Dr. Morris Mottale

On August 29th, 2022, Basel saw again an International Zionist Conference for the 125th anniversary of the original 1897 conference led by Theodor Herzl. Herzl was the initiator and later the founding president of the World Zionist Organization. “If you will it, it is no dream,” he wrote afterwards in reference to a Jewish state that would protect Jewish people from anti-Semitic persecution and discrimination. The founding of the state of Israel is sometimes decontextualized with references to the Holocaust and other tragedies of the 20th century. In terms of historical development, the creation of the state of Israel should be seen in the context of catastrophic wars and imperial decline. The 20th century saw the creation of new states in the International System out of the decline and destruction of major modern empires. From 1918 onward, the contemporary International System witnessed the creation of new states. The major colonial empires of the 20th century, headed by Britain and France, saw policy makers in Paris and London create dozens of new states in areas such as Africa, South-East Asia, and the Caribbean. It may be controversial to some people, but the statement that the French and the British and to a lesser degree the Dutch, Belgians, and Americans created just about every other state that now sits in the United Nations is part and parcel of modern history. One revealing example is South Asia where the British after World War Two “created” India, West Pakistan, East Pakistan (later known as Bangladesh), and Sri Lanka. In the same area the British also created Malaysia and Singapore while the Dutch took charge of the creation of nations in Indonesia. Cynics may point out that the British created the United States with British settlers along with Canada as it was snatched away from the French while they later colonized Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. To be followed by the number of Sub-Saharan countries in Post-World War Two including Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, and Tanganyika later to be known as Tanzania as it merged with Zanzibar. While this was happening, the French were busy creating countries such as Algeria, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Guinea, and Benin. The middle east after 1918 witnessed the destruction of the Ottoman Empire and saw the creation of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and what later on came to be known as Israel and Palestine. In time the British created out of a string of traditional emirates in the Persian Gulf new states following World War Two such as United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and arguably even Saudi Arabia after 1918. Perhaps the most controversial creation in the eyes of Arab and Islamic countries and progressive Europeans on the left and right was the initial British support for a Jewish homeland after 1918 that in time came to be the state of Israel out of the breakup of British rule in Palestine and Jordan. Machiavelli reiterated the fact that states are human creations and this observation is evermore true of all the states created in the 20th century by Europeans. It is also worthwhile to note that at end of the cold war, Europe and Asia saw the creation of sixteen new states due to the disintegration of the Soviet Empire. Europe saw the creation of two new states Czechia and Slovakia followed by the disintegration of the Yugoslavian Federation that saw the genesis of six new republics including Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Montenegro. In Africa, the International system witnessed the creation of South Sudan in July 2011. The centripetal evolution of Nation States is being challenged by centrifugal forces in the national political systems. The International Relations of Nation States is then being progressively challenged by the creation of new diasporas fueled by wars, economic, dislocation, economic immigration, and arguably in the future climate change.

Modern means of visual communication see large ethno-linguistic communities in all major advanced industrial states that have seen strong national identities in the past being strengthened. The loyalty to one nation state by its members has come to be challenged by millions of people who come to identify with language, religion, caste, and class. Above and beyond is citizenship that originated with the liberal-democratic state. Outstanding example include the creation of a “Hispanic Identity” in the United States, “Afro-Latin” in regions of South America, and “Arabo-Islamic” communities in Europe . “Multiculturalism” is the ideological rationalization for the creation of new political entities that inevitably clash with national visions and new forms of identity politics created by instant communication and social media.

Globalization, modern means of communication, and social media have led to the creation of diasporas of which Zionism of the 19th and 20th century was the prototype. The Iranians in exile around the world as they fight the Islamic regime in Tehran refer openly to an Iranian diaspora and how all Iranians in time should return to restore Persian civilizations to its past glory. Millions of refugees from the Balkans, Ukraine, and Russia have created new patterns of international relations and cultural interactions that sociologically can be summarized as a “diaspora”. As is the case of immigrants in North America and Europe, the political process leads to the creation of lobbying groups, propaganda, and political manipulations in the name of multiculturalism, tolerance, and diversity.

After the creation of the state of Israel, the question the Israelis, Jews, Christians, and other religious denominations can ask is what is Zionism today and where is it going. A new generation of Israelis identify with the State and this national identity is complemented by a loose religious heritage often identified with national experiences rooted in Eastern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. The Jewish diaspora comes to overlap with other diasporas and becomes a prototype for future developments in a globalized world, challenging nation states. International Relations theory needs to adapt to these new trends.