Page 1,637«..1020..1,6361,6371,6381,639..1,6501,660..»

London Hasidic school apologizes for using term goyim …

Posted By on September 2, 2015

(JTA) A Satmar Hasidic school in a London borough apologized for using the term goyim on worksheets following a newspaper report that its preschoolers were being taught that non-Jews are evil.

An article published Tuesday in the Independent newspaper, a major British daily, focused on a worksheet on the Holocaust used by the young students at the Beis Rochel DSatmar Girls School in Hackney, in northeast London, in which Nazis are referred to only with the term for non-Jews that some deem offensive.

The worksheet is in Yiddish, and the newspaper received an independent translation of the worksheet. The first question reads: What have the evil goyim (non-Jews) done with the synagogues and cheders [Jewish primary schools]? The answer in the completed worksheet reads Burned them.

The language we used was not in any way intended to cause offense, now this has been brought to our attention, we will endeavor to use more precise language in the future, a school spokesman told the newspaper.

The spokesman told the London Jewish Chronicle that the term goyim explicitly meant Nazis.

The leaflet that the Independent refers to was handed out on the 21 Kislev, when the Satmar Jews celebrate the rescue of their founding rabbi from Bergen-Belsen, the spokesman, Shimon Cohen, told the Chronicle.

The questions were only talking about the specific event, but there is no Yiddish word for Nazis. The suggestion that children are being taught that non-Jews are evil is nonsense and simply false. They are being taught that Nazis are evil.

Continued here:
London Hasidic school apologizes for using term goyim ...

Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org

Posted By on September 2, 2015

Animal Heaven

Question: To the best of your understanding, what is the Jewish perspective on the fate of an animal upon death? Are they considered to have a soul? Does a dog, who gave unconditional love and had been a loyal and brave companion, just disappear?

Answer: Animals are considered to have a nefesh, the lowest level of a soul. This is distinct from humans who have much more developed souls. Although animals can be loving, brave and loyal, we do not see them as having free will, but rather as acting instinctively. As such, they do not have the ability to earn merit and greater holiness for themselves as would a person who has the ability to use his or her free will in choosing right from wrong, good from evil.

Best Regards, Rabbi Azriel Schreiber

Question: I was reading in class about Jeremiah and it says that he was always really sad. What was his burden? What was wrong?

Answer: Jeremiah, of all the prophets, was the one who had to witness the actual destruction of the Temple and the Jewish kingdom. For centuries, prophets had been warning of the calamity that would occur if Israel continued to turn away from G-d. But Jeremiah was the one on the job when it happened. As he says in Lamentations (3(1)): I am the man who has seen affliction by the rod of His wrath.

Best wishes, Michoel Reach

Question: Generally speaking , What kind of vow cannot be annulled?

Answer:In Judaism, if a Jew makes a vow not understanding something about the vow he was making, AND, if he did understand he would never have made that vow, then, in general, it would be possible for such a vow to be annulled. That is the simple question to a not-so-simple subject.

Regards, Eliahu Levenson

Question: The Torah is filled with stories of the early Jews making war on the various locals as they enter the promised land, and killing every man, woman, and child in a given village. In some cases they even killed the animals. In one case Moses himself saw his men returning with some local women and children, and ran out and ordered them killed on the spot, lest they create impurities in the Jewish camp. In another case he ordered all locals killed, except young women who have known no man. These his men could keep.

How can we reconcile this mass murder ordered by Moses with his status among Jews as a prophet and holy person?? He appears to be a murderer on a grand scale. How can the Torah be filled with murder, rape, adultry, idol worship, conquest, etc., from front to back, and still be considered the Divine Word of God. Many of my Christian friends have the same questions, and never get a useful answer from priest or pastor. I believe in the one God, may his name be blessed, but I do have a problem with all this murder, rape, etc. in the Torah.

Answer: First of all, I am unaware of any reference in the Torah to any act of rape, adultery or idol worship that was sanctioned or encouraged by either Moses or the Torah itself. So that leaves killing and conquest. These references do exist and can easily and understandably cause discomfort.

Now, if someone were to consider the Torah to be a fraud which only claimed to be the word of God (see Deut. 31:24), but was really created by human beings, then these brutal acts are indefensible. Which moral human being could possibly order such acts? However, we believe that the Torah is actually a true record of Gods communication with Moses. Based on that assumption, Moses never ordered any violence nor did he initiate any conquest. Everything was Gods will (see Deut. 7:1).

What is morality? You might like to read my essay on subjectivity here, which discusses the inherent difficulties that exist in establishing absolute principles of good and evil from a secular perspective. Without God input, any values we adopt are always subject to debate and change. 500 years ago there werent many who questioned the moral right of the Spanish to virtually eradicate native populations in the Americas. Today, standards have changed. Tomorrow theyll change againand no one can say in which direction.

Jews (and others) who believe in a personal God who created this world and is its true master, will consider His definition of justice to be absolute. Even if we cant understand it, if God wills that one nation should conquer another then it isnt just His right, it is intrinsically moral.

I hope this is helpful.

With my best regards, Rabbi Boruch Clinton

Question: The death penalty does not fit under the commandment You shall not murder. I have understood that murder and killing are two different words in Hebrew, with the word murder being used in instances such as Cain and Abel, and when G-d is stating the punishments for such a crime. However, when G-d destroys Sodom and Gomorrah, for example, the word kill is used, not murder. If you could please explain the difference between the two, from the perspective of how the text differentiates, I would greatly appreciate it.

Answer: As in English there are two different words: retzichah for murder, and harigah for killing.

It is obvious that not all killing is murder, for the Bible itself imposes the death penalty for certain crimes! Jewish Law also says that if one sees person A about to murder person B, one is allowed to save B with lethal forceif necessary.

The modern death penalty is a complex issue, since the requirements are very different than those of Biblical law. Actually the Talmud says that a court that ordered the death penalty every seven years was called murderousand one opinion says not seven, but seventy! I wouldnt say the Bible comes down clearly on one side or the other, but in principle supports the concept that a death penalty is a valid deterrent.

Best Regards,

Rabbi Azriel Schreiber

Question: Torah has valued human life above all and under every circumstances we should try to save human as it is said to save one human being is like to save entire entire mankind. On the other hand, the laws of war of Deuteronomy says that when we go to war with faraway nations we are to give people chance to surrender and if they wont we are to kill all the men in it. So how can we justify killing all the men just like that when we consider human life above all ? In self defense its proper to kill but for territorial expansion why should we shed blood? I am sure that G-D too wouldnt allow us to shed innocent blood.

Answer:Thanks for asking this important question. The first thing that needs to be said is that we think of all wars as equal. That is not true. We cannot equate a war that G-d commanded us to fight and a war that we choose to fight. If you learn the Torahs perspective on warfare you will see that warfare in Torah law is totally different from warfare in the non-Jewish world. That is not possible to understand unless you go very in depth into the Torahs perspective. To help you do that, here is a link that will describe the concept in great detail. I give this information over in a class format and I find that if you study it well it will give you a great overview of Jewish warfare. http://nleresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Shoftim-War.pdf

Next, let me just say that we are not talking about the modern concept of holy wars where people think that they know the will of G-d. The Torahs concept of war is that G-d commands the Jews to do certain things because in His wisdom this is what needs to happen to bring balance to the world. There is a commandment in the Torah to completely destroy the nation of Amalek. This nation, according to the Torah, is evil through and through. There is no way that anyone from that nation can survive and the world be a safe place. King Saul almost destroyed this nation once but left the king alive for one night. He was wrong and he lost his kingship over that. The results of that night were that the king had relations with a woman, the child grew up and his ancestor ended up being the evil Haman and, according to many Hitler was also a descendant of Amalek.

Be Well, Rabbi Litt

Question: Where does the Torah tell us that good friends are hard to find and are very valuable?

Answer: The statement A friend can be acquired only with great difficulty is found in the Midrash (Sifrei on Nitzavim; Yalkut Shimoni on Pinchas). Apparently the advice Acquire a friend for yourself in Mishnah Avos 1:6 (acquire, not find) implies that friends are hard to find. Many sources in the Bible and Talmud emphasize the contrast between good friends and bad friends (e.g., Mishlei 18:24; Ben Sira 6:14; Avos 2:9). In Burton Stevensons Home Book of Quotations, Laertius Anarcharsis (Sec.105) is cited for the statement It is better to have one friend of great value than many friends who are good for nothing; there doesnt seem to be a similar statement in the Jewish sources.

Best Regards, Rabbi Azriel Schreiber

Question: In Parshas Pinchas it states that Pinchas was the grandson of Aharon the Kohen. It further states that because of his courageous deeds espoused in the Parsha, he was to be rewarded with everlasting hereditary priesthood to include his descendants.In view of the fact that he was already a descendant of Aharon, did Pinchas not already have the blessing of hereditary priesthood? How could this be considered a reward?

Answer:Hi! Rashi here says from the Gemara that not all descendants of Aharon would have been priests, just the ones born after the bestowal of the blessing. Pinchas, having been born already, needed a special appointment.

Another answer is provided by a midrash on Tanach. It says that although the high priest could be any descendant of Aharon, from the time of Shlomo haMelech onward every kohein gadol would be descended only from Pinchas. This is called here bris Shalom, covenant of peace: a play on the name Shlomo.

Best wishes, Michoel Reach

Question: The beginning of the Torah Portion of Pinchas begins with a reference to a great deed that Pinchas did. What great deed did he perform?

Answer: Pinchas, the son of Elazar, the son of Aharon HaKohain, appeased My anger against the Bnai Yisroel by taking My revenge amidst them, and so I didnt have to destroy them with My vengeance. (Bamidbar 25:11)

The portion of Balak ends with the daughters of Moav enticing the young Jewish men to sin. This quickly led to idol worship, and many Jewish men served the idol of Baal Peor.

At the height of the debacle, Zimri, one of the heads oftribe ofShimon, took a Moabite princess and brought her into the encampment of the Jews, making a public spectacle of the act. Because he was a leader of the Jewish people, this was a grave threat to the survival of the nation. A plague broke out, and thousands of Jews died.

Pinchas saw what was happening and ran to Moshe for advice. Moshe directed him to take action. At the risk of his life and against all odds, Pinchas walked into the mob and miraculously killed both Zimri and the Moabite woman. No sooner did their dead bodies hit the floor than the plague stopped. It was a clear and obvious sign that Pinchas had acted correctly. By acting with courage and alacrity, he saved the Jews from destruction.

All the Best, Rabbi Meir Goldberg

Continued here:
Ask the Rabbi, JewishAnswers.org

Part X Sephardic Jews and the LDS Connection: Sephardic …

Posted By on September 1, 2015

In Colonial America, the Converso/Crypto Sephardic Jews, finally felt safely out of the reach of the terrifying clutches of the Inquisition. They were free to practice what vestiges they had left of their religion. Many parents sought to give their children names which reflected their true heritage. If you read no more of this post, what you can take from this introductory paragraph is; if you have an Uncle ALONZO, who is not Hispanic, and/or your last name is PERRY, you are most likely a descendant of the Sephardic Jews.In order for me to teach you what to look for in your genealogy, I will show you examples in myown genealogy and perhaps you might even recognize them as your own.

Elizabeth C. Hirschman in her book Melungeons: The Last Lost Tribe in America,described naming patterns unique to Colonial America and some Melungeon families. While in England, Crypto-Converso Sephardic Jews gave their children traditional English names such as William, Elizabeth and James. After arriving in American colonies they relaxed, and named their children, what I will label as safe Jewish Biblical names. As they gathered together on the American frontier especially during The Melungeon Migration in the late 1700-a to the early 1800s; many felt comfortable in the wilderness to name their children unique Sephardic Melungeon names.

For example:

ALLEN/ALLIN line

Samuel ALLEN born 1567 in England married an unknown wife. They were the parents of children with typical English names:

Thomas, Francis, Rose, Ralph, George, William, Matthew, Walter,

Samuels great grandson American Nathaniel ALLIN 1648 married to Mary FRIZZELL 1656 named all, but one of their children (Edward), with what I will label as safe Biblical names:

Edward, Samuel, James, Nathaniel, Sarah, Mary, Benjamin, John, Ebenezer,

Nathaniels grandson John ALLIN born in 1712 married toHuldah Hill 1718 named their children: Ira ALLEN

Hanah, Mary, John, Amos, James, andJesse; all safe Jewish names

and Eliakim and Finis which are Sephardic names.

Notice while in England the surname is ALLEN. Once in the safety of the American Colonies, ALLEN changes to ALLIN. Perhaps as a reminder of once ALI.

The Sephardic women were persistent in keeping the faith alive in their families. While in Spain, because the synagogues were shut down, the men were left spiritually adrift because had they lost the means and ways of worship. Jewish women had always practiced their faith at home; performing the prayers and rituals necessary for a proper Jewish home. During the Inquisition, and later in Western Europe as practicing Crypto-Jews, it was the women who kept the faith alive. While researching possible Sephardic lines, it is necessary to look closely at the womens lines. Often it was women who made converts of their husbands, or at least converted their children.

Consider my HOLCOMBE line, or as I like say, my kin to Jesus line, which runs back into England, thru France, Spain and into the High Rabbis of Babylonia. I believe the HOLCOMBE descendants were some kind of varying degree of Crypto/Converso Sephardic Jewish. My GGGG-Grandmother Keziah MESSENGER BENSON had three HOLCOMBE great-grandmothers who were closely related as two were sisters and the other one an aunt of the sisters. It is also interesting to note both my husband and I come from these lines and an additional line in my mothers side also converges farther up. My children carry a good amount of HOLCOMBE DNA.

The male MESSENGER/MESSINGER line marries into the female HOLCOMBE line.

MESSENGER/MESSINGER

Andrew MESSENGER born 1588 in England married Sarah. They had three sons with English names:

Edward,Andrew, and Henry

Grandson Nathaniel MESSENGER born 1653 in America married Rebecca KELSEY born 1660, who is a descendant of John HOPKINS, who may or may not, have been related to Stephen HOPKINS the Pilgrim.

Nathaniel and Rebeccas children:

a typical Puritan name of Return

and then safe Jewish names for Hannah, Joseph, Nathan/Nathaniel, John, and Rebecca.

Son Joseph, using the Jewish spelling of MESSINGER, and wife Katherine HOLCOMBE have the Jewish names of Isaiah, Ezekial, Sarah, Elijah, Isaac, Joseph, Nathaniel and Jeheil; with one typical english name of Catherine.

Son Isaac born 1717 married to Hannah ALFORD. ALFORD name is also spelled as ALVORD and ALVARD. ALVARD is close to several Sephardic Spanish names such as ALVEREZ and ALVARDO. They named their children a less safe Jewish combination of names such as: Dorcas, Simeon, Joseph, Hannah, Isaac, Moses, Aaron, Rueben, Elisha and Abner. The last three are typically Sephardic such as Rosy, after the Sephardic symbol the rose; Keziah and good ole Uncle Carmi.

Joseph MESSENGER the son of the previous ISaac, born 1741 marred Jemima BARBER. Jemima also a Sephardic name. It is interesting to note, there is no record of Joseph and Jemima being married in a church. I suggest they followed the Crypto-Jewish practice of a marriage ceremony in a private home. Joseph and Jemimas granddaughter Keziah MESSENGER married her husband Benjamin BENSON at a private home in a different county than either resided, despite a number of churches in the proximity to their parents homes. The MESSENGER children are:

Joseph, Cornish (family surname), Jemima, Heman, Zebina, Ebenezer, Jediah and Keziah. They also have Elva, a strictly Sephardic name, Chloe and Rhoda typical Melungeon names.

Mariah MESSENGER

I have spent a considerable amount of time on direct and indirect lines. I saw this pattern repeated a number of times; where while in Europe the names were typical English names such as Henry, William and Katherine. Later in the Americas the names became increasingly Sephardic as in Keziah, Eliakim, and Carmi.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of family historians. I was able to traverse thru large files of my New England family lines. My efforts were rewarded as I found scores of Sephardic names. Here is a small sampling of Jewish names in the ALLEN, VAIL/VAILE, MESSENGER/MESSINGER,BENSON and related lines.

SAMPLING OF SEPHARDIC NAMES

ALEXANDER Alford 1521

LAZARUS Twitchell 1594

SUSANNA Skelton 1620

PELEG Lawrence 1647

EZEKIAL Marsh 1648

ABIEL Twitchell 1663

ELEAZAR Partridge 1664

BETHIA Twitchell 1665

JONA Hill 1691

BARAUCH Pond 1702

ZERIUAH Leavens 1718

ABIJAH Phelps 1734

Polly BENSON

JEMIMA Barber 1741

BILDAD Barber 1745

ElLIAKIM Allin/Allen 1754

ELNASHAI Benson 1756

SOLOMON Snow 1759

EBER Alford 1760

ELNATHAN Benson 1760

ZEBINA Messenger 1772

ELVA Messenger 1775

MARIAH Benson 1775

ASA Allin/Allen 1776

SIMEON Allen 1779

KEZIAH Messenger 1779

ELIHUE Messenger 1783

OLIVE Benson 1784

ElVIRA Vail 1792

WELTHEA Vail 1795

ALVAH Benson 1799

JUDE Allen 1810

SABRA Messenger 1815

ALONZO Henry Snow 1854

ALPHONZO Houtz Snow 1858

Thomas LORENZO Van Noy 1866

Albert ALONZO Savage 1886

EMMANUEL Preece Nelson 1887

Mary ELVIRA Nelson 1891

Most names were verified at the Sephardim Genealogy website archived by Harvard University managed by Harry Stein http://www.separdim.com andhttp://www.sephardicgen.com/ site by Jeffrey S. Malka author of Sephardic Genealogy: Discovering Your Sephardic Ancestors and Their World

Names beginning with EL (such as EL-mira) were usually Jewish in origin. AL names (such as AL-mira) were Islamic in origin. I have both types in my family. THe MESSENGER-BENSON line was especially fond of AL names such as GGG-Grandfather Alvah BENSON. It is interesting to note Grandpa Alvahs granddaughter recounts how Grandpa would prostrate himself on the ground while in secret prayer. It sounds similar to how the Muslims pray. The Converso Moriscoes/Moors retained this type of prayer from Islam.

Cynthia VAIL and Alvah BENSON

I did find some really over the top strange names that are extremely telling on the heritage of these supposably English people:

Very Unusual Sephardic Names

SALAMAN (Sephardic) Alford 1545

AFIEL (from ZaAfiel in the Kabbalah) Twitchell 1665 Martha Tyresha VAIL

DIADEMA (Sephardic) Snow 1756

FINIS (Sephardic) Allin 1765

CARMI (North African Sephardic) Messenger 1771

HIRA (Arabic-the cave where Mohamed read revelation from Angel Gabriel) Messenger 1772

ELIPHALET (Sephardic) Alford 1777

ARBA (Sephardic) Alford 1779

William AHIRA (from Kabbalah Hanukah)Messenger 1805

Ruth ZERINA (Islamic) Messenger 1816

AFFA (Atta or Afaf Islamic) Messenger 1825

Isadore Percy SINA (Sephardic Holland) Snow 1855

Sarah ALVILDA (Spanish Sephardic) Mecham 1858

ELAM (Persian Hebrew) Allen 1862

Laurin ALVIRAS (Spanish Sephardic) Snow 1863

James CYRUS (Greek) Allen 1869

Laura ALLEN and Joseph SAVAGE family

last row right Uncle ALONZO Savage

Albert ALONZO (Spanish Sephardic) Savage 1886

RHODA ARMINTA (Sephardic) Davis 1887

VEDA (Sephardic-Turkish) Ann Nelson 1893

Mary ELVIRA (Sephardic) Nelson 1901

John QUE (Sephardic) Nelson 1904

SURNAMES

Consider surnames as well. If your surname is Biblical for instance, AARON, ADAMS, DAVID, JOSEPH, SAMUEL, ISREAL etc it is likely you have a Jewish background. Unlike the Ashkenazi of Europe, the Sephardic Jews and Moors had surnames that stretch back hundreds of years. Remember how the Sephardic Jews were notorious for adapting well to another culture? The Sephardim would adapt their surname to the new host country. Some possible examples:

Read the original here:
Part X Sephardic Jews and the LDS Connection: Sephardic ...

History of Zionism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Posted By on September 1, 2015

Zionism as an organized movement is generally considered to have been founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. However, the history of Zionism began earlier and is related to Judaism and Jewish history. The Hovevei Zion, or the Lovers of Zion, were responsible for the creation of 20 new Jewish settlements in Palestine between 1870 and 1897.[1]

Before the Holocaust, the movement's central aims were the creation of a Jewish National Home and cultural centre in Palestine by facilitating Jewish migration. After the Holocaust, the movement focused on creation of a "Jewish state" (usually defined as a secular state with a Jewish majority), attaining its goal in 1948 with the creation of Israel.

Since the creation of Israel, the importance of the Zionist movement as an organization has declined, as the Israeli state has grown stronger.[2]

The Zionist movement continues to exist, working to support Israel, assist persecuted Jews and encourage Jewish emigration to Israel. While most Israeli political parties continue to define themselves as Zionist, modern Israeli political thought is no longer formulated within the Zionist movement.

The success of Zionism has meant that the percentage of the world's Jewish population who live in Israel has steadily grown over the years and today 40% of the world's Jews live in Israel. There is no other example in human history of a "nation" being reestablished after such a long period of existence as a diaspora.

The precedence for Jews to return to their ancestral homeland, motivated by strong divine intervention, first appears in the Torah, and thus later adopted in the Christian Old Testament. After Jacob and his sons had gone down to Egypt to escape a drought, they were enslaved and became a nation. Later, as commanded by God, Moses went before Pharaoh, demanded, "Let my people go!" and foretold severe consequences, if this was not done. Torah describes the story of the plagues and the Exodus from Egypt, which is estimated at about 1400 BCE, and the beginning of the journey of the Jewish People toward the Land of Israel. These are celebrated annually during Passover, and the Passover meal traditionally ends with the words "Next Year in Jerusalem."

The theme of return to their traditional homeland came up again after the Babylonians conquered Judea in 641 BCE and the Judeans were exiled to Babylon. In the book of Psalms (Psalm 137), Jews lamented their exile while Prophets like Ezekiel foresaw their return. The Bible recounts how, in 538 BCE Cyrus the Great of Persia conquered Babylon and issued a proclamation granting the people of Judah their freedom. 50,000 Judeans, led by Zerubbabel returned. A second group of 5000, led by Ezra and Nehemiah, returned to Judea in 456 BCE.

In 1160 David Alroy led a Jewish uprising in Kurdistan that aimed to reconquer the promised land. In 1648 Sabbatai Zevi from modern Turkey claimed he would lead the Jews back to Palestine. In 1868 Judah ben Shalom led a large movement of Yemenite Jews to Palestine. A dispatch from the British Consulate in Jerusalem in 1839 reported that "the Jews of Algiers and its dependencies, are numerous in Palestine...." There was also significant migration from Central Asia (Bukharan Jews).

In addition to Messianic movements, the population of the Holy Land was slowly bolstered by Jews fleeing Christian persecution especially after the Reconquista of Al-Andalus (the Muslim name of the Iberian Peninsula). Safed became an important center of Kabbalah. Jerusalem, Hebron and Tiberias also had significant Jewish populations.

Among Jews in the Diaspora Eretz Israel was revered in a religious sense. They thought of a return to it in a future messianic age.[3] Return remained a recurring theme among generations, particularly in Passover and Yom Kippur prayers, which traditionally concluded with "Next year in Jerusalem", and in the thrice-daily Amidah (Standing prayer).[4]

Jewish daily prayers include many references to "your people Israel", "your return to Jerusalem" and associate salvation with a restored presence in the Land of Israel, the Land of Zion and Jerusalem (usually accompanied by a Messiah); for example the prayer Uva Letzion (Isaiah 59:20): "And a redeemer shall come to Zion..."[citation needed]Aliyah (immigration to Israel) has always been considered a praiseworthy act for Jews according to Jewish law and some Rabbis consider it one of the core 613 commandments in Judaism.[5] From the Middle Ages and onwards, some famous rabbis (and often their followers) immigrated to the Land of Israel. These included Nahmanides, Yechiel of Paris with several hundred of his students, Joseph ben Ephraim Karo, Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk and 300 of his followers, and over 500 disciples (and their families) of the Vilna Gaon known as Perushim, among others.

Persecution of Jews played a key role in preserving Jewish identity and keeping Jewish communities transient, it would later provide a key role in inspiring Zionists to reject European forms of identity.

Jews in Catholic states were banned from owning land and from pursuing a variety of professions. From the 13th century Jews were required to wear identifying clothes such as special hats or stars on their clothing. This form of persecution originated in tenth century Baghdad and was copied by Christian rulers. Constant expulsions and insecurity led Jews to adopt artisan professions that were easily transferable between locations (such as furniture making or tailoring).

Persecution in Spain and Portugal led large number of Jews there to convert to Christianity, however many continued to secretly practice Jewish rituals. The Church responded by creating the Inquisition in 1478 and by expelling all remaining Jews in 1492. In 1542 the inquisition expanded to include the Papal States. Inquisitors could arbitrarily torture suspects and many victims were burnt alive.

In 1516 the Republic of Venice decreed that Jews would only be allowed to reside in a walled-in area of town called the ghetto. Ghetto residents had to pay a daily poll tax and could only stay a limited amount of time. In 1555 the Pope decreed that Jews in Rome were to face similar restrictions. The requirement for Jews to live in Ghettos spread across Europe and Ghettos were frequently highly overcrowded and heavily taxed. They also provided a convenient target for mobs (pogrom). Jews were expelled from England in 1290. A ban remained in force that was only lifted when Oliver Cromwell overthrew the monarchy in 1649 (see Resettlement of the Jews in England).

Persecution of Jews began to decline following Napoleon's conquest of Europe after the French Revolution although the short lived Nazi Empire resurrected most practices. In 1965 the Catholic Church formally excluded the idea of holding Jews collectively responsible for the death of Jesus.

The Age of Enlightenment in Europe led to an 18th- and 19th-century Jewish enlightenment movement in Europe, called the Haskalah. In 1791, the French Revolution led France to become the first country in Europe to grant Jews legal equality. Britain gave Jews equal rights in 1856, Germany in 1871. The spread of western liberal ideas among newly emancipated Jews created for the first time a class of secular Jews who absorbed the prevailing ideas of enlightenment, including rationalism, romanticism, and nationalism.

However, the formation of modern nations in Europe accompanied changes in the prejudices against Jews. What had previously been religious persecution now became a new phenomenon, Racial antisemitism and acquired a new name: antisemitism. Antisemites saw Jews as an alien religious, national and racial group and actively tried to prevent Jews from acquiring equal rights and citizenship. The Catholic press was at the forefront of these efforts and was quietly encouraged by the Vatican, which saw its own decline in status as linked to the equality granted to Jews.[6] By the late 19th century, the more extreme nationalist movements in Europe often promoted physical violence against Jews who they regarded as interlopers and exploiters threatening the well-being of their nations.

Jews in Eastern Europe faced constant pogroms and persecution in Tzarist Russia. From 1791 they were only allowed to live in the Pale of Settlement. In response to the Jewish drive for integration and modern education (Haskalah) and the movement for emancipation, the Tzars imposed tight quotas on schools, universities and cities to prevent entry by Jews. From 1827 to 1917 Russian Jewish boys were required to serve 25 years in the Russian army, starting at the age of 12. The intention was to forcibly destroy their ethnic identity, however the move severely radicalized Russia's Jews and familiarized them with nationalism and socialism.[7]

The tsar's chief adviser Konstantin Pobedonostsev, was reported as saying that one-third of Russia's Jews was expected to emigrate, one-third to accept baptism, and one-third to starve.[8]

Famous incidents includes the 1913 Menahem Mendel Beilis trial (Blood libel against Jews) and the 1903 Kishinev pogrom.

Between 1880 and 1928, two million Jews left Russia; most emigrated to the United States, a minority chose Palestine.

Proto-Zionists include the (Lithuanian) Vilna Gaon, (Russian) Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Vitebsk, (Bosnian) Rabbi Judah Alkalai[9] (German) Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, and (British) Sir Moses Montefiore.[10] Other advocates of Jewish independence include (American) Mordecai Manuel Noah, (Russian) Leon Pinsker and (German) Moses Hess.

In 1862 Moses Hess, a former associate of Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, wrote Rome and Jerusalem. The Last National Question calling for the Jews to create a socialist state in Palestine as a means of settling the Jewish question. Also in 1862, German Orthodox Rabbi Kalischer published his tractate Derishat Zion, arguing that the salvation of the Jews, promised by the Prophets, can come about only by self-help.[11] In 1882, after the Odessa pogrom, Judah Leib Pinsker published the pamphlet Auto-Emancipation (self-emancipation), arguing that Jews could only be truly free in their own country and analyzing the persistent tendency of Europeans to regard Jews as aliens:

"Since the Jew is nowhere at home, nowhere regarded as a native, he remains an alien everywhere. That he himself and his ancestors as well are born in the country does not alter this fact in the least... to the living the Jew is a corpse, to the native a foreigner, to the homesteader a vagrant, to the proprietary a beggar, to the poor an exploiter and a millionaire, to the patriot a man without a country, for all a hated rival."[12]

Pinsker established the Hibbat Zion movement to actively promote Jewish settlement in Palestine. In 1890, the "Society for the Support of Jewish Farmers and Artisans in Syria and Eretz Israel" (better known as the Odessa Committee) was officially registered as a charitable organization in the Russian Empire, and by 1897, it counted over 4,000 members.

Ideas of the restoration of the Jews in the Land of Israel entered British public discourse in the early 19th century, at about the same time as the British Protestant Revival.[13]

Not all such attitudes were favorable towards the Jews; they were shaped in part by a variety of Protestant beliefs,[14] or by a streak of philo-Semitism among the classically educated British elite,[15] or by hopes to extend the Empire. (See The Great Game)

At the urging of Lord Shaftesbury, Britain established a consulate in Jerusalem in 1838, the first diplomatic appointment in the city. In 1839, the Church of Scotland sent Andrew Bonar and Robert Murray M'Cheyne to report on the condition of the Jews there. The report was widely published[16] and was followed by Memorandum to Protestant Monarchs of Europe for the restoration of the Jews to Palestine. In August 1840, The Times reported that the British government was considering Jewish restoration.[13] Correspondence in 184142 between Moses Montefiore, the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Charles Henry Churchill, the British consul in Damascus, is seen as the first recorded plan proposed for political Zionism.[17][18]

Lord Lindsay wrote in 1847: "The soil of Palestine still enjoys her sabbaths, and only waits for the return of her banished children, and the application of industry, commensurate with her agricultural capabilities, to burst once more into universal luxuriance, and be all that she ever was in the days of Solomon."[19]

In 1851, correspondence between Lord Stanley, whose father became British Prime Minister the following year, and Benjamin Disraeli, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer alongside him, records Disraeli's proto-Zionist views: "He then unfolded a plan of restoring the nation to Palestinesaid the country was admirably suited for themthe financiers all over Europe might helpthe Porte is weakthe Turks/holders of property could be bought outthis, he said, was the object of his life...." Coningsby was merely a feelermy views were not fully developed at that timesince then all I have written has been for one purpose. The man who should restore the Hebrew race to their country would be the Messiahthe real saviour of prophecy!" He did not add formally that he aspired to play this part, but it was evidently implied. He thought very highly of the capabilities of the country, and hinted that his chief object in acquiring power here would be to promote the return".[20][21] 26 years later, Disraeli wrote in his article entitled "The Jewish Question is the Oriental Quest" (1877) that within fifty years, a nation of one million Jews would reside in Palestine under the guidance of the British.

Sir Moses Montefiore visited the Land of Israel seven times and fostered its development.[15]

In 1842, Mormon leader Joseph Smith, Jr. sent a representative, Orson Hyde, to dedicate the land of Israel for the return of the Jews.[22] Protestant theologian William Eugene Blackstone submitted a petition to the US president in 1891; the Blackstone Memorial called for the return of Palestine to the Jews.

In the late 1870s, Jewish philanthropists such as the Montefiores and the Rothschilds responded to the persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe by sponsoring agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in Palestine. The Jews who migrated in this period are known as the First Aliyah.[23]Aliyah is a Hebrew word meaning "ascent", referring to the act of spiritually "ascending" to the Holy Land and a basic tenet of Zionism.

The movement of Jews to Palestine was opposed by the Haredi communities who lived in the Four Holy Cities, since they were very poor and lived off charitable donations from Europe, which they feared would be used by the newcomers. However, from 1800 there was a movement of Sephardi businessmen from North Africa and the Balkans to Jaffa and the growing community there perceived modernity and Aliyah as the key to salvation. Unlike the Haredi communities, the Jaffa community did not maintain separate Ashkenazi and Sephardi institutions and functioned as a single unified community.

Founded in 1878, Rosh Pinna and Petah Tikva were the first modern Jewish settlements.

In 18811882 the Tzar sponsored a huge wave of pogroms in the Russian Empire and a massive wave of Jews began leaving, mainly for America. So many Russian Jews arrived in Jaffa that the town ran out of accommodation and the local Jews began forming communities outside the Jaffa city walls. However the migrants faced difficulty finding work (the new settlements mainly needed farmers and builders) and 70% ultimately left, mostly moving on to America. One of the migrants in this period, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda set about modernizing Hebrew so that it could be used as a national language.

Rishon LeZion was founded on 31 July 1882 by a group of ten members of Hovevei Zion from Kharkov (today's Ukraine). In 1887 Neve Tzedek was built just outside Jaffa. Over 50 Jewish settlements were established in this period.

In 1890, Palestine, which was part of the Ottoman Empire, was inhabited by about half a million people, mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs, but also some dozens of thousands Jews.

In 1883, Nathan Birnbaum, 19 years old, founded Kadimah, the first Jewish student association in Vienna and printed Pinsker's pamphlet Auto-Emancipation.

The Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in France in 1894, profoundly shocked emancipated Jews. The depth of antisemitism in the first country to grant Jews equal rights led many to question their future prospects among Christians. Among those who witnessed the Affair was an Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl. Herzl was born in Budapest and lived in Vienna (Jews were only allowed to live in Vienna from 1848), who published his pamphlet Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State") in 1896 and Altneuland ("The Old New Land")[24] in 1902. He described the Affair as a personal turning point, Herzl argued that the creation of a Jewish state would enable the Jews to join the family of nations and escape antisemitism.[25]

Herzl infused political Zionism with a new and practical urgency. He brought the World Zionist Organization into being and, together with Nathan Birnbaum, planned its First Congress at Basel in 1897.[26]

During the First Zionist Congress, the following agreement, commonly known as the Basel Program, was reached:

Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

"Under public law" is generally understood to mean seeking legal permission from the Ottoman rulers for Jewish migration. In this text the word "home" was substituted for "state" and "public law" for "international law" so as not to alarm the Ottoman Sultan.[28]

For the first four years, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) met every year, then, up to the Second World War, they gathered every second year. Since the creation of Israel, the Congress has met every four years.

Congress delegates were elected by the membership. Members were required to pay dues known as a "shekel", At the congress, delegates elected a 30-man executive council, which in turn elected the movement's leader. The movement was democratic and women had the right to vote, which was still absent in Great Britain in 1914.

The WZO's initial strategy was to obtain permission from the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II to allow systematic Jewish settlement in Palestine. The support of the German Emperor, Wilhelm II, was sought, but unsuccessfully. Instead, the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund (1901a charity that bought land for Jewish settlement) and the Anglo-Palestine Bank (1903provided loans for Jewish businesses and farmers).

Herzl's strategy relied on winning support from foreign rulers, in particular the Ottoman Sultan. He also made efforts to cultivate Orthodox rabbinical support. Rabbinical support depended on the Zionist movement making no challenges to existing Jewish tradition. However, an opposition movement arose that emphasized the need for a revolution in Jewish thought. While Herzl believed that the Jews needed to return to their historic homeland as a refuge from antisemitism, the opposition, led by Ahad Ha'am, believed that the Jews must revive and foster a Jewish national culture and, in particular strove to revive the Hebrew language. Many also adopted Hebraized surnames. The opposition became known as Cultural Zionists. Important Cultural Zionists include Ahad Ha'am, Chaim Weizmann, Nahum Sokolow and Menachem Ussishkin.

In 1903, the British Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain, suggested the British Uganda Programme, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (in today's Uasin Gishu District, Eldoret, Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogrom, Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the Sixth Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger. Despite its emergency and temporary nature, the proposal proved very divisive, and widespread opposition to the plan was fueled by a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress. Nevertheless, a committee was established to investigate the possibility, which was eventually dismissed in the Seventh Zionist Congress in 1905. After that, Palestine became the sole focus of Zionist aspirations.

Israel Zangwill left the main Zionist movement over this decision and founded the Jewish Territorialist Organization (ITO). The territorialists were willing to establish a Jewish homeland anywhere, but failed to attract significant support and were dissolved in 1925.

In 1903, following the Kishinev Pogrom, a variety of Russian antisemities, including the Black Hundreds and the Tsarist Secret Police, began combining earlier works alleging a Jewish plot to take control of the world into new formats.[29] One particular version of these allegations, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (subtitle "Protocols extracted from the secret archives of the central chancery of Zion"), arranged by Sergei Nilus, achieved global notability. In 1903, the editor claimed that the protocols revealed the menace of Zionism:

....which has the goal of uniting all the Jews of the whole world in one uniona union that is more closely knit and more dangerous than the Jesuits.[30]

The book contains fictional minutes of an imaginary meeting in which alleged Jewish leaders plotted to take over the world. Nilus later claimed they were presented to the elders by Herzl (the "Prince of Exile") at the first Zionist congress. A Polish edition claimed they were taken from Herzl's flat in Austria and a 1920 German version renamed them "The Zionist Protocols".[31]

By 1904, cultural Zionism was accepted by most Zionists and a schism was beginning to develop between the Zionist movement and Orthodox Judaism. In 1904, Herzl died unexpectedly at the age of 44 and the leadership was taken over by David Wolffsohn, who led the movement until 1911. During this period, the movement was based in Berlin (Germany's Jews were the most assimilated) and made little progress, failing to win support among the Young Turks after the collapse of the Ottoman Regime. From 1911 to 1921, the movement was led by Dr. Otto Warburg.

Under Herzl's leadership, Zionism relied on Orthodox Jews for religious support, with the main party being the orthodox Mizrachi. However, as the cultural and socialist Zionists increasingly broke with tradition and used language contrary to the outlook of most religious Jewish communities, many orthodox religious organizations began opposing Zionism. Their opposition was based on its secularism and on the grounds that only the Messiah could re-establish Jewish rule in Israel.[32] Therefore, most Orthodox Jews maintained the traditional Jewish belief that while the Land of Israel was given to the ancient Israelites by God, and the right of the Jews to that land was permanent and inalienable, the Messiah must appear before the land could return to Jewish control.

While Zionism aroused Ashkenazi orthodox antagonism in Europe (probably due to Modernist European antagonism to organized religion), and also in the United States, it aroused no such antagonism in the Islamic world.[citation needed]

Prior to the Holocaust, Reform Judaism rejected Zionism as inconsistent with the requirements of Jewish citizenship in the diaspora.[33] The opposition of Reform Judaism was expressed in the Pittsburgh Platform, adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis in 1885: "We consider ourselves no longer a nation but a religious community, and therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the administration of the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning the Jewish state."[34]

Widespread pogroms accompanied the 1905 Russian Revolution, inspired by the Pro-Tzarist Black Hundreds. In Odessa, Leon Trotsky provided arms so the Zionists could protect the Jewish community and this prevented a pogrom. Zionist leader Jabotinsky eventually led the Jewish resistance in Odessa. During his subsequent trial Trotsky produced evidence that the Police had organized the effort to create a pogrom in Odessa.[35]

The vicious pogroms led to a wave of immigrants to Palestine. This new wave expanded the Revival of the Hebrew language. In 1909 a group of 65 Zionists laid the foundations for a modern city in Palestine. The city was named after the Hebrew title of Herzl's book "The Old New Land" - Tel-Aviv.

Tel Aviv had a modern "scientific" school, the Herzliya Hebrew High School, the first such school to teach only in Hebrew. All the cities affairs were conducted in Hebrew.

In Jerusalem, foundations were laid for a Jewish University (the Hebrew University), one that would teach only in Hebrew and that the Zionists hoped would help them prove their usefulness to the Turks (this did not come to fruition until 1918). In Haifa, the cornerstone was laid for a Jewish Technical school, the Technion Israel Institute of Technology.

Jewish migrants and organizations began making large land purchases, in particular buying malarial swamps (of which there were many) and draining them to produce highly fertile land.[36]

In 1909 a socialist commune was given some land near the Sea of Galilee, forming the first Kibbutz, Degania. There were nine members, two of them women. One of the women was a former Narodnik who had volunteered as a nurse during the Balkan Wars and witnessed maltreatment of Jews by Russian troops.[37][38] Her son, the second child to be born on the Kibbutz, was General Moshe Dayan, who commanded Israeli troops in the 1956 war the was Minister of Defence during the Six Day War.

In Eastern Europe the General Jewish Labour Bund called for Jewish autonomy within Eastern Europe and promoted Yiddish as the Jewish national language. Like Zionism, the Bund was founded in 1897 and it was one of the largest socialist movements in Europe, however it did not grow as fast as Zionism. The Bund campaigned for Jewish autonomy and recognition of Jewish (non-territorial) national rights within a post-socialist Russia. Initially the Bund included Zionist Socialist parties but over time the leadership came to oppose Zionism and Orthodox Judaism. The socialist movement recognized various national groups, but the Jews were not one of them. The socialist movement was generally unwilling to combat worker anti-Semitism and often failed to publicly condemn pogroms. [39]

Socialist Zionists believed that the Jews' centuries of being oppressed in anti-Semitic societies had reduced Jews to a meek, despairing existence that invited further antisemitism. They argued that Jews should redeem themselves by becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. Socialist Zionists rejected religion as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people and established rural communes in Israel called "Kibbutzim". Major theoreticians of Socialist Zionism included Moses Hess, Nachman Syrkin, Ber Borochov and A. D. Gordon, and leading figures in the movement included David Ben-Gurion and Berl Katznelson. Socialist Zionists rejected Yiddish as a language of exile, embracing Hebrew as the language that was common to all Jewish communities and which originated in Israel.

Gordon believed that the Jews lacked a "normal" class structure and that the various classes that constitute a nation had to be created artificially. Socialist Zionists therefore set about becoming Jewish peasants and proletarians and focused on settling land and working on it. According to Gordon "the land if Israel is bought with labour: not with blood and not with fire." He called on Jews to embrace a "religion of labour" as opposed to their existing religion. Socialist Zionism became a dominant force in Israel, however, it exacerbated the schism between Zionism and Orthodox Judaism.

Socialist Zionists formed youth movements that became influential organizations in their own right including Habonim Dror, Hashomer Hatzair, Machanot Halolim and HaNoar HaOved VeHaLomed. During British rule the lack of available immigration permits to Palestine led the youth movements to operate training programs in Europe, which prepared Jews for migration to Palestine. As a Socialist-Zionist immigrants arrived already speaking Hebrew, trained in agriculture and prepared for life in Palestine.

The Zionist movement never restricted female suffrage. Women were active in Zionist parties in many countries before women gained the franchise, and ran for office in Poland where Zionist and other Jewish parties won seats in parliament. In 1911, Zionist activist Hannah Meisel Shochat established Havat Ha'Almot (the girl's farm) to train Zionist women in farming so as to assist in the Zionist program of developing the land for mass settlement. The famous poet Rachel Bluwstein was one of the graduates. Zionist settlers were usually young and far from their families so a relatively permissive culture was able to develop. Within the Kibbutz movement child rearing was done communally thus freeing women to work (and fight) alongside the men. The second child to be born on a Kibbutz was Moshe Dayan and his mother was a former Narodnik who moved to Israel after being disgusted by the anti-Semitism she found among the peasants.

The Zionist Roza Pomerantz-Meltzer was the first woman elected to the Sejm, the Parliament of Poland. She was elected in 1919 as a member of a Zionist party.[40][41] In Mandatory Palestine women in Jewish towns could vote in elections before women won the right to vote in Britain.

The 1911 edition of the Jewish Encyclopedia noted the movement's spread: "not only in the number of Jews affiliated with the Zionist organization and congress, but also in the fact that there is hardly a nook or corner of the Jewish world in which Zionistic societies are not to be found."[42]

Support for Zionism was not a purely European and Ashkenazi phenomenon. In the Arab world, the first Zionist branches opened in Morocco only a few years after the Basel conference, and the movement became popular among Jews living within the Arab and Muslim world where Jews generally faced religious discrimination, prejudice and occasional violence. A number of the founders of the city of Tel Aviv were early Moroccan Jewish immigrants and Ottoman Salonika had a vigorous Zionist movement by 1908.[43]

Before 1917, Palestine's Arab population mostly saw themselves as Ottoman subjects. They feared the objectives of the Zionist movement, but they assumed the movement would fail. After the Young Turk revolution in 1908, Arab Nationalism grew rapidly in the area and most Arab Nationalists regarded Zionism as a threat, although a minority perceived Zionism as providing a path to modernity.[44]

While Zionist leaders and advocates followed conditions in the land of Israel and travelled there regularly, their concern before 1917 was with the future of the small Jewish settlement. A Jewish state seemed highly unlikely at this point and realistic aspirations focussed on creating a new centre for Jewish life. The future of the land's Arab inhabitants concerned them as little as the welfare of the Jews concerned Arab leaders.

The Jewish population of the USA increased about ten times between 1880 and 1920, with the immigration of poorer, more liberal and radical, "downtown", Eastern European immigrants fleeing persecution. It was not until 1912, when the secular "people's lawyer" Louis Brandeis became involved in Zionism, just before the First World War, that Zionism gained significant support.[45] By 1917, the American Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, which Brandeis chaired had increased American Zionist membership ten times to 200,000 members; "American Jewry thenceforth became the financial center for the world Zionist movement".[46]

As in the US, England had experienced a rapid growth in their Jewish minority. About 150,000 Jews migrated there from Russia in the period 18811914.[47] With this immigration influx, pressure grew from British voters to halt it; added to the established knowledge in British society of Old Testament scripture, Zionism became an attractive solution for both Britain and the Empire.

In the search for support, Herzl, before his death, had made the most progress with the German Kaiser, joining him on his 1898 trip to Palestine.[48] At the outbreak of war in 1914, the offices of the Zionist Organization were located in Berlin and led by Otto Warburg, a German citizen. With different national sections of the movement supporting different sides in the war, Zionist policy was to maintain strict neutrality and "to demonstrate complete loyalty to Turkey",[49] the German ally controlling Palestine. Following Turkey's entry into World War I in August however, the Zionists were expelled from Tel Aviv and its environs.

Although 500,000 Russian Jews were serving in the Russian army, the Russian leadership regarded all Jews as their enemies and assumed that most were avoiding the draft. In 1914-1915 500,000 Jews were ordered to leave their homes in the Pale of Settlement, mostly with less than 24 hours notice. An estimated 100,000 died of starvation and exposure and their plight contributed to the disintegration of the Russian army.[50]

In the United States, still officially neutral, most Russian and German Jews supported the Germans, as did much of the largely anti-British Irish American community. Britain was anxious to win US support for its war effort, and winning over Jewish financial and popular support in the US was considered vital.[51] With Tsarist Russia on the Allied side, most Jews supported Germany and in much of Eastern Europe the advancing Germans were regarded as liberators by the Jews. Like the Germans and the Russians, the British assumed that most Jews were avoiding the draft, these beliefs were groundless, but the Polish Zionist, Ze'ev Jabotinsky was able to exploit it to promote a Jewish division in the British army. For the British, the Jewish Legion, was a means of recruiting Russian Jewish immigrants (who were mostly Zionists) to the British war effort. The legion was dominated by Zionist volunteers.

In January 1915, two months after the British declaration of war against the Ottomans, Zionist and British cabinet member Herbert Samuel presented a detailed memorandum entitled The Future of Palestine to the British Cabinet on the benefits of a British protectorate over Palestine to support Jewish immigration.

The most prominent Russian-Zionist migrant in Britain was chemist Chaim Weizmann. Weizmann developed a new process to produce Acetone, a critical ingredient in manufacturing explosives that Britain was unable to manufacture in sufficient quantity. In 1915, the British government fell as a result of its inability to manufacture enough artillery shells for the war effort. In the new Government, David Lloyd George became the minister responsible for armaments, and asked Weizmann to develop his process for mass production.

Lloyd George was an evangelical Christian and pro-Zionist. According to Lloyd George when he asked Weizmann about payment for his efforts to help Britain, Weizmann told him that he wanted no money, just the rights over Palestine.[52] Weizmann became a close associate of Lloyd George (Prime Minister from 1916) and the First Lord of the Admiralty (Foreign Secretary from 1916), Arthur Balfour.

In 1916 Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca (in Arabia), began an "Arab Revolt" hoping to create an Arab state in the Middle East. In the McMahonHussein Correspondence British representatives promised they would allow him to create such a state (the boundaries were vague). They also provided him with large sums of money to fund his revolt.

In February 1917 the Tsar was overthrown and Alexander Kerensky became Prime Minister of the Russian Empire. Jews were prominent in the new government and the British hoped that Jewish support would help keep Russia in the war. In June 1917 the British army, led by Edmund Allenby, invaded Palestine. The Jewish Legion participated in the invasion and Jabotinsky was awarded for bravery. Arab forces conquered Transjordan and later took over Damascus.

In August 1917, as the British cabinet discussed the Balfour Declaration,[53]Edwin Samuel Montagu, the only Jew in the British Cabinet and a staunch anti-Zionist, "was passionately opposed to the declaration on the grounds that (a) it was a capitulation to anti-Semitic bigotry, with its suggestion that Palestine was the natural destination of the Jews, and that (b) it would be a grave cause of alarm to the Muslim world".[54] Additional references to the future rights of non-Jews in Palestine and the status of Jews worldwide, were thus inserted by the British cabinet, reflecting the opinion of the only Jew within it. As the draft was finalized, the term "state" was replaced with "home", and comments were sought from Zionists abroad. Louis Brandeis, a member of the US Supreme Court, influenced the style of the text and changed the words "Jewish race" to "Jewish people".[45]

On November 2, the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made his landmark Balfour Declaration of 1917, publicly expressing the government's view in favour of "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people", and specifically noting that its establishment must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

On November 7, five days after the Balfour declaration, the Bolsheviks took over Russia. The Bolshevik seizure of power led to civil war in Russia and the collapse of the Western part of the Russian Empire. Poland, the Ukraine and the Lithuanian states became independent. The collapse of central authority led to an eruption of pogroms across Russia and all the new militias were happy to attack the defenceless Jews. The exception were the Bolsheviks, who (usually) took measures to stop their forces massacring Jews and this led to Jews siding with, and volunteering for the Bolshevik's Red Army which came under the command of Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin.

Half the world's Jews lived within the confines of the Russian Empire in 1917, and of these, a third lived in the Ukraine. Simon Petlyura became commander of the Ukrainian Nationalist forces and these forces, as did the anti-Bolshevik White Russian troops, took to systematically massacring Jews. Between 1918 and 1921, when the Bolsheviks assumed control of the Ukraine, over 50,000 Jews were killed, a further 100,000 were permanently maimed or died of wounds and 200,000 Jewish children became orphans.[55]Israel Zangwill wrote:

It is as Bolsheviks that the Jews of South Russia have been massacred by the armies of Petlyura, though the armies of Sokolow have massacred them as partisans of Petlyura, the armies of Makhno as bourgeois capitalists, the armies of Grigoriev as Communists, and the armies of Denikin at once as Bolsheviks, capitalists and Ukrainian nationalists.[56]

At the time fo the Russian revolution, the Bund had 30,000 members in Russia, compared to 300,000 Zionist members of which about 10% were Marxist-Zionists.[57]Joseph Stalin was the first People's Commissariat of Nationalities and in this role disbanded the Bund. Most of its members joined the Yevsektsia, a Jewish section of the Bolshevik organization created by Stalin which worked to end Jewish communal and religious life.[58]

Members of the Marxist Zionist movement, Poale Zion led by Ber Borochov, returned to Russia (from Palestine) and requested to form Jewish Brigades within the Red Army. Trotsky supported the request but opposition from the Yevsektsia led to the proposal's failure.[59] Poale Zion continued to exist in the USSR until 1928. The future Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion was a member of the Israeli branch of the movement.

In 1921, following a personal request to Stalin by the Soviet author Maxim Gorky, the Hebrew poets Bialik and Shaul Tchernichovsky were allowed to emigrate to Palestine.[60] Bialik became the Israeli national poet. Despite opposition from the Evsektsiya, Stalin also permitted funding of a Hebrew theatre troupe in Moscow, called Habima. Stanislavsky attended the first night and the group put on a historic play called The Dybbuk, which they were allowed to take on tour in Europe.[61] The tour terminated in Tel Aviv, and Habima never returned to Moscow, becoming instead the Israel National Theatre. The Revolution was accompanied by a brief flowering of Yiddish arts before being decimated by censorship and by 1950 a significant number of prominent Yiddish intellectuals were sent to the Gulag.[62] A Soviet census found that 90% of Belorussian Jews and 76% of Ukrainian Jews gave Yiddish as their mother tongue.

Between 1922 and 1928, the Soviets embarked on a plan of moving Ukrainian Jews to agricultural communes, mainly in the Crimea, the plan was encouraged by donations from US Jewish charities trying to protect and help Jews and the a number of Zionist agricultural collectives were established in Crimea in preparation for Kibbutz life. Soviet leader Mikhail Kalinin considered creating a Jewish state in the Crimea which had a large Karaite population who had been exempt from Tsarist persecution (Karaites are Jews who reject the authority of the Talmud).[63]

In 1924 Stalin became the ruler of the USSR. In 1928 a Jewish Autonomous Oblast was created in the Russian Far East with Yiddish as an official language and Hebrew was outlawed: The only language to be outlawed in the USSR.[64] Few Jews were tempted by the Soviet Jewish Republic and as of 2002 Jews constitute only about 1.2% of its population.[65]

The Yevsektsiyas were disbanded in 1927 and many their leaders perished during the Great Purge. The Bund survived in independent Poland until the Second World War, when its membership was exterminated by the Nazis.

In late 1921, the 12th Zionist congress was held in Carlsbad, Czechoslovakia; it was the first congress to be held since 1913, because of World War I. Four hundred-fifty delegates attended, representing 780,000 fee paying Zionist members worldwide.[66] Weizmann was elected its president in recognition of his role in obtaining the Balfour Declaration. The conference passed a proposal for an "Arab-Jewish Entente",[67] which called on Zionist leadership to "forge a true understanding with the Arab nation".[66] Weizmann led the movement until 1931. From 1931 to 1935 the WZO was presided by Nahum Sokolow (who had also spent the first world war in Britain). Weizmann resumed presidency of the WZO in 1935 and led it until 1946.

After the defeat and dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by European colonial powers in 1918, the League of Nations endorsed the full text of the Balfour Declaration and established the British Mandate for Palestine (Full text:[68]).

In addition to accepting the Balfour Declaration policy statement, the League included that "[a]n appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine...." This inclusion paralleled a similar proposal made by the Zionist Organization during the Paris Peace Conference.[69]

The Zionist movement entered a new phase of activity. Its priorities were encouraging Jewish settlement in Palestine, building the institutional foundations of a Jewish state and raising funds for these purposes. The 1920s did see a steady growth in the Jewish population and the construction of state-like Jewish institutions, but also saw the emergence of Palestinian Arab nationalism and growing resistance to Jewish immigration.

The success of Zionism in getting international recognition for its project led to growth in the membership and development of new forms of Zionism. The period 19191923 saw migration by Jews escaping the civil war in Russia, the period 19241929 migration by Jews escaping antisemitic regimes in Poland and Hungary.

Read more from the original source:
History of Zionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zionism: David Engel: 9781405835565: Amazon.com: Books

Posted By on September 1, 2015

Review

"This is a superb introduction to a crucial chapter in Jewish history for the uninitiated reader. In this engaging and highly accessible book, David Engel provides a concise, informative and lucid account of the history of the modern Zionist movement and its impact on both Israeli society and Israel's relations with Diaspora Jewry."

Yael Zerubavel, Professor of Jewish Studies & History at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and author of Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition .

"David Engel's book is a masterpiece of brevity and insight, offering a sweeping survey of political Zionism from its 19th century inception, through its practical realization, to its standing in contemporary Israel. The debate on Zionism as the liberation movement for Jews everywhere is greatly enriched by this fascinating study."

Ronald W. Zweig, Taub Professor of Israel Studies at New York University and author of Britain and Palestine During the Second World War .

"This is a superb introduction to a crucial chapter in Jewish history for the uninitiated reader. In this engaging and highly accessible book, David Engel provides a concise, informative and lucid account of the history of the modern Zionist movement and its impact on both Israeli society and Israels relations with Diaspora Jewry."

Yael Zerubavel, Professor of Jewish Studies & History at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, and author of Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition.

"David Engels book is a masterpiece of brevity and insight, offering a sweeping survey of political Zionism from its 19th century inception, through its practical realization, to its standing in contemporary Israel. The debate on Zionism as the liberation movement for Jews everywhere is greatly enriched by this fascinating study."

Ronald W. Zweig, Taub Professor of Israel Studies at New York University and author of Britain and Palestine During the Second World War.

See original here:
Zionism: David Engel: 9781405835565: Amazon.com: Books

What is Zionism? ADL

Posted By on September 1, 2015

Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for both the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, has been the cornerstone of Jewish religious life since the Jewish exile from the land two thousand years ago, and is embedded in Jewish prayer, ritual, literature and culture.

Modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in response to the violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, anti-Semitism in Western Europe. Modern Zionism fused the ancient Jewish biblical and historical ties to the ancestral homeland with the modern concept of nationalism into a vision of establishing a modern Jewish state in the land of Israel.

The "father" of modern Zionism, Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, consolidated various strands of Zionist thought into an organized political movement, advocating for international recognition of a "Jewish state" and encouraging Jewish immigration to build the land.

Today, decades after the actual founding of a Jewish state, Zionism continues to be the guiding nationalist movement of the majority of Jews around the world who believe in, support and identify with the State of Israel. Zionism, the national aspiration of the Jewish people to a homeland, is to the Jewish people what the liberation movements of Africa and Asia have been to their peoples.

History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through such a homeland. The re-establishment of Jewish independence in Israel, after centuries of struggle to overcome foreign conquest and exile, is a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination. To question the Jewish people's right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.

Read more from the original source:
What is Zionism? ADL

Zionism definition and history – THIRD WORLD TRAVELER

Posted By on September 1, 2015

wikipedia.com Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. Since the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza, the objectives and methods of the Zionist movement and of Israel have come under increasing criticism. The Arab world opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset, but during the course of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 1967, the legitimacy of Israel, and thus of Zionism, has been increasingly questioned in the wider world. Since the breakdown of the Oslo Accords in 2001, attacks on Zionism in media, intellectual and political circles, particularly in Europe, have reached new levels of intensity. The Jews and Zion The word "Zionist" is derived from the word "Zion" (Hebrew: ____, Tziyyon), being one of the names of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Bible. It was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal Self Emancipation in 1890. Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects, reflecting the dual nature of Jewish identity, as both a religion (Judaism) and as a national or ethnic identity (Jewishness). Many religious Jews opposed Zionism, while some of the founders of the State of Israel were atheists. Religious Jews believe that since the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable. To generations of diaspora Jews, Zion has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in Biblical prophecies. (See also Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism) Despite this, many religious Jews were not enthusiastic about Zionism before the 1930s, and many religious organisations opposed it on the grounds that an attempt to re-establish Jewish rule in Israel by human agency is blasphemous, since only the Messiah can accomplish this. The secular, socialist language used by many pioneer Zionists was contrary to the outlook of most religious Jewish communities. There was, however, a small but vocal group of religious Jews, led by the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Abraham Isaac Kook, that supported Zionism and cooperation with the secular majority in Palestine. Only the desperate circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s converted most (though not all) of these communities to Zionism. Secular Jewish opinion was also ambivalent in its attitudes to Zionism. Many argued that Jews should join with other progressive forces in bringing about changes which would eradicate anti-Semitism and make it possible for Jews to live in safety in the various countries where they lived. Before the 1930s, many Jews believed that socialism offered a better strategy for improving the lot of European Jews. In the United States, most Jews embraced the liberalism of their adopted country. By some estimates, before World War II only 20-25 percent of Jews worldwide supported Zionism, with most others either opposed or lukewarm to it. The chain of events between 1881 and 1945, however, beginning with waves of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia and the Russian controlled areas of Poland, and culminating in the Holocaust, converted the great majority of surviving Jews to the belief that a Jewish homeland was an urgent necessity, particularly given the large population of disenfranchised Jewish refugees after World War II. Most also became convinced that Palestine was the only location that was both acceptable to all strands of Jewish thought and within the realms of practical possibility. This led to the great majority of Jews supporting the struggle between 1945 and 1948 to establish the State of Israel, though many did not condone violent tactics used by some Zionist groups. Since 1948 most Jews have continued to identify as Zionists, in the sense that they support the State of Israel even if they do not choose to live there. This worldwide support has been of vital importance to Israel, both politically and financially. This has been particularly true since 1967, as the rise of Palestinian nationalism and the resulting political and military struggles have eroded sympathy for Israel among non-Jews, at least outside the United States. In recent years, many Jews have criticised the morality and expediency of Israel's continued control of the territories captured in 1967. [edit] Establishment of the Zionist Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Herzl_large.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Herzl_large.jpgTheodor Herzl The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland became a universal Jewish theme after the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70, the defeat of Bar Kochba's revolt in 135, and the dispersal of the Jews to other parts of the Empire that followed. Due to the disasterous results of the revolt, what was once a human driven movement towards national sovereignty based on religious inspiratation, over centuries tradition and broken hopes of one "false messiah" after another took much of the human element out of messianic deliverance and put it all in the hands of God. Although Jewish nationalism in ancient times have always taken on religious connatations, from the Maccabean Revolt to the various Jewish revolts during Roman rule, and even Medieval Times when intermittently national hopes were incarnated in the "false messianism" of Shabbatai Zvi, among others less know messianists, it was not until the rise of ideological and political Zionism and its renewed belief in human based action toward Jewish national aspiration, did the notion of settling the homeland become widespread among the Jewish conscious. The emancipation of Jews in European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries following the French Revolution, and the spread of western liberal ideas among a section of newly emancipated Jews, created for the first time a class of secular Jews, who absorbed the prevailing ideas of rationalism, romanticism and, most importantly, nationalism. Jews who had abandoned Judaism, at least in its traditional forms, began to develop a new Jewish identity, as a "nation" in the European sense. They were inspired by various national struggles, such as those for German and Italian unification, and for Polish and Hungarian independence. If Italians and Poles were entitled to a homeland, they asked, why were Jews not so entitled? Before the 1890s there had already been attempts to settle Jews in Palestine, which was in the 19th century a part of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by about 450,000 people, mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs (although there had never been a time when there were no Jews in Palestine). Pogroms in Russia led Jewish philanthropists such as the Montefiores and the Rothschilds to sponsor agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in Palestine in the late 1870s, culminating in a small group of immigrants from Russia arriving in the country in 1882. This has become known in Zionist history as the First Aliyah (aliyah is a Hebrew word meaning "ascent."). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_aliyah_BILU_in_kuffiyeh.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_aliyah_BILU_in_kuffiyeh.jpg The first aliyah: Biluim used to wear the traditional Arab headdress, the kuffiyeh Proto-Zionist groups such as Hibbat Zion were active in the 1880s in Eastern Europe where emancipation had not occurred to the extent it did in Western Europe (or at all.)The massive anti-Jewish pogroms following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II made emancipation seem farther than ever and influenced Judah Leib Pinsker to publish the pamphlet Auto-Emancipation in January 1, 1882. The pamphlet became influential for the Political Zionism movement. There had also been several Jewish thinkers such as Moses Hess whose 1862 work Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question argued for the Jews to settle in Palestine as a means of settling the national question. Hess proposed a socialist state in which the Jews would become agrarianised through a process of "redemption of the soil" which would transform the Jewish community into a true nation in that Jews would occupy the productive layers of society rather than being an intermediary non-productive merchant class which is how he perceived European Jews. Hess, along with later thinkers such as Nahum Syrkin and Ber Borochov, is considered a founder of Socialist Zionism and Labour Zionism and one of the intellectual forebears of the kibbutz movement. A key event triggering the modern Zionist movement was the Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in France in 1894. Jews were profoundly shocked to see this outbreak of anti-Semitism in a country which they thought of as the home of enlightenment and liberty. Among those who witnessed the Affair was an Austrian-Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl, who published his pamphlet Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State") in 1896. Prior to the Affair, Herzl had been anti-Zionist, afterwards he became ardently pro-Zionist. In 1897 Herzl organised the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, which founded the World Zionist Organisation (WZO) and elected Herzl as its first President. [edit] Zionist strategies The WZO's initial strategy was to obtain the permission of the Ottoman Sultan to allow systematic Jewish settlement in Palestine. The good offices of the German Emperor, Wilhelm II, were sought, but nothing came of this. Instead the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration, and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund in 1901 and the Anglo-Palestine Bank in 1903. Before 1917 some Zionist leaders took seriously proposals for Jewish homelands in places other than Palestine. Herzl's Der Judenstaat argued for a Jewish state in either Palestine, "our ever-memorable historic home", or Argentina, "one of the most fertile countries in the world". In 1903 British cabinet ministers suggested the British Uganda Program, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (actually in modern Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogroms Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the 6th Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger. Notwithstanding its emergency and temporary nature, the proposal still proved very divisive, and sparked a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress. Nevertheless, a majority voted to establish a committee for the investigation of the possibility, and it was not dismissed until the 7th Zionist Congress in 1905. In response to this, the Jewish Territorialist Organization led by Israel Zangwill split off from the main Zionist movement. The territorialists attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible, but went into decline after 1917 and were dissolved in 1925. From that time Palestine was the sole focus of Zionist aspirations. Few Jews took seriously the establishment by the Soviet Union of a Jewish Autonomous Republic in the Russian Far East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.weizmann.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.weizmann.jpg Chaim Weizmann One of the major motivations for Zionism was the belief that the Jews needed a country of their own, not just as a refuge from anti-Semitism, but in order to become a "normal people." Some Zionists, mainly socialist Zionists, believed that the Jews' centuries of marginalised existence in anti-Semitic societies had distorted the Jewish character, reducing Jews to a parasitic existence which further fostered anti-Semitism. They argued that Jews should redeem themselves from their history by becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. These Zionists generally rejected religion as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people. One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov, continuing from the work of Moses Hess, proposed the creation of a society based on an "inverted pyramid," where the "proletariat," both Jewish and Arab, dominated the society. Another, A. D. Gordon, was influenced by the volkisch ideas of European romantic nationalism, and proposed establishing a society of Jewish peasants. These two thinkers, and others like them, motivated the establishment of the first Jewish collective settlement, or kibbutz, Deganiah, on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in 1909 (the same year that the city of Tel Aviv was established). Deganiah, and many other kibbutzim that were soon to follow, attempted to realise these thinkers' vision by creating a communal villages, where newly arrived European Jews would be taught agriculture and other manual skills. Another aspect of this strategy was the revival and fostering of an "indigenous" Jewish culture and the Hebrew language. One early Zionist thinker, Asher Ginsberg, better known by his penname Ahad Ha'am ("One of the People") rejected what he regarded as the over-emphasis of political Zionism on statehood, at the expense of the revival of Hebrew culture. Ahad Ha'am recognised that the effort to achieve independence in Palestine would bring Jews into conflict with the native Palestinian Arab population, as well as with the Ottomans and European colonial powers then eying the country. Instead, he proposed that the emphasis of the Zionist movement shift to efforts to revive the Hebrew language and create a new culture, free from Diaspora influences, that would unite Jews and serve as a common denominator between diverse Jewish communities once independence was achieved. The most prominent follower of this idea was Eliezer Ben Yehudah, a linguist intent on reviving Hebrew as a spoken language among Jews (see History of the Hebrew language). Most European Jews in the 19th century spoke Yiddish, a language based on mediaeval German, but as of the 1880s, Ben Yehudah and his supporters began promoting the use and teaching of a modernised form of biblical Hebrew, which had not been a living language for nearly 2,000 years. Despite Herzl's efforts to have German proclaimed the official language of the Zionist movement, the use of Hebrew was adopted as official policy by Zionist organisations in Palestine, and served as an important unifying force among the Jewish settlers, many of whom also took new Hebrew names. The development of the first Hebrew-speaking city (Tel Aviv), the kibbutz movement, and other Jewish economic institutions, plus the use of Hebrew, began by the 1920s to lay the foundations of a new nationality, which would come into formal existence in 1948. Meanwhile, other cultural Zionists attempted to create new Jewish artforms, including graphic arts. (Boris Schatz, a Bulgarian artist, founded the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem in 1906.) Others, such as dancer and artist Baruch Agadati, fostered popular festivals such as the Adloyada carnival on Purim. The Zionist leaders always saw Britain as a key potential ally in the struggle for a Jewish homeland. Not only was Britain the world's greatest imperial power; it was also a country where Jews lived in peace and security, among them influential political and cultural leaders, such as Benjamin Disraeli and Walter, Lord Rothschild. There was also a peculiar streak of philo-Semitism among the classically educated British elite to which the Zionist leaders hoped to appeal, just as the Greek independence movement had appealed to British phil-Hellenism during the Greek War of Independence. Chaim Weizmann, who became the leader of the Zionist movement after Herzl's death in 1904, was a professor at a British university, and used his extensive contacts to lobby the British government for a statement in support of Zionist aspirations. This hope was realised in 1917, when the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made his famous Declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Balfour was motived partly by philo-Semitic sentiment, partly by a desire to weaken the Ottoman Empire (an ally of Germany during the First World War), and partly by a desire to strengthen support for the Allied cause in the United States, home to the world's most influental Jewish community. In the Declaration, however, Balfour was careful to use the word "homeland" rather than "state," and also to specify that the establishment of a Jewish homeland must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." [edit] Zionism and the Arabs The early Zionists were well aware that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs, who had constituted the overwhelming majority (95% in 1880) of the population there for over a thousand years, but thought that they could only benefit from Jewish immigration. This attitude led to the opposition of the Arabs being ignored, or even to their presence being denied, as in Israel Zangwill's famous slogan "A land without a people, for a people without a land". Generally though, such myths were propaganda invented by leaders who didn't think of the Arabs as an obstacle as serious as the big empires. It was hoped that the wishes of the local Arabs could be simply bypassed by forging agreements with the Ottoman authorities, or with Arab rulers outside Palestine. One of the earlier Zionists to warn against these ideas was Ahad Ha'am, who warned in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place. Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews, the most serious opposition began in the 1890s after the full scope of the Zionist enterprise became known. This opposition did not arise out of Palestinian nationalism, which was in its mere infancy at the time, but out of a sense of threat to the livelihood of the Arabs. This sense was heightened in the early years of the 20th century by the Zionist attempts to develop an economy in which Arabs were largely redundant, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg Vladimir Jabotinsky Nevertheless, despite clear signs that a true Palestinian nationalism was rising, much the same range of opinion could be found among Zionist leaders after 1920. However, the division between these camps did not match the main threads in Zionist politics so cleanly as is often portrayed. To take an example, the leader of the Revisionist Zionists, Vladimir Jabotinsky, is often presented as having had an extreme pro-expulsion view but the proofs offered for this are rather thin. According to Jabotinsky's Iron Wall (1923), an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, since they look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. The solution, according to Jabotinsky, was not expulsion (which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]") but to impose the Jewish presence on the Arabs by force of arms until eventually they came to accept it. Only late in his life did Jabotinsky speak of the desirability of Arab emigration though still without unequivocally advocating an expulsion policy. After the World Zionist Organization rejected Jabotinsky's proposals, he resigned from the organization and founded the New Zionist Organization in 1933 to promote his views and work independently for immigration and the establishment of a state. The NZO rejoined the WZO in 1951. The situation with socialist Zionists such as David Ben-Gurion was also ambiguous. In public Ben-Gurion upheld the official position of his party that denied the necessity of force in achieving Zionist goals. The argument was based on the denial of a unique Palestinian identity coupled with the belief that eventually the Arabs would realise that Zionism was to their advantage. Privately, however, Ben-Gurion believed that the Arab opposition amounted to a total rejection of Zionism grounded in fundamental principle, and that a confrontation was unavoidable. In 1937, Ben-Gurion and almost all of his party leadership supported a British proposal to create a small Jewish state from which the Arabs had been removed by force. The British plan was soon shelved, but the idea of a Jewish state with a minimal population of Arabs remained an important thread in Labour Zionist thought throughout the remaining period until the creation of Israel. The attitude of the Zionist leaders towards the Arab population of Palestine in the lead-up to the 1948 conflict is one of the most hotly debated issues in Zionist history. This article does not cover it; see Israel-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian exodus. [edit] The struggle for Palestine With the defeat and dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, and the establishment of the British Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922, the Zionist movement entered a new phase of activity. Its priorities were the escalation of Jewish settlement in Palestine, the building of the institutional foundations of a Jewish state, raising funds for these purposes, and persuading - or forcing - the British authorities not to take any steps which would lead to Palestine moving towards independence as an Arab-majority state. The 1920s did see a steady growth in the Jewish population and the construction of state-like Jewish institutions, but also saw the emergence of Palestinian Arab nationalism and growing resistance to Jewish immigration. International Jewish opinion remained divided on the merits of the Zionist project. Many prominent Jews in Europe and the United States opposed Zionism, arguing that a Jewish homeland was not needed because Jews were able to live in the democratic countries of the West as equal citizens. Albert Einstein, one of the best-known Jews in the world, said: "I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks." The many Jews who embraced socialism opposed Zionism as a form of reactionary nationalism. The General Jewish Labor Union, or Bund, which represented socialist Jews in eastern Europe, was strongly anti-Zionist. The Communist parties, which attracted substantial Jewish support during the 1920s and 1930s, were even more virulently anti-Zionist, if one defines Zionism as the advocacy of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. During this time Communists actively promoted an alternative Jewish homeland - the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, or Birobidzhan, which had been set up by the Soviet Union in the Russian Far East. At the other extreme, some American Jews went so far as to say that the United States was Zion, and the successful absorption of 2 million Jewish immigrants in the 30 years before the First World War lent force to this argument. (Some American Jewish socialists supported the Birobidzhan experiment, and a few even emigrated there during the Great Depression.) The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933 produced a powerful new impetus for Zionism. Not only did it create a flood of Jewish refugees - at a time when the United States had closed its doors to further immigration - but it undermined the faith of Jews that they could live in security as minorities in non-Jewish societies. Some Zionists allegedly supported the rise of the Nazi party, recognising that it would increase the possibility of a Jewish state. It is claimed by author Lenni Brenner that The Zionist Federation of Germany even sent Hitler a letter calling for collaboration in 1933; however the strongly anti-Semitic Nazis rejected the offer and later abolished the organisation in 1938. Jewish opinion began to shift in favour of Zionism, and pressure for more Jewish immigration to Palestine increased. But the more Jews settled in Palestine, the more aroused Palestinian Arab opinion became, and the more difficult the situation became in Palestine. In 1936 serious Arab rioting broke out, and in response the British authorities held the unsuccessful St. James Conference and issued the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, severely restricting further Jewish immigration. The Jewish community in Palestine responded by organising armed forces, based on smaller units developed to defend remote agricultural settlements. Two military movements were founded, the Labor-dominated Haganah and the Revisionist Irgun. The latter group did not hesitate to take military action against the Arab population. With the advent of World War II, both groups decided that defeating Hitler took priority over the fight against the British. However, attacks against British targets were recommenced in 1940 by a splinter group of the Irgun, later known as Lehi, and in 1944 by the Irgun itself. The revelation of the fate of six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust had several consequences. Firstly, it left hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees (or displaced persons) in camps in Europe, unable or unwilling to return to homes in countries which they felt had betrayed them to the Nazis. Not all of these refugees wanted to go to Palestine, and in fact many of them eventually went to other countries, but large numbers of them did, and they resorted to increasingly desperate measures to get there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.bengurion.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.bengurion.jpg Harry S. Truman and David Ben-Gurion (Abba Eban behind) Secondly, it evoked a world-wide feeling of sympathy with the Jewish people, mingled with guilt that more had not been done to deter Hitler's aggressions before the war, or to help Jews escape from Europe during its course. This was particularly the case in the United States, whose federal government had halted Jewish immigration during the war. Among those who became strong supporters of the Zionist ideal was President Harry S. Truman, who overrode considerable opposition in his State Department and used the great power of his position to mobilise support at the United Nations for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine; although it should be noted that he privately disliked Zionist Jews, and Jews in general. Since Britain was desperate to withdraw from Palestine, Truman's efforts were the crucial factor in the creation of Israel. Thirdly, it swung world Jewish opinion almost unanimously behind the project of a Jewish state in Palestine, and within Palestine it led to a greater resolution to use force to achieve that objective. American Reform Judaism was among the elements of Jewish thought which changed their opinions about Zionism after the Holocaust. The proposition that Jews could live in peace and security in non-Jewish societies was certainly a difficult one to defend in 1945, although it is one of the ironies of Zionist history that in the decades since World War II anti-Semitism has greatly declined as a serious political force in most western countries, and Jewish communities continue to live and prosper outside Israel. [edit] Zionism and Israel In 1947 Britain announced its intention to withdraw from Palestine, and on 29 November the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state (with Jerusalem becoming an international enclave). Civil conflict between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine erupted immediately. On 14 May 1948 the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine made a declaration of independence, and the state of Israel was established. This marked a major turning point in the Zionist movement, as its principal goal had now been accomplished. Many Zionist institutions were reshaped, and the three military movements combined to form the Israel Defence Forces. The majority of the Arab population having either fled or been expelled during the War of Independence, Jews were now a majority of the population within the 1948 ceasefire lines, which became Israel's de facto borders until 1967. In 1950 the Knesset passed the Law of Return which granted all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel. This, together with the influx of Jewish refugees from Europe and the later flood of expelled Jews from Arab countries, had the effect of creating a large and apparently permanent Jewish majority in Israel. Since 1948 the international Zionist movement has undertaken a variety of roles in support of Israel. These have included the encouragement of immigration, assisting the absorption and integration of immigrants, fundraising on behalf of settlement and development projects in Israel, the encouragement of private capital investment in Israel, and mobilisation of world public opinion in support of Israel. The 1967 war between Israel and the Arab states (the "Six-Day War") marked a major turning point in the history of Israel and of Zionism. Israeli forces occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem, including the holiest of Jewish religious sites, the Western Wall of the ancient Temple. They also took over the remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (from Egypt). Religious Jews regarded the West Bank (ancient Judaea and Samaria) as an integral part of Eretz Israel, and within Israel voices of the political Right soon began to argue that these territories should be permanently retained. Zionist groups began to build Jewish settlements in the territories as a means of establishing "facts on the ground" that would make an Israeli withdrawal impossible. The 1968 conference of the WZO adopted the following principles: _ The unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life _ The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through aliyah from all countries _ The strengthening of the State of Israel, based on the "prophetic vision of justice and peace" _ The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the fostering of Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values _ The protection of Jewish rights everywhere. Control of the West Bank and Gaza placed Israel in the position of control over a large population of Palestinian Arabs. Whether or not there had been a distinct Palestinian national identity in the 1920s may be debated, but there is no doubt that by the 1960s such an identity was firmly established - the founders of Zionism had thus, ironically, created two new nationalities, Israeli and Palestinian, instead of one. The faith of the Palestinians in the willingness and ability of the Arab states to defeat Israel and return Palestine to Arab rule was destroyed by the war, and the death of the most militant Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, in 1969 reinforced the belief of Palestinians that they had been abandoned. The Palestine Liberation Organisation, created in 1965 as an Egyptian-controlled propaganda device, took on new life as an autonomous movement led by Yasser Arafat, and soon turned to terrorism as its principal means of struggle. From this point the history of Israel and the Palestinians can be followed in the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which said that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was rescinded in 1991. This issue is discussed in the article on anti-Zionism. [edit] Zionism today More than 50 years after the founding of the State of Israel, and after more than 80 years of Arab-Jewish conflict over the territory that is now Israel, many have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some liberal or socialist Jews, as well as some Orthodox Jewish communities, still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle. Well-known Jewish scholars and statesmen who have opposed Zionism include Bruno Kreisky, Hans Fromm and Michael Selzer. In the United States Jewish intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have continued to oppose Zionism, although few argue that the Jewish settlement of Palestine should actually be reversed. Criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories has become sharper since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel. Some elements of Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, although mainstream Orthodox groups such as the Agudat Israel have changed their positions since 1948 and now actively support Israel, often assuming right-wing stances regarding important political questions such as the peace process. Today, the overwhelming majority of Jewish organisations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist. Among the important minority threads within Zionism is one that holds Israelis to be a new nationality, not merely the representatives of world Jewry. The "Canaanite" or "Hebrew Renaissance" movement led by poet Yonatan Ratosh in the 1930s and 1940s was built on this idea. A modern movement which is partly based on the same idea is known as Post-Zionism. There is no agreement on how this movement is defined, nor even of which persons belong to it, but the most common idea is that Israel should leave behind the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and instead strive to be a state of all its citizens according to pluralistic democratic values. Self-identified Post-Zionists differ on many important details, such as the status of the Law of Return. Critics tend to associate Post-Zionism with anti-Zionism or postmodernism, both charges which are strenuously denied by proponents. Another persistent opinion favors a binational state in which Arabs and Jews live together while enjoying some type of autonomy. Variants of the idea were proposed by Chaim Weizmann in the 1930s and by the Ichud (Unity) group in the 1940s, which included such prominent figures as Judah Magnes (first dean of The Hebrew University) and Martin Buber. The emergence of Israel as a Jewish state with a small Arab minority made the idea irrelevant, but it was revived after the 1967 war left Israel in control of a large Arab population. Never more than the opinion of a small minority, the idea is nevertheless supported by a few prominent intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said, and (since 2003) Meron Benvenisti. Opponents of a binational state argue that since Arabs would form the majority of the population in such a state, the Jewish character on which the state was founded may be lost. [edit] Israel watch Index of Website Home Page

Read this article:
Zionism definition and history - THIRD WORLD TRAVELER

Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality

Posted By on September 1, 2015

Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality

[Published in Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, ed. Nenad Miscevi, Open Court Publishing Company, 2000.]

______________________________________________

No topic causes more acrimonious debate between Jews and Arabs, even among those who favor a two-state solution, than the morality of Zionism. Israeli Jews from the Peace Now movement often astound Arab audiences when they call Zionism the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. And Arabs infuriate even many left-wing Jews when they label Zionism a form of racism. Part of the debate is due to confusion about the meaning of Zionism, the relationship of Zionism to other forms of nationalism, and the extent to which partiality toward one's own is ethically justifiable. I will try to untangle some of that confusion and to construct a framework for assessing the morality of Zionism.

One source of confusion is the failure to distinguish between Zionism as a pure concept and Zionism as an historical reality associated with the state of Israel. The concept of Zionism does not imply the particular way that Israel has implemented it. One can oppose the policies of Israel, yet defend the idea of Jewish nationalism and even of a (radically changed) Jewish state in Palestine. In this essay I first address the morality of Zionism as a concept, apart from its implementation by Israel. I then discuss the implementation of Zionism and argue for two claims applicable to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I conclude by suggesting a moral requirement for Zionism today, one which has larger implications for the ethics of nationalism.

I stipulate two principles as central to Zionism:

Jews have a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in the world.

Jews have a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine.

The first claim addresses something close to the pure idea of Jewish nationalism completely apart from its implementation in Palestine. The second claim includes a consideration of the competing claims of Jews and Arabs to the land of Palestine. For those who do not think that these principles capture what is essential to Zionism, this essay can be considered an evaluation of the two principles, which are themselves interesting, controversial, and suggestive of larger issues in the ethics of nationalism.

One further preliminary point. Each claim refers to self-determination or a Jewish state. In this paper I will assume that political self-determination means statehood because in the modern world nations typically achieve full self-determination by gaining a state of their own. Both Palestinians and Jewsnot to mention Kurds, Kosovars, and Croatiansunderstand their own self-determination in terms of statehood. Moreover, the more general moral debate on the ethics of nationalism focuses on the existence of contemporary nation-states. [1] Perhaps a homeland for Jews would have been possible without statehood, and there are good reasons for the world to develop means by which political communities can achieve self-determination in some form other than that of the nation-state. But I will not tackle that question here. Therefore, in discussing nationalism and Zionism, I will assume that Jewish self-determination would express itself through statehood.

I will discuss three criticisms of Zionism: (1)Zionism is immoral because it is a form of cultural nationalism; (2)Even assuming that some forms of cultural nationalism are morally acceptable, Jewish nationalism is unacceptable; (3)Even assuming that Jewish nationalism is in principle acceptable, Zionism is immoral because, insofar as it includes a claim to a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine, it necessarily violates the moral rights of indigenous Palestinians. I will try to show that the first two criticisms are flawed and that the third criticism is more complex than is generally assumed. However, I will also argue that the third criticism is an important challenge to contemporary Zionism and demonstrates that if it is to be morally defensible, it must radically transform its relationship both to its own past and to the Palestinian people.

The first criticism of Zionism is that it is immoral because it is a form of cultural nationalism. And this invokes a larger challenge: can any nationalism that acts with a preference for members of a particular cultural group be ethically acceptable? On the face of it, any nationalism violates the standard ethical view that all persons should be treated equally and impartially. For people, or for governments acting in the name of people, to grant special consideration to others who share a certain nationality but not to foreigners requires justification. On first view being French would not seem to be a morally relevant criterion for receiving special benefits. How can it be morally acceptable for people to establish a French government that makes precisely this distinction?

Of course the matter is not that simple. There are forms of partiality that are reasonably accepted, such as an individuals entitlement to give greater weight to the interests of one's own family than to strangers and perhaps also to favor close friends, even in the absence of contractual agreements. [2] In contrast, racism, the favoring of a people simply because of their race, is widely condemned. Nationalistic partiality is more controversial; some expressions of nationalism may be ethically acceptable while others are not.[3] As with other forms of partialism, we must evaluate nationalisms with respect to both the degree of partialism and the kind of partialism that they sanction. The first criticism of Jewish nationalism is that it sanctions the wrong kind of partialism because it is a nationalism which favors a particular culture.

What might be an appropriate form of nationalism for the critic of cultural nationalism? The division of persons into nations might be justified purely as a matter of administrative convenience, a way in which our general obligation to protect welfare can be efficiently distributed. The French government is assigned special responsibility for French citizens because they are within the borders of the administrative unit known as France. Robert Goodin[4] endorses this approach and argues that one implication of this model is that if there are people who have not been assigned protectors, then all states have a responsibility to them, just as all doctors in a hospital would have some residual responsibility for patients who had not been assigned to a particular physician.

If administered democratically, this kind of administrative nationalism will serve not only to promote economic welfare but also to satisfy the claim of a group of people to govern themselves, which may itself be viewed an one element of human welfare. It allows the nation to fulfill what Yael Tamir refers to as the democratic version of the right to self-determination[5] and what Muhammad Ali Khalidi calls the right of political participation.[6] Just as it would be too cumbersome to administer economic welfare globally, democracies function best when divided into separate jurisdictions.

To the critic of cultural nationalism, the partiality involved in administrative nationalism is relatively unproblematic. Of course even the state organized for administrative convenience will favor its own citizens and not view every person in the world as having an equal moral claim on its resources or an equal claim to influence its policies. But the ultimate justification for administrative nationalism is impartial, and its defense of partiality within each nation is merely instrumental. [7] It sees the preferential treatment that states offer their citizens as a means toward achieving an impartial goal, the welfare of all people. Under administrative nationalism the state is bound by impartial principles both in the justification for the original establishment of state boundaries and in matters of immigration, a continuation of the process of dividing up people into jurisdictions.

Cultural nationalism is a bolder challenge to the impartiality principle and, to the critic, a more disturbing one. It corresponds to what Tamir refers to as the cultural version of the right of self-determination,[8] to Khalidis right of national self-expression,[9] and to Michael Walzers conception of the right of people to a common life. [10] Whereas under administrative nationalism each state's responsibilities are the same but simply cover different groups of individuals, for cultural nationalism the state's role goes beyond protecting the life, liberty, and welfare of individuals; it must also protect and promote (and hence favor) a particular way of life which typically includes customs and traditions that have evolved for a particular group of people over time and which generally is embraced by mostbut, significantly, not all-- of the people currently residing in the states territory.[11] Hence a French state will have a responsibility to protect the French way of life that will distinguish it from an Arab state; the obligations of a German state will be different from those of a Turkish state. And these differences may be reflected in a state's immigration policies.

Zionism, which aims to promote a distinctively Jewish society, is clearly a form of cultural nationalism. As such it is subject to the criticism that it is oppressive, even racist, and in general incompatible with the impartial standpoint of morality.[12] In response, I will offer a qualified defense of cultural nationalism; first, by distinguishing it from racist and other oppressive nationalisms; second, by pointing out, positively, ways that cultural nationalism may be justified; and third, by arguing that the criticism of Zionism for being a form of cultural nationalism comes from an inappropriately idealistic moral standpoint.

First, the promotion of a culture is clearly different from the promotion of a race. It is the existence of a shared way of life that is judged worth defending that distinguishes partialism on behalf of a culture from racist partialism. Anyone, regardless of race, may choose to participate in the common life of a culture. Insofar as the common life that defines a people is not based on race, it leaves open the possibility for all persons to choose (if they wish) to identity with the countrys predominant national culture. Though difficult, it is possible for minorities, those who were once outsiders, eventually to share in Danish or French peoplehood. An Algerian can become French (just as Armenians and Jews have become Turks), whereas it was not possible for a black person in apartheid South Africa to become white. A second difference between cultural and racial nationalism is that cultures or ways of life evolve, and a changing population may, over time, enrich and alter a culture. A nationalism based on race is less open to this kind of evolution. Finally, racist nationalism typically denies equal citizenship rights to alien races, whereas cultural nationalism may grant full citizenship rights to members of minority cultures.

Even if cultural nationalism is not based on race, its partiality is, according to the critic, still unacceptably exclusionary. To the extent that the way of life is based on particular values such as socialism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, and that way of life is part of the nations core identity rather than an issue open to democratic debate, it will exclude those who choose not to embrace it. To the extent that it is based, as is generally the case, on a shared history and identification with particular cultural symbols, it will exclude those who are not members of the dominant culture and who do not wish to assimilate into it. Thus, even if partiality toward a culture is not the same as racism, a states promotion of a way of life may be, critics argue, no less oppressive for those who do not wish to share it.

Though the critic can point to many examples where cultural nationalism (or Zionism in practice) has oppressed minorities, we should not concede that it necessarily does so. The acceptance of cultural nationalism does not imply acquiescing in the exclusion of people or in discrimination against minorities. A culturally based state will express its way of life officially through its language, its holidays, and its national symbols, but this does not mean that all people's basic human and citizenship rights will not be respected. Indeed, reasonable conditions for the acceptability of a state based on cultural nationalism are that it develop constitutional procedures to protect the citizenship rights of minorities, that it guarantee all residents the right to emigrate, and that it include provisions to ensure that all who wish to join the majority cultures national life may do so. More than that: a morally defensible cultural nationalism should seek ways to protect and encourage the expression of minority cultures; for example, through funding schools, museums, and other cultural institutions that express the arts, language, and history of minority cultures. A small minority cannot expect to have its cultural symbols officially acknowledged by the state, but to deny a people official expression of their cultures symbols is neither to oppress the people themselves nor to deny them the right of cultural expression. Few would argue that Muslims are necessarily oppressed in Scandinavian countries merely because the cross and not the crescent is on each countrys flag.

Aside from not being inherently racist or oppressive, cultural nationalism includes positive features that may justify its existence even from an impartial standpoint. Cultural nationalism responds to some basic human needs, and there are good reasons to want to see these needs satisfied for many people even where they cannot be satisfied to the same degree for all. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to develop the relationship between individual human needs and national self-determination, many authorsin particular, Michael Walzer and Yael Tamirhave argued that persons need, and have a right to, the common life (Walzer) and shared public space (Tamir) afforded by being a member of a self-determining nation.[13] For Tamir,

Membership in a nation is a constitutive factor of personal identity. The self-image of individuals is highly affected by the status of their national community. The ability of individuals to lead a satisfying life and to attain the respect of others is contingent on, although not assured by, their ability to view themselves as active members of a worthy community . . .Given the essential interest of individuals in preserving their national identitythe right to national self-determination should be seen as an individual right.[14]

One problem with this argument as a justification of cultural nationalism is that it is not obvious that the human needs served by cultural nationalism, when considered impartially, will outweigh other human needs that may compete with it. But if the value of cultural nationalism can be established, then the burden of proof is on the critic to spell out those competing needs and to demonstrate both their importance and their incompatibility with any form of cultural nationalism.

A second impartial justification for cultural nationalism is the desirability of preserving a diversity of ways of life. We regret the loss of an indigenous culture, just as we regret the loss of a species or ecosystem, and one might attempt to argue that cultures or ecosystems themselves have interests and can be bearers of rights. But even if cultures themselves do not have rights, individual human beings have an interest in the preservation of a diversity of cultures, each making actual some of the possibilities of human consciousness through distinctive forms of expression. It is reasonable to view the loss of an indigenous cultures language and way of life as a loss for humanity in general. And it is also reasonable to think that those cultures have a better chance of surviving if they enjoy the protection of national self-determination or, if that is not possible, if they come under the protection of a state that is committed to an enlightened form of cultural nationalism.

Though these are reasonable arguments for cultural nationalism from a purely impartial standpoint, they may not be decisive. Perhaps the most important reason that the criticism of cultural nationalism fails as a challenge to Zionism is that, insofar as it insists on pure impartiality, it adopts an inappropriate standpoint, that of idealistic rather than a more realistic morality. The distinction, introduced and discussed by Joseph H. Carens in relation to the ethics of migration,[15] is crucial for discussing the ethics of nationalism. In an idealistic approach, we evaluate behavior in light of our highest ideals, disregarding whether there is any chance that those ideals will actually be met. This is certainly appropriate in discussions of ethical theory that are concerned with fundamental justification. But in discussions of public policy, a more realistic approach is the appropriate one. It would require that (1) what we say ought to be done should not be too far from what we think actually might happen, and that (2) we avoid moral standards that no one ever meets or even approximates in their actual behavior.[16] These are rough but nonetheless useful guidelines. Carens suggests that in discussing the ethics of public policy, we want to avoid a large gap between the ought and the is, but he is careful also to warn of the danger of a purely realistic approach that makes no distinction at all between them and would acquiesce in the worst injustices. This concern also applies to the morality of Zionism, and at the end of this paper I will propose a requirement for Zionism that is far from its current practice but which is consistent with realistic morality, given the above guidelines. More work needs to be done formulating a continuum of possibilities between idealistic and realistic approaches and specifying in some detail how much realism is appropriate to different moral inquiries into nationalism. But even postponing that more exacting project, I think it fair to claim that criticizing Zionism merely because it is a form of cultural nationalism is to adopt an unfruitful kind of ethical idealism.

A more realistic approach is particularly appropriate in assessing Zionism as a form of cultural nationalism for two reasons. First, if Zionism is flawed simply because it is a culturally based nationalism, then it is only flawed in the same way as British nationalism, Lithuanian nationalism, or, most significantly, Palestinian nationalism. Those criticizing Zionism on moral grounds do not intend their condemnation to be so sweeping. Though Palestinians protest at being stateless and express an urgent desire for a passport, they are not indifferent with respect to which passport they receive. Were the right to belong to a state based purely on a right to be part of some administrative unit that protects individuals, Palestinians might work to become full Jordanians or Israelis. Though the one-state solution (one secular democratic state in all of Palestine) approaches this demand, it is doubtful that Palestinian national aspirations would be met if the name of the single state were Israel or even Southern Syria, if its language were Hebrew (or English), and if only Jewish holidays (or no holidays at all) were officially celebrated.

Second, a more realistic approach is especially appropriate for evaluating both Jewish and Palestinian nationalism because the failure of other nationalisms to meet the most ideal ethical standards is the urgent historical context within which their movements for self-determination have developed. In a world where other people achieve freedom and independence through cultural nationalism and where states have recently used their power to oppress them, Jews and Palestinians may be able to gain security in the present only through a state of their own.[17] Their historical experience appears to confirm this. Jews residing in Poland, Russia, and Germany failed to receive the full protection promised by simply being under the jurisdiction of a state. And no Palestinian in the occupied areas (and few in Israel itself) would claim that the state adequately considers the needs of individual Palestinians.

One might argue that the historical experience of Palestinians and Jews is due to the failure to implement the ideals of administrative nationalism (or even of morally acceptable cultural nationalism) and that it is through advocating and working toward the achievement of those ideals that both Palestinians and Jews can overcome oppression. However, this is not an effective argument against cultural nationalism for contemporary Jews or Palestinians. Though ethnic bigotry and discrimination are morally wrong and should be opposed wherever they are found, the actual framework in which both Jews and Palestinians must make moral choices includes a continuing history of victimization and a lack of success, as minorities, in persuading those in power to change their behavior. A realistic morality that aims to assess the behavior of a people and the character of their national movement cannot ignore that their choices are made in the context of actions by others that they cannot control.

Many critics of Zionism accept culturally based nationalismindeed, most Palestinians enthusiastically embrace itbut they challenge Zionism on the grounds that it is morally different from other forms of cultural nationalism for at least three reasons. First, Jewish nationalism is unacceptable because Jews are not a people; that is, there is no distinctly Jewish culture or way of life, ora more moderate claimthere is no Jewish culture sufficiently distinct to justify national self-determination. Second, Jewish nationalism is unacceptable because its criteria for membership are overly exclusive. Third, Zionism is unacceptable because Jews lacked a necessary ingredient for national self-determination, a contiguous territory on which they were already residing.

The claim that Jews are not a people is difficult to defend (or to refute) because there are no agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes a distinctive people. The arguments used against Jewish peoplehood are often almost ludicrous: they don't look alike, they don't eat the same foods, they don't speak the same language. While each of these may be one relevant criterion of peoplehood, no one of them seems necessary. What unites a people is a complex matter and obviously differs from nation to nation; Americans and Canadians would meet few of the traditional criteria. Palestinians, dispersed throughout the world like Jews, no longer share a language and never shared one common religion. Yet it would be presumptuous to tell someone who experiences herself as Palestinian that she is really an American or a Jordanian or even, as Israeli leaders used to insist, simply an Arab with no more distinctive identity. Ultimately, whether or not someone is a member of a people seems most reasonably answered by whether she is a member of a group that experiences itself as sharing an identity. Those who do so experience themselves have certain characteristic qualities: they feel part of a shared history (perhaps a history of victimization), they feel pride when their group (or perhaps even a member of their group) is recognized as having performed in a noble or distinguished way, and they feel shame, not merely anger, when something ignominious becomes associated with their group.[18] If these feelings are combined with a general desire to achieve self-determination and a willingness to sacrifice for it, the existence of peoplehood cannot reasonably be doubted. There may be pragmatic reasons for regarding the achievement of statehood as undesirable or impossibleinsufficient economic resources, for examplebut unless someone can rationally demonstrate objective criteria for peoplehood, one cannot deny in such cases that there does indeed exist a people that is striving for self-determination.

A second argument directed against Jewish nationalism is that it is closed or exclusive, in contrast to the more open or inclusive nationalisms espoused by genuine liberation movements. Though this criticism is directed against Zionism in principle, I will focus mainly on the form it takes by those who defend Palestinian nationalism. I will argue that if Palestinian nationalism is not to become a merely administrative nationalism, then it will include the same exclusionary features as the Jewish nationalism it criticizes.

Palestinians often stress that their opposition is not to Jews but to Zionism, and many emphasize that Jews who come from Palestine are also Palestinians and can share in the fruits of Palestinian national liberation. This view bases national identity on a shared attachment to land. It claims to be an inclusive nationalism, and it considers Zionism closed or even racist because it excludes people simply because of their ancestry.[19] The old PLO formula of one secular democratic state in Palestine was one attempt to implement this view. While this approach denies Jews recognition as a distinctive people entitled to a state of their own, it offers a positive justification for nationhood that can include Jews. This can be looked at in two slightly different ways: (1) a state of Palestine that recognizes the existence of two different common lives, Jewish and Arab, but claims that their shared attachment to the same land implies that they should live together under one jurisdiction; (2) a state of Palestine in which a shared attachment to the land is itself regarded as the basis for a single common life uniting Arab and Jew. The first form denies the one nation, one common life approach, while the second accepts that each nation protects one way of life but broadens its conception of what a way of life includes. Both conceptions can give some content to being Jewish or being Palestinian Arab and yet both oppose an exclusive nationalism based on the culture of only one group or the other.

The idea of a single secular state based on attachment to the land of Palestine probably best captures the deepest Palestinian aspirations and is proposed as an alternative both to a closed cultural nationalism and to a mere administrative nationalism. The Palestinian dream of a secular state has always been more substantial than a desire for some administrative unit that would issue passports or for a bureaucracy, any bureaucracy, that would promote the health and welfare of Palestinians. The dream includes the use of the Arabic language, the freedom to practice the Muslim or Christian religion, the teaching of Palestinian history, and the commemoration of that history in national holidays. But, according to the proposed challenge, there is no reason why these elements of a common life cannot coexist in a single state with a second, Jewish common life or that the two together cannot be thought to make up a common life more broadly conceived.

However, to base nationalism on attachment to the same land seems to undermine the whole substantive justification of national boundaries, reducing it in the end to a matter of administrative convenience. There are two possibilities: either Jews and Palestinians are thought to have somewhat separate common lives but tied together into one nation by living on the same land, or else the fact that Jews and Palestinians live on the same land is itself thought to give Jews and Palestinians one common life. But if Jews and Palestinians have separate common lives and two such different common lives are to coexist in one country, why not include Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt as well? Why not the whole Middle East or even Europe? Why divide the land of the world into separate nations unless doing so is judged to be efficient or administratively convenient as a way of distributing responsibility? Once we concede that Jews and Palestinians have different ways of life and once the administrative convenience model of nationhood is rejected, there seems no good reason to group Palestinians with Jews rather than with Jordanians and no basis for grouping Jewish Israelis with Arabs rather than Americans.[20]

If, on the other hand, Jews and Palestinians are thought to constitute a single way of life based on a shared attachment to the land, then again it is not clear where to draw the boundaries of the land to which they are attached. How is it different from the land of Lebanon or Egypt or Jordan? Do not all people in the region share an attachment to the land a bit more broadly conceived? Or, going in the other direction, why should not Jerusalemites be considered attached to a different land from those living in Tel Aviv? Their relation to what they regard as a holy city is dramatically different from that of people living in secular Tel Aviv.[21]

Once we purge considerations of culture or way of life of the more traditional kind in order to create a more open nationalism, drawing national boundaries based on an attachment to one land rather than another would seem to reduce us to defining political units purely in terms of administrative convenience. If attachment to land is interpreted to include anyone who happens physically to reside in a given area, then it will indeed be open and inclusive, but it will justify only an administrative nationalism. On the other hand, if attachment to land means something more than thisa shared history of attachment, a bonding of people who are from the same placethen it will be a cultural nationalism that will be at least as exclusive as Jewish nationalism. Though the Zionist movement does not embrace Palestinian Arab culture (but could in principle, and should, protect its expression as a cultural minority inside Israel), a Palestinian nationalism based on a common historical attachment to the land of Palestine will also exclude (or at least similarly fail to embrace) the culture of Russians, Austrians, Jews and anyone else who does not share Palestinian ancestry. If what is thought morally problematic about a Jewish nationalism is that it promotes a culture based (largely) on ancestry, a matter over which people have no control, then Palestinian (and many other forms of) nationalism must be seen as no less exclusive. Even when nation-states respect the basic rights of minorities, their failure fully to embrace minority cultures seems to be an inevitable element of cultural nationalism; the Palestinian idea of a shared attachment to land, if interpreted as more than an administrative division, is no exception. Though the implementation of Jewish nationalism may have involved unique forms of exclusion, there seems to be nothing in principle about Jewish nationalism that makes it any less inclusive than other forms of cultural nationalism.

A final argument against Zionism, attempting to distinguish it from acceptable forms of cultural nationalism, is that it lacked one of the ethical requirements of a national liberation movement, residence on contiguous territory on which to construct a nation-state. National movements typically work to control territory on which they are currently suppressed or from which they have recently been expelled, but in its inception Zionism envisioned a state for people scattered throughout the world.[22]

The tie between a people, a national liberation movement, and particular territory is a complex one that, in its most theoretical dimension, is beyond the scope of this paper. I will limit myself to three brief comments. First, although it is fair to say that those already living in an area have a presumptive claim to its territory over those not living in the same area, there may be some advantage to demystifying the connection between people and land. A group has a better chance of creating a morally acceptable form of nationalism if it sees territory simply as the necessary physical space in which their people can live and express their national culture rather than as the soil where their ancestors blood has been shed. Some of the greatest problems of nationalism, Jewish nationalism included, derive from an excessive rather than an insufficient tie to a particular territory of the world.[23]

Second, if one questions whether a particular peoplein this case, the Jewsare truly a people of the kind qualifying for national self-determination, the existence of a strong will to create a homeland even in the absence of the close natural ties afforded by physical proximity would seem to be unusually powerful evidence of the experience of a shared identity. And if, as argued above, the qualities of peoplehood depend upon the subjective experiences of its members, the sense of peoplehood is the most important evidence of its actual existence. That this shared identity derives in part from a history of persecution at the hands of countries widely separated from one another strengthens rather than weakens the case for Jewish nationalism.

Third, there is no good moral reason in principle to disqualify people from building a state on territory merely because most (or even all) of them had never lived there before.[24] Had there truly been a land without people and Jews had settled and built their state there, I would see no good reason to consider Jewish nationalism less legitimate because it needed to find a homeland rather than to try to reclaim one. What is problematic in practice about settling in areas where people have not previously lived is that other people have a claim to the land. This is the most crucial challenge to Zionism and the subject of the next section.

If the first two arguments against Zionism fail, then the idea of a morally defensible Jewish national liberation movement is conceivable. From the standpoint of a more realistic (even if not from a purely impartial) morality, people are entitled to form states to defend a particular culture or way of life, and if Jews experience themselves as sharing a way of life and are willing to sacrifice to achieve self-determination, their aspirations to national liberation must be respected as much as those of any other people. The final criticism of Zionism concedes all this but argues that though there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Jewish nationalism, Zionism, by definition, infringes the rights of Palestinians. Another way of putting the criticism is to say that if Zionism were fully represented by its first principle, that Jews have a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in the world, it would be defensible. But since Zionism did not choose a so-called land without people, since it claims for Jews (under its second principle) a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine, it necessarily infringes the moral rights of the indigenous people in the area and is for that reason morally indefensible.

That the actual establishment of Israel infringed Palestinian rights is hard to dispute. Zionists must confront the dispossession of Palestinians, the devastation of a Palestinian way of life, and the intentional destruction of four-fifths of the Arab villages that once existed in what is now Israel.[25] Similarly, it would be hard to dispute the claim that Israel's current policies infringe Palestinian rights. Israel's infringement of human rights in the West Bank and Gaza has been widely documented in both international and Israeli sources.[26]

Several argumentative strategies are open to the contemporary Zionist, however. One would be to claim that Zionism in principle does not imply the infringement of Palestinian rights that has actually occurred (and continues to occur). A second would be to concede that Zionism infringes Palestinian rights but to argue that this infringement is morally justified by more weighty considerations. Finally, the Zionist might concede the moral flaws inherent in Zionism but argue that a morally acceptable form of Zionism is still possible today. I will discuss each of these in turn.

That Zionism in principle does not imply any particular course of events, any particular historical infringement of rights, is clearly true, just as any concept does not imply a particular instantiation. However, even if the Zionist movement could have minimized the infringement of Palestinian rights more than it actually did, it is unlikely that any movement to establish a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine could have totally avoided infringing the rights of the indigenous people. Unlike the romanticized view of most American Jews and Christians, some leading Zionists have been more forthright in acknowledging the moral costs that were unavoidable elements of Jewish national liberation in Palestine. Three years after famously calling Palestine a land without people for the people without land, Israel Zangwill reversed himself in a little-known 1904 New York speech:

There is, however, a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The Pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews, so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.[27]

And in 1969 Moshe Dayan said to a group of students:

We came to this country, which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is, a Jewish state here....Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you, since these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books do not existthe Arab villages are not there either.[28]

The second Zionist argument is more forthright and philosophically more interesting. It concedes that the infringement of Palestinian rights is inherent in establishing and maintaining a Jewish state in Palestine. It claims, however, that this alone does not show Zionism to be in principle morally unacceptable. The infringement of others' rights is not always morally wrong since even strong rights claims are not absolute. On an absolutist view, there can never be considerations that justify infringing a right. For example, if freedom from unwanted experimentation were regarded as an absolute right, then it would be immoral to use a person in an experiment against her will even if the fate of the rest of the world were at stake. Most ethical theorists shrink from such absolutism.

In the same spirit, Zionists might concede the infringement of Palestinian rights but defend Zionism on the grounds that the infringement of rights was (or is) necessary for the protection of morally more weighty rights, such as the saving of human lives and the preservation of a culture threatened with destruction. Determining the weight of rights is a notoriously difficult matter, of course. I will not attempt to argue for or against the Zionist case but instead will set out what I think it needs to involve and then argue for two conclusions that are relevant to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether or not the Zionist defense is successful.

The Zionist argument appeals to two rights, the right of people to protect their own lives and the right of people to defend their own culture when it is threatened with destruction, as Jewish culture was threatened by European persecution culminating in the Nazi genocide. The Zionist argument is that these rights outweigh the Palestinian rights that Zionism necessarily sacrifices.

Even assuming that the two rights invoked by defenders of Zionism exist and have moral significance, the argument needs further clarification. First, there is the factual question of exactly which Palestinian rights Zionism infringes. Some argue that it is the right of Palestinians to live where they choose and suggest that the Jewish right to exist must take precedence. However, Palestinians would respond that Zionism, by definition, implies not just the transfer of Palestinians from one place to another but the destruction of the whole Palestinian way of life, partly because Palestinian culture is based on ties to a particular land. If Zionism implies the destruction of Palestinian culture, its defender will need to show why the right of Jewish culture to survive outweighs the corresponding right of Palestinians.

Second, the right of Jews to protect their lives, to which Zionists appealeven assuming that this right was (or is) at stakeis not identifiable with the right of self-defense as that right is generally understood. The right of self-defense is generally invoked to permit action to protect oneself from harm against the source of danger, not against a third party. Jewish lives and culture were originally threatened primarily by Europeans, not by Arabs, so Jewish actions against Arabs were not ordinary acts of self-defense.[29] In self-defense it is often thought that one may inflict slightly greater damage than the harm that is threatened.[30] However, when one argues in favor of action against a third party rather than against the original source of danger, one's burden of proof is significantly greater. A Zionist who depends on the claim that the Jewish rights at stake are more weighty than the Arab rights is in fact acknowledging this greater burden of proof.

The Zionist appeal to more weighty Jewish rights may take either an impartial perspective or rely on cultural partialism. In either case, a first premise might be:

1. The infringement of Palestinian rights is necessary for satisfying the rights of Jews to preserve their lives and their culture (i.e., for fulfilling the Zionist project in Palestine).

The argument could then proceed in one of two ways.

Impartialist version

2a. Rights of other people may be infringed when it is necessary to do so in order to satisfy rights that are, objectively and impartially, more compelling.

3a. The rights of Jews to preserve their lives and their culture are, objectively and impartially, more compelling than the Palestinian rights that must be infringed.

Partialist version

2b. People in one's own culture are objects of special moral concern; therefore, the rights of people in other cultures may be infringed when it is necessary to do so in order to satisfy rights of one's own people that are impartially of at least nearly equal importance.

3b. Jews are a culture, and the rights of Jews to preserve Jewish lives and Jewish culture are, impartially, at least of nearly equal importance to the Palestinian rights that must be infringed.

Again, for either of these arguments to be developed, defenders of Zionism would need to show that the infringement of the Palestinian rights in question is necessary, and they would need to spell out which Palestinian rights are in fact infringed and to argue that the Jewish rights are either more compelling than the Palestinian rights (in the impartial version) or at least of nearly equal importance (in the partialist version).

Obviously the Zionist argument will be easier to make if some form of partialism can be defended, perhaps as part of accepting a realistic approach to morality. The partialist argument advanced here is a conservative one, permitting only a slight preference for people in one's own culture. And it is possible that there may be sound, ultimately impartial arguments for a moderate partialist principle such as 2b above. For example, it is conceivable that people in a Rawlsian original position would choose such a principle.

Of course even if this Zionist defense is successful, it would justify only a conceptual Zionism, not the one that has actually been (and is still being) implemented. In fact, of course, many Jews have displaced Palestinians when neither their own lives nor their culture were at stake (especially since 1967). And much Palestinian land has been taken not in order to save Jewish lives or Jewish culture but to preserve a higher standard of living.[31] But the defender of the concept of Zionism need not defend these or any other particular actions any more than a defender of Christianity or Marxism needs to defend everything that has been done in its name. A contemporary Zionist can concede moral failings in Zionist history and current practice, yet defend a Zionism that might have been. More significant for the current crisis, a contemporary Zionist might concede even inherent flaws in Zionism but claim that a morally acceptable form of Zionismthat is, a morally acceptable form of Jewish statehood somewhere in Palestineis still possible.

I would like to argue for two claims that apply directly to the contemporary conflict between Jews and Palestinians. First, even if the Zionist defense fails, some Jews may nonetheless now have a stronger moral claim to live in the land of Israel/Palestine than some Palestinians. Second, even if the Zionist defense succeeds, Palestinian rights still have moral force and cannot now be ignored. This final claim leads in a direction that may help contribute to the development of a morally acceptable Zionism and holds larger lessons for nationalism in general.

First, imagine that the Jewish rights at stake do not outweigh the Palestinian rights; for example, because it was (or is) not necessary for Zionists to infringe Palestinian rights in order to protect their lives and culture. Even if we inferred from this that Zionism is inherently flawed, it would not prove what some Palestinians want to claim, that all Palestinians and no (non-indigenous) Jews are morally entitled to live on the land of Palestine. Many Palestinians, including those who now favor two states as a political solution, want to claim that any Palestinian has a right to return to the land where his parent (or grandparent) was born, at least if his ancestors did not leave willingly. Yet there is an implied statute of limitations on this claim since they do not grant that Jews, who were forced out centuries ago, have the same moral right.

Clearly there is a significant moral difference between the claim of some Palestinians whose ancestors lived in Palestine for many recent centuries and the claim of Jews, most of whom must go back 2,000 years to establish a tie to the same land. But this difference does not establish that all Palestinians who want to go to Palestine have a right to do so and that no Diaspora Jews have that right.

The Palestinian argument for a right of all Palestinians to the land of Palestine is based on a special kind of tie, being from the area. But even assuming that moral claims to land are based on being from an area, there is no reason to think that Palestinian ancestral ties always give individual Palestinians a stronger claim than individual Jews to live in the land of Palestine. A typical Palestinian analogy goes like this:

Imagine that you live in a house, and someone comes from another place and takes your house by force. You have a moral right to reclaim the house that was taken from you.

Our intuitions are fairly clear in a case of this kind. But now imagine the following variation, which corresponds to some instances of conflict between Palestinian Arab and Jewish claims to land:

Your grandfather lived in a house. Someone from another place took that house by force, and your grandfather went to another place and established a house there. You were born in this other house. In the meantime, the person who took your grandfather's house maintained the house, farmed its land, and perhaps continued to improve it.

Whether or not you have a moral right to your grandfather's old house would seem to depend on a number of further considerations. Have you and your parents consistently pressed for a return to the house? Have you established a home elsewhere? Do you consider yourself a refugee or are you thriving in your present home? Are any of the current residents of the house responsible for the original theft and continuing to benefit from it?[32] One might conclude that there are some circumstances where the present resident of the house, who may know no other home, has a greater tieand a greater moral claimto that land than you do, even if it is granted that his ancestors acted wrongly in taking your grandfather's house. Thus, even if the defense of Zionism fails, that would not imply that Jews currently living in Israel have no right to do so or that all Palestinians have a right to return.

If the failure of the Zionist argument would not negate all current Jewish claims to live in Palestine, neither would the success of the Zionist argument negate all Palestinian claims. Though some descendants of Palestinians are thriving in other parts of the world, many Palestinians whose ancestors were forced off their land remain refugees, have not established new homes, and have made continuous efforts to reclaim their ancestors' land. These Palestinians, at least, do seem to have a strong claim based on tie to land. Moreover, though Jews currently living in Israel cannot be held accountable for human rights violations committed by their ancestors, many have not only failed to acknowledge those infringements but are implicatedespecially in the occupied territoriesin infringements of Palestinian rights that are not unlike those of their ancestors.

If the moral defense of Zionism succeeds, it does so on the grounds that moral rights are not absolute and that what is at stake for Jews and Jewish culture outweighs the Palestinian rights that must be compromised. But just as it is reasonable to reject an absolutist view of rights and to be open to the possibility that rights infringements sometimes may be justified, another extreme view of rights also seems unacceptable. This is the view that when rights are overridden by morally more compelling considerations (such as other rights or avoiding truly disastrous consequences), in these cases rights lose all their moral force. This view would claim not only that it is morally right to experiment on a person against her will in order to save the rest of the world but would deny that the person experimented on was in any way wronged or that any failure to respect a right even occurred. On this view, when it is necessary to override a moral right, there is nothing to regret and the person who acted is immune from moral criticism because she did the right thing, all things considered.

Judith Jarvis Thomson and Nancy Davis suggest a middle course between these two extreme views of rights;[33] namely, that there may be cases where it is appropriate to infringe a right, but infringing a right does not fully negate it. Thus even where the circumstances are such that it is morally appropriate to wrong people and to infringe their rights, these justifiable rights infringements still leave moral traces; the infringement of rights, even in a morally permissible act, is not immune from serious moral criticism or the need to make redress. This view respects the complexity of moral life and has special relevance to the possibility, today, of a morally acceptable Zionism.

Zionists might insist that a key to overcoming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Palestinians to recognize that even if they will not concede the moral acceptability of past Zionist actionsindeed, even if those actions are not morally defensiblePalestinians should focus on the present and future and acknowledge the right of Jews to live as citizens in a state of Israel. But this second argument, which addresses the infringement of Palestinian rights, points to the challenge Zionists themselves confront both to achieve peace with Palestinians and to create the possibility of a morally defensible Zionism today. A morally defensible Zionism needs to acknowledge that even if the infringement of Palestinian rights can be justified (a difficult task, as discussed above), those rights are not totally negated, the infringement of those rights leaves moral traces, and restitution is due to those whose rights have been infringed.

The lesson is a larger one with important implications for nationalism in general. Even within the framework of a realistic approach to morality, states and peoples may reasonably be required to come to terms with the dark episodes of their histories. Probably all nations have them, and in his classic statement on nationalism, Renan suggests that collective amnesia has been endemic to nationalism:

Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation, which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a danger for [the principle of] nationality. Indeed, historical enquiry brings to light deeds of violence which took place at the origin of all political formations[34]

Renan claims, further, that a heroic past and the memory of past glory are the social capital upon which one bases a national idea.[35]

For any people, especially a people with a long history as victims of persecution, to acknowledge having also been victimizers requires a transformation of national identity that may be even deeper than Renan imagined. But if Zionism and nationalism generally are to be morally acceptable, they must overcome Renans dicta. There is much that can be said, still in the spirit of a realistic morality, about the need to develop institutions and practices to remember and teach the truth about the less gloriousindeed, the most shamefulelements of a nations past.[36] Many countries, including Germany, South Africa, and the United States, have made efforts toward this end.

For Israel and for Zionism there are two kinds of requirements that come with acknowledging infringement of Palestinian rights as part of Israels history. One is to make restitution to the Palestinians; for example, by paying reparations to Palestinian refugees, perhaps by means of grants to a Palestinian state. The other requirement is for Israeli Jews to engage in public acts, using the results of recent historical studies to overcome forgetting. These would be acts of national self-examination, but they would also have great significance for Palestinians, including Palestinian Israeli citizens. They include teaching in Israeli schools the truth about the destruction of Arab villages in Israel after its War of Independence[37] and creating public memorials and commemorative holidays for Palestinian victims.[38] Through such acts Israel can take an important step toward a morally acceptable Zionism by transforming its relationship both to its own past and, in the present, to the Palestinian people.

I presented versions of this essay at the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and at Philosophy Colloquia at the University of Colorado-Boulder and the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. I am grateful for the comments of Anton Shammas, Carl Cohen, and Holly Arida (University of Michigan-Ann Arbor); Paul Hughes (University of Michigan-Dearborn); Sanford Kessler (North Carolina State University); Nancy Davis (University of Colorado-Boulder); Ibrahim Dawud (Jerusalem); and Bashshar Haydar and Muhammad Ali Khalidi (American University of Beirut).

Elias Baumgarten is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan-Dearborn; Research Associate at the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; and a member of two ethics committees at the University of Michigan Health System.

Email author

Go to web page of author

Read more:
Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality

Urban Dictionary: Zionism

Posted By on September 1, 2015

"An extremely racist belief that Jews deserve to take over the Palestinian's land with the backing of the U.S. military."

Except if you read history, which anti-Zionists enjoying ignoring and distorting to fit their beliefs, you would know that the land actually belongs to the Jews and they were kicked out by the Romans in 70 A.D. Not everything Muslims and corrupt organizations such as the United Nations say is necessarily true.

There has never been a Palestinian people. The name Palestine came from the Romans after the conquered Israel in 70. They wanted to end any association of the land with the Jews. The term "Palestine" came from the Philistines, one of the Jews' biggest enemies in their history. Note they were Aegean people and weren't even Semitic. What's the difference between Palestinians and their Arab brethren? Do the Palestinians have their own unique culture, cuisine, language and other things that separate them from other Arabs? This whole "Palestinian nationalism" is a recent invention by Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian.

I personally oppose having an alliance Israel, just like how I oppose having an alliance with anyone. But what most anti-Zionists don't know is that we actually give three times more aid to Israel's enemies. If we're going to end aid to Israel, we should end aid to the Arabs. I don't even know why we bother using our military on Israel since they have a better military than us.

"Zionists use the history of persecution against Jews to rationalize this blatant breach of human rights, and then Israelis go on to murder thousands of Palestinians each year with the pretext that they have been attacked by terrorists."

No, Zionists use the the history of the fact that the Jews historically owned that land and they were kicked out by the Romans. The difference between this and the Indians is that the Jews were literally exiled and the Indians weren't, not that I'm saying we should belittle what happened to the Indians.

Don't Muslims use their religion to rationalize why they hae their land? How come they get to have all that land that has a lot of oil, but Jews can't have a tiny sliver of land that has zero oil?

How can you charge Israel with human rights violations, but ignore what goes in places like Saudi Arabi? 20% of Israel's population are Muslims and they enjoy full rights and even have their own political parties and representation in government. But what about the Palestinians? They don't want to be Israelis and continue to show why by continuing to attack Israel after the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and even voted for Hamas, an organization even Amnesty International calls terrorist. These guys are really pushing for peace aren't they?

"While it is true that some Palestinians attack Israelis, there are at least 4 fold more Palestinian than Israeli deaths each year."

Probably because most of the Palestinians are terrorists.

See the original post:
Urban Dictionary: Zionism

What is Zionism? Judaism versus Zionism – Neturei Karta

Posted By on September 1, 2015

There is a vile lie, which stalks the Jewish people across the globe. It is a lie so heinous, so far from the truth, that it can only gain popularity due to the complicity of powerful forces in the "mainstream" media and educational establishment.

It is a lie which has brought many innocent people untold suffering and if unchecked has the potential to create extraordinary tragedy in the future. It is the lie that declares that Judaism and Zionism are identical.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Judaism is the belief in revelation at Sinai. It is the belief that exile is a punishment for Jewish sins.

Zionism has for over a century denied Sinaitic revelation. It believes that Jewish exile can be ended by military aggression.

Zionism has spent the past century strategically dispossessing the Palestinian people. It has ignored their just claims and subjected them to persecution, torture and death.

Torah Jews the world over are shocked and pained at this short-lived dogma of irreligiosity and cruelty. Thousands of Torah scholars and saints have condemned this movement from its inception. They knew that the pre-existing good relationship between Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land was bound to suffer as Zionism advanced.

The so-called "State of Israel" stands rejected on religious grounds by the Torah. Its monstrous insensitivity to the laws of basic decency and fairness appall all men be they Jewish or not.

We of Neturei Karta have been in the forefront of the battle against Zionism for over a century.

Our presence here is to refute the base lie that the evil, which is Zionism, in some way represents the Jewish people.

The reverse is true.

We are saddened day in and day out at the terrible toll of death emanating from the Holy Land. Not one of them would have occurred if Zionism had not unleashed its evil energies upon the world.

As Jews we are called upon to live in peace and harmony with all men. We are exhorted to be law abiding and patriotic citizens in all lands.

We condemn the current Zionist atrocities in the Holy Land. We yearn for peace based upon mutual respect. We are convinced that this proposed mutual respect is doomed to fail as long as the Israeli state exists. We welcome its abolition in a peaceful manner.

May we be worthy of true redemption when all men will join in brotherhood in His worship.

See the original post:
What is Zionism? Judaism versus Zionism - Neturei Karta


Page 1,637«..1020..1,6361,6371,6381,639..1,6501,660..»

matomo tracker