Scan barcode
A review by afrathefish
The Jewish State by Theodor Herzl
0.25
i have always been an advocate for engaging with writings and pieces from perspectives that are not if your own. you look through my tbr and i think it is pretty clear what my views are, and what side i align with. nonetheless, i thought it imperative to reading the mandate that essentially led to the creation of israel, so that i may understand perspectives of the other side, and actually read what is being written, so that one may understand the arguments of the other side and if necessary, have the tools to dismantle such arguments by facing them directly.
the historical precedence of this essay cannot be understated. with the version i was reading, it had a forward written by jacob de haas around 10 years after the publication of hertzl’s work, and it provides a fascinating insight into how divisive the concept of zionism actually was among jews themselves, considering how the jewish chronicle was among those who were rather opposed to the idea of a jewish state. it’s also interesting how 10 years after de haas’ foreward we saw the the creation of the balfour declaration. i also find it quite funny that both de haas’ foreward and hertzl’s actual essay refer to palestine directly as an actual intended place for the jewish homeland, and yet many prominent israeli politicians and many extreme zionists insist that palestine was never a place, a fictitious state created by the arabs after 1945, or during the eve of it. you scroll through israel’s subreddit and you see these kinds of lies espoused to this day, when the mandate for the creation of the state names palestine directly. anyway.
however, i truly believe it is intellectually defunct to call this anything less than a cookie cutter case of settler colonialism. i’ll give it to hertzl, he writes with a very direct cadence and is able to present his arguments in a very foreword, clear-thinking way. the structure he lays out to present his arguments, going from discussing the history of the jews to the unprecedented rise in antisemitism (and this was nearly 40 years before the start of the second world war), and then laying out how the creation of this state would occur, alongside how affairs of the state would be conducted - was a good choice in laying out the groundwork for his ideals. it isn’t a surprise how any jewish person reading this, especially at the time, would not feel inclined to join the movement and make it a reality. it’s also fair to state that hertzl’s idea of what israel was supposed to be and how it turned out are at times diametrically opposed, and that fault may not be fair to be placed on hertzl. he clearly declares a separation of religion and state and rallies against monarchies, and insists that the natives of the land (the christian’s he insists, though this may be in reference to his contemplation of argentina as potential for the jewish homeland) would not be slaves, but free independent bodies (oh how kind). hertzl also calls for the jewish state to be a democracy, but an aristocratic democracy, and i wonder how relevant that particular element is when discussing the current political state of israel today. i also find it interesting that while hertzl clearly calls for the separation of theocracy and state, he suggests that religious leaders should … employ …. religion to encourage congregants to begin migrating, saying that they’ll find “salvation over there”. it’s also fascinating how hertzl proactively calls for a primarily “self defence” based army who are voluntarily conscripted. this of course is not the case today.
however it is clear that the groundwork for such a state is simply . settler colonialism. i struggle to engage intellectually with anyone who denies this basic fact, and while there may be many who insist the opposite, or insist that israel was created on the basis of discussions and self defence, history depicts the opposite, and while hertzl’s own work may reflect that intention, you read between the lines of his work and it’s clear to see where he would lie too. the metaphor of “clearing a country of wild beasts” depicts a clear enough example of how he intuitively viewed the natives of the land he wanted to inhabit, irrespective of his desires to give the natives agency. he borrows textbook examples of other colonisalist movements and tools, ranging from the creation of “The Jewish Company” to head the movement of the Jewish homeland (reminiscent of several western entities, including britain, where he wanted the headquarters of the jewish company to reside in) to sending in lower skilled workers to learn the lay of the land as akin to other european entities at the time. it’s interesting how zionists have changed their tune about israel being a colonialist state as times have changed, as the mandate to its inception wishes for nothing less. “humane” ideals of colonialism is still colonialism, and history has shown how “humane” this particular instance of colonialism is. hertzl’s language within the essay also depicts a sense of superiority over any native of the land he intends to inhabit, again thus contradicting any sort of “humane” ideal he wished to express in his work.
it’s also interesting to consider hertzl’s work in the modern political context, and how we choose to interpret his work today. aside from the superiority complex and the colonialist ideals and the verbiage used to communicate such ideals, hertzl’s work intersects across two blind spots hurdled especially in the left: 1) the rampant anti semitism on the increase in europe. the western left was often pioneered by earlier jewish immigrants, and i can understand the frustration at often being left out. as much as i struggle to agree with daniel baddiel, his arguments in ‘jews don’t count’ have had me thinking quite deeply, and it is understandable that jews can feel left out, especially in the left. i also understand the nuances with antisemitism in the left’s recent political history in britain, and so i touch upon this with caution. 2) israel was not a colonialist state, and does not engage in such ideals today. this is more for the liberals who insist otherwise. i’ve hashed this out in earlier paragraphs and also, please pick up a book.
all in all. hertzl’s writing was easy to read through. it’s hard to give this anything above a 1* though as reading mandates proactively engaging in using colonialist ideals wasnt a fun time. but it was nice to know what things were actually discussed in this mandate, and it’s fascinating seeing how radically different israel is compared to hertzl’s vision for it.
the historical precedence of this essay cannot be understated. with the version i was reading, it had a forward written by jacob de haas around 10 years after the publication of hertzl’s work, and it provides a fascinating insight into how divisive the concept of zionism actually was among jews themselves, considering how the jewish chronicle was among those who were rather opposed to the idea of a jewish state. it’s also interesting how 10 years after de haas’ foreward we saw the the creation of the balfour declaration. i also find it quite funny that both de haas’ foreward and hertzl’s actual essay refer to palestine directly as an actual intended place for the jewish homeland, and yet many prominent israeli politicians and many extreme zionists insist that palestine was never a place, a fictitious state created by the arabs after 1945, or during the eve of it. you scroll through israel’s subreddit and you see these kinds of lies espoused to this day, when the mandate for the creation of the state names palestine directly. anyway.
however, i truly believe it is intellectually defunct to call this anything less than a cookie cutter case of settler colonialism. i’ll give it to hertzl, he writes with a very direct cadence and is able to present his arguments in a very foreword, clear-thinking way. the structure he lays out to present his arguments, going from discussing the history of the jews to the unprecedented rise in antisemitism (and this was nearly 40 years before the start of the second world war), and then laying out how the creation of this state would occur, alongside how affairs of the state would be conducted - was a good choice in laying out the groundwork for his ideals. it isn’t a surprise how any jewish person reading this, especially at the time, would not feel inclined to join the movement and make it a reality. it’s also fair to state that hertzl’s idea of what israel was supposed to be and how it turned out are at times diametrically opposed, and that fault may not be fair to be placed on hertzl. he clearly declares a separation of religion and state and rallies against monarchies, and insists that the natives of the land (the christian’s he insists, though this may be in reference to his contemplation of argentina as potential for the jewish homeland) would not be slaves, but free independent bodies (oh how kind). hertzl also calls for the jewish state to be a democracy, but an aristocratic democracy, and i wonder how relevant that particular element is when discussing the current political state of israel today. i also find it interesting that while hertzl clearly calls for the separation of theocracy and state, he suggests that religious leaders should … employ …. religion to encourage congregants to begin migrating, saying that they’ll find “salvation over there”. it’s also fascinating how hertzl proactively calls for a primarily “self defence” based army who are voluntarily conscripted. this of course is not the case today.
however it is clear that the groundwork for such a state is simply . settler colonialism. i struggle to engage intellectually with anyone who denies this basic fact, and while there may be many who insist the opposite, or insist that israel was created on the basis of discussions and self defence, history depicts the opposite, and while hertzl’s own work may reflect that intention, you read between the lines of his work and it’s clear to see where he would lie too. the metaphor of “clearing a country of wild beasts” depicts a clear enough example of how he intuitively viewed the natives of the land he wanted to inhabit, irrespective of his desires to give the natives agency. he borrows textbook examples of other colonisalist movements and tools, ranging from the creation of “The Jewish Company” to head the movement of the Jewish homeland (reminiscent of several western entities, including britain, where he wanted the headquarters of the jewish company to reside in) to sending in lower skilled workers to learn the lay of the land as akin to other european entities at the time. it’s interesting how zionists have changed their tune about israel being a colonialist state as times have changed, as the mandate to its inception wishes for nothing less. “humane” ideals of colonialism is still colonialism, and history has shown how “humane” this particular instance of colonialism is. hertzl’s language within the essay also depicts a sense of superiority over any native of the land he intends to inhabit, again thus contradicting any sort of “humane” ideal he wished to express in his work.
it’s also interesting to consider hertzl’s work in the modern political context, and how we choose to interpret his work today. aside from the superiority complex and the colonialist ideals and the verbiage used to communicate such ideals, hertzl’s work intersects across two blind spots hurdled especially in the left: 1) the rampant anti semitism on the increase in europe. the western left was often pioneered by earlier jewish immigrants, and i can understand the frustration at often being left out. as much as i struggle to agree with daniel baddiel, his arguments in ‘jews don’t count’ have had me thinking quite deeply, and it is understandable that jews can feel left out, especially in the left. i also understand the nuances with antisemitism in the left’s recent political history in britain, and so i touch upon this with caution. 2) israel was not a colonialist state, and does not engage in such ideals today. this is more for the liberals who insist otherwise. i’ve hashed this out in earlier paragraphs and also, please pick up a book.
all in all. hertzl’s writing was easy to read through. it’s hard to give this anything above a 1* though as reading mandates proactively engaging in using colonialist ideals wasnt a fun time. but it was nice to know what things were actually discussed in this mandate, and it’s fascinating seeing how radically different israel is compared to hertzl’s vision for it.