Dear Jew in the City,
I have a few Orthodox friends who are very pro-Israel, but I have also read that some forms of Orthodoxy are vehemently anti-Zionist. I’ve heard of other sects who completely separate the concepts of Zionism and Judaism as two essentially separate belief systems. I have no idea if any of my information came from reliable sources and was wondering if you could clear this up for me. Is there any common ground about Israel in the Orthodox community? What is the role (if any) of Zionism in an Orthodox interpretation of the Torah? Is Zionism simply a matter of individual beliefs and opinions?
Thank you for your question. Before I can answer why people are pro or con we need to define what Zionism in. In its most basic form (and it is a very complex topic) I would say that Zionism is the idea that Jews can self-determine in the land of Israel before moshiach (the Messiah) arrives.
The Talmud, based on several Bible verses, discusses what’s called the “shalosh shevuos” (three oaths). The part that’s relevant to our discussion is that one of these says that we agree not to try and take back the land of Israel, in exchange for which the nations of the world will not oppress us unduly harshly. Based on this, the position of some Chasidic sects is that there should be no Jewish state until moshiach comes. (It must be noted, however, that these sects have large presences in Israel, which they recognize as the Holy Land. They have no objection to Jews living in Israel, they just think that there should not be Jewish rule until the Messianic era.)
The overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews feel otherwise. (I don’t have exact figures but, anecdotally, the turn-out for the annual Salute to Israel parade is hundreds of thousands and the Jewish counter-protest – the most extreme of the anti-Zionist group – is something like a dozen.) Why are so many Orthodox Jews Zionists? First of all, the “oath” only prohibits us from seizing the land by force. We didn’t seize it; it was given to us by UN declaration. Nothing in the “oath” prevents us from accepting the land as a gift, or from using force to defend it once we have it.
Secondly, the nations of the world did not honor their end of the bargain, i.e., not to oppress us too harshly. (The Holocaust ended just a few years before the State of Israel was established. Even before then, the Inquistion and the pogroms were certainly unnecessarily harsh!)
Among “Zionist” Jews, there are different positions. Since you asked about the Orthodox, we’re probably talking about religious Zionism, which sees the restoration of the Jewish homeland as the first step in the redemption process. The Bible promises that the arid deserts would bloom (see, for example, Isaiah chapter 35), which is exactly what happened when the Jews returned to Israel after World War II. But there’s also political Zionism, cultural Zionism, and more.
So one relatively small faction of Orthodox Jews are anti-Zionist and they do have a religious rationale for their belief. Mainstream Orthodox Judaism, however, is definitely Zionist in one way or another, though they may disagree in the details and in their politics. To assume that all Orthodox Jews are in lockstep beyond that point is like assuming that all Americans who believe in democracy necessarily agree on healthcare, immigration and the economy.
I hope this answers your question.
Rabbi Jack Abramowitz
If you found this content meaningful and want to help further our mission through our Keter, Makom, and Tikun branches, please consider becoming a Change Maker today.
Thanks for your comments. You are correct that I do not address every possible nuance or position – the hashkafa of my own kids’ (“yeshivishe”) schools, for example, is not really addressed, and not because I’m unaware of it. I’m merely addressing the question of “is Orthodoxy Zionist or anti-Zionist?” The answer, of course, is “yes,” although within each of those groups there are nuances and subdivisions.
I do agree that a third category would have been good to address: non-Zionist, but not anti-Zionist. But I think most people in that category are tacitly Zionistic in that they would be upset if Israel ceased to exist, not indifferent.
I am a born Muslim but now I consider myself somewhat deist
I have a question for you guys.. but before that I will make some points
1…Prophet Muhammad massacred and expelled 3 tribes of Jews from Medina and enslaved their women and children . Attacked Jews at Khyber and took their properties and enslaved their women as concubines
2… The last words of Prophet Muhammad were “expel all the Jews and Christians from Arabian peninsula”
3… Impose Jizia tax on Jews and make them dimmi
4… A Dimmi is not considered equal to a Muslim in Islamic law and his blood too
5…. Jews were despised as apes and pigs as well as rats and according to Islam Jews cannot be friends of Muslims
So my question is do you guys still believe that your three oaths are still relevant towards the follower of Prophet Muhammad?
your first and second point is incorrect. Muslims are forbidden to kill and prophet Muhammad was a man of Islam. prophet Muhammad didn’t kill any jews if he did he wouldn’t have been a prophet. Your trying to bad name Muslims and make out that Muslims despise jews which we do not half of my friends are orthodox anti-zionist Jews. just recently a Muslim community in Pittsburgh helped raise 190 000 US dollars for the families of the people who they lost in the synagogue.
The “three oaths” say that if the nations of the world agree not to oppress us, then we won’t try to take Israel back by force. It’s not on a nation-by-nation basis, it’s an all-or-nothing kind of thing, so it wouldn’t be directed toward any Muslim nation any more or any less than any other nation. As noted above, we didn’t even seize Israel by force, it was given to us by UN declaration, so the question is kind of moot anyway. Now that we’re back in the land, we can defend it from any nation if need be, regardless of that nation’s historical oppression of Jews (or lack thereof). In any case, it’s not a call to violence or directed against individuals, it’s a political thing.
I have a question on your belief that the lands currently under Israeli control …where not many seized by force of arms in 1967 ? And are not many properties belonging to non Jews in the West Bank been seized by force – Police
and military operations including demolition. Would this not go against your stated Talmatic oaths ?
The only thing that that opinion prohibits is taking the country by force of arms; as stated in the post, it is permitted to defend it with arms as necessary. Israel did not re-take the land by force, it was given to them – twice, actually! First by the Balfour Declaration and then by the UN. The 1967 war was defensive on Israel’s part – they were attacked by a consortium of Arab nations and were entitled to defend themselves. According to international law, a nation is allowed to keep land it gains in a defensive war. (This likewise does not violate the three oaths, which as noted, were kind of moot anyway since the “no undue oppression” clause clearly wasn’t met!) Similarly, any action occurring in land Israel already possesses (the Palestinians would say that Israel “occupies”) would fall under the rubric of maintaining land already in their possession. (But it’s all academic because, as we have said, the deal was not kept by the other parties anyway.)
[…] because of it, we remain in Galus (exile) until this day. The idea put forward was that only through the eventual dismemberment of the State of Israel could we expect Moshiach to bring the […]