If You Grab Too Much, You’ve Grabbed Nothing At All

As two columnists within the Jewish world covering antisemitism, the conflict, and Israel’s internal political climate, we have noticed a new trend worthy of note, a new archetype of sorts – the “Jewish activist”. These individuals, usually young people, have elected to turn their stance against rising antisemitism public. We lend our voices both online and off to discussions on the history of the Jewish people, internal ripples within the Jewish community, and the conflicting ideals within contemporary Israel. Of course, our perspectives span across the political and religious spectrums, meaning disagreements with one another are bound to occur. But one particular breed of Jewish activism, one that has become increasingly popular among young pro-Israel voices, we feel could result in more harm than good. The doctrine goes to great lengths to define itself as progressive and enlightened. Yet, in reality, it is a derivative ideology rooted in right-wing fundamentals of fulfilling religious prophecy. Its desired vision for Israel cannot be separated from further injustice and regional instability. 

Quite a number of thought-leaders in this movement consider themselves outside the mainstream consensus of Israel-Palestine discourse, which makes them all the more attractive thinkers to disillusioned Diaspora Jews. Many of them, who have launched an entire brand of activism centered around Jewish identity, live in the West Bank. However, they would rather be seen by their audiences as Jewish revolutionaries liberating the land of Israel from colonial influence rather than ideologues continuing the settlement project to deprive Palestinians of land. The anti-colonialist terminology is very appealing, especially to young Zionist peace-seekers or progressives in the west. Framing the settling of the West Bank as a rebellion against all those who have previously invaded Eretz Yisrael gives these groups an opportunity to defend Israel by using abstract terminology of peace and justice for the indigenous Jews without getting into the ramifications behind the ideas.  

Those within the orbit are increasingly uncomfortable with the word Zionist. “Post Zionism” has become a useful alternative term. Zionism seems to imply a passé movement of yesteryear, considering its basis is the formation of a Jewish and democratic state. Democracy itself is encouraged to be regarded as a western outpost, a foreign concept alien to a truly Jewish civilization. Similarly, there exist louder calls to reject any notion of a two-state-solution, believing it to be the desire among Israeli elites to become part of the West. A one-state solution is preferable. Frequent canards include “it’s an injustice to divide the land, the land is one”, and “the wall must fall.” These calls echo the voices of other settlers who dream of a Jewish state with not necessarily a Jewish majority, where Palestinians are “taken care of” by Israel in regards to welfare and communal services but deprived of some if not all civic and national rights. It is believed enthusiastically that settling across the territories will lead the Jews on a pathway to fulfilling their “greater purpose” and spur on a “post-capitalist, post-democratic world” called Hebrew universalism. In this worldview, Jews in Israel are simply characters playing their part in a greater, Messianic Jewish destiny.

However, in truth, these ideas are not as unique as they are presented, at least not for anyone familiar with the ideology behind the settlement project. Post the 1967 war, instead of giving the territories away and exchanging land for peace, the state realized it could settle them. According to the great ideologue of the settlement movement, Rav Kook, the Hebrew Bible contains a series of prophecies that the Jewish people will return to their land and by settling the hills of Judea and Samaria, Jews would fulfill these prophecies and provoke a chain of events leading to the messianic redemption.

The fact remains that the State of Israel was not founded on biblical frameworks or religious fervor. If Jewish self-determination means the opportunity for the Jewish people to sit at the table of global affairs, then we must emphasize security, borders, and democratic forms of government like other liberal nations. 

Every Zionist feels emotional when viewing photographs of Israeli soldiers at the kotel after the liberation of the Old City. We understand that for far too long the conversation around solving the conflict has found itself in a state of paralysis. But replacing that paralysis with unpragmatic thought rooted in idealistic fantasy is not the way forward. The biblical connection between the Jewish people and Judea and Samaria is deep and genuine. But the fact remains that the State of Israel was not founded on biblical frameworks or religious fervor. If Jewish self-determination means the opportunity for the Jewish people to sit at the table of global affairs, then we must emphasize security, borders, and democratic forms of government like other liberal nations. These ideals would be violated should a one-state vision prevail.  In the geopolitical landscape, settlement expansion leads to eventual annexation, which leads to the absorption of the annexed population, in this case the Palestinians. There is endless statistical evidence that provides one with the necessary proof that this absorption would lead to the demographic defeat of a Jewish majority. It is imperative that Jewish activists see this approach as undesirable and ultimately reject it. 

It is true, the new wave of Jewish activism has empowered many young people to defend Israel with conviction. And it’s true, the work and creativity of those who oppose the two-state solution are unlike anything circulating in the Jewish community today. New and refreshing ways are being presented to think about the conflict. However, one would be incorrect to presume the desired goal of one-state, behind the smoke screen of words like “liberation” and “deconstruction”, leads to anything amounting to peace or justice. Considering the religious sentiment which ignites the flames underneath their stance of expansion and annexation, it may be wise to end off with Talmudic wisdom: “If you grab too much, you’ve grabbed nothing at all.”

Samuel Hyde is a speaker and writer on Zionism, Israel, and the conflict.
Blake Flayton is New Media Director and columnist at the Jewish Journal.