Professor Arieh Saposnik of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev spoke for the Haberman Institute yesterday on the topic (and I am paraphrasing) of whether Zionism was a movement of national construction, or of religious redemption. I introduced the speaker.

He brought up a number of points that are worth pondering. His conclusion, of course, is that Zionism is a little of this and a little of that, and that the problem of attaining a common acceptable definition of Zionism continues to this day.

If Zionism is a national movement, the providing a place for members of the Jewish nation, formerly all in exile, to come together and live with national autonomy, that’s one thing – then you can leave God and religion out of the equation.

If on the other hand, Zionism is a spiritual or redemptive movement, which enables a formerly colonized people to change their ways and become a new type of Jewish people, with a stronger moral and ethical basis, that is something else.

And in fact, there is a third hand. And that would be a messianic Judaism – paving the way for the Messiah and the Messianic Age to come.

And, yes, he did talk about Jews as being “colonized” in Europe – not in the sense, perhaps, that Africa was colonized, but colonized none the less. But did the Jews go from being colonized to being colonizers? That is another question – but Saposnik points out that the early Zionists were not trying to displace anyone, and that all the land that came into Jewish hands were purchased, not taken, from previous owners. Today, of course, for all sorts of reasons, things are a mess – but maybe this was not the necessary result.

The Balfour Declaration, he says, was not meant to become the central document that it quickly became. Saposnik says that its centrality was mainly the result of Chaim Weitzmann and Nahum Sokolow making it such, and once it was central, its importance could not be denied. He also says that, at first, British (Christian) and Jewish interests were allied in bringing the Jews back to the Holy Land – it fit the needs of both – politically, culturally and religiously. This is one of the reasons the Balfour Declaration became so important. But this amity didn’t last long, as the reality of the Mandate period set in.

Finally, he said that Jews – whether “religious” or not – always felt a connection to The Land, always felt themselves living in exile. He did not try to answer the political question as to whether the Jewish settlement was in fact appropriate, but simply that, in the minds of the Jews, it clearly was. They did not believe they were taking someone else’s land, even though others were living on part of it. Whether the Jews as a whole knew how hostile the Arabs would be to their coming, he did not discuss.

I have not done justice to Prof. Saposnik’s presentation. In a day or two, it will be available for you to watch on YouTube, or on the Haberman website: http://www.habermaninstitute.org. It would be worth your while.

To add a few of my own thoughts. These are fascinating questions, to be sure, but do they have any relevance to today? Israel is a nation of over 6 million Jews and over 2 million non-Jews. Does it really make a difference how the Jews got there? I would suggest that it does not with regard to Israel “within the green line”, but that when you get to the West Bank, it does. Not a part of the State of Israel, it is the home of almost 700,000 Jews (about 25% of the West Bank population), who live in specially protected areas and settlements, and who are treated in every respect as citizens of Israel. If there is to ever be a settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, the question of boundaries and the rights of the Jewish residents who will live outside the boundaries of the Israeli state will loom large. And then there is Jerusalem. I think the boundaries of Jerusalem are set, as are the boundaries of West and East Jerusalem. As an entire city, Jerusalem is about 60% Jewish and 40% Muslim (yes, there are some Christians, but not enough to distort this ratio), but West Jerusalem is about 100% Jewish and East Jerusalem majority Muslim, except again for Jews in particular urban settlements in the city. But here, Israel has “annexed” East Jerusalem, and considers it part of Israel proper. The Palestinians deny the validity of this annexation.

All of this is so confusing, that I can’t figure out how to understand any of the population figures. When you ask about the Jewish population of Israel, I am sure they include the Jews in East Jerusalem and I believe they must also include the Jews in the West Bank, although the West Bank is not part of Israel. When you ask how many Arabs live in Israel, I presume you get figures including the Arabs in East Jerusalem (although I don’t know that for sure), but I know you don’t get the 2 to 3 million Arabs living in the West Bank.

You see how confusing this is. And you see that, by increasing Jewish population in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Zionism is still alive. But as to how to define that Zionism – that’s another question. Is it religious? Is it nationalism? Is it simply a land grab? Is it required for the defense of the State of Israel?

As Israel’s critics and enemies decry this continuing movement on the ground, how does Israel defend against these criticisms ideologically? I think, in fact, it doesn’t try to. It just keeps on keeping on.

All of this is worthy of a lot of discussion and soul searching, to be sure. This may be the place for it, but today, I guess, is not the time.