Editor’s note: Hey guys. I’ve been writing about Gaza a lot, but I’m not Jewish. My friend Lori Musicer, an immigration senior paralegal who helps refugees, had thoughts about this moment, growing up as a Zionist, her birthright trip, and her political evolution.
I did birthright in 2019 and had a very different experience. I formed strong friendships with about 6 other anti-zionist jews and the ‘counselors’ on the trip derided Netanyahu.
While we sat in a similar room and had to listen to a similar presentation most if not all of us fell asleep or spent the entire session on our phones.
My field of study was primarily religious history. I enjoyed your article, and to kind of underscore your article, the elements of Zionism, and the Jewish religion itself (in the eyes of most contemporary archaeologists and religious historians) began during the Babylonian captivity. The thing that is often missed in discussions of Judaism is what you point out---the inextricable link between the religion and the place where Judaism (should) reside---zionism.
Most of the world's larger religions practice their religion that has nothing to do with where they reside. Studying Judaism throughout history, although they might adapt to the "home" they reside in, they remain separate because they are taught (throughout the centuries of the diaspora) that Jerusalem. is their "true" identity, that that identity of ethnicity, religion , and the culture that comes out of that have always
been tied to place. Even the great Philo, whose ancestry fled to Egypt during the first diaspora and never returned can't help identifying Judaism as a religion with Judaism as a place
The pro to this is Judaism probably wouldn't have survived through the centuries of the diaspora without that identification with place---at least as an ethnicity, the religion might have survived, but the ethnic identitification with a religion is singularly unique.
But the problem we are facing today is not the first go-round, and your thought that there will never be another diaspora may be untrue, as you suggest, The Persians allowed them to return to Judah they couldn't stay put, they wanted "Israel." In fact attempting to move into what had been the northern kingdom probably is why they were swatted by the Babylonians in the first place So after returning they annoyed the kingdoms around them and lost Jerusalem a second time. The Maccabees a century or so later during a time of contested regional conflict were able to re-establish a brief tri-generatiojn presence before they were removed again. The Romans tried giving them a kingdom, but his palace was outside Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was part of his kingdom, so they refused him and Roman historians at the time found them troublesome enough to report they created more problems than the Britons and Germanic tribes but their were not enough to build a barrier and they were in the middle of the Roman middle eastern empire. Livius says they were cast out of the region simply because they were like mosquitos that had to be continually swatted.
So here we are once again, unsatisfied and wanting more.This time they gave us a hint when they called their nation "Israel", most mortal enemy of their history, even when Ezra leads their religious revival he warns against mingling with the Israelis.
I don't know the answer, but if history is any guide, they will once again lose their control of their land. But it is the Zionist component that has always led to their downfall. Zionism has a lot of history that contemporary Jews should look at and perhaps they might realize that Zionism often does lead to anti-semitism, and perhaps minus the Zionism there would be less anti-semistism.
So there is an equation, as you suggest, and there is a good reason why Jewish people might equate anti-zionism and anti-semitism. But the distortion, I believe Is that looking to identify a religious identity with an ethnic-centered-place-identity removes them into a self-identified non-participatory group that seems their religious identity totally interconnected with their religion's birthplace.This is the Zionism and that zionism of separateness creates a backlash that results in persecution of the Jews.
You leave out indigenous religions, in which people identify themselves and the sacred very closely with the specific places in which they live and much, actually practiced, popular religion, in which local shines and such are central. This issue is not the identification of the sacred with particular places, but rather with the hierarchical religions through which the elites--the lords, kings, emperors, and their courts and now oligarchs, autocrats, and dictators and their regimes--of hierarchical societies justify their oppressive, structurally violent subjugation of their own people and their expansive violence against other peoples. The more "successful" a hierarchical society is at imposing its rule on wider and wider territories and more and more peoples, the more "universalistic" it's religion gets--but even the most truly imperial societies and their universalist religions retain an attachment to place--Roman Christianity to Rome, Islam to Mecca, and so on.
Actually indigenous often resided in particular places, and of course developed certain rituals based on, and sometimes had "holy sites", and while generally these religions tend to end when their cultures are overrun, it is not always the case. The Celts created new holy in Ireland and Brittany while maintaining many of the same cultural practices. The Sioux's religion would add elements , and their only sites definitely changed but their essential mythology simply incorporated new elements as they transformed from a farmer-fishing community in Mississippi to the intensive farmers in the upper Midwest and southern Canada. When they Lakotas split from the Yanktons to go further west and essentially become buffalo hunting nomads, the buffalo became a strong symbol within their religion and they began to find new places to worship, essentially their rituals and mythologies differed very little from their Yankton brethren and were still very closely allied to their Mississippi origins (or the oldest origins I can trace them And I don't know anything about Roman Christians connection to Rome other than the Popes claim. of authority. In the universities in Britain,. Paris and Germany from the sixth to 12th centuries, the church (and sometimes the Pope) are honored, but the authority of Rome itself as the center for Christianity was excoriated. Outside of the nearly century long dual papacy in Avalon and Rome, there were four other dual papacies that didn't last too long that I can recall off the top of my head and the Constantine document authorization of Rome and the Roman bishop as the head of the Roman church were contentious and thought fraudulent from its intial proclamation.
As for The Muslims, it is slightly more complicated and very political. The original wave of Muslim conquerors were not very interested in proselytizing, but were really interested in conquering. Those that remained in Mecca began creating the Koran and developing a religious doctrine. It wasn't until nearly three and half centuries and the boundaries of the three main dynasties had been established and the leaders had settled into a bit of opulence and lost the zest for conquest that conversion to make their subjects Muslim became relevant when pockets of resistance began to overthrow their authority and return to ethnic beliefs. Of course many leaders saw the tide and converted to keep power or to advance their careers. But in the mid-tenth, the leaders were more interested in places filled with harems and their authority was being challenged which would have hindered the tax revenues necessary to maintain their luxuries that imposing their religion on their subjects became a priority. One of their chief characteristics prior to that had been extreme tolerance and acceptance of other beliefs. And so a century later, Mecca, the home of Mohammed became a site for holy pilgrimage.
Israel itself, the northern kingdom had multiple sites of worship (and possibly multiple gods but that would take pages to discuss), but at least after the death of Solomon and the loss of almost all of their territory territory besides the city and maybe twenty miles of farmland around it that Jerusalem became the Only Place a Jew could worship---even after the destruction of the last Jewish temple.
Of course I tend to think all religion is interconnected with the political environment and you are welcome to dispute that in you like as it is merely my belief.
So I think what you’re saying is that anyone who wants to start a new religion in the future should think twice before tying it to a specific geographic location. Indeed.
I just don't know of any other religions, major or minor, have a physical locality that there religion entitles them to control politically. Many religions are tied to ethnicities, but I know of no other that creates a ethnicity out of its religion.
This is a wonderful piece, although I think you're being way too easy on Netanyahu, a criminal whose government is based on the two principles of (1) keeping him out of jail and (2) placating his partners who want to continue stealing land from the Palestinians, and who understands that once this war is over, his time in power wll end, and his incarceration will soon begin.
I feel the sentiment, but I wouldn't wish Israeli jails (or American for that matter) on my worst enemy. I think the emphasis on his being entirely excluded from power and influence is the right one honestly.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. This is why we should take the time to understand each other. We need to understand the indoctrination that is received. We all need to take a more nuanced view and not make assumptions about intent or support. We need to ask respectful questions. Americans have been told not to ask any until we are told and many, myself included are ashamed to have been bullied this way. It has but everyone in a double bind. We don't want to be seen as anti-Semetic or pro-Genecide. I notice many more are speaking out than used to so I feel I'm not alone in this realization.
Those feeling defensive have work to do (this is general to humans). We need to separate "this act from this group of people is not okay" from thinking they are automatically part of that group or that having an opinion is intended as persecution.
I always tell people, if it doesn't apply to you, I don't mean "you" - no need to justify anything to me. But mostly, they are justifying to themselves because humans project. Trauma and generational wounds are a mess to untangle. Entire countries are traumatized. This is not an easy nut to crack.
I just want humans to get along, live and let live and stop being greedy. I know many others do too. <3
If personal embarrassment is the worst outcome (compared to on the flip side, idk, entire family lineages being wiped out), id say that's acceptable and motivating to take action to change things and publicly renounce Zionism and the state of Israel full stop. I get that it's hard and I get that. People have been brainwashed their whole lives, but this has always just been a colonial enterprise, in modern history, to ethnically cleanse a region of arabs to make way for European settlers. This is thoroughly documented by Israeli historians themselves.
It’s that personal embarrassment sometimes (often) leads to digging one’s heels in, or worse, avoidance of the embarrassment through denial, willful ignorance, etc. If personal embarrassment is coupled with humility, then it will be transformative, but sadly, many or even most adult humans do not have much humility, imo.
I hear that she's worried about the Israeli hostages, but I also read nothing about the 10,000 Palestinian hostages that Israeli forces hold. I get the Hamas is not the good guy, but I didn't Read anything about how netanyahu materially supported them for years and is is in many ways responsible for their rise to power and how that was a deliberate strategic move on his part to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist
I did birthright in 2019 and had a very different experience. I formed strong friendships with about 6 other anti-zionist jews and the ‘counselors’ on the trip derided Netanyahu.
While we sat in a similar room and had to listen to a similar presentation most if not all of us fell asleep or spent the entire session on our phones.
Interesting! Lori is my age (41) so her experience would have been in the 90s or early aughts.
Would you by any chance want to write about your experience? I'm fascinated by the generational differences on this...
I’m flattered but I’m not a confident enough writer to attempt something like that. Happy to share my experience otherwise though!
Super interesting. We didn’t have smart phones back then so we had to pay attention!
My field of study was primarily religious history. I enjoyed your article, and to kind of underscore your article, the elements of Zionism, and the Jewish religion itself (in the eyes of most contemporary archaeologists and religious historians) began during the Babylonian captivity. The thing that is often missed in discussions of Judaism is what you point out---the inextricable link between the religion and the place where Judaism (should) reside---zionism.
Most of the world's larger religions practice their religion that has nothing to do with where they reside. Studying Judaism throughout history, although they might adapt to the "home" they reside in, they remain separate because they are taught (throughout the centuries of the diaspora) that Jerusalem. is their "true" identity, that that identity of ethnicity, religion , and the culture that comes out of that have always
been tied to place. Even the great Philo, whose ancestry fled to Egypt during the first diaspora and never returned can't help identifying Judaism as a religion with Judaism as a place
The pro to this is Judaism probably wouldn't have survived through the centuries of the diaspora without that identification with place---at least as an ethnicity, the religion might have survived, but the ethnic identitification with a religion is singularly unique.
But the problem we are facing today is not the first go-round, and your thought that there will never be another diaspora may be untrue, as you suggest, The Persians allowed them to return to Judah they couldn't stay put, they wanted "Israel." In fact attempting to move into what had been the northern kingdom probably is why they were swatted by the Babylonians in the first place So after returning they annoyed the kingdoms around them and lost Jerusalem a second time. The Maccabees a century or so later during a time of contested regional conflict were able to re-establish a brief tri-generatiojn presence before they were removed again. The Romans tried giving them a kingdom, but his palace was outside Jerusalem, even though Jerusalem was part of his kingdom, so they refused him and Roman historians at the time found them troublesome enough to report they created more problems than the Britons and Germanic tribes but their were not enough to build a barrier and they were in the middle of the Roman middle eastern empire. Livius says they were cast out of the region simply because they were like mosquitos that had to be continually swatted.
So here we are once again, unsatisfied and wanting more.This time they gave us a hint when they called their nation "Israel", most mortal enemy of their history, even when Ezra leads their religious revival he warns against mingling with the Israelis.
I don't know the answer, but if history is any guide, they will once again lose their control of their land. But it is the Zionist component that has always led to their downfall. Zionism has a lot of history that contemporary Jews should look at and perhaps they might realize that Zionism often does lead to anti-semitism, and perhaps minus the Zionism there would be less anti-semistism.
So there is an equation, as you suggest, and there is a good reason why Jewish people might equate anti-zionism and anti-semitism. But the distortion, I believe Is that looking to identify a religious identity with an ethnic-centered-place-identity removes them into a self-identified non-participatory group that seems their religious identity totally interconnected with their religion's birthplace.This is the Zionism and that zionism of separateness creates a backlash that results in persecution of the Jews.
Thank you. Very informative.
You leave out indigenous religions, in which people identify themselves and the sacred very closely with the specific places in which they live and much, actually practiced, popular religion, in which local shines and such are central. This issue is not the identification of the sacred with particular places, but rather with the hierarchical religions through which the elites--the lords, kings, emperors, and their courts and now oligarchs, autocrats, and dictators and their regimes--of hierarchical societies justify their oppressive, structurally violent subjugation of their own people and their expansive violence against other peoples. The more "successful" a hierarchical society is at imposing its rule on wider and wider territories and more and more peoples, the more "universalistic" it's religion gets--but even the most truly imperial societies and their universalist religions retain an attachment to place--Roman Christianity to Rome, Islam to Mecca, and so on.
Actually indigenous often resided in particular places, and of course developed certain rituals based on, and sometimes had "holy sites", and while generally these religions tend to end when their cultures are overrun, it is not always the case. The Celts created new holy in Ireland and Brittany while maintaining many of the same cultural practices. The Sioux's religion would add elements , and their only sites definitely changed but their essential mythology simply incorporated new elements as they transformed from a farmer-fishing community in Mississippi to the intensive farmers in the upper Midwest and southern Canada. When they Lakotas split from the Yanktons to go further west and essentially become buffalo hunting nomads, the buffalo became a strong symbol within their religion and they began to find new places to worship, essentially their rituals and mythologies differed very little from their Yankton brethren and were still very closely allied to their Mississippi origins (or the oldest origins I can trace them And I don't know anything about Roman Christians connection to Rome other than the Popes claim. of authority. In the universities in Britain,. Paris and Germany from the sixth to 12th centuries, the church (and sometimes the Pope) are honored, but the authority of Rome itself as the center for Christianity was excoriated. Outside of the nearly century long dual papacy in Avalon and Rome, there were four other dual papacies that didn't last too long that I can recall off the top of my head and the Constantine document authorization of Rome and the Roman bishop as the head of the Roman church were contentious and thought fraudulent from its intial proclamation.
As for The Muslims, it is slightly more complicated and very political. The original wave of Muslim conquerors were not very interested in proselytizing, but were really interested in conquering. Those that remained in Mecca began creating the Koran and developing a religious doctrine. It wasn't until nearly three and half centuries and the boundaries of the three main dynasties had been established and the leaders had settled into a bit of opulence and lost the zest for conquest that conversion to make their subjects Muslim became relevant when pockets of resistance began to overthrow their authority and return to ethnic beliefs. Of course many leaders saw the tide and converted to keep power or to advance their careers. But in the mid-tenth, the leaders were more interested in places filled with harems and their authority was being challenged which would have hindered the tax revenues necessary to maintain their luxuries that imposing their religion on their subjects became a priority. One of their chief characteristics prior to that had been extreme tolerance and acceptance of other beliefs. And so a century later, Mecca, the home of Mohammed became a site for holy pilgrimage.
Israel itself, the northern kingdom had multiple sites of worship (and possibly multiple gods but that would take pages to discuss), but at least after the death of Solomon and the loss of almost all of their territory territory besides the city and maybe twenty miles of farmland around it that Jerusalem became the Only Place a Jew could worship---even after the destruction of the last Jewish temple.
Of course I tend to think all religion is interconnected with the political environment and you are welcome to dispute that in you like as it is merely my belief.
So I think what you’re saying is that anyone who wants to start a new religion in the future should think twice before tying it to a specific geographic location. Indeed.
I just don't know of any other religions, major or minor, have a physical locality that there religion entitles them to control politically. Many religions are tied to ethnicities, but I know of no other that creates a ethnicity out of its religion.
This is a wonderful piece, although I think you're being way too easy on Netanyahu, a criminal whose government is based on the two principles of (1) keeping him out of jail and (2) placating his partners who want to continue stealing land from the Palestinians, and who understands that once this war is over, his time in power wll end, and his incarceration will soon begin.
I feel the sentiment, but I wouldn't wish Israeli jails (or American for that matter) on my worst enemy. I think the emphasis on his being entirely excluded from power and influence is the right one honestly.
Thank you for sharing this perspective. This is why we should take the time to understand each other. We need to understand the indoctrination that is received. We all need to take a more nuanced view and not make assumptions about intent or support. We need to ask respectful questions. Americans have been told not to ask any until we are told and many, myself included are ashamed to have been bullied this way. It has but everyone in a double bind. We don't want to be seen as anti-Semetic or pro-Genecide. I notice many more are speaking out than used to so I feel I'm not alone in this realization.
Those feeling defensive have work to do (this is general to humans). We need to separate "this act from this group of people is not okay" from thinking they are automatically part of that group or that having an opinion is intended as persecution.
I always tell people, if it doesn't apply to you, I don't mean "you" - no need to justify anything to me. But mostly, they are justifying to themselves because humans project. Trauma and generational wounds are a mess to untangle. Entire countries are traumatized. This is not an easy nut to crack.
I just want humans to get along, live and let live and stop being greedy. I know many others do too. <3
If personal embarrassment is the worst outcome (compared to on the flip side, idk, entire family lineages being wiped out), id say that's acceptable and motivating to take action to change things and publicly renounce Zionism and the state of Israel full stop. I get that it's hard and I get that. People have been brainwashed their whole lives, but this has always just been a colonial enterprise, in modern history, to ethnically cleanse a region of arabs to make way for European settlers. This is thoroughly documented by Israeli historians themselves.
It’s that personal embarrassment sometimes (often) leads to digging one’s heels in, or worse, avoidance of the embarrassment through denial, willful ignorance, etc. If personal embarrassment is coupled with humility, then it will be transformative, but sadly, many or even most adult humans do not have much humility, imo.
I hear that she's worried about the Israeli hostages, but I also read nothing about the 10,000 Palestinian hostages that Israeli forces hold. I get the Hamas is not the good guy, but I didn't Read anything about how netanyahu materially supported them for years and is is in many ways responsible for their rise to power and how that was a deliberate strategic move on his part to make it impossible for a Palestinian state to exist