I’m a progressive. My politics are of a social-democratic variety. I’m Jewish. And I’m a Zionist.
The last phrase is going to raise the hackles of some readers, perhaps a lot of readers, just as my hackles are raised when I read people attacking Zionism. It has taken me awhile to puzzle this out, although the explanation is, I think, pretty straightforward: we mean radically different things by the word “Zionism”. For someone of my generation (born in the 1950s), and even more so for my parents’ and grandparents’ generations, Zionism was a radically hopeful and forward-thinking ideology behind the movement for establishment of a Jewish homeland. It was about gestures such as planting trees in Israel in honor of a boy’s bar mitzvah. It was about rebirth from the ashes of the Nazi death camps and the pogroms of the Russian Empire. It was about self-reliant social democracy as represented by the kibbutz. And it was pretty much a reflexive attitude among Jews. I’m going to call this ideology Zionism1. For many on the political left today, however, Zionism has nothing to do with any of what I just mentioned. Instead, it’s a reactionary ideology in the service of the repression of Palestinian Arabs, inextricably linked with the corrupt and distinctly unpleasant Benjamin Netanyahu and with evangelical “Christian Zionists”. I’m going to call this latter ideology Zionism2.
There’s nothing in common between Zionism1 and Zionism2.
I’ve called out some diarists here whose critiques of Israel and Zionism have, in my opinion, crossed the line into using dog whistles that evoke traditional anti-Semitic tropes about Jewish control of the media, say, or Jews as disloyal to the countries where they live. I find this sort of dog whistling to be distressingly common in the pages of certain left publications, with Counterpunch my Exhibit A.
One rebuttal to what I’ve just written is commonly framed as “you’re just trying to discredit all criticism of Israel by portraying it as anti-Semitic”. Not at all. Israel has plenty to answer for. Half a century of occupation of Palestinian territories ought to be regarded with distress and anger. But distress and anger don’t justify stupid anti-Semitic dog whistles.
Another rebuttal is commonly framed as “you’re intentionally conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism”. And here we get tripped up by that word “Zionism”. Those using this rebuttal equate Zionism with what I’ve called Zionism2; if they’ve ever even heard of what I’ve called Zionism1, they probably regard it as some sort of fossil and of no relevance whatsoever. They are very mistaken.
So where am I going with this? Most simply put, consider this a plea for making your arguments clear and for avoiding terminology whose definition is unclear or contested. If Zionism for you is what I’ve called Zionism2, ditch the term entirely and write about the particulars. Sure, it’ll take you an extra two or three minutes, but you’ll be forced to be precise and you’ll wind up with a stronger argument in the end. But if you instead opt for lazy, familiar labeling, expect pushback.
. . . attempt to address a very contentious topic ( = why I recommended).
That said, I don’t find your dichotomy between Zionism1 and Zionism2 entirely persuasive. Especially since, as you’ve framed it, Zionism1 looks like rosy recollections from childhood that elide some important issues (seems quite understandable that, as a child, you likely weren’t even aware of them; but you’re no longer a child).
And since it’s a delicate issue, I’ll offer these caveats upfront: I’m not Jewish, so can’t fully view this from that perspective. Best I can do is empathize. And the following reflects my accumulation of knowledge through a lifetime, some of which may contain inaccuracies subject to correction by factual information.
However, my understanding includes the following elements of actual Zionism that seem missing from “Zionism1”:
These look remarkably analogous to me to our own original sins of slavery and sometimes-genocidal Native-American conquest. And like ours, they seem stains that are difficult to expunge, and that continue to be reflected in, and taint, current policy (attempts to pretend we are, e.g., a “post-racial” society notwithstanding). So trying to draw a total distinction between “Zionism1” (good!) and problematic actions and policies of the current Israeli gov’t (all consigned to “Zionism2”) looks itself problematic.
I, too, was born in the 50s, and formed the attitude that the horror of the Holocaust (on top of the prior millennia of oppression of Jews) made establishment of a safe-haven-state for Jews a good thing, in keeping with “Never again!” That seems to have been the international consensus then (though obviously not unanimous) as well, implying that the displacement of then-current inhabitants and terroristic actions involved in Israel’s establishment were an acceptable price to pay for it.
But I had little, if any, awareness as a child of the problematic elements listed above. I became aware of them only over time as an adult. I find the current settlements policy (including their version of “The Wall!”) of the Israeli gov’t morally reprehensible — a deliberate thumb in the eye of Palestinians — and quite accurately labeled an “occupation”. Also too, counter-productive to any possibility of eventual peace. Unfortunately, it’s also my impression that over decades of Likud power, the population of Israeli (or at least the Jewish population — not sure which is more accurate) has drifted rightward to the point where, e.g., socially liberal policies including halting settlements and a “two-state solution” used to have majority support there, but no longer do. In contrast to my understanding of ongoing majority support for them among American Jews.
Thanks for the comments. I don’t quite agree with your conclusion that sectarian classism necessarily confined non-Jews to second-class citizenship in Israel from the get-go. Things changed radically after the 1967 war and occupation of the West Bank. It took a generation for the Oslo Accords to be signed and we all know how that turned out after Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated.
One thing that I think is unappreciated by critics of Israel is the importance of ethnic diversity within the Jewish population on Israeli politics. Labor was the traditional party of Ashkenazi (central and eastern European) Jews. Likud came to power with the strong support of Jews with origins in Arab countries, some of whom were expelled after 1948, the rest of whom moved to Israel because of ongoing persecution. To note only the most prominent example, Baghdad had been a center of Jewish life for more than 1500 years, but 20 years on from 1948, that community had ceased to exist.
Part of my point in presenting the Zionism1/Zionism2 dichotomy, which you quite reasonably criticized, is that “Zionism1” remains a powerful motivating ideology in the Jewish diaspora at the same time that crude, uncritical embrace of Likud is the default position for far too many self-appointed Jewish community leaders.
I’ll defer to your assessment that there was a turning point associated with the 1967 (aka “6-Day”) War, before which second-class citizenship of non-Jews may not yet have been “baked-in-the-cake” as I think I put it. I was 13 then. Remember knowing it was happening, but certainly not details or outcomes with respect to changes within Israel leading to degraded status of non-Jewish citizens as an after-effect. So willing to accept your assessment on that pending any contradictory factual evidence.
Your conclusion looks spot-on to me.
. . . I realize I remain skeptical of the idea that second-class citizenship of non-Jews is not, in fact, baked-in-the-cake of an Israeli state whose founding “recipe” includes it being, officially, a “Jewish state”. Would welcome reading your understanding of how, even before ’67, being an officially “Jewish state” from its founding is compatible with full equality of all citizens, even if you recognize that changed for the worse after ’67.
“I live in an officially ‘Jewish state’, but I am not a Jew” seems, almost inescapably and by definition, a statement of recognition of second-class citizenship.
I’ve struggled with the “Jewish state” formulation forever. This is probably a lousy comparison, but it reminds me a bit of the way that Malaysia has what amounts to affirmative action for ethnic Malays, the majority population. It’s their way of redressing what they perceive as the favoritism towards ethnic Chinese and Indians practiced by the British during the colonial era, which ended about 60 years ago. I would also note that the concept of citizenship in the Anglophone world–loyalty to a way of life, a shared adherence to principles–contrasts sharply with the concept of citizenship in many other places, where something like an ethnic identity is implied.
Not an answer to you really.
I’ve stopped referencing my politics as “anti-Zionist” because of the attachment to the word. I still find the original definition of “Zionism” to be problematic, although I understand the defenses of it and it’s for those reasons I’ve been convinced to drop it as a terminology altogether because it doesn’t help in any way.
Take Ilhan Omar’s “All about the Benjamin’s” tweet. Even if one doesn’t think it was anti-Semitic, many of her allies in Congress did. And for that reason it is entirely appropriate to apologize and figure a way to articulate your thoughts better. In diverse coalitions people will accidentally step on each other’s toes a lot, and it’s good practice to apologize for hurting someone even if you think their hurt is an unreasonable reaction to what you did. If people can’t handle that, then they can’t be in politics in a multi-cultural and diverse party. It’s that simple. You win by convincing, not submission.
When the topic of Israel as a nation comes up, I limit my criticisms to specific policies & administrations. Terms like Zionism/anti-Zionism are simply too loaded to be of much use, if the hope is to have a conversation. Obviously I am no fan of the current Likud-led government, and Netanyahu can’t be deposed soon enough. My more pressing concern is treatment of the Jewish diaspora in the US and Europe in an era in which anti-Jewish speech and action is on the rise.
By the way, good to see a thoughtful diary and some thoughtful comments.
While I fully accept the sincerity of your distinction between Zionism1 and Zionism2, the problem is that Zionism1 has slowly morphed into Zionsim2 over the course of the history of the Israeli state.
Few could dispute the case for an Israeli state in 1948 after the depredations of the Nazi and Stalinist regimes and one can even relativise the displacement and suppression of Palestinians in Israel by reference to similar displacements of Jewish peoples throughout the world, but particularly in Arab and European states.
Early Israeli leaders could also be characterised as relatively progressive compared to norms of their time. The problem is the development of the Israeli state has been almost entirely retrogressive in the meantime.
I cut my political teeth as an anti-apartheid activist and was often confronted by conservatives (and racists) on the grounds that many Blacks in South Africa were much better off than in other Black African ruled states – Idi Amin’s Uganda being a prominently quoted example.
My response was always that my problem with the Apartheid regime is that its proponents claimed to be white, democratic, Christian, civilised and European and that we Europeans couldn’t accept those claims without accepting racism in our own societies as well.
Once you accept race or ethnicity as the basis for a political ideology, you are going down the same road as Apartheid, and, in the extreme, of Nazism as well. But as you note Malaysia discriminates against non-Malays as well and yet receives little criticism in Europe. The difference, once again, is that they do not claim to do so in our name.
So if you oppose racism, you can’t normalise or excuse Zionism2 without accepting that racist attitudes are an intrinsic part of being white, Christian, democratic and European.
I also do not wish to minimise the rise of anti-semitism in Europe and elsewhere, but it is difficult for progressives to take up the cudgels for Jews in Europe when they see Jews practising even worse racism in Israel.
The sad thing is that Jews have more reason than almost any people to reject racism as a basis for society and politics and yet Zionists like Netanyahu seem to want to use the moral capital derived from the Holocaust as the justification for their own racism and as a way of deflecting progressive critiques from Europe and the USA.
The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism is the chief tool in their arsenal and in so doing they are discrediting and undermining the authenticity and awfulness of the Jewish experience as a whole.
In the UK entirely bogus charges of anti-semitism are being levelled at Corbyn because of his left wing and pro-Palestinian views. You can understand then, why progressives in the UK are so angry with Netanyahu and his ilk for interfering in the domestic politics of the UK.
I can’t say whether Netanyahu is doing much for Jewish people in Israeli, but he the greatest danger to the status and standing of Jews everywhere else and unfortunately many progressives are less than aware that many Jewish are as opposed to Netanyahu as they are, indeed if not more so.
Corbyn himself may not be antisemitic, but from what I’ve seen he’s far too accomodating of antisemites and doesn’t seem to be able to notice blatant antisemitism in his presence. I think that’s because antisemitism is deeply embedded in many of our own institutions and understandings of “society”. I give him more leeway because he’s been dedicated to anti-racism his entire life, but I do think Labour has an antisemitism problem. I think Momentum is making a good faith effort at weeding it out, but I don’t see the same vigor from Corbyn.
I’m not close enough to Labour politics in the UK to make an independent or informed judgement, but I would wager there is far less anti-Semitism within the Labour party than there is within British society as a whole, and indeed particularly within the Tory party. The reason the Labour party is the focus of anti-Semitism attacks is because it is a convenient stick for the right to beat the left, and for everyone else to hide their anti-Semitism behind – and all of it is just a cover for right wing pro-Netanyahu supporters to beat pro-Palestinian supporters.
I repeat: Palestinians are a Semitic people as well, but there is no political price to be paid for being anti-Palestinian. Indeed to be anti-Palestinian is seen in the media to be anti-terrorist, not racist, which is ironic given the foundation of the Israeli state is based on terrorism. I hugely resent Jews appropriating the “anti-Semitic” label as applying exclusively to themselves – as if they are the only people who matter and as if Palestinians are a non-people.
I have many progressive Jewish friends, but they would be the first to admit that Jews are one of the most race conscious peoples on earth – for understandable historical reasons. Sadly, for many of their less progressive fellow Jews, this more often than not spills over into anti-Arab racism. They may feel they have an unending supply of western guilt to tap into in support of their conflict with their Arab neighbours, but that well is running dry in Europe at least. It’s time to make peace with their Palestinian neighbours, or they will reap consequences no one can now foretell.
That’s what I mean about it being cultural. Antisemitism is built into the foundations, so Labour as a whole might be less antisemitic than British society, but that’s a low bar. It is weaponized by the right, but they weaponize everything, especially when it comes to human rights. However, that doesn’t excuse our own inaction. For example, why did Corbyn try to prevent the suspension of Chris Williamson? I think Corbyn sees everything through a certain prism in terms of class politics, and it blinds him to real antisemitism.
I was recently discussing this issue tangentially with a pollster (who is also Jewish and has a lot of family in France) who works for the Democrats, but he believes (fears) that as Israel is broached more that many US Jews migrate to the GOP. I’m not certain that will happen because Europe has a lot of parties, and while the nationalists and far right might occasionally be in coalition with center right, they (usually) aren’t in the drivers seat, which is a distinctual difference with the US. So for this reason it makes me question why Jewish voters in UK overwhelmingly back Tories despite their antisemitism, and I think it’s because of Israel but also because of cultural antisemitism that hasn’t been squelched.
“In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.” SOURCE. Whether you like it or not, Mr Schnittger, that’s the actual, existing lexical usage. The term has never referred to hatred of other peoples who speak Semitic languages as defined by linguists (Arabic, Hebrew, Aramaic–still spoken by the ancient Chaldean community in Iraq–and languages of Ethiopia). So you are historically ignorant when you write that you “hugely resent Jews appropriating the ‘anti-Semitic’ label as applying exclusively to themselves–as if they are the only people who matter and as if Palestinians are a non-people”.
You refer to Jews as “one of the most race conscious peoples on earth”. I’d really like to know where you are going with this. Are you saying that Jews are somehow more apt than other humans to pigeon-hole people using racial categories? And please note that Jews themselves are not a “race”, a fact that would be glaringly obvious if you made a lineup of Jews whose origins lie in, say, Morocco and Ethiopia and Iraq and Iran and Poland. Perhaps the problem is simply that the British–and, forgive me for assuming this, Irish–usage of “race” is different than the American usage: the British seem to use the word “race” to refer to distinctive ethnic groups.
I’ve certainly known Jews who loathed Arabs, but I’ve known a lot more non-Jews who loathed Arabs. I don’t approve of either.
By the way, a big problem with your writing is your habit of non-specific attributions. I refer to, for example, your reference to your “many progressive Jewish friends [who] would be the first to admit….”
Not being aware of one German journalist in the 19th, century who used the term anti-Semitic in a non specific way -i.e. not using the term to refer to specifically Semitic peoples at all – doesn’t count as “historical ignorance” in my book, but YMMV. Politically I would have been on the same side as said journalist although I would not have been happy with such an inaccurate term to refer to quite diverse political trends many of which have little or nothing to do with Semitic peoples. However since this conversation has descended to insults I will leave it at that.
You might want to read about Wilhelm Marr. I kind of doubt you would have found much if any common ground with him.
A short post-script:
I’ve long been fed up with the support offered to the corrupt, manipulative Benjamin Netanyahu by self-appointed Jewish leaders in the United States.
I also long ago walked away from so-called progressive activist groups that seemed to expect ritualistic denunciation of Israel from Jewish members.
Reality is messy, complex and rarely reducible to slogans.