CLAL Special Features Archive

Welcome to CLAL Special Features where you will find articles by guest columnists and roundtables on hot issues and special topics.

Our authors are especially interested in hearing your responses to what they have written. So after reading, visit the Special Features Discussion.

To join in conversation with CLAL faculty and other readers click here.

To access the Special Features Archive, click here.

The Ethics of Jewish Power Today

By Rabbi Yitz Greenberg

Part II

United Jewish Communities: 2000 General Assembly

11/11/00 to 11/15/00

Full Text of Speech by

Rabbi Irving "Yitz" Greenberg

"The Ethics of Jewish Power Today"

(and ensuing question and answer session)

(TAPE ONE - SIDE TWO)

....at this moment. That means we have to ask ourselves what self-limits and what controls are needed on our part, as well as on their part, to make possible an outcome that affirms our dignity and theirs as well. So that's the first breakthrough of the ethical power: that we in fact have power to gain. When I say we have power, not just Israel's army and strength, but economic strength which is, in its way, as powerful as military strength. But also of course American Jewish influence in America, which remains a central concern and we can't overlook and you can't look away. Since I'm not going to take political stands at this moment, obviously I have a lot of anxiety since I didn't feel myself that both candidates had equal, necessarily solid, concerns about Israel, but I believe it's not a question just of the personal feelings, and it's hard to measure. But to be equally crucial what's the political influence in this society? I think both parties have a high degree of receptivity to Jewish power, Jewish interests, have a high degree of Jewish participation, including fund-raising, and so therefore this again becomes our agenda. To intensify our capacity to influence both parties, whichever party wins, becomes a critical part of this agenda of Jewish power.

Second point of the ethics of course, and it's the hard one: Power must be exercised in the world of flawed reality in which vested interests, entrenched evil and human error all play a role. I'll give you an example again. Quite a number of important Israelis I have spoken to in the present situation, feel, in retrospect, that Israel should have moved, and I agree with them, should have moved much quicker, much stronger to shore up the relationship between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority in the state of Israel. That it's been building for 20-30 years as Arabs' self-assertion and definition has grown - a feeling that they are second class citizens: that on the average their income is lower, that on the average their educational limits are lower, and again, it's not necessarily a matter even of conscious discrimination, and in part reflects the Arab culture itself and its failure to westernize and to make achievement and education, etc. and women, etc., etc., at the same level as the Jewish culture. But in retrospect, the outburst in the last two months exploded the kind of feeling that has been building, and which many important people feel, in retrospect, should have been dealt with earlier and better.

But having said that I come back to the point I just made. That power is exercised in the real world in which vested interests, entrenched evil and human error all play a role. The fact remains that Israel has been a full-time job for UJA as well as others, trying to build up its citizens, its capacity, its dignity; that it's been a struggle compounded by wars and by terrorism, etc., etc. and under those circumstances, it's not either shocking or out of the reasonable expectation that in fact Arabs would have had less economic, political or cultural development. So in the real world, you have to make those judgments which means, on the one hand it cannot therefore justify or permit Israeli Arabs to undermine or overthrow the country. Now again, I personally feel strongly that too many people jumped to conclusions after this last outburst, that were dismissive of Israeli Arabs - not reliable, fifth column. I think those are really bad judgments. I think there is a serious problem now because the growth of fundamentalism combined with the growth of expectations has led to significant alienation and, in that framework, I believe there will probably be more sabotage or more disloyalty than there was before. But the overwhelming truth is that for 50 or 55 years, the Arabs of Israel have in fact shown a remarkable degree of loyalty. If they did not, then life would have been a hundred times more miserable. There would have been far more terrorism, etc., etc. So one of the most critical things in the situation is to recognize both sides of the equation, that vested interests are real, that no country can perform perfectly, and on the other hand, one must be very, very careful not to let those weaknesses either justify the unjustifiable on either side, and to begin to resort to generalizations. The fundamental Jewish claim is that human being are unique. They need the respect of being treated unique, and not being lumped together "all Arabs are... all Israeli Arabs are... all PLO people are..." etc., etc.

So we have to deal with the real world in which power links ultimate ends with proximate means. And here is the crucial point. Ethical use of power means maximizing possible good and life, and minimizing possible evil and death. That's why I said typically, the standard moral use of power is achieved on balance. That means typically no one exercises power perfectly. And no one, even a democracy, has a perfect democracy. [Inaudible] ...run an election, that's how weak democracies are sometimes, but in the real world that's what you try to do. You try to, on balance, attain the most moral use of all.

Now the third point, Jewish power is never self-validating so we have to sit in continual judgment upon ourselves. Fourth, given what cannot be changed, and this is the critical applied criterion, given the evil that cannot be avoided, there is still some best possible or least evil way of exercising power. In an ideal world, all people would be treated absolutely equally. In the real world, you distribute your priorities and in fact it may be that some people will get a shorter stick than others. What makes this moral is you try to do the best you can. Secondly, you have a continuous process of correction. In a democracy you have elections or you have a free press or other forms of correction, and therefore whatever flaws there are subject to further improvement and further correction. So you have to have both. And the criteria of the moral person is the one who consciously makes those kind of choices. Even when I have to do things like protect the state, for example, I will try to respect the process of law. We have to apply these principles, I'll try to do it with you in a moment shortly. So that means in the real world I may err trying to protect the security, overreact and even inflict pain or damage. The criteria of morality is I try to inflict as little as possible and I try to maximize the good. Keep in mind that's the balance wheel to the other principle, which is that we are only human and we can't be perfect so we are going to make some mistakes, which we are then going to go on and try to correct or try to have some mechanism of correction.

As I said, the fifth is, "in an imperfect world there would be inescapable evil or adverse side effects so the measure of morality is to limit wrong action and correct it. A moral society must incorporate checks on power and forces of self-criticism" and, of course, Israel has such things as "multiple parties with free elections, free press and media, the rule of law, and an independent judiciary, separation between civilian and military authority, and tohar haneshek [moral purity, use-of-arms principles - IG] in the army. These are major corrective forces, as are distinctive memories and Jewish traditions, such as recollection of slavery and exodus, of outside status and suffering, and of exile and Holocaust, which also powerfully regulate Jewish behavior. So let's, with this framework, try to apply it to our situation now as it is in Israel at this very moment.

Where do we stand? I would argue: one, that there are serious, continuous arguments in Israeli society itself, in the Jewish society particularly, in which there are significant but minority elements that believe that Israel, in fact, has a right to rule over not only Palestinian West Bank Arabs, but also over parts of the land which either for historical reasons or for possession reasons belong to Jewish people. I believe, however, that the majority of this society has come to the conclusion that, in fact, that would be a mistake. Given the conflict of Arab dignity and Arab search for national dignity, that it would be better to give back lands which include some lands which we have an enormous historical moral claim. I want to say personally - Chevron, the Jewish people has an overwhelming religious, historical moral claim to; aside from the fact that it's a classic and central Jewish city of Jewish history and Jewish religion starting with Abraham. (You can't get any earlier than that in Jewish tradition.. Secondly, because Jewish settlement in Chevron was established in modern times and was ended by violent pogrom and massacre of the Jews living there, which means that, morally speaking, the notion of ending Jewish existence there on that basis is immoral. And therefore when the Jews came back after '67 and insisted on settling there, I thought that was a mistake, but I respect deeply why they feel this way. And I want to say one of the saddest tragic truths of these fifty years and of the mistakes that were made is that I believe that Jews will not be able to exist there. And therefore I believe that before we are done, they will evacuate Chevron. And therefore it will be an historical injustice. But again the classical principle is that you try to maximize the good and minimize injustice. The alternative I believe would be to station troops and have a continuous war in which in the end it will undermine both Israel's capacity to function, as well as the Palestinian Arabs to function. So in a certain sense, and this is the tragedy, that hatred and death will win this particular argument. But in the context of the larger argument, you could learn to live with those kinds of things.

Now the majority of the state of Israel, as expressed in the election of its government, made a decision that they are prepared to give back lands and therefore to withdraw from ruling over Pales - to make room for Palestinian national existence. You all know...I don't have to repeat to you...the Camp David offer. What it is, it seems to me is central to how we judge the moral situation. Israel is the strongest. It is perceived by the Palestinians as occupying because they want to be independent, and one could make a case that from their perspective, it is occupation. I think one can make a reasonable case that it's occupation. The Jewish answer to that is I'm occupying you because you are trying to kill me and I have a right to protect myself. And I think one can make an equally reasonable strong moral case therefore the occupation is moral. But it is occupation. So the majority of the Jewish people in Israel and Jews worldwide support the government made a decision, one, to give back 92% plus of the West Bank, to share sovereignty over Jerusalem (although they tried to say that as softly as they could), to share the Old City and to share sovereignty over the Temple Mount, if that would make peace possible. I think it's a remarkable offer. And I think one could feel very comfortable in saying that by the standard of trying to make room for others' dignity at the same time as mine, we have more than met the obligation. I also want to say, to be fair to the other side here for a moment, is that from the other side's point of view, they were not prepared - not just because I think there's a serious group that's unreconciled to Israel's existence, but there has not been a long process whereby they come to grips with what it means from their side to surrender their dreams of controlling Jerusalem too. Now here again I don't want to equate the two claims - simply because we all know in actual history, in actual culture, Jerusalem is central to the Jewish people, far beyond its importance in the Arab or Islam world. And every attempt to equate the two is a threat and dishonest. One of the more disturbing things about the press coverage in general is this kind of continuous moral equivalence in which these fine points are either obscured or totally hidden away. You read any report about Temple Mount and you see kind of this continuous, really dishonest, kind of, here's Al Aqsa, which is obviously a very holy place and here's also Temple Mount which the Jews would like to pray on also. Which doesn't come to grips with the centrality of Jerusalem in Jewish tradition as compared to Islam. But as I say in the end the issue is not winning a perfect victory here, the issue is making room for the dignity of both.

Given that peace offer, I believe, overwhelmingly, there is the moral strength of feeling that we have met the first criterion of the ethic of power, which is to minimize the evil side effects of your own dignity and your own need for security as against the Arab need or Palestinian needs for their own dignity, their own standard.

Secondly, central to this thing is of course - with the rejection of that offer, came, of course, the outburst of violence which we are now living through. Demonstrations, continuing demonstrations, in which Israel or Israeli solders have protected themselves. Now again the press continually reports the death toll, which the last time I saw was about 200, of which the overwhelming majority, about 180, are Palestinians or Arabs. There are a small group of Israeli Arabs in that group also. Now here again I think as Jews trying to do the moral thing we have to weigh these things carefully. The principle of power ethically exercises you try to do the minimum damage for the maximum security and dignity of life. Israel and its army, at least - as it announced - is trying to minimize casualties. And you know the policy is you try not to fire; and then if you fire, you fire rubber bullets and you fire low, that is to say below, the lower half of the body in the hope of not causing death.

The obvious question then is why there are 180 deaths of which many have been young or younger children. The answer in part is because in fact if you ever lived through it - and I have talked to Israeli soldiers who have lived through it - when you are being assaulted by people who are throwing rocks and in the present situation, if you've seen those rocks, it's not pebbles, there's a serious danger to life and personal safety. Secondly, equally important and devastating, is that in this round they have been frequently backed by people who have guns and there is shooting. And many times the shooting starts (from we now know) our Palestinian policemen in violation of the peace agreement so far. So again the soldier has to make judgments as people get closer: Are they coming just to throw rocks? Will the rocks kill me? Are they coming with people in there who when they get close enough will shoot? Are they coming actually with the gun to shoot? Under these circumstances, for people to stay cool and never to shoot and kill, is I think not only unreasonable, but it's impossible.

Having said that one has to continually monitor what's happened. For example again, and to me the criterion is what Israeli - what ethical power we practice here. The outburst of Israeli-Arab demonstrations during this period led to very severe clashes with police in the course of which some 13-14 Arabs were killed. My own personal judgment [it] is very questionable. It surprised me, I must say, and it's easy to say because obviously here I'm defending a much larger death toll. I was very surprised; I think there have been internal demonstrations as far as I could tell and I wasn't there, severe ones in the past which have not led to such a loss of life. And I am happy to report because to me I'm back to my issue. It is entirely possible in my judgment that they overreacted, and in that overreaction killed people unnecessarily, and as a serious violation of the Jewish ethic of power.

But my answer to that is the judgment of a moral country is what? If you've done that you investigate and decide. The government has appointed a serious commission. I've talked to people, including members of the commission. It will get a serious investigation. There's some opposition. There was some fear this will undermine Israel's position; this will make the government look bad. This will play into Arab propaganda and I realize we are dealing with ethics in the real world. One of the dangers of what I am saying here too is some of the stuff could be easily played out and used to undermine them. As I say when the other side is out to destroy you, a moral balance of power that's just as balanced as possible is not moral, because it shouldn't be a balance where one side who wants to destroy you might push a little extra luck and get away with it. So having said that, I come back to what I'm saying. There's a serious commission of inquiry and I believe we will find out if in fact the police either overreacted because they didn't take Arab life as seriously as Jewish life, or because they were not trained properly and didn't expect this, or because all of the above was true; or it's not at all, that they tried their best and under circumstances of difficulty, in fact to defend themselves, shot back and killed people.

Now the same holds true on the question of the 180 Palestinian Arabs. It will be established, and there is a constant review whether the army was trained enough, whether there were methods, not rubber bullets, not regular bullets, that might have had lesser loss of life, and I would not be shocked if 5% or 10% of those casualties are either - or 20% - are scared soldiers or people overreacting. That's the measure of our morality, that we are able to evaluate and assess and carry it on. But the heart of it is, as far as I am concerned, is what is the evidence so far. The evidence so far is that the army is in fact instructed and is trying (and I've talked to people), it's trying to seriously minimize casualties and death and under much more difficult circumstances than the previous intefada because there is now serious weapons on the other side.

Here again, I was talking to a soldier who said to me, you know it's very nice to talk theoretically, but half the time you are worried also about suicide bombers. He said it's very nice to sit here and talk theoretically but when a person is coming at you, you don't know. When a child is coming at you, or a person holding a child is coming at you, you know you have all of 14 seconds or 3 seconds to decide: what is this? And who is this person? And why are they coming? Why do they keep coming at me? Why didn't they stop when I said to stop? So it's very easy to make judgments, and I can predict in advance that there will be some errors or some soldiers who will be gun-happy, but the bottom line is the continuing attempt to keep that controlled, and to keep it under moral guidance. So the capacity both to review the use of force and to correct it, is I think essential to this continuing ethic of power.

Third, facts speak for themselves and Jewish tradition has never said one romanticizes peace and makes it an absolute ideal, ignoring the human reality. The human reality is that the key partner on the other side has acted so badly as to destroy the trust and the confidence in them as a full peace partner. And that also cannot be denied. In other words, whatever self-criticism one can make, one is going to have to live with that reality.

My own personal guess is there'll be a government turnover. In other words that there will be a new election and this government will lose; not because they were wrong, because I tell people if they made a mistake, they made the right mistake. They tried in every way possible to come up with a peace agreement, but the turnover is because in a moral society, in a free society, altogether you are accountable for your behavior. A risk was taken, a bet was made that this partner would come through, and all kinds of concessions and risks were taken based on that, and since the partner has not come through, what happens in democracies in a moral society is that you replace that with somebody who'll try out the method. The question is: what is that method? I'll come to that next, but the central point is we cannot fudge the fact of the loss of trust because this is a democracy. It's paradoxical enough. If you have a dictatorship, then you can make a second choice; you know this is cynical but it will work. You can have a good deal with these people. But in a democracy you have to have credibility with your people, and there has been a serious loss, of erosion in trust, that there is a serious partner on the other side.

Also, what is the alternative for the next phase if one is trying to judge this in Jewish terms? I would say there are two essential steps. Three, I'm sorry. The first of course is your life, protecting your life, Jewish life, comes first. It's a fundamental Jewish law. So whatever attempt we make to be moral and to be peaceful, must do justice to that - or it's immoral - because in the end what you are doing is sacrificing people's lives who have no right to be sacrificed. Second step is you seek to find peace again. And how do you do that? The second step means not to demonize all Arabs. Now when I say not demonize, how much worse can it get than I described the actual behavior? So the honest answer is it doesn't matter. It's not demonizing if you describe the wrong behavior. It is demonizing when you begin to say "all Arabs" or "they'll never be" or "anything goes because they're all animals".

(TAPE TWO - SIDE ONE)

...[When you see the] videos of the Israeli soldiers [being lynched] it would be a very honest understatement to say they are animals, but if one would say they, meaning all Palestinian Arabs, are in fact animals and should be treated that way from here on in, that's where it violates the fundamental assertion of Jewish tradition that every human is an image of God, that they are unique and equal and deserve to be treated in their own right, and not lumped together, particularly not in degrading images that would make it easier to mistreat them next time. Keep in mind moral statements are not just theoretical statements. If I think they are animals, I am much less willing to be sensitive to their requests, sensitive to their humiliations or their slights, sensitive to their legitimate requests, and I am going to be much less worried if I accidentally or deliberately overshoot or overkill. So the key to preserving Jewish moral dignity is a continuous process of one, not demonizing the Arabs. It's bad enough when they are not demonized. I'm not saying we should paper it over. When I describe what they are doing, what they are saying, but not seek to evoke in the people or in ourselves a kind of a hopeless generalization you can't trust any of them, you can't deal with them, they don't keep their word, so anything goes. Now it's a very thin line to walk, and I realize it's difficult, but we are trying to explore together what I think would be an adequate moral response to this moment.

Last but not least, I believe - and I think the prime minister should say it every day - he should say - in fact, it's in Israel's declaration of independence. What they said in the declaration was: here we are surrounded, being invaded. At a time of war and threat. We hold out our hand in peace and friendship to all the Arab peoples of the Middle East and ask them and offer them partnership and peace. I think the Prime Minister should every day - there's nothing more heartbreaking in my job every day than to come to the office and realize that you don't make peace with us so we can't make peace with you. It's heartbreaking to me every day that soldiers (remember Golda Meir's famous old line) we'll forgive you for our soldiers that you killed, we'll never forgive you for making our soldiers kill others. I think that has to be said every day to ourselves and to the Arabs; even if they don't listen.

Now I do believe that as long as we're strong enough and as long as we keep our political support high enough, the Palestinian Arabs will have to come to grips with the fact that they are going to have to live with Israel if they intend to seek their own dignity. At moments like this there is clearly an upsurge of hope on their part that they don't have to, but I believe our strength is such that they will have to, and therefore the most likely prospect is that we're in for a few years where there seems to be no obvious outlet, no obvious breakthrough possible, even though I think we have to continuously offer to negotiate. And the key will be (this is the covenantal plan I started with) not just love but commitment. You have to have enough commitment to hang in there and not to let despair take over. Because when despair takes over you start lashing out and you start degrading and you start doing awful things.

I'm sorry, I didn't think I would talk this long because I want to give you a chance for comments, questions and responses, but I do want to allow myself just three minutes about American Jews' relationship to Israel. I have spoken the whole time - it's a covenantal ethic of power. Covenant starts with love and commitment, but Rabbi Soloveitchik about 40 years ago wrote an essay in which he tried to define what does it mean when we share a covenant together. What is my obligation under the covenant to the person who is my partner? He said the Jewish covenant/brit has four elements. If you share those four elements then you are truly observing the covenant. He said one is shared history, meaning that when something happens to a Jew somewhere else, I don't say that's their history, I say it's my history. The Holocaust didn't happen to them in Europe; it's my personal history and I identify with what happened and I'm committed to keep it alive. I'm committed to learn the lessons, I'm committed to make others come to grips with what happened there. So shared history. Secondly, he said shared suffering. If a Jew is in trouble, I share their pain. If Israel is tormented politically or morally struggling, I share that pain. I don't say they are making a mistake or they are doing wrong. I take this personally and I share in that responsibility, which is why I have an obligation to give feedback as best I can. So shared pain. But I can go a step further. Shared pain means if Jews are in danger, I don't say well I'm lucky, they're thousands of miles away so I'm not in danger. I'm willing to share that danger. I'm going to come back to that. Third, there is shared responsibility. In other words, if they are in trouble and need help, I feel that responsibility even though I myself may not be directly in danger. Fourth, shared action. I actually act on that responsibility. I don't just talk, I do something. That's concrete.

Now I want to speak directly to the shared pain and to shared action. The hotels, I am told, are 10% full right now in Israel and obviously there has been a collapse of tourism. I understand why Christian tourism should stop because people when they go off on tourism they are having fun and they don't want to have to worry about security issues. But I would argue that Jewish tourism cannot collapse under those circumstances because that means you are just another tourist. But in fact the central point is shared pain and shared action. So I would argue that the community really has to ask not, (and by the way many communities have done this - it's wonderful to send solidarity missions) but I don't think that quite cuts it. What we are really talking about is mass tourism. And again I understand. I didn't go because I'm very busy right now, but I made plans, we'll go in a month or two. So that's real also. It's not going to go away in a month or two.

My last example here (and I was told not to say it, but I'm going to say it anyway) we have this Birthright Israel program which you may have heard about. There are 7,500 college students registered to go in December, with 17,500 on the waiting list, and so far there are very few cancellations. Now it's true, people tell me it's because they don't forfeit their deposit for another 3-4 weeks, so it will probably happen in December. But I honestly don't believe so. I'm counting on three things - one is that maybe they're a lot more Jewish than we give them credit for in understanding what I'm saying about sharing faith. I'm counting on the fact that when you're in college you don't listen to your parents. So when your parents tell you not to go, to spite you will go. I'm counting on that secondly. And thirdly, I'm counting on the fact that if the first group drops out, there's 2 ½ times that on the waiting list. I'm counting that between all three, we'll get there in a full complement. I was told what else I shouldn't say and it is my complaint. Someone made an obvious suggestion - the community should stand up and say well I think if 7,500 go, it's an incredible statement of solidarity right there. We should announce that we're going to raise money and we're going to provide for another 2,000 or 5,000 students to go so it won't be 7,000, it will be 12,000. [Applause] I appreciate your applause but the overwhelming bulk of the execs said don't even bring it up. As it is there's a big fight going on, you know Birthright is taking too much money. You're not going to loosen them; you're talking to the wall. But I really think it's wrong. I really do. I feel it's not like, thank God, I'm not speaking in the tone of that they are about to be wiped out. Thank God we're not at that point, so I understand people don't feel quite the same urgency as after the Yom Kippur war when Israel came that close to being destroyed. But are they in danger; really of a different kind? Not of destruction, but of isolation? Of losing the sense of hope? Of the capacity - are these actual dangers? The answer is obviously yes. And under those circumstances it seems to me that there is a kind of a moral obligation; or, to put it another way, Jews of Diaspora have to decide are we lucky and do we want to exploit that we are not on the firing line? Or in some sense in Jewish history, is there a way in which every Jew who shares the covenantal commitment is on the firing line? Again, I don't want to make a comparison. It's a great firing line to have to stay at the King David Hotel. I can think of slightly less ideal circumstances in the Israeli Army or some other army so I don't want to be over dramatic, but sometimes it doesn't need dramatic drama, it doesn't need life risk to express the fundamental point. The ethic of Jewish power in the end will depend on our capacity as Jews to draw upon moral reserves. A) to keep the dream strong because we still believe that peace and life win out. And at some point if we're strong enough there will emerge a partner who will understand that that's the way to go. Secondly, if we have strong moral reserves during the period of frustration, defeat and setback one will not go out of control but will exercise the most prudent, responsible, flawed but moral behaviors and that takes reserves. And last but not least C) to continue to proceed when there is no clear immediate promise of a good outcome.

I wanted to finish with that point. I can never get over the wonder of this. For 1800 years, Jews said next year in Jerusalem. I understand the first year they said it - after - in the year 71 - I understand why they said it. I understand by the year 80. But I often asked myself by the year 100 or by the year 200 or by the year 1000, did nobody ever get up and say what do you mean next year in Jerusalem? I mean, based on statistical probability, it hasn't happened. They said this now for 879 years; we've said it now for 1922 years and it still hasn't happened and why do you still say it? That's what I mean by commitment, where love is backed by commitment. The obvious answer is, and you know as well as I, that 1978 years later, it actually came true. Or to put it another way, there are times when the ultimate strength comes from having the inner hope and the inner confidence to proceed without losing our values and our goals and I believe eventually you get there.

Due to the length of the speech it is reprinted here in three parts. Click on the links below to read parts one and three.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3

To join the conversation at Special Features Discussion, click here.

To access the Special Features Archive, click here.

To receive  CLAL Special Features column by email on a regular basis, complete the box below:

Receive CLAL Special Features!