Harvard’s ‘Amateur Ethicist’ names good and bad Zionists; I say retire the label
Steven Pinker, the celebrated Harvard cognitive psychologist and author, wants it understood that he’s no Zionist – at least not “in the sense of seeing a Jewish state as the natural aspiration of the Jews.” But he concedes that calling “for the annihilation of a state is extraordinary.” So he’s not for destroying Israel, but his faculty club pass is safe because he’s not one of those dreaded Zionists.
That’s the problem with the term “Zionism” – it can mean different things, depending on agenda and context, and as a descriptive term, it has no clear contemporary meaning.
When it was coined in the late 19th century, the word “Zionism” meant the right of Jews to self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It evoked a longstanding collective grief at separation and a determination to return, dating to the first expulsion of Jews in 586 BCE by the Babylonians: “By the rivers of Babylon, we sat and wept when we remembered Zion.” Most subsequent exiles, and there were several at the hands of the Romans, were limited and temporary. Following the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE, however, the Roman emperor Hadrian ordered all Jews expelled permanently, renaming the territory Syria Palestina to erase all Jewish ties to the land.
He was unsuccessful: those ties were too strong. Some Jews ignored the edict and others returned in increasing numbers, establishing communities and composing the Mishna mere decades after Hadrian’s “final” expulsion. But despite becoming a majority in Jerusalem in the 19th century, Jews never again achieved anything approaching self-determination.
Political Zionism arose in Europe in the late 19th century in reaction to widespread antisemitism. As a project of return and national renewal, Zionism achieved all of its objectives in barely 50 years – against all odds, despite seemingly insurmountable challenges, and to the astonishment of the Jews who lived through the Holocaust and their persistent enemies. The term “Zionism” became a magnificent anachronism on May 14, 1948, when the State of Israel declared independence.
Many will dispute that characterization, viewing Zionism as encompassing cultural, religious, and political support for Israel — an ongoing spiritual commitment rather than a national project with a historical endpoint. Why, they might argue, let those who would weaponize the term write its definition?
Because one word can only carry so much meaning. Particularly a word whose political dimension is far more sharply focused (and widely understood) than its diffuse spiritual aspirations, which are themselves diverse and poorly framed by a single name. Ethical growth, moral responsbilities, Israel’s founding ideals — if Zionism means all these things, then as a term of understanding it means very little.
Last week, the Harvard Crimson’s “Amateur Ethicist” explained that
the word “Zionism” might entail different political commitments. For some, it might involve continued support for a two-state solution that enables the self-determination of both Jews and Palestinians. For others, it might imply a more stringent support for Israel alongside the belief that — despite overwhelming expert evidence — Israel’s military conduct in Gaza is justified and not genocidal.
Let’s hope the Amateur Ethicist never turns pro. But if it’s that easy for him to create false ethical categories of good and evil Zionists, we have a terminology problem.
Before the American Revolution, supporters of independence called themselves “Patriots.” We still use that term, with a small “p,” to denote those who support their country and are prepared to defend it. But after the British surrender at Yorktown, it became meaningless to talk about Patriots and Loyalists, other than as the war’s winners and losers. The end of the conflict and the birth of the United States drained all political relevance from both labels. Outside the wacky fringe, no one seriously envisions dismantling the United States.
Israel is a nation of 10 million here on planet Earth, a member of the United Nations, a regional economic and military leader. Yet 77 years after its establishment, we still refer to Zionism and its opponents as if Israel’s legal status remains up for debate. It’s too easy to mindlessly reckon Zionism just another “ism,” a political state of mind you can support or oppose – you like socialism, I like capitalism, but hey, we can still be friends, right?
Actually, we can’t be friends if you oppose Zionism — because you’re a century too late. Many Jews thoughtfully, though wrongly, opposed Zionism as theologically premature (only the Messiah could restore Jewish sovereignty), politically dangerous (risking backlash from host nations and Arabs in Palestine), or philosophically misguided (conflicting with universalist or assimilationist ideals). They lost the debate.
If you insist the debate isn’t over, you’re an eliminationist. You want to see Israel destroyed. Maybe militarily, maybe economically (e.g., via the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement), maybe politically: a “binational” state would render Jews a minority and set Israel on the path of failed (and ultimately judenrein) statehood like Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. Honest haters don’t hide their hate. As Najma Sharif, a writer for Soho House magazine and Teen Vogue, posted just after the October 7 massacre: “What did y’all think decolonization meant? vibes? papers? essays? losers.”
Dishonest haters hide behind the “ism” of Zionism to make their eliminationist ambitions safe for polite company. It’s time to tear away the fig leaf. The Zionists were heroic pre-statehood visionaries who will forever be honored as giants of Jewish history. But today the term “Zionism” is a distraction. You support Israel or you don’t. You demand its eradication or you don’t. Maybe the moral universe you inhabit makes you indifferent to Jewish statehood, and to you, the end of Israel would merely be “extraordinary.” Fine. But those who stand with Israel should say as much and those who would see it destroyed should raise their genocidal banner for all to see.
Ask me if I’m a Zionist and my answer is that I support Israel. If you want to drill down, we can have a (hopefully civilized) discussion. But let’s dispense with labels.
