Nothing will change in Israel until Palestinians are guaranteed full equality, including the right to return to their pre-1948 homes. Israel’s defenders maintain that Israel’s security takes priority over this demand. Yet, Palestinian violence is resistance to an occupation and, more generally, to Israel’s denial of their right of return. If fulfilled, the right of return would end the resistance. Only by looking at Israel’s past can we solve this paradox facing Israel’s future.
Zionism is the movement for a Jewish state that began in the 1890s. In the context of the anti-Semitism of the first half of the twentieth century, such a project gained traction. Europe’s anti-Semites opportunistically saw Zionism as a chance to get Jews out of their way. In turn, Zionist leaders saw anti-Semitism not as something to be challenged, but as a fait accompli that would at the very least boost migration to a new Jewish state. Thus Theodor Herzl, widely recognized as the father of Zionism, said, “I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.” While a separate Jewish state logically fits with anti-Semites’ aspirations of their own national purity, Herzl’s attitude — taken to its logical conclusion — subordinates the struggle against anti-Semitism to the development of the Jewish state. Thus, in 1933, the World Zionist Organization (WZO) defeated a resolution to take action against the Nazis by a 240 to 43 vote.
As Hitler and Stalin terrorized Europe’s Jews, the West (Britain, the United States, and Canada) turned Jewish immigrants away. As a result, 8.5 percent of Europe’s fleeing Jews settled in Palestine — the site chosen by the WZO to host the future Jewish state. Because of its non-confrontational approach with anti-Semitism, Zionism wasn’t as popular among Jews as it is today. Many more Jews were members of socialist organizations that sought to defeat the reactionary scapegoating of Europe’s fascists and the USSR’s Stalin. Beyond disagreeing attitudes toward anti-Semitism (combative vs. escapist), the socialist perspective got at the very heart of Zionism’s hypocrisy: While offering a “homeland” for Jews, Zionists forcibly removed an existing population from Palestine. This is well documented in Zionist literature. Yet, the myth prevails that Palestine was ‘a land without a people for a people without a land’ — the international Jewish population.
According to the 1895 Ottoman Empire census, 500,000 people lived in Palestine, of whom 47,000 were Jewish. Yet, in the 1917 Balfour declaration, Chaim Weizmann (the future president of Israel) secured from the British the promise of a “National Jewish Home” in Palestine. Weizmann’s premise wasn’t that Palestine was uninhabited, but that it lacked ‘a people’ deserving self-determination in the land. In a letter to his son, Weizmann described native Palestinians as “the rocks of Judea, as obstacles that had to be cleared.” With the boost provided by the Balfour declaration, Zionists purchased land from absentee Ottoman landlords and evicted Palestinians in favor of the immigrant Jewish population. Israeli minister of defense Moshe Dayan said in 1969, “We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state … there is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village.”
All this paints a very different picture from the history we are now taught. The point is not to inflame Israel’s supporters — but to historically legitimize two pillars of the Palestinian movement. It is not anti-Semitic to oppose Zionism, and Palestinians were unjustly removed from their land. Even among Leftists who agree with this premise, there is disagreement regarding Israel’s real role.
Israel is not part of a Jewish conspiracy, nor is American support for Israel owed to a Jewish lobby. Unlike secular anti-Zionist arguments, these demonize Jews, thus misplacing the blame. While some attempt to equate Judaism and Zionism, we must make a distinction. Zionism is a political movement, and in the name of Jewish liberation, Israel plays a role for the dominant world powers. When Herzl considered Palestine for the future state of Israel (Argentina was originally chosen in 1904), he promised it to be “an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism … Europe would have to guarantee our existence.” Herzl wrote this when there was relatively little at stake economically in the Middle East. However, by the time of the Allied victory in the Second World War, oil had been discovered in abundance. The victors looked to solidify post-war economic dominance internationally, and finding a reliable ally in the Middle East was central. The Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz echoed Herzl in 1953 as they described Israel’s relationship with the West: “Israel is to become the watchdog … if for any reason the Western powers should sometimes prefer to close their eyes, Israel could be relied upon to punish one or several neighboring states whose discourtesy to the West went beyond the bounds of the permissible.”
The path to peace in Israel is a trail yet to be blazed. The only tool capable of clearing the brush is the scythe of secularism. We must support the creation of a single state affording equal rights to all including the right of return for Palestinians. We must also oppose anti-Semitic critiques of Israel because opposing Zionism is about ending Western domination of the Middle East, and encouraging the independent rule of Middle Eastern Muslims, Jews and Christians alike.
Chris Dols ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in civil engineering and a member of the International Socialist Organization.
