Review: Jacqueline Rose.THE QUESTION OF ZION. Princeton University Press, 2005.

Abstract

Introduction A Princeton University Press (PUP) Release announcing Jacqueline Rose's book, The Question of Zion, instructively informs its potential readers and reviewers that Rose, while exposing Zionism's "apocalyptic jargon" and the "messianic zeal" that drove Jewish nationalism, is also to be credited for pointing out "the dissident Zionist writers of the early twentieth century, including Hannah Arendt, Theodor Herzl, and Gershon Sholem, who, even before the founding of Israel, called into question the establishment of a Jewish state at the expense of the legitimate rights of the native Palestinians." Defining Herzl as a "dissident writer" or Arendt as a "Zionist writer" is a bit like calling Sigmund Freud a "dissident psychoanalyst," Alexander Hamilton a "dissident founding father," or Karl Marx a dissident Marxist. Also Sprach PUP? Or a sign that the Ivy League is not what it used to be? No matter. While the reader may be left to wonder who should lose their jobs at the prestigious publishing house for this little oversight, one should not judge this book by the blissful ignorance of PUP's public relations personnel, which perhaps is just a welcome indication of how this book made it into print. In fact, their little stretch of imagination is reality television compared to Rose's reach for the stars. Rose's argument has little to do with the reality of Zionism or indeed of the current state of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is more a reflection of the state of mind of Jews who—like Rose and other radical Jewish intellectuals opposed to Israel's existence—do not want to be Jews, are ashamed to be Jewish, and take pride in saying it out loud—in short, her own state of mind. More than an indictment of Zionism then, as she no doubt conceived her book, The Question of Zion is Rose's pained and ultimately unsuccessful effort to grapple with Jewish identity in an age where Israel stands at its core. Unfortunately for Rose, her book is neither a confession nor a moment [End Page 194] of truth face-to-face with her demons. It is more like a transfer—in the psychoanalytic sense, not in the sense attributed to the sinister designs of Zionists by post-Zionist historians. It is a projection of the unresolved fears of an assimilated Jew quite incapable of letting go in theory of an identity she has already relinquished in practice. Rather than accepting that her unease with Israel and Zionism is a symptom of the fact that she does not feel she "belongs," Rose builds a highly inaccurate, historically flawed depiction of what Zionism is—with not a few factual mistakes—in order to show that it is actually those Jews who either embraced Zionism or at least support Israel from the Diaspora who do not "belong." Rose's book is a direct challenge to Zionism, the core of contemporary Jewish identity: "People who thunder," Rose writes "are generally those who are least sure of themselves" (101). By demonizing Zionism, she can become reconciled with her own unease as a member of a collective whose core identity she rejects. And, true to her words, Rose's thunderous book reflects more her wavering Jewish identity, less the reality of Zionism. Hegel and Freud, or Zionism as Madness The Question of Zion is divided in three sections: Zionism as Messianism, Zionism as Psychoanalysis, and Zionism as Politics. These three sections correspond to what Rose sees as the three phases of which the evolution of Zionism consists: Vision, Critique, and Violence, something which Rose herself suggests is an adaptation of the typical Hegelian process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Relying on psychoanalysis, Rose sees Zionism as a psychotic response to a permanent state of fear. For Rose, Messianism is an apocalyptic view of the world that is the historic response to disaster, and which thrives on disaster: "Redemption," she writes, "arises from the ruins of history. Disaster must be meaningful to be borne" (19...