Q&A: Does the Zionist movement contradict morality?
Does the Zionist movement contradict morality?
Question
Hello Rabbi, I saw that you defined yourself as a "Religious Zionist," without a hyphen, in order to emphasize that your Zionism derives (only, or mainly) from universal moral values. So I wanted to ask what you think of the following text:
"What is racism?
Racism is discrimination or hostility on an ethnic basis.
What is Zionism?
Zionism is a movement to establish a Jewish state on the southeastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, a region which at the time Zionism emerged was inhabited mostly by non-Jews – Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
Okay, but how does that make Zionism racist?
Very simple. Remember the definition of racism? Let's use it:
Discrimination on an ethnic basis – Zionism never asked the native Palestinians for their opinion about establishing a Jewish state in their own homeland. This is a serious violation of democratic principles: although they made up close to 100% of the population, nobody bothered to ask what the native Palestinians thought. Why? Because they simply weren't Jews. The most prominent democratic principle – the will of the majority – was denied to the native population of the land because they came from the wrong ethnic background. The native Palestinians of course supported Arab independence, but their opinion was of no interest. That, incidentally, is why the Zionists strongly opposed the establishment of a legislative council throughout the Mandate years – because the will of the majority would have canceled out the Zionist enterprise.
Hostility on an ethnic basis – since the emergence of Zionism, the native Palestinians, who lived in their homeland, were seen and perceived as an "obstacle." Why? Because Zionism – the establishment of a "Jewish" state – requires a Jewish majority in the land. And since there was a clear majority of non-Jewish Palestinians at the time, the very presence of this native population became undesirable. Zionism caused an unbelievable phenomenon: people were seen as undesirable simply because they lived in their own home. And when an Israeli politician today calls Palestinians "a pain in the ass" (apparently the writer of the text meant here the person who is today Prime Minister of Israel, Naftali Bennett, who said this perhaps against the background of frustration that the presence of Palestinians in the territories "interferes" with Israel's ability to annex them) – understand how much damage this outlook has caused, the effects of which remain with us to this day."
Does the Rabbi have an answer to these claims? They sound like very serious claims. Since you said that you are a Zionist the way David Ben-Gurion was a Zionist, you presumably would not answer them by saying "this is what the Torah commanded us." So the question is, what is your answer to them, as a "secular Zionist".
Answer
My opinion is that the following text is nonsense.
First, my Zionism is not based on moral values, just as my family belonging is not based on morality. These are simply facts. I belong to my family, and I also belong to my people. And just as my family needs a home, my people also need a home.
In this region there lived natives without a national identity, without sovereignty and without a state. There was no problem with coming to settle here and striving to establish a national home while preserving their rights. Especially since they were offered partition and they refused. They went to war and got beaten. So they shouldn't whine.
Discussion on Answer
The discrimination is not on an ethnic basis but on the basis of ownership. When you reserve for yourself the right to decide which strangers may enter your home, you are not "discriminating on an ethnic basis." There is no principled difference between preventing entry in the first place and removing the strangers after the fact if they invaded your home while you were absent.
The Jewish people are composed in principle of the descendants of those exiled by Babylonia and Rome (including those converts whom we adopted into the family over time), and from then until today they are considered the heirs and therefore the sole legal owners of the land's territory.
But despite that, Rabbi Michi thinks Yesh Atid can be in power and is also in favor of "affirmative" preference: here's the crazy Ben-Barak: https://www.srugim.co.il/620627-%d7%a8%d7%9d-%d7%91%d7%9f- %d7%91%d7%a8%d7%a7-%d7%90%d7%9d-%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%97%d7%9e%d7%93-%d7%9e%d7%9b%d7%a4%d7%a8-%d7%9e%d7%a0%d7%93%d7%90-%d7%a8%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%94-%d7%9c%d7%94%d7%99%d7%95%d7%aa
It is also important to note that the number of people living in this region at the beginning of Zionism was extremely small, and most of them were also immigrants from neighboring countries. As the Zionist movement grew stronger and trade and the economy developed, many more chose to immigrate here. About a hundred years later they also decided that they were a people, and the rest is history.