A) The political and media air is roiling with fumes, and any metaphoric ideological match immediately ignites a flame of controversy. Some would say that the disputes in Israeli society stem from ideological differences between Right and Left, but this division, based on concepts invented during the French Revolution, seems almost irrelevant.
Often, ideological debates are a cover for something deeper. Clothed in political discourse, the debates represent a different level of dividing opinions with deeper roots.
B) Two books have been written in our generation, explaining sociological-class controversies in Israel: "The Second Israel" by Dr. Avishai Ben-Haim and "Global Elites and National Citizens” (literally translated as “Mobile and Stationary") by Dr. Gadi Taub.
Ben-Haim mainly focused on the definitions of Mapai's hegemony, whose people represent the first Israel, as opposed to the second Israel, which in his opinion represents a space of Oriental sectarian distinctness, socio-economic oppression and respect for tradition and nationalism, with an emphasis on connection to Judaism. On the other hand, Taub sees the dispute as between the socially mobile elites and the stationary citizens. The ‘Mobile Globalists’ feel at home in every corner around the world, while the stationary or situated citizens are connected to the landscape of their homeland and tradition, with an emphasis on connection to their nation.
I would like to propose a third way of thinking, which does not contradict, but rather adds an additional angle from which we can look at the political controversies in Israeli society.
C) The Rav Kook writes as follows: "The intelligentsia thinks that it can separate itself from tyranny, so that it will be more healthy in its spirit, more noble in its thinking" (Orot HaKodesh 2, pg. 364). The intelligence refers to the elite, the hegemony. Educated people who have reached a certain status. Those people may think that they can separate themselves from the simple man, who are apparently crude and superficial in contrast with the wise and moral elite.
However, according to Rav Kook: "This is a fundamental mistake, a mistake that does not recognize the healthy side to natural forms of understanding, natural feelings and natural senses; they have not been corrected, but neither have they been spoiled by any cultural influence.' In other words, Rav Kook explains that the elite make a fundamental error (!) in its disdain for the masses, because it has a vital, healthy side, and it is not to simply be deigned inferior. A person who puts undue emphasis on the mind, and is not connected to nature and the senses may end up with severe cultural corruption.
The prevailing progressive concept in academia is built on the concept of social and gender construction. That is, society can ‘create’ gender through intellectual concepts; can essentially redefine everything. This is a conceptual distortion, leading, too, to moral distortions. Those who are connected to natural feelings and cognitions do not fall victim to this corruption.
Rav Kook further writes: "The healthy aspect of integrity is found more in simple people, than it is found in intellectual and moral scholars", meaning that sometimes the market vendor has greater intellectual honesty than, for instance, a Supreme Court judge who puts a military soldier in prison on the charge of killing the enemy. The vendor hates the terrorist and wants him dead. If so, in what way is the judge superior to the vendor?
"Of higher prominence are those learned in the particulars of morality, in its rules and nuances, but the essence of its feeling is to be found in the natural, healthy people, that they are the multitudes, the people of the land.' That is, the judge is more familiar with the fine nuances of the law, he knows many details, but the fullness of feeling, the integrity, is found in the people of the land, in those connected to their country and homeland.
There is another virtue of the people over the elite, "… And not necessarily is it the fundamental feeling of morality that raises the multitudes above the distinguished men. But too, in their feeling of faith, of the glory of G-d, of the beauty and vitality – all within those that live their lives uprightly, not filtered through pipes filled with the intoxicating waters of knowledge and wisdom – [these feelings] are healthier and purer in the multitudes.' The masses believe in G-d more than the elite, who are unfortunately by and large alienated from their own tradition – in academia, in the media, in the legal system, and in the military echelons. There is no need to expand further on the rampant alienation in these systems; every few days we hear of a professor, a senior journalist or a judge scorning Judaism and religious people.
D) The problem of the elite, according to Rav Kook, is that it does not understand that in the simple emotions of the people there is greater honesty, morality and faith than they have; it is arrogant and raises itself up above the people. This phenomenon creates an anti-national, anti-Jewish and anti-moral elite. Such an elite cannot survive for long. No matter how much she dominates the High Court and the media, the people will not follow her.
Rav Kook does not despise the elite. He later explains their importance and says that when there are complications in life and conflicting emotions, the masses need wise people to guide it. Not that the common people are lacking intelligence, but rather in complex situations, people with sharp minds are needed, who can handle the nuance. “But”, the Rav Kook adds: "… as advice and guidance influence the common man, so does he too influence the distinguished men with a healthy sense of life."
E) This seminal article by Rav Kook should, in my opinion, serve as a warning for the Israeli elite, which is on a slippery slope of "moral and material decay and deterioration." The elite's contempt for the common people does not make it more enlightened and noble, as it mistakenly thinks, but more subversive, especially when it builds for itself an inner group of closed clique affiliations.
The contempt for the government and the coalition shown by the judicial, defense, academic and media systems stems from the same root. If the general public are rude and superficial, its elected officials are, in their eyes, the elected officials of superficiality and rudeness. Therefore they devalue them at every opportunity and explain why only the unelected elite can rule, as they are not influenced by the mob. That's where their contempt for democracy and the sovereignty of the majority comes from.
But this common people is not beastly; These are the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the chosen people of eternal faith, and most of them straight and honest. The last war revealed the bravery and integrity of the common warriors. If the elite brings itself to connect and respect them, it will become relevant and can be corrected. However, if it continues to despise the ‘workers in the fields’, it will become resentful and ultimately replaced by an honest elite.
F) This is the struggle of the exchange of elites that we are in the midst of – between the alienated clique of elites, and a group of distinguished individuals connected – holding respect for the nation and tradition. Judges, professors, media persons and military leaders of public courage will arise, who will respect the people of Israel and their roots and will be faithful to their identity and traditions.
They are already among us, and these people deserve to be saluted.
