Rereading | The Idea of the Jewish State by Ben Halpern
Yet, as much as Ben Halpern was right about Zionism’s success in forging strong Jewish backing for Israel’s establishment, he may have been too Panglossian about what he called the mantle of the Jewish consensus. The current rekindling of the Diaspora as the site for a Jewish identity that could be forged in a tolerance and justice presumably unavailable in a Jewish state seems jarringly at odds with Halpern’s assertion that, ‘since the rise of Israel, outright opposition to the existence of a Jewish state is no longer recognized by the consensus of the Jewish community as a legitimate attitude.’ [210]How Zionists Helped Defeat Segregation
Israel’s very successes have triggered seismic debates among Diaspora Jews not only about the country’s policies but also about its foundational principles. Many now argue that the need for a Jewish state has been transcended by a global consciousness rededicated to social justice and equity. What might an assiduous reader of The Idea of the Jewish State conclude from all of this? Of course, it is impossible to know exactly what Ben Halpern would have said in response to the rebirth of ‘Diasporism’, but he would surely start by noting what happened to this idea when it was initially proclaimed by a once powerful organisation—the Bund—now largely forgotten because it was essentially killed off by the Nazis. Even the charge leveled against Israel as fomenting Jew hatred may underscore the reason for a Jewish state rather than provide a basis for dismantling it. Halpern almost certainly would have deemed surrendering sovereignty extraordinarily unwise when it reduced the tools available to Jews to combat an antisemitism whose hostility continues to shadow them. Second, Halpern is likely to have been unconvinced by Diaspora Jewish claims of privileged access to notions of justice unavailable in Israel. Living as part of a minority opens no special path to idealism or to a set of values distinctively Jewish particularly when many groups proclaiming allegiance to these global norms have made it clear they want to repair the world by setting aside Jews from this sacred task.
The Idea of the Jewish State makes clear that waving the international banner for pious ideals does not mean they can be reached or that people will be encouraged to live up to them. Words are not the same as deeds. Nor does power over language translate into control over actions. Pursuing justice in the world in the present means working through the state. There is no other choice.
To return the essay to where it began, the power and relevance of The Idea of the Jewish State lies in the way it establishes the source of Israel’s foundational values. That Zionism is a mission of high moral purpose doesn’t mean the Jewish state can ignore the cruel realities of regional politics posing dangers to the country’s population if not to its very existence. That is why, whatever its policy failures, Israel cannot escape the judgment of its own citizens or of the Jewish people. Perhaps in our own Age of Corona, when reading itself has come back into style, it is possible to appreciate how much can be learned from considering how Ben Halpern unspools the historical circumstances that gave Zionism not only its ambitions but more importantly its capacity for bending the arc of history toward a Jewish state.
This year, Martin Luther King, Jr., Day will be commemorated just before the 75th anniversary of a remarkable but little-known campaign by American Zionists and African-Americans that helped defeat racial segregation in Baltimore.David Collier: Statement on the BOD, JNF, Samuel Hayek and Gary Mond
The story began in the autumn of 1946, when the Zionist activists known as the Bergson Group sponsored a Broadway play called “A Flag is Born,” authored by the Academy Award-winning screenwriter and playwright Ben Hecht. Starring a young Marlon Brando and Yiddish theater luminaries Paul Muni and Celia Adler, “Flag” depicted the plight of Holocaust survivors in post-war Europe, and the fight for Jewish independence in British Mandatory Palestine.
The London Evening Standard expressed horror that large audiences were flocking to what it called “the most virulent anti-British play ever staged in the United States.” Many American publications took a different view: TIME called the play “colorful theater and biting propaganda,” while Life complimented its “wit and wisdom.”
After a successful 10-week run on Broadway, “A Flag is Born” was scheduled to be performed in various cities around the country, including the National Theater in Washington, DC. But the National barred African-Americans, and Hecht and 32 other prominent playwrights had recently announced they would not permit their works to be staged in such theaters. Hence the Washington performance was rescheduled for the Maryland Theater, in Baltimore.
But the controversy was not over. It turned out that while the Maryland Theater did not bar African-Americans, it did restrict them to the balcony, which bigots nicknamed “n—— heaven.” Alerted by local NAACP activists, the Bergson Group devised a good cop-bad cop strategy to confront the segregationists.
I admit to being furious that I have had to stop researching antisemitism to write this post – but given events at the Board of Deputies I felt I had little choice but to make my feelings known. We have so many serious issues facing British Jews, that it is tragic we are currently witnessing an internal and politically motivated purge of voices – that is being driven far more by political manoeuvring and targeted political assassinations than anything ‘ethical’ or ‘moral’.
As one would expect, it is chiefly the groups who felt comfortable saying Kaddish for Hamas terrorists – or defended those who did – who are busy telling Jewish organisations today who they can and cannot have representing them. Here is an idea – the BOD should have nothing to do with anyone who was ever connected to the Kaddish for Hamas event. Nor any of those who were so morally lost that they defended those who participated. Let the BOD and other mainstream organisations start purging all those faces, and then we can all sit down to talk about what else people have a problem with. Until the BOD do this – and for as long as the ‘Kaddish for Hamasniks’ have their voices heard at the Jewish community table – any other ‘investigations’ into misconduct that are undertaken are an exercise in vile political manoeuvring and outrageous hypocrisy.
Statement:
Yesterday I signed a letter of support for both Samuel Hayek and Gary Mond – two executives of the JNF. Gary Mond is also a Deputy at the BOD. My signature is to signal support for freedom of speech and the right to express genuine opinion. I signed the petition in total opposition to the lynch mob that is being organised to silence voices which elements on the Jewish left do not want heard. I quote directly from the news report that they believe “these bigoted remarks have no place in our community.” My response to this would be that if this is the case – then it is certainly true that neither do those who said Kaddish for Hamas terrorists. But I digress – let us look closely at the remarks that apparently outraged these people.
The first case was related to comments made by JNF Chair Samuel Hayek. He has been asked to quit over ‘Islamophobic’ comments he made in the media. What Hayek said was that:
- Jews have no future in England
- Our problem in the West is that we do not understand Islam.
- What is happening in France today could happen in Britain in a few years
I grow tired of stating the obvious. On all three of these key points Hayek may well be right. And it is certainly not anti-Muslim bigotry to suggest these statements are true. People may not like these comments, but there are enough signs around us to suggest they are worthy of having their place at the table.
Make no mistake about it – we are in a serious battle. Antisemitism is gaining ground in the UK – much of it spread through the undergrowth via Islamist ideology – and despite the protestations of the Board of Deputies and the Chief Rabbi – the future of British Jews in the UK is neither rosy nor certain. If only it were. But then again, unlike both of these ‘institutions’, I do not have to say things that I don’t really mean, or believe, in order to do the ‘responsible thing’ or remain ‘politically correct’.