It’s time for you and your loved one to have the talk.
( Nate Milton )
Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig: Political Discourse or Diss-course? The Jewish Tradition
“Diss”: insulting or disrespectful expression or talk.
Due to the internet – especially regarding the political world – we are now awash in rude, crude, and generally uncivil communication. Of course, this isn’t anything new. Even such enlightened American Founding Fathers as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson had no compunctions about their supporters viciously attacking each other when contending for the presidency in 1800. Here’s what Jefferson’s camp wrote about Adams: “A blind, bald, crippled, toothless man who is a hideous hermaphroditic character with neither the force and fitness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman.” And here’s the Adams’ camp on Jefferson: “A mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”
Unfortunately, the contemporary political scene in Israel would fit in well back then. Indeed, there’s even a new term for this: “Mekhonat Ha’raal” – the Poison Machine. referring to PM Netanyahu’s staunchest supporters who flood social media with unbridled verbal attacks against anyone who dares criticize their hero. The haredi (print) press also tends to attack its perceived enemies (mostly secular Jews) in virulent terms.
Which leads to an important question: What’s the Jewish take on such “diss-course”?
The answer can be divided into two: the history of Jewish discourse; the Judaic philosophy regarding argumentation.
Jewish history on this issue is not salutary, as the Bible makes clear. Joseph describes his overlordship dreams to his brothers, leading them to sell him to slavery (closely averting an even worse, murderous fate). A few centuries later, soon after the Israelites escaped Egyptian slavery through Moses’s heroic efforts, Korach et al castigates him for “hogging” power. The Bible sends a clear message: Korach and his followers are swallowed up by the Earth (probably a propitious earthquake). Other “bad speech” examples are not hard to find throughout the Bible and even later, with the period prior to the Second Temple’s destruction a classic case of internal political speech leading the Jews in the Land of Israel to civil war, even under Roman rule!
Nevertheless, many positive speech examples can be found throughout Jewish history as well. For instance, the most famous type of critical speech found throughout most of the biblical books is profoundly constructive: “prophecy.” The Prophets didn’t “predict the future”; rather, they sharply criticized the past and present acts of the powerful. In many cases (e.g., David repenting), the objects of their critique change their ways – but in all cases, the Prophets weren’t indulging in gratuitous “dissing” but rather attempting to have the other side (including all of Israel) repent and move forward in a positive direction.
One of the Talmud’s most famous dictum sums up the philosophical approach to the Jewish approach for expressing differences of opinion: eylu ve’eylu divrei Elohim chayim (both opinions are the word of God). On the face of it, this seems to be paradoxical if not outright self-contradictory, but it contains a deep truth: there are many sides to the social world of human interaction. What seems “correct” here, might be inappropriate “there.” Indeed, the word for Judaic law is “halakha”, from the root “to walk.” Change is inevitable; the law must adapt accordingly. Thus, even if at the moment we must decide between two opposing opinions (e.g., almost always in favor of the House of Hillel), the other side is important in that it can also become relevant, even dominant, in the changed future.
In practical terms, what this means is that argumentation need not – even should not – be argument for argument’s sake, and certainly not with disdain (diss-dain?) for the opposing side.
Unfortunately, in the modern Zionist era, many Israelis resorted – perhaps more accurately: reverted back to – Korach as well as the later Second Temple antagonistic sects. Ben-Gurion wouldn’t countenance his two polar opponents joining his government: Menachem Begin’s far-Right Revisionists and the far-Left Communists (Ben-Gurion’s policy: “bli Herut o MAKI”). It hasn’t gotten any better today with mudslinging in the Knesset more the rule than the exception (e.g., Likud MK Tali Gottlieb calling Israel’s former security heads “hallucinatory and dangerous”; after being told to leave a Knesset committee meeting and a security person tried to escort her out, she called him “Judenrat” – the epithet for Jews who worked with the Nazis).
Theoretically, one could look at all this in a somewhat positive light: Israel’s populace and its representatives feel passionately about the issues. This isn’t Switzerland (Israel’s issues are existential) and Jews have never been like the Swiss (or Scandinavians) in their political fervor (or fever, if you wish). No apathy here. But between apathy and “hyper-enthusiasm” lies a great middle ground in which one can argue strongly without vilifying the other sides (that’s plural because as the old Jewish joke goes: two Jews, three opinions).
It’s time to abandon diss-course. At least the U.S. has the “Anti-Defamation League” (dealing mostly with anti-Semitism); Israel could use a similar organization – for eliminating “internal hatred.” Jewish history – ancient and modern – clearly shows that not much good can come out of such bile. Discourse, on the other hand, even if vociferous and keenly felt, is the way to reach mutual enlightenment and acceptable political policy.
