Q&A: The Moral Status of a Zionist Outlook in the Diaspora
The Moral Status of a Zionist Outlook in the Diaspora
Question
With God’s help,
To Rabbi Michael,
Many Jews living in the Diaspora hold a Zionist outlook. This is expressed in support for the State of Israel and in various levels of identification with it. This is obvious even to the gentiles around them, since every American politician, whether Democrat or Republican, knows how to speak about his enthusiastic support for the State of Israel and the Zionist project when he comes to gather the “Jewish vote” (the story is well known about one of them who even tried that shtick on the Satmar Rebbe of blessed and holy memory!). Many of these Jews have no real aspiration to move to Israel, and the reasons are partly clear enough. After all, their lives in the Diaspora are quite comfortable. They are educated, earn well, live in relative security, and so on. In most Western democracies (certainly in America, where the largest Jewish concentration outside the Land of Israel is found), they cannot really complain about the gentiles having deprived them or mistreated them. So the question is this: as long as they live in the Diaspora and are not planning to move to Israel in the foreseeable future, do they not have a moral obligation toward the gentiles among whom they live—specifically, to care first and foremost for the interests of their gentile neighbor and to prefer those interests over the interests of the Jewish state? Is a situation in which a politician tries to persuade a citizen to vote for him by promising benefits to a foreign entity, however friendly it may be, not very problematic from the outset?
Answer
I won’t get into the question of whether this actually brings him Jewish votes. In my opinion, he also loses quite a few Jewish votes with such declarations. I think the gain is more in evangelical votes.
I don’t see a problem with this, so long as the other entity is not an enemy. For two reasons:
- Caring for another entity does not necessarily conflict with the local interest.
- Moreover, sometimes it is permissible to care for them even at the locals’ expense, because this isn’t black and white. Suppose my duty to care for my fellow citizens (the Americans) is X, but my duty to care for members of my people (the Jews) is Y. Even if X is greater than Y, Y still carries weight. Therefore it is reasonable to want to invest a small effort at the Americans’ expense in order to care for the Jews. And since this is an interest of the Jewish citizens of the United States, it is legitimate for a politician to promise them that he will act for it within reasonable limits.
Discussion on Answer
As I explained, I don’t see any difference at all.
Certainly. I might be angry or disagree, but that is his right.
(1) True, although at least in the American case there is a conflict between the local interest and the interest of the foreign entity. The locals are harmed economically. I am aware of the argument that basically everything “comes back to them,” but it seems silly to me. There are things that by definition cannot “come back to them,” such as time and manpower.
(2) I think the problem is not concern for members of your people as such, but rather value-based identification with a foreign entity and support for it (an entity that is not necessarily hostile, but is still foreign—and who knows what tomorrow may bring?). The case of a Jew from New York donating his own money to his brethren in another country is not the same as that of a Jew from New York influencing the political system in America in order to advance a policy that prioritizes the interests of a foreign state over the interests of the state in which he lives and which he has no intention of leaving. Similarly, an American of the Catholic faith is allowed to support Catholic causes around the world (and is even expected to do so), but he would get thoroughly blasted if it turned out that he was subordinating the American interest to the needs of the Vatican.
Another question: if you were a gentile, what would you think about the loyalty and status of your Jewish neighbor? Would you accept his demand that you relate to him (at least in principle) like any other citizen?