Hanna Braun’s nutshell history of the Jews and Zionism

A Unitarian Universalist colleague shares this history and background. 4/04/09:

My London friend, Hanna Braun, sent me this a month ago and I just found time to read it. She wrote it in 2001. Nothing’s changed. Most of its contents you already know, but perhaps, like me, there are some new insights here, and some things I didn’t know at all. It’s a very succinct and well-written summary of Jewish history as it relates to Zionism.

Hanna was born in Germany, moved as a child to Palestine (Haifa) in the mid-30’s, served in the army in 1948, and then became a teacher. She emigrated with her husband and 2 daughters to the UK in the mid-50’s. She did a spell of teaching in Zimbabwe (I think it was Zimbabwe). She keeps in touch with friends and relatives in Israel and visits there every few years. She will be 82 in late May, 2009 (I know because I was privileged to celebrate her 80th with her in London 2 yrs ago). — eve s.

A Basic History of Zionism and its Relation to Judaism

Hanna Braun. 2001

In order to understand the circumstances that led to the birth of Zionism I shall sketch an outline of the history of Judaism and the Jews.

Even in biblical times there was a great deal of ethnic and even religious mixing in ancient Judea and Israel, which practically all the biblical prophets were perpetually railing against. Moreover, even during that time, there ware Jewish communities established in Arab lands, in Persia, India, East and North Africa. With the destruction of the Temple and the final fall of their autonomous Roman colony in 70 AD, the important families such as the High priests, members of the Sanhedrin, the Judaic internal court which handed Jesus over to the Roman authority and a few others, felt insecure, There had been a number of revolts and uprisings against their hegemony and their collaboration with Rome - Jesus being one non violent example - and so they decided to leave when the Romans pulled out. Most of the indigenous subsistence farmers, craftsmen and small-time traders stayed put and continued their lives as before. Some of these inhabitants were early Christians and form the ancestors of today’s Palestinian Christians, others remained Jewish. Modern research suggests that when Islam arrived in the area in 638 AD many of these Jews converted and that they form a considerable part of today’s Palestinians. Numerous surnames, such as Mousa, Dini and Canaan, are even nowadays shared by Arab Jews, Muslims and Christians. Incidentally, people with the surnames Da Souza and Sassoon were originally from the Jewish community in Suza, the ancient capital of Persia. Those who left with the Romans later dispersed to other parts of Europe and even central Asia, where there were some trading outposts. The bulk of European Jews, however, consisted of Khazars, inhabitants of an important kingdom in the early middle ages, roughly between the Caspian and the Black sea. One of their Khans or kings converted to Judaism around 740 AD and made Judaism the state religion. In the 9th century Khazaria finally fell to the Viking hordes and its inhabitants dispersed throughout much of Europe. Thus the idea of a “return” of European Jews to their roots is an absurd myth.

The various Jewish communities in Asia (including what is termed the Middle East) and North Africa were on the whole well integrated into their respective societies and did not experience the persecutions that later became so prevalent in Europe. In Palestine, for instance, Muslims repeatedly protected their Jewish neighbours from marauding crusaders; in one instance at least, Jews fought alongside Muslims to try and prevent crusaders landing at Haifa’s port, and Salah al-Din (Saladin), after re-conquering Jerusalem from the crusaders, invited the Jews back into the city.

The Jews in Spain under Moorish rule flourished and experienced a renaissance mirroring that of the great Islamic civilisation and culture at the time. As Christianity spread from the north of Spain, Jews were again protected by Muslim rulers until the fall of Granada— the last Moorish kingdom to pass into Christian hands—when both Jews and Muslims were expelled at the end of the 15th century (Jews in 1492 and Muslims 10 years later). Most of the Jews from the Iberian peninsula settled in North Africa and the lands under Ottoman rule, including Palestine, and continued their peaceful co-existence with Muslims in those countries. The bulk of Portuguese “converted” Jews (these were forced conversions and such Jews were called Marranos, i.e.swine by their Christian neighbours, who still suspected them of secretly practicing their old religion.) settled in Amsterdam in the Netherlands, presumably because they had long established trading connections in that city. In 1655 they were invited hence to Britain by Oliver Cromwell, and most of them were glad to resettle since at the time the Netherlands had just freed itself from the Spanish yoke in 1648 and the shadow of the dreaded inquisition was still

uncomfortably close.

The fate of Jewry in European countries was very different: persecutions, killings and burnings were widespread and Jews were forced to live in closed ghettos, particularly in the Russian Empire, where they were confined to the “Pale of Jewish” settlement, an area which consisted of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Byelarus or White Russia. Anyone who wished to move outside these borders needed special permission (although there were large communities in the western and south-eastern part of what had been Poland, but became part of Prussia and Austria respectively) and by the mid-19th century some of the more progressive Jewish communities had established themselves in the big cities of St. Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev.

In central and western Europe religious tolerance, followed by the granting of full citizens’ rights and emancipation came relatively early, in the wake of general liberalisation. However, Russian rulers remained opposed to any liberalisation, including religious tolerance and emancipation, and as late as 1881, Tsar Alexander the third initiated a series of particularly vicious pogroms to divert unrest amongst the population, at a time when Britain, for instance, boasted of a Jewish prime minister.

Total segregation was not always imposed from outside, however, but was frequently enforced from within by highly authoritarian rabbis who exercised absolute power over their congregations, often including the right to life and the imposition of the death penalty via denunciation to the relevant authorities.. Thus it was a major decision for anyone to leave these congregations and to look for a broader education (known as “enlightenment”). In eastern Europe “enlightenment” was a relatively late phenomenon and it found expression initially in the mid-19th century, in a revival of Hebrew language and literature and in the modern idea of Jews seeing themselves as a people.

This distinction between a people and a religion was of course disapproved of by the Orthodox Jews, who still today regard Hebrew as a sacred language to be used solely for prayers and religious studies and the Jewish people and religion as indivisible. The concept of the Jews as people closely mirrored the relatively new European idea of a homogeneous nation state. An exception to this was the socialist “Bund” organisation whose members rejected nationalism and later Zionism.

Some of these early proto-Zionists, calling themselves “Hovevei Zion” (Lovers of Zion), started the first settlements in Palestine in the 1840’s with the help of Jewish philanthropists such as the Rothchilds and the Montefiores, and a larger number of immigrants followed after the Russian pogroms of 1881-82. These settlers distinguished themselves by their deliberate segregation from the indigenous population and their contempt for local customs and traditions. This naturally aroused suspicion and hostility in the locals. This exclusivity was largely based on a sense of superiority common to Europeans of the time, who believed they were the only advanced and truly civilised society and in true colonial fashion looked down on “natives” or ignored them altogether.

However, beyond that there was also a particular sense of superiority of Jews towards all non-Jews. This belief in innate Jewish superiority had a long tradition in religious rabbinical Jewish thinking, central to which was the notion of the Jews as God’s chosen people. Moshe Ben Maimon (Maimonides) had been an exponent of this theory and quite often thinkers with a more humane outlook, e.g. Spinoza, were excommunicated. The accepted thinking in the religious communities was that Jews must on no account mix in any way with gentiles for fear of being contaminated and corrupted by them. This notion was so deeply ingrained that it quite possibly still affected, albeit subconsciously, those Jews who had left the townships and had become educated and enlightened. Thus the early settlers from eastern Europe transferred the “Stettl” (townlet) mentality of segregation to Palestine, with the added belief in the nobility of manual labour and in particular soil cultivation. In this they had been influenced by Tolstoy and his writings.

The “father” of political Zionism, Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), came from a totally different perspective. Dr. Herzl was a Viennese, emancipated, secular journalist who was sent by his editor to Paris in 1894 to cover the Dreyfuss affair. Dreyfuss had been a captain in the French Army who was falsely accused and convicted of treason, although he was acquitted and completely cleared some years later. The case brought to light the strength of a strong streak of anti- Semitism prevalent in the upper echelons of the French Army and in the French press, with profound repercussions in emancipated Jewish circles. Herzl himself despaired of the whole idea of emancipation and integration and felt that the only solution to anti-Semitism lay in a Jewish Homeland. To that end he approached various diplomats and notables, including the Ottoman Sultan, but mainly European rulers, the great colonial powers of the time, and was rewarded for his effort by being offered Argentina or Uganda by the British as possible Jewish Homelands.

Herzl would have been quite happy with either of these countries, but when the first Zionist Congress was convened in Basle in 1897 (it was to be in Augsburg but the Rabbinical authorities in that city barred the congress, he came up against Eastern European Jewry, by far the greatest majority of participants, who, although broadly emancipated and “enlightened” (orthodox Jews at that time completely rejected any Jewish political movement and did not attend the congress), would not accept any homeland other than the land of Zion. Not only had some of them already settled in Palestine, there were strong remnants of the religious/sentimental notion of a pilgrimage and possibly burial in the Holy Land. The last toast in the Passover ceremony is “Next year in Jerusalem”; although this was a religious rather than a national aspiration, and it was common amongst the orthodox communities to purchase a handful of soil purporting to come from the Holy Land to be placed under the deceased’s head.

Herzl was quick to realise that unless he accepted the “Land of Zion”, i.e. Palestinian option, he would have hardly any adherents. Thus the Zionist movement started with a small section of mainly eastern European Jews who saw the solution to anti-Semitism in what they termed as a return to their “roots” and in a renewal of a Jewish people in the land of their ancestors. Herzl wrote his book “Der Judenstaat” (The State of the Jews) in which he wrote, inter alia, that the Jews and their state will constitute “a rampart of Europe against Asia, of civilisation against barbarism”, and again regarding the local population, “We shall endeavour to encourage the poverty- stricken population to cross the border by securing work for it in the countries it passes through, while denying it work in our own country. The process of expropriation and displacement must be carried out prudently and discreetly. Let (the landowners) sell us their land at exorbitant prices. We shall sell nothing back to them.”

Some early Zionists, such as Max Nordau, a French Zionist who visited Palestine, were horrified; Nordau burst out in front of Herzl: “But we are committing a grave injustice!” Some years later, in 1913, a prominent Zionist thinker and writer, Ahad Ha’am (one of the people), wrote: “What are our brothers doing? They were slaves in the land of their exile. Suddenly they found themselves faced with boundless freedom … and they behave in a hostile and cruel manner towards the Arabs, trampling on their rights without the least justification … even bragging about this behaviour.”

But these early Zionists’ dismay at the injustices to, and total lack of recognition of, the indigenous population was silenced and indeed edited out of Jewish history and other books, as was some of Herzl’s writing. The widely perceived Zionist truism of “a land without people for a people without land” prevailed and within a matter of a few years the immigrants became “sons of the land” (Bnei Ha’aretz or Ibna El-Ard) whereas the inhabitants became the aliens and foreigners.

The Arab population of Palestine was well aware of the Zionist danger; as early as 1896 a math teacher in Jerusalem wrote in the newspaper “Philisteen”: “I have no problems with Jews; it’s the Zionists that I am most concerned about.” In 1916, after there had been an agreement with the British Government that after the fall of the Ottoman Empire Palestine, Lebanon and Syria (the fertile

triangle) would gain independence, leaders of the Arab community called upon every Arab Muslim, Christian and Jew to rise against the Ottomans. Many did so.

Following renewed efforts and lobbying after Herzl’s death, the Balfour Declaration in 1917—shortly after Palestine was conquered by Britain—which granted Zionists a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, set the official seal of approval on their aspirations. Protests and representations by local Arab leaders were brushed aside. Lord Balfour wrote in 1919: “In Palestine, we do not even propose to consult the inhabitants of the country and (Zionism’s) immediate needs and hopes for the future are much more important than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who presently inhabit Palestine”.

Settlements grew slowly for a long time, but the systematic buying up of land, frequently from absentee landlords, which left tenant farmers homeless, contributed to the first Palestinian uprising in 1921-22 and other outbursts of hostilities, including a massacre of some 65 Jews in Hebron in 1929, after orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe had founded a “Yeshiva” (a religious study centre) in the town and had aroused the suspicions and hostility of the indigenous population who prior to this had lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years with their non European Jewish neighbours. Another contributing factor to growing Arab hostility was the policy of neither employing Arabs nor to buying their produce.

This was termed “Hebrew work for Hebrew workers” and was very much in force when I came to Palestine in 1937. It was, however, not entirely and strictly enforced and there were various examples of co-operation and good neighbourly relations. This was particularly evident in Haifa, where our next door neighbours were Arabs and where large sections of the downtown area were mixed. This lasted until the “liberation” of Haifa, when most of the Arab population of the city were expelled and only a small, run down area (wadi Nisnas) remained in what became effectively a ghetto. There were other such examples in Jerusalem and other places.

For many years Zionism remained a minority movement of mainly Eastern European Jews, excluding the whole religious establishment, most central and western European Jews. My family’s views on Zionism were fairly typical of western European Jews who regarded this ideology as a helpline to those Jews, mainly eastern European ones, who had troubles making ends meet. (Examples: What is a Zionist; Arthur Ruppin). Last but not least, Zionism was quite meaningless to non- European communities, who unbeknown to Herzl and his contemporaries, form the majority of us. These communities were ignored by early Zionists and indeed had little interest in their aspirations until the establishment of the state of Israel and after the “independence” war of 1948-49. After this the new state unleashed a massive propaganda campaign to induce the Sephardi and Oriental Jews to “ascend” to the land of their ancestors, mainly to for demographic reasons- in 1948 only about one third of the population and about 6% of the land were Jews or in Jewish hands—but also as cannon fodder. The same happened in the 1980s with the Jews of Ethiopia. However, upon arrival these non-European newcomers were treated very much as inferior second class citizens. They were sprayed with DDT at their point of arrival and within less than a fortnight the men were drafted into the army, while their families were usually accommodated in inferior reception camps or abandoned Arab houses. My experience (as a reservist in Eilat, our postman in Jlm). This European dominance is still prevalent in modern Israel where for example the national anthem even nowadays speaks about Jewish longing for the East towards Zion, whereas for many of the non-European communities Palestine lies to the West. Sadly, this has led to some groups of Sephardi (non-European) or Mizrahi (Oriental) Jews becoming extreme right-wing chauvinists, so as to “prove” their credentials.

Immigration (“Aliyah” = “ascent” in Zionist parlance) took off in seriously large numbers with the rise of Hitler, who initially declared himself quite sympathetic to Zionism, as had other right- wing anti-Semites before him. New Jewish settlements mushroomed by leaps and bounds, leading to a bitter and prolonged Palestinian uprising from 1936 till 1939, when it was crushed by the British mandatory powers. But it was not until the end of the 2nd world war and the foundation of the state of Israel in 1948 that Zionism started to win the hearts and minds of the majority of Jewish society. Since that time we have witnessed an increasing and deliberate confluence of Judaism and Zionism, to the extent that today it is widely regarded as treason and self- hate for a Jew to criticise the state, let alone Zionism.

In my view, this development was almost inevitable given the preconception of an exclusive Jewish state. Could we realistically conceive of a France purely for the French? England only for the English? (Unless, of course we belong to the National Front or similar groups). In a post-colonial world the notion is completely unacceptable and ridiculous. How then, can Israel and the majority of its citizens justify their claim and yet remain convinced that theirs is a modern, democratic society? (I shall demonstrate later that Israel was never a democracy for its Arab citizens and is no longer a democracy to its own people.) The last resort, when all logical justifications fail, is that God has promised the land to his people, namely us. (This rather begs the question of where this leaves a non- believing Jew). I have found over the years, and particularly in the last 30 or so years, that the numbers of young people wearing the skullcap and generally observing at least some of the religious laws has increased dramatically and I believe this is no coincidence.

The religious establishment has gone along with the general flow and has, indeed, profited from it. Since the late 50’s there has also been a notable and frightening change in the orthodox community, which led to the establishment in 1974 of the “Gush Emunim” (the block of the faithful), initiated by Rabbi Tsvi Yehuda Kook the younger in the USA. This is the fundamentalist movement which

believes in accepting the state of Israel and striving to make it entirely and exclusively Jewish in all areas that the Torah mentioned as God’s promise to his people. (They do not appear to have noticed that nowhere in the Old Testament does God say that the Jews will take the land from its inhabitants). [Wrong! She has forgotten the Book of Joshua, or more likely never read it. eve] Prior to this time orthodox Jewry played no important role in politics except in

pressurising successive governments to introduce more Jewish

religious regulations into state law. The ultra-orthodox group

“Neturei Karta” (the Guardians of the City) has never recognised the state of Israel and is exempt from army service. Although Gush Emunim is small in numbers, they wield disproportionate influence and power since successive Israeli governments covertly (and nowadays overtly) endorsed their aspirations. Their followers have been allocated special army units so as to enable them to observe Jewish religious laws and rituals in every detail (although even in the regular army only Kosher food is served and the Sabbath is observed as far as possible). These units have a reputation as dedicated crack-troops. What is less well known but silently condoned is their refusal to give medical aid or even drive wounded persons to hospital on the Sabbath unless they are Jews. But in my view this is an extremely short-sighted and dangerous road, leading in the end to a

fundamentalist theocracy much like that of the Taliban in

Afghanistan. The fundamentalists’ belief is that the Messianic age is already upon us and that any obstacles to a total elimination of any non-Jews in the promised land, i.e. the whole of what was Palestine including the Holy Mount, is God’s punishment for sinful Jews, namely all those who are westernised and secular. This fully exonerates, and indeed sanctifies, a man like Baruch Goldstein who murdered 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi mosque, as well as the

assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Like the Hamas movement, which was initially encouraged and funded by Israel’s secret services, this is another genie that, having been let out of the bottle, can no longer be controlled.

It seems a bitter irony that a movement that initially saw itself as progressive, liberal and secular should find itself in an alliance with, and held to ransom by, the most reactionary forces, but in my view this was inevitable from its inception although the founders, and most of us (including people like myself, growing up in Palestine in the thirties) did not foresee this and certainly would not have wished it.

Growing up in Israel makes it quite difficult to see all the historical falsifications and myths that underpin Zionist ideology except for academics and some of them have indeed researched and publicised the truth, often at great cost to themselves. (Pappe, Teddy Katz).

Nowadays the deliberate blurring of the distinction between Zionism and Judaism, which includes a rewriting of ancient as well as modern history is exploited to stifle any criticism of Israel’s policies and actions, however extreme and inhumane they may be. This, incidentally also plays directly into anti-Semitic prejudices by equating Israeli arrogance, brutality and complete denial of basic human rights to non- Jews with general Jewish characteristics.

Zionism has now assumed the all-embracing mantle of righteousness; it claims to represent and to speak for all Jews and has adopted the slogan of “my country right or wrong,” with the West tolerating Israel’s continuous breaches of human rights that it would not tolerate if perpetrated by any other country. Few Western states and not many Jews dare take a stand against Israel, particularly as many of the former still feel a sense of unease and guilt about the holocaust which Zionists Jews inside and outside Israel have exploited in what to me seems an almost obscene manner.

In the USA, the Jewish Zionist lobby is still strong enough to keep successive governments on board. Moreover, the USA regards Israel as an important strategic ally in its fight against Middle Eastern “rogue” states which have supplanted the Soviet Union as the great satanic enemy of the free world. The latest phenomenon is that of American Christian Fundamentalists who advocate the return of all Jews to their god-given land.

I fear that unless and until Israel is judged by the same criteria as other modern states, this is unlikely to change. It is the duty of all Jews with a sense of justice and a conscience to speak out against the falsifications of history by the Zionist lobby, and the dangerous misconceptions it has led the West to accept.

It is also high time to build a boycott campaign similar to the anti- apartheid one against Israel. (Called for by Mandela and Tutu amongst others).

Hanna Braun, London, September 2001

Bibliography:

Jewish History, Jewish Religion by Prof. Israel Shahak (died 2nd July 2001)

Fundamental Judaism in Israel, Prof. Israel Shahak

A History of the Jews, Ancient and Modern, Ilan Halevi

Western Scholarship and the History of Palestine, Rev. Dr. Michael Prior (ed.)

Israel's Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, Idith Zertal