What's in a Word? But Air?
Most bloggers for the past 11 days have been discussing why they haven't been talking about the latest Israeli bombing campaigns, and I'm not sure they're wrong to do so. I myself would like, at the moment, to avoid as much as possible arguments over the who-started-its, the "proportionality," etc. Indeed, I will try to hold my own cards as close to my chest as possible, so as to avoid these kinds of spiraling debates.
My only question is one that has been bothering me for some time. It regards the use of the term "Zionist." Usually, though not exclusively, one hears this word used rather pejoratively. When it appears in the Western media, it's usually said by a Muslim lamenting Israel, either specifically or generally. (It would be tough to cite specific examples because they appear in the newspaper daily. Ahmadinejad uses the word frequently, as does Saddam Hussein, as do everyday citizens of Muslism countries.)
The meaning of some of these usages I understand. "Zionism is racism," for example, refers to the Jewish idea that Israel-Palestine is a land for which the Jewish people have a privileged right to occupy, and that various Israeli laws and policies that discrimenate against Palestinians are accomplished through this racist "Zionist" ideology.
My own understanding of Zionism has always been something close to how Wikipedia defines it: "as a political movement and ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." What has always struck me as strange, considering that this is what I understand Zionism to be, is why and how this term is still used. Given that Israel has been for nearly 60 years an existing state that serves as the homeland for many Jews, I never really understood why this term -- primarily used by Jews before the state of Israel was established in 1948--is still around today. Now that the state actually exists, in other words, why do some people use a term that mainly refers to the struggle to create the state.
My confusion can be expressed somewhat through an analogy. When I travel to Spain next year, I will not be traveling to the land of the "Reconquest" completed in 1492. Nor will I be traveling to the land of Castile and/or Aragon (the two independent states that were unified under Phillip V to essentially create modern-day Spain). Instead, I will be going to Spain, and will be speaking Castilian (the language of Castile, the conquering power). These are the cards that history has dealt me and were I to dispute them I would be saying something radical. I would be calling for the overthrow of the Spanish state.
A reasonable objection to this logic exists, of course. The Basques, the Catalonians, the Galicians, have never spoken Spanish and without seeming radical at all manage to make a persuasive case that they deserve some autonomy from Spain. Some of the more radical elements of Basque society believe that independence can be brought about only through violence. Unfortunately for them, their ends were not acheived through violence because, chiefly, they were unable to unleash enough of it to force their opponents to surrender. Now that the Basque terrorists have recognized the futility of their efforts, they have begun to enter into political dialogue with their opponents and in doing so, have to a certain extent recognized their opponents' conquest. In order to become free they must not kill their oppressor but acknowledge Spain's hegemony, and begin to negotiate. They must, in other words, be willing to compromise.
My question regarding Zionism surrounds this issue of compromise. If compromise involves at the very least recognizing the legitimacy, often hegemony, of your opponent, then what am I to take this term Zionism to mean? If you are a citizen of the Israeli state then are you not an Israeli? If you are the Israeli Prime Minister, or an IDF general, then are you not an Israeli? If these people are not Israelis but "Zionists," what exactly are they? Are they insurgents? Are they revolutionaries? Are they conquerers?
If "Zionist" is to mean any of these things then a Zionist is clearly involved in a yet unfinished project. He or she in the process of creating, the process of conquering, etc. And if they are in a continual process of state-creation rather than a finished one -- not in the sense of two-state solutions or border realignments but of "Zionist" as someone who supports Israel to exist as a Jewish state -- then they in fact are not a state but a movement that can, like any other movement, be crushed. (Just as Americans had little moral issues with eliminating the Taliban movement and "restoring" the Afghanistan state.)
Because I myself do not use the term "Zionist" I cannot know what is meant by those who say it. If the logic I have presented is false, and by "Zionist" I am to understand something entirely different, I would like nothing more than to know the real general meaning of the term.
Having spent lots of time with lots of people who support this Israeli aggression, I can speak only for their perspective. Their position (and Israel's it seems to me) would be that if you are someone who calls into question the very right for Israel to exist (ie. "Zionism" in the 1930s and 1940s sense) you are not someone who is likely willing to compromise; for when you speak of "occupation" you refer not solely to Gaza, or to the West Bank, or Lebanon, or the Golan, but to all of Israel. Those who use the term Zionist pejoratively, the logic goes, would like to see Israel go the same route as the Taliban (we will forget temporarily that the Taliban is nowhere near defeated). If Israelis are mere Zionists and the opponents of Israel are anti-Zionists, this thinking continues, Israel is not and should not be in a small adventure to retake their captured soldiers. Rather, they should be doing something drastic, disproportionate, etc. so as to defend not just their soldiers, but their existence.
Now that I have put forward my own questions, and the general position of those in favor of this Israeli aggression, I would love to hear something from another point of view. What do those who use the term pejoratively mean "Zionist?" Can someone concerned about Israel be persuaded that those who use the term and simultaneously lob and stockpile missiles, capture soldiers , etc. are interested in "two states" after all, and not the elimination of one (as in '48 and '67,).
I apolize if this post appears rambling. I have tried to ask honest questions untinged by my own allegiances, and I look forward to responses equally straight-forward.
My only question is one that has been bothering me for some time. It regards the use of the term "Zionist." Usually, though not exclusively, one hears this word used rather pejoratively. When it appears in the Western media, it's usually said by a Muslim lamenting Israel, either specifically or generally. (It would be tough to cite specific examples because they appear in the newspaper daily. Ahmadinejad uses the word frequently, as does Saddam Hussein, as do everyday citizens of Muslism countries.)
The meaning of some of these usages I understand. "Zionism is racism," for example, refers to the Jewish idea that Israel-Palestine is a land for which the Jewish people have a privileged right to occupy, and that various Israeli laws and policies that discrimenate against Palestinians are accomplished through this racist "Zionist" ideology.
My own understanding of Zionism has always been something close to how Wikipedia defines it: "as a political movement and ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel." What has always struck me as strange, considering that this is what I understand Zionism to be, is why and how this term is still used. Given that Israel has been for nearly 60 years an existing state that serves as the homeland for many Jews, I never really understood why this term -- primarily used by Jews before the state of Israel was established in 1948--is still around today. Now that the state actually exists, in other words, why do some people use a term that mainly refers to the struggle to create the state.
My confusion can be expressed somewhat through an analogy. When I travel to Spain next year, I will not be traveling to the land of the "Reconquest" completed in 1492. Nor will I be traveling to the land of Castile and/or Aragon (the two independent states that were unified under Phillip V to essentially create modern-day Spain). Instead, I will be going to Spain, and will be speaking Castilian (the language of Castile, the conquering power). These are the cards that history has dealt me and were I to dispute them I would be saying something radical. I would be calling for the overthrow of the Spanish state.
A reasonable objection to this logic exists, of course. The Basques, the Catalonians, the Galicians, have never spoken Spanish and without seeming radical at all manage to make a persuasive case that they deserve some autonomy from Spain. Some of the more radical elements of Basque society believe that independence can be brought about only through violence. Unfortunately for them, their ends were not acheived through violence because, chiefly, they were unable to unleash enough of it to force their opponents to surrender. Now that the Basque terrorists have recognized the futility of their efforts, they have begun to enter into political dialogue with their opponents and in doing so, have to a certain extent recognized their opponents' conquest. In order to become free they must not kill their oppressor but acknowledge Spain's hegemony, and begin to negotiate. They must, in other words, be willing to compromise.
My question regarding Zionism surrounds this issue of compromise. If compromise involves at the very least recognizing the legitimacy, often hegemony, of your opponent, then what am I to take this term Zionism to mean? If you are a citizen of the Israeli state then are you not an Israeli? If you are the Israeli Prime Minister, or an IDF general, then are you not an Israeli? If these people are not Israelis but "Zionists," what exactly are they? Are they insurgents? Are they revolutionaries? Are they conquerers?
If "Zionist" is to mean any of these things then a Zionist is clearly involved in a yet unfinished project. He or she in the process of creating, the process of conquering, etc. And if they are in a continual process of state-creation rather than a finished one -- not in the sense of two-state solutions or border realignments but of "Zionist" as someone who supports Israel to exist as a Jewish state -- then they in fact are not a state but a movement that can, like any other movement, be crushed. (Just as Americans had little moral issues with eliminating the Taliban movement and "restoring" the Afghanistan state.)
Because I myself do not use the term "Zionist" I cannot know what is meant by those who say it. If the logic I have presented is false, and by "Zionist" I am to understand something entirely different, I would like nothing more than to know the real general meaning of the term.
Having spent lots of time with lots of people who support this Israeli aggression, I can speak only for their perspective. Their position (and Israel's it seems to me) would be that if you are someone who calls into question the very right for Israel to exist (ie. "Zionism" in the 1930s and 1940s sense) you are not someone who is likely willing to compromise; for when you speak of "occupation" you refer not solely to Gaza, or to the West Bank, or Lebanon, or the Golan, but to all of Israel. Those who use the term Zionist pejoratively, the logic goes, would like to see Israel go the same route as the Taliban (we will forget temporarily that the Taliban is nowhere near defeated). If Israelis are mere Zionists and the opponents of Israel are anti-Zionists, this thinking continues, Israel is not and should not be in a small adventure to retake their captured soldiers. Rather, they should be doing something drastic, disproportionate, etc. so as to defend not just their soldiers, but their existence.
Now that I have put forward my own questions, and the general position of those in favor of this Israeli aggression, I would love to hear something from another point of view. What do those who use the term pejoratively mean "Zionist?" Can someone concerned about Israel be persuaded that those who use the term and simultaneously lob and stockpile missiles, capture soldiers , etc. are interested in "two states" after all, and not the elimination of one (as in '48 and '67,).
I apolize if this post appears rambling. I have tried to ask honest questions untinged by my own allegiances, and I look forward to responses equally straight-forward.
posted by Robot at 3:13 PM
8 Comments:
Let me add one quick thing. While my post was specifically about certain Muslim attitudes (which no doubt carry the more profound consequences) towards Zionism, there are plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. who are anti-Zionist. My great-grandfather was one, and even within Israel, there are orthodox Jewish communities that do not believe the state of Israel can be brought about until the Messiah comes-a-knockin. Additionally, Lenin's Tomb (a non-Muslim who uses Zionist as pejoratively as anyone) linked to a conference sponsored by anti-Zionist Jewish leaders.
Robot,
You've entered this debate at exactly the point I thought would be most interesting and civil, which is the level of rhetoric. "Zionist" is, to me, a useless term, one that is so entangled in unquestioning rhetoric that it ceases to be meaningful as a descriptor.
I consider myself a person who has been largely untouched by debates about the Middle East for most of my life, which probably differentiates me from several people on this blog. That is an admission of ignorance, but I think it also allows me to speak as a person whose opinions are more or less new and formed during a period of relative maturity (not that no one else's opinions count, but I hope you get my point).
My impression has always been that the word "Zionist" has two meanings that can claim especial importance (the remaining usages are either too loose and unspecific or so irrational as to be unhelpful). The first meaning (Zionist 1) is the one you quote from Wikipedia. From this definition, however, it is a hop skip and a jump away to the other meaning: Zionism (Zionist 2) is a racist ideology (i.e. it treats non-Jews as second-class human beings) that seeks (largely with the help of the United States) to control its region of the world, oppress its neighbors, etc. This is certainly the meaning that gets thrown around most. If anyone can honestly say that when most people say "Zionist," they mean "supporters of Israel's right to exist" in a relatively neutral manner, I would be genuinely interested in hearing their reasoning.
I say "hop skip and a jump away" above for several reasons. The problem is that whereas some people read "political movement and ideology that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel" without much problem, the phrases "Jewish people" and "Land of Israel" immediately admit of ambiguity and contested meanings. ("Political movement" and "ideology" I take to be rather harmless; everyone has an ideology--what matters is how harmful it is.) Obviously, much argument has taken place around the idea of Israel as a "Jewish state." Is the very idea of a country singled out for a certain ethnic group racist? Even if it is not, are Israel's actions pertaining to Palestinians enough to make it so no matter what? That is what I would consider the "slippage" in that area. In every case, there will be all sorts of reasonable and unreasonable people employing such an argument. There are those who want Israel destroyed. There are those who might entertain such notions but cannot follow through because of solidarity, the greater good, the stakes at hand, what have you. There are those, and I would hope I could possibly be one, who would raise the claim as a rational inquiry without becoming a spokesperson for either side. The answer to this line of questioning is in part the very powerful argument that the Jewish people have suffered immensely, especially in World War II. Then comes the response that Israel has become the very thing it was trying to escape, a regime of "ethnic cleansing." Those I take to be the main points of argument there.
The second "slippery" area is of course "the Land of Israel." If you think the Jewish people were destined to return to Israel by ordination of God, I have nothing to say to you, just as I have nothing to say to someone who claims that God will deliver the land to the Palestinians. Unless you are just totally some sort of Fishian identity politics irrational rhetorician, such arguments are utterly bullshit, and the adherence to them by no matter how many people should count as nothing for policy. That being said, "the Land of Israel" remains a controversial claim when one considers who has lived there, who lives there now, how it has been divided, treated, inhabited, etc.
That sort of recent historical contextualizing should count as something in response to your example of Spain. As you yourself say, many of Spain's factional problems were settled many hundreds of years ago, whereas the Israel/Palestine debate is incredibly new, especially for such an ancient and storied area. The Basque example is pertinent. All I would say is that just because a region is now relatively stable and peaceful, it does not follow that that result was achieved by compromise. We would not say that although Europeans and Native Americans once fought each other, now that there is no more fighting it means that the two groups compromised in some way. Tacitus said it long ago: "ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant" -- "where they make a desert, they call it peace." Nevertheless, you are right to note that there may be no reason to think that either 1) Israel is making a desert out of Lebanon to create peace or 2) that even if there is room for compromise, we can expect it from Hezbollah. (Although prisoner exchange and the return of specific regions of land suggest some sort of compromise in that they acknowledge an enemy of a certain form and certain boundaries.)
I have rambled a bit, but only because I haven't really had this conversation. I apologize to those to whom my arguments seem pat and everyday. To get back to my greater point, however, there is not much useful to be found in the term "Zionist." The main problem with the term, I think, is that in addition to the two meanings listed above--nay, *because of* the two meanings listed above--it is possible for a participant in an argument to use the second meaning even when their opponent claims he or she only means the first. In other words, Person A claims to be either Zionist 1 or not a Zionist at all, while Person B objects that although you might *say* that, your actions, or what you say or even what you don't say mean you *really are* a Zionist 2. So, if you support Israel at all, you are a Zionist 2. If you don't have an opinion, or refuse to speak out against Israel or the United States, you are complicitly a Zionist 2. Even if you are a Meretz-Yachad (pacifist social democratic party) Israeli, you are a Zionist 2 by virtue of being involved politically in Israel. Or of course, you might say that there is essentially no difference between Zionist 1 and Zionist 2, for the reasons I listed above. The very terms of the definition of Zionist 1 necessarily lead to Zionist 2.
In the United States, similar rhetorical battles (though obviously less heated) are waged around terms like "liberal" and "racist." You can find a conservative idealogue who will tell you that if you disagree with Bush, you're a liberal. Or if you're a Democrat, you're *really* a Socialist, or pro-terror, or whatever. On the flip side of things, you can find those who say that if you oppose affirmative action, you're a racist. Or if you are simply a white middle class person in America, you must *necessarily* be a racist. Or if you're not a Socialist, you're complicitly part of the capitalist problem, or whatever. In America, however, it is still useful to try to establish, based on fact, whether someone really *is* a racist, or a socialist, or a neoconservative, or a Yankees fan, or whatever. But in the current debate, I stand by my assertion that "Zionist" (1 and 2) can no longer be applied usefully. I will be challenged by those who think they have a stronger set of criteria than I do, but the problems are so widespread that I don't think any amount of parsing can clean things up.
Your response has cleared up a lot of things for me.
It seems from what you suggest (rightly so, I think), that regardless of what kind of Zionist or Anti-Zionist you are, those who use the term are referring to something structural, no? A prisoner exchange would mean little to someone who thinks Israel is by definition and by practice a racist, oppressive state? Which is to say that when I discussed compromise, I meant to suggest only that compromise is the only legitimate form of acheiving some degree of a goal without turning something, as you say, into a desert. The Basques, as I said, came to realize that they couldn't beat their opponents into submission, so they began to negotiate. As for the Middle East, I mean compromise only in the sense of the Road Map, or the Saudi Peace Plan: some two-state solution involving Israeli withdrawal from West Bank, Golan, etc. My question -- and one lots of people are asking -- is, can you be an anti-Zionist while having such a compromise in mind as the final settlement? If the anti-Zionist (2) believes the state of Israel is racist at its core, and thus has no legitimate moral or legal right to exist, is such a compromise even an option?
Again, I ask these questions in absolute good faith. I am not one who screams "they just want the elimination of the state of Israel and won't sleep until they get it" into the night.
One final thought. In response to your assertion, Scantron, that "We would not say that although Europeans and Native Americans once fought each other, now that there is no more fighting it means that the two groups compromised in some way" I would say of course we would say that. Do you not think that our peace with Europe is a result of a series of treaties, trade pacts, etc. Would you not say that the Monroe Doctrine, as imperialist and violent as it is, is not itself a form of compromise: we will not fight with you over colonies in Africa and Asia and you in turn will not fight us over land in our hemisphere? Trade is another great example. As we read in Izenberg, Thomas Paine, Constant, and Kant all believed to varying degrees that wars between nation-states would dissolve as nations entered into economic agreements with one another. Ideally, the relationship would be as follows: "I won't fight you and in return you will trade with me." Some on this blog might consider such a pact to be devilish, but in terms of the European-U.S. relationship, I don't see how we couldn't call it a compromise of sorts. What do you see it as?
Before I comment further, I have to clear this up: When I said "Europeans and Native Americans," I meant European *settlers* and Native American *Indians*. Great points about Europe and America, though ;-)
I forgot how to read. Poop. No, you're quite right: there's no need for compromise when you can just kill/expell them all.
When you say "structural," are you setting that up as a description in contradistinction to "ideological"? That reminds me of the post I made once about the church, in which I introduced "ideological" and "functional" definitions of social organizations. But in this case, and possibly every case imaginable, I now think that you can't have a "pure" or "unmixed" definition but that there is always some ideology mixed in with functionality. Certainly in the present case people don't just speak of Israel and the Middle East in purely structural terms but in the language they grew up with and the moral sentiments they have inherited and (hopefully) reflected upon.
Can an anti-Zionist be for a compromising peace process? Depends, as we have been talking about from the beginning, on what you mean by Zionist. Do I think Hezbollah are capable of compromising? The January 2004 prisoner exchanges suggest one thing:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/29/prisoner.exchange/
Their demand for the Shebaa Farms is something that, as the AP has been saying, "Israel is not likely to accept."
Another possibility is that Hezbollah, with the support of Iran, knew that there would be no prisoner exchange this time as there was before. Perhaps they knew that Israel would retaliate as it has, they counted on it, and they thought that it would open up a space for some sort of international support. One thing seems certain: Hezbollah, faced as it is with the much, much more superior fighting force of Israel, has to know that its actions invite disaster for the Lebanese people. But that explanation does little to address the questions of what Hezbollah resistance, if any, is either legitimate or possible, and what level of restraint should the world demand of Israel.
Are there those who are incapable of compromise? Absolutely, on both sides. Would the satisfaction of Hezbollah's explicit demands end the conflict between them and Israel? I doubt it, especially with Iran backing Hez. For those who criticize Israel but do not call for its dismantling or destruction, the answer will always lie in the "Palestinian problem." Tariq Ali in the Guardian recently represents this view in its shrillest form:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,,1824537,00.html
Proponents of the view say that Israel has never made an effort to do what it must do for the Palestinians. Opponents say that Arafat walked out of Camp David, followed by the Intifada, that Israel withdrew from Gaza but continued to suffer attacks, etc. I'm straying a bit far from rhetorical analysis at this point, so I'll end things there.
The other thing about compromise vs. destruction: is there anyone who honestly thinks that Israel can be destroyed militarily? Certainly many people want Israel to disappear, by whatever means necessary, but is there any danger currently on the table that Israel will be brought low by force? A nuclear Iran in 2016 poses the question, but for now there can be only limited attacks. These have and will kill innocent people, but they will not initiate "regime change" or any real structural change. This point raises some other questions: if Hezbollah finds it worthwhile to hit Israel with rockets, even though it knows it can do no permanent damage, might it be that they are fighting for short-term, practical goals, like Shebaa Farms, or the release of Palestinian prisoners, or an independent Palestine? I underestimate the extent to which hatred will cause people to exact violence for the sake of violence and for no strategic purpose, perhaps.
Looking back for a moment, it is also worthwhile to note that in your Basque example, the separatist groups were calling for independence, not for the destruction of Spain. They abandoned their tactics, as you say, because they realized they were futile. But if we attempt to transplant the Hezbollah/Israel example into that scenario, we are burdened with the additional motive of "Hezbollah wants to destroy Israel, full stop." So the examples are different.
There is, I believe, a link between this "futility" and the recognition that compromising is the best option available. As for the possobility of destroying Israel, I'm not sure whether these groups think it's a possibility or not. Terrorist groups have quite frequently in the past held rather ambition goals--just look at the string of anarchist terror attacks on world leaders in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most terrorist groups today are not so ambitious, and even Osama Bin Ladin has made it clear that he is not out to destroy the U.S., but to strip away American/Western power in Muslim lands. (Going back to Spain, some have hypothesized that Al Andalus is included, which would be a bit more difficult).
As for the prisoner exchange compromise, or even Sheba Farms, I do not think there is anything to suggest these kinds of concessions would cause Hezbollah to lay down their arms. There may be these kind of short term goals in mind, but if an "independent Palestine" is one of them it's not short term, and rather ambiguous in aim.
Post a Comment
<< Home