Religious Zionism and the Six Day War

From Realism to Messianism

Avi Sagi, Dov Schwartz

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429757235
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

This book offers a new insight into the political, social, and religious conduct of religious-Zionism, whose consequences are evident in Israeli society today. Before the Six-Day War, religious-Zionism had limited its concern to the protection of specific religious interests, with its representatives having little share in the determination of Israel's national agenda. Fifty years after it, religious-Zionism has turned into one of Israeli society's dominant elements. The presence of this group in all aspects of Israel's life and its members' determination to set Israel's social, cultural, and international agenda is indisputable.

Delving into this dramatic transformation, the book depicts the Six-Day War as a constitutive event that indelibly changed the political and religious consciousness of religious-Zionists. The perception of real history that had guided this movement from its dawn was replaced by a "sacred history" approach that became an actual program of political activity. As part of a process that has unfolded over the last thirty years, the body and sexuality have also become a central concern in the movement's practice, reflection, and discourse. The how and why of this shift in religious-Zionism – from passivity and a consciousness of marginality to the front lines of public life – is this book's central concern.

The book will be of interest to readers and scholars concerned with changing dynamic societies and with the study of religion and particularly with the relationship between religion and politics.

1 Six days that split generations

War and values

The influence of the Six-Day War on Israeli society was momentous. From a society fearful for its very existence that had felt it was struggling for survival, Israel moved on to a self-confident mood. Horrific visions of a recurring Holocaust were replaced by complacency and by a new self-image as a regional power. Language was at times too dull to convey the feelings stirring within this transition from fear of extermination to a brilliant victory and to the encounter with the holy sites and, therefore, gestures and experiences occasionally replaced well-thought-out impressions. Even the Haredi public, which did not see itself as Zionist, joined in the mood of support for the army and for the state and in the elation in the wake of the war.

Etched into the religious-Zionist visual consciousness were mainly the pictures of R. Shlomo Goren (1918–1994), head of the Military Rabbinate, blowing a shofar on the Temple Mount, and those of R. Zvi Yehuda Hacohen Kook (1891–1982) (henceforth R. Zvi Yehuda) and R. David Cohen, Ha-Nazir (1887–1972) led to the Western Wall in a military vehicle by their paratrooper disciples. In the social and political consciousness of religious-Zionists, the Six-Day War is perceived as a junction marking the shift from passivity to activity, even though the deep change actually occurred after the Yom Kippur War (1973). Gush Emunim and the settlement movement awakened in the mid-1970s, and the junction refers to the standing and influence of religious-Zionism in the public arena.¹

As for processes unfolding within the religious-Zionist camp, the Six-Day War occurred between two constitutive events separated by a gap of about fifteen years: the rise of the young guard in the NRP (National Religious Party) on the one hand and the appearance of Gush Emunim on the other. Immediately after the Six-Day War, however, people who had been forced to leave Kfar Etzion in the 1948 War of Independence demanded a right to go back,² and there was even talk about renewing the Jewish settlement in Hebron destroyed in 1929. In religious-Zionist consciousness, it is the Six-Day War that was perceived as the turning point, and a fascinating question still lacking full answer is: Why did the intensive struggle to settle Judea and Samaria begin only after the Yom Kippur War? It is in this context that we will now deal with the reactions to the Six-Day War from two bodies or groups in the religious-Zionist camp and, particularly, in its leadership.

The emergence of consciousness

We will examine the political and ethical consciousness or, more precisely, the variations of political and ethical consciousness that developed among religious-Zionist leaders and thinkers in the wake of the Six-Day War, as well as their implications for the social structure of the religious-Zionist leadership (the old-timers versus the young guard). During the Six-Day War, these variations were reflected in the style and the decisions of the political factions within the NRP (a sectorial party), variations we claim represent foundational currents within religious-Zionism.

Definitions

When using the term political and ethical consciousness (of the old-timers or the young guard), we mean four components at least:

1. 1) Their rhetoric and discourse modes
2. 2) Their political and practical decisions
3. 3) The decisions’ underlying political stance
4. 4) The decisions’ underlying set of values

Other questions that arise regarding the influence of the Six-Day War on the emergence or the development of these variations of religious-Zionist consciousness are, for example:

1. 1) What processes took place in the NRP and in the religious national public touching on the Six-Day War?
2. 2) What values were ascribed to the war and to the victory in it?
3. 3) What is the place of the messianic discourse in the attitude to the war?

We claim that the two types of discourse that emerged about the Six-Day War are rooted in previous developments, which were sharpened, clarified, and perpetuated by the war and reflected in two separate variations of consciousness, as follows:

1. 1) The old-timers. This category refers to the generation that had dominated religious-Zionist politics even before the Holocaust, usually originating in Europe or North America. It includes leaders such as Moshe Hayyim Shapira (1902–1970), Yosef Burg (1909–1999), Zerah Warhaftig (1906–2002), and Yitzhak Raphael (1914–1999). Accompanying them were members and officials of the national and international Mizrachi and Hapo`el Hamizrachi movements and of the Religious Kibbutz Federation (RKF).
2. 2) The young guard. This category refers to the generation that grew up in Israel and began to engage in religious-Zionist politics after the establishment of Israel. Among its members are Zevulun Hammer (1936–1998), Yehuda Ben-Meir, R. Haim Druckman, R. Zephaniah Drori, and Hanan Porat (1943–2011). This group is one of several representing the awakening of young people in 1960s Israel who expressed reservations about the “1948 generation” for their compliance with, and unwavering allegiance to, the establishment.³ The rabbinic discourse plays a key role within religious-Zionism’s young guard, at least as an inspiration. Contrary to the older members, however, the young guard was captivated by rabbinic charisma but did not allow it to detract from their activity as politicians with factional interests. Within the NRP, their rise is explicitly referred to as “the young guard revolution,”⁴ and we will therefore resort to this term here as well.

The distinctions between these two groups cover issues of both essence and style. The veteran generation still spoke in terms of survival and genocide. Following the victory in the Six-Day War, it adopted the religious-Zionist style of “miracle” and “redemption.” The style of its formulations, however, was almost invariably pragmatic and not (only) abstract theological. The messianic interpretation accompanied the old-timers’ generation latently and consistently; the values it derived from the war, however, were mainly values of unity and national responsibility. Moreover, the veteran leaders usually sought to refrain from deciding on the territories acquired in the war and on settlement in them, or to adopt initiatives to return them to their previous inhabitants. They frequently left the decision to security experts, seeing this mainly as a strategic question. By contrast, the young generation was drawn by the declarations of R. Zvi Yehuda on the one hand and by the appeal of imposing the values of settlement and leading the nation on the other. They despised the traditional moderation and demanded that the achievements of the war be exploited to implement the settlement idea and to create new religious-Zionist myths. Their way was characterized by an extroverted messianic discourse, tying together theology and politics.

Sources

The texts we will use include many reflective sources, testimonies, and memories of the events’ participants, in an attempt to understand how religious-Zionist leaders perceived and interpreted historical, social, and theological processes in the wake of the Six-Day War. Many of the thinkers and politicians discussed in this context responded to current events matter-of-factly, but these reactions did not convey their full consciousness of them. Sometimes, it is precisely the reflective thinking of politicians that reveals the deeper currents driving them and enables us to gauge the full picture. Indeed, some collected their topical articles and republished them in anthologies, which also offer data on their own motives and suggest that they thought their decisions on contemporary events have supra-historical value. A decision to include a specific piece in a collection implies that the influence ascribed to it transcends the impermanence that the piece is responding to. The full picture of the intellectual and political history must rely on an understanding of the reciprocal relations between topical and reflective sources.

Values: the old-timers

Historians and political scientists have so far relied mainly on analyses and opinion articles in the media and on the discourse of religious-Zionists confronting “outsiders.” An insight from “inside,” however, requires delving into primary sources.

We will now consider pronouncements by the pragmatic veteran generation, some of whose members were already leading the movement or heading its political and educational institutions. What we learn is that Greater Israel was not the primary essential value in their consciousness but, at most, one out of many. In their view, the war imparted values of faith and introspection but did not call for a change of the way. The old-timers held that the Six-Day War had justified their movement’s struggle for Israel’s religious and spiritual identity, supporting moderation, refraining from revolutions and from the interference of non-political factors into the public decision-making process.

Moderation

Eliezer Don-Yehiya wrote about the moderate and cautious stance of the three NRP ministers – Shapira, Burg, and Warhaftig – on the question of starting the war.⁵ Don-Yehiya claimed that Shapira had been the most resolute of the three in his moderate and pragmatic decisions, and had shaped the response of his faction’s opposition to Israel initiating an armed conflict.⁶ Yigal Alon (1918–1980) even argued, after the fact, that “the Israeli diplomatic effort to enlist the superpowers in the attempt to open the Straits of Tiran had been redundant, and had led to a potentially dangerous delay of the Israeli attack in Sinai.”⁷ Shapira, however, adamantly insisted that all moves should be exhausted before going to battle. Warhaftig also argued that there was no reason for Israel to attack first.⁸

Contrary to the confident and independent approach that would emerge among members of the young guard during the settlement drive, particularly in the 1970s, Shapira had demanded international support for every move even before the Six-Day War. In his view, such support was not only a legitimate but an existential requirement. Even if Israel might be able to cope with one Arab country such as Syria, he argued against the demand of Ezer Weizman (1924–2005) to attack; should this country receive Soviet support, Israel would be risking “suicide.”⁹ Shapira questioned the army’s ability to cope with the task, stating he had discussed the issue with Ben Gurion and with army generals, who had also been doubtful.¹⁰ Later, he admitted that the IDF had been ready.¹¹ Shapira said:

Certain army people sometimes make decisions based on considerations of military prestige as well. My decision is based on one consideration only – Jewish existence. My concern, therefore, is that every conflict should be solved politically, despite all the difficulties entailed. This is preferable to a military solution, which leaves behind killing, bereavement, and great destruction, even in victory. We are Holocaust remnants, Auschwitz remnants, and should as far as possible protect life.¹²

Shapira’s approach and motives are also evident in the reactions of his contemporaries. He acted out of a sense of existential danger, with the recurrent mention of the Holocaust in his rhetoric attesting to such feelings.¹³ At the war’s end, Shapira joined the choir of those calling for the unification of Jerusalem, but ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Six days that split generations: war and values
• 2 Real history and sacred history
• 3 The body and messianism
• Epilogue
• Appendix
• The miraculous dimension of the Six-Day War was discussed in a seminar of the League of Rabbinic Councils
• Press bulletin from the 27th Zionist Congress in Jerusalem
• Bibliography
• Index