The Negation of Galut in Religious Zionism
Author(s): Eliezer Don-Yehiya
Source: Modern Judaism, Vol. 12, No. 2 (May, 1992), pp. 129-155
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1396185
Accessed: 01-12-2018 14:34 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Modern Judaism
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
THE NEGATION OF GALUT IN
RELIGIOUS ZIONISM
The negation of Galut, not only as a state of dispersio
and distress but also as an essentially defective way of
prevalent in those circles of the Zionist movement th
onistic towards the Jewish religious tradition.' The re
by these groups was linked to their rejection of tradit
culture, which flourished in conditions of exile. In th
teresting to note that the negation of Galut was not con
Zionism alone but was shared by religious circles in the
ment as well.
Moreover, in recent decades religious Zionists have become the
most vigorous defenders of the negation of Galut doctrine. As will be
demonstrated below, this involved significant shifts of meaning in the
concept of Galut. In order to highlight these changes, the various
formulations of the anti-Galut position in the writings of religious
Zionist thinkers will be explored. These changing ideological positions
will be traced to developments in the wider context of Israeli society
and culture. With this objective in mind, we begin our discussion by
examining the various conceptions of Galut in the literature of prestate
religious Zionism.
It should be noted that the negation of Galut approach was not
accepted by all religious Zionists. The founder of the Mizrachi Movement,
Rabbi Yitzhak Yaakov Reines, saw Zionism as an active process
whereby Jews would be gathered to the Land of Israel and thus rescued
from the abject conditions of the Diaspora. But he had no intention
of 'reforming' the lifestyles of Diaspora Jews because he
believed they included much that was positive.2 The negative approach
to GalutJewry is not even appropriate to the messianic 'protoZionist'
ideology of Rabbi Kalisher. He identified the return to Zion
with the beginning of the Redemption not because it marked a total
change in the Jewish way of life, but because it expressed the actual
renewal of the bond between the people of Israel and its land.3
Certain Religious-Zionist thinkers even condemned the 'negation
of Galut' approach as vehemently as did the anti-Zionist Haredi leadModern
Judaism 12 (1992): 129-155 ? 1992 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
ers. For example, Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel who served as the
Chief Rabbi of Tel-Aviv, insisted that the unequivocal negation of any
form of Jewish existence in the Diaspora was rooted in the questionable
assumption that territory and state are necessary conditions for
a normal national life. Interestingly, this territorial-political conception
of nationalism was shared by both Zionists and assimilationists,
'only' that while the assimilationists claimed that Jews should be integrated
into the various nationalities of their countries of residence,
the Zionists contended that Jews had to be concentrated in a country
of their own. In Rabbi Amiel's view by contrast, Jewish national existence
is not based on territory and state, but on the Torah of Israel
and traditional Jewish culture, both of which have the power to preserve
the existence and uniqueness of the people even under Galut
conditions.
In 1934 Rabbi Amiel wrote that "the principle of negating
Galut ... evolved amongst the Zionists ... from assimilation." For assimilation
"could neither comprehend nor perceive a national Galut
life." However, "Jewish nationalism is not a geographic term only; in
the Galut as well, we have produced lofty and great works." According
to Rabbi Amiel, there is much to be said in favour of Jewish existence
in the Diaspora, and efforts must be made toward the preservation
and strengthening of Judaism in "every country and not only in Is-
rael."4
In contrast to these ideas, many religious Zionists perceived Jewish
life in the Diaspora as a negative and inferior form of existence. It
should, they believed, be totally abolished and replaced by an entirely
new way of life in the homeland. Such a view was held by the first
Chief Rabbi of Eretz-Israel, Ha-Rav Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook.
GALUT AS THE LIMITING OF THE SACRED IN RAV KOOK'S TEACHINGS
In Rav Kook's approach, Galut constitutes a defective and
existence characterized by decline, narrowness, displacement
sion and weakness. The Diaspora way of life, he believes, is d
rically opposed to a 'national renaissance.' This renaiss
manifested not only in the return to Zion, but also in the re
nature and creativity, in the promotion of heroic and aesthet
which were neglected in the Diaspora and in the renewal of th
of the individual and society.5
Exile from the Holy Land not only separated the Jewish
from their ancestral homeland; it also separated the sacred f
secular in Jewish national existence.6 This 'separation,' Rab
argues, characterizes other nations as well. It befalls those w
130
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
themselves in a "cosmic-like exile" created by the loosening of the ties
that bound them to their Godly source. Nevertheless, with the exception
of the Jewish people, all other nations continue to dwell in their
own lands, to govern themselves and to develop their own economies-even
though their lives lack a spiritual dimension. By contrast,
Jewish life in the Diaspora, although it excels in spirituality and holiness,
is insulated from anything beyond the purely religious sphere.
This tendency towards insularity and withdrawal from the world
is, in fact, unnatural to Judaism in its original and authentic form. In
the difficult conditions of exile, it is a mechanism of self-defense. Its
object is to preserve the Jewish people from the grave spiritual dangers
posed by physical separation from the Holy Land and by life in alien
lands dominated by secularism. The Diaspora's great emphasis on
spirituality can be seen, Rabbi Kook believes, as penance for the excessive
preoccupation with mundanely material matters in the preexilic
period during which Jewish national life became detached from
its Divine source. This process of separating the "National Idea" from
the "Divine Idea" resulted in the decline and near destruction of
national existence and in the limiting of religious life throug
and dispersion.
When the spirit of God left the people because they had
separated their national nature from the Source of their life, they
were forced to live in exile. Public life, corrupt at its roots, was bound
to be oppressive.... Galut-internal destruction and external dispersion-dashed
to pieces the national idea which turned away from
its God ... There was no longer room for the influence of the Divine
idea on the national idea whose force had been defiled and turned
into 'wild shoots of a strange vine' and then destroyed at its base.
The Divine idea was confined, therefore, throughout the whole period
of exile, to a small, impoverished nest; within the little holiness
left in synagogues and study houses, in the purity of family life and
in the observance of religion and Torah.7
Galut is a hard and painful existence, Rav Kook asserts, but it is also
a destruction for the sake of rebuilding. Life in the exile actually
purifies and refines the people spiritually, thus preparing the ground
for a national and religious revival in the homeland. Rav Kook is
convinced that the time has come for the return of the Jews to their
land because they can no longer carry the burden of Galut. The Jewish
people could exist in conditions of exile because of the strength they
drew from their historical connection with Eretz Israel and from the
hope of returning to their Land. Nevertheless, in order for this emotional
attachment to have the power to sustain the nation, real contact
between the Jew and his homeland must become possible.
131
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
Diaspora Jewry, without the nourishment it receives from the dew
of life deriving from the sanctity of Eretz Israel, would, in fact, have
no practical foundation. Its preservation depends on a vision based
only on precious memories and hopes concerning the past and the
future. However,. . . what is the capacity of that vision alone to carry
on the burden of life and to pave a path for the life of a nation?!
... Hence, Judaism in exile has been suffering a very severe
decline, and its only hope is in the Land of Israel. Even one spark
of this real life in the homeland will revive a very vital existence.
Only with the people's return to its land, which is the only route to
its rebirth, will the real, sacred life of Judaism be revealed.8
The national renaissance of the Jewish people involves a revolt against
Galut. Despite the positive aspects of this revolt, it also has negative
consequences. In reaction to the "excessive spiritualism" of Diaspora
Jewry, there is the contrary tendency to be concerned with mundane
matters only and of completely neglecting the spiritual dimension of
national existence. The Galut-type segregation between the secular
and the sacred developed largely from the desire to reinforce, insofar
as possible, the sacred aspect of Jewish life. Hence, it is not surprising
that opposition to the narrowness of Diaspora existence found its
initial expression in the weakening of the sacred dimension and in
the enhancement of secularism in national life.9
The negation of Galut is an attitude that Rav Kook shares with
secular Zionists. There are, however, some very significant differences.
In the view of the 'classical' secular Zionists, the narrowness o
Diaspora existence resulted mainly from its stricly religious nature
and from the total control that Jewish law exercised over all aspec
of life. Hence, the liberation of the Jewish people from Diaspora li
entailed the liberation of Jewish society from the dominating positio
of Jewish religion; liberation involved transforming religion into
private, voluntary and individual matter.
By contrast, Rav Kook believed that the insularity of Diaspo
existence is foreign to the original character of Jewish tradition. I
deed, this tradition can be identified by its striving to permeate al
spheres of life and activity with the sacredness of the Divine. H
therefore perceives the liberation from Galut as the renewal of th
integral bond between all the aspects of life and their Divine sourc
as revealed in the Torah and its laws. Hence, release from the limitations
of Diaspora existence entails increasing rather than limiting
the impact of religion on all areas of human activity. This will be made
possible only within the context of a sovereign Jewish state whose laws
and institutions are based on the Torah and guided by it. Jewish
sovereignty will establish the infrastructure for a full Jewish existence
both for individuals and for the community as a whole.
132
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
Rav Kook's perception of Galut, as a condition that does not permit
a full Jewish life, is shared by contemporary Israeli critics of the
Diaspora, such as Nathan Rotenstreich and Eliezer Schweid.10 Like
Rav Kook, these critics differ from the classical Zionist negators of
the Diaspora in that their criticism of Galut does not entail a thoroughgoing
rejection of the traditional culture of exiled Jewry. Unlike Rav
Kook, however, those thinkers do not regard traditional Jewish law
(Halakha) as the authoritative guide for a renewed Jewish existence
in the Land of Israel.
THE NEGATION OF GALUT IN THE IDEOLOGY OF "TORAH VA'AVODAH"
During the Yishuv period, the religious Zionist critique of Galut found
its most outspoken expression in the ideology of 'Torah Va'Avodah'
(Torah and Labor) of the Hapoel Hamizrachi Movement. This antiGalut
ideology was influenced quite substantially by the ideas of Rav
Kook. And yet, the attitudes which prevailed in the Hapoel Hamizrachi
also reflected a sense of scorn and antagonism towards Diaspora
Jews whose origin can be found in the ideas of secular socialist
Zionism rather than in the doctrines of Rav Kook. Hapoel Hamizrachi
literature often depicted the culture and way of life of Diaspora Jews
as deficient, ugly, even immoral in nature. 'Galut Jewry' is described
as suffering from social inequality, economic exploitation and lack of
productivity. Hence, as long as Jews dwell in the Diaspora, they are
unfit to confront their national destiny of becoming a holy people.
Only by renewing the Jewish people's way of life, i.e., basing it on
productive labor and social justice in the Homeland, do they make
themselves worthy of their national destiny.
In an article published in the journal Hapoel Hamizrachi in 1925,
it was claimed that the goal of the religious workers' movement was
"to produce a working, perfect and holy people in our newly reborn
country, where Galut transactions of 'horse-trading,' procuring,
moneychanging and the like would be alien to the Jewish spirit. A
peddling people and a holy people are self-contradictory."' Official
documents of the Hapoel Hamizrachi also reflect this very negative
assessment of the Diaspora way of life. A prominent example is a
manifesto which was issued by the central committee of the Movement,
following its first convention held in 1922. The manifesto declares
that "the religious worker has come to Israel with the intense longing
to renew Jewish life ... in his homeland after this life had been paralyzed
in the Diaspora."12 The manifesto alludes to motifs which often
appear in the literature of radical Galut negators, such as criticism of
133
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
the excessive spiritualism of Diaspora Jewry and its alienation from
nature and mundane affairs.
We cannot only occupy ourselves with spiritual matters ... we want
aJudaism of Torah and labor which will come in contact with nature,
life and the nation, and will no longer only be a tradition... but a
vital, inner feeling.13
The literature of the Torah Va'Avodah Movement also adopted
the idea-which was broadly accepted by secular Zionism-that there
must be a return to the early, pre-exilic sources of Biblical Jewry.
These early sources were perceived as the well from which moral
religious renewal could be drawn; they were understood, moreover,
to commend a life of labor and social justice, of equality and cooperation
in the Land of Israel. Rabbi Yeshayahu Shapira, one of the
central ideologues of Ha'Poel HaMizrachi who was known as the
'Pioneering Admor' (a Hasidic Rabbi),'4 declared that "Hapoel Ham
izrachi strives to return to the original Biblical life which was based
on justice and honesty ... We too have neglected a large part of the
Torah ... We must return ... to the natural and original life, we must
act out the Torah and implement it in real life".'5
Elsewhere in the above-mentioned manifesto, the idea is repeated
for emphasis: "We strive to return to early Hebrew life, to Judaism
of the Bible which is based on justice, honesty and tradition."'6 In
even more forceful form, the same idea appears in an article publishe
by Hapoel Hamizrachi in 1924. Here it is argued that
the only remedy [to the defects of the Diaspora] found by the religious
youth is the return to Hebrew authenticity, to the simplicity
and integrity of the ancient and original Hebrew and to pure Judaism,
free of any mark of the pollution of exile. This can be achieved
only by work which purifies the soul.17
It is interesting to note the frequent use of the term "Hebrew"
(as opposed to Jewish) by religious writers. This term was widely used
by Yishuv secular Zionists who wished to distinguish themselves from
the DiasporaJews.'8 Hapoel Hamizrachi literature even makes explicit
use of the Zionist myth of 'The New Hebrew Man,' who is explicitly
contrasted to the traditional type of'GalutJew.' In 1921, Rabbi Yesha
yahu Shapira wrote that the Jews of Eretz-Israel must "stand at the
front lines of workers fighting to prepare the people for its revival
both materialistically and spiritually.... They must create the prototype
of the renewed original Hebrew."'9
Like the Labor Movement, Hapoel Hamizrachi actively practised
the negation of Galut by giving clear priority to settlement programs
in Israel over activities amongst Jews in the Diaspora. Both religious
134
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
and socialist Zionists criticized manifestations of 'Galut' behavior in
the Land of Israel. Such criticism was voiced against the (less labororiented)
Mizrachi by certain Hapoel Hamizrachi writers. For example,
the following appeared in a 1924 article:
The method of the Mizrachi is... to conquer the Diaspora communities.
The 'conquest' of a town in the Diaspora by either a Rabbi
or a Shohet (a ritual slaughterer) is probably as important in the eyes
of the 'Mizrachists'... as the conquest of the Emek [The Jezrael
valley]. The Mizrachi has gone so far as to conceive of the establishment
of herring shops and other such repulsive Galut customs, as
part of the settlement enterprise in the Land of Israel.20
The relationship between the negation of Galut and the idea of Torah
Va'Avodah is clearly expressed in the teachings of the Hapoel Hamizrachi
leader and ideologue, Shmuel Chaim Landau. In an articl
published in 1926, Landau wrote:
if we strive for revival, for being cleansed of the scum of the Diaspora,
purified from the dross of wandering and of a life without a
land . . . under our feet; if our movement strives for liberation and
freedom from the Diaspora and the exile mentality, then 'labor' is
one of the main foundations of this goal and is a practical manifestation
of it.21
Landau also asserted that the separation of Diaspora Jews from the
soil of the Homeland and from the life of labor and productivity was
profoundly detrimental to their very national existence. Jews in th
exile ceased to be a people in the normal sense of the word. For, "
nation whose natural life force no longer exists and who has n
land... cannot as such be considered a nation."22
The severe damage inflicted by Galut on the body and spirit of
the Jewish people, Landau charged, was responsible for the unhealth
cleavage within the contemporary Jewish collective character. It wa
in fact, the main reason for the apparent contradiction between t
passive spirituality of traditional Diaspora Jewry and the political a
tivism and "earthiness" of modern Zionism. In Landau's view,
attitudes of Diaspora Jews served a positive purpose, in as much as
they enabled them to hold their ground in exile against a hostile wor
However, the continuing influence of Galut tendencies constitute
obstacle to the national revival movement with its emphasis on sel
reliance and activism.
Landau maintains that Diaspora conditions fostered a dismissive
attitude towards concrete reality which greatly reduced the importance
of mundane concerns such as Land and State. In effect, it
legitimized a national existence without a territorial basis and in so
135
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
doing ranged itself squarely against the Zionist program of creating
a normal national existence based on territory, language and productive
labor. This 'Diaspora mentality,' Landau believes, is the main
source of the intense ultra-orthodox opposition to Zionism; it fostered
the spiritualization of terms such as the Land of Israel, Zion and
Jerusalem, their reduction to impoverished abstractions.
Israel, which always served as a center for Hebrew thought and which
was always the 'Land of Life' for the Hebrew People, acquired
... under the influence of the Galut outlook, an abstract form
suited to the state of mind of the Diaspora Jews and their negative
approach to life.23
The unfavorable effect of the Diaspora is also evident in the nonproductive
tendencies of the Jews, in their utter disrespect for physical
labor and in their alienation from a life of work and creativity.24 The
adherence of traditional Diaspora Jews to these negative attitudes,
Landau observes, accounts for the misconceived opinion that identified
Galut values with the religious Jewish tradition. Hence, the
negation of the Galut by secular Zionism was mostly associated with
the negation of religious Jewry.
The secular Zionists, when observing the new [Galut] 'values' which
were born of the Galut outlook, forgot that Mount Sinai and the
banks of the Vistula were separated not only by an enormous geographical
distance, but also by periods of time ... extending over
thousands of years of exile and calamity. They considered those
[Galut] values as having been drawn from the original Jewish conception
and thus they concluded that the Land of Israel and the
People of Israel can and must be renewed and reborn only on secular
foundations devoid of all holiness and spirituality, without any link
to the Torah and Jewish tradition.25
Landau acknowledges that the Hapoel Hamizrachi shares with Labor
Zionism a commitment to productive work in the Land of Israel as
the means to emancipation from harmful Galut influences. This common
outlook, Landau believes, can contribute to creating a close and
cooperative relationship between the two movements. Admittedly,
Labor-Zionist pioneers are to be condemned for their fanatical and
misinformed anti-religious position. But Landau argues that the negative
influences of Galut are also to be blamed for this objectionable
stance which is "like a sore on the body of the pioneering enterprise,
remnants of the Galut influences which remain attached to the idea
of the national rebirth."26
The Labor Movement's shortcoming lies in its failure to realize
that the return to the Land of Israel needs to be linked to a return
to the Torah of Israel as part of the process of redemption. Hence,
136
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
despite the deep respect felt by the Hapoel Hamizrachi for the pioneers
of the Labor Movement, it had no choice but to denounce the
"contradiction and deception of that movement which strives for revival,
originality, a renewal of life and an exodus from Galut and its
effects, while the actions of its members wallow in the quagmire of
the Diaspora whose polluting influence has left its indelible mark on
them."27 (It is interesting here to note the reversed use of the term
"Galut" by a religious leader in an argument with secular Zionists who
often employed the term to censure the way of life of orthodoxJewry.)
RADICAL NATIONALISM AND THE NEGATION OF THE DIASPORA IN THE
IDEOLOGY OF THE "HASMONEAN COVENANT"
The negation of Galut by the Hapoel Hamizrachi, it has been arg
above, was linked to the ideology of Torah Va'Avodah and was su
stantially influenced by attitudes which were prevalent in the sec
Labor Movement. But there were also religious Zionists, active du
the Yishuv period, whose negation of Galut was affected mainly
the attitudes of the Revisionist Movement. This approach wa
emplified by a group called the 'Hasmonean Covenant' that comb
adherence to traditional Judaism with a radical-messianic national
The Hasmonean Covenant was established in 1937 by students of
Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in Jerusalem which was founded by R
Avraham Yitzhak Kook. The group was affiliated to the relig
branch of the 'New Zionist Organization' of the Revisionists. Mo
its members joined the extremist underground organization
(National Military Organization) and LHI (Fighters for the Freed
of Israel)-although most of them returned to the moderate Haga
organization after a time.
While the Torah Va'Avodah movement emphasized the insu
ity and lack of productivity of Galut Jewry, the Hasmonean Cove
were critical of its submissiveness, subordination and powerlessn
As is evident in the group's name, the ancient Hasmoneans were t
revered heroes, their preferred role-models for the entire nation
The Hasmoneans were their chosen model since they represen
the ideal combination of the God-fearing, Torah-observing Jew
the military hero, who is deeply devoted to his people and count
In an article published in 1943 in the group's organ The Hasmone
it was claimed that the lesson to be learnt from the Hasmonean revolt
is that the national struggle must be directed not at the mere abrogation
of one decree or another, but at the complete liberation of the
nation from the shackles of servitude to foreigners. The struggle will
be resolved by the strength of the sword. The battle must be waged
137
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
"in the form of armed warfare and in a revolutionary way. Not by
building and ploughing and sowing well ... will we achieve... freedom,
but by producing... by decisive means, the decisive fact: Who
is the only ruler here."29
The Hasmonean Covenant regarded the negation of Galut as a
religious principle. Under no circumstances "could Galut be accepted
nor ... servitude in the Land of the Forefathers. Exile and servitude
under foreign rule were not only tragic and shameful... but a
sinful and a desecration of God."30 In the same article, published
1945, an allusion was made to the Holocaust, suggesting that it ha
been a form of punishment because they had come to terms with
Galut, which is the gravest of transgressions. The atonement for s
sacrilegious behavior "is harsh and agonizing." "This is the reason
the pre-messianic tribulations," which "are the troubles which ha
struck the Jewish people in exile in order to aggravate the yoke
Galut so that the Jews will be obliged to repent and seek redempti
The conclusion, therefore, is that everything must be done to ur
the people "to strive actively for redemption, which is the atonem
for the sin of exile."
Like the Revisionists, the Hasmonean Covenant stressed the prime
importance of military heroism. They called on the people and particularly
on the youth to take part in an upcompromising struggle for
national freedom and the liberation of the entire Land of Israel. And
yet their intensely militant nationalism created something of a dilemma
for them. How were they to reconcile their position with the
passive aproach of traditional Jewry, particularly in regard to its reluctance
to utilize force in its relations with other nations? To some
extent, of course, other religious Zionists faced a similar dilemma. It
was, nevertheless, considerably more acute for a militaristic, ultranationalistic
group such as the Hasmonean Covenant.
The spokesmen for the Hasmonean Covenant attempted to resolve
the problem by blaming Galut conditions for the passive mood
prevailing amongst the Jewish people and for their retreat from the
pre-Galut heritage of military heroism exemplified by the Hasmoneans
and otherJewish liberation fighters. An article in The Hasmonean
declared that "heroism and pride were traits which were originally
deeply-seated in the nature of the Jewish people." The Biblical belief
in "You have chosen us" represents the main source for this national
quality of "supreme heroism." Contrary to common opinion, "the
Torah of Israel does not preach capitulation and weakness. It is the
source of strength and pride." However, "the distortion and confusion"
caused by the exile created the "distortion of the attitude to
heroism."31
It was also claimed that in the period of Jewish monarchy the
138
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
paragons of the Jewish people were "perfect in every aspect," i.e.,
they represented an ideal combination of spiritual greatness and warrior
bravery. Lamentably, "the imperfection of Galut," drove the leaders
of the Jewish people to devote themselves exclusively to spiritual
matters. Hence, unlike Biblical heroes like Avner and Yoav, the traditional
Diaspora leaders were "unable to set an example for other
highly significant values, such as heroism in battle. The movement
for national revival makes it imperative to begin "educating once again
for the realization of the Torah in its entirety, and recreating the ideal
type of the pre-exilic integral Jew.32
An article published in 1939 in the Mizrachi's newspaper, Hatzofeh,
also expressed the view that Diaspora conditions were responsible for
the decline of authentic Judaism's heroic tradition. The writer raised
the question: how did it happen that weakness and cowardice developed
into typical features of the Jewish nation, although this same
nation was admired in ancient times for its heroism in battle and
courageous spirit? It was the close contact between the people of Israe
and its land, the writer suggests, that instilled the qualities of bravery
and courage-qualities evident in the the Maccabean struggle against
the Greeks and in the revolts against the Romans. These heroic features,
so dominant when the Jews lived in their own land, were profoundly
undermined when they lost contact with their land and went
into exile.
While the people of Israel dwelt in its own land, it amazed the world
with its heroism and courage... and its victories. A handful of
priests-farmers ... dared to declare war on the tyrant Antiochus ...
They fought and were victorious... However... once Israel went
into exile we became a cowardly people.... The reason is that a
nation dwelling in its own land draws strength and power from the
earth. The living contact with the earth of the Homeland gives it the
strength and courage to defend it.33
During the Yishuv period, the opinions of the Hasmonean Covenant
were not broadly popular in religious circles. Where anti-Galut attitudes
did gain currency, it was in the labor-Zionist version of Torah
Va'Avodah. After the establishment of the State of Israel, however,
the influence of the Torah Va'Avoda ideology within the religious
camp was considerably diminished, following the sharp decline in the
fortunes of Zionist Socialism-the Yishuv's erstwhile dominant ideology.
A related and for our purposes highly significant change was
the general retreat from the negation of Galut attitude. At first this
transformation was manifested mainly in the ranks of religious Zionists,
but at a latter stage it became even more influential in secular
Israeli groups.
139
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
The Holocaust of European Jewry played a significant role in this
process of change. In addition, the spread of the 'Canaanite' position
among the young generation in Israel-with its radical dissociation
of the Israeli experience from DiasporaJewry and the religiousJewish
tradition-also provoked the counter-tendency to see the Diaspora in
a more positive light.34 The Israeli political and cultural elite was
alarmed by the dangers of Canaanism. To counter its effect, the then
Minister of Education, Zalman Aran, initiated a Jewish Consciousness'
program in education. But it was especially religious groups that emphasized
the need to ward off the Canaanite danger by educating the
youth to identify anew with the Jewish people of the Diaspora and
their traditional culture.
The deteriorating relationship between the religious and secular
communities in the first years following the establishment of the State
contributed as well to the change of religious-Zionist attitudes toward
the Diaspora. Regaining national sovereignty and the victories of the
War of Independence were perceived by religious-Zionists as manifestations
of the "beginning of redemption" and as a radical departure
from Galut existence. Nevertheless, the vehement struggles that
erupted over issues of state and religion and the concomitant rise in
militant secularism strengthened the religious community's feeling of
"a minority under siege." Not only in ultra-Orthodox circles but also
among religious-Zionists there were those who believed that the State
had not, in fact, freed its Jewish citizens from the Galut situation. In
an article published (1950) in the Journal of the Young Hapoel Hamizrachi
the following queries appeared:
Is this the longed-for country? Have generations upon generations
in poverty, suffering and distress wished for this? Not for this did
we fight... the people of Israel has not yet been redeemed, it continues
living in Galut as long as it does not live a true Israeli life.35
The feeling of "Galut within the State of Israel" did not penetrate
the ranks of religious Zionists, as it did the ultra-Orthodox 'Haredi'
community.36 Accounting for this, at least in part, was the establishment
of an authoritative 'status quo' standard as the practical modus
vivendi for problems of religion and state in Israel. As a result, there
was a partial amelioration in the relationship between secular and
religious Jews. There was also a certain retreat from the militantsecular
attitude which characterized wide circles in Israeli society in
the first years of statehood.37 These processes helped enhance the
self-confidence of religious Zionists-especially among the youth.
Their identification with the state as well as their integration into
Israeli society grew proportionately.
In the wake of the Six Day War, these developments were instru-
140
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
mental in the reemergence of an anti-Galut attitude among religiousZionists.
At this point in time, the Negation of Galut position emerged,
in a renewed form, from the messianic-Zionist 'school' of Rabbi A. Y.
Kook-especially from the teachings of his son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda
Kook. The rise of the Gush Emunim Movement, which was founded
after the Yom Kippur War, strengthened even further the influence
of the messianic school within the ranks of religious-Zionism.
Gush Emunim has much in common conceptually with their predecessors
from the Hasmonean Alliance. This is evident in the way the
two movements relate to Galut. (Nevertheless, the differences between
them are quite apparent. The Hasmonean Alliance was a group with
only marginal influence on Jewish [including Jewish religious] society
in Israel. By contrast, Gush Emunim became a crucial factor in religious
Zionism after the Yom Kippur War and its influence was felt
throughout Israeli society). The teachings of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook
are the main source for Gush Emunim ideology in general and for
its attitude toward Galut in particular. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's assessment
of Galut was formulated in articles mostly written soon after the Holocaust
and during the early years of statehood. Yet his views on Galut,
as on other subjects, did not rouse significant public notice until after
the Six-Day War.
GALUT AS THE "GENTILES' WORLD" IN RABBI Z. Y. KOOK'S TEACHINGS
Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook shared the negative attitude of his father
Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook toward Galut. However, Rav Zvi Yehuda's
negation of Galut was far more radical and consistent. In his
view, the dispersion, weakness and dependence of the Jews in the
Diaspora deprived them of a real national existence. "The prolonged
dispersion in the Diaspora made us forget ... the value of our integral
unity ... we were no longer a nation, but merely a collection of ethnic
groups."38
Hence, after the establishment of the state only Israeli Jews and
not those who continue to dwell in the Diaspora, can be considered
the true representatives and perpetuators of Jewish national existence.
In a symposium held in 1963, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda declared that "any
Jew immigrating to Israel... is observing a law of the Torah," even
if he is completely secular in his beliefs and way of life. Conversely,
"any Jew living outside Israel, be he religious or not, violates the law
and this violation is sinful." The Rabbi added that:
To be a Jew today-one must first and foremost live in Israel. Each
Jew who returns to Israel brings with himself-to Zion-part of the
141
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
Divine Presence accompanying the nation in the Diaspora. Each Jew
who comes to Israel, every tree that is planted in the ground of
Israel, every rifle that is added to the Israeli army represents another
real spiritual stage, another step towards redemption, as do the glorification
of the Torah and the establishment of many Talmudical
colleges (Yeshivot).39
On Independence Day, shortly before the outbreak of the Six-Day
War, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda proclaimed that "the only true Israel is the
redeemed Israel: the kingdom of Israel and the army of Israel, the
nation as an integrated whole and not as a series of Diasporas."40
It should therefore be apparent that Rabbi Zvi Yuehuda's conception
of the Diaspora stresses the contrast between those Jews living
in Israel and those living outside it. Interestingly, this aspect of his
approach was shared by many militant secularists in Israel. One of
Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's students goes so far as to claim that "he even finds
positive elements in the Canaanite Movement." Rabbi Zvi Yehuda
himself explained this ostensible anomaly by saying that "their [the
Canaanites'] basic idea is very true, meaning that a Jew in Israel must
be totally different from a Jew in the Diaspora."4'
The extremely negative image of Diaspora Jews in Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's
teachings is clearly manifested in his sharp condemnation of
their way of life and attitudes. He is particularly severe in regard to
what he sees as their self-degradation, their lack of Jewish national
pride. "The basic tragedy of Galut is the fact that the pride and
heavenly majesty of the Jewish people were taken away from them.42
This is reflected, Rabbi Kook asserts, in the way that Jewish leaders
interact with Gentiles. "The typical pattern of Shtadlanut Jewish influence
peddling that was common in the Diaspora] is basically a
humiliation of the Jewish spirit."43 Rabbi Zvi Yehuda thus shares with
the secular Zionists the perception of Galut as an inferior, defective
and humiliating form of existence. Jews must redeem themselves by
actively struggling for political independence-independence that
will renew their pride as a nation.
Whatever the similarities between them, however, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda
and the secular Zionists differ both in their analyses of the Galut
situation itself and in regard to the political implications of national
emancipaion. In the view of classic secular Zionists, it is the sheer lack
of territory and political sovereignty that exposes Diaspora Jews to
the hostility of their neighbors and forces them to preserve their
national existence through physical segregation and cultural insulation.
In this view, the return of the Jews to their land and the reestablishment
of political independence signifies, in itself, the release
from the depredations of the Diaspora and the re-entry as equals into
the family of nations.
142
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
By contrast, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda believes that Jewish suffering in
the Diaspora reflects an hostility that is inherent in the relations of
gentiles to Jews. This hostility is a product of the essential difference,
the irreducible antagonism that exists between the Jews and other
nations. In Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's view, the Dispora is the "world of the
gentiles," a world that is, in all respects, light-years distant from the
Jewish people. The antagonism between Israel and the nations is not,
therefore, a simple result of the Galut situation, and it will not be
abolished by the establishment of a Jewish state. On the contrary,
whereas Galut is characterized by proximity to the non-Jewish world,
the return to Zion symbolizes a radical break from the gentile nations
and reassertation of the distinct and unique status of the Jewish people.
In an article written about a year before the establishment of the
state, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda defined the return of the Jews to their homeland
and the renewal of their political life as: "the renewal of our
national existence as a nation that is like a proud lion dwelling apart
from other nations."44
Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's conception of Galut, his understanding of
Jewish-gentile relations and his total negation of the Galut as the
hostile world of the gentiles come across dramatically in his interpretation
of the Holocaust. The Holocaust was for him the ultimate
manifestation of the wickedness of the gentiles. It marks the total
uprooting of the Jewish people from the Galut and its complete detachment
from the gentile world. It is "the total destruction... of
Jewish life in the Diaspora, of the very possibility of continuing to live
in dispersion."45 Hence, the Holocaust reinforces the awareness of
the fact that Israel is the only place for the Jewish people and its
Torah. "The destruction of the Diaspora... adds real evidence to
the fact ... that true observance of the Torah can only take place in
our country which has been intended for us exclusively."46
From this point of view, the terrible tragedy of the Jewish people
can be seen as having a positive result. The Holocaust is a form
of "negation which calls for the positive act of national renewal...
in the ancestral Homeland".47 That the Diaspora centers of Jewish
learning, which were destroyed in Europe, have been transferred
to the Land of Israel, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda sees as particularly signif-
icant:
The tragic uprooting... in which synagogues and centers of learning
in the Diaspora were destroyed ... as opposed to the ingathering
of our exiles and the settling of our land, reveal... the greatness of
God's power which redeemed us from the desert of nations ... As
it is written-'you will not find ease among the nations'... The total
destruction of the Diaspora is manifested in the removal of the holy
institutions that existed there ... without which there can be no Jew-
143
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
ish life and their reestablishment in the Land of Israel, where they
truly belong48
The Holocaust manifests Jewish powerlessness and humiliation in
extremis. Conversely, the struggle to establish the state and the battle
to defend it, so soon after the Holocaust, signify the recovery of Jewish
national pride and power. "At the peak of our national struggle, of
our national pride, the final aspect of Galut is revealed: mockery and
scorn."49 The shift away from purely spiritual activities-one of the
hallmarks of Diaspora life-toward the use of weapons can, therefore,
be viewed as a positive development.
The establishment of a Jewish army constitutes the completion of
our national renewal process. We are no longer simply the Galutridden
'People of the Book' as we have been depicted by the gentiles
of the desert [the Arabs], but also the people of God, a holy nation
for whom 'the book and the sword descended simultaneously from
heaven'.50
The impact of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's thought on Israeli Orthodox Jewry
has been considerable. Its influence has been especially great since
the Six-Day War, most particularly for the ideology of the Gush Emunim
Movement, which was established in 1974. Gush Emunim arose
in the wake of the Yom Kippur War and has since become an important
political and social organization.5' Many of the Movement's
leaders were students of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva
in Jerusalem. Even those Gush Emunim followers who were not from
Merkaz Harav, indeed, even some secular adherents of the movement,
revered Rabbi Zvi Yehuda as their spiritual and ideological leader.
Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's writings are stylistically convoluted and substantively
difficult-particularly for those not skilled in traditional
Jewish discourse. Consequently, many of his followers have little firsthand
knowledge of them. It is surely not the first time that those
unacquainted with the writings of a thinker were influenced by the
ideas disseminated by his disciples. A study of Gush Emunim literature
and that of groups associated with it indicates that the dominant motifs
draw on the teachings of Rabbi Kook, the son. This is true as well for
his views on the Galut issue, although they are known to a lesser
degree than his opinions on political and security matters.
It should be noted here that the position of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda
and his disciples on the Galut issue is integrally linked with their views
on Israeli foreign and defence policies. This linkage is explicable on
several levels. First, the negation of Galut by Rabbi Zvi Yehuda and
Gush Emunim is indissociable from the elevation of the State of Israel
along with the Land of Israel to a truly sacred status. Opposition to
relinquishing Israeli soverignty over the entire Land of Israel is the
144
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
obvious consequence. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's emphasis on the irreconcilable
antagonism between Jews and gentiles only reinforces the
point. Because he rejects any form of Jewish existence amidst the
gentiles and, moreover, because he harbors profound distrust towards
them, it is not surprising that he has little interest in taking their
advice and opinions into account in the process of Israeli policy-
making.
The 'here-and-now' radical messianism of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda and
Gush Emunim understands the Zionist enterprise and the sta
created as part of the Divine process of redemption. It is decreed
directed from on High and cannot be halted. Not only are the ult
goals defined in messianic terms; the means utilized to achieve t
goals are also so defined. Hence, they tend to be seen as free
the normal constraints imposed by mundane reality. The entireJe
people must answer the Godly voice which calls out to them thr
historical events; they must actively participate, to the very limi
their abilities, in the process of Messianic redemption.
Central to Messianic redemption are both the preservation of
Land of Israel's territorial integrity and the ingathering of the ex
The two are morally and religiously incumbent upon the Jewish
ple. There can be no accommodation with retreat from the Land
Israel. Similarly, the continued presence of Jews in the Diaspora
entirely unacceptable. There can be no compromise in regard to
ingathering of allJewish exiles to Israel. That mass immigration w
also aid the 'demographic problem' involved in the retention ofJu
Samaria and Gaza, only strengthens Gush Emunim's argument.
Despite its practical demographic implications, Gush Emun
anticipation of mass immigration from the West is an integral pa
their messianic approach. It is worth noting that Gush Emunim
pends considerable energy in promoting immigration from the af
ent West and from the Soviet Union as well as in channeling
immigrants to settlements in Judea-Samaria and Gaza. Neverthel
despite their efforts and messianic ardor, the attempt to attract
immigration has met with far less success than has their dri
establish settlements in the territories. This may well be one of
reasons that Gush Emunim's approach to the Diaspora has not enjo
the same support as has its policies on settlements in the Greater
of Israel.
To be sure, many of Gush Emunim's sympathizers do not identif
with Rabbi Zvi Yehuda's messianic outlook. They see no grounds for
believing that a mass immigration of Diaspora Jewry to the territori
is either likely or possible. They argue simply that political and securi
realities make it mandatory that all the territories conquered in th
Six-Day War be retained. They are convinced that the constraints o
145
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
Israel's geo-political reality leaves no alternative but to remain in control
of the territories.
Whatever their deepest convictions may be, practical considerations
play an inevitable role in the strategy of messianic movements.
Notably, Gush Emunim spokesmen are careful not to press the negation
of Galut argument in the radically disparaging terms of their
spiritual mentor, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook. They prefer instead to
avoid overly critical remarks about Diaspora Jews (on whose support
they count) while stressing the pragmatic benefits of increased im-
migration.
GALUT AS THE ABANDONMENT OF JUDAISM IN THE WRITINGS OF H. FISCH
Within the ranks of contemporary religious Zionism, Harold (Harel)
Fisch occupies a unique position. Fisch, an accomplished literary critic
and one of the founders of The Greater Israel Movement, presents
a sharply critical assessment of Diaspora Jewry that merits attention.52
Although Fisch is a sympathizer of Gush Emunim, his position on the
'Diaspora issue' does not represent the consensual view prevailing
among the movement's adherents.
In some respects Fisch's ideas are an updated version of Rabbi
Zvi Yehuda's. Like Rabbi Kook, Fisch rejects the Galut in the strongest
terms. He vehemently denies the propostion that Diaspora Jews can
survive as part of the Jewish people in their countries of residence.
Like Rabbi Zvi Yehuda, although less outspokenly, Fisch links the
Holocaust with the Jewish people's unique status as a nation in exile,
a nation whose very presence inspires anti-semitic hatred.
Rabbi Zvi Yehuda published his views on the Diaspora in the years
following World War II. Not surprisingly, he depicts the Holocaust
as the total uprooting of the Jews from the Galut. It soon became
evident, however, that most Western Jews chose to remain in the
Diaspora. Indeed, Jews in the Western democracies actually enjoy
equal rights and freedom, to say nothing of prosperity. Admittedly,
the establishment of the State of Israel did not bring an end to antisemitism
as Herzlian theory claimed it would. But, as Fisch indicates,
the Jewish State itself now draws much of the world's anti-semitic fire.
Consequently, it cannot be the spectre of anti-semitism that motivates
Jews to leave the Diaspora and immigrate to Israel.
On the other hand, Fisch continues, the choice of Israel as the
target for anti-semitic attacks, signifies that Israel is represenative of
the Jewish people, i.e., it is responsible for its continued existence,
for the maintainance of its uniqueness and for perpetuating its history.
Hence, in Fisch's view, Jews need to be encouraged to settle in Israel
146
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
not in order to find a safe refuge from persecution but rather in order
to share in the collective lot of their people-to take part in its struggle
for national survival and development.
Jews who remain in the Diaspora have, in effect, relieved themselves
of their responsibility for their nation. Fisch goes so far as to
state that those Jews who continue to live outside Israel after the
establishment of the State fail to share in the Jewish historical lot.
Galut Jews cannot have a true affiliation to the Jewish people because
they are not part of the unique fate and the historical goals rooted
in the biblical covenant with God. Jews living in Israel carry a special
burden of responsibility while those who remain in the Diaspora decline
to carry this burdon. Hence, they do not share in the same
national experience.
Israel is, therefore, unable to serve as a unifying cultural rallying
point for Diaspora Jewry-in the manner associated with the teachings
of Ahad Ha'am. The contrary is true; Israel's existence actually
distances Israeli Jews from their Diaspora co-religionists. It creates
different political, social and cultural experiences that divide rather
than unify. The Jewish people in Israel and in the Diaspora, Fisch
claims, are undergoing a process of dividing into two different na-
tions.
Intriguingly, there is a dramatic difference between Fisch and
other theorists who also support the 'two nation' thesis. This difference
focuses on the basic question: which of the 'two nations' will be the
true perpetuator of the historical Jewish people? In his book, The End
of the Jewish People? published in 1965, the celebrated French sociologist,
Georges Friedmann, argued that the State of Israel signals the
end of the historical Jewish people because its citizens, especially its
youth, have completely detached themselves from Jewish sources.53
Fisch denies this argument by claiming that contemporary Israeli
youth are, in fact, "more acutely Jewish than their counterparts in the
Diaspora." Jews living in Israel, Fisch contends, are much more deeply
imbued by "the sense of belonging to a people subject to a special
Jewish fate which differentiates it from other peoples."54
It is interesting to compare Fisch's view with that of A. B. Yehoshua.55
Both Fisch and Yehoshua are extreme negators of Galut
but their attitudes are based on profoundly contrasting assumptions.
Yehoshua argues that one of the primary tasks of the State of Israel
is 'normalizing' Jewish existence. By providing the Jewish people with
territory and political sovereignty, Israel supplies the basic requisites
for a 'normal' national life. Nevertheless, true 'normalization' will not
be possible, in Yehoshua's opinion, for so long as Jews continue to
live in the Diaspora. As long as they resist assimilating into the majority
culture, as long as they preserve their attachment to the State of Israel,
147
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
Diaspora Jews will arouse the hostility of their host nations-hostility
both toward Jews in general and the State of Israel in particular. The
Galut must, therefore, be eradicated to save the Jewish people from
its tragic fate and enable it to be fully accepted into the family of
nations.
Fisch's negation of Galut, by contrast, is aimed not at the 'normalization'
of the Jewish people, but to ensuring its unique historical
continuity. In his view, it is the seductively affluent existence of the
Western Diaspora that fosters 'normalization,' not life in Israel. Yehoshua's
'normalization' is, in fact, precisely what Fisch finds pernicious
and reprehensible in contemporary Israeli culture. Indeed, he
would root out the prevalent Western influences on Jewish life in
Israel by having the State actively foster what he understands to be
the distinctly Jewish cultural and historical destiny--a destiny that,
lamentably, has been abandoned by Diaspora Jewry. According to
Fisch, then, the reestablishment of Jewish national sovereignty in Israel
is a shift away from 'normalization' and a fitting turn toward a
renewal of the Jewish people's unique status.
Fisch's approach turns Canaanism on its head. He shares the
Canaanite view regarding the process of separation between Israelis
and Diaspora Jews.56 The Canaanites argue that a new nation is being
formed in Israel. The legacy of the past-Jewish history and tradition-is
rejected by the Canaanites as a negative Diaspora phenomenon
that ought to be discarded by the new Israel. Fisch, on the
contrary, maintains that it is IsraeliJews who remain loyal to theJewish
destiny, while Diaspora Jews have abandoned Judaism for the sake
of 'normalization.' Do they not link their destiny to that of other
nations, Fisch asks rhetorically, so as to free themselves from the
Jewish lot of suffering and isolation, from the burden of the Jewish
destiny?
The divide separating Israeli Jews from their Diaspora brethren
has widened following a number of recent events that emphasized
Israel's singularity, to wit, its exclusive responsibility for the preservation
of Jewish national existence. The Yom Kippur War (the immediate
inspiration for Fisch's book) was particularly responsible for
accentuating the split between Israeli and Diaspora Jewry. Unlike the
Six-Day War,
this was an experience which divided rather than united. It served
to divide those who identified themselves fervently with the Jewish
lot from those who did not... There has been a polarization of
Jewish identity.57
Whatever may be Israel's singularity, Fisch does spare the rod
when he analyses the manifestations of alienation from Judasim prev-
148
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
alent among Israeli Jews. Nonetheless, in his view, the Jewish state is
the only authentic arena for the battle against these phenomena-a
battle that is impossible to wage in the Diaspora. Jews in Galut are
overwhelmgly exposed to and saturated by Western culture-and,
whether they choose to admit it or not, they have effectively abandoned
the arena of battle by the very fact that they continue to live
amidst foreign nations.
It should be noted that despite his radical negation of Galut, Fisch
vigorously opposes classical Zionism's negative attitude toward the
culture and way of life of traditional Diaspora Jewry. He protests
against the attempts made by Ben-Gurion and his followers to transform
the memory of the Holocaust into a ceremony of courage, and
to depict, for the Israelis, the Ghetto fighter as a model of heroism
atoning for the cowardice and degradation of the beaten Diaspora
Jews. Fisch sharply condemns this attempt to replace the Galutic "Yaakov,"
who could not hold his own, by the valiant and victorious "Israel."
"The fact that Jacob has his own special dignity, his own moral
superiority to evil, was ignored."58
CHANGES IN THE CONCEPT OF GALUT WITHIN RELIGIOUS ZIONISM AND
IN ISRAELI SOCIETY
As we noted above, Fisch's approach is not mainstr
his own community of Gush Emunim adherents. St
of his approach reveal the substantial changes that
in the concept of Galut that dominates both the re
camps in Israel. In classical Zionism, 'Galut' symb
and life-style of the traditional East-European 'Ghe
mass immigration of East-European Jews to the Un
one hand, and the Holocaust of European Jewry on
changed this stereotypical image. The center of Je
istence shifted from Eastern Europe to the West
notably to the United States.
This radical demographic-geographic shift has b
for transforming the Israeli image of the Diaspo
Israelis, these Jews are no longer the object of deris
they have become a model to be emulated. They are
positively than the Western culture into which the
Moreover, it has become ideologically difficult for
and secular alike-to place Western Jews in the
'Galut Jews' that were so denigrated by the classica
Diaspora.
This does not mean, of course, that the negation of Galut idea
149
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
has disappeared from Israeli society. It signifies rather that both the
concept 'Galut' and the sort of public from which it draws support
have been transformed. The new concept of Galut is today advocated
mainly by religious Zionists and right wing 'neo-traditionalists.' It presents
Galut as an intense exposure to Western influences that are alien
to the spirit of Judaism. Among these corrupting influences are evils
such as permissiveness and materialism, hedonism and lack of authority,
selfishness and excessive individualism. The destructive effect
of these Western influences, this view charges, can be seen clearly in
the Diaspora Jews' lack of willingness to preserve their unique culture
and national identity. Predictably, they succumb to the values and way
of life of their host societies.
To be sure, the negation of Galut among religious-Zionists, especially
those affiliated with Gush Emunim, also reflects a contempt
for certain stereotypical Galut characteristics such as weakness, submissiveness,
passivity, cowardice and the lack of national pride. In
this regard at least, many contemporary religious Zionists share the
attitudes and images prevalent in classical Zionism. But the classical
secular Zionists, alongside their condemnation of passivity and submissiveness,
also rejected the Diaspora Jew's tendency to selfsegregation
and insulation from non-Jewish society and culture.
Furthermore, the secularists charged that it was the Jewish religious
tradition that was to blame for the Diaspora Jews' 'negative' charac-
teristics.
In sharp contrast, religious Zionists denounce as 'Galutic' not the
insularity of Diaspora Jewry by rather its over-exposure to alien Western
culture. These foreign influences, and not Jewish religious tradition,
are also responsible for the 'negative Galutic' traits enumerated
above. Parenthetically, this same 'Galutic' mentality' is seen by many
right-wing religious Zionists as responsible for the typical ideas and
programs of left-wing groups in Israel.
The editorial reaction of Hatzofeh (the daily newspaper of religious
Zionism) to the Pollard affair is quite instructive in this regard. Hatzofeh
sharply condemned the apologetic reaction of American Jewry
to Pollard's arrest. American Jewry, the editorialist claimed, "was revealed...
in all its weakness, its cowardice and its Galutic approach
of self-denial and of apologizing for issues in which it is not involved."
This behavior reflects "the failure of all the attempts to delete the
term 'Galut' in the context of American Jewry." Hence, "the change
of name [from 'Galut' (exile) to 'Tfutza' (Diaspora)] will not be able
to change the harsh and bitter reality, that Jews living outside Israel
dwell in Galut with all its implications".59
As was noted parenthetically above, the pejorative use of the term
'Galut' in contemporary Israel is not directed only toward Diaspora
150
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
Jews. In fact, its main use is in the context of internal political polemics.
It serves Israelis of various political persuasions in order to deride
the ideas and actions of their ideological rivals. Most frequent among
the term's many utilizers, however, are the religious Zionists and their
right-wing allies. Historically, this represents quite a remarkable terminological
shift because the use of 'Galut' as a derogation was the
province of the militantly secular Zionists in their polemic against
traditional Jewry.
Today, by contrast, the dismissive use of the terms 'Galut' and
'Galuti' (Galut-like) is directed most often against those positions on
foreign and defence policy that are conventionally referred to as 'dovish.'
A second and related polemical use of the term seeks to denigrate
the penetration of Western life-styles into Israeli culture; these influences,
it is argued, reflect the intrusion of Diaspora corruption into
the Holy Land. Some radical members of Gush Emunim go further
still. They attack democratic liberal concepts such as tolerance, pluralism
and the respect for minority rights as symptoms of 'Western
influences' that are both alien to the spirit of Judaism and born of
the Galutic inclination to 'imitate the gentiles.'
A leading proponent of this approach, Mordechai Nissan, argues
that "the concept of Galut includes any particle of an idea, norm or
spirit that is taken from foreign cultures and does not belong independently
to the Jewish people." Assimilating the concepts and values
of Western democracy constitutes, for Nissan, a "dragging of the
Diaspora's Trojan Horse into the Land of Israel." The responsibility
for this regrettable development, Nissan charges, should be laid at
the feet of classical Zionism which "has locked Zionists in the prison
of an alien philosophy, which has no real connection with either the
Jewish people or the Land of Israel."60 Although such extreme antiliberal
sentiments are rare, attacks on the prevalence of Western influences
are voiced quite frequently by Gush Emunim and its followers.
To be very sure, this anti-Western animus has a relatively small
following when compared with the public support enjoyed by the
Gush Emunim's political and security policies. Understandably so,
since the greater part of Israeli society is intensively exposed to the
West and is both unwilling and unable to isolate itself from this in-
fluence.
While the negation of Galut, in its original sense, continues to be
supported by individuals from a great variety of ideological positions,
it is the religious Zionists, especially those attached to Gush Emunim,
that give the anti-Galut doctrine its most vehement expression. The
continued existence of Jews in the Diaspora is, in their view, practically
indefensible, morally repugnant and religiously illegitimate. This conclusion
is corroborated by the findings of public opinion surveys:
151
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
religious, traditional and right-wing circles show the greatest support
for the 'negation of Galut' position.6'
In fairness, however, it should be noted that even among the
religious and the right-wing this anti-Galut position does not enjoy
unequivocal support. It is arguable, in fact, that the primary reason
for its increased saliency in religious circles is less a simple and spontaneous
identification with the approach and more a reaction of disapproval
to its rejection by the secular Israeli left.
It can be said in conclusion, that the changing perceptions of the
Diaspora among Israeli Jews are related to transformations of content
and'significance in the concept 'Galut' (or as Israelis now prefer to
call it-'Tfutza'). In contemporary Israel, Galut is linked with the
culture and life-style of the Western world far more than with those
of traditional Jewish society. This change explains the seemingly odd
'migration' of the negation of Galut doctrine from the Labor movement,
its classical stronghold, to the religious and right-wing Zionist
camp.
These changes of attitude are also linked to processes of structural
transformation that Israeli society has undergone in recent decades.
These changes include a significant weakening of commitment to
collective values and goals as well as an erosion in the authority and
leadership qualities of Israel's political elite. The striking decline of
the Zionist socialist ideology (along with other versions of the secularZionist
position) is, no doubt, a deep underlying cause as well. The
attempt of these secularist world-views to supplant Jewish religious
tradition as the legitimizing system of values for Israeli society has
largely failed-with important consequences for how the Diaspora is
perceived.62 These factors, together with the process of Diaspora Jewry's
Westernization, have contributed to important shifts both in the
self-image of Israeli society as well as its image of Diaspora Jewry.
Most Israelis simply find it difficult any longer to regard their country
as a 'model state' for Diaspora Jewry.
The development of Gush Emunim represents, inter alia, a
counter-reaction to these processes. The negation of Galut, once a
weapon of the secular Zionists in their struggle against traditional
Jewry, has become an anti-Western and anti-secular weapon in the
hands of the religious and the right-wing nationalists. And yet, Gush
Emunim's banner, inscribed with the 'negation of Galut' slogan, remains
a dissenting position that runs against the current of the Israeli
mainstream. It has succeeded neither in becoming a dominant force
in Israeli society nor yet a realistic alternative for the tarnished secular
versions of Zionism. For all of its attractiveness to contemporary religious
and right-wing sensibilities, the negation of Galut argument
152
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
cannot make inroads in a population for whom the West represents
their cultural standard of reference.
BAR ILAN UNIVERSITY
NOTES
(All references are in Hebrew, unless marked by an aster
1. For an extensive discussion of the various approaches t
the Galut issue within the context of Zionist thought, see Natha
Contemporary Jewish Thought (Tel-Aviv, 1966), Vol. 1, pp.
Eliezer Schweid, "Two Approaches to the 'Negation of the Di
in Zionist Ideology," Hatziyonut, Vol. 9 (1984), pp. 21-44; Yos
Attitude of the Poalei Zion Party in Mandatory Palestine tow
pora," Hatziyonut, Vol. 2 (1977), pp. 74-84; Arnold Eisen,
ington, 1986).
2. For Rabbi Reines' concept of Zionism see my article, "I
Policy in Religious Zionism: The Zionist Philosophy of Rabbi
Policy of the Mizrachi under his Leadership," Zionism, Vol. 8
146. For Rabbi Reines' stand on the Galut question see pp. 12
3. See Yaakov Katz, "The Historical Character of Zvi Hi
Jewish Nationalism: Essays and Studies (Jerusalem, 1979), pp.
4. "More on the Ideological Principles of the Mizrachi", H
No. 44, (10.8.1934), pp. 4-5.
5. See my article, "Conceptions on Zionism in Orthodox J
ophy", Zionism, Vol. 9 (1985), pp. 84-92.
6. See Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook, Lights (Jerusal
108-115.
7. Ibid, p. 108.
8. Ibid, p. 62.
9. Ibid, p. 84.
10. See, for example, Nathan Rotenstreich, On Contemporary Jewish Existence
(Tel-Aviv, 1972), pp. 152-166; Eliezer Schweid, "Saying 'Yes' to the
Negation of the Diaspora," Kivunim, Vol. 12, p. 24.
11. G. Levin, "The Nature of the Mizrachi Pioneer", cited in a collection
of sources edited by Aryeh Fishman, Hapoel Hamizrachi: 1921-1935 (TelAviv,
1979), pp. 160-161.
12. Ibid, p. 152.
13. Ibid, p. 153.
14. See Shabtai Don-Yehiya, Pioneering Admor: The Immigration to Israel of
Yeshayahu Shapira (Tel-Aviv, 1961).
15. Fishman, Ibid, p. 59.
16. Ibid.
17. Eliyahu Rotstein, "Our Return to the Source", Fishman, Ibid, p. 39
18. See Itamar Even-Zohar, "The Growth and Consolidation of a Local
153
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Eliezer Don-Yehiya
and Indigenous Hebrew Culture in Israel, 1882-1948," Katedra, Vol. 16,
(July, 1980), p. 165; Yaakov Shavit, From Hebrew to Canaanite (Jerusalem,
1984), pp. 31-42.
19. Ibid, p. 49.
20. M. Rosenblum, "To Clarify Our Method", Ibid, p. 83.
21. Shmuel Chaim Landau, "For the Hapoel Hamizrachi Movement,"
Hator, Vol. 17, (19.3.1926), pp. 3-4.
22. Shmuel Chaim Landau, "To Clarify Our Method," 1926, quoted in
Fishman, Ibid, p. 162.
23. Shmuel Chaim Landau, "On the the Task of Young Mizrachi," Katavim
(Jerusalem, N. D.), p. 30.
24. Ibid, pp. 32-33.
25. Ibid, p. 331.
26. Ibid.
27. Landau, "For the Hapoel Hamizrachi Movement," op, cit.
28. See Mordechai Bar-Lev, "The Ideological Principles of the Hasm
nean Alliance," to be published in the collection Religion and Undergrou
(publication of The Institute for the Research of Underground Moveme
Bar-Ilan University), p. 11.
29. B. Duvdevani, "Is this the Beginning of the Revolt?", The Hasmon
(December, 1943), p. 2.
30. "Chapters of the Hasmonean Covenant: The Messiah and the C
plete Redemption," Ibid (July, 1945).
31. "Chapters of the Hasmonean Covenant," The Hasmonean, (Apr
1947).
32. Ibid, (April, 1946).
33. Hatzofeh (16.12.1939).
34. See Baruch Kurzweil, "The Nature and Origins of the 'Young Hebrews'
(Canaanite) Movement," in his Modern Hebrew Literature: Revolution or
Continuity? (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 270-300.
35. The writer, Yaakov Bazak, currently holds the office of District Judge
in Israel. His words are quoted in an article by Rabbi M. Z. Neriya, first
published in 1953, "Religious Jewry in Israel," Moshe Samet (ed.), Religion
and State (Jerusalem, 1971), p. 45.
36. For the Galut concept of the ultra-Orthodox see: Aviezer Ravitzki,
*"Exile in the Holy Land: The Dilemma of Haredi Jewry," in Peter Medding
(ed.), Israel: State and Society, Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Vol. 5 (Oxford,
1989), pp. 89-121.
37. See Charles Liebman and Eliezer Don-Yehiya, *Civil Religion in Israel
(Berkeley, 1983).
38. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, "And They Shall Not Be Counted Among
the Nations," Hatzofeh, (July 12, 1946), Reprinted in To the Pathways of Israel
(Jerusalem, 1979), Vol. 1, p. 78.
39. The Symposium-chaired by Geula Cohen-was published in Maariv
(April 8, 1963). It was republished in a collection of sources and articles edited
by Aryeh Strikovsky, The State in Jewish Philosophy (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 211-
213.
40. These words were widely publicized after the war. "Psalm 19 for the
154
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The Negation of Galut
State of Israel", Hatzofeh (June 23, 1967). Reprinted in Pathways, Vol. 2, p.
160.
41. Rabbi Menahem Foreman, "They Are Not Getting Free," Emdah, Vol.
26 (November, 1989), p. 18.
42. "The Pride of Our Strength," Hatzofeh (May 10, 1946). Reprinted in
Pathways, Vol. 1, p. 74.
43. Pathways, Vol. 1, p. 75.
44. "The Faith of Our Times," Hatzofeh (August 15, 1947), Pathways, Vol.
1, p. 100.
45. Ibid.
46. "Jewry of the Torah-The Claim for aJewish State," Hatzofeh (Jan
11, 1946); Pathways, p. 68.
47. "The Faith of Our Times," Hatzofeh (August 15, 1947); Pathways
1, p. 100.
48. "The Holy Stronghold for the Jewish People and Its Land," The
agogue (December, 1945); Pathways, Vol. 2, p. 152.
49. "Safeguarding the Jewish People," Jewish Law Relating to the Lan
Israel [booklet] (May, 1948). Reprinted in Pathways, Vol. 1. p. 112.
50. Ibid, p. 113.
51. See my article, *"Jewish Messianism, Religious Zionism and I
Politics," Middle Eastern Studies (1987), pp. 215-234.
52. A. Harold Fisch, *The Zionist Revolution (London, 1978).
53. Georges Friedmann, *The End of the Jewish People? (New York, 1
54. Ibid, p. 100.
55. See A. B. Yehoshua, For the Sake of Normalization (Tel-Aviv, 1980
70-71.
56. On the Canaanites see Ya'akov Shavit, *The New Hebrew Nation (Lon
don, 1987); James S. Diamond, *Homeland or Holy Land? The "Canaanit
Critique of Israel (Bloomington, 1986).
57. Ibid, pp. 101-102.
58. Ibid, p. 109.
59. "A Debate with the Association of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations
in the U. S." (editorial), Hatzofeh (March 16, 1987).
60. Mordechai Nissan, The Jewish State and the Arab Problem (Tel-Aviv
1986), p. 38.
61. Especially relevant are two surveys conducted under the auspices of
the American Jewish Committee. The first was conducted in 1983 by the
'Smith Research Center.' See Hanoch Smith, "Israeli Attitudes Towards
America and America and American Jews," Tefutsot Yisrael, Vol. 22, No. 1
(Spring, 1984), pp. 29-62. The second was conducted in 1986 by the Dahaf
Institute, under the direction of Mina Tzemach, *"Israeli Attitudes Toward
Judaism, American Jewry, Zionism and the Israeli-Arab Conflict," (unpub-
lished).
62. See Liebman and Don-Yehiya, *Civil Religion, op. cit.
155
This content downloaded from 147.251.55.15 on Sat, 01 Dec 2018 14:34:09 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms