Prayer for the State of Israel

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Koren-Sacks Siddur, p. 523-522.

Prayer for the State of Israel: Introduced after the birth of the modern State of Israel in 1948. A key element of the prayer is the phrase "the first flowering of our redemption." It means that the restoration of Israel as a sovereign nation in its own land was not merely an event in secular history. It was the fulfillment of the prophetic vision--first stated by Moses in the quoted verse from Deuteronomy--that Israel would one day be gathered from "the furthermost lands under the heavens," an astonishingly precise prediction of what actually happened. According to the third-century Babylonian teacher Shmuel, "The only difference between this world and the messianic age is subjection to foreign powers" (Berakhot 34b). In the view Israel's independence was in itself a redemptive moment, a return to Jewish self-determination, self-government and self-defense under the sovereignty of God alone.

Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits, Tradition, "RELIGIOUS RESPONSES TO JEWISH STATEHOOD," 20 (3), Fall, 1982, pp. 188-204.

The text attributed to the late Chief Rabbi Herzog, which is widely used in Israel and in some diaspora communities, specifically refers to the State of Israel as "the beginning of the sprouting forth of our Redemption. " Inother words, it authentically declares the Jewish State to be not only thefulfillment of our hopes and prayers, but the incipient phase in the processof the promised "Redemption," a term used only for the realization of our messianic aspirations. On the other hand, this phrase is omitted in the text authorized by the late Chief Rabbi Brodie, as it appears in the Singer's Prayer Book and is commonly used in Britain and the Commonwealth communities. This version passes no authentic opinion, or reserves final judgment, on whether or not the present State of Israel is in fact the embryonic nucleus out of which the ultimate Redemption is bound to develop, with all its universal ramifications of the Messianic era which form an essential par of Prophetic teaching and Jewish belief.

The difference between these two versions is of course not only of semantic, theoretical or even purely philosophical significance. It marks a fundamental divergence of views on the religious interpretation of present-day events as well as the place of the State of Israel in the perspective of biblical visions. From this divergence naturally flow some importantpractical consequences.

If the premessianic character of the State is taken for granted as a certainty, whether as an act of faith or of rational conviction, then obviously conscious and deliberate efforts must be made to ensure that all related biblical prophesies fall into place, and that our national strategy must be based on this assumption. This might, for instance, include the planned liquidation of the diaspora, or an unconcerned resistance to thepressures of world opinion, safe in the knowledge that the advancestowards full Redemption are irreversible. Faith can thus govern pragmatic policies, and risks can be disregarded.

On the other hand, if the premessianic stage of our current experience lies in the realm of hope, rather than certainty, then such conclusions may not yet be warranted, and a more "realistic" approach may be indicated. This more cautious attitude, while it in no way affects the intensity of the commitment to Israel, would of course also cushion our people against the impact of reverses such as we suffered in the Yom Kippur War, and as may yet be encountered before Israel is finally at peace and the promise of Redemption shared by the entire human family.