Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
From the standpoint of non-Zionist religious Jews, the Zionist movement went against the teachings of the Talmud. The Neturei Karta noted in their writings that the group was against the creation of the State of Israel, and the uprooting of Arab individuals from their communities by Zionists wishing sovereignty. According to the group, the shedding of Jew and non-Jew blood for this sovereignty was against Judaism not only because of the violence, but because the cause for which the wars occurred was against Judaism. The Neturei Karta believed Eretz Yisrael would be returned to the Jews on the appearance of the Messiah, and that any other method of return was invalid. As such, the Neturei Karta opposed, and still opposes, the creation of a Jewish state, on the basis that the creation of such a state is against the teachings of the Talmud, and against the word of God.
Clearly, the religious Jews were divided by the Zionist movement, primarily due to disagreement on the creation of a Jewish state, and the legitimacy of that creation at the hand of man, rather than because of the coming of the Messiah. At the same time, the secular Jews also became divided over the concepts of Zionism, even though the movement was primarily secular in nature. Yet even without any religious connotation, the secular Jews had vast areas of differences in their opinions of the fundamental concepts of Zionism.
Primarily, at the turn of the 19th century, religious supporters and opponents of Zionism were battling over the theoretical concept of Zionism as an ideology. However, several groups of Jewish peoples had begun to realize the need for a practical plan to settle Palestine, and claim rightful ownership of Eretz Yisrael, which most religious Zionist views did not specifically discuss. Additionally, there were an increasing number of socialist and communist movements among young Jewish peoples of Russia and the Zionist leaders realized a need to appeal to these groups in order to further the resettlement of Palestine by the Jewish people. As a result, Labor Zionism was created.
At the forefront of the movement was Nachman Syrkin, who founded the Workers of Zion, the first Labor Zionist party, in 1906, and Ber Borochov. Syrkin believed a Jewish settlement needed to be created based on the organizational ideas of socialism, those of the accumulation of capital by the Jews and the employment of Jewish laborers.
He noted in his writings that anti-Semitism was the result of unequal distribution of power in society, and that if the Jews remained weak, anti-Semitism would also remain. In other words, Syrkin called for the Jews to attain social and political power in order to create an environment in Palestine conducive to settlement by the Jewish peoples.
Ber Borochov believed in similar concepts, but his views contained far more ideologies of class and nationality. In his work, Nationalism and Class Struggle, Borochov laid out a plan for class struggle that would give rise to the Jewish nation. Borochov noted that through the creation of a Jewish society, in which Jews controlled all economic, social, and moral aspects, a class struggle could ensue that would allow the impoverished Jews of the world to unite against a similar cause and attain sovereignty over Palestine and the rightful land of the Jews. At the time, the Russian influence over many Jewish youths made such a concept appealing to many.
Clearly, support of Zionism from a secular viewpoint was not solely due to a need to avoid persecution, as the originators of Zionism believed, but was also as a way to attain and maintain social and economical power. As Syrkin pointed out, anti-Semitism was abundant in the world at the close of the 19th century through the early 20th century, and secular Zionism supporters such as Syrkin saw such processes continuing until the Jews could establish their own sovereignty, complete with economic and political independence. In order to create such a Jewish State, the Labor Zionists and other supporters realized a need to first create a society of Jewish labor and power, hence the need to create settlements in Palestine.
While socialism clearly influenced the secular pro-Zionists, it also had an effect on the secular anti-Zionists. While the pro-Zionists were planning settlements in Palestine to create a Jewish nation of economic, political, and social sovereignty that would force an end to anti-Semitism, the anti-Zionist secular movement was battling for an end to Zionism. For them, Zionism was simply an escape from anti-Semitism, rather than a solution.
During the early 20th century, many of the Jews in Russia and Eastern Europe were attracted to communism, believing that the only way to end the racism against them was to overthrow the powers of the world that practiced anti-Semitism.
Unable to join in many socialist circles, the Jewish, led by Alexander Kremer, formed the Jewish Bund in 1897. The early foundation of the Bund was that Jewish nationalism was transitory. In other words, the Jews were predestined to live in exile, and many advocated Diaspora nationalism in the face of this destiny. They believed the Jews were a nation of people who would always be a minority in Europe, but could thrive in their own countries. In numerous writings, the Bund leaders reiterated the concept that they "believe our home is here, in Poland, in Russia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and the United States... If my home is 'there,' it means that every drop of my sweat that falls here, in a foreign land, is in vain... A national home in Eretz Israel will not eliminate the Diaspora."
The Bundists also believed that to guarantee a Jewish self-expression of nationalism, cultural and communal autonomy would be needed. To achieve this, however, they did not advocate a return the Palestine, but rather, the overthrow of capitalism with replacement by a socialist society. As a result of this belief, the group sought not to unite all Jews, but to prepare them for revolution. In addition, according to the Bund, the maintenance of a Jewish heritage could be had through the perpetuation of the Yiddish cultural and language. In several writings, even throughout the Nazi crisis, the Bundists note their clear dedication to fight capitalism and Zionism in an effort to create a worldwide nationalism for the Jews. In one writing, the Bundists note, "We Bundists wish to shatter the existing economic frameworks and show the Jewish masses how a new society can be built not by escape but by struggle. We link the essence of the Jewish masses' life to that of humankind."
So, while the secular Zionists sought to establish a Jewish state, complete with economic, political, and social sovereignty through settlements in Palestine and Jewish laborers, the secular anti-Zionists, including the Bundists, sought to instead create economic, political and social power through a worldwide Jewish nationalism. These individuals believed strongly that to create a Jewish state would be to run from anti-Semitism, and that the only way to overcome such attitudes was to create a socialist society worldwide for the preservation of Jewish heritage and culture.
There can be no question that the religious and secular Jews of the latter 19th century differed greatly in their opinions of Zionism, and helped develop various sects of the movement over time, including the religious Zionism of Kook and his followers and the Labor Zionism of Nachman Syrkin. At the same time, the rebellion against the Zionism ideology by such groups as the Neturei Karta and the Bundists served to act as the alternate force in a highly divided battle over the future of the Jewish people. Even within their own groups, no common thread was apparent.
However, in analyzing the Zionist movement during this time period, it is clear that the forces at work in the latter 19th century, namely those of anti-Semitism, Judaism, and socialism, played a vital role in the development of each group's individual concepts, whether in favor of or against Zionism. For religious Zionists, Judaism showed that a return to Eretz Yisrael was the only means of redemption. For religious anti-Zionists, the same faith in Judaism held that to return to the land was to defy God. For secular Zionists, anti-Semitism dictated a need for a safe homeland, and the creation of an economic, political, and social state of the Jews. For secular anti-Zionists, this same anti-Semantic view, along with the attraction of socialism, dictated the need for each Jew, as an individual, to develop their own self-expression of nationalism in their own countries, in an effort to overthrow capitalism and retain Jewish heritage. Clearly, the combination of these forces had a large impact on the Zionist movement in the late 19th century.
Bein, Alex. Theodore Herzl: A Biography. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1967.
Borochov, Ber. Nationalism and Class Struggle. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,…[continue]
"Zionism Born In The Latter" (2006, December 10) Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/zionism-born-in-the-latter-41045
"Zionism Born In The Latter" 10 December 2006. Web.21 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/zionism-born-in-the-latter-41045>
"Zionism Born In The Latter", 10 December 2006, Accessed.21 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/zionism-born-in-the-latter-41045
History Of Zionism Zionism is the political movement that arose in Europe in the late 19th century with the aim of creating a Jewish state in Palestine. It asserted that the Jewish people were a separate nation and were entitled to have a country of their own and succeeded in its objective with the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948. Since then, the Zionist movement has concentrated on strengthening Israel
There is much to the assertion by Nachman Syrkin that the Jews have persisted in history because the performed a socio-economic function that other peoples did not want to do or could not do. In his 1898 "The Jewish Problem and the Socialist Jewish State, " Syrkin lays out these ideas. Regarding this, Syrkin argued that a classless society and national sovereignty were the only means of solving the Jewish
With an Israeli army behind it, Jewish nationalism manifested itself into settler-colonial nationalism (Ram, 1998). It was the power of the Israeli military that prompted Israeli Prime Minister Gold Meir to declare to historian and journalist Oriana Fallaci that Israel would never relinquish the West Bank or Gaza settlements to Arab control (1977). The Jewish settlements represent in principle that which Zachary Lockman (1976) says is the socialism by virtue
Although some received territory, they were embittered as a result of the perceived broken pledge. The result of this was an Arab uprising against the Turks in 1916. The San Remo Conference nevertheless began to shape the post-war world (McKinney 2010). The result was that the Europeans were making impositions into country where the various nations were having unique conflicts of their own. According to Roberts (2007), for example, The
These new laws applied to native-born Jews only; foreign, that is, Russian, Jews still suffered from restrictions. This division between native and foreign Jews was of importance then and still exists in present-day German law as it did in the days of the German empire, the Weimar Republic, and the Nazi regime. (Cohn 10) These old standards left the door open for new and modern forms of the same archaic
It included four major points: 1. The Rurh was to be evacuated by Allied troops; 2. Reparation payments would begin at $1 billion marks the first year, increasing to $2.5 billion annually after five years; 3. The Reichsbank would be reorganized under Allied supervision; and 4. The sources for the reparation money would include transportation, customs and excise taxes. Futher, the Dawes Plan did rely on foreign aid from
The West may even become addicted to you and your PLO (Pacepa 1987, 25) The above conversation occurred in the early Carter administration, although the Romanian dictator first began advising and consorting with Arafat in 1972 (ibid, 37). Ceau-escu was not a prophet. Rather, he was just a shrewd dictatorial leader who knew how to use image, propaganda and the repetition of the same information over and over again until