I
Shaul Magid once gravitated toward Jewish settlements, but today he’s a respected Jewish Studies professor who defines his worldview as ‘counter-Zionism.’ His stance imagines an Israel that respects all peoples’ histories and abandons Zionism as a ‘Jews only’ ideology
Dec 28, 2023
NEW YORK – Exactly two months after the October 7 massacre, about 300 people, predominantly from left-leaning Jewish circles, gathered at the Center for New Jewish Culture in Brooklyn. They were there for the launch of “The Necessity of Exile – Essays from a Distance,” the latest book by Jewish Studies scholar, rabbi and author Shaul Magid. The event was less a celebration and more a moment for communal catharsis and connection.
Magid is a professor at Dartmouth College, and senior researcher and fellow at both the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America and Harvard Divinity School. He also serves as rabbi at Fire Island Synagogue, an egalitarian shul operating mostly in the summer months for residents and tourists.
“The Necessity of Exile” is published by Ayin Press, an independent nonprofit “deeply rooted in Jewish culture.” The high turnout for a book critiquing Zionism is perhaps an indication of the tense atmosphere in academic settings in the Diaspora, underscoring a clash of ideologies that is occurring at a distance from the bloody Israel-Hamas war.
Magid’s book dissects and critiques terms like Zionism, anti-Zionism, identity, Indigeneity and antisemitism – subjects that have dominated the public discourse over the past two and a half months.
The book was written and printed before October 7, but in a coda to the book (on the Ayin Press website) written in reaction to the October 7 attack, Magid writes:
“One cannot write, one cannot even think, about Israel without confronting the horrific day of October 7, 2023, and its increasingly horrifying aftermath. The Hamas massacre on that day – the brutal murder of civilians, including many women, children, and elders, the torture and heinous sexual crimes, and the abduction of over 200 hostages, including toddlers, children, and the elderly – struck Israel, and the Jewish people, to its very core.
- Being Jewish, or Israeli, in America after October 7: Haaretz must reads
- Polarized: Israel-Gaza war is forcing young U.S. Jews to choose sides
- Zionism as racism: The Soviet ploy used to ‘explain’ Israel and Hamas
“But still, amidst the mourning and devastation, when the fog of war lifts and the mourners rise from shivah or take down their mourning tents, the same dilemma will exist: competing claims for rights, claims of ownership, and the land, the land, the land. … We can think – we must think – a way out of the cognitive trap of exceptionalism and exclusivity, rights and victimhood, on both sides, and the illusion of seeing violence as a solution, whether terrorism or state violence, even if we must do so through tears of grief, of sorrow, and of pain.”
Speaking to Haaretz earlier this month, Magid noted that “while in some ways October 7 changed everything – and it did – I fear it will also change nothing. That is, when the war ends, when the dead are buried, I think the same tensions, challenges and problems with Zionism that I argued in the book will remain operative, maybe even more so.”
Magid clarifies that his book “doesn’t make a case for or against the existence of Israel.” He notes, though, that while the Zionism of the 19th and 20th century was essential and did a lot of good, post-independence he believes it has slid into ethnonationalism and chauvinism.
He bases his critique on what he calls a “counter-Zionism” position. While post-Zionism critiques Zionism from within, focusing on debunking its myths and anti-Zionism invariably opposes Israel’s existence, Magid’s is an anti-Zionist stance that is not anti-Israel but advocates for a reimagined coexistence in Israel that respects all peoples’ histories and rights by abandoning the two-state solution and Zionism as a “Jews only” ideology.
Magid’s concept of exile invites those in the Diaspora – as well as those within Israel – to rethink a sense of not yet being home, keeping possibilities of other existences and avoiding a “culture of domination.”
“Exile for American secular Jews, progressives, presents a unique challenge. Unlike Orthodox Jews, who see exile as a theological and sociological condition linked to their history and identity, secular Jews must find a different meaning in exile.”
In this, the book’s ideas are reminiscent of Israel’s far left advocating for a binational state. However, Magid makes the case from his Diasporic peers rather than relying on local political histories. The book, then, is not so much about Israel as it is about liberal Zionism specifically as it exists in the United States, born in many ways through U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who made the argument that liberal American values and Zionist values are pretty much the same.
“I suggest that the core issue may not be the type of Zionism but Zionism itself. The ideology’s claim of ending a 2,000-year exile, that the only viable form of Jewish existence is in Israel,” says Magid, defining the situation that has led to a crisis within Diaspora Jewry.
This crisis of identity doesn’t only appear in Magid’s book but in his own biography.
Epiphany in Gaza
Born in the suburbs of New York to a secular Jewish family in 1958, as a youth Magid was drawn into the American counterculture movement. His profound reconnection with Judaism occurred while studying Japanese medicine in New Mexico. This led him to travel to Israel for the first time in 1979, where he became religious, dedicating himself to studying in yeshivot in Jerusalem and Brooklyn.
In the book, he recounts his journey after making aliyah in 1981, immersing himself in the ultra-Orthodox world of Jerusalem and continuing his studies at Hebrew University, where he studied Jewish Thought under Prof. Eliezer Schweid. Following a period of intense study, he found himself becoming disillusioned with the insular life there and gravitated toward the West Bank settlements. He also visited Atzmona in Gush Katif – the cluster of Gaza Strip settlements that Israel unilaterally evacuated in 2005.
He was initially captivated by the vibrant, fervent spirit of the religious Zionists there. However, this enchantment was not to last. Magid describes an epiphany while praying and overlooking Khan Yunis, observing Palestinian Gazans returning from a day’s work. He realized that while the Haredim were preoccupied with the past, religious Zionists were fixated on the future – and “that future has no place for Palestinians.”
After moving back to the United States with his family in 1989, Magid pursued a PhD in Polish Hasidism at Brandeis University, which he completed in 1994.
His insistence on negating Zionism with what he calls “exile” isn’t only a provocative suggestion for Israeli Jews, but also to the vast majority of American Jews whose identity is tethered to Israel.
“There has been a very definite educational project in America: that their identity as Jews is inextricably tied to the support of the State of Israel and Zionism. They may not know much about the nuances of Zionism, but are taught that supporting the State of Israel is a marker of a good Jewish identity. For many American Jews, Israel is Judaism,” he says.
The supplanting of the Israeli flag into American-Jewish synagogues and identity has led to a generational dilemma. According to Magid, the only requirement to be “a Jew in good standing” – increasingly after October 7 – is to unequivocally support Israel. This trend, he argues, is causing the liberal Jewish establishment to enforce stricter norms on acceptable dialogue.
According to Magid, the only requirement to be “a Jew in good standing” – increasingly after October 7 – is to unequivocally support Israel. This trend, he argues, is causing the liberal Jewish establishment to enforce stricter norms on acceptable dialogue.
“In the past, supporting the BDS movement was the unacceptable limit,” he says, referring to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. “But now, even advocating for a cease-fire or a mutual prisoner exchange is considered too extreme. This change is causing the liberal Jewish establishment to move further right, distancing themselves from those who are critical of Israel’s policies.”
He sees this as a consequence of a long-term educational approach. “Many young Jews, acknowledging their identity’s focus on Israel, are now critically assessing it,” he says. “Their progressive or liberal values clash with what they see as the current illiberal state of the country. This critical perspective is a significant shift from older generations’ views.”
Magid’s critique of Israel underscores a significant dilemma: progressive Jews, even as they adopt a critical stance toward Israel, paradoxically maintain it as a central element of their identity. Exile on these terms is more hollowed out and fragile.
Flawed speech
This crisis was on show during a congressional hearing in early December when presidents of three leading universities struggled to articulate their positions on student groups advocating to “globalize the intifada” and chanting “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Their failure to clearly express their views resulted in accusations of antisemitism – a situation that prompted University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill to resign days later.
Magid sees the problem not in terms of Jewish safety but flawed speech. “The massacre and subsequent war has brought to the surface a lot of conflicting views that existed even before October 7,” he says. “I think the left has erred in its inability to both condemn 10/7 while condemning the occupation, and thus protests have occurred that use language that is extremely problematic and could, in some very small instances, be inciteful.”
More than language, the disconnect seems to stem from the “distance” in Magid’s book title, that of the realities of Israelis and Americans. For many Israelis, “intifada” specifically denotes the two Palestinian uprisings in which over 1,500 Jews were killed in terror attacks.
This distance is another part of the crisis.
“The crisis isn’t new but has been exacerbated with October 7, both in the American and Israeli contexts,” the 65-year-old professor says. “Progressive Jews in America, previously on the margins, are gaining significant traction post-October 7. Groups like IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace have seen exponential growth since the war began,” he says. Magid believes this increase is a reaction to the traditional educational emphasis on Israel. This fosters the internal Jewish debate about what is antisemitic and what is legitimate criticism of Israel.
In the book, Magid makes a distinction between antisemitism as an engine of oppression in historical contexts, like in prewar Europe, versus its existence in places like modern-day America, where Jews are not politically oppressed.
“We’re certainly not oppressed in any political sense, yet antisemitism continues to exist. But what’s the difference between the existence of antisemitism in a place where Jews are not oppressed and the existence of antisemitism as an exercise of oppression?” Magid asks.
“I suggest that the core issue may not be the type of Zionism but Zionism itself. The ideology’s claim of ending a 2,000-year exile, that the only viable form of Jewish existence is in Israel.”
Despite the increase in antisemitic sentiment and acts after October 7, Magid argues that this form of antisemitism is often misused and weaponized.
“Misinterpretations, like equating ‘intifada’ with calls for genocide, are examples of the lack of nuanced understanding of antisemitism,” he argues. “The danger of mislabeling individuals or actions as antisemitic without proper context or understanding is a way to attack and silence dissent, particularly around discussions of Israel.”
Furthermore, the Jewish Studies scholar believes Jews are being used as pawns in broader political debates in the United States, such as the Republican Party’s efforts to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, motivated by the belief that they disadvantage white students and faculty.
Magid previously wrote a book about Meir Kahane, the Jewish supremacist believed that the Israel-Palestine conflict was intractable because Arabs, like Jews, have a strong, Zionist-like aspiration for self-determination in the Holy Land. He viewed the situation as a zero-sum game, where the fulfillment of one group’s aspirations would inevitably undermine the other’s.
“Post 10/7, I think there are Jews who are coming to that conclusion – that the Palestinians cannot be convinced of a solution that leaves Israel as a Jewish state intact. But of course, Kahane’s solution was not a democracy but a theocracy. Whenever the status quo is destabilized, as it was on 10/7, Kahane will always be waiting in the wings,” Magid warns.
The heightened atmosphere also feeds into Kahane’s assertion that Jews aren’t safe and must demonstrate strength through force. “This is evident in Jews in South Florida flocking to shooting galleries, and there’s a newfound interest in the Jewish Defense League,” he points out.
This cycle leads to the notion that Jewish strength is synonymous with Israel’s strength – a viewpoint echoed even in high-profile settings such as the White House, where President Joe Biden recently said that “without Israel, Jews wouldn’t be safe anywhere.”
“The challenge for liberal Zionism is how to reconcile support for an increasingly illiberal Israeli state with liberal values – we saw this during the protests,” says Magid, referring to the mass pro-democracy demonstrations in Israel earlier this year. “American Jews were weary of protesting the government, and it took Israelis coming over to talk and ‘allow’ them to protest. Suddenly, it created a paradox where if you don’t protest against the government, you might be considered ‘anti-Israel.’ This is while progressive Jews saw the protests as limited because they didn’t center the occupation in the democracy conversation.
“If America’s liberal Zionist establishment continues to move rightward, it will not cease to be Zionist, but it well may become more illiberal and lead to a form of neoconservatism,” he continues. “The liberal Zionist dilemma is becoming more acute in the context of rounds of violence in Israel and Palestine where they must confront the human cost and ethical implications of their support for Israel.”
There is, however, a countercurrent in the anti-Zionist critique, evident after October 7, which came under the umbrella of “decolonization” that ignored the Palestinian noncommitment to human rights and equality in a guise of a struggle for liberation.
Redefining Jewish life
Magid refrains from offering easy solutions in his new book, drawing extensively instead from historical, Jewish and contemporary thought that challenges Zionism – from Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum to Daniel Boyarin to Judith Butler. One of the surprising examples is an examination of religious post-Zionism, which arose from the disillusionment following the Israeli state’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and evacuation of the settlements there, which caused a crisis of faith and ideology in much of the settler movement.
At the heart of this ideological shift is Rav Shagar, who melded Judaism with postmodernist thought. Shagar championed the influence of postmodernism in redefining faith. He critiqued foundational religious-Zionist Rav Kook, arguing that modernist approaches have become obsolete. Instead, he suggested a path forward inspired by Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, which emphasizes individualism and the ability to adapt to the fragmented reality of contemporary life.
This evolution, deeply entrenched within the settler community, Magid argues, suggests a possible transformation in religious Zionism toward a more individualized connection with the land, rather than the nationalist ideologies of religious Zionism.
Nevertheless, the post-October 7 reality, with settler leaders advocating for a return to Gaza and members of the government proposing that Gazans leave the Strip, casts a shadow on the practicality of Shagar’s vision, which increasingly appears to be merely aspirational.
Magid argues that American Judaism – especially its growing progressive movements – requires a reinvigorated commitment to Judaism itself, one that is not centered on an Israel-centric perspective. This appears to be a challenging request for progressive Jews who, lacking a theological framework, have united their identity under the umbrella of social justice.
Paradoxically, if the Israeli status vis-à-vis the Palestinians were to improve, they would find themselves needing to forge a new path.
“David Ben-Gurion was right when he said the biggest threat to Zionism was a healthy Diaspora,” says Magid. “Exile for American secular Jews, progressives, presents a unique challenge. Unlike Orthodox Jews, who see exile as a theological and sociological condition linked to their history and identity, secular Jews must find a different meaning in exile. As I argue in the book, exile has been a fertile ground for Jewish creativity and identity formation. It’s a state of being separate yet integrated, living with others and contributing to a broader culture. This perspective challenges the notion that the founding of the State of Israel marked the end of Jewish history or exile. Instead, it suggests that the Jewish Diaspora, especially in a non-oppressive context like America, continues to be a vibrant and productive part of Jewish history.”
“We’re certainly not oppressed in any political sense, yet antisemitism continues to exist. But what’s the difference between the existence of antisemitism in a place where Jews are not oppressed and the existence of antisemitism as an exercise of oppression?”
Magid’s concept of an exilic “not yet” seeks to provide new perspectives for thought and action. Yet one could also find it within the history of Zionism itself. As the prominent kibbutz movement leader Yitzhak Tabenkin once stated: “History has graced us in allowing us to fulfill our visions without a state” – the idea being that shared Jewish communal life from which thoughts and realities spring is more vital than the institution of a state.
His writing is highly engaging and provocative, setting him apart and creating a contrast with prevailing thoughts in America. His deep physical and intellectual connection to Israel informs his view of it as an actual, inhabited land. This stands in stark contrast to the dominant critiques on the post-October 7 left, which often conceives of Israel more as an abstract concept than a tangible place. This leads to a form of critique that is detached from the real Israeli experience and limited to discourse.
This discrepancy highlights a significant gap between Magid’s rich ideas and the elusive realities they face – not necessarily within Israel, but within the Diaspora he aims to address. Magid himself embodies this dichotomy: firmly planted in both Israeli and U.S. contexts, he navigates both the academic and religious spheres as a scholar and rabbi. As a result, the type of exile he discusses seems accessible only to those skilled at navigating these dual realities.
After all, exile implies the presence of a real homeland.
Categories: America, American History, Americas, Israel, Jerusalem, Jewish Faith, Jewish Reactions, Jews, United States, USA