As you note at the outset, this is not a new theme for you. And, as I wrote before, I believe you are wrong. The crux of the problem is that you don’t distinguish Biblical Torah Based judaism from Rabbinic judaism. The latter developed when the Jews were driven into exile to Babylon and further developed during the time that there was no Jewish political control of the Holy Land. What is key to rabbinic judaism is that it involved a wholesale rethinking of what constitutes the core of the religious faith. The land was replaced by the mitzvahs as interpreted by the rabbis. Inhabiting the land was replaced with following the laws as understood in the new holy texts (Mishna, Gemara, Tossefta etc.). This was a religious revolution and formed the core of (at least) European judaism for well over 1000 years. What most westerners think of as judaism owes a lot more to Hillel and Shamai, The Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov than it does to King David, or Moses or Joshua or Jehova in the Torah. And this reimagining of the faith was not centered on an ethno nationalist conception of Judaism which is why religious jews have always had an ambiguous relationship to the state of Israel. Indeed, many are still anti-zionists (Neturei Karta, Satmer a.o.) and can explain in great detail why they are and why modern zionism is anti-jewish (in a word, it was a secular movement and had no regard for the mitzvahs). So, if we distinguish a mitzvah centered rabbinic judaism from a torah centered biblical judaism it is easy to find a robust form of judaism that need not be politically zionist.
I could go further. One doesn’t need an orthodox conception of the mizvot to hold the belief that following the mizvot is the core of judaism. Reform and Conservative judaism could (and did) take the same attitude until relatively recently. So, is there a conception of judaism that is not zionist centered? Yes. Is it viable? Yes. Is it widespread now among jews? Only some. What is correct in what you write is that the bulk of modern jews are no longer mitzvah centered in their views of judaism. They have become torah centered zionists.
What changed? Well, there was a rather big and elaborate effort to change judaism to make it center the land. This was a project started by Ben Gurion and elaborated by the archeological zionists that started digging up the land to find antecedents for the return in earlier “discovered” artifacts. Yigal Yadin was the first mover here. But it is now a robust industry. Shlomo Sands has a good discussion of this and how much of it is fraudulent. But what is important is that there was a concerted effort to make this happen and it was deliberately aimed at undermining the Rabbinic judaism that was the standard and it did this by centering the torah and its stories AS YOU ARE ALSO DOING. So, IF one wants a land centered political conception then the texts to go to are the Tanach and its real estate contracts. So there are, as you say, plenty of texts to look to if you want a zionist based conception of judaism. But then there are many ways of having a judaism that is not zionist at its core and this form of judaism does not have the Tanach as its key religious document. One can choose.
Where does this leave us? There is a form of judaism that is compatible with being anti-zionsit. It is mitzvah centered. But this form of judaism is NOT secular. It is religious. Where you are correct is that if you want a SECULAR form of judaism (one that does not center religious mitzvah based practice) then the only currently viable option is a zionist conception that treats the Tanach (falsely) as a quasi-historical document. This leads pretty quickly to the mess we have here. Religious Jews have no problem being anti-zionist. SecularJews have no current alternative to Zionism despite past efforts to develop these (Ahad Ha Am, Bundism, a.o.). Now this is a point you made in earlier posts but seem to have set aside here. This is unfortunate in my opinion as it shrinks the logical and political space of possibilities. There are lots of people interested in developing a diaspora conception of judaism (e.g. Shaul Magid) that is not zionist. Moreover, it misses the real force behind the Zionist based conception, imo. It is politics. This conception is tightly tied to Israel’s role as the US attack dog in the Middle East (now called West Asia by some). The new identification of zionism with judaism arose in the context of Israel willingly tying its wagon to the imperial policies of the west, especially the US. Before this knot was forged, most jews, even US jews were not zionist in the sense that you discuss. There were many anti zionist jewish organizations. Once it became clear (roughly after the 67 war) that Israel would be the American unsinkable air craft carrier in the region, the Ben Gurion project of identifying Zionism with Judaism took off. It has not looked back since. And why would it. Look at how many careers in US politics it has launched!
My conclusion: there are many viable non-zionist conceptions of Judaism available for development. The zionist based one is prominent and has been chosen not because the Tanach is replete with real estate deals, or because it is a central text. But rather the Tanach is currently a central text and the real estate deals are centered because this form of Judaism is politically useful and transactionally lucrative in our current imperial setting. In a word, being a non-zionist Jew will require leaving the imperial mindset. More than worth it. Indeed, not much of a loss.
If 45% of Jews in ISRAEL define themselves as secular, doesn't that complicate your argument? And since Zionism is criticised for being an ethno-nationalist ideolgy ...isn't that a ctiticism of their politics not of Jews as a people. Criticisms of communism or Naziism weren't about hatred of the Russian or German people.
I don't know if you read my essay but it might answer some of these question. I think Judaism (the religious) and zionism (the ideology) are symbiotically linked. And this begs the question: what is a religion and how does it differ from an ideology. These two concepts are a lot closer together than "secular" people like to admit.
CRUCIFY HIM! CRUCIFY HIM!
(Got to be careful preaching heresy around those high priests, they are rabbi rousers).
As you note at the outset, this is not a new theme for you. And, as I wrote before, I believe you are wrong. The crux of the problem is that you don’t distinguish Biblical Torah Based judaism from Rabbinic judaism. The latter developed when the Jews were driven into exile to Babylon and further developed during the time that there was no Jewish political control of the Holy Land. What is key to rabbinic judaism is that it involved a wholesale rethinking of what constitutes the core of the religious faith. The land was replaced by the mitzvahs as interpreted by the rabbis. Inhabiting the land was replaced with following the laws as understood in the new holy texts (Mishna, Gemara, Tossefta etc.). This was a religious revolution and formed the core of (at least) European judaism for well over 1000 years. What most westerners think of as judaism owes a lot more to Hillel and Shamai, The Vilna Gaon and the Baal Shem Tov than it does to King David, or Moses or Joshua or Jehova in the Torah. And this reimagining of the faith was not centered on an ethno nationalist conception of Judaism which is why religious jews have always had an ambiguous relationship to the state of Israel. Indeed, many are still anti-zionists (Neturei Karta, Satmer a.o.) and can explain in great detail why they are and why modern zionism is anti-jewish (in a word, it was a secular movement and had no regard for the mitzvahs). So, if we distinguish a mitzvah centered rabbinic judaism from a torah centered biblical judaism it is easy to find a robust form of judaism that need not be politically zionist.
I could go further. One doesn’t need an orthodox conception of the mizvot to hold the belief that following the mizvot is the core of judaism. Reform and Conservative judaism could (and did) take the same attitude until relatively recently. So, is there a conception of judaism that is not zionist centered? Yes. Is it viable? Yes. Is it widespread now among jews? Only some. What is correct in what you write is that the bulk of modern jews are no longer mitzvah centered in their views of judaism. They have become torah centered zionists.
What changed? Well, there was a rather big and elaborate effort to change judaism to make it center the land. This was a project started by Ben Gurion and elaborated by the archeological zionists that started digging up the land to find antecedents for the return in earlier “discovered” artifacts. Yigal Yadin was the first mover here. But it is now a robust industry. Shlomo Sands has a good discussion of this and how much of it is fraudulent. But what is important is that there was a concerted effort to make this happen and it was deliberately aimed at undermining the Rabbinic judaism that was the standard and it did this by centering the torah and its stories AS YOU ARE ALSO DOING. So, IF one wants a land centered political conception then the texts to go to are the Tanach and its real estate contracts. So there are, as you say, plenty of texts to look to if you want a zionist based conception of judaism. But then there are many ways of having a judaism that is not zionist at its core and this form of judaism does not have the Tanach as its key religious document. One can choose.
Where does this leave us? There is a form of judaism that is compatible with being anti-zionsit. It is mitzvah centered. But this form of judaism is NOT secular. It is religious. Where you are correct is that if you want a SECULAR form of judaism (one that does not center religious mitzvah based practice) then the only currently viable option is a zionist conception that treats the Tanach (falsely) as a quasi-historical document. This leads pretty quickly to the mess we have here. Religious Jews have no problem being anti-zionist. SecularJews have no current alternative to Zionism despite past efforts to develop these (Ahad Ha Am, Bundism, a.o.). Now this is a point you made in earlier posts but seem to have set aside here. This is unfortunate in my opinion as it shrinks the logical and political space of possibilities. There are lots of people interested in developing a diaspora conception of judaism (e.g. Shaul Magid) that is not zionist. Moreover, it misses the real force behind the Zionist based conception, imo. It is politics. This conception is tightly tied to Israel’s role as the US attack dog in the Middle East (now called West Asia by some). The new identification of zionism with judaism arose in the context of Israel willingly tying its wagon to the imperial policies of the west, especially the US. Before this knot was forged, most jews, even US jews were not zionist in the sense that you discuss. There were many anti zionist jewish organizations. Once it became clear (roughly after the 67 war) that Israel would be the American unsinkable air craft carrier in the region, the Ben Gurion project of identifying Zionism with Judaism took off. It has not looked back since. And why would it. Look at how many careers in US politics it has launched!
My conclusion: there are many viable non-zionist conceptions of Judaism available for development. The zionist based one is prominent and has been chosen not because the Tanach is replete with real estate deals, or because it is a central text. But rather the Tanach is currently a central text and the real estate deals are centered because this form of Judaism is politically useful and transactionally lucrative in our current imperial setting. In a word, being a non-zionist Jew will require leaving the imperial mindset. More than worth it. Indeed, not much of a loss.
If 45% of Jews in ISRAEL define themselves as secular, doesn't that complicate your argument? And since Zionism is criticised for being an ethno-nationalist ideolgy ...isn't that a ctiticism of their politics not of Jews as a people. Criticisms of communism or Naziism weren't about hatred of the Russian or German people.
I don't know if you read my essay but it might answer some of these question. I think Judaism (the religious) and zionism (the ideology) are symbiotically linked. And this begs the question: what is a religion and how does it differ from an ideology. These two concepts are a lot closer together than "secular" people like to admit.
Sorry… I must have missed that. will now read and think again