We are outraged about the behavior of Israel toward the Palestinians. At the same time, atrocities that are happening in other parts of the world don’t demand our attention. Apparently, we have high expectations for Israel. The question is, are these expectations realistic?
My own opinion is that they are not realistic. How can they be? For one thing, it is difficult to see Israel and her enemies clearly. First, the biblical story of ancient Israel influences our thinking. Second, there is the more recent history of Judaism and its struggles, which we think we understand, but we don’t. Most of us only know about these things superficially.
Paying Lip Service to Solve a Complicated Problem
Unfortunately, we have been paying lip service to solve a complicated problem. After October 7 we mention the Holocaust in passing to demonstrate how sympathetic we are, and then we commence pleading with the Israelis to cease firing on the Palestinians. In a previous post I even said I hoped God would save the Palestinians from Israel.
The most glaring problem with asking God to save the Palestinians is that during the Holocaust the Jewish people also prayed for help. Instead of helping them, God allowed them to be tortured and killed. That is a tragedy in itself and there is simply no explanation for it. But if God had saved the Palestinians in October 2023, it would have been the cruelest shock of all.
The logic of the biblical narrative is another problem. Saving people from the Israelis does not fit the biblical narrative from which Israel takes its meaning. Yet that is the situation we find ourselves in. This turn of events merits a comment at least. Who would have guessed in 1948 that Israel and Palestine would find themselves in this impossible position?
Actually, many people guessed something like this would happen. It would make more sense to ask what the world has been doing to promote peace since 1948. The answer is, nothing. The world has done nothing to promote peace in Israel. Why? Peace is not the purpose of modern Israel.
Morris Jastrow on The Future of Palestine
In 1919, Morris Jastrow Jr. wrote a very helpful book about Zionism. It’s called Zionism and the Future of Palestine: The Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism. 1 You might wonder why I would recommend such an old book about Zionism. I recommend it because it explains key facts about Zionism and Judaism that no one pays any attention to. They involve lost opportunities, harsh judgements, withheld love, ostracism, isolation, fear, and social degradation.
The Jewish people are familiar with these facts, but they will remain in the background. For the most part, I will be talking about the facts in the text, which are harrowing in their own way. The book begins with the Hebrew religion and explains how it became Judaism and then Zionism. Jastrow concludes in Chapter 2, “Judaism and Zionism are thus mutually exclusive, but for all that passed down the ages linked to one another as inseparable partners.”
So, if Zionism is not Judaism, what is it?
Religious, Economic and Political Zionism
There are three varieties of Zionism: religious, economic and political zionism. According to Jastrow, the older Zionism was religious, but now it’s political. If this sounds too obvious to mention, recall that Jastrow was writing in 1919.
Zionism started out as an ameliorative measure for Jewish “self-emancipation.” But it was already becoming political in Jastrow’s time. The Zionists purposely created the impression that Political Zionism was part of Europe’s 19th century movement for the reassertion of nationalities. However, Zionism did not fit that pattern. Many Jews were settled in countries where they had the same rights as their fellow-citizens. Only a small percentage were interested in Zionism. Nevertheless, the Zionists declared victory even before the Paris Peace conference.
Vague Definitions of Zionism
Confusion increased because of the vague Definitions of Zionism. Arthur J. Balfour, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in a declaration dated Nov. 2, 1917, used the term ‘National Homeland’. According to Jastrow, this term was not political. It was merely diplomatic policy.
By 1918, Balfour stressed sentiment and amelioration, and still there was no sign of political Zionism. The same was true of the French and Italian governments, and President Wilson. They were merely in sympathy with the humanitarian phases of the Zionistic movement.
However, there were concerns among the Palestinians even before the end of the War. Christians and Muslims protested the program of the political Zionists, and they sent their objections to the Paris Peace Conference. And there were others who objected. They included Sir George Adam Smith, Herbert Adams Gibbons, the Honorable Henry Morgenthau, Ex-Ambassador of the United States to Turkey, and others with direct knowledge of the East and Eastern conditions.
The French Government’s Commission was not Favorable to Zionism
In 1918, the French government sent a commission to investigate economic conditions and attitudes. The commission’s report was unfavorable to Political Zionism. As a result, the Zionists put pressure on M. Sylvain Levi, a member of the commission, to retract his report. He refused, which brought the English Zionists down on him. However, it did have an effect on the terms the Zionists were using. They began to speak of the Jewish State as a possibility in the distant future. Zion would now be called the Common-wealth of Palestine.
Additional terms for the aims of the ‘Common-wealth’ project varied from Jewish Nation to Jewish culture to Jewish spirit. Sadly, many of the leaders knew nothing of Jewish history or literature. The result has been that every Zionist feels free to manufacture his own definition. This is especially true when it comes to defining a Jewish State.
Zionism in Orthodox Judaism
Orthodox Judaism has four pillars, which include the belief in one god, the belief that the Jews are His people, belief in the Messiah as God’s messenger and the belief in the return of the Jews to their native land. The Zionism of Orthodox Jews assumes an indissoluble bond between religion and nationality. But the national bond is theoretical until the time of restoration. And none of this is to be brought about through human agency. However, the orthodox longing for the return to Zion is one of the chief roots of the modern movement. (p, 17)
Economic Zionism
The movement was largely inspired by the economic aspect of Zionism. The aim was supposed to be amelioration of the pitiful condition of Jews in such countries as Russia and Romania. These Jews had no rights of citizenship and were subject to all manner of oppression. Oppression alternated with persecution and officially sanctioned pogroms. (Pogroms are the practice of the government when it turns its people loose on a minority population.)
The Jewish population in this area formed half of the entire number of Jews in the world, but the Russian Jews were the most miserable. Russia is where the modern Zionistic movement began. So, first it was aimed at amelioration for Russian Jews, and then because of the Russian government’s actions the goal became self-emancipation for the Jews.
Dr. Leo Pinsker’s Self-Emancipaton for the Jews
A Physician, Dr. Leo Pinsker, living in Odessa, introduced this project in 1881. He called it ‘Self-Emancipation’ for the Jews. It was his solution to what had become the ‘Jewish Question’. Pinsker had in mind an effort by the Jews to secure a new home in some soil where they might live safely and develop freely without the pressure of the constant struggle. This project was given more urgency by an anti-Semitic outbreak in Germany and Austria, which threatened even the Jews of more politically advanced countries. (p. 19)
However, most of the Russian Jews went to North and South America. Only a small number went to Palestine. Pinsker’s proposal lead to organizations throughout Russia, known as ‘Lovers of Zion’. Their purpose was to encourage colonization of Jews in the Holy Land. These organizations then spread to Germany and Austria due to the wave of anti-Semitism mentioned above. Finally, because of sympathy for the Jews in the East, additional branches were formed in Europe and the United States.
Jastrow was sympathetic to all of these developments. In his opinion, if Zionism had confined itself to the economic realm, the establishment of Jewish colonies would have been viewed as beneficial.
At the time of writing Jastrow reported that there were 40 Jewish colonies in Palestine, with a population of somewhat over 10,000. He believed these colonies improved agriculture and technical arts in Palestine.
Political Zionism
Herzl took this approach because he believed the existence of a “Jewish Question” in the enlightened nineteenth century was due to the fact that the Jews actually formed a separate nationality. He wanted to create a visible focus for this Jewish nationality. But this step caused more problems than it solved.
Jastrow believed religious and economic Zionism were harmless and also helpful to the economy of Palestine. But political Zionism was another matter. “When the Zionistic sentiment of Orthodox Judaism is divorced from its attachment to religion, the result is mischief. It involves difficulties that the Zionists recognize, but also dangers serious enough to condemn the entire movement as unfortunate and as threatening the position of Jews throughout the world.” (p. 25)
The Roots of Modern Zionism
According to Jastrow, three factors contribute to the rise and growth of modern Zionism: the persistence of the longing of orthodox and also of unorthodox Jews for the old homeland; the persistence of the retention of the nationalistic aspect to Judaism, even though inconsistent with the basis on which that religion rests; and the conditions under which Jews were formerly forced to live. At the time Jastrow wrote these lines, many Jews in Russia, Romania, and Poland still lived in those miserable conditions.
Sentiment is a powerful force, and attracts Jews with all aims, whether they want to make Jerusalem a nation for religious or political reasons, both orthodox and unorthodox. And sentiment had a stronger pull at a time when other nations were about to gain national independence.
Also influential were the feelings of Christian Zionists who were encouraging the movement for a return of the Jews to Palestine. Jewish Zionists seem to have overlooked the reason Zionism was important to the Christians. The restoration of Palestine is supposed to bring the second coming of Jesus. This will be followed by the disappearance of the Jews through their acceptance of the Messiah.
Jastrow thought Christian believers involuntarily placed themselves on the same plane as the anti-Semitic agitators of Germany and Austria. They were considered anti-Semitic because Zionism was a means of getting rid of the Jews in their lands.
Unorthodox Christians, on the other hand, were influenced by romantic sentiment, for example, novelist George Eliot. (p. 29) Jastrow had sympathy for the sincere Christian believer, but he called for caution:
We should in a similar spirit respect this doctrine of orthodox Judaism, though unable to subscribe to it, but this must not deter us from recognizing the source of this doctrine, and if we do so we will see the serious mischief that the Zionistic longing is bound to work when it is divorced from its attachment to religion, as is done by the leaders of political Zionism, particularly by the American and English leaders and by many of those who have become Zionists just because of this divorce.
(p.30)
Jastrow also objected to those who encouraged others to go to Israel, but who had no intention of going themselves. He called them ‘Zionists by proxy’.
The Religious History
The religious history will be discussed in a separate article. I want to make sure I get it right. Hopefully our Christian friends will make sure I do.
Back to the Present
We have high expectations of Israel. Are our expectations for Israel realistic? I don’t think so, because we don’t understand the pressures the Jewish people are under. And even though we acknowledge the terror of the Holocaust, we expect the Israelis to act as if there are no threats in the world.
If we were to go back to the period after the Enlightenment, when the Jews suddenly enjoyed the same political rights as their neighbors, we would see them blossom and begin take part in the cultural life of their various countries. Considering everything they had endured, the subsequent outbreaks of anti-Semitism must have been painfully disillusioning. And then came the Holocaust. There was the sheer terror of it, but also grief, humiliation, disbelief, and unendurable sadness. Most of all there would be lasting fear and mistrust.
And then what happened? After the War, they went to Palestine to become a military outpost for the United States and her allies. Now they are supposed to spend the rest of their lives accomplishing several impossible things a day. And what if they don’t succeed? Who is going to help them then?
A Call for a Time-Out
This is a call for a time-out. A time-out would obviously involve a cease-fire, but it would have a more inclusive understanding. We would have to make ourselves familiar with the last 2,000 years of Jewish history. But our aim would be the survival of both Israelis and Palestinians. To this end, we would have to acknowledge Hamas as party to this conflict.
Unfortunately for the time-out proposal, there is mistrust on both sides, and with good reason. Each side would expect the other to use the time-out to further its own preparations, meaning that both sides would cheat. However, we have a lot to make up for, and it’s best if we don’t blow ourselves up before we begin.
And we can’t forget the colonizing nations who have helped create Israel for their own purposes. This part of the problem will involve peacemaking on a much larger scale. Hence, a time-out.
