Zionism's future?
 

When I was a toddler and a child my mother (I was the oldest so got the best of her parenting) nourished my little spongy and growing brain with exciting tales of the Israelites, God's chosen people, and their miraculous conquest of Canaan, defeats of the Phillistines and other invaders with God's awesome intervention, etc. Ultimately the winding, fantastic journey she took me on passed through scenes of upspeakable tragedy, the Jews finally liquidated and scatterted by world powers such as the Assyrians and Romans, in the end even as the Jews failed to recognize their Messiah who appeared right under their noses, and Nazi concentration concentration camps. But finally came the miracle of the Jewish re-conquest of Canaan in the "latter days," the six-day war, and the worldwide phenomenon of Jews "gathering" in Israel. And she showed me those Isaiah passages that seemed to prophesy this very thing happening! (Yes, this was a lot for a little guy to process and she has expressed some regret about it. But I disagree.)

Anyhow, this formative experience has always ingrained in me a deeply felt support for the state of Israel. I have even been sympathetic to the idea of "Zionism," which, it has seemed to me may be a necessary element for Israel's survival. But as I have grown more mature I have taken a more nuanced view. The current Iraq war is part of this, since we are there, and regrettably so, partly for Israel's security. I think it's impossible for anyone sensitive to the miracle of republican governemnt and our great pluralist culture not to feel ambivalence toward Zionism. On one hand, Israel is the only democratic regime in the Middle East, and Jewish culture has a great tradition of intellecutallism, dialogue, and debate. On the other hand, the very idea of Zionism seems to me inseparable from theocracy, and Israel is always in danger of falling into the thrall of its extreme elements, who aren't all that different from many of the Jihadists nearby. Anyway, it's fair to ask how far is it reasonable to carry a founding myth as justification not ony for a nation's very existence but also for insipient theocracy, and hard line positions in geopolitics that threaten the security of the entire West.

These thoughts, it turns out, are tormenting not only me but some of the prominent descendants of old stock Israeli "pioneer" families. And the very emergence of this kind of dissent among leading Isralis themselves is terrifying to many Israelis because for them apostacy means literally rejection of Zionism, and ergo possibly an end to even the idea of Israel. A couple of weeks ago The New Yorker published this interesting article, aptly titled "The Apostate" (I don't agree with many of the featured apostate's criticisms of Israel). The featured apostate is a former leading presidential candidate in Israel and, amazingly, remains a not only viable but influential political figure in Israel, and a likely future presidential candidate.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_remnick

From what I understand most of the original zionists weren't practicing or believing Jews. They believed in their people and having a homeland, obviously, but they weren't really believers in a religious sense.

This is how I remember it as well. Theodore Herzl made a cultural and political case for Israel, not a religious one. That's not to say he foresaw an irreligious Israel, just that his ideology was not founded in religious orthodoxy.

I'm not sure a specific cultural tradition, rooted firmly in religious tradition, as predicate for a nation's character raises any different set of issues than religious tradition per se functioning as such. I'm not sure the distinction between culture and religion in this context is even meaningful. My sense is it insn't. (I've always said if you have issues with Mormon culture you may be on the road to apostasy if not already there.)

I know some secular Jews who would disagree with you. I won't argue that the lines have become blurred over centuries, but there are plenty of Zionist secular Jews--those who want the culture but couldn't be called observant.

This line bothers me. Let's say the "founding myth" is unreasonable .... what then, SU? Can you formulate a new rationale for the nation of Israel, or do we extract them from the Holy Land?

I think we are saying the same thing, or at least compatible things.

It's a rhetorical question. I'm not for extracting them from the Holy Land.

I've not had the Jews return to Israel engrained within me, as I grew up in more of an agnostic household, and did not hear the stories of religion in my youth.

In fact, we recounted the Balfour Amendment while I was young and often lamented that the Jews did not accept the land in South America, instead of forcing themselves into their historical homeland. I wonder how much better the world would be if the Jews had forged a successful, republican government in an area where their existence would not have been threatened on a daily basis. Zionism would not be the safety valve for repressive Islamic regimes in the Middle East and we might see an entirely different oil culture.

Tex, let me explain the sentence that troubles you a little bit. If an Isreali says to me about the West Bank, "This land is mine, God gave it to me" (as in the theme song to that film Exodus), well, that just isn't enough. I'm going to ask for engagement in more reasoned, policy oriented, empirical discussion. The founding myth is important, but alone isn't enough to justify debatable or risky actions or positions by Israel, domestically and internationally. That's all.

you dont really think that Zionists would be pleased to just own a limited part of the earth with a successful,republican ...blah ..blah sort of government?? do you?? if yes your naiveness is really admirable.

I think Archea is lamenting that that is not the case. He somewhat agrees with you here.