Israel vs. Judaism, Politics vs. Religion (Book Notes:The Wrath of Jonah)

Israel was founded as a Jewish state, as a state where Jews would always be welcome, always be safe, and where Judaism could be expressed without fear of discrimination and prejudice. One could argue, though, that even from a Jewish perspective, there are disadvantages to the existence of Israel as a state and as a political power.

In The Wrath of Jonah: The Crisis of Religious Nationalism in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Rosemary Radford Ruether and Herman J. Ruether write:

For [Rabbi Abraham Isaac] Kook [1864-1935]... the almost two millennia of Jewish Diaspora were not just an expression of sin and exile from God; the Diaspora also was part of the divine plan of redemption. Since the souls of the Jewish people carry the divine light with them, through their dispersion, they were scattering contact with the divine throughout the gentile world. During the time of the Diaspora, the very land of Israel grew barren and desolate as the light that poured forth from God was carried far from its center into the impure realm. ...

The fact that the Jews were without national sovereignty during the Diaspora meant that they could carry the divine message to the Gentiles untarnished by the corruption of political power. However, the restoration of the people of Israel to their land and the restoration of national sovereignty must also point to a transformation of politics. Both in the land of Israel and among the nations, political power must be subordinated to the ethical concerns for justice and peace among all peoples.

There is more than a little bit of arrogance behind that idea that Jewish souls had some unique connection to the divine and that only through contact with Jews could the poor benighted Gentiles around the world learn about God. On the other hand, there is more than a little bit of pragmatism and humility behind the idea that if people are going to try to carry a religious message to others, it might be better to do so without the political force of a state behind them.

How does political power corrupt a religious message? Religious messages tend to be very idealistic in nature — they promote, for example, principles of absolute justice, absolute love, and absolute peace. Politics, however, is not a field for idealism. Politics is a field for pragmatism where compromise between differing ideals and visions is the name of the game. Ideals are sacrifice in the name of compromise and in the hopes of achieving at least a little bit of one’s goals.

Compromise isn’t usually thought of as a form of “corruption,” but from the perspective of religious idealism with principles thought to be handed down by God, any compromise on God’s will is a corruption of the highest degree. This is to say nothing of the more common forms of political corruption like bribery, nepotism, and rule by the power-hungry.

To what extent has Rabbi Kook’s vision for the future been realized? To what extent has political power been subordinated to ethical concerns for justice and peace — either in Israel or anywhere else? One would think that if Jews sincerely accepted Kook’s ideas, then they would set an example for others to follow — but that’s hardly been the case. The two authors later write:

Israel has failed to be the center of moral and religious renewal that socialist and spiritual Zionists promised. It has not constructed an appealing expression of religious life, but it is locked into a style of orthodoxy rejected by most Diaspora Jews. It has become less a “light to the nations” of exemplary social justice and equality than an expression of militarism and intercommunal discrimination an hatred.

It is not even an economically viable state, but its military expansionism has been purchased by more than $4 billion of American foreign aid a year, as well as a constant flow of contributions from world Jewry. Israel is a sign of redemption for many Jews, but it has also become a moral and financial liability to world Jewry.

The ultra-Orthodox have become the source of extremely dangerous kinds of political violence in their fanatical efforts to create settlements in the midst of sites holy to Muslims, such as Hebron, or to occupy the Temple Mount in preparation for the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple. Thus religious messianism, far from being healing and unifying, has become one of the major sources of inter-Jewish violence, as well as violence with Palestinians.

Zionists had high hopes for Israel — both as a nation generally and as a haven for Jews. I’m not sure that any of their hopes have been entirely realized, however, and some of them have certainly been undermined. One problem, I think, may be that as a state, Israel has been founded (in part) on the basis of nationalist ideologies which were common in Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but which have since been repudiated just many throughout the world — and especially by Europeans who suffered through the fruits of such nationalism in World War II.

It can be argued that the existence of Israel ensures that there will always be a place where Jews will be protected and safe, but it can also be argued that the existence of Israel helps ensure that there are reasons to attack and criticize Jews. Anti-Semites don’t need much of an excuse, it is true, but why provide an excuse to anyone else? The nationalist ideology behind Israel creates plenty of problems, but other actions by the Israeli government make things even worse.

Jews need to decide what they want Israel to be and what they are willing to sacrifice in order to achieve that. Do they want it to be a “light to the nations” in terms of justice and equality, even if that means sacrificing the exclusively Jewish character of the state? Do they want it to become an exclusively Jewish state where nationality is defined by narrow orthodox standards, even if that means sacrificing principles of justice and equality?

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.