Much ink and cyberspace has recently been dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many of us are engaged in, once again, explaining to the world why we are right and why the Arabs are wrong. While this is a very important pursuit, one of the unfortunate results has been the creation of confusion among our own ranks.
As Jews, we need to be clear on the difference between identity of interests and convergence of interests. Identity of interests is when groups have the exact same perceived needs, whereas convergence of interests is when two or more groups' perceived needs temporarily overlap. As an example, when the Amshinover rebbe went to the Japanese government and explained that the Nazis were against all Asian peoples including the Jews, this was a clever attempt to find convergence of interests. Clearly, the rebbe believed that the Jews had a special role in the Nazi persecutions and were singled out for more than their Asianness. Nonetheless, to his Japaneese interlocutors, it was appropriate to point out the convergence of Jewish and Japanese interests - the fact that Nazi ideology viewed all Asians, including Jews, as inferior.
While our nonreligious leaders and spokesmen may paint Israel as the defender of democracy and fighter of terror in the Middle East, religious Jews must understand that this is not the essence of our conflict with the Arabs.
I fervently pray for the restoration of the Davidic monarchy three times a day. Such a monarchy, and not contemporary democracy, is supposed to be a sign of utopian times. Although democracy may be the best political system for Jews at this time, it should certainly not be confused with a Jewish ideal. Moreover, contrary to what is being proposed by muddled thinkers, trying to carry over anachronistic concepts from conflicts of the first half of the twentieth century, democracy does not automatically cure belligerency. I daresay that Arafat is still more moderate than most of his people, who, in more than one poll, overwhelmingly support suicide bombings. The fact that Israel is democratic and the PA and Arab states are not, may give us an advantage in creating support from the West, but it is completely tangential to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, the notion of bringing democracy to the PA has nothing to do with ending this conflict.
As for fighting terrorism, Ehud Barak stated that were he to have been born a Palestinian, he probably would also have been a terrorist. It is much easeir to dissociate ourselves from such statements or from the militant extremism of some Mandate-era Zionist groups, than it is to dissociate ourselves from the Tanakh. Shimshon was captured and tortured as an arch-terrorist and Jewish nationalist. His last defeat over the Philistines can be described as nothing short of a suicide bombing.
Understandably, one would want to point out the base nature of the Philistines, their cruel treatment of Shimshon, etc. In any contemporary liberal forum, however, it is highly unlikely that any of these variables would exonerate Shimshon from blame for his attack on a civilian population. Morever, no matter how theoretical it is today, Jews are commanded to kill all Amalekites, men, women and children. Again, were such a practice to be judged by the world's liberal democracies, it would probably viewed as on par with the ideology of bin Laden. While terrorism is now not in our interest or that of any other people with a mininal desire for the status quo, its eradication is not a fundamental Jewish value. Ultimately, it is not the act of terrorism per se that we are against - it is its motive.
What we *are* fighting for boils down to two things: Jewish life and Jewish land. Early on in the conflict, I remember hearing a Palestinian spokesman complaining that the Jews act as if Jewish loss of life is more important than loss of Palestinian (i.e. non-Jewish) life. While one can assume this Palestinan also cares mores for his nation and family more than he cares for others, what he is really attacking is our claim to objectivity in asserting the greater worth of Jewish life.
Any man's preference for his kin and nation is understandable and legitimate from a subjective point of view. It is an entirely different story to present this preference as an objective one. Lehavdil, when the Germans claimed that they were objectively superior, they won few adherents. The most important difference (among very many) between our claim and that of the Germans is that we are correct and they were not.
It may not sell in the Western press, but, in general, we do believe Jewish life to be more sacred than non-Jewish life. For example, R. Chanina (Sanhedrin 38b) points out that a non-Jew who even injures a Jew (as opposed to a non-Jew) deserves the death penalty. Even though the Rambam points out that we do not actually enforce this law (see the Radvaz on the Rambam and the Maharsha on the above gemara), he nonetheless brings down the statement as normative Noachide halacha in Melachim 10:6.* R. Chanina then states that an attack on a Jew is tantamount to an attack on the Divine presence. Presumambly, our association with the Divine idea is what gives us our elevated status.
In spite of the idea's obvious unpopularity in secular circles, we shoud not forget its truth. Thus, anyone who threatens Jewish life should be treated in the harshest possible manner. While we may need to *speak* in terms the world can understand, a truly Jewish government will *act* upon what is ultimately true.
Our contemporary right to the land of Israel is somewhat less clear. It is well known that our claim to reestablishing ourselves in our ancestral land has been the subject of great debate within Orthodoxy in the Modern period. This notwithstanding, now that God has allowed us to reestablish ourselves in our land, it is incumbent upon us to assure our own security. One way to accomplish this is by making concessions, but only if the other side is truly willing to view Jewish security concerns seriously. The talks at Camp David broke down because the Palestinians were not ready to accept the best offer we could make in view of our security needs at the time. So long as that is the case, there is nothing to talk about.
Confusion between identity and convergence of interests can often bring about false hopes. Convergence of interests only makes for temporary allies. Our government has cleverly won over international support by espousing the need for democratic reform in the PA and insisting on a halt to terror. While unlikely in the short term, we must be prepared for the day when we get what our leaders seem to making the central demands from the Palestinans: creation of a democratic government and true renunciation of terrorism. If they are ever smart enough to do that, we may actually find ourselves out of the frying pan and into the fire.
It is likely that these changes will not prevent the Arabs from making their claims for more land than we are prepared to give and more refugees than we are prepared to take. At that point, we may have little left to tell the world. Although more palatable than terror, serious international pressure to deal more generously with our newly "righteous" adversaries will be hard to resist indeed.
*While R. Chanina's statement actually speaks about idol-worshipers asopposed to most of the other statements which speak about bnei-Noach, I have yet to come across anyone who views the word choice as anything more than stylistic, and thus, R. Chanina is really speaking about all non-Jews. In fact, the Meiri who is known to often make a distinction between treatmentof idol-worshipers as opposed to Christians and Moslem, changes the word"idol-worshiper" to ben Noach in his halachic summary of the gemara.
fn
(The views expressed in this essay do not necessarily reflect the views of Tzemach Dovid)
Post to Discussion Board