Or: why the word “Zionist” is less useful than you think
Actual non-clickbait title: The word “Zionist” is extremely unuseful when it comes to defining people ideologically, and we should stop thinking that it is and fighting over it so much.
Meet Shira.
Shira grew up in Israel. She loves the land, loves the people, and feels deeply connected to it. Shira thinks the connection between Jewish people and the holy land is undeniable, and that there is no peaceful future where there are no Jews living in it.
Shira knows the original Zionists held the belief that Jews and Gentiles cannot live together in Europe. But she also kind of agrees. She saw just how antisemitic Europe was during the foundation of Zionism, which was then followed by the Holocaust. And she sees just how racist Europeans continued being, and how genuinely far is the future when that belief by the original Zionists will no longer be true.
Shira knows that no matter how justified, the anti-Israel activism is full of antisemitism. She fears how easily people who claim to be in her favour rush to claim her people as an all-controlling global faction. She knows other countries never have their legitimacy questioned as close to often as Israel's is, and she knows no one offers sending the white Americans back to Ireland.
As such, Shira considers herself a Zionist.
Meet Shira.
Shira was educated on the story of the early Zionists trying to find a solution for the eternal persecution of Jewish people. She heard the stories of her grandparents and great-grandparents who fought so hard to come to Israel, seeking a place where they would really feel at home.
Shira knows many Jewish people tie their hearts and souls to Israel. She also knows most Jews in the diaspora still consider themselves Zionists, because many Jews really do know Herzl wasn't wrong about the lives of Jews in the diaspora.
But Shira knows that the word “Zionism” has been irreversibly connected to the settler movement. She knows that unspeakable atrocities are done in the name of Zionism. She knows many Palestinians fear Zionism for their lives, and to be honest, she doesn't think they're wrong. And she knows her view of Zionism will not be the one people think of anytime soon.
As such, Shira considers herself a non-Zionist.
Meet Shira.
Shira wants there being Jewish people living in the land of Palestine (and in fact, wants to live there herself). She wants peace for both Jews and Palestinians living between the river and the sea.
But Shira also knows the idea of The Jewish State was never peaceful. She knows that from the very days of “a land without a people”, the existence of Palestinians was, at best, intentionally erased, or, more commonly, made into an obstacle that needs to be crushed with an “Iron Wall”.
Shira wishes that the Weizmann-Faisal agreement became a reality (or even better, a similar agreement made with Palestinians themselves), but knows this is not what history came to be. She knows the Nakba was not an accident of history, but a planned atrocity by the State of Israel to promote its vision, which has always been a state for Jews alone.
She knows that no matter how the word may has been used initially and what peaceful views of Zionism may exist, those have all been dead in the ground even before the 14th of May, 1948. And she knows what Israel has done since is but a single, twisted-yet-unbroken ideological chain. And she knows peace can only come when this vision of Jewish existence in Israel is crushed.
As such, Shira considers herself an Antizionist.
Meet Shira.
Shira thinks the discussion regarding the shifting meanings of Zionism, the question of the necessity of Israel's existence, and the interrogation into the effects identifying with Zionism has on politics are all really interesting subjects.
For social science class, that is.
Shira is a materialist. She cares much less about the history that lead to the present moment and the thoughts of people who are already dead than she cares about the lives of those still here, suffering the consequences of that history.
Shira also finds this whole discussion quite weird. Israel exists, it has a government and a tax system, and a seat at the United Nations. And it also, notably, has a reasonably strong army. Sure, it may be using its “defence forces” in the least defensive way possible, but it's still quite clear the last time Israel was at the risk of ceasing to exist was in October of 1973.
Shira knows Jewish people will be living in this land because they're already living in it. She knows that no matter how much white antisemites yell “go back to Poland” and no matter how much the various genocidal factions that fight each other try, there will be Jews and Palestinians living between the river and the sea, in one way or another.
The Zionist goal, as dreamed of by Herzl, was accomplished. Israel doesn't have a greater chance of ceasing to exist anytime soon than say, Czechia. It's not a question of which people will live here, but how. The Zionist project is done; it's time to move on to the next one.
As such, Shira considers herself a post-Zionist.
Meet Shira.
Shira is an anarchist. She does not want the State of Israel to exist. Nor does she want the State of Palestine to exist. Nor does she want any state to exist. Shira is a true believer in the zero-state solution, not just for the Holy Land, but for the whole world.
Shira thinks any argument about the Zionist Project's nature and how it came to be so violent ignores one very important reality – Israel, in whichever configuration, was always going to be violent, because the existence of a state is in and of itself an act of violence. She knows that no matter if they number in the one or two or more, any state that will exist between the river of the sea will oppress both Jews and Palestinians. The nature of the border between Israel and Palestine, whether hard or permeable or no border at all, doesn't change the fact that there will be a border facing the rest of the world, excluding by definition anyone who doesn't fit the arbitrary decision on who's allowed to come in.
Shira is not ignorant of reality, of course. There are some configurations that will be preferable to the present one, and any move towards better life for the people of this land as a whole is a good one. She may have her preferences, she may even, at times, come to be for all intents and purposes a supporter of an [insert-number-here]-state solution. But she will always remember that these “solutions” are not the end goal.
Shira expects any plan that involves a state to be bad, because states are bad. She expects any such plan to be contradictory, because states are contradictory. She expects any such plans to be oppressive, because states are oppressive, and to be exclusionary, because states are exclusionary.
Jewish people shouldn't have a state because no one should. The early Zionists were wrong about Jewish Statehood first and foremost because they were wrong about statehood.
To Shira, the question of “what-Zionist” she considers herself to be is meaningless.
And now, like in a Philosophy Tube video, this is the part of the article where there's a twist.
These five positions are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, a person can hold and believe all five at the same time. And I know that, because I do.
Every sentence written here is an assertation I agree with.
I do think that Jewish people have a special connection to the holy land that does not exist in the same way in any other People. I do know that identifying as a Zionist will make most people think I'm at the very least a supporter of this war, regardless of what I actually think. I do believe that like words always evolve, the word Zionist evolved to mean a single thing that we must oppose for the sake of both Palestinians and Jews. I do hold that the fact Zionism is still considered an ideology is ridiculous considering that Israel like, exists, and I also hold that it's even more ridiculous to try to position yourself relative to Zionism when you're an anarchist.
Those are all true at the same time.
The reason the word “Zionist” is meaningless, the reason it can't and shouldn't be used in political or ideological discussions, isn't that there aren't any people who definitely fit in one category and none of the others. Of course there are.
But like the derivability of spelling from pronunciation or pronunciation from spelling in English, you can't use the word “Zionist” to make any deductions. If someone tells you they're a Zionist, you can't conclude from that what they believe. And if someone tells you what they believe, you can't know from that with which descriptor they identify.
The thing that made me start writing this post I-don't-know-how-many months ago is people really, really want this to be simple. But it's not. A simple “No Zionists” or “No Antizionists” rule will always exclude the people you want to include, unless (as it is sadly the case sometimes) the people you want to exclude are, as a collective, Jews, Queer People, Brown people, etc.
There's no wonder the belief these five categories are clear and distinct is promoted by fascists – it really helps them.
Meet Talya.
Talya is a Zionist. And a non-Zionist. And an Antizionist. And a post-Zionist. And just an Anarchist.
And most of all, she is fucking tired.
So please, can we focus on more important things like having Jews and Palestinians (and now also Lebanese fucking hell) having peace for once in their history?
עֹשֶׂה הַשָּׁלוֹם בִּמְרוֹמָיו, הוּא בְרַחֲמָיו יַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלוֹם עָלֵינוּ, וְעַל כָּל-עַמּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאִמְרוּ אָמֵן.
Post scriptum
This text feels a bit frozen in time, like it was written months ago and is based on ideas from years ago. And that's because it is. I considered shelving it multiple times, but I had to get it out of my system eventually.
The timing is also not a coincidence, even though it's not intentional. The approaching anniversary really pushed me to finally finish this, becasue I didn't want it to land on the day. I hope you can understand now why this piece feels so timeless when compared to the very timeful (yes that's a word now) era that we live in.
I hope that despite all these reservations, this text does prove helpful to those who read it. Take care and stay safe out there.
נכתב על ידי טליה, ״הלוחמת בטרפיות״.
@yuvalne@tooot.im
This work is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
🤦🏽♀️
מזל שיש לי די תושיה (או שאולי בתת-מודע די חשש מההשלכות אם לא) כדי לנסות שוב. אז שלחתי את הקישור למחשב שלי, בתקווה ששם תהיה יותר הצלחה.
אכן הייתה יותר הצלחה.
תיראו מופתעים: המפלגה הרפובליקנית משתמשת בטרנספוביה כדי לקדם את המאבק שלהם בזכות להפלות.