March 4th, 2007
Why Israel’s friends should be outspoken critics of settlements in the West Bank
Israel’s friends are not doing it much good by justifying Israel’s settlements in the West Bank. By so doing they are only helping their opponents in identifying Zionism with settlements, and from there the road to delegitimising the right of Jews to self-determination is short: the occupation cannot, and should not, be justified, and if Zionism is equated with it, than Zionism cannot be justified as well.
The equation is, however, false. Because Zionism and settlements are in sharp opposition to each other. From its inception Zionism was not about redeeming land, it was about the right of all peoples to self-determination… (read the full piece on Ali Miraj’s - a British Muslim memeber of the conservative party - blog, here).
March 5th, 2007 at 10:59 am
You are correct that placing settlement as a value above all else is certainly not in line with Zionism. Yet I think settling land and a pioneering spirit was certainly a major aspect of Zionism for the first half of this century, and is still extant today, albeit in a more toned-down form for non-settlers (settlers in this case meaning those aggressively building in Yehuda v’Shomron).
Do you deny that there was a fairly significant imperative to move to Israel, acquire land, and create vibrant Jewish settlements? Hell, I was raised on old Zionist literature and songs (my grandparents are card-carrying Labor Zionists), and pretty much all of it either focuses on agriculture, social imperatives, or land/pioneering. Yes, perhaps that higher policy thinkers in Zionism realized this was all part of a strategy to create a strong, viable, self-determining Jewish state… but that hardly means that Zionism didn’t include its heavily stressed methodology of settling the land.
Current day settlers in the West Bank feel that they are only continuing that tradition. They are taking the place of traditional border communities, in providing safety for Israelis further into the heart of Israel (an argument that was previously advanced by the Israeli government), they are redeeming land they see to be barren and unused, etc.
Oh, sure, there are settlements that violate these ideas… and we can certainly argue about whether settlements actually are doing any good on a larger perspective. I’m skeptical about many of them, myself. Nonetheless, the point I’m trying to make is that the motivations of settlers are not necessarily at odds with the tenets of Zionism.
I’m personally troubled by all of the people who seem intent on restricting the definition of Zionism to include their particular world-view. On the right, settlers feel they are the true successors to Zionism, and everyone else (particularly leftists) is accused of post-Zionism or whatever the terms are. On the left, people like to argue that settlers are perverting Zionism for other ends.
While I admit there is some validity to both of these arguments, at least for some members of each side, I feel that we should try not to be so exclusionary in our vision of Zionism. Does each brand truly believe that they want to improve and strengthen the Jewish state? Yes! Then let us focus upon our points of agreement, and try to hash out where our ideas on implementation and the best way to achieve Zionist goals can reach a compromise. Simply saying ‘oh, group X isn’t Zionist’ is a good way to alienate said group, and completely eliminates any chance of accord. Now is that a Zionist way to achieve Jewish unity in a Jewish state? I think not.
March 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
its not about occupation, or zionism. Zionists didn’t attack all thoes Arab countries. They wanted and still want to destroy Israel. They attacked Israel and lost west bank and Gaza. now if they get it back they will again attack Israel, having new strategic bases. its about defending the country.Arabs got the Gaza, they brought weapons and katyushas there to use againt Israel. If they get west bank, they will bring another war.
April 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 am
The linked site is closed. Anyway, your proposition needs proving, and although I haven’t as yet finished your recent book, to say that Zionism is solely about self-determination is problematic.
If I can “self-determinate”, why can’t I say that the current state of Israel is the fulfillment of the vision of the prophets and the principles of Judaism as an ethnic-religious community? Just because secularists led the Zionist movement means that no one else can define Zionism in another, more traditional fashion?
And while you do deride the dualism of the Jewish residents of Yesha to argue both ideology and security, the fact of the matter is that without the territory of Judea and Samaria, the physical future of the state (forget about the kulterkampf, etc.) is unassured. To evacuate us from Yesha will not improve Israel’s defense ability unless, of course, you argue that if all Jews have to leave Yesha, then perhaps all Arabs need move to the new “Palestine”? I am not for that and I doubt if you would be. If so, the internal demographic probelm of Israel in its pre-67 borders bodes no better a future in the long run without Yesha.