Zionism as a violent ideology.

Introduction

In recent years - although, this is not a recent development in any form - the consequences of the ideology of Zionism has been seen in its greatest extent. The current iteration of the genocide in Gaza starting in 2023 (United Nations, 2024), and the means of violence weaponised by the Zionist enterprise of the modern State of Israel - mass arrests of Palestinian-descent Israelis and Palestinians living in the West Bank, destruction of hospitals, schools, and other critical infrastructure in Gaza (International Rescue Committee, 2025), a blockade of aid, trade, and fishing from Gaza (United Nations, 2025), and a push in the international sphere towards the self-victimisation of Israel and the “barbarity” of the Palestinians and the Arabs - through Hasbara (Schleifer, 2014) - have exposed the constructed and calculated violent nature of the State of Israel. That can be agreed on, even just by laying down the facts. However, more indispensable to this discussion is one of the ideology of Zionism, one created out of an admitted necessity of safety against European and Western antisemitism (although the extent to which is debatable), as set out by both Theodor Herzl in his Judenstaat (Herzl, 1896) and Ze’ev Jabotinsky in his Iron Wall essay (Jabotinsky, 1923). It is necessary for the genesis of the ideology of Zionism to be analysed so that a reconsideration can occur, of the modern State of Israel, especially whether their overt violence is one of circumstance, or one of essence. This report will focus on the inception of Zionism as a political ideology, and whether the ideology of Zionism is a naturally, or ideologically violent one.

Political Violence as a Concept

First, the concept of “violence” must be explored, as the term is often misused and misapplied to only the most overt and apparent forms of violence - ie. rape, murder, physical battery. Acts such as emotional abuse, manipulation, lying, are not considered within the purview of violence. However, contrary to this, this essay will explore the term violence as defined in Galtung in his essay Violence, Peace, and Peace Research (Galtung, 1969). While within the essay, Galtung refers to several iterations of the explanation of violence, this report will focus on the first derivation of violence:

“violence is present when human beings are being influenced so that their actual somatic and mental realizations are below their potential realizations”

Following such, the paper will define violence - especially in the context of analysing ideologies - as the status of the existence of a diminishing of realisation in comparison to potentiality, both psychological and physical, direct and indirect, with the knowing consent of the class of which is suggested to be in control of said ideology. In terms of the dimensions/distinctions of violence, this paper will use the same six that Galtung presents in order to analyse whether the ideology fits into the violence as purported by Galtung, in addition to seven self-created and more ideologically specific categories.

The key abstractions to be used in this paper will be laid out in the following forms:

Galtung’s Dimensions of Violence:

Physical vs. Psychological Violence

• a. Bodily harm in comparison to mental/emotional constraint (in the forms of brainwashing, lies, indoctrination).

Negative vs. Positive Influence

Violence through punishment (threats, force), or through reward-based manipulation (consumerist incentives within capitalistic societies that can reduce autonomy).

Presence or Absence of a Hurt Object

Considers both actual harm and threat of harm - a display of force without direct contact can be considered violence.

Presence or Absence of a Human Agent (Subject)

Direct (personal) violence: where a person intentionally harms another.

Indirect (structural) violence: harm arises from social structures, even without a visible identifiable perpetrator.

Intended vs. Unintended Violence

Intention is regarded in terms of morality, even though the definition of the violence itself does not change.

Manifest vs. Latent Violence

Manifest: Observable forms of violence (war, assault)

Latent: Often unobserved and covert forms, but present in conditions where potential for harm exists (inequality).

Proposed ideological criteria for violence:

• Does it explicitly define certain groups as outsiders/enemies?
• Does it rely on divine/historical/metaphysical myths/stories to justify sovereignty, or exclusion of peoples?
• Does it justify exclusion or violence against groups based on race/religion/ethnicity?
• What does the ideology view on the use of land/labour/resources?

Does the ideology dehumanise others through language/imagery?

• Is the ideology totalic (by totalic, meaning rejecting of different views) in nature or does it allow for coexistence with differing views?

Zionism as Ideology

For the analysis of Zionism, two texts will be analysed primarily. First, the Jewish State (Der Judenstaat), which is considered the foundational text of Zionism written by the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, and second, the Iron Wall (About the Iron Wall), the foundational text of the Maximalist/Revisionist Zionist movement that currently dominates domestic Israeli politics, written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky.

While Herzl is historically considered to be a liberal, his vision for the Jewish state is yet colonial in nature, utilising the same logic as the rest of the imperial worldviews that dominated his time (Abed-Rabbo, 2024). His first proposal, that the Jewish people must acquire sovereignty over a portion of the globe, and that “the rest we shall manage for ourselves”, already expresses ambitions of totality within Zionism. In an analysis of options for the colonial enterprise, Herzl explicitly considers two options: Palestine or Argentina. The options here are not there for their religious significance, but their viability strategically - Argentina as being “one of the most fertile countries in the world.. with a sparse population” which is an inherently colonialist justification for settling land that is allegedly “underused”. In addition, Palestine is also framed in a similar manner - albeit with a more mythical reverence as the “ever-memorable historic home”. However, here, Herzl implicitly casts the native inhabitants of Palestine, and the Arab world, as barbaric and antithetical to progress.

“The Society of Jews will negotiate with the present masters of the land… The creation of our State would be beneficial to adjacent countries... we should form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism” (p. 27–28).

Herzl is, in essence, setting out Zionism to be a vanguard of colonialism of Europe, calling for the Jewish state to be akin to a buffer zone between the “civilised” Europe, and the “uncivilised” Orient. This rhetoric alone reflects the manifest psychological violence within Galtung’s framework, as it degrades the indigenous population by portraying them as a threat to order and modernity, and by dehumanising them.

Interestingly, throughout Der Judenstaat, there is never any consideration of the indigenous peoples - the Palestinian Arabs that already live on the land. For Herzl, they are merely nonentities that are not even worth calling enemies, and this total erasure of their mention is similar to what Galtung would argue to be latent structural violence: the process of systematically making the population invisible, especially from a project that seeks to overhaul the political and economic system of their land. It is clear from this that the logic of the ideology is that the Palestinian people are not to be incorporated nor to be consulted in any form, and that they do not equate to any part of the national project.

There is further emphasis on the lack of care for the indigenous population through his plans for the economy of the new Jewish state. He argues that the Jewish Company should organise “commerce and trade” in the new country, “calculated to stimulate the prosperity of the land”, in a similar process to European colonialism where the coloniser reorganises local land and markets to support the settler society, rather than for the benefit of society as a whole. Herzl draws an analogy to steam power here, saying:

“Everybody is familiar with the phenomenon of steam-power, generated by boiling water, lifting the kettle-lid. Such tea-kettle phenomena are the attempts of Zionists… Now I believe that this power, if rightly employed, is powerful enough to propel a large engine” (preface)

The destination of the European Jews and their suffering - of which the engine is Zionism and the steam is their suffering is mentioned here analogically - yet once again, there is no mention of the human landscape or culture that may exist in place already which the engine might crush in its path.

Following this, Herzl’s Zionism - however liberal it may be - fulfils all six of the ideological violence criteria:

• Outsiders are implicitly constructed - native Palestinians are unspoken obstacles, and the system is inherently exclusivistic as a Jewish nation.
• Mythic justification - invokes Jewish historical suffering (and at times ignores the diverse nature of Jewish ethnic culture for the sake of garnering support from Ashkenazy Jews - the Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews are often ignored in the construction of the mythicism) and Biblical homeland

A segment of modern Zionism, based off of Reform Judaism also believes in this mystical narrative, as seen in this quote: “Israel’s rebirth is a form therefore of historical vindication. God and history have not abandoned the Jews. The Gentile perception was incorrect. Israel’s rebirth has revived the Jewish spirit. That spirit, so tested by history, was warped but miraculously intact…” (Epstein, 2013)

• Exclusion of others based on identity - Palestinians are omitted entirely.
• Reorientation of land/labour/resources - the territory is to be repurposed for Jewish benefit, bought by the rich Jews living in the West, worked on by the poor Jews living in the East.
• Dehumanisation - Arabs and the East is reduced to mere “barbarism”, and a threat to European values - which Israel, or this future Jewish state is proposed to uphold.
• Totalising logic - Assimilation or coexistence with native groups is not considered, and this ideology is inherently a colonial project.

In addition, the findings fit Galtung’s distinctions of violence:

• Latent violence through erasure.
• Psychological violence through superiority discourse of civilisation.
• Positive influence - “economic growth”, coercion masked as uplift
• No “hurt object”, but real harm projected through structural plans and goals.
• Subject is clearly present: There are Jewish agents, European powers, and Herzl as the ideological backer.
• Intentional and strategic: The plan is designed and calculated, and also structural.

Jabotinsky, in comparison to Herzl, presents the view in much less calculated and diplomatic rhetoric. In the Iron Wall essay, which is considered to be an influential founding document for Revisionist Zionism, he writes with a clarity that is not present in the ambiguity of Herzl’s Judenstaat:

“There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future.”

“Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population.” (Jabotinsky, p. 1–2)

One important fact to consider is the mismatch in current rhetoric, which claims that Zionism is not a colonial project, and that considering it as such is antisemitic - to quote one of the definitions for antisemitism by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance:

“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” (IHRA, 2016)

However, in both Jabotinsky and Herzl’s works, Zionism is considered to be equal to the settler-colonial projects of the Western empires. Unlike Herzl, in the text, Jabotinsky acknowledges the existence and the resistance they would face from the Palestinian people, but concludes - and arguably, setting the tone for the rest of Israeli interactions with the Palestinians - that violence is the only probable path. The core principle that Jabotinsky holds to is that the Zionist settlement must occur “behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach” (p. 3). For Jabotonsiky, in a similar process as Herzl, argues for this “wall” to either be the Western powers who “give them” the “right” to colonise - the British military in this case, or ideally, a Jewish army - with the same goal of overcoming resistance by force until the Palestinians give up hope.

The notion that Palestinians can be reasoned with is rejected by Jabotsinky:

“To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent… is a childish notion.” (p. 2)

Interestingly, Jabotinsky accuses liberal Zionists of not being truthful about their goals, and that they are manipulative or being naive:

“The Arabs know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want… They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico.” (p. 2)

By equating the Palestinians to the Aztecs and Native Americans, Jabotinsky is acknowledging Zionism to be, indeed, a settler-colonial enterprise - normalising it by arguing for historical precedent. He is taking colonisation to be faced by resistance and violence, arguing that the resistance to colonisation must be crushed until despair sets in:

“Only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us… will [the Arabs] drop their extremist leaders… and the leadership will pass to the moderate groups.” (p. 4)

Zionism, therefore, requires the psychological and political defeat of the native population as a precondition for peace and harmony. This is the ideological message of Zionism; that defeat will be achieved through militarised, violent domination, and not through understanding or diplomacy.

Jabotinsky’s Zionism - merely an expansion of Herzl’s earlier work and arguments - fulfills every dimension of Galtungian and ideological violence:

• Outsiders are once again, explicitly demarcated - the Palestinian Arabs are identified to be a permanent obstacle to Zionism, and their resistance as an obstacle to be broken.
• Mythic justification - Jabotinsky does not appeal to the Bible as Herzl does, however, mythologises Zionism to be a moral and inevitable ideology, referencing historic colonisations to normalise Zionist colonisation.
• Exclusion based on identity - Arabs are denied any political agency or national rights. Moderate Zionists who advocate for negotiation are ridiculed for not understanding that there is an inherent incompatibility between the Jewish and Arabic claims to the land.
• Reorientation of land/labour/resources - Zionist settlement projects are seen as a colonial process to be protected militarily.
• Dehumanisation - Arabs are portrayed to be an “uncivilised” mass driven by instincts, jealousy, and tribalism, reinforcing the creation of a racial hierarchy.
• Totalising logic - Jabotinsky denies the possibility for a peaceful/negotiated future until the Arabs are completely subdued.

In addition, the findings are fully aligned with Galtung’s distinctions of violence

• Manifest violence - In comparison to Herzl’s latent structure, Jabotinsky is open about the need for physical and political violence.
• Psychological violence - There is an effort, a directed one, to break the will and hope of the native population and to dominate them into submission. Despair of the colonised is tied to the success of Zionism
• Negative influence - Jabotinsky’s influence is threat-based, arguing instead that the Arabs must, and will be coerced, not persuaded.
• Presence of a hurt object - Palestinians are targeted as the explicit subjects of Zionist domination, not as a side effect but as the only way for peace.
• The subject is clearly present - Jabontinsky, the Zionist movement, and the British Mandate are all active agents that establish the iron wall.
• Intentional and strategic - The policies set out are intentional and long-term, and violence is deeply engrained and designed into the structure. The end goal is the subjugation of the Palestinian people.

Conclusion

While this report focussed on structural violence, and a criterion for analysing possible violent ideologies, further research should focus on Fanon’s conception of decolonisation (Fanon, 1961), and how Zionism fits into the colonial logic often perpetuated. In addition, the concept of ethnogenesis should be explored in depth (Tiesler, 2021), especially given the invented continuity of Zionism through their emphasis on Eretz Israel (Biblical Israel), while denying Palestinian indigeneity and nationhood. In connection to this, Biblical dispensationalism especially in the Evangelical/Western Protestant spheres should be analysed too - as that makes the crux of the support for Israel, especially in the greatest financier - the United States. Finally, self-determination (Saul, 2011) and the denial of such to the Arabs should also be considered in depth. In addition, further research should look at the real-life consequences of the violent Zionism, through the lens of Galtungian violence.

To conclude, Zionism, by foundational design, can, and should be considered ideologically violent. It is a textbook violent ideology. It is not simply through the execution of the ideology (earlier on in history, the Haganah, the Irgun, and the Lehi, and now, through the Israeli state and their actions in Gaza, the Occupied West Bank, and their interactions with Lebanon, Syria, Iran), but through its internal, foundational logic and texts that proves the violence. Unlike what many currently would want the majority of people to assume, the violence is not circumstantial and responsive to “terror attacks” by groups wishing “Death on Israel”, but structural, enduring, and fully intended.

There is no doubt a need to care for Jewish suffering around the world, or the need for safety of the Jewish people - however, it does not justify the erasure of another identity, the violence of genocide, the violence of peace being ripped away from innocent children and women and men in Palestine. Decolonial rethinking is required, in coexistence and justice in Palestine for peace to move forward.

References:

Abed-Rabbo, S. (2024). Herzl’s Zionism and Settler Colonialism in Palestine https://doi.org/10.13169/arabstudquar.46.1.0028

Epstein, L. J. (2013). The basic beliefs of Judaism: A twenty-first-century guide to a timeless tradition. Jason Aronson.

Fanon, F. (1961). The wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.

Herzl, T., & Avigdor, S. (1896). A Jewish state: An attempt at a modern solution of the Jewish question. D. Nutt. https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=woMUazF1Z4sC

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. (2016). IHRA working definition of antisemitism (non-legally binding). https://holocaustremembrance.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/IHRA-non-legally-binding-w orking-definition-of-antisemitism-1.pdf

International Rescue Committee. (2025). Crisis in Gaza. https://www.rescue.org/crisis-in-gaza

Jabotinsky, V. (1923). The iron wall (We and the Arabs). https://en.jabotinsky.org/media/9747/the-iron-wall.pdf

Saul, M. (2011). The Normative Status of Self-Determination in International Law: A Formula for Uncertainty in the Scope and Content of the Right? https://corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r27634.pdf

Schleifer, S. A. (2014). Psychological Warfare in the Arab-Israeli Conflict https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9781137467034#accessibility-information

Tiesler, N. C. (2021). The conceptual history of ethnogenesis: A brief overview. New Diversities, 23(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.58002/mebw-4j48

United Nations. (2025, May). Building to starvation: Systematic attacks on fishing in Gaza and implications for livelihoods and protection. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/building-to-starvation-systematic-attacks-on-fishing-ingaza-and-implications-for-livelihoods-and-protection-may-2025/

United Nations General Assembly. (2024, October 8). Letter dated 8 October 2024 from the Permanent Observer of the State of Palestine to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. https://www.un.org/unispal/document/palestine-letter-08oct24/