What do you think?
Rate this book
Zionism
Zionism is an international political movement that was originally dedicated to the resettlement of Jewish people in the Promised Land, and is now synonymous with support for the modern state of Israel. This addition to the Short Histories of Big Ideas series looks at the controversial and topical notion of Zionism from a balanced viewpoint, concentrating on where it came from, how it accomplished its goals, and why it affected so many people.
230 pages, Paperback
First published December 3, 2008
6 people are currently reading
75 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 23, 2014
Engel provides a very readable and objective overview of Zionism from its 19th century origins through the establishment of the State of Israel. Although I am far from an expert, it appears to be balanced and fact-based, clearly identifying the wildly different and often changing objectives of the Zionists, the Arabs and the British.
From the Balfour Declaration on, Britain had repeatedly but ambiguously said it favored a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. In the end, faced with its own changing and declining interests, it would never implement that objective, mounting obstacle after obstacle against Jewish interests in Palestine.
The MacDonald White Paper (1939) finally retracted the idea of British support for Jewish autonomy and naively and perhaps cynically called for a single independent Palestinian state, with Jews and Arabs sharing governmental authority. It also imposed immigration quotas of 10,000 per year for 5 years, after which no further Jewish immigration would be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine acquiesced, which of course the British knew they never would. This policy, if it had been followed, would have left the Palestinian state overwhelmingly Arab.
The most poignant sentences in the book ... in 1945, when knowledge of the Holocaust was widespread among the Allied leadership, President Truman called upon Britain to rescind the MacDonald White Paper and admit 100,000 Holocaust survivors to Palestine immediately. Britain refused, fearing that Arab anger would impair vital British interests throughout the entire Middle East. Even in 1945, after 6 million deaths, the world - Truman and few others excepted - was still reluctant to help Jews. Was this, in Kissinger's later construction, simply "Realpolitik," or was it founded on the unmoved rock of Christian antisemitism, or both?
My novel-in-progress is not focused on Zionism, but the collision of Zionist goals and British intransigence during the 1930s must have had a devastating impact on the Jews of Poland, as they saw the walls collapsing in on them and having nowhere to go. I will have to investigate and show that impact as an element of my story.
From the Balfour Declaration on, Britain had repeatedly but ambiguously said it favored a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people. In the end, faced with its own changing and declining interests, it would never implement that objective, mounting obstacle after obstacle against Jewish interests in Palestine.
The MacDonald White Paper (1939) finally retracted the idea of British support for Jewish autonomy and naively and perhaps cynically called for a single independent Palestinian state, with Jews and Arabs sharing governmental authority. It also imposed immigration quotas of 10,000 per year for 5 years, after which no further Jewish immigration would be permitted unless the Arabs of Palestine acquiesced, which of course the British knew they never would. This policy, if it had been followed, would have left the Palestinian state overwhelmingly Arab.
The most poignant sentences in the book ... in 1945, when knowledge of the Holocaust was widespread among the Allied leadership, President Truman called upon Britain to rescind the MacDonald White Paper and admit 100,000 Holocaust survivors to Palestine immediately. Britain refused, fearing that Arab anger would impair vital British interests throughout the entire Middle East. Even in 1945, after 6 million deaths, the world - Truman and few others excepted - was still reluctant to help Jews. Was this, in Kissinger's later construction, simply "Realpolitik," or was it founded on the unmoved rock of Christian antisemitism, or both?
My novel-in-progress is not focused on Zionism, but the collision of Zionist goals and British intransigence during the 1930s must have had a devastating impact on the Jews of Poland, as they saw the walls collapsing in on them and having nowhere to go. I will have to investigate and show that impact as an element of my story.
December 17, 2023
This book is a decent overview of Zionism. It gives you the basic roots and evolution of the movement and background on the key figures that develop it along the way.
But there's something to be said about brief overviews and their lack of detail. I last read this book when I was 19 and what I know clearly now, from a historian's perspective, is that omission, language choice, and "high-level overview/summaries" play a massive role in how a historian can distort a concept to their own ends.
The book starts off strong, but something goes extremely wrong in and around chapter 4. I noticed increasing use of the passive voice, I noticed words like "revolt", "mobs", & "violence" being used to discuss Palestinian Arabs and words like "forced" and "defense" being used for Palestinian Jews (Israelis). I noticed that disturbing generalizations about Arabs were quickly followed up with "or so the Israelis thought" with no rebuttal to those thoughts or facts to push back against them (the most egregious being that Arabs in the region desired a second Holocaust). Engel puts a concerted effort into portraying the confusion and sadness Palestinian Jews felt when Arabs "enacted violence" while playing naive to the source of this anger after spending paragraphs describing Israeli settler expansion efforts.
I was most struck by the following passage:
"Three-fourths of the Arabs in question fled or were chased from areas designated for the Jewish state; several hundred thousand Arab residents of the additional regions Israel added in the course of repelling the invading armies became refugees as well…Israel's leaders were thus not sad at all to see so many Arabs leave its borders during the fighting in 1947-48; in fact, towards the end of the war, some military commanders, actively worked to push Arabs across the borders, with varying degrees of encouragement from different government branches." (138-139)
Now, it may not be clear, because Engel is not interested in outright naming it, but what he's describing is "The Nakba" otherwise known as, the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations in 1948.
Engel does it all: Passive voice with "were chased","encouragement" used to describe targeted & forced removal and destruction of a people and culture, and "varying degrees" to gloss over rampant SA, torture, and murder carried out by the military. This is a flagrant attempt at glossing over the horrifying reality of this forced and violent expulsion. It is not just bad history, it is also a shameful lie.
If you choose to read this book, be mindful to pair it with books that discuss the Palestinian perspective on these major events because it is largely glossed over, if not outright ignored here.
When I did my MA I remember one of my professors telling us something along the lines of, "when you study history you either become a progressive or a liar." For about 1/3 of this book, Engel does his job as a historian: stating the facts and leaving bias at the door; but for the other 2/3 of this book, due almost entirely to willful omission under the guise of "summary", well-documented historical events become too complex to unravel and dissect and Engel seemingly (deliberately) leaves his readers in the dark.
If I had written in my thesis that after various wars, during the Middle Passage, Africans found themselves on ships & in chains, and that once in the Americas they were encouraged to perform labor that Europeans were not sad to see them do (in some cases even encouraging them to do this labor), what would you call me?
Unless you were foolish, I can only hope you would call me a liar.
But there's something to be said about brief overviews and their lack of detail. I last read this book when I was 19 and what I know clearly now, from a historian's perspective, is that omission, language choice, and "high-level overview/summaries" play a massive role in how a historian can distort a concept to their own ends.
The book starts off strong, but something goes extremely wrong in and around chapter 4. I noticed increasing use of the passive voice, I noticed words like "revolt", "mobs", & "violence" being used to discuss Palestinian Arabs and words like "forced" and "defense" being used for Palestinian Jews (Israelis). I noticed that disturbing generalizations about Arabs were quickly followed up with "or so the Israelis thought" with no rebuttal to those thoughts or facts to push back against them (the most egregious being that Arabs in the region desired a second Holocaust). Engel puts a concerted effort into portraying the confusion and sadness Palestinian Jews felt when Arabs "enacted violence" while playing naive to the source of this anger after spending paragraphs describing Israeli settler expansion efforts.
I was most struck by the following passage:
"Three-fourths of the Arabs in question fled or were chased from areas designated for the Jewish state; several hundred thousand Arab residents of the additional regions Israel added in the course of repelling the invading armies became refugees as well…Israel's leaders were thus not sad at all to see so many Arabs leave its borders during the fighting in 1947-48; in fact, towards the end of the war, some military commanders, actively worked to push Arabs across the borders, with varying degrees of encouragement from different government branches." (138-139)
Now, it may not be clear, because Engel is not interested in outright naming it, but what he's describing is "The Nakba" otherwise known as, the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, along with the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations in 1948.
Engel does it all: Passive voice with "were chased","encouragement" used to describe targeted & forced removal and destruction of a people and culture, and "varying degrees" to gloss over rampant SA, torture, and murder carried out by the military. This is a flagrant attempt at glossing over the horrifying reality of this forced and violent expulsion. It is not just bad history, it is also a shameful lie.
If you choose to read this book, be mindful to pair it with books that discuss the Palestinian perspective on these major events because it is largely glossed over, if not outright ignored here.
When I did my MA I remember one of my professors telling us something along the lines of, "when you study history you either become a progressive or a liar." For about 1/3 of this book, Engel does his job as a historian: stating the facts and leaving bias at the door; but for the other 2/3 of this book, due almost entirely to willful omission under the guise of "summary", well-documented historical events become too complex to unravel and dissect and Engel seemingly (deliberately) leaves his readers in the dark.
If I had written in my thesis that after various wars, during the Middle Passage, Africans found themselves on ships & in chains, and that once in the Americas they were encouraged to perform labor that Europeans were not sad to see them do (in some cases even encouraging them to do this labor), what would you call me?
Unless you were foolish, I can only hope you would call me a liar.
October 20, 2022
Read for class.
I found this to be a very great overview of a very complicated issue. I enjoyed how Engel simply laid out the history of the Zionist ideology as well as, later, the history of the establishment of Israel without making an argument. It really allows you to draw your own conclusions based on the facts of the situation and doesn’t moralize.
I found this to be a very great overview of a very complicated issue. I enjoyed how Engel simply laid out the history of the Zionist ideology as well as, later, the history of the establishment of Israel without making an argument. It really allows you to draw your own conclusions based on the facts of the situation and doesn’t moralize.
April 29, 2024
This book felt like something I would read for a university class. It focuses on the origin, implementation, and evolution of Zionism as a concept. Although I found the big picture ideas interesting, some of the granularity with regard to individual contributions was excessive. Because I’m not writing a book report, I would have preferred a greater focus on Israel’s evolution as a state. Engel flirts with this at times but only as a tool to track the evolution of Zionism. Integrating a more traditional approach to the country’s history may detract from the broader theme but would ultimately leave the reader with a more comprehensive understanding of the primary output of Zionism.
June 25, 2016
It is a very illuminating book, reading about Zionism a term loaded with meaning and conspiracy theories in my culture was an adventure to me.
I knew that it was a very secular national movement in its beginning, how it was implemented and its conflicts.
At the end of this book I had a sense of sadness and heaviness as I saw this secular movement turning to be religious and not only acquiring but embracing the hate of others.
I really hope many could read this book specially Arabs like me.
I knew that it was a very secular national movement in its beginning, how it was implemented and its conflicts.
At the end of this book I had a sense of sadness and heaviness as I saw this secular movement turning to be religious and not only acquiring but embracing the hate of others.
I really hope many could read this book specially Arabs like me.
Read
July 30, 2011A nice, short summary of the history and theoretical underlyings of the Zionist movement. I never realized the divide that exists between the more secular socialist Zionist movement, and the religious Zionist movement.
January 7, 2016
I very good synopsis of Zionism for those who know nothing about it. Especially helpful are the suggestions for further reading at the end of each chapter.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews