If Zionism had but one Jewish question to solve, the external one—the question created by anti-Semitism and industrial and economic disturbances, then the solution it proposes, the reestablishment of the Jewish life for the Jew, might well awaken misgivings. An impulse shaped by such accidental considerations might bring together irreconcilable elements not to be fused into a national unit. Besides the external Jewish question, there is an internal one, the Jewish question created by the needs of the Jew as such, the question of national dissolution or of continued existence, together with the terms on which continued existence will be a blessing to the race and to mankind.

THERE are two ways of organizing a Zionist society. One is the right way. The other is the wrong way. The first is diametrically opposed to the second. This is the wrong way: Three or four ardent Zionists meet, rent a hall, prepare circulars, and hold a mass meeting. After very enthusiastic speeches, applications for membership are received. When a sufficient number of names have been secured, the meeting is adjourned. At another meeting, called in a careless manner, more enthusiastic speeches and vague talk of organization, dues, meetings, but definite arrangements, however, as to election of officers. When an Executive Committee has been appointed, the rank and file become utterly indifferent and resort to criticism of officers as the natural order of business. Then there is vague gossip of joining a vaguely defined Federation.

When a circular is received from the Federation calling a convention, the purpose for sending a delegate is to take note of what has not been done by the Federation. After the delegate returns with his incomplete, often disgruntled and pessimistic report, the members indulge in grumbling, are much disgusted with the Federation, and deliver themselves of more fiery denunciatory speeches. The society then drags along, waiting for some sensation to break the monotony of its existence.

Needless to state, such a society is fundamentally weak and its propagation of the cause is ineffective.

The following is the right way: Let the group of ardent and sensible Zionists who would propagate Zionism, send to THE MACCABEAN or to the Federation of American Zionists, for a constitution defining its position in the hierarchy of societies, the duties of officers, committees, etc. After the receipt of the constitution and detailed instruction, let these pioneers canvass their district to discover the sympathizers of the movement for national rehabilitation. Quietly let a meeting be called and an organization affected, composed of men thoroughly inspired with the Jewish spirit; then let a committee be appointed with stated duties and let stated meeting be arranged for. When the completed organization is in good working order, let a mass meeting be called to expound to the larger public, which is as yet unfamiliar with Zionism, what the movement aimsto accomplish, and let the periodic mass meeting supplement the stated monthly or bi-monthly meetings of the society.

And, above all, let not this society hold aloof from interests that apparently are not Zionistic; but let it assist every Jewish movement that aims for culture, knowledge of Jewish history and Jewish life. Let it not hold aloof from movements that give expression to some particular phase of Jewish life, say in literature, art or science. Let it not refuse to assist the persecuted because the methods in vogue do not aim completely to solve the difficulty. But under all circumstances, be broad and liberal-minded, with the purpose clearly in view to realize that composite Jewish life, sometimes called the Jewish national life, of which the term Zionism is the collective expression.

This right way we commend to all Zionists. "Whoso loveth correction, loveth wisdom." The methods of Zionist organization necessitate reproof ; will our Zionist brethren profit by it?

And, on that note, check out our new website Blogs of Zion where Aharon and I, both co-founders of the CZC, are trying to build an online community for Zionist discourse. If you want to become a blogger, please email us at blogsofzion@gmail.com

We intend of launching the next year of programming soon; as soon as we can catch our breath.

Thanks for understanding.

Legally, it makes sense to pose the question. But for most Jews, it is the wrong question to ask. The really pressing question today is Who will be a Jew? Not at the next Supreme Court hearing on non-Orthodox conversions, not at the next gathering of US Reform rabbis, but in 10, 20, 50 years, in Israel and elsewhere.

If Jews want to not only find inclusive and generally acceptable criteria for citizenship and membership in the Jewish state but also guarantee continuity within those parameters for generations to come, they need to build Jewish identity on positive values.

"Jews are not Europeans and they are not non-Europeans. They are Jews, an autonomous people with an autonomous history that has directed them, in different times and in different places, against their will and according to their will, toward certain peoples and away from certain peoples."

This from the always accurate "Grey Lady," (sovrenoot????) who regales us constantly with her knowledge of etymologies. Here, Hebrew is by nature flawed, harsh. But hark, according to the OED, English's own word for tolerance, ehm, tolerance, also has the same meaning: "To endure, sustain." That also sounds like "putting up" with somehing rather than embracing it.

I think the Israeli intellectuals who oppose it are probably thinking that our involvement in this bitter conflict with the Palestinians, paritcularly the occupation, has undercut our right to speak about tolerance.

This isn't a political blog so much of this isn't relevant. What is relevant though is that most of the classic Zionist sources, from Ahad Ha'am to Jabotinsky, saw Israel as chance to create a state that would embody tolerance and justice. They were of course reacting to ancient Jewish ideas, and thousands of years of Jewish history. In my opinion it is a bit shortsighted to throw in the towel now, and say we have no right to speak of tolerance. Part of that depends on what the museum exhibits. What do you think?

Also, American Jewry's supposed "cultural imperialism" in Israel is an important topic. Any thoughts?

I really felt proud that the Jewish group doing the protesting consisted of people who care a great for Israel, Judaism, and Zionism. It is a small, initial manifestation of the ideas that Ariel has spoken about at our meetings where Zionism would serve as a model for other people to fight for their freedom. It also shows Jews standing up and taking responsibility to fight crimes that we have experienced firsthand ourselves. I used to think that, as a people and a nation-state, if we looked outward before we looked inward, we would never achieve our own safety and security and growth. I think this is a response that springs from a misunderstanding of certain types of Zionism. It reflects on long centuries of persecution and a perpetual lack of security and self-determination.

Now, I believe that as a people and a nation that wants to have a Jewish character, we must simultaneously do all we can to be a nation that embodies our Jewish ideals in our interactions with the rest of the world. This means speaking out against a genocide as it happens before our very eyes.

The American Zionist Movement is a coalition of groups and individuals committed to Zionism, the idea that the Jewish people is one people with a shared history, values and language.

I find this a strange definition of Zionism for a few reasons. Number one, it leaves out any discussion of Israel.

Secondly, it is nothing more than a descriptive statement: we hold these truths to be self-evident that the Jewish people is one with a shared history, values and language. And, therefore, it cannot possibly be the definition of something that calls itself a movement (funny how Zionist movements are often like that). Does not Zionism have prescriptions for the Jewish People? Isn't it designed to build, to grow, to lead, to move? The AZM definition lacks exactly that which the CZC convened to explore: a Zionism that has meaning, that is going somewhere, and that has the power to inspire Jews and the rest of the world.

And there are a few other things: What do they mean by a shared history? If it is exile, persecution, etc., then yes. I'm not sure what they meant, especially as we Jews have not lived in the same place for thousands of years and thus we lack a shared history, language, etc. That is what Zionism was coming to change but it was based on the recognition of our historical differences. When they say they believe in that idea they don't specify which history is to become our authorized one. There is no explanation.

But I think you could make the argument that the People of Israel was spread out, but continued to see themselves as part of the same nation and family. The way Rambam corresponded with Jews in Yemen and Ashkenaz, referring to each as brothers, is emblematic of that fact. What is beautiful in potentia about Israel to me, is that it is home to a process where all the various Jewish histories are coming together and forging a new one, based on sundry pasts.

Oslo, and what has happened since, has eradicated the classic distinction between left and right. A good case study is the fence. On the one hand, the pragmmatic right, which wants the fence, has decided to desert the ideological right, which detests the fence. On the other hand, the left is undergoing the same transformation: the security left wants the fence while the ideological left does not. The marriages of convenience that have existed for so long are no longer relevant and voters and politicians are having to choose sides that are quite novel. Things have changed.

Using the fence as a case study as to how American Jews see Israel, it proves to be just one more way that the modern day politics of Israel is less and less relevant to the somewhat simplistic understanding of Israeli politics I am finding as I work with adults in Jewish communities in the U.S. Their politics is rooted in an original break between the Zionist revisionists and the old guard, that translated into the Labor-Likkud divide, that settled down into an all encompassing left-right political universe.

American Jews sieze on these distinctions to define their relationship to Israel. They are either Begin people or Ben-Gurion people. Or they speak with fondness of Golda Meir's tenure as if she is relevant today. The problem with this is that it is out of touch with reality of politics in Israel today to the extent that the opinions of Diaspora Jews sound completely ludicrous. By refusing to stay updated and acknowledge change they have abdicated their right to participate, as Jews, in Israel's day to day and long-term political decisions. Their perspective has also grown stale and come to focus more on past infighting than on where we are going to grow as a nation today, and in 100 years.

With all these changes I think a huge opportunity is opening. All the problems, upheavals, and developments in the Israeli system, in addition to our generation's understanding of the world and perspective fifty+ years after the founding of the state, lead me to wonder: We all thought that certain strains of Zionism had died off completely, Ahad Haam's, Buber's, and many others. Were we premature in coming to that conclusion? Are some of those coming back? If so, what are the elements that we want to harvest and which ones are irrelevant?

There is definitley an energy among the remaining Zionists and, I believe, in the Israeli popular sphere, that is pushing for something more substantive on which to base our society and our still emerging state. What do you think?

"If this storm ever passes, if Israel ever does actually make it to peace, there will be a Golden Age over here. Israeli minds and hearts will open up, there will be hope in the air, and the world will beckon to us again.

But if that day comes, I'm afraid that after the initial burst of sunlight, the sky will turn still and gray again for Diaspora Jewry. If this long storm ever ends, they will miss it.

Since the establishment of the State of Israel nearly no utopias have been written in it or in the Jewish People. This is a sign testifying to the weakness of value creativity and scarcity of future-directed thinking accompanied by lack of long-term policies in many domains. Given the predicaments of the State of Israel and the Jewish People, this endangers the future. Hence the need to encourage and stimulate futuristic imagination and reflection, including writing of utopias and development of realistic visions, inter alia as a basis for policy planning.