Category: Zionism

The establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 was the event that led to the development of new groups with their traditions and interests and the possibilities for people to migrate from different diasporas to a new land. However, it seemed that such a young, poor country as Israel was not ready for mass migration, especially from the Sephardi/Mizrachi Jewish Diaspora. Therefore, it was expected that some misunderstandings, tensions, and conflicts could take place between people from different nations and with different interests. In this paper, the evaluation of the relations between western Zionists, Ashkenazi, and the immigrants from eastern Arab countries will be done to clarify if the existing variety of cultural visions could influence the development of society in Israel.

Zionism was one of the oldest Jewish movements that participated in the formation of the Land of Israel. Its representatives supported the idea of free immigration during a certain period. Still, as soon as people understood their possibilities to inhabit a new land, that vision came to pass because of the intense activities and the inabilities to get prepared for mass immigration of people from different regions.¹ People came to Israel with a hope to get new possibilities, meet high expectations and create the future all of them were dreaming of. Still, the already established traditions by the representatives of Zionism and Ashkenazi deprived immigrants of the opportunities to be free and neglect the traditions these movements had established.

Shapira explained that Israel was a new state that was oriented toward Europe and the West, but it was characterized by several negative images of immigrants (called “human dust”).² Because of the appearance of new waves of immigration, the Zionists and some representatives of Ashkenazi were not able to protect their ideas and beliefs and turned out to be in danger of extinction. In the movie The Band’s Visit, it was seen that some regions were not as developed as they could be and had “no culture. Not Israeli culture, not Arab, no culture at all.”³

Therefore, the new immigrants from eastern Arab countries found the idea to establish their rules and traditions rather than captivating in order not to lose their pre-immigration cultural roots and get accustomed to the required changes in their thinking, behavior, and social norms.⁴ At the same time, the Zionists and Ashkenazi did not want to lose their individuality and tried to protect their traditions. That was the main reason for tensions between different groups of people.

Israeli society viewed Mizrachi Jews as a powerful nation with several human resources and the ability to use the land to its full extent. Still, it was necessary to gain control of this group of immigrants and regulate their activities. The Israelis defined themselves as the nation with certain needs and possibilities. Therefore, Mizrachi Jews immigrants were divided into small groups and attached to a kind of semi-traditional style of life. On the one hand, it was a good solution for Israeli society to be protected as a separate nation. On the other hand, Israel contradicted its rules concerning the possibility of free immigration.

In general, the situation in Israel after its establishment in 1948 was contradictory, and many immigrants, as well as the inhabitants of the land, were not ready for the outcomes of migration and its impact on the development of society.

Bibliography

Shapira, Anita. Israel: A History. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2012.

The Band’s Visit. Directed by Eran Kolirin. Los Angeles, CA: Sony Classics, 2007. DVD.

Footnotes

1. Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, (Lebanon: University Press of New England, 2012), 222.
2. Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, (Lebanon: University Press of New England, 2012), 230.
3. The Band’s Visit, directed by Eran Kolirin (2007; Los Angeles, CA: Sony Classics), DVD.
4. Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, (Lebanon: University Press of New England, 2012), 240

Moses Hess attitude towards the Jewish culture changed from time to time. In the early twenties, Moses identified himself with the Germans and suggested that Jews were to be assimilated to the Germans culture. Later on Hess severally expressed compromise for his fellow Jew people. Hess was optimistic of the Jews and argued that the future of the Jewish state lay in acquiring national land, adoption of a legal system and establishing Jewish societies. Hess proposed for a socialist kind of Jewish state.

He argues that Germans do not really despise the Jewish religion as they despite Jews culture. In the book “Rome and Jerusalem”, Hess talks of his return to his culture. Hess had suffered from anti-Semitism and was compelled to look up to his Jewish culture and religion arguing on his principle of race. Hess viewed that the Jewish people should defend their nationality in foreign land while aiming to restore their political system Palestine.

The Jewish religion offered a means for attaining Jewish national identity, and Hess suggested that it ought not to be altered until the Jewish culture was established in Palestine. Hess viewed that the Sanhedrin or the supreme Jewish court was the most powerful and purest conception of Judaism and could enact laws to cater for the needs of the society (Hertzberg, 116).

Leon Pinsker quotes Hillel, saying, “If I am not for myself, who will be there for me. If not now when?” The Jews were not a nation since they did not have a defined national identity, as they did not have national land to be equal with other nations. The Jews lacked a fatherland, though many motherlands; no common destiny, government or formal representation.

The Jews experienced a distinctive feeling while in exile and thus could not assimilate or easily understand other nations. Pinsker says that the Jewish people could never be the same socially with the gentiles so far as the Jews did not own national land and urges the Jewish leaders to meet and deliberate on this issue. Just like Hess, Pinsker believes that universal harmony with other nations cannot be achieved and the Jews should get equality with other nations (Hertzberg, 181).

Theodor Herzl is known as the founder of political Zionism. In “The Jewish State”, Herzl says that anti-Semitism excluded Jews and made them fell like aliens in exile. Herzl proposed that diplomacy was the most viable means of remedying the Jewish state.

The Jews were supposed to be settled in the new state in an organized manner. They were to appreciate whatever was offered to them according to the public interests. The state was to adopt social balances such as working ethics and business ethics, that were modern, complex, and technologically relevant, and European-oriented culture.

Herzl believed in a mixed economy where the state was equally involved in the economy. However, Herzl, like Hess, criticized non-Zionists and assimilationist Jews of Central and Western Europe who believed in the abolition of nationalism and did not regard the Jewish religion. Herzl foresaw the Jewish state as a state of the Europeans who could converse German.

He also envisioned the terrific hostility of ultra orthodox rabbis against the heretical principle of Zionism, this would eventually lead to the religious rule of the Jewish communities through a political and democratic system if the rabbis did not allege and the religious side (Hertzberg, 201).

Ahad Ha’am is referred to as the father of Cultural Zionism and advocated for a state of Jews rather than a Jewish state. In Ha’am writings, he envisioned a secular Jewish religious hub in Palestine. Micha Berdyczewski argues the Jewish people to adopt new way of thinking (secular European culture), to free themselves from traditional Jewish religion, and cultural tenets.

Brenner proposed to the Zionism idea although he contradicted his words by arguing that the national land of Israel was in diaspora and the Jews were living like any other diasporas. Although the three thinkers praise Zionism in representing the individual and group identities, Brenner attempts to show life in a more realistic view by arguing that the Jews do not really attain their identities; Ha’am and Berdyczewski assimilate the traditional Jewish culture to the secular European world (Hertzberg, 250).

Work Cited

Hertzberg, Arthur. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader. Pennsylvania: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1997. Print.

Introduction

The conflict between Secular Zionists, Religious Zionists and Ultra Orthodoxy has been brewing for a while. Secular Zionists are traditionally defined as the proponents of the traditional Jewish religion and against Jewish nationalism, whereas religious Zionists are represented by the Jewish people aiming to restore Aliyah, i.e., the world that the Jewish people create as they return to the land of Israel.¹ Ultra Orthodoxies are traditionally referred to as those that refuse from any elements of secular life. Because of the lack of cooperation between the specified groups, a continuous conflict has been going on in Israel and is likely to spin out of control completely unless some sort of agreement is reached.

Secular Zionists, Religious Zionists and Anti-Zionist Ultra Orthodoxy

Identifying the source of the conflict, one must point to the complexity of the relationships between the opponents. Unlike most conflicts, which feature two sides of the argument, the one that can be traced in the identified setting involves three parties, each of whom is in conflict with the other two. The controversy of the issue echoes in Ushpizin, where the main character, having become a religious Zionist, draws a thick line between him and secular Zionists: “What do you want me to do? Start hitting people?! We became religious, we don’t behave that way.”² Similarly, Shapira comments on the difference between the opinions of the left- and the right-wing parties in the Yom Kippur War: “To the right the war and its outcome was a great victory, the likes of which had not been seen since 1948.”³ In light of the evident discord between the representatives of different branches of the Zionist movement, the consistent confrontations between Zionists and the Orthodoxies are expected, though undeniably deplorable. Ignoring the conflict only leads to its further aggravation, which means that a solution must be suggested as soon as possible.

A Jewish State vs. a Democratic State

The lack of agreement on the issue regarding the current tendency for the Israeli politics to be focused on the Jewish culture extensively should also be interpreted as a stumbling block in the progress of the relationships between the identified denizens of the population. The Yom Kippur War, which, though being mostly political, also had a powerful religious context, added even more to the rift in the relationships between different branches of the Zionist movement, thus, making the Orthodox one spawn out of control: “After the Yom Kippur War Israeli politics moved from the corridors of power and the established frameworks of Israeli democracy into the street.”⁴

Secular Israelis and Orthodoxy: The Conflict That Never Ends

The problems in the relationships between Zionists, religious Zionists, and Orthodoxy, however, do not stop there. The conflict stretches to the point where Orthodox Israelis look down at the ones belonging to the secular culture. Particularly, Orthodoxy claims that the secular population undermines the traditions and, therefore, should not be condoned as the course of the cultural evolution of the Jewish population, as the Lebanon War has shown.⁵ The same ideas can be traced in the movie Ushpizin: “What’s in Tel Aviv. Succoth in Jerusalem. Is anything better than that?”⁶ Therefore, the confrontation between the Zionist and the Orthodox movement, as well as the representatives of different Zionist branches, continues.

Conclusion

The presence of tension between Orthodox Jews, religious Zionists, and secular ones is undeniable and threatening to the peace of the people involved. As soon as the delicate balance between the Zionist and the Orthodox movements was broken, the unceasing arguments and mutual blaming led to deplorable results. The members of the movements above are tearing the country asunder, therefore, triggering political and social unrest. The tension between Zionists, secular Zionists, and the representatives of the Orthodox movement, therefore, needs to be addressed accordingly so that the above religious groups could live in peace.

Bibliography

Shapira, Anita. Israel: A History. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012.

Ushpizin. Directed by Gidi Dar. Atlanta, GE: Eddie King Films, 2004. DVD.

Footnotes

1. Anita Shapira, Israel: A History (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012), pp. 326-421.
2. Ushpizin, directed by Gidi Dar (Atlanta, GE: Eddie King Films, 2004), DVD.
3. Anita Shapira, Israel: A History (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2012), p. 343.
4. Ibid., p. 341.
5. Ibid., p. 385.
6. Ushpizin, directed by Gidi Dar (Atlanta, GE: Eddie King Films, 2004), DVD.

Introduction

Social movements in fact are group actions. These are huge unofficial alliances of persons concentrated on explicit political or social matters.

Political science and sociology have enhanced the diversity of theories and experimental studies on social movements. For instance, some study in political science emphasizes the connection between accepted movements and the creation of new political parties as well as conversing the purpose of social movements in association to agenda-setting and impact on government and politics.

Zionist movement

The Zionist movement outlined in the appearance and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state on May 14, 1948, proving that the movement succeeded with its primary aim: “the proclamation of a home for the Jewish nation in Palestine protected by public law.” Given the current view of Israeli disconnection from occupied lands and a hesitant Arab-Israeli peace, an evaluation of Zionism’s developing framing practices can aid in investigating the different discursive procedures that form the current Israeli dilemma. Social Movement Theory (SMT) is applied here to the Zionism movement with an accent on opposing frameworks prior to state sovereignty and up to the existing disengagement argues. By applying SMT to study the Zionist movement, it is argued that as Zionism is and has been the prevailing discussion for Israeli Jews, an essential component hampering the Arab-Israeli peace negotiations is the ongoing framing of Israeli individuality throughout a particular Zionist conversation. (El-Or, 1998)

Most researchers disaggregate Zionism as including various connotations and restrictions through time. At the appearance of the modern Zionist movement, acceptance of the term had to be revised in order to permit for a nationalist and secular movement concluding in the establishment of Israel. Restricting modifications did not stop then but still appeared to exist. Some academics outline practical Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, new Zionism, and finally post-Zionism. (Simmons, 2004)

Zionists distinguish that Zionism delights Israel as if it was established in space by repeatedly restricting the Israeli practice without any mentioning of the Palestinian one. Pre-state Zionists implemented an “Us-Them” individuality that put Arabs in the sort of them. All of these classifications and restrictions have been connected in some way to the spiritual essentiality of Israel, and Zionists advise that the domination of Zionism as the lens through which Israeli Jews regard themselves makes them unable to make alternative conversations that are significant for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Conclusion

The use of social movement theory to Zionism pictures the difficulties of the communal and political circumstances inside and outside Israel that restrain peace. The inevitability of rearrangement of the discursive practices in up-to-date Israel is not just a treatment for the Israeli distinctiveness but also has insinuations for the Palestinian identity and for viewers and authorities who identify the Arab-Israeli conflict as something that may be solved purely from the reorganization of territories which Arabs and Israelis similarly regard as their right. As previously stated, Israel was not established in an emptiness. To discuss that peace is trouble of changing only the Israeli conversation is a simplification and discounts the Palestinian piece of the enigma. Without changes in the conversations that shape both Israeli and Palestinian distinctiveness, there is a small opportunity that disengagement will offer a long-lasting elucidation.

References

El-Or, T. (1998). Multi-Literacies and Democracy: Religious Zionist Women Reading Actuality in Antiquities. Jewish Social Studies, 4(2), 133-156.

Simmons, E. (2004). Playgrounds and Penny Lunches in Palestine: American Social Welfare in the Yishuv. American Jewish History, 92(3), 263.

Introduction

Zionism is a phenomenon that emerged during the late 19th century to champion the establishment of Israel, in Palestine, as a home for Jews based on the concept that they constitute a nation. However, what the Jews did not have was land to call their home and establish sovereignty. On the other hand, Palestine was considered the location of the Promised Land, but it was controlled by the Ottoman Empire, meaning that Zionists would have to drive out its inhabitants to gain control of the land. Consequently, these standings led to the propagation of religious and political beliefs and ideologies that inspired Jewish exceptionalism. Nevertheless, their implications are variable because of their role in the heated conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Religious and Political Ideologies that Inspired Jewish Exceptionalism

During the 19th century, scholars, politicians, publishers, and newspaper editors gained increasing interest in Palestine due to its numerous citing in the bible. As a result, the Zionist movement was largely influenced by a religious belief that Jews have a strong connection with God than any other tribe (Becke, 2018). Several biblical passages support the idea of Jews as the chosen tribe. Therefore, this formed a basis to propose their restoration to Palestine, which was perceived as their promised land (Matar, 2019). Similarly, Christian evangelists in the US believed that they played a major role in God’s plan for the Jews due to their superiority over others. Thus, they believed that God had bestowed this power upon them to help them carry out the mission.

Zionists believed that Jews had a right to self-governance like other nations. Nevertheless, political reasons also propelled the Zionist movements since America and Britain had more to gain from the success of the project. Zionism emerged earlier in Western and Eastern Europe because of the enlightenment of the Europeans and the question of integrating Jews into their culture since they were starting to learn and adopt European ways (Kimche, 2022). However, in Russia, trends showed that Jews could be modern but sustain their cultures, ethnic identities, and values (Matar, 2019). The Zionist movement had some imperial influence since the British took advantage of the Ottoman Empire’s weaknesses to gain more control over the region.

Positive and Negative Consequences of Zionism Concerning the US Foreign Policy

Since the early 20th century, the US has played a major role in establishing foreign policies that maintain its ties with Arab nations. However, the events of September 11th had substantial implications on the government’s focus on security and eliminating terrorism around the globe. The US has increased its engagement with nations in Arab regions over the years, resulting in more peace and stability, especially in Israel (Hamdi, 2018). Likewise, the US has benefited from its endeavors since it has secured significant oil and energy resources that enable it to stand up against powerful nations like Russia. Nevertheless, the tension between Israel and Palestine’s borders and political powers poses a threat to positive development in the future as they render the region politically unstable. Hence, the instability is against the interests of the US.

Conclusion

The Zionist ideology to relocate Jews to a land where they would establish a nation gained momentum after World War II and the Holocaust since Jews were among the individuals who witnessed the worst atrocities during these periods. However, the reasons underlying their relocation are variable since they are propelled by political motives and theological constructs. However, the Zionist movement received heightened criticism as some perceived it as a modern form of exile. On the other hand, Christian evangelists support that Jews are a nation that should have powers to rule itself and provide resources to help their people thrive. Although the project has seen some grave outcomes, scholars suggest that it bears positive implications for the future, especially with the increased engagement of the US and Arab countries.

References

Becke, J. (2018). Beyond allozionism: Exceptionalizing and de-exceptionalizing the Zionist project. Israel Studies, 23(2), 168-193.

Hamdi, O. A. (2018). American foreign policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict: strategic transformations.Insight Turkey, 20(2), 251-272. Web.

Matar, Dina (2019) ‘The struggle over narratives: Palestine as metaphor for imagined spatialities.’ In: Iqani, Mehita and Resende, Fernando, (eds.), Media and the Global South: Narrative Territorialities, Cross-Cultural Currents. London: Routledge, pp. 170-185.

Kimche, J. J. (2022). Excellence in Exile: Jewish Exceptionalism in Anti-Zionist Thought. Modern Judaism-A Journal of Jewish Ideas and Experience.

Tanzimat means reorganization in the context of the reform of the Ottoman Empire that at the zenith of its power stretched across three continents, Southeast Europe, West Asia and North Africa. For six centuries it stood as a bridge between the East and the West, having as its capital Constantinople. This period of change started from 1839 and came to a close with the First Constitutional Era in 1876. The Tanzimat reforms tried to modernize the Ottoman Empire, to secure the integrity of its territorial borders against breakaway nationalists and encroaching foreign powers. Cleveland indicates that the reforms even spread literacy. According to the author, “the Tanzimat officials established institutions of higher learning for civilians” (Cleveland, 84). The reforms gave encouragement to Ottomanism trying to integrate the non-Turks and the non-Muslims more into the society of the Ottoman Empire by giving them more civil rights and conceding equality all through the Empire. “Ottoman reformers of the Tanzimat attempted to create stable institutions” (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 88).

Tanzimat was the brainchild of some sultans like Mahmud II with a reformist bent of mind. Joining them were bureaucrats educated in Europe like Ali Pasha. They realized that archaic religious and military institutions could no longer meet modern requirements. To change the mindset of the administrators, symbolic changes were made like the introduction of European style military uniforms. The Tanzimat reforms were first initiated by Sultan Mahmud II on 3^rd November 1839. It is known as the Tanzimat Fermanu or Hatt-i-Serif of Gulhane – the royal garden from where it was proclaimed for the first time (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 75).

The reforms guaranteed security to the subjects for their lives, honor and property. The first paper notes began to be circulated. The army was reorganized with changes in recruiting, levying and fixing periods of service. The Ottoman national anthem and the flag were adopted. The financial system was reformed, civil and criminal code introduced – all based on the model of France. In 1876 the First Ottoman Parliament was set up. This was followed by establishing councils for public instruction, modern universities and teaching centers. (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 81) Commerce was advanced with the setting up of railroads, guilds, factories. The Stock Exchange made its debut in Istanbul in 1866.

The Tanzimat Fermani was followed by Islahat that guaranteed full equality before the law to all citizens. The Nationality Law of 1869 created common citizenship. The first important reform was the Rescript of the Rose Chamber that set up salaried tax collectors and abolished tax farming. The millet system of the Empire based on communities was done away with and brought all the subjects of the Empire under one law.

The reforms brought about changes in clothing, architecture, arts and lifestyles. Western thought crept in with the glorification of humanity and individual rights.

The effects were far and wide. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk was one of the many one of the progressive giants who was educated in the new Tanzimat schools (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 107). The idea of the Republic of Turkey was born. Christians in the Balkans did not support reforms because for them autonomy would become more difficult under centralized rule. Many provinces revolted.

The system ultimately met with failure after the Crimean War. By the Charter of 1856 Europe wanted more independence for the ethnic communities. This gave strength to middle class Christians. Muslims did not benefit and became worse off than prior to the reforms. This led to rising anti-Western feeling and rise of radicalism. Ultimately groups like the Young Ottomans emerged. Here the aspect of Tanzimat spoke about religious freedom but failed to enforce it. Torture of non-Muslims continued. The Tanzimat came to be interpreted to suit the conveniences of different leaders in different parts of the Empire (Lebanon, Palestine, Armenia etc) leading to chaos.

Zionism refers to a movement to set up a homeland for the Jews in Palestine that started worldwide from the latter part of the 20^th century. Zionism was founded by Theodor Herzl in 1896. He wanted the Jews to return to Zion – the Jewish word for Jerusalem or the Land of Israel. (Cleveland, 242) There is a hill named Zion on which is situated the Temple of Jerusalem. Zionists long to return to Zion – a Biblical term referring to the Land of Israel. It has been the foundation of Jewish thought since the exile that took place 2,000 years ago – making up the core of Jewish religion and culture (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 165).

Modern Zionism was born in reaction to the horrendous torture of Jews in Eastern and Western Europe. It coalesced with ancient Jewish thoughts with modern ideas of nationalism. There developed the idea of a modern Jewish state in the land called Israel. Herzl gave the clarion call for Jewish immigration from all over the world to set up this state. There is a multi-national Zionist movement across the globe that has a democratic framework. Every four years congresses are held. Until 1917 the thrust was on small scale immigration. But later they altered their stand and raised a cry for the setting up of a Jewish state as the main aim of the movement. Since the founding of Israel the movement has declined (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 149).

Labor Zionism started in East Europe. It stated that centuries of oppression had made Jews meek and despairing. This invited further anti-Semitism. Thus it was necessary to help Jewish farmers and workers accompanied by soldiers to move to Israel. This group blamed traditional religious Judaism for propagating “Diaspora mentality”. They wanted the setting up of rural communes – kibbutzim. Labour Zionism was the cornerstone of politics and economics till 1977 when the Israel Labour Party suffered defeat but remains popular.

General or Liberal Zionism was the running thread within the movement starting from the first congress in 1897 till World War I. They identified themselves with liberal bourgeoisie of Europe. It continues as a strong trend in Israeli politics advocating free market, democracy and human rights. There is also a call for affirming equal rights for Arabs residing in Israel.

Nationalist Zionism emerged from Revisionist Zionists under the lead of Jabotinsky in 1935. It advocated the formation of a Jewish army in Palestine to compel the residing Arabs to accept en masse migration of Jews. This led to the formation of the Likud Party of Israel that has dominated most of the governments since 1977. It takes a tough stand towards the Arab-Israel issue (Gettleman and Stuart Schaar, 174). Later, the party split over the formation of Palestinian State on the occupied regions. Those advocating peace formed the Kadima Party.

Other forms of movement such as Religious Zionism or Orthodox Torah Judaism accepted the religious-traditional values of Zionism but rejected its anti-religious shades of thought. Haredi Orthodox bodies view Zionism as secular and they reject nationalism giving priority to Judaism over Israel. The Sephardi Orthodox party (Shas) while rejecting connection with the Zionist movement follow the latter’s agenda in the Knesset. They advocate compromise with the Palestinians but not over the holy sites. The UTJ (Ashkenazi Agudat Israel) party also distances itself from the Zionist movement as none of its group serves in the army. There are many other Hasidic parties who although being anti-Zionist have taken on ultra-nationalist agenda opposing any compromise over land.

Work Cited

Cleveland, William L. A history of the modern Middle East. Ed. 3, NY: Westview Press, 2004.

Gettleman, Marvin E. and Stuart Schaar. The Middle East and Islamic world reader. London: Grove Press, 2003.