ZEHRA NUR DÜZ
09.06.2018
POLS
530 / ADVANCED SEMINAR IN COMPARATIVE POLITICS RESEARCH PAPER
INTRODUCTION
The
main debate at the core of theories of nationalism is that ‘Is it possible to
find an ethnic core that constitute the navel of nation states?’ or in other
words; ‘Do nations have a dominant
ethnic core or do they invent this ethnic core during nation state building
processes? Zionism and Jewish nationalism is one of the most prominent case
that stands at the center of these debates. In parallel with these debates in
nationalism literature in my study I ask the question of ‘Does Israel
has a dominant ethnic core or ethnic identity that played an important role
during the Jewish identity formation and Israeli nation building process or
does it invented by Zionist ideology?’’. So constitute a theory of ethnic
identity; I am also going to try to answer the questions of ‘what are the particular
properties of Jewish ethnic identity and what is the main constituting element
that determine the eligibility for membership to Jewish identity’. Firstly, I
discuss the literature on the Jewish nationalism. In this part I analyse how
theories of nationalism evaluated the Israeli national identity. Secondly, I
critically evaluates the literature, and make my arguments and provide some
evidences to support my argument.
Israel
or the ‘Jewish Nation’ has always regarded as to be the central to the the
perennial and ethnosymbolist explanations. Even some scholars argue that the
theory of ethno-symbolism is actually based on Zionism. However in my study I
argue that in some ways ethno-symbolist approach may be misleading in the case
of Israel. I discuss from a modernist and from a constructivist approach that
ethno-symbolist approach do not take different kinds of Jewish nationalisms in
different time periods into account, and it ignores the changing nature of
ethnic identity and the transformations that Zionist ideology had during its
historical process. To prove my this argument I compare the pre-independence
and post-independence periods of Israeli nation building process. With
reference to this comparison I argue that Israeli’s ethnic identity did not
play an important role in the ‘pre-independence’ nation-building process; while
it was important during ‘post-independence’ period but with some
transformations in its meaning. I argue that Zionism tried to solve the problem
of the definition of the jewish ethnos by accepting ‘nominal’ Judaism as the
most important determinant of Jewish identity.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
We
can mention about three major approaches to Zionism and Jewish nationalism: the
internal or uniqueness perspective, the external or similarity perspective, and
the combination of these two perspectives. The first approach considers Jewish
nationalism internally and sees it as a unique phenomenon. This approach
emphasizes the specific particularities of the Jewish historical experience,
and special features of Jewish nationalism. The second approach explains Jewish
nationalism externally and considers it as only one of the other many ethnic
nationalisms, and evaluates it within the broader European experience of
nationalism. They focuses on the similarities between Jewish and other ethnic
experiences. The third perspective takes both the internal and external sides
of Zionism and Jewish nationalism ( Smith, 1999, p.203). We can make an anology
between this classification and the generally known tripartite classification:
primordialism, modernism and ethno-symbolism. At the center of these
discussions I think there is the debate whether Israel has a dominant ethnic
core / ethnic identity that played an important role for the Israeli nation
building process.
Modernist Approach:
The
supporters of the external or similarity approach which we can associate with
the modernist approach classify Israel together with other nations and they
argue that it did not have a dominant ethnic core and thus had to invent one. They
explain Jewish nationalism as a ‘secondary’
and derivative nationalism with regards to its emergence in a late time
period, in the second half of the ninetheenth century. Czechs, Slovaks, and
Jews may be given as examples to this type. These kind of nationalisms evolves as
a response and reaction to the earlier ‘primary or original or exemplary’
nationalisms, and ironically they obtain their many ideas and methods from
earlier nationalisms. This situation is called as the ‘imitation-reaction
mechanism’ in literature. German, Italian and Hungarian nationalisms may be
given as examples to this type of earlier nationalisms ( Smith, 1999, p.204).
The
other difference between earlier and later nationalisms which is an approach
adopted by well known scholar Eric Hobsbawm is that earlier nationalisms were
mostly unifying, civil, political and democratic; while the later ones, the reactionary ‘ethno-linguistic’ types of
nationalisms, were mostly divisive, ethnic, linguistic and cultural ( Hobsbawm,
1993). For example in the case of Jewish nationalism, they argues that Jews
tried to separate themselves from a larger political unit, emphasized their own
cultural, religious and linguistic particularities, and they glorified their
these special characteristics as main elements of their seperate national
identity (Smith, 1999, p.204).
The
other important feature of this approach is that the supporters of this
appraoch do not give any place to the role of past in their explanations. They
take nationalism as a modern phenomena and they analyse the effects of modern
devolopments such as the role of capitalism, bourgeois and intellectuals to
explain the emergence and devolopment of nationalism. They rejects the relationship
between pre-modern religious, regional, and language based sentiments and
modern, civic-political or ethno-linguistic nationalisms. For example in the
case of Zionism; they do not count the role of very old religious nostalgia for
Zion ,which diaspora Jews dream about, as a factor that explain the Jewish mass
immigrations to Palestine. Hobsbawn describes Zionist symbolism, history and
mythology as ‘invented traditions’ which are constructed by intellectuals who
serve to the political and strategic interests of movement’s leaders (Smith,
1999, p.205).
In
his book Zeev Sternhell also tries to find an answer to the question of ‘’was
the nationalism of the labor movement in any way special’’? and ‘’was it
different from other nationalist movements that revived in Eastern Europe at
the same period as against the universalistic, humanistic, and rationalistic principles?’’
or ‘’should we evaluate Labor Zionism only as one of the other types of
historical, ethnic, and religious kinds of European nationalism?’’ (Sternhell,
1998, p.3). As an answer to this question he argues that the Zionist ideology
was not an ideology of social change that could establish a secular, liberal
state (Sternhell, 1998, p.46).
Perennialist Approach:
The
internal or uniqueness approach which is commonly known as perennialist
approach in the literature argues that it is possible to find an ethnic core
that constitute the navel of nation states. Also every nation is unique and
perennial, and they are age-old phenomena. According to perennialists Jews were
perennial people with their own sacred land, their maintained ancient faith, sacred
language, ancient symbols, common fate, heroic founders and their own myths.
Zionism was regarded as the realization of this ancient destiny. For example
one of the common myths of the Jewish national identity is that Jewish people survived
from the time of Ezra (Smith, 1999, p.206). The motif of ‘chosen people’ shows
that Nationalism may undertake a religious characteristic, by accepting some of
the shapes and functions of religion. Similarly, religion can comply with the arguments
of nation-state and religious leaders can use a nationalist language. (
Brubaker, 2012, 5-8)
So,
according to this approach Jewish nationalism can not be explained by general
common rules and reasons, and can not be totally apprehended without considering the meanings, ideas and emotions
of its members through the ages. For example according to the supporters of
this approach; the effect of persecution and genocide on the Jewish identity
formation is essentially important. In 1947, after the Nazi massacre, many
thousands of Jewish persons left homeless. The oppressions and discriminations
against Jews strengthened their claim for sovereignty and self determination
and improved their common identity (Sand, 2009). After these events the
seperation between Jews and non-Jews became much more sharper and Jews were obliged to think themselves as a
different community. As a consequence of these experiences Zionist ideology had
started to gain legitimacy and became the dominant ideology among diaspora Jews
(Kösebalaban, Dikmen, Karar, 2017) The other example is that as a consequence
of these massacres, the idea of ‘ return to the homeland’ or in other words
‘the idea of Galut’ was began to thought
as the only messianic resolution for their ‘auto-emancipation’. The return to
the homeland was regarded also as the recreation of the Jewish nation (Smith,
1999, p.206) .
Ethno-Symbolist Approach:
However
what is problematic is the timing of this reawakening and regeneration. Why the
idea of auto emancipation had started to become relevant at the end of the 19th
century, but not in a earlier period? According to Smith; the fact that
nationalism is a modern phenomena and did not exist in the pre-modern ages is
the answer for this question. The ideal of a Jewish national state in its ancient homeland became possible only
with the emergence and expansion of the the nationalist movements in the 18th and 19th
centuries (Smith, 1999, p.207).
According
to Smith both perennialism and modernism can not present us convincing and
comprehensive explanations about Jewsih nationalism. While the perennialists
exagerates the qualities of Jewish identity, and think it as totally
incomparable with other nationalisms; the modernists totally rejects the
special characteristics of Jewish people, and can not comprehend the inner
logic, sentiments of Jewish people, and subjective meanings of the Zionist
ideals. Also, modernists ignore the many continuties and relativities between
modern Jewish nationalism and historical Jewish traditions and
experiences(Smith, 1999, p.203, 207).
As
different from perennialist and modernist approach ethno - symbolists analyzes
both inner and outer worlds of Jewish experience. It argues that Jewish
nationalism has its roots both in modernity and past Jewish experience in the
old ages. Through Zionist movement these experiences has been fused. Zionist
movement shows a lot of similarities with the characteristics of modern world
of secular nationalisms with regards to its efforts to mobilize the masses to
found an independent nation-state. However on the other hand it also makes
emphases on the shared memories, myths and inner religious yearnings of Jews
for a return to Zion. Through the revival of the former golden age in the holy
land, Zionist movement realizes the myths of liberation and the covenant or testament.
As
different from Modernist approach ethno-symbolists argue that Jewish identity
has some major characteristics. Especially collective memories played an
essential role during the Jewish identity formation in the late nineteenth
century in central and Eastern Europe. These memories have been both local and
popular and pan-ethnic and canonical. There are memories which have been particular
firstly to the different Israelite tribes, and then particular to each of the
dispersed Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews. For the pan-ethnic and canonical
memories the role of religion have been central. These shared memories have
been based on religious sources. Basic
doctrines and practices of Judaism played a primary role also for the transfer
of these collective memories. These sources regarded the Jewish people as a
whole rather than taking them as seperate communities (Smith, 1999, p.208).
These
cultural memories were largely dispersed among different stratums of the Jewish
communities who live as diaspora. Through analysing
these collective memories; we can observe the Jewish myth of ethnic election
that constitutes the core of Jewish identity. They attributes a sacred
character to ancient Israelite memories, myths and symbols. Zionist movement
makes a fusion. It translates into secular terminology the religious memories,
myths and yearnings. The new secular Zionist culture and Jewish nationalism
obtained its some specialities, imaginations and symbols from Jewish religious sources
to reach their ethnocentric nationalistic
purposes. In other words Zionist ideology forms an idiosyncratic combination
between ethnocentric nationalism and traditional religion. As Rogers
Brubaker argues; religious motives,
narratives and symbols may be transfering into the political area and may be
used to constitute nationalist arguments ( Brubaker, 2012, 5-8). Religion
can support to the improvement of nationalism through the political adoption of
religious symbols and narratives. From this point of view Smith argues that
Zionism belongs to the ethno-religious type of nationalism. (Smith, 1999,
p.209).
CRITICISM TO ETHNO-SYMBOLIST APPROACH
FROM A MODERNIST AND CONSTRUCTIVIST OUTLOOK:
According
to Smith there is an unchanging ethnic core essential for Israeli nation
building. The key elements of Smith’s notion of the Jewish ethnic core are the religious
concepts of the ‘Chosen People’ and ‘Holy Land’. However according to modernist
criticisms what Smith considers as Israeli’s ethnic core either did not have
the same meaning or did not play an important role in the ‘pre-independence’ nation-building
process. According to Moshe Berent, an Israeli scholar, Smith’s account of
Zionism fits only to the Israeli post-independence version of Zionism. In other
words during this process it is difficult to mention about the effect of ethnic
identity. The elements of Jewish ethnic core were either missing from Zionist
ideology, or even if it Zionism has employed these notions they were not in
resonance with the traditional one (Berent, 2015, p.45).
Why
these notions were different from their traditional meanings when they employed
by Zionist movement? If we look at firstly
to the usage of the concept of ‘Chosen People we see that the intention with
this notion was not the community of practicing believers. The newly invented
culture of Hebrew nation was incompatible and even opponent to classical Jewish
tradition.
Secondly if
we consider the use of the notion of the ‘Holy Land’ by Zionist ideology we see
that even if it resonated with traditional Judaism the Uganda discussion proves
that the choice of Palestinian was not exact or natural. Another argument to
prove the newly attributed secular character of Holy Land is that the Jewish
immigration to Palestine was mostly because of the difficulties and negative
effects of modernity rather than having been motivated by the religious
yearning for the Holy land.
The Pre-Independence Period:
According
to him the Jewish nation was invented two times; before and after independence
(Berent, 2015, p.28). The first pre-independence term is called as ‘labor
Zionism’. Some studies in the literature focuses on the role of labor movement
in the process of nation-building to understand the foundation’s of today’s
Israel. They explains how the ideology and practice of the labor movement
shaped the foundations of Jewish society in Palestine before the War of
Independence (1948-49). In his article Sternhell discusses that was the
nationalism of labor movement capable to cope with the the religious substance
of Jewish nationalism, and was it able to establish a liberal and secular
society (Sternhell, 1998, p.3).
The
first invention by Zionism in the pre- independence term as a ‘Hebrew’ nation
was against the community of practicing believers and ‘Judaism’. This
pre-independence, was heavily against tradition and religion and tried to
remove it totally from the public sphere. This Israeli civil religion which is
invented by Zionist ideology has been contrary in many ways to the traditional
Judaism. If we look at the relationship between religion and nationalism in the
context of Israel we see that there were a main conflict between religious and secular
groups. On
the one hand; rabbinical wing and its theocratic tradition was always an
important obstacle for Jewish nationalism. On the other hand; to realize the
purposes of Zionism, the state exploited the Jewish religion many times(Sand,
2009, 284).
It
is argued that the biggest challange, opposition and reaction to Zionist
ideology came from main stream Jewish organizations. When Zionism has evolved
as a secular and ethnic nationalist ideology in the 19th century Europe; it had
been rejected by main stream Jewish doctrines. According to these groups;
Zionism was destroying the traditional Judaism by politicizing it. They were
also against the idea of a territorial state because they believed that it was
against Judaism’s universal and eternal character. Also Orthodox Jews were
against the idea of a Jewish state before the Messiah will come again(Kösebalaban,
Dikmen, Karar, 2017).
The
post-independence period
Even
though this new secular culture obtained its some specialities from Jewish
sources it also refused this rabbinical
tradition. Because of this new culture’s incompatibility with Jewish religious
cultures, the Jews could not embrace it. From
this point of view; we can suggest that the old religious culture sustains its
positon as the primary consolidative and integrative ground for international
Jewry. The dream of the creating a secular Jewish culture which embrace all the
Jews in the world has never been realized. (Sand, 2009, 285) So we can
define Israel as ‘’a secular state in
religious cohabitation’’(Sand, 2009, 284).
The second invention of the ‘Jewish Nation’
had started with the end of the War of Independence and the completion of the
great waves of immigration(Sternhell, 1998, p.46). The second invention of the
‘Jewish Nation’ in the post-independence period by the State of Israel as a
‘Jewish’ nation was not totally against religion and religious groups (Berent,
2015, p.46) because even though the state tried to build a secular Israeli
culture; this culture could not unite Israelis who came from different parts of
the world and who are culturally very different from each other(Sand, 2009,
285).
We
can not define Zionist regimes as totally anti-religious. The modern Zionist nationalist ideology did not extinguish religious
envision in Israel, rather it maintained religion by transforming it. The new post-independence
civil religion was a reinterpretation
of tradition and religion. Such kind of an
nationalism revolutionized the meaning of religion. Religion is not be
understood as a personal belief anymore rather it is transformed into an
indicator and symbol of Jews’ collective identity and dividedness. Religion
gained a new unholy function: it turned into an ethnic feature that is natural,
organic, unchangeable rather than respective liability and an option. Liah
Greenfeld describes such kind of an understanding of religion as a reflection of race. (Sand,
2009, 286)
With
reference to the explanations above now we can give answers to the questions of
’what is the definition of the Jewish ethnos?’’ and ‘’who stays within the
borders of this new Jewish state and who are excluded?’’Determining the limits
and borders of its national identity was a very serious problem for Israel. A
lot of scientific efforts which was spent to describe who was a Jew and who was
a gentile became unsuccessful.
The Problem of The Definition Of The
Jewish Ethnos
To
solve the identity problem in the beginning the state made an democratic and
inclusive definition that is based on consent. The 1950 Law of Return gave
every Jew who was exposed to discrimination the right to migrate to Israel as
long as he/she does not pose any threat to the healt or the security of the
state. However in 1958 the state started to define the ‘Jew’ relying on the
mother’s identity. Finally; the religion laid down as a precondition to
nationality. Halakhic doctrines became the primary condition for ethnocentric
Zionism.
In
1970, an amendment was made to the Law of Return and the people of Israel is
defined very clearly. To become a Jew, one should have been has a Jewish mother
and should have been become Jewish (Sand, 2009, 286-292). In short, finally a
connection between religion and nationalism was established legally. On the
other hand; Israel moved totally away from a liberal democracy. So, today it is
impossible to mention about an secular Israeli nation. Instead we can talk
about a Jewish nation.
CONCLUSION
From
an ethno-symbolist point of view this ‘reinterpretation’ and the transformation
in the meaning of tradition and religion was the reaffirmation of the existence
of an Israeli ethnic core. So, I think as different from ethno-symbolist approach,
this new civil religion in fact invented the Smith’s so called 'ethnic core’ of
Israel, and it amounted to the second invention of the Jewish nation after the
invention of Jewish nation by pre-independence Zionism as a Hebrew nation. I
think this reinvention argument further supports the modernist approach.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1)Smith, Anthony, Myths and Memories of
The Nation, Oxford University Press, 1999.
