Zionism and Judaism: A New Theory

I'm a big fan of the Cambridge University Press Bookshop that is just off King's Parade, for the main reason in that I find books that I know I would otherwise never receive any recommendations for. I suppose it is because the books published here are by academics, who are usually notoriously dull.
The trouble I often find when I approach a subject I want to learn more about (particularly if its one that I have a foundational knowledge in) is that so many books are filled with meaningless “fluff”. This can be, for example, anecdotal embellishments that detract more than they add anything to the book. I know what the idea of such anecdotes is - it is is to liven up what can be otherwise seen as a dry subject matter. But that type of writing is just not for me. Alternatively, the writing is just too vague, too airy for it to really be enriching.
A good example of this (sorry, Baxter) is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. My dad is also a big fan of him. His writing is full of “feel good” platitudes - he takes concepts or biblical stories that are so overwhelming in their depth and extrapolates some sort of nugget of wisdom from them that can be used as a practical life lesson. The problem is, he does not go into his methodology as to how he even arrives to this process. It is all well and good talking about the “dignity of difference”, but where is the law, where is the animosity? There's almost something quite insulting about the sentimentality some of his books (which admittedly are not aimed at audiences who have an interest in Jewish law, so have to, by their nature, be sparse on particular details).
Anyway, where am I going with this? David Novak is a brilliant author who I discovered by pure coincidence thanks to the Cambridge Press Bookshop - and is a guy I would love to go for a pint with. He treats his audience as both intelligent and inquisitive - practically pre-empting some of the most difficult rebuttals to his points made, and conceding the more weaker points in his own arguments.

The book is a collection of essays, which cover subject matter which, quite frankly, several Jewish scholars have avoided due to sheer awkwardness such as “The Status of Jews in a Non-Jewish State”, and “Can Israel be Both Jewish and Democratic?”. There is also an interesting essay on Spinoza as the “first Zionist” which could probably have done with being separately published.

WHY SECULAR ZIONISM IS PURELY REACTIONARY, AND UNSUSTAINABLE
Novak's central conclusion is that the current state of Israel is an awkward and utterly deformed amalgamation of secularism and religious law. Questions of why Jews should recognise Israel's right to exist are too often left to rhetoric, rather than reason.
I can personally attest to this - my own father, the child of a German Jewish woman who barely escaped with her own life, loves lines like “the Holocaust would not have happened if it were not for Israel.”
Although this is (arguably) true, it fundamentally misses the point. Sorry to be blunt, Dad, but so what? Emotional intensity should accompany rational action, but it cannot itself justify it.
If Israel is to exist as a Jewish state with a cohesive raison detre for its existence - an ontological jutsification, rather than a purely sentimental or pragmatic one, Zionists have a big task ahead of them. They must prove (1) the state of Israel is rooted in Jewish tradition (2) Zionism furthers, rather than hinders the purpose for which Jews exist and (3) Zionism is integral to this practice of Judaism.

My repudiation of secular Zionism stems from my love of Judaism. Herzl's Zionism was itself a reaction to the alienation that Jews experienced in the 19th century. Ironically, through us being castigated as a perpetually alienated people, Herzl turns around and practically declares: “We will become an alien people. But we shall become this alien people on our own terms [in our own state] and not yours!”. But for him, the Torah/Judaism is nothing more than a cultural ornament - something that plays a ceremonial role in the life of a secular state.
This is almost identical to the advice given to the Maccabean king, Alexander Jannaeus (76 BCE). When asked “what will happen to the Torah?”, his advisors answered: “Let it be rolled into a corner; who ever wants to study it, let him study it.”
The Israeli Chief Rabbinate is, in essence, no different from this.

To go back to my Dad's comments - avoiding the Holocaust, and resistance to evil, should intend to some transcendent end that attracts it. Without this transcendent end point, the whole project in the end, is purely reactionary, just like Herzl's Zionism.
This is embedded within the landscape of the Israeli constitution. Take the “right of return” (the criteria by which one is eligible for Israeli citizenship). The criteria for this are truly staggering, when you think about it. The definition of a Jew is not one informed by Jewish law. Instead, a “Jew” (for the purposes of obtaining Israeli citizenship) are identical to that of the Nazi Nuremberg laws. That is, you can make Aliyah (move to Israel) if you have (1) just one Jewish grandparent/great-grandparent (2) you are not Jewish, but you are married to a Jew. Truly staggering.


TO BE CONT.....



Novak is a student of Abraham Heschel. It is really difficult to find books that are both (a) engaging and educational that also (b) presuppose an intermediate (but not extensive) knowledge in both Jewish contemporary events, religion and philosophy.

This book is catered for an admittedly narrow crowd (the author himself says that it is intended for Jewish readers) but if it is a crowd you find yourself in, this is a fantastic, thought-provoking book.