Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Postcolonial Theory and the History of Zionism

2007; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 13; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/13537120701445331

1743-9086

Gideon Shimoni,

Global Maritime and Colonial Histories

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Bernard Lewis, ‘The Question of Orientalism’, New York Review of Books, Vol. 29, No. 11, 24 June 1982. 2. See Ivan Davidson Kalmar and Derek J. Penslar (Eds.), Orientalism and the Jews, Waltham, MA, and London, 2005. 3. See Susannah Heschel, ‘Jewish Studies as Counterhistory’, in David Biale, Michael Galchinsky and Susannah Heschel (Eds.), Insider/Outsider: American Jews and Multiculturalism, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1998, pp. 101–115. Also Derek J. Penslar, ‘Zionism, Colonialism and Postcolonialism’, Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 20, Nos. 2/3 (2001), pp. 84–98. 4. See, for example, Homi Bhabha, The Location of Culture, London, 1995. 5. On this variety of post-emancipation mutations see Michael A. Meyer, Jewish Identity in the Modern World, Seattle, WA, 1990. 6. See the tracing of the Orientalist representation of Jews from the turban in the age of Ottoman power to the kaffiyeh in the age of imperialism and racial-antisemitism in Ivan D. Kalmar, ‘Jesus Did Not Wear a Turban: Orientalism, the Jews, and Christian Art’, in Kalmar and Penslar (Eds.), Orientalism and the Jews, pp. 3–31. 7. See Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology, Hanover, NH, 1995, especially chapter 1 8. See Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition, Cambridge, 1983. 9. See Jacques Kornberg, Theodor Herzl: From Assimilation to Zionism, Bloomington, IN, 1993, pp. 59–86. 10. In the 1930s, for example, a debate raged within the Yishuv (Jewish sector of the population) over the question of Hurban hanefesh (debasement of the soul), meaning the expressions of self-hatred within Zionist thought. A leading critic of this manifestation was the Biblical scholar and important Zionist thinker, Yehezkel Kaufman. See his essay ‘Hurban hanefesh’, in Yehezkel Kaufman, Be'hivlei hazeman (The Sufferings of Exile), Dvir, 1936, pp. 257–274. Also Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology, p. 331. 11. Edward W. Said, ‘Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims’, in Anne McClintock, Aamir Mufti and Ella Shochat (eds.), Dangerous Liaisons: Gender, Nation, and Postcolonial Perspectives, Minneapolis, 1997, pp.15–38. The quotations in this paragraph are from pp. 18, 17, 24, 31, 19, in that order. See also Edward W. Said, The Question of Palestine, New York, 1992. 12. See Bernard Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites: An Inquiry into Conflict and Prejudice, New York, 1986; Bernard Lewis, The Jews of Islam, Princeton, NJ, 1984; Yehoshua Porat, ‘Ideologia anti-tzionit ve anti-yehudit ba-chevra ha-le'umit ha-aravit be-Eretz Israel’ (Anti-Zionists and Anti-Jewish Ideology in Arab National Society in Eretz Israel), in Shmuel Almog (ed.), Sinat Yisrael le-doroteha (Antisemitism through the Ages), Jerusalem, 1980. See articles by Yehoshafat Harkavy (pp. 247–259), Chagai Ben-Shamai (pp. 183–192), and Yaakov Barnea (pp. 211–216), also in Almog, Sinat Yisrael le-doroteha. 13. See Gershon Shafir, Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict 1882–1914, Cambridge and New York, 1989. Also Gershon Shafir, ‘Zionism and Colonialism: A Comparative Approach’, in Michael Barnett (ed.), Israel in Comparative Perspective, Albany, NY, 1996, pp. 227–244. 14. See Yosef Gorny, Zionism and the Arabs 1882–1948: A Study of Ideology, Oxford, 1987. 15. Zeev Jabotinsky, ‘Ofnat ha-arabeskot’ (The Arabesque Fashion), in M. Ettinger (ed.), Al sifrut ve-omanut (On Literature and Art), Jerusalem, 1958, p. 222. 16. See Ran Aronson, ‘Settlement in Eretz Israel: A Colonialist Enterprise?’, Israel Studies, Vol.1, No. 2, Fall 1996, pp. 214–229. 17. See Avi Bareli, ‘Forgetting Europe: Perspectives on the Debate about Zionism and Colonialism’, Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, Vol. 20, Nos. 2/3 (2001), pp. 100–119. Bareli argues cogently that taxonomy does not constitute explanation and that it is methodologically faulty to dispense with or deny ‘the essential causal context’ of the phenomenon of Zionist colonization. 18. Shafir, ‘Zionism and Colonialism’, p. 234. 19. Vladimir Jabotinsky, Evidence Submitted to the Palestine Royal Commission (pamphlet), London, 1937, pp. 10–29. (Emphasis added.) 20. ‘Testimony to the Anglo-American Committee’, 3 August 1946, in Barnet Litvinoff (ed.), The Letters and Papers of Chaim Wezmann, Vol. 2, Jerusalem, 1984, pp. 594–595. 21. Evidence of David Ben-Gurion, The Jewish Plan for Palestine: Memoranda and Statements Presented by the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Jerusalem, 1947, pp. 324–325. 22. ‘The Arab Office: The Arab Case for Palestine (March 1946); Evidence Submitted to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry’, extracted text in Walter Laquer and Barry Rubin (eds.), The Israeli–Arab Reader, 6th ed., New York, 2001, p. 57. 23. The Palestine Arab Case: A Statement by the Higher Arab Committee (The Body Representing the Palestine Arabs), April 1947, point 20 of the concluding section, pp. 65–70. 24. On bi-national proposals see Susan Lee Hattis, The Bi-National Idea in Palestine During Mandatory Times, Haifa, 1970. On partition proposals see Itzhak Galnoor, The Partition of Palestine: Decision Crossroads in the Zionist Movement, Albany, NY, 1995. Additional informationNotes on contributorsGIDEON SHIMONIGideon Shimoni is Professor Emeritus at the Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.