Customer Reviews

Who, Where and What is "Israel?"

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As a Pagan, I found it surprisingly difficult to get much out of this book. I had read plenty of articles and books on Zionism, and I had understood them. But this one was a little different, at least for me.

Neusner beings by pointing out that Jewish life can survive in the United States, not only in Israel. Next he discusses Zionism as an aspect of theology. I never thought of it in such a manner before. I still don't. Neusner argues that Judaism is Zionism and vice-versa, and he gives some historical arguments which I did not follow. But he does make it clear that he regards "Israel" in Judaism as the people, wherever they are, not the place, however important.

Now what about Zionists who live in, say, the United States? What does it mean to be an American Zionist? Neusner says that a Zionist has to hold that the State of Israel comes first among Jewish responsibilities. The idea is not that Zionists ought to hold Israel as a more important nation than the United States. It is that Jewish existence in Israeli towns is of higher importance than Jewish existence in American or other non-Israeli towns.

I guess I can understand that. It may be a little like saying that one can not be a White House Security guard unless one holds the security of the White House to be more important than the security of any other building. But is this concept all that special?

Neusner has a chapter on Academic anti-Semitism. Well, there is some anti-Semitism at some universities. But guess what Neusner discusses here? It's the field of "Jewish Studies." He says that "admitting and presenting any subject on other than academic terms represents a statement, by the academy, of contempt for that subject." He calls that anti-Semitism on the part of the academy. That is very different from what I expected to read. I guess I agree with him about this, however, as well as about his extension of this accusation to other ethnic studies.

I think Neusner must have had a better way to explain his ideas, one I could have understood better.