This post continues the weekly series on the Nishmablog that features responses on JVO by one of our two Nishma Scholars who are on this panel. This week's presentation is to one of the questions to which Rabbi Hecht responded.
* * * * *
Question: In President Obama’s recent speech on the Middle East, he endorsed Palestinian demands for a two state solution based on pre-1967 lines that bring fears to Israelis making Israel vulnerable to repeated attacks that occurred between 1948 and 1967. As a Jew, how can I vote for a President that is pressuring Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders even though I support the President’s domestic policies?
Before responding to
the substantive nature of this question – which is the role of a Jew as a
citizen in a Diaspora land – it is first important to verify the facts.
This is indeed also an important halachic obligation.
Before one can render a decision based on the law of the Torah, one must
first ensure that his/her understanding of the facts is as clear as
possible. Within Jewish Law, the drisha v’chakira, the examination of witnesses, is very thorough. One cannot render a correct psak, legal decision, without an understanding of the facts to the best of one’s ability.
Having said all this,
it is now important, before answering this question, whether what is
reported to be Pres. Obama’s position is actually his position. It seems
clear, both from what he explained afterwards and from subsequent
analysis of his initial speech, that he does not believe that Israel
should return to these indefensible borders. As such, the exact
formulation of this question is problematic. It may be, though, that
President Obama’s position regarding Israel still is one that a person
may find to be problematic and the intent of this question still stands.
We can thus ask: what is one to do when the politician one is thinking
of supporting has views regarding foreign policy, in particular,
regarding Israel, with which one disagrees but has domestic policies
with which one agrees? We could also possibly ask: how is one to vote if
President Obama does have this view regarding Israel’s borders yet one
appreciates his domestic policies? How is one to integrate his very
specific Jewish views into his role as an American citizen?
In Canada, the question
is actually framed in the opposite way and indeed in our recent
election people did raise this issue with me. We are most fortunate in
Canada to have as our Prime Minister a man who has taken a principled
stand in favour of Israel. While this may have resulted in some
political gain in that Prime Minister Harper’s party did win some
predominantly Jewish ridings that were previously held by the opposition
Liberal Party, it is generally felt that, especially given the larger
Muslim population in Canada, his views regarding Israel are not
politically expedient. It is also generally recognized that Canada was
furthermore recently denied a seat on the UN Security Council because of
the Prime Minister’s views on Israel; this was used by political
opponents to contend that the Prime Minister was hurting Canada’s good
name internationally. The question I was thus asked was: whether one
could vote against Prime Minister Harper given his stand regarding
Israel because one strongly disagreed with his domestic policies? A
different situation but essentially the same question – how do you
balance views regarding Israel, or essentially any specifically Jewish
issue, with views regarding a general policy matter that would affect
the voting constituency as a whole? How are you to be a Jew in a
Diaspora nation?
In certain ways, the
essence of this question is clearly an old one and there is a
substantial amount of material on this general subject within the
sources. We are told numerous times in the Talmud (for example, T.B. Baba Kamma 113a) “Dina d’malchuta dina”,
the law of the land is the law, meaning that the law of the country in
which one is living is binding also within Jewish Law. There are,
though, many limitations within this principle; a primary one being if
they conflict with Torah law. As an extreme example, a national law
forbidding circumcision would, of course, not have any status within
Jewish Law notwithstanding this principle. The concept of dina d’malchuta
is actually generally understood to apply specifically to monetary laws
with even some debate as to the extent of this application. There are
those, though, who also do apply the principle to other laws, within a
country, which serve the proper functioning of society. As with many if
not the vast majority of areas within Jewish Law, this subject is a most
complex one. One who wishes to read more about it may wish to begin
his/her study with an excellent article on the subject by Rabbi Herschel Schachter entitled “Dina De’malchusa Dina”: Secular Law As a Religious Obligation found in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Vol. 1, No. 1. Another possible starting point for study is the Encyclopaedia Talmudit entry on the subject.
The bottom line,
though, is that it is expected of the Jew to be a good citizen within
the Diaspora land in which he/she may find himself/herself. Tractate Avot 3:2, building on Yirmiyahu 29:7,
instructs us to pray for the welfare of the government of the land in
which we reside. We are clearly to do what we can to further the
positive functioning of the society in which we live. There are also
those who contend that the concept of dina d’malchuta dina
reflects a recognition of a social contract that we have with the
people with whom we live. We are, clearly, to maintain our end of the
agreement. The question posed here, though, is different than the
general question posed throughout the centuries. In the past, the charge
to a Jew was to be a good citizen. That is not the issue here. The
question here is how are we to let Jewishness affect the way we vote?
Democracy offers a new
perspective to this issue. Before we can explain the Jewish view on the
subject, we have to formulate what is expected of us from the mores of
the society in which the question is asked. If the society maintains
that a person can vote in whichever manner the person wishes even if it
only matches the perspective or meets the needs of a particular group
within the society, then a Jew voting in line with Jewish self-interests
would be totally acting within the parameters of the society’s rules.
It would seem to be difficult to contend that a Jew could not vote in
this manner. But that wasn’t the precise question here. The question
here is: whether one could vote against Jewish self-interests because of
the needs of the society?
The answer to this
question would most likely be a factor of weighing. Clearly what may be
good for the society in general may also, most likely, be beneficial to
the Jewish community within this broader society as well. It is thus
difficult to define any question simplistically as presenting two
positions, one good for the Jews and one not. As such, one must weigh
the benefits of any position versus its costs. In this analysis, though,
the fact that we have a social contract with the people with whom we
live must also be considered as a factor within this weighing. One
wishing to vote for a politician’s domestic policy must believe that it
would serve the best interests of the constituents, Jew and Non-Jew.
This is why the person is voting in this manner. The question is: what
is one to do when this politician also has a policy that will harm
another specifically Jewish group of non- constituents (as well as
Jewish constituents)? The first demand must be to evaluate the extent of
harm and the extent of benefit.
We clearly do have a
responsibility to our fellow Jews and to Israel. Given that with the
power of the vote we are given the liberty to vote simply as we wish, we
have a right pursuant to the laws of our lands to vote in the best
interests of Israel. We also, though, do have a responsibility to fellow
Jews in our immediate society as well as, in fact, to all within our
society. We thus, from a Jewish perspective, also have an obligation to
evaluate the costs and benefits to our immediate society in our
consideration. Obviously, at the extreme, if a politician has policies
that will clearly, powerfully harm Jews anywhere in the globe, this
politician’s positive domestic platform cannot sanction voting for this
person. But if this politician’s policy may have some limited negative
effects on Jews elsewhere such as in Israel, it is hard to totally
outlaw voting for this individual if his domestic policies would have
excellent results for his constituents. The specific question and
circumstances would have to be evaluated. Hopefully, all our fellow
citizens are also attempting the same evaluation. Of course, ‘I love my
neighbour but he doesn’t care for me’ might change the entire criteria.
This is, after all, a social contract.
No comments:
Post a Comment