Let it
be said. Jonathan Sacks has been a rebellious chief rabbi.
Over
the years, most of us rabbis have become irrelevant on a global level. We
wanted to be spiritual leaders, teachers, serve our congregants, and become
heads of yeshivot. But we shunned the idea of going beyond these noble tasks
and taking on the world.
That
religious faith was challenged worldwide as never before did not bother us. It
was for the goyim to deal with. We buried our heads in the sand and lived
happily ever after.
By
doing so, however, we robbed the rabbinate of one of its most powerful tasks:
to challenge, disturb, rebel and send a strong, passionate message that is not
always to our liking.
Danish
philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once observed that religion has to function like
a thunderstorm, but that over the years it invented sundry
lightening-conductors and lost its purpose. The same is true about the
rabbinate. It has become a pleaser, a comforter, as opposed to a biting critic
of our moral failure and our spiritual and intellectual mediocrity.
The
rabbinate was meant to be a test tube in which its own foundations could be
challenged and new ideas experimented with. It was supposed to redeem Judaism
to once again become a vibrant experience.
Instead
it denied its task of being “a light unto the nations” and decided to be a
dwindling night-lamp.
That is
why Rabbi Jonathan Sacks became a rebellious man. He was bold enough to
challenge the very institution he headed. Where we rabbis feared to go, he
traveled on his own to challenge not only the Jewish community but the world at
large.
His
confidence in the power of Judaism and its infinite wisdom enabled him to enter
the lion’s den, taking on famous philosophers, scientists, religious thinkers
and sociologists and showing them that Judaism had something to teach that they
couldn’t afford to miss if they wanted to be at the forefront of philosophy and
science.
He
showed us that science had to justify itself in the eyes of religious belief,
and not just the other way around. His observations disturbed and put arrogant people,
who spoke in the name of science and philosophy, in their place.
The
truth is that Rabbi Sacks left the chief rabbinate years ago and went his own
way, becoming a lonely chief rabbi, little appreciated by his own colleagues.
While we rabbis convinced ourselves that to engage and challenge the academic
world was not possible, the chief rabbi showed us that we were using this
argument to cover up our own limitations.
We knew
there were Jewish Orthodox institutions that taught how Judaism could exist in
a secular world and even thrive, but to maintain that Judaism could actually
challenge the scientific, philosophical and academic communities was unheard of
and belonged to the sphere of wishful thinking.
Rabbi
Sacks was able to do so only because he didn’t learn in conventional yeshivot.
He had to discover Judaism on his own, guided by some great teachers. People
can grow into outstanding leaders only when they encounter doubt, struggle with
their own faith and are challenged to the extent that they nearly fall off the
cliff. They cannot grow in an environment where religion is taken for granted
and observance is obvious.
Of
course, this is not the case for most of us, for whom a yeshiva education is
crucial in order to avoid falling into the abyss; but for truly great men such
institutions are only obstacles.
What
Rabbi Sacks did and what few have done is to lead the ship of Torah, in full
sail, right into the heart of some of the most gifted and influential people in
the world. He took them all by storm. And along the way, he also disturbed the
Jewish religious establishment, making him a rebel and often the object of
suspicion.
When
faced with the failure of the Israeli chief rabbinate, one can only admire
Rabbi Sacks even more. One does not have to agree with all of his policies,
decisions or philosophical insights, but nobody can doubt his contribution of
many splendid theological ideas to Jewish tradition, ethics and general
philosophy. The Israeli chief rabbinate, in contrast, has been silent on all
these fronts since the days after chief rabbi Shlomo Goren stepped down.
Not
only have its rabbis made no contribution to the development of religious
thought in the general world, they have not even made an impression on the
intelligentsia in Israel. This should have been their first concern, because it
is the intellectuals who determine Israel’s future. The rabbis probably do not
even understand some of Rabbi Sacks’ writings, since they lack all background
in religious and secular philosophy, have never contemplated the issues that
Rabbi Sacks struggled with, and have never learned the art of thinking
independently.
They
are seemingly unacquainted with works of other important monotheistic
religions, with Hinduism and Buddhism, and with the writings of people such as
Avraham Joshua Heschel, Martin Buber, Mordechai Kaplan, David Hartman, David
Weiss Halivni, Arthur Green, Paul Tillich or Reinold Niebuhr.
With
the stepping down of Chief Rabbi Sacks, British Jewry’s most illustrious
institution will cease to be a world player. In whatever form the chief
rabbinate will continue – and we wish the new chief rabbi every success – it
will lack its influence on the broader Jewish and non-Jewish world. World Jewry
has bitterly failed to educate a young man who would be able to take over the
task that Rabbi Sacks had laid out for himself, and move beyond him,
confronting many important matters that Rabbi Sacks couldn’t or didn’t want to
deal with, correctly or incorrectly.
There
is an urgent need to address the issue of the Reform and Conservative
movements, as well as to ensure that Zionist rabbinical judges will sit on
London’s Beit Din. It is crucial to deal with the status of women and
conversion in Jewish law, as well as to see that halacha is viewed as something
exciting and ennobling, not just as a dry legal system that has stagnated,
becoming irrelevant to most secular and even religious Jews.
But the
most important pursuit is to ensure that a highly intelligent Jewish religious
voice will continue to speak to the outside world – especially to the academia
and to the policy makers in government and high-ranking institutions.
British
Jewry will yet regret having let Rabbi Sacks go. Although I fully understand his
decision to step down – it must have occasionally been frustrating, boring and
lonely at the top – his resignation is not just a loss to British Jewry but to
all Jewish and non-Jewish communities the world over.
We can
only hope that he will become more and more challenging, disturbing and daring.
He no doubt has more up his sleeve, and we pray that he will have the courage
to persist and do what needs to be done. It may sometimes be painful, but the
benefit will be priceless.
Rabbi
Sacks surely believes in God, but more important is the fact that God seems to
believe in him, and that’s what counts. The best is yet to come!
This romance of the “primeval” landscape,
juxtaposed with Israeli activists and European NGOs who tell their story and
save the villagers, is a classic motif.
AJ: Do
you consider yourself a supporter of the one-state solution?
IP: Yes
I do. I believe in the one-state solution as the only just and functional
settlement for the conflict. I think anyone who is more than five minutes on
the ground in the West Bank realises there is no space there for an independent
Palestinian state. And moreover, anyone who ponders a bit deeper about the
reasons for the conflict understands that only such a political outfit could
respond to all aspects of the conflict: the dispossession of the Palestinians
in 1948, the discrimination against the Palestinians in Israel and the
occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
AJ: How
do you assess the success of the campaign for a one-state solution?
IP: The
main success of the campaign was to offer a new conversation about an
alternative. Its strong aspects are that it relates much better to the reality
that unfolded in Palestine since the late 19th century, where we have now a
third generation of settlers who did not succeed in emptying the country they
invaded, and both sides have to reframe their relationship on this mutual
basis: you cannot get rid of the settlers or the native population.
Its
second advantage is the total failure, after more than 65 years, of attempting
to partition Palestine in various forms and junctures as the best solution. We
now know it is not going to work, and an alternative would have to be found.
Its
disadvantage is that it is not yet a popular movement, and has no inroads and
power bases in the political structures on both sides. Also, the international
community and the Arab world do not support this idea – although I think public
opinion in the world and in the region supports it full-heartedly.
AJ: How
can such an objective be realised if it is largely confined to intellectual
circles, while seeming to hold little support among ordinary Palestinians or
Israelis?
IP: The
power of these ideas lies in two blueprints: one of an intensive work that has
begun to disseminate the idea among those who are already part of
representative bodies, especially among the Palestinians and external bodies.
The second: there is a need to show, even theoretically at this point, how life
would look like in all its aspects within one political outfit.
AJ: How
do you characterise the Israeli political establishment’s approach to achieving
its objectives in the Palestinian territories, and what do you see these as
constituting?
IP: The
objectives today are not different from those set by the Zionist movement very
early on, when it had appeared in Palestine: to have as much of Palestine as possible
with as few Palestinians in it as possible. The tactics keep changing. In 1948
it was achieved through ethnic cleansing; up to 1967 by imposing military rule
on the Palestinian minority in Israel; after 1967 by incarcerating the
Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in a huge mega-prison, while
annexing half of the West Bank to Israel and de-Arabising it, and by Judaising
the Galilee and the Negev.
These
goals have not been completed because of Palestinian steadfastness and
struggle, and hence they will continue to be the tactics in the 21st century.
AJ:
Have you seen the nature of Israeli society change during your lifetime and, if
so, would you say these changes are presenting an obstacle to achieving a just
outcome to the conflict or acting as an enabler?
IP:
There are two aspects that always interested me about Israeli society: one is
its relationship with the Palestinians - and in extension with the Arab world,
and the other the internal dynamics within the Jewish society.
On the
first account I have seen very little change in the basic attitude. The
Palestinians were and are seen as alien usurpers of an ancient homeland and an
obstacle for a thriving and peaceful life. The wish was not to be part of the
Arab world, and this included unfortunately the Arab Jews, and this produced a
mentality of a besieged Western fortress in the midst of a “hostile” region.
The outcome of this mentality was an intolerant, high-strung and paranoid
society that believes it can only rely on military power to survive.
As for
the other aspect, I grew into a relatively modest society that cared at least
about the other within the Jewish society, more egalitarian and secular. It has
become more polarised between Americanised and hedonistic enclaves such as
Tel-Aviv, and zealous theocratic spaces such as Jerusalem and the settlements.
AJ: Are
you able to give an outline of how you see any political solution arising
between the leadership of the Israelis and the Palestinians? Do you see the
Arab Spring as altering the situation in the Israel-Palestine conflict?
IP: If
there will be no change in the local, regional or international balance of
powers, the relationship is not going to change in the future. Namely, the
Israelis will assassinate those leaders that will resist its dictate and expect
the others at least to remain quiet about it, even if they do not express
support for it in public. Thus you can condemn the Israeli settlements in E-1
in greater Jerusalem, but you cannot support a Palestinian attempt to defend
it.
If,
however, public opinion in the world will continue to regard Israel as the new
apartheid South Africa, as it does, this can lead, in the long run, to a change
in the attitude of political elites, as the Arab Spring can one day solidify a
number of new governments far more committed to the Palestine issue than they are
today. Then the relationship could be between the Israeli leaders representing
a settler community society seeking reconciliation with the leadership of the
native population. This could be a new paradigm and a far more hopeful one.
The military stepped in as a response to the outcry of the people, Egyptians tell Kirsten Powers.
Powers:
Egyptians
have been jubilant that their autocratic and dangerously incompetent president,
Mohammed Morsi, was removed from power one week ago. But they are also
frustrated with lectures from American congressional leaders and some American
journalists who have characterized the Egyptian people's popular uprising as an
undemocratic power grab. The Obama administration has avoided the word “coup,”
which would jeopardize under U.S. law the $1.3 billion in aid we provide to the
Egyptian military—but expressed “deep concern” over the ousting of Morsi.
If
there was one message I heard repeatedly in speaking to Egyptians who were
active in the protests, it was this: “Stop calling our revolution a coup.”
Their
president, the Egyptians note, was given the opportunity to meet the demands of
the people but instead delivered a defiant speech making clear he would
continue to rule in an undemocratic fashion. The military removed him, and Adly
Mansour, the head of the Egypt’s Supreme Constitutional Court is now the acting
president. He issued a decree Tuesday that calls for a constitutional
referendum in November, followed by parliamentary elections in December and a
presidential election in February.
Yes,
this is messy. It’s not what Americans envision when they think about
democracy. But the U.S. has been at this for centuries. It’s been a year for
Egypt.
It’s
important to remember that the military stepped in as a response to the outcry
of the people. The legacy of Morsi’s short reign was an economy in freefall,
electricity blackouts, and gas and water shortages. Morsi’s abuses were legion,
but among the worst was a constitutional declaration that included the edict
that “[t]he president is authorized to take any measures he sees fit in order
to preserve and safeguard the revolution, national unity or national security.”
Twenty-two million Egyptians risked their lives to sign the “Tamarod sheet” opposing
Morsi, which included their government I.D. numbers. “I was scared when I
signed it,” one 30-something Egyptian mother of two told me. Egyptians have no
memory of a government that doesn’t abuse human rights and repress the people
with vicious impunity. This is not signing a Change.org petition. In Egypt, signing
your name to a statement opposing the government is an act of immense bravery.
A reported 33 million Egyptians flooded the streets to demand the ouster of
Morsi, a number vastly greater than the 13 million votes that elected him.
The
idea that because Morsi was democratically elected Egyptians should wait until
the next election is simplistic and shortsighted. Lucy Shafik, who protested
daily in Cairo with her entire family, said via email, “If we…waited out
[Morsi’s] presidency for another three years, there wouldn’t have been a
country to rule anymore.” Moreover, those who turned out to call for Morsi’s
ouster didn’t believe there would be any more elections if he stayed in power.
“One election, one time” is something this region has seen too many times.
In a
May 2013 interview, U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Anne Patterson was asked to
explain how the U.S. was helping to address human rights violations, which the
Egyptian interviewer pointed out had “risen considerably since Mubarak’s
ouster.” Patterson replied that, “We do not agree with claims that human rights
violations are worse than ever under the new regime. It cannot be ignored that
freedom of expression has improved in a number of ways under the new regime,
exemplified by the media and the freedom to talk openly and publicly chastise
political figures. Look at the press, or any of the political talk shows on TV:
Egyptians did not have such freedoms under Mubarak.”
Two
months prior to Patterson’s statement, Bassem Youssef, a popular Egyptian TV
comedian sometimes called the Jon Stewart of Egypt, was charged with defaming
Morsi. The LA Times reported that “more of these complaints were brought in the
first few months of Morsi's rule than in all of Mubarak's 30-year reign.” The
same month as Patterson’s interview, prominent Egyptian youth leader Ahmed
Maher was arrested for leading protests against the Morsi government.
The
U.S. has had a real knack for getting on the wrong side of history in Egypt.
Maybe it's time to change that.
