The Movement for Reform Judaism

Sermon given by Rabbi Maurice Michaels on Shabbat R’eh at South West Essex & Settlement Reform Synagogue (Stepney), 19th August '06.

During the period between Tish’a b’Av and Rosh Hashanah, we read a series of haftarot from the Book of Isaiah, generally labelled as the haftarot of consolation. 

While traditionally regarded as the work of a single prophet, the contents and the writing style have led biblical scholars to believe that there was a second author of the book and indeed, possibly a third.  The main reason for this theory is that the Book can be divided into a pre-exilic period, during the exile, and after the return from Babylon.  Thus Isaiah was probably responsible for the first thirty-nine chapters of the Book bearing his name, while chapters forty to fifty-five were written by an unknown prophet of the Babylonian exile given the name Deutero-Isaiah, and the final eleven chapters are attributed to another unknown prophet writing after the exile and called by the scholars Trito-Isaiah, although it is, of course, possible that the second Isaiah returned with the exiles and then continued his teachings. 

I’ve never been able to decide whether the original Isaiah would have been pleased or not by the additions made to his Book, certainly the writing styles, although different, are equally evocative and graphic, having a rhythmic flow and a powerful metaphorical imagery.  You can only guess at how his spoken word - because that is what they originally were - gripped the imagination of his listeners and held them spell-bound, attentive to his every utterance.

As you would expect, because the theme of the set of haftarot during this period of the year is consolation, all of them come from the latter half of the Book, this week’s reading from chapters 54 and 55 being no exception. 

I first encountered this passage nearly sixty years ago, when as a child of eight I chanted the haftarah at a Synagogue not a mile away from here, the East London Synagogue.  I must admit that, at the time, I was too engrossed in getting the cantillation notes correct to pay too much attention to the meaning of the piece, although my Hebrew teacher did insist that I, at least, read it so that I knew what I was singing. 

But much of the English was far too complicated for the average eight-year-old to fully comprehend.  However, looking at it now, it is clearly a prophecy of restoration, a return to the Land; but linked to a return of the people to God.  Just as the Torah talks in our sidrah, R’eh, of the laws by which the ancient Israelites demonstrate their attachment to God and so justify their inheritance of the Land promised to Abraham, so the return from Babylon is dependent on a return to God and Torah.  Indeed, a new and everlasting covenant will be their reward.

History, of course, tells us that the people were indeed enabled to return, although whether as a result of Isaiah’s teachings or Cyrus’ political agenda is not clear.  But the new covenant didn’t turn out to be everlasting.  It only lasted some six hundred years, as far as the Land was concerned before the people were once again dispersed, this time by Rome.  And nearly another nineteen hundred years had to elapse before Israel reverted to being a homeland for the Jewish people in reality as well as in hopes, songs and dreams. 

This shabbat, as we consider the past few weeks of fighting on Israel’s border with Lebanon, my question is not that which adorned the front page of The Jewish Chronicle, ‘Has Israel succeeded?’  Quite honestly that’s irrelevant.   Looking backwards at whether the political and/or the military leaders had the right strategies and used the right tactics; if the intelligence services should have provided better information on Hizbollah’s military capability; how the international media battle could have been improved;  whether Israel’s reputation for trying to keep enemy civilian losses to a minimum has been tarnished or enhanced; if the death of so many Israelis, soldiers and civilians, injuries to hundreds of others, and buildings damaged can be justified by the desire to obtain the release of two kidnapped soldiers; is absolutely necessary for the future.  But for now, my question is ‘How does Israel make the current situation work?’  So let’s have a look at the current situation.

An uneasy ceasefire exists between the IDF, which is still in South Lebanon, and Hizbollah, which has not been disarmed, as required by both the previous and the new UN resolutions on Lebanon.  For the most part - although a remarkable article to the contrary by Michael Behe, a Lebanese journalist in Beirut, appeared in a French on-line magazine, the New Republic - the Lebanese blame Israel for the disastrous consequences of their allowing Hizbollah to create a State within a State, especially one ruled from the outside in Iran and Syria. 

A buffer zone is to be established on the Lebanese side of the border consisting of an international force and the Lebanese army, which no doubt will be infiltrated if not actually by Hizbollah terrorists, then by Hizbollah supporters.  Videos taken from the air by Israeli airmen showed Hizbollah militia being rescued from Israeli attack by UN ambulances, so UN impartiality must be regarded as somewhat suspect.  The perception of Israel’s much vaunted military superiority in the region has inevitably been damaged by the non-obliteration of Hizbollah forces, with the consequent greater confidence of Israel’s neighbouring Arab armies.  Although the international community recognised that Israel was provoked by Hizbollah incursion into its territory and the killing and kidnapping of its soldiers into retaliation, there is a general view of a disproportionate response, even among members of governments that have been wholly supportive, and especially by the media.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a military strategist nor a political advisor, but I believe that Israel - and particularly Prime Minister Ehud Olmert - has to keep its nerve.  Despite increasing opposition to his policies, Mr Olmert has to finish the job he started.  Israel must stand firm over the release of the kidnapped soldiers or all the losses will have been in vain.  Israel must remain in South Lebanon until the full international force takes over. 

A token 200 soldiers from France with the remainder from Muslim countries, antagonistic to Israel, is not acceptable.  Israel must retain its right to respond militarily to further Hizbollah attacks, even if that puts at risk UN soldiers.  Israel must insist on a plan and timetable for disarming Hizbollah and to be part of the monitoring procedure that is put in place. 

However, in parallel with this, Israel must institute talks with the Lebanese Government aimed at creating a modus vivendi with that country, similar to that which it has with Egypt and Jordan.  Israel must make greater efforts to work with Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority and the only viable Palestinian partner, to bring the Israel/Palestine two State solution to fruition. 

Israel must address its domestic political agenda in terms of ensuring justice and equality for Israeli Arabs and other minorities.  Israel must demonstrate a willingness to listen to and act upon the concerns of its own citizens, friendly countries and the Jewish diaspora to ensure that the covenant with God may become everlasting and that the people may know the consolation promised by Isaiah.  Amen.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed