Dear Gadi,



Before I answer your question I must point out a mistake in your argument. You speak of Satmar in this connection (a mistake caused by the many groups, sub-groups, and sub-sub groups within Charedi society). The Jerusalem Edah Charedit (those who give the Badatz kashrut certification, accepted by all streams of Judaism) includes the Satmar, the Neturei Karta, and other Jerusalem Charedim. At some point the group calling itself Neturei Karta, led by Rabbi Chaim Katzenellenbogen, began to split off. They champion Palestinian rule over the land and work to make this a reality. That is why they met with Yasser Arafat and now with the Iranian president. The rest of the Edah Charedit–Satmar and the Jerusalemites–object to this group and have issued protests which state “They do insane acts, walking hand-in-hand with Arabs, endorsing those who spill Jewish blood.”



Now to your question: The definitions of ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ ‘extreme,’ and ‘moderate’ are the subjective definitions and estimations of a person looking in from the outside, and tell us about the ethical axiom of the person who is making the definition and estimation. The same action, the same behavior, may be given the exact opposite definition by a person with a different ethical base. See, for example, the action of Pinchas, who stabbed and killed the leader of the tribe of Shimon and the Midianite woman who had sexual intercourse before the public. It is thus described in the Torah:

When Pinchas, son of Eleazar son of Aharon the priest saw this, he left the assembly and, taking a spear in his hand, he followed the Israelite into the chamber and stabbed both of them, the Israelite and the woman” (Numbers 25:7-8)

Believers in religion, whose ethical axiom is the dignity of G-d and His freedom, will define this act as heroic and a supreme sacrifice worthy of reward and honors (as did happen — Pinchas was given a promotion in the work of the Tabernacle). People whose ethical base is the dignity of man and his freedom will judge Pinchas as an insane murderer who should have finished his life behind bars.

Now, to “understand” the insane act of the Charedi of the Neturei Karta group, we must first understand their ethical axiom and, from there, grasp the rationale for their infuriating behavior.



We will begin with the basic ethical ideal accepted by all streams, Charedi and religious, and then proceed to the opinion of Neturei Karta, to show that there is no difference between them and the other Charedi than a pragmatic, tactical change.

All religious people admit that the purpose of man’s existence is the worship of G-d, without which there is no value to life at all, and it would be better to not be created than to be created, as the prophet Jeremiah said:

Thus said the Lord: As surely as I have established My covenant [the fulfillment of Torah and the commandments] with day and night — the laws of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25)

From this value of purpose residing only with G-d, stems the desire to do away with apostates and heretics (those who champion value in the existence of man for the sake of man and responsible to man), and all (all religious sects) pray three times daily “For heretics and tale-bearers may there be no hope” and think that “As G-d rejoices in the existence of the righteous so does He rejoice in the destruction of sinners, as is written, ‘And in the destruction of sinners is joy'” (Tosephta on Sanhedrin 14:10).

Another thing common to Jewish religious people is that the Land of Israel as a geographic entity has a preferred status in G-d’s eyes: “It is a land which the Lord your G-d looks after, on which the Lord your G-d always keeps His eye, from year’s beginning to year’s end” (Deuteronomy 11:12).

The three-ply thread of Torah (the purpose of man), the nation of Israel (with no sinners or apostates) and the Land of Israel is the common ideological basis for most religious Jews, and their factionalism stems from their attempts to preserve the target in the face of reality and the ways of the world, which generally does not coincide with the ideals of their messianic faith. There have been dramatic events with which the religious leadership has had to deal. Four of them are:

1. The Enlightenment movement.

2. National/secular/Zionist awakening.

3. The Holocaust.

4. The establishment of the State of Israel.

These four are actually one: secularism, in its modern definition, is a movement which has taken upon itself responsibility for its own life with no dependence on a supernatural agent (G-d).



These events led to the splitting of the religious Jews into groups and sub-groups and sub-sub-groups and bitter internal fights accompanied by hatred of one group for another in bursts of emotion, despite the common basis of faith, as explained above.

We will not, in this answer, deal with the division among religious groups which stemmed from their reaction to Enlightenment, to the educational messages the “enlightened” wanted to instill in the cheiders of the 18th century. We will only deal with the reaction to the Zionist movement before the establishment of the State and after its establishment, all within the era of the frightening and ghastly Holocaust.

Notice that the religious community does not actually initiate actions; it champions a exilic conservatism which seeks to preserve the Jewish community based on its character as it was during the 2000 years of exile and diaspora. Any changes in their world view stem from the changing reality around them, while they keep their sight on the vaunted target: maintaining the fulfillment of the Torah and the commandments until the Messiah arrives.

The main divisions which were created were three: 1. Agudat Yisrael (Chassidim and Litvish) 2. Mizrachi (national religious) 3. The Edah Charedit in Jerusalem (Satmar, Neturei Karta, and the pre-Zionist Jerusalem community).

These three central streams divided into sub-groups (and still are dividing, in keeping which changes in time and place). An entire shelf would be needed to include them all.



Therefore we will focus on the stream (cult) of the Jerusalem Eidah Charedit (Satmar, Neturei Karta, and the pre-Zionist Jerusalem community): they are, in practice, against Agudat Yisrael, against the national religious, and there is no need to add that they are against the Zionists.

Of course they derive their viewpoint from the Jewish literature; for example, the name Neturei Karta comes from the Palestinian Talmud, in which it is related: Rabbi Judah the Nasi wanted to create an organized educational system for the Jewish communities. His students went from city to city asking for the Neturei Karta (guardians of the city). When residents brought them the soldiers, the students rejected them, stating that the soldiers did not guard the city, they destroyed it. Who are the guardians of the city? Those who teach the little children, as it is written, ‘If God does not build a house, all the work is in vain’.” (Palestinian Talmud, Chagigah 1:76).

This is the source for the hostile relationship to the army and the modern state of Israel, seen as destroyers of the Land.

One of the leaders of this cult, Rabbi Amram Blau, thinks that those who fear G-d’s word must hate evil, hate the Zionists, as the Torah commanded heretics and instigators be hated.

[In passing it should be noted that a rabbi from a national religious hesder yeshiva has said the same thing. Rabbi Moshe Tzuriel, a teacher at the Rishon L’Tzion hesder yeshiva, wrote “And so one should treat apostates and heretics and instigators as though they had a contagious disease, spreading poison and hatred through the society.”]

The Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum OBM (saved from the Holocaust by Dr. Kastner’s train) had the gall to claim that the Holocaust was a punishment for the Zionist movement. “In this generation there is no need to search and seek the sin which led us to this misfortune [the Holocaust]…the heretics and the apostates made all sorts of efforts to break these vows (and establish a Jewish state).” The founder of the Satmar sect makes a connection between the Holocaust and the Zionist movement, and this connection stems from his understanding of the purpose of the Jewish nation as being the observance of commandments. To support this argument the Satmar Rebbe also said that Bar Kochba was among those who brought holocaust to the Jewish people, Bar Kochba who rebelled against the Romans in order to establish autonomy (like the Zionists) caused the Romans to kill a great number of Jews. [Note that the rebellion of Bar Kochba, considered by Rabbi Akiva as the messiah, was thought by some Zionists to be a heroic act — as it is taught to be in the schools — while the Satmar Rebbe treats it as a terrible crime which led to the slaughter of Jews. The same rebellious act is seen by one to be heroic and by the other to be criminal — all based on the viewpoint of the onlooker.]

Through a viewpoint nursed by Jewish literature the Eidah Charedit’s policy is to return the old status quo — to return to the ideal state for before the messiah’s arrival — exile. They actively oppose the State of Israel, which represents an escape from exile by apostates and heretics, aided by Charedi like Agudat Yisrael. That is why they do not send representatives to the Knesset and do not take part in elections.

At some point a group (which call themselves Neturei Karta) broke off. They champion active cooperation with the Palestinians, in the hopes of leading to Palestinian sovereignty over the land and, thus, what they see as the “proper and correct” situation of a foreign power which does not speed the end of exile, as do the Zionists. Any nation which can assist in returning the Jews to exile is worthy of support and help. That is why they met with Arafat, the Hezbollah, and the president of Iran.

They do not deny the Holocaust, but they object to the use of the Holocaust to further Zionist causes. Their main goal is to return foreign Palestinian sovereignty, and they believe Iran can help them.

From their point of view, meeting with enemies of the “Zionists” will bring closer the perfect religious pre-messianic ideal — Jews without a country.

It is possible (I have not read their articles) that they find support from legitimate Talmudic sources for their cooperation with foreign governments, like the Talmudic legend of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. The Talmudic legend (Gittin 56a-b) relates that when the Romans were besieging Jerusalem, the Jewish rebels increased their opposition (for they wanted Jewish sovereignty over Jerusalem and Judea), and so they decided to continue their struggle against the Romans, though it was hopeless. The rebels surrounded Jerusalem to make sure no Jews left and surrendered to the Romans. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai, leader of the Pharisees (the stream belonging to the sages of the Oral Torah) decided to leave Jerusalem through trickery. He made himself as if dead and left Jerusalem to meet with the Roman representative, to surrender and to accept Roman rule, in contrast to the other streams of Judaism, who wanted Jewish autonomy. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai also asked the Roman representative to show mercy toward Yavneh and its scholars and the family of Rabban Gamliel. This Talmudic legend is seen by the believing public as something to adopt and learn from, as words of the living G-d.

What may be learned from the actions of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai?

1. That political autonomy is not important; the only thing of importance is the study and fulfillment of Torah.

2. One may cooperate with foreign powers who wish to rule over the Land of Israel.

3. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai did not ask the Roman representative for mercy upon all Jews in the city, only on Yavneh and its sages and the family of Rabban Gamliel.



One does not need a lot of imagination to compare the actions of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and those of the Charedi who met with the president of Iran. True, there is a difference in the balance of power between us and our enemies in this day and between the Jews of the era before the Destruction and the Roman Empire, but that does not stop anyone from leaning from his tale about betrayal of Jews who seek political autonomy.

One who seeks more on this topic should read the essay The Jewish Nation Is The People Chosen To Fulfill The Purpose Of Creation, the summary of a book written by a scholar from Lakewood Yeshiva in the United States How the Charedi Deal with Exile Under Democratic Regimes, and the book by Prof. Aviezer Ravitzky (may he heal from his serious injuries): “The Revealed End and the Jewish State.”



Sincerely,



Daat Emet