Left-Wing Repentance

I have argued in print on multiple occasions that the Religious Zionist world contains excessively militaristic and unreasonably right-wing elements. This partially explains the rise of observant Jewish groups, such as the Halakhic Left and Semol Emuni US, striking a different note. This past Elul, each one published a reader for Yamim Noraim and a joint analysis of the two of them proves quite instructive regarding some pitfalls of contemporary political discourse. The two volumes are titled Hashiveynu: A Smol Emuni US Reader for the Days of Awe and HaYom Te’am’tzenu: Essays for Tishrei 5787/2006.

Before embarking on my central theme, I note the fine quality of some essays, in particular, Noam Weinreich’s contribution to the latter and R. David Wolkenfeld’s essay in the former. Additionally, as a long-time fan of R. Moshe Avigdor Amiel, I am happy to see three of his essays translated into English in the Smol Emuni reader. Not surprisingly, given the time of year, the theme of repentance permeates the discourse. Let us see how these authors think about teshuva.

In both works, the major sins requiring atonement are the behavior of the state of Israel towards Palestinians and the actions of many Jews supporting the Jewish state. According to Prof. Daniel Boyarin, “we wrong them (other people) when we allow ourselves to turn a blind eye to genocide and torture of Palestinians for the sake of our solidarity with fellow Jews.” Rana Bickel expresses a similar notion. “God will forgive everyone, no matter the gravity of their sin, the moment they admit wrongdoing and repent: religious settlers, soldiers, ICE agents, and more. But we, humanity, are not obligated to forgive people, immediately or at all. The mainstream American Jewish community has spent the past three years committing further to the wickedness of political and material support for Israeli genocide. It is a sin too great to bear.” Sin is primarily something Israelis and their supporters do. The Smol Emuni reader reveals the same assumption with its clearest expression appearing in the essay of Prof. David N. Myers and R. Chaim Seidler-Feller where they compile a list of eleven communal confessions (al het), all of which relate to Israel’s behavior.

Now one may ask a basic question. Given that these authors do not live in Israel and are harsh critics of the Jewish state, why do they feel a need to repent? Several authors speak of collective communal responsibility. Binya Koatz writes: “For better or worse, we are all implicated in each others’ sins, and are therefore unable to be moral bystanders, even if we wish to be. We cannot simply cleanse ourselves individually, because we suffer from the depravities of our neighbor.” Esther Sperber adds: “As an Israeli and an American, I am part of the occupation apparatus and the violence.” Meyers and Seidler-Feller: “In addition to the personal work of atonement in which we must each engage as individuals, it strikes us that this year Jews have an added obligation of undertaking a collective assessment of our behavior as Jews, and particularly as Jews who feel a deep connection to both the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.”

At first glance, I might celebrate this approach, esteeming individuals willing to challenge the moral flaws of their own community. On second thought, I see things quite differently. An example may help clarify my attitude. I am a frequent critic of both the Haredi and Hardal worlds but I would never phrase those critiques as an act of repentance. I do not identify enough with those communities to view my finding fault as self-correction. Moreover, teshuva should mostly be about things I personally did wrong. The approach of these readers runs the risk of condemning one’s political opponents while simultaneously patting oneself on the back for engaging in self-criticism.

Here are thirteen questions indicating what a more authentic teshvua might look like for those on the left.

1) Have we been sympathetic enough to the suffering of settlers?

2) Do we credit settlers when they deserve it such as with regard to their peaceful behavior during the Disengagement?

3) Do we praise the state of Israel for its noble efforts such as humanitarian rescue aid to other countries?

4) Do we infantilize the Palestinians or are we able to strongly condemn the violence from their side?

5) Do we portray complex issues in simplistic terms or do we understand that, say, some degree of judicial reform is needed?

6) Do we needlessly attribute bad motivations to the right? Were they truly indifferent to the terrible plight of the hostages or perhaps they thought that releasing terrorists and leaving the terrorist infrastructure in place will cause more Jewish deaths?

7) Are we quick to believe the worst of Israel? Do we accept that their dogs sexually assault prisoners even though no expert has ever seen dogs trained for such brutality?

8) Do we call out the anti-Israel bias of institutions such as the United Nations, the BBC, or the New Yorker or do we pretend they are neutral sources of information and opinion?

9) Are we willing to criticize the antisemitism of Black and Arab individuals or do they get a free pass as minorities? Mamdani, El-Sayed, and Kyrie Irving come to mind.

10) Do we reject those extremists in our camp whose every comment is a virulent rant against Israel? I can think of four professors, two at Ivy League schools, who fit this description.

11) Do we accept the genocide charge even though Israel takes steps to limit civilian casualties and faces the immense difficulty of a terrorist infrastructure embedded in a civilian population?

12) Does our commitment to democracy and free speech cohere with Yair Golan’s threatening to close down Channel 14 and stop funding Mehinat Eli? I have serious criticisms of both bodies but democracy entails allowing a voice to those we strongly disagree with.

13) Do we only caution against right-wing incitement or do we identify dangerous left-wing rhetoric as well. What was our reaction when Ami Dror referred to Netanyahu as Satan or when Eyal Megged said about Netanayahu: “He is the biggest villain we have ever had, a villain who can be compared to any villain we can imagine without exception. Traitor, traitor, traitor?”

Myers and Seidler-Feller state: “We all know from our personal interactions how difficult it is to admit to our own flaws, how strongly we are inclined to resist transformation and deny responsibility for our actions.” Apparently, it is indeed quite difficult. R. Zachary Truboff warns of the dangers of “moral certainty” and adds that “Teshuvah always begins with truth, and truth requires acknowledging responsibility, not for everything that has happened, but for refusing, for far too long, to see what stood plainly before us.” Let us grant liberals the freedom to see some of my thirteen questions as misguided but how could not a single one of them receive mention in two volumes about self-reflective repentance? This smacks of moral certainty and an inability to acknowledge the truth.