Jewish Sovereignty as a Theological Problem

[Mediocrates]

http://www.azure.org.il/16-dan.htm

Since the advent of Zionism a century ago, there has been one point of agreement between haredi Jews and the great majority of Zionists: The State of Israel has no theological significance. Although haredim generally acknowledge that they and their yeshivot have derived great benefit from the existence of a Jewish state, many still view it as an affront to divine providence, deserving of harsh punishment from God. And the mainstream of the Zionist movement, for its part, relates to the state as a humanitarian political undertaking aimed at saving the Jewish people from the danger of annihilation and gaining official recognition in the international community. This approach is often accompanied by a dismissive attitude towards traditional Judaism and its "diaspora mentality," and an express wish that Israel become a "normal" society-that is, a secular society along European and American lines. Thus, although the Zionist and haredi worldviews could not be further apart, they are nonetheless united in rejecting the State of Israel as a theological phenomenon.

In contrast to these two views stands religious Zionism, which seeks in many ways-some moderate, others more radical-to set the Jewish state within a theological context. Indeed, it often looks to religion to provide the basis for national policy. Yet although religious-Zionist parties are almost always in the governing coalition, they have never succeeded in becoming a dominant cultural force, and have not substantially influenced the opinions of either of the other two camps regarding Israel's religious significance.1

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
http://www.azure.org.il/16-dan.htm

Since the advent of Zionism a century ago, there has been one point of agreement between haredi Jews and the great majority of Zionists: The State of Israel has no theological significance. Although haredim generally acknowledge that they and their yeshivot have derived great benefit from the existence of a Jewish state, many still view it as an affront to divine providence, deserving of harsh punishment from God. And the mainstream of the Zionist movement, for its part, relates to the state as a humanitarian political undertaking aimed at saving the Jewish people from the danger of annihilation and gaining official recognition in the international community. This approach is often accompanied by a dismissive attitude towards traditional Judaism and its "diaspora mentality," and an express wish that Israel become a "normal" society-that is, a secular society along European and American lines. Thus, although the Zionist and haredi worldviews could not be further apart, they are nonetheless united in rejecting the State of Israel as a theological phenomenon.

In contrast to these two views stands religious Zionism, which seeks in many ways-some moderate, others more radical-to set the Jewish state within a theological context. Indeed, it often looks to religion to provide the basis for national policy. Yet although religious-Zionist parties are almost always in the governing coalition, they have never succeeded in becoming a dominant cultural force, and have not substantially influenced the opinions of either of the other two camps regarding Israel's religious significance.1

If secular Israelis don't want to be swallowed up by religious Judaism in Israel, they will have to find ways to fill an empty shell with meaning to unify their society. Army service is the great unifying force in Israel and the great equalizer too (for Jewish Israelis). You have Masada for the older generations, soccer for the younger generations...etc.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mira
If secular Israelis don't want to be swallowed up by religious Judaism in Israel, they will have to find ways to fill an empty shell with meaning to unify their society. Army service is the great unifying force in Israel and the great equalizer too (for Jewish Israelis). You have Masada for the older generations, soccer for the younger generations...etc.

Soccer is not much of a unifying force in Israel, the games of the Israeli national team meets overall apathy by most Israelis, and in the few times Israel was allowed to host other teams, the stadium was almost empty with most tickets given away... but still
Viva Maccabi Haifa!!!

[Mira~]

Originally posted by KSO
Soccer is not much of a unifying force in Israel, the games of the Israeli national team meets overall apathy by most Israelis, and in the few times Israel was allowed to host other teams, the stadium was almost empty with most tickets given away... but still
Viva Maccabi Haifa!!!

Well if it makes you feel any better I asked a bunch of Americans what unifies us as a nation and most couldn't think of anything beyond Starbucks, hot dogs and Reality television. Some people didn't even see any reason why we should be unified at all and a few even hope that we will eventually break apart because they don't think that California should be forced to vote in the same presidential elections with States such as Texas and Alabama. It's very sad. My country is fraying at the edges and people think that's a positive thing.

[David_in_NYC]

I cannot see an Israeli state that allows Jews to be killed without consequence to the killers, and allows the history of the Jewish people to be erased by annihilationist Muslims, to be the fulfillment of religious Zionism.

The story of our people is the genesis of true freedom, freedom deserved by all of humanity. Being killed by Islamist murderers and having nothing substantial done about it is not freedom.

Only when Israel has the guts to reclaim the entirety of the land of Israel, and to defend its citizens with the vigilance of a free people, will it begin to be the land to which we all should return.

I have a friend who believes the Promised Land is actually Brooklyn... and given the relative freedom and prosperity of Jews in Brooklyn, and those in Israel, I am having a lot of trouble disputing his point!

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mira
Well if it makes you feel any better I asked a bunch of Americans what unifies us as a nation and most couldn't think of anything beyond Starbucks, hot dogs and Reality television. Some people didn't even see any reason why we should be unified at all and a few even hope that we will eventually break apart because they don't think that California should be forced to vote in the same presidential elections with States such as Texas and Alabama. It's very sad. My country is fraying at the edges and people think that's a positive thing.

Well now in Russia I just see the negative side of "Unity" at all cost, The Putin goverment decided to cover their lack of success to improve life quality drasticly by covering it up with false unity and nationalism, and now The president decided to follow the latest trend "Fighting Terrosim" by all cost, so now all kinds of demonstrations and political gathering are highly watched and restricted by new laws (to cancel such meetings as "Sucide Bombers for higher waiges" I guess) the goverment took over the NTV channel (the only channel that critisized the chechnya conflict, now the war is rarely covered at all) But when Russias national team is playing, boy everybody cheering for them! and of course the goverment is financing the new teenage group "Walking Together" (nicknamed PutinJurgen) for some reason it's working, although Physiclly Russia can't be United by any means because in a country where Teachers and Doctors get 50$ a month (and the prices in Russia are very high, the only things here that are cheaper are Cigarettes and Human life) and in Moscow you will see more Ferraris and Jaguars than in 99% of europe...

[Mediocrates]

That's just defeat though isn't it? First we hear that any group that can scribble on a sign has a legitimate claim to some seperatist movement of sub-national identity politics. Then we hear that, 'well since all these people are squabbling we might as well dissolve' and go the way of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Then we hear that national unity is evil and we toss the nation state into the same abattoir as all the other buzzwords like 'racism', 'corporations', 'apartheid', 'globalization' and so on. In effect its just defeat, it's the view that really nothing matters if it's further than the food coop down the block and that the only thing between us and permanent bliss is being forced to merely think about 'those nasty people over there'. Its selfish and stupid isn't it to fail to see the difference between animosities that drive groups apart and a self imposed apathy which drives off any reason to stay together?

So people want to cut California loose do they? Do they want to eat and drive cars? Do they want to live as middle class people in a wealthy nation? Because holding a country together is what drives that. So people want to dissolve the Jewish state and allow it to become like every other Arab state? Do they really want to live in Cairo with the dirt and the poverty, extremism, illiteracy? Do they imagine that because they imagine themselves to be so compliant so conciliatory and suicidal that millions of Palestinians will magically wake up and become archtypal western liberals? Do we imagine that when we turn on the TV and watch screaming mobs in Falujah that after the smoke clears, the only thing standing between them and turning into an arab version of Oakland, California is the flag of the nation, painted on the sides of the police cars?

Like Israel, my America is an immigrant nation made of millions of people who literally washed ashore, little in their pockets, talking a gabble of different languages, wearing different clothes and praying to deities they could barely pronounce to one another. Their national identity is self evident. Because whatever they were, and whatever America is, it made more of them American than wherever they came from made America something else. What is a national identity? I don't know. Maybe it's no more than the will to become something better and something more than you were. So you essentially hate Israel, Kay-so? OK. Fine. Lot's of Americans hate America too. There's always a problem you can find to justify whatever rage and outrage you want. You can protest the war in Iraq you can protest how you protest the war in Iraq you can even protest not being taken seriously your protest the war the Iraq. You can protest Likud and Labor, you can support the very people who would gleefully cut your throat. You can protest the Haredi, you can protest anyone to the right of Trotsky you think is a dangerous extremist. You can hate and hate and hate and hate. Maybe that's your national identity.

But please be quick about because if your perfect Canaan comes to pass then protesting anything will be efficiently suppressed. Here in America we are all free to hate you for who you are. I'm afraid in your perfect world they will hate you for what you are too. Better you than me, kiddo.

[KSO]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
That's just defeat though isn't it? First we hear that any group that can scribble on a sign has a legitimate claim to some seperatist movement of sub-national identity politics. Then we hear that, 'well since all these people are squabbling we might as well dissolve' and go the way of the Austro Hungarian Empire. Then we hear that national unity is evil and we toss the nation state into the same abattoir as all the other buzzwords like 'racism', 'corporations', 'apartheid', 'globalization' and so on. In effect its just defeat, it's the view that really nothing matters if it's further than the food coop down the block and that the only thing between us and permanent bliss is being forced to merely think about 'those nasty people over there'. Its selfish and stupid isn't it to fail to see the difference between animosities that drive groups apart and a self imposed apathy which drives off any reason to stay together?

So people want to cut California loose do they? Do they want to eat and drive cars? Do they want to live as middle class people in a wealthy nation? Because holding a country together is what drives that. So people want to dissolve the Jewish state and allow it to become like every other Arab state? Do they really want to live in Cairo with the dirt and the poverty, extremism, illiteracy? Do they imagine that because they imagine themselves to be so compliant so conciliatory and suicidal that millions of Palestinians will magically wake up and become archtypal western liberals? Do we imagine that when we turn on the TV and watch screaming mobs in Falujah that after the smoke clears, the only thing standing between them and turning into an arab version of Oakland, California is the flag of the nation, painted on the sides of the police cars?

Like Israel, my America is an immigrant nation made of millions of people who literally washed ashore, little in their pockets, talking a gabble of different languages, wearing different clothes and praying to deities they could barely pronounce to one another. Their national identity is self evident. Because whatever they were, and whatever America is, it made more of them American than wherever they came from made America something else. What is a national identity? I don't know. Maybe it's no more than the will to become something better and something more than you were. So you essentially hate Israel, Kay-so? OK. Fine. Lot's of Americans hate America too. There's always a problem you can find to justify whatever rage and outrage you want. You can protest the war in Iraq you can protest how you protest the war in Iraq you can even protest not being taken seriously your protest the war the Iraq. You can protest Likud and Labor, you can support the very people who would gleefully cut your throat. You can protest the Haredi, you can protest anyone to the right of Trotsky you think is a dangerous extremist. You can hate and hate and hate and hate. Maybe that's your national identity.

But please be quick about because if your perfect Canaan comes to pass then protesting anything will be efficiently suppressed. Here in America we are all free to hate you for who you are. I'm afraid in your perfect world they will hate you for what you are too. Better you than me, kiddo.

Have I ever in any way said I'm For the idea of Canaanites (Two nation one state- As supported by Jabotinsky)
but for some Reason my way to love Israel is to desire seperation from the palestinians, maybe in some majical way keeping the occupation of palestine, will make all of the population magicly dissapear, for my opinion love of country is like love of a family member, an unconditional love but when your family member does something that you clearly see is wrong, you must try and make him change his ways. For my opinion Israel's policy today is wrong, and not protesting it would make a realy unpatriotic act...

[Mediocrates]

http://www.azure.org.il/15-gavison.html

The Jews’ Right To Statehood: A Defense

Ruth Gavison

Is it possible to justify the existence of a Jewish state? This question, raised with increased frequency in recent years, is not just a theoretical one. Israel will endure as a Jewish state only if it can be defended, in both the physical and the moral sense. Of course, states may survive in the short term through sheer habit or the application of brute force, even when their legitimacy has been severely undermined. In the long run, however, only a state whose existence is justified by its citizens can hope to endure. The ability to provide a clear rationale for a Jewish state is, therefore, of vital importance to Israel’s long-term survival.1

Over the many years in which I have participated in debates about Israel’s constitutional foundations and the rights of its citizens, I did not generally feel this question to be particularly urgent. Indeed, I believed that there was no more need to demonstrate the legitimacy of a Jewish state than there was for any other nation state, and I did not take claims to the contrary very seriously. Those who denied the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state were, in my eyes, little different from the radical ideologues who dismiss all national movements as inherently immoral, or who insist that Judaism is solely a religion with no right to national self-expression; their claims seemed marginal and unworthy of systematic refutation.2

Today I realize that my view was wrong. The repudiation of Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state is now a commonly held position, and one that is increasingly seen as legitimate. Among Israeli Arabs, for example, it is nearly impossible to find anyone willing to endorse, at least publicly, the right of Jews to national self-determination in the land of Israel. Rejection of the Jewish state has in fact become the norm among most representatives of the Arab public—including those who have sworn allegiance as members of Knesset. As far as they are concerned, the State of Israel, inasmuch as it is a Jewish state, was born in sin and continues to live in sin. Such a state is inherently undemocratic and incapable of protecting human rights. Only when it has lost its distinctive Jewish character, they insist, will Israel’s existence be justified.

More worrisome, perhaps, is the fact that many Jews in Israel agree with this view, or at least show a measure of sympathy for it. Some of the Jews committed to promoting the causes of democracy, human rights, and universal norms are, knowingly or not, assisting efforts to turn Israel into a neutral, liberal state—a “state of all its citizens,” as it is commonly called. Few of them understand the broader implications of such a belief for Israel’s character. Most are simply reassured by Israel’s success in establishing a modern, secular, liberal-democratic state with a Jewish national language and public culture, and think these achievements are not dependent on Israel’s status as the nation state of the Jews. Like many liberals in the modern era, they are suspicious of nation states, without always understanding their historical roots or the profound societal functions they serve. This suspicion often translates into a willingness to sacrifice Israel’s distinct national identity—even when this sacrifice is demanded on behalf of a competing national movement.3

Nor, at times, have Israel’s own actions made the job of justifying its unique national character an easy one. On the one hand, the government uses the state’s Jewish identity to justify wrongs it perpetrates on others; on the other, it hesitates to take steps that are vital to preserving the country’s national character. The use of Jewish identity as a shield to deflect claims concerning unjustifiable policies—such as discrimination against non-Jews or the Orthodox monopoly over matters of personal status—only reinforces the tendency of many Israelis to ignore the legitimate existential needs of the Jewish state, such as the preservation of a Jewish majority within its borders and the development of a vibrant Jewish cultural life.

It is against this backdrop that I write this essay. In what follows, I will argue that the idea of a Jewish nation state is justified, and that the existence of such a state is an important condition for the security of its Jewish citizens and the continuation of Jewish civilization. The establishment of Israel as a Jewish state was justified at the time of independence half a century ago, and its preservation continues to be justified today. Israel does have an obligation to protect the rights of all its citizens, to treat them fairly and with respect, and to provide equally for the security and welfare of its non-Jewish minorities. Yet these demands do not require a negation of the state’s Jewish character. Nor does that character pose an inherent threat to the state’s democratic nature: On the contrary, it is the duty of every democracy to reflect the basic preferences of the majority, so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. In Israel’s case, this means preserving the Jewish character of the state.

The argument I will present here is framed mainly within the discourse of human rights, including the right of peoples, under certain conditions, to self-determination. Such an argument begins by recognizing the uniqueness of peoples and by acknowledging as a universal principle their right to preserve and develop that uniqueness. This starting point may seem shallow or even offensive to some Jews, particularly those for whom the Jewish right to a state and to the land of Israel is axiomatic, flowing inexorably from Jewish faith or history. According to this view, neither the long exile of the Jews nor the fact of Arab settlement in the areas where the ancient Jewish kingdom lay undermines the Jewish claim, which is absolute and unquestionable, an elemental point of religious belief.

In my view, it is crucial to base the justification of a Jewish state on arguments that appeal to people who do not share such beliefs. We must look instead for a justification on universal moral grounds. This is the only sort of argument which will make sense to the majority of Israelis, who prefer not to base their Zionism on religious belief, or to those non-Jews who are committed to human rights but not to the Jews’ biblically based claims. Moreover, such an argument may have the added benefit of encouraging Palestinians to argue in universal terms, rather than relying on claims of historical ownership or the sanctity of Muslim lands. Locating an argument within the discourse of universal rights is, therefore, the best way to avoid a pointless clash of dogmas that leaves no room for dialogue or compromise.

Justifying the principle of a Jewish nation state, however, is only part of protecting the future of Israel. No less important is demonstrating that the state in fact can uphold, and does uphold, the principles considered essential to any civilized government, including the maintenance of a democratic regime and the protection of human rights. Accordingly, after presenting the arguments that support the existence of a Jewish state in the land of Israel in principle, I will go on to discuss how such a state ought to be fashioned—that is, how its policies and institutions should be crafted so as to help preserve the country’s Jewish character without violating its basic obligations to both Jews and non-Jews, in Israel and abroad.

One commonly held view of liberal democracy asserts that the state must be absolutely neutral with regard to the cultural, ethnic, and religious identity of its population and of its public sphere. I do not share this view. I believe such total neutrality is impossible, and that in the context of the region it is not desired by any group. The character of Israel as a Jewish nation state does generate some tension with the democratic principle of civic equality. Nonetheless, this tension does not prevent Israel from being a democracy. There is no inherent disagreement between the Jewish identity of the state and its liberal-democratic nature. The state I will describe would have a stable and large Jewish majority. It would respect the rights of all its citizens, irrespective of nationality and religion, and would recognize the distinct interests and cultures of its various communities. It would not, however, abandon its preference for the interests of a particular national community, nor would it need to.

The Jewish state whose existence I will justify is not, therefore, a neutral “state of all its citizens.” Israel has basic obligations to democracy and human rights, but its language is Hebrew, its weekly day of rest is Saturday, and it marks Jewish religious festivals as public holidays. The public culture of this state is Jewish, although it is not a theocracy, nor does it impose a specific religious concept of Jewish identity on its citizens. No doubt this kind of state should encourage public dialogue about the relationship between its liberal-democratic nature and its commitment to the preservation of Jewish culture. In what follows, I will offer an argument for the justification of an Israel that is both proudly Jewish and strongly democratic—and that has the right, therefore, to take action to preserve both basic elements of its identity.4

(this is section 1 of 6, footnotes follow at the end, total length about 28 pages)

[Mira~]

I get a headache just trying to think about the challenges of Russian, American and Israeli nationalism, all three at once! Gawd! I want to go hang myself now, that's such a complicated and intense topic. It's too much to think about for my little pea brain and doesn't really help flush out the original debate between Zionism and Judaism in Israel.

The problem with the conflict in my mind is that it entered all the wrong dimensions, worst of all the political arena, when the battleground should have been the spiritual realm.

This is also a very BIG subject, so here is a quote (true story):

"Two carts, one empty, the other full, meet on an empty bridge," said the Hazon Ish to Ben-Gurion. "Isn't it only fair that the empty cart bow to the full cart and allow it to pass?"

Who in Israel has the empty cart today? I don't know. Since I'm not there, I can't really say, but from here, it appears that the spiritual existence of Israel's secular Jews seems threatened. Maybe they somehow assigned themselves the verdict of the empty cart? As I said, the battle for Israel's soul is being fought in the political arena, not the spiritual realm, which is really a shame. I''ll know more when I get there. I'm afraid that what I'll find out is that secular Israelis simply view themselves as another western style nation state, perhaps with a bit more troubles?

[Mediocrates]

Maybe they do. I know though that having the freedom to agonize over that is a luxury some would seemingly sacrifice in the name of being thought liberal 'enough'. I do know that frictions will never cease and the endless complaining that Israeli society isn't perfect as a justification to sweep it away is to me, no different than Arafat's demand for 'everything instantly now'. Which is either rhetorical nonsense, treasonous, or both. We have all lived in the spectre of failed utopianism by another name: Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Mugabe, Khaddafy, Saddam, Khomeni and I'm not impressed with the results. I absolutely can't understand why anyone would be impressed with the "kill everyone, do-over' approach to things.

Or do we simply throw up our hands and play the victim card? Do we just squat in the dirt and whine that people are mean and the world isn't fair and where's my damn silver bowl? If we are Jews do we say Tikkun Olam except for us? Only a fool or a paranoid would demand that the world feel as sorry for them as they do.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Maybe they do. I know though that having the freedom to agonize over that is a luxury some would seemingly sacrifice in the name of being thought liberal 'enough'. I do know that frictions will never cease and the endless complaining that Israeli society isn't perfect as a justification to sweep it away is to me, no different than Arafat's demand for 'everything instantly now'. Which is either rhetorical nonsense, treasonous, or both. We have all lived in the spectre of failed utopianism by another name: Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao, Mugabe, Khaddafy, Saddam, Khomeni and I'm not impressed with the results. I absolutely can't understand why anyone would be impressed with the "kill everyone, do-over' approach to things.

Or do we simply throw up our hands and play the victim card? Do we just squat in the dirt and whine that people are mean and the world isn't fair and where's my damn silver bowl? If we are Jews do we say Tikkun Olam except for us? Only a fool or a paranoid would demand that the world feel as sorry for them as they do.

Whoose whining?

[Mediocrates]

Not you but many do. Everytime I hear someone lecture about so called Jewish higher world wide moral obligation to the entire world in general I'm hearing whining. Everytime I hear some self appointed arbiter slashing away at the justifications for why Jewish children shouldn't put their necks in a noose for the crime of being 4th generation Israelis I'm hearing whining. Everytime I hear some blubber that Sephardi and Blacks and Russians and Arabs aren't the President of Israel I hear whining.

Gavison is considered a liberal by other Israelis and yet I suppose to the radicals, liberal, like being skinny, rich and sexually fullfilled, you can never be enough. In the end all I hear is "The problem with Israel is that it is not something else." which to me is just silly.

[Mediocrates]

And now I have to get ready for 2nd Seder. Have a wonderful Seder, all

Next year in Jerusalem, all of it.

[Mira~]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
And now I have to get ready for 2nd Seder. Have a wonderful Seder, all

Next year in Jerusalem, all of it.

Why not this year?