"Engaging Israel" DVD Lecture Series From Shalom Hartman Institute

Source Book
Shalom Hartman Institute

Jerusalem, Israel, 2011
hartman.org.il
Engaging Israel:
Foundations for a New Relationship
The Shalom Hartman Institute Lecture Series
Engaging Israel:
Source Book
All Rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording, scanning, or by any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
This book is an accompanying resource for the educational lecture series
Engaging Israel: Foundations for a New Relationship. It is not designed to
be sold or packaged separately and cannot be purchased separately. It is
an educational resource for the use of students of the lecture series only.
These sources were prepared for publication by Rabbi Dr. Rachel Sabath
Beit-Halachmi, Sharon Laufer, and Anna Melman.
For information regarding permission to reprint material from this book,
please email or fax your request to Shalom Hartman Institute at the address
/ fax number below.
Published by Shalom Hartman Institute
11 Gedalyahu Alon St., Jerusalem 93113 Israel
Tel: +972-2-567-5320, Fax: +972-2-561-1913
hartman.org.il
shi@shi.org.il
Shalom Hartman Institute North America
1 Pennsylvania Plaza, Suite 1606, New York, NY10119
Tel: 212-268-0300, Fax: 212-239-4550
Printed in Israel
2011 By Shalom Hartman Institute
| III
IV |
Grateful Acknowledgement is Made to the
Authors and Publishers Cited Within:
S.Y. Agnon, "The Fable of the Goat," from A Book That Was Lost and Other Stories by S.Y.
Agnon, edited by Alan Mintz and Anne Golomb Hofman, copyright 1995 by Schocken
Books. Used by permission of Schocken Books, a division of Random House, Inc.
Ahad Ha'am, "The National Morality." From Michael Walzer, Menachem Lorberbaum, Noam
J. Zohar (eds.), The Jewish Political Tradition, Volume II 2003 by Yale University (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press). Permission granted by Yale University Press.
Aharon Barak, "A Judge on Judging." Republished with permission of Harvard Law Review
from Harvard Law Review Volume 116, Number 1, copyright 2002; permission conveyed
through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Peter Beinart, "The Failure of the American Jewish Establishment." Copyright 2010 by The
New York Review of Books. Permission pending.
David Ben Gurion, "National Autonomy and Neighborly Relations," in Michael Walzer,
Menachem Lorberbaum, Noam J. Zohar (eds.), The Jewish Political Tradition, Volume II
2003 by Yale University (New Haven and London: Yale University Press). Permission granted
by Yale University Press.
David Ben Gurion, "The Imperatives of the Jewish Revolution."
Eliezer Berkovits, "On the Return to Jewish National Life." From Essential Essays on Judaism,
copyright 2002 by the Shalem Center Press. Permission pending.
Yosef Hayyim Brenner, "On the Specter of Shemad." From Michael Walzer, Menachem
Lorberbaum, Noam J. Zohar (eds.), The Jewish Political Tradition, Volume II 2003 by Yale
University (New Haven and London: Yale University Press). Permission granted by Yale
University Press.
Martin Buber, On Zion. Copyright 1973 by Schocken Books, a division of Random House,
Inc. Permission pending.
Martin Buber, "The Spiritual Center." From The First Buber, Gilya G. Schmidt, (ed). Copyright
1999 by Syracuse University Press. Permission granted by Syracuse University Press.
Steven M. Cohen & Jack Wertheimer, "Whatever Happened to the Jewish People." Reprinted
from Commentary, June 2006, by permission; copyright 2006 by Commentary, Inc.
Daniel J. Elazar, "The Peace Process and the Jewishness of the Jewish State," reprinted from
Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints No. 299 (August 1, 1994) published by the Jerusalem Center for
Public Afairs: www.jcpa.org.
Sigmund Freud, Interpretations of Dreams, 3
rd
edition, translated by A.A. Brill, 1911.
Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo, translated by James Strachey, copyright 1950 by W.W.
Norton & Company. Permission pending.
Ruth Gavison, "The Jewish State, A Justifcation." From New Essays on Zionism, copyright
2007 by the Shalem Center Press. Permission pending.
| V
Moshe Halbertal, "Human Rights and Membership Rights in the Jewish Tradition." Republished with permission
of Continuum from Judaism and the Challenges of Modern Life, Moshe Halbertal and Donniel Hartman, (eds.),
copyright 2007; permission conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Moshe Halbertal, "The Goldstone Illusion." 2009 by The New Republic. Reprinted by permission of The New
Republic, 2009, TNR II, LLC.
David Hartman, A Living Covenant, copyright 1985 by David Hartman.
David Hartman, Conficting Visions: Spiritual Possibilities of Modern Israel 1990 by David Hartman.
David Hartman, A Heart of Many Rooms: Celebrating the Many Voices within Judaism 1999 David Hartman
(Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing). Permission granted by Jewish Lights Publishing, PO Box 237,
Woodstock, VT 05091). www.jewishlights.com.
Donniel Hartman, "Fighting a Just War against Hamas Justly." Copyright by the Shalom Hartman Institute.
Abraham Joshua Heschel, Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity. Copyright 1996 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Permission pending.
Menachem Lorberbaum, "Religion and State in Israel." Republished with permission of Continuum from Judaism
and the Challenges of Modern Life, Moshe Halbertal and Donniel Hartman, (eds.), copyright 2007; permission
conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
"Meiri Bava Kama." From Michael Walzer, Menachem Lorberbaum, Noam J. Zohar (eds.), The Jewish Political
Tradition, Volume II 2003 by Yale University (New Haven and London: Yale University Press). Permission granted
by Yale University Press.
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, "Kol Dodi Dofek: It Is the Voice of My Beloved That Knocketh." From Theological and
Halakhic Refections on the Holocaust, Berhard H. Rosenberg and Fred Heuman (eds.), copyright 1991 by Ktav
Publishing, Inc. Permission pending.
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars. Copyright 2006 Michael Walzer. Reprinted by permission of Basic Books, a
member of the Perseus Book Group.
Ruth Wisse, Jews and Power. Copyright 2007 by Schocken Books, a division of Random House, Inc. Permission
pending.
Alexander Yakobson, "Jewish Peoplehood and the Jewish State, How Unique? A Comparative Survey." Israel
Studies, Volume 13, Number 2, copyright 2008 by Indiana University Press. Reprinted with permission.
Noam Zohar, "War and Peace." Republished with permission of Continuum from Judaism and the Challenges of
Modern Life, Moshe Halbertal and Donniel Hartman, (eds.), copyright 2007; permission conveyed through
Copyright Clearance Center, Inc.
Biblical translations reprinted from TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures: The New JPS Translation to the Traditional Hebrew
Text, 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society 1999, with permission of the publisher.
New Testament reprinted from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian
Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission.
All rights reserved.
Translation of Avot d'Rabbi Natan reprinted from The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, translated by Judah
Goldin 1955 by Yale University (New Haven and London: Yale University Press). Permission granted by Yale
University Press.
Translation of Maimonides reprinted from Maimonides Mishneh Torah, translated by Hyman Klein and
Maimonides Mishneh Torah, translated by Abraham Hershman, copyright by Yale University. (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press). Permission granted by Yale University Press.
Translation of the Jerusalem Talmud reprinted from Jacob Neusner, Talmud of the Land of Israel 1982 by
The University of Chicago (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press). Permission granted by The University of
Chicago Press.
Translation of the Tosefta reprinted from The Tosefta by Jacob Neusner, copyright 2002 by Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Translations of rabbinic texts from Soncino Talmud, copyright 1973 by Judaica Press. Permission pending.
VI |
About the Shalom Hartman Institute
The Shalom Hartman Institute (SHI) is a center of transformative thinking
and teaching that addresses the major challenges facing the Jewish people
and elevates the quality of Jewish life in Israel and around the world. A
leader in sophisticated, ideas-based Jewish education for community
leaders and change agents, SHI is committed to the signifcance of Jewish
ideas, the power of applied scholarship, and the conviction that great
teaching contributes to the growth and continual revitalization of the
Jewish people.
The Institute consists of three independent but interrelated divisions: The
Kogod Research Center for Contemporary Jewish Thought, our think
tank that generates ideas and research on contemporary issues central to
Jewish life in Israel and around the world; The Center for Israeli-Jewish
Identity, housing an array of programs bringing about a transformation in
the secular and religious Israeli educational system and with senior ofcers
in the Israel Defense Forces; and the recently launched Shalom Hartman
Institute of North America (SHI-NA), which guides, oversees, and
implements Hartman research, educational programming, and curricula
for North American Jewry.
About the Shalom Hartman Institute of
North America
Leveraging the unique SHI models of pluralistic, in-depth, text-based
teaching, scholarship, and program development, the Shalom Hartman
Institute of North America (SHI-NA) is primed to address the challenges
facing contemporary Jewry in North America by empowering change
agentslay leaders, rabbis, educators, scholars, and professionalsto
enrich and redefne Jewish life in their communities by stimulating new,
transformative thinking addressing the critical questions of our time.
| VII
VIII |
Table of Contents
How to Use this Lecture Series P. 23
Engaging Israel: Foundations for a New Relationship P. 23
About the Lecturers P. 23
Acknowledgements P. 23
Lecture 1 From Crisis to Covenant P. 23
Lecture 2 Religion and Peoplehood P. 23
Lecture 3 Sovereignty and Identity P. 23
Lecture 4 Power and Powerlessness P. 23
Lecture 5 War and Occupation P. 23
Lecture 6 Morality on the Battlefeld P. 23
Lecture 7 Jewish and Democratic State P. 23
Lecture 8 Religious Pluralism and Human Rights P. 23
Lecture 9 Values Nation P. 23
Recommendations for Further Reading P. 23
| IX
X |
Engaging Israel:
How to Use this Lecture Series
The Shalom Hartman Institute Hartman Lecture Series brings the excellence
of Hartman Torah to communities throughout North America. Partnering
with world-renowned Hartman Institute faculty, local scholars and
educators together with participants in study groups that they lead engage
in an intensive study experience geared at enhancing their knowledge
and equipping them with the resources required to confdently address
and respond to key questions facing the Jewish people and contemporary
society.
This series upgrades the knowledge and skills of lay leaders, frequently called
upon to respond to the crises of our time, by deepening their understanding
of how such issues are responded to in primary Jewish sources and in the
ensuing debates and resources of our sages throughout Jewish history.
The Shalom Hartman Institute Hartman Lecture Series and the accompanying
curricular study materials are designed to be used by a rabbi or educator
with a group of lay leaders in a weekly or monthly study program.
The Lecture Series comes complete with a bound sourcebook of study texts,
background readings, as well as a leader's guide to support teaching the
Lecture Series and using it as a leadership and educational tool. The leader's
guide provides suggested study questions or questions to guide havruta-
style learning in advance of viewing as well as helpful questions on the
secondary readings, and for the group discussions following viewing the
lectures. Sourcebooks can be purchased from SHI directly at an additional
cost of $20 per copy.
The rabbi/educator serves as the lead teacher, utilizing the materials and
lectures as best suited for his/her community, preparing the participants for
the lecture by studying the texts and reading the supplementary materials in
advance, either in a separate session, or in a shorter 45-minute preparatory
session. Studying in advance, with the assistance of the Hevruta Study
Questions, and then viewing the lecture, followed by a discussion led by the
| XI
local rabbi/educator on the issues raised and their implications for the local
context have proved to be powerful tools for leadership development.
For more information about the Hartman Lecture Series or the Shalom
Hartman Institute visit: www.hartman.org.il
XII |
Engaging Israel: Foundations for a New
Relationship
Background: Te Need for a New Israel Narrative
We are living in an era unprecedented in Jewish history. Two vibrant, powerful Jewish
communitiesone in Israel and the other around the worldare each contributing
to and defning the content and future of Jewish life. In Israel, this life is developing
within the context of a sovereign Jewish state that boasts a Jewish majority, while
elsewhere, particularly in North America, the community that is cultivating Jewish life
is an established, successful minority in open dialogue with the larger world. A Jewish
future without either of these two communities will inevitably be an impoverished
one, whereas their collaboration can stimulate a renaissance in Jewish life, based on
mutual learning, adaptation, challenges, and even criticism that may ensue from the
cross-fertilization of two distinct torahs.

This context of unison coupled with fresh opportunities also presents new challenges:
What kind of relationship will these two communities have? And will we continue to
be one people with diferent yet equally important and mutually benefcial centers, or
will each center create its own exclusive, independent sphere, leading to a bifurcation
of the Jewish people? These challenges are exacerbated by the growing phenomenon
of attempts to delegitimize Israel. Within the Jewish community, an increasing
number of people are questioning the signifcance of Israel to their lives and even the
legitimacy of and importance of Jewish sovereignty. Many Jews feel alienated from
Israel and self-contained within the Judaism of their home community. This reality
threatens the quality and vitality of Jewish life. While a Jewish State without world
Jewry would be an impoverished one, so too would Jewish identity without Israel.
| 1
Te Jewish Reality Today
The Jewish community is largely unprepared for todays uncertainties about the
relationship between Israel and world Jewry. For decades after the Holocaust, the
core narrative for the relationship between Jews in Israel and Jews in the "Diaspora"
was crisis-based, focusing on the precariousness of Jewish survival. In that narrative,
Jewish existence in Israel and around the world was viewed as in inevitable if
not imminent danger, with the newly founded State of Israel functioning as the
homeland of the Jewish people, providing a safe haven and sanctuary of last resort
for any Jew in danger. The immigration of over 3 million Jews to Israel since its
birthas they fed oppression or warserves as a powerful example of this need
and role, rendering support for Israel a self-evident investment in the preservation
and future of the Jewish people worldwide.
The difculty in perpetuating this narrative arises from the decrease in the worlds
population of Jews at risk coupled with the political, economic, and cultural
success of world Jewry, particularly in Western countries. Jewish vitality, creativity,
and self-confdence has made the narrative of crisis less meaningful and certainly
less motivating to Western Jews. Because most Jewsespecially those in North
Americado not see themselves as being in imminent danger, a crisis-based
narrative of support for Israel is antiquated and inconsequential for ever-widening
circles of Jews.
Parallel to the successful experience of world Jewry is the success story of the State
of Israel. Without trivializing the dangers that Israel still faces on a daily basis, one
can readily see that the countrys military power and prowess make a narrative of
crisis less compelling. Add in the countrys economic vitality, and selling Israel as a
nation in need of help to survive becomes increasingly difcult.
When danger and crisis are imminent, all other issues are naturally relegated
to a proverbial tomorrow. However, as the old narrative recedes, there is an
increased sense that tomorrow has arrived and that the actual or perceived
values represented by Israel regarding war, settlements, religious pluralism, and
the treatment of liberal Jews and non-Jewish minorities do not necessarily coincide
with the values that are central to the lives of Jews around the world. Some people
even feel forced to choose between support for Israel and loyalty to their Jewish or
democratic values, a choice that leaves their relationship with Israel in a precarious
position. The crisis narrative, which continues to demand unquestioning support
and a rallying around the fag to protect Israel from its enemies, is inadequate to curb
or contain these new and increasingly predominant sentiments of discomfort.
2 |
The Jewish community has been living of the crisis narrative for too long and has
not yet begun to develop a language and argument for integrating the meaning of
Israel into the new and complex Jewish consciousness. The time has come to move
forwardto construct a foundational narrative that will redefne the relationship
between Israel and world Jewry. Free to select their identity, afliations, and loyalties,
Jews will choose to relate to Israel only if it generates vitality and meaning in their
lives. If Israel is to succeed in reclaiming a central place in the lives of Jews worldwide,
it must lay claim to its role as a standard of morality, spirituality, and intellectual
excellence.
Reimagining the Relationship: From Crisis to Covenant
A new covenant between Israel and world Jewry must be based on a narrative that
encourages Jews to refect on what Israel means to them Jewishly and to act on their
vision of what they believe can and ought to shape the modern Jewish nation and its
policies. Thus, a relationship with Israel must be placed within a larger conversation
of Jewish values, a conversation that will challenge Jews around the world to think
about the meaning that Israel and Jewish national sovereignty can have in their
lives.
The Engaging Israel project attempts to construct a new narrative and language for
establishing this covenant between Israel and world Jewry, a narrative responding to
the central dilemmas that are increasingly causing alienation among Jews. Currently
focused on two core issueswhy Jews need a Jewish State today and whether
this state can be a moral and democratic one, this project endeavors to defne
a covenant that will enable Jews to put both the aspirations and the difculties
that they experience with Israel on the table. In this manner, a relationship can be
created that does not demand blind acceptance but rather calls for a commitment to
participate in a conversation that will contribute to the nation that each Jew believes
Israel can and ought to be.
Guiding Principles for the New Narrative
To succeed in re-engaging world Jewry in a covenant with Israel, the new narrative
must reshape both the content and the assumptions that have defned the Israel-
Diaspora relationship for decades. Only a narrative that gives meaning to Jewish
statehood and sovereignty and that articulates a vision of Israel that lives up to the
highest standard of Jewish values, morality, and democracy can form the basis for a
new covenant for Jews around the world and the loyalty that it will engender.
The new narrative must accomplish the following goals:
| 3
Embrace Israel and world Jewry as equal and mutually reinforcing partners in
writing the next chapter of Jewish history. In the new narrative, signifcance
of Israel cannot be predicated on a language of superiority. Language that
describes Israel as the center and life outside of Israel as the Diaspora must
be reconceived.
Communicate that to fulfll its mission as the homeland of the Jewish people,
Israel must be a project of the Jewish people worldwide. Israel cannot be the
project of Israelis alone, with the rest of world Jewry acting as spectators. The
new covenant must grant world Jewry the rights and responsibilities that come
with being a partner in building and shaping the future of Israel.
Speak about the State of Israel in terms that generate newfound possibilities
for Jewish meaning and identity. The new Israel narrative must be rooted
in Jewish ideas, values, and experiences that ofer world Jewry a vision of a
relationship with Israel that contributes positively to the future of Judaism and
the Jewish people. Such a narrative must be founded on ideas that have the
power to generate the excitement and involvement necessary to encourage
engagement in a new covenant with Israel.
Formulate a shared vision of what Israel can and ought to be . The focus of this
new narrative must be on what Israel and Jewish sovereignty can mean for
Jewish life, recognizing that Israel does not currently refect all of these values
and has not yet fulflled its potential in this area. The challenge of realizing this
potential and helping to reform policies must be the impetus to galvanize re-
engagement, newfound commitment, and collaboration in building the Israel
we want.
Pursue a moral foundation for conversation, and when appropriate, allow
for criticism of Israels response to the challenges and opportunities it faces. A
narrative of values and ideas recognizes that Israel is a society still in formation
and defnes loyalty in terms of shared aspirations rather than blanket
agreement with the countrys current policies.
Adopt a pluralistic approach toward the Jewish conversation about Israel, an
approach that transcends political and religious divides. The new narrative
must transcend the political debates that permeate Jewish life. The narrative
must aspire to create a vocabulary of ideas and values with which all Jews can
identify, even when they disagree about how these ideas and values should
be implemented. Just as no single denomination can defne authentic Jewish
life, so too can no single approach to Israel be allowed to monopolize its
meaning.
4 |
Engaging Israel: Central Temes
From Crisis to Covenant: 1. What are the foundations of the current relationship between
Israel and world Jewry, and what makes the Jewish community so committed to
maintaining it? What directions should a new narrative about Israel take if Israel and
world Jewry are to come to terms with the new realities that defne their relationship
and that question the signifcance of Israel and even its legitimacy?
Religion and Peoplehood: 2. Israel as the sovereign expression of Jewish peoplehood
has signifcance only to the extent that peoplehood is signifcant and viewed as an
essential aspect of Jewish life. In a world of intense individualism, can Judaism be
redefned as a primarily internal, personal experience? How does a sense of belonging
to a Jewish collective contribute to the meaning and purpose of contemporary
Jewish life?
Sovereignty and Identity: 3. The establishment of the State of Israel represents the
decision of the Jewish people to grant their collective identity a sovereign form. Is
Israels sovereignty signifcant only for Israelis, or does Jewish sovereignty contribute
to the self-identity of Jews living around the world?
Power and Powerlessness: 4. Israel, like most other sovereign nation-states, uses military
poweror its ability to exercise this poweras the foundation of its independence
and a means of safeguarding it. In todays world, however, a critical sensibility that
views power as a necessary evil, a force that often corrupts more than it contributes,
is becoming increasingly popular. How does Judaism perceive the moral foundations
of power and the responsibilities and challenges that it engenders?
War and Occupation 5. : All democratic countries struggle with the moral challenges
of exercising power in a complex world. How can Israel respond to these challenges
and use its power in a way that is consistent with the highest standard of morality
and Jewish values? How should Israel balance its legitimate right of self-defense
with the values of peace and the rights of others, and in light of these issues, how
does one determine what constitutes a just war and the moral obligations and
consequences of occupation?
Morality on the Battlefeld 6. : Once a government decides to embark on a war, the
integrity of ones moral compass shifts to the battlefeld. What Jewish values do
Israeli soldiers carry with them when going to war? What happens when complex
moral responsibilities and issues meet the horror of war and the morally ambiguous
reality of asymmetric confict and terrorist tactics?
Jewish and Democratic State: 7. Democracy is the decided form of government for
the Jewish nation-state. What does a Jewish state entail, and is it compatible with
the principles of democracy? What does democracy require, and how can Israels
aspirations to be both Jewish and democratic work themselves out in the principles
governing its policies?
Religious Pluralism and Human Rights: 8. As a democracy, Israel is committed to being
religiously pluralistic and to providing equal rights to all of its citizens, Jews and non-
Jews alike. Does the Jewish dimension of Israel serve or hinder these commitments?
What are the principles and ideas that ought to govern Israels policies on these
issues?
Values Nation: 9. Israel is the project of the Jewish people, in which Jewish values and
ideals meet the challenges of governance and everyday life. What resources within
the Jewish tradition can contribute to the shaping of Israel as a paragon of moral and
democratic values and help fulfll the aspiration of Israel to be a nation of values?
| 5

6 |
About the Lecturers
Rabbi Dr. Donniel Hartman, Shalom Hartman Institute president and
director of the Engaging Israel: Foundations for a New Relationship
project, holds a doctorate in Jewish philosophy from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, a masters degree in political philosophy from
New York University, and a masters degree in religion from Temple
University. He was ordained as a rabbi by the Shalom Hartman Institute. Rabbi
Hartman is the founder of some of the most extensive education, training, and
enrichment programs for scholars, educators, and rabbis in Israel and North America.
Author of The Boundaries of Judaism and co-editor of Judaism and the Challenges of
Modern Life, Rabbi Hartman also co-authored the Spheres of Jewish Identity model
curriculum in Jewish philosophy for secular Israeli high schools.
Professor Shlomo Avineri is a professor of political science at the
Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He has served as director of the Eshkol
Research Institute (1971-74), dean of the Hebrew University Faculty of
Social Sciences (1974-76), and director of the Institute for European
Studies (1997 to present). Among the institutions where Professor
Avineri has held visiting appointments are Yale University, Wesleyan University,
Cornell University, the University of California, Australian National University,
Queens College, the University of Oxford, the Woodrow Wilson International Center
for Scholars, the Brookings Institution, and the Institute of World Economics and
International Relations (in Moscow). Professor Avineri served as director-general
of Israels Ministry of Foreign Afairs from 1975 to 1977. He also headed the Israeli
delegation to the UNESCO General Assembly and in 1979 was a member of the joint
Egyptian-Israeli commission that drafted a cultural and scientifc agreement between
the two countries. Professor Avineris most recent publication is an intellectual
biography of Theodore Herzl in Hebrew.
| 7
Dr. Tal Becker is an international associate at the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy and a fellow at the Shalom Hartman
Institute. From 2006 to 2009, he served as senior policy adviser to
Israels minister of foreign afairs and was a lead negotiator during
Israeli-Palestinian negotiations at the Annapolis meetings. In this
capacity, he also played a central role in managing Israels relations with the United
States, the European Union, the United Nations, and various Arab states. He has
represented Israel in a wide variety of bilateral and multilateral negotiations and
has served as director of the International Law Department at the Israeli Ministry of
Foreign Afairs, as counsel to Israels UN Mission in New York, and as an international
law expert in the Military Advocate Generals Corps of the Israel Defense Forces. In
2003, Dr. Becker was elected vice chairman of the UN General Assemblys Legal
Committee, the frst Israeli to serve in a UN post of this stature in more than forty
years. Dr. Becker holds a doctorate from Columbia University, lectures widely
throughout Israel and overseas, and is the recipient of numerous scholarly awards.
He was awarded the 2007 Paul Guggenheim Prize in International Law for his book
Terrorism and the State: Rethinking the Rules of State Responsibility. He is co-author of
a forthcoming textbook on the Israeli-Palestinian confict.
Professor Moshe Halbertal, Gruss Professor at the New York University
School of Law, holds a doctorate in Jewish thought from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, where he teaches. Previously serving as a
fellow in Harvard Universitys Society of Fellows and as a visiting
professor at Harvard Law School and the University of Pennsylvania
Law School, Professor Halbertal has an extensive list of publications, including
Idolatry, which he co-authored with Avishai Margalit; People of the Book: Canon,
Meaning and Authority; and Between Torah and Wisdom: Menachem ha-Meiri and
the Maimonidean Halachists of Provence. Professor Halbertal is the recipient of
the Michael Bruno Memorial Award, granted by the Rothschild Foundation, and
the Goldstein-Goren Book Award for the best book in Jewish thought published
between 1997 and 2000.
Yossi Klein Halevi is a writer, a political commentator, and a fellow at
the Shalom Hartman Institute. The author of At the Entrance to the
Garden of Eden: A Jews Search for God with Christians and Muslims in
the Holy Land and Memoirs of a Jewish Extremist, he is now completing
a book on the paratroopers who fought in Jerusalem in 1967. Halevi
is a contributing editor to the New Republic, and his essays also appear in the
Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times, among other
publications. In 2005, he delivered the Isaiah Berlin Memorial Lecture on Middle
East Reconciliation at Oxford College and the Sternberg Lecture on the Study of
Religion at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Halevi served as writer in residence
at the University of Illinois and was a senior fellow at the Shalem Center from 2003
to 2010.
8 |
Dr. Yehuda Kurtzer is president of the Shalom Hartman Institute of
North America. As the frst winner of the Brandeis University Charles R.
Bronfman Chair in Jewish Communal Innovation, he wrote a book on
rebuilding Jewish memory in the face of the challenges of modernity.
Dr. Kurtzer received his doctorate in Jewish studies from Harvard
University; his dissertation focuses on transformations in Jewish identity in the
changing ancient world.
A Wexner Foundation Graduate Fellow alumnus, Dr. Kurtzer has worked as a research
fellow for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, helping to bridge the
worlds of Jewish studies and Holocaust studies, and has served as a consultant on
rabbinic texts for the Facing History and Ourselves organization. He has lectured and
taught widely in collegiate and adult-education settings, including the Rabbinical
School of Hebrew College, the three leadership programs of the Wexner Foundation,
the Israeli Presidential Conference, the Curriculum Initiative, the Brandeis Initiative
on Bridging Scholarship and Pedagogy, New York Universitys Center for Online
Judaic Studies, the Hornstein Jewish Professional Leadership Program, and the
American Jewish Committees Commission on Contemporary Jewish Life. Dr. Kurtzer
also co-founded Brooklines Washington Square Minyan and co-organized the frst
two Independent Minyan Conferences.
Rabbi Dr. Rachel Sabath Beit-Halachmi, vice president of the
Shalom Hartman Institute of North America and director of Rabbinic
Leadership Programs, is a member of the Institute's Faculty and a
research fellow. She was ordained at the Hebrew Union College-
Jewish Institute of Religion in New York and received her Ph.D. at the
Jewish Theological Seminary. Today, in addition to her role at the Hartman Institute,
she serves on the faculty of HUC-JIR in Jerusalem and teaches throughout North
America. Her dissertation focuses on the role of covenant and the autonomous
Jewish self in the development North American liberal Jewish thought. She is an
alumna of the Wexner Foundation Graduate Fellowship and is a member of the Phi
Beta Kappa Society. Rabbi Dr. Sabath Beit-Halachmi has served on the faculties
of the Wexner Foundation, the Wexner Heritage Foundation, CLAL the National
Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, and the Skirball Center. She has authored
a number of articles on Jewish theology and is the co-author of two books. Rabbi Dr.
Sabath Beit-Halachmi is currently completing a book on covenant theology and is
working on a book on the future of liberal Zionism. For more than a decade she also
served as the rabbi of Congregation Shirat HaYam on Nantucket Island.
| 9
Professor Gil Troy is a professor of history at McGill University and
a visiting scholar afliated with the Bipartisan Policy Center in
Washington. The author of six books on the history of the American
presidency, he is also the author of Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish
Identity and the Challenges of Today. His current areas of research are
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the United Nations Zionism is racism resolution, and
the attempt to delegitimize Israel. Professor Troy is a contributing writer to Policy
Options, Canadas premier public policy magazine, and a regular contributor to the
Jerusalem Post, the Canadian Jewish News, and the Jewish Week. He has published
numerous articles and book reviews in the Wall Street Journal, Montreal Gazette,
New York Times, New York Post, Washington Post, National Post (Canada), Jerusalem
Report, Wilson Quarterly, Raleigh News & Observer, Journal of American History,
American Historical Review, and USA Weekend magazine. Professor Troy chairs the
International Education Committee of Birthright Israel and serves on the Jewish
Agencys Strategic Review Committee.
Dr. Alexander Yakobson is a senior lecturer at the Hebrew University
of Jerusalem and a scholar of democracy, popular politics, public
opinion, and elections in the ancient world. Dr. Yakobson holds a
masters degree and a doctorate in ancient history from the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem and previously taught at the University of
Haifa. In 1999, he published his book Elections and Electioneering in Rome: a Study in
the Political System of the Late Republic. In addition to his focus on the ancient world,
Dr. Yakobson researches the themes of democracy, national identity, nation-states,
and the rights of national minorities in Israel and in Western democracies. He co-
authored a book on these subjects with Amnon RubinsteinIsrael and the Family
of Nations: The Jewish Nation-State and Human Rights (published in Hebrew in 2003
and in English in 2008).
10 |
Acknowledgments
The Shalom Hartman Institute gratefully acknowledges the following scholars
and fellows that have contributed their time and experience to the formulation,
development, and articulation of the Engaging Israel project: Shlomo Avineri, Tal
Becker, Yitzhak Benbaji, Avital Campbell Hochstein, Micah Goodman, Moshe Halbertal,
Yossi Klein Halevi, Yehuda Kurtzer, Michael Sandel, Rachel Sabath Beit-Halachmi, Gil
Troy, Alex Yakobson, and Noam Zion.
The following individuals have been essential in transforming the ideas and insights
generated by the Engaging Israel program into a deliverable product: Alan Abbey,
Laura Gilinski, Sharon Laufer, and Anna Melman.
Our sincere appreciation goes to Lord Stanley Kalms, who challenged the Institute's
leaders to expand the horizon of our work by asking the provocative questions, and
giving the initial gift, that led to the launch of the Engaging Israel project.
The Institute also expresses gratitude to an anonymous donor whose friendship and
support have helped to establish "Engaging Israel" as a core project of the Hartman
Institute. The signifcant contribution of this donor has both enabled the completion
of this series and provided the project with the foundation needed to dream about
and plan for future directions and opportunities.
Finally, our work would have been incomplete without the assistance of the Engaging
Israel Lay Committee members Fred Lafer, Donald Meltzer, Diane Troderman, and Liz
Wolf, whose questions, council, and critical feedback shaped the direction, content,
and fnal format of this series.
Lecture 1 From Crisis to Covenant | 11
12 |
From Crisis to Covenant
1
Peter Beinart, "The Failure of the American Jewish 1.
Establishment," The New York Review of Books (May 2010) pg. 8
Background Reading
David Hartman, "The Signifcance of Israel for the Future 2.
of Judaism," Shalom Hartman Institute, 2008 pg. 8
Donniel Hartman, "Engaging Israel: Beyond Advocacy," 3.
March 9, 2010 pg. 8
Donniel Hartman, "The New Rules of Engagement," 4.
May 17, 2010 pg. 8
The New York Review of Books
The Failure of the American 1ewish Establishment
by Peter Beinart
Published Mav 12, 2010
"In 2003, several prominent Jewish philanthropists hired Republican pollster Frank Luntz to explain why
American Jewish college students were not more vigorously rebutting campus criticism oI Israel. In
response, he unwittingly produced the most damning indictment oI the organized American Jewish
community that I have ever seen.
The philanthropists wanted to know what Jewish students thought about Israel. Luntz Iound that they mostly
didn`t. 'Six times we have brought Jewish youth together as a group to talk about their Jewishness and
connection to Israel, he reported. 'Six times the topic oI Israel did not come up until it was prompted. Six
times these Jewish youth used the word thev rather than us to describe the situation.
That Luntz encountered indiIIerence was not surprising. In recent years, several studies have revealed, in the
words oI Steven Cohen oI Hebrew Union College and Ari Kelman oI the University oI CaliIornia at Davis,
that 'non-Orthodox younger Jews, on the whole, Ieel much less attached to Israel than their elders, with
many proIessing 'a near-total absence oI positive Ieelings. In 2008, the student senate at Brandeis, the only
nonsectarian Jewish-sponsored university in America, rejected a resolution commemorating the sixtieth
anniversary oI the Jewish state.
Luntz`s task was to Iigure out what had gone wrong. When he probed the students` views oI Israel, he hit up
against some Iirm belieIs. First, 'they reserve the right to question the Israeli position. These young Jews,
Luntz explained, 'resist anything they see as group think.` They want an 'open and Irank discussion oI
Israel and its Ilaws. Second, 'young Jews desperately want peace. When Luntz showed them a series oI
ads, one oI the most popular was entitled 'ProoI that Israel Wants Peace, and listed oIIers by various Israeli
governments to withdraw Irom conquered land. Third, 'some empathize with the plight oI the Palestinians.
When Luntz displayed ads depicting Palestinians as violent and hateIul, several Iocus group participants
criticized them as stereotypical and unIair, citing their own Muslim Iriends.
Most oI the students, in other words, were liberals, broadly deIined. They had imbibed some oI the deIining
values oI American Jewish political culture: a belieI in open debate, a skepticism about military Iorce, a
commitment to human rights. And in their innocence, they did not realize that they were supposed to shed
those values when it came to Israel. The only kind oI Zionism they Iound attractive was a Zionism that
recognized Palestinians as deserving oI dignity and capable oI peace, and they were quite willing to
condemn an Israeli government that did not share those belieIs. Luntz did not grasp the irony. The only kind
oI Zionism they Iound attractive was the kind that the American Jewish establishment has been working
against Ior most oI their lives.
mong American Jews today, there are a great many Zionists, especially in the Orthodox world, people
deeply devoted to the State oI Israel. And there are a great many liberals, especially in the secular Jewish
world, people deeply devoted to human rights Ior all people, Palestinians included. But the two groups are
increasingly distinct. Particularly in the younger generations, Iewer and Iewer American Jewish liberals are
Zionists; Iewer and Iewer American Jewish Zionists are liberal. One reason is that the leading institutions oI
American Jewry have reIused to Iosterindeed, have actively opposeda Zionism that challenges Israel`s
behavior in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and toward its own Arab citizens. For several decades, the Jewish
establishment has asked American Jews to check their liberalism at Zionism`s door, and now, to their
horror, they are Iinding that many young Jews have checked their Zionism instead.
1. Peter Beinart, Te Failure of the American Jewish
Establishment, Te New York Review of Books (May 2010)
14 |
Morally, American Zionism is in a downward spiral. II the leaders oI groups likeAIPAC and the ConIerence
oI Presidents oI Major American Jewish Organizations do not change course, they will wake up one day to
Iind a younger, Orthodox-dominated, Zionist leadership whose naked hostility to Arabs and Palestinians
scares even them, and a mass oI secular American Jews who range Irom apathetic to appalled. Saving
liberal Zionism in the United Statesso that American Jews can help save liberal Zionism in Israelis the
great American Jewish challenge oI our age. And it starts where Luntz`s students wanted it to start: by
talking Irankly about Israel`s current government, by no longer averting our eyes.
ince the 1990s, journalists and scholars have been describing a biIurcation in Israeli society. In the words oI
Hebrew University political scientist Yaron Ezrahi, 'AIter decades oI what came to be called a national
consensus, the Zionist narrative oI liberation |has| dissolved into openly contesting versions. One version,
'Iounded on a long memory oI persecution, genocide, and a bitter struggle Ior survival, is pessimistic,
distrustIul oI non-Jews, and believing only in Jewish power and solidarity. Another, 'nourished by
secularized versions oI messianism as well as the Enlightenment idea oI progress, articulates 'a deep sense
oI the limits oI military Iorce, and a commitment to liberal-democratic values. Every country maniIests
some kind oI ideological divide. But in contemporary Israel, the gulI is among the widest on earth.
As Ezrahi and others have noted, this latter, liberal-democratic Zionism has grown alongside a new
individualism, particularly among secular Israelis, a greater demand Ior Iree expression, and a greater
skepticism oI coercive authority. You can see this spirit in 'new historians like Tom Segev who have
Iearlessly excavated the darker corners oI the Zionist past and in jurists like Iormer Supreme Court President
Aharon Barak who have overturned Knesset laws that violate the human rights guarantees in Israel`s 'Basic
Laws. You can also see it in Iormer Prime Minister Ehud Barak`s apparent willingness to relinquish much
oI the West Bank in 2000 and early 2001.
But in Israel today, this humane, universalistic Zionism does not wield power. To the contrary, it is gasping
Ior air. To understand how deeply antithetical its values are to those oI Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu`s government, it`s worth considering the case oI EIIi Eitam. Eitam, a charismatic excabinet
minister and war hero, has proposed ethnically cleansing Palestinians Irom the West Bank. 'We`ll have to
expel the overwhelming majority oI West Bank Arabs Irom here and remove Israeli Arabs Irom |the|
political system, he declared in 2006. In 2008, Eitam merged his small Ahi Party into Netanyahu`s Likud.
And Ior the 20092010 academic year, he is Netanyahu`s special emissary Ior overseas 'campus
engagement. In that capacity, he visited a dozen American high schools and colleges last Iall on the Israeli
government`s behalI. The group that organized his tour was called 'Caravan Ior Democracy.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman once shared Eitam`s views. In his youth, he brieIly joined Meir
Kahane`s now banned Kach Party, which also advocated the expulsion oI Arabs Irom Israeli soil. Now
Lieberman`s position might be called 'pre-expulsion. He wants to revoke the citizenship oI Israeli Arabs
who won`t swear a loyalty oath to the Jewish state. He tried to prevent two Arab parties that opposed
Israel`s 20082009 Gaza war Irom running candidates Ior the Knesset. He said Arab Knesset members who
met with representatives oI Hamas should be executed. He wants to jail Arabs who publicly mourn on
Israeli Independence Day, and he hopes to permanently deny citizenship to Arabs Irom other countries who
marry Arab citizens oI Israel.
You don`t have to be paranoid to see the connection between Lieberman`s current views and his Iormer
ones. The more you strip Israeli Arabs oI legal protection, and the more you accuse them oI treason, the
more thinkable a policy oI expulsion becomes. Lieberman`s American deIenders oIten note that in theory he
supports a Palestinian state. What they usually Iail to mention is that Ior him, a two-state solution means
redrawing Israel`s border so that a large chunk oI Israeli Arabs Iind themselves exiled to another country,
without their consent.
Lieberman served as chieI oI staII during Netanyahu`s Iirst term as prime minister. And when it comes to
the West Bank, Netanyahu`s own record is in its way even more extreme than his protege`s. In his 1993
book, A Place among the Nations, Netanyahu not only rejects the idea oI a Palestinian state, he denies that
there is such a thing as a Palestinian. In Iact, he repeatedly equates the Palestinian bid Ior statehood with
Nazism. An Israel that withdraws Irom the West Bank, he has declared, would be a 'ghetto-state with
'Auschwitz borders. And the eIIort 'to gouge Judea and Samaria |the West Bank| out oI Israel resembles
Hitler`s bid to wrench the German-speaking 'Sudeten district Irom Czechoslovakia in 1938. It is unIair,
Netanyahu insists, to ask Israel to concede more territory since it has already made vast, gut-wrenching
concessions. What kind oI concessions? It has abandoned its claim to Jordan, which by rights should be part
oI the Jewish state.
On the leIt oI Netanyahu`s coalition sits Ehud Barak`s emasculated Labor Party, but whatever moderating
potential it may have is counterbalanced by what is, in some ways, the most illiberal coalition partner oI all,
Shas, the ultra-Orthodox party representing Jews oI North AIrican and Middle Eastern descent. At one
point, Shaslike some oI its Ashkenazi ultra-Orthodox counterpartswas open to dismantling settlements.
In recent years, however, ultra-Orthodox Israelis, anxious to Iind housing Ior their large Iamilies, have
increasingly moved to the West Bank, where thanks to government subsidies it is Iar cheaper to live. Not
coincidentally, their political parties have swung hard against territorial compromise. And they have done so
with a virulence that reIlects ultra-Orthodox Judaism`s proIound hostility to liberal values. Rabbi Ovadia
YoseI, Shas`s immensely powerIul spiritual leader, has called Arabs 'vipers, 'snakes, and 'ants. In 2005,
aIter Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed dismantling settlements in the Gaza Strip, YoseI urged that
'God strike him down. The oIIicial Shas newspaper recently called President Obama 'an
Islamic extremist.
Hebrew University ProIessor Ze`ev Sternhell is an expert on Iascism and a winner oI the prestigious Israel
Prize. Commenting on Lieberman and the leaders oI Shas in a recent Op-Ed in Haaret:, he wrote, 'The last
time politicians holding views similar to theirs were in power in postWorld War II Western Europe was in
Franco`s Spain. With their blessing, 'a crude and multiIaceted campaign is being waged against the
Ioundations oI the democratic and liberal order. Sternhell should know. In September 2008, he was injured
when a settler set oII a pipe bomb at his house.
sraeli governments come and go, but the Netanyahu coalition is the product oI Irightening, long-term trends
in Israeli society: an ultra-Orthodox population that is increasing dramatically, a settler movement that is
growing more radical and more entrenched in the Israeli bureaucracy and army, and a Russian immigrant
community that is particularly prone to anti-Arab racism. In 2009, a poll by the Israel Democracy Institute
Iound that 53 percent oI Jewish Israelis (and 77 percent oI recent immigrants Irom the Iormer USSR)
support encouraging Arabs to leave the country. Attitudes are worst among Israel`s young. When Israeli
high schools held mock elections last year, Lieberman won. This March, a poll Iound that 56 percent oI
Jewish Israeli high school studentsand more than 80 percent oI religious Jewish high school students
would deny Israeli Arabs the right to be elected to the Knesset. An education ministry oIIicial called the
survey 'a huge warning signal in light oI the strengthening trends oI extremist views among the youth.
You might think that such trends, and the sympathy Ior them expressed by some in Israel`s government,
would occasion substantial public concerneven outrageamong the leaders oI organized American
Jewry. You would be wrong. In Israel itselI, voices Irom the leIt, and even center, warn in increasingly
urgent tones about threats to Israeli democracy. (Former Prime Ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have
both said that Israel risks becoming an 'apartheid state iI it continues to hold the West Bank. This April,
when settlers Iorced a large Israeli bookstore to stop selling a book critical oI the occupation, Shulamit
Aloni, Iormer head oI the dovish Meretz Party, declared that 'Israel has not been democratic Ior some time
now.) But in the United States, groups like AIPAC and the Presidents` ConIerence patrol public discourse,
scolding people who contradict their vision oI Israel as a state in which all leaders cherish democracy and
yearn Ior peace.
The result is a terrible irony. In theory, mainstream American Jewish organizations still hew to a liberal
vision oI Zionism. On its website, AIPACcelebrates Israel`s commitment to 'Iree speech and minority
rights. The ConIerence oI Presidents declares that 'Israel and the United States share political, moral and
intellectual values including democracy, Ireedom, security and peace. These groups would never say, as do
16 |
some in Netanyahu`s coalition, that Israeli Arabs don`t deserve Iull citizenship and West Bank Palestinians
don`t deserve human rights. But in practice, by deIending virtually anything any Israeli government does,
they make themselves intellectual bodyguards Ior Israeli leaders who threaten the very liberal values they
proIess to admire.
AIter Israel`s elections last February, Ior instance, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice-chairman oI the
Presidents` ConIerence, explained that Avigdor Lieberman`s agenda was 'Iar more moderate than the media
has presented it. Insisting that Lieberman bears no general animus toward Israeli Arabs, Abraham Foxman,
national director oI the Anti-DeIamation League, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that 'He`s not saying
expel them. He`s not saying punish them. (Permanently denying citizenship to their Arab spouses or jailing
them iI they publicly mourn on Israeli Independence Day evidently does not qualiIy as punishment.)
The ADL has criticized anti-Arab bigotry in the past, and the American Jewish Committee, to its credit,
warned that Lieberman`s proposed loyalty oath would 'chill Israel`s democratic political debate. But
the Forwardsummed up the overall response oI America`s communal Jewish leadership in its headline
'Jewish Leaders Largely Silent on Lieberman`s Role in Government.
ot only does the organized American Jewish community mostly avoid public criticism oI the Israeli
government, it tries to prevent others Irom leveling such criticism as well. In recent years, American Jewish
organizations have waged a campaign to discredit the world`s most respected international human rights
groups. In 2006, Foxman called an Amnesty International report on Israeli killing oI Lebanese civilians
'bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic. The ConIerence oI Presidents has announced that 'biased
NGOs include Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Christian Aid, |and| Save the Children. Last
summer, an AIPAC spokesman declared that Human Rights Watch 'has repeatedly demonstrated its anti-
Israel bias. When the Obama administration awarded the Presidential Medal oI Freedom to Mary
Robinson, Iormer UN high commissioner Ior human rights, the ADL and AIPAC both protested, citing the
Iact that she had presided over the 2001 World ConIerence Against Racism in Durban, South AIrica. (Early
draIts oI the conIerence report implicitly accused Israel oI racism. Robinson helped expunge that
deIamatory charge, angering Syria and Iran.)
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are not inIallible. But when groups like AIPAC and the
Presidents` ConIerence avoid virtually all public criticism oI Israeli actionsdirecting their outrage solely
at Israel`s neighborsthey leave themselves in a poor position to charge bias. Moreover, while American
Jewish groups claim that they are simply deIending Israel Irom its Ioes, they are actually taking sides in a
struggle within Israel between radically diIIerent Zionist visions. At the very moment the Anti-DeIamation
League claimed that Robinson harbored an 'animus toward Israel, an alliance oI seven Israeli human rights
groups publicly congratulated her on her award. Many oI those groups, like B`Tselem, which monitors
Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, and the Israeli branch oI Physicians Ior Human Rights, have been
at least as critical oI Israel`s actions in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank as have Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch.
All oI which raises an uncomIortable question. II American Jewish groups claim that Israel`s overseas
human rights critics are motivated by anti- Israeli, iI not anti-Semitic, bias, what does that say about Israel`s
domestic human rights critics? The implication is clear: they must be guilty oI selI-hatred, iI not treason.
American Jewish leaders don`t generally say that, oI course, but their allies in the Netanyahu government
do. Last summer, Israel`s vice prime minister, Moshe Ya`alon, called the anti-occupation group Peace Now
a 'virus. This January, a right-wing group called Im Tirtzu accused Israeli human rights organizations oI
having Ied inIormation to the Goldstone Commission that investigated Israel`s Gaza war. A Knesset
member Irom Netanyahu`s Likud promptly charged Naomi Chazan, head oI the New Israel Fund, which
supports some oI those human rights groups, with treason, and a member oI Lieberman`s party launched an
investigation aimed at curbing Ioreign Iunding oI Israeli NGOs.
To their credit, Foxman and other American Jewish leaders opposed the move, which might have impaired
their own work. But they are reaping what they sowed. II you suggest that mainstream human rights
criticism oI Israel`s government is motivated by animus toward the state, or toward Jews in general, you
give aid and comIort to those in Israel who make the same charges against the human rights critics in
their midst.
n the American Jewish establishment today, the language oI liberal Zionismwith its idioms oI human
rights, equal citizenship, and territorial compromisehas been drained oI meaning. It remains the lingua
Iranca in part Ior generational reasons, because many older American Zionists still see themselves as
liberals oI a sort. They vote Democratic; they are unmoved by biblical claims to the West Bank; they see
average Palestinians as decent people betrayed by bad leaders; and they are secular. They don`t want Jewish
organizations to criticize Israel Irom the leIt, but neither do they want them to be agents oI the Israeli right.
These American Zionists are largely the product oI a particular era. Many were shaped by the terriIying
days leading up to the Six-Day War, when it appeared that Israel might be overrun, and by the bitter
aItermath oI the Yom Kippur War, when much oI the world seemed to turn against the Jewish state. In that
crucible, Israel became their Jewish identity, oIten in conjunction with the Holocaust, which the 1967 and
1973 wars helped make central to American Jewish liIe. These Jews embraced Zionism beIore the settler
movement became a major Iorce in Israeli politics, beIore the 1982 Lebanon war, beIore the Iirst intiIada.
They Iell in love with an Israel that was more secular, less divided, and less shaped by the culture, politics,
and theology oI occupation. And by downplaying the signiIicance oI Avigdor Lieberman, the settlers, and
Shas, American Jewish groups allow these older Zionists to continue to identiIy with that more internally
cohesive, more innocent Israel oI their youth, an Israel that now only exists in their memories.
But these secular Zionists aren`t reproducing themselves. Their children have no memory oI Arab armies
massed on Israel`s border and oI Israel surviving in part thanks to urgent military assistance Irom the United
States. Instead, they have grown up viewing Israel as a regional hegemon and an occupying power. As a
result, they are more conscious than their parents oI the degree to which Israeli behavior violates liberal
ideals, and less willing to grant Israel an exemption because its survival seems in peril. Because they have
inherited their parents` liberalism, they cannot embrace their uncritical Zionism. Because their liberalism is
real, they can see that the liberalism oI the American Jewish establishment is Iake.
To sustain their uncritical brand oI Zionism, thereIore, America`s Jewish organizations will need to look
elsewhere to replenish their ranks. They will need to Iind young American Jews who have come oI age
during the West Bank occupation but are not troubled by it. And those young American Jews will come
disproportionately Irom the Orthodox world.
ecause they marry earlier, intermarry less, and have more children, Orthodox Jews are growing rapidly as a
share oI the American Jewish population. According to a 2006 American Jewish Committee (AJC) survey,
while Orthodox Jews make up only 12 percent oI American Jewry over the age oI sixty, they constitute 34
percent between the ages oI eighteen and twenty-Iour. For America`s Zionist organizations, these Orthodox
youngsters are a potential bonanza. In their yeshivas they learn devotion to Israel Irom an early age; they
generally spend a year oI religious study there aIter high school, and oIten know Iriends or relatives who
have immigrated to Israel. The same AJC study Iound that while only 16 percent oI non-Orthodox adult
Jews under the age oI Iorty Ieel 'very close to Israel, among the Orthodox the Iigure is 79 percent. As
secular Jews driIt away Irom America`s Zionist institutions, their Orthodox counterparts will likely step into
the breach. The Orthodox 'are still interested in parochial Jewish concerns, explains Samuel Heilman, a
sociologist at the City University oI New York. 'They are among the last ones who stayed in the Jewish
house, so they now control the lights.
But it is this very parochialisma deep commitment to Jewish concerns, which oIten outweighs more
universal onesthat gives Orthodox Jewish Zionism a distinctly illiberal cast. The 2006 AJC poll Iound
that while 60 percent oI non-Orthodox American Jews under the age oI Iorty support a Palestinian state, that
Iigure drops to 25 percent among the Orthodox. In 2009, when Brandeis University`s Theodore Sasson
asked American Jewish Iocus groups about Israel, he Iound Orthodox participants much less supportive oI
dismantling settlements as part oI a peace deal. Even more tellingly, ReIorm, Conservative, and unaIIiliated
Jews tended to believe that average Palestinians wanted peace, but had been ill-served by their leaders.
Orthodox Jews, by contrast, were more likely to see the Palestinian people as the enemy, and to deny that
ordinary Palestinians shared any common interests or values with ordinary Israelis or Jews.
18 |
Orthodox Judaism has great virtues, including a communal warmth and a commitment to Jewish learning
unmatched in the American Jewish world. (I`m biased, since my Iamily attends an Orthodox synagogue.)
But iI current trends continue, the growing inIluence oI Orthodox Jews in America`s Jewish communal
institutions will erode even the liberal-democratic veneer that today covers American Zionism. In 2002,
America`s major Jewish organizations sponsored a large Israel solidarity rally on the Washington Mall. Up
and down the east coast, yeshivas shut down Ior the day, swelling the estimated Orthodox share oI the
crowd to close to 70 percent. When the then Deputy Secretary oI DeIense Paul WolIowitz told the rally that
'innocent Palestinians are suIIering and dying as well, he was booed.
America`s Jewish leaders should think hard about that rally. Unless they change course, it portends the
Iuture: an American Zionist movement that does not even Ieign concern Ior Palestinian dignity and a
broader American Jewish population that does not even Ieign concern Ior Israel. My own children, given
their upbringing, could as easily end up among the booers as among Luntz`s Iocus group. Either prospect
Iills me with dread.
n 2004, in an eIIort to prevent weapons smuggling Irom Egypt, Israeli tanks and bulldozers demolished
hundreds oI houses in the RaIah reIugee camp in the southern Gaza Strip. Watching television, a veteran
Israeli commentator and politician named Tommy Lapid saw an elderly Palestinian woman crouched on all
Iours looking Ior her medicines amid the ruins oI her home. He said she reminded him oI his grandmother.
In that moment, Lapid captured the spirit that is suIIocating within organized American Jewish liIe. To
begin with, he watched. In my experience, there is an epidemic oI not watching among American Zionists
today. A Red Cross study on malnutrition in the Gaza Strip, a bill in the Knesset to allow Jewish
neighborhoods to bar entry to Israeli Arabs, an Israeli human rights report on settlers burning Palestinian
olive groves, three more Palestinian teenagers shotit`s unpleasant. Rationalizing and minimizing
Palestinian suIIering has become a kind oI game. In a more recent report on how to Ioster Zionism among
America`s young, Luntz urges American Jewish groups to use the word 'Arabs, not Palestinians, since 'the
term Palestinians` evokes images oI reIugee camps, victims and oppression, while 'Arab` says wealth, oil
and Islam.
OI course, Israellike the United Statesmust sometimes take morally diIIicult actions in its own deIense.
But they are morally diIIicult only iI you allow yourselI some human connection to the other side.
Otherwise, security justiIies everything. The heads oI AIPAC and the Presidents` ConIerence should ask
themselves what Israel`s leaders would have to do or say to make them scream 'no. AIter all, Lieberman is
Ioreign minister; EIIi Eitam is touring American universities; settlements are growing at triple the rate oI the
Israeli population; halI oI Israeli Jewish high school students want Arabs barred Irom the Knesset. II the line
has not yet been crossed, where is the line?
What inIuriated critics about Lapid`s comment was that his grandmother died at Auschwitz. How dare he
deIile the memory oI the Holocaust? OI course, the Holocaust is immeasurably worse than anything Israel
has done or ever will do. But at least Lapid used Jewish suIIering to connect to the suIIering oI others. In the
world oI AIPAC, the Holocaust analogies never stop, and their message is always the same: Jews are
licensed by their victimhood to worry only about themselves. Many oI Israel`s Iounders believed that with
statehood, Jews would rightly be judged on the way they treated the non-Jews living under their dominion.
'For the Iirst time we shall be the majority living with a minority, Knesset member Pinchas Lavon declared
in 1948, 'and we shall be called upon to provide an example and prove how Jews live with a minority.
But the message oI the American Jewish establishment and its allies in the Netanyahu government is exactly
the opposite: since Jews are history`s permanent victims, always on the kniIe-edge oI extinction, moral
responsibility is a luxury Israel does not have. Its only responsibility is to survive. As Iormer Knesset
speaker Avraham Burg writes in his remarkable 2008 book, The Holocaust Is Over, We Must Rise From Its
Ashes, 'Victimhood sets you Iree.
This obsession with victimhood lies at the heart oI why Zionism is dying among America`s secular Jewish
young. It simply bears no relationship to their lived experience, or what they have seen oI Israel`s. Yes,
Israel Iaces threats Irom Hezbollah and Hamas. Yes, Israelis understandably worry about a nuclear Iran. But
the dilemmas you Iace when you possess dozens or hundreds oI nuclear weapons, and your adversary,
however despicable, may acquire one, are not the dilemmas oI the Warsaw Ghetto. The year 2010 is not, as
Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed, 1938. The drama oI Jewish victimhooda drama that Ieels natural to
many Jews who lived through 1938, 1948, or even 1967strikes most oI today`s young American Jews
as Iarce.
But there is a diIIerent Zionist calling, which has never been more desperately relevant. It has its roots in
Israel`s Independence Proclamation, which promised that the Jewish state 'will be based on the precepts oI
liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets, and in the December 1948 letter Irom Albert
Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and others to The New York Times, protesting right-wing Zionist leader
Menachem Begin`s visit to the United States aIter his party`s militias massacred Arab civilians in the village
oI Deir Yassin. It is a call to recognize that in a world in which Jewish Iortunes have radically changed, the
best way to memorialize the history oI Jewish suIIering is through the ethical use oI Jewish power.
For several months now, a group oI Israeli students has been traveling every Friday to the East Jerusalem
neighborhood oI Sheikh Jarrah, where a Palestinian Iamily named the Ghawis lives on the street outside
their home oI IiIty-three years, Irom which they were evicted to make room Ior Jewish settlers. Although
repeatedly arrested Ior protesting without a permit, and called traitors and selI-haters by the Israeli right, the
students keep coming, their numbers now swelling into the thousands. What iI American Jewish
organizations brought these young people to speak at Hillel? What iI this was the Iace oI Zionism shown to
America`s Jewish young? What iI the students in Luntz`s Iocus group had been told that their generation
Iaces a challenge as momentous as any in Jewish history: to save liberal democracy in the only Jewish state
on earth?
'Too many years I lived in the warm embrace oI institutionalized elusiveness and was a part oI it, writes
Avraham Burg. 'I was very comIortable there. I know; I was comIortable there too. But comIortable
Zionism has become a moral abdication. Let`s hope that Luntz`s students, in solidarity with their
counterparts at Sheikh Jarrah, can Ioster an uncomIortable Zionism, a Zionism angry at what Israel risks
becoming, and in love with what it still could be. Let`s hope they care enough to try."
Mav 12, 2010
Peter Beinart is Associate Professor of Journalism and Political Science at the Citv Universitv of New York,
a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, and Senior Political Writer for The Dailv Beast. His new
book, The Icarus Syndrome: A History oI American Hubris, will be published in June.

20 |
3. David Hartman, Te Signifcance of Israel for the Future of
Judaism
Shalom Hartman Institute, 2008
The significance of Israel for the future of Judaism
Rabbi Professor David Hartman
There were many people, both in Israel and abroad, who believed and
continue to believe that the fundamental purpose of the State of Israel was
to solve the condition of Jewish suffering by providing a national home for
Jews. Treating Israel solely as a haven against persecution is, I believe,
incomplete and inadequate for understanding the significance and importance
of the rebirth of Israel.
Although persecution and suffering played a major role in the national quest
for Jewish political independence, the Zionist revolution was also deeply
infused by utopian social, political and cultural longings. Many dreamed of a
new Jew, a transformation of the Jewish psyche. The return to the land was
envisioned not only in terms of physical safety but also as a healing process
that would liberate Jews from the negative self-image they internalized during
centuries of oppression and powerlessness. For religious thinkers such as
Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook the Zionist revolution was destined to release
spiritual energies that had been repressed by the unnatural condition of galut,
exile. Rabbi Kook looked forward to a new Jewish human type emerging as a
result of the secular, often atheistic, Zionist enterprise.
Jerusalem has always been the receptacle of Jewish historical hopes and
dreams. Israel invites ideological passions because it connects Jews to the
historic memories and aspirations of the Jewish people. You cannot relate to
or live in Israel without being affected by the visions of Isaiah and Amos, the
passion of Rabbi Akiva, the age-old longing of Jews to return to Jerusalem
where justice and human fulfillment would be realized.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the urgent practical questions of security
and the economy do not exhaust what preoccupies Israelis. To the outsider it
seems strange that an embattled, besieged country such as Israel is always
embroiled in internal controversies that have little to do with security and
1
survival. For example, government coalitions are formed and fall over issues
related to how one applies halakha to society.
It is not accidental that starting from the early years of statehood the Bible was
the national literature of this country. Despite a strong disavowal of the Bibles
theological foundations, there was and, I believe, still is a profound
identification with the biblical outlook in terms of human types and values, and
prophetic moral and social aspirations. I am not suggesting that a biblical
religious pathos infuses the country but only that Jewish life in Israel is imbued
with some of the broader historical conditions and perspectives present in the
biblical outlook. In Israel, in contrast to the Diaspora, the synagogue and
Jewish family life cannot generate a sufficient sense of vitality in order to
make Judaism a viable option for modem Jews.
This essay will argue that our return to the land has not only recreated some
of the existential conditions that informed the biblical, covenantal foundations
of Judaism but also that modern Israel provides Jews with an exciting
opportunity to recapture some of the salient features of their biblical
foundations. The acceptance of responsibility for Jewish national existence
will be understood as a progressive extension of the rabbinic understanding of
the covenantal relationship between God and Israel.
2
22 |
Approaches to the establishment of the State of Israel
Secular Zionism in revolt
Zionism began over a century ago as a revolt against the conception of the
Jewish people as a community of prayer and learning. The traditional waiting
posture for liberation from exile was inspired by the biblical account of the
exodus from Egypt. The exodus story served as a key paradigm of Jewish
historical hope by emphasizing that despite the utter helplessness of the
community the Jewish people could rely on the redemptive power of God.
Zionism taught that only if Jews were to take responsibility for their future
would history change. This stood in sharp contrast to the Biblical belief that
Jews were not the masters of their own history. Exile was the result of sin and
only through the return to God and the mitzvoth (teshuvah) would their exilic
condition come to an end by the grace of God. The courage of traditional
religious Jews to persevere under all conditions of history was sustained by
their belief that Israel was Gods elect people and that God would not
permanently abandon Israel. The early Zionists rejected this approach to
Jewish history and hope.
Nevertheless, the early Zionists by no means rejected the Jewish heritage in
its entirety. In many cases, they treated the Bible not only as the greatest
literary treasure of the revived Hebrew language, but also as a major source
of the ethical norms that would guide Jews in rebuilding their ancient
homeland.
The early Zionists went in all imaginable directions in the theological domain.
Many were avowed atheists, others wanted to restore a biblical faith
untrammeled by the rabbinic tradition, and others were devotees of land
mysticism or a religion of labor. Many were agreed, for example, on the need
to create new formats to celebrate traditional Jewish festivals. In Israel today,
there are still kibbutzim that celebrate Passover as a spring festival using
new language and forms of ritual; but nonreligious families typically hold a
traditional Passover meal with all the usual customs, yet without religious
commitment.
3
This is not, however, perceived by most Zionists as a serious problem. If one
strips away the external trappings of traditional sentimentality found in many
Zionists appreciation of Jewish customs, one discovers the belief that
concern for the survival of the Jewish people and commitment to the State of
Israel are the new substitutes for traditional Judaism. The mainstream of
Zionist thought rejected the traditional view that the covenant with God at
Sinai was constitutive of Jewish self-understanding. For many Zionists,
identification with the historical destiny of the nation was not only necessary
for being a Jew, it was also sufficient. Judaism during the exile had
instrumental value in preserving this nation from disintegration, but the new
nationalistic spirit provides a more effective instrument with which to make
possible the continued existence of the Jewish people.
Religious anti-Zionism
While the security of the State of Israel concerns the vast majority of Jews, not
all Jews share the same appreciation of the Jewish states significance for
Jewish life and identity. At one end of the spectrum of views are those who
deny any positive religious significance to the rebirth of Israel. For them, the
establishment of a Jewish state represents a serious infringement on the role
of God and Torah in Jewish history.
The reaction of traditional religious circles to early Zionism was intensely
hostile. The fact that various European nations were regaining their
independence had no significance for them. They believed that the third
Jewish commonwealth could not arise out of political developments in the
secular world, but must result from Gods redemptive intervention into history.
What they were waiting for was not handfuls of pioneers draining swamps, but
a Jewish restoration having the assurance and finality promised by the
following statement in the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 2:1): Although your
fathers were redeemed, they returned to being subjugated; but when you are
redeemed, you shall never again be subjugated.
4
24 |
Today the same skepticism about Zionism is maintained by the Haredi
population, which rationalizes its representation in Israels parliament and its
participation in coalitions by pointing to how much their educational institutions
benefit from government support. In Israel as elsewhere, they cooperate with
the secular powers-that-be, but this should not be taken to imply ascribing
religious significance to the rebirth of Israel. Their academies of learning do
not celebrate Israels Independence Day nor do they offer prayers of
thanksgiving, Hallel, for the re-establishment of Jewish national autonomy,
although prayers may be offered for the safety of those fighting in Israels
defense forces.
Not only do they refuse to ascribe any spiritual significance to the State of
Israel but they also regard the state per se as a threat to the future of
Judaism. For them, self-government grounded in secular forms of political
power and social institutions is the archenemy of traditional Jewish spirituality.
As they see it, Israel offers the Jewish people a new kind of Jewish identity.
Nationalism, Zionist history and folklore, the Hebrew language, Israeli culture,
Israeli geography and archeology, etc., are elements of an alternative way of
life meant to displace God, Torah and classical Jewish teachings. In addition,
they believe that Jewish political autonomy has engendered a psychological
shift towards assertiveness and self-reliance, thereby alienating Jews from
their traditional obedient posture to the Jewish faith. The Zionist ethos stands
in sharp contrast to the traditional attitude of waiting patiently for the Messiah.
Messianic religious Zionism
In contrast, and diametrically opposed to the religious anti-Zionist approach,
are those who celebrate Israel within the context of a messianic, redemptive
orientation to Jewish history. Their experience of Jewish life is filled with
vitality and excitement. For them, the birth of Israel represents the end of exile
and the beginning of the fulfillment of the prophetic visions of Jewish history.
When the return to the Land of Israel gathered pace, religious elements began
joining the secular Zionist revolution. In order to justify their participation in the
Jewish march toward political independence, some of them began claiming
5
that Zionism was a prelude to the coming of the Messiah. As argued above,
for traditional Jews the only alternative political category to exile was the
establishment of a messianic society. Consequently, any attempt to abolish
the situation of exile had to be justified within the framework of the messianic
promise. The best-known attempt of this kind was provided by the philosophy
of Rabbi Kook. He offered an argument similar to Hegels cunning of reason.
Although the secular Zionists believed their efforts would lead to a socialistic
Jewish state where the Jewish religion would be an anachronism, God,
however, would divert the course of events so as to turn Jews into a kingdom
of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). Who is to judge how the Lord of
history chooses to bring about His ultimate design for the world? With this
argument, Rabbi Kook justified the decision of observant Jews to join forces
with a secular political movement that purported to supersede Halakhah and
Jewish covenantal consciousness.
Theological presuppositions of this kind enabled religious elements to forge a
partnership with socialist Zionists during both the British Mandate and the
early decades of the State of Israel. The political implications of such
presuppositions, however, became apparent after the Six-Day War, which
unleashed the potential force of these messianic longings among a
considerable number of religious Jews.
The expansion of Israeli control over most of the Promised Land was seen as
confirmation that the establishment of the messianic kingdom was in the
process of realization. There was a rush to set up rudimentary settlements in
large numbers of places on the assumption that the Ingathering of the Exiles
would shortly swamp Israel. As with all previous messianic expectations,
reality proved otherwise. The reverses of the Yom Kippur War, the drying up
of Jewish immigration, and the disillusionment accompanying the final stages
of the withdrawal from Sinai weakened their messianic fervor.
In spite of the progressive deterioration of the ecstatic mood of the Six-Day
War, the dominant religious ideological perspective of religious Zionism today
is still Rabbi Kooks messianic theology. The vitality of religious youth
6
26 |
movements is still nurtured by teachings from the Rabbi Kook tradition. How
this religious community will respond to a peace settlement or a unilateral
disengagement that demands territorial compromise is an acute political issue
whose outcome many are hesitant and fearful to predict. Any political
compromise regarding the biblical map of Israel and, by implication, the
messianic redemptive destiny of Israel will undermine the legitimacy of the
existing government. It is politically and spiritually urgent, therefore, that we
find new channels for a religious appreciation of Israels rebirth which do not
link the significance of our return to political nationhood with the prophetic
promise of messianic redemption.
A covenantal perspective on Zionism
In contrast to Rabbi Kook, I would argue that religious Zionism does not need
to treat the rise of Israel as a divine ruse leading toward the messianic
kingdom. There is an alternative perspective from which to religiously
embrace the secular Zionist revolution, namely, the observation that Israel
expands the possible range of halakhic involvement in human affairs beyond
the circumscribed frameworks of home and synagogue. Jews in Israel are
given the opportunity to bring economic, social and political issues into the
center of their religious consciousness. The moral quality of the army, social
and economic disparities and deprivations, the exercise of power moderated
by moral sensitivities, attitudes toward minorities, foreign workers, the
stranger, tolerance and freedom of conscience all these are areas that
challenge our sense of covenantal responsibility.
The existence of the State of Israel, from this perspective, prevents Judaism
from being confined exclusively to a culture of learning and prayer. The realm
of symbolic holy time the Sabbath, the festivals is no longer the exclusive
defining framework of Jewish identity. In returning to the land, we have
created the conditions through which everyday life can mediate the biblical
foundations of our covenantal destiny.
7
At first blush, the claim that the Zionist revolution has brought the demands of
the covenant of action back to Jewish spiritual consciousness seems totally
unrelated to the lived reality of Israeli society. Religious self-consciousness in
Israel is found chiefly in two camps: either the traditional ghetto-like spirituality
that characterized Judaism for the past several centuries, or the messianic
religious passion expressed by the adherents of Rabbi Kooks theology of
history.
The halakhic tendencies in the former camp reflect a conscious repudiation of
modernity. There is not an atmosphere of celebration of the new religious
opportunities that statehood has made possible, but rather an outright
disregard of them. The bulk of their halakhic responsa deal with the same
halakhic questions that occupied religious leaders during our long exilic
history, such as kashrut, Jewish dietary laws, and marriage. Even the
sabbatical and Jubilee years, which touch on the social and economic vision
of Judaism, have been reduced to questions of what type of food one is
permitted to eat in the sabbatical year.
Furthermore, the establishment of the State of Israel has not in any way
affected religious practices in the community. It would not be far-fetched to
say that Israel is the last haven in the world for a secular Jew to feel
comfortable in his or her secular perspective on life. In contrast to the
Diaspora, there is a much sharper repudiation of traditional Judaism in Israeli
Jewish society than in many other Jewish communities. If anything, anti-
religious feeling has been growing in response to the political assertiveness of
certain groups of observant Jews.
As for the second camp, those who claim that Israel is part of a necessary
messianic drama need not be disturbed by the prevalence of secularism in
Israel. On the contrary, Rabbi Kooks theology of history enables them to
regard the secular revolution as merely a temporary phase in Gods scheme
for bringing about the eventual establishment of a messianic Jewish society.
The belief in the inevitability of the messianic redemptive process enables
many religious Zionists to minimize the importance of the widespread lack of
8
28 |
serious religious observance and sensitivity in the country. One can dance
with Ariel Sharon on religious festivals with the same enthusiasm as yeshiva
students dance with their Torah teachers. Army generals who lead us to
victory serve the messianic process. What makes an act religious is not
necessarily the motivation of the agent but the consequences that result from
this act. Many atheists or religiously indifferent persons both in the army and
in political life are perceived as pawns in the hands of the Lord of history, who
has seen fit to utilize the military and political power of a secular Zionist state
to bring about the triumph of the divine messianic scheme.
How then, can I give some plausibility to my own perspective in spite of what
seems to be such overwhelming evidence to the contrary? My answer will
present a conceptual analysis of how I believe secular Zionism has enriched
Jewish covenantal consciousness, thereby providing a new framework in
which to experience and develop Judaism in the modern world.
Creation, divine self-limitation and the covenant
The Creation story in Genesis provides the theological and anthropological
framework for understanding the concept of the covenant at Sinai. According
to the first chapters of Genesis, God initially believed that humans would
reflect divinity by virtue of Gods magnificent powers as Creator. Man and
woman were made in Gods image. Precisely this act, however, contains the
seeds of alienation and rebellion against God. Because human beings are
endowed with freedom of choice, mirroring Gods own freedom, they are not
automatons that necessarily mirror the divine hope for human history.
Gods will meets no opposition in the creation of nature, but it meets
opposition in the creation of humans. This is the fundamental significance of
the story of the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, and the sequel up to the
destruction wrought by the flood. The flood expresses the divine rage when
Gods will is frustrated.
The Lord saw how great was mans wickedness on earth, and how
every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time. And
9
the Lord regretted that He had made man on earth, and His heart was
saddened. And the Lord said: 1 will destroy man both man and
beast. (Gen. 6:5-7)
These verses should be contrasted with the earlier chapters of Genesis where
the Lord takes pleasure in all of creation including human beings: And God
saw all that He had made, and found it very good. (Gen 1:31) In the Creation
drama man and woman are the culmination. If they fail, all of creation loses its
significance for God. After the flood, God promises Noah to separate His
ongoing activity as the Creator of nature from the behavior of human beings.
Then Noah built an altar to the Lord and, taking of every clean animal
and of every clean bird, he offered burnt offerings on the altar. The
Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said to Himself: Never
again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of
mans mind are evil from his youth; nor will I ever again destroy every
living being, as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seedtime
and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not
cease. (Gen. 8:20-22)
Nature is now endowed with intrinsic significance as a creation of God
independent of human behavior. God will no longer destroy nature because of
humanity. The Creator of the universe further differentiates between nature
and human history by setting self-imposed limits that distance God from
human beings. God moves from Creator to Covenant-Maker when He accepts
that the Divine Will alone does not ensure that the human world will mirror His
vision for history. This change is revealed in the contrast between Abraham
and Noah.
Abrahams prayer for the people of Sodom reflects the all-powerful God of
Creations decision to become the limited Lord of History. Abraham stands at
Sodom as Gods responsible and dignified other. The rabbis noted this in
contrasting the behavior of Abraham and Noah. When God told Noah that He
was about to destroy the world, Noah accepted Gods decree passively. But
when God told Abraham that He was about to destroy two evil cities, Abraham
pleaded at length on behalf of the innocent who might be destroyed with the
10
30 |
guilty (Gen. 18:23-33). In the case of Abraham, God felt obliged to consult His
covenantal partner before implementing His plan.
Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do, since Abraham is to
become a great and populous nation and all the nations of the earth
are to bless themselves by him? For I have singled him out, that he
may instruct his children and his posterity to keep the way of the Lord
by doing what is just and right, in order that the Lord may bring about
for Abraham what He has promised him. (Gen. 18:17-19)
The development toward covenantal responsibility reaches its quintessential
expression in the moment of Sinai, when a whole nation is commissioned to
implement in its total way of life the will of God as expressed in the mitzvot. In
contrast to nature where the will of God is expressed as absolute power, at
Sinai the community is called to share responsibility for history. The covenant
mediated by the mitzvot continues the shift of the frame of reference from a
theocentric drama in which God seeks to maintain total control (the creation
and exodus stories) to a covenantal drama in which a human community is
charged with the responsibility of building a society that will reveal the
presence of God in human life. And I shall be sanctified in the midst of the
community of Israel (Lev. 22:32).
The covenant and human responsibility
From a Talmudic perspective in which God is mediated in halakhic action, it
would be legitimate to claim that any event that challenges us to widen the
application of the normative halakhic system intensifies the sense of Gods
presence in daily life. I wish, however, to make the stronger claim that the
rejection of the traditional posture of waiting for messianic redemption can
itself be seen as a further elaboration and intensification of the spirit of
covenantal responsibility found in the covenantal patriarchal and Sinai
narratives and, above all, in the rabbinic tradition. I am not claiming that this is
what the Zionist founders intended, but that rebuilding and renewing the
communitys national form of life extended and developed further the rabbinic
traditions understanding of the role assigned to human beings in the
covenant.
11
In the rabbinic tradition Israel is not only called upon to implement covenantal
norms, but also to analyze, define and expand their content. No longer is God
the final interpreter of His own law as in the biblical tradition. Now He is
prepared to accept the verdict of scholars in the rabbinic academy who
declared that Torah is not in heaven (Deut. 30:12). In the rabbinic tradition,
revelation alone does not define how Torah is understood and applied in
concrete situations.
The rabbinic tradition loosened the grip of the biblical paradigm of revelation
and the need for prophecy by empowering human beings to reveal and
expand the meaning of Torah through rational reflection and legal
argumentation. In the classic Talmudic story of the dispute regarding the ritual
status of the oven of Aknai, R. Eliezer invoked divine assistance in order to
persuade the sages to accept his position after failing to convince them with
legal arguments. After several miracles failed to win the sages over to his
point of view,
he [R. Eliezer] said to them: if the law is as I say, let it be proved
from heaven! Whereupon a heavenly voice cried out: Why do you
dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the law is as he
says! But Rabbi Joshua arose and exclaimed: It is not in heaven
[Deut. 30:12]. What did he mean by this? Said Rabbi Jeremiah: That
the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention
to a heavenly voice, because Thou has long since written in the Torah
at Mount Sinai, After the majority must one incline [Exod. 23:2]
(T.B. Baba Metzia 59b)
The rabbis understood It is not in heaven to mean that human beings could
define and expand the meaning of Gods word without the need for prophesy
or miraculous divine intervention. Yet, while firmly maintaining that Torah was
not in heaven, rabbinic Judaism remained committed to the biblical idea that
history was in heaven. Jewish history on the national level continued to be
perceived in terms of the exodus-from-Egypt model where the all-powerful
Lord of History miraculously redeems a powerless people.
12
32 |
The covenantal community takes upon itself responsibility for what the word of
God means. Learning becomes a dominant new expression of religious
passion. Rabbi Akiva, one of the forerunners of the intellectually dynamic and
bold interpretative tradition of the Talmud, who in his life expressed total
commitment and love for God, claimed that the paradigmatic book for
understanding Israel and God was the Song of Songs. All the books of the
Bible are holy; the Song of Songs is the holy of holies (Yadayim 3:5). In the
rabbinic period, God as teacher and lover became the central metaphors of
the covenantal relationship with the God of Israel.
Despite this human-oriented transformation of the roles of prophecy and
miracles in mediating Gods love and intimacy, the rabbinic tradition did not
similarly neutralize the need for divine miraculous intervention with respect to
the Jewish peoples national political existence. Attitudes to history continued
to be characterized by a prayer-like longing for divine intervention in history
that would solve the suffering of Jewish exile and national insecurity. Jewish
political liberation - Israels return to its ancient national homeland - was
conceived in terms of the biblical paradigm of the exodus from Egypt.
May He who performed miracles for our ancestors redeeming them
from slavery to freedom, redeem us soon and gather our dispersed
from the four corners of the earth (Prayer for the New Month)
Jews waited for redemption. Liberation would come from a power beyond and
independent of human initiative. In contrast to the culture of the beit midrash,
the Torah academy, where Jews felt no need for revelatory intervention to
know how to apply Torah, outside of the confines of the academies of learning
Gods power was absolute and supreme. Here Jews had to wait patiently for
Gods intervention. Although Torah was not in heaven, Jewish historical
destiny was.
* * *
The Zionist revolution expanded the rabbinic spirit of confidence and trust in
human initiative to new dimensions by liberating Jews from the traditional
orientation of passivity to historical hope grounded in helpless dependency on
13
the Lord of history. According to what I call a covenantal approach to Judaism,
the dramatic significance of the establishment of the State of Israel is not as a
sign of the imminent unfolding of religious eschatology but is an exciting new
stage in a process that began at Sinai where Israel was prepared to accept
Gods self-limiting love as the central theological principle of its religious way
of life.
Today, Jews are in a position to move further in the development of the
covenantal concept that began at Sinai by expanding our covenantal
consciousness to include responsibility for our fate in history. The covenantal
community is called upon to complete the process that began at Sinai by
bearing witness to the idea that without divine self-limitation there can be no
mature, responsible historical role for Israel in the covenantal relationship with
God.
One can summarize the different stages of this covenantal process in the
following way. The Bible liberated the will of the individual to act with
responsibility. I have put before you life and death, blessing and curse.
Choose life if you and your offspring would live by loving the Lord your
God, heeding His commands, and holding fast to Him (Deut. 30: 19-20). The
Talmud liberated the intellect to define the contents of Torah. Zionism
liberated the will of the nation to become politically responsible, to promote the
ingathering of the exiles and to re-establish Israel as a covenantal nation in
history without relying on a divine rupture into human history.
The State of Israel is, therefore, the main catalyst to rethinking the meaning of
God as the Lord of History. The future of Judaism depends on our ability to
discover meaningful ways of relating to Gods love and power in a world
where history, and not only Torah, is not in heaven.
14
34 |
3. Donniel Hartman, Engaging Israel: Beyond Advocacy
March 9, 2010
Since Operation Cast Lead and the subsequent Goldstone Report, there has been an increasing sense
that anti-Israeli opinion has moved beyond criticism of some of Israel's actions and policies to the
delegitimization of the Zionist project as a whole. We Israelis and Jews must have no problem with
constructive criticism. Our tradition has taught us that criticism is frst and foremost an act of love and
loyalty. We welcome it as a necessary check-and-balance in ensuring moral behavior. In fact, we have
always been our own greatest critics. When we defne all criticism of Israel's policies as anti-Israeli or
anti-Semitic, we are neither accurate nor serving Israel's interests. However, undermining the essential
legitimacy of the State of Israel as a Jewish State or as the homeland of the Jewish people is not criticism
but rather a danger which we must confront and combat.

In Israel and throughout the Jewish world there has been a marshalling of forces to develop materials,
programs, and new advocates to make the case for Israel. The aim of these programs is to combat
distortions and present Israel's side of the facts. However important and valuable these eforts are,
they often fail to achieve their end. When the case for Israel is grounded only on a factual narrative it
is often unconvincing to those who hold a counter factual perception. In general, positions are rarely
formed purely around facts, but rather by ideological, moral, and psychological propensities which then
construct factual narratives to reinforce the preexisting commitment.

The concentration on the above form of Israel advocacy, while valuable in educating the completely
uninformed, overlooks an audience which in my mind needs to be a major focus of our eforts, and for
whom current Israel advocacy either is unnecessary or inefective. I am referring to the mainstream Jewish
community itself, which has been raised to care about Israel and is now fnding that the foundations of
its connection is being undermined.

The reality is that the majority of committed Jews, for the most part, lack a language to understand
or articulate their feelings about Israel and their desire to continue to support it. This leaves them
vulnerable and exposed by the campaign of delegitimization, for they do not possess a framework from
which to combat it.

The reason for this predicament is the fact that since its inception the standard arguments for support of
Israel amongst world Jewry no longer resonate with most Jews, especially those 50 years and younger.
These arguments can be divided into three. We must support Israel either because:
Israel is necessary as a safe haven in the event of a new Holocaust; 1.
The survival of the State of Israel is in danger; 2.
Israel is a central ally in the West's war against the "Axis of Evil." 3.
Besides being mutually contradictory, a common feature of all three as stated is that are increasingly
irrelevant. Most Jews in North America feel increasingly at home in their societies and do not feel called
to combat the urgency of the threat of a potential Holocaust. Secondly, their political consciousness
regarding Israel was not formed by the angst preceding the Six Day War, or by the precariousness of
Israel's existence exposed in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Their frst war as adults was the war in Lebanon in
1982 and then there was the Intifada. They were raised on the story of Israel's power and military might.
Protecting Israel from its "stronger" neighbors is not a meaningful or persuasive argument. Finally, as
voting patterns in the Jewish community in North America have revealed, most do not see the war
against the "Axis of Evil" as either central or compelling to their lives and an enterprise to which they
want to contribute.

It is time for us to recognize that the Jewish community in general and Israel in particular have failed
to develop a new Jewish narrative for the Jewish people around the world on which to base their
relationship with Israel. Jewish organizations and Israel have held steadfast to the three arguments
above for they were successful in creating a crisis-centered relationship with Israel which was efective in
raising money. These actions, however, have mortgaged our future on the altar of immediate and short-
term institutional needs. Repayment is now due, and the resources are lacking.

The Jewish community is not in need of an Israel advocacy campaign of facts and fgures alone, but also
of a new Jewish narrative based on Jewish ideas and values for engaging Israel in a way that will help
integrate Israel into a modern Jewish identity. Jews today need to be able to address crucial questions for
which they currently do not know the answer. For example: What is the role of "peoplehood" in modern
Jewish identity? What is the meaning and purpose of Jewish sovereignty connected to territory rooted
in the land of Israel to modern Jewish life? What are the requirements of morality of war, and how can
Israel use its power in a way that is consistent with the highest standards of Jewish morality and values?
How does Israel balance its legitimate right of self defense with the rights of others? Can a Jewish state
be reconciled with the values of Jewish pluralism and freedom? Does the aspiration for a Jewish state
automatically defne Israel as a racist, apartheid state?

These are just some of the questions that need to be addressed and answered by this new Jewish
narrative of Israel and Zionism. If one cannot answer them, there is neither a foundation for connecting
to Israel nor the ability to sustain a viable and meaningful relationship. We need to educate and
empower the Jewish community to engage Israel in a meaningful way before we can even think about
asking them to advocate on its behalf.

Israel has been formed under almost impossible conditions and is still a young and deeply imperfect
democracy. Not only are we not beyond criticism, we are in dire need of committed voices within our
community who will lovingly challenge Israel to not accept the status quo and to continue to strive
higher. If engaging Israel will be successful it will be so only because we will fnd a way to integrate
commitment to Israel within a larger Jewish value conversation and invite people of all political and
religious sensibilities to be engaged and participate in thinking about and shaping the unfnished
experiment which is modern Israel.
36 |
In the classic Jewish narrative, and in fact, in contemporary Israeli discourse, the world is divided into
two places - Israel and everywhere else, with every Jew who lives outside of Israel classifed as living in
"chutz la'aretz" (outside the land) and in exile. In the 20th century, this Israel-centric consciousness took
root in a time when "chutz la'aretz" was inherently unsafe for Jews, with Israel providing the only hope
for refuge.

At the root of the growing rift between Israel and world Jewry as discussed in my previous article on this
subject, Engaging Israel: Beyond Advocacy, is the dramatically successful integration and transformation
in the reality of Jewish life outside of Israel, especially in North America. This was coupled with the failure
of the global Jewish community to develop a new non-survival based narrative for the signifcance of
the State of Israel for Jews around the world.

In a new project now under way at the Shalom Hartman Institute designed to craft such a narrative, which
we have entitled "Israel Engagement," we are developing a new vocabulary and direction that will avoid
certain fundamental pitfalls that have served to further distance Israel from world Jewry. Without yet
getting into the substance of this narrative, which is still in formulation, we have preliminarily identifed
six fundamental rules which we believe must govern contemporary Israel engagement projects.

1. The new Israel engagement narrative must be based primarily on Jewish values as
distinct from a factual, historical conversation. Unless Israel and Zionism are integrated into
a larger Jewish conversation and given a critical place in the meaning of Jewish life in the 21st century for
Jews around the world, no contemporary or historical facts will be able to overcome the fundamental gap
in interest and concern. In general, it is worthwhile to remember that people do not make commitments
on the basis of facts, but rather choose the facts which support their prior commitments. The purpose of
the Jewish values discourse around Israel is to create this initial commitment.

2. The case for Israel, while based on Israel's accomplishments, must defne Israel
primarily in terms of being a project in formation - a work in progress. The case for
Israel must be based on what Israel can be and not necessarily always on what it is. One of the great
difculties embedded in contemporary attempts to make the case for Israel is that they often over-
glorify and oversimplify the complex reality which is Israel, and in doing so, further alienate those who
do not always experience this reality in positive terms. As a 62-year-old country we have a record on
which to run, but we and world Jewry also must recognize that as a young state we are still a project in
formation. As such the question is not merely what Israel has accomplished, but what can it accomplish
and what it can mean for Jewish life. It is precisely in that context that we can invite Jews around the
world to connect, support and contribute to the shaping of this evolving project.
4. Donniel Hartman, Te New Rules of Engagement
May 17, 2010
3. Israel must be presented as a project of the Jewish people worldwide and not just
of the Israelis. Only an Israel which is willing to share ownership in the enterprise with Jews around
the world, which is open to constructive criticism and advice, and is not merely seeking handouts is an
Israel that can lay claim to being a place of signifcance in Jews' lives around the world. This requires not
only a change in the consciousness of world Jewry but of Israelis as well. At issue is not whether world
Jewry gets to vote in Israeli elections, but whether we see the forming of the state as a partnership in
which Jews around the world have a stake.

4. The same standards of pluralism and tolerance so widely accepted by Jews around
the world when it comes to Jewish life must apply as well to the discourse around
Israel. When it comes to Judaism we have learned that multiple voices must be equally valued or
tolerated if diferent Jews are to be able to build a religious and spiritual life within Judaism. The same
awareness is required when it comes to Israel. Only an Israel in which diferent visions and ideas with
regard to both its foreign and internal policies are allowed as part of the conversation is an Israel which
can be signifcant in the lives of diverse Jews. When certain ideas and opinions are stifed or branded
as non-loyal and treacherous, the result is not an increase in support and love for Israel but rather
departures from the camp of supporters of Israel. A monopoly on what constitutes a loyal supporter of
Israel does not generate greater loyalty but rather indiference and alienation.

5. This new narrative, while grounded on Jewish values, must be frmly embedded
as well in contemporary legal, political, and moral theory. Much of the alienation toward
Israel has not grown from Israel's policies nor its public relations, but from contemporary discourse,
which claims the intellectual, legal, and moral high ground for positions that fundamentally delegitmize
the Jewish state. The Jewish community must be educated not merely as to the Jewish values enhanced
by the decision of the Jewish people to embrace sovereignty with all its complexities, but it must equally
be educated in the general intellectual foundations which support the legitimacy of a homeland for the
Jewish people and our right to defend it within obvious moral constraints.

6. More is less and less is more. We are living in a time in which a connection to the Jewish
people and support for Israel are no longer self evident. Members of our community are tired of having
to defend Israel and to respond over and again to the seemingly never-ending crises to which Israel is
subjected. We are facing a generation in which the default position is one which doesnt need a reason
for not supporting Israel. In this context, our arguments for engaging Israel and for building a new
narrative must be careful not to overextend and to present too many arguments in support.

An argument, like any chain, is only as strong as its weakest link. Supporters of Israel must recognize that
the strength of the narrative cannot be assessed by its signifcance to them but rather on its ability to
inspire those who are not similarly committed. We must get down to core arguments as to why Jewish
peoplehood, sovereignty, power and a Jewish democratic state, as expressed or potentially expressed in
the new reality which is Israel, are legally sound and morally upstanding.

Building this new narrative and following the outline above is not simple and constitutes one of the
great moral, spiritual and intellectual tasks facing Jewish life in the 21st century. If we follow these rules,
however, we will give ourselves a chance to turn today's challenge into an opportunity for a more deeply
connected, united and vibrant Jewish people.
38 |
2
Religion and Peoplehood
2
I Te Centrality of Peoplehood
Genesis 12:1-3 pg. 39 1.
Exodus 32:7-10 pg. 39 2.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot 32a pg. 39 3.
Avot d'Rabbi Natan, Chapter 2 pg. 39 4.
Exodus 6:5-8 pg. 39 5.
Passover Haggadah 4 Sons 6. pg. 39
II Te Experience and Signifcance of Peoplehood
Mishnah Pesahim 10:5 7. pg. 39
Deuteronomy 29:9-14 8. pg. 39
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 44a 9. pg. 39
Tzitz Eliezer 13:93 10. pg. 39
Exodus 19:1-6 12. pg. 39
Ruth 1:15-17 13. pg. 39
Background Reading
Steven M. Cohen & Jack Wertheimer, Whatever Happened 14.
to the Jewish People, Commentary (June 2006) pg. 39
Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Kol Dodi Dofek: It Is the Voice of 15.
My Beloved That Knocketh pg. 39
Lecture 2 Religion and Peoplehood | 39
I Te Centrality of Peoplehood
1. Genesis 12:1-3
- , -
. , - ,
1 Te Lord said to Abram, Go forth from your
native land and from your fathers house to the
land that I will show you.
, ; , , ,
.
2 I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless
you; I will make your name great, and you shall be
a blessing.
, ; , , ,
.
3 I will bless those who bless you and curse him that
curses you; and all the families of the earth shall
bless themselves by you.
2. Exodus 32:7-10
, -- - : - ,
.
7 Te Lord spoke to Moses, Hurry down, for your
people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt,
have acted basely.
, -- - ,
, , - , - ;
.
8 Tey have been quick to turn aside from the
way that I enjoined upon them. Tey have made
themselves a molten calf and bowed low to it and
sacrifced to it, saying, Tis is your god, O Israel,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt.
, - : - ,
. - -
9 Te Lord further said to Moses, I see that this is a
stifnecked people.
, ; - ,
.
10 Now let Me be, that My anger may blaze forth
against them and that I may destroy them, and
make of you a great nation.
40 |
3. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Berakhot 32a
And the Lord spoke unto Moses, Go, get thee down. What is meant by Go, get thee down? R. Eleazar
said: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: Moses, descend from thy greatness. Have I at all given
to thee greatness save for the sake of Israel? And now Israel have sinned; then why do I want thee?
Straightway Moses became powerless and he had no strength to speak. When, however, [God] said, Let
Me alone that I may destroy them, Moses said to himself: This depends upon me, and straightway he
stood up and prayed vigorously and begged for mercy. It was like the case of a king who became angry
with his son and began beating him severely. His friend was sitting before him but was afraid to say a
word until the king said, Were it not for my friend here who is sitting before me I would kill you. He said
to himself, This depends on me, and immediately he stood up and rescued him. Now therefore let Me
alone that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them, and I will make of thee
a great nation. R. Abbahu said: Were it not explicitly written, it would be impossible to say such a thing:
this teaches that Moses took hold of the Holy One, blessed be He, like a man who seizes his fellow by his
garment and said before Him: Sovereign of the Universe, I will not let Thee go until Thou forgivest and
pardonest them.
! , : , ? ,
? - ,
, . - : , : .
: . ,
. - : !
, ; : -
. , : ,
4. Avot dRabbi Natan, Chapter 2
This is but one of the things which Moses did of his own accord. He reasoned by inference and his
judgment coincided with Gods: He kept away from his wife, and his judgment coincided with Gods. He
kept away from the tent of meeting, and his judgment coincided with Gods. He broke the tables of the
commandments, and his judgment coincided with Gods.
[]
He broke the tables of the commandments. But he took the tables of the Commandments and descended,
and was exceedingly glad. When he beheld that ofense which they committed in the making of the
golden calf, he said to himself, How can I give them the tables of the Commandments? I shall be
obligating them to major commandments and condemning them to death and the hands of Heaven; for
thus is it written in the Commandments, Thou shall have no other gods before Me (Exodus 20:3).
He then started back but the seventy Elders saw him and ran after him. He held fast to one end of the
tables and they held fast to the other end of the tables; but the strength of Moses prevailed over theirs,
as it is said, And in all the mighty hand, and in all the great terror, which Moses wrought in the sight of
all Israel (Deuteronomy 34:12).
He looked at the tables and saw that the writing had disappeared from them. How can I give Israel tables
which have naught to them, he thought; better that I take hold and break them. As it is said, And I took
hold of the two tables, and cast them out of my two hands, and broke them (Deuteronomy 9:17).
Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: I shall tell thee a parable; to what may this be likened? To a king of fesh
and blood who said to his steward, Go and betroth unto me a beautiful and pious maiden, of seemly
conduct. That steward went and betrothed her. After he had betrothed her, he went and discovered that
she played the harlot with another man. Forthwith, of his own accord, he made the following inference;
said he, If I now go ahead and giver her the marriage deed, she will be liable to the penalty of death, and
thus we shall have separated her from my master forever.
So too did Moses the righteous make an inference of his own accord. He said: How shall I give these
tables to Israel? I shall be obligating them to major commandments and make them liable to the penalty
of death, for thus is it written in the tables, He that sacrifceth unto the gods, save unto the Lord only,
shall be utterly destroyed (Exodus 22:19). Rather, I shall take hold of them and break them, and bring
Israel back to good conduct.
42 |
.
.
.
.
]...[
?
( : , ,
, )
. -
) ( : ,
, , , ,
, . , ,
. ) ( : ,
: .
, , ,
. .
, . , .
. ) ( :
? : .
. ) ( : ,
? . :
. . .
. , , :
, : .
. ) ( , ,
. . ,
5. Exodus 6:5-8
, , - ,
. - , ;
5 I have now heard the moaning of the Israelites
because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage,
and I have remembered My covenant.
, , -
; ,
. ,
6 Say, therefore, to the Israelite people: I am the
Lord. I free you from the labors of the Egyptians
and deliver you from their bondage. I will redeem
you with an outstretched arm and through
extraordinary chastisements.
, ; ,
, ,
.
7 And I will take you to be My people, and I will be
your God. And you shall know that I, the Lord, am
your God who freed you out from the labors of the
Egyptians.
, - , - ,
;
. ,
8 I will bring you into the land which I swore to give
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to
you for a possession, I am the Lord.
6. Passover Haggadah 4 Sons
The wicked one, what does he say? What is this service to you? He says to you but not to him! By thus
excluding himself from the community he has denied the foundations of our faith. You, therefore, blunt
his teeth and say to him: It is because of this that the Lord did for me when I left Egypt; for mebut
not for him! If he had been there he would not have been redeemed.
. . - ? ?
. , . - . :
44 |
II Te Experience and Signifcance of Peoplehood
7. Mishnah Pesahim 10:5
R. Gamliel used to say: Whoever does not make mention of these three things on Passover does not
discharge his duty, and these are they: the Passover ofering, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs. The
Passover ofering is [sacrifced] because the Omnipresent passed over the houses of our fathers in
Egypt, as it is said, then ye shall say: It is the sacrifce of the Lords Passover, for that he passed over. The
unleavened bread is [eaten] because our fathers were redeemed from Egypt, as it is said, and they baked
unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought out of Egypt. The bitter herb is [eaten] because the
Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt, as it is said, and they made their lives bitter. In
every generation a man is bound to regard himself as though he personally had gone forth from Egypt,
because it is said, and thou shalt tell thy son in that day, saying: It is because of that which the Lord did
for me when I came forth out of Egypt.

) (
.
8. Deuteronomy 29:9-14
: ,
. , , ,
9 You stand this day, all of you, before the Lord your
Godyour tribal heads, your elders and your
ofcials, all the men of Israel,
, : , --
.
10 your children, your wives, even the stranger within
your camp, from woodchopper to water drawer
: -- ,
. ,
11 to enter into the covenant of the Lord your God,
which the Lord your God is concluding with you
this day, with its sanctions;
- , -
, ; - , --
.
12 to the end that He may establish you this day as
His people and be your God, as He promised you
and as He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob.
, - , -- ,
. , -
13 I make this covenant, with its sanctions, not with
you alone,
, , , -
. , ;
14 but both with those that are standing here with us
this day before the Lord our God and with those
who are not with us here this day.
9. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 44a
Israel has sinned. R. Abba b. Zabda said: Even though [the people] have sinned, they are still [called]
Israel. R. Abba said: Thus people say a myrtle, though it stands among reeds, is still a myrtle, and it is so
called.
: . - : .
. ,
46 |
10. Tzitz Eliezer 13:93
The case came before me regarding a woman, the daughter of Jewish parents who submitted
a request to the courts to allow her to return to the fold of Judaism. In front of the court she
explained that she had converted to Christianity in the Anglican Church, as a result of wanting
to marry someone who belonged to the Anglican religion. Now she expresses complete remorse
over her actions
It is obvious and simple that according to Jewish law, a Jew is in no way capable of freeing him
or herself from the bonds of the Torah and severing the ties and the roots of his connection to his
people. A Jews fundamental connection to the Jewish people is founded on the fact that he was
born to Jewish parents, or more accurately to a Jewish mother
It is, therefore, a central principle of our religion and our holy Torah that no one of the offspring of
Jacob can escape from it, whether voluntarily or non-voluntarily. Against his will, a Jew remains
a Jew, connected to the religion of Moshe, with no recourse to free himself from it.
It is therefore, simple and clear that the conversion to a different religion of this woman who
wants to return to Judaism is something that never happened. She never left the framework
of Judaism, neither religiously or nationally, and her return to Judaism is like the return of a
daughter to her mother.
. ) (

: . ,
, , , ,
. , ,
]...[

,
. :
]...[
--
. ,
. , - 1 Every seventh year you shall practice remission of
debts.
, - -- ,
- , - - - :
.
2 Tis shall be the nature of the remission: every
creditor shall remit the due that he claims from his
fellow; he shall not dun his fellow or kinsmen, for
the remission proclaimed is of the Lord.
, - ; , -
.
3 You may dun the foreigner; but you must remit
whatever is due you from your kinsmen.
, , - : - ,
. - ,
4 Tere shall be no needy among you--since the Lord
your God will bless you in the land that the Lord
your God is giving you as a hereditary portion--
, , -
. , - -
5 if only you heed the Lord your God and take care
to keep all this Instruction that I enjoin upon you
this day.
; - , -
, , ,
.
6 For the Lord your God will bless you as He has
promised you: you will extend loans to many nations
but require none yourself; you will dominate many
nations, but they will not dominate you.
, , , -
, - -- -
. , , -
7 If, however, there is a needy person among you,
one of your kinsmen in any of your setlements in
the land that the Lord your God is giving you, do
not harden your heart and shut your hand against
your needy kinsmen.
, , ; , - -
. ,
8 Rather, you must open your hand and lend him
sufcient for whatever he needs.
, - -
, , -
. , - ;
9 Beware lest you harbor the base thought, Te
seventh year, the year of remission, is approaching,
so that you are mean to your needy kinsmen and
give him nothing. He will cry out to the Lord
against you, and you will incur guilt.
: - ,
, - , ,
.
10 Give to him readily and have no regrets when you
do so, for in return the Lord your God will bless
you in all your eforts and in all your undertakings.
, - ; , -
, - ,
.
11 For there will never cease to be needy ones in your
land, which is why I command you: open your hand
to the poor and needy kinsman in your land.
48 |
12. Exodus 19:1-6
-- , - , ,
. ,
1 On the third new moon afer the Israelites had
gone forth from the land of Egypt, on that very day,
they entered the wilderness of Sinai.
; , , ,
. , -
2 Having journeyed from Rephidim, they entered
the wilderness of Sinai and encamped in the
wilderness. Israel encamped there in front of the
mountain,
- , ; - ,
. , ,
3 and Moses went up to God. Te Lord called to him
from the mountain, saying, Tus shall you say to
the house of Jacob and declare to the children of
Israel:
- ; ,
. ,
4 You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, how I
bore you on eagles wings and brought you to Me.
- - , , - ,
. - - , - -
5 Now, then, if you will obey Me faithfully and keep
My covenant, you shall be My treasured possession
among all the peoples. Indeed, all the earth is
Mine,
, : , -
. - , ,
6 but you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and
a holy nation. Tese are the words that you shall
speak to the children of Israel.
13. Ruth 1:15-17
; - , - , ,
. ,
15 So she said: See, your sister-in-law has returned to
her people and her gods. Go follow your sister-in-
law.
: , - -
, -- , -
.
16 But Ruth replied, Do not urge me to leave you,
to turn back and not follow you. For wherever you
go, I will go; wherever you lodge, I will lodge; your
people shall be my people, and your God my God.
, ; ,
. , --
17 Where you die, I will die, and there I will be buried.
Tus and more may the Lord do to me if anything
but death parts me from you.

14. Steven M. Cohen & Jack Wertheimer, Whatever Happened to the Jewish
People
Commentary (June 2006)
50 |
52 |
54 |
15. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Kol Dodi Dofek:
It Is the Voice of My Beloved Tat Knocketh,
Theological and Halakhic Refections on the Holocaust, pp. 81-96
56 |
58 |
60 |
62 |
64 |
66 |
68 |
70 |
72 |
Sovereignty and Identity
3
I Framework to Protect Oneself
Sigmund Freud, 1. Interpretation of Dreams pg. 39
Bamidbar Rabbah 21:4 pg. 39 2.
Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Murder 1:16 pg. 39 3.
Numbers 32:1-19 pg. 39 4.
Chief of Staf Ashkenazi's Speech at Auschwitz pg. 39 5.
Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Horayot 3:7 (48b) pg. 39 6.
II Sense of Home / Homeland
S.Y. Agnon, 7. The Fable of the Goat pg. 39
Genesis 50:24-26 pg. 39 8.
Exodus 6:2-8 pg. 39 9.
David Ben Gurion, Address to the Knesset on Law of Return pg. 39 10.
Ezekiel 34:1-16; 36:24-28 pg. 39 11.
Hatikvah pg. 39 12.
III Values in Public Space
Exodus 23:10-11 pg. 39 13.
Leviticus 19:9-10 pg. 39 14.
Leviticus 25:1-17 pg. 39 15.
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 pg. 39 16.
IV Create Jewish National (Non-Religious) Identity
Yosef Hayyim Brenner, "On the Specter of 17. Shemad pg. 39
Ahad Ha'am, "The National Morality" pg. 39 18.
Sigmund Freud, 19. Totem and Taboo, Preface to the
Hebrew Translation pg. 39
Lecture 3 Sovereignty and Identity | 73
Background Reading
David Ben Gurion, The Imperatives of the Jewish 20.
Revolution (1944) pg. 39
Eliezer Berkovits, On the Return to Jewish National 21.
Life (1943) pg. 39
74 |
I Framework to Protect Oneself
1. Sigmund Freud, Interpretation of Dreams
I might have been ten or twelve years old when my father began to take me with him on his walks, and
in his conversation to reveal his views on the things of this world. Thus it was that he once told me the
following incident, in order to show me that I had been born into happier times than he: When I was a
young man, I was walking one Saturday along the street in the village where you were born; I was well-
dressed, with a new fur cap on my head. Up comes a Christian, who knocks my cap into the mud, and
shouts, Jew, get of the pavement!- And what did you do?- I went into the street and picked up the
cap, he calmly replied. That did not seem heroic on the part of the big, strong man who was leading me,
a little fellow, by the hand. I contrasted this situation, which did not please me, with another, more in
harmony with my sentiments-the scene in which Hannibals father, Hamilcar Barcas, made his son swear
before the household altar to take vengeance on the Romans. Ever since then Hannibal has had a place
in my phantasies.
2. Bamidbar Rabbah 21:4
HARASS THE MIDIANITES (XXV, 17). Why? FOR THEY HARASS YOU (ib. 18). From this the
Sages have derived the maxim: If a man comes to kill you, kill him frst.
.
3. Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Murder 1:16
If one sees someone pursuing another in order to kill him, or sees someone pursuing a woman forbidden
to him in order to ravish her, and although able to save them does not do so, he thereby disregards a
positive commandment [] and transgresses two negative commandments, Your eye shall have no pity,
and, Neither shall you stand idly by the blood of your neighbor. Although there is no fogging for these
prohibitions, because breach of them involves no action, the ofense is most serious, for if one destroys
a single life, it is regarded as though he destroyed the whole world, and if one preserves a single life, it is
regarded as though he preserved the whole world.
, , -- , , ,
.), ( - )( , , ;), ( -
, : , ,
. , ;
4. Numbers 32:1-19
; -- - ,
, , - , -
.
1 Te Reubenites and the Gadites owned catle in
very great numbers. Noting that the lands of Jazer
and Gilead were a region suitable for catle,
- - ; , -
. - ,
2 the Gadites and the Reubenites came to Moses,
Eleazar the priest, and the chiefains of the
community and said,
, ,
. ,
3 Ataroth, Dibon, Jazer, Nimrah, Heshbon, Elealeh,
Sebam, Nebo, and Beon
, -- ,
. , ;
4 the land that the Lord has conquered for the
community of Israel is catle country, and your
servants have catle.
- -- - ,
. - , - : ,
5 It would be a favour to us, they continued, if this
land were given to your servants as a holding; do
not move us across the Jordan.
, : - ,
. , ,
6 Moses replied to the Gadites and the Reubenites,
Are your brothers go to war while you stay here?
, -- - ,) (
. , - , -
7 Why will you turn the minds of the Israelites from
crossing into the land that the Lord has given
them?
, , ,
. -
8 Tat is what your fathers did when I sent them
from Kadesh-barnea to survey the land.
- , , - , -
- , - ,- --
. ,
9 Afer going up to the wadi Eshcol and surveying
the land, they turned the minds of the Israelites
from invading the land that the Lord had given
them.
. , ; , - 10 Tereupon the Lord was incensed and He swore,
, -
, ,
. , - :
11 'None of the men from twenty years up who came
out of Egypt shall see the land that I promised on
oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, for they did not
remain loyal to Me
, : - , , , -
.
12 none except Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite
and Joshua son of Nun, for they remained loyal to
the Lord.'
- , , , -
. , , - , - -
13 Te Lord was incensed at Israel, and for forty years
He made them wander in the wilderness, until the
whole generation that had provoked the Lords
displeasure was gone.
: , -- ,
. - -- - ,
14 And now you, a breed of sinful men, have replaced
your fathers, to add still further to the Lords wrath
against Israel.
, ; , , ,
. -
15 If you turn away from Him and He abandons
them once more in the wilderness, you will bring
calamity upon all this people.
, , ,
.
16 Ten they stepped up to him and said, We will
build here sheepfolds for our focks and towns for
our children.
76 |
- , ,
, ; - ,
.
17 And we will go ready before the Israelites until we
have established them in their home, while our
children stay in the fortifed towns because of the
inhabitants of the land.
, , , -- - ,
.
18 We will not return to our homes until every one of
the Israelites is in possession of his portion.
: ,
. ,
19 But we will not have a share with them in the
territory beyond the Jordan, for we have received
our share us on the east side of the Jordan.
5. Chief of Staf Ashkenazi's Speech at Auschwitz
Auschwitz-Birkenau
01/05/08

His honor, the Hungarian Defense Minister,
His honor, the Deputy Education Minister,
His honor, the Chairman of the European-Jewish Union in France,
His honor, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Israel Meir Lau A brand plucked out of the fre;
The bereaved families;
The wounded soldiers and their families;
Members of the IDF Witnesses in Uniform delegation;
Teenagers from Israel and from around the world;
Fellow Israelis;
Distinguished guests and friends from around the world:

I am honored to be here today and to share this signifcant experience with you. I will begin in Hebrew
and will say a few words in English later on in my address.

Here, on this cursed land, saturated with the blood of our brothers and sisters, descendants of the
Jewish nation;

Here, in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Death Camp, the most evil place on the face of the planet, where
our people, whose only crime was being Jewish, were tortured and murdered in gas chambers and
crematoria;

Here, in the place where the Nazi oppressor reduced our humanity to serial numbers - no more names,
no more faces, no identity - all that remained was a number branded on the forearm;
Here in this most dreadful place, I stand on Holocaust Martyrs and Heroes Remembrance Day, as the
commander of the Israel Defense Forces.

With hundreds of Witnesses in Uniform by my side joining the thousands of representatives of the
IDF who come here every year, commanders of the Ground Forces, the Air Force and the Navy - the
defending force of the Jewish people, reborn in its land with tight lips, a coarse voice and tears in my
eyes, yet still standing tall - I salute to the ashes of our people and vow: Never Again.
We, soldiers of the IDF, emissaries of a country and of a nation, stand here today wearing the IDF
uniform and carrying the fag of the State of Israel with pride in the name of the tens of thousands of
the IDF warriors and commanders. We consider ourselves the executor of the last will and testament, the
dream and the silent prayer of our six million Jewish brothers and sisters whose existence was brutally
expunged by the Nazi oppressor.
[]

Sixty-three years have passed since the end of the most horrible war humankind has ever known. Sixty-
three years after the atrocity. The Star of David is no longer a mark of disgrace, but a symbol and a sign
of the resurrection of the Jewish people. As the commander of the Israel Defense Forces, the fghting
force of the mighty Jewish State, I stand here with pride and honor and pledge: Never Again! Never
again shall we stand helpless, crying for the mercy of others. Never again shall we beg to be defended.
Never again shall we allow our sons and daughters, our parents and our grandparents to be erased from
the face of the earth. Never again shall the frightened eyes of Jewish children look with ghastly dread
through the barbed-wire fences of concentration camps. Never!

[]
I stand here today, in this heartbreaking spot, as the commander of the army of the Jewish Nation. In
the name of the Israel Defense Forces I salute the six million Jews who were annihilated by the Nazis
and their collaborators. I vow to uphold the responsibility of the Israel Defense Forces never again to
allow Jewish blood to be spilled in vain. May the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust be
forever blessed and remembered.
6. Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate Horayot 3:7 (48b)
There was an episode involving R. Joshua who went to Rome. They told about a certain child
a Jerusalemite, who was Admoni with beautiful eyes, and good looking, his curly hair arranged
in locks who was imprisoned. And R. Joshua went to check him out. When he reached the
entrance, R. Joshua called out and said to him: Who gave Jacob for a spoil and Israel to the
robbers? Is it not the Lord, answered the child, and said to him, He against whom we have
sinned and in whose ways they would not walk and did not listen to his Torah. Immediately his
eyes welled with tears and he said, As heaven and earth are my witness, I will not budge from
here until I ransom him; and he ransomed him at a high fgure and dispatched him to the land of
Israel and recited about him this verse - The precious children of Zion, etc.

.
78 |
II Sense of Home/Homeland
7. S.Y. Agnon, Te Fable of the Goat
The tale is told of an old man who groaned from his heart. The doctors were sent for, and they advised
him to drink goats milk. He went out and bought a she-goat and brought her into his home. Not many
days passed before the goat disappeared. They went out to search for her but did not fnd her. She was
not in the yard and not in the garden, not on the roof of the house of study and not by the spring, not
in the hills and not in the felds. She tarried several days and then returned by herself; and when she
returned, her udder was full of a great deal of milk, the taste of which was as the taste of Eden.
Not just once, but many times she disappeared from the house. They would go out in search of her and
would not fnd her until she returned by herself with her udder full of milk that was sweeter than honey
and whose taste was the taste of Eden.
One time the old man said to his son, My son, I desire to know where she goes and whence she brings
this milk which is sweet to my palate and a balm to all my bones.
His son said to him, Father, I have a plan.
He said to him, What is it?
The son got up and brought a length of cord. He tied it to the goats tail.
His father said to him, What are you doing, my son?
He said to him, I am tying a cord to the goats tail, so that when I feel a pull on it, I will know that she has
decided to leave, and I can catch the end of the cord and follow her on her way.
The old man nodded his head and said to him, My son, if your heart is wise, my heart too will rejoice.
The youth tied the cord to the goats tail and minded it carefully. When the goat set of, he held the cord
in his hand and did not let it slacken until the goat was well on her way and he was following her. He was
dragged along behind her until he came to a cave. The goat went into the cave, and the youth followed
her, holding the cord. They walked thus for an hour or two, and maybe even a day or two. The goat
wagged her tail and bleated, and the cave came to an end.
When they emerged from the cave, the youth saw lofty mountains, and hills full of the choicest fruit,
and a fountain of living waters that fowed down from the mountains; and the wind wafted all manner
of perfumes. The goat climbed up a tree by clutching at the ribbed leaves. Carob fruits full of honey
dropped from the tree, and she ate of the carobs and drank of the gardens fountain.
The youth stood and called to the wayfarers: I adjure you, good people, tell me where I am, and what is
the name of this place?
They answered him, You are in the Land of Israel, and you are closed by Safed.
The youth lifted up his eyes to the heavens and said, Blessed by the Omnipresent, blessed be He who
has brought me to the Land of Israel. He kissed the soil and sat down under the tree.
He said, Until the day breathe and the shadows fee away, I shall sit on the hill under this tree. Then I shall
go home and bring my father and mother to the Land of Israel. As he was sitting and feasting his eyes on
the holiness of the Land of Israel, he heard a voice proclaiming:
Come, let us go out to greet the Sabbath Queen.
And he saw men like angels, wrapped in white shawls, with boughs of myrtle in their hands, and all the
houses were lit with a great many candles. He perceived that the eve of Sabbath would arrive with the
darkening, and that he would not be able to return. He uprooted a reed and dipped it in gallnuts, from
which the ink for the writing of the Torah scrolls is made. He took a piece of paper and wrote a letter to
his father:
From the ends of the earth, I lift up my voice in song to tell you that I have come in peace to the Land of
Israel. Here I sit, close by Safed, the holy city, and I imbibe its sanctity. Do not inquire How I arrived here
but hold on to this cord which is tied to the goats tail and follow the footsteps of the goat; then your
journey will be secure, and you will enter the Land of Israel.
The youth rolled up the note and placed it in the goats ear. He said to himself: When she arrives at
Fathers house, Father will pat her on the head, and she will fick her ears. The note will fall out, Father will
pick it up and read what is written on it. Then he will take up the cord and follow the goat to the Land of
Israel.
The goat returned to the old man, but she did not fick her ears, and the note did not fall. When the old
man saw that the goat had returned without his son, he clapped his hands to his head and began to cry
and weep and wail, My son, my son, where are you? My son, would that I might die in your stead, my
son, my son!
So he went, weeping and mourning over his son, for he said, An evil beast has devoured him, my son is
assuredly rent in pieces!
And whenever he saw the goat, he would say, I will go down to my grave in mourning for my son.
The old mans mind would not be at peace until he sent for the butcher to slaughter the goat. The
butcher came and slaughtered the goat. As they were skinning her, the note fell out of her ear. The old
man picked up the note and said, My sons handwriting!
When he had read all that his son had written, he clapped his hands to his head and cried,
Vay! Vay! Woe to the man who robs himself of his own good fortune, and woe to the man
who requites good with evil!
He mourned over the goat many days and refused to be comforted, saying, Woe to me, for
I could have gone up to the Land of Israel in one bound, and now I must suffer out my days
in this exile!
Since that time the mouth of the cave has been hidden from the eye,and there is no longer
a short way. And that youth, if he has not died, shall bear fruit in his old age, full of sap and
richness, calm and peaceful in the Land of the Living.
80 |
8. Genesis 50:24-26
; , -
, - , - ,
.
24 At length, Joseph said to his brothers, I am about
to die. God will surely take notice of you and bring
you up from this land to the land that He promised
on oath to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.
: - ,
. - ,
25 So Joseph made the sons of Israel swear, saying,
When God has taken notice of you, you shall carry
up my bones from here.
, ; - ,
.
26 Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten
years; and he was embalmed and placed in a cofn
in Egypt.
9. Exodus 6:2-8
. , ; - , 2 God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am the
Lord.
; -- - - - ,
. ,
3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El
Shaddai, but I did not make Myself known to them
by My name YHWH.
- , -
. - , --
4 I also established my covenant with them, to give
them the land of Canaan, the land in which they
lived as sojourners.
, , - ,
. - , ;
5 I have now heard the moaning of the Israelites
because the Egyptians are holding them in bondage,
and I have remembered My covenant.
, , -
; ,
. ,
6 Say, therefore, to the Israelite people: I am the
Lord. I will free you from the labors of the
Egyptians and deliver you from their bondage.
I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and
through extraordinary chastisements.
, ; ,
, ,
.
7 And I will take you to be My people, and I will be
your God. And you shall know that I, the Lord,
am your God who freed you from the labors of the
Egyptians.
, - , - ,
;
. ,
8 I will bring you into the land which I swore to give
to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and I will give it to
you for a possession, I the Lord.
10. David Ben Gurion, Address to the Knesset on the Law of Return (July 3,
1950)
The Law of Return and the Law of Citizenship that you have in front of you are connected by a mutual
bond and share of common conceptual origin, deriving from the historical uniqueness of the State of
Israel, a uniqueness vis--vis the past and the future, directed internally and externally. These two laws
determine the special character and destiny of the State of Israel as the state bearing the vision of the
redemption of Israel.
The State of Israel is a state like all the other states. All the general indications [of statehood] common to
the other states are also to be found in the State of Israel. It rests on a specifc territory and a population
existing within this territory, it possesses sovereignty in internal and external afairs, and its authority
does not extend beyond its borders. The State of Israel rules only over its own inhabitants. The Jews
in the Diaspora, who are citizens of their countries and who want to remain there, have no legal or
civil connection to the State of Israel and the State of Israel does not represent them from any legal
standpoint. Nevertheless, the State of Israel difers from the other states both with regard to the factors
involved in its establishment and to the aims of its existence. It was established merely two years ago,
but its roots are grounded in the far past and it is nourished by ancient springs. Its authority is limited to
the area in which its residents dwell, but its gates are open to every Jew wherever he may be. The State
of Israel is not a Jewish state merely because the majority of its inhabitants are Jews. It is a State for all
the Jews wherever they may be and for every Jew who so desires.
[]
The Law of Return is one of the Basic Laws of the State of Israel. It comprises the central mission of our
state, namely, ingathering of exiles. This law determines that it is not the state that grants the Jew from
abroad the right to settle in the state. Rather, this right is inherent in him by the very fact that he is a
Jew, if only he desires to join in the settlement of the land. In the State of Israel the Jews have no right
of priority over the non-Jewish citizens. The State of Israel is grounded on the full equality of rights and
obligations for all its citizens. This principle was also laid down in the Proclamation of Independence.
The right to return preceded the State of Israel and it is this right that built the state. This right originates
in the unbroken historical connection between the people and the homeland, a connection which has
also been acknowledged in actual practice by the tribunal of the peoples.

82 |
11. Ezekiel 34:1-16
. , - 1 Te word of the Lord came to me:
; - , -
- ,
. , --
2 O mortal, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel.
Prophesy, and say to them: To the shepherds: Tus
said the Lord God: Ah, you shepherds of Israel,
who have been tending yourselves! Is it not the
fock that the shepherds ought to tend?
; , - -
. ,
3 You partake of the fat, you clothe yourselves with
wool, and you slaughter the fatlings; but you do
not tend the fock.
, - - -
- , - ,
. , ;
4 You have not sustained the weak, healed the sick,
or bandaged the injured; you have not brought
back the strayed, or looked for the lost; but you
have driven them with harsh rigor,
- ; ,
. ,
5 and they have been scatered for want of anyone to
tend them; scatered, they have become prey for
every wild beast.
- ; - , -
. ,
6 My sheep stray through all the mountains and
over every lofy hill; My fock is scatered all over
the face of the earth, with none to take thought of
them and none to seek them.
. - , 7 Hear then, O shepherds, the word of the Lord!
- - , -
, -
- , ; - , -
.
8 As I livesdeclares the Lord God: Because My
fock has been a spoilMy fock has been a prey
for all the wild beasts, for want of anyone to tend
them since My shepherds have not taken thought
of My fock, for My shepherds tended themselves
instead of tending the fock
. - , -- , 9 hear indeed, O shepherds, the word of the Lord:
- - , -
- ,
- , ; ,
.
10 Tus said the Lord God: I am going to deal with
the shepherds! I will demand a reckoning of them
for My fock, and I will dismiss them from tending
the fock. Te shepherds shall not tend themselves
anymore; for I will rescue My fock from their
mouths, and it shall not be their prey.
- , - : ,
.
11 For thus said the Lord God: Here am I! I am going
to take thought for My fock and I will seek them
out.
- , - -
- , ; - , -
. , ,
12 As a shepherd seeks out his fock when some
[animals] in his fock have goten separated, so I
will seek out My fock, I will rescue them from all
the places to which they were scatered on a day of
cloud and gloom.
, - , -
, - , ; - ,
. ,
13 I will take them out from the peoples and gather
them from the countries, and I will bring them
to their own land, and will pasture them on the
mountains of Israel, by the watercourses and in all
the setled portions of the land.
- , -
, ;
. -
14 I will feed them in good grazing land, and the lofy
hills of Israel shall be their pasture. Tere, in the
hills of Israel, they shall lie down in a good pasture
and shall feed on rich grazing land.
. , 15 I Myself will graze My fock, and I Myself will let
them lie downdeclares the Lord God.
, - , -
- - ; - ,
. ,
16 I will look for the lost, and I will bring back the
strayed; I will bandage the injured, and I will
sustain the weak; and the fat and healthy ones I
will destroy. I will tend them rightly.
Ezekiel 36:24-28
- , -
. - , ;
24 I will take you from among the nations and gather
you from all the countries, and I will bring you
back to your own land.
: ,
. , -
25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you
shall be clean: I will cleanse you from all your
uncleanness and from all your fetishes.
; ,
, , , -
.
26 And I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit
into you: I will remove the heart of stone from your
body and give you a heart of fesh;
- , ; , -
. , ,
27 and I will put My spirit into you; Tus I will cause
you to follow My laws and faithfully observe My
rules.
, , ; ,
. ,
28 Ten you shall dwell in the land which I gave to
your fathers, and you shall be My people and I will
be your God.
12. Hatikvah
As long as deep within the heart
A Jewish soul yearns
And toward the edges of the east
An eye to Zion looks
Our hope is not yet lost,
The hope of two thousand years
To be a free people in our Land
The Land of Zion and Jerusalem.

,
, ,
,
,
,
,
.
84 |
III Values in Public Space
13. Exodus 23:10-11
. - , ; - , 10 Six years you shall sow your land and gather in its
yield;
, ,
. , - ; ,
11 but in the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie
fallow. Let the needy among your people eat of
it, and what they leave let the wild beasts eat. You
shall do the same with your vineyards and your
olive groves.
14. Leviticus 19:9-10
, -
. , ;
9 When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall
not reap all the way to the edges of your feld, or
gather the gleanings of your harvest.
: ,
. ,
10 You shall not pick your vineyard bare, or gather the
fallen fruit of your vineyard; you shall leave them
for the poor and the stranger: I the Lord am your
God.
. , - 1 Te Lord spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai:
- , , -
, -- ,
.
2 Speak to the Israelite people and say to them:
When you enter the land that I assign you, the land
shall observe a sabbath of the Lord.
, ; ,
. -
3 Six years you may sow your feld and six years you
may prune your vineyard and gather in the yield.
, -- ,
. , :
4 But in the seventh year that land shall have a sabbath
of complete rest, a sabbath of the Lord: you shall
not sow your feld or prune your vineyard.
- ,
. , :
5 You shall not reap the afergrowth of your harvest
or gather the grapes of your untrimmed vines; it
shall be a year of complete rest for the land.
; , -- ,
. , , ,
6 But you may eat whatever the land during its
sabbath will produceyou, your male and female
slaves, the hired and bound laborers who live with
you,
, - : , --
.
7 and the catle and the beasts in your land may eat
all its yield.
, -- ,
, , ;
. ,
8 You shall count of seven weeks of yearsseven
times seven yearsso that the period of seven
weeks of years gives you a total of forty-nine years.
; , , ,
. - , , ,
9 Ten you shall sound the horn loud; in the seventh
month, on the tenth day of the monththe Day
of Atonementyou shall have the horn sounded
throughout your land
, ,
, , ; - ,
. - , -
10 and you shall hallow the ffieth year. You shall
proclaim release throughout the land for all its
inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of
you shall return to his holding and each of you shall
return to his family.
- ; -- ,
. - , - -
11 Tat ffieth year shall be a jubilee for you: you shall
not sow, neither shall you reap the afergrowth or
harvest the untrimmed vines,
, -- - ; ,
. -
12 for it is a jubilee. It shall be holy to you: you may
only eat the growth direct from the feld.
. - , , , 13 In this year of jubilee, each of you shall return to his
holding.
- -- , -
. - ,
14 When you sell property to your neighbor, or buy
any from your neighbor, you shall not wrong one
another.
; ,
. - , -
15 In buying from your neighbor, you shall deduct
only for the number of years since the jubilee; and
in selling to you, he shall charge you only for the
remaining crop years:
, , ,
. , :
16 the more such years, the higher the price you pay;
the fewer the years, the lower the price; for what he
is selling you is a number of harvests.
: , -
. ,
17 Do not wrong one another, but fear your God; for
I the Lord am your God.
86 |
16. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5
How were the witnesses inspired with awe? Witnesses in capital charges were brought in and intimidated
[thus]: Perhaps what ye say is based only on conjecture, or hearsay, or is evidence from the mouth
of another witness, or even from the mouth of a trustworthy person: perhaps ye are unaware that
ultimately we shall scrutinize your evidence by cross examination and inquiry? Know then that capital
cases are not like monetary cases. In civil suits, one can make monetary restitution and thereby efect
his atonement; but in capital cases he is held responsible for his blood [sc. the accuseds] and the blood
of his [potential] descendants until the end of time, for thus we fnd in the case of Cain, who killed his
brother, that it is written: The bloods of thy brother cry unto me: not the blood of thy brother, but the
bloods of thy brother, is said i.e., his blood and the blood of his [potential] descendants. (Alternatively,
the bloods of thy brother, teaches that his blood was splashed over trees and stones.) For this reason was
man created alone, to teach thee that whosoever destroys a single soul, Scripture imputes [guilt] to him
as though he had destroyed a complete world; and whosever preserves a single soul, Scripture ascribes
[merit] to him as though he had preserved a complete world. Furthermore, [he was created alone] for the
sake of peace among men, that one might not say to his fellow, my father was greater than thine, and
that the minim might not say, there are many ruling powers in heaven; again, to proclaim the greatness
of the Holy One, blessed be He: for if a man strikes many coins from one mold, they all resemble one
another, but the supreme kings of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, fashioned every man in the stamp
of the frst man, and yet not one of them resembles his fellow. Therefore every single person is obliged
to say: the world was created for my sake.
Perhaps ye will say: why should we incur this anxiety? [Know then:] Is it not already written, and he being
a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it? And should ye say: why should we bear
guilt for the blood of this [man]: surely, however, it is said, when the wicked perish, there is joy!

) (

) (
: ) (
IV Create Jewish National (Non-Religious) Identity
17. Yosef Hayyim Brenner, On the Specter of Shemad
Our Jewish life question is not about the Jewish religion or the survival of Judaism. This bastardized idea
must be uprooted. Ahad Haam did this once but [but] regretted it. But we, his free Jewish comrades, we
have nothing to do with Judaism; nevertheless, we are within the [nation as a] whole [klal] no less than
those who don phylacteries and wear tzitzit. We say: Our life question is about the productive labor for
Jews. We Jews are sojourners [gerim] everywhere, broken Jews, with no land, no language, and so on. The
surrounding foreign majority does not allow us to be whole Jews to the same extent as our free Russian
and Polish comrades are whole Russians and Poles. The majority environment disperses us, devours us,
blurs our form, and puts our life in turmoil, but we are farO how far!from assimilation, and turning
Christian is not something we think about, not even as a joke. Our people sufers from exile, it is sick, it
stumbles and falls seven[fold]and rises. We must pick it up. If its will weakens, it must be strengthened.
Let us become strong. There is no messiah for Israel; let us fnd the power to lie without a messiah. The
thousands among us, perhaps tens of thousands, who are already irredeemably assimilated, capable of
becoming Christianwe shall not even spit upon them. We the few, the members of the living Jewish
people, shall be stronger than fint, shall work and create to the utmost and multiply the material and
spiritual assets of our people. We the living Jews, whether we fast on Yom Kippur or eat meat mixed
with dairy on that day, whether we uphold the ethics of the Old Testament or in our worldview are loyal
students of Epicuruswe do not cease to feel ourselves to be Jews, [we do not cease] to live our Jewish
lives, to work and create as Jews, to speak our Jewish language, to receive spiritual nourishment from our
literature, to toil for our free national culture, to defend our national honor, and to engage in our struggle
for survival in whatever form it takes.
88 |
18. Ahad Haam, Te National Morality
The new national movement had brought back to our people a great multitude of its children who had
hitherto denied their connection to it. However, it has also brought confusion regarding the essence
of Hebrew nationalism and the obligations incumbent upon those who embrace it.
Formerly, every individual Israelite considered it self-evident that a true Jewthe adjective nationalist
had not yet emergedwas one who wholeheartedly afrmed the principles of the Jewish religion
and was punctilious (or at least attempted to be punctilious) regarding all its commandments, the
easy and the onerous. Still, the epikoros and the sinner were also regarded as members of the people:
Israeleven though he has sinned he is [still] Israel. But everyone felt, as the sinner mostly did too, that
an Israelite like himself was an accidental anomaly. Thus, he was an Israelite, but not an ordinary, proper
one; rather, he was an Israelite who had sinned. This continued even in thegeneration of the haskalah
[enlightenment]. Although such [sinning] Israelites multiplied by the thousands and tens of thousands,
the people as a whole, and these individuals [too]still retained this understanding. Even the maskilim
[advocates of haskalah] felt in their hearts that they had distanced themselves from the people by
distancing themselves from religion. They had become alien to the people, and they could unite with it
once again only if the people were to become alien too. Consequently, they expended all their energy,
zealously, to break down the religious walls that divided them from the people, so that they could free
themselves from the painful feelings that anyone who separates himself from the community [tzibbur,
public] must live with.
Matters have now changed. Thousands of Israelitesthose who were educated from their childhood
outside the boundaries of Judaism and never endured its yoke and those who rebelled against Judaism
and freed themselves from its yokehave returned to their people and have raised the banner of Jewish
nationalism, without at the same time returning to the Jewish religion, that is, without afrming its beliefs
and observing its commandments. These new Jews do not feel separated in any way from the people on
account of the diferences regarding religious outlook. Consequently, they do not feel the need to pull
the people after them in respect of faith and religion. They perceive Jewish nationalism merely as a racial
sentiment that does not place upon its adherents any obligationsexcept to love their people and work
to elevate its honor, without in any way restricting individual freedom inprivate life.
This new phenomenon necessarily gave birth to a new question: What is the status of such Jews? Can a
person be an upright [kasher] Jew in his nationalism but alien in all [remaining aspects] of his identity?
Predictably, those who raise the banner of the Torah, the Upholders of the Religion, answer this question
with an absolute negative. They fully maintain their old view and assert that there is no nationalism for
Israel outside of religion. He who says I am a Hebrew must add and I worship the Lord (Jonah 1:9). He
must accept the yoke of Torah and the commandments, as do the masses of the House of Israel. Without
this condition, the contemporary nationalist, just like the earlier maskil, is in their eyes nothing but a
sinning Israelite: that is, he is a diseased limb in the body of the nation [ummah]. One need not cut it of,
but one has to attempt to cure it.
The nationalists themselves, however, are divided into two parties regarding the issue. [Those in] one
partywho have been dubbed the Westernersrespond to the question with an absolute afrmative.
They cannot take upon themselves the yoke of the Torah, because a person cannot control his spirit and
[therefore] cannot coerce it with regard to faith. And they do not desire to take upon themselves the
yoke of the commandments, for one who participates in religious rituals without faith in his heart is a
hypocrite. But, in their view, nationalism does not extend to these matters. By their love for their people
and their participation in work for the nation, that is, in meetings and organizations, and [through their]
payment of dues [shekel] to the Zionist organization and [their] acquisition of its shares, they fulfll their
obligation. The punctilious among them agree that knowledge of Hebrew and Jewish history are good
things, worthy and fttingthough not absolutely obligatoryfor nationalists They also see no need
to change anything in their lifestyle, outlook, feelings, inclinations, and actions. They remain as they
were before they [marched] under the banner of Jewish nationalism: members of the gentile culture in
which they were educated from childhood and which satisfed their thirst in their youth.
This nationalist party, despite its radical opposition to the religious party, agrees with it on one
fundamental issue. They both view religion as the exclusive spiritual treasure wherein the entire national
spirit of our people is concentrated Each of them, however, derives from this principle a diferent
conclusion. One declares: Consequently, anybody who does not believe in the Israelite religion and live
by it cannot be considered to be carrying the banner of Jewish nationalism, because he has distanced
himself from its spirit. The other declares, to the contrary, that Jewish nationalism cannot demand of
its members that they fashion their lives in a manner compatible with [the spirit of the nation]. For this
spirit is entirely dependent on faith and religion. But today there is no coercion in matters of faith and
religion Therefore, there is no national obligation except to attempt to achieve national freedom.
On this point, the second nationalist group, the Easterners, justifably disagree. Like their colleagues, they
do not found nationalism upon religious faith, lest it depend on the contingency of belief. Nevertheless,
these nationalists know that regarding its content, Hebrew nationalism includes much more than
diplomacy and meetings. They have not derided this knowledge by syllogisms and external proofs,
but rather from the irrefutable proof of their very own being. As they are for the most part flled with
the spirit of Judaism from their youth, they sense in their [soul] that this spirit lives on in their hearts
and impacts upon their lives, even though their religious outlooks have greatly changed. Hence they
derive the necessary conclusion that there exists in Israel a national spirit that is not confned exclusively
to religious beliefs. Consequently, there also exists spiritual national obligation incumbent upon all,
believers and nonbelievers alike.
But this party too becomes confused when it moves from theory to practice. It cannot articulate precisely
the national obligations that are independent of religious belief. Language, literature, and historythese
are all disciplines where one can seek, and fnd, the national spirit It is certainly the case that work in
these areas is the great external obligation of the nationalists in their relationship to the people and its
[cultural] acquisitions. But are there not other internal obligations incumbent on them [in] their personal
life? Literary, scientifc, or educational work is the province of individuals who are actively engaged in
it, whereas the great majority can only participate passively in this work: they become momentarily
excited when they hear a pleasant sermon or read a pleasing article. These ordinary nationalists spend
their remaining time in the marketplace of life, in the manner to which they have become accustomed,
without any obvious connection to their nationality. But they toofeel the necessity of connecting
nationalism to practical life and recognize that there [are]specifc obligations incumbent upon them,
which they faithfully must fulfll. [Any] person capable of dedicating himself to a spiritual ideal demands
that it be capable of penetrating to the inner recesses of his heart and connecting all his feelings and
inclinations, so that he continuously and regularly feels its presenceand fnds in it a guide in all matters
of life.
90 |
This was the mistake of Reform Judaism, [whose leaders] believed that [they] could sustain the attraction
of the heart through a genial weekly hour of song and sermon every Shabbat. Experience has taught
that this type of Judaismthat does not continuously fll the heart but appears only periodically and
then disappearscannot be an active force in life. It will surely become an empty ceremony, devoid of
all spirit. If nationalism is destined to rectify the damage caused by Reform Judaismas the members
of this [Eastern] party believe it shouldit must encompass also the personal life of an ordinary [Jew],
who is not able to become a writer, educator, or party organizer. It must be a measuring rod for all his
activities, so that he realizes that nationalism is not an entertainment for ones leisure time. Rather, it is a
life instruction [torah] that must be inscribed in his heart and lived in actuality.
But achieving this has eluded Eastern nationalism too. I believe, however, that this confusion is not
a necessary correlate of the matter itself. It has come about only because these parties have confated
concepts, failing adequately to distinguish between religion and morality. The two are often mixed in
life, but they difer in origin as they do in content.

19. Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo, Preface to the Hebrew Translation
No reader of [the Hebrew version of ] this book will fnd it easy to put himself in the emotional position
of an author who is ignorant of the language of holy writ, who is completely estranged from the religion
of his fathersas well as from every other religionand who cannot take a share in nationalist ideals,
but who has yet never repudiated his people, who feels that he is in his essential nature a Jew and who
has no desire to alter that nature. If the question were put to him: Since you have abandoned all these
common characteristics of your countrymen, what is there left to you that is Jewish? he would reply: A
very great deal, and probably its very essence. He could not now express that essence clearly in words;
but some day, no doubt, it will become accessible to the scientifc mind.
Thus it is an experience of a quite special kind for such an author when a book of his is translated into
the Hebrew language and put into the hands of readers for whom that historic idiom is a living tongue;
a book, moreover, which deals with the origin of religion and morality, though it adopts no Jewish
standpoint and makes no exceptions in favour of Jewry. The author hopes, however, that he will be at
one with his readers in the conviction that unprejudiced science cannot remain a stranger to the spirit
of the new Jewry.
Vienna, December 1930
20. David Ben Gurion, Te Imperatives of the Jewish Revolution, (1944)
92 |
94 |
96 |
98 |
100 |
102 |
104 |
21. Eliezer Berkovits, On the Return to Jewish National Life, (1943)
106 |
108 |
110 |
112 |
114 |
116 |
118 |
120 |
122 |
124 |
126 |
Power and Powerlessness
4
Genesis 9:1-6 1. pg. 39
Leviticus 19:17-18 2. pg. 39
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a 3. pg. 39
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Metzia 62a 4. pg. 39
Bamidbar Rabbah 21:4 5. pg. 39
Genesis 1:26-28 6. pg. 39
Bereshit Rabbah 11:6 7. pg. 39
Esther 3:1-15; 4:1-17; 5:1-3; 6:1-3 10. pg. 39
Bereshit Rabbah 76:2 11. pg. 39
Chronicles I: 22:1-10 13. pg. 39
Isaiah 2:1-4 14. pg. 39
Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Kings 12:4-5 15. pg. 39
Background Reading
Abraham Joshua Heschel, No Time for Neutrality pg. 39 16.
Ruth Wisse, The Contradictions of Jewish Power pg. 39 17.
Lecture 4 Power and Powerlessness | 127
1. Genesis 9:1-6
, ; - - ,
. -
1 God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them,
Be fertile and increase, and fll the earth.
- , - , ,
, - ;
.
2 Te fear and the dread of you shall be upon all the
beasts of the earth and upon all the birds of the
skyeverything with which the earth is astir
and upon all the fsh of the sea; they are given into
your hand.
, : , - -
. -
3 Every creature that lives shall be yours to eat; as
with the green grasses I give you all these.
. , - 4 You must not, however, eat fesh with its life-blood
in it.
- , -
- , -- , ;
.
5 But for your own life-blood I will require a
reckoning; I will require it of every beast; of man
too will I require a reckoning for human life, of
every man for that of his fellow man!
, : ,
. -
6 Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his
blood be shed; For in His image did God make
man.
- ; , - -
. - ,
17 You shall not hate your kinsfolk in your heart.
Reprove your kinsman but incur no guilt because
of him.
: , - - -
. ,
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against your countrymen. Love your fellow as
yourself: I am the Lord.
3. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, Make
me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Thereupon
he repulsed him with the builders cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said
to him, What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the
commentary thereof; go and learn it.
. : ,
, - : . , .
. , -
128 |
4. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Baba Metzia 62a
If two are travelling on a journey [far from civilisation], and one has a pitcher of water, if both drink, they
will [both] die, but if one only drinks, he can reach civilization,--The Son of Patura taught: It is better that
both should drink and die, rather than that one should behold his companions death. Until R. Akiba
came and taught: that thy brother may live with thee: thy life takes precedence over his life.
- , - , ,
. , : .
. - :
HARASS THE MIDIANITES (XXV, 17). Why? FOR THEY HARASS YOU (ib. 18). From this the Sages have
derived the maxim: If a man comes to kill you, kill him frst.
.
6. Genesis 1:26-28
; ,
- , - ,
. - ,
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
afer our likeness. Tey shall rule the fsh of the sea,
the birds of the sky, the catle, the whole earth, and
all the creeping things that creep on the earth.
, -
. , :
27 And God created man in His image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created
them.
, ,
, ; , -
. - , - ,
28 God blessed them and God said to them, Be fertile
and increase, fll the earth and master it; and rule
the fsh of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the
living things that creep on earth.
7. Bereshit Rabbah 11:6
A philosopher asked R. Hoshaya: If circumcision is so precious, why was it not given to Adam? If so, he
replied, why do you shave the corners of your head and leave your beard? Because it grew with me in
folly, was the answer. If so, you should blind your eye and cut of your hands! To such an argument have
we come! observed he. I cannot send you away empty-handed, said he; [the real reason is this:] whatever
was created in the frst six days requires further preparation, e.g., mustard needs sweetening, vetches
need sweetening, wheat needs grinding, and man too needs to be fnished of.
, ,
, , ,
, , ,
, , ,
. ,
MISHNAH. The following must be saved [from sinning] even at the cost of their lives: He who pursues
after his neighbour to slay him, [or] after a male [for pederasty]. [Or] after a betrothed maiden [to
dishonour her]. But he who pursues after an animal [to abuse it]. Or would desecrate the Sabbath, or
commit idolatry, must not be saved [from sinning] at the cost of his life.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: whence do we know that he who pursues after his neighbour to slay him
must be saved [from sin] at the cost of his own life? From the verse, Thou shalt not stand by the blood
of thy neighbour. But does it come to teach this? Is it not employed for the following [Baraitha] that
has been taught: Whence do we know that if a man sees his fellow drowning, mauled by beasts, or
attacked by robbers, he is bound to save him? From the verse, Thou shalt not stand by the blood of thy
neighbor!
. , , : .
. , ,
. - : .
, , , : ?
. -
130 |
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: By a majority vote, it was resolved in the upper
chambers of the house of Nithza in Lydda that in every [other] law of the Torah, if a man is commanded:
Transgress and sufer not death he may transgress and not sufer death, excepting idolatry, incest,
[which includes adultery] and murder.
[]
And how do we know this of murder itself? It is common sense. Even as one who came before Raba and
said to him, The governor of my town has ordered me, Go and kill so and so; if not, I will slay thee. He
answered him, Let him rather slay you than that you should commit murder; who knows that your blood
is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.
: :
. , -
]...[
, : , . - ?
. : - . -
.
10. Esther 3:1-15
- ,
, , - , ; -- -
. -
1 Some time aferward King Ahasuerus promoted
Haman son of Hammedatha the Agagite; he
advanced him and seated him higher than any of
his fellow ofcials.
, - -
, -- ; - , - --
.
2 All the kings courtiers in the palace gate knelt and
bowed low to Haman, for such was the kings order
concerning him; but Mordecai would not kneel or
bow low.
: -- - ,
. ,
3 Ten the kings courtiers who were in the palace
gate said to Mordecai, Why do you disobey the
kings order?
, , ) ( ,
-- , ;
. - , -
4 When they spoke to him day afer day and he would
not listen to them, they told Haman, in order to see
whether Mordecais resolve would prevail; for he
had explained to them that he was a Jew.
; , - --
. ,
5 When Haman saw that Mordecai would not kneel
or bow low to him, Haman was flled with rage.
, - -- ,
- - , ; -
. -- -
6 But he disdained to lay hands on Mordecai alone;
having been told who Mordecais people were,
Haman ploted to do away with all the Jews,
Mordecais people, throughout the kingdom of
Ahasuerus.
, , - ,
, :
. - -- -
7 In the frst month, that is the month Nisan, in the
twelfh year of King Ahasuerus, purwhich means
the lotwas cast before Haman concerning
every day and every month [until it fell on] the
twelfh month, that is the month of Adar.
- -- ,
; ,
, - , -
. , -
8 Haman then said to king Ahasuerus, Tere is a
certain people, scatered and dispersed among the
other peoples in all the provinces of your realm,
whose laws are diferent from those of any other
people and who do not obey the kings laws; and it
is not in Your Majestys interest to tolerate them.
; , - -
- , , - , -
.
9 If it please Your Majesty, let an edict be drawn
for their destruction, and I will pay ten thousand
talents of silver to the stewards for deposit in the
royal treasury.
- , ; , -
. --
10 Tereupon the king removed his signet ring from
his hand and gave it to Haman son of Hammedatha
the Agagite, the foe of the Jews.
, ; ,
.
11 And the king said, Te money and the people are
yours to do with as you see ft.
,
- - - ,
- - -
: ,
. ,
12 On the thirteenth day of the frst month, the kings
scribes were summoned and a decree was issued,
as Haman directed, to the kings satraps, to the
governors of every province, and to the ofcials of
every people, to every province in its own script
and to every people in its own language. Te orders
were issued in the name of King Ahasuerus and
sealed with the kings signet.
132 |
-- - - ,
- - -
- ,
. , ; -
13 Accordingly, writen instructions were dispatched
by couriers to all the kings provinces to destroy,
massacre, and exterminate all the Jews, young and
old, children and women, on a single day, on the
thirteenth day of the twelfh monththat is, the
month of Adarand to plunder their possessions.
, , - ,
. , -- -
14 Te text of the document was to the efect that a
law should be proclaimed in every single province;
it was to be publicly displayed to all the peoples, so
that they might be ready for that day.
, , ,
, ;
.
15 Te couriers went out posthaste on the royal
mission, and the decree was proclaimed in the
fortress Shushan. Te king and Haman sat down to
feast, but the city of Shushan was dumbfounded.
Esther 4:1-17
- , - - ,
, ; ,
.
1 When Mordecai learned all that had happened,
Mordecai tore his clothes and put on sackcloth and
ashes. He went through the city, crying out loudly
and biterly,
- : - ,
. ,
2 until he came in front of the palace gate; for
one could not enter the palace gate wearing
sackcloth.
- , -
; , --
. ,
3 Also in every province that the kings command
and decree reached, there was great mourning
among the Jews, with fasting, weeping, and wailing,
and everybody lay in sackcloth and ashes.
, ) (
; , ,
. -- , -
4 When Esthers maidens and eunuchs came and
informed her, the queen was greatly agitated. She
sent clothing for Mordecai to wear, so that he may
take of his sackcloth; but he refused.
,
- - , - -- - , ,
.
5 Tereupon Esther summoned Hathach, one of the
eunuchs whom the king had appointed to serve
her, and sent him to Mordecai to learn the why and
the wherefore of it all.
, - -- - ,
. -
6 Hathach went out to Mordecai in the city square in
front of the palace gate;
; - , -
- ,
. --) (
7 and Mordecai told him of all that had happened
to him, and all about the money that Haman
had ofered to pay into the royal treasury for the
destruction of the Jews.
, - - -
; , - --
-- - - ,
. -
8 He also gave him the writen text of the law that had
been proclaimed in Shushan for their destruction.
[He bade him] show it to Esther and inform her,
and charge her to go to the king and to appeal to
him and to plead with him for her people.
. , ; , 9 When Hathach came and delivered Mordecais
message to Esther,
. - , 10 Esther told Hathach to take back to Mordecai the
following reply:
- , - -
- - -
- , -
, ; , -
. , -- -
11 All the kings courtiers and the people of the
kings provinces know that if any person, man or
woman, enters the kings presence in the inner
court without having been summoned, there is but
one law for himthat he be put to death. Only if
the king extends the golden scepter to him may he
live. Now I have not been summoned to visit the
king for the last thirty days.
. , 12 When Mordecai was told what Esther had said,
, - : - ,
. - -
13 Mordecai had this message delivered to Esther:
Do not imagine that you, of all the Jews, will
escape with your life by being in the kings palace.
-- , -
; - ,
. , - --
14 On the contrary, if you keep silent in this crisis,
relief and deliverance will come to the Jews from
another quarter, while you and your fathers house
will perish. And who knows, perhaps you have
atained to royal position for just such a crisis.
. - , 15 Ten Esther sent back this answer to Mordecai:
, - -
- - -
, - ; , - -
. , , -
16 Go, assemble all the Jews who live in Shushan,
and fast in my behalf; do not eat or drink for three
days, night or day. I and my maidens will observe
the same fast. Ten I will go to the king, though it
is contrary to the law; and if I am to perish, I will
perish.
. - , ; , 17 So Mordecai went about [the city] and did just as
Esther had commanded him.
Esther 5:1-3
, ,
; , -
, , , -
.
1 On the third day Esther put on royal apparel and
stood in the inner court of the kings palace, facing
the kings palace, while the king was siting on his
royal throne in the throne room facing the entrance
of the palace.
- , -
- , ; , -
, ,
.
2 As soon as the king saw Queen Esther standing in
the court, she won his favor. Te king extended
to Esther the golden scepter which he had in his
hand, and Esther approached and touched the tip
of the scepter.
- ; - ,
. , -
3 What troubles you, Queen Esther? the king asked
her. And what is your request? Even to the half the
kingdom, it shall be granted you.
134 |
Esther 6:1-3
- , ; ,
, ,
.
1 Tat night, sleep deserted the king, and he ordered
the book of records, the annals, to be brought; and
it was read to the king.
- ,
, : , --
.
2 Tere it was found writen that Mordecai had
denounced Bigthana and Teresh, two of the kings
eunuchs who guarded the threshold, who had
ploted to do away with King Ahasuerus.
; - , - --
. , - , ,
3 What honor or advancement has been conferred
on Mordecai for this? the king inquired. Nothing
at all has been done for him, replied the kings
servants who were in atendance on him.
11. Bereshit Rabbah 76:2
THEN JACOB WAS GREATLY AFRAID AND WAS DISTRESSED. R. Judah b. R. Ilai said: Are not fear and distress
identical? The meaning, however, is that HE WAS AFRAID lest he should be slain, AND WAS DISTRESSED
lest he should slay.
,
.
, , , - -
, - , , ;
.
14 If, afer you have entered the land that the Lord
your God has assigned to you, and taken possession
of it and setled in it, you decide, I will set a king
over me, as do all the nations about me,
: ,
-- ,
. - ,
15 you shall be free to set a king over yourself, one
chosen by the Lord your God. Be sure to set as king
over yourself one of your own people; you must
not set a foreigner over you, one who is not your
kinsmen.
, - - , - - ,
, , ;
. ,
16 Moreover, he shall not keep many horses or send
people back to Egypt to add to his horses, since the
Lord has warned you, You must not go back that
way again.
, ; , -
. -
17 And he shall not have many wives, lest his heart go
astray; nor shall he amass silver and gold to excess.
13. Chronicles I 22:1-10
- ; , --
. ,
1 David said, Here will be the House of the Lord
and here the altar of burnt oferings for Israel.
; , - --
, , ,
.
2 David gave orders to assemble the aliens living in
the land of Israel, and assigned them to be hewers,
to quarry and dress stones for building the House
of God.
-- ,
. , ;
3 Much iron for nails for the doors of the gates and
for clasps did David lay aside, and so much copper
it could not be weighed,
: ,
. -- ,
4 and cedar logs without numberfor the Sidonians
and the Tyrians brought many cedar logs to
David.
, ,
, -
. , ;
5 For David thought, My son Solomon is an untried
youth, and the House to be built for the Lord is
to be made exceedingly great to win fame and
glory throughout all the lands; let me then lay
aside material for him. So David laid aside much
material before he died.
, ; ,
.
6 Ten he summoned his son Solomon and charged
him with building the House for the Lord God of
Israel.
, - --) ( : ,
.
7 David said to Solomon, My son, I wanted to build
a House for the name of the Lord my God.
, , , -
, -- , - :
.
8 But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, You
have shed much blood and fought great batles;
you shall not build a House for My name for you
have shed much blood on the earth in My sight.
, , -
, : , -
. -
9 But you will have a son who will be a man at rest,
for I will give him rest from all his enemies on all
sides; Solomon will be his name and I shall confer
peace and quiet on Israel in his time.
- , - , , -
. - -- - , ;
10 He will build a house for My name; he shall be a
son to Me and I to him a father, and I will establish
his throne of kingship over Israel forever.' "
136 |
14. Isaiah 2:1-4
, - , - ,
.
1 Te word that Isaiah son of Amoz prophesied
concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
- ,
. - , ; , ,
2 In the days to come, the Mount of the Lords
House shall stand frm above the mountains and
tower above the hills; and all the nations shall gaze
on it with joy.
- - ,
: , , -
. - ,
3 And the many peoples shall go and say: Come, let
us go up to the Mount of the Lord, to the House
of the God of Jacob; that He may instruct us in
His ways, and that we may walk in His paths. For
instruction shall come forth from Zion, the word of
the Lord from Jerusalem.
; ,
- --- ,
. - ,
4 Tus He will judge among the nations and
arbitrate for the many peoples, and they shall beat
their swords into ploughshares and their spears
into pruning hooks: nation shall not take up sword
against nation, they shall never again know war.
15. Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Kings 12:4-5
4 The Sages and the Prophets did not yearn for the days of the Messiah that Israel might exercise
dominion over the world, or rule over the heathens, or be exalted by the nations, or that it might eat and
drink and rejoice. Their aspiration was that Israel be free to devote itself to the Law and its wisdom, with
no one to oppress or disturb it, and thus be worthy of life in the world to come.

5 In that era, there will be neither famine nor war, neither jealousy not strife. Blessings will be abundant,
comforts within the reach of all. The one preoccupation of the whole world will be to know the Lord.
Hence Israelites will be very wise, they will know the things that are now concealed and will attain an
understanding of their Creator to the utmost capacity of the human mind, as it is written: For the earth
shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11:9).
, , --
, : ,
. , ,
, -- ,
, . , .
, ,- , - , ; 0.
.), (
16. Abraham Joshua Heschel, No Time for Neutrality
pp. 75-79
138 |
140 |
142 |
17. Ruth Wisse, Te Contradictions of Jewish Power
144 |
146 |
148 |
150 |
152 |
154 |
War and Occupation
5
Matthew 5:38-42 pg. 155 2.
Deuteronomy 2:24-31 pg. 155 3.
Exodus 22:1-3 pg. 155 5.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 72a pg. 155 6.
Genesis 18:22-25 pg. 155 7.
Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Murder 1:1, 1:13 pg. 155 9.
IDF Spirit: Purity of Arms and the Code of Morality in War pg. 155 11.
Leviticus 19:18; 19: 33-34 pg. 155 12.
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a pg. 155 13.
Aharon Barak, A Judge on Judging pg. 155 14.
Background Reading
David Hartman, Living with Conficting Values pg. 155 15.
Noam Zohar, War and Peace pg. 155 16.
Michael Walzer, 17. Just and Unjust Wars,
pp. 144-146, 225-232 pg. 155
Lecture 5 War and Occupation | 155
1. Badmidbar Rabbah 21:4
HARASS THE MIDIANITES (XXV, 17). Why? FOR THEY HARASS YOU (ib. 18). From this the Sages have
derived the maxim: If a man comes to kill you, kill him frst.
.
2. Matthew 5:38-42
38 You have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 39 But I say to you, Do
not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; 40 and if anyone
wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile,
go also the second mile. 42 Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants
to borrow from you.
- -- - ,
; , - -
. ,
24 Up! Set out across the wadi Arnon! See, I give into
your power Sihon the Amorite, king of Heshbon,
and his land. Begin the occupation: engage him in
batle.
, - , ,
, -- -
.
25 Tis day I begin to put the fear and dread of you
upon the people everywhere under heaven, so
that they shall tremble and quake because of you
whenever they hear you mentioned.
- ,
. , ,
26 Ten I sent messengers from the wilderness of
Kedemoth to King Sihon of Heshbon with an ofer
of peace, as follows,
, : ,
.
27 Let me pass through your country. I will keep
strictly to the highway turning of neither to the
right nor to the lef.
- ,
. , ;
28 What food I eat you will supply for money, and
what water I drink you will furnish for money; just
let me pass through
, , , -
, - , - , - --
. -
29 as the descendents of Esau who dwell in Seir did
for me, and the Moabites who dwell in Arthat
I may cross the Jordan into the land that the Lord
our God is giving us.
- : , , ,
, - , -
. ,
30 But King Sihon of Heshbon refused to let us pass
through, because the Lord had stifened his will
and hardened his heart in order to deliver him your
poweras is now the case.
- , , ,
. - , ; -
31 And the Lord said to me: See, I begin by placing
Sihon and his land at your disposal. Begin the
occupation; take possession of his land.
156 |
Another exposition of the text, THEN SANG ISRAEL (XXI, 17). This is one of the three things said by Moses
to the Holy One, blessed be He, to which the latter replied: You have taught Me something.
[]
The third occasion was when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: Make war with Sihon. Even
though he does not seek to interfere with you, you must open hostilities against him; as it says, Rise
ye up, take your journey, and pass over the valley of Arnon... and contend with him [Sihon] in battle
(Deut. 2:24). Moses, however, did not do so but, in accordance with what is written lower down, Sent
messengers (ib. 26). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: By your life, I shall cancel My own words
and confrm yours; as it says, When thou drawest nigh unto a city to fght against it, then proclaim peace
unto it (ib. 20:10). Seeing that Sihon did not accept their overtures, the Holy One, blessed be He, cast him
down before them; as it says, And we smote him (ib.2:33).
.
]...[

) (
) // (
.) // (
5. Exodus 22:1-3
. , -- , - 1 If the thf is seized while tunneling, and he is
beaten to death, there is no bloodguilt in his case.
- -- : , -
. ,
2 If the sun has risen on him, there is bloodguilt in
that case.He must make restitution; if he lacks
the means, he shall be sold for his thef.
- - , -
. , : --
3 But if what he stolewhether ox or ass or sheepis
found alive in his possession, he shall pay double.
Our Rabbis taught: [If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die], there shall no blood be
shed for him, if the sun be risen upon him. Now, did the sun rise upon him only? But [this is the meaning]:
If it is as clear to thee as the sun that his intentions are not peaceable, slay him; if not, do not slay him.
Another [Baraitha] taught: If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him. Now, did the
sun rise upon him alone? But if it is as clear to thee as the sun that his intentions are peaceable, do not
slay him; otherwise, slay him.
: ? . :
, : . - , -
. - , - :
7. Genesis 18:22-25
-- ; ,
. ,
22 Te men went on from there to Sodom, while
Abraham remained standing before the Lord.
. - , : , 23 Abraham came forward and said, Will You sweep
away the innocent along with the guilty?
- ; ,
. ,
24 What if there should be ffy innocent within the
city; will You then wipe out the place and not
forgive it for the sake of the innocent ffy who are
in it?
, - ,
, - -- ; ,
.
25 Far be it from You to do such a thing, to bring death
upon the innocent as well as the guilty, so that
innocent and guilty fare alike. Far be it from You!
Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?
Then Joab was brought before the Court, and he [Solomon] judged and questioned him, Why didst thou
kill Abner? He answered, I was Asahels avenger of blood. But Asahel was a pursuer! Even so, answered
he; but he [Abner] should have saved himself at the cost of one of his [Asahels] limbs. Yet perhaps he
could not do so, remonstrated [Solomon]. If he could aim exactly at the ffth rib, he retorted, even as it
is written, Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him at the waist; concerning which R. Johanan
said: It was at the ffth rib, where the gall-bladder and liver are suspended. Could he not have aimed at
one of his limbs?
- . : - ? : . ,
, : - . : - . : - .
, : , + +
? ,
158 |
9. Maimonides, Laws Pertaining to Murder 1:1, 1:13
1 If one slays a human being, he transgresses a negative commandment, for Scripture says, Thou shalt
not murder (Exodus 20:13). If one murders willfully in the presence of witnesses, he is put to death by the
sword, for when Scripture says, He shall surely be punished (Exodus 21:20), we have learned from tradition
that this means death by the sword. Whether one slays another with an iron weapon or burns him in fre,
he is put to death by the sword.
13 If one is able to save the victim at the cost of only a limb of the pursuer, and does not take the trouble
to do so, but saves the victim at the cost of the pursuers life by killing him, he is deemed a shedder of
blood, and he deserves to be put to death. He may not, however, be put to death by the court.
)., ; , ( , --
; :), ( , , --
. -- ,
; , -- , , ,
.
R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: By a majority vote, it was resolved in the upper
chambers of the house of Nithza in Lydda that in every [other] law of the Torah, if a man is commanded:
Transgress and sufer not death he may transgress and not sufer death, excepting idolatry, incest,
[which includes adultery] and murder.
[]
And how do we know this of murder itself? It is common sense. Even as one who came before Raba and
said to him, The governor of my town has ordered me, Go and kill so and so; if not, I will slay thee. He
answered him, Let him rather slay you than that you should commit murder; who knows that your blood
is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.
: :
. , -
]...[
, : , . - ?
. : - . -
.
11. IDF Spirit: Purity of Arms and the Code of Morality in War
The Israel Defense Forces are the state of Israels military force. The IDF is subordinate to the directions of
the democratic civilian authorities and the laws of the state. The goal of the IDF is to protect the existence
of the State of Israel and her independence, and to thwart all enemy eforts to disrupt the normal way of
life in Israel. IDF soldiers are obligated to fght, to dedicate all their strength and even sacrifce their lives
in order to protect the State of Israel, her citizens and residents. IDF soldiers will operate according to the
IDF values and orders, while adhering to the laws of the state and norms of human dignity, and honoring
the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
[]
Defense of the State, its Citizens and its Residents - The IDFs goal is to defend the existence
of the State of Israel, its independence and the security of the citizens and residents of the state.
[]
Purity of Arms - The IDF servicemen and women will use their weapons and force only for the purpose
of their mission, only to the necessary extent and will maintain their humanity even during combat. IDF
soldiers will not use their weapons and force to harm human beings who are not combatants or prisoners
of war, and will do all in their power to avoid causing harm to their lives, bodies, dignity and property.
, .
, .
, , .
, . ,
. ,
]...[
, - ,
.
]...[
, , -
, .
. , ,
160 |
12. Leviticus 19:18
: , - - -
. ,
18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge
against your countrymen. Love your fellow as
yourself: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:33-34
. , -- , - 33 When a stranger resides with you in your land, you
shall not wrong him.
,
, : , - --
.
34 Te stranger who resides with you shall be to you as
one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself,
for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the
Lord am your God.
13. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a
On another occasion it happened that a certain heathen came before Shammai and said to him, Make
me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot. Thereupon
he repulsed him with the builders cubit which was in his hand. When he went before Hillel, he said
to him, What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the
commentary thereof; go and learn it.
. : ,
, - : . , .
. , -
14. Aharon Barak, A Judge on Judging
Since the Holocaust, all of us have learned that human rights are the core of substantive democracy.
.... The protection of human rights - the rights of every individual and every minority group - cannot be
left only in the hands of the legislature and the executive, which, by their nature, refect majority opinion.
Consequently, the question of the judicial branchs role in a democracy arises....
In present times democracy faces the emergent threat of terrorism. Passive democracy has transformed
into defensive democracy. All of us are concerned that it not become uncontrollable democracy.
As judges, we are aware of the tension between the need to protect the state and the rights of the
individual.
Human rights are not the rights of a person on a desert island. Robinson Crusoe does not need human
rights. Human rights are the rights of a human being as part of society. The rights of the individual must
conform to the existence of society, the existence of a government, and existence of national goals. The
power of the state is essential to the existence of the state and the existence of human rights themselves.
Therefore, limitations on human rights refect a national compromise between the needs of the state
and the rights of the individual. This compromise is a product of the recognition that human rights
should be upheld without disabling the political infrastructure. This balance is intended to prevent the
sacrifce of the state on the altar of human rights. As I once stated:
A constitution is not a prescription for suicide, and civil rights are not an altar for national destruction ....
The laws of a people should be interpreted on the basis of the assumption that it wants to continue to
exist. Civil rights derive from the existence of the State, and they should not be made into a spade with
which to bury it.
Similarly, human rights should not be sacrifced on the altar of the state. After all, human rights are natural
rights that precede the state. Indeed, human rights protections require preservation of the sociopolitical
framework, which in turn is based on recognition of the need to protect human right. Both the needs of
the state and human rights are part of one constitutional structure, which simultaneously provides for
human rights and allows them to be limited.... This is the constitutional dialectic. Human rights and the
limitations on them derive from the same source, and they refect the same values. Human rights can be
limited, but there are limits to the limitations. The role of the judge in a democracy is to determine and
protect the integrity of the proper balance.
162 |
15. David Hartman, Living with Conficting Values
164 |
166 |
168 |
170 |
172 |
174 |
16. Noam Zohar, War and Peace
176 |
178 |
180 |
182 |
184 |
186 |
188 |
17. Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, pp. 144-146, 225-232
190 |
192 |
194 |
196 |
198 |
200 |
Morality on the Battlefeld
6
Moshe Halbertal, The Goldstone Illusion, 1.
The New Republic, November 6, 2009 pg. 155
Background Reading
Donniel Hartman, Fighting a Just War against 2.
Hamas Justly, Shalom Hartman Institute, J
anuary 13, 2009 pg. 155
Lecture 6 Morality on the Battlefeld | 201
1. Moshe Halbertal, Te Goldstone Illusion
202 |
204 |
206 |
208 |
210 |
2. Donniel Hartman, Fighting a Just War against Hamas Justly January 13,
2009
As Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza proceeds, both the war's legitimacy and the means used to fght
it are increasingly coming under criticism. We Israelis and Jews fnd ourselves again in the familiar place
of feeling misunderstood and unjustly accused. We feel that double standards are being used against
us by governments that would have engaged in similar responses under similar circumstances and by
individuals for whom it seems that it is only death caused by Israelis that is worthy of condemnation, and
never the deaths of Israelis themselves. Language such as "the holocaust in Gaza" further exacerbates
our sense of alienation from our critics and reafrms our condemnation of them. Our response is to
defne them as anti-Semites and consequently ignore their arguments.

I have no sympathy for many of our critics. Nor do I accept the moral underpinnings of many of their
positions. That said, it does not mean, however, that all who criticize the war in Gaza are anti-Semites and
enemies of Israel. Furthermore, because a position is mouthed by foes, it does not follow that the content
is unworthy of consideration. Quite to the contrary, I believe that we as Jews and Israelis are obligated
to give serious consideration to these critiques and are bound to ask these questions of ourselves: What
do we believe constitutes a "just" war? How does one fght justly? We also must ask whether both the
war in Gaza and our conduct there meet the standards that we want for ourselves, our people, and our
country. We do a great disservice to ourselves as a Jewish people when moral discourse is limited under
the guise of mistaken patriotism or associated exclusively with a particular political agenda or party or
viewed as the consequence of weakness of spirit, or in the particular lingo of Israeli life - of being a "yafe
nefesh" - roughly translated as a naive goody-two-shoes.

Asking these questions and engaging in moral self-evaluation, even in the middle of war, is not a sign of
weakness. Rather, what we in Israel have learned is that our strength as a country and the fortitude of our
army and soldiers are grounded in a signifcant way on our moral fber and our soldiers' recognition that
they are part of a just cause and a just army. When we and they speak of fghting for our home, the home
we speak of is not simply a physical one, but a spiritual and moral one, in which certain ideas and values
reign strong and free. It is consequently our duty and responsibility to ask ourselves these questions
and not to fear the outcome. To banish moral evaluation and potential self-criticism from our national
discourse is tantamount to destroying the home that we are working so hard to preserve.

Morality of war, morality in war

Moral discourse around war in general and our war in Gaza is divided in two areas. The frst is the
morality of war, and the second is morality in war.The frst deals with the moral legitimacy of the war
itself; the second deals with the issue of how one must conduct oneself within the context of war.

The universally accepted standard of a "just" war is one that is embarked upon out of self-defense,
with all wars of aggression deemed immoral. Similarly, one of the central moral tenets of the Jewish
tradition is the sanctity of human life, a tenet that obligates not only the preservation of others' lives,
but the moral responsibility to act in the preservation of one's own, as well. As our rabbis teach us: im ba
l'horgicha, hashkem l'horgo (BT Sanhedrin 72a). If someone comes to kill you, arise and kill them frst. Self
defense under these circumstances is not viewed as a necessary evil but as a moral requirement. Self-
212 |
interest and self-preservation are not expressions of selfshness and moral weakness, but the foundation
and expression of our moral commitment to life itself.
In a war against a terrorist regime such as Hamas, there is great moral clarity but also, some claim, a
measure of ambiguity on the issue of morality of war. Having initiated years of ongoing missile attacks
against the citizens of southern Israel, killing and injuring, both physically and mentally, hundreds of
individuals, and making the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens untenable, it was a clear
moral responsibility to defend our citizens and to attempt to create a new situation under which attacks
would no longer occur. It was also necessary to act today to preempt further attacks that would only be
more deadly, as Hamas continues to smuggle longer-range and more powerful missiles into Gaza. While
no one is certain that the war will achieve the desired outcome, this debate has no efect on the morality
of the attempt.

The measure of moral ambiguity that may exist in the eyes of some is grounded on the disparity of
military capability between Israel and Hamas, a disparity which may question the legitimacy of the
premise of self-defense. Hamas as a terrorist organization aims to terrorize, and as such has a limited
ability to endanger Israel's basic existence. While it may harm individual citizens, Hamas does not
endanger the state as a whole.

It is under the cloud of this moral ambiguity that much of the criticism against Israel fnds shelter. The
justifcation of self defense dissipates when one compares Kassam rockets and mortar shells and their
casualty toll with the might of the Israeli army and the consequences of its actions. Furthermore, it is also
this reality which fuels the calls for proportionality in which the use of force on Israel's side, it is claimed,
must match that of the enemy it attacks. A "disproportionate" response is classifed as unjust, for it is no
longer contained or justifed under the rubric of self-defense.

The moral difculty, if not corruption, entailed within the above argument lies in the fact that it essentially
allows terrorist organizations to terrorize with impunity, and morally handcufs a society's legitimate
right to defend itself not merely when its existence is threatened, but when the lives of some of its
citizens are in danger and many more are subjected to the efects of terror. The "weak" are allowed to
engage in terror, for it is argued that it is the only means available to them, while the more powerful,
and in this case Israel, are always morally reprehensible, for our power and strength voids any military
response the legitimacy of the claim of self-defense. This "moral" argument, which grants immunity
to terror perpetrated by the weaker, is a signifcant moral failing in much of the public discourse on
morality of war.

Jews and supporters of Israel attempt to counter with claims of Israel's weakness and victim-hood,
creating a competition between Israel and the Palestinians over who is sufering more, and thus worthy
of the mantle of morality. This, however, is a competition which Israel cannot, nor I hope, ever win. I
welcome Israel's power, and pray that, we will always lose in the competition over relative victim-hood
when it comes to wars that are forced upon us. We cannot, nor should we concern ourselves with the
calculation of proportionality. Our task is not to act proportionately but morally and appropriately within
the context of the danger we face. That is not only morally permissible but obligatory. As members of
the Jewish people, the state of Israel, and the community of nations committed exclusively to fghting
just wars and refraining from wars of aggression, we need not apologize for the war in Gaza, but rather
be morally proud of our actions. Our return to statehood does not entail a desire to relive the tragedies
of the mass suicide at Masada, but to embrace life, and our right to live as a free people, free from terror,
free from aggression, and free to pursue the larger values and aspirations of our society.

Fighting a just war in a just fashion

While a war may be just in the sense that it is grounded on a sufcient measure of self-defense, there still
remains a signifcant moral challenge, and that is to ensure that the just war is fought justly. There are
some who claim that such a consideration is foolish, impractical, and unrealistic. War is war, they argue,
and the sole aim must be victory, regardless of the consequences. In Israel this position often takes a
unique form as a result of the closeness the civilian population feels toward our soldiers. They are our
children, and our primary concern as parents is that they come home safely. As my son was heading into
Gaza with his Army unit, I repeated a conversation that I had mentioned to him before. "Yitzi, " I said, "if
you are in doubt, please shoot frst. I want you home. We will deal with the consequences of later."

When the aim of war is not merely victory, but also a zero tolerance for casualties on our side, all
discussion of morality in war is nullifed. While this aspiration is understandable and possibly excusable
for us parents, there is a danger in Israel, one that the army fghts hard to prevent, that parental instincts
will become national and military policy. Moral considerations within the battlefeld are as critical as
morally evaluating the legitimacy of a war. The fact that we did not instigate the confict does not give us
the right to remove the issue of morality in war from our discourse and refection. We want to fght the
terrorists who target civilians and not emulate them.

What then are the basic guidelines for morality in war? Can we engage in such a war? How must we
assess the current war in Gaza, with the numerous civilian casualties that have been sufered on the
Palestinian side?

The guiding principle for moral conduct in war is grounded on the distinction between combatants
and non-combatants. As the moral justifcation for the war is self defense, the only individuals against
whom life-threatening force may be used are those who are directly endangering the lives of others.
This distinction between combatants and non-combatants is morally intuitive and serves as the basis
of the moral condemnation of terrorists, who are classifed as such by virtue of their targeting civilian
populations. It also lies at the foundation of Judaism's moral justifcation for self defense. It is only
against the individual who arises to kill you that one is allowed to use violent means, and even then, the
level of the violence allowed is only that which is necessary to remove the threat.

That said, one of the greatest difculties in fghting modern warfare morally is not identifying the line
between combatants and non-combatants, but the operational challenge of maintaining this distinction
in practice. This is particularly the case when it comes to terror organizations willing to fght to the last
drop of their own citizens' blood, and who embed themselves in the midst of the most vulnerable and
sensitive civilian targets. Civilian casualties on their own side are viewed as not only acceptable but a key
tactical and strategic tool to achieve their aims. When one adds into the equation the signifcant factor
of human error, exacerbated under the pressure and tension of war, countless tragedies in the city-
cum-battlefeld regularly occur. The myth of precision in the modern battlefeld is precisely that. Even
among Israel's casualties, historically, 25 percent are from friendly fre. Under these circumstances, it is
essentially impossible to fght a terror organization while maintaining the core minimal moral standard
which requires that non-combatants be unharmed.
214 |
This failure, some argue, eradicates the moral justifcation necessary for fghting this war. While the war
itself might be just, it ultimately becomes an unjust one due to the fact that it cannot be fought justly.

The moral problem with this argument is that it guarantees protection to terrorists and grants a military
victory to evil. As long as one "protects" oneself from attack and forces one's enemy to infict civilian
causalities through the use of non-combatants as human shields, then one ostensibly has the moral
high-ground and immunity from prosecution. If a war is just, then it is a war that must be fought.

This said, it does not mean that a just war may be fought regardless of the consequences to the innocent.
While it is impossible to fght terror without civilian casualties, it is critical to maintain the standard that
civilian casualties are fundamentally unacceptable and must be the exception to the rule. Every efort -
and by that I mean every efort, up to and including some measure of increasing the danger to one's own
soldiers - must not be merely acceptable but also embraced. We must target combatants exclusively and
mourn any instance in which we are not able to harm them alone.

The moral responsibility for harming civilians cannot be placed exclusively in the hands of the terrorists
who choose to fght from their midst but must be carried as well by we who are fghting them, for it is
only thus that we maintain our moral responsibilities to avoid harming them to the best of our ability. The
essential point is that a just war does not morally justify either the removal of the distinction between
combatant and non-combatant, or the responsibility for operations that do not succeed in maintaining
this distinction. We must accept the immorality entailed in harming any civilian, but recognize the
inevitability and even the moral imperative of acting to some extent immorally, as long as the overall
purpose and the clear majority of operations fall under the moral standards and guidelines of morality
in war.

One of the tragedies of war in general and of fghting terrorists in particular is that the battle itself morally
taints the individual who was heretofore the victim. Under these circumstances, one cannot remain
morally pure in pursuing one's moral duty to preserve one's own life. The necessity of this compromise,
however, is at the foundation of our decision to be a real people, living in real bodies, in a real country.
We must, however, be extremely careful never to allow this realism to remove our moral aspirations. The
rabbis said it best:

"Then Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed," R. Judah b. Ilai said: Are not fear and distress
identical? The meaning however is that he was afraisd lest he should be slain, and was distressed lest he
should slay [others]. Genesis. Rabbah, 76:2

To be a Jew and a moral human being is to be fearful for one's own life and never to become callous at
the taking of another.
When to end the war
If, in essence, one cannot fght this just war justly, but one is nevertheless morally required to embark
on it, one's duty to maintain moral standards in war places greater emphasis on two critical moments.
The frst is the decision of when to go to war, and the second is the decision of when to end the war.
As long as we continually remember the moral price of war, we must be a people who never run to do
battle or embrace the use of force. The years of sufering of the citizens of southern Israel and the parallel
restraint of Israel's government clearly, and I believe unequivocally, meet this standard of restraint. In
fact, embarking on such an operation was morally justifable - if not obligatory - a long time ago.

With that being the case, knowing the moral compromises we have had to make in fghting this war,
the moral weight shifts today to when to end it. The central guiding principle for when to end the war
must be grounded on the moral justifcation for embarking upon it. The war is justifable as long as
the threat still exists, and only so long as further operations can have an efect on this threat. Neither
political benefts nor psychological needs to make the other pay a price are acceptable. Were the life of
combatants alone lying in the balance, the war may still be deemed just, so long as they continue to bear
arms. Once, however, it is a given that innocent civilians will also pay the price we must be extremely
strict and in fact choose to err on the side of stopping the war at the right time rather than continuing it
unnecessarily.

Whether Israel has reached this point or not is not a question with a defnitive answer. My goal is not to
ofer a position as to when that point is reached but rather to encourage the conversation and debate.
We have nothing to fear from a moral debate and analysis of our behavior. At the worst, we will identify
areas that require moral improvement. Any person or people who believe they are immune from moral
evaluation and criticism are idolaters, for they view themselves as gods. It is precisely by engaging in
such discussions that our greatest strengths lie, and that our soldiers are safe knowing what they are
fghting for, and that theirs is a noble and just cause.
216 |
Jewish and Democratic State
7
The Declaration of Establishment of the State 1.
of Israel, 1948 pg. 155
Article 1 of International Covenant on Civil & 2.
Political Rights of the UN General Assembly,
December 1966 pg. 155
Balfour Declaration, 1917 3. pg. 155
League of Nations Mandate on Palestine, 1920 4. pg. 155
UN Partition Plan for Palestine, 1947 5. pg. 155
Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 1992 6. pg. 155
Israels Law of Return, 1950 7. pg. 155
Ordinances of Law and Governance, 1948 8. pg. 155
Foundations of Jurisprudence Law, 1980 9. pg. 155
Kahan Commission Report, 1983 10. pg. 155
Background Reading
Alexander Yakobson, Jewish Peoplehood and the 11.
Jewish State, How Unique? A Comparative Survey,
Israel Studies, Volume 13, Number 2 (2008) pg. 155
Ruth Gavison, The Jewish State, A Justifcation pg. 155 12.
Menachem Lorberbaum, Religion and State in Israel pg. 155 13.
Lecture 7 Jewish and Democratic State | 217
1. Te Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel, 1948
ERETZ-ISRAEL [(Hebrew) - the Land of Israel, Palestine] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here
their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they frst attained to statehood, created
cultural values of national and universal signifcance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion
and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political
freedom.
[]
ACCORDINGLY WE, MEMBERS OF THE PEOPLES COUNCIL, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY
OF ERETZ-ISRAEL AND OF THE ZIONIST MOVEMENT, ARE HERE ASSEMBLED ON THE DAY OF THE
TERMINATION OF THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER ERETZ-ISRAEL AND, BY VIRTUE OF OUR NATURAL AND
HISTORIC RIGHT AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL
ASSEMBLY, HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN
AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.
WE DECLARE that, with efect from the moment of the termination of the Mandate being tonight, the eve
of Sabbath, the 6th Iyar, 5708 (15th May, 1948), until the establishment of the elected, regular authorities
of the State in accordance with the Constitution which shall be adopted by the Elected Constituent
Assembly not later than the 1st October 1948, the Peoples Council shall act as a Provisional Council of
State, and its executive organ, the Peoples Administration, shall be the Provisional Government of the
Jewish State, to be called Israel.
THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will
foster the development of the country for the beneft of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom,
justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and
political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of
religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions;
and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
218 |
2. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights of the UN General
Assembly, December 1966
Article 1
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine
their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Balfour Declaration, 1917
Foreign Offce
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majestys Government, the
following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted
to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
His Majestys Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national
home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement
of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the
civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and
political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist
Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
4. League of Nations Mandate on Palestine, 1920
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving efect to the provisions of
Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said
Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire,
within such boundaries as may be fxed by them; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for
putting into efect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of
His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which
might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non Jewish communities in Palestine, or the
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and
Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with
Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine;
and
Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted
to the Council of the League for approval; and
Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to
exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and
Whereas by the afore mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority,
control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon
by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defned by the Council of the League Of Nations;
confrming the said Mandate, defnes its terms as follows:
ARTICLE 1. The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may
be limited by the terms of this mandate.
ARTICLE 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political,
administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as
laid down in the preamble, and the development of self governing institutions, and also for safeguarding
the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.
220 |
ARTICLE 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.
ARTICLE 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of
advising and cooperating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other
matters as may afect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish
population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part
in the development of the country.
The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory
appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic
Majestys Government to secure the co operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment
of the Jewish national home.
ARTICLE 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or
leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.
ARTICLE 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections
of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and
shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews
on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.
ARTICLE 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There
shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship
by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine.
5. UN Partition Plan for Palestine, 1947
PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION
Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine
A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE
The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not 1.
later than 1 August 1948.
The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from 2.
Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not
later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of
its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory
Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory
of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide
facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible
date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.
Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for 3.
the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in
Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory
Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The
boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as
described in Parts II and III below.
The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation 4.
on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the
Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period.
222 |
6. Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty, 1992
Purpose 1. Te purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and
liberty, in order to establish in a Basic Law the values of the State
of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
Preservation of life, body and dignity 2. Tere shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person
as such.
Protection of property 3. Tere shall be no violation of the property of a person.
Protection of life, body and dignity 4. All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity.
Personal liberty 5. Tere shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person
by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise.
Leaving and entering Israel 6. (a) All persons are free to leave Israel.
(b) Every Israel national has the right of entry into Israel from
abroad.
Privacy 7. (a) All persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy.
(b) Tere shall be no entry into the private premises of a person who
has not consented thereto.
(c) No search shall be conducted on the private premises of a person,
nor in the body or personal efects.
(d) Tere shall be no violation of the confdentiality of conversation,
or of the writings or records of a person.
Violation of rights 8. Tere shall be no violation of rights under this Basic Law except by
a law befting the values of the State of Israel, enacted for a proper
purpose, and to an extent no greater than is required.
Reservation regarding security forces 9. Tere shall be no restriction of rights under this Basic Law held by
persons serving in the Israel Defence Forces, the Israel Police, the
Prisons Service and other security organizations of the State, nor
shall such rights be subject to conditions, except by virtue of a law,
or by regulation enacted by virtue of a law, and to an extent no
greater than is required by the nature and character of the service.
Validity of laws 10. Tis Basic Law shall not afect the validity of any law (din) in force
prior to the commencement of the Basic Law.
Application 11. All governmental authorities are bound to respect the rights under
this Basic Law.
Stability 12. Tis Basic Law cannot be varied, suspended or made subject to
conditions by emergency regulations; notwithstanding, when a
state of emergency exists, by virtue of a declaration under section
9 of the Law and Administration Ordinance, 5708-1948.
7. Israels Law of Return, 1950
Law of Return 5710-1950
Right of aliyah**
1. Every Jew has the right to come to this country as
an oleh**.
Law of Return (Amendment No. 2) 5730-1970*
Addition of sections 4A and 4B 4A. (a) Te rights of a Jew under this Law and the
rights of an oleh under the Nationality Law, 5712-
1952***, as well as the rights of an oleh under any
other enactment, are also vested in a child and a
grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse
of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of
a Jew, except for a person who has been a Jew and
has voluntarily changed his religion.
8. Ordinances of Law and Governance, 1948
18a. Days of Rest
1a. Shabbat and the Jewish holidaysthe two days of Rosh HaShana, Yom Kippur, the frst day of Succot
and Shmini Atzeret, the frst and seventh days of Passoverare the fxed days of rest for the State of
Israel.
1b. For those who are not Jewish there is reserved the right to observe their days of rest in accordance
with their Sabbath and holidays. These holidays will be set in accordance with each community by the
government and published in the public records.
2. The laws of work hours and rest of 1951, which apply to weekly periods of rest, will apply:
a. To Jewson their holidays
b. To non-Jewson the Jewish holidays or on the holidays of their community, whatever is acceptable
to them.
.18
, , , - )(
- - . -
. .
- , ,1951- , )(
; - )1(
. , - )2(
224 |
9. Foundations of Jurisprudence Law, 1980
Complementary Sources of Law
In the event that the court confront a legal issue which requires adjudication and did not fnd precedence for
the matter in either legislation or court decisions or through the juxtaposition of legal concepts, the court
should decide on the basis of the principles of freedom, justice, fairness and peace of the Jewish tradition.
.1
, ,
.,, ,
10. Kahan Commission Report, 1983
Even if these legal norms are invalid regarding the situation in which the Israeli government and
the forces operating at its instructions found themselves at the time of the events, still, as far as the
obligations applying to every civilized nation and the ethical rules accepted by civilized peoples go, the
problem of indirect responsibility cannot be disregarded. A basis for such responsibility may be found in
the outlook of our ancestors, which was expressed in things that were said about the moral signifcance
of the biblical portion concerning the beheaded heifer (in the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 21). It is
said in Deuteronomy (21:6-7) that the elders of the city who were near the slain victim who has been
found (and it is not known who struck him down) will wash their hands over the beheaded heifer in the
valley and reply: our hands did not shed this blood and our eyes did not see. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi
says of this verse (Talmud, Tractate Sota 38b):
The necessity for the heifer whose neck is to be broken only arises on account of the niggardliness of
spirit, as it is said, Our hands have not shed this blood. But can it enter our minds that the elders of a
Court of Justice are shedders of blood! The meaning is, [the man found dead] did not come to us for
help and we dismissed him, we did not see him and let him go - i.e., he did not come to us for help and
we dismissed him without supplying him with food, we did not see him and let him go without escort.
(Rashi explains that escort means a group that would accompany them; Sforno, a commentator from a
later period, says in his commentary on Deuteronomy, that there should not be spectators at the place,
for if there were spectators there, they would protest and speak out.)
When we are dealing with the issue of indirect responsibility, it should also not be forgotten that the Jews
in various lands of exile, and also in the Land of Israel when it was under foreign rule, sufered greatly from
pogroms perpetrated by various hooligans; and the danger of disturbances against Jews in various lands,
it seems evident, has not yet passed. The Jewish publics stand has always been that the responsibility for
such deeds falls not only on those who rioted and committed the atrocities, but also on those who were
responsible for safety and public order, who could have prevented the disturbances and did not fulfll their
obligations in this respect. It is true that the regimes of various countries, among them even enlightened
countries, have side-stepped such responsibility on more than one occasion and have not established
inquiry commissions to investigate the issue of indirect responsibility, such as that about which we are
speaking; but the development of ethical norms in the world public requires that the approach to this
issue be universally shared, and that the responsibility be placed not just on the perpetrators, but also on
those who could and should have prevented the commission of those deeds which must be condemned.
11. Alexander Yakobson, Jewish Peoplehood and the Jewish State, How
Unique? A Comparative Survey
1
Alexander Yakobson
Jewish Peoplehood and the
Jewish State, How Unique?
A Comparative Survey
ABSTRACT
Te Jewish-Israeli casethat of the Jewish people, the Jewish national
movementZionismand the Jewish nation-stateIsraelis often
said to be unique. Its unique features are said to be the extra-territorial
character of the Jewish people and Israels ties with the Jewish Diaspora
(expressed, most controversially, in the Law of Return) and the strong
connection between the Jewish religion and the prevalent notion of Jewish
peoplehood. Some argue that these features of the Jewish-Israeli national
identity are inconsistent with modern civic democracy; many others defend
or even celebrate them, pointing to the uniqueness of Jewish history and
culture. Te underlining premise of uniqueness itself is rarely questioned.
In fact, however, it appears that this case is far less unique in the modern
democratic world than is widely assumed. Tere are numerous other cases
where national identity and religion are ofcially connected in some way,
and where there are ofcial bonds between a nation-state and an ethno-
cultural Diaspora.
Of course you are unique, but you are not unique in being
uniquesuch was, a few years ago, the wise answer given at a public
lecture in Jerusalem by a visiting foreign Professor (whose name I have
unfortunately forgotten) to the question: Do you think that the Jewish
people are unique?
Te Jewish-Israeli casethat of the Jewish people, the Jewish national
movementZionismand the Jewish nation-stateIsraelis indeed
often said to be unique. Tere are two main grounds for this. First, the
226 |
2 israelstudies,volume13,number2
strong connection between the Jewish religion and the prevalent notion of
the Jews as a peoplewhich implies that a Jewish state cannot, by defni-
tion, be religiously neutral, and that national memory and consciousness
go back (or purport to go back) to Biblical times. Te second reason is the
strong connection between the State of Israel and the Jewish Diaspora,
refected among other things in the Law of Return. Tis connection results
from and fosters a notion of peoplehood or national identity not confned
to a given territory and not congruous with citizenship (and thus, inevitably,
ethnic or ethno-cultural rather than civic).
Many people fnd all this unique and not a few take a rather dim view
of this uniquenesssome to the extent of denying that a normal modern
national identity or a normal modern liberal democracy can exist in such
conditions. Others view the Jewish uniqueness sympathetically or at least
neutrally, as a historical and cultural fact of life; it is frequently defended
and sometimes positively celebrated. Te assumption of uniqueness itself is
rarely questioned. To return to the saying with which we started, of course
the Jewish case is unique. Yet, is it as exceptionally and uniquely unique as is
often claimed? A closer examination of the various national peculiarities in
these felds may lead us to the conclusion that there are more uniquenesses
in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in many peoples philosophy.
We start with some contemporary constitutional texts dealing with
religion and state. Constitutions are not the whole picture, but they are
an important part of it. Reality might be more neutral than the con-
stitutional text impliesespecially when the text itself is not much more
than a relic of the past which no longer refects the current state of afairs.
Te establishment of the Church of England can perhaps today be viewed
largely in this light. On the other hand, it is far from exceptional for the
constitution of a democracy to be rather more neutral than the political,
social, and cultural realities actually prevailing in a given country.1
THE PREVAILING RELIGION IN GREECE
Te frst example is Greece (the Hellenic Republic). Its current constitu-
tion was adopted in 1975, when democracy was re-established after the fall
of the black colonels. It refects a consensus deliberately shaped by the
countrys main democratic forces, the Conservatives (New Democracy)
and the Socialists (the Pan-Hellenic Socialist Party). Since its adoption it
has been amended several times, without afecting the ofcial status of the
Orthodox Church (although the more secular Socialist governments have
JewishPeoplehoodandtheJewishState,HowUnique? 3
carried out a number of reforms, including one, in the 1990s, that erased
the rubric religion from the Greek citizens identity cards). As in all demo-
cratic constitutions, the Greek one guarantees equal rights and freedom of
conscience to all citizens. It is, however, anything but neutral. Tere is
no way to avoid (uniquely) lengthy verbatim quotations if one wishes to
get the favor of this document.
[Quasi-Preamble]
In the name of the Holy and Consubstantial and Indivisible Trinity, the Fifth
Constitutional Assembly of Greece votes:
Article3[RelationsofChurchandState]
(1) Te prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church
of Christ. Te Orthodox Church of Greece acknowledging as its head Our
Lord Jesus Christ is indissolubly united in doctrine with the Great Church
of Constantinople and every other Church of Christ of the same doctrine.
It observes steadfastly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodical canons
and the holy tradition. It is autocephalous, exercising its sovereign rights
independently of any other church, and is administered by the Holy Synod
of Bishops . . .
(3)TetextoftheHolyScripturesshallbemaintainedunaltered.Teofcial
translation thereof into any other linguistic form, without the sanction of
the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in
Constantinople, is prohibited.
Article13[Religion]
(1) Te freedom of religious conscience is inviolable. Te enjoyment of civil
and individual rights does not depend on the religious conviction of each
individual.
(2) Every known religion is free and the forms of worship thereof shall be
practiced without any hindrance by the State and under protection of the law.
Te exercise of worship shall not contravene public order or ofend morals.
Proselytizing is prohibited.
Article 16 [Education]
(2) Education constitutes a fundamental state objective and aims at the moral,
intellectual, professional, and physical instruction of the Greeks, the develop-
ment of national and religious consciousness, and the formation of free and
responsible citizens.
Section II. Te President of the Republic
Article33[Installation]
(2) Te President of the Republic shall take the following oath before Par-
liament, and prior to his taking ofce: I swear in the name of the Holy,
228 |
Consubstantial, and Indivisible Trinity to observe the Constitution and the
laws, to provide for the faithful observance thereof, to defend the national
independence and territorial integrity of the country. . . .
Chapter III Regime of Mount Athos
Article 105 [Traditional Self-Government]
(1) Te Athos Peninsula extending beyond Megali Vigla and constituting the
district of Mount Athos shall, in accordance with its ancient privileged status,
be a self-governing part of the Greek State whose sovereignty thereon shall
remain unafected. . . . All persons residing therein shall acquire Greek nation-
ality upon admission as novices or monks without any further formality.
(2) Mount Athos shall, in accordance with its regime, be governed by its
twenty Holy Monasteries, among which the entire peninsula is divided and
its territory shall be exempt from expropriation. . . . Te dwelling therein of
heterodox or schismatic persons shall be prohibited.
(3)TedeterminationindetailoftheMountAthosregimesandthemanner
of operation thereof is efected by the Constitutional Charter of Mount
Athos, which, with the co-operation of the State representative, is drawn up
and voted by the twenty Holy Monasteries and ratifed by the Oecumenical
Patriarchate and the Parliament of the Hellenes.
(4) Te correct observance of the Mount Athos regimes shall, in the spiritual
sphere, be under the supreme supervision of the Oecumenical Patriarchate
. . .
Heterodox or schismatic persons, then, need not apply for a dwell-
ing on Mount Athos. Tis is of course quite natural and normal; what is
rather unique is for such provisions, and indeed such terms, to appear in
the constitution of a modern democracy. Moreover, All persons resid-
ing on Mount Athos shall acquire Greek nationality upon admission as
novices or monks without any further formality; whereas, as we shall see,
ethnic Greeks from foreign countries immigrating to Greece are naturalized
under a facilitated procedure but have no automatic right to citizenship.
Te constitutional ban on proselytizing and on ofcial translation of the
Holy Scriptures without the permission of the Oecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople, the (symbolic) authority given to this Patriarch, who is a
citizen of a foreign country (Turkey)the very fact that the capital of a
neighboring state (Istanbul) appears in the Constitution under its historic
and loaded Greek nameall these things are surely unique. Although,
as we shall see, there is nothing exceptional about the fact that a modern
democratic constitution is not religiously neutral.
Te Greek Orthodox Church is not merely Established by law, as is
the Church of England; it is national in a much stronger sense than could
perhaps even in the past be applied to England. Historically and culturally,
Orthodox Christianity is closely connected to Greek national identity. Tis
is refected, among other things, in the constitutional provision on public
education which is said to aim at the development of national and religious
consciousness, as well as in the actual content of what is taught in Greek
public schools.
THE UN-AMERICAN PREAMBLE
TO THE IRISH CONSTITUTION
Another European country in which a close link between religious and
national identity has traditionally existed is Ireland. Te strongly Catholic
character of the Irish state established after partition in the 1920s conficted
both with the more liberal and secular tendencies in society and with the
ofcially proclaimed national goal of a united Ireland. In 1973, the 1937
Constitution was amended to remove the clause recognizing the special
position of the Catholic Church as the guardian of the Faith professed
by the great majority of the citizens. However, the preamble to the Con-
stitution remains non-neutral and refects a connection between religious
(though no longer explicitly Catholic) and national consciousness:
In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to
Whom, as our fnal end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
we, the people of ire, humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our
Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of
trial, gratefully remembering their heroic and unremitting struggle to regain
the rightful independence of our Nation . . .
Te Encyclopedia Americana fnds fault with this language: Te frst
of these clauses [invoking the Holy Trinity] cannot but be repugnant to
Unitarians, as the second [mentioning our Divine Lord Jesus Christ]
must be to the Jewish community.2 Te preamble to the Irish Constitu-
tion is distinctly un-American. However, the US, with its strict separation
of church and state, practices another form of ofcial non-neutrality
on matters of religion: American atheists can no more identify with the
constant ofcial references to God (including the mention of God in the
230 |
text of the Pledge of Allegiance established by an Act of Congress3) than
any Unitarians who might be found in Irelandwith the constitutional
reference to the Holy Trinity.
SCANDINAVIA: OFFICIAL CHURCHES
Scandinavia has a tradition of national or established churches. Te ofcial
status of the Lutheran Church in Sweden was abolished in 2000, but it still
remains in Denmark, Iceland, Finland, and Norway (despite calls to repeal
or change it). In Finland, the small Orthodox Church also enjoys ofcial
status; this arrangement is peculiar, but not wholly exceptional: there are
two ofcial Churches in various Swiss cantons. Te connection between
church and state is expressed in Scandinavian constitutions in emphatic
language (more emphatic than may be thought to ft the current state of
afairs). In Denmark,
Te Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Den-
mark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State. Te King shall be
a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Te constitution of the
Established Church shall be laid down by Statute . . .
In Norway,
Te Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the ofcial religion of the
State. Te inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in
the same. . . . Te King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran
religion, and uphold and protect the same . . . More than half the number
of the Members of the Council of State shall profess the ofcial religion of
the State . . . Te King ordains all public church services and public worship,
all meetings and assemblies dealing with religious matters, and ensures that
public teachers of religion follow the norms prescribed for them.
Te constitutional duty to raise ones children as good Lutherans (per-
haps as unique as unique can get) is obviously unenforceable in a modern
democracy. Tat it is still retained in the Constitution (originally adopted
in 1884) is not a measure of Norways religiosity but a symbolic acknowl-
edgement of the fact that the Lutheran church is regarded, in this largely
secular society, as part of Norwegian culture and identity.
EX-COMMUNIST WORLD:
CHURCHES AND NATIONAL IDENTITIES
In post-Communist Poland, the real power and infuence of the Catholic
Church is greater than in any contemporary democracytoo great for
comfort, as far as Polish liberals and secularists are concerned.4 When
the countrys democratic constitution was formulated in 1997, the secular
forces were strong enough to prevent any ofcial status being conferred on
the Church (which has not prevented it from obtaining, under conserva-
tive governments, various concessions to its demands). Nevertheless, the
preamble to the Constitution refects the notion of a connection between
Christianity and Polish national identity which is uncontroversial despite
ferce controversy surrounding many issues bearing on the relations between
church and state:
Beholden to our ancestors for their labours, their struggle for independence
achieved at great sacrifce, for our culture rooted in the Christian heritage of
the Nation and in universal human values . . .
Te Constitution of another East-European new democracy,5 Bul-
garia, also manages to combine secularity with an explicit acknowledge-
ment of the connection between religion (in this case, specifcally the
OrthodoxChristianity)andBulgarianidentity.Accordingtoarticle13,(1)
Te practicing of any religion is free; (2) Te religious institutions shall be
separatefromthestate;(3)EasternOrthodoxChristianityisconsideredthe
traditional religion in the Republic of Bulgaria.
Bulgaria contains a large Muslim Turkish-speaking minority. Te con-
stitution includes the usual provision on the equal rights of all citizens
regardless of race, nationality, ethnic self-identity, sex, origin, religion,
education, opinion, political afliation, personal or social status, or prop-
erty status. However, it also connects Bulgarian identity embodied by
the State with both Eastern Orthodox Christianity and the language of
the Bulgarian-speaking majorityin a way that goes beyond the usual
constitutional provisions on the ofcial or state language: Te study and
use of the Bulgarian language is a right and obligation of every Bulgarian
citizen(Article36;6underArticle3,Bulgarianistheofciallanguageof
the Republic). Moreover, Bulgaria is one of the countries whose constitu-
tion acknowledges a link with an ethno-cultural Diaspora (A person of
Bulgarian origin shall acquire Bulgarian citizenship through a facilitated
procedureArticle 25.2).
232 |
Using more emphatic language, the constitution of Armenia adopted
in 2005 provides for a separation between church and state and recognizes
the Armenian Apostolic Church as a national church (Article 8.1):
Te church shall be separate from the State in the Republic of Armenia.
Te Republic of Armenia recognizes the exclusive mission of the Armenian
Apostolic Holy Church as a national church, in the spiritual life, develop-
ment of the national culture and preservation of the national identity of the
people of Armenia.
Te previous version of the post-Communist Constitution, adopted in
1995, contained no recognition of the national character of the Armenian
Apostolic Church (to which 90% of the population belongs). Te Venice
Commission of the Council of Europe (European Commission for Democ-
racy through Law) submitted a generally positive report on this constitu-
tional reform, examining its various aspects in light of European norms of
democracy and human rights.7 No criticism is directed, in this report, at
the change which upgraded the status of the Armenian Church to that of
a national church (though not an ofcial one). Tis is not surprising, since
ofcial churches established by law exist in long-established West European
democracies. Te European Commission for Human Rights in Strasbourg
has repeatedly ruled that the existence of an ofcial church or state
church does not breach European human rights norms, provided that all
individuals are free not to belong to it without being adversely afected.8
According to Article 9 of the Constitution of Georgia (a country with
large national and religious, including Muslim, minorities):
(1) Te state shall declare complete freedom of belief and religion, as well as
recognize the special role of the Apostle Autocephalous Orthodox Church of
Georgia in the history of Georgia and its independence from the state.
(2) Te relations between the state of Georgia and the Apostle Autocephalous
Orthodox Church of Georgia shall be determined by the Constitutional
Agreement. . . .
TIBET: GETTING UNIQUER AND UNIQUER
Tibetan peoplehood, culture, and society cannot be conceived of without
the distinct Tibetan form of Buddhism (sometimes called Lamaism). Tis
state of afairs is more akin to the way some Orthodox Jews would have
liked to see the Jewish people than to Israeli (or Diaspora Jewish) realities.
Te position of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, at once the spiritual and
temporal national leader of the Tibetan people, is nothing if not unique.
A Jewish parallel would perhaps be to imagine the Zionist movement, and
then the State of Israel, being headed, ex ofcio, by a descendant of a High
Priest or a Patriarch.
Te Tibetan Constitution adopted by the Assembly of Tibetan Peoples
Deputies in 1991 begins, Whereas His Holiness the Dalai lama has ofered
a democratic system to Tibetans, in order that the Tibetan People in-Exile
be able to preserve their ancient traditions of spiritual and temporal life,
unique to the Tibetans . . . It states that the . . .future Tibetan polity shall
uphold the principle of non-violence and shall endeavour to be a Free Social
Welfare State with its politics guided by the Dharma, a Federal Demo-
cratic Republic . . . At the same time, the Dalai Lama is proclaimed as
chief executive of the Tibetan people and given considerable powers. All
Tibetan citizens shall be equal before the law . . .; All religious denomina-
tions are equal before the law. At the same time, the Tibetan Administra-
tion shall endeavour to establish pure and efcient academic and monastic
communities of monks, nuns, and tantric practitioners, and shall encourage
them to maintain a correct livelihood. It shall endeavor to disseminate a
non-sectarian and wholesome tradition of Buddhist doctrines.
Tis is an attempt to combine fdelity with ancient culture and tradi-
tion (unique and particular, as they must be) with a strong commitment to
universally acknowledged modern democratic principles. If a self-governing
Tibetan polity is established, these laudable intentions will be put to the
test and, no doubt, not a few dilemmas will emergeamong other things,
regarding the exact character and content of public education, as well as the
status of minorities. Te mode of selection of this politys chief executive or
head of state certainly promises to be unique in the world of contemporary
democracies: neither election nor hereditary succession (as in constitutional
monarchies) but reincarnationattested by a group of monks who pick
a child and proclaim him the Dalai Lama. On refection and judging by
actual results, this mode of selecting a leader is not necessarily inferior to
other, more usual ones. Can a state be both Tibetan and democratic? Te
answer should surely be positive in principle, and one feels a measure of
optimism that this is quite feasible in practice too.
234 |
ITALY: THE CRUCIFIX AS A NATIONAL SYMBOL
IN A SECULAR STATE
Italy is, ofcially and in practice, a secular state. It is, historically, a Catholic
country, with a strong anti-clerical tradition precisely for this reason, and
because of the Churchs far-reaching political pretensions in the past. Its
Constitution contains only a low-key reference to the Catholic Church.
Under Article 7,
(1) Te State and the Catholic Church shall be, each within its own sphere,
independent and sovereign. (2) Teir relations shall be regulated by the Lat-
eran Pacts. Such amendments to these Pacts as are accepted by both parties
shall not require the procedure for Constitutional amendment.
Nevertheless, the Italian Republic has maintained the law, originally
passed under Mussolini, requiring that the crucifx be displayed in State
school classrooms, courts of law, and hospitals. In 2002, a Muslim parent
of a pupil studying in a public school petitioned a local court arguing that
an obligatory crucifx in his sons school violated the constitutional require-
ment of civil equality and equal respect for all religions. Te court ruled
in his favor. Tis caused an outcry in the course of which some fascinating
things were said by high-ranking public fgures on the question of Italian
identity. Te President of the Republic stated that, Te crucifx has always
been considered not only as a distinctive sign of a particular religious credo,
but above all as a symbol of the values that are at the base of our Italian
identity.
In 2004, Italys Constitutional Court overturned the lower courts
decision, and in 2006 the Italian Council of State ruled, in a similar case,
that the crucifx was not just a religious symbol, but also a symbol of . . .
the values which underlie and inspire our constitution, our way of living
together peacefully. Te Councils judges held that the notion of tolerance
and individual rights originated with Christianity and . . . in this sense
the crucifx can have a highly educational symbolic function, regardless of
the religion of the pupils. Tey also noted, rightly, that the concept of a
secular state is variously interpreted in diferent states, depending on their
history and culture.9
Te ofcial insistence that the crucifx appears in Italian public schools
as a symbol not of a particular religion but of the Italian national identity
and culture may be thought to solve the problem from the viewpoint of
the principle of secularism as conceived by the majority which is either
Catholic or post-Catholic. However, it is wholly incompatible with the
broader notion, advocated by some, that a democratic state is, or should be,
neutral when it comes to culture and identity. Of course, many regular
features of contemporary democracies are incompatible with this notion.
First and foremost, this applies to the existence of an ofcial or a national
language. It should be remembered that most theories of nationalism con-
sider language to be an essential characteristic of a modern national identity.
However, saying that the Italian language is central to Italian identity is not
quite the same as saying that the crucifx is its symbol. Te former saying
is, naturally, non-neutral from the viewpoint of the German-speaking
minority in South Tyrol; in this, their situation is no diferent from that of
any national and linguistic minority. Communities of immigrants, however,
are usually not regarded as national minorities. Muslims immigrants (and
their children) are therefore not supposed to have a national identity dis-
tinct from that of the majority, but to adopt the Italian one (Italian language
included); it is widely accepted today that they have a right to do so while
preserving some features of their culture. It is then far from trivial that in
a country with a large Muslim and small Jewish minority, the crucifx is
ofcially proclaimed as a symbol not only of Catholicism or Christianity
but also of Italian identity.10
For the crucifx to be ofcially defned as a national symbol in a con-
temporary secular Western state is rather unique. Not so when it comes to
the cross. Te sign of the cross appears on the national fags and emblems
of numerous Western democracies. Scandinavian countries are the best-
known example; Greece and Switzerland join the club. Te British Union
Jack presents three crosses, each standing for another component of the
United Kingdom; it is reproduced on the fags of Australia and New Zea-
land. Te coats of arms of Spain and the secular and multi-cultural Neth-
erlands feature small crosses that are placed on top of the royal crown. Te
cross is not a neutral symboleither religiously or ethnically, in countries
with a signifcant non-Christian population. From the religious point of
view, it is in fact more non-neutral than the Star of David that appears
on the Israeli fag. Te Star of David is a traditional Jewish symbol, but it
has no particular religious signifcance; no Muslim or Christian soldier in
the Israeli Army needs to feel a religious scruple when saluting a fag which
contains it.
Some may argue that an immigrant community should be more willing
to accept non-neutrality of this kind than a native or indigenous minor-
ity (as is the case in Israel). Tis raises the interesting question whether the
Jews of Europe should be regarded as immigrants or as natives. From the
236 |
strictly orthodox Zionist point of view, they are immigrants in Europe and
anywhere else outside the land of Israel. Without dismissing this point of
view in any way, it should be noted that people whose roots in Europe go
back hundreds and thousands of years are at all events no ordinary immi-
grants. Moreover, the large and growing Muslim communities are also,
with the passage of time, becoming less immigrant; they now include
many people who were born citizens, and whose parents were already born
citizens. In Greece, apart from numerous Muslim immigrants and their
descendants, there is a small native Muslim Turkish-speaking community (a
remnant of a much larger one that lived there in the past). Tis community
has its grievance and complaints, but the sign of the cross on the Greek fag
is not one of them (any more than is the ofcial status of the Orthodox
Church or the countrys ofcial ties with the Greek Diaspora).
It is obvious that contemporary democratic states are often ofcially
non-neutral in matters of religion and, moreover, that ofcial and sym-
bolic links to a religion regularly refect a certain notion of national identity
rather than religiosity as such. Tere is, then, nothing extraordinary about
a nation-state of a people whose history and culture strongly connect it to
a certain religion. Tis connection, apart from being a fact of cultural and
social life, can also be enshrined in a countrys constitution and embodied
in its national symbols. Tough it may seem counter-intuitive, all this is
compatible with the country in question being secular not just in practice
but also as a matter of constitutional defnitions, and with an ofcial separa-
tion between state and religious institutions. On the other hand, in some
contemporary democracies there is no institutional separation between
church and state (while the religious freedom and equality of all citizens
is ensured in theory and in practice). Where this separation exists it is
interpreted very diferently in diferent places.
Tus in France, this separation does not preclude the direct fnancing
of religious schools by the state; in America, this is unacceptable. On the
other hand, in France a religious marriage cannot legally take place prior
to a civil one; in America, ministers of religions are authorized by state
authorities to perform marriages. In America, it is part of American civic
culture and identity that belief in God is publicly and ofcially expressed in
a way that would be quite unacceptable in France. Subject to certain basic
democratic principles, a great variety of solutions exists to the question of
the relations between state, religion, and national identity.
THE ISRAELI CASE:
NATIONAL IDENTITY, RELIGION, STATE
Te connection between Jewish peoplehood and the Jewish religion is a
hallmark of Jewish history and culture. While this case can and should
be compared to others, one should not overlook the diference between a
national church and a national religiona religion which is, avowedly, the
(traditional) culture of a particular people. Tis does not necessarily mean
that the modern nation-state of the Jewish people must confer an ofcial
status on the institutions of the Jewish religion. Tis is, and has always been,
one of the most hotly debated issues in Israeli public life.
Te Zionist movement, like many other national movements, had
from the outset a strong modernizing and secularizing streak and its rela-
tions with the traditional Jewish religion were far from easy. However,
Israel had no Ataturk who could impose from above a secular order on
a traditional population. Labor Zionism had to operate, in the frst years
and decades of Israels independence that shaped the status quo on those
issues, in a multi-party parliamentary democracy with strict proportional
representation, always ruled by coalition governments.
When the State was established, the secular forces were strong enough
to ensure that God is not mentioned explicitly in Israels Declaration of
Independence (contrary to what is usual for such documents). Within
a few years, the make-up of Israels population was radically changed by
massive immigration from countries of the Middle East and from Europe
(mainly by Holocaust survivors); both groups were more traditional than
the majority of the pre-state Jewish population of the country. Te status
quo refects a compromise between the diferent forces in Israeli society. It
is not set in stone, but liable to be eroded in favor of either side; contrary
to what is often claimed, in recent decades it has been eroded in favor of
the secular side more than the Orthodox one.
An institutional separation of religion and state, should this solution
be adopted in Israel, would in no way preclude the State from ofcial
and symbolic acknowledgement of the link between Judaism as a reli-
gion and tradition and Jewish-Israeli culture and national identity. Te
main signifcance of this link is of course social and cultural rather than a
matter of ofcial defnitions; the Jewish character of the State, ofcially and
unofcially, is a refection of the Jewish character of its Hebrew-speaking
society. An institutional separation would not make Israel any less of a
Jewish nation-state. Moreover, Israel would still be a Jewish nation-state if
it did not ofcially acknowledge any cultural debt to Judaism, and even if
238 |
it decided to outlaw and persecute the Jewish religion. In the latter case, of
course, it would not be a democracy, but nonetheless it would be a Jewish
state, refecting the (rather unsavory, under that scenario) character of its
Jewish majority population.
On the other hand, an institutional connection between religion and
statewhether one thinks that it is a good idea generally and in the spe-
cifc Israeli casedoes not, in and of itself, violate any internationally
accepted democratic norm (contrary to what is sometimes claimed and
often assumed). Moreover, connection as well as separation are mere
general headlines; a great variety of practical solutions is compatible with
both of them. A Jewish state can be democratic or undemocratic, more
democratic or less democraticas any other nation-state; there is nothing
essentially undemocratic about it because of the connection between Jewish
national identity and Jewish religion.
Te real-life Israel is a complex and often paradoxical mix of ultra-
orthodoxy, super-modernity, and everything in between. Overall, as a soci-
ety, it is more religious than Europe but less religious than America. It is very
far from being (or moving in the direction of becoming) a semi-theocracy,
as is sometimes claimed. Semi-theocracies do not hold gay pride parades
certainly Middle Eastern semi-theocracies do not. On the other hand, no
Western-type democracy has a system of religious courts ( Jewish and non-
Jewish) with exclusive jurisdiction over matters of personal status.11 Tis
particular uniqueness is not at all to be celebratedit is clear violation
of liberal-democratic norms. Various creative ways of circumventing this
religious monopoly have been devised, including the Cyprus marriage
where Israeli couples marry there under local law, and return in a matter
of days to be registered by the Israeli Ministry of Interior, which is obliged
(under a Supreme Court ruling) to register them as legally married. Tis is
obviously not enough: full-fedged legislative reform in this feld, providing
for civil marriage and divorce, is required.
In recent decades while coalition politics often favored the religious
parties, other and much stronger forces made Israel more modern, more
Western, and more liberal in many felds. Te Sabbath observance in the
public sphere has been greatly eroded (for much the same social and eco-
nomic reasons that encouraged Sunday shopping in many Western coun-
tries). Non-kosher restaurants and shops have mushroomed throughout
the country. What is celebrated in the gay pride parades and protected by
liberal judicial rulings on the rights of same-sex couples was in the eighties
still a criminal ofence (not that the law was ever enforced).
Tis change, of course, is part of the general tendency which has pre-
vailed throughout the Western world; but it is far from trivial that Israel is
part of that world and of that tendency. When Israeli state televisionthe
sole channel at the timewas inaugurated in 1968, Golda Meirs Labor
government ruled that broadcasts should be interrupted for the duration of
the Jewish Sabbath. Tat decision was overturned on appeal by the Supreme
Court. With todays multi-channel TV, even successfully imposing Sabbath
observance on the state channel would have been quite pointless.
Te Orthodox establishment has lost the symbolically important
(though marginal in practice) argument over who is a Jew for the purpose
of the Law of Returnand hence, over its claim to defne the boundaries
of the Jewish people: non-Orthodox converts who come to Israel are recog-
nized as Jews (the argument is now over the status of non-Orthodox con-
versions carried out in Israel). More importantly, since the Law of Return
applies also to non-Jewish relatives of Jews coming to Israel, great numbers
of such people have come from the former Soviet Union (where the per-
centage of mixed marriages among Jews was very high). Tey received Israeli
citizenship and the bulk of them are successfully integrating, socially and
culturally, in the Hebrew-speaking Jewish Israeli society, fully identifying
with the State. It is thus no longer true in practice that the only way to
join the Jewish people is through religious conversion (Orthodox or non-
Orthodox).
Te argument over the future of the territories occupied in 1967 gener-
ated the most problematic and dangerous mixture of religion and politics:
the view that withdrawing from any part of the historical land of Israel is
not just ill-advised but a transgression against the laws of religion. Since
the early nineties, Israeli governments, including right-wing ones which
included religious parties, have repeatedly broken this alleged religious
prohibition and, under Sharon, dismantled settlements. Whether or not
one is optimistic regarding the chances for peace, only a small minority of
the Israeli right now holds onto the notion that any territorial concession
is a religious taboo.
Religious parties in Israel can still translate their political infuence into
controversial (and sometimes clearly excessive) gains and advantages for the
sector which they represent, notably by channeling public expenditure and,
as regards the ultra-Orthodox, in the shape of exemption from military
service. Teir ability to do so has actually grown in the last decades. How-
ever, the civil rights of the secular public are much better protected against
religious infuence than before, and Israeli democracy as such is certainly
not threatened by it.
240 |
DIASPORAS: GREECE AND ARMENIA
Te Jews may have contributed the term Diaspora to the international
vocabulary, but theirs is certainly not the only Diaspora in the modern
world. People migrated and borders shifted throughout history. Unsur-
prisingly, not a few contemporary states regard themselves as connected,
in some way, with populations beyond their borders. Te two most salient
examples of Diaspora peoples and Diaspora nationalism, besides the Jews,
are the Greeks and the Armenians.12
What distinguished the Jewish case was that almost the entire people
were in the Diaspora, with only a small Jewish community in the historic
homeland, at the moment when the Jewish national movement emerged;
the nation-state was therefore created by the Diaspora. Tis is only one of
the historic and cultural reasons for the particularly close ties between the
State, after its establishment, and the Diaspora. Te Diaspora also played an
important role in Greek and Armenian history, and both these states attach
great importance to homeland-Diaspora ties. A large number of Greeks and
most Armenians live in the Diaspora today.
A conservative estimate puts the number of Greeks outside Greece at
about three million. Many of these are descendants of emigrants from the
modern Greek state, but many others hail from ancient Greek communi-
ties both inside and outside of what is now Greece. Teir connection with
Greece is no diferent, in principle than the Jews connection with Judea.
Both categories alike (as well as the Greeks of Cyprus) are ofcially regarded
as part of the Greek (Hellenic) nation. According to Article 108 of the
Constitution of Greece, Te State shall be concerned with those Greeks
who live abroad and the maintenance of their links with the Motherland.
Tese links are maintained by the State through the General Secretariat
for the Hellenic Diasporaan ofcial institution the likes of which exist
in most countries with an acknowledged kin-minority abroadboth to
assist overseas Greeks in such areas as language, culture, and education, and
to mobilize their political support when needed (for example, on the issue
of Cyprus and during the confict with Macedonia).
Under Article 6 of the Greek Law of Citizenship, If a foreign citizen
is not of Greek ethnic extraction, he must have resided in Greece for eight
years . . . before applying for Greek citizenship. Tus, ethnic Greeks who
immigrate to Greece are privileged by exempting them from the require-
ment of eight years of residence demanded of all other foreign citizens
whoseeknaturalization.Inaddition,sections12and13ofthelawconfer
automatic Greek citizenship on ethnic overseas Greeks who volunteer for
military service in the Greek armed forces. In practice, the ofcial policy
is to bestow Greek citizenship on ethnic Greeks in what amounts to an
automatic fashion.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of its successor
republics to emigration, some 200,000 ethnic Greeks from those countries
have arrived in Greece and received citizenship. Te Greek government
defnes their immigration as a return to the homelandrepatriation. Te
Pontic Greeks, as the returnees from the former USSR are called (refecting
the ancient tradition of Greek settlement on the shores of the Black Sea),
have no connection with the modern Greek state other than being part of
the Hellenic nation as perceived by it. Even the Greek that they speak, a
dialect combining modern and ancient Greek, is diferent from the modern
Greek spoken in Greece. Te massive project of resettling and absorbing
these people in Greece has largely been fnanced by the European Union.
Under Article 14 of the Armenian Constitution a person of Arme-
nian descent will obtain citizenship through a shortened procedure. It
is the policy of the Armenian Republic to award citizenship to people of
Armenian descent who request it. Te Armenian Diaspora greatly exceeds
the population of Armenia, originating mainly outside the areas that now
constitute the Republic. Te connection between these people and Arme-
nia is the same kind of ethno-cultural link (often with a strong religious
element, as is also the case with Greeks) that connects Diaspora Jews with
Israel. Today, there is no signifcant demand for Armenian citizenship, other
than among Armenian refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh. In the past, there
was a wave of repatriation to Soviet Armenia, encouraged by the Soviet gov-
ernment which appealed to overseas Armenians to immigrate to the Soviet
Armenian Republican avowed national home for the entire Armenian
people. Around 250,000 ethnic Armenians from diferent countries, many
of them refugees from Anatolia in the wake of the genocidal anti-Armenian
massacres of the First World War, settled there.
Tese eforts gained support outside the borders of the Soviet Union,
from people who were moved by the Armenian tragedy. Te renowned
humanitarian activist Fridtjof Nansen addressed the Council of the League
of Nations on this subject in 1927, urging it to support the repatriation and
settlement of Armenians in the Soviet Armenia, describing the plight of the
Armenian people and nature of their connection with Armenia:
I beg [you] to think for a moment what the history of the Armenian people
has been . . . [N]o people in recorded history have endured misery and mal-
treatment in any way comparable to that through which the Armenians have
242 |
passed. . . . I would not care to describe the nerve-shattering terror and the
nameless infamy of the appalling pilgrimage of death which the historians
will call deportations, when innocent victimsmen, women, greybeards,
and tiny childrenperished. . . . by hundreds of thousands, and with every
circumstance of savage torture. . . . Here was a people with intense national
feeling, with a remarkable history of achievement in bygone days, with fnest
gifts of intellect and practical capacity, a people who had made . . . a great
contribution to the medieval culture from which our modern civilization is
in so great a part derivedin a few years almost wiped out or scattered to the
winds. And yet the surviving remnant of this people, with a tenacity and a
national patriotism which no one can sufciently admire, is now making with
desperate courage another valiant attempt to build up a new national home.
Te Republic of Erivan is nothing less than that to Armenians of every class
and every party in whatever land they may now be. . . . the land at the foot
of the eternal snows of Ararat, as the place where the destiny of their nation
must in future lie.13
DIASPORAS AND KIN-MINORITIES
OTHER EXAMPLES; ISRAEL
Te Irish Diaspora is more closely connected with what today is the Irish
Republic. Nevertheless, it does not consist solely, or mainly, of descendants
of its citizens who left the country. Te massive emigration from Ireland
started in the 19th century. It included, naturally, people from what today
is Northern Ireland, which is not a part of the Republic (but whose inhabit-
ants are proclaimed part of the Irish Nation by the Republics Constitution
and given the right of citizenship by lawrefecting the ofcial notion
of Irish nationhood and the ideal of unifcation). Tere are now tens of
millions of people with Irish ancestry in the United States. Most of them
cannot of course be described as Irish in any strong sense; but there have
been, over time, numerous examples of active and passionate involvement
in Irish afairs on the part of Irish Americans that are best described as
displays of Irish Diaspora nationalism.14
Most countries with a Diaspora or a kin minority abroad ofcially
defne their members as part of their nation or peopleas Greeks or
Armenians or Poles or Italians15 or Hungarians or Germans or Slovenians
or Slovaks or Albanians or Finns or Koreans or Chinese or Indians living
outside the homeland. Te Irish Constitution uses a more circumspect
language: the Irish nation cherishes its special afnity with people of Irish
ancestry living abroad who share its cultural identity and heritage (Article
2). Section 16 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act empowers the
Minister for Justice to grant an exemption from the ordinary prerequisites
for naturalization . . . where the applicant is of Irish descent or Irish asso-
ciations. In practice, Irish policy has been to confer citizenship upon appli-
cants of Irish descent without delay. In recent decades, with the growth of
the Irish economy, many have acquired citizenship through the provisions
of this section of the law. Generally, these were descendants of Irish citizens
who emigrated in the course of the twentieth century. However, a person of
Irish descent may also be the descendant of someone who had left Ireland
before the modern Irish State came into being in 1921, or someone who
emigrated from Northern Ireland.
Finland defnes as repatriation the immigration of ethnic Finns from
the former USSR. In November 1997 it submitted to the UN a report on
the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Te report deals mainly with the rights
of immigrants in Finland. A chapter in the report is devoted to Finnish
repatriates from Russia and Estonia; these, according to the document, are
. . . descendants of Finns who emigrated to Ingria and St. Petersburg in the
17th, 18th, and 19th centuries and are customarily called Ingrian Finns.16
In 1996 the Foreigners Law was amended to confer residency status on
ethnic Finns who come to Finland from the former USSR.17 Tis is not a
large group: as of 1997, about 15,000 Ingrian Finns were repatriated and
granted a status facilitating their naturalization.
It should be noted that Finland, though it has a substantial Swedish-
speaking minority, has adopted what is usually defned as a civic model
of national identity, i.e., one which is presumed to be shared by all of the
countrys citizens. Tus, Swedish-speakers are not regarded as a national
minority; rather, the Finnish people are considered as consisting of two
componentsFinnish-speaking and Swedish-speaking.
Nevertheless, the country regards itself as responsible for the fate of
ethnic Finns who live in Russia and Estonia, descendants of seventeenth-
and eighteenth-century emigrants from the land which only generations
later became the Finish Republic.18 Finland both assists the Ingrian Finns
in preserving their ethno-cultural identity in their countries of residence
and defnes their immigration as a return to the homeland. Te example
of Finland shows that an inclusive civic concept of national identity within
the country is compatible with maintaining ofcial ties with an ethno-
cultural Diaspora. Tere are those who insist that the only acceptable
notion of national identity in a modern civic democracy is the one that is
244 |
fully congruous with state citizenship. Whatever the theoretical merits and
demerits of this view, it clearly contradicts the prevailing European norms
as regards both kin-minorities abroad and national minorities at home
(largely two sides of the same coin). And it should be born in mind that
European norms on democracy and human rights have teeth in the shape
of European institutions that enforce them, including the Human Rights
Court in Strasburg; this applies also to the new democracies in East Europe
whose Constitutions and laws come under close scrutiny.
In Poland Article 6 of the Constitution states that the Republic . . .
shall provide assistance to Poles living abroad to maintain their links with
the national cultural heritage; the preamble speaks of the Polish nation
bound in community with our compatriots dispersed throughout the
world. According to Article 52, Anyone whose Polish origin has been
confrmed in accordance with statute may settle permanently in Poland.
Te Polish Diaspora numbers in the millions, the result of both emigra-
tion and exile, as well as the drastic changes in the borders of the Polish
State in the course of history. Te State actively cultivates its ties with the
Diaspora; ofcial rhetoric defnes it as an integral part of the nation. In
January 2000, the Polish parliament enacted a Repatriation Law directed
mainly at people of Polish origin living in the former USSR, some of them
the children or grandchildren of Polish citizens who went or were sent to
distant regions in the course of the turbulent twentieth century. Others are
descendants of Polish emigrants or Polish minorities from earlier periods
(before the existence of the modern Polish State). Both categories are enti-
tled to citizenship provided that they have preserved their Polish cultural
identity. Te law grants such returnees Polish citizenship and requires the
government to assist them in their integration into Polish society.
Te issue of ofcial ties between European nation-states and their
kin-minorities abroad has been comprehensively examined in a report
of the European Commission for Democracy through Lawan advisory
body of the Council of Europe better known as the Venice Commis-
sion. Tis committee of legal experts was established to assist countries
in adopting constitutional laws that conform to the standards of Europes
constitutional heritage. Tis examination was prompted by a Hungarian
law that conferred certain economic privileges on ethnic Hungarians who
are citizens of neighboring states, notably Romania. Romania complained
to the Venice Commission, asserting that this law infringed its sovereignty
by selectively conferring privileges on Romanian citizens without prior
agreement of their government and creating inequality between them.
While objecting to the terms of the law, Romania did not dispute,
in principle, the legitimacy of such cross-border ties: its own Constitu-
tion states that Te State shall support the strengthening of links with
the Romanians living abroad and shall act accordingly for the preserva-
tion development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and
religious identity under observance of the legislation of the State of which
theyarecitizens(Article7).TisprovisionisparalleltoArticle6.3ofthe
Constitution of Hungary, according to which, Te Republic of Hungary
bears a sense of responsibility for the fate of Hungarians living outside its
borders and shall promote and foster their relations with Hungary.
Te Commissions detailed report in response to this complaint, sub-
mitted in October 2001,19 notes that Te concern of the kin-States for
the fate of the persons belonging to their national communities (hereinafter
referred to as kin-minorities) who are citizens of other countries (the
home-States) and reside abroad is not a new phenomenon in international
law (A). Te report notes favorably the growing tendency of kin-States to
concern themselves with the protection of the rights of kin-minorities
mainly by means of bilateral agreements with home-States. Te Commis-
sion cites the agreements signed in recent years between various Eastern
European countries and between those countries and Germany, and recalls
the 1969 agreements between Italy and Austria which secured the rights of
the German-speaking minority in Tyrol.
European normative documents, including the Framework Conven-
tion for the Protection of National Minorities, encourage countries to nego-
tiate arrangements regarding protection of the status of national minorities.
One might add, as an additional example, the 1955 Bonn and Copenhagen
agreement (exchange of ofcial declarations) between Germany and Den-
mark that protects the cultural and language rights of Danes living in north-
ern Germany and Germans living in southern Denmark, and guarantees,
among other things, the right of members of both groups to be considered
as belonging to the Danish and the German people, respectively, without
damage to their civic status.
While bilateral arrangements dealing with the status of kin-minorities
are a well-established European norm, the Venice Commission holds that
when states confer benefts on their kin in a foreign country unilaterally,
care should be taken not to infringe that countrys sovereignty and not to
create economic inequalities among its citizens. Hence, while benefts in the
feld of education and culture are legitimate, benefts in other felds should
be restricted to exceptional cases when the aim is genuinely to foster the
246 |
bond between the state and its kin-minority (rather than simply improving
their material conditions).
Preference in immigration and naturalization is mentioned in the
report briefy as an example of legitimate preference: Indeed, the ethnic
targeting is commonly done, for example, in laws on citizenship. By way
of illustration, the Commission refers to Article 116 of the German Consti-
tutiona well-known example of repatriation legislation based on ethno-
cultural afliation rather than on a prior civic connection with the country.
In the 1950s Germany expanded the right to automatic citizenship, which
its Constitution provides for refugees and displaced persons of German
ethnic origin (a refugee or expellee of German ethnic origin or the spouse
or descendant of such person) to all ethnic Germans from the USSR and
Eastern Europe. Tis applied to a large population of ethnic Germans living
in those areas for hundreds of years. Following the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the law was revised so that eligibility for citizenship was limited to
emigrants from the former Soviet Union. Germanys current policy toward
ethnic Germans in other Eastern European states is to encourage them to
remain where they are and to assist them in preserving their German culture
and identity. Tis, rather than encouragement of immigration, is also the
policy of most other kin-States.
Tose who criticize Israels Law of Return are often aware of the
German case; sometimes they point to the irony of the similarity between
the Jewish State and Germany on this matter. Of course, the Federal Repub-
lic of Germany is a full-fedged liberal democracy. Te attempt to fnd fault
with the Law of Return because of its similarity to the repatriation laws of
the Federal Republic, hinting at Germanys dark past, is sheer demagoguery;
nor, as we have seen, is Germanys case the sole existing parallel. Since its
enactment half a century ago, the German repatriation legislation under
which citizenship was granted (along with considerable fnancial benefts)
to millions of people has never been challenged in the European Court
of Human Rights. Tis is not surprising given that in international law, a
sovereign state has wide latitude as regards its policies on immigration and
naturalization.
Tis principle is specifcally recognized by the International Conven-
tion on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) which
broadly forbids any discrimination based on race, ethnicity, or religion.
Article1(3)oftheConventionstatesthat[n]othinginthisConvention
may be interpreted as afecting in any way the legal provisions of States
Parties concerning nationality, citizenship or naturalization, provided that
such provisions do not discriminate against any particular nationality.
Tis provision, which should of course be understood as relating to the
citizenship being conferred on immigrants, rather than to people entitled
to citizenship as of right, allows the state to give foreign citizens preferen-
tial treatment as regards naturalization at its discretion, but forbids it to
single out a certain group (based on ethnicity or religion) by placing it in
an inferior position in this respect.
Not every kind of preference in this feld is compatible with current
standards of human rights. Australias whites only immigration policy was
still considered legitimate in the 1970s; today it would surely be regarded
as discriminatory, i.e., directed in practice against non-whites rather than
in favor of any specifc group with a genuine connection to Australia. For
a state established as a national home for the Jewish people it is not only
legitimate but natural to open its gates to Jews from other countries
whether its connection with them should be defned as national, trans-
national, ethno-cultural or in some other way (a hotly debated issue of
little, if any, practical consequence). Tis is exactly what was envisaged by
the international community in 1947 when it decided to partition Palestine
into a Jewish state and an Arab state.
Te issue of Jewish immigration features prominently in the report pro-
duced by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP)
which examined the question of Palestine and adopted the Partition Plan
that was eventually approved by the General Assembly on November 29,
1947. Te majority supported granting independence, in the shape of two
nation-states, to both peoples living in the country. Te minority report
suggested a single federative Arab-Jewish state, which had the advantage
of avoiding the inconveniences inherent in any territorial division. Te
Arab side rejected both options, demanding a unitary Arab state, while the
Jewish side accepted partition. Te majority report holds that the issue of
immigration necessitates a two-state solution:20
Jewish immigration is the central issue in Palestine today and is the one
factor, above all others, that rules out the necessary co-operation between
the Arab and Jewish communities in a single State. Te creation of a Jewish
State under a partition scheme is the only hope of removing this issue from
the arena of confict.
It is recognized that partition has been strongly opposed by Arabs, but it is
felt that that opposition would be lessened by a solution which defnitively
fxes the extent of territory to be allotted to the Jews with its implicit limita-
tion on immigration . . . A partition scheme for Palestine must take into
account both the claims of the Jews to receive immigrants and the needs of
248 |
the Arab population, which is increasing rapidly by natural means. Tus, as
far as possible, both partitioned States must leave some room for further land
settlement. Te proposed Jewish State leaves considerable room for further
development and land settlement and, in meeting this need to the extent
that it has been met in these proposals, a very substantial minority of Arabs
is included in the Jewish State.
Te Committee proposed turning the question of Jewish immigra-
tion into an internal afair of the Jewish state comprising one part of the
country (thus removing this issue from the arena of confict) alongside
which would be an Arab state whose citizens would be free from the fear
that uncontrolled Jewish immigration would eventually turn them into a
minority in their own country. On the other hand, the claims of the Jews
to receive immigrants were, in the eyes of the Committee, weighty enough
to justify allotting to the Jewish state a larger part of Palestine than would
have refected the existing ratio between the countrys Arab and Jewish
communities in 1947. In order to leave room for Jewish immigration, the
UNSCOP members were willing to increase the size of the Arab minority
in the future Jewish statealthough their general policy was to place both
national communities, as far as possible, in their respective national states.
Tey saw no contradiction between their support for a Jewish state (open
to Jewish immigration) and their demand, in the report, that the large Arab
minority in this state should enjoy full civil equalityany more than they
saw a contradiction between their proposal to establish an Arab state and
their demand that it, too, should ensure equal rights to the small Jewish
minority in its midst (and to other non-Arab citizens). Today, as a result of
the confict that followed their rejection of Partition, the Palestinian Arabs
too are a people with a Diaspora. Nobody doubts that the future Palestin-
ian state will maintain links with this Diaspora, and will have a national
repatriation law.
Te Jewish-Israeli case is certainly unique in important ways. It is not,
however, unique in being unique. Other peoples and nation-states have
characteristics, in both the areas examined in this paper as well as, no doubt,
in others that are distinct in each particular case and, at the same time, have
enough in common to make comparisons proftable.
Notes
On religion and state in contemporary Europe, see John T. S. Madeley 1.
and Zsolt Enyedi (eds), Church and State in Contemporary Europe: Te Chimera of
Neutrality(London/Portland,2003);GerhardRobbers(ed),State and Church in
the European Union (Baden-Baden, Germany, 2005).
sub voce Ireland, in 2. Encyclopedia Americana, International Edition, vol.
15 (Danbury, CT, 1985) 428.
In 2002, in response to a petition by an avowed atheist, a federal court ruled 3.
that the mention of God at the recitation of the pledge of allegiance in his sons
school was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Tis decision (an appeal
against which has been making its way to the Supreme Court) has prompted
both Houses of Congress to pass strongly-worded resolutions condemning the
courts decision as an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution, urging the
Supreme Court to overrule it, and afrming that Te pledge of allegiance at
public schools is entirely consistent with our American heritage of reinforcing our
commitment to the Nation and seeking Divine guidance and protection in all
ourundertakings.109thCongress,1stSession,H.Con.Res.253,http://www.
undergodprocon.org/pop/congress.htm#7 (20012007 Congressional Actions on
the Pledge of Allegiance).
For an account of the controversy over the status of the Catholic Church in 4.
Poland in the 1990s, see Sabrina T. Ramet, Whose Democracy? Nationalism, Religion,
and the Doctrine of Collective Rights in Post1989 Eastern Europe (Oxford, 1997)
97110. Inter alia, the issues have included abortions, a law requiring public broad-
casting to respect Christian values, the tax exemption given to Church property,
and the struggle over the extent of the Churchs control of religious instruction at
State schools (including the appointment of priests as religious education teachers
whose wages would be paid by the State).
On church and state in post-Communist East Europe, see Silvio Ferrari, W. 5.
Cole Durham, Jr., Elizabeth A. Sewell (eds), Law and Religion in Post-Communist
Europe(Leuven,Belgium,2003).
AccordingtoArticle3(1)oftheConstitutionofSpain(anothercountryin 6.
which the language of the state is not a banal matter) Castilian is the ofcial
Spanish language of the state. All Spaniards have the duty to know it and the right
to use it.
Opinionn.313/2004,EuropeanCommissionfordemocracythroughlaw 7.
(Venice Commission). Final Opinion on constitutional reform in the Republic of
Armenia, adopted at the 64th Plenary Session, Venice 2122 October 2005 http://
www.venice.coe.int/docs/2005/CDL-AD(2005)025-e.asp
On the case law of the European Commission and the European Court 8.
for Human Rights (into which the Commission was reorganized in the 1990s) see
Stephanos Stravos, Human Rights in Greece: Twelve Years of Supervision from
Strasbourg, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 17.1 (1999) 79; Nicos C. Aliviziatos,
250 |
A New Role for the Greek Church? Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 17.1 (1999)
26,35n14.
See http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/01/italys-crucifix- 9.
controversy-schools-the-state-and-the-sacred
European secularism is obviously even more non-neutral from the view- 10.
point of traditionally-minded Muslims than European (semi-)ofcial (post-)
Christianityfor all that it is sometimes justifed by a rhetoric of neutrality. Te
French law against wearing the Moslem veil in public schools is a case in point.
Te report of the Stasi Commission, which recommended the ban, describes the
French notion of lacit as constitutive de notre histoire collective and states that
it is based, among other things, on the neutralit du pouvoir politique. See http://
www.fl-info-france.com/actualites-monde/rapport-stasi-commission-laicite.htm
In Greece, civil marriage and divorce were introduced in 1982, over the 11.
objections of the Orthodox Church (the law allowing teachers not afliated with
the Orthodox Church to teach in primary schools was adopted in 1988). Te ban
on divorce in Italy and in Ireland, under the infuence of the Catholic Church,
can be considered as an anomaly comparable to the Israeli one. Te former was
abolished by a popular referendum in 1974, the latteras late as 1995.
See Anthony D. Smith, 12. Myths and Memories of the Nation (Oxford, 1999)
212213;JohnRex,Ethnic Minorities in the Modern Nation State (New York, 1996).
E. E. Reynolds, 13. Nansen (London, 1949) 265266.
On the American ethnic diasporas impact on the US foreign policy and 14.
their involvement in the afairs of old countries, see Yossi Shain, Ethnic diasporas
and U.S. foreign policy, Political Science Quarterly, 109 (1994) 811841; Yossi Shain,
Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and Teir Homelands
(New York, 1999).
See the 2000 Law on the Measures in Favor of the Italian Minority in 15.
Slovenia and Croatia, mentioned in the report of the Venice Commission (see
note 19 below).
Te Combined 13th and 14th periodic report of the Government of Fin- 16.
land on the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (1997) http://formin.fnland.f/doc/fn/ihmisoik/ihmisoic.html
A permit for residency may be granted 1. if the applicant himself, one of 17.
his parents or at least two of his four grandparents are or have been registered as
having Finnish origin, or 2. if there is another tie that shows the applicants afnity
to Finland and Finnishness, but he has no documents to show that he meets the
requirements mentioned in point 1.
See Anne de Tinguy, Ethnic migrations from and to the new independent 18.
states following political changes in Eastern and Central Europe: repatriation or
privileged Immigration? May 2022, 1999, http://www.demographie.de/ethnic/
papers/tinguy.pdf
Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law), 19.
Report on the Preferential Treatment of National Minorities by their Kin-State,
adopted by the Venice Commission at its 48th Plenary Meeting, Venice, 1920
October 2001, http://venice.coe.int/docs/2001/CDL- INF(2001) 019-e.html
United Nations, Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), Chapter VI, 20.
PartI,Articles19;ChapterIV,PartII,Articles3and5.
12. Ruth Gavison, Te Jewish State, A Justifcation
252 |
254 |
256 |
258 |
260 |
262 |
264 |
266 |
268 |
270 |
272 |
274 |
276 |
278 |
280 |
282 |
284 |
13. Menachem Lorberbaum, Religion and State in Israel
286 |
288 |
290 |
292 |
294 |
296 |
298 |
Religious Pluralism and Human Rights
8
I Religious Pluralism
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Eruvin 13b 1. pg. 155
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Rosh Hashana 14b 2. pg. 155
Tosefta Yevamot 1:10 3. pg. 155
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 13b-14a 4. pg. 155
II Minority Rights
Leviticus 19:33-34 5. pg. 155
Jonah 3:1-10 7. pg. 155
Amos 9:7-15 8. pg. 155
Meiri, Baba Kama 113a-b 9. pg. 155
David Ben Gurion, National Autonomy and 10.
Neighborly Relations, 1926 pg. 155
Zeev Jabotinsky on Arab Minority National and 11.
Civil Rights, 1923 pg. 155
Background Reading
David Ben Gurion on Land Use and Arab Settlements, 12.
1916 pg. 155
David Ben Gurion on the Israeli Arab as a Bridge to Peace, 13.
1957 pg. 155
Chaim Baram, 14. Kol HaIr, Jerusalem, April 25, 2001 pg. 155
Venice Commission on Democracy through Law of the 15.
European Union, 2001 pg. 155
Israeli High Court 1113/99 16. Adallah v. Minister of Religious
Afairs (2001) pg. 155
Mohammed Dahle, Head of Adallah, Center for Arab 17.
Lecture 8 Religious Pluralism and Human Rights | 299
Legal Rights in Israel pg. 155
Azmi Bishara, Member of Knesset, interview in 18. Haaretz,
May 1998 pg. 155
David Hartman, Israels Responsibility for World Jewry: 19.
Refections on Debate about the Conversion Law,
A Heart of Many Rooms pg. 155
Moshe Halbertal, Human Rights and Membership 20.
Rights in the Jewish Tradition pg. 155
300 |
I Religious Pluralism
1. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Eruvin 13b
R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and
Beit Hillel, the former asserting: the halachah is in agreement with our views, and the latter contending:
the halachah is in agreement with our views. Then a bat kol issued announcing: [The utterances of ]
both are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel.
Since, however, both are the words of the living God, what was it that entitled Beit Hillel to have the
halachah fxed in agreement with their rulings? Because they were kindly and modest, they studied their
own rulings and those of Beit Shammai, and were even so [humble] as to mention the actions of Beit
Shammai before theirs.
, :
. , : .
. , -
, : .
: .
. ,
, . : ? )( :
, - . ,
- , - . -
.
2. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Rosh Hashana 14b
As a general principle, the halachah follows Beit Hillel. If one prefers, however, to adopt the rule of Beit
Shammai, he may do so, and if he desires to adopt the rule of Beit Hillel he may do so. One, however, who
adopts the more lenient rulings of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel [on the same subject] is a bad man,
while to one who adopts the more stringent rulings of both Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel may be applied
the verse, But the fool walketh in darkness. No; either one must follow Beit Shammai both where they are
more severe and more lenient or Beit Hillel both where they are more severe and more lenient?
. - , - .
. + + - , -
! , :
3. Tosefa Yevamot 1:10
Even though Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed concerning the co-wives, concerning sisters,
concerning the married woman, concerning a superannuated writ of divorce, concerning the one who
betrothes a woman with something of the value of a perutah, and concerning the one who divorces his
wife and spends the night with her in an inn, Beit Shammai did not refrain from taking wives among the
women of Beit Hillel, and Beit Hillel from Beit Shammai. But they behaved toward one another truthfully
and there was peace between them, since it is said: They loved truth and peace.

.
4. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yevamot 13b-14a
The Scroll of Esther is read on the eleventh, the twelfth, the thirteenth, the fourteenth or the ffteenth
[of Adar] but not earlier or later. Said Resh Lakish to R. Johanan: Apply here the text of Lo tithgodedu, you
shall not form separate sects! (Is not Lo tithgodedu required for its own context, the All Merciful having
said, You shall not infict upon yourselves any bruise for the dead? If so, Scripture should have said, Lo
tithgodedu, why did it say Lo tithgodedu? Hence it must be inferred that its object was this. Might it not
then be suggested that the entire text refers to this only? If so, Scripture should have said, Lo thagodu;
why did it say Lo tithgodedu? Hence the two deductions.) The former answered: Have you not yet
learned, Wherever it is customary to do manual labour on the Passover Eve until midday it may be done;
wherever it is customary not to do any work it may not be done? The frst said to him: I am speaking
to you of a prohibition, for R. Shaman b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture having said, To
confrm these days of Purim in their appointed times, the Sages have ordained for them diferent times,
and you speak to me of a custom! But is there no prohibition there? Surely we learned, Beit Shammai
prohibit work during the night and Beit Hillel permit it! The other said to him: In that case, anyone seeing
[a man abstaining from work] would suppose him to be out of work. But do not Beit Shammai permit the
rivals to the other brothers and Beit Hillel forbid them!
Do you imagine that Beit Shammai acted in accordance with their views? Beit Shammai did not
act in accordance with their views.
302 |
R. Johanan, however, said: They certainly acted [in accordance with their views]. Herein they difer on the
same point as do Rab and Samuel. For Rab maintains that Beit Shammai did not act in accordance with
their views, while Samuel maintains that they certainly did act [in accordance with their views]. When? If
it be suggested, prior to the decision of the heavenly voice, then what reason has he who maintains that
they did not act [in accordance with their own view]? If, however, after the decision of the heavenly voice,
what reason has he who maintains that they did act [in accordance with their views]? If you wish I could
say, prior to the decision of the heavenly voice; and if you prefer I could say, after the heavenly voice. If
you wish I could say, prior to the heavenly voice, when, for instance, Beit Hillel were in the majority: One
maintains that they did not act [according to their view] for the obvious reason that Beit Hillel were in
the majority; while the other maintains that they did act [according to their view, because] a majority
is to be followed only where both sides are equally matched; in this case, however, Beit Shammai were
keener of intellect. And if you prefer I could say, after the heavenly voice; one maintains that they did not
act [according to their view] for the obvious reason that the heavenly voice had already gone forth; while
the other who maintains that they did act [according to their view] is [of the same opinion as] R. Joshua
who declared that no regard need be paid to a heavenly voice.
Now as to the other who maintains that they did act [according to their views] should not the warning, Lo
tithgodedu, you shall not form separate sects be applied? Abaye replied: The warning against opposing
sects is only applicable to such a case as that of two courts of law in the same town, one of whom rules
in accordance with the views of Beit Shammai while the other rules in accordance with the views of Beit
Hillel. In the case, however, of two courts of law in two diferent towns [the diference in practice] does
not matter. Said Raba to him: Surely the case of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel is like that of two courts of
law in the same town! The fact, however, is, said Raba, that the warning against opposing sects is only
applicable to such a case as that of one court of law in the same town, half of which rule in accordance
with the views of Beit Shammai while the other half rule in accordance with the views of Beit Hillel. In the
case, however, of two courts of law in the same town [the diference in practice] does not matter.
. , , , , , :
, . , : ,
. ? , , ! :
, . ? , , ! :
: ? - , - :
- : ,
! , - )( : ? .
! , . , :
: ,] [ . : . ?
? , ? . : ,
. : , : ? ,
, - , ; , , ,
, , ; , , .
: ! , : , . :
, , -
: ! : . -
, , -
. -
II Minority Rights
,
, : , - --
.
Lord am your God.
, , , -
.
12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the
Lord your God has commanded you.
. - , 13 Six days shall you labor and do all your work,
- : , -- ,
- -
-- , -
. ,
14 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your
God; you shall not do any work, you, your son or
your daughter, your male or female slave, your ox
or your ass, or any of your catle, or the stranger
in your setlements, so that your male and female
slaves may rest as well as you do.
, ,
, , - ; ,
. - ,
15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of
Egypt and the Lord your God freed you from
there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm;
therefore the Lord your God has commanded you
to observe the sabbath day.
7. Jonah 3:1-10
. , - - 1 Te word of the Lord came to Jonah a second
time:
- ; , -
. ,
2 Go at once to Nineveh, that great city, and
proclaim to it what I tell you.
, ; -- - ,
. , -- -
3 Jonah went at once to Nineveh in accordance with
the Lords command. Nineveh was an enormously
large city, a three days walk across.
, , ; ,
. ,
4 Jonah started out and made his way into the city the
distance of one days walk, and proclaimed: Forty
days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.
- ; ,
. - ,
5 Te people of Nineveh believed God. Tey
proclaimed a fast, and great and small alike put on
sackcloth.
, , - ,
. - , ;
6 When the news reached the king of Nineveh, he
rose from his throne, took of his robe, put on
sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
304 |
: , , ,
-- - ,
. - , -
7 And he had the word cried through Nineveh: By
the decree of the king and his nobles: No man or
beastof fock or herdshall taste anything! Tey
shall not graze and they shall not drink water!
, - , ,
, - , , ;
.
8 Tey shall be covered with sackclothman and
beastand shall cry mightily to God. Let everyone
turn back from his evil ways and from the injustice
of which he is guilty.
, ; , -
.
9 Who knows but that God may turn and relent? He may
turn back from His wrath, so that we do not perish.
; - , -
-- - - - ,
.
10 God saw what they did, how they were turning
back from their evil ways. And God renounced the
punishment He had planned to bring upon them,
and did not carry it out.
8. Amos 9:7-15
: - ,
, , -
. ,
7 To Me, O Israelites, you are just like the
Ethiopiansdeclares the Lord. True, I brought
Israel up from the land of Egypt, but also the
Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from
Kir.
, ,
, : ,
. - -- -
8 Behold, the Lord God has his eye upon the sinful
kingdom: I will wipe it of the face of the earth! But,
I will not wholly wipe out the House of Jacob
declares the Lord.
- - , -
. - , ,
9 For I will give the order and shake the House of
Israelthrough all the nationsas one shakes
[sand] in a sieve and not a pebble falls to the
ground.
- , : ,
. --
10 All the sinners of My people shall perish by the
sword, who boast, Never shall the evil overtake us
or come near us.
- ; - ,
. , , ,
11 In that day I will set up again the fallen booth of
David: I will mend its breaches and set up its ruins
anew. I will build it frm as in the days of old,
- , - , -
. , - : ,
12 so that they shall possess the rest of Edom and all
the nations once atached to My namedeclares
the Lord who will bring this to pass.
, , - ,
- , ;
.
13 A time is comingdeclares the Lordwhen the
plowman shall meet the reaper, and the treader
of grapes him who hold the [bag of] seed; when
the mountains shall drip wine and all the hills shall
wave [with grain].
, - ,
, ; - ,
. -
14 I will restore My people Israel. Tey shall rebuild
ruined cities and inhabit them; they shall plant
vineyards and drink their wine; they shall till
gardens and eat their fruits.
, ; - ,
. , --
15 And I will plant them upon their soil, nevermore to
be uprooted from the soil I have given themsaid
the Lord your God.
9. Meiri, Baba Kama 113a-b
[Meiri similarly qualifes the mishnaic permission to misappropriate a non-Jews property:] If the tax
collector was of the ancient heathens, who were not bound to religious practices, if one avoided paying
him the tax, thenas long as it does not involve outright robbery or desecration of Gods namewe
need not protest this.
Similarly, if one of these [heathens] appears for litigation with an Israelite before an Israeli court, if the
judge can fnd for him according to the laws of Israelthis is well and fne. Failing that, the judge should
seek to fnd [for the Israelite] by reference to their laws and customs, and may argue: Such is your law!
But otherwise, if he is unable to fnd any argument on behalf of [the Israelite], he should rule against him
and force him to pay, lest they say: They are respecters of persons when it comes to their own.
However, with regard to those who are bound by religious practices, this does not apply. If they appear in
litigation before us, they may not be treated deviously even by the breadth of a needle; rather, let justice
bore through the mountain, whether it be for one or for the other.
We thus conclude that even the heathens and those not bound by religious practices may not be
robbed. Should an Israelite be sold to [a heathen], he may not escape without payment; nor may a loan
owed to [a heathen] be annulled. Nevertheless, one need not strive to locate and return a lost article to
him; moreover, even one who happens to fnd such an article is not obligated to return it. For fnding
constitutes a sort of acquisition, and returning [a lost object] is a pious practice; now we are not bound to
be pious toward him who has no religion. Similarly, if one [came to gain] through [a heathens] mistake,
there is no obligation to return [whatever was gained]; still, if it somehow becomes known [whatever
was gained] must be returned; this applies to a lost article as well: whenever retaining it will produce
desecration of Gods name, one must return it.
But individuals from those nations that are bound by religious practices, and worship the deity in
whatever manner, even though their faith be far from our faith, do not come under these rules. Rather,
they are like a full Israelitein all these matters, including lost articles and mistakes, and all other matters
without any distinction whatsoever.
10. David Ben Gurion, National Autonomy and Neighborly Relations, 1926
Our attitude [toward our neighbors] will be tested by our deeds, not by our words. The question is: We
who come to the Land of Israel in full consciousness and clear determination, and do not conceal our
purpose; we who come to the Land of Israel in order to resolve the question of our historical existence on
a territorial basis, what is our attitude toward the non-Jewish residents present in the land? The answer
can only be this: We demand for ourselves that which we demand for others. That which we wish others
to give unto us we are prepared to give [unto them]. There is one criterion for evaluating all attitudes,
personal and political: whether what I wish others to do unto me (both positively and negatively), I am
also prepared to do unto them. We wish that others not act unjustly toward us in exile by denying rights
and obstructing justice, and we do not want or intend to act thus in our land to others. We do not want
foreigners to rule over us and over our fate. Throughout our long history, our struggle was a war for the
survival of the Jewish people. And we, who in good faith present to the entire world the demand to
306 |
be [treated] with complete autonomy as a nation, are also obligated to put this demand to ourselves.
If [equality] obligates the entire world in its attitude to us, then it obligates us [as well]. It makes no
diference whether we are the minority and others the majority or we are the majority and others
the minority. Just relations between peoples cannot be dependent upon [this question]. This is the
fundamental assumption guiding and determining the relations between us and our Arab neighbors,
and all practical consequences are to be derived therefrom.
Putting aside the fact that we are the minority, we claim that it is our wish to live our national life
according to our own spirit and by our own strength so that we shall depend neither upon the goodwill
nor upon the arbitrariness of others. So too with regard to them. We do not accept [the claim] that the
elementary rights of peoples and of nations depends upon their situation as a minority or majority. It is
this that we have to realize frst and foremost in our own livesand perhaps this is the moral mission
of our people who are a minority in every land and even when concentrated in their own land [will]
remain a regional minority: to uproot from political and legal recognition the concept of the rule of
one people over another. Just human relations between peoples are not dependent on quantitative
power relations. This assumption is the guiding light of all our actions in the Land of Israel. This moral
recognition conditions our entire existence and undertaking in the land. Without this moral foundation
we will not endure either in the world or in the Land of Israel. We will not achieve our independence in
the Land of Israel without an enlargement of the sense of justice and equity in the world and without
there being a moral awareness of our needs in the world. In our relations with our neighbors we must
act in accordance with the moral consciousness of true Judaism, not the sham [version] in whose name
many people in circles distant from any moral life often speak. This moral foundation also follows from
the idea of justice embraced by all the advanced section of human society today. [It] is the only political
assumption that can lead us to success.
There is no doubt a cynical conception of politics. There are those who believe that politics and morality
are two separate matters. But [in truth] whoever maintains that it is possible to have a successful politics
without any moral foundation shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the essence of the
matter. No regime and no rule will endure by brute force alone. And no political claim will succeed for
long if it does not rest upon a strong moral foundation. Certainly our political movement and political
life will not last without moral content.
Our moral attitudes will not be revealed by words and declarations but by actions. We will be tested by
our actions. The test is not before others. Although that too is of political and practical signifcance, it
does not interest me at all; it is not the main issue. We must be tested before ourselves. We must have the
consciousness that what we do and aspire to do is just. Our Zionism is rooted in the consciousness that
what we aspire to in the land is just and moral.
11. Zeev Jabotinsky, on Arab Minority National and Civil Rights, 1923
We consider it a duty of honour and justice to demand for the Arab minority of the future Jewish state no
less than what we demand for the Jewish minorities of the countries of the Diaspora. The law of the Land
of Israel must guarantee the equality of citizens, languages, religions and very large degree of personal
autonomy for every group of citizens who wish for it.
Background Reading
12. David Ben Gurion, on Land Use and Arab Settlements, 1916
Their rights must not in any way and in any circumstances be infringed. It is just as unthinkable as well
as impracticable to dispossess them of their land. This is not Zionisms goal. Its true goal and its real
possibilities are not to conquer that which is already inhabited but simply to establish ourselves where
the countrys present-day inhabitants have not yet settled.
13. David Ben Gurion on the Israeli Arab as a Bridge to Peace, 1957
How the Jewish State behaves towards its citizens will be an important factoralthough not the only
onein our relationships with the Arab countries. To the extent that Arab citizens feel at home in our
state and their status in no way difers from that of their Jewish counterparts, and is perhaps better
than that of an Arab in an Arab country, and as long as the State honestly and consistently helps [the
Arab sector] to catch up with the Jewish populations standard of living in economic, social and cultural
terms, then Arab suspicions will shrink and a bridge will be built to a Jewish-Arab Semitic pact in the
Near East.
14. Chaim Baram, Kol HaIr, Jerusalem, April 25, 2001
A Jewish and democratic [state]there can be no such thing. Either it is Jewish or it is democratic.
Otherwise this is just an attempt to evade the requirements of liberal democracy by using a worn-out
gimmick. Israel is a special case. Israel can be a democratic state where most of its residents have some
awareness and some connection to their Judaism, but any other interpretation serves to discriminate
against the rights of the Arab minority.
15. Venice Commission on Democracy through Law of the European Union,
2001
The concern of the kin-States for the fate of the persons belonging to their national communities
(hereinafter referred to as kin-minorities) who are citizens of other countries (the home-States) and
reside abroad is not a new phenomenon in international law.
308 |
16. Israeli High Court 1113/99 Adallah, the Legal Center for Arab Minority
Rights v. Minister of Religious Afairs (2001)
The Israeli Supreme Court (2001) ruled, concerning budgetary discrimination against Arab municipalities,
that the state was not allocating budgets objectively in regard to Project Renewal housing, improvements
to low income families:
The principle of equality is binding on all the countrys public bodies. It is binding, above all, on the
State itself. The principle of equality applies to all areas in which the State operates. It applies, frst
and foremost, to the allocation of the States resources. The States resources, whether land or money
or other resources, belong to all citizens, and all citizens are entitled to enjoy them according to the
principle of equality, without discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, sex or any other improper
consideration. Discrimination on the basis of religion or national afliation in the allocation of the
countrys resources is forbidden even if it is done indirectly, and, a fortiori, if it is done directly.
17. Mohammed Dahle, head of Adallah, Center for Arab Legal Rights in Israel
One must understand that there is no balance of rights here. There is no balance of our right versus your
right. At the end of the day, it is the natives, not the immigrants, who have a supreme right to the
country. Those who have lived here for hundreds of years have become part of the land, just as the land
has become part of them. We are not like you. We are not strangers, we are not wanderers and we are
not migrants.
Like it or not, you are a minority in the Middle East. If you open an atlas and look at the map for a
minute, this is what you will see: 300 million Arabs all around, a billion-and-a-half Muslims. So do you
really think that you can go on hiding in this crooked structure of a Jewish state? The world will
change, the balance of forces will change, demography will change. In fact, demography is already
changing. Your only guarantee is me. I know that we Israeli Arabs are not really a minority. The concept
of being a minority is alien to Islam. It suits Judaism but is alien to Islam. And when you look around, you
see that we are not really a minority. In Israel, there is a majority that is really a minority and a minority
that is really a majority.
18. Azmi Bishara, Former Knesset Member, Interview with Ari Shavit in
Haaretz, May 1998
I do not recognize the existence of one Jewish people around the world. I think that Judaism is a religion
and not a nationality and that the Jewish public in the world does not have any national status. I do
not think that this group has any right to self-determination. I also do not think that there was a Jewish
national identity in Europe before the appearance of Zionism.
19. David Hartman, Israels Responsibility for World Jewry: Refections on
Debate about the Conversion Law, A Heart of Many Rooms
310 |
312 |
314 |
316 |
318 |
20. Moshe Halbertal, Human Rights and Membership Rights in the Jewish
Tradition
320 |
322 |
324 |
326 |
328 |
Values Nation
9
I People
A. Image of God
Genesis 1:26-28 1. pg. 329
Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5 2. pg. 329
Leviticus 19:33-34 3. pg. 329
B. Responsibility to Care for People
You Shall Not Remain Indiferent
Exodus 23:4 4. pg. 329
II Property
Leviticus 25:23 6. pg. 329
Mishnah Baba Metzia 1:1 7. pg. 329
Tosefta Baba Metzia 1:1 8. pg. 329
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 6b 9. pg. 329
III God
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Eruvin 13b 10. pg. 329
Maimonides, Laws of Shemita & Yovel 13:13 11. pg. 329
Lecture 9 Values Nation | 329
Background Reading
Martin Buber, The Spiritual Center pg. 329 12.
Martin Buber, The Zionist Idea, 13. On Zion pg. 329
David Hartman, Widening the Scope of Covenantal 14.
Consciousness, A Heart of Many Rooms pg. 329
David Hartman, The Third Jewish Commonwealth, 15.
A Living Covenant pg. 329
Daniel Elazar, The Peace Process and the J 16.
ewishness of the Jewish State pg. 329
330 |
I People
A. Image of God
1. Genesis 1:26-28
; ,
- , - ,
. - ,
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image,
afer our likeness. Tey shall rule the fsh of the sea,
the birds of the sky, the catle, the whole earth, and
all the creeping things that creep on earth.
, -
. , :
27 And God created man in His image, in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created
them.
, ,
, , ; , -
. - , -
28 God blessed them and God said to them, Be fertile
and increase, fll the earth and master it; and rule
the fsh of the sea, the birds of the sky, and all the
living things that creep on earth.
2. Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5
Therefore a single person is created to teach that if anyone causes a single life to be lost, it is on him as
if he has lost a whole world, and if anyone saves a single life, it is on him as if he saved a whole world.
It is because of the peace of creation that no man shall say to his fellow my father is greater than your
father.

.
,
, : , - --
.
Lord am your God.
B. Responsibility to Care for People You Shall Not Remain Indiferent
4. Exodus 23:4
, : -- ,
.
4 When you encounter your enemys ox or ass
wandering, you must take it back to him.
, , - - -
. , : ,
1 If you see your fellows ox or sheep gone astray, do
not ignore it; you must take it back to your fellow.
- , -- , -
. , ,
2 If your fellow does not live near you or you do not
know who he is, you shall bring it home and it shall
remain with you until your fellow claims it; then
you shall give it back to him.
- , ,
, : , -
.
3 You shall do the same with his ass; you shall do
the same with his garment; and so too shall you do
with anything that your fellow loses and you fnd:
you must not remain indiferent.
332 |
II Property
6. Leviticus 25:23
- : , - -- ,
. ,
23 But the land must not be sold beyond reclaim, for
the land is Mine; you are but strangers resident
with Me.
7. Mishnah Baba Metzia 1:1
Two [persons appearing before a court] hold a garment. One of them says, I found it, and the other says,
I found it; one of them says, it is all mine, and the other says, it is all mine, then one shall swear that his
share in it is not less than half, and the other shall swear that his share in it is not less than half, and [the
value of the garment] shall then be divided between them. If one says, it is all mine, and the other says,
half of it is mine, he who says, it is all mine shall swear that his share in it is not less than three quarters,
and he who says, half of it is mine shall swear that his share in it is not less than a quarter. The former then
receives three quarters [of the value of the garment] and the latter receives one quarter.

:
8. Tosefta Baba Metzia 1:1
Two lay hold of a cloakThis one takes the part of the cloak which is held [by him], and that one takes
the part of the cloak which is held [by him].

.
9. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 6b
R. Judah b. Korha says: Settlement by arbitration is a meritorious act, for it is written, Execute the
judgment of truth and peace in your gates. Surely where there is strict justice there is no peace, and
where there is peace, there is no strict justice! But what is that kind of justice with which peace abides?
We must say: Arbitration. So it was in the case of David, as we read, And David executed justice and
righteousness [charity] towards all his people. Surely where there is strict justice there is no charity, and
where there is charity, there is no justice! But what is the kind of justice with which abides charity? We
must say: Arbitration.
- . : , :
. : - . - ,
, - , - ,
. : -
III God
10. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Eruvin 13b
R. Abba stated in the name of Samuel: For three years there was a dispute between Beit Shammai and
Beit Hillel, the former asserting: the halachah is in agreement with our views, and the latter contending:
the halachah is in agreement with our views. Then a bat kol issued announcing: [The utterances of ] both
are the words of the living God, but the halachah is in agreement with the rulings of Beit Hillel.
, :
. , : .
11. Maimonides, Laws of Shemita & Yovel 13:13
Not only the tribe of Levi, but any one of the inhabitants of the world whose spirit moves him and who
understands with his intelligence to set himself aside to stand before God to serve Him and minister
to Him and to know God, to walk uprightly as God made him, casting of from his neck the yoke of the
many reckonings which people seekhe is consecrated as holy of holies. God will be his portion and his
inheritance forever and ever.
,
, ,
. , --
334 |
12. Martin Buber, Te Spiritual Center
336 |
338 |
340 |
342 |
344 |
13. Martin Buber, Te Zionist Idea, On Zion
346 |
348 |
350 |
352 |
354 |
356 |
358 |
360 |
362 |
14. David Hartman, Widening the Scope of Covenantal
Consciousness, A Heart of Many Rooms
364 |
366 |
368 |
15. David Hartman, Te Tird Jewish Commonwealth,
A Living Covenant
370 |
372 |
374 |
376 |
378 |
380 |
382 |
384 |
386 |
388 |
390 |
16. Daniel Elazar, Te Peace Process and the Jewishness of the Jewish State
392 |
394 |
396 |
Recommendations for Further Reading
Steven M. Cohen & Arnold M. Eisen, The Jew Within (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2000)
David Hartman, Israelis and the Jewish Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2000)
Arthur Hetzberg (ed.), The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society, 1997)
Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010)
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars (New York: Basic Books, 2006)
Alexander Yakobson & Amnon Rubinstein, Israel and the Family of Nations (New York: Routledge, 2009)
| 397
Shalom Hartman Institute Lecture Series Terms of
Use and Warranty
We ask that you respect our intellectual property rights and that you not distribute copies of these
lectures to people who have not purchased copies from us and that you do not use them contrary to the
Terms of Use out lined below.
We also provide this copy of our Use Agreement and Warranty so that you may review it when you
purchase our lecture series. Your honesty will help us keep the cost of our lectures afordable and will
help us produce a high quality product in the years to come.
By using this set of 9 lectures, you indicate that you agree to the following terms, restrictions, rights, and
limitations. SHI agrees to uphold the Warranty as listed below.
Terms of Use:
If purchased for personal/private use, this 9 part lecture series and its educational support materials may
be used by all the members of a single household.
If purchased for communal use, this 9 part lecture series may be used by the Rabbi of the community
and the individuals that s/he designates. Study materials can be purchased from SHI directly at an
additional cost of $20 per copy.
Restrictions:
Please do not permit others to make copies of this lecture series or the educational materials for resale
or redistribution in any form.
Warranty:
SHI warrants that these DVDs will perform as indicated in our marketing materials.
Disks damaged during the frst year after purchase will be replaced without charge. Damaged disks must
be mailed to SHI for the free replacement. After that period, you may be charged for replacement disks.
Warranty & Liability Limitations
This warranty will be void if you engage in any activity that violates the aforementioned Terms and
Restrictions.
Copyright & Trademark Information:
This Lecture Series is copyrighted. Shalom Hartman Institute is a registered trademark of SHI. All rights
reserved. Unauthorized duplication and distribution of DVDs and educational materials is prohibited.
Contact Information:
Any questions or concerns should be addressed to Sharon Laufer: Laufer-s@shi.org.il
398 |

"Engaging Israel" DVD Lecture Series From Shalom Hartman Institute

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

"Engaging Israel" DVD Lecture Series From Shalom Hartman Institute

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Source Book

Shalom Hartman Institute

You might also like