This is a relevant topic for universal readership on Global Thoughts because the exploration of such an ism is open to debate by any ethnic minority seeking some sort of national representation or homeland, be they African-Americans, Kurds, Palestinians or Aboriginal Indians, to name a few. I, of course, treat the subject from a Jewish standpoint because that’s the angle I know best.  Some of this article is a tad tongue-in-cheek but the points are real.

First of all, let me offer a definition of Zionism for the sake of discussion because I don’t know of a textbook definition for this term. I define it as a position taken by Jews in favor of holding territory in which Jews exercise sovereignty and in which Judaism is favored by the state. Such a state is also meant to serve as a sort of protection and beacon for Jews elsewhere in the world.

The conditions under which Zionism was originally conceived have changed and therefore the subject itself requires reexamination.

Zionism was a product of secular thinkers and doers. Religiously observant people were not at all crazy about Herzl and his ideas late in the 1800's and were not the movers and shakers behind statehood in 1948. Zionism was not particularly Israel-centric; it considered other localities but only Palestine had an enduring allure even to these avid secularists because of the sacred sites to the Jewish religion that exist in that place. That’s a huge paradox and must be considered although it should also be considered that the other geographic areas were also inferior to habitation as compared to where Israel now stands (ie: Uganda; Siberia; Buffalo, New York).

An interesting question is what would happen today if Jews were to re-create a Jewish state from scratch and whether or not they’d really be motivated to do it if one didn’t exist. We don’t have anything like the pogroms and ghettos of earlier generations, although there is still low-level and consistent anti-semitic activity in almost all regions where Jews exist. Europe is no longer the central depositary of Jews; now it is America and almost all American Jews do not consider living in a Jewish state that belongs in Israel and are in no foreseeable danger in the US. At most, 2,000 a year emigrate to Israel and the majority come back. About 70% of American Jews have never visited Israel and the majority of Jewish tourists to Israel are repeat visitors. The percentage of American Jews that actively think about Israel, visit there and follow its issues is quite small. More Christians than Jews visit Israel and keep themselves informed about minute details concerning the country.

The Orthodox religious element of Israe came to its forefront post-1967 and especially during the past 20 years. Its ideology and that of Orthodox Jews around the world is not the same as it was 50 years ago and has shifted toward a more messianic and territorial-centric base.  Its leaders are increasingly attempting to use the levers of the state to uphold religious standards in a society that is less religious and in fact less Jewish. Consider that 90% of American Jews and 80% of Israelis are not Orthodox and don’t want to be. But even if they know which synagogue they don’t want to attend, many like having them there to begin with and there is identification with Israel as a beacon of heritage and pride for Jews around the world.

Does Israel today protect Jews around the world? Hard to say. Israel doesn’t exactly deter terrorism and it is not a given that a more aggressive policy by Israel would have any deterrent effect either within the country or abroad. Jewish community centers blow up and the Israelis are not in a position to do anything about it. Israelis are taken hostage for over a decade and the Israelis can’t seem to protect their own. Jews are targeted because Israel exists and creates a magnet for attack. On the other hand, would Jews in the year 2000 be attacked as Jews more often if Israel didn’t exist as was the case in the world before Israel existed? Nations around the world have found that the road to Washington runs through Jerusalem, and Jews would have no real reason to be involved and disproportionately powerful in the American political process without some kind of ethnic issue (ie: Israel) to rally around. So I continue to think on balance that some kind of Jewish state is good for the Jews, even when the world seems rather peaceful, especially since a Jewish homeland does yet have the ability to inspire many Jews in various ways in a sense that ordinary things in life don’t. (I think other groups should have states too if they can afford them; this is not a zero-sum matter to me.) The question is: What kind of state?

Let’s look at the ultimate question: A Jewish state or a state for Jews? If it’s a Jewish state, that means it favors Jews. This becomes a problem if you have an Arab majority and you want to maintain a democracy. Do citizens still keep singing the Hatikva (Israeli national anthem with the overriding theme that every Jewish heart yearns for the return to Zion)? Right now, Israeli Arabs who are about 18% of the Israeli population, are quite fed up singing this. If it’s a state for Jews but it’s one person one vote, then theoretically you could have numerous national anthems, just as long as Jews know they can continue singing their own. Presumably, you would have too many national holidays but both Jewish and Arab occasions would be present on the national calendar. However, having sat at University of Pennsylvania events hearing both the US national anthem and the African-American national anthem (I never heard of it until then), I’m not sure I can relate well to having one country with people singing different national anthems and I found the experience at Penn a decade ago to be very divisive and alien to white people sitting at a concert by a black student performing arts group. 

The above conundrum is already the subject of much debate and fear drives much of the discussion. Jews fear that Arabs will take over the state and drive them out if they grant full equality, so they want ultimate control. The Jewish consensus is that Arabs can always retreat to any one of 21 other states in the region while the Jews can’t and still have no peace, so they are doomed to occupy and dominate Arabs within their own state.  This leads to inconsistent results for the Jews and the Arabs but both are the victim of fate, goes this reasoning. For instance, an Israeli Jewish establishment (who otherwise hate the concept of the term Judenrein or free-of-Jews) decides to make neighborhoods Arab-free and finds the idea logical and necessary; actually, the Israeli Supreme Court last year forbid this, but in real life that’s the way it is and we can all pretty much accept the idea that the wolf and lamb are not going to lie down together and live happily ever after.

So let’s move beyond this ultimate issue and discuss this on a different plateau because there is no good answer to the problem raised just above. There are those who recommend a binational or trinational state within the territory west of the Jordan River but I don’t see it as a realistic option and clearly the mindset in the area is toward separation as opposed to integration. Let’s go back a step and say we are sitting in the year 2000 without Israel and are deciding to create one. What would we create? First, based upon the above items, a few thoughts about what we would not create today.

1. Today, more Jews live in New York and the Americas than in Israel and they live in peace and political/economic security with a great cultural and religious output in their vernacular language. This is an unprecedented situation in Jewish history. Such a state should revolve around the greatest concentration of Jews. At 12 hours flying time from New York (even as opposed to a month by sea), Israel is a far-flung location for a state for these people. Only the wealthy can afford to visit there, it is a really long trip, and the geographic location, among a sea of hostile Arabs in a plot of earth lacking valuable natural resources, is not a prime choice.  Most Jews do not believe in the divinity of the Bible, have no interest in rebuilding the Temple of Jerusalem and restoring its rituals (which would be considered inhumane to most Jews in our civilization), and more evidence is contradicting legends that built a society and its sacred sites (ie: Masada). If these items are to be paid for and if the past is any guide toward the future, the vast majority of Jews will not be contributing toward them. Jews are also being forced to face up to harsh paradoxes that shrines such as the Western Wall are in reality modern fictions that are not steeped in history while shrines such as the Temple Mount that are steeped in history are nevertheless forbidden to Jewish entry under Jewish religious law. (It is good advice not to believe one’s own propaganda too much and this article therefore pulls no punches.)

2. Most Diaspora and indeed Israeli Jews do not identify with today’s Israel, run by Orthodox Rabbis, who openly state that the rituals practiced by the majority of the world’s Jews are illegitimate and who are trying to maintain Orthodox control over life cycle events and spheres of influence involving public entertainment and transport. Most Jews do not want the state to be involved in these areas and today’s Israel involves a politically powerful swing minority holding a majority hostage. Many of those holding the balance of power in the religious community are from constituencies that neither pay taxes or serve in the army, two obvious sources of resentment from the rest of the country. In fact, they are not Zionists and openly state that they don’t believe in the legitimacy of a non-theocratic Jewish state in that territory in a pre-Messianic world. Only 2% of the population live in the territories, a further source of resentment from the rest who defend them, a fact which is coming to the surface this year as never before.

3. Israel today is essentially being asked to agree to the partition plan of 1948 (meaning two states west of the Jordan River), with expanded borders given the 1967 war and facts created on the ground since then, some of which are mutually recognized to be irreversible.  The country is divided over the issue but clearly moving toward accepting the two-state proposal, but the fact is that if Israel had not agreed to such a plan in 1948, the world would never have accepted it. Would the world today offer Israel what it got in 1948?  Israel today is not what it was in 1948; it is not a refuge of Jews fleeing persecution in Europe; most immigration today consists of Jews migrating from other countries chiefly for economic advantage. Both Israelis and the rest of world Jewry are increasingly resentful of picking up the tab for people who might not even be Jewish (probably 25% of present Russian immigration, according to a relatively conservative count). And let’s face it, while bringing in 25,000 Ethiopians made for good PR, nobody really wants them around now that they’re there. For that matter, most American Jews would prefer an Israel without all the Israelis being there! (Most Israelis don’t care much for American Jews either.)

Considering that Israel today is a strange mix of people living together who really don’t like each other and are not all that Jewishly observant (Tel Aviv is more open on Saturday than Zurich is closed on Sunday) in a Jewish world that really doesn’t relate to Israelis or to the Jewish state that it has become (especially since a majority of Israelis don’t relate to the Jewish state that Israel has now become), it is reasonable to sit down and rethink this whole business of Zionism, going back to the original definition outlined above and thinking about what we truly want and need in order to achieve contemporary objectives. In the background is the fact that the State of Israel faces hostile neighbors and residents who, if they could, would prefer that it wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t hesitate to act on those preferences. They will never be reconciled to a Jewish state on territory they feel was taken from them.

Here’s Ivan’s Recommended Jewish State for the Future:

1. Move it to the Americas and away from the Arabs. Also away from the Israelis (OK, they can come if they want to but let them learn English.) I would conclude thus even if there were no Arabs in the region. Today’s Jewish state should be a place where one enjoys going, can go as often as one pleases, and where there is no hostility with the natives among whom residents are living. Also a place in which the majority of Jews would actually want to live and could see economic advantage in residing. I don’t see these elements in Israel and I don’t believe they will ever exist there. I also want to live in a society where English is the dominant language. English is today the dominant language among Jews and one thing I don’t like about Israel is that when I am there I get my news in English there from sources outside the country because the country doesn’t take English or Americans seriously, partially because the American mentality is so foreign to Israelis who think they are Western but aren’t. 
    I would set up a state on a Caribbean island and contribute a few billion dollars toward paying off all the natives following a binding referendum to have the Jews come in and run the place.  Nothing sneaky, just do this openly as an all-out business proposition. Sounds expensive but it’s less than one year’s defense budget for Israel. Call me a patronizing jerk, but I assume such a willing population could be found because it would ensure the island with a proper economy and infrastructure and this region is not exactly thriving these days.  Islanders could either stay and service the enterprise or take the money and go to the next island and live a life they never could have otherwise afforded. Assuming a majority voted for this and were given good consideration, the legitimacy of such a move should not be questioned. Perhaps the Arabs should have been offered the same deal but I don’t think they would go for it and of course the whole mentality is different. Also, natives in the Caribbean will not be held back as Palestinians are by all the Arabs around them. I assume it is a safe bet that Jewish religious sites in Israel would remain open to tourism; Arabs are quite welcoming and tolerant to guests who understand they are guests.

2. Such an island with a pleasant climate and topography will be 3 hours flying time from the US mainland; will be easily upgradable to world class infrastructure; will attract tourists and industry, and will be able to support itself with a low tax liability because it will not have to deal with a massive defense budget. Its main threat will be from the occasional hurricane, and good planning is sufficient to minimize the risk. 

3. The state would house new sites of religious significance and zones for various types of religious observance on the island. More religious sites have been created during the past 100 years than we care to admit and 100 years from now no one will remember what kinds of fictions we created today. Example in practice: Religious communities without traffic on sabbath would exist but they would be planned and closed developments. Look, just put a casino there with some pictures of kabbalists on the walls and it will have very sacred status.

4. The state would be a Jewish state that favored the Jewish religion. Not religious but Jewish and not totally free. Here are some examples: 

 I. Someone doesn’t want to work on a Jewish holiday. That person could not be fired and an employer could be forced to recognize that day as a day of paid vacation for that employee. However, a business could not be forced to close on Saturday. The employee could be forced to give up a day of paid vacation from a different day of closure (ie: January 1) in exchange for that paid day. 

 II. Government would allocate land to pay for the establishment of some public synagogues of various denominations but the private sector would be free to build additional synagogues and run them as they deem fit. Government could not censor these synagogues but the free market would have to take its course although some restrictions on public speech would exist (ie: a group of Messianic Jews could theoretically establish a synagogue which was to all effects a church but it would probably be of limited appeal and they could not proselytize about Jesus in public spaces).

 III. The state could limit immigration to Jews or some sort of subset based on various strata (ie: ability to support one’s self, willingness to accept the rules of the country). It could have various quotas to permit people of various stripes to reside in the country or become citizens in situations that don’t follow the usual rule. It may wish to seek a demographic balance among Jews in order to prevent any one faction from becoming too dominant or set up a system of cantons such as in Switzerland in which each canton bestows national citizenship according to its own criteria.

5. The state would be based on the rule of law and a constitution that guarantees civil liberties. The head of state should be based upon direct election with regular 4 year terms and the executive should be given many of the powers now held by the Israeli legislature. The fault currently with the Israeli government is not the direct election of the prime minister but the fact that the prime minister is so beholden to small factions within the Knesset. The problem in the US is that the president is similarly hamstrung to the Congress. Both countries need to return to a situation where the president has enough power to push through an agenda (except in the case of vetoes involving supermajorities) but must stand for election at regular intervals to defend it.

No question that I am a Western-oriented elitist that prefers a Hilton resort with palm trees and choice of casino or synagogue on the grounds reachable on American Airlines for 35,000 frequent flyer miles to what currently exists. Don’t discount this picture; I’d bet that at least 75% of my Jewish colleagues, many of them in Israel, would prefer this too. Of course, to get their approval given the trend in baby-naming these days, the name of the state would have to be sufficiently gentile such as St. Katherine’s Vineyard.  Many Arabs would likely enjoy dealing with and visiting such a state too. Why not? Such a state wouldn’t be the miracle of the Mediterranean with a GNP approaching Spain’s, but would in fact be in the top 10 of the entire planet. A Jewish state is indeed capable of achieving greater heights but is unlikely to ever hit the top class in its present locale, especially when its business is increasingly conducted outside the country and its national objectives and identities are ever more foreign to Jews outside the country.

The Enterprise as it stands is not our best work, in my opinion. It is not a magnet attracting Jewish tourists or residents. It doesn’t protect or particularly inspire in a religious sense and even its state rabbinate has become irrelevant to its religious community. Only 2% of its residents have moved to the territories the country picked up in 1967 and, outside the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, none of the areas of the country are attracting voluntary Jewish settlement. It is twisting and turning to justify its means of occupation in a status quo situation that will never be acceptable to the mainstream of the world or the majority of Jews. We can keep throwing bad water after good and console ourselves that Israel after 50 years is a miracle in development, particularly when compared to the countries around it. I beg to differ -- why not just start over and do it better this time? Even God, after creating the world, looked at his creation and saw that it was not good so he made a flood and tried again. We are more perfect?

One other consideration which, even if you think everything above is blasphemous or just plain stupid, should give one pause. The reason my family put up plaques in the Great Synagogue of Jerusalem is that we realize that even in America there is no permanence; the synagogue my grandfather was president of 50 years ago no longer exists. Jews, like all humans, seek monuments for themselves and for posterity and put them in places they hope will exist in perpetuity. We also in invest in Israel as a contingency which will always be there when the rest of the world becomes inhospitable to Jews. But is this realistic as currently envisioned? Israel, exposed to existential threats which are now coming on line and which cannot be prevented through conventional means, is a bad bet if conditions truly deterioriate unless you ultimately believe that God will protect it (and the politics of most religious Jews today which talks of national suicide and can tolerate the assassination of political leaders obviously gives the idea of God’s protection of Israel short shrift in the calculus because if you really believed in God’s will you wouldn’t try to play God or believe that political leaders could forfeit the country). This last sentence means that even those who say they believe in God don’t really act as if they believe it. The point here is that if the Jewish State is a Swiss bank account of sorts and a place to put plaques for posterity, it shouldn’t be in a place where the entire mentality exists around the fear that the country could go out of existence tomorrow. Moving to a non-controversial haven such as the Caribbean might not be religiously uplifting, at least not until new sites were built up, but it would provide peace of mind that a Jewish state must have to fulfill the long term vision of its supporters. And I suppose that God could be counted on to protect the Jewish state, even if it weren't in the land of Canaan. As I read the Bible, God's covenant was with the Jews wherever they are and he sustained Jews for thousands of years without Israel. But then again, 90% of Jews are not fretting such details. So the matter is ultimately in our hands here on earth for us to decide, at least in the majority of our minds. So let us be practical and visionary.