Wikipedia holds court in the realm of anti-Zionism

Wikipedians (Wikipedia’s editors) have a totalitarian grip over the biased definition of Zionism it has published. This state of affairs is anti-ethical to what Wikipedia professes to stand for and that is not ok.

Recently, or maybe not so recently (time seems to race forward and stand still simultaneously since 7/10/23) the Wikipedia definition of Zionism was circulated amongst the global Jewish community. It was received with the shock that is no longer truly shocking. But a collective tension bubbled up when we realised that this Wiki entry was locked. Unlike most entries that can be changed, edited or corrected by the public, this entry is one of the ones that cannot be edited. Apparently, the Wikidom makes such a decision when opening an entry up to public editing could threaten its objectivity. No, I am not joking. The definition; “Zionism is an ethnocultural nationalist movement that emerged in Europe in the late 19th century and aimed for the establishment of a home for the Jewish people through the colonization of Palestine, an area roughly corresponding to the Land of Israel in Judaism, and of central importance in Jewish history. Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism became Israel’s national or state ideology.” When you scroll down to the bottom of any Wiki entry you usually find a link to the sources used. Interestingly, this entry contains no such link. We wouldn’t want to threaten this explanation’s objectivity now would we?

There is so much in that short paragraph that distorts not just the concept of Zionism, the history of Zionism (which we know predates the coining of the term) but also of Judaism and Israel. Many words have been written to untangle the knots of propaganda aimed at misrepresenting our narrative and this Wikipedia entry is one such misrepresentation. The Wikipedians behind this entry have clearly been ideologically captured and know little to nothing about Zionism. Were they actual Zionists? Scholars of Zionism? Or had they at least consulted Jewish Zionists? Certainly not. This, in and of itself, highlights one of countless double standards we encounter. If any other culturally specific definition were to be penned it would be unconscionable, even unethical, to bypass any person who identifies with that community when drafting it. Imagine if the writers of the entry defining Wurundjeri (an Australian indigenous people whose country the much of the city of Melbourne sits on) did not consult actual people from Wurundjeri nation!

And to be sure, the Wikipedians would have had hundreds of thousands of us they could have consulted, because over the past 15 months, we, the Jews of the world, have undergone the most intensive, self-imposed and committed Jewish education; a Judaic renaissance even. Through reading, listening, discussing, debating and learning we have embraced our story and live inside it with new knowledge, greater awareness and pride. It has become a living breathing part of us individually and collectively. To the outsider this may appear parochial, but within our community our discourse is, as it has always been, complex, nuanced and never finalised. There are so many Jewish people who could have brought greater accuracy, authenticity and intellect to this Wikipedia definition of Zionism.

With many knots to untangle and inaccuracies to correct in the Wikipedia definition of Zionism, there is one particular concept that I have found myself talking about with friends, family and colleagues, and that concept appears in the first words of the definition; “ethnocultural nationalism”, alternatively captured in the phrase “ethnostate”. It comes up because it’s so often part of the nomenclature used to delegitimise Zionism as an idea and Israel as a reality. This buzzword is wielded as a sort of clever linguistic weapon, a “gotcha” phrase aiming to villainise Zionism by positioning it against what the vanguard of cultural correctness deems as good. But I want to interrogate this idea. Is ethnocultural nationalism and the ethnostate really deserving of the bad reputation it has acquired? Should the notion of an ethnostate be so readily shunned?

The term ethnostate is relatively new (first emerging in the 1990s) and its meaning is not entirely clear. A state that promotes and preserves a particular ethnicity (another vague word regularly used as a substitute for race) is a somewhat acceptable explanation, but it does not quite address the toxicity that this term carries when levelled against a community or culture. The thing is, the term ethnostate has been used a lot by actual self-declared white supremacists to describe their ideal state. Often the term “ethnostate” is coupled with the word “white”; a “white-ethnostate”. Now, that phrase connotes certain eras and belief systems that are truly steeped in hate, racism and bigotry.  But this word association has flattened the potential complexity that could and should come up when exploring the idea of an ethnostate. The thing is, we could describe Japan as an ethnostate, or Armenia, or even Iceland. In other words, a place that wants to preserve a particular culture that is connected to that land by way of laws, values, norms or practices.

With this broader framework in mind, I have no issue with Israel being called an ethnostate. It can be a country that preserves and promotes Jewishness at the forefront whilst accepting and celebrating other peoples and cultures that live there, including Arab, Muslim, Christian, Bedouin, Druze, Ba’hai, and many more. There is no reason why we cannot embrace the description, reclaim it, and open it up to hearty discourse.

Israel has a Jewish majority. Good. Surely Jews can have a tiny corner of the world where we are the sovereign majority. No need to look that far back into our history to understand why we might require that. For 2,000 years we lived in exile without a homeland, and those years were characterised by existing as a minority population, keeping our heads down so as not to trigger the wrath of our host. These efforts were never effective for too long and were often punctuated by hiding, fleeing and expulsion (albeit with some eras of nervous peace under our overlords). The establishment of the modern state of Israel, the re-establishment of Jewish sovereignty over our indigenous land, put an end to the vulnerability that coloured so much of our history.

So, let’s reclaim what it is to be an ethnostate. Israel, a country whose rhythm of life is set to the ancient Jewish calendar, whose language is a revival of the tongue born of the land. Israel is the one place in the world where you can find your Chanukah decorations at any corner supermarket. Israel is the one place in the world where there is never a matzah shortage during Pesach, and the sound of Shofar fills the air during the High Holy Days. Israel is the one place in the world where you can speak about Israeli politics openly and loudly literally everywhere without looking over your shoulder at who might be listening. Israel is the one place in the world where you never feel the need to tuck your Magen David pendant under your shirt. And Israel is also the one place in the world where street signs are written in Hebrew, English and Arabic and where a hijab-wearing woman sits comfortably at the same bus stop as the shtreimel-wearing Hasid. And so, yes, I am ok with this ethnostate, this “ethnocultural nationalism”, and you can be too!

Is Israel perfect? Hell no! The dovetailing of a democracy with an ancient civilisation that was formed when region was simply a way of being, of governing, of organising, is bound to be messy and full of intractable contradictions. This messiness fuels debates that can be illuminating and expansive but also descend in to hate and even violence. Israel was never destined to be a clear and straightforward place. It’s in our name, Israel; to struggle with God. The people and the place are always sitting in the liminal space between hugging and wrestling. Israel, the people and the place, the “ethnostate” of you will, will always be convoluted, colourful, argumentative, and beautiful, trying its best to push towards goodness. For, as the sages in Pirkei Avot say, we are not required to finish the work but we are not free to desist from it. That’s who we are, who we’ve always been, and who we continue to become.

But of course, we still want the right to define and explain what it all means in the context of Zionism, because we are the only truly authentic voices who can speak on this. If Wikipedians remain steadfast in keeping this entry locked, stubbornly holding onto their bias and falsely claiming it’s “fact-based neutrality”, it does a disservice to the millions of people seeking to understand Zionism, a central expression of Jewishness, and contributes to the ongoing hijacking of the Jewish story by bad-faith actors.