I believe in Portugal. I believe that it exists. I believe that it has the right to exist. But I do not passionately believe in it. I do not feel any sort of loyalty to it. Those are obviously two different sorts of belief. So it would be unhelpful to have a word that combined them: ‘Portism’, say. That word would just sow confusion. It would unstably veer between the belief that Portugal is a legitimate nation, and a sense of loyalty to it.
‘Zionism’ is such a word. It hovers between meaning ‘the state of Israel is legitimate’ and ‘the state of Israel has my loyalty’. This conflation made some sense a century ago, before the foundation of Israel. In the days of Theodor Herzl and Daniel Deronda, Zionism had clear reference to a political and religious ideal.
But once the state was founded and recognised by the international community, the word should have died off. If a country’s legitimacy is recognised by the vast majority of other countries, then the issue is closed. It is legitimate. But this word implies that seeing Israel as legitimate is an ideological decision, an act of allegiance.
The word ‘Zionism’ should be cancelled if Israel is to be normalised
So why didn’t the word die off? Partly because the country’s enemies wanted to keep it alive; they wanted to imply that anyone who recognises Israel is not neutral but partisan, part of a conspiracy. But also because Israel is unlike any other country. A sense of allegiance to it is not confined to its inhabitants but extends, in varying degrees, to Jews throughout the world. So in a sense there is a case for a word that means allegiance to Israel. But ‘Zionist’ should not be used for this. Because it carries the whisper that anyone who believes in the legitimacy of Israel is implicated in the Jewish allegiance to that state.
So the word ‘Zionism’ should be cancelled if Israel is to be normalised. It is a slur word, insinuating that anyone who recognises Israel has excessive allegiance to that state. But I don’t pretend that the cancellation of this word would solve the complexity concerning Jewish allegiance to Israel.
It’s a matter that is not often discussed, it seems to me. At the root of the matter is a huge unresolved question. What is Judaism? Is it a religion that requires political expression? In other words, does being Jewish entail living in a Jewish state? Of course not, most would say. For very many centuries there was no Jewish state, but there was certainly a religious identity called Judaism; this proves the non-necessity of a Jewish state to Judaism.
On the other hand, ancient Judaism was a political entity, a kingdom, not just a religion. Over the centuries this remained the ideal, but an actual state did not seem possible. Then it became a reality. But the question remained: is the Jewish state the full expression of Judaism? Or is one equally Jewish if one lives in another land? And what if one rejects the idea of a Jewish state and says that Judaism should not return to its original political expression?
These are big and awkward questions, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t be asked. It seems to me that countless pundits discuss these matters without quite facing the most basic questions about what this religion is. Such questions should also be asked of the other monotheistic faiths: does Islam require a Muslim state, or can it be a religion without political expression? Does Christianity seek a certain form of state? Maybe the liberal state is its modern political expression. Just asking.
Comments