Rabbi Michael Abraham to Moti Yogev: Your rabbis are not my rabbis. I feel betrayed

Article Contents

Rabbi Michael Abraham to Moti Yogev: Your Rabbis Are Not My Rabbis. I Feel Betrayed

Enjoyed it? More exclusive content on the Kipa app. Download now

On Friday, Knesset member Moti Yogev sent a letter to the members of the Jewish Home central committee asking them to act so that democracy in the party would not be curtailed. Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham responded with a sharply worded letter in which he attacked Yogev over his remarks.

On Friday, Knesset member Moti Yogev sent a letter to the members of the Jewish Home central committee asking them to act so that democracy in the party would not be curtailed. Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham responded with a sharply worded letter in which he attacked Yogev over his remarks.

“The desire for unity within religious Zionism, and in particular the alliance between Tekuma and the Jewish Home that reflects it, is very problematic in my view, because the religious-Zionist axis is hardly relevant anymore today,” writes Rabbi Abraham.

“The desire for unity within religious Zionism, and in particular the alliance between Tekuma and the Jewish Home that reflects it, is very problematic in my view, because the religious-Zionist axis is hardly relevant anymore today,” writes Rabbi Abraham.

“What is relevant today in public discourse is not Zionism, but questions such as the attitude toward other fields of knowledge, women’s equality, the attitude toward non-Jews, the kind of legislation appropriate for the state, the relationship between Judaism and democracy in government institutions and in legislation, and the like. But on all these issues, almost to the very last one (!), I find myself in deep disagreement with Tekuma, its rabbis, and its path.”

“What is relevant today in public discourse is not Zionism, but questions such as the attitude toward other fields of knowledge, women’s equality, the attitude toward non-Jews, the kind of legislation appropriate for the state, the relationship between Judaism and democracy in government institutions and in legislation, and the like. But on all these issues, almost to the very last one (!), I find myself in deep disagreement with Tekuma, its rabbis, and its path.”

“As for me, I do not see much in common between myself—and many Jewish Home voters like me—and the ideas and actions of Tekuma and its rabbis. With all due respect, its rabbis are not my rabbis (despite, and perhaps because, they repeatedly crown themselves with great audacity as ‘the rabbis of religious Zionism’), and therefore I am not willing for them to influence the conduct of my representatives in the Knesset more than any other person (as unfortunately happens today). All the laws they call ‘anti-religious laws,’ and against which they wage a campaign of incitement and jihad against them and against those who enacted them, are, in my view, very worthy laws. There is nothing anti-religious about them, and as far as I am concerned, blessed be the hand that votes for them. And when the party for which I voted acts against them, I feel betrayed,” he writes.

“As for me, I do not see much in common between myself—and many Jewish Home voters like me—and the ideas and actions of Tekuma and its rabbis. With all due respect, its rabbis are not my rabbis (despite, and perhaps because, they repeatedly crown themselves with great audacity as ‘the rabbis of religious Zionism’), and therefore I am not willing for them to influence the conduct of my representatives in the Knesset more than any other person (as unfortunately happens today). All the laws they call ‘anti-religious laws,’ and against which they wage a campaign of incitement and jihad against them and against those who enacted them, are, in my view, very worthy laws. There is nothing anti-religious about them, and as far as I am concerned, blessed be the hand that votes for them. And when the party for which I voted acts against them, I feel betrayed,” he writes.

“Let me stress again that it is entirely legitimate for some people to think differently from me and act according to their conscience. What is not legitimate is to force their way on me, and thereby cause their representatives to act in my name instead of my representatives realizing the ideas for which I voted for them and sent them to the Knesset. There is no hatred or personal rejection here, God forbid, but ideological opposition. Your path is legitimate and deserves to be heard, but not by me, and not in my home. Kindly establish a party that will win its votes on its own, and lead it according to your understanding and your way, and above all according to your strength (I assume we all assess fairly similarly what its electorate would be). And the One above will be glorified through both of us.”

“Let me stress again that it is entirely legitimate for some people to think differently from me and act according to their conscience. What is not legitimate is to force their way on me, and thereby cause their representatives to act in my name instead of my representatives realizing the ideas for which I voted for them and sent them to the Knesset. There is no hatred or personal rejection here, God forbid, but ideological opposition. Your path is legitimate and deserves to be heard, but not by me, and not in my home. Kindly establish a party that will win its votes on its own, and lead it according to your understanding and your way, and above all according to your strength (I assume we all assess fairly similarly what its electorate would be). And the One above will be glorified through both of us.”

“The Zionist axis, or the ideas of religious Zionism, is almost irrelevant to the real questions that dominate our political sphere. On the real questions that matter to all of us today, it is of almost no importance whether you are religious-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox, or secular (as the spread of prominent religious Knesset members across different parties demonstrates). With respect to these questions, I find almost nothing in common with Tekuma and its path. True, there is a welcome and important similarity between us in our commitment to Jewish law and the service of God, but there is an enormous difference in the interpretation of what all this demands of me on the political plane (and on the private one as well). Why blur that? Is it only so that Tekuma can nonetheless wield influence far beyond its real power in the public?”

“The Zionist axis, or the ideas of religious Zionism, is almost irrelevant to the real questions that dominate our political sphere. On the real questions that matter to all of us today, it is of almost no importance whether you are religious-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox, or secular (as the spread of prominent religious Knesset members across different parties demonstrates). With respect to these questions, I find almost nothing in common with Tekuma and its path. True, there is a welcome and important similarity between us in our commitment to Jewish law and the service of God, but there is an enormous difference in the interpretation of what all this demands of me on the political plane (and on the private one as well). Why blur that? Is it only so that Tekuma can nonetheless wield influence far beyond its real power in the public?”

“As noted, this important and genuine similarity is not relevant to public discourse. There the disagreements are deep and sharp, perhaps even more than my disagreements with parties that are not defined as religious-Zionist. The talk of unity blurs these legitimate disagreements and presents them as unimportant and perhaps even illegitimate. Needless to say, the similarity in basic values (the Torah and Jewish law) also exists with respect to ultra-Orthodox parties (and Tekuma is ultra-Orthodox in almost every sense, except for a few chapters of Hallel on one day a year), and that does not lead me to seek unity with the ultra-Orthodox. Despite the commitment to the service of God and to the Torah, I have nothing in common with them on the public plane—that is, on the questions of how the state should be run and what it should look like—and that, after all, is what matters on the political plane.”

“As noted, this important and genuine similarity is not relevant to public discourse. There the disagreements are deep and sharp, perhaps even more than my disagreements with parties that are not defined as religious-Zionist. The talk of unity blurs these legitimate disagreements and presents them as unimportant and perhaps even illegitimate. Needless to say, the similarity in basic values (the Torah and Jewish law) also exists with respect to ultra-Orthodox parties (and Tekuma is ultra-Orthodox in almost every sense, except for a few chapters of Hallel on one day a year), and that does not lead me to seek unity with the ultra-Orthodox. Despite the commitment to the service of God and to the Torah, I have nothing in common with them on the public plane—that is, on the questions of how the state should be run and what it should look like—and that, after all, is what matters on the political plane.”

“In conclusion, I am entirely in favor of democratization, but absolutely not in favor of unity. It is appropriate to create democratization among members whose paths are more or less similar, and relatively minor disagreements that exist among them should rightly be bridged through democratic processes. But in my view, Tekuma, its voters, its Knesset members, and its rabbis, with all due respect, do not belong to that group (and that is, of course, their right).”

“In conclusion, I am entirely in favor of democratization, but absolutely not in favor of unity. It is appropriate to create democratization among members whose paths are more or less similar, and relatively minor disagreements that exist among them should rightly be bridged through democratic processes. But in my view, Tekuma, its voters, its Knesset members, and its rabbis, with all due respect, do not belong to that group (and that is, of course, their right).”

“I will conclude with a personal remark to you, made out of great respect (despite my disagreement with you and your approach),” he says to Yogev, “although we do not know each other, I am under the impression that you, a Knesset member elected במסגרת the Jewish Home, belong more to the Tekuma wing, and therefore, in my opinion, it would have been more appropriate for you to operate within Tekuma and not within the Jewish Home. It seems to me that on almost every relevant issue currently on the table and disputed between the two factions, you are a better fit there (there are, of course, other Knesset members from the Jewish Home who are similar to you in this respect). In my view, this is a kind of Trojan horse within the Jewish Home, and it has no moral justification. There is another political home that promotes these legitimate ideas, and I do not understand why they need to take over a home that is supposed to promote other ideas. This, of course, goes hand in hand with my opposition to your demands here to include Tekuma in determining the path of the Jewish Home.”

“I will conclude with a personal remark to you, made out of great respect (despite my disagreement with you and your approach),” he says to Yogev, “although we do not know each other, I am under the impression that you, a Knesset member elected within the framework of the Jewish Home, belong more to the Tekuma wing, and therefore, in my opinion, it would have been more appropriate for you to operate within Tekuma and not within the Jewish Home. It seems to me that on almost every relevant issue currently on the table and disputed between the two factions, you are a better fit there (there are, of course, other Knesset members from the Jewish Home who are similar to you in this respect). In my view, this is a kind of Trojan horse within the Jewish Home, and it has no moral justification. There is another political home that promotes these legitimate ideas, and I do not understand why they need to take over a home that is supposed to promote other ideas. This, of course, goes hand in hand with my opposition to your demands here to include Tekuma in determining the path of the Jewish Home.”

“I hope you will forgive me if I say that it is not proper to use the stronger political base of the Jewish Home, created in part thanks to voters like me, to promote ideas with which we do not agree and that perhaps cannot stand on their own. This is a cynical exploitation of political power that was not given to you, using talk of unity and democracy when the goal quite plainly appears to be the exact opposite. It is as if you and your colleagues are saying to us: you be democratic and united with us, and we will continue doing whatever we want and deciding on our own. In my view, that is simply not fair.”

“I hope you will forgive me if I say that it is not proper to use the stronger political base of the Jewish Home, created in part thanks to voters like me, to promote ideas with which we do not agree and that perhaps cannot stand on their own. This is a cynical exploitation of political power that was not given to you, using talk of unity and democracy when the goal quite plainly appears to be the exact opposite. It is as if you and your colleagues are saying to us: you be democratic and united with us, and we will continue doing whatever we want and deciding on our own. In my view, that is simply not fair.”

A response from the office of Knesset member Moti Yogev stated: Knesset member Moti Yogev was elected by the public in democratic primaries for the Jewish Home on the basis of his public, security, and social work, and he expresses his positions by virtue of the public that elected him. The overwhelming majority of Jewish Home voters wants unity between the Jewish Home and the National Union – Tekuma, in order to represent the full spectrum of religious Zionism, to exert influence, to grow, and even to open itself to broader constituencies.

A response from the office of Knesset member Moti Yogev stated: Knesset member Moti Yogev was elected by the public in democratic primaries for the Jewish Home on the basis of his public, security, and social work, and he expresses his positions by virtue of the public that elected him. The overwhelming majority of Jewish Home voters wants unity between the Jewish Home and the National Union – Tekuma, in order to represent the full spectrum of religious Zionism, to exert influence, to grow, and even to open itself to broader constituencies.

Source (Kipa): http://www.kipa.co.il/now/57682.html