Return to the Promised Land.. Jacek Surzyn

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ state of Israel is strongly emphasized. While the Jewish diaspora builds an identity based mainly on the religious, philosophical tradition and history of the chosen nation, in the Zionist philosophy the identity is largely determined through the myth that emerged as part of the nineteenth-century socio-philosophical transformations occurring in Europe, which also strongly influenced the reality of the traditional diaspora. This definitely affects the overall evaluation of the Zionist movement. There is no doubt that Zionism proved to be a great breakthrough in the Jewish history, directing it to new paths. The Zionist idea of an independent state is the implementation of the traditional (religious) idea of returning to Zion, and the fact of existence of the Israel can hardly be assessed as a defeat or failure of this movement.

      For Zionists, the emergence and existence of the modern Israel is an unquestionable proof of the effectiveness of their own movement. It must not be forgotten that today’s Israel is a wealthy land with a high level of economic development, and a stable and strong democracy, which should be even more appreciated against the background of the misery of the closest Muslim environment in all these respects. Israel seems to be the mainstay of the Western civilization and principles currently promoted as a standard in global relations, so its existence would be in the interest of the whole free world. This is undoubtedly a huge success of Zionism, because in this sense, Jews have such a strong position for the first time in the sociopolitical history of the world. In a way, Zionism has done something impossible, with so little competences and a strong internal resistance of the Jewish diaspore. Taking into account the moderate size of the global Jewish diaspora and its socio-economic potential, Zionism has created a strong democratic state that plays a decisive role in the Middle East, and – remembering the proportions – also in the world’s politics. The Zionist movement has always been understood in the Jewish milieu as a minority movement, so throughout its hundred years’ long history, it has failed to attract the majority of Jewish masses and has not transformed into a mass movement of the national liberation. Its founder Theodor Herzl and the first theorist Max Nordau dreamed about Zionism as a mass movement. Even the First Zionist Congress in Basel in 1897 had in its program the postulate of massification, and thus transformation into the only representative of the Jewry’s world.

      It was the basis of credibility and effectiveness of Zionists’ actions toward the creation of a Jewish state. However, the massification of this movement never took place and Zionism since the beginning has been an elite movement, gathering a minority group of mainly assimilated and strongly secularized environments ←10 | 11→of the Jewish intelligentsia, a middle-class which came from major European capitals such as Vienna (the city of Herzl, though he was born in Budapest) and Paris (the city of Nordau), joined by the intelligentsia from tsarist Russia. The bourgeois spirit together with violent processes of social changes in the classical era of capitalism to a large extent shaped the Zionist movement. Zionist bourgeoisie were open to modern ideas – freedom, equality, individualism. While upholding the religion of their ancestors, Zionists favored a transformation of the traditional and the centuries-long concept of coming of the Messiah and return to Zion (the Promised Land) – so important for the whole Jewry – from a religious idea to its real version. In other words, Zionism transformed the religious idea of returning from exile and reconciliation with God, common for all Jews around the world, into the secular version of building the Jewish state on the territory of the Promised Land in Palestine.

      The proposal to treat Zionism as a secular postulate, and thus to sever it from its religious dimension, had to meet with strong criticism of the traditional rabbinate, which had ruled the life of the Jewish diaspora for centuries. Traditional environments in the vast majority treated the Zionist movement in terms of the threat to the Jewish identity, which was ground on the religion and faith of the ancestors. For centuries, Jewish identity had been defined only in the area of religious identity, that is, belonging to the unique community of God’s chosen group (people, nation). Jewish history began with the appointment of Abraham (whose name means “Father of many nations/peoples”) and his journey to the Promised Land – Canaan. The covenant made between God and man determined the position of Jews as chosen people, which was confirmed and strengthened by the renewed covenant mediated by Moses. This sense of belonging to the religious community of the chosen people has formed Jewishness both in the intangible sense, within the community, and outside it, in the area of relations with the non-Jewish world. From that point of view, Zionism proposed by Herzl since the beginning has become a serious threat to the traditional vision of Jewishness, usurping the right to take over the idea of returning to Zion. According to orthodoxy, Zionists committed an unacceptable profanation of the holy idea, destroying the highest value of the Jewish faith and thus breaking the covenant with God. This understanding still determines strong opposition to Zionism – the opposition that exists in Israel itself, but also outside it in the world’s diaspora. This opposition primarily emphasizes the anti-religious character of the movement. Undoubtedly, Zionism in the nineteenth century managed to present the issue of Jewish identity as a problem by considering it in non-religious terms. Zionism was formed in response to the three motives that developed in the nineteenth century, characterizing the relationship between the ←11 | 12→Jewish community and the non-Jewish environment. These motives are the following: 1. The emergence of the modern anti-Semitism; 2. The process of Jewish emancipation and its consequences; 3. The problem of the mentioned above “Jewish Question” (Judenfrage). The creators of the Zionist movement, i.e. its founder Theodor Herzl and his first ideologist Max Nordau, like earlier protagonists of the movement (i.e. Moses Hess and Leo Pinsker), regarded anti-Semitism, emancipation, and the “Jewish Question” as fundamental problems faced by Jewry and assumed the Jewish future would depend on their solution. There is no doubt that the nineteenth century nationalism and its philosophical or ideological principles had a great influence on the perception of these problems and, consequently, the development of the Zionist movement.

      According to Zionists, nationalism as the new philosophy was to become the remedy for all evil, that is, Zionists saw the nationalist perspective as a possibility of removing anti-Semitism, overcoming the failures of emancipation and solving the “Jewish Question.” In other words, in accordance with the intention of Zionism, the ubiquitous European nationalism propelling a new spiral of animosity and hatred toward Jews could only be neutralized by the Jewish nationalism: Jews were to become a law-conscious nation and fight for the possibility to create their own national state, since only then could they become equal to other nations. Theodor Herzl presented this idea most vividly and showed the plan of its implementation. According to him, the Jewish state was supposed to be (and it actually became once it was established) the quintessence of the Jewish nationalism: Jews became a nation, Israelis, and as a nation they won the right to have all political privileges that result from that fact. In this sense, since its beginning Zionism has followed the mainstream of national movements, which in the nineteenth and twentieth century shaped the socio-political history of Europe and the world. All this causes the lack of clear criteria for assessing the effectiveness of the movement from the perspective of more than a century of its history. As I mentioned above, on the one hand, we can point to the great success, that is, the creation of Israel as an independent, modern state, theoretically open to all Jews. On the other hand, however, it is difficult to overcome the reflection that the state of Israel was founded too late and Zionism itself was not able to save millions of Jews from genocide. In a way, it can be said that the “price” for the creation of Israel was six million victims. However, regardless of the evaluation of the Zionist movement, it remains a unique phenomenon. The belief in its uniqueness was also my motivation for working on this book.

      In this book, I want to analyze the foundations of the Zionist ideology itself – the philosophical foundations in the deepest sense. I tried to maintain a neutral approach to this task, i.e. to refer to the thoughts of protagonists and ←12 | 13→philosophers of the movement rather than to judge them. Nevertheless, some choices must always be made, even from the perspective of methodological decisions regarding the selection of the analyzed content, sources, or literature. In my case, I attempted to describe the issue of foundations of the Zionist philosophy from the perspective of the researcher with a positive attitude to the subject of study, because I believe that, all in all, the Zionist movement has more positives than negatives.

      The СКАЧАТЬ