Review: Gershon WEILER, La Tentation Théocratique — Israël, la Loi et le Politique (Jewish Theocracy), Calmann-Lévy, 1991
by Martine TIMSIT
Published in Hebrew in 1976, then translated successively into English and French, Gershon Weiler’s book constitutes a brilliant, and somewhat provocative, reflection on the thorny problem of the relations between religion and the State — within the general context of the Jewish tradition first of all, then within the particular framework of the State of Israel.
The central thesis of this book, which earned its author vehement criticism, is that the Halakha (that is, the Jewish religious law codified by the rabbis) proves fundamentally incompatible with the modern, liberal, and democratic State that the founding fathers of Zionism called for and that a majority of Israelis still strive to build. Thus, not the least of Weiler’s merits is that of addressing in depth a question generally apprehended from a superficial angle, the explanations of the religious conflict in Israel too often confining themselves to institutional factors — in other words, to the capacity for blackmail that the defective functioning of the political system confers on the Orthodox parties. Yet it is not so much the power of the rabbis as the theological doctrine they convey that, for the author, must be called into question.
Aiming at the establishment of a theocratic regime, the Halakha presents as its first characteristic, indeed, the inability to accommodate an autonomous Jewish State founded on a rational legitimacy and governed by a secular law of its own. In the name of the absolute supremacy of divine legislation, the tradition tends toward the institution of a “clerical dictatorship” in which the religious interpreters exercise supreme authority, while the lay organs that remain subordinate to them must essentially watch over respect for the Torah, taking, if need be, measures of coercion. In such a scheme, no decision-making role is granted to a people whose sole duty consists in obeying strictly the revealed Law.
One can see it: the judgment is severe, but in our eyes lucid. The absence of nuance sometimes reproached to the author (see the commentary by Claude Klein that appeared in Le Monde of 31 May 1991) has at least the advantage of laying bare the insurmountable chasm that separates two antagonistic visions of social organization — one theocratic, the other democratic — which the Israeli leaders nonetheless attempt to reconcile by yielding to the demands of the religious parties in important domains. This solution seems to the author totally inadequate; first, because it clashes with the freedom of conscience of non-believing citizens; second, because it rests on a misunderstanding: contrary to what the partisans of a compromise think, the Halakha does not contain a system of values from which the legislator could validly draw inspiration, but a system of laws — “totalitarian” ones, he adds — which admits the competition of no other juridical order. That is why he clearly advocates the separation of religion and the State, even if he conceives that this will require time and will have to adapt to the social and cultural conditions specific to the Jewish State.
A second thesis of the book, bearing on the antipolitical nature of the Halakha, gives rise to greater reservations. Antipolitical, the Jewish religious law certainly is, by the type of attitude it requires, manifestly irreconcilable with the art of governing. As Gershon Weiler rightly states, “politics cannot be conducted according to what is permitted, obligatory, or forbidden” (p. 317).
But is it not, on the contrary, eminently political when it rejects the differentiation between the temporal and spiritual spheres and claims, by that very fact, to dictate to the State its conduct and its law?