Zionism started a few decades before the Holocaust, but its roots were in the general nationalist spirit of the era. Jews in Eastern Europe had a special place in society, enjoying several privileges that made them hated to the non-Jewish population - and dependent on local rulers, who would occasionally withhold protection and let non-Jewish peasants blow of steam and conduct pogroms. It was an ugly divide-and-rule dynamic in a society where nobody had any rights.
But in the 19th century, a gradual process of secularization and enlightenment took many Jews out of their ghettos and shtetls, and brought about thoughts about possible futures. Most Jews wanted to integrate in society and fought for equal rights, often as socialists, either integrated in general socialist parties or in separate Jewish socialist parties. Others embraced the nationalist separatist ideology that would soon become known as Zionism, and many combined the two and wanted to create a Jewish colony in Palestine of Jewish workers and farmers, people of a type very different from the type of Jews that their ancestors had been. Powerful, muscular, dominant. You could argue that this was due to trauma, but there is no reason to assume that they were more traumatized than Jews who chose different futures. Or than non-Jews, for that matter. Life in Eastern Europe had not been easy on anyone.
It was these Jews who created, dominated, and led the Zionist colonies in Palestine, but in the 1930s, many Jews from Western Europe, in particular from Germany, arrived as refugees. They were not ideology-driven. Around that time, Zionism started to reconceptualize itself as a safe haven for persecuted Jews, which is not to say that these refugees were well absorbed. They were despised as weak, pale, urban, and bourgeois.
I believe that it was in 1942 when a woman managed to escape from Eastern Europe and made it to Palestine, where she spoke at a meeting with the colony's leaders about what was happening to the Jews in what would soon be known as the Holocaust. She spoke in Yiddish, the language of the Jews in Eastern Europe, where most of the colony's leaders originated from, but they pretended not to understand her, and Ben Gurion famously mocked her for not speaking to them in Hebrew.
In the meantime, a general Jewish boycott and divestment movement against Nazi Germany was underway, but the Zionist leadership would have none of that, and instead entered into the so-called "transfer" agreement with the Nazis, who agreed to release part of the German-Jewish wealth to the Zionist leadership in return for purchases of German industrial output. This broke the momentum of the boycott, which faltered. When Holocaust survivors eventually made it to Palestine, they were met with great contempt as people who had allowed themselves be led like sheep to the slaughterhouse, instead of standing up for themselves. needless to say that they were never given any share in the wealth that was "transferred" from the Nazis to the Zionists, and most of them lived out their lives in poverty.
I really don't think that Zionism came out of trauma. Which is not to say, of course, that Israelis today are not extremely traumatized by what their recent history has inflicted on them, and by how they are taught to see this trauma as an extension of an age-old persecution. Not even Zionists themselves have always seen it that way.
It's hard for me to imagine a people subscribing to any ideology that dehumanizes another if it doesn't somehow prey upon a person's fear, insecurity, or trauma. Of course, I also recognize the truth of what you say that many Jews did not become zionists even while being equally traumatized.
Perhaps my perspective is colored by my professional work. As the adage says, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail."
My question, then, is what is it that makes one person vulnerable to an ideology that dehumanizes others whereas others turn away from it? My working theory has been that people who carry trauma are more vulnerable to such notions because they will sacrifice much more on the altar of safety.
I ask this because I would love to find a way to inoculate folks so they're less likely to be captured by destructive ideologies. I wonder your thoughts on this.
I don't understand how and why you are connecting trauma to ideology, let alone why you see a causal link between them. It may indeed by a hammer-tool-problem-nail thing.
I see the ideology in its historical context: the intellectual climate of the 19th century, and the geopolitical situation that made certain forms of colonization and exploitation possible.
Ideologies appear rational to the people who adhered to it. People convince themselves of all kind of things, and then believe them. And ideologies cause people to ignore inconvenient facts - like: the existence of a population in a supposedly empty land.
Traumas do other things - you're the expert.
What I do know is that Zionism is not consciously based on trauma, nor even subconsciously, as far as I can see. It has always had the greatest contempt for traumatized people, and insisted that they "get over it" - except when the trauma could be harnessed to its purposes. It has not hesitated too instill traumas on Palestinians AND Jews for its purposes: There is the Nakba, but also the uprooting of deeply rooted Jewish communities, in particular in the Middle East, in order to transport them to Palestine. And there is the traumatization of young Israelis into a mindset that the while world hates them, and always will.
Trauma is a tool for Zionism. Without it, it would have faltered already.
Thank you for sharing this. The perspective about the trauma of genocidal European settlers in the Americas was not something that had occurred to me. That makes the trauma of the Jewish settlers in Palestine less unique.
But there is an important difference: European Jews developed a nationalist colonial ideology in the context of other European nationalist ideologies. They were not driven by trauma. In fact, they felt nothing but contempt for Holocaust victims, and considered them "losers". The weaponization of trauma started only a few decades later, when the original ideology no longer served as a justification of what Israel was inflicting on the indigenous population.
About the fundraiser: one of the recurring motifs in this Zionist chapter of the history of Palestine is that Palestinians are constantly asked to empathize with Israelis, reassure them that they have no intent to take revenge, that they are not inherently violent and that they're willing to condemn violent responses even when they themselves are violently oppressed and subjected to the most draconian policies, that they don't resent the Israelis as such but only the Israeli politicians, that of course they'll love to coexist with Israelis, that they won't insist on being treated like equal citizens all of a sudden but that they will be happy to postpone some of their rights, that they will suspend their right of self-determination, that they're willing to throw some of their fellow Palestinians under the bus in order to make Israelis more comfortable, etc. etc. The organization that this fundraiser is raising funds for is exactly the type of organization that asks such things of Palestinians. We cannot condemn the Palestinians who go along with that and believe that this will further their cause, but we ourselves should not get coopted. We have the privilege to refuse.
I didn't know that about the original Zionists were contemptuous of Holocaust survivors. That's awful. Though I'd still suggest that the original zionists were traumatized due to the persecution of Jews even before the holocaust.
And yes, I agree with you about the fundraiser. I'm becoming more and more sensitive to this dynamic. Thank you for sharing. As well as encouraging me to do the research that inspired this very article.
Zionism started a few decades before the Holocaust, but its roots were in the general nationalist spirit of the era. Jews in Eastern Europe had a special place in society, enjoying several privileges that made them hated to the non-Jewish population - and dependent on local rulers, who would occasionally withhold protection and let non-Jewish peasants blow of steam and conduct pogroms. It was an ugly divide-and-rule dynamic in a society where nobody had any rights.
But in the 19th century, a gradual process of secularization and enlightenment took many Jews out of their ghettos and shtetls, and brought about thoughts about possible futures. Most Jews wanted to integrate in society and fought for equal rights, often as socialists, either integrated in general socialist parties or in separate Jewish socialist parties. Others embraced the nationalist separatist ideology that would soon become known as Zionism, and many combined the two and wanted to create a Jewish colony in Palestine of Jewish workers and farmers, people of a type very different from the type of Jews that their ancestors had been. Powerful, muscular, dominant. You could argue that this was due to trauma, but there is no reason to assume that they were more traumatized than Jews who chose different futures. Or than non-Jews, for that matter. Life in Eastern Europe had not been easy on anyone.
It was these Jews who created, dominated, and led the Zionist colonies in Palestine, but in the 1930s, many Jews from Western Europe, in particular from Germany, arrived as refugees. They were not ideology-driven. Around that time, Zionism started to reconceptualize itself as a safe haven for persecuted Jews, which is not to say that these refugees were well absorbed. They were despised as weak, pale, urban, and bourgeois.
I believe that it was in 1942 when a woman managed to escape from Eastern Europe and made it to Palestine, where she spoke at a meeting with the colony's leaders about what was happening to the Jews in what would soon be known as the Holocaust. She spoke in Yiddish, the language of the Jews in Eastern Europe, where most of the colony's leaders originated from, but they pretended not to understand her, and Ben Gurion famously mocked her for not speaking to them in Hebrew.
In the meantime, a general Jewish boycott and divestment movement against Nazi Germany was underway, but the Zionist leadership would have none of that, and instead entered into the so-called "transfer" agreement with the Nazis, who agreed to release part of the German-Jewish wealth to the Zionist leadership in return for purchases of German industrial output. This broke the momentum of the boycott, which faltered. When Holocaust survivors eventually made it to Palestine, they were met with great contempt as people who had allowed themselves be led like sheep to the slaughterhouse, instead of standing up for themselves. needless to say that they were never given any share in the wealth that was "transferred" from the Nazis to the Zionists, and most of them lived out their lives in poverty.
I really don't think that Zionism came out of trauma. Which is not to say, of course, that Israelis today are not extremely traumatized by what their recent history has inflicted on them, and by how they are taught to see this trauma as an extension of an age-old persecution. Not even Zionists themselves have always seen it that way.
This is very educational. And terrible.
It's hard for me to imagine a people subscribing to any ideology that dehumanizes another if it doesn't somehow prey upon a person's fear, insecurity, or trauma. Of course, I also recognize the truth of what you say that many Jews did not become zionists even while being equally traumatized.
Perhaps my perspective is colored by my professional work. As the adage says, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail."
My question, then, is what is it that makes one person vulnerable to an ideology that dehumanizes others whereas others turn away from it? My working theory has been that people who carry trauma are more vulnerable to such notions because they will sacrifice much more on the altar of safety.
I ask this because I would love to find a way to inoculate folks so they're less likely to be captured by destructive ideologies. I wonder your thoughts on this.
I don't understand how and why you are connecting trauma to ideology, let alone why you see a causal link between them. It may indeed by a hammer-tool-problem-nail thing.
I see the ideology in its historical context: the intellectual climate of the 19th century, and the geopolitical situation that made certain forms of colonization and exploitation possible.
Ideologies appear rational to the people who adhered to it. People convince themselves of all kind of things, and then believe them. And ideologies cause people to ignore inconvenient facts - like: the existence of a population in a supposedly empty land.
Traumas do other things - you're the expert.
What I do know is that Zionism is not consciously based on trauma, nor even subconsciously, as far as I can see. It has always had the greatest contempt for traumatized people, and insisted that they "get over it" - except when the trauma could be harnessed to its purposes. It has not hesitated too instill traumas on Palestinians AND Jews for its purposes: There is the Nakba, but also the uprooting of deeply rooted Jewish communities, in particular in the Middle East, in order to transport them to Palestine. And there is the traumatization of young Israelis into a mindset that the while world hates them, and always will.
Trauma is a tool for Zionism. Without it, it would have faltered already.
Hey Tocayo,
Thank you for sharing this. The perspective about the trauma of genocidal European settlers in the Americas was not something that had occurred to me. That makes the trauma of the Jewish settlers in Palestine less unique.
But there is an important difference: European Jews developed a nationalist colonial ideology in the context of other European nationalist ideologies. They were not driven by trauma. In fact, they felt nothing but contempt for Holocaust victims, and considered them "losers". The weaponization of trauma started only a few decades later, when the original ideology no longer served as a justification of what Israel was inflicting on the indigenous population.
About the fundraiser: one of the recurring motifs in this Zionist chapter of the history of Palestine is that Palestinians are constantly asked to empathize with Israelis, reassure them that they have no intent to take revenge, that they are not inherently violent and that they're willing to condemn violent responses even when they themselves are violently oppressed and subjected to the most draconian policies, that they don't resent the Israelis as such but only the Israeli politicians, that of course they'll love to coexist with Israelis, that they won't insist on being treated like equal citizens all of a sudden but that they will be happy to postpone some of their rights, that they will suspend their right of self-determination, that they're willing to throw some of their fellow Palestinians under the bus in order to make Israelis more comfortable, etc. etc. The organization that this fundraiser is raising funds for is exactly the type of organization that asks such things of Palestinians. We cannot condemn the Palestinians who go along with that and believe that this will further their cause, but we ourselves should not get coopted. We have the privilege to refuse.
I didn't know that about the original Zionists were contemptuous of Holocaust survivors. That's awful. Though I'd still suggest that the original zionists were traumatized due to the persecution of Jews even before the holocaust.
And yes, I agree with you about the fundraiser. I'm becoming more and more sensitive to this dynamic. Thank you for sharing. As well as encouraging me to do the research that inspired this very article.
Thank you, Tocayo!