National Identity Politics: Thoughts and Questioning
Shiri Raphaely is an American-Israeli currently living in Israel and working in the human rights field with the Mossawa Center and Friends of the Earth, Middle East. She co-writes on Midthoughtblog.com.
I recently watched The English Patient for the first time. Throughout the film, Count Almasy — the central character — balks against nations and allegiances that become increasingly immutable as World War II progresses. There is a beautiful phrase from the book describing Almasy’s love affair with the desert, driven by his revulsion towards boundaries, ownership and nationalism: “The desert could not be claimed or owned — it was a piece of cloth carried by winds, never held down by stones, and given a hundred shifting names before Canterbury existed, long before battles and treaties quilted Europe and the East…All of us, even those with European homes and children in the distance, wished to remove the clothing of our countries.”
Throughout the last year, living in a zone of conflict I have often felt an itchy desire to remove my clothing of nationality. This movie spoke to why, perhaps, I have felt so uncomfortable, by honing in on the tragedies that nationalism can create when combined with violence.
I sharply felt my natural tendency to bristle against nationalist labeling when in May 2010, the receptionist at the Haifa office of the Ministry of the Interior refused to stamp my traveler’s visa, kindly reminded me that I have been an Israeli citizen since leaving my mother’s womb, and set the appointment for me to get a light blue ID card. Now, I can vote; I have a bank account, a phone plan, and an Israeli passport; I am categorized as a toshevet choseret (returning citizen); and I suspect that the officials in the Ministry of the Interior believe I am staying forever. This bureaucratic process transformed by cultural and historical connection to Israel into an official part of my identification. I am no longer an observant visitor but am part of the state system.
My resistance to this labeling does not come from embarrassment but rather is a result of experiencing the very positive and very negative aspects of belonging to a culture/nation/state. On one hand, my Hebrew improved, I found a support network among my parents’ childhood friends and made my own friendships. At the same time, I was in the midst of a shocking real life intensive course on the injustices committed by the Israeli government in the name of security. While I was receiving benefits because of my Jewishness, I also felt critical of political actions that appeared increasingly senseless, violent and immoral. They felt against my interests as a Jew and as an Israeli. Against this backdrop, I didn’t want my official identification as an Israeli to shut me out of conversation or to implicate me in crimes. Likewise, I also felt that despite officially being Israeli, my American roots made me less legitimate in conversations about Israeli society and politics.
However, I believe there is privilege in two passports — largely because it grants me literal and figurative flexibility. In a sense it enabled me to connect with numerous cultures, since I’ve never felt attached to a specific one. I view the Israeli element of my identity as a toolbox that I can use to gain further understanding of this region. It allows me access to the emotional struggles and the complications that are abundant within this conflict. It doesn’t mean I understand everything, but it’s a convenient vehicle for learning. I am connected to individuals here and have built relationships because of shared experiences. That is the part of Israel I feel attached too.
At the same time, because I didn’t grow up here, it is simply less complicated for me to make friends with the “other side.” I do not have the same feeling of taboo that my parents grew up with. As an American, I have distance from the conflict in Israel/Palestine that allows me to shape my opinions without the intoxication of fear and power that has great influence in the region. (I am aware that this is a fragile and fortunate privilege that could easily be taken away.).
It’s important to note that I am not “proud” of my Israeli or American identity, nor am I ashamed. I think that pride in national identity is a strange phenomenon: it is rarely something one chooses, but is simply a circumstance that contributes to a false sense of differentiation. The characteristics of a national identity are a fragile thing that can shift and change as easily as it is invented. By attaching pride to these elements, we run the risk of placing inflated value on their importance. That in turn allows us to have unrealistic expectations and act irrationally if our national pride is “hurt.” This, I think, can be dangerous.
Why is this important for me to explore and write about?
On one hand, it’s important simply because I think the idea of nation building is fascinating. As Jews –Israeli or not — we are somehow connected to the building of the Israeli state. There has been an effort both in Israel and within Jewish communities around the world to make Jews feel like they have a relationship with Israel. At the same time, within Israel, there is the challenge to create, from scratch, a national identity that represents a religious (ethnic?) group that has also become part of a diverese array of other nationalities and cultures. Part of that process includes culture, art, language and literature. When you add a state that has evolved in a conflict, where the stakes are higher and the nation needs to group together in order to confront an enemy, it is necessary that this enemy is differentiated and dehumanized. It is possible that the need to dehumanize is both a result of and a cause of the conflict — now fully part of the Israeli mentality. (And the Palestinian one too.)
Current political nationalist rhetoric in Israel encourages a world of US and THEM, whether it’s Arabs and Jews, or the Jewish nation and those other countries that attempt to delegitimize it. I think it is important to think about how these national identities are formed and what we find intrinsically appealing, or unappealing, about them. If for a moment, current national labels were removed from the equation, would it be so easy to justify inhumane things?
For example, what are the elements of the Jewish state that make us uncomfortable? For me, they include the occupation, discrimination, the fence and other looming choices that may take place in order to maintain a Jewish majority. I believe that these actions are inherently harmful for the long-term security of Israel and the dignity of all those involved in the conflict. At the same time, I can see the validity of the opinion that these actions are militaristic strategies for the benefit of the State of Israel. Some may answer that human sacrifice is needed, and that for security purposes occupation must go on, and the ongoing expulsion of Arabs from their homes in Jerusalem and the Negev is unavoidable in the path to a secured Jewish State. If that is their choice, then I ask them only to be honest about what the cost is of such activities on current and future generations. What will it mean for the character of that future Jewish state? What are the sacrifices that are being made to secure this character? How far are we willing to go as Jews, Israelis and human beings in the name of the nation? Is there a feasible way that nationhood can be established and maintained without an act of immorality — or is it simply a minor cost for the achievement of a goal?
I write this only to try to understand better. I am not arguing for a Utopian world where states are immediately erased. Instead I’d like us, specifically in relation to Israel, to evaluate the cost of this nationalism and ask ourselves what our goals and limits are, and, what we may gain and what we may loose. I would love to hear a response.
BOY do you sound young! It sounds like you’ve never read a page of Jewish/Israeli history! It’s not the we WANT a climate of Us & Them, it’s that it has been thrust upon us. And BTW: it’s not an “occupation”: that is OUR land. Oy! Read the early pre-“occupation” history of Israel and the Arabs!!!
Yeah, you sound so young! Makes me want to drown you in a pool of cynicism. Metaphorically of course.
Shri, from your words it appears that you see nationalism is a possible social good that one might sacrifice for, in return for benefits. This transactional approach is nonsensical.
Nationalists do not think this way. For them, it is the very definition of good, an absolute that one uses to evaluate other values. Nationhood isn’t there ‘in order to’ anything. It is part of the divine prescription for meaning in life: to belong to a collective that has a covenant with god or history.
You might as well ask a gay man what is the point of being gay IF being gay had negative personal consequences (like death, ostracism, etc.) Based on a pure cost/benefit analysis, being gay is definitely an irrational choice. But if you ARE gay, then you know that part of being human is the desire to ‘be who you be.’
For racist, nationalist violent Jews, the racist nationalist violence isn’t ‘in order to’ it is an embodiment of who they desire to be, authentically. Just ask a settler in Hebron.
“For racist, nationalist violent Jews, the racist nationalist violence isn’t ‘in order to’ it is an embodiment of who they desire to be, authentically. Just ask a settler in Hebron.”
@JG
I think I know what the answer is bu just to check, are all people who ascribe to a nationalist ideology, racst and violent or just Jews? Can one be a Jewish nationalist, in your view, without being a racist or violent?
@Shiri -” Instead I’d like us, specifically in relation to Israel, to evaluate the cost of this nationalism and ask ourselves what our goals and limits are, and, what we may gain and what we may loose.”
I have to agree with JG here. If you discover that in the cost benefit/analysis that it’s not worth it, so to speak, then is one supposed to just give up the whole project of Israel?
It sounds like you are not sure what you think about the modern nation-state enterprise as a whole.
It sounds like you are not sure what you think about the modern nation-state enterprise as a whole.
I like Shiri’s thoughtful pieces because she’s emblematic of my generation of American Jews, young Millenials, who grew up steeped in American melting pot multiculturalism and yet tied to an ethnic nation-state quite of other making. Studies of Jews born after 1967 reveal increasing levels of skepticism towards ethnic nationalism — which leaves them on uncertain ground when dealing with the Jewish state.
And unlike most olim, Shiri has been “made Israeli” (a toshevet choseret) quite accidentally, which gives her a rare chance to explore it without the obnoxious certainty brought by those already ideologically committed to making Aliyah or avoiding by choice.
Lastly, that Shiri is working at an anti-discrimination legal clinic for Arab citizens of Israel makes all of this context particularly poignant. For her clients and coworkers are precisely the demographic asked to give up their national rights for the sake of hers.
For these reasons, I’m deeply appreciative that she’s willing to share her experiences with Jewschool’s readers — most of whom have mostly considered these questions only from a distance.
LJ, JG and UA — Shiri is asking the same questions Jewish thinkers and Zionists have always been asking. You may be older and feel you have the answers already — a benefit one has from many years of consideration. It’s a testament of how unavoidable and universal the questions are that Shiri has come to them through a different path. Her answers and that of younger generations, however, may turn out to be wholly different than yours.
@Uri, Jews do not have a monopoly on this stuff by any means. I do think we are a bridge culture between eastern norms and western norms, and as such we attract more than our fair share of critics from all three sides.
I do think we are a bridge culture between eastern norms and western norms, and as such we attract more than our fair share of critics from all three sides.
This is interesting. Please elaborate, JG.
Yes please elaborate JG.
KFJ, I do not think that Shiri is asking the same questions that Jewish and Zionist thinkers have long been asking. Not exactly anyway. As you correctly point out Shiri is “emblematic of my generation of American Jews, young Millenials, who grew up steeped in American melting pot multiculturalism and yet tied to an ethnic nation-state quite of other making. Studies of Jews born after 1967 reveal increasing levels of skepticism towards ethnic nationalism — which leaves them on uncertain ground when dealing with the Jewish state.” I am not a expert but this seems to be true for lots of Millenials, not only Jews.
She is asking similar questions in the sense that she is seeking understanding of how ethnic nationalism could and should function properly in the best case scenarios and how it damages and corrupts in the worst cases. She is not asking the same question because the world is a very different place now than it was before WWII, when people in the western world were still tooting the horn of ethnic nationalism. Post WWII, Europe and the US became champions of universalism – see the social revolutions of the 60s and the eventual formation of the EU. One cannot ignore that the stakes are a bit different now than they were for Herzl who was writing in the hey day of ethnic nationalism. As a conept ethnic nationalism is on the decline in the West nowadays.
Shiri – I think it’s good that you ask these questions. I do think its important however to understand that one of the things you are looking to figure out for yourself is what you think about the modern ethnic nation state as it exists today. You are not only asking about the value of such a state when it comes to Israel but something much broader. When you find an answer that works for your complicated levels of identity let me know. I’d love help with my own.
wellllll…..
Jewish culture is like an onion, and not too far from the surface layers are some distinctly eastern ideas: that religious law and secular law are not distinct entities, that ethnic/religious identity is both OBVIOUSLY more important than citizenship, AND that one lives in states that are owned by one community, not ‘the community.’
Western culture has radical break with that. Post enlightenment, European culture really has embraced citizenship as the most important component of identity in a way that most Muslims in the Middle East, or Nigeria) would find absurd.
Jews are in the middle. Resented for being too Western in the East, and to Eastern in the West.
Ok JG. I hear ya. I would classify what your calling East/West as pre-modern/modern or post-modern.
So when you say Jews are in the middle do you mean that Jews haven’t fully embraced post-enlightenment thinking writ large?
No, I mean we’ve done a ‘better’ job of preserving elements of our pre-modern, ‘Eastern’ identity. We’ve done a better job of not erasing where we come from. I think… on some level, Jews who remain part of the Jewish collective and don’t fall of the edge are holding on to conflicting ideas without letting go of either.
Which is an excellent intellectual strategy, if you’re goal isn’t ‘the truth’ but ‘communal self-preservation.’
‘Better’ in quotes, because maybe it’s not better.
Ah, now I get it. Sounds right to me. Certainly sounds Jewish, shkoiach.
Uri, keep in mind that the terms “modern” and “pre-modern” have an implicit, subjective value attached, purely independent of their explicit meaning. For contrast, consider how it sounds that “pre-modern” air quality was superior to modern air quality.
That Jewish identity does not fit neatly into how Western societies have defined and structured identity is not an indictment of Jewish identity. Or, at least, it shouldn’t be, though it often is and has been.
Lastly, with regards to the entire subject of post-nationalism, there is an important point to be made. In the several decades since post-nationalism turned vogue among the Western elite, there has been an explosion of ethnic nationalism, characterized by state formation along ethnic, religious or sectarian lines. South Sudan is but the latest example. Nor is the surge in ethnic nationalism unique to the Southern hemisphere. In Europe, for example, ethnic identity has rallied considerably in the last 20 years, first with the fall of the Soviet Union, and now as a response to the perceived threat of Islam.
As an aside, I always found it fascinating that the very people, Jews among them, who lambaste the notion of Jewish sovereignty, and think it perfectly racist to construct a state along ethno/religious grounds, meanwhile see nothing at fault with creating a Palestinian ethnic state.
The truth is that post-nationalism isn’t really against all ethnic nation states, but only the “bad” ethnic nation states. Western intellectuals have construed two types of identities, those which are “good” and those which are “bad”. There is considerable tie in with post-colonialism, socialism, and progressive studies – those identities which are progressive are inherently “good”, while those who are reactionary are inherently “bad”.
When the Jews of a young Israel were fighting regressive and reactionary Arab autocracies, being an Israeli was a “good” identity. Now that Israel is the preeminent capitalist power in the Middle East, and the regressive social order of Arab societies is directed against it, Arab ethnic identities are, in relation, progressive and “good”.
Victor, you got the leftist theory wrong.
Nations which are liberating themselves from colonial or imperialist rule have ‘good’ nationalism. Nations with a track record of ruling others in colonial or imperialist dynamics have ‘bad’ nationalism. It’s not arbitrary or anything.
Seems fair to me.
When the Jews of a young Israel were fighting regressive and reactionary Arab autocracies, being an Israeli was a “good” identity. Now that Israel is the preeminent capitalist power in the Middle East, and the regressive social order of Arab societies is directed against it, Arab ethnic identities are, in relation, progressive and “good”.
I see it this way: With great(er) power comes great(er) responsibility. Israel bears more responsibility because it has more power (economically, militarily, diplomatically, ad nauseum). Meaning, Israel isn’t worse than Syria but it is judged to a higher standard. That may be unfair, but it’s the natural consequence of viewing Arab societies as backwards religious fundies and constantly invoking Israel and America’s “shared values.” For better or for worse…
” Is there a feasible way that nationhood can be established and maintained without an act of immorality — or is it simply a minor cost for the achievement of a goal?”
I would argue that if actions, such as building the wall, directly save the lives of innocent men, women, and children then it is not immoral and does not hurt our character. Enjoying such actions, would be hurtful to one’s character.
@JG points out nicely that Jewish “identity” doesn’t fit into contemporary categories. I think we should do more to understand ourselves primarily from within the Jewish worldview of Bnei Yisrael and only secondarily in relationship to outside categories, but maybe that makes me a “nationalist” already?
The dilemmas are then about “geu’la and galut” and about “Hager asher yagur betochem”, etc etc.