The creation of a homeland is often deeply ingrained in community identity. The question of whether a community needs a specific piece of land is one of the themes of the readings for Holocaust and Homelands. Jewish people had been persecuted long before Hitler and the Nazi regime. Hitler used preexisting anti-Semitism to justify his own goals of the elimination of the Jewish people. Bezalel Narkiss spoke about the significance of the Israel at 50‘ Series. This series of posters on Zionism marked the first 100 years of the movement. During his speech he states “The Jews had been on a quest for Zion since the destruction of the Temple by the Romans in A.D. 70. But it had only been a political quest since the mid-19th century.” This quest for a homeland even before WW2 is the background of the displaced persons debate and central to the specific Jewish solution.
Gerard Daniel Cohen, modern European historian and author of Extraterritorial Jews argues that a combination of factors leading following the war allowed for the Jewish people to obtain statehood. The skillful diplomacy of the Zionist movement coupled with support of both Eastern and Western blocs due to their increased sympathy towards the Zionist movements allowed for the creation of and independent state in Palestine. International powers just accepted the idea that Jews from many different counties would have to move on a mass scale due to continued prosecution or inability to return comfortably home.
Tom Segev, Israeli historian and author of The Streets are Paved with Money argues that the ideal population for the Zionists agenda did not align with the population of displaced persons that took refuge in the newly developed Israeli state of Palestine. The contradiction of the benefit to the Zionist cause that came from the extermination of their people was not lost on them. This coupled with the continued cooperation between the Zionist movement and the Nazi regime led to a disruption of the ideal Zionists vision.
Avinoam Patt, modern Jewish historian and author of Living in Landsberg, Dreaming of Deganiah Jewish Displaced Youths and Zionism after the Holocaust brings a historiographical perceptive into the mix. He states that the “general historiographical consensus over the fact that the Jewish DPs presented an enthusiastic Zionist position in the years following the war,” this perspective is central to the discussion of the role of the Zionist movement. The Cohen and Segev articles emphasize this point. They discuss the agency that the Zionist movement had on the creation of the Israeli State. Patt presents a groups of historians argument and debates this perspective with the idea that the “e Holocaust almost prevented the creation of the State of Israel by depriving the Yishuv (the prestate Jewish settlement in Palestine) of the European manpower reserve it so needed, making the DPs the last hope of the Yishuv to establish a state.” This along with a third perspective of the importance of international diplomacy was central to shaping the independent Israeli state. This comparative stance sets the Patt article apart from the Cohen and Segrv ones. It looks into the historiography around Zionist establishment of the Jewish state.
Patt’s proposition that the state of Israel almost did not happen throws a wrench in the idea that the Holocaust propagated Zionism. It was from this lens that we talked in class about the coercive techniques that some people took to keep Zionism alive. People used Jewish tradition to convince young Jews to buy into the kibbutz system and the whole idea of moving to the “homeland.” It certainly seemed manipulative, and Patt presents a lens from which this manipulation can be seen.
I found it interesting how you explained that Zionism was not political until the mid-19th century. This point is the key reason why there was such a debate and controversy around Zionism in the postwar period. After the war, everything seemed to become so political and international politics evolved in such a way that there was a shift from a battle of culture to a battle of politics.
Hi Katie. Great post; I like your synopsis of Cohen in particular. After surviving the Holocaust in Europe, I imagine most Jewish people there wanted to secure some kind of positive future for themselves. Though the fact they were Jewish determined their persecution by Germany, it did not change the fact that these people were still natives of Germany, Poland, and wherever else they happened to have been born. Despite this, as you say, “International powers just accepted the idea that Jews from many different counties would have to move on a mass scale.” In this way, the pressure on Europe’s Jewish populations to leave the continent did not end with the second World War, but actually was further encouraged by it.
I enjoyed your post a lot. I liked the poster you included from “Israel at 50.” I think you did a good job tying it into the history of Zionism, and it was helpful for contextualizing the arguments made in the readings.
I would agree with Patt that the Holocaust almost destroyed the idea of Israel by taking away much of the European manpower that it would need to develop as a nation. A new nation definitely has a high need for a young population, in order to grow their nation and to defend it. It’s easier to develop the youth into what you want them to be rather than an older population of already developed people who may not be subject to major change.
I think that you did a really good job at explaining the arguments from the authors. By comparing the different perspectives of the authors and their arguments, it is obvious that you did a good job analyzing the historiography of the topic. Overall, I think that this post was excellent and your discussion was very thorough, good job.