The State of Israel defines itself as a Jewish and democratic State. As the course draws to a close, we decided to clarify this topic with two experts on the issue, Professor Yedidya Stern and Professor Yigal Eilam. These two experts will help us discuss the connection between Judaism and democracy in Israel. To what degree is the State of Israel a Jewish State? Judaism existed for 2000 years as a religion of individuals, of families, of communities. As Jews, we had no public domain in our control, under our sovereignty, or responsibility. We had no place to express our interpretation of our civilization on a public level. The State of Israel is our opportunity to do so. What does that mean? Judaism to me is a nationality, a religion and also a culture. All three of those things should be represented by the State of Israel. From the national standpoint, this is a nation-state. All of Europe is made up of nation-states. Judaism is allowed to have a nation-state and here it is. It means Jews can come here if they want, thanks to the Law of Return. It means that the symbols and the basis of our culture are based on Judaism. It means that the calendar is a Jewish calendar, etc. In addition, Judaism is also, of course, a religion. There is a religious aspect to the existence of the State. Public services for Jews, religious services for Jews are offered here. We have what we call the Chief Rabbinate which enables Jews to practice religious lifestyles as they wish. There are problematic aspects to this system, but it is part of the services that the State offers its citizens. And of course, the culture. Hebrew culture flourishes here. The unique & amazing miracle of the Hebrew language in our lives is unsurpassable. None of this could be possible even in a strong Jewish community in New York or Sydney. Only in the State of Israel. Yigal, what do you think about the connection between Judaism and State? There are too many problems here. In any case, Yedidya's presentation seems too smooth to me. First of all, I even find a conflict between statehood, the existence of the State and the way we, or I, define Judaism, and certainly historical Judaism. The 2000 years that Yedidya mentioned mark a period of time in Judaism throughout history. If you wish, we can draw a line that defines Judaism in ancient times, the Middle Ages, and the modern world. In the modern world, that same Jewish nation, that same Judaism has undergone revolutionary changes. First, on a global level, there was a cultural revolution. Modernism. The modern revolution, that affected Judaism, or rather, the Jewish people. Therefore, it is important, and of course, our time is limited, so we can't fully develop the issue but at least I can point out that Judaism... and I make a distinction between historical Judaism and today's modern Judaism, because in its current version, the emergence of a culture is problematic. With the introduction of Zionism, or the Zionist revolution, a local culture developed here in the Land of Israel. Israeli culture. There's a reason that the term "Israeli", "Israelism", is becoming more and more popular. It is quite a genuine description. There is tension. This tension is just a mild expression of what I mean. The tension between Israeli culture and Jewish culture. Jewish culture, which I connect more to historical Judaism, always had a problem with a national entity. Right from the start. We tend to overlook that fact or conceal it. Historical Judaism, based in its religious foundations was a religious culture. It was anti-state and even exterritorial, because the Diaspora was not forced on the Jews. The attempt to maintain a kingdom during the First and Second Temples failed and began the sequence of an exterritorial existence. So we must take all of that into consideration, as well, if we want to understand the conflicts that face us today. And what about democracy? If we accept your theory, could this type of system create a national-democratic framework? Again, it all depends on the answer to the first question. Of course it is possible, but if we stick to the historical definition of Judaism, and if the religious component of Judaism remains the decisive component, or even if it not the most dominant but is defined as equally important as the nationalistic, ethnic aspect, of stateliness, then we have a problem. The religion, all religions... Religion and democracy do not go hand in hand. And if I have to choose which of the 3 monotheistic religions is closest to the issue, and it's no coincidence that it is also the religion most connected to the achievements of what we call "western culture" which also includes the culture of democracy... I'd choose Christianity. Let's admit it. Everything began because Christianity viewed the State as a separate entity. There was still no formal separation of religion and State but this concept proposed that the democratic entity was equivalent to the religious authority. Therefore, Christianity could provide the framework that initiated, or opened the door to the modern revolution. But democracy? If we think about it for a moment, what is a democracy? The formal definition is a type of government. Democracy provides a source of authority. Because a State is defined by the government force over a land for the benefit of its residents. Now I could say, learn the rest yourself. But that's not the point. There are four components and they can't be ignored. It has nothing to do with a nationalistic factor or a religious factor. It has to do with the residents, whoever they are. The "State of all its citizens" is the closest formula that defines the essence of a State. This is true when the citizens are the residents, but that's in our period... and I don't want to get into that now. What I'm trying to say is that democracy defines the source of authority for government. In ancient times, that source was religion, the gods, if you will. In modern times, based upon the concepts born in the western, Christian world, the source of authority lies within the nation. Copying the sovereignty of god from a theocentric system to an anthropocentric system. We're familiar with that concept. That means that man, whether we are talking about the individual whoever he may be or if we're talking about the collective, nations... They have the right to determine the form of rule. You can apply this to the beginning of all statehoods, back to Hammurabi because a governing body is born to benefit the nation. Can Judaism go hand in hand with democracy? I mean, is democracy a part of this whole story? -We have a huge dispute about the basic premises. All the basic premises. -Yes. It is easy to create a demon and then attack it, but there's no need to create one because it doesn't even exist and it's easier when it doesn't exist. I'll explain a few things: First of all, there is no fundamental conflict between Judaism and democracy. It is true that Judaism is based on religion, but most Jews today are not religious, and most religious Jews accept the authority of the State and the authority of the majority to make decisions from both a religious and a democratic standpoint. The few who think otherwise are marginal and we won't forsake our lifelong project just for them. This is the reason that we're here, to establish a Jewish civilization in a sovereign State. We won't allow a small minority to disrupt our important mission. I would like to explain. When I walk down the street, I see two suns in my sky, Yigal. One sun is the democratic civilization. For me, Yedidya, it is a liberal western democracy. Others might call it something else. But that is how I perceive it. At the same time, I have another sun in the sky: The sun of Judaism that radiates the light not only of religion but of historic memory, a global orientation, the definition of identity. Who am I? I am a Jew and this sun gives me insight about this topic. If I ignore one of those "suns" I wouldn't be who I am. I think that goes for most of the Jews in Israel. All those cliches that Judaism is a Diaspora-based culture... Ben Gurion made it his life's mission to defy that definition. And this mission was a success. Jewish nationhood is not an oxymoron. It means that we are all as Jews when 20 percent of the citizens are not Jewish and it's important and vital to talk about them of course, but those 80 percent also have the right to self-definition and should be able to express themselves in public, as I noted in my opening statements. It is true that you can find fundamentalism in Judaism and that contradicts democracy and you can find fundamentalism in democracy that contradicts Judaism but the overlapping consensus is most of what this "sun" radiates and what this "sun" radiates. It's not the same shadow that falls when I stand between the two suns. There is friction. We shouldn't hide it. But to say that is why I need to renounce my mother or my father? No. I want a family. Even if the mother and the father fight at times. That's okay. It's part of our happiness. Let me put it this way: Without Judaism, Israeli statehood is not a justifiable project. And without democracy, the project doesn't stand a chance. I need them both as the elixir and the challenge of our generation after 70 generations without political sovereignty... Our challenge, regardless of our different opinions, is to enable this overlapping consensus and make it the central focus of our lives. Yigal, what do you think about those two suns? Science-fiction. In science-fiction there are two suns. When there are two suns, there is a problem but the issues are quite clear. You might even say "simple." If the Jewish nation would have maintained its religious Judaism, a State would have never been born. It's obvious. But I'm not just talking in the name of history. I'm pointing at something even stronger: If I would give a religious Jew who lives in the State of Israel and acknowledges two suns the option, or let's say the responsibility, to choose what he will defend with his life when a conflict arises, can I count on him? And my answer is "No." And my answer, since your question is directed at me, my answer is this: If democracy was not liberal, you could not count on me. Since the democracy is liberal, the democracy will protect my religious freedom and as it protects my religious freedom, then there isn't... -But democracy is secular so it protects your religious freedom. -Excellent. I'm liberal and religious and whoever thinks that liberalism is the property of the secular doesn't truly understand what liberalism is. Liberalism is the manner in which every individual can live his life, religious and secular, different factions within Judaism, not just the Orthodox, and also, of course, people who are Jewish and people who are not. Our common denominator must be a wide civilian base. The common denominator does not have to be Jewish, but it doesn't mean that 80 percent do not have the right of expression, each individual as he sees fit with regard to what transpires in the country which is the national State of the Jewish people. That's why we're here. Now I have an identical question for both of you. How can over twenty percent of the population of the State of Israel, the non-jewish, cope with the "Judaism and democracy" term of the State of the Israel? Yigal, why don't you begin. Well, don't forget that the right for self-definition does not begin, I believe, with a nationality or other group. It begins with the individual himself. After the First World War, when this issue became the basis for drawing borders on the map of Europe, the concept came from the west. The west won the war so it had a problem with countries in central and eastern Europe in which nationalistic groups wanted and fought for collective rights even though the United States was built differently. Western countries like Britain and France were already built differently. But the deciding factor, the point that must be considered and is also mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, is that if you declare a country to be the country of a certain nation, you're going to have to pay the price. And I don't mean just lip service. Even though many thought it would be enough to just pay lip service but they had to actually pay the price and give the same rights and status to any individual, no matter who, whatever religion, sex or race. Race is nationality. You couldn't enter the twentieth century and be recognized for your sovereignty or your government unless you promise to uphold the rights of those minorities and even of the individuals living on your land. Anything beyond your land is outside of your sovereignty. So, in my opinion, you have to remember that when we're talking about the right to self-definition, we usually apply it only on a national or collective level. Yedidya, what do you think? No doubt that the greatest challenge of a Jewish State is the way it treats those who are not Jewish. As you said, we're talking about 20 percent within the green line. We still haven't found a solution for this challenge. We haven't had much success dealing with it not on the democratic level and not on the Jewish level. Our promise, also written in the Declaration of Independence, and in other Jewish sources that speak about how to treat a stranger is reiterated time and again. The Sabbath is mentioned in the Torah twice. The stranger is mentioned 36 times. We're talking about a very central part of our history, the way we should treat strangers who live among us. As a Jewish, democratic State, we must give equal and full civil rights without any compromise to all citizens in the country, regardless of their nationality. That said, in a very clear manner, I am certain that it doesn't mean that in the name of that equality, we have to give up the Jewish identity of the State. The 80 percent have the right to a home, a home in which they truly feel part of a family. How do we balance the two? That is a great national mission. Let's try and at least achieve full civil equality in funding, human rights, funds for development and the educational system. This task is still before us. It is not complete. I truly hope that the right and left sectors in Israel understand that this obligation cannot be waived if we want legitimacy. Any final words? -One more thing. Even the terminology "nationality" or the concept of liberalism is not rooted in religion, and certainly not in Judaism. I have no problem with you, Yedidya. You are a nice, liberal religious Jew. We could live in peace together till the end of time. But you are just one tiny percentage in the world of Judaism, among the Jews who compose religious Judaism today. That is the truth. You know it. You also acknowledge it. So I don't want to argue specifically with Yedidya, or with the ability to live as friends with Yedidya. I'm talking about situations in which it is either one or the other. And if I look at these situations, and the points I brought up, or if I take the historic approach, well... was it just by accident that the Hasmonean dynasty, a second attempt at self-government failed and was turned over to the Romans? Only because of ignorance people still think that "The Romans conquered the Hasmonean kingdom." The Hasmoneans were turned in. By whom? By the Pharisees. The people. And the First Temple was a failure and was destroyed because of a conflict between the King and the institutions of the prophets and priests. The instigators were the prophets and the priests who opposed the King's regime. There are historic testimonials that describe what happened but they are covered-up and never mentioned and of course, the school system doesn't bother to teach those texts and explain what the problem really was. Finally, we have to deal with the Diaspora. I used the term "exterritorial." Judaism was an exterritorial entity. No one forced the Diaspora upon us. The failure at self-government during the First and Second Temples is what brought the Jews, after the expulsion to Babylon... The period of the Diaspora in Babylon did not last more than 50 years. Koresh the King said "He who wants to go up with his people shall go." But most preferred to stay in the Diaspora. What does that mean? We're talking about fateful issues here. And with regard to our topic today, I'll go back to the opening question. I admit, even if it sounds very harsh and even radical that I cannot trust anyone who believes in two suns. That's too much. Especially when he is asked: "But there aren't two suns. "That's science-fiction. In nature, there is only one sun. "Is is religious or secular?" That is the question. It's interesting that... -Your final statement. The topic always turns to religion. We're talking about Judaism. For most people in our generation, Judaism isn't specifically a religion. So even if someone accepts your perspective about religion, he cannot accept your perspective about the Jewish State. I also cannot accept your perspective about religion. I'd like to end on a somewhat more optimistic note. If possible. May I? -Yes, certainly. -Great. Our Sages... You have no problem with our Sages, only modern-day Jews. I have problems with the Sages. I have very serious problems. Mainly with the more important ones, Rabbi Akiva, Ben Yochai. Those are the worst. Our Sages said something that really suites the human psyche, I think. "One who experiences a miracle cannot recognize his own miracle." When the Children of Israel crossed the Red Sea on dry land, one Jew said to another: "Look how much mud we have on our feet." They didn't see the miracle. They saw the mud. I'm asking you to see the miracle, not the mud. On that optimistic note, we'll conclude the debate that at this point, it seems, cannot be resolved. But the mere existence of the culture of dispute seems to be an integral part of both Judaism and democracy. Thank you very much.
