The Four Conversations about Zionism

Dealing with Schroedinger's Zionist.

Defining terms is one of the most crucial tasks that ought to be performed prior to holding a debate or discussion. The lack of defining terms regarding Zionism in our public discourse leads to confusion and unnecessary friction within the Jewish community.

When someone declares that 'Judaism & Zionism are an indivisible part of each others' or that 'Torah was always Zionist,' it causes many Orthodox Jews to become uncomfortable, but not for the reasons you might think. And it makes many non-Orthodox Jews look at the Orthodox disdainfully, whereas if they understood their position, they would regard them far more favorably. 

Since there has been a lot of confusion regarding Zionism and its relationship to Judaism recently, as there almost always is, let's explain the fundamental differences & similarities:

There are actually four different discourses on Zionism: 

1. Zionism as a Political Question

2. Religious Zionism

3. Ideological Zionism

4. Sefardi/Mizrachi* relation to Zionism 

'Zionism as a Political Question' is what is almost exclusively debated and discussed on social media & the public square, but when it comes to Orthodox spaces, it's almost always the latter two. And when anyone tries to throw in the Sefardi relationship to Zionism, it's also almost always a disaster. 

*Note: from this point on, will only be referred to as Sefardi for brevity’s sake.

Defining Our Terms

Zionism as a Political Question post-1948 can be summed up as 'Does Israel have a right to exist as a Jewish State.' Doesn't have anything to do with settlements, going back to '67 lines, a one-state* or two-state solution. That's it. It's simply whether Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, regardless of the form it takes. 

It's a simple yes (you're a zionist) or no (you're not a zionist) question. 

When discussing Zionism not only within the Jewish community but especially outside with non-Jews, it's crucial to thoroughly explain to them that politically, if they believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish, they are a political zionist. One of the most potent tools of antisemitic political antizionists has been to obfuscate the issue and misrepresent the idea of political Zionism so much that it has become a slur and creates cover for antisemites to attack Jews under that label as well.

*Obviously, in a zionist one-state solution, Arabs would be living as citizens of a Jewish state, not a binational state with no Jewish character. 

Ideological Zionism represents the diverse schools of thought/doctrines of Zionism, the two prominent ones being expounded by Ben-Gurion's Labour Zionism and Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism. The former is that Jews would transform into Hebrews, another nation living on its Land, without connection to Judaism. The latter is similar but with a more substantial relationship to our history. Most other schools of thought have been left in the dustbin of (such as Revolutionary or Synthetic Zionism), but even today, we can see new and emergent doctrines, such as Green or post-Zionism*. 

*There's a substantial debate whether it is, in fact, a Zionist school of thought or merely repackaged anti-Zionism.

Religious Zionism asks, 'Do you follow Rav Kook & his school of thought and believe the Israeli State is part of the 'beginning of the Messianic Era.' Those who agree with this premise believe that the institutions of the State will be ruled by Mashiach when he comes, that the Knesset will be part of his reign, etc. Those who disagree (almost the entirety of the Orthodox world) believe it will ultimately be dismantled & replaced by the Messianic era. 

Sefardi Zionism has a long tradition, is storied, and is widely misunderstood. It bridges the gap and unifies religious anti-Zionism, religious Zionism, and political Zionism in a single package. 

Ideological Zionism & Zionism as a Political Question

Let's start with Herzl's Political Zionism. This is today, by far, the most marginal of views. It is only genuinely espoused by Meretz and parts of Labour, and represents a tiny minority of Israeli society, stereotyped as the affluent Tel Avivian leftist with a Haaretz subscription. This is not to say that Herzl is not seen as a revered figure through vast swaths of Israeli society due to his perceived role as founder of the moment, but his doctrine is almost entirely irrelevant post-1948.

Herzl's Political Zionism was replaced by Labour Zionism, and while they share some significant differences, it is still their spiritual heir in many ways. Their shared vision can be best summed up by Ben Gurion's statement that said the State would be complete 'The day a Jewish policeman arrests a Jewish prostitute on Shabbat.' There are variations on the quote, but it can all be summed up as 'when Jews are like non-Jews, but on our own land.' This idea that Israel should just be a nation amongst nations, where nothing differentiates the Israeli from the French or the Chinese, has also lost a lot of steam and is mostly espoused by the Labour Party. If the recent elections are any indication, this ideology is also on life support. 

Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionism, on the other hand, is the most prevalent ideological Zionism in Israel today, alongside liberal Zionism (they have more or less fused). This Zionism, based on romantic nationalism, says that it's not enough for Jews to live in the Land; we also need to be strongly connected to our national history. This is wed to belief in a classical liberal economy, free markets, and democracy, in contrast with the very socialist root of Labour & Meretz. It is the main driving force behind the Likud and other secular parties that are either centrists or on the right.

Ideological Zionism and Zionism as a Political Question are mostly moot, if not irrelevant, nowadays. Regarding the latter, the question was answered unequivocally in 1948. Although there have been many attempts to relitigate it in recent history (and quite unsuccessfully at that), the State of Israel is here to stay. Regarding IZ, it is true that this is the central outlook of secular Jews concerning the Jewish State, whether they live in Israel or the Diaspora. Still, most people have adopted those ideas through osmosis & are unaware of the ideological origins of what they believe. Very few have read Jabotinksy or Herlz more than superficially, if at all. It is relevant mainly as far as Israeli politics go, but due to its parliamentary system, policies and laws tend to be enacted on a pragmatic rather than dogmatic basis so as to keep the often wildly divergent governing coalitions from collapsing. There are other, smaller types of Zionism, like Synthetic, Practical, Green, Socialist, etc... but they are irrelevant to our examination. If anything, they are all but confined to academic theorizing, and most people will never come across or consider those ideologies, even in Israel. 

Religious Zionism & Anti-Zionism

The dispute between the Orthodox world and Zionism is old and rooted in both ideological and practical differences. I will concentrate on the pre-State relationship between Orthodoxy and Zionism in a separate article, including the first attempts to settle the Land prior to the creation of the Zionist movements by the students of the Gaon of Vilna and the Baal Shem Tov. Suffice it to say that there were good reasons for the bad blood and disdain the religious world had for Zionism due to their tactics, including the two assassination attempts against the Sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe and the successful assassination of Jacob Israel de Haan. These were conducted alongside many other unsavory activities. 

This controversy today revolves around two questions: 

1. Was the Creation of the State of Israel the Atchalta deGeulah? 

2. If so, to what degree is the State holy? 

The concept of Atchalta deGeulah, "the beginning of our Redemption, is expounded in the Talmud, Midrash, and Kabbalah. Many details are written about what signs there are, and the Orthodox world was divided into two camps when the State was created: Dati Leumi (Religious Zionists) and the rest.

The position of the Dati Leumi school of thought is that the creation of the State represents a step toward Redemption. This is something that the father of the movement, Rav Kook, wrote about decades before the State was officially created. The rest of the Orthodox world was divided between holding that it was Divine Providence (for various reasons) but not the official Atchalta deGeulah, or the more extreme response expounded by the Satmar Rav the Divrei Yoel that it was 'Maaseh Satan.' 

Today, the Orthodox world is more or less divided along the lines of:

• Dati Leumi

• Non-Zionists

• Antizionists

For the Dati Leumi, the internal debate as far as the holiness of the State revolves around questions such as "Will Mashiach sit in the Knesset?" "Is it a mitsvah to pay your taxes?" "Is the post office holy?' Those who follow Rav Kook say yes, to different degrees. They're mostly those associated with the knitted kippot movement & parts of Modern Orthodoxy and are overwhelmingly represented within communities in Judea and Samaria past the Green Line.

Ultimately they represent a minority of the Orthodox world; even the so-called right-wing/Chardal wing of the Dati Leumi camp is starting to be disillusioned with the State post-Gush Katif & are beginning to adopt a more Antizionist view of the State, espoused by the rest of the Orthodox world. Said world, which divides between the Non-Zionists and pure Antizionists.

The non-Zionists interact with the State, vote, and pay taxes, they simply don't believe the State is holy & it'll be replaced when Mashiach comes. The Lubavitcher Rebbe explained succinctly why it is our belief that we are not yet in the Atchalta deGeulah. Some non-Zionists will describe themselves as (political) Zionists, and others will represent themselves as (ideological/religious) Antizionists but are still included in the non-Zionist camp, as will soon be explained. 

The fringe view on this issue in the (almost exclusively) Haredi world is what can be dubbed pure religious antizionism. It's what most people associate with the Satmar approach of 'Treyfe Medina' where there's no discussion with the State whatsoever, no cooperation, no recognition of its validity; it needs to be dismantled as soon as possible and is preventing Mashiach from coming. 

Though they are often used as a token by political Antizionists (who haven't seen those tweets praising Neturei Karta or Satmar as the only true Jews from proponents of the destruction of the State) but the reality on the ground is far more complex. Aside from possibly some groups within Neturei Karta, even ferociously vocal Satmar Hassidim would agree that Israel should not be dismantled if it's gonna lead to massacres, Jews being kicked out of the Land as a result, or losing their property. So, ideologically they are opposed, but pragmatically, it's the status quo.

The Intersection of Political, Ideological, and Religious (Anti)Zionism

The Intersection of Political, Ideological and Religious (Anti)Zionism

The thing is that between the Religious Zionists, the Non-Zionists, and the Antizionists, everyone rejects ideological Zionism. Even the Dati Leumi disagree with the idea that Jews should be just another people on its Land or that our connection is merely historical. They might hold Herzl in reverence, but only for the part he played, not for his actual views, which are the antithesis of what they believe.

The Orthodox view as far as the Land of Israel can be summed up as follows:

This is our Land. It's not because of historical justifications, the Balfour Declaration, the San Remo Conference, or reparations for the Shoah; it's because the Torah says so.

This is true across all three groups. And this is what causes so much confusion. For the overwhelming majority of the Orthodox world: 

The State has a right to exist/should not be dismantled (if only for the status quo).

Ideological Zionism is utterly antithetical to Torah and is to be rejected entirely.

Only a tiny part of the Orthodox world believes that the State is Holy.

Practically, you end up having people who would call themselves Antizionists and would absolutely balk at the idea of describing themselves as zionist. Yet, they would be labeled as extreme zionists on Twitter. For example: 

Imagine Shimon, a Hassidic Jew. He truly does not consider himself a Zionist and rejects anything outside of Torah. He also 100% believes that the State has a right to exist, that Judea and Samaria are ours, and we need to keep all of our Land & defend ourselves with utmost prejudice.

So, zionist or not? 

Ultimately, he is Schrodinger's zionist. He exists in a state where he is, concurrently, an antizionist (ideologically), a non-zionist (religiously), and a strong zionist (as a political question)

The Spanish Conclusion

The Sefardi position on Zionism has ironically expressed itself as the polar opposite of the Ashkenazi Haredi position but is nonetheless very similar. The main distinction is that there was no friction (or contact) between religious Sefardim and Zionists in the MENA region before the creation of the State.

As a result, the Sefardic world was far more prone to adopt the term Zionism as an umbrella simply describing the desire for Jews to live in their Land (akin to Zionism as a Political Question) while also denying the idea that the State and its institutions are holy or represent the Atchalta deGeulah. There is also an absolute rejection of Ideological Zionism as a foreign European nationalist concept that has nothing to do with the traditional desire to live in the Land of Israel.

It has created the impression that Sefardim have a more positive view or relationship to Zionism than they actually do and vice-versa Ashkenazim. This is also reflected in the two groups' respective approaches to excesses and misbehavior from state actors against their communities, real or otherwise.

For Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews, many had been in conflict with Zionist groups prior to the war and, as a result, suffered under the actions of specific zionist individuals before the creation of the State. Once the State was created, "zionists" were still blamed for the State's activities, and all of it was perceived as a continuation of the old conflict.

There were no influential Zionist groups in the MENA pre-State, so when religious and traditional Sefardim arrived in Israel after their expulsion from Arab lands post-1948, they did not blame actions against their beliefs on the ideology of their perpetrators but rather assumed that it was either a form of Ashkenazi bigotry towards Sefardim or the result of their secularism, not Zionism. It had been quite frequent for Sefardim to suffer from non-Jewish European attitudes towards them in part, so it was seen as more of the same. It made it much easier to publicly identify as a Zionist and openly support the State even though, ideologically, their views are not much more different from Ashkenazi Orthodox Jews.

Thankfully, the old ideological conflicts have long been resolved, and there is little to no Ashkenazi-Sefardi animosity anymore. Things are far from perfect but thank G-d, almost everyone has moved on from the kinds of nastiness that happened in the past 50 to 150 years between all of our communities.

I will, iyh, also write an article specifically about the history of Zionism in the Sefardi community in the near future. 

---

In Short:

• Anti-Zionism as a political question means the rejection of Jews having a State.

• Anti-Zionism in a religious context means rejecting the idea that the State is holy.

• Anti-Zionism in an ideological context means rejection that the Land of Israel is divorced from Torah.

Ultimately this is a very nuanced discourse that is rarely addressed as such, both from non-religious Jews who don't understand religious Anti/Non-Zionism and from religious Jews who refuse the label and do not understand where secular Jews come from. And this has been causing a lot of unnecessary friction and blocks on Jtwitter. There is no reason why it should continue.

We are a diverse people with diverse views. Some religious, some not. Some left-wing, some right-wing, some centrists. Some don't care.

Let's make sure we do not divide ourselves based on misunderstandings when we all agree on the basics but stay strong & united.