Last night I was reading a biography of Walter Benjamin that described the excitement over Zionism in Berlin intellectual circles 90 years ago. Socialists and dreamers adopted Zionist ideas. In the U.S., too, many eastern European Jews who had lately escaped pogroms also signed on to Zionism, and they converted some privileged German Jews. I might have been a Zionist myself. For Zionism responded with hope to real world conditions: antisemitism in Europe, and European nationalism. Then the Holocaust showed Herzl to be prophetic, and almost all Jews became Zionists.
So Zionism can be seen as another redemptive belief taken up by Jews, in a history that includes communism, neoconservatism, Bundism, Trotskyism, Sabbatianism, assimilationism, neoliberalism. These ism’s are ideologies not philosophies. They are rooted
in history; and they are all undone as history moves forward. Communism ran up against manâs
laziness, bureaucracy, and capitalism. Neoconservatism has been utterly discredited by Iraq. Those ideas ran their course.
That’s why I wonder whether anti-Zionism is not the new Zionism. For it too is an ideology of hope that can be embraced by Jews, and that responds to today’s realities. As for Zionism, it feels backward, and it belongs to a different ideological age. It is nationalistic when western societies are becoming more pluralist. In a post-colonial age, its colonial roots are still evident, and it daily shows contempt for Arabs. And it puts a claim on Jewish citizens in other lands out of a belief in anti-semitism that simply makes no sense in the west today, especially in the U.S., where Jews are integrated into the power structure.
Anti-Zionists saw all these problems in Zionism 60 and 70 years ago, but they were ahead of their time. Now everyone knows that the dream hasn’t worked out so well, even if they’re afraid to say so. (When Richard Cohen murmured last year that Israel was "a mistake," he got clobbered.) As we said about communism, it’s not the glorious vision on paper that counts,
it’s how the thing plays out on the ground. Zionism has turned out to be
militaristic and–inasmuch as it fails to denounce Avigdor
Lieberman–racist. In a Middle East that is in sectarian flames, Zionism offers another sectarian belief. Lately even John Judis of the New Republic has complained of the demand by Jewish organizations that American Jews exhibit dual loyalty.
Enter anti-Zionism. It is an ideology with a
long Jewish pedigree that offers an idealistic vision of pluralism. It gives young Jews a place to stand that respects Palestinian and Arab rights.
It allows them to get past the neoconservative-led belief in a clash of civilizations–a belief that basically derogates all Muslim societies–and find common ground
with Arab intellectuals who are trying to reform their societies.
My encounters with Noah Schwartz, Antony Loewenstein, and David Zellnik have reminded me that idealism is alive and well among young Jews. They are not trying to force an outmoded vision on the world. They are responding to progressive chords in western thought and trying to use their political imagination to transform today’s reality. Their time is coming.
"The Holocaust showed Herzl to be prophetic."
Yes, but on the other hand, Hitler could point at the Zionists to prove his point.
The Zionists point of view was
1.
Jews and gentiles are inherently different 'races' (Zionists and Nazis both talked about the Jews as a 'race') that can't live together in harmony (an inherent fault of the gentiles of course). If Jews stay Jews there will always be anti-semitism.
2.
Assimilation (intermarrige, conversion) is treason. Also: we have to fight the concept of the Enlightenment and Liberalism that all men are equal citizens. That denies that we are a separate people. We don't want to give up that concept and become Germans.
- Therefore: back to our Jewish identity and country – without assimilation and persecution.
As an Austrian Jewish organization said at the time: "The political Zionists are the Nazis' dearest child". Because they could point at them and say: 'Look, they are saying the same thing we do.'
Of course, the Zionists of the early 1930s who welcomed Hitler's rise to power because he would put and end to assimilation (particularly intermarrige which was above 1/3) didn't anticipate the 'final solution'.
Nice post, philip, except…
socialism (which is not exactly communism) could still work, especially if it is reconstituted on a liberal basis (market socialism, anyone)? Given the state of the world's economies (terrible) it might happen sooner than one thinks.
A uniquely blame the victim perspective.
Zionism is still an idealism. The idea that Jews are a people and that desire to self-govern rather than be governed by external or foreign. (That not all Jews desire to self-associate as Jews is beside the point. Many do.)
As an ideal, it is not a new one. It is not in its birth enthusiasm, but in it maturing questions and conflicts. Its a young adult.
There is a BIG difference between "anti"-Zionism and "post"-Zionism, or "a"-Zionism.
"Anti"-Zionism is like the answer to the question "Do you believe in God?" "NO, absolutely not, I disbelieve in God".
"Post"-Zionism is like the answer, "Yes, I believe in God, but not in the mode of believing in miracles."
"A"-Zionism is like the answer "I'm not really sure. I'm open."
Anti-Zionism is no idealism. It is a dogma, a suppression, a statement that intends to STOP Jews that desire to associate from associating.
It makes no statement about opposing a specific intended or even non-intended form of Zionism. It just states that "self-determination is racism".
And, that in itself is racism.
It is definitely possible to be simultaneously civilist and Jewish, civilist and Zionist. Its like saying, "I'm male and I'm human".
Intermarriage – Zionist Israel
_________________________________
I would like to ad that the state of Israel is the only one among Western states (if I may put it into that category) that outlaws intermarrage among different religious/ethnic groups.
That's the Zionist logic as a 'Jewish state'. (After all, they escaped not only European persecution but also assimilation.)
In Germany, you would nearly go to jail for publicly condemning intermarrige between say Turks and Germans.
Interesting post, Phil.
Anti-Zionism, as I understand your definition, also sounds utopian. Much as nationalism seems like an outmoded ideology, sectarianism, sadly, is alive and well — wreaking havoc in far too many places in the world. Zionism at its most elemental level offered the promise of security to a people who lived for far too long at the whim of the majority and often paid a heavy price. I want change in Israel (and many other places) but I don't want to gamble on another ideal that doesn't account for the more sinister aspects of human nature.
I sometimes wonder why Jews who don't want to assimilate would even want to live in America. This country cannot possibly succeed if a wealthy and unfluential part of it worries more about Israel than it does the United States. During the recent Israeli war with Lebanon the LA Times ran a story about a local man who rushed to join the IDF. The LA Times seemed not to notice but this country was at war at the time in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the person they choose to honor with a profile was an American Jew who thought it was more important to fight with the IDF than it was for America. A friend of mine with a Jewish wife once told told me that one of his sons when he was a teenager wanted to join the IDF "to give something back." I said to him, "if your son wants to give something back, why doesn't he join the U.S. Marines?"
Douglas Rushkoff, in "Wrestling With Zion," a 2003 book of essays which I've seen mentioned here before, notes that when he went to Temple Larchmont as a kid there were always two flags up front, one American and one Israeli. Although he was puzzled at first which one really counted, he eventually concluded that "the one we Jews really believed in was the Israeli flag." The American flag was just a precaution, "in case a gentile walked in during the middle of our services and wanted to know why we were all worshiping a Jewish flag."
The dual flags in temple became a metaphor for Rushkoff for the role of Jews in America. "We were guests in America, pretending to be Americans, but when we got together behind closed doors we were actually some sort of Israelis. Why did we always say 'next year in Jerusalem' if we didn't mean it, somehow."
I worry when Richard writes of his predilection for "self-association." He's going to go blind. :)
Richard, I guess I use anti-Zionism because that's the name it had in the last century, and the principles seem to me now to be similar: Jerusalem must be shared, and I'm a citizen of the U.S. not Israel.
I feel like you and I tend to disagree because you are focused on the social and spiritual, I'm focused on the political. I have no problem with Jews associating, any more than anyone else. It's when those associations produce laws that are harshly discriminatory that I take issue.
Larry, do you not feel that the optimism has left the room? That the spirit of support for Israel today is utterly different from what it was 40 years ago (and that this is a real reflection of the character of that society)? For myself, I think this has driven my assimilationist impulse. Jews define JEwishness as support for Israel; well then count me out. I'm an idealist and progressive, I want to find hope in history, and Israel has produced in the Jewish community and America too much rationalization of injustice. Period. I'm sure you and I'd agree that Iraq and Bush's rhetoric around the war on terror has exacerbated primitive Islamic chauvinisms and tendencies–sectarianism–but I think Israel's policies exacerbate this, and are even rationalized in America by Jewish separatism. I want Islamic reform, but I also want a new Jewish haskalah, an embrace by JEws of pluralism, notwithstanding the risks, and we privileged Americans shouldn't be pointing to the stoning of adulterers in the Arab world to rationalize our own resistance to that future in the west.
Gene, thanks for the IDF point. Last summer during Lebanon, CNN also did a Let's join the IDF story, about a couple of Long Island boys, and the anchor, whom I'm blanking on right now, had the presence of mind to say, Why aren't you joining the American army?? And I agree, this is a story that is directly about dual loyalty, and the media won't go near it.
"I have no problem with Jews associating, any more than anyone else. It's when those associations produce laws that are harshly discriminatory that I take issue."
I also take issue, but I take issue with the laws and policies, not the identity. They are separable.
There is an irony about the desire for Jews to embrace pluralism solely. That is that to the extent that any force (including boycotts and other "non-violent" force) is applied towards that end, it supports the view that those advocating pluralism are threatening and should be defended against.
I think you are also misrepresenting the sentiment and point of someone wanting to join the IDF.
While much of the left dismisses the perspective that Israel is in any danger, Israelis and those sympathetic with Israelis don't.
In the wars that Israel has fought, they were fighting in their homeland, their residence. When the US have fought wars (since 1865), its been in someone else's home.
The sympathy of desiring to defend one's even distant relatives, is real and laudable.
In some ways, I feel better about the prospect of my 18 year-old son joining the IDF, than if he announced he was joining the marines.
Please take the care to not indulge the fascist impulse to impose some kind of loyalty test onto American citizens. Its rude and unjust when applied to Muslims that self-identify as Muslims. Its rude and unjust when applied to Jews.
Assimilation is just one option of how to approach political life. Its wrong to impose that on others for whom that is impractical, undesirable, or dangerous.
Meanwhile, at the cassino…
- Harry, what sort of gamble will you play today?
"I don't want to gamble on another ideal that doesn't account for the more sinister aspects of human nature."
- Ok, no "sinister apect" games for you. Please avoid the "at the whim of the majority" table.
"Thanks, all I want now is to play 'let's make others pay the heavy price'!"
- Enjoy yourself, Harry!
"Heavy price… heavy price… heavy price…"
- Hi there, Richard, wait a minute!
"To stop jews is no idealism!"
- You should buy the ticket first, Richard.
"Its wrong to impose that on others for whom that is impractical, undesirable, or dangerous."
- Richard…
"I want to play patience!"
- But patience you play at home, you know, it's a "self associating" kind of game, like others that make people blind.
"I want to play the patience of others!"
- Ah, of course, Richard, try the Go table where you may find someone to torment. Enjoy yourself!
"I'm male and I'm human… I'm male and I'm human… I'm male and I'm human…"
- Phil Weiss in our cassino! Come on, come in! What's your game?
"I want assimilation!"
- Hmm, we have no such openings now, but number 10 is hot today for those with big smiles!
"I want to find hope in history!"
- The right words to begin with, Mr. Prime Minister…
"I want Islamic reform!"
- … of Turkey?!
"I also want an embrace by Jews of pluralism!"
- Russian Roulette table! Our Steve here will do the honours – he's good with the prayers – you know!
Richard Witty: "In some ways, I feel better about the prospect of my 18 year-old son joining the IDF, than if he announced he was joining the marines."
This is of course the crux of the matter. America doesn't really make many demands of its citizens but I do think we have the minimal right to expect that our neighbors will put America's interests ahead of those of any other country. As you apparently consider this a fascist impulse I don't think anything I say will influence you one way or the other. I will say this about my own feelings though. If I were someone whose heart of hearts was in Israel, I wouldn't waste my time living in America. I'd sell my house and make Aliya before the week was out.
Wondering if integrity means anything to all of you.
The Iranian oppressors should be on our mind to save the people of Iran from further suffering.
Iran is probably going to break up when the chaos reaches that land.
In the meantime the Israeli people should be protected from the onslaught of killers, who have no interest in the welfare of the Palestinians.
Well said, Sir.
Anti-Zionism is definitely what enables me to hold my head up high and say that I am doing my bit to repossess the long and noble tradition of Jewish support for universal freedoms, human rights and social justice â all of them values that modern Zionism has long since turned its back on.
As for Richard Witty's remarks to the effects that anti-Zionism "is a dogma, a suppression, a statement that intends to STOP Jews that desire to associate from associating"
.. I struggle to think of when I have ever heard such preposterous claptrap. It is drones who utter that sort of tripe who seek to deny freethinking Jews the right to have a mind of their own .. and worse still, a CONSCIENCE.
âPlease take the care to not indulge the fascist impulse to impose some kind of loyalty test onto American citizens. Its rude and unjust when applied to Muslims that self-identify as Muslims. Its rude and unjust when applied to Jews.â
Flawed reasoning I fear.
In the case of Muslims the loyalty test would be about their faith, not which country they are most loyal to. In the case of Jews it would be about which country they are ultimately most loyal to.
It brings to mind the situation when Will Self put Melanie Phillips (who claims to be a loyal British patriot) on the spot, by asking her which country she would support if a British government made the choice to follow its natural inclinations to support the Palestinians and go to war against Israel. It will surprise very few that Melanie Phillps suddenly wasnât such a loyal British patriot.
I, for one, would gladly see Melanie Phillips forced to take a loyalty test. I would hope that decent American would gladly see David Horowitz (and his like) put to a loyalty test.
Philip,
You are quite right that Jews are integrated into the power structure in America – but not just in America .. it is the case that we are arguably OVER represented in the power structure of every single western country with a sizeable Jewish community.
What is tragic is that, from within those power structures, we attack other minority faiths and immigrant groups for not fully integrating into the social structures of those countries; whilst steadfastly claiming our own very unique right to live in our paranoid little isolationist ghettos, patrolled by our very own fascist thought police.
Should anyone dare to suggest that we should do more to integrate, then they are anti-Semites.
Phil,
The different terms are very different.
"Anti" creates very strange bedfellows (fascists and progressives shoulder to shoulder). Have you read the Phillip Roth book, "The Plot Against America"?
"Pro" similarly creates strange bedfellows (fascists and progressives shoulder to shoulder)
"Post" values the baby and that bathwater. It does not invalidate the importance and even relative current importance of Zionism. It proceeds from one confidence to the next.
"A" is open to history, not judgemental, perhaps critical.
"It proceeds from one confidence to the next"
It proceeds from one state of arrogance to the next.
The only zionist politics I support are those of Gush Shalom, but I am trying to reckon with the fact that the zionist entity actually exists, and that it isn't going to just evaporate.
As a non-Jew, I particularly resent the fact that rather than simply trucking off to TA and joining Gush Shalom, I have to negotiate with zionist labourites who stink worse than the Comintern did during the Purges.
"It is definitely possible to be simultaneously civilist and Jewish, civilist and Zionist. Its like saying, "I'm male and I'm human""
I would think it more like saying "I'm male and I'm a psychopath."
I looked harder at Gush Shalom and though it saddens me to have to admit it, behind those valiant photographs there is zilch.
"efes gadol"
These are very astute observations and agree in regards to the questions that need to be asked (without having determined the answers myself).
I would like to add a bit from the pamphlet "the past didn't go anywhere – making resistance to anti-semitism part of all our movements" – link to pinteleyid.com
In it, it had these lines – "Mainstream Jews often feel more entitled than they should to accuse your work of anti-semitism. But many radical Jews have the opposite problem: We tend to doubt and dismiss ourselves when we notice anti-Jewish patterns happening. This holds our whole movements back. Help us out: Give us the space all oppressed groups should get, by letting us err on the side of noticing antisemitism "too much" as we figure it out."
Part of what I feel this approach ignores is the reality of "noticing anti-semitism too much" or in countless incidences making false accusations of anti-semitism in order to silence critics of Israel or Zionism (Dr. Norman Finkelstein comes to mind).
Furthermore, in other text within this guide are dismissals of the disproportionate influence of AIPAC and other power blocks. While I agree with their position on rejecting racism outright in any form, they still manage to craft their document pretty much ignoring the elephant in the room as far as those areas where understanding hidden agendas provide the clearest insight to how events unfold.
~
"I would suggest that for a Jew to fight Zionism is to turn his back on Jewishness and to make peace with humanity. To fight Zionism is to prove that Nordau, Frommer and Borochov were totally wrong. The Jew is not timid, he is brave enough to face the evil within.
"For a Jew to fight Zionism is to move from Jerusalem to Athens, to join humanity and to leave the politics of negation behind."
from an interesting essay by Gilad Atzmon
link to peacepalestine.blogspot.com