In the mid-1940s, Sir Isaac Isaacs, a prominent figure in Australian history and a Jew himself, took a staunchly anti-Zionist stance amidst a heated debate over Zionism in Australia. His warnings about the potential for deep and lasting conflict remain sharply relevant today, decades after his initial arguments. Isaacs, who served as Australia’s Governor-General from 1931 to 1936, argued that Zionism risked igniting tensions that could have far-reaching consequences.
The backdrop to Isaacs’s position was a significant shift in sentiment among Jewish Australians. Prior to World War II, anti-Zionism was the dominant perspective, reflecting the prevailing view within British Jewry. However, the landscape began to change following the Balfour Declaration of 1917, in which the British government promised a “national home” for Jews in Palestine. This promise, coupled with the influx of Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe and the horrors of the Holocaust, led to growing support for Zionism among Jewish Australians by the early 1940s.
Isaacs’s Anti-Zionism: Principles of Justice and Prudence
Isaacs’s opposition to Zionism was rooted in principles of justice and prudence. From a justice perspective, he argued that the establishment of a Jewish national home required the consent of the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, who were the long-term residents of the land. He believed that the ancient Jewish connection to the land did not justify the displacement of Palestinian Arabs. Isaacs also warned that Zionism could provoke negative reactions against Jews in Western countries, undermining their ability to integrate fully as citizens.
On the question of prudence, Isaacs foresaw that the pursuit of political or extreme Zionism would exacerbate conflict in the Holy Land and beyond, potentially affecting other countries in the Middle East and even India, with its large Muslim minority. During World War II, he argued that Zionism weakened the British war effort.
The Zionist Argument: Julius Stone’s Response
Professor Julius Stone, a distinguished legal scholar at the University of Sydney, was a vocal critic of Isaacs’s anti-Zionist stance. Stone contended that the ancient Jewish connection to Palestine legitimized Zionist claims. He viewed Jewish identity as a cultural rather than purely religious matter. Stone’s arguments gained traction, especially in the wake of the Holocaust, which bolstered support for the idea that Palestine should be the primary destination for Jewish refugees.
Stone’s influence extended to Dr. H.V. Evatt, Australia’s Labor foreign minister, who adopted a pro-Zionist position at the United Nations, although Evatt never explicitly acknowledged Stone’s role. Isaacs passed away on February 11, 1948, just months before the Jewish Agency in Palestine proclaimed the establishment of Israel as an independent state on May 14, 1948, leading to the first Arab-Israeli war.
The Relevance of Isaacs’s Anti-Zionism Today
While Isaacs predicted conflict in Palestine and beyond, he could not have foreseen the extent of the turmoil that would unfold. His principles remain relevant, but the context has evolved significantly. In the aftermath of the 2023 Gaza war and subsequent US-Israeli conflicts with Iran in 2025 and 2026, the argument for justice centered on restitution for Palestinians has gained prominence.
In “Israel on the Brink,” revisionist historian Ilan Pappe advocates for transitional and restorative justice in Palestine. Pappe argues that key issues such as the right of return, the fate of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and the future of the “Jewish collective” are not insurmountable, drawing on historical and contemporary examples to support a transition to a one-state solution where all residents have equal rights.
The Aristotelian virtue of prudence, which Isaacs also championed, is notably absent in current circumstances. Extremism is evident in the actions of both Israel and its US allies, leading to radical responses from those opposing them. Polarization fuels militancy on both sides, making compromise and reconciliation more challenging. However, examples of reconciliation, such as South Africa in 1994 and Northern Ireland in 1998, offer hope.
Isaacs foresaw a more difficult situation for Jews in Australia as a consequence of Zionism. While the royal commission on antisemitism may not directly address the issue of Palestine, it should assess the salience of this issue in contemporary discourse.
Today, the demographic landscape from the River Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing mandatory Palestine, includes approximately 7.5 million Palestinians and an equal number of Jews. Isaacs’s principles of justice remain relevant, but how he would apply them to the current situation is uncertain. He would likely be shocked by the extent to which his premonitions have been realized, underscoring the importance of prudence in assessing the consequences of any policy prescription, even those grounded in justice.
