Comments on "And You Expect to Possess the Land?"

As Managing Editor of Kol Hamevaser, I would like to comment on my colleague Gilah Kletenik’s recent editorial, “And You Expect to Possess the Land?” 

Many people seem to be getting very excited about this article.  And if it was an incendiary piece, written without care, or as an expression of hatred, then vilifying the article (in a style that maintains our obligations to God, the Law, and ourselves) might be appropriate.  However, though many, including myself, strongly disagree with the conclusions of the editorial and take offense at some of the rhetorical flourishes, it is none of those things.  Indeed, this expression of a painful realization has much to teach even those of us who see the world differently than the author.   

I would like to remind our readership of the Talmud’s discussion regarding the “downfall of the wicked,” recorded on page 10b of tractate Megillah, and especially of God’s words therein.  Upon the destruction of the Egyptians “The ministering angels wanted to chant their hymns, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said, The work of my hands is being drowned in the sea, and shall you chant hymns?” 

I think that an insight readers of Gilah’s editorial may gain relates to the godly attitude above.  God displays a deep sensitivity to the plight of even the wicked.  And though R. Eleazar says of God that “He himself does not rejoice, but he makes others rejoice,” we must not forget that this entire discussion relates specifically to the “downfall of the wicked,” the downfall of a murderous military force sent after the runaway Jewish slaves.  Even if we cannot be expected to have this level of sensitivity about the truly wicked, we are at fault if we do not appreciate the suffering of those whom we deem guilty by association. 

The change in attitude that Gilah describes she went through comes from the anguished wakeup call that the suffering of others is meant to arouse in us.  If we discover that policies we endorse result in human suffering, then we are duty bound to question their legitimacy.  This is not to say that under no circumstance may we endorse actions that result in suffering.  Indeed, God, though He expresses sorrow over their deaths, does not spare the Egyptians.  In Israel there often exist real security issues that must be addressed.  Dealing effectively with these issues sometimes, devastatingly, results in human suffering—suffering that should sadden any human being, even while he/she recognizes the necessity and justice of Israel’s actions.  Furthermore, only by paying due attention to all aspects of our conduct may we hope to see our errors.  In no case do we lose our commitment to the state of Israel by honestly appreciating the positive and negative results of our country’s conduct.  Rather, only by connecting our firm commitment to the principles of Torah and ethics to an honest appraisal of our actions on the ground can we succeed in harmonizing the two. 

Finally, I would like to frame what I hope will begin a productive discussion of the issues brought up by Gilah’s editorial.  If a YU Student disagrees with Gilah, most likely, it is not regarding her conception of the ideal Jewish state, one founded on Torah and ethics.  Rather, it seems to me that the two potential areas of disagreement relate, (1) to the minimum commitment that the State must have to Torah and ethics to maintain legitimacy and (2) to the evaluation of how well the State adheres to those principles.  It is my sincere hope that Gilah’s editorial inspires sensitivity in our hearts and deep thought and discussion of these two important matters.  I hope that for all of us who love Israel—those who shake their head at her folly and those who smile at her with approval—each criticism of our homeland is a chance for honest reflection and an opportunity to bring our thoughts and actions into closer contact with our ideals.