The Turn

Zionism made a defining split in the early 1920s. The split was a revision in policy made in reaction to two declarations by Winston Churchill, the Secretary of State for the Colonies. The Revisionists called for a revision of Zionist policy and the Jewish relationship with the British Empire.

The new Zionists proposed a local and more militant Zionist movement. It was a game-changer in Palestine. Distancing from a pro-British-led movement to anti-British and anti-Palestinian put the Zionists at a crossroads. Confronted with which Zionist philosophy to support, British-led Zionism or Jewish militant Zionism, the new revisionist philosophy marked the formation of the Revisionist Zionists. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, an Odessa Russian-born liberal/fascist Jew, became the voice and militant leader of the movement. 

Churchill, in March 1921, proclaimed that the British would rule Western Palestine, from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, with a commitment to continued Jewish immigration. The area of the Mandate lying east of the River Jordan provided that Emir Abdullah (Transjordan) would accept a Jewish National Home within Western Palestine with the proviso to do his utmost to prevent anti-Zionist agitation among his people east of the Jordan.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky disagreed and insisted that the Zionist project include Greater Israel. The Revisionists favored a reincarnation of what the Bible describes as the territory of the ancient Israelite tribes, the Israelite kingdom, or the land promised by God to Abraham and his descendants. To them, lands on both sides of the Jordan River and other parts of the Middle East belonged to the Jewish state.

The 1922 Churchill White Paper was the other document in contention. It appeared to contradict his 1921 position on Jewish immigration. The White Paper served to instigate the discontent of many Zionists. British Policy in Palestine, the White Paper, called for limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. Churchill claimed that the rapidly increasing population burdened the Palestinian economic capacity.

The Churchill immigration limitation policy was a setback for the Zionist movement. Jabortinsky was at odds with this policy. He insisted and made sure that Jewish immigration would “proceed regardless of the native population.”

Revisionists

In the minds and spirit of many hard-core Zionists, the notion festered that the British were no longer a serious partner in the Zionist colonization movement in Palestine. This philosophical change began a more tenuous riff between the socialist Zionists and revisionist Zionists. It also became the beginning of an active network of terrorist acts and attacks directed at the British, the Palestinian Arabs, and anyone else standing in their way. They felt that the British Mandate did not serve their purpose.

To understand the political machinations of Netanyahu and his Likud Party, the life of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, from 1920 to 1940, must be examined. Jabotinsky is an Israeli Revisionist icon who laid the foundation for the post-1948 Herut Party and the 1988 transition into the Likud Party.

In 1923, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a prominent Zionist activist, published The Iron Wall, an article in which he laid out his vision for the course that the Zionist movement should follow to realize its ultimate goal: the creation of an independent Jewish state in Palestine, governed by the British.

In his The Iron Wall publication, Jabotinsky admonished the Zionist establishment for ignoring the Palestinian Arab political desires.  He stated that in no way would technological progress and improved economic conditions would endear the Arabs to a Jewish-dominated state. He labeled their Utopian initiative as fundamentally naive.

Jabotinsky believed the Arabs of Palestine, like any native population throughout history, would never accept the national aspirations of other people in their homeland. He promoted a militant Jewish national Zionism movement. Jabotinsky envisioned a force to combat the Arab national movement for control of the land.

Jabotinsky said, “As long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized,” a victory would be impossible. The Zionist movement should not waste its resources on Utopian economic and social dreams. Jabortinsky advocated for Zionists to focus on developing a Jewish military force. Military power would be the only way to compel the Arabs to accept a Jewish state on their native land. He wrote, “Zionist colonization … can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.” 

Betar – The New Jew

In the winter of 1923, Jabotinsky traveled to Riga, Latvia, and met with the Organization of Active Zionist Youth, an organization of high school students. The experience became his epiphany. He would transform the Zionist national youth movement into the Betar Youth Movement. Betar became the Revisionist militant wing to transform the Jewish youth.

Jabotinsky explained that his mission was to create a type of Jew to better and more quickly build a Jewish state and to nurture healthy citizens for the Jewish nation. He wrote, “As a nation, the Jews today are neither normal nor healthy.” He continued, “Life in the Diaspora affects the intelligent upbringing of normal and healthy citizens.”

Jabotinsky was elected leader of Betar in 1931. By 1934, Betar had expanded to 70,000 members. It became an influential youth group across Europe and Palestine. Betar provided a strong base of support to the Revisionists while creating a new Jewish effigy.

Jabotinsky insisted that the Betar youth embody three key qualities: genius, generosity, and cruelty. Genius meant standing tall and being bold. Generosity refers to helping your fellow man. Cruel indicated a readiness to serve Zionists without hesitation. Jabotinsky envisioned a new generation that was educated and prepared for struggle—one that would support a Jewish state in Palestine characterized by militarism, authoritarianism, and anti-socialism, aligned with the European Right. Betar ultimately became a breeding ground for right-wing Zionist ideas and is often described as a Jewish Fascist organization.

He motivated the dispirited Jewish youth to understand their responsibility for Israeli fate. Jabotinsky believed his training would return the Jewish youth to self-respect, national pride, and the courage to live or die. To die or to conquer the mountain became ingrained into the Betar anthem along with the Seven Principles of the (Betar) Oath: Seven Principles of the (Betar) Oath. 

In Palestine, Betar members facilitated illegal Jewish immigration and instigators of disturbances and violence, frequently bombing Arab civilian areas in response to attacks and waging guerrilla warfare against the British. Betar eventually joined with Irgun, sharing leadership and cadres. Menahem Begin, future Israeli prime minister, led the two movements during the 1940s, including a revolt against the British in 1944 and fighting against the Palestinians in 1947–1948.

Irgun

Irgun, Hebrew for organization, was an underground paramilitary Zionist group that operated in Palestine during the British Mandate period. It was established in 1931 by dissident Haganah members. The British considered it a terrorist organization. The dominant Labor Zionists considered it a radical rival, and in 1936, it became an instrument of the Revisionist Party, an extreme nationalist party. Irgun was responsible for about 60 terror attacks targeting both British Mandate officials and Palestinian communities.

In 1941, the Irgun split into two groups: one became known as the Lehi or Stern Gang and regarded the British as the main enemy, and the other was closely allied to the Revisionist Party and regarded the Palestinians as the main enemy. The latter also organized illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine.

The Revisionist groups began an offensive terrorist strategy against arbitrary Arab populations, executed British army hostages, and assassinations of British diplomats. In 1946, the Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, killing some 91 soldiers and civilians. The King David Hotel served as a British administrative command post. Two years later, its members participated in the April 1948 massacre at the Palestinian village of Deir Yasin, just outside Jerusalem. 

In June of 1948, the Irgun was absorbed into the IDF. The Irgun agreed to cease all independent arms acquisition activities. However, in May of 1948, the Irgun purchased the vessel Altalena. By June 20th, the Altalena reached Kfar Vitkin, greeted by Menachem Begin and a group of Irgun members. The ship, loaded with 800-900 men, 5,000 rifles, 250 Bren guns, 5 million bullets, 50 Bazoukas, and 10 Bren carriers, was a cache the IDF was unwilling to yield to the Irgun.  

Begin made several efforts not to turn over the military supplies to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). The Chief of the General Staff (IDF) gave Begin an ultimatum. Begin did not respond. A standoff between the IDF and Irgun members ensued. Unable to reach an agreement, an armed conflict broke out. Begin ordered the Altalena to sail to Tel Aviv, where there were more Irgun supporters. 

The provisional government headed by Ben-Gurion ordered the IDF to concentrate forces on the Tel Aviv beach and take the ship by force. Yitzhak Rabin ordered the IDF to fire shots. One round hit the vessel. A battle between the IDF and Irgun forces erupted, and clashes between IDF and Irgun units also took place throughout Tel Aviv. A civil war appeared imminent. The IDF initiated mass arrests. More than 200 Irgun members, including Begin, were arrested, and Irgun units within the IDF disbanded.

Likud Party

The Altalena Affair exposed the intensity of the rivalry between the empowered Labor Zionists and the Revisionist Zionists of Jabotinsky and Begin. This rift between the main political factions in Israel still exists. In 1948, the Labor Zionists won out. But in Israel today, the Jabotinsky revisionists under Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud Party) are in control. 

Israeli media will occasionally reference The Altalena Affair to illustrate the use of force by the Israeli government against fringe political elements, Palestinian or Jewish. Ben-Gurion is given credit for his actions as necessary for establishing a government authority with the power to use force against all dissent. By September 1948, the Irgun was dismantled and subsumed by the Israeli army. The Irgun was the precursor of the Herut Party. In 1988, it merged into the Likud Party. 

Netanyahu – Revisionists Today

Today, the ideals of Ze’ev Jabotinsky are alive within the 100-year-old Betar. In America, Betar has rekindled Jabotinsky into the prophet of Revisionist Zionism. Betar’s website claims, “The work and words of Ze’ev Jabotinsky offer a guidepost for life, something which leaves one – as he said – with a proper philosophy of life and a guidepost on how to live life as a Jew.”

Betar activism encourages “sit-ins, rallies, more aggressive protesting. It urges protesters to be loud and non-polite when confronting kapos and haters. This worldwide Zionist organization points to the devoted, strong, proud Jewish Zionist leaders of the past, including former Israeli Prime Ministers Menachem Begin, Yitzchak Shamir, and Benzion Netanyahu (father of Benjamin) as the men responsible for the existence of Israel, the Jewish state. By post-Neurenburg standards, these men are war criminals, not heroes. 

Jabotinsky can be lauded for his honesty but not his tactics. “It is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.” He concluded, in 1922, that the Palestinians would not give up their land to the Zionist usurpers. In The Iron Wall, he clearly states that his solution to this problem is Jewish military strength. Zionist force, not peace-mongering fools persuasion Arabs, was the only valid action. He wrote, “native populations in the world resist colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonized.”  

Is the Israeli genocide in Gaza, Lebanon invasions, and its current push into Syria, is the fantasy of a Greater Israel resounding in the minds of Israeli leaders? The expansionary ideology of Israel is leaving dead bodies and rubble in its wake. Zionist hubris continues as the world stands by. How will this end? World War III?

Reason – Zionism Hijacks Judaism

In the 19th century, the ‘Jewish Question’ was a common term used to define the social and civic status of European Jews. German, French, and other European writers, philosophers, and theologians made the Jewish question the subject of public debate. The non-assimilate, orthodox, religious, and cultural European Jewish communities were considered an unappealing appendage of the general population. The inner-city Jews lived in ghettos, and the rural Jews lived in shtetl communities.

Jewish assimilation into society meant abandoning their customs, behavior, traditions, language, and religion to fit in. For some Jews, this was giving up too much for gaining too little. European writers mistakenly reasoned that Jewish refusal to assimilate was because they were a separate race. Their behavior, traits, and character were negative and unchangeable. 

The experts missed their mark. It was in these communities that the Jewish homeland resided. The Torah is what makes the Jewish nation. An individual who willingly accepts the obligations of the Torah and the 613 mitzvot is a Jew. When this happens, the Torah states, ‘Today you have become a nation.’ The acceptance of the Torah ties the Jews together as a spiritual nation. The Jewish homeland is the Torah, and within its borders, the Jews flourish. 

Race

One such misinformed expert journalist was Theodor Herzl, a non-religious Jew who advocated for secular Jewish nationalism and the return to the biblical Jewish homeland of Palestine. His political agenda, Zionism, united secular ideas about constructing a European-style nation for European Jews with the Biblical return of the Jewish people. 

The Herzl idea resonated with both the antisemitic and secular, non-religious, and lower economic communities of Jews. He advocated for the creation of a Jewish race to return to the Biblical land that was rightfully theirs. The genius of the Zionists was to transform Judaism, a religion, into a Jewish race. Within this transformation, the Zionists re-defined the concept of ‘race.’ Orthodox Jews opposed this movement. They believed that the Jewish people were a religious community waiting for a messiah, not a nation in search of a homeland.

What is Race? 

Race is a premise created and accepted by a society based on physical traits, such as skin color, facial features, cultural identities, ancestral backgrounds, or geographic, religious, or national groups. Genetic studies conducted in the late 20th century concluded that no biologically distinct races exist.

Race is a cultural intervention that reflects the attitudes and beliefs imposed on different populations in different social and political eras. The unassimilated Jews checked the criteria for ethnic characteristics associated with race. They were a ‘group of people based on a shared culture, such as language, food, music, dress, values, and beliefs.’

Theodor Herzl called the first Zionist Congress. The Congress met in the Basel Municipal Casino in August of 1897. Herzl intended to establish and formulate Zionist goals. The Congress agreed upon two goals. 1) To establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-­Israel and 2) To secure under public law the creation of the Jewish homeland. The Zionists adroitly re-defined Jewish people into the Jewish race and re-purposed ‘under public law’ into an aegis of law.

Racism

The importance of citing under public law needs to be expounded. Public law indicates protection, Ensuring some laws defend the rights of a Jewish homeland. Denial of the legal right to have a Jewish homeland allows the Zionists to challenge opposition as antisemitic. ‘Under Public law’ holds governments and other public bodies accountable for their belief in a Jewish Homeland.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism takes the liberty to draw from the under public law reasoning.  Their definition happens to be the standard that the United States has used to determine hate crimes against Jews. At the Plenary in Bucharest (2016), they listed, “contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to.” An example given by the IHRA is; “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” 

Examining the verbiage of Zionists is revealing. The flat-out gaslighting is extraordinarily clever. For the IHRA to publish a definition that states, “… claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is nefarious. It is an example of using ambiguous words to complete the dirty work involved in slanderous propaganda.

Zionists use semantics to impose censorship while bullying. Israel is the creation of a homeland for the Jewish race. My statement has nothing to do with racism. The statement is a conclusion based on my reading and research. It includes the phrase, ‘Jewish race’. I suppose my statement is racist within the definition of the grammatical adjective suffix meaning of -ist. (of, relating to, or characteristic of.)

The sheer genius of the ah-ha, ‘you are a racist’, becomes a weapon used to strip the accused of all credibility. Classified as a racist, a word that suddenly appeared in 20th-century English, inflicts social harm and vulnerability, bullying. Most people will cower to avoid this attack. Self-censorship becomes the defensive alternative.

Reality Then

The First Zionist Congress initiatives came to fruition through events, declarations, and mandates. World War I (1914-1918) the demise of the Ottoman Empire. The 1917 Balfour Declaration was a British Empire public statement supporting the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Gaining World legitimacy under public law came to fruition when the British hegemonic empire issued the 1917 Balfour Declaration announcing,’ His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.’ 

The League of Nations, the newly formed World ruling organization, favored the Sykes-Picot Agreement, thus putting Palestine under the rule of the British Mandate (1922). By ignoring the McMahon-Hussain correspondence, which would have allowed for self-determined Arab rule of Palestine and the Middle East, the League of Nations not only added fuel to the fire but skewed the scales of justice in Palestine.

By 1922, the World Zionist Organization had achieved the goals outlined in their 1897 initiatives. Article 2 of the British Mandate (1922) states, “will secure the establishment of a Jewish national home.” The Mandate addressed the inhabitants of Palestine by stating that “irrespective of race and religion, civil and religious rights would be safeguarded.” This essentially reduced the status of Palestinians to that of mere inhabitants within the Jewish self-governing national home. The Palestinians have been stripped of their political power and left without representation.

Zionism re-purpose, re-creation, and re-definition to justify the Jewish national home, Israel. It was a secular movement to grab land the old-fashioned way, a colonial settler project. In 1948, the Zionists created Israel with no defined borders, making it easier to expand. Since 1948, Israel has claimed additional land it accumulated, acquired, or forcibly captured. They legitimize their bellicose actions as ” having a right to defend itself.”

Reality Now

Ethnically cleansing Gaza, Southern Lebanon, and now Syria for further illegal settlement must stop. Among Israel’s self-proclaimed enemies, only one country remains: Iran. Iran is powerful enough and has powerful allies, Russia and China, to have endured the diabolical actions of Israel.

The United States has directly or indirectly disposed of Israeli dictatorial nemeses like Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and Bashar al-Assad. It stands to reason Iran would be next. We hear government news feeds and Washington talking heads parroting the evil Iranians. The Israeli-groomed useful idiot will bloviate to complete their overthrow spree. 

The United States is the only country in the world that might have the ability to stop Israeli homicidal campaigns. Pulling financial support and military weapons supply lines is the only way. Unfortunately, In Washington, political decisions are first vetted by the Israeli Lobby. All three branches of government are under the influence of Israel.

Gaza before October 7th was an open-air maximum security prison. Israel controlled the flow of food, water, and construction materials. Washington is similar, it’s an open-air Israeli enclave. Israel controls votes, campaign funds, and lavish perks. Controlling the livelihood of their subjects is what Israel does best.

Introduction

Part 2 of Zionism explores how 19th-century European economic, religious, social, and political factors nurtured the movement. Part 2 examines how antisemitism, victimhood, and the idea of a Jewish homeland became interconnected with Zionism.

Embarkation

Zionists weaponize victimhood against critics of Israeli misbehavior. “Antisemite” and “holocaust denier” are the most common name-calling responses from Zionists. Both comments are based on victimhood. Victimhood carries leverage and privilege. Zionists used victimhood leverage to influence the 20th Century World powers to create Israel. Privilege creates an audacious attitude to believe that it is fair to grant the land of Palestine a special favor for suffering.

I obligatorily admit that Jewish people have suffered more than their share of expulsions, tragedy, persecution, and mass execution. It is a tragic history that generates empathy. Empathy was not the weapon of choice for the Zionists. The power of victimhood was of more value. Empathy, when transformed into victimhood, packs a political punch mighty enough to silence most critics and sell the idea of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

Expulsions and Exodus

Expulsions and exodus of Jews are lessons in victimhood we have learned in textbooks, movies, schools, newscasts, and verbose politicians sponsored by Jewish lobbyists. Examples can be found in the Bible and on Wikipedia’s dedicated page that emphasizes this plight. Wikipedia (Expulsions and Exodus of Jews page) lists events such as the Assyrian exile, Babylonian, Roman, Muslim, England, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Germany, Russia, Yemen, and 70 other Worldly incidents.  

Rulers of sovereign nations grant asylum to foreigners or declare them undesirable, illegal, or personae non grata. The expulsion of groups from their territories became a means of controlling migratory flow and the growing influence of nationalism as an ideology.

In Spain, King Ferdinand II and Queen Isabella I, the Catholic Monarchs, established the Spanish Inquisition to uphold Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms. The 1492 Alhambra Decree mandated that Jews and Muslims residing in Spain either convert to Catholicism or leave the country within four months. The Decree resulted in thousands of Jews emigrating to other lands such as Portugal, North Africa, the Low Countries of Europe, Italy, and the Ottoman Empire. Four years after The Alhambra Decree, Portugal signed a decree of expulsion of all Muslims and Jews.

The Jews have a rich history of expulsions, but they are not alone as migratory groups. The Dutch, in 1834, expelled 7,500 Dutch Orthodox Protestants. Greek nationalists (1821 -1828) forced some 200,000 Turks to flee from Greece. After the Crimean War of 1853–1856, the Russian Emperor Alexander II (1818–1881) removed a similar number of Tatars. Muslims, by the thousands, were expelled after the Russian pacification of the Caucasus (1859–1864).  In the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871), 80,000 Germans were expelled from France, while 130,000 French citizens felt forced to leave Alsace-Lorraine. The Ottoman Empire removed Armenians, Kurds, Bulgarians, and Greeks from contested territories. Stalin purged and deported a multitude of ethnic groups to enhance his power over the Soviets.

The Zionists use the history of expulsions and exodus as a tool to imprint upon civilization that the Jewish people are the number one victims. The logic is simple, expulsions and exoduses of Jews contributed to a significant stream of homeless Jewish refugees wandering in Europe, in search of a homeland. It was a vital concept for selling a Jewish homeland project in Palestine.

In Adam Sutcliffe’s, Judaism and the Enlightenment, he explains, “They were an “unassimilable Other.” Many saw the Jews as particular, backward-looking, uprooted nomads, with tribal culture of outmoded customs and religious teaching.” Conclusion; Jewish victimhood suffered at the hands of antisemitic rulers, affords an entitlement to an imposed, created homeland.  

Jewish Assimilation – Western Europe

The 18th-century French Revolution began new ideas of liberty for Jews in France and Germany. It marked an increase in the number of middle‑class German Jews. Jews began to take their place in German and French society. They were able to explore the intellectual opportunities beyond the ghetto.

The Jewish Enlightenment era, the Haskalah (1770s-1880s), encouraged Jews to assimilate into European society in dress, language, manners, and loyalty to the ruling power. Haskalah marked the end of the use of Yiddish and experienced a revival of Hebrew and the adoption of European languages. 

The Haskalah emphasized more secular knowledge and practical training in the trades. Many assimilated Jews of Western Europe became successful financiers, bankers, entrepreneurs, and mechanics laborers. Most financially comfortable Jews opposed the Zionist vision. Jewish citizens of Germany, France, and the U.S.A. had comfortably assimilated into society. These assimilated Jews were unwilling to compromise their cosmopolitan life and national loyalty to move to Palestine to follow a utopian dream.

Some of the more religious Jews believed that assimilation and emancipation created doubts about the future of Judaism in Europe. To them, the indifference or neglect of Jewish law was a concern and a homogenized Jewish homeland became an option.

East Meets West

Many European Jews lived under the Russian Tsar in The Pale of Settlement. The lands of the Russian Empire in what are today Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, and Western Russia. Jews were forbidden to own land or to reside in other parts of the empire.

Russian Tsar Alexander II (1855 – 1881) reformed rules targeting Jews regarding land ownership, restricted travel, special taxes, state employment, and living outside the Pale of Settlement. The cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg became magnets for rural Jews seeking education and employment. Other Jews fled Russia, immigrating to the United States, Western Europe, and Great Britain.  

Economic factors and a rapidly westward-expanding railway network made Jewish migration to Western Europe possible. Newly arrived Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe possessed few resources and little formal education. They typically competed with many in the host population for low-paying jobs. Yiddish-speaking Eastern European Ashkenazic Jews, many from ghettos with their strange customs and religious practices struck Western European non-Jews as a very different sort than the assimilated Sephardic Jews. (Exiles from the Iberian Peninsula)

This influx of Eastern European Jews appeared to have fueled the negative racial stereotypes existing within Western European culture. Still, only a few looked towards Zionism’s emigration to Palestine. Zionism was something of a pipe dream that few Jews embraced.

After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II (1881), Russian and Eastern European Jews had to deal with reinstated pogroms and restrictions to live and work in the Pale of Settlement. A growing number of Eastern European Jews found common ground with the antisemites. The common ground was a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Marxism – Another Option

Jews who stayed in Eastern Europe and Russia had another option. Jewish students in Russian cities became radicalized with the lure of communism. Their parents, neighbors, friends, and working family members saw socialism as a saving grace. The Jewish Labor Bund movement was founded in 1897 as a socialist organization of the Jewish people in Central and Eastern Europe. It was inspired by Marxist philosophy to fight for equality, religious, cultural, and the right to public education.

The Bund allied with Lenin’s Workers Party and became well-represented in the leadership of the Bolsheviks and the Communist Party. Europeans viewed Bolshevism as a threat that led to anti-Bolshevikism and fed anti-Semitic attitudes. Many accused Europe’s new Jews of being revolutionary socialists and anarchists, blaming them for labor unrest.

Antisemitism

Semitism was coined in 1879 by a Viennese journalist that distinguished Semitic language speakers as a different race than Europeans. He wrote that those who spoke the ancient languages of Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic constituted a racial group. As time passed, Semites became exclusively Jews.

The antisemites reasoned that since Jews were racially different than the European Christians, they lacked country-based loyalty. The 1800s witnessed an expansion of European nationalism. Antisemites argued that Jews did not fit into any European nationalism configuration, many referring to them as the other. For the antisemites, a solution for the other was an exile from Europe to a foreign land. 

David Engel, Professor of Holocaust and Judaic Studies at New York University, summed up the basic paradigm of Jewish nationalism: “[…] growing numbers of Jews suspected that nation-based states would soon become the norm worldwide, perhaps even replacing existing citizen-based states. They figured that in a world of nation-based states, the best way for Jews to maximize their well-being was to claim that they comprised a nation themselves. Therefore, they too have an inalienable right to constitute a state that would define serving the collective needs and interests as one of its fundamental purposes.” Zionism was Jewish nationalism and an option to counter European nationalism.  

Leon Pinsker

Some thought differently. Odessa doctor Leon Pinsker (1821–1891) attributed antisemitism to a fear of Jews. He believed a Jewish phobia existed based upon the fear that the Jews were a nation that existed as an intellectual and spiritual entity. The pogroms in the Russian Empire helped Leon Pinsker gain considerable support.

According to Pinsker legal and political equality could not be solved under these conditions. Only the self-emancipation of the Jews as a nation outside of the European continent in a single consolidated territory could.

The fact that Pinsker used phrases like; a re-nationalization of the Jews and the re-establishment of a territory for the Jews. This verbiage establishes a gaslight narrative of reclaiming land that is “rightfully ours.” This perspective allows for a hierarchical thinking that the targeted land is ours. The reality that the land is and has been inhabited by the Palestinians for centuries becomes inconsequential.

Theodor Herzl – The Official Declaration of Zionism

Theodor Herzl (1860-1904) published Der Judenstaat, the Jewish State, proposing a homeland in Palestine. The pamphlet became the catalyst that ignited the Zionist project. His book, Der Judenstaat, and his work in founding the World Zionist Organization helped to earn him the title of the founder of political Zionism.

Herzl, a journalist for a Viennese paper, had been present at the Dreyfus Trial. Herzl witnessed the emotional public involvement, reaction, and outcome surrounding the Dreyfus Affair. The atmosphere he observed in Paris changed his ideology from promoting Jewish assimilation to Zionism.

Alfred Dreyfus was the son of a wealthy Jewish textile manufacturer who had risen to the rank of captain in the French military. In 1894, Dreyfus was accused of selling military secrets to Germany. He was arrested, trialed, and convicted by what appeared to be strong evidence. A 12-year controversy ensued, known as the Dreyfus Affair.

The popular French novelist Émile Zola published accusations claiming a French Government cover-up. Some 3,000 supporters, many of high social status, and a host of intellectuals drafted a petition demanding a Dreyfus retrial. Riots and protests ensued and would continue until the Dreyfus retrial.

The new court martial found him guilty again. The President of the Republic would later pardon him. Herzl believed that this trial symbolized the miscarriage of justice and antisemitism that existed in France and Europe. He reasoned that if this happened in France, it could happen anywhere.

The Dreyfus Affair moved Herzl from being a supporter of Jewish assimilation into society to political Zionism. From his observations of the  Dreyfus Affair, Herzl sensed that Jews would never find a safe home in Europe. He concluded, “It has been established, that justice could be refused to a Jew for the sole reason that he was a Jew.”

Zionism – Mixed Popularity

At that time, Jewish assimilation was more popular than Zionism. Many Jews disagreed with Herzl’s assessment. Léon Blum, a Jewish Socialist and former Prime Minister of France, viewed the Dreyfus trial differently. Blum insisted that the Dreyfus affair established the emancipation of the Jews and their right to play a full role as citizens. He believed the Dreyfus Trial allowed a Jew like him to become Prime Minister. 

French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas, born Jewish in Lithuania, also had a different perspective on the trial. Levinas often quoted his father: “A country that tears itself apart to defend the honor of a small Jewish captain is somewhere worth going.” Most French citizens believed the affair was a vindication of the civil rights of man and that French citizenship was open to all.

Zionism throughout the 19th Century drew a mixed bag of support. Many Jews had no interest in relocating to a Jewish homeland, while others thought it was an option. Jews from Eastern Europe and Russian Jews experienced a very different social environment than those of the Western European Jews. The former had more of a nationalist militant movement with a victimhood attitude. The latter were more idealistic and social-based.

It is important to note that both East Europe and West Europe experienced the rise of nationalism, antisemitism, and an increasingly hegemonic ideology that excluded Jews. Zionism and Bolshevism offered the European Jews the intellectual, political, and social comforts of belonging.   

Missing from the Zionist and Bolshevist schemes was a call for a unified effort and World approval. In 1917, they received their callings. The Zionist with the Sir Arthur James Balfour Declaration, the British Foreign Secretary promised Great Britain’s support to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The communist calling came with the Russian Revolution of 1917. A Revolution that overthrew the imperial government and placed the Bolsheviks in power.

Zionism – The Road – To Nowhere