Defining Religious Zionism: A Call for Inclusivity Amidst Internal Debate

A recent debate sparked by statements from MK Matan Kahana and Rabbi Yair Karman has prompted a call to resist attempts to narrowly define who belongs to the Religious Zionist movement. The author argues that the movement's history demonstrates a long-standing internal diversity and a commitment to Torah, the Jewish people, and the Land of Israel.

Kahana, a former squadron commander and MK, questioned whether Smotrich's party truly represents Religious Zionism, while Rabbi Karman's article suggested a transformation of the movement from a social affiliation group to one leading values of Torah, people, and land. The author contends that such attempts to exclude individuals based on political or value-based differences are problematic.

Drawing on historical examples, particularly from the Religious Kibbutz movement, the author illustrates the broad spectrum within Religious Zionism. This includes individuals with varying levels of religious observance, from those with prominent kippot (skullcaps) to those with 'transparent' kippot, yet all committed to religious education for their children. The author highlights the contributions of figures like Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Neria and Rabbi Chaim Druckman in establishing educational institutions, and the role of figures like Yaakov Drori and Hanan Porat in pioneering settlements and the Hesder Yeshiva program.

The article emphasizes that the commitment to settling the land, particularly in challenging and remote areas, and the willingness to sacrifice for the nation, as evidenced by the high proportion of fallen soldiers from the Religious Zionist educational system in recent conflicts, are not new phenomena but deeply ingrained aspects of the movement's ethos.

Ultimately, the author asserts that Religious Zionism has never been monolithic. It encompasses a wide range of individuals with diverse influences, who engage in vigorous debates on politics, Halakha (Jewish law), society, and the state. However, these internal disagreements should not lead to the exclusion of those who think differently, as the core of the movement lies in shared commitment and a common heritage, akin to remaining around the same campfire despite individual differences.