The argument here is not about the right of Israel to defend itself, but the way in which it chooses to defend itself. The current situation has definitely surpassed any notion of lex talionis (the principle of the law of retaliation, that is an eye for an eye).
Now, it is imperative for us to understand how the modern state of Israel came to be. Many have written extensively on the establishment of the aforesaid state, and the justifications for its creation (the writer admits that a nuanced view is needed). In the context of Israel, Jewish political theorising is sui generis, since much of its discourse pertains to an ancient longing of return, and a form of sovereignty that is as much political as it is spiritual.
Historically, the Jewish community in Europe lived in the peripheries of society, often enclosed within spaces known as Judengasse or ghettos (from approximately the 15th up to the 19th century). This isolation from other Europeans made self-governance necessary, with reliance on non-Jews kept at a minimum. Such non-reliance galvanised the spirit of European Jews (Ashkenazim) to slowly establish their own state.
Through the ideals of Zionism pioneered by Theodor Hertzl, what was once a faraway dream is now a lived reality. In ‘The Zionist Idea’ by Joseph Heller, mention is made that “the particular character of a national culture is determined by a common psychological, economic, and historical condition, which subconsciously shapes a common way of life: out of which arise…an individually differentiated creative energy.”
This creative energy is seen in common conditions that were manufactured, grappling with prior narratives of aliya (waves of Jewish immigration into then British Palestine) being at odds with the Yishuv (Jewish community who were already living in the contested area, and without any form of central governance). The reconciliation between the two is assumed to have taken place as time progressed, in which a transformation of culture took root,with the obvious transition being a move away from feudalism to a central form of governance. Here, it is crucial to note that Palestine under British mandate was not devoid of inhabitants (no Terra Nullius).
As such, we observe the urgent need to create a national identity that is influenced by ideas of democracy and secularism. In order for the Jewish state to have any sway in the modern world, it had to be on an equal footing with other nation-states, particularly those in Europe. The potential for Israel’s social, economic, and political growth stems from the notion of the Yishuv as an autonomous political system in embryo, often defined as a ‘state in the making’, or ‘a state within a state’.
Halachic authority (from Halachah) Jewish law or code of conduct) does not imply that Jewish political tradition is either autocratic or uncritical, or unchanging. The living of Jewish life is dependent on the circumstances that one finds him/herself in.
By wanting to be seen as a legitimate player in world politics, Israel as a nation developed a form of cognitive dissonance. It had to remain firm in its Judaic foundations, while also appearing as democratic and modern. With this in mind, there are three crucial changes that provided fertile ground for the seeds of secularisation to germinate in Israel. These include (1) ascent of a neoliberal economy, (2) mass immigration of a million Jews from the former Soviet Union, and (3) emergence of religious and spiritual alternatives to Judaism. From a psychological point of view, such cognitive dissonance is indeed a heavy burden to carry.
For Jewish thinkers like Emmanuel Levinas, to be a human being is to be ethical, in that one has the obligation to act ethically to others. In his book, Difficult Freedom: Essays in Judaism, Levinas points out that “the ethical relation will appear to Judaism as an exceptional relation: in it, contact with an external being, instead of compromising human sovereignty, institutes and invests it.” (1990). On the highly-contentious term of chosenness, Levinas goes on to say “The idea of a chosen people must not be taken as a sign of pride. It does not involve being aware of exceptional rights, but of exceptional duties. It is the prerogative of moral consciousness itself.” (1990:176). These statements are self-explanatory, which attests to the brilliance of Levinas in universalising Judaism while also appreciating the particular.
The common labelling of being anti-Israel (in its current governmental form) with anti-semitism is problematic and dangerous, in that it undermines valid contentions brought forward against Netanyahu and his cabinet. Thus, it is imperative for many to understand the depth of the subject, in that international Jewry is not monolithic, encompassing diverse groups with different interpretations of sacred texts, including the Torah. One would do well to remember that a moral law is not identical to scientific laws, for the simple reason that the former prescribes while the latter describes.
Perhaps it is time for Netanyahu to abandon his political aims altogether, so that he has time to read up on Levinas and moral consciousness, as well as the inherent beauty of Judaism itself.
* Arief S. Arman is a former research assistant to the Political Futures Experts Group (PFEG) at the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilisation (ISTAC). The writer holds an MA (Religion in Global Politics) from the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), University of London.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
