Herzl's 1896 plan: Palestine or Argentina

As early as 1896, Herzl was torn between Palestine and Argentina

Where was the Jewish state to be built? The answer Theodor Herzl put in writing in 1896 was not a single one. The founder of political Zionism weighed Palestine and Argentina as preferred options, ruled out Africa, and designed two institutions to carry out the project: a society in charge of negotiating with governments and acquiring territories, and a company responsible for emigration, colonization and economic development. The 230-page founding text argued that the only way out of European antisemitism was an independent state where Jews could live in safety and dignity. The later debate has moved on to other ground: the nature of the project, the double standard attributed to its promoters, and the role of figures such as Lord Rothschild in financing the venture.

What exactly the 1896 text proposed

The book did not describe an improvised state. Herzl laid out a political and practical project with two institutional pillars. The first, a Jewish society that would negotiate with governments and purchase territories. The second, a Jewish company tasked with organizing emigration, colonization and the economic exploitation of the acquired land. Palestine and Argentina appeared as preferred destinations; Africa was out of the plans. The detail is not trivial: the choice of territory was an open question, not a dogma.

The text stresses that the word Israel does not appear in any of the documents consulted; it always speaks of Palestine. A terminological nuance which, for some of those who trinc the issue, reveals just how colonial the original project was, rather than national in the current sense.

Lord Rothschild's role and the financing of the project

The connection with the Rothschild banking family is one of the threads running through the discussion. Bernard Baruch is mentioned as Herzl's adviser in the early stage and, later, as part of Churchill's circle in the second. The claim is made without supporting documentation, so it should be treated for what it is: a working hypothesis held by some that would require documentary verification. What the material does contain is the reference to Rothschild as the financial interlocutor of the Zionist project, a link that mainstream historiography has studied in detail.

The accusations of double standards and supremacism

Part of the discussion turns to a book by David Duke, some 467 pages long, from which fragments are drawn accusing Zionism of double standards: defending racial equality in the West while publishing studies on differences between peoples, and advocating uncontrolled immigration while in the Jewish state itself citizenship is reserved for those with Jewish blood. It is a controversial thesis, held by its author and reproduced here without independent evidence. The article does not endorse it: it reports it for what it is, a current of opinion circulating in certain circles that academic historiography disputes.

The territorial options that were ruled out

Uganda and Madagascar come up in the conversation as alternatives that were considered and dropped. The argument put forward is that Madagascar was home to indigenous populations who would have rejected the newcomers. The practical consequence is that the Zionist project, in its original version, faced the same problem as any colonial venture: finding land with no owner. There was none.

---

In the end, the question remains the same as in 1896: a state for a people, or a people for a state? Herzl chose the first formula. The territories he weighed are still on the map, and so are the consequences of that choice.