A New Jewish Identity: A Home for Jews Who Don’t Feel They Belong

[Speaker A] There’s a third way in Judaism, beyond Haredi society and Religious Zionism. Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham, a physicist and philosopher, believes there is. As the founder of the Third Path movement, he is seeking to create a new spiritual home for commandment-observant Jews who do not identify with the existing currents. Dr. Abraham, you founded a new movement. Tell us what led you to establish the Third Path movement, what it means, what it offers.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, there’s a theoretical infrastructure and there’s a practical situation. The theoretical infrastructure is that religious identity today is divided around the line of one’s attitude toward the state: Haredim are against the state or Zionism, and the Religious Zionists are in favor of Zionism. And my feeling is that the attitude toward Zionism is an anachronism, it’s not relevant. At the end of the day, the Haredim today are in the coalition, not only are they cooperating, the state exists and everyone is here, we’re not debating whether to establish a state. So why do we need to remain divided around this watershed line? That’s on the theoretical level. On the level — still on the theoretical level — around what, then? In other words, what are the questions that actually divide the religious public today? Almost all of them revolve around the question of modernity, you could say — liberalism, modernity, openness, things like that. When we argue about how the Chief Rabbinate should function, religious coercion, integrating Haredim.

[Speaker A] And what is your view on all those issues, and how is it different from what’s happening today?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The claim is first of all that the discussion should be conducted around that, before the religious question, and not around the attitude toward the state. Now on the practical level — that’s the theory. On the practical level, the fact is that the discussion continues to be conducted around that old issue, and the representatives both of the Haredim and of the Religious Zionists are actually very close in these respects of attitude toward modernity; both reject it, and they’re divided around an irrelevant question and keep waving the flags with full force, while on the ground, among the public, a great many people no longer find themselves either here or there. And the feeling is that they’re looking for a home.

[Speaker A] Not here and not there — you mean not in the Haredi parties and not with Smotrich and Ben Gvir?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, at the political extreme, but I’m not speaking only about politics. Politics expresses this issue. Neither Smotrich represents them, nor Gafni or, I don’t know, Deri. And so the feeling is that they’re looking for a home. There’s already a public — it’s just that there’s no home. In public discourse there’s no home.

[Speaker A] A public — how large a public do you think there is?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We conducted surveys, also in the Haredi public, because we’re trying to connect both a Haredi public and a Religious Zionist public, because the watershed line is no longer between Haredim and Religious Zionists. There is definitely a large public. More than sixty percent of Haredim do not find representation on the current political map. That’s among the Haredim.

[Speaker A] Wait, and you founded a movement called the Third Path — is it a political movement? Do you want to run in politics?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Third Path is currently a social-ideological movement.

[Speaker A] But do you want to run in politics in the future?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We’re considering it. Right now we haven’t decided yet, we’re still examining our path. But we’re currently only setting the whole thing up, so at this stage it’s too early. How many people are in your movement? So far, even before we’ve officially launched, there are already something like a thousand registered, beyond those who are interested, house gatherings and classes and lectures and all kinds of things like that. And once we launch, I very much hope we’ll discover what we expect to discover. So where do you stand politically?

[Speaker A] Meaning, is this more right-wing, more left-wing? What are you proposing? What do you think about the burning issues?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We have a double problem with entering politics. One problem is that usually anyone who presents himself as being in the middle, in the religious context, gets tagged as left-wing. The second problem is that in the religious world the left is passé, meaning, you have no chance.

[Speaker A] How do you define yourself — left or right?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I define myself as — no — leaning right. Yes, leaning even significantly, I would say, to the right. And among the members there are all kinds. And one of our tasks is to try to persuade the public that right-left is not the important question today; it’s also not really properly defined today. So what is the important question? The important questions are really the attitude toward religion and state, integrating Haredim, the conduct of the Chief Rabbinate.

[Speaker A] And what’s your view regarding religion and state?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Separation, or continue the current situation? Personally, I think they should be completely separated, but that’s not the agenda of the Third Path. I can’t speak in the name of all the members there, but yes, most of them, I think, agree with me on this.

[Speaker A] But they do think about it, and you do talk about it?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We talk. Drafting Haredim? Absolutely. Haredim need to be drafted, they need to be integrated, educational tracks need to be opened, state-Haredi schools should of course be encouraged, and all the landmines that trap the Haredim need to be neutralized. They themselves are trapping themselves. A great many Haredim are trying to find a way out, they feel distress, but in the end, since they have no one to identify with, they don’t have some heading that says “we’re there,” so they remain Haredi. Right — they’re light Haredi, Haredi on the side, they don’t fully identify, sort of yes, sort of no — but the model is basically a Haredi model.

[Speaker A] Why haven’t the Haredi parties, for example, changed over the years? The parties are very old, you could say — Shas, United Torah Judaism — whereas in other parties you see changes, mergers, collapses, all kinds of things. In the Haredi parties it’s been the same parties for many, many years, more or less the same leaders too.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right. I think that’s precisely an expression of the anachronism I spoke about earlier: we keep arguing about questions that have long since stopped being relevant, and our parties continue to operate on that agenda. Now in practice there’s no real difference between Smotrich and the Haredim in most contexts. Settlements — of course he’s further to the right — but they’ll cooperate with him; give them enough money, they’ll cooperate with whoever you want. So there isn’t really any genuine disagreement between them. They just draw votes from two different publics. That’s all. And this tangle needs to be solved.

[Speaker A] Maybe that’s why they’re also partners in the same government?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Completely. In a marvelous symbiosis. And usually people present it as some kind of surrender — there’s no choice, you have to compromise. It’s not only compromises. There are some compromises, they’re not exactly identical, but it’s not only compromises. There’s some very deep identification there, in that both of these poles actually believe in the same Torah-based, Jewish conception, beyond the slogans about the state and redemption, which in practice aren’t really meaningful.

[Speaker A] So I’ll ask you the most important question: what do you think of Netanyahu?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] In my view, that is really not the most important question.

[Speaker A] When you ask people who are political players, or want to be political players, that’s the question that divides people, divides parties, that…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] One of the things that jams up the entire system, including the religious public, is the centrality of that question. Personally, I really don’t like Netanyahu. I’d be very happy if he left. I think he’s a harmful and problematic person. I’m speaking for myself, by the way, not for the movement. I’m speaking for myself. But I don’t think election campaigns should revolve around the question of yes Netanyahu or no Netanyahu. At the moment, that’s what they revolve around. So we’ll try to deal with that.

[Speaker A] What do you think about Greater Land of Israel and settlement in the territories, and so on?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Another question that in my view is less important, because we don’t really have a real option today that can actually be discussed — whether to compromise or not compromise. If you ask me, in principle I’m in favor of a reasonable compromise, if our interests are properly protected. I don’t see such an option existing in the near future at all, and therefore in my view to base your agenda or your election campaign on that question is again an anachronism. You’re ignoring the questions that are really important and setting them aside in favor of a question that seems important, takes over the whole screen, but in fact everyone thinks more or less the same about it and there’s no real practical option anyway.

[Speaker A] Look, today we’re in a situation where we have Gaza, and people are thinking what to do with it — for example evacuating Gaza. There are those who are horrified by that idea, and there are those who think it’s a wonderful idea. Settlement there, for example — again, there are people in favor.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Excellent example. Settlement is a somewhat different matter, but say evacuating Gaza — it seems to me that’s an excellent example. Because if you check among the public, in my view most of the public has no problem with it. It’s not practical, I don’t think it will happen. Just on the conceptual level, most of the public has no problem with it. The ones shouting hysterically in favor or hysterically against — those are exactly the extremes I’m trying to leave aside. And I’m trying not to surrender to this discourse that forces me to go either to this extreme or that extreme. It’s not practical, so I don’t think there’s any point at all in dealing with this matter of evacuating Gaza or not evacuating Gaza. But it’s an excellent example of the rigidity of our discourse. Yes, and that’s an example, and it’s not rigidity.

[Speaker A] What do you mean, not rigidity?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] I want to know who will be Chief Rabbi. What will the policy of the rabbinical courts be? I want to know whether there will be religious coercion here. I want to know whether there will be equality for women and men.

[Speaker A] What do you think about religious coercion, for example? I’m against religious coercion. No — do you think there is religious coercion?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There is coercion, and I’m against that coercion. It’s declining, by the way. The hysteria toward it is rising, but it’s declining.

[Speaker A] Because there’s anxiety among the secular public that people want to chip away at things.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Right, but in practice the coercion is unquestionably decreasing. It’s much less than it used to be, and I’m still against it. I don’t think it helps in any way. By the way, in my opinion even those who impose it don’t really believe in it. For some it’s inertia, part of that same anachronism.

[Speaker A] Where do you see that it has decreased, for example, religious coercion?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] You see what is open on the Sabbath, you see what is sold on Passover. You see de facto — leave aside the laws and everything, and even laws, they’re no longer legislating religious laws. There are, for example, issues of LGBT rights, for instance, or things of that kind, which aren’t presented as religious coercion but they are religious coercion. Now I think — once again — homosexuality is something prohibited according to Jewish law. I do not think the state should coerce people on that basis. That is not the business of the state. I can try to persuade people in this direction, persuade people otherwise, but the state is not a tool for imposing my religious agenda.

[Speaker A] Not the state, but not…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] The Rabbinate, or I don’t know what. The Rabbinate couldn’t do anything here if the state did not give it a legal infrastructure.

[Speaker A] Fine, but the state can determine whether same-sex marriage is permitted or not. Right.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] What’s your view? That certainly yes, it should allow it. It won’t be according to the religion of Moses and Israel, because it isn’t defined in Jewish law. But a state that forces everyone to marry according to the religion of Moses and Israel — that, in my view, is improper coercion. And again, I’m in favor of marriage according to the religion of Moses and Israel, meaning I would be very happy if everyone married that way. It doesn’t work — not only for homosexuals. Other people too; as far as I’m concerned, let them marry according to the religion of Moses and Israel, not through the Rabbinate. I was even involved in various activities of that kind. I’m completely in favor. By the way, on this issue too, that’s my own position; I’m not sure I represent all the members of the Third Path. But the direction of opposing religious coercion is agreed upon by everyone. Exactly where the dosage is, where one stops, and how far one goes — that can be debated.

[Speaker A] Interesting. You’re both a physicist and a rabbi. How does that go together? I mean, as a physicist you know that dinosaurs, say, went extinct sixty-six billion years ago — million years ago — and as a rabbi you think the world was created five thousand years ago.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Neither this nor that. First of all, dinosaurs are not the concern of physicists but of the life sciences, of biologists.

[Speaker A] Fine, as a scientist then. Yes, but still. So doesn’t it clash?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] No, I don’t think it clashes. I’ve written books and articles about it as well. As far as I’m concerned, facts I learn the way every person learns facts — through observation, science, and trying to understand what’s going on. I do not subordinate my factual outlook, my worldview, to this or that source, even if they seem at first glance to say otherwise.

[Speaker A] I didn’t understand. What do you think happened?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] That the world was created 5,700 years ago? I think the world is not 5,700 years old; it has existed longer — billions, yes.

[Speaker A] Okay, so how are you a rabbi? I mean, I just can’t make that fit together.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There are many rabbis who think this way. It seems to me this is one of those things that somehow hasn’t managed to break into public discourse. I think this struggle between evolution and faith is very strong…

[Speaker A] In the United States among Christians…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Jews are pretty indifferent to it.

[Speaker A] So how do you read the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)? As something — as a folk story?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Yes, I read the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) — those chapters in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), the factual-descriptive chapters at the beginning of Genesis — for me, that’s some kind of foundational myth or conceptual framework within which we are supposed to conduct ourselves. Not a factual description, absolutely not.

[Speaker A] So what is the goal of your movement right now? I understand there are quite a few people joining this movement, and you may be thinking of going into politics. In the meantime, though, there are no elections right now — what do you intend to do?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Our goal is to create infrastructure at the base. Our goal is also not politics. Politics too is just a tool. Our goal is to create a third identity alternative. What does “third” mean? On the conceptual level you remain Religious Zionist or remain Haredi, but on the practical level you are not identified either with what is called Haredi society today or with what is called Religious Zionism today — at least in political discourse.

[Speaker A] And what are you doing to create that?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] We’re trying, first of all, to create relevant materials, because this requires developing a conceptual, theoretical infrastructure, in order to get people out of various stigmas, a bit like what you described earlier. So one has to write and explain to people that it doesn’t have to go דווקא in this form, or against that, or in favor of this.

[Speaker A] All these attachments…

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] …are unnecessary attachments, many of them. Beyond that, we’re trying to do activities on the ground, and we’re meeting quite a few people who actually identify very strongly with these things, and you feel that suddenly you’re giving them the words, you’re giving them conceptual tools, and suddenly they understand: yes, yes, we’re here. Until now, when they had two paths, they would say, either I’m here, and if I’m not here then I’m Haredi; if I’m not Haredi then I’m Religious Zionist — what else is there? Now if you give them a third conceptual framework, suddenly you discover that in the ordinary surveys…

[Speaker A] …that there’s some kind of void or vacuum there that’s just waiting.

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] Exactly. And a great many people, even to themselves, don’t know how to say that they’re neither here nor there, because they think, what do you mean — it’s zero-sum, either this or that.

[Speaker A] If there’s such a large public there in that vacuum, how is it that until now there hasn’t been a movement trying to capture that space?

[Rabbi Michael Abraham] There have been attempts of one kind or another, and even today there are various movements and attempts at defining it. I think a systematic conceptual framework like ours, in my opinion, has not yet existed. A framework that also doesn’t specifically take things in a left-wing direction, as, say, with Maimad in the past — and that really didn’t catch on and won’t catch on today either. And not just tactically; we really are not left-wing. Depends who. I told you, I lean right. But ultimately we need to show the public that they’re already there. I don’t even need to persuade people. You just need to give them the words, to tell them: friends, understand — take a look for a moment and see: you’re not there and you’re not there, you’re here.

[Speaker A] There is such a thing called the Third Path. Dr. Michael Abraham, thank you very much for being with us today. And thanks as well to all of you, our viewers, and special thanks to our partners. This channel exists only thanks to you. And now, when at last a window of hope has opened, we long to see all our hostages home, until the very last hostage.