| |
|
What is Zionism?
A Peace Now Vision
Gidon D. Remba[1]
“You shall be called the city of righteousness, the
faithful city.
Zion shall be redeemed with justice.” Isaiah I: 26-27
What
is Zionism? Zionism is the belief that Israel has a right to exist as a democratic Jewish
state—nothing more, nothing less. It is
the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Zionism, like any form of nationalism, has
found expression on the left, right and center of the political spectrum. All Zionists share the common denominator of
commitment to the existence and flourishing of a Jewish state called Israel.
Progressive Zionism is best expressed by three whose life and work reflect the
balance of universal and particular, the love of Israel and the Jewish people, and the love of peace and
justice, common to the Biblical prophets, representing authentic Jewish
values: Theodor
Herzl, Ahad Ha’am, and Israel’s Chief Supreme Court Justice Aharon
Barak. Each embodies dimensions of our Zionism.[2]
The Zionism of Peace Now draws on the progressive, humane outlook of Theodor Herzl, the founder of
political Zionism. It was Herzl who urged in Old-New
Land (1902), “Hold fast to
the things that have made us great: to
liberality, tolerance, love of mankind.
Only then is Zion truly Zion.”[3] Herzl foresaw a
Jewish state in which Jews and Arabs enjoyed full equality as citizens. The Zionism of Peace Now entails both a love
for the Jewish people, a passion for its well-being, and a commitment to
justice, equality, liberal democracy and human rights—cosmopolitan values. “For Herzl the
fortunes of Zionism and those of European liberalism were intertwined. Old-New
Land was a … blue-print for a liberal New Society in Palestine.”[4] We fight for Arab-Israeli peace and a more
equalitarian society in Israel out of a recognition that a just and well-crafted
political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the larger
Arab-Israeli dispute, will enhance Israel’s security, fortifying it economically, politically
and socially. And we struggle to realize
these ideals because they are at the core of our moral vision as Zionists. In our Zionism there is no contradiction
between our belief in the justice of a state which embodies Jewish culture and
symbols in its public life, reflecting the heritage and needs of the Jewish
people, and our embrace of universal moral values.
Ahad Ha’am (which means “one of
the people”), the pen name of Asher Ginsburg, founded what is known as Cultural
Zionism, the idea that Jews should come together in the historic Land of Israel
so that they can cooperatively build what will become the common cultural
center of the Jewish people throughout the world, forming a collective space
that is Jewish. Herzl
and Ahad Ha’am represented
two contrasting approaches to Zionism in their day, the one focusing on
state-building, the other on creating a Jewish cultural and spiritual center in
the Land of Israel for all Jews everywhere, reviving Hebrew and the moral core of Judaism.
But their ideas can be united, particularly now that political Zionism has
achieved its primary goal of establishing a Jewish state.[5] Ahad Ha’am sought to establish not only “a state of the Jews,”
which he saw as Herzl’s goal, but a “Jewish state”
animated by Jewish spiritual and moral values.[6]
For Ahad Ha’am, Jewish national aspirations can only be realized
“while maintaining respect for the feelings and rights of the region’s Arabs.”[7] Jews, cautioned Ahad
Ha’am, “should not forget that for the Arabs too, Palestine was a national home.”[8] Indeed, in a famous essay titled “Truth from
the Land of Israel,” written from Jerusalem
in 1891, “he was the first Zionist…to raise the question of the Arabs” of Palestine.[9] He made the “call for a decent treatment of Palestine’s Arabs” essential not only to the resurrection of Zion and the Zionist enterprise, but to the future of
Judaism itself, which was to become “the civic religion of a future Israel.”[10] Ahad Ha’am stresses that following the universal principle of
love and respect for the other does not commit the Jew to self-abnegation—or
what might be called today, self-hatred or self-denial. On the contrary, because it commands the Jew
to love himself, and to love others no less, it obligates him to fulfill his
individual and national identity to the fullest extent that is consistent with
the demands of justice. The same idea is
expressed in Rabbi Hillel’s maxim, from Pirke Avot, “If I am not for
myself, what am I for; but if I am only
for myself, what am I?”[11] Ahad Ha'am also maintained that the most fundamental principle
of Jewish ethics—"You shall love your neighbor as yourself"
(Leviticus 19:18)—does not teach us to love our neighbor more than ourselves, but as much:
"The true meaning of the verse is: 'Self-love must not be allowed
to incline the scale on the side of your own advantage; love your neighbor as
yourself, and then justice will necessarily decide, and you will do nothing to
your neighbor that you would consider a wrong if it were done to yourself'…
Judaism cannot accept the altruistic principle; it cannot put 'other' in the
centre of the circle, because that place belongs to justice, which knows no
distinction between 'self' and 'other.'"[12] Some critics allege that the Love Thy
Neighbor Principle in the Torah strictly refers only to one's own countrymen,
so that a Jew’s neighbors in a Jewish state would be his fellow Jews. The text itself gives
the lie to this thesis,
a scant fifteen verses later: (Lev. 9: 30 - 34): “When a stranger resides with you in your
land, you shall not wrong him. The
stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
It was Ahad Ha’am who spoke of the relationship between Jewish
nationalism and Jewish ethics, both of which comprise our Zionism, in an essay
called “The Character of Judaism”:
The
Jewish law of justice is not confined within the narrow sphere of individual
relations. In its Jewish sense the
precept ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself’ can
be carried out by a whole nation in its dealings with other nations. For this precept does not oblige a nation to
sacrifice its life or its position for the benefit of other nations. It is, on the contrary, the duty of every
nation, as of every individual human being, to live and to develop to the
utmost limit of its powers; but at the same time it must recognize the right of
other nations to fulfill the like duty without let or hindrance. Patriotism—that is, national egoism—must not
induce it to disregard justice, and to seek self-fulfillment through the
destruction of other nations.[13]
There
are different forms of Zionism. One form
stresses Jewish national self-aggrandizement at the expense of the Jewish
commitment to equality, justice and liberal values. The other Zionism balances our duties to our
selves and our own nation with our universal commitments, in the belief that
one can love and give preference in special ways to one’s own people while also
promoting equality, justice and respect for all, Jew and non-Jew alike, in
Israel. One such preference is Israel’s Jewish public culture, expressing the historical
memory and national identity of its Jewish majority; another is the Law of
Return which allows any Jew the right to immigrate to Israel and become a citizen. Our pursuit of peace and justice arises not
only from our embrace of Biblically-inspired moral imperatives, but from our
own self-interest as a Jewish nation and people: our well-being and security requires that we
strive to live with our Arab neighbors in peace and justice, helping Israel and
our fellow Jews there to work towards just and peaceful relations with
them.
TO READ THE ENTIRE ESSAY "WHAT IS
ZIONISM?"
VIEW AS
WEB PAGE or CLICK
HERE FOR PDF
[1]Gidon
D. Remba is President of Chicago Peace Now, an affiliate of Americans for Peace
Now, which supports Israel's
largest peace group, Shalom Achshav. This essay is excerpted from a more
comprehensive study of Zionism and post-Zionism by the author, titled “We Are
All Post-Zionists Now: Israel
as a Jewish and Democratic State.”
[2]Each
express progressive Zionism in different degrees and imperfectly. In both The Jewish State (1896) and Old-New
Land, Herzl betrays a preference for a “democratic monarchy and an
aristocratic republic” as his ideal form of government, and is unable to
imagine the revival of the Hebrew language in a Jewish state in the Land
of Israel. In these and other respects, Herzl leaves
much to be desired both in his commitment to liberalism, and to Jewish
nationalism. Theodor Herzl, The
Jewish State, Silvie D’Avigdor, trans. (New York: Dover, 1988, pp.
144-5.) At the same time, he envisioned
“the future Jewish commonwealth as based on socialistic, cooperative
lines.” Shlomo Avineri, The Making of
Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins
of the Jewish State (New York: Basic, 1981, p. 97.) And Herzl the liberal also anticipated the
dangers of permitting undue interference by the clerical establishment and the
military in the affairs of the Jewish state:
“We shall keep our priests within the confines of their temples in the
same way as we shall keep our professional army within the confines of their
barracks…[T]hey must not interfere in the administration of the State which
confers distinction upon them, else they will conjure up difficulties without
and within.” The Jewish State,
pp. 146-7.
[3]Theodor
Herzl, Old New Land, Lotta Levensohn,
translator, Jacques Kornberg, Introduction
(Princeton: Marcus Weiner, 1960; 2000 reprint), p. 139.
[4]Jacques Kornberg, Introduction, Old
New Land,
p. xxiv.
[5]Shlomo
Avineri elaborates on how Ahad Ha’am ultimately synthesized political Zionism
within his own spiritual and cultural Zionism.
Since most Jews will likely remain in the Diaspora even after the
creation of a Jewish state, noted Ahad Ha’am, Israel
must devote itself as well to addressing the spiritual and cultural problems
facing Diaspora Jewry. “A political
Zionism focusing exclusively on the establishment of a Jewish state, overlooks
this cultural dimension, which is vital for Jewish continued existence.” (Avineri, p. 117) See Ahad Ha’am, “The Jewish State and the
Jewish Problem,” in Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic, Hans Kohn, ed.
(New York, 1962), pp. 78-81. Observes
Arthur Hertzberg: “A case for Herzl’s
Zionism could be made on Ahad Ha’am’s own premises: if the Jewish people required new verve and
forms, Herzl’s demand to turn all Jewish energies into reestablishing a state
could evoke a renaissance of the tired Jewish spirit of the kind Ahad Ha’am was
calling for.” Arthur Hertzberg, “Ahad
Ha’am 100 Years Later,” The New York Review of Books, March 31, 1991, reprinted in
Hertzberg, Jewish Polemics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992),
p. 91.
[6]See
Ahad Ha’am, “The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem,” in Nationalism and
the Jewish Ethic, pp. 78-9.
[8]Walter
Laqueur, A History of Zionism (New York: Schocken, 1972), p. 240. See Ahad Ha’am, “After the Balfour
Declaration,” in Nationalism and the Jewish Ethic.
[10]Stephen
J. Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet Ahad
Ha'am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley: University of California,
1993), pp. 320-1.
[11]Pirkei
Avot: The
Sayings of The Fathers, Joseph H. Hertz, trans. (New York: Behrman House, 1945), I:14.
(p. 25)
[12]Ahad
Ha'am, "The Character of Judaism," (1910), in Simon Noveck, ed., Contemporary Jewish Thought: A Reader
(New York: B'nai Brith
Department of Adult Jewish Education, 1963); originally published as
"Between Two Opinions," pp. 14-15.
[13]Ahad
Ha’am, pp. 14-15. Ahad Ha’am too only
imperfectly reflected progressive Zionism.
According to Zipperstein, “[D]espite his cautionary remarks about the
need for decent and just treatment of Arabs in Palestine—he bemoaned the that
the final draft of the Balfour Declaration left open the possibility of
conflicting national claims…Despite his mounting sense of the tragic
implications in the relations between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, he resorted
to a vague romanticism typical of his circle:
the hope that peace will reign once Jewish nationalism is secure in the
hearts of Jews, and Arab enmity will be worn down by a recognition of vague,
apocryphal blood ties between the European Jewish settlers and their new
suspicious Arab neighbors.” Stephen J.
Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet Ahad
Ha'am and the Origins of Zionism, pp. 309, 247.
|
|
|