Compromise

I am sitting on a plane from Perth to Sydney feeling grateful for an amazing week. On Sunday evening, for the first time in the 10 years of seeking to build a partnership between Muslims, Jews and Christians I co-hosted a program in a Mosque with a Shia Muslim Imam. It was a triumph. After so many years needing to respond to the doubts of others, and even my own doubts, about how strongly Muslims favoured this partnership idea we had 600 Muslims show up to an event co-hosted by a Jewish-Christian-Muslim organisation.  I also ran professional development days for over 100 educators in Adelaide and Perth. Walked on a beautiful Indian Ocean coast beach at 5:30 this morning and heard nothing but the waves. Yet, just outside this wonderful silver lining is a little cloud called “Compromise”.

Don’t mention the war

The context is important. The situation in the land called both Israel and Palestine is extremely important. The issues are matters of life and death, terrible loss, humiliation, fear, justice and peace, and a lot more that is beyond the scope of this post. At the same time, there are significant prejudices against both Muslims and Jews in Australia and there is an opportunity to address this prejudice by working together on diversity in general. The event on Sunday night chose to focus on the latter issue rather than the former. It included speakers from various faiths, MP’s and quite a few Jewish, Christian and other non-Muslim guests. Being the end of a major Jewish fast day (9^th of Av) as well as an evening during Ramadan both Jews and Muslims present broke their fasts together after dark sitting on the floor together. Participants loved it, the vibe in the room and the chatter on Facebook afterwards was overflowing with positive sentiment.

Socialising with Evil

People on both sides of the Arab Israeli conflict have been concerned about interacting with people they saw as justifying evil. One accomplished writer wrote this week about an event like ours (or perhaps it was ours) that she felt compromised by sharing polite conversation with people who advocated on behalf of one side in the conflict. Others chose to avoid the event altogether rather than be in the company or imply approval of people whose views they saw as abhorrent.

While I personally would prioritise the benefit that could be created in Australia through interaction, there are people I would not be prepared to associate with either. I respect the view of people who don’t want to compromise themselves by associating with those they see as evil[i] and appreciate they might have different views to me about who should be avoided.

Heartbreaking Compromise

The theme of Compromise appears in our Torah reading this week, when God warns the people of Israel that if they develop hubris[ii] “and become religiously corrupted, creating an image… then God will scatter you among the nations and there you will worship Gods which are the handiwork of people, wood and stone[iii]”. This outcome is a very severe punishment for a people who passionately advocated Monotheism.  “As a result of their terrible suffering, many Jews, the Torah foretells, will be brought to forced conversions, worshipping idols but knowing full well that they are made of wood and stone…this would constitute the climax of their suffering – to be inwardly aware of their true faith and have to pay lip service to idols…[iv]”. This is a powerful articulation of the soul destroying nature of being compromised.  

Intention

The road to hell might be paved with good intentions, yet I think intent still matters. When a person kills another by accident, the Torah is concerned about whether or not the killer hated the victim[v]. If there was no hatred the killer can escape to the safety of a city of refuge. I think the sincerity of people who hold views other find abhorrent should be taken into account. In some cases it is not a callous indifference to the rights of the victims but a belief in a set of arguments that mitigate the severity of the harmful acts of those they support.

Impact

It would seem to me that the benefits of interaction outweigh the downside. If things will ever change, surely interaction can also help that happen. Certainly in my experience my view of the conflict has become far better informed, my understanding of and concern about the perspective of the other side greatly developed through interaction.

Inspiration from people in the conflict itself

Another factor to consider is the amazing example set by people living with the conflict. Most inspiringly, there is a group of bereaved parents from both sides of the conflict who come together.  If they can do it there, surely people thousands of kilometres away can also interact.

Compromise as a positive

I think we also need to consider the positive connotations of the word ‘compromise’ which can be very helpful in creating peace. We are taught, “A person should always be as soft as a reed and not as hard as a cedar[vi]”. The Torah teaches us to “do that which is upright and good in eyes of God[vii]”. This interpreted as advocating for going beyond the letter of the law and insisting on rights, instead going with compromise[viii].

---

[i] This principle is reflected in the verse, “one who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord (Proverbs 17:15). In Jewish law this principle is expressed in the prohibition against flattery of evil doers (Chanifa). If someone violates certain prohibitions it is forbidden to give them honour or do anything that might imply approval of their deeds. An example of this is a wealthy donor who is involved in domestic violence. An organisation that would give him honour at their fundraising event would be in breach of the laws against Chanifa/flattery. (Ehrman Rabbi A (2002), the Laws of Interpersonal Relations, Artscroll Brooklyn, NY, based on Shaarei Teshuva 3:187-199). One who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord.

[ii] The word in the text is “vnoshantem” which is translated by Unkelus as “you will become old in the land” which interpreted by Daat Zekainim Mbaalei Hatosafot as “you will say we have already been settled in the land, there will not be more anger (from God) or destruction, I hereby set heaven and earth which last for ever as witnesses against you that you will indeed be destroyed

[iii] Deuteronomy 4:25-28

[iv] Abarbanel, cited in Lebovitz, N, Studies in Devarim Deuteronomy p.53

[v] Deuteronomy 4:42

[vi] Talmud, Taanis 20b

[vii] Deuteronomy 6:18

[viii] Rashi

Condemnation and Disassociation

Zbyszek reading a rescued Jewish tombstone previously
used as paving, image from film Shtetl: a journey home

A few days ago I was inspired by the action of Mousa[i], a nine year old Arabic-Australian boy who spoke up when he heard his school friends denigrating Jews. I was also moved by the reflections of a group of teenagers about their burden of knowing that they failed to stand up against injustice. Then there is the guy who both does and doesn’t stand apart, Zbyszek Romaniuk[ii]. He is a Pole from the small town of Bransk, Poland who despite his communities’ unwillingness to talk about its Jewish past makes a great effort to discover it, resulting in graffiti on his walls and threats against him. Yet, in his role as deputy mayor is arguably complicit with the silence. 

This is a discussion about the merits of standing apart from one’s group to challenge the group’s common prejudices or narrative, it is also an argument against condemning people for their failure to disassociate or condemn their own. I draw on the story of Korach.

Beyond “us and them”

Mousa’s example is inspiring, his stance is very important for overcoming divisions. Mohamed Dukuly[iii] is a dear friend who lived through the Liberian civil war but came out a champion of bridge building. He told me how he questioned his own group’s narrative. He wanted to know why the others hated his people, rather than just accept that it was simply because he was Muslim and they were Christian. He talked to members of the enemy tribe and learned about their experiences of arrogant behaviour by many of his tribesmen toward the tribe that was now hunting and killing his people, expressing rage felt for generations. He is one of those who are breaking the cycle.

I am trying to this as well. I have examined some of the hostility my people faced from Blacks in my native crown heights, in Brooklyn New York. Was it just bigotry or did some Jewish behaviour contribute? There were Apartment buildings that mysteriously ended up with exclusively Jewish residents. When I was in Kiev I was shocked to see a statue to Bogdan Chmielicki who I always thought of as a monster for murdering and attacking Jews. I still believe that this is true, but he was also a hero to the downtrodden serfs who were treated terribly by the “nobility”. Jews themselves oppressed, played the role of middle man, thus seen as complicit with the oppression and some doing well relative to the peasants. In the current conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and other Arabs I have also tried to understand both perspectives[iv].

Limits of being open to the other side and opposing one’s own

I am not convinced that challenging my own communities’ narrative is always the right thing to do. There are some arguments about our relationships with various others that I find compelling, convincing, or at least plausible. Some would argue that it is because of my biases, perhaps they are right. My point is that it is wrong to assume that whenever someone is unwilling to condemn their own community it is because they are a bad person. In some cases it is because they are sincere in their view that condemnation is not appropriate.

Besides principles or conviction, it difficult to be open to the other side when one’s own have been harmed, oppressed and even killed. In the film Shtetl, in which Zbyszek appears, at least some of the Jews show little willingness to consider Polish perspectives. Considering the way many Poles treated Jews (certainly not all Poles, many risked their very lives to save Jews, in defiance of the Nazis), I can strongly relate to this reticence even as it disturbs me. In one of the most shocking examples, we hear from a woman who returned to her town in Poland as a girl after surviving the concentration camps only to be hunted by locals whose names they knew, they were found hiding in a closet and killed by their neighbours.

When Zbyszek, in conversation with a Jewish historian, raises the issue of Jews being less than enthusiastic about Polish independence from Russia some years prior to WW II as a factor in Polish gentile resentment, this is dismissed by the Jewish historian, as justified by Polish anti-Semitism. Later when Zbyszek seeks to explain to Israeli teenagers the unwillingness of some Poles to save Jews at the risk of their lives, they dismiss his arguments. Finally at the end of the film Zbyszek himself fails to stand up for the other, despite his passionate interest in the Jewish past of his town. The contrast is stark, early in the film we see him digging out disgraced tombstones and collecting names to discover Bransk’s Jewish past, which is never discussed except in whispers. At the 500 years celebration of Brank he has an opportunity, as deputy Mayor, to mention the murdered Jews in his speech but he argues that as a public servant it is not his task to tell people what they are not prepared to hear. Instead he proclaims, “Bransk was always Polish and will forever be Polish”.

Without equating different situations as there are so many significant differences, as a general principle expecting people to challenge their own side all the time is not only unrealistic but it can itself be divisive. Muslims are continuously called on to condemn every violent act by anyone claiming to be a Muslim and assumed to be guilty until the condemnation quota is satisfied. Jews who do not want to see Israel dismantled completely or at least not prepared to condemn every Israeli action against Palestinians are seen as evil by many Arabs and Muslims. The common denominator is the ‘condemnation criteria’ which becomes a barrier to coexistence acceptance and interaction. The logic and merit of the argument against raising the disassociation bar must compete with the ethical argument against complicity with evil and the compelling craving to hear someone from the other side acknowledge what we see as a terrible injustice and condemn “his/her own”.

The Disassociation imperative in Torah

In the Torah there are three references to a call for disassociation in the case of Korach. He was a relative of Moses who challenged the legitimacy of his leadership and prophecy[v]. Korach ambushed Moses on a busy day when the presence of so many people would seem like business as usual[vi]. As the situation heats up the entire community gathers to see the showdown between the two men. First God tells Moses about people separating themselves from the wicked people[vii], Moses then tells the community "Please get away from the tents of these wicked men, and do not touch anything of theirs, lest you perish because of all their sins[viii]. Just as Korach had separated himself from the community to oppose Moses, it was important that the community separate from him[ix]. The fact that the people were standing with Korach’s group listening to them silently[x], is interpreted as implied agreement with their words and denial of Moses’ prophecy. They had to move away physically to symbolically distance themselves from Korach[xi].

In Jewish law this principle is expressed in the obligation to reproach sinners and the prohibition against flattery of evil doers (Chanifa). If someone violates certain prohibitions it is forbidden to give them honour or do anything that might imply approval of their deeds. An example of this is a wealthy donor who is involved in domestic violence. An organisation that would give him honour at their fundraising event would be in breach of the laws against Chanifa/flattery[xii]. One who justifies the wicked, or condemns the righteous-both are an abomination to the Lord[xiii].

Arguments against condemning people for failing to condemn or disassociate

The danger is that if we take the argument for disassociation to the extreme then people attached to either side of a conflict that see some merit in their own group’s claims or narrative can never reach out and connect with people on the other side because they would think that the other must be avoided. Of course that is wrong. Moses himself seeks dialogue with his detractors[xiv], which teaches us that one should not continue conflict[xv]. At a later point in the story Moses and Aaron are invited to separate themselves from the community and God would destroy them all[xvi]. The response is to do the exact opposite, Moses instructs Aaron to “rush into the midst of the people[xvii]” with incense to achieve atonement. In this case the loyalty to the people was the most important virtue.

We must differentiate between active participants in a conflict and the general group who have not condemned. In the case of the crowd standing near Korach, Moses argues “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, if one man sins, shall You be angry with the whole congregation?” Moses differentiates between the active Korach and those who may have sinned in their hearts by doubting their teacher[xviii]. An alternative interpretation is that “although the whole congregation gathered, they did not sin[xix]”.

We also must consider the possibility that people are not sure what is right. One commentary explains the doubts people had about whether to side with Moses against Korach because they misunderstood Moses’ statement that “"In the morning, the Lord will make known who is His, and who is holy”.  They thought that if Korach and his group were wrong they would not get up from their beds the next morning.  Seeing Korach still alive, they thought that perhaps Korach would be proven right[xx]. We can give the benefit of the doubt to people who do not condemn what we think is wrong; they might think it is right or be unsure.

Consideration must also be given to whether or not there is any potential to make a difference by condemnation. A strong argument is made against culpability of citizens in the sins of their rulers because the impracticality of achieving anything by taking on their rulers[xxi].

Disassociation can be a powerful tool for peace, let us not use its absence as a reason to inflame conflict.

---

[i] Not his real name

[ii] Shtetl: A Journey Home". by Marian Marzynski,  http://www.logtv.com/films/shtetl/default.html

[iii] Mohamed is a Together for Humanity presenter and has also contributed to “conscious connectivity: creating dignity in conversation” http://www.amazon.com/conscious-connectivity-creating-dignity-conversation/dp/1453815171

[iv] http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/kaddish-for-palestinians-memorial-for.html http://torahforsociallyawarehasid.blogspot.com.au/search/label/Arab-Israeli

[v] Numbers 16, as interpreted by traditional commentary

[vi] Chizkuni

[vii] Numbers 16:21

[viii] Numbers 16:26

[ix] R. Yitzchak Arama, in Akedat Yitzchak, cited in Leibovitz, N., Studies in Bamidbar Numbers,

[x] Midrash Hagadol

[xi] Malbim, R. Samson Raphael Hirsh

[xii] Ehrman Rabbi A (2002), the Laws of Interpersonal Relations, Artscroll Brooklyn, NY, based on Shaarei Teshuva 3:187-199

[xiii] Proverbs 17:15

[xiv] Numbers 16:12

[xv] Rashi

[xvi] Numbers 17:10

[xvii] R. Samson Raphael Hirsh on 17:11

[xviii] Ramban

[xix] Nachalat Yaakov on Numbers 16:22, R. Yaakov/Yekl Ben Binyamin Aaron, first published in 1642 Crakow, included in Chumash with 15 commentaries on Rashi

[xx] Meshech Chochma

[xxi] Ramban about the actions of Shimon and Levi in Shchem.