For an updated discussion on 4 questions in a modern context, please see this month's issue of Zeek , an exciting journal, which honored me by including my responses to their questions...If you are too lazy or busy to click, see copy and paste below. Would love to see comments!
Four Questions, Five Answers: On Passover, Peoplehood, and Policy
Yosef Israel Abramowitz and Stephen Hazan Arnoff
Even if all of us were wise and knowing sages in full
command of Torah learning, it would still be a religious obligation
upon us to tell of the going out of Egypt. And the more a person
expands upon the story of the going out of Egypt the more it is praised.
-The Passover Haggadah
Each generation is commanded to understand the story of Passover in
its own language based on the pressing issues of its own communal life.
In recent times, the vision of the Exodus served as a living metaphor
for leaders from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Joshua Heschel
in their quest to deliver America from racism and grant equality in the
1950s and ‘60s. The same story offered spiritual power to the Soviet
Jewry movement in the 1970s and ‘80s. In the 1990s, the struggle of
Ethiopian Jews took place within the framework of the Passover story –
both in a communities’ still-painful struggle to leave Ethiopia, and
the unsteady and at times oppressive cycles of sacrifice and change
required to establish meaningful life in Israel.
Zeek invited the newest member of its Advisory Board Yosef Israel Abramowitz (who
joined the Zeek team this month along with comic megastar Sacha Baron
Cohen) to convene a conversation on the meaning of the Exodus of the
Israelites with a group of some of today’s Israelites of vision and
purpose. All members of Kol Dor, a
global network of people seeking new Jewish agendas for the 21st
century, these young Israeli leaders from the realms of activism,
philanthropy, politics, and policy were asked to think about the
Passover story from the vantage point of 5767 – 3,700-odd years since
that famous trek back and forth and up and down the Sinai out of
slavery and toward freedom.
In the ancient tradition of starting an all-night conversation based
on a question or two or or four, Abramowitz pushed the buttons of
Zeek’s guests with four questions about the very real and at times
maddening concerns in Israel and the larger Jewish world today. No one
knocked Abramowitz’s teeth out – as the Haggadah says one should feel
free to do with an uppity child at the table – but thankfully, opinions
and responses were diverse, focused, and at times provocative.
Zeek hopes you will consider adapting these and other contemporary
questions to the oldies but goodies at your Seder table this year.
Israel, an idea and a nation of so much promise, sits at a nexus of the
raging Middle East after a summer of war in Lebanon and raw wounds of
conflict with the Palestinians still bleeding – this even as growing
economic imbalance, social disillusionment, and political corruption
gnaw at national stability. But all of this turmoil – reflected through
the lens of the alternately violent, sublime, and redemptive Passover
story – offers an unavoidable and compelling opportunity for re-imaging
Jewish values and narratives at this sacred moment.
Transformative thinking and conversation on the present within the
echoes of the past is what telling the Passover story is all about. And
there is no better way to spark meaningful dialogue on the state of
personal and public Jewish life then an engaging set of sharp,
challenging questions.
Zeek thanks Yosef and our Passover guests Deborah Housen-Couriel,
Einat Wilf, Moty Cristal, Barak Ben-Eliezer, and Jacob Ner-David for
getting this Seder started.
Chag Sameach!
-Stephen Hazan Arnoff, Managing Editor
Yosef Israel Abramowitz (Moderator): To what are the Jewish people enslaved today and how are we going to break those chains?
Deborah Housen-Couriel:
No doubt about this one: We have become completely enslaved
as a people to the concept of our own invincibility without realizing
the ultimate costs of this point of view. Both within Israel and
outside of Israel we see ourselves, almost exclusively, as having
beaten history and as eternal survivors. Here’s one of the many ironies
of the Shoah: the Jewish people has proved itself indestructible even
in the face of pure evil bent on our final destruction. Yet our pride
in survival, built on the agony of so many individuals, families, and
communities and justified over thousands of years by so many true and
real achievements, is turning into hubris. We are not doing a very good
job at all of looking at the price of being ‘history’s winners.’ The
next major project of the Jewish people is to begin to understand how
we might return to the values and priorities that formed us as a nation
– however each of us may understand these.
Einat Wilf:
Fear. We continue to be enslaved and even dependent on fear to
constitute our sense of ourselves. We excel at living in a world where
we are hated. It is a world that makes sense to us. We are confused by
a world where we are accepted, and even loved. When met with
acceptance, we reconstitute it in terms of fear, because we are better
programmed to deal with fear. Thus, the American embrace of Jews into
marriages is termed as assimilation and a threat to the Jewish future,
rather than the expansion of the circle of people who come in contact
with Jewish life. Perhaps, just as in intelligence agencies there is a
need for a ‘devil’s advocate’ to offer a different interpretation of
data, we need a ‘God’s advocate’ for Jewish data. We should have
self-appointed advocates who take it upon themselves to celebrate that
which we fear, and weave it into a narrative that does not depend on
fear.
Moty Cristal:
The Jewish people are enslaved to our eternal and paradoxical identity
cycle of living in constant fear and our strong sense of superiority.
There’s no chance that we will free ourselves from this cycle. It is
our spirit.
Barak Ben-Eliezer: The Jewish people today lack a
positive, long-term, relevant, unified, and action-inspiring vision.
Some of us are prisoners of concepts appropriate to the 19th and 20th
centuries, yet that are not relevant for the 21st century; others are
enslaved to globalization, which does not always reflect Jewish values;
still others are searching for a path. Consolidating the Next Jewish
Vision and agreeing thereupon is a task no easier than splitting the
Red Sea. Such a vision must be rooted both in an understanding of
global trends and Jewish values, particularly tikkun olam, or repairing the world.
Jacob Ner-David:
Why do we assume slavery? Perhaps that in itself is the problem, for we
have lived for so long under enslavement and persecution. We have not
yet begun to think through, or certainly act upon, the reality of our
freedom. We need to realize that we are not the result of ‘anti,’ but
rather we exist as a people to be freely for a set of values and
freedoms in the world. We need to start acting free, and voicing our
concerns in the world for those who still are not free, and for the
world itself, which is trapped so often between a rock and a hard place.
Yosef: Under the Law of Return, [Israeli legislation allowing
people with Jewish parents or grandparents and their spouses to
establish Israeli citizenship –Ed.] hundreds of thousands of Christian
Russians – including some Anti Semites and criminals – have not only
immigrated to Israel, but have benefited from Jewish charitable dollars
and state support. Is it time to consider amending the Law of Return,
which has facilitated many modern Exodus tales, and if so, how?
Moty:
The assumption behind this question is wrong and unacceptable. Under
the Law of Return an amazingly strong Jewish sovereignty was created,
benefiting from the richness of former USSR Jewry including thousands
of scientists, scholars, engineers, doctors, and artists. The Law of
Return is still the most relevant legal, political, and practical tool
to link the three dimensions of Jews: Being a religion, a people, and a
nation.
Jacob: Let’s stop thinking about physical Return
(which it almost never was; maybe, maybe, our direct forefathers
thousands of years ago lived in this land, but certainly not us) and
instead think about a spiritual Return, which is an open invitation to
all people willing to dedicate themselves to the calling of Jewish
history. Will some accept the invitation under ‘false’ pretenses? Sure,
but no system is perfect. So far it has worked well...our inane
arguments over the Falasha Mora [Ethiopians whose Jewish descent is
disputed in some circles –Ed.] have only concerned tens of thousands.
If there were really an issue of too many people taking up the call,
the discussion would be about millions. We need to welcome with open
arms any would-be ‘Ruths,’ saying your people are my people.
Einat: The phrasing of this question is an
excellent example of demagoguery. We have plenty of Jewish criminals
and prostitutes and Israel has no law that forbids prostitutes and
criminals from being citizens of the state. Also, contrary to the
situation depicted in the question, Israel as a sovereign state retains
the right to deny citizenship to those clearly abusing the Law of
Return (remember Meir Lansky?). If we care about preventing Christians
from abusing the Law of Return, we should not care if they are
criminals, prostitutes, or paragons of virtue. We should only care
whether they are Jews. And if we want to keep the Law of Return as it
is, the most recent immigrant group has as much right to benefit from
it as previous groups. Despite the known tendency to assume that the
new batch of newcomers is the worst ever, the new group is probably no
worse than previous ones. The proper question then is whether Israel
wants to keep the Law of Return as it is, or whether it wants to take
it in one of two opposing directions: limit it to Jews according to the
halacha or replace it with a civil, point-based system of immigration,
a la Canada. These two directions reflect clear and distinct views
about what kind of country Israel should be. Neither of these views –
the strictly religious nor the strictly civilian – is accepted by the
majority of Israelis. The Law of Return is not perfect. Yet, it is
still the best reflection of what the majority of Israelis and Jews
would like Israel to be, or at least, what they would like it not to be.
Deborah: It is time to reconsider the Law of Return.
Two elements are crucial: First, clarification of the conditions and
requirements for olim hadashim [new immigrants] prior their
aliyah so there are as few surprises as possible after landing at
Ben-Gurion Airport; and secondly, a solid, transparent immigration
policy with specific criteria – along the lines of those being
developed by other states in the West – leading to either citizenship,
temporary residence, or some other status. The process will be
agonizing. We will have to work out the question of who is a Jew once
and for all; or to re-frame the issue of aliyah [immigration by Jews to Israel] in a way that is least offensive to most potential olim
[Jewish immigrants to Israel]. Those ‘crazy’ enough to want to join the
Jewish state as non-citizens should be welcomed; but, as in other
countries, their welcome must be subject to the needs and constraints
inherent in a still-young, developing democracy.
Barak:
There are four non-Jewish children who nevertheless are eligible to
take advantage of the Law of Return: 1) The wise child: a non-Jew with
Jewish awareness; 2) The evil child: a non-Jew with anti-Semitic or
criminal intentions; 3) The innocent child: a non-Jew with little or no
Jewish awareness; 4) The indifferent child: a non-Jew with no Jewish
awareness. The Law of Return does not distinguish between these four
‘children,’ nor do I believe that it should. Instead – and before we
can amend this law – I recommend considering changes of today’s
policies – the policy objectives of the Jewish Agency, the Absorption
Ministry and the Israeli government, and the conversion policy of the
rabbinic establishment, or rabbinate (especially with regard to the
‘wise child’ and the ‘innocent child.’) Obviously, no change will
prevent undesirable elements from entering Israel; but this is true of
all countries’ immigration policies.
Yosef: There are 300 Sudanese refugees who crossed from Egypt
to Israel, were arrested, and 200 are currently in Israeli prisons. In
this case, how do we balance a state’s legitimate security concerns
with the Exodus narrative, the Biblical call to embrace the stranger,
and the unique situation of these people fleeing genocide?
Barak:
Border policy in Israel – from the air, sea, and land – does not stem
only from security concerns. Let me explain: Today, thousands of people
cross illegally the Egyptian border into Israel every year, most of
whom are smugglers of goods, drugs, or women. Fewer are supporters of
terror and a tiny minority of whom are simply Africans who in the best
of circumstances are looking for work (usually West Africans), and in
the worst scenarios, are fleeing for their very lives (such as the
Sudanese).The question we must ask strikes at the core of the challenge
of Jewish sovereignty: What should our relationship be to the stranger,
the orphan, the widow, and the downtrodden? Currently, while this
relationship is not an exemplary one, comparing it to the Holocaust is
inappropriate.
Einat: The keyword here is balance. No doubt we
are now erring on the side of cold-hearted security considerations,
probably mostly unjustified. This case also raises some of the core
issues about the nature of Israel: was it established in the name of
protecting the Jewish people, or was it established in the name of
justice? Both are critical to Israeli identity. But taken to the
extreme, the first view could lead us to commit injustice in the name
of protecting the Jewish people, and the second could lead us toward
erasing the Jewish communal identity in the name of justice. Israel’s
history is a continuous, often failed effort to find a balance between
these two elements. In this case, we probably got the balance wrong and
we should correct it, but this is not to say that we always get the
balance wrong, or that global justice should always trump Jewish
security interests.
Moty: No balance is required here. These people do
not challenge Israel’s security. These refugees should be granted a
special status, as asylum-seekers, and be given the right to choose
their domicile, either in Israel or any other safe haven.
Deborah: The guiding elements for Israeli
decision-makers should be crystal clear. As many refugees as possible
should be taken in immediately; provision should be made for temporary
housing – in caravans, not in prisons – and for supplying basic
humanitarian needs. Those who cannot be accommodated in Israel should
have their passage onward, to other receiving states, facilitated by
Israel. Legitimate security concerns can be addressed as an integral
part of this entire process. Moreover, planning for the future of this
Sudanese refugee community, either in Israel or elsewhere, must involve
the refugees themselves.
Fortunately or unfortunately, we have plenty of models to draw on from
recent Jewish history for coping with this issue. Anything less than an
immediate, calm, focused, and humane response by the Jewish state is a
direct insult to those Jewish refugees of the past who suffered and
perished as a result of the callousness of other nations’ refusal to
accept them.
Jacob: We always need to be in the forefront of
caring for the world, and for thousands of years we have believed that
if we save a life, we save the world. Refugees the world over need to
see Israel as an ir milkat, a place of refuge. As
Russian-Israel businessman Arcadi Gaydamak showed us during last
summer’s Lebanon war, within moments, tent cities can be created to
care for tens of thousands. And he was one man. Working together, we
can care for millions.
Yosef: What would help make Passover an even stronger
Peoplehood holiday, especially for the next generation? Are there any
special things you do to make Passover come alive?
Jacob: Well, we have the crazy custom of
celebrating Pesach in a rebuilt Jerusalem, the best physical testament
that dreams can become realities, and within one generation the most
downtrodden of people can rise up to become the highest of the high –
tech, that is.
Einat: Passover is the Peoplehood holiday par excellence.
It is the holiday that celebrates the creation of the Israelites as a
people and a nation that has a right to manage its own communal affairs
in a land of its own. It contains all elements of what later developed
into Jewish identity: the acknowledgement of being a single people
derived from common ancestry; the acceptance of common laws and rules
from God that govern personal and communal relations, as well as
rituals; the quest for a land where the people could exercise
sovereignty; and the idea of the repeated telling of history across
generations is central to the constitution of a single people. Contrary
to the tendency to see Yom Kippur as the Jewish holiday, I believe that
the Jewish people could survive without Yom Kippur, but not without
Passover.Yom Kippur provides a very limited view of what it means to be
Jewish. Passover tells the whole story. Therefore, I don’t think there
is any reason to change Passover. This is one of these cases where the
entire value of the holiday derives precisely from the keeping of
tradition.
Deborah: First of all, any human ritual that has
retained its essence, context, vitality, and meaning for 3,700 years
embraces a powerful core. Pesach is a compelling success story; it
already is the definitive Peoplehood holiday. In terms of increasing
that aspect, I think that there is a really interesting opportunity
that presents itself davka at the conclusion of Pesach. The return to chametz is so joyfully celebrated as Mimouna by the Moroccan and Turkish communities and as Shabeh Sal by
Iranian Jews. It would be great to see some sort of minor festival
emerge which allowed each community to delve into its culinary,
cultural, musical, and other traditions (involving the next generation
in the process, of course), and to showcase and share these traditions.
Barak: To strengthen Jewish Peoplehood, every Jew
should reinforce the concept of home in three spheres: My personal home
– invite those to Seder whom you normally would not, such as relatives
you’ve lost touch with, neighbors or acquaintances whose Jewish
identity is weak, and those who don’t have a Seder to go to; my
community home – go to synagogue with your children, and create a
quality, empowering encounter with worshippers with whom you are not
acquainted; my national home – plan your next visit to Israel, and
emphasize Next Year in Jerusalem.
Moty: The Pesach Sheni should be determined as
PPP – ‘Passover Peoplehood Party’ – to be celebrated not with your
family, as the main, first, Seder is and should remain, but rather with
your friends, colleagues, or community members – each year re-writing a
Haggadah around a contemporary, updated, and humorous theme based on
elements from the original Haggadah.
Yosef Israel Abramowitz – based on Ketura in the Southern Arava, Israel, and featured in Zeek’s pages recently - is the co-founder of Jewish Family & Life!, MyJewishLearning, and SocialAction, and is a daily blogger at Peoplehood. His exposè on the Sudanese refugees imprisoned in Israel has recently been distributed by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Barak
Ben-Eliezer lives in Jerusalem with his wife and two children and is
Chief Superintendent leading strategic planning at the Israel National
Police Headquarters. In 1992, he joined “TALPIOT” a unique nine
year military-academic program that prepares highly trained officers to
lead and undertake essential roles in the research and development
efforts of the country’s armed forces and military industries.
Moty
Cristal is the CEO of Nest Consulting, having served in official
positions in the Israeli negotiation teams with Jordan and the
Palestinians within the Ministry of Defense and Prime Minister’s
Office. He trains cadets and officials in crisis management and crisis
negotiation in Europe, Middle East and South East Asia, and serves as a
negotiation consultant to private and public sector leaders in addition
to teaching negotiation and crisis management at Tel Aviv University
and at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya.
Stephen Hazan Arnoff is the Managing Editor of Zeek.
Deborah Housen-Couriel is currently on leave from her position as an Analyst Team Leader for Middle East regional issues at the Reut Institute,
an innovative, public policy think tank based in Tel Aviv. She served
for twelve years as Senior Director of the Department of Regulation and
International Treaties in the Israeli Communications Ministry, as well
as in the Bureau of the Director-General in the Ministry, working as
legal adviser for delegations to the World Trade Organization, the
International Trade Union, and in the bilateral negotiations leading up
to the Oslo Accords, as well as those for the peace treaty with Jordan.
Jacob Ner-David is Managing Partner of Jerusalem Capital I, LP,
which is expanding the venture-backed tech economy in Israel by going
beyond core technology to technology-enabled services, creating
billions of dollars in shareholder value. In 2004 Ner-David joined the
Aspen Institute Middle East Strategy Group as a founding member and has
served on the executive of the World Jewish Congress and the World
Union of Jewish Students.
Einat Wilf served until recently as
Foreign Policy Advisor to Israeli Vice Premier Shimon Peres. Wilf is
currently completing her second book, Back to Basics, which
proposes policy solutions for fixing Israel’s education system.
Politically active in the Israel’s Labor Party, Wilf is particularly
committed to the cause of encouraging women and young people to enter
into politics. Wilf’s book Founders, Fighters, and Us: Of Israel’s Young Generation was
published in Hebrew in 2003. She writes regularly for Ynet in Hebrew
and English, and her editorials have also been published in the Israeli
dailies Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post.
Zeek thanks Miriam Erez Translations for translating Barak Ben-Eliezer’s responses from Hebrew to English.
