Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
By Professor Israel Shahak
4. THE
WEIGHT OF HISTORY
A GREAT DEAL
of nonsense has been written in the attempt to provide a social or mystical
interpretation of Jewry or Judaism 'as a whole'. This cannot be done, for the
social structure of the Jewish people and the ideological structure of Judaism
have changed profoundly through the ages. Four major phases can be
distinguished:
(1) The phase of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, until the
destruction the first Temple (587 BC) and the Babylonian exile. (Much of the
Old Testament is concerned with this period, although most major books of the
Old Testament, including the Pentateuch as we know it, were actually composed
after that date.) Socially, these ancient Jewish kingdoms were quite similar
to the neighboring kingdoms of Palestine and Syria; and - as a careful reading
of the Prophets reveals - the similarity extended to the religious cults
practiced by the great majority of the people.1 The ideas that were to become
typical of later Judaism - including in particular ethnic segregationism and
monotheistic exclusivism - were at this stage confined to small circles of
priests and prophets, whose social influence depended on royal support.
(2) The phase of the dual centers, Palestine and Mesopotamia, from the
first 'Return from Babylon' (537 BC) until about AD 500. It is characterized
by the existence of these two autonomous Jewish societies, both based
primarily on agriculture, on which the 'Jewish religion', as previously
elaborated in priestly and scribal circles, was imposed by the force and
authority of the Persian empire. The Old Testament Book of Ezra contains an
account of the activities of Ezra the priest, 'a ready scribe in the law of
Moses', who was empowered by King Artaxerxes I of Persia to 'set magistrates
and judges' over the Jews of Palestine, so that 'whosoever will not do the law
of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon
him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods,
or to imprisonment:2 And in the Book of Neherniali - cupbearer to King
Artaxerxes who was appointed Persian governor of Judea, with even greater
powers - we see to what extent foreign (nowadays one would say 'imperialist')
coercion was instrumental in imposing the Jewish religion, with lasting
results.
In both centers, Jewish autonomy persisted during most of this period and
deviations from religious orthodoxy were repressed. Exceptions to this rule
occurred when the religious aristocracy itself got 'infected' with Hellenistic
ideas (from 300 to 166 BC and again under Herod the Great and his successors,
from 50 BC to AD 70), or when it was split in reaction to new developments
(for example, the division between the two great parties, the Pharisees and
the Sadduceans, which emerged in about 140 BC). However, the moment any one
party triumphed, it used the coercive machinery of the Jewish autonomy (or,
for a short period, independence) to impose its own religious views on all the
Jews in both centers.
During most of this time, especially after the collapse of the Persian
empire and until about AD 200, the Jews outside the two centers were free from
Jewish religious coercion. Among the papyri preserved in Elephantine (in Upper
Egypt) there is a letter dating from 419 BC containing the text of an edict by
King Darius II of Persia which instructs the Jews of Egypt as to the details
of the observance of Passover.3 But the Hellenistic kingdoms, the Roman
Republic and early Roman Empire did not bother with such things. The freedom
that Hellenistic Jews enjoyed outside Palestine allowed the creation of a
Jewish literature written in Greek, which was subsequently rejected in toto by
Judaism and whose remains were preserved by Christianity.4 The very rise of
Christianity was possible because of this relative freedom of the Jewish
communities outside the two centers. The experience of the Apostle Paul is
significant: in Corinth, when the local Jewish community accused Paul of
heresy, the Roman governor Galho dismissed the case at once, refusing to be a
'judge of such matters';5 but in Judea the governor Festus felt obliged to
take legal cognizance of a purely religious internal Jewish dispute.6
This tolerance came to an end in about AD 200, when the Jewish religion, as
meanwhile elaborated and evolved in Palestine, was imposed by the Roman
authorities upon all the Jews of the Empire.7
(3) The phase which we have defined as classical Judaism and which will be
discussed below.
(4) The modern phase, characterized by the breakdown of the totalitarian
Jewish community and its power, and by attempts to reimpose it, of which
Zionism is the most important. This phase begins in Holland in the 17th
century, in France and Austria (excluding Hungary) in the late 18th century,
in most other European countries in the middle of the 19th century, and in
some Islamic countries in the 20th century. (The Jews of Yemen were still
living in the medieval 'classical' phase in 1948). Something concerning these
developments will be said later on.
Between the second phase and the third, that of classical Judaism, there is
a gap of several centuries in which our present knowledge of Jews and Jewish
society is very slight, and the scant information we do have is all derived
from external (non-Jewish) sources. In the countries of Latin Christendom we
have absolutely no Jewish literary records until the middle of the 10th
century; internal Jewish information, mostly from religious literature,
becomes more abundant only in the 11th and particularly the 12th century.
Before that, we are wholly dependent first on Roman and then on Christian
evidence. In the Islamic countries the information gap is not quite so big;
still, very little is known about Jewish society before AD 800 and about the
changes it must have undergone during the three preceding centuries.
Major Features of Classical Judaism:
Let us therefore ignore those 'dark ages', and for the sake of convenience
begin with the two centuries 1000-1200, for which abundant information is
available from both internal and external sources on all the important Jewish
centers, east and west. Classical Judaism, which is clearly discernible in
this period, has undergone very few changes since then, and (in the guise of
Orthodox Judaism) is still a powerful force today.
How can that classical Judaism be characterized, and what are the social
differences distinguishing it from earlier phases of Judaism? I believe that
there are three such major features.
(1) Classical Jewish society has no peasants, and in this it differs
profoundly from earlier Jewish societies in the two centers, Palestine and
Mesopotamia. It is difficult for us, in modern times, to understand what this
means. We have to make an effort to imagine what serfdom was like; the
enormous difference in literacy, let alone education, between village and town
throughout this period; the incomparably greater freedom enjoyed by all the
small minority who were not peasants - in order to realize that during the
whole of the classical period the Jews, in spite of all the persecutions to
which they were subjected, formed an integral part of the privileged classes.
Jewish historiography, especially in English, is misleading on this point
inasmuch as it tends to focus on Jewish poverty and anti-Jewish
discrimination. Both were real enough at times; but the poorest Jewish
craftsman, peddler, land-lord's steward or petty cleric was immeasurably
better off than a serf. This was particularly true in those European countries
where serfdom persisted into the 19th century, whether in a partial or extreme
form: Prussia, Austria (including Hungary), Poland and the Polish lands taken
by Russia. And it is not without significance that, prior to the beginning of
the great Jewish migration of modern times (around 1880), a large majority of
all Jews were living in those areas and that their most important social
function there was to mediate the oppression of the peasants on behalf of the
nobility and the Crown.
Everywhere, classical Judaism developed hatred and contempt for agriculture
as an occupation and for peasants as a class, even more than for other
Gentiles - a hatred of which I know no parallel in other societies. This is
immediately apparent to anyone who is familiar with the Yiddish or Hebrew
literature of the 19th and 20th centuries.9
Most east-European Jewish socialists (that is, members of exclusively or
predominantly Jewish parties and factions) are guilty of never pointing out
this fact; indeed, many were themselves tainted with a ferocious anti-peasant
attitude inherited from classical Judaism. Of course, Zionist 'socialists'
were the worst in this respect, but others, such as the Bund, were not much
better. A typical example is their opposition to the formation of peasant
co-operatives promoted by the Catholic clergy, on the ground that this was 'an
act of antisemitism'. This attitude is by no means dead even now; it could be
seen very clearly in the racist views held by many Jewish 'dissidents' in the
USSR regarding the Russian people, and also in the lack of discussion of this
background by so many Jewish socialists, such as Isaac Deutscher. The whole
racist propaganda on the theme of the supposed superiority of Jewish morality
and intellect (in which many Jewish socialists were prominent) is bound up
with a lack of sensitivity for the suffering of that major part of humanity
who were especially oppressed during the last thousand years - the peasants.
(2) Classical Jewish society was particularly dependent on kings or on
nobles with royal powers. In the next chapter we discuss various Jewish laws
directed against Gentiles, and in particular laws which command Jews to revile
Gentiles and refrain from praising them or their customs. These laws allow one
and only one exception: a Gentile king, or a locally powerful magnate (in
Hebrew paritz, in Yiddish pooretz). A king is praised and prayed for, and he
is obeyed not only in most civil matters but also in some religious ones. As
we shall see Jewish doctors, who are in general forbidden to save the lives of
ordinary Gentiles on the Sabbath, are commanded to do their utmost in healing
magnates and rulers; this partly explains why kings and noblemen, popes and
bishops often employed Jewish physicians. But not only physicians. Jewish tax
and customs collectors, or (in eastern Europe) bailiffs of manors could be
depended upon to do their utmost for the king or baron, in a way that a
Christian could not always be.
The legal status of a Jewish community in the period of classical Judaism
was normally based on a 'privilege' - a charter granted by a king or prince
(or, in Poland after the 16th century, by a powerful nobleman) to the Jewish
community and conferring on it the rights of autonomy - that is, investing the
rabbis with the power to dictate to the other Jews. An important part of such
privileges, going as far back as the late Roman Empire, is the creation of a
Jewish clerical estate which, exactly like the Christian clergy in medieval
times, is exempt from paying taxes to the sovereign and is allowed to impose
taxes on the people under its control - the Jews - for its own benefit. It is
interesting to note that this deal between the late Roman Empire and the
rabbis antedates by at least one hundred years the very similar privileges
granted by Constantine the Great and his successors to the Christian clergy.
From about AD 200 until the early 5th century, the legal position of Jewry
in the Roman Empire was as follows. A hereditary Jewish Patriarch (residing in
Tiberias in Palestine) was recognized both as a high dignitary in the official
hierarchy of the Empire and as supreme chief of all the Jews in the Empire.10
As a Roman official, the Patriarch was vir illustris, of the same high
official class which included the consuls, the top military commanders of the
Empire and the chief ministers around the throne (the Sacred Consistory), and
was out-ranked only by the imperial family. In fact, the Illustrious Patriarch
(as he is invariably styled in imperial decrees) out-ranked the provincial
governor of Palestine. Emperor Theodosius I, the Great, a pious and orthodox
Christian, executed his governor of Palestine for insulting the Patriarch.
At the same time, all the rabbis - who had to be designated by the
Patriarch - were freed from the most oppressive Roman taxes and received many
official privileges, such as exemption from serving on town councils (which
was also one of the first privileges later granted to the Christian clergy).
In addition, the Patriarch was empowered to tax the Jews and to discipline
them by imposing fines, flogging and other punishments. He used this power in
order to suppress Jewish heresies and (as we know from the Talmud) to
persecute Jewish preachers who accused him of taxing the Jewish poor for his
personal benefit.
We know from Jewish sources that the tax-exempt rabbis used excommunication
and other means within their power to enhance the religious hegemony of the
Patriarch. We also hear, mostly indirectly, of the hate and scorn that many of
the Jewish peasants and urban poor in Palestine had for the rabbis, as well as
of the contempt of the rabbis for the Jewish poor (usually expressed as
contempt for the 'ignorant'). Nevertheless, this typical colonial arrangement
continued, as it was backed by the might of the Roman Empire.
Similar arrangements existed, within each country, during the whole period
of classical Judaism. Their social effects on the Jewish communities differed,
however, according to the size of each community. Where there were few Jews,
there was normally little social differentiation within the community, which
tended to be composed of rich and middle~lass Jews, most of whom had
considerable rabbinical-talmudic education. But in countries where the number
of Jews increased and a big class of Jewish poor appeared, the same cleavage
as the one described above manifested itself, and we observe the rabbinical
class, in alliance with the Jewish rich, oppressing the Jewish poor in its own
interest as well as in the interest of the state - that is, of the Crown and
the nobility.
This was, in particular, the situation in pre-1795 Poland. The specific
circumstances of Polish Jewry will be outlined below. Here I only want to
point out that because of the formation of a large Jewish community in that
country, a deep cleavage between the Jewish upper class (the rabbis and the
rich) and the Jewish masses developed there from the 18th century and
continued throughout the 19th century. So long as the Jewish community had
power over its members, the incipient revolts of the poor, who had to bear the
main brunt of taxation, were suppressed by the combined force of the naked
coercion of Jewish 'self-rule' and religious sanction.
Because of all this, throughout the classical period (as well as in modern
times) the rabbis were the most loyal, not to say Zealous, supporters of the
powers that be; and the more reactionary the regime, the more rabbinical
support it had.
(3) The society of classical Judaism is in total opposition to the
surrounding non-Jewish society, except the king (or the nobles, when they take
over the state). This is amply illustrated in Chapter 5.
The consequences of these three social features, taken together, go a long
way towards explaining the history of classical Jewish communities both in
Christian and in Muslim countries.
The position of the Jews is particularly favorable under strong regimes
which have retained a feudal character, and in which national consciousness,
even at a rudimentary level, has not yet begun to develop. It is even more
favorable in countries such as pre-1795 Poland or in the Iberian kingdoms
before the latter half of the 15th century, where the formation of a
nationally based powerful feudal monarchy was temporarily or permanently
arrested. In fact, classical Judaism flourishes best under strong regimes
which are dissociated from most classes in society, and in such regimes the
Jews fulfill one of the functions of a middle class - but in a permanently
dependent form. For this reason they are opposed not only by the peasantry
(whose opposition is then unimportant, except for the occasional and rare
popular revolt) but more importantly by the non-Jewish middle class (which was
on the rise in Europe), and by the plebeian part of the clergy; and they are
protected by the upper clergy and the nobility. But in those countries where,
feudal anarchy having been curbed, the nobility enters into partnership with
the king (and with at least part of the bourgeoisie) to rule the state, which
assumes a national or protonational form, the position of the Jews
deteriorates.
This general scheme, valid for Muslim and Christian countries alike, will
now be illustrated briefly by a few examples.
England, France and Italy
Since the first period of Jewish residence in England was so brief, and
coincided with the development of the English national feudal monarchy, this
country can serve as the best illustration of the above scheme. Jews were
brought over to England by William the Conqueror, as part of the
French-speaking Norman ruling class, with the primary duty of granting loans
to those lords, spiritual and temporal, who were otherwise unable to pay their
feudal dues (which were particularly heavy in England and more rigorously
exacted in that period than in any other European monarchy). Their greatest
royal patron was Henry II, and the Magna Carta marked the beginning of their
decline, which continued during the conflict of the barons with Henry III. The
temporary resolution of this conflict by Edward I, with the formation of
Parliament and of 'ordinary' and fixed taxation, was accompanied by the
expulsion of the Jews.
Similarly, in France the Jews flourished during the formation of the strong
feudal principalities in the 11th and 12th centuries, including the Royal
Domain; and their best protector among the Capetian kings was Louis VII
(1137-80). notwithstanding his deep and sincere Christian piety. At that time
the Jews of France counted themselves as knights (in Hebrew, parashim) and the
leading Jewish authority in France, Rabbenu Tam, warns them never to accept an
invitation by a feudal lord to settle on his domain, unless they are accorded
privileges similar to those of other knights. The decline in their position
beings with Philip II Augustus, originator of the political and military
alliance of the Crown with the rising urban commune movement, and plummets
under Philip IV the Handsome, who convoked the first Estates General for the
whole of France in order to gain support against the pope. The final expulsion
of Jews from the whole of France is closely bound up with the firm
establishment of the Crown's rights of taxation and the national character of
the monarchy.
Similar examples can be given from other European countries where Jews were
living during that period. Reserving Christian Spain and Poland for a more
detailed discussion, we remark that in Italy, where many city states had a
republican form of power, the same regularity is discernible. Jews flourished
especially in the Papal States, in the twin feudal kingdoms of Sicily and
Naples (until their expulsion, on Spanish orders, circa 1500) and in the
feudal enclaves of Piedmont. But in the great commercial and independent
cities such as Florence their number was small and their social role
unimportant.
The Muslim World
The same general scheme applies to Jewish communities during the classical
period in Muslim countries as well, except for the important fact that
expulsion of Jews, being contrary to Islamic law, was virtually unknown there.
(Medieval Catholic canon law, on the other hand, neither commands nor forbids
such expulsion.)
Jewish communities flourished in the famous, but socially misinterpreted,
Jewish Golden Age in Muslim countries under regimes which were particularly
dissociated from the great majority of the people they ruled, and whose power
rested on nothing but naked force and a mercenary army. The best example is
Muslim Spain, where the very real Jewish Golden Age (of Hebrew poetry,
grammar, philosophy etc) begins precisely with the fall of the Spanish Umayyad
caliphate after the death of the de facto ruler, al-Mansur, in 1002, and the
establishment of the numerous ta'ifa (faction) kingdoms, all based on naked
force. The rise of the famous Jewish commander-in-chief and prime minister of
the kingdom of Granada, Samuel the Chief (Shmu'el Hannagid, died 1056), who
was also one of the greatest Hebrew poets of all ages, was based primarily on
the fact that the kingdom which he served was a tyranny of a rather small
Berber military force over the Arabic-speaking inhabitants. A similar
situation obtained in the other ta'ifa Arab-Spanish kingdoms. The position of
the Jews declined somewhat with the establishment of the Almoravid regime (in
1O86-9O) and became quite precarious under the strong and popular Almohad
regime (after 1147) when, as a result of persecutions, the Jews migrated to
the Christian Spanish kingdoms, where the power of the kings was still very
slight.
Similar observations can be made regarding the states of the Muslim East.
The first state in which the Jewish community reached a position of important
political influence was the Fatimid empire, especially after the conquest of
Egypt in 969, because it was based on the rule of an Isma'ili-shi'ite
religious minority. The same phenomenon can be observed in the Seljuk states -
based on feudal-type armies, mercenaries and, increasingly, on slave troops (mamluks)
- and in their successor states. The favor of Saladin to the Jewish
communities, first in Egypt, then in other parts of this expanding empire, was
based not only on his real personal qualities of tolerance, charity and deep
political wisdom, but equally on his rise to power as a rebellious commander
of mercenaries freshly arrived in Egypt and then as usurper of the power of
the dynasty which he and his father and uncle before him had served.
But perhaps the best Islamic example is the state where the Jews' position
was better than anywhere else in the East since the fall of the ancient
Persian empire - the Ottoman empire, particularly during its heyday in the
16th century.11 As is well known, the Ottoman regime was based initially on
the almost complete exclusion of the Turks themselves (not to mention other
Muslims by birth) from positions of political power and from the most
important part of the army, the Janissary corps, both of which were manned by
the sultan's Christian-born slaves, abducted in childhood and educated in
special schools. Until the end of the 16th century no free-born Turk could
become a Janissary or hold any important government office. In such a regime,
the role of the Jews in their sphere was quite analogous to that of the
Janissaries in theirs. Thus the position of the Jews was best under a regime
which was politically most dissociated from the peoples it ruled. With the
admission of the Turks themselves (as well as some other Muslim peoples, such
as the Albanians) to the ruling class of the Ottoman empire, the position of
the Jews declines. However, this decline was not very sharp, because of the
continuing arbitrariness and non- national character of the Ottoman regime.
This point is very important, in my opinion, because the relatively good
situation of Jews under Islam in general, and under certain Islamic regimes in
particular, is used by many Palestinian and other Arab propagandists in a very
ignorant, albeit perhaps well-meaning, way. First, they generalize and reduce
serious questions of politics and history to mere slogans. Granted that the
position of Jews was, on average, much better under Islam than under
Christianity - the important question to ask is, under what regimes was it
better or worse? We have seen where such an analysis leads.
But, secondly and more importantly: in a pre-modern state, a 'better'
position of the Jewish community normally entailed a greater degree of tyranny
exercised within this community by the rabbis against other Jews. To give one
example: certainly, the figure of Saladin is one which, considering his
period, inspires profound respect. But to~gether with this respect, I for one
cannot forget that the enhanced privileges he granted to the Jewish community
in Egypt and his appointment of Maimonides as their Chief (Nagid) immediately
unleashed severe religious persecution of Jewish 'sinners' by the rabbis. For
instance, Jewish 'priests' (supposed descendants of the ancient priests who
had served in the Temple) are forbidden to marry not only prostitutes12 but
also divorcees. This latter prohibition, which has always caused difficulties,
was infringed during the anarchy under the last Fatimid rulers (circa 113080)
by such 'priests' who, contrary to Jewish religious law, were married to
Jewish divorcees in Islamic courts (which are nominally empowered to marry
non-Muslims). The greater tolerance towards 'the Jews' instituted by Saladin
upon his accession to power enabled Maimonides to issue orders to the
rabbinical courts in Egypt to seize all Jews who had gone through such
forbidden marriages and have them flogged until they 'agreed' to divorce their
wives.13 Similarly, in the Ottoman empire the powers of the rabbinical courts
were very great and consequently most pernicious. Therefore the position of
Jews in Muslim countries in the past should never be used as a political
argument in contemporary (or future) contexts.
Christian Spain
I have left to the last a discussion of the two countries where the
position of the Jewish community and the internal development of classical
Judaism were most important - Christian Spain14 (or rather the Iberian
peninsula, including Portugal) and pre-1795 Poland.
Politically, the position of Jews in the Christian Spanish kingdoms was the
highest ever attained by Jews in any country (except some of the ta'ifas and
under the Fatimids) before the 19th century. Many Jews served officially as
Treasurers General to the kings of Castile, regional and general tax
collectors, diplomats (representing their king in foreign courts, both Muslim
and Christian, even outside Spain), courtiers and advisers to rulers and great
noblemen. And in no other country except Poland did the Jewish community wield
such great legal powers over the Jews or used them so widely and publicly,
including the power to inflict capital punishment. From the 11th century the
persecution of Karaites (a heretical Jewish sect) by flogging them to death if
unrepentant was common in Castile. Jewish women who cohabited with Gentiles
had their noses cut off by rabbis who explained that 'in this way she will
lose her beauty and her non-Jewish lover will come to hate her'. Jews who had
the effrontery to attack a rabbinical judge had their hands cut off.
Adulterers were imprisoned, after being made to run the gauntlet through the
Jewish quarter. In religious disputes, those thought to be heretics had their
tongues cut out.
Historically, all this was associated with feudal anarchy and with the
attempt of a few 'strong' kings to rule through sheer force, disregarding the
parliamentary institutions, the Cortes, which had already come into existence.
In this struggle, not only the political and financial power of the Jews but
also their military power (at least in the most important kingdom, Castile)
was very significant. One example will suffice: both feudal mis- government
and Jewish political influence in Castile reached their peak under Pedro I,
justly nick-named the Cruel. The Jewish communities of Toledo, Burgos and many
other cities served practically as his garrisons in the long civil war between
him and his half-brother, Henry of Trastamara, who after his victory became
Henry II (1369~79).15 The same Pedro I gave the Jews of Castile the right to
establish a country-wide inquisition against Jewish religious deviants - more
than one hundred years before the establishment of the more famous Catholic
Holy Inquisition.
As in other western European countries, the gradual emergence of national
consciousness around the monarchy, which began under the house of Trastamara
and after ups and downs reached a culmination under the Catholic Kings
Ferdinand and Isabella, was accompanied first by a decline in the position of
the Jews, then by popular movements and pressures against them and finally by
their expulsion. On the whole the Jews were defended by the nobility and upper
clergy. It was the more plebeian sections of the church, particularly the
mendicant orders, involved in the life of the lower classes, which were
hostile to them. The great enemies of the Jews, Torquemada and Cardinal
Ximenes, were also great reformers of the Spanish church, making it much less
corrupt and much more dependent on the monarchy instead of being the preserve
of the feudal aristocracy.
Poland
The old pre-1795 Poland - a feudal republic with an elective king- is a
converse example; it illustrates how before the advent of the modern state the
position of the Jews was socially most important, and their internal autonomy
greatest, under a regime which was completely retarded to the point of utter
degeneracy.
Due to many causes, medieval Poland lagged in its development behind
countries like England and France; a strong feudal-type monarchy - yet without
any parliamentary institutions - was formed there only in the 14th century,
especially under Casimir the Great (1333-70). Immediately after his death,
changes of dynasty and other factors led to a very rapid development of the
power of the noble magnates, then also of the petty nobility, so that by 1572
the process of reduction of the king to a figure head and exclusion of all
other non-noble estates from political power was virtually complete. In the
following two hundred years, the lack of government turned into an
acknowledged anarchy, to the point where a court decision in a case affecting
a nobleman was only a legal license to wage a private war to enforce the
verdict (for there was no other way to enforce it) and where feuds between
great noble houses in the 18th century involved private armies numbering tens
of thousands, much larger than the derisory forces of the official army of the
Republic.
This process was accompanied by a debasement in the position of the Polish
peasants (who had been free in the early Middle Ages) to the point of utter
serfdom, hardly distinguishable from outright slavery and certainly the worst
in Europe. The desire of noblemen in neighboring countries to enjoy the power
of the Polish pan over his peasants (including the power of life and death
without any right of appeal) was instrumental in the territorial expansion of
Poland. The situation in the 'eastern' lands of Poland (Byelorussia and the
Ukraine) - colonized and settled by newly enserfed peasants - was worst of
all.16
A small number of Jews (albeit in important positions) had apparently been
living in Poland since the creation of the Polish state. A significant Jewish
immigration into that country began in the 13th century and increased under
Casimir the Great, with the decline in the Jewish position in western and then
in central Europe. Not very much is known about Polish Jewry in that period.
But with the decline of the monarchy in the 16th century - particularly under
Sigismund I the Old (150645) and his son Sigismund II Augustus (154872) -
Polish Jewry burst into social and political prominence accompanied, as usual,
with a much greater degree of autonomy. It was at this time that Poland's Jews
were granted their greatest privileges, culminating in the establishment of
the famous Committee of Four Lands, a very effective autonomous Jewish organ
of rule and jurisdiction over all the Jews in Poland's four divisions. One of
its many important functions was to collect all the taxes from Jews all over
the country, deducting part of the yield for its own use and for the use of
local Jewish communities, and passing the rest on to the state treasury.
What was the social role of Polish Jewry from the beginning of the 16th
century until 1795? With the decline of royal power, the king's usual role in
relation to the Jews was rapidly taken over by the nobility - with lasting and
tragic results both for the Jews themselves and for the common people of the
Polish republic. All over Poland the nobles used Jews as their agents to
undermine the commercial power of the Royal Towns, which were weak in any
case. Alone among the countries of western Christendom, in Poland a nobleman's
property inside a Royal Town was exempt from the town's laws and guild
regulations. In most cases the nobles settled their Jewish clients in such
properties, thus giving rise to a lasting conflict. The Jews were usually
'victorious', in the sense that the towns could neither subjugate nor drive
them off; but in the frequent popular riots Jewish lives (and, even more,
Jewish property) were lost. The nobles still got the profits. Similar or worse
consequences followed from the frequent use of Jews as commercial agents of
noblemen: they won exemption from most Polish tolls and tariffs, to the loss
of the native bourgeoisie.
But the most lasting and tragic results occurred in the eastern provinces
of Poland - roughly, the area east of the present border, including almost the
whole of the present Ukraine and reaching up to the Great-Russian language
frontier. (Until 1667 the Polish border was far east of the Dnieper, so that
Poltava, for example, was inside Poland.) In those wide territories there were
hardly any Royal Towns. The towns were established by nobles and belonged to
them - and they were settled almost exclusively by Jews. Until 1939, the
population of many Polish towns east of the river Bug was at least 90 per cent
Jewish, and this demographic phenomenon was even more pronounced in that area
of Tsarist Russia annexed from Poland and Icnown as the Jewish Pale. Outside
the towns very many Jews throughout Poland, but especially in the east, were
employed as the direct supervisors and oppressors of the enserfed peasantry -
as bailiffs of whole manors (invested with the landlord's full coercive
powers) or as lessees of particular feudal monopolies such as the corn mill,
the liquor still and public house (with the right of armed search of peasant
houses for illicit stills) or the bakery, and as collectors of customary
feudal dues of all kinds. In short, in eastern Poland, under the rule of the
nobles (and of the feudalized church, formed exclusively from the nobility)
the Jews were both the immediate exploiters of the peasantry and virtually the
only town-dwellers.
No doubt, most of the profit they extracted from the peasants was passed on
to the landlords, in one way or another. No doubt, the oppression and
subjugation of the Jews by the nobles were severe, and the historical record
tells many a harrowing tale of the hardship and humiliation inflicted by
noblemen on 'their' Jews. But, as we have remarked, the peasants suffered
worse oppression at the hands of both landlords and Jews; and one may assume
that, except in times of peasant uprisings, the full weight of the Jewish
religious laws against Gentiles fell upon the peasants. As will be seen in the
next chapter, these laws are suspended or mitigated in cases where it is
feared that they might arouse dangerous hostility towards Jews; but the
hostility of the peasants could be disregarded as ineffectual so long as the
Jewish bailiff could shelter under the 'peace' of a great lord.
The situation stagnated until the advent of the modern state, by which time
Poland had been dismembered. Therefore Poland was the only big country in
western Christendom from which the Jews were never expelled. A new middle
class could not arise out of the utterly enslaved peasantry; and the old
bourgeoisie was geographically limited and commercially weak, and therefore
powerless. Overall, matters got steadily worse, but without any substantial
change.
Internal conditions within the Jewish community moved in a similar course.
In the period 1500-1795, one of the most superstition-ridden in the history of
Judaism, Polish Jewry was the most superstitious and fanatic of all Jewish
communities. The considerable power of the Jewish autonomy was used
increasingly to stifle all original or innovative thought, to promote the most
shameless exploitation of the Jewish poor by the Jewish rich in alliance with
the rabbis, and to justify~ the Jews' role in the oppression of the peasants
in the service of the nobles. Here, too, there was no way out except by
liberation from the outside. Pre-1795 Poland, where the social role of the
Jews was more important than in any other classical diaspora, illustrates
better than any other country the bankruptcy of classical Judaism.
Anti-Jewish Persecutions
During the whole period of classical Judaism, Jews were often subjected to
persecutions17 - and this fact now serves as the main 'argument' of the
apologists of the Jewish religion with its anti-Gentile laws and especially of
Zionism. Of course, the Nazi extermination of five to six million European
Jews is supposed to be the crowning argument in that line. We must therefore
consider this phenomenon and its contemporary aspect. This is particularly
important in view of the fact that the descendants of the Jews of pre-1795
Poland (often called east-European Jews' - as opposed to Jews from the German
cultural domain of the early 19th century, including the present Austria,
Bohemia and Moravia) now wield predominant political power in Israel as well
as in the Jewish communities in the USA and other English-speaking countries;
and, because of their particular past history, this mode. of thinking is
especially entrenched among them, much more than among other Jews.
We must, first, draw a sharp distinction between the persecutions of' Jews
during the classical period on the one hand, and the Nazi extermination on the
other. The former were popular movements, coming from below; whereas the
latter was inspired, organized and carried out from above: indeed, by state
officials. Such acts as the Nazi state- organized extermination are relatively
rare in human history, although other cases do exist (the extermination of the
Tasmanians and several other colonial peoples, for example). Moreover, the
Nazis intended to wipe out other peoples besides the Jews: Gypsies were
exterminated like Jews, and the extermination of Slavs was well under way,
with the systematic massacre of millions of civilians and prisoners of war.
However, it is the recurrent persecution of Jews in so many countries during
the classical period which is the model (and the excuse) for the zionist
politicians in their persecution of the Palestinians, as well as the argument
used by apologists of Judaism in general; and it is this phenomenon which we
consider now.
It must be pointed out that in all the worst anti-Jewish persecutions, that
is, where Jews were killed, the ruling elite - the emperor and the pope, the
kings, the higher aristocracy and the upper clergy, as well as the rich
bourgeoisie in the autonomous cities - were always on the side of the Jews.
The latter's enemies belonged to the more oppressed and exploited classes and
those close to them in daily life and interests, such as the friars of the
mendicant orders.18 It is true that in most (but I think not in all) cases
members of the elite defended the Jews neither out of considerations of
humanity nor because of sympathy to the Jews as such, but for the type of
reason used generally by rulers in justification of their interests - the fact
that the Jews were useful and profitable (to them), defense of 'law and
order', hatred of the lower classes and fear that anti-Jewish riots might
develop into general popular rebellion. Still, the fact remains that they did
defend the Jews. For this reason all the massacres of Jews during the
classical period were part of a peasant rebellion or other popular movements
at times when the government was for some reason especially weak. This is true
even in the partly exceptional case of Tsarist Russia. The Tsarist government,
acting surreptitiously through its secret police, did promote pogroms; but it
did so only when it was particularly weak (after the assassination of
Alexander II in 1881, and in the period immediately before and after the 1905
revolution) and even then took care to contain the break~down of 'law and
order'. During the time of its greatest strength - for example, under Nicholas
I or in the latter part of the reign of Alexander III, when the opposition had
been smashed - pogroms were not tolerated by the Tsarist regime, although
legal discrimination against Jews was intensified.
The general rule can be observed in all the major massacres of Jews in
Christian Europe. During the first crusade, it was not the proper armies of
the knights, commanded by famous dukes and counts, which molested the Jews,
but the spontaneous popular hosts composed almost exclusively of peasants and
paupers in the wake of Peter the Hermit. In each city the bishop or the
emperor's representative opposed them and tried, often in vain, to protect the
Jews.19 The anti-Jewish riots in England which accompanied the third crusade
were part of a popular movement directed also against royal officials, and
some rioters were punished by Richard I. The massacres of Jews during the
outbreaks of the Black Death occurred against the strict orders of the pope,
the emperor, the bishops and the German princes. In the free towns, for
example in Strasbourg, they were usually preceded by a local revolution in
which the oligarchic town council, which protected the Jews, was overthrown
and replaced by a more popular one. The great 1391 massacres of Jews in Spain
took place under a feeble regency government and at a time when the papacy,
weakened by the Great Schism between competing popes, was unable to control
the mendicant friars.
Perhaps the most outstanding example is the great massacre of Jews during
the Chmielnicki revolt in the Ukraine (1648), which started as a mutiny of
Cossack officers but soon turned into a widespread popular movement of the
oppressed serfs: 'The unprivileged, the subjects, the Ukrainians, the Orthodox
[persecuted by the Polish Catholic church] were rising against their Catholic
Polish masters, particularly against their masters' bailiffs, clergy and Jews.20 This typical peasant uprising against extreme oppression, an uprising
accompanied not only by massacres committed by the rebels but also by even
more horrible atrocities and 'counter-terror' of the Polish magnates' private
armies,21 has remained emblazoned in the consciousness of east-European Jews
to this very day - not, however, as a peasant uprising, a revolt of the
oppressed, of the real wretched of the earth, nor even as a vengeance visited
upon all the servants of the Polish nobility, but as an act of gratuitous
antisemitism directed against Jews as such. In fact, the voting of the
Ukrainian delegation at the UN and, more generally, Soviet policies on the
Middle East, are often 'explained' in the Israeli press as 'a heritage of
Chmielnicki' or of his 'descendants'.
Modem Antisemitism
The character of anti-Jewish persecutions underwent a radical change in
modern times. With the advent of the modern state, the abolition of serfdom
and the achievement of minimal individual rights, the special socio-economic
function of the Jews necessarily disappears. Along with it disappear also the
powers of the Jewish community over its members; individual Jews in growing
numbers win the freedom to enter the general society of their countries.
Naturally, this transition aroused a violent reaction both on the part of Jews
(especially their rabbis) and of those elements in European society who
opposed the open society and for whom the whole process of liberation of the
individual was anathema.
Modern antisemitism appears first in France and Germany, then in Russia,
after about 1870. Contrary to the prevalent opinion among Jewish socialists, I
do not believe that its beginnings or its subsequent development until the
present day can be ascribed to 'capitalism'. On the contrary, in my opinion
the successful capitalists in all countries were on the whole remarkably free
from antisemitism, and the countries in which capitalism was established first
and in its most extensive form - such as England and Belgium - were also those
where antisemitism was far less widespread than elsewhere.22
Early modern antisemitism (1880-1900) was a reaction of bewildered men, who
deeply hated modern society in all its aspects, both good and bad, and who
were ardent believers in the conspiracy theory of history. The Jews were cast
in the role of scapegoat for the breakup of the old society (which anti-semitic
nostalgia imagined as even more closed and ordered than it had ever been in
reality) and for all that was disturbing in modern times. But right at the
start the antisemites were faced with what was, for them, a difficult problem:
how to define this scapegoat, particularly in popular terms? What is to be the
supposed common denominator of the Jewish musician, banker, craftsman and
beggar - especially after the common religious features had largely dissolved,
at least externally? The 'theory' of the Jewish race was the modern
antisemitic answer to this problem.
In contrast, the old Christian, and even more so Muslim opposition to
classical Judaism was remarkably free from racism. No doubt this was to some
extent a consequence of the universal character of Christianity and Islam, as
well as of their original connection with Judaism (St Thomas More repeatedly
rebuked a woman who objected when he told her that the Virgin Mary was
Jewish). But in my opinion a far more important reason was the social role of
the Jews as an integral part of the upper classes. In many countries Jews were
treated as potential nobles and, upon conversion, were able immediately to
intermarry with the highest nobility. The nobility of 15th century Castile and
Aragon or the aristocracy of 18th century Poland - to take the two cases where
intermarriage with converted Jews was widespread - would hardly be likely to
marry Spanish peasants or Polish serfs, no matter how much praise the Gospel
has for the poor.
It is the modern myth of the Jewish 'race' - of outwardly hidden but
supposedly dominant characteristics of 'the Jews', independent of history, of
social role, of anything - which is the formal and most important
distinguishing mark of modern antisemitism. This was in fact perceived by some
Church leaders when modern antisemitism first appeared as a movement of some
strength. Some French Catholic leaders, for example, opposed the new racist
doctrine expounded by E. Drumont, the first popular modern French antisemite
and author of the notorious book La France Jui"e (1886), which achieved
wide circulation.23 Early modern German antisemites encountered similar
opposition.
It must be pointed out that some important groups of European conservatives
were quite prepared to play along with modern antisemitism and use it for
their own ends, and the antisemites were equally ready to use the
conservatives when the occasion offered itself, although at bottom there was
little similarity between the two parties. 'The victims who were most harshly
treated [by the pen of the above-mentioned Drumont] were not the Rothschilds
but the great nobles who courted them. Drumont did not spare the Royal Family
... or the bishops, or for that matter the Pope.24 Nevertheless, many of the
French great nobles, bishops and conservatives generally were quite happy to
use Drumont and antisemitism during the crisis of the Dreyfus affair in an
attempt to bring down the republican regime.
This type of opportunistic alliance reappeared many times in various
European countries until the defeat of Nazism. The conservatives' hatred of
radicalism and especially of all forms of socialism blinded many of them to
the nature of their political bedfellows. In many cases they were literally
prepared to ally themselves with the devil, forgetting the old saying that one
needs a very long spoon to sup with him.
The effectiveness of modern antisemitism, and of its alliance with
conservatism, depended on several factors.
First, the older tradition of Christian religious opposition to Jews, which
existed in many (though by no means all) European countries, could, if
supported or at least unopposed by the clergy, be harnessed to the antisemitic
bandwagon. The actual response of the clergy in each country was largely
determined by specific local historical and social circumstances. In the
Catholic Church, the tendency for an opportunistic alliance with antisemitism
was strong in France but not in Italy; in Poland and Slovakin but not in
Bohemia. The Greek Orthodox Church had notorious antisemitic tendencies in
Romania but took the opposite line in Bulgaria. Among the Protestant Churches,
the German was deeply divided on this issue, others (such as the Latvian and
Estonian) tended to be antisemitic, but many (for example the Dutch, Swiss and
Scandinavian) were among the earliest to condemn antisemitism.
Secondly, antisemitism was largely a generic expression of xenophobia, a
desire for a 'pure' homogeneous society. But in many European countries around
1900 (and in fact until quite recently) the Jew was virtually the only
'stranger'. This was particularly true of Germany. In principle, the German
racists of the early 20th century hated and despised Blacks just as much as
Jews; but there were no Blacks in Germany then. Hate is of course much more
easily focused on the present than on the absent, especially under the
conditions of the time, when mass travel and tourism did not exist and most
Europeans never left their own country in peacetime.
Thirdly, the successes of the tentative alliance between conservatism and
antisemitism were inversely proportional to the power and capabilities of its
opponents. And the consistent and effective opponents of antisemitism in
Europe are the political forces of liberalism and socialism - historically the
same forces that continue in various ways the tradition symbolized by the War
of Dutch Independence (1568-1648), the English Revolution and the Great French
Revolution. On the European continent the main shibboleth is the attitude
towards the Great French Revolution - roughly speaking. those who are for it
are against antisemitism; those who accept it with regret would be at least
prone to an alliance with the antisemites; those who hate it and would like to
undo its achievements are the milieu from which antisemitism develops.
Nevertheless, a sharp distinction must be made between conservatives and
even reactionaries on the one hand and actual racists and antisemites on the
other. Modern racism (of which antisemitism is part) although caused by
specific social conditions, becomes, when it gains strength, a force that in
my opinion can only be described as demonic. After coming to power, and for
its duration, I believe it defies analysis by any presently understood social
theory or set of merely social observations - and in particular by any known
theory invoking interests, be they class or state interests, or other than
purely psychological 'interests' of any entity that can be defined in the
present state of human knowledge. But this I do not mean that such forces are
unknowable in principle; on the contrary, one must hope that with the growth
of human knowledge they will come to be understood. But at present they are
neither understood nor capable of being rationally predicted - and this
applies to all racism in all societies.25 As a matter of fact, no political
figure or group of any political color in any country had predicted even
vaguely the horrors of Nazism. Only artists and poets such as Heine were able
to glimpse some of what the future had in store. We do not know how they did
it; and besides, many of their other hunches were wrong.
The Zionist Response
Historically, zionism is both a reaction to antisemitism and a conservative
alliance with it - although the Zionists, like other European conservatives,
did not fully realize with whom they were allying themselves.
Until the rise of modern antisemitism, the mood of European Jewry was
optimistic, indeed excessively so. This was manifested not only in the very
large number of Jews, particularly in western countries, who simply opted out
of classical Judaism, apparently without any great regret, in the first or
second generation after this became possible, but also in the formation of a
strong cultural movement, the Jewish Enlightenment (Hashalah), which began in
Germany and Austria around 1780, was then carried into eastern Europe and by
185O-70 was making itself felt as a considerable social force. I cannot enter
here into a discussion of the movement's cultural achievements, such as the
revival of Hebrew literature and the creation of a wonderful literature in
Yiddish. However, it is important to note that despite many internal
differences, the movement as a whole was characterized by two common beliefs:
a belief in the need for a fundamental critique of Jewish society and
particularly of the social role of the Jewish religion in its classical form,
and the almost messianic hope for the victory of the 'forces of good' in
European societies. The latter forces were naturally defined by the sole
criterion of their support for Jewish emancipation.
The growth of antisemitism as a popular movement, and the many alliances of
the conservative forces with it, dealt a severe blow to the Jewish
Enlightenment. The blow was especially devastating because in actual fact the
rise of antisemitism occurred just after the Jews were emancipated in some
European countries, and even before they were freed in others. The Jews of the
Austrian empire received fully equal rights only in 1867. In Germany, some
independent states emancipated their Jews quite early, but others did not;
notably, Prussia was grudging and tardy in this matter, and final emancipation
of the Jews in the German empire as a whole was only granted by Bismarck in
1871. In the Ottoman empire the Jews were subject to official discrimination
until 1909, and in Russia (as well as Romania) until 1917. Thus modern
antisemitism began within a decade of the emancipation of the Jews in central
Europe and long before the emancipation of the biggest Jewish community at
that time, that of the Tsarist empire.
It is therefore easy for the Zionists to ignore half of the relevant facts,
revert to the segregationist stance of classical Judaism, and claim that since
all Gentiles always hate and persecute all Jews, the only solution would be to
remove all the Jews bodily and concentrate them in Palestine or Uganda or
wherever.26 Some early Jewish critics of zionism were quick to point out that
if one assumes a permanent and ahistorical incompatibility between Jews and
Gentiles an assumption shared by both zionists and antisemites! - then to
concentrate the Jews in one place would simply bring upon them the hatred of
the Gentiles in that part of the world (as indeed was to happen, though for
very different reasons). But as far as I know this logical argument did not
make any impression, just as all the logical and factual arguments against the
myth of the 'Jewish race' made not the slightest difference to the antisemites.
In fact, close relations have always existed between Zionists and
antisemites: exactly like some of the European conservatives, the Zionists
thought they could ignore the 'demonic' character of antisemitism and use the
antisemites for their own purposes. Many examples of such alliances are well
known. Herzl allied himself with the notorious Count von Plehve, the
antisemitic minister of Tsar Nicholas II;27 Jabotinsky made a pact with
Petlyura, the reactionary Ukrainian leader whose forces massacred some 100,000
Jews in 1918-21; Ben-Gurion's allies among the French extreme right during the
Algerian war included some notorious antisemites who were, however, careful to
explain that they were only against the Jews in France, not in Israel.
Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which
some Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler's rise to power, because they
shared his belief in the primacy of 'race' and his hostility to the
assimilation of Jews among 'Aryans'. They congratulated Hitler on his triumph
over the common enemy - the forces of liberalism. Dr Joachim Prinz, a Zionist
rabbi who subsequently emigrated to the USA, where he rose to be vice-chairman
of the World Jewish Congress and a leading light in the World Zionist
Organization (as well as a great friend of Golda Meir), published in 1934 a
special book, Wir Juden (We, Jews), to celebrate Hitler's so- called German
Revolution and the defeat of liberalism:
The meaning of the German Revolution for the German nation will eventually
be clear to those who have created it and formed its image. Its meaning
for us must be set forth here: the fortunes of liberalism are lost. The
only form of political life which has helped Jewish assimilation is sunk.28
The victory of Nazism rules out assimilation and mixed marriages as an
option for Jews. 'We are not unhappy about this,' said Dr Prinz. In the fact
that Jews are being forced to identify them- selves as Jews, he sees 'the
fulfillment of our desires'. And further:
We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of
belonging to the Jewish nation and Jewish race. A state built upon the
principle of the purity of nation and race can only honored and respected
by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind. Having so declared
himself, he will never be capable of faulty loyalty towards a state. The
state cannot want other Jews but such as declare themselves as belonging
to their nation. It will not want Jewish flatterers and crawlers. It must
demand of us faith and loyalty to our own interest. For only he who honors
his own breed and his own blood can have an attitude of honor towards the
national will of other nations.29
The whole book is full of similar crude flatteries of Nazi ideology, glee
at the defeat of liberalism and particularly of the ideas of the French
Revolution~a and great expectations that, in the congenial atmosphere of the
myth of the Aryan race, Zionism and the myth of the Jewish race will also
thrive.
Of course, Dr Prinz, like many other early sympathizers and allies of
Nazism, did not realize where that movement (and modern antisemitism
generally) was leading. Equally, many people at present do not realize where
zionism - the movement in which Dr Prinz was an honored figure - is tending:
to a combination of all the old hates of classical Judaism towards Gentiles
and to the indiscriminate and ahistorical use of all the persecutions of
Jews throughout history in order to justify the zionist persecution of the
Palestinians.
For, insane as it sounds, it is nevertheless plain upon close examination
of the real motives of the zionists, that one of the most deep-seated
ideological sources of the Zionist establishment's persistent hostility
towards the Palestinians is the fact that they are identified in the minds
of many east-European Jews with the rebellious east-European peasants who
participated in the Chmielnicki uprising and in similar revolts - and the
latter are in turn identified ahistorically with modern antisemitism and
Nazism.
Confronting the Past
All Jews who really want to extricate themselves from the tyranny of the
totalitarian Jewish past must face the question of their attitude towards
the popular anti-Jewish manifestations of the past, particularly those
connected with the rebellions of enserfed peasants. On the other side, all
the apologists of the Jewish religion and of Jewish segregationism and
chauvinism also take their stand - both ultimately and in current debates -
on the same question. The undoubted fact that the peasant revolutionaries
committed shocking atrocities against Jews (as well as against their other
oppressors) is used as an 'argument' by those apologists, in exactly the
same way that the Palestinian terror is used to justify the denial of
justice to the Palestinians.
Our own answer must be a universal one, applicable in principle to all
comparable cases. And, for a Jew who truly seeks liberation from Jewish
particularism and racism and from the dead hand of the Jewish religion, such
an answer is not very difficult.
After all, revolts of oppressed peasants against their masters and their
masters' bailiffs are common in human history. A generation after the
Chmielnicki uprising of the Ukrainian peasants, the Russian peasants rose
under the leadership of Stenka Ryazin, and again. one hundred years later,
in the Pugachev rebellion. In Germany there was the Peasant War of 1525, in
France the Jacquerie of 1357-8 and many other popular revolts, not to
mention the many slave uprisings in all parts of the world. All of them -
and I have intentionally chosen to mention examples in which Jews were not
targets - were attended by horrifying massacres, just as the Great French
Revolution was accompanied by appalling acts of terror. What is the position
of true progressives - and, by now, of most ordinary decent educated people
be they Russian, German or French - on these rebellions? Do decent English
historians, even when noting the massacres of Englishmen by rebellious Irish
peasants rising against their enslavement, condemn the latter as
'anti-English racists'? What is the attitude of progressive French
historians towards the great slave revolution in Santo Domingo, where many
French women and children were butchered? To ask the question is to answer
it. But to ask a similar question of many 'progressive' or even socialist'
Jewish circles is to receive a very different answer; here an enslaved
peasant is transformed into a racist monster, if Jews profited from his
state of slavery and exploitation.
The maxim that those who do not learn from history are condemned to
repeat it applies to those Jews who refuse to come to terms with the Jewish
past: they have become its slaves and are repeating it in Zionist and
Israeli policies. The State of Israel now fulfills towards the oppressed
peasants of many countries - not only in the Middle East but also far beyond
it - a role not unlike that of the Jews in pre-1795 Poland: that of a
bailiff to the imperial oppressor. It is characteristic and instructive that
Israel's major role in arming the forces of the Somoza regime in Nicaragua,
and those of Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile and the rest has not given rise
to any wide public debate in Israel or among organized Jewish communities in
the diaspora. Even the narrower question of expediency - whether the selling
of weapons to a dictatorial butcher of freedom fighters and peasants is in
the long term interest of Jews - is seldom asked. Even more significant is
the large part taken in this business by religious Jews, and the total
silence of their rabbis (who are very vocal in inciting hatred against
Arabs). It seems that Israel and Zionism are a throw-back to the role of
classical Judaism - writ large, on a global scale, and under more dangerous
circumstances.
The only possible answer to all this, first of all by Jews, must be that
given by all true advocates of freedom and humanity in all countries, all
peoples and all great philosophies- limited though they sometimes are, as
the human condition itself is limited. We must confront the Jewish past and
those aspects of the present which are based simultaneously on lying about
that past and worshiping it. The prerequisites for this are, first, total
honesty about the facts and, secondly, the belief (leading to action,
whenever possible) in universalist human principles of ethics and politics.
The ancient Chinese sage Mencius (4th century BC), much admired by
Voltaire, once wrote:
This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a
man who suddenly notices a child about to falI into a well. Invariably he
will feel a sense of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose
of gaining the favor of the child's parents or of seeking the approbation
of his neighbors and friends, or for fear of blame should he fail to
rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of compassion or a
sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong. The
sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is
the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of
decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom. Every
man has within himself these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs.
Since everyone has these four beginnings within him, the man who considers
himself incapable of exercising them is destroying himself.
We have seen above, and will show in greater detail in the next chapter
how far removed from this are the precepts with which the Jewish religion in
its classical and talmudic form is poisoning minds and hearts.
The road to a genuine revolution in Judaism - to making it humane,
allowing Jews to understand their own past, thereby re-educating themselves
out of its tyranny - lies through an unrelenting critique of the Jewish
religion. Without fear or favor, we must speak out against what belongs to
our own past as Voltaire did against his:
�crasez l'inf�me!
(Crush the infamous one!)
NOTES:
1 See, for example, Jeremiah, 44, especially verses
15-19. For an excellent treatment of certain aspects of this subject see
Raphael Patai, The Hebrew Goddess, Ktav, USA, 1967.
2 Ezra, 7:25-26. The last two chapters of this book are
mainly concerned with Ezra's efforts to segregate the 'pure' Jews ('the
holy seed') away from 'the people of the land' (who were themselves at
least partly of Jewish descent) and break up mixed marriages.
3 W.F. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible lands, Funk
& Wagnall, New York, 1955, p.103.
4 It is significant that, together with this literary corpus, all
the historical books written by Jews after about 400 BC were also
rejected. Until the 19th century, Jews were quite ignorant of the story of
Massadah and of figures such as Judas Maccabaeus, now regarded by many
(particularly by Christians) as belonging to the 'very essence' of
Judaism.
5 Acts, 18:15.
6 Ibid., 25.
7 See note 6 to Chapter 2.
8 Concerning the term 'classical Judaism' see note 10 to Chapter
2 and note 1 to Chapter 3.
9 Nobel Prize winners Agnon and Bashevis Singer are examples of
this, but many others can be given, particularly Bialik, the national
Hebrew poet. In his famous poem My Father he describes his saintly
father selling vodka to the drunkard peasants who are depicted as animals.
This very popular poem, taught in all Israeli schools, is one of the
vehicles through which the anti-peasant attitude is reproduced.
10 So far as the central power of the Jewish Patriarchate was
concerned, the deal was terminated by Theodosius II in a series of laws,
culminating in AD 429; but many of the local arrangements remained in
force.
11 Perhaps another characteristic example is the Parthian empire
(until AD 225) but not enough is known about it. We know, however, that
the establishment of the national Iranian Sasanid empire brought about an
immediate decline of the Jews' position.
12 This ban extends also to marrying a woman converted to
Judaism, because all Gentile women are presumed by the Halakhah to be
prostitutes.
13 A prohibited marriage is not generally void, and requires a
divorce. Divorce is nominally a voluntary act on the part of the husband,
but under certain circumstances a rabbinical court can coerce him to
'will' it (kofin oto 'ad she yyomar rotzeh ani).
14 Although Jewish achievements during the Golden Age in Muslim
Spain (1002-1147) were more brilliant, they were not lasting. For example,
most of the magnificent Hebrew poetry of that age was subsequently
forgotten by Jews, and only recovered by them in the 19th or 20th century.
15 During that war, Henry of Trastamara used anti-Jewish
propaganda. although his own mother, Leonor de Guzman, a high Castilian
noblewoman, was partly of Jewish descent. (Only in Spain did the highest
nobility intermarry with Jews.) After his victory he too employed Jews in
the highest financial positions.
16 Until the 18th century the position of serfs in Poland was
generally supposed to be even worse than in Russia. In that century,
certain features of Russian serfdom, such as public sales of serfs, got
worse than in Poland but the central Tsarist government always retained
certain powers over the enslaved peasants, for example the right to
recruit them to the national army.
17 During the preceding period persecutions of Jews were rare.
This is true of the Roman Empire even after serious Jewish rebellions.
Gibbon is correct in praising the liberality of Antonius Pius (and Marcus
Aurelius) to Jews, so soon after the major Bar-Kokhba rebellion of AD
132-5.
18 This fact, easily ascertainable by examination of the details
of each persecution, is not rein~remarked upon by most general historians
in recent times. An honorable exception is Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Rise
of Christian Europe, Thames and Hudson, London, 1965, pp.173-4.
Trevor-Roper is also one of the very few modern historians who mention the
predominant Jewish role in the early medieval slave trade between
Christian (and pagan) Europe and the Muslim world (ibid., pp.92-3). In
order to promote this abomination, which I have no space to discuss here,
Maimonides allowed Jews, in the name of the Jewish religion, to abduct
Gentile children into slavery; and his opinion was no doubt acted upon or
reflected contemporary practice.
19 Examples can be found in any history of the crusades. See
especially S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol I, book 3,
chap 1, 'The German Crusade'. The subsequent defeat of this host by the
Hungarian army, 'to most Christians appeared as a just punishment meted
out of high to the murderers of the Jews.'
20 John Stoyc, Europe Unfolding 1 648~8, Fontana, London,
p.46.
21 This latter feature is of course not mentioned by received
Jewish historiography. The usual punishment for a rebellious, or even
'impudent' peasant was impalement.
22 The same can be observed in different regions of a given
country. For example, in Germany, agrarian Bavaria was much more
antisemitic than the industrialized areas.
23 'The refusal of the Church to admit that once a Jew always a
Jew, was another cause of pain for an ostentatious Catholic like Drumont.
One of his chief lieutenants, Jules Gu�rin, has recounted the disgust he
felt when the famous Jesuit, P�re du Lac, remonstrated with him for
attacking some converted Jews named Dreyfus.' D.W. Brogan, The
Development of Modern France, vol 1, Harper Torchbooks, New York,
1966, p.227.
24 Ibid..
25 Let me illustrate the irrational, demonic character which
racism can sometimes acquire with three examples chosen at random. A major
part of the extermination of Europe's Jews was carried out in 1942 and
early 1943 during the Nazi offensive in Russia, which culminated in their
defeat at Stalingrad. During the eight months between June 1942 and
February 1943 the Nazis probably used more railway wagons to haul Jews to
the gas chambers than to carry much needed supplies to the army. Before
being taken to their death, most of these Jews, at least in Poland, had
been very effectively employed in production of equipment for the German
army. The second, rather remote, example comes from a description of the
Sicilian Vespers in 1282: 'Every Frenchman they met was struck down. They
poured into the inns frequented by the French and the houses where they
dwelt, sparing neither man nor woman nor child ... The riots?s broke into
the Dominican and Franciscan convents, and all the foreign friars were
dragged out and told to pronounce the word ciciri, whose sound the
French tongue could never accurately reproduce. Anyone who failed in the
test was slain.' (S. Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers, Cambridge
University Press,1958, p. 215.) The third example is recent: in the summer
of 1980 - following an assassination attempt by Jewish terrorists in which
Mayor Bassam Shak'a of Nablus lost both his legs and Mayor Karim Khalaf of
Ramallah lost a foot - a group of Jewish Nazis gathered in the campus of
TeI-Aviv University, roasted a few cats and offered their meat to
passers-by as 'shish-kebab from the legs of the Arab mayors'. Anyone who
witnessed this macabre orgy - as I did - would have to admit that some
horrors defy explanation in the present state of knowledge.
26 One of the early quirks of Jabotinsky (founder of the party
then led by Begin) was to propose, in about 1912, the creation of two Jewish
states, one in Palestine and the other in Angola: the former, being poor
in natural resources, would be subsidized by the riches of the latter.
27 Herzl went to Russia to meet von Plehve in August 1903, less
than four months after the hideous Kishinev pogrom, for which the latter
was known to be responsible. Herzl pro- posed an alliance, based on their
common wish to get most of the Jews out of Russia and, in the shorter
term, to divert Jewish support away from the socialist movement. The
Tsarist minister started the first interview (8 August) by observing that
he regarded himself as 'an ardent supporter of zionism'. When Herzl went
on to describe the aims of zionism, von Plehve interrupted: 'You are
preaching to the converted'. Amos Elon, Herzel, 'Am 'Oved,
1976 pp.415-9, in Hebrew.
28 Dr Joachim Prinz, Wirjuden, Berlin, 1934, pp. 150-1.
29 Ibid., pp. 154-5.
30 For example see ibid., p. 136. Even worse expressions of
sympathy with Nazism were voices by the extremist Lohamey Herut
Yisra'el (Stern Gang) as late as 1941. Dr Prinz was, in zionist terms,
a 'dove'. In the 1970s he even patronized the US Jewish movement Breira,
until he was dissuaded by Golda Meir.
<<
Back -- Chapter 4 -- Next
>>
|