The nation in question is not hypothetical, nor is the land theoretical. The above is the story of Zionism, the national movement dedicated to securing for the Jewish people a political refuge in the land that holds the roots of Jewish culture and history, a piece of real estate that has seen continuous Jewish inhabitance and influence since 1000 BCE. As such, it makes the simple claim that at least a portion of Israel belongs to the Jews, just as Poland belongs to the Poles and Iran to the Persians. For many of its opponents, though, Zionism is a colonialist, imperialistic ideology based on exploitation and expulsion, resulting in what the Indicator article "Tragedies of Zionism" terms "constant nationalist warfare, human rights violations and outright ethnicism."
The piece was well-written and interestingly argued, but it was lacking in certain little technicalities, such as factual honesty and fair interpretation of definitions. Therefore, in order that certain inaccuracies not "propagate themselves in the campus consciousness," it is important to show Zionism factually, as a movement that, while particularistic, seeks to advocate the political actualization of the Jewish people while violating as little as possible the rights of other nations.
Zionism is not a colonialist movement. The Oxford English Dictionary defines colonialism as "an alleged policy of exploitation of backward or weak peoples by a large power." Examples of this are as varied as the turn-of-the-century Belgian policies in the Congo and the actions of the French in Indochina. Colonialists get rich off the labor of their downtrodden subjects, and the resources of the land that they steal. By contrast, the Zionists sought only the land of Palestine, one of the world's most resource-poor areas. Neither did the Zionists exploit Palestinian labor. Indeed, the Jewish settlers made a point of being farmers and laborers, surviving by their own work. Zionists valued the type of activities normally associated with the victims of colonization, not the exploiters, spending what Austrian Jewish philosopher Martin Buber called "their strength and blood to make the land fruitful." This stress on laboring to improve the Jewish homeland has paid dividends in terms of high living standards-for both Israeli Jews and Arabs.
Similarly, to call Zionism an imperialist ideology is misleading. The OED labels imperialism "the principle or spirit of empire," which is defined as "an aggregate of subject territories ruled over by a sovereign state." Imperialism connotes the subjugation of indigenous peoples for the benefit of a faraway polity. The term harkens back to American policies in the Philippines, the British Raj in India and Saddam Hussein's rapacious designs on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia in the late 1980s. Can one accurately term Zionism an imperialist movement, then? Zionism did not seek to impose any type of foreign rule on the Arabs of Palestine, nor did they represent any grasping Western government. The Jews were not an alien force in Palestine either; they were a small but recognizable minority even before the influx of Jews seeking refuge from what American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard observed to be "a resurgence of pogroms in Russia and Eastern Europe." Mainstream Zionists sought not the domination of the Palestinians, but an independent Jewish state on part of their ancestral homeland. Emir Faisal, one of the Arabs' most stalwart advocates, admitted as much, wishing the Jews a "hearty welcome home" and affirming that "Zionism is nationalist and not imperialist."
This is the crux of the matter. Zionism is inherently a national movement. Its opponents point to this undeniable fact and make the argument that if it is national, Zionism must also be exclusivist and therefore negative. Those who assert this, however, ought to have a closer look at the definitions that appear in the very Indicator article lambasting Zionism. Yes, nationalism can be exclusivist and detrimental. No people knows this better than the Jews. However, nationalism can also be defined as "support for national independence or self-determination," in which a nation signifies a community that is unified based on "factors such as common culture, history, or … territory" (OED). What is Zionism, then, but, as Bard wrote, "the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, which holds that Jews, like any other nation, are entitled to a homeland?" The Indicator authors' simplistically infantile, dichromatic view of nationalism completely ignores the inconvenient fact that vibrant ethnically based democracies, like Greece, Poland and the Czech Republic, thrive worldwide. Such governments, of which Israel is one, build their state around a specific people, or Staatsvolk, while recognizing minority rights and coexisting peacefully with other nation-states. Furthermore, there is no credence to the opinion that Israel is an especially particularistic and exclusivist form of nationalism, a point that the Indicator article tries to support with a number of flagrantly out-of-context quotes. A quick reading of Israel's Declaration of Independence, which appealed "to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace … on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation" would indicate otherwise. So too would the fact that all of the mainstream Zionist parties accept the idea of a separate Palestinian state in territories taken by Israel in 1967. By contrast, the most prominent Palestinian nationalist party, Hamas, refuses to recognize the Jews' right to a state, and advocates "obliterating" Israel through violent means. We don't hear about that in the Indicator.
Ultimately, it is essential to tackle the primary anti-Zionist assertion-that the nationalistic nature of Zionism has led to cruelty and discrimination throughout the history of the state of Israel. They claim that between 1948 until the present, Israel has forced Arabs to endure a constant stream of abuses, all of which are attributable to the basic tenets of Zionism. Unfortunately, in many instances, the writers of the Indicator piece are forced to sink into falsehood in order to prove their point. They assert that by 1948, "Israelis had … scarcely developed the land and contributed value to it." By this, they mean that the Jews essentially stole the land from impoverished Palestinians during the British mandatory period. Jews did consciously embark on a policy of buying land from Arabs, in order to further their mission of developing the land. However, the notion that they stole the land or cheated Arab residents is a dangerous fallacy. In fact, Jews paid an average of approximately $1000 for an acre of dry Palestine farmland in 1944, when fertile Iowa soil cost an average of $110 per acre. Obviously, Zionists wanted to buy land in Israel. However, accusing them of dishonesty is both a distortion and a libel. Similarly indefensible are the tales that the anti-Zionists tell about the flight of Arabs from Palestine during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence, population movements that they claim were spurred by the Israelis through "fear, rumors, and intimidation." There is very little evidence that this was the case. Indeed, contemporaries, like The Economist on Feb 10, 1948, agreed that of the myriad reasons why Arabs fled, "the most potent of [them] were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit." Arab leaders promised gory genocidal warfare against the Jews, and insinuated that their advancing armies would not pay great heed to the lives of Palestinians caught in the crossfire. It was not isolated incidents like the alleged massacre at Deir Yassin that led the Arabs to flee from Palestine. Rather, as former Syrian Prime Minister Haled al-Azm admitted in his memoirs, "we (the Arab nations) ourselves are the onoes who encouraged them to leave." The Arabs created the refugee problem that they now attempt to pin on the Zionists, and they are the ones who need to resolve it.
Lastly, though, the anti-Zionist writers makes several claims regarding the treatment of Arabs within Israel. The Indicator article reads as though Israel systematically discriminates against its Arab population. This is fundamentally untrue. In the political and civil realm, Arabs have greater liberty of expression than in most areas of the Arab world. Israeli Arab women have the right to vote, a privilege accorded to few other Arabs of their gender. The last two Israeli Prime Ministers, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, have had Arabs in their cabinet, and an Israeli Arab is also on Israel's Supreme Court. Arab political parties have also been key power players in Israeli politics, helping to create coalitions such as the Rabin-Peres government that initiated the Oslo peace process. Among these Arab and pro-Arab political parties are two (Balad and Hadash) that reject Zionism. Surprisingly, given the Indicator's bold assertion that the votes of such parties are "usually … invalidated," these two parties won six seats in the current Knesset. Clearly, Israeli politics is far fairer than anti-Zionists imagine, and it is not a coincidence that the two most democratic Arab polities (Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority) are the ones that have seen the most extensive Israeli influence. Socially and economically, unfortunately, Israeli Arabs are at a disadvantage compared with Israeli Jews, and this is a problem that the state must remedy. Israeli Arabs do suffer disadvantages in buying land and gaining employment, especially where Israeli Army service is a prerequisite. There is some racism in Israeli society. However, there is no proof that this racism springs from Zionist ideology. More likely, suspicions against Arabs feed off the worry that Israeli Arabs-especially Muslims-identify with Palestinians and other potential foes rather than the state of their citizenship. While these sentiments are highly discomfiting, they should be recognized as temporary and reversible flaws in a developing society, not as glaring consequences of a positive and liberal national identification.
Political scientist Michael Walzer once wrote that "the Left does not understand the tribes." This is, regrettably, an accurate assessment. The authors of the Indicator piece bashing Zionism, despite their recognition of the existence of those entities known as nations, simply refuse to acknowledge that when given the chance, these categories will usually choose to aggregate politically based on national similarities. They cannot comprehend, within their post-state paradigm, that such a nationalist ideology can also be democratic. Thus they do not understand the concept of Israel, or Zionism. They refuse to believe that a country can be based on Jewish identity, yet afford its Arab citizens more rights than do most Arab states. They cannot concede that Zionism is a philosophy of national liberation, not of national dominance, because they will not allow for a particularistic ideology that is not repressive. Hence they resort to name-calling, labeling Zionism colonialist and imperialist, both of which are untrue appellations. In essence, they are left to defend one of three indefensible positions. They can say that there can be no democratic nationalism, but examples worldwide prove them false. They can claim that a nation may form a nationally based state in their homeland, but that the Jews have no connection to Palestine. That would contravene a great deal of archaeological and historical evidence. They can assert that all nations can have a ideology of national actualization in their homeland, except for the Jews, but that would be grossly anti-Semitic. Finally, they can be more careful when they write uninformed articles. Perhaps that would be the best solution of all.
Erik's regular column will return next week. If anyone disagrees with his views on Zionism, send him an indignant e-mail at eschulwolf10@amherst.edu, or write a letter to the editor.