Is civil war looming in Israel?
JVL Introduction
The story told here might be called “A tale of two Zionisms”.
Shaul Arieli is in no two minds about it: Israeli society is fundamentally split between secular and right-wing messianic publics. Both are Zionist, in their different ways.
The Messianic wing, marginal before 1967 is now truly in the ascendant, interpreting every sign of Jewish power and presence in the promised land as an indication that redemption is at hand.
And what will redemption mean? The establishment of a kingdom of priests and a holy nation, the restoration of the House of David, the rebuilding of the Temple and more.
And all this with a certainty that God has used Hamas, as with the Nazis, to inflict misfortune on those who refuse to cooperate with his scheme…
In opposition to this there is, says Arieli, another, traditional, vision of Zionism in a public that sees Israel as a “safe haven for the Jewish people,” based on the values of Israel’s Declaration of Independence – notably democracy, equality and membership in the family of nations.
Between these two there is now an unbridgeable gulf…
RK
This article was originally published by Haaretz on Thu 28 Mar 2024. Read the original here.
Israel's Secular and Religious-messianic Publics See October 7 Very Differently. Is Civil War Looming?
Israeli society is confronted by two clear and irreconcilable visions – of the secular and messianic-right publics. The latter is exploiting the government’s so-called judicial reform and the war raging in Gaza to pursue its dreams of redemption
Since the Six-Day War of 1967, Israel has been caught up in an internal struggle: between those who see the territories conquered as a temporary deposit for a resolution of the conflict with the Arab world, and the messianic nationalists who see Israel’s victory as a step on the road to redemption. The manifestations of the struggle became more acute over time, when Israel returned territories as part of peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, and above all in the wake of the Oslo Accords it signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. The future of the government’s plan to overhaul the judiciary and the consequences of the events of October 7 will determine whether Israel will take the last step and plunge into a violent civil war.
To understand the reasons for this predicament, we must understand how each side perceives these events from the perspective of their core beliefs about Israel’s establishment, its essence and mode of existence. The messianic myth – propagated by the followers of the Gush Emunim movement in its various incarnations, and spawned by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hacohen Kook and his son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Hacohen Kook – is unique. It does not stem, as many wrongly think, from the depths of distress and despair that give rise to the yearning for a better future with the advent of the Messiah. In fact, it derives from the opposite perception.
Indeed, the myth does not originate in a sense of failure but rather comes from a feeling of success and fulfillment in anticipation of redemption. According to this approach, there are times when the seeds of redemption sprout before our eyes, as part of what’s known as “signs of the end of exile.” For example, the Balfour Declaration, the United Nations partition resolution on Palestine, the victories in the War of Independence and in the Six-Day War – all can be seen as signs that God has decided to redeem the Jewish people and fulfill the promise of redemption.
When the late chief rabbi of Israel, Shlomo Goren, was asked almost 60 years ago how he saw the State of Israel integrating with the Jewish people’s vision of messianic redemption, he replied, “Halakha [religious law] rules out the possibility of an interim time in the historical process. It recognizes only three historical periods. One is from the conquest of the land by Joshua until the destruction of the Temple; the second is the period of exile; the third is the messianic period. I believe we are now at the beginning of that period… I believe with complete faith that we will be privileged to see the building of the Temple” (Yedioth Ahronoth, April 16, 1965).
The ability to identify the divine plan and the “signs of the end of exile” is granted only to the members of this messianic group, as reflected in Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook’s explanation for the UN partition vote in 1947: “Those who were present at the UN session when they decided on the establishment of the State of Israel, and had true vision, would have seen that the real chairman in that session was not Trygve Lie, the Swedish representative who sat there with the gavel, but the Lord blessed be he [who] sat there and decided: Argentina – yes; Bolivia – no; Brazil – abstention. And at the end of the vote count – yes” (Orot Israel College of Education website).
It follows that the appearance of “signs of the end of exile” is comprised of stages that attest to success – meaning the consummation of the messianic vision of redemption – as long as those signs continue to appear. This is a success that must not be stopped. Why? Because, as Maimonides explains, it is solely historical achievements in and of themselves that lead to absolute success, that are the clearest touchstones of each stage of manifesting the truth of the messianic process. Talmudic scholar Rabbi Shem Tov ibn Gaon wrote in the 14th century: “It shall not be clarified, other than by success, as Maimonides wrote.”
What is meant by success? In the words of the late settler leader Hanan Porat, “The ingathering of the exiles, the establishment of the state and its security are only initial layers… Ahead of us await additional, enormous objectives that are an integral part of Zionism, chief among them: the establishment of ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,’ the restoration of the shekhina [divine presence] to Zion, establishment of the kingdom of the House of David and the building of the Temple – as a keystone of tikkun olam [repair of the world] in the kingdom of Shaddai [God].”
The messianic myth propagated by Gush Emunim’s followers doesn’t stem from despair that gives rise to yearnings for the advent of the Messiah but from feelings of success in anticipation of redemption.
Against the backdrop of this conception, it’s possible to understand the so-called judicial reforms and other legislative efforts of the present Netanyahu government, which is led by Religious Zionism-Otzma Yehudit ministers Bezalel Smotrich, Itamar Ben-Gvir and their colleagues in the coalition parties. These processes are intended to remove all earthly obstacles on the road to Jewish sovereignty over Greater Israel: emasculation of the judicial branch, especially the High Court of Justice, so that it cannot take action against government decisions, even if they conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Basic Laws and international law; elimination of the conditions that enable opposition parties to replace the coalition in an election; the silencing of the independent, critical media and wresting control over it until it is fully mobilized; suppression of critics of the government’s policies; and so on.
This messianic community’s interpretation of the events of October 7 is in line with their interpretation of the Holocaust. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook explains that the Holocaust is actually part of the divine plan – an opposite approach to that presented by Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, founder of the Satmar Hasidic sect. Teitelbaum viewed modern Zionism as the cause of the Holocaust, because the movement violated the oaths God demanded of the Jewish people when they went into exile, of which the first was “not to climb the wall” – namely, not to actively force the advent of the end of exile, but to wait quietly for the coming of the Messiah.
For his part, Kook’s interpretation of the Holocaust references the Gemara, which cites another oath: “Do not distance the end times.” Which is to say, avoid doing deeds that will cause redemption to be moved further away. As such, the Holocaust occurred because at the time that divine providence opened the gates and showed that God wanted the Jews to go up to the Land of Israel, they did not do so, and thus violated the oath and were punished. “The Jewish people were taken, amputated from the depths of exile, to the State of Israel. The blood that was shed by the six million is a true gash in the national body. The whole people undergoes divine surgery by the destroyers, may their name be expunged” (Zvi Yehuda Kook, “Eretz Hazvi”).
“The secular Jewish public sees such events as the Balfour Declaration as cornerstones in the establishment and preservation of a state for the Jewish people in its homeland, based on firm political, historical, legal and moral justifications.”Illustration: Marina Grechanik
However, there is recompense for the punished in the form of a return to the path of redemption – the essence of the very purpose of the Jewish people – as Kook goes on to explain: “From the cruel amputation… the core of our life is revealed, of the revival of the nation and the revival of the land.” Based on this approach, it becomes “clear” that if the Jewish people should stumble again and not take advantage of the opportunities presented to them, for example, when God led them to victory in the Six-Day War and to conquest of the land, and if they should forsake settlement and conferral of Jewish sovereignty over the whole land – they will again be subjected to unbearable punishment.
It is in this spirit that the massacre of residents of the western Negev on October 7 is seen by the messianic adherents of religious Zionism. A week after that accursed day, Prof. Yoel Elitzur, a scholar of Hebrew and the Bible, published an article on Srugim, the leading website of the religious Zionist public, stating that the Hamas massacre was part of God’s plan for Israelis who are “bringing calamities upon the Jewish people and foiling the divine plan.” The author saw a connection between the massacre and secularism and the failure to advance the idea of “Greater Israel.” In other words, God has used Hamas, as with the Nazis, to inflict misfortune on those who refuse to cooperate with his scheme.
Elitzur’s comments were echoed in an interview on November 1 by Finance Minister Smotrich, on the Kan Channel 11 News: “Maybe we needed to absorb this terrible and painful blow so as to remember for one second who we are and what we are.” In other words, the massacre took place in order to remind the Jewish people what its purpose is within the messianic process. Here too there is a “reward” for the heavy price paid: God’s use of Hamas in its attack on Israel is what will enable Israel to correct the “mistake” of the disengagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005 – which disrupted the divine plan – and to reconquer and resettle that territory.
To complete the tikkun, or correction, as many who espouse messianism have been saying lately, Gaza’s current residents must be expelled, Jewish settlement in Gaza must be renewed and the Strip must be formally annexed to Israel. According to this perception, this will be an achievement of historic proportions, which will also justify the large number of Israel Defense Forces casualties. As National Missions Minister Orit Strock (Religious Zionism) put it, “A return to the Gaza district will entail many sacrifices, but at the end of the day it is part of the Land of Israel, it will happen when the Jewish people are ripe for it [and], very regrettably it will take a toll in blood” (Arutz 7, March 21, 2023).
From the messianic viewpoint, the war in Gaza is also an opportunity to ratchet up Jewish terrorism against the Palestinians in the West Bank in order to bring about an all-out confrontation that will culminate in the removal of the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza will then have three remaining options, as set forth in Smotrich’s “Decisive Plan” of 2017: “Those who wish to flee – let them flee; those who wish to accept [Israeli rule] – let them accept; those who wish to make war – let them make war.”
“Maybe we needed to absorb this terrible and painful blow so as to remember for one second who we are and what we are,” Smotrich said. In other words, the massacre took place in order to remind the Jewish people what its purpose is within the messianic process.
Hence, the return of the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, the transfer of Area A and Area B in the West Bank to the PA (Area B is administered jointly with Israel), the disengagement plan and the evacuation of illegal settler outposts – all are signs contrary to “the revealed end times” scenario. All attest that the outcome of such policies does not spell success when it comes to “inheriting the land.” Which is why Strock also said that the return of the settlers to Homesh, a West Bank settlement that was also evacuated in 2005, is the Archimedean point from which will stem correction of the sin of the disengagement and of all other acts of withdrawal.
“The State of Israel is embarking again on the high road of moving ahead, instead of the road of retreats that existed before,” the minister declared, in that same interview. To Strock and her supporters, apparently, the war in Gaza can be seen as the continuation of a corrective process that the government is spearheading, despite its costs – the events of October 7 and their aftermath are proof of re-embarkment on the divine path.
In contrast, the secular Jewish public sees such events as the Balfour Declaration as cornerstones in the establishment and preservation of a state for the Jewish people in its homeland, based on firm political, historical, legal and moral justifications, even if some of them differ from those behind creation of other nation-states after World War I. This public sees Israel as a “safe haven for the Jewish people,” which exists in light of the values enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence – notably democracy, equality and membership in the family of nations.
This vision, which originated with the state’s founding fathers, will be snuffed out if the judicial overhaul succeeds. It will only be able to endure if there is separation from the Palestinians, within a two-state, political framework. Accordingly, October 7 and its aftermath are perceived as a price that did not necessarily have to be paid, as the bitter fruit of the misguided policies pursued by the government of Benjamin Netanyahu bolstered by the messianic dreams of his cabinet ministers. Although polls show a decline in support for the two-state solution within Jewish Israeli society, those who support separation from the Palestinians remain the majority.
That approach also enjoys sweeping support among the international community. In the wake of the steep and unnecessary price that October 7 and the ensuing war in Gaza have exacted from Israel, the ongoing, horrific devastation of the Strip and the mass casualties, and in light of the regional escalation of hostilities and other developments – the international community is coming to terms with the fact that it must take a more proactive role in implementing the two-state solution. As the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Joseph Borrell, stated on January 19: “We believe that a two-state solution must be imposed from outside to bring peace.”
The ideological division between the secular and religious-messianic publics shows that the terms “right” and “left” are now less relevant than ever with respect to Israel’s political arena and society. They can exist only as two poles along a continuum, based on a shared vision – but these two entities do not possess a shared vision.
Menachem Begin, who was on the political right, aspired to implement the vision of Greater Israel, but in 1972 committed himself to the vision of the founding fathers, saying, “Zionism… these are its foundations in the Land of Israel, to which we have an inalienable right; there will be a Jewish majority, an Arab minority, and equal rights for all. We have not and will not depart from this doctrine, in which the justice of our cause is encapsulated.” In late December 1977, after his election earlier that year, Begin said of the messianists in the country: “I remarked once in an argument with those from Gush Emunim… ‘You have one weakness – you have developed among you a messianic complex.'”
Today, each of the two groups in question espouses a different vision, which renders ridiculous the birth of the so-called center parties and the Israeli voter’s fondness for a center that does not exist in reality. Because without choosing one of the two visions, the leaders of the imaginary center are operating in a conceptual void that cannot be translated into action, and thus their whole purpose in recent governments is to serve as “the messiah’s donkey” (i.e., to do the dirty work of bringing about the advent of the Messiah).
If Israel entrenches itself along with its government in that approach, which already seems to be evident and is in accordance with the “day after” plan presented by Netanyahu, if it persists with the judicial coup and perceives October 7 and the ensuing war as events that ensure its eternal control over the territories and over the Palestinian people that inhabit them – it will be dragged into extremely violent confrontations between the police and both supporters and opponents of the coup. At the same time, the country will be swept up – at a time of economic, security, social and moral fragility – into various confrontations with the Palestinian people, the Arab world and the international community, first and foremost with the United States.
If Israel persists with the judicial coup and perceives October 7 and the ensuing war as events that ensure its eternal control over the Palestinians – it will be dragged into extremely violent confrontations between the police and both supporters and opponents of the coup.
But all that does not perturb the proponents of messianism. As Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook also wrote after the 1967 war, “Someone said this evening on the radio that the State of Israel is dependent on America and that we must take them into consideration. That is nothing less than heresy vis-a-vis God’s acts. We are not dependent on America, we are dependent upon the Holy One blessed be He.”
If Israel returns to the political and diplomatic path of resolving the conflict with the Palestinians according to UN decisions – after freeing itself of Netanyahu, whose sole interest is his political survival – it will discover that the slogan “Together we shall win” is of absolutely no importance to the messianic community. If a sobered-up Israel does not succeed in deploying itself socially, morally and in terms of its security needs, in advance of moves aimed at reaching a political resolution of the conflict, it is liable to find itself grappling with the threat Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook described to his followers, who are now literally arming themselves thanks to Ben-Gvir: “I said and wrote that for Judea and Samaria, Jericho and the Golan Heights there will be a war, and no concessions are conceivable… It is not for us to betray, but rather to add validity and courage of sanctifying God’s name.”
It is incumbent on another, alternative government of Israel to adopt the words of Yitzhak Rabin, who wrote in “The Rabin Memoirs” in 1979: “Against their basic approach, which conflicts with Israel’s democratic foundation, it was vital to mount a conceptual struggle that would expose the true significance of Gush Emunim, their positions and modes of operation, and to spearhead a process of attaining a permanent settlement with the Palestinians.”
Only in this way will the Israeli public understand what should be understood by everyone: that this is a case of a false messiah, who is leading Israel to perdition.
Dr. Shaul Arieli, a colonel in the IDF reserves, heads the Tamrur-Politography Research Group, and is the author of eight books and two atlases on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
