How did the Lubavitcher Rebbe (Menachem Mendel Schneerson) approach Zionism and the State of Israel?

1. A Tightrope Between Support and Distance: Why the Rebbe Refused Simple Labels

Rabbi Schneerson consistently navigated a middle path that combined practical support for the Israeli people with theological reservations about a secular state. He is reported to have said, “If Israel is a state of Jews, then I am not a Zionist; if it is a Jewish state, then I am a Zionist,” a formula that captures his refusal to endorse secular nationalism while affirming a commitment to Jewish sovereignty conceived in religious terms ^[3]. Contemporary journalism and scholarship characterize this stance as deliberately ambiguous: the Rebbe backed economic, educational, and welfare initiatives that strengthened Jewish life in Israel but refrained from embracing the ideological premises of modern political Zionism ^[1]. This posture allowed Chabad to work within Israeli society without adopting the state’s secular ethos, maintaining both engagement and critical distance.

2. Spiritual Redemption Over Political Sovereignty: How the Land Was Framed

The Rebbe framed the Land of Israel primarily as a metaphysical and redemptive reality rather than merely a political territory. His teaching emphasized that the land becomes a genuine revelation of divine presence through the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvot, turning physical space into a transformed moral and cosmic condition. Scholarly accounts summarize this as a “redeemed state of being” perspective: territorial presence is secondary to spiritual rectification as the pathway to ultimate redemption ^[4]. This theological priority shaped his policy recommendations: support for aliyah, Jewish education, and religious institutions aimed at elevating life in the land rather than legitimizing secular governance models. By centering spiritual transformation, the Rebbe positioned Chabad’s mission in Israel as one of moral and religious influence, not political sovereignty.

3. From Philosophical Opposition to Pragmatic Cooperation: Evolving Practical Stances

While some Haredi groups labeled the secular State of Israel heretical or illegitimate, the Rebbe rejected wholesale delegitimization and instead advocated pragmatic cooperation. Sources note that unlike other Hasidic leaders who deemed the state “treif,” the Rebbe concluded the existing Israeli polity was salvageable and should be positively influenced through education, social welfare, and spiritual outreach ^{[5] [6]}. In practice this meant raising funds, establishing schools, and promoting Jewish ritual life within Israeli society. Recent reporting and retrospective analyses highlight this shift as adaptive: as state institutions consolidated and Jewish life deepened in Israel, the Rebbe moved from philosophical caution to active engagement, prioritizing the well-being and religious vitality of Jews in the land over ideological purity ^[2].

4. Institutional Ambivalence: Where Chabad Supported and Where It Stayed Aloof

Chabad’s institutional actions in Israel reflect the Rebbe’s split orientation: vigorous support for grassroots Jewish infrastructure alongside criticism of secular state symbols and ideologies. Analysts find that while Chabad supported the state’s economy and welfare systems and actively served soldiers and immigrants, it often withheld endorsement of secular national symbols such as the anthem Hatikvah, and maintained a critical posture toward secular educational and cultural frameworks ^[1]. This dual posture produced both cooperation with state agencies on shared goals and friction over ideological matters. Observers note a consistent pattern: pragmatic partnership where Jewish life could be strengthened, principled distance where secular ideology defined public identity.

5. Competing Agendas and How They Shape Interpretations Today

Posthumous readings of the Rebbe’s stance reflect competing agendas: secular and religious Zionists highlight his support for Jewish settlement and pragmatism, while anti-Zionist Haredi critics emphasize his theological reservations ^{[1] [6]}. Academic and journalistic sources from 2019–2025 reiterate the core facts—nuance, priority of spiritual over political, pragmatic engagement—while varying in emphasis depending on audience and institutional perspective ^{[3] [2]}. Understanding the Rebbe’s approach requires seeing these motives: a desire to preserve religious integrity, to foster Jewish continuity in the land, and to wield influence rather than control. The balance of those aims explains why Chabad’s relationship with Zionism remains complex and still debated in contemporary discourse ^{[5] [1]}.