This paper reconstructs the emergence of "corrective messianism" (*mesichiut metaqqen*) as a moderating response to the radicalization of Religious Zionist redemptionism, especially after 1967. Drawing on the work of diverse Israeli thinkers, it analyzes the possibility to retrieve a deflationary, normatively binding model of messianism capable of sustaining political responsibility without succumbing to apocalyptic maximalism. The point of departure lies in a critical engagement with Yeshayahu Leibowitz and his reading of Maimonides, whose naturalistic and minimalistic messianology marginalizes eschatological speculation while subordinating redemption to halakhic normativity. Against both deterministic "redemptionist" Zionism and pragmatic anti-messianism, "corrective messianism" serves as a middle path between the merely ethical horizon and the metaphysical blueprint. Ravitzky identifies in Maimonides a utopian yet indeterminate ideal, contingent upon moral and social improvement; Hartman reformulates this stance as "halakhic hope," a mode of historical agency that resists event-based theology and rejects access to a master-narrative of divine history; Schweid, confronting post-1967 religious nationalism, the legacy of Abraham Isaac Kook and Zvi Yehuda Kook, advocates a renewed commitment to ethical messianic ideals within concrete political limits. The paper argues that corrective messianism preserves the mobilizing power of redemptive vision while disciplining its mythic and absolutist tendencies. Yet it also exposes an unresolved tension: even demythologized messianism risks re-mythologizing the national project. The viability of corrective messianism, therefore, depends on whether Religious Zionism can sustain a norm-centered, historically incrementalist consciousness without reverting to the very eschatological finality it seeks to temper.