Excerpted from The New York Times Weekly Review supplement to The Jerusalem Post, 2k.05.28
 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
Readers, especially Christians, may not realize, and are advised to inform themselves before labeling themselves "Zionists", that post-1948 Zionists, excluding the more recent phenomenon of 'religious Zionists,' have been anti-religious – anti-
Zionists have consistently and universally pursued a non-Biblical, democratic, Israel. Today, Zionists advocate abolishing the concept of Israel being a 'Jewish State,' preferring instead a "normal" state for all citizens – whether Arab Muslim, or Christian, separating "synagogue and state," without any particular "Jewishness." Moshe Dayan – who handed Har ha-
Ever wonder why so many Jews define themselves by repeatedly insisting on remembering the Holocaust to the exclusion of
Until recently, Zionists were motivated by survival. Their primary directive – establishing a non-Biblical state where Jews could stand on their own, protecting themselves from future Holocausts – kept them relevant.
Now that Israel is becoming a secure and permanent fixture of the modern world, Zionists are beginning to ask what further relevance they have? As prospects of a looming re-occurrence of the Holocaust become increasingly difficult to keep alive, a 'Zionist' "Israel" is barely preferable to the U.S. Zionists seem to be losing interest in the whole idea, with good reason. Now that it's here, what's the point of a 'Zionist' "Israel"? And (excluding 'religious Zionists') of what further relevance are Zionists?
Particularly the 'religious Zionists' (RZ) are increasingly concerned "that peace will mean an obliteration of the Jewish state through a slow refusal to engage the enemy, a lowered guard and intermarriage." Of course, this – especially intermarriage – has long been a concern of RZ. Moreover, this fear accurately describes the threats inherent in (old school, "secular") Zionists, whose raison d'être has burst, who place the democratic process above the need for a "Jewish" (however, that may be defined) Israel, and for whom resisting intermarriage, assimilation, or even an Arabization or Islamization of Israel through the democratic process, would contradict their core Zionist definition of a democratic, non-Biblically based, Israel. It's increasingly understood that Zionism is finished, and Zionists are today's dinosaurs.
The question then arises, what will replace the peculiarly "Israeli" secular nationalism vacated by the defunct Zionists? What's special, and what will be unique and special, about Israel if it isn't "Jewish"? And the next step – not exactly an answer – has been proposed: post-Zionism.
"In essence, post-Zionism asserts that the task of saving the world's Jews by bringing them to their homeland and making it secure is now complete. At the same time, about a sixth of Israel's citizens are not Jewish either because they are Arabs or not-fully-Jewish [non-Jews by Orthodox standards; ybd] refugees from the former Soviet Union. The post-Zionist conclusion is that Israel should reduce or end its Jewish character, changing its identity from 'the Jewish state' to a state of all its citizens…"
"For liberals, the shift in history teaching is welcome news and a necessary preface to peace because it fosters the growth of individualism, which they see as a vital check on group coerciveness… from what… an Israeli political scientist, calls 'the tyranny of supposedly shared meaning.'"
"The struggle between old-style Zionists and the post-Zionists [gee, RZ doesn't even exist?!?; ybd] is, ultimately, a battle over individualism… Some young Israelis are beginning to see their nation as just one among many and the new history only confirms that…"
"Indeed, some Israelis say the future is already here, that their nation, steeped now in consumerism [hedonism; ybd] and cable television, is nearly drained of the shared anti-materialist conviction on which it has survived. While most [?? – unfounded assertion; ybd] hope that by yielding land and ending [assumed] occupation they are sowing further peace and prosperity, some also fear that therein lie the seeds of self-destruction – that the young will lose their commitment to defense. [Those who bother to read newspapers, as the author of this article apparently fails to, are aware that the old – much moreso their young – have already lost their commitment to defense; ybd]
"It is that anxiety that underlies the ferocity of another national debate, over new histories of Zionism and changes in the school curriculum. These revise the standard Zionist self-image – the righteous, selfless pioneer – in favor of a more complicated and less heroic one. They portray early [anti-Biblical; ybd] Zionists both as humans drawn into war's inhumanity, and as European colonialists.
"This fight is in the background as Israel stakes out a new strategy for confronting Syria and Lebanon; it illustrates a deep internal conflict over whether Israelis today see themselves as having a special mission or, after centuries of discrimination, should only seek "normality." …
"The contested revisionism, known as 'new history,' [known better as 'post-Zionist revisionist history'; ybd] presents evidence of deliberate mistreatment and expulsion of ["Palestinians"] as well as efforts to block diplomatic arrangements with the surrounding states while publicly proclaiming a thirst for peace…
"Evidence of early misdeeds began piling up from newly-opened state archives in the 1980's. When published, the revelations were controversial. But it was the addition of such notions to ninth grade textbooks this past year that created a storm. Some Israelis say that teaching the young about early Zionist sins is the start of mass suicide."
Well, yes and no. The absurd notion that Israel must protect her children from truth is not only contrary to
"'The Jews of Israel are an exhausted people, confused and without direction,' writes Yoram Hazony, a young, conservative Israeli analyst…" This is true of Zionists. I think it will prove to be equally true of the very post-Zionist liberals who are revising Israel's history. They have no more purpose or relevance than the Zionists. That isn't, however, even remotely true of RZ, nor can it ever be true of RZ.
 |
|
 |