The menace of post-Zionism

One of the most under-appreciated elements of the fraught ideological battle over Israel is the immense threat posed by post-Zionism. The term may be unfamiliar, there is no universally accepted word for it, but the phenomenon is painfully real. 

The reference is to the small but influential minority of Israelis who have lost faith in Israel’s existence. Although there are relatively few of them they have an outsized influence in informing anti-Israel arguments internationally. This is not despite them coming from Israel but because of it. Their outlook adds credibility and coherence to those who seek Israel’s destruction. 

It also has considerable resonance among some left-leading diaspora Jews. In America it is exemplified by such publications as Jewish Currents and organisations as Jewish Voice for Peace. In Britain its supporters include Na’amod  and Vashti.

Post-Zionists often start their intellectual evolution as a reaction to reasonable concerns about particular developments such as the behaviour of West Bank settlers. There is of course nothing wrong with that in principle but the critics all too often lose a sense of perspective. Typically they underestimate flaws in other countries which are in many cases far worse than Israel. All too often post-Zionists draw such one-sided conclusions they end up supporting, implicitly and sometimes explicitly, Islamist enemies bent on Israel’s destruction.

Many post-Zionists will be familiar to those who follow the media or activist debates around Israel. Gideon Levy, a veteran columnist for the Haaretznewspaper, is a long-time hero in anti-Israel activist circles. Ilan Pappe, a revisionist Israeli historian, has played a key role in developing a crude anti-Israel historical narrative. This is a man who, shortly after the 7 October pogrom, said he “admire(d) the courage of the Palestinian fighters who took over a dozen military bases, overcoming the strongest army in the Middle East”. Then there is Omer Bartov, a historian of the Holocaust, who has tirelessly promoted the false argument that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. Indeed Bartov, along with Raz Segal, have given credibility to the view that there is some moral equivalence between Israel and the Nazis.

These and several other Israelis have actively promoted post-Zionist ideas in the international arena. Typically such figures are in great demand for guest starring roles providing home-grown anti-Israel voices to hostile outlets. These include Al-Jazeera, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Owen Jones podcast and Zeteo. There they are usually presented as exceptional good Israelis as opposed to the supposedly pro-colonialist mainstream.

In terms of publications the English language edition of Haaretz – roughly speaking Israel’s equivalent of the Guardian– plays a pivotal role. As I have written before it plays a key role in informing the anti-Israel movement internationally about developments in Israel. Only it often takes a rabidly anti-Israel stance. In that context it is worth noting that its publisher, Amos Schocken, recently told a conference in London that he saw Hamas terrorists as “freedom fighters”. He later tried to backtrack on his remarks and the paper then unconvincingly distanced itself from his statement. 

In this context it is also important to note that Haaretz has relatively few readers inside Israel. Its main readership base is external where it serves the anti-Israel community outside the country. Many of the arguments and much of the information used by anti-Israel activists originates from its pages.

The reason the post-Zionists are so dangerous is that they give plausibility and coherence to the anti-Israel movement. Often they started as genuine critics of Israeli society – few would claim it is beyond criticism – but they end up, as Amos Schocken did, endorsing the most backward ideas imaginable. Or take an example from, as I write, the current homepage. Haaretz is running a long feature on a Palestinian journalist arguing that Zionism is racism. There are numerous other examples along these lines. It is not that the newspaper should be barred from running such articles. It has every right to do so. But it should also be clear what side it is on in what is both a political and military war. Certainly the likes of Owen Jones, a British anti-Israel journalist, and Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo frequently use them with glee to make an anti-Zionist case.

It would also be wrong to see post-Zionist figures as simply mistaken individuals. They represent a section of the Israeli elite which has lost faith in the Zionist project. They loathe the Israeli state in a similar way to the way woke figures in the West despise their own nation states. Indeed post-Zionism can be seen in important respects as an Israeli equivalent of woke. Only in the Israeli case – as an embattled country in the middle of an existential war – the stakes are even higher.

Typically these figures see themselves as more global than Israeli. This applies to those academics and journalists who regard themselves as part of a trans-national elite rather than owing any national allegiance. Many of those in the high tech sector – the most vibrant section of the Israeli economy – feel more at home in Silicon Valley or Greater Seattle than in Israel.

The post-Zionist trend was apparent well before the 7 October pogrom but that terrible event had a polarising effect. Some have pulled back from their previous beliefs while others have doubled down.

It should be remembered that the pre 7 October protests in Israel against judicial reform were essentially led by an elite movement. It was supported by many in the military elite and in the high tech sector. One of the threats posed by many such individuals was that they would no longer serve in elite military positions such as intelligence, as pilots or in the special forces. Indeed, as Hamas minutes leaked to the New York Times confirmed, Israel’s internal strife was one of the factors which gave the terrorist organisation the confidence to launch its murderous attack.

Fortunately, when the onslaught came, more than 100%  of Israel’s substantial reserve forces who were mobilised turned up for duty (meaning more than the number who were called). Things might have been different, particularly in elite units, if the attack had been a few months or years later. The specialist skills of those in elite units would have deteriorated rapidly without regular training.

But those who have maintained the post-Zionist faith are doing it with a renewed vigour. They are speaking at and writing for outlets which in many cases are explicitly anti-Zionist.

To put this discussion into historical context the subject of post-Zionism has been discussed since the late 1980s. Back then a key focus was how best to understand Israeli history  in the light of the discovery of new archival evidence about Israel’s foundation. As early at the 1990s there was some questioning of the challenge post-Zionism posed to Israel. For example, in 1999 Meyrav Wurmser, the director of a think tank in Washington DC, wrote that: “Israel is today in the midst of a cultural civil war in which one side would like to see their country continue to exist as a Jewish state and the other believes that Zionism, the founding idea of the state, has reached its end. For the latter group, the time has come for Israel to enter its post-Zionist stage; for this reason, it describes itself as ‘post-Zionist’. By their own definition, post-Zionists are anti-Zionist, meaning they believe that the Zionist enterprise has lacked moral validity since its conception and, therefore, must be undermined.” She was in turn writing at least partly in response to an article by Ilan Pappe, in the Journal of Palestine Studies, giving his take on post-Zionist thinking at the time.

Many years later, with Israel in the midst of an existential war, the post-Zionists pose a greater threat than ever. They are a small minority among Israelis but are playing an outsized role, whatever their intention, in promoting international hatred against Israel. It is more urgent than ever to push back against their arguments.

PHOTO: "Ilan Pappe 2023" by Fjmustak is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.