Page 17 - Iton 10

non-Jews look at each other and laugh, "You don't hunt, because we don't let you own guns." The next
day those Jews leave for Jerusalem to build a society that has guns and yet doesn't hunt.

The violence in Gaza is not just an isolated conflict and we need to place it in historical
context. We need to share our knowledge and if we don't know we need to ask. We need
to seek out the historical complexity that weaves this conflict back in time to the 2nd
Lebanon war, disengagement, the second Intifada, Oslo, Rabin, the first Intifada, the 1st
Lebanon war, Begin, Yom Kippur, '67, and back and back. And we'll find that this conflict

dates back to the earliest chalutzim who took up arms to defend the new settlements.

But this whole history of conflict has even broader significance when placed in the scope of all of

Jewish history. It takes on a pretty challenging meaning when we recognize that this conflict has its
roots at the time when the Jewish people for the first time in 1800 years decided to create a sovereign
society. After the destruction of the Second Temple and the trauma of the failed Bar Kochba Rebellion,
the Jewish people turned to passivity, political quietism, and faith in order to survive. From the time of
Bar Kochba until the beginnings of Zionism, no Jewish collective took up arms to defend itself from any

foreign threat. Jewish communities kept themselves isolated and maintained a fierce grasp of tradition
while depending on the outside society for their self-defense. And as we well know, these arrangements
often broke down with disastrous results for the Jews.

Zionism sought to transform the Jewish people from passive objects of a history determined by others
or determined by faith in God, into the active determiners of their own destiny. They sought to create a
sovereign Jewish society. In the reality of this world, that means having an army and having guns and it
means facing conflict. And this brings us back to our humanity. We must ask ourselves as individuals and

as Jews, what is our response to the violent reality of conflict?

One option is to say that all violence is an affront to my humanity and so I refuse to be responsible for

any part of a violent conflict; sounds like a decent option. Non-violence and pacifism can be very
powerful tools and an individual may live an entire life by these codes and successfully avoid violence. But
even on the individual level it's not so simple: we may reject physical violence but do seek to turn away
from all conflict? How can I grow as an individual without facing conflict and asserting myself? And on

the collective level, if we take Jewish history seriously at all we must question whether a commitment to
collective non-violence requires too much faith in humanity and not enough faith in ourselves.

Another option is to say that violence is an inevitable part of the human condition and I gotta watch out
for myself - do what I gotta do to best manage that conflict. This is to me the mainstream view of the
Israeli public. Israel is in a conflict with Hamas, and it must strive to defeat the enemy. Moreover,
Hamas is just a small part of a radicalizing Muslim world that perpetuates a history of anti-Semitism
through it's constant scapegoating of Israel. Meanwhile enlightened Western Europe is no consolation.
So Israel will stand for itself and reverse the Jewish people's history of being a victim. But has Israel

really escaped the psychology of the victim? Or do we simply perpetuate victimization in others while at
the same time continuing to consider ourselves the eternal victims?

But there is a third option for humanity in the face of conflict: I recognize that violence is part of
reality but I refuse to believe that it is inevitable. I will face conflict soberly and responsibly,

and even use force when I deem necessary, but at the same time reaffirm my belief in the