Sixty-four
years after the establishment of the State of Israel its intellectuals are
still debating the central issues of Zionism and peoplehood. Sixty-four years
after the establishment of the third commonwealth we are still questioning the
viability of Israel. Sixty four years into a dynamic, economically robust and
politically stable democracy Israel is still being treated as though she were
in need of serious psychotherapy in the form of a national therapy session
represented by its leading intellectuals.
“Keyboard
Warriors Fighting Over Israel’s Future” (Haaretz, April 27, 2012) by Tom Segev is
a fascinating article which highlights the efforts of one of Israel’s military
heroes to galvanize leading Israeli thinkers to discuss fundamental and core
issues defining Israel ad its raison d’etre. E mail discussion groups is the
new forum in which nationally recognized thinkers like A.B.Yehoshua chime in
with Prof. Hamutal Bar Yosef on the existential crises of the Jewish people.
This
may be the first time that such an august forum has coalesced around the
electronic media and information highway, but it isn’t the first time that
these pregnant existential issues have been debated by Israeli scholars. After
the Six Day War and the subsequent solidification of the occupation there was
significant discussion and debate as to what the nature of the occupation ought
to be and how it will impact on the national ethos.
The
merits of the arguments expressed by intellectuals of different political and
social persuasions isn’t as relevant as the comments made by those who were
upset by the need for intellectuals to once again self flagellate, calling into
question the validity of Israel as an independent Jewish state. There are those
decidedly upset over the intellectuals who are calling into question the moral
right of Israel to exist at the expense of the Palestinian. There are those who
are calling into question the entire notion of Jewish peoplehood insisting on
reducing the Jews to a religion like any other therefore relinquishing their
right to a land.
For
someone insecure a national discussion on these and other existential questions
can be disquieting, to say the least. Psychotherapy can be intimidating and
threatening as well. But for therapy on a personal level to be productive, it
must be probing and at times deeply intense and uncomfortable. No less
important than being a high functioning person is to be a person content and
comfortable in one’s own skin. That can only be achieved through hard work. So
too must a national discussion on its moral and spiritual health be probing and
at times painful. It is a testament to the sensitivity of these leading lights and
their love of country that it sought a forum by which this type of
introspective, productive discussion could take place.
In
many ways it reminds me of our ancient prophets who served as the gadflies of
society that was in desperate need of social justice and corrective measures.
It was those prophets who said the tough things, yet there was resistance from
the people to want to listen and hear the truth. Today’s intellectuals haven’t
the intent to foist upon anyone their vision, but to put their vision up as a
fulcrum whereby those moral and ethical issues dividing society can be resolved.
