Tal Becker's report on Israel's "Jewishness" quotient - there was a
'Launch Night' for the Hebrew publication of his book "
The claim for Recognition for Israel as a Jewish State" at the Shalom Hartman Institute last Thursday, May 31st, - was earlier this year reviewed by none other than David Landau in the Economist where he was forced, it seems, t
o begrudgingly write
He duly notes, with plenty of chapter-and-verse, that Israel's
Jewishness was historically recognised in international documents, that
it is not inconsistent with democratic tenets, and that it is upheld by
the international community today...
Well, now that that is out on the table, Landau, of course, then avoids the issue.
In this connection,, I missed the book launch of another title,
The Political Philosophy of Zionism by Eyal Chowers, which
is described so:
Zionism emerged at the end of the nineteenth century in response to a
rise in anti-Semitism in Europe and to the crisis of modern Jewish
identity. This novel, national revolution aimed to unite a scattered
community, defined mainly by shared texts and literary tradition, into a
vibrant political entity destined for the Holy Land. However, Zionism
was about much more than a national political ideology and practice. By
tracing its origins in the context of a European history of ideas and by
considering the writings of key Jewish and Hebrew writers and thinkers
from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the book offers an entirely
new philosophical perspective on Zionism as a unique movement based on
intellectual boldness and belief in human action. In counter-distinction
to the studies of history and ideology that dominate the field, this
book also offers a new way of reflecting upon contemporary Israeli
politics.
I always have a problem with writing "Zionism emerged at the end of the nineteenth century". I think it better to compose as so: "Zionism, the modern political expression of Jewish nationalism...". That would also counter Shlomo Sand and band of anti-Zionists. It is also more correct and precise and doesn't permit misrepresentation. But getting back to
Chowers, in a 2008 article, he posited:
Both Palestinians and Jews undeniably think in national terms, do not
see their collective units as artificial concoctions and wish to
express these identities politically through states of their own; yet
left to its own devices, the nationalism of both peoples has proven
dangerous and tragic. The rationale behind the nation-state often
propelled both peoples to think of their conflict as a harsh zero-sum
game over scarce resources, to espouse exclusionary and chauvinistic
policies, to ignore the other side and dehumanize it, and to slide into
violence with ease...If
the fragility of nation-state politics is to be overcome - and if Hamas
and its fundamentalist supporters (Iran and Hezbollah) are to be
prevented from benefiting from this fragility - the alternative must be
both inspiring and realistic. More wide-ranging political and civic
relationships could evolve if the nation-state were to relax its grip.
The two independent states could begin by establishing a shared body of
representatives, to be elected by districts comprising citizens of both
states...
...Jewish
and Palestinian nationalism have both proven to be virulent and
overbearing. Any agreement that does not aim to reduce this nationalism -
and does not create the dams and levees necessary to halt its gushing
flow - might be nothing more than a very temporary modus vivendi. This
is a time for creative complexity. A stable and enduring peace will
emerge only with the crafting of new, shared political spaces where
modest forms of a-national identities could evolve.
I cannot agree on terming Jewish nationalism "virulent". That is a betrayal of the academic over the political ideologist. If it weren't for Arab violence, there would be no Jewish violence. As simple as that.
But his book puts forth a term of "
temporal imagination" which is playing havoc with reality. As
here,
"Imagination is immaterial and intangible - it cannot be held as a solid object in your hands, or be put into a space like a piece of furniture or a picture. Imagination is also temporary and cannot be recorded as an event like a speech or performance. However, imagination exists in space and time; it exists within the realm of interiority. The boundary between the privacy of imagination and the occupation of a space by a group or community has the potential to be blurred."
Temporal imagination is
the understanding of the intersection of one entity’s
timescape with the larger timescapes of which that entity is a part...temporal
imagination is necessary to function in any timescape...[there exist]
group attributes that will likely affect the development of the temporal
imagination and its use and how its use in group boundary spanning
efforts affect both the groups and the larger organization.
There is also Spatio-Temporal Imagination (STIm)
defined as any imaginative act that allows you to consider a location and/or a time other than the one you are currently experiencing.
All this is, of course, blabber to obfuscate what is real. If Zionism "emerged", then [perhaps it was predicated on a misreading of Jewish history and contemporary anti-Semitism? Perhaps it was unjustified? And like Landau above, who ignores the "justification" character and immediately seeks to imagine another political and military situation which would allow peace to come about - if only Jewish imagination about Zionism, Eretz-Yisrael, the Arabs, etc. would realign and recognize its futility - Chowers approach seems to go the same post-modern path: dissipation. Or, maybe, waking up.
Unfortunately, waking up in a bed these post-modernists have made, those who wield the weapon of cognitive dissonance in undermining what we all knew for 3000 years as true and correct, would be entering a defeatist new world of a nightmare.
^
Posts
