By S. Rosen
I recently heard Rabbi Avi Shafran on Halacha Headlines with Dovid Lichtenstein explain that the primary rabbinic objection to voting in the WZO elections is the technical requirement to confirm that: “I pledge to support the Jerusalem Program and the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.”
Curious, I decided to review the Jerusalem Program myself to see if it was something I could sign. Here are my thoughts, line by line:
- “The unity of the Jewish people, its bond to its historic homeland Eretz Yisrael, and the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the nation;”
While one might fear this is promoting Israel over Torah, it reminded me of the well-known Brisker teaching, based on the Rambam (Pirush HaMishnayos, Bechoros 4:3): Only Jews living in Eretz Yisrael are called Kohol. Certain halachic functions—such as Kiddush Hachodesh, Ibbur Hashanah, and Semichah—can only be performed by Jews in Eretz Yisroel, even when the Land is under foreign rule (Hilchos Sanhedrin 4:11). This underscores that Eretz Yisroel indeed plays a central role in the life of our nation, even for the non-Zionist.
- “Aliyah to Israel from all countries and the effective integration of all immigrants into Israeli society.”
No issue here. Many authorities maintain that the mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisroel remains binding today. Supporting Aliyah aligns with Torah values.
- “Strengthening Israel as a Jewish, Zionist and democratic state and shaping it as an exemplary society with a unique moral and spiritual character, marked by mutual respect for the multi-faceted Jewish people, rooted in the vision of the prophets, striving for peace and contributing to the betterment of the world.”
Admittedly, it would be more satisfying to see explicit mention of Torah. The phrase “Tikkun Olam” raises some concern, given how it is often misunderstood. However, judging strictly by the text:
Are we not charged with being an Or Lagoyim (a light unto the nations)? Isn’t our unique moral character derived from Torah? Is the Torah not the vision of Moshe, the Av Hanevi’im (Father of the Prophets)? And mutual respect for fellow Jews is indeed a Torah value, even when we disagree with their beliefs (yitamu chato’im v’lo chot’im, see Brachos 10a).
Thus, while the language could certainly be improved, it’s not terrible.
- “Ensuring the future and the distinctiveness of the Jewish people by furthering Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education, fostering spiritual and cultural values and teaching Hebrew as the national language;”
What do they mean by “Jewish education”? I read it as Torah education.
As for Hebrew education, while Modern Hebrew differs from Lashon Hakodesh, it’s not so far removed. Learning Alef-Bais still fulfills the mitzvah of limud Lashon Hakodesh, even when taught in Israeli schools.
Regarding “Zionist education,” consider what we pray for three times a day—Vesechezenah eineinu b’shuvcha l’Tzion b’rachamim. That is what “Zionism” means to me.
And even if you’re an Eitz supporter, what should the national language of Israel be? I’d guess most would say Hebrew. They speak it, don’t they?
- “Nurturing mutual Jewish responsibility, defending the rights of Jews as individuals and as a nation, representing the national Zionist interests of the Jewish people, and struggling against all manifestations of anti-Semitism;”
“Mutual Jewish responsibility” sounds a lot like kol Yisroel areivim zeh lazeh.
Though parts of this sentence veer into jargon, the fundamental values of standing up for Jews and fighting anti-Semitism are undoubtedly Torah ideals.
- “Settling the country as an expression of practical Zionism.”
Again, it would be preferable if this said “as an expression of Torah.” Yet, the mitzvah of yishuv ha’aretz—settling Eretz Yisroel—is undeniably a value we hold strongly.
A provocative thought: If it said, “Settling the country as an expression of Agudism” or “Chassidism,” would we object as strongly?
- “Encouraging recruitment and service in the Israel Defense Forces and the security forces and strengthening them as the protective force of the Jewish people living in Zion, as well as encouraging full National Service for anyone exempted in law from service in the IDF.”
This clause obviously touches a sensitive nerve for frum Jews and bnei Torah.
Yet, in principle, we certainly support the need for an army to protect Jewish lives. We may disagree about who should serve or when—especially regarding yeshiva students—but the existence of the IDF is vital. Sheirut Leumi (National Service) can also be acceptable when conducted within a halachically appropriate framework. I’m not necessarily endorsing it, but this clause wouldn’t stop me from signing.
As for the phrase “protective force of the Jewish people,” while it may sound like kochi v’otzem yadi, think of this: If a headline read “Agudah Secures Tuition Relief Funding,” would we criticize it for not saying “Hashem Grants Tuition Relief Funding Through Agudah”? We can all improve at attributing successes to Hashem, but that doesn’t seem to be the core issue here.
Conclusion:
I’m not here to tell you what to do or whom to follow. My point is simple: We should research issues thoughtfully and not simply accept public rhetoric at face value, no matter whose name is attached to it.
Recent events have shown how even respected outlets can be infiltrated or manipulated. It’s a reminder: Be smart, be informed, and investigate matters for yourself.
The opinions and analysis shared here do not necessarily reflect the stance of Matzav.com and are shared here for informational purposes.