The contrast could hardly be more stark. In America, after a rough-and-tumble (and incredibly long) presidential campaign, a page has been turned. No, more than that: Volume 43 has been closed, shelved out of sight, while Volume 44, its newness discernible to touch and to smell, sits open, inviting, only a couple of pages so far filled in. For all the chaos and crisis almost wherever we turn, there is new hope, and an outpouring of respect and affection for President Obama.
And in Israel? Whatever else may be said of this week’s elections in Israel, they hardly start a new chapter in Israel’s history. Instead, they offer the prospect of more of the bleak same.
America: Think back to the post-election scene at Chicago’s Grant Park. It wasn’t just Oprah and Jesse Jackson who were visibly crying, tears of release; it was many of the thousands gathered there to greet the new president, and hundreds of thousands if not millions more across the country, watching the celebration from their homes. The ocean of goodwill that attended the event may prove to be no more than a month-long spasm. But the brisk sense of new possibilities is like a dose of pure oxygen administered to a system that had been choking. Breathe deep.
Israel: If you breathe deep in Israel, you inhale the particulates of an atmosphere stagnant, polluted. The big issue in the weeks before the election was the rise of Avigdor Lieberman, he whose campaign slogan was, “No loyalty, no citizenship.” (The slogan was a shorthand for the Lieberman proposal that Israel’s Arab citizens, who account for about 20% of Israel’s population, be required to take a loyalty oath to the Jewish state in order to enjoy the full rights of citizenship.)
But Lieberman, who in some pre-election polls was predicted to win 18 or 19 Knesset seats, was held in the election to 15 — enough to make his Yisrael Beiteinu party Israel’s third largest, but not enough to support the fears of a dramatic lurch rightward in the electorate.
Lieberman aside, there were no great surprises in the election. Early on, Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to be the big winner; in the end, Tzipi Livni’s Kadima edged out Netanyahu’s Likud. Ehud Barak and Labor came in an ignominious fourth, staggering but still alive. The Haredi parties ended up with 16 seats. It is not easy to read “the will of the people” in all this, and it is harder still to figure out who, in the end, will lead the new government — meaning who will be able to cobble together a 61-seat majority in the Knesset.
Truth is, the will of the people is all over the map. Twelve parties each took a large enough chunk of the vote to garner representation in the Knesset, a situation that will almost surely persist until the electoral system itself is reformed. Election results are inevitably muddled, and the current muddle is especially opaque — an accurate reflection of the widespread view that preserving the status quo is about the best that can be hoped for. People in Israel are tired of all the fruitless talk of peace. Diabolically, however, the status refuses to be quo. It is dynamic, and corrosive. Attitudes harden, possibilities narrow, atrophy.
Therein is the contrast with the United States. Though it’s the rare conversation in America these days that doesn’t at least touch and more often linger on the economy — on people we know who’ve been directly affected, on people we’ve read or heard about, on our own fears — there is withal a confidence that things will get better. The economists warn us that it may be a long while before we’ve recovered, and there are already millions of people whose lives have been turned upside down. Yet the overall mood of the nation remains positive.
In some part, that owes to Obama himself, to his unflappable demeanor, to the fact that just three weeks into his tenure he seems to the manor born, to the aura of magic that still surrounds him. The sundry missteps of these early weeks notwithstanding, Grant Park and the Inaugural itself still linger. But there’s something more at work here. It turns out there’s a reality to all those clichés about American optimism, American resilience. On July 4, the clichés seem bloated. But in this winter of our hardship, they seem entirely on point. And why not? Does not the history of this nation warrant more than a measure of confidence, even in the face of our current troubles? Indeed, does not the improbable election of Barack Obama reinforce that confidence?
What now in Israel? President Shimon Peres will likely invite Livni to form a government. She is unlikely to succeed without inviting Netanyahu and his Likud to be part of the governing coalition. Netanyahu will have to weigh whether to decline and hope Livni will fail so that he will then be asked (by the president) to try and cobble together his own governing coalition. Netanyahu commands a more or less obvious right-wing majority of 63, including Lieberman and the religious parties (who decisively do not get along with each other).
It will be very messy for a while; the likeliest outcome is a national unity government, including Kadima, Likud and Labor, a total of 68 seats, perhaps with a rotation in the prime-ministerial position. That outcome would be a prescription for continuing stagnation and for new elections in 18 months or so. It would be a message to the Palestinians that they have no partner for peace. (Pity George Mitchell.) It would be a decisive confirmation that in Israel, new possibilities are still beyond the horizon.
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.
Mr Fein's analysis of the situation is very poor this week. First of all, it is quite strange that he has linked the drama of American politics with the Israeli elections. What is the connection between America's "turning the page" and Israel's sociology? There isn't any connection, obviously, and his expectations for a parallel drama are almost silly. I think that it is very unlikely that President Peres will invite Mrs Livni to form a new government. She may have won more seats in the Knesset than Mr Netanyahu, but there is no doubt that she cannot form a coaltion of 61 MK's. The president of the state will choose the member of Knesset who has the best chance of making a majority coalition; i.e. he will choose Mr Netanyahu. Lastly, Mr Fein, the Palestinians have a partner for peace. In your view of the conflict, as always, there is a focus only on Israel - as if the end of conflict is depended only on her actions or inactions. I don't really understand why your analysis never gives any insight into Palestinian society. They simply are not a factor in your equation. Anyway, if the Palestinians wish to strike a final deal and end the conflict, the conflict will come to an end. There is a clear majority in Israeli society (and in this new Knesset as well) for any reasonable solution. Unfortunately, the Palestinian side is not yet capable of ending the conflict. Surely, it is more than obvious that the Hamas is a centrally important movement in their society. Any deals with Israel will be perceived as temporary - never final. Perhaps, it's easier to focus only on Israel. After all, it's a society that listens to criticism, and it is made up of people (Jews) who are very similar to Mr Fein. Palestinian society is much more of a mystery. There, no one is listening to Mr Fein's criticism, and actually outsiders hardly understand their social dynamics. So, it's simply easier to ignore them. The Palestinians, however, still see the conflict as a multi-generation confrontation, and the possible negotiations with Israel are merely a part of the tactics of war. Ignoring their aspirations, Mr Fein, is a kind of haughtiness on your part.
If you breathe deep in Israel, you inhale the particulates of an atmosphere stagnant, polluted...This would be best applied to Mr Fein's columns, which have the freshness of moldy challah. I would like to see Mr Fein take a loyalty test-the only thing he could be loyal to is "world citizenship". I susse a challenge to Mr Fein-in 2009, engage in productive labor
Who edited these comments to remove the conversation between Yehuda and me? Please undue this stupidity. See http://www.forward.com/articles/15165/.
Why does the Forward publish such malignant drivel?
Somehow someone at The Forward managed to delete 2/14 and 2/15 comments by Yehudah and by me, so here they are again --
Joel A. Levitt said: Poor Yehuda, he’s chosen to miss the point again. We know that America can exist, because it does. America has faults, most notably domestic poverty and racial and ethnic discrimination and the destruction that it has wrought in Iraq. But, the public and government are determined to better approach the equality of opportunity for all Americans which is demanded in its founding documents. And, the majority of Americans recognize the evil of what we have done in Iraq and are debating how much in lives and treasure we can afford to spend on reparations and what power we can legitimately use in undoing the terrible damage that we have done.
We know that Israel can exist, because it does. We hoped that Israel would be an even better nation than America. After all, Israel not only has the American example before it, but it also has 3,500 years of Jewish experience to draw on. So we hoped, but what do we find? We find a state with a truly noble declaration of independence, which proclaims the equal worth of every human being, but which is honored hardly at all. We find a High Court that is trying to protect the downtrodden, while its very right to consider such matters is under attack. We find a people whose ancient sage, Rabbi Natan, asked, “Who is truly mighty?” and answered “He who turns his enemies into friends.” But, that very people chooses, à la Avigdor Lieberman, to expel another people whose presence is ideologically inconvenient. And, that very people chooses, à la: the Yesha Council, much of the Rabbinate and several ministries, to beat, to destroy the crops of and to steal the land of those who stand in the way of their expansion. In his article, Dr. Fein invites us to make a frightening comparison. He invites us to compare present-day America and present-day Israel. Dr. Fein invites us to ask some frightening questions. Can Israel, with a 20% non-Jewish citizenry, be both democratic and Jewish? Are there any elected Israeli officials who will put justice and the welfare of their people ahead of their own ambition? How many Jewish Israelis are there with the courage to admit that for 3,500 years they have prospered as much and as often as they have suffered, and that their suffering does not give them the right to persecute others?
These questions are so upsetting, that Yehuda must pretend that they don’t exist, and I refuse to answer them.
Sat. Feb 14, 2009
Yehuda said: Joel A. Levitt assumes as a "fact" that Israel "persecute others". No, Israel is a nation facing very unusual threats, and it must find the way to provide protection for its populace while trying to maintain an open society. There is no room for comparison with the American experience, and it always baffles me that American Jews feel that there is something to learn from American society. The treatment of blacks was based on inexplicable racial hatred. There is no issue of race in the Middle East. There is violence and hostility based on conflicting ambitions of different ethnicities. Under the circumstances of a violent political conflict, nevertheless, Israeli society has managed to create a rather impressive reality of normalcy. There is plenty of room for improvement and criticism; yet, I simply cannot believe that another country would handle similar challenges better than Israel.
Mr. Levitt quotes Rabbi Nathan ("He who turns his enemies into friends"). I'm very impressed that a Talmudic quote is used in a debate. However, this choice of quotes is an indication of the unfair criticism that Israel faces, as if she - and she alone - is responsible for ending the conflict. In this quote, the other side is not a factor. However, she cannot placate the other side. There is no "correct" policy of an "illegitimate state". Only with the acceptance of Israel's legitimacy will there be a possibility of finding a way to end the conflict and the animosity surrounding it. Israel can withdraw from territories, dismantle settlements, resettle refugees, even change its national anthem and flag, etc, etc - and still the conflict will continue. None of these grievances is the cause of conflict, and therefore their resolution will not end the conflict. The cause of conflict is the birth of the Hebrew yishuv, a national entity that sees itself as an equal amongst equals, thus having the right to self-determination. The Arab side does not recognize the legitimacy of this yishuv - not before the achievement of political independence in 1948 nor since. The outbreak of war has cause new problems (refugees, for example), but these new problems do not redefine the conflict. It remains a conflict about legitimacy, even amongst the Palestinian moderates. And one more topic in wake of the comparison between Israel and America: I don't think that Mr Fein should be busying himself and his readers with comparisons between the two countries. This is not only because the circumstances are so different (as indeed they are); rather, because it's not really the important issue for a Jewish discussion! Israel is an expression of a Jewish collective existence, and it deals successfully or unsuccessfully with the issues arising from this reality. Perhaps it would be interesting to compare this collective Jewish existence with other collective Jewish experiences. How does the American Jewish community express a common experience, what are its issues and problems, how does it cope with such problems? Perhaps, there is no collective Jewish experience in America, so that would be an interesting issue to discuss. I take all this criticism of Israel, be it fair or unfair, as a kind of compliment. There's a story, so there's what to analyse and debate. Jewish history is happening in front of our very eyes in the Land of Israel. Perhaps, there is no story in today's Diaspora, and there aren't any events of the collective Jewish experience that would justify writing a new chapter in the history of the Jewish people there. People - who don't have to make any decisions or don't have to do anything - never make any bad decisions or mistakes. How amazing! So, they can sit back and analyze those who do have to make decisions. It would be a bit more impressive to hear what is the American Jewish agenda, what are the decisions to be made, what is the next chapter of the Jewish drama in America. Is there a drama, Mr Fein?
Sat. Feb 14, 2009
Joel A. Levitt said:
Oh, Yehuda.
It is true that the American Jewish community has experienced more economic and political success than cultural growth. Although, we can point to the founding of Mazon by Dr. Fein, to the emergence of Reconstructionism from Conservative Judaism and to the growing self knowledge that is being added to the refreshing openness to the general culture of American Reform Jews. However, Yehuda, what has this to do with our sorrow about Israel?
Yes, Yehuda, American Jews are very concerned that Israel has not been able to find peace, and there are probably vanishingly few who are unaware that it is not Israeli actions and ambitions, alone, that have maintained the state of war. Almost all are aware that the Palestinians are at least equally responsible. But, what has this to do with whether Israel “persecutes others?”
Israel does, in fact, persecute many of the West Bank Palestinians, part and parcel of a vicious land grab. Palestinians are beaten. Their crops are destroyed. Their land is seized, often through the use of force, lies and forgery. And, this is done with the connivance of the government and the indifference of most of the Jewish Israeli public. America did similar things in the War with Mexico and in the Indian Wars, but that was more than 100 years ago, and the Western colonization of the rest of the world was pretty much over more than 40 years ago. Israel, which we hoped would be in the vanguard of history, is, instead, found marching in the most unkosher rear. Sun. Feb 15, 2009
To Joel A. Levitt: You misunderstand my raising the issue of the quality of Jewish life in America. Obviously, as you noted, it has nothing to do with our debates about Israel. I raise the issue as a general comment to Mr Fein. I really don't think it is important to compare Israel's elections with America's elections. We read the Forward to learn about the Jewish experience. A comparison between Jewish life in Israel and Jewish life in America would be very interesting topic to analyze; but, alas, Mr Fein never has any comments about Jewish life in America.
Regarding your comment of "persecution" - I think your terminology is incorrect and improper. Israel is in the midst of an historic conflict. Surely, you have the right to agree or disagree with Israel's conduct in conflict - but the word "persecution" is not the terminology for a conflict situation. Obviously, with the end of conflict and the end of animosity, there will be an end of force and trickery (which are tools of an armed struggle). Both sides, meanwhile, wish to establish facts on the ground in the hopes that in the final accounting it will make a difference.
You also comment about "western colonization". Here, you have essentially adopted the terminology of the Palestinian narrative. They always use the term "colonialism" in their presentation of the conflict with us. It, too, is improper terminology, and its intention is to define the Jews as foreigners and their aspirations as illegitimate. In other words, it's part of the propaganda war against Israel. The Jews are a local community in the Middle East, and we are in a conflict with another local community over a whole set of conflicting interests. We criticize ourselves, so surely American Jews should express criticism as well. But it should be criticism of policy in a conflict situation. And if you wish to compare Israel with others in order to make a good point of criticism, it would be relevant to compare her with other societies in a conflict situation.
Mr Levitt's comments can be summarized as "If Israel isnt perfect, I wont support it". LIke AIG stock, Mr Levitt loves Israel as long as it conforms to his ideologic beliefs. I have a tip for Mr Levitt-invest with Madoff
Jewish children must stay away from schools with many Arab students
“There’s plenty of aggression in the air,” a school leader says about the Arab pupils who would give Jewish students a hard time if they dared to enter the school.
Yesterday Humlehave School in Vollsmose made it known that it wants to dissuade Jewish children from attending the school on account of the many Arab children who attend it. Now two other schools with many Arab children have announced the same thing in Jyllands-Posten.
“I don’t have anything against it, but I would not advise Jewish parents to send their children here. The well-being of the children must come first. We have a large group of Palestinian students, and, particularly at this time, there’s plenty of aggression in the air,” says Lise Egholm, principal of the Rådmandsgade School in Nørrebro, Copenhagen, to the newspaper.
Her colleague at the Klostervængets School, in Nørrebro, Karen-Margrethe Grønlund has the same message:
“There is no doubt that a Jewish child would be bullied and have a hard time at our school.”
- - - - - - - - -
In Århus, the schools don’t plan on recommending that Jewish children use other schools.
“We must defend the openness that we have, and work with the mutual understanding of the children. You can’t do that if it means beginning to say no to some pupils,” says Anne Graah, principal of Skjoldhøjskolen.
According to Chief Rabbi Bent Lexner the question is entirely theoretical. Jewish parents simply keep their children away from Arab-dominated schools.
“In reality, of course Jewish parents don’t send their children to school in, for instance, Nørrebro. They simply choose another school. But for democracy, it’s a problem”, Bent Lexner says to Jyllands-Posten.
He is, however, often sought out by parents who ask for advice about which high schools their children should avoid.
What Leonard is forgetting is that when our country, the United States, was 60 years old the Europeans were killing, moving, and destroying Indian civilizations and that he, like the rest of us, presently benefit from these past unhappy actions.
To Henrik W,
It is unlikely that Arabs will ever become the dominant group in Denmark. I hope that the Arab leaders are aware or will become aware that if they permit their children to abuse Jews, they are opening the door to much more serious abuse of Arabs.
To Yehuda,
I don't think that Israel's creation was an act of colonization. I do think of Israel's expansion into the West Bank as colonization. I introduced colonialism in my previous comment only to indicate that, except for Israel, it is, thank God, only an artifact of the West's past.
I hope that you are correct, that current aggression and persecution are only features of the transient historic moment. I fear that you are not correct, and that they are evidence of fundamental flaws in Israeli culture.
Mr Levitt's comments can be summarized as "If Israel isnt perfect, I wont support it". LIke AIG stock, Mr Levitt loves Israel as long as it conforms to his ideologic beliefs. I have a tip for Mr Levitt-invest with Madoff
they are opening the door to much more serious abuse of Arabs....What does Mr Levitt mean by that. Pls clarify
To Joel A. Levitt - It's always amazing to debate about our situation in the Middle East and to learn that this is the only conflict in the world that only one side is at war. The Arabs, obviously, are at war. So, when they shoot a missile or if they send a suicide bomber, this is an act of war. One doesn't hear the complaint that "they are persecuting Jews" or the attack is a "current aggression". Such terms don't fit a war situation. However, as incredible as it may be, for many people (such as you), Israel is not in the midst of an armed conflict. Here one must give credit to the successful propaganda war of the Arab side. A roadblock is not seen as an act of war (as it would be for any other army) - it is "discrimination". With you there is a new angle: you fear that there is a fundamental flaw in our culture. The Americans bombed German cities with the aim of defeating their enemy. You wouldn't suggest that there was a "fundamental flaw" in American culture.
I hope that you realize that for the Arab side, all of Israel is one colonial project. So you differentiate between Israel and the territories captured in 1967 - but they don't. The same Arabic word is used for any Jewish town or village anywhere in the country ("istitan"). Here, again, is the success of the Arab propaganda. They claim that they have the right to resist "occupation". You understand them to mean "the West Bank", but they mean the entire country. Sderot is always "a Zionist settlement in occupied southern Palestine" in the Palestinian press. Anyway, the term "colonization" does not fit the story here. This is a conflict over a piece of territory called in Arabic "Filastin" and in Hebrew "Eretz Yisrael". Your accepting the Arab terminology of "colonization" - even in limits of just part of the country - means that you have accepted their basic argument that the Jews are foreigners here and their claims to sovereignty are illegitimate.
Why is anyone surprised by Fein's idiocy. He's par for the course.
Joel Levitt states that "colonialism is, thank God, only an artifact of the West's past". I understand from this statement that westerners have dismantled their colonies, paid compensation to the natives for all the trouble caused, and restored to them complete control of their lives and lands. Sorry, Joel, it might be convenient for you to make believe, but the fact remains that Europeans took over the entire North American continent (that was in the past tense), and that remains a fact also today (that is the present tense), so it's not a legacy of your past. I don't think that an American can cry out "colonialism", and point a finger of accusation at others. It is really hypocrisy, and it doesn't matter if a Jew has arrived in America only recently. He lives a way of life that has been shaped by what colonialism had done. Besides all this, it must be emphasized that there is no issue of colonialism in the Land of Israel. The Jews, the Arabs, the Kurds, the Persians, and others are all local peoples who have ancient roots in this part of the world. The question of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Joel, is simply a question of wisdom. Is it a good policy or is it a bad policy? So, argue against the wisdom of the policy, if that is your position. This is not a conflict of legality - both sides have reasonable claims in the entire land. This is a political conflict, and the ultimate outcome will be determined by a political agreement. It could be that a border will be agreed upon and many of the settlements in the West Bank will be recognized as part of Israel. We'll see.
Two items for Mr. Kaine:
First, learn to read, and then learn to think. If you tackle these tasks in this order, then, when you get to the second, you will have something to think about.
Second, if Danish Arabs legitimate abusing Danish Jews for crimes that they believe Israeli Jews have committed in the Middle East, why should Danes not discharge or expel Arabs for Arab terrorist acts committed around the world or for the Muslim assault on Danish press freedom?
Reuven:
Whether reparations have been paid has nothing to do with whether colonizing by the West, except in the case of Israel in the West Bank, is a thing of the past. The Egyptians, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Visigoths and the Normans were all colonial powers, never paid reparations and their colonizing is certainly a thing of the past.
Yehuda:
That the Palestinian majority believes that the founding of Israel is an example of colonial injustice is not news. Neither is it news that most Palestinians would like to see Israel disappear. Nor is it news that Hamas is religiously dedicated to making that happen.
I believe that the presence of a modern Jewish entity in Philistia is entirely proper. My belief has nothing to do with Biblically based claims. My belief is based on the fact that we Zionists peacefully settled there and improved the land and the general economy. I believe that that modern entity should be the State of Israel, because the surrounding Arabs, through the use of espionage and force majeure, denied us access to any other honorable form of existence there.
There are currently many wars in progress and many villains treading the international boards. But, I am a Jewish American, so I am concerned with the welfare and virtue of two states before all others -- the USA and Israel.
As to my fears about essential Israeli flaws, there are two.
The first is fear of an extension of a general Jewish flaw. Each Pesach we read that in every generation there have been those who have arisen to destroy us, and each Shabbat many of us pray that we will be protected from our evil enemies. The consequence is that many, perhaps even most, Jews believe that given the opportunity every non-Jewish hand will be turned against us. The fact is that we have been around for 3,500 years, and in 3,500 years you get to experience everything – everything from oppression to jubilant success. Another fact is that some of our opponents have been evil and could not be compromised with, but most have been merely pursuing their own interests. The Israeli extension that I fear is the idea that since every hand is turned against us, everything we do to the gentiles, particularly to the Palestinians, is justified.
My second fear is that Israelis, having denied there own history, are unable to learn from history at all. For generations, we have been hearing about Israelis as “New Jews,” as though the old Jews are a source of shame, as though all that we have learned about how to live with other people is irrelevant. There is one element of Jewish history that is celebrated in Israel – Chanukah, forgetting that half of the causes of our war with the Seleucidians was our own rigidity and unwillingness to allow the Jews who wanted some change to have any. Israelis also seem to forget that the accession to power of the Hashmonim produced corruption, tyranny and the destruction of the Jewish Commonwealth a little more than 2oo years thereafter.
I. INTRODUCTION
We concluded the previous chapter with Shaul's dramatic pursuit of David, a pursuit that was interrupted when a messenger arrived and informed Shaul that the Pelishtim had invaded the country. Our chapter opens with the following account:
And it came to pass, when Shaul returned from following the Pelishtim, that it was told to him, saying, "Behold, David is in the wilderness of Ein-Gedi."
Scripture does not tell us what happened in the confrontation between Shaul and the Pelishtim. Did Shaul emerge victorious? Did the Pelishtim bring their invasion to a halt? Or perhaps Shaul failed to drive them out of the country. Scripture does not provide us with any answers to these questions, and this is not by chance. In this way, Scripture emphasizes that from Shaul's perspective the struggle with the Pelishtim was merely an annoyance that cut short his pursuit of David. It may, however, be said to Shaul's credit that when push came to shove, he fulfilled the responsibility that fell on his shoulders and directed his efforts against the Pelishtim. Nevertheless, we are left with the impression that his main interest was – and remains – the pursuit of David.
This is also evident from the account of whom Shaul chooses for the purpose of pursuing David:
(2) Then Shaul took three thousand chosen men out of all Israel, and went to seek David and his men upon the rocks of the wild goats.
It is difficult to ignore the similarity between this verse and the description of Shaul's men in his first battle against the Pelishtim:
And Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel… (13:2)
The same efforts that Shaul invested in his fight against the Pelishtim at the beginning of his career as king of Israel are now invested in his pursuit after David. This gives us an indication of Shaul's priorities and what he thinks is his primary mission.
II. "BEHOLD THE DAY IN WHICH THE LORD HAS SAID UNTO YOU"
Shaul, however, cannot overturn God's decree, and so his pursuit of David turns into an exceedingly embarrassing event for him:
(3) And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where there was a cave; and Shaul went in to cover his feet.[1] Now David and his men were sitting in the innermost parts of the cave.
Shaul enters into a dark cave and fails to notice David and his men, who are found deep inside, whereas they recognize him immediately. This situation provides David's men with a clear advantage over Shaul, who proceeds to relieve himself totally unaware of the danger in which he is found.
David's men very quickly understand what has happened and propose that he exploit the situation:
(4) And the men of David said unto him, "Behold the day in which the Lord has said unto you, 'Behold, I will deliver your enemy into your hand,' and you shall do to him as it shall seem good unto you."
The words sounded by David's men imply that they were aware of a prophecy stating that God would deliver David's enemies into his hands. The problem is that no such prophecy has yet been mentioned. The Radak suggests that David received a general prophecy that God would deliver his enemies into his hands. Clearly, however, there was no specific reference to Shaul, for in the end, Shaul did not fall into David's hands. Alternatively, we may suggest that David never received even a general prophecy of the sort suggested by the Radak, but since David's men knew that Shmuel had anointed him king and that David would not be able to ascend to the throne before Shaul dies, they interpreted the prophecy about David's anointing as a prophecy that Shaul would fall into David's hands.
In any case, the interpretation offered by David's men to the prophecy about his success was exceedingly broad, and this attests to the problematic aspects of these bitter-spirited people.[2] As long as David is able to evade Shaul, there is no justification in his hurting him, especially in light of the fact that he is the lawful monarch. David is faced with a difficult test: Will he succumb to his men's proposal, or will he succeed in keeping them under control?
…Then David arose, and cut off the skirt of Shaul's robe privily. (5) And it came to pass afterward, that David's heart smote him, because he had cut off Shaul's skirt. (6) And he said unto his men, "The Lord forbid it me, that I should do this thing unto my lord, the Lord's anointed, to put forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord's anointed."[3] (7) So David checked his men with these words, and suffered them not to rise against Shaul. And Shaul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way.
The order of events is very odd. One might have expected David's words to his men in verse 6 to appear immediately after their own words and as a response to them. Why, then, are they recorded only after David cuts off the skirt of Shaul's robe? The Ralbag has a surprising comment on this matter:
It is possible, according to the plain sense of the text, that David had already wanted to kill him, but he only reached the skirt. Afterwards David regretted his plan, even though he was permitted to kill him inasmuch as [Shaul] fell into the category of a rodef (a pursuer). [David] then said: "The Lord forbid it me, that I should do this thing unto my lord." This was because of his excessive piety.
According to the Ralbag, David was indeed convinced by his men, and he rose up to kill Shaul. Moreover, the Ralbag argues that had David killed Shaul, he would have been justified in doing so, for Shaul had the status of a rodef. In actuality, however, David failed to kill Shaul, and managed only to cut off the skirt of his robe. At that point, he had regrets about his decision to kill Shaul owing to his great piety.[4]
The Ralbag's position appears to be rather extreme, for there is no hint in Scripture that David had actually intended to harm Shaul. But his underlying approach can be accepted in a more moderate form. Without a doubt, David regretted his cutting off the skirt of Shaul's robe. It is also reasonable to assume that David had performed that act under the influence of his men's words. At no stage, however, did David intend to hurt Shaul himself, and therefore he did not respond to his men's call to strike at Shaul, but merely rose up against him and cut off the skirt of his robe. Only afterwards did David regret even this, which also involved insult and scorn for Shaul.[5] After coming to regret his action, David girded strength and in a determined fashion stood up to his men, clarifying that he must not raise his hand against the Lord's anointed. It would seem that David's men were not satisfied, and they tried to rise up and strike at Shaul themselves, but once again David managed to gain control and prevent them from carrying out their plan.
David did in fact demonstrate great piety, as argued by the Ralbag, for Shaul had done everything in his power to kill David, whereas David suffered pangs of guilt regarding his almost trivial act – cutting off the skirt of Shaul's robe. It seems, however, that it was precisely this act that had special significance, for even if this was not David's intention, it was nevertheless a strike against Shaul, as we shall see immediately.
III. SHAUL'S GARMENTS
An examination of the previous chapters teaches us about the significance of the motif of garments with respect to Shaul. In chapter 15 (lecture no. 29), we noted what happened immediately following the war against Amalek:
And as Shmuel turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his robe, and it rent. And Shmuel said unto him, "The Lord has rent the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you." (vv. 27-28)
We saw there that while, according to the plain sense of the text, it is more reasonable to assume that it was Shaul who seized the skirt of Shmuel's robe, Scripture's wording allows for the understanding that it was Shaul's robe that was rent. According to this understanding, greater emphasis is given to what Shmuel says to Shaul: "The Lord has rent the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, that is better than you." It turns out, then, that even if David did not have this explicitly in mind, an additional rending of Shaul's garment – and especially by David, whom Shaul rightfully suspects is that "neighbor of yours, who is better than you" – had great symbolic meaning.
This was given further expression during the war against Golyat, when Shaul thought to send David out clothed in his own fighting gear: "And Shaul clad David with his apparel" (17:38). This act gave additional symbolic expression to the passing of the kingship from Shaul to David. In the end, David refused to wear Shaul's clothing, and this, too, may have symbolic meaning; the time had not yet come for David to rule as king over Israel. From Shaul's perspective, however, this step had meaning, which only deepened at a later occasion, when Shaul pursued David while he was with Shmuel: "And he also stripped off his clothes, and he also prophesied before Shmuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night" (19:24).
Without a doubt, David was not aware of all the symbolic meaning attached to Shaul's garments. Nevertheless, it is clear from these stories the extent to which there is symbolic meaning to clothing in general,[6] and to the clothing of high officeholders in particular, and it is clear that David was also aware of this meaning. It is for this reason that David felt uncomfortable about his action, which symbolized the imminent end of Shaul's kingdom.
IV. "THE LORD JUDGE BETWEEN ME AND YOU"
All that was said above notwithstanding, after the fact David found justification for cutting off the skirt of Shaul's robe, for it provided him with proof that, had he so desired, he could have brought harm to Shaul. David turns to Shaul with aroused emotions:
(9) And David said to Shaul, "Why do you hearken to men's words,[7] saying, 'Behold, David seeks your hurt?' (10) Behold, this day your eyes have seen how that the Lord had delivered you today into my hand in the cave, and some bade me kill you; but my eye spared you, and I said, 'I will not put forth my hand against my lord, for he is the Lord's anointed.' (11) Moreover, my father, see, yea, see the skirt of your robe in my hand; for in that I cut off the skirt of your robe, and killed you not, know you and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in my hand, and I have not sinned against you, though you lay wait for my soul to take it. (12) The Lord judge between me and you, and the Lord avenge me of you; but my hand shall not be upon you. (13) As says the proverb of the ancients: Out of the wicked comes forth wickedness[8]; but my hand shall not be upon you. (14) After whom is the king of Israel come out? After whom do you pursue? after a dead dog, after a flea. (15) The Lord therefore be judge, and give sentence between me and you, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver me out of your hand."[9]
David tells Shaul the simple truth: He had never sinned against Shaul, and there is no justification whatsoever for Shaul's chasing after him. David leaves the judgment between them to God, declaring that he will not personally bring harm to Shaul owing to his recognition that he is the Lord's anointed.
Shaul is not left with very much to say, and he therefore apologizes to David:
(16) …that Shaul said, "Is this your voice, my son David?" And Shaul lifted up his voice, and wept. (17) And he said to David, "You are more righteous than I; for you have rendered unto me good, whereas I have rendered unto you evil. (18) And you have declared this day how that you have dealt well with me; forasmuch as when the Lord had delivered me up into your hand, you did not kill me. (19) For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? Wherefore the Lord reward you good for that which you have done unto me this day. (20) And now, behold, I know that you shall surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in your hand. (21) Swear now, therefore, unto me by the Lord that you will not cut off my seed after me, and that you will not destroy my name out of my father's house."
Shaul's weeping is indeed moving. He weeps out of frustration and out of pain; because he knows that David is telling him the entire truth; because he is unable to overcome his evil spirit; because he must stand before David, whose music was the only thing that had helped him when the evil spirit fell upon him; because he recognized that what he was doing was not good; and because he truly internalized, perhaps for the first time, that David would indeed rule as king in his place. At this moment of despondency, of inner truth, of heart-to-heart talk, Shaul is worried about only one thing: that perhaps when he ascends to the throne, David will destroy the house of Shaul, in the manner of other kings over the course of history.[10] But Shaul does not promise what he is incapable of promising – that he will not pursue David in the future.
Even though "David swore unto Shaul" (verse 23), the chapter does not end on an optimistic note:
(23) …And Shaul went home; but David and his men got them up unto the stronghold.
The story of Shaul's pursuit of David is not over.
(Translated by David Strauss)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] According to the common understanding among the commentators (here and in Shoftim 3:24), this expression refers to a bowel movement (see Rashi here).
[2] See 22:2, and our first lecture on chapter 22 (lecture no. 42).
[3] David's words correspond to the words of his men: Corresponding to what they say: "Behold the day in which the Lord has said unto you," David says: "The Lord forbid it me, that I should do this thing." Corresponding to the general statement of David's men, "And you shall do to him as it shall seem good unto you," David emphasizes what they really had in mind: "The Lord forbid it me… to put forth my hand against him." And corresponding to the description of Shaul in David's men's words as "your enemy," David clarifies of whom they are speaking: "That I should do this thing unto my lord, the Lord's anointed, to put forth my hand against him, seeing he is the Lord's anointed."
[4] The continuation of the Ralbag's comment is even more surprising. He suggests that David may have refrained from killing Shaul for practical, rather than moral, reasons: "For this would be a reason afterwards to make light of killing kings, and David knew that the kingdom would be his, and therefore he tried to cast off [the idea] of killing kings who are the Lord's anointed. And for this very reason he ordered the execution of the Amaleki lad who told him that he had killed Shaul, even though Shaul had commanded him to do so, and for this reason he also ordered the execution of the person who killed Ish-Boshet the son of Shaul." According to the Ralbag, David acted out of self-interest: Knowing that he would eventually rule as king, David wanted to avoid giving legitimacy to regicide. This goal also guided him when he ordered the execution of the Amaleki lad who had killed Shaul and of Rechev and Ba'ana who had killed Ish-Boshet. The Ralbag's argument is very difficult, and this attitude toward David finds no expression in Scripture itself.
[5] Chazal's censure of this action is well known: "Whoever treats garments contemptuously will, in the end, derive no benefit from them; for it says: 'Now King David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he could get no heat' (I Melakhim 1:1)" (Berakhot 62b). According to the plain sense, of course, the problem is the insult to the king's honor, and not just the insult to the clothing in itself.
[6] In the previous lectures, we noted other aspects of clothing as an expression of distinguished positions: Aharon and his sons were consecrated for service in the Mishkan through their donning of the priestly garments (see Shemot 28); Eliyahu threw his mantle over Elisha when he appointed him as prophet – in great measure to replace himself (I Melakhim 19); and elsewhere.
[7] The plain sense of the words "divrei adam" is "the people's words." David adopts a respectful attitude toward Shaul, presenting the matter as if other people were inciting Shaul in vain against David. It is possible, however, that this wording also alludes to Shaul himself, for David had already employed this double meaning when he said to Shaul before going out to fight Golyat: "Let no man's (adam) heart fail within him; your servant will go and fight with this Pelishti" (17:32) (see lecture no. 33, note 3).
[8] What is "the proverb of the ancients" (meshal ha-kadmoni)? Rashi (based on Chazal) explains that the reference is to the Torah, which is "the proverb of the Holy One, blessed be He." Thus, he is forced to find a source for the proverb in the Torah (for the proverb as it is worded here, "out of the wicked comes forth wickedness," does not appear in the Torah). He explains that the idea finds expression in the verse, "But God allowed it to happen to him" (Shemot 21:13), and as the Gemara understands it (Makkot 10b): "What is Scripture talking about? Two people who [each] killed [another person], one unintentionally and the other intentionally. Regarding the first there were no witnesses and regarding the second there were no witnesses. The Holy One, blessed be He, arranges that they come to the same inn. The one who killed intentionally sits under a ladder, and the one who killed unintentionally descends the ladder, falls upon the other person and kills him. The one who killed intentionally is killed, and the one who killed unintentionally goes into exile." Rashi also follows the same approach in other places where a proverb is recited. He consistently avoids explaining that the proverb is a citation from sources outside the Torah. Thus, for example, on the verse, "Whereas it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, Vahev in Sufa and Arnon among the brooks." (Bamidbar 21:14), Rashi does not explain that the reference is to a separate book that is not in our hands (as proposed by the Ibn Ezra), but rather he explains these words as a description of time: "Whenever people narrate the miracles that were wrought for our fathers." Twice, Rashi explains the term "the book of the righteous" as referring to the Torah (see his commentary to Yehoshua 10:13, against the Ralbag ad loc.; and II Shmuel 1:18 – there, too, against the Ralbag, who explains that the term refers to a book that we do not have in our possession.
The Radak, on the other hand, explains that the reference here is to a proverb expressed by an ancient (kadmon) ruler. According to the plain sense of the text, it would appear that the reference is to the people of the east (kedem) country, who were known for their wisdom and proverbs, as it is stated: "And Shlomo's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country (benei kedem)… And he spoke three thousand proverbs" (I Melakhim 5:10-12); and see Yeshayahu 19:11 and Iyov 1:3.
[9] The word "yad" (hand) appears many times in the chapter in different senses: "Behold, I will deliver your enemy in your hand," in the sense of control; "to put forth my hand against him," in the sense of injury; "the Lord had delivered you today into my hand," in the sense of control; "the skirt of your robe in my hand," in the sense of an actual hand; "there is neither evil nor transgression in my hand," in the sense of actions; "but my hand shall not be upon you," in the sense of injury; "and deliver me out of your hand," in the sense of "from you." Since the word is used to express rule and control, it is of great significance in a chapter which focuses on the issue of the identity of the true ruler.
[10] We find in Scripture that Basha destroyed the house of Yerov'am (I Melakhim 14:14; 15:27-30), and Yehu destroyed the house of Ach'av (II Melakhim 9:6-10; 10:11). In those two cases, the previous royal house was eradicated based on a prophecy, because those kings sinned and caused Israel to sin.
I have always thought of a colony as being a settlement by a "mother country", yet ruled by that country, but being unlike the ruling country in some way (lack of self-government, for example). By those definitions, Hong Kong is still a colony (although of China rather than Great Britain), Puerto Rico is still a colony, the West Bank and Gaza Strip may be colonies, Greenland is sort of a colony (of Denmark)(but it's turning into a "country that is part of the Kingdom of Denmark"), and so on and so forth. However, Israel isn't a colony. It is a fully independent state, and it ceased being a colony when the British gave up trying to defend it back in the 1940s.
The Jews deserve to have their own state. The problem was where to put it: people have already spread all over the world and occupied or claimed practically every usable part of it. In order to get what they needed, Jews found out they had to do it the old-fashioned way: by taking up the sword and winning it for themselves. That they did, although it resulted in taking homes and lives from someone else. Gaining a home for one's own people, thus, turns out to be unavoidably both a mitzvah and a sin. A mitzvah, because freedom is a good and the ability to set up a decent society is also a good; a sin, because you are taking away someone else's freedom and goods. Was it the right thing to do? How would I know? This is like discussing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, it's already done, and so we move on.
Israel is a bit on the small side. We need a better geographical spreadout than the chunk of the Levant Israel sits upon. Perhaps there are ways to negotiate for islands out in, say, the Caribbean, or the Pacific, or maybe mainland parts of the British Commonwealth, that would allow for an expansion of Israel that would be respectful of other peoples of the world.