Divergent Ideals: Between a Righteous Gentile and a Righteous Charedi

Much has been said and written in the wake of the mini-media storm surrounding the recent remarks of Rav Dov Lando, shlita, in an interview steeped in ‘hashkafah’ (Jewish worldview) given to the ‘Lev Shome’a’ organization.[1] The conversation raised multiple issues related to the foundational perspectives of Charedi Judaism. Indeed, many troubled individuals, Charedi or otherwise, consulted with me concerning his comments and had significant difficulty digesting them.[2]

In the present article, I will relate to the most central issue that Rav Lando’s remarks raise: the place of Charedi identity within the State of Israel. This issue, of course, has tremendous implications for the future of Charedi society and the fate of the state as a whole. Indeed, Haaretz journalist Anat Kamm (who was previously convicted and jailed for espionage) pounced on Rav Lando’s anti-Israel comments, finding hope therein for a new political partnership between the Charedim and Israel’s Left:

Yes, even at the cost of the conscription issue! […] The Charedim who understand that nationalism destroys Judaism, literally, are the best partners for our future here. And the more extreme and isolationist the Charedim, the less they are likely to engage in matters of religion and state and those of the general public. We should embrace these isolationist messages.[3]

In asking her colleagues to “listen to Rav Lando” Kamm is misreading the situation. The chances of a Charedi-Left political alliance are below negligible. Yet, the fact that she so closely identified with Rav Lando’s position sounds alarm bells and raises the importance of addressing his remarks. In particular, I think there is a need to appreciate and consider the gap between his opinion and the positions of large segments of the Charedi public.

Where this divergence leads remains an open question. Its answer, however, depends predominantly on the actions we choose to take.

Parallel Lines

From the early years of the state, Charedi Judaism and the State of Israel have traced two parallel lines. These lines delineate the paths of two pioneering movements: on the one hand, the Zionist movement and its realization in the form of the Jewish state, and on the other hand, the Charedi movement and its realization in what is known as the “Torah world.” Both have reached remarkable achievements.

The State of Israel has succeeded beyond all expectations in achieving its core mission and goals. It defeated its surrounding enemies, gathered millions of Jews worldwide, built a thriving economy and a powerful military, established governmental institutions, and became an international powerhouse and a source of regional pride. As we all know well, it is far from perfect. Yet, in the grand scheme of things, it remains an exceptional phenomenon.

Charedi Judaism, too, has experienced phenomenal success. It grew from small and modest proportions—about 2.5% of the state’s population at its founding—to an extraordinary proportion of approximately 14% today. It has built impressive institutions of yeshivas and kollels, communities of scholars and Torah learners, Chasidic courts, well-developed communal and religious services, and an unprecedented Teshuvah movement. Politically, it has also achieved remarkable results, to the extent that nearly every coalition since 1977 has included the Charedi parties.

However, as Haredi Judaism burgeoned, the parallel-lines model began to crack. From the Israeli side, Charedim have become a significant burden on the state, particularly in the economic sphere, calling the viability of the model into question. Moreover, the issue of basic morality and fairness has come to the fore, especially since October 7. Non-Charedi Israelis have taken up the claim of Lavan against Yaakov Avinu: “He has taken all that belonged to our father and created all this wealth” (Bereishis 31:1)—or in modern terms, there can be no rights without duties.

The divide between the Charedim and the rest of Jewish Israel has created a likelihood that the primary issue of the upcoming elections, whenever they should take place, will be the matter of Charedi participation in Israel and, most specifically, the conscription issue.

While serving as government ministers and cabinet members, from whom can we truly separate?

From the Charedi side, too, the “absolute separation” model has become untenable. There are three basic reasons for this. The first is size: a community as large as Charedi society today cannot remain isolated (economically or socially) from the state. While serving as government ministers and cabinet members, the question begs itself: can a group isolate from itself? The second reason is new media: the penetration of the internet and its many agents has created shared spaces independent of geography, fostering ideological and cultural proximity that cannot be reversed. The third is time itself: decades of shared Israel existence have led to a variety of ‘Israelization’ processes among large Charedi groups.

And yet, in large parts, the lines remain parallel. Haredi politics, certainly its Ashkenazi factions, continues to use the age-old (or decades-old) rhetoric: we are here only to sustain our yeshivas and communities. Nothing more. The issue of military service—the most significant issue in the integration debate since October 7—remains entirely unresolved. And the disconnect persists.

An acquaintance living in a mixed (Charedi and non-Charedi) city told me about the vast gulf between two WhatsApp groups she is part of—one of Charedi women and the other of religious Zionist women. Throughout the war months, the latter group was filled with messages about funerals, condolence visits, support for soldiers and reservists, aid for families, and so on. The former group, by contrast, was filled with entirely different messages: online shopping, gel nails, wigs, and the like.

In an era that seems to be leaning toward greater rapprochement, what maintains the separation? The answer, in a single word: ideology. And in two words: an anti-nationalist ideology that penetrates the self-awareness of many Charedim. Yes, as I will explain below, shifts are certainly taking place.

Anti-Nationalism

Mainstream Charedi ideology does not lend itself to nationalism in the sense of seeking maximal alignment between nation and state. In the Charadi theoretical mindset, we are still deep in exile, though with a twist: an exile among Jews. Broadly speaking, Charedim thus never supported any version of the Jewish state. Our mission is to perpetuate Jewish life as we know it, that which our ancestors developed over two thousand years of exile. At a maximum, Jewish sovereignty is a means toward achieving this end; it is certainly not an end unto itself.

The position of MK Moshe Gafni, for instance, who openly identifies with Israel’s Left on the Palestinian conflict, is thus unsurprising: it draws from the original ideology that fears the shifting identity from the private and communal to the national.

Nonetheless, Charedi leadership has known different approaches to Israel. More moderate figures, such as Rav Aharon Leib Steinman zt”l, allowed a certain rapprochement between Charedi society and the state. The establishment of the Netzach Yehudah brigade, with the support of Rav Steinman, doubtless had a significant effect, even if his core intention was to provide an alternative framework for at-risk Charedi youth.

In contrast, more extremist figures, such as those associated today with the Jerusalem Faction, vehemently rejected any motion toward reconciliation. If for Rav Steinman the army could be a worthy solution for some graduates of the Charedi education system, for the Faction the very notion implies shmad, a threat of spiritual destruction that must be fought by any means.

Enter Rav Lando, whose words, while aligning with the more zealous views among the rabbinic leadership, were nonetheless surprising in their extremism. From Rav Lando’s perspective, “It is possible to live well among Arabs and without a state.” In his view, before the establishment of the state, there was a real window of opportunity to honor the Arabs and live under their protection, a condition far preferable to Jewish sovereignty: “Just as Rabbi Chaim Sonnenfeld did, honoring the Arabs—it was quite good when the Arabs ruled here. That was the best possible situation.”

Like several students of the Chazon Ish, Rabbi Dov Lando thus espouses a radically anti-nationalist position: it would have been better to remain under Arab rule rather than ‘forcing the end’ by establishing a Jewish state

Like several disciples of the Chazon Ish, Rabbi Dov Lando thus espouses a radically anti-nationalist position: it would have been better to remain under Arab rule—presumably even under the oppression and persecution that Jews experienced in many of those states—rather than ‘forcing the end’ by establishing a Jewish state.

Rabbi David Schmidel, quoting a lecture by Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel, zt”l—both of them disciples of the Chazon Ish—explained the real reason why Charedim do not enlist in the army. According to him, it is not due to the need for Torah scholars; this would not be a sufficient cause. Nor is it because of the spiritual dangers of military service or to ensure that the Torah shall not be forgotten among Israel. The real reason is the rejection of nationalism:

The wars fought here are not aimed at saving Jewish lives from an imminent threat of annihilation. The purpose of their wars is for the sake of the state, just like the armies of any other nation. There is no debate about this; everyone agrees. The difference is clear… The existence of the state is something we have no interest in. It is neither acceptable nor reasonable to force someone to fight for a cause in which he has no stake.[4]

According to this reasoning, there is no legitimacy to compel someone to fight for a state that is neither his nor beneficial to him. “The existence of the state adds nothing to the purpose for which we exist in this world, and therefore we have no interest in it.” Even if one argues that political independence could be expedient for our service before Hashem, “we have no tradition on how to do that.” Our tradition is limited to life without a state: “From our forefathers, we only received guidance on how to keep the Torah in exile.”

The text concludes: “The best thing for us is to be under the rule of a righteous [hagun] non-Jew, where we can serve our Creator.” The desire is certainly to live in Eretz Yisrael, where we can serve Hashem in proximity to holiness—but ideally, under a foreign ruler. Anti-nationalism, indeed.

To this day, the official stance of Charedi Judaism continues to uphold this perspective. Editorials in Yated Ne’eman repeatedly state that participation in Israeli politics is permissible only to “rescue [resources] from the lion and the bear […] in matters of religious needs and safeguarding sacred Jewish traditions.” And that’s it. As for governing the country, “this involves matters of life and death, and since we have no Shach or Taz (halachic authorities) on this subject, we cannot take responsibility for them.” They are left in the hands of the lions and the bears.

The official rhetoric of Charedi society, of the type found in Yated Neeman, continues to support this mindset. In the worldview of the official ideology, there is no possibility of uniting the two parallel tracks or even bringing them closer. They remain fundamentally disparate.

Israeli Charedism

Despite Rav Lando’s words, the reality on the ground cannot be ignored: time has taken its course, and many Charedim today espouse an entirely different worldview. Few, in fact, certainly outside the Jerusalem Faction and its surroundings, would identify with his statements.

First, the average Charedi individual recognizes Israel’s unprecedented support for the rebuilding of the Torah world. Notwithstanding deep reservations concerning the Jewish State, we all know that no Arab equivalent would have ingathered the Jewish exile, established the Torah world, and facilitated the Teshuvah movement. For this reason alone, many expressed wonder at Rav Lando’s reminiscence: can we truly, hand on heart, claim that we would be better off under Arab rule? And how can such statements be made during times of war, when it is obvious that our enemies will utilize them for propaganda purposes (which indeed happened; Rav Lando’s words were publicized on Arab media outlets)?

But deeper yet, Charedi society had undergone a deep process of Israelization, including a transition to a nationalist worldview. One of the key figures in bringing about this change is Rav Shach, zt”l, who had a well-documented rivalry with Rabbi Landoand other disciples of the Chazon Ish. The 1977 decision to join Israel’s coalition government, and particularly the decision to align with the Israeli Right—moves orchestrated by Rav Shach—set the political trajectory of Charedi Judaism from then until today. Without a doubt, these decisions contributed to pushing the Charedi public toward the right-wing camp—and, by extension, toward nationalism.

This process joins with the parallel shift of Charedim toward engagement with worldly affairs. Being mainly unexposed to anti-nationalist indoctrination of the political Left, such engagement naturally gravitates to a strong national identity. Deeper still, many appreciate that the ultimate purpose of the isolationist project, including isolation from the state, is for the sake of building up enough strength and confidence to influence Israel’s public sphere and national character. Isolation is a necessary means but never the end itself, and the time comes when we are called to take responsibility for the Jewish nation-state.

The 1977 decision to join Israel’s coalition government, and particularly the decision to align with the Israeli Right—moves orchestrated by Rabbi Shach—set the political trajectory of Charedi Judaism from then until today

Indeed, public opinion surveys consistently show that Charedim are the most right-wing group in the country—that is, the most nationalistic. They support a “Jewish state”—both in the sense of statehood and Jewish character. Critics may argue that this nationalism remains shallow, lacking the passion, religious fervor, and willingness to sacrifice found in many segments of religious Zionism. These points may be partially valid, but they do not detract from the depth of the national sentiment, ‘which is anchored (as I have argued in the past) in the strong sense of Jewish identity.

For our purposes, the key point, as noted above, is that only small parts of Charedi Judaism would identify with Rav Lando’s statements. Instead of the anti-nationalist approach his words represent, it seems that most Charedim—certainly large segments—are firmly in the national camp.

The question now is: how will this make a difference?

Finding a Righteous Charedi

Rav Landostated at the conclusion of his remarks that his words make little difference: “But what difference does it make now? What can be done now, when we live among robbers, and the robbers are the ones saving us? What can be done? This is a major problem.” However, perhaps these very words actually highlight the centrality of the issue.

What can be done now, when we live among robbers, and the robbers are the ones saving us? What can be done?

According to Rav Lando, we are “living among robbers, and the robbers are saving us.” The division is clear. We have “them”—the robbers—and “us.” We have “them,” Israelis, and “us,” Charedim. They have their story, and we have ours—two parallel lines that never meet.

For Anat Kamm, whose words I cited at the outset, this opinion represents an opportunity for new political alliances. “True Charedim,” the type that “don’t establish Torani communities, are uninterested in settling Gaza, and for whom the Temple Mount is idolatry,” should be partners with the Israeli far Left. Although there are many impediments to her vision—pro-LGBT, anti-religious, and pro-Arab agendas are unlikely partners for Charedim of any type—she is not entirely wrong. There are segments within Charedi society, most notably the anti-Zionists of the Old Yishuv and the ‘Jerusalem Faction,’ which cling to the idea of total isolation and could enter a marriage of convenience with the Left: the Charedim vote (though the Old Yishuv doesn’t vote) in exchange for keeping the parallel lines as separate as ever.

However, large portions of Charedi society perceive reality differently. They see the Israeli story as their own—not a perfect story, far from it, but one whose next chapters they bear responsibility for writing. They are fully aware of the dangers of the “Peace Camp” that Kamm wishes the Charedim to join, and rather than disengage, they are eager to undo the damages of Oslo and the expulsion of Jews from Gaza. Of course, how Charedim view the content of Israel’s future chapters is an issue worthy of much discussion, which many articles on this platform seek to unpack. For the purposes of this article, it suffices to note the task of writing itself.

Another two instructions, given by Rav Lando in recent days and publicized in Yated Neeman, demonstrate the depth of the internal chasm between the Charedi camps, one of them seeking to perpetuate the parallel lines model and the other appreciating their convergence.

One instruction given by Rav Lando was to attack, in no uncertain terms, a conference held by the Charedi Institute for Public Policy on the Charedi draft issue. The headline on Yated’s front page indicated that our sages (meaning Rav Lando) had “expressed profound shock at the treacherous partnership with bodies that threaten the continued existence of Charedi Judaism.”

Given the approaching WZO elections and the importance of the Eretz Hakodesh part in the present coalition, this ruling can have far-reaching consequences. Yet, the ruling was not given significant daylight in the Charedi newspapers, and my assumption is that it will be ignored

Another instruction was to ban any Charedi cooperation with the Zionist institutions (the WZO), stating that “there is no permission whatsoever, under any circumstances, to participate with them or to hold office or vote for any of the national institutions.” Given the approaching WZO elections and the importance of the Eretz HaKodesh part in the present coalition, this ruling can have far-reaching consequences. Yet, the ruling was not given significant daylight in the Charedi newspapers, and my assumption is that it will be ignored. Too many have too much to lose.

The common denominator of the rulings is a strong objection to any rapprochement between the parallel lines, the Charedi line, and that of Israel. Certainly, there are many, within the Jerusalem Faction and outside of it, who will identify with the position. The anxiety over losing the achievements of Charedi Judaism over the past century is, of course, eminently understandable, and it grows as the distance narrows.

Yet, many within Charedi society, including significant rabbinic figures, see things differently. They see Israel’s wars as battles to defend the nation and not merely to defend the state, as Rav Elyashiv zt”l rules (see Kovetz Teshuvos, Vol. 1, no. 243). They see Charedi Judaism as part of the Jewish majority in Israel, part of the story of the Jewish return to our homeland. And they appreciate the great responsibility that rests on our shoulders for the physical and spiritual well-being of the Jewish State, even if the path toward its realization is far from straightforward.

Rav Lando’s words highlight the gulf that separates different parts of Charedi society, indicating social-political changes that are sure to come. For many, the urgent search today is not for a ‘righteous gentile’ to rule over us, nor even for a righteous secular Jew, but for a righteous Charedi equivalent: one that will lead a model that knows how to preserve the good and pure within Charedi Judaism while taking responsibility for Israel. In contrast with the unfortunate damage of Rav Lando’s statements (which were quickly rendered into English[5] and multiple Arab outlets[6]), this would surely bring about a Kiddush Hashem.

[1] The full transcript can be read here: https://www.kikar.co.il/haredim-news/srb2kt.

[2] For a recent Shiur I gave on the remarks, including a Torah framing of Purim vs. Chanukkah, see here.

[3] Anat Kamm, “Listen to Rav Lando” (Haaretz, 14.2.2025); online version available here.

[4] I have uploaded a copy of R. Schmidel’s notes here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GRs89GZtO7vzs1LUni_e9hWbtat7xkyJ/view?usp=sharing.

[5] See, for instance, the Jerusalem Post article here.

[6] See, for instance, here.

Picture: Bigstock