The plethora of dueling public rabbinic letters in recent months highlights a
fundamental split in religious Zionism in Israel. While there are often
political implications, the impact on the education of future generations and on
the relationship between religious and secular Israelis is ultimately more
significant.
The conflicting letters reflect contrasting mentalities with
both speaking on behalf of the rabbinic leadership of religious
Zionism.
The authors of the letters prohibiting the sale of land and the
renting of apartments to non-Jews (Arabs) and questioning the Israeli courts
decision that ex-president Moshe Katsav is guilty of rape are consistent in
rejecting Israeli democracy and governmental institutions as being contrary to
Halacha. They reflect a certitude in the ability of rabbis to determine the
truth and in seeing Western morality as conflicting with Torah
morality.
Not surprisingly, the same rabbis see the mitzva of settling
the land of Israel as paramount and the state as a value only if it remains true
to this goal. Women are permitted to play active roles in protests but otherwise
should marry young and have many children and accept a traditional
role.
THIS TENDENCY to absolutism is found in sweeping generalizations
about Arabs, and in seeing the Israeli- Palestinian (my use of the word would be
rejected) conflict as a war between peoples or religions. While somewhat muted
publicly, messianism is critical to this worldview.
Many, if not most,
religious Zionist high schools teach Jewish thought and Zionism assuming this
perspective.
Students have learned not to question in class. Recent
demonstrations have mainly consisted of high school students, usually girls, who
have no doubts. Very few of these youngsters have serious contact with other
elements of Israeli society who may think differently. The concentration of
religious Zionists in the settlements furthers this trend.
The alternate
view, which is similar to what is called modern Orthodoxy outside of Israel, is
less assertive. It questions the expertise of rabbis in determining public
policy. The secular government, while not ideal, has authority to set policy and
decide about accusations of criminal behavior. The reality that the majority of
Israelis are not fully observant is the framework for attempting to preserve the
Jewish character of the state. That women take a more active role in society,
including leadership, is part of living in the modern world. The profound growth
of formal Jewish education for women, including the study of Talmud, is
supported.
The multiplicity of views on most issues within the boundaries
of Orthodoxy is a given. Questioning by students (and even adults) is
encouraged. Social issues are as important to Judaism as territorial ones.
Interaction with others is seen as an opportunity to demonstrate that religious
observance does not prevent respecting others, while not necessarily agreeing
with them.
One can say the phrase “reishit tzmihat geulateinu” with a
clear vision of an unfolding process of relative short duration, or view the
founding of the State of Israel as a transformative event in Jewish history, yet
far from the realization of the messianic vision. This difference in perspective
leads to either a rigid, unbending, focused agenda or a flexible, pragmatic
approach.
Like most typologies, actual people do not always fit into one
category or the other. The choice for the future direction of religious Zionism,
however, is stark.
Responses to the letters in the Israeli media and
blogs have shown a robust debate. The consequences of this struggle have great
significance for the broader Israeli society as well as for the future of
religious Zionism.
Since what happens in Israel impacts on Jewish life in
the Diaspora, much is at stake.
My preference is clear from how I
described the choice, but I realize that living in America reduces my
influence.
The writer is president of the Religious Zionists of America
and the mashgiah ruhani of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary and
Yeshiva University.