Evyatar Friesel

Zionism and Jewish Nationalism: An Inquiry into an Ideological Relationship

The axiomatic link in modern Jewish thought between Zionism and Jewish nationalism is questioned in this essay. It will be suggested that the connection between both embodied an ideological “marriage of convenience” blessed by both Jews and non-Jews, but not a deep-rooted bond, and that the idea of a “Jewish nationalism” deserves critical reconsideration. Three complementary hypotheses are proposed and analyzed: that Zionism and nationalism were basically unconnected; that Zion-related concepts, rooted in Jewish historical awareness, were a constant ideological factor among broad sectors of modernizing Jewry; and that Zionism was a modern concoction rooted in Zion-related concepts which also absorbed ideological elements from the general European milieu, among them national notions—national, in this context meaning “national in general,” and not “Jewish-national.”

Through a peculiar lens: Zionism and Palestine in British diaries, 1927–31

The copious research dealing with the British presence in Palestine during the period of the Mandate (c. 1918-1948) has mostly sidetracked a significant issue: what were the perceptions spiritual, ideological, historical that shaped, or at least influenced, British policies regarding Zionism and its aspirations in Palestine? In addition to British political interests, there were also certain ideas which influenced the making of the Balfour Declaration, published in November 1917. What happened to those ideas later on? How did they change, and why? Although the historical literature is filled with quotations and allusions to this process, most historians have avoided to elaborate this material into a coherent

On the Myth of the Connection Between the Holocaust and the Creation of Israel

It is widely believed that the catastrophe experienced by European Jewry in World War II had a decisive influence on the establishment of the Jewish state, in 1948. Shocked by the horror of the Jewish tragedy the nations of the world became convinced, so runs the argument, that the Jews were entitled to a state of their own and thus contributed decisively to the setting up of Israel. Regarding the Jews, the Holocaust supposedly triggered the supreme effort towards statehood, on the understanding that only a Jewish state might again prevent the horrors of the 1940s. A deeply felt national metaphor established itself—‘destruction and rebirth’ (hurban ut’kuma)— a mixture of pride, defiance and self-consolation, according to which the Jewish people, like the legendary Phoenix, arose from the ashes of the Holocaust and reached out for independent statehood. Thus both Jews and non-Jews have stressed an essential connection (albeit with differing explanations) between the Holocaust and the creation of the Jewish state. However, both these assumptions collapse when their historical foundations are analysed.

It all Depends on the Point of View: David Ben-Gurion in the 1940s1

In spite of its length, Shabtai Teveth’s book does not prevent one from seeing the wood for the trees. Although its thousand pages cover only five years of Ben-Gurion’s life, from 1942 to 1946 (and even these are not quite complete, e.g. the 1942 Biltmore Conference and the dispute with Chaim Weizmann have been left out), Teveth manages to maintain an elegant rhythm in presenting the overall picture. He has no qualms about hopping from the chronological to the interpretive, which might have caused confusion if done by a less experienced writer. Matters such as Ben-Gurion’s disputes in his movement, or the adoption of an “activist” position vis-à-vis Britain, or his relations with various persons, are described at length and beyond the given time frame, but without weakening the author’s control over the structure of the book. Teveth’s work does not only tell Ben-Gurion’s story: continuing the format used in the previous volumes of his massive biography, he deals at length (albeit selectively) with the history of the Zionist movement and the Yishuv. For example, his description of the 1946 Zionist Congress covers about 30 pages and probably provides the most comprehensive analysis of the subject in existing historical literature. We have here, then, an additional link, the fourth, of an intellectual enterprise that combines in-depth historical research with impressive literary power. Teveth takes his readers back 60 years, to the 1940s, and marches them page by page, chapter by chapter, alongside Ben-Gurion, along the hard and bumpy road of the movement, the Yishuv and the Jewish people—a praiseworthy achievement indeed. With the earlier volumes, this present one will provide a basis and a challenge to any research on Ben-Gurion and his time.