A Historical Look at Religious ZionismA Historical Look at Religious ZionismbyProf. Dan MichmanDepartment of Jewish HistoryThis article will be an attempt to examine a basicconcept which was born and has grown to maturity in modern Jewishhistory, and which is an important key to understanding the historyof the State of Israel: "Religious Zionism". I believethat a re-examination of the concept is in order and may enableus to better comprehend the complex reality in which we live..Emancipation, secularism, the national renaissanceof the peoples of Europe and modern Anti-Semitism -- these arethe four highly powerful processes which deeply influenced thehistory of the Jews of the nineteenth century. Facing them, Jews-- as a collective entity, and also each individual Jew on hisown -- were forced to define their Jewish identity and the extentof their commitment to the Jewish collective. This collective,standing on the brink of modern times, had two specially importantcharacteristics: A. A religious perception of nationhood and anationalistic perception of religion, and therefore, non-separationbetween religion and nationality -- the ancient tradition ofnationalism.1 B. Existence outside the territory which was considered as the"Homeland", in the form of communities with autonomousleadership though dependent on external factors, as well. Thefour processes mentioned above caused a transformation of thecommunities from being official entities, universally recognized and obligatory, to a status of voluntary framework organizations.Jews found it increasingly possible to enter the society whichsurrounded them. Moreover, this was demanded of them, as was adoptionof the collective identity of that surrounding. The status ofthe religious aspect of Jewishness weakened (and since Judaismis a national religion much of the nationalistic connection weakened,as well).Simultaneously, however, Jews met with renewed andreinforced phenomena of rejection, and watched admiringly thefascinating processes of national renaissance of other ancientpeoples (such as the Greeks and Italians). Some of those Jewswho had strayed far from religious belief were attracted to anew kind of Jewish national consciousness. This developed in anumber of forms -- one of which was Zionism. Zionism sought notonly a refuge from persecution but also a base upon which to re-constructJewish national identity, specifically in Eretz Yisrael, the homeland of the people in ancient times, the land to which Jewishtradition throughout its generations was so closely related andtherefore, the only place that the Jewish people could be properlyrebuilt. Most of the founders, leaders and activists of Zionismwere non-religious and even anti-religious. Zionism as an ideaand those who made it a reality, and the state of Israel, itsultimate creation, were and are today, poised before the dilemmaof their connection to the Jewish religion, which is the sourceof Jewish nationalism. The problem seems unsolvable. Religious Jews, of all variations, were also, andstill are caught in a dilemma concerning their relationship toa movement which does not see religious belief as its core andfoundation , but does contribute significantly to Jewish nationalexistence. A number of highly complicated solutions have beenproposed. For purposes of examinationwe may place each of them in one of three categories:Total rejection of Zionism and its activitiesand active opposition to it.A view of Zionism as a necessary, positive politicaldevelopment which may perhaps bring us closer to eventual redemptionbut which, for the present lacks any specific religious meaning.Adoption of Zionism as an expression of the processof redemption though most of its participants are unaware of thatfact.The first answer was that given by most Torah-observantJews from the early beginnings of Zionism in the late nineteenthcentury until the Holocaust. Later, matters became more complex,though most of the communities usually referred to as "Haredim"(Ultra-orthodox) still hold that opinion. The second and thirdanswers provided the basis and central axes of "ReligiousZionism". The second answer was given in the early days ofReligious Zionism and provided the basis for co-operation withsecular Zionism. Rabbi Samuel Mohiliver (1824-1898), a leaderof the Chovevei Zion (Lovers of Zion) Movement in the 1880's wrotein a letter to the first Zionist Congress: "For the success of this assembly it is necessaryto establish that all the "Sons of Zion" whose heartsare loyal to our cause should live together in complete love andbrotherhood, even though they are in conflict as to matters betweenman and G-d. Even if there be some who see their comrades as havingtransgressed all boundaries, they must consider that if theirhomes were engulfed in a great fire and everything was in danger,their property and lives, and someone came to save them, whomthey considered a transgressor, would they not receive them withlove and joy ?"Rabbi Mohiliver advocated settlement in Eretz Yisraelfor this reason, emphasizing that: "There are among our ancientsages who say that this weighs equally "With the entire Torah,and the simple reason for the great significance of this commandmentis because it is the basis for the existence of our people".He never denied that, in his opinion: "the basis of the loveof Zion is to preserve the entire Torah as it has been passedon to us from generation to generation", though immediatelyemphasizing that: "I do not mean by this to criticize anyprivate individuals about their conduct".2 Thus, Rabbi Yitzchak Ya'akov Reines who founded the "Mizrachi"(abbreviation of Merkaz Ruchani [spiritual center]) movement in 1902, saw national redemptionas being of supreme importance, and therefore, he defined Zionismas a "material" movement, in which the Mizrachi couldoperate as one component. An alliance was formed between the Mizrachiand Herzl which even brought about the support of many of itsmembers for the Uganda Plan, the plan to create a Jewish statein Africa, in 1903.3The continuation of this ideological and behavioralline, after World War One, was found in the "Hapoel Hamizrachi"(Mizrachi Labor Federation), founded in 1922, which, accordingto the historian Yosef Shalmon, stood for: "An entity of Klal-Yisrael (the entirety ofthe Jewish people) which was defined as "Jewishness"(distinct from Judaism as a religion)... The modern aspect ofthe ideals of Hapoel-Hamizrachi are expressed in the view ofJewish tradition -- including the commandments -- as a componentof national identity and its cultural content. Thus developeda philosophy which recognized three fundamental elements in Jewishness:religion, nationality and social justice". The traditionalaspect of the Hapoel-Hamizrachi ideology was the demand to preserveJewish tradition in the day to day life of the national community.The ideologists of Hapoel-Hamizrachi included the non-traditionalelements of Jewish nationalism in this concept of "Jewishness",attempting to find precedents for them in the literature and valuesof the tradition".4A further development of this concept, which alsocelebrated the value of labor (Torah Ve'avoda), came a decadelater, with the Aliya of groups of young religious Jews from Germany.They had been educated in the light of the modern "Torahim Derech Eretz" school of religious thought, founded byRabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. Here they found a positive attitudetoward the modern, secular world and its values, most significantlytowards democracy, rather than a tendency to retreat from it.These young members of "Brit Chalutzim Datiy'im" (Covenantof Religious Pioneers) who had also internalized socialist values,enriched religious-Zionist thought with the establishment of whatlater became known as "Kibbutz Hadati" (The ReligiousKibbutz). The central focus of the vision of Hakibbutz Hadatiin the area of their relationship to the secular society was thatan exemplary religious community, presenting a model of a fullJewish lifestyle, sHalacha on all aspects of life, could reachout and have an influence on the entire Jewish community, therebybringing about a national "tikun" (correction). Inthis regard the emphasis was on the rebuilding of the internalspiritual life of the nation along with the idea that this couldbe accomplished only in the Holy Land, in Eretz Yisrael.5Hakibbutz Hadati, despite never having become a massmovement served as a role-model for Religious-Zionist youth inIsrael and in the Diaspora for several decades. The youth movement"B'nei Akiva" educated its members toward "Hagshama"(fulfillment of the ideal) within the framework of Kibbutz Hadati.Here the commandment to settle the Land of Israel was seen asan obligation to take hold of the Land and work it, creating uponit a value-oriented society both moral and constructive. The bordersof Eretz Yisrael per se, did not become a focal point of formativethinking. The State of Israel, itself, was not perceived as havingany intrinsic religious holiness -- as expressed in the wordsof Simcha Friedman: "I do not attach to the State any religiousweight or meaning, though other complete, G-d fearing Jews, farbetter than me, do so ... I see in the State of Israel, the creationof which took us by surprise, without our being prepared for it,a challenge which calls out: Hic Rhodos, hic salta! (Here is Rhodes!Jump here! -- Show what you are capable of, immediately!) Thatis to say: You received a state -- now prove that you can be G-dfearing, commandment observing Jews in that state, not as a sport,but because such an opportunity has not existed for many centuries.Now prove yourselves to be more complete Jews".6Due to various reasons having to do with Israelisociety in general and the Orthodox Religious society in particular,the dominant position occupied by Hakibbutz Hadati, along withits unique ideological message, began to recede toward the endof the 1960's.We must now return chronologically to the third answerto the Zionist challenge -- the second religious-Zionist alternative-- the Geulah (redemption) oriented motif. The first expressionsof this view are also to be found in the beginnings of religious-- Zionism during the 1880's (Yechiel Michel Pines, for example),and perhaps -- in other forms -- even earlier, among the mid-nineteenth century thinkers who addressed the question of settlementin Eretz-Yisrael. A fuller, more comprehensive and powerful expressionof this approach was to be reached only later in the writingsof Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen Kook (1865-1935) who was ChiefRabbi of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kook saw secular Zionism ("thesecular Jewish image of Israelite nationality") as a mistakeand a falsification of the Jewish nationalistic entity -- whichconsists of recognition of the Divine value of the soul of thenation.7 Hedid not invalidate the mistake entirely, but rather saw it asa basis which unknowingly draws from the divine source of IsraeliteNationality. For this reason one must work with it and nurtureit until the mistake is recognized. According to Rav Kook, thisnew national renaissance -- Zionism -- is an expression of thebeginning of the Geulah process. Eretz Israel has a special qualityand only the union of Am Israel to Eretz Yisrael can make bothof them whole: "The soul of the people and the land work togetherto create the secret of their existence, demanding their rolein the realization of their aspiration of holiness... the peopleexpend their spiritual power upon the land ... and the land causesthe people to realize their attribute of desiring Divine lifecomplete in their construction".8The theories of Rav Kook (which may be interpretedin various ways) were developed more fully by his son , RabbiTzvi Yehudah Hacohen Kook (1891-1981) and by his disciples whowere educated in the Merkaz Harav Yeshiva.9The generation of the 40's and 50's bore witnessto two overwhelmingly important events in Jewish history: the Holocaust, on the one hand, and the establishment of the Stateof Israel, shortly afterwards, on the other. These events engendereddeep emotional and mystical reactions in various Jewish circles(not only in those called "religious"). In religious Zionism the reaction was especially meaningful: On the one handthere was the vision of the Torah centers and great concentrationsof observant Jews in Europe; on the other hand the fulfillmentof the yearning for Jewish nationhood. On this background theGeulah motif began to grow in strength within the religious --Zionist community. The State of Israel, which represents the Zionistendeavor is, according to Rav Tzvi Yehudah:"The true redemption, revealed in the perfectionof settlement on the Land and the rebirth of Israel upon it, laterin the further renewal of settlement on the Land and the ingatheringof the prisoners of exile to it ... it appears at the zenith ofits actual growth -- inheritance of the Land ... and the ruleof our government upon it".10Yeshivat Mercaz Harav grew in status, and its graduates,from the end of the 1950's onward began a widespread developmentof the Religious Zionist educational systems. In a little overa decade -- during the 60's -- they became the leading forcein Religious Zionism.11 The energy stored up inside both educatorsand students was formidable. On the surface stood out, initially,their desire to enter into all aspects of Israeli society therebycontributing to the national renaissance in contrast to the relativelymarginal status of the Religious Zionist community at the timein Israeli society. On an unseen level, however, their specialapproach to the question of the Land of Israel awaited an opportunityfor expression. The Six-Day War was the first turning point for theReligious-Zionist community. The territories which were conquered-- Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Sinai and the Golan -- provided a channelfor all that untapped energy seeking activity and hinted at therealization of the Geulah messianic redemption motif, as well.The result was the formation of "Gush Emunim" (the blocof the faithful) which began its activities in the early 1970'sand then pushing the other Religious-Zionists alternatives tothe sidelines. The Yom Kippur War and the shock it left in itswake, especially in the public image of the Labor Zionist Movement,added strength to the self confidence of the Geulah school ofthought in Religious Zionism which began to see itself in therole of the reinforcer of national renaissance feelings and asa pointer of the way for the masses. The political upheaval of1977 -- the rise of the Likud to power -- became another turningpoint. The new administration made possible a much broader entryfor Religious Zionism to a leading position in society and gavesignificant backing to the settlement endeavors.12The second political upheaval -- that of 1992 --brought the dominant Geulah school of thought in Religious Zionismto a point of severe crisis. The turnabout in Government policy-- especially the willingness to withdraw from parts of EretzYisrael -- was perceived (by those who saw Eretz Yisrael as thefocal point of national renaissance) as proportional to "Churban"(Destruction). These policies were compared even to the Holocaust(proving a lack of minimal understanding of the Holocaust). Internaltensions rose to new heights and the history of Zionism becameblurred. The orthodox supporters of the Geulah motif forgot, amongother things, the territorial concessions and withdrawals whichthe leaders of the Zionist Movement and governments of the Stateof Israel had made in the past. (For example acceptance of thePeel Commission partition plan of 1937 and the withdrawals fromterritories occupied in the War for Independence in 1949 and theSinai Campaign of 1956). Those previous withdrawals had been acceptedwithout any Halachic objection and with the agreement of the leadersof Religious Zionism -- and in no way interrupted the progressof the Zionist endeavor. Also forgotten, by the Geulah advocateswas the awareness of the crucial legacy of the first AshkChiefRabbi of Israel, Rabbi Yizchak Halevi Herzog, who provided thebasis for the Halachic approval of democratic Government. Failureto recall the history of Zionism brought them to the point ofbelieving the unfounded fear that all the great achievements ofZionism would be wiped out of existence because of a limited territorialwithdrawal from parts of Eretz Yisrael.The crisis we have described here seems to have takenon an acute nature because it coincided with the development ofa more widespread and basic conflict within contemporary Israelisociety -- the question of the cultural and national characterof the state. It is precisely this issue which gives increasedrelevance to the words of Rabbi Mohiliver in his letter to theFirst Zionist Congress quoted above: "For the success ofthis assembly it is necessary to establish that all the "Sonsof Zion" whose hearts are loyal to our cause should livetogether in complete love and brotherhood, even though they arein conflict as to matters between man and G-d".notes1 - The interpretation of the terms 'Dat' and 'Dati'as meaning commandment-observing religious believers is an innovationof the nineteenth century; in their sources, these words mean'law' or 'legal'.2 - Quoted from: Arthur Hertzberg, The ZionistIdea (Keter: Jerusalem, 1970, p.309-310).3 - On these issues in detail se: E. Luz , MakbilimNifgashim (Am Oved-Sifriat Ofakim: Tel-Aviv, 1985).4 - Y. Shalmon, Shiluv Hasozialism im Hadat:Hearot l'toldot Histadrut Hapoel Hamizrachi (The Synthesisof Socialism and Religion, Remarks on the History of the Hapoel-HamizrachiFederation) and Dat Vetzionut: Imutim Rishonim (Religionand Zionism: First Conflicts) (Hasifriah Hatzionit: Jerusalem,1990, p. 340-341).5 - See: Fishman, Ben Dat l'Idelogiah - YahadutVemodernizatzia Bakibbutz Hadati (Between Religion and Ideology - Judaism and Modernization in the Religious Kibbutz)(Yad Yitzchak Ben Tzvi: Jerusalem, 1990, especially pages 72-73).It would seem that there existed here a late development of avery central issue in the thought of Rabbi S.R. Hirsch: The relativelyreduced importance of Eretz Yisrael as compared to the Torah andthe Jewish people: "The independent political life of ancient Israel was not the meaning or purpose of the peoplehood of Israel,but served as a means to achieve its spiritual goal. Land andterritory never united Israel, the common objective of the Torahwas what imposed the connection upon it." S.R. Hirsch , IgrotTsafon, Nineteen Letters About Judaism (translated by A. Porat)(Mossad Harav Kook: Jerusalem, 1976, p. 68). After the appearanceof Anti-Semitism and the nationalist renaissance movements, EretzYisrael returned to its central place in the thinking of WesternEuropean Religious Zionists -- not as a purpose in itself, butas "a means to achieve its spiritual goal". 6 - S. Friedman, Hesder Hayachasim ben Datiy'imand Chiloniy'im (Arrangement of Relationships between Religiousand Secular Jews) (Y. and A. Tirosh), Hatzionut Hadatit Vehamedinah (Religious Zionism and the State) (WorldZionist Organization, Dept. of Torah Education and Culture forthe Diaspora: Jerusalem, 1978, p.290).7 - Harav A.Y.H. Kook, Chazon Hage'ulah (TheVision of Redemption) (Jerusalem, 1941, p.96-97).8 - Cited from quotation by Tz.Varon, Mishnatoshel Harav Kook (World Zionist Organization, Dept. of TorahEducation and Culture in the Diaspora).9 - See at length in A. Ravitzki, Haketz HamegulehUmedinat Hayehudim: Meshichiut, Tzionut Veradikalizm Dati Beyisrael (The Revealed End and the Jewish State: Messianism, Zionismand Religious Radicalism in Israel) (Am Oved - Sifriat Ofakim:Tel-Aviv, 1993, Ch. 3 and conclusion). 10 - Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook, Linm'tivot Yisrael(The Pathway of Israel) (Jerusalem, 1967, Part 1, p. 56; see also Ravitzki, ibid., p. 113). 11 - Of special interest: Chief Rabbi in the Mandatoryperiod. On these matters see, inter alia: A. Don-Yechya, HadatBeyisrael - Ma'amad Irgun Vasherutim (Religion in Israel- Status, Organization and Services) (Israel Government InformationCenter: Jerusalem, 1987); A. Belfer, (ed.), Manhigut RuchanitBeyisrael (Spiritual Leadership in Israel) (The Institutefor Contemporary Judaism and Thought, Bar Ilan University Press: Ramat Gan, 1984); M. Friedman, Harabanut Harashit Leyisrael- Dilemma l'lo Pitaron ( The Chief Rabbinate - A DilemmaWithout a Solution), Medinah Vemimshal Viyachasim Benleumi'yim(State, Government and International Relations), Vol. 1,No. 3, Spring 1972); Harabanut Harashit Leyisrael - 70 ShanaLeyisudah (The Chief Rabbinate of Israel - 70 Years Sinceits Establishment). (Religious Education Administration andthe Pedagogic Administration, Curriculum Branch of the Ministryof Education and Culture: Jerusalem, 1991).12 - Parenthetically it can be said that this developmentis also the reason for the decline in the strength in the N.R.P.(National Religious Party) The party founded to represent ReligiousZionism. As long as religious Zionism was a clearly separateentity in Israeli society its voters gave their support entirelyto the N.R.P. which represented their collective group interests.As the opportunities to enter the broader society and economiclife in all their aspects opened up, Religious Zionists spreadout into the political spectrum in all directions. The statusand strength of the N.R.P. as an exclusive representative declined.Notwithstanding, the dominance of one variant in Religious Zionism(The Geulah Motif) brought most Religious Zionists to the rightof the political spectrum and the positioning of the weakenedN.R.P. on that side, as well. ![[INDEX]](/Icons/index.jpg) Last Update:December 12, 1999 |
|
