Encore Archive

Welcome to Encore, the place where you will find the latest thoughts and reflections by CLAL faculty and associates on topics of the moment. Each week you will find something new and (hopefully) engaging here!

To access the CLAL Encore Archive, click here.

To join the conversation at CLAL Encore Talk, click here.

Cossacks and Peace, Another View

Irving Greenberg (Sh'ma 10/187, February 8, 1980)

I am deeply troubled by the tone and content of Elizer Berkovits' article on Shalom Achshav (Peace Now) in Sh'ma. 10/183.

Let me first say that there are few people in Jewish life whom I admire and identify with, as much as I do with Elizer Berkovits. But I am frankly at a loss to account for the anger and depression and stereotyping in his article. I am particularly sensitive because having been approached by representatives of the movement who were unable to get a full hearing at the recent General Assembly of the Council of Jewish Federations, I signed a letter as an inviting host, for a meeting designed to get them at least a fuller hearing at the Assembly.

Shalom Achshav sent four representatives to that meeting and I had a chance to speak to them and to hear their presentations.

Three of the four had served in the Israeli Army and had made clear their commitment to the fullest protection of Israel's security. In fact, their policy differences with the government have turned out to be of a limited nature. In truth they have no solution for many of the issues that continue to divide Israel. They are not prepared to give back the total West Bank for a peace at any cost. Their criticism comes down to the claim that the Government settlement policy unnecessarily polarizes opinion and possibly prevents the emergence of some alternative. Beyond that, the movement has a wide range of differences. All four speakers in this case were united in their, conviction that only a serious peace prospect could lead to giving back all of the territory.

Peace Now Covers Wide Range of Views

Under the circumstances to label their movement as "peace at any price" is an injustice and an outright distortion of their positions. It was clear that there was a wide range of political and religious opinion within this group. One of the representatives was a dati (religious) person with a strong national commitment although he was in fundamental disagreement with Gush Emunim. The range was all the way over to the left wing radical. The claim then, that Shalom Achshav is internally intolerant seems hardly justified also.

One might argue that this group of four was not representative of the movement. However, I did have at least two meetings in Israel with representatives of the movement and again they were dispersed over a wide range of the Jewish spectrum of opinion in political and religious thought. I found that key weakness of the Shalom Achshav movement is that they simply have no policy alternatives for the moment. In terms of the Arab response to the peace arrangements all flexibility is very restricted. Thus Shalom Achshav is partly guilty of unrequited idealism-but this is hardly the venomous and vicious philosophy that Eliezer Berkovits portrays.

The emotional climax of the Berkovits article charging anti-Jewishness and anti-Judaism that professor at Hebrew University referred to Gush Emunim as the "Cossacks of the Rebono shel Olam (Cossacks of the Almighty). I am sure that the professor meant the remark to be a negative one, but this hardly constitutes insensitivity to Jewish historic experience with the Cossacks and "utter contempt for Judaism."

Grain of Truth in Reference to Cossacks

It so happens that I am a musmach (recipient of rabbinic ordination) of the Noveradeker Yeshiva, a Mussar Yeshiva. My Yeshiva's students proudly quoted the Chofetz Chaim's (Rabbi Israel Meir ha-Cohen) ultimate compliment to the Yeshiva in Eastern Europe. He called its Rabbis and students "Gott's Kozak'n" i.e. the Cossacks of the Almighty. The implication was: just as the Cossacks were the shock troops of the Czar's Army so are the Mussarnicks the shock troops of God's army. This is not an unusual inversion. It can best be compared to the black's use of the term "nigger" as a derisory reversal of the old white stereotyped imagery of blacks. Coopting .a term from the enemy and reversing its meaning to apply it positively to one's own camp is not a rare phenomenon. The Chofetz Chayim was trying to draw the analogy to the discipline, devotion to higher authority, unquestioning obedience and fierce personal commitment which characterize one group (the Cossacks) and applying it to a Jewish group.

Again I am sure that the professor at the university meant the term as derisory or in some way to deprecate Gush Emunim. But it is hardly fair to turn this phrase into a "hateful and totally venomous" attack on them. The truth is that the Gush Emunim do act in some of the spirit of 'God's Kozak'n' including occasions where they resort to force and or tactics that might well be compared to fanatic or aggressive behavior for the sake of the "sacred cause" (at least as defined by the fighters).

Challenge is to Mix Idealism, and Realism

Berkovits is right in that it is hard to separate Messianism and politics in the present Israeli situation. Israel itself was founded by 'irrational' and visionary people. On the other hand, when such vision is translated into a disregard of the political realities and of the moral and ethical needs of the West Bank population, it is hardly helpful. In the same spirit, realism is necessary in policy, but simple capitulation to the balance of power in the world today would probably destroy Israel. In short it is the mixture of realism and idealism that is the constant challenge wherever one's position in the spectrum of Israel's foreign policy and the attitudes towards it.

Finally, I submit that an attempt to use the "God's Cossacks," term to indict the "Israeli Intelligentsia" in general is hardly helpful. I certainly agree with Eliezer Berkovits that those of us, who are in America and not exposed to the full risk of the result should exercise a measure of restraint and of caution. This cannot however, serve to suppress all discussion of policy. It is also premature to claim that leftist intellectuals or deracinated Israelis are trying to totally separate Zionism and Judaism. Some of the behavior of the more aggressive nationalists in the name of Judaism gives little glory to the Jewish tradition. The collapse of morale in certain circles of the left is also very discouraging. It is a time to create an atmosphere of trust, love and common search between all the groups.

One should allow a serious, foreign policy debate to go on right now. It is necessary bothwithin and without Israel. There should be a moratorium on charging up patriotism or betrayal to the enemy when it comes to genuine and serious foreign policy debates. There are good Jews in the religious community and in the secular intelligentsia. Fair judgment and even a fair hearing of Shalom Achshav would be one small contribution to creating an atmosphere of mutual helpfulness. I urge this even though I do not find Shalom Achshav's policy alternatives adequate solutions to our problem.