The Hypocrisy of Zionism

Utolsó frissítés: 2026.05.22. — Szerző: Anti-Propaganda News Blog

written by Gilbert Achar 

AJewish-Arab relations have been marked by conflict for more than a century. After the establishment of the Jewish state (1948—ed.), the balance of power shifted in their favor, with several military clashes resulting in their victory. For the Palestinians—despite their tenacious resistance—modern history has brought numerous setbacks, along with the trampling of their rights.

Theodor Herzl[i] laid the theoretical foundations of political Zionism, whose goal was the establishment of a Jewish state. While this was a response to the suffering and persecution of Jewish communities in Eastern Europe, as well as to the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Western Europe, it also fit into the colonial logic of contemporary Europe.

It is not uncommon in history for the oppressed to be oppressors as well. This is particularly characteristic of liberation movements against colonial oppression, where the leading community of the oppressed nation simultaneously oppresses racial, religious, or other minorities within its own country. Liberation movements often turn a blind eye to this exclusion, if not openly supporting it under various pretexts, such as accusing the minority in question of being, in fact, a secret supporter of the colonizer—a fifth column— within the country’s borders. Some draw attention to this frequent hypocrisy in the interest of „normalizing” Zionism, portraying it as no different from other ideologies, thereby minimizing—or perhaps even excusing—its errors, so that the public treats Israel like any other „normal” country. But this argument fails to take into account the true nature of the duplicity characteristic of Zionism.

Judaism in Europe

Zionism was undeniably a response to the religious oppression suffered by the Jewish minority, which Christian In Europe, this lasted from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. It is well known that under the rule of powers that professed to be Christian, Jews were subjected to far more severe persecution than during the periods of periodic exclusion and violence they endured under Islamic empires. At the same time, in modern Europe, as a result of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century, persecution gradually ceased, and the principle of equal rights citizenship with the spread of the concept. As a result of democratic transformation, the situation of Jews in the region stretching from the Atlantic coast to the eastern borders of (present-day) Germany and Austria was characterized by gradual integration into national societies and the end of discrimination. It is true, however, that xenophobia intensified in the wake of the first major economic crisis to strike the world’s capitalist powers—the economic collapse of the last quarter of the 19th century (1873–1896). As is often the case, far-right groups channeled public discontent by scapegoating certain groups and harnessed it to serve their own reactionary agendas.

During the same period, the capitalist mode of production began to develop in Eastern Europe as well, particularly in the larger territories under the Russian Empire. This late transformation, which coincided with a severe crisis in the more developed Western capitalist system, inevitably brought with it a deep and highly complex social crisis and massive peasant migration. The targets of the xenophobia that intensified in Eastern Europe were primarily Jews—especially in the territories of the Russian Empire that today belong to Ukraine and Poland. Jews who fell victim to repeated pogroms therefore sought to emigrate to Western Europe or North America.

Upon arriving in Western Europe, Jews—who were viewed both as foreigners and as followers of a despised religion—became the favorite targets of those who hated foreigners (2). Thus, against the backdrop of a major economic downturn, anti-Semitism returned with great force, in a „modernized” form, based on racial theory. This racial theory rests on pseudo-scientific anthropological foundations and asserts that Jews—or Semites in general, including Arabs (the term „Semites” refers to the Semitic language group, which includes Hebrew and Arabic)— belong to an inferior, despicable race. Thus, “anti-Semitism” targeting European Jews emerged at this time, but fanatical nationalism also became widespread, accompanied by enthusiastic support for colonization. The Great Depression, in fact, intensified competition among the colonial empires, which had already divided the world among themselves by the era of imperialism.

The Birth of Modern Zionism – The Influence of Dreyfus

It is in this context that the modern Zionist movement—in the form of state Zionism, whose goal is the establishment of a Jewish state—emerges in contrast to earlier or other contemporary movements, which were primarily spiritual or cultural in nature. Its founder, Theodor Herzl, an assimilated Austrian Jew whose Zionist convictions were awakened while he was reporting as a journalist on the French military officer of Jewish descent, Alfred Dreyfus case – Dreyfus became a victim of rising anti-Semitism in France. The Dreyfus Affair inspired Theodor Herzl’s 1896 The Jewish State (The Jewish State) manifesto, which a year and a half later, in 1897, became the founding document of the First Zionist Congress held in Basel.

There is a qualitative difference between the Zionist ideology developed by Theodor Herzl and the national ideologies that emerged across Europe in the first half of the 19th century or in colonized countries a century later. While most national ideologies are emancipatory and democratic in nature, modern Zionism is more closely related to fanatical nationalism and ideas advocating colonization; that is, at its inception, in the late 19th century, . State Zionism undoubtedly arose as a result of the oppression of the Jews, as Theodor Herzl himself states in the preface to his work: the movement he sought to create „driving force” „”the suffering of the Jews”. At the same time, it is undeniable that his Zionist theory is fundamentally based on reactionary and colonialist logic.

Religious and poor Jews

The poor Jews, who were being fiercely persecuted in Eastern Europe, formed a different view of the Zionist plan and clung to it as a lifeline. But setting that aside, Herzl’s Zionist program was created by an assimilated Austrian, secular Jew who wanted to free himself from his religious and poor Eastern European coreligionists, whose immigration to Western Europe had disrupted their established way of life. ”For the „assimilated,” it is even more beneficial than for Christian citizens if Jews who cling to tradition leave. (…). Today, many Christian families labeled as anti-Semitic may speak out against the immigration of foreign Jews. Jewish citizens cannot do this, even though they are more severely affected, because they are in competition with individuals of similar economic standing who zealously fuel the emergence of anti-Semitism or the growth of existing anti-Jewish sentiment. This is the secret pain of the assimilated, which they heal through charity. They establish emigration associations for incoming Jews. Some of these associations are not for the persecuted Jews, but against them. The poorest must leave, as soon as possible, and as far away as possible. A careful examination of the facts makes us realize that many so-called friends of the Jews are in fact anti-Semites of Jewish origin who have donned the guise of philanthropists. However, so far, even colonization efforts driven by the best of intentions have failed to produce results.”

Theodor Herzl tried to conceal the fact that „philanthropic” colonization (most notably financed by the Rothschild family) had failed: according to the new concept that replaced it, philanthropy must be replaced by a political plan fitting within the framework of European colonization, aimed at establishing and strengthening a Jewish state. Theodor Herzl understood that his best allies in realizing this plan were Christian anti-Semites. His main argument, set forth in the second chapter of his book, titled „The Plan,” is: „”The establishment of a new sovereignty is neither ridiculous nor impossible. (…) Governments in countries where anti-Semitism is rampant have a very strong interest in the establishment of (Jewish) sovereignty.”

All that remained was to choose the territory where Jewish sovereignty could be established. „Two regions come to mind: Palestine or Argentina. There have already been notable attempts at colonization, but in every case they were based on the flawed principle of gradual Jewish infiltration. And that infiltration has always failed. Under pressure from the local population, which felt threatened, governments eventually banned Jewish immigration. Immigration only makes sense if it is based on guaranteed sovereignty for us.”.

Condoning anti-Semitic brutality 

Toward the end of the last chapter, where „The Benefits of Jewish Emigration” In his speech, Theodor Herzl emphasizes that governments must consider his plan, „whether spontaneously or under pressure from anti-Semites.”. In his newspapers, he published numerous articles in which he consistently emphasized that his plan to expel Jews from Europe was virtually identical to the anti-Semites„ desire to rid themselves of the Jews. In his first newspaper (1895), he predicted that Jews would adapt to the brutality of anti-Semites and would themselves behave brutally in their future state. “Anti-Semitism—a powerful and unconscious force among the masses—will not harm the Jews. In my view, the anti-Semitic movement serves the Jewish character. It represents the education of the masses by a group, which may lead to their assimilation. Education is only engraved through great hardships. It begins with Darwinian imitation, and in the end, the Jews will adapt.”

Following the plan devised by their spiritual father, Zionist leaders sought to secure the support of one of the major European powers for their plan, which would soon be confined exclusively to Palestine. They took advantage of the fact that sovereignty over the territory had passed from the Ottoman Empire to the British during World War I under the infamous 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, under which the British and French divided the territory of the Ottoman Empire among themselves.

The British Option – The Balfour Declaration

The Zionists immediately focused their efforts on London. Chaim Weizmann, The chief representative of Zionism in Great Britain was primarily the fabulously wealthy Jew and former Member of Parliament, Lord Walter Rothschild relied on. They managed to Arthur Balfour Foreign Minister, on November 2, 1917, made his now-famous promise:

„His Majesty [i.e., King George V of the United Kingdom] ”The government views with sympathy the idea that the Jewish people should establish a national home in Palestine, and will do everything in its power to facilitate the achievement of this goal.” This announcement, with its well-known tragic consequences, naturally aligns perfectly with the calculations of British imperialism at the time, with the rivalry that Great Britain and its two allies, France and the United States, waged against one another against.

The historical circumstances surrounding the Balfour Declaration fit perfectly into the vision of Theodor Herzl, the „prophet” of Zionism. Arthur Balfour was precisely the kind of Christian anti-Semite whom Herzl knew would become Zionism’s best ally. The British foreign secretary was indeed influenced by the movement known as „Christian Zionism.” These are Christians who support the „return” of the Jews to Palestine, with the unspoken hope—and at other times the openly declared goal—of ridding Christian-majority countries of them. For Christian Zionists, the „return” of the Jews to the „Holy Land” is a prerequisite for the Second Coming of Christ. This will be followed by the Last Judgment, which will condemn those Jews who have not converted to the Christian faith to eternal suffering in hell. In the United States, this movement is the most enthusiastic supporter of Zionism in general, but of right-wing Zionism in particular.

Edwin Samuel Montague's Manifesto

When the author of this unfortunate declaration became prime minister between 1902 and 1905, Arthur Balfour issued the Aliens Act-The law enacted in 1905 was intended to halt the immigration of Jewish refugees from the Russian Empire. We would like to mention a historical fact that is all too rarely heard: Edwin Samuel Montague He was the only British minister to oppose the Balfour Declaration and the Zionist plan in its entirety. He was the only member of Jewish descent David Lloyd George his cabinet, of which Arthur Balfour was a member—and who was only the third Jewish member of a British government in history— Edwin Samuel Montague, warned that the Zionist enterprise would entail the expulsion of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine and would reinforce in every country those tendencies that advocate ridding themselves of the Jews.

When, in 1917, he became acquainted with the text that would later take shape as the Balfour Declaration, Edwin Montague addressed a memorandum to the British government in which he stated openly: „I insist that my opinion be recorded, namely that the policy of His Majesty’s government is anti-Semitic and, consequently, serves the interests of anti-Semites throughout the world[iii]. Edwin Montague „He considered it unacceptable for the British government to officially recognize Zionism and allow Arthur Balfour to declare that Palestine was „as the national home of the Jewish people” must be established. I don’t know what consequences this will entail, but I assume it means that Muslims and Christians must make room for the Jews, and the latter will be given priority, and they will belong to Palestine just as the English belong to England and the French to France. And that the Turks and other Muslims living in Palestine will henceforth be regarded as foreigners, just as, everywhere else except Palestine, Jews will be regarded as foreigners.” He also added this prophetic remark: „”It may be that citizenship will also have to be linked to an examination of religious affiliation.”.