An alternative understanding of Zionism sees no contradiction between liberalism and Zionism, and makes possible various political arrangements, which do not place the national aspirations of Jews ahead of those of Palestinians.
By Jerry Haber
Can one be a liberal (or: progressive) and a Zionist? The debate has been going on for some time now, and recent entries in the debate on +972 by Joseph Dana, Larry Derfner, and Abir Kopty, are worth reading.
What’s interesting is that both the advocates and detractors of liberal Zionism agree that there is an inherent contradiction between being liberal and being Zionist. Derfner considers himself a liberal, one who believes, for example, in civic equality, but there are times when his allegiance to the statist self-determination of the Jewish people trumps his liberalism. There is nothing wrong or inconsistent with attaching different weight to competing values.
I don’t agree with the premise that there is an inherent contradiction between being liberal and being Zionist. But that’s because of how I understand those terms.
Zionism for me involves a cluster of beliefs and attitudes that contain the following:
a) I am conscious of being part of a Jewish people, and that consciousness provides something meaningful within my life;
b) As a member of this people, I am conscious of a religious/historical connection to the land of Israel/Palestine;
c) The growth of Hebrew culture in Israel/Palestine, that began in the twentieth century, has been, on the whole, positive for the Jewish people, and compatible with the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestine Arabs;
d) The legitimate self-determination of the Jewish people requires nothing more than the ability for the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, within the limits of a liberal, civic framework;
I find these views compatible with various political arrangements in Israel/Palestine. They are certainly compatible with a one state, binational framework, and arguably compatible with a national Jewish minority status within a Palestinian state, with rights guaranteed by a constitution.
Still, these principles return us to the arguments within the Zionist movement in the 1920s and 1930s, before the Zionist movement made the (wrong, in my opinion) turn towards ethnic statism in the early 1940s. They are controversial, certainly from a Palestinian standpoint. Particularly problematic is c) which rests on Jewish immigration – although, it is important to point out that most of the key institutions of the revival of Hebrew culture predated the Jewish state, and were not opposed by the Palestinian leadership.
In any event, we are not in the 1930s. There are now around five and a half million Jews in Israel/Palestine. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Arabs, including the Hamas party, accept the physical presence of Jews within Palestine; their problems are more with a Jewish ethnic state.
I do not accept other principles, which may now be dogmas, of Zionism. I certainly don’t accept the view that the self-determination of the Jewish people trumps the self-determination of the Palestinian people, or that it justified immigration against the wishes of the Palestinian population, much less the formation of an ethnic exclusivist state with quasi-racist laws and provisions that are unparalleled in liberal, decent societies.
Of course, there will be many whose view of Zionism is such that they won’t consider me to be a Zionist. They will say that my Zionism is so attenuated as not to be worthy of the name. And they may be right; the fact that there is historical precedent for my brand of Zionism may not cut the mustard for them.
Whatever. At least folks will know why this blog is called the Magnes Zionist.
Jeremiah (Jerry) Haber is the nom de plume of an orthodox Jewish studies and philosophy professor, who divides his time between Israel and the US. This article was published on Jerry’s blog, The Magnes Zionist. It is reposted here with the author’s permission.
Related posts on +972:
The Zionism debate: When colonialism is embedded in liberalism
Response to Joseph Dana: A case for liberal Zionism
A sad commentary on the state of liberal Zionist discourse
+972 readers weigh in on Zionism debate
December 1, 2011
4:33 pm
Sinjim, it’s funny, because it seems to me you’re the one with reading comprehension difficulties. For instance, if you look at Haber’s piece more carefully, you will find that he discusses history. Tell me, in this history (because Haber didn’t) did Jews have an absolute right to asylum? And what of the reality that Palestinians chose murder, for instance in the 1929 Hebron Massacre, as a way to impede Jewish asylum? These are questions that have bearing on the current situation. That they have bearing is, of course, the reason Haber brought up the past… but perhaps you didn’t read that part.
.
Perhaps you didn’t read the part where I mentioned that the situation is kyriarchal. There is oppression of Jews here and now, as well as oppression of Palestinians. I’d bet you and I disagree on the precise nature of the oppression of the Palestinians because you would refuse to admit that the oppression of Jews has any bearing. That won’t work for me.
.
And, since you asked, I am a supporter of a two-state solution, and I also get into fights with hawkish or expansionist supporters of Israel. I support the creation of a Palestinian state for the exact same reasons I support the creation of a Jewish one.
December 1, 2011
5:10 pm
Firstly, nothing you write changes the fact that Haber was discussing the debate that occurred on +972 only, when he summarized the debate so far. You chose to incorrectly state that Haber was talking about the debate on Zionism in general and was therefore being “dishonest.” That’s untrue as any correct reading of the paragraph from which you cribbed your quote demonstrates.
.
The rest of what you wrote has nothing at all to do with anything I wrote. If you’re trying to say that Palestinians are somehow privileged in certain respects in this conflict, then I reject that vehemently and wholeheartedly. Yes, Jews have suffered at different points of this conflict and for different reasons.
.
But that doesn’t change the fact that only Israel has a structural system, composed of military courts, its army in the West Bank, its navy and air force in Gaza, an occupation bureaucracy, and the municipal government of West Jerusalem, which treat Palestinians as less than people entitled to their full human and civil rights. No Palestinian authority prevents Jews’ freedom of movement, freedom of speech and political association, the ability to live where they choose, protection from theft and land seizures, the freedom of self-determination, the freedom to build a successful economy, the freedom from malnutrition, and so much more. The nature of suffering that Jews have experienced in this conflict is completely different and not comparable.
December 1, 2011
5:29 pm
As for Hebron, the manner in which you choose to describe this incident is most unfortunate. Firstly, you say that “Palestinians chose.” This is, of course, a falsehood. The Palestinian people cannot be held responsible for a crime that some of their compatriots committed, especially when there was no duly elected or centralized Palestinian government of any kind to speak of. Otherwise, all Jews across the planet are responsible for the actions of Israel, which strikes me as an anti-Semitic notion. This phrasing also ignores that the Palestinians living in Hebron went to great lengths to protect their Jewish neighbors from assault. What of their choice of action, @Matt?
.
Secondly, you cite the massacre as the response of the Palestinian people to Jews seeking asylum. This is also a falsehood and an oversimplification. This violent response by some Palestinians was in reaction to Zionist political aims being put into practice, which sought to create a new country in which Palestinians would be a minority. The mistreatment they experienced at the hands of the Zionists (as detailed by such writers as Ahad Ha’Am) didn’t help matters either.
.
There is never an excuse for violence of the kind committed against the Jewish residents of Hebron, which was a pogrom. But to pretend that all was hunky-dory, that Zionists were minding their own business, until “the Palestinians chose” to attack them is completely without merit.
.
The conflict did not begin in 1929, @Matt, nor was it initiated by Palestinian violence.
.
In response to your last paragraph, you scold Haber for supposedly wanting Jewish self-determination “at the allowance of others” because this is demeaning towards Jews, yet here you are granting Palestinians your support for them to have a state. This is no different than when someone says “Some of my best friends are black.” Seriously, why should I care that you get into fights with “expansionists” and “hawks,” when in a comment to a Palestinian, you assign us communal guilt and say we “chose murder.”
December 1, 2011
8:20 pm
Sinjim, first, nowhere does he say that he is referring only to a debate on +972. The second sentence, which you seem to take as indicating the scope of the debate, rather indicates only delineation of a segment of it. “Recent entries,” refers to recent entries in a larger debate that Haber says has been going on for some time, though his “recent entries” date no older than three days ago. Further, he’s also done this before.
.
As for Palestinians having privilege, yes they do. Within the limited context of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict today, it’s not much. It’s clearer when you look at history, however.
.
Jews were seeking asylum and Palestinians did, acting as a privileged class, demand the right to shut their borders to Jews seeking asylum. Hebron was one of many acts of violence intended to intimidate Jews and prevent Jewish immigration. That it happened in the context of a Jewish politics of self-determination just means it was violence to used to protect a their measure of privilege Palestinians had. As for blaming all Palestinians as individuals, I hadn’t intended to. But while you say there’s no excuse for the pogrom, you do in fact excuse it by blaming Zionists for seeking liberation and asylum. And while not all the Palestinians “chose,” those who committed the act and those who encouraged it (who were not “duly elected” but were a leadership that a significant portion of Palestinians chose to support) did. Others, of course, did act in creating
December 1, 2011
9:03 pm
I think my son hit submit.
.
Others, of course, did act in political ways to create the environment in which the pogrom occurred.
.
But, even today, if you look at international politics, the same privilege becomes clear. Even if we just look at something you wrote, “a new country in which Palestinians would be a minority.” Why is this bad for Palestinians but perfectly acceptable for Jews? If you sincerely examine that question, the privileges of the Palestinians will become evident. By the way, there’s no such thing as oppression without privilege, so the idea that the Palestinians don’t have privileges is actually strange. It suggests to me that you don’t know much about Jewish oppression, probably refusing, as most people do, to see it as structured.
.
How many Muslim and Arab (or any group with which Palestinians may choose to identify) representatives are there in the UN, versus how many Jewish? Israel is the only state which cannot serve on the Security Council. Nor can it serve in the Human Rights structure. Or, in fact, in almost any diplomatic capacity because it is the only state that is not a member of a regional group. That, of course, is manipulated to produce copious propaganda. Of course, the US mostly sides with Israel (though the extent is frequently overstated), but then Russia and China side against Israel just as often. While some powerful actors are supportive of Jews, the actual power of Israel and/or Jews it/themselves is miniscule. The situation is reminiscent of the “court Jew.”
.
As for your last paragraph, that’s a woeful misreading on your part. For me to support Palestinian self-determination in the form of a Palestinian state is not say it is at my allowance. Haber insists that Jewish self-determination must be at the allowance of Palestinians who would have to agree to allow immigration. And since it would be inside a Palestinian state, Palestinians would effectively have to allow everything else as well. Do you not see the difference between supporting the creation of a state and opposing it?
.
Somewhere, though, you write: “The nature of suffering that Jews have experienced in this conflict is completely different and not comparable.” Now, this I agree with. But then I have ask why you’re comparing them.
December 1, 2011
9:05 pm
Btw, this is useful: http://contested-terrain.net/emma-goldman-on-zionism/
December 2, 2011
12:23 am
States are not individuals. There is no inalienable right to sit on the Human Rights Council or on the Security Council. Where it doesn’t sit, Israel is zealously protected by America and much of Europe because of its privileged status in the international arena. It is also false to say that Israel isn’t a member of any regional groups, when in fact it belongs to many European IGOs, most prominently the OECD, of which no Arab state — least of all Palestine — is a member. It is also in partnerships with Middle Eastern countries, including in groups like SESAME and the Arava Institute, not to mention informal and back-channel relations such as the Israeli-GCC alliance against Iran.
.
That Israel is ostracized at a few international venues is a result of power politics, not a lack of privilege.
.
As to actual privilege: Yes, at some point over 100 years ago, I agree there was a kyriarchy. Palestinians were an established and entrenched majority and had some privilege over Jews, while Jews who were arriving from Western Europe also had privilege in other areas. I do not disagree with that, and I do not disagree that some Palestinians treated Jews horribly. However, it wasn’t a one-way street and didn’t occur in isolation.
.
I am not trying to excuse anything by saying that Zionism was the major factor in the hostility between Jews and Palestinians. There was no history of organized sectarian rhetoric and violence before the arrival of this European-style nationalism. As the inestimable Emma Goldman points out, Jews were immigrating/returning when Herzl was but twinkle in his mother’s eye, and there were no pogroms in the 1800s. It wasn’t until the politically exclusive ideology came onto the scene that systematic tensions and violence became a problem.
.
To pretend that Zionism was nothing more than Jewish liberation and asylum and came at no cost to Palestinians is quite dishonest. Going back to Emma Goldman’s article, as an example of Palestinian mistreatment, landlords were selling their land to Zionists, who in turn were kicking off Palestinians from the soil they had tilled for generations. Jewish liberation and asylum had a cost that Palestinians were paying, and some of them reacted with brutal and terrible violence. It is not excusing it to say that there was a root cause.
.
Lastly, as far as the present day is concerned, I never said that Jews are oppressed in the context of this conflict, at least not by Palestinians. I said that Jews have suffered as a result of Palestinian violence. However, oppression is, as you say, systematic and comes with privilege, and it’s impossible for it to be a two-way street, since you yourself say Palestinians have little privilege. They do not have the ability to set up a system of discrimination and dispossession against Jews. They cannot limit the human and civil rights of Jews because they have no privilege. Only Israel has done that, and it’s a result of the state’s Zionism.
.
Just so I’m perfectly clear, the above paragraph in regards only to the conflict. I am perfectly aware of how Jews are not as privileged outside of Israel. Even in places like the US where Jews are treated as white, there are painful reminders of just how Othered they can be.
.
However, we are talking about the conflict and Zionism as it relates to its ideologues and to its victims. Jewish people have an inalienable right to their homeland, not least of all because of their historic connection to it, but it isn’t and can’t be an exclusive right. I do not wish to take away the privilege that Israeli Jews enjoy, but rather would like to see Palestinians enjoy it, too.
.
My heart lies in Jaffa, Lydda, and Ramallah, the childhood homes of my grandparents, as surely as it does in Jerusalem, the center of my people’s culture. No one has a right to deny or block that connection.
December 2, 2011
8:12 am
“That Israel is ostracized at a few international venues is a result of power politics, not a lack of privilege.”
.
Think about that a little longer.
December 2, 2011
10:49 am
@Matt: I have, and the very notion that states have privilege like human beings do is particularly laughable. But insofar as states can be said to have “privilege,” Israel is most definitely part of the elite.
.
What other first world country its size is as militarized as Israel is and has carried on an occupation for as long as Israel has or has a discrimination regime the likes of which Israel imposes upon Palestinians?
.
Israel wants to act like the US, but it doesn’t have nearly enough resources to get away with it like America does. I’m supposed to call that a “lack of privilege”? And Palestinian semi-governmental organizations, which exist at the behest of Israel, are so “privileged” that they can block it at every turn, but they can’t so much as get a measly seat at the UNGA? This is ridiculous beyond words.
December 2, 2011
1:22 pm
States don’t have privilege. They institutionalize privilege. How many other states need to be so militarized just to ensure their existence? How many other states face the same threats? How dehistoricized can you get? It is ridiculous.
December 2, 2011
3:02 pm
Israel doesn’t face threats, Israel IS threat.
December 2, 2011
3:18 pm
Aristiedes said: “Israel doesn’t face threats, Israel IS threat”
.
Cool!!! So Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran to name a few, is just a figment of our feverish Zionist imagination. I feel all better now, thanks for clearing that Aristeides, I will be able to sleep better now.
.
Wow!
December 2, 2011
5:11 pm
I wish you nightmares of your own creation.
December 2, 2011
5:44 pm
Ooooooh feeling hateful aren’t we?
December 3, 2011
9:24 am
I have to say I
December 3, 2011
9:31 am
“I don’t agree with the premise that there is an inherent contradiction between being liberal and being Zionist. But that’s because of how I understand those terms.
Zionism for me involves a cluster of beliefs and attitudes that contain the following:
a) I am conscious of being part of a Jewish people, and that consciousness provides something meaningful within my life;
b) As a member of this people, I am conscious of a religious/historical connection to the land of Israel/Palestine;
c) The growth of Hebrew culture in Israel/Palestine, that began in the twentieth century, has been, on the whole, positive for the Jewish people, and compatible with the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestine Arabs;
d) The legitimate self-determination of the Jewish people requires nothing more than the ability for the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, within the limits of a liberal, civic framework;”
I have to say I mostly agree with this, though I think a) is not by itself necessary (there are Zionist non-Jews and I don’t see why it is impossible for them to be liberal), and I agree with letter c) though I would say it was not necessary to do so in the Land of Israel/Palestine despite letter b). By far the most important provision is that of letter d).
What I don’t see however is how this is incompatible with being a Liberal Zionist.
I am also surprised to read this:
“…There are now around five and a half million Jews in Israel/Palestine. The overwhelming majority of Palestinians and Arabs, including the Hamas party, accept the physical presence of Jews within Palestine; their problems are more with a Jewish ethnic state.”
I would say that Hamas’ issue with Israel goes beyond Israel being a Jewish state. I doubt Hamas would actually want a bi-national state as it excludes it from being Islamic by definition.
December 3, 2011
9:46 pm
The very same agenda espoused by early zionists used as justification for arab animosity against early jewish immigration is handwaved away once espoused by modern palestinian reactionary extremist groups.
.
If like Ilan Pappe and his kr3w write, Palestinians knew a-priori they shouldn’t accept creeping jew settlement in palestine because the writings of Herzel, Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion implied a ‘jewish majority state’ then surely we can make the same claims re: Hamas and the current dominant islamist ideology within among palestinians.
.
Hamas still clearly say “67 is only the beginning.”. If Hebron 1929 is justified on these terms than so is caste lead.
.
You’re either a pluralist or you AIN’T! (I is)
December 4, 2011
6:24 am
I can’t respond to all the comments made on my post (if you made them on my blog, I would.)
But just a few points.
1) I made a list of four things that describe my version of Zionism, what makes me a Zionist. I was not defining Zionism because, as a historian, I find that to be a silly task. One shouldn’t talk about “Zionism” (or most “isms”, for that matter), but rather “Zionisms” or varieties of Zionism. Those who say something like, “Zionism means a Jewish homeland in Palestine” or a “Jewish state somewhere” or “support of the state of Israel” are referring to different varieties of Zionism. There is no one-size-fits-all, nor is there any “essence” of Zionism. “What most people mean by Zionism” means little to me, because most people don’t know squat about Zionism (or communism, or liberalism, or whatever).
Having said the above, my sort of Zionism, which has its historical antecedents in a variety of Zionist thinkers, including some mainstream ones before 1942, has been read out of the Zionist tradition by ethnic exclusivist Zionists. Judah Magnes was a life-long Zionist, but he was considered to be an anti-Zionist by ethnic-exclusivist Zionists.
I adhere to the title Zionist, because I agree with Magnes’ variety of Zionism (more or less), and because I find certain elements of Zionism attractive. I find other elements of statist Zionist unattractive. And I find many elements of religious Zionism repulsive. (Full disclosure: I am an orthodox Jew.)
As for the question whether liberal Zionist is an oxymoron — certainly it is not. I feel, however, that many liberals and progressives are too quick to check their liberalism/progessivism at the door when it comes to Israel. Of course, they may not see it that way, but I do. The reason they do is because their tribal loyalties allow them to accept in Israel’s case what they would not accept in other’s case. And here we may start with the whole question of Jewish identity, which, in the case of Israel ethnicity, has a strong religious component. One can only become part of the Jewish nation, according to Israeli secular law, through religious conversion. The liberal Zionists out there should give me another example of a liberal nationalism that gives religion that role. And yet liberal Zionists like the philosopher Isaiah Berlin were able to compromise their liberalism on that point, although Berlin was uncomfortable with it.
3) Adrian made two points I would like to respond to: first, why wasn’t my d) compatible with liberal Zionism. Perhaps I should have explained by “liberal Zionist” I was referring to people who think like Larry Derfner. d) is compatible with that sort of liberal Zionism, of course, but it is not anywhere as robust as liberal Zionism, since it does not need a Jewish ethnic state, such as the one founded in 1948. As for Hamas — Hamas has said that it was willing to have a long period of hudna/truce with a Zionist state under certain conditions (end of occupation and implementation of right of return). I am assuming that it would be more than willing to live in a binational Palestine, in which it would play some sort of political role, perhaps indirect, analogous to the anti-Zionist orthodox Jewish party Agudat Yisrael, which does not have ministers in the Zionist government for that reason, yet which participates in the political process in order to get funding for its sector.
Needless to say, religious fundamentalists on both sides don’t recognize any secular government as ultimately legitimate.
March 13, 2012
8:18 am
Jews, having returned to Palestine (Erets Israel) at 19-20 centuries, haven’t taken away another’s earth, and have returned their. And here Arabs, having grasped Palestine in 7 century, have really taken away the another’s. Why now Jews, but not Arabs, are considered as occupants?!
And if now descendants of the Arabian refugees from these districts start talking about “the right to returning” and “exile of the Indian/Iranian/Spanish etc. invaders from our native land” – nobody will take it seriously 
) Why the right of Arabs to other ANOTHER’S country occupied by their ancestors, Palestine – admits?
At the same time Arabs have grasped many other earths. But from India, the Central Asia and Spain them have soon expelled
Now the Palestinian Arabs prove the right to the Country of Israel that “we lived here earlier (not truth – B.), than Jews”. It they simulate modern European liberal language. But PRIMORDIALLY they proved “rights” differently: “Islam – unique correct religion, therefore God has granted to us is right on all earths of “caffirs”(non-muslims), and the caffirs has deprived of the rights to their earths”. But same delirium
Why the western liberals recognize these Arabian”rights”?