+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

When Zionism imagined Jewish nationalism without supremacy

In his recent book, Dr. Dmitry Shumsky shows that, contrary to popular belief, the forefathers of Zionism did not envision a state based on Jewish supremacy. And yet Zionism, he says, inevitably involves the oppression of Palestinians.

By Meron Rapoport

David Ben Gurion seen in the Knesset, February 11, 1961. (Fritz Cohen/GPO)

David Ben Gurion seen in the Knesset, February 11, 1961. (Fritz Cohen/GPO)

No one was surprised when the authors of the Jewish Nation-State Law decided to write, in its opening clauses, that “The State of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people,” and “the right to national self-determination in Israel is unique to the Jewish people.” After all, this is precisely what every young Israeli is taught in school, whether they are Jewish or Arab. Israel, so it goes, is the “nation-state” of the Jewish people, and establishing a Jewish state was the goal of the Zionist movement since its inception.

Even those opposed to the Jewish Nation-State Law did not disagree with this line of thinking. There were those who argued that the law needs to include the principle of equality, as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, as that would be “the real Zionist” thing to do. There were others who claimed that the law only proves that Zionism was and remains a racist movement. But neither group questioned the idea that a Jewish nation-state lies at the core of Zionism. Those who suggested Israel become a state of all its citizens, or, God forbid, a bi-national state, were perceived as traitors undermining Israel and the Zionist project.

In his book, Beyond the Nation-State, published last year by Yale University Press, Dr. Dmitry Shumsky, a historian of the Zionist movement at the Hebrew University, attempts to prove that this perception is historically incorrect.

With extensive quotes by Zionism’s forefathers — Leon Pinsker, Ahad Ha’am, Theodore Herzl, Ze’ev Jabotinsy and David Ben-Gurion — he shows that over the course of Zionism’s first five decades, from the late 19th century until the early 20th century, the movement didn’t aim for establishing a “nation-state” the way it is commonly understood today, and as is reflected in the Jewish Nation-State Law. According to Shumsky, the Zionist leaders envisioned the Jewish state as a multi-national one, or even as an entity within a larger framework, similar to the federalist structure in the United States.

“The future of Palestine must be founded, legally speaking, as a ‘bi-national state,’” Shumsky quotes from a 1926 article by Jabotinsky, the ideological leader of Revisionist Zionism. “And not just Palestine. Every land that has an ethnic minority, of even the smallest kind, would need, after all, according to our deeply held views, to adapt its legal regime to that fact and become a bi-tri-national or quadri-national state.”

The Land of Israel, Ben-Gurion wrote in a 1930 article, “will be a federal state…in such a way that at no point in time will there be Arab rule over Jews or Jewish rule over Arabs.” A year later, the text of that article became the platform for Mapai, Ben Gurion’s party, which dominated Israeli politics from 1948 until 1977.



This multi-ethnic perspective, Shumsky shows, is rooted in the time and place from which Zionism’s founders operated. Until 1918, he says, most European Jews had lived in two multi-ethnic empires – either under the Russian Tzar or the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which included significant Jewish populations as well. No less important than the Zionist idea, argues Shumsky, was the importance that Zionist leaders placed on ensuring Jewish existence in Europe. This, they believed, was only possible by turning this empires into multi-ethnic states.

And they believed it could happen. First in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where socialist thinkers in Austria created the “multi-national state,” which deeply impacted Jabotinsky, Ben-Gurion and others. Both Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion also wrote songs of praise to the Ottoman Empire, its tolerance toward ethnic minorities in general — and to Jews in particular — as well as to the democratic changes it was undergoing. As such, they viewed Jewish settlement in Palestine as a part of that empire. In Herzl’s utopian novel, Altneuland, he images Palestine as a member of that empire.

Dr. Dmitry Shumsky.

Dr. Dmitry Shumsky. ‘I can only think in bi-national or multi-national terms. In this there is no contradiction with Zionism.’

When those empires collapsed following the First World War, the problems Jews faced in the newly-established countries in Eastern and Central Europe did not disappear. In fact, they only got worse. The need for a multiethnic state, therefore, did not disappear either — not even after the British Mandate committed to establishing a national home for Jews in Palestine with the Balfour Declaration. Shumsky argues that a “package deal” was at play: national rights for Jews in Europe in return for national rights for Arabs in Palestine — after achieving a Jewish majority, of course.

In Altneuland, Herzl presents this equation very clearly. One of the protagonists in the book, which is structured as a journey into the future after the creation of a Jewish state, describes the positive changes in the status of Jews in Europe after some of them emigrated to Palestine. “The tolerance is based on mutual recognition,” says the protagonist, “and only once Jews here [in Palestine – M.R.], where they are a majority, have shown tolerance, are they themselves enjoying tolerance everywhere else,” meaning Europe.

The tragedy, says Shumsky, is that with the Holocaust and the systematic extermination of European Jewry, this “package deal” that the founders of Zionism believed in was emptied of all meaning, since there were no more Jews to protect. This is one of the central forces that pushed the Zionist movement toward the path it took in 1948, claims Shumsky.

That Shumsky weaves the Zionist story with that of Eastern European Jewry is perhaps connected to his biography. Born in 1975 in Kiev under Soviet rule, which was a multiethnic empire in its own way, Shumsky was a victim of “very, very intense” anti-Semitism, suffering both physical and verbal violence. His Jewish identity didn’t mean much, besides a strong sense of pride in Jewish revolutionaries and Einstein, he says, but his Jewish identity was “very existential. Being Jewish wasn’t a happy experience for me. On the other hand, since you’re already Jewish, then this is yours, this is your destiny.”

Shumsky arrived to Israel in 1990, not out of Zionist motivations (“We wanted to go to the United States,” like other Jews at the beginning of the 20th century, he says), but with an aversion to ideologies and brainwashing. As such, he grew uncomfortable with what he was being taught about Jewish history and Zionism at school. It seemed one-dimensional to him.

What is the most inaccurate thing that they teach us at schools here?

“In my field of study, they don’t teach the most basic things. They don’t teach Altneuland. It’s a scandal. If they were teaching even basic Zionist texts, then the prevailing image would be that nationalism is not what you thought. It is not something isolated and one-dimensional. It’s the opposite.”

Why is it important to know what Jabotinsky, Ahad Ha’am, Herzl or Ben-Gurion thought of a multinational state? After all, things didn’t develop in this direction.

“First, because in order to decide we have to know. But beyond that, you get to see the development, the dynamism, the complexity. The government is interested in imparting an idea of Zionist nationalism that is static, one-dimensional. Anything that points toward more than one path, more than one identity, is considered outside of nationalism. Once you look deeper, you understand that it is all nonsense. Is it good for the education of the next generation to know that Herzl thought the national language of the Jews needs to be German? Yes, it is. Not because we want to adopt German, but because we know that the idea of Jewish nationalism is pluralistic and open to surrounding developments.”

Of all the Zionist leaders in your book – Pinsker, Herzl, Ahad Ha’am, Jabotinsky and Ben-Gurion – who was the most multinational?

“Jabotinsky was the most multinational. Paradoxically, he was most in favor of a [Jewish] majority, a state, militarism – but that’s unrelated. What’s important is how you imagine nations. He couldn’t imagine a merger between ethnicity and state; it didn’t work in his mind. Just as he imagined Russia as a federation. The place he lived in made it easy for him to envision an ideal multiethnic nation. This is where his rejection of partition stems from. It’s not just about historic right, he suffered from national claustrophobia. To imagine the existence of different groups, he had to see a very, very large space.”

Was it a constraint or did he see something positive in it?

“He was opposed to the discourse of ‘brotherhood of nations.’ It isn’t even a friendship among nations — it’s a multi-story building with multiple apartments. You don’t even have to know your neighbor to live in a shared building. But it doesn’t mean that this is tactical, it wasn’t a constraint. It was an ideal – he even found aesthetic value in it, like an orchestra.”

Jabotinsky’s heirs

Jabotinksy may have written The Iron Wall, in which he claimed that peace with the Arabs will be possible only after they have been subdued militarily and accept the Jewish entity in Palestine, but Shumsky shows that even this worldview did not change Jabotinsky’s basic support for a multi-national state. In his last book, The Jewish War Front, published in 1940 shortly before his death, Jabotinsky proposes a multi-national constitution, which Shumsky says is reminiscent of Belgium. In Jabotinsky’s vision, the Jewish prime minister would have an Arab deputy and vice versa, while the Jewish and Arab communities would be autonomous who vote for a joint parliament.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at the assembly hall for a special session marking Ze'ev Jabotinsky in the Knesset, Jerusalem, August 3, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrives at the assembly hall for a special session marking Ze’ev Jabotinsky in the Knesset, Jerusalem, August 3, 2016. (Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)

At the same time, however, Jabotinsky writes that he would be willing to accept the possibility that, should they refuse this arrangement, the Arabs would emigrate from Palestine. “I do not see any necessity for this emigration and it would be undesirable in many respects, but if it turns out that the Arabs prefer to emigrate, it is permissible to discuss this possibility without a trace of regret.”

“It’s not that [emigration] isn’t there,” says Shomsky, “but he could have said: ‘If they are fighting us, then there is no need for a multi-national state.’

If these were his positions, how can Netanyahu view himself as Jabotinsky’s heir?

“Do you know how many people see themselves as Jabotinksy’s successors? All you need to do is hang a portrait of him. You simply ignore specific aspects like multi-nationalism or his writings on what constitutes a state, which Jabotinsky viewed as something functional rather than intrinsic.”

But if Jabotinsky’s image has been twisted over the years, Herzl’s image, says Shumsky, is entirely divorced from reality. “How can ‘Im Tirzu’ adopt Herzl?” he asks, referring to the far-right political group that uses the thinker’s image as their logo. “He was a universalist. His Jewish nationalism was clearly intended to serve his universalism. The Jewish people needed to be in a state, they needed to be in the homeland, but [only] in order to serve the universalist cause to be a light unto nations. To show the Europeans that it is possible to be liberal.

He was fundamentally opposed to Hebrew, since he saw it as an expression of provincialism. He thought that the European languages — ‘enlightened’ languages, Germany and France — are a national asset of the Jews, ‘the precious homeland of our thoughts,” as he wrote. Ahad Ha’am viewed this as obsequiousness. But not in Herzl’s eyes. He was the quintessential European Man. And this is the person Im Tirzu has adopted. It’s so pathetic.”

Israeli right-wing activists from the Im Tirzu movement demonstrate during a rally organized by Palestinian students at Tel Aviv University marking the Nakba, May 11, 2014. (Tomer Neuberg/Flash90)

Israeli right-wing activists from the Im Tirzu movement demonstrate during a rally organized by Palestinian students at Tel Aviv University marking the Nakba, May 11, 2014. (Tomer Neuberg/Flash90)

Most researchers pay little attention to the fact that Herzl’s vision for Jewish state, as outlined in Altneuland, is a province in the Ottoman Empire, treating it as the Zionist forefather’s attempt not to upset the Turks who ruled Palestine at the time. Shumsky thinks that there is something deeper at play here. After all, both Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky supported the “Turkish option” until the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky truly saw an Ottoman federation as an option?

Yes, without a doubt. In 1914, Ben Gurion publishes an article about “The Question of the Orient,” in which he writes that it is not at all obvious that the Allies of World War I [France, Britain, and Russia – M.R.] would be good for Zionism. There is an incredible and accurate line there, that among Western countries, liberalism is a ‘usable currency in the internal market only.’ When they get to India, democracy meant nothing. Isn’t this authentic?”

Living under a Muslim empire wasn’t a problem for Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky?

No, on the contrary. They speak about the Ottoman Empire as an example of hundreds of years of tolerance. Ben Gurion wrote in the Ahdut newspaper in Palestine, Jabotinsky wrote in a newspaper in Odessa. They probably didn’t read each other, but they both write that the national autonomy proposed in Austria has existed in Turkey for hundreds of years.”

Shumsky says that for Ben Gurion it got to the point that he continued to believe in the Turkish option even after the Turks expelled him from Palestine for being a Russian subject. In 1916, while in New York, he wrote an article in a Jewish American newspaper named Hatoran in which he “explained” to American Jewry why Turkey is better for the Jews than the United States, since the latter is trying to make them assimilate.

A tragic turning point

And yet, Ben Gurion changed direction. Not only vis-à-vis his ideas on the Ottoman Empire, which eventually crumbled, but also regarding the meaning of a “Jewish state.” It happened, according to Shumsky, after the British-appointed Peel Commission — formed after the beginning of the “Arab Revolt” in 1936 — proposed partitioning the country into Jewish and Arab states, and would entail transferring nearly 225,000 Arabs from the would-be Jewish state and 1,250 Jews from the would-be Arab state.

“The idea of partition came from the colonialists,” says Shumsky. “The Zionist movement did talk about partition before, but not like this.” Shumsky shows how immediately after the Peel Commission published its recommendations, Ben Gurion gradually stops speaking about Arab national rights in the Land of Israel and begins speaking about individual rights. The big change, however, comes with the Holocaust.

“With Ben Gurion it’s very clear,” Shumsky says, “In the 1920s he still holds on to a worldview according to which we don’t want Jews to be oppressed and discriminated against in the diaspora, and thus we are striving to establish a state with collective rights. He had a kind of unwritten agreement with the goyim.”

Prime Minister David Ben Gurion visits the agricultural settlement of Be'er Ora, north of Eilat, June 13, 1957. (Moshe Pridan/GPO) ביקור רוה"מ דוד בן גוריון בבסיס הגדנ"ע החקלאי "באר אורה" ליד אילת.

Prime Minister David Ben Gurion visits the agricultural settlement of Be’er Ora, north of Eilat, June 13, 1957. (Moshe Pridan/GPO)

Shumsky describes how a speech delivered in 1945 following the Holocaust, in which Ben Gurion says that the Arabs will have a place in the Jewish state, but as individuals, not as a political entity. “One must understand that the idea of a ‘nation,’ in the most basic sense, is code for political rights,” says Shumsky. “The moment you say that someone doesn’t have national rights, it’s an elegant, or perhaps not so elegant way of denying him political rights and clearly making him inferior.”

You’re saying that until that point Zionism did not want a nation-state?

“I am saying that Zionism wanted national self-determination, [but] throughout most of its years it did not seek it in the form of a nation-state, due to the interests of the Jewish people, here and in the diaspora. The nation-state paradigm was not good for Zionism for years.”

I’ll ask a question that one must not ask a historian. Could Zionism have developed in a different way?

“On the one hand, asking ‘what could have been’ is not a legitimate question. On the other hand, it is one of the most important questions to ask when conducting historical analysis. That Zionism could have developed differently is obvious; the question is how. I want to emphasize that I do not think things would have been fundamentally different regarding what happened to the Palestinian people. Palestinians didn’t care what kind of Jewish-majority state they would live in. They simply didn’t want a Jewish majority, and justifiably so.”

But the question is whether the only way was through expelling Palestinians. Through attempting to erase them.

“After a series of events it did become inevitable. The Zionist imagination also included that erasure. It was there. But it wasn’t the only option. Jabotinsky wanted a single multinational state that would be built as a consociational democracy. Could this have happened? Following the Holocaust, it was simply impossible. When Jabotinsky spoke about a large Jewish majority, he imagined millions of Polish Jews immigrating, those same Jews who were later murdered. At the time he could imagine all this without expulsions.”

Illustrative photo of Palestinian refugees fleeing during the Nakba.

Illustrative photo of Palestinian refugees fleeing during the Nakba.

Isn’t this a kind of apologetics for Zionism?

“I don’t think so. On the other hand, there are both right wingers as well as the Labor Party who say: you are undermining the right of the Jewish people to a state because what you are actually saying is that Zionism did not want a nation-state.”

Is there anything we can weave into our current political thought in Israel?

“Full civil rights must consider the identity and national affinities of the individual. I can only think in bi-national or multi-national terms. And in this there is no contradiction with Zionism. On the contrary.”

This article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call. Read it here.

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Some-one.

      Explain the murder by Labor Zionist terrorists than of Jews who employed indigenous Palestinians under the period of British rule of Palestine than? David Ben Gurion in his youth actually wrote a book showing that the indigenous Palestinians were descended by and large from the Jews of Second Temple Era Palestine but when they indigenous Palestinians but after 1929 he forgot all that and his diaries show that Nabka was being planned from as early as 1930. Jabotinsky is a whole other issue and yes Likud today has arguably much less in common with him than it thinks.

      Also-“The idea of partition came from the colonialists,”; the UK colonized Palestine in the midst of World War I for what reason and through the lobbying of whom?

      Zionism is a product of the failure of many Eastern European Jews to adapt to the growing democratization and social power of the non-Jewish masses which eroded their privileged position along with a number of wealthy and therefore powerful Jews in Western Europe not wanting their countries having mass immigration of Eastern European Jews for fear that it would spark antisemitism. Very many of the first Aliyah acted just like the “Hill Top Youth” do today.

      Reply to Comment
      • Rivka Koen

        > Eastern European Jews

        > privileged position

        I got a good laugh out of this one. Insane the delusions some people have.

        Reply to Comment
      • Rivka Koen

        “Rapid democratization” was what gave European Jews any rights at all for the first time. European fascism was a reaction against democratization and against the newfound freedom of Jews and other marginalized groups.

        Reply to Comment
      • Rivka Koen

        Like I can’t stress enough that without “rapid democratization” Jews would have been in no position to leave Europe at all. What do you think kept us there for so long? We had no political rights; most of us were dirt poor, and apart from the Rothschilds of Western Europe, the very wealthiest of us were mid-level merchants. Any money we had often went to paying exorbitant “tolerant taxes” for the “privilege” of existing among goyim. If we couldn’t pay, we had to keep moving, and were subject to pogroms and individual acts of violence.

        It was rapid democratization that was key to the relative prosperity now enjoyed by Ashkenazi Jews. It was also a double-edged sword, though: just as we were given political rights, we were also made to accept the attitudes of our long-time oppressors. And so we took on their languages, their ideas, their social attitudes, their white supremacist belief system in exchange for the false promise of becoming equal to them.

        Prior to “rapid democratization,” most prosperous Jews didn’t live in Eastern Europe; they lived in the Muslim world. This is why prior to the late 19th century, most Jews in the Americas were Sephardi, not Ashkenazi.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Some-one.

      Rivka Koen grow up: Inn owners (and we can get into the function of the Inn during the period in question), tax farmers, estate managers, etc- Jews in Eastern Europe had a privileged position which why when the peasantry rose up their first target was often Jews because they were the direct agents of their oppression. I said increasing democratization not rapid. Israel Shahak ascribed the cruelty of Zionist colonialism towards the indigenous population of Palestine down to traditional Jewish hatred and fear of the peasant of Eastern Europe, of course Jews were higher on the socio-economic food chain than those peasants. Jews became less and less privileged the more Tsarism, etc attempted to modernize. You should read this written by a former Zionist who was murdered by Hitler’s thugs-


      Reply to Comment
      • Rivka Koen

        Oh I see, you’ve got religion.

        I wrote a long reply that preemptively debunked a lot of the predictable arguments made in this ancient tome edited and published after the author’s death by people with a specific geopolitical motive for portraying Jews in a certain light, but it was never approved by whoever moderates +972 Magazine’s comment section.

        Reply to Comment
    3. duh

      When analyzing the early Zionist movement, we need to keep in mind any loud broadcasting of an aim for supremacy or mass population removal would’ve gotten them in trouble with the Ottomans and any potential imperialist backers. That said, the WZO’s earliest efforts were working towards a supremacist regime by barring not only non-Jews from the Kibbutzim but also Middle Eastern Jews. The first attempts to bring Jewish Yemenis to the Yishuv resulted in them staffing menial jobs in the first aliyah settlements so they could push out the Arab workers (which failed) while the Labour Zionists remained in the Kibbutzim.

      In that light, it appears Zionist rhetoric was designed to obfuscate the aim of supremacy. Jabotinksy may have advocated a democratic, multi-national state in a future with Jews as the dominant group, but he certainly didn’t call for any such thing in the presently-existing British Mandate. In fact, he wanted Allied occupation of the whole Middle East/North Africa to continue until his “Jewish” majority was achieved (See “Iron Wall” translation on marxists.de). If you need military action to ensure your preferred outcome, no duh you’re building a supremacist regime.

      In his articles Ben-Gurion wrote, “We do not intend to push the Arabs aside, to take their land, or to disinherit them” and “First we did not come here to expel the Arabs”. Uh-huh. Except at this time, DBG was pushing his theory that the Arab peasants were descended from the original Hebrews and would possibly either assimilate into the Yishuv or at least be less hostile to Zionism than the urban (Christian) Arabs. This entire thesis only shows he did, in fact, regard Jewish rights in Palestine as superior and the Yishuv as the would-be rulers of the country. It didn’t even cross his mind that maybe the Yishuv should be the ones to assimilate. (See Teveth, “Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs”)

      There are more examples, from these two and others, but this is good for a start.

      Reply to Comment
      • Bruce Gould

        I believe you are correct, and this is one of the main points of the recently published “War Over Peace: One Hundred Years of Israel’s Militaristic Nationalism” (Uri Ben-Eliezer). From page 33: “..the story of Hashomer illustrates the emergence of a new approach whose adherents did not seek to live in Palestine alongside the Arabs but to dominate them through armed might. In this sense, Hashomer represented an early manifestation of Israeli militaristic nationalism.”

        And from page 41: “Chaim Wsizmann…was a full partner in this approach, recognizing that Zionism’s success depended on its gradual implementation without the need to declare the ultimate goal…”

        The ultimate goal.

        Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        This obfuscating the aim of supremacy, this constant need to conceal the situation, to try to keep the world from seeing what Israel is hiding in its backyard, is ramming it’s stubborn head against the BDS movements in new ways, and now with these pesky new US Congresswomen:

        A Ridiculous and Unnecessary Battle Over Omar and Tlaib’s Visit

        “…The battle against BDS has achieved the opposite of its goal: It grants free publicity to the boycott movement and portrays Israel as a benighted country that persecutes its political opponents. If Israel has nothing to hide and has confidence in its policies, it shouldn’t try to prevent the entry of BDS supporters. The boycott law is a badge of shame. Instead of trying to hide the occupation, Israel should be working to end it. Instead of investing its resources in concealing the situation, it should invest its resources in fixing it.”

        Reply to Comment
    4. Bruce Farley

      A very good discussion going on between you two. It’s probably needless to mention the latest idea Netanyahu has for trying to hide his & army’s despicable truth, and that is banning photography and journalism when the IDF are slaughtering and bulldozing Palestinians and Palestine. As you said yes he’s advertising even more what an evil terrorist genocide-crazed war-criminal he is.

      Reply to Comment
    5. Frank Adam

      Remember the joke about the pauper praying furiously and repeatedly for a big lottery win. Finally a heavenly voice says, “That’s fine Haim Yankel, BUT meet me half way…. Buy a ticket.” Israel can be as Jewish, territorial and democratic as France or Britain in both of which I grew up but my rights there are dependent on my allegiance to the establishment/ regime/government. Those anarchists/ facists/ Moslem fundamentalists who throw bombs instead of casting votes are, “banged up.”

      The Palestine Arabs and leadership NEVER gave Jews in Palestine any land or rights in the country. They rejected UN 181 and to argue about who fired he first shot in 1947 /56/67 73/ is pointless as we can not rewind time. I was a teenager in the 50’s and a UK student in 1961 – 65. The Arab students would not say “Israel” – just “Zionist entity.” Their attitudes were as Hamas and Hizbollah as now but they had fewer numbers and almost no local Moslems to back their tempers in the streets and public institutions.

      A lot of what you complain about – not without all reason – could have been avoided if the Arab states had made peace in the 1949 or shortly after. Incidentally there never was an all Jewish Israel and the Western World was a bit surprised that the fragile Israel of the 1950’s only just about absorbing its own Jewish varieties, gave votes and equal welfare and education opportunities to its Arab minorities. It is time to recognise that the Arab communities of the World never mind Israel have NOT played their cards as well as they could have – and that is for them to admit and amend their spite and arrogance, because the Arab World are not Enlightenment (Jeffersonian) democrats. Just look at the PA.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        With all due respect, Frank, this reads as a hackneyed assemblage of dishonest things. It won’t wash. Your core statement is incoherent and untrue: “Israel can be as Jewish, territorial and democratic as France or Britain.” And the rest of it sounds like you conveniently forgot the Arab Peace Initiative and many other things, including Israel’s flagrant abuse of the Oslo Accords.

        Reply to Comment
      • Nathanael

        Seriously religious Orthodox Jews typically refer to the state of Israel as the “Zionist entity” (or sometimes “the state which calls itself Israel”) because to them, “Israel” means the country which will be recreated after the return of the Messiah — calling a bigoted country of military occupation and white supremacy “Israel” is close to sacrilege.

        People forget that anti-Zionism was the mainstream Orthodox (and Reform!) opinion; Zionism was heresy.

        “In the words of the (as expounded by Rashi), the people were adjured not to return collectively to the Land of Israel by the exertion of physical force, nor to “rebel against the nations of the world,” nor to “hasten the End.” “

        Reply to Comment
    6. Barak

      Dr. Dmitry Shumsky. ‘I can only think in bi-national or multi-national terms. In this, there is no contradiction with Zionism.’ There is, it denies the Jewish people self- determination, self govern themselves and to have the one and only Jewish country on earth, unlike lots of Islamic countries and Christian countries. Jews have a right to have their own sovereign state.

      Reply to Comment