Speech delivered at the Conference on : “Samchut, Manhigut V’hachatira
L’shalom: Kenes Beyndati “ B’hasut Bet Sefer Eliyahu L’limud Chochmat Hadatot
V’keren Konrad Adenauer, 3-6 August, 2003.
Authority, Leadership and the Quest for Peace: An Interreligious Conference held at
Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem, August 3-6 2003
Rabbis, Politicians and the Peace Process
Charles (Yeshayahu) Liebman
I want to make two introductory points. First, like any public speaker or university
lecturer I am accustomed to being misunderstood. Sometimes, I feel, the fault is basically
mine; sometimes, I feel it is my audience or my students who are at fault. More often than
not the onus is probably on both of us. I want to relieve myself, to the best of my ability,
of any responsibility for a misunderstanding in what I am about to say. My remarks are
hardly complimentary to Israeli rabbis (my references are entirely to Orthodox rabbis)
and to Israeli politicians in their relationship to peacemaking in our region. I would not
like these statements to be understood as an exoneration of Islamic religious leaders who,
on the whole, bear far greater responsibility than do the rabbis for the bloodshed that has
racked our region. And I certainly bear no sympathy for those Christian leaders, in
Western Europe in particular, whose mindless condemnation of Israel contribute nothing
to bringing peace. On the contrary it encourages Israeli paranoia and does nothing for the
good name of religion in general. Perhaps it adds a sense of well being to those who
make the statements. And as long as I am in this belligerent mood, I’ll add a
condemnation of Protestant evangelical leaders in the US who not only feed the Jewish
extremists in Israel by their irresponsible statements but so we are told are pressuring
President Bush to adopt a one-sided position in the dispute—a position that undermines
1
those who seek a fair and just peace; in fact undermines those who seek peace on any
terms at all..
My second introductory point has to do with my choice of title. The panel topic uses the
term ―political leaders‖ whereas I speak of politicians. Political leader is a neutral term, a
kind of middle ground between ―statesman‖ (it is good to be a statesman) and ―politician‖
(it is bad to be a politician). I use the term ―politician‖ in my title, deliberately although I
don’t mean it as a pejorative. I define politicians as people whose profession and whose
vocation is getting elected and reelected. Many of them like many of us also want more
money. Some of them like some of us are not above violating the law or at least
stretching the limits of the law in order to get more money. And politicians can not only
stretch the law, they can sometimes change the law to accommodate themselves. But if
they are professional politicians rather than professional thieves, money is a secondary
consideration. Other politicians, sometimes the same ones, are also interested in
furthering the public good. One can be a politician and also favor the public good. But I
use the term politician to refer to those for whom their election and reelection are their
primary goal. To the politician, as I define him or her, both the public good and acquiring
wealth are secondary considerations. Corrupt politicians are the most interesting example.
They too, I argue, are more interested in holding office than acquiring money. How else
is one to explain the fact that so many of them, after squirreling away millions of dollars
do not retire to enjoy their wealth but continue to serve in public office.
Most of the political leaders who lead the State of Israel today are politicians, not
statesmen. (Please note that I said ―most‖, not ―all‖.) By statesmen I mean individuals
who seek election and reelection in order to further a notion of the public good as they
2
understand it. In Israel, statesmen have held high office in the past though not all of them
have been effective statesmen. And if the statesman, or potential statesman is a terrible
politicians, and we just experienced such a candidate in the last election, their
statesmenship will never be tested. Israel, I am saying, has experienced leadership by
those to whom public office was a means to an end and not an end in itself. But this is not
been true of most of our leaders in the past few years and it is certainly not true today.
The cannons of good taste lead me to refrain from commenting on Israeli-Arab leaders.
The question of why, not only in Israel but in the West in general, it is politicians rather
than statesmen who increasingly serve in public office is a separate issue but one that is
not too difficult to explain.
Once we recognize that most of our leaders are politicians rather than statesmen we can
understand the importance of rabbinic pronouncements on peace making. The statesman
is unlikely to be strongly influenced by such pronouncements. From the point of view of
the statesman, neither the assessment of the public good and certainly the strategies for
achieving that good are topics upon which religious leaders have much to contribute.
Statecraft is indeed a craft. Whatever knowledge and experience religious leaders have, it
is not in the realm of statecraft. Public policy and pursuit of the public good is a nuanced
effort. Proclamations based on ―moral‖ imperatives or divine mandates are, at best, too
broad to be helpful. The statesmen can ignore the rabbis. It was the late Zerach
Wahrfatig, a statesmen and leader of the Mafdal who told the organization of Mafdal
rabbis, Chever Harabanim, that they had no business mixing into politics. Such a
statement is inconceivable today. This is not how politicians behave. The politician asks
himself – what is the status of the religious leader in the population group whose support
3
I need.? Little else really matters. So, if I am correct about the nature of Israel’s current
generation of political leaders, it seems to me that religious leaders play a more important
role than they have in the past. This is clearly true among the politicians who represent
religious parties with religious constituents. They must be attentive to what the rabbis
have to say. Even many non-religious politicians are attentive to what the rabbis say
because parties of the right increasingly seek to attract religious voters. So rabbinic
pronouncements on peace are more significant to peace making in a way that they were in
the past.
There is an additional reason for the special importance of religious leaders in the peace
making effort. This has to do with the nature of the effort. Arguably, the basic terms
under which peace might be established are clear. The agreement between Ami Ayalon
and Sari Nusseibeh follows much older proposals in its basic outline. With minor
changes, this is the same proposal that has been offered by concerned outsiders for the
last 36 years (i.e. ever since the end of the Six Day War in June 1967). If there is to be
peace, it is clear that Israel must withdraw from territory captured in 1967 and a
demilitarized Palestinian State created on this territory. I suspect that the majority of
Israelis would endorse this package, even though it includes Jerusalem as a capital for
both states. I would like to think that a majority of Palestinians would endorse it as well.
However, my uncertainty in this regard goes to the heart of the problem. Reasonable
people know the final terms of the agreement but one reason we can’t seem to get there is
the enormous distrust on both sides. This distrust prevents the kind of preliminary
gestures that necessarily precede further concessions. The tragedy is that this distrust is
not at all unreasonable. If it is to be dissipated it will depend first of all on the actions of
4
the Israeli and the Palestinian leadership. But the sorts of action the leadership on both
sides undertakes, and how their actions are to be interpreted and evaluated, depends on
public reaction. And in this regard, religious leaders do have an important contribution to
make. More so among the Palestinians, less so among Israelis, but even among Israelis
their voice carries weight. Especially since those most skeptical of peace are the most
attuned to statements by religious leaders. My great concern is that the rabbis will
disappoint us.
The value of peace is deeply rooted in the Jewish tradition. War is viewed as a
necessity under certain conditions but neither war, nor the instruments of war, nor those
who carry out the war are idealized. In this regard, Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook, sometimes
referred to as the spiritual father of Gush Emunim, represents a minority current within
the tradition. But among virtually all religious leaders, among the religious Zionists out of
whose ranks the ultra-nationalists have emerged, and among the haredim (the ultraOrthodox) as well, the issue is not the value of peace but rather the price or the sacrifices
one is prepared to make for peace. A second issue, one which is relevant to haredim
though not to religious Zionists, is the question of the priority accorded to the IsraeliPalestinian conflict on one's political agenda.
I turn first to religious-Zionists. We are all aware of the statements emanating
from their religious leaders. They have declared that any withdrawal from the territories
is a violation of God’s commands as expressed in the Torah. Not all Orthodox rabbis in
the religious-Zionist camp would agree but I have heard of no large and reputable group
of rabbis who have challenged this position. Consistent with the affirmation that
withdrawal is tantamount to a violation of the Torah, one would expect these same rabbis
5
to demand that soldiers must refuse to obey an order to clear west bank settlements. The
fact that most of the religious-Zionist rabbis do not issue such demands, at least as of this
date, tells us something about the divided loyalties of the rabbis between the army and
their own religious conviction, and, I think about their common sense. The phenomenon
of religious soldiers refusing to obey commands is, so far, rare. If it should spread, more
and more rabbis will climb on the extremist bandwagon.
Regarding haredi rabbis, the issue of Arab-Israeli or Palestinian-Jewish relations
and the issue of peace do not rank high on their agenda of activity. The immediate past
generation of haredi leaders, of whom Rav Schach was the most prominent, argued that
peace issues were of secondary concern because their wasn’t much that Jews could do
about them. In an immediate sense, he argued, the issues of peace or war, retaining or
returning territory, will be resolved by the Gentiles. In the ultimate sense they are
determined by God who, especially in matters concerning the Jews, determines what the
Gentiles will decide. Hence, the best hope for Jewish security and for peace is to obey
God's laws and trust in Him
Not all haredi leaders shared this point of view. The late Rabbi Menachem
Mendel Schneersohn, the Lubavitcher rebbe, was an adamant hawk. He opposed the 1985
Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and threatened to vilify Israel’s last really right wing
prime Minister, Yitzchak Shamir, if he proposed any form of Palestinian autonomy.
Other voices within haredi circles echoed the Lubavitcher rebbe. As the older generation
of haredi leaders passes on, the traditional view of Rav Schach is infrequently heard. One
now hears among haredim, opposition to Israeli withdrawal from the territories, generally
for reasons of security and distrust of any Arab promises. This is an important point.
6
Among religious Jews in general and their leaders in particular, there is growing
opposition to paying any price in exchange for an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. These
tendencies, I believe, stem less from the imperatives of Jewish law than from
assumptions, moods, and a general orientation prevalent among many religious Jews as
well as their rabbis. Attitudes and values concerning the Jewish tradition have undergone
dramatic change. Regardless of how one evaluates the weight of the Jewish tradition, it is
not one sided. The option of interpreting the tradition in a more liberal, humanitarian,
universalistic vein, more compatible with the maintenance of peaceful relations with ones
neighbor does exist. The question, therefore, is why this interpretation is virtually though
not entirely absent in Orthodox circles in Israel? Obviously Meimad is an exception to
what I am saying but we are all aware of how negligible their influence is within religious
circles. Why has Judaism in Israel undergone a transformation in the direction of
particularism and ethnocentrism rather than moralism, universalism, and liberalism -- in
other words why has Israeli Judaism become less rather than more compatible with the
preconditions for a peaceful settlement of the Israel-Arab dispute?
There are a number of answers to this question -- historical, sociological and
political. The most obvious factor is that when religious Jews, leaders as well as masses,
express that which I define as attitudes inimical to peace, it is not peace which they see as
the critical issue. They are not acting out hawkish scenarios in any deliberate fashion.
These leaders believe they are behaving in accordance with the precepts of Judaism, but
more specifically they are acting to strengthen the security and well being of the Jewish
people. Haredi Jews not only believe they are better Jews because they are more pious,
devout, and religiously observant; they are also convinced that they care more than
7
anyone else for other Jews. The haredi press delights in drawing invidious comparisons
between haredim who care for Jews, and the Israeli left wing which they charge is
concerned only for the rights of Arabs. Among religious-Zionists of all stripes -- not only
the ultra-nationalist settlers of the occupied territories -- there is a firm belief that they
are the better Zionists and that the values and ideals which they espouse are bascially
consistent with the values and ideals of the Zionist pioneers whom they hold in the
greatest esteem. In other words, attitudes and values which an observer feels are
threatening to the rights of others and to basic human decency, are viewed by a majority
of religious Jews in Israel as part of the struggle for Jewish security and well being.
Another explanation for changes in religious attitudes toward peace must be
understood in light of changes that have taken place within Israeli society in general.
Religious spokesman need no longer concern themselves with secular alternatives to the
religious tradition. They need no longer respond to alternate conceptions of Judaism that
stress universalistic or ethical components within that tradition because secular Judaism
no longer poses an ideology in competition with religious Judaism. Were such a
competition to exist, those most capable of leading the battle against the secularist
ideologues would be religious intellectuals and their status and reputation would be
enhanced. Most religious intellectuals in Israel, at least within academic circles, are very
dovish, almost uniformly opposed to the pronouncement of the rabbis. But in the absence
of a secular-Jewish voice, the religious leaders feel no real need for the services of the
religious intellectual, his status declines and the balance of authority within the religious
world shifts entirely to the hands of the rabbis. By virtue of their narrow training, career
opportunities, and significant referents, rabbis tend to be far more particularistic and
8
xenophobic than the intellectuals.
The Jewish tradition, which the rabbis insist is theirs alone to interpret, is not, as
we noted, the same tradition over which they held sway in the past. The transformation of
the tradition has taken place independently of the influence of the rabbinical elite. The
tradition has been nationalized, among both non-religious as well as religious-Zionists,
through a selective interpretation of sacred texts and of Jewish history. Emphasis is given
to the sanctity and centrality of Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel. In the last few years,
these particular currents are less noticeable among the non-religious Israelis. This is not
the consequence of greater sophistication or understanding of the tradition but rather a
general indifference to what it is that Zionism or Judaism or any other ideology does or
does not posit. It would be a great irony if this was the key to peace making.
The nationalization of the Jewish tradition which, however, is still the dominant
tendency, means its particularization as well. I do not believe that public policy, perhaps
not even morality can be abstracted from the interests of a particular group. I am hardly
an advocate of pure universalism. Nor would I argue that the particularism which the
rabbis advocate is a distortion of the Jewish past. I suspect that the effort to interpret
Judaism as moralistic and universalistic, an effort that is basic to the American Jews'
understanding of Judaism, is less faithful than is the Israeli version to what most Jews
throughout the ages understood as their tradition. But Orthodox rabbis I israel have lost
their bearings. Particularism is basic to the Jewish tradition because it is the path to
universalism not a substitute. The Kingdom of God, for which pious Jews pray three
times daily, is not a Jewish kingdom. The rabbis seem to have lost sight of this. In their
mind the messianic age becomes a period when the entire land of Israel and all its fruits
9
will belong to the Jews. The presence of Gentiles might be suffered (there is a difference
of opinion on that score) but they will live here as drawers of water and hewers of wood
in servitude to the Jews.
Finally, the narrow xenophobic interpretation of the tradition contrasts with earlier
Zionist effort to "normalize" Jewish existence. Classical Zionists suggested that
antisemitism was a consequence of the peculiar condition of the Jews as perennial
"guests" or "strangers" in countries not their own. It was not, they claimed, the result of
any special animus toward Jews as such. Zionists believed that once the Jews had a
country of their own, their condition would be normalized and antisemitism would
disappear. Israeli Jews no longer, for the most part, believe this to be true and for good
reason. Antisemitism, they are likely to believe (I am less sure that this is correct), is
endemic and recent incidents in Europe and even in North America reinforce this belief.
If "the world is all against us," as the refrain of a once popular song goes, there is
nothing that Jews in general or Israelis in particular can do to resolve the problem. The
Jew is special because he is hated and he is hated because he is special. This is the lesson
of Jewish history and it serves to anchor the state of Israel within the currents of Jewish
life. But it is also the corner stone of religious political conceptions and it reinforces the
view that concessions by Israel are pointless since they only become a weapon in the
hands of the enemy whose goal is to destroy the Jews. This is the message which the
Orthodox rabbinate conveys.
My own power of reason as well as my moral sense tells me that I have been
betrayed by the religious leaders of Israel. What can I and those who feel like me do? It is
easier to say what is not the answer then what is the answer. The answer is not, I think to
10
urge rabbis to consult political scientists before they issue political pronouncements. First
of all, the rabbis don’t see their pronouncements as political but as religious. Secondly,
they will have no trouble finding political scientists or scientists of any sort to flatter their
preferences. Finally, although rabbinic pronouncements in the present controversy strike
me as horrendous, social scientists have a very spotty record, with respect to other issues,
in the quality of their own policy recommendations. A second answer which I also reject
is to ask the rabbis to keep silent on political issues. As already noted they do not define
these issues as political. Second, why should they keep silent when no other group with
high public status (I’m thinking of writers, artists, intellectuals) do so or are expected to
do so? The onus is not on the rabbis. I would be happier if they exercised greater
restraint, intelligence and moral sensitivity but I have already suggested why I can not
expect this. The onus I’m afraid is on me as an individual. In this respect the Jewish
tradition is a particularly happy one. It accords no special sanctity to the rabbi, no magical
powers, no ability to divine the wishes of the Almighty. (This notion has been asserted in
the modern era and is growing in importance but is still recognized as a novel notion
outside haredi circles.) If, therefore, I have something to say, if my own moral antenna or
my knowledge as a political scientist tell me that the rabbis are wrong, I am not without
recourse and it is incumbent on me to speak out.
11