Post by Moses on Apr 5, 2005 19:42:33 GMT -5
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
Last update - 05:44 05/04/2005
A Zionist ruling par excellence[/b]
By Yosef Gorny
Statements such as that made by Deputy Supreme Court President Mishael Cheshin in his concurring opinion recognizing Reform and Conservative conversions for the purposes of the Law of Return - that such recognition "annexes a person to a nation, to `the eternal people,' to history, to a culture thousands of years old" - have not been heard here for a long time. For it contains a clear, unambiguous statement of the principle on which the Zionist worldview is based - in complete contrast to the extreme anti-Zionists, who brand Zionism with the mark of Cain of colonialism, or the more moderate "post-Zionists," who believe that despite its historic justice, Zionism's role is finished.
Justice Cheshin thereby gave forceful expression to the theories of historian Simon Dubnow and Zionist thinker Ahad Ha'am. Although these two men disagreed about the decisive historic importance of Zionism, they were of one mind regarding the definition of Jewish nationality. Both saw national recognition as the overall framework of the Jewish nation, but in their view, the Jewish religion was the foundation that determined this framework's national content. In other words, both believed that conversion to another faith is what separates a man from the Jewish nation. This was the spirit behind the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1950s in the case of Brother Daniel, who wanted, based on his Jewish birth - and despite having converted to Christianity - to immigrate under the Law of Return. The court rejected his petition.
Dubnow, incidentally, was not anti-Zionist. The father of the history of the "eternal people" simply did not view Zionism as the solution to the Jewish people's existential danger. At the end of the 1930s, however, he changed his mind in light of the rise of Nazism, and concluded that Zionism could be a solution for saving at least some of those who suffered from anti-Semitic persecution. And there is no doubt that if he could see the danger of assimilation that threatens a large portion of the nation in our own day, he would accept the Zionism of his friend Ahad Ha'am.
But back to the matter at hand: The Supreme Court's ruling, with the interpretation that Cheshin gave it, is Zionism par excellence, since it speaks of "the community of Israel" throughout the generations, with all its various cultures and beliefs - that is, of all those who were born Jewish or who chose to become Jewish according to their own Jewish beliefs.
Zionism is the most comprehensive historic expression of all of these, since of all the modern Jewish movements, Zionism offered the most comprehensive Jewish worldview. The other movements were either location- or class-based. The modern religious movements, Reform and Conservatism, mainly represented the middle class in western Europe and the United States. The popular Yiddishists belonged to the middle class in eastern Europe, primarily Poland. The Bundist socialists came from the impoverished Jewish proletariat in eastern Europe. Whereas Zionism, ever since Herzl, has encompassed the entire spectrum of the Jewish people, even though it never constituted a majority of the nation, but only a large plurality.
Thus in the Zionist worldview, the Jewish people and its state are open to all who wish to join, according to their own worldviews. And the decades-long attempt to prevent this possibility, which has been forced on the state of Israel by Orthodox circles, is therefore supremely anti-Zionist and anti-nationalist.
Paradoxically, it is these circles, and especially the religious Zionists, who ought to welcome this ruling, since it strengthens the principle that acceptance of the Jewish religion is the condition for joining the Jewish people and for immigrating under the Law of Return. But this logic is far from the logic of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, jut as the Zionist solution was, and is until this day, far from ultra-Orthodox logic.
In this regard, the Orthodox continue to hold the position that Dubnow defined 70 years ago as "the politics of factionalism." In the face of this factionalism, the Supreme Court's decision symbolizes the start of a struggle for the unity of the "eternal people." This struggle constitutes an additional ideological and political stage in the history of Zionism. The Supreme Court justices, headed by President Aharon Barak, have thus opened a national campaign that the politicians were afraid to begin. And in this way, "judicial activism" became a reinvigorator of the principles of Zionism.
The writer is head of the Chaim Weizmann Zionist Research Institute at Tel Aviv University.
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=561002
Last update - 05:44 05/04/2005
A Zionist ruling par excellence[/b]
By Yosef Gorny
Statements such as that made by Deputy Supreme Court President Mishael Cheshin in his concurring opinion recognizing Reform and Conservative conversions for the purposes of the Law of Return - that such recognition "annexes a person to a nation, to `the eternal people,' to history, to a culture thousands of years old" - have not been heard here for a long time. For it contains a clear, unambiguous statement of the principle on which the Zionist worldview is based - in complete contrast to the extreme anti-Zionists, who brand Zionism with the mark of Cain of colonialism, or the more moderate "post-Zionists," who believe that despite its historic justice, Zionism's role is finished.
Justice Cheshin thereby gave forceful expression to the theories of historian Simon Dubnow and Zionist thinker Ahad Ha'am. Although these two men disagreed about the decisive historic importance of Zionism, they were of one mind regarding the definition of Jewish nationality. Both saw national recognition as the overall framework of the Jewish nation, but in their view, the Jewish religion was the foundation that determined this framework's national content. In other words, both believed that conversion to another faith is what separates a man from the Jewish nation. This was the spirit behind the Supreme Court's ruling in the 1950s in the case of Brother Daniel, who wanted, based on his Jewish birth - and despite having converted to Christianity - to immigrate under the Law of Return. The court rejected his petition.
Dubnow, incidentally, was not anti-Zionist. The father of the history of the "eternal people" simply did not view Zionism as the solution to the Jewish people's existential danger. At the end of the 1930s, however, he changed his mind in light of the rise of Nazism, and concluded that Zionism could be a solution for saving at least some of those who suffered from anti-Semitic persecution. And there is no doubt that if he could see the danger of assimilation that threatens a large portion of the nation in our own day, he would accept the Zionism of his friend Ahad Ha'am.
But back to the matter at hand: The Supreme Court's ruling, with the interpretation that Cheshin gave it, is Zionism par excellence, since it speaks of "the community of Israel" throughout the generations, with all its various cultures and beliefs - that is, of all those who were born Jewish or who chose to become Jewish according to their own Jewish beliefs.
Zionism is the most comprehensive historic expression of all of these, since of all the modern Jewish movements, Zionism offered the most comprehensive Jewish worldview. The other movements were either location- or class-based. The modern religious movements, Reform and Conservatism, mainly represented the middle class in western Europe and the United States. The popular Yiddishists belonged to the middle class in eastern Europe, primarily Poland. The Bundist socialists came from the impoverished Jewish proletariat in eastern Europe. Whereas Zionism, ever since Herzl, has encompassed the entire spectrum of the Jewish people, even though it never constituted a majority of the nation, but only a large plurality.
Thus in the Zionist worldview, the Jewish people and its state are open to all who wish to join, according to their own worldviews. And the decades-long attempt to prevent this possibility, which has been forced on the state of Israel by Orthodox circles, is therefore supremely anti-Zionist and anti-nationalist.
Paradoxically, it is these circles, and especially the religious Zionists, who ought to welcome this ruling, since it strengthens the principle that acceptance of the Jewish religion is the condition for joining the Jewish people and for immigrating under the Law of Return. But this logic is far from the logic of ultra-Orthodox Judaism, jut as the Zionist solution was, and is until this day, far from ultra-Orthodox logic.
In this regard, the Orthodox continue to hold the position that Dubnow defined 70 years ago as "the politics of factionalism." In the face of this factionalism, the Supreme Court's decision symbolizes the start of a struggle for the unity of the "eternal people." This struggle constitutes an additional ideological and political stage in the history of Zionism. The Supreme Court justices, headed by President Aharon Barak, have thus opened a national campaign that the politicians were afraid to begin. And in this way, "judicial activism" became a reinvigorator of the principles of Zionism.
The writer is head of the Chaim Weizmann Zionist Research Institute at Tel Aviv University.
/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=561002