Your critique of Steven Pinker's stance on Zionism, as expressed in your blog, raises a sharp and provocative point about the tension between his abstract, liberal principles and the concrete reality of Israel as a Jewish state. Here's my assessment:
Pinker’s rejection of Zionism, as you quote him, seems to hinge on a vision of a state grounded in universalist ideals—life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness—rather than one tied to ethnic or religious identity. He appears to frame Zionism as an expression of "religious or ethnic yearnings," which he finds incompatible with his Enlightenment-derived worldview. Your response rightly challenges this as somewhat detached from the historical and existential realities that birthed and sustain Israel.
Israel’s identity as a Jewish state is not merely an abstract aspiration but a response to centuries of persecution, culminating in the Holocaust, which underscored the necessity of a homeland where Jews could exercise self-determination and ensure their survival. Zionism, in its modern form, is less about romanticized "yearnings" and more about the pragmatic need for a state that guarantees Jewish security and continuity. By framing it as an optional or dispensable ideological stance, Pinker’s position risks ignoring the "glue" of Jewish identity—ethnic, cultural, and yes, often religious—that you argue is inseparable from Israel’s existence.
Your point about Pinker’s definition being "airy" hits the mark. His formulation seems to float above the gritty realities of Israel’s founding and ongoing challenges, as if a state could be sustained on purely contractual, deracinated liberalism without grappling with the specific historical forces that shape it. To strip Israel of its Jewish character, as you suggest, would be to unravel the very rationale for its existence, rendering it something unrecognizable and, arguably, unsustainable in the face of external threats and internal cohesion needs.
That said, Pinker’s perspective might stem from a genuine discomfort with nationalism or particularism, which he sees as clashing with universalist principles. This is a common tension in liberal thought: the desire for a neutral, inclusive state versus the reality that most nations, including Israel, are rooted in specific cultural or ethnic identities. His disclaimer on Zionism could be an attempt to reconcile his Jewish identity with his broader philosophical commitments, but as you point out, it feels disconnected from what Israel actually is and must be to endure.
Your question—“what the hell is he talking about?”—cuts to the core. Pinker’s stance seems to sidestep the lived reality of Israel as a Jewish state, both on the ground and as an idea forged by history. It’s a critique that sounds theoretically tidy but falters when confronted with the messy, intractable realities of identity, survival, and geopolitics. Israel’s rejection of a purely liberal, deracinated model isn’t just stubbornness—it’s a reflection of its unique historical mandate.
No comments:
Post a Comment