The Israeli narrative about the creation of the Palestinian refugee population was that these refugees fled either on their own initiative or upon the urging of their leaders. The Palestinian narrative has been that they were driven out..."
**************************************
Djata: We especially hear the term “Zionism”, coming from Arab Muslims and their supporters, whenever there are bloody conflicts such as the one happening in Gaza right now. How do you define Zionism, Neil?
Neil: Jews lived in many parts of the world since the end of the Roman Empire, and remembrance of the biblical land of Israel has been important in Judaism, in the study of bible and in prayers. Zionism was a 19th century philosophy, originating in Europe, that took this impulse and turned it into a secular, nationalist movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people.
The great majority of Zionists were not religiously inspired, but rather viewed Jews as an ethnic/national group on the basis of their shared experience as a distinctive minority in many places. Being a minority meant being vulnerable, and in 19th century Europe, Jewish communities were not only vulnerable but often mistreated. Having a homeland like everybody else would solve this – that was the belief of Zionism.
There were different viewpoints within Zionism. For example, some thought that having viable Jewish communities in the biblical land of Israel as places of refuge and as centers of Jewish cultural renewal would be a suitable goal. This was known as Spiritual Zionism. The majority view, in the end, was known as Political Zionism, whose central figure is a late 19th century Austrian journalist named Theodor Herzl. Political Zionism sought to develop a modern Jewish nation-state in the ancestral homeland of Jewish people, the Land of Israel – also known as Palestine.
Djata: Does Zionism, whether spiritual or political, represent an attempt by some Jews to “perfect” the understanding and practical expression of their religion, for themselves?
Neil: Zionism was largely a secular movement. Certainly it sought to reformulate Jewish cultural norms and practices, which were rooted in or influenced by Judaism, into norms and practices that could underpin and cement a modern Jewish nation-state.
Djata: Do you believe that Zionism is a form of “self-estrangement”, inasmuch as it is embraced as Jewish people’s nationality as “Jews” over and above their nationalities as, say, North Americans or Europeans ?
Neil: I don’t think that Jews as a group fit into any neat category. At times it’s made sense to view Jews as a community sharing a religion: Judaism. This is how most Jews in the US view themselves today, for example, and this is how Jews are viewed within the US.
At other times it’s made sense to view Jews as an ethnic or national group. Often this has made sense because of the reactions of others. During the period of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, “Jewishness” was a matter of “blood.” A Jew who converted to Christianity could still be regarded as a Jew. In 19th century Europe, the attitude of Christians towards Jews in many places was similar to this. So, for 19th century Zionists, living in an environment where the separation was already there, embracing Jewish “nationalism” wasn’t a matter of self-estrangement, it was an attempt to make a virtue out of a problem.
Is being Jewish a matter of religion or ethnic/national identity? This has been a puzzling dilemma for Jews in the West for the past couple of centuries. Zionism was one of many attempts at resolving this, and Jews have tried resolving it in both ways.
Djata: Particularly in the mainstream media of our country, we hear about Israel’s “right to defend itself”. Yet, since these bloody conflicts, here-to-mentioned, seem to go on constantly and – at least to me – will not end without statehood for Palestinians, is there an issue of legitimacy that the government of Israel is always trying to prove to itself, its citizens, and others?
Neil: The short answer: yes. The State of Israel was born in conflict and lives in conflict. Israel, or at least its ruling elites and supporters, constantly seeks affirmation of legitimacy. There’s a question of what type of legitimacy Israel seeks: as a potent force not to be messed with, or as a society with which its neighbors can live in peace and respect.
Djata: Neil, do you agree with the Palestinian assertion that they were intentionally expelled by Yishuv and later Israeli forces in terms of a plan drawn up even before the war?
Neil: “Yishuv” is the Hebrew term for the community of Jewish settlements in pre-1948 Palestine. The Israeli narrative about the creation of the Palestinian refugee population was that these refugees fled either on their own initiative or upon the urging of their leaders. The Palestinian narrative has been that they were driven out. Jewish militias drove Palestinians from their homes. That this happened is beyond doubt. It is reflected not only in the stories of Palestinian refugees, but by the work of the Israeli “new historians” of the past generation who have found documentation of this in Israeli governmental sources.
I do not know the degree to which the intentional displacement was pre-planned and organized in a top-down fashion. I have heard conflicting claims about this, but it seems fair to assume that there was some level of forethought and planning.
There were also Palestinians who fled a war zone of their own initiative, and Palestinian leaders who ordered their people to move away from the fighting. It is important to acknowledge this to avoid fruitless quibbling about which side did what. I do not know which of the two factors was the most important, and am happy to leave that to be determined by historians in the fullness of time. The important fact to me is that, on the Zionist side, there was definitely intentional displacement of Arabs in order to establish the new Jewish nation-state.
Djata: What do you think of Dr. Ilan Pappe’s claim that, “If you don't understand colonialism, ethnic cleansing and the war for freedom, you can't understand Palestine”?
Neil: Ilan Pappe is one of the Israeli “new historians”. He takes his conclusions about Israel’s willful suppression of Palestinian national aspirations farther than others, and is for that reason very controversial. I want to acknowledge that before responding to this quote. I'm just somebody who cares about justice and human dignity for all. I can’t judge his basis for selecting these three criteria as the bottom-line basis for “understanding Palestine”. I do think that examining these areas is very revealing.
Colonialism: Zionism was not a monolithic movement. However, it emerged in its modern form in late 19th-century Europe, and reflects some of the same beliefs that motivated and justified colonialism by European powers. The State of Israel controls the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River today, and as such is the primary force limiting Palestinian nationhood. I think it is also important to recognize that the Ottoman Empire before World War 1, and the British Empire after it, controlled this land and played a role in how the conflict between Zionist settlers and Arabs developed and unfolded.
Ethnic cleansing: Intentional displacement of Palestinians to create a Jewish nation-state played a part in the birth of the State of Israel. This must be taken into account when discussing relations between Palestinians and Israel.
The war for freedom: This primarily means the Palestinian struggle for national freedom. Previously, it took a politically nationalistic expression. Now, with the ascendancy of Hamas, it is taking an Islamist-nationalist form. I don’t know whether Ilan Pappe intends the following, but the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has taken place in a larger context of Third-World nation-state formation and the struggle for freedom from Western control or dominance. Lastly, Zionism was a bold but desperate attempt to seek freedom for Jews on a national/ethnic basis. It was not an attempt to exploit a colonial possession for the benefit of a colonial power far away, and for most Israeli Jews the survival of their state is a matter of both political and physical life and death. I think that acknowledging this sheds light on an important reason that this conflict is so enduring and bitter, and why it is so difficult to see the way forward to a resolution. But this brings us full circle: when thinking of the struggle for freedom in the context of Palestine/Israel, it is the Palestinians who do not have national freedom. There can not be any reasonable resolution until they do.
Djata: I understand what you are saying. I don't like to use the term "Third world", because, like the term "minority", it suggests that certain people are "naturally" inferior to others. Therefore, I prefer non-European. However, since Jews are not a monolithic group, that means that various Jews have different interests. That having been said, if Zionists simply wanted a place where they can live in peace and be left alone, then why did they expand their originally-allotted territory, along with conducting business with a number of world powers, especially the United States, that allows the Israeli government a presence - and influence - in other lands?
Neil: Guess I date myself by using the term “Third World,” don’t I?
You ask about Zionists wanting a place where Jews could live in peace. Again, Zionism has encompassed a variety of outlooks. Many of them were not so utopian as to imagine that nationhood would bring “peace”. Nationhood would bring “normalcy”, that is, Jews as a people doing all the things that any people do to make their way independently in the world. Build, work (in all levels of the economy, not just those to which the host country allows access), play, make decisions. Peace is sometimes part of the picture, but so is conflict.
Modern Zionism developed in late nineteenth-century Europe, a time and place when many of the stereotypes of Jews being treated as victimized outsiders were in fact true (and I don’t subscribe to the view of Jewish history that says this is the essence of Jewish life in Europe). One of the roots of the Israeli army is in local Jewish self-defense groups that arose in towns and cities in Central and Eastern Europe in response to waves of pogroms. Many rank-and-file Zionists who came to Palestine were accustomed to an atmosphere of violence and expected a hard life. They called themselves “halutzim,” or “pioneers,” and they meant it.
So, let’s turn your question into a statement. The State of Israel seeks to project its power beyond its borders. There are a number of reasons for this.
When Zionism was in its visionary phase, it often imagined a Jewish state on the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River (and even beyond). This is not how the borders were drawn by the UN in 1947, and not how the borders were fixed at the end of the 1948-49 war. I want to believe that most Israeli Jews, if given the choice between endless war and a realistic chance for a saner life, would not hold to a vision of a larger Israel. However, there are sectors of the Israeli political system that do hold strongly to it, for nationalistic, religious, military, or other reasons. This is a major explanation for the continuing growth of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, even during this past 15 years of negotiations for a two-state solution.
The State of Israel also acts as a regional force. Some of Israel’s reasons for doing this relate to its perceived national interests. Other times, Israel gets swept up in larger political currents. Many local and international powers vie for influence and control in this area. There have been regional rivalries beyond that of Palestinians and Israel. On a larger scale, the Cold War rivalry seems to have been replaced by a rivalry between Iran and the US-led bloc. War, bloodshed, and other suffering result from these things. Israel is not blameless, but there's a lot of guilt to share in this.
Please stay tuned...
Read full post
**************************************
Djata: We especially hear the term “Zionism”, coming from Arab Muslims and their supporters, whenever there are bloody conflicts such as the one happening in Gaza right now. How do you define Zionism, Neil?
Neil: Jews lived in many parts of the world since the end of the Roman Empire, and remembrance of the biblical land of Israel has been important in Judaism, in the study of bible and in prayers. Zionism was a 19th century philosophy, originating in Europe, that took this impulse and turned it into a secular, nationalist movement to establish a homeland for the Jewish people.
The great majority of Zionists were not religiously inspired, but rather viewed Jews as an ethnic/national group on the basis of their shared experience as a distinctive minority in many places. Being a minority meant being vulnerable, and in 19th century Europe, Jewish communities were not only vulnerable but often mistreated. Having a homeland like everybody else would solve this – that was the belief of Zionism.
There were different viewpoints within Zionism. For example, some thought that having viable Jewish communities in the biblical land of Israel as places of refuge and as centers of Jewish cultural renewal would be a suitable goal. This was known as Spiritual Zionism. The majority view, in the end, was known as Political Zionism, whose central figure is a late 19th century Austrian journalist named Theodor Herzl. Political Zionism sought to develop a modern Jewish nation-state in the ancestral homeland of Jewish people, the Land of Israel – also known as Palestine.
Djata: Does Zionism, whether spiritual or political, represent an attempt by some Jews to “perfect” the understanding and practical expression of their religion, for themselves?
Neil: Zionism was largely a secular movement. Certainly it sought to reformulate Jewish cultural norms and practices, which were rooted in or influenced by Judaism, into norms and practices that could underpin and cement a modern Jewish nation-state.
Djata: Do you believe that Zionism is a form of “self-estrangement”, inasmuch as it is embraced as Jewish people’s nationality as “Jews” over and above their nationalities as, say, North Americans or Europeans ?
Neil: I don’t think that Jews as a group fit into any neat category. At times it’s made sense to view Jews as a community sharing a religion: Judaism. This is how most Jews in the US view themselves today, for example, and this is how Jews are viewed within the US.
At other times it’s made sense to view Jews as an ethnic or national group. Often this has made sense because of the reactions of others. During the period of the Spanish Inquisition, for example, “Jewishness” was a matter of “blood.” A Jew who converted to Christianity could still be regarded as a Jew. In 19th century Europe, the attitude of Christians towards Jews in many places was similar to this. So, for 19th century Zionists, living in an environment where the separation was already there, embracing Jewish “nationalism” wasn’t a matter of self-estrangement, it was an attempt to make a virtue out of a problem.
Is being Jewish a matter of religion or ethnic/national identity? This has been a puzzling dilemma for Jews in the West for the past couple of centuries. Zionism was one of many attempts at resolving this, and Jews have tried resolving it in both ways.
Djata: Particularly in the mainstream media of our country, we hear about Israel’s “right to defend itself”. Yet, since these bloody conflicts, here-to-mentioned, seem to go on constantly and – at least to me – will not end without statehood for Palestinians, is there an issue of legitimacy that the government of Israel is always trying to prove to itself, its citizens, and others?
Neil: The short answer: yes. The State of Israel was born in conflict and lives in conflict. Israel, or at least its ruling elites and supporters, constantly seeks affirmation of legitimacy. There’s a question of what type of legitimacy Israel seeks: as a potent force not to be messed with, or as a society with which its neighbors can live in peace and respect.
Djata: Neil, do you agree with the Palestinian assertion that they were intentionally expelled by Yishuv and later Israeli forces in terms of a plan drawn up even before the war?
Neil: “Yishuv” is the Hebrew term for the community of Jewish settlements in pre-1948 Palestine. The Israeli narrative about the creation of the Palestinian refugee population was that these refugees fled either on their own initiative or upon the urging of their leaders. The Palestinian narrative has been that they were driven out. Jewish militias drove Palestinians from their homes. That this happened is beyond doubt. It is reflected not only in the stories of Palestinian refugees, but by the work of the Israeli “new historians” of the past generation who have found documentation of this in Israeli governmental sources.
I do not know the degree to which the intentional displacement was pre-planned and organized in a top-down fashion. I have heard conflicting claims about this, but it seems fair to assume that there was some level of forethought and planning.
There were also Palestinians who fled a war zone of their own initiative, and Palestinian leaders who ordered their people to move away from the fighting. It is important to acknowledge this to avoid fruitless quibbling about which side did what. I do not know which of the two factors was the most important, and am happy to leave that to be determined by historians in the fullness of time. The important fact to me is that, on the Zionist side, there was definitely intentional displacement of Arabs in order to establish the new Jewish nation-state.
Djata: What do you think of Dr. Ilan Pappe’s claim that, “If you don't understand colonialism, ethnic cleansing and the war for freedom, you can't understand Palestine”?
Neil: Ilan Pappe is one of the Israeli “new historians”. He takes his conclusions about Israel’s willful suppression of Palestinian national aspirations farther than others, and is for that reason very controversial. I want to acknowledge that before responding to this quote. I'm just somebody who cares about justice and human dignity for all. I can’t judge his basis for selecting these three criteria as the bottom-line basis for “understanding Palestine”. I do think that examining these areas is very revealing.
Colonialism: Zionism was not a monolithic movement. However, it emerged in its modern form in late 19th-century Europe, and reflects some of the same beliefs that motivated and justified colonialism by European powers. The State of Israel controls the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River today, and as such is the primary force limiting Palestinian nationhood. I think it is also important to recognize that the Ottoman Empire before World War 1, and the British Empire after it, controlled this land and played a role in how the conflict between Zionist settlers and Arabs developed and unfolded.
Ethnic cleansing: Intentional displacement of Palestinians to create a Jewish nation-state played a part in the birth of the State of Israel. This must be taken into account when discussing relations between Palestinians and Israel.
The war for freedom: This primarily means the Palestinian struggle for national freedom. Previously, it took a politically nationalistic expression. Now, with the ascendancy of Hamas, it is taking an Islamist-nationalist form. I don’t know whether Ilan Pappe intends the following, but the conflict between Israel and Palestinians has taken place in a larger context of Third-World nation-state formation and the struggle for freedom from Western control or dominance. Lastly, Zionism was a bold but desperate attempt to seek freedom for Jews on a national/ethnic basis. It was not an attempt to exploit a colonial possession for the benefit of a colonial power far away, and for most Israeli Jews the survival of their state is a matter of both political and physical life and death. I think that acknowledging this sheds light on an important reason that this conflict is so enduring and bitter, and why it is so difficult to see the way forward to a resolution. But this brings us full circle: when thinking of the struggle for freedom in the context of Palestine/Israel, it is the Palestinians who do not have national freedom. There can not be any reasonable resolution until they do.
Djata: I understand what you are saying. I don't like to use the term "Third world", because, like the term "minority", it suggests that certain people are "naturally" inferior to others. Therefore, I prefer non-European. However, since Jews are not a monolithic group, that means that various Jews have different interests. That having been said, if Zionists simply wanted a place where they can live in peace and be left alone, then why did they expand their originally-allotted territory, along with conducting business with a number of world powers, especially the United States, that allows the Israeli government a presence - and influence - in other lands?
Neil: Guess I date myself by using the term “Third World,” don’t I?
You ask about Zionists wanting a place where Jews could live in peace. Again, Zionism has encompassed a variety of outlooks. Many of them were not so utopian as to imagine that nationhood would bring “peace”. Nationhood would bring “normalcy”, that is, Jews as a people doing all the things that any people do to make their way independently in the world. Build, work (in all levels of the economy, not just those to which the host country allows access), play, make decisions. Peace is sometimes part of the picture, but so is conflict.
Modern Zionism developed in late nineteenth-century Europe, a time and place when many of the stereotypes of Jews being treated as victimized outsiders were in fact true (and I don’t subscribe to the view of Jewish history that says this is the essence of Jewish life in Europe). One of the roots of the Israeli army is in local Jewish self-defense groups that arose in towns and cities in Central and Eastern Europe in response to waves of pogroms. Many rank-and-file Zionists who came to Palestine were accustomed to an atmosphere of violence and expected a hard life. They called themselves “halutzim,” or “pioneers,” and they meant it.
So, let’s turn your question into a statement. The State of Israel seeks to project its power beyond its borders. There are a number of reasons for this.
When Zionism was in its visionary phase, it often imagined a Jewish state on the land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River (and even beyond). This is not how the borders were drawn by the UN in 1947, and not how the borders were fixed at the end of the 1948-49 war. I want to believe that most Israeli Jews, if given the choice between endless war and a realistic chance for a saner life, would not hold to a vision of a larger Israel. However, there are sectors of the Israeli political system that do hold strongly to it, for nationalistic, religious, military, or other reasons. This is a major explanation for the continuing growth of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, even during this past 15 years of negotiations for a two-state solution.
The State of Israel also acts as a regional force. Some of Israel’s reasons for doing this relate to its perceived national interests. Other times, Israel gets swept up in larger political currents. Many local and international powers vie for influence and control in this area. There have been regional rivalries beyond that of Palestinians and Israel. On a larger scale, the Cold War rivalry seems to have been replaced by a rivalry between Iran and the US-led bloc. War, bloodshed, and other suffering result from these things. Israel is not blameless, but there's a lot of guilt to share in this.
Please stay tuned...
