BETTINA PRATObility and of their other weaknesses that stand in the way of such a combination. This
vulnerability and these weaknesses, then, are not accidental but rather necessary to keep
people’s eyes oriented toward the time of the Messiah, rather than focused only on the
present and on the limited promises of statehood and earthly power. Prophetic time, the
time when the Jewish community needs prophets to call it back to God, is thus similar to
the time of the Augustinian earthly city, in the sense that it is full of darkness and compro-
mises, with no clear path toward salvation. The work of contemporary inheritors of the
Jewish prophetic tradition, however, may bring some light into this darkness by creating
spaces for human responsibility that may moderate people’s vulnerability and confusion.
Framed in prophetic terms, human rights discourse may provide a practical key to turn
the messianic ideal into a moral imperative that Jewish Israelis can address in social and
political life, even in the present ‘‘darkness.’’
The content of the prophetic interpretation of the Torah evident in RHR statements
and weekly biblical commentaries written in light of current events encompasses but also
exceeds human rights discourse. As Forman suggests, the prophetic call taken up by RHR
can best be encapsulated in words from Deuteronomy, ‘‘Justice, justice you will pursue,’’
which he takes to mean that pursuing just ends is not enough, and that just means (i.e.,
means that are not merely ‘‘justified’’ by the ‘‘justice’’ of their ends) are also needed.
Interpreting the prophetic call in terms of human rights may, of course, facilitate a reading
of Deuteronomy that foregrounds the question of ‘‘just means,’’ leaving aside the question
of just ends as if it were self-evident. From the perspective of RHR, however, this question
is not unproblematic, but rather incapable of being addressed outside the realm of politics
and ideological interpretations of identity, which the group generally engages only in the
rather abstract terms of a Zionism respectful of the rights of Palestinians.
By identifying the biblical call to justice with a commitment to human rights, RHR
seems to evade the question of whether the Zionist project itself, in its concrete historical
realization, should enjoy the same status as ‘‘just end’’ as do Judaism or Jewish survival.
Indeed, by framing the question of a compatibility between a Jewish Israel and human
rights in terms of the compatibility of human rights and Judaism, RHR literature seems
to ‘‘normalize’’ Israeli history and Zionism as natural outgrowths of Judaism (hence es-
sentially compatible with justice identified with human rights), thus precluding the possi-
bility of questioning the historical justifications for a Jewish state. In this sense, RHR
members can be regarded (and generally see themselves) as Zionists, though critical of
the consequences of Zionist history in violations of the rights of Palestinians.
A univocal RHR stance on the historical ‘‘justice’’ of the Zionist project as an ‘‘end’’
is not easy to find, both because the group represents a plurality of views and because it
operates from within a context marked by trauma narratives, which sets limits to the
extent to which Israel’s historical trajectory can be critically discussed without incurring
the accusation of questioning its right to exist. RHR publications and interviews with
members generally suggest that the dominant theme underlying the group’s call to pro-
PAGE 572572.................16224$ CH28 10-13-06 12:37:05 PS