Unacknowledged Kinships: Postcolonial Studies and the Historiography of Zionism

The Tauber Institute Series for the Study of European Jewry

JEHUDA REINHARZ, General Editor

CHAERAN Y. FREEZE, Associate Editor

SYLVIA FUKS FRIED, Associate Editor

EUGENE R. SHEPPARD, Associate Editor

The Tauber Institute Series is dedicated to publishing compelling and innovative approaches to the study of modern European Jewish history, thought, culture, and society. The series features scholarly works related to the Enlightenment, modern Judaism and the struggle for emancipation, the rise of nationalism and the spread of antisemitism, the Holocaust and its aftermath, as well as the contemporary Jewish experience. The series is published under the auspices of the Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry—established by a gift to Brandeis University from Dr. Laszlo N. Tauber—and is supported, in part, by the Tauber Foundation and the Valya and Robert Shapiro Endowment.

For the complete list of books that are available in this series, please see https://brandeisuniversitypress.com/series/tauber

STEFAN VOGT, DEREK J. PENSLAR, and ARIEH SAPOSNIK, editors

Unacknowledged Kinships: Postcolonial Studies and the Historiography of Zionism

*MARAT GRINBERG

The Soviet Jewish Bookshelf: Jewish Culture and Identity Between the Lines

SUSAN MARTHA KAHN, editor

Canine Pioneer: The Extraordinary Life of Rudolphina Menzel

ARTHUR GREEN

Defender of the Faithful: The Life and Thought of Rabbi Levi Yitshak of Berdychiv

GILAD SHARVIT

Dynamic Repetition: History and Messianism in Modern Jewish Thought

YOSEF HAYIM YERUSHALMI in Conversation with SYLVIE ANNE GOLDBERG

Transmitting Jewish History

CHARLES DELLHEIM

Belonging and Betrayal: How Jews Made the Art World Modern

CEDRIC COHEN-SKALLI

Don Isaac Abravanel: An Intellectual Biography

CHAERAN Y. FREEZE

A Jewish Woman of Distinction: The Life and Diaries of Zinaida Poliakova

CHAVA TURNIANSKY

Glikl: Memoirs 1691–1719

*A Sarnat Library Book

Unacknowledged Kinships

Postcolonial Studies and the Historiography of Zionism

Edited by STEFAN VOGT, DEREK J. PENSLAR, and ARIEH SAPOSNIK

Brandeis University Press

WALTHAM, MASSACHUSETTS

Brandeis University Press

© 2023 by Brandeis University Press

All rights reserved

Manufactured in the United States of America

Typeset in Empirica by Tobias Frere-Jones and Nina Stössinger and Garamond Premier Pro by Robert Slimbach

For permission to reproduce any of the material in this book, contact Brandeis University Press, 415 South Street, Waltham MA 02453, or visit brandeisuniversitypress.com

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLISHING DATA

Names: Vogt, Stefan, 1968– editor, author. | Penslar, Derek Jonathan, editor, writer of introduction. | Saposnik, Arieh Bruce, 1966– editor, writer of introduction.

Title: Unacknowledged kinships : postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism / edited by Stefan Vogt, Derek J. Penslar, and Arieh Saposnik.

Description: Waltham : Brandeis University Press, 2023. | Series: The Tauber Institute series for the study of European Jewry | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Summary: A ground-breaking collection of essays regarding the history, implementation and challenges of using ‘antisemitism’ and related terms as tools for both historical analysis and public debate. A unique, sophisticated contribution to current debates in both the academic and the public realms regarding the nature and study of antisemitism today — Provided by publisher.

Identifiers: LCCN 2023002749 | ISBN 9781684581542 (paperback) | ISBN 9781684581559 (cloth) | ISBN 9781684581566 (ebook)

Subjects: LCSH: Antisemitism — Historiography. | Zionism — Historiography. | Jews — Historiography. | Jews — History — Study and teaching.

Classification: LCC DS145.U525 2023 | DDC 305.892/400722 — dc23/eng/20230131

LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023002749

5  4  3  2  1

Contents

Acknowledgments

1. Introduction: Unacknowledged Kinships

STEFAN VOGT, DEREK J. PENSLAR, AND ARIEH SAPOSNIK

Part I · Conceptualizations

2. A Rebellious Tied-Up Beast: German Zionist Concepts of Authenticity as Counternarratives

MANJA HERRMANN

3. Zionism as Positioning: Reconceptualizing Zionist Identity Politics

STEFAN VOGT

4. Postcolonial Parallels in Albert Memmi’s Portrait of Frantz Fanon: Negotiating Négritude, Nativism, and Jewish Nationalism

ABRAHAM RUBIN

Part II · Looking West, Looking East

5. Blyden and Pissarro on St. Thomas: Pan-Africanism, Zionism, Diasporism, and the Sephardic Caribbean

SARAH PHILLIPS CASTEEL

6. Mapping Zionism: The "Ostjude" in Zionist History and Historiography

MAŁGORZATA A. MAKSYMIAK

7. Central European Zionisms and the Habsburg Colonial Imaginary

SCOTT SPECTOR

8. The Spoken Hebrew Here Is Not a Language: On Gershom Scholem and Oriental Hebrew

GHILAD H. SHENHAV

Part III · Palestine and Israel between Empire and Decolonization

9. The Return of Modernity: Postcolonialism and the New Historiography of Jews from the Levant and Egypt

ORIT BASHKIN

10. Between Monumentalism and Miniaturization: Israel’s Settlement Project and the Question of Third World Colonialism

JOHANNES BECKE

11. A Part of Asia or Apart from Asia? Zionist Perceptions of Asia, 1947–1956

REPHAEL G. STERN AND ARIE M. DUBNOV

Part IV · Conversations

12. An Interview with Dipesh Chakrabarty

Afterword: Intellectual Journeys

ATO QUAYSON

Bibliography

Contributors

Index

Acknowledgments

This book began its life in the summer of 2018 as an international conference titled Unacknowledged Kinships at Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, hosted by the Martin Buber Chair for Jewish Thought and Philosophy. We wish to thank Christian Wiese, who holds the Martin Buber Chair, for making this conference possible. We also wish to thank the conference donors: the Fritz Thyssen Foundation, the Foundation for the Promotion of International Relations at Goethe-University, the Ignatz Bubis Foundation, the Association of the Friends and Benefactors of the Goethe-University, the FAZIT Foundation, and the Wissenschaftliche Arbeitsgemeinschaft of the Leo Baeck Institute in Germany. We wish to especially thank the Ignatz Bubis Foundation for allowing us to use parts of its grant to help finance the editing of this book. The production of this book was also made possible by grants from the History Department at Harvard University and the Ben-Gurion Institute for the Study of Israel and Zionism at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. We express our deep gratitude for this support.

The book would not have been possible without the kind and constant support of the staff at Brandeis University Press. We are particularly grateful to Sue Ramin, Sylvia Fuks-Fried, and Anthony Lipscomb. The editors also wish to express their gratitude to Talia Penslar for her deft stylistic editing.

Last but not least, our thanks go to the contributors to this book as well as to the participants in the conference that kicked off the process culminating in this volume’s publication. Working with these scholars was an exceptionally pleasant and inspiring experience. We are extremely grateful for the patience and persistence with which they committed themselves to the creation of this book.

STEFAN VOGT, DEREK J. PENSLAR, ARIEH SAPOSNIK

1

Introduction

Unacknowledged Kinships

STEFAN VOGT, DEREK J. PENSLAR, and ARIEH SAPOSNIK

In July 2000, a few weeks after the Israeli Defense Forces withdrew from Lebanon and only days before the beginning of the eventually failed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority at Camp David, a photograph appeared in a number of media outlets showing a man with a baseball cap who was just about to throw a stone. The man was the cultural and literary studies scholar Edward Said, who, as the author of the book Orientalism and other path-breaking works, is considered one of the founders of the discipline of postcolonial studies. The picture was taken in Southern Lebanon, close to the Israeli border. Said threw the stone in what he later described as a symbolic gesture toward Israel.¹

In fact, the gesture could not have been more symbolic. A great amount of politically motivated reservation or even suspicion is at work between the academic fields of postcolonial studies and the study of Zionism. Postcolonial studies is considered by many of its protagonists, but also by many scholars of Zionism, as clearly anti-Zionist in its political positions and intentions. This is not an unfounded assumption. Postcolonial scholars often characterize Israel and Zionism as prime examples of colonial and postcolonial oppression.² At the same time, from a Zionist perspective, postcolonial studies are often reduced to anti-Zionist bias and dismissed as pure ideology, without discussing their more substantive claims and findings.³ For many protagonists and observers, postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism are not on speaking terms. They don’t find it worthwhile, or even legitimate, to engage in a dialogue. This book contests this notion. It claims that there is an unacknowledged kinship between Zionism and postcolonial studies, a kinship that deserves to be discovered and acknowledged.

The book strives to facilitate a conversation between the historiography of Zionism and postcolonial studies by identifying and exploring possible linkages and affiliations between their subjects as well as the limits of such connections. The authors of the essays in this volume discuss central theoretical concepts developed within the field of postcolonial studies, use these concepts to analyze crucial aspects of the history of Zionism, and contextualize Zionist thought, politics, and culture within colonial and postcolonial histories. While the main purpose of the book is to test the applicability of postcolonial concepts to the history of Zionism, it also traces vectors that move in the opposite direction. Postcolonial studies might have something to gain from looking at the history of Zionism as an example of not only colonial domination but also the seemingly contradictory processes of national liberation and self-empowerment. Postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism could profit from each other if they could bridge the political chasm that all too often underpins their disciplines. This does not mean that these fields should look upon each other without critical scrutiny. To the contrary, an open and critical exchange could help each discipline address its own limitations and weaknesses that, in both cases, often derive from tendencies to essentialization and self-affirmation.

This book is the first to systematically investigate the potential for a dialogue between postcolonial studies and the history of Zionism. It is also unique in suggesting that postcolonial concepts can be applied to the history of European Zionism just as comprehensively as to the history of Zionism in Palestine and Israel or in Arab countries. Most importantly, this book is an overture for a dialogue between postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism. Featuring an interview with the postcolonial historian Dipesh Chakrabarty and an afterword by the postcolonial literary scholar Ato Quayson, it is the first to directly engage in such a conversation. We believe that this not only provides a significant addition to the existing scholarship but also serves an important political purpose. Perhaps, one hopes, it could help overcome the destructive competition that often exists between the struggles against racism and the struggles against antisemitism, in favor of a joint effort to confront past and present forms of exclusion, subordination, and persecution.

First Encounters

For a number of years now, there has been growing interest among scholars of Jewish history and culture in including concepts from postcolonial studies into their work. Already in the early 1990s, Daniel and Jonathan Boyarin suggested viewing Jewish history from a perspective inspired by a postcolonial understanding of Diaspora.⁴ This concept linked Jewish history with postcolonialism, making use of the latter’s robust theoretical toolbox. In a similar vein, Samuel Moyn and Susannah Heschel have proposed employing Paul Gilroy’s appropriation of the concept of Diaspora, which itself originated in Jewish history, as well as concepts such as Third Space (Homi Bhabha), Orientalism (Edward Said), and Subalternity (Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak), for the analysis and interpretation of Jewish history.⁵ These suggestions have been taken up especially in scholarship on the history of Middle Eastern and Mediterranean Jewry, as well as the history of Jews in other non-European spaces.⁶ In recent years postcolonial approaches have also gained currency in the historiography of pre-1948 Palestine and the State of Israel.⁷ In addition to textual representations of identity politics or of social and cultural processes, aspects of material culture such as visual art, music, and food have been analyzed in this context, which constitutes another bridge to postcolonial studies where these issues are also central.⁸ In Israel, there is an academic journal, Theory and Criticism, which is devoted to promoting postcolonial studies (along with other critical theories) across the humanities, including the fields of Jewish and Israeli history.⁹

While these developments constitute a historiographical trend, there remains much to be done to firmly establish colonialism as an essential context for the study of Israeli history, as well as postcolonial approaches as legitimate means to address that history. At the same time, these approaches are not always deployed in a sufficiently critical and nuanced way. In many cases, for instance, postcolonial concepts have been applied to the history of the Yishuv and the history of Israel in order to support the notion that the Zionist project was entirely and inseparably bound to the colonizing West.¹⁰ The Yishuv and Israel are entangled with, and implicated in, colonial forms of domination, yet that entanglement is complex. Critiques of the colonial paradigm have argued that the social structures in Palestine were neither equivalent to those in European colonies, nor were the ideological motives of the Zionists for settling in Palestine or their economic goals comparable to those of the European powers.¹¹ More importantly, the colonial paradigm is problematic precisely because of its unambiguity. The preconceived decision, whether for political or methodological reasons (or both), to place Israel and the Yishuv squarely on the hegemonic side of the colonial divide contradicts an insight that has been established above all by scholars of postcolonial studies, namely that the border between the two sides of this divide is neither clear nor tight.¹² In addition, it prevents us from asking whether Zionism also included anticolonial or postcolonial elements. Recent research has revealed, for instance, important similarities and interrelations between Israel and postcolonial development regimes, at least in the first two decades after 1948.¹³ The relationship of the Yishuv with the British colonial authorities in Palestine—as well as with the Ottoman state—cannot be adequately understood either if the Yishuv, and the Zionist movement in general, are seen exclusively as a colonial force.¹⁴

Equally problematic is the concentration of much of the work that emphasizes the colonialist character of Zionism on Palestine and the emerging national conflict there. In Europe, where the Zionist movement originated and where its organizational and ideological centers were located for many decades, its position was markedly different. Here, Zionism was a movement of a minority that had been otherized, discriminated against, and persecuted for centuries, sometimes in a colonizing fashion. This is why the Israeli historian Avi Bareli accused protagonists of the colonial paradigm of forgetting Europe when they label Zionism a colonialist movement.¹⁵ Zionism was not least a movement that strove to reposition the Jews within European societies. Including Europe in the picture helps us see Zionism’s quality as a subaltern strategy of self-empowerment. This observation, however, should not lead to replacing one false unambiguity with another. A perspective on the history of Zionism that centers around its European aspects should not forget Palestine, that is, the fact that both the ideological focus of Zionism and the location where its ideas were turned into practice were outside of Europe, in a space that was the object of colonial interests and desires. Inside Europe, too, Zionism cannot be located entirely on the subaltern side of the colonial divide. The movement’s entanglement with European colonialism and its integration into European bourgeois culture were too strong for this. If we look at Zionist history in Europe, it becomes obvious once more that it is impossible to make a neat separation between hegemonic and subaltern positions.

In the 1990s, scholars began to look at the interconnections between Jewish history and colonial history within Europe.¹⁶ Much of this work has been inspired by impulses from postcolonial studies. In particular, these scholars recognized that if, as Ann Stoler and Frederick Cooper have famously argued, Europe was made by its imperial projects, as much as colonial encounters were shaped by conflicts within Europe itself, then the situation of the Jews in Europe must also have been implicated by colonialism, and vice versa.¹⁷ In the field of German-Jewish history, for instance, Jonathan Hess, Susannah Heschel, and Christian Wiese have shown that Jewish struggles for equality and recognition, as well as antisemitic attempts to deny these rights to Jews, were strongly entangled with colonial structures and ideologies and that postcolonial concepts can help to understand these entanglements.¹⁸ With regard to France and Britain, too, a small but growing group of scholars uses empire rather than the nation-state as their point of reference for investigating the position of the Jews in these societies.¹⁹ The same is true for Eastern European Jewish history, where the Russian and Habsburg Empires provide a political and cultural setting that encourages scholars to use postcolonial concepts.²⁰ Finally, scholars such as Michael Rothberg and Bryan Cheyette have applied these concepts to the study of memory culture and literary representations of Jewish history, showing that European Jewish history and postcolonial studies can be brought together in extremely productive ways.²¹ Anthologies and special issues of journals dedicated to the relationship of Jewish history and colonial history have been published or are underway.²²

In research on the history of Zionism in Europe, the application of concepts taken from postcolonial studies is still underdeveloped and very much at its beginnings. One exception here is Said’s notion of Orientalism. Already in 1984, Paul Mendes-Flohr used it to analyze self-conceptions and strategies of self-affirmation in the thought of Martin Buber and other Central European Zionists.²³ A number of scholars have since followed this suggestion and published important studies on Zionist Orientalism in Europe and beyond.²⁴ Several important edited collections discuss the role of Orientalism in European Jewish history in general and Zionism in particular.²⁵ The study of Orientalist ideologies and structures in and around the Zionist movement not only revealed important insights into the self-image and positioning of Zionist Jews between the East and the West. It also significantly advanced the concept of Orientalism since its introduction by Said. For instance, it has been shown that Orientalist tropes were as important in Central and Eastern European discourses as they were in France or Britain. Moreover, this research helps us understand that Orientalism, while a powerful tool for colonial domination, could also be used from a subaltern perspective to confront such domination.

The concept of Orientalism has also informed a number of studies that discuss the role of visual culture for Zionist identity politics in Europe.²⁶ Visual culture, as well as other forms of material culture such as music, food, fashion, or architecture, have always been fields in which cultural identities are developed and expressed, tested and contested, and, perhaps most importantly, mixed and rearranged. This hybridity is especially common among diaspora cultures, making these issues important for Zionism as well as in postcolonial contexts. For postcolonial scholars, material culture is a complex field in which processes of subordination, adaptation, subversion, and emancipation can take place.²⁷ Particular emphasis is given to popular culture as a means to construct anti-hegemonic concepts of identity.²⁸ In the history of Zionism, similar processes can be detected. Historians have looked, for instance, at cases of Orientalist self-fashioning or the reception of East European Jewish folklore in Zionist circles.²⁹ The study of visual and material culture thus involves substantial overlaps, and offers opportunities for a dialogue, between the study of Zionism and postcolonial studies.

However, only a handful of scholars of European Zionism have reached out more comprehensively toward postcolonial studies and attempted to systematically connect these two fields or engage in a discussion with post-colonial scholars and their ideas.³⁰ Their research clearly indicates that postcolonial studies can be used much more broadly in the historiography of European Zionisms and that they can contribute just as much here as they contribute to the historiography of non-European Zionisms. Zionism in Europe needs to be located in a tension-filled position between European colonialism, directed toward spaces and populations both within and beyond the continent, and the Jews’ own experiences of being, after a fashion, colonized. Numerous parallels and structural connections between Zionism and anticolonial nationalisms have been detected, including the ambivalent relationship of these nationalisms to their European sources. European Zionism, it seems, was a subaltern nationalism and anticolonial liberation movement and at the same time an element of European bourgeois and colonialist cultures.

The notion that it was both, however, also points to the limits of a possible kinship between postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism. These limits originate mostly in the differences and sometimes even conflicts between their subject matter. Even if there are striking similarities between the experiences of the European Jews and of colonized peoples, these experiences have not been the same. Particularly in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the relationship between Jewish and non-Jewish populations in Europe were much more ambivalent than the relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans in the colonies. And although there are also striking similarities between Zionism and anticolonialism, these movements, too, were far from identical. In fact, significant parts of the Zionist movement have striven to distance themselves from colonized peoples and from anticolonialism. Moreover, just as Zionism adopted colonialist features from its European environment and also developed its own, antisemitism has not been alien to anticolonial movements, as well as postcolonial societies and states.³¹ Political developments—most importantly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also the Cold War, and more recently Islamist terror and the so-called War on Terror—have further distanced Zionism, or at least the State of Israel, from the struggle against colonialism and its consequences. These differences between the subjects of research limit the applicability of postcolonial concepts, which have been developed specifically for colonial and postcolonial contexts, to the history of Zionism. Any exploration of kinships between postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism will have to take these limits into account. However, they should not prevent such exploration in the first place. The claim of a kinship does not suggest the possibility of a seamless transfer of postcolonial concepts to the historiography of Zionism. Rather, it suggests a more or less intimate, sometimes uneasy, but often surprisingly productive connection between two different but related fields of scholarship.

Although most of the initiatives to reach out to the other discipline, whether related to the history of Zionism or Jewish history in general, have come from the field of Jewish studies, several postcolonial scholars have started to view Jewish history as part of their subject area. Notable authors such as Stuart Hall, Paul Gilroy, and Edward Said have made it clear that their findings were partially applicable to the situation of Jews. Hall, for instance, considered the Jews to be Europe’s own internal others, not identical, but certainly comparable to the colonized others.³² One of the first systematic attempts to integrate Jewish history into the field of postcolonial studies was made by Aamir Mufti in his book Enlightenment in the Colony.³³ Mufti conceives of Jewish history as a paradigm of colonial and postcolonial minority histories that can serve as a prism for the contradictions of the universalism of European Enlightenment. Paul Gilroy has extended this linkage even to the history of Zionism. He suggests using the concept of diaspora as an instrument to explore the relationship of Black and Jewish experiences and the questions they pose about the status of ethnic identity, the power of cultural nationalism, and the manner in which carefully preserved histories of ethnocidal suffering can function to supply ethical and political legitimacy.³⁴ Zionism, he argues, should be considered a worthwhile topic for postcolonial studies because it share[s] many of its aspirations and some of its rhetoric with Black nationalism.³⁵ Nevertheless, very few postcolonial scholars have followed up on these initiatives. Most have been reluctant to critically engage with the history of Zionism, and with Jewish history more generally, other than to identify colonialist elements in the origins and practices of the State of Israel. This often prevents scholars of postcolonial studies from seeing Zionism in all of its ambivalences, including those it shares with anticolonial nationalism and other subaltern movements. It is the hope of the editors of this book that it might trigger new interest among scholars of postcolonial studies and indicate a pathway to new critical and nuanced research in the history of Zionism.

Exchanges

What exactly do postcolonial studies have to offer for the scholarship of the historiography of Zionism? Even a preliminary answer to this question is complicated by the fact that postcolonial studies is a large and heterogeneous field. There is no consensus on the borders of this field or even on what the term postcolonial means. It is nevertheless possible to identify a number of important new perspectives that postcolonial scholars have introduced into social theory, cultural studies, and historiography. Perhaps one of the most crucial ones is that ambiguities should be seen not as problems, but rather as assets and resources for critical scholarship. More precisely, postcolonial studies have questioned the binaries that structured cultural relations in the colonial world and inspired their representations and that continue to do so after the end of formal colonial rule. As Stuart Hall puts it, It is precisely this ‘double inscription,’ breaking down the clearly demarcated inside/outside of the colonial system on which the histories of imperialism have thrived for so long, which the concept of the ‘post-colonial’ has done so much to bring to the fore.³⁶ In this sense, the post in postcolonial does not refer to a situation after colonialism, even though the processes and consequences of decolonization are both an important subject of and a powerful impulse for postcolonial studies. Rather, it signals a decentered approach in which a multitude of histories, temporalities, and cultural connections challenge the predominance of Eurocentric narratives.

This has important consequences. First, postcolonial concepts can help us understand social relations and cultural representations before, during, after, and across the processes of decolonization. Second, they can be applied not only to colonized and formerly colonized societies but also to the societies in metropoles, and not only to social relations between the colonizing and the colonized societies but also to those within the colonizing and the colonized societies themselves. In this way, they identify colonialism as a constitutive element also of European and North American society and culture. Third, and most important, postcolonial concepts go beyond an analysis of the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, or the colonizing and the colonized society, and look at the overlaps, intersections, and transformations between the two sides of the colonial divide. In their most sophisticated and interesting manifestations, postcolonial studies undermine the binary logic of colonialism without ignoring its binary-producing power. It is exactly this ambivalence that makes postcolonial studies attractive for historians of Zionism and that creates the room to include the history of Zionism into the subject area of postcolonial studies.

Let us, for instance, consider how Homi Bhabha has thought beyond colonial binaries. In his understanding, it is exactly the dualistic mechanisms of colonialism that unsettle the binaries they are meant to establish. Because colonialism constantly connects different spaces and cultures, it creates not only relationships of power and domination but also spaces of instability, ambiguity, and hybridity. These in-between spaces open up possibilities to redefine identities on a basis other than origin or essence, and to reconfigure the relationship between societies and cultures. In so doing, they disturb and undermine the binary structure of colonialism.³⁷ Postcolonial theory, in this reading, strives to deconstruct colonialism by emphasizing these disturbances, the fissures that exist in the fabric of colonialism not despite but precisely because of its obsession to establish a strict distinction between the self and the other, between the colonizer and the colonized. Zionism can be understood as such a disturbance. It was a movement that, by means of colonization, strove to liberate the Jews from a condition of subalternity that at least partly followed colonialist patterns. It included hegemonial and colonialist, as well as anti-hegemonial and anticolonialist, elements and was therefore located on both sides of the colonial divide. Zionism clearly belonged in the colonial world but did not fit into the dualistic logic of colonialism.

In a different way, but also with great potentials for the study of the history of Zionism, Stuart Hall has tried to capture this ambiguity with his concept of identity politics in diaspora communities. Identities, he argues, are both the product of the disassembling and reassembling of communities through colonialism and a means of self-empowerment in the face of these often violently imposed processes. They are meant to withstand these fragmentations, but at the same time help reproduce them as long as they are based on the idea of fixed and stable cultures, histories, or races. Hall, in contrast, insists that identities have no such essence, but are a form of politics. They are ways to relate to, to position oneself, and to be positioned within a society or a social or cultural environment.³⁸ If identities are understood as positioning, they lose the unambiguity with which they have been furnished and become fluent and multivalent. It is now possible to conceive of a subaltern identity as comprising elements of distinction from, confrontation with, affirmation of, and even participation in the hegemonic society. This is exactly what we find in Zionist concepts of Jewish national identity.

Hall’s understanding of postcolonial studies as a project aimed at decentering the hegemonic, Eurocentric perspective on culture and history has been implicitly shared by Dipesh Chakrabarty in his influential book Provincializing Europe.³⁹ Chakrabarty argues that European concepts of history, society, politics, and culture, while being indispensable to critically confront global structures of domination, are utterly insufficient to understand and eventually abolish them. They need to be complemented, scrutinized, and rethought from beyond Europe and the West. It is easy to see that this beyond can be geographically located also inside Europe. Colonialism and globalization produced large and diverse migrant communities within European societies. What is more, there have always been marginalized groups among the population of the continent subject to exclusion, othering, and even colonization. Arguably, the most paradigmatic of these groups have been the Jews. Therefore, rethinking European history and thought from a Jewish perspective might very well be considered an important contribution to the provincializing of Europe. Zionism, as a form of Jewish identity politics, but also as a form of thinking about Jewishness and Jewish history, is certainly an important element of this perspective. Despite being implicated in the strengthening of the centrality of Europe, Zionism might thus also be one of the agents of its provincialization.

As a historian, Chakrabarty focuses particularly on the historicist understanding of the past that underlies most of European thought and that is unable to accommodate what he calls subaltern pasts. These are histories that resist integration into the historicist narrative and therefore remain ignored or subordinated.⁴⁰ This, too, can be expanded to include subaltern strands within European history, including Jewish history. Yet rather than just integrate these pasts into the hegemonial history, thereby subsuming them under the historicist perspective, it is necessary to acknowledge them in their difference. They are elements of necessarily fragmentary histories of human belonging that never constitute a one or a whole.⁴¹ Such an understanding not only rejects the holistic or unitary concepts of belonging and nation that have been developed in the European political tradition, but it also acknowledges diverse and fragmented ways of relating to this tradition. This raises the question of whether Zionism constitutes an example and a confirmation of this view. To be sure, Zionist intellectuals have also contributed to, and even co-constituted, the Eurocentric vision of history that Chakrabarty criticizes. However, if Jewish history was one of those subaltern pasts that have been excluded from or subordinated to the hegemonic concept of history, then Zionism could also be seen as an attempt to rewrite this history and therefore to confront this exclusion and subordination.

In this sense, Zionism may very well be understood as a project of self-empowerment, a subaltern nationalism, akin to the anticolonial nationalist ideologies and movements across the globe. At least, it makes sense to ask for similarities and differences, but also for interrelations with other forms of subaltern nationalism. Chakrabarty has pointed to the fact that belonging and nation can have different meanings in European and in colonial or postcolonial contexts. Indian nationalism, for instance, includes at least two ways to imagine a national community: one that places India in a historicist narrative and is heavily indebted to European nationalist traditions, and another that refers to non-European—in this case, Indian—spiritual practices and beliefs.⁴² A similar plurality seems to be at work in some versions of Zionist nationalist thought. Zionists developed an ambivalent relationship to European nationalist thought, which combined a deep indebtedness to European nationalism, including its romanticist and neo-romanticist sources, with an awareness of its repressive consequences and an emphasis on the specifically Jewish roots of Zionist nationalism. Similarly, the inbuilt tension in Zionist nationalism between being on the one hand an emancipatory project that strives to empower a subaltern group and to provide it with agency, and on the other hand reproducing existing structures of domination by—deliberately or unwittingly—participating in the discourses and practices of hegemonial nationalism, including its inherent exclusionism and essentialism, can also be detected in many forms of anticolonial nationalism.⁴³

To be sure, there are also many differences between Zionist and anticolonial nationalisms. Even though anticolonial movements, too, were able to make use of colonial structures to develop their own nationalist ideologies and politics, they could only in exceptional cases rely on the open support of European imperialist powers, which the Zionist movement at many points in its history could.⁴⁴ Moreover, Zionists could, and often did, imagine themselves as harbingers and pioneers of European culture within supposedly uncultured non-European spaces. Although Zionist thinking also included ideas of proximity and relatedness, or even belonging to the cultures of the Orient—thereby displaying a stark difference from European colonial thought—it could also contain notions of superiority. In this sense, the oft-noted Orientalism in Zionist thought had a distinctively ambivalent quality as well: It was a strategy of self-affirmation through identification with the Oriental other, but it also relied on the ideological structure of domination through othering so aptly described by Edward Said. This, again, underscores the necessity to think beyond the binaries that have characterized both colonialism and thinking about colonialism for so long. Instead of deciding whether Zionism is a colonial or an anticolonial movement, it is therefore necessary to situate it in the contested and ambiguous space between colonial, anticolonial and postcolonial discourse and practice.⁴⁵

Also geographically, Zionism cannot be located either exclusively inside or exclusively outside of Europe. It first emerged in Europe, albeit to a large degree at the eastern margins of the continent, where it continued to have its strongest base up until the devastations of World War II. Yet a new center also arose in Palestine, and in many other non-European spaces Zionist movements developed as well. Moreover, Zionists claimed a land outside of Europe not as a colony, but as their ancestral homeland. Zionism, thus, was in many ways at once a European and a non-European movement. Postcolonial theory seems to be particularly well equipped to accommodate this kind of ambiguity. It allows us to see the colonizing and the colonized parts of the world as an integrated space and emphasizes the multiple migrations of people, power structures, commodities, and ideas between them. And it pays specific attention to mutual influences and co-constitutions. Postcolonial theory, therefore, is as much a method to analyze European societies and cultures as it is a tool to understand the conditions of the colonies. Zionism, as a phenomenon of the European center and the European and extra-European peripheries, and of the spaces in between, thus seems to be a predestined subject for postcolonial studies.

After the foundation of the State of Israel, Zionism, it seems, gradually lost its in-betweenness and moved ever more closely toward the West as the hegemonic side of the colonial divide. Israel’s collusion with the United Kingdom and France in the Suez crisis, alignment with the United States, support for the apartheid regime in South Africa, and, above all, its settlement policy in the territories conquered in the 1967 War make a strong case for this, as do remarks by leaders such as Ehud Barak about Israel being a villa in the middle of the jungle.⁴⁶ Yet, here too, a closer look that is informed by postcolonial critique reveals a more complicated picture. In its profound economic challenges and veneration of technological development, Israel had much in common with other postcolonial states. During the 1960s, it provided technical assistance to African states, whose leaders hailed Israel as the successful product of an anticolonial liberation struggle.⁴⁷ The prehistory and the foundation of the state is also deeply embedded in the processes of decolonization and of the dissolution of the British Empire, as well as in the emergence of a new post-imperialist order after the war. The question whether postcolonial concepts can help us analyze and understand the history of Zionism is thus important not only for the early decades of this history, but also for its entirety, and it remains relevant in our own day.

New Explorations

The lack of conversation between postcolonial studies and the historiography of Zionism stems from a number of political factors. From the beginning, postcolonial studies had a decidedly political agenda: not only to analyze the deep and ongoing influence of colonialism on past and present societies and culture, but also to criticize and help abolish it. To a significant degree, their origins lay in anticolonial resistance movements or in the fight against racism in the metropoles, even if many of their protagonists taught at prestigious European or North American universities.⁴⁸ This has also meant that postcolonial scholars are usually supportive of the Palestinian struggle against Israel, which they often conceive of as