fbpx

Rosner’s Domain: Must Israel Be Moral?

If young people are less sympathetic to Israel, then all we have to do is wait, as the old generation of sympathetic Americans make room for a younger one of unsympathetic Americans. 
[additional-authors]
June 9, 2022
tovfla/Getty Images

The data that was presented by The Jewish People Policy Institute is an invitation to debate. This is a debate that concerns the root cause of the existence of the State of Israel. Debate over the question of whether the purpose of Zionism is to normalize the Jews, to make them like all other people, or whether its purpose is to give them a place of refuge where they will continue to be special and different. 

How exactly should they be different? For example, by basing their policies on moral values. Maybe not always, but more than other people and countries. The State of Israel, according to its Declaration of Independence, “will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.” This is beautiful, poetic wording. But as a practical guideline for action it is lacking. How to establish a state on the “foundations of freedom, justice and peace,” and realize a vision based on what “the prophets of Israel” preached?

Here’s an example of a dilemma: Israel must decide how to deal with Ukraine and Russia. Does the vision of the prophets of Israel contain practical advice on how to do this? And what is this advice? Another example: Poland passed a law that denies rights of Holocaust survivors. Does the vision of the prophets of Israel contain practical advice on how to respond? 

These are questions that have been lately tested, in and out of Israel. Foreign Minister Yair Lapid recently climbed off a tree. No public criticism was heard. A year ago, I wondered: What is the purpose of a crisis that Israel initiated in relations with Poland? In winter, the crisis came to an end. Israel’s demands were not met. The Poles remained in their position, and the law they passed, which prevented further compensation to Holocaust survivors, remained in place. In other words, Israel climbed a tree of moral high ground, then folded unceremoniously. The war in Ukraine and the refugee crisis provided a good enough reason, or excuse, to go back to normal relations. Israel behaved like a normal country. Morality was cast aside in lieu of pressing interests.

As normal as the United States. US President Joe Biden is also quietly climbing off a tree. Another tree, another crisis, but the principle is similar. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was shunned by the Biden administration. “Human rights will be at the heart of our foreign policy,” Biden has promised more than once. He also said he thought the Saudis should be “punished” for violating human rights, including the heinous butchery of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. For a year and a half US-Saudi relations were in a deep freeze. But next month, Biden and bin Salman will probably meet. As far as human rights are concerned, Biden gets nothing in return. The crisis in Ukraine forced the Americans to rethink their priorities. What did they choose? Less morality, more political realism. 

This is what the majority of Israeli Jews also chooses. To be honest, it is a choice that smells of contradiction. On the one hand, as revealed in the survey, 65% of Jews in Israel believe that Israel is more moral than the rest of the world. 72% of Jews believe that the IDF is the most moral army in the world. And yet – when asked about priorities the public keeps morality at arm’s length. The IDF must win. And if the public recognizes the risk of a lesser victory to preserve a moral stance (such as not harming innocent people) it chooses victory.

The bottom line is this: Israelis want to balance interests and morality, but with a priority for interests. 

The bottom line is this: Israelis want to balance interests and morality, but with a priority for interests. We presented the following scenario: “A European country that supports Israel … passes a law that prohibits transferring more money from the state to Holocaust survivors who have lost property there. What should Israel do?” 60% of Israeli Jews chose not to put Israeli interest at risk. Israel may protest, but only if this does not endanger the relationship. 

We asked: Should Israel sell spyware to an Arab dictator? An overwhelming majority says yes, but under restrictions. Again, the balancing act. And of course, the public is hardly unanimous concerning such questions. There are large gaps between right and left voters. But the Jewish-Israeli majority is a center-right majority (about 60%), and this majority (78% and 60%, respectively) chooses a policy of “interests,” or “interests with exceptions in the event of a serious violation of morality” over other options that puts more emphasis on moral considerations.  

The president of the Jewish People Policy Institute (and my boss), Prof. Yedidia Stern, believes this is a problem. Earlier this week he wrote: “The Jewish nation-state is supposed to express its Jewish character in its foreign and security policy through the manifestation of a moral sensitivity that has characterized the Jews since time immemorial.” In fact, the problem he identifies is a problem on top of another problem. Not only does the Jewish majority disagree with Stern’s position, but it turns out that the more Jews consider the “Jewishness” of the state as a central feature, the less they agree with him. 

And so – we are back where we started. The debate that goes to the heart of Israel’s purpose. Purpose as Zionists, who may just want to be normal. Purpose as Jews, among whom there is no agreement on what exactly the elusive concept of “Jewish morality” means. Prof. Stern writes: “A moral sensitivity that characterized the Jews”. This is like writing “freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.” A beautiful, poetic statement, from which it is not always clear what is derived in the field of policy.

Something I wrote in Hebrew

A public debate erupted when a TV channel asked in a poll whether people agree with the claim that the government relies “on terrorism supporters”. Here’s what I wrote:

Is the claim that the government is illegitimate because it relies on supporters of terrorism a significant topic in public discourse? It seems so. Could an answer to this question have a direct impact on the government’s ability to survive? It seems so. Therefore,  it is appropriate to ask such a question. Could the wording have been improved a bit? Definitely. But I’m not sure it would have changed much. For the truth must be told: it is not the question that matters, it is the government that matters. It is the polarized discourse concerning the Jewish-Arab partnership, which some see as a miracle, and some see as a disaster, that matters. The pollsters are merely the messengers.

A week’s numbers

See article on the left. Agree or disagree, Jewish Israelis are generally disinclined to be attentive to those who see the IDF as immoral.  

A reader’s response:

Yair Avni asked: “Why is Biden even going to Israel?” Answer: postponed until July, let’s revisit when the time comes.


Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Print Issue: Got College? | Mar 29, 2024

With the alarming rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, choosing where to apply has become more complicated for Jewish high school seniors. Some are even looking at Israel.

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.