Introduction
This paper aims to analyze the historical contexts and international dynamics that explain the triumph of the Zionist ideology over the rival ideologies in Palestine, such as Palestinian nationalism. More specifically, the paper details how Zionism established a favorable environment leading to the recognition of a Jewish state, Israel, with the Zionist leaders being able to mobilize adequate support towards the cause and establishing the independent state of Israel within Palestine.
The Emergence and Recognition of the Zionist Movement
Even though they were regarded as second-class citizens in other nations all over the world, the Jews remained optimistic that they would one day return home ever since the Roman rulers had destroyed it around 70 CE. This aspiration has been kept for more than 1800 years, with the calls for the formation of the modern state gaining enough momentum with the coalescing of the consciousness within the European society and an increased awakening among the Jewish population (Dalsheim, 2019). Understanding the historical events, especially within the final 100 years of struggle, is critical in determining the factors that ultimately led to the triumph of Zionism and the creation of Israel in 1948 (Dershowitz, 2019). This First Zionist Congress led to the creation of the Zionist Organization and subsequent adoption of the Basel Program, backed by 260 Eastern European and Zionist Associations from Russia (Reimer, 2020). This historical moment was pivotal in the emergence of the Zionist ideology and the Jewish calls for creating a national home. Another significant milestone occurred twenty years later when Zionist leaders successfully pushed for the official acknowledgment of the Zionist objectives as a legitimate and attainable stand. This recognition was by Great Britain, the reigning global hegemon, and led to the amendment of the British Policy as detailed in the publication of the Balfour Declaration (Huneidi, 2019). The 1922 incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the Mandate for Palestine by the Council of the League of Nations members was another significant historical event. Hence, there was a further strengthening of the structural foundation of the Zionist ideology, with the Zionist leaders being tasked with ensuring that the goals for national liberation were achieved (Sand, 2019). The journalist Theodor Herzl successfully helped to infuse a new and practical urgency in political Zionism and helped to plan the First Congress at Basel, referred to earlier, working together with Nathan Birnbaum (Burns, 2022). The fact that the Zionist leaders could push for the legitimate recognition of the ideology suggests that their push for a historical change had been widely accepted, leading to the beginning of an institutional transformation marked by their nationalist push for self-determination (Safty, 2022). Besides, this was supported by the modification of the material conditions within the international hegemonic order and the change in view towards the Zionist ideology among countries around the globe (Beller, 2021).
International Dynamics and Historical Context
Undoubtedly, various international factors played a pivotal role in the triumph of Zionism. The interaction of the British government, the Zionist members, and the Palestinians/Arabs during the mandate era, where a majority of the people in the territory for a long period were Arabs, made this possible. Nevertheless, the territory was promised to another party, the Jewish international community, whose members mostly lived in Eastern Europe, by a third party, Great Britain (Safty, 2022). The Zionists were prompted by the oppressed conditions in which most of the Eastern European Jews were living, as well as banking on the promise provided by Britain to help them establish a national home. However, the Arab community that had long been established in Palestine resisted the process since it was opposed to the idea of turning its ancestral land into a Jewish nation (Patten, 2020). In the international space, European Jews were discriminated against by individual citizens as well as governments through oppressive policies such as being denied entry into certain professions, not being accepted in universities, confining confined to certain residential places, and being barred from state employment (Adams et al., 2022). The hope to one day return to a homeland where they would not be experiencing this discrimination gave the Jewish diaspora population hope. The conditions in nineteenth-century Europe significantly contributed to the international dynamics and forces that gave rise to political Zionism (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). Legislation was adopted by the States of Western Europe, providing the legal basis and backing for the emancipation of Jews in light of the era of national liberalism. This international dynamic was pivotal since emancipation helped the Jews increasingly identify as citizens, thus moving into middle-class occupations instead of their previous identity as a distinctive religious community. Independence was most appreciated with the assimilation, bringing hope to the end of the antisemitism stereotypes that were associated with the Jews in Germany (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). Nevertheless, some of the Jews regretted that this aspect resulted in the decline of religious observance and a dilution of the communal bonds associated with the Jews before emancipation and assimilation.
However, the international dynamics in Eastern Europe were considerably different from those in Western Europe’s (Gelvin, 2016). Eastern European countries such as Poland and Russia, which were some of the main centers of Diaspora Jewry, continued with the oppression of the Jews with a continuation of the active persecution of the Jewish people. For instance, the reigns of both Alexander III (1881–1894) and Nicholas II (1894–1917) were marked with several organized massacres that targeted the Jews, making millions of East European Jews seek refuge in the United States as an escape route from the harassment and oppression (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). However, this dynamic in Eastern Europe further ignited the Zionist ideology, which offered the people an alternative hope for the persecution that they were facing through a new political Zionism that was inspired by nationalism as a religious belief as opposed to the spiritual Zionism that had persisted for several years.
Furthermore, the modern political Zionism, which focused on Jewish nationalism in Palestine, originated in Russia, where antisemitism was witnessed the most, with Jewish groups being formed to solely focus on the objective of settling the Jewish populations in Palestine in light of the massacre that they were experiencing in Russia (Limbrunner, 2019). The Lovers of Zion was a central coordinating agency established in 1884 and sponsored agricultural settlements in Palestine (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). However, they were unsuccessful since the group had inadequate funds. Nevertheless, this historical step took prominence in the historical happenings of the modern Israeli population and is seen as one of the several aliyahs (settlement waves) that eventually led to the establishment of Israel and the triumph of Zionism. The Jewish State, authored by Theodor Herzl in 1896, perfectly represents the international dynamics that were present during this era (Gelvin, 2016). He argued that the Jews were oppressed in lands where the cultural majority oppressed them because they did not have a country where they could express their culture freely. The journalist provided the ideological basis for political Zionism and argued that the only way to solve the problem was to assure the sovereignty of the Jewish population. Herzl was encouraged by the resounding reception that his publication had received. He looked to organize the different approaches to Zionism into one unified movement that would achieve more significant results (Pelham, 2016). The First Zionist Congress, in which the World Zionist Organization (WZO) was established as the agency tasked with the central administration of the Zionist cause, was held. This historical undertaking was pivotal in the triumph of Zionism since the following years witnessed the setting up of several branches throughout Eastern Europe, thus helping to galvanize grassroots support and an increasing appeal that the movement was attracting.
Several factors that happened during World War Ⅰ brought the work of Zionism to be recognized by the British cabinet, with the most consequential of them being the view that the Jews in Russia and the United States could change the approach of the respective governments towards World War Ⅰ. Even though these beliefs were ill-founded, they significantly influenced British policy and galvanized more international support for the Zionist cause (Hurewitz, 2022). The factors that interacted to produce the declaration of the British support of Zionist objectives in Palestine included the chance to secure British strategic interests, the existence of sympathy towards the humanitarian and religious aspects of Zionism, the opportunity to cement wartime alliances, and the persistent and persuasive approach by Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist spokesperson in London (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). The Balfour Declaration, a short document that, even though filled with contradictions and ambiguous words for all the parties mentioned in it, led to more prominence of Zionism, highlighted this aspect. Per Pelham (2016), the San Remo Conference of 1920 awarded Britain the mandate for Palestine, with the military government being replaced by a civilian administration. The League of Nations formally recognized the mandate two years later, with the Balfour Declaration being recognized and Hebrew regarded as an official language in Palestine. This move significantly raised the Zionist expectations while proving problematic to the Palestine Arab nationalism ideology and alarming the Arab inhabitants. Besides, political appointments such as that of Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew and ardent Zionist, as civilian high commissioner further galvanized the triumph of Zionism over Palestine/Arab nationalism ideology (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016).
Zionism was further helped by the support from the global Jewish communities who provided both financial and political support, with the most influential being the contacts that had been established by Chaim Weizmann, with the WZO being headquartered in London and Weizmann serving as its president (Nikolenyi, 2022). He had access to the British prime minister, cabinet members, and journalists, an aspect that helped the Zionist cause since he could intervene quickly and decisively whenever British policy was not favorable for Zionist ideology (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). The Jewish group residing in the United States also provided significant support through the Zionist Organization of America, headed by Louis Brandeis, a notable lawyer and future Supreme Court justice. American Jewry played a pivotal part in influencing the outcome of the Palestine conflict by being representatives in WZO deliberations, providing private contributions to fund the Zionist cause, and taking advantage of the rise of the United States as a superpower during World War Ⅱ.
The international dynamics of World War Ⅱ and the political changes and alliances that were witnessed also shaped the dynamics between Zionism and Palestinian/Arab nationalism. Hitler’s death camps that led to the systemic murder of millions of European Jews in what is widely referred to as the Holocaust made the Western countries to be of the view that only the settlement of the remaining Jews in Palestine would at least help to atone for the oppression that the Western civilizations had meted on them (Crowe, 2021). Furthermore, international Jewish groups drummed up more support for this approach (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). For instance, American Jews were in support of the Biltmore Program that adopted a set of resolutions, such as calling for open immigration into Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish commonwealth in the nation. They also advocated for the establishment of an independent state in Palestine. The United States became the center for international Zionism, with both American and Palestinian Zionists undertaking publicity campaigns to enlighten the electorate and politicians on their ideology (Friedman, 2022). Hence, President Truman endorsed the Biltmore Program and his commitment to establishing a Jewish state. The support of the Zionist movement by the United States was significant because the country could exert pressure on its allies, having an unprecedented military might and an expanding economic landscape, making it emerge from the war as a global superpower (Hurewitz, 2022). The support of the Allied cause led to thousands of Jews volunteering to join the British forces, with the eventual formation of the Jewish Brigade that fought in Italy as a unit of the British forces. Besides, the Haganah was allowed to participate in the preparation of the defense of Palestine alongside the British forces, as well as acquitting weapons even though the group was technically illegal (Safty, 2022). Moreover, the Yishuv were eventually determined to get rid of the British control in Palestine after the former had turned away ships that refugees crowded, most of them European Jews, or sent them to detention camps in Cyprus (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). These events were widely published and led to an intensification of the Zionist ideology that underscored the fact that only a Jewish independent country could lead to a safe avenue for the Jews returning home.
Palestine/Arab Nationalism Historical Context
On the other hand, Palestinian nationalism was born out of the determination to have a national movement that expresses the need for the sovereignty and self-determination of the region of Palestine. Many scholars have attached the emergence of Palestine/Arab nationalism as being opposed to Zionism, even though other factors also led to the establishment of the ideology. Nevertheless, the movement internationalized to attach itself to other ideologies (Muslih, 1987). The emergence of this movement can be traced to the late Ottoman context, where the collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to increased calls and a sense of identity for the Arab community in the Empire’s Arab provinces. The events were most notably witnessed in Syria, which was then considered to include Lebanon and Northern Palestine. They were connected with al-Nahda, a wider reformist trend aimed at redefining the Arab culture and political identity for a unifying Arabic feature during the late nineteenth century. During the British Mandate Era, nationalist groups built around notables (A’ayan) were at the Apex of the Palestinian socioeconomic sphere owing to the political and economic power they wielded, making them dominate the Palestinian-Arab politics. As a result, they were tasked with helping in the administration of the local affairs of Palestine and, importantly, the fronting of Palestine/Arab nationalism. They included the Al-Husseini, Nashashibi, Tuqan, and ‘Abd al-Hadi families. In 1919, Emir Faisal and Weizmann signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement, which aimed to show that the Zionist plans for Palestine had been approved by Arabs, among other objectives. The Palestinian Arab population further agitated for Palestine to become a separate state with Arabs as the majority. Besides, the rise of the secret society of al-Kaff al-Sawada (the self-sacrificers), which played a role in activities aimed at opposing both the British and Zionist ideologies, albeit clandestinely, was born.
The White Paper issued by the British government in 1922 aimed to curb, albeit failing to do so, the ambiguities of the Balfour Declaration by highlighting that the establishment of the Jewish national home did not mean that Jews would be imposed on all of the inhabitants of Palestine, a move that was aimed at placating the Arab community. It also restricted the influx of Jews to Palestine as well as the areas that they could occupy, leading to widespread condemnation by the international Jewish community. The Great Revolt (1936-1939) witnessed an uprising of the Palestinian Arabs within the mandate in opposition to the Zionist cause, including the mass Jewish immigration. However, it also led to a split in the Arab High Committee, with Hajj Amin taking control and being supported by the Arab League to reject the partition of Palestine; in contrast, the Nashashibis and several other Palestinians united under the Arab Palestinian Communist Party and supported the territorial partition plan (Muslih, 1987). There was an imbalance of power between the Palestinian Arab communities, which became substantially disarmed and weaker compared to the Zionist movement.
An All-Palestine Government was proclaimed in 1948 in the Gaza Strip, which was controlled by Egypt, winning the support of all Arab League members except Jordan. The government’s jurisdiction was declared to cover the whole of Palestine but lacked significant authority with the leaders seated in Cairo. Furthermore, the Palestinian hope for self-governance was further crippled in 1959 when the decree of Gamal Abdel Nasser led to the merging of the All-Palestine Government into the United Arab Republic (Zipperstein, 2021). Undoubtedly, these events can be seen as leading to the fading of the Palestine identity, with Palestinian refugees becoming a common figure and leading to the emergence of the Palestine Liberation Organisation fighting for the recognition of the Palestine people. However, this has not been the case as such organizations have evolved over the years, leading to different wars and peace agreements without establishing an independent Palestine national home.
Community-Based Struggle
Zionism is the political and religious effort that helped to bring several Jews from across the globe back to their ancient homeland in the Middle East (Lewin, 2020). The re-establishment of Israel as the central location for the Jewish identity happened. The Zionist movement successfully established the Jewish homeland in the nation of Israel in a move that some critics called an aggressive and discriminatory approach that forcibly pushed out Palestinians. On the other hand, the Arab/Palestinian nationalism ideology addressed the Arab and Palestinian populations that lived in the former mandate as well as those bordering Arab countries with the assertion that Arabs constitute a single nation, thus promoting Arab civilization and culture, history, language and calling for the total unification of the Arab society (Zaki, 2020). Hence, the rivalry between the Zionist and Arab nationalism approaches can be viewed as a struggle between two ideologically motivated communities as opposed to ideologies that were seeking the overall support of the people. For instance, the Palestinian leadership was undertaken by notables from the local and urban areas with immense prestige and power based on their domination over municipal offices and the ownership of land (Rosenberg, 2021). This Arab executive sought to preserve the social and political ideologies of Palestine nationalism by adopting a policy that included cautious cooperation with the British authorities and a moderate opposition as opposed to an outward rejection of the ideas being fronted for a Jewish national state. Their approach was supported by the British rulers, who wanted the existing social order to remain. They used the leadership of individuals from notable families to act as intermediaries between the government and the people.
On the other hand, the presence of policies such as the Balfour Declaration and the fact that Jews were encouraged to immigrate to Palestine made it difficult for the Arab executive to further the Palestine/Arab nationalism ideology (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). The Palestine/ Arab nationalism ideology was further compounded by the fact that they did not command the same respect in London corridors as Weizmann, a determined Zionist leadership, having to deal with imperialism by the British and growing demands from their people not to let other ideologies win. The Palestine Arab Congress, which met annually to adopt resolutions on issues affecting the relationship between the Arab community, the British, and the Zionists, was established (Rosenberg, 2021). However, the British authorities only occasionally recognized its authority, refusing to accept it, thus diminishing the ability of the Arab executive to act as a link between the mandate government and the Arabs. Furthermore, the bitter rivalry between the Al-Husaynis and the Nashashibis, which were the two leading Muslim notable families in Jerusalem, further worsened Palestinian political activities (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). The British took advantage of this factionalism, as evidenced in their appointments with the opposing camps declaring that they would not accept the positions taken by the other. This aspect was detrimental to the Palestinian cause.
On the other hand, the Zionist organizations had more extensive resources than the Arabs, including the human and fiscal aspects marshaled by the Jewish Agency and the National Council (Jabareen & Bishara, 2019). The Zionist ideologists were granted access to the British authorities by the terms of the mandate, which had allowed the establishment of a public body that would be involved in consulting with the mandatory government on matters that were related to the creation of Israel. The 1921 establishment of the Zionist Executive for Palestine, later renamed the Jewish Agency in 1929, marked this historical event (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). The agency was involved in managing a wide array of key services, such as banking systems and healthcare services, with its chairman regularly meeting the high commissioner, among other important British dignitaries. Moreover, the Jews were better financed and organized than the Arabs, with the communal affairs being carried out through organizations such as the National Assembly and Council. The mandate government recognized the National Council as the legitimate representative of Palestine Jewry and made administrative decisions on behalf of the Jews (Hurewitz, 2022).
Furthermore, the Histadrut, a federation of Jewish labor, was pivotal in the generation of self-sufficiency within the Yishuv. It gradually expanded its role to undertake extensive entrepreneurial activities and influence the ideology and political stands of the Yishuv and the future state of Israel. Moreover, the labor organization further advanced the Zionist agenda through strategic alliances such as that undertaken with the kibbutz workers in the agricultural sector and instituting a boycott of the Arab workers and products (Diao, 2021). The actions of the Histradut led to the recognition of the socioeconomic orientation of the Jewish people and an improvement in their self-image, which changed from the oppressed citizens living in Europe to physically active and self-confident people who eventually determined their destiny.
Nevertheless, the triumph of Zionism over rival ideologies was not without internal conflicts and infighting within the Jewish community since Zionism allowed a broad spectrum of opinions to be expressed. For instance, most Zionists believed in Weizmann’s approach, which involved relying on Britain to meet the Zionist objectives. However, the Revisionists disagreed, terming Weizmann’s approach as hesitant and too dependent on Britain (Latif & Akmal, 2019). Its founder and leading spokesperson, Vladimir Jabotinsky, a Russian Zionist, called for the immediate proclamation of the Jewish commonwealth with a massive Jewish immigration into Palestine (Hurewitz, 2022). The group further called for more territorial demands, such as the colonization of Transjordan. It attracted support from young and enthusiastic Zionist youth groups in Eastern Europe, with Jabotinsky being portrayed as an object of a leadership cult. The separatist group also formed its military force in Palestine, the Irgun, but lost much of it after the death of the founding leader. Nevertheless, the uncompromising vision of the former leader was revived by two of his disciples, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, who would later become Israeli Prime Ministers.
Consequences of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The triumph of Zionism had a significant influence on the trajectory of the Israeli-Palestine conflict, which ultimately led to the creation and confirmation of the state of Israel. The first phase of this conflict was guided by the views of Ben-Gurion, who believed that Britain would not sponsor the gradual development of a Jewish national home; this left them with the option of pushing for the immediate establishment of the state by Zionist leaders in Palestine (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). For instance, the Irgun used terrorist tactics to attack Arab civilians and British personnel; this often brought discredit to the Zionist cause, but some of the members of the Jewish community viewed the move as being justified. In 1954, the Haganah took part in several well-planned acts against the British communication systems; this saw the Jewish Agency join the conflict. Ultimately, Britain, through its foreign secretary Ernest Bevin, stated that it had lost control of the situation in Palestine in February of 1947, thus referring the matter to the United Nations (Dershowitz, 2019). Ultimately, the majority of the committee members set up by the UN recommended that the partition be divided into two states, which proposed the creation of autonomous Arab and Jewish states inside the borders of Palestine (Hughes & Kostovicova, 2020). However, only the Zionist leaders accepted this, with the Arab leaders rejecting the report. After extensive lobbying by Washington under the helm of President Truman, the UN General Assembly approved the partition of the Palestine mandate, with Jerusalem being accorded international status (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). This period was marked by inter-communal war, with the disciplined Haganah forces taking control of the majority of major towns of the Palestinians that were within the proposed Jewish territory, leading to the fleeing of more than 400,000 Arab inhabitants.
Moreover, the Irgun oversaw one of the most notorious acts, the killing of 250 civilian inhabitants of the village of Deir Yassin that was near Jerusalem, an act which contributed to more panic within the Arab population, leading to more people fleeing (Radai, 2022). A retaliatory attack by an Arab unit on a Jewish medical convoy led to the killing of several doctors on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The British government failed to establish political institutions in its mandate for Palestine. It made minimal attempts to maintain order amidst the chaos, leaving the Jewish and Arab communities to battle it out for supremacy (Allen, 2021). The Jewish community emerged victorious with Ben-Gurion proclaiming the independence of the state of Israel, which the Soviet Union and the United States immediately recognized. Over the years that followed, there was a war between the Israeli army and armies from the Arab countries of Syria, Egypt, Transjordan, Iraq, and Lebanon, with the Arabs suffering a heavy defeat that took on civilizational overtones and resulted in the self-examination of the political and social bases of the Arab community (Cleveland & Bunton, 2016). The initial conflict between the Arab and Jewish residents of Palestine was changed into the unfortunate and unending Arab-Israeli conflict that persists to this day in the form of the war between Israel and Hamas.
Critical Final Thought
The victory of Zionism over other ideologies, especially Palestine-Arab nationalism, is a multi-variable result that historical, geopolitical, and socio-cultural factors have influenced. Zionism, based on the late nineteenth-century demand for a Jewish homeland, picked up with the Balfour Declaration in 1947 and the setting of Israel as a state in 1948. The Holocaust, a horrific incident that emphasized the desperate need for a Jewish state, also helped to foster a worldwide understanding of Zionism. In geopolitical terms, post-World War II realities and the Cold War were important factors. The Western powers, especially the United States, saw Israel as highly strategic, and this further consolidated its position in the region. In addition, the disunity of Arab states and their domestic fights undermined unity in Palestine-Arab nationalism. The Six-Day War in 1967 only made things better for Israel as not just its military might but also territorial gains were further bolstered, thus reinforcing the Zionist narrative. The Zionist victory also includes cultural aspects because Jewish diaspora communities worldwide supported the creation and preservation of Israel. However, this victory needs to be critically evaluated, taking into account the existing challenges and conflicts as well as understanding how complex narratives and hopes shape both the Zionist nationalism movement and the Palestinian-Arab one. The geopolitical environment and historical grudges still play a key role in the understanding of complex dynamics that resulted in Zionism’s dominance in this region.
Conclusion
In summary, several factors are credited with the triumph of Zionism over rival ideologies such as Palestine/Arab nationalism. These include international dynamics such as support from the global Jewish communities and major historical events such as the Balfour Declaration. Nevertheless, this was not without internal conflicts and infighting, with sections of Jewish communities having differing opinions on how to drive the Zionist cause. The triumph ultimately resulted in the creation of the state of Israel but also perpetuated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is witnessed up to the present day.
References
Adams, M., Griffin, P., & Bell, L. A. (2022). Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice. Routledge.
Allen, L. (2021). A history of false hope: Investigative commissions in Palestine. Stanford University Press.
Beller, S. (2021). Theodor Herzl: The Charismatic Leader by Derek Penslar (review). Antisemitism Studies, 5(2), 401–409. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/835791
Burns, R. (2022). Politics as Invention: On Theodor Herzl’s Ideal Elites. AJS Review: The Journal of the Association for Jewish Studies, 46(2), 223–242. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/872095
Cleveland, W. L., & Bunton, M. (2016). A history of the modern Middle East (6th Ed.). Westview Press.
Crowe, D. M. (2021). The Holocaust: Roots, History, and Aftermath. Routledge.
Dalsheim, J. (2019). Israel has a Jewish problem: Self-determination as self-elimination. New York Oxford University Press.
Dershowitz, A. (2019). The Jewish State: The historic essay that led to the creation of Israel. Skyhorse Publishing.
Diao, L. (2021, June 10). Collective defense by common property: The rise and fall of the Kibbutz. Summit.sfu.ca. https://summit.sfu.ca/item/34771
Friedman, D. (2022). American Theopolitics and Israel-Palestine. ERA. https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/9480ea1c-e12f-47af-a71e-d798976ed217
Gelvin, J. L. (2016). The Modern Middle East: A history. Oxford University Press.
Hughes, J., & Kostovicova, D. (2020). Rethinking Reconciliation and Transitional Justice After Conflict. Routledge.
Huneidi, S. (2019). The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration. Or Books.
Hurewitz, J. C. (2022). The struggle for Palestine. American Council Of Learned Societies.
Jabareen, H., & Bishara, S. (2019). The Jewish Nation-State Law. Journal of Palestine Studies, 48(2), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1525/jps.2019.48.2.43
Latif, M. I., & Akmal, M. J. (2019). Structural Realism: A Constitutive Analysis. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences, 39(4), 1735–1746. https://pjss.bzu.edu.pk/index.php/pjss/article/view/799
Lewin, A. D. (2020). Zionism – The integral component of Jewish identity that Jews are historically pressured to shed. Israel Affairs, 26(3), 330–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537121.2020.1754577
Limbrunner, M. (2019). The Struggle between Communism and Zionism. Jewish Collective Identity between Class and State in Revolutionary Russia and Historic Palestine. Global Histories: A Student Journal, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.17169/GHSJ.2019.334
Muslih, M. (1987). Arab Politics and the Rise of Palestinian Nationalism. Journal of Palestine Studies, 16(4), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/2536721
Nikolenyi, C. (2022). President of Israel: Chaim Weizmann. The Palgrave International Handbook of Israel, 45(8), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2717-0_27-1
Patten, A. (2020). The Idea of Israel as a Jewish State. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 21(2), 531–559. https://doi.org/10.1515/til-2020-0023
Pelham, N. (2016). Holy lands: Reviving pluralism in the Middle East. Columbia Global Reports.
Radai, I. (2022). The Palestinians in the 1948 War and recent historiography in Israel. Journal of Israeli History, 55(7), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13531042.2021.2075107
Reimer, M. (2020). The First Zionist Congress. State University Of New York Press.
Rosenberg, J. C. (2021). Enemies and allies: An unforgettable journey inside the fast-moving, immensely turbulent modern Middle East. Tyndale House Publishers.
Safty, A. (2022). Might Over Right: How the Zionists Took Over Palestine. Garnet Publishing Ltd.
Sand, S. (2019). Invention Of The Jewish People. Verso.
Zaki, A. S. (2020). The Emergence and Evolution of Palestinian Nationalism. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 3(2), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.47814/ijssrr.v3i2.36
Zipperstein, S. E. (2021). Zionism, Palestinian Nationalism and the Law (1st Ed.). Routledge.
write