What is not Zionism? A.B. Yehoshua makes some strange points in his article Zionism is not an ideology. He will be listened to, because he is an Intellectual, and because it is expedient for many people to hold similar beliefs, and because these beliefs are fashionable. However, it seems clear that he is wrong about key ideas. It is worthwhile dissecting his philosophy, because it encapsulates a way of thinking about Zionism and Judaism that is typical of many Israeli intellectuals.
Yehoshua tells his readers:
“Zionism hoped for one thing and promised one thing: to establish a state for the Jews.”
Post-Zionists have popularized the myth that Zionism attained its goal and finished its function when the state of Israel was declared, but post-Zionism is a doctrine of anti-Zionists.
Zionism, contrary to what Yehoshua wrote, did not “promise a state” until very late in its existence. The first Zionist congress declared that the aim of the Zionist movement was to obtain a national home for the Jewish people, secured in international law. Political Zionism was not the only stream in Zionism of course. Achad Ha’am, the cultural Zionist, ridiculed even this aim, which seemed impossible. Nonetheless, it seemed to have been obtained in 1922, when the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine declared that Britain must make Palestine into just such a “national home.”
The Jewish State, though it was the title of a fanciful utopia by Theodor Herzl, did not become a goal of any stream of Zionism until the Biltmore Conference of 1942. The idea created quite a stir, because it was novel and revolutionary, but it was not a promise or a central goal.
The state of Israel, which Yehoshua and many other “great minds” think was the goal of Zionism, was created by a vote of 5 to 4, almost by accident, on a Friday afternoon in May of 1948. There were certainly other ideas about the goals of Zionism and how to achieve them (see for example, here). Had David Ben Gurion not cast the deciding vote, there might never have been a state of Israel, but there would still be a Zionist movement and a Zionist ideology. The state was established because the state, among the many ideas, “worked,” but it was never really a goal in itself.
Zionism, in all it streams, had other goals and other foundations. The state was nothing more than a necessary political tool, a very visible means to serve the end, which was the national liberation of the Jewish people. The state was one aspect of the realization of Jewish peoplehood, perhaps a central and essential one, but it was not the goal of Zionism.
Yehoshua also declares:
“After the Jewish state, namely the State of Israel, was actually established, the only way in which the meaning of Zionism was expressed was through the principle of the Law of Return.”
There is nothing wrong with the principle of the Law of Return, but it is not the only way in which the meaning of Zionism was expressed after the establishment of the state. If Zionism was only about establishing a state, then what does the Law of Return have to do with Zionism? Zionism, Mr. Yehoshua told us, only promised us a state. Presumably, it did not say how many Jews there would be in this state, or who or what is a Jew.
Whether we agree with it or not, the Basic Law:Israel Lands was certainly made with the intent of keeping the land in the ownership of the Jewish people. It was a Zionist law. Yehoshua doesn’t mention it.
The “meaning” of Zionism was also expressed after the establishment of the state by a vast and daring program for the ingathering of the exiles, without which “principle of the Law of Return” would have had as little practical meaning as the age-old prayers of the Jews for the coming of the Messiah.
After the foundation of the state, Zionism was also expressed by the establishment of a Jewish army that would defend the Jewish State, and it was expressed by Jewish cities built by Jewish labor. For the first time in nearly two millennia, the Jewish people were subjects of history, and not merely objects. That is the real meaning and the real expression of Zionism: We became a free people in our own land. Without Zionism none of the things that Mr. Yehoshua sees around him and takes for granted, including Jewish intellectuals writing about Jewish subjects in Hebrew, would have been possible. Zionism was never just about a state or a law. Anti-Zionists will abolish not only the Jewish state and the Law of Return as Mr Yehoshua thinks. They will abolish Hebrew culture, and Hebrew writers, including Mr. Yehoshua.
Yehoshua declares:
“All of the important and fundamental debates taking place in Israel – annexation or non-annexation of the territories; the relationship between the country’s Jewish majority and the Palestinian minority; the relationship between religion and the state; the nature and values of economic policy and the social welfare system; and even the interpretation of historical events – are the sort of debates and controversies that existed and still exist in many countries. These are debates that continuously address the dynamic and changing identity of every nation and country.”
Really? Zionism may touch on a great many questions that affect every nation and country; that is the nature of ideologies. For Jews this is something new. For almost 2,000 years Judaism and Jewish law dealt with everything except state policy and national law, because we had no state. Dealing with these issues is part of Zionism.
It is absurd to imply that Zionism has nothing to say about the relationship between religion and state. The core idea of Zionism is that the Jews are a people, and not just a religion. This idea is expressed in the definition of who is a Jew according to the Law of Return, which is not a definition according to Jewish religious law (Halacha).
A people, but not a religion, has the right of self-determination. This is the foundation of Zionist claims in international law. Without Zionism, “Jewish State” does not necessarily mean a state of the Jewish people. It can mean a state dominated by the Jewish religion, just as the Islamic Republic of Iran is an Islamic state. Just as Iran is ruled by Mullahs, we would be ruled by rabbis.Only orthodox, Halachic Jews would be allowed to return to Israel, and only such Jews would be allowed to live here.
This is not an abstract nightmare. It is a real plan. It is the vision of Mr. Feiglin and his friends of the “manhigut yehudit‘ (Jewish leadership) faction. This debate was built into Zionism since its inception, when traditional rabbinical Judaism tried so desperately to co-opt and dominate the new ideology. If we are not continuously aware of this problem, we will lose the battle; Israel will become a state for Orthodox Jews.
It is also absurd to imply that the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, the movement that grants us self-determination, has nothing to say about the relation between Jews and other national minorities in the Jewish state.
The idea that we are of the same nation as Ethiopian Jews, and they too must come on Aliya is not a rabbinical teaching. Most rabbis excluded the Ethiopian Jews from the Jewish religion. It is a Zionist idea, a product of the Zionist, excuse the expression, ideology, and it happened after the establishment of the state. Those starving people trekked across Sudan because of the idea that they are part of the Jewish people, and they were going home. And we accepted them because of the same idea. A Zionist idea.
Mr. Yehoshua tells us a great deal about what Zionism is not, in addition to not being an ideology:
“Zionism is not a concept that is supposed to replace patriotism or pioneering. Patriotism is patriotism, and pioneering is pioneering.”
Zionism does not replace patriotism or pioneering; it made them possible for Jews. Before Zionism. Jews had no homeland, no ‘Patria.’ Without a Jewish Patria, there could not be Jewish patriotism. Jews could be German patriots and Austro-Hungarian patriots, Turkish or Polish patriots. Jewish patriotism was usually rejected in these countries, because other peoples claimed them. Jews could also be pioneers in the United States, or Canada, but these were not their own countries. Zionism did not “replace” pioneering.” It made Jewish pioneering both possible and necessary. Pioneering in Berlin or Lodz or New York, made no sense. Zionism gave the Jewish people a land to build; pioneering was the only way to build it.
Yehoshua continues:
An officer who extends his military service, or someone who settles in the Negev, is no more of a Zionist than a grocer in Tel Aviv, but they are perhaps more pioneering or more patriotic, depending on the meanings allotted to these concepts.”
A grocer is not necessarily less of a Zionist than a settler in the Negev. But how about someone like Professor Neve Gordon, who wanted to boycott his own university, or Mr. Nachum Manbar, who sold poison gas to Iran? Aren’t they less Zionist than, for example, David Ben Gurion?
Finally, Mr Yehoshua reveals what is apparently the real purpose of this very strange article, which is somehow to delegitimize non-Israeli Jews:
“The concept of Zionism is dear to us, and therefore it is important that it find expression only in its rightful place: in the difference between us and the Jews of the Diaspora or the exile. The exaggerated and superfluous use of the term also blurs the ethical debate between Jews who have decided to be responsible, for good or for ill, for every aspect of their lives within a defined territory and under self government, and those who live enmeshed in other nations and practice their Jewish identity partially, through study, religious texts and limited communal activities.”
Yehoshua avoids a gradation of Zionists, but is all too ready to decree gradations of Jews. There is no “ethical” debate in any sense of the word “ethical.” This statement implies that a Zionist must live in Israel, and that one can only be ethical, or moral or a “real Jew” in Israel. Theodor Herzl and many other Zionists never lived in Israel, but nobody would say that Herzl was not a Zionist. In the Holocaust many Zionist leaders gave up the chance to flee to safety in Palestine because they could not abandon their communities. Were they “unethical?”
Zionism never defined who is a “good Jew” and never sought to define different gradations among Jews. Yehoshua’s “ethical” statement is like that of a child who chants, “I am a better Jew than you are,” “My Judaism can beat up your Judaism,” “My Judaism is better than yours.”
It is the sort of dogmatism one might expect from an intolerant rabbi, or from the not-very-bright exponent of an ideology, a kind of Stalinism. It shows a peculiar lack of subtlety and insight.
Zionism presents a problem for Judaism. For nearly 2,000 years, “Jew” was practically synonymous with “homeless” and “victim.” “Wandering Jew” was as apt an epithet as “rosy-fingered dawn” or “swift-footed Achilles.”
“Jew with a homeland” is almost an oxymoron, like “vagabond with a home.” That is probably what irks anti-Zionist Jews about Zionism. Israelis are lousy Jews in that sense, not good Jews. We are not homeless, and we are not victims. A Jew with a homeland is not a “real” Jew. My Jewish identity is not stronger because I live in Israel. I am not a better Jew, and I don’t think A.B. Yehoshua can say he is, though he has tried before. Israelis are different Jews, perhaps. The most I can say is that I rarely am troubled by questions of identity. That is what Yehoshua seemed to be saying before, and it seems to be true.
Yehoshua never gives us a definition of Zionism. He tells us that Zionism ended with the creation of the state and the enactment of the Law of Return. If Zionism ended, what prevents Israelis from fleeing to Europe and America en masse?
What is strange is not that Yehoshua has such ideas or such a lack of ideas, but that others in Israel might think his ideas are worthy of serious discussion. Sixty two years after the foundation of the state, Israeli intellectuals have no idea what Zionism might be. Is it an ideology? Perhaps it has something to do with religion? Perhaps it is about making a Jewish state or the law of return?
Maybe it is not so strange. Paradoxically, an Israeli can probably never understand what it meant to be Jew in the Diaspora in the old days, because he or she was never without a home. None of us ever existed when there was no Jewish state. An Israeli cannot understand anti-Semitism until they live abroad and experience it. An Israeli cannot understand Zionism either, because Zionism was born in the Diaspora; in a sense, Zionism is meaningful only in the Diaspora.
Reality is never as glowing as th imagination of reality. Implemented ideas are prosaic. It seems silly to turn them into ideals. Jerusalem is just another city, and Zion is just a hill. Hebrew is just a language, written the wrong way and without vowels. “Jewish self defense” sounds much better than smelly uniforms, reserve duty and noisy aircraft, but that is what it means in reality. “Self-determination” is lofty. Elections and crooked politicians and paying taxes are less inspiring. Ingathering of the exiles is a lofty aspiration. Slums and crime and Ma’abarot (slummy immigrant villages) are part of the reality. That is how ideas translate into reality. We will only understand the importance of these things if we are ever without them again.
Ami Isseroff
