JNS.org – Shofar, an interdisciplinary journal of Jewish studies whose editors are committed “to publishing a diversity of beliefs, ideas and opinions,” is a project of cooperation with Purdue University. The academic institution was beset, as were many campuses, last year with pro-Palestine rallies and demonstrations, and even set up a “Liberation Zone,” although it would seem none for any Israeli hostages. I have no information that those events had a direct influence on the publication of an issue dedicated to anti-Zionism, but it exists.

Shaul Magid of Dartmouth College led that Shofar special issue, which was devoted to “Zionism and Its Jewish Critics.” He claimed that “while some scholars argue that the concept [of Zionism] has biblical origins, most acknowledge that it is a modern Jewish iteration of Western European nationalism that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century.” Who are these “most” scholars who champion perverse purposeful ignorance? What is their academic weight? Are these the instructors properly suited to lecture university students, Jewish and non-Jewish?

Magid and fellow travelers would have us believe that the many dozens of Torah commandments, hundreds of verses of Tanach, thousands of Midrashic, Talmudic and Second Temple literature pieces, as well as thousands of rabbinic dicta and responsa spanning some 2,500 years of Jewish core religion, culture and ritual revolving around Zion, Jerusalem, the Land of Israel and a Jew’s obligations to the same are to be erased and ignored. Similarly, the constant presence of Jews residing in the Land of Israel—immigrating and traveling to it, and sending charitable dollars to those living there all during the 1,800 years of our Exile, not to mention the Return to Zion during the sixth-century BCE—is to be disregarded.

In a follow-up response, Lior Sternfeld of Penn State University addresses the topic of “Settler Colonialism, From the River to the Sea, and the Israeli Case After October 7.” He intends “to offer a way to unpack some of the volatile concepts often used to analyze the Israel-Palestine conflict.” Nevertheless, he promptly engages in a volatile position and, as if objectively, observes that “well-meaning scholars and activists have sought to rehabilitate the concept of Zionism.”

And what is the need for that? Sternfeld knows and suggests that “Zionism, at least in its twenty-first-century form, negates the very existence of Palestinian identity and Palestinian nationalism. As such, the peaceful existence of the two peoples, enjoying freedom, independence, and self-determination, could never be achieved.” All the fault of the Jews. Sorry, the Zionists. For what is Zionism if not, according to Sternfeld, “settler-colonialism”?

As Sternfeld asserts—and we could assume teaches his students—the nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”) that refers to the creation of the modern-day State of Israel in May 1948 was an “attempt … to eliminate the native people.” The next stage of his paradigm came with the influx of immigrants—Holocaust survivors from Europe and Jews who came from the Middle East, North Africa and many other locations. As he puts it, these “settlers became indigenous.” The next stage followed the Six-Day War in June 1967, when “the definition of colonial power became much more apt.”

Israel after 1967, Sternfeld insists, “became a colonial state.”

Why, supposedly, did it become such a state? His reasoning is that “Israel sought to control the land by sending settlers and exploiting the indigenous population and the resources to the benefit of Israel proper.” Moreover, the “native population did not get citizenship, any political rights, or equal legal status.” If one starts out without knowing the basics, like Sternfeld, then it will be no surprise that his conclusions and assertions are not only erroneous but dangerous.

Israel sent no one post-1967 to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Yes, there were soldiers and even Nachal units, but it was the “settlers”—those of Gush Emunim and other groups, some not at all religiously motivated—who forced upon the government an extensive civilian Jewish residential presence there. Moreover, there was no exploitation of the population (and as for being “indigenous,” that requires another article altogether). Why should a group of people demanding to be separated from Israel deserve, in Sternfeld’s mind, to gain Israeli citizenship or political rights such as voting for Knesset representation?

What truly irks Sternfeld is the criticism voiced to the slogan chanted by pro-“Palestine” protestors that that presumed country should extend “from the river to the sea.” He ignores its eliminationist purpose in doing away with Israel altogether and probably a majority of its Jewish residents, preferring to highlight a parallel Israeli version of that slogan, an overlooked Israeli map covering the land “from the river to the sea,” unlike the pro-Palestine one “has political practice and military power.” That is an irrational presentation.

First of all, the Palestinian Authority maintains a political practice as well as military power. In addition, its educational system and media propaganda arms inculcate its population much better than Israel’s government does regarding territorial and legal heritage not to mention that in the P.A. area, there are no parallel Peace Now/B’Tselem groups that argue against land expansionism.

More importantly, historically speaking, the area of the “river to the sea” possesses an international Jewish legal status in that the League of Nations Palestine Mandate decision, Article 25, specifically awards that area for a reconstituted Jewish state. In addition, that was the territory left over after a fictitious “Transjordan” was created for a Saudi ruler expelled from his own country and received all of what was to be eastern Palestine—an Arab state. Does not Sternfeld know basic Zionist history, not to mention post-Oslo Accords diplomatic history?

One other of Sternfeld’s nonsensical arguments is that “the left must stop collaborating with the blame game of the right wing and stop seeking approval (that would never come) for disavowing any kind of resistance, especially the nonviolent one.” Especially? As that word means “more than usual; more than other people or things,” are we to understand that Sternfeld could permit a non-blaming of a less than non-violent resistance? Or is it just that his writing is obtuse at this point?

Sternfeld has a vision. It is one of a “time to move beyond Zionism into Israelism … to build a thriving Israeli society for the entirety of its population, next to an equally thriving society of dependent Palestine.” I admit to harboring a suspicion that Sternfeld’s grasp of the Israel-Arab conflict requires rehabilitation.

The post ‘Shofar’s Call to ‘Rehabilitate’ Zionism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.