man in silhouette holding jewish star of david sign, panoramic frame
Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig – The Future of Israel’s Viability and Vitality (2) – Ambition & Will
To evaluate what lies in store for Israel in the coming decades, I listed very briefly last week the seven factors that form the basis of national competitiveness and dynamism (https://israelseen.com/prof-sam-lehman-wilzig-the-future-of-israels-viability-and-vitality-1/). Here I’ll provide a more in-depth analysis of the first factor: national ambition and will.
If there’s one “iron law” of civilizations is that they rise and fall – and then disappear from history: Babylonia, Assyria, Athens, Rome, Byzantium, Ottomans etc. The Jews (in their various incarnations: Hebrew, Israelite, Judean, Jewish) are one of the very few (perhaps the only) nation/s to have risen from the dead, certainly after two millennia! Thus, in terms of modern nationhood, the State of Israel today is a babe in the woods (or at most, an adolescent).
Of course, national (re)birth does not guarantee grandiose ambition; many new states are perfectly happy with their modest lot, merely aspiring to grow steadily and flourish. That was not Zionism’s aspiration. The early Zionists (Herzl et al) were not merely seeking an independent state for Jews already living in the Promised Land, but far more: the State of Israel was to be a magnet for Jews outside the land who would immigrate and help establish the new state. And even after the State’s birth, this ultimate goal held – not merely in theory but in practice, as the country doubled its Jewish population within a very few years and continued to receive large numbers for many years thereafter (over 27,000 in 2021).
An ambitious political philosophy by itself does not guarantee motivated dynamism. However, three historical factors came together to virtually guarantee that this is what would indeed occur. First, immigrants (whether pushed out of their original homeland or pulled by the promise of the new land) are always more driven than the “natives.” A country, therefore, founded on mass “aliyah” almost by definition would be thrust forward by the immigrants’ aspirations to better their lot.
A second aspect had far deeper, historical antecedents: anti-Semitism. For 2000 years, Jews had to develop finely tuned survival instincts. From this difficult situation they evolved the mental habit of improvisation, reinforced by being pushed into commerce and intellectual/educational pursuits – away from the more traditional, conservative landowning and farming mindset. Professional Jewish success is one of the marvels of the late modern era. Therefore, placing a large number of them together within a state of their own, virtually guaranteed that the country would be dynamic, even if its ambitions had not been as high as they were due to the aliyah ethos. In any case, after two millennia of persecution that repressed Jewish expression (religious and professional), there followed a veritable explosion of ambitious talent and achievement within their newborn country.
Third and related to this, the trauma of the Holocaust could have worked in two opposing directions: either national paralysis, or determination to never let that happen again. The latter path was taken, here too pushing the state into feverish activity with a will of steel to ensure that such a national catastrophe would not be repeated.
Had the Nazi’s vicious anti-Semitism been followed by the world leaving the Jews alone, perhaps such a national, ambitious will might have slowly lost altitude. However, the opposite happened: the State of Israel found itself in the midst of a Moslem, Middle Eastern sea imbued with rabid anti-Semitism leading to endemic warfare against the fledgling state. Israeli Jews had no choice but to reinforce their national will to live, and with it grew ambition to expand.
It is here that the downside of national “ambition” comes into focus. One of the main factors in the demise of historical superpowers is over-extension of national ambition – think Alexander of Macedon and the almost immediate collapse of his empire; the Mongols trying to conquer Europe and being forced to retreat; the British Empire expanding well beyond what the “Island” could handle. Israel’s expansion into the administered territories (aka Judea & Samaria) is nowhere near such an overextension territorially or even economically. However, it might well be a “political” over-extension domestically, arguably becoming the biggest fault line dividing Israeli society.
Here, then, is the central question regarding Israeli national ambition: will its territorial aspirations be a force for continued dynamism (as expressed by the settler movement) or a hindrance to continued Israeli growth (given the cleavage unfolding on the issue)? That question will be dealt with in next week’s essay analyzing the next factor on our list: “unified national identity.”
Overall, though, one can conclude that this first element – “national ambition and will” – is one of the strongest factors (of the seven) underlying Israel’s continued strength. For now…
