Friday, February 18, 2005

On Being Jewish and Democratic

Those in shule last Friday night heard Major General Uzi Dayan, a nephew of the famous Moshe Dayan, and a formidable military man in his own right, speak on the Security Fence.

Actually, he was supposed to speak on the Security Fence. Instead, the General chose to speak on what he called the bigger strategic issue. Terrorism, he explained, was not an existential threat to Israel. There would be casualties but it could be dealt with. The real threat was the demographic time-bomb. By 2020 there would be an Arab majority between the Mediteranian and the Jordon River. To counter this, Israel had only one choice - to shrink to a size that assured a Jewish majority within its borders.

The reason why Israel should withdraw from the territories, explained Dayan, had absolutely nothing to do with the Arabs or reducing the threat of terror. Abbas could not be counted upon to control the terror in the long term and it was not in his interest to do so. The only hope Israel had of dealing with the threat of terror was an exceedingly strong IDF.

Israel must unilaterally withdraw from the territories for one reason only - so that it's Jewish Democratic integrity could be maintained. Dayan then went on to explain that it was he who convinced Sharon of the need for unilateral withdrawal in 2002.

The above is a brief but, I believe, accurate summary of what Major General Dayan said.

The rest is commentary...

For three decades we heard from the left the mantra of "Land for Peace". After Oslo, after the withdrawal from Lebanon and after Barak's attempt to give away the Temple Mount led to the murderous intifada, the bankruptcy of this slogan became patently obvious to all. You would have expected the architects of withdrawal to move shamefacedly and quietly into a corner. And we would have had to forgive them for making a sincere but fatal mistake.

But no. They have miraculously managed to reappear with greater force than before, but with a slightly altered slogan. "Land for Democracy".

Of course, there is nothing new or surprising in this. Prime Minister Sharon has convincingly demonstrated that the only way to deal with Arab terror was by crushing it, not by negotiation or giving land, and he has been eminently successful. Indeed so successful that other countries now seek out Israel's expertise in this area. Similarly, the mantra of "the need to maintain a Jewish Democratic State" has been endlessly repeated for the last couple of years.

Still I wonder how many people fully grasp what is being said: The withdrawal from Gaza has nothing to do with security and everything to do with maintaining a Democratic Jewish State.

To put it bluntly: the withdrawal from Gaza is for ideological reasons. It is taken as a given that the Palestinian Arabs should all be given the vote - something that they have nowhere else in the Middle East (with the exception of Iraq...). And because giving them the vote will overturn the Jewish majority in Israel, we must shrink Israel. (Question: What happens when the Arab majority in the Gallillee democratically votes to secede and join the new Palestinian State?)

No one deems the moral question of giving the vote to our sworn enemies even worth pondering. Rather than how can we give murderers and terrorists the vote, the question asked is how can we not give them the vote. Doesn't it occur to the government to put first things first? First let them educate their children for peace, first let them put an end to the media, educational institutions and text-books nurturing hatred, anti-Semitism and murder. After that we can deal with democracy and borders. Wasn't there de-Nazification after WWII before Germany was given democracy?

Why is it that Jews do what gentiles would never dream of doing? What are we trying to prove and to whom? Does anyone really believe that someone is going to applaud us?

So then we hear the argument that we are not doing it for them. We are doing it for ourselves. It's about our need to maintain the moral high ground.

The moral high ground? Jews telling Jews that there are certain places that they may not live is moral and ethical? If a non-Jewish government would say that Jews cannot live in certain suburbs of Sydney there would be an outcry. But it's OK for Jews to force Jews out of parts of Israel?!?!

And even if you believe in democracy above everything, is what is being put forward here democracy? It is part of the democratic tradition in all normal countries that individuals are protected against unfairness from government. That if people are attacked, robbed and murdered, they are not told by government to move to another area and give their homes, lands and businesses away to their oppressors - but are rather protected by their government. Indeed it is the very first responsibility of any government to protect even individual citizens. That is the democratic tradition!

What is being put forward here is not democracy at all, but a perversion of democracy. It's a case of Jews doing what we have historically done all too often. Making nice for the gentiles at the expense of our own.

And to think that it is those who wish to maintain possession of the territories for religious or nationalistic reasons who are called the ideologues!

Let no one say that religion is dead. It's just got a different name - Secular Democracy (or a perverted version of it) - and those who pursue it, do so with a passion and irrationality that would put many traditionally religious people to shame.

We believe and trust that "the Guardian of Israel neither sleeps nor slumbers." But as so often in the past, we have given Him a really tough job - protecting us against ourselves. Let's pray that He does a good job of it!

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Rabbi,

Your reply to Major General Uzi Dayan does not surprise me. However, the question of what to do about the many complex issues that the modern State of Israel has to deal with, must rest in the end with the democratically elected government of the day, whether we like it or not. A secular democracy is what Israel is and will remain for the forseeable future. Until such time as the religious minority are able to democratically persuade the majority of the population of Jews living in Israel , that their futures are best preserved by a religiously dominated government which has been elevated to power by democratic means , then actions and policies similar to those espoused by the Major General will prevail .
The coming of Moshiach seems like the only event that can interfere with this process!
In the meantime we have to rely on the ability of Israel's defence forces to secure a safe environment for our fellow bretheren in Israel. It is a difficult situation for religious people to accept.and they are experiencing great angst in accepting the status quo.This is quite understandable of course, but they must in the end , after voicing their objections to government policies, respect the decision of a democraticly elected authority and learn to live with the consequences. This is what has been so good about Israel's recent history, and it should not be degraded in any way at all. The alternative to a democratic solution is the the use of force which will only serve the interests of Israel's enemies. Do you propose that this is the course Jews opposed to the goverment of the day should take ?
I hope and trust not.

Allan Bermeister

BZM said...

Hi Alan,

When debating highly sensitive and emotional issues such as these, it is very important to listen carefully to what the other side is saying. Often, one assumes that a person is going to take a position because of his supposed allegiance to a particular point of view. As a result, before they have even had a chance of saying anything, one has already "tainted" their words with what one has predetermined that they were going to say.

You commence by saying that what I have written doesn't surprise you, implying that you knew what I was going to say before I said it. And you conclude by asking a rhetorical question that implies that I may believe that Jews should use force against the Government of the day. Where in my article do you find anything remotely suggesting this? I am afraid that I am left with the impression that you really did not read what I wrote.

With respect, what I wrote should have surprised you because I took a position totally different than the one that you thought I was taking.

Your entire response was based on the premise that I was taking a "religious" versus "secular" position. Indeed my arguments were not based on religion at all. They were rather based on the total inefficacy of returning land as seen by recent historical precedent. Furthermore, every attempt to give away or withdraw from land brought more terror in its wake. It has been strength, and strength alone, that has prevented terror over this last short period. The General acknowledged this when he said that in the Middle East only strength counts and that "even when the Messiah comes, in this region the lamb will not be able to lie down with the lion". He explained that the withdrawal from the territories was not aimed at bringing peace but rather at solving the "demographic" problem. Meaning, that to be Jewish and Democratic one needed to have a Jewish majority within the borders of Israel.

My purpose in speaking was to ensure that everyone understood that a top military general - one who had dealt with security negotiations at the highest levels and who obviously has enormous influence - had said that the purpose was not Land for Peace but Land for Democracy. That giving land was not aimed at assuring peace, but at assuring democracy for the Arabs. As such the withdrawal was going to be unilateral, totally irrespective of negotiations with the Arabs, because really nothing was to be expected of them. We were doing this for ourselves not for them.

In my opinion, this should have shocked everyone! For years we were told that the purpose of giving was land was to attain peace. Now were being told that it's purpose had nothing to do with peace. In fact, it wasn't even seriously believed that it would bring peace. As the General said, it was not in Abbas' interest to make peace in the long term. It was rather to assure a state which was both Jewish and Democratic.

I really wonder, if people really understood what the purpose of the withdrawal was, whether they would vote for it to proceed. Do you really think that it's so important to Israelis, who have been done to death by the Palestinians, to ensure that they have equal voting rights within Israel? I don't think so. I believe that if people grasped that giving up territories was not expected to have a marked effect on terror, most would say, let them prove themselves first by ceasing to educate their children to hate us, and then let's give them the vote. There is always time to redraw Israel's borders, after they prove that they can be good neighbours. And once they prove that, then when we withdraw we would not have to uproot settlements, just as we are not expecting the Arabs in the Galillee to transfer out of Israel.

But people don't understand the real purpose of the withdrawal, even though the General explained it, and indeed the government has been saying it, for some time now. And the reason that they don't understand it, is because they don't want to understand it. Israelis, and Jews generally, are so sick of war, that they will not give up on their belief that if we give away the territories everything will be alright. It is as irrational as the belief that an abused child sometimes has - that it's really his fault, not his parent's, and if he would somehow change his behaviour then his parent would stop abusing him. He just doesn't get that it has nothing to do with his behaviour at all. The child doesn't want to believe that, and Jews don't want to accept it either because it would mean that they have no way of stopping anti-Semitism. And so they persist in their belief - which the General being a smart man has discarded - that by giving Land we will get Peace. Think about it: it is not me who is the Messianist but those who believe that believe that it's in our power to somehow get the Arabs to make peace with us.

The question I raise is why is it so important for the General, and others in the Government, to believe that giving the Arabs the vote is a democratic value above all others, while a Government oppressing a minority (the settlers) in order to achieve that value is not considered a trespass of the democratic way? In a true democratic society, a majority would not oppress a minority of its citizens just to ensure that the enemies of the state could have the vote. Democracy was not meant to be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. The minority has rights, and one of them is to live where it pleases. There should be no place on earth where it is forbidden for a Jew to live.

Allan, you couch your response in a manner that suggests that I don't respect democracy. This is simply not true. The issue is: Let the government of Israel act as any other democracy would. Firstly let it concern itself with the democratic rights of all its citizens and only then concern itself with the broader issues of granting democracy to its former enemies, after convincing itself that they will not continue their campaign to annihilate us.

I am all for democracy, but democracy must protect the rights of both Jews and Arabs. A democracy which turns the Jewish State into the only state in the world which would dare tell Jews that there are areas where their presence is offensive, is in urgent need of a good democratic education.

Finally, although I must admit being offended by your suggestion that I may support armed violence against the Government, let me make my position clear. It is my belief that those educated with a true love of the land of Israel have an even greater love of the people of Israel. I was certainly educated that way and I would hope that most others were too. There can be no excuse for a Jew using violence against another Jew in the current circumstances. It would not only totally undermine the validity of their claim that they love the Land of Israel, but it would also prove totally counter-productive and even self-destructive.

I would like to conclude, that although this is likely to continue to be a rather boistrous debate, I really appreciate your taking the time to respond. I think it's extraordinarily important for people to discuss these issues and I hope that other readers will take your cue and post their responses as well.