20th Century Jewish Religious Thought: Original Essays on Critical Concepts, Movements, and Beliefs

State of Israel

State of Israel Michael Rosenak A consideration of the State of Israel in theological terms may, to historians of Zionism and observers of contemporary Israel, appear contrived, or at least paradoxical. Israel was envisioned, molded, and established by the Zionist movement, and although this movement could point to pious precursors and adherents, it was in many respects a rebellion against religious tradition. Most of its enthusiasts were modern in consciousness and predominantly secular in orientation. They tended to see in Zionism an alternative to classical Judaism and its theological assumptions rather than a continuation or vindication of a holy tradition. The opposition, however, of some rabbis and theologians does not determine the ultimate place of Zionism and the State of Israel in Jewish religious faith, for Zionist ideals ofJewish responsibility, creativity, return to the land, and national rehabilitation may be regarded as having religious significance. To be sure, the value of collective self-defense, of the Jews' responsibility for their physical survival, was for some the consequence of the erosion of faith in the divine guardian of Israel; but others, with equal right or rigor, 910 STATE OF ISRAEL defended this value as a religious imperative in an age of Holocaust and return to the land. Zionism may be explained as mystic, as liberal and rational , or as redemptive. Indeed, there is a vast polemical literature in which it is debated whether the Zionist movement and the State of Israel point toward the successful secularization of the Jews or toward a divine redemption , which sweeps even secular Jews into its overpowering orbit while providing them with an ideological disguise. For some writers, Israel and Zionism represent a new development in Jewish religion; for others a new nonreligious phase of Jewish spiritual history; and for still others a merciful liberation from a unique historical status and significance. One may venture the thought that this literature has itself become a kind of theological genre, since it deals with what, for most modern Jews who reflect upon Judaism, is the central positive event in two millennia of Jewish history: the emergence of the State of Israel. The literature dealing with the religious-theological significance of Israel centers upon four main issues: (1) messianism and interpretations of redemptive signs and events that may be seen as signifying the end of galut (exile); (2) ere~ Yisrael (land of Israel) and its place within the faith-system ofJudaism; (3) the Jewish people and its nature and task, as these touch on the Jews' relationship to God and their relationship to the other peoples of the world; and (4) the demands and parameters of Torah, and how to relate to those who reject its authority or perceive its demands and scope differently . Needless to say, the hierarchical manner in which these various categories are ordered determines to a large degree how each of them is interpreted; moreover, the way contemporary circumstances (and modernity in general) are evaluated influences one's understanding of these theological issues. Once the relevant theological terms are located and the conflicts that arise in the modern situation are identified, the disagreements become more intelligible and can be placed in appropriate contexts. For example, the radical difference between the ultratraditional Neturei Karta (Aramaic, lit., Guardians of the City) sect of Jerusalem and the religious-Zionist Gush Emunim (lit., Bloc of the Faithful) movement is not due to the fact that one is more messianic, more pacifistic, or less devoted to traditional Jewish law than the other. Both groups, the violently anti-Zionist votaries of Neturei Karta and the Zionist zealots of Gush Emunim, eagerly await the Messiah, share the assumption that God has promised to restore his people to the land of Israel in its biblical borders, and agree that the Torah, as interpreted by Orthodox sages, is the raison d'etre and cosmic task of the Jewish people . No one in either group regards galut as anything but a curse and a STATE OF ISRAEL 911 punishment. Both anticipate the ultimate acceptance of God's kingdom by all men, and both consider contemporary humanity, by and large, idolatrous and spiritually benighted. They differ with regard to the State of Israel: whether its establishment is a redemptive or a demonic event, whether it is the result of providence or sin, and, thus, whether the State of Israel enhances or defames the sanctity of ere~ Yisrael. Their dispute over the application of the...