Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of Three Thousand Years
By Professor Israel Shahak
6. POLITICAL
CONSEQUENCES
THE PERSISTENT ATTITUDES
of classical Judaism toward non-Jews strongly influence its followers,
Orthodox Jews and those who can be regarded as its continuators, Zionists.
Through the latter it also influences the policies of the State of Israel.
Since 1967, as Israel becomes more and more 'Jewish', so its policies are
influenced more by Jewish ideological considerations than by those of a coldly
conceived imperial interest. This ideological influence is not usually
perceived by foreign experts, who tend to ignore or downplay the influence of
the Jewish religion on Israeli policies. This explains why many of their
predictions are incorrect.
In fact, more Israeli government crises are caused by
religious reasons, often trivial, than by any other cause. The space devoted
by the Hebrew press to discussion of the constantly occurring quarrels between
the various religious groups, or between the religious and the secular, is
greater than that given any other subject, except in times of war or of
security-related tension. At the time of writing, early August 1993, some
topics of major interest to readers of the Hebrew press are: whether soldiers
killed in action who are sons of non-Jewish mothers will be buried in a
segregated area in Israeli military cemeteries; whether Jewish religious
burial associations, who have a monopoly over the burial of all Jews except
kibbutz members, will be allowed to continue their custom of circumcising the
corpses of non-circumcised Jews before burying them (and without asking the
family's permission); whether the import of non-kosher meat to Israel, banned
unofficially since the establishment of the state, will be allowed or banned
by law. There are many more issues of this kind which are of a much greater
interest to the Israeli- Jewish public than, let us say, the negotiations with
the Palestinians and Syria.
The attempts made by a few Israeli politicians to ignore
the factors of 'Jewish ideology' in favor of purely imperial interests have
led to disastrous results. In early 1974, after its partial defeat in the Yom
Kippur War, Israel had a vital interest in stopping the renewed influence of
the PLO, which had not yet been recognized by the Arab states as the solely
legitimate representative of the Palestinians. The Israeli government
conceived of a plan to support Jordanian influence in the West Bank, which was
quite considerable at the time. When King Hussein was asked for his support,
he demanded a visible quid pro quo. It was arranged that his chief West Bank
supporter, Sheikh Jabri of Hebron, who ruled the southern part of the West
Bank with an iron fist and with approval of then Defense minister Moshe Dayan,
would give a party for the region's notables in the courtyard of his palatial
residence in Hebron. The party, in honor of the king's birthday, would feature
the public display of Jordanian flags and would begin a pro-Jordanian
campaign. But the religious settlers in the nearby Kiryat-Arba, who were only
a handful at the time, heard about the plan and threatened Prime Minister
Golda Meir and Dayan with vigorous protests since, as they put it, displaying
a flag of a 'non-Jewish state' within the Land of Israel contradicts the
sacred principle which states that this land 'belongs' only to Jews. Since
this principle is accepted by all zionists, the government had to bow to their
demands and order Sheikh Jabri not to display any Jordanian flags. Thereupon
Jabri, who was deeply humiliated, canceled the party and, at the Fez meeting
of the Arab League which occurred soon after, King Hussein voted to recognize
the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians. For the bulk of
Israeli-Jewish public the current negotiations about 'autonomy' are likewise
influenced more by such Jewish ideological considerations than by any others.
The conclusion from this consideration of Israeli
policies, supported by an analysis of classical Judaism, must be that analyses
of Israeli policy-making which do not emphasize the importance of its unique
character as a 'Jewish state' must be mistaken. In particular, the facile
comparison of Israel to other cases of Western imperialism or to settler
states, is incorrect. During apartheid, the land of South Africa was
officially divided into 87 per cent which 'belonged' to the whites and 13 per
cent which was said officially to 'belong' to the Blacks. In addition,
officially sovereign states, embodied with all the symbols of sovereignty, the
so-called Bantustans, were established. But 'Jewish ideology' demands that no
part of the Land of Israel can be recognized as 'belonging' to non-Jews and
that 110 signs of sovereignty, such as Jordanian flags, can be officially
allowed to be displayed. The principle of Redemption of the Land demands that
ideally all the land, and not merely, say, 87 per cent, will in time be
'redeemed', that is, become owned by Jews. 'Jewish ideology prohibits that
very convenient principle of imperialism, already known to Romans and followed
by so many secular empires, and best formulated by Lord Cromer: 'We do not
govern Egypt, we govern the governors of Egypt.' Jewish ideology forbids such
recognition; it also forbids a seemingly respectful attitude to any
'non-Jewish governors' within the Land of Israel. The entire apparatus of
client kings, sultans, maharajas and chiefs or, in more modern times, of
dependent dictators, so convenient in other cases of imperial hegemony, cannot
be used by Israel within the area considered part of the Land of Israel. Hence
the fears, commonly expressed by Palestinians, of being offered a 'Bantustan'
are totally groundless. Only if numerous Jewish lives are lost in war, as
happened both in 1973 and in the 1983-5 war aftermath in Lebanon, is an
Israeli retreat conceivable since it can be justified by the principle that
the sanctity of Jewish life is more important than other considerations. What
is not possible, as long as Israel remains a 'Jewish state', is the Israeli
grant of a fake, but nevertheless symbolically real sovereignty, or even of
real autonomy, to non-Jews within the Land of Israel for merely political
reasons. Israel, like some other countries, is an exclusivist state, but
Israeli exclusivism is peculiar to itself.
In addition to Israeli policies it may be surmised that
the 'Jewish ideology' influences also a significant part, maybe a majority, of
the diaspora Jews. While the actual implementation of Jewish ideology depends
on Israel being strong, this in turn depends to a considerable extent on the
support which diaspora Jews, particularly US Jews, give to Israel. The image
of the diaspora Jews and their attitudes to non-Jews, is quite different from
the attitudes of classical Judaism, as described above. This discrepancy is
most obvious in English-speaking countries, where the greatest falsifications
of Judaism regularly occur. The situation is worst in the USA and Canada, the
two states whose support for Israeli policies, including policies which most
glaringly contradict the basic human rights of non-Jews, is strongest.
US support for Israel, when considered not in abstract
but in concrete detail, cannot be adequately explained only as a result of
American imperial interests. The strong influence wielded by the organized
Jewish community in the USA in support of all Israeli policies must also be
taken into account in order to explain the Middle East policies of American
Administrations. This phenomenon is even more noticeable in the case of
Canada, whose Middle Eastern interests cannot be considered as important, but
whose loyal dedication to Israel is even greater than that of the USA In both
countries (and also in France, Britain and many other states) Jewish
organizations support Israel with about the same loyalty which communist
parties accorded to the USSR for so long. Also, many Jews who appear to be
active in defending human rights and who adopt non-conformist views on other
issues do, in cases affecting Israel, display a remarkable degree of
totalitarianism and are in the forefront of the defense of all Israeli
policies. It is well known in Israel that the chauvinism and fanaticism in
supporting Israel displayed by organized diaspora Jews is much greater
(especially since 1967) than the chauvinism shown by an average Israeli Jew.
This fanaticism is especially marked in Canada and the USA but because of the
incomparably greater political importance of the USA, I will concentrate on
the latter. It should, however, be noted that we also find Jews whose views of
Israeli policies are not different from those held by the rest of the society
(with due regard to the factors of geography, income, social position and so
on).
Why should some American Jews display chauvinism,
some-times extreme, and others not? We should begin by observing the social
and therefore also the political importance of the Jewish organizations which
are of an exclusive nature: they admit no non-Jews on principle. (This
exclusivism is in amusing contrast with their hunt to condemn the most obscure
non-Jewish club which refuses to admit Jews.) Those who can be called
'organized Jews', and who spend most of their time outside work hours mostly
in the company of other Jews, can be presumed to uphold Jewish exclusivism and
to preserve the attitudes of the classical Judaism to non-Jews. Under present
circumstances they cannot openly express these attitudes toward non-Jews in
the USA where non-Jews constitute more than 97 per cent of the population.
They compensate for this by ex- pressing their real attitudes in their support
of the 'Jewish state' and the treatment it metes to the non-Jews of the Middle
East.
How else can we explain the enthusiasm displayed by so
many American rabbis in support of, let us say, Martin Luther King, compared
with their lack of support for the rights of Palestinians, even for their
individual human rights? How else can we explain the glaring contradiction
between the attitudes of classical Judaism toward non-Jews, which include the
rule that their lives should not be saved except for the sake of Jewish
interest, with the support of the US rabbis and organized Jews for the rights
of the Blacks? After all, Martin Luther King and the majority of American
Blacks are non-Jews. Even if only the conservative and Orthodox Jews, who
together constitute the majority of organized American Jews, are considered to
hold such opinions about the non-Jews, the other part of organized US Jewry,
the Reform, had never opposed them, and, in my view, show themselves to be
quite influenced by them.
Actually the explanation of this apparent contradiction
is easy. It should be recalled that Judaism, especially in its classical form,
is totalitarian in nature. The behavior of supporters of other totalitarian
ideologies of our times was not different from that of the organized American
Jews. Stalin and his supporters never tired of condemning the discrimination
against the American or the South African Blacks, especially in the midst of
the worst crimes committed within the USSR. The South African apartheid regime
was tireless in its denunciations of the violations of human rights committed
either by communist or by other African regimes, and so were its supporters in
other countries. Many similar examples can be given. The support of democracy
or of human rights is there- fore meaningless or even harmful and deceitful
when it does not begin with self-critique and with support of human rights
when they are violated by one's own group. Any support of human rights in
general by a Jew which does not include the support of human rights of
non-Jews whose rights are being violated by the 'Jewish state' is as deceitful
as the support of human rights by a Stalinist. The apparent enthusiasm
displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organizations in the USA during
the 1950s and the 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated
only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist
support for the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture
the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support
of Israeli policies in the Middle East.
Therefore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora
Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of
the Jewish past. The most important part of such a critique must be detailed
and honest confrontation of the Jewish attitude to non-Jews. This is what many
Jews justly demand from non-Jews: to confront their own past and so become
aware of the discrimination and persecutions inflicted on the Jews. In the
last 40 years the number of non-Jews killed by Jews is by far greater than the
number of the Jews killed by non-Jews. The extent of the persecution and
discrimination against non-Jews inflicted by the 'Jewish state' with the
support of organized diaspora Jews is also enormously greater than the
suffering inflicted on Jews by regimes hostile to the~ Although the struggle
against antisemitism (and of all other forms of racism) should never cease,
the struggle against Jewish chauvinism and exclusivism, which must include a
critique of classical Judaism, is now of equal or greater importance.
<<
Back -- Chapter 6 -- Next
>>
|