On Non-Zionism: Between Bradley Burston and Philip Weiss (and with Dimi Reider)

Huh.

The post I wrote for HuffPo, on Susya, the South Sudanese and why Israel is not a “Jewish State” in any value-based or valuable way, was picked up and quoted at length by two influential writers in the liberal/leftist American-Jewish Israel-Palestine discourse, Haaretz’s Bradley Burston, a Liberal Zionist, and Mondoweiss’ Philip Weiss, an anti-Zionist. Interestingly, both had positive things to say about my piece, and for both it fit within their larger ideological framework. Interestingly, I disagree with both of them, on certain points, and would say that my work and beliefs actually falls pretty squarely between Burstonian Liberal Zionism and Weissian anti-Zionism.

The piece by Bradley Burston (whose writing was very influential in my personal process, and thus it was very moving to have him quote my article, even if I now hold somewhat left of him) was entitled as follows: “A Jewish heart vs. a Jewish state: Choose the first – or we will lose both.” The piece was written beautifully, and honestly, but I disagreed with its framing before I even got past the title: I don’t think a Jewish State is something to aim or hope for. I want an Israeli State, side by side with a Palestinian State, or some other more creative arrangement. I have ceased to believe that a “Jewish State,” as it is currently conceived of, will ever be able to treat non-Jewish Israelis as full equals.

On the other hand, Weiss reposted my article as “a sharply anti-Zionist piece” which showed that US consensus on “the issue” is starting to crumble. I agree with the latter assertion, and am thankful that Weiss quoted my piece at length and accurately, but I see neither my piece nor my work in general as “sharply anti-Zionist.” I am anti-government, and am against what the State of Israel has become, but I am not an anti-Zionist. I have too much empathy with the roots of Zionism (see cartoon at the bottom of this post)* and too much suspicion that many anti-Zionists are simply advocating for the situation to be reversed (that is: a single state of Palestine. “Good luck, Jewish minority. Not our problem”).

Seeing my piece thus reposted, both times in ways that did not fully sit well with me, helped me clarify why “Non-Zionism” is the most accurate and honest term for where I fall on this spectrum (I have been thinking about this term for a while now, since one of my favorite bloggers and commentators, Dimi Reider, wrote a brilliant piece on why he is a non-Zionist rather than an anti-Zionist).

Dimi’s post immediately caught my attention with its preamble on what he means by Zionism, in which he writes that he does not align “the most common version of Zionism, which today defines Israeli policies, and, consequently, the anti-Zionist opposition,” but might resonate with the sort of Zionism I most believed [and believe] in, Martin Buber-ian Zionism which, as I see it, advocates for a spiritual Zionism, based in justice, and does not see a “Jewish State” as a goal. In fact, Buber saw such a pursuit as wrongheaded in the years leading up to 1948, and advocated actively for a binational Zionism, although after the war, Buber wrote that he would not seek to dismantle the State, but rather to try to make it the best it could be, and advocated, for the remainder of his life, for a federation between Israel its Arab neighbors.

It’s pretty clear to anyone who reads my work (or Dimi’s, I’d say) why I am not a supporter of Zionism-qua-Israeli Policy. And while I respect folks like Bradley Burston, I think they are mistaken to [still] believe that Zionism or a Jewish State can truly treat Israel’s Palestinian minority fairly and equally (a conclusion that was cemented in the process of making this film on identity in the Palestinian-Israeli villages of Deir al-Assad/Bineh/Majd al-Krum). What is less clear for many is why I do not call myself an anti-Zionist. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, I’ll quote from Dimi’s piece, at length, and then speak briefly to why it resonated:

When asked about the future, many anti-Zionists present a curiously frank mirror image of Zionist Israel: A democratic state called Palestine in which the rights of the Jews will “obviously” be preserved. Most Israeli Jews would be honest enough to know just what such promises are worth, having made and broken them themselves for the past sixty years or so…

…for Israelis, Zionism runs much deeper than system of governance. They know, and they are right, that neither they nor their parents and grandparents would have been here if it wasn’t for the Zionist enterprise. To a non-Israeli and any Israelis who have transcended their Zionist upbringing (not just family, but kindergarden, school, media, army, friends), anti-Zionism may mean opposition to an ideology complicit of ethnic cleansing, military occupation and wanton discrimination; they may (or may not) have nothing against the actual Israeli Jews going on to live here, so long as the latter forsake their claim to hegemony. But to most if not all Israeli ears, anti-Zionism is something monolithic absolute. To them, it sounds not like a proposal for a different and more equitable future, but as mocking, taunting and jarring denial of everything that they are: Their present, their language, their fears and their love for the only land they ever knew; the future they imagine for themselves and for their children, their past, their parents’ love, their grandparents arrival to, adoption of and construction of a new homeland. Tell an Israeli you’re an anti-Zionist, and he’ll hear: “You are a liar; your parents are liars; your grandparents are liars; and I don’t stop you from lying, you’ll produce lying children who’ll continue to lie. I don’t care if you’re afraid – your fear is also a lie; I want you to go away, or at least to shut up and be grateful you’re allowed to stay here, preferably while paying penance for your parents’ and grandparents’ sins.”

Often, anti-Zionism goes hand in hand with Palestinian Nationalism. I have sympathy for that movement as well, clearly, but I am not a Palestinian Nationalist, and refuse to replace my former Israeli Nationalism with a Palestinian one, under the bizarre and self-deceiving illusion that some manage to hold that Palestinian Nationalism would be any “better” if it attains hegemony, that Jews would be treated superbly in Palestine. Nationalism is Nationalism is Nationalism. Period. I understand why it is important for many, but I also understand the devastating damage it has done to this world in general and to this place in particular, and thus cannot and will not wave any Nation’s flag. For this place to become better, we need something outside of the [largely oxymoronic] binary of “whose Nationalism is more moral.” Again, Dimi puts it beautifully:

“The only legitimate alternatives to Jewish-Israeli hegemony in Palestine are such that nevertheless will not allow the physical, cultural or political removal of Israeli Jews from the scene… Merely reflecting back an inversion of every Zionist tenet and argument leaves advocates of change playing by the same old Zionist-nationalist rules, and proving the formula they seek to disprove. The change that needs to happen here is too great, and possibilities outside this dichotomy are too vast, for us keep clutching to that old pro/anti see-saw. New approaches must be found – and they cannot be found through mere contrarianism.”

So. I appreciate both Philip and Bradley’s reposting of my piece, and I respectfully disagree with parts of what each has to say, in this context and others. Somewhere between Liberal Zionism and anti-Zionism, I am, in the year 2012, a Non-Zionist (and a Buberian Zionist, a few days a month).

—

Cartoon explaining what I see as one of the major moral differences between colonialism and early Zionism:

In case that wasn’t 100% clear, I’ll spell it out. Colonialism can be summed up the parable of a person swimming in her native lake, and someone else coming from the outside, stepping on her head, and stealing her resources (land, water, people, dignity).

On the other hand, Zionism also has the context of native person swimming, and outside person coming in and stepping on her head, but there is the moral difference- and in my mind, this is major, except in one context (spelled out below)- in that the outsider comes in not primarily to steal resources, but rather because she is afraid (justifiedly so) that she will drown in her home-river.

Two major caveats to the cartoon’s formula:

A. This is the exception to the moral difference being “major:” for Palestinians, the result is exactly the same, even if most Zionists came out of fear rather than greed, the Palestinians were stepped on and oppressed by [most of] the early Zionist leaders, just the same.

B. Comparing the Zionist settlement enterprise post-67, and especially today, to colonialism is, in my mind and according to this formula, entirely fair. The settlements and their ideological leaders are not there because of any fear-of-death or desperation, they are there for resources, of which “religious devotion” is certainly one, and so are minerals and land and so on.

13Comments

Add yours

1

Facing the Massacre with Eyes Shut Tight (by Idan Landau) | Jewschool on July 15, 2014 at 13:47

[…] My own process, in which I began to shift from a liberal to a leftist, from a Zionist to a non-Zionist, from someone who generally believed Official State narratives to someone who generally rejects […]
2

Facing the Massacre with Eyes Shut Tight (by Idan Landau) | The Leftern Wall on July 15, 2014 at 11:55

[…] My own process, in which I began to shift from a liberal to a leftist, from a Zionist to a non-Zionist, from someone who generally believed Official State narratives to someone who generally rejects […]
3

100,000 (and top ten) | The Leftern Wall on May 13, 2014 at 06:49

[…] 9. On Non-Zionism: Between Bradley Burston and Philip Weiss (and with Dimi Reider) (June 24th, 2012) […]
4

Two Year Blobversary | The Leftern Wall on January 30, 2014 at 16:08

[…] involved with a [successful] campaign to stop the eviction of a Palestinian family in Silwan, reflecting and rereflecting, demonstrating, writing my infamous “Jerusalem” spoken word poem, and […]
5

One Year Blobversary! | The Leftern Wall on January 31, 2013 at 18:45

[…] things I really like about living in Israel and getting thrown out of a settler’s car and Non-Zionism and Two-States verus One. I have written poems about flags and spit poems about […]
6

Jake on June 28, 2012 at 07:54

Yes, and thank you for writing a post that encouraged such a discussion.
7

Moriel Rothman on June 27, 2012 at 17:23

I think I’ll leave it here, and move to coordinating how to hang out with you some time. This is what keeping a blog is good for. Thank you for this discussion.
8

Jake on June 26, 2012 at 13:42

By “Jewish political domination” I mean the creation of a nation-state “for the Jewish people.” I recognize that there are other strains of Zionist thought that advocate alternatives, but their supporters represent such a tiny minority that I tend to ignore them. Perhaps that isn’t fair of me. Either way, it seems to me that we are both opposed to the dominant form of Zionism – Jewish Nationalism – rather than simply unaffiliated with it. So I still think “Anti” is more accurate than “Non,” Though maybe we need to add a qualifier in there.

The Holocaust question is a difficult one because we are unable to measure the viability of alternatives to what actually transpired. Trying to enter and then assimilate into another country probably carried just as much apparent risk as going to Palestine and hoping the Jewish community there would prosper. During and after the 1948 war, however, I certainly hope I would have demanded that the Arab population be welcomed back and fully incorporated into the state building process. I understand the Jewish community using military power to defend itself, but I do not think evicting 750,000 men, women, and children has much at all to do with defense.

I have to admit that my support for the use of the term “anti-Zionist” also has to do with semantics. You, it seems, are asking yourself what kind of language you can sell to the Israelis. I, as someone who wholly identifies with the Palestinian side, am asking myself what kind of language Palestinians will accept. That requires some simplification of the term “Zionist” in both cases. Perhaps I am in fact a “non-Zionist” in its non-nationalist forms, but I still think the “anti” prefix is critical to describing both of our reactions to its predominant nationalist form.

You are right that my last point wasn’t really directed at you, but more at those who are blinded by the academic nature of conversations like this one. I very often find that people construct unrealistic paradigms – such as the Palestinans suddenly gaining the kind of power over Jews that Israelis currently have over Palestinians – and then decide that throwing their full weight behind the Palestinans is really just as bad as supporting Israel. Likewise I think it is important to point out that the irrational fears* Israelis have of the anti-zionist movement should not quiet the call for the end of Zionism (as Jewish Nationalism).

*I say that their fears are irrational because they are out of proportion with the likelihood that frightening outcome will actually transpire. This is the case with most human fears. My point is not to trivialize these people’s feelings, but to recognize that there is little point in trying to address those feelings by changing the nature of resistance.
9

Moriel Rothman on June 25, 2012 at 17:55

Jake,

First off- thank you for such thoughtful comments, again. Seriously, it is refreshing to have such an intelligent and compassionate discussion about such hard issues (esp following the lovely weekend of hate-comments I got..) If I might ask, who are you? (welcome to fb message me if you don’t want it on this blog, but you are clearly someone who thinks about these issues a lot, and seriously and I’d love to link further into your work).

I want to respond to four of your points:

1. “The only way for that will be the case is if the participants first acknowledge that Jewish political domination of Palestine, and the process by which that occurred, is illegitimate”

I am not sure I agree on a historical-consciousness level. I do feel that had I been alive then, I would have joined Buber and Magnes and Arendt and Einstein in their castigation of Jewish-exclusive-nationalism, and advocacy for a binational entity, and I agree that many of the acts done by Israeli forces during ’48 (and, of course, after, esp. post-67, but also during the Sinai Campaign, and Qufr Kassem, and many more) were illegitimate, but I am not sure that I can say that the entire process was illegitimate. Buber et al were Zionists, too. I agree with Buber that Jewish return to Palestine “must not”/should not have come at the expense of a single Arab peasant, but I think that it was legitimate for Jews to return to Palestine. In an effort at historical empathy, I really do get stuck on what I, as imaginary-Zionist-thinker in 1947, propose to the thousands of Holocaust survivors. You?

2. “My feeling is that rejecting anti-Zionism because Jewish Israelis assume that it means the demise of their lifestyle and physical safety actually reaffirms the idea that their lifestyle and and physical safety require Zionism.”
That is a really fascinating point. It certainly resonates in terms of the rest of the work I do (about which I imagine we’d have much overlap, in that many of my allies in many of my struggles are certainly anti-Zionist Palestinians and Israelis (and in other struggles, my allies are indeed Liberal Zionists)). I guess my hesitation goes back to semantics: when I, an Israeli, hear anti-Zionist, something inside of me still hears anti-Zionists, rather than anti-Zionism. And I am not anti-Zionist, even as I am anti-Zionism in its current form.

“We need to remember that there is almost no conceivable scenario in which Palestinians gain enough power to oppress Jews in anywhere near the foreseeable future.”
Great point. You are right. And yet, the fear is real, even if the scenario is hyper-unlikely.
“Fears that that Israeli Jews are going to be either subjugated are forced out by Palestinians are therefore no reason at all withhold support from Palestinians.”

Duh. :) I don’t think that point was really directed towards me. I clearly am not advocating withholding support from Palestinians. The fact that I am a Non-Zionist does not mean that I necessarily expect my Palestinian partners to be (as I said, colonialism and zionism, even if different in my lens, had the same sort of impact on Palestinians and, let’s say, Algerians).

Your turn.
10

Jake on June 25, 2012 at 08:25

There is another point I forgot to include. We need to remember that there is almost no conceivable scenario in which Palestinians gain enough power to oppress Jews in anywhere near the foreseeable future. A one-state scenario could come about by two methods: Agreement between Palestinian and Israeli leaders that plans the formation of a new government, or by a Palestinian civil rights struggle that gives them full rights within the existing Israeli system. In the first scenario Israelis have the ability to reject elements that threaten them. In the second scenario Palestinians are forced to acquire their rights through a slow and tedious process dependent on moral correctness. It will take decades for Israeli Jews to hand over rights that do not threaten them, let alone those that could. Even if Jews end up a political minority, their entrenched control of the Israeli economy will certainly give them leverage for decades to come. That time should be spent on reconciliation.

Fears that that Israeli Jews are going to be either subjugated are forced out by Palestinians are therefore no reason at all withhold support from Palestinians.
11

Jake on June 25, 2012 at 08:11

Moriel, I think it was perhaps unfair of me to call “non-Zionism” apathetic, but I do think it sounds passive. One can be non-religious, for example, while still supporting those who believe in god. My understanding is that you are actively opposed to the nationalist form of Zionism (and that form is nearly unanimous among people who call themselves Zionists), and therefore “anti-Zionist” more accurately describes your position. Similarly, the Harvard One State Conference is inherently anti-Zionist because it promotes a solution that is mutually exclusive with Jewish nationalism. “Non-Zionist” better describes folks who advocate solutions, the current two-state model for example, that are not mutually exclusive with Zionism – people like Hussein Ibish (to the chagrin of many).

While I see post-Zionism as a positive development, I tend to think of it as anti-Zionism without a memory. Jewish Nationalism, as any other ethnic nationalism, was always racist, however sympathetic we may be to the reasons behind it. The cartoon you included illustrates this point well. I think trying to accept it as partly historically legitimate is disingenuous.

My feeling is that rejecting anti-Zionism because Jewish Israelis assume that it means the demise of their lifestyle and physical safety actually reaffirms the idea that their lifestyle and and physical safety require Zionism. Not only does that make them less likely to question Jewish Nationalism, but it indicates to Palestinians their legitimate interests are mutually exclusive with those of Jews. In that way, rejecting anti-Zionism also legitimizes ethnic Palestinian nationalism. The goal should be to further separate Zionism from the parts of life that most Israeli Jews rightfully seek to protect – full and equal political participation, physical security, communities with Jewish character, recognition that those who were born in Israel know no other places as home, etc. Palestinians are much more likely to respect these rights for Jews if we distance them them from the ideology that removed these rights from Palestinians.

I recognize that anti-Zionism occasionally serves as a front for less humanistic ideologies, but I believe that the strongest way to combat that is to enliven the conversation about what the end goal should be. For that conversation to be legitimate it is critical that Palestinians and Israelis enter it not as the occupied and the occupiers, but as equals. The only way for that will be the case is if the participants first acknowledge that Jewish political domination of Palestine, and the process by which that occurred, is illegitimate. Once that happens, Israeli Jews can speak as humans entitled to the same concerns as any other human, not as Israelis who, from the Palestinian perspective, are demanding to keep part of what they stole.
12

Moriel Rothman on June 24, 2012 at 20:13

Jake- thank you for this super thoughtful reply, and I will definitely think about it seriously. I think my question in response to your questions to you might be one of semantics, but semantics shape so much here, no? I guess what I’d ask is why the Harvard Conference is inherently anti-Zionist, rather than Non-Zionist or Post-Zionist (terms that I do not think are apathetic by any means, especially not in the highly-charged and highly Zionist or Anti-Zionist context of israel-palestine in 2012)? I think one can advocate for one state or for two non-ethnically defined states or for the right of return and still have sympathy with where Zionism started from, or with folks who themselves have been raised with Zionism as an important part of their identity. And I think that anti-Zionism, for me, is shaped by its loudest voices, like Zionism, and those voices are often dismissive of what I see (as you mirrored) as very legitimate Jewish fears of what the creation of a Palestine “from the river to the sea” might mean for their future, and their children’s future? I also have often experienced some (NOT ALL) anti-Zionists blurring the line between anti-Zionism, which I see as fully legitimate, even if I do not subscribe to it myself, with anti-Israeli-ism, which is wholly illegitimate and hateful. A final distinction I’d make is between Palestinian and non-Palestinian anti-Zionism. I have a lot more sympathy for the former, and a lot more suspicion of the latter, especially, yes, from many European anti-Zionists I have encountered in my years of work on this issue.
13

Jake on June 24, 2012 at 17:36

Moriel, I enjoyed reading this post as it addressed a number of questions with which I have grappled at one point or another. I very much agree with your conclusion that the solution to the unjust reality Zionism has created is not simply its Palestinian reflection. A state for Palestinians in which Jews are “also welcome to live” sounds to me like a recipe for another unjust reality. The solution is a state (or states) in which the national identity includes all who live there, irrespective of religious or ethnic background. (Forgive me if I oversimplified)

However, I am not sure I think it is appropriate to cast aside “anti-Zionism.” Anti-Zionist has become conflated with one-state Palestinian nationalism. These two ideologies do overlap in the minds of many, as you have highlighted, but they are not one and the same. Instead of replacing it with a term like “non-Zionist,” which sounds apathetic and passive in the face of an ideology that should be resisted, we should seek to better define the paradigm that we believe should replace Zionism. We could identify ourselves as that in addition to being anti-zionist.

Part of the problem, I would argue, is that anti-Zionists focus so much on what they are against (which is important of course), and don’t spend nearly enough time illustrating what they are for. I thought that the One State Conference held at Harvard earlier this year was an example of a healthy departure from this behavior. Rather than seeking to explicate the injustices inherent to Zionism, it sought to present a more just alternative. Such activities are inherently anti-zionist, but could clearly address the concerns of modern Zionists, who, as you explained, see anti-Zionism as an existential threat to every remotely Jewish aspect of their lives.