Opinion & Comment
Leftist Fanaticism
by Rabbi Nosson Zev Grossman

I wrote the following in 5756 (1996), a few weeks before the previous elections: "Chareidim will need to decide how to act. Should they take an active or passive stand? Should they cast their ballot for one of the prime-ministerial candidates, or abstain altogether from voting? Of course, these decisions will be decided by the gedolei Yisroel shlita, since only they have the da'as Torah that authorizes them to make decisions relating to the klal. We do not at all intend to evaluate how we should act, because we are waiting, as all of the Torah-true are, for the decision of the gedolei Yisroel."

This article does not plan to engage in actual specific recommendations how to vote for a prime minister, but to point out several peculiar features connected to this question, as for instance, the "advisors for chareidi affairs." The secular candidates think, for some reason, that the way the Torah-true will behave is dependent upon the influence of fliers, leaflets, and posters, and that getting "professional advice" and employing public-relations offices will advance their chances with chareidi public opinion.

In the past our newspaper discussed the undesirable aspects involved when the Torah-observant are presented as a "herd" following the PR and marketing experts, instead of being faithful to da'as Torah. We know that those advisors are instilling illusions and false hopes in the hearts of secular politicians. After these politicians become convinced that the PR men they have hired are well aware of the chareidi trend of thought, they think the Torah- true are "traitors" and "unreliable" when the results are not as predicted.

The race to win votes for prime minister has restored the all- too-familiar "brilliant maneuver." The candidate of the Labor Party and the Leftist camp, Ehud Barak, is trying to use the "whip" of his intent to draft yeshiva students to "convince" the Torah-true that it would be preferable to assure his election, since only if they go with him will he magnanimously agree to reconsider his opinion. Ehud Barak actually proposes to cancel the ideal that he has declared so extensively, the dogma that he has used to incite the public against the Torah-true. He reasons that he has the power to make any decree he wishes and at his whim he can rescind his decrees; he can also stir up animosity against a segment of the public, and then, if he wishes, later pacify the ruckus. Therefore, he concludes, people should prefer him over the other political camp that does not voice such threats.

As mentioned, this is nothing new. Before the 5756 election campaign Yated Ne'eman quoted an informative interview with an "advisor for chareidi affairs" who was trying to assist the Labor Party Prime Minister Shimon Peres. We will not repeat all of the astounding revelations of that interview, but we will cite one small bit. The "chareidi PR expert" explained to the secular newspapers that he had come up with a terrific idea: The Leftists should show the chareidim that if they support the Leftist stand about the peace process, the continuous threats to conscript yeshiva students would be lifted. Despite the false presentation (as if chareidim are against the peace agreements) there was an implied threat for anyone who knows how to read between the lines. "It pays for you," the Leftists were saying, "to support our candidate, since if you do not we will bring up drafting yeshiva students again and again."

The PR man perhaps expressed this in a relatively refined way, but in 5750 there were various advisors to Peres who promised him valuable connections and influence over the chareidim. At that time Peres was trying to replace Shamir and his Likud government. During those critical hours when Peres attempted to gain every vote he could to insure a majority in the Knesset, the fax machine in Yated Ne'eman ejected an urgent letter from one of those advisors. "Don't you feel any responsibility for the yeshiva world?" it read. The sender of the fax explained that we must immediately tell the MKs of Degel HaTorah that if they do not support Peres, the Left will take revenge and do its best to draft yeshiva students. He demanded that "we save the yeshivos" by voting for Peres!

This reminded us of a poignant moshol that Maran HaRav Aharon Kotler zt'l used when the government intended to enact a compulsory Sheirut Leumi (National Service) for girls (cited in Peer Hador, vol. 5). The leaders of the Po'el HaMizrachi, M. Shapira and Z. Wahrhaftig, in a private talk with HaRav Kotler, tried to convince him that the campaign against Sheirut Leumi was liable to bring about the drafting of yeshiva students. R' Aharon retorted with the following moshol: A rich landowner in Poland bought some champagne, a drink that was, in those days, quite rare. As was customary, he had a "Moshkeh" on his estate, and since the wealthy Pole was friendly with his Moshkeh he asked him to taste the champagne. The Jew answered that the Torah forbade him to drink wine that a non-Jew had touched, but there was one condition that would allow him to drink: If he was under threat of being killed he was then permitted to drink. The non-Jew immediately understood the hint and directed his pistol toward Moshkeh: "Either you drink or I'll kill you!" The Jew drank one glass. The landowner asked the Jew: "Was the wine tasty?" The Jew smiled: "My dear sir, please aim your pistol at me and threaten me again!"

The lesson we must learn from it is obvious. Those of HaPo'el HaMizrachi were asking the secular politicians to enact the decrees to fulfill their own wishes.

One of the tactics of Barak and his advisors is to make the chareidim behave like "fanatics" who forbid voting for any secular candidate whatsoever.

How have those secular politicians suddenly become zealots, trying to disseminate that every secular Jew is posul to be elected? Why are they encouraging such a trend? The answer is simple. Political experts explained to Barak that even if all goes well he cannot possibly hope that the gedolim will rule that chareidim should prefer him. Thus, the best plan for him is to try to coax the chareidim not to vote at all for prime minister, and at least this will prevent their supporting the rival candidate.

As mentioned, we cannot offer any opinion about the weighty question of voting for a secular candidate for prime minister. The question to what degree we should support and cooperate with the secular governmental mechanism forced upon us in the State of Israel has been weighed by gedolei Yisroel in various situations. Beginning with voting for Knesset elections and carrying on to the question of supporting a coalition government and being part of a governmental coalition, it has all been discussed at length. Every question has been analyzed on its own merits and specific decisions have been formulated each time. In addition, the above-mentioned occurrence demonstrates a paradoxical situation, a warped predicament, and the first grade hypocrisy that has been spreading in Israel during the last few years.

Even if there is a certain merit in the idea of not supporting any secular candidate, this decision must only be made by the gedolei Torah, with only a pure Torah perspective being taken into consideration. This particular perspective sees all types of secularism as a threat on Judaism, and according to that outlook it is worthwhile to distance ourselves as much as possible from the governmental apparatus. (But, as already mentioned, most gedolei Torah have decided that we should actively participate in the Knesset elections. We must act like this bedi'eved since we are in a she'as hadechak, leaving us no choice.)

We are confronted with the problem of the offensive use of feigned "fanatic arguments" by the Leftists. We are therefore seeing, and will see more in the future, the cynical use of ideological considerations to gain diametrically opposite aims. Those religious politicians who are helping the Left have a golden opportunity to do so while simulating righteousness and claiming that they are only concerned about "pure hashkofo." They are certainly not prompting us to refrain from supporting any secular candidate because of a sincere motivation of distancing the chareidi public from any connection with secular movements.

The truth is that the Torah hashkofo in connection with governmental and Knesset institutions is that we never had, and we will never have, a choice between the good and the bad, between the beneficial and the harmful. The only choice we ever have had and ever will have is between the bad and the worse, between what is more evil and what is less evil, between what is more harmful and what is less harmful. Every Jew who does not believe in the Rambam's Thirteen Principles of Faith has removed himself from the klal. (According to the Rambam this includes someone who is simply unaware of them or is an onus.)

The way we vote is based on the basic assumption that present conditions were forced upon us. We are participating in the elections because we are onus and this is a bedi'eved circumstance. We must consistently prefer the less bad of all available, unpalatable possibilities. If we took part in this whole loathsome affair happily and lechatchilo we would surely not be faced with any doubts or problems needing to be decided. We would not need to have our chachomim debate them gravely while taking into consideration long-range consequences. We would promptly join with whoever best advanced our interests without having to make an exact analysis of the possibilities.

However, since we are guided by the premise that our Sages have only just barely permitted us to get involved, and that our participation is not an absolute heter of the whole matter, we understand that not everything is allowed. We must still distance ourselves from cooperating with elements that are worse and prefer whatever is the least bad.

In the past our Torah Sages have counselled us that since in our present state of affairs we must make a decision, we should prefer what is less damaging and choose partners who are less bad compared to others. This is because they have only with much hesitation permitted us to take part in this type of hishtadlus, and it is only a bedi'eved and not a lechatchilo permission. We must curtail as much as possible any aid to those who have cast off the yoke of Heaven.

On this occasion we cannot raise the questions that have been asked in the past about supporting a coalition government, offering support to a secular government, and voting for a secular candidate for prime minister.

The following moshol was once brought to explain the matter: A Jew fled from Communist Russia to another country. When people asked him what he was looking for in Italy, or America, since he had nothing there, he answered: "I am not running to Italy, nor am I eager to go to America; I am only running away from Russia."

The second mistake of the "fanatic" critics is their claim that since anyway we maintain that both the Left and the Right are posul we should go with whoever "gives" more. These people profess that their view is "the unsullied Torah outlook" that anyone zealous for Hashem should adopt.

The opposite is true! If we were to hear this argument from those who altogether oppose participating in the elections, that would be acceptable. For them any participation is posul. When, however, this argument is aired by those who do participate in the elections, it is totally improper. The entire approach indicates an absolutely perverted outlook. When we have an alternative that is even a little less bad than the other, there is no heter to take the worse way. In such a case we have no heter to follow the way that is worse, and such a way remains under the original issur of joining with reshoim, that prohibits us to recognize their authority and strengthen them (since what was permitted was only bedi'eved and bishas hadechak, because of a direct need).

We must oppose following the worse alternative with all the fervor at our command and try to prevent it with all means available. We must do this exactly as the Neturei Karta fight against the elections in general and participating in any sort of coalition. The moment that an alternate, better way exists, the worse way is not permitted and remains in its original issur. The gedolei Yisroel are the ones who guide us about how to act when there is an alternative and decide which is the better alternative.

This argument can demonstrate the huge difference between the approach that says participating with those who have cast away the yoke of Heaven is only just barely permitted, and the approach maintaining that participating with the above elements has been transformed into a lechatchilo and is definitely permitted. The latter do not bother to check and analyze how to carry out the hishtadlus that the Torah-true should do, which leads to our preferring what is less bad. The strange argument was thus formulated that since the Right are also not "a bed of roses" we should therefore prefer the Left, who are many times worse!

This blurring of values has surfaced because the correct approach to the whole topic of Knesset and government, things that are forced upon us, has not penetrated enough among the Torah-true. If we look at a Knesset member as being in a "position of prominence," and if we think of a high governmental job as something to pride ourselves on, we will surely analyze every political decision through this perspective. We are liable to opt for embracing the side that is worse rather than the side that is less bad. When power has become something desirable and not only what grim necessity dictates, all bounds have been erased. In return for momentary "gains" we refrain from taking a penetrating look, one that is more extensive, at the responsibility of helping one or the other group to gain control of the government.

This ideological blurring has caused others to see the campaign against one group as if we are embracing the other. They initially look at the whole topic as a question of whom we should support and not as a question of whom it is ossur to support. Someone who only imagines superficially that decisions are made according to what is positive and what side is desirable, and not according to the negative view of what side is worse, makes such a mistake. The truth is, as mentioned, that we are not making any positive decision, since there is nothing desirable or positive about participating in the Knesset. The whole matter is only a bedi'eved, permitted so that we can fight against the anti-religious and save everything we can from them.

We must therefore dispel the prevalent blurring of values and realize what this "new fanaticism," that leads us to championing the Leftist parties, really is. After everything is said and done, we must remember that about the specific question of participating in the elections only the gedolei Yisroel shlita will decide, and we will follow all that they decide for us.