Two Case Western Reserve University professors perturbed by “the noxious rhetoric” on campuses suggest that “for the sake of Israel, it’s time to retire the word ‘Zionism.’” They note that although there are Jewish students who have “doubled down on owning the terms” being abusively hurled at them, such as that Zionists are “racists” and “terrorists,” they have a better idea. True, these students “proudly claim [Zionism] as an identity marker,” but the two professors think they know another way to defuse matters.
They believe that “it is time to reconsider the place of ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’ in our discourse. We believe the terms have simply run their course.”
And, perhaps, realizing the ramifications of their suggestion, they “invite conversation about the possibility of shelving this language, relegating its use solely to its proper historical context.”
They go one step further, however, and would wish us to believe that in “continuing to use the terms ‘Zionist’ and ‘Zionism’ we undermine Israel’s normalization.” They want those terms to “refer to a narrow historical movement.” In other words, Zionism stopped in 1948. Whereas Toynbee considered the Jewish people as fossilized, the professors seem to portray post-1948 Zionism as a fossil.
Of course, this echos an effort made by Israeli founding father and first prime minister David Ben-Gurion in the late 1950s to do away with the Zionist movement, which he pictured, in May 1960, as scaffolding. He also tried to redefine what Zionism is.
Speaking to the Mapai Central Committee, he said that the Zionist organization “was a scaffold to aid the construction of Israel. But scaffolds are taken away when the building has been completed.” Yet, to a great extent, he added something that would today confound the issue: “The Zionist movement has no objective of its own but to build up the Jewish state.” He insisted in January 1961 at the 25th World Zionist Congress in Jerusalem that “instead of money and good advice, Zionists should provide Israel with trained and competent Jewish immigrants from the West.”
Despite his remarks, it is obvious that Zionism’s goals of building up the state would also include supporting it philanthropically, diplomatically, politically and morally. In short, Zionists are in short supply today, and there is no need to shy away from the usage of that term. Whether or not one makes aliyah, Zionism still offers a broad spectrum of activities—one being defending the Jewish state on campuses.
The professors do mention the Bible and its many references to “Zion.” Nevertheless, what they perhaps do not grasp is that Zionism, as an expression of Jewish national identity, is crucial not only to Israel’s future but that of Jews. To strip away the usage of Zionism would lead to the distillation of Judaism.
On Yom Kippur, Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch sermonized and acknowledged that he was worried: “The weakening of these bonds is my central concern regarding the future of the American Jewish community.” He then went on to express the thought that he did “not intend is for some in [the younger] generation to turn your backs on our people. We wanted you to be Zionists. We did not intend that our emphasis on tikkun olam—social repair—would lead some Jews to join anti-Israel demonstrations.”
Zionism is not just about Israel. Zionism is caring about Jews the world over. It is caring about the Hebrew language and Jewish literature, ancient and modern religious texts, and poetry and novels. Zionism is Jewish unity and shared responsibility. It is peoplehood. It is a shared memory and a shared community.
A term like “Israel supporters,” as the professors suggest be adopted, just will not do to symbolize and summarize all those goals and more. And it allows Jews not to support Israel as it minimizes, if not eliminates, the 3,000-year historical, religious and ethnic elements that have fashioned and maintained what Zionism is.
Israel’s future is based on the Jewish people’s past. The trek of Abraham to Moriah. The march out of Egypt across Sinai and into the Land of Israel, and its conquest. The tribal federation period. The two kingdoms and the two temples. The return from Babylon. The Hasmonean revolt and the first revolt against Rome. The subsequent uprisings against Trajan in which major Diaspora communities participated as, perhaps, a prelude to the Bar Kochba Revolt. The attempted rebuilding of the holy Temple in 363 C.E., authorized by Emperor Julian. The ongoing ascents to the land throughout the centuries of exile.
Remove, suppress or ignore that Jewish national Zionist history is to simply invite the rhetoric the professors wish to avoid. It undercuts the justice and morality of what Zionism has accomplished—and what still needs to be achieved. Worse, it blinds Jewish students to the truth and the ability to confront and challenge the lies and misrepresentations they face. Retiring the term Zionism is to remove the soul from Jewish existence.
Those professors have erred in so displaying their thinking processes. Retire the term Zionism? Not for Israel’s sake they suggested that but, perhaps, for their own sakes. Again, the danger from within.