by
Department of Jewish History, Bar Ilan University
This article will be
an attempt to examine a basic concept which was born and has grown to maturity
in modern Jewish history, and which is an important key to understanding the
history of the State of Israel: "Religious Zionism". I believe that a
re-examination of the concept is in order and may enable us to better
comprehend the complex reality in which we live..
Emancipation,
secularism, the national renaissance of the peoples of Europe and modern
Anti-Semitism -- these are the four highly powerful processes which deeply
influenced the history of the Jews of the nineteenth century. Facing them, Jews
-- as a collective entity, and also each individual Jew on his own -- were
forced to define their Jewish identity and the extent of their commitment to
the Jewish collective. This collective, standing on the brink of modern times,
had two specially important characteristics: A. A religious perception of
nationhood and a nationalistic perception of religion, and therefore,
non-separation between religion and nationality -- the ancient tradition of
nationalism.1 B. Existence outside the territory which was
considered as the "Homeland", in the form of communities with autonomous
leadership though dependent on external factors, as well. The four processes
mentioned above caused a transformation of the communities from being official
entities, universally recognized and obligatory, to a status of voluntary
framework organizations. Jews found it increasingly possible to enter the
society which surrounded them. Moreover, this was demanded of them, as was
adoption of the collective identity of that surrounding. The status of the
religious aspect of Jewishness weakened (and since Judaism is a national
religion much of the nationalistic connection weakened, as well).
Simultaneously,
however, Jews met with renewed and reinforced phenomena of rejection, and
watched admiringly the fascinating processes of national renaissance of other
ancient peoples (such as the Greeks and Italians). Some of those Jews who had
strayed far from religious belief were attracted to a new kind of Jewish
national consciousness. This developed in a number of forms -- one of which was
Zionism. Zionism sought not only a refuge from persecution but also a base upon
which to re-construct Jewish national identity, specifically in Eretz Yisrael,
the homeland of the people in ancient times, the land to which Jewish tradition
throughout its generations was so closely related and therefore, the only place
that the Jewish people could be properly rebuilt. Most of the founders, leaders
and activists of Zionism were non-religious and even anti-religious. Zionism as
an idea and those who made it a reality, and the state of Israel, its ultimate
creation, were and are today, poised before the dilemma of their connection to
the Jewish religion, which is the source of Jewish nationalism. The problem
seems unsolvable.
Religious Jews, of
all variations, were also, and still are caught in a dilemma concerning their
relationship to a movement which does not see religious belief as its core and
foundation , but does contribute significantly to Jewish national existence.
A number of highly
complicated solutions have been proposed. For purposes of examination we may
place each of them in one of three categories:
1.
Total rejection of Zionism and its activities and active
opposition to it.
2.
A view of Zionism as a necessary, positive political
development which may perhaps bring us closer to eventual redemption but which,
for the present lacks any specific religious meaning.
3.
Adoption of Zionism as an expression of the process of
redemption though most of its participants are unaware of that fact.
The first answer was
that given by most Torah-observant Jews from the early beginnings of Zionism in
the late nineteenth century until the Holocaust. Later, matters became more
complex, though most of the communities usually referred to as
"Haredim" (Ultra-orthodox) still hold that opinion. The second and
third answers provided the basis and central axes of "Religious
Zionism".
The second answer was
given in the early days of Religious Zionism and provided the basis for
co-operation with secular Zionism. Rabbi Samuel Mohiliver (1824-1898), a leader
of the Chovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) Movement in the 1880's wrote in a letter
to the first Zionist Congress:
"For the success
of this assembly it is necessary to establish that all the "Sons of
Zion" whose hearts are loyal to our cause should live together in complete
love and brotherhood, even though they are in conflict as to matters between
man and G-d. Even if there be some who see their comrades as having
transgressed all boundaries, they must consider that if their homes were
engulfed in a great fire and everything was in danger, their property and
lives, and someone came to save them, whom they considered a transgressor,
would they not receive them with love and joy ?"
Rabbi Mohiliver
advocated settlement in Eretz Yisrael for this reason, emphasizing that:
"There are among our ancient sages who say that this weighs equally
"With the entire Torah, and the simple reason for the great significance
of this commandment is because it is the basis for the existence of our
people". He never denied that, in his opinion: "the basis of the love
of Zion is to preserve the entire Torah as it has been passed on to us from
generation to generation", though immediately emphasizing that: "I do
not mean by this to criticize any private individuals about their
conduct".2 Thus, Rabbi Yitzchak Ya'akov Reines who founded the
"Mizrachi" (abbreviation of Merkaz Ruchani
[spiritual center]) movement in 1902, saw national redemption as being of
supreme importance, and therefore, he defined Zionism as a "material"
movement, in which the Mizrachi could operate as one component. An alliance was
formed between the Mizrachi and Herzl which even brought about the support of
many of its members for the Uganda Plan, the plan to create a Jewish state in
Africa, in 1903.3
The continuation of
this ideological and behavioral line, after World War One, was found in the
"Hapoel Hamizrachi" (Mizrachi Labor Federation), founded in 1922,
which, according to the historian Yosef Shalmon, stood for:
"An entity of
Klal-Yisrael (the entirety of the Jewish people) which was defined as
"Jewishness" (distinct from Judaism as a religion)... The modern
aspect of the ideals of Hapoel-Hamizrachi are expressed in the view of Jewish
tradition -- including the commandments -- as a component of national identity
and its cultural content. Thus developed a philosophy which recognized three
fundamental elements in Jewishness: religion, nationality and social
justice". The traditional aspect of the Hapoel-Hamizrachi ideology was the
demand to preserve Jewish tradition in the day to day life of the national
community. The
ideologists of Hapoel-Hamizrachi included the non-traditional elements of
Jewish nationalism in this concept of "Jewishness", attempting to
find precedents for them in the literature and values of the tradition".4
A further development
of this concept, which also celebrated the value of labor (Torah Ve'avoda),
came a decade later, with the Aliya of groups of young religious Jews from
Germany. They had been educated in the light of the modern "Torah im
Derech Eretz" school of religious thought, founded by Rabbi Samson Raphael
Hirsch. Here they found a positive attitude toward the modern, secular world
and its values, most significantly towards democracy, rather than a tendency to
retreat from it. These young members of "Brit Chalutzim Datiy'im"
(Covenant of Religious Pioneers) who had also internalized socialist values,
enriched religious-Zionist thought with the establishment of what later became
known as "Kibbutz Hadati" (The Religious Kibbutz). The central focus
of the vision of Hakibbutz Hadati in the area of their relationship to the
secular society was that an exemplary religious community, presenting a model
of a full Jewish lifestyle, sHalacha on all aspects of life, could reach out and
have an influence on the entire Jewish community, thereby bringing about a
national "tikun" (correction). In this regard the emphasis was on the
rebuilding of the internal spiritual life of the nation along with the idea
that this could be accomplished only in the Holy Land, in Eretz Yisrael.5
Hakibbutz Hadati,
despite never having become a mass movement served as a role-model for
Religious-Zionist youth in Israel and in the Diaspora for several decades. The
youth movement "B'nei Akiva" educated its members toward
"Hagshama" (fulfillment of the ideal) within the framework of Kibbutz
Hadati. Here the commandment to settle the Land of Israel was seen as an
obligation to take hold of the Land and work it, creating upon it a value-oriented
society both moral and constructive. The borders of Eretz Yisrael per se, did
not become a focal point of formative thinking. The State of Israel, itself,
was not perceived as having any intrinsic religious holiness -- as expressed in
the words of Simcha Friedman: "I do not attach to the State any religious
weight or meaning, though other complete, G-d fearing Jews, far better than me,
do so ... I see in the State of Israel, the creation of which took us by
surprise, without our being prepared for it, a challenge which calls out: Hic
Rhodos, hic salta! (Here is Rhodes! Jump here! -- Show what you are capable of,
immediately!) That is to say: You received a state -- now prove that you can be
G-d fearing, commandment observing Jews in that state, not as a sport, but
because such an opportunity has not existed for many centuries. Now prove
yourselves to be more complete Jews".6
Due to various
reasons having to do with Israeli society in general and the Orthodox Religious
society in particular, the dominant position occupied by Hakibbutz Hadati,
along with its unique ideological message, began to recede toward the end of
the 1960's.
We must now return
chronologically to the third answer to the Zionist challenge -- the second
religious-Zionist alternative -- the Geulah (redemption) oriented motif. The
first expressions of this view are also to be found in the beginnings of
religious -- Zionism during the 1880's (Yechiel Michel Pines, for example), and
perhaps -- in other forms -- even earlier, among the mid- nineteenth century
thinkers who addressed the question of settlement in Eretz-Yisrael. A fuller,
more comprehensive and powerful expression of this approach was to be reached
only later in the writings of Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen Kook (1865-1935)
who was Chief Rabbi of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kook saw secular Zionism ("the
secular Jewish image of Israelite nationality") as a mistake and a
falsification of the Jewish nationalistic entity -- which consists of
recognition of the Divine value of the soul of the nation.7 He did
not invalidate the mistake entirely, but rather saw it as a basis which
unknowingly draws from the divine source of Israelite Nationality. For this
reason one must work with it and nurture it until the mistake is recognized.
According to Rav Kook, this new national renaissance -- Zionism -- is an
expression of the beginning of the Geulah process. Eretz Israel has a special
quality and only the union of Am Israel to Eretz Yisrael can make both of them
whole:
"The soul of the
people and the land work together to create the secret of their existence,
demanding their role in the realization of their aspiration of holiness... the
people expend their spiritual power upon the land ... and the land causes the
people to realize their attribute of desiring Divine life complete in their
construction".8
The theories of Rav
Kook (which may be interpreted in various ways) were developed more fully by
his son , Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Hacohen Kook (1891-1981) and by his disciples who
were educated in the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva.9
The generation of the
40's and 50's bore witness to two overwhelmingly important events in Jewish
history: the Holocaust, on the one hand, and the establishment of the State of
Israel, shortly afterwards, on the other. These events engendered deep
emotional and mystical reactions in various Jewish circles (not only in those
called "religious"). In religious Zionism the reaction was especially
meaningful: On the one hand there was the vision of the Torah centers and great
concentrations of observant Jews in Europe; on the other hand the fulfillment
of the yearning for Jewish nationhood. On this background the Geulah motif
began to grow in strength within the religious -- Zionist community. The State
of Israel, which represents the Zionist endeavor is, according to Rav Tzvi
Yehudah:
"The true
redemption, revealed in the perfection of settlement on the Land and the
rebirth of Israel upon it, later in the further renewal of settlement on the
Land and the ingathering of the prisoners of exile to it ... it appears at the
zenith of its actual growth -- inheritance of the Land ... and the rule of our
government upon it".10
Yeshivat Mercaz Harav
grew in status, and its graduates, from the end of the 1950's onward began a
widespread development of the Religious Zionist educational systems. In a
little over a decade -- during the 60's -- they became the leading force in
Religious Zionism.11 The energy stored up inside both educators and
students was formidable. On the surface stood out, initially, their desire to
enter into all aspects of Israeli society thereby contributing to the national
renaissance in contrast to the relatively marginal status of the Religious
Zionist community at the time in Israeli society. On an unseen level, however,
their special approach to the question of the Land of Israel awaited an
opportunity for expression.
The Six-Day War was
the first turning point for the Religious-Zionist community. The territories
which were conquered -- Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan -- provided a
channel for all that untapped energy seeking activity and hinted at the
realization of the Geulah messianic redemption motif, as well. The result was
the formation of "Gush Emunim" (the bloc of the faithful) which began
its activities in the early 1970's and then pushing the other
Religious-Zionists alternatives to the sidelines. The Yom Kippur War and the
shock it left in its wake, especially in the public image of the Labor Zionist
Movement, added strength to the self confidence of the Geulah school of thought
in Religious Zionism which began to see itself in the role of the reinforcer of
national renaissance feelings and as a pointer of the way for the masses. The
political upheaval of 1977 -- the rise of the Likud to power -- became another turning
point. The new administration made possible a much broader entry for Religious
Zionism to a leading position in society and gave significant backing to the
settlement endeavors.12
The second political
upheaval -- that of 1992 -- brought the dominant Geulah school of thought in
Religious Zionism to a point of severe crisis. The turnabout in Government
policy -- especially the willingness to withdraw from parts of Eretz Yisrael --
was perceived (by those who saw Eretz Yisrael as the focal point of national
renaissance) as proportional to "Churban" (Destruction). These
policies were compared even to the Holocaust (proving a lack of minimal
understanding of the Holocaust). Internal tensions rose to new heights and the
history of Zionism became blurred. The orthodox supporters of the Geulah motif
forgot, among other things, the territorial concessions and withdrawals which
the leaders of the Zionist Movement and governments of the State of Israel had
made in the past. (For example acceptance of the Peel Commission partition plan
of 1937 and the withdrawals from territories occupied in the War for
Independence in 1949 and the Sinai Campaign of 1956). Those previous
withdrawals had been accepted without any Halachic objection and with the
agreement of the leaders of Religious Zionism -- and in no way interrupted the
progress of the Zionist endeavor. Also forgotten, by the Geulah advocates was
the awareness of the crucial legacy of the first AshkChief Rabbi of Israel,
Rabbi Yizchak Halevi Herzog, who provided the basis for the Halachic approval
of democratic Government. Failure to recall the history of Zionism brought them
to the point of believing the unfounded fear that all the great achievements of
Zionism would be wiped out of existence because of a limited territorial
withdrawal from parts of Eretz Yisrael.
The
crisis we have described here seems to have taken on an acute nature because it
coincided with the development of a more widespread and basic conflict within
contemporary Israeli society -- the question of the cultural and national
character of the state. It is precisely this issue which gives increased
relevance to the words of Rabbi Mohiliver in his letter to the First Zionist
Congress quoted above: "For the success of this assembly it is necessary to
establish that all the "Sons of Zion" whose hearts are loyal to our
cause should live together in complete love and brotherhood, even though they
are in conflict as to matters between man and G-d".
notes
1 - The
interpretation of the terms 'Dat' and 'Dati' as meaning commandment-observing
religious believers is an innovation of the nineteenth century; in their
sources, these words mean 'law' or 'legal'.
2 - Quoted from:
Arthur Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea (Keter: Jerusalem, 1970, p.309-310).
3 - On these issues
in detail se: E. Luz , Makbilim Nifgashim (Am Oved-Sifriat Ofakim:
Tel-Aviv, 1985).
4 - Y. Shalmon, Shiluv
Hasozialism im Hadat: Hearot l'toldot Histadrut Hapoel Hamizrachi (The
Synthesis of Socialism and Religion, Remarks on the History of the
Hapoel-Hamizrachi Federation) and Dat Vetzionut: Imutim Rishonim (Religion
and Zionism: First Conflicts) (Hasifriah Hatzionit: Jerusalem, 1990, p.
340-341).
5 - See: Fishman, Ben
Dat l'Idelogiah - Yahadut Vemodernizatzia Bakibbutz Hadati (Between Religion
and Ideology - Judaism and Modernization in the Religious Kibbutz) (Yad
Yitzchak Ben Tzvi: Jerusalem, 1990, especially pages 72-73). It would seem that
there existed here a late development of a very central issue in the thought of
Rabbi S.R. Hirsch: The relatively reduced importance of Eretz Yisrael as
compared to the Torah and the Jewish people: "The independent political
life of ancient Israel was not the meaning or purpose of the peoplehood of
Israel, but served as a means to achieve its spiritual goal. Land and territory
never united Israel, the common objective of the Torah was what imposed the
connection upon it." S.R. Hirsch , Igrot Tsafon, Nineteen Letters About
Judaism (translated by A. Porat) (Mossad Harav Kook: Jerusalem, 1976, p.
68). After the appearance of Anti-Semitism and the nationalist renaissance
movements, Eretz Yisrael returned to its central place in the thinking of
Western European Religious Zionists -- not as a purpose in itself, but as
"a means to achieve its spiritual goal".
6 - S. Friedman, Hesder
Hayachasim ben Datiy'im and Chiloniy'im (Arrangement of Relationships
between Religious and Secular Jews) (Y. and A. Tirosh), Hatzionut
Hadatit Vehamedinah (Religious Zionism and the State) (World Zionist
Organization, Dept. of Torah Education and Culture for the Diaspora: Jerusalem,
1978, p.290).
7 - Harav A.Y.H.
Kook, Chazon Hage'ulah (The Vision of Redemption) (Jerusalem,
1941, p.96-97).
8 - Cited from
quotation by Tz.Varon, Mishnato shel Harav Kook (World Zionist
Organization, Dept. of Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora).
9 - See at length in
A. Ravitzki, Haketz Hameguleh Umedinat Hayehudim: Meshichiut, Tzionut
Veradikalizm Dati Beyisrael (The Revealed End and the Jewish State:
Messianism, Zionism and Religious Radicalism in Israel) (Am Oved - Sifriat
Ofakim: Tel-Aviv, 1993, Ch. 3 and conclusion).
10 - Rav Tzvi Yehudah
Kook, Linm'tivot Yisrael (The Pathway of Israel) (Jerusalem,
1967, Part 1, p. 56; see also Ravitzki, ibid., p. 113).
11 - Of special
interest: Chief Rabbi in the Mandatory period. On these matters see, inter
alia: A. Don-Yechya, Hadat Beyisrael - Ma'amad Irgun Vasherutim (Religion
in Israel - Status, Organization and Services) (Israel Government
Information Center: Jerusalem, 1987); A. Belfer, (ed.), Manhigut Ruchanit
Beyisrael (Spiritual Leadership in Israel) (The Institute for
Contemporary Judaism and Thought, Bar Ilan University Press: Ramat Gan, 1984);
M. Friedman, Harabanut Harashit Leyisrael - Dilemma l'lo Pitaron ( The
Chief Rabbinate - A Dilemma Without a Solution), Medinah Vemimshal
Viyachasim Benleumi'yim (State, Government and International Relations),
Vol. 1, No. 3, Spring 1972); Harabanut Harashit Leyisrael - 70 Shana
Leyisudah (The Chief Rabbinate of Israel - 70 Years Since its
Establishment). (Religious Education Administration and the Pedagogic
Administration, Curriculum Branch of the Ministry of Education and Culture:
Jerusalem, 1991).
12 - Parenthetically
it can be said that this development is also the reason for the decline in the
strength in the N.R.P. (National Religious Party) The party founded to
represent Religious Zionism. As long as religious Zionism was a clearly
separate entity in Israeli society its voters gave their support entirely to
the N.R.P. which represented their collective group interests. As the
opportunities to enter the broader society and economic life in all their
aspects opened up, Religious Zionists spread out into the political spectrum in
all directions. The status and strength of the N.R.P. as an exclusive
representative declined. Notwithstanding, the dominance of one variant in
Religious Zionism (The Geulah Motif) brought most Religious Zionists to the
right of the political spectrum and the positioning of the weakened N.R.P. on
that side, as well.