By Shloimy Lowy, Photographer and Staff Writer
“Token anti-Zionist Jews are often used to sideline Zionist Jews’ concerns about the rise of antisemitism related to anti-Zionism,” writes Amichai Greenberg in his forceful article entitled “Token Jews Don’t Speak for Us” in the YU Commentator.
Despite the title, Greenberg does not clearly define who he considers a “token Jew.” Inferences can be made, ranging from the far-left anti-Zionist activists to the far-right Neturei Karta and the relatively centrist (I said relatively) Satmar Hasidim, whose grave sin was supporting Zohran Mamdani in the NYC mayoral race.
Greenberg is correct that anti-Zionist Jews may provide a false impression of what the majority of Jewish people think. However, dismissing these Jews as “token Jews” comes off as offensive, has little religious or halachic (legal in Jewish law) backing and can be seen as another way to refuse engagement with legitimate disagreement. By taking political issues (Zionism, Mamdani, protest legislation, antisemitism definitions, etc.) and making them religious, it disbars your opponents from claiming Jewish identity, committing a no-true-Scotsman fallacy of the highest degree.
Moreover, to call people “token Jews” and dismiss their Judaism as merely a label, as fake, implies the existence of an arbiter of “true Judaism”, someone I have not yet come across despite all these years of being a Jew. Greenberg is correct that the Ultra-Orthodox community has persistently decried the Neturei Karta and insists that they do not speak for them, however, they also do not think that you, as a Modern Orthodox Jew, speak for them.
The Venn diagram of Ultra-Orthodox and Religious Zionism meets only at the killing of Palestinians and the protection of worldwide Jewry. In religious terms, they could not be farther apart.
Satmar, and the ultra-Orthodox world more generally, disagree with the Neturei Karta on the practical question concerning collaboration with the Arab world, not on some ideological question about Zionism — they share almost identical religious views on that matter, views that completely reject Zionism. They disagree with Modern Orthodoxy on a much more fundamental level concerning both Judaism and Zionism. Still, I would be shocked if you were to accept their designation of you as a “token Jew”, owing to your secular inclinations and partaking in popular culture.
It is true that Ultra-Orthodox Jews are generally pro-Israel in political terms, but they are far from universally pro-Israel on religious grounds. A recent survey published by Nishma Research, a research firm dedicated to the orthodox Jewish world, looked at the differences in attitude between Modern and Ultra-Orthodox Jews towards Zionism and the particular politics of the Israeli government post-October 7. Of the people surveyed, just 51 percent of Haredim consider themselves Zionist, compared to 94 percent of Modern Orthodox Jews. While 49 percent of Haredim have neutral or anti-Zionist views, the same applies to just 6 percent of Modern Orthodox Jews. However, when asked about their connection to Israel, a full 94 percent of Haredim said they feel an “emotional connection” to Israel.
Lord Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits wrote about this in the 1980’s: “The difference between Satmar, and even most Agudists, who grant a form of de facto recognition to Israel, is one of degree and emphasis rather than of fundamentals. They all oppose political Zionism and negate Jewish Statehood as a manifestation of religious significance [emphasis added] or prophetic fulfillment.” He continued, “It is only fair to stress again that their hostility to Zionism in no way compromises the love of the Land of Israel.”
I am unwilling to call Ultra-Orthodox Jews “token Jews” for their anti-zionism. If you agree with that sentiment, they should not be any different from other anti-Zionist Jews, who also disagree with the claim of Israel as a religious imperative, and merely disagree on the politics resulting from such a view.
Greenberg also goes back and forth between arguing with the Neturei Karta, anti-Zionism, non-Zionism and a myriad of other positions, making it difficult to pin down his exact claims. For example, his final paragraph reads “Orthodox Jews in particular need to make it clear that the Neturei Karta are extremists and harbor views universally rejected in Orthodox Judaism. We must be able to assert proudly that the belief in our right and duty to our ancestral homeland is not only political, but deeply ingrained in our religious heritage.” Within this paragraph, he makes two claims, neither of which is well defined or inherently related to the other, and, depending on interpretation, either majorly arguable or patently obvious.
First, the claim that the Neturei Karta harbor universally rejected views. Which views, precisely? Is it their anti-Zionism or their collaboration with the Arab League? Because universal rejection of the latter is defensible, the former is not. The next claim is also unclear. Shall we read it as an expression of the basic principles of Zionism, or in a vacuum? Again, the latter is defensible – Jewish people do have deep religious ties to the land upon which modern Israel sits, the former, however, is completely up for debate.
Notice that within the article, Greenberg uses the words Zionism and Israel, yet when making his final conclusion, he avoids use of both of those words, making anyone who agrees with his concluding statement obliged to agree with his core thesis. But his thesis is a controversial one, while his conclusion is so agreeable that the Neturei Karta themselves would not argue with it.
To reiterate, there is barely an “Orthodox Judaism” that has such power to reject views. Within Orthodox Judaism practically every claim is disputed. Questions like whether the Washington Heights eruv is kosher, whether one is allowed to shave during Sefira, whether one is allowed to shave at all, why electricity is prohibited on Shabbat, whether the universe is made of God, whether women are allowed to learn Talmud, whether one may shower on Yom Tov.
There is no universally accepted answer to any of these questions. But if you ask whether there is religious support for modern Zionism, apparently the answer must be a resounding yes. This seems ridiculous. To claim that a majority of Orthodox Jews are Zionist might be true, though anachronistic. To imply that a majority of Ultra-Orthodox Jews are Zionist is defensible, but it teeters epistemological warrant and completely misinterprets what Ultra-Orthodox Jews mean when they say “I am Zionist.” But to claim that anyone who disagrees with you on the centrality of the modern State of Israel to religious Judaism is a “token Jew” ignores the majority view within Orthodox Judaism. It would not only render most of the 20th century’s greatest Orthodox rabbis “token Jews” for their anti-Zionist views, but would also render Ultra-Orthodox Jews, the most religious Jews extant, “token Jews.”
Take the Agudah, an organization that defines itself as the “voice of American Orthodox Judaism.” In a 2020 statement on Haredi principles, they write: “Any suggestion that the ideology of Zionism is compatible with Chareidi [sic] Jewry’s fundamental beliefs has no basis and must be rejected.” Perhaps that is “real Judaism.” Perhaps not. But you do not have the monopoly, nor should you.
For “Orthodox Judaism” to have a universal say on anything, that thing must, by definition, concern religion — not just Judaism, but religious Judaism. If you intend to claim that Zionism is universally accepted by Orthodox Judaism, it is not enough to show that a majority of Orthodox Jews support it. Rather, it must be demonstrated that it is universally accepted that Zionism is religiously connected to Judaism. This is demonstrably not universally accepted among Orthodox thinkers and religious leaders. Thus, the argument that Zionism is inextricably tied to Orthodox Judaism falls, thereby returning rightful Jewish identity to so-called “token Jews.”
Photo Credit: Shloimy Lowy