circumcisers), who assumed that the infant’s mother was in favour of letting her child be circumcised, performed the operation, after which it was revealed that the mohels had acted without the mother’s approval and against her will.

Keywords

Sexual Satisfaction Human Dignity State Authority Corporal Punishment Religious Affair 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zalkai C. [The baby was kidnapped from his mother and circumcised against her will]. Ma-ariv (September 24, 1993). (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rubin N. Stretching the foreskin and the regulation of the periah. Zion 1989;54:105–7 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bigelow J. The Joy of Uncircumcising! Aptos, CA Hourglass Book Publishing. 1995:54–60.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tertis A. Sefer Dom Bris, Treatise on Metzitzah & Circumcision. London: Ginzburg Press. 1900. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peleg Y. The Sephardic Rabi, Bakshi-Doron: mohels—beware of Aids. Yediot Acharonot (March 19, 1993). (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Savir A. Brit Milah as a surgical, traditional, and environmental problem. Rofe Harnishpacha 1991;19:121–5. (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Shamgar M. In: Roe v. Doe. Civil appeal: 2266/1993, Supreme Court, Jerusalem, Israel (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    Chen E. About 3000 new immigrants were circumcised this year. The Treasury pays 460 shekels for every circumcision. Davar (July 9, 1990). (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Bender A. An agreement has been reached to circumcise adult new immigrants. Ma-ariv (February 25, 1990).Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Grinstein Y. 60 run away husbands have been located. Ma-ariv (February 6, 1992).Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Shamgar M. In: Roe v. Doe. Civil appeal: 2266/1993, Supreme Court, Jerusalem, Israel (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Barak A.’ Chevrat-Kadisha Khilat-Yerushlaim v. Kastenbaum A. L. civil appeal 294/1991, Supreme Court, Jerusalem, PD:46(2):464 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  13. 15.
    Barak A. Protected civil rights and the Private Law. In: The book of Klinghofer:163.Google Scholar
  14. 16.
    Barak A. ‘Bank Hamizrachi Hame’uchad’ and others v. “Migdal Kefar Shitufi’ and others. civil appeal 6821/1993, Supreme Court, Jerusalem, PD:49(4):221 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  15. 17.
    Katlan and others v. the Prisons Authority. The Supreme Court sitting as High Court of Justice 355/1979, Jerusalem, PD:34(3):294 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Barak A. ‘Bank Hamizrachi Hame’uchad’ and others v. ‘igdal Kefar Shitufi’ and others. civil appeal 6821/1993, Supreme Court, Jerusalem, PD:49(4):221 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  17. 19.
    Elon M. The General Attorney v. Roe. Permission for Civil Appeal 698/1986, Supreme Court, Jerusalem, PD:52(2):661 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Avshalom Zoossmann-Diskin
  • Raphi Blustein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations