Okay. So by way of proper introduction. Good afternoon and welcome, everybody.
It's truly a pleasure and a delight to present the speaker to you today,
Professor Moss Morris right now from the Institute for History and Philosophy of Science at Tel Aviv University.
By way of introducing him, I'm just going to mention his two more recent works, published works or books just last year published, I'm sorry,
generally speaking, for first of all,
most of our work is on the intersection of modern Jewish history and the history of modern science and technology.
In 2022, his book, Photography and Jewish History 5/20 Century Cases, was published by University of Pennsylvania Press,
and it focuses on the discussion of photography and Jewish history on the political categories and registers of 20th century Jewish history.
Instead of just focusing on Jewish photographers or Jewish topics for photography.
His previous book, Race in Photography Ratio Photography as Scientific Evidence 1876 to 1980, published by the University of Chicago Press,
examines numerous scientists and scholars who develop photographic methods and techniques
for the study of race or made methodical use of photography for the Study of Race.
And the title of his book today is The Fusion of Zionism and Science The First Two Decades and the Present Day.
Thank you so much for coming and thank you very much for having me and for the very kind introduction.
And what I will present today is a joint work together with a close friend and colleague
of mine called Danny Tong from the called the Road to Silence Associations in Paris.
AM And so it really is it's a it's a joint work.
It's not it's not my only maybe I'll only just say by way of framing that I'm
interested in science between Zionism as a movement and Israel as a state.
And I'll speak about science. And Zionism today is a movement towards a state.
But the question in the background is what happens later.
That is with regard to different events and later points in time till the present with regard to the same tension between the Zionist as a journalism,
as a movement and and Israel as a state.
It is well known that the Zionist movement was very good to a genius.
Its history can be read like an unintended division of labour between currents that were sometimes opposites, sometimes complementary.
Within this framework, socialist or labour, Zionism, led mainly by Russian and Polish leaders, played a crucial role in the early Zionist movement,
when it was mainly Austro-Hungarian and German Zionists who gave the movement its scientific and technical colouring.
As Amos Frankenstein pointed out, a quote, without science and technology.
Such was the almost general consensus among Zionists there can be no normalisation.
It is indeed a telling point that all the dreams of health in Poland,
the most daring technological ones, were those realised nearly in their entirety.
The book reminds us of Jules Verne's Electric City, end quote.
And while the socialist legacy was gradually, gradually faded, the question that is at the heart of this talk has to do with the other legacy.
The legacy of science and technology and the extent to which it has endured and
permeated Israeli society to this day because they pursue a modern project.
All modern national movements have a strong relationship with science.
Zionism understood as a national movement of the Jewish people,
as institutionalised by the Zionist Congress beginning in 1897, is no exception in this regard.
But Zionism's relationship with science and technology is nonetheless singular in certain respects.
Why and in what sense is it so? My argument in this talk is free food.
First, that relationship was established with the very inception of the Zionist movement.
Second, it is characterised by a duality,
a tension between a highly pragmatic scientific attitude on the one hand, namely science conceived as engineering,
as a principal instrument of national construction, and simultaneously, on the other hand,
science understood as working with the most fragile and inaccessible materials or building blocks.
Here, the creativity of the Zionist movement lies in the arrangement of very disparate capacities and the orientation
of the available expert knowledge toward a goal that remains vague enough to ensure broad participation.
I would suggest that the Zionist movement was characterised by the quintessential place of
a programmatic and detailed planning and striving towards pragmatically defined goals.
At the same time, however, zionism's ultimate goal, idealistic, utopian, and always just out of reach remained unstated.
Why this talk only aims to establish this intellectual structure for the first two decades of the Zionist movement.
I want to suggest thirdly, that because the structure was embedded in the socialisation processes of Zionism from its very earliest phase,
it remains critically important in spite of the many additional historical events that
followed for for the understanding of key facets of Jewish and later Israeli society.
To this day, I will begin by articulating science's dual status within the Zionist movement,
as established by Hilton in his two main documents on Zionism.
In the treaties. The Jewish state wouldn't start in the novel or new land at no land.
Then focusing on no the expert journal of the Zionist movement named after his first novel.
I show that that duality characterises the earliest phase of the Zionist movement.
I go on to give two further, partially interconnected examples from the first and second decades of the
20th century involving the sociologist France Oppenheimer and the sociologist,
demographer and Zionist functionary Al Taupin.
Finally, in conclusion,
I touch briefly on what we consider to be aspects of this intellectual and social structure in contemporary Israeli society and politics.
The Jewish state and all new land. It is a commonplace today that the nation state is a modern historical construction.
However, even though construction is a metaphor here, there are cases where it should be taken literally.
It is not historical sociology that reveals the constructed character of the nation state, but the historical actors who thematic it in this way.
I quote Hilton in Basel. Then I created this abstraction which as such, is invisible to the vast majority of people, end quote.
He writes this in his entry for September 3rd, 1897.
Sociologists and engineers alike know that any construction has to be built from
the building blocks that are available in the case of a national movement.
These usually include the territory and are more or less homogeneous population endowed with a language,
customs and a high culture even before they are targeted by a political intention.
But in the Jewish state, Hilton, like a magician, signals that an abstraction would soon become concrete before our eyes when the curtain is lifted.
The edifice, which is now invisible, would suddenly impose itself on the on on everyone's view,
the construction material being of the most fragile, even inaccessible kind.
This artifice turns out to be pure artefact.
The Zionist movement did not attempt to mimic the illusion of a natural national blossoming leading to a nation state.
Instead. It based itself on an obstruction and a goal with no counterpart in reality.
It would line up parts with which it would have to make do in order to assemble its mechanics.
Any project relies on the realism of its promoter, and any any project must be achievable.
Of course, the history of Zionism, Zionist movement, Zionist movements, emergence goes beyond health and the linguistic,
literary and scientific renaissance of Jewish culture in Poland in the second half of the 19th century and
the political history of the labour movement in Palestine in the first decades of the 20th 20th century.
History are especially important in the context of the Zionist science nexus.
The Jewish Renaissance and the labour movement both touch on the Eastern European sources of the Zionist movement,
whereas focusing on science involved matter involves rather the Austrian,
Austrian, Hungarian and German contexts as a singular status of science in the Zionist movement owes
its social intellectual structure to health and to most important Zionist documents.
The project of Zionism, which was first conceived according to a carefully developed plan,
then had to be made into reality with a tool works that Herzl devoted to framing that reality, he endeavoured to enlist as many allies as possible.
The Union Start was a programmatic work published in 1896,
poses the necessity of creating a state for the Jews and methodically sets out the means that are necessary to achieve that.
As No Land, published in 1902, is a novel in which Herzl imagines the future state,
which is not actually a state, but rather a federation of cooperatives.
The notion of the Jewish state, the product of health, its legal imagination is projective.
It sets out the concrete modalities for realising its objective by deploying the mediations through which the state will be Concretised all new land.
The product of his literary imagination, assumes the fictional dimension of a society to come, a society that is capable of doing without a state.
While in a way, these two visions are compatible and complementary.
They also stand in tension and even contradiction with each other in one.
Hence it elaborates the means. The means of building a state for the Jews.
And in the other, he describes a Jewish society without a state and an attempt to show the singular role of science
and Zionism cannot be understood without considering the tension between the two visions.
All New Land is part of a series of utopian essays with a Zionist tone that flourished beginning in the last quarter of the 19th century.
Notably, it was not the futuristic novel Old New Land that came under fire when it was published in 1902, but instead the Jewish state.
Some six years earlier. It is not surprising that proto Zionist utopian literature should have flourished since the the hope of a forthcoming assembly
of the Jews in Jerusalem is embedded in the daily Jewish liturgy and known even to Jews who have never opened a prayer book.
The actual project, on the other hand, the setting up of mediations toward the realisation of an objective that is not fully defined
and is held to be unattainable is what carries the subversive charge here judged harmful,
unrealistic, impossible, impossibly grandiose.
The Jewish state was systematically maligned and dismissed.
In short, the common opinion literary utopia is routine, maybe even repetitive.
While it is the program supported by an executable plan that is truly subversive,
unrealistic and therefore qualified by its detractors as utopian in Hazard's oeuvre, a realistic utopia coexist with a with a fantasy project.
The real life society named No Land owes everything to its Jewish engineers from Europe the most modern scientific, economic and social technology.
At the end presents itself as a fiction, but tells the start was seen as the most unrealistic thing that could be.
The Jewish state and old new land are in a relationship of mutual contradiction,
and the charge of subversion, generally carried by utopian genre, is transposed onto the program.
Hilton is aware of this contradiction.
In his foreword to the Jewish states, he notes a quote I wrote this utopia only to show that it is not a utopia.
There was enough. There are enough utopias before and after Thomas more.
No sensible person has fought to of realising them.
They entertain, but do not take, end quote, where the emigration of Jews to a specific land would appear to have been a technically
feasible task in those times of international migration and colonial planning.
In the eyes of Hilton's readers, especially his Jewish readers, it seemed an impossible and demure plan.
For this reason, the place of of assembly remains undetermined in the Jewish state.
Although Hetzel locates old new lands, new society in Palestine one while noting that it could exist anywhere.
Now. I moved to L.A., not the monastery, if you will. The village of some Palestinians.
Herzl's two two books are situated at the crossroads of two series.
On the one hand, Austrian liberal progressivism, which advocated a profound social reform of the Hapsburg monarchy, permeates the Jewish state.
A technocratic, plan oriented criticism runs all through its project.
It is here that the very particular link between Zionism and science technology is established healthily in the Jewish state.
Reason it reason using a problem solution framework.
The problem was the persistence of anti-Semitism in Europe in spite of emancipation.
The solution was a state for the Jews to bring about that solution.
The Zionist movement would have to rely entirely on scientific and technical explorations.
As a solution, a state for the Jews was precisely an aim.
Solving the Jewish problem in Europe. Thus, early on,
the Zionist movement created functional branches intended to fulfil the specific tasks that were indispensable to the execution of the project.
The Journal acknowledged monitoring through the abuse of tissue as useful Palestinians or candidate Zionist Union Commission,
so a foreshadowing Palestinos was founded during the sixth Zionist Congress held in Basel in 1903.
Strangely, the German named the agent named after his literary text was to become a place of scientific expertise
dedicated to the practice realisation of the building of a productive Jewish society in Palestine,
and covering topics such as methods of financing the settlement of migrants,
the purchase and regulation of landed property, the co-operative organisation of labour water management.
The adaptation of modern agriculture techniques to mastery of desert terrain.
The development of infrastructure in the quiet lands,
as well as numerous scientific subjects that would at first glance appear to esoteric for the practical realisation of the project.
It is made clear in the programmatic text published in the first issue in 1904 that science will occupy a cardinal place in the Journal.
I quote this mission statement.
That that that the will that they will may become a saving, redeeming deed.
This purpose must be served above all. But that which is the most powerful force of our time science.
We must know exactly the ground on which your house of Bakersville Hospital is to stand.
We must work through the building plan to the last and smallest detail.
We must recruit and train the builders who are to carry out the plan.
We must ensure that the inhabitants know how to how to amply earn the bread in honest,
creative work so that they also retain the time and strength to do that.
Director gaze upwards toward higher human goals and quote.
Helton not only formulates the project, he stands at the epicentre of a vast socio technical network,
a network of experts, each of whose specific knowledge contributes to the plan.
The Journal engages the whole panoply of available knowledge from social planning to the study of soils, from demography to botany,
from ethnographic knowledge about indigenous populations to knowledge about endemic disease,
from the economic behaviour of populations to hydraulic science.
By science then I mean all the disciplines, including the social and political sciences,
taken together, made coherent and organised by a network of experts.
I move now to France Oppenheimer in 1902, when Hilton read Franz Oppenheimer's article Judicious Healing in Jewish Settlements in the World,
he immediately imagined that the Zionist movement would have to engage in social experimentation in Palestine.
Oppenheimer's public endorsement of Zionism, published and developed in 1903,
inaugurated a phase in which all of the knowledge of agrarian reform and social engineering,
in particular the knowledge developed within the French was itself.
Politics in Germany would converge and be mobilised to carry out a social experiment in vivo outside Europe.
The fact that Hanson managed to place himself at the heart of the network Dead did not,
however, mean that every element within the network showed his vision.
Oppenheimer, the German Patriot, Jewish, Jewish, German patriot,
believed that the solution offered by the colonisation of Palestine was exclusively a solution for the Austrian and the East European Jews.
It is on the other student that he wanted to perform his social political science experiments in a space that,
while it was not, certainly not Virgin was not affected by the contractions of capitalism, on which he was a renowned expert.
His participation in the Zionist network offered him an opportunity to experiment as an engineer,
taking advantage of the absence of laws of gravity to build an ideal social edifice between Herzl and Oppenheimer.
There was a kind of dialectic. Oppenheimer adhered to the platform of Basel, the first Zionist Congress, which health alert convened in old new land.
Herzl, in turn, was strongly inspired by Oppenheimer's social theory and reformist recommendations.
Within the circle, utopia became a practical matter the execution of a plan by all available, modern, modern means.
And maybe I can add here just half in passing about the nature of a utopia in it.
Towards the end of the 19th century, which I know from the book that Yaakov just mentioned, where Utopia towards the end,
in the last third of the 19th century, Utopia becomes much, much more pragmatic in orientation than it had been before.
Before it was much more a literary thing, something impossible to achieve.
Towards the end of the 19th century, in this sense, Zionism belongs to a much wider context.
Utopias are understood as actually programs which are achievable.
And so there is a kind of re reimagination of what what utopia actually means.
The dual nature that already characterised the science of this early phase of the Zionist project can be gorged from the
fact that the journal devoted to the colonisation of Palestine was named Old New Land rather than the Jewish state,
as if only the utopian goal could carry the full, realistic load of the science and technology put to use to carry it out.
Here, Utopia was translated into the technical language of all possible sciences, disclaiming its own utopian ness.
The technical knowledge of engineers was a foundation of which the Zionist practice was built.
There is, and this is well known from pencil already from 1991.
There's an affinity here between Hertzel and Jules Verne since they anticipated.
Reality is always based on the potentialities of the present world, which are numerous, all new lands.
Palestine is a kind of mysterious land. The occasion of a realistic, open settlements are not driven by by technological progress.
And in the Jewish state, the Jews are really embarked on the Nautilus submarine and 20,000 leagues under the sea,
which, after its scientific inventory of the sea of the seabed, has to figure out where to emerge.
The ability to project oneself into the future depends entirely on the means at one disposal,
and these means at the time were thought to be limitless.
It is here that utopia becomes altogether realistic.
The mobilisation of all possible scientific and technical means that the relation and association of
all available knowledge and knowhow opens the way to the realisation of a project from a simple of.
Struction from an imagined plant inscribed on land.
The project becomes objective. It is progressively loaded with layers of reality.
Ever more concrete. It is transferred on the way from Europe to Palestine into reality.
No move to how to pin. An obstruction progressively weighted with layers of reality.
This is a good definition of the task undertaken by How to open was widely
recognised as a principle figure in zionism's pre-World War One era open source
and relative to the Zionist ethos can be seen in the fact that every Israeli
city has a street named after him but open differed from the other leaders.
He was not a political leader,
but something close to a project manager on behalf of the Zionist organisation opens ability to plan on the one hand and to execute plans on the
other is an expression of the quintessential intention riddled role that planning occupied in the Zionist movement from its very inception,
the tension between the pragmatism of the Jewish state and the utopia of the old new land.
Lupin wore many hats. He was a social scientist, a sociologist, a statistician, a demographer of the Jewish people,
a prominent functionary of the Zionist movement, and a planner and execute of plans.
But what held these roles together, and important for us, is the highly scientific,
pragmatic approach toward problem solving that characterised much of his activity.
A realist he conceived of of problems in factual terms, the way that reality presented them to him.
He approached them technically seeking a solution for each problem, and science was the most powerful instrument at his disposal in a certain way.
Open was apolitical, a highly efficient functionary of the Zionist movement who attempted to remain above politics and never
belonged to any Zionist faction and epitomises the tension between the Jewish state and old new land.
As a director of the Palestine Office of the Zionist Organisation,
he was an efficient functionary of the Zionist movement, working in a in rational scientific mode,
developing plans, experimenting with them to see how they worked in the real world, and then fully executing them in a long teleological chain.
The ultimate goal, however, toward which all these solutions were geared,
was not not fully formulated or articulated at least, at least not until much later.
After the 1929 Arab massacres of the massacre of Jews in Hebron.
When Hawking finally admitted that the Zionist movement had to strive for a state for the Jews,
I suggest that it was in fact critically important for the pursuit of the solutions that the goal not be articulated.
It had to remain open, at least somewhat vague and utopian.
In a way that was typical of Germans, Zionism, openness,
participation and the Zionist movement was not due to its diplomatic goals, but because he wanted to transport to Palestine,
the German and actually very Jewish German idea of building the idea of self-transformation and youth and human improvement at the same time.
He had a highly practical orientation to planning and carrying out those plans when it came to the ultimate goal of Zionism,
hoping like much more idealistic German Jewish colleagues in Britain along group to which he belonged, such as Gershom Sholem and Hugo Bergman.
So who'd been conceived of it in terms of culture and building?
The state itself was understood not as a condition for the realisation of the ideal, but rather as an obstacle to it.
Open then was a scientific materialist in terms of of attitude, orientation and activity.
But his Zionism was, in the end, profoundly idealistic project.
Unlike Oppenheimer, who considered Zionism to be for the Eastern European Jews, not the German Jews,
open thought of it as being for German Jews as well, even though he considered the state,
the state to be superfluous, a cumbersome legacy of Europe synonymous with domination,
which one could gladly do without opens an open Hamid's relationship to the Zionist movement differed in other ways as well,
or open moved to Palestine when Oppenheimer never intended to move there,
and Rubin devoted his entire life and career to the Zionist movement while Oppenheimer
was involved in the Zionist movement from a subjectively much more external place,
lending his scientific expertise to the Zionist movement.
In fact, the differences between open and open display some of the diversity found in the scientific network connected to the Zionist movement.
From the outset, Oppenheimer also who also founded and edited an island journal together with Otto Vyborg and.
And then exhaustion. But the relationship between Open and Oppenheimer was nonetheless deeper,
or perhaps we should say, more structural than these a contrast might make appear.
Both Oppenheimer and Rubin viewed the issue of literally settlement in the emerging Jewish society in Palestine as a
social scientific experiment that had to do at its core with the possibility of establishing a society without a state.
And why should we want to establish a society without a state?
Because only such a society could evade the contradictions that characterise modern states.
Some of the settlement activities for which Rubin is most renowned were experiments that he carried out following Oppenheimer's sociological ideas.
Open's aim was to establish a reformed society, a healthy, productive society.
As Oppenheimer argued in the French for social politique, the agrarian reform in Prussia.
It responded to the social problems. There should be the model for the for Zionist activity.
In this reform society, the land would not be run by a class of landowning aristocracy,
the junkers in that case, employing a large landless population of poor foreign polish labourers.
We should emphasise that grouping wanted not only to avoid the creation of those two classes among the Jewish settlers.
He was also opposed to the creation of a class of Jewish landowners who would employ non-Jewish Arab workers.
In fact, one of the one of the features of open planning planning process was that it included the study mapping and
modelling of the best ways to maximise the use of the land for the benefit of both the Jewish and the Arab peoples.
His plan was intended to establish Jewish settlements in which the owners and the workers would be one in the same class.
Oppenheimer used capitalism in terms of ownership of land, in equality and with solidarity,
which is the idea of genius himself to develop the sociological and economic models.
This kind of social engineering experiment open in hope of and Oppenheimer agreed
could only be carried out outside of Europe and only outside of the state.
Why was that? Because the experiment was intended to evade the Marxist philosophy and doctrine.
It was an experiment in creating a new society without going through class struggle and revolution that is,
sidestepping the structures and challenges that characterised European history.
And this experiment could only take place outside of Europe because it relied on the creation of spontaneous movement,
not the process conducted by the state.
It is easier to evade Marxism and revolution when you go to an entirely new place, because if you can create a new structure, you do not have to do.
You do not have to revolutionise an existing society, and you can avoid having to overturn an existing social order.
This experiment was a form of social reformation based on science, and it was carried out based not only on scientific reasoning,
but also on a highly technological process in the sense of technology as a process intended to achieve a certain end.
Open employed and applied Oppenheimer's ideas, for instance,
in establishing Mahavir and the goals and the process, the ends and the means were very closely integrated.
The process establishing agricultural settlement as part of a new Jewish society
served the goal of creating settlements where ownership would be in the
hands of the settlers themselves in order to avoid the creation of two classes
of owners and of workers in hope in the attempt to establish settlements.
Following Oppenheimer's ideas, we can thus see an engineering project that we could call ex nihilo, a process that starts from nothing.
None of the elements that are expected to be found in the end construct are available or in place at the outset.
Each one of them and all of them together must be planned and built from ground up from A to Z,
beginning with the idea of the of the form the intended settlement should take then, and continuing through all the empirical facets of locating land,
determining whether it is feasible for the intended purpose, creating the financial means to purchase it, actually purchasing it,
establishing the settlements, seeking and attracting settlers, and populating the settlement with settlers.
This is a national movement in which planning is the be all and end all.
When Herzl's Jewish state positions the state for the Jews.
As its aim opens, a whole experiment of creating a new society is only possible and justifiable without the existence of a state.
Because if the state already exists, such a venture takes on quite a different colour and form,
almost by definition a coercive form rather than a spontaneous, involuntary one.
Open, in this sense, exemplifies the tension between hazards to Zionist Poles,
the scientific engineering of a solution, and the utopian, the spirit of rational state building.
Is the legacy of the Jewish state. But the vision of a harmonious society without a state is a legacy of old new land.
Now I move to the last section, which is the first two decades and today.
Quiz question mark in this talk of argue focusing on two on the first two
decades of the Zionist movement that from the very inception of the movement,
science played a critical role in it.
I have suggested that the basic social intellectual structure of science in the Zionist movement was established by Hertz's two main books on Zionism,
the Jewish State and Old New Land. The Jewish state projected a state for the Jewish people as a pragmatically attainable project.
The this document reasoned in terms of a problem and a solution.
The problem was the Jewish question in Europe, and the solution was a state for the Jews outside of Europe.
The main instrument for achieving the solution was rational, methodical, planning.
All new land, however,
imagined a future utopian Jewish society in which a state did not feature in the present talk of argue that was certain respects the Jewish state.
An all new land could be seen as not only compatible but in fact complementary.
In other respects. They set up a tension in the Zionist project.
I illustrated this argument with three interconnected examples Eleanor Ireland,
the journal of the Zionist organisation France, Oppenheimer's involvement and other open activity in Palestine.
In all three examples, a similar tension was shown to be at work.
On the one hand, a highly pragmatic scientific and technological orientation very closely following the model established in the Jewish state.
It was accompanied, on the other hand, by work towards a goal that was not stated and was not that was not state sorry.
That was also not fully articulated. In other words, a tangible, solid, realistic scientific engineering orientation.
But in the surface of an open, idealistic, utopian goal, the State of Israel was thus literally cobbled together like a large,
complex technical object that was nevertheless loved enough to materialise.
Unlike bonus letters, alarmist the automated urban tramway that failed because it was not loved enough.
I don't know if you know that book here.
Love is not simply the emotional dimension that carries any political project in the language of the sociology of science.
Love refers to the intensity of investment and the capacity to attract individuals, attach allies and list operational knowledge,
initiate and expand the network, insert the project into a teleological series articulated and materialise it.
The structure was progressively weighted with layers of reality declarations of intent plans, reports, accounting action programs,
technical committees in vivo experiments by a in the socio political and social technical network until the abstraction finally became reality.
It is a if it had not gained concreteness and objectivity,
the object could have stagnated in an uncertain state or regressed to the state of a project,
or even to the status of a utopia a or the rank of pure chimaera.
The world, including the Jewish world,
has changed in dramatic ways since the first two decades of the Zionist movement and the establishment of Israel in 1948.
Contemporary Israeli society and the roles of science and technology in that society have
been shaped by numerous events and processes external to the object of this current talk.
Yet here for just a moment, I would like to fast forward to the present,
the third decade of the 21st century and discuss briefly two issues that nonetheless are
related to the intellectual structure established in the Zionist movement's first two decades.
The first issue I wish to discuss is the counterpart to the strong scientific and technological orientation built into Zionism from its inception.
The Jewish state, I noted, was based on a problem solution reasoning.
Moreover, even though from its inception,
the Zionist movement involved the widest range of scientific knowledge from geology and agronomy to technology and folklore.
Its scientific model was the hard sciences and idealised science, a capital that is very close to engineering and technology.
There is an Israeli disposition to frame things in terms of problems and to seek technological solutions to these problems.
It is easy to illustrate this using the history of Israel's discussions about defence against missiles or attack tunnels from Gaza or from Lebanon,
for instance. This this position incorporates a certain blindness to the fact that many,
if not most, social and political problems cannot be addressed with technology,
and even more essentially, that some subjects cannot even be articulate in terms of problems,
much less problems that can be solved by technological rather than political means.
The historical roots of this intellectual structure can be found in the status of science in the first two decades of the Zionist movement.
More generally, however, we have seen that the from the inception of the Zionist movement,
science was conceived as the most important means for advancing the goal of a state for the Jews.
I want to end the fall with a second question.
The question of the way in which the Zionist movement persists today in the state of Israel, and which goes back to my framing when I when I started.
So to what extent does Israel inherit the Jewish state?
The problem solution approach to the Jewish problem in Europe?
And to what extent is it all to land that is lived on the the open goal of social utopia,
the experiment, the experimental utopian project to solve the contradictions of capitalism in Europe,
the Jewish state and all new and the old new land articulate these two dimensions respectively,
without it being exactly clear where one ends, the other, and the other begins.
But one thing is certain if the Jewish problem persists in Europe, the logic of the Jewish state via Israel's law of return,
continues to permeate the state of Israel as a solution to that problem.
And if the utopia has gradually collapsed, as it has everywhere else,
its traces in Israeli society still remain in the form of a scientific and technological version of Utopia.
Thank you. Thank you.
Please never say how you got through to this is how it's been out of the times for the last four weeks.
Where? Oh. 3:00. I have no issue that this is how you've been advertised.
By whom I thought I would be not an exception. So welcome, welcome.
Anyhow. I'm going to ask you before we start, just for those of you feel comfortable just signing so we can show our participation,
we have time for questions and answer the discussion. I want to start.
I'm sorry. Maybe from the.
From the very conceptual building blocks of this.