Pearls and Irritations

Understanding the complex relationship between Zionism, Zionists and Jews seems to defeat many of Israel’s critics in articles and opinion pieces. This article explores Zion and its connection to land and to Judaism and its more modern day forms.

Understanding the complex relationship between Zionism, Zionists and Jews seems to defeat many of Israel’s critics in articles and opinion pieces.

Greg Barns and Stuart Rees in their Pearls and Irritations article Zionist bullying distorts politics, media and education on 10 August, make an effort to separate Zionism and Jews:

“…a Zionist lobby, totally distinct from Jewish identity and the tenets of Judaism, has been justifying the maintenance of a Jewish only state…”

The term “Zionist lobby” would be better described as “pro-Israel lobby”. Israel is not a Jewish only state, even with its quite exclusionary 2018 Nation State law. Some 20% of its population is not Jewish. There are no mainstream organisations in the Australian Jewish community that advocate a Jewish only state.

Advocacy for Israel has its public form in organisations such as the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) which lobbies the federal government on a range of issues affecting the Jewish community (education, aged care, welfare, security) including Israel; the Zionist Federation of Australia, a roof body of organisations from politically progressive to conservative; the Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, an independent lobby group, not affiliated with the Jewish communal roof bodies but strongly connected within the community. The Jewish communal roof bodies in each state advocate on a state level. The New Israel Fund (NIF) is also a player, but its focus is on supporting human rights organisations in Israel. It also calls for an end to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian Territories.

A more recent addition to public advocacy has been the Australian Jewish Association (AJA). It is not affiliated to the communal roof bodies. It is hard right ideologically and its Israel advocacy includes embracing far right Israeli organisations such as Nachala and Ateret Cohanim who believe the entire Occupied West Bank and Gaza belong to Jews. It also single-handedly provides justification for the concerns expressed by Barns and Rees about the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism The AJA generally labels criticism of Israel as antisemitic and uses IHRA to justify it. The AJA is largely shunned by the communal roof bodies.

From this potted summary it should be clear that Zionism is not one distinct ideological philosophy. – neither politically nor culturally. Dr Simon Holloway wrote about its many strands in What is Zionism?, (Pearls and Irritations, 10 March 2024). In addition, there are other aspects of Zionism that really don’t fit with the quote (above) from Barns and Reece.

A familiar reference is in the book of Psalms, “By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat and also wept when we remembered Zion”. This quote is one among many that connect Jews, Zion and the land from which they were exiled. The connection to the land is at the heart of Judaism, and it predates the establishment of the State of Israel by well over 2 millennia. When Jews were exiled from the land, Judaism might have simply died, but instead it evolved into something that combined belief, with law, and a religious acceptance that exile was deserved but not permanent. Zionism as a political movement evolved from that mix and from the enlightenment that provided new ways of thinking about individuals, groups, and territory.

This is not a justification for Israel’s creation, nor the decades old denial of the right of Palestinians to a state in which they can express their self-determination, nor the current war in Gaza with its horrific death toll. But it does inextricably tie the notion of Zion as connection to land, with Judaism and Jewish identity.

Of course, there are Jews who describe themselves as non-Zionist (including this writer) or anti-Zionist. Non-Zionists have a range of views but would generally be opposed to the pro-Israel narrative in the mainstream Jewish community that actively avoids public criticism of Israel – though offensive comments from extreme right-wing members of the current Israeli government have prompted criticism from even the mainstream. Anti-Zionists also express a range of views, but generally have a much more rejectionist view of the pro-Israel Jewish mainstream. The political circles in which they move are ideologically aligned with pro-Palestine groups.

The concern expressed by Barns and Rees about the pro-Israel lobby is the same sort of concern expressed about the power of any effective lobby group to influence government. Yet, whether we approve of the aims of a lobby group or not, it is appropriate in a liberal democracy to be able to advocate on issues through all tiers of government.

One could complain about how well-funded the pro-Israel lobby is, but that leads to conspiracy theories about Jewish power, which may be why Barns and Rees were so keen to try and separate Jews from the Zionist lobby – as expressed in the earlier quote.

Barns and Rees have correctly noted bullying behaviour by pro-Israel groups in the form of smear campaigns that have included ex MP Melissa Parke, former NSW Premier Bob Carr, as well as current MP Julian Hill and ABC journalist John Lyons. When Hanan Ashrawi was awarded the Sydney peace prize in 2003, the level of abuse thrown at NSW Premier Bob Carr and Stuart Rees in the form of letters, emails and petitions was appalling. Turning critics of Israel into enemies seems to be a particular talent of the pro-Israel lobby – with the assistance of like-minded people in the community.

It is worth noting that cancel culture tactics have also been employed on pro-Palestine social media. In recent times, Jewish students have reported bullying and harassment on university campuses. This too is a quite unacceptable by-product of the horror we are witnessing in Gaza. It is because of a perceived rise in antisemitism that there are calls from the Jewish community for the adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. For the record, the quote included by Barns and Rees is not quite correct. The definition says:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

There is no mention of Israel in the actual definition. Israel is only mentioned in the examples. Aside from the dampening effect it may have on criticism of Israel, having a formal definition also encourages people to fit offending criticism into the definition. For instance, when the Israeli human rights organisation, B’Tselem labelled the disparate treatment of Palestinians and Israelis as a form of apartheid in January 2021, local organisation AIJAC used the IHRA definition to state, “The fact that B’Tselem is an Israeli organisation does not protect it from a charge of antisemitism.”

But there is also a problem for Barns and Rees on the issue of free speech. It cuts both ways. And that raises a significant problem with the last paragraph of their article:

“Bullying has characterised Zionist activities. In its influence on thinking and action in public life, Zionism has been poisonous and in that form should no longer be tolerated.”

If bullying was solely an activity of the pro-Israel lobby it would be appropriate to question its origin. Barns and Rees see it as a malevolent force within “Zionist activities”, adversely influencing thinking and action in public life. In fact, they write, “Zionism has been poisonous and in that form should no longer be tolerated.”

But making the accusation that Zionism itself is the problem, goes much deeper into issues of Jewish identity. If Zionism has been poisonous in its influence on civil-society then what should Jews who see Zionism as part of their identity be renouncing? And if Zionism is to be renounced, whose free speech is being curtailed?

Harold Zwier is on the committee of the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. The views expressed in this article are his own.

Share and Enjoy !

SHARE TWEET SHARE COPY EMAIL PRINT