Skip to main content

The Social Challenges Confronting the State of Israel (1)

Text file

(Part 1 of 2)

 

           In view of what is going on in Israel today, it seems that the social challenges facing us are more or less clear: lessening polarization and increasing a sense of unity between the various sectors of society, closing the economic, social and cultural gaps within it; raising the standard of living of those in financial straits while ensuring employment for all; social and cultural absorption of new immigrants, cultivation of moral sensitivity towards all people - in short, building a more ethical, more Jewish, more responsible and more caring society. 

 

            However, as an educator I feel that we cannot speak of these challenges while simultaneously resigning ourselves to the existence of phenomena which block significant advancement in these areas.  Therefore, within the time allotted to me, I would like to speak about a number of negative phenomena which have, of late, become more widespread in Israeli society.  These phenomena are not unique to our society.  They exist in other places as well, particularly in western countries.  However in our compact society, replete as it is with political, religious, ethnic and social tensions, their effect is destructive in the extreme.

 

            The first phenomenon which I would like to discuss is the sense of freedom from commitment.  Here I am speaking of a feeling and a prevailing mood, not of an ideology; although on the fringes it involves an ideology as well.

 

            The placement of liberal individualism as a central pillar of our culture, coupled with the ranking of the rights of the individual at the top of our scale of values, has led to the prevalent sense of freedom from commitment.  The very commitment to a cause or an object runs contrary to the concept of freedom.  Therefore any commitment - whether to the nation, the state, society, or to one's spouse and family - has no place in an era of freedom of the individual.  This does not mean that people have stopped working to improve society.  Nor does this mean that positive and constructive action has dwindled.  These continue to exist, but they stem not from a sense of commitment but rather from free choice, and the emphasis is placed upon free choice.  It is as though the individual has announced: I have no commitments, and what I do - I do out of free choice.  I do not act because I must; I act because I so choose.  Commitment contains an element of coercion, which we find galling.  And we must admit that action which stems from liberty and free choice contains something beautiful and alluring.  The problem arises when the desire to act gradually lessens. Indeed, when a sense of commitment is lacking, this is a common occurrence. 

 

            This prevailing mood has its effect upon many and varied areas.  It finds expression inter alia in the recent drop in the number of marriages performed in Israel.  This drop does not stem only from an objection to religious marriage ceremonies, since a person who is looking for a secular wedding can find such alternatives (in Cyprus, for example).  Marriage means commitment.  Marriage constitutes a covenantal relationship, and many people today prefer intimacy without commitment.  There is a significant difference between the person whose commitments are integral to his personality and someone who feels that he is absolved of responsibilities.  There is a tremendous gulf between the person who debates with himself whether to promote his own interests or to fulfill his obligations, and the person who instead considers merely which decision will bring him closer to self-actualization.

 

            To my mind, this sense of freedom from commitment constitutes a significant factor in the decrease of motivation in the army, a recent topic of concern among caring and involved citizens.  In this context I would like to add a comment.  When people speak of the decrease in motivation in the army they usually point out the religious soldiers, whose motivation remains intact.  In my opinion, the pervading lack of commitment is slowly seeping into the religious community as well.  I fear that in few years the differences in motivation between religious and non-religious soldiers will have vanished, with the ensuing unity being based on a completely negative foundation.

 

            I recently visited a large synagogue in New York which is affiliated with the Modern Orthodox sector.  I was astonished to find that approximately half of the congregants were single.  I could find no other explanation for this phenomenon other than the flight from commitment which characterizes the intellectual community there.  As we all know, the Torah was given in two ways; one was the manner characterized by "na'aseh ve-nishma," in which the nation received the Torah of its own free will.  The second way is characterized by the midrashic phrase, "kafa aleyhem har ke-gigit."  ("He held the mountain over them like a cask.") God forced the Jews, as it were, to accept the Torah.  When I examine what is going on today in parts of the religious community, I conclude that many observant Jews keep the commandments not out of commitment, echoing the second way of receiving the Torah, but rather because they have chosen to keep the commandments and are happy that way.

 

            Until now I have spoken about a feeling and mood, but we cannot deny that there is also an ideological school which is influenced by the post-modern world trends; trends which negate the placement of values at the heart of culture, literature and art.  And it is from here that post-Zionist expressions arise in Israel, speaking of a "state for its citizens" rather than a Jewish state for the Jewish nation.  This may be a marginal group, but the place which it occupies in the media belies its modest proportions.

 

            This group, as noted, is marginal, but according to the laws of social dynamics an ideology of freedom from commitment at one extreme promotes and strengthens the ideology of fundamentalist commitment at the other extreme, whether in the religious or national sphere.

 

            This phenomenon of freedom from commitment also means freedom from social justice.  I am aware that many of the statements which we have heard concerning social gaps and social justice since the establishment of the state have been pure lip-service, but I believe nevertheless that even the lip-service which once existed had its own sort of positive dynamic.  I don't believe that one can address the problems arising from social gaps purely out of election campaign concerns, without emphasizing the importance of social justice as a moral and national value.  When there is no commitment to the social aspect, the sense of caring about what goes on in society also disappears. 

 

            I also think that one cannot speak about hedonistic inclinations and the clear trend towards materialism to which we are witness without mentioning the destructive atmosphere of the feeling of freedom from commitment.  I suspect that there is also some connection between the feeling of freedom from commitment and the sense of permissiveness which we regularly encounter.

 

            Allow me to add the following: The first message which Judaism came to convey was that of commitment to justice and righteousness.  It is said of Avraham Avinu, "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and righteousness...."  It doesn't say "to observe the Lord's commandments," because the mitzvot hadn't yet been given.  There is here, therefore, an ethical commitment to justice and righteousness.  The pagan world did not recognize any form of commitment.  The relationship with the various idols and gods was one of give-and-take.  Pagan society feared the gods and was continually looking for ways to appease them and seek their favor, by offering them gifts.

 

            Hence from a Jewish point of view, too, I see the spreading mood of freedom from commitment as something extremely negative and destructive.  In my opinion one of the most important challenges today is to educate towards commitment.  Commitment to the nation, to the family, to society, to the state, and commitment to Judaism's world of values.

 

 

[Translated by Kaeren Fish and Gila Weinberg. 

 

This lecture was delivered at a conference at Tel Aviv University's Jaffe Center for Strategic Studies in memory of General Aharon Yariv, on 20 Shevat 5757 (January 28, 1997).]

 

 

Copyright (c) 1997 Yeshivat Har Etzion.  All rights reserved.

This website is constantly being improved. We would appreciate hearing from you. Questions and comments on the classes are welcome, as is help in tagging, categorizing, and creating brief summaries of the classes. Thank you for being part of the Torat Har Etzion community!