Q&A: What Is a Vision
What Is a Vision
Question
Hi Michi,
The day before yesterday I took part in a meeting that Gil Alexander organized [whom you also know] in Ma’ale Gilboa with “Breaking the Silence.” This meeting—or more precisely, the discussions that followed it—made clear to me the gap between my approach and yours regarding Judaism.
I asked you whether you have a vision, and your answer proved to me that a vision—as I understand it—is something you do not have!
You have expectations and aspirations. But it seems to me that a vision differs from an expectation and a heartfelt wish in several parameters—the first of which is that a vision is directed toward the other, whether an individual or the public, and not toward the self. “Self” including one’s own flesh and blood as well.
But oops! After spending a few hours over this letter, and after returning from my fitness exercises in the streambed, it suddenly dawned on me that a vision can also find expression when it concerns the realization of one’s own selfhood—provided that its realization is not an action dictated by our genes and hormones [perhaps דווקא in opposition to them!]
Therefore, perhaps the definition of a vision is setting a goal whose realization requires hard work over a long period [at least several years] and the sacrifice of something significant, and this when the chances of success are slim!
Besides that, very often we have to decide between different values, each of which may be good in itself.
For example, the needs of our own generation versus future generations. Or versus preserving nature. Or honoring traditions versus rebelling against the oppression of women that stems from those traditions.
In our specific case—the vision of Greater Israel, which finds expression in settlement in all parts of the Land of Israel—because we are commanded regarding this, and also because we have a strong emotional attachment to it. This vision stands opposite the understanding that these communities [the settlements] are the opening to a whole set of troubles.
To avoid oversimplification, I’ll complicate matters and add: I know that our presence in the heart of the Arab population gives us access to intelligence sources. At the same time, I am aware of the fact that in this situation, where the Israelis are “masters of the land,” it is impossible to avoid friction that for the most part creates resentment among the local population.
In a rough and sweeping generalization—the Religious Zionist sector prefers the wholeness of the land over attempts to achieve peace. Its motto is that “in any case, there is no one to make peace with.” The Religious Zionist sector clings to this claim—which in my opinion is indeed correct today—and does everything it can to prevent any future possibility of creating a Palestinian state.
I am not claiming that the Religious Zionist camp does not want peace! I am claiming that it does not want to pay the price of peace—because from the outset it does not have a vision of peace.
For my camp, peace is a value for which we are willing to pay a great deal, and therefore it is our vision. From my perspective, for the sake of peace it is proper to give up our hold on the Temple Mount. But peace is not a supreme value, and it is not proper for the sake of peace to take back refugees—because taking back refugees would undermine the State of Israel.
I wrote that for the sake of peace I am willing to give up our hold on the Temple Mount [not only the Temple Mount, but also other places sacred to Judaism!]
I should clarify: most of those who share my view have an emotional attitude toward the places sacred to Judaism, because they are connected to our history and therefore to our identity, but they are not sacred in our eyes! And therefore, from our perspective, the vision of peace takes precedence over the vision of holding on to the sacred places.
So then, Michi—the question I have is whether you accept my distinction regarding the concept of vision. And how do you now relate to what you answered me:
My vision is that things should be good, that we should treat one another well, keep commandments, and be wise. In my view, a vision is something lacking concrete meaning.
To conclude—many years ago I met the late Raful several times. The only thing I agreed with him about was the verse: “Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint.”
So meanwhile, all the best and Sabbath peace.
Answer
Three comments:
1. You write one thing and its opposite in the same sentence. Both that they prefer the sanctity of the land and ownership of it over attempts to reach peace, and that they think there is no partner. I hope that even a leftist like you can understand that this is self-contradictory.
2. As for vision, this seems to me to be only semantic hairsplitting. I have a vision that everyone will keep commandments and be good people. It seems to me that this meets your criteria.
3. Emotional attachments really do not interest me at all, and I do not care about them one worn-out penny. Someone who gives them up for the sake of values is simply a rational person. That cannot be compared to giving up values for the sake of other values.
Discussion on Answer
My rabbi and teacher, may he live long and well.
Even if the two claims stem from different sources (a scale of values and observation), there is still a contradiction between them in themselves: if you say that in their opinion there is no partner, then their unwillingness to make concessions does not stem from preferring the land over peace, but from the assessment that there is no chance for peace. Why make concessions for nothing in return? And if the value of the land overrides peace, then even if there is a partner they will not agree to concessions. Therefore it is self-contradictory. The truth, of course, is that there are some like this and some like that, and indeed there are some who advocate both claims together. My estimate is that an overwhelming majority of the state’s residents (including Religious Zionism) are willing to make far-reaching concessions if you convince them that there is something to gain by it.
Hi Michi,
I must admit that I am stuck in a very difficult dilemma: you have credentials proving your expertise in logic, and I do not!
Even so, I do not think it is a flaw of understanding on my part that I do not accept your claim that I am saying one thing and its opposite. In my humble opinion, the recognition that “there is no partner” is a “complementary claim,” and I cannot accept your view that it is contradictory.
I will give here a trivial example of what seems to me a contradictory claim:
Suppose camp X says that it wants to rule all of western Land of Israel except for the territory between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan, and further south between the middle of the Dead Sea and the Aravah up to Sinai…
Is this not a fitting example of a self-contradictory statement?
Besides that, in real life situations are usually complex and not binary, but rather a bit of everything.
As the well-known song says: “A little of this and a little of that.”
All the best, and have a pleasant rest of the day.
Indeed, that is an example of a self-contradictory statement. But I did not understand the connection between the example and our case. Here too we are dealing with a self-contradiction. I explained to you why your statement is self-contradictory: if there is no partner, there is no discussion of which value is more important, peace or the land. There is no possibility of achieving peace. And if you are talking about the relation between the values, then the assumption is that there is a partner.
You can of course argue that they do not really think there is no partner, but only fear that there is no partner, and then they combine arguments about the value of the land with practical arguments that there is not much chance for peace. But if so, then again you cannot infer from this that the value of the land outweighs the value of peace, since in their view peace is an option with only a slight chance. If peace were clear and certain as opposed to the value of the land, perhaps they would prefer peace?
In your previous words, you omitted the two words that are significant on this issue: there is no discussion.
Now everything makes sense to me.
And one more mischievous point:
Not infrequently there is a situation in which people hope that there is no partner.
That reminds me of something I read many years ago:
Once they asked Sigmund Freud what a person who has difficulty making decisions should do.
His answer was: cast lots.
They wondered—how could a rational person like him believe in the value of lots?!
His answer was: that person who has difficulty deciding will be able, based on his feelings when the lot is cast, to know what it is indeed worthwhile for him to do.
I claim that Freud [what chutzpah on my part] missed the mark here!
A person who has difficulty making decisions also will not be fully at peace with any result he gets through the lot!
If your argument is only with Freud, then you are completely fine. I have heard of authorities greater than he.
As for the matter itself, indeed sometimes the decision that there is no partner is a tendentious one. I am not sure that is the case here. And the decision that there is a partner can of course be no less tendentious.
Hi Michi,
I hoped that wandering along the walls of Acre and gazing at the sea would give me the inspiration to understand your words:
1. You write one thing and its opposite in the same sentence. Both that they prefer the sanctity of the land and ownership of it over attempts to reach peace, and that they think there is no partner. I hope that even a leftist like you can understand that this is self-contradictory.
But I didn’t succeed! In my opinion, the Religious Zionists’ preference for holding on to the whole Land of Israel stems from their scale of values,
whereas their claim that there is no partner for peace is based on observation.
So why do you claim that this is self-contradictory? Or perhaps my lack of understanding stems from my ignorance of logic?
2] Do you object to / reject my proposed definition of vision as an aspiration whose realization involves a long-term and stubborn struggle despite the small chances? True, this definition does not appear in dictionaries [not even as “vision”], and even so, in the contexts in which this word appears today, my proposal seems to me very fitting.
All the best.