How can we progress from here?

In the early 1900s, a group of Jewish intellectuals championed a vision of Zionism often referred to as “cultural Zionism.” Among those notable figures were Martin Buber, Echad Ha’am, and Hannah Arendt, along with various others who may not be as widely recognized. Although their viewpoints differed on many aspects—something common among Jews—the central premise was that Jews ought to cultivate a vibrant community in their ancestral homeland while collaborating with the existing Arab populace. This initiative sought to honor Palestine as the birthplace of the Jewish people and to rejuvenate a Jewish culture that extended beyond Orthodox Judaism, which had already established a small, historical presence in the region.

As the movement of Zionism evolved, it increasingly took on a political dimension and adopted a more colonial mindset. By the time of the Holocaust, mainstream Zionism had transformed into a belief that Jews should establish a state or a state-like entity in Palestine for their own benefit. The vision was that Arabs could pursue their own destinies independently, without collaborative efforts in developing this infrastructure. The vision of Jewish security and self-determination hinged on economic strength, an increasing Jewish population, land control, political alliances, and military capability.

The Holocaust intensified these beliefs, and by the conclusion of World War II, Zionists were actively confronting British authorities in Palestine, engaging in skirmishes with Arabs, and operating an international network for espionage and smuggling, all aimed at establishing a Jewish state that would prevail through sheer numbers and force. The Arab pushback against what they perceived as an aggressive and swift takeover of their lands through significant Jewish immigration was often framed by mainstream Zionists as either antisemitism or naivety (“they don’t know what’s good for them”).

Buber and others cautioned against this unethical and myopic approach, forming peace organizations such as Brit Shalom and Ichud, while opposing the mainstream Zionist strategies advocated by emerging leaders like David Ben-Gurion.

The Zionism that emerged from this period adhered to a specific logic: Jews should possess a state in Palestine that controls a crucial landmass and maintains demographic proportions favorable to Jewish governance. This necessitated the appropriation of substantial Palestinian land and the exclusion of refugees displaced during the 1947 war from returning. Palestinians refer to this event as the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” while Zionists term it “Israeli independence.” For further insights on the pre-state era, refer to my previous writing.

Since 1947, the prevailing rationale has dictated that Israel must sustain a Jewish majority. The Arab minority that remained in Israel is permitted extensive rights, provided they do not jeopardize Jewish majority control. In 1967, the Israeli government achieved the long-held aspiration of reuniting Jerusalem under Jewish sovereignty—Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the historical Jewish state and a city laden with significance in 2,000 years of Jewish thought. Additionally, Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan and Gaza from Egypt, strategically augmenting its territory and governing millions of Palestinians.

These Palestinians were not granted Israeli citizenship (due to the aforementioned rationale) but were instead retained as stateless individuals living under Israeli occupation. Yeshayahu Leibovitz, a prominent Orthodox Jewish intellectual, warned that without returning the land, the Israeli state risked falling into a form of “Judeo-nazism,” leading future generations of Jews to oppress Palestinians in a manner reminiscent of torturers and secret police in other nations.

The path chosen by the Israeli state was to retain control of these territories and initiate the construction of Jewish settlements, actions deemed illegal under international law for valid reasons. It is worth noting that the Israeli occupation of parts of Jordan and Egypt bears striking similarities to the Russian occupation of certain Ukrainian territories or the German occupation of France. While I oppose violence and war in nearly all circumstances, including that of Palestinians, it’s crucial to recognize that militant Palestinian resistance is comparable to Ukrainian resistance against Russia or the French resistance during World War II, as understood by international law and UN resolutions.

Several Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, have openly stated that the goal of the settlement initiative is to promote Jewish prosperity while obstructing the establishment of a Palestinian state. The Israeli occupation has transformed Gaza into an open-air prison and the West Bank into a nearly unlivable maze of ghetto-like areas, fragmented by Jewish roads and checkpoints, with heavily fortified Jewish settlements coexisting alongside Palestinian regions that are regularly patrolled by the IDF, often subjected to attacks from Jewish settlers with the state's tacit support or indifference.

Regarding Palestinian violence, I will elaborate further, but first, I want to emphasize the primary point I wish to make. Given the recent horrific violence that erupted on October 7, marked by brutal and immoral killings of Palestinians by the Israeli government, many Jews and others are beginning to contemplate whether the current form of Zionism—the real-world manifestation I have described—should be brought to an end. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn’t entail the dissolution of the Israeli state any more than the cessation of free-market capitalism implies the destruction of the US or the end of communism signifies the downfall of China. It suggests a transformation of a specific political system and the reimagining of a new one, a shift that has occurred numerous times in various nations throughout the 20th century and human history.

As I indicated in my previous article, I believe it matters less whether a reformed Israeli state is labeled “Zionist” and more how it treats non-Jewish citizens and those living under its military occupation. It would be equally valid to envision this new Israel as a reformed interpretation of Zionism, one that embodies other traditional Jewish values beyond mere survival—values such as the pursuit of justice and compassion for the stranger.

It is evident that for the victims of the Israeli state and much of the global community in the wake of “Operation Iron Swords,” the term Zionism carries a tarnished and perhaps irredeemable connotation. I’m uncertain of the future, but I firmly believe that actions, rather than words or semantics, are what truly matter.

Within the Jewish community, advocating for a “reformed Zionism” is likely to resonate more than opposing Zionism outright. Observing the responses of the mainstream Jewish community over the past seven months has prompted me to reassess my own stance against Zionism, shifting my focus to the pressing issue of the abhorrent and unjustifiable violence inflicted upon Palestinian civilians.

An Addendum on Palestinian Violence

I yearn for a world where individuals do not deflect moral criticism by pointing to others who may be perceived as worse. This argumentative tactic, upon rational scrutiny, lacks substance, yet it remains popular.

It is imperative for Jews to concentrate on our own missteps. This is our ethical duty, and it is also a prudent strategy, as we can modify our own conduct while being unable to change others’ actions.

That said, let’s examine Palestinian violence. Following the establishment of the Israeli state and the displacement of 800,000 Palestinian refugees during the ensuing conflict, some displaced Palestinians attacked Israeli border towns, resulting in fatalities among Israeli citizens. Over time, these individuals formed militant groups that clashed with the IDF and launched attacks against Israeli citizens, both domestically and internationally, including undeniably reprehensible assaults on innocent people.

Since then, Palestinian factions have executed violent attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians, alongside peaceful initiatives like the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement. The Israeli state has aggressively responded to both forms of Palestinian resistance.

Since the 1950s, acts of terrorism have been met with disproportionately severe reprisals from the Israeli state, resulting in a significantly higher number of Palestinian deaths compared to Israeli victims of terrorism. This approach has not curtailed Palestinian violence.

Following the initiation of the BDS movement, the Israeli government launched a substantial international campaign costing millions to counter it, branding its leaders and supporters as antisemites driven not by opposition to the Israeli occupation and its human rights violations but by a simple animosity towards Jews. In territories under Israeli control, non-violent Palestinian activists have faced surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, torture, or even death rather than being welcomed as potential partners.

The two Palestinian organizations that have received Israeli backing are the PLO in the West Bank, a more moderate group that collaborates with the state on security matters in exchange for financial support, and Hamas, a more radical Islamist entity governing Gaza, which Netanyahu has helped to elevate and sustain for years. Netanyahu has publicly stated that he views Hamas’ presence in Gaza as vital to hindering the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, a sentiment that aligns with the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, which many Israeli officials have described as tactics to prevent such developments. While some Israeli politicians have shown a willingness to negotiate a two-state solution, the overarching trend of Israeli policy since the 1970s has been to obstruct its realization. In recent decades, Israeli governmental actions have clearly aimed to thwart its establishment.

I oppose Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, yet it is essential to recognize the context; it is akin to opposing someone I am assaulting retaliating against me. I can continue to inflict harm while lamenting the repercussions, arguing that my actions do not compel them to respond, and emphasizing their agency.

I can articulate to observers that blaming me for their reactions is patronizing. I can point to others in conflict and accuse bystanders of bias for intervening in my situation instead of theirs, while conveniently ignoring that those same bystanders have provided me with resources and support.

However, the moment arrives when I must take responsibility for my own actions and decide whether to persist in my aggression—now recognizing the humanity of those beneath my fists, whether they are men, women, children, or infants—or whether I will choose to stop.

I could demand that they cease their actions first or assert that I initiated the conflict. Nevertheless, it remains undeniable that as long as I continue to strike them—these individuals of various ages—they will invariably retaliate. In Israel’s case, it is equally undeniable that a substantial imbalance of resources exists. It’s not merely a matter of mutual aggression; it is also true that Palestinians are grievously deprived of essential resources compared to Israelis.

This dynamic has persisted for nearly 80 years. Will I choose to stop?

Does it matter whether we label this cessation as Zionism or not?

Perhaps it does, but I would humbly propose that the emphasis should not be on the terminology—whether to anti-Zionists or Zionists—but rather on the urgent necessity to halt the violence.

Stop inflicting harm on the innocent.

For the love of God, just stop.