Some people are scared of the word "Zionist," some of them so scared they won't self-apply it even when accurate.
Look, "Zionist" has meant many things over the years. I'll give you an example: In the early days of the Zionist movement, a certain number of seats on the the Zionist Organization were reserved for "non-Zionists." Now, that sounds weird...until you realize that "Zionist" meant someone really devoted to the movement, someone who spent all of his spare time on it, was a formal member of the movement (or a party within it), etc. Say, Weizmann or Jabotinsky or Bar-Ilan. A "non-Zionist" was probably *just as supportive* of the goals of Zionism as the former group- but not in a formal, "member," sense. Say, the Rothschilds or even R' Revel in New York or maybe even R' Kook.
Obviously none of that is true anymore, and ceased to be true in around, oh, 1948. Being a "Zionist" obviously no longer meant you were trying to *create* a Jewish State; it now meant that you *supported* it. So *all* those people became "Zionists." (I imagine the presence of anti-Zionists, both left and charedi, also helped here, but I don't think it was a major factor. The existence of Israel was.) This explains various things, like how we're told R' Soloveitchik wasn't a "Zionist" before he actually joined Mizrachi (or how R' Kook supposedly wasn't a Zionist at all), or how charedim still refer to non-charedim as "Mizrachi" when Mizrachi hasn't really existed for about seventy years, or how Ben Hecht is gleefully quoted as attacking "Zionists" when he's really mostly attacking the Labor Party.
In most countries of the world, we'd just say "patriot." The thing about Israel is (to quote Hecht), it has millions of ambassadors around the world. That is, you can't exactly be a French patriot if you're not French. But you can be a Zionist without living in Israel- heck, you don't even have to be Jewish. (Again, the presence of actual anti-Zionists probably helps here, but again I don't think it's the main point.)
So yeah, a lot of charedim- especially those living in the US- have to have it broken to them gently that, like it or not, they're Zionists. Oh, they can quibble over details, but they are. It's just that the movement is (in its modern form) about 160 years old, which means it has a lot of baggage. So it might take a while.
*Israeli* charedim, on the other hand, will really have to have things fed to them. "Your wife just gave birth? Mazal tov! Where? Hadassah? Nice! Did she get treated well there? Are you grateful to them for your new child? Do you know what *Hadassah* is? Starts with a tzadi, ends with a yud." And then you can get more and more basic. "Oh, this sidewalk we're walking on? Zionist."
"Being a "Zionist" obviously no longer meant you were trying to *create* a Jewish State; it now meant that you *supported* it."
It's perfectly possible to believe *both* that 1) under the current circumstances, it's imperative that the state of Israel survive, *and* that 2) it was a terrible idea to declare it in the first place, and ideally it should be dismantled and turned into the 51st state of the USA. My guess is that most satmar chassidim believe roughly that. If that makes them zionists, words no longer mean anything. If it doesn't, you've yet to offer an actual definition.
"Oh, this sidewalk we're walking on? Zionist."
That's bonkers. No one in any normal country thinks the sidewalk is some great patriotic thing. Nor the hospitals for that matter. That's kibbutz-y gobbledygook.
1) Nachum made a comparison between zionism and patriotism, not me. I responded to that comparison. 2) The fact that the land has sanctity is irrelevant. It was holy before the modern state of Israel founded too. Your own quote proves that point. Stones and dirt weren't created by the Israeli government.
"It makes no difference whether it is the beginning of the Messianic process or not. There are seven million Jews here whose lives need supporting and defending, including over a million charedim, and the IDF has a manpower shortage."
This sentence points up your own incoherence. If you're concerned with a manpower shortage, we can discuss that. It isn't due to the fact that charedim don't serve, nor would it have been averted if they did. The IDF implemented drastic cuts years ago. In 2015. You can read about it here:
3. תר"ש גדעון הביא לאחד המשברים הקשים ביותר שחווה צה"ל בכוח אדם:
● משבר קשה בקרב הנגדים המחזיקים את הציוד, אמצעי הלחימה והרק"ם במחסני החירום - שם נמצאים רוב אמצעי הלחימה של צה"ל. הוותיקים קוצצו בהמוניהם כדי לחסוך בעלות והצעירים מצביעים ברגליים ואינם רוצים להיות נגדים בימ"חים. הדור הוותיק שהעביר את הידע המקצועי הולך ונעלם, ואין צעירים שתופסים את מקומו. כך, כל היכולת המקצועית הולכת ונעלמת.
"But you can disagree with all of that (though then you’d have to explain what the millions of Jews facing slaughter in Europe should have done instead), and it makes little difference to the need to support and defend Israel today."
True. Also, you can disagree with charedim, think they're a bunch of hypocritical leeches, etc etc and not keep on whining about how they don't serve in the IDF.
Any citizen of any country has an obligation to help defend their country. The exemption from military service given to the ultra-orthodox in Israel was an expediency when Israel was a relatively young state and needed all the support it could get for its very existence. However, the need for that expediency is long gone and the ultra-orthodox now represent a large minority of the population. They should not receive exemptions from serving their country while the rest of their fellow citizens sacrifice. As far as the legitimacy of the founding of Israel, Israel is now a fait accompli and has the same right to exist and defend itself as any other country. Besides which, most countries were founded in ways that would trouble modern sensibilities.
"The origins and evolution of Zionism are fascinating."
Zionism had no origin, and it didn't evolved. History is too messy for origins and development. It sort of converged, congealed and crystalized. I can't make much sense of the history of the various Zionisms, but I can reveal Who was behind it.
"But all of this is pretty much irrelevant.
The relevant fact is that in 2024 there are over seven million Jews living in the Land of Israel."
What strikes me about the above, is that it ironically evokes the Satmar Rebbe. Though he wrote many many pages of tortured reasoning, half quotes and questionable word play, he did at least at one point peer out from the fanatical fog and noted that if the Arabs would take over they would kill everyone. He wrote that the only solution was to pray for the replacement of the Zionist gov't with the messianic state.
In other words, all his anti-Zionism was "pretty much irrelevant", the only "relevant fact is that ... there are... million[s of] Jews living in the Land of Israel."
One group/piece you left out. The right wing religious Zionists believe that this land is only ours, and thus as leftists look backwards and believe colonialist Jews can be sent packing, so too the RWRZs see the Palestinians as "fake" outsiders who can be sent packing. For this to have any coherence, Stephens' excellent quote must apply to all 14 million of us who are currently living here, not just the 7 million Jews!
"History is lived forward, not back, and the goal of politics and diplomacy is to make life as livable for as many people as possible, not to re-adjudicate ancient rights or wrongs."
There have been some zionist extremists who, on religious grounds, believe that the entire territory of Palestine rightfully belongs to Israel, but they have always been a minority among zionists. The mainstream of zionism is simply the belief in a state that can be a homeland and refuge for jewish people. The fact that some land within the territory of Palestine was available to them turned out to be nice feature for Israel, but was not essential for the zionist goal.
I have to say, I'm confused by this post. The thesis of your posts are generally more clear. This one meanders.
You contrast left wingers in the US with right wingers in Israel, which is a category mistake.
Then: "for those on the religious right, it means that the secular nature of many early Zionists is meaningless. It is irrelevant that there is no divinely-appointed king .... " Etc. this is poor phrasing. It's not meaningless, rather, in practice other considerations override it. The religious right indeed ideologically struggles with the secular nature of the state.
Then: "I’ve been using the word “Zionist” to describe non-charedi Israelis who serve in the army. But for the reasons described above, it’s the wrong word." What's wrong with that word? A major sense of the term "Zionist " is a supporter of the project of the state of Israel. Chareidim aren't Zionists, because they're neutral regarding the state of Israel, neither supporting it nor opposing it
Why? A major sense of the term "Zionist " is a supporter of the project of the state of Israel. A rough equivalent for the US would be "proud American"
Call me old fashioned, but the word you're looking for is clearly "Patriotism".
Which makes total sense, Zionism was the project of creating Israel. Now that the state exists Israeli's who believe in it's continued success and existence are patriots.
I think that your definition of Zionist is too narrow.
Although some Haredi and extreme left wing parties describe themselves as non-Zionist (or in some cases anti-Zionist), by living here, paying taxes, and receiving benefits from the government these organizations or individuals are partners in the Zionist enterprise. Especially organizations that actively promote Aliya or studying in Israel (which includes many Haredi organizations)
On an organizational level, Shas and the Eretz HaKodesh party are represented in the Jewish Agency, which is the umbrella organization of Zionist organizations, and they are happy to receive financial and political support from them.
So although different organizations may define Zionism differently, or have a different approach to what the ideals of Zionism are or should be. If an organization supports the right of Jews to live in Israel, or are represented on a Zionist body like the Jewish Agency, they are a Zionist, even if for political reasons they sometimes claim not to be.
I'm curious - if Israel proceeds with the Hamas deal, would you still be in favor of sending your children to serve in the army? I know I wouldn't. If Israel's leaders and generals fail to learn from their mistakes, I don't think it's ethical to encourage our children to serve. It might be time to reconsider our options, even consider leaving.
Unfortunately, that is beyond my control, but I struggle to see how sacrificing my child would change the equation (we are winning this war, but it looks like we will be surrendering and will reverse all the accomplishments—in other words, all the sacrifices will be in vain). I consider myself fortunate to have a choice (I guess if I hadn't, I would be all in). I say this with a heavy heart, but after witnessing the consequences of the Shalit deal, I fear there is little hope for our beloved country if our leaders do not learn from their mistakes (this will just snowball). My question is, at what point will you reassess your stance on military service? Will you be sending your son to the army without reservations? Would you invest your life savings into a company with incompetent management? So much more is at stake when it comes to your most precious possession - your child. I hope this will not come to fruition but the fact that it is even being considered makes me wonder...
How do you have a choice as to whether or not your kid goes to the army? He may have a choice, but you?
The bottom line is that even if this deal does come through and it is a bad as you think it will be, we still need the soldiers to survive. The Israeli govrnment has don e lots of stupid self destructive things in the past. Why should this change things?
@Nachum, I get it, but at what point do you just give up and abandon ship (and support from afar)? I can't effect change, and I'm unhappy with the current trajectory (Ultra left pulling Israel to commit suicide, Ultra right who do not get the world we live in and who are exremely destructive, Ultra religious who are taking the country down from within).
@Moshe Shoshan, ultimately, my son will make his own choices, but my decisions will significantly influence his options. If I stay, he'll likely be drafted into the army; if I leave, he probably won't.
@Mark, you raise a valid point, but that is not a reason to question your path? Do you ignore the fact that the army's leadership is predominantly ultra-left, while the soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice are disproportionately religious and from the right? Do you overlook the repeated pattern of our leaders making shortsighted concessions that allow our enemies to grow stronger (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in the north)? They prioritize immediate gratification, disregarding long-term consequences. When I see this, I wonder, at what point does it make sense to say, 'I'm fortunate to have options; this isn't working,' and choose to support and root for Israel from a distance? At what point do I say the ultimate sacrifice is in vain (soldiers dying or getting injured because of foolish decisions made by our leaders who brought us to this point). I don't have answers, just thinking out loud.
Yes Israel's leaders make bad decisions sometimes (as do the leaders of all countries). They also pay the price for it (e.g. Eizenkot's son). Do I worship Israel's leaders? No. Do I think that by living in Israel I make Israel stronger (and also am probably objectively safer than in the US due to lower crime and road death rates) and therefore should probably stay in Israel unless I have a pressing personal need to move somewhere else? Yes.
>> Ultra religious who are taking the country down from within.
Why do you say this? Isn't the opposite true?
If you believe the war and the army is futile then the only solution to overcome our enemy is demographically. If the Jews way outnumber the Palestinians, we can then annex the entire area "from the river to the sea", and offer citizenship to everyone.
So, aren't the Chareidim the ones who are actually working on a long-term solution?
If you are wondering how to help ensure the long-term viability the answer isn't the answer to have y as many children as possible, and educate your children to do the same (i.e., give them a Charedi chinuch)?
We need to quadruple the Jewish population of Israel ASAP.
Demographics are necessary, but they aren't the only practical measure that's necessary. A country also needs an economy and weapons, things that charedim seem to be ideologically opposed to.
And one doesn't have to be charedi to have lots of kids. Birth rates among the right wing dati leumi are similar to birth rates among charedim. And they get jobs and serve in the army too. Maybe everyone should get that kind of education.
Did you read what James wrote? He is disillusioned by the futility of the DL goals.
>> Birth rates among the right wing dati leumi are similar to birth rates among charedim.
Can you please provide a source for this. I don't doubt you, but I am very curious to see a source.
>> an economy and weapons, things that charedim seem to be ideologically opposed to.
Of course, Dr. Slifkin will have you believe this, but I don't believe this is true. I attended right-wing yeshivos in America, probably more extreme than the typical Israeli Charedi yeshiva, and an extremely Charedi yeshiva in Israel, and I never heard such a sentiment expressed by the leaders of the Yeshivos.
I do acknowledge that the Charedi community has much progress to make (and government funding for Kollelim does not seem to make sense), but this is only natural as they are in the process of transitioning from its status as an isolated and persecuted (in their view) minority, and attempts to vilify their entire core ideology (and to draft yeshiva bochurim instead of the tens of thousands of Charedim not in Yeshiva, especially those above 28) will only stall this progress.
The future of the country, and their salvation from the current self-inflicted demographic crisis (which is at the core of the current Gaza crisis) lies with the Charedim, and it is high time for the rest of the country to recognize this and learn how to work with the Charedim not against them.
@Chana Siegel your reply dismisses the valid concerns and issues I've raised, it fails to address the problems at hand, and it is as a passive-aggressive way of avoiding meaningful conversation.
I have lived in Israel since 1983, and I have seen a lot of people come and go. In my experience, almost everyone who frames their personal decision to leave in terms of a national doomsday scenario, as opposed to more prosaic difficulties of acclimation, has already made their decision, and nothing I or anyone else could say is likely to influence them. You're not asking a question of anyone, you are asking for justification. Because why not double down on your דיבת הארץ? You may be assured that in a forum like this, there will always be plenty of others ready to jump, which (very conveniently) alleviates your own sense of failure.
I don't bother with passive agggression, I go for the real thing. The reality is, you can leave if you want at any time, and believe me, we won't even remember you were here. But at least be honest enough not to pretend that your doubts are either profound or existential.
Nicely written. Never had seen it from this perspective. There are many olim unfortunately who just don't make it and are deeply sad having to leave. But I have also seen a fair deal start putting all their personal and family failures on the account of the national events, and then go.
I don't mean to imply anything about James above חו''ש, I wish for every Jew to live here where we belong asap
I always appreciate the perspectives you help me see on these topics! A specific question:
> "On the extreme left of the political spectrum, which has almost fully infiltrated academia, the standard line is that Israel is an illegitimate settler-colonial project"
My experiences in the American academy make me assume that this is more-or-less true here. To what extent is it the case in Israel?
They were people who happened to lean politically towards the left, an absolutely legitimate option, and were butchered for being Israelis or Jewish (and in other cases for being in Israel of among Jews). The "lefties" use here is beyond poor taste, and I assure you I don't lean left.
Some people are scared of the word "Zionist," some of them so scared they won't self-apply it even when accurate.
Look, "Zionist" has meant many things over the years. I'll give you an example: In the early days of the Zionist movement, a certain number of seats on the the Zionist Organization were reserved for "non-Zionists." Now, that sounds weird...until you realize that "Zionist" meant someone really devoted to the movement, someone who spent all of his spare time on it, was a formal member of the movement (or a party within it), etc. Say, Weizmann or Jabotinsky or Bar-Ilan. A "non-Zionist" was probably *just as supportive* of the goals of Zionism as the former group- but not in a formal, "member," sense. Say, the Rothschilds or even R' Revel in New York or maybe even R' Kook.
Obviously none of that is true anymore, and ceased to be true in around, oh, 1948. Being a "Zionist" obviously no longer meant you were trying to *create* a Jewish State; it now meant that you *supported* it. So *all* those people became "Zionists." (I imagine the presence of anti-Zionists, both left and charedi, also helped here, but I don't think it was a major factor. The existence of Israel was.) This explains various things, like how we're told R' Soloveitchik wasn't a "Zionist" before he actually joined Mizrachi (or how R' Kook supposedly wasn't a Zionist at all), or how charedim still refer to non-charedim as "Mizrachi" when Mizrachi hasn't really existed for about seventy years, or how Ben Hecht is gleefully quoted as attacking "Zionists" when he's really mostly attacking the Labor Party.
In most countries of the world, we'd just say "patriot." The thing about Israel is (to quote Hecht), it has millions of ambassadors around the world. That is, you can't exactly be a French patriot if you're not French. But you can be a Zionist without living in Israel- heck, you don't even have to be Jewish. (Again, the presence of actual anti-Zionists probably helps here, but again I don't think it's the main point.)
So yeah, a lot of charedim- especially those living in the US- have to have it broken to them gently that, like it or not, they're Zionists. Oh, they can quibble over details, but they are. It's just that the movement is (in its modern form) about 160 years old, which means it has a lot of baggage. So it might take a while.
*Israeli* charedim, on the other hand, will really have to have things fed to them. "Your wife just gave birth? Mazal tov! Where? Hadassah? Nice! Did she get treated well there? Are you grateful to them for your new child? Do you know what *Hadassah* is? Starts with a tzadi, ends with a yud." And then you can get more and more basic. "Oh, this sidewalk we're walking on? Zionist."
Well-said
"Being a "Zionist" obviously no longer meant you were trying to *create* a Jewish State; it now meant that you *supported* it."
It's perfectly possible to believe *both* that 1) under the current circumstances, it's imperative that the state of Israel survive, *and* that 2) it was a terrible idea to declare it in the first place, and ideally it should be dismantled and turned into the 51st state of the USA. My guess is that most satmar chassidim believe roughly that. If that makes them zionists, words no longer mean anything. If it doesn't, you've yet to offer an actual definition.
"Oh, this sidewalk we're walking on? Zionist."
That's bonkers. No one in any normal country thinks the sidewalk is some great patriotic thing. Nor the hospitals for that matter. That's kibbutz-y gobbledygook.
It sounds like David Hamelech's "gobbledygook" (your word), when he said כי רצו עבדיך את אבניה ואת עפרה יחננו.
1) Nachum made a comparison between zionism and patriotism, not me. I responded to that comparison. 2) The fact that the land has sanctity is irrelevant. It was holy before the modern state of Israel founded too. Your own quote proves that point. Stones and dirt weren't created by the Israeli government.
"It makes no difference whether it is the beginning of the Messianic process or not. There are seven million Jews here whose lives need supporting and defending, including over a million charedim, and the IDF has a manpower shortage."
This sentence points up your own incoherence. If you're concerned with a manpower shortage, we can discuss that. It isn't due to the fact that charedim don't serve, nor would it have been averted if they did. The IDF implemented drastic cuts years ago. In 2015. You can read about it here:
https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001316194
3. תר"ש גדעון הביא לאחד המשברים הקשים ביותר שחווה צה"ל בכוח אדם:
● משבר קשה בקרב הנגדים המחזיקים את הציוד, אמצעי הלחימה והרק"ם במחסני החירום - שם נמצאים רוב אמצעי הלחימה של צה"ל. הוותיקים קוצצו בהמוניהם כדי לחסוך בעלות והצעירים מצביעים ברגליים ואינם רוצים להיות נגדים בימ"חים. הדור הוותיק שהעביר את הידע המקצועי הולך ונעלם, ואין צעירים שתופסים את מקומו. כך, כל היכולת המקצועית הולכת ונעלמת.
"But you can disagree with all of that (though then you’d have to explain what the millions of Jews facing slaughter in Europe should have done instead), and it makes little difference to the need to support and defend Israel today."
True. Also, you can disagree with charedim, think they're a bunch of hypocritical leeches, etc etc and not keep on whining about how they don't serve in the IDF.
Any citizen of any country has an obligation to help defend their country. The exemption from military service given to the ultra-orthodox in Israel was an expediency when Israel was a relatively young state and needed all the support it could get for its very existence. However, the need for that expediency is long gone and the ultra-orthodox now represent a large minority of the population. They should not receive exemptions from serving their country while the rest of their fellow citizens sacrifice. As far as the legitimacy of the founding of Israel, Israel is now a fait accompli and has the same right to exist and defend itself as any other country. Besides which, most countries were founded in ways that would trouble modern sensibilities.
"The origins and evolution of Zionism are fascinating."
Zionism had no origin, and it didn't evolved. History is too messy for origins and development. It sort of converged, congealed and crystalized. I can't make much sense of the history of the various Zionisms, but I can reveal Who was behind it.
"But all of this is pretty much irrelevant.
The relevant fact is that in 2024 there are over seven million Jews living in the Land of Israel."
What strikes me about the above, is that it ironically evokes the Satmar Rebbe. Though he wrote many many pages of tortured reasoning, half quotes and questionable word play, he did at least at one point peer out from the fanatical fog and noted that if the Arabs would take over they would kill everyone. He wrote that the only solution was to pray for the replacement of the Zionist gov't with the messianic state.
In other words, all his anti-Zionism was "pretty much irrelevant", the only "relevant fact is that ... there are... million[s of] Jews living in the Land of Israel."
I would continue to use the term religious Zionist. it is the accepted term and still an accurate label.
One group/piece you left out. The right wing religious Zionists believe that this land is only ours, and thus as leftists look backwards and believe colonialist Jews can be sent packing, so too the RWRZs see the Palestinians as "fake" outsiders who can be sent packing. For this to have any coherence, Stephens' excellent quote must apply to all 14 million of us who are currently living here, not just the 7 million Jews!
"History is lived forward, not back, and the goal of politics and diplomacy is to make life as livable for as many people as possible, not to re-adjudicate ancient rights or wrongs."
There have been some zionist extremists who, on religious grounds, believe that the entire territory of Palestine rightfully belongs to Israel, but they have always been a minority among zionists. The mainstream of zionism is simply the belief in a state that can be a homeland and refuge for jewish people. The fact that some land within the territory of Palestine was available to them turned out to be nice feature for Israel, but was not essential for the zionist goal.
The representatives of religious Zionism in the Knesset today are the Zionist extremists of whom you speak.
*Some of the representatives.
There are plenty of religious Zionists in other parties too.
I have to say, I'm confused by this post. The thesis of your posts are generally more clear. This one meanders.
You contrast left wingers in the US with right wingers in Israel, which is a category mistake.
Then: "for those on the religious right, it means that the secular nature of many early Zionists is meaningless. It is irrelevant that there is no divinely-appointed king .... " Etc. this is poor phrasing. It's not meaningless, rather, in practice other considerations override it. The religious right indeed ideologically struggles with the secular nature of the state.
Then: "I’ve been using the word “Zionist” to describe non-charedi Israelis who serve in the army. But for the reasons described above, it’s the wrong word." What's wrong with that word? A major sense of the term "Zionist " is a supporter of the project of the state of Israel. Chareidim aren't Zionists, because they're neutral regarding the state of Israel, neither supporting it nor opposing it
It's the wrong word to use when describing people who believe in army service.
Why? A major sense of the term "Zionist " is a supporter of the project of the state of Israel. A rough equivalent for the US would be "proud American"
You may not be wrong, but that is not the plain sense that most people attribute to the term, either historically or currently.
I agree with Nachum (above): I believe the word R’ Slifkin is looking for is “patriot”.
Many, many people in Israel use Zionist as patriot.
I think "patriot" is too strong of a word
Call me old fashioned, but the word you're looking for is clearly "Patriotism".
Which makes total sense, Zionism was the project of creating Israel. Now that the state exists Israeli's who believe in it's continued success and existence are patriots.
I definitely consider myself an Israeli patriot.
How about Israeli? Or Citizens?
I think that your definition of Zionist is too narrow.
Although some Haredi and extreme left wing parties describe themselves as non-Zionist (or in some cases anti-Zionist), by living here, paying taxes, and receiving benefits from the government these organizations or individuals are partners in the Zionist enterprise. Especially organizations that actively promote Aliya or studying in Israel (which includes many Haredi organizations)
On an organizational level, Shas and the Eretz HaKodesh party are represented in the Jewish Agency, which is the umbrella organization of Zionist organizations, and they are happy to receive financial and political support from them.
So although different organizations may define Zionism differently, or have a different approach to what the ideals of Zionism are or should be. If an organization supports the right of Jews to live in Israel, or are represented on a Zionist body like the Jewish Agency, they are a Zionist, even if for political reasons they sometimes claim not to be.
"The Irrelevance of Zionism"
I've been saying this in the comments for weeks...
non-charedi Israelis who serve in the army: Call them Jewish soldiers. That should work.
not all of them are Jewish
Let's try Mostly Jewish Soldiers.
Defending a mostly peaceful country...
I'm curious - if Israel proceeds with the Hamas deal, would you still be in favor of sending your children to serve in the army? I know I wouldn't. If Israel's leaders and generals fail to learn from their mistakes, I don't think it's ethical to encourage our children to serve. It might be time to reconsider our options, even consider leaving.
And what happens to the millions of Jews that can't leave Israel?
Unfortunately, that is beyond my control, but I struggle to see how sacrificing my child would change the equation (we are winning this war, but it looks like we will be surrendering and will reverse all the accomplishments—in other words, all the sacrifices will be in vain). I consider myself fortunate to have a choice (I guess if I hadn't, I would be all in). I say this with a heavy heart, but after witnessing the consequences of the Shalit deal, I fear there is little hope for our beloved country if our leaders do not learn from their mistakes (this will just snowball). My question is, at what point will you reassess your stance on military service? Will you be sending your son to the army without reservations? Would you invest your life savings into a company with incompetent management? So much more is at stake when it comes to your most precious possession - your child. I hope this will not come to fruition but the fact that it is even being considered makes me wonder...
Israel isn't a company, it's a country. Our country.
Eh?
How do you have a choice as to whether or not your kid goes to the army? He may have a choice, but you?
The bottom line is that even if this deal does come through and it is a bad as you think it will be, we still need the soldiers to survive. The Israeli govrnment has don e lots of stupid self destructive things in the past. Why should this change things?
So you're just like the leftists who refused to serve last year when the country's political direction wasn't going their way?
@Nachum, I get it, but at what point do you just give up and abandon ship (and support from afar)? I can't effect change, and I'm unhappy with the current trajectory (Ultra left pulling Israel to commit suicide, Ultra right who do not get the world we live in and who are exremely destructive, Ultra religious who are taking the country down from within).
@Moshe Shoshan, ultimately, my son will make his own choices, but my decisions will significantly influence his options. If I stay, he'll likely be drafted into the army; if I leave, he probably won't.
@Mark, you raise a valid point, but that is not a reason to question your path? Do you ignore the fact that the army's leadership is predominantly ultra-left, while the soldiers making the ultimate sacrifice are disproportionately religious and from the right? Do you overlook the repeated pattern of our leaders making shortsighted concessions that allow our enemies to grow stronger (Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in the north)? They prioritize immediate gratification, disregarding long-term consequences. When I see this, I wonder, at what point does it make sense to say, 'I'm fortunate to have options; this isn't working,' and choose to support and root for Israel from a distance? At what point do I say the ultimate sacrifice is in vain (soldiers dying or getting injured because of foolish decisions made by our leaders who brought us to this point). I don't have answers, just thinking out loud.
Yes Israel's leaders make bad decisions sometimes (as do the leaders of all countries). They also pay the price for it (e.g. Eizenkot's son). Do I worship Israel's leaders? No. Do I think that by living in Israel I make Israel stronger (and also am probably objectively safer than in the US due to lower crime and road death rates) and therefore should probably stay in Israel unless I have a pressing personal need to move somewhere else? Yes.
>> Ultra religious who are taking the country down from within.
Why do you say this? Isn't the opposite true?
If you believe the war and the army is futile then the only solution to overcome our enemy is demographically. If the Jews way outnumber the Palestinians, we can then annex the entire area "from the river to the sea", and offer citizenship to everyone.
So, aren't the Chareidim the ones who are actually working on a long-term solution?
If you are wondering how to help ensure the long-term viability the answer isn't the answer to have y as many children as possible, and educate your children to do the same (i.e., give them a Charedi chinuch)?
We need to quadruple the Jewish population of Israel ASAP.
Demographics are necessary, but they aren't the only practical measure that's necessary. A country also needs an economy and weapons, things that charedim seem to be ideologically opposed to.
And one doesn't have to be charedi to have lots of kids. Birth rates among the right wing dati leumi are similar to birth rates among charedim. And they get jobs and serve in the army too. Maybe everyone should get that kind of education.
Did you read what James wrote? He is disillusioned by the futility of the DL goals.
>> Birth rates among the right wing dati leumi are similar to birth rates among charedim.
Can you please provide a source for this. I don't doubt you, but I am very curious to see a source.
>> an economy and weapons, things that charedim seem to be ideologically opposed to.
Of course, Dr. Slifkin will have you believe this, but I don't believe this is true. I attended right-wing yeshivos in America, probably more extreme than the typical Israeli Charedi yeshiva, and an extremely Charedi yeshiva in Israel, and I never heard such a sentiment expressed by the leaders of the Yeshivos.
In fact, the community of Lakewood, N.J, which has an ideology very similar to that of the Charedim (and in some ways more extreme), has an average income very similar to the average in U.S.A. See also here https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/challah-with-keys-give-me-bagels/comment/55583664.
I do acknowledge that the Charedi community has much progress to make (and government funding for Kollelim does not seem to make sense), but this is only natural as they are in the process of transitioning from its status as an isolated and persecuted (in their view) minority, and attempts to vilify their entire core ideology (and to draft yeshiva bochurim instead of the tens of thousands of Charedim not in Yeshiva, especially those above 28) will only stall this progress.
The future of the country, and their salvation from the current self-inflicted demographic crisis (which is at the core of the current Gaza crisis) lies with the Charedim, and it is high time for the rest of the country to recognize this and learn how to work with the Charedim not against them.
Please feel free to leave at any time.
@Chana Siegel your reply dismisses the valid concerns and issues I've raised, it fails to address the problems at hand, and it is as a passive-aggressive way of avoiding meaningful conversation.
I have lived in Israel since 1983, and I have seen a lot of people come and go. In my experience, almost everyone who frames their personal decision to leave in terms of a national doomsday scenario, as opposed to more prosaic difficulties of acclimation, has already made their decision, and nothing I or anyone else could say is likely to influence them. You're not asking a question of anyone, you are asking for justification. Because why not double down on your דיבת הארץ? You may be assured that in a forum like this, there will always be plenty of others ready to jump, which (very conveniently) alleviates your own sense of failure.
I don't bother with passive agggression, I go for the real thing. The reality is, you can leave if you want at any time, and believe me, we won't even remember you were here. But at least be honest enough not to pretend that your doubts are either profound or existential.
Nicely written. Never had seen it from this perspective. There are many olim unfortunately who just don't make it and are deeply sad having to leave. But I have also seen a fair deal start putting all their personal and family failures on the account of the national events, and then go.
I don't mean to imply anything about James above חו''ש, I wish for every Jew to live here where we belong asap
I always appreciate the perspectives you help me see on these topics! A specific question:
> "On the extreme left of the political spectrum, which has almost fully infiltrated academia, the standard line is that Israel is an illegitimate settler-colonial project"
My experiences in the American academy make me assume that this is more-or-less true here. To what extent is it the case in Israel?
much much less so. most of the Israeli far left want to go on living here. they dont want to be expelled or slaughtered by hamas.
It "helps" that so many of those killed on October 7 were good lefties.
They were people who happened to lean politically towards the left, an absolutely legitimate option, and were butchered for being Israelis or Jewish (and in other cases for being in Israel of among Jews). The "lefties" use here is beyond poor taste, and I assure you I don't lean left.
Of course. I am speaking about the reactions of *others* to their deaths.