|
Note on Bibliography and Related
Matters
Serious books describing a social
phenomenon usually contain a bibliographical listing or essay, detailing
and perhaps briefly discussing the primary and secondary sources
consulted by the authors. For some years we have read a significant
number of books in English and Hebrew that are concerned with Judaism
and the state of Israel. In our book we decided to refer only minimally
to those books in English; we relied primarily upon the Israeli
Hebrew press, basic Jewish religious (and in a few cases literary)
texts and some learned Hebrew articles, published in Israeli journals
and magazines. We identified these in our text. Our first reason
for doing this is that Hebrew sources are, with few exceptions,
the most pertinent in dealing with Jewish fundamentalism in Israel.
We are nevertheless aware that the number of books that focus on
aspects of or background to our topic, published in English and
languages other than Hebrew, is large. We wish to offer an explanation
about why we did not cite, and most often ignored, much of this
voluminous literature.
We believe that the great majority of the books on Judaism and
Israel, published in English especially, falsify their subject matter.
The falsification is sometimes a result of explicit lying but is
mostly the result of omission of major facts that may create what
the authors consider to be an adverse view of their subjects. Many
of the books that fit into this category are comparable to much
of the literature produced in totalitarian systems, whether religious
or secular and whether or not embodied in a state. We do not deny
that books on Israel and Judaism published in English have value;
they may, and often do, contain correct and valuable information.
Books about the USSR under Stalin or his successors written by Stalinists,
books about Iran written by followers of Khomeini, books on Christian
fundamentalism written by its adherents often contain correct and
valuable information. Many other analagous examples exist. What
usually makes such books unreliable are not so much the lies but
rather the purposeful omissions. Regarding Judaism and Israel, the
omissions are more blatant and numerous in books published in English
outside of Israel than they are in Israel's Hebrew literature. The
omissions pertinent to our subject of Jewish fundamentalism exist
for the same apologetic reasons as do the literary omissions in
any totalitarian system. The information freely available in Hebrew
can and should be used to redress apologia by omissions in English.
The coverage in Hebrew of Jewish fundamentalism is more complete
and is not riddled with omissions, because, as our book shows, Jewish
fundamentalism poses an immediate threat to the beliefs and style
of life of a majority of Israeli Jews. Jewish fundamentalism, if
it increases in strength, could destroy Israeli democracy; this
danger does not exist in the diaspora where Jews, even when supporting
the worst aspects of Jewish fundamentalism, benefit from democracy
and pluralism. In our view the state of Israel has faults that have
been and still are caused by the nature of Zionism and by the open
and hidden influences of Jewish fundamentalism. To exchange the
present reality of the state of Israel for a Jewish fundamentalist
state of either the Haredi or messianic variety would create a far
worse situation for Jews, Palestinians and perhaps the entire Middle
East. We believe that our book, based primarily upon Hebrew sources,
correctly points out this danger for the first time in English.
To document our above comments, we shall present a short list of
important issues in Israel and in Jewish history of the diaspora
before the modern period, which are relevant for Jewish fundamentalism
but are nevertheless omitted from the literature in English about
Israel and Judaism. We shall first consider two issues, closely
connected to Jewish fundamentalism, that are not specifically mentioned
in our book. We shall thereafter present some issues that, although
discussed in our book, are not mentioned in the voluminous literature
in English. During the Labor Party primaries of the 1999 Israeli
election campaigns, accusations appeared in the Hebrew press claiming
that fraud in the vote counts occurred in Druze and Arab sectors
of the party. The use of such expressions should raise concern.
Political parties in the United States and Britain do not specify
Jewish, non-Jewish or similar sectors. Readers of the Israeli Hebrew
press know that an Arab or Druze, that is, a non-Jew who is an Israeli
citizen, even if living in Tel-Aviv or Haifa, cannot belong to the
Labor Party branch of her or his neighborhood; that person must
belong to one of the two sectors that exist for Druze and Arabs
respectively. Jews cannot belong to one of those sectors. Consequently,
an Arab living in Tel-Aviv votes in the primaries of the Israeli
Labor Party only as a member of the Arab sector and not together
with her or his neighbors. Other types of sectors also exist, based
upon social structure in the Labor Party. The kibbutzim sector is
one example. In these other sectors membership fluctuates according
to the natural movements of population, not according to racist
criteria. A kibbutz member of the Labor Party who leaves the Kibbutz
to settle in Tel-Aviv becomes a member of the party branch of that
person's new neighborhood; conversely, a Tel-Aviv member of the
Labor Party who joins a kibbutz automatically becomes a member of
the kibbutz sector. In contrast, an Arab member of the Labor Party
remains an Arab wherever that person lives, confined ethnically
or more precisely religiously. Such a proposal for the operation
of political parties in the United States or Great Britain would
be quickly labeled and condemned correctly as anti-Semitic. Such
a proposal would be roundly discussed in the press and in other
literature concerned with the United States and/or Great Britain.
In the voluminous descriptions in English of Israel, this phenomenon,
although known in Israel, is almost never mentioned.
The probable reasons for the above omission are most likely the
same as those for other similar omissions. The first and most important
probable reason is that many Jews and those who sympathize with
them wish to avoid comparisons between what rights Jews as a minority
in the diaspora demand for themselves and what rights Jews deny
to non-Jews in those areas where Jews are a majority and wield the
power. We believe that Jewish fundamentalism justifies, explicitly
and unconsciously as a believed survival tactic, both the discrimination
and its cover-up. As noted in our book, Jewish fundamentalism in
Israel influences most of society. Its influence is especially significant
in regard to the principles of Israeli state policies, but its hidden
and often clear-cut influence upon a majority of Jews in the diaspora
is strong. Two additional reasons in our view account for omissions
of vital facts in the English discussion of phenomena in Israel
that could be disturbing to many people. A hidden, and sometimes
not so hidden, assumption made in much of the English literature
about Judaism and about Israel as a Jewish state is that Jews are
morally superior to all other nations. This is the most important
belief of Jewish fundamentalists who condemn almost everything "not
Jewish" mostly because it is non-Jewish. Any discussion of the fact
that many Jews, when they are able, practice the same kind of discrimination
against non-Jews that some non-Jews practice against Jews could
be detrimental to the theory of Jewish moral superiority. Although
we believe this is part of racist theory, which we oppose, we understand
that unfortunately human beings, including Jews, often have xenophobic
tendencies influenced by historical circumstances. Thus, Jews can
and should be viewed within the same context as other human beings
and should in this regard work to eradicate Jewish xenophobia by
exposing it in its present and past forms. The second reason emanates
from writers who are apologists for and from other advocates of
the Israeli political left. The Labor Party is Israel has consistently
practiced blatant racism. Likud, the most important party of the
Israeli right, has not practiced racism so severely and generally
as has the Labor Party. As opposed to the Labor Party situation,
Arabs have been, and still are, able to be members of Likud in their
own neighborhood branches. The idea that the Israeli right wing
is in this particular case better than the Labor Party is abhorrent
to the dogmatists of and apologists for the left just as in the
1930s the idea that many practices in Great Britain were better
than those of Stalin was abhorrent to fellow travelers. The refuge
in both cases was and is a consistent omission of facts that do
not fit into the dogma.
A similar case in point is kibbutz membership in Israel. The kibbutz
is one of the most admired, especially by leftist apologists, Israeli
phenomena. It is a fact, widely known and discussed in Israel, that
only Jews can be kibbutz members. Non-Jews who wish to become kibbutz
members must not only acquire the approval of the kibbutz members;
they must, as a condition of joining, convert to Judaism. The Israeli
Chief Rabbinate has established conversion schools for non-Jews
who wish to join kibbutzim. One of the conditions for conversion
to Judaism of women in this as in other situations is that the female
convert must be observed naked in a purification bath by three rabbis.
Some of the other conditions for conversion of those non-Jews desirous
of joining kibbutzim are lighter than are conditions for other potential
converts. The Israeli Hebrew press has often focused upon the degree
of difference in conversion procedures and has also mentioned repeatedly
that to date not one Palestinian has become a kibbutz member. This
specific, clearly influenced by Jewish fundamentalism, is almost
always omitted in English language books published about and media
coverage of Israel. We need not emphasize the wide discussion that
would ensue if a British or American institution allowed Jews to
become members only if they converted to Christianity.
Scholars and news media people who purport to describe Israel authoritatively
have, as previously indicated, systematically ignored by omission
critical phenomena, discussed in our book. Some examples of this
follow. In Chapter 1 of our book we mentioned that the concept of
Jewish blood bound together the Israeli secular right wing and religious
Jews. This concept, which deems the blood of a killed or wounded
Jew to be infinitely greater in value than the blood of a killed
or wounded non-Jew, is of supreme importance in Israeli politics.
The Netanyahu government in 1998 refused, even when pushed by the
United States government, to release Palestinian prisoners who had
killed Jews, whether they were soldiers killed in a clash or civilians
murdered in a terrorist attack. The Jewish blood concept was the
only possible reason. The same Netanyahu government, as well as
some previous Israeli governments, have not objected to freeing
Palestinian prisoners who had killed other Palestinians. The Palestinians
killed were usually presumed to be agents of the Israeli secret
police. The same situation has existed in regard to the Israeli
security zone in southern Lebanon and to the South Lebanese Anny.
The main reason for creating those entities, which have prevented
a cease-fire occurring between Israel and Lebanon, was the Israeli
desire, influenced by Jewish fundamentalism, to save "Jewish blood."
A majority of Israeli Jews have paid little attention to Lebanese,
who have been killed, whether they were members of the South Lebanese
Army or simply inhabitants of this zone. Bursts of anguish and even
protests, on the other hand, have accompanied almost every Jewish
casualty. Israeli protesters demanding that Israel leave Lebanon
have mentioned only the Israeli casualties. Usually, only those
Israeli Jews who have openly opposed Jewish fundamentalism in all
its aspects, such as Israel Shahak, one of the authors of this book,
have mentioned the Lebanese casualties. The politically important
distinction between Jewish blood and non-Jewish blood is well-known
to most Israelis but is ignored by almost all those who write about
Israel and its policies.
As also noted in Chapter 1, Rabbi Yoseph, who commands the unquestioned
allegiance of ten Shas members of the Knesset, argued in a published
article that Israel is not sufficiently strong to destroy Christian
churches on its territory and should therefore return some of the
occupied territory to the Palestinians. Otherwise, Rabbi Yoseph
contended, Jews might be killed in a war that could erupt. We pointed
out that most writers who discussed Rabbi Yoseph's alleged dovish
leanings falsified by omitting his reasons for advocating concessions.
In addition to emphasizing Israeli weakness, Rabbi Yoseph expressed
willingness to command the destruction of idolatrous, Christian
churches if Israel and the Jews were sufficiently strong to do this
without serious damage to Jews. Rabbi Yoseph thus illustrated the
fierce and visible hatred of Christianity and Christians so evident
among fundamentalist Jews and, to a lesser extent, among many other
Israeli Jews of the political right. Although discrimination against
and persecution of Jews in Christian countries has helped to persuade
some secular Jews to accept this fundamentalist attitude, it is
not the sole explanation. Oriental Jewish rabbis, and to a lesser
extent their followers who came from Muslim countries wherein they
were generally not persecuted by Christians, have expressed more
hate of Christianity and its symbols than the fundamentalist European
rabbis and their followers who were persecuted by Christians. In
dealing with political factors in our book, we did not specify many
of the often petty forms of hatred of Christianity that are officially
approved. One case in point is that Israeli educational authorities
removed the international plus sign from the textbooks of elementary
arithmetic used in the first grades of Israeli schools. Allegedly,
this plus sign, which is a cross, could religiously corrupt little
Jewish children. Instead of the offending cross, the authorities
substituted a capital "T." This substitution was made some years
after Israel became a state; the influence of Jewish fundamentalism
was responsible. If this substitution had been made by the Taliban
in Afghanistan, by the Iranian regime or by China during the cultural
revolution, it would probably have been discussed at length. In
contrast, this easily discoverable fact has been omitted in English-language
articles and books concerned with Israeli Jewish society and Judaism.
This omission is but one piece of the existent evidence that most
books of this genre are unreliable.
In Chapter 2 we pointed to specific acts of discrimination against
and abuse of women perpetrated by Jewish fundamentalists. Seemingly
unimpressed by the Israeli Hebrew discussion of and the Israeli
Jewish feminist criticism of this discrimination and abuse, writers
of English-language books and articles about Israel have rarely
mentioned this phenomenon. They have not acknowledged that until
modern times most Jewish women were kept illiterate and denied education
by command of the rabbis. They and others have condemned abuses
of women in Iran and other countries but have refused to specify
the even more abusive acts against women in Israel. Jewish feminists
have instead celebrated in their writings the few important Jewish
women mentioned in the Bible and the one woman mentioned in the
Talmud, Bruria, the wife of the second-century AD sage, Rabbi Meir.
The diaspora Jewish feminists and other English-language writers
have neglected any reference to the disparaging stories about women
in talmudic literature; they have also failed to admit that from
the time of Bruria until the advent of modern influences upon Jews
in western Europe in the seventeenth century not one Jewish woman
was sufficiently important to be emphasized as a leading figure
in Jewish history. (This can be compared to the numerous women who
became leading figures in many areas, including religion, in Western
Christendom in the same time period, in spite of Christianity's
well-known discrimination against women.) The inescapable conclusion
is that English-language sources are unreliable, not only in the
study of the Jewish fundamentalist attitude towards women but also
in the more general study of the status of women in historical Judaism.
In discussing the topic of Jewish blood in Chapter 2, we quoted
both the previously mentioned Rabbi Yoseph and the former chief
rabbi of Israel, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, both of whom ordered pious
Jews not to accept blood donations from non-Jews unless their lives
were at risk. These two eminent rabbis, as well as others inside
and outside of Israel who agree with this view did not invent this
opinion. This and other similar opinions, existent from the beginning
of blood transfusions, are based upon a talmudic prohibition that
does not allow a non-Jewish nurse to breast feed a Jewish child.
The cited reason for this prohibition is that the milk from a non-Jewish
woman would have an adverse effect upon a Jewish child. In Chapter
2 we quoted the discussion of the Jewish blood topic that was published
in 1995 not only in Israel's most widely read daily Hebrew newspaper
but in other Hebrew newspapers as well. We can assume that readers
of this book who are not literate in Hebrew and who were not previously
told about such discussion in the Hebrew press would be unaware
of this prohibition of pious Jews accepting blood transfusions from
non-Jews and sometimes even from secular Jews. This prohibition
is not to be found in English-language articles or books about Judaism
or Israeli Jewish society. (Some fundamentalist Jews may discuss
this topic among themselves, but they limit that discussion to their
own groupings and do not write about it for publication in English.)
It would be absurd to suggest that in the last years of the twentieth
century scholars, writers and others from around the world would
not discuss and attack an analogous edict, issued by highest ranking
Christian Church leaders, prohibiting Christians from accepting
blood transfusions from Jews. The prohibition is not a secret; it
has been openly discussed in the Israeli Hebrew press. This is yet
another example of distortion by omission, which makes English-language
coverage of various aspects of Israeli Jewish society unreliable.
In Chapter 3 we briefly discussed how followers of Rabbis Yoseph
and Shach attempted to use magic against one another. This occurred
after the struggle between these two leading rabbis became intense.
The political significance here transcended the Yoseph-Shach disputation;
the alleged use of magic is part of the deep division between Israel
A and Israel B, which are defined previously in both our text and
glossary. Members of Israel B, following some historic Jewish customs,
believe in magic and witchcraft; they often practice it themselves
or follow directives supposedly derived from it by rabbis and cabbalists.
(Books in Hebrew detailing instructions for spells and witchcraft
recipes have been best sellers in Israel for many years.) Individuals
who are reputed to achieve success by use of magic frequently obtain
political power in Israel. Most Israeli political pundits are agreed
that one of the important reasons for Netanyahu's victory in the
1996 election was the exclusive blessing he received during the
campaign from the cabbalist Rabbi Kaduri, and the firm refusals
of many Jewish magicians and cabbalists to bless Peres. (Only the
Hassidic Belzer rabbi said that he was neutral regarding Peres.)
Rabbi Kaduri has remained to date a widely reported, highly visible
Hollywood type star in the Israeli Hebrew press. He was at the center
of media attention when he descended below the surface of the sea
in Eilat in a device, usually used to allow tourists to see underwater
sea life, and supposedly instituted spells in order to avert an
earthquake that was predicted by scientists. He claimed to have
diverted the earthquake from Jews to non-Jews. Many Israeli Jews
believed this claim, because the predicted earthquake was light
in Eilat but was much more severe in upper Egypt.
Another example of the popularity in Israel of magic was evident
in the circumstances surrounding the 1999 trial in the District
Court ofJerusalem of a major Shas Party politician, Aryeh Der'i.
Der'i was convicted and sentenced for taking bribes in spite of
tens of amulets hung on his body and blessed by the most outstanding
cabbalists, who additionally engaged in other magic ceremonies on
Der'i's behalf. At the same time of this trial a scientific congress
on the use of magic and witchcraft in Judaism was held in Jerusalem.
Tom Segev, a columnist for Haaretz and one of Israel's best known
authors, wrote that the use of magic by Jews was nothing new in
Judaism. In his March 26, 1999, Hebrew-language Haaretz article,
Segev transcribed a magical recipe found in a book, composed in
talmudic times (AD 200-500) but still popular in the Diaspora in
the eighteenth century. This recipe, which was devised to confuse
a judge and cause him to acquit unjustly a person who used magic,
called for the following: "Slaughter a lion cub with a copper knife.
Gather its blood; tear out its heart and put the blood into it.
Then, write the names of angels on the cub's face, and wipe the
names with three year-old wine. Mix the wine with the blood. Next,
take three heaps of perfume (names omitted). After purifying yourself,
stand before the planet Venus at night with the perfume and the
blood, which must be put on fire." This act would supposedly compel
the bewitched judge to acquit. Segev reported that the Israeli scientists
participating in this Congress believed magic to be "an inseparable
part of Judaism—used in past intrigues involving rabbis." To support
this view, Segev quoted a saying in the Palestinian Talmud attributing
the large number of High Priests during the Second Temple period
to the fact that High Priests often killed one another by using
witchcraft. This opinion expressed in the Palestinian Talmud is
probably incorrect; the large number of High Priests during this
period should most likely be attributed to bribery and other political
actions of secular (mostly Jewish) authorities of time connected
with making appointments. This opinion, which is not quoted in English-language
writings on Judaism, nevertheless indicates the wide use of witchcraft
by Jews' attempting to kill one another in this time period. The
typical picture, presented in English-language works, of the pious
Jews of the third period of Jewish history is on balance invalid.
The picture of the pious Jew of talmudic times, standing at night
before a planet and attempting to perform magic rites, is more accurate
and can help us understand the reality of Israeli Jewish society
better than the fictional description offered by apologists. The
use of magic in everyday life is also common in certain Jewish neighborhoods
of New York, London, Paris and other cities.
In spite of its obvious political importance and social significance,
this aspect of Judaism in modern times remains as widely unreported
in English, and thus as unknown to those who do not read Hebrew,
as the past use of magic and witchcraft. In all known societies
some individuals have indulged, and still do indulge, in magic.
The misguided attempt to hide this past and present tendency, which
is widespread in Israel, has infested the English-language histories
of the Jews. The substitution of apologetics for historical fact
renders these history texts at least unreliable and perhaps unfit
for study.
In Chapters 4 and 5 we dealt with the religious Jewish settlers
in territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and with Gush Emunim,
the movement that produced the settlers. Despite the attention given
to the issues of Israeli settlements in the territories, English-language
coverage has almost totally neglected the two major considerations,
without which proper understanding of this overall topic is impossible.
The first consideration is that the urge to settle has been theologically
motivated and is a manifestation of Jewish fundamentalism. In discussions
of the obligations that people must obey in countries ruled or influenced
by Muslim fundamentalists the religious reasons are highlighted.
In most English-language discussions of Jewish religious settlements,
however, the religious reasons are usually either totally missing
or are replaced with biblical quotations, uttered by the settlers.
In our text we showed that the real motivating factors for the religious
settlers, some of whom have moved to improbable sites, have minimal
connections to the Bible. The real reasons emanate instead from
a special idea of Jewish fundamentalism. This idea asserts that
the messiah will arrive soon and postulates that the world is already
in the messianic age.
We began Chapter 4 by asserting that messianic ideology, as a radical
part of Jewish fundamentalism, is based upon the differences and
opposition between Jews and non-Jews rather than simply between
Jews and Arabs (or Muslims). Writers of English-language books,
articles and book reviews have rarely mentioned this basic tenet,
the major exceptions being those writers who have composed the invalid,
out-of-context, virulent and poisonous anti-Semitic literature.
The published reviews of Yehoshafat Harkabi's book, Israel's
Fateful Hour, provide a good illustration of this point.
The original Hebrew edition of this book was first published in
Israel; the English edition was published thereafter in the United
States in 1988. Harkabi's book received wide attention in the United
States because of its analysis of Israeli politics in the 1980s
and its emphasis upon differences between the Labor Party and Likud
in foreign politics. In one crucial chapter, from which we quoted
and paraphrased in our text, Harkabi analyzed some major issues
of Jewish fundamentalism and stressed the importance of messianic
ideology within that context. Harkabi's book was extensively reviewed
in American publications, but only one reviewer in a small circulation
progressive publication referred to this crucial chapter. The other
reviewers in American publications avoided any mention of this chapter
and/or its substance. Reviewers in Israel emphasized this chapter
in their comments. The difference in reviewing between the United
States and Israel is telling.
In maintaining that differences and opposition exist between Jews
and non-Jews, messianic ideology continues to be the primary motivating
factor for Gush Emunim and its major supporter, the National Religious
Party. Those who have written about Israeli Jewish society and about
Judaism but have avoided mention of this have distorted understanding.
The significance here is most striking when the broad support, both
direct and indirect, for Gush Emunim is considered. About one-half
of Israel's Jewish population supports Gush Emunim. The support,
especially monetary, from Jews in the diaspora is also of great
importance. Many Orthodox and other Jews as well in New York City
and elsewhere have been and are encouraged to assist Gush Emunim
by what they read in the largest circulation American Jewish weekly
newspaper, the Jewish Press. Published in Brooklyn,
the Jewish Press has been and continues to be an editorial
advocate of Gush Emunim, often presenting op-ed articles written
by leading Gush Emunim spokesmen. New York City and New York State
politicians regularly seek backing of the Jewish Press during electoral
campaigns. Not only have Jewish Press editorial writers
advocated messianic ideology; they have also expressed admiration
of Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin. The New York
Times, which is read and probably influences many American
Jews, has published in-depth analyses of Christian and Muslim fundamentalism
but has refrained from presenting similar articles describing Jewish
fundamentalism or even advocacies printed in the Jewish Press.
Even so-called liberal American periodicals, such as the Nation and the New York Review of Books, which have published
editorial comments and articles upholding and advocating Palestinian
rights, have neglected to present analyses of Jewish fundamentalism
in their own country. Readers of these and most other periodicals
in the United States, and in other countries as well, would not
know, unless they read books and articles published in Hebrew in
Israel, that Gush Emunim's goal is to build a "sacred society" whose
nuclei are the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. It
is insufficient, if not folly, to advocate Palestinian rights without
understanding and referring to the principal cause of the denial
of those rights: Jewish fundamentalism in general and the messianic
variety in particular.
The Goldstein massacre, discussed in Chapter 6, was inadequately
covered in the English press. That Israeli Jewish society was divided
in its attitude towards the massacre was evident in the Hebrew but
not in the English press and literature. Before the massacre, Goldstein's
refusal as a doctor on religious grounds to treat non-Jewish patients,
including soldiers serving with him in the army, was, although mentioned
briefly, treated lightly in the English coverage. Goldstein clearly
derived his views from fundamentalist interpretations of sacred
Hebrew texts. The English coverage indicated that he merely followed
the teachings of Rabbi Meir Kahane, a whipping boy of the American
press. In reality, Goldstein's views were more broadly based and
centered in Jewish fundamentalism. Having immigrated to Israel as
an adult, Goldstein, prior to his arrival in Israel, had been influenced
by the "Lubovitcher Rebbe" and his influential disciple, Rabbi Ginsburgh.
His attitude, moreover, was condoned by important, Israeli politicians
and the Minister of Defense. Articles in the Hebrew press, to which
we referred in our text, discussed these points in depth; the English
coverage avoided mention of much of this.
In Chapter 7 we showed how well-documented features of Jewish fundamentalism
during the past 800 years, the third and longest period of Jewish
history, have influenced and continue to influence contemporary
Jews in the state of Israel and in the diaspora as well. Both the
popular and more scholarly and renowned, standard Jewish histories,
written in English, omit most of these features. The historic features
of Jewish fundamentalism were manifest in the Rabin assassination
and in the reactions to it. Because of omission, distortion and
lack of criticism of Jewish fundamentalism, the English-language
coverage could not and did not put the Rabin assassination in the
correct context and thus was misleading.
Important issues are involved here, all of which are omitted in
the standard Jewish histories. The first of these, well-known to
serious students of the third period of Jewish history and especially
to those who have knowledge of Jewish religious law and Orthodoxy,
is that, before being affected by outside modern influences, Jewish
society was not tolerant. On the contrary, autonomous Jewish authorities
persecuted deviants, perhaps more than did Christian and Muslim
authorities in their respective religions and certainly more than
did pagan, Buddhist and Hindu authorities. The intolerant attitudes
and activities, enshrined in the sacred texts of Jewish fundamentalism
in all its varieties, influenced the behavior and politics of Jews,
especially when they had autonomous power. To oppose the current
dangers posed by Jewish fundamentalism, it is first necessary to
expose its historical basis. As we have repeatedly stated, most
writers of books on Judaism in English have not done this. Influenced
by their heritage, many Jews have unfortunately either remained
indifferent to the oppression of Palestinians in and by the State
of Israel or have at times criticized acts of oppression as posing
possible danger to Jews. Some of these individuals, for example,
condemn the use of torture as being unconditionally inhumane when
used by states other than Israel, but they argue pragmatically that
its use by Israeli authorities is not in Israel's best interest
because of worldwide public opinion. Many of these same people in
the United States are zealous in advocating and fighting for the
separation of religion and state in their own country, but they
react differently in regard to Israel. They do not criticize, indeed
they most often support, the Israeli Ministry of Religion, which
is almost always controlled by Jewish religious parties influenced
by Jewish fundamentalism, for allotting only 2 per cent of its budget
to non-Jews when nearly 20 per cent of Israel's citizenry consists
of Muslims and Christians. Both in Israel and in the diaspora the
relatively few Jews who have attempted to defend non-Jews against
discrimination and oppression by Jews have been those who have been
influenced by modern theories of justice. The fact that the majority
of Jews do not protest against, but actually support, Jewish discrimination
against non-Jews, especially in the Jewish state, indicates, at
least to some extent, the conscious and unconscious influence of
Jewish fundamentalism. We believe that attempts to hide historical
reality in Judaism and Jewish societies were wrong when Jews were
discriminated against and persecuted in most countries. By the end
of the twentieth century, when Jews have achieved greater power
in many societies than any minority group of comparable numbers
and when a Jewish state with nuclear weapons is protected by the
United States, falsification by omission of Jewish history is purely
adverse and totally unacceptable. The nearly total absence of discussion
of the above intolerant aspects of the Jewish past and present in
English-language books caused us to dispense with a traditional
bibliographical listing or essay.
The issue of Jewish normalcy and the exceptions to it require examination.
Jews in many instances oppressed their own people as other people
did. During the same time period, for example, that rabbis ordered
the hands of Jewish offenders to be cut, Spanish judges, as well
as judges in most Christian and Muslim courts, did likewise. Rabbis
ordered Jewish offenders put into stocks in the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth just as non-Jewish authorities used the stock as a
feature of regular punishment throughout Europe and in the American
colonies. The systematic killing of informers, enjoined by eminent
rabbis as a religious duty, has no parallel in other societies.
Killing of informers has nevertheless occurred and still occurs
in other societies and, as is the case in Sicilian society, is often
well known. Scholarly historical works, historical novels and the
classical literature in general of many countries and societies
depict the sometimes-employed punishment of killing informers. In
contrary fashion, the major Jewish historians who have written about
the third period of Jewish history, for example, Salo W. Baron,
Simon Dubnow and Yitzhak Baer, have omitted such references in their
works. Other highly regarded Jewish historians who have focused
upon the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Christian Spain and Germany
have done likewise. Numerous Israeli scholars, who have written
in Hebrew and from whom we quoted and paraphrased in our text, have
in contrast displayed more honesty in their scholarship by including
examples of the systematic killing by Jews of Jewish informers.
Consequently, those readers who are not literate in Hebrew (or have
not been told in detail about books in Hebrew about Jewish history)
must have distorted perceptions of this aspect of Jewish history.
This reflection solidified our resolve not to include a traditional
bibliographical listing or essay.
The distortions, largely by omission, in the English-language histories
of the third period of Jewish history are greater and more severe
than are those of the first and second periods. The reason for this
is obvious. Because Judaism and Jewish history are so important
for the history and theology of Christianity until and shortly after
the time of Jesus, Christian historians and biblical scholars, often
critical in their writings, dealt with Jewish history and Israelite
society during the first two periods. The better Jewish historians
of those two periods have felt obligated to follow trends established
in scholarship in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; they have
engaged in critical discussion, even while complaining about what
they regarded as hostile tendencies of Christians who wrote about
Jewish history. Few Christian or Muslim scholars have been or are
interested in Jewish history between AD 70 and modern times, the
third period. Apologetic writing of Jewish history is not unique.
Most national histories include apologetic writings. The writing
in English by Jews of Jewish history has remained far more retarded
than have the writings of other national histories. A comparison
that illustrates this point is the difference between the development
of historical writing by American historians of United States history
and the lack of development in the writing of Jewish history, especially
of the third period. In recent decades standard United States history
textbooks have included numerous negative features, previously omitted,
of past discrimination and oppression of African Americans, Native
Americans, women and other disadvantaged minority groups. As previously
reiterated, most books in English of Jewish history, especially
of the third period, continue to omit negative features of discrimination
and oppression of both Jews and non-Jews by Jews. The harmful effects
of these omissions remain.
We are finally troubled by the near unanimity in standard English-language
Jewish histories regarding issues involving "Jewish interest." Whereas
the Israeli new historians of the 1980s and 1990s have sparked fruitful
debate about basic issues not only of the past century in regard
to Palestine but of the entire course of Jewish history, previous
historians who wrote in English have omitted facts and disputations
over interpretations of sensitive items. Having already detailed
much of this in our bibliographical note, we, in attempting to illustrate
our point, shall here present only one additional example. The famous
scholar Gershom Scholem, early in his career raised an important
intellectual issue about the nature of Judaism; soon thereafter
he, together with numerous other scholars, dropped it. This issue
then became virtually unknown to people who did not know Hebrew.
In his first book in English about Jewish mysticism, Major
Trends in Jewish Mysticism, based upon a previous set of
lectures delivered in New York City, first published in 1941 and
reprinted many times, Scholem questioned whether Jews who believed
in Cabbala had preserved the belief in monotheism that had been
previously so characteristic of Judaism. In his seventh lecture
towards the end of section five of the book, Scholem, after describing
the process, which according to the Lurianic Cabbala takes place
by Jewish initiative within God, wrote: "To reconcile this process
with the monotheistic doctrine, which was dear to the Kabbalists
as it was to every Jew, became the task of the theorists of Kabbalistic
theosoply. Although they applied themselves bravely to it, it cannot
be said that they were completely successful." These two convoluted
sentences implied that the most popular form of Cabbala, still believed
by many Jews in Israel and in the diaspora, is not monotheistic.
Actually, Scholem refrained from mentioning that many Jewish opponents
of Cabbala, before it became dominant around 1550 and during the
Jewish Enlightenment, asked the same question more clearly and expressed
more sharply their opposition to the predominant Lurianic form on
the ground that it denied monotheism. Since then, scholars who have
written in English about Judaism, including Scholem himself in later
books, have not, with few exceptions, questioned whether Judaism
in all its forms and all times was monotheistic and/or whether many
pious Jews were believers in monotheism. (Raphael Patai was one
exception. In Chapters 5 to 8 of his book, The Hebrew Goddess,
published in 1967, Patai raised this question. Israel Shahak, another
exception, did likewise in his more recent book,
Jewish History, Jewish Religion.) The scholars who have
written in English about Judaism have, again with few exceptions,
not considered in their books the even more important question of
whether Judaism throughout its entire history has had fixed tenets.
We are aware that the books we have not put into a bibliography
contain useful data. We nevertheless believe that these books are
guilty of purposeful omission resulting in grave distortion and
do not necessarily deserve to be listed in a bibliography. These
books anyway can be easily found in other bibliographies. We append
this note in lieu of a traditional bibliography in protest against
what too often happens in Jewish studies outside Israel.
Web Editor's
Note:
This document has been edited slightly
to conform to American stylistic, punctuation and hypertext conventions.
Other than a slight reorganization of sections and the correction
of a few typographical errors, no further changes to the text have
been made.
|
