On Ceremonies, Organizations, and Demonstrations (Column 136)
With God's help
In these sticky days, when we are all enveloped by ceremonies, flags, and anthems, it has once again been sharpened for me that I really do not like belonging to collectives (not that it changes anything). I prefer to engage in a philosophical discussion of the ontological question of the existence of collectives and of the differences between a collective and a collection of individuals. That is far more enlivening and amusing than hearing that our strength lies in our unity and that we should be proud of the state and its high-tech sector, or watching excited "Never again" messages beneath flyovers of the most moral air force in the world over Auschwitz, against the backdrop of paratroopers slowly committing suicide of their own free will on Palmachim Beach or the Carmel coast wrapped in blue-and-white flags. I will not deny that these days also have their advantages, such as the radio repertoire on Memorial Day, but I always wonder whether the meager gain is worth the damage.
What's wrong with ceremonies?
As a rule, I do not like being told that there were four hundred thousand people at some demonstration or at some nameless counter-demonstration (especially when the truth is that there were about 223 people there). In short, my greatest nightmare is to be considered a blur in a newspaper photo and to serve as a cog in the crowd.
For a similar reason, I also do not join the various groups of rabbis (Beit Hillel, the Agudat Yisrael rabbinical court, the Eda Haredit, the OU rabbis' association in the U.S., Tzohar, the rabbis' council of the Reform movement, or the Association of Satraps in Vatican City, etc.) that spring up like mushrooms before the rain and, like the squill, announce the coming of autumn. For similar reasons (apart from laziness, of course) I also do not go to demonstrations and ceremonies, despite the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to hear that our strength lies in our unity and the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to participate in wondering why the people are divided, and to understand that diversity of opinion is the essence of our being and is wonderful, but that the most important thing is to be pluralistic and respect one another… etc. etc. In general, whenever I hear about the unity of the people, my temperature rises enormously and I begin to itch nervously (roughly as when one hears about the special quality in every Jew, and that everyone who dies for being Jewish is holy, and the rest of the empty slogans of that sort, which have long since become repellent to me).
True, my doctors ordered me to go to the airport from time to time (I love you terminal. Apparently I suffer from syndromes similar to those of a certain R. M.A., whose name is the same as mine though his wife's name is not the same as my wife's), but they forbade me to watch a politician deliver a speech through a transparent tear ("With the permission of the prime minister and his wife, the president of the Supreme Court and her spouse, the president and his wife, the chief rabbi, may he live long and well… my honored guests all"). The heart does not reveal itself to the mouth (the heart does not reveal itself to the mouth); it is hard for me to admit it, but on these festive days I will confess, to my shame, that from time to time a tear slips from my eye under these gloomy circumstances (don't tell anyone). I am truly ashamed of these human weaknesses, and believe me, I do my utmost to overcome them, but the Torah was not given to ministering angels or to those who ate manna (the Torah was not given to ministering angels or eaters of manna). This is one more reason not to place myself under duress and participate in such embarrassing circumstances ("Do not bring me to trial, nor to disgrace…").
One of the things common to all the circumstances described above, beyond the sticky and loathsome nonsense about unity, of course, and beyond giving center stage to the speeches of a collection of nonentities and spineless people who, through our sins and theirs, were elected to the Knesset, is the simple fact that there are people there speaking in my name. I mean the speaker on the stage at a demonstration or conference who explains to me what we think and what we are protesting against. Or the committee of the association/organization that explains what all its members think about everything that is and is not happening, or its spokesperson who issues position papers, learned opinions, and protests in all our names about what is taking place in the Australian outback, in the Chief Rabbinate, or in the Knesset. This is repellent and unbearable in my eyes, even if these spokespeople were exceptionally good and intelligent people. But when the speakers are what they are ("assess him according to his worth," as Rabbi Shach, of blessed memory, used to sign), the point is doubly true. A collective is a herd generally led by a shepherd (who in most cases was not really chosen and does not really represent it), and anyone who values his life should keep far away from it.
The exceptions
On very rare occasions I overcome myself and go anyway. Usually this happens precisely in those places where I am not expected, and that is not only because of the contrarian impulse to think the opposite (you will surely be surprised to hear it, but that defect is not foreign to me), but also because at those gatherings my presence really does have some significance beyond adding one more cog to the angry crowd. Thus, for example, when I was at the demonstration in Tel Aviv against live animal shipments (horrifying atrocities that are carried out with our kindly assistance), one of the activists asked me whether I was marching with them. At first I did not understand what she meant (what, in her opinion, was I—a peaceful resident of the periphery—doing on Saturday night, before I had even nourished my neskhoi/luz bone at the Melaveh Malkah meal, in the streets of the first Hebrew city?!), until I noticed (not to my surprise) that I was almost the only person wearing a skullcap in the area (certainly if one focuses on those over twenty, with a beard and fringes hanging out).
The evening before Memorial Day there was another opportunity when I thought I might overcome my misanthropic tendencies, when I considered joining two of my offspring and going to the alternative memorial gathering of the Israeli-Palestinian Bereaved Families Forum. Yes, yes, like you, I too get a fever just from hearing the name of this gang, but before you pelt me with your citrons, I will try to explain the initial thought and the conclusion.
The Bereaved Families Forum on Both Sides: A Point of Departure
This forum defines itself as one that seeks to promote peace through encounter and mutual understanding between families that have lost their loved ones on both sides. I must begin by saying that merely hearing the forum's definition raises my temperature by several degrees ("bereaved families on both sides"). Not because there are no unfortunate people there, and not because there are none who were killed through no fault of their own. There certainly are, although on our side that is usually not intentional. This title, in my view, is deficient because the main thing is missing from the story. How did this whole story begin? With the fact that when we arrived in this region a little over a hundred years ago, those fellows did not agree to seize the opportunity to improve their rather dismal condition. Needless to remind anyone that there was a UN decision to divide the land between us and them, but we accepted it and they refused. They preferred to try to eliminate us and throw all of us into the sea. And oops, it didn't work. Too bad, but unfortunately for them they failed. Then a bloody struggle began that has been going on for about a hundred years, and as is the way of such struggles, there are casualties. You know what? There are also exceptions, and sometimes there are even people who die needlessly and through no fault of their own. On their side this is not a matter of exceptions, of course, but of a systematic and organized murderous policy and culture. But even if we ignore that small difference, the context of the conflict still makes some difference, doesn't it?
By now you surely will not be surprised if I say that I am not at all sympathetic to our cousins as a collective. Among them there are of course wonderful people, and also somewhat less wonderful ones, as everywhere. There are also very intelligent people, and somewhat less intelligent ones; that too is like anywhere else. But with respect to the collective, I do not especially like their glorious culture, their way, or their distinctive contribution (which is nil) to humanity. I really do not like their tendency to murder everyone who moves, together with his wife and children, whether he is one of their own people or of other peoples, and no less do I detest their lack of education, the futility of their conduct, and their negative self-definition (the Palestinian people are distinguished mainly by the sublime idea of killing the Jews and throwing them into the sea). Even less do I like their inability to do anything for anyone, including themselves, and their not inconsiderable talent for sabotaging any step that might advance their interests even slightly. Nor am I at all fond of their way of constantly whining and sniveling: "Look what they did to me; save me from myself; take responsibility and do the work in my place; take my plight into account because I am miserable. All I did was try to kill you and fail, so what on earth do you want from me, you murderous racists?!" and so on. Their "intellectuals" develop bizarre narratives of victimhood and Orientalism (see Edward Said), while playing on the strings of post-colonial guilt in the satiated and idiotic West. Manufacturing lines of continuity back to the biblical Philistines and the like under the auspices of warm, loving narrative postmodernism. Up to this point, in brief, my warm and cordial relations with our Palestinian cousins.
The meeting
But what does all this have to do with holding a get-acquainted meeting with them?! That idea as such is entirely acceptable to me (although I am not at all sure it is practical). What is wrong with a meeting that tries to create acquaintance and mutual understanding between enemies?! Were we not once told that peace is usually made with enemies? So although that is what the organizers keep saying, in this case it also happens to be true. There really is no connection here to a worldview of right and left, nor to granting justification and legitimacy to the Palestinians, who are clearly the aggressive and violent side in this conflict throughout. Even I, small fry that I am, as someone who genuinely and sincerely believes in the justice of our path and in the wickedness and deep, essential futility of the Palestinians, do not ultimately deny that they surely believe in their own (delusional) narrative. That is a fact, and it is neither possible nor worthwhile to deny it. Remember what Ehud Barak said (every now and then something sensible also comes out of his mouth), that if he were a young Palestinian he too would have been a suicide bomber (and similarly regarding the Iranian nuclear issue).
Even as someone whose worldview toward them is very far from accommodating, I find it hard to see any chance of shaking that narrative out of them. That does not seem practical to me. So perhaps if we agree to speak with them, even without accepting that narrative, and even if we think it is foolish and wicked, and even if there is no justification whatsoever for their side, still the chance of creating understanding may be worth the meeting. After all, what is there to lose? The wars have not exactly been working for us so far. True, the chance that it will succeed is rather small, but what do we lose by the very attempt? And even if it is hopeless, what is wrong with such a meeting in itself? I mean a policy that continues to fight them vigorously and resolutely, without sparing and without pity, and together with that supports meetings of acquaintance and attempts to reach reconciliation. I do not see what is wrong with that, or what can be lost here.
One can of course argue whether it is right to do this on Memorial Day (in my opinion, no), but that is really a marginal dispute. Here I am dealing mainly with the principal issue and not with the trivial details that, as usual, occupy center stage in our discourse.
An important distinction: between understanding and agreement
What such a meeting requires from us is some degree of understanding, and perhaps a bit of accommodation. I do not mean justification of their way, but an understanding of the (foolish and wicked) narrative within which they live. If you want to reach any kind of understanding with your enemy, you need to understand what he thinks and how he thinks.
At this point the great figures of right-wing Zionism rise up in protest: how can a person with a Zionist worldview accommodate and grant legitimacy to his enemies? But they ignore the fact that there is no justification and no legitimacy here, only a call to become acquainted. Without that it is hard to see how one reaches reconciliation.[1] As stated, understanding is not justification and not legitimacy, and therefore I do not see why committed right-wingers, even those who view the Palestinians as I described above, cannot participate in such meetings. To the best of my judgment, there is no connection between such meetings and worldview, right or left. This is a striving for pragmatic compromise, not an endorsement of our enemies' reasons and conceptions.
On gatherings and worldviews: a few examples
I find it hard to avoid the association that such a sentence always triggers in me. When I hear that something is unrelated to right and left, I immediately understand that the speaker has a very clear agenda (right or left) and is trying to advance it. When I hear such statements, I immediately begin to look for where the agenda is hidden here, whether left-wing or right-wing. Thus, for example, Miriam Naor, the outgoing president of the Supreme Court, wrote at the beginning of the ruling on supermarkets open on the Sabbath the immortal sentence that this issue is unrelated to religious and secular people. It apparently did not trouble her in the least that, of the five justices who signed the decision, the three secular ones supported opening and the two religious ones opposed it. By the way, in that case I can even explain to you why she is actually right, that is, why it really need not necessarily be connected to religious and secular people. I can easily imagine secular people who oppose opening businesses on the Sabbath, as well as religious people who do not object to it (practically speaking, not in terms of Jewish law). But in practice, the correlation between religious versus secular and a position on the supermarket issue is about 1.
The same was true of the social protest. Again and again the demonstrators bewailed the fact that right-wing people did not come and participate, although the protest "has nothing to do with right and left, religious and secular, settlers and Tel Avivians, etc. etc." The fact is that there were almost no settlers and no religious people there. It seems to me that once there were some who tried and immediately regretted it. Why? Because in practice there most certainly was a correlation (and again, about 1). By the way, in that case the connection between the levels is clear and exists on the theoretical level as well. The right opposes government intervention in the market, subsidies, or price controls, and the left of course supports them.[2] The protest wanted all these things, so what were right-wing people supposed to do there? Well, that brings us to the question of the socio-economic right versus the political right, but I will not enter into that here.
Another example is the Rabin conferences for peace and equality and understanding, and the like (as part of the annual Rabin carnival). The repellent rallies in his memory and in memory of his puny legacy in Municipal Kings Square were rallies of the left. Not surprisingly, right-wing and religious people were absent from them, and anyone who tried got burned and did not repeat the experience. There too the whole business functioned as a left-wing election and propaganda rally under a statist agenda. The same is true of conferences on behalf of infiltrators and migrant workers. If these were not political left-wing conferences, there might perhaps have been a chance of seeing right-wing people there as well (for the government's treatment of these people is indeed disgraceful and criminally negligent). Not to mention protests against governmental corruption (Eldad Yaniv and the rest of his clean-handed crew), which are also populated, almost entirely, by left-wing people and only by them. And again one can hear endless and disingenuous wonder at the fact that right-wing people are absent (for corruption matters to all of us, doesn't it?).
Likewise, you will not find left-wing people in protests over the treatment of the residents of Gush Katif, or in protests against Ariel Sharon after he decided on disengagement and was treated with kid gloves. Why not? Because these rallies are right-wing propaganda rallies, and therefore there is no reason for left-wing people to participate in them. Theoretically, it need not be so. A protest over proper treatment of the evacuees, or against the corruption of Ariel Sharon and his family, who conducted themselves in the state as though it were their private estate, could be carried on by people of different views. I would have expected left-wing people to be even more dominant in such rallies, but no. It does not happen, and rightly so. These are political conferences of the right that opposes disengagement, and left-wing people will not find themselves in them.
Between theory and practice
The conclusion from all these examples (and there are many more, of course) is that even if, on the theoretical plane, protests and gatherings for certain purposes might indeed exist in which right-wing and left-wing people, religious and secular people, participate together, in practice this does not happen. Why not? We have seen that there are cases where it does not happen for genuine reasons (as in the social protest), and there the statements that try to sever the connection to worldviews are hollow and demagogic. But in quite a few other cases, where there really is no connection on the theoretical plane, it still does not happen on the practical plane. The reason for this is mainly the tendentiousness and blatant agenda of the organizers, which of course they deny and about which they feign innocence. They try to push their agendas through the rally, and in doing so they are really shooting themselves in the foot.
If you are trying to promote reconciliation and understanding between us and the Palestinians, the last thing that makes sense is to put David Grossman on the stage to speak about the government's failures and to advance his views in every sphere of life. If you did that, do not tell me that the rally is meant for people of right and left, and do not feign innocence in wondering why there were no right-wing people there. If you want to advance the left-wing agenda and undermine the government's standing, do not expect right-wing people to come and take part with you in that.
It is my impression that left-wing people suffer from this failure more severely. They are incapable of making the separation between a particular goal and their worldview on all issues and in all spheres. They cannot promote a humane approach to infiltrators without also trying to topple the government and explaining why Bibi is corrupt and why the government is failing and wicked in all its decisions (including peace and occupation). They do not understand that this linkage is a shot in their own foot and is, among other things, what prevents them from achieving their goals.
On provocations and agendas
By the way, the decision to hold the joint gathering of the Israeli and Palestinian bereaved families on Memorial Day is part of that same folly. Quite apart from your substantive position on this unimportant issue (the timing), it is clear that this is a provocation whose only achievement will be public disapproval. But after all, you declare that your desire is to promote understanding between the sides, do you not? Is the way to achieve such understanding by sticking a finger in the eye of the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public? And again, I do not identify with the public on this matter. As far as I am concerned, there would have been no problem had they held this gathering in the very midst of Memorial Day. But please, do not tell me you were surprised by the reactions (as one could infer from the press interviews). Therefore I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that their goal was not to promote understanding but the provocation. They were trying to create a political protest against the government, not understanding, and for that the provocation is indeed the right way to achieve it. Understanding? My foot.
By the way, those same left-wing people have a faithful partner in their way: Defense Minister Liberman, long may he live. He did not approve the entry of the Palestinian invitees to this ceremony, when it was clear that the matter would reach the High Court of Justice. Of course he could not present any ground that could survive a rational and legal test, and so this was a chronicle of a failure foretold. As defense minister he is not responsible for hurting anyone's feelings, nor for educating the public. He is the defense minister, and his considerations are supposed to be security considerations. That is all. But he himself openly admitted in the High Court of Justice that he had no security reasons and that he did not act for such reasons. Moreover, he also refused a compromise proposed to him by the court, even though it was clear that he was going to lose, and rightly so. Why? Because the feelings of the parents and the substantive issue interest him not a whit. From his point of view the goal was one and only one: to present himself as the defender of Jewish and Israeli nationalism and the fighter against terror, while at the same time presenting the court as villains who fight against that. By the way, the court did exactly what it was supposed to do in such a case: ensure compliance with the law and reasonable procedure. Although, in my opinion, it was too mild. They did not force Liberman to admit all the invitees, but instead made a compromise in the numbers (90 instead of 200). I have no idea why. Perhaps it was simply excessive caution out of respect for the executive branch. That happens there more than once.
Thus we have a win-win situation. The forum profited, for although no understanding with the Palestinians was promoted in any way, that was not their goal. Their goal was the political provocation, and that was carried out well. David Grossman explained to everyone how wicked those sitting in government are and why all their actions are against Zionism, morality, reason, and the brotherhood of nations. Thus the chance of understanding between the peoples diminished (there will remain some understanding between Grossman and a few Palestinians who came to speak with him), but once again things were said in condemnation of our wicked government. And Liberman too profited, of course, for he presented himself as the defender of Zionism against its wicked attackers (the court). This demagoguery has nothing whatever to do with the truth, of course, just as the forum's demagoguery that it wants to promote understanding has nothing whatever to do with the truth. Neither side came in order to advance anything genuine. Liberman, exactly like the forum itself, was looking only for provocations to advance his agenda, and that is indeed what both sides achieved. Neither side is truly interested in advancing the cause it professes.
And who lost? The truth. In fact, all of us. In the final analysis, the gathering that was held did not promote understanding between us and the Palestinians; on the contrary, it increased the polarization and reduced the chance (small to begin with) of understanding. Liberman won additional electoral support for no fault of his own, and the court once again emerged as the villain here, and that too, at least in this particular case, through no fault of its own. That is precisely what I said: win-win situation.
So what should be done?
It seems to me that the way to get rid of all these political pests on all sides is to try to promote substantive discussion. We should not let people who lead political agendas interfere in civic initiatives undertaken for defined purposes. Not only politicians, but writers too and the rest of the creatures who do not know their place.
A few years ago Yoaz Hendel established a right-wing organization that looks after the human rights of Palestinians in Judea and Samaria (see here and here). I very much liked that idea, because truly a struggle for the human rights of innocent people has nothing to do with right and left. But in practice, as you surely will not be surprised to hear, the correlation between right and left and concern for human rights is almost 1. What suffers from this, of course, are human rights and our morality. A person on the right is apparently not allowed to care that innocent people not be harmed (just as he is not allowed to oppose wars). By contrast, a person on the left cannot support severe and unequivocal action against terrorists (nor, likewise, support a just war). The discourse is not substantive, and all of us lose.
The root of the evil is the need for coalitions. In order for your voice to be heard in the public sphere, you must attach yourself to more people and groups. But those people and groups think differently about various issues. Therefore, by its very nature, you are drawn into a problem. Every component in the coalition pulls it in a different direction. If there is a particular issue for which you want to act, then please do so without mixing it together with other issues, justified as they may be in your eyes; otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot.
A call to establish ad hoc coalitions
Here I return to the point with which I opened. This is really one of the problems with all those demonstrations and gatherings, or different organizations, or other collectives from which I keep my distance. If the speakers, the leaders of the struggle, and the writers of the position papers were careful to deal only with the point for which we had gathered, the problem would be very greatly reduced. But they do not do that. They tend to reap additional gains (justified from their point of view; I am sure that David Grossman genuinely and sincerely believes in the things he said) on the way, and in doing so they are actually shooting the main struggle for which they gathered in the foot.
The conclusion is that instead of creating organizations with different ideologies that will try to advance them, it is better to create ad hoc coalitions for one defined purpose. If there were such coalitions, I might perhaps swallow hard and be willing to see myself as a cog in the four-hundred-thousand-person demonstration (and perhaps in that case there really would be four hundred thousand there). If, when I come to a demonstration for migrant workers, I did not find myself at a political rally against Bibi and Miri Regev, perhaps I would come. If in a protest over the cost of living I could express my position on the matter itself without having to identify with Meretz or the Labor Party, perhaps I would come there too. If at a gathering meant to create understanding between the Palestinians and us they really spoke about understanding and not about Bibi, and in that way enabled even a person like me, with everything he thinks about the Palestinians (as stated above), to participate, then perhaps it would make sense to come. But in practice they do not enable that, and therefore I do not come and will not come. The right way is to do in every sphere what Yoaz Hendel did, but that truly is not simple. When there is no political and ideological engine at the base of the activity, it is hard to mobilize resources and people for it. This is a real tangle that drags our discourse into the abyss. Well, I have done my part…
[1] By the way, this is also how Barak's aforementioned remarks should be understood, and as such they are entirely correct and sensible. The uproar that arose after them again shows, for anyone who still needs proof of it, the shallowness of our discourse.
[2] I will not enter here into the discussion of an open and free market (without import tariffs), which actually suits the right-wing agenda, and it is precisely this that usually leads to lower prices. The left-wing people there were actually pushing the government to take steps that, at least in part, are plainly right-wing.