{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020626432391138275, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0053475935828877, 'mean_word_length': 5.208530805687204, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rabbi Haim Hirschensohn: An Orthodox Rabbi Responds to the Balfour Declaration

The eminent modern Jewish philosopher Emil Fackenheim employed the phrase, “the Jewish return into History,” to contend that the success of political Zionism in creating the State of Israel after 1800 years of Exile and restoring national political sovereignty meant that an end had come to collective Jewish political passivity.2 Through the creation of modern Israel, the Jewish people as a national group had at long last returned to the arenas of history and power politics. As the Hebrew University scholar of Jewish Thought Eliezer Schweid has phrased it, the Jewish people, as a collective, now had “new responsibility—total and comprehensive—for a state, a society...That was the full scope of the change wrought by the national movement.”3 The renewed national sovereignty of the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland brought scores of moral and practical challenges to Jewish life and thought that remain unto the present day. For many contemporary religious and cultural Zionists, one of these challenges has been, in the words of historian Adam Ferziger, to discover “alternative and more liberal ways of approaching questions of Jewish law and modernity in general and of Judaism and nationalism in particular.”4