Zionism is a Jewish 'homeland' movement, which developed during the second half of the 19th century among Jews of Central and Eastern Europe. Zionism can be considered as Jewish nationalism. In 1975 the United Nations stated that "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" (UN resolution 3379). Though the General Assembly officially
revoked this resolution in 1999, Zionism still remains "racism" for certain advocates (especially from Muslim states). Zionists see the movement as built
on deep-rooted ideals of justice and ethics from Jewish tradition leading toward fulfillment of the prophecy that "Israel" would be a "light unto nations".
Zionism sees itself as the modern form of a millennia-old dream of Jewish people to rebuild a Jewish state in the land
of Israel (one of the proposed names for this state was Zion). Many different Zionist groups exist, each expressing a unique political, social and religious position. Almost all of these
groups have and continue to co-operate through the World Zionist Organization (WZO). Some people, such as Noam Chomsky, argue that the common definition of their opinions has changed in time from Zionism to anti-Zionism, reflecting a change in the definition of Zionism.
The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland was first expressed during the Babylonian exile and became a universal Jewish theme after the destruction of Jerusalem and Judea by the Roman Empire in 70 A.D. and the dispersal that followed.
Until the rise of political Zionism in the early 1800s, most religious Jews believed that the Jewish people would only return to Israel with the coming of the messiah, i.e., only after divine intervention. Indeed, many even believed that Jews were divinely forbidden to attempt to establish
a state prior to the coming of the Messiah (see Neturei Karta). Many people proposed that Jews attempt to return earlier, by their own devices, but until the rise of Zionism in the 19th century they were a minority.
One of the key moments of the modern Zionist movement was the publishing of Theodor Herzl's pamphlet Der Judenstaat in 1896. In 1897, Herzl organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. At this Congress, the WZO was established, and Herzl named its President. The Congress gave this definition of the aims
and means of Zionism:
- The aim of Zionism is to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law.
- The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:
- 1. The promotion, on suitable lines, of the colonization of Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers.
- 2. The organization and binding together of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, local and international,
in accordance with the laws of each country.
- 3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and national consciousnesss.
- 4. Preparatory steps toward obtaining government consent, where necessary, to the attainment of the aim of Zionism.
Over the coming years, successive aliyahs (literally: ascent, in this sense, immigration to Palestine) brought thousands of Jews from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine,
and many other countries to Palestine, where they formed new communities and new institutions. The dominant trends in Zionist
thought were Political Zionism, which emphasized gaining a charter for a Jewish homeland through international politics, along with Labor Zionism, Revisionist Zionism, and Religious Zionism.
Labor Zionism dominated most of the institutions of Zionism, including the World Zionist Organization and the Knesset, from early in the history of Zionism until 1977, when Likud, a political party descended from the merger of Revisionist parties, won the elections to the Knesset. Famous Labor Zionists
included David Ben-Gurion, Berl Katzenelson, and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (among countless others).
Most of the Revisionist movement was founded by Vladimir Jabotinsky.
Jewish conspiracy theories in Europe and the nations that would later constitute the Soviet Union had existed for many years, but became much more accepted by the public in many nations after World War I, and even more so after the Bolshevik revolution in Russia. Through the publication of the infamous forgery, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, many people took it as a "proven" fact that Jews were secretly conspiring to rule the world.
This anti-Jewish attitude took on a stronger form during the reign of Joseph Stalin. Stalin was initially supportive of Zionism; many early Zionists were socialists or communists, and many people in the Soviet
Union believed that the State of Israel would be an ally.
During the 1930s, German Zionists believed that it was still possible to obtain rapprochement with the growingly anti-Semitic German government
and society. Zionists in all nations, including Germany, petitioned their government to support the creation of a Jewish homeland in the British mandate of Palestine. Lenni Brenner's controversial Zionism in the Age of Dictators discusses this issue. Critics of Brenner regard his
views as anti-Semitic.
On May 14, 1948, the day before the British Mandate of Palestine expired, Zionists within Palestine made a declaration of Independence, and the state of Israel was established. This marked
a major turning point in the Zionist movement, as one of its major goals had been accomplished. Many Zionist institutions
were reshaped: the three military movements, the Labor-dominated Haganah and the Revisionist Irgun and Lehi, combined to form the Israel Defence Forces.
Then on July 5, 1950 the Knesset passed the Law of Return which granted all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel.
Stalin had meanwhile realized that Israel would not become the communist nation he hoped it would become; he eventually
became staunchly anti-Zionist, and thus made anti-Zionism the official doctrine of the Soviet Union. (The Soviet Union even
provided lots of military equipment and knowledge to Arabian states, thereby supporting "anti-zionism" actively)
By the 1950s the Soviet Union was funding the publication of many anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. It funded the publication of thousands of tractates, articles, and books promoting the viewpoint that all Jews were part
of a conspiracy to rule the world, and that Zionism was one of their tools for world conquest. Early versions of this theory
held that "the Jews" were merely tools of the Freemasons or some other group; after the Six-day War it became fashionable to hold that the Jews were really in charge, and that the Freemasons (or other groups) were merely
tools of "international Jewry".
In all post-1960 variants of these conspiracy theories, Soviet indoctrination held that Zionism was a tool used by the
Jews for racist imperialism. Zionists were referred to as "running dogs" as American imperialists. It was only with the death
of Stalin in 1953 that anti-Zionist propaganda went into a temporary eclipse.
Some believe that the Slogan 'Zionism is racism' arose at this time. Others consider it insufficient to explain the consistent UN condemnation of Zionism, which is ironic considering the UN vote that established Israel.
Some Zionist groups promote particular denominations of Judaism (e.g. the Masorti Zionist movement (Mercaz) promotes Conservative Judaism); many other groups do not have a formal connection with any particular denomination at all.
All groups accept the Jerusalem Program. This program started as a set of principles on which all Zionists could agree. It was first adopted in 1951 at the
23rd World Zionist Congress and later revised by the 27th Zionist Congress in 1968.
The task of Zionism is the consolidation of the State of Israel, the ingathering of exiles in Eretz Israel, and the fostering of the unity of the Jewish people. The program of work of the Zionist Organization is:
- Encouragement of immigration, absorption and integration of immigrants; support of Youth Aliyah; stimulation of agricultural
settlement and economic development; acquisition of land as the property of the people.
- Intensive work for halutziut (pioneering) and hachsharah (training for halutziut).
- Concerted effort to harness funds in order to carry out the tasks of Zionism.
- Encouragement of private capital investment.
- Fostering of Jewish consciousness by propagating the Zionist idea and strengthening the Zionist Movement; imparting the
values of Judaism; Hebrew education and spreading the Hebrew language.
- Mobilization of world public opinion for Israel and Zionism.
- Participation in efforts to organize and intensify Jewish life on democratic foundations, maintenance and defense of Jewish
The aims of Zionism are:
- The Unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life;
- The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through aliyah from all countries;
- The strengthening of the State of Israel which is based on the prophetic vision of justice and peace;
- The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the fostering of Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education and
of Jewish spiritual and cultural values;
- The protection of Jewish rights everywhere.
Starting in the 1920s, Zionists and Arabs increasingly came into conflict within Palestine. This conflict, the forerunner of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, was approached by different Zionist groups and individuals in different ways. Long after the founding of the state of Israel,
it remains one of the most important political questions within the state. A fringe minority of Israelis support the idea of expelling the Palestinian population (for instance,
see the Kach movement).
Although prevailing Zionist opinion has always favored a Jewish state in Palestine, other proposals have been floated at
various times. Herzl's Der Judenstaat argued for a Jewish state in either Argentina or Palestine, both being equally
acceptable. In 1903, Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the 6th Zionist Congress to investigate an offer brought to him for Jewish
settlement in British East Africa. Although the proposal proved very divisive, a majority voted to establish a committee for the investagation of the possibility.
The possiblity was dismissed at the 7th Zionist Congress in 1905. In response to this, the Jewish Territorialist Organization led by Israel Zangwill split off from the main Zionist movement.
The territoralists attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible, but went into decline after the Balfour declaration in 1917 and was dissolved in 1925 (see http://www.wzo.org.il/home/movement/uganda.htm). A later unsuccessful proposal, to establish a Jewish homeland in northern Australia, was made in 1944 by the Freeland League under the leadership of the former Bolshevik Isaac Steinberg.
There have been other, non-Zionist proposals for Jewish homelands: the Soviet government tried to convince Soviet Jews to move to the Jewish Autonomous Republic (with capital in Birobidzhan) in the Russian Far East. Yiddish was a co-official language. Also, the Japanese Empire planned to ask Nazi Germany to transfer European Jews as colonists in Manchukuo (occupied Manchuria).
Main article: Anti-Zionism
The majority of Jews today are Zionists. However, at its inception, Zionism was opposed by the majority of religious Jewish
organizations including the leaders of Reform Judaism, Lithuanian Jews and Hasidic Jews. After the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 and subsequent success, much of the opposition faded away. Haredi Jews still have strong resistance to some aspects of Zionism, including the idea that it is a symbol of Redemption. Major Jewish anti-Zionist movements include Satmar and Neturei Karta. The Neturei Karta and Satmar set themselves apart from the rest of the world's Jewish community; some Jews view them as
strong anti-Zionist websites
The religious Anti-Zionist movement is conservative; there is however also politically motivated anti-Zionism, that for
the most part is liberal or socialist. These people motivate their stance by supporting the Arab claim to Palestine, through
general opposition to nationalism or for other reasons. Albert Einstein said in 1950 about the then newly founded state of
Israel that "I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain -- especially from the development of a narrow nationalism
within our own ranks". A range of well-known Jewish scholars and statesmean, often politically radical or secularized, have
opposed Zionism. This includes Bruno Kreisky, Hans Fromm, Michael Selzer and several others. It is represented in contemporary America among others by controversial academic
scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Israel Shahak, Peter Novick and Norman Finkelstein.
When Zionism was first proposed it was highly controversial; a great many Jews opposed it. Many Jews would rather try to
integrate into the society they lived in rather than try to return to Israel. This was the position taken by Reform Judaism at the time. Reform Judaism changed its opinion after the Holocaust, and the Reform movement became a strong supporter of the State of Israel. In practice, most American Jews (of all religious denominations) did not want to emigrate to Israel; there, support for
Zionism came through political, financial, and other means short of actually moving.
Many Hasidic Jews and other Orthodox Jews believed that any attempt to return to Israel, as a nation, before the coming of the messiah was sacrilegious. At one time the Lubavitcher Rebbes were anti-Zionist, though the most recent Rebbe changed his position from one of anti-Zionism (i.e., active opposition to
Zionism) to one of mere non-Zionism (i.e., neutrality towards it) after 1948.
Today, the overwhelming majority of Jewish organizations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist.
Recently, many native Israelis have started to take a position of Post-Zionism. Post-Zionists believe that while the original ideals of a Jewish homeland may not have been desirable, Israelis now constitute
a new nationality. Post-Zionists tend to be secular, and believe that Israel as a nation should be separated from Judaism.
Sometimes the term "Zionism" is colloquially used in a looser sense; as Jews have a strong affinity to their ancestral
homeland (Zion) others have come to use the terms "Zion" and/or "Zionism" to refer to a location that matters much to them.
In these cases the words were originally used as poetic descriptions of their affinity.
Zion has also been used metaphorically by non-Jews in a way that has only a metaphorical connection to Judaism or the land of
Israel, and does not necessarily involve relocation of a community (although they could), and does not necessarily involve
support for a geographical location by individuals who don't necessarily live there. For example, "Zion" plays a central role
in Rastafarian religious mythology, as the name of the Promised Land that will unfold on earth with the fall of Babylon, symbol of earthly sins.
"Zion", in this generic mythological sense, is frequently used in fiction. In The Matrix movies, written and directed by Andy and Larry Wachowski, for example, Zion is the last hope of mankind, an undergound city
where the last free humans live, in a world otherwise ruled by machine artificial intelligences.
Zionist Objectives: from http://www.balkanunity.org/mideast/english/zionism/ch02.htm
The objective of Zionism has never been merely to colonize Palestine - as was the goal of classical colonial
and imperial movements during the 19th and 20th centuries. The design of European colonialism in Africa and Asia was, essentially,
to exploit indigenous peoples as cheap labor while extracting natural resources for exorbitant profit.
What distinguishes Zionism from other colonial movements is the relationship between the settlers and the
people to be conquered. The avowed purpose of the Zionist movement was not merely to exploit the Palestinian people but to
disperse and dispossess them. The intent was to replace the indigenous population with a new settler community, to eradicate
the farmers, artisans and town-dwellers of Palestine and substitute an entirely new workforce composed of the settler population.
In denying the existence of the Palestinian people, Zionism sought to create the political climate for their
removal, not only from their land but from history. When acknowledged at all, the Palestinians were re-invented as a semi-savage,
nomadic remnant. Historical records were falsified - a procedure begun during the last quarter of the 19th century but continuing
to this day in such pseudo-historical writings as Joan Peters' "From Time Immemorial."
The Zionist movement would seek alternative imperial sponsors for this bloody enterprise; among them the
Ottoman Empire, Imperial Germany, the British Raj, French colonialism and Czarist Russia. Zionist plans for the Palestinian
people anticipated the Ottoman solution for the Armenians, who would be slaughtered in the first sustained genocide of the
Zionist Plans for the Palestinian People
From its inception, the Zionist movement sought the "Armenianization" of the Palestinian people. Like the
Native Americans, the Palestinians were regarded as "a people too many." The logic was elimination; the record was to be one
This was no less true of the Labor Zionist movement, which sought to provide a "socialist" patina for the
colonial enterprise. One of the principal theorists of Labor Zionism, a founder of the Zionist party Ha'Poel Ha'Tzair (The
Young Worker) and a supporter of Poale Zion (Workers of Zion), was Aaron David Gordon.
Walter Laqueur acknowledges in his "History of Zionism" that, "A. D. Gordon and his comrades wanted every
tree and every bush to be planted by Jewish 'pioneers.'" 
Gordon coined the slogan "conquest of labor" ["Kibbush avodah"l. He called upon Jewish capitalists, and the
Rothschild plantation managers, who had obtained land from absentee Turkish landlords over the heads of the Palestinian people,
"to hire Jews and only Jews." He organized boycotts of any Zionist enterprise which failed to employ Jews exclusively, and
prepared strikes against the Rothschild colonists, who allowed Arab peasants to sharecrop or to work, even as cheap labor.
Thus, the "Labor Zionists" employed the methods of the workers' movement to prevent the use of Arab labor;
their objective was not exploitation but usurpation."
There were over one thousand villages in Palestine at the turn of the 19th century. Jerusalem, Haifa, Gaza,
Jaffa, Nablus, Acre, Jericho, Ramle, Hebron and Nazareth were flourishing towns. The hills were painstakingly terraced. Irrigation
ditches crisscrossed the land. The citrus orchards, olive groves and grains of Palestine were known throughout the world.
Trade, crafts, textiles, cottage industry and agricultural production abounded.
Eighteenth and 19th century travellers' accounts are replete with the data, as were the scholarly quarterly
reports published in the 19th century by the British Palestine Exploration Fund.
In fact, it was precisely the social cohesiveness and stability of Palestinian society which led Lord Palmerston,
in 1840, when Britain had established a consulate in Jerusalem, to propose, presciently, the founding of a European Jewish
settler colony to "preserve the larger interests of the British Empire." 
Palestinian society, if suffering from the collaboration of feudal landowners [effendil with the Ottoman
Empire, was nevertheless productive and culturally diverse, with a peasantry quite conscious of its social role. The Palestinian
peasants and urban dwellers had made a clear, strongly felt distinction between the Jews who lived amongst them and would-be
colonists, dating from the 1820's, when the 20,000 Jews of Jerusalem were wholly integrated and accepted in Palestinian society.
When the colonists at Petah Tikvah sought to push the peasants off the land, in 1886, they were met with
organized resistance, but Jewish workers in neighboring villages and communities were wholly unaffected. When the Armenians
escaping the Turkish genocide settled in Palestine they were welcomed. The genocide was ominously defended by Vladimir Jabotinsky
and other Zionists in their attempts to obtain Turkish support.
In fact, until the Balfour Declaration [1917l, the Palestinian response to Zionist settlements was unwisely
tolerant. There was no organized Jew-hatred in Palestine, no massacres such as the Czar and Polish anti-Semites prepared,
no racist counterpart in the Palestinian response to armed colonists (who used force wherever possible to drive Palestinians
from the land). Not even spontaneous riots, expressing pent up Palestinian rage at the steady theft of their land, were directed
at Jews as such.
Courting Imperial Favor
In 1896, Theodor Herzl set forth his plan for inducing the Ottoman Empire to grant Palestine to the Zionist
"Supposing his Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine; we could, in return, undertake to regulate the
finances of Turkey. We should there form an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism." 
By 1905, the Seventh World Zionist Congress had to acknowledge that the Palestinian people were organizing
a political movement for national independence from the Ottoman Empire - a threat not merely to Turkish rule but to Zionist
Speaking at this Congress, Max Nordau, a prominent Zionist leader , set forth Zionist concerns:
"The movement which has taken hold of a great part of the Arab people may easily take a direction which may
cause harm in Palestine. ...The Turkish government may feel itself compelled to defend its reign in Palestine and Syria with
armed force. ...In these circumstances, Turkey can be convinced that it will be important for her to have in Palestine and
Syria a strong and well-organized group which ... will resist any attack on the authority of the Sultan and defend his authority
with all its might." 
As the Kaiser undertook to forge an alliance with Turkey as part of his contest with Britain and France for
control of the Middle East, the Zionist movement made similar overtures to Imperial Germany. The Kaiser took nearly ten years
in his on-and-off dealings with the Zionist leadership to formulate a plan for a Jewish state under ottoman auspices which
would have as its principal task the eradication of the Palestinian anti-colonial resistance and the securing of the interests
of Imperial Germany in the region.
By 1914, however, the World Zionist Organization was already far advanced in its parallel bid to enlist the
British Empire to undertake the break-up of the Ottoman Empire with Zionist assistance. Chaim Weizmann, who was to become
president of the World Zionist Organization, made an important public announcement:
"We can reasonably say that should Palestine fall within the British sphere of influence, and should Britain
encourage Jewish settlement there, as a British dependency, we could have in twenty to thirty years a million Jews out there,
perhaps more; they would develop the country, bring back civilization to it and form a very effective guard for the Suez Canal."
The Balfour Declaration
Weizmann secured from the British what the Zionist leaders had sought simultaneously from the Ottoman and
German Imperial governments. On November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was issued.
It stated, in part:
"His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
People, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object" 
The Zionists were cynical in the delineation of their claim to Palestine. One moment they would assert that
Palestine was a wasteland visited by occasional nomads; in the next breath they proposed to subjugate the very Palestinian
population they had attempted to render invisible. A. D. Gordon, himself, repeatedly declared that the Palestinians whom,
he insisted did not exist, should be prevented, by force from cultivating the soil.
This translated into the total expulsion of non-Jews from the Jewish "fatherland." A like description informed
pronouncements by British and Zionist leaders in their plans for the Palestinian population. By the time of the Balfour Declaration,
British imperial armies had occupied most of the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, having enlisted Arab leaders to fight
the Turks under British direction in exchange for British assurances of "self-determination."
While the Zionists in their propaganda insisted that Palestine was unpopulated, in their dealings with their
imperial sponsors they made clear that subjugation was the order of the day and offered themselves as the instrument.
The British responded in kind. The Balfour Declaration also contained a passage intended to lull Arab feudal
leaders shocked by the treachery of the British Empire in handing over to the Zionists the very land in which Arab self-determination
had been promised:
"it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights
of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" 
The British had for years used the Zionist leadership to enlist support for its war against Imperial Germany
from all the major Jewish capitalists and banking concerns in the United States and Great Britain. With Weizmann they prepared
to use Zionist colonization of Palestine as the instrument for political control over the Palestinian population.
The land without a people for a people without a land was in fact a country in ferment against colonial subjugation.
Former Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, himself, was brutally explicit in memoranda for the eyes of officials,
despite the lip service for public consumption about the "civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish [sic] communities in
"Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad is rooted in present needs, in future hopes of far profounder
import than the desires of the 700,000-plus Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land." 
The South African Connection
There is a particular dimension to this secret consort between Balfour and the Zionist leadership to betray
the aspirations of the Palestinian people. It was Weizmann's close friend and future Prime Minister of South Africa, General
Jan Smuts, who, as South African delegate to the British War Cabinet during World War I, helped push the British government
to adopt the Balfour Declaration and to make a commitment to construct a Zionist colony under British direction.
The relationship between the Zionist movement and the South African settlers had evolved earlier, as had
the friendship between General Smuts and Chaim Weizmann. By the turn of the century, a large Jewish population, primarily
from Lithuania, had settled in South Africa. The Zionist movement regarded this population as particularly susceptible to
Zionist ideas because of their already established settler status in South Africa. Zionist leaders travelled constantly to
South Africa seeking political and financial support.
N. Kirschner, former chairperson of the South African Zionist Federation, provides a vivid account of the
intimate interaction between Zionist and South African leaders, the identification of Zionists like Weizmann and Herzl with
the South African conception of a racially distinct colonizing populace, and the importance of a virtual pact between the
two movements. 
In identifying Zionism with South African settler ideology, Chaim Weizmann was following the early admiration
expressed by Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, for the quintessential colonial ideologue, Sir Cecil Rhodes.
Herzl attempted to model his own political future on the achievements of Rhodes:
"Naturally, there are big differences between Cecil Rhodes and my humble self, the personal ones very much
in my disfavor; the objective ones are greatly in favor of the Zionist movement." 
Herzl advocated achieving Zionist dispersal of the Palestinians by using the methods pioneered by Rhodes,
and he urged the formation of a Jewish counterpart to a colonial chartered company, an amalgam of colonial and entrepreneurial
"The Jewish Company is partly modelled on the lines of a great acquisition company. It might be called a
Jewish Chartered Company, though it cannot exercise sovereign power, and has no other than purely colonial tasks." 
"The poorest will go first to cultivate the soil. In accordance with a preconceived plan they will construct
roads, bridges, railways and telegraph installations, regulate rivers and build their own habitations; their labor will create
trade, trade will create markets, and markets will attract new settlers." 
By 1934, a major group of South African investors and large capitalists had established Africa-Israel Investments
to purchase land in Palestine. The company still exists after 54 years with South Africans as joint stockholders, the assets
held by Israel's Bank Leumi. 
The Iron Wall
The tension between the claim that the land was empty and the demand that the "non-existent" inhabitants
be ruthlessly subjugated was less acute when Zionists discussed strategy among themselves. The reality of what was necessary
to colonize Palestine took precedence over propaganda.
One of the ideological forbears of Zionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, is known as the founder of "Revisionist
Zionism," the Zionist current which had little patience with the liberal and socialist facade employed by the "labor" Zionists.
[Revisionist Zionism is represented today by Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir.]
In 1923 Jabotinsky wrote "The Iron Wall," which could be called a benchmark essay for the entire Zionist
movement. He set forth bluntly the essential premises of Zionism which had, indeed, been laid out before, if not as eloquently,
by Theodor Herzl, Chaim Weizmann and others. Jabotinsky's reasoning has been cited and reflected in subsequent Zionist advocacy
- from nominal "left" to so-called "right." He wrote as follows:
"There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the
foreseeable future. All well-meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete
impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an
Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some general understanding of the history of colonization.
Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. Such
an event has never occurred.
"The natives will always struggle obstinately against the colonists - and it is all the same whether they
are cultured or uncultured. The comrades in arms of [Hernan] Cortez or [Francisco] Pizarro conducted themselves like brigands.
The Redskins fought with uncompromising fervor against both evil and good-hearted colonizers. The natives struggled because
any kind of colonization anywhere at anytime is inadmissible to any native people.
"Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be complete masters. They
will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs
are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view
of the Palestinian Arabs.
"They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and
true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers
until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians
will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.
"It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral
and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of
things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian
Arabs and the same condition exists now.
"Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists
of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain the Arab character
"We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore,
a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will
of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall
through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be
"Whether through the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, external force is a necessity for establishing in
the country conditions of rule and defense through which the local population, regardless of what it wishes, will be deprived
of the possibility of impeding our colonization, administratively or physically. Force must play its role - with strength
and without indulgence. In this, there are no meaningful differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers
an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other an Iron Wall of English bayonets.
"To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer, 'absolutely untrue.' This is our
ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell
these hopes - not for any sweet words nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people.
And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have
removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall." 
The Metaphor of Iron
The theme and imagery of coercive iron and steel evoked by Vladimir Jabotinsky was to be taken up by the
nascent national socialist movement in Germany, even as Jabotinsky had, in turn, been inspired by Benito Mussolini. The mystical
invocation of iron will in the service of martial and chauvinist conquest united Zionist, colonial and fascist ideologues.
It sought its legitimacy in legends of a conquering past.
Cecil B. de Mille's "Samson and Delilah" was more than a Hollywood biblical romance about the perfidy of
woman and the virtue of manly strength. It carried, as well, the authoritarian values of the novel from which it was adopted,
Vladimir Jabotinsky's "Samson," which trumpeted the necessity of brute force if the Israelites were to conquer the Philistines.
"'Shall I give our people a message from you?' Samson thought for a while, and then said slowly: 'The first
word is iron. They must get iron. They must give everything they have for iron - their silver and wheat, oil and wine and
flocks, even their wives and daughters. All for iron! There is nothing in the world more valuable than iron."' 
Jabotinsky, the siren of "an iron wall through which the local population can not break through" and of "the
iron law of every colonizing movement ...armed force," found his call echoed in major Zionist forays against victim peoples
in the decades to come.
Israel's current Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Rabin, launched the 1967 war as Chief of Staff with "Iron Will."
As Prime Minister in 1975 and 1976 he declared the policy of Hayad Barzel, the "Iron Hand," in the West Bank. Over 300,000
Palestinians were to pass through Israeli prisons under conditions of sustained and institutionalized torture exposed by the
Sunday Times of London and denounced by Amnesty International.
His successor as Chief of Staff, Raphael Eitan, imposed the "Iron Arm" - Zro'aa Barzel - on the West Bank,
and assassination was added to the repressive arsenal. On July 17, 1982, the Israeli cabinet met to prepare what the London
Sunday Times would term "this carefully pre-planned military operation to purge the camps, called Moah Barzel or "Iron Brain."
The camps were Sabra and Shatila and the operation "was familiar to Sharon and Begin, part of Sharon's larger plan discussed
by the Israeli cabinet." 
When Yitzhak Rabin, who had supported the Revisionist Likud in Lebanon during the war, became Shimon Peres'
Minister of Defense in the current "national unity" government, he launched in Lebanon and the West Bank the policy of Egrouf
Barzel, the "Iron Fist." It is the "Iron Fist" which Rabin again cited as the basis for his policy of allout repression and
collective punishment during the 1987-1988 Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza.
It's interesting to recall, as well, that Jabotinsky located his colonial impulse in the doctrine of the
purity of blood. Jabotinsky spelled this out in his "Letter on Autonomy:"
"It is impossible for a man to become assimilated with people whose blood is different than his own. In order
to become assimilated, he must change his body, he must become one of them, in blood. There can be no assimilation. We shall
never allow such things as mixed marriage because the preservation of national integrity is impossible except by means of
racial purity and for that purpose we shall have this territory where our people will constitute the racially pure inhabitants."
This theme was further elaborated by Jabotinsky:
"The source of national feeling ...lies in a man's blood ...in his racio-physico type and in that alone.
...A man's spiritual outlook is primarily determined by his physical structure. For that reason we do not believe in spiritual
assimilation. It is inconceivable, from the physical point of view, that a Jew born to a family of pure Jewish blood can become
adapted to the spiritual outlook of a German or a Frenchman. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid, but the nucleus
of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish." 
The adoption of chauvinist doctrines of racial purity and the logic of the blood were not confined to Jabotinsky
or to the revisionists. The liberal philosopher, Martin Buber, located his Zionism equally within the framework of European
"The deepest layers of our being are determined by blood; our innermost thinking and our will are colored
by it." 
How was this to be implemented?
14- Walter Laqueur, History of Zionism (London, 1972).
15- Joy Bonds et. al., Our Roots Are Still Alive - The Story of the Palestinian People. (New York: Institute
for Independent Social Journalism, Peoples Press, 1977), p. 13.
16- Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State (London: 1896).
17- Hyman Lumer, Zionism: Its Role in World Politics, (New York: International Publishers, 1973).
18- Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error: The Autobiography of Chaim Weizmann, (New York: Harpers, 1949), p. 149.
19- John Norton Moore, ed., The Arab-Israeli Coflict, (Princeton, N.J.: The American Society of International
Law, Princeton University Press, 1977), p. 885.
21- Cited in Harry N. Howard, The King Commission: An American Inquiry in the Middle East, (Beirut: 1963).
22- N. Kirschner, "Zionism and the Union of South Africa: Fifty Years of Friendship and Understanding," Jewish
Affairs, South Africa, May 1960.
23- Theodor Herzl, Diaries, Vol. II, p. 793.
24- Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, p. 33. Cited
in Uri Davis, Israel: An Apartheid State, (London: Zed Books, Ltd., 1987), p. 4.
25- lbid., p. 28.
26- "For Love and Money," in Israel: A Survey, Financial Mail, Johannesburg, South Africa, May II, 1984,
27- "The Iron Wall" - "a Zheleznoi Stene" - Rassvet, November 4, 1923.
28- Lenni Brenner, The Iron Wall: Zionist Revisionism From Jabotinsky to Shamir, (London: Zed Books, Ltd.,
1984), p. 79.
29- London Sunday Times, September 26, 1982.
30- Jabotinsky's "Letter on Autonomy," 1904. Cited in Brenner, The Iron Wall, p. 29.
31- Brenner, The Iron Wall, p. 31.