Secular Zionism vs. Judaism

Guest post

Hora dancers at Kibbutz Dalia, 1945, Israel. From the National Photo Collection of Israel.

The following essay is from one of our readers who prefers to remain anonymous (as most of us do, except this reader prefers to be even more anonymous), about the recent post on RJ. I thought it makes some very important points, and hope that you enjoy.

The background:

One of the classic arguments between secular Zionism and charedaism is the role of divine Providence in human affairs generally, and in the affairs of the Jewish people specifically. Secular Zionism argued that God, if he even exists, is not active in the affairs of men. Therefore, if there was to be a long term solution to the problem of anti-Semitism, the Jews would have to take matters into their own hands and create their own state, in which they could be a normal nation just like all the other nations of the world. The charedim argued that God both supervises and intervenes in the affairs of the Jewish people, and that anti-Semitism is nothing more than a tool in God's hands with which to chastise and correct the Jewish people. Therefore, the long-term solution to antisemitism lies in correcting our own behavior and improving our spiritual relationship with God. Of course, one would also have to take into account the proper role of human efforts, but the range of appropriate efforts and their significance, is considerably impacted when one realizes that the true cause of events is Godly intervention. In short this can be summed up as a dispute over who has ultimate authority over history, God or man.

After the Holocaust, secular Zionism argued that history had proven them correct. Had the Jews only fled when there was still time, vastly fewer of them would have been killed. In the secular mind this demonstrated the need for human action to create a Jewish state that could serve as a safe haven for Jews throughout the world in times of trouble. Putting aside the technical problems with this argument, since practically speaking Jews were unable to escape in vast numbers, charedaism argued that this was a theologically mistaken reading of history. Perhaps a Pagan God, limited as it were in the scope and geographical range of his power, could be outwitted by fleeing from his decree. But to a Jewish monotheist this argument was absurd. If behavior of the Jewish people had been such that it was necessary for God to decree upon them a Holocaust, then the solution lay in repentance not flight. Certainly, an individual or a community that had the opportunity to undertake some practical matter that had the potential to save their lives, would be obligated to do so. But on a global scale, Jewish theology demands that we recognize that mankind cannot overcome divine decrees. Had the Jews of Europe indeed fled to Palestine, there is no reason why God could not have simply extended the Holocaust to Palestine. So, while individuals should certainly flee if they can because that is their obligation, and those who had the opportunity to facilitate escape of others were certainly required to do so, those obligations in no way effect the concept that ultimately history is in God's hands.

These two perspectives, a God driven history versus a man driven history that is independent of God, play major role in how secular Zionism perceives charedaism, and how charedaism perceives secular Zionism.

The event:

Benjamin Netanyahu grew up in the bosom of secular Zionism, and it played a major role in shaping his worldview. As a rule it is inconvenient for him to stress his secular outlook as many of his voters and political allies do not share his worldview. Recently, in what may have been an ill-considered statement, Netanyahu expressed himself in such a way as to reveal his fundamental secular understanding of the world. When trying to dissuade large numbers of Israeli citizens from attending the pilgrimage to Uman over Rosh Hashana, he stated that God had not always protected the Jewish people, particularly in the Ukraine. To anyone with any awareness of the classical dispute between secular Zionism and charedaism regarding the Holocaust, this was an obvious reference to the idea that God does not control history, and that the slaughter of the Jews of Eastern Europe took place outside of God's purview. For the charedi political parties it made sense to simply ignore Netanyahu’s remarks. After all, there was no need to rehash the fundamental differences in worldview between charedaism and secular Zionists. This argument was well over 80 years old, and each side had its worldview, no one imagined that anyone was going to change their mind at this point. Netanyahu is currently a political ally of the charedi political parties, and whatever his personal shortcomings, clearly they see it as in their interests to maintain this political alliance. Yet, in an act that can only be described as altruistic idealism, many charedi politicians acting against their self-interest, chose to publicly protest Netanyahu’s statement. They felt that the desecration of God's honor implied by this public assertion of secularism required of them a statement that they rejected secularism and asserted God's control over history. Certainly, God had warned the Jewish people numerous times that if they went astray he would visit terrible tragedies upon them in order to drive them back onto the proper path, and for their own good. When in fact those tragedies happen, the religious person does not see them as God losing control over history, but rather precisely the opposite, as an assertion of God's control of history. God had warned the Jewish people and kept his promise.

The secular response:

While the media did make note of this mild disagreement, it quickly blew over because to the average secular Israeli that is not strongly ideological, it was of no significance. And to the average charedi, it was no surprise and therefore was treated like the weather. You may not like the weather but there is no point and complaining about it too much. Likewise, you may not like the secularity of the current Prime Minister, but it has been this way since the founding of the state and there is no point in spending much time complaining about it. There was however one small group of people to whom this was a big deal. These are the secular practicing Jews. There exists in Israel a subculture of people who claim fidelity to the mitzvot, but whose essential outlook is secular. Among European Jews there arose following the emancipation a movement known as the Haskalah. To vastly oversimplify it's ideology, it was not inherently opposed to religious practice, but it objected to the idea that a person would define their entire existence and by extension the existence of the larger world only in religious terms. They saw it as OK to be religious as long as one wasn't too religious. Be a Jew in the home, but a man in the street. Being a Jew could not be so all-encompassing as to swallow being a man. The Haskalah woud birth a number of movements that deviated from traditional Judaism. But ultimately it was traditional Judaism that triumphed. Over the last number of years there has arisen a movement of secular practicing Jews that want to relitigate the struggles of 250 years ago.

The reaction:

Natan Slifkin and Scott Khan are friends that have taken to promoting a secularized version of religious Judaism. Nathan has focused more on undermining confidence in the oral law and the rabbis who interpret it, while Scott has focused more on the need to include secular values in the practice of Judaism. Each of them has used their blogs to attack the theology that was expressed by the aforementioned charedi politicians. It is important to keep in mind that both of these gentlemen are outsiders in this dispute. Having been born and educated in the western world, while continuing to live in Israel in Anglo communities, having not served in the IDF, and not having jobs that bring them into regular and intimate contact with secular Israelis, they have only a very superficial familiarity with secular Zionism. Both are outsiders to the charedi community as well. When they saw this dispute being discussed in the media they totally failed to understand what it was about. Both Netanyahu’s statement and the rejoinder of the charedi politicians totally passed over their heads. They each wrote and publicized a screed in which they argued that it was Netanyahu who correctly understood God's warning to the Jewish people, while it was the charedi politicians who misunderstood. While it is true that charedi politicians are generally not chosen for their scholarship, so it would be unwise to consider them experts on theology, the argument that they were making is so traditionally Jewish and so central to the ongoing dispute between secular Zionism and charedaism, that it hardly requires a scholar to make these arguments. This is at best a high school level conversation.

Conclusion:

While neither Slifkin nor Khan can be expected to be familiar with charedi ideology, it would perhaps have been wise to have a better recognition of their own limitations. If obviously intelligent and competent people were making an argument that any high school level yeshiva bucher could have refuted, it would have behooved them to investigate further among people that actually understand what was the issue at hand. In addition, Slifkin makes a contention regarding Belz that demonstrates a distinct lack of historical knowledge. It is clear from his quote that he never actually read the speech given by the brother of the Belze rebbee the night before the rebbee set out from Hungary to Palestine.

To quote a famous philosopher “a man has got to know his limitations”. If one finds that he has outwitted large numbers of people who are highly intelligent and well informed, it would be wise for him to doubt himself before publicly announcing how much better than everyone else he understands the issue at hand. 

Epilogue:

None of the above is in any way intended to endorse traveling to Ukraine in general, or more specifically in times of war. That is a completely separate issue, that needs to be judged on its own merits or lack thereof. In addition, anyone interested in the actual history of what took place on the night before the Belze rebbee traveled to Palestine, should start by carefully reading the existing texts of speech given by his brother at the rebbee’s request, not cherry picking out of context quotes from English translations. It is also worthwhile for anyone pursuing the issue to first study some history, so as to be aware of what was actually going on in Hungary at that time.