This is a lecture I gave at Duke in September 2012:
In this lecture I would like to discuss
the messianic trap that religious Zionism locked itself in, as the result of
the 1967 Israeli victory and the occupation of the West Bank. I want to argue
that this trap has a lot to do with the Zionist trend of “return to the Bible,”
which was prominent in the early stages of Zionist development. The dramatic
events that were associated with the success of Zionism, especially after the 1967
war, where Israel captured territories that are known as the Biblical heartland
of the ancient Land of Israel, opened the door to an outburst of messianic speculations,
but the following stage of messianic expectations involved disappointment and the
possibility of prophetic failure.
Whereas secular
and religious Zionists live in the same state, the state of Israel, speak the
same language – Hebrew- and use the same national symbols, their understanding
of those symbols differ. Therefore, the fascination that secular Zionism had in
its early stages with the Bible, and the vocabulary of messianic language that
it used to describe its actions, were understood differently by seculars and
religious. This difference of opinion fuels divisions in the Israeli society
and it has a major impact on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Secular Zionist spoke about their national
enterprise as a realization of biblical myth, however their framework was universal
and humanistic. Religious Zionism worked to fulfill the biblical myth with
substance, with the blend of nationalism and religiosity.
The settlement
enterprise that was initiated by mostly religious Zionist activists in the
occupied territories after the 67 war, was created in order to join hands in
what religious Zionism understood as God’s plans for salvation. However, there
was an even more pressing need for this enterprise: it came in order to create
facts on the ground and to prevent any possibility for territorial concessions,
as part of a peace plan. And this is their trap – the religious Zionist
activists locked themselves in a dogma, where Zionist territorial expansion is
being viewed as a manifestation of God’s will for the redemption of his chosen
people. Would territorial retreats, as
part of peace treaties, be understood as a messianic retreat? Can there be a
setback from the predestinated process?
Before getting into
my discussion on settlements, I would like to discuss the secular Zionist’
fascination with the Bible and about the Zionist messianic message. Zionism is the modern Jewish national
movement, and its early beginning dates from the late 19 century, as the result
of rising anti-Semitism in East Europe and failure of Jewish assimilation in
the republics of central Europe.
Zionism usually is
being described as a rebellion against previous Jewish political and religious
behavior. The pre-modern Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East were
generally faith based and observant; they used to govern their life by the
religious law; and they were passive to general politics, as long as it didn’t affect
their own communities. Jews had self government in their own Shtetels.
Modernity was late
to arrive to East Europe, where the Jewish masses used to live. The Zionist
message was shockingly revolutionary, especially to the Jews of East Europe: it
was a rebellion against political passivity, and a rebellion against Jewish
exile with its observant way of life.
For the first
time, according to the newly created Zionist movement, Jewish identity, was to
be framed by nationality, and not by religion. Whereas the traditional Jewish
model of self-identity involved keeping the Torah and its commandments,
interoperated by the Oral Law, the
Zionist message aimed to present a more holistic model: a return to the
motherland, a return to power, a return to a “healthy” way of life, a return to
normality. These can all substitute for the religious law.
Although the
Bible, and especially the five first books of the Torah, was sanctified in the Jewish
tradition, it was the Talmud, the rabbinical oral law, that turned to be the
most important text of rabbinic Judaism – the hallmark of religious studies in
the Diaspora. The Talmud is a text that was written in its majority in Babylon after
the second century AD., which was a Jewish Diaspora, and its context was of
exile. Therefore, the Zionist rebellion was also a rebellion against the Talmud
and its logic.
Zionist sense of
superiority over the Jewish Diaspora was justified, in some ways, by the return
to the emphasis on the Bible, which was understood as the link between the
mythological past and the present. The Bible enabled the creation of a national
myth and to consolidate Zionism’s distinctiveness around its ancestral land. As
much as any national movement is required for a foundation story, the Bible
served this function for Zionism. However, the religious lesson of the Bible
was sterilized: the role of God as the
creator, and the demand for faith and observance were ignored. The Zionist
movement used the Bible from a secular perspective: as their national history
is being re played in their life time, a repetition of Biblical times. The
Bible was for them a national asset, deprived of all the faith base
associations.
As young pioneers
immigrated to the Land of Israel in the early 20’s and 30’s of the twentieth
century, the Bible served as their road map: they traveled the land with an
open bible; identifying places on the map that previously were only part of their
religious imagination. It helped the new immigrant to feel at home. Ancient
episodes, like the conquering of the land by Joshua, the Hashmonite war of
libration and the establishment of an independent kingdom, the Bar kochva
rebellion against the Romans – all these fueled their imagination and served as
role models. In the words of Professor Anita Shapira: “The Bible was a call for
action.”
Although
socialist, secularist even at the brink of being anti-religious, Zionism had
developed a sense of fulfilling a Biblical messianic prophecy. The Jewish DNA
contains a strong messianic message. The destruction of the Second Temple, at
70AD, represents, in Jewish memory, as the beginning of Exile. Rabbinical
commentary argues that the exile was imposed upon the nation due to its sins,
and only after its complete repentance can the redemption begin, with the
coming of the messiah. Therefore, exile has a spiritual essence, which is to
prepare the Jews for redemption. According to Biblical and rabbinical writings,
some of the events of the end of days would bring about the national
restoration of the Jews, with the re-gathering of exiles, the rebuilding of a
Davidian kingdom and the re-establishing of the Temple as God’s worship site.
Throughout the
ages, Jewish memory had kept the messianic hope alive. The desire to see the
restoration of the nation in the Land of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple,
for example, is an essential component of Tefylat shemonaesreh (the
eighteen benedictions), the daily Jewish prayer. It is also a part of Birkat
Hamazon (the prayer for food). Maimonides, the famous 12 century Jewish
philosopher and ruler, specified two out
of his Thirteen Principles of Faith, to the end of days – first was the belief
in the coming of the messiah and second is in the belief in the rise of the
dead.
However, failed
messianic expectations caused the rabbis throughout the ages to become very
carful with messianism. Barriers were made to constrain acute messianism, and
the common rabbinic understating was that it is the role of God to send the messiah,
and all men can do to hasten its arrival
was to perfect their religious observant. Redemption and repentance were linked
to one another.
Many early Zionist
thinkers, and notable of them was David Ben Gurion, the absolute leader of
political Zionism and Israel’s first Prime Minister, developed a sense of
messianic fulfillment to their actions: they were re-gathering the Jewish
exiles back into the land of Israel, they were building a Jewish state
(parallel to the Davidian Kingdom), they were redeeming the land from its
gentile owners, they were reviving Hebrew as a Jewish language, and they were
forced into military conflicts in defense of their national enterprise. David
Ben Gurion envisioned Zionism as a “light onto the nations” –a moral and universalist
national movement that can set standards for the creation of a perfect society.
It was secular messianism, blended with humanism and nationalism that contained
the messianic message. The Bible was the ancient model for the national revival
and for the social model, as set in the words of the prophets.
One might conclude
that the attachment to the Bible and the prophetic message could reach a catharsis
after the Israeli victory in 1967 and the conquering of the Biblical land of
Israel, in a smashing victory. Truly, many secular Israelis explained the
success in terminology of miracles and Divine intervention. However, the
amazement calmed as many of the Israeli elites were exposed to the Palestinians
problem. It had became harder and harder for them to reconcile occupation with
humanism and universalism. In addition, other transformations within the
Israeli society, like individualism and capitalism, had shaken the need for a
meta-myth. The rise of post-Zionism as a conflicting narrative added to the decline
of “old fashion Zionism,” with its harsh critique on the West Bank occupation. As time progressed, the need for a foundation
myth, associated with the bible, was reduced. However, when this secular
tension was declining, an opposite tension was evolving within the religious
Zionist circles.
Religious Zionism is a segmant
of the Orthodox world that decided to join with the national enterprise,
eventhough Zionism was mainly secular. Today, it is estimated that about 15% of
Israeli population is associated with religious Zionism (about 1 million
people).
Very soon
after its emergence, religious Zionism undertook a process aiming to understand
how the development of the secular Zionist movement actually represented a
stage in an unfolding messianic process. These approaches are identified, in
particular, with the religious philosophy of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook
(1865-1935). Many Orthodox Jews found it
difficult to identify with the emerging Zionist movement and act within classic
Zionist definitions. Zionist rhetoric spoke of the need to “normalize” the
Jewish people and make it “a nation like all the
others.” The purpose of Zionism was described as being “to build a safe haven
for the Jewish people.” All of these definitions are inconsonant with Jewish
tradition, which emphasizes a distinction between Israel and the other nations,
and proclaims that the Land of Israel has a unique
theological function. Accordingly, many of those who developed the religious
Zionist approach, integrate the religious purpose as part of the Zionist idea.
These thinkers used the traditional
rabbinical technique of pshat and drash (the literal meaning as
opposed to the exegetical meaning) to justify supporting Zionist political
activity. While ostensibly adopting the general Zionist definition of the
movement’s purpose, this approach also imbued it with specific religious
meaning: While Zionist activity calls for action in
the material realm, simultaneously its innermost core aspires to eternal
spiritual life – and this constituted the “real” foundation for the Zionist
movement's operations and aims, even if the movement itself was not aware of
this. The argument contended that the long-awaited
messianic era was about to arrive, and would be realized once secular Zionism
chose the true path: the complete worship of God. Zionism would then advance to
its second phase, known as the revival of the biblical Davidic monarchy, the reinstitution of sacrifices on the Temple Mount,
and the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin.
Though this position was present
within religious Zionist circles almost from their inception, it occupied only
a marginal position. Thus, although this vision of transformation to a Torah
nation was advocated by certain religious Zionist voices during the period
immediately preceding the establishment of the State of Israel (1948), it was soon abandoned. Asher Cohen argues that
many religious Zionists did continue to aspire for the establishment of a
theocratic regime; but, during the transition to statehood, they recognized
this was unachievable and unrealistic at the time, as they were a minority with limited public power and status.
Accordingly, the vision of a Torah state was not manifested in Religious
Zionist's overt political demands. They instead focused mainly on preserving
the status quo on religious matters – agreed to during the pre-state era – on
the right of the religious public to maintain its
own way of life. Overall, religious Zionist leaders confined themselves to
recognizing the secular state, while struggling to preserve its religious
character in certain fields.
This all changed with the Israeli
victory in the Six Day War (1967) in which Israel captured additional areas of
its Biblical homeland. These dramatic events led to the strengthening of
religious Zionism’s activist wing, dominated mainly by the younger generation
of the National Religious Party. Additionally, it
created a groundswell of opinion that would ultimately fuel the establishment
of the Gush Emunim settlement movement, which would soon after become the
dominant stream within religious Zionism.
The Six
Day War (June 1967) created a new reality in the Middle East. In the course of
the war, Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the
Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. These areas were not annexed to Israel, and have continued to have the status of
occupied territories administered by Israel pending their return in the
framework of a peace agreement. Immediately after the war, Israel did not, on the
whole, initiate Jewish settlement in the occupied areas, with the exception of East Jerusalem, which was formally
annexed to the State of Israel. From the outset, however, this principle was
not strictly applied, and soon after the war a number of Jewish settlements
were established in the occupied territory.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched a
surprise attack on Israel. Although Israel would eventually push back the
attacking armies and win the war, the Israeli public was shocked and outraged
at both the large number of fatalities Israel suffered and by the military's
poor performance, at least at the beginning of the
war.
Immediately following the war, U.S.
Secretary of State Henry Kissinger undertook intensive diplomatic activity
aimed at attaining a ceasefire between the sides that would invariably include
Israeli territorial concessions. It was against the backdrop of these two
events – the trauma of the war and the expectation of
imminent territorial retreat – that the Gush Emunim (“Block of the Faithful”)
movement was founded in February 1974. Led by young religious Zionist
activists, Gush Emunim was supported by both Orthodox bourgeois urban circles
and secular supporters of the Whole Land of Israel movement. Gush Emunim sought to prevent territorial concessions
and to push for the application of Israeli sovereignty to Judea, Samaria, and
the Gaza Strip. It attempted to actualize its objectives by settling Jewish
communities in the occupied territories.
At the time of its establishment, Gush
Emunim did not project a messianic vision. The first settlement action
undertaken by activists from the organization came when, without official
permission, they established a makeshift settlement at a site in the West Bank
called Sebastia. Israeli authorities evicted the
settlers several times. Finally, the settlers reached a compromise with
Minister of Defense Shimon Peres in which they agreed to instead be housed in a
neighboring Israeli Defense Force (IDF) base. This decision effectively led to
the establishment of the settlement, despite some opposition within
the Israeli government led by Yitzhak Rabin. In
1977, with the rightist Likud party coming to power, settlers suddenly enjoyed
enthusiastic support from the government, including provision of financial benefits,
assistance in the construction of settlement infrastructure, and legal
protection. As a result, the pace of construction
in the settlements quickly increased. Since then, the number of Israeli
citizens living in the settlements has risen steadily. As of 2010, the
settlements’ population was estimated at 300,000, and some 40 percent of the
Judea and Samaria territory was included in the
settlements’ municipal areas of jurisdiction.
Immediately following its inception,
Gush Emunim was joined by a group of Mercaz Harav yeshiva’s graduates under the
spiritual leadership of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Hacohen Kook, the sone of Rabbi
Avraham Itzhak, who soon assumed leadership roles in the movement. The members
of this group held a religious perspective, which motivated them to political action. They believed that the return of the
Jews to the Land of Israel under the auspices of the secular Zionist movement
reflected the first stage in God’s will to redeem His people. Accordingly, the
spectacular Israeli victory in the Six Day War of 1967 was perceived as a manifestation of the Divine plan, and
as a preliminary stage in the process of redemption.
In general, Merkaz Harav followers
then as now, see themselves as implementing the philosophy of Rabbi Avraham
Yitzhak Hacohen Kook. They try to integrate the senior Kook’s philosophy into
Israeli reality, emphasizing two key concepts: the holiness of the land of
Israel and the holiness of the State of Israel.
According to the junior Kook, the Land of Israel – comprised of land within the
1948 borders, the territories acquired in 1967, and even Transjordan – is one unit, a complete organic entity
imbued with its own will and holiness. This entity
is connected and united with the entire Jewish people – present, past, and future
– so that the people and the land are in a complete oneness. Therefore, no one
has a right to give away part of the land. Since
the unity of the Whole Land came as a result of the
actions of the Zionist movement, it could, therefore, be understood as a tool
that was and could be further implemented to actualize God’s will. As such, the
Israeli state, though secular, should be sanctified as it
is part of the messianic process.
According to the Merkaz Harav
philosophy, the sanctity of the Whole Land of Israel and the sanctity of the
State of Israel are expected to complement and complete one another. However,
this has not always been reflected in Israeli reality. After the peace process
between Israel and Egypt (1978) and the resulting
Israeli withdrawal from Sinai (1982), many Gush Emunim supporters were forced
to confront the increasing erosion of their basic beliefs regarding the
character and destiny of the State of Israel. The Israeli withdrawal from
Sinai, together with the subsequent Madrid talks
(1991) and Oslo process (1993), which led to an Israeli withdrawal from parts
of the West Bank, provoked a theological crisis for followers of Merkaz Harav's
philosophy. The crisis reached new hights with the Disengagement plan of 2005,
where Israel destroyed all of its settelements in the Gaza strip, in addition
to four setelements in Samaria. The fundamental religious dilemma this
presented is of a profound character: How can a
state that uproots settlements and hands over parts of the Biblical Land of
Israel to Arab rule be considered “absolutely sacred” as it had been? What
sublime religious meaning can be attributed to the actions of a secular state
which threatens to destroy, by its own hands, the
chance of realizing the messianic hope? Could it be that viewing the Jewish
state as a fulfillment of the divine will was a mistake?
We are almost 45 years after
the Six Days War of 1967, and the question of settlements creates contradicting
directions: From one hand there has been a great expansion with the creation of
tens of settlements, which are housing more than 300,000 people, but from the
other hand a threat over its very existence still remains. For example, in
2006 Israeli Prime Minister at that
time, Ehud Olmert, offered the “Ingathering” plan which included an evacuation
of a significant number of settlements in Judea and Samaria.
The
settlement movement of Gush Emunim currently is suffering from a major crisis:
The dominant power today is of the second generation of settlers, where among
some of them the acute messianic tension even higher than of their parents.
However, among the second generation, the admiration to the Israeli statehood
was replaced with high criticism and intense theocratic beliefs were imerged,
as a replacement for the democratic system, which is viewed as a hallow,
non-patriotic, post-Zionist system. Pessimistic messianic disappointing
statements are replacing the previous optimistic messianic expectations. The
prophetic failure led the new generation of settlers into a trend of religious
radicalization in effort to block the redemption from falling into a complete
collapse.
The secular Zionist admiration
to the Bible and the usage of political messianic rhetoric to describe Zionist goals, created a
misleading image that assumed Zionism as a fullfilement of a traditional
messianic vision. Messianic religious Zionism locked itself in a dogma that
demands Israeli territorial expansion. Post factotum, this misunderstanding led
into an impasse in the relations of secular and religious inside the Israeli
society and an impasse with the ability to open an agreeable solution to the
Arab-Israeli conflict.
