Home » Issues » Articles » Jewish Identity » A Nation’s Search for Meaning

A Nation’s Search for Meaning

By Moshe Feiglin

Translated from Ma’ariv’s NRG website

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how.
Friedrich Nietzsche

In his book, “Man’s Search for Meaning”, renowned psychologist Victor Frankel attributed his survival in the death camps to his feeling that his life had meaning. Those who lost that feeling of significance died shortly.

It is not only people who need a sense of meaning; nations need it, as well. Particularly, the Nation of Israel. The search for meaning was the undercurrent that inspired last week’s elections. It wasn’t the economy or security. It certainly wasn’t the universal draft issue.

“Zionism has nothing to do with religion,” declared the First Zionist Congress – and in a way, they were right. Religion suits the community or family structure; a type of mobile Judaism that can be packed into one’s knapsack after the inevitable pogrom. Return to sovereign statehood requires much more than religion: It requires a return to an all-inclusive Jewish culture.

What content has filled the renewal of Zion in our days? We all know that without some common vision, society disintegrates. What meaning will there be to our national renaissance without the foundations of our shared faith?

All the debates at the start of Zionism revolved around that question. The Socialists won in a knock-out. It was the Labor party that presided over the establishment of the State of Israel and led it until the mid 70’s. The Right never put forth an alternative vision. It adhered to the practical aspects of Zionism – settlement and security – without ever attempting to infuse meaning into its actions. Socialism collapsed along with the Soviet Union in the eighties, and when the Left was elected to lead Israel in the nineties, it rode the wave of “international brotherhood” alone. The socialist vision was replaced with the peace vision.

Twenty years later, we are at the end of the Oslo era. Israeli society has suffered a bloody awakening from the peace illusion, the public arena is void of any vision and our national soul thirsts for meaning. It turns out that our national existence has no meaning if it is detached from its foundations in Jewish identity and faith – interwoven with modernity.

The Likud – the nationalist party with the glorious history, Jabotinsky’s teachings and the popular connection to Jewish tradition – has all that it needs to infuse our society with meaning. But all of those important components were tucked out of sight in the past elections. The fact that the Likud did not even publicize its platform was no mistake: “We’re going to win anyway, so why get into arguments?” was the dubious logic behind that decision. And the nationalist ruling party turned itself into a party of suit-wearers with a negative campaign and no message or meaning.

On both sides of the Likud, parties that proposed a new agenda flourished. They have not yet infused their messages with real meaning, but at least one of them, The Jewish Home party, provided the scent of Jewish content as it quickly climbed to 18 mandates in the polls – almost half of those voters non-observant.

Initially, the public was surprised when polls showed that a large number of voters were debating between Bennet and Lapid. The Finkelsteins expected the base attack on the Jewish Home to bring six secular mandates back to the Likud, but that is not how it worked out. The Likud, which had fled its own message and did not provide society with any type of meaning – was not the landing pad for those votes. If the Jewish agenda was suddenly unacceptable, those voters could easily vote for lack of meaning in more attractive packaging. No need to go back to voting for the lack of meaning offered by the old suits.

That is how Lapid’s party became the second largest party in Israel, while the Likud found itself shrunk and hunkering down between two fresh-faced parties advocating a new national agenda: One a civil agenda, and the other a Jewish-oriented agenda. Neither party provides meaning at this point. They are both too preoccupied with the “how” and not the “why” or “to where”.

If we in the Likud will understand the deep reason for our party’s decline; if we will refresh our ranks and provide the public with a new vision and a national answer to the “why” and “to where” – we will retrieve the votes that went to our younger sisters, and continue to securely lead Israel with our national vision.

If we will not have the wisdom to take the above steps, our demise will be similar to the demise of the Labor party.

You must be logged in to post a comment.