August 19, 2005

BREAD vs. MATZAH

Sharon's disengagement plan has prompted the religious community- from the chief rabbis to every last lunatic who claims to be a "rabbi" - to invent religious arguments against the withdrawal from Gaza and the territories. These arguments vary from halakhic rulings that sanctify resisting the evacuation and disobeying orders, through rulings that graves should be covered with concrete, and even to Kabbalistic curses. In the best of situations, "moderate" rabbis called for peaceful resistance.

Still, there is no hint of a humanistic world view of Judaism focusing not on reverence for the land, but on a range of principles dealing with relationships among men and between man and God. It is obvious that the rabbinical establishment has gradually become more radicalized in the last three or four decades, and more so since the Oslo Accords were signed. Why?

One possibility is the claim that holding onto the territories in the name of the religion of Israel is the correct interpretation of Judaism. In other words, Judaism equals the complete Land of Israel, and giving up parts of the homeland will bring divine retribution down upon our heads.

Another, that a community of false prophets is controlling the interpretation of Judaism. As we know, this would not be the first time such has happened in Jewish history. The religious leadership in Eastern Europe during the18th century also advocated an extremist interpretation of Judaism that drove ordinary people away. It was not until the onset of the Hasidic movement, which for a long time was the target of unrestrained attacks by the fanatic establishment, that a significant Jewish reformation began. The irony is that the descendants of the Ba'al Shem Tov's liberal Hasidism are among the greatest extremists of our day…

And yet another: it is a fact that every organized religion, including Judaism, has a desire for anti-democratic political control, with the religious oligarchy setting the rules of behavior not only in the realm of faith, but also in society, law and politics.

The logical conclusion? It is impossible to mix religion and democracy. And so, what does the future hold for Israel? One possible outcome is that the radicalization of the religious body, together with the growing numbers of extreme nationalists and ultra-Orthodox in the Jewish population, will lead to the end of democracy. Democracy will either die a slow and natural death, as the religious parties - aided by the apathy and rivalry of the secular ones - will eventually oust democracy through democratic means; or a violent revolt will put an end to it.

Another outcome: a major reform of Judaism, explicitly defining and limiting the religion's role in the state, and allowing for a more rational coexistence between religious and democratic values.

Finally (and one we should all work for): upon realizing that a Jewish and democratic state is just not possible, Israel's secular parties will rise above their petty ideological differences and personal issues and unite to enact constitutional legislation that would definitively separate religion and state. A democratic state allows complete freedom of religion, but a Jewish state (and any other religious state, for that matter) would not (and does not) allow complete democracy. In need of a pertinent example? The Vatican.

Looking back, I have experienced first-hand what it means to live in the Jewish state for a secular Jew such as myself (and even though most of the population is somewhat in the middle, between orthodoxy and secularity). In the early 90s, I spent two years and a half in Israel between a kibbutz, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. It is funny, but I vividly recall not being able to purchase bread during Passover, at least not in the mainstream stores. I also recall not being able to find non-kosher foods and the like. Granted, I was young and having a wonderful time, and did not think much of it until I moved to the United States. Needless to say, the contrast was glaring. And I realized I will always prize my complete freedom of choice, down to the last crumb of bread - or matzah.

2 comments:

Andrew E. Mathis said...

Gisela,

I think you hit on something key here. In fact, I think that the secular parties will *have* to abandon the idea of "Jewish and democratic" and align themselves with the Arab parties to keep Israel from becoming a Jewish version of Saudi Arabia. Within ten years, the population inside the Green Line will be roughly a third Jewish (secular), a third Jewish (national-religious), and a third Arab. That being the case, the only thing that can save democracy in Israel is drafting a constitution that once and for all defines the rights of Israel's minorities.

Gisela said...

Glad you agree, although I think you are being optimistic about the Arabs only comprising a third of the Green Line population in ten years... I think it will be more than that, so your point is even more relevant! The lack of a formal constitution in Israel is bad enough, but the reason behind it is even worse - after all, why would the religious community agree to anything that could possibly outweigh the authority of religious texts?