Dear Elisha,
This is an important topic. Just as you do, I believe that the issues relate to serious matters, like the survival of Israel and peace. Just because we disagree about what the dangers to Israel are, doesn’t mean that we care any less for her future. You said a few things that I seriously disagree with, including badmouthing of the government in Israel. Now we all like and dislike things that governments do. I’m not an Israeli, but I have opinions about what the Israeli government does (just as Israelis probably have opinions about actions the U.S. government takes). I assume that if I sent around an email disparaging Israeli government actions you approved of, you would throw in your two cents. Please take what I said in that spirit.
I want to explain myself, but don’t take this as an attack on yourself. I didn’t mean my other letter that way, either. It wasn’t my intent to call you or anyone else names — if “ultra-Orthodox” is considered a pejorative, let me know the more acceptable term to use. It’s true that I called certain actions “foolish,” etc., but in the discussions (and arguments) I have with people (and let’s say in particular Jewish people), “saying what one means” is not considered by itself to be impolite. But I’m sorry that you took it that way. Email is tough; let’s just assume that if we were having this discussion face-to-face, it would be like the rabbis at the Seder talking all night at Bnei Brak — I’m sure they didn’t agree about everything.
Now as for the substance, let me a say a few things, replying to some of the remarks you made. You said that I “have a lot of pent-up anger against religious people.” I’m sorry, but I don’t believe that is the case. I have a lot of respect for many religious people, mixed in with a little envy about their ability to have faith in spiritual matters, and to use prayer and observance of rituals to help themselves and others through difficult times. The religious people I have the most respect for are those who apply the moral teachings of religions to problems big and small. While in my own life I try to ground my morality in reason, I recognize the possibility that, as a religious Christian friend has admonished me, the “Enlightenment was a Christian heresy.” Of course, if it was a Christian heresy, and it had to do with morality, it’s really a Jewish heresy. Certainly the Enlightenment was unlikely to happen in any society in the world other than one based on the worldview posited by the Bible.
It’s true that what I don’t like about religious people, of all faiths, is when they base political decisions on their beliefs, and try to impose them on others. But I don’t think I have any anger towards any religious individuals (with the exception of, say, people like Osama bin Laden, who use their religious beliefs to justify violence — but then, how religious can such people be?). My two heroes in American life — Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King –were profoundly religious people who were, of course, immersed in the
Hebrew Bible even if they weren’t Jews. (Henry in his bar mitzvah talk compared the 10th plague to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural address, in which he said that both the south and the north would likely have to pay back with their own blood every drop of blood spilled with the lash.)
But of course what you mean is that I have anger towards Jewish religious people, and by religious, you don’t mean my guitar-strumming Reform rabbi, but people who keep very frum and may wear black hats and long beards, and believe that the Torah was written by Moses (every word). Again, I don’t see myself angry at any of them. You don’t know me, but I’m not generally an angry person. Impassioned at times, yes, but I think if you check with your closer relatives, you’ll find that I’m fairly easy going. Your mom and I have gone at it on occasion, but there have been specific issues between us.
It’s true that I think what the religious people have done with settlements (please let me know why that’s not a good word to use, since it’s so common) deep in the occupied territories has been bad for Israel. Again, I don’t like this because it’s an instance of applying religious belief to politics. But although I may be depressed about this, I’m not angry. I was angry when Rabin was assassinated and when Baruch Goldstein massacred people at Hebron, but then I don’t consider people who do things like that religious. Terrorists, assassins, and murderers have a different mental “chemistry” than what I consider to be religious. It’s a psychosis or a sociopathic syndrome. Religion is not limited to passive prayer, it can be a source of action, but there seems to be always a quotient of reflection. That’s what gives religion its power in a pluralistic society — if religion becomes political, it ultimately defeats itself.
(By the way, the reason I’m not pausing here to condemn the Palestinian terrorists is not because what they do is not vile and reprehensible, but because there’s little pretense that they’re doing so for religious reasons.)
We don’t have time here and it wouldn’t solve anything to try to figure out just where every wrong turn was made by all the different sides, starting in the 30s at least, to get us to the present situation in Israel and Palestine. So I won’t bother to go into why the West Bank isn’t “half of our country,” or why people have rights even if they are stateless (assuming they are). But I do want to inject a bit of optimism about peace. In my lifetime, but perhaps before you were either alive or paying much attention, Israel has made two peace treaties with Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan, and they have been successful. The relationships with those countries have proved to be stable. The other Arab countries (if you now include Iraq), have all tacitly recognized Israel’s legitimacy. They are waiting for an agreement with the Palestinians to do so. Israelis and Palestinians almost made a deal in the 90s. As I see it, and based on the polling, the masses of both Israelis and Palestinians want an agreement, and will abide by it once it’s in place. Keep in mind that hundred of thousands of Israeli Arabs have lived side by side with Jews for decades with very little violence between them. The two obstacles to negotiating, which both sides with some justification use to justify not reaching agreements, are the terrorism of the Palestinians (mostly now the rockets from Hamas in Gaza) and the settlements deep in the West Bank, which Israel agreed to stop expanding and building. Peace won’t mean that Israel can give up its army, but I’m confident that Israel will be strong enough to preserve itself behind the borders the parties agree to.
The extremists on both sides are guilty of ugly conduct. You mention Arabs who celebrate acts of terrorism; I’ve also heard of crowds of Orthodox yelling “death to the Arabs.” One bit of advice I’d give you — don’t judge people on their worst behaviors. One thing to keep in mind is that those Palestinians are probably the descendants of the Jews who used to live there. I know that my son looks exactly like them, and I’ve read that Jews share many of the same genetic diseases with the Palestinians.
An aside. It’s clear to me that if Arafat had been a Gandhi or a Quaker, and the Palestinians had used non-violence, the Palestinians and the Israelis would have worked things out a long time ago, to their mutual benefit. The terrorism of the Palestinians is hateful to us, but it’s also had horrible results for the Palestinians.
It’s interesting that you don’t like the security wall. That surprised me, since I’m used to hearing left-wing people decry it as a kind of apartheid. Do you not like it because it recognizes the reality of the two states? To me, it doesn’t represent the kind of society the original Zionists envisioned, but it’s probably a practical solution for the time being.
This is getting long, but I want to hit a few more points, and then I want to discuss the Bible. I admit that it was news to me what you said about Orthodox joining the military, and that you plan to (I assume that means you’re in Israel having made aliyah.) Although I’m scared for your sake, I respect your decision, since I understand that Yeshiva students are exempt from the draft, and certainly you don’t have to become an Israeli. But something you said concerns me: “Interestingly enough, if you ask any objective commander he will tell you that the religious soldiers are the best ones. They are there because they are motivated and dedicated to protect the Jewish people, not just because the government makes them do it.” I wonder if this what I was fearing at the end of my first letter? Israel never had trouble motivating draftees, but now I have read that there is draft-dodging. In the past, it was shameful not to serve. I wonder if Jews are willing to defend Israel, but not to expand it? To me, this is the kind of distinction that I would expect from Jews (and from Americans, too). We Americans learned the hard way that you can’t win a war your soldiers don’t want to fight, especially if it lasts a long time.
Now let’s talk about this statement you made: “Your e-mail was one of the most hateful, anti-Semetic letters I have ever read that was written by a Jew.” I’ve read my email over again, and don’t see it that way at all. I made plain in the article my pride at being Jewish. In fact, it’s only because you were obviously upset by what I wrote that I’m not completely insulted by this. I love being Jewish; if you knew me better, you would know that being Jewish is a major part of my identity. You should realize that calling Jews you disagree with “self-hating” only indicates that you’re spouting nasty arguments that you’ve learned from others. It’s like using “judenrein” to describe settlements that the Israeli government has vacated; you have no idea to what extent the people whose actions you are comparing to the actions of the Nazis are offended by this –especially considering that they probably got to Israel, or their parents got to Israel, just a few steps before the Nazis got to them.
It so happens that today in the L.A. Times there was an article by a Jewish American who has been involved in Middle East diplomacy about this very phenomenon — about how right-wing Jews use the “self-hating” label to attack Jews they disagree with, and the “anti-Semite” label against everyone else they disagree with. Here’s the link: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-miller9mar09,0,3926492.story. I hope you read it.
It’s true I live in beautiful Santa Monica, and that I’m a Jewish-American, not an Israeli. I try to keep my criticisms of Israel based on the dialogue I read about there. My family’s support for Israel and Zionism goes back to the secular socialists who established the place. We like the old Labor Party and what they stood for. By the way, there is undoubtedly more violence in L.A. than in Israel, and every year Santa Monica has one or two gang killings. So it’s not all sweetness and light.
But one thing — what does the conquest of the Indians have to do with anything? Are you saying that because the conquistadors and missionaries sent by Ferdinand and Isabella (not of blessed memory) got away with it, it would be okay for the IDF and the religious Jews to do the same thing?
The Bible. I understand that you believe the Torah was all written by Moses, with all the inconsistencies there to make it harder to believe. That’s fine — as I said, I respect and envy (a little) people with that kind of faith. But it is a matter of faith. It’s like saying evolution didn’t happen. There has, however, been a lot
of research on how and when the Bible was written and edited (“redacted”), and lot of archaeology that supports and expands on the research.
It may be strange to your way of thinking, but this research has made me more aware of, and proud of, my Jewishness. You see, what the research shows is that although there is no archaeological evidence of the Patriarchs or of the Exodus story, and they remain problematic (or “legendary”) from an historical point of view, the data really start to pick up with David and then the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. What the researchers on the texts have found is that the four different strands that make up the Torah, and the first, historical books of the Bible that follow, fit the history of that period and the archaeology. These books of the Bible are now seen as real history — in fact, a friend of mine from high school, an important Biblical scholar named Baruch Halpern, wrote a book called precisely, “The First Historians: The Hebrew Bible and History.”
I mean no disrespect to your way of thinking about this, but I want to explain mine. When I read books like that one of Baruch’s, or Richard Friedman’s “Who Wrote the Bible,” or Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman’s “The Bible Unearthed,” (which was recently published and summarized the archaeological findings of the past three decades) I relate very directly to the story of these two kingdoms trying to survive (and succeeding for centuries) in the midst of the great powers of their age — the Assyrian, Babylonian,
Egyptian and Persian empires. It’s not just a matter of realpolitik, but these two kingdoms really took laws seriously, and justice. That’s one of the reasons the House of David survived so long, and the writings the kingdoms left behind are the reason we are still Jews. It doesn’t matter to me whether a real Moses wrote the Torah — there is an essential truth, a historical, Jewish truth, that these books represent, that is becoming more apparent with more study. It’s a truth that can have a lot of meaning today when people all through the world are struggling to live by the rule of law — a particularly Jewish concept.
Please understand that everything I’m writing here comes from my understanding of who I am, including being Jewish. It may be different than your understanding about you, but then no one said that we should be the same. From what you’ve told me about yourself, and from what others have said, I’m gaining a lot of respect for you (but don’t call me anti-Semitic again!). You certainly can argue with passion — that goes a long way where I come from.
I hope to hear from you again.
Love,
Frank