Secular Jewish Identity (Nekuda – 2006)

Is It Really Just a Matter of Degree?

(A response to Rabbi Medan’s article, ‘To Establish a Jewish Bloc,’ Nisan 5766 issue)

In his article, Rabbi Medan presents a picture of a bipolar confrontation in Israeli society, between Religious Zionism and the secular, non-traditional public.

He argues that both sides now understand that a connection to tradition is necessary, and both also understand that a connection to the global village is necessary (disconnection from it is impossible, technically, ideologically, and morally). He contends that the main dispute concerns the proportions: Religious Zionism sees adherence to tradition as an essential and supreme value, and the global village as an unavoidable necessity, or as a less important value. The secular public, by contrast, thinks that being part of the global village is a supreme value, and that adherence to tradition is necessary but less important. If so, the question is only a question of degree (though the question of degree should not be taken lightly in our eyes, as he himself writes at the end of the article). He proposes forming a bloc with the ultra-Orthodox and with the traditional public, in order to become a more significant force in society and politics.

At the end of the article he writes that until the disengagement and the events of Amona he thought that this was ‘a struggle between two healthy extremes, each pulling in the right direction,’ in his words. Now, apparently, this represents a disillusionment with that view.

And I, for one, am puzzled by that ‘disillusionment.’ The very presentation of the two poles shows that he is still operating within that same illusion (about which I wrote in issue 22 of Tzohar; see there Rabbi Medan’s own response).

Even if we assume that there is a tiny segment of the Israeli public that is interested in some real connection to tradition (beyond culinary folklore, or Kiddush on the Sabbath before driving off to the game and the shops). Quite apart from the question whether this connection is seen as something that guarantees our survival in the Middle Eastern arena, is there really any shared identity here, with the only question being degree?

Is Rabbi Medan’s religiosity nothing more than an instrument for our physical-cultural existence in this region? The public of which Rabbi Medan speaks does not believe in God and His Torah. So what exactly is shared here, and what degrees are we talking about? They want books by Amos Oz and Meir Shalev (as he himself writes), and we want the Talmuds and rabbinic literature. They want entertainment with a dose of culture that is not too burdensome (!), and we are speaking of binding faith. They want this as a glue that will assist social-national cohesion (if at all), whereas we (at least I) are speaking of a binding Torah that is not an instrument for anything whatsoever, and commitment to it does not depend on its serving as national glue or on the existence of existential dangers to the State of Israel and the Jewish society living in it.

Even if an Ahad Ha’am-style religiosity of the sort he describes exists somewhere in the secular world, what does that have to do with me? Is the debate and confrontation with it only a matter of degree? What at all is shared by these two poles? Is this disillusionment, or entrenchment in an even more dangerous illusion?

This phenomenon is an indication of what I pointed out in the above-mentioned article: that Religious Zionism sees nationalism as a substitute for religion (even if not ideologically, this happens de facto). In its eyes, someone who is weak religiously but strong nationally is preferable to someone who is weak nationally but strong religiously.

Part of that same illusion is the claim that keeps resurfacing, according to which a considerable portion of the public (for example, Jews of Middle Eastern descent and the traditional public) are with us at heart. They are supposedly captives of secular elites who lead them by the nose. Therefore it is worthwhile to unite with them and help strengthen their resilience.

In the above-mentioned article I argued, and I repeat it now: this is sheer illusion, with no connection whatever to reality. As a generalization, the traditional public has long since ceased to stand with the religious camp. Not in the least. Eating cholent (or hamin) in the synagogue is no guarantee of anything on the political, religious, or social planes, and certainly not of the kind of commitment that carries a price. It is comfortable for us to persist in that illusion, but it is dangerous and irresponsible.

Therefore Rabbi Medan’s conclusion too is, in my humble opinion, fundamentally mistaken. The discourse must begin inward, by clarifying among ourselves our own outlook and aspirations (and making them more rational in the short term, until the Messiah comes). And if any outward dialogue is to be conducted, it should be with the more extreme opponents. With them, at least, there is something to discuss. A traditional person who chooses (or is drawn), despite his awareness and education, not to observe the commandments (except for hamin), is far from religiosity in its full, binding Orthodox sense. In my opinion, he is much farther away than a secular person whom we tend to define as ‘a child taken captive.’ In my view, the common ground with the more ‘distant’ segment of the public is far greater than the common ground with the traditional public. There, the common ground is external and tenuous, and therefore will not withstand any test. We should not delude ourselves. Any passing wind, whether media-driven or appetite-driven, will move them in whatever direction it wishes. Just as we imagine that we will succeed in influencing them with mere words, so too will factors much stronger than we are influence them. That is what happens all the time, and we keep finding excuses of the sort, ‘A loud and noisy minority (= the elites) takes over the silent majority,’ and the like.

I will conclude by saying that, from my acquaintance with Rabbi Medan, from whom I once also had the privilege of studying Torah, I have no doubt that he did not intend the picture as I have described it here (and as he himself presented it in his article). But I would expect from him, as well as from the rabbinic leadership of Religious Zionism generally, greater sensitivity and finer resolution in their discernment of the processes around us. We must wake up, and quickly, from the illusions that have accompanied this naive public over the past hundred years, and begin to recognize reality as it is, not as we would like it to be. For better and for worse. Further details may be found in the above-mentioned article.