No to a Majority Tyranny

by Rabbi Dov Berkovits

The writer is head of 'Bet Av -- Renewal and Creativity in Torah' and former director of the Pardes Institute. He's long been involved in programs for religious and secular Israelis. Berkovits's latest book, She-asani Gever -- Talmudic Discussions in the Eye of a Storm, is scheduled for publication by Yediot Aharonot in the coming months.

A recent exchange of letters to the editor in The Jerusalem Post between Moshe Dann (August 13) and Max Singer (August 17) dealt with the issue of IDF soldiers disobeying orders calling on them to participate in removing Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Dann's basic claims were that the purpose of the IDF is to protect the existence of the State of Israel, not to expel Jews from their homes in the Land of Israel, and that the IDF is a citizen's army and its use by a majority against a minority would lead to a demoralization of the army and of society at large.

Singer, in rejecting this position, raised serious constitutional issues. He contended that a minority, however idealistic, cannot separate itself from the majority, and that the stability -- and the very existence -- of the Jewish state rested on the axiom that "to keep our country we have to participate in its army and obey its orders."

He argued emphatically that "God set rules for us as individuals, but he made us free to make decisions, including the decision not to obey the rules -- subject to His punishment. God may have made rules forbidding a Jewish state to expel Jews from their homes in the land of Israel. (I think any such rule would be subject to military and diplomatic necessity.) But we cannot avoid having a government which may break the rules. When someone who wants to live in a Jewish country thinks the government is breaking God's rules, he or she has to face the unpleasant fact of being implicated in breaking God's rules.

The choice is between deciding not to have a Jewish country because its government may or does break God's rules -- although God seems to have told us to have one -- or living with the country's sin, if that is really what it is, until politics can stop the sinning."

SINGER'S ARGUMENT, in the best tradition of Western political thought, suffers from a fundamental -- if widely held -- error of perception that has dangerous implications for our future.

* First, the democratic tradition has always had a place for the human conscience; it is the last refuge of safety against the always present potential of the tyranny of the majority in democracies.

Israel does not have a democratic tradition of hundreds of years, like other Western democracies which have understood the value of citizen dissent. In that context the need for soldiers who believe that eviction of law-abiding Jewish families from their homes is illegal and immoral is as important as the reality of soldiers who refused to participate in operations against Arab civilians in Hebron.

Some claim that belief in a divine command as a basis for such action is untenable, while conscientious objection is a sacred value. Though there are Orthodox Jews for whom a divine command, by definition, must be accepted without reason, most religious soldiers have been educated to have a deep religious consciousness that is profoundly linked to idealism -- national, ethical and interpersonal.

WE SHOULD be deeply respecting of young men who have volunteered to serve in elite IDF units, unlike many of their generation, who do not follow orders blindly and are willing to pay the price for their actions.

* Second, the constitutional issue raises the question of the very essence of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state. The legal and political realities of the United States were fashioned on the basis of an enlightened Constitution. At the core of the Constitution is its Bill of Rights. Though the US Supreme Court has shifted in its interpretation of the Constitution over the years, this fundamental document has always been accepted as providing the framework for political struggle.

In Israel there is no constitution and no bill of rights. As a result Israel has no binding formulation of national legality and legitimacy that reflects a commonly held statement of the basic values embodied in the existence of the state. In this situation the government, the Knesset and the Supreme Court are permitted to violate fundamental historical realities regarding the very raison d'etre of the Jewish state as long as political machinations and basic cultural attitudes can combine to create "law" as temporary consensus.

I BELIEVE the founders of Israel formulated tenets that established the philosophical contours of our state, and set boundaries on the use of political power. One such foundational tenet was the purpose of the establishment of the IDF.

Israel was created because of the tragic defenselessness of the Jewish people in the Exile. The IDF was established to protect Jewish homes and synagogues from destruction.

Here lies the basic constitutional issue -- does a government in Israel have the right to order the IDF to destroy law-abiding and lawfully created Jewish communities in Israel and exile Jews from their synagogues for "military and diplomatic necessity"?

Perhaps it is necessary for the existence of the state to allow for such an eventuality, as Max Singer claims. However, such a decision is clearly a reformulation of part of the historical bedrock on which the Jewish state rose.

And if that is the case, where was the national dialogue on this fundamental issue? Who were the major intellectual or spiritual figures that determined the role of the IDF would now be similar to that of armies in liberal democracies and not that fashioned from the unique destiny of Jewish history? Ahmed Tibi and Omri Sharon?

PARADOXICALLY, most of the soldiers who find themselves deeply conflicted over orders related to the destruction of communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza were inculcated to view the state as an instrument of God.

What is the ultimate value in forcing them to participate in an operation whose goal is the destruction of the communities they were brought up in? Is there no way for an enlightened leadership to find a way to allow them to remain loyal without callously destroying the most valuable of all our possessions -- the ideals and beliefs of our young generation?

* Third, and most important, the existence of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state rests foremost on the integrity and unity of the Jewish people. There is no guarantee our "third commonwealth" will not suffer the kinds of terrible inner divisions which could have frightful consequences.

We are on the edge of a chasm when, in the name of governmental legitimacy, a citizen's army -- the very army which has succeeded in being the sole remaining accepted symbol of unity -- is used against part of our people.

We were playing with fire when the government used the IDF to protect our police in the Amona operation. We were playing with fire when police used planned mayhem against young men and women. We were playing with fire when our government used its secret service to delegitimize (and jail) as criminals idealistic young people as a tactic in a political struggle.

WE NEED to restate what this fragile reality called the Jewish state is fashioned of. We all believe in the critical necessity of the democratic process. We all support the need to reevaluate the treatment of Israel's Arab population both as a democratic and as a Jewish value.

But one principle needs to be emphasized again and again: If the democratic process, as it is understood today, leads to a further destructive dissolution of the Jewish people in Israel, there is no justification for the existence of the state. In such an absurd reality, Jewish history will find another venue for the realization of its destiny.

TODAY, WE are building a future for our people in this land. Let us give ourselves as much time as necessary to learn who we are and what kind of country we want.

First and foremost, we need to understand how far we can push each other, to recognize the parameters within which political struggle can legitimately take place.

It is my unequivocal view that the use of the IDF to destroy Jewish homes, to uproot lawfully created Jewish communities and to exile scrolls of the Torah from synagogues is outside those limits.

Originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Why Everyone Hates the Settlers

by Tzvi Fishman4 Tevet 5768, 13 December 07

[I'll be honest, I'm not a fan of Mr Fishman nor have I ever been an enthusiastic supporter of Rav Levinger. None the less, when a person speaks truth, I accept it from where ever it comes. In my 56 year experience, the past thirty four of them in or associated with Israel and the Jewish People, the following rings true as few other blog posts are likely to! YBA]

(IsraelNN.com) Ever wonder why the whole world goes crazy when a handful of Israeli teenagers put up a cluster of shacks on a barren hillside in Judea and Samaria?
Why should it bother a Frenchman in Paris, a Swede in Stockholm, or a Russian in Moscow? Why should Jews living on the mountains of Biblical Israel make the President of the United States and officials in the State Department pull out their hair?

Rav Levinger, the father of renewed Jewish settlement in the city of Hevron, was one of the principle leaders of Gush Emunim and the settlement movement for the last thirty years.
In an interview just before his stroke, Rabbi Levinger explained that the continuing settlement of Eretz Yisrael was the most important mitzvah of our generation.

"Rabbi Moshe Harlop was one of the closest students of Rabbi Kook. In his book, "Maayanei HaYeshua," he explains that if you want to know the most important mitzvah for Am Yisrael in any generation, it is the mitzvah that the nations of the world most oppose. In the time of the Hashmoneans, the Greeks made their most forceful decrees against the mitzvot that most highlighted the Jews as a unique holy nation – the commandments of Shabbat, Rosh Hodesh, and Brit Milah."

This was because the Greeks wanted to impose their unholy Hellenist culture over all of the world. Because their culture celebrated human intellect, physical beauty and hedonist pleasure, they could not tolerate the existence of Judaism which brings G-d into every aspect of life, the spiritual and the physical as well. So they tried to stamp out the commandments that sanctify time and the human body, symbolized by the brit milah. The Greeks wanted to keep the gods in heaven and not be beholden to any holy, all-powerful Divinity here on earth.

"Rabbi Harlop writes that in the time of the footsteps of Mashiach, the mitzvah that the nations of the world most oppose is the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel. This is because in the time of Mashiach all holiness comes to the world through the settlement of the Land of Israel."
This is because the greatest sanctification of G-d in our time occurs when Jews return to settle the Biblical hilltops of Israel in fulfillment of Divine prophecy. The nations of the world don't care if Jews build kosher neighborhoods in Monsey, New York or Antwerpen. Jews can keep even Shabbat in Cairo and Teheran. But when a handful of Jews erect a rickety caravan on the hillsides overlooking Shilo, Elon Moreh, or Beit-El, it is an international scandal.

This is because the Jewish prophets said this would happen, that Jews would return to these same Biblical hillsides, and its coming to pass means that there is a G-d in the world, an active, living Ruler of heaven and earth, who chose the Nation of Israel to be His messenger to teach the world His commandments and ways. Of course, the nations of the world rise up in protest. It is OK for them to pay lip service to G-d when He is restricted to heaven. But, like the Greeks before them, they don't want to be bound by His laws here on earth. In their collective conscience, if you get rid of the Jewish settlers, you get rid of G-d. By taking the Land of Israel away from the Jews, the infidels can prove that G-d doesn't really exist and that the Torah isn't true. Then they can go about their stealing and murdering and fornicating in peace, without having to worry about Divine retribution.

So in the words of Rabbi Levinger and Rabbi Harlop, "It isn't a wonder that all the nations of the world want to hinder the resettlement of Israel by the Jews. They place all of their weight and power precisely on this matter."

And this is the reason, Rabbi Levinger says, that we must continue to build on every barren hilltop. Because the salvation of the world depends upon it. This is how G-d's Presence returns to the world. Through the resettlement of Israel, G-d makes Himself known and returns to being the #1 superpower reigning over all of the nations. May it be soon.

And may Rabbi Levinger have a complete and speedy recovery, and return to leading the way up the hillsides of our beloved Land.

Israel's Dangerous Plutocracy

In April of 1906, Roosevelt said, "Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of statesmanship of the day."

My critics have often chided me on my "paranoia". For years I have described Israel's political process as "the illusion of democracy". Israel's parliamentarians are not elected by the people, but at best by the few thousand members of each party's secretariat. These individuals represent the special interest groups that control who will be in each party's "list of candidates" and their position on that list. At best the electorate can vote for a party, but whether a specific individual will actually sit in our parliament or note, has no connection with the individual's ballot.

In a country where, according to Dunn & Bradstreet and the former General Manager of the National Insurance, somewhere between fifteen to eighteen families control over 75% of Israel's capital, it is a very short path to believing that these families will ensure the election of individuals that will be "easy to work with". In other words, exploiting the back room mechanisms of the Israel equivalent to gerrymandering, Israel's politicians are far more accountable to their patrons than to the people who ostensibly elect them.

What a surprise to discover Teddy Roosevelt himself quoted as identifying a very parallel development in the American political system on the eve of the First World War.

G-d In search of Man

Over the many years I have worked online I have made the 'virtual acquaintance' of many people from many different beliefs. One of these correspondents is a devout Christian with whom I once agreed to agree to disagree and have maintained a loose connection with since our business dealings ended. Recently I received an interesting email from her which I have responded to in the following post. If you have anything to add, please post a comment to our open discussion.

Yoel, I hope you don't mind me emailing you and I hope you remember who I am. Anyway,I have some hard questions and as I thought them over, I realized that you're the only person I know who could answer them, if you will, please? I am very sincere in wanting to hear your answers, but I will understand if you don't answer at all.

Dear Pat,

I'm always interested in "hard questions". Perhaps that is why you thought of me? There is a very good reason for that. As one of Judaism's many sages once asserted, the essence of Judaism is the question - not the answers. In fact he went so far as to demonstrate that so many aspects of Judaism are linked with the "Commemoration of the Leaving of Egypt" (The Exodus). Fascinatingly, when we explore the heart of the ritual which is focused exclusively on this event, Pesach (Passover) we discover that the heart of this annual celebration is - the four questions. Jewish parents are proud of their children, not when they can repeat some Jewish version of the catechism by heart, but when their precious child raises a question that challenges their teacher's ability to explain! So yes, bring on the questions, maybe together we will learn something.

To set the scene, the Creator of the New Testament that we Christians read, seems to be different from that of the Old Testament.

Okay, before we continue you must understand that although Christianity apparently respects the so-called 'Old Testament', Judaism (and by extension myself) see the so-called 'new Testament' as a collection of documents written by men driven by religious polemics. It is at best an attempt to provide a basis for a religion based not upon divinely revealed truths, but a religion of accommodation which on one hand borrowed truths from other religions (like Judaism) but attempted to mold and present these truths in a fashion most likely to attract believers of other believers of other religions. I think you call this proselytizing. In short I will respond to questions directed toward so-called 'Old Testament' issues only, we call this the Tanach (first letters of Torah, Navim & Ketuvim) but have absolutely nothing to say about the other text.

Anyway, there are many instances where the Lord seems harsh and even subject to human emotions like a quick anger (against the Israelites when they were tired of manna, for instance). Some of His actions seem extreme in the light of... something. The love taught in the New Testament or humanism, maybe, I don't know.

One of our sages summarized his understanding of scripture by saying: "Torah speaks in the language of men!" What he appears to be saying is that in order for men to understand G-d's message, that message had to be communicated in terms and in a fashion that men could understand. Let me go further. The Rambam explained that Moshe Rabbenu merited a level of prophecy similar to the level of a man speaking face-to-face with his neighbour. Later prophets merited a more distant prophetic experience, akin more to visions requiring interpretation and finally toward the end of the prophetic period (scripture), the level of prophetic inspiration was described as "ruach hakodesh" - the breeze of holiness.

In a sense you might described this evolution of prophetic experience as a form of education. The initial reality of taking a people out of bondage and molding them into a nation capable of receiving G-d's instructions for living required an over whelming face-to-face experience - like that experienced by the Jewish People at Mount Sinai. As the message gradually absorbed, over generations, the reminders and amplifications provided were more subtle, less over powering. HaShem doesn't want man to do the right thing because he is afraid of not doing it, but because he desires to do the right thing. Man's role in the world requires that he exercise his free will. Again, I am not relating to how so call Christian scriptures supposedly portray G-d, but definitely in Tanach there is a gradual transformation of how HaShem's message is delivered and perceived, all reinforcing the idea that man's great gift is his ability to choose.

More over, the prophets included in 'scripture' are only those our sages understood were necessary for future generations. There were many many more prophets than those included in the 24 books of the Tanach. And those prophets prophesied many more times than the few prophecies recorded and transmitted in our tradition.

The law contains extreme consequences for behaviors, like stoning a rebellious son. Today, this wouldn't even be heard of.

Jewish sages had a difficult time with this one. The consensus opinion is that some laws, such as this one, were not given in order that they might be enforced, but more that the learning and debate surrounding the law might have an educational effect on the people. If you were looking for what would be today considered an "unjust" law, you could have chosen the law of Mamzarut. A child conceived by a married woman from a man not her husband is considered a mamzer (I'm not certain that this is the equivalent of a bastard). Such a child cannot marry a Jew.

Why does Torah punish the child? It was the parents who sinned! Yet the Torah in the case of mamzer, in the same way as the rebellious son, sees not the direct cause and effect of the actions as the determinant but looks beyond the current situation to the far reaching effects of these actions in subsequent decades and generations. I call these kind of laws "drawing the line". If you do not "draw the line" here, the very essence of the purity and holiness of the union between and man and a woman become debased. HaShem made the value judgment that if there is a man and a woman so lust full and egocentric as to ignore the possible consequences of their actions to their own offspring, these must be an end to this before it corrupts the rest of the Jewish People.

If you'd like to question HaShem's perspective, He has already answered you in Isaiah 55:8 : "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says HaShem"

Another time ... the man (don't remember his name) were killed immediately because he steadied the Ark of the Covenant?

What I found interesting in this comment was that you ignored the next verse. It says that David was distressed that HaShem had "lashed out" at Uzza and called the location of that incident "Peretz Uzza" from that day forward. In David's understanding of the incident, HaShem's "lashing out" was apparently not justified. It disturbed or distressed him. Yet there can be no question that an all-knowing deity must have known something David didn't know. This is an important point. Our relationship with HaShem is relative. How we perceive HaShem's actions is a function of who we are and what we understand and believe. There is no indication that David stopped believing in HaShem after the incident with Uzza, yet it is very clearly expressed in scripture that he was "disturbed" (or "distressed") by the event. These things are not contradictory. Torah deals with real life and real living people. People are complex and often times contradictory.

As I thought about these things, I remembered David, who, while he was apparently chastised for his affair with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, yet lived a long life as King of Israel - no bolts of lightening for him. Other times that don't add up: Abraham lying about Sarah being his wife, yet the sin was with the man who wanted her unknowing of the lie, not with Abraham.

Our sages say that the entire story of David & Batsheva was written as a lesson we can all learn - the repentance of an individual over mistakes can be accepted if they are truly contrite. Yet at the same time you must see Torah as dealing with the real world! A world where sometimes the righteous are persecuted and the evil have the upper hand. Avraham by-the-way didn't completely lie about Sarah being his sister. We learn from him when he explained to the King of Gerrar (Genesis 20:12) that Sarah was his half-sister, but in the verse before he explains why the deception was necessary: "Because there was no fear of G-d in this place". Finally I suggest that sometimes we can learn from the mistakes of others, not only from their successes?

Part of my question is this: How much of the scriptures can we take literally, and how much of them are told for the sake of the lesson? I have read that the story of Jonah and the great fish was just a story.

I don't know about being swallowed by a whale (or whatever it was), but it is my firm belief that truth is true. Scripture cannot teach you a truth using a falsehood as the vehicle. If Joshua actually led the People of Israel into the Land of Israel, then Jericho actually exists and the city was destroyed. Having said that, you must understand that scripture (read Tanach) is neither a history book nor some sort of physics primer. The narrative has one objective, to teach us how to live our lives. The stories, incidents and teachings that support and assist in achieving that objective are the one's included in the text. The endless minutiae of life are ignored. A classic point in case is the trip Elezar, Avraham's servant took from Canaan to Aram Haharaim. It was easily a six week trip by camel, yet the Biblical Narrative compresses these six weeks or arduous travel through probably dangerous territory into one short phrase (Genesis 24:10). Another aspect of this same story is that the narrative totally ignores all the people that probably assisted Elezar in his journey with ten camels laden with the precious gifts his master sent with him. As my teacher once said, if they didn't have legs ( see Genesis 24:32) we wouldn't know they existed.

Having made my point, don't confuse the vehicle for the message. Some of our understandings of what is spoken of are based upon very terse and obscure terms. Whether we truly understand them correctly or not is often secondary importance, rather is moral or ethical lesson they communicate is none-the-less understood.

Do you see my confusion? If you could shed some light on it and help me understand the nature of this Creator, I would be so very much grateful.

Yes I see your confusion. Do you understand my response? You ask about understanding the nature of the 'creator' and I spend my entire essay trying to help you understand the nature of man. HaShem is unknowable, except in a kind of after-the-fact kind of way. HaShem's message is "dressed" in clothing that make it possible for flesh and blood creators to grasp, relate to and identify with. If sometimes that "clothing" comes across in your appreciation as crude or even brutish, that has far more to do with the nature of the people the message was directed at than the source of the message itself.

There is so much more I could add, but unfortunately time is not something I have a lot of. If you'd like to respond to this, ask for greater clarification or bring up another point please feel free to do so. I'll try to find the time to write you a reply.

In Friendship,
Yoel Ben-Avraham
Shilo, Benyamin

After the publication of the above another Christian correspondent of mine, a student of theology from Canada jumped into the fray to share his insights into the above discussion. You can find Jeremiah's response in its entirety on his blog The Evolution of Jeremiah.

Pulitzer Prizes?

One of the topics in the Israeli Press this week has been the Pulitzer Prize to an Israeli journalist for the photograph that I personally felt captured the essence of Amona, and with it the post-Disengagement spirit of the pro-Eretz-Israel movement. The question is - how do you view the photograph?

• Is the religious fanatic throwing herself in a desperate attempt to thwart the forces of law-and-order?
• Or is the symbol of right and justice standing up despite all odds to stem the forces of corruption and nihilism?

Personally I see this young woman as typical of the generation my children belong to. I call them the "Generation of Entering the Land". Unlike the "Generation of the Dessert (Midbar)" who were acculturated to see the world through the eyes of their non-Jewish host cultures, these children are literally "children of the land". There is not an inch of this land they haven't hiked through, or unfortunately, fought over. They are deeply attached to its soil, its geography, it fauna and wildlife, and especially the history of the peoples who have lived here since the dawn of history.

The Tanach, for them, is neither a dusty collection of ancient history nor an esoteric handbook of antiquated religious belief - it is a handbook for inspiring day-to-day, minute-to-minute life. It inspires their political vision as well as their aspiration for purity and honesty, but especially justice.

In many ways I feel the middrash that describes Moshe Rebbennu's astonishment after hearing Rabbi Akiva's lecture to his students describes our generation gap reality. Like Moshe our "Generation of the Midbar" led our people through the parted seas of a holocaust to the "Promised land". The real work of settling the land, establishing the foundations for the kingdom of Israel came after Moshe passed on. So too, we are experiencing that unsettling transition between the demise of the "great" leaders of the past and the yet-to-be arrival of the leaders who grew up on the land.

If you are in need of inspiration and are looking for a reason to be optimistic about the future of the Jewish People in general, and the Jewish People in the Land of Israel in particular, watch this short "Press Statement" by a young woman who's idealism and willingness to back it up with selfless dedication, even if it mean being beaten mercilessly by multiple Israel 'Police'.

I love irony. The young woman's first name? Nili! From the first letters of the words in the phrase phrase: "The eternity of Israel will not lie!"

"And also the Eternity of Israel will not lie nor waver; for He is not a man, that He would equivocate;"

I Samuel 15:29