To understand the complexity of the genocide in Gaza and its extensions into Lebanon, it is not enough to analyze immediate geopolitical dynamics. It is necessary to understand the origins of Zionism and the ideological evolution behind its three main currents, whose interaction helps explain part of the regional escalation.
Zionism emerged in the late 19th century as a response to rising antisemitism and violence in Europe. Events such as the Dreyfus Affair convinced figures like Herzl that integration was impossible, encouraging a Jewish nationalism influenced by the independence movements of the time. Thus, the historical link with the ancestral land of Israel (Zion) was sought in order to ensure the security and self-determination of the people.
Original secular and political Zionism emerged in the late 19th century with Theodor Herzl, who proposed a “Jewish homeland” as a response to European antisemitism. Theodor Herzl was the key driving force behind the First Zionist Congress (1897), a milestone that transformed Zionism from a scattered idea into an organized international political movement. Herzl’s Zionism was a secular project focused on the establishment of a modern state. Various European financial supporters, including financial networks such as the Rothschild family, contributed to its early development. Over time, this vision lost centrality in favor of more radical later currents.
Revisionist Zionism and security through force is linked to Ze’ev Jabotinsky, author of the concept of the “Iron Wall”. It advocates territorial consolidation and a firm military strategy. In its contemporary evolution, some analysts associate it with hardline Israeli political sectors close to Benjamin Netanyahu’s circle. It incorporates nationalist and xenophobic elements, with cultural and religious references reinforcing a permanent security doctrine.
Evangelical Zionism and the eschatological dimension comes from American Christian fundamentalism. These currents interpret support for Israel through a theological lens that places Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque as prophetic sites. The construction of a Third Temple would be, according to these beliefs, a necessary step toward the “Armageddon” and the Second Coming of Christ. The influence of this ideology in the White House became especially evident during Donald Trump’s presidency, whose security team showed affinity with these apocalyptic beliefs. In this way, military incursions into Gaza and tensions on the Lebanese border go beyond territorial disputes and take on an eschatological dimension, where holy war is seen as a prophecy that must be fulfilled to bring about the end of times.
