August 31st, 2006
A House Divided: Two Zionisms
Outside Israel it is generally assumed that there is a consensus about what Zionism is. On this view the religious settlers are only an extreme version of the same Zionism, since settlers have added a religious ingredient to it. The assumption is, however, fundamentally misguided. Mainstream Zionism and the settlers’ religious Zionism are mutually exclusive, both morally and politically. Read more…
August 31st, 2006 at 6:19 pm
While I am not yet an Israeli citizen, I consider myself ‘dati leumi’ (which might loosely be called religious Zionist), and would almost certainly be pegged in that category on the basis of my religious and political views.
However, I do not feel that you have correctly understood religious Zionism. Yes, there are aspects of the dati leumi community that believe so firmly that Medinat Yisrael is ‘reishit tz’michat ge’ulateinu’ that they have a messianic imperative to control as much of Eretz Yisrael as possible, and that halacha requires them to hold on to every inch of land, even to the point of sacrificing lives… and peace. But that is not the whole story.
A more nuanced (and increasingly popular) view is that Medinat Yisrael has the potential to bring an eventual ‘ge’ulah’, but that we are not privy to the workings of heaven. In the meantime, though, this brand of religious Zionism strives to build and support the state of Israel for a number of reasons - helping catalyze the ingathering of exiles, providing a safe haven for Jews (pikuach nefesh can easily apply here), and building a state that more closely approximates the kind of land in which we, as religious Jews, would like to live and raise our children. Such an understanding of religious Zionism, though, does not place a halachic requirement upon us to retain all of ‘Eretz Yisrael’ to spite ‘Medinat Yisrael’.
Instead, the overarching principle that guides such a philosophy would be pikuach nefesh above all. Thus, on matters of security, we are guided by a preference to hold on to as much land as possible, but a requirement to do so in the context of increasing the security of the lives of Israelis.
You may remember that the Shas party’s objections to the disengagement plan were not based on religious justifications for holding onto ‘Eretz Yisrael’ (as were heard from many rashei yeshivot, unfortunately), but rather on security objections, that they did not believe a withdrawal without negotiation would improve Israeli security, and would almost certainly impair Israel’s political ability to operate within the Gaza Strip against terrorism.
I, for one, somewhat skeptically supported disengagement (and, to a lesser extent, convergence) on the hope that it would save Israeli lives and would be a kernel for a lasting peace. I am not a fan of taking people from their homes, and was highly suspicious of a complete military withdrawal without some sort of negotiation or assurances from the Palestinian side, but I understood the necessity in order to secure peace for Israel. I know that a portion of the religious Zionist community agrees with me.
The portion of the religious Zionist community that disagreed with me did so for two reasons. One, they felt I (and Sharon) was too optimistic about a projected improvement in the security situation as a result of the withdrawal, and that tearing thousands of people from their homes on such flimsy justification was wrong. Two, I will acknowledge that some of them felt (as mentioned at the beginning) that we have a halachic imperative to hold on to land rather than a religious preference. But this second group was not representative of all of religious Zionism. Maybe those were the most headline-worthy discussions, but a huge portion of the rhetoric in the religious Zionist community and in the secular right/center right of Israel involved considerations on security, and not land.
Thus, I feel that you misjudge religious Zionism by suggesting that its driving purpose is to settle land. Yes, settling land in Medinat Yisrael and in Eretz Yisrael is a value of the religious Zionist movement. The settler movement, which is motivated by some branches of religious Zionism, in general focuses on acquisition of land, but this is simply not identical to the tenets of religious Zionism! We do not need to fall into the trap of knowing Israel is ‘reishit tz’michat ge’ulateinu’.
The actual basis for religious Zionism is not too different from that of secular Zionism, excepting some disagreements on the extent of the separation between synagogue and state. My motivations for being Zionist are partly those of mainstream Zionism, and parly from my religious observance. But I don’t think that somehow makes my Zionism at odds with the way secular Israelis understand Zionism.