Simply defined, Zionism is originally the movement for reestablishing and now for supporting the Jewish national state of Israel. Yet the Zionism phenomenon encompasses a diversity of related philosophies and strategies. There too exists variability with respect to goals connected to different individual interpretations; while the establishment of a Jewish national homeland is the clichéd aim, questions involving its connection to the growing Diaspora, and its general place in modern Jewish culture have given rise to less vivid and absolute goals.

The purpose of this paper is to present Zionism as a positional philosophy/movement. I therefore describe its positional characteristics; specifically, the associated goals, parameters and rules of operation. In light of this general structure, I present and positionally analyze two different historical approaches to the idea of Zionism, those of Theodor Hertzl and Ahad Ha-Am.

Before proceeding to a positional representation, it is necessary to briefly discuss the concept of messianism, as it plays an integral, positional role in any Zionist interpretation. I treat messianism as part of a larger concept of Jewish Tradition. An extremely large number of historians have attempted to understand Zionism as totally part of the age-old messianic impulse in Judaism. Proponents of this theory dub the movement secular messianism; such a title attempts to bridge the gap between the concept’s traditional purpose and modern means of attainment (political effort, colonization, and the definition of Jewry as a nation, facilitating the right to self-determination). Such an interpretation appears logical, but it ignores the dominant ideological struggle in Zionist philosophy, how to interpret the evolving messianic concept. In its most extreme sense, Modern Zionism attempted to replace the traditional redemptional confrontation between the Jew and God, with a modern day struggle between the Jew and the nations of the earth. The gentiles, mere spectators in the traditional representation, were now considered one of the two key players in the Jewish struggle for redemption. Such a construction presents the Messiah as a state of individual liberty, national freedom, and economic and social justice. Reevaluating redemption’s end value in this way affects how one develops a strategy to pursue it. This phenomenon is central in a comparison of Hertzl and Ha-Am’s philosophies. I will explain later in greater detail; I treat it as a different relation between positional parameters.

Zionism is a positional philosophy. Its goal, though it seems absolute, is actually vague and not explicitly given. Its largest tangible success, the establishment of the state of Israel, could be thought of as an end in itself, yet such a construction completely politicizes the Zionist mission. It can be conceived as a necessary prerequisite towards some final state, but how does one define this eventual condition? Some offer the hypothetical abolishment of the Diaspora, marked by a total Jewish evacuation of the western world to the national homeland. Such a notion invokes the dream of a complete Jewish return from exile; Zionism is presented as the consummation of Jewish history. Even if one accepts this idea as ideologically sound, the current position of world Jewry renders its actual occurrence to some point in the very distant future. Furthermore, if a universal return is to occur, what will be the place of the Jew in this post-Messianic era? A common answer to this question is that Israel will act as a spiritual center of the world, adhering to the traditional concept of chosenness. Yet, this is an abstraction, rather than an absolute future state of affairs. A similar problem arises if a mass return is not the hope of the Zionist philosophy. Within this realm, the Diaspora is accepted as existing side by side with the Jewish national state. What, then, is the functional purpose of Israel? Some suggest that it could act as the spiritual center within Jewry, a notion that leads to the same problem as above. A very pragmatic response to the question is that a national state would assure the continuance of the Jewish people. While the truth of this idea is more readily accepted than other, abstract suggestions, the hope for survival is merely a necessary condition for pursuing some end state, but not a goal in itself. In sum, we see that with respect to Zionist philosophy, an end state is uncertain, characteristic of positional strategy.

An individual Zionist doctrine is based on different parameters, both material and positional. The latter types are of far greater importance than their material counterparts, and therefore, the bulk of this paper focuses on them. It is still important, however, to briefly identify some of the material parameters with which the Zionist philosophy is concerned. The greatest weight is given to the legal acquisition of land. In a similar vein, other material gains can be realized through this acquisition, such as food (by means of farming) and housing. An educational system, the implementation of a military defense force, and a national political system are other examples of relevant material parameters. These concerns, however, are not pivotal forces in individual Zionist beliefs.

A philosophy of Zionism is constructed based on the weights assigned to different positional parameters, and the interaction between them. Discrepancies between different Zionist philosophies arise, however, not only because of different coefficients of the parameters, but also because of how a theoretician defines them for his own beliefs (This idea will be easier understood in the individual discussions of Hertzl and Ha-Am). Many, if not all, of the positional parameters have very strong correlations with each other. Indicative of the positional style, it is virtually impossible to list a complete set of the relevant positional parameters. I offer a list of those which I deem relevant to the overall philosophy of Zionism, and, more importantly, to the discussion which follows:

Anti-Semitism — In the quest for a Jewish national homeland, the main factors are the Jews’ perceived incompatibility with the gentile people/nations. Fear is also a component, but it exists more as a parameter unto itself.

Appreciation for Western Culture — Modern Zionist thought did not begin to flower until well after the French Revolution of 1789, the time in which full citizenship to the Jews was granted in France. By the mid-19th century, a great many Jews had already integrated themselves within Western European culture.

The Relative Trust and Fear in Western Society — This parameter is largely one of the interrelation between the first two (perception of anti-Semitism and appreciation for western culture). It represents the torment of assimilated Jews who both believed in the good will and liberalism of the modern world, yet also perceived its anti-Semitism. It can be thought of as two parameters, with trust and fear existing as individual entities.

Unification of Jewry — The restoration of a Jewish national state would alleviate the dissension within the currently existing Jewish people.

Patriotism / Nationalism for one’s Home Country (e.g. Germany, France, etc.) — This concept is largely tied to assimilation, invigorated by the romantic nationalist spirit of the mid-19th century.

Tradition — This is really a composite of two related parameters

1) Religious tradition

2) Historical legitimacy (i.e., fulfilling the spiritual tradition of he Jewish peoples’ God-given chosenness.

Future Benefit to World (i.e., society at large) — The notion of the Jewish peoples’ chosenness fueled the idea that a national state, by facilitating Jewish solidarity, would benefit society as a whole. This is linked to the interpretive role of world Jewry.

Individual Fulfillment — Many ardent Zionist activists felt that by contributing to such a proud movement, they could attain some sort of inner spirituality.

Susceptibility to Attack of Geographical Location of Future State — This is a positional sacrifice.

The final element of Zionism that is indicative of the positional style is the Rules of the Game. In this case, it refers mainly to the specific time frame and geographical location in which a given theoretician develops his/her own concept of Zionism. These two characteristics will partially (sometimes very dramatically) affect the individual’s estimations of goals, parameters and coefficients, and the interrelation between them. Characteristic of positional style, the other element which affects these estimations is subjectivity — the individual beliefs held by the theorist.

In light of the preceding discussion, I now present the personal philosophies of Theodor Hertzl and Ahad Ha-Am (Asher Zvi Ginsberg), beginning with the former.

Theodor Hertzl was born on May 2, 1860 in Budapest, Hungary. He received little religious education, and spent much time reading and writing poetry. At the time of his youth, German was the dominant culture of the Austro-Hungarian empire and of Central Europe as a whole, and, fittingly, Hertzl hoped for a literary career in that language. After a very brief career in law, he devoted himself entirely to writing. In 1892 he was appointed to the staff of the Neue Freie Press, the most important Viennese newspaper, and later that year he was sent to Paris as its resident correspondent. By that time, he was, on the surface, a typical, westernized Jewish intellectual. Although it had roots in some of his past experiences, the true catalyst for Hertzl’s Zionist transformation was the Dreyfus affair of 1894. As the Viennese correspondent, he was present at the famous scene outside the Ecole Militaire, when Alfred Dreyfus was stripped of his uniform as a rowdy mob shouted, "A teas les Juifs!" Hertzl’s Zionist ideas are most completely expressed in his book The Jewish State (1896).

In the book, proclaiming this as his central idea, Hertzl states that the Jewish question is a "national question, and to solve it we must first of all establish it as an international political problem to be discussed and settled by the civilized nations of the world in council." He furthered this idea in his address to the First Zionist Congress. Commenting on the value of a restored Jewish national state for the world, he stated, "You know that in some lands the Jewish problem has come to mean calamity for the government. If it sides with the Jews, it is confronted by the ire of the masses; if it sides against the Jews, it may call considerable consequences down upon its head because of the peculiar influence of the Jews upon the business affairs of the world. Examples of the latter may be found in Russia. But if the government maintains a neutral attitude, the Jews find themselves unprotected by the established regime and rush into the arms of the revolutionaries. Zionism, or self-help for the Jews, points to a way out of these numerous and extraordinary difficulties. Zionism is simply a peacemaker."

Hertzl was calling for help from the western nations, appealing to them based on their own self-interest. He was quite optimistic about receiving this assistance, as he revealed in other statements. Speaking of the liberalism of the west, specifically the emancipation of the Jews, he states, "At the same time, the equal rights of Jews before the law cannot be rescinded where they have once been granted. Not only because their rescission would be contrary to the spirit of our age, but also because it would immediately drive all Jew, rich and poor alike, into the ranks of the revolutionary parties. No serious harm can really be done us."

Although these statements are similar to the others in their call for pragmatism (i.e., the avoidance of future chaos due to revolutionary activity), they are more revealing of Hertzl’s beliefs. His overall optimism of society’s logical response reveals a certain faith which he placed in the western nations. The specific statement — ". . . not only because their rescission would be contrary to the spirit of our age . . . " — is all the more revealing of this trust, even admiration, of society at large. Thus arises a paradox which lays at the heart of Hertzl’s philosophy: He trusts and admires a society from which he must part, because he recognizes it as an embracer of anti-Semitism.

The logic of this seemingly illogical construction is clarified if one takes a closer look at Theodor Hertzl. He had little religion in his background, and he was a proud, educated, secular westerner. His sense of values, therefore, derived from his assimilation into western culture. In fact, when Hertzl spoke of a restoration of Zion, he often stressed the importance of carrying over the most advanced values from the Jews’ former homes (i.e., western European countries). He had seen enough of anti-Semitism to appreciate its severity, yet he, himself, had never really been a victim of it. Hertzl, therefore, was a man who perceived the evils of society, yet experienced its merits.

Theodor Hertzl is one of the most widely read, respected men in the history of the Zionist movement. Despite the apparent antagonistic relationship between his emotions, the overall effect was an adamant call for the establishment of a Jewish national homeland. The question — How can such a resulting belief be represented? — brings us to a positional representation.

Hertzl’s philosophy is a function of different parameters, where the result is an ardent belief in Zionism. This belief is expressed, in Hertzl’s case, as a call for the establishment of a Jewish national state (The vague nature of Zionist goals has already been discussed. Hertzl, in both theory and practice, embraces a pragmatic aim for a restoration of Zion). His conclusion is based mainly on the positional parameters of anti-Semitism, appreciation for western culture, fear/trust in society, and providing a future benefit to society. He assigns much lower relative coefficients to the parameters concerning the unification of Jewry, patriotism/nationalism with his home country, individual fulfillment, and tradition. Although he has noted benefits related to Jewish unification, they have not been pivotal factors in shaping his beliefs. He is the product of extensive assimilation, but it is identifiable not with one particular country, but with western European culture as a whole. He expresses no mission towards personal glory, or the need to fill some void in his life. His general attitudes are characteristic of a general liberalism, and do not appeal to the tradition of the Jewish race.

We thus return to the relevant parameters. A positional representation is as follows: Hertzl assigns a very high coefficient to his appreciation for western culture. He places a coefficient of similar magnitude to his conception of the severity of anti-Semitism. The general notion of anti-Semitism implies a degree of incompatibility between the Jews and the gentile nations of the world. Paradoxically, a high appreciation of western culture connotes a certain element of compatibility and mutual acceptance. These two parameters interact to a great degree (i.e., they have an extremely high correlation), affecting Hertzl’s coefficients of other parameters. The large weight assigned to anti-Semitism creates a fear of remaining in Society. Therefore a high coefficient is assigned to this parameter. Hertzl’s appreciation of western culture creates a trust in society to help the Jews achieve their aims, and thus a high coefficient is assigned to this parameter.

These parameters, and their competing coefficients, interact further to create a future benefit to society ( i.e., Its representative parameter is given a high coefficient), because the need to leave society, realized through the gentile nations’ assistance, will create a future benefit to the world. A connection can also be struck with the high appreciation of western culture — Hertzl can assist a society which he admires (ironically, by leaving). As Hertzl is the formulator of this positional function, it is subjectively based on his views — such is the nature of positional style.

A brief word should be added concerning the concept of The Rules of the Game. As previously stated, the main factors pertaining to Zionism are geographical location and place in time. The bulk of Hertzl’s life was spent in Western Europe during the latter part of the 19th century. At the time, anti-Semitism was most greatly felt in the eastern European countries, and thus Hertzl, by luck, did not experience its most dramatic severity. Although anti-Semitism was certainly evident in the West (e.g. The Dreyfus affair), Hertzl largely remained personally aloof It is a bit unclear whether one can look at these factors as Rules of the Game — Hertzl’s character, and thus his subjective evaluations, were shaped by his environment to a certain degree. But outside of the age old debate of heredity versus environment, it is fair to say that Hertzl’s surroundings permitted him a certain optimism that was quite evident in his philosophy. If he was living in a pogrom in Russia, for example, it is doubtful that Hertzl would have expected help from the nations of the world, partly because of personal anger, but also because the rules of the game would not have permitted it.

Ahad Ha-Am, translated as "one of the people" (his pen name), was born as Asher Zvi Ginsberg in Skvira, in the Russian Ukrain on August 18, 1856. His pious family belonged to the highest aristocracy of the Jewish ghetto, and was particularly close to the Hasidic Rebbe of Sadagura. His education was strictly religious, and, early in his life, Asher Ginsberg was already well-versed in the Talmud and Hasidic literature. Upon moving to an estate in 1868 with his family, he began reading voraciously, concentrating on works of the modern Hebrew enlightenment and later, to works in Russian and German. He soon developed a strong proclivity towards literature and philosophy of an agnostic realm, and he basically lost his religious faith. His twenties were marked by inner torment caused by his own depression, the severe illness of his wife, and the anti-Semitic culture in which he lived. He began writing in 1889, and his family’s severe poverty forced him to take a steady job as an editor in 1896. He moved to London in 1907, residing there for 14 years before going to Palestine.

Ahad Ha-Am regarded the survival of the Jewish spirit and culture in the modern world as the main problem faced by Jewry. He based his theories of Zionism not on what he considered the need of the Jews, but on the need of Judaism. This distinction is best illustrated by his own statements, contained in a speech which he gave in Minsk in 1902 before a conference of the Russian Zionist Organization. He stated, ". . . there are ‘political’ Zionists for whom the spiritual aspect of the movement is of no importance; at the other extreme, there are ‘spiritual’ Zionists, who are dissatisfied with political work in its present form . . . This being so, we must establish a special organization for this purpose to embrace all those, whether professed Zionists or not, who realize the importance of Jewish culture and desire its free growth and development. This organization should concentrate exclusively on its own specific problems, and should neither sub-serve nor be dependent on the companion political organization."

What is this spirituality to which Ha-Am refers? Although he lost much, if not all, of his religious faith, Ha-Am was an ardent believer in the historical chosenness of the Jew. He arrived at his dramatic beliefs largely through defensive means, responding to existing conditions and philosophies. The main condition to which he was subjected was the attitude of the ghetto where he was raised. The dominant view of the outside world was that of an unchanging and hereditary enemy. Compounding this, the government, by forbidding Jews to act as factors of country estates, took away his family’s wealth. This added to Ha-Am’s pessimistic view of the world of the gentiles.

Along the lines of philosophy, Ha-Am responded to the rising faith of Pan-Slavism, an extremely racist doctrine which the Russian intelligentsia began to embrace in great numbers. The key element that Ha-Am extracted from this doctrine was not its mere anti-Semitism, but the way in which the doctrine asserted it. The followers of Pan-Slavism did not attempt to reasonably prove that the Aryan race was superior (i.e., by rising its superior qualities), not did it invoke religious history. Rather, it claimed that the Aryans were chosen as the world’s supermen. This concept suggests a Nietzschean ideal, and Ha-Am, therefore, replied indirectly by responding to Nietzsche.

The essential struggle throughout time, according to Nietzsche, was that between the strong (i.e., the supermen) and their morale constraints — in other words, power versus spirit. Ha-Am did not reject the notion of a struggle, he simply reversed it so as to adhere to his concept of traditional Judaism. In Ha-Am’s view, the Jews are chosen as the world’s supermen, because of their unique sense of morality. He stated, ". . . whose inherent characteristics make it better fitted than the others for moral development and whose scheme of life is governed by a moral law superior to the common type of morality." His logic continues that for this morality to fully blossom, the Jew must continually confront his true enemy: power. Ha-Am holds the notion of a struggle and its competing entities in tact, he changes its meaning by placing spirit superior to power.

This is obviously a fairly crude representation of Ha-Am’s philosophical progression. Reducing his beliefs to a one-dimensional response to Pan-Slavism, via Nietzschian philosophy, demeans his brilliance and theoretical approach to the Jewish Situation. For the sake of this paper, however, great detail need not be presented. The important thing to note is that Ha-Am was responding to the most severe manifestation of anti-Semitism by assuming an offensive role. He did not simply refute Pan-Slavism’s doctrine, he adopted it from the other side. It is not a direct reversal, however, because Ha-Am did not lend weight to his claims by suggesting an elimination of the enemy. But, how can one acknowledge such a perpetual struggle, where one competitor is superior, without invoking the hope for victory? The answer is that one cannot do such a thing, and, therefore, it initially appears that Ha-Am is at a road block.

Two elements — Nietzschean philosophy and an interpretation of Jewish tradition — allowed Ha-Am to overcome this obstacle, because they enabled him to define victory in his own terms. If the superior competitor was characterized by his morality, he could not, by definition, suggest a destruction of his enemy. Moreover, the victory would come not really when the Jew flourished, but when morality did. It has been noted that Ha-Am lost much of his religious faith, but it is highly unlikely that a man with such an extensive Jewish background, a man for whom the pursuit of knowledge was an integral part of his life, could adamantly dismiss religion. Rather, he was involved in a continual mental struggle concerning the topic. He love and admired Judaism, but his faith was constantly shaken by severe misfortune and anti-Semitism. The acceptance of a fixed antagonist — the sole pursuit of power — gave Ha-Am’s mental struggle a physical form. At the same time, he could believe in the Jews’ chosenness and accept reality.

The pursuit of victory was necessary, and it seemed to add purpose to the Jews’ place in the world. Ahad Ha-Am’s interpretation of this victory was his call for Zionism. He stated, "If the superman is to be a permanent feature of human life and not just a freak, there must be a suitable environment." That environment would be a Jewish national homeland. But the meaning of a homeland, as understood by Ha-Am, was not a shelter for all the Jews of the world, but a facilitator of the ultimate rise of morality and spirituality. In fact, the reason for Ha-Am’s negation of Political Zionism was his strong disbelief in the ability of a Jewish state to actually change anything. He stated, "The nations can have no respect for a Jewish nationality that apes their own kind of identity; they will not recognize it but merely hire it out to work for others." Ha-Am’s refutation of political Zionism, however, was not based on mere pessimism. It derives from the essence of his Zionist beliefs: The state of Israel was simply the result of a larger goal — the victory of spirituality over power. Within Political Zionism, the establishment of a national homeland was the goal in itself. It is, therefore, not surprising that Ha-Am called for a slow colonization of Israel, and a very selective choice of its early settlers. Only in this way, he contended, could the Jewish spirituality survive and hope to grow.

I come now to a positional representation. The basis for Ahad Ha-Am’s philosophy derived from his extremely high coefficients assigned to the parameters of anti-Semitism and Jewish tradition (specifically, what he viewed as historical legitimacy, or chosenness). The two parameters had an extremely high correlation in this sense: anti-Semitism was a fixed part of Jewish tradition, as it was a manifestation of the enemy of Jewish spirituality / chosenness. Ha-Am’s encounters and interpretation of anti-Semitism helped clarify his view of Jewish tradition, and vice versa; the two parameters display a strong symbiotic relationship. Because of these high coefficients, Ha-Am had virtually no appreciation for western culture, as it was the natural enemy, and thus he gave its parameter no weight. Correspondingly, he had no problem separating from it. It is a bit unclear whether he desired a unification of Jewry. I contend that although it was not of immediate importance (exhibited by his call for slow colonization), Ha-Am did hope for an eventual unification, and therefore this parameter was given a low coefficient. He saw a future benefit to society, but not for quite some time. Yet, as an ideal, it lay at the heart of his reasoning. He therefore assigned a fairly high coefficient to it. An interesting element of Ha-Am’s positional philosophy is the parameter of individual fulfillment. Although not stated by him, it appears that he gave this parameter considerable weight. He had been mentally tormented for the great bulk of his life, and Zionism seemed to give him clarity and purpose. Although he only spoke of benefits to the world and to Jewry, I contend that Ha-Am’s adamacy was largely fueled by a need for personal satisfaction. He also assigned a high, negative coefficient to the positional sacrifice of Israel’s geographical location. His rejection of Political Zionism was partially based on this — he pessimistically viewed Palestine, because of its location, as being a "football in the game of ‘interests’ played by the great powers." Although this negative coefficient did not lead him astray from Zionism, it did affect his individual goal that he attached to it.

Much like Hertzl, the Rules of the Game certainly played a role in Ha-Am’s philosophy, affecting him in an opposite way. He had no reason to believe that the gentile nations would ever do anything to aid the Jews. His call for a Jewish national state, therefore, in no way depended on their assistance. This made his Zionist mission particularly different; it was a highly self-sufficient process, in which the establishment of Israel was only a necessary step towards a larger goal.

Back to History

 Back to Title Page