Zionist Halakha in a Modern Jewish State

The first session touched on the question of the existence of Zionist Halakha and its definition. Participating in this session were: Dr. Micha Goodman (Chairman), Rabbi Dr. Yehuda Brandes, Rabbi Yuval Sherlo, Dr. Benjamin Brown, and Dr. Aviad Ha'Cohen. At the beginning of the discussion Dr. Goodman posed a question: "Does a Zionist school of Halakha really exist?"
As the first speaker, Rabbi Dr. Yehuda Brandes explained the process of making a Halakhic ruling, emphasizing the many factors the rabbi must take into consideration, and tried to show how Zionism could possibly fit into the decision-making process and affect the rabbi's final ruling. As the session progressed, speakers disagreed on the fundamental question of the existence of a Zionist Halakhic establishment. Dr. Brown led those claiming that a unique school of Zionist rabbis had in fact developed over the past century, including R. Kook, R. Goren, and R. Uziel. Other speakers, and especially Dr. Ha'Cohen, stressed that key issues relating to a sovereign state (issues such as health, war, society, etc.) have yet to be dealt with seriously by Halakha, which still progresses as if a Jewish State does not exist and the Jewish People are still in Diaspora.
R. Sherlo claimed that it is possible to develop Halakha, so that it is essentially Zionist, and presented his view of what that kind of project would entail. At the same time he also conveyed a feeling of pessimism towards the likelihood of such a process taking place. 

The second session dealt with several Halakhic questions that are fundamental issues within any Zionist-Halakhic discourse, such as: the attitude toward the State's authority, conversion, attitudes toward Israel's secular judicial system, attitudes toward gentiles in a Jewish State, and Halakhic ruling on political and geopolitical issues. The speakers in this session were Dr. Asher Cohen (Chairman), Rabbi Yoel Ben-Nun, Rabbi David Stav, Dr. Yitzhak Brand, Dr. Eli Hadad, and Dr. Kalman Neuman.
Rabbi Ben-Nun kicked off the discussion by attacking Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis, who according to him show a blatant disregard of the obvious Halakhic truth – that Israeli democracy is Halakhicly binding. But R. Ben-Nun went on to explain that the Ultra-Orthodox community is not alone in questioning the authority of the State, and that "there is an atmosphere of doubt toward the State in all Yeshivas (including Zionist ones): One is permitted to abominate it, and no one in the Yeshivas and Synagogues even thinks of saying that the public must be more respectful towards elected officials, according to the Halakha." Finally, R. Ben-Nun summed up his presentation by saying that "the true Halakhic way is the Zionist way, which is a continuation of Maimonides' way."
R. Stav spoke about the issue of conversion, and explained that it is highly controversial, and that there are many disagreements between Zionist and non-Zionist rabbis, and even between different Zionist rabbis. He claimed that the issue had been neglected by Zionist rabbis for many years, for Halakhic and meta-Halakhic reasons, and because of the difficulty in defining what conversion really means. This is what led to the contemporary Halakhic difficulties regarding converts and conversions. Dr. Brand addressed the topic of secular courts in Israel, and presented the Halakha's view towards them. In this case as well, Brand showed that Halakha does not truly cope with this important issue, and with the main question that arises from it – "What is the Zionist mission: Is it the Judaization of the courts, or will the [secular] courts be valid for rabbis making Hlalkhic rulings as well?"
Dr. Eli Hadad's presentation about Halakha's view on gentiles living in the State of Israel also raised questions about the ability of the Zionist–Halakhic enterprise to deal with Israel's sovereignty. Once again it seemed that the integration between the state and Zionist Halakha was not fuly realized. Thus, Halakha became irrelevant insofar as Israel has large minorities of equal rights, without generating any kind of Halakhic reaction on the matter.
The last issue dealt with in this session was the attitude of Zionist Halakha toward geopolitical and security issues. Dr. Neuman focused the discussion on the territories and security policy. He showed how rabbis can be divided into two major schools – those who stick with the existing Halakhic model, which emphasizes the Halakhic category of Pikuakh Nefesh (literally: "saving a life"), as opposed to those who create a new Zionist Halakhic model, and consider other possible Halakhic resolutions to the problems posed by security issues that must be dealt with on Shabbat. In the end, Dr. Nueman presented a whole spectrum of stances – on the one hand those who claim it is a rabbis prerogative to make a Halakhic ruling on geopolitical and security issues, in the middle those who see the rabbi as someone who is obligated to consult with military strategists before ruling, and on the other hand those who see government decisions as Halakhicly binding, without any rabbi being involved in the decision-making process.

In the final session, chaired by Mr. Yair Sheleg, the speakers were Rabbi Yaakov Meidan, Rabbi Dr. Benjamin Lau, and Prof. Yedidia Stern. This session focused on the ways in which Halakha has coped with Zionism and nationalism up until this point, and on the future of Zionist Halakha in the State of Israel. R. Meidan, head of the Har-Etzion Yeshiva, spoke of the difficulties facing the religious-Zionist public in its attempt to integrate into a larger secular society, while still maintaining a unique Halakhic identity. According to Meidan, the national-religious community has reached a crossroads, and if issues between religious and secular societies are not resolved soon, it may be pushed into seclusion and will be forced to live as a religious sect in a secular country, just like the Ultra-Orthodox community today. Finally, Meidan called for compromise and tolerance on the part of both sides – religious and secular – in order to allow the continued coexistence.
R. Lau claimed that the national-religious Halakhic stance is different from the Ultra-Orthodox one. As opposed to the Ultra-Orthodox, who see Halakha and modernity as two opposing forces that must somehow be reconciled, the national-religious public should embrace Modernity and shape it according to Jewish and Halakhic values. R. Lau finished with these moving words: "The connection with Israeli society in its entirety, speaking the same language and sharing the same culture and values will expose us to the majority of Israeli society, who are thirsty for the word of God and for a union with Jewish tradition."
The conference was sealed by Prof. Yedidia Stern, who made a personal address, which was melancholy and optimistic all at once. According to Stern, there is a major gap between what Halakha should provide to the Jewish public in Israel, specifically the religious-Zionist one, and what it provides in practice. As an example, Stern took himself – a committed "consumer" of Halakha, who is extremely dissatisfied. The reluctance of rabbis to participate in public discourse has led to a lack of Halakhic strategy on economic, social, political, and geopolitical issues. Prof. Stern's real disappointment stems not from Halakha's inability to deal with these issues, but from its unwillingness to do so. "I believe that generally, we are unintentionally silent. There are many possibilities… we are failing in realizing an opportunity that the Jewish People has been praying for for 2000 years." Despite his disappointment, Prof. Stern expressed some optimism when he suggested that Halakha has much more to offer, and that a religious life in Israel can be realized through Halakha, so long as creative solutions are used to resolve pending Halakhic challenges.
Prof. Stern's closing remarks were in fact an extension of the ideas expressed by Dr. Carmon at the beginning of the day. He too referred to universalism and particularism, claiming that religious Zionism's biggest challenge is to find a way to synthesize the two. A true and successful synthesis between Halakha and modernity could, according to Stern, create a new national vision not just for the national-religious community but for the entire Jewish People – religious and secular, who are dependant upon Jewish particularism to accompany Western universalism in the modern state of Israel.