WHAT IS ZIONISM IN THE 2020s?

Like many, I was surprised by Ehud Olmert, past prime minister of Israel and member of Likud, and his recent remarks in the Israeli news: that the war in Gaza had gone on for too long and that Israel was, in his opinion, now committing war crimes. Equally as interesting was the immediate response from those in government, especially in how they mirrored the knee-jerk and borderline dangerous rhetoric of backsliding democracies in The West. For example, Yoav Kitsch, the education minister, blamed the nebulous “Left” in trying to besmirch Israel’s reputation in “The International arena”. Never mind the fact that Olmert is ex-Likud, the same party as Netanyahu, it’s horrifying to see a country that was arguably so profoundly left-wing and socialist in its founding turn on a huge chunk of its population. It’s an argument straight out of the playbook of Trump and, dare I highlight, the dictators of the 20th century. In fact, Kitsch’s other remarks, that these comments are a ‘knife in the backs’ of the IDF are easily similar to the nationalist and fascist remarks in Germany post- World War One; any of my GCSE pupils could tell you that left-wing politicians (and Jews) were blamed for Germany’s defeat in The First World War. 

To cover my own back, I would not for a second equate Netanyahu directly to Hitler. Yet the government’s reaction to any politicians speaking out is uncomfortable to say the least, and other cabinet members’ remarks of wanting to eradicate Gaza as an entity do not help. Which leads us to the main question of this article; early Zionism was left-wing, socialist, and forward-thinking. This is not the case anymore. In fact, in recent weeks the main debate in my local community’s Facebook group has featured multiple incidents of using ‘leftist’ pretty much as a slur. The Zionism of old is gone, so where do we go from here?

Perhaps we could learn from history; it is commonly held that Zionism was originally expressed in different styles, including Religious Zionism, Labor Zionism, Political Zionism etc. Each form of Zionism aimed to actualize the Jewish yearning for a homeland in different ways. For instance, Political Zionism aimed to achieve a homeland for the Jewish people by negotiating with existing states for land, and viewed this very much as a solution to rabid antisemitism in Europe. As such, the land encompassing modern day Israel and the Disputed Territories was not viewed as a necessity; the primary goal was to create a safe haven for Jews in any place in the world. On the other hand, movements such as Labor Zionism went into more detail on how such a state should run, focussing on a rejection of capitalism in a political doctrine leaning heavily into Marxism, creating Kibbutzim as a result. This ideology would go on to dominate Israeli politics until the 1970s.

The thing is, many of these styles of Zionism no longer exist. In part it’s because their goals are no longer relevant either due to being largely achieved (the gradual recognition of Israel as an entity by its neighbours is the last step of Political Zionism), or being so far out of the mainstream that it’s no longer relevant (very few modern-day Kibbutzim operate as they once did in the early days of Labor Zionism). But really, many of the ideas have grown and morphed into something new, and you would be hard-pressed to find a modern Zionist who subscribes to just one archetype. Take, for example, modern day settlers; the idea of settling within the Palestinian Territories can be traced back to Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionism, a movement uncomfortably close to western style colonialism. And yet, many settlers reject the idea they are colonists, instead arguing they are carrying out a homecoming. Agree with their views or not it would be hard to argue they are true Revisionists. Really, their agenda stems from Religious Zionism, showing that these early archetypes are no longer sufficient to describe the Zionist political landscape.

During my own gap year in Israel my group met on a few occasions a man who claimed that Israel was now in a stage of post-Zionism. At the time I didn’t believe him; to me Zionism meant a general love of Israel and a maintenance of the state and so couldn’t be finished. But the more I see or hear of Israel, the more I understand this statement even if I do not necessarily agree with it. Zionism’s original aim was to establish a Jewish state in the borders of Israel which, unless one agrees with the idea of settling Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, has been achieved. This means that Zionism’s main purpose now is maintenance of the state, and this is a purpose that is becoming more and more difficult to carry out. Democracy, a tenant of Zionism appreciated by the majority of Israel, is backsliding. And the tenuous pluralism of diverse Judaism is endangered by the growing power of the religious right in government who, for instance, oppose recognising same-sex marriage on religious grounds. A Theocracy is not a state that myself or many Jews across the world, either in Israel or in the Diaspora, could accept.

So where does this leave us? Ultimately the philosophy of Zionism reflects the state of Israel itself, and neither are very forward thinking. The radical religious right is growing in power in Israel because they are the only group that contain a vision for the future, no matter how insidious that vision might be. The left and Labour Zionism as they once were are now broken and becoming less accepted by Israeli society. The remaining centrists focus only on maintaining the status quo – they bury their heads in the sand and hope that one day peace may happen. It is passive, and proposes no new solution to solve Israel’s problems. No one embodies this more than Netanyahu, whose only goal is to cling to power and avoid real consequences for his crimes, alleged or otherwise. His rhetoric suggests Zionism is blind devotion to him or his government. In the 2020s it is up to all of us to show him this is not the case, and that there is a better way forward. As to what that might be, perhaps only time can tell.