THE BUNDIST PHILOSOPHY of joining with the working class of their native country to struggle for democracy and social justice (Doikayt, or “here-ness,” as they dubbed it in Yiddish) seemed to make more sense than the Zionist dream of reviving the ancient Jewish homeland in what was then Palestine. Perversely, history vindicated the Zionists in seeking a refuge away from Europe.
It surprised me when merely making this observation drew harsh rebukes from two other seminar participants. . . .
Bundism was an admirable movement in many ways, but it tragically failed in all of its objectives. It did not establish Jewish cultural autonomy, nor keep Yiddish alive as a modern literary and spoken language for masses of secular Jews, and it did not help usher in a reign of democratic socialism. In the end, it didn’t (nor could it) defend most Jews of Eastern Europe from utter destruction.
As a leftwing dissenter within the Zionist fold for decades, I sympathize with concerns raised by Bundists in their day and by others in our time about the rights of Palestinian Arabs and the potential for endless conflict. I agree that some Israeli actions have themselves become a source of antisemitic animus.
Still, harsh critics of Israel usually ignore or downplay those Arab behaviors (violent and otherwise) that exacerbate the conflict. Unstinting leftwing assaults on Zionism are largely based on a misconception: They conflate the Zionist idea with particular policies of various Israeli governing coalitions, especially the very rightwing one that governs today under Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Zionism has succeeded in establishing a state for the Jews but not in its more profound goal of fully “normalizing” Jewish existence. Both the Bund’s catastrophic demise and Zionism’s precarious and incomplete triumph emphasize the same truth: that the Jews are a tiny global minority, heavily dependent upon the good will of others.