Thread by @HusseinAboubak

Zionism in its origin, as a romanticist national project, was distinct among many all similar movements in more than one way: while other projects were options from among other options, Zionism was progressively compulsory given the rise of predatory mass antisemitism in /1

early 20th century Europe. Second, Zionism was a defensive nationalism as opposed to the prevalent mode of offensive nationalism in Europe and later in the Middle East. That is, Zionism was romanticist for survival purposes not for self-aggrandizement purposes. Third, the /2

historical circumstances of Zionism forced immediate real political beginnings, envisioned by a literary class, and only much later did the necessary nationalist militancy was established long after the ideological and theoretical foundations were already set. This resulted in /3

Zionism being significantly more civil, democratic, and relatively less prone to the kind of pagan chauvinism, of strong man statues, normally associated with the nationalisms of the period. Lastly, and I think for me this is the most important, Zionism was very quick to exit /4

romanticism and the romantic theorizing speculative mode altogether and become engaged with actual reality as it is. This last point is the one major difference between Zionism and all other romanticist nationalisms including Arab and later Palestinian nationalisms that /5

tend to sacrifice reality for lofty ideas. I think by the fifth Aliyah, Zionists had already started sacrificing theory and intellectual speculation for the sake of reality, a tendency one could say that it ironically with the father of Zionist romanticism, Herzel himself.