Leave Religious Fundamentalism out of the Israel-Palestine Conflict

Amongst liberal circles, religious fundamentalism—the application of strict, radical interpretations of holy text to all aspects of life and politics—is almost unanimously deemed a dangerous political tool. It is conducive to unjust political ideology, theocratic ideas of government, social inequality, and, at its most extreme, terrorism. Yet, many continue to cherry-pick aspects of religious fundamentalism that support their beliefs and condemn only those that do not. 

Such is the case with the Neturei Karta, a staunchly anti-Zionist, ultra-Orthodox sect of Jews who wear traditional fur hats, traditional long black coats, traditional tallits, and, untraditionally, keffiyehs with the Palestinian flag. They often take part in pro-Palestinian protests in Brooklyn and New York City, holding signs that say things like

“Torah forbids a Jewish state.”

“Authentic Rabbis have always opposed Zionism and the state of Israel.”

“Judaism condemns Zionist provocations against Iran.”

“Torah demands ALL PALESTINE be returned to Palestinian sovereignty.”

The slogans and signs of this sect are often featured in the news and on social media; advocates for Palestine use their messages to strengthen and support their cause with a portrayal of “ideal Jews” or use them to support arguments that Israel’s existence violates Judaism. In reality, they are a religious fundamentalist group like any other, which largely diminishes their political credibility. Their anti-Zionist views stem not from compassion for Palestinians but rather from compliance with religious beliefs based on an uncommon Torah interpretation that Jews shouldn’t return to Israel until the Messiah, or the spiritual deliverer of the Jewish people, comes to Earth and brings the Jewish people to Zion. Members of Neturei Karta often say, “We are in exile by Divine Decree and may emerge from exile solely via Divine Redemption.” The group uses this idea to justify their belief that Jews should never, regardless of persecution or attempted annihilation they face elsewhere, move to Israel if the Messiah isn’t the one bringing them there. They believed this even immediately after the Holocaust, when Jews had virtually nowhere else to seek safety, and they continue to believe so today.

This shouldn’t be confused with other Jewish groups that advocate for Palestine: many Jews, Zionist or otherwise, believe that the Jewish practice of Tikkun Olam, or healing the world through social justice, entails fighting for the Palestinian people and fighting against oppression in the name of Judaism. The difference in what drives these two different versions of Jewish-Palestinian advocacy is significant: most non-fundamentalist Jewish pro-Palestinians are driven by social justice and subsequently advocate to reach equality and coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians; regardless of differing views on how best to advocate for the Palestinian cause, they ultimately fight for peace. In contrast, the Neturei Karta are driven by Talmudic or religious commandments rather than social justice.  They consequently seek to end Israel’s existence and believe that Jews—including the 7.45 million living in Israel today—should never have set foot in Israel and should be removed. They don’t believe in the existence of Israel because they condemn the harm imposed on Palestinians but rather because they fundamentally don’t believe a Jewish state should exist, and they use Palestinian suffering to steer their Messianic, radical beliefs into the political mainstream. Religious fundamentalism on its own isn’t politically credible, so the Neturei Karta utilize the movement for Palestine to fight for their religious ideas.

Although Zionism today carries different meanings and definitions for different people, the founding definition is the belief in the existence and protection of a Jewish state in Israel. Zionism doesn’t inherently support the actions of the Israeli government, and many Zionists believe advocacy against Netanyahu’s government is crucial to Israeli existence and justice. Jewish advocates against Netanyahu range in their relationship with Zionism, and Jewish Zionists range in their perspectives on Netanyahu. All of this is to say that Jews protesting Netanyahu are far from a monolith; when the Neturei Karta attempt to portray Jews as monolithic or argue that the only real Jews are those who follow their specific, fundamentalist ideas, and the left gives them the platform and space to do so, then the advocacy of the rest of the Jewish community becomes invalidated and silenced. 

The danger of allowing extremist religious beliefs in the forefront of geopolitical movements is that for these radical groups, it’s impossible to separate religious fundamentalism from political advocacy. This means that even when an extreme religious group temporarily aligns with a movement or perspective you agree with, giving them a platform and validating political voices that advocate for destruction is incredibly harmful. The Neturei Karta’s fundamentalist, extremist religious beliefs directly translate to extremist geopolitical beliefs.

The phenomenon of giving fundamentalists a voice in the Israel-Palestine geopolitical dispute isn’t unique to the Neturei Karta, though in New York City the Neturei Karta are the most notable. On the other end of the spectrum of Jewish religious fundamentalism, many ultra-Orthodox Hasidic Jews are settlers of the West Bank. Contrary to the Neturei Karta, their radical interpretation of the Torah tells them that colonizing areas of the West Bank under Palestinian (and not Israeli) jurisdiction is their moral and religious imperative. They are known for committing acts of violence against Palestinians, meaning they complicate and deter the work of those advocating for Israeli perseverance in a two-state solution by violating legal agreements made between Israel and Palestine. Likewise, Hamas and Hezbollah, both explicitly Islamist groups, use radical fundamentalism to justify acts of terrorism like the attacks of October 7. Needless to say, Hamas, Hezbollah, and West Bank settlers all threaten the safety and existence of Israelis and Palestinians in the future, yet Middle East geopolitical discourse continues to include their voices and even prioritize them over other advocates.

The pitfall of these radical ideologies is that believing any of them is moral or right is so much simpler than acknowledging the layers of nuance in the Israel-Palestine conflict and seeking a deeper understanding. If the Neturei Karta actually represented true Judaism and the Jewish people, and Hamas truly and singularly sought justice and peace for the Palestinian people, then it would be easy to only advocate against Israel. If West Bank settlers truly only sought peace and fulfillment of their faith, it would be easier to advocate for them. In reality, the vast majority of Jews—who, despite what the Neturei claims, are indeed truly Jewish—believe in the importance of a Jewish state in Israel because of a complicated history, heritage, safety, and community, and Hamas has in many ways worsened the oppression Palestinians face. At the same time, West Bank settlers are far from peaceful and have actively endangered Palestinians with no regard for their safety and rights. These truths can exist at the same time. The conflict is more nuanced than any fundamentalist religious group paints it to be, and their extreme takes on the conflict are attractively one-sided to an extreme extent. As our generation gives these radical groups more press, attention, and validity, we allow ourselves to adopt a radically simple and ill-informed approach to the conflict as well.

In a terrifyingly real demonstration of the horseshoe theory, Hezbollah’s commitment to destroying the Jewish people didn’t stop the Neturei Karta from meeting with and politically aligning themselves with their leaders, along with other Jihadists. Their Judaism also didn’t stop them from proudly meeting and partnering with Hamas’s leaders—something they publicly flaunted in the media and on their website. It didn’t even stop them from attending a “Holocaust Review” conference in Tehran, attended largely by Holocaust-denialist groups and individuals. The Neturei Karta has sacrificed belief in the safety and livelihood of the Jewish people to support their religiously radical anti-Zionist beliefs.

The Neturei Karta’s willingness to partner with those who want to eliminate the Jewish people is likely why almost every single sect and type of Jew—ranging from the ultra-religious Hasidim; to the Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist Jews your Jewish Stuy friends probably are; to the most anti-Zionist, secular Jew you know—condemns the Neturei Karta. The difference in ideology and interpretation of the Torah is and always has been fundamental to Judaism, but the extreme extent to which the Neturei Karta takes their ideas sets them apart from the rest of the Jewish community. Using the Neturei Karta as the image of pro-Palestinian advocacy doesn’t just validate radical fundamentalists, but it silences the voices of the rest of the Jewish community.

As New Yorkers, we don’t all necessarily have relations with fundamentalists in Israel and Palestine but we do with the Neturei Karta. Just as it’s dangerous for advocates of Israel and Palestine to use the zeal and commitment of West Bank settlers and Hamas to push forward political messages, it’s dangerous to allow Brooklyn’s Neturei Karta to enter any geopolitical conversations or advocate on our small front of the Israel-Palestine conflict in New York City. New York City has been, and will continue to be, a global center of Jewish life and thinking as well as a hub for protest and advocacy; this means the Israel-Palestine discourse going on in our streets, schools, and boroughs holds weight for Palestinians, Israelis, and the global Jewish diaspora. The way we choose to advocate for goals of coexistence and peace—and who we choose to represent and lead our movements—truly matters. The values that drive political advocacy are just as important as the political advocacy itself.