Recent discussions and debates lately have claimed that Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are two sides of a coin, with much in common between the two movements. The people making this argument claim that both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are national movements that seek self-determination for their people. While at face value this argument seems to have merit, the two couldn’t be more different.
Modern political Zionism started in the early 1800s and came into its own in the late 1800s as Theodor Herzl, a journalist and activist, began earnest efforts to achieve the goal of Zionism—the establishment of a modern State of Israel in the Land of Israel. Herzl traveled the world trying to gain support from Jewish and non-Jewish leaders for the establishment of a Jewish state. He was primarily driven by rising antisemitism in Europe and knew that the Jews needed a state with open doors that could provide refuge for Jewish escapees or evictees. Herzl also knew that only a Jewish state could be relied upon to provide that refuge for the 10 million Jews that would need it.
Zionism, however, didn’t just grow out of a need for refuge from antisemitic persecution. The Zionist movement maintained that the Jewish people have a religious, historic, legal and moral right to settle and govern the Land of Israel, the historic homeland of the Jewish people, as their own state. As the movement gained strength, support and popularity in the early 1900s, hundreds of thousands of Jews streamed into British-mandatory Palestine to begin establishing the infrastructure of a new state. The United Nations voted in 1947 to establish a Jewish state in the Land of Israel; in 1948, the Jewish people declared their independence in their own State of Israel.
The Palestinian national movement doesn’t share the same rich history of ideology and activism as Zionism. Palestinians never governed the land they claim to be their homeland. They aren’t indigenous to the land. They can’t point to a wellspring of advocacy or leaders who have led a Palestinian nationalist movement that predates Zionism.
There are two people sometimes attributed with founding Palestinian nationalism. The first was the mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini, who was well known for partnering with Hitler during the Holocaust and who was a supporter of the Arab Kingdom of Syria’s rule over Palestine. He only began advocating for Palestinian nationalism as a response to Zionism. The second “founder” was PLO leader Yasser Arafat who was well known for his terrorism and was, himself, an Egyptian.
The Palestinian national movement doesn’t share any of the steps or successes of Zionism. Today, there is no Palestinian state due to the choice by Palestinians of violence over compromise. Success and failure, the establishment of a state and the struggle to found one are only the tips of the iceberg among the many differences between Zionism and Palestinian nationalism.
Modern political Zionism is unique in that its values are ancient. The axiom that the Jewish people deserve to live in and govern the Land of Israel comes from the Jewish people’s 4,000-year connection to the land. For the last 3,000 years, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.
This is in contrast to the Palestinians whose ancestors, the Arab people, arrived in the Land of Israel, then renamed by the Romans as Palestine, 1,300 years ago. The largest influx of Arabs into the Land of Israel actually occurred after Jewish Zionists began their return to the land in the late 1800s. Zionist investment and infrastructure improvements encouraged poor Arabs from surrounding lands to immigrate to Palestine. So, while Zionism is the modern fight for an ancient longing, Palestinian nationalism only began recently and arguably only as a response to Zionism.
Another significant difference between the two is that Zionism’s foundation is based on democratic values, peace and sharing the land with others. Juxtapose Zionist values with the values of the Palestinian nationalist movement, which is based on exclusivity to the land and the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, and the contrast is obvious. Even when Palestinians have spoken of agreeing to an Israeli state, they don’t acknowledge it as a Jewish state, arousing suspicion that their true intention isn’t to allow for a Zionist and Jewish state, but a democratic state they can win over through demographically challenging the Jewish nature of the State of Israel.
Zionism began as a peaceful movement that reached out to its opponents and enemies. Israel’s declaration of independence calls for peace with Arabs inside and outside of Israel’s borders. Palestinian nationalism has proven to be an intolerant movement set on a violent culture. While calling Zionists peaceful and Palestinians violent is a gross generalization, there are outliers on both sides.
Palestinian nationalism didn’t have to be inherently anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. It can stand for the self-determination of its people on its own land without expressing hate for the Jewish people. Zionism did exactly that, expressing its hope for a Jewish state on the Jewish people’s historic homeland without hate towards the Arabs living on the land.
For peace to overtake battle, there must be a meeting of the two nationalist movements to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For that to happen, the first thing that must change is the hateful nature of the Palestinian nationalist movement. Until it begins to transform into a more Zionist-like movement that inspires tolerance and acceptance, there will never be peace between the two peoples, and Palestinian nationalists will never achieve their goal of an independent state.
