Theodor Herzl and the Role of Political Zionism in the Establishment of Israel

Understanding the establishment of Israel requires an examination of the emergence of Zionism. It is commonly stated that the term Zionism was first used in its modern sense by Nathan Birnbaum. Even before Herzl, the idea of Zionism had begun to form and take root. Zion was a term found in the Old Testament, referring to the city of Jerusalem established by King David. Jewish communities fleeing the pogroms of Eastern Europe began to organize themselves. One such group was the Hovevei Zion (“Lovers of Zion”), who had initiated their activities well before Herzl; however, Herzl would give the movement a political direction and carry it into the international arena (Karaman, 2023).

Zionism was originally an Eastern European phenomenon. At the end of the nineteenth century most Jews lived in Eastern Europe—Russia and Poland in particular. It was unthinkable at that time for Europe, a Christian cultural space, to accept or support the Jewish people in the way it appears to do today. Jews were widely perceived as the “killers of Jesus,” and anti-Jewish violence and intimidation were commonplace. Jewish communities migrated to regions where they enjoyed greater freedoms and economic opportunities. Europe would later undergo major transformations, and its view of Jews would also shift. Yet throughout this process, Jews functioned as the “other” of Europe. The Dreyfus Affair in France and the Holocaust in Germany would become defining moments of this long trajectory.

Between 1899 and 1939, antisemitism in Europe reached its peak. Scholars explain the roots of antisemitism through factors such as the nature of nation-states, modernization, and culture, yet even these frameworks fall short of fully grasping the phenomenon. Nevertheless, the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were undeniably the height of anti-Jewish sentiment and hostility. Some scholars also argue that modernization and capitalism weakened the economic influence of Jewish financiers, reducing the reliance on Jewish capital (Brustein & King, 2004).

Since Zionism cannot be understood without understanding antisemitism, this issue requires emphasis. Zionism emerged as a reaction to antisemitism and gained mass appeal by channeling the longstanding Jewish desire to return to Jerusalem. After decades of effort, the movement succeeded with the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Many Jews of the period sought to migrate to the United States; however, those who could not do so began migrating to Palestine in large numbers. Modern antisemitism is often said to have reached its peak between 1899 and 1939 (Brustein & King, 2004). From that point forward, Zionism gained strength and followers. It was in such an environment that Herzl entered the historical stage and wrote Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State).

Jerusalem appears more than 600 times in the Hebrew Bible, and Jews considered forgetting Jerusalem in prayer to be a disgrace. For these reasons, Jerusalem retained its central importance. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Jews were expelled from the land and prohibited from returning. Since God Himself was considered exiled, a collective return would not occur until the coming of the Messiah. Because God could not be abandoned, mass return was forbidden. This belief dominated Jewish thought until the rise of Zionism (Karaoğlu & Elhan, 2023).

The secular and nationalist movements emerging in Europe stripped Zionism of its religious character and transformed it into a national, secular movement. The ideals of the Enlightenment and concepts such as liberty often did not extend to Jews, who retained their position as Europe’s “other.” Herzl himself would witness a pivotal event: the Dreyfus Affair. In 1894, Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was accused of passing information to the Germans and was stripped of his rank. This incident convinced Herzl that antisemitism was deeply entrenched in Europe and that Jews would never achieve true citizenship regardless of what they did. He concluded that Jews needed a state of their own (Ortadoğu Günlüğü, 2018). In 1896 he wrote The Jewish State, and in 1897 he convened the First Zionist Congress in Basel.

Herzl was born in Budapest, Hungary, in 1860 to a middle-class family. His first school had a strong antisemitic atmosphere, leading him to transfer in 1875 to a school where Jews formed the majority. In 1878 he entered the University of Vienna to study law (Ben-Gurion, 2023) and later worked as a journalist and playwright. Although he did not find success in these fields, the Dreyfus Affair led him to devote himself entirely to the Zionist cause (Pappe, 2007). Despite this, he became one of the central figures shaping Jewish destiny and is remembered as the “father of Zionism.”

After embracing Zionism, Herzl began meeting with wealthy individuals and intellectuals. Wealthy Western Jews generally did not support his project, but among the poor Jewish communities of Eastern Europe his ideas spread rapidly. With their support he convened the First Zionist Congress in Basel, where major decisions were adopted (Pappe, 2007). Herzl later wrote in his diary that he had “founded the Jewish state” in Basel, predicting it would be realized within fifty years—and indeed, it occurred 51 years later (Karaman, 2023). Herzl died in 1904, but his successors continued to lead the Zionist movement.

Herzl skillfully sought a great power to sponsor the Zionist project. He met with Germany, the Ottoman Empire, and Britain. He met Sultan Abdülhamid II multiple times, but the Sultan famously responded, “I cannot permit surgery to be performed on a living body” (Mezkit, 2013), and declined Herzl’s request. Herzl attempted to offer attractive proposals to each power: paying Ottoman debts, serving as a British colony, and so forth. Rather than negotiating with local populations, he attempted to persuade the imperial powers that dominated the region (Shlaim, 2022).

According to the decision reached at the Zionist Congress, a delegation was sent to Palestine. The delegates concluded their report with the phrase: “The bride is beautiful but married to another.” When Herzl later visited Palestine, it was said that he did not find it particularly appealing (Ateş, 2021). Although pogroms in Russia had sparked the idea that Jews must escape passivity and shape their own destiny before Herzl, he transformed this notion into concrete political action. Despite the delegation’s pessimistic assessment, Zionists did not abandon their dream.

Herzl’s meetings with Abdülhamid II were not perceived within the Ottoman Empire as monumental events. Still, Herzl gained certain concessions—except for settlement in Palestine. After meeting Abdülhamid in 1901, Herzl obtained permission for Jewish immigration to the Ottoman Empire, but not specifically to Palestine (TimeTürk, 2023). Although he continued lobbying efforts, he did not witness any major successes beyond the convening of the Zionist Congress. Herzl died in Austria in 1904, and after the establishment of the State of Israel his remains were moved to Mount Herzl, where his mausoleum now stands alongside that of Jabotinsky. Both men laid the ideological foundations of Israel and spearheaded different branches of Zionism.

Conclusion

Herzl and the Zionist movement he fathered were established in the heart of the Islamic world, particularly the Arab region, in a way that would hinder unity within the Arab world. Arab nationalism, especially during the era of Nasser in Egypt, gained prominence in opposition to Israel. In academic literature, Zionism is often described as a colonial movement. Herzl is seen as the father of Zionism, Ben-Gurion as the father of Israel, and Eliezer Ben-Yehuda as the father of modern Hebrew. Understanding these three figures brings essential lessons.

The strongest critiques of Zionism and Israeli history came from the “New Historians.” Although Palestinian scholars produced academic works, they received limited global attention. Only recently have their writings been discovered and evaluated. Writers such as Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim—both translated into Turkish—should be read to understand these issues accurately. Their exclusion from bibliographies would be academically unfounded.

References 

Ateş, A. G. (2021). Ilan Pappé (2018). İsrail Hakkında On Mit... Kırklareli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(1), 176–180.

Ben-Gurion, D. (2023, October 17). Theodor Herzl. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Theodor-Herzl

Brustein, W. I., & King, R. D. (2004). Anti-Semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. International Political Science Review, 25, 35–53.

Karaman, M. L. (2023). Siyonizm. TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi. https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/siyonizm

Karaoğlu, O., & Elhan, N. (n.d.). [Referenced work].

Mezkit, M. (2013). 2. Abdülhamit Han ve Siyonizm. Yeni Fikir Dergisi, 5(11). https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1721288

Ortadoğu Günlüğü. (2018). Geçmişten Günümüze Filistin. https://ortadogugunlugu.blogspot.com/2018/11/ztkor-gecmisten-gunumuze-filistin.html

Pappe, I. (2007). Modern Filistin Tarihi (N. Plümer, Trans.). Phoenix.

Shlaim, A. (2022). Demir Duvar (T. Demirci, Trans.). Küre Yayınları.

TimeTürk. (2023). Theodor Herzl kimdir? https://www.timeturk.com/theodor-herzl-kimdir/biyografi-805216

Ozan Dur