Pangs of the Messiah (26 cents)

The play - "Pangs of the Messiah" by Motti Lerner, now in the middle of a very successful first-ever English language run at Theater J.

A "settler" family living in the Occupied Territories/West Bank in the year 2012. A final peace treaty leading to the creation of a Palestinian state is imminent. The family lives on territory that will become part of the new Palestine.

The father, a rabbi and leader of the settler bloc, very influential. The mother, follows the father and runs an elementary school. The older son, just returned from three years in New York, and his wife, originally from Tel Aviv and less committed to the settler movement. The younger son, mentally challenged, is building his own house down the street from his parents. The daughter, pregnant with her fourth child, helps her mother at the school. Her husband, more radical, served a prison term for the murder of a number of Arabs, and is either considered a crazy or a saint. This son's father, an old friend of the rabbi, who is also involved in the movement. And off stage, CNN, telecasting the latest news.

The family is united in opposition to the treaty. Their reasons are a combination of "this is our home" and "we are doing the work of God, to encourage the appearance of the Messiah". Their preferred methods of opposition, from not quite Gandhi to virtually Baruch Goldstein, vary.

The story builds to a personal, political, human, and spiritual climax. Everyone loves this play. I did not care for it. Not that it was bad, because it isn't. But I did not think it was at all that special.

Why?

There were several reasons. For one, I did not think that the characterizations were deep enough. Or subtle enough. They were each too predictable.

For another, I couldn't figure out the historical context, which is very important to this play.
In 2012, there had apparently been a series of moves which had already moved Israeli out of control over large parts of the West Bank. But there was no Palestinian state (leaving the question: what was there?). This piece meal evacuation over the next five years is unrealistic.

And now, it was time for the final pull out, with a treaty that would create a Palestinian state. The country and the world was for it, but this family and other members of the its community were against it. After all, it was their houses which would be affected. And they cannot find allies, anywhere within the Israeli community.

So, what is the play really about? They were protesting the destruction of their small community? Yes, there was some talk of God's plan in giving the land to the Jews, but a lot of the land had apparently already been given back, and this ideology did not seem central. There was certainly no concern as to the fate of the country (in spite of what happens at the end of the play); this is not a political play.

So, it wasn't quite religious ideology. It wasn't politics. It was basically about holding on to your own house. But this is not what the play was trying to say, was it? I don't know. Everything was too shallow.

And, because this was not political, there was no sense that giving back this land would hurt Israel the nation. There was no fear that Palestine would be ungovernable. There was no reference to Hamas, or any other issues concerning the new Palestinian state.

This is because the play was written twenty years ago, before Hamas, before the security wall, before a lot of things. And it might have made more sense then. The idea that today (or in 2012), the country would be indifferent to a peace treaty that would take an established settlement within the security wall and destroy it is very hard for me to grasp on any of the three levels: political, personal and religious.

So to me, the play failed to pass the reality test. And that was its biggest problem.