My Response to Professor Paul Eidelberg’s
“For a Breath of Truth and Courage”
Michael Anbar Ph.D.
I was deeply saddened to read Prof. Eidelberg’s essay of December 26, 2004 in which he viciously attacked the non-observant Zionist Israeli political leadership. I highly respect and do support Prof. Eidelberg’s views on the need for reform of the political structure of the State of Israel – the need for a constitution and for an electoral system where each member of the Knesset would be personally responsible to his constituents, like in the US and the UK. However, I am quite critical of his views on the religious nature of Judaism.
First, Zionism – the urge to reestablish Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, is a far more profound conceptual premise of Judaism than the separation between eating meat and dairy products, the Torah parchment placed in the mezuzah, or the lighting of Shabbat candles on Friday nights. Zionism is as fundamental in Judaism as monotheism, the belief in the Covenant and the uniqueness of the “chosen” people. The Zionists who founded the State of Israel were probably more Jewish than the young Yeshiva students wearing their side-curls and fringed garments without having even an inkling of Jewish history or the destiny of Judaism. The non-observant Zionists who founded the Jewish state were not atheistic Marxists, i.e., espousing an ideology of atheism and anti-national universalism, as Eidelberg states. Those Zionist were nationalists adhering to an anti-thesis of Marxism. Those of them who have considered themselves as members of international egalitarianism, i.e., communism, have never realized the vast contradiction in terms between Zionism and Communism (Stalin understood this contradiction far better than many Jews).
David Ben-Gurion was not a Marxist. From personal contacts with him during that period I can tell you this much. An ideological Marxist would never have exempted Yeshiva students from military service as Ben-Gurion did. And he did this not out of political expediency but out of respect to Judaic tradition and his desire to see its perpetuation in the Land of Israel. However, this has been probably the worse and longest lasting mistake Ben-Gurion made; even worse than his decision to shell Altalena (knowing also Menahem Begin personally, I believe that the conflict could have been resolved in a constructive manner because Begin was a true and faithful Zionist). It has been a gross mistake to give pious Jews a preferential status for their piety. A democratic society should neither reward nor penalize people for their religious practice.
On the other hand, many of the pious observant Jews in Israel who have been defying Zionism are in my view dysfunctional Jews, who expect the “secular” “atheistic” Zionists to physically defend them against the blood thirsty Arabs who have been trying to fulfill their own 1400 years-old religious obligation of killing off the Jewish people. If not for that defense by those “Marxist Zionists” (a genuine contradiction in terms!) those pious strictly observant Jews that Professor Eidelberg seems to glorify, would have been slaughtered like their comrades in Hebron and Jerusalem in 1929.
At the same time, I do agree with Professor Eidelberg that the “post-Zionist” Israelis must be ostracized. They are an absolute absurdity, tantamount to “post-Judaic Jews.” Without any self-consistent ideology they are bound to vanish politically and then physically. Before that they might, however, concede to the murderous Muslim zealots something that does not belong to them in the first place. Since they deny their Judaic roots, they must be regarded as Jewish dead wood.
However, I cannot but object vehemently to Professor Eidelberg’s notion of “the formation of a New Israel, one whose way of life and system of government are rooted in the Torah.” Should the Israelis revert to tribalism? Should the social elite be a hereditary priesthood? Should the sacrifice of animals be reinstated? Should polygamy be reinstated? Should Israelis be executed by stoning for doing work of Shabbat?
Professor Eidelberg would respond by telling me that what he has in mind is rabbinical Judaism – one of the interpretations of the Torah, which over the years has abolished many of the ancient Judaic practices and replaced them by others more suited for life in more recent times. But then, why not make Zionism (spiritual and political) and Jewish ethics, not Jewish rituals, the gist of Judaism in the 21st Century? Why should “pious” Yeshiva students be exempt from army service in the State of Israel? Is this the beginning of a “New Israel?” Why should such students be granted a free economic ride on the shoulders of the “secular” non-observant Israeli Jews that Professor Eidelberg denounces? Why is this shameful, socially destructive, practice perpetuated and defended by the “religious” Israeli political parties that Professor Eidelberg seems to support as a bulwark against the Israeli socialists?
I would have respected Professor Eidelberg much more if he would have denounced the “post Zionists” secular Jews and the orthodox “pious” Jews both of whom have turned away from Zionist ideology, endangering the very existence of the Jewish people, even if occasionally they pay lip service to it.
My Response to Dr. Anbar:
I have often said “all honor to those who reestablished the State of Israel in 1948; they made possible the in-gathering of the Jews.” But to say, as Dr. Anbar puts it, “the urge to reestablish Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, is a far more profound conceptual premise of Judaism than the separation between eating meat and dairy products, the Torah parchment placed in the mezuzah, or the lighting of Shabbat candles on Friday nights,” not only trivializes the Judaism of religious Jews but also obscures the fact that religious Zionism preceded secular Zionism. What is more, no less than the novelist and Knesset Member Moshe Shamir—a “non-observant” Jew—said that Hareidi Jews are the best Zionists!
As for David Ben-Gurion, again, all honor to him. But already in 1949, after the War of Independence, Ben-Gurion told Martin Buber that Zionism had become an anachronism! In view of Oslo and “disengagement,” Shimon Peres and Ariel Sharon are Ben Gurion’s political heirs. But unlike them, I do not think he would have tolerated, as they have, the murder of more than a 900 Jews since Sharon became Labor’s surrogate prime minister in 2001.
Ben-Gurion was indeed a Bolshevik (as admitted in his Personal History), and he very much wanted to induct yeshiva students into the army but was deterred from doing so by the Hazon Ish. Of course Marxism, as I wrote many years ago, contradicts Zionism, a nationalist idea. But the Zionism of Ben Gurion, as just indicated, died in 1949—without Judea and Samaria and the Temple Mount. What kind of Jew was to emerge from Ben Gurion’s “Zionist” dispensation?
For an answer, ponder a recent report of Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick: “A survey carried out by the left-wing Israel Democracy Institute on Israeli attitudes toward the state [indicates that] … a mere 58% of Israelis are proud of being Israeli, while 97% of Americans and Poles are proud of their national identity.” This deplorable state of affairs in Israel is the long-range result of a government whose goal, back in Ben-Gurion’s time, was to produce “normal” Jews.
As for my looking forward to a New Israel rooted in the Torah—which so much disturbs Dr. Anbar—my understanding of the Torah is not a conventional one, as may be seen in my book A Jewish Philosophy of History, whose central chapter discusses the convergence of Torah and science.
But with all respect to Dr. Anbar, and to ease his mind regarding my views on “religious” and “non-religious” Jews, I will republish a brief article I wrote some seven years ago.
Beyond the Galut
There are three types of Galut Jews in Israel -- and if we are humble and understanding, we will be grateful to all three. The first type is secular. It matters not whether this type of Jew is a leftist or rightist: His mentality is not rooted in the Torah, of which he is basically ignorant. For him the Torah (including the Oral Law) is neither the touchstone of his personal life nor of his outlook on public affairs, domestic or foreign. For the secular Jew the Torah is irrelevant in the domain of Statecraft.
Yet it was secular Jews who founded the modern State of Israel. It was secular Jews who facilitated the ingathering of some two million of their oppressed brothers and sisters. It was secular Jews who hastened Israel’s scientific-technological infrastructure, which has enabled Jews, including religious Jews, to flourish in the land of their forefathers.
Notice, however, that the founders of modern Israel were Marxists as well as Zionists, which means they harbored contradictory doctrines. For whereas Marxism is a form of anti-Jewish internationalism -- Marx hated Judaism -- Zionism means Jewish nationalism! The founders of the State of Israel thus had a split mentality, which they could never overcome. To the contrary: Their Zionism has metamorphosed into anti-Zionism with unJewish overtones. Witness the pronouncements (and policies) of politicians like Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. While Peres denies the concept of Eretz Yisrael, Beilin baldly admits he has no objection to his children marrying non-Jews.
The second type of Galut Jews is religious, of which two varieties may be distinguished. Whereas one may be called “politically correct,” the other may be termed “politically incorrect.” Both are deserving of gratitude.
Politically correct religious Jews have shown that Jews can be observant and yet "modern." They established yeshivas and even universities. Hence they have contributed to the preservation of Judaism. And yet the uncritical attitude of these Jews toward contemporary democracy —the secular religion of our times—hardly differs from that of secular Jews. They ignore the obvious contradictions between the indiscriminate egalitarianism and libertarianism of contemporary democracy on the one hand, and the moral and intellectual standards of the Torah or Jewish law (Halakha) on the other.
Hence the mentality of these religious Jews is also split: Their religiosity is compartmentalized -- operative on the personal level but without significantly affecting their politics or political ideology. Lacking is the unity of thought and action distinctive of Torah Judaism. They too have failed to develop Torah Statesmanship.
As for our politically incorrect religious Jews: to them we owe perhaps the deepest gratitude. They do not mislead Jews by exalting contemporary democracy; and more than other religionists, they have uncompromisingly preserved the Oral Law. The trouble is they represent the “dried fruit” of the Oral Law (without which, of course, the Jews would have become as extinct as the Mesopotamians). In other words, their religiosity is rooted in the Galut, in the “desert of the nations.” They simply transplanted the “dried fruit” of the Oral Law to the Land of Israel without unsealing the Oral Law’s original freshness, its emotional richness, its profound wisdom. (We can understand this withdrawal from the mundane world; but the time has come for the Oral Law to burst forth and bloom as in the time of King David.
The illustrious Rav Abraham Kook has written: “All of our sacred treasures, the concepts and insights of the entire Torah must be couched in modern style so as to attract our contemporaries ... the colossal wealth of sacred art they harbor must be drawn upon daily and propagated in the current literary idiom.” The halakhic “principle of action” and the Agaddic “principle of heart and mind” must impregnate each other.
Required are openness to veridical secular knowledge and a positive and creative attitude toward Jewish national affairs. This is perfectly consistent with the Oral Law. After all, the Sages of the Talmud were men of the world. They studied gentile knowledge; they debated with Roman emperors; they were statesmen! Theirs was a living Torah, a Torah that confronted the knowledge and challenged the pretensions of the secular world. Their religiosity was not disembodied.
The Torah is more than a religion. It is the infinite wellspring of the highest civilization -- Hebraic civilization. Hebraic civilization transcends all the dichotomies of mankind: individual versus society, freedom versus authority, morality versus law, reason versus revelation, science versus religion, theory versus practice. Think of King David: poet, philosopher, prophet, and, above all, Jewish statesman. Rashi clinches our point: Jacob sent Judah (and not Yisachar) to Goshen to establish centers for Torah learning. Why? Because Judah symbolizes Kingship (malchut)!
Plato dreamed of the philosopher-king, who unites wisdom and power. Israel alone has had many philosopher-kings. Indeed, Theophrastus, Aristotle’s successor at the Lyceum, regarded Israel as “a nation of philosophers” -- a view shared by other Gentile thinkers.
The era of the Galut Jew is now drawing to a close. Jewish philosophy, rooted in the Torah, is reappearing in Israel. To be authentic, Jewish philosophy must not only be consistent with the Oral Law, it must reveal the beauty and wisdom of the entire Torah. In Jewish law will be found the most comprehensive understanding of human nature, hence the profoundest psychology, now waiting to be articulated. That psychology will reveal Judaic Man as the pinnacle of mankind.
It seems, however, that those most likely to facilitate a renaissance of Jewish philosophy will be secular Jews who have returned to the Torah, but who have knowledge of the rigorous sciences. An increasing number of such Jews live in Israel. Some are revealing, by means of statistical science, hidden codes in the Torah, codes which signify the Torah’s divine origin.
While we must be grateful to Galut Jews who, regardless of their restricted views, have contributed to the preservation of Judaism -- G-d works in mysterious ways -- still, Israel needs the fresh fruit of the undivided Torah, the Torah of Hebraic civilization. Indeed, Israel urgently needs a Torah statesman, one who can translate the Torah into a national strategy of world-historical significance.
As a scientist, I must distinguish between ideology, which is far more fundamental than rituals. I do not trivialize rituals, as Prof. Eidelberg stated, but I do not consider them fundamental features of a culture. Rituals have their role in affecting the emotions of people or in giving them self-identity; ideology is what invokes conscious thought. In spite of their apparent rigidity, rituals tend to change dramatically over time (e.g., the prayers in the Sidur or the conduct of the Seder) or be affected by other cultures (e.g., the “Christmas Tree” or our wearing hats in synagogue). Cultural ideology is far less variant, if at all (e.g., monotheism, family and social ethical behavior, or “choseness”). Zionism is ideologically an integral part of Judaism and not an outgrowth of modern 19th Century nationalism (see my “Do they understand what Zionism is all about?” in “Israel and its Future” iUniverse 2004 pp. 18-22; http://www.buffalo-israel-link.org/essay6.htm ) Here both Prof. Eidelberg and I probably agree. Thus anti-Zionism is anti-Judaism (see my essay “Calling hatred by its proper name: MisoJudaism and Anti-Zionism” Israel Insider, December 10, 2004 http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/4552.htm ). Where we may not agree is that a non-observant Jewish Zionist is ideologically far more Jewish than a strictly observant Jewish anti-Zionist or even non-Zionist Jew.
Our major bone of contention is, however, Ben Gurion’s alleged Bolshevik ideology. Notwithstanding Prof. Eidelberg’s citations, I am ready to vouch that Ben Gurion, the secular socialist, was not less a devoted Zionist than Dr. Joseph Burg, a devout religious Zionist, both of whom I knew closely and informally; I had the opportunity to watch their behavior regarding various issues and activities. The trouble is that Josi Beilin or Josi Sarid are not ideological heirs of Ben-Gurion, neither is Avrum Burg an ideological heir of his father Joseph (see my essay “An open letter to MK Avraham Burg” in “Israel and its Future” iUniverse 2004 pp. 129-133; http://www.buffalo-israel-link.org/essay30.htm ).
Contrary to Jewish tradition, Prof Eidelberg accuses the fathers for the sins of the sons. Unfortunately, many of the accusations against Ben Gurion cited in Prof. Eidelberg’s article seem to have been taken from “post-Zionist” writings (which he despises), since he came to Israel some thirty years after the period I witnessed personally.
I also disagree with Prof, Eidelberg’s notion that ideological Zionism died in 1949. Notwithstanding the strong anti-Zionist forces inside and outside of Israel, Zionism is alive and well. I, for one, believe to be a Zionist 55 years later, and so do millions of Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora, so also is Prof. Eidelberg, in spite of his assertion. His “New Israel” is a Zionist expression, and so is his opposition to the current policies of Israel’s government.
As long as there will be viable Judaism there will be Zionism