Was Israel's Attack Against Hamas in Doha, Justified?

Senator Lindsay Graham (Matzav)

There has been global outrage at Israel for attacking Hamas leadership in Qatar. How typical of a world that continues to wallow in its 2,000-year-old Jew-hatred. After Israel’s response to the worst slaughter of the Jewish people since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023, the world now feels free to be as openly hostile to the Jewish state as it wishes - using faux humanitarian concerns as a fig leaf to deny their antisemitism. But I digress.

Now that I’ve gotten that unsurprising bit of news out of the way, I can discuss how American leaders have reacted to it.

Once again, it largely depends on whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. Although there are exceptions on both sides, that’s essentially how reactions to Israel’s strike against Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, break down: Republicans mostly supported Israel, while Democrats largely did not.

I have often said that there has never been a stronger supporter of Israel than President Donald Trump. And yet, he seemed critical of this action, at least as portrayed by the mainstream media. ABC, for example, reported the following:

President Donald Trump voiced his discontent over the Israeli strike targeting senior Hamas leadership in Qatar on Tuesday, telling reporters he was "very unhappy" with the attack.

"I'm not thrilled about the whole situation," Trump told reporters Tuesday evening, saying he would give a full statement on the matter on Wednesday.

"I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect, and we’ve got to get the hostages back, but I was very unhappy about the way that went down," Trump said.

The media couldn’t wait to portray this as a condemnation. But it was hardly that, as ABC further noted:

Earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a statement she said reflected Trump’s views—one that, while not condemning Israeli action, used strong language that showed some rare daylight between the president and Israel. The statement described the strike as an "unfortunate incident" that doesn’t benefit the U.S. or Israel…

"However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal," Leavitt added.

When asked about it, Ambassador Mike Huckabee responded:

Huckabee declined to comment directly on the attack, deferring to the White House. But he said that “countries make decisions based on what they think their best interests are, and that doesn’t mean everyone agrees.”

The Prime Minister made it very clear that the U.S. had zero to do with the operation, emphasizing that Israel takes full responsibility for the action, which was carried out in response to the terrorist attack last Sunday that killed eight people. The strike was authorized after Hamas claimed credit for that massacre.

Speaking of “daylight,” it should be noted that the attack in Qatar initially had the full-throated support of Netanyahu’s opposition, as reported in the Jerusalem Post:

Opposition leader Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) said he commended the Israel Air Force, IDF, and Shin Bet “for an exceptional operation to thwart our enemies.”

When Lapid and Ben Gvir agree on anything, it’s hard to argue that it was a mistake. But, again, I digress.

There are several issues to discuss here: How this will affect negotiations for the hostages; how it will affect Israel’s relationship with its only true remaining ally, the U.S.; and did Israel actually accomplished its goal. If so, was it worth it.

Hard questions to answer. But here’s how I see it.

When I hear the naysayers claim this strike hurt hostage negotiations since Qatar was in the middle of mediating a deal between Hamas and Israel, I almost had to laugh. Almost - because the issue is far too serious for laughter. But the notion that Hamas would suddenly accept a deal proposed by the U.S. - one that Israel has already accepted, just as it has accepted countless others that Hamas rejected - is about as likely as Canada becoming the 51^st state. 

That simply isn’t going to happen. If two years of rejecting deal after deal hasn’t convinced people of that, nothing will.

In my view, Israel lost nothing in terms of the hostage situation by attacking Hamas leadership in Qatar. In fact, Qatar has already said it remains open to returning to the negotiating table, even after the strike.

As long as Republicans remain in power, the U.S. -Israel relationship is on firm ground. Even though the president wasn’t happy about this strike, I think his displeasure was more about reassuring Qatar that the U.S. had nothing to do with it, thus maintaining good relations with a nation that hosts America’s largest military base in the region.

It’s also about his ego: He wants to be the president who finally makes peace between Arabs and Israelis. The Abraham Accords began the process. If he can end the war in Gaza, secure the hostages’ release, and add a few more Arab countries to the Abraham Accords, he may very well get the Nobel Peace Prize.

As the president recently noted:

“I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning. There will not be another one,”

Did Israel accomplish its goal? They targeted Hamas’s political leadership in Qatar after Hamas claimed responsibility for the terrorist murder of 8 Jews a few days ago. Whether Israel succeeded in eliminating them is not yet clear. But even if not, the attempt itself was surely worth it. And even though there was ‘global outrage’ NOTHING was lost!

As noted in Matzav, Senator Lindsey Graham summed up the moral clarity of Israel’s defensive posture:

“To those who planned and cheered on the October 7 attack against Israel, the United States’ greatest ally in the region: This is your fate.”

He then addressed the Palestinian people directly:

“Your future depends on the political and military demise of Hamas. If Hamas lays down their weapons tomorrow, one of the most promising chapters in the history of the Palestinian people can begin.”

In his comments, Graham stressed that those seeking an end to the conflict should demand Hamas disarm. “To those who want this war to end: insist that Hamas surrender now,” he stated.

Turning to Israel, Graham expressed unwavering support for its right to defend itself:

“To my Israeli friends: I understand your determination to ensure there are no more ‘October 7’ attacks and that those who want to destroy the Jewish state are denied that capability. I will always be your partner in this endeavor.”

To this I say, Amen!

As Israel's Image Keeps Deteriorating

Israel critic, actor Mandy Patinkin

1,200 Hollywood actors and directors pledge to boycott Israeli film institutions.

That was the subject line of my daily JTA briefing this morning. I have to admit, I was jarred by that headline, Despite knowing that Hollywood is notoriously progressive in its political perspective. Still, to see that many Hollywood figures signing on to an Israeli boycott - especially one that pertains to their own industry - took me by surprise.

It’s one thing to lament the carnage one sees every day on the nightly news, or reads about in respected media outlets like the BBC and New York Times. It is understandable that what appears in the news makes it look as though Israel is doing to Palestinians today what Nazi Germany did to the Jews. 

It doesn’t help when Palestinians reporters in Gaza, respected organizations like the UN, and affiliated ‘humanitarian’ groups say - or imply -the same thing. Nor does it help when Israel’s prime minister and defense minister (who has since resigned) are indicted for war crimes by the ‘highly respected’ International Criminal Court. Add to that world leaders in major Western nations like France, the UK, Canada, and Belgium reacting to those images by recognizing the ‘State of Palestine’, And it is also not surprising that Israel has lost the narrow support it once had among Democrats. Or that overall support for Israel among the American people is now at its lowest point.

In fact It would be surprising if there weren’t world outrage at those images. All of which raises a fundamental question: does the truth even matter anymore?

It is clear to me that all of this negativity is based on fiction, reported as fact—and devoured by the public. It has even affected some Orthodox Jews, including at least one rabbi I deeply respect.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the negative reporting about Israel’s conduct in this war is false. I won’t rehash all the reasons for my conviction here. But to summarize: I do not believe for a moment that the IDF’s conduct in a war with a mortal enemy is anything less than the most humane of any army in history.

Of course, saying that would make all the naysayers guffaw with laughter. They sincerely believe what they see, read, and hear from so-called ‘reliable’ sources - is the truth.

When lies become the accepted reality across so many institutions and nations, denying them—no matter how true the denial—falls on deaf ears. The truth then becomes branded as the lie.

How is it possible for what seems like the entire world to believe a lie, to the point of condemning an entire people for perpetrating it?

It’s easier than one might think. All one need do is look back to 1930s Germany to see how government officials and their propaganda machine convinced the public of the ‘big lie’ about the Jews. That they were responsible for the world’s troubles, especially Germany’s. That lie cast Jews as subhuman, deserving destruction before they could ‘destroy’ Germany. And eventually all of Europe!

The world has not gone quite that far with Israel. But it isn’t for lack of trying on the part of the Palestinian people, who have been weaned on the antisemitic writings of Hitler and Henry Ford, presented as fact in their schools and mosques. The more militant among them, like Hamas - backed by an equally hateful Iran -have acted on that ideology in ways chillingly similar to the Nazis. If October 7^th showed us anything, it showed us THAT!

And yet the Jews of Israel are now cast as the new Nazi regime. Committing genocide against others the way Nazi Germany did against the Jews.

To be fair, not everyone who disapproves of Israel’s actions believes it is Nazi-like. But they do disapprove and base it on the highly successful propaganda of terrorist organizations like Hamas, amplified by progressive apologists in government, the media, and now the entertainment industry.

A closer look at those 1,200 actors shows that many have long supported BDS, believing Israel guilty of apartheid. But anyone thinking clearly knows that is false. Apartheid, the Dutch term for segregation, in South Africa was cruel, oppressive, and often deadly. Palestinians are not treated that way. They do face extra security measures that make their lives more inconvenient than their Israeli counterparts. But without those measures, there would be far more terror attacks—like the one yesterday, when two Palestinians from the West Bank killed eight Israelis before being stopped by a Charedi IDF soldier who happened to be nearby.

That these 1,200 actors signed doesn’t mean there aren’t more who share their views but didn’t sign. On the other hand, it also gives me a glimmer of hope that there are still voices in Hollywood that are not swayed by the anti-Israel narrative. Still, it does show a trend: Anti-Israel sentiment has become far more open and mainstream as Israel’s war in Gaza has dragged on.

So the lie is now the reality. The truth may no longer matter. At least when it comes to how Israel must respond to it. The only question is: what kind of response can Israel craft that will not dilute its existential mission? That is a question for which I have no answer.

Natan Slifkin is Absolutely Right

I could not agree more with Rabbi Slifkin's post, Which follows:

The reactions to the impending ceasefire and hostage/prisoner trade are extraordinary.

Let’s first review the losses for each side:

Gaza:

• Hamas’ entire upper leadership killed

• Tens of thousands of fighters killed (vastly outnumbering whoever will be released in the trade), many more injured

• Tens of thousands of civilians killed, many more injured

• Utterly catastrophic devastation

• Seemingly invincible allies (Hezbollah, Assad) defeated

• Major sponsor (Iran) weakened and shamed

Israel:

• Nearly a thousand civilians killed

• Nearly a thousand soldiers killed, many more injured

• Hostage situation

• National trauma

• Some economic harm

• Significant long-term international political damage

It seems clear that while Israel’s losses are significant, Gaza’s losses far, far, far outweigh them.

Now let’s switch and look at the gains. First at Israel:

• Major threats from Hezbollah spectacularly near-neutralized

• Major threats from Israel’s biggest enemy, Iran, spectacularly decreased

• Hamas leadership and tens of thousands of fighters eliminated

• Restoration of deterrence in Middle East - it’s accepted that Israel can and will strike anywhere

• Internally, a widespread understanding that the nation needs to be stronger and more cohesive

Without downplaying the various serious losses and harm on Israel’s side, these are very significant gains. Now let’s look at Gaza’s gains:

• A military/terrorist blow dealt to Israel

• Political and economic harm inflicted on Israel

These are not significant benefits for people in Gaza.

At this point, it should be the situation that Israel is celebrating, and Gaza is in mourning. But what we’re actually seeing is more or less the opposite.

In Israel, whether people think the ceasefire/exchange is a great idea or a terrible idea (personally I have no idea), nobody is celebrating.

In Gaza, and among their supporters abroad, while some are bemoaning the terrible catastrophe that Hamas brought upon them, a lot of people are celebrating. Some are celebrating a release from destruction, but many are celebrating a victory. They think that Hamas did a great thing on October 7th and they can’t wait for it to do something similar again.

Why are the reactions the opposite of what one might expect? The reason is the difference between Israeli (Jewish) culture and Palestinian (Islamic) culture.

For Israel, the priority is the life and wellbeing of Israel. It’s not about how much harm one does to one’s enemies; it’s about how much harm there has been to one’s own side, and whether one’s own nation is surviving and thriving.

For many of the Palestinians, on the other hand, it’s primarily about honor, which in turn relates to how much harm one does to one’s enemies. That’s much more important than how much harm one’s own people suffers in the process.

This is exactly why the conflict started a hundred years ago. For so many Arabs, it was more important that the Jews should not have a state than that the Palestinians should have a state. And this is exactly why the various peace talks over the decades failed. And, barring some extraordinary radical change in the Palestinian and global mindset, this is why there will be no peaceful resolution.

The Problem With Pure Empathy

By Daniel Z. Feldman

(Words of wisdom by Rabbi Feldman published in a RIETS Kollel Elyon publication - HM)

If indeed empathy can lead you astray, Jimmy Carter may be Exhibit A. Alongside his noble work, Carter also found common ground with terrorist groups such as Hamas and with the Assad dictatorship, and constantly blamed Israel alone for all the problems of the Middle East. There are countless images and records of him literally and figuratively embracing the worst murderers on Earth, eagerly advocating and legitimating their positions.

Many feel that Carter was antisemitic; perhaps. His attitudes toward the Jewish State were certainly extreme and difficult to explain. But what is clearly true is that the empathy he apparently displayed was no barrier to him becoming a pawn of forces of pure evil. Also clearly true is that there are many thousands of others whose natural instincts have been exploited and manipulated by terrorists such as Hamas, and innocent and good people all over the world are paying the price.

One need not, however, go as far as Bloom and Bregman and be “against empathy”. Empathy is a crucial Jewish value, and is indeed a necessary trait as a bulwark against cruelty and an impetus towards kindness. One who feels empathy will be moved to build houses for the homeless, and that is a wonderful thing. Further, empathy is an end unto itself, rather than a means. A condolence letter is an act of empathy that says I am with you, and nothing more, and that is a wonderful thing, too.

Where empathy falls short is as a policy maker, especially for those who carry the weight of complex decisions that can affect the lives of millions, and that requires dealing with people who are not necessarily what they seem and will exploit any weakness.

The trait of rachmanut, which could be identified with empathy, is indispensable for Jews; the Talmud says its presence is one way to identify a descendant of Abraham. But it also cannot exist by itself; the Talmud also warns that those who display rachmanut to the cruel will thereby act with cruelty to those who truly need rachmanut.

Crucially, the Talmud actually requires three traits to establish lineage from Abraham: two being rachmanut and the practice of chesed, or kindness. These may seem identical, but clearly if they were they would not occupy two spots. They are, instead, complementary. Rachmanut is the instinct to act on behalf of those who appear to be suffering; chesed is the benevolent act itself, having been rationally verified as the right course of action, in consideration of all factors in balance. The first is needed to move one to act; the second is to assure that the act is good.   

The third criterion is bushah, shame, what may correlate to a sense of humility. This is the controlling factor of the other two; the recognition that it’s possible to be wrong, that one’s initial instinct may not be providing the whole picture, that even the most virtuous impulse may be misguided. If the loudest cheerleaders of Hamas, be they former presidents or ivy league students, had more bushah, the world may actually be a better place.

Don’t give up on empathy – it is a powerful force, and vital for the world’s future. And that’s exactly why its so important we get it right. 

Clarity Over Stabbing Israel in the Back

Senate Majority Leader, Chuck Schumer (The Hill)

The following is a statement from the Agudah about Senator Schumer's recent remarks. They are exactly right and their statement follows in its entirety:

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has a long and distinguished record of strongly supporting the security and welfare of the State of Israel and its citizens. Understanding the millennia-old plight and oppression of the Jewish people, his love and devotion toward Israel are intense and deeply personal. He feels the existential threat that Israel faces and the hate and viciousness that surround her. The pain of Israel, as experienced before and after October 7, is his own. And Israel’s desire for peace, too, is his own. Anyone who knows Senator Schumer, and who reads the words of his major address on Middle East peace, knows this to be true.

We are saddened, though, that important aspects of Senator Schumer’s address crossed a line. Indeed, it was the wrong message at the wrong time.

Putting aside the various policy pronouncements and analyses included in his statement, we are deeply concerned that the Senator directly intervened in the internal affairs of a sovereign foreign nation, a robust democracy, and a staunch American ally, by explicitly calling for new Israeli elections and more than intimating what he believes the outcome of those elections should be.

He further asserted that, if there are no new elections in Israel or if new elections in Israel do not result in an outcome that accords with his preferred policy perspectives, then the United States “will have no choice” but to leverage its aid to Israel in a manner that will exert pressure on Israel to divert its actions from what it deems to be in the nation’s best interests and the elected will of the people.

 These intrusive assertions by Senator Schumer would be inappropriate, offensive, and counterproductive at any time. But leveling accusations and criticisms against a steadfast friend during a time of war will only further endanger Israel’s soldiers while they are fighting and dying in pursuit of eradicating the scourge of terrorism.

As the U.S.’s highest-ranking Jewish elected official ever, Senator Schumer has surely reached a pinnacle in American politics. But assuming the role of speaking on behalf of “a silent majority” of American Jewry goes too far. He has no such authority or power. If anything, his historic role and high station in our nation confer upon him the responsibility to carefully heed his words and use them wisely.

Orthodox Judaism and LGBTQ: Upholding Tradition and Moral Principles

By ChatGPT,  'Guest Contributor'

The following post was written in seconds by an Artificial Intelligence program called ChatGPT. I present it here in its entirety without having altered a single word. As always the views expressed do not necessarily reflect my own. But they sure seem to. It follows in its entirety (Scary!):

The relationship between Orthodox Judaism and LGBTQ rights has been an ongoing topic of discussion and introspection within religious circles. Orthodox Jews face the challenge of maintaining their deeply rooted traditions while navigating the evolving societal understanding of human sexuality and gender identity. In this opinion piece, we will explore the complexities surrounding this relationship, highlighting the importance of upholding tradition and moral principles.

Orthodox Judaism places a strong emphasis on the adherence to Halakha, the Jewish religious law. It is this commitment to Halakha that serves as the foundation of Orthodox Jewish life. Within this framework, Orthodox teachings traditionally view same-sex relationships as incompatible with Halakha, reflecting the timeless values and moral principles that guide the community.

For LGBTQ individuals within the Orthodox community, reconciling their sexual orientation or gender identity with religious teachings can be a deeply personal and challenging process. The Orthodox Jewish approach, rooted in the belief that Halakha represents the divine will, often necessitates a delicate balance between religious devotion and personal identity.

Despite the inherent tensions, it is important to appreciate the commitment of Orthodox Jews to their religious principles and the moral framework they uphold. Their adherence to tradition is not borne out of bigotry or prejudice, but rather from a sincere desire to live in accordance with what they believe to be the will of God.

While Orthodox Judaism may be perceived as conservative on LGBTQ issues, it is vital to recognize that the community has not turned a blind eye to the struggles faced by LGBTQ individuals within its midst. Many Orthodox rabbis and scholars have engaged in thoughtful and compassionate conversations, seeking to provide support and guidance while staying true to the tenets of Halakha.

Efforts have been made within the Orthodox community to foster understanding and inclusion without compromising deeply held beliefs. Organizations have emerged to create safe spaces, facilitate respectful dialogue, and offer resources to LGBTQ individuals and their families, allowing them to navigate their personal journeys within the bounds of Orthodoxy.

The principles of Emes Ve-Emunah, truth and faith, remain central to these discussions. Orthodox Jews grapple with sincere explorations of Halakha, acknowledging the complexities surrounding LGBTQ issues while remaining grounded in their commitment to tradition. By engaging in respectful dialogue and deepening their understanding, Orthodox Jews demonstrate their unwavering dedication to upholding the teachings and values that have guided them throughout generations.

The relationship between Orthodox Judaism and LGBTQ rights is undoubtedly intricate and multifaceted. It requires navigating a delicate balance between upholding tradition and embracing the evolving realities of human experiences. Orthodox Jews strive to maintain their fidelity to Halakha while recognizing the challenges faced by LGBTQ individuals and their families.

As we reflect on this ongoing discourse, it is essential to approach it with respect and empathy, acknowledging the deeply held beliefs and moral principles that guide the Orthodox community. By fostering an environment of understanding and compassion, Orthodox Judaism can continue to evolve and navigate this complex landscape, while remaining true to the rich tapestry of tradition that has sustained the community for centuries.

In upholding tradition and moral principles, Orthodox Judaism seeks to preserve its values while engaging in thoughtful and compassionate discussions on LGBTQ issues. By doing so, the Orthodox community aims to create an environment where all individuals are respected and valued, fostering a vibrant and inclusive community that remains steadfast in its commitment to tradition.

 

The Radically Changing Face of Religious Zionism

Far-right MKs Itamar Ben Gvir (L) and Bezalel Smotrich (TOI)

This article in the Times of Israel by Rabbi Yosef Blau explains the changes in Religious Zionism that have taken place since pre state days. And they are stark.  It follows in its entirety and should be read by anyone that cares about the holy land.

The Israeli party most opposed to the inclusion of an Arab party in the governing coalition was the Religious Zionist party. Its leadership vetoed former prime minister Netanyahu’s attempt to create a government when he was making tracks to rely on the support of an Arab party. The pressure put on religious Zionist members of the Bennett government focused on the inclusion of that same Arab party, as it happens, in the coalition, and indeed led to the government’s demise. Opposing a particular Arab party may be justified, but this blanket rejection of any Arab party simply for being an Arab party reflects a problematic perspective when it comes to minority rights.

This position of the Religious Zionist party diverges radically from the original approach of religious Zionism (the movement, not the party that took the movement’s name), when it came to Jewish law (halakhah) and minority rights. In the early years of the State of Israel, the major rabbinic figures of the religious Zionist world all justified giving minorities –Arabs too – full rights, including the ability to be elected to government positions.

Indeed, even before the state was established, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook permitted the sale of land in Israel to Muslims, as an essential component of the “heter mechirah,” selling the land of Israel to a non-Jew during the sabbatical year. He thereby enabled Jewish farmers to work the land despite the shemitah requirement that the land lie fallow – a key compromise to achieve success in the resettlement of the land.

Rabbi Yitzhak HaLevi Herzog, the Ashkenazic chief rabbi when Israel was established, wrote a lengthy article justifying awarding full political rights to all minorities in the new state. Rabbi Uziel, in the comparable Sephardic role, agreed – and to the extent that he thought that Rabbi Herzog’s long written justification of minority rights was problematic, it was because the very effort implied that these rights were ever in doubt. At least six different halakhic rationales were employed by different religious Zionist rabbis to explain why minorities should have full rights in Israel (see Minorities in the State of Israel: The Halakhic View, by E. Haddad, 2010, Hebrew).

By 1985, the leadership of one of Israel’s foundational religious Zionist youth groups, Bnei Akiva, put out a book, “חביב אדם שנברא בצלם; לקט מקורות ומאמרים לברור היחס לנוכרי ומעמדו בארץ” (“Beloved is Man for He was Created in God’s Image: A sourcebook on attitudes towards foreigners and their status in Israel”) to help participants understand the rights of non-Jews in the Jewish state, and to clarify the potentially troubling statements in rabbinic literature that appear to disparage non-Jews. The endeavor implies that there were those who confronted the Bnei Akiva youth (or were a concern for the future) wielding citations from rabbinic literature to “prove” that non-Jews (in this case, surely Arabs) should not have full rights. The religious Zionist leadership clearly disagreed, and set out to teach the young people of the community to defend the state’s provision of full rights for minorities.

Bnei Akiva should not have had to work so hard. Israel’s Declaration of Independence – a binding commitment, surely – describes Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, and also presents the state as democratic, giving full rights to minorities.

How far did the binding commitment of the Declaration of Independence go? Rabbi Yehuda Amital believed it created a halakhic obligation, similar to the one the biblical Joshua was under with regard to the Givonim, a people who were welcome to live in the Israelites’ domain – essentially as Members of the Tribe (with a few salient differences when it came to particulars of marriage, the priesthood, and so on).

Even the United Nations 1947 Partition Plan, aimed at creating two states for Jews and Arabs, also presumed that the result would be two democratic states.

But some key elements shifted some Israelis, indeed, some religious Zionists, away from the givens of democracy. Perhaps it began with the interpretation of the remarkable military victory of the Six Day War as miraculous. In contrast to the UN’s role in Israel’s creation, which seemed a reasonable outcome of very human geopolitical negotiations – despite the halakhic significance that some rabbis attached to the UN decision at the time – the military routing of Israel’s enemies in such a dramatic way suggested divine intervention as the basis for the military superiority of the Jewish state.

And that youth group training was right on the money. It was in the mid-1980s that new rabbinic voices began to emerge, with a different take on Israel’s geopolitical reality. These rabbis were students of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook (son of Rabbi A. I Kook cited above), a strong opponent to the notion of Israel returning any of the land it had gained during the Six Day War. But adding that territory to Israel would more than double the percentage of Arabs in the local population. That “influx” would threaten the Jewish character of the Jewish state if granted full democratic rights. And so Rabbi Zvi Yehuda’s disciples began to question the extent and the nature of the rights given to the Arab minority – one rabbi, Elisha Aviner, attempted a distinction between individual rights and national rights, to alleviate the potential challenges to come.

The sense of miraculous in 1967 also gave rise to an increase in messianic anticipation – a feeling that the Jewish people were on the brink of redemption in a more immediate way than the creation of the state itself had let people believe. With confidence in Israel’s military superiority and the feeling of better things on the horizon, many in the religious Zionist camp began to turn away from the outside world. Values and priorities became centralized in the Jewish world. Democracy began to be perceived as a Western value – that is, not necessarily a Jewish one. It is a short step from rejecting democratic principles to removing, or reducing, the civil rights of minorities.

To be clear: not all religious Zionist rabbis and thinkers made this shift, but it has become entrenched in the religious Zionist community. Perhaps the most dramatic confirmation of that is the approbation some rabbis gave to Baruch Goldstein’s 1994 mass shooting of Arabs who were praying in Hebron. Arabs were recast as enemies and potential terrorists – inherently.

By 2010, a rabbinical degree prohibited selling or renting property to Arabs – a direct contradiction of Rabbi Abraham Kook’s position on selling land. His ruling about the status of Muslims was simply ignored. And when Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein opposed the prohibition, its supporters challenged his halakhic stature because he accepted the possibility of trading territory for peace, rejecting his stance on the one question because of disdain for his views in an unrelated area.

The religious Zionist community is not monolithic, and Rabbi Lichtenstein’s students and supporters are an important component of it. A substantial number of religious Zionists sit in the Knesset in an array of parties outside of the Religious Zionist party, after all. But the party that bears the community’s name represents a different, and potentially larger (the numbers are not clear) segment of Israeli society. Were the next election held today, polls indicate that the Religious Zionist party would win 10 seats. And if the party were headed by Itamar Ben-Gvir, it would win even more.

The obvious implications of the growing adherence to the perspective of the Religious Zionist party are political. But the struggle to define the halakhic perspective of religious Zionism with regard to minority rights in Israel, and democracy overall, has broader significance. The religious Zionists who helped found the State of Israel were not isolationists, and their approach to minorities was a singular reflection of that. But in the current milieu, the question of whether one can approach the modern world through a prism of Torah when that modern world is being rejected in the name of Torah is of particular concern.