Every Torah Jew has a deep love for the Land of Israel. Whereas some saw Zionism as the fulfillment of the prophecies of Redemption (to be dealt with in more depth in my next post), others saw it, and continue to see it, as a sinister force of not only secularism, but of rebellion against G-d. It is important to remember that the founder of Zionism, Theodore Herzl, was an assimilated Jew, who became aware of the dangers of Jews remaining in European society during France's infamous Dreyfus Affair, that lasted from 1894 to 1906.. France had just lost a war with Prussia and a Jewish officer was made the scapegoat. Mobs ran through the streets of Paris, shouting "Death to the Jews". Herzl was terrified. If it could happen in France, it could happen anywhere. He published a proposal, that at a particular hour, on a particular day, all Jews around the world, led by their rabbis, must present themselves at their local churches for Baptism, thus ending the "Jewish Problem". When his proposal was met with great opposition, he instead took the stance of a separate Jewish State. Herzl was a man of practicality, but not of ideology. He proposed a Jewish homeland, to be totally secular and Western, with German as its language. Nothing special. The real ideologue of Zionism was his follower, Max Nordeau. (Every major Israeli city has a Nordeau street or avenue). Nordeau reasoned that the Jewish religion was originally designed to unite the people. Today, religion divides people, and should be done away with. What unites people today (on the eve of world War I) is nationalism. The Jews must have a State to unite them, which would take the place of their "Ancient Religion". The ideas of Nordeau, combined with Socialist ideas, were the moving force behind the founding of the Zionist movement, the State, and still drive most secular Zionists. Nearly every European rabbi vehemently opposed the new movement. Rabbi Sholem Dov Ber Schneerson, the Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, wrote a famous letter in which he declared Zionism to be "worse than Christianity", in that the latter at least believes in G-d. Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, the Satmar Rabbi, gave this opposition a theological base. This basis is the Three Oaths:
To what to these three oaths refer? One, that Israel should not go up as a wall. One, that the Holy One, blessed is He, made Israel swear not to rebel against the nations of the world. One, that the Holy One, blessed is He, made the gentiles swear not to subjugate Israel too much. (Ketubot 111a)
Whereas some rabbis, sympathetic to the Zionist movement, argued that the Oaths no longer applied, either because the Balfour declaration meant that the Nations had presented us with the Land of Israel as a gift, so that we are not rebelling, or, alternatively, that the Nations had not fulfilled their Oath of not subjugating us 'too much", thereby relieving us of our Oaths as well, the fact is that this entire line of reasoning is a red herring. First of all, the above Talmudic passage is aggadah (legend or allegory), not halachah. It had never, in almost two thousand years, been quoted in any halachic work Who made these oaths? When" Where? Why are they not recorded in any works of history, Jewish or non-Jewish? Rather, the Satmar Rebbe feared Jews being drawn to a secular, anti-religious State, stripped of their Faith and Identity. A more minor Hasidic rebbe quoted him as agreeing that this was his intent. But the issue of the Oaths remains a cornerstone in the Hareidi opposition to Zionism. Zionism is not only the submission of Jews to a hostile, secular entity, but is actually the breaking of a Sacred Divine Oath. As the Nazis were taking over Europe, and the British had closed the gates of the Land of Israel, some nevertheless obtained visas. Some European rabbis urged these people to better face death under the Nazis, than spiritual annihilation under Zionism. What a horrible dilemma. Where these rabbis right, or horribly wrong? In my next post, I will deal with the small group of rabbis who totally favored Zionism, and saw emigration to the Holy Land as not only a practical necessity, but as a religious one as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment