As the saying goes, the most convincing lies have some truth in them. That's a good way of describing this New York Times op-ed called Who Are the Real Heirs of Zionism?.
Considering that Zionism, the modern return of the Jewish People to the Biblical Land of Israel, led by Jews who claimed not to be religiously observant of Jewish Law, was first "developed" in the late 19th Century in Europe which was undergoing a series of nationalist upheavals, it certainly predated both the Holocaust and the "Green Line." For those idealistic and hardy Jewish pioneers who came to settle The Land, there was no ideological difference between the coastal plain east of Jaffa, Samaria, Judea, the Negev and Galil.
The dominant Zionist group was socialist, which evolved into the Leftist Labor Party, but today's Labor ideologues and politicians have nothing at all in common with those brave idealistic pioneers. Their basic ideology has more in common with the notorious "White Paper" which claimed that there wasn't enough room in the barren Mandated Palestine for unlimited Jewish immigration.
It's interesting that the NY Times does consider "the settlement movement" as those who have inherited the mantle of Zionism, but, no surprise, they've also distorted the very essence of Zionism.
It's totally clear to me and many others that the very early Zionists were connected to Jewish religion and values, even if they davka desecrated the Sabbath and ate forbidden foods. They were "mehadrin," extremely religious in their love of the Land of Israel. Without a strong belief in Gd and the idea that the Jewish People are the Chosen People, they could never withstood the difficulties of establishing the towns and agricultural settlements. The difficulties were Arab attackers, health problems (diseases that killed so many,) impossibly hard work and logistics impossible to imagine in today's modern world.
The "green line" which, even today, is so fanatically worshipped by most of the world led by Israel's Left, should have been nothing more than a quickly forgotten postscript in history books. Its relevance lasted barely eighteen years, from the 1949 Armistice Agreements until the 1967 Six Days War. In most of the world international borders change without causing even a headline, and Israel's miraculous victory in 1967 should have totally erased those old temporary, dangerous, hard to defend and insecure borders.
Food for thought, Shabbat Shalom, and I'd appreciate your opinions on this post, thanks.
The Israeli general and politician Yigal Allon defined Zionism in 1975 as “the national liberation movement of a people exiled from its historic homeland and dispersed among the nations of the world.” Some years later, and more crudely, perhaps, another general and politician, Rehavam Ze’evi, a tough right-winger, said, “Zionism is in essence the Zionism of transfer,” adding, “If transfer is immoral, then all of Zionism is immoral.” (NY Times)
 |
| Stockade and Tower Settlement- set up overnight to circumvent Mandatory regulations. (Zionism) |
Zionism as an organized movement is generally considered to have been founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. However, the history of Zionism began earlier and is related to Judaism and Jewish history. The Hovevei Zion, or the Lovers of Zion, were responsible for the creation of 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.[1] (Wikipedia)
 |
| Wikipedia |
It's interesting that the NY Times does consider "the settlement movement" as those who have inherited the mantle of Zionism, but, no surprise, they've also distorted the very essence of Zionism.
“Zionism justified a return to the holy land in terms of universalist values,” said Yaron Ezrahi, a political theorist and emeritus professor at Hebrew University. “The idea was to bring enlightenment and cultural development, to bring universalism to the Middle East. But the settlers are the epitome of particularism, of localism, and they give a bad name to Zionism. If Zionism is a European movement,” he said, “the settlers are colonialism in a post-colonial era. They’ve lost the universal values of Zionism.”What bothers today's Israeli Left and the New York Times is that today's Zionists aka "the settlers," sic, unlike the pre-state Zionists are no longer following a schizophrenic philosophy which camouflaged their innate belief in Gd and the Bible with secular socialist and Liberal (with a capital "L") philosophies. We unabashedly believe in Gd and see Gd's hand in Modern Jewish/Israeli History.
It's totally clear to me and many others that the very early Zionists were connected to Jewish religion and values, even if they davka desecrated the Sabbath and ate forbidden foods. They were "mehadrin," extremely religious in their love of the Land of Israel. Without a strong belief in Gd and the idea that the Jewish People are the Chosen People, they could never withstood the difficulties of establishing the towns and agricultural settlements. The difficulties were Arab attackers, health problems (diseases that killed so many,) impossibly hard work and logistics impossible to imagine in today's modern world.
The "green line" which, even today, is so fanatically worshipped by most of the world led by Israel's Left, should have been nothing more than a quickly forgotten postscript in history books. Its relevance lasted barely eighteen years, from the 1949 Armistice Agreements until the 1967 Six Days War. In most of the world international borders change without causing even a headline, and Israel's miraculous victory in 1967 should have totally erased those old temporary, dangerous, hard to defend and insecure borders.
Food for thought, Shabbat Shalom, and I'd appreciate your opinions on this post, thanks.