‘A publicly recognized, legally secured homeland’
There was something new, valuable and constructive in the attitude of early Zionists regarding the future. At present, it seems to be lost.
From the beginning, they understood that the legitimacy of establishing the Jewish national homeland in Palestine was challenging and provocative. The opening sentence of the program endorsed at the Zionist Organization’s founding conference in Basel, Switzerland in 1897 forthrightly stated its goal: “Zionism seeks to secure for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine [emphasis mine].”
The delegates were aware that there were reporters present and were concerned about the effect of making their intentions explicit. They deliberated on whether to make this goal public. Some thought it would be better to proceed without making the ultimate objective manifest, and that steady and persistent practical work in organizing settlement and building an organization would achieve the desired result.
Most argued that Zionism should forthrightly address the issue of legitimacy. They mistrusted and were reluctant to rely on the goodwill of a patron, however enlightened and sympathetic. This majority opinion finally won out. The decision overtly to promote the establishment of a Jewish entity in Palestine was unanimous. The key German word, öffentlich, was added to the initial draft. “Openly” became “publicly” in the English translation.
This debate was settled at the 1897 Congress and for many decades thereafter. The Zionists had a good case, and they made it successfully. It was based on logic rooted in modern secular ideas about justice and practicality. When this position was threatened by appeals to exclusively secular or religious positions, the majority held. In 1937, supporters of an insular, maximalist position for the Zionist movement submitted to the majority in a narrow vote over Britain’s plan for partition (Peel Commission). Most accepted the British position that “half a loaf is better than none.” Again in 1947/8, objections were overcome, and the majority accepted the UN decision for partition.
Nearly a decade later, after a victory in the Suez-Sinai campaign, Ben-Gurion reluctantly submitted to a United States diktat that Israel withdraw to its recognized borders. In another decade, after the 1967 June War, it was the prospect of peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994) that brought Israel back to the pre-war borders on those fronts. Egypt accepted the return of the Sinai Peninsula, leaving the Gaza Strip in Israeli hands. Land for peace and public recognition were widely accepted as a necessary path forward.
Arik Sharon continued that process with “disengagement” from Gaza in 2005. Jordan was willing to relent on its long border at the Jordan River and leave the disposition of the West Bank of the Jordan River and Jerusalem to future negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. The Abraham Accords of 2020 suggested that even wider acceptance of Israel’s legitimacy was possible. By then, Israel had established relations with more than 160 nations. It appeared that the optimists of 1897 were correct.
And yet, the violent rejectionism of the coordinated attacks on Israeli citizens and settlements initiated on October 7, 2023, and Israel’s response, have reopened the debate. After more than a century of success, Zionism’s historic position is now being debated openly.
We are at a historic crossroads, and we must once again be practical and realistic. Our actions have momentous consequences. Self-protection is justifiable and necessary. Flaunting national desires and advancing exclusive rights is an ill-considered and perilous course for a small and still vulnerable people. More than a century of experience has demonstrated that strength and wisdom, together with concern for the good opinions and rights of others, are the way to the publicly recognized, legally secured homeland Jews have long sought.
