In a substantively researched and scholarly essay, Daniel Goldman issues a call to action to the Religious Zionist community in Israel. Goldman argues that what was once a niche strand of thought has now become mainstream and possessed of real political power: a theology promoting violence against Palestinians and denying their rights as a people. Against this danger, he says an ‘alternative exists, we need to study it and promote it.’
I grew up in the religious Zionist youth movement Bnei Akiva[1] in the UK. Our motto was ‘The Land of Israel, according to the Torah, for the Jewish People.’ We learnt about the historic rights of the Jewish people to their homeland, the biblical sources for the obligation as Jews to live in Israel, and the political history of Zionism that led to the establishment of the State of Israel. We understood that history was calling the Jewish people back as an active player and that the establishment of the State of Israel was a sign of Final Redemption.
This religious Zionism was mainstream and sought to bridge gaps between religion and Zionism, and between religious and secular people. Then as now, most members of the youth movement globally and in Israel translated this ideology into generally hawkish political views, albeit across a spectrum with room for the same ideology to lead to left-leaning politics as well.
Thirty-three years after my Aliyah, I am deeply worried that certain streams of religious Zionism have adopted a much more radical redemption theology, and what was once fringe is now becoming mainstream. If this political ideology ever gains full power, the outcome could be dark. With the power they have, parts of the thesis are already expressed in the government’s actions. This article tracks the history of these streams and highlights the synthesis of radical elements that have attempted to claim exclusive representation of religious Zionism. It is also a call to action for religious Zionists to offer an alternative. This alternative exists, we need to study it and promote it.
Historical Trajectory: From Romantic Nationalism to Contemporary Radicalisation
The evolution of religious Zionist thought from 19th-century European nationalism to contemporary Israeli politics reveals a complex intellectual genealogy with two distinct but interrelated trajectories. While one strand has progressively radicalised into forms of mystical nationalism that blur the boundaries between religion, politics, and violence, a parallel and arguably no less influential tradition has maintained more pragmatic approaches to Zionism, redemption, and statecraft. The focus of this article is on the former, what I will refer to as the Kookist tradition.
19th Century Foundations and Early Religious Responses
The intellectual roots of modern religious Zionism lie partially, like many other national movements, in 19th century European Romantic nationalism, particularly German philosophy. Thinkers like Johann Gottfried Herder emphasised the mystical significance of Volk and homeland, while Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel conceptualised history as progressing through conflict toward absolute spirit. Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas about struggle and will to power further romanticised national assertion. These philosophers created direct and indirect intellectual frameworks that would later influence Jewish thinkers and, for the purposes of our discussion, the Kookian line of thought.[2] Some might find it ironic or disturbing that these are also the roots of other ‘blood and soil’ ideologies.
However, even at this foundational stage, Jewish religious responses varied dramatically. While some were attracted to the mystical and romantic elements of European nationalism, others maintained more pragmatic approaches rooted in traditional Jewish law (halakha) and ethics. Early religious Zionist thinkers like Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever and Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Reines[3] emphasised practical considerations – Jewish survival, the need for refuge from persecution, and gradual spiritual renewal – rather than mystical nationalism or romantic notions of redemptive conflict. It was this type of thinking that led to the establishment of the Mizrachi Movement, the religious Zionists within Herzl’s newly formed Zionist movement. This pragmatism dominated religious Zionist thought for the first seven decades of the 20th century.
Rav Avraham Isaac Kook: Mystical Synthesis and Its Interpretations
Rav[4] Avraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935) was a pivotal figure who synthesised German Romantic philosophy with Kabbalistic mysticism, creating a theology where Jewish national revival carried cosmic significance. His writings portrayed historical conflicts as birth pangs of the Messiah and saw World War I as potentially hastening redemption.
Yet Kook’s thought contained tensions and complexities. His mystical nationalism coexisted with profound universalistic elements, including deep concern for gentile welfare and universal ethical principles. He emphasised that Jewish particular chosen-ness should serve universal human elevation. Many of his followers interpreted his work through this universalistic lens, developing religious Zionist approaches that stressed ethical obligations to all humanity and the importance of maintaining moral standards even in pursuit of national goals. Yehuda Mirsky describes in detail the existence within Rabbi Kook’s thought of the particular and even exclusive nature of the People of Israel alongside the importance and respect for universal morality and the special contribution of each nation.[5]
This interpretive divide would prove crucial for subsequent developments. While some followers emphasised the mystical nationalist elements, others stressed the ethical universalism, creating two distinct streams within religious Zionist thought.
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook: Concretisation and Alternatives
Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook (1891-1982) transformed his father’s abstract mystical theology into concrete political doctrine. Following the Six Day War in 1967, he developed explicit theological justifications for territorial expansion, seeing the liberation of the West Bank as divine confirmation of messianic progress. His influence on the settler movement and groups like Gush Emunim represented a significant radicalisation of his father’s ideas. Rav Tzvi Yehuda is a key connection from the 19th century thought of Hegel and Volkspsychologie[6] and the religious and political reality of 2025.
However, this period also saw the emergence of alternative religious Zionist voices. Figures like Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik[7] in America and Rabbi Yehuda Amital in Israel articulated religious Zionist philosophies that emphasised pragmatic statecraft, ethical obligations, and the dangers of conflating political goals with religious certainty. Rabbi Soloveitchik,[8] while supportive of Israel, warned against messianic overreach and stressed the importance of maintaining ethical standards. Rabbi Amital, despite his own nationalist credentials, increasingly emphasised the need for compromise and coexistence.[9]
The euphoria of the victories of 1967 and the prophet-like statements of Tzvi Yehuda Kook immediately prior to the war gave primacy to the more messianic strands. The focus of the community became how to convert the great victory of 1967 into the building of Jewish settlements in the newly conquered territories of Judea and Samaria – returning to Hebron and other ancient and biblical sites. From leading an esoteric and marginal yeshiva prior to 1967, the younger Rabbi Kook became the prominent thought leader educating a generation of Rabbis, teachers and politicians.
The Pragmatic Mainstream Under Pressure
Contemporary mainstream religious Zionism, while generally hawkish on security issues, continues to operate within recognisably rational political frameworks. Leaders like Rabbi Benny Lau, Rabbi Yuval Cherlow, and institutions influenced by figures like the late Rabbis Aharon Lichtenstein (Rabbi Soloveitchik’s son-in-law and student) and Yehuda Amital maintain commitments to universal ethical principles, adherence to international law, and pragmatic approaches to security and politics. They combine the teachings of both Rabbis Kook and Soloveitchik, and more lately Rabbis like Shagar (Shimon Gershon Rosenberg) and even Jonathan Sacks. These are not exclusive influences, but they provide a broader base of ideas than the Kook-only stream. The reality of a more eclectic base of ideas allows a more dynamic, pragmatic and less dogmatic ideology. It also reduces the risk of fundamentalism and even authoritarianism.[10]
However, this part of the mainstream faces increasing pressure from both external events and internal dynamics. The systematic erosion of institutional mechanisms for addressing Jewish extremism, combined with the political empowerment of radical voices, creates an environment where moderate positions become increasingly difficult to maintain. It is also hard to ignore the effects of decades of terror and intransigent Palestinian leadership which has created deep scepticism of the possibility of any true peace between Israel and Palestine.
The challenge extends beyond the radical fringe into mainstream religious Zionism’s broader response to extremist violence. While the rhetoric justifying vigilante violence against Palestinians remains on the fringe, there exists remarkably little appetite within the community to seriously grapple with the problem. This passive stance manifests in various ways, including by way of example a campaign within religious Zionism advocating for improved prisoner conditions for Jewish terrorist Amiram Ben Uliel, who was convicted for the 2015 Duma arson attack that killed a Palestinian family.[11] This blends with the campaign to delegitimise the investigations of the General Security Service against violent Jewish vigilantes,[12] and the desire to underplay its manifestation, often offering apologetics, even if without overt support.
The Tau Framework: Seven Pillars of Palestinian Negation
Rabbi Tzvi Tau,[13] head of Har Hamor yeshiva and a major influence in contemporary religious Zionist education, represents an articulation of increasingly explicit Jewish supremacist ideology. The practical impact of such radical religious nationalism manifests not through direct incitement to vigilantism, but through its political mainstreaming and its sophisticated theological framework that provides religious justification for the eventual elimination of Palestinian nationhood.
In his scholarly analysis, Yoska Ahituv[14] examines a disturbing theological framework developed by Rabbi Tau that systematically denies Palestinian legitimacy while sanctifying Jewish dominance. According to Ahituv’s analysis, Rabbi Tau’s theology rests on seven interconnected arguments:
- Historical Continuity and Divine Opposition
Modern Palestinians are portrayed as direct descendants of the biblical Philistines,[15] fulfilling an identical historical role of opposing Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. This creates an unbroken theological narrative spanning millennia, where Palestinian resistance becomes not merely political opposition but rebellion against divine will and God’s Chosen People.
- Irregular Origins and Illegitimate Existence
Based on Genesis 10 and rabbinic commentary, Rabbi Tau argues that Philistines/Palestinians originated from an ‘irregular’ union and were never meant to exist within the normal order of the Seventy Nations.[16] Using concepts from the Maharal,[17] he defines their existence as ‘a departure from nature, from the normal order of human life structure, a departure from the entire divine program.’ Whereas each of the Seventy Nations have a purpose of their own, the Palestinians under this theology only exist to serve the Final Redemption and a violent foil for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.
- Paradoxical Divine Function
Despite their irregular nature, Palestinians serve a crucial but ultimately self-destructive purpose in God’s plan. Their opposition dialectically stimulates Jewish national consciousness and sovereignty. As Rabbi Tau explains: ‘They were created for this rebellion… They have a role on the stage of history, and their role is to cultivate the Kingdom of Israel.’
- Contemporary Manifestation of Ancient Pattern
The Palestinians of today fulfill precisely the same function as their biblical predecessors in God’s historical plan to establish complete Jewish sovereignty. Their current resistance proves they are fulfilling their designated role in the divine scheme.
- Theological Impossibility of Compromise
Any political compromise or two-state solution contradicts the divine plan and is therefore impossible. As Rabbi Tau states: ‘Every attempt to solve this problem, other than through the full implementation of Israel’s national strength, sovereignty, and government over the entire land for the holy and elevated purpose of our kingdom… is contrary to the purpose of the existence of the Philistines and neo-Philistines.’[18]
- Deterministic Yet Accelerable Process
While the process of Redemption is inevitable according to divine plan, it can be accelerated through proper Jewish consciousness and education. However, if Jews resist their destiny, external ‘necessities will come and force it.’ By this he means that if the Jewish people of Israel discover their true inner soul, then this alone can lead to redemption, but if not, then the Palestinians will be there to remind them, just as the Philistines did in the time of the Bible.
- Ultimate Fate: Complete Elimination
Palestinians have no positive essence of their own and no future. Their entire existence is purely functional. Once they complete their role of stimulating Jewish sovereignty, ‘they have no future, their entire existence will shatter when the Kingdom of Israel is established… Israel’s establishment is total liberation and victory over this national nothingness.’ Many would consider this a dictionary definition of genocidal language.
Historical Parallels: When Theology Justifies Elimination
Rabbi Tau’s framework follows a historical pattern where religious reasoning provides divine sanction for territorial expansion and ethnic domination, establishing atrocity as a historic possibility. In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was a political ideology in which God gave Americans divine mission to expand across North America, viewing Native Americans as obstacles to divine will whose cultures were ‘destined to melt and vanish,’[19] enabling systematic violence. In the late 20th century, Orthodox Ethno-phyletism during the Yugoslav wars mixed ethnic nationalism with religious identity, portraying Muslims as existential threats to sacred Orthodox lands, justifying ethnic cleansing and genocide.[20] Hutu Power Ideology asserted divine ethnic superiority over Tutsi populations, claiming divine right to dominate and eliminate these groups, contributing directly to the 1994 genocide.[21]
Each case demonstrates how theological frameworks systematically deny a target group’s legitimacy while sanctifying dominance, creating conditions where violence becomes divinely mandated.
The Politics: The Smotrich-Ben Gvir Alliance
The dangerous real-world implications of Rabbi Tau’s theology become evident when examining it through the rhetoric of figures like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, who systematically refuse to characterise settler violence against Palestinians as terrorism or label its perpetrators as terrorists. They also actively seek to weaken state mechanisms designed to address Jewish terrorism, including efforts to defang the Shin Bet department responsible for policing such activities. On Gaza they do not mince words, calling for total destruction.[22]
Smotrich’s ‘Decisive Plan’: Theological Vision Made Policy
The dangerous real-world implications of theological eliminationism become evident when examining Smotrich’s ‘Decisive Plan,’ published in 2017.[23] While Smotrich frames his approach in political rather than mystical terms, both he and Rabbi Tau arrive at similar endpoints about Palestinian fate. As Smotrich states: ‘This document is a pragmatic document – but it resides comfortably within my faith-based worldview. Those who wish can see it as nothing more than a practical, political solution; others are invited to see it as an encounter between faith and realism, vision and reality.’
Core Elements of the Decisive Plan:
Complete Territorial Control: Smotrich advocates annexing the entire West Bank, declaring: ‘Our national ambition for a Jewish State from the river to the sea is an accomplished fact, a fact not open to discussion or negotiation.’
Palestinian Ultimatum: Palestinians face three choices:
- Accept subordinate status without political rights under Jewish rule;
- ‘Voluntary’ emigration to other countries;
- Violent resistance, meeting ‘excessive force and military decisiveness’.
Settlement Flood Strategy: Massive settlement expansion to create ‘irreversible facts on the ground’ and eliminate any possibility of Palestinian statehood.
Elimination of Palestinian Authority: Deliberately weakening Palestinian institutions to create chaos requiring Israeli military control.
When asked if his plan included killing Palestinian families, women, and children, Smotrich replied: ‘In war as in war.’ This echoes the eliminationist logic found in Rabbi Tau’s theology, where Palestinian existence itself is seen as illegitimate.
Current implementation shows Smotrich’s plan moving from theory to practice: he has deepened Israel’s control over Area C of the West Bank (60 per cent of the territory) by changing the land registration process, has legalised numerous illegal outposts, and oversees settlement expansion designed to fragment Palestinian territorial contiguity permanently.
Ben Gvir’s Ideological Lineage
National Security Minister Ben Gvir represents another pathway for translating theological extremism into policy. While he claims to no longer subscribe to Rabbi Meir Kahane’s full political programme, he still considers Kahane his teacher.
Shaul Magid comments:
So one of the interesting things about Kahane’s Zionism… which is why I think that a lot of the contemporary people like Itamar Ben-Gvir and people like that who identify with Kahane – is that Kahane had no interest in Rav Kook. And the reason is that Kahane had no patience for the kind of mystical romanticism of Rav Kook. And he had no patience for the synthesis between religion and the secular state. For him, religion meant power and it meant conquest. He was a kind of neo-biblical thinker in that way. The Book of Joshua was much more important to him than the Babylonian Talmud. That’s how we saw things. So what you see with contemporary Kahanists, not talking about the Hilltop youth, because I think they are more Kahanist, is a kind of neo-Kahanism that brings together Kookian romanticism and Kahanist militarism.[24]
No less concerning is that Dov Lior, Rabbi of Kiryat Arba, now serves as the senior rabbinic authority for Ben Gvir’s Jewish Power party. Lior has a long history of scandal, praising Dr Baruch Goldstein, the Kahanist who carried out the Hebron massacre in 1994 as ‘a holier martyr than all the holy martyrs of the Holocaust.’ He wrote a letter giving his approval to the highly controversial book ‘The King’s Torah[25],’ for which he was investigated by the police under incitement laws.[26]
Religious Rulings as advice to Government Officials
Beyond indirect influence, theological justifications for targeting civilians have reached the highest levels of government through direct religious rulings. Rabbi Dov Lior issued a formal halachic opinion during the 2014 Gaza conflict that was sent directly to the Defence Minister to influence military operations.[27]
The ruling explicitly states that ‘during war it is permitted for the attacked people to return fierce war against the people from whom the attackers came, and they are not obligated to check if each individual belongs to the fighters against Israel.’ This provides religious sanction for attacking Palestinian civilians based solely on their collective identity rather than individual actions.
Most significantly, Rabbi Lior’s ruling declares that ‘in the case of Gaza it is permitted for the Defense Minister to order even the destruction of all of Gaza so that the south will not continue to suffer’ and that the military may engage in ‘punishing the enemy population with punitive measures as seen fit, such as preventing supplies or electricity and also bombarding the entire area.’
The ruling explicitly rejects humanitarian constraints: ‘all kinds of talk of humanism and consideration are as nothing compared to saving our brothers in the south.’ This represents theological authorisation for what would constitute collective punishment and potentially genocidal policies, sent directly to government decision-makers.
Tau’s Disciple Trains Military Rabbis
Disturbing evidence of Rabbi Tau’s theological framework translating into practical applications comes from testimonies by military rabbi candidates who attended courses run by Rabbi Zvi Kustiner,[28] a student and follower of Tau. These testimonies, reported in Ynet,[29] reveal how Rabbi Tau’s worldview was being directly transmitted to future military rabbis who would influence IDF soldiers.
According to multiple testimonies from military rabbi candidates, Rabbi Kustiner and other instructors taught that ‘according to halacha it is permissible to harm civilians and even innocent children during warfare’ and that ‘there is no need to show mercy even to women and children in wartime.’ The message conveyed was that ‘there are no innocents in war’, including women and children.
The candidates testified that ‘the practical interpretation they give to halacha contradicts IDF procedures’ and that these rabbis ‘see themselves as emissaries who should convey these messages to soldiers.’ In practical terms, this means that during operations like those in Gaza, military rabbis trained in this framework would ‘stand before soldiers and give them motivational speeches that contradict IDF values.’
This testimony reveals a clear nexus between Rabbi Tau’s theology, his student with responsibility for training IDF Rabbis, and potential influence over IDF soldiers and commanders. On the one hand Kustiner was removed from his position, and his views are not reflected in the IDF orders, but the soft influence cannot be discounted.
Post-7 October: The Normalisation of Eliminationist Rhetoric
The Hamas attacks of 7 October have accelerated and normalised the very eliminationist rhetoric that Rabbi Tau’s theology anticipates. The theological framework, once esoteric and limited to closed groups of Tau students, is now being reflected in more mainstream politics. This is due partly to the influence of Rabbi Tau and his followers, and partly to the amplifying effect of the other streams of hyper-nationalist and religious thought.
Unprecedented Escalation in Official Rhetoric
Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested that dropping a ‘nuclear bomb’ on Gaza was ‘an option,’ stating ‘there are no non-combatants in Gaza’ and that Palestinians could ‘go to Ireland or deserts; the monsters in Gaza should find a solution by themselves.’ Even after being suspended from cabinet meetings, Eliyahu renewed his call for striking Gaza with a ‘nuclear bomb,’ saying ‘even in The Hague they know my position.’
Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter told Israeli Channel 12 that the war would be ‘Gaza’s Nakba,’ using the Arabic word for ‘catastrophe’ that describes the 1948 displacement of roughly 700,000 Palestinians. Former MK Moshe Feiglin declared ‘there is one and only solution, which is to completely destroy Gaza before invading it. I mean destruction like what happened in Dresden and Hiroshima, without nuclear weapons.’
From Gaza to the West Bank: Expanding the Model
The rhetoric has explicitly extended beyond Gaza to the West Bank. Smotrich called for creating ‘sterile’ zones in the West Bank that would block Palestinians from entering certain areas and bar them from harvesting olives close to Israeli settlements. There are those who openly advocate applying sovereignty to the entirety of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, arguing that ‘what we are witnessing is not the death of peace but the death of pretense.’[30]
Parts of the public have shifted their opinions since 7 October, with reduced support for a Palestinian State and increased support for full annexation.[31] Whilst it is hard to know to what degree the Israeli public supports all the specifics of Smotrich’s plan, the needle is shifting in his direction.
Convergence of Religious Zionist Camps
Perhaps most significantly, the crisis has accelerated the convergence of previously distinct religious Zionist factions. While Rabbi Tau broke from Rav Kook’s Merkaz HaRav in 1997 to establish Har Hamor due to ideological differences, recent years have seen prominent Rabbis like Tau, Lior and others working together on key issues. The theological distinctions that once separated Merkaz HaRav, Har Hamor and Rabbi Meir Kahane have blurred under shared eliminationist objectives.
Although the three elements of the coalition around Smotrich look different, their source is, in many ways, very much rooted in the same tradition. Rabbi Tau is a key disciple of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook, Rabbi Dov Lior was in Merkaz HaRav with Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda Kook for 17 years and considers him his most influential teacher, and Smotrich himself is a student of Merkaz HaRav and his father is a teacher in the yeshiva. In Lior’s case, he has combined his Kookian influence with a Kahanist slant, as seen by his remarks about Baruch Goldstein, and his letter of approbation around the book ‘The King’s Torah’. They come through different routes, but are converging 43 years after Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook’s death.
This convergence is evident in Smotrich’s inner circle of religious advisers, who represent various streams of hardline religious Zionism now united in supporting him.[32] The ‘Group of 5’ Rabbis act as an informal and intimate Rabbinic cabinet for Smotrich. All are from the conservative and ultra-conservative wings of the religious Zionist community, although reflecting different sub-strands of conservatism. Smotrich has bound them together allowing him to enjoy support from across the conservative wing.[33]
Both Rabbi Tau’s mystical framework and Smotrich’s political plan contain the same logical trajectory toward systematic violence. Rabbi Tau explicitly glorifies military conflict as revealing divine redemption: ‘Our wars are wars for establishing our kingdom, for establishing our national strength and power.’ He sanctifies the Israeli military as an instrument of divine will and portrays Palestinian casualties as necessary for Jewish spiritual elevation.
Both figures remain unambiguous about what a Palestinian end game looks like, even if their visions are not identical. Rabbi Tau speaks of their ‘shattering’ and ‘total victory over this national nothingness,’ while Smotrich offers ‘emigration or annihilation.’ This studied ambiguity allows supporters to interpret these frameworks as ranging from political subordination to complete ethnic cleansing or worse.
Conclusion: A Critical Juncture Requiring Urgent Response
Rabbi Tau’s mystical theology provides a theological foundation for what Smotrich’s political plan seeks to implement: the systematic elimination of Palestinian national existence through a combination of forced subordination, emigration, and violent suppression. While Smotrich or Tau may not openly agree with this analysis, the historical pattern is clear: similar ideological frameworks given the power and opportunity consistently culminate in ethnic cleansing or worse.
The sophistication of Rabbi Tau’s scholarship makes his framework particularly dangerous, providing intellectual believers with seemingly scholarly justification for extreme positions. When married to political power through figures like Smotrich and Ben Gvir, these theological imperatives transform from abstract concepts into concrete policies with potentially devastating real-world consequences.
The post-7 October normalisation of eliminationist rhetoric demonstrates how rapidly this transformation can occur. What once seemed confined to religious study halls has become mainstream political discourse, with government ministers openly discussing nuclear weapons, massive population transfer, and territorial annexation. The convergence of previously distinct religious Zionist camps under shared eliminationist goals shows how crisis can unite fractious ideological streams around common objectives.[34]
History demonstrates that when people believe God requires the elimination or displacement of another group, they typically act on that belief. The current Israeli government’s embrace of both the theological framework and its political implementation, combined with the post-7 October normalisation of eliminationist rhetoric, suggests we are witnessing not merely policy debates, but the early stages of systematic violence justified by claims of divine mandate.
The convergence of mystical theology, political power, social normalisation, and historical precedent creates an unprecedented danger. The theological framework has become political orthodoxy; the rhetoric has shifted from margins to mainstream; the policies are being implemented with state power.
The ultimate question is not whether this eliminationist logic will lead to violence[35] – historical precedent makes that tragically likely – but whether Israeli society will recognise and intervene before this trajectory reaches its predictable conclusion. Based on current opinion polls, the combined parties described above would likely command only about 10 per cent of the Knesset if elections were held today,[36] potentially excluding them from government. However, the warning signs are clear; the pattern is established.
Israeli society, and in particular the religious Zionist sector, must promote ideas that can compete with and defeat these radical concepts. There is room and urgent need for a religious and political thesis that offers full-throated Zionism, patriotism and strong Jewish identity without falling into supremacist, racist or eliminationist ideas couched in theological terms. The fate of moderate religious Zionism – and perhaps Israeli democracy itself – may depend on whether these trends can be reversed before they become irreversible.
For someone who grew up in the religious Zionist world, and has educated his children within the religious Zionist school system, I feel that responsibility particularly heavy.
[1] https://www.worldbneiakiva.org/who-we-are
[2] An excellent intellectual history of Zionism by Shlomo Avineri traces the influence of these nineteenth century thinkers. Avineri, S. (2017). The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State. Hachette UK.
[3] Lindell, Y. ‘Toward a More Pragmatic Redemption: The Practical Zionism of Rabbi Yitzhak Yaakov Reines’.
[4] Rabbi and Rav have the same meaning.
[5] Mirsky, Y. (2014). Rav Kook: Mystic in a time of revolution. Yale University Press. It is this which leaves no option for Tau at a later date but to create a theological space for the Palestinian people, outside this framework and outside the ‘70 Nations’.
[6] Zvi Yehuda Kook is inspired by the ideas of the psychology of nations, adding a religious element to this. This thought, that was prominent prior to WWII, is also rooted in the philosophy of Hegel from the nineteenth century. Not surprisingly this intellectual school disappeared after WWII. Shṭemler, Ḥ. (2017). ‘The Sources of Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook’s Psychology of Nations’. Judaica, 73(2/3), 204-220.
[7] For a detailed discussion on the influence of Rabbi Soloveitchik on religious Zionism in Israel see: Ferziger, A. S. (2025). Agents of Change: American Jews and the Transformation of Israeli Judaism. NYU Press.
[8] A good summary comparison of the Zionist outlooks of Rabbis Soloveitchick and Kook by Shalom Carmy, ‘Soloveitchik the Zionist,’ First Things (May 2018).
[9] A key moment for Yehuda Amital was after the Yom Kippur War during which the yeshiva he headed lost a high number of students in battle. This had a profound affect on him.
[10] It is well beyond the scope of this article, but there is a wide body of research showing that societies successful at combining eclectic thought and ideas will lead to a more pragmatic and less fundamentalist, even authoritarian politics.
[11] Campaign to free Israeli killer of Palestinian family raises over NIS 1.2 million. Also note that the messaging around the campaign was blurred and some surprisingly moderate Rabbis signed on with their support.
[12] Just one example of many – Minister to security heads who slammed settler terror: ‘Who are you? Wagner Group?’
[13] In a previous Fathom article I discuss the political and culture war aspects of Rabbi Tau’s influence. For more biographical details see here.
[14] Ahituv, Yosef, Akdamot, January 2005 pages 137-152 Here is an English translation of the original article. Yosef Achituv – 1933-2012, A major thinker within the religious Zionist camp, and an educator and leader of the religious Kibbutz movement. The Shalom Hartman Institute where he was a Fellow, published this after his death.
[15] There is a certain irony as a much more mainstream right-wing position is to consider the Palestinians as not a people at all.
[16] The ‘Seventy Nations’ concept originates in Biblical times and represents all of humanity. Over the centuries of Jewish thought, the idea is expounded upon and with the Kookian thought it reflects a cosmic Kabalistic idea that each nation has a unique and divinely inspired role in the world. This is a deeply universal and humanistic idea.
[17] The Maharal, whose full name was Yehudah Leib ben Betsal’el lived in 16th century Europe. ‘At the center of the system is the distinction between matter and form, the physical and the spiritual. The people of Israel represent the spiritual, and they are essentially different from all other creatures; the existence and welfare of Israel constitutes the purpose of creation.’ YIVO Encyclopedia. Rabbi Avraham Kook is inspired by the thought of the Maharal, and hence he becomes an important thinker in the Kook Zionist tradition, carried forward by Rabbi Tau.
[18] In a 1996 letter to new prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Rabbi Tau already set out his categorical denial of the possibility of any territorial compromise with the Palestinians. After exhorting the prime minister that ‘we cannot retreat from our Divine ownership over our own place’, he then informs that he is not just the elected leader of a country, but ‘Divine messengers, Holy Angels.’ In his eyes, the political and the theological are forged tightly together.
[19] Parkman, F. (1908). The conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the conquest of Canada, vol. 1.
[20] ‘The language of ethnicity to refer to the conflict in Bosnia Herzegovina shields a key factor in what has been called by the euphemism ‘ethnic cleansing,’ which was based solely and exclusively on distinctions of religion identity and was motivated and justified through a robust use of religion-based symbols and power.’ Sells, M. (2003). Crosses of blood: Sacred space, religion, and violence in Bosnia-Hercegovina. Sociology of Religion, 64(3), 309-331.
[21] ‘In Rwanda, the Hutu extremists attacked the religiosity of the Tutsis, and in doing so, the Tutsis remained human, but were depicted as deviating from social as well as Christian norms. They were described as treacherous, arrogant, and lacking moral values to the extent that they were willing to commit genocide against the Hutus.’ – Simonsson, O. (2019). God Rests in Rwanda: The Role of Religion in the 1994 Genocide in Rwanda (Doctoral dissertation, Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis).
[22] Smotrich says Gaza to be ‘totally destroyed,’ population ‘concentrated’ in small area, Ben-Gvir takes shots at IDF chief in Israeli cabinet meeting https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786342
[23] The document is his ‘Israel’s Decisive Plan’ as translated and published in Hashiloach, a leading Israeli conservative periodical.
[24] Meir Kahane, American Radical? October 6, 2021 – Yehuda Kurtzer hosts Shaul Magid, author of Meir Kahane: The Public Life and Political Thought of an American Jewish Radical. Princeton University Press.
[25] ADL Urges Rabbis, Orthodox Leaders To Condemn Blueprint For Killing Non-Jews
[26] Rabbi Dov Lior arrested. Police arrest prominent Kiryat Arba rabbi for incitement, allegedly legitimizing killing of non-Jews, June 2001. https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4087844,00.html
[27] West Bank rabbis: Allow live fire at stone throwers
[28] Kustiner is the head of Yeshivat Midbara K’Eden in Mitzpe Ramon and a close disciple of Tau and a warrior in the culture wars against LGBT.
[29] Rabbis inciting against women, non-Jewish soldiers at IDF course, Jan 2017, https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4912189,00.html
[30] Israel must not cower: Sovereignty for Judea, Samaria, and Gaza now, Eyeing Trump support, Israeli minister pushes for West Bank settlement annexation
[31] Polling from the INSS shows that Jewish Israeli opposition to a two-state solution remained consistently high, both before and after October 2023. The war did not cause a significant shift in support levels although it hardened positions in some cases. The broadened framing by the INSS in March 2025 that included unilateral separation garnered more support (63%), suggesting that while many Jews reject a bilateral agreement with Palestinians, they remain open to separation in principle. The long-term trend suggests stability in Jewish Israeli scepticism, driven by security concerns and deep distrust.
[32] Smotrich is an alumnus of Mercaz HaRav, and sees his father as his main religious influence. Interestingly Rabbi Smotrich was a close student of Rabbi Tzvi Yehuda, but also teaches in Rabbi Lior’s yeshiva, possibly symbolising the convergence of the two philosophies in Smotrich.
[33] Hakabinet Hatorani, Makor Rishon, 9 August 2024. The article describes this intimate group that meets ad hoc and includes very conservative Zionist Rabbis unifying multiple strands of the Kookian heritage.
[34] On a practical note we now have MK’s in Smotrich’s party who were previously activists with ‘Jewish Power’ (like MK Zvi Succot) and on the other hand religious Zionists that were conservative, but never associated with Kahane now being part of Jewish Power (like Minister Amichai Eliahu) suggesting a blurring of ideological or political demarcation.
[35] Hawara and other violent incidents show that there is already religiously inspired violence towards Palestinians.
[36] Persistent polling carried out in 2025 by Dr Menachem Lazar shows that about 15 per cent of the religious Zionist community have plans to vote for Smotrich in the next election, and the same amount for Jewish Power. Although these are the two obviously religious Zionist parties, together only 30% of the religious Zionist community intends to vote for them.
