You write in the book that Israeli society has become more traditional in the last few decades and, in that vein, you relate the story of Uri Zohar and Arik Einstein. What is that story?
Arik Einstein was kind of the godfather of the Israeli rock and roll scene, and Uri Zohar, his closest friend, was a film director and comedian. They were both completely secular Jews. At a certain point, though, Uri Zohar begins to become a chozer b’teshuvah. He is the first secular person to put on a kippah on Israeli television and people are kind of shocked. And then he becomes completely frum. He leaves the world of entertainment and becomes a rabbi, and two of his kids, who are frum, marry two of Arik Einstein’s kids, who had also become frum.
So this is an extreme version of the story, but there’s definitely been a reengagement of Jewish people of all different walks of life with the Jewish tradition. Even if they’re not observant, you see lots of people turning back to the Jewish tradition looking for meaning, looking to reencounter the great texts of the Jewish people.
In the book you refer several times to Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank; you even title one of your chapters “The Burden of Occupation.” Why use a word that many regard as an implicit admission that Israel’s retention of the West Bank is both immoral and illegal?
It’s an excellent question. I wanted this book to be able to speak especially to people who have grown hostile to Israel, and if a book review says the book doesn’t even use the word “occupation,” nobody left of center is going to touch it. They’re going to write it off as a right-wing screed.
By the same token, I put things in the book that are going to annoy the Left. I make it very clear, for example, that I think that some of the tragedy of what happened in ‘48 to the Palestinians was probably necessary for Israel to survive. I also point out that the conflict has been perpetuated by the Arabs. I’m very clear about that. So the book, because it’s aimed right down the middle, is going to annoy people on the Left and on the Right. What I wanted it to do, though, was create a conversation.
Is that also why you write in the book that Israel committed some “brutal acts” during the War of Independence and that it is “heartbreaking” that Arabs had to flee their homes during that same war?
No, I included that because it’s true. In other words, I think that being a Zionist should not mean you’re blind to the suffering of people on the other side of the conflict. I believe they’re responsible for the conflict, but when you see women and children walking out of a village with their possessions swung over their shoulders, I think a fundamental Jewish orientation requires that you have a sense of pathos.
Why, though, as a Jew, focus on your enemy’s suffering? If you were an American writing about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, for example, you could choose to focus on the bomb winning the war for America or you could choose to focus on the bomb’s radiation melting the skin off the bodies of the Japanese…
…Or you could choose to focus on both. I would say that people who do not do both are not intellectually honest, and to me intellectual honesty is critically important. I think the greatness of Judaism is it embraces complexity.