A Zionist that's what I am. So I get todefine it.

There’s an excellent discussion of the ‘Zionism is racism’ question over at Jeremiah Haber’s site, The Magnes Zionist. Haber makes some very good points which are especially compelling since he – a multiculturalist who self-identifies as a Zionist – is making them. Indeed, anyone who reads his site knows that people like him will be an asset in the as-yet-unrealized egalitarian one-state Palestine/Israel. I’ll get to the contradiction implicit in this statement in a moment. First, I want to review why this is an important discussion that cannot exist independently of the anti-apartheid struggle; why can’t we just focus on the tangibles like the ethnic cleansing in Sheikh Jarrah?

Any nation-building exercise employs narrative mythologizing at its core. National narratives can help to obviate perceptions of tribal, racial or class differences to create stable, enduring societies. The most successful national narratives embed stories that permit the integration of previously non-national groups. Zionism, whatever it may be, is exclusionary in a space that requires integration.

As a one-stater, I have a real interest in working alongside Israelis to stop the Zionist ethnic cleansing of Jerusalem. I also have a real interest in forging a new, inclusive national narrative that encompasses the breadth of life experience in Palestine/Israel. Part of that work entails delegitimizing and discrediting the Zionist narrative – which again, is nothing if not exclusionary.

By definition, a Zionist who struggles alongside a Palestinian in East Jerusalem exists in an exceptional, Teflon space. The impermeable bubble of Jewish privilege in the problem of the interaction between the Palestinian and the Israeli; it’s an exercise in political convenience rather than solidarity and cohesion building. Social progress requires the renunciation of Jewish privilege – or Zionism.

But does that necessarily make Zionism racism?

I don’t think many people will argue that the dominant Zionists in Israel historically and today aren’t racists; Avigdor Lieberman springs somewhat clumsily from David Ben Gurion’s loins. I don’t think that’s what Haber takes exception to.

Instead, he argues that Zionism represents a wide spectrum of thought around the principle of Jewish self-determination. Judah Magnes’ life and writings showcase that broad-spectrum variance so describing the entire range as racist is terminologically inaccurate and intellectually dishonest.

The problem here is that this argument uses the exception to disprove the rule. Sociology, philosophy and the humanities generally resist empirically deliverable truths. The exceptions created by the momentary existence of recorded thought make language meaningless if we permit them to.

Zionism is up. Zionism is the early-morning mist suspended above Lake Nakuru  in the spring. Zionism is an adolescent boy who shudders after urinating in a darkened, barren concrete East Coast warehouse. Zionism is not racism.

It’s not out of contempt for “terminological sobriety” or nuance that I describe the complexity of Zionism – the whole of the Zionist experience – as racism. Instead, the definition follows from descriptive reality. Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine, etc. Some Zionist may define Zionism as ‘up’ but that’s meaningless. Definition heft is borne by what Zionists do – what they’ve done.

Besides being descriptively accurate, defining Zionism as racism serves a psycho-social function. The modern Israeli Jew carries a grotesque historical burden. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine was perpetrated in the name of every Jew (according to the Zionists, anyway). By locating the history of racism and ethnic displacement in one capsule we provide a clear opportunity for Israeli Jews and others to unburden themselves – to break with a legacy they may not want to own. By declaring herself a non or anti-Zionist, a young Israeli Jew can experience a cathartic release – a humanistic leveling – to put her within emotional range of the humans on the other side. Here, a lack of terminological complexity is useful.

Finally, defining Zionism is my prerogative. The Jewish privilege conferred by Zionism in Israel and around the world carries with it the greatest privilege of all – the right of association. My Jewish friends in America and Israel can choose to engage with the Zionist enterprise or they can choose not to. The Palestinians have no such choice. I am forced to contend with Zionism every day. But I’ve come to realize that a special power is communicated by our mandatory marriage.

What I can do is choose to take ownership of Zionism. I will describe it authoritatively and with greater weight than any Zionist can or is permitted to. Zionism ceased to belong to Judah Magnes a long time ago and as Zionism’s mandatory object, I possess the power of explication and defamation. I have the right of appropriation. People like me will write the history books – that’s the colonial experience. And that’s partially what this is about – the battle over history.

So where does that leave obvious anti-racists like Jeremiah Haber who self-identify as Zionists? My humble suggestion is that another, more appropriate term be identified and descriptively applied. Hebrew culturalism or something like it may work. There’s plenty of room for Hebrew culture in Palestine/Israel. But Zionism has no place in my country.

HaShomer HaChadash

HaShomer HaChadash is crafting a new reality on the ground in the Negev and the Galilee. It is creating a deeper level of commitment among students and young people that revolves around renewed Jewish-Israeli identity, connection to the land and civic responsibility and action.

At the beginning of 2011, after three years of activity, there were 11 HaShomer HaChadash observation posts: seven in the Galilee and four in the Negev. Today, there are 23 observation posts: 12 in the Galilee and 11 in the Negev, safeguarding tens of thousands of acres of land.

Over 1000 young guardsmen give 6-20 days a year to volunteer with HaShomer HaChadash. Thousands of young people, from high schools, youth movements, army units, pre-army preparatory programs and Israel experience programs do volunteer agricultural work with HaShomer HaChadash.

Farmers and ranchers have reported a marked decrease in theft, arson, property and herd damage and physical threats after the establishment of observation posts and the activities of the volunteer guardsmen. Every week HaShomer HaChadash receives pleas from ranchers and farmers to establish additional observation posts.

The Young Leadership program is flourishing. Now in its third year, this 14-month pre-army work-study program attracts people from all over Israel. In the morning they help farmers and agriculturalists. In the afternoon they are immersed in studies, from Judaism to history to the Arabic language to Zionism. In the evenings they mann the observation posts.

Looking toward the future, HaShomer HaChadash aims to:

• Establish 20 young leadership groups (10 Negev, 10 Galilee)
• Offer the Young Leadership Program to young Jews from around the world
• Increase the volunteer corps to 6,000
• Add an additional 20 observation posts to bring the total to 38 and expand to Israeli cities
• Increase the patrols and strengthen response time and efficiency
• Lobby for effective legislation to bring long-term change.

View Yoel Zilberman at the Jerusalem Conference

Ariel Sharon buried at Negev home, after Knesset and IDF honors

Knesset service included speeches by Biden and Blair, Netanyahu and Peres; coffin taken to Latrun for IDF salute; Sharon laid to rest beside late wife

Israel honored former prime minister Ariel Sharon with a three-part state funeral Monday, beginning in the Knesset plaza and ending with his burial at his beloved Sycamore Ranch, the family home in the Negev.

The Knesset ceremony was attended by dignitaries from around the world, including US Vice President Joe Biden, former British prime minister Tony Blair, Czech Prime Minister Jiří Rusnok, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Russian Duma Chair Sergey Naryshkin.

• Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter   

"The security of his people was always Arik's unwavering mission – a non-breakable commitment to the future of Jews, whether 30 years or 300 years from now," said Biden in his tribute at the Knesset, adding it was a great honor to represent the United States at Sharon's funeral service.

The vice president said he had known Sharon for more than 30 years, and that as a young senator, upon being invited in to Sharon's office, it didn't take him long to understand why the general had earned the nickname of "bulldozer".

Joe Biden pays tribute to Ariel Sharon (Photo: Gil Yohanan)

Sharon had strong opinions, Biden said, but he always had clear motivation: "Like all historic leaders, he had a north star that guided him. The north star which he never – in my observation – deviated from. His north star was the survival of the State of Israel and the Jewish people."

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair also paid his respects to the former Israel prime minister, and praised Sharon's passion for the wellbeing of the State of Israel: "The same iron determination he took to the field of war he took to the chamber of diplomacy," he said. "When that meant fighting he fought, when that meant making peace he sought peace."

President Shimon Peres eulogized Sharon as a "friend, leader and general." The two men were for decades stalwarts of the Israeli political system, both serving as prime minister and defense minister.

Sharon's life, he said, was interwoven in the history of the state, and he had dedicated his life to the country. "We're departing fron you today. You were a shoulder that the nation's security could rest upon on."


"Arik was a man of the land, and he protected this land like a lion, and he became a military legend in his lifetime," Peres said. "You made decisions and you came out victorious," he said. "Our great leader, rest in peace. The land from whence you came will embrace you in its great and warm arms of the history of our people."

Netanyahu and Peres at Sharon's Knesset memorial (Photo: Reuters)

(Photo: Amos Ben Gershom, GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed Sharon as "one of the greatest generals that the Jewish people and the Israel Defense Forces had ever known."


He said Sharon belonged to the generation of Israel's founders and its independence. "Israel's independence was dependent on a generation of Jewish fighters that renewed our heritage of Jewish heroism in the land of Israel, and Sharon played a central role in building this heritage."

Two speakers represented the Sharon family at the Knesset -Marit Danon, Sharon's personal secretary during his time in office, and Shimon Kahaner, who was a soldier under Sharon's command.

Danon said she learned from working with the former leader that he was a sensitive man that always treated those subordinate to him with respect: "There wasn't one bereaved family that received a negative answer to meet with Sharon." Kahaner recalled how the general saved his life in 1955 when he was wounded: "He didn’t stop until he removed me from the warfront," he said. "I owe him my life."

Following the Knesset ceremony, a military convoy took Sharon's coffin to Sycamore Ranch. The convoy stopped in Latrun, where the general who fought in almost all of Israel's wars received a special salute by IDF's General Staff.

Military service honoring Sharon in Latrun

Following the ceremony in Latrun, which was closed to the public, the funeral procession headed to Anemone Hill, where Sharon was laid to rest beside his late wife, Lily. There, Sharon's sons Omri and Gilad paid tribute to their father, along with IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz.

"Today, when you return to your beloved home one last time, long lines of fighters have come to salute you for the last time,"said Gantz. "Rest in peace, commander. The land on which you established your family, which you made on your own, for which you fought for with your own hands, is the one that takes you to your eternal rest."

Sharon's two sons, Omri and Gilad, each gave an emotional eulogy. "Look around, Ariel. Look around and see the people cherishing your memory and bowing their heads," said Omri. "You were admirable, father."

"We were next to you on Saturday at Tel Hashomer, and your grandchildren were running around the room," said Gilad. "We held a lively discussion like we used to at home, only the main character was lying motionless."

Concluding the service, Gilad declared: "Beloved father - you have returned home."

Burying Sharon but not the truth about who he was

There are so many twists and turns to Ariel Sharon's remarkable life. The overwhelming lesson Israel learned from Sharon is that unilateral concessions are dangerous and that genuine recognition of the Jewish state is the core precondition to peace

Ariel Sharon buried today

“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” Ariel Sharon was not born great in February 1928 in the cooperative farming village of Kfar Malal. But he had achieved greatness by the time he died on January 11, 2014, gaining legendary stature as the greatest field commander in the history of the Israel Defense Forces.

He was also proud to be a farmer, and he became a dynamic political leader. He lived up to his nickname Arik (“the Lion” in Hebrew) as the Lion of Israel. Not surprisingly, the title of his autobiography was Warrior.

The least that can be said of Sharon is that he was controversial. Everyone recognized him as a strong and robust figure, but critics regarded him as a brutal military commander.

From his youth he showed extraordinary personal courage and qualities of leadership. In 1948, aged 20, he led the action in Bir Addas, the Arab village accommodating Iraqi troops. In the action he suffered a bullet in his stomach.

Sharon was a key figure, as head of the Unit 101 commando group, in protecting Israel in the 1950s against terrorism. He responded in 1953 to Arab terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens by a raid on the Jordanian village of Qibya where forty houses were destroyed and sixty nine people killed.

Defying military orders in 1956, Sharon sent troops to the Mitla Pass in Sinai; though it was seen as a daring and successful raid 38 Israeli soldiers were killed.

In the 1967 Six Day War Sharon fought what is now regarded as a classic battle against the Arab stronghold in the Sinai. Again, in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War he exceeded his instructions and led his troops in a daring and successful crossing of the Red Sea into Egypt, and encircled the Egyptian Third Army.

Finally, in 1982 his command of troops, then as Minister of Defense, came to an end with the events in Beirut, Lebanon. During the Lebanese War, whose objective for Sharon was the elimination of the PLO terrorist infrastructure in Lebanon, Christian Phalangists in September 1982 massacred Palestinian Muslims in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila in Beirut.

Sharon was accused of failing to prevent the massacre, and the Kahan Commission investigating the events held that he was “indirectly responsible” for it.

As a result Sharon was obliged to resign as Minister of Defense but his political career continued. As Minister without Portfolio and Minister of Trade he concluded the Free Trade Agreement with the U.S. in 1985. While Minister of Housing, 1990-1992, he initiated and carried out the absorption of immigrants, many from Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, into Israel and oversaw the construction of 144,000 apartments.

When Minister of National Infrastructure in 1996 he fostered joint activities with Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinians. In 1998 Sharon became Foreign Minister and met with leaders of a number of countries to advance the peace process.

After becoming leader of the Likud party, Sharon became Prime Minister on February 6, 2001. It is at this point that he, previously the idol of the Israeli hard liners, and the sponsor of settlements, took a dramatic political turn.

Sharon was never an ideologue nor a religious individual with an emotional devotion to the concept of the whole area as Eretz Israel. He was always a pragmatic politician, concerned above all with what he considered the strategic interests of Israel.

In this respect he was a “hawk” fighting strongly against threats to Israel’s security but he was a realist in recognizing three significant factors: force alone could not end the Arab-Israeli conflict; Jews and Arabs had to live together in the area; and Israel had to take account of international relations and could not, for both security and economic reasons, isolate itself from the world.

Sharon made clear his conviction that Jews and Arabs could live together. Although the State of Israel is Jewish, he held that Arabs should be full citizens in every sense of the word.

He also believed, and indeed reiterated it in his last international speech, at the UN in September 2005, that the Palestinians were entitled to freedom and to a national, sovereign existence in a state of their own. He reached out to the Palestinians in a call for reconciliation and compromise.

On becoming prime minister, Sharon announced his determination to seek peace with his Arab neighbors, though he recognized that Yasser Arafat was not a man of peace. He had already in October 1998 signed the Wye River Memorandum, the agreement between Israel and the Palestinians on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

It was at the 4th Herzliya Conference on December 18, 2003 that Sharon suggested his Disengagement Plan to end the Israeli presence in the Gaza Strip, a plan he proposed to the Cabinet which adopted it on June 6, 2004.

The Plan enforced in August 2005 was to pull out the 10,000 Israelis in the 21 settlements in Gaza, (and four in the West Bank) and then to withdraw all IDF forces and all military installations from the area.

This was a unilateral plan and action by Israel. Sharon in his letter of April 14, 2004 to President George W. Bush explained his position. He accepted the Roadmap for Peace that Bush had proposed in June 2002 as opening a genuine window of opportunity for progress towards a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, involving two states living side-by-side in peace and security.

Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority had taken no action to fight against the terrorists and to institute real reform, as required under the Roadmap. Terror against Israel had not ceased, and no tangible institutional reforms had taken place.

Believing there was no reliable Palestinian partner with whom Israel could make bilateral peaceful advances towards a settlement, Sharon initiated a unilateral process of disengagement with the hope of reducing friction between Israel and the Palestinians. He hoped that disengagement would stimulate positive changes in the PA that might lead to resumption of direct negotiations.

The essential problem then and now is that the Palestinian leadership has not undertaken a cessation of armed activity, ended all acts of violence against Israelis, or acted against terrorism.

Sharon believed that Yasser Arafat wanted to turn a national conflict into a religious one between Islam and Jews. The Palestinian leadership has not undertaken any fundamental political reform. No peace is possible unless the PA ends terrorism and takes action against terrorist organizations.

Regrettably, the international community has not succeeded in getting the Palestinians to fulfill their obligations to combat terrorism and effect reforms.

Sharon went into a comma only three months after his UN speech and died before he could continue his search for peace. He would have been gravely disappointed that, after the territorial concessions Israel made on Gaza, the Palestinians would not enter the peace process. Instead, Hamas, the ruling power in Gaza, took advantage of it to wage a war of terrorism.

The hope of many that Sharon’s policy could parallel the 1962 policy of French President Charles de Gaulle who ended the conflict between France and Algeria has not been fulfilled.

Both leaders were strong nationalists, both had been regarded, not altogether correctly, as right wing hard liners, and both had made dramatic shifts in their political views. Sharon had accepted that the idea of a Greater Israel was unrealistic in the same way that de Gaulle had accepted that France could no longer control Algeria.

No one can be sure how Sharon would have reacted to the Palestinian refusal to make concessions and enter into peace negotiations.

What is clear however is that the Gaza withdrawal he engineered resulted in a shift in Israel’s political direction. Israelis are more aware that Palestinians have shown no willingness to make peace with the Jewish State of Israel.

The overwhelming lesson learned from Sharon’s Gaza policy is that Israel cannot afford to make unilateral concessions on issues or withdrawals from territory unless it is guaranteed in return reciprocal concessions, mainly acceptance of the legitimacy of the State of Israel and the end of terrorism against it.

Secretary of State John Kerry ought to learn that lesson and appreciate that the existence and security of Israel depends on this stance.