fbpx

Analysis

Fathom | State and religion in Israel

[ssba]

Elazar Stern is an Israeli politician and former soldier. He served as a Major General in the IDF and as Head of the Manpower Directorate. In 2013, he became a member of the Knesset for Hatnuah, and currently serves as an MK for the centrist Yesh Atid party led by Yair Lapid. He spoke to Fathom assistant editor Samuel Nurding on 31 January 2017 about the contested relationship between state and religion in Israel.

Samuel Nurding: The trial of Elor Azaria has divided Israel and prompted debate about traditional Israel Defence Forces (IDF) values. Some fear the IDF is losing its traditional role as an above-politics institution that erodes divisions in Israeli society, instead becoming a cultural battleground for different conceptions of what it means to be Jewish/Israel. In addition, you yourself have discussed the widening gap between the political Left and Right in Israel, arguing that values that were previously shared have now become the preserve of one or the other. What did you mean by this?

Elazar Stern: I don’t think we should have to make a choice between whether one’s identity prioritises Jewish over Israeli or Israeli over Jewish. I am both and there is no conflict between them. And I believe Israel does not have either the right to exist nor will it be able to survive in the Middle East if it loses either its Jewish or democratic character. What frightens me most about the future of the state is that in less than a decade there will no longer be any Holocaust survivors or early Zionist pioneers alive, and if we don’t succeed in defining what it means to be Jewish to our kids, regardless of whether they define themselves as religious or not, then we won’t be able to survive in the region.

The involvement of civil society in the Azaria trial was unprecedented. This is due to the status of the IDF in Israeli society as the most popular institution, unfortunately even more popular than the Supreme Court or Knesset. Everyone has been a soldier, so everyone has an appreciation of what it entails to serve one’s country. The problem for the IDF stems from its complicated mission in the West Bank, where the political Right thinks that being patriotic is only its preserve, and being in favour of human rights belongs to the political Left. This isn’t correct. Being a patriot doesn’t just belong to the Right and a commitment to the concept of tohar haneshek, the purity of arms, doesn’t just belong to the Left. Unfortunately in Israel the Left blames the Right for incitement and the Right believes the Left doesn’t love the country. Before I rewrote the IDF code of ethics, it did not include the words ‘love of Israel’ because people associated these words with supporting the settlement movement.

At the same time almost all of the supporters of Azaria belong to the Right and it was clear that they opposed the value we have traditionally placed on purity of arms. How has this happened? One should be able to be in favour of human rights and to be on the Right. Likewise, one should be ready to sacrifice one’s life to defend Israel and to belong to the Left. I’m standing against this dichotomy. Growing up Orthodox and as the child of Holocaust survivors I can tell you that the purity of arms belongs to all of us. Unfortunately, a few politicians have tried to make a political profit from the Azaria trial.

Read the full interview in Fathom.