1) The Jewish Horseshoe

The Horseshoe Theory of politics asserts that the extremes on the far right and the far left actually have more in common with each other than they do with the center. In American politics, a great litmus test for Horseshoe Theory rests in how someone views Zionism and the State of Israel: with the far-right Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens sharing identical views on the subject to Ralph Nader and Jill Stein on the far-left. Within the Jewish community itself, not surprisingly, Israel is the great litmus test as well. The far-right Neturei Karta and the far-left Jewish Voice for Peace share the same language and rhetoric on the subject.

Horseshoe Theory even often works on the level of physical appearance. I remember an old website called “Hipster or Hasid dot com” which showed a close-up picture of a bearded man in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and you had to guess: Hipster or Hasid?! Consider a pair of real-world cases: The far-left wing anti-Israel professors Shaul Magid and Daniel Boyarin each sport the long, shaggy beards of neohasidic hipsters. And, in justifying their anti-Zionism, they each also draw heavily on the thought of R. Yoel Teitelbaum zt’l, the Satmar Rebbe.

This is, of course, risibly disingenuous of them. The anti-Zionism of Satmar is not based in notions of universal progressive human rights. It’s based in the ultra-Conservative ethos that the conditions that prevailed for Jews in the 19th century should continue in the same way until the messiah comes. This doesn’t only apply to Jews remaining in exile. It also means that Jews ought to remain separate and ghettoized, not partaking in secular knowledge or culture, and with no close relationship to gentiles. And it also means that the religious status of women should remain roughly frozen where it was in the 19th century.

And even so, Satmar Hasidim still face the Land of Israel three times a day and pray for the restoration of complete Jewish sovereignty therein, just like all other faithful Jews have done throughout the ages. They simply long for that vision to be realized tomorrow; they don’t recognize that it has been properly realized today. In other words, their opposition to Zionism is entirely circumstantial, and not based on any notion that Judaism actually opposes the idea on any objective, anti-nationalist grounds.

This all exposes an uncomfortable truth for Boyarin and Magid: that there is no significant progressive anti-Zionist tradition from within Orthodoxy whatsoever. The only Orthodox case for Anti-Zionism is to be found in the anti-Modernist streams; and the anti-Zionism cannot be coherently separated from that very anti-Modernism itself.

In any case, their pragmatic and political anti-Zionism actually places these two professors in league with the Neturei Karta, and in explicit opposition to the policies of Satmar, which has repeatedly condemned Neturei Karta for going too far! What is the nature of the dispute between Satmar and Neturei Karta?

Satmar mainly confines their anti-Zionism to the realm of the religious. They take no organized political action to undermine Israel’s right to exist in the secular world. On the contrary, when Israel is at war, they side with Israel against its enemies. (Even with regards to Neturei Karta, as far as I can tell the only action that they take is to attend protests with Israel’s enemies, and that alone is sufficient to render them taboo. I don’t think they even actively lobby against Israel politically, at least not in any meaningful way). This is all why Satmar is a vital part of the Orthodox community, while the Neturei Karta are shunned.

2) Religious vs. Pragmatic anti-Zionism

As for the mainstream Haredi community, their stance can probably best be described as non-Zionism. While they do relate to the Land of Israel as the Jewish Homeland (that sentiment is baked into our religion, after all, and is not a political matter), they don’t consider Jewish sovereignty there to be either necessary or religiously significant before the messianic age. They don’t celebrate Yom Haatzmaut or identify with the Israeli flag. However, on the pragmatic level, their politics is staunchly and unequivocally pro-Israel. This derives from adherence to basic traditional Jewish values of Ahavat Yisrael – concern for Jewish lives.

It is my contention that this status quo which already exists within Orthodoxy should become the standard for the entire Jewish community. Not all Orthodox Jews are Zionist. But all Orthodox Jews are politically pro-Israel, in the basic sense of supporting Israel over its enemies when it’s at war.

This attitude was expressed well by R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, the leading Orthodox rabbinic authority in America in the early twentieth century. He was a vigorous opponent of Zionism. However, in 1959 he expressed https://www.torahmusings.com/2005/05/religious-zionism-debate-v/:

“Now all the rabbis who were opposed to Zionism and the establishment of a state took up that position until the time that it was officially founded. Once the state was declared, anyone who plays into the hands of the nations of the world even where there is no imminent danger, is clearly a moseir (traitor) and rodeif (danger)”.

I assume that R. Henkin used those strong Hebrew words in their common polemical meaning. Interestingly, in context, he was actually talking about the Satmar movement. I don’t think R. Henkin yet knew that Satmar themselves would differentiate themselves from Neturei Karta, and would basically come to agree with him about this, on the pragmatic front at least.

Years ago, the Satmar movement split between R. Zalman, who is based in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, and R. Aharon, who reigns in Kiryas Yoel, New York. The “Zalmi” faction is more hardline, including in their anti-Zionism, and the “Aharonim” are more moderate. After my last article, I received a fascinating call out of the blue from a Satmar Hasid named Shloimie who is a Zalmi. He told me that many of the newer generation of Zalmis do basically share Magid’s anti-Israel sentiments; they just don’t believe in attending protests with gentile anti-Israel activists. He said it’s true that the Rebbe Rav Yoel was known to cry over the death of Israeli soldiers and civilians, and that he never expressed concern for Arab lives. This is because Rav Yoel was more old fashioned in mainly caring about Jewish lives. But today, in contrast, there are many like himself, Shloimie told me, who do have concern for Arabs in Gaza, and who abhor the war there.

I wanted to note that conversation for the record, and to show that I’m not so naïve as to think that the Satmar view on Israel is so simple, or that they’re really “pro-Israel” in the way that a Zionist like me would hope for them to be. I only wish to show that, even as Shloimie himself told me, even R. Zalman has been careful to distance himself from the Neturei Karta. And Magid and Boyarin are each, to my mind, practically aligned with the Neutrei Karta more than with any other group in Orthodoxy.

The Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Yoel, R. Aharon Teitelbaum, endorsed the pro-Israel Andrew Cuomo for mayor of NYC over the anti-Israel Zohran Mamdani. A prominent Satmar activist named R. Moishe Indig endorsed Mamdani. But in a fascinating, wide-ranging interview, he explained that his endorsement was actually despite Mamdani’s anti-Israel politics, and not because of them. Indig says https://mishpacha.com/counterpoint-kingmaker-from-williamsburg/

“The Divrei Yoel (Satmar Rebbe, R. Yoel Teitelbaum) himself taught us that. Despite his shitos (opinions) on the Zionist State, he refused to have anything to do with a politician that was anti-Israel. He would say, ‘His anti-Zionism is not because he learned V’Yoel Moshe (The Satmar anti-Zionist tract); he’s anti-Israel because he’s an anti-Semite’. That applies to an American politician from Kentucky or New York who has no reason to be anti-Israel, and if he’s busy bashing Israel, it’s because he hates Jews. But if someone is a Muslim and says, ‘I’m not an anti-Semite, I’m against the Israeli government because of how my Muslim brothers are suffering at their hands,’ that can actually make more sense. To us, that’s unacceptable sympathy for terrorists and murderers, perversion of truth and justice. But his personal ties could at least justify a perspective that bifurcates Israel and the Jews of New York”.

It should go without saying that I disagree with Indig! But his nuanced view is important to note in this context.

I know what some critics will say: Haredim aren’t really pro Israel are they? They don’t serve in the IDF or say Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut, and they rhetorically bash Zionism all the time. Those are all internal Jewish matters. Let a college campus pro Palestine activist sit down with a self declared anti Zionist Haredi man and quiz him, tachlis (practically), on what policies he advocates vis a vis Israel’s basic right and ability to defend itself. The activist wouldn’t understand or care about Hallel on Yom Haatzmaut. He would walk away declaring that that person is pro Israel. And he’d be right. From the perspective of our enemies, are Agudas Yisrael and even Satmar considered practical political allies of the Palestinians? Of course not. Only Neturei Karta is.

Before October 7th I took that reality for granted; of course Haredim support Israel’s right to defend itself. After October 7th, we live in a world where that can’t be taken for granted, and I think it should be noted in a positive way.

When I was a chaplain in the US Army reserve, I officiated a Yom HaShoah ceremony at Fort Hamilton, Brooklyn, in April 2012. The keynote speaker was a Satmar Hasid, a grandson of the Rebbe. The main thrust of his speech was that America is an exceptionally righteous nation, and his main example for proving this was how President Nixon saved the State of Israel in the Yom Kippur War in 1973! After the ceremony, I told him how pleasantly surprised I was with his speech. Of course, he told me: the Rebbe always cared about the lives and safety of the millions of Jews living in Eretz Yisrael, even though he didn’t think the state should exist.

3) Daniel Boyarin, Exemplar of the Jewish Horseshoe

As I mentioned, in addition to Magid, another professed progressive fan of the thought of Satmar is Professor Daniel Boyarin of Berkeley, https://kavvanah.blog/2011/12/27/daniel-boyarin-and-orthodoxy-an-interview/ . Boyarin is halachicly observant, but is largely alienated from the Orthodox world due to his support for the BDS movement. His office door sports a Palestinian flag with the statement: “end US funding for Israel.” https://canarymission.org/professor/Daniel_Boyarin Like Magid, Boyarin enthusiastically invokes the religious authority of the Satmar Rebbe. However, no one in Satmar has much use for the following Queer Theory inspired inanity that is typical of Boyarin’s work, https://www.academia.edu/36254325/Daniel_Boyarin_On_the_History_of_the_Early_Phallus_in_Sharon_Farmer_and_Carol_Pasternack_eds_Gender_and_Difference_in_the_Middle_Ages_Minneapolis_University_of_Minnesota_Press_2003_3_44:

“The Phallus-that-is-not-the-penis owes its historical origins to an extremely powerful and extraordinary move that much western thought makes at its origins: the inscription of the body as female”.

Thankfully, we no longer need the likes of Boyarin to write such prose, because random algorithms can do the same. See this amusing website, which produces postmodern-style papers automatically:

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&"undefined"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)