In the week before Easter I spoke with three rabbis, who have been active in Rabbis for Human Rights. Each of them has a distinctive view today of the challenge for Jews in Israel, but all of them believe that defending human rights is Kiddush HaShem, the sanctification of God’s name. Although the three rabbis differ in their critical assessment of RHR, they agree that it has linked Jewish support for human rights to this fundamental commandment acknowledged by every Jew: Kiddush HaShem.

For Christians, the sanctification of God’s name suggests the first of the Ten Commandments: "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." (Ex. 20:7, Dt. 5:11) But for Jews, Kiddush HaShem expresses the Great Commandment: "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might." (Dt. 6:5) Kiddush HaShem is much more than speaking properly about God. Kiddush HaShem is about living faithfully before God. Sanctifying God’s name involves deeds as well as words, ethics as well as worship.

Shameful conduct, therefore, is not simply wrong, but defames God’s name (Chilul HaShem). The Ten Commandments are not only a list of prohibitions, but describe conduct that separates us from God. The Great Commandment sums up what it means to sanctify God’s name.

This is why the response of Jesus, when asked to name the greatest commandment of the Law of Moses, is a proper Jewish response. After quoting Deuteronomy 6:5, as "first" among the commandments, Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Then he says, "There is no other commandment greater than these." (Mk. 12:31) By identifying these two commandments together, Jesus emphasizes that loving our neighbors is crucial for loving God with all our heart and soul. In other words, Jesus identifies the Great Commandment as Kiddush HaShem, the sanctification of God’s name.

How then do these three rabbis understand what Kiddush HaShem means today, for Jews living in Israel, and for Jews around the world who support the state of Israel?

Rabbi Bandel is the Executive Director of the Masorti (Conservative) Movement in Israel. The word "Conservative" is used in parenthesis in the title of the Movement to clarify for English speakers (especially for Americans) that this is not an Orthodox variant of Jewish faith, and the Hebrew word "Masorti" defines the Movement as indigenous to Israel. The Masorti Movement has much in common theologically with Conservative Judaism in the United States, but it is not simply the Israeli wing of that movement.

My friendship with Rabbi Bandel goes back more than a decade to the time he was the founding Executive Director of Rabbis for Human Rights, and he continues to be a member of RHR although is less active today than in the past. I sought him out during my stay in Jerusalem not only to renew our friendship, but also to ask him to reflect on the history and present work of an organization that uniquely involves rabbis from the "three streams" of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism). Rabbis for Human Rights is also unique, I believe, in affirming human rights not only as international law, but as a faithful contemporary expression of Jewish ethical teaching.

RHR (as I will refer to Rabbis for Human Rights from now on) began in 1989 as a response to the first Palestinian Intifada (uprising). Six rabbis, two from each stream of Judaism, launched the organization, which at first focused only on protesting and seeking to rectify violations of human rights suffered by Palestinians at the hands of the Israeli government. While opposing the violence of the first Intifada, RHR sought both to defend the human rights of Palestinians as children of the one God, and also to remind Jewish Israelis that their Jewish religious tradition requires respecting the human dignity of every person, whether Jewish or not.

(The phrase "Jewish Israeli" may seem strange to some readers, but we must remember that there are more than a million Arab Israelis. By "Jewish Israelis" I mean Jews who are citizens of Israel, whether or not they are religious. The issue of who is a Jew is complicated in Israel, because the Israeli Orthodox leadership does not recognize the validity of the Conservative and Reform "streams" of Judaism. This will seem especially strange to American Gentiles, because we commonly see the Reform and Conservative forms of Judaism as mainstream. All three of the rabbis I met accept the three streams of Judaism, and would mean by "Jewish Israelis" all those who are citizens of Israel and Jewish either by personal conviction or as descendents of those who were Jews.)

Rabbi Bandel, who as the first Executive Director of RHR certainly played a central role in shaping the initial strategy of RHR, describes its focus in the beginning as "apolitical." The intent of the founders was to unite rabbis in Israel, who had different political views, in order to lift up a Jewish voice in support of human rights, which are understood as a contemporary expression of traditional Jewish ethical teachings.

In the beginning, however, RHR did not affirm the human right to "self-determination," which is the first right articulated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and also in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the two major treaties that have been ratified to implement the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, largely for pragmatic reasons, RHR initially adopted the American view of human rights and therefore limited its activities to violations of civil rights.

The work of RHR changed, however, after the Oslo peace process began in 1993. As the Israeli government began to consider the idea of Palestinian self-determination, the peace movement among Jewish Israelis moved to support a two-state solution to the conflict. During the lull in the violence between 1993 and 2000, RHR broadened its work to include protesting violations of economic rights in Israel, as well as among Palestinians. Today it continues to protest hunger and homeless in Israel, as well as elsewhere, as a denial of fundamental human rights.

Also in this period RHR became more activist, giving at least silent support for acts of civil disobedience in support of human rights. Under its second Executive Director, Rabbi Arik Ascherman, RHR joined secular Jewish Israeli activists in condemning the demolition of homes by the Israeli government, and in mobilizing people to protest demolitions in order to bring public attention to this violation of fundamental human rights.

Especially in East Jerusalem, Palestinians were being denied building permits to construct homes on their own property, or to renovate their homes in order to accommodate growing families. This policy of the Israeli authorities, which has simply been a tactic to put pressure on Palestinians to sell their land, clearly violates the civil liberties of Palestinian property owners. Moreover, RHR argues that demolishing homes because Palestinians lack building permits, which Israeli officials refuse without good reason to give them, is a cynical and sinful practice that not only harms Palestinians, but also demeans the Jewish tradition of justice.

RHR resists home demolitions in an "apolitical" way, for it has not actively protested the demolition of Palestinian homes under two other circumstances: when done by Israeli security forces as part of a military action, and when the homes demolished were owned by families of suicide bombers.

Individual members of RHR have expressed publicly that home demolitions for these reasons are also wrong, as acts of collective punishment, which in principle is inconsistent with the philosophy of human rights and is condemned by international law. But RHR has not taken this position as an organization, because its members are divided over the justification of the security arguments advanced for home demolitions in these two instances.

The failure of the Oslo process and the beginning of the second Intifada in 2000 has not changed the activity of RHR, Rabbi Bandel believes, but the second Intifada has undermined the hope that he and other Israelis had for reconciliation between Jewish Israelis and both Arab Israelis and Palestinians.

The second Intifada was devastating for Jewish Israelis, not only because it ended the hopes of the Israeli peace movement in the Oslo process, but also because the second Intifada was marked by a new level of Palestinian violence.

Israelis had seen the first Intifada as protesting the unjust practices of the Israeli government and army, and many RHR members supported this concern even as they rejected the violent protests of Palestinians seeking some redress for their unjust suffering. For these Israelis, the first Intifada was understandable, and seemed to reflect both genuine grievances by Palestinians and also their search for a just resolution to the conflict.

In contrast most Israelis, Rabbi Bandel suggests, have seen the second Intifada as an attack on the Israeli civilian population by Palestinian terrorist organizations, which are not only committed to Palestinian self-determination, but also to the destruction of Israel. Moreover, the violence of the second Intifada is perceived as being fueled by Islamic extremism, and this kind of terrorism reinforces Jewish fears of persecution and even annihilation.

In the context of the second Intifada, it became more difficult for RHR to justify its work to many Jewish Israelis, who felt the security needs of the state of Israeli required more leeway for the Israeli military. Most Israelis supported a more forceful response to the violence that many Palestinians claimed was necessary, if they were to achieve their self-determination.

The rabbis and lay Jews who persist in the work of RHR believe strongly that the soul of Judaism is at stake in facing the injustice of the occupation. Rabbi Bandel reminded us of the story of Hillel, who was challenged to state the Jewish commandments while standing on one leg. His response was, "What you do not want done to you, do not do to others. The rest is commentary." Added to this teaching, Rabbi Bandel said, is the repeated admonition in the Torah to Jews to remember that God took care of them when they were slaves in Egypt. Therefore, they are commanded to take care of non-Jews living among them.

When asked why these teachings are not being respected by religious Israeli settlers, who are abusing Palestinians today and stealing their land, Rabbi Bandel replied, "If you want to base a racist platform on Jewish sources, it’s very easy."

When the Israeli Supreme Court banned Rabbi Kahane from running for the Knesset, because his platform was racist, Kahane created a new platform that was completely made up of quotations from the Torah, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and Maimonides. "You can find horrible sayings from our sages," Rabbi Bandel said. But these sayings should be interpreted in their own context.

Rabbis, who supported the Bar-Kockba revolt against the Romans in 132 CE, said some terrible thinks about non-Jews, but these statements cannot be generalized as holding for all Jewish and non-Jewish relationships. For instance, there is a huge difference between being under Roman rule, as an oppressed minority people, and being the majority in the state of Israel, which is occupying Palestinian land.

Teaching that Jewish needs should be given priority over Gentile concerns is understandable, when Gentile rulers are persecuting Jews. But this teaching should not be applied when Jews are the majority, and when they are the ones violating the fundamental human rights of Gentiles living under Jewish rule.

Moshe Greenberg, a well-known scripture scholar and a member of RHR, has acknowledged that there is no way to escape a selective reading of the texts of scripture. The real question is how we make that selection. "Are we," Rabbi Bandel asked, "simply choosing texts that fit our preconceived notions, or our sense of what is politically correct? Or, are we reading selectively from scripture in a way that is true to what scripture itself reveals?"

He quoted the famous passage from the prophet Micah: "What does the LORD require of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (6:8) For Rabbi Bandel, and for all the members of RHR, this prophetic emphasis on moral righteousness, rather than on religious ritual, is at the heart of how they read Jewish scripture.

But this witness in scripture is not limited to the Prophets, for it is found in the very beginning of the Torah. The creation story affirms that every person is made in the image of God. (Gen. 1:27) The Torah does not begin by saying that Jews have privileges that other peoples do not have, but suggests that God cares for every person on earth regardless of his or her race or religion.

For Rabbi Bandel, this fundamental principle at the beginning of the Torah must be applied in reading the rest of the Torah, and also in interpreting the Talmud, which was written later as a commentary on the Torah. He quoted a story from the second chapter of the Palestinian Talmud that illustrates what it means for a Jew to read the Torah in this way.

When the disciples of a rabbi brought him a donkey purchased from a Gentile, they explained with glee that they had found a jewel hidden on the donkey worth far more than the price paid for the animal. The rabbi’s response was to ask them if the seller knew of the jewel at the time of the sale. When the disciples confirmed that the seller was ignorant of what he had lost in the transaction, the rabbi instructed his disciples to return the jewel to the seller.

By taking advantage of the Gentile’s ignorance, the rabbi said, they had not only committed a moral sin, but had desecrated God’s name. For the Gentile, when he learned of their unjust profit, would attribute their greed to their God. In this sense, Rabbi Bandel explained, the work of RHR is not only about ethics, but involves sanctifying the name of God.

When Jews violate the human rights of Palestinians, even with the good intention of ensuring greater security for Jews living within Israel, they desecrate the name of God. On the other hand, when Jews do what is just, for Palestinians as well as for Jews, they sanctify the name of God.

This is exactly why Rabbi Bandel wore his kippa, he said, when he first made trips for RHR into Palestinian refugee camps. He wanted Palestinian Christians and Muslims to know that he was there because he was a Jew. He was not simply a secular Israeli, who embraced a political critique of the state of Israel and who also supported human rights law. He was a religious Jew, acting for a religious Jewish organization, and he was trying to protect the human rights of Palestinians as a way of sanctifying the name of the one God.

For this same reason, Rabbi Bandel cannot give up on the work of reconciliation between Palestinians and Jewish Israelis, for he sees this as what God commands that we all do. Rabbi Bandel believes that he must work for repentance and forgiveness, no matter how impossible such efforts may seem, because this is what must be done to sanctify the name of God.

The peace that God wills is not simply the cessation of violent hostilities, but the presence of reconciliation. For Jews, like Rabbi Bandel, this means working to ensure the human rights of Arab Israelis, and also Palestinians, as well as protecting the human rights of Jewish Israelis.

It also means defending the human right to self-determination for the Palestinian people, as well as for other peoples. If the Jewish people are to claim this right for themselves, then they must defend this right for the Palestinian people as well.

But in this regard, Rabbi Bandel said, he hopes that Palestinians and other peoples will come to understand and respect that "Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people." For those who have fought each other for self-determination can only be reconciled, if there is mutual respect for the right of self-determination.

Unlike Rabbi Bandel, Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom was not born and raised in Israel. He first came at the age of 15, after he won a trip to Israel for his knowledge of scripture. He studied to be a rabbi both in Israel and in the United States, and was ordained within the American Conservative stream of Judaism. He returned to Israel, because he felt the issues surrounding the survival and flourishing of a Jewish state would shape the beliefs and practice of Judaism for years to come.

As a co-director of RHR in the mid 19902, Rabbi Milgrom became most identified by reaching out to the Bedouins, many of whom live in caves as they have for centuries. As the policies of the Israeli government began to force these people from their traditional homes, Rabbi Milgrom tried to bring the denial of their fundamental human rights to the attention of the Israeli public.

The inability of RHR, as an organization, to provide much help for the Bedouins, as well as the failure of the Oslo peace process, has led Rabbi Milgrom to see RHR’s work as largely symbolic. For that reason he has decided not to support programs he feels will have little impact on the policies of the Israeli government, and has become more concerned about the political choices facing the Israeli public.

Although for many years he endorsed the idea of a Jewish, democratic state, which almost all members of RHR continue to affirm, he now believes a Jewish state cannot be democratic. For requiring a Jewish majority means preferring the rights of Jews to the rights of those who are not Jewish, in order to maintain Jewish dominance.

For Rabbi Milgrom, what the Jewish state has done to the Bedouins, and to the Palestinians as well, has convinced him that the Zionist dream of a Jewish democracy will inevitably be a oppressive tragedy for the peoples within Israel, who are not Jewish.

His primary example of the moral dilemma facing Jews is their position on the right of return. Jews claim for all Jews in the world, whether they have ever lived in Israel or not, the right to come to Israel and be full citizens, simply because they are Jewish. For Palestinians, however, Jews refuse to acknowledge their right of return, even though many Palestinians were living in what is now Israel, and were driven unjustly from their homes during the 1947-48 war.

Zionism, for Rabbi Milgrom, cannot be democratic, unless it supports the right of return for both Jews and Palestinians, and Zionists cannot do this, because too many Palestinians might return to Israel and become a majority, which would threaten the Jewish nature of Israel. A Jewish, democratic state, he believes is a contradiction in terms, and for evidence he simply points to the policies of the Israeli government over the past half century.

So, although Rabbi Milgrom continues to be identified with RHR and to have members of RHR among his closest friends, he no longer embraces the consensus of the organization, which supports both Zionism and human rights.

The problem with RHR today, he feels, is that it has accepted the view that before 1967 things were OK in Israel, and that it is sufficient to try to return to that ethos with perhaps greater protection for individual human rights under a negotiated separation plan. But given the policies that have been pursued by the Israeli government, Rabbi Milgrom cannot see that a viable Palestinian state is possible.

Israeli settlements and their connecting roads and security barriers have taken so much of the Palestinian land, and cut up the West Bank into small sections, that he thinks it is ludicrous to expect Palestinians to accept what Israel will now offer.

In short, Rabbi Milgrom believes Israel has so defined its own human right to self-determination, with settlements surrounding Jerusalem to the East and controlling hilltops throughout the West Bank, that the human right of self-determination for Palestinians has been fatally compromised.

This political problem cannot be solved, Rabbi Milgrom believes, so long as Israelis claim that God has given them the land of Israel including Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Thus, the crux of the problem is not political, but religious.

When asked how RHR might confront this theological issue, he answered that Jews must now liberate themselves from their attachment to Zionism. It is not enough to believe in the prophetic vision that Jews are to be a servant nation, among the nations, as the Zionist vision of Israel does not permit this humble role. For Zionists, Israel is to be a Jewish nation that protects Jews against all other nations, no matter what.

Referring to the creation story in Genesis, Rabbi Milgrom reads it as blessing the entire human family. He believes this overarching theme at the beginning of the Torah should now be used to deconstruct the traditional Jewish belief in the people of Israel as the "chosen people" of God, or what is sometimes referred to as "the covenanted people." If God would have us respect and protect the human rights of every person and people, than no people should be able to impose its religious identity through the power of government on those who do not share such a faith.

In many respects Rabbi Milgrom seems to agree with many of the secular Jewish Israelis I have met in Jerusalem, who affirm international human rights law and castigate the Israeli government for its widespread and systematic violation of this law. Most of these secular Jewish activists also believe that a two-state solution is no longer feasible, because of the actions taken by the Israeli government in supporting settlements throughout the West Bank and the confiscation of Palestinian land under the guise of constructing a security barrier.

Yet, Rabbi Milgrom sees the issue as not simply political, but also as religious, and perhaps even as fundamentally religious. He would argue, I believe, that a secularized Israel is not realistic, at least in the near future. So, the battle for a democratic state of Israel must be waged with the weapons of religious texts, and with their interpretation and application to the present reality.

He embraces a one state solution, permitting the right of return of Palestinians as well as Jews, and a democratic process that would not privilege the Jewish tradition as an established religion. He fully understands that this would lead to a Jewish minority within the state of Israel, but he has no trouble facing that future. For he believes the ethical and spiritual character of Judaism was preserved more authentically when Jews were a minority, than under the present state of Israel.

Now Jews tout national security as the most fundamental of God’s commandments, when actually a proper reading of scripture, be argues, should lead Jews to embrace pacifism. When the Israelites ask Samuel to give them a king, Samuel tells them that God is their king. Later, when King David abuses his power, by killing Uriah so he can marry Uriah’s wife, the lovely Bathsheba, God sends Nathan to call David to account. At the heart of Jewish scripture is a God who commands justice. Nowhere in scripture, as Rabbi Milgrom reads it, does God command support for a Jewish state.

Rabbi David Rosen is one of the two Orthodox rabbis who founded Rabbis for Human Rights, along with two Conservative rabbis and two Reform rabbis. He served on the board of the organization for several years, but is much less active now, as his work representing the American Jewish Committee in the Middle East requires a great deal of travel.

He gave two reasons for the founding of RHR. First, the response of the Israeli government and its armed forces to the first Intifada included the mistreatment of Palestinians that threatened the prophetic ethical teachings of Judaism. "So, first and foremost," Rabbi Rosen said, "we sought to defend the essence of Judaism, where we felt it was being sullied."

Secondly, "we wanted to assert that human rights applied to all people regardless of religion or race or nationality." The founders of RHR believed that the very integrity of a political and legal system is undermined, if for reasons of security the rights of some of its citizens, or the rights of those deserving the legal protection of the government, are ignored and denied.

In this sense, both the ideals of Zionism and democracy were put to the test by the response of the Israeli government and society to the first Intifada.

Overall, Rabbi Rosen feels, the justice system of Israel had maintained its integrity, except when the concern for security has been allowed to justify actions by the government that are clearly contrary to international human rights law. Sadly, when military experts assert that certain actions are necessary for the security of the state, the courts and the Knesset are inclined to defer rather than raise questions.

Jewish religious teaching clearly requires that the means, as well as the ends, be just. So, RHR was organized to defend a view of Zionism that adhered to this high ethical standard. "All the rabbis who joined RHR were deeply committed to the well-being and future of Israel," Rabbi Rosen said. "We saw Zionism not simply as a political program, but as developing the spiritual life of the Jewish people."

Thus, government policies that deny human rights are not merely a violation of international law. "The failure to protect human rights is a desecration of Jewish ethical teaching."

Initially RHR focussed on issues involving religious freedom and access to health care, for the restrictions imposed on the movement of Palestinians were clearly in conflict with international human rights standards. Moreover, RHR members felt such battles with the Israeli government might actually be won, because coverage by the Israeli media was possible and Israelis want to think of themselves as humane and fair.

"There is a profound desire even within the Israeli defense forces to be seen as moral and just,’ Rabbi Rosen said. "And that is something which can be exploited constructively."

He recounted an early intervention by RHR concerning a Palestinian boy in Nablus, who was being prevented from receiving kidney dialysis at the Israeli hospital, because his older brother was an Intifada leader. When RHR contacted the Ministry of Defense, they were told that the rules of the army did not permit such a punitive practice. But after media attention forced an internal review, which confirmed the facts as RHR had reported, the Ministry of Defense ordered that the boy be allowed to receive the dialysis he needed.

RHR hasn’t always successful in its interventions, but sometimes making a religious argument has been more effective than simply claiming that a practice by the Israeli government is in violation of international human rights law. That was the case, Rabbi Rosen said, in protesting restrictions on the movement of Christian and Muslim Palestinians to and from their places of worship, particularly in the Jerusalem area.

Yet, he admitted, that the government’s professed commitment to protecting access to holy sites has never kept it from ordering closures and restricting travel for security reasons.

Rabbi Rosen said he was on the losing side of a major debate in RHR over whether or not to sponsor educational programs. He wanted RHR to limit its work to monitoring and publicizing human rights violations, because he thought this was the most effective way both to "teach" Jewish ethical values and to defend the human rights of Palestinians.

He also believes the educational programs of RHR have made it harder for Orthodox rabbis to support the organization, because they are reluctant to endorse Jewish educational programs conducted by Conservative and Reform rabbis.

The Orthodox rabbinical establishment sees the Reform movement, in particular, as heretical, and does not want it to be legitimated within Israeli society in any way. As almost all Reform rabbis in Israel are active in RHR, as well as half of the Conservative Israeli rabbis, clearly RHR has become an important means by which these non-Orthodox rabbis have sought to achieve greater credibility within Israeli society.

RHR has always been a small organization, Rabbi Rosen acknowledged, but its voice has had an impact on Israeli leaders. He believes, however, that religious arguments only succeed in Israel to the extent that political realities made these arguments seem feasible. "When Oslo started taking off, suddenly we were in the mainstream, and everyone wanted our support. But once the setbacks started, we again became more and more marginal."

This is another reason why he would prefer that RHR limit its activities to monitoring human rights violations, because this is always needed no matter which way the political winds are blowing. Moreover, RHR brings to this task a unique perspective that complements the work of secular human rights organizations in Israel. For RHR offers a constructive, Jewish argument in favor of human rights, whereas secular organizations simply assert that government practices fail to meet the standards of international law.

The religious argument for human rights has become especially important during the second Intifada. Israelis as a whole, whether politically of the right or the left, have perceived the second Intifada as a real threat to the survival of Israel. They believe this Intifada has targeted Israeli civil society, rather than the army or the government of Israel.

The second Intifada, Rabbi Rosen said, has made it much harder for Jewish Israelis to defend the human rights of Palestinians. This is especially true, when opinion polls in the West Bank and Gaza show support for suicide bombers killing Israeli civilians. Under such duress, Israelis have little patience with arguments that the government is violating the human rights of Palestinians.

The response of RHR, therefore, has been to emphasis why defending human rights is essential for being a Jew. The strongest argument in Israel for human rights is that Jews must protect the human rights of Palestinians in order to preserve the Jewish ethical character of Israeli society.

To illustrate the importance of RHR during the second Intifada, Rabbi Rosen told a story of a rabbi, who came to Sodom and then preached day and night, calling the people to repentance. No one responded, yet the rabbi persisted. Finally, someone asked him why he bothered, when no one was listening. The rabbi replied, "In the beginning I thought people would listen, but now I am speaking for myself, so I know where I stand and what my own values are."

Rabbi Rosen hastened to clarify that he was not comparing contemporary Israel with the biblical Sodom. "But in RHR we do think that both Jews and Palestinians are profoundly traumatized. And because of this trauma, both peoples have become defensive and reactive, which makes it harder for them to respond to the plight and the pain of the other."

This may, in part, explain why the settlers have been allowed by Israeli society to behave so badly. Most Israelis, Rabbi Rosen believes, who would describe themselves as mainstream or as traditional Jews, have very mixed feelings about the religious settlers. "On the one hand they admire the commitment and dedication of these settlers, but also they recognize that their zealousness has led to what I would call a form of idolatry."

The place of Jews on the land must be a means of becoming the just nation that Israel is commanded to be, and not merely an end in itself. "For making means into ends is exactly what idolatry is."

The settlers, of course, look to religious texts to justify their theft of Palestinian lands, but Jews who are committed to a just Israel must argue that other texts, which command that Jews protect the human rights of all people, are more central in Jewish teaching.

Yet, Rabbi Rosen believes, this religious issue will be decided primarily by politics, which is why the disengagement from Gaza and the removal of settlements there is as much a theological issues as a political struggle. Because possessing the land is seen as justifying the theology of the religious settlements, the political decision to remove these people from the land will fatally undermine their claim.

This is why, despite the present trauma of both Israelis and Palestinians, Rabbi Rosen expressed optimism. Moreover, he said, this is precisely the time that the voice of RHR needs to be heard, for it offers an alternative vision for Israeli Jews. "When I speak of our ethical values, I mean first and foremost that every human being is created in the image of God. Moreover, I would go further and say that, if we don’t behave in accordance with this value, we are not truly Jewish."

In this sense, Rabbi Rosen said, "if Israel is not truly democratic, Israel is not truly Jewish." The character of democracy reflects the fundamental teachings of Judaism, yet it is necessary that the state be secular and not a theocracy. A Jewish majority will not undermine the democracy of Israel, he believes, so long as this majority is true to the essential values of the Jewish tradition.

It is also why, for Jewish Israelis, there must be a two state solution, because otherwise Arab Israelis and Palestinians will outnumber Jewish Israelis within the borders administered by Israel, which would make it impossible to maintain the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

Rabbi Rosen argues that Palestinians need a separate state as much as Jews. Each people must exercise the right to self-determination, before either state can consider a closer relationship with the other. He sees Zionism as the Jewish national liberation movement, which is parallel to the Palestinian national liberation movement. For both to succeed, each must recognize the other.

These three rabbis agree that Jews should support human rights not simply as contemporary international law, but as moral imperatives that are fundamental for Jewish faith. To their fellow Jews, in Israel and elsewhere, they say: "Do not desecrate the name of God in the way you live, but sanctify your life and the lives of others by respecting the human dignity of each person and the right to self-determination of every people."

These three rabbis are speaking only to their own people, and yet those who are not Jewish can certainly learn from what they are saying.

I am grateful for Rabbi Rosen’s statement that religious settlers are committing idolatry when they claim God has commanded them to take the land of Palestinians and Bedouins. He reminds us that just actions require not only good intentions, but also the use of just means. To obey the commandments of God is a good intention, but denying the human rights of others is also denying the will of God.

As God commands respect for the human dignity of all peoples, we must respect fundamental human rights as we seek to be faithful to God’s other commandments.

Of the three rabbis, only Rabbi Milgrom believes that democracy cannot be achieved in a nation that gives privilege to one religious tradition. By criticizing the Zionist hope for a Jewish state that both defends Judaism and provides justice for its Arab citizens, Rabbi Milgrom also challenges any national aspiration that expects to represent God’s reign on earth.

His critique deserves careful consideration, not only by Israelis, but also by Americans. For in both nations the protection of human rights so necessary for democracy are now being eroded, by those who use the threat of terrorist attacks to conceal their rapacious desire for more wealth and power.

Among the three rabbis, Rabbi Bandel expressed most poignantly his sadness that a reconciling peace no longer seems possible. He spoke of the need for repentance, both among Jewish Israelis and also, in his opinion, among Palestinians. For he believes that repentance is healing, and peace without healing will be only a cessation in the continuing violence.

Some may find his view discouraging, but I would suggest that his honesty and humility point us to the sustaining hope needed for us to sanctify God’s name by protecting the human rights of all peoples.

I am writing as a participant in the Ecumenical Accompaniment Program in Palestine and Israel, which is sponsored by the World Council of Churches. The views expressed above are my own and do not necessarily represent the World Council of Churches. If you wish to publish or disseminate this letter beyond personal friends, please contact the EAPPI Communications Officer (eappi-co@jrol.com) for permission to do so. Thank you.

Bob Traer, 19 April 2005

For other Letters from Jerusalem, go to http://christian-bible.com/Ethics/lj.letters.2005.htm

Home   Exegesis   Scripture   Worship   Ethics   Dialogue   Parables   Email   

1 in Faith: A Christian Bible Study † Copyright © 2000 by Robert Traer