http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131099.html
Last update - 23:08 27/11/2009
God's promise of land to Jews has deep pull on secular Israelis
By Rachel Elboim-Dror
Tags: Zionism, Martin Buber
Although most of the Jewish population of Israel is secular and therefore
seemingly unaffected politically by God's promise of the land to Abraham in
Genesis, it appears the divine promise that "I will give unto thee and to thy
seed after thee the land of thy sojournings" holds ancient power. The pull is
unconscious for most but very deep, which has an effect on most Israelis.
The influence of this justification for our tie to the land on the
secular population rises emotionally above all other rights to ownership of the
Land of Israel. This phenomenon reveals one of the fundamental contradictions
of Israeli society, which has been with the Zionist movement since its
inception.
Such a paradox is not unique to us. It can be found in many other
societies. However in light of Israel's geopolitical circumstances, and the
makeup of its population, in our case it has hidden destructive potential. And
because the public debate on such matters is scant and limited to academic
circles, most members of the secular public are in no way aware of the
political theology they follow.
The concept of a divinely promised land is in contradiction in principle
to the values of the Zionist movement, which was primarily a modern, secular
nationalist movement.
On the other hand, the secular nationalism of Zionism and the state of
Israel has messianic religious underpinnings, both conscious and unconscious,
and the use of the Hebrew language provides a host of examples of this (such as
calling immigration to Israel aliyah - ascent, and emigration yerida -
descent).
Jewish philosophers Martin Buber and Gershom Scholem had already noted
the hidden theological potential of the Hebrew language and its dangers. These
issues greatly disturbed a few of the intellectuals of the Zionist movement.
In that vein for example, the father of the revival of the Hebrew
language, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, contended that our right to the land was the
right of immigrants to the land and the first immigrant was the patriarch
Abraham, who came from Haran.
Most of the world's population, he added, consisted of immigrants, but
this fact did not detract from their national rights. One can point to Canada
and Australia as countries settled by English immigrants, who became Canadian
and Australian in their own right.
Micah Joseph Berdichevsky, on the other hand, believed that our right to
the land was the right of conquerors. The children of Israel, led by Joshua,
conquered the land, which is how we came to rule it. It was subsequently taken
from us by other conquerors.
The Zionist movement for its part spoke of our historic right and the
right of self-determination. Theodor Herzl sought legitimacy from the great
powers at the time and a seal of approval on the part of international law.
However, as noted above, the deepest sense of the right to the land has
roots of another kind. "I will give unto thee and to thy seed after thee the
land of thy sojournings" is a resounding voice of political-theological power
that takes hold of many secular people.
This explains many phenomena in secular Israeli society, such as the
enthusiasm with which left-wing intellectuals and Labor Party ministers
embraced the Greater Land of Israel; the gap between government policy and
practice on the settlements; and the lenient policy toward the ultra-Orthodox,
both in exempting them from military service and granting funding for
ultra-Orthodox education despite their refusal to allow core subjects to be
taught.
And beyond political debate and societal considerations, powerful
conscious and subconscious religious and mythical emotions are at work in
secular Israeli society, which at times are also connected to feelings of
guilt. These emotions and feelings of responsibility also find expression in
the operation of Israeli government bureaucracy, which sometimes hinders,
rejects and undermines policy it is tasked with carrying out. The result is a
range of political declarations which are dead on arrival, unless the United
States and European countries step up the pressure.
That is why it is possible to live on one level in an Israeli bubble, and
in practice to act on another level at the opposite end of the spectrum.
There is currently a public debate over a plan to have army officials
give lectures to teachers in an effort to raise their students' motivation for
army service. (A similar idea was implemented, by the way, in Prussia, when
they decided to impose compulsory education for everyone. Because there were
not enough teachers available for the task, soldiers, especially disabled
officers, served as teachers.)
Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar's plan to involve the soldiers reveals
the basic failure of the Israeli education system. High school graduates do not
have the benefit of a national education based on Jewish cultural tradition in
its varied and changing facets. The idea that the future citizens of a
democratic state can be educated through one kind or another of political
indoctrination is fundamentally flawed.
Without strong roots in Jewish and general culture, including critical
discussion of varying opinions, we will not succeed in instilling a sense of
national solidarity and we will not produce a generation with a worldview
stemming from knowledge and critical humanistic values seeking to build a more
egalitarian and just society, both looking inward and outward.
The writer is a professor of education at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
