One cannot discuss pluralism in Israel-Palestine today without reference to the enduring conflict that consumes both societies. I want to present a new initiative that, in certain ways, offers a new approach to these issues: The Faithful Left (HaSmol HaEmuni), an Israeli group that seeks to advance a conciliatory approach to the conflict based upon, or connected to, a Jewish religious orientation. As they put it on their website, they are “a religious and faith-driven voice that stands for peace, justice, and equality.”
As is well known, the dominant Jewish religious voice in Israel is that of right-wing integral nationalism, which sacralizes the nation, national territory, and national history, and equates the national movement (Zionism) with the advent of Redemption. It is this movement of religious Zionism that initiated the settlement movement in the “Greater Land of Israel”—the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Gaza Strip—and continues to provide its theological legitimation. About 40 percent of Israeli settlers are affiliated with this movement. One of its ultimate aims is the legal and formal incorporation of these areas into Israel.
Over the years, a few religious Zionist initiatives have emerged that attempted to provide alternative interpretations of religious Zionism—more moderate, conciliatory, and open to territorial compromise and a two-state solution (under certain conditions). The Faithful Left is the latest of these initiatives, yet it differs from previous attempts in significant ways. I will discuss these differences and highlight their significance.
I begin with the nature of the activities undertaken by members of the Faithful Left and its affiliated organizations. (“The Faithful Left” denotes an umbrella framework encompassing several organizations.) As far as I understand, these activities are highly concrete and involve significant engagement with Palestinian communities. The most prominent example is “Protective Presence”—being physically present, witnessing and monitoring attacks on Palestinian villages by extremist Israeli Jewish settlers and “hilltop youth,” and providing aid and support when needed, including, to some degree, physically shielding Palestinians.
This activity takes place within Palestinian villages and encampments and is conducted in both Arabic and Hebrew. Some prominent members of the Faithful Left speak fluent Arabic and maintain constant contact with Palestinians.This kind of activity contrasts sharply with the type of activity that characterized the classical Israeli “peace camp” that negotiated the Oslo Accords. That activity consisted primarily of high-level diplomacy conducted in English and taking place in Jerusalem and Ramallah, as well as in Washington and Geneva. The religious wing of the peace camp mirrored these characteristics. It was led by a small number of well-known rabbis, politicians, and intellectuals, and consisted largely of intra-Jewish discussions concerning theology, biblical interpretation, and related issues, as well as debates over borders, demography, and similar questions. There was almost no contact with Palestinians, and hardly anyone spoke Arabic.
This difference in activity is accompanied by organizational differences. As indicated, the Faithful Left is not a formal organization. Its members describe it as a “stream.” By this they mean that it aspires to become one of the autonomous lifestyle groupings that populate Israeli Jewish society: “the secular,” the traditionalists (Masoratim), the ultra-Orthodox (Haredim), and the religious Zionists.
This contrasts with previous religious “dovish” initiatives, which situated themselves firmly within the religious Zionist camp. As one prominent dovish intellectual put it in a meeting I attended: “We pray and socialize in the same synagogues as right-wing religious Zionists, and our children attend the same schools and youth movements; we are one community.” In all probability, such sectoral loyalty made these initiatives less effective than they might otherwise have been, since the dovish groups refrained from “offending” their right-wing counterparts.
The Faithful Left wants none of this. It is neither strictly “religious” nor strictly “Zionist.” Rather, it is open and elastic on both counts. It conceives of both categories as spectra, allowing individuals to position themselves as they wish. Thus, at a recent weekend gathering, some participants observed the Sabbath strictly while others openly smoked cigarettes. The activists of the Faithful Left are very young—between nineteen and thirty-five—and this elasticity reflects the broader unwillingness of younger Israelis to understand identity categories in traditional binary terms. As one activist remarked to me, “Some of the hilltop youth [whom they oppose] also smoke on the Sabbath.” Yet this elasticity also reflects something deeper: a declaration of independence from their parents and educational institutions. In many of the Sabbath observances I witnessed, there were elements of ambivalence, irony, and even parody.
Yet the relationship of these young activists to their Orthodox and religious Zionist upbringing is complex and dialectical. Much of mainstream secular Israeli society avoids traveling to or within the West Bank. For the religious Zionist public, however—and especially for its youth—the attitude is quite different. A significant portion of this population was born or raised in the settlements, while many others attended schools, yeshivot, or midrashot (rabbinical programs for men and women) in West Bank settlements. In one way or another, most of the religious Zionist public is familiar with the West Bank, its roads, and its settlements, and feels comfortable traveling there. Thus, for members of the Faithful Left who grew up in this environment, traveling to Palestinian villages in the West Bank is not especially far-fetched. It does, of course, require a change in political orientation, but from a technical and geographical perspective, it is not a dramatic step.
Coming from a religious Zionist background can, however, have much deeper and more significant implications. One leading activist told me that she was born and raised in Tekoa, the veteran settlement known for its avant-garde ideas and led by the charismatic Rabbi Menahem Froman. Rabbi Froman was one of the chief initiators of the Settlers’ Peace Movement, which sought reconciliation between Jewish settlers and local Palestinians through face-to-face interaction. This activist told me that Rabbi Froman’s ideas significantly influenced her when she first began her activism on behalf of peace and the Palestinians. Although most members of the Faithful Left did not have the same personal connection to Rabbi Froman, I suspect that some of his theological ideas filtered into the Faithful Left as it crystallized, even though many of its members are probably politically to the left of Rabbi Froman himself.
I suspect that the most important of Rabbi Froman’s ideas (along with those of his associate, Rabbi Shagar), which is implicit in the activities of the Faithful Left, is the religious significance of the encounter with the Other. The encounter with the human Other—someone radically different from, and even opposed to, oneself—standing with the Other, recognizing her, supporting her, and empathizing with her suffering: all this prepares one for, and provides the foundation of, the encounter with the Ultimate Other. At the same time, it provides the basis for pluralism. The religious humility involved in recognizing that one’s self and worldview do not encompass the entire universe, but rather coexist with something radically different, constitutes the basis for pluralism and for living with difference.
Thus, for this stream, pluralism does not begin with ideas or philosophy—certainly not with the thought of John Locke or John Stuart Mill. Rather, it begins with action: standing with Palestinians who are under attack and aiding them when necessary.
