Palestine Series, Episode 7 – The Rise of Nationalism and the Birth of Zionism in the 19th Century

The conclusion of the French Revolution ushered in the 19th century and major changes on the world stage. Some of these are highly relevant for our series: the appearance of nation-states, the rise of nationalism, both the final emancipation of Jews in Europe and the increase of antisemitism, as well as the rise of Christian Zionism and the birth of Zionism itself. The French Revolution was especially significant as it played a major role in the emancipation of Jews and in the estabishment of nation-states. It was an eventful and significant century, and we have sufficient historcial background now to analyze that. But first we need to introduce a few new definitions and then this episode will finally conclude with a definition of “Jews/Jewish”.

E7.1 The Rise of Nationalism and the Nation-state

• The French state after the French Revolution (which ended in Nov 1799) is regarded by many as the first modern nation-state, and the introduction of the concept
• We are all used to look at politics and our own identity through the lens of the nation-state as that is all we’ve known in our lifetimes, but it is important to realize that this is a very recent development, barely 200 years old
• Before the nation-state we had empires, kingdoms, duchies, principalities, fiefdoms, free cities, tribal areas, and villages. These included large ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity (with the exception of smaller tribal communities). Quite often it was a messy mix of all of the above, like the Holy Roman Empire (800 – 1806)
• We have to define a few new terms to sensibly continue with this analysis. As we do, please keep in mind that:
  • These terms are difficult to define for a variety of reasons:
    • The sheer complexity and fluidity of human diversity
    • The fact that these social phenomena (like nationalism) developed differently in different areas
    • The lack of scientific criteria
    • The fact that identity largely depends on self-identification
    • The lack of consensus
    • Ideological influences and strong emotions involved
  • Even so (or maybe exactly for this reason), we still have to settle on some terminological clarification to enable effective communication.

E7.2 Introducing relevant new Terminology

E7.2.1 A People

• For the sake of this article the term “a people” is defined as a social group who shares certain cultural practices (customs, food, dress, music, norms), history and language. Culture often includes religion, but it does not have to. “A people” is clearly a dynamic concept with cultures, language and religion changing over time
• Examples are the Italians or the Germans
• See below for comparing a “people” with an “ethnic group” and a “nation”

E7.2.2 A Religious Community

• When the main, or only, shared characteristic of people is religion we’re dealing with a religious community, not a people (for example Christianity, Islam, Anglicans, Mormons or Sunni Islam).

E7.2.3 An Ethnic Group

• This term largely overlaps with “a people” but the way it developed in the 19th and 20th centuries blends cultural background with biological origin
  • The claim about ethnic groups are typically that they are pure and static
  • And that everybody who is part of this “in-group” have a shared ethnic/biological origin
• When “a people” is defined in cultural terms, instead of ethnic terms,
  • The focus is on shared language, history, and identity
  • It is accepted that there will be many people of mixed ethnic descent in this “people” or this “ethnic group”
• There are limitations to the term “ethnic group”, which one has to be aware of. There are no pure or homogenous ethnic groups (or race), regardless of the many ideological narratives to this effect
• The biological dimension gives “ethnic groups” more of a static or permanent appearance. However, ethnic groups are not static: they come, change and go. Even if they look permanent and static at a given point in time (or specific political narratives make these claims), they’re not. This is such an important fact that I will spend more time on it, using a concrete example
• I’m using Italians as a well-known and non-controversial example. The Italians as an ethnic group (or as “the Italian people”) did not exist 1000 years ago, and they’re by no means the “pure” descendants of the Ancient Romans, which is borne out by historical and DNA evidence:
  • Anatolian Neolithic farmers were one of the oldest and most important ancestors of modern-day Italians (and there were of course many other influences during the Bronze and Iron Ages). Modern DNA evidence shows the Anatolian DNA on the typical current Italian genome
  • The Ancient Greek Empire left its cultural, linguistic and ethnic mark on the Italian Peninsula 
  • The Celts from Gaul, as well as the Senones from the north
  • The Romans succeeded in conquering and uniting a number of other ethnic groups on the peninsula, like the Etruscans, the Umbrians, the Samnites, the Mesapiens, the Apulians, etc. See the map below
  • And as an aside, none of these ethnic groups exist today, serving as an illustration of the transient nature of ethnic groups
  • The Romans did not only conquer and unite the Italian peninsula, they left their cultural, linguistic and ethnic legacy (like the Ancient Greeks before them)
  • After the fall of the Roman Empire several other invaders and conquerers left their ethnic mark: the Vikings, other Germanic tribes (especially the Ostrogoths and Lombards), Slavic people from the Balkans, Arabs and Phoenicians, North African genetic influences, like the Bedouins etc
  • So when Italy became a nation-state with the “Italians” as their main population at the start of the 19th century, this was the result of millenia of ethnic and cultural changes and development
    • So Italians are clearly “a people” defined in cultural-linguistic terms
    • When one starts to define the Italians as an “ethnic group” it becomes problematic as there are a very large number of ethnic groups which participated in the gene pool to form what we today call modern Italians
    • For this reason many academics prefer to avoid the biological connotation of the term “ethnic group”
    • I think the term can still serve a purpose, as long as it is clear that there are no pure and static ethnic groups, regardless of the stories people tell themselves
  • This development continues unabated, of course, without some people apparently realizing it. And when they lament intermarriages as a negative development today it is because they use an ethno-biological perspective and project this current Italian (or any other ethnic) group into the past as “pure and static”. This is an a-historical mythological narrative
  • This a-historical view of pure and static ethnic groups is the result of several factors
    • A lack of historical knowledge and perspective, plain and simple
    • Presentism: projecting the status quo into the past (in this case a rather naive perspective on current nation-states and their majority ethnic groups)
    • Ideological narratives to this effect, shaping people’s views. These inaccurate narratives nevertheless can be quite powerful
    • A lack of critical thinking about narratives they were raised with
• Here is a link to a popular YouTube video depicting the diversity and change of Italian DNA and its historical complexity. It provides a good perspective for the purpose of our definitions and discussion (and for life in general) – “Identity is not purity, it is a thousand migrations, a thousand stories carved into blood” [1]
• And below is a useful map for additional perspective on our Italian example above.

E7.2.4 A Nation

• There is an overlap between “a people” and “nation” and they’re often conflated too
• A quick historical overview should be helpful:
  • When the main political entities were empires and kingdoms, which were largely agricultural with an uneducated population of diverse cultures and languages, these different social groupings did not have a common identity or regarded themselves as entitled to any control
  • Religious identity played a major role, much bigger than ethnic, cultural or linguistic identity (like the Ottoman Empire, for example)
  • During the 17th and 18th centures the influence of both kingdoms and religions declined, with the Enlightenment playing a major role in the decline of both
  • This led to the rise of nationalism, which some philosophers regard as a secular religion in terms of its role and functioning
• The key similarities between “Nation” and “People”:
  • A nation is also a social grouping with a common culture and identity
• Key differences:
  • “Nation” also involves an autonomous territory (a state) and its sovereignity with which people started to identify
  • It often involves more cultural diversity, with several “peoples” forming a “nation”
  • Examples: the Australian nation consisting of the Aboriginal people, the English people, the Irish people, the Korean people, etc
• This developed differently in different regions, which I’ll address below when dealing with “nation-states”. Both “a people” and “nation” can be defined in primarily cultural terms or more in ethnocentric (or even ethnoreligious) terms.

E7.2.5 A Nation-state

• It’s defined for our purposes as a sovereign territory for a specific nation and governed by that nation
• With the Enlightenment (and the consequent decline in the authority of religions and kings) peasants developed more autonomy and social mobility
• In this process the culture of kingdoms developed more into a mass culture (instead of the higher culture of the royals, nobles and clergy), with peasants also developing more of a consciousness of a cultural identity and eventually political empowerment
• So bigger and more diverse empires and kingdoms split into smaller more homogenous sovereign territories 
• The Enlightenment, and specifically the French Revolution, played a major role in this development, with many regarding France after the revolution as the first nation-state. This does not mean at all that this brand new nation-state was democratic. Despite the ideals of the French Revolution and its slogan of Freedom, Equility and Fraternity, it ushered in instability and even autocracy. It was not until the Third French Republic in 1870 that France became a stable democracy. It nevertheless established what can be regarded as a nation-state after the French Revolution
• All of this led to the rise of nationalism, and since nation-states were never completely homogenous, it played a role in how different versions of nationalism developed.

E7.2.6 Nationalism

• It can broadly be defined as an ideology which sees the nation as the fundamental unit of social life, personal identity in terms of membership of a nation-state with loyalty to this state and its members (the nation)
• The historical influence was bi-directional: the nation-states played a big role in shaping and reinforcing nationalism, while nationalism played an important role in the establishment of nation-states
• Hans Kohn (a German-speaking Eastern European Jew born in the Austro-Hungarian Empire), became a historian and philosopher who migrated to the US and taught history in New York [2]. He published several books on nationalism, some of the most relevant ones are [3] [4] [5] [6]. In his major and influential work “The Idea of Nationalism” [7], he showed empirically how nationalism developed differently in the nation-states of Western and Eastern Europe, with far-reaching political consequences
  • A more ethnocentric form of nationalism, which developed in Germany, Eastern Europe and Russia
    • This focuses more on an ethnic or biological origin narrative, like the “blood and soil” narrative in 20th century Germany (based on the myth of a pure and superior Aryan race)
    • It typically defines “a people” and even “nation” more in ethnobiological terms and tends to be more exclusive
    • It has historically been more challenging for minorities in such a nation-state
    • When that happens the nation is typically painted as homogenous/pure, static and permanent, with some special/heroic characteristics and abilities
    • Examples:
      • Proponents will call their specific “people” the only “real Americans” or “real Italians” or “real Germans”
      • This is especially ironic in countries like Australia or the United States, which were both both melting pots of a large variety of migrants, where the vast majority are all immigrants
      • This often has a racist undertone, when all the “white” immigrants are accepted as part of the nation, but not those from Africa or Asia
    • We know these are pure mythical narratives, but it can nevertheless be quite effective as history has shown and as its influence still lingers on today
  • A more inclusive form of nationalism, which developed in liberal Western democracies
    • Where “nation” is not defined in ethnocentric, but in cultural terms
    • Where nation then becomes more inclusive, with different peoples and language groups within the nation-state being part of the nation
    • Where minorities are consequently welcomed and accepted
    • The myth of the pure, static ethnobiological nation tends to fade in this process, but so far it hasn’t completely disappeared anywhere
    • And this faded myth typically features on the conservative end of the political spectrum
• Understanding this distinction between a more ethnocentric and a more inclusive form of nationalism is not only essential for understanding the Zionist narrative, but politics in general. In my experience, when a political platform has a strong emphasis on nationalism it is most likely an ethnocentric version of nationalism. 
• It has to be added that religion is sometimes also added to this mix, when a nation is defined in ethno-religious terms, which complicates matters further
  • Examples:
    • The violence and genocide in the former Yugoslavia (“Orthodox Serbs” vs “Muslim Bosnians” vs “Catholic Croats”)
    • The explicit Christian-Nationalism of apartheid South Africa
    • The Religious Right in the US (seeing themselves as an ethnocentric, pure and Christian nation, regardless of the historical validity of these claims)
  • Combining religious myths with ethnocentric and nationalist myths can be exceptionally powerful and just as destructive, as history has repeatedly shown. The most fanatical instances of ethnocentric nationalism are those where the specific group don’t only see themselves as pure and endowed with specific heroic characteristics, but also have some or other god on their side
  • I do not regard all forms of nationalism as radical and negative, but it certainly has a dark side
• As there are no completely homogenous nation-states, the presence of different peoples/minorities was historically problematic  and was handled in different ways when nation-states started to take shape in the 19th century:
  • Different levels of assimilation and integration, like in most liberal Western democracies, where “nation” is effectively defined as inclusive of several “peoples” within the nation-state (and with nation-states becoming more diverse).
  • Legal discrimination with or without segregation, like in apartheid South Africa, in segregated USA before the Civil Rights Movement and in Israel today
  • An extreme example is ethnic cleansing, when a people (defined in a more ethnocentric way) is physically driven from the nation-state in which they are a minority (or even a majority). This can involve force and even lead to genocide. An example is the genocide of Jews by the Nazis in the 20th century.

‘Understanding this distinction between a more ethnocentric and a more inclusive form of nationalism is not only essential for understanding the Zionist narrative, but politics in general‘

‘The most fanatical instances of ethnocentric nationalism are those where the specific group don’t only see themselves as pure and endowed with specific heroic characteristics, but also have some or other god on their side‘

E7.3 The Roots and Rise of Antisemitism

• I can only scratch the surface here, but historical antisemitism is an undisputable fact. Here are a few general sources [8] [9] [10]

E7.3.1 Christian Antisemitism

“44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. WHen he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies”
(Jesus addressing a crowd of Jews in John 8:44)

• Some theologians claim Christian antisemitism goes back all the way to the New Testament, as covered by in-depth theology books on the topic [11] [12] [13] 
• Two of the most prominent passages analyzed in these books are
  • Matthew 27: 11 – 26, where the Jewish crowd told Pontius Pilate unanimously that “His blood is on us and our children” (for the crucifixion of Jesus)
  • John 8: 31 – 47, where Jesus himself describes his Jewish opponents as the children of the Devil, “the father of lies”
• The early history of Christianity:
  • In the 4th century the Myth of the Wandering Jew being punished for his transgressions started to appear in polemic Christian writings
  • This is naturally quite ironic, as according to the main Christian narrative Jesus had to die and it was part of their god’s will
  • This is one of so many examples of incoherence in religious and political stories
• The Crusades involved a number of Jewish massacres by Christian Crusaders, especially the 1st Crusade
• One of the reasons the well-known 16th century German protestant reformer, Martin Luther, was used as a good ally by Hitler in the 20th century was the fact that he wrote a strong and rather crude antisemitic publication in 1543 (3 years before his death), with the title “On the Jews and their Lies”, a title alluding to the John 8 quote above
  • This was only published in English in 1948
  • “In this treatise, he argues that Jewish synagogues and schools be set on fire, prayer books be destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, Jewish homes burned, and property and money confiscated. Luther demanded that no mercy or kindness be given to Jews, that they be afforded no legal protection, and “these poisonous envenomed worms” should be drafted into forced labor or expelled forever. He also seems to advocate murder of Jews, writing “[W]e are at fault in not slaying them” “[14]
  • The full text can be found here [15]
  • Luther did not only wrote harshly against the Jews, he was also actively involved in expelling them from several German towns [16]
  • One of the preserved Nazi propaganda posters which states that “Hitler’s fight and Luther’s teaching are the best defense for the German people.” (available in the World History Archive) [17]
• Christianity has a long history of persecution and legal discrimination against Jews, which gained momentum when the Pope created the first Jewish Ghetto in 1555. I covered this comprehensively in Episode 6
• Some of the relevant historical facts regarding the emancipation of Jews in Europe:
  • In the (Catholic) Hapsburg Empire the Edict of Toleration of Jews of 1782 for the first time extended freedom of religion to them. This was strongly opposed by Pope Pius VI and the Catholic Church [18]
  • In Anglican England the Jews Relief Act was only passed in 1858, allowing them freedom of religion. This was only 276 years ago and 39 years before the founding of the World Zionist Organization (see the subsection directly below)
• After the discriminatory laws were lifted against Jews in Europe, they integrated successfully into European society and several successful Jewish bankers emerged, none more famous (or infamous) than the Rothschild family
  • This led to many conspiracy theories that rich Jews control the world behind the scenes, finance terrorism, are responsible for the excesses of capitalism, profited off the Battle of Waterloo or even that they were responsible for the holocaust to gain sympathy
  • These conspiracy theories were actively promoted by the Nazis and are still rife in Neo-Nazi circles. I do not want to display crude antisemitic images in this article, but here is a source showing some of these historical propagandistic imagery [19]
• With the rise of nationalism in Europe in the 19th century, anti-Jewish sentiment became more prominent again, especially in Germany and Russia (two countries where a strong ethnocentric form of nationalism developed)
  • Centuries of Christian antisemitism painting Jews as the ultimate outsider and villian (including oppression, persecution and massacres), created a an environment in which nationalism could easily turn to antisemitism
    • In the previous section we saw how nationalism developed into a more inclusive, cultural-based ideology in Western Europe, and a more exclusive ethnocentric ideology with racial undertones in Germany, Eastern Europe and Russia
    • The reasons for this in the West can be traced to the French Revolution, the laws of Great Britain and the US Constitution, which effectively kept the darker side of nationalism in check
    • In Germany the democratic and civil rights traditions were just not as well developed, and that was exacerbated by the antisemitism of Martin Luther (the famous Protestant Reformer) which was inherent in the German history. Hitler extensively used the Bible and Luther 
  • Wilhelm Marr, an anti-Jewish German politician, coined the term “antisemitism” when he formed the Antisemitic League in 1879 [10] [20]. He introduced an explicit racial component to antisemitism in Germany, which was still visibly part of the Third Reich 60 years later
  • On 1 March 1881 Tsar Alexander II was assassinated in Russia by young revolutionaries. He was succeeded by Tsar Alexander III, who made the entire Jewish population of Russia a scapegoat for the domestic discontent, despite the fact that only one of the revolutionaries was Jewish [10] [20] [21]
    • Anti-Jewish riots (known as “pogroms”) ensued, as well as discrimination and persecution
    • This led to Jews fleeing Russia. The majority went to the US, and less than 3% of them made their way to Palestine
  • The Dreyfuss Affair in 1894 in France, was a high profile antisemitic event, showing that even the French Revolution and its strong legacy of Enlightenment did not completely get rid of the dark side of nationalism [22] 

P7.3.2 Antisemitism within Islam, with roots well before the state of Israel was established

“26 Allah brought down from their fortresses those People of the Book who had supported the invading confederates and cast such terror into their hearts that some of them you kill and some of them you take captive.
27 Allah made you inherit their land, their dwellings, and their goods, and a piece of land on which you had not yet trodden. Verily Allah has power over all things.”
[Surah 33.26-27]

• Episode 5 looked at Mohammed’s expulsion of two of the three Jewish tribes in Medina around 624/625 CE (Bani Qaynuqa and Bani Nadir), as well as the massacre of Bani Qurayza at the Battle of Trench circa 627
  • From the Quran:
    • Surah 33.26-27 (33.26) “Allah brought down from their fortresses those People of the Book who had supported the invading confederates and cast such terror into their hearts that some of them you kill and some of them you take captive (33.27) Allah made you inherit their land, their dwellings, and their goods, and a piece of land on which you had not yet trodden. Verily Allah has power over all things.” Commentary by the Islamic Foundation of the UK indicates that verse 26 and 27 refer to Bani Qurayza and their annihilation at the Battle of Trench [23] 
  • Traditional Islamic interpretations regard this “altercation” Mohammed had with Jews (and the negative comments he made) as a minor episode in his life. After 1948 it received much more attention
  • Islamic sources also tend to ascribe the massacre and expulsion of Jews from Medina to these tribes not complying to the treaty or attempting to assassinate Mohammed
  • Jewish sources tend to point to a lack of historical evidence for these claims and argue that the historical record shows anti-Semitism in Islam started with Mohammed himself
• As an aside, this passage (Surah 33.26-27) also shows how Islam came up with a similar narrative as the Layer 1 narrative of Zionism (which is part of an old narrative of Judaism): that they have a god who gave them the land and possessions of Jewish tribes and the commands/assistance to kill their adversaries
• The Quran includes verses advocating tolerance (like the often quoted verse that there is no compulsion in religion – Surah 2.257), but also many pejorative and violent verses (some about all unbelievers and others specifically about Jews) [24] [25]. I just list a few:
  • Allah cursed unbelievers (Surah 2.88)
  • Allah is the enemy of unbelievers (Surah 2.98)
  • Jews are accused of being unbelievers and killing prophets (Surah 4.154-155)
  • Surah 5.33: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”
  • Surah 5.41:  “Those are they for whom Allah does not desire that He should purify their hearts; they shall have disgrace in this world, and they shall have a grievous chastisement in the hereafter.” (This is one of many verses emphasizing the “grievous chastisement” of unbelievers, quite often Jews)
  • Surah 5.51: “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other”
  • Surah 5:60: “Then say to them: ‘Shall I tell you about those whose retribution with Allah is even worse? They are the ones whom Allah has cursed, and who incurred His wrath and some of whom were changed into apes and swine, and who served the false deities.”
  • Surah 5.85: “Thou wilt surely find the most hostile of men to the believers are the Jews and the idolaters”
  • Decapitate unbelievers and crush them in battle before subjugating them as prisoners (Surah 47.4)
• There are several Hadith more scathing about Jews than the Quran, with some of these apocalyptic in nature. A well-known example is a Hadith quoted in Article 7 of the original Charter of Hamas: “The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: ‘The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.’”
  • This is recorded in multiple Hadith, including the highly regarded 9th century Hadith in Sunni Islam (Sahih Muslim), as well another highly regarded Hadith in Shia Islam (Sahih al-Bukhari, also from the 9th century
  • There are also Hadith verses advocating tolerance
• There were several severe examples of antisemitism under Muslim rule (both Sunni and Shia) [26]
  • The Granada massacre of 4,000 Jews in Spain in 1066 [27]
  • In the 12th century the Almohad dynasty gave Jews the choice to convert to Islam, be killed or expelled from the Iberian peninsula
  • The Mawza Exile in 1679, when all Jews were banished from Yemen by the Imam of Yemen
  • The 1828 massacre of Jews in Baghdad (in present-day Iraq)
  • The 1839 Allahdad incident in Meshed (in present-day Iran), when a mob burnt down the synagogue in the Jewish Quarter, and a massacre was stopped by force
  • The 1869 massacre of Jews in Barfurush (in present-day Iran)
• Be that is it may, several eminent historians pointed out that Jews still generally had a better deal under Muslim than Christian rule, and that Christian antisemitism was more virulent especially in the 19th and 20th centuries. This includes Mark Cohen, Emeritus Professor at Princeton, a scholar of Jewish History in the Islamic World [28] [29]
• An example of this is the dhimmi status Jews (and Christians) had under several Muslim dynasties, including the Ottoman Empire
  • The positives pointed out by Muslims, and some historians:
    • That “dhimmi” literally means “protected person” and that such a status typically provided protections like not getting killed and the freedom to practice your own religion
    • This was initially awarded to the “People of the Book” but sometimes extended to other religions too
    • This status provided Jews quite often a better life than the discrimination and even persecution they faced in Christian Europe until the 19th century
  • The negatives, pointed out by critics and other historians
    • That “dhimmi” status was still based on accepting the supremacy of Islam
    • Involved an inferior status, and sometimes humiliation
    • Still involved discrimination like
      • Having to wear clothes to distinguish yourself
      • Not being eligible for positions of power
      • Not being allowed to rebuild or restore synagogues
      • Having to pay the jizya tax
    • This protection was not always that reliable, and dhimmis sometimes experienced forced conversions, expulsion and even massacres
• Antisemitism drastically increased in the Muslim world during the 20th century, due to several factors:
  • The impact of Christian antisemitism
    • By means of Islamic scholars spending time in the West
    • And through the influence of Christian Arabs
  • Nazi propaganda. “Nazi radio broadcast an unrelenting flood of anti-British, anti-American, anti-Soviet, and especially anti-Jewish propaganda into the Middle East. It was hate radio with a vengeance” [30]
    • Herf also wrote a book about the topic: “Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World”
    • There are historians, like Richard Wolin, who disagreed with Herf’s conclusions but there is no doubt about the enormous scale of Nazi propaganda to the Middle East or the fact that it had an impact on the development of radical Islam [31] 
  • The founding of Israel in 1948 had a major impact
  • The rise of more extremist Muslim scholars dissatisfied with the post WWI and post WWII world order. I will cover this in future episodes.

E7.4 The Narrative of the supposed “Judeo-Christian Tradition”

• Now that we looked at the deep roots of Christian antisemitism we have more background to evaluate the fairly recent narrative of the “Judeo-Christian Tradition”
• To start with, Jews living in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries would have been highy surprised to hear about a such a tradition, while they suffered large-scale discrimination and even persecution, including the Jewish ghettos created by the Pope in 1555 (as discussed E7.3.1 above, and in Episode 6)
• It is indeed a new story which started to develop towards the end of the 19th century after the western powers terminated their legal discrimination against Jews. It could not have developed during the preceding centuries, and it could only gain widespread acceptance during the 20th century due to a severe lack of historical perspective among the masses
• Coining this term was to the best of my knowledge not the work of a single individual, but it emerged from a gradual process during the 20th century, mostly in the US
  • It was part of the broader acceptance of Jews into Western societies, which originated with the repealing of discriminatrory laws in Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries
  • Franklin Roosevelt used it explicitly as part of an effort to create more national unity in the US
  • It was also part of a new narrative against new common enemies:
    • Against Fascism and Nazism in the first half of the 20th century
    • As part of a broader coalition against communism in the 2nd half of the 20th century
• Despite the widespread use of the term “Judeo-Christian Tradition”, bias and hostility towards Jews continued in the West, especially in some countries where ethnocentric nationalism continued to play a bigger role
• It should not come as any surprise that this term is barely 200 years old and another historical myth
• Today the term is largely used on the conservative side of the political spectrum, by conservative politicians, commentators and the Religious Right in the US. And it typcially forms part of a broader narrative that Western civilization was supposedly built on this tradition
• I covered this topic in much more depth in another CSF Article The Supposed “Judeo-Christian” Foundation of Western Civilization
• Below: two very different proponents of the “Judeo-Christian Tradition” narrative
  • Left: US President Franklin Roosevelt, who deliberately used it to create more national unity in the US during WWII, to promote the assimmilation of Jews into American scoiety and to mobilise people against new common enemies
  • Right: Jordan Peterson, Canadian Psychologist and conservative commentator, who pushes it with some outlandish and a-historical claims which his conservative audience is nevertheless quite receptive to
  • Both of them would have had a hard time convincing Jewish communities in Europe of this supposed tradition the West was built on (from the Jews massacred by the 1st crusade in Germany and Jerusalem, to the Jews expelled from Spain by their Christian monarchs, to the Jews in ghettos started by the Pope in 1555 to the Jews who experienced systematic discrimination and persecution for centuries until their emancipation by Western governments as a result of the Enlightenment in the 18th and 19th centuries while strongly being resisted by the Pope and the Catholic Church).

P7.5 The Rise of Christian Zionism

• An important qualification to start with, Christian Zionism does not mean Christians who support Zionism, it has a very specific theological meaning. It is a small subset of Christians who accepts specific eschatolocial dogmas about the second coming of Christ. This is rejected by all the mainstream Christian Churches (the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and all the main reformed churches)
• When President Joe Biden supported Israel and Zionism:
  • He was not a Christian Zionist. As a faithful member of the Catholic Church he rejected Christian Zionism as dogma
  • He was a good example of a Christian, who supported Zionism
• Christian Zionism is a theological position popular among the evangelical churches and can be defined as a Christian ideology advocating the migration of Jews to historical Palestine, because they believe it is a Biblical prophecy which has to be fulfilled as a prerequisite for the second coming of Christ. It is another narrative which developed in the 19th century
  • This includes the believe that Yahweh gave this land to the Jewish people which is why their right to the land trump that of all existing inhabitants, even if they lived there for centuries
  • It is based on a specific interpretation of Bible verses like:
    • Gen 12: 3 “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you and in you, all the families of the earth will be blessed”
    • “I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them, says the LORD your God” (Amos 9:15)
    • “Judah will be inhabited forever and Jerusalem through all generations. Their bloodguilt, which I have not pardoned, I will pardon. The LORD dwells in Zion” (Joel 3:20-21)
  • It is also called Biblical Zionism
• It precedes Political/Jewish Zionism by several decades and have some early roots in the Reformation, but it is not as old as Christian antisemitism
• Early proponents [32] [33] [34] [35]:
  • Although there are many examples of earlier roots of Christian Zionism, it only gained momentum in the 19th century with John Nelson Darby (1800 – 1882), an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher and preacher who helped form the Plymouth Brethren [36]. He is regarded as the father of dispensationalism, which had a big impact on the development of Christian Zionism (see directly below)
  • By the middle of the 19th century Christian Zionism gained a foothold in Brittain and started influencing foreign policy
  • William Hechler (1845–1931) was an English clergyman who served as Chaplain of the British Embassy in Vienna where he befriended Theodor Herzl
    • He had a big influence on Herzl, guided him through the diplomatic channels in Vienna and also became one of Herzl’s biggest supporters. His story of Christian Zionism helped shaped Herzl’s story of Zionism
    • Hechler is often regarded as the father of Christian Zionism and Herzl became known as the father of Zionism (see E7.5 below)
  • Arthur Balfour, was the British Foreign Minister who issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917 (see Episode 8)
    • A Canadian historian, Donald Lewis, published “The Origins of Christian Zionism” in 2010. In this book he makes an argument that Christian Zionism played a clear role in the Balfour Declaration [35]
  • During the first half of the 19th century, some of the early proponents of Christian Zionism came up with the slogan “A land without people for a people without land”
    • This was obviously untrue, but it was an opportunistic slogan which turned out to be quite effective and enduring
    • It is also a typical narrative used by settler colonialists in other countries, to either regard their new chosen homeland as empty or otherwise just not put any value on the lives and aspirations of the local population
    • This slogan was taken up by influential Zionists, like Chaim Weizzman
• Christian Eschatology and Christian Zionism
  • There are pretty arcane and involved theological differences between Christians taking a large variety of different dogmatic eschatological positions (about the “end times”): dispensationalism, covenant theology, various forms of millennialism and “replacement” theology. I have no intention to get into these excruciating details, but think very high level overview is quite relevant to understand Christian Zionism
  • Dispensationalism is broadly the belief that the dispensation created by the original covenant god made with Abraham continues to this day and runs in parallel with the second, spiritual dispensation through Christ. According to this view the Jews remain the “chosen people” and a number of prophecies in the Old Testament are interpreted literally as politically prophecies applicable to the State of Israel
  • Covenant Theology is an alternative to dispensationalism in the sense that it posits a series of consecutive covenants between god and his chosen people
  • Both dispensationalism and covenant theology are more widespread among Evangelical, Pentecostal or charismatic churches, and some form of millennialism and the rapture typically form part of it
  • Main stream Christianity largely rejects both dispensational and covenant theology. For this reason the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church and the main stream Protestant Churches all officially reject Christian Zionism as they largely interpret the concept “chosen people” in spiritual terms, referring to the Christian Church today instead of the tribes of Israel from the Iron Age
    • Like all Christian dogma, there is also widespread disagreements about this
    • Christian Zionists disparage this mainstream view as “Replacement Theology” and describe it as an instrument of “evil forces”
• Christian Zionists typically do not focus on the New Testament passages (like Matthew 27: 11 – 26 and John 8: 31 – 47) used by Christian antisemites
• It is ironic to see the big role Christianity played in the rise and survival of Zionism, both through Christian antisemitism and more importantly through Christian Zionism with its theological, political and financial support (more below).

P7.6 The Birth of Zionism

P7.6.1 Definition and Early Proponents

• Zionism is
  • An ideology which added ethnocentric nationalism to Judaism, claiming all Jews to have a shared identity and destiny (as either an ethnic group or a nation), with the right to their own nation-state in historical Palestine
  • Also a Jewish nationalist movement which aspired to a Jewish state in historical Palestine (also called the Zionist Project)
• Additional axplanatory notes:
  • Zion is one of the hills of Old Jerusalem
  • It’s also called Political Zionism as it is a political ideology with a political agenda. When I use the term “Zionism” in this article, I refer to Political Zionism. If I talk about other forms of Zionism (like Christian Zionism or Religious Zionism), I qualify that
  • It is sometimes called Jewish Zionism to distinguish it from Christian Zionism (discussed above)
  • It has to be distinguished from Religious Zionism, which I’ll cover below
• General sources [37] [38] [39], and My Jewish Learning’s view on Zionism [40]
• Zionism originated in the 19th century among Ashkenazi Jews  in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as Russia
  • The environment in which it developed was the time the nation-state concept gained popularity and new nation-states started to form (and with it the rise of nationalism)
  • Most of the Ashkenazim were secular, and a sizable % was also socialists, especially the Ashkenazim from Russia. This is the reason Kibbutzim were developed in Palestine and then in Israel
• The main ideological founders of Zionism as a political ideology were from the German culture (like Moses Hess, Theodor Herzl, and Max Nordau), while the further refinement and implementation fell to secular Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim from Russia and Eastern Europe (like Polish-born David Ben-Gurion and Lithuanian-born Chaim Weizmann):
  • So Zionism developed on the fringes of German nationalism, accepting the same ethnocentric form of nationalism and some of their dubious race theories
  • Moses Hess was probably the first proponent of this view of Jewish identity, seeing the Jews with their very wide ethnic variety as a single ethnic group (or even race) which formed a static nation, moving through history in a linear fashion [41]
    • This was not only at odds with the historical record, but also very foreign to Judaism and their was an overwhelming rejection of these ideas, including by the large majority of rabbis (see E7.7.1 below)
    • Hess was a socialist who personally knew Karl Marx and Friedrich English, and had an intellectual impact on both. Marx referred to Hess as “My Communist Rabbi”, while English said “My conversion to Communism was definitely due to Hess.” [41]. He worked with English on political campaigns in the Rhineland in 1845 to mobilize workers
    • He was also known as “The first Secular Zionist”. Both the secular and socialist roots of Zionsim run deep
    • Hess published a very influential book in 1862 “Rome and Jerusalem” which can be regarded as the foundation of Zionism [42]. By the end of the 19th century his book led to a marked increase in Zionists.

‘Marx referred to Hess as “My Communist Rabbi”, while English said “My conversion to Communism was definitely due to Hess” ‘

P7.6.2 The Zionist Organisation (ZO) and the Jewish Agency

• In Aug 1897 the Zionist Organization (ZO) was formed at its first congress in Basel at the initiative of Theodor Herzl [43] [44]. They changed their name to the World Zionist Organization (WZO) in 1960. I refer consistenty to this organization as the WZO in this series
• The WZO was formed and run by Ashkenazi Jews from Eastern Europe
• Herzl became their first president until his death in 1904
• They accepted the Basel Program which set out their goals [45]:

“Zionism seeks to establish a home in Palestine for the Jewish people, secured under public law. To achieve this goal, the Congress envisages the following means:
1. The expedient promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and tradesmen in Palestine.
2. The organization and bringing together of all Jews through local and general events, according to the laws of the various countries.
3. The strengthening of Jewish feeling and national consciousness.
4. Preparatory steps for obtaining the governmental approval which is necessary to the achievement of the Zionist purpose.” [The Basel Program]

• Initially the Jewish communities, which were well assimilated in Western Europe by then, and who saw themselves as European, were not enthusiastic about this idea at all, and one of the reasons their first conference was held in Basel. There was no interest to hold it in Germany or Austria
• Nevertheless, Herzl was a charismatic man and is credited with creating Zionism as a political force
• The WZO created an operational Palestine Office in 1908, which gradually morphed into the Jewish Agency by 1929. They were effectively the operational arm of the WZO and became the government-in-waiting consisting of 4 departments: Foreign Affairs, Security, Immigration and Education.

P7.6.3 Theodor Herzl

• Theodor Herzl (1860 – 1904), was a secular German-speaking Austro-Hungarian Jewish journalist and political activist [46] [47] 
• He was born into a secular Jewish family in present-day Serbia. His family migrated to Bohemia and he grew up in Pest, the Eastern part of Budapest and had no traditional Jewish education. His family later moved to Vienna in the Austro-Hungarian Empire where he studied law. He worked briefly as a lawyer before making a career in journalism
• He published “Der Judenstaat” in 1896, which was well-received and met the Reverend William Hechler the next month, as the latter read en supported his book
• He was heavily influenced by Hechler, an Anglican Minister to the British Embassy in Vienna and a Christian Zionist. He became a close friend and an important supporter of Herzl, and was instrumental in making diplomatic introductions
• Herzl made a concerted effort with diplomatic negotiations, including personally meeting with the Ottoman Emperor, the German Emperor and the Pope
• One of his major motivations was the anti-Jewish sentiment he personally experienced and witnessed in Europe and beyond
  • He formed the WZO a mere 18 years after the formation of the Antisemitic League in Germany, and 16 years after Tsar Alexander III unleashed antisemitism in Russia
  • The Dreyfuss Affair of 1894 in France had quite an impact on him as he experienced it first-hand as a journalist in Paris
  • The antisemitic mayor of Vienna (elected in 1895, while Herzl lived there)
• Herzl was quite a pragmatic political activist
  • For example, he did not share Hess’ view that all the Jews had the same ethnic origin and he was of the view that no nation was racially uniform
  • He was quite open about the location for a Jewish State, and initially envisaged it in Europe and later in Africa, although he mentioned Palestine in his book (see E7.5.6 below)
  • It is an open (albeit a hypothetically) question if Zionism would have developed in a more pragmatic and less ideological direction if Herzl didn’t pass away at such a young age
• Herzl died in 1904, at the age of 44, as a result of heart disease and was buried in Vienna. It is an ironic coincidence that Herzl and Wilhelm Marr (who formed the Antisemitic League) died in the same year
• Herzl was specifically mentioned in Israel Declaration of Independence on 14 May 1948. In 1949 his remains were relocated to Israel to Mount Herzl in Jerusalem.

P7.6.4 David Ben-Gurion

• David Ben-Gurion (1886 – 1973), was a Polish-born Ashkenazi Jew who was 18 years old when Herzl died
• He was born as David Gruen in 1886 in the small Polish town of Plonsk, then part of the Tsarist Russian Empire. He migrated to Palestine in 1906 and took a Hebrew name in 1910. The large-scale Hebraicisation of Eastern European and Russian Jews is covered in Episode 13
• In 1935 Ben-Gurion became the President of the Jewish Agency
• In 1948 he became the first Prime Minister of Israel
• His prominent role will be covered in detail in several future episodes
• Some sources
  • A glowingly positive view from The Jewish Virtual Library: [48]
  • A much more critical view: [49]
  • I attempted to add his “life and achievements” from the Knesset official website, but it was not accessible from Australia.

P7.6.5 Chaim Weizmann

• Chaim Weizmann (1874 – 1952), a Russian-born Ashkenazi Jew 
• He became the first President of the Jewish Agency in 1929
• He served as the President of the WZO from 1935-1946
• He was a very effective lobbyist, who played a role in the Balfour Declaration and played a major role in the effective lobbying for UN Resolution 181, including influencing President Harry Truman (see Episode 11)
• There were big disagreements between him and Ben-Gurion, with Weizmann more in favour of diplomacy and working with the British, while Ben-Gurion typically took a much more militant position. In the end Ben-Gurion came to loathe Weizmann and managed to sideline him (including the fact that he was not a signatury of the Declaration of Independence)
• He was appointed the first President of Israel in 1949, an apolitical role without any political power [50] [51]

P7.6.6 Location of the Jewish State

• With the rise of the nation-state, the Austro-Hungarian Empire under the Hapsburg Dynasty disintegrating towards the end of the 19th century and its diversity leading to many groups pushing for independence
  • Herzl initially wanted one of these new states to be a Jewish state
  • This empire was dismantled after WWI, with several new nation-states formed, including Yugoslavia which was formed in the Balkans
• We see that the new push for a Jewish state initially were quite open about its location, and several different locations were considered:
  • Herzl (one of the majority of secular Eastern European Jews) initially favoured a state for Jews in Europe, inside the Austro-Hungarian empire. He was by no means hung up on Palestine
  • Other locations they later considered were: Argentina, Uganda, the Kimberley region in Western Australia, Cyprus, the Sinai Peninsula ruled by Britain (which was open to the idea)
  • At the 6th annual WZO congress in 1903 Herzl submitted a proposal to investigate Uganda in Africa as a place where a Jewish Homeland could be established
    • The main urgency at the time was the persecution of Jews by the Tsar in Russia
    • This congress accepted his Ugandan proposal by majority vote, but there was no consensus on the matter
    • All indications are that Herzl died the next year with the expectation that the Jewish State would be established somewhere in Uganda
• In 1905, a year after Herzl’s death, at the 7th WZO Congress, the Uganda proposal was voted down
• By 1919 they settled on the “Holy Land”, with Christian Zionism and the Balfour declaration of 1917 clearly a decisive influence in this regard (covered in Episode 8). The WZO claimed the following borders for their state in Paris in Feb 1919. This not only includes the entire Palestine, but also parts of present-day Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, the so-called “Greater Israel”
• This is important context for later political developments and motives.

E7.7 Zionism versus Religious Zionism

E7.7.1 In his efforts to establish Zionism, Herzl encountered large-scale opposition

• In 1904 Herzl managed to get an audience with Pope Pius X, who refused to support a Jewish State as the Catholic Church emphatically rejects Christian Zionism (as do the mainstream Protestant Churches)
• Western leaders were not supportive and the Ottoman rulers even less so
• Most of the established Jewish communities, especially in Western Europe, had no interest in Zionism as a political movement or to move to Palestine
  • In Germany only about 2% of the Jewish community was in favour of Zionism and in France even less
  • They saw themselves as part of the German or French nation who practiced Judaism
  • The secular Jews were also concerned that Zionism would raise questions about their loyalty to their nation-states where they were citizens, and in this way increase antisemitism
• More importantly, the vast majoriy of leading Rabbis (Orthodox and Reformed) categorically rejected Zionism and some were quite scathing about it [52]
• The Orthodox reaction:
  • They regarded nationalism as an evil form of modernization and secularization
  • Fundamentally their rejection was on theological grounds. They were a religious community and it was unacceptable for politicians to plan a return to Palestine. That has to be left to their god, who would send the Messiah. Consequently they forbade Orthodox Jews to join Zionism
• And the Reformed Judaism movement (and their Rabbis), rejected Zionism as strongly:
  • Their 1885 conference declared that they do not regard themselves as a nation, but as “a religious community”
  • In Germany they issued a statement that “We are Germans of the Mosaic faith” [53]
  • Their two most prominent rabbis at the end of the 19th century was Rabbi Kaufman Kohler and Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise. They both despised Zionism and Herzl
  • Rabbi Kaufman Kohler rejected the idea of Palestine as the home of the Jews as “an idea which ’unhomes’ the Jew all over the wide world” [54]
  • Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise described the Zionist movement as a “momentary inebriation of morbid minds” and a “madman’s dance” [55]
• It is hard to over-emphasize how foreign the ideology of Zionism initially was to Judaism, and that the efforts to establish it faced seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

E7.7.2 The American Council for Judaism

• A group of Rabbis formed the American Council for Judaism in 1942 in the US to oppose Zionism [56]
• From their website:
  • “Judaism is a religion of universal values not a nationality… nationality and religion are separate and distinct… Israel is the homeland of its own citizens only, and not of all Jews”
  • “The ACJ offers Jewish education, intercommunal connections, and religious guidance beyond nationalism—free from the Zionist idea of Judaism as a nationality or the elevation of one nation above others”
• And in 1993 they issued a statement to remind the world that Zionism was still a minority view among Jews
• Today they don’t only oppose Zionism on theological grounds, but on policy grounds too, as they’re highly critical of the policies and actions of the Israeli government.

E7.7.3 Religious Zionism

• “There was a small group of quite famous authoritative figures, such as the rabbis al-Qalay, Gutmacher, and Qalisher, who endorsed the Zionist program. They were a small minority but in hindsight they were an important group as they laid the foundation for the national religious wing of Zionism. Their religious acrobatics were quite impressive. In Israeli historiography they are called the ​“Fathers of the Religious Zionism.” Religious Zionism is a very important movement in contemporary Israel, as the ideological home of the messianic settler movement, Gush Emunim, which colonised the West Bank and the Gaza Strip from 1967 onwards. These rabbis not only called on Jews to leave Europe but also asserted that it was a religious duty, not just a nationalist one, for Jews to colonise Palestine [57] [58]
  • They became known as “the Fathers of Religious Zionism” in the 19th century
  • They didn’t only call on their followers to move to Palestine, but also called it a religious duty
  • So they combined the core beliefs of Judaism with Jewish nationalism. It became more popular after 1948
• From 1967 the settler movement became prominent [59] [60]. They were a constellation of likeminded individuals and organizations at the heart of Religious Zionism, and forming the most fanatic part of it. The Gush Emunim movement was formed in 1974 by soldiers who fought the 1973 war, but the term is often used for the entire messianiccsettler movement. They colonized parts of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank illegally and are hardliners and have been involved in a large number of violent incidents
• In Episode 6 I quoted a 1977 article by Rabbi Bernard Rosensweig of New York City. He is a good example of Religious Zionism, among other things for his view that “Those Jews who are committed to Judaism must draw the consequences of their commitment and return to the Promised Land” [61]
  • As was shown above, this view was brand new in the 19th century and deeply at odds with mainstream Judaism and the vast majority of influential rabbis (to the tune of 98%)
  • It is quite common for religious stories to change dramatically and for the proponents of all versions to wholeheartedly (and without a shred of doubt) use the authority of their god for their views.
• Current statistics on the support for Zionism within Judaism globally are hard to find, but it seems that it could possibly be a majority view today. Some critics argue that Zionism succeeded in hijacking Judaism as a religion: at the end of the 19th century Judaism overwhelmingly and emphatically rejected the political ideology and aims of Zionism, but today it seems almost mainstream.

‘Some critics argue that Zionism succeeded in hijacking Judaism as a religion: at the end of the 19th century Judaism overwhelmingly and emphatically rejected the political ideology and aims of Zionism, but today it seems almost mainstream‘

E7.8 Palestine, Episode 7 – CRITICAL INSIGHTS

E7.8.1 INSIGHT 1 – The Definition of “Jews/Jewish”

• I deliberately delayed this definition until now, in order to have much more background and historical evidence from the 1st 7 episodes available to draw on. It is by no means a clear-cut definition, regardless of how it functions within the Zionist Narrative. Although there as been in-depth academic dialogue and publications on this problematic definition, it is quite noteworthy that there is virtually no critical thinking and rational discussion about this in the public dialogue
• We saw in Episode 2 that the ancient Israelites were not an external group who arrived in whichever way in Canaan. They were Canaanites themselves – they emerged from within, peacefully and gradually. So they were not a separate/pure ethnic group then and much less now
• The term “Jews” or “Yehuds” originated from the Persian era, when the Persian Empire created the Yehud Province when they ruled Palestine in the 6th Century BCE (as we saw in Episode 3). The Jews then were regarded as the people from the Yehud province, not in the sense of a pure ethnic group, but at least a group of people residing in a defined area (well before the concept of nation-states emerged)
• This changed fundamntally. One of the major and constant themes of this historical review is the ongoing and mass conversions to Judaism globally. Episode 4 (E4.3) introduced large-scale historical evidence and Episode 6 investigated the origins of the Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews in detail.
  • These conversions started with this same exile in Persia with the historical record showing Jews with Persian names, giving their children Hebrew names (Episode 3)
  • Conversions continued throughout history since then, with the last 2 mass conversions in the 20th century, in 1948 and 1968 (covered in Episode 6)
• Five Quotes. Let’s follow the progression of these ongoing conversions around the globe (and their implications) by means of 5 highly relevant quotes covering chronological periods of history:
  • 2nd Century BCE. In an interesting book, published in 1999, Shaye Cohen (a rabbi, historian and Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy at Harvard) made the argument that the Hasmonean Kingdom under John Hyrcanus conquering the neighbouring Kingdom of Edom and forcing them to convert to Judaism in 125 BCE, was the crucial moment when Judaism became a religious community [62]
  • 3rd Century CE. The French historian, Ernest Renan, in a famous 1883 lecture in Paris [63]:
    • Quoted Cassius Dio (the Roman Senator and historian from the 3rd century CE, who wrote Rome’s history in 80 volumes) that the term “Jew” no longer applied to people from Judea, but to people practicing the Jewish religion 
    • Stated that in the 19th century the majority of Jews in Iberia, Gaul and Italy were local people who converted to Judaism
    • Pointed out that the Jews of France did not differ from the Protestants in any other way (apart from religion)
  • 19th Century. In 1885 the Reformed Judaism Movement issued an official statement in Germany (against Herzl and Zionism) that they were “Germans of the Mosaic faith” (see E7.7 above) [53]
  • 20th Century. The highly influential American anthropologist, Maurice Fishberg, published a comprehensive (anthropological, demographic, pathological and sociological) study in the 20th century in which he investigated the arguments for Jews as an ethnic group or a race. He dedicated 2 of 23 chapters to proselytism and intermarriages (chapters 8 and 9) [64]. He concluded
    • “There is no more justification for speaking of ethnic unity among the modern Jews, or of a “Jewish race”, than there is justification to speak of ethnic unity of the Christians, or Mohammedans, or of a Unitarian, Presbytarian, or Methodist race” [p. 515]
    • “The Jew in Russia has less kinship in blood with his co-religionist in the interior of Morocco than with the Slavs among whom he lives… This point cannot be too strongly emphasized. It not only dissipates the exalted notion of the ‘Chosen People’ who believe that they can trace back their their ancestry for over 4000 years…. but it also shows the baselessness of the position of their enemies, the Anti-Semites’ ” [p. 515 – 516]
    • Jews can only be regarded as “co-religionists”
  • At the start of the 21st century. The great historian, Marc Bloch, defined “the Jews” as “a group of co-religionists brought together from every corner of the Mediterranean, Turco-Khazar, and Slav worlds” [65]
• The term co-religionist applied to Jews is not without its problems though, pointing to the challenge of defining the term “Jews” in any consistent way. The 15.8 million Jews around the world today simply do not have a religion in common any longer
  • Reliable statistics about the religious convictions of the global Jewish population are not readily available, but it is clear that a significant and increasing percentage of them (possibly the majority) are secular today
  • They only have one thing in common: Judaism somewhere among their ancestors
  • Below, photos of 4 prominent secular Jews

“There is no more justification for speaking of ethnic unity among the modern Jews, or of a “Jewish race”, than there is justification to speak of ethnic unity of the Christians, or Mohammedans, or of a Unitarian, Presbytarian, or Methodist race”
Maurice Fishberg (Anthropologist)

• So, the global Jewish community do NOT have any of the following in common:
  • Ethnic origin, as pointed out by Fishberg above and as extensively covered in Episode 6
    • The historical and genetic evidence are now undisputable that the majority of Jews do not have a common ethnic background 
    • Physical features of Jews vary from very light and blonde, to quite dark in Africa
  • The same country or the same citizenship. The Jewish community is scattered around the globe, living in a large number of different countries with a large number of different citizenships. The majority of them have no interest in moving to Israel
  • Other cultural aspects, like food, dress, and everyday lifestyle
    • “Communities of Jewish believers, who converted at various historical times, have always been the repositories of a rich and fascinating religious culture, but have not shared a culture as a people or a common language. A Jew from Casablanca could not communicate with a Jew from Kiev; they did not like the same food and would have found the other’s clothing strange. On the other hand they could have prayed in the same synagogue, despite differences in the formulation of prayers and liturgical singing.” [66]
  • Not even language (and I just mention a few examples):
    • Ancient Hebrew has not been a spoken language for more than 2000 years
    • Arameic was the lingua franca during the last years of the Kingdom of Judea
    • In Eastern Europe they used to speak Yiddish and/or the language of their home country (a Slavic language in many cases)
    • Russian in Ukraine and Russia
    • German in Germany and parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
    • Ladino and Spanish in Spain
    • English in the US and Australia
    • Arabic in parts of the Middle East
    • An Amazigh dialect in north Africa (Morocco and Algeria)
    • Modern Hebrew in Israel. The Lithuanian-born Russian-speaking Ashkenazi Jew, Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, was a linguist who arrived in Palestine in 1881 as one of the first Zionists. He made an effort to create Modern Hebrew as a spoken language. It is related to ancient Hebrew, but also quite different, and it is currently the official language of Israel. It nevertheless is a language that was artificially established, recently and for political reasons. Although it is spoken by the vast majority of Jews in Israel
      • Only about 50% speak it as a first language
      • The other 50% of Israeli Jews use a wide variety of other languages as 1st language (Yiddish, Polish, Russian, English, Arabic, etc)
      • And it is not spoken by the vast majority of Jews outside of Israel
  • And certainly not religion. A significant percentage of Jews are secular today. It could even be a majority
• Given the problems associated with defining “Jews” in any consistent way, let’s look at the legal definition used in the State of Israel
  • Until 1970 there was no legal definition in Israel. The general Orthodox custom was used, which regarded somebody “born to a Jewish mother” as a Jew. And the “Jewish mother” could have been a convert herself of any ethnic group, or the descendant of a long lineage of converts who became secular generations ago
  • It is important to note that Israel does not regard Israelis as a nation, which is why there is no official Israeli nationality only Israeli citizenship. This was confirmed by their Supreme Court. They distinguish between citizenship and nationality, unlike Western democracies, and distinguish between Jewish nationality and non-Jewish nationality (of which the Arab nationality is the biggest)
  • A 1962 case in front of the Supreme Court showed that a legal definition was vital. Shmuel Oswald Rufeison (known as Brother Daniel) was born to Jewish parents in Poland in 1922. He was a Zionist and gave up his Polish citizenship to migrate to Israel in 1958. When the Ministry of the Interior rejected his application for Jewish nationality, he appealed it to the Supreme Court. The problem? He converted to Christianity. In a 4-1 decision the Supreme Court ruled against him [67]
  • One ceases to be a Jew if one should convert to another religion, which clearly contradicts another fundamental claim by many of the same people (that Jews are an ethnic group)
  • The Law of Return was amended in 1970 to finally legally define a “Jew” in line with the Brother Daniel case of 1962: “A Jew is one who was born to a Jewish mother, or converted to Judaism, and does not belong to another religion”
    • Religion is still the key component in the current definition of a “Jew” in Israel
    • The centuries-long custom of converting people to Judaism and regarding them as Jews, was captured in law in 1970
    • And still the “Jewish mother” could have been a convert of any ethnicity
    • And any of them could have been secular for generations, with no links whatsoever to Judaism
• The American Council for Judaism on the other hand, has a very different view of what it means to be a “Jew” than the Zionists in Israel. They define it broadly and inclusively as a voluntary and self-identifying religious community with no ethnic unity, nationalism or a specific country. Here is an interesting article articluting this perspective [68]
• To conclude this section and to attempt a definition:
  • Back to our definitions in E7.2 above: The term “Jews” do not comply with the definitions for:
    • Ethnic group. Clearly not an ethnic group, even though the Zionist narrative still pushes their ethnocentric nationalism. The term “ethnic Jew” is quite meaningless today, given the centuries of conversions, intermarriages, and the level of ethnic variety among Jews
      • That is not implying that there is not a core of Jews who have a some common ethnic ancestry, but they clearly form a small minority
      • All ethnic groups are in flux and have been in flux throughout history. However, this applies to Jews more than to other ethnic groups due to
        • The religious community they formed and the ongoing conversions to their religion over more than a millenium
        • The fact that these conversions often accompanied migrations and involved people from almost every corner of the globe
    • People. Clearly not a people in the normal sense of the word, as they do not share a language or a variety of other cultural aspects
    • Nation. Clearly not a nation, as they do not share a specific country or citizenship
    • Religious community. Clearly not a religious community any longer as a large number of them are secular. It is closest to a religious community and I understand why many historians define them as “co-religionists”
  • This is quite an unprecedented and convulated/contradictory term. We don’t have anything like it anywhere else in the world
  • In view of all the facts it seems to me the term “Jews” can only be consistently defined as “People who practice Judaism as a religion, and people whose ancestors at some point in the (near or distant) past practiced Judaism regardless of their ethnicity, as long as they haven’t converted to (or practice) another religion”. I would regard this as a quasi-religious community 
  • A few obvious critical questions for further reflection:
    • Why is it so important to many Zionists to pretend Jews form an ethnic group, when they clearly don’t?
    • If Jews are members of an ethnic group, how can a change in religion make any difference to that?
    • Why can one be secular and still be classified as a Jew, but when one practices another religion one’s Jewish nationality ceases?
    • Why this convoluted definition of Jews trying to combine ethnicity with religion when large numbers of Jews neither practice Judaism nor are ethnic Jews?
    • These will be addressed when we draw the final conclusions in Episode 17, but for now: it forms a key part of the fictional Zionist Narrative to promote and justify the specific political agenda of the Zionist Project.

It seems to me the term “Jews” can only be consistently defined as “People who practice Judaism as a religion, and people whose ancestors at some point in the (near or distant) past practiced Judaism regardless of their ethnicity, as long as they haven’t converted to (or practice) another religion”

E7.8.2 INSIGHT 2 – The Zionist Narrative, Layer 3

Building on the first two layers of Judaism (about a Chosen People and their Promised Land, as well as The Wandering Jew due to forced exile), Zionism introduced a whole new layer in the 19th century, which was completely foreign to the Judaism Narrative. The crux of the new Zionist story:

• The scattered and wandering Jews, were not only a religious community but an ethnic group (or at least a nation)
• Adding ethnocentric nationalism to a religious narrative was a defining characteristic of Zionism. This ethnic group deserved a nation-state, like the other nation-states which were created at the time
  • Partly because their god promised them land
  • But also because that was the only way they would find safety and security, given all the antisemitism they experienced. This means that Zionism was a political project from the start, which is why it received such strong resistance and condemnation from Judaism and virtually all their rabbis
• Although they considered many options for this “homeland” (most notably within the crumbling Austro-Hungarian Empire and in Uganda in Africa), the story which carried the day at the Zionist Organisation, was a “return” to the “Holy Land” (historical Palestine).

A more critical look, based on the historical evidence:

• We already throughly reviewed Layer 1 and 2, mostly in Episode 2, 3, and 5, so we know that these 2 layers are not historically accurate. These are religious stories, not history
• Insight 1 above draws clear conclusions from all the historical evidence that Jews are mostly a quasi-religious community and by no means an ethnic group or even a nation. The historical and genetic evidence were covered in Episode 6
• It goes without saying that no religious community can lay claim to a nation-state for themselves, and even less so a quasi-religious community
• I would go one step further, and point out that even if the Jews were an ethnic group (which they’re clearly not), that in itself would not entitle them to a nation state:
  • Ethnic groups are hard to define and always in flux. By some accounts there are about 25,000 ethnic groups globally versus 192 nation-states. The vast majority of ethnic groups do not have their own nation-states
  • Creating 25,000 nation-states is by no means a viable proposition
  • And even if that was attempted it would be impossible to accurately determine the ethnic status of most people (not even to mention the fact that ethnic groups remain in flux, just like they’ve always been)
  • One will have to look at international law, property rights and historical claims to the land. Episode 17 will do just that
• A “return” to Palestine? There is clearly not the slightest case of a “return” to Palestine
  • Not even the UN when they accepted a partition plan pushed by the Jewish Agency and strongly opposed by the large majority in Palestine, accepted the narrative of a return to Palestine. In their report they only used this term in quotes (“return”). See Episode 11
  • The Zionists who started arriving in Palestine in the late 19th century, never lived in Palestine, neither did their ancestors, the vast majority of them were not ethnic descendants of the ancient Judeans and they were largely secular and not practicing Judaism (Episode 5 and 6)
• As for the assumption/story that Jews could only find safety and security in their own country, that is certainly disputable on several grounds, but will only be addressed in the final analysis in Episode 17.

E7.8.3 INSIGHT 3 – Antisemitism in Perspective

The Zionist Narrative about forced exile by the Romans in 70 CE is not historically true, as covered in detail in Episode 3. Likewise, the narrative about forced exile by the Caliphate in 638 CE is also historically inaccurate, as covered in Episode 5. This means that one has to critically assess the claims of Judaism and Zionism and not take them on face value, despite the fact that they are well-known and often repeated.

However, there is plenty of sound historical evidence of widespread and quite brutal antisemitism experienced by Jews in Europe, mostly at the hands of Christians and the Roman Catholic Church. This was covered in detail in Episode 6, and summarized in E7.3.1 above.

Antisemitism can broadly be defined as a prejudice, hostility and discrimination towards Jewish people. Some perspective is required on this highly contentious and emotive term. The bottom line is that both the following propositions can be (and are) true:

• On the one hand: Jews were heavily discriminated against and persecuted in Christian Europe, and they still experience antisemitism
• On the other hand: they weaponise and abuse the label “antisemitism” to shield themselves from all criticism, including very valid criticism. For example, all legitimate criticism of the Israeli government policies and actions is conveniently labelled as “antisemitism” and not policy differences. Over the last few decades they took this opportunistic tactic 1 step further: just pointing out that the historical evidence does not support the Zionist Narrative is sufficient to be labeled an antisemite. And when prominent Jewish historians provide this evidence, and they cannot easily be labelled as antisemites, there are new labels ready, like “self-hating Jews”, instead of an academic about about the evidence.

It is an old religious tactic, to place oneself above criticism and above rational scrutiny. In future episodes we’ll point out how the same applies to Islam: while there were (and still are) plenty of examples of real Islamophobia, at the same time they also weaponise the term Islamophobia to shield themselves from very legitimate criticism.

E7.8.4 INSIGHT 4 – The Deep-seated Historical Animosity between the 3 Abrahamic Religions

Although this has been clear from several of the earlier episodes, it is noteworthy in Episode 7 too. The nature of the relationship between these 3 religions changed over time, a constant theme is the deep-seated animosity and violence between them (going all the way back to their respective “holy scriptures”). We’ve seen in Episode 5 and E7.3.2 above how Mohammed dealt with the 3 Jewish tribes in Medina when he started his new religion, and some of the harsh passages in the Koran. We’ve seen in Episode 6 and E7.3.1 above, the New Testament verses which historically led to Christian antisemitism, how much Christianity discriminated against, and persecuted, the Jews in Europe (including the Jewish ghettos created by the Pope in 1555, and the role Martin Luther played in Germany).

Presentism is a danger in dealing with the relationship between these 3 religions too, as it also underwent significant changes

• Despite tensions and violence, Judaism was for centuries more closely aligned with Islam than with Christianity (Episode 5)
• The vastly improved relationship between Christianity after the emancipation of Jews in the 18th century as a result of the Enlightenment, which was strongly opposed by the Pope and the Catholic Church
• The relationship between Christianity and Judaism continued to improve, when the new myth of the “Judeo-Christian” tradition appeared for political purposes in the 20th century. It was a narrative used to assist with the assimmilation of Jews into Western countries and to mobilize more people against two new enemies (Fascism and Communism)
• And since 1948 the relationship between Judaism and Islam deteriorated in a significant way, while the major Western forces aligned themselves quite closely with the state of Israel
• As recently as the 18th century, this was vastly different. Don’t assume the current state of affairs is static or a long-standing historical phenomenon.

E7.8.5 INSIGHT 5 – There are no “pure” or “static” Ethnic Groups

This is stating the obvious, but since many adherents of ethnocentric nationalism in its various guises seem unfamiliar with the facts and it is quite critical in assessing historical claims and ideological narratives, it is reiterated here as a critical insight. Please review E7.2.3 above for the evidence and a historical example (the Italians).

E7.8.6 INSIGHT 6 – The Irony of Zionism accepting Ethnocentric Nationalism

A critical insight from this episode is the conclusion from Hans Kohn’s comprehensive reasearch on the development of nationalism, that it developed differently in different parts of the world (E7.2.6 above) [2]:

• A more inclusive nationalism in Western Europe, with a nation consisting of all the peoples within its nation-sate
• An ethnocentric from of nationalism, which developed in Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia. This form of nationalism defines nations in more ethnocentric terms, which is by definition more exclusive. It typically involves a narrative of a pure and static ethnic group, which is mythical.

We’ve seen how Zionism developed in Central and Eastern Europe on the fringes of German nationalism, with strong input from Russian Ashkenazi Jews. The Zionist narrative partially developed as a response to the discrimination they suffered at the hands of governments, organizations and individuals who subscribed to a strong ethnocentric from of nationalism. For example: in Germany there was this “blood and soil” narrative about the “superior Aryan race” and the “inferior Jewish race”. Neither of these 2 narratives were historically or scientifically accurate. This ethnocentric nationalism they were victims of, was largely ethnoreligious too, with the Christian god on the side of their oppressors.

A profound irony lies at the heart of Zionism’s development. Following centuries of persecution, fueled by a destructive mix of ethnocentric nationalism and racial ideology, one might have anticipated that the principal victims of such an ideology would have gravitated toward a more inclusive form of nationalism, or perhaps abandoned the concept entirely.

Instead of rejecting the tenets of ethnocentric nationalism, the most influential strands of the movement embraced them. In this reimagined narrative, the Jewish people were just posited as the exclusive or superior group, also with a god on their side. This adoption of an ethnoreligious nationalist framework, while a response to a history of persecution, has proven to be every bit as fraught with conflict and destructive consequences as the ideologies from which they sought refuge.

‘…one might have anticipated that the principal victims of such an ideology would have gravitated toward a more inclusive form of nationalism, or perhaps abandoned the concept entirely.

Instead of rejecting the tenets of ethnocentric nationalism, the most influential strands of the movement embraced them. In this reimagined narrative, the Jewish people were just posited as the exclusive or superior group, also with a god on their side.’

In Episode 8 we’ll look at WWI and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, which led to massive upheaval in historical Palestine after many centuries of stability. The role of Great Brittain will also come under the magnifying glass, among other things for the Balfour Declaration.

---

Back to Top