Blogs

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

The Point of Contention, Part One

The Jewish character of the State of Israel has been and continues to be an issue of contention.  Along the continuum of opinion as to how Jewish the State should be are two poles.  At one end, there is the idea that the State should be a nation like any other, secular and democratic in character, and without the particularisms of either a Jewish or Arab state.  On the other end, there is the idea that the secular Zionist movement is merely a transitional stage for the practical Ingathering of the Exiles, which will end before the ultimate Redemption, at which point the Land of Israel will return to its intended theocratic nature.  The odd man out is the vocal minority of anti-Zionists; the religious Jews who consider the establishment of a Jewish state before the Messiah as an expression of heresy, and the non-religious Jews who see the Jewish State as an organ for the oppression of the Palestinians.  Like the adage goes, “if there are two Jews, there are three opinions”.

Practically speaking, it almost doesn’t matter anymore what your attitude is towards the State; it’s here, in the form that it is.  What is interesting to note is that where a person finds him or herself on this continuum is often determined by their orientation towards Jewish identity in general.  One of the reasons for the cultural divide in Israel itself is due to the ideological foundation of the state.  The point that I would like to make is that the essential kulturkampf in Israel is the secular/religious divide--not, as it may have been thought, right- versus left-wing politics.

Religious Zionism, in its 19th century form, was lead by people who themselves were towering figures of Torah leadership.  Rabbis such as Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer, Eliyahu Guttmacher, and Yehuda Alkalai were simply trying to realize practically the age-old Jewish yearning and desire for a Return to Zion.  Their innovation was the concept that a wholesale Jewish return to the land of Israel would be a catalyst for Redemption; this is the conceptual base for what we refer to as Religious Zionism.  Other universally-recognized Torah leaders such as the Vilna Gaon and the Chasam Sofer exhorted their followers with the same message.  It is not a message that has been accepted in all segments of the observant Jewish world; but it is based on a positive ideal of Jewish identity and destiny.

By contrast, secular Zionism did not become successful until the end of the 19th century, when it was finally clear to its leaders that the phenomenon of anti-Jewish hatred would mitigate against the possibility of the Jews receiving full equality and safety within their host cultures.  Theodor Herzl believed that mass baptism was the answer to the “Jewish Question” before he covered the Dreyfus Trial in 1894.  Leon Pinsker had to undergo the experience of being closed out of the legal profession in Odessa, as well as witness the pogroms of 1881-1884 before his faith in assimilation was shaken.  The architects of the Jewish State were predominantly secular Jews who were inspired more by 19th century nationalism and romanticism than by Judaism, and, without anti-Semitism, may never have experienced the desire for a Jewish State at all. 

To be continued…