The Zionism is a Political movement and a Idéologie which affirms the right to the existence of a Jewish State in Palestine and works with its creation, then with its development.
The Zionism owes its name with the Mont Sion, hill on which was built Jerusalem.
This article proposes to summarize the Histoire of the Zionism, but especially devotes to the analysis of the ideological currents Zionists as to the reactions which they caused.
The terminology has a certain importance to include/understand the Zionism. It is not always neutral, and can have political implications.
The biblical tradition indicates under the name of Eretz Israel (ground of Israel) the promised land by God with the Jewish people, ground of the two kingdoms Israélites ( to see Royaume of Israel and Royaume of Juda ).
It is in the Bible:
Starting from the beginning of the Zionism, the term will take a less religious dimension and more policy: it is the territory asserted for the re-creation of a Jewish State.
During the 20th century, the question of the membership of the Jordan (especially of its Western part) to Eretz Israel made debate within the movement Zionist ( to see the chapter the scission of the Zionists revisionists (1925-1935)) .
At the beginning of the 21e century, this term generally indicates the State of Israel + the occupied Palestinian territories during the Guerre the Six Day old in 1967: the the West Bank + Jerusalem-Is + the Gaza Strip.
By principle, the majority of the political tendencies of the movement Zionist consider that Eretz Israel belongs of right to the Jewish people (for at least historical reasons, even for religious reasons in the religious Zionists).
But all the tendencies of the movement Zionist do not assert a Jewish State on the totality of Eretz Israel: some are favorable to a certain degree of division with the Palestinians, others are hostile there.
The term of Israel indicates either the people of Israel, or the State of Israel (those of antiquity or that recreated in 1948).
In the nonbiblical texts, the term of “Palestine” ( Palaïstinê ) appears for the first time under the feather of the Greek historian Hérodote, with the O C, in reference to the people of the Philistins, living the coastal region of the Mediterranean (Lebanon Israel and the Gaza Strip). Under the Roman domination, the term took a broader direction for finally including all the area.
Before the Jewish revolts and in particular the fall of the Second temple in 70, Judaea formed a distinct province, controlled by a legate propretor (later consular), who ordered at the same time the troops of occupation.
After the Jewish revolts of 132-135, the complete destruction of the Holy City, the foundation of several Greek colonies and Romans in Judaea, the new name of Aelia Capitolina given to Jerusalem (of which the entry is prohibited to the Jews) express the refusal of the Roman Empire to accept the maintenance of a Jewish nation in. The area loses its autonomy and is integrated in the province of “Syria-Palestine” ( Syria Palæstina ).
The the West Bank includes the territories in the west of the the Jordan including Jerusalem is occupied by Israel since 1967. The West Bank term means “in on this side the Jordan”, in opposition to Transjordanie (“beyond the Jordan”). One uses also the terms West Bank (“Western bank” of the Jordan) in English, and Judaea-Samarie (of the name of the old biblical provinces of the Samarie in north and the Judaea in the south) in Israel and in the majority of the movements Zionists out of Israel.
Today, the use of the terms is not always neutral.
French uses in a relatively neutral way the terms Israel (to indicate the State of Israel), Palestine to indicate the area, Jerusalem-Is and Gaza Strip (to indicate the occupied Palestinian Territories in 1967).
The terms “Palestine” or “ Eretz Israel ” subsequently to indicate the whole of the area to the creation of Israel express strong ideological preferences on the other hand, pro-Palestinian for the first, pro-Israeli for the second.
The use of the terms the West Bank or Judaea-Samarie to indicate the west of the the Jordan is not completely neutral either. The West Bank takes again a term rather used by the Palestinian part, and Judaea-Samarie by the Israeli part.
Inside even of the Zionism, to defend Israel or to defend Eretz Israel generally does not have the same significance. In the first case, one wants to defend the principle of a State, without insisting on particular borders. In the second, one refers to the territory indicated by the Bible, in particular the Livre of Josué, which extends on two banks from the the Jordan.
In the article below, the term “Palestine” will be used to indicate the territory between the second Jewish revolt (overcome in 135) and the proclamation of Israel (in 1948). It should be noted that the movement Zionist himself used the two terminologies rather largely before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948.
For the part of this article posterior to the creation of Israel, one will generally speak about “Israel”, the “West Bank”, “Jerusalem-Is” and of the “Gaza Strip”, terms the most used in French and recognized by UNO.
See the detailed article History of the Zionism more . The part below is a short summary of this article. Since the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the Jews by the Roman Empire following the revolts of the year 70 and the year 135, part of the Jews expresses the desire to turn over out of Holy Land. Thus for Maïmonide: “Messianic Times will take place when the Jews regain their independence and turn over all out of ground of Israel”.
Under the pressure of the European anti-semitism and the influence of the nationalist ideologies and of national independence, part of the European Jewish population (especially in Central and Eastern Europe, where integration is difficult) transforms at the end of the 19th century this religious desire into a political project: Zionism. The first organizations (Lovers of Sion) appear in 1881. The world Organization Zionist is created in 1897.
By being based on the colonial ambitions British in the Middle East, the movement Zionist obtains by the declaration Balfour (1917), the Conférence of San Rémo (1920) and the mandate of the Société of the Nations (1922) a “Jewish National Hearth” in Palestine, against the opinion of the Palestinian Arabs who fear to be in the long term dispossessed. Palestine is then placed under British mandate: one will speak for this period about “Palestine agent”. See also the chapter of History of the Zionism: the mandate of the SDN.
From 1918 to 1948, the Jewish population in Palestine passes from 83 000 people with 650 000. The growth is due to a strong birthrate, but especially to a strong immigration due to the anti-semitism in Europe, which culminates in the Shoa (the Jewish genocide). See the detailed article Aliyah.
As from 1939, Great Britain takes to an orientation more pro-Arabic, and stops Jewish immigration. After a conflict violate between 1944 and 1947, the British give up Palestine. See the chapter History of the Zionism: the resurgence of the armed struggle.
In November 1947, UNO decides division of Palestine between a Jewish State (on 55 %) and an Arab State. See the article detailed on the Plane of division of Palestine of 1947.
The new State is proclaimed on May 14th, 1948. See the detailed article Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel.
Between the end 1947 and the beginning 1949, the State of Israel east in war against five Arab States which dispute its existence and send their armies in the territory allotted by the plan of division of November 1947. See the detailed article Israeli-Arab War of 1948.
Concerning the history of the Zionism after 1948 (ideologies, institutions), to see the chapter Zionism after the creation of Israel - 1948-2005.
Concerning the general history of Israel, to see the detailed article History of Israel.
After its creation, Israel will face several frontier wars or conflicts:
The Israeli Jewish population passes in the same time of 650 000 (1948) with 5 300 000 Jews (at the beginning of 2006). See the detailed articles:
Between 1948 and 2005, Israel became the first industrial power of the Middle East, with an income per capita similar to that of Western Europe.
After the war of 1967, a major debate will divide the Zionism: which proportion of the occupied territories after the war of 1967 has to be annexed by Israel?
This debate returns to the definition even of the objective of the Zionism: a laic State for the Jews (at the borders summons all secondaries), a laic State for the Jews in the biblical borders, or a Jewish State in the biblical borders subjecting itself to the divine law?
See the chapter: the question of Large Israel 1967-2005.
See also the detailed article: Israeli Colonies.
The Zionism gathers very diverse currents energy of the extreme right to the left extreme .
All in common have the will to create a Jewish State. But they historically divided on three fundamental questions:
There were other divergences (the use of the force/violence in the construction of the State, for example), but these three sets of themes explain the fundamental structuring of the currents Zionists.
It is the left Poale Sion and the Hachomer Hatzaïr, which will give the Mapam later (in 1948).
These two parties were created before the First World War. The first claims Marxisme, and the second of Russian populist socialism, with a strong influence Anarchiste.
They want a company socialist, without religion, are in favor of a State in Palestine, but are relatively flexible on the borders. Before 1948, they even considered a mixed State judéo-Arabic.
It is the Achdut Ha' avoda (resulting from Poale Sion) and the Hapoel Hatzaïr, which will give birth in 1930 to the socialist party Mapaï, famous then workers party.
These two parties were created before the First World War. The first claims Marxism, and the second of Russian populist socialism. The two parties of extreme left previously quoted are their respective dissidences.
Revolutionists at their origins, they evolve after the First World War to reformism. They want a company Social-démocrate. They are laymen, but recognizing a place of the monk in the definition of the Jewish identity. They are in favor of a State in Palestine, but are relatively flexible on the borders. This flexibility even involved important evolutions and internal debates on the territorial questions:
These evolutions and positions are not exhaustive.
The most known leader of the left reformist is David Ben Gourion. One can also quote Shimon Peres or Yitzhak Rabin.
They are especially the general Sionistes. The historic leader, until the creation of Israel, is Haïm Weizmann.
They exist like current of thought since the creation of the Zionism, at the end of the 19th century. Theodor Herzl of it was close. They are organized like party only in 1922.
The general Zionists will be the second founder group (in electoral importance) of Likoud, in 1973. They are in favor of the Economic liberalism. They are laymen, but granting a place to the monk in the definition of the Jewish identity. They are in favor of a State in Palestine, but are relatively flexible on the borders (at least before 1967).
It is especially about the Parti Revisionist, created in 1925, which will give birth in 1948 to the Hérout. It will be the founder independent group of Likoud, in 1973.
The historic leader is Vladimir Jabotinsky, which Menahem Begin will succeed. The revisionists are in favor of the economic liberalism. They are laymen, but granting a place to the monk in the definition of the Jewish identity. They are in favor of a State in Palestine in the borders of Eretz Israel (“Ground of Israel”). For a long time, they asserted the annexation of all the Palestine agent, but also of the Jordan. This last set of themes was gradually abandoned. But one can note that among the badges of the Betar, their youth movement, one always finds representations of the ground of Israel including Jordan.
Since the end of the year 1990, this current has to face the Arab population growth and with Palestinian rising (Intifada).
The majority of the Likoud thus agreed to give up part of the “Earth of Israel”, to ensure the Jewish majority in the State of Israel.
Most moderate adopted the party Kadima at the end of 2005, behind Ariel Sharon and Ehoud Olmert, most nationalist remained in Likoud behind Benyamin Netanyahou. But even on their premises, the abandonment of Large Israel is noted: Netanyhaou proposed at the beginning of 2006 to give up 40 % of the West Bank and the essence of the Gaza Strip.
It is especially about the party Mizrahi, created in 1902 and reorganized in 1956 in the religious national Party (PNR).
They are today rather in favor of the economic liberalism, but there was a long time a “working” branch (Hapo' el Hamizrachi), rather attracted by a “social democrat” step. They are in favor of a religious State, or the Halakha , Jewish religious law, would be an important component in the definition of the civil law. They accept the democracy however. On the Nationalist level, they were moderate a long time. But after the victory of 1967 (occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), they appreciably hardened their position, especially after 1977.
The majority of the religious Zionists adheres today to Large Israel. Contrary to the laic nationalist right, which regarded Large Israel as an interest, and which gives up it gradually under the influence of both intifada and the Arab population growth, the religious Zionists consider that it is about a divine order. One cannot thus give up it.
They are particularly active in the Israeli Colonies. The PNR is considered today by certain political economists as a party of extreme right-hand side (what it was not in the beginning). In fact, for the elections of 2006, the Parti national monk decided to be presented on the list of the “National union”, the electoral trust of the extreme nationalist right.
Its first organization goes back to 1931, with Brit ha' Birionim. It is about an internal faction to the Parti Revisionist, which claims Italian Fascism. The paramilitary organization Lehi, created at the end of 1940, will take again good number of their theses, at least until the death of its first leader, Avraham Stern in 1942. After the creation of the State of Israel, this current is hardly any more active, but remains however alive through intellectuals like Israel Eldad, old directing of Lehi. One sees reappearing this current after the agreements of Washington of March 1979, which restore the the Sinai with the Egypt.
The question of the social organization is secondary. They according to the times adopted of social” or “liberal” positions the “. What is historically in the center, it is the claim of “Large Israel”. If the annexation of Jordan is hardly any more defended, that of the the West Bank and the Gaza Strip remains central. The question of Arab demography will be settled by a “transfer” to the Arab countries, or by a deprivation of the right of vote.
One finds today the partisans of this current in several small organizations, in particular in the laic tendencies of the “National union” or the Moledet.
Proof of the major evolution of the nationalist right on the question of “Large Israel”, another party classified as with the extreme right-hand side, Israel Beiteinu (“Our Israel House”, a party primarily Russian speaker) of Avigdor Liberman, proposes for the elections of 2006 not only to leave the fraction of the the West Bank the most populated by the Palestinian Arabs (approximately 40 %), but to carry out an exchange of territories with them. It is a question of giving certain parts of the Israeli territory (in its borders of 1949) to Palestinian: those which are populated by the Israeli Arabs. Lieberman even proposed to leave certain Arab districts of Jerusalem, for demographic reasons. This radical line new approach thus is not centered any more on the territory (even if the annexations considered represent 60 % of the West Bank), but on the establishment of a State with less Arabs possible. This position is thus close to that of Ariel Sharon and the party Kadima, but in more marked: at the same time more annexations of territories without Palestinian in the West Bank, and of the withdrawals of Israeli territories. This position is in total rupture with the right-wing policy history Zionist.
But proof of the evolution of the extreme-right-hand side, the elections of March 2006 brought eleven seats out of 120 to Israel Beiteinu, that is to say more than the nine seats of the National union (which gathers the extreme religious line and layman). Part of this success owes ête however allotted to the other specificity of the program of Israel Beiteinu: the defense of the immigrants come from old the the USSR.
It expresses in a radical way the positions in favor of Large Israel and a religious State. Its members find in certain factions of the Parti national monk, with the Kach, or in other extra-members of Parliament small groups.
This tendency is very present in the religious colonies and some Yechivot (religious schools). It rejects the democracy like not-Jewish, or at least regards it as secondary. The liberal occident speaks about the reign of the democracy, of the authority of the majority, while the Judaism speaks about the divine authority, which is immutable and is not prone to the ballot box or the error of a majority… It is the yoke of God, the obliteration of our will in front of His which constitutes the essential principle of the Judaism (Meir Kahane - Uncomfortable questions for comfortable jews - Secaucus, Lyle Stuart, 1987, P.159-160 - city by Alain Dieckhoff).
Some marginal currents existed. They do not remain really any more today:
Like any political current, the Zionism caused adhesions and oppositions. One gathers these last under the generic term of antisionism. One can define seven historical currents within the antisionism, which are superimposed sometimes.
For the monks not Zionists, the Jewish State of antiquity was destroyed by God, in punishment of the sins of the Jewish people. For them, only the Messiah of God will be able to restore the kingdom of Israel.
This current is historically the first, since there exists since the creation of the Zionism. It gathered in the beginning the majority of orthodoxe and ultra-orthodoxe, although certain orthodoxe upon the departure supported the movement Zionist. One notes as of the interval war, and more still since creation of Israel a strong evolution of this attitude (except at certain groups, like the Neturei Karta or Hassidim of Satmar). The orthodoxe ones massively adopted the Zionism. The ultra-ortodoxes generally took more neutral positions. The ultra-orthodoxe Ashkénazes however still officially did not adopt the Zionism. On the other hand, the ultra-orthodoxe Séfarades of the Shass do not see today contradiction between the Zionism and the religion, in so far as the state takes a more religious orientation. However, for theorthodoxe current ones, all confused tendencies, the official or semi-official acceptance of the State does not remove anything with the requirements that this one functions according to the divine Law. Failing this, the Zionism, at least in its laic version, is criticized like a revolt against the work of God.
With final the militant antisionism of the religious Jews, originally powerful, is restricted today with minority groups. The majority of the religious Jews accept or support today the Zionism, possibly with certain reserves.
See also: Contenu=Voir detailed articles [[Haredim]], [[Edah Haredit]], [[Neturei Karta]] and [[Agoudat Israel]].
Good number of Jews very integrated into their companies of origin refused the Zionism, with attitudes going of the indifference to the hostility. The priority was given to a better integration in the home countries, not with a departure of these countries. It can be a question of a very structured rejection, in the name of the nationalism of the home country, or of a simple mistrust.
This current antisionist especially was active at the end of the 19th century and first half of the 20th century. The attitude became much more favorable to the Zionism since the creation of Israel in 1948. Although this current became completely marginal, one can however note that its countries of origins (especially Western) always generate an emigration limited towards Israel. Progressive adhesion with the idea Zionist of the well integrated communities, which were in the beginning rather reticent, was thus done more in the field of the ideas than of the Aliyah concretes (“rise” in Israel).
It is about a nationalist antisionism, which gathers Christian and Moslem. The nationalism of reference is in the beginning the Arab Nationalisme, then gradually Palestinian nationalism. It is constant as well by currents “of left” as “of right-hand side”.
As a nationalism, it privileges the destiny of the group which it defends, and is thus opposed to Jewish nationalism and its will to adapt a ground which is regarded as Arabic.
The Arab opposition to the existence of a Jewish state is not also any more homogeneous since the recognition of Israel by the Egypt in 1977. Thereafter, other Arab states recognized Israel, like the Jordan in 1994, like certain Palestinian political movements, like PLO thanks to the voices of Fatah to the Palestinian National council, legislative body of PLO.
The antisionists Anticolonialists or Anti-impérialistes do not reject nationalism by principle, but considers that the nationalism of colonized or the “first people” is by principle more legitimate than that of the “colonizers”. Contrary to Arab or Palestinian nationalism, this antisionism does not assert preferably theoretical for a particular nationalism. But its preference of principle for the nationalism of the “first people” brings it closer in fact of Palestinian nationalism. It is a current policy generally rather anchored on the left, to see with the extreme left.
The judgment by the General meeting of UNO of the Zionism on November 10th, 1975 (resolution 3379), was done by using the vocabulary anticolonialist (). The resolution thus describes in its preambles the Zionism like a “racist ideology and imperialist” and states in his conclusion which “the Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination”. Beyond the terminology, the resolution attracted several antisionisms, like that of the Arab world, often religious.
The conclusion of this resolution is however cancelled on December 16th, 1991 by the General meeting (Res. 46/86). Kofi Annan, general secretary of UNO, will publicly disapprove the resolution of 1975 by describing it as “lamentable demonstration of Antisémitisme”.
It should be noted that all the movements claiming Anticolonialism or Anti-impérialisme are not antisionists. Many accepts the existence of Israel today, but remains hostile with its control on the occupied territories after the Guerre the six day old of 1967.
See the detailed articles Liberation organization of Palestinian Palestine and Taken refuge.
This current recalls that Jerusalem is the third holy place of the Islam, and that the conquest of a Moslem ground whatever it is, is a reason for defensive Djihad, at the same time legitimates and obligatory for all the believers. The fight against the Zionism is thus a religious obligation.
It is about a hostility to the Jews, which results in a hostility in their State. The term “Zionist” was largely used by anti-semites of all edges as a substitute with the “Jewish” word. Thus the American néo-Nazis have recourse at the end ZOG ( Zionist Occupied Government ) to indicate the presumedly pledged government with the Jews.
All the historical anti-semites were however not anti-Zionists: the Polish government which asked for the departure of all the Jews of Poland in 1936 have contacts with Vladimir Jabotinsky to organize this departure towards Palestine.
See also the chapter Zionism revisionist: The plan of evacuation (1936-1937).
See the article Anti-semitism.
It is about a hostility of principle to any nationalism, whatever it is, especially if it is established with the detriment of a colonized or expelled “indigenous” population.
This current is very marginal today. It recruits among intellectuals of extreme left or anarchists. He is also opposed in theory to Palestinian nationalism. Only the rejection of any nationalism and the free and fraternal agreement of the hard-working populations will be able to save Palestine of the cruelty which is extending . In Palestine, the State brings the indisputable proof that it causes the war of the fact even of its presence
However, before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, this vision anti-nationalist was very largely widespread within the communist movement, and at certain Socialists. Lénine was thus opposed to “the creation of an army moreover on the ground”.
See also the articles detailed on Maki, the Communist party of Israel.
Certain people can be influenced by various types of antisionism at the same time.
Thus, the Palestinian radical movement Hamas is at the same time anti-Zionist by Palestinian nationalism, Moslem religious antisionism, and inserted in its charter (written in 1988) of many quotations anti-semites (protocols of wise of Sion, charges against the Jews to be the cause of the French revolutions and Russian, etc)
But as such, the antisionism is not inevitably anti-semite, nor even pro-Palestinian. It is the case of certain ultra-orthodoxe Jewish factions, for example.
Palestine (area, terminology, general history)
Palestine (Arab)
Israel
Israeli-Arab and “israélo-Palestinian” Conflict
| Random links: | 855 | Nikolai Kasatkin | Quemigny-Poisot | Roger Bénévant | Battle of Soor |