The most interesting part for me was this comment:

[…] Shomsky primarily relies on published speeches and articles, which is acceptable for the pre-Balfour Declaration era. However, regarding the Mandate period, where Zionist political activity had a more concrete basis, he should have also consulted documents such as letters and confidential discussions. When reading these, the historical context must always be considered. It's impossible to understand Ben-Gurion's stance on a Jewish state without acknowledging the Arab problem and the significant role of the British. When Ben-Gurion and Berl Katznelson adopted the parity concept (in contrast to Ben-Gurion's federalist idea) in the early 1930s, their primary concern was the Arab demand for a parliament reflecting the demographic makeup of the population—meaning Arab dominance—a demand the British were inclined to accept. The maximum the Zionists were willing to concede was parity in representation, even though Jews constituted no more than 20% of the population. The book omits the complexities arising after the 1929 riots, thus misrepresenting parity as an acceptance of autonomous sub-states and a renunciation of a Jewish state, as Shomsky portrays Ben-Gurion's position. This brings us back to the question of a Jewish majority. Ben-Gurion and his associates were willing to compromise with the Arabs but never to relinquish a future Jewish majority or recognize an existing Arab majority. When the British concluded that peaceful coexistence between the two communities in Palestine was impossible, they proposed the Partition Plan. From that point onward, there was no turning back; sovereignty with territory became the fundamental element upon which the Jewish state would be built.

@bookstodon
@israel
@palestine
#UNGA181 #UNSCOP

Book review: **Dimitri Shomsky**. Did Zionism Seek to Establish a Nation-State? The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion (1882-1948)

Dimitri Shomsky's book challenges the conventional narrative of Zionist aspirations, arguing that before the Peel Commission's 1937 proposal to partition Palestine, the dominant Zionist vision wasn't necessarily a fully independent nation-state. Instead, Shomsky posits that many Zionist leaders favored a model of Jewish autonomy within existing empires, drawing parallels to similar aspirations of other nationalities within the Austro-Hungarian, Russian, and Ottoman empires.

He examines the writings of key Zionist figures like #Herzl, #Jabotinsky, and Ben-Gurion, highlighting instances where their proposals suggested a degree of autonomy rather than outright independence.

The book also explores the influence of the "Helsinki Program," a plan focusing on securing equal rights for Jews within the Russian Empire. Shomsky's work introduces previously unknown Russian-language materials, particularly concerning Jabotinsky's dual commitment to both Jewish nationalism and his deep-rooted connection to his Russian identity.

The author ultimately presents an alternative historical perspective on Zionism, suggesting a path that could have been, but wasn't, taken.

Review by Anita Shapira, Professor Emerita, Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University.

Hebrew https://www.kriot.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%93%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%9A-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%AA/

@bookstodon #bookstodon
@israel
@palestine
#Zionism
#UNGA181