Gidi Grinstein on Zionism

...The secret of Zionism—the resilience of Zionism—is its ideological agility. Zionism has been driven by… ideas that are inconsistent with each other. So Zionism has been and remains a balancing act.

First I'd like to give you the concept. If there was rigidity in Zionism, there would be no way Zionism could survive the tremendous turmoil of the last sixty or seventy years. But these ideas are not in a hierarchy with each other--they are on a platform, they have equal footing and in every window of time there is a realignment of these ideas to meet the challenges of the day with new priorities.

What are these ideas? First there is the commitment to a special place on the face of this Earth—the land of Israel, the cradle of our civilization. The second big idea was about security for Jews. The third was about the well being of Jews. Not necessarily about wealth but more about economic independence, economic self determination. Then it was a whole nexus of ideas about humanism, liberalism, democracy. The Zionist movement since its inception has been democratic to a fault. That is still reflected and projected into the Knesset, which is a highly ineffective body.

It was about leadership among the family of nations—tikkun olam—repairing the world. It was about being light unto the nations, and the quest to create a model society. It has been about the Jewish character of the state of Israel—which means its language, its national day of rest, the Shabbat, its national holidays. This is the only place on the face of this earth where Jews experience being a majority. We assume full responsibility. This is a radically different existence than being a minority—as economically and politically powerful as a minority can be. Here we take care of sewage, we're responsible for security.

Post-Zionism doesn't exist ?

Haaretz : By Shlomo Avineri

In recent years a phenomenon called 'post-Zionism' has developed in the political-intellectual discourse in Israel. Fundamentally, this is a radical criticism not just of Israel's policy; at its base is total denial of the Zionist project and of the very legitimacy of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish nation-state.

The arguments called 'post-Zionist' have various aspects - not only political but also cultural. They view Zionism as a colonial phenomenon, not as a national movement that is contending with another, Palestinian, national movement over its claim to the same territory. Some of those who are called 'post-Zionists' go even further in their argument that the very existence of a Jewish people is a 'narrative' that was invented in the 19th century, and that the Jews are at base a religious community. The attitude of Zionism, which has most of its roots in Europe, toward Jews from the Muslim countries is also perceived in the context of colonial exploitation.

This approach also wants to de- legitimize Zionism's conceptual world...

But there is also another aspect to all this: Those who call themselves "post-Zionists" are simply anti-Zionists of the old sort. The term "post-Zionism" sounds as though it is something innovative, which came after Zionism. However, here lies a grave mistake: For the term "post-Zionism" to be meaningful, it is necessary to start out from the acceptance of Zionism as a fact and a reality and to try to go beyond it. Thus, for example, post-modern criticism starts out from the acceptance of modernity, grapples with its dialectical outcomes and its contradictions and tries to go beyond it. This is not the case for those who call themselves "post-Zionists": They do not see Zionism and the State of Israel as a reality that has come to pass, but rather as something that is not legitimate from the outset and that must be eliminated down to its very foundations. ...

There is no reason not to repeat these arguments today, if one considers them to be correct. The intellectual dishonesty is in the attempt to create a sense of something new, supposedly "post" and fashionable...

Some of those who call themselves "post-Zionists" also come from the former Communist camp. There is something pathetic in that 20 years ago they believed in a new, just world that was to emerge from Moscow or Cuba, and the only thing that is left to them of that lofty vision today is anti-Zionism. Not the brotherhood of nations, not the liberation of the proletariat, not universal social justice - all of this has collapsed in a tragic way; the only thing that remains is the hatred of Zionism.

I have great respect for Shlomo Avineri, and his critique nails one piece of what goes by the "post-Zionist" label. But the term is used more widely, not least to challenge contemporary Israel to be a (democratic) State of and for all its citizens. Whether Israel can be simultaneously democratic and "Jewish" (in any of several senses) seems to me to be a worthy subject for honest and robust discussion and debate in today's Israel. I don't think this questioning equates to anti-Zionism in the sense that Avineri invokes, nor do I think it is a matter of intellectual dishonesty by its proponents--certainly not by all of them.

I say this as one who believes Israel should have a distinct "Jewish" identity culturally and historically, while adhering to the egalitarian principles of its Declaration of Independence.

The term "post-Zionism" is, perhaps inescapably, elusive and subject to misunderstanding. We need a better, post-"post-Zionism" terminology.

P.S.: I guess I will have to refer to this as my "post-"post-Zionism" post."

Ahad Ha'am would have been thrilled

Haaretz :By A.B. Yehoshua

...These strange distinctions between spirit and matter in national existence are giving rise to another vague distinction between what is called the spiritual Zionism of Ahad Ha'am and the political Zionism of Theodor Herzl, when Burg and his friends call on us to turn our backs on Herzlian Zionism and to choose the Ahad Ha'am option. Not only are they missing the true intention of Ahad Ha'am, who specifically aspired to a Jewish state, but they also fail to understand that had Ahad Ha'am arrived in the State of Israel at the beginning of the 21st century he would actually have enjoyed what he saw, whereas his friend Herzl would have been disappointed and worried.

The spiritual center in the Land of Israel to which Ahad Ha'am was referring was not meant to be 'a light unto the nations' that would teach humanity to distinguish between right and wrong (he was not a megalomanic like some lunatic Jews), but rather a spiritual center that would concentrate within itself the Hebrew Jewish codes, in order to prevent a split in identity of the Jewish communities scattered throughout the world. Were Ahad Ha'am to arrive in Israel and see the research activity in all branches of Jewish history and thought, the departments in the various universities and colleges, the tremendous number of Torah scholars (who are living off the state), the many Israeli lecturers on all branches of Judaism, who are also reinforcing the Jewish studies departments in universities abroad and the many publications on Jewish subjects, he would be very pleased with what he saw; in addition to his amazement that this small country of Israel, despite its wars and difficulties, has achieved a place of honor in the community of nations, relative to its size, in science, literature, music, art, dance, film and theater.

But were Theodor Herzl to arrive in the Jewish state, not only would he be disappointed at the fact that the majority of Jews did not follow in the path of Zionism and missed the opportunity given them to establish a state before the Holocaust, a state that in the 1920s and 1930s would have reduced the dimensions of the terrible catastrophe that befell the Jewish people; he would also be worried about the fact that the existence of a Jewish state is not preventing hatred of Jews in the world, at a time when Israel itself still faces an existential threat.

It is not "spirituality" that we are lacking here - of that we have more than enough - rather, it is a better understanding of the concepts of ethical sovereignty and responsibility, based on clear boundaries of Israeli identity that does not rule over a foreign nation in order to achieve a few more pieces of land in the name of "Jewish spirituality."

A.B. Yehoshua is a great writer. His views on Israel and Diaspora are not mine. I don't think he understands "spirituality" as it has taken hold in some precincts of Diaspora Jewish life --he is blinded by the abhorrent mix of intolerant, dried-out religion and self-aggrandizing power politics within the Israeli ultra-observant communities. But I am grateful for his recognition that Jewish (and universal) morality insist on "ethical sovereignty and responsibility."

Avraham Burg’s New Zionism

Forward.com:

To Avraham Burg, former Knesset speaker, former chairman of the World Zionist Organization and son of one of Israel’s founding fathers, it is all of those things and more. In a new book, “Defeating Hitler,” and in a much-discussed interview in Ha’aretz last week, Burg argues that the time for Herzl’s Zionism is past. Now it is time for Ahad Ha’am’s Zionism, for Israel as a spiritual beacon.

Israel has lived long enough in the shadow of trauma and fear, he argues. Now is the time for trust — trust in Israel’s place in the world, in the possibility of coexistence, in the moral legacy of Judaism.

That, at least, is how Burg describes his message. You’d hardly know it, though, from the Ha’aretz interview and the response it’s gotten in Israel and the broader Jewish world. The interviewer, Ari Shavit, read the book and admits he detested it. ...

I phoned Burg because the interview looked fishy to me. I hadn’t read his new book, but I know Burg.

Is it true, I asked, that he believes Israel can no longer be a Jewish state?

“I think Israel should be defined not as a Jewish state, but as a state of the Jewish people,” Burg said. “What I mean is that the significance of the state’s content, its culture and ethos and so on, should be placed on the shoulders of every one of us. We shouldn’t be on automatic pilot.” “I see Israel as a state that was created by the Jewish people, as the expression of thousands of years of yearning,” he said. “Its governing structures should be democratic. Its content should be created by its people. When you create something called a Jewish state and then leave it on automatic pilot, the individual bears no responsibility for its content and character.”

Burg has harsh words for Israel’s current character. He believes that years of confrontation and fear have spawned a militaristic spirit and a widespread contempt for universal norms like human rights....

“What I want to do is to expand the borders of Israel beyond land and location to include universalism and spiritual search,” Burg told me. “We were raised on the Zionism of Ben-Gurion, that there is only one place for Jews and that’s Israel. I say no, there have always been multiple centers of Jewish life.” ...

“If a state is Jewish,” Burg said, “it is founded on a certain measure of holiness. Moses himself defined holiness as an ongoing process of actions, of behavior toward others and toward God. I am very afraid of automatic holiness. It can lead to chauvinism, to exclusivism, to all kinds of negative ramifications in relations between individuals and between nations. The Jewish people after 60 years of statehood cannot allow itself to take its holiness for granted. It has to question itself every day.”

This makes a whole lot more sense to me than did the portrayal of Burg in the Haaretz interview that I excerpted in a posting last week. The book is not yet available in English.

Flash: Barak not a post-Zionist

From Haaretz : In the path of the founding fathers?
By Israel Harel

The Labor Party, declared Ehud Barak in his victory speech, will follow the path of the founder of the state and the generation of founders. Even if victory speech promises are greeted with skepticism, the choice of these words and their timing are worth noting. Especially encouraging were his remarks that the State of Israel is 'the home of the Jewish people, its historic bastion, the homeland of our people.'

On the backdrop of the post-Zionist voices in academia, the media and politics, it is considered bad form these days to utter words like 'homeland' and 'the national home of the Jewish people.' These terms have become rare - or illegitimate - among those who consider themselves among the progressive, cultured, liberal sector of society. Therefore there was something refreshing, certainly daring, when Barak uttered them in his speech. Time will tell whether the Labor Party under his leadership will return to the positions and ideas it held while leading the Yishuv [Jewish settlement] in Mandatory Palestine, preceding the establishment of the state and during the state's first 29 years of existence.

The extent to which Barak's declarations should not be taken for granted can be seen, for example, in the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee. While preparing a constitution for Israel in recent months, the committee has discussed the identity of the state and its symbols. The Labor Party members, MKs Colette Avital and Matan Vilnai, like their new party head, are in favor of the constitution declaring that the State of Israel is "the national home of the Jewish people." Others, however, among them committee chair MK Menahem Ben-Sasson (Kadima), are opposed to this.

From quite a different perspective than Amira Hass. Haaretz includes quite a range of views.

Tory leader calls himself 'Zionist'; U.K. Jews campaign against boycott

Haaretz : By Assaf Uni and Amiram Barkat

The leader of Britain's Conservative party, David Cameron, called himself a 'Zionist' Tuesday as he slammed a British initiative for an academic boycott against Israel.

Cameron, responding to questions at the annual luncheon of Conservative Friends of Israel, said the academic boycott was completely uncalled for, and that attacks against Israel often slid into anti-Semitism.

'If by Zionist you mean that the Jews have the right to a homeland in Israel and the right to a country then I am a Zionist,' the Tory leader said, adding that support for Israel is 'in the DNA' of members of his party.

Thank you. I'm saddened that such statements need to be made these days (and are seen as controversial), but grateful that some European leaders are willing to make them. I grew up with the core definition of Zionism as the "national liberation movement" of the Jewish people, or at least those who chose to make a national existence and culture as Jews (members of a peoplehood, not necessarily observant followers of a religious faith--a concept difficult for some non-Jews, particularly in America, to entirely grasp). Cameron's definition comes tolerably close, and properly does not exclude the possibility of a Jewish nation-state living in peace alongside a Palestinian nation-state--each free to pursue its national culture.