As the cold winds pierce their woolen robes, the tribesmen are grateful for the thick turbans wound around their heads and the beards that cover their frigid faces. These rugged herdsmen and farmers crouch in caves and mountain ravines, resting after a surprise raid on the enemy camped below. They are few in number, and their weapons are primitive against those of the formidable foe. But the mountainous terrain they know so well is helping these warriors drive out the powerful forces that have swept down from the north. They will not be dominated, for they are fiercely independent, and relentless in their fight for their land and their G-d.
If you are imagining that Yehudah Hamaccabee will soon step out to exhort his men to victory over the armies of Antiochus, you are mistaken. This is Afghanistan in the ’80s, and the Afghans are fighting the Russians.
It’s a long road to Afghanistan, and a bumpy one. The ponies of Achashverosh rushed along them delivering Esther’s letters to satrapies in the shadow of the mighty Hindu Kush. Alexander the Great galloped through on his way to India. And centuries later, Ghengis Khan came and conquered, slaughtering the people and laying waste to the land. Although it is one of the poorest and most undeveloped countries in the world, Afghanistan’s geographic position at the crossroads of Central Asia has made it prey to an amazing variety of conquerors—usually on their way to somewhere else.
Baltimorean Dr. Elie Krakowski has also traveled the road to Afghanistan. His interest in the backward nation began during his years as Special Assistant to the U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon during the Reagan Administration. As the Soviets gained against the poorly armed Afghan resistance, Dr. Krakowski was one of those who urged greater U.S. involvement. He became an architect of American policy on Afghanistan and also participated actively in the negotiating process that brought an end to the Soviet-Afghan war.
Dr. Krakowski left government in 1988, and spent several years as Professor of International Relations and Law at Boston University. For the past four years, he has headed his own global political and security risk-management consulting firm, EDK Consulting. Whether it be developing counterterrorism measures for U.S. airports, facilitating international business transactions, or interacting with foreign governments, his work is rarely boring.
Dr. Krakowski is excited about his latest project, which could be called conflict resolution centered on Afghanistan. Funded by a prestigious private foundation, it is an ambitious and high-stakes attempt to bring the various players in the Afghan conflict to think differently about their Afghan policies in order to facilitate a peaceful resolution. As part of the project, Dr. Krakowski recently made a three-week trip to Pakistan, Turkmenistan, and India, where he met with high-ranking government officials, journalists, academics, and intellectuals.
In Afghanistan today, chaos has settled in. The Soviet-Afghan war (1979 to 1989) devastated the country. It was marked by terrible atrocities, and produced millions of civilian and military casualties as well as hordes of refugees, who still endure a miserable existence in neighboring Pakistan and Iran. For the Soviets, Afghanistan ultimately became their Vietnam. The Soviet defeat was a major contributing cause of the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991—and with it, the end of the Cold War.
Here in the West, we cheered our victory over the “evil empire,” but in Afghanistan, the suffering continues. Continuing civil war among rival militias—supported by Pakistan, Iran, and Russia—disrupts normal life. And the people are the victims—living without food, shelter, medicine, education, or the most basic human rights.
Meanwhile, back in Baltimore, if any of us thinks of this far off land at all, we may remember the 1998 cruise missile attack on the terrorist training camp from where Saudi financier Osama bin Laden masterminded the blow up of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Or we may be aware of the pitiful condition of Afghanistan’s women under Taliban rule. This rigid, extremist Muslim group that swept into the power vacuum caused by the Russians’ retreat forbids women to appear in public without a male relative, work outside the home, or even be treated by a male doctor.
So, we have heard of Afghanistan. But why should we care?
There is a concept in Torah that any calamity in the world sends a message to klal Yisrael. Even as our hearts ache for the precarious situation of Eretz Yisrael, it may be helpful to gain perspective on that maddeningly complex problem by looking at other regional wars. In Afghanistan, in particular, similar forces are at work: Islamic extremism and intractable differences between the parties.
Aside from that, we do care about human beings in distress. And we certainly care about the general political tenor in the world. Just as violence and lashon hara on a personal level tend to replicate themselves—chaos, bloodshed, and evil speech (read, propaganda) on a global level have a disturbing tendency to spread much more easily than righteousness and justice. We don’t have to go further back than the worldwide catastrophe of 60 years ago to learn that lesson. And instability, especially in a region so close to the Middle East, affects Eretz Yisrael, and even the United States.
Although Dr. Krakowski’s work sounds almost impossible to do, it is hard to imagine anyone better equipped to do it. He is a recognized authority on international terrorism, regional conflicts, unconventional warfare, and propaganda. When he was in the Pentagon, he coordinated multimillion-dollar programs in humanitarian aid, and contributed to Presidential national security directives. He helped U.S. intelligence agencies improve the way they collect, analyze, and distribute intelligence data. He writes and lectures frequently on these topics to prestigious audiences.
On the personal level, too, Dr. Krakowski has an unusual background. He comes from a Lithuanian rabbinic family known for its Jewish learning and piety as well as for its brilliance, a tradition continued even in America. For instance, Dr. Krakowski is related to both Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, zt”l and Rav Moshe Feinstein, zt”l.
Dr. Krakowski was raised in France until the age of 14, when his mother, by then a widow, brought him and his brother to New York to enable them to get the best Torah education. She herself was a remarkable person: a professor of Tanach and French literature, as well as head of the French Department at Stern College for Women. She was my teacher for both subjects, and I remember her as the epitome of rectitude and intellectual excellence.
The Krakowskis moved to Baltimore this summer from Sharon, Massachusetts. They are members of Darchei Tzedek Congregation. Two sons attend Bais HaMedrash and Mesivta of Baltimore (Rabbi Slanger’s yeshiva), and a daughter goes to Bais Yaakov Middle School. Dr. and Mrs. Krakowski are enthused about the rich social and educational opportunities in Baltimore’s frum community.
In this candid interview, Dr. Krakowski discusses not only Afghanistan but also the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Most interesting are his comments on his mother’s parenting methods and his views on education in our contemporary frum community. He brings to these views the full weight of both his professional experience and his family heritage.
For Elie Krakowski, it’s been a long road to Afghanistan. But it is not hard to picture that road one day leading him to a different place, where he will play a role in a different conflict. Like the conquerors of yore, perhaps he too is on his way to somewhere else.
Where, What, When: Dr. Krakowski, as part of the team of government negotiators in the 80s, and on your latest trip, how did you feel sitting down with the Afghan tribesmen?
Dr. Elie Krakowski: I’ve always felt very comfortable with the Afghans. I’m not sure I can explain why. Even on this trip, when I met the foreign minister of the Taliban, the tone of the meeting was very positive. Although the Taliban are Muslim extremists who people say are living in the 7th century, I didn’t feel at all uncomfortable. I think part of it is that I have a very good reputation with the Afghans. They know that I tried to help them in the 80s, and that I’m concerned with true self-determination, with enabling them finally to be in control of their own lives. I think that all the factions trust me, even though they may be at odds with one another.
WWW: Do the people in Central and South Asia know you are a frum Jew? How do they feel about Jews?
EK: The Afghan tribal chiefs, Pakistani generals, and others who know me from the period when I was in the Pentagon, know that I am a Jew, but not necessarily how observant I am. I don’t go into details, simply because I don’t think the personal data is relevant. I come in as an American. When people notice I don’t eat the same food as they do, questions invariably arise. I then explain that I eat only kosher. So, I would say, in a nutshell, that while I don’t advertise the fact that I’m Jewish, I don’t hide it. If anyone raises the question, I quite clearly say I am.
For one reason or another, on this last trip, people—whether Uzbeks, Tadjiks, Pakistanis, or Indians—either knew that I am a Jew or asked if I was. For instance, one government official asked me if there was an Israeli connection to my trip. I said, “No, although I am a Jew.” He said, “Oh, that’s obvious.”
As to how they feel about Jews, that’s complicated to answer. A while back, I don’t know that there was that much anti-Semitism in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, for that matter. Some of the Pashtun Afghan tribes themselves have a tradition that they are from the Ten Lost Tribes. James Mitchner’s novel, Caravans, details their traditions, and you can see that some of them are quite close to Jewish practice.
By now, however, Arab propaganda has penetrated all over that region. It’s been very effective propaganda; it’s automatic now to have a very negative view of Jews, Israelis, and Zionism. I haven’t felt it, though, or even had anyone gasp when they find out that I’m Jewish. Not only that, but there are a number of Jews in the State Department with really Jewish names who deal with the region and don’t encounter problems. I think it has to do with the perception that an American is the representative of a very powerful country. And these are cultures that respect power.
One interesting thing happened on this trip. A retired Pakistani general started making anti-Semitic statements about the Lieberman nomination, to the effect that the Jews are greedy and want all the power. I suppose my face must have betrayed something, because all of a sudden, he turned and asked me, “Where are you from?”
I answered, “I’m an American.”
“No, no, what religion?”
“Well, I’m Jewish.”
“Are you Orthodox, Conservative or Reform?” he asked
I expressed surprise that he knew about that. “Oh yes,” he said. And, when I informed him I was Orthodox, he replied, “And I’ve wanted to talk to an Orthodox Jew for a long time.” We continued to have a very frank exchange on the Middle East, which I think was very productive. I made some strong points about what the Muslims should do that he seemed to agree with.
WWW: I’ve never heard of a grant given for non-purely academic purposes. What was your goal for your recent trip, and did you accomplish it?
EK: Yes, getting such a grant is really an unbelievable situation, which I consider to be pure hashgacha (divine providence), because most grants are given for pure research. And the timing couldn’t be better, because there’s a lot going on now.
My goal is to research how committed the states surrounding Afghanistan are to their current Afghan policies, and to determine whether they are willing to entertain alternatives. The ultimate, unofficial goal is to see if it is possible to contribute to moving things away from where they are, and towards less shortsighted and more constructive policies.
This trip was the first of four. It was a success in the sense that it confirmed much of my initial hypothesis that there is indeed room to work toward an alternative solution in Afghanistan. I met most of the people I wanted to meet and even some that I didn’t think I would meet. Finally, and certainly not least, I was able to establish excellent working relationships, and a basis of trust, with key people in several countries. It was very interesting and exciting.
WWW: Why should we care about what happens in Afghanistan?
EK: What happens in Afghanistan is important for several reasons. One: Afghanistan is now a political vacuum, out of which come terrorism and drugs. Afghanistan produces close to 75 percent of the world’s heroin supply. That heroin finds its way to Europe and America, and also contributes to a horrible situation in Pakistan, Iran, and other surrounding countries.
Then, of course, the Saudi terrorist Osama bin Ladin is now in Afghanistan. The terrorism training camps are producing people who are active in Chechnya, China, and the new Central Asian republics. The same terrorists quite possibly could have been behind the attack on the USS Cole.
A third reason, as if these were not enough, is the effect on Pakistan. Pakistani encouragement of Islamic extremism in Afghanistan has produced a parallel increase in extremism within Pakistan. Such a trend could ultimately lead to a violent seizure of power by Muslim extremists in Pakistan. That, in turn, would mean another radical rogue state in the region—not exactly what one would like to contemplate, especially since Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Finally, the chaos and continuing, externally-assisted civil conflict in Afghanistan is destabilizing the surrounding region. Unrest in what has become a major oil-producing region has enormous consequences for Europe and the United States in terms of the energy situation. So, for all those reasons, Afghanistan is a fairly significant issue. It is not well recognized as such, but it will become more recognized, because the situation is deteriorating.
WWW: You are an expert in conflict resolution. If you were at the negotiating table, how would you resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that seems to have no solution?
EK: The one area where I really don’t see any conflict resolution is with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In theory, it should be possible for the Israelis and Palestinians to coexist. It should also be possible to make territorial compromises, where the Palestinians would have certain territory, even have a state, and they could live in peace with Israel.
On the part of the Israelis, I think a great majority is willing to make costly, even painful, territorial compromises for the sake of peace. Even those people who are opposed to compromises, with very few exceptions, would swallow those compromises if they were sure they would bring peace. The problem is not on the side of the Israelis. The problem is on the side of the Arabs and the Palestinians.
WWW: Why don’t the Palestinians accept such a compromise?
EK: Among some of the more educated Palestinians, there is a growing recognition of the fact of Israel’s existence, and a willingness to live side by side. The problem is that they are not the ones holding power and they are not in the majority. Those who hold power have as their ideology, belief, and objective the creation of what they call a “democratic Palestinian state” that would officially tolerate the presence of Jews in its midst. The PLO’s explicit and open negotiating strategy is the bringing about of such a Palestinian state, which would include Jerusalem as its capital and would reabsorb all the refugees and their descendants from 1948.
Although they say the Jews would have, like the others, the right to vote, it doesn’t take a genius to see that—when you count the Israeli Arabs; plus those in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza; plus the refugees in refugee camps in the Arab world—you would have a majority of Palestinians, whether Christians or Muslims. There would, G-d forbid, not be a Jewish State of Israel. This is a clearly spelled out negotiating position. People don’t seem to want to deal with it as such. The idea is, well, that’s what they say and that’s what they want, but we’ll negotiate and they’ll compromise.
WWW: You don’t think so?
EK: No. If they were able to accept a compromise, that’s one thing. But their position has remained the same, while Israel has backed off from its earlier position. That’s number one. The other element is the education of children. There’s a constant harping on anti-Jewish and anti-Israel propaganda. And there is no preparation whatsoever of their population towards peace and coexistence.
WWW: Why are we the only ones who recognize the Palestinian goal? Why don’t the Americans see it?
EK: I’m not sure that the Jews themselves all recognize it. For instance, a large percentage of Jews voted for Hillary Clinton in New York, who took positions that are pro-Palestinian. She kissed Arafat’s wife at a public function at which Mrs. Arafat had accused the Israelis of poisoning Palestinian children. So, Jews have unfortunately not been very savvy, and have tended to go along with what the rest of the world wants.
It’s very inconvenient for the Western world to be constantly badgered by the Arabs. The Arabs are, in essence, using blackmail techniques, and the tendency is to say to Israel, “You are reasonable, why don’t you compromise.” Western Europe became pro-Palestinian a long time ago simply because of constant Arab pressure and blackmail. It ingratiated itself with the oil producing states, with the idea that there are many more Arabs than Jews. And, no doubt, there has been a bit of the old fashioned anti-Semitic component. The Arabs have been very successful with the Europeans. The United States has remained the most pro-Israel and the most willing to stand by Israel.
But the U.S. would also prefer the problem to go away. If one admits that the Palestinians still want the destruction of Israel, policy making becomes much more complicated and painful.
WWW: Do you see the positive attitude of the United States continuing?
EK: There is now a rapidly growing population from the Middle East in the United States and a growing Arab-American lobby that is very active and very vocal, which can make the situation far less simple than it has been until now. They are putting increasing pressure on government officials and gaining growing influence in Congress. I think this is something that bears watching.
Now, Muslims don’t necessarily have to be anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. The irony is that many of the Arab states want a Palestinian state even less, if that’s possible, than Israel does—because they know that the Palestinian leadership is very radical, with extensive links with the Iranians. Palestinians are industrious and capable, and the Arab governments are afraid of a Palestinian state as a radical entity that would stir up problems.
On top of that, you have an inherent conflict of interest between the Palestinians and the Syrians, who claim Palestine as a part of Greater Syria. If, G-d forbid, there were no Israel, there would be so much more chaos and conflict in the region than there is now that it’s difficult to describe. Israel has acted as a stabilizer in the Middle East. I think there may be some recognition from at least some people in the U.S. government that Israel really is a strategic asset.
WWW: It sounds pretty hopeless.
EK: I don’t think it is necessarily an overly bleak picture. It is bleak if current trends are allowed to continue unchecked. It is bleak if the United States doesn’t take a firmer stand than it does now. It is bleak if, instead of recognizing what we are confronting, we continue to pretend that we can go back to the negotiations with the Palestinians as if nothing has happened. We can’t go back, because each time the Palestinians do not get what they want, they resort to street violence. This has now escalated beyond where it used to be, in large part because of Israeli concessions. The Palestinians have not taken concessions for what the Israelis have meant them to be: gestures for the sake of peace. They have taken them as signs of weakness.
WWW: Is there something different about the Palestinian mental processes? Do they not think in the same way we do?
EK: When you say “in the same way we do,” what you mean is a Western way of thinking. The Western approach is that people, in their dealings with one another, agree to divide and allocate resources according to a process of compromise. They accept that they will not get everything they want but that they will get something they want, and others will also get something, which is better than getting nothing because people are fighting over it.
In large parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, there is a different attitude toward conflict from that held in the West: People don’t necessarily see conflict as bad. This can get into an interesting philosophical discussion about the individual versus the group. The West emphasizes the individual; the rest of the world emphasizes the group. That’s why the Palestinians encourage suicide bombers and put children in front of their own troops, so that the children are caught in the crossfire.
WWW: How can Israel ever win against such an enemy? They’ll never stop because they have no feeling of loss.
EK: This addresses the issue you raised earlier, that it’s a hopeless picture I’m painting. Does it have to be so bleak? The answer, first of all, is that everything occurs in the context of hashgacha (divine providence). Ultimately, everything depends on Hashem. But when it comes to explaining it in political terms, and working towards a more positive state of affairs, then I think two things are needed. One is that, within Israel itself, the problem of the increasing polarization between the religious and the anti-religious has to be arrested and dealt with. The second is the external dimension.
WWW: Are you saying that this internal struggle is causing the external turmoil?
EK: Not necessarily causing it, but certainly contributing to it. When you look at a state’s ability to confront difficult crises, internal cohesion and agreement on fundamental values are very important elements. Without those elements, a state is at risk in any confrontation.
The United States today has a serious problem itself, because there is no consensus on fundamental moral values, as there used to be. When you see the bitter disputes on abortion and homosexuality, which are fundamental values—and there are a number of such issues—you have a serious situation. In the U.S. today, you also have some disagreement on what is worth fighting for. Right now, the United States is not confronting major challenges. If it were, we would be in a difficult situation, too.
In Israel, the Left, after having been shocked at the outrageous behavior of Arafat, is now “recovering.” People like Yossi Sarid are saying, if only we would give the settlements to the Arabs, then there would be peace. This is a dangerous delusion. Because the record is clear, as I described, about what the Palestinians are doing. For a moment, the Left almost recognized it. Now, the wishful thinking is reasserting itself, and they are looking to blame not themselves, but the religious and the more nationalist elements for what is, in essence, rigidity on the part of the Palestinians, a total unwillingness to accept Israel.
WWW: So you are talking about political polarization?
EK: I’m talking about the internal dimension, about putting Israel’s house in order. Jews in general must recognize that now is a time of tremendous crisis. Pulling together is necessary. (When you have someone like Leah Rabin, who refused to shake Netanyahu’s hand but was willing to embrace Arafat, that is very serious.) Pulling together means recognizing that we are Jews, and have certain moral responsibilities. You don’t necessarily have to have someone frum to do this. Clearly, it would be nice if everyone recognized that to be a Jew means to be a halachic Jew. I don’t know if that is realistic right now. But I think one needs to work at least toward a realization that being a Jew means something more than being born one, living in Israel or not. What you would need in Israel is a person of statesman-like character to rise above the fray and say, “We cannot continue like this. The time has come to recognize that we are facing mortal danger. Fundamental values are at stake. Let us do some true, genuine introspection.”
WWW: What about the external dimension?
EK: On the outside, if things unravel further, it could be extremely dangerous. We’ve seen already that the violence is not limited to Israel; there have been a number of attacks on Jews in Canada and in France, for instance, and the Canadian government’s lukewarm response to violence against Jews is likely to encourage further violence.
If things continue as they are, the situation could become serious. Again, it doesn’t have to be that way. But Israel has to be willing to take a much tougher stance—which would, in essence, mean saying, we have tried concessions, we have tried compromise. They have only brought more extremist behavior and blackmail techniques. We will now stop that altogether. It is our survival at stake, and we will do everything necessary with regard to our survival, whether people like it or not.
This is not simply an Intifada; it’s getting closer to guerrilla warfare. The Palestinians are trying to get Israel to abide by strict rules of behavior and law while they can do anything they want, wherever they want, whenever they want. Everything is a legitimate target as far as they are concerned, whether it’s a neighborhood in Gilo or mothers in cars on the road. Then they say Israel should not respond.
WWW: But if the Israelis retaliate, they face even more terrorism on the roads and in the cities.
EK: There is no choice. If you don’t retaliate, you will bring in more attacks anyway. The logic of blackmailers and terrorists is precisely that: to frighten their victims by saying, if you react to what I do to you, I will do more. There is no way for you, the victim, to win. The only answer to terrorists is, you are wrong! And thank G-d, Israel does have the power to deal with terrorism and blackmail, and has no choice but to deal firmly with them—and to explain why.
At the same time, Israel and the Palestinians don’t live in a vacuum. The U.S.—by attempting to be neutral, an “honest broker”—is in effect encouraging the extremist behavior by rewarding it. Every time there is a Palestinian demand, pressure is put on the Israelis to compromise. The failure of the U.S. to veto the anti-Israel resolution in the UN also made it appear weak. The blackmailer’s approach often leads to an attempt to appease him and yield to his demands.
WWW: What should the United States do?
EK: The United States has to recognize what is going on, to be willing to explain it to the public, and to draw logical conclusions in terms of policy. This means a much stronger, more unequivocal position—saying in effect that Arafat has used blackmail and guerrilla warfare when negotiations didn’t result in acceptance of his totally inflexible positions. The United States has to take a definite stand that the issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis are resolvable through negotiations, and that the Palestinians must explicitly recognize the existence of the State of Israel not just in rhetoric but also in their negotiating positions. The attitudes of the people and the education of the people have to change. And certainly the U.S. and others need to make clear that violence to achieve those goals will not be tolerated.
WWW: Wouldn’t such a position make the United States the object of Arab terrorism?
EK: The United States has already been the target of terrorist attacks, like the one on the USS Cole. People are, of course, linking that with U.S. support for Israel. But the truth is that the two are not as connected as people make them out to be. You have among radical Muslims a very strongly antagonistic attitude toward the United States, because they see in American culture and values a threat to their vision of Islam. The Iranians have called the United States the Great Satan. Bin Ladin and other terrorists see the United States similarly. So it really makes no difference whether Israel is there or not. They would find a different excuse to press and attack the United States.
WWW: Will the Palestinians really listen to the United States?
EK: If the United States is firm in its approach, then I think all of it can be brought about. But the United States has to be willing to do it.
WWW: What Jewish values do you bring to your work?
EK: I like to think that they pervade the work I do. My attitude and behavior are, I think, dictated by traditional Jewish values. When I look at things, I look at them in a moral context and with a background of halacha and knowledge of what is right and wrong. Ultimately, my interest is always in contributing to the improvement of the situation: making things better. This does not necessarily always directly benefit Jews, but I like to think there is a bit of a kiddush Hashem involved, in the sense that when people know who I am, they will, hopefully, see correct, principled behavior, which can only reflect well on Jews and Judaism.
WWW: What did your parents do in France?
EK: They were very active in many aspects of French Jewish life. They were the heads of Jewish schools in Versailles and Paris, where my father also taught. My mother was also a professor in the university. They both had doctorates: my father in philosophy, and my mother in French literature from the Sorbonne, which was very unusual at the time for women. My father had semicha also. During the War, my parents were in Vichy France, and in ’43, crossed over into Switzerland.
WWW: How did you get interested this field? I would guess it has something to do with your family background.
EK: No, not at all—certainly not at a conscious level. My father unfortunately passed away when I was nine years old. I don’t think he liked anything that dealt with the military. And my mother was not political at all. We didn’t have any conversations at home about politics. My mother’s discussions dealt often with ethical, moral behavior, but not in a political context. In fact, I had no interest in politics whatever when I was 14, 15, 16.
I’ve always been interested in social interaction, in dealing with other people. My parents were very active people, and my brother and I were exposed to a wide range of individuals from varied backgrounds coming to the house. The importance of being good to other people, of helping others, bein adam lechaveiro, was stressed from when I was very young.
In college, I was attracted much more to the social sciences and the humanities than to the sciences. I took a course in philosophy, and felt it was very interesting. In philosophy I gravitated toward political theory: the concept of justice, ideas about how a society should be run. And then I saw I was more interested in relations among societies, rather than what happens within societies. And so from philosophy, I gravitated toward political science, and within that broad field, I decided that international relations was the most interesting.
WWW: I thought it had to do with your family in that sense that the international political situation in Europe affected your lives in a drastic way.
EK: It may well be, although I admit I have never thought of it in that way. Circumstances in one’s life do have a bearing on what one does. My family’s experience certainly sensitized me to differences among peoples, among states, among behaviors. It’s entirely possible that, had I been born in the United States, my interests might have been different.
WWW: Your mother let you follow your interests?
EK: Yes. You know, often, children say, “Well, if I could, I would do things differently than my mother or father, because they did this thing wrong or that thing wrong.” My feeling is that I can only hope I can imitate what my mother did. Because in terms of education, it’s hard to match the wisdom she had. She gave us a very clear role model, very clear.
Once I was at a meeting when I was in government, and a non-Jew noticed that I was eating kosher food. With a little smile he asked, “You never felt a need to rebel against all these rules?” My answer was given at the spur of the moment, but in retrospect, I think it was a very apt one. I said to him that often the need to rebel stems from a discrepancy between what is being preached and what is being done, and that in my case, I felt myself to be very fortunate in that I never saw any discrepancies—in my father, to the extent that I knew him, or in my mother, whom I knew, thank G-d, much longer. I never saw any discrepancies between what she preached and what she did. She was very true to herself, and exemplified the very best values in Judaism.
Then, on top of that, she never interfered with either my brother’s choices or mine. She let us know unambiguously that she preferred that we do things that did not involve a great deal of difficulty financially, and so forth. She never made any objections to any choices, and not only let us do whatever we thought was good for us but actively supported us in our pursuit of such choices.
WWW: Is this how you are raising your children?
EK: I hope so. My wife and I do what we can in terms of showing them the right direction. We are always there to answer questions and give advice and to act as a sounding board, to encourage or discourage certain things. Because part of a parent’s role in confronting children who are growing up is knowing how to gradually let go. Children become adults and gradually take on more responsibilities. It is extremes that should be avoided. For instance, I’ve heard some people say, “When a child is 18, as far as I’m concerned he should be out of the house.” I think that’s wrong. And the other extreme, to try to control a 20-year-old the way one would control an eight-year-old is also inappropriate. The art is in knowing how to give the right kind of values, and to actually encourage children to gradually take on more responsibility and independence.
WWW: What were the main values that your mother tried to teach you?
EK: The importance—the centrality—of halachic Judaism. She taught me that Judaism is in fact a very broad, open-minded system. My mother was always very strongly opposed to narrow-mindedness, of whatever sort. She was a person who remained true to real Jewish values wherever she was, even in a very non-Jewish environment. I was always very conscious of who I was—even in France, where a strong assertive Jewish life didn’t exist at the time. She taught me to be proud of who I am, without complexes.
My mother taught me also the importance of what one would call bain adam lachaveiro (ethical relations among people)—that bain adam lamakom (between man and G-d) needs bain adam lachavairo. Welcoming guests, hachnasat orchim, is extremely important to my wife and I. That is very clearly something I learned at home.
So, from my mother I learned what I consider to be really genuine Judaism. I learned the importance of principles, the centrality of being a frum Jew, and of being true and honest to oneself. Principles were not just theoretical constructs; they were real, actual, and action oriented, and one had to stand by them no matter what. My mother was a person who not only had principles but acted on them. I have never seen her afraid of anything: the most difficult of situations, in wartime, standing up to the French police in Vichy, France, saving children. I believe I have had very good examples in my parents.
WWW: What do you mean by Judaism being a broad, open-minded system?
EK: I think that true Judaism encourages questioning, about everything. Look at the Chumash. The Ramban and Rashi and Seforno don’t necessarily agree with each other, sometimes on important points. Asking questions is important. Attempting to answer them honestly is important. Judaism is the highest system there can be, and I think one has to tolerate a certain amount of independence of thought and encourage it.
WWW: Do you think that’s being done in the Orthodox Jewish community?
EK: Unfortunately, not sufficiently. To develop well-rounded individuals, I also think it is very important to have a good strong secular education along with limudei kodesh (religious studies). In order to understand the Torah well, it is very important to know the world around us. The general tendency, unfortunately, is to denigrate secular learning. I don’t know how one counters that, except by speaking about it and asserting that it should be done properly, within the strong framework of limudei kodesh, and by having people who are very strong in their Judaism teach these subjects and teach them well. Because if they are not taught properly, if they are considered insignificant, it shows through, and students think it’s a joke.
If you want to have pulpit rabbis and Jewish leaders who can function within the Jewish community and in the Jewish world, you cannot afford, in my opinion, to bring up students who cannot speak correct English, write properly, or know how to articulate thoughts. I’m not saying that every single individual must become a biologist or psychologist or physicist or mathematician. I am saying that people should have a minimum exposure to what is called liberal arts education. To say that the system of education is not good anyway is not an excuse. One has to improve it. I think we are quite able to do that. It’s a question of being willing to recognize that this is not something that is inconsequential.
WWW: Are you talking about going to college?
EK: Unfortunately, we’ve had a devaluation of education in general. A college degree today is not much more than a high school diploma was 20 or 30 years ago. That means that if people once thought that a high school diploma was necessary, today, the minimum is a college degree.
Both my parents exemplified people who had both a very well developed secular education and a tremendous understanding of Jewish sources. My mother taught Tanach and parshanut hamikra, and I’m convinced that she brought a great deal more to the teaching of Yeshayahu and Yirmiyahu because she was very well educated all around, and could bring things from other fields to illustrate the strength and the greatness of the Neviim (Prophets). I don’t think it takes away—I think it adds. The reason this is not well understood is because there is, unfortunately, an increasing number of people who have not had such an education themselves.
WWW: I think there’s a fear that if young people go to college they’ll come under certain intellectual—and not so intellectual—influences.
EK: That’s not totally misplaced, given the world we are now in. The university environment, to put it mildly, is not a very moral one. I’ve taught in universities, so I can speak with some degree of authority. So, I think it’s a very legitimate fear. As to how one reacts to such an external environment, that’s a continuing discussion. I would be quite willing to say that not everyone could withstand it—which is why we should not send everyone into secular colleges and expose them. If people are not strongly equipped, sending them into such environments can be dangerous. Even if they are morally strong, the wisdom of exposing them to it can be questionable.
But a Judaism which discourages questioning, which tends to brush away real, deep questions does not produce a strong Jew. Such an attitude produces someone who does things by rote. I think that children who see that sense it, and are quite likely to rebel against such a Judaism, because it becomes meaningless to them. An intelligent person who has real questions deserves at least a genuine attempt to answer them. If a teacher doesn’t have an answer, he should say, “Let me ask someone else,” instead of saying, “It’s very holy; we can’t understand it; we just have to accept it.” I’ve heard that said, and it’s not a solution. On the other hand, there is a legitimate fear. In my opinion, what is important is to have secular studies teachers who have a solid respect for halacha and Jewish tradition.
WWW: Can you give an example of how one could teach a secular subject in a Jewish context?
EK: When I teach international politics, even to non-Jews, I invariably bring in ideas from Judaism. People often think of the Greeks and Romans, but they don’t often think of the role of Judaism in the history of Western culture. Concerning the question of peace and war, for example, almost no one I’ve taught knew that the only major belief system in the world that has as an integral part of it the concept of permanent peace is Judaism. And the notion of yemot hamashiach (the messianic period) is that. The quote from Yeshayahu on the wall of the United Nations, that the lion and the lamb will sit peacefully side by side, means that there will be a qualitative change in the basic relationships in the world. Things that normally don’t occur now will occur. I point out that this statement has important implications that are worth thinking about.
WWW: You mean the idea that peace is a real possibility?
EK: It’s not a possibility. It will happen.
WWW: This brings us back full circle to our previous discussion. Are you hopeful that peace can emerge from the present situation?
EK: What will happen—aside from the fact that it all depends on Hashem, of course—will be determined by the factors I mentioned before: the ability of people within Israel, and Jews generally, to grasp that the situation today is a crisis of absolutely major proportions, which, since the beginning of the State of Israel, has not been as serious as it is now. I think people are beginning to realize that. But then we have to draw the appropriate conclusions, which is mefaspes bema’asav. We must look inward, search our souls, and find it within ourselves to come to grips with the need to be more united on basic principles.
A friend of mine who is a religious Catholic wrote in one of his books that the reason for Israel’s existence is the Torah. There is no basis other than that. One cannot ignore that fact. What does it mean translated into practical terms? Does it mean that unless everybody becomes frum and obeys the Torah nothing can happen? Ultimately, yes. But in political terms, short term, it means that someone, any Israeli leader, has to say, “We are Israelis, but we are also Jews. The basis of our existence is in terms of Jewish values.”
Relations among people have to improve. Those of us who are frum have to understand that there are others who are not. One needs to talk to them and discuss the issues. This doesn’t mean that everybody is equally right. But in the meantime, we have to accept that we cannot dictate.
Those who are not religious have to understand that they must, at the very least, respect those who are. They must recognize that, at its core, Israel’s existence is connected to Jewishness and the Jewish tradition. And they must be willing to work towards reasserting some of the fundamentals, not talk about doing away with anything that has a religious basis.
We can talk all we want about the external element—and the United States being more firmly in support of Israel can help tremendously; it can help hide some of the internal problems. And of course, Israel must spell out that it will do what is necessary for its survival. But to do that effectively, means doing away with the internal polarization that exists now or reducing its significance. Because the extent of the polarization now in Israel, the severe polarization, is a very serious problem that has to be dealt with.
Everybody has to do some work to understand others. There has to be a willingness to engage others, to have mutual respect, and to rebuild a national consensus. That is extremely important. That has to occur.
WWW: Thank you for a very interesting interview.
