蜜桃传媒

Let’s start with the very questions with which you open To Be a Jewish State, and some basic definitions of the terms you employ. Can you explain the differences between “Judaism” and “Zionism”? What does it mean for Israel to be a Jewish state? 

Well, obviously, while people sometimes confuse the terms, Judaism and Zionism are far from identical. Judaism (a complicated term in itself, but we鈥檒l let it pass for now) is the vast accumulation of practices, beliefs, histories, ideas, texts, and so much more that constitute a weighty and diverse sense of multiple traditions that we identify as 鈥淛ewish.鈥� A part of these religious and ethnic traditions also has to do with the memory of Zion, a holy site in the Hebrew Bible often used to stand in for Jerusalem or Israel as a whole. 

Zionism, in contrast, is a modern political movement that seeks to redefine and recreate the meaning of Jewishness in terms of modern notions of nationalism, political self-determination, and, ultimately, statehood. Zionism鈥檚 relation to Judaism is complicated, since Zionist ideology, at least in its dominant mainstream iterations, both claims a Jewish identity (it defines itself as the Jewish national movement) and, at the same time, rebels against the Jewish past, and especially against the Jewish religion that has defined this past. Zionism sees this past, and the Judaism that has developed in it and sustained it, as 鈥渆xilic鈥�, a pejorative term denoting passivity, servility, and a general lack of worth. Yet it is this history, and this religion, that define so much of what Zionism claims to appropriate and express politically. 

The Zionist movement has been triumphant in achieving statehood with the state of Israel, and the state is globally recognized as 鈥渢he Jewish state.鈥� But in To Be a Jewish State, I argue that the very meaning of this designation is ambiguous. As I ask in the book: What does it mean for Israel to be a Jewish state in practice? Is the government bound by Judaism or Jewish tradition? For example, should Jewish ethics, religion, philosophy, etc. dictate the state’s constitution? Or is it merely defined as 鈥渢he state of Jews鈥� because it “only” must maintain (a great and problematic challenge in itself) a majority of Jews among its citizenry? 

The book argues that this tension, that often goes unnoticed by commentators and practitioners alike, holds the key to understanding Israeli politics and modern Jewish identity more broadly. 

What is Zionism鈥檚 relation to Judaism? What is “supersessionism,” and how does it inform this relationship?

As I mentioned before, Zionism鈥檚 relation to Judaism is deeply complicated. Zionism both forcefully claims a Jewish identity 鈥� some Zionist advocates would go as far as claiming that Zionism is the only modern, meaningful sense of Judaism itself 鈥� and rebels against some of the most foundational traditional aspects of Judaism. People often seek to solve this tension by saying that Zionism is simply the 鈥渟ecularization鈥� of Judaism. But when examined closely this designation proves unhelpful. It does not account for the ways in which the state of Israel becomes the focus of a (political) theology and of a quasi-religious world of rituals, beliefs, and myths. Much of the state鈥檚 energy has been devoted to positioning Israel as the very core of modern Jewish identity both inside the state and among Jews abroad. In some crucial respects, the people鈥檚 relation to the state has replaced the people鈥檚 relation to God as the gravitational pole of the very meaning of Jewishness.

In my book, I suggest that the Christian notion of supersessionism may prove helpful not only in understanding this relationship between the Jewish state and the Jewish religion, but also in thinking of ways for overcoming some of the predicaments this cognitive dissonance causes. 

Supersessionism is a theological doctrine, according to which the Christian Church has superseded, or taken the place, of the Jewish people (or the biblical Israel) as God鈥檚 chosen people. It is sometimes called 鈥渞eplacement theology,鈥� but the name is a bit misleading, since the Church is presented as having been the authentic Israel all along, by the power of faith alone. It is a highly problematic concept, and it has been criticized within Christian theology itself for its heavy antisemitic undertones. 

Despite this, suppersessionism is a helpful concept to think through since it simultaneously captures Zionism鈥檚 conflicting claims to authenticity and revolution. As a kind of theological metaphor, it allows us to understand how one entity can claim to be bluntly, forcefully breaking away from the past, while still claiming to be the only true successor to this past. Appreciating this relationship can help us to more clearly see the meaning of contemporary Jewish identity and its future horizons. 

Nationalism and the history of the nation state are key ideas you use to analyze modern day Israel. Can you explain how “nationalization” has influenced the history, culture, and politics of Israel? 

A fundamental tenet of Zionism is that Jewish religion, the Jewish people, Jewish history, and Jewish identity are all part of what the modern political order of the world calls 鈥渘ationalism.鈥� Zionists claim that Judaism is first and foremost a nationality and has always been so, and that only by re-politicizing itself can modern Judaism regain its vitality. The Zionist argument seeks to reframe modern Europe鈥檚 so-called 鈥淛ewish question鈥� in terms of nationalism and nation-statehood, and competes against other modern attempts to 鈥渁nswer鈥� this question 鈥� such as redefining Judaism in terms of socialist ideology, or religious reform, to give two of the more familiar examples. Nationalization triumphed over competing ideologies when the events of the Holocaust convinced Jews of the need for a Jewish nation-state as a safe haven from persecution. 

Both within Israel and outside of it, the implication of nationalization is that the logic, interests, and outlook of the nation-state must prevail over other notions of Jewishness. This will, of course, change the current shape and future development of what we call Judaism and Jewish politics. 

You describe how “certain foundations of Jewish tradition… contradict the nation-statist sense of messianic and redemptive politics” in Israel today. What are some of these contradictions? How do they manifest in contemporary Israeli politics? 

One way to appreciate this is to think about the tension between what we may call 鈥渢raditional鈥� theology 鈥� that is, a whole universe of issues and concerns that is centered around God and the relation between God and humanity, and 鈥減olitical theology鈥� 鈥� that is, an outlook that positions the modern nation-state not only as the dominant force of our international order, but also as a divine-like entity that takes over the place of God as the gravitational core of our lives. 

Traditionally, much of Jewish tradition has to do with our relation to God, and the demands 鈥� ethical, practical, legal, moral, etc. 鈥� this relation poses on us. Within traditional theology, politics are subordinate to and derived from our relation to God. But within a system of political theology, the state dictates that there is no higher cause than the interests of the state. To put it bluntly: traditional theology dictates that we should sacrifice, kill, and die for God, and certain causes that God sanctions. Political theology, in contrast, demands that we sacrifice, kill, and die for the sake of the state alone. 

Today, we think very differently of people who kill 鈥渋n the name of religion鈥� compared to those who proudly and honorably serve their state by killing its enemies. 

It becomes clear, then, why there must be a tension between a religious tradition 鈥� specifically the Jewish tradition, which developed in a state of 鈥渆xile鈥� lacking political power 鈥� and a political theology of the state of Israel.  

What are some of the major challenges to democracy facing Israel today? 

Up until the eve of Hamas鈥� October 7th attack on Israel, Israelis were at each other’s throats arguing about matters pertaining to their contesting views on the meaning of Israel鈥檚 Jewishness. They were fiercely debating the role of Jewish religion in the public sphere, reaching boiling points of violent clashes. This was taking place in the context of another fierce debate, surrounding proposed changes to the balance of power (the 鈥渏udicial reforms鈥�), that fell along the same fault lines.

The war(s) that followed this attack may have suspended the debate, but the tension is apparent in daily Israeli politics. The very meaning of democracy is continuously fiercely debated exactly in the context of these contesting views of what it means for Israel to be a Jewish state. Confusingly and misleadingly, this very fundamental fact has often been obscured by the common (and convenient, for some) designation of the debates as taking place between secular and religious, rightist and leftists, liberal and conservative, etc.; useful as these labels and designations may be, they sometime work to hide the fact that some of the most foundational issues relating to the Israeli polity 鈥� encapsulated, I would argue, in questions of its Jewishness and of Zionism鈥檚 relation to Judaism 鈥� remain obscure. My book, I hope, would help us to at least better appreciate what is at stake here.

---

Yaacov Yadgar is the Stanley Lewis Professor of Israel Studies at the University of Oxford and the author of several books including Israel鈥檚 Jewish Identity Crisis: State and Politics in the Middle East.