LOOKING AROUND:On what do we agree?
By Barbara Sofer
January, 17 2002
Contentiousness seems to be in our heritage, if not in our genes. Our biblical tradition shows us complaining, questioning leadership, being stiff-necked and rebellious. Our modern state experience has us splitting into parties, factions, subparties and subfactions. Arguing is a national sport, and we're ready to engage in heated discussion with any stranger who happens to share space on a bus.
Recently, the divisions within Israeli society, particularly between the so-called religious and so-called secular segments, have become alarming. Among Torah-observant Jews, the most frequently voiced concern is that a growing number of Israelis would like to strip Israel of its Jewish character. Equal fears are expressed by those wary of religious coercion and the emergent voting power of those who endorse clericalism.
Then along comes an independent group named the Forum for National Responsibility. Its members sat down near the banks of the Kinneret to figure out what Israelis can agree on. Forum members are men and women, rabbis and soldiers, journalists and lawyers, immigrants and veteran Israelis, rightists, leftists and centrists. They thrashed out the usual arguments, presented their own red lines and listened to everyone else's point of view. Then they took out pen and paper. Sixteen versions later, they arrived at a consensus with a proclamation of principles that was distributed last week with the Friday Hebrew newspapers.
At first glance the proclamation, "Amanat Kinneret" (Kinneret Compact), reads like a string of puzzlingly obvious statements: Israel is the national home of the Jewish people. The State of Israel is a democratic state. The State of Israel is a Jewish state. The State of Israel is a Jewish-democratic state. The State of Israel respects the rights of the Arab minority. The State of Israel is a state seeking peace. The State of Israel is a multi-faceted state. The State of Israel is one of brotherhood.
But before you wave it away, examine the clauses carefully and imagine all the diverse parties listed above agreeing on them. Everyone concurred about the necessity for and moral rightness of a "Jewish" state. God isn't mentioned and "its Torah" is used ambiguously, but the attachment of the Jewish people to its traditions is acknowledged, as is the longing for expression of tradition in national life.
The state, say the forum members, should refrain from religious coercion in private life. Their document underlines the common history and fate of the Jewish people, and our commitment and responsibility to continue our peoplehood. At the same time, democratic principles of justice, personal freedom, equal religious and gender rights, and the rule of the majority are affirmed.
Our ties to Diaspora Jewry and the need to promote Jewish education everywhere are noted, while the necessity of maintaining the Jewish character and the Jewish majority - only by moral means - is emphasized. The Jewish character of the state should never be used as an excuse to discriminate against citizens of different creeds. The state should encourage a feeling of connectedness between Jews and other groups who see themselves as full partners in its building and defense.
The recognition of Palestinian rights is linked to the acceptance of Jewish rights to Israel.
Overcome cognitive dissonance for a moment, and just think of the stereotype of an extremist religious rabbi endorsing the primacy of democracy, our stereotyped anti-clerical leftist affirming the need for Jewish tradition and public Jewish holidays, our stereotyped right-winger acknowledging Palestinian rights. In that light, the Kinneret Compact is as heartening as watching the tributaries pouring their waters into the depleted lake.
The forum aimed at creating a reservoir of agreed-upon basic concepts for a state that we can all live in and be proud of, and at shaping and renewing principles in line with Israel's Declaration of Independence.
With all the many changes in Israel, rededication to these values is not obvious. True, there's always room for improvement, but I caution against taking individual statements, pulling them out of context and picking apart the document in order to make it wobble and fall. The triumph of the compact is that statements balance each other.
The compact will not encourage secular Jews to change their ways, and religious Jews might be negatively influenced, cautioned the extreme religious press, which has deplored the Kinneret Compact. Yated Ne'eman quoted rabbis, including the influential Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, disapproving of dialogue with non-Orthodox Jews.
Much praise is deserved by Bnei Brak Mayor Rabbi Mordechai Karelitz of United Torah Judaism who, despite the criticism in his town, showed the courage to play a crucial role in the discussion. Likewise, participants such as playwright Anat Gov and former minister Yuli Tamir signed despite scathing criticism from the ultra-Left.
For many, the compact provides hope that our differences are not irreconcilable. The "other side" is not quite as fearsome and unreasonable as we'd imagined.
Not particularly naive or inexperienced in matters of Israeli society, the members acknowledge that we're deep in the midst of state building and far from ideal solutions. They have committed themselves to continue their hard work to build a strong and moral homeland. Even given good principles, we all know that implementation can be grueling. But once the principles are established, the arguments are likely to be le'shem shamayim, well-intentioned and for a good cause.
Disagreeing is so simple. Finding what we do agree on is infinitely harder.
