On the 'seam line' between Harediism and Religious Zionism

With God’s help

Dome Site – 2007

The question of the distinction between Haredi and Religious Zionism has troubled me for many years. It is difficult to point to a sharp parameter that categorically distinguishes between these views, meaning that if a person says A, it is clear that he is Haredi, and if he claims 'not A' then he is a Religious Zionist.

There are differences in lifestyle, as well as in relation to general education and the surrounding reality in general, but none of these are unambiguous. A person can be a well-educated Haredi, and even have a positive attitude towards education (the version of 'Torah with the Path of the Land' by Rabbi Hirsch and his students). Even in lifestyle, the differences are not unambiguous, and these are nothing more than statistical correlations.

What remains is the attitude towards the state. On the surface, this is the natural candidate to be the testing parameter, but when you examine it more closely, you see that even here the situation is not so simple.

It seems that the basis of the difference is a theological distinction: the religious Zionist sees the state as an important step on the path to redemption (without going into details), while the Haredi does not see it as such. But what is the practical implication of this difference? It seems that there is no such implication.

An ultra-Orthodox person can (and should) be a loyal citizen of the State of Israel, just as he is loyal to Belgium or Australia, even without seeing the state as the throne of God in the world, or as having any significance in the process of redemption. Of course, if he sees it as the work of Satan and the like (as in the Satmar version and the disillusioned with the disengagement who joined them), this is not possible, since he has a duty to fight it, but such an attitude characterizes a negligible minority among the so-called "ultra-Orthodox" in Israel.

On the other hand, it seems that there are also quite a few who define themselves as 'religious Zionists' who are not committed to the messianic significance of the state, and at least do not see it as important, certainly not on a practical level.

Therefore, the distinction that is anchored in relation to the state remains the preserve of small minorities on both sides: on the one hand, the people of Har HaMor and Merkaz HaRav, who continue to hold onto the messianic approach to the state and see dimensions of holiness in Jewish nationalism and its institutions. On the other hand, the people of Satmar and Neturi Karta who continue the struggle against the Zionist demon (or windmill). In between stands a very large public, a majority and a structure of the religious public, who do not identify with any of these disconnected extremes. This entire silent majority does not see any real religious value in the state and its institutions (sometimes they themselves are not aware of this. See below), even though they feel identified with it and it is important to them on a civic and national level. They feel loyalty and commitment to its success, because it is only natural to want the state in which you live to succeed in as many areas as possible, whether it is an expression of G-d or simply the state in which I live.

This is a public that is Zionist in the same sense that the secular citizen of the state is Zionist. It is happy to live among Jews in the Land of Israel. It feels loyal to the state, and wants its success, and even its Jewishness (in some national sense). It would of course like a completely Jewish state, but it understands that today this is only an abstract goal, and therefore it does not play a part in its world and doctrine. It can be said that this public has given up the hyphen in the expression 'Zionist-religious'. It is Zionist, and it is also religious, but its Zionism is not religious but secular.

Despite all this, it seems that our theological-ideological map is still captive to these extreme concepts that have long since lost their appeal. Almost every religious person in Israel feels obliged to define themselves as either Haredi or Religious Zionist, thereby surrendering to the artificial dichotomy that these two extreme poles are trying to impose on us. The reason for this is that the rabbinical leadership is unwilling to give way to this more complex, pragmatic approach. The feeling is that it is easier and more convenient to maintain this dichotomy, as a social and cultural glue, or as a source of power, each for its own reasons.

And so we continue to investigate the mishnahs of Rabbi Kook and the Satmar Rebbe, both of whom have long since become irrelevant (in this field), and live in the distant past, instead of dealing with reality as it is today. The dispute between Haredi and religious Zionism continues and intensifies from time to time, as if we are still in an era in which there is a struggle over the image of Zionism and religious Judaism, that is, almost a century ago. Like Don Quixote fighting against silent windmills, so the religious public is divided and polarized over questions that have long since become irrelevant.

There are other questions, much more important than the attitude towards the state, that must be addressed today. The question of the ways to study Torah (levels. eye level. academic research and yeshiva study). The status of 'external wisdom'. The status of women. The functioning of the rabbinical courts (or, more precisely, their rapid closure, together with the Chief Rabbinate, soon in our days, Amen), etc.

On these questions, it is possible to form camps that are not polarized precisely around the Haredi-Zionist "seam." That stubborn and anachronistic "seam" prevents us from discussing these questions in their essence, as we always return to these ancient labels, and to the theological question devoid of content and meaning of the relationship to the state. Things remain on the level of power struggles and historical proofs (the "We told you so" approach), and that is a shame.

The time has come to shake the dust off the conceptual world we live in, and to begin to see the present with realistic eyes and not through hopes and delusions, messianic or satanic. Most of us already live this way and feel this way, and it is a shame that this does not come to our awareness and is not expressed in discourse, where the aforementioned anachronistic dichotomy still dominates.