Non-religious Zionism -- the future

OOSJ makes the good point that not only should we be asking where religious Zionism is going, but we should be asking where secular Zionism is going. His answer is that post-Zionism should be summararily dumped. Of-course, this was true before disengagement but I would say it becomes both even more urgent and even more of a duty now. It would be very easy for the secular public to see the withdrawal from Gaza as simply a vindication of their positions and lifestyle, but this would be a mistake and a missed opportunity. At this juncture in the country's history, when the nation is torn apart and has to figure out how to live together again, when the most vocal 'Zionists' -- the settlers -- are re-examining and questioning what Zionism even means, when it's very clear that the country is at a turning point and may have to gird itself for even harder decisions in the future, when the national-religious sector is threatening to turn away from the state and is wondering whether it has any values worth identifying with -- it's the nation as a whole which must take stock, and try and find a common way, a new meaning in their life together, with an agreed social framework of compatible, if not shared ideologies.
To get back to OOSJ:

The "post-Zionist" project was meant to purge any love of land, tradition and the Jewish people from the educational system, from the high culture and from the mass culture of the country. The secular elite must negate post-Zionism (as Amnon Rubenstien and others have already done) and declare themselves, unapologetic and unabashed Zionists.
That means sending their boys and girls back to the officer corps and the more dangerous units of the army. It means that when they establish their next start-up they move it to Mitzpe Rimon or Be'er Sheva, or Qiryat Shemona, or Afula. It means that they vacation in Arad and Nahariya instead of Malta and Crofu. It means that they go and teach in Michlelet Tel-Hai and Michlelet Ashkelon instead of Hebrew and Tel-Aviv Universities. It means that they start supporting their fellow countrymen and co-religionists when talking to foreign friends and colleagues. It means that when a foreign investor points out that the proposed investment road show is on Rosh Hashanah, they embarrassingly state, "oh, then we must postpone it" instead of "that doesn't bother me one bit".
Mostly, it means that the majority of the country needs to reclaim that aspect of Zionism that matters most – settlement. That means establishing settlements on the hilltops of the Galilee or the sand dunes of the Negev.

Now, I'm personally not sold on the last point -- I would rather see Israelis grapple with how to establish a meaningful society wherever they live, than take the land as a goal in itself. Nor do I think that Zionism = Michlelet Ashkelon as opposed to Hebrew U. However, I do agree returning to a state where Jewish history, Jewish values, Jewish culture and the Jewish people shape our way of life, and are sources of pride and inspiration, is of utmost importance.
Israelis -- who are always very trend-conscious -- might take some comfort from the fact that by returning to an ideology and a heritage, they would be in sync with the mood elsewhere.
What struck me most when reading OOSJ's piece was the similarity between the way OOSJ described post-Zionist society -- replete with self-hatred, questioning history, etc. -- and the way that British commentators have, over the past few days, described British society. There is a school of thought which sees post-Zionism in the context of a wider post-modernism, and his description reinforced that in my mind, at least.
Now that Britain is under social stress (as Israel, and in fact a wide chunk of Europe is), it is beginning to turn away from post-modernism -- realizing that it's hard to build a coherant, positive, stable society with relative philosophy. As they move towards taking renewed pride in their Britishness, let's hope that others in the Western world, including Israelis, tune into the Zeitgeist.