Jonathan Iwry | Reclaiming Zionism

The Faithless Quaker | We shouldn’t apologize for Zionism; what we should do is reclaim the word

By Jonathan Iwry 11/16/14 11:20pm

I t w as due to a strange series of events that I found myself, about two years ago, dressed up at an American Israel Political Action Committee policy conference. There, conservative pundit Frank Luntz suggested that advocates of Israel cease to defend “Zionism” in political arguments. He claimed that it is too late for us to defend the word; rather than trying to bring it back, we should just give it up.

While Luntz is right about the word’s urgent condition, I disagree that we should surrender. It’s not our fault that such a rich and important concept has been misappropriated. If anything, I think it’s our responsibility to take it back.

You see, “Zionism” has suffered an unfortunate makeover over the last couple of decades. Where it was once a proud expression of a comprehensive ideology, it has now been cheapened to a simple platitude. “Activists” use it interchangeably with “racism,” “colonialism,” “fascism” and so on. It even enjoys regular comparison with Nazism. I doubt whether its appropriators really understand what it means.

Zionism is not racism. It is a collection of beliefs sharing the largely uncontroversial idea that the Jewish people are entitled to self-determination. While its founder, Theodor Herzl , conceived of a Jewish homeland amid Germany’s romanticization of national identity, Zionism is largely considered a “soft” form of nationalism — one that is less concerned with the strict notion of a fatherland than with the general preservation of Jewish identity in its many forms.

Not all Zionists are necessarily enthusiastic about an independent Jewish state. One of the most famous Zionist figures, Ahad Ha-am , wrote that the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East would be impractical and only put the Jews at further risk. He envisioned a home not of land, but of ideas — a distinct, self-sufficient community rooted in Jewish thought and expression.

Another prominent “cultural Zionist” was Eliezer Ben-Yehuda , the linguist responsible for reviving Hebrew as a spoken language. Though it has become something of a stereotype for social justice institutions to protest Israel, those with any interest in the diversity of religious and ethnic culture actually have Zionism to thank.

There’s nothing intrinsically reprehensible about the idea that the Jews deserve some type of sovereignty. Is it really such a radical idea that a group of people oppressed throughout history might finally deserve a chance at self-determination? Some of us might take issue with the overrepresentation of religious orthodoxy in Israel’s parliament or with the expansion of settlements in Palestinian territory, but that still shouldn’t invalidate the general tenets of zionism.

Perhaps the strongest counter is that any particular treatment of the Jews amounts to favoritism and that a liberal democratic state should be enough to guarantee the political protection of all people, regardless of identity. I’m partial to that ideal, but it’s just not realistic. Every attempt at including Jews into the modern state and protecting them has failed and, less than a century ago, that failure culminated in the atrocities of the Holocaust — an event that is mocked and invoked regularly by the same mobs that condemn all Zionists compulsively.

This kind of fervent reductionism tends to reflect an unwillingness to recognize the other side — a closed-mindedness that goes hand in hand with radicalism and violence. Not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, but at a time in which anti-Israel protests often erupt into chants to “gas the Jews,” it’s hard to believe that those who are most viciously outspoken against Israel are guided by reason.

I should be able to identify as a Zionist without being called a fascist. I should also be able to criticize particular policies by the Israeli government without being anti-Zionism. As the debate stands, it’s all or nothing. It’s inaccurate and unfair to those of us who are looking for a middle ground. To put it simply, it’s unreasonable.

I urge my peers not to deal in absolutes. We can and should keep a critical eye to Israel’s government — as to all governments — but let’s ensure that our thinking is equally critical. The concept of Zionism is too broad to be used as a catchall for crude attempts at political protest — I don’t want to surrender its name to fanaticism.

I am a secular, liberal Zionist. I have no reason to be ashamed.

Jonathan Iwry is a 2014 College graduate from Potomac, Md. His email address is jon.iwry@gmail.com. “The Faithless Quaker” appears every Monday.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.