When Herzl envisioned a Jewish state in Palestine, his vision was shaped through rose-tinted lenses. He imagined a refuge where Jews could live without fear under a political system based on equality for all. Herzl’s vision, at its core, was rooted in idealism, grounded in hope and persistence. His public stance on the Palestinians was that he encouraged jews to live alongside them. In a response to a letter from Yussef Ziah el Khaldi, he affirmed, “But who would want to expel them? Their well-being and individual prosperity will increase as we bring in our own.” His view was simple: not only was his ideology guided by a commitment not to displace the indigenous Arab populations, but also to assure them an increased quality of life.  

When the State of Israel was established in 1948, Zionism ceased to exist solely as an aspiration for the Jewish people. It became a state ideology that required maintaining demographic stability, security, and sovereignty. In the context of the 1948 Arab Israeli-War, political realities overrode the idealism that defined Herzl’s vision. 

Although real security threats existed on the ground during the defining war of Israel’s creation, the expulsion of around 800,000 Palestinians (The Nakba), meticulously planned out by militia groups, cannot be justified as necessary for state-building, nor can it be seen as part of Herzl’s vision expressed through public statements.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence guaranteed all citizens equal rights. However, as Israeli historian Omer Bartov notes in Israel: What Went Wrong, this promise was never fully embedded within a constitutional framework, leaving a division between ideals and true political reality. 

The Zionism that exists today is not identical to that of Theodor Herzl and the religious hopeful vision of  “Next year in Jerusalem.” Zionism as a state ideology has shaped Israel’s political structure as an ethnocracy. Although all citizens formally possess equal rights, de facto discrimination exists in various forms across institutions and Israeli society. The Jewish National Fund, which has historical ties to the government of Israel, has played a role in restricting access to land for non-jews. Similarly, the education system reflects broader discrimination where Jewish institutions have better quality and quantity of resources. 

Outside of the 1949 borders of Israel, in the West Bank, many legal scholars have characterized Israel’s policies as apartheid. The differing legal systems of Israeli settlers living in the West Bank operate with almost total impunity, while Palestinian citizens are often arrested arbitrarily under military law. Different roads, rights, and freedoms all contribute to what legal scholars define as apartheid. 

In the Gaza Strip, a policy of blockade, military operations, and Israeli dominance has exposed severe consequences of Israel’s political regime. Zionism, reshaped by far-right ideology(Kahanism), in its twenty-first century practice, has illustrated to the world Israel’s divergence from liberal democratic principles. 

Zionism is what the eyes of the public observe on the news as they watch footage of Gaza’s tragic humanitarian crisis. 

This can’t and will never be my Zionism. 

 If Israel’s regime continues down its path of extremism, it risks supplanting itself as a pariah nation in the eyes of the international community. I reject the current manifestation of Zionism because its political reality on the ground no longer reflects the original promise of refuge and progressive values that I once understood.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)