Sunday Reads: Jews and Israel, Israel and America, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform
The end of last week was a very busy time for me, in which many of the things I was working on in recent weeks were simultaneously ready. Since I can safely assume you did not have the time to follow all of these things, I will use the format of our Sunday reads to give you another opportunity to take a look at those of them you might find interesting (and I promise to return next week to our usual, less-narcissistic format of Sunday reads).
1.
My article in The New York Times argued that Ally, Michael Oren’s book, is controversial for reasons different than what most people assume:
Mr. Oren’s book is controversial because he had the chutzpah to hint that a vague definition of the alliance — so vague that it allows one ally to make deals that infringe on the other ally’s ability to defend itself — is not truly an alliance.
He had the audacity to propose that when something as grave as the agreement with Iran is on the line, the facade that all pro-Israel positions are the same becomes dangerous. It gives individuals and institutions the luxury of holding on to the pro-Israel label while promoting policies that are highly damaging to it.
Read it here.
2.
A major study by JPPI, of which I am a senior fellow (I am the author of the study, and co-head of the project with Brig. General Mike Herzog), was released at the end of the week. The report is about “Jewish values and Israel’s use of force in armed conflict”.
The Times of Israel had the story:
While most Jews sympathize with Israel’s needs to wage war in self-defense and believe that its army acts according to high moral standards, there is growing discomfort with some Israeli policies they believe unnecessarily perpetuate conflict, according to the 100-page report by the JPPI, which was made available to The Times of Israel.
The full report is available online here.
Here are a couple of paragraphs:
JPPI’s 2015 Dialogue was characterized by severe dissonance.
On one hand, the discussions held indicate that, by and large, Jews in communities around the world understand and accept Israel’s need to use force in its dangerous and hostile surroundings, identify with the modes of action that Israel employs, accept Israel’s contention that it does its best to avoid harming civilians and to wage war as ethically as possible, agree that the criticism to which Israel’s actions are subjected in international forums and the international media are exaggerated and biased, and affirm that Israel suffers from unjustified discrimination compared to other countries.
… On the other hand, the discussions also revealed a certain amount of distress. They called attention to a growing difficulty that many Jews have understanding Israel’s long-term policy – which they see as contributing to, if not actually creating, the need to engage in repeated violent confrontations with its neighbors. They also evinced a rising tendency among Diaspora Jews to regard their ties to Israel as a
disruptive factor in their personal and communal lives. Although they are not the ones who have to fight – none of the participants was confused on that point – they, nevertheless, at times feel that they are positioned on a certain kind of frontline where they would rather not be.
3.
The Jewish Journal poll that revealed there are more American Jews who support the deal with Iran than American Jews who oppose it was also published on Thursday. Prof. Steven Cohen has the numbers for you. I wrote an analysis that you are invited to read here.
4.
As a JPPI fellow I was also the partner of the office of the President of Israel, Reuven Rivlin, in organizing a special event last week. At this event, timed for three days before Tisha BeAv, the president hosted for the first time a joint study session in which all major Jewish denominations were represented. I had the pleasure of working with all the participants in the weeks leading to this event, and on Thursday I had the pleasure of hearing them all speak.
You can read a short news story about this event here. You can see the President speak here. And I urge you to read the President’s speech. Here is the English translation:
The Talmud tells us (Baba-Metziah) in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, that “Jerusalem was destroyed only because the judges ruled in accordance with the strict letter of the law”. Those who compiled the Talmud, themselves asked the question, how exactly should judgments have been taken in Jerusalem if not according to the letter of the law? How and why did adherence to the laws of the Torah lead to the destruction of Jerusalem. To which the Talmud answers, “They ruled according to the strict letter of the law, as opposed to ruling beyond the letter of the law (i.e. with leniency)”. And so we say, Jerusalem was destroyed because it was ruled solely by the letter of the law, without the inclusion of any degree of goodness or honesty, or of moral or ethical norms.
This Talmudic proclamation must be considered fully. Does the Torah in Deuteronomy (16:20) not say, “Justice, Justice shall you pursue.” Did Isaiah (1:27) not prophesize, “Zion shall be redeemed with justice”? Are not law and order foundations upon which the world stands? Yes, the world does stand upon justice and the law, though not upon them alone. The judicial system is vitally important to the building of a just society. It enables contracts and agreements to be made. The law enables cooperation and partnership – even when there is no personal connection, even when there is no trust. It is the vital contract for the building of society. Yet, society cannot exist without moral and ethical accepted norms, components of mutual trust and unity. Gestures which are based not only in the law, but also on the leniency of the law. Solidarity, or as the Hebrew word denotes, 'brotherhood', is found in its most natural form in the family unit. Brotherhood or unity is the deep commitment which bonds families together. It is not a prerequisite for written contracts, but just like a family, a society requires solidarity, brotherhood, unity. A society without this – as the Talmud teaches us – is destined for destruction. The notion of family is intrinsic to a healthy society. In a healthy society there exists unity and ethics, leniency on the law alongside the letter of the law, and the letter of the law as its social and substantive base. Or in the words of the Ethics of the Fathers, “Upon three things the world stands: law, truth, and peace. As is stated (Zachariah 8:16), 'Truth, and a judgment of peace, you should administer at your gates'.” We must remember and ensure the existence of unity, of the simple 'love of Israel' within us, within the Jewish people. The communities represented and gathered here, are communities which are brimming with a love for Israel, and with a deep commitment to the future of the Jewish people, and to the character of the State of Israel.
One could disagree with the positions and opinions of members of the Reform or Conservative movements, but one could not deny their dedication, or the clear voice with which they speak in support of the State of Israel, here and around the world. One could debate with the Religious Zionist community, or with the Kibbutz movement, but one could not deny the contribution of these movements to the building of the State of Israel, to its wellbeing and security. We must not forget for a moment, that fierce debates are the sincere and genuine expression of a concern for us all – Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, and Secularist – for the present day, and for the future of the Jewish people.
There are disputes within our family. These differences relate to the very nature of faith, the status of revelation and religious law, and the implementation of Jewish identity within the in the modern world. The dispute between these positions runs deep. We cannot deny them and we cannot paper over their depth or difficulties. However, I am of the opinion that we should not want to blur these differences in the name of a false unity. We need to learn, not how to agree with each other, but how to disagree with each other. We must disagree with each other with respect, fairness, with firmness, but without foregoing the other person's Jewish identity. We cannot predetermine that one opinion or another has no right to exist within contemporary Jewish discourse. Rabbinic Judaism – which was founded in Yavneh following the destruction of the Temple – witnessed firsthand the horrific danger of sectarianism. Thus the Rabbis understood that social and faith-based conflicts, important as they may be, cannot be decided by a total negation of the other. The greatness of the Torah teachings and learning of Yavneh became a major part in our common Judaism through its ability to turn debate itself into part of the core of Jewish law. The Jewish cultural debate does not erase the words of the minority or the opposing side – but gives it a place within the canon itself.
Within Israeli society the President's Office stands as an axis of peace, as an 'ex gratia' foundation. The President's Office, as the home of the entire Israeli society, is committed to be the home of us all. This office is not a place for struggles and wars, but rather a home for discourse and a place that enables the diversity of opinions. This is certainly not an easy task – specifically because the grave disagreements between us also concern the question of who is entitled to be represented and where. And yet, this is a mission in which I am determined to succeed, out of the understanding that the pursuit of unity without blurring opinions, of creating solidarity without deleting identities, and of striving to develop a common language even for disagreements – is the task of this office and is my task. This event, which was not easy to build and put together, is being attended by authentic representatives of all factions who have expressed willingness to participate in this important debate. I thank you, Rabbi Azari, Rabbi Benny Lau, and Rabbi Rowen-Baker. As well as Dr. Motti Zeira, who agreed to participate in this study session and speak to us about practical ways of conducting a dialogue out of respect.
I want to end my notes with a personal family story. When my wise grandfather Rabbi Yoshua Rivlin built the first synagogue outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem, a question arose as to which version of prayers would be adopted – Spanish, Ashkenazi, or the Eastern version. At the time, the struggle over the versions of prayers tore families and communities apart. Even the Turkish and British authorities were involved at times in the attempt to decide between conflicting traditions. My grandfather, together with his friends, decided that payers in the first synagogue outside the walls would be conducted according to a unified version. His reasoning was: 'a united prayer version' in Gematria (assigning numerical value and meaning to a word or phrase) was equal to the phrase 'rebuilding Jerusalem'. To this Moshe Sharett once said: 'Jerusalem has Ashkenazim and Sephardim as well as the Rivlins'.
Sunday Reads: Jews and Israel, Israel and America, Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Read More »