The column praises Dud Shoken for showing courage by listening to opposing views, saying he went against the social grain of his liberal circles and accepted the cost of doing so. The writer says Shoken is a hero because he was willing to hear people from other camps instead of assuming they were all closed-minded or dark.
According to the piece, the conversations so far have mainly focused on how Jews and Arabs, and different Jewish ideological camps, can live together. That, the author argues, belongs to the liberal framework of coexistence and public order. It is an important discussion, but it is not the central one.
The real debate, the writer says, should be about Jewish identity, faith, truth, how Jews should live, and whether the State of Israel has a purpose. The author frames this as the difference between the liberal idea of “each person lives by their faith” and the prophetic claim that “the righteous shall live by his faith” from Habakkuk 2:4.
In the earlier exchanges, Shoken was described as the questioner and challenger, while others had to respond. In the deeper ideological debate, however, the author says the roles would reverse, with the other side pressing Shoken to carry forward the heritage of the Jewish people. Still, the writer concludes that this broader argument may not yet be timely, and that what is needed first is stronger connection and love.
