Daniel Gordis wonders whether young rabbis are turning on Israel:
If you asked a Jew at any other time in the history of our people whether or not he had enemies, the notion that he should consider the possibility he did not have enemies would have occasioned a blast of the mordant humor that has helped keep our tribe alive through the millennia. Today, however, the discomfort with the idea of “the enemy” and the intolerability of being in a drawn-out conflict has led these students to the conviction that Israel must solve the conflict. The Palestinian position is not going to shift; that much they intuit. But having enemies, and being in interminable conflict, is unbearably painful for them. So Israel must change. And if it will not, or cannot, then it is Israel that is at fault. In which case, it makes perfectly good sense for these future Jewish leaders to refuse to purchase prayer shawls manufactured in Israel and to insist on demonstratively remaining seated as the prayer for Israeli soldiers is recited in their rabbinical-school communities. They will do virtually anything in order to avoid confronting the fact that the Jewish people has intractable enemies. Their universalist worldview does not have a place for enemies.
June 1st, 2011 | 1:24 pm
The author notes with irony that this turn of events would have been able to happen without the foundation of the state of Israel, but he is blind to the reality that this turn of events was a foreseeable consequence of a policy of occupation and settlement that has never been sustainable for the long term without an improbable set of facts that have not, in the end, proved durable.
June 1st, 2011 | 1:40 pm
“Today, however, the discomfort with the idea of “the enemy” and the intolerability of being in a drawn-out conflict has led these students to the conviction that Israel must solve the conflict. . . . But having enemies, and being in interminable conflict, is unbearably painful for them. So Israel must change. And if it will not, or cannot, then it is Israel that is at fault.” Delete the word “Israel” and insert “the United States” and you have a fairly accurate characterization of the position of a number of readers of this blog.
June 1st, 2011 | 11:56 pm
Liam:
How did Israel come to find itself in the position of running an “occupation” in the first place? Don’t remember? The Arabs forced a war of self-preservation on it back in 1967. Coming back to you now?
When have the Arabs under the “occupation” since 1967 ever been willing to enter into a genuine peace agreement with Israel that would give them independence while giving Israel secure borders and recognizing Israel’s permanency as a Jewish state (meaning no right of return)? The correct answer is never – including the period since the fraudulent “peace process” started in 1993.
Israel is not perfect, and most of the West Bank “settlements” serve no purpose and Israel would be wise to disband them. But the Arabs (both the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab countries) have made the occupation of the West Bank necessary through their refusal to accommodate legitimate Israeli interests in security and its continued existence as a Jewish state. Your comment is just another illustration of what Gordis is complaining about – the attitude that Israel is unconditionally obligated to make “peace” even though the Arabs manifestly have no intention of making peace with Israel.
June 2nd, 2011 | 5:37 am
A worldview that has no place for enemies is a worldview that has no place for politics.
One doesn’t have to be a disciple of Carl Schmitt to recognize that the political comes into being when groups are placed in a relation of enmity, where each recognizes the other as an irreconcilable adversary to be fought and, if possible, defeated.
States arise as a means of continuing, organizing and channelling political struggle. The political condition arises from the struggle of groups; internal order is imposed to pursue external conflict. To view the state as the settled and orderly administration of a territory, concerned with the organization of its affairs according to law, is to see only the stabilized results of conflict. It is also to ignore the fact that the state stands in a relation of enmity to other states, that it holds its territory by means of armed force and that, on this basis of a monopoly of force, it can make claims to be the lawful government of that territory.
Liberals commonly embrace this fallacy. They believe in the possibility of neutral rules that can mediate between conflicting positions, but there is no such neutrality, since any rule, even an ostensibly fair one, merely represents the victory of one political faction over another. They believe in pluralism, but no real state will allow any group to contest its power. They love dialogue, but recoil from decision.
June 2nd, 2011 | 7:44 am
Hope that this too is a sign of the move of The Holy Spirit , who is incessantly pleaded for , as The Spirit of unity of hearts that take away fear and enemity ; that Spirit could convert hearts of enemies and is prayed for by those who have preceded us too , who suffered in trusting goodness of God , at the hands of their enemies – including such recent heroes like St.Maximilan , Bl.John Paul 11 .
May their prayers bear rich fruit so that Israel too would be in peace , from having mercy on those who exterminated her millions and thus have earned mercy from all the world and may those who seek any harm to her also be free from hatred , to be able to honor her and live in justice and dignity , working peacefully within all her borders !
May such be the glory of the triumph of a Mother’s Heart !
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact