In the play Four Faces of Israel, Helen Gottstein represents an Israeli Arab's point of view

Tonight I went to Shalom College with a friend of mine to check out a play about Israel and its people.  I was surprised when in walked a religious, orthodox Jewish woman.  I was surprised but pleased to see her putting on the play.  After all, so many people have misconceptions about women in orthodoxy, what they can and cannot do, and it was so nice to see an orthodox woman sitting up at the front.

She began by introducing herself, telling us a bit about her background.  Born in Melbourne to a secular family, she became ba’alat teshuva (returned to orthodoxy) starting at the age of 19.  She moved to Israel, where she now lives with her 9 children.  She presented some very strong views so that, although initially I had agreed with her, I began to doubt, and then get upset.  She made some pretty bold and tactless statements, saying outright that her life as a religious Jew made her better than secular Jews, no matter what their scientific achievements.  I was bothered because I kept thinking, “This is NOT the way to do kiruv!”  I was also concerned that the ensuing debate would derail us and she would never begin the play.  Some people were so upset by her strong stance that they got up and walked out.

A few minutes later, in the heat of the debate, she pulled the scarf off her head and declared, “I am an actress!” and we all gasped and laughed with relief.  The play had begun, but she had acted the part so very well, handled the onslaught of questions in character with such knowledge, that we had not even realized it was all part of the play! I was very sorry for those people who had gotten up and left.  They ended up missing the point of the whole exercise.  Initially she was in the character of a charedi (religious, orthodox) Israeli Jew, who she had portrayed pretty flawlessly – good, bad, and all!

She tied a bright, tie-dyed scarf over her head and continued, in a Southern American voice, as a settler, living in Judea and Sumaria (the “West Bank”) with her five children.  She argued, with classic Southern fire and ice, why the land of Israel is ours and why we cannot give it back.  Aside from not doing a very good American accent (what Australian can?), she was convincing and it was great.  At one point, after some nudging from my friend, I asked a question – but did it in my very best Southern accent.  (I did grow up in Virginia, y’all!)  This elicited lots of laughter.  She fielded most questions well, and it was obvious she knew her stuff.  She stayed in character the entire time.

Then, she pulled off her scarf and her skirt, unrolled the pants she was wearing, and unbottoned the top few rows of her shirt.  Wrapping a fashionable scarf around her neck, she declared in an absolutely flawless Israeli accent that she has a very hot date to keep tonight so we must make this fast.  She told us about herself, how she grew up on a kibbutz, but left it to work in some factories – one making machinery parts and the other processing pork products.  Chas v’chalila!  She then acted 100% as a secular Israeli – laughing about the gay pride parade that the charedi woman had decried, insisting on the two-state solution against which the settler was so fervent. The debate with the audience continued.

Finally, she whipped off her fashionable scarf, putting on instead a huge long coat and a hijab, and entered the world of the Israeli Arab.  As an Israeli Arab living in a Jerusalem village, she has all the same rights as other Israelis.  Yet, when she crosses through the border into Judea and Sumaria every day to teach at the high school where she is principal, she is subject to a lot of questioning by the guards.  She cannot stay overnight there because if she does, she could lose her ability to return to Israel.  She is happy for a one-state solution, she is happy to live with the Jews, but she does not want any divisions in the land.  Interestingly enough, this character, which I thought would be the most fascinating and controversial of all, received the least debate and response.  It was almost as if the Jews in the room saw the hijab and were paralyzed.  Another Jew, we can question endlessly, but a Muslim? Well, questioning a Muslim just isn’t politically correct!

In the end, it was a powerfully compelling show that raised a lot of questions.  For myself, I identified a lot of areas where I agreed or disagreed with the characters and what they represented.  I found myself straddling the first two, identifying most with a group in Israel known as dati leumi – religious Zionist Jews – such that I agreed with both characters, and with neither.  The best thing about the play was how there was something in it to both please and offend every person in the room.  In my mind, the purpose of art is to foster thought, and one of the best ways to do that is to offend, and to provide contrast.  In this play, Helen Gottstein did exactly that.  She did a great job and I recommend seeing this play if ever it is in your area!