Instruments of Exclusion

By Andrew Klein

This is not an exhaustive study of the founder of political Zionism, Theodor Herzi. Nor is it meant as a critique of the man, his experiences and reactions. Rather, it is a cautionary tale that revolves around exclusion, when any individuals are excluded from participating in the society that has in part assimilated them but persists in rejecting them for reasons that are as specious as they are hurtful and damaging. What if Theodor had been accepted by what he saw as elite Germanic Clubs, would he have toasted the Kaiser and supported German Imperial ambitions?

Not to be flippant, what if Adolf Hitler had not been excluded from the art circles that he aspired to join and find recognition in, would we have seen Hitler Art Schools proliferating around the planet? Painting by numbers.

The cautionary tale revolves around exclusion and where such exclusion and refusal to embrace others takes us. The exclusion we see today is demonstrated in the most bizarre and offensive ways, it has become weaponised on so many levels. We also see the result of exclusion driven to extremes, the genocide in Gaza, the rise of right wing race based supremacy groups, the manufactured hatred of the ‘other’. There are short term economic benefits for the excluders, maybe that tells us something about human nature. Cutting to the chase though, exclusion and othering leads to death and destruction, to the debasement of our own humanity.

So imagine yourself in a time machine, we have set our course to where it all began.

Theodor Herzl’s trajectory from a rejected assimilated Jew to the founder of political Zionism reflects a complex interplay of personal experience, cultural aspiration, and ideological adaptation. His rejection by elite Germanic clubs and associations – rooted in antisemitism – played a pivotal role in shaping his vision for a Jewish state, which paradoxically mirrored the nationalist structures of the societies that excluded him. Here’s an assessment of this dynamic:

Herzl’s Assimilationist Beginnings and Rejection by German Nationalist Circles

Early Admiration for German Culture: Herzl grew up in a secular, German-speaking Jewish family and idealized German ‘Kultur’ as the pinnacle of European enlightenment. He joined the German nationalist fraternity ‘Albia’ at the University of Vienna, embracing its motto; “Honor, Freedom, Fatherland” and even adopting the name “Tancred” from a Disraeli novel.

Confrontation with Antisemitism: Despite his assimilationist efforts, Herzl faced exclusion when Albia embraced antisemitism. He resigned in protest, marking a turning point in his disillusionment with European liberalism. This rejection underscored the impossibility of full acceptance for Jews in societies dominated by ethnonationalism.

Internalised Contempt: Herzl’s writings reveal disdain for Eastern European Jews (Ostjuden), whom he viewed as “backward” and “unassimilable.” This mirrored the prejudices of the German elite, suggesting his initial alignment with their cultural hierarchies.

Zionism as a Mirror of European Nationalism

Mimicking Nationalist Frameworks: Herzl’s Zionist ideology borrowed heavily from 19th-century European nationalism. He envisioned a Jewish state modelled on Western liberal democracies, complete with modern institutions, a secular ethos, and a capitalist economy. His utopian novel ‘Altneuland’ (1902) depicted a multicultural, technologically advanced society – a vision critics like Ahad Ha’am dismissed as “mechanical mimicry” of Europe.

Diplomatic and Organizational Parallels: Herzl structured the Zionist Organization (founded at the 1897 Basel Congress) to resemble European political movements. He sought alliances with colonial powers (e.g., Britain and Germany) and framed Zionism as a “rampart of Europe against [Asian] barbarism,” echoing imperialist rhetoric.

Elitist Exclusion, Herzl’s Zionist project prioritised Western European Jews over Eastern European masses, demanding immigrants be “committed to Zionism, young, healthy, and skilled” – a reflection of the exclusivity he encountered in Germanic clubs.

Antisemitism as a Catalyst for Zionism – Instrumentalizing Exclusion

Herzl argued that antisemitism was an immutable force, writing in ‘Der Judenstaat’ (1896) that Jews carried “the seeds of antisemitism” wherever they migrated. His solution – mass emigration to a Jewish state – aimed to resolve both Jewish marginalisation and European anxiety over Jewish presence.

Collaboration with Antisemites: Herzl courted antisemitic leaders (e.g., Czarist minister von Plehve) and regimes, believing they would support Jewish emigration to Palestine. This pragmatic alliance underscored his acceptance of antisemitism as an inevitable “propelling force” for Zionism.

Internalised Stereotypes: His infamous 1897 essay ‘Mauschel’ divided Jews into “honorable” Westerners and “dishonourable” Easterners, echoing antisemitic tropes. Critics argue this revealed a self-hatred born of his own rejection by German elites .

Contradictions and Legacy

Ambivalence Toward Jewish Identity: Herzl’s Zionism sought to erase Jewish particularity (e.g., rejecting Hebrew/Yiddish and downplaying religion) while simultaneously asserting a secularized nationalism. This tension mirrored his struggle to reconcile German cultural ideals with Jewish exclusion .
Rejection by Western Jewish Elites: Herzl faced fierce opposition from assimilated Jews like British leaders Claude Montefiore and Edwin Montagu, who feared Zionism would undermine their integration. This mirrored his earlier rejection by German clubs, reinforcing his belief in the necessity of a separate Jewish polity.

Legacy of Paradox: While Herzl’s vision succeeded in establishing Israel, its foundations – modelled on European nationalism and colonial frameworks – created enduring conflicts with Palestinians and internal divisions over Jewish identity.

Conclusion

Herzl’s Zionism emerged as both a reaction to and an emulation of the Germanic nationalist structures that excluded him. His ideology sought to resolve Jewish marginalization by replicating the exclusivist, state-centric models of 19th-century Europe, even as it internalized antisemitic tropes. This duality – born of personal rejection and cultural aspiration – left a legacy of profound contradictions, shaping Israel’s identity as a “villa in the jungle” (in Ehud Barak’s words) that remains entangled in the tensions between Western ideals and Middle Eastern realities.

 

Dear reader, we need your support

Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.

One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.

With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.

Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969