Did Zionism, due to its being a national movement, operate in contradiction to the international principles of justice and morality? Should Zionism be viewed as a ‘colonialist’ movement? Were its leaders afflicted by ‘Palestinocentrism‘? Such questions, in various formulations, have been brought before the Zionist Movement from its inception, and continue to support a public, political and academic discussion. The aim of this article is to contribute to this discussion by offering a reconsideration regarding two forgotten episodes from annals of Zionist-Socialist diplomacy - one which took place in the First World War, and the other, in the Second World War. In both cases, the same forces were at play: both prominent and other figures within Socialist Zionism. Based on a reading of these historical episodes, this article aims to suggest that the founding principles of Zionism not only do not contradict but are consistent with the universalist, progressive, humanist principles of the enlightenment. That the performance of these principles is difficult, and that their realization is characterized by contradictions is not unique to Zionism and to its primary outcome - the State of Israel. This complexity has been part of the modern-progressive human experience since its emergence some centuries ago. The dialectic relations between the national and the universal might be the highroad to more orderly international relations - providing that such relations will be conducted in a positive manner, oner which seeks a constructive compromise, both in the field of actions and in principle. This is true both in regard to an examination of the Zionist past and, the author argues, of the present as well.
Ehud Manor (Sun,) studied this question.