The "Nice Guy" Trap

A week or two ago, I posted a comment on Facebook, tangentially hinting at my disapproval of the concept of State-recognized homosexual marriages.  And wow, did I get it in the neck from my friends!  I was not too surprised by the accusations of insensitivity and bigotry from my secular friends; after all, once you have removed God from the picture, there is no reason on Man’s earth why two consenting adults shouldn’t do whatever the heck they want together, and if the majority of the society they’re in feels it’s OK, then why not?  For that matter, consensual wife-swapping shouldn’t be a problem, either.  And why stop at adults?  Who says children who have reached puberty can’t decide for themselves what to do with their bodies?  And while we’re going down this route, let’s say some nutter gets hooked up with a consenting chimpanzee, and feels it’s a meaningful relationship, why should anyone else intrude?  It’s not as if it’s infringing on anyone else’s rights, is it?  Nothing to discuss here.

What perplexed me more about the reactions was the fact that so many of my religiously observant friends also jumped down my throat, giving me technical arguments like, “There’s no Torah prohibition against two men living together, so what’s the problem?” or “Keeping homosexuality illegal is not going to decrease the amount of homosexuality in the world.”  And there’s me left shaking my head.  Yes, these arguments may be technically accurate.  But for Heaven’s sake – look at the big picture!  Do these people, who profess to believe in God and the laws of the Torah, actually want our society to be moving in a direction of ever-greater licentiousness and open denigration and mockery of the moral codes that they supposedly support?  What is it that drives them to criticize me for simply stating a position that is clearly and unequivocally advocated by the Torah?

Soon after that, I was drawn into argument with a dear friend of mine who is passionately pro-Israel and very active in Israel advocacy on the Internet – yet he found it necessary to condemn the Israeli government publicly for not declaring that “price tag” vandalism should be classified as terrorism.  I took him to task on that, asking him if he really felt that writing obnoxious and threatening graffiti, terrible though that is, is morally equivalent to blowing up a bus.  We got into plenty of further discussion, but he would not climb down, and to my knowledge, his public position is still unchanged.

This got me thinking even more.  What other examples can I think of, of people taking public positions that run contrary to their stated ideology?  It didn’t take me long to draw up a short list:

• People who deeply care about Israel’s future, advocating unilateral surrender of Israeli territory to a sworn enemy that has never once given any indication that it will make peace with us – and this, “for the sake of Israel’s long-term security”.  Come again?
• People who are very concerned about security and the threat of global terrorism, yet willfully refuse to identify the perpetrators or their ideology.  (Hint: begins with “I”, ends with “-slam”.)  Result: ridiculous security checks at airports that treat a 69-year old granny with the same level of suspicion as a 23 year old Middle Eastern male wearing a bulky trenchcoat in midsummer.
• People who profess a strong belief in liberalism and human rights, and will campaign vociferously for more and more social freedoms, but who are strangely silent when in their own European hometowns, even non-Muslim women feel much safer to go outside wearing headscarves.
• The reluctance of the Republican Party in the USA to put forward a presidential candidate with clear and unequivocal socially conservative positions (e.g. on gay marriage, abortion), despite the conservative views of their membership.

What is it that makes people act this self-denigrating way?

On reflection, I identified exactly the same tendency in myself.  As one who was raised in a liberal, traditional Jewish home, I still have a strong connection with the circles in which I grew up, both family and friends, and I have a deep seated desire to be liked, and not to appear in the eyes of that liberal society as a knuckle-draggin’, bible-thumpin’, goggle-eyed retrograde wacko.  I have caught myself many times, in conversations with my less religious friends and family, actively introducing topics of Jewish religious extremists, just so that I can make it clear that I’m not one of them – or equivocating about some not-so politically correct Jewish laws, trying to find some sugar-coating to make them more palatable.  Bottom line, it’s insecurity in my own position.  And this insecurity, this desire to seem like a nice guy, has led me to compromise my own integrity, such as speaking loshon hora or denigrating Jewish laws and traditions.

What's more, being ingratiating gains nothing in terms of my own goals.  When I am cringing and apologetic for my views, I project that insecurity clearly, so whoever sees it realizes that I am pliable and unconvincing.  In real terms that may mean I find myself pushed into areas of compromising my own religious observances.  It means that Israel's political concessions are pocketed, unreciprocated, and the demands for further surrenders are simply scaled up.  When a pro-Zionist is quoted as criticizing the Israeli government, the anti-Zionists will eagerly quote him to prove that "Even your own supporters think you're immoral."  And so on.

We'd love to believe otherwise, that we humans really are all friends with just a few differences between us, so we compromise in the expectation that our concessions will be appreciated and reciprocated by our "colleagues".  But the cold, hard truth is that this world is full of ideological battles.  Conservatism vs liberalism.  Socialism vs capitalism.  Religion vs secularism.  Religion vs other religion.  Nationalism vs universalism.  Statism vs libertarianism.  Moderation vs extremism.  Etcetera.  When you're in one of these battles, a gifted concession is not seen by the other side as a sign of good faith; it's a sign of insecurity and weak resolve.  If your cause means something to you, then stand up for it proudly and don't give an inch, unless it's in the framework of an explicit quid-pro-quo with your ideological adversary!  If you don't believe in it strongly enough, be prepared to lose it.  As Rav Noach Weinberg said: "If you have nothing you would die for, then you have nothing to live for." (HT to ER for providing the source)

Perhaps that’s the lesson of Pinchas: A respected prince of the Jewish people – no less than Zimri ben Salu! – gets up and publicly shows off the Midianite girl that he’s about to take back into his tent.  Some people are cheering, others are stunned, and some are sitting around crying helplessly.  Only Pinchas, outraged as he is, has the presence of mind to understand that this behavior has crossed all red lines; he takes radical and courageous action, and consequently merits God’s “Covenant of Peace”.  Wow, how paradoxical.  Here’s a guy who gets up and impales two people on one spear – seemingly a brutally violent act – and the Torah credits him with bringing peace! 

Incidentally, the law that Pinchas was relying on – קנאים פוגעים בו – delimits that only one who is genuinely a “kannai”/zealot, whose motivations are 100% pure, could do such a thing.  Not something for insecure wimps like me.

But perhaps we could all use a little more Pinchas-type backbone in our lives, whatever our belief systems.  I don’t mean aggression, or being specifically not nice; I’m talking about an assertiveness that allows us to be perfectly civil and respectful, while maintaining our own integrity.  For example, with all respect to my gay friends and family (and I have plenty), I love them all dearly, but I am not going to condone their lifestyle just because liberal society says I must.  Libertarian that I am, I am not going to intrude on their private lives, as long as they keep them private.  With Shabbat observance, I have generally come to a fair status quo with my non-observant friends and family; I don’t make an issue of them violating Shabbos, and they don’t make it difficult for me to keep Shabbos.  In the same way, I won’t make an issue of anyone’s sexual orientation if they don’t.  Do not demand changes in the status quo such that I must start paying extra taxes to compensate for any benefits that might become due to “married” gay couples; I will oppose it.  Do not expect me to compromise my core beliefs by supporting any new legislation that denigrates the family unit and ultimately the moral fabric of society. 

I hope Mr Netanyahu is reading this, too.  Mr Prime Minister, please, pretty please, could you stop with this insanity of pandering to the world’s expectations that we commit national suicide by carving a chunk out of our heartland to hand over to our enemies?  Stop being so insecure!  Stop trying to be nice!  Take a leaf out of David ben Gurion’s book: stand up in front of the United Nations, wave a Bible at them and tell them that’s where they’ll find our title deeds to the land.  You’re not going to get peace by suing for peace.  You’ll only get peace by being a Pinchas.

So that’s what I take out of last week’s parsha.  Hereafter I resolve to be true to my core values, and not squirm out of taking an assertive stand, even if it is unpopular.  I hope I’ve inspired you to do the same.

Refusing Orders - Left, Right & Wrong

This latest tempest in a teacup about Naftali Bennett supposedly advocating refusal of orders has been badly played by everyone, in my opinion.  Netanyahu, by pouncing on him the way he has, has given the impression that he is, indeed, planning Disengagement II - although I don't personally believe that to be true; rather I think he's just trying to win back some of the swing votes that Bayit Yehudi has been steadily pulling from Likud.  And Bennett himself, by climbing down do hurriedly, left himself looking wishy washy.

Personally I think Bennett could have made a stronger and more principled stand by clarifying a nuance that seems to have been overlooked by pretty much everyone.

There are two types of refusal of orders.  One is where you are second-guessing your superiors, because you think you know better than them.  If your commander screams, "Acharai!" - then you better darn well be there behind him, even if you think it's a foolish move.  Refusing orders under such circumstances is indeed dangerous and damaging to the entire structure of the army.

The other kind is where you are given an order that you believe is immoral.  For example, let's say a commander orders a soldier to drive his fellow soldiers to the beach for a party on Shabbat.  Under such circumstances, the soldier is obligated to say, "I'm sorry, Sir, but I take my orders from the King of Kings, and I cannot do that."  The penalty could be a court-martial, imprisonment, or any amount of money, and the soldier is obligated to refuse orders.

In practical terms, going back to 2005, if a soldier decided to refuse orders because he believed the Disengagement was a foolish mistake and tactically wrong, that it would bring rockets on the whole of Southern Israel and make Israel's geopolitical situation infinitely worse, he would have been wrong to do so.  A soldier's business is not to reason why, but to carry out his orders.

On the other hand, if a soldier saw the Disengagement as immoral and evil, because of (among other things) the injustice it was doing to the families of Gush Katif, then he would have been obligated to refuse to participate in any way, even by taking over the duties of another soldier stationed on the Lebanese border, so that that soldier could go and rip Jews from their homes (מסייע לדבר עבירה).

I believe this is the moral duty of any soldier, anywhere, to be true to his morals - and be ready to pay the price.  This is true also for a leftist who believes it is immoral to serve in Judea & Samaria.  He should refuse orders, and be prepared to be court-martialed and imprisoned for his beliefs.  And if he is not prepared to stand tall, openly refuse orders and take the punishment, that's a good sign that his refusal is not based on moral considerations.

Suppression of the soldier's individual conscience and morality is a very dangerous and evil thing to advocate.  The logical extreme of this attitude is summed up in the infamous excuse:

"Ve vos chust following orders!"