The Path to Zion:
Reflections of a Russian Jewess on the Israeli Native
Raya Epstein
The basic assumption upon which this article is based
is that Zionism is not one, singular truth. Two opposing directions are
discernible within it, like two rivers flowing towards different
objectives, or two wishes which have nothing in common. The one river is
realistic and deeply rooted in the historic and spiritual life of the
Jewish people; the second, utopian, unrealistic and impracticable, with
absolutely no connection to anything authentic. The one expresses our
return to ourselves, undertaken of free choice – while the
second constitutes a conscious (or unconscious) escape from Judaism, an
escape that is depicted as a deterministic step “for which there is no
alternative at all”.
The implication of one course of action is the return
to Zion, which is not restricted by the strictures of time; the other
course of action is the Zionism of immediate gratification, which can
manifest itself in both secularism and religiosity, which are only
seemingly anomalous. The first rests on the Jewish people’s eternal ties
to its land, and therefore does not need any ideological confirmation or
corroboration based on deterministic faith (secular or pseudo-religious)
contrary to the spirit of Judaism; while the second is forever seeking
artificial and unrelated justifications, in order to prevent the State,
gradually contracting through the renunciation of the Land of Israel, from
disappearing completely.
These two courses of action or interpretations of
Zionism, do not necessarily correspond with the well known, defined
distinction between, movements, sectors, communities and parties, but each
can be found in every movement, every sector, even within every individual
Jew. These two versions of Zionism came together and interlocked in the
state which was established in the Land of Israel after the Holocaust –
both the unrealistic, utopian version and the version linked to the Jewish
essence.
The prevalent version, whose proponents are
predominantly members of the moral, rational camp, are incapable of
deducing a simple logical doctrine stemming from the basic assumption in
which they believe, and acting in accordance with its corresponding moral
dictates: If our settlement in Hebron is occupation, then their settlement
is occupation sevenfold. If it is immoral on our part to live in Bet-El,
then residing in Ashkelon and Haifa is the height of immorality.
The problem is that our enemies know how to utilize
our lack of rationality or moral inconsistency. And thus we find ourselves
bewildered and impotent in the face of their cruel accusations and
attacks, lacking both the ability and the means to defend ourselves. It
seems to this writer that the source of this inability is not in any
operational details, not in the lack of strong leadership and not even in
the weakness of our international information efforts. The source of this
inability is in our continued adherence to the utopian, unrealistic
version of Zionism, Zionism which remains afraid to connect with the
existential roots of the Jewish people. This Zionism was characterized
here as “Escapist Zionism”.
If the State of Israel, by its very existence, is the
realization of escapist Zionism – then the Left is right, and its utopian
peace is indeed its consistent extension – Utopian Zionism which was
established with the intention of constructing a new, remarkable world for
new Jews.
However, it is specifically the utopian peace, which
brought us to the final boundary of choice between life and death, that
underscores the need to abandon escapist Zionism and return to realistic
Zionism – Zionism, which is a continuation of Jewish history, based on
Jewish memory, resting upon Jewish culture and manifesting Jewish
eternity.