I don’t know about you, but I find it rather irritating when some ‘patriot’ (sic) with a flag tells me what it means to be English.
I find it similarly galling to have explained to me what Zionism means and how it relates to my Judaism. These helpful Greens give me their definition of Zionism and tell me that it’s racist – but it’s ok, because there are plenty of ‘good’ Jews who are anti-Zionists.
But I still choose to call myself a Zionist. And because Zionism, while not meaning the same as Judaism is deeply entwined with Judaism, I feel I have the right to define what I mean by it.
Every year, at my family seder and at millions of seders around the world, we Jews conclude with the words “next year in Jerusalem!” For me, Jerusalem is a symbol of peace and belonging, for others – and imagine those who said it in the depths of the pogroms or it the Nazi camps – it may be a more literal aspiration for freedom and safety.
Zionism developed as a political movement towards the end of 19th century at a time whenwhat it meant to be a nation state was still under development. In much of the world the artificial lines that divide countries were yet to be drawn. In Europe, where the first Zionist congress was held in 1897, the map bore little resemblance to one that we might see today. Those first Zionists were simply saying – as others around the world began to find a national as well as an ethic, religious or racial identity which they believed entitled them to a place to call home – that Jews too could share the same ambition.
And they looked to the land which had not just been a millennium long echo in their religious ceremonies and their holy book, but a continuous home to many Jews throughout the centuries, living in Jerusalem and Tzfat and elsewhere. So, for them and for me, Zionism isthe national liberation movement of the Jewish people.
Now, I understand that international Marxism does not accept the idea of national borders, but for those that believe that the English and the French and the Americans and the Chinese have a right to their own nation state it makes no sense to argue that, uniquely, the Jews don’t and, furthermore, that even that aspiration is racist.
The Green party motion calls for the ‘end of Israel’. It says Israel – not its Government,which I detest, nor its courts which have done much to hold that Government in check, nor its media which can sometimes be as critical of that government as the Guardian and the BBC – but the very country itself, Israel, has no right to exist.
This is a country which, in its Declaration of Independence, commits that it will “promote the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; will be based on precepts of liberty, justice and peace taught by the Hebrew prophets; will uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens without distinction of race, creed or sex; will guarantee full freedom of conscience, worship, education and culture; will safeguard the sanctity and inviolability of shrines and holy places of all religions; and will dedicate itself to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
Has Israel lived up to such lofty ambitions? Hardly, although all those living within its internationally recognised borders do at least in theory have full equality under the law and all have the right to vote. Furthermore, it is the only country in the Middle East which offers full and equal legal rights and anti-discrimination laws to protect women and gay people. Inconveniently, for its opponents, Arab parties are represented in the Knesset, its Parliament,and some Arab citizens even serve in the IDF.
The conduct of the war in Gaza, the treatment of the Arab population of the occupied territories, the discrimination in property rights, some of the security measures, and the outrageous, offensive and racist acts and comments of some of its Ministers and its current Prime Minister bring the country into disrepute. The failure after the ’67 war to make peace with its neighbours, dispose of Gaza and the West Bank, and to recognise the shared right of Palestinians to national, self-determination are all huge stains on the country’s stated values (although of course it does take two to make peace).
But this weekend’s motion – while no doubt fuelled by such injustices – did not call for their correction or for the Israeli Government to be overthrown or for a Palestinian state to be established alongside Israel, but for the destruction of the country and the establishment of a single state in the whole of historic Palestine. Jordan, of course, which comprised roughly half the area of the original Palestine Mandate, might have something to say about that, but then this is a policy founded not on historical understanding, but dogma: a dogma that says even in the aftermath of apartheid South Africa had the right to exist, even Rwanda after the genocide or Cambodia or the newly minted South Sudan all are entitled to be recognised as legal entities, but uniquely, this land – the size of Wales and home to 10 million people, 8 million of them Jews – this country and its government has forfeited its very right to existence.
I know there are some within our party who will agree with the Greens and they are entitled to form their own views of the relationship between Judaism and Zionism, but to them I say don’t kid yourself that only your definition of Zionism can be true, that you know better thanJews what Zionism is.
When our council groups decide whom they can work with in local government I’d ask them to consider whether those who say “Zionism is racism” are doing anything to make the people of Palestine any better off, and whether Jews in Britain might legitimately feel just that little bit less secure as a result. They should ask whether such potential partners might be displaying double standards, what we should understand by their desire to identify racism in others, and if this makes them possible partners for Lib Dems in Government.
* Ben Rich is Chief Executive of Radix, the radical centre think tank. From 1992-95 he was Lib Dem Deputy Policy Director and from 1997-2001 Vice Chair of the Federal Policy Committee. He was Tim Farron’s Leadership Campaign Director and his interim chief of staff from 2015-16 and senior adviser to the Lib Dem Business & Entrepreneurs Network until December 2019.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Wes Streeting is a twerp
David Chadwick set to become next leader of Welsh Lib Dems
How slowness at the Treasury cost taxpayers millions
Ianto's shrine to be saved
Walkabout
Alex Macfie
Nonconformistradical
Mick Taylor
Richard Spate
Mark
20 Comments
“…..international Marxism does not accept the idea of national borders”
This is probably more true of the EU!
You can say the same about the payment of wages, or even the use of money. In practice, socialist countries do have a monetary system and do pay out wages for work done. They also have borders. There may well be an aspiration that at some indeterminate time in the future there may not need to be borders But there is always a need for aspirations!
On the question of Israel, the 1967 borders are internationally recognised. Somewhat ironically it’s the far left and the Israeli government which are in agreement about them. Both , for different reasons, view them as being obsolete. They are also in agreement with the slogan “From the river to the sea…” except the endings are different.
The first step in finding a peaceful solution to the conflict should be to seek some agreement on just what borders we are talking about.
Ben Rich.. How to spot a racist?
Do you agree with Ben Gurion’ (Father of Modern Israel) in that “Accepting the partition plan was a tactical move, writing: “a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning” and how as Israel became stronger she would ‘Liberate’ (his word) the rest of the promised land (15:18–21) and expel the Arabs?
It’s real shame that we’re not in a position to exploit this.
Even a half arsed attempt at appealing to progressives and pro-Palestinians should have been enough to get us a few defections at least.
But right now if someone is thinking of leaving the Greens over this, they don’t really have anywhere to go.
Thank you ben for this, which echoes many of my own thoughts on the Green Party’s motion.
I am also glad of the support I have had from many in our Party to my post on Facebook about this, Liberal Democrats (mostly) do not conflate Zionism with Judaism any more than we conflate support for a Palestinian State with support for Hamas.
Good attack by Badendoch on Reform. Overall a good presentation and style, we could do with a bit of that. Might not agree with what she said about the economy and remedies but agree with the way she said it.
The Greens having shot themselves in the foot and alienated a lot of that party’s members, this would be a good time for the Liberal Democrats to think about how they could appeal to Greens and ex-Greens, offering information on issues where LDs and Greens have been aligned in the past, while stressing that LDs offer a fairer approach that doesn’t scapegoat the Jewish or any other community.
Ben, No nation has the ‘right’ to exist. People have the right to exist, nations do not. The indigenous people in the USA had the right to exist, but were denied that right. The USA may be recognised but think about Trump’s threats. Does Greenland, Canada, or Mexico have the right to exist? If the UK splits into parts, will it still be Britain or the UK? So Israel has no more right to exist than any other Nation. However, Israeli Jews living there have the right to exist and under the Greens motion, would retain that right. The UK has recognised the Nation of Palestine alongside that of Israel and once Palestinians have equality, self-determination and equal rights they can choose two states, a federation or one state in agreement with their Jewish neighbours. The Greens want equality for all, which does not even exist in recognised Israel, as the Nation State Law prevents it. So not a democracy at all and certainly not for those under occupation.
As for Zionism, I agree that it is not black and white, but Political, religious extremist and Christian Zionism are very racist and nasty. So, I would not go along with such a statement as the Greens have made nor insist on one state. That is why I, as a Jewish Lib Dem, stand alongside the Holocaust Descendants and Survivors against the Gaza Genocide network on demonstrations and the Jewish block, horrified that descendants of the Holocaust are behaving so grotesquely.
Ben says members of our party may agree with the Greens and are entitled to their views, yet suggests our councillors should hesitate to work with the Greens because they hold the same view. Both can’t stand.
Liberalism has always rested on the idea that people can hold contested political views without having their motives questioned. That means the party doesn’t need a line on whether Zionism is racism, and “Zionism isn’t racism” is a legitimate view. By the same principle, “Zionism is racism” shouldn’t by itself be treated as antisemitic. Antisemitism is real and must be challenged wherever it appears, but we weaken that fight if we treat political disagreement as prejudice.
Ben acknowledges that Israel has not lived up to its Declaration of Independence, and I appreciate his candour. But a stated aspiration is meaningless without a record. Suggesting otherwise means we can refer to China and Russia as democracies. Israel has no formal constitutional right to equality.
Being English requires no particular race or religion and gives no group special status in law. Israel’s Law of Return and the 2018 Nation-State Law, which defines Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, are different in kind. A state that is the national home of one group raises questions that a civic state does not, and critics of that model are not necessarily critics of Jewish people. If we accept it in one case, it becomes harder to explain why we reject it for groups like the EDL or BNP, whose aims we would all rightly oppose.
I totally sympathise with you Ben and perhaps I can partly relate to your position. I am a South African who went through the British university scene in the 1980s. It always seemed that all whites were pro apartheid in the eyes of many people at the time. Never could that have been further from the truth. For any political party calling for the supposed destruction of a country should I hope lead to the end of that party. The Green party found loads of time to debate Gaza but not rivers, beaches etc.
Thank you Ben.
The Green motion said that Zionism is necessarily racist as it “privileges one ethnic group on the basis of the subjugation of others”. It then adds: “This motion is aimed at the political ideology and practice of Zionism, as defined, and not at the religious or ethnic background of those who may identify as Zionists.” It then states that “Zionism, as defined above, will be treated as any other form of racism.”
So, it is specifically Zionism defined in this specific way that is defined as racism and not Zionism defined in other ways.
This is a very good piece (despite an unnecessarily polarising headline) which carries extra weight because it comes from within the Jewish faith. The one area it probably doesn’t emphasise enough is that Zionism includes people – Jews and non-Jews – who believe Israel has the right to exist in the Holy Land or Palestine (finding the right names is fraught with difficulty) but that this does not deny the right of others with a legitimate claim to the same land to seek part of that land, and with whom Israel should strive to live in respectful harmony. Of course there are hard-line Zionists – some in the current Israeli cabinet – who want Israel to have exclusive rights to that land. The mistake the Green Party has made is to assume that Zionism is solely this hard-line creed, when there are plenty who believe the Jews are entitled to a state but the project to create that Jewish state will never be complete until all peoples to the east of the Mediterranean’s eastern coast have a reasonable share of the land and can live in harmony. I am saddened by the Greens’ motion, because I feel Liberals and Greens have a lot of common cause, but unless/until the Green Party can undo this mess, it’ll be harder for the Lib Dems to work with them.
Apologies to our comment writers for the delay (due to ill health) in moderating your comments on this post.
Thanks to everyone for engaging with this blog. It is a mark of the Lib Dems that we can disagree so constructively and civilly. I don’t think those who have commented will want me to respond point by point so I won’t, but I hope it is worth just making three additional comments 1. I understand the point about the Law of Return, but the context in which it was created – two years after the Holocaust with literally millions of Jews displaced globally and no homes or families to which to return – is key. 2. The focus on whether Israel has a right to exist gets in the way of a much more important discussion about how to deliver justice and equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians living within and beyond the current borders of Israel – its ideology not constructive politics 3. Any solution (sic) that seeks to deny the national aspirations of Israelis or Palestinians living in the territories at today will fail – we maybe a very long way from a two state solution but a one state solution is no solution at all.
Miranda: The right of nations to exist is the fundamental bedrock of international law. If nations do *not* have the right to exist, what that means is that any other state may, if it chooses and has the power, eliminate any nation that does not please it. The Russian war on Ukraine is what you get when one state believes that another has no right to exist.
Furthermore, the Green Party’s call for a single “Palestinian State in all of historic Palestine” goes beyond the abstract notion of a one-state solution. By backing a one state that is a *Palestinian* state it implicitly excludes Jews who would not be defined as “Palestinian” by the Palestinians. Given that there are over 7 million Jews in “historic Palestine,” how is this to be achieved without ethnic cleansing or genocide?
Well put, Miranda! I live, and have done so for many years in Australia, but still consider myself a ‘former’ Liberal Party supporter (nowdays a current Liberal Democrat). We need to stress to Greens that we are the evidence-based mature party they hopefully seek with a strong position onclimate change.
Over here, I belong to a party called the Australian Democrats, whose trajectory is hopefully upwards.
David S. You have rather missed my point. As I said, people have the right to exist. If they are occupied against their will, then that is different from agreeing to change their name. If the UK splits due to a referendum, then we will no longer be the UK. If a Nation chooses to change it’s name then it can. Names on the world map change all the time. International law recognises nations, but does not dictate them. So if Palestinians and Israelis chose eventually to be one joined Nation they could chose to call themselves anything they liked. Right now the far right government of Israel wants to create ‘Greater Israel’ in large parts of the Middle East. That would be by imposition, not agreement.
Thank you for writing this Ben.