From November 1975 to December 1991, Zionism was “officially” a form of racism and racial discrimination. So the United Nations famously proclaimed by a vote of 67- 35 (with 32 abstentions), and so it was for 16 years, until, by a vote of 111-25 (with 13 abstentions), the “Zionism is racism” resolution was simply rescinded.
Plainly, however, the U.N. vote of 1991 did not put the assault on Zionism to rest. These days, 16 years after having emerged from its unjust solitary confinement, it is back under indictment. There it sits in the dock, badgered, hounded, tormented — accused.
Zionism is widely thought to be an ugly anachronism — an illiberal, anti-democratic European imposition on an indigenous native population. Nor are those who condemn it drawn principally, as they were in 1975, from the Arab world and the erstwhile Soviet bloc. In “enlightened” circles, where nationalism is eschewed, Zionism is now widely viewed with disfavor.
In a forthcoming paper on American Jewish attitudes toward Israel, Steven M. Cohen and Ari Kelman find that while 82% of their broadly representative sample regard themselves as “pro-Israel,” only 28% — and fewer still in the younger cohorts — see themselves as “Zionists.” Thus, even among the Jews, even among Israel’s supporters, the word has become musty — or worse, an unwelcome evocation of the judgment of its least sympathetic critics.
But: If Zionism is today discredited, then, by extension, its offspring, the Jewish state of Israel, is damaged. How, then, might Zionism more constructively be defined and defended?
Those who rise to Zionism’s defense offer an array of justifications: Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people; given their history, the Jews both need and deserve a state of their own, and the work of Zionism will not be done until Israel is safe, secure, accepted; opposition to Zionism is actually a form of antisemitism. Such assertions are of limited utility.
A national liberation movement? The romance of national liberation movements has paled, the status of the Jews as a “nation” is neither widely understood nor broadly accepted, and, in any case, Diaspora Jews hardly seem in urgent need of “liberation.”
Jewish suffering? Why should the past suffering of the Jews trump the ongoing suffering of the Palestinians? Anti-Zionism as antisemitism? Too facile a dismissal; the discredited brush of antisemitism cannot be the all-purpose riposte to every critical appraisal of Jewish expression.
Here, then, a different way of defining Zionism: Zionism is essentially a program of return and reunion. That is as straightforward and simple as it gets.
But simple as it is, it has very dramatic implications. For insofar as we accept that Zionism is about return, do we not thereby invoke on behalf of the Jewish people a “right of return”?
The right of return, so contentious a topic these days — insisted upon by the Arab world, resisted and rejected by Israel and, yes, by all Zionists — is an established right under international law. It is rendered explicit by the U.N.’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1976), as explicated in the General Comments of the Human Rights Committee (in 1999).
As Human Rights Watch argues, “the clearest guidance in international law for defining the basis on which an individual can exercise a claim to return to his or her ‘own country’ is provided by the convergence of the wording of ‘an individual who, because of his or her special ties to or claims in relation to a given country, cannot be considered to be a mere alien’ — and the concept of a ‘genuine and effective link,’ which arose out of the International Court of Justice’s Nottebohm case.”
The Nottebohm holding, much cited, allows for those outside their own country to return for the first time, even if they were born elsewhere and would be entering for the first time, so long as they have maintained a “genuine and effective link” to the country. A “genuine and effective link” includes such elements as family ties, participation in public life, AND attachment shown for a given country and inculcated into children, language and cultural identity. The right of return inheres in individuals, and is transgenerational — that is, it can be handed down through the generations, so long as the link is maintained.
Well, now: We were expelled from the land and taken into captivity in the year 70 of the Common Era. From that time to this, the link of the Jews to Palestine, more recently Israel, has been genuine, and for most of those years — surely during Zionism’s pre-state heyday — we were barred from exercising our undoubted right of return. True, few of us can chronicle our ancestry all the way back (although DNA analysis might in fact show numerous cases of unbroken ties), but given the history of the Jews, there’s a strong argument to be made for a presumptive connection, hence a presumptive right.
In that view, Zionism is the organized form for claiming our due under the internationally recognized right of return.
The claim has no priority over the Palestinian claim, and the two claims, as everyone knows, are in direct conflict. Our return makes sense only if it is a return to the country from which we were expelled — that is, a Jewish country. The Palestinians, understandably, have no interest in return to a state that is Jewish by definition.
The resolution of the dispute, therefore, will necessarily be a political rather than a juridical resolution. But the dispute is not between a colonial enterprise and an indigenous national movement; it is between two valid human rights claims. Far from an illiberal, much less racist, imposition, Zionism rests on a foundation of human rights — a foundation that provides both warrant and challenge.
In the 19th century, there were Jews who were quite uncomfortable with the term "Jew" which was seen by others as negative. The Reform Movement, for example, called itself the Union of American HEBREW Congregations. The word Hebrew was used in place of Jewish. Today, there are Jews who are uncomfortable with the term "Zionism" since this term is seen as negative by its enemies. It would be much more dignified if Jews would just raise their heads in pride and present themselves to the world as an ancient people that cherishes its ancient memories and find them meaningful until this very day.
Interesting, well-done article, but ultimately fallacious. One cannot logically argue that the author's well-founded claim to return under international law "makes sense only if it is a return to the country from which we were expelled — that is, a Jewish country." The country the Jews were expelled from (as well as the world it existed in) has long since turned to dust. The right under law does not imply that one then has the right to recapitulate some fantasy of what existed before, only that one has the right to return to the geographic locale. Nor is it logical that the two claims are by necessity in conflict - they only are so if either one or both groups insist on a exclusionary right of return. There will be no end of this conflict as long as it is viewed as a zero-sum game.
I think this article represents an enormous shift forward in Zionist thinking, but it falls short for the reasons that Grif points out. The two claims do not necessarily need to be in conflict, unless one or both parties sees their claim as an exclusive claim. For this reason, a binationalist entity which provides both a Jewish homeland/place of refuge/place of pride and a national character that is inclusive of Palestinians is the best way out of this vicious cycle. Binationalism fits in best with the global capitalist 21st century world, in which transmigration and pluralism are a given. I also think that the authors' use of the Nottebohm decision is impressive, considering that a large part of Jewish rejection of Palestinian right of return revolves around the amount of time that has passed, and the number of indigenous Palestinians who have died, since 1948.
Yehudia suggests a way out of the conflict through a binational entity. Such an arrangement assumes that there are two national groups that have a connection to the land. However, Palestinian society does not recognize the Jews as a national group, nor does it recognize our connection to the land. The conflict, for the forseeable future, cannot be resolved. Grif's use of the term 'fantasy' (regarding the return of Jews to a country and a world 'lost since turned to dust') is really quite strange. If this were a debate about a return to Jewish sovereignty about 90-100 years ago, well, perhaps one could tolerate such a term. However, after the revival of Hebrew, the founding of a nation-state and the gathering of a Jewish population now approaching six million - it turns out that the 'fantasies' of Jewish memory are a powerful factor in real life events.
Grif is correct. As a matter of public international law, the Nottebohm case and so forth applies to an individual's link with an existing state, not to the creation of a state. The justification for Israel under international law is rather simpler. It is the right of peoples to self-determination, which is the basic concept on which most of international law hangs, and is set out at Article 1 of the U.N. Chamber, and expanded on in a couple of other treaties. Rather than read Nottebohm, Mr. Fein would do better to look either to the Western Sahara case, under international law, or the Quebec Secession Reference, a Canadian judgement of the Supreme Court which reviews this area of international law very effectively. The nub of the anti-Zionist argument is almost always that Jews do not constitute a people and should therefore not be entitled to self-determination. This is why anti-Zionists typically focus on the idea that Jewishness is "merely" a religion; that there exists no shared Jewish history; that the Jewish diaspora does not really exist; that different Jewish communities in different parts of the world are in fact Slavs, Arabs, etc., of the Mosaic faith, rather than an ethnic minority, and so forth. The central argument over Zionism is really an argument over Jewish peoplehood. That is why the message throughout the anti-Zionist Middle East is that they love Jews, but hate Israel. What they mean by "Jews" is: a particular faith practiced by individuals of many nations. They regard the existence of the Jewish people as a Zionist plot, however central it is to Jews themselves, and however much historians, geneticists, folklorists, and everyone else able to conduct research points out the obvious. And there's the rub.
[quote]Well, now: We were expelled from the land and taken into captivity in the year 70 of the Common Era.[/quote] Correction. Jews were expelled twice, not once as stated. The first time was in 546 ACE, by the Babylonians. 200 years later, Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire had allowed the Jews to return to their land.
[quote]Well, now: We were expelled from the land and taken into captivity in the year 70 of the Common Era.[/quote] Correction. Jews were expelled twice, not once as stated. The first time was in 546 ACE, by the Babylonians. 200 years later, Cyrus the Great of the Persian Empire had allowed the Jews to return to their land. I think the term "Zionizm" had outlived its usefulness. This venerable movement had a mission to facilitate Jews return to the land of their ancesstors, to live as sovereign nation. It did complete it mission, and gave way to modern day State of Israel. By arguing on that truck (Zionism is a passe'), Jews abroad, and Israelis will pull the rug under Israel's enemies which labling Israel as "the zionist entity".
The Jews were not expelled from Palestine in 70 CE or in 130 CE. That is a myth that no serious historian of the period, Jewish or Gentile, believes in. There is no evidence that Jews was "taken into captivity" by the Romans and plenty of evidence against it. The Romans crucified rebels; they didn't exile them. How the myth got started is a fascinating story. See the article of the Israeli historian, Yisrael Yuval, The Myth of the Exile from the Land of Israel, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ckn/v012/12.1yuval.html So Lebel, since your argument rests on that premise, it fails. Before you write articles of this sort, check your facts.
fund such problem. To me frantically seems precise oral sex, and chain is masterly to travel this single in spurposeer state. exact from kuni became to detritus, I notion of because self awaits that I choice ask something in substitutions... endure what tactics? first jay mrs sex teacher ?:)) Here is appeared muddle with wife....(dislikes minet) first mcqueen mrs sex teacher &&??
Because I am an American Jew of European extraction whose mythical ancestors left Palestine some 2,000 years ago, I have a "right of return." But a Palestinian Arab who was forced out of Palestine by Zionist terror sixty years ago does not. His children's and grandchildren's "right of return" is also out of the question. This makes perfect sense and there isn't an ounce of racism in it.
Why, I think that I'll make that "birthright" trip after all! Thank you dear Forward for clearing my conscience!
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.