On differences as passwords
Hello Rabbi,
I was surprised to hear in a conversation with Barda that for you the differences between religious Zionism and (modern) Haredi Zionism are just slogans, because in practice they are supposed to be the same. As someone who likes to get into the minutiae and emphasize differences in perception, I was surprised to hear this from you. For example, in your conversation with Franco you said that in practice the theses of free choice and determinism – there is no difference between them in practice at all. So why did you bother writing an entire book on the sciences of freedom and dealing with it intensively? Just empty slogans, the main thing is the practical sense. Maybe we will unite the determinists and libertarians to support the imprisonment of criminals? We will establish our own camp.
In other words, I think there is a difference, both for the libertarian and the determinist and for the ultra-Orthodox and the Zionist. Refraining from a moral act out of the thought that it is bad (which is impossible without a belief in free choice) will result in a higher moral strictness, than a deterministic fear of going to prison. In comparison, belief in the state (as a general framework, not a specific government) and in the land as the beginning of redemption or something with a concept of holiness, entails a motivational attitude that is necessarily different from a view of the state as ‘authorities’ that we flow with in the organizational sense of the social order. The attitude will be expressed in the pursuit of public, military, and more idealistic positions.
In conclusion, I agree that this should not be linked to a lack of criticism of the government. I make a distinction between the government and the state as a more general framework.
I explained it there. There is a very big difference between a deterministic and a libertarian worldview. Even though there is no practical difference and explanations can be offered for everything in both views. This is not true of Haredi and religious Zionism. There, we are talking about theological differences that are meaningless (usually the people themselves do not understand what we are talking about, beginning or end, etc.). Beyond that, in the discussion about choice, I am talking about a theoretical question. In the ideological-political field, one should proceed according to practical considerations, not philosophical or theological ones.
It is clear that there are different psychological effects for the two perceptions, and that is exactly what I am trying to change. There is no real reason for these differences except inertia, so it is unnecessary to insist on the differences and we should simply update the perceptions, at least on a practical level. Arguing whether it is worth establishing a state 80 years after it has already been established is stupidity. Arguing whether it is positive or negative, when we all understand that we need it to prosper is stupidity.
In practice, we see a huge gap between the two sectors with respect to military conscription and its derivative up to the age of 40.
We see that the religious Zionist ethos has a significant impact on practice, for example, a graduate of the Western Academy who later studied for 3 years in Mata goes to study economics
It is what I wrote. There are differences, but they are the result of inertia (psychological influences) and not of ideology. That is precisely what I am trying to fight against.
The identity division according to attitude towards Zionism still exists, but it is a fiction. Its existence causes various practical consequences that are not bound by reality.
My argument is that the lack of conscription is not a derivative of Haredi ideology, but of ugly separatism. To the same extent, conscription is not a result of Zionism but of the necessity to survive and a civic duty. Therefore, I oppose the use of the terminology of war of commandment and aid Israel from the outset. The obligation for yeshiva students and everyone to conscript also existed in Belgium in a similar situation. When we are all under threat, everyone should lend a shoulder.
If we get rid of the anti-Zionist inertia that has no meaning today (this is sociology and not ideology. After all, everyone wants the country to prosper), we will also get rid of the practical remnants of this anachronistic sociology. If it had no practical consequences, who was I working for?
For a significant majority, it is definitely just identity politics. It is difficult to break it with intellectual persuasion. For a significant portion of Lithuanians, it is certainly beyond that, it is not certain that they see every single one as a "whole of Israel" but rather as a maximum of a Jew's whim by force of his mother. Either way, even the deep pleas of the state for recruitment to the Haredi brigade from the foundation of the Haredi thinkers and commanders will not be of any use, I hope I am lost. Unfortunately (really unfortunately, I am very afraid of secular-political liberalism) only a secular Zionist coalition that will lead to economic sanctions around recruitment will be of any use.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
