A few hours before Barack Obama arrived in Jerusalem in late July, a Palestinian bulldozer driver went on a rampage around the corner from the Democratic presidential nominee’s hotel. It was the second bulldozer attack in Jerusalem in less than a month, and unlike the first attack in which three Israelis were murdered, this time the driver was killed before he killed anyone else.
There were several peculiar aspects of the incident that have been overlooked outside of Israel. To an outsider such details might seem to be no more than local curiosities, but they actually point to an important dimension of the changes affecting present-day Israeli society — changes that also tell us something significant about the role that religion can play in Western-style democracies.
The civilian who shot the July 22 bulldozer terrorist was once the yeshiva instructor of the young conscript who shot the July 3 bulldozer terrorist. The young conscript, in turn, is the brother-in-law of the civilian who shot the terrorist responsible for the massacre at the Mercaz HaRav yeshiva in March. In addition, the three citizen-heroes all wear the knitted skullcaps typical of the national-religious camp — those most closely identified with the settler movement.
In order to place the importance of these recent incidents in context, it is first necessary to recognize that readiness to charge the enemy was once considered to be a typical Israeli characteristic. That self-image began to crack after the hasty withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. It suffered a further blow after the war with Hezbollah in 2006, when the army hesitated for what seemed to be an eternity before sending in the infantry.
The reason behind that hesitation cannot be separated from one of the main motivations behind the recent prisoner exchange with Hezbollah: The Israeli political and military elite seems to doubt Israelis’ capacity for sacrifice. This doubt is clearly understood by Hezbollah’s leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, who after the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon mockingly said that Israel “is weaker than a spider web.”
The Mercaz HaRav massacre only reinforced this notion. The policeman at the site of the attack inexplicably refrained from entering the building where the lone gunman was shooting students. Instead, an armed civilian took it upon himself to engage the enemy.
It is no coincidence that the armed civilian in question came from the same national-religious camp that fought against the pullout from Gaza, as Gonen Ginat pointed out recently in his column for the right-leaning daily Yisrael HaYom.
“The willingness to charge and the willingness to struggle for Gush Katif come from the same place,” Ginat noted. “Their society, culture, and education emphatically emphasize belonging to a community… These are the places where a feeling of community is preserved, a feeling that once united us all.”
Nor is praise for the fighting spirit of the national-religious coming only from the right.
“It is no accident that in the last three attacks in Jerusalem, wearers of knitted skullcaps… were involved in killing the terrorists,” Nadav Shragai wrote recently in the liberal daily Ha’aretz. National-religious educational institutions, Shragai argued, “sanctify values such as self-sacrifice, heroism and contributing to the collective… The result is that at the moment of truth, these fighters from the same background acted in accordance with the Talmudic command, ‘He who rises up to kill you — kill him first’… without any hesitation or doubts.”
The reactions in the Israeli press to the recent events demonstrate that some of the values embodied by the national religious camp, in particular dedication to the community and a willingness to sacrifice, are widely recognized as necessary for maintaining Israel’s national resilience. These values, however, cannot be separated from their source — namely, faith, and sometimes messianic faith.
The challenge facing Israeli society is how to safely harness the energy of the national-religious camp to help defend the state. Religion, it seems, does not poison everything. At the same time, many Israelis are, for a variety of reasons, unwilling to pay the price that would assure the return of those values to the collective ethos — put simplistically, returning to a nationalistically inclined religion.
It is not much of a stretch to say that Israel faces a dilemma also faced by Western democracies, though perhaps not in as acute a fashion. The terrorist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan do not pose any real threat to American firepower. In the big picture, the attacks against America are equivalent to the discomfort a man feels when a mosquito flies up his nose.
But against American firepower terrorists employ one very important weapon — willpower — and in the long run the war against terrorism will test America’s resolve.
The question of the role of religion in democratic society did not begin, of course, with the war on terrorism. De Tocqueville recognized that the right dose of religion can moderate a democratic society’s tendency to extreme individualism, and Machiavelli praised Roman religion while denigrating religions that focus on worlds aside from our own.
Both thinkers understood that civic-minded religions foster values that sustain a society’s fighting spirit. Thoughtful contemporary critics of the role of religion in a democratic society would do well to remember that fact.
Aryeh Tepper is a research fellow at the Ernest Schwarcz Center for Judaism, Ethics and State at Robert M. Beren College in Jerusalem.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Dear Marta, I thought you would want to see this. Shabbat shalom, Paul
Oh yes, we are not unmindful of the inspiration that religion injects into fighters. How about the hordes of Moslems riding into Spain, screaming "Allah hu akbar" while waving their scimitars? How about the medieval Christians shouting "Deus lo vult" (God wills it) as they razed the Jewish ghettos on their way to the Holy Land, which they devastated? Or the atrocities committed by individuals in the name of their religion such as Yitzhak Rabin's assassin, and the person who shot dead 29 mosque worshippers some years ago in Israel? The lure of 72 virgins and/or eternal life can provide the impulse for all sorts of reckless behavior, including acts of violence that sometimes happen to suit us. More often, however, they don't, so in the balance I think we are better off with a more reality-based perspective rather than chasing the pie-in-the-sky.
Mr. Fishers comments are offensive in the extreme. This article praises heroic acts of self-defense. Is shooting a villain on a rampage the same as being a suicide bomber or a crusader? Religion can be good or bad. Since technology--like religion--can be used for evil or for good, should we advocate the end of science? I hope all those who fight on the side of humanity and justice have the religous fervor that is necessary to carry the day.
The rabbi is easily offended, which is not unusual with partisans. One would be hard pressed to find a single group of fighters in the world that does not claim to "fight on the side of humanity and justice." It all depends on your point of view. Religion can be good and bad, I agree, but am hard pressed to come up with much of the good, except for the brave stand that many religious people took in the face of slavery and greatly hastened its abolition. Other than that, I look back on two millennia of bloody religious wars, pogroms, massacres, and public burnings of those who dared challenge religious athority. And all for what? Promises of an afterlife? 72 virgins to deflower? A belief that The Omnipotent Creator of the universe concerns himself intimately with the affairs of a species so minute that you wouldn't even know it existed at a mere 1000 kilometers' distance on Google Earth? The centuries of religious domination are properly called the Dark Ages. Every discovery had to be pried loose from the hands of the religious, until civilization finally wrested hegemony from religion and relegated it to just another human activity, no more "true" or favored than any other. In my life I have benefited far more from science than religion, which is unimportant to me. Is there any wonder that I ignore it? Contrariwise, the rabbi makes his living from religion. Is there any wonder that he defends it?
I am enjoying this dialogue and i hope we both have the energy to see it through.... The argument "They killed more then us." IS relevant if we are trying to determine what the CAUSE of injustice is. My point is that "religion" is NOT the determining factor. Of course you can replace religion, but with what? The belief in "the seeming unimportance of humanity"? Don't you agree that is a philosophy that would seem to PROMOTE the abuse and objectification of ALL people. If human being are an accident, and no more important then animals, why make a distinction between killing an ant and a human being? At least religion protects its own. It is true that Jews have been far from perfect. My point is that our religion focuses our attention of these failings and does not promote them. Consider this: Can you name another tradition that articulates the history of the moral failings of its practitioners with the relentlessness of the Old Testament? Jewish tradition itself warns of the dangers of religion--the Talmud states that the Torah can be an elixir of life or a death potion. I would also like to make this point: The very roots of Judaism are the desire to destroy false beliefs. Abraham was the original iconoclast. I actually agree with you, Mr. Fisher, that a healthy skepticism toward religion is a positive thing. What I don't think you understand is that secular humanism is itself a "religon" of sorts, that will not ultimately promote peace. Germany before WW2 was a society that promoted all the ideals of democracy and secular humanism and immediately fell into the abyss of the holocaust. Even in recent times we see that people will freely elect the most despicable governments. My only point is that the modern denigration of religion is superficial at best, and a distraction from the real problem which is embedded in the human character. Not only do I think that atheism is incorrect, but I do not think that it will help us to uproot the human tendencies for selfishness and pride. What makes you think that dumping all religion will create a better world? On your comment concerning bias...lets stick to argument. If you feel I have made an error in logic or the facts let me know. (Your statement that the Jews developed their "moral" attitude in the diaspora is, as you have stated, a "hunch". The facts will not bare it out, but let me know your sources please. Also I believe that Jews lived for almost 600 years during the first temple period and 400 years during the second as sovereigns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple not that wiki is the best source but its a start yes?)
I hesitate to respond because...well...I'll give it shot anyway.... 1) I don't think one has to be a partisan to be offended by someone equating the type of inspiration that motivates an act of self-defense and type that motivates terrorists. Mr. Fishers comments offend my intellect, not my religous sensitivities. 2) Mr. Fisher is "hard-pressed" to find any positive contributions of religion. I will try to assist him. A. When the world was steeped in barbarism the Jews practiced and preached a moral code which defended the weak, and asserted that might does not make right. Even "secular" humanism, and certain the Constitution of the United States, have roots grounded in the Ten Commandments and the religion of the Jewish people. (See Thomas Cahill's book "The Gifts of the Jews." among others.) B. How many charitable organizations are run by Mosques, Churches, etc. I wonder weather or not the college that Mr. Fisher himself attended what founded by a church organization, as was Harvard and many other Ivy League schools. C. The idea that religion represses science is false. Under the Muslims science flourished. It is true that during the Dark Ages the Christians did suppress science, but again, that stance is not intrinsic to "religion". In fact many intellectuals feel that the foundation of modern science can be linked to the establishment of monotheism. In short it is not difficult to argue that the political freedoms and scientific progress that Mr. Fisher enjoys have only emerged historically because of "religion" replacing the idolatry and barbarism that was stunting human development in ancient times. Mr. Fishers inability to see this is due to the modern prejudice against religion. This prejudice is probably historically rooted in Marxism. Great minds through-out the ages have had great respect for the teaching of religion, especially the Jewish brand. 3. Mr. Fisher feels that since I benefit from "religion" my defense of it is biased. Well, we are left on quite a quandary then since he himself claims to have benefited from the removal of religion. If he can be objective, why can't I? 4. The real problem here is false concept of "religon". We are being far to vague to be productive. The culprit that hinders human progress cannot be reduced to any one philosophy, but is, in my opinion, rooted in the human condition. Let us say be were to abolish religion and establish a society based on other grounds...oh wait...Hitler and Stalin already tried that, together killing more innocent people then all the Muslims, Christians, and Barbarians combined. kk. Please let me know your thoughts....
The fact that Stalin, Hitler, and assorted non-religious tyrants have murdered more people than the religious is a consequence of the technology of the time, and not any tender feelings on the part of the religions and their adherents. For example, the Thirty Years' War was fought with the utmost ferocity, and if the warring parties had had access to machine guns and napalm I bet they would have used them on each other, "ad majorem Dei gloriam." But what they lacked in destructive power, they certainly made up for in attitude. A Catholic general said, as he prepared to take a "heretic" stronghold, "We'll kill them all. God will know his own." Let God sort 'em out. Appropriately, the spirit was willing although their means were limited. Even during the Roman siege of Jerusalem itself, the warring factions of Jews inside the city burnt each others' food stores, and the sicarii, the knifemen, were on the loose. And all this while the Roman enemy was at the very door. So it's not as if the religious are purer, or in any way better, than anyone else although that is what their propaganda insinuates. Besides, is it really an argument to make that "they killed even more people than we did?" Now, admittedly, almost all of the religious mayhem in the West was committed by Christians and Moslems. So this must mean that the Jews are different from those brutes, no? According to the rabbi, the Jews "practiced and preached a moral code which defended the weak, and asserted that might does not make right" instead of savaging their neighbors. How nice. I strongly suspect that this wise attitude developed in the Diaspora, when Jews had become subject to the assaults of the primitive populations by whom they were surrounded. The fact is that the Jews were never masters in their own home, from the time of Vespasian to the establishment of Israel, so they never had the freedom and opportunity to oppress anyone. But there are abundant examples of Israelite rampaging in the Bible. In those days, the Jews had fewer compunctions and routinely wiped out their enemies, lock, stock, and barrel. (Ahem, with God's help, of course.) The Israelites even carried religious implements into battle for fervor. Perhaps religion replaced the idolatry and barbarism that existed before, but does that mean that this is the end of times? That religion is irreplaceable? Absolutely not. The next step is to use our knowledge to honestly appraise the seeming unimportance of humanity in the grander scheme of things, and to abandon the insufferable, breath-taking, ape-like arrogance that fosters belief in omnipotent beings who look out for our interest, who "choose" pet peoples, and who must be obeyed. It was probably a good narrative back when people believed that the lightning was caused by Mjolnir, Thor's hammer, and sacrificed animals and humans to placate their gods. From our perspective, it seems atavistic and primitive. But I suspect that religion will always be with us. It seems to be one of the great human passions, in the company of sex, art, and war. On a personal note, I did not say you were biased. Any normal person will defend that which feeds him.
I am enjoying this dialogue and i hope we both have the energy to see it through.... The argument "They killed more then us." IS relevant if we are trying to determine what the CAUSE of injustice is. My point is that "religion" is NOT the determining factor. Of course you can replace religion, but with what? The belief in "the seeming unimportance of humanity"? Don't you agree that is a philosophy that would seem to PROMOTE the abuse and objectification of ALL people. If human being are an accident, and no more important then animals, why make a distinction between killing an ant and a human being? At least religion protects its own. It is true that Jews have been far from perfect. My point is that our religion focuses our attention of these failings and does not promote them. Consider this: Can you name another tradition that articulates the history of the moral failings of its practitioners with the relentlessness of the Old Testament? Jewish tradition itself warns of the dangers of religion--the Talmud states that the Torah can be an elixir of life or a death potion. I would also like to make this point: The very roots of Judaism are the desire to destroy false beliefs. Abraham was the original iconoclast. I actually agree with you, Mr. Fisher, that a healthy skepticism toward religion is a positive thing. What I don't think you understand is that secular humanism is itself a "religon" of sorts, that will not ultimately promote peace. Germany before WW2 was a society that promoted all the ideals of democracy and secular humanism and immediately fell into the abyss of the holocaust. Even in recent times we see that people will freely elect the most despicable governments. My only point is that the modern denigration of religion is superficial at best, and a distraction from the real problem which is embedded in the human character. Not only do I think that atheism is incorrect, but I do not think that it will help us to uproot the human tendencies for selfishness and pride. What makes you think that dumping all religion will create a better world? On your comment concerning bias...lets stick to argument. If you feel I have made an error in logic or the facts let me know. (Your statement that the Jews developed their "moral" attitude in the diaspora is, as you have stated, a "hunch". The facts will not bare it out, but let me know your sources please. Also I believe that Jews lived for almost 600 years during the first temple period and 400 years during the second as sovereigns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple not that wiki is the best source but its a start yes?)
This article brings up an interesting question-are people really looking for freedom and democracy or just to be left alone to consume? Th lack of dedication, other than waving flags and screaming rhetoric over 24 hour news channels, is pure laziness. In the U.S., there would be no war if there was a draft, particularly on a day when there was a 2 for 1 sale at the Walmart.
Overwhelmed! That's a show I've receive a lot lately. A recently exclaimed, "Who has the time to set on one at a time these ? That's a luxury I just cannot afford!" In an to be more cost-effective, of us have learned how to .Computers are famous for their ability to .
http://leonardo-web.org/blackleatherottomans/?p=5