The Irrelevance of Zionism
The political far-left and the religious right are ignoring a crucial point
There’s a frenzy of talk about the legitimacy of Zionism. On the extreme left of the political spectrum, which has almost fully infiltrated academia, the standard line is that Israel is an illegitimate settler-colonial project (ignoring the fundamental differences between Israel and genuine settler-colonial projects). Meanwhile, on the right of the religious spectrum, many charedi Jews claim that the establishment of Israel was a secular and even anti-religious move, and that it therefore has no authority or religious legitimacy, and thus they have no obligation to serve in the IDF.
The origins and evolution of Zionism are fascinating. There was the simultaneous rise of nationalism and the recognition of a need for a refuge from the growing persecution in Europe. There was the search for a home - in East Africa, in Surinam, in Madagascar, in Australia and Tasmania and elsewhere - all of which were doomed to fail, and certainly to face ultimate global opposition. There was the Palestine Project - first seeking to obtain the land from the Ottomans, then from the British. There were the question of how to reach a political resolution/ compromise with the resident Arabs.
But all of this is pretty much irrelevant.
The relevant fact is that in 2024 there are over seven million Jews living in the Land of Israel.
For those on the political left, this means that aside from Israel not actually being a settler-colonial state, it wouldn’t make a difference if it was. To quote Bret Stephens: “History is lived forward, not back, and the goal of politics and diplomacy is to make life as livable for as many people as possible, not to re-adjudicate ancient rights or wrongs.” Given the cultural nature of the region, calls for de-colonization, or even for the so-called “one state solution,” are effectively calls for these seven million Jews to be driven out or killed or forced into servitude. So, too, are calls to grant statehood for Palestinians in the West Bank which ignore the Palestinians’ actual desires and do not take into account the likelihood of it turning into another Gaza.
And for those on the religious right, it means that the secular nature of many early Zionists is meaningless. It is irrelevant that there is no divinely-appointed king or Urim V’Tumim, and that the state largely does not operate according to Jewish law. It makes no difference whether it is the beginning of the Messianic process or not. There are seven million Jews here whose lives need supporting and defending, including over a million charedim, and the IDF has a manpower shortage.
Personally, I think that the idea of creating a home for the Jewish People in their ancestral land, with international support and political independence, was a necessary, just, religiously praiseworthy and extraordinary idea. (And it has had tremendous results for the Jewish People, as well as for the lives of many Arabs, and indeed for the entire world.) But you can disagree with all of that (though then you’d have to explain what the millions of Jews facing slaughter in Europe should have done instead), and it makes little difference to the need to support and defend Israel today.
This made me realize that I’m uncomfortable with the terminology that I used in many posts over the last few months. I’ve been using the word “Zionist” to describe non-charedi Israelis who serve in the army. But for the reasons described above, it’s the wrong word, and it doesn’t include the (very) small number of charedim who do serve in the army. I’m not sure, though, what the right term is. Civic-minded? Pro-Israel? Pro-Jewish existence? I’m open to suggestions.
Some people are scared of the word "Zionist," some of them so scared they won't self-apply it even when accurate.
Look, "Zionist" has meant many things over the years. I'll give you an example: In the early days of the Zionist movement, a certain number of seats on the the Zionist Organization were reserved for "non-Zionists." Now, that sounds weird...until you realize that "Zionist" meant someone really devoted to the movement, someone who spent all of his spare time on it, was a formal member of the movement (or a party within it), etc. Say, Weizmann or Jabotinsky or Bar-Ilan. A "non-Zionist" was probably *just as supportive* of the goals of Zionism as the former group- but not in a formal, "member," sense. Say, the Rothschilds or even R' Revel in New York or maybe even R' Kook.
Obviously none of that is true anymore, and ceased to be true in around, oh, 1948. Being a "Zionist" obviously no longer meant you were trying to *create* a Jewish State; it now meant that you *supported* it. So *all* those people became "Zionists." (I imagine the presence of anti-Zionists, both left and charedi, also helped here, but I don't think it was a major factor. The existence of Israel was.) This explains various things, like how we're told R' Soloveitchik wasn't a "Zionist" before he actually joined Mizrachi (or how R' Kook supposedly wasn't a Zionist at all), or how charedim still refer to non-charedim as "Mizrachi" when Mizrachi hasn't really existed for about seventy years, or how Ben Hecht is gleefully quoted as attacking "Zionists" when he's really mostly attacking the Labor Party.
In most countries of the world, we'd just say "patriot." The thing about Israel is (to quote Hecht), it has millions of ambassadors around the world. That is, you can't exactly be a French patriot if you're not French. But you can be a Zionist without living in Israel- heck, you don't even have to be Jewish. (Again, the presence of actual anti-Zionists probably helps here, but again I don't think it's the main point.)
So yeah, a lot of charedim- especially those living in the US- have to have it broken to them gently that, like it or not, they're Zionists. Oh, they can quibble over details, but they are. It's just that the movement is (in its modern form) about 160 years old, which means it has a lot of baggage. So it might take a while.
*Israeli* charedim, on the other hand, will really have to have things fed to them. "Your wife just gave birth? Mazal tov! Where? Hadassah? Nice! Did she get treated well there? Are you grateful to them for your new child? Do you know what *Hadassah* is? Starts with a tzadi, ends with a yud." And then you can get more and more basic. "Oh, this sidewalk we're walking on? Zionist."
Any citizen of any country has an obligation to help defend their country. The exemption from military service given to the ultra-orthodox in Israel was an expediency when Israel was a relatively young state and needed all the support it could get for its very existence. However, the need for that expediency is long gone and the ultra-orthodox now represent a large minority of the population. They should not receive exemptions from serving their country while the rest of their fellow citizens sacrifice. As far as the legitimacy of the founding of Israel, Israel is now a fait accompli and has the same right to exist and defend itself as any other country. Besides which, most countries were founded in ways that would trouble modern sensibilities.