Zionism has always been a broad movement. From its earliest days, it brought together Jews of sharply differing philosophies and temperaments, united less by unanimity than by a shared sense of destiny. That diversity was real – and it mattered.
But diversity alone never sustained Zionism. What sustained it was something deeper: a shared responsibility for Jewish continuity, security, and collective fate.
In a recent Jerusalem Post op-ed, Uri Pilichowski warns that the growing influence of what he terms “orthodoxy” within Zionism risks narrowing the movement and alienating committed Jews who hold different views on religion, Palestinian policy, or Israel’s current government. While his concern is understandable, his diagnosis rests on a series of conceptual confusions that obscure what is actually happening within Zionism today.
Myth of a redline-free Zionism
Much is made of early Zionism’s ideological diversity, with nostalgic references to Basel and the Uganda debate. Yet this history is often romanticized. Early Zionism could afford theoretical experimentation precisely because it had no borders to defend, no army to maintain, and no children to send to war.
Disagreement existed – but it was held together by an unspoken moral core: Jewish peoplehood, Jewish security, and Jewish continuity. Even then, when that core appeared threatened, the movement nearly split. Diversity never meant the absence of boundaries; it meant disagreement within a shared responsibility.
Problematic use of 'orthodoxy'
Pilichowski defines “orthodoxy” not as religious Orthodoxy, but as a sociological phenomenon – the emergence of non-negotiable principles. Yet the word choice is not neutral. It borrows the emotional baggage of religious rigidity while describing something far more ordinary: the setting of moral boundaries in a national movement.
Every enduring political project has a non-negotiable core. Zionism is no exception. Calling that core “orthodoxy” does not make it illegitimate; it simply reframes seriousness as intolerance.
Three debates, not one orthodoxy
The article identifies three so-called “wedge issues” supposedly defining a new Zionist orthodoxy: religion, Palestinian policy, and disillusionment with the current Israeli government. But these are three distinct debates, not a single ideological platform.
There is no unified movement enforcing one rigid position across all three. Deep disagreements exist within religious, traditional, and secular communities alike. Conflating multiple, unrelated disputes into a single “orthodoxy” creates the illusion of exclusion without demonstrating where or how such exclusion is actually enforced.
October 7 and the weight of consequence
Pilichowski is right about one thing: different Jews experienced October 7 differently. Lived vulnerability shapes moral instinct. Communities under fire inevitably think differently from communities debating at a distance.
But that difference is not evidence of intolerance: It is evidence of gravity. Zionism today is shaped by those who bear its risks daily – and it would be strange if it were otherwise.
Democracy, elections, and the World Zionist Congress
If Zionism is a democratic movement, then its electoral outcomes must be taken seriously. The growing representation of traditional and Orthodox Jews in Zionist institutions, including through movements such as Eretz HaKodesh, Shas Olami, and others within the World Zionist Congress, is not a hostile takeover: It is participation.
For decades, large segments of committed Jews were present on the ground but underrepresented where decisions were made. Their increased involvement today reflects engagement, not exclusion. One cannot champion democracy in principle while lamenting its outcomes in practice.
Demographic reality Zionism must face
There is a deeper reality that the debate often avoids. Israel’s Jewish future is more religious and more traditional than its past. This is not ideology: It is demography. A Zionism that defines itself against its future majority is not inclusive – it is nostalgic.
Zionism is no longer merely an idea debated in congress halls. It is a living society of nearly ten million Jews. Movements endure when they align with the people who will carry them forward.
Zionism that can last
Zionism does not need fewer voices. It needs voices prepared to stay, to build, to defend, and to remain Jewish within it. Orthodoxy is not shrinking Zionism. It is grounded in continuity, consequence, and responsibility.
A movement born to secure the Jewish future cannot survive by detaching itself from the Jews who are building that future.
The author is a rabbi and the international liaison of the Coalition for Jewish Values.