Did Zionism ever have a 'role'?
With God’s help
Point – 2007
(Why there is no point in discussing the question of whether Zionism has completed its mission)
introduction
At the heart of the discussion about the 'role' of Zionism lies a flawed and stumbling assumption, according to which Zionism is destined to have some role. I would like to refute this assumption (without any connection to the disengagement and the branching, since to the best of my understanding it does not reflect any fundamental change).
The Genesis Story and the Chariot Story: On Physics and Metaphysics
I will begin with Sefi Rachlavsky's best-selling work, 'The Donkey of the Messiah.' I believe that the very fact that this discussion is being held proves that there is truth in at least one point in his words: Religious Zionism sees Zionism as the donkey of the Messiah, and is now debating whether the time has come to bring the Messiah himself and send away the donkey.
The approach according to which there are 'functions' for historical movements assumes that history is not just a collection of facts and events, but the real realization of some spiritual-divine realm. Its proponents also assume that the fact that history is an expression of that vanished realm does not depend on the awareness of the various bearers. People who do not believe in God can be bearers of divine ideas, and perhaps even perform commandments (such as settling and conquering the Land of Israel, and protecting its inhabitants) without realizing it. Beyond these two assumptions, there is an additional assumption here, according to which we are supposed to analyze the relationship between these two levels, and take into account in our practical considerations the metaphysical level as well, and not just the real level.
As a person of faith, it is difficult to disagree with the first claim. We have accepted that there is someone who turns the wheel, and there is a leader for the capital. But the other two are very difficult for me to accept in themselves. Both stem from the transformation of the desired into the present, and from desires that replace reality. At least on a practical level, it seems that these assumptions are disastrous. I dealt with the second assumption in my articles in Tzohar 22 and 25, and here I will deal mainly with the third.
Disconnection from reality
Religious Zionism suffers from a chronic disconnection from reality, which is mainly rooted in the fact that instead of seeing reality, we look through reality, as if it were transparent, and relate mainly to the metaphysical realm (or, more precisely, to our speculations about it) that stands behind it and drives it (Husserl called this 'idealistic vision,' meaning viewing ideas through the concrete). We do not see the president of the state at all, but the "throne of God in the world," on which he sits. We do not see flesh-and-blood soldiers who deal with nonsense like uniforms, symbols, flags, and parades, but rather the 'priestly garments' they must wear (an obligation enforced by the military police). We do not see a prime minister, but a representative of God, the Holy One, and all of Israel for his generations, and the conqueror of the land (the successor of Joshua ben Nun in our generation). We do not see Palestinians, but descendants of Ishmael, savages who have their hands in everything, and whose concern is mainly metaphysical-religious rather than political-realistic. We see the nations of the world as Esau, whose law is that he hates Jacob. "Kindness to the nations is sin," and therefore a good gentile is necessarily an illusion (it is simply a self-interested person). The Zionist movement, a historical product of the Spring of Nations, is nothing more than the awakening of Israel's own virtue. We see the soldiers of the IDF, who fight like any army in the world (only usually less professional), as the embodiment of devotion to the Torah, and as the best army in the world ("Let the IDF win," did we already say?). And above all, we see ourselves, that is, the State of Israel, which is nothing more than the state of all its citizens (long ago), as a 'third house', which we were promised would not be destroyed.
In order to establish and maintain this disconnected speculative structure, many (especially in yeshivahs. The elderly are less likely to buy these 'lokshans') spend day and night making excuses and apologetic arguments about why everything that is happening fits exactly with the prophetic observations of the great God, and is in fact explicitly written in the words of all the prophets. And even if not, as is well known, "this is how Israel's redemption is, little by little." In their eyes, the secular Zionist is a person who connects to his inner divine point through holy (and fascist) Jewish nationalism. Our theory is perfect. It can never be refuted, because everything that will happen or not has long been found in one paragraph or another of 'Orot Hakodesh', or in the 'Mamar Hador' (for our generation?!).
Such gibberish could once be found in materialist dialectics (such as in the important pamphlet: 'Lenin and Modern Physics,' which has been lost in the 'Kav Adom' series of the 'Hapoalim Bembak' library). Even today, they can often be found in Chabad (it is made clear in the Rambam that in every generation there is a Messiah and a half who died and was resurrected, and one must distinguish between him and the 'Messiah-like' who is not resurrected. It was predicted in advance that the Messiah would die, and this fits exactly with the script written in letter-skipping in 'Tanya' and 'Likutei Sichot'. Send a fax to the grave of the Rebbe, may God bless him and grant him peace).
What all of these have in common is a situation in which a 'solid' ideological position arrives at reality with a set of a priori assumptions, and tries to impose on it a pre-dictated conceptual-ideological framework (dictated by a few 'popes' who are never wrong). Such a position usually finds itself shattered on the rocks of stubborn reality, and in order to survive it begins to wriggle and twist, to build epicycles and differends, provided that the world continues to move in its own circles. The stubborn belief in the basic assumptions even though they are directly opposed to reality is nothing more than a 'test of faith.' Anyone who 'surrenders' to the facts is simply a poor pragmatist. Intelligent people find themselves in a straitjacket, and the higher the idealism and intelligence, the greater the speculativeness and detachment.
There are several indications of this autism. For example, one of many, the astonishment that gripped the religious public when the High Court of Justice ended the exclusivity of Orthodox conversion. Where does this astonishment come from? I have been wondering for years how this has not happened by now, and the only astonishment that gripped me is just the sight of the astonishment itself. This autism stems from seeing the High Court of Justice as expressing Judaism, the metaphysical High Court of Justice instead of the concrete High Court of Justice. A similar astonishment prevailed in the public as a result of Arik Sharon's disengagement plan, even though he said it before the elections in a clear and loud voice (as much as it is possible to say things clearly at that stage). All those who quote "the law of the Netzarim is the law of Tel Aviv" are only hearing from the reflections of their hearts, in the manner of those who have been disconnected since time immemorial. They see the metaphysical Arik Sharon (the High Priest, the product of the holy IDF), and not the concrete one. There are hundreds of other such examples.
Has Zionism completed its mission?
From the collection of these dogmas, it now clearly emerges that the time has come to shed the superficial secular shell, and to reveal from within it the sacred strength of the Holy People in the Holy Land. Now Kathy is bitter, and the time has come to tell Zionism that it has completed its task. We must move on to the next phase in which the hidden point of the virtue of Israel will be revealed, which no one feels or notices for the time being, but which certainly exists in everyone (except for the 'great Arab'), and which is what drives the processes.
Hence the establishment of the delusional and ridiculous 'Sanhedrin', which I wrote about here a few issues ago. Hence arise ideas of 'the State of Judah', or 'the people are with us' (regarding the disengagement, and in general), 'the people have sobered up' (after every attack, or Qassam rocket, or Mina Tzemach's poll), delusions about wars to conquer the globe (at least as far as Iran) through the immortal IDF, 'Jewish leadership', 'face to face' (or back to back), Operation 'Believe and Sow' (in which millions of shekels were diligently sown in Palestinian land), 'it will be or it will not be', and also... the debate on the question 'has Zionism finished its role?'
The equivalent of all this is the assumption that all we have to do is raise the flag, and then all the Gentiles (sons of a Jewish mother) will flock after us to the Mount of the House of God. All the tired, the erring, the suicidal, the confused. Those who do not know what they themselves want and intend. Those for whom the Jewish point, which they themselves deny, is found in the very essence of their virtue, waiting for us to awaken and ignite it.
As a result of these perceptions, Zionism as an expression of all of Israel is the lever for change (at least until now). We are not working on Rabbi Yosef ben Shimon, but only on 'Zionism' as a whole. Reuven and Shimon will change anyway. We will change the law, and the nature of the public domain, the observance of the Sabbath and kashrut in embassies, and then the spirit of the nation will guide the details. This is the essence of religious Zionism, unlike pragmatic Harediism, which, ironically, advocates... 'another dunam and an additional goat.'
So what anyway?
After slaughtering all the cows, sacred and otherwise, what is the alternative? As mentioned, from a Torah perspective it is difficult to deny that there is a guiding hand in history. It is also difficult to deny that we have some role in the historical system. What is not necessary in the disconnected system of assumptions described above?
The element that distinguishes between necessary and hindering assumptions is mainly related to the distortion of ignoring reality itself, and clinging to observations made through it into the metaphysical realm behind it. This leads to seeing things in terms of their 'function', rather than seeing them for themselves.
Jews have never dealt with 'sheep of drachma'. Since the end of the prophetic period, no one has made decisions in light of speculation about the metaphysics behind the events. The attitude towards a person, or any society, is determined in light of what it is, and not in light of what it represents. Our 'role' is nothing more than fulfilling our duties in the best possible way under the concrete circumstances. According to the Ramban, Joseph was concerned with fulfilling his dreams and following the direction of God, but we are supposed to be concerned with our own duties. The path to assimilating religious-spiritual ideas does not pass through a dogmatic assumption that they already exist, nor through treating symptoms instead of diseases, or the public domain instead of the individual person. When a person does not believe, it is impossible to come to him with claims about the integrity of the land, Jewish identity, and certainly not with a claim to grant superiority to halakhic conversion.
The level at which one can try to address problems is not the general public level but the private level. The people of Israel are not a faceless collective, but a collection of people. It is time to stop the delusions about the 'foundation of the throne of God in the world', 'priestly garments' and so on, which only lead to disappointment. The state is not the foundation of the throne of God in the world (if there is such a thing). It has never been like that. Perhaps we can try and work to make it so. It is impossible to tell another person what he really thinks, and to awaken in him some mystical point that supposedly lies within him without his knowledge. It is not possible to turn the Likud into a messianic movement, even if its leader is a 'Jew'. At most, one can try and convince Rabbi Yosef ben Shimon to start observing the commandments. Only after this basic foundation is formed can demands be made on the public domain. The path is from the bottom up and not, like the traditional path of religious Zionism, from the top down.
Superficial coalitions with a national-secular camp also stem from the perception that behind secular nationalism lies a Jewish point. That is why the legions of naive children (up to the age of 22 and up) wearing knitted kippahs work vigorously and enthusiastically in every election for the idol in charge: Begin, Bibi, Arik Sharon, Shamir, and then of course are bitterly disappointed: "He wasn't like that." "That's not what he said." It turns out that in the next elections, too, all of them will work with the same vigor for those idols. They throw their love, and rightly so, on metaphysics that will make the concrete forgetful. On seeing the desired in the place that is. They will continue to speak in squares, bareheaded, alone, before the eyes of crowds of enthusiastic knitted kippah wearers, until they reach the coveted seat from which they see things that are not seen from here. But don't worry, the eyes of the crowd don't see them at all. They penetrate through them and turn towards the rising sun, and their faces are east.
Summary
There is no point in discussing the 'role' of Zionism, if it even has one. Zionism is a factual historical phenomenon (which still exists, or perhaps has already passed away), and it should be treated as such. The relevant question is what each of us is supposed to do now in the given situation.
My concern here is not only with answering the question of whether Zionism has completed its function. Nor is the problem limited to the assumption underlying the question being incorrect. This very question does not seem interesting or important to me. It is much more interesting and useful to ask how science works? What is the relationship to myth? Is there free choice and what does it mean? Is Migo a 'power of argument' or 'why should I lie'? What is the ruling when he forgets 'Ya'leh and I'u'o' in the Arabic of Rosh Chodesh Tishrei, which falls on the 15th of Sivan, and so on. This is not only more interesting, it is also more constructive and practical...