From Russia with Hate

A Mission to Rescue

Zionism Then and Now

Skull Find Helps Solve Evolutionary Puzzle

Children's Books Gain Major Attention

Early 20th century wall carpet from Persia or Palestine. The Dr. Uriel Federbrush Collection, New York

Theodor Herzl, 1904:
"I believe that Zionism will not cease to be our ideal even after we come to settle in the land of our forefathers in Eretz Israel, for within the Zionist idea is contained the aspiration to moral and spiritual perfection."

On the eve of the 100-year anniversary of the first Zionist Congress at Basel, TAU News asked six TAU professors to examine the relevance of Herzl's prophecy to world Jewry today.

TAU News: On its hundredth anniversary, does Zionism have a purely symbolic significance or is it still relevant as a central concept for the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora?

Prof. Anita Shapira: "As an ideology which has successfully implemented its main objectives in the founding of a sovereign Jewish state, Zionism is increasingly losing its relevance for Jews living in Israel. For them, Zionism is no longer an ideology, but a way of life, and should be substituted by the contemporary concept of Israeli patriotism. For Jews in the Diaspora, who seek a focus for their Jewish identity, Zionism is the ideology by which they maintain their links with the Jewish people. Therefore, Zionism is still of vital importance in safeguarding the identity of the Jewish people as a whole and in reflecting Jewish solidarity, although more so outside of Israel than within."

Prof. Yosef Gorny: "Historically, the Zionist movement encompassed all sectors of the Jewish people apart from the most extreme elements. Zionism emphasized the totality of the Jewish people and represented their overall interests. It succeeded in preserving this relative unity for over 50 years, within the framework of one organization.
Paradoxically, the need to unite the Jewish nation is far more relevant today than ever before.
"In the past, the majority of Jews were observant and, with the exception of small groups, lived outside the mainstream of non-Jewish society. This is no longer the case. Today, the majority of the Jewish people are culturally and economically integrated into non-Jewish society, and as a result they are divided along a number of lines: between Jews in Israel and the Diaspora; between observant and secular; and between four main streams of religious practice - Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox, Conservative and Reform.
"The weakened status of Zionism today, moreover, has created a dynamic of assimilation and disintegration among the Jewish people. In theory, at least, Zionism is the only common ideal by which the Jewish people can continue to coexist together."

Prof. Yehuda Nini: "No nationalist movement of the twentieth century has been as successful as Zionism in achieving its major goal - the establishment of a sovereign state, and the successful, if difficult, absorption of diverse Jewish communities into Israel. The strength of the Zionist movement, however, lies in the fact that from the outset it was founded as a national rescue movement. The Zionist movement saw the danger of annihilation threatening entire Jewish populations, and felt that it was imperative to create the means to save them. These means were only partially successful since it was not within Zionism's power to stop the Nazi death machine, but it did succeed in providing shelter for a majority of the survivors of the Holocaust, and a home for many endangered Jewish communities.
"The success of Zionism as a national rescue movement proved to be its very weakness. Whereas a national rescue movement resulted in ethical and cultural pluralism in Israeli society, a national liberation movement would have forged cultural values and symbols which could bind the entire nation. Since the goal of the Zionist movement was to rescue the Jewish people, and not only to redeem them spiritually, it set aside the struggle over the nation's cultural values, fearing that this would weaken its goal of providing a safe haven for the Jewish people.
"Today, given the predominant belief that danger no longer threatens any of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora, the State of Israel has taken the place of the Zionist movement as an alternative doctrine. Today, Zionism serves only as a point of dispute between those demanding the Land of Israel in its entirety and those who are prepared to give up, with a heavy heart, parts of the Land of Israel, for the spiritual and moral strengthening of the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world. Today, Zionism does not even pretend to serve as a unifying symbol. This is the price that was paid for Zionism's emphasis on national rescue at the expense of national liberation."

Prof. Eli Barnavi: "In comparison to other nationalist movements which have attained their goals, Zionism has succeeded better than most: a Jewish state was indeed established, was recognized by the community of nations and has withstood the test of survival. Admittedly, this state did not bring about the end of the Diaspora, as its founding fathers had hoped for; but it has ingathered a large portion of the Jewish people from around the world, has offered the Jews, for the first time, a true choice, and has become the undisputed world center of Jewish life. Despite the hardships inherent in the painful process of nation-building, a singular nation has been created here, with its own living and vibrant national culture.
"It was, however, the very success of Zionism that harmed its effectiveness as an ideology, namely its mobilizing power. Revolutionary fervor has waned, Zionism has become a profession, and its ideals - mere slogans for use by bureaucrats and political bosses. In the words of Charles Peguy, mysticism, as always, has degenerated into politics. This process was inevitable, and to a certain extent welcome, but it has left Zionism in the hands of neo-Zionists, most of them religious fundamentalists, who in retrospect taint the entire Jewish nationalist movement.
"Zionism is thus still relevant to the struggle over the future nature of the State, between its two opposing interpretations: the classic nationalist view, inspired by socialism or liberalism; and the nationalist-religious view, based on a messianic reading of Jewish history.
"Finally, Zionism is still relevant outwardly as well, as the only common denominator of Israel and the Diaspora. For in the absence of any other cementing factor, Zionism, although devoid of its practical imperative - the imperative of aliyah - is still what holds together the two branches of the Jewish people."

Prof. Yoseph Ben-Shlomo: "From its very inception, there were two distinct interpretations of Zionism. One perceived Zionism as a national liberation movement whose aim was to fulfill the longing of the Jewish people to return to the historic Land of Israel. The other perceived Zionism as a territorialist view aimed at the normalization of the Jewish people in a country of its own, which would act as a safe haven from persecution and pogroms.
"The Zionist movement founded by Herzl, Pinsker and others did not insist that the Jewish state be located in the Land of Israel. However, it became clear later to both Herzl and Pinsker that the Zionist ideology would gain more support if it tapped the historic yearnings of Jews for their ancestral land. Thus the major identification of Zionism was with the Return to Zion, not just with the idea of self-determination in a political state, and this is why Zionism succeeded more than any other liberation movement of its time.
"Having defined the two classic interpretations of Zionism, it is possible to address Zionism's significance today. If we accept the territorialist approach, then Zionism in the State of Israel has now served its purpose and has no further relevance for the Jewish people other than in regard to the Law of Return. If we accept the interpretation of Zionism as the Return to Zion, then Zionism was only relevant to the Jewish people up until the Oslo Accords. The concept of the Land of Israel died at Oslo, because the Accords made no outright reference to the Jewish people's historic rights to the Land of Israel, only to the modern State of Israel. The conflict is therefore between the State and the Land. I prefer to support the concept of the Land of Israel, since it is not a political, but rather an historical entity."

Prof. Shlomo Ben-Ami: "In its hundredth year, the term Zionism has been set off in quotation marks by many people. Zionism's relevance for the Jewish people in Israel and throughout the world has not declined; it has simply taken on a new form and is providing new challenges. No revolutionary concept in history - either national or social, and Zionism was both- is impervious to changes of emphasis and content. The Zionism of 1897 was not the Zionism of 1947, and that of 1947 is not the Zionism of 1997. The enigma lies in identifying the renewed challenges facing the Jewish nationalist concept as embodied in the State of Israel on the threshold of the third millennium, and the jubilee year of the establishment of the State. The same is true with regard to the Jewish Diaspora.
"The essence of the Zionist concept was based on the dream of the return to Zion and dissolution of the Diaspora. Today, this concept of Zionism will continue to be relevant if we invest it with new dynamism. Zionism in the year 2000 means intensifying the absorption of those waves of immigration that continue to constitute the fringes of society; Zionism means turning our attention to developing the last reserves of land and the expanse of the Negev - symbol of a renewed Zionist vision.
"Zionism means renewing the vitality of social groups which have sunk into moral apathy; Zionism is locating new social utopias based on solidarity and communal principles; Zionism is building an autonomous Israeli culture based on the different traditions of Israel and its ethnic communities, which, as we know, was not the prevailing priority of Zionism at the time of the founding of the State, while finding common ground in the democratic values and absolute symbols of Israeli sovereignty; Zionism means finding a compromise between a Jewish state and the principles of a civic social state, in which the rights of the citizen - Jew and Arab - do not derive from his or her obligations. Zionism means turning our attention to the Jews of the Diaspora, helping them maintain their Jewish identity and affinity with Israel, lest this affinity develop into something lacking moral or historical perspectives, something resembling the attitude of the Italians in the United States towards Italy. Zionism is a continuous struggle for uniqueness."

The Daughter of Zion Greeting card for the New Year, Germany
c.1910. The Ilan Roth collection, Herzliya

TAU News: What is the significance of post-Zionism in our times?

Prof. Ben-Ami: Behind every "ism" preceded by a "post" - lies an anarchist statement. Post-Zionism claims, for example, that there is no further need in Israel for a mobilized society, that Israel can be swallowed up by the Global Village. Since it is basically liberal and not collectivist, post-Zionism is blind to the cultural nuances of Israeli society. The question is: How to create unity out of the Israeli multicultural mosaic of differences? The State of Israel must remain unique, otherwise it could become a Singapore of Hebrew-speakers.
If, on the other hand, post-Zionism means the integration of Israeli society into the world, into a free market economy, "a new Middle East" - values well worth supporting - the question arises, what is the Israeli nature of this society, and what is the renewed identity of the Zionist enterprise? Israel must aspire to some degree of cooperation with the countries of the region, while understanding that the common denominator of regional communities is not just joint economic policy. Europe, with its shared musical heritage, Gothic churches and historical memories, will exist forever even without the European Union. There are great cultural and political differences between Israel and the Arab world, on the other hand; therefore, the borders of the new Middle East still need to be defined. Zionism must make its position known on the definition of the differences, which is, in fact, a definition of the unique nature of Israel. This is what post-Zionism is trying to blur. It has no coherent concept of the image of the State of Israel and of Israeli society.

Prof. Ben-Shlomo: Post-Zionism today is an outgrowth of the "territorialist" Zionist approach which would have accepted a Jewish state in Uganda or Argentina. According to the post-Zionists, the State of Israel was established by European colonialists at the expense of the Palestinian people. Today the State is therefore a political reality which cannot be denied. It is not the Land of Israel which is at the center of their historic perception, but rather the modern State of Israel.

Prof. Barnavi: As far as I understand this rather vague concept, it means precisely this: accepting the fact that successful ideologies end up losing their rallying power. The key word is "normalization" - the highest aspiration of the founders of the Jewish national movement. The post-Zionist looks at Israeli society, with its modern way of life and its hedonistic behavior, and states that the longed-for normalization has indeed been achieved. Undoubtedly, there is an element of truth in this, but such an optimistic conclusion seems premature.

Prof. Gorny: Post-Zionism can be interpreted in two ways: Positive post-Zionism and negative post-Zionism. Positive post-Zionists believe that Zionism has achieved most of its objectives, perhaps even exceeding them. The State of Israel has been established with the unbelievable number of five million Jewish inhabitants; Hebrew is the language of both the university and the marketplace. These post-Zionists, however, do not believe that nationalist-political movements are eternal - in the same way that religion is - and accept that the state has entered a new era of "normalization" without missions. This is both an intellectual approach and one which reflects the popular mood.
Negative post-Zionism, on the other hand, is clearly an anti-Zionist and anti-nationalist ideology. It does not recognize the existence of the Jewish nation in principle, and raises the same claims that were raised against the Zionist movement a century ago. This way of thinking has resulted in a very strange coalition between the Ultra-Orthodox and the extreme left, which regards the existence of the State of Israel as an historical accident. The Ultra-Orthodox do not recognize Israel as a nation and they have always been against encouraging Jewish immigration to Israel - and the radical left-wing concurs. The major factor challenging Zionism today is the Law of Return. The Law of Return is still the clearest sign that the state is a Zionist state - along positive post-Zionist lines.

Prof. Nini: It is very difficult for people to relinquish their ideological beliefs. Followers of classic Zionism, for example, find it hard to come to terms and are even enraged by the so-called "post-Zionists." However, in tracing Jewish history, we can point to many highs and lows of ideological belief, such as the transition from prophecy to the Mishnaic and Talmudic period, to the Gaonic period, to the period of rabbinical literature, and so forth. When the end of an era becomes apparent, there is nothing wrong with declaring it over. This declaration does not have to be formal, but it must offer an ideology which takes into account the preceding weltanschaung. Were post-Zionism to have offered this kind of ideology, based on continuity, there would be nothing wrong with it or the path it has chosen.

Prof. Shapira: The term "post-Zionism" refers to the era that came after the realization of Zionism. In this sense, we are now living in the post-Zionist era. However, post-Zionism is also associated with another concept - post-Modernism. In the same way that post-Modernists criticize contemporary society and its fundamental values, post-Zionism casts doubts on the basic doctrine of Zionism, ascribing no particular value to the very existence of the State and finding fault with the basic idea of a Jewish state.
The post-Zionists believe that Israel should cast off its Jewish superiority, and become a state "for all its citizens." They believe that it is now possible to repeal the Law of Return, which emphasizes the special ethnic connection between the Jewish state and the Jewish people in the Diaspora. For the post-Zionists, there is a contradiction between a democratic state which gives full immigration and citizenship rights to one dominant ethnic factor, while refusing the same rights to other ethnic groups. The post-Zionists are actually a new version of the anti-Zionists of old, but they use new terminology.
If in the 21st century, the citizens of Israel decide to repeal the Law of Return of their own free will, it is their right to do so. Statistically, it is more than likely that by the year 2020 the majority of the world's Jews will be living in Israel. As long as the disappearance of Jewish communities in the Diaspora is not the result of a tragic event such as the Holocaust, it is ultimately the right of each individual to choose whether he wishes to maintain his Jewish identity or not. To quote Ernst Renan, "Nationalism is a daily referendum." However, those who reject Zionism and Jewish nationalism today are still a small minority.

Members of "Daughters of Zion" organization, Dvinsk, Russia, 1904. Labor Archives, Lavon Institute, Tel Aviv

TAU News: How can Zionism bridge the gap between religious and secular Jews in our times?

Prof. Gorny: Today, this is the most crucial question. In the Diaspora, all public Jewish affiliation is religious in some form. In Israel, the problem is more acute, because the split between religious and secular also represents a sharp political division. The fact that the majority of religious voters belong to the right-wing camp adds to this rift. In theory, Zionism is the only pluralistic ideology which can unite Jews of different political and religious inclinations in a common national framework. They are all partners in the Zionist state, and must cooperate - even if only looking out for their own interests.

Prof. Nini: Zionism cannot, nor did it ever, serve to unite the religious and secular. On the contrary, from the outset Zionism created a divide between the two groups. All sectors of the Ultra-Orthodox camp saw Zionism as a negative force, delaying the messianic end of days. The national-religious Zionist camp has recently begun to adopt thought patterns drawn from the world of ultra-Orthodox Jewry with regard to issues of society, democracy, and the rule of law. These attitudes only serve to increase the national-religious messianic fervor. Subsequently, the gap between the religious and secular has widened, and under no circumstances can Zionism serve to bridge the gap between the two camps.

Prof. Shapira: Historically, Zionism was capable of bridging the gap between religious and secular Jews, since many religious groups perceived Zionism as a kind of partial return to the fold by Jews who had assimilated and become secular. This was especially true for the Jews of Eastern Europe with regard to those of the West. Religious Jews within the Zionist movement chose to cooperate with secular Jews, to advance the joint objective of realizing the Zionist dream. Today, the situation is very different. The two camps are more sharply divided, and dialog can no longer be held on the basis of Zionist ideology alone, but rather on the shared perception of citizenship in the State of Israel, and the obligation to abide by the rule of law and democracy in that state.

Prof. Ben-Shlomo: For the religious Jew, it goes without saying that divine command takes precedence over decisions of the Knesset. Nevertheless, we must address the question of how both camps may coexist in the same state, based on some type of shared value system. Rabbi Kook, one of the greatest Jewish philosophers of this century, spent much time reflecting on this question. As an ultra-Orthodox Jew who supported Zionism, he argued that there was a common shared value above all others, one for which even secular Jews were willing to die - the Land of Israel. When the post-Zionists ignore the notion of the Land of Israel, the common ground for a shared existence between religious and secular ceases to exist.

Prof. Ben-Ami: One of the things that Zionism has never grasped is that among Eastern Jewry there is no such concept as "secularism". This is a Western European concept originating in the Enlightenment. There is a gap in understanding between secular and Ultra-Orthodox Jews which I believe is irreconcilable, and bridging it is the hardest task facing us today.
The optimal solution would be the creation of a uniform state religious and secular educational system, which would impart common civic values as well as basic values of Jewish culture and tradition. There is nothing wrong with a secular child learning from Jewish prayer books. But this means that everyone within this general education system would also be exposed to universal values. This is the best way to restrain the fanaticism that is developing in sectors of the religious education system.
In its ruling on the recent controversy over Bar Ilan Street in Jerusalem [Ultra-Orthodox residents campaigned to close the street on the Sabbath], the Israeli Supreme Court of Justice determined that there are some problems which need to be solved outside of the law, by the creation of local social covenants. The citizens of Jerusalem will therefore be the ones who determine the religious status quo in each sector of the city. There will be a culture of municipal ghettos. Zionism is not a magic word. It is a national movement which returned the Jewish nation to its homeland; now mechanisms must be created for living together, and afterwards we can argue over the content. Consensus at the local level - that is the key.

Prof. Bar-Navi: This is exactly what Zionism cannot do. Sweeping ideologies divide, more than unite, their followers. Each interpretation, each "reading" of the ideological platform, has its sect of believers, who hasten to excommunicate all others. The abhorrence and alienation between the political extremes, between the two main interpretations of Zionism in our time, arise precisely from the fact that both define themselves as "Zionist". It would therefore be preferable to abandon any illusion of unity, to come to terms with the ideological strife and to hope that the struggle will not move from the field of ideas into the battlefield. This has already occurred more than once, and the lesson has not been learned.

Drawing on a record of the song "Where Can I Go".
The Ilan Roth collection, Herzlyia

TAU News: How does Zionism relate to the current debate over the land of Israel for one people or two peoples?

Prof. Ben-Shlomo: There is a basic contradiction in this question. Two peoples cannot hold rights to the same land. If the Jews are perceived as colonialists, then they are colonialists in the whole of the Land of Israel, not just in the territories but also here at Sheikh Munis [the site of TAU in Ramat Aviv]. There is no precedent in the world for one country as the historical homeland of two peoples. In any case, the notion that the Land of Israel is the historic homeland of the Palestinian people, is to my view, an historical fabrication, because there was no Palestinian nation for 2000 years.
The Arabs who wish to live here are entitled to enjoy all human and civil rights of the State, as long as they recognize that they have no national, historic right to this land. This has always been the view of Zionists committed to the Return to Zion, whereas the "territorialist" approach aims at a nation for all its citizens. If this view prevails, we will have to change Israel's national anthem and the flag, and repeal the Law of Return. No Arab citizen can possibly sing the words "while yet within the heart, inwardly the Jewish soul yearns" (Hatikva).
If this happens, it is probable that the Jewish state will eventually cease to exist, since a state cannot exist without a moral basis, and at Oslo we destroyed this by admitting that we conquered a land which belongs to another nation.

Prof. Bar-Navi: It depends to which Zionism we refer. Buber and Uri-Zvi Greenberg; Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky; and Uriel Simon and Benny Katzover are all Zionists, and none has a monopoly over the correct interpretation of Zionism. The legitimacy of one trend or the other needs, therefore, to be examined not against the Zionist ideology - for there is not one Zionist ideology - but against two universal principles: the principle of reality and that of basic moral values. The principle of reality states that there are indeed two peoples living in Palestine and that no ideological trick can change it. Common morality, from which the Zionist movement has also greatly benefited, recognizes that the other nation in the Land of Israel has the right to self-determination as well. Accordingly, the solution of compromise of the Israeli peace camp is legitimate, whereas the demand for "all or nothing" of the so-called "national camp" is not legitimate, since it ignores these two universal principles and draws its justification solely from its own assumptions. Nonetheless, both are Zionist, whether we like it or not.

Prof. Gorny: Israeli Arabs are no longer passive politically, as they were when the State was established. The Arabs within the green line are becoming increasingly active and the question of their national identity is becoming more critical. This does not mean that they will want to leave Israel should a Palestinian state be established, but they are beginning to demand more rights as citizens, and perhaps even as a national minority. From the outset, the Zionist movement recognized the existence of an Arab national movement. Jabotinsky was the first, followed by Ben-Gurion. Jabotinsky envisaged a Jewish state of five million with two million Arabs who would be given broad national autonomy and as a minority would be offered partnership in the running of the state, making it in practice a binational state.
Since Zionism recognizes the right of a nation to self-determination, Zionist policy must search for a political solution that will guarantee a degree of sovereignty to Palestinians outside the state: UN representation, a national flag, a passport - possibly through confederative arrangements. There are any number of objective problems which demand regional cooperation - a fundamental concept of Zionist thinking.

Prof. Shapira: Zionism never defined itself in terms of territorial boundaries, but rather in terms of political goals. The founding fathers of Zionism did not refer to borders of the promised land, and they would surely have regarded Israel's final acceptance by its neighbors into the Middle East as the pinnacle of Zionist achievement. They did not delude themselves that this would arise out of love, but rather as a result of our neighbors recognizing the fact that war cannot drive us away.
How is it possible for an Israeli Arab to identify with the State? In the same way that an American Jew closely identifies with the State of Israel while still remaining a loyal citizen of the US, an Israeli Arab feels a deep national and ethnic link with a Palestinian homeland, and yet still wishes to remain in Israel for cultural, economic and historical reasons. The two loyalties are not necessarily contradictory, if both peoples are in a state of peace.

Prof. Ben-Ami: The question that has split Israeli society from the 1920s until today, on whose altar Arlozorov, Greenzweig and Rabin were sacrificed, is in the process of being resolved, sometimes at a stiff price for Zionism. Those who cannot conceive of a Zionism unconnected to the graves of our forefathers have, however, narrowed the horizons of Zionism to a ridiculous degree. It is time for Zionism to address the question of the nature of the identity of Israeli society. As soon as borders are laid down for the State - and we are one of the few countries in the world which does not have borders, like an apartment without walls - it will be necessary to start furnishing it. The State will rise and fall on the image of Zionism, not on the Arab-Israeli conflict, because this conflict is on its way - true, a long, winding and thorny path - to being settled.

Prof. Nini: The basic premise of Zionism, that the Land of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people, cannot accept the division of the Land of Israel between two nations. The question is not Zionism's stand, however, but rather the ability of its proponents to understand that a gap exists between vision and reality, between the dream and its realization. The confrontation between the two peoples in the land of Israel created ethical and political questions that could not have been addressed in advance. The early Zionists could not have foreseen that a Zionist Jew living in Zion would be perceived by Palestinian Arabs and most of the international community as a conqueror and an oppressor of another people. To be a Zionist today means to be in constant conflict with oneself and with one's surroundings, a conflict between aspiring to a vision, and the ability to fulfill it. It requires daily reevaluation of individual and societal beliefs, viewed in the mirror of morality, justice and truth.