Can one be against there being a state of Israel and not be anti-Semitic as a separatist in this nation not be anti-religious? The answer is yes, but with explanation. Though many construe atheism and humanism as catalysts for separation of church and state, there are many theists who believe in it too: even though God is immanent in the world does not mean that he governs every nook and cranny of human endeavor.
School prayer, for instance, is unconstitutional not because the US is against prayer per se or that it is proselytizing Christianity, but for the philosophical integrity of a united nation opposed to overbearing influence of a particular sect. That prayer in Congress is a contradiction that goes unnoticed — a veritable chapel within the Capitol — is unfortunate to say the least. For the guarantee of religious freedom is predicated on the theory that religion belongs to the private conscience of each individual or collectively of the same faith within immanent domain of a religious order. Israel is in a sense is an overbearing state heavily reliant upon faith, though less than Islamic states that rule by religious edict, and also paranoid over a Palestinian majority that would endanger the purity of Judaism. This is no way to run a democratic nation that does not totally endorse secularity and exhibit philosophical composure with respect to religion.
That the Zionist conceived of a national identity for a people misconceived as an alienated race predicated on Torah’s geography lesson, rather than on a religious sect potentially capable of integrating within the framework of enlightened nations — such as our own, though imperfect — is a fallacy that led to even greater hostility since the 1917 Balfour Declaration, which many Jews opposed, fearing isolation from the rest of the human race. Obviously and helplessly, the concept of Jewish nationalism grew in justifiable fervor in face of the horror of the Holocaust, which indeed was testimony that anti-Semitic rage soared to detestable heights so that Jews the world over firmly believed that a national state would be a haven for those victimized by religious persecution.
The fatal mistake was in taking the Torah literally by forming a state in the worst area of the globe that would devastate the “haven” concept. Because the Balfour Declaration originated in England, the Zionist movement should have gravitated toward a land grant somewhere in the United Kingdom — anti-Semitism on a lower level, notwithstanding — with a history of enlightenment, other than in Palestine where there could in no way be a guarantee of a safe haven, particularly with Zion persistence that the British leave, and the miscalculation that Islam, excruciatingly opposed to change, and Judaism, thoroughly Europeanized, could coexist.
Although, I trust, this view runs counter to prevailing opinion, it is definitely not anti-Semitic for the simple reason that it touches on the welfare and future of a deserving people. Of course, the implication is that undue politicization of religion spells trouble, not unlike the US current climate of dwelling in the puritanic past.
Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: January 30, 2004.