Between ethnic and civic: the realistic Utopia of Zionism

Conforti, Yitzhak

doi:10.1080/13537121.2011.603521

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Israel self-consciously seeks to envision itself as a Western-style democracy, and therefore, it is rightfully held to a higher standard than other obviously non-democratic states. 10 For a good historical overview of this debate, see Conforti (2011). 11 For a presentation of this argument, see Berent (2010).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is anti‐Zionism morally legitimate?

Oxman

2017

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The claim that Zionism is fundamentally or intrinsically morally compromised is unfortunately more commonly articulated and expressed than it deserves to be. While there are certainly good reasons to be critical of Israeli governmental policy (both now and in the past), those who question the very right of a Jewish state to exist on land approximating the current territory of Israel without extrapolating this principle to other cases are being philosophically disingenuous. While I concede that it is perfectly reasonable to object to the creation and maintenance of a Jewish state on the basis of either its exclusionary character or its problematic history, I suggest that such arguments should equally apply to virtually every other nation‐state. Thus, while anti‐Zionism is not necessarily a morally illegitimate claim, unless its claims are paired with a more radical rejection of the nation‐state tout court, it should be considered as such.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

When is anti‐Zionism morally legitimate?

Oxman

2017

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relationship to ethnicity in Zionism is much less ambiguous. Although Zionism did not exclude a more civic dimension in its political programme (Conforti, 2011a), ethnicity remained a crucial criterion for belonging to the national group (Shimoni, 1995: 389–95) and almost every writer of the movement adopted an implicit or explicit ethnic definition of the nation. Even after the Zionist revolution, the nation's core remained the Jewish people, defined as an ethnic group, and the renewed criteria of language and territory did not replace the ethnic determinant of the national identity but were instead added to it.…”

Section: The Construction Of An Identitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Zionism and Québécois nationalism: An initial comparative analysis

Daniel

2021

Nations and Nationalism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on several studies on each of these movements and on primary sources, I claim that Zionism and Québécois nationalism have a unique set of similarities. The first part of this article focuses on the redefinition of national identity made by both movements—the end of a religious‐ethnic identity and a new focus on language and territory—and on its various consequences. In the second part, I compare Zionists' and Québécois nationalists' arguments for sovereignty, demonstrating their similarities, with a shared wish to become a majority, a common fear from assimilation, the same aspiration towards normality, and the same claim that national independence will bring with it a new era of progress. By doing so, I point to possible directions of more thorough comparative analyses bringing these two movements together.

show abstract

“…This position was formulated by leading Zionist figures such as Chaim Weizmann, David Ben Gurion, and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, despite the many differences of opinion among them. These leaders did not agree on the question of the desired borders for the Jewish state, but they did not argue over the principle that they should aspire to achieve a Jewish majority and to create a democratic Jewish state (Conforti 2011).…”

Section: From People To Land In the British Mandate Periodmentioning

confidence: 99%

Searching for a Homeland: The Territorial Dimension in the Zionist Movement and the Boundaries of Jewish Nationalism

Conforti

2014

Studies Ethnicity & National

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses the relationship between territorial borders and ethnic boundaries in the Zionist movement. Beginning with the Sixth Zionist Congress in 1903, the distinction between these two components of the Zionist movement rose to the forefront of the Zionist consciousness. The argument over the Uganda proposal revealed the differing preferences of political and practical Zionism. But this argument, which ended with the rejection of the Uganda plan in 1905, did not terminate the discussion of the relationship between ‘the people’ and ‘the land’. The aspiration of Zionism's central stream to establish a Jewish nation‐state in Palestine was challenged by political groups on the right and on the left, each of which emphasized either the ethnic or the territorial component. While Palestinian Zionism reinforced the territorial component during the 1920s and ’30s, the 1937 partition plan of the Peel Commission returned the issue of the relationship between the people and the land to the centre ring of political decision‐making. This article demonstrates that the attempt of the central stream of the Zionist movement to balance between the people and the land, between the ethnic and the territorial components, defined the boundaries of Zionism during the period discussed.

show abstract

Between ethnic and civic: the realistic Utopia of Zionism

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

When is anti‐Zionism morally legitimate?

When is anti‐Zionism morally legitimate?

Zionism and Québécois nationalism: An initial comparative analysis

Searching for a Homeland: The Territorial Dimension in the Zionist Movement and the Boundaries of Jewish Nationalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About