"Until When Is the End of the Riots?": Another Look at the 5781 Riots (Column 389)

At that time Michael will stand, the great prince who stands over the children of your people; and there shall be a time of trouble such as has never been since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people shall escape—everyone who is found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence. And the wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament, and those who make the many righteous like the stars forever and ever. But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall roam to and fro and knowledge shall increase. And I, Daniel, saw, and behold, two others were standing—one here on the bank of the river and one there on the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen who was above the waters of the river: “How long until the end of the wonders?” And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river; and he lifted his right hand and his left hand to heaven and swore by Him who lives forever that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when the shattering of the power of the holy people is complete, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I did not understand; and I said, “My lord, what will be the latter end of these things?” And he said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. Many will be purified and made white and refined; but the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand; but the wise will understand.”

(Daniel 12:1–10)

In the excerpt from Daniel you can find everything: the troubles that befall Israel, the ongoing lack of understanding and the need to clarify and refine matters and bring order to the chaos, and even “those who make the many righteous” (the leftists—may their names be blotted out) and the clash between right and left. Oh, and how could I forget Michael the great prince?! Leika midi delo remeiza… nothing goes unhinted at.

The End of the Riots

In the previous column I discussed the 5781 riots and their meaning. Now, when it seems they’re approaching their end, I have a few remarks relevant to this stage. These days I’m starting to read the summaries and recommendations of various people (most of them predictable, as expected). Many point to unequal treatment that creates frustration among Arab citizens of Israel, and to the fact that not all of them are rioters and supporters of the riots (a radical minority; most are loyal citizens who just want quiet). Others claim we must not ignore the question of blame and must not draw symmetry between Arabs and Jews (rioters on all sides—see also the emotional and detached responses to my previous column). People speak about the need to improve the situation of Arabs in order to prevent frustration and the events that are likely to recur, and, on the other hand, about the need for governance, and so on. Needless to say, as usual, anyone can guess in advance what a right-wing writer will write and what will appear with a left-wing writer. All is foreseen, yet permission is given.

To be honest, my motivation in this column is not critical. To my best judgment, on these matters almost everyone is right. My aim here is to try to put these ideas in order and perhaps even reconcile them with one another. If everyone is right, then what actually should be done? A firm hand and strong governance, or greater equality and proper treatment of Arabs? To understand them or to blame them? To point also to the phenomenon of Jewish rioters or to boycott Cellcom? You can imagine that some of the points I’ll raise may seem contradictory, while others will appear so simple as to be trivial. The truth is there’s no contradiction here, but some of the points are indeed embarrassingly simple. Still, as Ramchal wrote in the introduction to Mesillat Yesharim, sometimes there’s a need to repeat simple things. That’s precisely what it means to bring order to chaos and to reveal the end of the wonders/riots.

Cellcom as a Parable

Yesterday a WhatsApp and Facebook storm broke out around a strike/protest by the Cellcom company. Cellcom announced yesterday a one-hour strike in protest against extremism and calling for coexistence. As is our way, there was hysterical incitement about the traitors at Cellcom. People raged and cursed, and it is a wonder in my eyes that no one climbed onto Cellcom with a D9 to eradicate the evil from our midst. Well, at least we can take comfort that thousands answered the call and disconnected from those traitors, and thus their stock dropped significantly. Serves them right, those scoundrels. Below you’ll see a few posters the company published to illustrate the matter. Anyone can see they are the basest sort of traitors, and the thing needs no further proof.

On my WhatsApp I saw the following calls: “Disconnect immediately from Cellcom, which identifies with the enemy’s strike,” #We_Do_Not_Give_In_No_More#. “Note, don’t switch by mistake to Cellcom’s subsidiaries” (for fear of nat bar nat). It was truly a hysterical storm, and I pinched myself to understand what was going on here. Even the lowly discourse common in our realm doesn’t know such levels of degradation. People took part whom I know as decidedly intelligent. I tried to remark something, but I was scolded that I and Cellcom (I’m in fine company) are creating symmetry between Arabs and Jews. One thing is clear: there wasn’t a gram of attentiveness there. As our Sages already said: when the cannons roar, the muses fall silent.

And all this appeared with a decidedly non-digital homebody like me. I assume that in the expanses of WhatsApp and Facebook, whose paths are not as familiar and accessible to me as the streets of Neharda’a, the situation was much worse. No wonder there were defections from Cellcom and a significant drop in the share price (it will pass, of course). I think that to get a sense of the arguments, it’s best to bring the dialogues here verbatim. I suppose by doing so I can spare quite a few commenters here the expected rants at a leftist traitor like me—though, in my unlearned assessment, it won’t really help.

An Illuminated Conversation

Two preliminary notes: First, several respondents take part in this conversation and they all appear under the nickname “Responder.” Second, I’m convinced the discourse here is moderate, balanced, and substantive compared to discussions that surely took place in other WhatsApp groups around the country. Precisely my esteem for the speakers’ level and my familiarity with them bring me to analyze a bit what happened here.

So here it is:

Me: Friends, I don’t understand the pile-on against Cellcom. Nowhere did I see identification with the Arabs. There was a protest against violence and a call for coexistence. What’s wrong with that?

Non-disclosure: I have no sympathy for Cellcom due to their business conduct. I’m commenting here on the matter itself.

Responder: Do you think it’s just by chance that the protest is exactly on the day of the strike called by the Arab community’s follow-up committee?

Me: Definitely. If only because they aren’t committing business suicide. They issued a clarification about the timing, and I completely believe them.Responder: They issued a clarification after a wave of disconnections and a 1.5% drop in the share.Responder: The share fell by about two percent; estimates speak of a drop of about 100 million NIS in market value in half a trading day.Responder: And in general, all these oh-so-moving protests perpetuate the false narrative of “violence on both sides.” The day there’s a protest of Arabs alone against violence, I’ll be more impressed. Right now I’m busy running with my kids to the safe room.Me: Oh, come on. Of course they issued a clarification after realizing there was a misunderstanding. Do you really think a mass Israeli company—whatever the CEO’s or chair’s views—would take such a suicidal step? Who would even approve him adopting a political stance on an issue about which there’s a very broad Jewish consensus? It’s simply absurd. I’ve no doubt they never thought of identifying with the Arabs. And by the way—without equating—there is violence on both sides. See La Familia.Responder: If that’s the case, why are they the only large company in the Israeli economy that did this? And what is each public’s attitude to the violence on “its” side?Me: Very different. I said I’m not equating.Responder: Aside from two Arab MKs (Freij from Meretz and Abbas from Ra’am) I didn’t hear a denunciation of the acts. You’d think it was raining. But apparently many think it isn’t. And not by chance.Me: Right. I’m not conducting a comparative discussion. This again moves to emotions. I asked about Cellcom, not whether the Arabs are righteous.Responder: Read the wording of the announcement that explains why the strike is being held.Me: I read it at the outset.Here someone posted a comment by Amit Segal—a notorious leftist—on the matter: https://twitter.com/amit_segal/status/1394704413210595331?s=08. Blessed is He who guided me to his expansive opinion.Responder: I respect Amit Segal very much, of course. Bottom line, the company chose a very, very unusual step from my personal point of view, so any consumer boycott of them is, in my eyes, appropriate.Responder: I’ll state my personal view:I’m really not one hundred percent sure it was done specifically on this day because of the Arab strike. And from the wording of the announcement itself, in a vacuum—there’s nothing especially unusual. But even if so, it’s a very great stupidity—stupidity that in the business world costs a lot of money. This statement doesn’t come in a vacuum; it is of course worded to present symmetry or “both sides,” which is also a very great falsehood. Since I know workers’ organizations and HR departments in high-tech companies—I understand where it came from: an attempt to create calm in a mixed organization.Nevertheless, I think that in an era where everything revolves around “sensitivities”: harm to holy places, installing magnetometers, “divisive discourse”—of course usually from one side of the divide—then it’s not so bad if the Jewish majority, justifiably hurt by the situation, is overly sensitive and demands—through the wallet—that various companies choose wisely their wording and steps. Cellcom excels at emotional ads because it knows the public wants an experience. So our experience isn’t good, and we’ll serve it up on a platter.In general, in extreme events I think one should behave extremely—even if there are ricochets from time to time—because usually the message gets across faster and better that way.Responder: Rabbi Michi, look at this image (and here a part of this) that was included as part of the broader message. Don’t you see in it a supposedly “neutral” stance that ignores the fact that there’s one side (mainly) that harms and another side that is harmed?Responder: The call to “both sides” to live in peace essentially lays blame for the current situation on both sides, and in effect beats the breast of the wrong chest. I don’t think any other interpretation can be given to it.Responder: I agree. A call to both sides to stop doesn’t mean both sides were violent in the same way. It means that the small and asymmetric part where there were those who used force on innocents—that too must stop. And of course also, and especially, the violence by many in the Arab sector. But if you ask only the other side to desist and say that what “our” side does is fine—that, in my eyes, is wrong and improper. We are in favor of stopping violence wherever it is. And by the way, stopping violence doesn’t mean peace and coexistence.You can still remember what they did and run a consumer boycott or anything within law and morality, but a call to stop violence must always be two-sided even when there is no symmetryMe: I can’t even see a possibility to interpret it that way, and I think I’m fairly practiced in the field of interpretation. If they were dealing with who’s to blame, I would agree that ignoring the asymmetry is problematic. But when dealing with a call for coexistence, by definition it should be symmetric. It takes two to tango. Do you think they should have called only on Arabs to live in peace with Jews? I ask both on the level of utility (could such a call succeed) and on the substantive level (peace and coexistence are made between two sides).Responder: In my view, a commercial company should preferably not take part in the political discourse. And if at all, I would expect it to strengthen the residents of the south/mixed cities who were harmed by the riots.Me: Even if you were right that this is part of political discourse (and I don’t think it is), then why is strengthening the residents of the south their role? Is a commercial company supposed to strengthen the residents of the south? But in any case these are new claims and they’re not related to the discussion we held.Responder: I’m against a company taking sides, at least until their apology. But I do think that a two-sided call to calm tempers can be okay—although it too becomes problematic when someone from the outside says it. It starts bordering on moral preaching by someone who didn’t feel what happened. But yes, when asking to desist from violence—it must always be two-sidedHere numbers about Cellcom’s share drop were introduced.Responder: What about these numbers (referring to the chart of Cellcom’s share price drop)? Do you still think it’s all incidental?Me: Completely. Those numbers aren’t relevant to the discussion. That’s a confusion between correlation and causation.Now the above ad from Cellcom came in, with a call against extremism and extremists, and Cellcom’s clarifying ad, in which it refers to criticism of it as an act by extremists trying to fan the flames.Me: Indeed those who protested against Cellcom acted extremely and from the gut. That’s an accurate description. I saw the ad, and I sign every word and every frame in that image. Moreover, I myself wanted to initiate an event in this spirit in Lod. Unfortunately I have yet to get an answer from the sheikh I approached (I’ve been in contact with him in the past). Yes, yes, I know this proves everything.I must add that it’s truly bizarre to me that anyone sees anything wrong in such an image. There’s no symmetry here either, because it’s not dealing with the question of who is to blame and who started (=the Arabs, in my view too). What’s being tried here is to look ahead. As they say: don’t be right—be smart. Altogether a reasonable course of action, together with the demand to bring the rioters to justice and together with the demand to draw conclusions and hold our pathetic police to account for the terrible delinquency it showed and still shows. Grown-ups are supposed to weigh their actions also on the scale of outcomes, goals, and utility. And by “weigh,” I appeal to the head, not to the gut and the (justified) feelings of frustration.

In sum, the matter speaks for itself. Cellcom published an innocent ad calling for peaceful coexistence and was immediately accused by right-wing public figures and the wider public that automatically charges after them, of supporting the Arabs’ strike (because of the timing and the content). But there are no bears and no forest. Even with eyes closed and doing a backflip I wouldn’t be able to interpret their innocent ad as supporting the Arabs, and I don’t discern even a trace of “symmetrizing” between Arabs and Jews there. There’s simply no connection (just as there’s no symmetry in my previous column despite the rants in the comments). As I mentioned, I myself thought of such an initiative in Lod during the events, and when I planned what could be said there, it was clear to me that if you want to promote coexistence you must not enter into blame and questions of symmetry, but focus only on the call for coexistence with our faces to the future. That’s exactly what Cellcom did, and they did well. But even if someone thinks they didn’t, or that it stands no chance, the interpretation applied to their ad doesn’t pass any reasonable test. That already belongs to the objective realm.

Still, a Note on Symmetry

Everything I’ve written does not touch on the question of blame. The Arabs who rampaged here were an incited herd, primitive and uncultured. They used brutal violence for ridiculous reasons (Al-Aqsa fabrications and settler hooliganism of various sorts), and those who use violence indeed deserve to be dealt with harshly and, when necessary, to use live fire against them and exact a heavy price. I wrote in the previous column that this is true even when there is no mortal danger, and I absolutely stand by that. And apropos symmetry, there were Jewish savages (La Familia and the like) who also rampaged like a herd of beasts, and they should have been dealt with with the same iron fist—up to live fire and beyond. Therefore those who speak of terror on both sides and the need to deal with it are right. And no, that has nothing to do with symmetry of blame and the question of who started. But one cannot deny that there is unjustified terror and violence on both sides.[1]

The limited symmetry I’ve described here pertains to questions of blame and policy for dealing with the riots. In contrast, when dealing with a call for coexistence and peace, none of this has a place. There symmetry must reign. Coexistence is a decision of two sides (as the word “co-existence” implies). Would you expect a call for coexistence addressed to Arabs alone? Seriously? One can argue that one doesn’t believe in such calls because there’s no chance. That’s legitimate, and perhaps true. But you cannot claim that a call for coexistence must address only one side. That’s simply nonsense.

This isn’t highly complex thinking, yet decidedly intelligent people fail to muster a bit of cool-headedness to understand it, let alone adopt it. People raise irrelevant arguments about symmetry and blame when I didn’t deal with those at all. In fact I wasn’t dealing with the conflict and the riots at all, only with the meaning of Cellcom’s step—no more and no less. But when substantive arguments run out and the anger remains, one shifts to other, unrelated realms in which it’s easy to rant and raise various strange arguments to rally support. That’s an indication of a dialogue of the deaf, where anger blinds the eyes of the wise.

To Understand or to Justify

Another important distinction underlies this discussion. When someone tries to understand the Arabs’ motives and the reasons for their actions (their “narrative”—oh, how I hate that loathsome and despicable term), that doesn’t mean he justifies them, nor even that he is trying to find them justification. But if we want to move toward a solution, there’s great sense in understanding each side’s stance—even if I disagree with it, and even if I think it is the result of cynical and malicious manipulation. In the end I ought to understand what goes through the mind of the one facing me in this conflict so I can conduct myself toward him. But in our stormy days, anyone who tries to understand is a leftist traitor. When you understand that the Arab in front of you genuinely believes you’re shooting at his comrades and conquering Al-Aqsa, you’ll appreciate that you won’t succeed with him by arguments of persuasion and blame. Not because they aren’t true (they are), but because it simply cannot work.

And despite that, and perhaps precisely because of it, in the initiative I was considering for joint activity for coexistence in Lod, I decided not to lend my hand to voicing the two sides’ narratives, since that’s not constructive at all. The bean-bag circles in Rabin Square where people babble about everyone’s narratives (Arabs and Jews, left and right) have never helped anyone. I’m among those who decidedly champion truth and clarifying blame, and I’m not willing to yield to any narrative. But precisely because of that, the practical question can and should be conducted without reference to those narratives. In my view the Arabs are the villains in this story—already for a century. They incite and are incited; they murder; they possess a violent culture inward and outward; they invent fictional narratives (which also exist to some extent among us); and of course they never miss an opportunity to miss opportunities and then whine and demand that others solve their problems for them. All that, in my opinion, is entirely true. And still, forward-looking activity to create coexistence, even in the short term, if it has any chance at all (I’m not sure), requires ignoring all that. I can think the one across from me is entirely to blame, but if the only way to move forward is to try to talk on the practical level (what do we do from here on), then a grown-up ought to try to move forward that way. Again, one can dispute and say there’s no chance—and that’s a legitimate position. But if someone thinks there is some chance, it’s only reasonable he take that path. Criticizing him for ignoring questions of blame and asymmetry is irrelevant.

Game Theory

Many voices are now heard (mainly from the left, but not only from there)[2] about our duty at this time to honestly examine the condition of the Arabs and discrimination against them: dealing with the weapons issue, access to education and employment, building permits and solutions, and so on. Whoever ignores the existence of these aspects is burying his head in the sand. They undoubtedly exist. There are excellent reasons for this: starting with the fact that they are our enemies (and I mean most of them, not a small minority) and have been trying to eliminate us (and themselves) for over a hundred years; continuing with the fact that they don’t contribute much to solving the problems beyond whining about discrimination and a lack of loyalty to a state that, all told, treats them kindly and with notable noblesse (despite the inequality, their lives here are far better than in any Arab state in the region).

So what do we do? Again, we must separate the question of blame from the question of practical action with a forward look. They are entirely to blame for their situation. And still, if there’s any chance to change it, it depends on our ability to disengage from questions of blame and responsibility. We certainly must tell them the responsibility to cooperate lies on them, but at the same time we should try to set this process in motion. In my estimation, that’s in all our interests.

And here’s the flip side of the coin. In my view it’s decidedly wrong to do all this now. Following the riots that occurred here, it would be a mistake to give them achievements. That would only incentivize them to riot whenever they want to obtain something. This is true for Israel’s Arabs, for Hamas in Gaza, and for the Arabs of Judea and Samaria. All of these tend to riot instead of taking constructive steps, and it’s important to teach them clearly and resolutely that this doesn’t work (though unfortunately it definitely does work; the Arabs understood long ago that Israel understands only force, and they’re entirely right). Therefore the conclusion from everything I wrote above is not that now we should go solve the equality problems and the other problems of Israel’s Arabs. On the contrary—now we must do nothing except deal with every riot with a firm and decisive hand. When the fury passes and days of calm and peace arrive, then will be the time to improve their situation. In the next outbreak, if it occurs, we must exact a heavy price in the very currency of those achievements themselves—that is, to roll the situation back in a very clear way. Stick and carrot.

So too with Gaza. There, in my opinion, both the left and the right are wrong. The left always “contains” and thinks that improving their situation will improve ours. The right, by contrast, thinks a consistently firm hand will improve ours. But in my view both are wrong. As I understand it, we can and should give Gaza sweeping benefits—from a port to a power station to industry and whatever they want. But the moment rockets are fired, all of that must be destroyed without hesitation. Certainly it’s not right to give them the bribe of Qatari cash (from our strong and resolute right-wing leader), and hush money in the form of gains they receive after every violent round. That’s a tried-and-true recipe that will bring on the next round.

All this is so simple—really game theory for kids—that I’m embarrassed I need to say and explain it. But the fact is that there is no political body whose policy this is, at least not in practice. Our political, security, and law-enforcement bodies seek quiet in the short term, and thereby purchase noise in the long term. When public fury arises they deploy unfocused and ineffective force, but there is no carrot alongside it. Moreover, that force is not actually applied resolutely, since there’s no desire to break the vessels. It is also applied continuously (the blockade on Gaza), and at the same time there are attempts at bribery and appeasement to placate anger and wrath. There’s no clear causal link between the stick and the carrot and the conduct of the other side (the sitra achra). The rational way is to apply brutal force—a “bludgeoning stick”—when needed, and to give a big, sweet “carrot” in the regular course of things. Let them have something to lose, and let there be a causal link between their conduct and what they receive from us.

This is true for all the fronts on which we confront the Arabs (and in fact also for internal fronts among us), and we pay a heavy price for the absence of this policy. We were told during the disengagement from Gaza and the flight from Lebanon that the moment they raise their heads we’ll annihilate everyone with an atom bomb, since now they have something to lose. But in the end we never do it. Those promises are opium for the angry and frustrated Israeli masses, but those facing us understand this well. When there’s only a stick or only a carrot, or when there’s no clear causal link between the stick and the carrot and the conduct on the ground, that is a policy that leads to ruin. A properly applied stick-and-carrot approach, in my view, will bring the greatest gains and also save casualties on both sides in the long run, despite the difficulty in the short run.

I already addressed all this in column 149. It’s practically a mathematical result. Neither the left’s policy nor the right’s can really work. I think by now we’re seasoned by experience, and this thesis is well corroborated empirically. I’m fully aware that our stubborn reality doesn’t always obey mathematical rules (see columns 50 and 318). But mathematical truths carry important weight, and even if in reality they’re not certain, they’re at least worth trying. So far we haven’t done so.

For our purposes, granting achievements to Arabs following the riots would be a great mistake. On the contrary, we must make it very clear that riots are met with a firm hand and set us all back. But at the same time enhanced governance alone will not bring the desired quiet either. Neither the right’s policy nor the left’s can work. In my estimation the only policy with any chance (though certainly not a probability of 1) is to give Arabs, in day-to-day life, equal treatment and as great a sense of partnership as possible, and assistance in solving the sector’s problems—and together with that, a firm hand and decisive treatment (including rolling back some of the gains achieved) when riots occur. This is mandated from a humanistic and democratic perspective, but it’s also tactically effective in advancing our shared life here. Seemingly a measure of unalloyed virtues, but for some reason it has yet to be tried in our quarters.

I suppose there’s no need now to explain why this section doesn’t contradict the previous ones. I am entirely in favor of an iron hand against rioters and also in favor of improving the lot of Israel’s Arabs—but each thing in its measure and in its time. This integrated (but by no means contradictory) policy is, in my view, the only one with any chance of moving us forward. The problematic fecklessness of Israel’s police and government regarding the events that took place here (as I described in the previous column) now takes on added significance. It’s not because only a firm hand will bring the desired solution. The firm hand is just one of the necessary sides, but each side is essential to the whole process. The absence of any one of them will topple it. But I have no doubt that none of this will actually happen. Those potential headless ones will continue to serve here and do nothing—and even if by chance they do something, none of it will be in the right direction.

On the Side: The Meaning of Theology

During my nighttime wanderings in our neighborhood (the neighborhood patrols for self-defense), I got to talk with a few fellows who came as volunteers to help with the watches. One of them quoted to me something a certain rabbi wrote, in which he gets to the root of the matter (and there are many like him). He explained that in Islamic sources there is no possibility of accepting foreign rule over Muslims. That’s at most a temporary state, but in the end Jews are supposed to live under oppressive Muslim rule and be their tributaries. Therefore, he claimed, there is no real solution to this conflict, and whoever thinks otherwise ignores explicit sources in Islam. Since this is a widespread and very persuasive argument against attempts at interim arrangements or solutions at all, I thought it proper to touch on it and explain a point that’s very easy to miss.

Many times I’ve seen critiques of various religions that use quotations from their authoritative sources. For this discussion I’ll ignore the phenomenon of selective quotations and taking things out of context, which is of course very common in such debates. I’ll also ignore ridiculous difficulties about contradictions and “refutations,” which are no less present on the critic’s side (only there he’s empathic enough to look for excuses).[3] Here I want to speak about the significance of sources in religious conduct as such. Think of an Arab analyzing the conduct of Jews, and telling his comrades that in halakhic sources there are very clear rulings about banning sale of homes to gentiles, saving a gentile’s life on Shabbat, the branches of lo techonem, etc. He tells them that even if for now Jews act differently, those are merely constraints of reality. When their hand is strong they will implement their halakhic directives. Therefore one mustn’t trust them and there’s no chance of reaching a lasting arrangement with them.

What would you say to him? I suppose some of you would agree with him, and for them it really is a temporary “hudna.” But in my estimation most sages of Israel aren’t there. Whether they admit it openly or not, most understand that in our world it’s not right to behave that way. This is a world different from the rabbinic world, and even staunch Orthodox will admit there is room and need for halakhic reforms when applying the law’s directives here. In practice, I’m quite convinced, even if our hand is strong and there is no fear of the wicked gentiles (who expect us to save their lives, heaven forfend), the halakhic mechanisms that neutralize those directives in practice will remain in force. The explanations will vary. Some will be more straightforward (such as Rabbi Unterman in his well-known essay on saving a gentile because of “ways of peace,” or my own approach that relies on the Meiri’s argument regarding gentiles bound by the civilized norms of the nations), and some will be crooked explanations by rabbis unwilling to admit the reformist dimensions that exist in their halakhah. The common denominator is that I’m convinced most decisors will rule to desecrate Shabbat—even via biblically prohibited labors—to save a gentile, head-on against the Talmudic law. Most will also say that gentiles should be allowed to live among us, irrespective of the laws of a resident alien (Rav Kook already waived the formal acceptance of the seven Noahide laws before three and appointed all gentiles to be resident aliens without any fault of their own).

What does this mean? That there is an inherent gap between theoretical sources and implementation on the ground. And again, not only a gap born of constraints. It’s an inherent gap between theory and practice. No religion actually operates in practice as its authoritative sources instruct—not even Judaism. And I assume the same holds for Islam. Spokesmen for Islam who try to explain this always encounter criticism that they’re “pretty-please dancers” trying to impress the West (sound familiar?). But I actually believe them. One must remember that in every religion there are fundamentalists who try to drag us back to the sources and erase the gap between the theoretical sources and practical conduct. In the name of honesty and fidelity to the faith, they demand the honor of the sources and their non-implementation in practice, and for most rabbis it’s very hard to tell them straightforwardly that there’s no interest in erasing that gap (thus the need for crooked excuses or turning a blind eye to the arguments). But the truth is that there is an inherent gap—because life is stronger than all of us, and it’s very good that way. Theories aren’t meant to be implemented one-to-one, but to provide a conceptual framework, inspiration, and a direction for practical application.

I believe that as with Judaism, so with Islam. It’s very easy for us to judge Islam in light of its sources, and when similar criticism is raised about us we explain that things were taken out of context, that these are laws “for messianic times,” and that today we don’t apply them. So apparently with them as well. Therefore I’m not entirely despaired of the chance to make progress in coexistence even in the long term. With all due respect to learned explanations about Islamic sources, after exercising force with stick and carrot, I believe there’s a chance (not a certainty, of course) that Islam will have to adapt itself to reality despite those sources. Already today there are moderate interpreters of Islam—heard less among us, to my regret—but they are clearly possible interpretations. They have a rotten culture (to some extent present among us too), where fundamentalist elements set the tone and are those heard in public discourse. But there are many other voices there, and it’s a pity we tend to ignore them.

The War of Propaganda and Consciousness

These days a war over consciousness is beginning. Each side tries to present its truth (its narrative?) regarding who is to blame, who started, whether there is or isn’t symmetry, who rioted, who fired live rounds, whether there are also Jewish extremists/rioters, and so on. And indeed this is an important war, for the lies disseminated in this area would not shame Goebbels.

I’ve already said that in my eyes the Arabs are to blame. They started; they are far more violent and far less in the right; they are incited over ridiculous pretexts; and their eastern imagination creates pictures that never were, declaimed as if they had seen them with their own eyes. I wrote that in my view they should have been dealt with (and the Jewish rioters) with a strong hand and live fire. And after I’ve said that, I’ll add that a propaganda war, by its nature, justifies lies from all sides. And yes, there were rioters and violent people also on the Jewish side, and evading recognition of those ugly phenomena is no less mistaken and no less harmful than the leftists’ ignoring the question of blame and asymmetry. Yes, one may hold a “patriotic” view that we are the most right and the most moral—together with self-critique. That’s allowed and desirable. Incidentally, I think it also inspires more trust and therefore is useful practically. There is no duty to present a black-and-white picture—because the picture isn’t such—and in my opinion, generally speaking, it’s also not really useful. Once you’re caught in a side-lie, they won’t accept from you even the big truth (see Rashi on Eve and the serpent—touching and eating). As I understand it, it’s better to insist on the truth and not spread “holy lies” (see column 21). It’s easy and tempting, but I think it’s less effective and certainly less right and proper.

In the moral context, I was just sent an excellent post by Hagai Meshgav, he too a known leftist, dealing with the moral drifts of the conflict and the narratives bound up with it. Very much worth reading.

A Dessert Tidbit: The Ad of the “Arab Public Representatives in Lod”

To conclude, I’ll connect in some way to what I wrote at the start of the previous column about social networks, their influence, and the proper attitude toward them. As part of the propaganda war discussed in the previous section, this morning I received on WhatsApp a report published on the Rotter site (the cognoscenti told me it’s not the pinnacle of reliability, and that certainly matches what I thought), telling that “the Arab public representatives in Lod” published a list of outrageous demands of the government following the recent riots. Signed at the bottom: “The People’s Committee – Lod.” It was something like: expelling the “settlers” from the city; collecting weapons (of course only from them, not from the Arabs); prosecuting them (so far the police seem quite good at that—there are three Jews who were involved in the shooting of the Arab at the start of the riots on Monday who were jailed and, if I understood correctly, are apparently slated to stand trial. See about this case here); improving the Arabs’ conditions; and a boycott of anyone who doesn’t cooperate with these demands.

Needless to say, WhatsApp is boiling again. True, there’s no one to boycott, unlike in the case of Cellcom (actually one could avoid buying from Arabs and avoid their services), but now it’s clear to everyone that a firm hand is needed here and that the arms of those representatives—may their names be erased—and the public that chose them must be cut off. If these are the words of the authorized representatives, then obviously there is no other solution.

Surely you won’t be surprised to hear that I, the notorious tub-cooler, wrote in response to the call the following:

I must ask again: who are these representatives? Who appointed them? In whose name are they speaking? It reminds me of the pashkevilim on the walls of Meah Shearim in the name of “all the great sages of the generation,” or news items that quote “the great rabbis of Religious Zionism,” “the eldest of the kabbalists,” “the Almighty’s representative in Central Asia,” and the like.

And no, I don’t intend to justify or understand, nor to deny that this is a prevailing mood among the Arabs. I only intend to put things in proportion and remind whoever needs it how we’re supposed to relate to news items and viral announcements on social networks. There is a known fallacy of quick and complete adoption of baseless “news” simply because it falls on a matching background (thus right-wingers will explain there was a council of Arab elders in Lod who issued the above announcement, and the elders of the left will explain that what’s described here is exactly how things are). And I was young and I have grown old, and I’m careful not to count myself among those elders and to lay my hand also from those elders. Both are the living words of bias.

In Bnei Brak, when I lived there, a joke went around about papers with the logo “Institutions of the Weisskvess Hasidic Court” or “Institutions of the Paths of Zerubbabel,” where the unfortunate fellow spent his last money on a stamp and now has no money left even for a table. No choice—now the poor man has to go back to kollel.

Time will tell (perhaps) whether there’s any substance to this report and what the real representatives say. I’m sure they don’t say this and certainly not in this tone. And even if by chance they did say all this, it won’t actually be implemented. But we shall wait and see.

After writing these things (I deliberately left them as they were), I must honestly confess that just now I received a reply from the sheikh I approached (in the above initiative), and he confirmed that these are indeed representatives and that the sector largely agrees with the words (at least in his opinion—I wasn’t impressed that they are truly elected representatives). And still, from the very reading of the pamphlet one couldn’t draw those conclusions. Beyond that, I also think that in practice this is not what will be reflected on the ground in the future. Again—we shall wait and see.

[1] Yes, these are the words of that Kobi Shabtai—the pitiable police commissioner responsible for this failure—and the minister over him, no less pitiful, who criticized him for it (see here). In a normal country the heads of those two wretches would long since have been cut off (legally and publicly) in the town square.

[2] See, for example, this fawning and oh-so-typical interview with retired Justice Elyakim Rubinstein (the facts are known: most legal reporters in Israel work for the judicial system; they suffer from blind admiration and are totally devoid of critical sense), who badly falls into this mistake.

[3] I’ve mentioned here before an article in Tzohar in which a chapter was published from a book where Rav Tzvi Yehuda (Kook) critiques Christianity. It was really a book for not-very-gifted children. He ignores the fact that those “refutations” are found a thousand-fold among us, and attacks them in light of sources from our Torah. One of my friends called the book that was then about to appear (and in the meantime I’ve seen it came out): The New Testament with the Glosses of Rav Tzvi Yehuda.