As we all know, the Daily Beast has a new blog called Open Zion (lately changed from Zion Square) that is fostering a (circumscribed) discussion about Zionism.
Well I just came across this piece at the site that shows how limited the conversation is in American Jewish life. It is by Jay Michaelson, who is an expert on religion and morality– he studies religion, and he wrote a book about squaring gay rights with biblical teachings. And Michaelson wants to reclaim the term Zionism despite facts he acknowledges, that Israel has become a rightwing regime that continues to expand on to Palestinian lands. Here is his crescendo:
[I]s my fidelity to that term more important than building a bridge with those who have been wounded by it?
I believe in the notion of a Jewish and democratic state, for all the complexity such a juxtaposition entails. I believe that such a state can exist without the oppression of another nation of people, and indeed that it must do so if it is to survive. I support Israel, even when and precisely when I do not support its government’s policies. To me, that makes me a Zionist, even if many people don’t think it does.
This is shallow, especially as he is taking up matters of belief. The issue is, Why do you as an American Jew with full minority rights believe in the necessity of preserving a Jewish state halfway across the world whose Palestinian citizens and subjects find that regime objectionable? These claims are defensible; Peter Beinart makes the defense, I don’t think persuasively. But Michaelson (who lives in a town that neighbors mine and surely enjoys similar privilege to my own) doesn’t try, he merely asserts and feels that such assertions are convincing. They’re not. They require some real introspection. This is the crisis inside American Jewry, that so many of us feel a need to sustain a project most of us haven’t even visited and whose political values utterly contradict the values on which our own democratic citizenship is based. And if you are religious, if you care about Jewish life in Israel, why does that life require statehood? (C.f. Jerry Haber. “If Israel exists as a physical refuge to ensure the survival of the Jewish people, then it has failed miserably in that respect.”) These are important issues. I’m waiting.
“The issue is, given that Israel is so oppressive, why is the theory/ideology that sustains it so important to you?”
With respect, Phil, that is not the question — not MY question anyhow. You are asking him why he regards Israel like a drunk mother whom he must love. That is A question, but not THE question. THE question is about what to do about poor old mom (for those who so regard Israel).
I’d ask him this: “Given the current facts and prospects, including massive Israeli intransigence, lawlessness, cruelty, and oppressiveness on so many fronts, what would you like to see happen — what is YOUR desired outcome for peace and justice — and what would you like the USA or the WORLD to DO to bring it about?”
I never knew the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were designed to confer “minority rights” – I thought they just outlined what rights all men have inherently. This is the problem with calling yourself a “(fill in the blank) american” — As far as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are concerned (and after some important “updates”) men are men. That’s kind of an important thing, I should say.
So important, that if you take the founding documents seriously (as I do) and also take into consideration the documents and works they were based on, one can with a straight face, and in all seriousness ask, “what the hell is an “american jew”?
I know that there are americans who happen to be Jewish, but Ive not heard of a special american form of judaism. And the same goes for “american catholics” and the like. Its nonsense, in my opinion. The “american” in the identity cancels out the religious or ethnic affiliation.
In other words, you don’t get to be “an american jew” — you only get to be an american, who happens to be jewish. It’s this distinction, more than anything else that grants true freedom to minorities – “american” as a political identity is probably the greatest expression of shared humanity there is, as it describes nothing about the individual, but says everything about the ideals that person shares with his/her brothers and sisters in society. I take offense at people who hyphenate their american identity, and I do so because its completely unnecessary and runs counter to what “american” is supposed to mean. People should take it more seriously, in my opinion.
>> I believe in the notion of a Jewish and democratic state, for all the complexity such a juxtaposition entails. I believe that such a state can exist without the oppression of another nation of people …
How, Mr. Michaelson? How can a religion-supremacist Jewish state – a state of and for Jews, in which Jews are more equal than the non-Jewish minorities – be a democratic and, presumably, egalitarian state of and for all of its Jewish and non-Jewish citizens?
I’m mulling the Zionist project around in my head lately. I think it’s fair to say (although not without exception), that Antisemitism or any racism is simply intolerable in western society. The ‘Antisemitism’ that Jews have suffered since WWII has been largely related to what Israel has done, rather than an outright irrational hatred of Judaism and it’s not something most societies would be prepared to have on their doorsteps, despite the Hasbara claiming that Israel is the only safe place for Jews. It’s the least safe place.
I think this is evidenced by the fact that over 50% of the world’s Jews live outside Israel by choice.
Another factor to consider: Mizrahi Jews (Arab Jews) make up the largest demographic of Jews in Israel. Many were refugees from Arab States who were expelled or displaced over a period of 30 years between 1948 and the ’70’s. How many would have continued to live outside Israel if those Arab states didn’t expel them because of Israel’s policies and the resulting difficulties whilst in their homelands?
US military aid keeps the wheels on the cart and the occupation in full swing. What if US funding stopped?
My point is this: You have a nation that oppresses 50% of the people that live under it’s jurisdiction. Over 50% of the people that the nation was created for don’t want to live there and over 60% who do are refugees who may not have moved there in the first place.
Precisely who or what is this nation for? It seems it’s just some retarded remnant of a colonialist ideology that has been shoehorned into two of the three monotheistic faiths creating a superstitious belief of ‘support or be damned’ But it’s doing no one any good whatsoever. Not just the Palestinians, but the Israelis, worldwide Jewry and Christianity are being bent around to accommodate this crude distortion and all are suffering for what precisely? It just doesn’t make sense.
Dear Phil,
You ask a good question. The best reason I can think of is the people’s security. That is, as Prof. J.Slater claims, the people are more secure if they have an ethnic state. And if it does make them secure, then it may be worthwhile, considering past persecution.
However, I would very much like to read an article, or see a discussion on Mondoweiss, on whether this is really the case. That is, does having a single-ethnic state in the Holy Land actually provide more security for the people?
Or would the people be more secure if they lived in multiethnic, tolerant states spread across the world, rather than gathered into a small space on top of, and surrounded by, another group of temporarily weaker people with whom there are hostile relations? I am not sure of the answer, but think it is an important discussion.