Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave an unusual press conference on Thursday evening in which he addressed the thorny issue of religious people serving in the military.
For 75 years, ultra-Orthodox males have been able to request exemptions if they are studying religion. That has, over time, been a source of resentment among other, secular (or even just regular Orthodox) members of the population, who have shouldered the military burden.
In fact, that resentment helped fuel the protests that, a year ago, sharply divided Israeli society. The secular-religious divide lay behind much of the political rancor.
So when defense minister Yoav Gallant announced earlier this week that Israel needed to start drafting religious people, due to the extreme demands on IDF manpower (and womanpower) during the ongoing war, that created the potential for an explosive domestic political situation, mid-conflict.
But as Netanyahu explained, there is probably enough political will for some kind of compromise. It won't be one that everyone likes: there is no "absolute agreement" except in North Korea, he said. But it will allow the military to continue to function well -- and will resolve the "social gap" in Israeli society.
If that actually comes together, it will be an incredibly positive thing, and one of the most important victories of the war. Perhaps only a war like this could move Israel to confront its internal cultural and religious divisions. But in doing so, Israel faces an opportunity for an incredible, even miraculous, national rebirth.
Just think of it: a year ago, ultra-religious and secular Israelis were arguing in the streets. (Well, it was more like secular people yelling at religious people.) Now, they could be serving together in uniform. People talk about shared suffering in crisis leading to transformation. This time it may really happen.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
