As Israelis, we were brought up on an ideology that was larger than life. Zionism drew its strength from powerful and collective values and the ethos that it is good to die for our country. We were taught from infancy that the individual should make sacrifices for the "greater good." We value this dedication to ideology and the unwillingness to compromise on principles, and so find ourselves manufacturing lofty ideologies in the impossible pursuit of implementing them in their purest form.
Liberalism, for example, aspires to a world based on freedom and equality, in which individual freedoms and rights are given precedence over other rights. These are lofty values. Nevertheless, liberalism in its purest form could serve to destabilize the state. Alongside human rights, a country needs values that subordinate the individual to the good of the community. Israel cannot exist without an army that relies on the willingness of its citizens to make sacrifices for their country, without the willingness of certain groups to compromise their values in order to live alongside other groups or without a founding ethos that is based largely upon Zionism and Jewish heritage. It is only by balancing a philosophy that puts the state at the center with one that puts the individual at the center that Israel's strength can be ensured for all its citizens.
There are those who would like to see Israel's territory expanded to the historic borders of the land of Israel. This belief that the land is ours in its entirety is not just legitimate but well-founded. Judea and Samaria are the lands of our Bible and the site of historical Jewish nationalism. But the attempt to forcefully implement this ideology in our modern-day reality could lead to the destruction of the Zionist enterprise. For 2,000 years, Jews longed for Zion and this desire to return to Jerusalem is what helped the Jewish community survive for generations. At a certain moment in time, and under a particular set of circumstances, it became possible to realize this ideological return to Zion, but that does not necessarily mean the annexation of Judea and Samaria is now also a possibility.
Were the state to act to implement such a messianic ideology, when in reality, millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, it would be committing suicide. It would also be acting in contrast to another ideology, one that believes in the Palestinian people's right to freedom and self-determination. It would be best if nationalist Zionism preserved this Greater Israel ideology as an exalted value, while in practice attempted to implement it in a pragmatic way.
There are those who aspire to the ideal of establishing a halachic state that would see the Jewish religion exist in its most pure form. These people dream of a way of life in which the national space is based on Jewish law and the commandments of the Bible. Aspiring to a halachic state is one thing – providing it is clear this ideal cannot be realized in the reality of our time, promoting it via practical means is quite another. A halachic state, impractical from an economic, social, security and even ethical perspective, would spell nothing but disaster.
Ideologies in their purest form are destined to remain just that, something to aspire to, a marker of transcendent values, but not practice. In Israel today, there is too much ideology and not enough pragmatism. If ideology and practice are to meet, there must be compromise. In Israel, competing ideologies exist, and every attempt to implement one ideology necessarily harms another. Successful political leaders are those who translate ideology into practice and are able to negotiate between the different worldviews. Such leaders do not succumb to pressure from extremists who believe pure ideology can be adopted as policy. The Israeli public should also value and compensate moderate leaders, because it is only compromise that will allow for differing ideologies to exist side by side.
