Doves Are Better Than Pigeons

Too frequently, freedom of speech is misunderstood as the freedom to proclaim. By this, I mean the right of individuals to proclaim I believe towards one another with increasing volume. As we have all seen online, this practice is inherently divisive. When you proclaim I believe , I can only understand your ideas as I see them. The language you use, the ideas you refer to, will all be interpreted through my perspective. A hole is formed, and promptly filled with pigeon. As such, you are left as a pigeon cooing in your hole& either to be ignored, or promptly turned into a pie. Freedom of speech is far more valuable when understood as the freedom to converse. This means responding to the proclamation I believe with the question why ? In doing so, I, as the hearer, gain a more nuanced understanding of your position. Not only do I have a more subtle understanding of the meaning of your statement itself, but can more closely understand the origins and context of your position. You are no longer a pigeon, but rather an individual, freed from stereotypical association. In this state, it is far harder for me to place you into a single camp which I oppose. Collectively, this undermines the short-cut to division which the freedom to proclaim can and does create. In order to provide a concrete example of these principles in practice, I intend to explore both in relation to a conversation which has caused tension within my family, amongst friends, and across the globe. I am referring here to my anti-Zionism.

I am a Jew. I am British. I am Ashkenazi. I have blonde hair and blue eyes. I had a bacon sandwich this morning, and then bore witness to my covenant when I jumped into the shower. I am less orthodox than many in my family, but far more orthodox in practice than many of my friends for whom Judaism plays a greater part in their daily life than it does in mine. My family fled Austria in the 1930s, having fled Lithuania in the 1890s. Personally, I have only ever experienced what was, to me, real anti-Semitism once. I stand firmly against many of the actions of the State of Israel& particularly with regards to Palestine. I am critical of Israel s creation, and I am an anti-Zionist.

Please take a couple of seconds to sit with the things I have just told you. Please reflect on any immediate reactions, thoughts or assumptions which might come up. I know that I might easily be criticised as an anti-Semite for some of these beliefs. Certainly, if I shared these views on my social media without further qualification, I would expect to face criticism. Being an anti-Zionist is frequently understood as a form of anti-Semitism. They are certainly frequent bedfellows. Standing against Israel is frequently considered to be the same as anti-Zionism. They are related, but not the same thing. My relative privilege might also be criticised& having never felt threatened by anti-Semitism (which many people do, and with good reason), I lack meaningful empathy with those who strove to create a safe homeland for the Jewish people. When freedom to proclaim takes priority over the freedom to converse, no further qualification will be sought in my position. Some might leap to my defence, and others might lunge in for the attack. However, without further qualification, the opposing sides (assuming that there are only two) will argue using words which become increasingly alienated from the meaning I give them. My anti-Zionism will become increasingly abstracted, and every proclamation for or against Zionism will bear different meanings. As such, the locus of common ground will become tribal. Rather than recognising that I may have incredibly similar views, experiences and values to many Zionists, I will feel that my common ground lies with those who argue on the same side of an unelaborated topic& those who use the same words, whether or not those words hold the same meaning.

Let me now qualify my anti-Zionism as I understand it. I understand Zionism in several ways. Biblical Israel was, according to scri pture, appointed by God as the homeland of the Jewish people. This I cannot and do not disagree with. Though I don t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a virgin and was resurrected, I cannot disagree that this is a fundamental tenet of Christian scri pture. It simply is. That the Jewish people would like a home where they are safe is entirely legitimate. Historical Zionism was the movement which sought to recreate Israel, and designate it as a safe home for the Jewish people. This movement started in the late nineteenth century, and with that manifest continued until the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Considering that in the decades preceding 1948 alone, the Jewish people had been subject to Pogroms, the Holocaust and other violent acts of anti-Semitism, the movement is entirely reasonable in its desire, and one that I endorse. It must be re-emphasised here that not all Jews are Zionists. Not all Zionists support the actions of the State of Israel, nor the means by which it was created. However, when the State of Israel was created, in tandem with the Zionist movement, the aggressive colonisation of Palestinian land began. Whilst I do not criticise the abstract intentions of historical Zionism, the particular way in which it has manifested in Israel s behaviour is, I believe, abhorrent. As such, one might consider my anti-Zionism as similar to my position on Stalinism. It has a laudable foundation, but has turned out dreadfully in historical fact.

The above is only a brief summary of my position on Israel, Zionism, and anti-Semitism. However, even in this reductive form, my position will be vastly different from the next Jewish, British graduate of History and Philosophy who has Orthodox grandparents and a Muslim stepfather that you will meet. It will differ even more drastically from a Sephardic, third generation Holocaust survivor who has grown up in West London, and will continue to differ with each new person that you meet. My point here is that with such complex issues, particularly when they relate to cultures that include a vast number of people, subcultures, and inter-cultural blends must not be reduced in discussion. Using the term anti-Zionism as the foundation for discussion will be entirely ineffective if any meaningful understanding is to be found. However, this reduction is precisely what happens when freedom of speech is understood as the freedom to proclaim. Without seeking further clarity, I might well be tarred with the brush of anti-Semitism, or be accused for supporting Palestine. I might then fling back a counter-argument, and the conversation will continue until we have both exhausted our point of view. Neither of us will be the wiser, but a greater sense of alienation and division will have grown between us.

If, however, a respondent to my position were to begin by asking for clarity, qualification or specification on terms I use, or ideas I suggest, then three major benefits become available. The first is that I, as the utterer, am given greater freedom to separate my position from cultural stereotypes. In a conversation which seeks clarity rather than victory, I am given the chance to engage in the discussion as myself rather than a Jew, a Brit, a socialist, or even an Aryan. The pigeon hole is filled with earth, rather than pigeons. Secondly, that freedom I am offered affords me the opportunity to learn, and to change my viewpoint. If I am disagreed with from the outset, no matter how well articulated the criticism, I am far more likely to feel unheard, and thus to remain adamant in my position. With flexible discussion, and a demonstrated attempt to understand me, the possibility of me being swayed by counterargument will increase. Thirdly, the freedom to converse actively encourages social cohesion. If a Zionist and an Anti-Zionist are introduced, based upon those terms, and seek no further clarity, they are set in opposition. This can be seen every day online. Whenever somebody marks themselves out as a Brexiteer, if no clarity is sought to what they mean, they will either be joined by other Brexiteers, or open themselves for opposition by Remainers. Yet if the Zionist and Anti-Zionist seek to understand the viewpoint of the other by conversation, rather than proclamation, then fertile ground is unearthed in which common territory can be found. Admittedly, this common ground is not inevitable. However, the likelihood is that, if both individuals are engaging in a given conversation, they both live within the cultural sphere where that conversation takes place. One might be Israeli, the other Spanish, but both clearly care enough about Israel to engage in the conversation. As such, their relationship is not defined by their antagonistic labels, but rather by their common interests.

I cannot pretend to be an expert on the topic of Zionism. I can t even claim to be a particularly good Jew. As such, I m sure that this essay is full of holes, inconsistencies and problematic comments. I am more than willing to admit my own ignorance. I would, however, ask that rather than disagreeing with me, you approach me and ask me why? .