‘Jewish terrorism’ isn’t Jewish

Since the cruelty and brutality of the Hamas massacre on October 7, 2023, Israeli society has hardened. Young people who have been at war for some two and a half years, whether in the army or in the reserves, are clearly affected. The religious Zionist community, which sees military service in profoundly religious terms and which has suffered disproportionate losses in the war, has also reacted to this shift in society. One deeply troubling trend is the reshuffling of Jewish power as a value that supersedes other Jewish principles.

This focus on power is a dramatically different perspective from the high ethical standard that Jews maintained for centuries – that of being a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. The Torah presents an expectation that adherents to Judaism will be ethical, and beyond that, Judaism, as it has traditionally been understood, demands a striving for holiness and the refining of each individual’s character. From the prophets’ emphasis on ethical and righteous behavior to the requirement, as articulated by Nachmanides (Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, on the Book of Leviticus) to go beyond the technical law to what has been dubbed “supererogatory living,” the Jewish people have strived to epitomize compassion and justice. True, the standard was not and is not maintained by every Jew, but replacing the standard with an interpretation of Judaism that glorifies power weakens the Jews’ standing in the world.

The original Zionist conception of a Jewish state included the notion that its very existence would eliminate antisemitism and provide safety for Jews everywhere. That clearly has not come to pass. The goal of religious Zionism to become an independent country was never achieved; that said, the ideology still allows for an opportunity to realize Jewish values on a national level. 

Antisemites will use anything and nothing as an excuse to turn on the Jews. That means that the onus for antisemitic sentiment and actions is on the antisemites themselves, and those who would blame the Jews for their own conduct as a cause of antisemitism can safely be ignored. But Jewish behavior is nonetheless significant. For starters, it may have impact on the opinions of those who are not antisemitic per se, but who may be on the fence as to whether they should support the Jewish people and the Jewish state. Moreover, how we Jews treat ourselves and others certainly has bearing on how we perceive ourselves.

In Israeli media, competing visions of Israel are borne out in contemporary internal conflicts. That is, the debate that takes center stage is whether Israel is a liberal democracy or a theocratic state. But the question of what is authentically Jewish in this contemporary Jewish state that wields actual power has not yet been considered seriously. But this question – what does Judaism say about wielding power in a sovereign Jewish country –  is essential. Authentic, fundamental Jewish values have not changed; their implications for the state warrant thoughtful deliberation and application.

Recently, the head of the IDF Central Command, Major General Avi Bluth, spoke at a conference in Alon Shevut about violence at the hands of Jews in the territory under his jurisdiction. After deliberately naming it, “Jewish terrorism,” he described the potential catastrophic consequences and concluded by saying (in Hebrew), “It isn’t Jewish.”

Major General Bluth is an Orthodox Jew. He is the product of Israel’s religious Zionist education. And he cannot be accused of any deficiency in his commitment to Israel’s security. He wears both his basic religious sensibility and his upholding of the IDF’s ethical code on his sleeve. And his rejection of violence against Palestinians was instinctive – to the extent that he denied any connection between those actions and Judaism itself. 

To be clear, the people whose actions he addressed – those Jews bringing violence to his jurisdiction – regard themselves as very seriously committed Jews. Their supporters do too. Indeed, the silence of many religious Zionist rabbis and Jewish educators seems to reflect not only respect for these people’s religious commitment, but also sympathy for the zeal and motivation behind their violence, if not full support of the attacks. 

The fact that Major General Bluth’s instinctive rejection of this Jewish terrorism stands out and is not the automatic response of the leadership of this sector of Israel’s religious population raises serious questions about the values of the community.