Ever since I began to seriously study Zionism three years ago, I have spent an inordinate amount of time explaining that early Zionists never defined Zionism, leading to confusion over its “official” definition. At the same time, I try to teach the most consensus-based definition of Zionism I can construct so that my students and audiences can get a sense of the values and axioms of Zionism.
Zionism is a philosophy and a movement, but it was never defined. Everyone assumed they knew what it was, but it’s an open-door movement that doesn’t have a definition. The consensus-based definition of Zionism I use in my lessons and writings is that Zionism stands for the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic homeland, the Land of Israel.
When I shared this definition with Rabbi Efrem Goldberg and his co-hosts on the popular video discussion program, “Behind the Bima,” Rabbi Goldberg asked about the Satmar Rebbe, a known opponent of Zionism.
“Was the Satmar Rebbe a Zionist? Of course he was because he prayed every single day (and our prayers include the desire to return to the Land of Israel). The Satmar Rebbe also longed to return to Zion; he just had a different path to get there. Every Jew is a Zionist, depending on their orientation; it’s just a question of how they manifest their Zionism.”
I was surprised by Rabbi Goldberg’s point because it was obvious that the Satmar Rebbe wasn’t a Zionist. As the show continued, I made a mistake when I described Neturei Karta – the Jerusalem-based group whose anti-Zionism has extended far enough to have members meet with the leaders of Iran and terrorist organizations – as not disagreeing with the tenets of Zionism.
I argued that they just disagreed with the timing of the Zionist movement
Rabbi Josh Broide, one of the co-hosts of the show, was perplexed by my statement and asked me if I thought Neturei Karta were Zionists? I was wrong. In truth, my consensus-based definition of Zionism doesn’t tell the full story.
In a previous essay I authored on the refusal of haredim (ultra-Orthodox) to serve in the IDF, I explained that Zionism extended past its core principles. I wrote that the haredi community’s rejection of Zionism would be hard to understand if it only stood for the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.
But it is ignorant and naïve to think and claim that Zionism was limited to returning the Jewish people to their land. Had Zionism and its early founders solely focused on this one goal, the movement would have been widely accepted by haredim.
Early Zionist leaders created a philosophy that surrounded Zionism. It was impossible to join the new movement if one didn’t subscribe to its values. Zionists strove to create a “New Jew.”
This new Jew was secular, placed a priority on Jewish might, and aimed to replace traditional Jewish values that stemmed from the Torah with new Zionist values. These new Zionists pushed Jews to give up their Torah observance, from studying to eating only kosher to working on Shabbat.
Haredi Torah scholars recognized that Zionism was another Jewish movement that had some admirable qualities but also encouraged the abandonment of the Torah. Like any movement that mixed Torah and secular values but emphasized the secular more than the Torah – or the desertion of the Torah – it must be completely rejected.
Haredi leaders railed against Zionism and told their community members it was completely forbidden to be involved with it in any way. Satmar Jews, Neturei Karta, and other anti-Zionist religious Jews rejected these “extra” aspects of Zionism.
While these groups might accept its consensus-based definition that claimed the Jews were a people with the right to self-determination in their historic homeland, they rejected the aspects of Zionism that rejected the Torah and tradition and instead prioritized nationalism and might.
The secular Zionist values that haredim saw paraded around Israel were not only strange to them but dangerously inconsistent with their values and beliefs. The inherent complexity within Zionism is its duality.
It is a philosophy and movement built on axioms that are thousands of years old – the Jewish people’s right to the Land of Israel – but also includes a duality of secularism and nationalism that is nontraditional. Using the consensus-based definition of Zionism has the benefit of allowing it to be a movement that is inclusive of millions of haredim.
Insisting on showcasing the nontraditional secularism of the early Zionist founders shuts Zionism off from millions of Jews who could otherwise have joined the movement.
The writer is a Zionist educator at institutions around the world. He recently published his book, Zionism Today.