Zionism Born From Revolt Against Helplessness
Translated & summarized from Zman Yisrael by baba
The article argues that Zionism was born from a revolt against Jewish passivity and helplessness, exemplified by historical pogroms and culminating in the Kishinev pogrom. It draws a parallel to the October 7th attacks, questioning whether Israeli society is reverting to a passive mindset rather than embracing the Zionist ideal of self-responsibility and proactive security.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Zionism arose from a rebellion against Jewish passivity and helplessness.
- Historical pogroms fueled the need for Jewish self-defense and a sovereign state.
- The Kishinev pogrom and Bialik's poem highlighted Jewish powerlessness.
- October 7th echoes historical helplessness, challenging the Zionist promise.
- The article questions if Israel is regressing from self-responsibility to passivity.
Zionism emerged from a rebellion not only against antisemitism but also against the image of the helpless, fate-awaiting Jew. The pogroms known as the "Storms in the Negev" in the Russian Empire between 1881-1884, coupled with intensified Tsarist restrictions, profoundly shook Eastern European Jewry. This era saw an increasing number of Jews, particularly the young, reject their passive acceptance of fate, challenging the traditional, submissive Jewish worldview that viewed suffering as divine punishment.
Two decades later, the 1903 Kishinev pogrom, sparked by a blood libel, resulted in 49 Jewish deaths, hundreds injured, and widespread destruction. This event starkly illustrated the existential insecurity of Jews and the urgent need for self-defense, further fueling Zionism and emigration. Poet Chaim Nachman Bialik, who visited Kishinev to document the aftermath, wrote "In the City of Slaughter," a powerful indictment of the perpetrators and Jewish powerlessness, even questioning divine solace.
From this despairing context, a revolutionary Zionist concept arose: the new Jew would not wait for external mercy but would defend himself, build a protective force, take responsibility for his destiny, and ultimately establish a state whose primary duty is citizen protection. This marked a shift from passively accepting fate to actively taking responsibility for it.
The article draws a parallel to the October 7, 2023, attacks, where Jews were murdered in their homes within a sovereign Jewish state, with families hiding and pleading for army assistance. It notes that while some, like MK Michael Malchieli and Aryeh Deri, questioned divine will, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu invoked the biblical commandment to remember Amalek. The author argues that Zionism never demanded abandoning faith but rather relinquishing the responsibility for security to divine providence.
The author suggests a crisis in Israeli society lies not just in the October 7th failures but in the narrative surrounding it, which echoes old themes of existential threat, immutable antisemitism, and predetermined fate. The core promise of Zionism, the article concludes, was to replace the inevitability of pogroms with the responsibility to prevent them. It questions whether Israeli society is regressing from the sovereign, responsible Zionist Jew back to the one who waits helplessly for disaster and questions divine decree, a concern amplified 120 years after Bialik's call for a different kind of Jew.