View sample History of Zionism Research Paper. Browse other research paper examples and check the list of research paper topics for more inspiration. If you need a religion research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our custom writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.
1. Historiographic Premises
Israel is one of those modern societies whose institutions were clearly shaped by an ideological movement. Thus, Israel is similar to other new states whose political institutions directly derive from the nationalist movement that won their independence. But, in addition, a wide variety of social, economic, and cultural institutions of the new Jewish state were initially developed by the Zionist organization and its associated bodies. In these respects, Zionism had an impact unusual among nationalist movements. It must rather be compared with social revolutionary and radical reform movements. Anthony D. Smith contrasts ‘ethnocentric nationalism’ in which the dimensions of ‘power and culture inhere in [a single] cultural group’ and ‘polycentric nationalism’ in which the group’s chief desire is to ‘join the ‘‘family of nations’’ becoming a nation like all others in a condition of dignified equality.’ He further refines this differential with respect to ‘diaspora nationalism’ citing Garveyism, Zionism, Lebanese, Liberians, Greeks, and Armenians as ‘classic cases’ (Smith 1983).
Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services
Get 10% OFF with 24START discount code
A national liberation movement typically arises among a people oppressed by foreign rulers in its own land. Elie Kedourie argues that this conceptual approach actually has roots in the French revolution and the toppling of the ancien regime. (See Kedourie’s classic essay, especially his comments on ‘Politics in a New Style’ in Nationalism (Kedourie 1985).) To this generalization, the Zionist movement and the rise of Israel are exceptions. Jews did not face the common nationalist situation of being oppressed in their own land by a foreign ruler. Rather, the Jewish people lived as a minority in numerous countries throughout the world, among many different ruling nations and under different regimes. The oppressions they suffered were different in kind, varying from intense to imperceptible, and no single foe could plausibly be held responsible for all Jewish frustrations.
Hence, when Jewish nationalism arose, rival ideologies such as Jewish liberalism, socialism, autonomism, and anti-Zionism did not succumb to it (see Laqueur 1992). They engaged instead in a sharp polemic through which their own positions became more fully elaborated and well defined. Nor did the whole nationalist movement concentrate upon the primary objective of national sovereignty. Numerous nationalist factions arose, each insisting that its goal was most important and all others secondary (see Halpern 1969, Chap. 1, Shimoni 1995).
2. Origins Of Zionism
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the Jewish communities of Europe were traditional in character. This period witnessed a complex phenomenon known as Jewish emancipation: the process by which the Jews, especially those in Western and Central Europe, were propelled towards new social and economic opportunities and became engaged in gentile society. The prospect of emancipation gave rise to the ideology of Jewish liberalism, which sought to redefine the Jews as a religious community, aware of and responsive to the norms of gentile society. Jewish liberalism was especially strong in Western Europe—England, France, and Germany—where the numerical insignificance of the Jewish population, the speed of social and economic modernization, and the relative ease of legal emancipation all appeared to legitimize the proemancipation viewpoint.
While Jewish liberalism dominated the thought of the emancipated Western Jewish leadership, there was a broad body of Jewish public opinion that objected to the loss of a specific Jewish identity. Both traditionalists and defectors from the camp of Jewish liberalism shared this perspective. The typical opponents of Jewish liberalism were born and educated in areas outside the Western liberal mainstream, in Eastern and South Eastern Europe, where traditional values held strong, antisemitism was a palpable reality, and Jewish integration did not appear to be a viable option.
Although Zionism was, in part, a response to modern antisemitism, a number of factors forced the retention of a residual Jewish communal consciousness and national identity. As integral to Zionism as its negative reaction to antisemitism, was its positive assertion of belief in messianic prophecy and the historic destiny of the Jewish people (see Schweid 1985, Chaps 1, 3). Two leading precursors of Zionism, Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer (1795–1874) and Rabbi Judah Solomon Hai Alkalai (1798–1878), were moved to create a Jewish settlement in Palestine by sociopolitical forces and a deep religious conviction that the time for the biblical injunction of the ‘ingathering of the exiles’ had arrived—the prophecy was to be literally acted upon.
Similarly, the socialist Moses Hess (1812–1875) rediscovered Jewish nationalism after a distinguished radical career in Central Europe. His book Rome and Jerusalem (1862), was an eloquent appeal for the reassertion of Jewish national identity. The work of Hess, and of his contemporary, the Hebrew publicist and editor Perez Smolenskin (1840–1885), demonstrates that even before the Russian Jewish crisis of 1881–1882, Western Jewish liberalism was under attack from Jews with a nationalist perspective.
The term Zionism was probably coined by Nathan Birnbaum (1864–1937), an Austrian leader of Hovevei Zion [Lovers of Zion], a loose federation of groups devoted to the promotion of national resettlement of the Jews in their ancestral homeland. The Hovevei Zion viewed resettlement as the solution to the Jewish question, which it variously defined as the problem of antisemitism or the problem of Judaism in a modern, secular world. Significantly, the term Zionism reflects both traditional sentiment (the longing for Zion) and a modern political orientation.
3. Ideological And Political Evolution
The assassination of Tsar Alexander II by revolutionaries, the pogroms of 1881–1882 and 1903–1905, and the ensuing the Russian Revolution provoked despair and panic and eventually prompted the massive flight of East European Jewry. Many young Jews considered options such as emigration to and the colonization of Palestine. An immediate rivalry developed between the Amerikantsy, represented by such groups as Am Olam [Eternal People] who saw the United States as the obvious safe haven, and the Palestintsy who desired resettlement in Palestine.
In 1882 scattered groups of Palestine-minded students united to found the Bilu movement, a secular Zionist group dedicated to creating exemplary rural colonies in the Land of Israel. Their most celebrated publicist was the young journalist Moshe Leib Lilienblum (1843–1910). Although the movement failed to generate mass migration to Palestine, it did lay much of the ideological groundwork for Russian Jewish pioneers in this period (Frankel 1984, Chap. 2).
The movement for a new exodus received ideological justification from Leon Pinsker (1821–1891), who in 1882 published an influential pamphlet entitled Auto-Emancipation. Pinsker headed the Russian movement known as Hibbat Zion [Lovers of Zion] from 1884 until his death. The efforts of the Russian Zionists were largely ineffectual. They managed to establish a few agricultural colonies in Palestine, but many of them became dependent on the largesse of the important French Jewish philanthropist Baron Edmond de Rothschild (1845–1934). Though deeply committed to the development of the Land of Israel, Rothschild was not a Zionist (Halpern and Reinharz 2000, Chap. 4).
There was a significant growth in the Jewish population of Palestine in the decades before World War I, largely due to Zionist immigration. Estimates for the beginning of the nineteenth century indicate that only about 7,000 Jews lived in Palestine, about 2.4 percent of the whole population, and mostly concentrated in the four Holy Cities: Jerusalem, Tiberias, Safed, and Hebron. At the end of the century the number of Jews had grown to about 43,000, about 8.1 percent of the total population. Well over 90 percent of these Jews lived in the cities. 5,000 Jews lived in Jaffa, half of the total population of the city. Furthermore, by 1890 Jews were already a majority of 60 percent of the population of Jerusalem, and their proportion was due to grow even more in the following years. Before World War I they comprised half of the Jewish population of the country, but these were mostly Orthodox Jews who had little to do with the developing Zionist movement (Friesel 1972, 1990).
Zionist ideas also found fertile ground on American soil (Raider 1998). As early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, prominent American Jews expressed the view that the Jewish people should be allowed to return to the Land of Israel. Mordecai M. Noah (1785–1851), a well known publicist and former consul in Turkey, following an ill-fated attempt to found a Jewish colony called ‘Ararat’ near Buffalo, New York in 1825, turned to Palestine as an ultimate haven for the Jews. So, too, did Warder Cresson (1798–1860), a former American diplomat who converted to Judaism and established a settlement near Jerusalem.
4. Modern Political Zionism
The fortunes of the fledgling Zionist movement changed dramatically with the appearance of Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), the father of modern political Zionism. Herzl was an Austrian Jewish writer and journalist and, until the Dreyfus Affair of 1894, a typical, assimilated, middle-class Jew. Shocked to the core by the virulent display of antisemitism surrounding the Dreyfus Affair, Herzl subsequently turned his efforts to the implementation of a Zionist solution to the so-called ‘Jewish problem.’
In 1896, after unsuccessful attempts to enlist the support of Franco–Jewish philanthropists, Herzl sought a wider audience with the publication of Der Judenstaat (The Jews’ State). In 1897 he launched a Zionist weekly called Die Welt (The World) and presided over the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland. A total of six congresses were held between 1897 and Herzl’s death in 1904, and they created the organizations and institutions of the Zionist movement: the World Zionist Organization, the Jewish Colonial Trust, and the Jewish National Fund.
Herzl pursued his goals through diplomacy aimed at the rulers of European states and the Ottoman sultan. In 1903, the Zionist movement underwent a crisis when the British government offered Herzl a tract of land in East Africa for Jewish colonization. Herzl recommended the acceptance of this territory to his followers as a temporary ‘safe haven’ for the Jews. This ‘Uganda Project,’ as it came to be known, ultimately failed, foundering on the hostility of the Russian Zionists led by Menahem Mendel Ussishkin (1863–1941). In the event, the militant rejection of Herzl’s flirtation with territorialism assured the Zionist movement’s enduring commitment to settlement in Palestine alone (Vital 1975, 1982).
Some years after Herzl’s premature death in 1904, the leadership of the movement was captured by the ‘practical Zionists’ who subordinated the long-range, diplomatic and social goals of Zionism to the task of building up the Jewish settlement in Palestine. Another important influence was that of Ahad Haam (the pseudonym of Asher Zvi Ginsburg), a Russian Jew who emerged as the foremost critic of both Hibbat Zion and Herzlian Zionism. Ahad Haam (1856–1927) rejected the concept of Zionism as a mass movement, arguing instead for a concept generally characterized as ‘spiritual Zionism.’ In his view, the Jewish people required cultural revival and modernization, objectives best carried out by a small elite based in Palestine. This was a clear rejection of the idea of immediate, mass resettlement. Although never part of the Zionist mainstream, the writings of Ahad Haam had a profound influence on many of the younger leaders of the Zionist movement (Zipperstein 1993).
The differences between Herzl and Ahad Haam reflected the differences between West and East European Jewry, stemming from their contrasting political and cultural situations. The multiethnic character of some of the states and political parties of Eastern Europe theoretically presented the Jews with the possibility of a secular national culture within the context of modern society. However, East European Jewry was forced to face the brutal nature of antisemitism in a much more violent fashion than West European Jewry, and because of the exigency of this problem East European Zionists were pressed to develop a program of immediate, practical solutions that involved alternatives that did not require the restoration of sovereignty in Palestine. In contradistinction to East European Zionism, Western Zionism until the rise of the Nazis was largely a philanthropic movement devoted to the welfare of persecuted Jews in Eastern Europe. It did, however, contribute significantly to the intellectual and ideological fermentation of Zionism in the East and the West.
In the decades that bridged the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, socialist ideas merged with East European Zionism to produce a number of socialist Zionist parties, some of them with a Marxist orientation, some not. The left-wing Zionist groups produced many of the members of the Second Aliyah, the wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine between 1904 and 1914 that had a profound impact on Zionist politics and ideology (Halpern and Reinharz 2000).
5. Zionist Policy And The British Mandatory
The outbreak of World War I opened up new possibilities for the Zionist movement. Some of the leading Zionists, among them Chaim Weizmann (1874–1952) and Vladimir (Zeev) Jabotinsky (1880– 1940), decided that the future of the movement laid in the Entente camp. Their hopes were indeed realized with the great political success of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, wherein the British government expressed its commitment to the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, which generated tremendous excitement among diaspora Jews, was received by the Arab community in Palestine with profound misgivings. But the hopes and fears the Declaration stirred respectively in each camp were equally exaggerated.
After World War I, when the British Mandatory regime’s policy unfolded, it became clear that it had neither the will nor the intention to establish a Jewish national home in Palestine in the sense envisaged by the Zionist Movement. Instead, during the interwar years, the British government issued a series of White Papers stressing that the Balfour Declaration had not intended to create a sovereign Jewish state in Palestine. The principle of the ‘double obligation’ to Jews and to Arabs in equal measure, became the cornerstone of British policy in Palestine in the years from 1922 to 1939. Unappeased, however, Arab political leaders continued to view Zionism as an extension of Western imperial aims and Arab opposition to the Jewish community in Palestine intensified (Stein 1985).
In the 1920s and 1930s, Palestine’s Jewish societyin-the-making (known in Hebrew as the Yishu ), grew gradually in numbers and developed a political structure, communal institutions, and an economic foundation. There were 85,200 Jews in Palestine in 1922 (11.1 percent of the total population), and 175,100 in 1931 (17 percent of the total population). Due mainly to significant increases in the 1930s, the number of Jews reached in 1947 to 630,000, close to one-third of the total population. In 1946, over three-quarters of the Jewish population lived in cities. With over 180,000 inhabitants, Tel Aviv became the major Jewish center of the country (Friesel 1990, Hersch 1948).
Chaim Weizmann, the architect of the Balfour Declaration, emerged as the leader of the Zionist movement in the years after World War I (Reinharz 1993). Despite Weizmann’s secure diplomatic standing, the new Zionist hierarchy led to a somewhat anomalous situation. On one hand, the Zionists in the cities and the settlements in Palestine, many of them religious, others secular, an influential segment imbued with a particular socialist ideological agenda, lived all according to the specific dynamics dictated by the life in Palestine. On the other hand, the individuals who retained ultimate political control of the Zionist movement lived in a totally different milieu thousands of miles away. The ambivalent attitude of the British authorities toward the Yishuv and Zionism only accentuated this division.
The geographic distance separating the Zionist leadership in London from the movement in Palestine and elsewhere caused misunderstandings, ideological quarrels, and eventually a power struggle in world Zionist politics. A rift emerged between the traditional European-based Zionist leaders and the stewards of the movement in the United States. Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), an associate justice of the United States Supreme Court and head of the American Zionist movement, believed that the political era of Zionism had ended with the Balfour Declaration. By contrast, Chaim Weizmann believed that the political struggle was far from over, and he continued to view Zionism, as officially represented by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, as representing the national will of the Jewish people. In fact, Brandeis and Weizmann did not differ significantly in their programmatic positions. However, they did differ over a principle of fundamental importance: the notion of exile and the Land of Israel as the authentic home of the Jewish people. Weizmann eventually emerged supreme in this clash of ideologies, defeating Brandeis at a convention of the American Zionists held in Cleveland, Ohio in 1921 (Halpern 1987).
6. Labor Zionism And Palestine
In the 1930s the Labor Zionist movement rose from its minority status in the World Zionist Organization to a position of political dominance. Despite Labor’s initially meager size, the movement had always played a critically important role in Zionist efforts aimed at immigration, land acquisition, and permanent Jewish settlement, particularly the process of organizing and training young Zionist pioneers abroad. Notwithstanding the British Mandatory’s restrictive policies, the Arab community’s steadfast and even violent opposition to Jewish settlement, and the economic fragility of the region as a whole, the Labor movement gradually developed a sound socioeconomic, countrywide infrastructure.
At the heart of the Labor enterprise stood the Histadrut, the General Federation of Jewish Labor, created in 1920 by a conference of socialist Zionist parties in Palestine. The Histadrut commanded a broad network of agricultural settlements, educational institutions, trade unions, self-defense groups, a workers’ press and a workers’ health organization. This web of social, economic, cultural, and political interests consolidated Labor’s position in the World Zionist Organization and enabled the Yishuv to cope with different crises through broad measures of cooperative organization.
Labor never attained a political majority in the Jewish community in Palestine, and had always to form coalitions with other parties, especially with the Mizrahi national-religious party and the middle-class liberals, known as the Progressives. The ensuing political experience of power-sharing, which continued for most of the time of the British Mandate in Palestine, created patterns of political collaboration that were to continue later on, after the establishment of the State of Israel (Halpern and Reinharz 2000, Medding 1990).
Labor Zionism’s most serious political challenge came from Revisionists, the right-wing dissident movement created by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1925. Jabotinsky originally created the Revisionist party to counteract what he viewed as the corruption of Herzlian political Zionism under Chaim Weizmann’s leadership. He also emphasized the primacy of private capital in developing the Yishuv and insisted on maximal nationalist and antisocialist principles.
A critical juncture factor in determining the Yishuv’s future was reached in the late 1920s and early 1930s when a coalition of Zionist and non-Zionist forces united behind the objective of attaining a secure Jewish national home in Palestine. To this end, the World Zionist Organization initiated a series of negotiations with organized Jewish bodies in various countries, which culminated in 1929 in the creation of what came to be known as the Expanded Jewish Agency and was regarded as an expression of the growing interest in Palestine of the entire Jewish people (Halpern 1969, Chap. 6).
The Arab riots of 1929, which resulted in the massacre of Jews in Hebron and other places, dramatically changed the Yishuv’s internal debate over the issues of Jewish sovereignty and security. The pretext for the riots was a clash over conflicting Arab and Jewish rights in Jerusalem. In fact, the tension between Arabs and Jews had been steadily mounting since the previous wave of riots in 1921. Shortly thereafter, the uncertainty of the Mandatory’s shortand long-range goals was further compounded by the eruption again of Arab riots in 1936–1939. The latter initially prompted the Royal Peel Commission of 1937 to recommend the partition of Palestine and the creation of a small Jewish state—a plan reluctantly adopted by the Zionists and rejected by the Arabs.
But the stillborn Peel proposal ultimately led to a complete reappraisal of Mandatory policy and a retreat from the Balfour Declaration-inspired policy. In its place came the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, which acquiesced to Arab demands. The White Paper established a limit on Jewish immigration of 75,000 between 1939 and 1944 (when immigration would cease), curtailed drastically new purchases of land by Jews, and established a ten-year transition period after which Palestine should become an independent country, meaning, an Arab state with a Jewish minority of about 30 percent of the population. The Jewish Agency and Zionists everywhere believed this to be a clear breach of past British pledges. In the face of this turnabout, exacerbated by the onset of World War II, David Ben-Gurion (1886–1973), the leader of the Zionist movement after 1935, declared a new Zionist policy agenda: ‘We must support the [British] army as though there were no White Paper, and fight the White Paper as though there were no war’ (Shapira 1992, Chap. 7).
7. World War II, The Holocaust, And Combative Zionism
During the course of World War II, Britain received assistance from the Zionist organization, including the Haganah, the military arm of the Jewish Agency. The British military received assistance from the Palmah (Hebrew acronym for plugot mahaz, shock troops), for example, in the campaign against the Vichy French authorities in Syria in 1941. The Palmah had originally been formed to help defend Palestine against a possible German or Italian invasion of Palestine.
While the British Mandatory was ambivalent about the Haganah and the Palmah, it was plainly negative toward the Revisionist fighting force known as the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization, also known by the acronym Ezel). Created in the midst of the 1936–1939 riots, the Irgun was dedicated to undertaking retaliatory action against Arab terrorists. When Menahem Begin (1913–1994) assumed command of the Irgun in 1943, he was convinced that the only effective strategy for gaining Jewish control of Palestine was to exert so much pressure through selective terrorism—such as the bombing in 1946 of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem—that the British would eventually be forced to choose between total repression or complete withdrawal.
Zionist terrorism was unacceptable to the leaders of Jewish Agency. After the assassination in Cairo, in 1944, of Lord Moyne, the British Minister for the Middle East, by members of another Zionist terrorist organization, the Stern Group or Lohamei Herut Israel [Freedom Fighters of Israel, also known by the acronym Lehi), the Haganah and the Palmah were given orders to ‘neutralize’ the Irgun. This led to the so-called ‘Open Season’ during which Haganah and Palmah operatives interned and handed over right-wing Zionist activists to the British, causing considerable bitterness in the Yishuv. As this clash reveals, global events at the height of World War II brought about a steady radicalization of Zionist ideology and activity in the Yishuv.
The outbreak of World War II resulted in the complete dislocation of Jewish life on the European continent that had been the backbone of much of Jewish life since the eighteenth century. The constitutional pattern of the World Zionist Organization and the Expanded Jewish Agency became unfeasible and in practice responsibility for the Zionist enterprise fell to the Yishuv and American Jews. In May 1942, a wartime conference was held in lieu of a Zionist Congress at the Biltmore Hotel in New York City. The Biltmore Conference symbolized the strengthening of the position of Zionist leaders in the Yishuv and America and united most of world Zionism around the call for a Jewish state in Palestine (Laqueur 1992). This juncture also signaled the displacement of the Zionist movement’s veteran leadership, notably Chaim Weizmann and Stephen S. Wise (1874–1949), and the ascendance onto the world stage of a younger generation led by David Ben-Gurion in Palestine and Abba Hillel Silver (1893–1963) in America (Teveth 1987, Raider et al. 1997).
The election of the British Labour party in 1945 raised expectations that Palestine’s partition and Jewish independence would soon follow. These hopes were dashed, however, when British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin announced, in effect, that the White Paper policy of 1939 would continue and that Britain was committed to a Jewish ‘home’ in Palestine, but not a Jewish state. Set against the catastrophic tragedies that befell European Jewry during the war—but, in fact, before the full magnitude of European Jewish destruction was known—British policy was received with mixture of anger and alarm by Zionists of all political persuasions.
8. Campaign For Jewish Statehood
The years immediately following World War II were characterized by turmoil in Palestine, intensive Zionist activity worldwide, and ongoing diplomatic initiatives in the Western capitals, especially in London, Washington, and New York. The Jewish Agency spearheaded the postwar campaign for the establishment of the Jewish state. The Agency used three interrelated approaches to the attainment of this goal: first, political negotiation, aimed at securing international recognition for a Jewish state; second, the practical work of immigration, land development, and the building of a strong autonomous Jewish community; and third, the organization of clandestine or illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine during the British Mandate known in Hebrew as Aliyah Bet (Ofer 1990).
The latter reached a climax in 1947 against the backdrop of overflowing displaced persons camps in Cyprus when the British decided on a policy of returning illegal Jewish immigrants to their original ports of departure. The most notorious example was the Exodus-1947, a ship carrying nearly 5,000 Jewish refugees. Intercepted off the Palestine coast, the Exodus was compelled to return to Hamburg after a pitiful ordeal in which the British forced the passengers off the ship and beat those who resisted with clubs and hoses—all in the glare of the world’s media. The affair demonstrated Britain’s inability to deal with the ever- increasing flow of illegal Jewish immigrants and hastened its decision to relinquish the Mandate. It also highlighted the Zionist leadership’s postwar strategy for winning the battle for international public opinion. The boatloads of beleaguered European Jewish refugees and determined Zionist activists gradually eroded sympathy for British policy and underscored the urgency of postwar Jewish reconstruction (Laqueur 1992, Sachar 1976).
On November 29, 1947 the United Nations adopted a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The sudden collapse of the Mandate, the persisting hostility of the Arab states, and particularly the absence of and ensuing conflict with the Palestinian Arabs abruptly and totally altered the conditions under which the policy of the Jewish state would thenceforth have to be formulated. When the state was formally proclaimed on May 14, 1948, the major functions of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency were immediately assumed by the nascent Israeli government.
The Zionist movement before the rise of Israel proclaimed, in addition to the goal of national independence, the following objectives: to develop Hebrew as a spoken language and as the foundation of a Jewish national consensus; to transfer to Palestine all Jews who could not or did not wish to live in diaspora countries; to establish a Jewish community in Palestine free from the peculiar social, economic, and cultural problems that beset the Jewish status as a minority people scattered throughout the world; and to carry out the transformations in the Jewish social and economic distribution, to create the appropriate social institutions, and to foster the cultural changes that were the necessary means for attaining the above ends. By World War II, the Jewish community in Palestine had indeed secured a socioeconomic infrastructure in conformity with the ideal of a self-sustaining national home and developed institutions capable of realizing its political aims. With the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the ideal of Jewish national independence was institutionalized in its ultimate form: Jewish political sovereignty.
References:
- Bauer Y 1970 Flight and Rescue: Brichah. Random House, New York
- Eisenstadt S N 1985 The Transformation of Israeli George Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London
- Frankel J 1984 Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism, and the Russian Jews, 1862–1917. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
- Friesel E 1972 Migrations. Encyclopaedia Judaica 16: 1520–4
- Friesel E 1990 Atlas of Modern Jewish History. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 118–19
- Halpern B 1987 A Clash of Heroes: Brandeis, Weizmann, and American Zionism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
- Halpern B 1969 The Idea of the Jewish State, 2nd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
- Halpern B, Reinharz J 2000 Zionism and the Creation of a New Society. University Press of New England, Hanover and London
- Hersch L 1948 The Jewish population in Palestine. In: Hersch L (ed.) The Jewish People: Past and Present. Marstin Press, New York, 2, pp. 40–4
- Kedourie E 1985 Nationalism. Hutchinson, London
- Laqueur W 1992 A History of Zionism, 2nd edn. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York
- Medding P Y 1990 The Founding of Israeli Democracy, 1948– 1967. Oxford University Press, New York
- Ofer D 1990 Escaping the Holocaust: Illegal Immigration to the Land of Israel, 1939–1944. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
- Penslar D 1991 Zionism and Technocracy: The Engineering of Jewish Settlement in Palestine, 1870–1918. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, IN
- Raider M A 1998 The Emergence of American New York University Press, New York
- Raider M A, Sarna J D, Zweig R W 1997 Abba Hillel Silver and American Zionism. Frank Cass, London
- Ravitzky A 1996 Messianism, Zionism, and Jewish Religious Radicalism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
- Reinharz J 1985 Chaim Weizmann: The Making of a Zionist Leader. Oxford University Press, New York, 2
- Reinharz J 1993 Chaim Weizmann: The Making of a Statesman. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2
- Reinharz J, Shapira A (eds.) 1986 Essential Papers on Zionism. New York University Press, New York
- Sachar H M 1976 A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 282–3
- Schweid E 1985 The Land of Israel: National Home or Land of Destiny. Associated University Presses, London
- Shapira A 1992 Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948. Oxford University Press, New York
- Shavit Y 1988 Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925– 48. Frank Cass, London
- Shmuel A, Jehuda R, Shapira A 1998 Zionism and Religion. University Press of New England, Hanover and London
- Shimoni G 1995 The Zionist Ideology. University Press of New England, Hanover
- Smith A D 1983 Theories of Holmes & Meier Publishers, New York
- Stein K W 1985 The Land Question in Palestine, 1917–1939. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC
- Teveth S 1987 Ben-Gurion: The Burning Ground, 1886–1948. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston
- Vital D 1975 The Origins of Zionism. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
- Vital D 1982 Zionism: The Formative Years. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
- Yahil L 1987 The Holocaust. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
- Zipperstein S J 1993 Elusive Prophet: Ahad Haam and the Origins of Zionism. University of California Press, Berekeley, CA.