A recent challenge by a Threadhead I follow with interest for his talent and his open mind, has been haunting me since I first saw it. It is defined as “Ask me about my Zionism”, by @gabedraws. It’s quite a challenge, deserving a much longer approach (blog again, I know), but it’s stuck in my mind, so let’s start here.
Those who follow me know my position on Zionism, I wrote about it extensively, I will tell you why. To refresh memories, or illustrate, in case you are new to my world, I leave this piece here (Link: Zionism), it aged well, but my personal stance evolved. But please, do go on reading.
Like any ideology, Zionism requires a principle, or set of principles, to clearly guide one’s opinion about it. But unfortunately for precision guided minds, such as mine, while it made little sense for a soviet to say “Ask me about my Communism”, it makes a lot of sense for a Jew to say “Ask me about my Zionism.” To start with, I cannot think of an ideology, political in kind, that only relates to one people. Sure there are religions, but Zionism is not a religion (more on this later).
As a goy, much as I identify with Jews, I can’t say I am a Zionist, or not. But I can support it, or not, as any human being can have an opinion on any given political ideology. The reason I can’t adopt it as my own, is because it belongs to only one people from its creation. And that’s the Jewish people. Now the problem becomes how Jews regard disagreements, and Jews have disagreed on what Zionism is since Theodor Herzl. And this created different views, all based on one premise.
The premise is that Jews require a nation, where they can be safe from persecution. That is set in stone. The one common denominator to all types of Zionism, evolving and morphing since the XIX Century. I identify with the original concept, as defined by Herzl, therefore I am a supporter of the Herzlian Zionism, which at its heart has but one objective: the establishment of a Jewish State, where Jews can live peacefully.
And even if, as a matter of principle, Herzl was not concerned with Judaism in his own concept of Zionism, he saw and fought for the return to the region known since the II Century as Palestine, and, of course, the eternal Jerusalem. That did not stop him from placing the well being of his people above all else, including religious considerations, and at the time of his death, he was working on the establishment of a Jewish state in Uganda. And then all hell broke loose.
Regarding “Palestine doesn’t exist”, we MUST understand that at the time of Herzl’s death, Palestine was still a Turkish protectorate, and would remain so until the defeat of the Turks during the First World War, and please watch “Lawrence of Arabia”. Spoiler alert, I think the only Jew in the movie is the American photographer. I may be wrong, in which case, no Jews. The Arabs took over, under British rule, in the new protectorate of His Majesty King George V. That was about it.
Those who follow me know my position on Zionism, I wrote about it extensively, I will tell you why. To refresh memories, or illustrate, in case you are new to my world, I leave this piece here (Link: Zionism), it aged well, but my personal stance evolved. But please, do go on reading.
Like any ideology, Zionism requires a principle, or set of principles, to clearly guide one’s opinion about it. But unfortunately for precision guided minds, such as mine, while it made little sense for a soviet to say “Ask me about my Communism”, it makes a lot of sense for a Jew to say “Ask me about my Zionism.” To start with, I cannot think of an ideology, political in kind, that only relates to one people. Sure there are religions, but Zionism is not a religion (more on this later).
As a goy, much as I identify with Jews, I can’t say I am a Zionist, or not. But I can support it, or not, as any human being can have an opinion on any given political ideology. The reason I can’t adopt it as my own, is because it belongs to only one people from its creation. And that’s the Jewish people. Now the problem becomes how Jews regard disagreements, and Jews have disagreed on what Zionism is since Theodor Herzl. And this created different views, all based on one premise.
The premise is that Jews require a nation, where they can be safe from persecution. That is set in stone. The one common denominator to all types of Zionism, evolving and morphing since the XIX Century. I identify with the original concept, as defined by Herzl, therefore I am a supporter of the Herzlian Zionism, which at its heart has but one objective: the establishment of a Jewish State, where Jews can live peacefully.
And even if, as a matter of principle, Herzl was not concerned with Judaism in his own concept of Zionism, he saw and fought for the return to the region known since the II Century as Palestine, and, of course, the eternal Jerusalem. That did not stop him from placing the well being of his people above all else, including religious considerations, and at the time of his death, he was working on the establishment of a Jewish state in Uganda. And then all hell broke loose.
Regarding “Palestine doesn’t exist”, we MUST understand that at the time of Herzl’s death, Palestine was still a Turkish protectorate, and would remain so until the defeat of the Turks during the First World War, and please watch “Lawrence of Arabia”. Spoiler alert, I think the only Jew in the movie is the American photographer. I may be wrong, in which case, no Jews. The Arabs took over, under British rule, in the new protectorate of His Majesty King George V. That was about it.
So when did the proverbial machloket surrounding the Zionist concept hit the fan? 1902. The year Herzl told the world what his vision was about, in form of a utopian novel, titled “Altneuland”, The Old New Land. Reading “Judenstaat” I could see it. It was all there, as was the shift in Herzl’s focus from a solution provided by a bunch of rich Jew philanthropists, to the all encompassing, socialist, not democratic, Zionist Actions Committee.
This leadership of the Zionist movement would be made of a cadre of select Zionists, with a Congress as the organizing body, funded by the Jewish masses through, you guessed it, a Central Jewish Bank. And what did Herzl name this bank? The Jewish Colonial Bank. In his own words, “the task of the Colonial Bank is to eliminate philanthropy”, allowing for the Jewish masses to fund the Zionist enterprise. And the pragmatic key word here is, of course, colonial.
So what is “Altneuland” about? According to Alex Bein, a German-Jewish historian:
“Altneuland" was a novel with a purpose. It described the Palestine of the near future as it would develop through the Zionist Movement. It had the weaknesses of every propaganda novel. The entire work has something of the state about it and proceeds in the form of scenes rather than by way of narrative. Each type has a specific outlook.”
“Most of the characters are portraits of living personalities. It was his purpose to memorialize his friends and his opponents.
"Altneuland" tells of a Jew who visits Palestine in 1898 and then comes again in 1923 when he finds the Promised Land developed under Jewish influence. Its territory lies East and West of the Jordan. The dead land of 1898 is now thoroughly alive. Its real creators were the irrigation engineers.”
“Technology had given a new form to labor, a new social and economic system had been created which is described as "mutualistic," a huge cooperative, a mediate form between individualism and collectivism. Haifa had become a world city. Around the Holy City of Jerusalem, modern suburbs had arisen, shaded boulevards and parks, institutes of learning, places of amusement, markets—"a world city in the spirit of the twentieth century[…]”
Guess who didn’t find Herzl’s vision interesting. One of the designers of Cultural Zionism, a man named Ahad Ha’am, who not only called Herzl delusional but, since the Ottoman Empire, was well aware that “if the time comes that our people’s life in Eretz Israel will develop to a point where we are taking (the Arabs’) place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily.” (sic) He was apparently okay with the Jewish Colonial Bank, though.
I really admire Herzl and his vision. He was an European Jew, with European values, a true concern for his people, and the wish to ensure their safety, long before the Holocaust. He was a pragmatist, his Zionism was “practical”, and his ideals, albeit socialist in nature, still anchored in XIX Century autocratic notions, already showed a pathway to social-democracy, in a shared world, with Jews and Arabs living side by side. And yes, in the land of Israel. And Jerusalem.
That’s “my Zionism”, to the extent that, as a goy, I can share in this particular machloket. It is what I support. So if you ask me about it, you better believe I will send you a link to a blog post with these words. But be prepared to tell me about your Zionism. I will respect your opinion as I expect you to respect mine. I am not a Jew, but I do have the same concept of discussion and argument. That’s the essence of machloket, and perhaps why some think I am a Jew.
So there you go.
“Most of the characters are portraits of living personalities. It was his purpose to memorialize his friends and his opponents.
"Altneuland" tells of a Jew who visits Palestine in 1898 and then comes again in 1923 when he finds the Promised Land developed under Jewish influence. Its territory lies East and West of the Jordan. The dead land of 1898 is now thoroughly alive. Its real creators were the irrigation engineers.”
“Technology had given a new form to labor, a new social and economic system had been created which is described as "mutualistic," a huge cooperative, a mediate form between individualism and collectivism. Haifa had become a world city. Around the Holy City of Jerusalem, modern suburbs had arisen, shaded boulevards and parks, institutes of learning, places of amusement, markets—"a world city in the spirit of the twentieth century[…]”
Guess who didn’t find Herzl’s vision interesting. One of the designers of Cultural Zionism, a man named Ahad Ha’am, who not only called Herzl delusional but, since the Ottoman Empire, was well aware that “if the time comes that our people’s life in Eretz Israel will develop to a point where we are taking (the Arabs’) place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily.” (sic) He was apparently okay with the Jewish Colonial Bank, though.
I really admire Herzl and his vision. He was an European Jew, with European values, a true concern for his people, and the wish to ensure their safety, long before the Holocaust. He was a pragmatist, his Zionism was “practical”, and his ideals, albeit socialist in nature, still anchored in XIX Century autocratic notions, already showed a pathway to social-democracy, in a shared world, with Jews and Arabs living side by side. And yes, in the land of Israel. And Jerusalem.
That’s “my Zionism”, to the extent that, as a goy, I can share in this particular machloket. It is what I support. So if you ask me about it, you better believe I will send you a link to a blog post with these words. But be prepared to tell me about your Zionism. I will respect your opinion as I expect you to respect mine. I am not a Jew, but I do have the same concept of discussion and argument. That’s the essence of machloket, and perhaps why some think I am a Jew.
So there you go.
After hours of struggle, with twice being wiped out by the fucking Threads app (the second time i had a back up), and all real life has to offer a goy on a Sunday, I finally said what I had to say about what’s keeping my mind busy.
So go ahead, prepare to fight like hell for our freedom and democracy, in the coming 5 years, and feel free to “ask me about my Zionism.”
So go ahead, prepare to fight like hell for our freedom and democracy, in the coming 5 years, and feel free to “ask me about my Zionism.”
Expect me to ask you the same, if you do.
Shalom Aleichem.
Note:
Comments on this blog are locked. This is but a reading platform linked to Threads.
If
you wish to reply with your thoughts, please do so on the Threads post
that references this opinion piece. Thank you for reading.
