"100 Years of Jewish History"

by Steve Israel

Booklet Three: In and about the promised land

Religious and Secular Zionism

2. Separate but Equal

A. Questions in a Contemporary Context

1. Was it better for the orthodox Zionists to remain within the Zionist organization or not? Why?
2. Was it better for the Zionist movement as a whole that the orthodox group decided to remain - or not? Why?
3. How is this played out today in Israel within the Zionist political parties and in the State as a whole? [i.e. outside the ultra-orthodox or anti-Zionist lobbies]

B. Background Text

The Other Side of the Coin

Another important problem facing the new Zionist movement was the attitude of orthodox members within it.

Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever was the one important Rabbinic figure who joined the ranks of the Hibbat Zion after the 1881 pogroms. In his many years in the movement, Mohilever fought the battle for his beliefs from within. It was not easy for him to sit alongside som of the secular Maskilim who led the meovement -- and several times he attempted to take control of the movement himself.

His reason for staying in the movement despite his frustrations was that he had thoroughly identified with its actions and overall aims. When Herzl came on the scene, after some hesitation, Mohilever decided to support the new leader, hoping to guide the movement from within. The rabbi was, however, already and old and sick man. He did not attend the first Congress, because of his poor health, and died within a year. The Zionist movement thus lost its only Rabbinic leader, although the vacuum was soon filled by Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines, who was to emerge as the leader of the orthodox camp in the movement.

Reines, who had been involved in the Zionist movement for many years, soon found himself in a difficult position in Herzl's organization - a problem common to the entire Rabbinic and orthodox group. As far as they were concerned, the political facets of the movement's work -- those aimed at achieving a framework for Jewish life in Eretz Yisrael -- could be managed by Herzl and his colleagues. All those aspects, however, relating o the type of society to be developed within that framework should, they felt, come under Rabbinic control -- as should any educational program aiming to recruit more people to the movement.

Their demands were rigidly opposed by the non-orthodox majority; they had no intention of allowing Rabbinic control of the movement in this respect. Some of the Rabbis decided to leave the movement and side with the opponents of Zionism; those who remained found themselves in an increasingly untenable position. Unable to influence from the inside and under ever greater attack from anti-Zionist orthodoxy outside, action was imperative.

Within the Zionist Congresses, they attempted to argue that the Zionist movement should concern itself with the political goal of achieving the framework for the Jewish state, while deferring all other substantial issues to debate at a future date. This would allow them to continue as part of the movement. If the Zionist movement were, however, to insist on addressing cultural issues -- and reject their position -- they might well be unable to remain in the movement.

Herzl, interestingly enough, was an important ally on this question, wishing to keep cultural issues off the agenda; his priority was unity within the movement -- and he understood that these questions led to division. In his meetings with kings and politicians, he needed to appear as the head of a united movement; division would take a high price.

With Herzl's quiet encouragement, Rabbi Reines and other orthodox leaders decided to form their own faction within the movement, an organized sub-group that would promote its own agenda. But it was not completely clear what the new "party's" aims should be: * To impose orthodox Rabbinic control on cultural questions upon the Zionist movement as a whole; or * To try and ensure that no cultural questions were brought onto the official movement agenda at all.

These questions had important implications for the composition of the new party. The first approach would make it a closed group of only orthodox members; the second would leave membership open to other political Zionists who shared that agenda.

In March 1902, the decision was made. A meeting of some 70 orthodox Zionists, including some two dozen Rabbis, met in Vienna and established the new organization under the name of "Mizrachi" [abbreviation of "merkaz ruhani" - spiritual center.]

C. Improvised drama scenarios

1. Divide into groups of four. Each group member takes one of the roles below*.
2. Each group has 15 minutes to prepare a scenario showing how the individuals inter-react and what decision was reached within their "orthodox camp" at the "Vilna conference" in 1902.
3. Play out the scenarios one by one.
4. Review which option was most popular among the groups and analyze why [feasible, politically more attractive...].
5. Compare with the reality as described in "The Compromise" below. * Where is the shortfall? * What were the consequences?

The Four Roles - Positions

• a. An orthodox Jew, favoring the "narrower" approach: You want to see a strictly orthodox party which aims to keep the cultural question on the Zionist agenda and fight for orthodox control within the movement.
• b. An orthodox Jew, favoring the "broader" approach: You want to be able to come together with political Zionists, to try to keep the cultural question off the Zionist agenda.
• c. An orthodox Jew, supporting Zionism but absolutely opposed to the idea of working within the Zionist movement: The latter would entail cooperation with non- religious Jews, which you reject. You have come to Vilna to persuade the religious Zionists to leave the Zionist movement and set up their own purely orthodox organization.
• d. A non-orthodox Jew and political Zionist: You are prepared to work within a larger party in order to keep the cultural question off the Zionist agenda, since it is a divisive factor within the movement at a time when maximum unity is required. You have come to Vilna to press for the setting up of a broad framework.

D. The Reality - The Compromise

In the end, it was the "broader" approach that won out in Vilna, aiming at a wider coalition with political Zionists.

However, within a short time, Mizrachi became a purely orthodox party, because there were too many forces within it, pushing towards a policy with which non-orthodox Zionists could not feel comfortable.

In addition, on the cultural issues, there was a general change of direction within the entire movement. The majority of non-orthodox Russian Zionists had no wish to remove the cultural question from the agenda -- indeed, the opposite became true. Under Ahad Ha'am, they wished to give the cultural question a higher profile. The conflict seemed inevitable. In the end, however, it was Ahad Ha'am who suggested to resolve it by creating two different bodies within the Zionist organization who would direct cultural and educational work within the movement. There would be an orthodox body to work among the orthodox constituency and a non-orthodox body for its own constituency. This was to be the shape of things to come: two forces -- separate, but equal.

Editors: Michael Toben, Dr. Dov Goldflam, 1992
Internet Version: The Pedagogic Center, 1996
Editor: Gila Ansell Brauner

in conjunction with:
The Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora
Center for Creativity
Director: Chaim Weinreb Contact: torani@trendline.co.il

[Next] [Activities] [Zionist Century] [Homepage]