Intro
The text discusses the complex identity politics within the State of Israel and the broader historical context of Jewish identity in Europe. The Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 promises equality and freedom for all inhabitants. However, some laws, like the Basic Law: The Knesset, reflect the state’s Jewish character. Historically, Jewish communities in Europe maintained a strong religious identity, seeing themselves as God’s “chosen people.” Despite being minorities, the Jewish faith helped maintain a distinct communal identity, reinforced by group solidarity and shared religious practices, such as the Talmudic law and devotion to Jerusalem.
The spread of secularization in Europe undermined traditional religious frameworks and reshaped Jewish identity. Many Jews embraced modernization and assimilation, becoming integral to the national cultures in countries like France, Britain, and Germany. They adopted national identities while still adhering to their Jewish roots, contributing significantly to the respective cultures. However, this assimilation often came at the cost of abandoning long-standing customs and mores, mirroring the broader struggles of various cultural and religious groups during times of rapid change.
Despite their contributions, Jews faced challenges with nationalism and anti-Semitism. In Western Europe, Jews were able to integrate into the national fabric, but the experience was different in places like France during the Dreyfus Affair. This incident highlighted the competing national identities within France and the tension between ethnoreligious and culturally inclusive nationalism. Ultimately, the affair exemplified the complexities of modern nationalism and the deeply rooted anti-Semitic sentiments that persisted even in otherwise inclusive societies.
Zionism emerged as a response to Jewish identity challenges, aiming to establish a separate national entity for Jews. Initially a marginal movement, Zionism was influenced by European nationalist ideologies. Notably, it borrowed from the surrounding nationalist ideologies, combining elements from German Volkism and Polish romantic nationalism. This movement sought to redefine Jewish identity, emphasizing an ethnoreligious or ethnobiological approach and aiming to create a unified Jewish nation.
The Zionist movement’s foundation in Eastern and Central European nationalistic sentiments influenced its ideology. Zionism attempted to solidify a Jewish national identity by drawing upon religious traditions and narratives, turning to ancient myths and religious texts. This approach sought to unify Jews of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds by establishing a unified origin and identity, despite the varied Jewish experiences and histories across regions.
In conclusion, the Zionist movement represented both a reflection and a reaction to the challenges Jews faced in European societies. Amidst anti-Semitic sentiments and exclusion from national identities, Zionism offered a distinct alternative focused on creating a Jewish homeland. The movement’s reliance on both religious tradition and modern nationalist ideologies helped shape its vision for a new Jewish state, seeking to overcome fragmentation and assimilate into a singular national identity.
Ultimately, Zionism’s approach to Jewish identity was informed by both historical tradition and contemporary nationalist ideologies. Its effort to create a cohesive national identity reflected a broader struggle to navigate modernity and historical religious beliefs. The movement’s success in establishing the State of Israel demonstrates the enduring impact of these identity politics, illustrating the complex interplay of history, religion, and nationalism in shaping Jewish identity and statehood.
Zionism and Heredity
The text delves into the integration of heredity and biology with Zionist ideology in the formation of Jewish nationalism. The second chapter revisits the influence of Heinrich Graetz and Moses Hess, who was among the first to introduce racial theory into the idea of Jewish identity. This period, marked by rising anti-Semitism and the early stages of Zionism in Europe, saw racial pseudoscience blending into ethnocentric nationalism, influencing young political ideologies, including Zionism. This led to a perception of the nation as an ethnic entity, with biological heredity used to justify claims to Palestine as a homeland for all Jews.
The expansion of Zionism in the late 19th century relied on the notion of heredity to establish a historical connection to biblical lands, an idea embraced by early Zionist intellectuals like Nathan Birnbaum. Birnbaum argued that only biology could explain Jewish mental and emotional distinctiveness, a stance that echoed the period’s racist pseudoscience, which he viewed somewhat sympathetically, albeit firmly rejecting anti-Semitic aspects. This adoption of biological theories helped shape the national narrative that justified the establishment of a Jewish homeland.
Despite his contributions to Zionism, Birnbaum’s later departure from the movement highlights internal ideological conflicts. Theodor Herzl, however, showed ambivalence toward ethnocentric theories; his focus was on practical political solutions rather than deep scientific or historical justifications. Meanwhile, Max Nordau provided ideological heft to Zionism, proposing that Jewish physical and mental rejuvenation could be achieved through Zionist endeavors, particularly through labor and physical activity in a Jewish state.
Nordau’s views on building a “muscular Jewry” paralleled broader European notions of national renewal through physical vitality. His ideas were imbued with the German cultural romanticism that blended into Zionist ideology, although not without hesitation. Martin Buber, another key Zionist thinker, conceptualized the Jewish nation in mystical terms, emphasizing a biological and historical connection that transcended individual experience and linked generations in a communal destiny.
Vladimir Jabotinsky, leader of the Zionist right, shared Buber’s view of Jewish distinctiveness rooted in blood, seeing race as central to national identity. Both leaders, despite their differing political styles, believed in a Jewish identity defined by immutable biological and historical characteristics. Jabotinsky’s firm belief in “racial formulae” underpinning nations reflected a broader obsession with race in nationalist ideologies, positing Jews as a unique race that needed preservation through a unified homeland.
Zionist ideology, however, was not limited to the right-wing spectrum. Even Marxist Zionists like Ber Borochov grappled with notions of race, seeing biological connection as a unifying factor for disparate Jewish communities. Similarly, Arthur Ruppin, a key figure in Zionist settlement efforts, viewed Jews as a biological entity whose survival depended on preserving racial characteristics. His views on racial superiority highlighted tensions with accepting Jewish immigrants from different backgrounds, particularly those from Arab lands.
The Zionist biological perspective gained currency among scientists and physicians who supported the movement. Figures like Raphael Falk documented the prevalence of biological discourse in Zionist circles, where the idea of Jewish heredity was extensively explored. This intersection of biology and nationalism played a significant role in crafting a cohesive Jewish identity to legitimize claims to the ancient homeland.
Challenging this notion of racial identity, scholars like Ernest Renan and Karl Kautsky critiqued the racialization of Jews, offering counter-narratives to the dominant theories of the time. Renan, once a proponent of racial categorization, argued against the idea of a Jewish race, emphasizing the historical and cultural factors that influenced Jewish identity. Similarly, Kautsky’s Marxist skepticism of race theories positioned anti-Semitism and Zionist ideology as scientifically unfounded, advocating for social solutions to racial and national conflicts.
In the U.S., anthropologists such as Franz Boas and Maurice Fishberg debunked racial theories, focusing on cultural and environmental influences over biological determinism. Their work highlighted variations within Jewish communities and refuted the idea of a uniform Jewish race, challenging both anti-Semitic and Zionist claims to racial identity. Fishberg’s comprehensive studies demonstrated the diversity among Jews, casting doubt on the validity of a singular racial definition.
Despite critiques, Zionist rhetoric continued to draw on biological metaphors to reinforce national narratives. The historical discourse around Jewish heredity and nationhood reflects broader European trends of the era, where race and identity were often entangled with nationalist aspirations. These debates within Zionism illustrate the complexities of forming a modern national identity in the context of historical continuity and scientific advancements.
The evolution of Zionist thought underscores the interplay between ideology, science, and politics in shaping national movements. As Zionism grew, it navigated the difficult terrain of racial identity, using biological concepts to solidify a collective narrative and justify territorial aspirations. The tension between heredity and cultural integration remains a key theme in understanding the historical trajectory of Jewish nationalism and its aspirations for a sovereign state.
Scientific Puppet
The text explores the persistent influence of racial theories within Zionist ideology and Israeli scientific research, despite global shifts away from such concepts post-World War II. Notably, works challenging the idea of a Jewish race, such as those by Harry L. Shapiro, Raphael Patai, and Alain Corcos, were largely ignored in Israel. This indicates that the racial and biological discourse established in the early 20th century by figures like Arthur Ruppin remained influential, potentially obstructing alternative scientific perspectives that questioned the very notion of a Jewish race and, in turn, supporting the broader Zionist objective of defining a cohesive Jewish identity.
The post-Holocaust era saw a shift in the global view towards race, largely distancing scientific credibility from racial categorizations. The UNESCO declaration in 1950, which refuted biological connections to national cultures, marked a departure from race as a scientific concept. However, Israeli scientific circles continued their quest for a Jewish ethnic identity through genetic research. Here, the emphasis shifted from overt racial terminology to genetic investigations, often described colloquially as the search for the “Jewish gene.” This was part of the broader nation-building efforts, trying to construct a coherent national identity for the diverse influx of Jewish immigrants to the nascent State of Israel.
The role of genetics in Israel during this period was dual, both aiding in nation-building by supporting a narrative of common Jewish origin and functioning within scientific communities. Nurit Kirsh’s research indicates that genetics, like archaeology, was used to reinforce nationalist historical narratives. Despite genetics’ scientific cloak, its ideological underpinnings aligned with Zionism, attempting to substantiate the claim of a unified Jewish biological heritage. Yet, these studies took a back seat in public discourse, perhaps reducing their direct impact on educational systems but nonetheless contributing to the ideological fabric of the state.
Initial genetic studies in Israel aimed to find biological markers that would substantiate the narratives of Jewish uniqueness, but these efforts faced setbacks. Early attempts, such as finding distinct Jewish fingerprints or unique genetic diseases, did not yield a unifying biological signature across Jewish groups. Yet over time, as more comprehensive genetic data accumulated, these studies gained momentum, receiving international attention and support, despite their initial scientific shortcomings.
The pursuit intensified with publications like Mourant’s “The Genetics of the Jews,” which sought to demonstrate genetic uniformity among disparate Jewish populations despite weak evidence. This work, alongside burgeoning genetic research in Israel, reinforced the ideological narrative of Jewish cohesion, even as findings sometimes contradicted the desired conclusions. Such research persisted in fueling nationalistic narratives, particularly interacting with evolving political contexts like the prolonged Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where ethnic delineation took on additional sociopolitical weight.
Researchers in Israel continued probing genetic links between Jews and neighboring ethnic groups, occasionally revealing unexpected connections that challenged prevailing narratives. For instance, studies showed genetic similarities between Jews and Palestinians, sparking media interest and briefly promoting a narrative of shared ancestry. Yet, as political tensions escalated, these findings were reinterpreted or reframed to maintain the established distinction between Jews and other local populations, underscoring the fluctuating use of genetics in service to national identity.
Further investigations delved into the origins of Jewish mitochondrial DNA, highlighting discrepancies between the ancestry of Jewish males and females. Findings suggested Jewish men, historically from the Near East, had married local women during their diaspora, thus complicating the notion of pure Jewish lineage. Despite these complex results, prevalent narratives often oversimplified genetic discoveries to fortify the myth of a unified Jewish origin, resonating with cultural and religious folklore within Israel and the Jewish diaspora.
The cultural resonance of genetics in Israel extended to symbolic explorations, such as the search for a “priestly gene” among the Cohanim, alleged descendants of Aaron. This pursuit revealed a broader fascination with linking modern genetics to ancient religious identities, demonstrating how undercurrents of historical and religious ideology interplay with modern scientific narratives to construct a cohesive identity. Although scientific methods were sometimes flawed, the findings were instrumentalized to reinforce a sense of continuity and legitimacy for Jewish nationhood, marrying the ancient with the contemporary.
Overall, the text critiques the intertwining of science and ideology in Israel’s national narratives. The persistent reliance on genetic research to validate Jewish identity overlooks significant internal diversity and risks perpetuating exclusionary ideologies. In attempting to define a secular national identity rooted in ancient heritage, Israel’s identity politics continue to grapple with the legacy of race, sometimes obscuring historical and cultural complexities behind the allure of genetic determinism.
Founding an Ethnos State
The proposal for a “ethnos state” stems from the 1947 UN General Assembly resolution to establish separate Jewish and Arab states within the territory then known as Palestine/Bretz Israel. This decision came at a time when displaced Jews roamed Europe post-Holocaust, and affluent nations like the U.S. declined to accept them, leaving the Zionist settlement in Palestine as their primary refuge. The UN resolution barely defined “Jew,” focusing more on geopolitical aims than the socio-cultural and ethnic implications of establishing a Jewish state.
The formation of Israel saw significant displacement of Palestinians, as around 730,000 fled or were expelled amidst the Arab states’ objection to the UN partition plan. These actions were rooted in the belief that the newly formed state was the historical inheritance of the Jewish people, justifying the barring of Palestinian refugees from returning to their homes. However, this state-building process left unresolved the identity conflicts within Israel, as a considerable number of Arabs remained, and non-Jewish spouses from Europe immigrated.
Israel’s Declaration of Independence promised equal rights to all inhabitants but was also deeply enshrined in Zionist ideology, aiming at a national rebirth for Jews in their own state. This duality between democratic ideals and ethnocentric nationalism has defined the state’s evolution. The struggle for self-determination has been a global historical trend, yet it brings into question the legitimacy of altering land and populations to favor one group over another, as occurred in Mandatory Palestine.
Nationalism and democracy are often seen as intertwined; however, Israel’s establishment raised complex questions about citizenship and ethnic identity. The state’s name “Israel” reflects both historical connections and contemporary Jewish identity, though the intent was not to solely identify the state as belonging to Jews globally. Over time, however, the hegemony expressed by Israeli symbols became evident as attempts to incorporate non-Jewish citizens into a Jewish ethnos were fraught with challenges.
Deciding who belonged to the Jewish ethnos and by extension to the Jewish state was the central socio-political struggle. The state grappled with whether those within its borders must adhere to Jewish religious tenets or if national identity should be more inclusive, a question that the ruling Zionist framework neither easily defined nor resolved. Religious authorities gained some control over personal status laws, particularly in absence of a secular constitution, affecting marriage laws and other civic rights.
This interplay between Zionism and religion led to a unique dynamic wherein the state, though secular, used religion strategically to solidify national identity, distinguishing it from other historically theocratic or multicultural states. Yet secular Israeli culture quickly developed, fostering a distinct identity that was neither wholly Jewish in the traditional sense nor aligned with global Jewish communities. Despite borrowing elements from Jewish traditions, it was markedly Israeli, shared among its diverse population including Arabs and immigrant groups.
Zionism remained hesitant to label the growing Israeli society as a distinct nation, clinging to an undivided global Jewish identity. This reluctance underscored the complexity of forming a cohesive national identity in a state driven by ethnocentric principles but demographically diverse. Internationally, the concept of a Jewish nation was unchallenged, buoyed by the painful legacy of the Holocaust, yet within Israel, defining who constituted this nation proved problematic.
Legal definitions, such as the 1950 Law of Return, were initially broad but later constrained by religious criteria, reflecting an ongoing tension between ethnonationalist ambitions and democratic promises. This law allowed any Jew, defined partially by ancestry and religious conversion, the right to Israeli citizenship, entrenched further by a lack of definitive secular identity frameworks. The law evolved to accommodate non-Jewish family members amid geopolitical shifts but remained fundamentally ethnocentric.
Disputes over identity peaked in cases like Brother Daniel, a Catholic monk of Jewish descent whose plea for citizenship highlighted the challenges of separating nationality from religion. The secular and religious definitions of being Jewish clashed publicly, underscoring the state’s dependence on religious identity to delineate Jewishness within civic life. Subsequent legal challenges continued this debate, with courts frequently navigating the thin line between civic identity and religious heritage.
Under international and internal societal pressures, Israel’s laws adapted, but ethnocentric nationalism persisted, influenced heavily by geopolitical events. The expansionist approach and settlement policies post-1967 in occupied territories exacerbated the ethnocentric identity, creating a distinct social stratification that favored Jewish identity over others. Meanwhile, the influx of diverse Jewish and non-Jewish immigrants necessitated nuanced policy responses, revealing cracks in the ethnocentric model as demographics shifted.
The future trajectory of Israeli identity remains uncertain, balancing its ethnocentric roots with the necessity for inclusivity in a multicultural world. This identity crisis not only defines internal politics but also impacts Israel’s international relations, challenging notions of democracy, ethnicity, and cultural unity within a modern nation-state framework. The unresolved questions of identity, sovereignty, and belonging within Israel continue to influence its path forward.
Jewish and Democracy – An Oxymoron
The text explores the debate around the compatibility of Israel being both a Jewish and democratic state. It traces the historical and political developments that brought this issue to the forefront, particularly focusing on the 1980s. During this time, a new Arab-Jewish party, more outspoken than the traditional Communist Party, criticized the identity politics of Israel, calling for a more inclusive state. This set off a chain of events, including the disqualification of political parties that challenged the definition of Israel as a Jewish state, which was overturned by the Supreme Court.
The introduction of Clause 7a into the Basic Law: The Knesset, in 1985, prohibited parties whose platforms negated Israel’s existence as a Jewish state or incited racism from running in elections. Despite this, the Supreme Court allowed the Progressive List for Peace to participate, paving the way for more Arab parties to question the nature of the state. The text highlights how a new generation of Palestinian intellectuals began to voice their dissatisfaction with being formally recognized as full citizens, yet not identifying Israel as their own state due to its Jewish-centric policies.
The writings and actions of individuals like Anton Shammas, a writer who proposed a multicultural Israeli identity, are examined in the context of this debate. His ideas were rejected by prominent figures like A. B. Yehoshua, reflecting the entrenched belief among the Zionist left that Israel must remain primarily a Jewish state. This rejection illustrated the challenges faced by those advocating for a shared national identity encompassing both Jewish and Arab citizens.
The discussion intensified in the 1990s with the emergence of post-Zionism, which not only accepted Israel’s 1967 borders but also demanded that the state recognize all its citizens equally. This period saw a shift in ideological battle lines, especially as the Oslo Accords and the Second Intifada refocused attention on Israel’s identity. Even as the territorial aspirations of a Greater Israel began to wane, the debate over maintaining a Jewish state’s exclusive character persisted.
Several prominent Israeli intellectuals and jurists, including Supreme Court Justice Meir Shamgar and Professor Sammy Smooha, contributed to this discourse. Shamgar equated Israel’s Jewish identity with France’s Frenchness, arguing there was no conflict between its Jewish character and its democracy. Smooha, however, critiqued the concept of a Jewish democracy as an “ethnic democracy,” pointing out that Israel falls short of both liberal and consociational democratic standards.
The text outlines the characteristics of various democratic models, noting that Israel does not fit neatly into any of them due to its failure to represent all its citizens equally. Liberal democracies guarantee equality irrespective of cultural backgrounds, while Israel’s policies and laws have consistently favored its Jewish population, exemplified by laws that maintain Jewish hegemony.
Although some Israeli intellectuals argued that Israel could be a Jewish and democratic state without contradiction, the text highlights the inherent tension between these identities. It discusses the views of Eliezer Schweid, Shlomo Avineri, and Asa Kasher, who each presented arguments defending Israel’s Jewish democratic identity. Their perspectives reflect an attempt to reconcile the nation’s Jewishness with democratic principles, often by drawing parallels to other modern states.
Critics, including Smooha, argue that Israel’s definition as a Jewish state leads to second-class citizen status for its Arab population. Despite the appearance of democratic structures, the state’s prioritization of Jewish identity through symbolic and legal measures compromises true equality. This is exemplified by the Law of Return and other institutional practices that systematically benefit Jewish citizens.
Ultimately, the text suggests that Israel’s current identity politics align more with an “ethnocracy” rather than a genuine democracy, due to its exclusionary policies and emphasis on Jewish identity. It argues that while Israel exhibits liberal features, it fundamentally serves the interests of a specific ethnos, leaving little space for non-Jewish citizens to share in the sovereignty and identity of the state.
Overall, the text delves deeply into the debates around Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state, examining historical developments, legal frameworks, and the contributions of various intellectuals, ultimately questioning whether the two identities can coexist without undermining democratic principles.
Ethnocracy
The text explores Israel’s existence as a liberal ethnocracy and the challenges it faces in maintaining this identity in the age of globalization. Despite its liberal features, Israel’s ethnocentric foundation remains a significant obstacle to its development as a truly democratic state. The myths that facilitated the establishment of the state, particularly the notion of a historical claim to Eretz Israel, continue to influence its policies and politics, sometimes leading to oppressive situations like the occupation of territories acquired in 1967. This occupation has entrenched Israel in a colonialist situation that reflects its reluctance to fully integrate with the inhabitants of these areas due to ethnic reasons.
The political elites in Israel have struggled to adapt to a world where control over territory is not the only source of power. Although there have been efforts to negotiate peace and address territorial disputes, the internal contradictions within Israel as a Jewish state that prioritizes Jewish identity over a collective national identity remain unresolved. The idea that the Jewish ethnos is a self-isolating historical body that bars outsiders has harmful implications, potentially leading to social division and political alienation among non-Jewish citizens, such as the Palestino-Israelis.
The text suggests that the disenfranchisement and exclusion of the Palestino-Israelis pose a significant risk to Israel’s stability. Comparisons are drawn between the possible internal uprisings within Israel and those in the occupied territories, highlighting the danger of underestimating the discontent of the Arab population within Israel’s borders. It is noted that while global Jewish communities show solidarity with Israel, this support may not be sustainable in the long term, particularly as assimilation increases and generational changes alter perspectives on Israel’s policies.
The article reflects on the paradox faced by Israel in retaining the support of overseas Jewish communities, which have become more important than large-scale immigration. In the context of globalization and the weakening of nation-states, Jewish “ethnicity” and identity have resurged, but the very assimilation and diasporic connections that support Israel could eventually undermine its demographic and ideological foundations. The younger generation of Jews abroad is less attached to the idea of a Jewish state, further complicating the future of Zionist politics.
There is an acknowledgment that the transformative project needed for peace and coexistence in Israel—a democratic binational state where Jews and Arabs share equal rights—is far from realization. The text identifies the obstacles to such a transformation, including entrenched privileges and power dynamics that favor Jewish citizens. The possibility of internal reform, such as establishing civil marriage, disentangling state and religion, and adopting a multicultural democratic model, is presented as distant but necessary for Israel’s long-term viability and integration into the region.
The text concludes by posing a series of challenging questions about Israel’s willingness to reform its identity politics and social structures. It questions whether Israel can move beyond the concept of ethnic chosenness and exclusive historical narratives to embrace a more inclusive and egalitarian society. This reflection underscores the necessity for Israel to reimagine its future to prevent potentially catastrophic national and regional consequences.
Ultimately, the text offers a cautious yet hopeful perspective that, just as the historical narratives of the Jewish people were shaped over time, so too can the future be reimagined. It challenges Israeli society to engage in such a transformative effort, suggesting that the nation’s future need not be bound by the limitations of its past, and that it is possible to envision a more inclusive and peaceful tomorrow.