|
Misplaced criticism
(Filed: 28/08/2002)
The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, is no stranger to
controversy, and he has certainly stirred one up with his latest
remarks about Israel. Dr Sacks sees the present conflict as "tragic,
because it is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in
the long run with our deepest ideals".
He cannot abide the "hatreds and insensitivities that
in the long run are corrupting to a culture". He is made "very
uncomfortable as a Jew" by "things that happen on a daily basis".
The only example he gives is his "profound shock" at pictures of
cheery Israeli soldiers posing with a dead Palestinian.
Note the careful emphasis on "the long run"; note,
too, that he is shocked, not by the killing of terrorists in
self-defence, but by any hint of triumphalism. It is a pity that Dr
Sacks did not say more clearly what exactly disturbs him. A nation
engaged in a struggle for survival is likely to do many things that
make outsiders uncomfortable; that does not make them wrong.
In arguing that hatred may ultimately corrupt the
hater, Dr Sacks is merely restating a truism of Judaeo-Christian
morality. He is, of course, not a politician but a rabbi, and his
target was not Israeli policy, but the moral consequences of a siege
mentality.
He cannot be faulted for measuring the conduct of his
fellow Jews by the law of Moses. And it is Israel's greatest
strength that, as an island of democracy in a sea of despotism, it
sees self-criticism not as a luxury but as a necessity.
The context in which he spoke, however, is important.
Dr Sacks made his comments in an interview with the Guardian, which
ran an extract from his new book, The Dignity of Difference, a
serious work of moral theology.
However, "Chief rabbi calls for mutual toleration
from world faiths" is less enticing than the Guardian headline:
"Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi". It is legitimate for
an author to provide arresting remarks to publicise his book, but it
was at best naive for Dr Sacks to utter them in a newspaper that has
been unremittingly hostile to Israel.
It was predictable that the Guardian would turn his
words into ammunition for its own purposes, so distracting attention
from the deeper message of his book.
Jews and Gentiles alike may reasonably debate whether
Dr Sacks meant to give comfort to Israel's enemies. He has surely
earned the right to the benefit of the doubt. When Israel has never
been more embattled, when anti-semitism is again ubiquitous, and
when British Jews have never felt less secure, however, his own
community might have expected a more robust stance.
There is a time and a place for a chief rabbi to draw
attention to Israel's faults. This was, perhaps, the wrong time; and
it was certainly the wrong
place. | 
