When religious Jews were confronted with the burgeoning secular Zionist movement, they had one of two choices: modify their approach to messianism, or reject Zionism. (The Old City on the eve of Jerusalem Day, May 18, 2023.)
A s is hopefully apparent so far, classical Zionism—the one that led to the creation of the State of Israel in the land of Israel— is founded on ideas that were very high on the self-determination axis and fairly low on messianism. This is the tradition that shaped mainstream (which is to say, secular) Jewish-Israeli society, and over the decades came to characterize the attitudes of a majority of diaspora Jews, as well. Elliot Glassenberg, senior educator at the pluralistic Israeli non-profit BINA, says that most Israelis can’t even begin to identify much of what Zionism actually was or is anymore. Most are not re- ligious and don’t have a sense of the historical or spiritual connec- tions to the land. “The secular Israeli theology has been summarized as follows,” he told me: “There is no God and He gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people.” BINA which describes itself as a secular yeshiva, strives to be a place where Israelis and diaspora Jews can learn about Judaism and Israel in a space that is non-denominational by design, and of- fers classes on topics that are often off-limits to a wide swath of Jews otherwise. Glassenberg explains that “for young Jewish adults, whether they’re from Israel or from the diaspora, having these over- simplified and in many cases inaccurate understanding of what Zionism is, is incredibly limiting.” It makes for, as he puts it, “a very narrow conversation as well as a narrow choice of identity… If you ask a student Are you Zionist or are you not Zionist? I find this really unproductive. What does Zionism mean to you? or How do you see your relationship with Israel? are much more productive questions.” Glassenberg advocates for reconnecting with the discussions that shaped Zionism from its outset: “I think it’s actually very empow- ering and enriching for students, to be exposed to Zionist perspec-
tives that are over 100 years old, that in the time of Herzl and Ahad Ha’am were arguing about what the solution to Jewish challenges should be, and what a Jewish home in the Land of Israel should be or look like, and why we should or should not have a Jewish home in the Land of Israel.” Though it may be counterintuitive, contemporary secular Zionism perhaps is least able to find a home in the schema I’ve been devel- oping. More than any other quadrant, it has been reshaped in the wake of the Holocaust, which is generally understood by holders of this view to have fundamentally reconfigured Jewish nationalism, taking it out of the realm of theological or even broadly speaking political discourse and rendering it starkly existential. In the face of only partially avoided annihilation, the conceptual underpinnings of the Jewish relationship to Israel have taken a back seat to an imperative of survival. F inally, we get to what is undoubtedly, right now, the knottiest quadrant: Jews whose views about their relationship to the Land of Israel are not determined either by a strong belief in mes- sianism or a strong belief in self-determination. This encompasses several different groups: diasporists, anti-Zionists, and many secu- lar Jews who have little to no relationship to Israel. These are often the most misunderstood groups within the Jewish community, and the ones most likely to be—and feel—excluded from community’s conversations about Zionism. A rise in Jews who are questioning their commitments to Israel in light of events of the past year notwithstanding, this overall stance dates back to the beginnings of early modern Judaism. In 1885, leaders of the then-emerging Reform movement convened to formu-
THECJN.CA 41
Made with FlippingBook Digital Proposal Creator