Professor EXPOSES Secret Origins Of The Israel Project | Prof. Yakov Rabkin

## How Early Zionists Justified Their Ideology The conversation reframes Zionism not as a natural outgrowth of Jewish history but as a political project imported from European intellectual currents. Participants argued that what became Zionism in the late nineteenth century was shaped less by millennia of Jewish religious attachment to the land and more by modern European ideas about nationhood. Converts of the modern age—Jews acculturated to European civilization and alienated from traditional religion—found in national restoration a secular solution to the precariousness of Jewish life in Europe. In this telling, the transformation of “Israel” from a religious community bound by Torah to a political nationality was deliberate: Zionism recast belonging around territory and ethnicity rather than ritual and law. A striking element raised in the discussion is the Protestant origin story of the return-to-the-land idea. The literalist turn in Protestant Bible reading, especially in nineteenth‑century England, produced a strand of thought that saw the regathering of Jews in Palestine as unfolding biblical prophecy—and even as a religious tool to hasten the Second Coming. That Christian enthusiasm for Jewish settlement, distinct from Jewish theological traditions, provided a cultural and political impetus that Zionists later adapted. Thus the early ideological justification for Zionism was a hybrid: European ethno-nationalist frameworks grafted onto biblical motifs, later secularised by Jewish intellectuals seeking a political remedy to antisemitism and social marginalization. Finally, the participants distinguished between inclusive civic nationalism and the ethnic nationalism many early Zionists adopted. Whereas some modern nations defined citizenship by civic bonds, Zionism often modeled itself after the ethnic nationalisms of Eastern Europe, emphasizing lineage and collective uniqueness. That choice had profound consequences for the movement’s aims and methods and for how it was received by Jews who had recently become citizens of European states. ## The Role of Violence & Political Terrorism in Zionism The exchange foregrounded violence as an integral, if contested, thread in Zionist history. Two vectors were highlighted: the structural logic of colonial settlement and the personal histories of activists who brought practices of political violence with them. Colonial settlement, by nature, creates conflict where newcomers seek land and institutions in territories already inhabited. That dynamic has predictable outcomes—friction, dispossession, and ultimately violent confrontation. A second factor was the formative biography of many early Jewish settlers: veterans of revolutionary movements in the Russian Empire. Participants referenced how experience in underground organizations—some of which embraced political terrorism—was transferred to Mandate Palestine. Those techniques, born in anti‑autocratic struggles in Europe, were repurposed to confront local resistance and rival political actors. The conversation cited concrete episodes, including assassinations aimed at critics of Zionism, to illustrate how political murder was not merely an accidental byproduct but, at times, an option chosen and celebrated by factions within the movement. The debate also emphasized that violence was not an inevitable expression of Jewish law or tradition. On the contrary, Jewish normative texts and communal practices tended to discourage violent nation-building. The adoption of force, then, was a modern departure—one that alienated many Jews and placed Zionism squarely within the patterns of colonial modernity rather than religious continuity. ## Were There Non-Violent Zionist Factions? Contrary to monolithic portrayals, the conversation acknowledged a spectrum of Zionist views, including nonviolent and accommodationist currents. German Jews and other European migrants, especially those who fled Nazism, often promoted integrationist and cooperative schemes. Movements such as Brit Shalom and the Alliance of Peace argued for shared political arrangements and opposed the project of separate national development that would segregate Jews and Arabs economically and politically. These groups, however, were sidelined in the crucible of settlement politics. The institutions and militias that eventually shaped state structures were dominated by activists with backgrounds in revolutionary struggle and a willingness to deploy force. In an environment where land, labor, and political control were contested, the factions that preferred coexistence lacked the organizational heft or the military readiness to set the dominant agenda. That result suggests that the trajectory toward statehood and exclusionary policies was not inevitable; it was the outcome of political choices and the ascendancy of particular networks. Still, the existence of nonviolent Zionist factions complicates simple narratives. Their presence shows that from its inception Zionism contained competing visions—one that sought to reconcile Jewish aspirations with the rights and presence of existing communities, and another that pursued a separate national project even at the cost of confrontation. ## How Zionism Uprooted Middle Eastern Jewish Communities A less commonly discussed theme in the conversation was the displacement of long‑established Jewish communities across the Middle East. Far from being a monolithic return to an ancestral homeland, the Zionist movement drew Jews from diverse geographies—North Africa, Iraq, Iran, Yemen—toward a polity being constructed in Palestine. That migration disrupted centuries-old diasporic lives, eroding local customs, liturgies, and communal bonds that had evolved in Muslim-majority societies. The uprooting carried both voluntary and coercive elements. Some communities were persuaded or pushed by political and economic pressures to migrate. Others were enticed by the nationalist promise of belonging and protection within a Jewish state. Yet the homogenizing effect of this movement—the replacement of multiple Judeo‑linguistic identities with a singular national narrative—amounted to a cultural loss as profound as any physical displacement. The conversation suggested that Zionism’s success in pulling these communities into its orbit also made it easier to present Jewish history as culminating inevitably in a territorial state, obscuring the plurality of Jewish experiences that had existed for centuries. This dynamic had further consequences in the politics of the region: as indigenous Jewish cultures dissolved into a state-building project, the complexity of Jewish identity vis‑à‑vis Arab and Muslim neighbors was flattened, feeding into narratives that legitimized the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs as necessary or even restorative. ## The Iranian Jewish Community & Accusations of "Stockholm Syndrome" The conversation turned sharply to the Iranian Jewish community as a case study in the pitfalls of equating Jewish solidarity with unconditional support for Zionism. Critics of mainstream Zionist narratives sometimes label the enduring loyalty of some Middle Eastern Jewish communities to their host societies as “Stockholm syndrome,” an inflammatory term suggesting irrational attachment to one’s captors. Participants rejected such reductionism, instead pointing to the historical rootedness of Jews in places like Iran—they were citizens long before modern Zionist agitation—and to the complex loyalties that arise from centuries of coexistence. What the conversation underscored is the ethical and political mismatch in treating non‑European Jewish communities as natural recruits for Zionist projects. Many Iranian Jews—like Jews in Baghdad or Cairo—had deep ties to local cultures, languages, and polities. To sever those ties in the name of national restoration was often traumatic and frequently unnecessary. Moreover, the branding of local Jewish identities as treache

Professor EXPOSES Secret Origins Of The Israel Project Is Zionism a Jewish movement, or is it a form of European ethnic nationalism transplanted to Palestine? What if the idea of gathering Jews in the Holy Land was originally a Protestant Christian concept? We dive into these provocative questions, challenging everything you thought you knew about this ideology. To help us understand this, today I’m talking to Dr. Yakov Rabkin, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Montreal. His publications include over 300 articles and several monographs and edited volumes. His newest work is a short but highly fascinating account about “Israel in Palestine: Jewish Rejection of Zionism”. Together, we explore the deep-seated Jewish opposition to Zionism, tracing its violent underpinnings back to Russian revolutionary traditions. We'll uncover the surprising alliances between Zionists and anti-Semites, discuss how it uprooted ancient Jewish communities, and examine why this colonial project continues to receive unwavering Western support today. Links: Prof. Rabkin's latest book: https://israelpalestinebook. com/ Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop.fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Preview & Introduction 00:01: 24 Distinguishing Zionism, Judaism & Israel 00:04:48 The Protestant Christian Origins of Zionism 00: 09:09 Why Zionism is an "Enemy of the Jewish Nation" 00:14:08 The Jewish Cabinet Member Who Opposed the Balfour Declaration 00:15:32 How Early Zionists Justified Their Ideology 00:18:48 The Role of Violence & Political Terrorism in Zionism 00:24:44 Were There Non-Violent Zionist Factions? 00:28:52 How Zionism Uprooted Middle Eastern Jewish Communities 00:34:43 The Iranian Jewish Community & Accusations of "Stockholm Syndrome" 00:38:56 The Equating of Zionism with Judaism 00:44:04 The Pillars of Zionism's Success 00:55:06 Why Israel Influences Western Ruling Classes 01: 00:12 Where to Find Yakov Rabkin's Work #Yakov Rabkin It's important to remember that Zionism is a European movement. It's a form of European ethnic nationalism from places like Poland and Lithuania that was transferred to Palestine. Very often, it's exclusionary nationalism—because you can have inclusive nationalism, like in France, where you become a citoyen and that's enough. But there's also ethnic nationalism, which today is very much in evidence in many countries in Europe—in Poland, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, and so on. So this was transferred into Palestine, and that became the ideological basis of Zionism. #Pascal Hello, everybody. This is Pascal Lottaz from Neutrality Studies, and today I'm talking to Dr. Yakov Rabkin, professor emeritus of history at the University of Montreal. His publications include over 300 -- 1 of 16 -- articles and several monographs and edited volumes. His newest work is a short but highly fascinating account titled *Israel in Palestine: Jewish Rejection of Zionism*. This fascinating work is what we want to discuss today. So, Professor Rabkin, welcome. #Yakov Rabkin Thank you. #Pascal Thanks very much for taking the time, because you've written this fantastic book, which I think is really illuminating. Maybe let's start with this very important conceptual distinction—what is Zionism, what is Judaism, and what is Israel as a concept: the modern Israel and the ancient Israel of the Bible. Could you talk about that? #Yakov Rabkin Right. Well, Judaism is a religion. It was centered on the Temple in Jerusalem. Then, about 2,000 years ago, that religion became, so to speak, portable, as Jews around the Mediterranean first, and later around the world, practiced a religion that is based essentially on the books. Until the mid-20th century, Judaism was considered one of the three monotheistic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. And just like in Islam there is a community of the faithful, the *Ummah*, that’s how the term *Am Yisrael*—the people of Israel—was conceived. People who are loyal to the Torah, to the divine message given on Mount Sinai, and those who practice it—these are Jews. In fact, one can become a Jew by converting to Judaism. And Israel, traditionally, is meant as a group of people faithful to those commandments in the Torah. Now, when the State of Israel was created in 1948, the word “Israel” became associated in many minds— most, I think—with the modern state, which is a very different thing. How did this happen? It happened thanks to Zionism. Zionism is a political movement; it became Jewish at the end of the 19th century. Originally, the idea of gathering Hebrews in the Holy Land was a Christian Protestant idea. It started with some marginal groups and then spread to more mainstream ones, particularly in 19th‑century England—not only England, but mainly there. Eventually, by the end of the 19th century, some Jews—mostly those alienated from religion and acculturated to European civilization—decided they would create a state for the Jews in Palestine. We can talk later about how this happened. So, Zionism is a political movement. Some Jews enthusiastically embraced it, but when Zionism first emerged, the vast majority of Jews rejected it. #Pascal -- 2 of 16 -- I mean, it's fascinating that you're saying Zionism actually originated with Protestant Christians. So do we find writings from Protestant Christians saying things like, “We need to gather the Jews in Palestine”? I mean, why would that be? Why isn’t this even originally a Jewish idea, actually, to do that? #Yakov Rabkin Well, this has to do with the history of Protestantism and the translation of the Bible into vernacular languages. Traditionally, the Christian Church—the Catholic Church—interpreted the Bible. It didn’t really encourage reading the Bible directly, but it encouraged interpretations of it. Now, the Jewish idea of the relationship with the Holy Land—or, to be more specific, in Hebrew, the “land of holiness,” not “the Holy Land”—is different. The relationship is conditional. You can open Genesis, the Bible, the Pentateuch, and see that the promise of that land is a divine promise given on certain conditions: one has to obey the commandments and live properly. Otherwise, you will be exiled from the land. There’s a very strong expression—the land will “vomit you out” if you don’t behave. That’s the message in the Pentateuch and in the prophets as well. And when Protestantism came around and reading the Bible became common, they gave up, so to speak, interpretation and tradition. They read it directly and interpreted it literally. In Judaism, literal interpretation is not favored at all. And very often—well, I can give you one example. You may have heard that Jews are not supposed to mix dairy and meat products in the same meal. Now, where does that come from? It comes from one biblical verse that says, “Do not cook a kid in the milk of its mother.” Just one kid and its mother. And it was expanded into the whole idea of separating dairy and meat. So that’s just one example of how things are interpreted and become part of the tradition. The Protestants read biblical prophecies of return to the Holy Land. And some of them developed the idea that by gathering the Hebrews into the Holy Land, you could speed up the Second Coming of Christ. That was really the motivation. Today, Christian Zionists—as we call them—are very numerous. There are millions and millions of people, according to Pastor Hagee in the United States, who was one of the activists. He said at one point that there were more than 50 million Christian Zionists in the U.S. Just for comparison, there are about 15 million Jews in the world. So there’s quite a difference between Christian Zionists and Jewish Zionists. That’s why Christian Zionism is so strong today—because it’s based on the literal interpretation of the Bible, plus some other things we can discuss later. #Pascal Yeah, and the problem, of course—as we all watching this program probably understand—is that you’ re gathering an entire group of people who used to live in completely different parts of the world, not just in Europe but also in other countries in the Middle East and so on, and you put them there, displacing the people who were already there. And in your book, you actually quote, I think, a rabbi named Yaakov Zur, who says, “Zionism is the most terrible enemy that has ever arisen to the Jewish -- 3 of 16 -- nation. Zionism kills the nation and then elevates the corpse to the throne.” Can you explain this quote by Yaakov Zur? #Yakov Rabkin Well, the idea of gathering the Hebrews by political means—let alone military means—is totally alien to the Jewish tradition. In Jewish tradition, the relationship with the Holy Land is a very normative one. In other words, there was a French Jewish philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas, and he, as many French people do, made a pun: *Ce n'est pas une terre promise, c'est une terre permise.* So, it’s not a promised land, it’s a permitted land. In French it sounds better—and indeed, it’s a permitted land, permitted under certain conditions. To prevent the temptation of returning by political or military means, the Talmud—which is the normative code of discussions redacted between the 5th and 6th centuries—actually lists three oaths that should prevent Jews from returning to the Holy Land before the coming of the Messiah and all that. So when Zionism emerged, I repeat, among people who were very far from the Jewish tradition, most Jews rejected it. And they rejected it for three reasons. One was theological, if you like—that one is not supposed to do it according to normative Jewish texts. And moreover, converting a nation or a group defined by loyalty to divine commandments into a regular nationality was something that religious Jews obviously didn’t appreciate. So that’s why the quote you gave says “an enemy of the Jewish nation,” so to speak. Again, the word *nation* is problematic here because we understand it in the modern sense, but it’s a biblical term that meant something very different. It referred to a community of the faithful. The second reason for rejecting Zionism among Jews was that many Jews in 19th‑century Europe—and we’re talking about a European phenomenon, since Zionism is entirely European—were adjusting to new conditions after emancipation. They had received civil rights from Napoleon, and afterward they became citizens of their countries: in France, and later, when Germany was unified, in Germany. The last thing they wanted was to be told that they belonged to some different nation. So they heard the Zionist message as a variation of an anti‑Semitic message: “You don’t belong here—go to Palestine.” And indeed, many anti‑Semites felt that way, including Christian Zionists in Britain. Just to give you one example, most people have heard about the Balfour Declaration—the 1917 declaration that promised the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. No one knows exactly what it was meant to say, which is a typical British diplomatic approach. And Balfour, before he became foreign minister, was instrumental in preventing Russian Jews from immigrating to Britain. So one goes hand in hand with the other. And indeed, anti‑Semites were often very sympathetic to Zionism. #Pascal -- 4 of 16 -- In your book—or maybe it was in the talk I saw with Jeffrey Sachs—you mentioned that in the Balfour Declaration, the one cabinet member in Britain who voted against it was the only Jew in the cabinet. Could you share that anecdote as well? #Yakov Rabkin Well, of course, it was Mr. Montagu, who was the only Jewish member of the British government. He published a declaration against Zionism, accusing the British government of anti‑Semitism because they were pro‑Zionist. But there was a third group I’d like to mention—a third reason for opposing Zionism. These were quite a few socialists, communists, and left‑wing groups who saw Zionism as a distraction