Ridicule is the refuge of the ignorant. When the destruction of an idea cannot be accomplished through argumentation, the use of mockery is the only alternative. The realization of this truth by the great political philosopher Leo Strauss in describing the "enlightment's" attempt to supersede traditional Judaism is most appropriate in understanding the most recent attack by the Israeli secularists on the Torah.

On November 6, 1996 the Knesset Education Committee held a special session concerning the broadcasting on Friday nights on the state sponsored television station of a comedy spot that satirizes the weekly Torah portion. Gil Kopatch's parody sketch of the weekly Torah portion, airing on Yair Lapid's talk show, uses graphic language and crude sexual characterizations in depicting the behavior and personalities of Biblical figures.

Even before the committee held their session Knesset members from Shas, United Torah Judaism, and the National Religious Party met with Avigdor Lieberman, director-general of the Prime Minister's Office, to complain about the nature of the programming aired on state sponsored media. United Torah Judaism MK Rabbi Shmuel Halpert stated that the satire is "anti-Semitic" and greatly offensive to the religious community. Likewise his fellow party member MK Rabbi Avraham Ravitz, said things have gotten worst rather than better since the arrival of the new government and expressed his fear that those who object to the satire would be branded as anti-free speech advocates. He said,"They'll turn Kopatch into Salman Rushdie, but Judaism is fighting a difficult battle against liberal terror."Shas MK Shlomo Benizri implying that a coalition crisis could be at hand if immediate action was not taken said:"We have one demand: stop this abomination which is being funded by state and public funds."National Religious Party MK Hanan Porat unequivocally called the satire "an abomination" and "sacrilege." Lieberman said that while he appreciates satire, Kopatch's work crosses the boundaries of freedom of expression."Imagine what would happen, with all my love for satire, if such a skit was made about the Koran or Christian beliefs?"He further stated that the parody violated the Israel Broadcasting Law and the Penal Code and that it would be considered antisemitic if shown in Germany or Russia.

Gil Kopatch defended himself by stated: "I don't want to speak about the Koran and the New Testament because I'm a Jew, a believing Jew. Torah is precious to me. We thought, although it didn't turn out that way, that this would bridge the terrible gap between secular and religious," said Kopatch. He continued, "I'm not Rashi or a Torah commentator, I'm just an artist. I speak in such light tones because that's the language my audience speaks. What language could I use? Aramaic or Yiddish? They don't speak that."

Mordechai Kirschenbaum defended the satire. He said that the television spot was not meant to deride the Bible, but rather to criticize current social and political phenomena, using the lessons of the Bible. He said that the cancellation of sketch would be a great disservice to the sensibilities of the secular public. "You think you have a monopoly on the portion of week and the secular have nothing to do with it. But you are wrong. Secular spirit and secular minds also deal with the Torah."

Rina Shapira expressed how disturbed she was by the heated and often loud exchanges during the session and denied that there was a cultural war being waged between the secular and religious within the Israeli media. "The personal attacks on the presenter and on the television and its workers made me cross," stated Shapira. "I believe this executive unequivocally gives rights of expression to all groups."

Most members of the committee were not convinced. Shas MK Shlomo Benizri spoke passionately of the attack on the Biblical forefathers. "There are things Gil [Kopatch] can say which I can't, and he says them in G-d's name and in the name of Maimonides and Rashi. I have never seen a Rashi commentary which says, like [Kopatch] did, forgive me: 'With his penis hanging out.' These are your inventions and they hurt all the People of Israel." Again he suggested in a veiled threat that he would pursue the cutting of funds to the Israel Broadcasting Authority if the situation did not change. United Torah Judaism MK Rabbi Shmuel Halpert said that a far greater objection would have been made had a parody like Kopatch's been made on Jesus or Mohammed.

Those members of the committee supporting Kopatch included committee chairman Emanuel Zissman who maintained that the independence if the IBA was paramount. "It's impossible for the IBA to be sold on just one perspective. What you did yesterday was unprecedented." "It was a lynch," Zissman insisted, referring to the meeting of Knesset members with Avigdor Lieberman the day before. Likud MK Ruby Rivlin echoed similar thoughts saying: "There are not two Jewish Peoples, only one. Don't do this terrible thing to me. Don't create a chasm between us."

It has been suggested from various sources that the reason things have gotten so bad recently is because within the Israeli media it is known that the celebrities, writers and producers of the Israel's state television station realize that their days are numbered and are attempting to make hay while the sun shines. That is not to say that the Torah has not been the central target of derision by the communications industry and the department of education under the entire administration of the previous government. To the contrary, the extremist left wing Meretz faction of the Labor regime was able to thrust upon the Israeli public an agenda so extreme that it may claim the credit for today's intense polarization of the country's population. And so it went, yet another day in the disturbed world of Israeli political life. However completely mundane the posturing of various Knesset members and bureaucrats, the matter at hand is far from trivial. The situation has to do not only with the inane behavior of the Israeli politicos, but a far more fundament one dealing with basic values and understandings of the State of Israel.

The Jerusalem Post Editorial of Nov. 7, entitled, "Unfunny Coercion," misses the point completely when it writes:

The demand by Shas MK Shlomo Benizri to remove Gil Kopatch's popular satirical spot on the weekly Torah portion, which airs Friday night on Channel 1, is an embarrassing affront to the right of free speech, a cornerstone of any democratic society. While free speech has its limits, satirizing the Bible, even if in poor taste, does not come close to crossing those limits.

. . . since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, the country has struggled to define what constitutes incitement to violence, and what is extreme but legitimate political rhetoric. There is a consensus that direct calls for violence cannot be tolerated. But a television program that satirizes the portion of the week does not even come close to crossing this red line. Satire by definition is biting humor, but if it becomes simply malicious, vulgar, or shocking, it will fail on its own terms and is unlikely to survive for long. In a democracy, the majority must be careful not to trample on the sensitivities of any minority. But neither should minorities impose their will through political coercion.

What is at risk here is not free speech, but the values of a society. Only the most naive fool would believe that the removal of this television spot would constitute authoritarian control over the media. What sacred cows would enrage the secularist in Israel? Perhaps the lampooning of democracy or the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin would place them in a similar position. That is not to say that the religious community would not be equally outraged at a parody of these subjects as well. Would the supporters of Kopatch argue that when the sensitivities of African Americans are disturbed by a perverted interpretation of American slavery that the African American should not exercise his power to see it stopped? Certainly not. And all the more so in the case of the Bible in the Land of Israel; for in reality, it is not important who is or is not offended, what is important is what is necessarily sacrosanct to a people and a culture.

Note: Due to the publicity generated by this uproar, it is expected that Kopatch's piece will be rewarded with huge ratings.
# Click for the B'tzedek commentary index.