|
Anti-Zionism is a term used to describe several different political and religious points of view that have in common some form of opposition to Zionism. Defining anti-Zionism Anti-Zionism is often characterized by opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. While "anti-Zionism" is not defined in modern dictionaries, anti-Zionist polemic dates back at least to 1900, and it was regularly used in the 1920s and 1930s in relation to events in the British Mandate of Palestine, when both Arab and Jewish organizations opposed the creation of a Jewish State in the area. The term has regained wider currency in political debate since the 1970s, as part of the controversy over the Arab-Israeli conflict. Before the Six-Day War of 1967, opposition to the existence of Israel was largely confined to the Arab world. The Soviet Union and its allies took a very negative stance on Israel and on Zionism. Since the 1970s, however, opposition to Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip has led to mounting criticism of Israel, which in turn has fueled the growth of anti-Zionism. Both Zionism and anti-Zionism have been accused of being a form of racism. The UN General Assembly Resolution 4686 (passed in 1991) revoked earlier Resolution 3379 (passed in 1975) assertion that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." (See Zionism and racism) In addition to a conventional definition of anti-Semitism ("hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group, often accompanied by social, political or economic discrimination"), the unabridged edition of Webster's Third New International Dictionary, originally published in 1961 and reprinted in 2002, gives a controversial second and third definition to anti-Semitism, defining the word as "opposition to Zionism" and "sympathy for the opponents of Israel". (The modern college editions based on Webster's Third all omit the second definition of "anti-Semitism.") The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has mounted a campaign to get this definition removed. A Merriam-Webster company spokesman defended the definition as "a relic" based on a handful of citations from about 1950 in which anti-Semitism was "linked more or less strongly with opposition to Israel or to Zionism." The spokesman also stated that the sense wasn't supported by current usage, and added that it would probably be dropped when the company publishes a new unabridged version in a decade or so. However, the company said it was beyond its means to send out correction sheets to all libraries. Ken Jacobson, the associate national director of the Anti-Defamation League, urged Merriam-Webster to retain the definition. "Zionism is the national expression of the Jewish people," he told the New York Times, "and to deny that, it seems to me, most often reflects anti-Semitic views." Types of anti-Zionism Political Zionism has encountered opposition ever since it was first articulated in the 19th century. It is therefore possible to speak of a history of anti-Zionism reaching back for more than a century. That history, however, embraces several different phenomena. Muslim anti-Zionism opposes the state of Israel as an intrusion into their domain. Some anti-Zionists, including many Palestinian and other Arab or Islamic militant groups, as well as the government of Iran (since 1979), insist that the State of Israel is illegitimate and refuse to refer to it as "Israel", instead using the locution "the Zionist entity" (see Iran-Israel relations). Other states, including those such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, and Syria that do not formally recognise Israel, as well as Egypt, which has recognised Israel, may be more interested in a perpetual fight against Israel as a decoy for public anger, rather than its destruction. Many neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups are opposed to Zionism, simply out of anti-Semitism. Aside from those voices generally considered "anti-Zionist," there are those who advocate a binational state comprising the current State of Israel and the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in which both Jews and Palestinians would be citizens with equal rights. Advocates of this may not necessarily consider themselves "anti-Zionist." They note that the bi-national concept was advanced by a vocal minority within the Zionist movement itself at the time of the founding of the state of Israel, notably by the writer Martin Buber, and by Judah Magnes, the first president of Hebrew University. Bi-national state proponents maintain that such a settlement must be arrived at voluntarily and by peaceful means, and argue that it would be in the best interests of the Jews and Palestinians alike. Opponents of this option argue that, under those conditions, Israel would cease to be a Jewish state or a safe haven for potential Jewish refugees. See Binational solution. Finally, there are non-Zionists who hold that, while the creation of the State of Israel may have been an error because of the privileged status it accords to Jews in comparison to non-Jews; there can nevertheless be no return to the status quo ante. These critics advocate only a peaceful settlement of the current conflict. Political opposition The Zionist movement before the 1930s met with some ambivalence among the world's Jewish communities. While the religious connections with the Land of Israel were indisputable, many disassociated themselves with the socialist ideology that dominated early political Zionism. While the revisionist Zionist movement emerged as an alternative over time, the Holocaust solidified Zionism as a mainstream movement in world Jewry. The many Jews, mainly in Europe, who supported socialist or communist political ideas, took the view that the defeat of anti-Semitism and the winning of civic equality for Jews required participation in the common struggle against capitalism and oppressive regimes, and that for Zionists to advocate emigration to Palestine was a means of perpetuating the segregation of the "ghetto" that they were fighting to overcome. Some Jewish socialists rejected this view and became Socialist Zionists. The largest Jewish socialist organisation in Europe, the General Jewish Labor Union, also known as the Bund, opposed Zionism right up until the German invasion of Poland in 1939. Within the Jewish displaced persons community there eventually emerged a strong pro-Zionist movement. Zionism became part of the mainstream political consciousness of Arab Jewish communities and the large communities in the Jewish diaspora, especially following the formation of the State of Israel and the Six Day War. Religious opposition Many 19th century and early 20th century Orthodox Jews objected to Zionism because they rejected secular and atheist attempts to build a secular and socialist Jewish state in Palestine. Orthodox Jews in this group did not reject the right of Jews to move to Palestine and reconstitute a Jewish nation within its borders, but instead hoped that if any such state were to be created, it would follow to some extent Jewish law and tradition, and that its leaders would be religious Jews. Other Orthodox Jews of that time objected to any creation of a Jewish state in Palestine before the arrival of the Jewish Messiah, though they accepted the right of individual Jews to move to Palestine. In other words, religious opposition to the State of Israel is different from political opposition in that it does not deny the territorial claim of the Jewish people (Am Israel) to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel), but rather objects to the formation of a secular state (Medinat Israel) that pre-empts religious requirements that would or could lead to the format of a new religious kingdom of Israel (Malchut Israel). Zionism remained a minority view among the Jewish diaspora until the 1930s. The rise to power of Adolf Hitler, and the systematic murder of six million European Jews by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust, persuaded the majority of the world's surviving Jews that a Jewish state was an urgent necessity. Ever since, the great majority of Jews, religious and secular, have supported the State of Israel. A 2005 poll by The Israel Project showed some decline in this support: 82% of 800 American Jews polled said they support Israel, of which 63% indicated "strong" support. A minority of Jews, however, continue to oppose Zionism on either political or religious grounds. The most radical and vocal of these is the small Neturei Karta group, which not only opposes Zionism, but also opposes the existence of the State of Israel. Among more mainstream Orthodox groups the most significant anti-Zionist group would be the Satmar Hasidism, probably one of the largest Hasidic group in the world, with over 100,000 followers, along with other Hasidic groups which are influenced by Satmar and revere the group's late leader, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum, as an authority figure. Teitelbaum's book, VaYoel Moshe, published in 1958, is an exposition of one Orthodox position on Zionism, based on a literal form of midrash (biblical interpretation). According to Teitelbaum, Tractate Kesubos 111a of the Talmud explains that God and the Jewish people exchanged three oaths at the time of the Jews' exile from ancient Israel: Haredi Jewish opposition to Zionism Especially in Poland and Hungary, most Haredi Jewish movements, including the entire Hasidic world, remained opposed to Zionism. In some cases this opposition was only mild and passive; in other cases it was very strong. The strongest forms of anti-Zionism originated in Hungary, where in 1920 a group of 12 leading rabbis condemned Zionism in very strong words. It was followed by a similar declaration in 1925. Hasidic movements strongly opposing Zionism are, amongst others, Satmar, Bobov, Munkacz, Belz, Vizhnitz, Toldos Aharon, Dushinsky, Pshevorsk, Tosh and many others. Satmar is the biggest Hasidic movement in the world today, with a membership estimated between 100,000 and 125,000 persons; Belz numbers circa 50,000 people. Among the leading rabbis in the Haredi community, in the past and present, who see the founding of the State of Israel as a violation of these oaths are the Chazon Ish, Steipler Gaon, Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum of Satmar, Rabbi Aharon Kotler, the Brisker Rav, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchok Kahn of Toldos Aharon, Rabbi Elazar Menachem Shach, Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam of Bobov, Rabbi Yisrael Abuchatzera (the Baba Sali), Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum of Satmar, Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, Rabbi Yosef Sholom Eliashiv, Rabbi Yaakov Meir Shechter, Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss, Rabbi Shmuel Wosner, Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch, Rabbi Moshe Aryeh Freund, Rabbi Chaim Pinchas Sheinberg, Rabbi Shlomo Wolbe, Rabbi Nissim Karelitz, Rabbi Nosson Gestetner, Rabbi Moshe Rabenuvitz of Har-Sinai, Rabbi Binyamin Zilber, Rabbi Yaakov Hillel, Rabbi Yisrael Alter of Ger, Rabbi Yisroel Hager of Vizhnitz, Rebbe Mordechai Hager of Vizhnitz, Rabbi Aharon Rokeach of Belz}, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Twerski of Skver, Rabbi Yisrael Moshe Dushinsky, Rabbi Yisrael David Fisher, Rabbi Binyamin Rabinowitz, Rabbi Avraham Chaim Roth of Shomer Emunim, Rabbi David Kahn of Toldos Aharon, Rabbi Shmuel Yaakov Kahn of Toldos Avraham Yitzchak, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ulman of Dushinsky, Rabbi Moshe Sacks of Satmar and others. Regardless of their position, almost none of these groups and rabbis opposes the idea of Jews as individuals emigrating to Israel, but rather oppose the notion of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel, either in its current form, or sometimes in any form at all. Arab anti-Zionism
Muslim anti-Zionism Muslim narratives, originally more popular among the more conservative nations of the Muslim world itself but now fairly widespread, emphasize the idea of Palestine as Muslim land—land once ruled by Muslims and once having a Muslim majority—taken by a non-Muslim political power, and regard it as the duty of Muslims to retake this land. They also emphasize the suffering of the Palestinians, seeing it as Muslims' duty to aid them against what they consider to be their oppressors. In this narrative, the natural means of combating Zionism is considered to be jihad, whether by Palestinians or others. An example of this narrative is the work of Ismail al-Faruqi (1926-1986). In Islam and the Problem of Israel (1980), he argued that Zionism was a "disease" largely influenced by European romanticism far removed from the religion of the Jews, Judaism. He opposed the "Zionist occupation" of Palestine and called for the dismantling of Israel and the launch of a jihad. He said that the injustice caused by Zionism is such that there is no means of stopping it short of war. From the standpoint of Islam, Faruqi wrote, Zionism represents apostasy against Judaism. Western anti-Zionism Before the 1970s, serious criticism of Israel, let alone opposition to its existence, was almost unknown in the western countries, except to some extent in the Communist parties. Indeed there was an almost completely uncritical acceptance of Israel's projected image of itself as a nation of brave pioneers making the desert bloom. This was partly motivated by genuine admiration for the efforts of the pioneering Israelis, partly by a sense of guilt about the failure of the West to prevent the Holocaust or to take in the Jewish refugees of the 1930s and 1940s, and partly by relief that the "Jewish question" had now finally been solved by the creation of a Jewish state. Pro-Zionist sentiment in the west peaked in the 1960s, epitomised by the Hollywood epic Exodus (1960) and by support (except of France) for "plucky little Israel" in the Six-Day War. The tide of opinion turned after 1970, however, as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), formed in 1964, began to conduct its campaign of "armed struggle" against Israel, through violent and often deadly attacks in Europe against Jewish and Western civilian targets. These acts included the hijacking and destruction of passenger airliners and the Munich Massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics. These events coincided with a wave of radicalism which swept through the western intellectual world in the wake of the anti-Vietnam War protests of the 1960s (see The Sixties). Many Westerners and Third World activists came to see the Palestinians as an oppressed people like the South Vietnamese or the black South Africans, and the PLO as a national liberation movement of the type they supported in other places. This wave of radicalism soon passed, but it left an intellectual climate in most western countries much less sympathetic to Israel than had existed before 1967. This anti-Israeli sentiment might have faded had there been an Arab-Israeli settlement, as seemed possible for example after President Anwar Sadat's visit to Israel and the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. But the repeated disappointments of Middle East diplomacy, and the spread of the opinion that the Palestinians were the victims of western neo-colonialism in the form of a Jewish settler state planted in the Arab world, created a permanent reservoir of anti-Zionist sentiment among western intellectuals, including some Jews. Maxime Rodinson's 1973 book Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? was influential in promoting this view. The active expression of western anti-Zionism has tended to ebb and flow in relation to events in the Middle East. When developments seem positive, such as during the period of the Oslo Accords and the prime ministership of Yitzhak Rabin, and again during the Barak-Arafat negotiations in 1999-2000, western opinion, even on the anti-Zionist left, welcomes the reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians. When events turn out badly, as they did after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin or with the launching of the Second Intifada or the election of Sharon; during these times western anti-Zionism flares up again. Most Western anti-Zionism is of the second or the third type described above, advocating coexistence rather than expulsion: very few western intellectuals actively desire the physical destruction of Israel, and most would welcome any settlement if it was acceptable to the Palestinians. Most western anti-Zionists deny vehemently that they are anti-Semites or that anti-Zionism can be equated with anti-Semitism. Israelis and Zionists outside Israel often respond that a demand to destroy or abolish the state of Israel is intrinsically anti-Semitic, since Israel represents the fulfillment of the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination. Both these positions are in most cases sincerely held, and the conflict arises from the absence of an agreed definition of key terms such as "anti-Semitism" and "Zionism," and the fact that many western anti-Zionists either do not accept the concept of a right to national self-determination (for any nation, not just a Jewish nation) or do not accept that Israel represents its fulfillment. This debate is complicated by two further factors: the habit of genuine anti-Semites of using the term "Zionist" as a synonym and/or euphemism for "Jew," and the tendency for radical Islamist elements to use the rhetoric of traditional European anti-Semitism. These rhetorical cross-currents make it almost impossible for Zionists and anti-Zionists to converse across the gulf of hostility and incomprehension which has grown up over the past decades. The distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is, however, recognised by some Jewish commentators. Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, said in 2002: "I see three distinct positions: legitimate criticism of Israel, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Anti-Zionism can certainly become a form of anti-semitism when it becomes an attack on the collective right of the Jewish people to defensible space. If any people in history have earned the right to defensible space it is the Jewish people. But anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are different things. We're hearing more voices in Britain now who are denying Israel's right to exist and I have to fight that - but I don't confuse that with an assault on me as the bearer of a religious tradition." However, in 2003 he said "Today's anti-Semitism has three components: The first is anti-Zionism, the notion that Jews alone have no right to a nation of their own, a place in which to govern themselves. No. 2—all Jews are Zionists and therefore legitimate targets like Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl. No. 3, Israel and the Jewish people are responsible for all the troubles in the world, from AIDS to globalization. Put those three propositions together and you have the new anti-Semitism." Soviet anti-Zionism
International anti-Zionism Many of the most important authorities on ethics in the 20th century have contributed to the debate on Zionism, with some, such as Mahatma Gandhi in the 1930s and '40s, expressing opposition to the Zionist movement. In parallel with the rise of anti-Zionist sentiment in the west was increased hostility towards Israel at the international level. During the 1950s and 1960s Israel made great efforts to cultivate good relations with the newly independent states of Africa and Asia, and hostility to Israel was confined to the states of the Arab-Muslim world and the Communist bloc. But a combination of inter-related circumstances in the 1970s radically changed this situation. The first was the increased hostility to Israel following the onset of the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the late 1960s, as described above. The second was the decline in the prestige of the United States following the end of the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal. The third was increased economic power of the Arab oil-producing states in the aftermath of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War and the resulting energy crisis. The fourth was the rise of radical anti-western regimes in a series of African countries. The fifth was the increased diplomatic and economic presence of the Soviet Union, China and Cuba in Africa. This anti-Zionist trend was manifested in organisations such as the Organization for African Unity and the Non-Aligned Movement, which passed resolutions condemning Zionism and equating it with racism and apartheid during the early 1970s. It culminated in the passing by the United Nations General Assembly of Resolution 3379 in November 1975, declaring that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was passed by 72 votes to 35, with 32 abstentions. The 72 votes in favour consisted of all 20 Arab states, another 12 Muslim-majority states (including Turkey), 12 Communist countries, 14 non-Muslim African states, and 14 other states (including Brazil, India, Mexico and Portugal). By 1991 this international situation had been completely reversed following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the American-led victory over Iraq in the Gulf War and the return of the United States to global political and economic dominance. On December 16, 1991, under pressure from the United States and Israel, the General Assembly passed Resolution 4686, repealing the resolution 3379, by a vote of 111 to 25, with 13 abstentions and 17 delegations absent. Thirteen out of the 19 Arab countries, including those engaged in negotiations with Israel, voted against the repeal, another six were absent. No Arab country voted for repeal. The PLO denounced the vote. All the ex-Communist countries and most of the African countries who had supported Resolution 3379 voted to repeal it. Only three non-Muslim countries voted against the resolution: Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. Nevertheless, only one Muslim-majority country (Albania) voted for the resolution: the rest abstained or absented themselves. International anti-Zionism, like domestic anti-Zionism in many countries, rises and falls in parallel with events in the Middle East, and the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 saw some revival of the anti-Zionist rhetoric in some countries; however, it is also possible that it was not until this time that media attention focused on the phenomenon. Anti-Zionism and antisemitism Some commentators believe that criticisms of Israel and Zionism are often disproportionate in degree and unique in kind, and attribute this to antisemitism. Some supporters of Zionism go so far as to say that all expressions of anti-Zionism qualify as antisemitism. Critics of this view believe that associating anti-Zionism with antisemitism is intended to stifle debate, deflect attention from valid criticisms, and taint anyone opposed to Israeli actions and policies. Since the support and defense of Israel has become a central focus of Jewish life for many since 1948, many Jews see attacks on the existence of Israel as inherently antisemitic. For example, Yehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has argued: "If you advocate the abolition of Israel ... that means in fact that you're against the people who live there. If you are, for example, against the existence of Malaysia, you are anti-Malay. If you are against the existence of Israel, you are anti-Jewish." According to Tanya Reinhardt, Professor of Linguistics at Tel Aviv University who said she was speaking as one who loves the country and its people, "Being against Israel is the best act of solidarity and compassion with the Jews that one can have. ... The system of prisons that Israel is building is also a prison for Israelis. This small state is making itself the enemy of the entire Arab world and now the Muslim world. A state with this strategy does not have a future, so the solution for the Palestinians is also the solution for Israel." Another position is that criticism of Israel or Zionism is not in itself antisemitic, but that anti-Zionism can be used to hide antisemitism. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in response to a question from the audience after a lecture at Harvard University shortly before his death in 1968, said, “When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews; you are talking anti-Semitism.” On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced that anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism may often serve as "camouflage" for "anti-Semitic bigotry" on American college campuses: On many campuses, anti-Israeli or anti-Zionist propaganda has been disseminated that includes traditional anti-Semitic elements, including age-old anti-Jewish stereotypes and defamation. This has included, for example, anti-Israel literature that perpetuates the medieval anti-Semitic blood libel of Jews slaughtering children for ritual purpose, as well as anti-Zionist propaganda that exploits ancient stereotypes of Jews as greedy, aggressive, overly powerful, or conspiratorial. Such propaganda should be distinguished from legitimate discourse regarding foreign policy. Anti-Semitic bigotry is no less morally deplorable when camouflaged as anti-Israelism or anti-Zionism. One of the first people who criticized Israel immediately after its Independence was Albert Einstein who co-authored a letter to the editor of the New York Times criticizing it for the massacres at Deir Yassin. Thomas Friedman wrote that "criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest". In 2005, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), part of the European Union, tried to define more clearly the relationship between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. The EUMC developed a working definition of anti-Semitism that defined ways in which attacking Israel or Zionism could be anti-Semitic. The definition states: Examples of the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself with regard to the State of Israel taking into account the overall context could include: A formal, academic survey of attitudes towards Jewish people and Israel was recently conducted among 5,000 participants in ten European countries. Kaplan and Small of Yale University published the results in the Journal of Conflict Resolution. They found an almost perfect correlation between anti-Zionist attitudes and frank anti-Semitism. People who believed that the Israeli soldiers "intentionally target Palestinian civilians," and that "Palestinian suicide bombers who target Israeli civilians" are justified, also believed that "Jews don't care what happens to anyone but their own kind," "Jews have a lot of irritating faults," and "Jews are more willing than others to use shady practices to get what they want." The study's other interesting finding was that only a small fraction of Europeans believe any of these things. It claims that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism flourish among the few, but those few are over-represented in Europe's newspapers, its universities, and its left-wing political parties. Post-Zionism Main article: Post-Zionism See also Other resources For other resources and external links, see Zionism and anti-Zionism (resources) | |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
 |
|
| |