User:DMH223344/sandbox-zionism-beliefs - Wikipedia

Fundamental to Zionist ideology is the belief that Jews constitute a nation. In Zionist thought, Jews have a right to and a need for a separate Jewish political and economic entity in Palestine^[a] in which they exercise self-determination.^[2] This claim was based on the notion that Jews had a historical right to Palestine which outweighed the rights of the Arabs, which were "of no moral or historical significance."^[3][1]

According to Israeli historian Simha Flapan, the view expressed by the proclamation "there was no such thing as Palestinians" was a cornerstone of Zionist policy initiated by Ben-Gurion, Weizmann and continued by their successors. Flapan further writes that the non-recognition of Palestinians remains a basic tenet of Israeli policy.^[4] This perspective was also shared by those on the far-left of the Zionist movement, including Martin Buber and other members of Brit Shalom.^[b][c][d] British officials supporting the Zionist effort also held similar beliefs regarding Jewish and Arab rights in Palestine.^{[e][f][7][5][8]}

From the perspective of the early Zionist thinkers, Jews living amongst non-Jews are abnormal and suffer from impediments which can only be addressed by rejecting the Jewish identity which developed while living amongst non-Jews. Accordingly, the early Zionists sought to develop a nationalist Jewish political life in a territory where Jews constitute a demographic majority.^[9][10][g] The early Zionist thinkers saw the integration of Jews into non-Jewish society as both unrealistic (or insufficient to address the deficiencies associated with the demographic minority status of the Jews in Europe) and undesirable, since assimilation was accompanied by the dilution of Jewish cultural distinctiveness.^[11] Moses Hess, a leading precursor of Zionism, commented on the perceived insufficiency of assimilation: "The German hates the Jewish race more than the religion; he objects less to the Jews' peculiar beliefs than to their peculiar noses." Prominent leaders of the Zionist movement expressed an "understanding" of antisemitism, echoing its beliefs:

Anti-Semitism is not a psychosis... nor is it a lie. Anti-Semitism is a necessary outcome of a collision between two kinds of selfhood [or 'essence']. Hate is dependent upon the amount of 'agents of fermentation' that are pushed into the general organism [i.e., the non-Jewish group], whether they are active in it and irritate it, or are neutralized in it.^[10]

In this sense, Zionism did not seek to challenge anti-semitism, but rather accepted it as a reality. The Zionist solution to the perceived deficiencies of diasporic life (or the "Jewish Question") was dependent on the territorial concentration of Jews in Palestine, with the longer term goal of establishing a Jewish demographic majority there.^[3][12][11]

In order to achieve a Jewish demographic majority, the Zionist movement was faced with a problem, namely the presence of the local Arab (and primarily non-Jewish) population. The practical issue of establishing a Jewish state in a majority non-Jewish region was an issue of fundamental practical importance for the Zionist movement.^[3][12] Zionists used the term "transfer" as a euphemism for the removal, or ethnic cleansing, of the Arab Palestinian population. The concept of "transfer" had a long pedigree in Zionist thought, with moral considerations rarely entering into the discussions of what was viewed as a logical solution-opposition to transferring the Arab population outside Palestine was typically expressed on practical, rather than moral grounds.^[13][6][14] The concept of forcibly removing the non-Jewish population from Palestine was a notion that garnered support across the entire spectrum of Zionist groups, including its farthest left factions, from early on in the movement's development. "Transfer" was not only seen as desirable but also as an ideal solution by the Zionist leadership.^[6] The notion of forcible transfer was so appealing to the movement's leaders that it was considered the most attractive provision in the Peel Commission.^[6] Indeed, this sentiment was deeply ingrained to the extent that Ben Gurion's acceptance of partition was contingent upon the removal of the Palestinian population.^[15] He would go as far as to say that transfer was such an ideal solution that it "must happen some day".^[16]

While Zionism was accompanied by other tendencies, the nationalist one would dominate the movement.^[13] The core themes of Zionist nationalism closely mirrored the European ideologies of the mid-to-late nineteenth century, emphasizing the construction of grand historical narratives, the invention of new historical traditions, and the creation of new cultural and national identities. Zionism crafted new historical narratives that offered a sweeping reinterpretation of Jewish history from antiquity to the present. It introduced the figure of the new Hebrew, the Sabra free of the "maladies and abnormalities of exile", and focused intensely on creating a new Jewish collective memory and identity.^[14]

Unlike other nationalist movements, the Zionist claim to Palestine was aspirational, with only a small number of Jews (mostly non-Zionist) living in Palestine during the early stages of the movement's development and required a mechanism by which the claim could be realized.^[2] Colonization through the dispatching of settlements was the mechanism by which the Zionist movement sought to achieve the territorial concentration of Jews in Palestine and the subsequent goal of establishing a Jewish majority there.^[13] While not every Zionist group openly called for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, every group in the Zionist mainstream was wedded to the idea of establishing a Jewish demographic majority there. By the time of the 1936 Arab Revolt, the political differences between the various Zionist groups had shrunk to the extent that almost all Zionist groups sought a Jewish state in Palestine.^[3]

In contrast to the Zionist notion of nationhood, the Judaic sense of being a nation was rooted in religious beliefs of unique chosenness and divine providence, rather than in ethnicity. Daily prayers emphasized distinctiveness from other nations; a connection to Eretz Israel and the anticipation of restoration were based on messianic beliefs and religious practices, not material nationalistic conceptions.^[9]

Zionism sought to reconfigure Jewish identity and culture in nationalist and secular terms. This new identity would be based on a rejection of the life of exile. Zionism portrayed the Diaspora Jew as mentally unstable, physically frail, and prone to engaging in transient businesses like peddling or acting as intermediaries. They were seen as detached from nature, purely materialistic, and focused solely on their personal gains. In contrast, the vision for the new Jew was radically different: an individual of strong moral and aesthetic values, not shackled by religion, driven by ideals and willing to challenge degrading circumstances; a liberated, dignified person eager to defend both personal and national pride.^[10][17]

The Zionist goal of reframing of Jewish identity in secular-nationalist terms meant primarily the decline of the status of religion in the Jewish community.^[10] Prominent Zionist thinkers frame this development as nationalism serving the same role as reglion, functionally replacing it.^[18] Zionism sought to make Jewish ethnic-nationalism the distinctive trait of Jews rather than their commitment to Judaism.^[17] Zionism instead adopted a racial understanding of Jewish identity, which paradoxically mirrored anti-Semitic views by suggesting that Jewishness is an inherent, unchangeable trait found in one's "blood."^[10] Framed this way, Jewish identity is only secondarily a matter of tradition or culture.^[19] Zionist nationalism embraced pan-Germanic ideologies, which stressed the concept of das völk: people of shared ancestry should pursue separation and establish a unified state. Zionist thinkers view the movement as a "revolt against a tradition of many centuries" of living parasitically at the margins of Western society. Indeed, Zionism was uncomfortable with the term "Jewish," associating it with passivity, spirituality and the stain of "galut". Instead, Zionist thinkers preferred the term "Hebrew" to describe their identity which they associated with the healthy and modern sabra. In Zionist thought, the new Jew would be productive and work the land, in contrast to the diaspora Jew who, mirroring the anti-semitic portrayals, was depicted as lazy and parascitic on society. Zionism linked the term "Jewish" with these negative characteristics prevelant in European anti-Semitic stereotypes, which Zionists believed could be remedied only through sovereignty.^[14]

Zionism rejected traditional Judaic definitions of what it means to be Jewish, but struggled to offer a new interpretation of Jewish identity independent of rabbinical tradition. Jewish religion is viewed as an essentially negative factor, even in religious Zionist ideology, and seen as responsible for the diminishing status of Jews living as a minority.^[10] Responding to the challenges of modernity, Zionism sought to replace religious and community institutions with a secular-nationalistic one, defining Judaism in "Christian terms."^[18] Indeed, Zionism maintained primarily the outward symbols of Jewish tradition, redefining them in a nationalistic context. It adapted traditional Jewish religious concepts, such as the devotion to the God of Israel, reverence for the biblical Land of Israel, and the belief in a future Jewish return during the messianic era, into a modern nationalist framework. To be sure, the yearning for a return to the land of israel "was entirely quietistic" and the daily prayers of a return to Zion were all accompanied by an appeal to God, rather than a call to Jews to take it upon themselves to appropriate the land.^[9][2] Zionism saw itself as bringing Jews into the modern world by redefining what it means to be Jewish in terms of identification with a sovereign state, rather than Judaic faith and tradition.^[18]

The revival of the Hebrew language in Eastern Europe as a secular literary medium marked a significant cultural shift among Jews, who per Judaic tradition used Hebrew only for religious purposes. This secularization of Hebrew, which included its use in novels, poems, and journalism, was met with resistance from rabbis who viewed it as a desecration of the sacred language. While some rabbinical authorities did support the development of Hebrew as a common vernacular, they did so on the basis of nationalistic ideas, rather than on the basis of Jewish tradition.^[9] Eliezer Ben Yehuda, a key figure in the revival, envisioned Hebrew as serving a "national spirit" and cultural renaissance in the Land of Israel.^[20] The primary motivator for establishing modern Hebrew as a national language was the sense of legitimacy it gave the movement, by suggesting a connection between the Jews of ancient Israel and the Jews of the Zionist movement.^[21] These developments are seen in Zionist historiography as a revolt against tradition, with the development of Modern Hebrew providing the basis on which a Jewish cultural renaissance might develop.^[9] With the flowering of Yiddish culture and cultural assimilation in Europe, the Zionist leadership feared of further Hebrew cultural dilution with the move to Palestine.^{[citation needed]}

Ben Yehuda actively promoted the use of Modern Hebrew as a national language and the secularization of traditional religious terms, for example changing the meaning of "bitahon" from "trust in God" to "military security",^[h] effectively reconfiguring the language away from traditional Judaic use to service the nation. This revolt against tradition is seen in the mismatch in vocabulary used in the classics of Judaism and Modern Hebrew--the early Zionists had largely abandoned or altered a large portion of this vocabulary which has been crafted for daily communication ultimately serving limited utility for studying, for example, the Torah. This is also seen phonetically, with Modern Hebrew taking on a "Sephardic" pronounciation; Ben Yehuda disliked the Ashkenazi accent due to its association with the exile he was familiar with, and instead favored the Sephardic accent for Modern Hebrew, as it represented an exile he was less familiar with and found more acceptable.^[9]

With the arrival in Palestine of more ideologically motivated settlers after the turn of the century, the Zionist movement began to emphasize the importance of the productivization of Jewish society and the so called "conquest of labor," the belief that the employment of exclusively Jewish labour was the pre-condition for the development of an independent Jewish society in Palestine.^[3] The Zionist movement sought to build a "pure Jewish settlement" in Palestine on the basis of "100 per cent Jewish labor" and the claim to an exclusively Jewish economy.^[4][22] The Zionist leadership aimed to establish a fully autonomous and independent Jewish economic sector to create a new type of Jewish society. This new society was intended to reverse the traditional economic structure seen in the Jewish Diaspora, characterized by a high number of middlemen and a scarcity of productive workers. By developing fundamental sectors such as industry, agriculture, and mining, the goal was to "normalize" Jewish life which had grown "abnormal" as a result of living amongst non-Jews.^[4] Most of the Zionist leadership saw it as imperative to employ strictly Jewish workers in order to ensure the Jewish character of the colonies; indeed they sought to minimize mixing with Arabs to, amongst other reasons, avoid the passing of "Arab values" into Zionist society.^[13][22]

The employment of exclusively Jewish labor was also intended to avoid the development of a national conflict in conjunction with a class-based conflict.^[23] The Zionist leadership believed that by excluding Arab workers they would stimulate class conflict only within Arab society and prevent the Jewish-Arab national conflict from attaining a class dimension.^[24] While the Zionist settlers of the first aliyah had ventured to create a "pure Jewish settlement," they did grow to rely on Arab labor due to the lack of availability of Jewish laborers during this period.^[22] With the arrival of the more ideologically driven settlers of the second aliyah, the idea of "avoda ivrit" would become more central. The future leaders of the Zionist movement saw an existential threat in the employment of Arab labor-the fear that the "half-wild natives" would rise up against their "Jewish masters" motivated the movement on a practical level to work towards a society based on purely Jewish labor.^[25][13]

Early Zionists were the primary Jewish supporters of the idea that Jews are a race, as it "offered scientific 'proof' of the ethno-nationalist myth of common descent".^[26] According to Raphael Falk, as early as the 1870s Zionist and pre-Zionist thinkers conceived of Jews as belonging to a distinct biological group.^[27] This re-conceptualization of Jewishness cast the "volk" of the Jewish community as a nation-race, in contrast to centuries-old conceptions of the Jewish people as a religious socio-cultural grouping.^[27]

Notable proponents of this racial idea included Max Nordau, Herzl's co-founder of the original Zionist Organization, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, the prominent architect of early statist Zionism and the founder of what became Israel's Likud party,^[28] and Arthur Ruppin, considered the "father of Israeli sociology".^[29] Birnbaum, who is widely attributed with the first use of the term "Zionism" in reference to a political movement, viewed race as the foundation of nationality,^[30] Jabotinsky wrote that Jewish national integrity relies on "racial purity",^[28][i] and that "(t)he feeling of national self-identity is ingrained in the man's 'blood', in his physical-racial type, and only in it."^[31]

Arthur Ruppin, co-founder of Brit Shalom, played a central role as director of the Palestine Office (PO) and core organizer of Zionist 'colonization' in all of its dimensions from land purchase and banking to settlement policies, education, the establishment of modern Hebrew and the construction of a new Jewish-Zionist identity (Bildung).^[32] In this capacity, Ruppin often quoted approvingly from the writings of the foremost Nazi scholars and scientists,^[j] and in 1933 met for a discussion Hans F. K. Günther, Heinrich Himmler's mentor,^[33] and Germany's highest authority on racial theory, a figure later caricatured as Nazism's Rassenpaps (race-pope).^[34][k] For Ruppin, what Zionism required was to weed out^[35] inferior, "semitic" racial elements among Ostjuden and select only those whose biology was best adapted to the soil and climate of Palestine where, by productive agriculture and militarization, they would vindicate their racial affinity with biblical Hebrews.^[36] To that end he drew up a hierarchy of Jewish racial types which distinguished Ashkenazi – allegedly not Semitic but an Aryan breed via descent from Hittites and Amorites – from the inferior, presumptively Bedouin-related Sephardim.^[37] The positive qualities of the exemplary Urjude (archetypal Jew), once considered Sephardic,^[38] were transferred to the Ashkenazi while the negative stereotypes of Jews, mercenary and materialistic, were shifted onto Sephardim and Mizrachi Jews.^[39][l] As early as 1934 he successfully thwarted the implementation of a proposal by Yaakov Faitlovitch to bring Ethiopian Jews to Palestine on the grounds that they were "niggers" converted by the sword in 2600 BCE.^[41][m]

Ruppin, who used a Prussian model in settlement planning,^[n] played a major role in implementing the plan in practical terms. Deeply interested in racial hygiene (Rassenhygiene),^[42] with Otto Heinrich Warburg, Ruppin controlled most of the financial resources for immigration,^[43] and pressed for the selection of only the fittest Ashkenazi Ostjuden as olim for the "human material" of a "gene pool" of a new Jewish, non-Semitic Maccabean type.^[44] He did everything possible to dilute what he thought of as the deleterious dominance of the Sephardic/Mizrachi communities, who often depended on diaspora charity for survival, and restore the "germplasm" of the pure race of ancient Jews he considered dormant in the Ashkenazi.^[45] The strict eugenic policies meant that towards the end of the Second Aliyah (1912–1914) 80% of aspiring immigrants were rejected.^[46] The unfit masses of Eastern European Jewish refugees were deemed people best relocated in the United States.^[47]

• Penslar (2023). Zionism. Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-7609-1.
• Avineri (2017). The Making of Modern Zionism. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-09479-0.
• Rabkin (2006). A Threat from Within. Fernwood Pub. ISBN 978-1-55266-171-0.
• Yadgar (2017). Sovereign Jews. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-1-4384-6535-7.
• Shimoni (1995). The Zionist ideology. University Press of New England %5Bfor%5D Brandeis University Press. ISBN 978-0-87451-703-3.
• Gorny (1987). Zionism and the Arabs, 1882-1948. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-19-822721-2.
• Finkelstein (2016). Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Verso Books. ISBN 978-1-78478-458-4.
• Morris (1999). Righteous Victims. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-679-74475-7.
• Masalha (2012). The Palestine Nakba. Zed Books. ISBN 978-1-84813-973-2.
• Ben-Ami (2007). Scars of War, Wounds of Peace. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-532542-3.
• Masalha (1992). Expulsion of the Palestinians. Institute for Palestine Studies. ISBN 978-0-88728-235-5.
• Masalha (2014). The Zionist Bible. Taylor %26 Francis. ISBN 978-1-317-54465-4.
• Shafir (1996). Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882-1914. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-91741-5.
• Yadgar (2020). Israel's Jewish Identity Crisis. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-48894-5.
• Flapan, Simha (1979). Zionism and the Palestinians. Croom Helm. ISBN 978-0-06-492104-6.
• Shapira, Anita (2014). Israel. Orion. ISBN 978-0-297-87159-0.
• Bloom, Etan (2011). Arthur Ruppin and the Production of Pre-Israeli Culture. Studies in Jewish History and Culture. Vol. 31. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-20379-2. Archived from the original on 2023-07-21. Retrieved 2023-07-11.
• Endelman, Todd M. (Autumn 2004). "Anglo-Jewish Scientists and the Science of Race". Jewish Social Studies. 11 (1): 52–92. doi:10.2979/JSS.2004.11.1.52. JSTOR 4467695. S2CID 162317546.
• Morris-Reich, Amos (Fall 2006). "Arthur Ruppin's Concept of Race". Israel Studies. 11 (3): 1–30. doi:10.2979/ISR.2006.11.3.1. JSTOR 30245648. S2CID 144898510.
• Falk, Raphael (2017). Zionism and the Biology of Jews. History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences. Springer International Publishing. ISBN 978-3-319-57345-8. Archived from the original on 2023-07-07. Retrieved 2023-07-08.
• Baker, Cynthia M. (2017). "Zionism's New Jew and the Birth of the Genomic Jew". Jew. Key Words in Jewish Studies. Rutgers University Press. pp. 97–110. ISBN 978-0-813-57386-1. Archived from the original on 2023-07-10. Retrieved 2023-07-10.
• Olson, Jess (November 2007). "The Late Zionism of Nathan Birnbaum: The Herzl Controversy Reconsidered". AJS Review. 31 (2): 241–276. doi:10.1017/S0364009407000517. JSTOR 27564291. S2CID 161907484.
• Alain Dieckhoff (2003). The Invention of a Nation. Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-12766-0.
• Shapira, Anita (1992). Land and Power. New York: Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-506104-8.
• Jacobs, Jack (2017). Jews and Leftist Politics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-10757-0.
• Khalidi, Rashid (2006). The Iron Cage The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-86154-899-6.
• White, Ben (2012). Palestinians in Israel. London: Pluto Press. ISBN 978-0-7453-3228-4. OCLC 748328849.
• Almog, Shmuel (1983). Zionism and the Arabs. Jerusalem: Jerusalem : Historical Society of Israel : Zalman Shazar Center. ISBN 978-965-227-010-8.