Comment by yoavm
2 days ago
Of course there could be, and Hertzel writes about it explicitly - the idea that Jews need a homeland because antisemitism makes it impossible for them to live within another people.
In regard to religion itself, like the other post said, he couldn't really care less and even advocated for Jews to convert to Christianity at a time, seeing it as another solution to the discrimination they're facing: "I see myself as an average modern Jew and I'm not afraid from the idea of a formal conversion to Christianity. I have a son, and I'd prefer converting today and not tomorrow so that his membership will start earlier and I can save him from the troubles and discrimination he'll face as a Jew".
Look, there's no way the coordinates this guy triangulated lined up with the religious site by chance. That would be similar to the odds that a flawed calculation of the age of the earth would turn out to be 6,000 years. If he had said anywhere else that argument might be right, but not of all places the temple mount, the one place in the world nobody would need any explanation for. If you're saying he was writing from a pragmatic standpoint, perhaps he argued that it would be convenient and more conducive to organizing power to follow along with what others believed: but that's still based on the religious thought.
Of course it did not happen by coincidence, but Hertzel himself was considering other places too. There were real discussions around the best location, and finally it was agreed that Mandatory Palestine is the place most Jews would unite around - due to history, religion, culture, existing population etc.
My point is that the idea that Jews need a homeland was prior to the idea of the exact location it should take place in. If you bundle history, culture, belief and a like into the word "religion", then sure, we can say that the later decision of the exact location was based on religion. For us non-religious Jews that sounds awkward: we feel connected to the place because of our culture, not because of our non-existing religious feelings - but that's just semantics.
I guess we have just been talking semantics. I am only saying that the cultural view came from the religious view originally. I don't think that is something many people would disagree about.
There are other groups that could claim the same: Romany/Gypsies would be a big one but no one seems to want to claim a North Indian homeland for them; Sikhs might be another.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but if there are other groups who are being discriminated against, and have a strong connection to a specific place on earth - be it Romany, Palestinians or whoever - I definitely wouldn't be the one objecting their right for self-determination. The way I studied Zionism as a child was clear: through our (Jews') right to a land we can understand the right to land of others.
Roma do have a supposed homeland in India and have been badly persecuted. There is an exceptionalism about Zionism. Many features can be found elsewhere. When I've seen Haredi in Israel, they look like Eastern Europeans to me in their mannerisms, dress (inappropriate for the heat) and even language. I personally think European Jews succeed better in the USA than Israel. Israel is under siege all the time. I have spent a few months in Israel. I left with a very different opinion.
"I don't believe in god but he promised me this land 3000 years ago" sums up Zionism pretty well, or "Jews aren't safe anywhere so let's create a state by wiping out and expelling the native population and make enemies of all our neighbors". It's such a laughably self-contradicting ideology
The effect you're describing is often created when people with very distinct views agree on one thing and argue in favor of it along conflicting axiomatic lines.
Except none of these statements are part of the Zionist agenda. You putting them in quotes does not make them a quote.
I already explained why your first "quote" is false: Hertzel didn't think Jews should move to Israel because it was promised to them.
The second one is also completely wrong: He never called for expelling the native population, and he actually advocated for close and good contacts with them and the surrounding countries.