During the second half of the 20th century, the kabbalistic concept of tikkun olam—literally adjusting or “repairing” the world—was transformed in some American Jewish circles into a religious obligation incumbent upon Jews to make the world a better place. This imperative quickly became indistinguishable from the causes of the American left, so that tikkun olam is now synonymous with “social justice.” In his recent book To Heal the World?, Jonathan Neumann argues that this new understanding of tikkun olam has distorted much of American Judaism and undermined the rationale for preserving Judaism and the Jewish people. He discusses the book with Jonathan Silver. (Audio, 31 minutes. Options for download and streaming are available at the link below.)
How the Desire to “Repair the World” Came to Undermine Jewish Particularism
By Recognizing Israeli Sovereignty over the Golan, the U.S. Has Freed Israel from “Land for Peace”
In the 52 years since Israel seized the Golan Heights from Syria, there have been multiple efforts to negotiate their return in exchange for Damascus ending its continuous war against the Jewish state. Shmuel Rosner argues that, with his announcement on Thursday acknowledging the legitimacy of Jerusalem’s claim to the Golan, Donald Trump has finally decoupled territorial concessions from peacemaking:
[With] the takeover of much of Syria by Iran and its proxies, . . . Israel had no choice but to give up on the idea of withdrawing from the Golan Heights. But this reality involves a complete overhaul of the way the international community thinks not just about the Golan Heights but also about all of the lands Israel occupied in 1967. . . .
Withdrawal worked for Israel once, in 1979, when it signed a peace agreement with Egypt and left the Sinai Peninsula, which had also been occupied in 1967. But that also set a problematic precedent. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt insisted that Israel hand back the entire peninsula to the last inch. Israel decided that the reward was worth the price, as a major Arab country agreed to break with other Arab states and accept Israel’s legitimacy.
But there was a hidden, unanticipated cost: Israel’s adversaries, in future negotiations, would demand the same kind of compensation. The 1967 line—what Israel controlled before the war—became the starting point for all Arab countries, including Syria. It became a sacred formula, worshiped by the international community.
What President Trump is doing extends far beyond the ability of Israel to control the Golan Heights, to settle it, and to invest in it. The American president is setting the clock back to before the peace deal with Egypt, to a time when Israel could argue that the reward for peace is peace—not land. Syria, of course, is unlikely to accept this. At least not in the short term. But maybe someday, a Syrian leader will come along who doesn’t entertain the thought that Israel might agree to return to the pre-1967 line and who will accept a different formula for achieving peace.