To the Editors:

  In a letter to the Justice Forum last week, members of the Brandeis
Socialists defended themselves from a charge of anti-Semitism by making
a distinction between that and anti-Zionism, to which they subscribe.
To that, they also added the assumption that criticism of Israel is
synonymous with anti-Zionism, and that consequently anyone who
criticizes Israel is anti-Zionist.  Based on my experience as an
Israeli American secular Jew, I find the first to be an abtract theory
with no practical value in reality.  And as a supporter of Zionism who
often criticizes Israel, I take exception to the second.
  The Socialists point out, correctly, that Zionism was only "one of a
number of responses" to anti-Semitism in the Gentile world, and that it
was a minority view for many years.  They then state that the vast
majority of Jews looked to socialist revolution as a solution for their
oppression.  This is true of the Jews of Russia (which includes Poland)
in the 19th and early 20th century.  The Jews of western Europe,
however, joined the capitalist class and looked to secular democracy
for their emancipation.
  This point aside, the basic claim that most Jews of the time were
assimilationists and not Zionists is correct.  What the Socialist leave
out is what happened to those Jews.  In Russia, after the revolution,
it became clear that there was no place for Jews in the new order they
had helped bring about.  And when economic troubles hit the capitalist
countries, the supposedly assimilated Jews were the primary scapegoats.
In the two decades starting with Hitler's rise to power, virtually all
of the world's Jews became Zionist.  I quote from The Siege, by Connor
Cruise O'Brien:

    As Manes Sperber puts it, the Israelis "meant to let the whole
  world know that the long hunting season was over for once and for
  all."  The long hunting season...  The perspective is significant.
  To most Gentiles (I think), the Holocaust, and the Hitler epoch in
  general, seem an extraordinary aberration, of a mad Hitler, coming
  out of the blue.  Jews, and Israelis in particular, had to be more
  aware of patterns of continuity and recurrence behind Hitler and
  the Holocaust.  Anti-Semitism was not something that Hitler
  imposed on unwilling or apathetic Germans.
    Seen in this perspective, the Holocaust is not an aberration.
  It is a vast paroxysm of a deep-seated and apparently incurable
  disease: Gentile rejection of Jews.  It is in that perspective
  that strong Zionists, and most Israelis, see the matter.  The
  Holocaust was the final, absolute confirmation that the Zionist
  "hunch" had been right.  Assimilation had been an illusion.

  Israel became the Jew of Nations, rejected by the countries it lives
among.  And it has been faced with the same choice: to assimilate, and
become like other western nations, or to remain Zionist and preserve
the Jewish state.  A large majority of Israelis believe a second
Holocaust is possible, and judging from current events in the Balkans,
it is likely the outside world would do nothing to prevent it.  To
those who point out that such a Holocaust cannot happen in the Middle
East because of Israel's strength, the Israelis say "yes, and we plan
to keep it that way."
  The distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism works well in
liberal western minds, and is often used as a propganda tool by Middle
Eastern politicians to appeal to the west.  But on the ground in
Israel, where it matters, such a distinction is not recognized by
either side.  In the supposedly "anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic"
riots of 1929, most of those killed were pious Jews living in
Jerusalem, who themselves were anti-Zionist.  The fact that those who
inspired the revolt claimed not to be anti-Semitic did nothing to
prevent the rioters from killing any Jews they could find.



  The Socialists correctly point out that "a genuine democratic
movement based on ordinary Arabs would be a far more serious threat to
Israel" than the Arab countries.  Such a movement could de-Zionize
Israel, and in a "secular democratic Palestine," Jews could once again
face the rejection they have so often faced before.  Whether or not the
anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, a victory for the anti-Zionists means a
victory for the anti-Semites, and oppression for the Jews.
  In Socialist ideology, a Jewish state is not necessary, because
anti-Semitism is also not necessary.  This is similar to pacifists who
say that fighting is wrong.  If you are attacked, of course you can
claim that your attacker is wrong to do that.  But you will also defend
yourself, at least until your attacker backs off.
  By opposing both Zionism and anti-Semitism, the Socialists claim to
stand on solid ground.  For it is true that if anti-Semitism vanished,
Zionism would be free to dissolve, having served its purpose.  But if
Zionism were to dissolve before anti-Semitism, the result would be
catastrophic for all Jews.  Until anti-Semitism backs off, Zionism is
the necessary defense.
  Assimilation appeals to me personally.  But I find it impossible to
ignore the experience of two millenia of assimilationist Jews
throughout the world.  Repeatedly they tried, and they were
consistently proven wrong.  Those who do not remember the past are
doomed to repeat it.  As long as the Zionist state exists, I can pursue
my assimilationist way of life here in the US, knowing that if things
go wrong, at least I have an escape.

  --  Ofer Inbar '93

[5500 characters, 900 words]