Speaker 0 00:00:01 <inaudible>
Speaker 1 00:00:13 Hi, this is Yossi Klein, and I'm a senior fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute here in Jerusalem. Today is Monday, November 9th, and you are listening to for heaven sake, the podcast of the heartburn institutes, I engage program in each edition for heaven's sake, but he old Hartman president of the Institute and myself we'll be discussing an issue is central to Israel and to the Jewish world. Then a lot of Stein, Hain director of the heartburn faculty in North America, we'll explore with us how classical Jewish texts can have a rich our understanding of the issue at the Hartman Institute. We approached the Israel conversation as we do all our conversation from a perspective of Jewish values, seeking broad and deep engagement. Our intention is to encourage a respectful conversation across political lines, promoting mutual understanding and strengthening Jewish people. Our topic today is healing divided societies.
Speaker 1 00:01:14 Victory of Joe Biden has angered one phase of America's internal schism, but the deep wounds that have turned America into two effectively warring societies, mutually hostile to each other's culture and politics remain open. And on the 10th last week, we marked the 25th anniversary of the assassination of prime minister. <inaudible> we in Israel are going through a new cycle of internal unrest. There are even warnings of another political murder this time from the far right against anti Natania demonstrators. Who've been attacked in the streets. Prime minister Netanyahu claims that his life is being threatened by incitement from the left. Meanwhile, though, the violence is coming from his supporters in America. Acute anxiety is linger after a summer of violence. Many Americans are bracing for further social upheaval Neal. How worried are you about violence in Israel in America? And what differences do you see? What similarities do you see between our two societies?
Speaker 2 00:02:31 I am worried about violence. I don't know which society I'm more worried about, but I'll start in Israel. One of the great dangers that we face here is that every group assumes that the one who's at fault, the one where there's a danger is the other side exclusively. And as a result, doesn't do any internal analysis, any internal hedge fund, nefesh, or assessment of what's wrong in my society. You spoke about you suck Robin. We completely the murder of his son, Robin, as a growth moment in Israeli society, because we pointed fingers. You did it, your group did it. And no group said one second is that danger. Is that a potential inherited my society? So whenever there is such profound hatred and animosity, and there is no self-reflection about the way I am conducting the conversation, but it's only about the other one when that's the language dangerous, inherent, because the only way to avoid dangerous to assume that within my community, that danger is also possible. And then you do something, you do something to uprooted or to minimize it. We are in the mode of protecting ourselves from the dangerous of the other, rather than asking what responsibilities I have at this moment. And when that happens, we've lost a core check and balance for moral behavior. Now, without being in America, I sense that same, that same mode of how do I protect myself, the dangerous outside. And when that happens, political violence is, is this close.
Speaker 1 00:04:09 Now, when you speak to friends who are in the Biden camp or the opposite, each group can make a compelling argument about why they have a right to feel existentially threatened no less that debated America, which which really reminds me of Israel of the nineties has become existential. Now, how do we get to the point where we can help people who truly feel really can make a compelling case for why they're right to feel that way? How do you help people step out of themselves and not just see their own fears, but also the fears or the aspirations for that matter of the other side, because that's, what's missing today. It's so much a political discourse.
Speaker 2 00:05:01 So you're, you're just pointing out why the dangers even greater, not only are we not doing the Hedgeable nefesh, the question of what do I have to correct? The other one is not just threatening me with violence. He or she is threatening by sight.
Speaker 1 00:05:16 It's my America, my Israel is under threat.
Speaker 2 00:05:20 Now, when that happens and you don't assume the potential of violence within your community, this is a just war. It's a war of self-defense when you can even use that language, how to heal. I think that's one of the great challenges of our time. You'll see, I would pose this in general and, and let's try to figure out how do we do this in Israeli society? How do we break down the core assessment that the other is an existential danger? Is there any space to begin a process of differentiating? For example, my politics are an important, but there is an politician who happens to be prime minister of Israel for quite a while, who I, who I profoundly disagree with when somebody starts, you'll see that he's an existential danger we're lost, but I know for example, that I don't see prime minister Netanyahu was an existential danger for Israel.
Speaker 2 00:06:14 And one of the reasons why I don't see him as such is that for over five years, I have a bit actually publicly said good things about him. I've pointed out where he's helping. So I tried to get to a place where I don't present it as an existential danger. It could be that it's too early and I don't want to get to American politics. And whether it applies, but overall, if Republicans and Democrats, if people on the political right in Israel or the political left in Israel cannot fulfill that mitzvah of saying something positive about the other. Then you can't heal our societies. Yes, you can't.
Speaker 1 00:06:54 It's interesting because one of the sources of the problem today is that people are no longer being exposed to media. That gives them a nuanced perspective. They're only reading or listening to media that reinforced their preexisting, uh, rage and angst. So for example, we all know the problem with Fox news, but in the last year, the New York times has not run a single op ed by someone explaining why he or she is voting for Trump. Now that's 48% of the country has had no place on the APIC page of America's most important newspaper. As a former journalist, I find that offensive. I find that a blow to the integrity of my profession. And you know, when I became an Israeli, I moved here in the summer of 1982. When you were fighting in Lebanon, I was trying to become an Israeli. And because I had come to Israel at the lowest point up until then in our internal relations, we were tearing ourselves apart.
Speaker 1 00:07:59 Not only did war, no longer unite us, but it was the war that was dividing us. I mean, you remember that summer reservists would return their equipment after their tour of duty and go as a group to the prime minister's office to demonstrate we'd never experienced anything like that. And, and I realized that am going to need to start paying careful attention to what both sides are saying, because that was my way of becoming a responsible Israeli. And so I started reading two magazines. I took subscriptions to two magazines. One was Nick who dad, the magazine of the settlement movement. And the other was a co-curator sheet. The magazine of knock-on Barnea, which was quite left. And I would read the same events filtered through these opposing States of consciousness. And that's, that's how I became an Israeli by internalizing the left right schism. So you've
Speaker 2 00:08:56 Given another Halla. One Halla could be force yourself to find something on the other side that you could say something positive about. Now I've took it upon myself to do it in the case of Netanyahu. And actually once I did that, I found it not so difficult because while I disagreed with him, there were tremendously positive things. He did. Whether a person could do that about Donald Trump or not, I'm going to leave to America side, but to do so about Republicans, to force yourself, to see another perspective, find something that's one Halla. Now the second hella is make sure that you read or access information that doesn't reinforce your positions alone.
Speaker 1 00:09:36 I would sharpen it by saying, find the columnist whose opinions you completely disagree with, but who is the smartest articulator of that position and read that person
Speaker 2 00:09:49 Right now, will this overnight heal the societies? No, it's, it's a process. It's a way to walk. Hello is awake to walk.
Speaker 1 00:09:58 What about leadership? What's the responsibility of leadership.
Speaker 2 00:10:02 You know, here we get really stuck very often. Very often. I find that when we go to leadership, it's about excusing ourselves from our responsibility. And so I actually don't like to talk about leadership. Again, it's a form of not taking ownership over my own problems. I believe that our leaders deeply reflect our society. So it would be very easy for me to say, our leaders should speak differently and all of the above leadership could heal. But if it's not, it's our job as a society to take responsibility to heal. I think our leaders play on what we want to hear. And I think therefore, I don't want to blame the leadership.
Speaker 1 00:10:43 How about rabbis, Jewish community leaders?
Speaker 2 00:10:47 Okay. That level of leadership I take responsibility for the rabbit is precarious because our constituents, they want us to be the new site that they exclusively listened to. So how does a rabbi personify precisely that complexity, which we want our community to personify. And I would say, be explicit about it, explain what you're doing. I think at this moment, both in Israel and North America, both of our societies recognize that we can continue this way. We recognize this is not sustainable. So when people recognize that it's not sustainable, I think there's an openness to something. And I think leadership has the possibility of stepping forward and modeling. I think being explicit about it and modeling what it is that they're doing and inviting people to that higher ground.
Speaker 1 00:11:39 Beautiful. Let me suggest two more. Hallahan here. The first is reflecting on one's own camps, shortcomings failures, and the other is to take a deep breath, step back and separate politics from theology. Politics is not infallible. Politics is not total on Missy NY and what's happened as we've lost our faith in revelation. We've transferred some of that infallibility to our political opinions. And that I think is partly responsible for the inability of people to self-reflect politics has become, uh, an Annie mommy. This is what I believe. It's an article of faith.
Speaker 2 00:12:30 It's really interesting. So on that article of faith, and we spoke about this in the past, our tradition even says on articles of faith, these in these are the words of the living. God, even when it is an article of faith, there are more than one legitimate way to live.
Speaker 1 00:12:45 Good luck explaining that to a Biden and Trump supporters.
Speaker 2 00:12:49 No, but I think it goes back to what you're saying. You know, we're all aware of the tenor of the debate, both in Israel and North America, even though it was personal about the persona of who was going to lead, et cetera, there was a very deep sense that the future of my country is, is on the line. And when that's the case, it's very hard to say these, and these are the words of living. God, I wish it was theological. That's why it's so critical to find places where even if a certain person you might believe is of critical significance, that you find a place where you could say, not every disagreement, not everything is an existential issue. And the ability to reach that space, I think is a key factor for the potential of healing.
Speaker 1 00:13:36 Where does the role of empathy come in? Can empathy be drawn on when you are feeling existentially threatened? Can you feel empathy for the other side that is existentially threatened? I would say that <inaudible> really love for the Jewish people in all of its maddening. Complexity is something that I'm able to draw on to help force me to try to understand the other camp that I feel is threatening my wellbeing or straightening the wellbeing of the Jewish people. The harder move is when I step outside of the Jewish people. And I've been having, as you know, I've been having conversations with Palestinians for the last two years, and that's more difficult conversations about our mutually exclusive narratives, which go to the root of our legitimacy. And what I find is that I'm able to step out of myself to some extent, if I feel I have someone listening to me when I feel that that it's all one way, my capacity for empathy shuts down. And so there needs to be some minimal reciprocity. Now I'm willing to make that first step, but if there isn't a reciprocal step, my ability to continue to dredge out empathy for myself, becomes more and more limited.
Speaker 2 00:15:04 Is there a way to de existential lies our ideological differences and the more we're able to do so without becoming power of, or without becoming non-ideological how do we have serious ideological intellectual debates without becoming existential? I think that's where the Hallas that we speak about are, are so critical. How do we de existentialist these debates? Because as long as everything is existential, it's all self-defense.
Speaker 1 00:15:34 So Danielle let's turn what you've just said into another helicopter. And that is that one needs to be very careful about indulging in an existential language. Now that one's hard for me. You know, I grew up in a Holocaust survivor home, and existential language was what we had for breakfast. So this really is a, it's a tough one, but people need to ask themselves 10 times before they identify an individual or a rival camp as an existential threat. I will try to adopt that.
Speaker 2 00:16:12 But for it to be a hallah, there has to be something that you have to do. So there has to be a way of preventing you from getting there. There has to be certain words you don't use,
Speaker 1 00:16:23 You don't refer to millions of people in the other political camp. For example, as deplorables, that's not going to advance civic.
Speaker 2 00:16:33 Of course, that would be correct.
Speaker 1 00:16:36 We're going to take a short break. And when we return, a lot of Stein, Hain will be joining us.
Speaker 3 00:16:45 Hi, my name is Alana Stein, Hain, and I'm scholar in residence and director of faculty at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America. I want to tell you about a series of talks. I'll be giving over the next few months called Talmud from the balcony. Me from the balcony is an occasional series that exposes big ideas, questions, and issues, motivating rabbinic discussions. Our theme for the upcoming sessions will be beyond the limits of law, repairing the fabric of society as a society. We rely upon unspoken norms of behavior and responsibility, and yet few of these norms are legally enforceable. I'll be delving into the ways the rabbis address this gap between law and character to register for one or more of the talks, go to our website, Shalom hartman.org, and look in our Hartman at home calendar for Tama, from the balcony. Thank you. And looking forward,
Speaker 1 00:17:41 Allana. Welcome. Good to be here. What words from our tradition do you have to help us deepen understanding
Speaker 2 00:17:50 Of the process of healing?
Speaker 3 00:17:52 Well, before I get to words from our tradition, I want to add one Halla. If I can, which is to return to first principles. I think the conversation that's going on in America is a question of what is our shared narrative to what degree is democracy and its institutions. Part of that shared narrative, to what degree is the difference between truth and falsehood. Part of that shared narrative and to what degree is science and scientific research, part of that shared narrative. And what that means is not simply asserting that somebody else is not doing what they should, but asking what that shared narrative demands of all of us, which means if you care about the difference between truth and falsehood, you care when you're saying something false, not only when somebody else is saying something false. So there's a lot of work to be done there that return to first principles is deep in the American conversation right now,
Speaker 2 00:18:43 But you love it just as I hear you, correct me if I'm wrong. Each one of the examples were the examples of the first principles that so-called the right wing is not accepting. So aren't you reinforcing the whole problem. Are there first principles that you believe Democrats or your camp is violated? Because if they're first principles is about the other person changing.
Speaker 3 00:19:05 Yeah. I actually think that when it comes to democracy, as well as truth and falsehood, there are first principles. It's both sides. You have to ask yourself why you're saying that when Hillary Clinton didn't win, you wish the electors and the electoral college would just flip, but when Trump doesn't win, Oh, it's anti-democratic that they would flip. You have to ask yourself whether truth and falsehood means being fully transparent about what you say when you're critiquing another perspective and what you just add in, because you think that'll add some, I don't know, fuel to your side of the debate. Science is something else, but I think that democracy and truth and falsehood, and I do think that there are good people on both sides who want to see the distinction between truth and falsehood restored and the institutions of democracy restored. And they have to work together.
Speaker 3 00:19:57 They told her that I want to bring in here is I want to talk about a term that shows up throughout the Bible in 10 off in interesting places. And that term is Yad. Ramaz a raised up hand and I'm going to get right to it by looking at some verses in the book of bummy. Debar in the book of numbers, chapter 15, that's discussing what happens when an individual transgresses and it says the following. And then when I read it for my excellent Seinfeld translation here, if one person will sin unwittingly, that person will present a female goat in its first year as a sin offering the priest shall atone for the unwitting person. When that person sends unwillingly before God, to a tone for that person, and it will be forgiven. So that's when a person sends unwittingly now to verse nine, just know that it applies to the native of the children of Israel.
Speaker 3 00:20:50 And also it applies to the stranger verse 30. What about the person who acts high handedly beyond Ramallah, whether they are a native or a stranger, that person is blessed feeding the Lord. And that person shall be excised shall be cut off from among their people, because that person has scorned the word of the Lord violated God's commandments. That person will be excised. Their iniquity is upon them. Now it seems to be that there is a difference between when someone sins, unwittingly, and when someone sins with a high hand, so to speak with a raised hand. And w what does it mean when a person sends with a raised hand and that person should be excised? There's no core bond. There's no sacrifice. You can give you can't fix it. What did you do so wrong that you have to be excised? Now, remember, this is in the context, not just of any sin, a deeply ideological sin, idolatry.
Speaker 3 00:21:48 Yeah. Is the context. And the commentators discuss, you know, Rashi suggests maybe high-handed means you're premeditated, but I'm actually more compelled for our moment by people who suggest that high hands means you're being exhibitionist. You're being demonstrative. I want to stick it to people. What we call in, tell me language law office, or in regular, everyday parlance law office. I'm trying to make somebody angry. I'm trying to show them and demonstrate that they do not have power over me. In this case, it is a person trying to demonstrate that God and the entire tourist system does not have power over them. Yad Ramana, a raised hand, an exhibitionist hands is what I am seeing on both sides right now in the political discourse. It is about sticking it to the deplorables. It's about sticking it to the libs, whatever it is, it has to be very clear that I am rejecting your power over me.
Speaker 3 00:23:00 And at the same time, when we look at this term, this very same term, which here in balmy bar 15 is so negative. It's so problematic. Know there are other places this term is used. I'll give you a very prominent example. Exodus chapter 14, verse eight, the book of Shemot and God hardened the heart of pero King of Egypt. And he pero pursued after the children of Israel for the children of Israel, went out left Egypt. You got it. Be Adorama with a high hand, and with a hand raised exhibitionist, righteous demonstration of who we are and what we believe in. And what's right. So I actually think that yod Roma in its ideological context has such depth for us in this moment, because on the one hand, many people who are standing up and being defiant, what they're trying to show is my ideology matters. The values matter. I'm walking out of Egypt with a high hand, but what the other side sees is you're just trying to do things. Lassis, you're just trying to do things to spite me. And it it's the self-same when it's yours, you're walking Viagra Mount of Egypt. But when it's somebody else they're committing a Yad Vermont against you. And that's how I'm seeing it so far in our discourse.
Speaker 2 00:24:33 Wouldn't that then be tragic or it's inevitably tragic because I'm obligated to be BI drama. Since it's such a deep ideological statement, I want to express my ideology. So how do I overcome my ideological passion?
Speaker 3 00:24:49 Let me give you one more instance of Yad Ramat for a second. Just to shape this a little bit. You have yet Roma elsewhere as well. The book of Mihai, Micah, chapter five, verse eight. I don't know about you, but we didn't learn the book of Mihai Micah in school, but you know what
Speaker 2 00:25:05 We should should've, that's the best we should have.
Speaker 3 00:25:08 I really, really should have in my adult life, I come back to fewer tenacity books, fewer biblical books than me, Huffer. It's incredible visions of what society should actually look like. And in me, you have this verse short verse, let your hand God be lifted up Tyrone, yet TOK, same thing you Ramah against whom your adversaries and let all your enemies be cut off. Yod where I'm at is not for the people of your community. YAG Ramana is for your adversaries. We need to figure out a way to compellingly, discuss our visions, our narratives, our values, that is not about proving that someone else doesn't have a hold on us is not about trying to get someone else's blood to boil is not about vanquishing that's for your enemies. And I think that to me is what pulls you back from being exhibitionist for exhibitionist sake.
Speaker 3 00:26:15 I'll give you an example. There were people dancing in the streets in Midtown Manhattan on Shabbat. How do I know? I don't need to watch the news to know that all I had to do was be sitting with my kids in my house and here cheering outside. I said, Oh, they called it for Biden. Got it. Those people who are dancing in the street, dancing the streets, show what you care about. That's fantastic. But people who turn that as expletives on the other side, people who turned that into a spit in the face of someone, that's a problem. That's what you do to your enemy. That's not what you do to the people with whom you're trying to build a society.
Speaker 1 00:26:56 There's a deeper question here. And that is who is heart of my society, what we're seeing happening in America. And, and to some extent in Israel as well, raises the question of whether these national identities that we take for granted are really artificial constructs. Am I building a society together with ultra Orthodox Israelis? I'm not sure. Ask the people dancing in the streets, outside her window. Are you building the same society with Trump supporters? You may not get the answer you're hoping for. And so what this moment is really raising is a very basic question about how do you determine, how do you define who is part of me and who is, who is extraneous to me
Speaker 3 00:27:50 As I was thinking about this whole experience. I'm so reminded yesterday of what you said in our podcasts a few months ago, I guess at this point where you said, we need to renew the covenant with the ultra Orthodox in Israel, there's something covenantal that's broken there. And this is why I go back to first principles. I want to try to figure out, are there some basic first principles that people can agree with, even if they're pushing against each other, in terms of how they're going to use those principles as tools to get to the kind of society that they want to see. You know, someone said to me the other day, this was fantastic. It was actually, I think it was somebody who was a listener on this podcast, or maybe at our civic symposium. He says, you know, it should be the Yankees versus the Mets, not the Yankees versus the southerners, right? I'm a Mets fan. So if you ask me, it should never be the Yankees, but that's its own problem. But there's something to the idea that we're all playing in the same game, which means we share rules. Fundamentally, we share something and I want to try to figure out what that is. I want people to work on what that is and if that is okay,
Speaker 2 00:28:58 I share what you're saying, Yolanda. And I don't think it's as broken. You'll see, as you say it is because when president elect Biden beautifully says there are no red States and are no blue States. There's only the United States, his audience, cheers. You use the word <inaudible> you know that what corrects you, your claim and obligation of loyalty. I think there still is that clay that's maybe what he learned is talking about getting back to first principles. There are principles that everybody recognize this. This is the United States. This is the state of Israel. There is something that's gotten broken. The question is whether we're going to number one, articulate those principles and not assume them because when assume them they disappear. And then how do we act using your example of Yatra? My Ilana? How do we act in such a way that we don't turn the other into an enemy?
Speaker 2 00:29:52 One of the reasons why I love Halawa has its pluses and minuses, but when you regulate behavior, this is famous principle. That what you feel is influenced by how you act not the opposite. It's a leap of action changes the way you feel. And if you change the way you behave, maybe we could start getting rid of some of those layers that are covering our first principles and get back to a certain level of healing. Because right now, of course, that's the problem. We can't heal our society. If we're acting in such a way that we're not a society act in such a way that the other can have a truth act in such a way that you could see limitations of your own change, the way you over idealize your opinion, act in such a way that you're aware of how the other one sees you and don't treat them like your enemy. Those are all practical ways of changing the core assumption. You'll see, are we a community? Are we not a community?
Speaker 1 00:30:49 So a time hopefully for healing for heaven's sake is a product that the Shalom Hartman Institute, it was forgiveness by Coleman and edited by Tolli Cohen. Our managing producer is Dan Friedman and music is provided by some call to learn more about the Shalom Hartman Institute. Visit us
[email protected]. We want to know what you think about the show and you can write to us at, for heaven sake, Chellam Hartman, subscribe to our show in the Apple podcast, app, Spotify, and everywhere else that podcasts are available. Thank you all.
