There was a time - before we replaced our worries about Islamic violence with worries about far-right or Russian violence - when non Muslim commentators on the crisis du jour were largely converging on a call for peace-inclined Muslims to sit their more bloody-minded cousins down for a talking to. I feel that the current war between Israel and Palestine might be reaching a similar point.
I've long held the position that if well-meaning westerners sticking our noses into middle eastern conflicts could have positive outcomes, we'd have seen at least one by now. I am violating my own conclusion by blogging about the current conflict. Perhaps that's because I felt inspired, or perhaps well-meaning westerners can't help themselves. But if I were forced to bet, I'd say I am simply tired of hearing that the violence is necessary because the threat to Israel is existential.
It's a dumb argument. The Israelites have been living with some form of existential threat since before that name existed, yet here they are. Today's Jewish peoples are one of only three civilizations - China and India being the others - with a relatively unbroken lineage from the bronze age into the present day. And it seems no coincidence that all three have conspicuously few examples of external wars in their history. None have zero, but the Israelites managed to coexist with the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Persians, even (at times) Christians, and others - quite the litany of successes. One could say that peaceful coexistence is an Israeli innovation which allowed this culture to survive where so many others went extinct. Which makes the current situation a bit puzzling. Either the Palestinians are uniquely hard to get along with - I suppose, given the similarity of that name to Philistine, that that is a possibility. A more positive possibility is that something is obscuring the natural tendency of the Abrahamites in this part of the world to be good neighbors to one another.
In meditating on that possibility, I came across the meaning of Zion. I suspect some confusion on the 'true meaning' of Zion is driving the irreconciliation we see in the fertile crescent today. Zionism is basically a curse word among peace activists today - associated with the kind of reflexive and uncompromising violence that leaves the rest of the world looking askance at the middle east.
But what is Zion, really? It seems to mean something like Home - a peaceful home where one can rest and grow. When I encounter it in writings that is certainly the implication. What peace activists call 'Zionism' as the responsible party seems to refer to a particularly literal understanding of the idea. An interpretation where Zion is simply a physical city in the world, where the most important question is where it will be situated and how the streets are laid out. Literal readings of sacred texts are nearly never the most productive, and so it is in the question of Zion.
Exile has been called the central challenge of Judaism, like Sin for Christianity or Pride for Islam. The theme of leaving the home of one's birth - by varying degrees of choice - is everywhere in the old testament. Sometimes there is a return, at other times a new home must be established. It is a challenge anyone grappling with the traditional texts encounters, and the answer - Zion - is a mystery even when stated plainly.
Can Zion in this context be a primarily physical place? Suppose the current war ends with a one-sided victory of the Israeli nation. Suppose it is so final that future Arab states are finally unwilling to further provoke it in whatever form it takes that day. Will such a land be Zion? The victory of European settlers over the native peoples of the Americas had that kind of finality. Can we call it a peaceful place? Mass graves, however old, tend to be turbulent.
But does that mean the dream of Zion is futile? I would say just the opposite. Zion is a state of being - only in the most unimaginative minds would we begin to define it as a secular political reality. A peaceful home has been the guiding star for prophets through the many turbulent centuries between Abraham's 80th and today. The idea that it is only a physical place without a spiritual dimension seems a great disrespect to the singular work they did to shepherd their people through a long and perilous time.
I do not know what that suggests for the leaders of Likud and Hamas, nor the people they govern. If anything, it probably suggests that world peace is not the responsibility of world leaders. It seems that the true meaning of Zionism, like most important things, should not be defined by the literally-minded. A literal interpretation of sacred scripture has been rightly criticized in Islam and Christianity - in Judaism we call it 'Zionism', as though the dream of a peaceful home is a political question. But that overlooks the everyday work we do in bringing peace to our own streets, our own houses, our own hearts. It is work that we can all begin wherever we are. I hope those who search for Zion remember to look there.
Comments