Zionist or Jew

by Anthony Reich on February 15, 2009

From Anthony Reich

The general election held earlier this week in Israel to the 18th Knesset has produced a king maker in the name of Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel is our home) party won 15 seats. With the deadlock between the two leading parties, Kadima (28 seats) and Likud (27 seats), it seems certain that the party that will form the next government is the one that attracts Lieberman’s support.

Avigdor (Evet) Lieberman has always been a controversial character, and leads a party with controversial policies. He was born in Kishinev in Soviet Moldova in 1958. He immigrated to Israel at the age of 20, and served in the Israel Defence Forces before earning a degree in International Relations and Political Science from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Lieberman joined the Likud and served as the party’s Director-General between 1993 and 1996. He was the Director-General of Netanyahu’s Prime Minister’s office between 1996 and 1997. He founded the Yisrael Beiteinu party in 1999 and was first elected as a member of the Knesset in the same year. He has served as Minister National Infrastructure, Minister of Transportation and Minister of Strategic Affairs.

His Yisrael Beiteinu party represents an interesting and unconventional mix of policies. Lieberman advocates redrawing Israel’s borders to exclude areas which have Arab majorities. He proposes ceding these to the Palestinian Authority. In addition, he demands that those living in Israel should only be granted Israeli citizenship if they are loyal to the state. He advocates this for both disloyal Arabs as well as disloyal ultra Orthodox Jews who do not recognise the State of Israel. During the 2009 election campaign, he coined the phrase “no citizenship without loyalty”. Another aspect of his policy is to relax certain national laws which are based on Jewish religious practices. He plans to introduce the option of civil marriage, and relax laws relating to the sale of unkosher foods and to the opening of business premises on the Sabbath. On the face of it, Lieberman seems to be strongly Zionist in the way in which he approaches issues relating to the tolerance of “anti-Israel Israelis”. On the other hand, he appears anti-Jewish in his advocacy of reducing the influence of Jewish religious practices on everyday life in Israel. Can these two seemingly dichotomous views survive on a common platform?

Lieberman’s policies unfortunately fuel the argument of those who try to separate Judaism from Zionism. Over the decades, there have been many who have claimed that anti-Zionism does not represent anti-Semitism. This view has been expressed in the UN during the course of many anti-Israel resolutions that have been passed, most notably resolution 3379 from November 1975 that equated Zionism to Racism.

There is no escaping the fact that Zionism is a uniquely Jewish concept. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Zionism as “a movement for the development and protection of a Jewish nation in Israel”. This links the concept to its two important dependencies – Judaism and the land of Israel. Without either one of these dependencies, there is no Zionism. The term emanates from Jewish liturgy going back many hundreds, if not thousands of years. Jews pray every day for the return to Zion. This literally refers to Jerusalem, and specifically Mount Zion within the city. This mount was part of the ancient City of David, and is located on the boundaries of today’s old city.

The fact that many Zionist leaders in history including Herzl, Ben-Gurion, Meir and Lieberman have been anti-religious has been used to justify the fact that Zionism and Judaism are not linked. It feeds the notion that one can be a lover of Jews and a hater of Israel. All Zionist leaders in history had two main characteristics in common – the fact that they were Jewish and their vision of a Jewish state in the land of Israel. The above-mentioned leaders all had a view of the Jewish state being one where Jewish religious laws should not dictate laws of the State of Israel. This view equates to one of a secular state for Jews. Whether one agrees with this or not, it is clear that their form of Zionism clearly advocated a Jewish (albeit non-religious) state. The link with Judaism remains unequivocal.

It is my personal view that the Jewish state does require some elements of Jewish religious law incorporated into its set of laws and norms. This preserves the Jewish character of the state and distinguishes it as a Jewish state as opposed to any number of other secular countries. The absence of Jewish religious laws as a minimum basis for the laws of the Jewish state risks the slide of the Jewish state into just another country that has a Jewish majority. Whilst not wanting to minimise the importance of the Jewish majority in any way, it should be clear that the concept of a Jewish state is founded upon Judaism. This fact should be clear in all aspects of the public management of the country. Because some Zionists are anti-religious does not change the fact that they are Jewish, and it is this Judaism which is inextricably linked with their Zionism. So, Zionists who are not orthodox Jews and oppose orthodox Judaism remain Jews and Zionists. With this in mind, when considering the policy platform of Yisrael Beiteinu, there seems to be no reason why the party cannot be both Zionist and anti-religious. The important point is that being anti-religious does not equate to being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic.

Those people who feel that Lieberman and others like him create an opening to separate Zionism from Judaism are mistaken. For me it is not Zionist or Jew, it can only be Zionist and Jew.

About the author

Anthony Reich I am a finance professional originating from South Africa. I have lived in Israel for the past 13 years. Previous to that I lived in London for 8 years. I have strong opinions and like to write on topics relevant to Israel and Jews around the world. I am married with 2 sons.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Christopher Tay Hanmin

    Hi.
    I’m Chris living in Malaysia, a nation that does not recognise Israel as a legitimate state. However, I am truly amaze at the effort you guys bring to tell a different story of Israel than that in my home’s mainstream media. The news here carries some form of anti-Semitism. I am an Israel supporter and hope to get your side of the story. So thanks for shedding the light on some issues.
    I would just like to ask a few question which is in your own opinion.

    1. Does Israel’s real intention is to achieve peace or reclaim the land that God has promised them?
    2. Can there be a compromise for peace?
    3. Which leader in Israel is considered moderate? Netanyahu, Livni or Barak?

    Some of this questions were in a discussion I had with a Malay Muslim that says Israel has no moderate leaders and their main objective is to add more lands to their domain according to what was promised by God.

    Hope to hear from you. God bless Eretz Yisrael!

  • Anthony Reich

    Hi Chris,
    It is good to hear from you all the way from Malaysia, and it is sad that your country’s media does not bring you a more balanced picture.
    I am happy to answer your questions in my private capacity as an Israeli citizen:
    1. The Israeli people wish to have peace in the Land of Israel. There are those that still have pretensions of reclaiming the land promised by God in the bible. I think it would be safe to say that the vast majority of Israelis would be happy to live in peace in the current borders of the State of Israel.
    2. Israel has shown on numerous occasions that it is prepared to compromise for peace. Israel has given up on the Sinai in exchange for peace,has unilaterally withdrawn from Gaza in the hopes of peace, has released murderers and terrorists from its prisons in exchange for steps towards peace. So there is no doubt that compromise for peace is a definite option. The problem is what happens if the peace is broken? Will the land be returned?
    3. Israelis are generally more right-wing than the average democratic western country. This is due to the situation of war that Israelis have had to endure for the past 60 years almost without a break. Of the three leaders, Netanyahu is furthest to the right with Livni in the middle. Barak is the most left-wing and certainly considered more than moderate.
    Hope that this helps you.
    Anthony

  • Christopher Tay Hanmin

    Anthony,
    Thanks for the reply. I did a piece on Israel in my college where I speak about the suffering that the state of Israel has endured throughout her history and the plight of the Jewish people since the times of the Romans to Hitler. I argued my points and most of my classmates supported my ideas. Mainly because they are non-Muslims.

    I speak with some Muslims and they stressed that Israel has no right to be in Palestine and that they are the invaders. They say that the Koran has set forth a judgement of God towards the Jewish people and the invaders of Palestine (Israel). In Malaysia the anti-Semitism is great sad to say. They refer to Jes in Israel as the evil Zionist regime.

    The Muslims here have an unconditional hate for the Jews.
    My questions,
    1. Is the Arabs, Palestinians whose religion is Islam there has this much of hatred towards the Jews as the Muslims in Malaysia has?

    2. And what are the news of the Fatah West Bank. In Malaysia, there is no news of the good in Israel but just the killings and geneocide and suffereing of the Palestinians. Nothing good about Israel..

    3. Lastly, the Islamic clerics here have incite hatred to the Jews in their mosques during their sermons. Are the rabbis and religious leaders in Israel using religion to influence the people to fight for their promise land as I have heard here as well.

    I have always supported Israel. Maybe because I am a stauch Christian and believe that God’s chosen will always be God’s chosen! Take care friend.

  • Anthony Reich

    Chris,
    You raise many varied and interesting questions. I will do my best to answer them. Remember that there is not only one view about these things and other Israelis may answer you differently. I am expressing my own personal views.
    1. There is evidence that the Palestinian Arabs really want to see Israel destroyed and removed from the map. This became particularly evident when Arafat (who was the “peace partner”) was revealed as being a fraud in his negotiations. Since then, the actions of the Palestinians has not appeared to be in good faith. As such, today most Israelis believe that all actions on the part of the Palestinians are aimed at destroying Israel.
    2. Fatah in the West Bank, whilst being regarded as less extreme than Hamas, is still regarded by many Israelis with caution. I think that my answer to 1 above applies to Fatah as well.
    3. Whilst I am sure that some Rabbis do incite in their sermons in the synagogues, I don’t view this as being a widespread pheonomenon. Remember that Jews in Israel have nowhere to go if Israel is destroyed. Therefore, it does not take much to get the Israelis to understand that they have to defend their homeland at any cost. Most Israelis would be happy to take up arms to defend Israel if called upon to do so. They would be much happier, however, to stay home and live in peace.
    Anthony

  • Christopher Tay Hanmin

    Thanks

Previous post:

Next post: