Was Hannah Arendt a Zionist? Roger Berkowitz Responds

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was a German Jewish philosopher and political theorist, widely known for her work on totalitarianism, authority, and the nature of power. Born in Hanover, Germany, she fled Nazi persecution and eventually emigrated to the United States, where she became an influential voice in 20th-century political thought.
Arendt's writing explored complex and often controversial topics, including the origins of totalitarianism, the role of human action in politics, and the nature of evil. Her most famous works include The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), which examined the rise of totalitarian regimes in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, and The Human Condition (1958), where she introduced key concepts like vita activa (the active life) and distinguished between labor, work, and action as fundamental modes of human existence.
Perhaps her most contentious work was Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963), a series of articles on Adolf Eichmann’s trial for war crimes. In this work, Arendt introduced the idea of the "banality of evil," suggesting that Eichmann, rather than being a fanatical monster, was an ordinary bureaucrat thoughtlessly following orders, illustrating how evil could manifest in ordinary, unthinking actions. This concept was both praised and heavily criticized, sparking intense debate about responsibility and complicity during the Holocaust.
Full video coming soon.
----
Quillette is an Australian-based online magazine that focuses on long-form analysis and cultural commentary. It is politically non-partisan, but relies on reason, science, and humanism as its guiding values.
Quillette was founded in 2015 by Australian writer Claire Lehmann. It is a platform for free thought and a space for open discussion and debate on a wide range of topics, including politics, culture, science, and technology.
Quillette has gained attention for publishing articles and essays that challenge modern heterodoxy on a variety of topics, including gender and sexuality, race and identity politics, and free speech and censorship.
---
Quillette's revenue comes from our readers. We are a grassroots organisation that relies on voluntary subscriptions and community membership as our primary revenue stream.
Support Quillette by becoming a subscriber: quillette.com/...
Or donate send us a one-off tip: quillette.com/...
We made our website using Ghost, a powerful app for new-media creators to publish, share, and grow a business around their content. It comes with modern tools to build a website, publish content, send newsletters & offer paid subscriptions to members. Try it here: ghost.org/?via...

[@psmorgan2542]

Thinking that you can maintain a non-majority Jewish state in the Middle East is a luxury of not being aware of the extent of discrimination within Islam.

[@swguyp28]

Or not being aware of the consistent violent-annihilationist actions and clearly stated intents Arabs in the Ottoman era and British-mandate era "Palestine" towards any Jewish community having any sort of sovereignty in that land. Even the "Palestinian" distinct pseudo-national identity (as different than Syrian or Egyptian or the original tribal group identity) was a REACTION to the Zionist idea that preceded it by several decades - and was focused primarily on violently opposing any Jewish sovereignty in any part of the land. To quote British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin in February 1947 in a speech to the British Parliament explaining why Britain could no longer carry out the mandate with which it was entrusted by the League of Nations and thus sending it back to the United Nations: "His Majesty's Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles … For the Jews, the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine". That is the only reason we are still where we are today, not any choices Israel had made. To think like Arendt that Zionism had at some point the option to move towards some secular, peaceful bi-national state that will accept any and all Jewish refugees in need is nothing but the intellectual folly of the misinformed and wishful thinkers. Arendt and her ilk, to this day, almost all living far away from the Middle East realities, never wanted to face the gap between their ideals and what the other side of this conflict clearly says and does.

[@VM-hl8ms]

don't forget, this was before iran communist revolution, and before stalin's plans to gain major influence in the middle east (mainly for uranium) became public. ​ @swguyp28 my point is that everyone is living far from realities of how islamic socialism trasformed the middle east.

[@lookbovine]

@@swguyp28​​⁠​⁠You’re right, like they say, peace just begets more peace. What was she thinking? Never acknowledging the other side’s sovereignty and putting their very existence in scare quotes, that’s the way to go! Dismissing the possibility of peaceful settlement before you’ve even attempted the partition plan, good idea. Good luck going forward as a pariah state!

[@lookbovine]

Arendt flatly stated that they were outnumbered, surrounded on all sides, and always would be so to be antagonistic would be folly. And she is still correct.

[@psmorgan2542]

@@lookbovine No she's not. She's behaving like post-enlightenment liberalism is the baseline, it's not. Act weakly to threats of violence in the Middle East and you'll be set upon.

[@saar2411]

We should not give academics this much power. Reality is not a strong suit for philosophers and academics, especially in the West.

[@serpentines6356]

These days it sure isn't... I had a brainiac Academic brother...He would be absolutely disgusted at what is happening in Academia today...

[@leewright7623]

Just look at some of these " professors ". They profess so much that is just not true 😂

[@pezeron24]

I fully disagree. Academics and philosophers are not tied up by political or financial interests as politicians are. They may be wrong but they are asking important questions.

[@davidhabart5323]

what exactly is NOT pluralistic in Israel?

[@DarthPreamp]

Arendt was an incredible thinker, but she was quite capable of being wrong, albeit in an eloquent and compelling way. In terms of racism in contemporary Israel, having lived in Israel, it is no more or less racist than any other place on the planet. In addition, really you’re comparing Ben Gvir to Sinwar?! That is an enormous lie, and the comparison is absurd.

[@pezeron24]

Which one is worse? Ben Gvir or Sinwar?

[@alfredopampanga9356]

The comparison is odious. Like comparing Jesus with Mohammed.

[@sshender3773]

Roger's feigning ignorance regarding his counterfactual of a binational state and Jews' prospects in such a state is all one needs to know about the quality of his political or historical takes. A toxic mix of ignorance and naïveté. One doesn't need to be a scholar/historian of Arab/Muslim societies to realize how suicidal an idea that is. There is a reason why the entire Muslim world took Israel as such an affront, and it has very little to do with land or caring for Palestinian Arab's plight, as evidenced by their treatment of the latter ever since. Palestinian Arabs aside, this is about Muslim honor and shame. About humiliation of the Muslim hegemon by a tiny minority of barely tolerated infidels that must be reversed and wiped out. It's unfathomable to them how a tiny ragtag of Jews has managed to stand up to the Umma, defeat them in battle and build a country better than theirs by any measurable metric. Alas, neither Americans nor Europeans are capable of grasping this in the slightest, leading to their misguided policies based on the premise that this is about territory, social justice or material grievances.

[@RedIria]

Spot on.

[@serpentines6356]

Well, I am one "United Statesian" who understands this. I got fascinated, and started reading about Jihad, Wahhabism, the MB, Afghanistan, etc., before 9/11. I have read this, heard discussions, debates, etc., mostly online over time. Trying to get my other 'liberal,' friends, to understand the seriousness of Jihad, even my Jewish one (who won't listen at all, & bends over backwards to appease Jihad, "Israel is committing genocide", etc.) is impossible. It's extremely frustrating.

[@greggeisenberg9196]

​@@serpentines6356I understand how you feel.

[@alfredopampanga9356]

You are not only right but write beautifully. Imagine if we were to follow the script of these dreamers . One can be so pure as to be incompatible with survival

[@MrElliotc02]

Our morally scrupulous Ms Arendt felt no need to critique Martin Heidegger.

[@angelalewis4213]

Exactly, and her refusal to do so has forever amplified him

[@MrElliotc02]

@@angelalewis4213 I don't understand what you mean.

[@SauronKierkegaard]

She did criticize him in private. Arendt pressed him on whether or not he was a nazi. They were close enough that he actually responded (usually he put on an evasive wounded pride about that charge) denying it. She didn't buy it though (rightly), and they didn't talk for 20 years. In a letter to Karl Jaspers, she said of Heidegger that her issue with him wasn't that he had a bad character, but that he had "no character at all." Seems to me more than a few of us would also see ourselves as scrupulous despite being unwilling to publicly denigrate a former lover, regardless of the complaints we have in our hearts.

[@MrElliotc02]

@@SauronKierkegaard He was a Nazi. An active Nazi...one who participated in anti-Jewish policy. Do you think it perverse to to find moral imperfection in a movement designed, in part, to find shelter for the survivors of National Socialism and forgive one who promoted it?

[@pezeron24]

Heidegger is an important philosopher.

[@davidhabart5323]

sorry, you are leaving unstated the essential point - what justifies existence/creation of any state? Since the US Declaration of independence we know it: stare must protect all its individual citizens. Compare to this objective standard: - Israel - any Arab state If Israel were not created the inhabitants of zhat region would live not as free citizen as they do now, but unde totalitarian rurels as in Egypt, Syria. Irak, Iran...

[@davidhabart5323]

Israel is NOT ethno state, read Declarstion of independence and vidit Knesset. Jewish state means only one think: Jews have authomatich right of immigrstion - which is judtified even today give the level pf antisemitism worldwide.

[@davidschalit907]

Sinwar = Ben Gevir?! Lol! What absolute nonsense! The "as a Jew" guy thinks that all perceived extremes are the same. Newsflash: They are not!

[@davidschalit907]

Labor Zionism ran Israel from 1948 to 1977. It didn’t initially lose, it initially won. What is called here 'Labor' Zionism is a minority view that was not the view of Labor. Israel is the least 'racist' state in the Middle East.

[@compovi8461]

what? "Jabotisnski ethno-nationalist revision strand of Zionism" what? I've never heard Revisionism vs Socialist Zionism was about "ethno-natoinalism" vs non ethno-nationalism. Both "strands" of Zionism were nationalist and of course "Ethno" because they both wanted Jews to live as a free nation in a Jewish state. The difference was about the styles almost. Differences in approach to the British, the Arabs, emphasis on building of the Zionist endeavor. Rural vs Urban. Worker centric vs Militaristic centric. Casual vs formal. Compromise vs Black and white. They became complementary opposites that made the Jewish state happen. Ben-Gurion socialist "strand of Zionism" was "ethno nationalist". Herzl "strand" of Zionism was "Ethno nationalist" ("A Jewish national home"). Zionism is "Ethno-nationalist" as the movement that wanted to manifest the return of the Jewish nation to their land and live as free people. In their own space with Hebrew signs and Hebrew cinema and Jewish holidays, where you can be a Jew inside your house, and the public sphere is Jewish so you can be Jewish freely outside your house. Judaism is "Ethno nationalist" because in it's core belief and religion is that same aspiration. The modern euro concept of nationalism is just a very fitting modern gown that Jews were able to put on the return-of-zion movement, that has manifested before as religious movements. And that return of Zion aspiration is an Ethno-religios aspiration. And thus has to be nationalist. I'm 2 minutes in and I'm under the impression the interviewer makes big mistakes. And Arendt had an affair with her Professor who was a Nazi. Took on the male establishment? She SLEPT with the "male establishment" as part of her career, AND it was a Nazi one. Bold and brave? What am I missing here? And Israel is a racist state? You two would fit nicely into a 1970’s PLO conversation about Zionism is racism.

[@swguyp28]

Sadly, Roger Berkowitz is the typical academic who knows quite a lot about his narrow field of research yet seems to have the confidence to speak decisively also on unrelated subjects, displaying gross gaps in knowledge and understanding of the context. He is a political scientist focusing on specific schools of political thought in the mid-20th century US, making bold claims about the history of the British mandate "Palestine", a subject on which he has no expertise and evidently a very limited familiarity with the facts and course of events. This is another reason many are disillusioned with intellectuals' authority when speaking on contemporary subjects.

That racism bit landed hard... wtf? And the Arendt/Heidigger thing will always be problematic, won't it

[@alfredopampanga9356]

Did you see the part where the female interviewer struggles with a concept so profound , so complex that she tries to approach it from several angles , hesitates and comes at it again …..finally , lays an egg.

[@alfredopampanga9356]

There’s some unintentionally funny parts in this discussion. Like when she asks ,with rising inflection , whether Moslems welcome diversity

[@MitchellPorter2025]

The real question is, was Heidegger an anti-Zionist?

[@tiaretsnyheter6026]

Arendt criticised Israel, the dominant founding group from Germany, among other problematizations.

[@ef2718]

She loved being provocative.

[@solvingpolitics3172]

As a marketing expert you will go much farther by: 1. Defining Zionism as the belief that Jews should have a homeland. Based on equality of all religions. 2. Explaining Judaism in as simple as terms as possible. (Either we can or let the anti Semites do it, I think you would rather it be us). Judaism believes in two main things. A. Being happy and loving life. That is why there are so many Jewish: actors, comedians, directors, artists and musicians. B. Trying to solve the world’s problems. Create heaven on earth. That is why there are so many Jewish: doctors, scientists, architects, philosophers, researchers, astronomers, physicists and researchers. If this was the only message we got out about Judaism, we would be light years ahead of where we are now.

[@levantinian]

No amount of marketing can fix the image of Israel, a monstrosity which is the embodiment of Zionism.

[@levantinian]

All the marketing expertise in the world won’t save the image of Zionism. The world sees Israel for what it is.

[@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115]

Same people saying Europeans should not have a homeland.

[@solvingpolitics3172]

@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 What planet do you live on. There are 57 white majority, Christian countries. Quit whining.

[@solvingpolitics3172]

@@nosotrosloslobosestamosreg4115 Shud up, there are 57 White Christian, majority countries. Quit your cry bullying. Isrsel is 21% Muslim Arab, you should do the same.

[@davidhabart5323]

you are indeed biased and predudiced - but only because you do not think abou the essentials. Every state makes mistakes, Israel icluded. But some states are íll coceived and totalitarian, which Israel is not - if you support it, do it from this perspective and you will no longer be biased and prejudist.

[@shirleyclay6761]

Interesting but think your wrong about 2 states i think its only way to bring peace uts only way to balance out the power imbalance and both live free indrpendant lives who knows in q00 yrs or so perhaps they could gorm umnuion but not for long long time