Two Jewish states for two sets of Jews

It wasn’t until I read three different articles on the idea of Israel becoming two different states, that I began to take the subject seriously. 

The concept, which was one man’s idea, began on Facebook with a handful of supporters but quickly grew to 40,000 within a month’s time. The architect, of what could be tantamount to Israel getting a divorce, is 33-year-old, former IDF intelligence officer, Nitzan Amit who came up with the idea of the “Separation Movement,” which calls for a five-stage plan that would eventually birth two states, “New Israel” and “Judea.”

Who could have predicted that the wonderful marriage, which took place in the Promised Land in 1948, would begin to crumble after 75 years? Anyone would have thought that, after that much time, we would be all the more united and stabilized. But sadly, the passage of those years has only served to emphasize the vast differences in mentality, culture, religious convictions, lifestyle and the freedom to live as one chooses. 

It is because those distinctions have become so polarizing, that we have come to a place where we have no choice but to acknowledge “irreconcilable differences which have contributed to an irretrievable breakdown of our society. As the joke goes, “two Jews, three opinions.” So how did we ever think we could live together peaceably as one tribe?

None of this is new for Israel. According to Jewish history, it was as early as 900 B.C.E. that two separate kingdoms were established – the Kingdom of Israel in the north and the Kingdom of Judah in the south. Both kingdoms fell, Israel to the Assyrians and Judah to the Babylonians. So, you’d think we would have learned from our past. Sadly, modern times have not made much of a difference. The rift still remains too wide to bridge, and that is where this two-state option comes into consideration. 

The separation plan offers the following proposal: "'New Israel’ will include the Golan Heights, Upper Galilee and most of the coastal plain cities, including Haifa, Netanya, Tel Aviv and Rishon LeZion, with a population of approximately 5.5 million residents. The rest of the land will be under the authority of the ‘State of Judea’ with such cities as Jerusalem, Beer Sheva, B’nei Barak, Ashdod, Petah Tikvah and Ashkelon.”

Naturally, such an ambitious plan could not be executed overnight. As explained, it would be implemented in five stages, which would necessitate the formation of a new government and all that entails – laws, constitution, governing bodies and the like. Additionally, citizens would have to consider in which state they prefer living, likely basing their choices more on state policy than preferred geography. This would mean that many citizens would have to move. 

On that basis, alone, it seems that such a plan would not be feasible since, in Jerusalem alone, there are believed to be at least 150,000 secular individuals residing there. Would all of them choose to leave their beloved city which would, in the event of such an implementation, be subject to very stringent religious laws with which they are not compatible? Such an upheaval of a massive exodus from Jerusalem would be inconceivable, but that might be the price to pay for more freedom and the liberty to live as one sees fit.

So, what are the benefits of a free-wheeling New Israel? 

In reality, the possibilities could be endless. The Law of Return, for example, could finally be observed as it was written, allowing for the broader definition of who is a Jew to be determined, not solely on Jewish religious observance, as is the case now. This would finally break the monopoly which has been held, for so many years, by the ultra-Orthodox who have shut the doors to secular, unaffiliated Jews and Jews who have chosen another faith but who, nonetheless, remain ethnically and culturally Jewish.

Without Halacha (Jewish law) as the baseline, one’s Jewish parents, on either side, would provide enough eligibility for full recognition as a Jew, unlike the present system which only recognizes a Jew as one who was born of a Jewish mother. 

From an economic standpoint, such a split would surely result in a huge decrease in allotted budgets which presently find their way to the ultra-religious. In fact, with a lopsided population, having greatly diminished numbers, Judea could be hard-pressed to continue financially supporting their many adult yeshiva students who spend their lives in Torah study rather than working at a regular job. They might actually be forced to seek employment for the first time since they’ll be taking in fewer tax revenues which will not allow for subsidies that they’ve enjoyed until now.

But how would a military system work, given that most of those who serve in the army would live on the “New Israel” side? Would they provide a defense for “Judea” in the event of an attack by a hostile enemy? Or would they be left to fend for themselves? These are practical questions that may sound absurd but which, nonetheless, demand answers and solutions. Because as splintered as we are, at the moment, everyone knows that if our country was under siege by Iran, Russia or some other nation, every Israeli citizen would fight to the death to save our land and our people.

So, is a partition even a feasible idea?

It’s hard to say, but one Israeli attorney named Moti Ehrlich, who was raised in a Hasidic family, says that we need to do some soul-searching. As someone who deals with civil lawsuits, and was an enthusiastic supporter of change in the legal system, he says, “Once I saw the social cost of the promotion of the reform, I wasn’t ready to pay the price.” In his opinion, “We need to build a political solution that gives power to a large minority that has not been able to get into power.” While he, who identifies as a conservative, recognizes that this will empower more liberal voices, he feels that it is worthwhile.

The great conundrum is whether or not we have said Kaddish (the mourner’s prayer) over the concept that real unity and mutual respect can ever be achieved in the State of Israel. If not, maybe there is more that can be done in order to salvage the marriage. In Ruth Wasserman Lande’s article entitled, “Social cohesion is not an impossible dream, she states, “It requires political courage to stand up to those for whom social cohesion, mutual respect and a wide common denominator upon which the majority of society may lean, is an unwanted reality.”

That political courage, of which she speaks, short of divine intervention, may be the only hope in staving off an impending bitter divorce where no sides win and irreparable damage is done to all of our citizens. Isn’t there one or two who are willing to stand up as the glue which is needed to hold us together? We are waiting, because like all children, we only want one home and not two!