JANIP

Defending Zionism in a Time of Occupation and Oppression

April 18th, 2007 Posted by Chris

As someone who has emerged in recent years as one of the more prominent academic supporters of Palestinian national rights and critics of Israeli policies and U.S support for the Israeli government, many people are surprised that I am unwilling to categorically denounce Zionism.

I am not at all oblivious to the many crimes committed in the name of Zionism, but there is often real confusion as to how one defines it. Many supporters of the Palestinian cause tend to portray Zionism as its worst historical manifestations (just as many supporters of Israel do the same for Palestinian nationalism). Certainly, if Zionism is defined as an ideology which advocates dispossession, oppression, and racism—which, unfortunately, is how most Palestinians have experienced it—I have no problems calling myself anti-Zionist.However, there is something fundamentally wrong with someone who does not identify with a certain ideology defining what that ideology is. (One can only remember Rev. Pat Robertson’s definition of feminism as an ideology which teaches women to “leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”)

This confusion has been exacerbated by the tendency of some American Zionist leaders to imply that one can only be a true Zionist by blindly supporting Israeli government policies.

What, then, is the nature of Zionism?

The creation of modern Israel was based in part on the premise that only by establishing a Jewish nation-state would Jews be safe from the waves of oppression which had occurred in virtually every country in which they had lived, especially in the West. Ironically, the relationship of Israel to its Western backers, particularly the United States, has actually perpetuated and exacerbated anti-Jewish attitudes (including those on the Left) and has strengthened institutional structures which perpetuate what is commonly known as anti-Semitism.

The modern Zionist movement began at the height of European nationalism. In certain respects, it is ironic that it was not until the Enlightenment—which for the first time allowed Jews to participate in largely Christian societies—that Jewish nationalism came into being. However, while Jews could finally be accepted as part of the larger society under certain conditions, the rise of nationalism led to continued persecution because they could not be accepted as true members of the nation. Jews were still perceived as exiles and thereby of questionable loyalty, as dramatically illustrated in the Dreyfus Affair. Their Jewish identity denied them a nationality of their own. To be treated as equal citizens, Jews had to assimilate, thereby negating many of the cultural and religious aspects of their heritage which made the Jewish identity special. The nation-state, whatever its faults, has been the primary vehicle during this era by which historically oppressed groups have been able to develop and defend autonomous social institutions, which is what made nationalism a largely progressive force; thus, Zionism was born.

Zionism is based in part on the fear of annihilation. Indeed, many of the worst pogroms occurred during the culmination of the Enlightenment. Still, the Jewish community was divided on the question throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The Holocaust vindicated the Zionists throughout most of the Ashkenazi community, in that it demonstrated the extreme vulnerability of Jews as a minority population in the Western world and physically eliminated most of the non-Zionists in Nazi-occupied Europe. The persecution of Jews in the Arab world following the establishment of Israel led the Sephardic community—which had been living in relative security compared to their European counterparts for many centuries—to likewise embrace Zionism and immigrate en masse to the new Jewish state.

The simplest and most accurate way to define Zionism is that of Jewish nationalism. Like any nationalist movement, there are elements ranging from the reactionary to the progressive, and while the former have tended to dominate the Zionist movement, this does not mean that Zionism is in itself illegitimate. Few nations have been created without displacing and subjugating large numbers of indigenous inhabitants, including Britain, France, Japan, and most of today’s “Arab” states. Most of the English-speaking world—the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—was far more brutal and thorough than the Israelis in coming to dominance over the territories they now occupy. This does not make Israeli repression any more legitimate, ongoing policies more acceptable, or the need for a viable Palestinian state less urgent, but the tendency of many to use Israeli policies as the rationale for failing to recognize the legitimacy of Zionism is no more justifiable or practical than using the crimes of terrorists as the rationale for failing to recognize the legitimacy of Palestinian nationalism.

At the same time, it should be recognized that the racism, militarism, and alliance with imperialist Western powers certainly predates Likud dominance of the Zionist movement. Any socialism that focuses exclusively upon the class relations within a particular national group, as demonstrated by Labor Zionism, runs the risk of promoting racism. Indeed, the early Labor Zionists were so obsessed with their immediate goals—the establishment of a socialist Jewish polity in Palestine—they ignored the potential for conflict with Arabs. What mattered was the establishment of a state where Jews would be equal; the fate of non-Jews was not of major concern.

Still, while definitely a minority, the efforts and accomplishments of progressive Zionists, both historically and in the present, should not be underestimated or unappreciated. Had the early protestations of some of the more enlightened socialist Zionists been heard, there would probably have been peace years ago.

Critics of Zionism point out that there is a contradiction between a Jewish state (or any kind of ethnic or religious-identified state) and a liberal or socialist vision of equality. While these contradictions cannot be denied, they are just one of a number of contradictions between professed values faced in this imperfect world, ranging from legalized abortion to affirmative action. This does not mean that these aren’t important principles worth defending despite these internal contradictions, nor does it mean that it is wrong to defend solutions that are less-than-perfect but nevertheless better than other alternatives. Indeed, there are contradictions in Palestinian nationalist ideology as well, such as the strongly-held belief in both a pan-Arabism and a distinct Palestinian national identity.

It is tragic in many ways that we live in the era of the nation-state, which helps create just these kinds of contradictions. While the predominance of the nation-state system has been a relatively short epoch in human history and one that is in decline, it will still be with us for another several decades if not centuries and we have to work within it, even as we strive for alternative visions of social organization less prone to mass violence.

Marxists have traditionally rationalized their support of repressive and even reactionary Third World governments on the grounds that nationalist revolution is a necessary requisite for socialist revolution. Fatah, the dominant party of Palestine, would be labeled “bourgeois nationalist” by most Marxists, but nevertheless receives their widespread support. A history of terrorism, large-scale financial support from reactionary Middle Eastern dictatorships, and an absence of any commitment to socialism are troubling to anyone on the Left, yet the primacy of the Palestinians’ national rights is generally viewed as taking precedent over these clear ideological problems.

Similarly, if Zionism can be seen as its lowest common denominator, Jewish nationalism, there is no reason why it should not receive the same support and recognition by the Left as any other nationalist movements of historically-oppressed peoples.

Zionism was born at a time of ultra-nationalism and militarism in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The continent’s powers were at the peak of their brutal imperialism against the peoples of Africa and Asia and were preparing to slaughter each other as well. With martial and racist values so dominant, it was clearly an inauspicious time to launch a visionary and progressive national movement, particularly when its implementation would later require the utilization of these very elements. Zionism’s early obsession with establishing a state led to a blind nationalism which eclipsed many of the other goals of a Jewish identity. The character of this new Jewish homeland was not given sufficient attention, as the schul was absorbed in this quest, and the consequences of the state’s establishment on the Palestinian population was not given the concern it deserved.

While Zionism may inherently be as valid as other nationalist movements of historically oppressed peoples, its difficulty in being recognized as such by much of the Third World and the international Left can be traced to two major factors: its treatment of the Palestinian population and other Arabs; and its alliance with Western imperialist powers.

In seeking a nationalistic solution to anti-Jewish persecution, Zionism was inherently exclusionary of non-Jews. Virtually every movement by an oppressed group to reclaim its identity from the majority culture has found a need for a degree of separatism, as demonstrated in Western societies by Black Nationalists, radical feminists, and others. While such efforts have often brought charges of “reverse discrimination” and “reactionary segregation,” they are generally seen by the Left to have merit to the degree that they allow for autonomous development in a space relatively free from the oppressive institutions of the broader society.

Given the pervasive insecurity Jews have suffered as a minority in virtually every society, perhaps Zionism can be seen as a kind of global affirmative action. Just as the slogan “I’ll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy” attests to the ongoing need for women’s liberation, I’ll be anti-Zionist when there is no more anti-Semitism.

Still, while nationalist movements based around such a common identity can play an emancipatory role, there are risks that they can emerge not just as a means to an end but as an end in itself, and may fall into a pattern of chauvinism and oppression against still weaker target groups.

While the nation-state is a legitimate vehicle for such autonomous development, the trappings of state power and its coercive mechanisms can exacerbate such risks. This is particularly true when the state is established in an area already inhabited by an oppressed and colonized people. The establishment of Israel in an already inhabited land brought these contradictions to the surface, and the inevitable conflict led to the rise of militaristic and chauvinistic elements in Zionism, even within the movement’s left wing. Nationalism blinded the Zionists to the reality of an Arab Palestine, to the extent that the early Zionist slogan came to be “A land without a people for a people without a land.” Meanwhile, the Palestinians’ own nationalism and the loss of their homeland to foreign conquest has led them to focus upon the crimes committed in the name of Zionism rather than understanding what led to emergence of Zionism itself.

Given the growth of such a nationalist movement, and its culmination into a nation-state on already-inhabited land, the support of outside forces became necessary from the outset. British Prime Minister Lloyd George had wanted to annex Turkish-occupied Palestine since the beginning of World War I, and an alliance with the Zionists seemed a good pretext, so the British government opened up negotiations which led to the Balfour Declaration. European diplomatic support led to the 1947 United Nations partition which legitimized the creation of Israel, while virtually every African and Asian state in the General Assembly voted in opposition. The massive influx of Czech arms to Jewish forces played a crucial role militarily in the subsequent war. British and French arms flowed to Israel during the country’s first two decades and when these European colonial powers sought to block the nationalization of the Suez Canal Company and overthrow Egyptian leader Gamal Abdul Nasser, they called on the Israelis to seize Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula as the pretext for their own invasion.

Subsequent to the 1967 war, the United States has played the role of Israel’s primary backer. Israel has successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as in Palestine. They have kept nationalist governments like Syria in check. Their air force is predominant throughout the region. Israel’s frequent wars have provided battlefield testing for American arms. They have been a conduit for U.S. arms to regimes and movements too unpopular in the United States for openly granting direct military assistance, such as apartheid South Africa, Iran’s mullahs, Guatemala’s juntas, and the Nicaraguan Contras. Israeli military advisors have assisted pro-Western governments and insurgencies. The Mossad and the CIA have cooperated in intelligence gathering and covert operations. The military-industrial complexes of the two countries are tightly intertwined, especially as the United States increases its military presence in the Middle East.

As a result, the United States has been encouraging some of the more chauvinistic and militaristic elements in the Israeli government, and undermining the last vestiges of Labor Zionism’s commitment to socialism, non-alignment, and cooperation with the Third World. As Israel’s military strength and repression of the Palestinians has increased, so has U.S. aid, contradicting the widespread belief that U.S. military assistance is used to defend a threatened and democratic Israel.

One of the more unsettling aspects of U.S. policy is how closely it corresponds with historic anti-Semitism. Throughout Europe in past centuries, the ruling class of a given country would, in return for granting limited religious and cultural autonomy, set up certain individuals in the Jewish community as its visible agents, such as tax collectors and money lenders. When the population would threaten to rise up against the ruling class, the rulers could then blame the Jews, sending the wrath of an exploited people against convenient scapegoats, resulting in the pogroms and other notorious waves of repression which have taken place throughout the Jewish Diaspora.

The idea behind Zionism was to break this cycle through the creation of a Jewish nation-state, where Jews would no longer be dependent on the ruling class of a given country. The tragic irony is that, as a result of Israel’s inability or unwillingness to make peace with its Arab neighbors, the creation of Israel has perpetuated this cycle on a global scale, with Israel being used by Western imperialist powers to maintain their interests in the Middle East. Therefore, one finds autocratic Arab governments and other Third World regimes blaming “Zionism” for their problems rather than the broader exploitative global economic system and their own elites, who benefit from and help perpetuate such a system.

The ramifications of U.S. policy are quite apparent when it comes to the suffering of Palestinians, Lebanese, and other Arabs. But it also has a negative impact on Israel. The late Israeli intellectual Ishawa Leibowitz noted, “The existence of the Jewish people of 60 to 80 generations … was a heroic situation. We never got from the goyish world a cent. We supported ourselves. We maintained our own institutions. Now we have taken three million Jews, gathered them here and turned them over to be parasites—parasites of America. And in some sense we are even the mercenaries of America to fight the wars of what the ruling persons in America consider to be American interests.”

It is important to note that most of the actions of the Israeli government which have brought the most criticism from the world community would not have been possible without the acquiescence and, at times, encouragement, of the United States and other Western powers. This has placed the Zionist movement in a serious dilemma. Through a combination of historical circumstances—however legitimate the goals of national self-determination for the Jewish people may have been—it has inexorably been linked in the eyes of most of the world as a neo-colonial movement backed by Western imperialism, and a major obstacle to the national liberation of Arab peoples.

Anti-Semitism has been called “a fool’s socialism,” in that it often takes on populist rhetoric in support of economic justice against capitalist exploitation, yet focuses upon an exaggerated view of the power and influence of a tiny sub-segment of the ruling class.

In a similar way, anti-Zionism may be a “fool’s anti-imperialism,” where Jewish nationalism itself is erroneously seen as the problem rather than the alliance its leaders have made with exploitative Western interests.

This is why it is often hard to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate criticism of Israel. For example, when I overhear a conversation about oppressive policies of the Israeli government, I am initially concerned—even if I agree with everything they are saying—about what is actually motivating their opposition. Is it part of a universal commitment for human rights, international law, self-determination, and justice? Or are Israeli policies being used simply an excuse to bash the world’s only Jewish state?

If there was only one black state in the world, certainly most African-Americans and many white liberals would be similarly sensitive to criticism of that government’s policies, even if justified, out of a fear that the criticism was an excuse for racism.

This has led many Jews and others sensitive to the pervasiveness of anti-Semitism to be reluctant to publicly criticize Israeli policies for fear it would encourage such bigotry. The effect, however, could be just the opposite. If those of us who do care about Israel’s security do not criticize Israeli actions for the right reasons, it will be left to the Pat Buchanans and David Dukes to criticize Israel for the wrong reasons. And, the more universal Jewish support is for what are clearly illegal and unethical policies by the Israeli government, the more Jews as a whole will be blamed.

Unfortunately, certain right-wing Jewish leaders, both in Israel and the United States, have played on the fears, mistrust, and insecurities of their constituencies and give the false impression that increasing militarism and repression by the state of Israel enhances the security of Jews everywhere. The reality, of course, is just the opposite. Israeli progressives, and even a growing number of non-ideological pragmatists, stress that Israeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent. These Israelis argue that Israel will be far more secure with a viable demilitarized Palestinian state on its borders than trying to suppress nearly two million people in the Occupied Territories engaged in open rebellion.

Only when Israel sees it future with the Third World—made necessary by its geography, its Semitic language and culture, its sizable Sephardic population, and the Jews’ history of exploitation by the Europeans—will Israel end its isolation and find the real security that it has been missing. Many of the so-called “supporters of Israel” in American politics are actually making Israel vulnerable by tying its future to an imperial agenda, and blocking its more natural alliance with the world’s Afro-Asian majority. The combination of Israeli technology, Palestinian industriousness and entrepreneurship, and Arabian oil wealth could result in an economic, political, and social transformation of the Middle East which would be highly beneficial to the region’s inhabitants, but not necessarily to certain elites in the United States and other Western nations who profit enormously from the continued divisions between these Semitic peoples. Meanwhile, Israeli leaders and their counterparts in many American Zionist organizations are repeating the historic error of trading short-term benefits for their people at the risk of long-term security.

This cycle can only be broken when current American policy is effectively challenged, and Israelis and Palestinians will finally be able to settle their differences among themselves and join together in liberating the Middle East from both Western imperialism and their own short-sighted rulers.

- Stephen Zunes
Stephen Zunes is a professor of Politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco and the author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage Press, 2003).

[Originally published in Tikkun, March-April 2004.]
http://tikkun.org/archive/backissues/xtik0403/israel/040313b.html/view?searchterm=defending%20zionism

Entry Filed under: Online Community