"Do Not Break Down..."

Rabbi Joshua Heller
Congregation B’nai Torah
rabbi@bnaitorah.org

Delivered by Rabbi Joshua Heller, Saturday July 15th, 2006 parashat Pinchas

The Jewish calendar speaks with a unique and profound rhythm. Throughout our history, we have experienced cycles of sorrow and joy, of exile and return. Santayana somehow went wrong- even though we have learned the lessons of history, we are still doomed to repeat them. This cyclic nature of Jewish history plays a rich role in our history. It also provides us with many opportunities to say "I told you so."

On July 13th, we observed the 17th of Tammuz, which commemorates sad events of almost 2600 years ago- the Babylonians besieged the city of Jerusalem, and on that date, they broke down of the outer wall. The three weeks that follow in the Jewish calendar have a mournful quality, no haircuts, and weddings and other festivities are generally deferred. We read three special Haftorahs of warning and despair. The final nine days are particularly mournful- we don’t eat meat or drink wine. This period culminates in Tisha B'av, a fast day and the saddest day on the Jewish calendar, which commemorates the final stage of the destruction, the burning of the Temple in Jerusalem and the fall of Jewish sovereignty.

Last year at this time, during these three weeks, we stood on the eve of the withdrawal from Gaza. It was a deeply painful experience in the history of the Jewish people. Many times we have been exiled or fled, but this departure was particularly hard to bear, since it was done of our own free will . We gave up homes, farms and fields, places where people had made their lives, and for what? Yet again, the boundaries and borders are broken. Yet again, the fires burn. The bombs and rockets fly: to the Negev, to the Galilee, even to Haifa. While we sat down to our Shabbat meals- they hunkered down in bunkers and shelters. Now what?

There are a few questions that we must ask. One question that comes to mind is whether this is a time to play “I told you so”- whether this was the most predictable outcome of that painful withdrawal last year. For an answer, we can look to the Haftorah portion which we read the Shabbat of Pinchas, which is taken from the first chapter of the book of Jeremiah. My college, Rabbi Eddie Romm at the Conservative Yeshiva in Israel, brought this passage to my attention (Jeremiah 1:17)

O you, gird up your loins,
Arise and speak to them
All that I command you.
Do not break down before them,
Lest I break you before them.

Rabbi Romm notes that this is a strange passage. One might have expected for God to say not to fear, that even if the prophet were to stumble or break down that God would support him. Indeed, some commentators, like Rashbam, stretch the text to imply this explanation. Others, like Kimchi, read the text in a more plain sense: it is as if God is threatening Jeremiah. If he shows weakness before the people, then God would break His own prophet!

I’m reminded of an article that I read recently in the New Yorker about Cesar Milan, the "Dog Whisperer.” He has trained some of the most vicious dogs- dogs that had attacked their owners, children, other dogs- and subdued their violent tendencies. His secret was to see their signs, act like part of the pack and establish dominance- to show that you are not a threat, so long as you are not threatened, but also not to let them think for a moment that you are their prey.

In other words, if you put on a bold front, you may be protected by it, but once you show fear or weakness, you are open to attack. It’s perhaps another version of FDR’s famous guidance: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”

For Israel, dealing with her enemies, there is value in this advice. “Do not break down before them… because you will be broken” they will see any lack of resolve as a sign of weakness, as an opening.

So, then, was the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, and the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon earlier in the decade the mistakes which made these attacks an inevitability? Could this situation have been avoided?

Yossi Klein Halevi, a prominent Israeli journalist, wrote a very insightful piece about this question. He feels that both the doves and the hawks were mistaken. There were, perhaps, some left-wingers who thought that unilateral withdrawal would lead to peace breaking out. The lion would lay down with the lamb!

As it turns out, in our world the lion is still more likely to sit down with lamb chops. Indeed, Israel could withdraw not just from Gaza, not just from Hebron, not even from Tel Aviv, and it wouldn’t bring peace. Israel could withdraw all the way to the frozen food case at Sabra market, and they would attack from the parking lot and demand withdrawal back to the schwarma counter!

On the other hand, the right-wingers who were opposed to withdrawal were wrong as well. They felt that the withdrawal would be seen as a sign of weakness, and would put Israel at a strategic disadvantage, inviting further attacks. Indeed, our enemies may have chosen to see weakness, but it was not a strategic disadvantage. The last 25 years of the Arab/Israeli conflict have been fought much more in the realm of public relations rather than on the battlefield. As an “occupier” Israel would always be at a disadvantage in the war of words. By establishing clear international borders, Israel can now treat these attacks as what they truly are, acts of international war, if not terrorism, and can respond in kind, with military might, in a forum where our weapons are superior. While fighting a two-front war is difficult, it is much easier than trying to hold onto that territory and defend civilians living there. Perhaps these attacks and the escalation that followed were indeed an unavoidable consequence of the withdrawal, but if so, then they a necessary step towards a resolution of the conflict. It is only when one of the side brings all of its resources to bear and is still unsuccessful that there can be the possibility of resolution.

Meanwhile, the battlefield of world opinion has taken on a different cast. Indeed, there are some signs which are heartening. While the coverage from CNN and the Journal-Constitution has been disappointingly misleading at best, there are some notable gaps in the normal blanket condemnations. For example, you read about the Saudi Arabian state-controlled press, never a friend of Israel, criticizing Hizbollah: "These elements should bear the responsibility for their irresponsible actions and they alone should end the crisis they have created. They (the elements) are exposing Arab nations and their gains to grave dangers without these nations having a say in the matter,”

Of course, I suppose we could also ask a practical and moral question- whatever one thinks of withdrawal, is Israel’s current response appropriate? Is it ever right to fight fire with fire? In fact, we know that sometimes a wildfire is put out by setting another fire in front of it to burn out its fuel, and indeed dynamite is often used to put out oil well fires. I’m reminded of a joke that is told about an oil well fire somewhere in the Middle East- all of the big firms drive up to a safe distance, and decide that they won’t touch it, but a small Israeli company makes an absurdly low offer over the phone. The well owners agree, and so a beat-up old truck comes racing right towards the well and careens practically into the middle of the fire. A few men toss in the dynamite as they scurry out of the flames. Indeed, the dynamite explosion blows out the fire. Afterwards, they are asked what they will do with the money. “Well, the first thing we will do is fix the brakes on our truck.” Often in the muddled Middle East, one gets much deeper into an inflammatory situation than one might like, and sometimes fighting fire with fire is the only answer.

The Torah portion this past week addresses this question. The Moabites and Midianites conspire to lead the Israelites into immoral behavior. The Israelite leadership is unable to respond, until Pinchas, a grandson of Aaron the Priest, takes the law into his own hands by slaying one of the Israelites and the woman who led him astray. Our tradition usually frowns on vigilantism, and yet we are told that God approved of his behavior, and offered him a covenant of peace. Indeed- if the community, whether it be the community of individuals, or the world community, is not prepared to respond to evil, sometimes we must respond unilaterally.

A deeper aspect of this question: why does God offer a covenant of peace after a violent act? Why not a covenant of revenge, of violence, of revenge? The commentators suggest different answers. Perhaps it is a covenant of peace as a sign that Pinchas will be spared from further recriminations or retaliation from the relatives of those whom he slew. And indeed, protection from escalation, a stopping of the misnamed “cycle of violence” is something that we pray for.

Other commentators note that a priest who has killed someone accidentally is no longer allowed to serve in the Temple. Even if he was not wrong in doing so, having committed a violent act disqualifies him in the eyes of others, and he needs a special dispensation, a covenant of peace Perhaps you could see this interpretation as a hope that others will be able to perceive Israel’s response in the right way. Others note that we are affected by our actions. Even in our own internal mental process, we are changed by acts of violence that we are forced to commit, and so God offers Pinchas a covenant of peace because he needs healing and peace from the effects of his own actions, no matter how justified they may have been. And indeed, we hope that all those who are forced to fight are able to find equanimity and peace, and the courage to be able to seek only protection and justice, and not revenge.

We also must not fail to consider the root cause of this entire crisis, which will go neglected in most media reports. I’m reminded of the house which has a sign on the front lawn “Never mind the dog: beware of owner.”

This all goes back to Iran and to a lesser extent, Syria. Iran is who funds Hizbollah, and that's where Hizbullah are trying to get their captives to. Iran is where Ron Arad, and Israeli who was captured 20 years ago, probably still is- or at least his remains. This “Northern front” opened just as the West began to get serious about Iran’s nuclear program, which unlike that of other countries whose names begin with Ira, is not a topic of conjecture. It clearly documented and proudly displayed, and is moreover a threat not just to Israel, but to American interests throughout the world. We cannot allow the war with Hizbullah to be a smokescreen shielding this threat. Rather it is the smoking gun.

Throughout history, we have suffered much. These three weeks of the Jewish calendar remind us that the cycles of Jewish history contain many downturns. Indeed, it could be that we are entering one, and that indeed, the next few years will be difficult, full of bloodshed. On the other hand, even at a dark hour we can find signs of hope. We have seen the full strength of the enemy and we can defeat them when the weapons are tanks and rockets. The battle of peace will more difficult. Let us be strong and without fear as we remember the words of Jeremiah, words of warning and sadness, but also of hope:

17 So you, gird up your loins,
Arise and speak to them
All that I command you.
Do not break down before them,
Lest I break you before them.
18 I make you this day
A fortified city,
And an iron pillar,
And bronze walls
Against the whole land--

19 They will attack you,
But they shall not overcome you;
For I am with you--declares the Lord--to save you.