Seeking the light in a time of darkness

Beyond nationalism to a common humanity

Rabbis in New York light up a menorah calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.

7 minute read

I hope to soon get back to my theme of how we can begin to resolve our world’s critical problems by creating networks of community-based institutions in the places we live, building the future in place. But the war in Gaza has compelled me to consider how it embodies four obstacles to any future at all for our world in general. They are four “isms,” nationalism, militarism, tribalism and fundamentalism. In this first part of a series, I delve into the obstacle posed by nationalism. The second part is linked at the end.

This is a season of stark contrasts. While religions and cultures around the world are celebrating the return of the light coming beyond the darkest time of the year, we are witnessing one of the darkest events in modern history, the devastation of Gaza and killing and maiming of thousands of innocents. Where is the light coming out of all this?

I can see it only in one place, in the way people around the world have taken to the streets to denounce this genocide of Palestinian people, bringing the light to bear. How Jewish and non-Jewish people have come together to insist that it stop. Whether we have the power to bring that about against the power of governments seemingly hellbent on destruction, that of Israel and our own U.S. government, we don’t know. The feeling of powerlessness to stop the daily massacres can become emotionally unbearable.

But in taking to the streets, people are bearing witness to the most important message for the human future, and that of our planet as a whole. That we are one humanity, regardless of our individual affiliations to nations, beliefs and other narrow identities. Only if we realize our commonality as people can we hope not only to end this horror unfolding before our eyes, but to resolve the great crises facing our world, crises of conflict and wars between great powers, of climate and ecological destruction, of poverty and the struggle for sustenance in the midst of great wealth. Making peace, taking care of our planetary home, bringing about economic justice, all rely on us seeing past narrow identities to realize the common good.

The war in Gaza is a microcosm of four “isms” that set up obstacles to this realization, narrowing our vision and driving us apart when we so urgently need to come together. They are nationalism, militarism, fundamentalism and tribalism. Gaza shows each in play, but they are rampant throughout the world. If we don’t find a way to transcend these “isms,” we might very well not have a world at all. In this first of several parts, I delve into the obstacles posed by nationalism.

A new creature – The nation-state

Humans have had states since civilizations rose in Mesopotamia some 4,300 years ago. Typically, they were oriented to some ruling line and joined people together in multiethnic combinations. But, originating in Europe in recent centuries, a new creature emerged, the nation-state. It was oriented around melding people together in a singular identity set apart from, and superior to, other people. It may be that France was the first example of this concept. It spread like a virus across Europe and the world.

In the 19^th century, German and Italian nation states were formed of principalities that had long been separate. That eventuated in the world wars of the 20th century. In the U.S., the Civil War forged a powerful, unified state. Previous to the war, it was, “The United States are . . . “ After the war, it was, “The United States is . . . “ From plural to singular. The conflicts we see today over seemingly irreconcilable visions of what a singular U.S. identity should be have roots in this shift.

In the midst of growing nationalism in the late 19^th century, a movement for a Jewish homeland, Zionism, rose out of the many pogroms and persecutions suffered by Jewish people. Zionism looked to many possible lands, including Madagascar and Uganda, but settled on Palestine. The Zionist concept was opposed by many Jews. Ben Lorber, a Jewish researcher who focuses on antisemitism and white nationalism, writes of the Jewish Anti-Zionist tradition.

“For over a century, Jews around the world have maintained a robust critique of Zionism and the state of Israel.

“The tradition of Jewish dissent against Zionism has taken many forms. From the moment Theodore Herzl strode upon the world stage, many of us have insisted that leaving the diaspora for a Jewish nation-state is the wrong way to achieve safety, fight antisemitism, actualize Jewish identity, and work for justice in the world. Many have claimed that our peoples’ relationship to the land of Israel is far more complicated than a narrow nationalist vision can allow, or that we are religiously forbidden, at this time, from setting up a Jewish state in the holy land. And many have protested Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinians indigenous to the land of Israel.”

Jews, followers of Islam and Christians lived together peacefully in Palestine for centuries before the idea of a separate Jewish nation-state was introduced. Without the Holocaust, creation of a Jewish state was unlikely to have succeeded.

Benjamin Balthaser, a historian of the Jewish left, notes, “ . . . before the end of World War II, and even a little after, most Jews disparaged Zionists. And it didn’t matter if you were a communist, it didn’t matter if you were a Reform Jew, Zionism was not popular . . . the Jewish left in the 1930s and 1940s understood, critically, that the only way Zionism would be able to emerge in Palestine was through a colonial project and through the expulsion of the indigenous Palestinians from the land.”

The idea of separate Jewish and Palestinian nation states was commonly regarded as an undesirable outcome by most even as European Jewish settlement added to the traditional Jewish population of the area. A single multi-ethnic state with equal rights for all was envisioned. Even the 1917 declaration by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour declaring his government’s support for a Jewish homeland embodied that idea:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." 

Einstein cautions against a separate state

Some Zionists supported the idea of a Jewish homeland but disagreed with the idea of a separate state. Albert Einstein represented that view. Speaking to a Zionist labor convention in 1938, he said,  “I would much rather see a reasonable agreement with the Arabs on the basis of living together than the creation of a Jewish State.

“Apart from practical considerations, my awareness of the essential nature of Judaism resists the idea of a Jewish State, with borders, an army and a measure of temporal power, no matter how modest. I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain — especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our ranks, against which we have already had to fight strongly, even without a Jewish State.

“We are no longer Jews of the Maccabean period. A return to a nation in the political sense of the word would be the equivalent of turning away from the spiritualization of our community, which we owe to the genius of our prophets. If external necessity should, after all, compel us to assume this burden, let us bear it in the knowledge that it will be in contrast to our nature.”

Any solution now?

It is hard to envision any solution to the issue now, when so much hatred has been stirred, and the lines on both sides have been so sharply drawn. The idea of a two-state solution is back on the table. It may be that it is necessary, but what it would entail to make it practical in any sense, relocation of approximately 700,000 Jewish settlers from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, seems impossible considering current Israeli politics.

But something has to happen, and the idea of a single multi-ethnic state with equal rights for all, including a right of return for Palestinians to their traditional lands, is gaining traction. Whether this is at all possible, and whether it is necessary for Palestinians to have areas of autonomy in such a situation, are questions to be asked. In any event, it is clear the virus of the nation-state that spread in recent centuries, the idea of a state unified by a singular ethnicity, has produced critically diseased outcomes in this part of the world.  

As it has in the broader sense, in the wars of the 20^th and 21^st century. Now great power competitions driven by nationalism threaten to immolate the world in nuclear holocaust. They also pose huge obstacles to addressing our common global crises of climate and ecological collapse, and creating a more just and equitable world order.

Meanwhile, the rise of white nationalism in the U.S. in reaction to the increasingly diverse and multi-ethnic nature of our country sets up barriers to addressing our common economic and social problems, which are only growing. It has brought about what some call a cold civil war, and threatens greater conflicts in the future. Much goes back to the singular “The United States is” rather than the plural “are.” Reclaiming a more pluralistic vision of what this country is seems vital.

We can have our nationalities, ethnicities and identities. But if we cannot see beyond them, the destruction of Gaza is only the foretaste of a devastated future. The light we seek in this dark time is that of recognizing our common humanity.

Go to Part 2 - Militarism: No solution for Gaza or the world.

An appeal for support

Please consider a paid subscription to The Raven, and if you are already a paid subscriber, please consider subscribing at a higher level. Please also consider giving a gift subscription to someone you know. Subscriptions are only $6 a month at the monthly rate, or $5 is you subscribe at the annual $60 rate. I have also added a “Buy me a coffee” feature that allows you to make a one-time donation of $5, $15 or $25. I really do need your support to continue this work. And please do share this piece widely.