Reviewing the Zionist

If sovereignty is perceived as a basic national right of a people that has not undergone suffering in its past, then it is of course a fundamental right of the Jewish people.

It looks like many of them were happy to continue Hitler's work. It's not paranoia, as one of the guests of honor at the Durban Review Conference is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has spoken several times about his desire to destroy Israel.

Even the boycott of the conference is not the main issue at a time when the leader of the free world, the United States, also seeks to "establish a dialogue" with a president who has such destructive intensions. Therefore, in the same decade in which international attention to the Holocaust and its commemoration has reached a peak, the West is retreating to its pre-World War II appeasement policies. The voice is Churchill's but the hands are Chamberlain's.

From a Jewish standpoint, it makes us recall the Zionist lesson learned from the Holocaust; this lesson was obvious immediately after the Shoah but has faded over the years.

The lesson faded because in the early days it included arrogance toward the survivors, though most of the erosion has taken place in recent decades under intellectual discourse regarding the Holocaust, specifically post-Zionist discourse that tries to denigrate visitors to Auschwitz who come in the name of the Zionist lesson, especially those who wrap themselves in the Israeli flag like a tallit. According to this train of thought, the Zionist idea has failed and there is currently no place more dangerous for Jews than Israel.

The Zionist lesson of the Holocaust should be so clear and obvious that it is embarrassing to have to repeat it again and again. The Holocaust was caused both because the Jews lived as a foreign minority and because the Jews were a defenseless minority.

Israel is currently a dangerous place for Jews because a considerable portion of humanity is neither ready to accept Jews as a minority in a foreign country nor as residents of an independent state.

Between those two options, it is better to opt for the one that enables the cultivation of Jewish identity and steadfastness in the face of the enemy. Moreover, if the Jewish individual deals with only his own narrow worldview, it is easier to live in New York, but the Jewish people needs its own state.

In the Jewish state there is apparently no need to repeat these insights.

It is not by chance that post-Zionist discourse has not taken root here among the wider public. It is primarily met with contempt and arouses widespread disgust for academia and intellectuals in general. This discourse exploits the survivors' pain over the arrogance towards them, and it is doubtful there are more than a handful of survivors who identify with its conclusions.

Holocaust survivors understand the importance of the Holocaust's lessons more than anyone. Also, the Zionist lesson does not conflict with the universal lesson of the Holocaust, but complements it and provides balance. The human image must be preserved, but an inseparable part of this effort is the uncompromising fight against the enemy that rises up against it.

Therefore, the danger of post-Zionist discourse is not in Israel but abroad. There, it is not the masses who take an interest in these questions, but the elites, and the elites are aware of the discourse of Israeli intellectuals. So it is important to strengthen the Zionist lesson on an intellectual level, too. If sovereignty is perceived as a basic national right of a people that has not undergone suffering in its past, then it is of course a fundamental right of the Jewish people.