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.