"Has Zionism Concluded its Role? A Religious Zionist Perspective", Democratic Culture XIV (2013),...

http://www.biupress.co.il/website_en/index.asp?id=931http://www.biupress.co.il/website_en/index.asp?id=931

Has Zionism Concluded its Role?

A Religious Zionist Perspective

DOV SCHWARTZ

From time to time, questions as to the future and the very relevance of Zionism and

the Zionist movement appear on the public agenda. These questions have a number

of aspects:

(a) The ideological aspect — is there still room for the various versions of the Zionist

ideal (“safe haven,” national, practical, spiritual Zionism and the like)?1

(b) The practical and institutional aspect — do the Zionist institutions (the Zionist

Federation, the Jewish Agency, etc.) still have a role to play?

(c) The critiques’ aspect — in view of the severe criticisms voiced against the

activities of the Zionist movement, is it appropriate to permit its continued

existence?

In this article, I will confine myself solely to a discussion of the ideological issues. Even

when considering other matters — for example, the reaction to Ben-Gurion’s effort

to close down the Zionist Federation (the institutional aspect) — I will focus on their

ideological elements, that is to say, the ideological debate that these efforts provoked.

The problem of the ideological justification for Zionism is that the actual establishment

of the State of Israel and its subsequent solid regional and international standing prima

facie point to the realization of the Zionist ideal. The National Home has become a fact.

Technological progress and economic prospects create the impression of a Western

state based on firm social foundations. The democratic and liberal character of the

political system largely reflects Western political culture. Although the State of Israel

is engaged in a constant struggle to protect the security of its citizens, and the state

* Translated by Dr. Rahel Rimon.

1 See, for example, Gideon Shimoni The Zionist Ideology (Hanover, NH, 1995).

Democratic Culture in Israel and in the World XIV: 2013 307

http://www.biupress.co.il/website_en/index.asp?id=931

Dov Schwartz

occasionally is faced with the threat of nuclear war, its present existence remains

a fact. Thus, we may assume that the Zionist movement has completed its original

political and practical task, namely, “to solve the problem of the Jews.” Nonetheless,

the majority of the Jewish people do not regard Israel as their real home, and the vision

of mass immigration has been realized only partially. Moreover, many would argue that

the state has failed to provide the Jewish people with a sense of “normalization.”

The Zionist Federation has devoted intellectual, social and economic efforts to setting

up goals for the Federation to achieve despite the status and stability of the State of

Israel. These goals concern deepening the national identity, handling social issues,

and preserving links with the Jewish Diaspora. The intellectual efforts are evidence

of the very real sense of need to justify the existence of the institutions of the Zionist

movement. Zionist philosophers, ideologues, politicians and historians are debating

the relevance of Zionist ideology and the Zionist movement.

In this discussion, I wish to examine the impact of this debate on religious Zionist

thinking, primarily from the eve of the establishment of the State of Israel through to the

end of the 1980s. The reason for choosing this time frame lies in the fact that, during

this period, the theological and messianic basis of the religious Zionist movement

was almost completely unmarred by division. From this period onward, post-modern

thinking and social shifts undermined the conceptual framework, which in effect had

held fast from 1902, the year of the establishment of the “Mizrachi” movement.2

Moreover, during this period, the Zionist movement had become institutionalized, and

the differences that had previously existed between the ideological streams no longer

guided its activities. From then on, the Zionist Federation was regarded as representing

the Zionist movement. Certainly, the religious Zionist approach, whereby these events

were stages in the redemptive process, allowed an esoteric interpretation to be given

to what was happening. However, in practical terms, the outcome of this approach was

unconditional cooperation with Zionism and with the State of Israel.

In recent years, particularly as a result of the implementation of the Disengagement

Plan from the Gaza Strip and the events connected to the evacuation of the settlement

2 See Dov Schwartz “Ideas vs. Reality: Multiculturalism and Religious Zionism” in The

Multi-Cultural Challenge in Israel 211 (Avi Sagi & Ohad Nahtomy eds., Boston,

2009).

308



outposts, elements in the religious Zionist camp have called for separation from the

State of Israel. According to these dissenters, Zionism has failed pitifully and is no

longer working toward the implementation of its goals. Even though these elements are

found at the fringes of the religious Zionist community, the means of communication

that have evolved over the last two decades (such as the commentaries on the weekly

portion that are widely distributed in synagogues and through the Internet) have allowed

the main religious Zionist community to become more familiar with their views. I wish

to show next how the trend toward isolationism and the rejection of the Zionist ideal

are new; in the past, the religious Zionist camp largely supported the Zionist movement

and proclaimed its relevance to contemporary life.

The discussion will proceed as follows:

(a) I will commence with an examination of the fundamental elements of the

discussion concerning the relevance of Zionism. In this discussion, I will examine

the factors considered by both religious and non-religious Zionists.

(b) This will be followed by an examination of debates inspired by historical events:

(1) The Holocaust (the relevance of political Zionism that is dependent on the

nations of the world).

(2) Ben-Gurion’s initiative to shut down the Zionist institutions following the

establishment of the state.

(3) The UN decision equating Zionism with racism.

(c) This in turn will be followed by a systematic examination of discussions:

(1) Discussions that have arisen in response to crises, and in particular the

crisis relating to the secularization of the State of Israel.

(2) Discussions that have stemmed from a comprehensive theological

understanding of the twentieth century.

(d) Finally, I shall engage in a comparative summary and an examination of the

implications of the discussion for the religious Zionist consciousness.

We will therefore turn first to a consideration of some of the stages in the process in

which the conceptual approach toward Zionism became interwoven with the question

of the status of Zionism and its institutions among religious Zionists.

309


Dov Schwartz

(A) The Roots of the Discussion

The religious Zionist debate regarding the relevance of the Zionist concept and the

activities of the Zionist movement rests on a few basic assumptions. Further, this

discussion is context-sensitive. It usually is conducted against the background of the

ideological climate, as well as the social and cultural backgrounds of the various

epochs being considered and the general positions presented on these issues. Some

of the elements of the general discussion on the relevance of Zionist ideology and the

Zionist movement, with a focus on the uniqueness of the religious Zionist debate, are

described below.

Foreign and Domestic

The question of the Zionist movement’s purpose stems from other wider issues. Early in

the history of Zionism, a debate arose as to whether the purpose of the future state was to

provide a gathering place for the settlement of most of world Jewry or whether its purpose

was merely to provide a spiritual center for the Jews. This argument has become more

complex over time, as the Land of Israel is indeed capable of absorbing the Jews of the

world yet most have no wish to settle in it. The approach taken by Ahad Ha’am relied on

the assessment that community resources in the Land of Israel and the political condition

of the Yishuv would not allow mass immigration; however, this assessment is no longer

accurate today. In any event, the spiritual center concept allows a clear answer to be

given today to the question of the future task of Zionism, which is to prevent assimilation

and preserve the Zionist identity of the Jews of the Diaspora.

Another long-standing issue that has a connection to the Zionist movement’s role

concerns “Avodat ha-Hoveh” (Gegenwartsarbeit). From its inception, members of

the Zionist movement have discussed whether and to what extent the movement

should become involved in the economic, social, and political affairs of the Jews of

the Diaspora. In this connection, the Zionist movement’s goals have tended to look

outward, namely, toward the preservation of the Jewish and Zionist identity and the

welfare of the Jewish people in exile.3

3 With regard to these issues, see, for example, Shmuel Almog Zionism and History:

The Rise of a New Jewish Consciousness (New York, 1987).

310



Another ideology regards the destiny of the Zionist movement as having an inward

direction. Rifts in Israeli society place its unity and orientation in question. The religious-

secular divide, the ethnic divide, the racial divide and the problem of minorities, pose

a challenge to the Zionist movement. This is not a new challenge, as the Yishuv in the

period of the National Home faced some of the same divisions. However, these rifts

failed to disappear with the establishment of the state and instead intensified, so that,

according to some, it became the role of Zionism to give effect to the ideal of social

unity at the core of which lay the national ideal.

Idea and Practice

The question of the need for the Zionist movement arose from the ongoing discourse

with historical events and their implications for the concept of Zionism and Zionist

activity. In most cases, this question did not arise in a vacuum; it emerged when doubts

were raised as to the relevance of the Zionist concept or movement, or where there

was a real historical basis for assuming that the Zionist movement would no longer be

needed.

As we will see below, during the Holocaust there were people who discussed the

possibility of ending the role of political Zionism. The political Zionist idea is based

on cooperation with the nations of the world. The calculated actions of the Nazis

culminating in the atrocities of Nazi Germany and its allies, the aid given by European

nations to genocide and the silence of the enlightened and free world, struck at the

very heart of political Zionism and, on the face of it, symbolized its removal from the

stage of history.

The establishment of the State of Israel saw the revival of the discourse concerning

the need for Zionist institutions following the realization of the Zionist goal, namely, the

establishment of the state. There were those who demanded the dismantling of these

institutions. Other examples of events that ignited the same debate were Israel’s wars,

especially the Yom Kippur War with its accompanying trauma, as well as the United

Nations’ resolution equating Zionism with racism.

Religious Zionists, who formed an integral part of the Zionist movement, were forced

to take a stand on these issues. The common denominator among the religious Zionist

approaches within this discourse was to harness the doubts regarding the need for the

Zionist movement to the national religious ideal that they espoused.

311


Dov Schwartz

Messianic Position

In principle, religious Zionism observes these existential and ideological issues from

the sidelines, albeit not necessarily in a dispassionate manner. On the contrary,

trends in Israeli society and its institutions greatly occupy the religious Zionist

community. For the members of this community it is crystal clear that the Zionist

movement has not fulfilled its goals, even though these are not issues that concern

it as a religious ideological group. For the members of this community, the Zionist

challenge remains relevant because they accord it a different interpretation to that

given it by non-religious Zionists.

In terms of religious Zionism, the events of the period commencing from

the national awakening to the present are stages in the process of messianic

redemption. Not all religious Zionists were interested in the exact details of the

process and its stages; for them, it was not always a visible force that drove

ideological and historical processes. However, the process continued to progress

toward the complete realization of the redemption promised by the prophets.

Religious Zionism developed a messianic consciousness, which was sometimes

visible and which sometimes stimulated the reactions of the religious Zionist

camp beneath the surface. Moshe Krone, a member of “The Mizrachi Workers

Organization” who served as head of the Department of Torah Education & Culture

in the Jewish Agency, and as chairman of the “Mizrachi World Center of the East,”

noted in the preface to his memoirs:

In recent years, several religious-Zionist scholars have begun to delve more

deeply into the ideological roots of this organization and in particular into its

religious roots. Attention has been focused on the question: Did the leaders

of religious Zionism assume that political Zionism was directed mainly at

physically rescuing the Israeli Nation, or was it intended to realize the

yearning for redemption? ... It is important to note that during the mundane

daily activities of the religious Zionist movement for half a century, this

question never arose, either in theory or in practice. It did not bother us

nor would we have discussed it. The line between the concepts of “rescue”

and “redemption” was totally blurred, and they were like “two aspects of the

same thing” or “two sides of one coin.” Preachers, evangelists, speakers and

simply arguers and debaters, to whom we would listen as part of our way of

312



life so many times, would all mix the concepts and discuss them at the same

time.4

Krone’s account posits two principles:

(a) The very fact that the terms “rescue” and “redemption” are seen as synonymous,

reflects the subconscious religious Zionist attitude.

(b) The solution to the problem of the Jews and the process of messianic redemption

are perceived by religious Zionists as a single process.

Krone’s comments reflect a sense of action, the theological roots of which cannot be

denied even if they are not expressly mentioned. Since the purpose of the Zionist

movement and Zionist activity was, of course, the redemption of the people, both in the

profound religious sense and in the sense of rescue and the provision of a safe haven,

it was clear that the Zionist movement would fulfill its purpose only on realization of the

promises of the prophets. Historians discuss whether the state has fulfilled the goals

of Jewish nationalism5; in terms of religious Zionism, it has certainly not achieved the

final redemption. In the eyes of the religious Zionists, the goals of the Zionist endeavor,

from the foundation of the movement until at least the 1980s, were:

(a) The establishment of a religious state.

(b) Completion of the redemptive process manifested in Zionist activities.

Neither of these goals has been realized so far, and the path toward achieving them still

seems long. For a brief time, in an era of formative events and crises (the Holocaust,

the establishment of the state, the Six-Day War, etc.), it seemed that the path had

been shortened and the “end was about to come.” But these events passed and were

4 Moshe Krone My Rabbis and Teachers, My Brothers and Friends 11y12 (Tel Aviv,

1987) [Heb]. For the claim that religious Zionism is a movement with a messianic

nature, see Dov Schwartz Religious Zionism Between Logic and Messianism (Tel

Aviv, 1999) [Heb]. I have quoted Krone because of the central role he played in the

institutional activities of the Zionist movement.

5 Israel Kolet “Is the Yishuv in the Land of Israel the Realization of Jewish Nationalism”

in Nationalism and Jewish Politics: New Perspectives 225 (Yehuda Reinhartz,

Yosef Salmon and Gideon Shimoni eds., Jerusalem & Boston, 1997) [Heb].

313


Dov Schwartz

replaced by dull routine. The personal and individualistic post-modern era that chipped

away at the stability of the comprehensive ideologies, certainly did nothing to advance

the fulfillment of the goals that religious Zionism had attributed to the Zionist endeavor.

Contemplating the Zionist movement’s mission and the Zionist ideology certainly

gives force to the argument put forward by religious Zionists. If, indeed, “normalization”

is the goal of Zionism, then this goal has been achieved already and is no longer

necessary, or, alternatively, it has failed in its task. Which is it? Either the liberalism

characteristic of the democratic State of Israel marks the realization of “normalization,”

so that there is no longer a need for the Zionist ideal, or, the surging hatred of Israel

marks the failure of “normalization” and therefore Zionism has failed to fulfill its role. In

either case, what remains is the final realization of the religious Zionist ideal, which is

patently both theological and theocratic.

We will now turn to an examination of some of the milestones in the crystallization

of the religious Zionist debate on the relevance of the Zionist movement and Zionist

ideology.

(B) The Nagging Doubt: During the Holocaust

Sparks of doubt regarding the relevance of Zionism were seen first at the height of the

Holocaust. What characterizes the religious Zionist ideal in times of great trouble is the

beginning of erosion in the stability of the typical ideologies and theologies associated

with this concept. For example, one can point to the emergence of signs of doubt

regarding one of the pillars of religious Zionism, namely, the messianic interpretation

of the events of the period.6 This calamity led to questions being asked as to whether

there was any room for the Zionist ideology. The doubts focused, first, on the dominant

primary image of Zionism— the image of a political movement — relying on diplomatic

activity and pro-active relationships with countries in the world in general, and in

Europe in particular (to obtain a “charter”). This image was ripped to pieces during the

Holocaust. I wish briefly to examine this approach, which relates to the relevance of

the Zionist ideal.

6 See Dov Schwartz Religious Zionism: History and Ideology 76 (Boston, 2009).

314



The Importance of the Idea

In 1942, Dr. Isaiah Aviad (Wolfsberg), one of the leaders of the Mizrachi movement in

Germany and subsequently in Israel, wrote the article “Zionism — Its Establishment

during the Herzl Era and Today.” In this article, Aviad passionately defended the very

need for a political Zionist ideology. In his opinion, Herzl had predicted the difficult events

that the Jewish people would experience as a result of the ascendant anti-Semitism.7

Even though many world statesmen had welcomed him and his vision, Herzl was

sensitive to the ephemeral nature of the situation. For the Jewish people, this fact,

per se, made the political Zionist idea relevant irrespective of the period or climate.

Aviad mentioned no fewer than three reasons for the importance of the Zionist idea

in contemporary times; reasons found in contexts that differed completely one from

another.

(a) The nature of the historical process. Aviad argued that “historical memory”

was not an abstract idea but an operating force that shaped political and historical

processes. Sometimes, this force was visible and sometimes it could be found

operating below the surface. The political Zionist idea was a force that worked in

this way. In Herzl’s time, nations of the world appreciated his political activities.

Even though European countries changed their views during the Holocaust, this

change was not profound. On the contrary, the world’s admiration for the Jewish

national awakening was a fact. “None of the changes in recent years, leading

to8 alienation on the part of the world’s nations and people who had previously

welcomed us, lessened the traditional admiration for our actions.”9 We see here

a kind of esoteric interpretation of the status of the Zionist ideal.

(b) The nature of the ideal. Aviad claimed that the ideal and its value had to

7 Dov Schwartz “Religious Zionism and Herzl: Models of Images” in Herzl Then and

Now: “The Jewish State” in the State of the Jews 325 and note 97 ibid. (Avi Sagi

and Yedidia Z. Stern eds., Jerusalem, 2008) [Heb].

8 Printed: “which were caused.”

9 Isaiah Wolfsberg Gateways to Philosophical Problems of our Times (Jerusalem,

1948) [Heb]. In his comments, Aviad expresses the paternalistic approach of religious

Zionism, which seeks to expose the real motives behind historical and political

decisions. This concept characterized the approach toward the secular community.

See, for example, Dov Schwartz Faith at the Crossroads: A Theological Profile of

315


Dov Schwartz

transcend the changing times. This was the nature of a noble ideal. The Zionist

ideal, for example, did not take into account the limitations of reality, namely,

that the Land of Israel in the present could not absorb all the Jews of the

world. “The deep emotion of the Love of Zion and the longing for revival and

redemption”10 transcended the present difficulties. In the same way, increasing

anti-Semitism and attacks on Jews would pass, diplomatic efforts aimed at

winning international recognition would once again become relevant, and the

Zionist ideal would prevail and survive.

(c) Ethnic responsibility. Aviad further claimed that the Zionist ideal was important

for Jewish survival in exile. In other words, it served as a guard against the

complacency of the Jews in exile, who believed that their comfortable situation

would continue to be stable and secure: “Zionism leads us out of this error,

namely, that it is in our power to solve the problem of the Jews and Judaism by

turning a blind eye.”11

The idea of political Zionism was founded on the premise that the people of Israel

would fit into the “orchestra of the nations.”12World harmony, which wasmetaphorically

represented by the orchestra, was crucial to solving the Jewish problem. Aviad relied on

world political stability and harmony even though it had faltered during the Holocaust.

He repeatedly called for ties to be maintained with countries and world powers like

the United States and Britain during the Holocaust,13 even though they had not done

enough to save the Jews. Aviad never lost his innocent belief in the nature of the

nations of the world, despite the question marks that began to emerge.

As noted, the need for apology is a sign of the doubts felt regarding the path adopted

Religious Zionism 175 (Leiden & Boston, 2002); Avi Sagi A Challenge: Returning

to Tradition 317 (Jerusalem & Ramat Gan, 2003) [Heb].

10 Isaiah Wolfsberg Gateways to Philosophical Problems, supra note 9, p. 255.

11 Ibid., pp. 255y256.

12 Ibid., p. 262 (from another article, “Israel and the Nations” written during the same

period).

13 Aviad defined them as “huge-powers which symbolize power, courage and

government, but which at the same time do not ignore the rules of morality and

do not defile the sanctity of the supreme elements” (ibid., p. 269).

316



by Zionism; doubts that arose in view of the horrific resurgence of hatred toward the

Jews.14

The Religious Zionist Position

So far, we have considered the protection of the Zionist ideal as a political ideal. Aviad

examined the relevance of the ideal as a religious Zionist expressing his viewswithin the

context of a general debate, and not as someone stating a religious Zionist viewpoint.

However, a religious Zionist cannot confine himself to dealing with the general criticism

of the Zionist ideal without offering his own special insights and religious interpretation

of history. Aviad further claimed that the fact that the political Zionist ideal was still

valid did not mean that it had to be accepted in its original form. Rather, hard times

necessitated re-examination of the spiritual contribution offered by the Zionist ideal.

Aviad wrote:

Zionism is facing a decisive historical turning-point. Our organization wished

to maintain ties with the wider world and hoped that by conducting a parallel

existence in cultural life and by accepting their cultural background and

civilization we could join the orchestra of nations. With all the Zionists’

aspiration to develop some kind of original spiritual life, they did not

understand its true meaning and were satisfied with certain aspects [of

culture] that had not emerged from the heart of the [Jewish] nation. Now the

world has failed us and we too have failed ourselves, to the extent that we

follow its path, taking the main cultural route. By relying on the transitory, the

world as a single entity has caused us to fail ourselves and led us to suffer a

terrible defeat.15

In the eyes of religious Zionists, the need to defend the relevance of the Zionist ideal

offered an opportunity to meet its deficiencies. Aviad emphasized that he did not aspire

to isolationism. On the contrary, as a native of Germany and a Zionist activist in that

14 For Aviad’s different approaches to the Holocaust, see Hava Eshkoli Wagman

Between Rescue and Redemption: Religious Zionism in Eretz Israel Confronts

the Holocaust (Jerusalem, 2004) [Heb], according to its value in the index.


317


Dov Schwartz

country,16 he owed his education to the general culture, and recognized its importance.

Nonetheless, in his view, the Zionist ideal was not limited to normal nationalism and

the revival of secular culture: “We must revive Zionism and imbue it with religious faith,

the spirit of Torah and prophecy.”17

Aviad, who usually followed a moderate political approach, set out a clear program.

He did not seek the revival of Zionism as a form of “church government,” i.e. as an

organization imposed on the people from above. His goal was a voluntary religious

awakening and acceptance of religious values within the reborn nation. For him, the

Zionist movement had to adopt a goal-oriented approach, that is to say, that noble,

spiritual and moral aims would guide its course. Only faith intensified on a voluntary

and consensual basis would allow these goals to be realized.18 In his usual style,

Aviad relied on the intellectualist cultural discourse, but the messianic motif may still

be seen.

Concluding his remarks, he wrote:

If, this time, it [Israel] will reach its goal, God will give it dominion over the

whole land. This hope and vision encourage me to say one more thing: I was

always careful not to identify Zionism with messianism. We knew that these

were separate arenas albeit with factors linking them.

Now I dare say that for the first time I feel, in a way that terrifies me, that

Zionism has some common elements with the vision of redemption and that

I see this transition from afar.19 After the recent calamity that shocked the

entire world, we feel more than ever before that the world at large is at risk. It

is not simple to climb up from such an abyss and revival will not be easy after

such a fall. Our aspiration, which awoke prior to the crisis and disaster, has

16 See, for example, Yehuda Iloni Zionism in Germany from its Inception until 1914

311y312 (Tel Aviv, 1991) [Heb].


18 For the spiritual meaning of the term “faith” for Aviad, see Dov Schwartz Faith at the

Crossroads, supra note 9, pp. 11y12.

19 Aviad’s comments reflect a degree of soberness or detachment from the notion of

Zionism as a safe haven, and a shift toward Zionism as a means of redemption. This

approach later became a common motif in religious Zionism. See below.

318



now climbed to new heights, as [such aspiration] can always expect either

to expire completely or to witness a complete revival worthy of being called

redemption. After such a period, a period of intolerable calamity, one may see

from afar the first signs of times that perhaps may be called the End of Days.

I can only hope that we and our organization will fulfill this high calling.20

These events resulted in the hidden motive coming out into the open. The concealed

nexus (“ley lines”) that had existed in the past between messianism and Zionism

became overt in an era of raging unbridled anti-Semitism. Aviad postulated: the deeper

the abyss the greater the salvation. After the Holocaust, the world could only elevate

itself spiritually. Such a climb was consistent with End of Days prophecies. Moreover,

it still formed part of the mutual relations between the Jewish people and the nations

of the world. “The theoretical perception that authoritative Jewish philosophy requires

a positive relationship between the Jewish people and the rest of the world is derived

from the messianic concept.”21 The perception of the Holocaust as the first step

in redemption and confirmation of the Zionist ideal was reiterated by such spiritual

leaders as Rabbi Itzhak Isaac Halevy Herzog and ideologists such as Shlomo Zalman

Shragai.22 From this point of view, Aviad’s approach reflected the views prevailing

among religious Zionists in the Land of Israel. The link between the Holocaust and


21 Ibid., p. 264. Clearly, the naturalistic Maimonidean-style messianic approach governs

Aviad’s style and approach (for example, in his comment “the messianic age will

bring about the rehabilitation of the historical world, relations among the peoples

themselves, the relations of peoples toward the Jews, and shape the image of

humanity in a sound and permanent manner within the framework of this world” [ibid.,

p. 265]).

22 See Shulamit Eliash “’He who is negligent in fulfilling the commandment of saving

human life is as though he has shed the blood’: Rabbi Herzog and the Holocaust”

in When Disaster Comes from Afar: Leading Personalities in the Land of

Israel Confront Nazism and the Holocaust, 1933y1948, 130y131 (Dina Porat

ed., Jerusalem, 2009) [Heb]; Dov Schwartz “Shlomo Zalman Shragai Faces the

Holocaust: Reflections of a Religious Zionism,” ibid., p. 178. For more regarding

Shragai, see below.

319


Dov Schwartz

the realization of the Zionist ideal also occupied non-religious Zionists, as has been

discussed extensively in the past.

It follows that Aviad’s views were forerunners of the typical religious Zionist approach,

which would be revealed some years after he had expressed his thoughts in writing.

Only the messianic motif of religious Zionism was deemed to accord importance to

the Zionist endeavor. However, his position did not crystallize as a result of the heroic

actions leading to the establishment of the state and the expansion of its borders but

rather because of the catastrophe, which was soon revealed to be genocide. Aviad

was not the only one to question the relevance of the Zionist ideal in the light of the

Holocaust. Another example was Moshe Krone, who defended the relevance of the

ideal even though most of the Jewish communities in Europe had been destroyed and

the immigration of masses of Jews was no longer a viable vision.23

(C) The End of the Zionist Federation

An excellent opportunity to examine the justifications for the existence of the Zionist

movement and its institutions emerged with the establishment of the State of Israel

following Ben-Gurion’s efforts to dismantle the Zionist Federation. Extensive studies

have already been devoted to Ben-Gurion’s insistence on ending the role of the Zionist

movement following the establishment of the state. Dismantling the Zionist Federation

was another stage in Ben-Gurion’s determined ideology to terminate Jewish exile.24He

regarded the Zionist movement following the establishment of the state as something

23 Krone’s comments were printed in Hava Eshkoli Wagman The Testing of Jewish

Responsibility for One Another — Collation of Documents, para. 1943.8 (Ramat

Gan, forthcoming) [Heb].

24 See, for example, Zeev Tzahor “Ben-Gurion’s Attitude toward the Gola (Diaspora)

and Aliyah” in The Ingathering of Exiles: Aliyah to the Land of Israel — Myth

and Reality 131 (Dvora Hacohen ed., Jerusalem, 1998) [Heb]. See also the recent

publication: Zeev Gries “Spiritual Power and Political Authority — The Case of David

Ben-Gurion” in Might by Spirit — Defense and Educational Philosophy in the

Heritage of the State of Israel, in Honor of Haim Israeli on his Eightieth Birthday

(Israel Rosenson & Oded Israeli eds., Tel Aviv, 2009) [Heb].

320



that was superfluous and even dangerous, as it afforded legitimacy to the continued

existence of Jewish life outside the state. From this point of view, the position of the

Zionist Federation was undermined and its very existence was threatened.

On the other hand, the position of the Zionist Federation within the Jewish world

was not significant. Even though it enjoyed a superior status compared to other

organizations, it had never succeeded in becoming a supra-organization representative

of world Jewry.25 Accordingly, the very status of the Zionist Federation became a test

case for the realization of the Zionist ideal. The practical discussions concerning the

dismantling of the institutions of the Zionist movement were accompanied by ideological

debate regarding the role of the Zionist ideal in contemporary times.

Religious Zionism criticized Ben-Gurion’s attitude toward the Jews of the Diaspora,

an attitude that led to a “distortion in our relations with the rest of the Jewish world

in the Diaspora.”26 Many of the leaders of religious Zionism, whether fiercely or more

moderately, opposed his pinpoint attempt to dismantle the Zionist Federation. We

will present the main objections or reservations shown to Ben-Gurion’s efforts in two

stages. In the first stage, we will consider responses that dealt with the practical roles

and tasks felt by religious Zionists to be within the province of the Zionist movement.

Some of these responses were not specifically religious (for example, encouraging

immigration), while others did have a uniquely religious nature (for example, bringing

redemption closer). We assume that both the religious and non-religious responses

rested on theological conceptual bedrock.27 Accordingly, in the second stage of this

discussion we will try to uncover the theological principles underlying these responses

as crystallized in the early days following the establishment of the state.

Practical and Educational Arguments

Religious Zionists voiced two types of objections, and both were based on the principle

25 See Ben Halpern “The Hegemony of Zionism and the Countervailing Factors Today”

in Zionism and its Jewish Opponents 447 (Haim Avni & Gideon Shimoni eds.,

Jerusalem, 1990) [Heb].

26 PinchasRosenbluethOn Israel andMan 340 (Jerusalem, 1993) [Heb]. The comments

were first published in 1959.

27 Dov Schwartz Faith at the Crossroads, supra note 9, was devoted to this theme.

321


Dov Schwartz

of responsibility. One class of objections related to the importance of the Zionist

movement in terms of organizing immigration into Israel, whereas the second class

referred to its educational importance. Aryeh Leib (Leon) Gelman, one of the leaders

of religious Zionism in the United States and in the Land of Israel, referred to the

practical importance of the Zionist movement. He was vehement in his insistence that

the Zionist Federation should not be dismantled:

In the current circumstances, as we stand at the focal point of the ingathering

of the exiles, there is no question whatsoever of dismantling theWorld Zionist

Organization or, of course, the various Zionist groups. It would be a terrible

national tragedy if this organization, which for fifty years has borne the heavy

political burden, is now taken apart, after the final purpose has been achieved

of “your children will return to their homeland” (Jeremiah 31:17), leaving the

huge responsibility to the good will of compassionate Jews and voluntary

organizations.28

It is apparent from Gelman’s comments that, from the political perspective, the role

of the Zionist movement had indeed come to an end as it had fulfilled its purpose.

However, political activity was not the Zionist movement’s sole function, particularly

with respect to Diaspora Jewry and encouraging immigration. Accordingly, even if the

quality of the Zionist movement had changed at the establishment of the state, its

continued existence remained necessary.29

Arranging immigration into Israel played a role alongside the educational functions

of the Zionist movement. Gelman noted that the Zionist movement had to work toward

making the Hebrew language the official language of Jewish educational institutions in

the Diaspora as well as entrenching the “new holidays,” i.e. Israel’s Independence Day,

around the world. Of course, this activity had to be conducted concurrently with the

28 Aryeh Leib Gelman The State and Religious Jewry 90 (Jerusalem, 1959) [Heb].

These comments were made in Iyar 1949. It would seem that Gelman was embracing

a quasi-moral argument to the effect that one should not ignore the contribution

made by the movement in the past, even though the situation had changed and

re-organization was needed.

29 Ibid., p. 91.

322



propagation of the religious framework worldwide: “We, the members of the Mizrachi

organization have a special duty to invoke the religious spirit in all places where there

is a Jewish community.”30

The educational role of the Zionist movement was given fervent expression by

Eliyahu Moshe Genehovsky, who was one of the founders of the Mizrachi Pioneer

Organization in Poland and the Mizrachi Youth Organization in Belgium, who had

been elected to the First and Second Knessets. Genehovsky’s speeches allow us to

understand the approach taken by the Mizrachi and Mizrachi Workers organizations in

the early days of the state. Genehovsky responded to celebrated historian and Minister

of Education Ben-Zion Dinur as follows:

TheMinister of Education and Culture said things that I still cannot fathom. He

said: “Do you want the State of Israel to be a tool for augmenting the influence

of Zionism in the Diaspora?— This is more than a disaster. This is a distortion

of the image of Zionism.”31 I allow myself to say that these remarks diminish

the image of Zionism. There was once a debate between Jawitz and Nordau

regarding what would happen once the state was established. Even Nordau,

who then opposed Ahad Ha’am’s idea of a spiritual center, understood,

together with everyone else, that the State of Israel would become a spiritual

center possessing the greatest influence on the lives of Jews in the Diaspora,

that the State of Israel would become a beacon for the Diaspora. And since

when, I ask, has it become illegitimate for the State of Israel to become a

means of increasing the influence of Zionism in the Diaspora?32

What were Genehovsky’s motives for supporting the continued existence of the Zionist

Federation? Certainly, the principal motive was a sense of responsibility for the Jews

of the Diaspora. This motive was based on the concept that the Zionist Federation’s

30 Ibid., p. 92.

31 A comment made by Ben-Zion Dinur (Dinaburg). See Zvi Zameret “Ben-Zion Dinur:

An Intellectual Builds a Nation” 21 Zionism 321 (1998) [Heb].

32 Eliahu Moshe Genehovsky Judaism, State, Government 139 (Ramat Gan, 1970)

[Heb]. The comments were made on 5 November 1952. For more, see ibid., pp.

128y130.

323


Dov Schwartz

function was primarily to disseminate the Zionist idea in the Diaspora. However, this

was not its only task. The Zionist Federation had to provide an overall source of

cultural and spiritual influence on the Jews of the Diaspora (a “spiritual center”).

This function could also be defined in the negative sense — preventing assimilation

among Diaspora Jewry. In other words, its function was manifestly educational. The

educational influence on the Diaspora had to be organized and official: “A Zionist is

more important than a mere supporter.”33 Thus, in the eyes of the representatives of

the religious Zionist camp, the Zionist movement had a function to fulfill even after the

establishment of the State of Israel.

The Crystallization of the Theological Argument

Were there other matters apart from national responsibility and fear of assimilation

that underpinned the support given by religious Zionists to the continued existence

of the Zionist Federation? Shlomo Zalman Shragai was a confirmed activist and

man of action, who exposed and documented his spiritual and ideological thinking

in a methodical and diligent manner over many years. Shragai vehemently claimed

“the Zionist movement has not completed its conceptual role.”34 Its function was

to entrench Jewish nationalism, i.e. the concept that the physical existence of the

Jewish people and their unique spiritual development could be accomplished only in

the national home. On the face of it, this function overlapped the classic definition of

national awakening. However, Shragai spoke in secular terms permeated by manifestly

religious sensibilities. According to Shragai, the definition of nationalism, which had to

be nurtured by the Zionist Federation, was “that the natural and normal, physical and

spiritual existence [of the Jewish people] was conditional on their congregation in the

Land of Israel.” This definition relied on a number of premises, namely:

(a) The Jewish state was merely “the first spark of redemption”... and as long

as the majority of the Jewish people lived in exile and in the Diaspora, the

function of Zionism had yet to be fulfilled.

33 Ibid. p. 129. Perhaps Genehovsky was alluding to the voluntary activities of Hovevei

Zion as opposed to the institutional activity of Zionism.

34 Shlomo Zalman Shragai Processes of Change and Redemption 285 (Jerusalem,

1959) [Heb]. The comments were first published in 1950.

324



(b) The Israeli people, of whatsoever community andwherever located, whether

in Israel or abroad, formed a single unit. The State of Israel belonged to

them in the same way as they belonged to the State of Israel, even though

they might live far apart from each other.

(c) The aim of Zionism was to rescue the Jewish people from alienation,

from the blurring of their spiritual independence, and from forgetting their

uniqueness and spiritual purpose. From the point of view of Zionism, rescue

would not be possible except by gathering the Jewish people within the

Land of Israel.

(d) The travails of Israel, the physical danger facing Jews sometimes in one

part of the world and sometimes in another — only proved that, from a

physical point of view as well, the Jewish people could not live a normal life

as a people in foreign lands nor could the Jews live normal lives as Jews.35

It followed that, in the eyes of religious Zionists, the nature of the reasons given for

the preservation of the Zionist Federation as a propaganda agent while realistic on

one hand, was metaphysical and spiritual on the other. Thus, on the one hand, they

had to consider the risk of assimilation and anti-Semitism (premises c-d), whereas, on

the other hand, there was the theological basis of religious Zionism (premises a-b),

which had been nurtured since the early years of the movement. The two underlying

premises of religious Zionist theology are worth clarifying again:

(a) The perception of the historical events as stages in the redemptive

process.36 Thiswas the issue faced by the “redemptive plan”37 of the Zionist

Federation. Shragai enlisted religious Zionism’s esoteric interpretation of

secular Zionism. The Zionist Federation “is the division that represents

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid., p. 286.

37 Ibid., p. 288. Shragai stated unequivocally that the State of Israel has proved “that it

is possible to bring redemption closer. It has proved the ‘beginning of the flowering of

redemption’ and, if they accept the Zionist way, the people as a whole will be able to

bring about complete redemption; to bring about the coming of the Messiah who still

has not come, even though the State of Israel has been established.”

325


Dov Schwartz

the hidden will of the people to be redeemed.”38 The Federation was

responsible for the redemption of the people and the land, and only religious

Zionism was responsible for the “redemption of the divine spirit.”

(b) The perception of the metaphysical unity of the Israeli nation and people.39

The unity of the nation was a constitutive principle and condition of religious

Zionism — redemption could be achieved only through unity. The ideal of

unity necessarily was achieved through the Zionist identity of the Jews in

exile.

Shragai expressed deep-rooted theological opposition to the concept that Zionism had

completed its role at the founding of the state. In other words, a “dialogue of the deaf”

had been taking place from the beginning. The argument revolved around “secular”

issues, i.e. the effectiveness of the Zionist movement and the Zionist institutions.

The arguments that religious Zionists presented outwardly were pertinent and of the

same nature as the political and ideological arguments conducted throughout the

Land of Israel at the time. However, internally, the arguments possessed a manifestly

theological character and were based on theological premises.

As we will see below, Shragai’s claims were not completely detached from the

practical debate. In the early days of the state, just as at the present, it was clear that

the Zionist Federation would not portray itself as religious when its own leaders did not

identify with this image. Accordingly, Shragai set a condition for the continued activity

of the Zionist Federation: “to enable the religious and Torah departments in the Zionist

Federation to act affirmatively for the benefit of genuine Jewish life, or at least not to

interfere with them, as is customary today.”40

Shragai presented the typical religious Zionist approach, which rejected the

“scandalous dismantling” of the Zionist Federation. The two premises formulated

previously were now applied to the Zionist Federation:

38 Ibid., p. 290. SeeDov Schwartz “Religious Zionism and the Art ofWriting: A Preliminary

Consideration” in Jewish Political Tradition throughout the Ages: In Memory of

Daniel J. Elazar 307 (Moshe Halinger ed., Ramat Gan, 2010) [Heb].

39 Dov Schwartz Faith at the Crossroads, supra note 9, pp. 21y22.

40 Shlomo Zalman Shragai Processes of Change and Redemption, supra note 34, p.

287.

326



(a) The “true” redemption of the Zionist Federation was contingent on the “true”

messianic redemption of the people. The viability of the Zionist Federation was

dependent on its recognition of the full and final religious Zionist ideal. “For the

redemption of [the people and the land] [religious Zionism] sees the necessity

of the existence of the Zionist movement and the Federation.”41

(b) The principle of the unity of the Jewish people necessitated mutual responsibility

and obligations. Accordingly, “even though he may have sinned, a Zionist is a

Zionist.”42 The activities of the Zionist Federation played an important role in

fulfilling national obligations.

In a number of respects, Shragai was presenting the religious Zionist argument that

would accompany the discussions of the national religious movement regarding the

role of Zionism in the present as well as its right to exist. The religious Zionist argument

was as follows:

(a) On the establishment of the state, the “soul” of the Zionist movement had been

“taken” from it.43

(b) In view of premise a, only the religious Zionist ideal remained (a state of Halakhah

and redemption).44

(c) The rehabilitation of Zionism was dependent on its recognition of premise b and

compatible activities.

It is worthwhile examining the abstract ideological position taken by Shragai in the

context of geography and time. The debate regarding education in the immigrant

camps was then at its height. Religious Zionism accused the Zionist Federation

and Zionist institutions of preventing immigrants coming from religious homes from

obtaining a religious education. The Zionist Federation was performing actions that

were contrary to the expectations of religious Zionist figures; and this was the source

41 Ibid., p. 289.

42 Ibid. According to the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 44, 71 and analogous

sources. The sin was that he “did not give effect to Zionism by immigrating to Israel.”

43 Ibid., p. 291. This reflects an agreement with Ben-Gurion’s approach.

44 Shragai argued that only religious Zionism “had not also denuded itself from its

Zionism following the establishment of the state” (ibid., p. 293).

327


Dov Schwartz

of the criticism voiced against the Zionist Federation.45 Nonetheless, Shragai and his

colleagues recognized the relevance of the Zionist institutions.

Against Apologies

Ben-Gurion’s personality and his characteristic pathos pushed those in favor of the

existence of the Zionist Federation to the wall. As a result, Shragai, Genehovski and

their colleagues were forced to contend with Ben-Gurion’s insistent argument that the

establishment of the State of Israel indeed cast doubt on the need for the Zionist

Federation. To this the religious Zionists replied that the metaphysical principles in

which they believed justified the continued activities of this institution.

Isaiah Bernstein, one of the central ideologists of the Mizrachi Labor Organization,

radicalized and rejected the existence of any doubt. “The embarrassment that has

existed throughout the Zionist movement since the establishment of the state does not

stem from the establishment of the state. The fact that we were granted a state should

not have been an excuse for the decline in the Zionist movement but rather it should

have been the cause for its rise.”46 Doubts as to the need for the Zionist movement

only arose when viewed by secular eyes. Since the secular Zionists’ movement was

fragmented and dispersed, each faction of the movement was pulling in a different

direction: there were those who utilized the movement’s activities to engage in pioneer

work and manual labor, there were those who utilized it to establish a civilized society,

and there were those who wished to promote the value of peace. Bernstein called all

these: “[Zionism] even though it has become empty of meaning, is Zionism.”47 Yet,

all the values described above already existed within religious Zionism, which was

the one and only complete Zionism. Only religious Zionism could provide a complete

justification for the activities of Zionism in the present.

45 For the background of the dispute, see Eliezer Don-Yehia “Religion, Education and

Politics” in Sefer Shragai 140 (Mordechai Eliav & Yitzhak Rafael eds., Jerusalem,

1982) [Heb]; Eliezer Don-Yehia Crisis and Change in a New State (Jerusalem,

2009) [Heb].

46 Isaiah BernsteinWithin Circles of Enslavement and Redemption 287 (Jerusalem,

1925) [Heb].

47 Ibid., p. 286.

328



Bernstein focused on the educational role of the Zionist movement. The two main

principles of Bernstein’s position gave it the character of the typical religious Zionist

approach:

(a) The Zionist movement had an educational place (responsibility) in the

Diaspora.

(b) A Zionist education was a “complete Jewish” education.48

It is possible to observe the practical ramifications of the religious Zionistic position

within Bernstein’s statements. He called for the reinforcement of the Cultural and

Educational Religious Department in the Diaspora. Taking a somewhat “sober” point

of view, he stated that secular Zionism and religious Zionism did not share “a mutual

language”49 as far as cultural and educational matters were concerned. As a result,

the religious Zionist movement had to strengthen its delegates and institutions within

the Zionist Federation.

We can learn from all of the above that, according to Bernstein, the question of the

Zionist movement’s relevance was totally and utterly illegitimate. There was no doubt

that the Zionist movement had to continue its activities, but it had to progress from the

partial to the complete, and from secularism to a return to the cradle of religion.

The Idea and the Implementation

The religious Zionist position vis-a-vis the challenge that had been posed by Ben-Gurion

was therefore dialectical. On the one hand, the members of the religious Zionist camp

made the very existence of the Zionist Federation in the present conditional on

the acceptance of the religious Zionist ideal. On the other hand, they vehemently

supported the principal of the metaphysical unity of the nation (“one division”),50 which

necessitated the Zionist Federation’s activity remaining the same. The metaphysical

principle required national and educational responsibility to be taken for the Jews of

the Diaspora, accompanied by continued encouragement for them to immigrate to

48 Ibid., p. 289.

49 Ibid., p. 296.

50 See, for example, Shragai Processes of Change and Redemption, supra note 34,

p. 326 (written in 1954).

329


Dov Schwartz

the Land of Israel. Earlier, we described a few of the ways in which the religious

Zionists expressed their dialectic position vis-a-vis Ben-Gurion’s approach. Shragai,

for example, wrote a number of additional articles, all permeated with the same

dialectic spirit, in favor of the continued existence of the Zionist movement following

the establishment of the State of Israel.

In the above responses, we saw both sides of the religious Zionist position. Gelman

and Genehovsky presented the practical side. According to Gelman, the ingathering

of the exiles had to be implemented through an organized mechanism, which was

supplied by the Zionist movement, whereas, according to Genehovsky, the cultural

and educational influence also had to be effected through an organized structure.

Shragai and Bernstein expressed the ideological perspective and the deep ideological

infrastructure of religious Zionism: in their view, Zionist activity was part of a process of

returning to the spiritual sources and part of the hidden redemptive mechanism, while

the religious Zionist interpretation revealed this hidden fact. Both emphasized time and

again the metaphysical dimension of the principle of the “unity of Israel.”

Many religious Zionist members opposed the dismantling of the Zionist Federation,

but this did not mean that they accepted the structure and path followed by its

institutions. This becomes very evident when we consider the movement’s most

prominent politicians. One example was Dr. Yitzchak Rafael, who, during his varied

political activities, frequently rubbed up against the Zionist movement’s institutions

and harshly criticized the World Zionist Congress on issues that he regarded as

superfluous.51 However, at the end, the basics of religious Zionist theology overcame

the practical criticism, and, for the religious Zionist movement, the Zionist Federation

ultimately reflected the Israeli nation’s metaphysical principle of unity, as well as the

notion that redemption was indeed on the way — albeit its complete implementation

depended on following the religious Zionist path. The Zionist Federation became

the recognized symbol for pursuit of the Zionist path. In practical terms, this was a

true partnership, which had stemmed from criticism. However, from an ideological

standpoint, it was a conditional partnership: Zionism, however legitimate it might be,

existed to advance the goals and values of the religious Zionists. The religious Zionist

51 Yitzhak Raphael Not Easily Came the Light 163 (Jerusalem, 1981) [Heb].

330



philosophy therefore appropriated the Zionist institutions to its theological interpretation

of the historical events affecting the current generation.

(D) Zionism, Society, and Immigration to Israel

Another opportunity for examining the relevance of the Zionist movement and its

institutions arose on 10 November 1975, in view of the United Nation’s resolution

equating Zionism to racism.What seemed like an outmoded and superfluous discussion

resurfaced as a result of the United Nations’ measure. This threat from the outside

world caused some thinkers to initiate a process of self-criticism, aimed at examining

themeaning of the Zionist movement in contemporary times. I would like to analyze one

such discussion, in which outside influences affected internal aspects of themovement.

Against Ben-Gurion’s Position

Prof. EphraimElimelechUrbach, a highly respected Talmudic scholar who later became

one of the founders of the Meymad organization, vehemently opposed the claim that

the state’s establishment meant the end of Zionism. He harshly disputed Ben-Gurion’s

approach. In his opinion, the supreme goal of the Zionist ideal was the ingathering

(aliyah) of the exiled Jews. From this point of view, the State of Israel was an important

stage in achieving this supreme goal — but under no circumstances was it the final

stage: “What happened was that the Zionist movement became a tool to service

the state, instead of the state becoming the leverage for Zionism that would allow it

to intensify and penetrate all the exiled communities.”52 Urbach’s argument, which

emerged from his discussions over the years, may be stated as follows:

(a) The most important goal of Zionism is the immigration of Jews to Israel.

(b) Holding tightly onto life in exile stems from materialism.

(c) Consequently, Zionism has a dual function:

(1) Immigration of Jews to Israel.

52 Ephraim Elimelech Urbach On Zionism and Judaism 97 (Jerusalem, 1985) [Heb].

The comments were made at the beginning of 1975. To a certain extent, this reflects

a development of Bernstein’s position.

331


Dov Schwartz

(2) The building of a non-materialistic society in Israel, in order to justify the

immigration of Jews to Israel.

(d) Thus, the immigration of Jews to Israel is the appropriate response to the

slandering of Zionism and the claim that it is racist.

We will elaborate on the factors described by Urbach, who often stressed that Jewish

immigration to Israel was the foremost nationalist and Zionist mission. As far as he was

concerned, the primary goal and main accomplishment of the Zionist movement was

not necessarily the creation of the state entity, but rather the ingathering in Israel and

the immigration of all exiled Jews from all over the world.53 Consequently, he declared

that the establishment of the state was not necessarily the fulfillment of Zionism. Urbach

detailed what each of the different sectors expected of the state: the religious desired

a state based on halakhic laws; the socialists sought the fulfillment of their idealistic

social aspirations; whereas the Canaanites thought that the state would truly blend in

with the Mediterranean society and environment.

However, the state had not fulfilled any of these aspirations. Moreover, as far as

Urbach was concerned, the state had not even fulfilled its true goal, which was the total

negation of exile. In many respects, Urbach was more like Ben-Gurion than Ben-Gurion

himself. He wrote:

With the establishment of the state came an acceptance of a reality, which

was in effect the acceptance of the existence of the Diaspora ... that is, as

if just another Jewish settlement had been formed within the State of Israel,

the Jewish settlement of the State of Israel. Zionism, from that point of view,

had only performed half a job, which the state had not completed. Half a job

— did not justify its existence.54

From Urbach’s point of view, both the Zionist movement and the state had failed by

failing to turn the Diaspora into an unnatural existence, or even one that was illegitimate.

Therefore, it was clear that the role of the Zionist movement had not been completed

yet. By this, Urbach meant a manifestly ideological role: Zionism had to eradicate the

Diaspora consciousness. It was possible to explain the “instinct” of the Jews to settle

53 Ibid., p. 123 (the comments were made in 1980).

54 Ibid., pp. 128y129.

332



down in the Diaspora in a variety of ways, but Zionism could not accept this state of

affairs. It had to battle this condition and create a Jewish consciousness aspiring to the

ingathering of the exiles and the “fulfillment of the commandment to settle the Promised

Land.”55 The role of Zionism merged with the fulfillment of the halakhic commandment,

and this fulfillment justified the continuing existence of Zionism

Zionism and Values

Further to this, Urbach pointed to the two major failures of the Zionist movement during

the period when the United Nations was denouncing Zionism:

(a) The failure to convince Zionists from Western countries to immigrate to Israel.

(b) The failure to attract immigrants to Israel from the communist bloc, and the

subsequent dropout phenomenon, even though these dropouts had only been

granted permission to immigrate to Israel.

Urbach rejected in advance any arguments concerning motive. Those who justified

living in the Diaspora by criticizing the quality of social life in Israel were hiding their

manifestly materialistic and hedonistic motives. Nonetheless, avoiding debate did not

mean that Israeli society’s ethical and social problems had been resolved and therefore

no longer required examination. According to Urbach, the Zionist ideology inherently

negated “the love of money” and the “philosophy of materialism,” and, accordingly,

there was no point in debating the hedonists who had entrenched themselves in exile.

However, he accepted that there was a need to examine the strength and ethics of

Israeli society. Urbach did not advocate social self-examination as a result of religious

Zionist criticism. Rather, Urbach stated explicitly: “I do not accept the current claim that

is prevalent in religious circles and which to some extent has also penetrated into the

religious Zionist circles, that this decline in morality is necessarily the result of secular

attitudes or is the by-product of a Judaism that does not uphold the commandments in

an orthodox manner.”56

In this context, Urbach described the dual role of Zionism today:

(a) The struggle against materialism and promiscuity in Israeli society.

55 Ibid., p. 91.

56 Ibid., p. 9.

333


Dov Schwartz

(b) Increasing Jewish immigration to Israel, leading to a state in which the majority

of the Jewish nation would be settled in its homeland.57

It was in this way that the United Nations’ condemnation of Zionism led to a re-inspection

of the goals and functions of Zionism. As noted, Urbach stressed that his words did

not stem from his religious Zionist identity, and therefore that the current roles of

the Zionist movement were not necessarily religious in character. Rather, his views

stemmed from the religious dimension of the settlement of the land and the importance

of the ingathering of the exiles, and this is what colored his words with characteristically

religious hues. Urbach presented a radical position, on the one hand embracing the

harsh negation of the Diaspora and the struggle against it, and, by so doing, he

radicalized Ben-Gurion’s position; while, on the other hand, he advocated the feverish

Zionist activity aimed at bringing about the immigration of Jews from all over the world,

which conflicted with Ben-Gurion’s position. In many ways, Urbach’s response was

individualistic and unique in the landscape of religious Zionist ideologies; unlike other

responses, it was not accepted by a distinct circle of thinkers.

(E) A Reaction to Crisis

Some religious Zionist philosophers adopted the model that claimed that the

establishment of the State of Israel had completed the goals of the general Zionist

movement and opened the way for the religious Zionist movement, which had become

the only way forward. The point of departure for these kinds of discussions was the

sense of urgency in the face of a crisis that demanded new means of coping with

the collapse of ideology resulting from that crisis. The feature common to almost all

these philosophers was that they originally came from Anglo-Saxon countries. Some

had settled in Israel at later periods in their lives. It is conceivable that the distinct

points of view and different cultural backgrounds caused them to develop extreme

expectations that eventually shattered in the face of reality. In any event, their sense of

crisis led to a re-examination of the secular Zionist ideology and a reconsideration of

its very legitimacy. Occasionally, the sense of crisis referred to a specific event, while

sometimes the feeling was a more generalized one of a meltdown of values or the

57 Ibid., p. 11.

334



trampling of religious values in the State of Israel. Whichever it was, the response to

this crisis was to call on people to follow the path of religious Zionism.

Another Type of Zionism

Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik elaborated on the fact that the founding of the State

of Israel had not brought about the disappearance of anti-Semitism, but rather the

channeling and focusing of anti-Semitism toward a political entity. From now onward,

the hatred of the Jews would be confined no longer to individuals but would be

broadened into hatred of the State of Israel.58 Rabbi Yehuda Amital, the founder of

Yeshiva “Har Etzyon” in Alon Shevut, who later became one of the leaders of the centrist

political wing of religious Zionism, followed in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s footsteps and stated

that: “The State of Israel is the only state that faces the danger of extinction.”59 His

words resonated against the backdrop of the Yom Kippur War, which was a turning

point in the Zionist ideology of “the safe haven.” In the face of this crisis, Rabbi Amital

claimed that it was necessary to change our general concept of reality. As far as he

was concerned, there was a need to develop a new conscious and emotional attitude.

He wrote:

When we talk about the praise that we must give ... about the wonders that

the Holy One has performed for us, there is no need for any philosophy; there

is no need for any Zionism, with or without quotation marks; there is no need

to ponder the mysterious ways of the Holy One; there is no need to decipher

the secrets of redemption. The first principle is simple and straightforward

faith....60 Whoever approaches matters with this simple and innocent faith,

58 See Dov Schwartz The Land of Israel in Religious Zionist Thought 256y60 (Tel

Aviv, 1997) [Heb].

59 Yehuda Amital The Steps from the Depths (Ha-ma’alot Mi-maamakim) 42

(Jerusalem & Alon Shevut, 1974) [Heb]. See also ibid., p. 90.

60 Ibid., p. 68. Regarding the religious Zionist need for a renewed definition of faith in

view of recent historical events, see Dov Schwartz Faith at the Crossroads, supra

note 9, Chapter A. Rabbi Amital argued that even an understanding of the writings

of Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Hacohen Kook required “great faith” (The Steps from the

Depths, supra note 59, p. 115. See also ibid., pp. 118y120).

335


Dov Schwartz

applying this principle, must give praise.61 But the one who ponders and

makes calculations — his faith is flawed.62

Rabbi Amital supported the introduction of radical reforms. From then onward,

“Redemptive Zionism” replaced the veteran Zionist ideology. Rabbi Amital claimed

that in order to refer accurately to the new reality, it was necessary to adopt an intuitive

approach, as follows:

Epistemological Philosophical Imagery Zionistic

approach approach approach

and ideology

Past Rationalism Reflection Contemplation63 Safe haven

Present Faith Rejecting Praise Redemption

metaphysics

According to Rabbi Amital, the redeemed person had replaced the non-redeemed

person. The redeemed person was totally different to the one who was “pre-redeemed.”

His prayers were different and his ideologies and expectations were different.64 Rabbi

62 Yehuda Amital The Steps from the Depths, supra note 59, p. 69.

Rabbi Amital was referring to inductive reasoning, whichwas striving to adapt historical

events to the messianic model. From his point of view, the response had to try to

avoid conforming to any particular model, and instead adopt an intuitive approach:

“as, if a person tries to reason, he will afterwards also try to determine the ways

of Divine Providence, and then he will try to decide how the redemptive process

should proceed” (ibid., p. 71). Moreover, according to Rabbi Amital’s approach, the

metaphysical approach had to be rejected and instead of delving into the ways of

Divine Providence, people had to display naıve and complete faith.

64 Ibid., p. 75.

336

63

61 For the diverse range of meanings given by Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Hacohen Kook’s

disciples to songs of praise, which influenced Rabbi Amital, see Dov Schwartz

Challenge and Crisis in Rabbi Kook’s Circle 169y177 (Tel Aviv, 2001) [Heb].



Amital’s approach clearly reflected the classical ultimate religious Zionist objective,

namely, the shaping of a new religious person who was acting in a time of nationalistic

redemption. Rabbi Amital made the appearance of the new type of person conditional

on the disappearance of the old one: the redeemed Zionist was replacing the Zionist

who had sought a safe haven.

Shattering the Illusion

Issues of Zionist ideology and the Zionist movement in day-to-day life troubled several

philosophers of American and Anglo-Saxon origin. All were permeated with a sense of a

crisis. Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits, Rabbi Prof. Eliezer Berkowitz, andRabbi David

Telsner were typical models of rabbis and religious Zionist activists living outside Israel

(Jakobovits in the United States, Ireland, and Britain; Berkowitz in Germany, Britain,

Australia and the United States; and Telsner in the United States), who finally settled

in the Land of Israel, where they continued their ideological and spiritual activities. This

model was prevalent in religious Zionism, and was the reason why religious Zionism

was pushed aside in the Anglo-Saxon countries, once the movement’s leaders had

emigrated to Israel.

While the issue motivating Rabbi Amital was the fragility of existence against the

backdrop of the YomKippurWar, the turning point for Jakobovits, Berkowitz and Telsner

was the collapse of values, and the “normalization” and secular character of Israeli

society and the State of Israel, primarily in the 1980s.

Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits was the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and the

British Commonwealth. Even though he refused to assume the esteemed rabbinical

title of President of the Mizrachi movement in Britain, as his predecessors had done,

he defined himself as a Zionist and as a religious Zionist.65 His points of view were

unorthodox, and there are thosewho think that his philosophy challenged the customary

religious Zionist framework. As far as he was concerned, Zionism assumed that it could

justify its way without religion, and therefore was deluding itself from the outset. This

position did not relate to the relevance of the movement at any given moment, but

65 See Michael Shashar Immanuel Jakobovits: Rabbi and Lord 62 (Jerusalem, 1996)

[Heb].

337


Dov Schwartz

rather to its very essence and justification. This viewpoint too, crystallized out of the

sense of crisis.

Rabbi Jakobovits harshly criticized secular Zionism and portrayed it as a paradoxical

and delusional movement. In his opinion, the Zionist movement postulated that it could

skip over generations of exile and draw its legitimacy straight from the Bible. He viewed

the Ben-Gurion ideology (“the Bible is our mandate”) as the proper manifestation of

Zionist ideology as a whole.66 Why was there a paradox? Rabbi Jakobovits presented

these arguments:

(a) Political Zionism relied on the consent of the nations of the world and regarded

it as its mission to persuade these nations through diplomatic means.

(b) The world leaders who supported the establishment of the Jewish state were

people motivated by religious-spiritual causes.

Examples:

(1) The British believed in and respected the religious aspects of the Bible, as was

manifested in the Balfour Declaration.

(2) President Truman, who had supported the establishment of the state, claimed

that “Providence” had directed his path.

(3) The Zionists themselves rejected the living religious aspects of the Bible.

This was undoubtedly paradoxical. Moreover, after the founding of the state, the Zionist

leaders continued to delude the nation that its establishment would “solve the Jewish

Problem.”67 In Rabbi Jakobovits’s eyes, this process seemed not only absurd but

also dangerous. As far as he was concerned, the harsh and anti-Semitic international

reactions to the First Lebanon War testified to the fact that the problem of the Jews had

not been solved with the founding of the state, but, if anything, had even worsened as

a result of it.68 He relied on Prof. Yehuda Bauer’s assessment that if the State of Israel

had existed prior to World War II, “it would have made no substantial difference to the

66 Immanuel Jakobovits (Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth) “If Only My

People...”: Zionism in My Life 157 (London, 1984).

67 Ibid., p. 159.

68 Ibid., p. 161.

338



Holocaust, although the number of victims might have been marginally reduced.”69 As

far as Rabbi Jakobovits was concerned, the secularism of Zionism “greatly aggravated

the Jewish situation both internally and externally.”70 Generally, the complacency of

secular Zionism created a negative image of the Israeli nation both in its own eyes and

in the eyes of the world.

In a conversation he held with Michael Shashar, Rabbi Jakobovits said: “My feeling

is that the secular Jews of today are also in conflict. In their view, the Land of Israel is

nothing but a political asylum for the Jews, it has no spiritual purpose; it is bankrupt.”71

In spite of Rabbi Jakobovits’s moderate political and social orientation, his criticism

of secular Zionism as being a paradox and an illusion was unrelenting. The spiritual

and ideological crisis (“people are looking”) did not reshape Rabbi Jakobovits’s solid

opinions; rather, it justified them.

The Land of Israel Halakhic Ruling

Rabbi Prof. Eliezer Berkowitz relied on the discourse of the relevance of the Zionist

ideology in order to reveal the weakness of the secular Zionistic approach.72 In his

view, the fact that this discourse ran in parallel to the discourse on the relevance of

Judaism in contemporary times, only emphasized this weakness further. In this respect,

Berkowitz’s arguments reflected typical religious Zionist approaches: this argument did

not distinguish clearly between Zionism, Judaism, and significance. In other words, the

lack of a religious motive caused the problem of meaninglessness in the modern world

and in welfare society; it led to the collapse of ideologies in the post-modern era and to

the undermining of the ideological and actual Jewish hold on their national land.73 In a

very similar way, the discussion jumped from secularism to hedonism and, in a cyclical

69 Ibid., p. 163.

70 Ibid., p. 168.

71 Michael Shashar Immanuel Jakobovits: Rabbi and Lord, supra note 65, p. 174.

72 For the religious Zionist views of Berkowitz, see, for example, Dov Schwartz The

Land of Israel in Religious Zionist Thought, supra note 58, pp. 206y209.

73 See, for example, S.N. Eisenstadt Modernization, Protest, and Change (New

Jersey, 1966). For the reaction of Orthodox thinkers to modernity, see for example,

Avi Sagi A Challenge: Returning to Tradition, supra note 9.

339


Dov Schwartz

manner, from a re-examination of values to materialism, explaining that this was the

result of pushing aside religion to the edges of cultural consciousness. This viewpoint

underlay Berkowitz’s repeated undermining of communal life and the ideology of the

kibbutz.

Indeed, Berkowitz believed that he had discovered the weakness of the intellectuals

who, for him, were represented by Amos Oz, A.B. Yehoshua, Aba Kovner and others.

In a focused discussion, which he edited in the mid-1970s, he wrote: “It is typical that

the best of our secular-universal intelligentsia feel a need to justify their Zionism and

their Judaism, as well as our right to the land of Israel.”74

Berkowitz thought that the concept of Zionism’s goals as being the creation of “a

safe haven” and a “normal existence” had become bankrupt. He claimed that the

Jewish existence was in the nature of alternative history. Ordinary history possessed

characteristics that were manifestly material (such as wars, territories, resources, etc.);

in contrast, the Jews in the Diaspora had initiated a Jewish alternative history, namely,

a history of spiritual creation and religious existence. The Zionist movement had tried

to establish the entirety of Jewish existence within the framework of ordinary history,

and this was the reason why it had failed. He wrote:

The ideology whereby by renewing our independence in the Land of Israel

the Israeli nation has re-entered the pages of history, means that we have

left behind our own historic dimensions and are entering the history of “all

nations.” In other words, we have accepted their life values, and will be

following a new course according to their historical modus operandi. To the

extent that we have done this, we have given up our uniqueness. This is the

source of all the problems and the reason for the spiritual emptiness and

collapse of the foundations of Israel’s society. With no Jewish uniqueness

— there is no Jewish nation. Without a Jewish nation, the very future of the

country is in doubt.75

Instead of choosing a third kind of history, which would integrate the two other types

74 Eliezer Berkowitz The Crisis of Judaism in the Jewish State 18 (Jerusalem, 1987)

[Heb].

75 Ibid., p. 47.

340



of historical existence, Zionism chose to return to a materialistic history. According to

Berkowitz, this decision would lead to the blurring of Jewish uniqueness. Berkowitz

continued to criticize all the other factions as well. In his view, Zionism was not the

only movement that had failed to create a third kind of history; religious Zionism and

Orthodox Jewry had proved equally unsuccessful. Religious Jewry had to abstain from

imposing an “exilic halakhic law” on the new reality, but it had also not furnished a

system of halakhic law that was suited to a modern country. “I don’t think that there

is a single person in the whole world who knows how to manage a Jewish state

according to the Torah and halakhic law.”76 The redemption of the people required

the redemption of the Torah from the fetters of its exile.77 Berkowitz indeed lived

up to his own principles: he devoted a considerable portion of his prolific literary

work to reviewing and re-examining matters of halakhic law in contemporary times.

Furthermore, he insisted on publishing his essays in the institute of Ha-Rav Kook,

which was recognized as an ultra-Orthodox publishing house.78

Berkowitz joined the criticism voiced by Prof. Isaiah Leibowitz in the early days of the

state, decrying the lack of preparedness of religious Jewry to promote the attributes

of the modern state.79 Similar criticism was also voiced by another rabbi who, after

immigrating to Israel, was appointed Chancellor of Bar-Ilan University, Rabbi Prof.

Menachem Emanuel Rackman.80 Concurrently, with his criticism of the discrepancies

between halakhic law and the modern reality of the state, Berkowitz continued his

criticism of secular Zionism and claimed that it had chosen a minimalist approach to

76 Ibid., p. 50.

77 Ibid., p. 92.

78 For example, Eliezer Berkowitz Conditional Marriage and Divorce (Jerusalem,

1966) [Heb]; Eliezer Berkowitz Halacha: Its Power and Function (Jerusalem, 1982)

[Heb].

79 See, for example, Isaiah Leibowitz Judaism, Jewish People and the State of Israel

137y141 (Jerusalem & Tel Aviv, 1979) [Heb].

80 According to Rackman, “the Halakhah must prove that it is capable of answering all

the questions put to it, in accordance with its genuine historical precepts, in a manner

that is satisfactory both for the religious and for the secular” (Emanuel Rackman One

Man’s Judaism 211 [Jerusalem, 1989] [Heb]).

341


Dov Schwartz

the survival of the Jewish people and had opted for a secular history, and that by so

doing it had created a crisis of values. It seems that Berkowitz was more concerned

about the place of the religious public and halakhic law in the rehabilitation of Zionist

ideology than about the attitude of the secular public toward this rehabilitation. In

conclusion, Berkowitz thought that making halakhic law compatible with modern reality

was a task that the religious Zionist movement had to take upon itself.

The Return of Ideology

A model for ending the role of secular Zionism and making way for religious Zionism

was hinted at in the famous sermon given by Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik: “And

Joseph dreamt a dream.”81 Abraham commanded his servants: “You stay here with

the donkey”82 when he and Isaac ascended Mount Moriah. This was the way in

which the secular public collaborated in building the social and political infrastructure;

however, where religious life was concerned, the religious Zionist public alone was in

charge. Rabbi Soloveitchik did not mean to say that Zionism had ended its role. In fact,

his goal was negative; it was to prevent secularism from permeating into education,

issues of personal status, the public arena, and so forth. He did not indicate that

Zionism had ended its functions. Yet the model that he presented made its mark.

These Zionist sermons were published in Hebrew in 1974, and his model, in particular,

was considered to have considerable influence.

Rabbi David Telsner translated Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Zionist sermons from Yiddish.

In his own sermons, Rabbi Telsner adopted the model created in Rabbi Soloveitchik’s

writings. He wrote about the Zionist movement: “With the appearance of the state,

81 For the religious Zionist path pursued byRabbi Soloveitchik, seeWalter S.Wurzburger,

“The Philosophical Foundations of Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Concept of Religious Zionism”

in Faith in Changing Times 111 (Avi Sagi ed., Jerusalem, 1997) [Heb]; Yaakov

Blidstein “The Religious-Zionist Commitment of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik” in

The Path of the Spirit — The Eliezer Schweid Jubilee Volume, Vol. A 439

(YehoyadaAmir ed., Jerusalem, 2005) [Heb]; Dov Schwartz ThePhilosophy ofRabbi

Soloveitchik Vol. B 222y225 (Ramat Gan, 2009) [Heb]; Idem “Rabbi Soloveitchik on

Religious Zionism: A Psychological Interpretation” (forthcoming) [Heb].

82 Genesis 22:5.

342



which is the legitimate child of the nationalistic revival movement, its sheen was lost

and its crown removed as the representative of the Jewish nation.”83 Telsner, like

Berkowitz, saw the origin of this crisis as the deterioration of values within Israeli

society. Telsner presented a consistent and coherent interpretation of the crisis that

relied on the following reasoning:

(a) Faith and idealism were inseparable.

(b) The pioneering generation had been endowed with idealism.

And, therefore —

(c) The pioneering generation also had been endowed with faith.

This syllogism was also valid for the period following the founding of the state, because:

(a) Faith and idealism were inseparable.84

(b) The founding of the state had brought about the collapse of idealism.

And, therefore —

(c) The founding of the state had brought about the collapse of faith.

Telsner claimed that the only reason for the collapse of values was the separation of

religion from Zionism.85 He argued that, prior to the founding of the state, the pioneers’

idealism had guided them when fulfilling their dreams and therefore that faith had

existed despite the separation between religion and ideology on the one hand, and the

fulfillment of the Zionist dream on the other. However, after the founding of the state,

faith had collapsed concurrently with the disappearance of idealism. Only the religious

Zionist messianic concept allowed idealism to be preserved. Telsner claimed that “the

man of faith” saw that “the glittering threads of redemption are woven by the hand of

the Almighty, with its purpose — the complete redemption of Israel.”86 He concluded

that only religious Zionism, waving the ideological flag of settlement in all parts of the

83 David Telsner Assif: Sermons on Portions of the Week and Articles and Essays

on Judaism and State 267 (Jerusalem, 1990) [Heb].

84 Both disregarded the harsh partial reality and strove for one that was complete.

85 David Telsner Assif, supra note 83, p. 227.

86 Ibid., p. 229.

343


Dov Schwartz

Land of Israel (“Emunim”), was capable of restoring this ideology and vitality to the

Zionist endeavor.

(F) Zionism in Stages

It is important to consider a religious Zionist faction that almost completely ignored

the relevance of Zionist ideology in its writings. I am referring here to the faction of

Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook. The first generation of Rabbi Kook’s disciples

included Rabbi Ya’akovMoshe Harlap, Rabbi David Cohen (“The Nazir”), and Rabbi Zvi

Yehuda Kook. The second generation of disciples included rabbis and spiritual leaders

such as Rabbi Shlomo Chaim Aviner, Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, Rabbi Zvi Israel Tau,

and Rabbi Ya’akov Filber. The first generation of disciples earned their livelihood from

intensive activity in Kabbalah alongside other cultural resources. The two generations

produced extensive and diverse esoteric messianic interpretations of the events taking

place in recent generations. The various nuances of the messianic interpretations

given to such events as the Holocaust and the founding of the State of Israel were

accompanied by sentiments of certainty, typical of charisma and heavenly revelation.87

The decisiveness and deep theological certainty characterizing the responses of this

faction prevented any skepticism whatsoever. Nonetheless, the lack of receptiveness

to the discourse taking place within Israeli society needs to be explained.

A New Stage

Rabbi Eliezer Waldman, the head of the Yeshivat Hesder in Kiryat Arba (in Hebron),

gave an interview to Zvi Ra’anan, in which he proclaimed in a very unambiguous

manner:

87 On the characteristics of this circle, see Dov Schwartz Challenge and Crisis in

Rabbi Kook’s Circle, supra note 61, pp. 7y13; Smadar Cherlow “Did Rabbi Harlap

Attempt to Establish a Mystical Circle to Hasten Redemption?” 15 Kabbalah 233

(2007) [Heb]; Uriel Barak New Perspectives on Rabbi Kook and His Circle: Rabbi

Avraham Yitzhak Ha-Cohen Kook and His Principal Disciples through the Prism

of an Integrated Methodology (Doctoral thesis, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan,

2009) [Heb].

344



I will say this explicitly: we felt and continue to feel, that we have reached

the second stage of Zionism, or to put it differently, the Zionist fuel that

propelled the Zionist carriage until now, or shall we say until the Six-Day

War, until the Yom Kippur War — this fuel has now dried out. In order to

push this carriage further, we must reconnect to the roots of Zionism, with

greater depth and with more vigor, to arouse powers that have not yet been

awakened within the entire nation. In the first stage of Zionism as well,

enormous powers were awakened that, even if they did not call upon the

Lord, were tremendous forces that we find in every Jew: powers of total

devotion, of social and ethical aspirations, which also included sanctity, but

which were not completely joined to our roots of prophecy and faith.88

Apparently, these words reflected a general feeling among the disciples of Rabbi

Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook. Rabbi Waldman did not refer to the new settlements

in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip as a new type of Zionism or as a messianic

and mystical revolution, as claimed by Zvi Ra’anan, who had initiated this interview.89

On the contrary, as far as Rabbi Waldman was concerned, this was the very same

Zionism, only its “fuel” had run dry. Rabbi Waldman pointed out that what was taking

place was a transition between stages; in other words, the program was preplanned yet

only its first stage had been implemented so far. Rabbi Waldman’s words reflected the

entirety of the conceptual approach taken by Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s

disciples, according to which the messianic goal would be achieved in accordance with

a precise multi-stage plan, which largely was deterministic. The Zionist movement was

at its first stage, progressing toward its second stage, the one of faith. Rabbi Ya’akov

Filber described it as the transition from the current secular Zionism (of Herzl) to the

Zionism of sanctity. In his words:

Current Zionism must, after all its winding and twisting ways, return to the

ZionismofRabbi YehudaHa-Levi, the first creator of Zionism.Current Zionism

88 Tzvi Raanan Gush-Emunim 197 (Tel Aviv, 1981) [Heb].

89 For example, “Gush Emunim wants a complete revolution of faith and ideals, which

should take place among the people of Israel” (ibid., p. 59).

345


Dov Schwartz

with all its aspirations, objectives, paths and trails, materialistic and spiritual,

must absorb and be permeated with the concept of holiness.90

Like Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook and Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, Rabbi Filber

also associated Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Levi with a sentimental, intuitive, romantic and

mystical Zionist approach. According to Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Levi, the Land of Israel is a

type of structured metaphysical component in the process of the completion of every

Jew.91 According to Rabbi Filber, the current Zionist movement was progressing slowly

but surely toward a different kind of Zionism, a Zionism of faith. The authentic and

substantive Zionism was leading toward a Zionism of the renewal of prophecy and the

building of the Third Temple.

Rabbi Shlomo Chaim Aviner reiterated that the Zionist concept of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda

Kook and his disciples was not trying to create a new facade or replace an existing

ideology, but rather to “awaken the forces of life that had become dormant.” The

Zionism of faith was concealed, hidden and dormant within secular Zionism, and

now it was awakening and about to be revealed. Rabbi Zvi Tau, the head of Har

Ha-Mor Yeshiva, clarified the processes of revelation and development. The ideas of

secularized and minimalist Zionism such as that of the “safe haven,” had originated

abroad. The transition to the Land of Israel had instilled new life into these ideas and

was guiding them toward (naturally religious) completion: “Those faulty and withered

secular ideas have also come into the Land of Israel, where they will obtain a new and

shining soul.”92

Finally, we should note that Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed, the Rabbi of Beit El

B, added the claim that the stage of faith was being born through a cathartic process

during which the negative elements were disappearing, and only the core and the holy

seed would be left. He stated explicitly:

The erosion cannot be halted; nor is there any need or desire to stop it. It

90 Yaakov Filber Holiness and Kingship: Studies in the Philosophy of Rabbi

Avraham Yitzchak Hakohen Kook z"l 304 (Jerusalem, 1997) [Heb].

91 According to the Book of the Kuzari B 8y24.

92 Zvi Yisrael Tau For the Belief of our Times Vol. B. (Mordechai Hess, Yair Diament

& Zeev Neuman eds., Jerusalem, 1995) [Heb].

346



comes to destroy the things worthy of destruction. It comes to destroy the

fallen buildings and the shallow ideas, whose existence cannot be justified,

in order to build new, bigger and better buildings in their place. The national

Zionist ideology devoid of faith is shallow; from the beginning it had no chance

of holding its own for any length of time without reviving itself from the source

of the Jewish faith.93

According to Rabbi Melamed’s approach, the crisis affecting Zionist ideology was

confined to the members of the secular camp. “Those whose Zionist ideology is

connected to faith have no crisis.”94 As Rabbi Melamed indicated in his Introduction,

these words were written in mid-1993, following the Oslo agreements. Thus, even

in the toughest of times, the Zionist path of faith was one that was securely paved

and safe; no turmoil troubled it nor did it suffer from any doubts. Under this view, the

transition from the secular stage to the stage of faith uncovered the latent core that

had been prevalent in Zionism from its inception, and which now began to flourish.

Although the transition between stages was continuous, it would not necessarily be

smooth. The process of purification was filled with turbulence.

The Theological Argument

What is the source of this concept that regards Zionist ideology and the Zionist

movement as a primary, yet important and relevant stage in the course of the awakening

redemption? Of course, the second stage, the stage of redemption itself, is said to

emerge from the first stage. Examination shows that throughout the harsh battles for

the completeness of the Land of Israel waged by Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, battles that

sometimes were accompanied by a delegitimization of the Israeli government (when it

depended on the Arab votes), Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook never wavered in his belief in

the role or relevance of the Zionist movement. Similarly, his students were almost as

firm as he with regard to this question.

On the face of it, the explanation for this is quite simple. Rabbi Avraham Itzhak

Ha-Cohen Kook’s followers interpreted the historical events as stages in the process

of redemption. In this way, they took a united stand together with the religious Zionist

93 Zalman Baruch Melamed Yesh Shoalim 5 (Beit El, 1998) [Heb].

94 Ibid.

347


Dov Schwartz

body. However, the philosophers of this faction were engaged with the minutiae of

the redemptive process, and in particular emphasized its dialectics and the large gap

between the hidden and the mystical, on one hand, and what had been revealed,

on the other. These philosophers portrayed events that, on the face of it, seemed to

oppose redemption when viewed from the outside, as events that actually expedited

this process. Sometimes, redemption was recognized from the outside and sometimes

it moved covertly. In Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s generation the pioneers

were desecrators of the Sabbath and consumers of ritually unfit food, yet they were

seen as promoting redemption, because Divine Providence had chosen them to settle

the Land of Israel. However, in Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook’s generation, it was the

Israeli governments and the “secular” Zionist institutions that advanced the process of

redemption. Therefore, no movement or historical event could be judged according to

what was visible but, rather, it had to be judged based on what it contributed to the

latent realization of the process of redemption. Here, the concept of the cunning of

Divine Providence reached its maximal level of sophistication. The Zionist movement

itself and its initiatives were nothing more than a stage in the process of bringing about

the final redemption.

Another explanation for the necessity of the Zionist ideology may be found in

the principle of “statehood” (mamlakhtiyut); in other words, the portrayal of Israeli

sovereign governments as a necessary component in the process of redemption. Just

as the ingathering of the exiles was a characteristic expression of redemption, so too

was Jewish governance in the Land of Israel an essential characteristic. The Zionist

movement was identified with the government, and therefore it possessed the same

aura of “sanctity.”

We will now return to the principle of the interpretation of redemption. In contrast to

Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook and his followers, the other religious Zionist

ideologists did not necessarily accept this consistent and coherent interpretation of

historical events, nor did they labor to nurture a similarly elaborate theological structure

possessing the same degree of punctiliousness and detail. As a result, they criticized

secular Zionism, and, at a later stage, did not hesitate to search for reasons for its

very existence. Like Maimonides, who on the one hand declared that the messianic

idea was a principle of faith, but on the other hand claimed that picking over its details

348



was superfluous and destructive,95 the followers of religious Zionism also accepted

the messianic interpretation and declared its validity. However, they refrained from

dealing compulsively with its details or attempting to match events to the greater

cause. In contrast, Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook and his disciples focused

on meticulous attention to details.

It is important to emphasize that the followers of Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen

Kook accepted the general postulations of the religious Zionist philosophy. Thus, for

example, the principle of themetaphysical nation’s unity continues to guide this faction’s

philosophy to this very day. “The unity of the nation is the basis for all the endeavors,”96

wrote Rabbi Aviner, while clearly relying on Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook.

In most cases, however, this faction’s ideologists did not look for the relevance of the

Zionist movement within such principles, as their reflections led to a different Zionism,

namely, the Zionism of redemption.

(G) Conclusion

This is the place to conduct a comparative summary of the religious Zionist responses to

the relevance of the Zionist movement and Zionistic ideology. As noted, the discussion

focused on the “theological” period of religious Zionism, that is, up to the late 1980s.

Types of Responses

The religious Zionist discourse was based on a line of unique arguments that stemmed

from the ideological and theological background of the movement. The discourse may

be analyzed in terms of form and plans, as follows:

(a) Framework. There were religious Zionist philosophers who succeeded in

conducting a discourse possessing a “secular” framework, despite the fact

that they also imbued it with religious content (for example, Aviad and Gelman.

Urbach took a more extreme position, and claimed that it was possible to

establish a completely “secular” layer of discourse within this framework). There

95 See Dov Schwartz The Messianic Idea in Jewish Medieval Jewish Thought 78y79

(Ramat Gan, 2006) [Heb].

96 Shlomo Aviner With Love and Faith 249 (Jerusalem, 2000) [Heb].

349


Dov Schwartz

were also those who were unable to detach themselves from the religious

framework. As far as they were concerned, the only justification for Zionism

was the dissemination of religious values (for example, Shragai, Bernstein, and

Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s faction).

(b) The Outside. There were religious Zionist ideologists who claimed that the

ingathering of the exiles was the supreme and even the only justification for

the existence of Zionism at this time (Gelman, Genehovski, and Urbach). There

were also those who claimed that the ingathering of the exiles was only one of

Zionism’s missions.

(c) Threat. There were religious Zionist philosophers who justified the existence of

Zionism based on the existence of a threat to the physical existence of the Jews

(Soloveitchik, Amital, and to some extent Jakobovits). There were also those

who focused solely on the religious and cultural areas.

The system of claims may be described as follows:

(a) Esoteric justification. This claim focuses on the importance of the Zionist

ideology in revealing a covert “true” reality. Aviad expressed this claim in two

areas:

(1) Nations are sympathetic to the Israeli nation, and the Zionist ideology

reveals this sympathy.

(2) Even if they do not feel it, the existential danger faced by the Jews of the

Diaspora mandates the Zionist ideology.

Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s faction used this claim in order to clarify

that Zionism was not aware of the fact that it was advancing the religious Zionist

ideal. There were those who claimed that the need for justification was strictly

secular because secularism prevented the recognition of Zionism’s objectives

(Bernstein).

(b) Timeless justification. According to this claim, the Zionist ideal was

transcendent and eternal, and was above time (Aviad).

(c) Cultural justification. The Zionist ideal was essential to the application of the

Hebrew language (Gelman) as well as other nationalistic values in the Diaspora

(Genehovsky).

(d) Moral justification. The Zionist ideal was supposed to fight against the

materialism that characterized the State of Israel (Urbach and Berkowitz).

350



(e) Religious justification. According to this claim, the justification for the existence

of the Zionist ideal lay in the religious interpretation given to it (Aviad, Shragai,

Bernstein and others). That was the reason for the struggle against the separation

of religion from Zionism (Telsner).

(f) Process justification. This claim saw Zionism as a calculated move and the

first stage in a process that would be completed in the second stage, namely,

the religious Zionist ideal. There were those who adopted this claim out of a

sense of crisis (Soloveitchik, Amital, Telsner) as well as those who adopted it

as a calculated and methodical move (Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s

faction).

Characteristics

What are the religious Zionist traces that emerge from the discussion on the relevance

of Zionism? The responses of religious Zionism in the discourse on the relevance of

Zionist ideology and the relevance of the movement’s institutions are based on the

following characteristics:

(a) Optimism. The messianic motive of religious Zionism points to a naıve faith in

a better and perfect future. The greatest traumas have proved unsuccessful in

refuting this basic naivete, which predicts that, at the end of days, the harmony

of nations will prevail and the world will reach perfection. The Zionist movement

and Zionist ideology play an important role in the implementation of this naıve

ideal. From the religious Zionist point of view, the dissemination of the Zionist

ideology will cause the world to progress toward Utopia.

(b) Responsibility. The metaphysical concept of Jewish unity that is supported by

religious Zionism requires care to be shown toward every Jew, wherever he may

be located, including in the Diaspora. The sense of responsibility and care for

Jewish existence in the Diaspora exists in a way that is unrelated to issues of

immigration or support for Zionist ideology.

(c) Criticism. Since religious Zionism is a complete worldview and reflects an

attempt to create the new religious persona, it cannot be satisfied with the

secularized Zionist ideology. Therefore, any discussion of the relevance of

Zionist ideology is colored by the absence of its religious character. Religious

351


Dov Schwartz

faith and work must supplement Zionist ideology in order to give it actual

significance.

Initially, the discourse generally was conducted with Zionism as a political movement,

with the purpose of ensuring a safe Jewish existence in the Land of Israel and the

vanquishing of anti-Semitism. Once it became clear that the existence of the State of

Israel did not mean the end of anti-Semitism, a dual conclusion was reached: first,

Zionism as a movement had not completed its role, and second, Zionism as a political

movement had failed.

As we noted, Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s disciples did not often express

themselves in terms of the Zionist movement having ended its role, because, in their

view, there was continuity between the “previous” Zionism and the Zionism of faith and

redemption. The events of the Disengagement (from the Gaza Strip in the summer of

2005) did not undermine this concept, except among a few followers of Rabbi Kook.

Thus, the exceptional few— that is, Rabbi Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s faction —

actually expressed what the majority thought. The influence exerted by Rabbi Kook’s

disciples on the other religious Zionist factions was very real. At first, they followed

the Hassidic faction of the Mizrachi Labor Movement; Rabbi Kook’s followers later

penetrated the rabbinical circle at the periphery of the Mizrachi Labor Movement, and

the faction gradually became a source of rabbinical ideology for the entire religious

Zionist movement. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook’s declared support for the Mafdal (The

National Religious Party) turned him into a key spiritual leader of that movement. Rabbi

Avraham Itzhak Ha-Cohen Kook’s disciples sensed that Zionism, the state, and their

institutions were leading the Jewish nation toward the second stage of redemption,

and this drew along even those who were doubtful of the relevance of Zionism. As

a community that was involved in society and its discourse, the religious Zionists

were aware of the misgivings voiced by some regarding the relevance of Zionism and

Zionist ideology. This community shared its doubts with the members of the Zionist

movement. However, most of the time, their response to the challenge of relevance

was predictable. The ideological battle was concluded before it had even begun. In

the end, the messianic motive and other theological elements that religious Zionism

accepted upon itself, justified the need for the existence of a Zionist movement and its

ideology.

352


"Has Zionism Concluded its Role? A Religious Zionist Perspective", Democratic Culture XIV (2013),...

Documents

Transcript of "Has Zionism Concluded its Role? A Religious Zionist Perspective", Democratic Culture XIV (2013),...