Crucial to understanding the chareidi approach to this and
other issues is the distinction between practical issues and
ideological issues.
The reality is that many of the positions taken by secular
people are driven by ideologies that they subscribe to. If
the Left believes in the basic brotherhood of man and the
fundamental goodness of human nature, then it will be
willing to pursue plans that rest on these fundamental
assumptions. It will assume, for example (as the architects
of the Oslo Agreements assumed), that the conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians is an unnatural aberration, and
that if we reach an agreement at any cost and give it some
chance to establish itself and become a new "fact-of-life,"
we can create a "New Middle East" in which everyone will
live together in peace and harmony.
If one believes that at the bottom man is an economic
animal, then he will pursue a plan to develop the
infrastructure of Arab countries as the path to peace. As
Shimon Peres once wrote, "Hotels on borders could be a
better guarantee than military bases." In his famous 1993
book, The New Middle East, Peres wrote that the
Middle East will now unite to face "a common enemy: poverty"
which, he argued, is "the father of fundamentalism." It is
worth noting that the current events in Lebanon forcefully
belie this approach since Hizbullah attacked Israel at the
height of the Lebanese tourist season, when the conflict
will cause great damage to Lebanon's recently-recovered
industry.
Other approaches are motivated by an ideological —
almost a religious or perhaps anti-religious —
conviction that we can and must determine our own future.
The fact that the basis of these approaches is at its roots
ideological is reflected in the popular names given to them:
the Left and the Right. These are clearly terms that are
applied to ideologies and not just to practical
approaches.
If one casts it at the deep level of abstraction that is
common in modern discourse, the statement that the Jewish
People is in Golus is tantamount to the assertion that there
is a fundamental disconnect today between ideology and
reality, and that this will persist until bi'as Go'el
tzedek. The ideology is the ideal world presented in the
visions of the prophets such as Yeshayohu, when knowledge of
Hashem will fill the world. The reality of Golus is not
that. As long as this unfortunate state of alienation
persists, ideology cannot form the basis of policy. It
simply will not work. (This makes the Torah approach to
public policy radically different from that of all other
major world religions.)
On the other hand, that lack of ideological underpinning
does not prevent taking practical steps. On the contrary,
the freedom from ideological baggage makes a Torah approach
able to draw from all available resources and consider all
alternatives without prejudging any particular approach
because it promotes or defeats a particular ideology. Even
secular and anti-religious leaders are impressed by the
clarity and objectivity with which great rabbonim can view
the issues of the day when they solicit their views. It has
always been the Torah approach to approach the practical
problems vigorously and using any and every practical tool
available.
However we cannot say which of the known approaches the
Torah would favor. It may well be that a serious application
of Torah methodology would come up with an alternative that
is entirely new. Furthermore, no one is seriously soliciting
such an approach since none of the people who control
current policy seriously solicits a Torah approach to the
problems he faces. In cases where they have been forced by
circumstances to take a policy position, rabbonim have
emphasized that favoring one side does not mean favoring its
ideology. As we have written many times, we are never Right
or Left even when we favor one side for one reason or
another. Our basis is in our own approach to the world and
not in any secular ideology, chas vesholom.
Watching the political scene, with conditions that shift
radically in relatively short periods, we see clearly that
people's commitment to their ideologies is the strongest
part of their approach, even if they thrust forward their
practical analysis to convince opponents. The conviction
that all men basically want to be brothers, or that
economics is the fundamental force in human affairs, or that
we must control of our own fate — all these survive
severe changes in the facts on the ground. People take pride
in being practical, but in fact their fuel is ideology.
The recognition of the true Golus-state of the Jewish people
is a radically anti-ideology position, as we have pointed
out above. As such we can argue it on practical grounds and
do not need to buttress our position with any ideology
(which would in any case be self-contradictory).
If we can free our Jewish brethren of all their false
ideologies, perhaps they will be more open to hearing the
call: Hear the dvar Hashem, the House of Yaakov
and all of the families of Beis Yisroel.
(Yirmiyohu 2:1, Haftorah of Mattos-
Mass'ei)
