I don’t know about you, but I find it really rather irritating when some ‘patriot’ (sic) with a flag tells me what it means to be English and how I should feel about refugees and that it’s all just ‘common sense’.

I find it similarly galling to have it explained to me by non-Jews, what Zionism means and how it relates to my Judaism. They give me their definition of Zionism and tell me that there are plenty of ‘good’ Jews who are also anti-Zionist. What’s more, they tell me if I call myself a Zionist I must mean what they mean and that makes me a racist.

But I still choose to call myself a Zionist. And because Zionism, while not meaning the same as Judaism, is deeply entwined with Judaism I feel I have the right to define what I mean by it.

Every year, at my family seder and at millions of seders around the world, we Jews conclude with the words “next year in Jerusalem!” For me, Jerusalem was a symbol of peace and identity, for others – and imagine those who said it in the depth of the pogroms or the Nazi camps – it may have been a more literal aspiration.

Zionism developed as a political movement towards the end of the 19th century as the concept of the nation state was developing across much of the world. In much of the world the artificial lines of maps that divide countries were yet to be drawn. In Europe, where the first Zionist congress was held, the map bore little resemblance to those we would see today. Those first Zionists were simply saying as others around the world began to find a national as well as an ethnic, religious or racial identity which they believe entitled them to a place to call home, that Jews too shared the same ambition.

And they looked to the land which was not just a millennium long echo in their religious ceremonies and their holy book, but a continuous home to many Jews throughout the centuries in Jerusalem and Tzfat and elsewhere.

So for them and for me, Zionism was the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Now, I understand that international Marxism does not accept the idea of national borders, but for those that believe that the English and the French and the Americans and the Chinese have a right to their own nation state it makes no sense to argue that, uniquely, the Jews don’t and furthermore even that aspiration is racist.

The Green party motion calls for the end of Israel. It says Israel – not its Government which I detest – not its courts which have done much to hold that government in check – not its independent media which can sometimes be as critical of that government as the Guardian and the BBC – but the very country itself has no right to exist.

This is a country which, in its Declaration of Independence commits that it will promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of shrines and holy places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Has Israel lived up to such lofty ambitions? Hardly, although all those living within its internationally recognised border do at least in theory have full equality under the law and their voting rights for all. It is the only country in the Middle East which offers full and equal legal rights and anti-discrimination laws to protect women and gay people. Inconveniently, for its opponents, Arab parties are represented in the Knesset, its Parliament,and some Arab citizens even serve in the IDF.

The conduct of the war in Gaza, the treatment of the Arab population of the occupied territories, discrimination in property rights and the outrageous, offensive and racist comments of some of its Ministers and its current Prime Minister bring the country into disrepute. The failure after the ’67 war to make peace with its neighbours, dispose of Gaza and the West Bank, or to recognise the shared right of Palestinians to national self-determination are all a huge stain on the country’s stated values (although of course it does take two to make peace).

But this weekend’s motion – while no doubt fuelled by such injustices – did not call for their correction or for the Israeli Government to be overthrown or for a Palestinian state to be established alongside Israel, but for the of the country – the establishment of a single state in the whole of historic Palestine. Jordan, of course which comprise roughly half the original Palestine Mandate, might have something to say about that but then this is a policy founded not on historical legitimacy but a dogma which says even in the aftermath of apartheid South Africa had the right to exist, even Rwanda after the genocide or Cambodia or the newly minted South Sudan are entitled to be recognised as legal entities, but uniquely, this land - the size of Wales and home to 10million people, 7.8 million Jews - this country and its government has forfeited its very right to existence.

You are entitled to agree with the Green party, entitled and indeed right to say that Judaism and Zionism are not the same thing, but don’t kid yourself that only your definition of Zionism can be true, that you know better that the Jews what Zionism is and I would encourage you, if you do support the motion to consider whether you might just be applying some different standards and if so, why and what they might mean for someone so quick to identify racism in others…

Rate this post

Leave a comment

Please login or register to leave a comment on this post.