<HTML>Look out!
I'm going to make some officially unpopular points. Normally, these would
be prefaced by and interspersed with sufficient hand-wringing to assure
everyone that the author is really on the side of the angels, but a) it
doesn't suit me, b) it's exactly this damage to public discourse that I
want to bewail and c) as John McLean said before he iced the bad guy: "I
got enough friends."
Nati Helfgot has written an exemplar of what's wrong with civil discourse
in the Jewish community (nothing personal, Nati). We on the Religious
Right are apparently a pernicious bunch, what with our intolerance,
divisiveness, "malevolent rhetoric" (I like that one) and lack of respect
for Democracy. Those on the Left are of course banging the same drums, so
that our public debate is to a true examination of ideas as Syrian
government is to democracy. Some of the questions we won't be hearing in
the public soul-searching:
* What happens to the social contract when fateful national decisions are
pushed through by the narrowest of parliamentary majorities?
* Likewise when the government explicitly disavows responsibility for the
safety of five percent of its citizens?
* Why is conscientious objection to serving in the Territories good (we
won't even *talk* about Aviv Geffen), but ignoring a military order in
favor of a rabbinic decision is bad?
* Why was it okay for the American colonists to usurp the "rule of Law" by
rebelling?
* Why, exactly, was it okay to fire on the Altalena?
* If the Orthodox community recognizes the legitimacy of the non-Orthodox,
will they reciprocate? How will each of these manifest itself in Israeli
law and custom?
* Are the outlawing of political parties and the freewheeling enforcement
of laws against "incitement" signs of a vibrant democracy?
* Why is referring to the IDF as "Judeo Nazis" a courageous moral stand,
while showing a prime minister in a kaffiyeh is incitement?
* What is the connection between the actual life and ideas of Yitzhak
Rabin, z"l and those of his latter-day hagiography?
So let's say for argument's sake that "they" are as bad as "we" are. So?
Here's the problem: If our community limits itself to questions of where
we - the Religious Zionists - went wrong, it can't contribute to the
examination of where we - the Jewish People, or Israeli Society - went
wrong. The assassination is the garlic clove warding off any real
discussion.
It may be that this is part of our tragedy, that the assassination has so
set us back that there are things we can't even attempt to fix now. But
even if we can't raise our heads among our brothers the House of Israel,
among ourselves we should be able to look at things squarely. So far all I
see is a lot of one-upmanship in how good our commemorations are, and a
lot of breast beating - usually on someone else's breast.
Fortunately, I am able to sign off on a positive note: I was afraid that
the new government, with its wide electoral margin, would shift the
bludgeoning of the Right into high gear. As far as I have seen, the P.M.
has studiously avoided this, and in fact has made several moves in the
direction of inclusiveness. I'm very happy to have my fears prove
ungrounded, and I pray that this state of affairs continues.
Michael Berkowitz</HTML>
