IT’S TIME TO STOP TALKING ABOUT ZIONISM AND ANTI-ZIONISM
Over the last few days I’ve been called both a Zionist and an anti-Zionist, by myself in a friendly way and by there in not so friendly ways.
Thus confirming that both terms are practically meaningless. For two reasons.
The first is that the the range of meanings for both of them is now too great.
The meaning of Zionism ranges the ideas of Martin Buber and Ahad Ha-Am to Itamar Ben-Gvir. That is from those who wanted to create a Jewish community in the Land of Israel / Palestine living together with Arab to those who want a confederation of two states to those who want two independent states with civil rights for all who live in each state to those who want Israel to control the whole land with Palestinians living under the dominance of Israel to those who want to ethnic cleanse the whole land of any Palestinians. And, of course, with many variations in between these extremes.
The meaning of anti-Zionism ranges from those who want to destroy the state of Israel and expel the descendants of Jews whose families came after some independent date to to those who want to destroy the state of Israel and create a unified Muslim state that will let Jews live as second class citizens to those who want a unified secular state with civil rights for all to those who want two states with civil rights for all. And, of course , with many variations in between those extremes.
Second people who identify themselves as primarily the supporter of one side or another understand the meaning of the terms in their most extreme ways.
To many supporters of the Palestinian cause, Zionism is and has always been a aggressive genocidal project.
To many supporters of the Israeli cause, anti-Zionism is and has always been a movement designed to destroy Israel and expel most of the Jews who live there.
My own view rejects all binary narratives. I see the dispute between Jews and Palestinians not as a conflict between right and right not right and wrong. I seek mutual understanding and mutual recognition of the necessity of living together in some manner that recognizes both the national aspirations of both sides and the necessity decisions about the land the two people share. That could be in a confederation of two states or a single consociational state with two (or more taking into account the Druze and Beouins) political communities that deal with internal matters. I have a preference for the latter because there a ways to work that out that allows people live anywhere they choose in the entire land while maintaining their political connection to one political community. This would allow
both Jews and Palestinians a right of return.
Most of all, I want to see these decisions made not by outsiders but by the two people reaching an accommodation, one that might change over time as mutual recognition and trust builds. (Or to put it another way, I suspect that an accomdation will start but will hopefully not end with two states.)
There is, at this point, no name for this view. There should be.
We could call it supporters of peace and justice view.
At any rate, those of us who seek peace and justice need to stop engaging in discussion of Zionism and anti-Zionism . Let’s not get dragged into it. Let’s reject taking sides. Let’s especially reject the extremists characterization of both sides no matter which side it comes from.
I’m not sure how to avoid these debates. But perhaps we should engage in conversations with these three questions. (You don’t have to stand on one foot when asking or answering them.)
Do you think that both IsraelI Jew and the Palestinian Arabs should live together in peace in the land they share?
Do you think they should each have a right to control over their own communal institutions and policies?
Do you think they should work together to deal with common issues over water, air rights, holy sites, development of the land?
If you say yes to all of them, then I think we have a way to work together to figure you how to get to this admittedly now distant goal. We can point to the actions taken that each side that make a settlement based on peace and justice impossible. (That will keep us busy for a while.)
If not, we need to talk a lot more, with the burden of proof on you explaining how peace and progress is possible with any no answers.