Volume 29, Issue 2, March 2024, Page 235-237.

Çalışma Hıristiyanlığın Protestanlık mezhebinden doğan, özellikle Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde kümelendiği gözlemlenen, İsrail’i ve Yahudileri orantısızca desteklemesiyle bilinen ve aynı zamanda İslam’a ve Müslümanlara karşı düşmanca yaklaşımları haiz “Hıristiyan siyonistlerini” ele almaktadır. Hareketin mahiyeti, doğuşu, teolojisi, faaliyetleri ve kendisinde mündemiç olan antisemitizm ile anti-İslamizm olguları incelenmektedir. Bulgulara göre, Hıristiyan siyonizmi çeşitli açılardan bakıldığında bir anomali teşkil etmektedir. Bunlardan en önemlisi, Yahudilerin ve Hıristiyanların yüzyıllarca birbirlerine en üst seviyede düşmanlık etmiş olan iki topluluk oluşudur. Hıristiyan siyonistler dünya tarihini Mesih’in zuhuruyla birlikte (...) kurulacak olan bin yıllık küresel krallık öncesindeki yedi bölüm olarak ele alan, sınırları büyük ölçüde İngiliz-İrlandalı teolog John Nelson Darby tarafından çizilen ve “premillennial dispensationalism (premilenyal dispensasyonalizm)” olarak bilinen teolojinin öngördüğü kıyamet senaryosuna inanmaktadır. Bu senaryo hareketin varlık sebebini, amaçlarını, dostlarını ve düşmanlarını belirlemektedir. Dost-düşmanlar olarak Yahudilerin buradaki rolü bazı çelişkiler ve ihtilaflar barındırırken, düşmanlar olarak Müslümanların rolü açıkça olumsuz bir görünüm arz etmektedir. Bunun sonucu olarak Hıristiyan siyonistler Müslümanları şeytanlaştırma eğilimine girmektedir. Her ne kadar dindaşları tarafından ahlak, siyaset ve özellikle teoloji eksenlerinde ağır eleştirilere tabi tutulsalar da Hıristiyan siyonistler emperyalist güçlerle olan uzun ittifaklarının da bir meyvesi olarak dünya politikasında kayda değer bir güce sahiptir. Hıristiyan siyonizminin mahiyeti ve dahi antisemitizm ve anti-İslamizm ile irtibatı konusunda Türkçe yazılmış eserlerin azlığına binaen çalışma literatürdeki bu boşluğu kapatma amacı taşımaktadır. Özet: İçinde bulunduğumuz dönemde anti-İslamizm kavramı ele alınırken kendisine özellikle Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nin (ABD) teopolitik dekorunda yer bulan “Hıristiyan siyonizmi” adlı grubun etkisine işaret edilmektedir. Bu grup literatür tarafından İsrail’i Yahudilerin vatanı olarak destekleyen Hıristiyanlar olarak tanımlanmaktadır. İsrail için Birleşen Hıristiyanlar (CUFI) gibi organizasyonlar aracılığıyla İsrail’in desteklenmesi noktasında etkin faaliyetler yürütmektedirler. Orta Doğu’da barışın tesis edilmesini inandıkları kıyamet senaryosunun önünde bir engel olarak gördükleri için kategorik olarak reddetmektedirler. Özellikle 19. yüzyılda başlayıp, 11 Eylül olayları ile birlikte ciddi bir ivme yakalayan ABD’deki anti-İslami hareketlerin büyük bir kısmı Hıristiyan siyonizmi ile ilişkilendirilen şahıslar tarafından başlatılıp desteklenmektedir. ABD’de yaklaşık 20 ila 30 milyon arasında Hıristiyan’ın bu ideolojiyi benimsediği tahmin edilmektedir. ABD dışında İngiltere, İskandinavya, Avustralya, Güney Afrika ve hatta Güney Kore ve Honduras gibi coğrafyalarda da taraftar bulmuşlardır. Birçok açıdan bakıldığında Hıristiyan siyonizmi bir anomali teşkil etmektedir. Bunun özünde Yahudilerin ve Hıristiyanların birbirlerine olan düşmanlıkları yatmaktadır. Yahudiler dini kaynaklarında Hıristiyanlığın en kutsal şahsiyetlerine ağır hakaretler ederken, Hıristiyanlar Yahudileri Tanrı katilleri olarak görmektedir. Ancak Hıristiyan siyonistlerin çoğunluğu İsrail konusunda adeta kraldan daha kralcı davranmaktadır. Hıristiyan siyonizminin teolojik zeminini incelemek isteyen bir araştırmacı eskatoloji (kıyamet bilimi), Armageddon savaşı, istiğrak, püritenler, premilenyalistler, dispensasyonalistler, fundamentalistler, restorasyonistler, evanjelistler, John Nelson Darby ve Cyrus I. Scofield gibi bazı kavram ve aktörlerle karşılaşacaktır. İrlandalı-İngiliz bir teolog olan Darby birçokları tarafından Hıristiyan siyonizminin kurucusu olarak görülmektedir. Hareket için hayati önem teşkil eden ikinci isim ise Cyrus Ingerson Scofield’dir. Scofield Reference Bible ’ı yayınlayarak Hıristiyan siyonizminin milyonlar tarafından benimsenmesine yol açmıştır. Hıristiyan siyonistler “premilenyal dispensasyonel teolojinin” gerçek olduğuna ve gerçekleşeceğine inanmaktadır. Buna göre dünya tarihi yedi çağdan oluşan doğrusal bir olgudur. İnsanlığın halihazırda altıncı çağda olduğuna, yedinci çağın ise çok yakında olduğuna inanmaktadırlar. Bu teolojinin öngördüğü kıyamet senaryosu Antichrist ’ın gelişi, Sahte Peygamber ve Şeytan ile birlikte cehennem teslisini kurması, Müslümanların da onlarla müttefik olarak hareket edip İsrail’e saldırmaları (Armageddon savaşı), Hz. İsa’nın gökten tekrar inerek İsrail’i kurtarması ve barışı tesis edeceği Milenyum Krallığı’nı kurması gibi öğeleri içermektedir. Siyonist olmayan Hıristiyan teologlar Hıristiyan siyonizminin teolojisini defaatle eleştiriye tabi tutmuştur. Yahudilerin seçilmiş ırk olarak görülmesi, Yeni Ahit’in bu ideolojiye destek vermemesi, “Armageddon savaşının” büyük mezheplerde karşılığının olmayışı ve hareketin Yahudi karakteri taşıması gibi sebepler yüzünden bazı Hıristiyan teologlar Hıristiyan siyonizmini heretik ilan etmiştir. Hıristiyan siyonizminin teolojisinin eleştirildiği bir diğer husus ise onun emperyal teoloji olarak yerine getirdiği işlev ile ilgilidir. Birçok düşünür Hıristiyan siyonizmi, Yahudi-Hıristiyan Batı anlatısı ve emperyalizm arasında sağlam bağlar olduğunu iddia etmektedir. Hıristiyan siyonizmi anomalisine bir açıklama getirmek isteyen şahıslar Hıristiyan siyonizmi içerisinde yer alan antisemitizme işaret etmektedir. Buna göre Hıristiyan siyonistler, Yahudilerin ve Yahudi devletinin kurulmasının gerçekleşmesinde hayati bir rol oynadığı kıyamet senaryolarını yürürlüğe koymak adına İsrail’i her şartta desteklerken, bu senaryo Yahudilerin kendisini Mesih gibi gösteren Antichrist tarafından yönetilmesini ve Yahudilerin çoğunluğunun Mesih’in gelişinden sonra ölmesini içermektedir. Aynı zamanda neredeyse daima İsrail yanlısı açıklamalar yapan bazı Hıristiyan siyonistlerin zaman zaman doğrudan antisemitik söylemlere başvurduğu gözlemlenebilmektedir. Bu sebeple Hıristiyan siyonistler ve Yahudiler arasındaki teopolitik ittifakın bir noktada bozulacak pragmatik bir ittifak olduğu iddia edilmektedir. Anti-İslamizm noktasındaki bulgulara göre Hıristiyan siyonistlerin %70’i Araplara karşı ya kayıtsız ya da düşmanca hisler beslemektedir. 11 Eylül’den sonraki dönemde İslam’ın şeytanlaştırılması operasyonu büyük ölçüde Robertson, Graham, Lindsey, Vines ve Falwell gibi Hıristiyan siyonistler tarafından gerçekleştirilmiştir. Yine İsrail’in 1948 yılında kuruluşu, Filistinliler için doğurduğu sonuçlara rağmen Hıristiyan siyonistlerin çoğu için bir kıyamet alametinin gerçekleşmesi anlamına gelmektedir. Hıristiyan siyonistlerin inandıkları kıyamet senaryosunda Müslümanlar ancak düşman saflarında savaşan Gog ve Magog olarak anlam bulabilmektedir. Onlar Şeytan, Antichrist ve Sahte Peygamber ’den oluşan cehennem teslisinin müttefikleridir. Filistinliler, Araplar ve Müslümanlar senaryonun gerçekleşmesi önünde doğrudan engel teşkil etmektedir. Bu hususlar birlikte değerlendirildiğinde halihazırda Hıristiyan siyonistlerin İslam’a ve Müslümanlara neden bu kadar olumsuz yaklaştıkları hususu açıklık kazanmaktadır. Görüldüğü üzere karşı karşıya olunan, gerçek dünyadaki gerçek olaylar ve aktörler hakkında rasyonalizasyona ve değişime kapalı olan, son derece tehlike arz eden dini inançlardır. Hıristiyan siyonizmi üç dinin etkileşime girdiği, üç dinin de bağlılarını ilgilendiren bir fenomendir. Teolojik analiz hareketin Hıristiyanlık dininin kutsal metinlerini İsrail lehine yorumladığını, ancak siyonist olmayan Hıristiyan teologlarca desteklenmediğini göstermektedir. Emperyalist ajandalar dahilinde ABD ve İngiltere gibi devletlerce de destek bulan bu hareketin kıyamet senaryosuna göre Müslümanlar Şeytan’ın müttefikleri olarak kötülüğün tarafındadır. Hz. İsa’nın yeryüzüne dönüşüyle yenilecekler ve yok edileceklerdir. Milyarlarca dolarlık bütçeleriyle, sayıları on binlerle ifade edilen propagandist vaizleriyle, Kuran-ı Kerim yakmak ve Hz. Muhammed’e terörist demek gibi eylemleriyle, Yahudileri İsrail’i Filistinlilerden temizlemeye teşvik etmeleriyle, bu uğurda onlara ciddi bir finansal ve manevi destek sağlamalarıyla ve Batı devletlerini İsrail’in düşman olarak algıladığı Müslüman komşularıyla savaşmaya teşvik eden lobicilik faaliyetleriyle Hıristiyan siyonistler halihazırda İslam’ın yüzleştiği en ciddi meydan okumalardan birisini teşkil etmektedir. Bu hareketin zararlı sonuçlarıyla mücadele etmek için atılması gereken en önemli adım araştırmaları derinleştirerek kitleleri doğru şekilde bilgilendirmek olacaktır. (shrink)

Abstract: The paper deals with “Christian Zionists”, who have born out of Protestantism, conglomerate particularly in the United States of America, provide a non-proportional support for Israel and who at the same time antagonize Islam. The movement’s quiddity, genesis, theology, activities, as well as anti-Semitic and anti-Islamic tendencies are elaborated. According to initial findings, Christian Zionism constitutes an anomaly from a number of perspectives. Most importantly, Jews and Christians symbolize two communities that have been violently antagonizing each (...) other since centuries. Defenders of Christian Zionism believe in the eschatological scenario of “premillennial dispensationalism”, a theology mainly introduced by the Anglo-Irish priest John Nelson Darby that divides world history before the establishment of the global Millennial Empire following the Second Coming into seven dispensations. This scenario determines the raison d’être, purposes, friends and foes of the movement. While the Jewish role in it as frenemies is controversial and ambivalent, Muslims’ role as enemies is unequivocally unfavorable. This situation leads to the demonization of Muslims by Christian Zionist figures. Albeit being criticized by co-religionists in a number of areas including ethics, politics and particularly theology, Christian Zionists occupy a significant position in world politics thanks to their alliance with imperial powers. The paper aims to fill the scholarly gap caused by the scarcity of Turkish literature on Christian Zionism’s quiddity, as well as its nexus with antisemitism and anti-Islamism. -/- Öz: Çalışma Hıristiyanlığın Protestanlık mezhebinden doğan, özellikle Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde kümelendiği gözlemlenen, İsrail’i ve Yahudileri orantısızca desteklemesiyle bilinen ve aynı zamanda İslam’a ve Müslümanlara karşı düşmanca yaklaşımları haiz “Hıristiyan siyonistlerini” ele almaktadır. Hareketin mahiyeti, doğuşu, teolojisi, faaliyetleri ve kendisinde mündemiç olan antisemitizm ile anti-İslamizm olguları incelenmektedir. Bulgulara göre, Hıristiyan siyonizmi çeşitli açılardan bakıldığında bir anomali teşkil etmektedir. Bunlardan en önemlisi, Yahudilerin ve Hıristiyanların yüzyıllarca birbirlerine en üst seviyede düşmanlık etmiş olan iki topluluk oluşudur. Hıristiyan siyonistler dünya tarihini Mesih’in zuhuruyla birlikte kurulacak olan bin yıllık küresel krallık öncesindeki yedi bölüm olarak ele alan, sınırları büyük ölçüde İngiliz-İrlandalı teolog John Nelson Darby tarafından çizilen ve “premillennial dispensationalism (premilenyal dispensasyonalizm)” olarak bilinen teolojinin öngördüğü kıyamet senaryosuna inanmaktadır. Bu senaryo hareketin varlık sebebini, amaçlarını, dostlarını ve düşmanlarını belirlemektedir. Dost-düşmanlar olarak Yahudilerin buradaki rolü bazı çelişkiler ve ihtilaflar barındırırken, düşmanlar olarak Müslümanların rolü açıkça olumsuz bir görünüm arz etmektedir. Bunun sonucu olarak Hıristiyan siyonistler Müslümanları şeytanlaştırma eğilimine girmektedir. Her ne kadar dindaşları tarafından ahlak, siyaset ve özellikle teoloji eksenlerinde ağır eleştirilere tabi tutulsalar da Hıristiyan siyonistler emperyalist güçlerle olan uzun ittifaklarının da bir meyvesi olarak dünya politikasında kayda değer bir güce sahiptir. Hıristiyan siyonizminin mahiyeti ve dahi antisemitizm ve anti-İslamizm ile irtibatı konusunda Türkçe yazılmış eserlerin azlığına binaen çalışma literatürdeki bu boşluğu kapatma amacı taşımaktadır. (shrink)

This article examines the Depo-Provera Affair—where Israeli doctors administered the contraceptive Depo-Provera to newly immigrated Ethiopian Jewish women—to argue that the Israeli settler colonial project depends on these forms of gendered anti-Black violence, through the management of Black African bodies. In 2013, then Israeli Deputy Health Minister Yaakov Litzman admitted that they had administered Depo-Provera to Ethiopian immigrant women without their consent, after reproductive and civil rights activists in Israel called for an investigation after a drop in the birthrate (...) among Ethiopian women: close to 50 per cent within the previous decade. The demarcation of Blackness as a political tool necessary to advance Israeli modernity and the situating of Black bodies as antithetical to the state of Israel are not contradictory but rather illuminate Israel’s deployment of anti-Blackness through the racial and reproductive violence necessary to become part of the superior, European West. (shrink)

In this paper, I work towards a conceptualization of a new form of epistemic injustice – one that occurs within groups, as opposed to across groups – which I call ‘intra-group epistemic injustice’. Specifically, I focus on a case that occurs within the Jewish community, regarding what I and others see as the silencing of anti-Zionist Jews by Zionist Jews, via a conflation of Jewish identity with Zionism. Anti-Zionist Jews are accused by Zionist Jews of being ‘self-hating (...) Jews’ or perhaps not even Jews at all, and as such, the former’s contributions to discussions of what it means to be Jewish are preemptively disregarded by the latter. Consequently, the harm of this epistemic injustice is that it effectively issues a denial of one’s identity as a Jew, which may amount to a nearly complete denial of one’s self. (shrink)

Zionism needs a fundamental overhaul given both the collapse of the Oslo-initiated peace process and the erosion of liberal values in Israeli society. There is no better guide than Hannah Arendt for such an undertaking. On the one hand, she provided a searing diagnosis of mainstream Zionism’s foundational shortcomings, which persist to the present. One is a creed that assumes an eternal anti-Semitism. Two is a corresponding insular nationalism, which rejects affirmative engagement with the outside. On the (...) other hand, Arendt articulated an affirmative humanist Zionism based on three elements. First, is a Jewish self-determination aimed at cultural enrichment and emancipation. Second, is an outward-oriented Zionism that embraces internationalism. Third, is substantive coexistence with Palestinians based on an innovative alternative to the homogenous nation-state model. This article retrieves and updates Arendt’s humanist Zionism. I emphasize her plea to confront Zionism’s pathologies, break from an insular nationalist mindset, and foster new political channels for attaining genuine reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. (shrink)

_A lively intellectual history that explores how prominent midcentury public intellectuals approached Zionism and then the State of Israel itself and its conflicts with the Arab world_ In this lively intellectual history of the political Left, cultural critic Susie Linfield investigates how eight prominent twentieth-century intellectuals struggled with the philosophy of Zionism, and then with Israel and its conflicts with the Arab world. Constructed as a series of interrelated portraits that combine the personal and the political, the book (...) includes philosophers, historians, journalists, and activists such as Hannah Arendt, Arthur Koestler, I. F. Stone, and Noam Chomsky. In their engagement with Zionism, these influential thinkers also wrestled with the twentieth century’s most crucial political dilemmas: socialism, nationalism, democracy, colonialism, terrorism, and anti‑Semitism. In other words, in probing Zionism, they confronted the very nature of modernity and the often catastrophic histories of our time. By examining these leftist intellectuals, Linfield also seeks to understand how the contemporary Left has become focused on anti‑Zionism and how Israel itself has moved rightward. (shrink)

Judith Butler follows Edward Said's late suggestion that through a consideration of Palestinian dispossession in relation to Jewish diasporic traditions a new ethos can be forged for a one-state solution. Butler engages Jewish philosophical positions to articulate a critique of political Zionism and its practices of illegitimate state violence, nationalism, and state-sponsored racism. At the same time, she moves beyond communitarian frameworks, including Jewish ones, that fail to arrive at a radical democratic notion of political cohabitation. Butler engages thinkers (...) such as Edward Said, Emmanuel Levinas, Hannah Arendt, Primo Levi, Martin Buber, Walter Benjamin, and Mahmoud Darwish as she articulates a new political ethic. In her view, it is as important to dispute Israel's claim to represent the Jewish people as it is to show that a narrowly Jewish framework cannot suffice as a basis for an ultimate critique of Zionism. She promotes an ethical position in which the obligations of cohabitation do not derive from cultural sameness but from the unchosen character of social plurality. Recovering the arguments of Jewish thinkers who offered criticisms of Zionism or whose work could be used for such a purpose, Butler disputes the specific charge of anti-Semitic self-hatred often leveled against Jewish critiques of Israel. Her political ethic relies on a vision of cohabitation that thinks anew about binationalism and exposes the limits of a communitarian framework to overcome the colonial legacy of Zionism. Her own engagements with Edward Said and Mahmoud Darwish form an important point of departure and conclusion for her engagement with some key forms of thought derived in part from Jewish resources, but always in relation to the non-Jew. Butler considers the rights of the dispossessed, the necessity of plural cohabitation, and the dangers of arbitrary state violence, showing how they can be extended to a critique of Zionism, even when that is not their explicit aim. She revisits and affirms Edward Said's late proposals for a one-state solution within the ethos of binationalism. Butler's startling suggestion: Jewish ethics not only demand a critique of Zionism, but must transcend its exclusive Jewishness in order to realize the ethical and political ideals of living together in radical democracy. (shrink)

Zionism emerged at the end of the nineteenth century in response to a rise in anti-Semitism in Europe and to the crisis of modern Jewish identity. This novel, national revolution aimed to unite a scattered community, defined mainly by shared texts and literary tradition, into a vibrant political entity destined for the Holy Land. However, Zionism was about much more than a national political ideology and practice. By tracing its origins in the context of a European history (...) of ideas and by considering the writings of key Jewish and Hebrew writers and thinkers from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the book offers an entirely new philosophical perspective on Zionism as a unique movement based on intellectual boldness and belief in human action. In counter-distinction to the studies of history and ideology that dominate the field, this book also offers a new way of reflecting upon contemporary Israeli politics. (shrink)

This is a critical review of David Patterson's book Anti-Semitism and Its Metaphysical Origins (2015). In this review, I present the author's new explanation of the roots of anti-Semitism, which he finds in the anti-Semite's desire to become like God himself. Patterson's explanation makes an anti-Semite of all those who partake in the "Western rationalist project," especially philosophers (including Jewish philosophers such as Spinoza, Hermann Cohen, and Marx), but also Islamists and anti-Zionist Jews. I criticize (...) Patterson on two fronts: First, his "metaphysical" explanation relies on a petitio principii. Second, he should have argued his stance against that of Zeev Sternhell's thesis, according to which Western anti-Semitism is rooted, not in Western rationalism, but rather in the Western anti-rationalist (anti-Enlightenment) movement. (shrink)

I argue that while recognition is important for Middle Eastern and North African philosophers in academia and society, recognition alone should not define the anti-colonial movement. BDS provides a better model of engagement because it constructs identities in order to bring about material changes in the academy and beyond. In the first part of the essay, I catalog how MENA thought traditions have been and continue to be suppressed within the academy and philosophy in particular. I then sketch one (...) possible path to better representation in philosophy by reading Fayez Sayegh’s analyses of Zionist colonialism and Palestinian non-being. In the second half of the essay, I argue that BDS is among the premier anti-colonial movements on American campuses today because it is a materialist anti-racist movement. Insofar as that movement is often shunned and prohibited, an anti-colonial society offers a membership in exile. (shrink)

Is the argument that we can only conceive of the ‘environment’ in political terms far‐fetched? Is an objective understanding of the concept of the ‘environment’ possible? By an analysis of three phases in the relationship between Zionism and the environment, it can be argued, first, that not only the developmental but also the romantic attitudes to the environment regard the latter instrumentally and both constitute political definitions of the environment; and second, that a direct transition from a romantic‐ruralist attitude (...) to the environment to a modern, scientifically‐based environmentalism is — at least in Israel ‐ impossible, and that the anti‐thesis of the ethos of development has been necessary for the instrumental and political approach to the environment to be abandoned and the environment related to as it is. Further, the shift from the objective to the political conception of the environment raises certain general theoretical questions. (shrink)

In 2003 my book After the Terror in its German translation was condemned as anti semitic by a professor of education at Frankfurt University, Micha Brumlik, also the director of an institute for the study of the Holocaust. The next day the famous German philosopher Jurgen Habermas wrote in the same liberal newspaper, The Frankfurter Rundschau , that the book was not anti semitic. However, he wrote so condescendingly as to distance himself from something charged with anti (...) semitism -- and also as to make it incomprehensible why he himself had secured its translation by the distinguished publishing house, Suhrkamp. (shrink)

Emile Durkheim's "Antis?mitisme et crise sociale," written in 1899 during the Dreyfus Affair in France, is introduced. The introduction summarizes the principal contributions that "Antis?mitisme et crise sociale" makes to the sociology of anti-Semitism, relates those contributions to Durkheim's broader theoretical assumptions and concerns, situates his analysis of anti-Semitism in its social and historical context, contrasts it to other analyses of anti-Semitism (Marxist and Zionist) that were prominent in Durkheim's time, indicates some of the revisions and additions (...) that a fuller and more complete Durkheimian theory of anti-Semitism would entail, and highlights the significance of Durkheim's ideas for the contemporary study of ethnic and racial antagonism. While noting the limitations of Durkheim's analysis, the introduction concludes that "Antis?mitisme et crise sociale" has sadly regained its relevance in the light of a revival of anti-Semitism at the turn of the millennium. (shrink)

ExcerptAfter emigrating to the United States, Leo Strauss taught political philosophy for thirty years, first at the New School for Social Research in New York and then at the University of Chicago, before retiring at St. John's College. Richard Wolin observes that he “seems to have deeply mistrusted day-to-day politics—a very strange stance, to be sure, for someone who made his living teaching political philosophy.”1 But is it really so strange? What in his German Gymnasium education, or his participation in (...) the Zionist movement, would have prepared him for the peculiarities of day-to-day American politics? Strauss did not underestimate the…. (shrink)

Deals with the whole complex of relations between the land of Israel, the Jewish Torah and the people of Israel from the Pre-Zionist period until the establishment of the State of Israel. The book examines the dynamics of those relations through the modernization of Jewish society, and the problem of Jewish identity vis-a-vis modernity. The discussion follows historical events in both philosophy and everyday life. It explores the anti-Zionist sphere and also discusses the attitudes towards the conflict of religion (...) and nationalism in the world of religious Zionism. The dispute between advocates of a religious concept of the community and proponents of a secular nation revolved primarily around perceptions of the ideal relationship between the religious and national entities. One group sought to make religion a tool of the nation; the other sought to make the nation a tool of religion." --Publisher provided. (shrink)

This essay focuses on Judith Butler’s configuration in Parting Ways: Jewishness and the Critique of Zionism of sacred life from the mystical motifs that traverse Walter Benjamin’s writings as the pivot of an anti-identitarian ethics committed to non-violent resistance. To gain critical leverage on Butler’s post-secular stance, my analysis turns to Talal Asad’s ‘Redeeming the “Human” Through Human Rights’ chapter from Formations of the Secular, where he enunciates a disparity between a ‘pre-civil state of nature’ and the notion (...) of ‘inalienable rights’ that informs the subject’s rights under secular law. In underscoring the secular state’s inability or refusal to ascribe sacredness to ‘real living persons’ over and against ‘“the human” conceptualized abstractly, or imagined in a state of nature’ as presumed by natural law, Asad indirectly articulates what is at stake in Butler’s explication in Parting Ways of Benjamin’s ‘Critique of Violence’. In this context, Butler unpacks Benjamin’s remarks about the sixth commandment’s non-coercive disposition and the inner struggle its provisional applicability prompts. A conception of ‘sacred life’ crystallizes through Butler’s emphasis on the open-endedness of this struggle, which encourages us to abandon a solipsistic investment in our own suffering in the process of acknowledging its eternally transient rhythm. I argue that Butler supplements this motif by drawing upon Hannah Arendt’s grounding of the political in cohabitation. My contention is that while ‘sacred life’ forms the backbone of Butler’s affirmation of civil disobedience, Arendt empowers Butler’s ethics to transcend Benjamin’s Jewish-messianic melancholy by radicalizing the passivity that refracts it. (shrink)

Paul Merkley draws on the published literature of the World Council of Churches, the Middle East Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and other Christian organizations that have an interest in the question of Israel's past, present, and future, and on interviews with numerous key figures within the government of Israel, spokesmen for the Palestine Authority, and leaders of all the major pro and anti-Zionist Christian organizations to demonstrate that Christian attitudes towards Israel remain remarkably polarized. To most (...) evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, loyalty to Israel is a kind of second patriotism, nurtured by the conviction that Israel's restoration is a part of God's plan for history. However mainstream Protestantism champions "Palestinian nationalism" and, drawing on the rhetoric of the Middle East Council of Churches, does not hesitate to portray Israel as an Aoppressor." Merkley concludes that Christian attitudes towards Israel reflect fundamental theological attitudes that must be studied against the long historical background of Christian attitudes towards Judaism and Islam. (shrink)

A broadly liberal politics requires political compassion; not simply in the sense of compassion for the victims of injustice, but also for opponents confronted through political protest and (more broadly) dissent. There are times when, out of a sense of compassion, a just cause should not be pressed. There are times when we need to accommodate the dreadfulness of loss for opponents, even when the cause for which they fight is unjust. We may also have to come to terms with (...) the irreversibility of historic injustice and reconcile. Political compassion of this sort carries risks. Pushed too far, it may weaken our commitment to justice through too great a sympathy for those on the other side. It would be convenient if such compassion could be constrained by a clear set of political principles. But principles run the quite different risk of promoting an 'ossified dissent', unable to respond to change. In this book, Tony Milligan argues that principles are only a limited guide to dissent in unique, contingent circumstances. They will not tell us how to deal with the truly difficult cases such as the following: Should the Lakota celebrate Thanksgiving? When is the crossing of a picket-line justified? What kind of toleration must animal rights advocates cultivate to make progress within a broadly liberal political domain? And how should we respond to the entangling of aspiration towards social justice with anger and prejudice (such as the 'anti-Zionist' discourse)? We may be tempted to answer these questions by presupposing that alignment (the business of choosing sides) is ultimately more important than compassion, but sometimes political compassion trumps alignment. Sometimes, being on the right side is not the most important thing. (shrink)

The Swedish Jewish historian Hugo Valentin (1888–1963) founded the field of Swedish Jewish history in the 1920s. Valentin was also a prominent and public figure in Swedish Jewish affairs, as a writer, Zionist and refugee activist. This article focuses on Valentin’s analysis of antisemitism, from the 1920s to the early 1950s. It pays equal attention to the continuity and change of his writings on the topic, analysed in relation to such political contexts as the ‘Jewish question’, Zionism and (...) class='Hi'>anti-Nazi responses, and advances within scholarly research on antisemitism. It shows that Valen­tin staked out a new approach to the topic of antisemitism, in which Jewish characteristics and the so-called Jewish question, while not completely absent, were placed within parentheses. Instead, he presented antisemitism and individual antisemites as problems in their own right, which, given Nazi German expansionism and the outbreak of the Second World War, seemed to be a greater and more urgent issue than whatever questions might have pertained to Jews and their place in modern society. (shrink)

The framework of the Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict has evolved over the last half century through an instrumentalization of violence by the parties concerned. Two alternating "structures of violence" have emerged to define this instrumentality: the one Israeli, the other Palestinian. I call these structures of violence "alternating" rather than merely "reciprocating" because the one not only feeds off the other and actually practices on the other that which is merely fancied and projected as the other's intention but also because they (...) have inverse periodicities: The "Great Revolt" of 1936-1939 introduced the principle of "armed struggle" into the practice and lore of a fractured and often factional antiBritish and anti-Zionist insurgency. It was effectively countered by British might coupled with an essentially defensive Jewish posture of consensus and "restraint". By contrast the current Palestinian "Uprising" has the Arab side preaching restraint if not always nonviolence, through a pluralistic consensus on the immediate national ends such practice aims to achieve. Against this is an avowed Israeli policy of "the iron fist" that for the first time since independence has broken the general Zionist consensus with regard not only to the utility and morality of violent means but also to national goals. (shrink)

Jewish Agrarian Movements (JAM hereafter) in North America express the many different shapes and iterations of Jewish farming on the continent, grounded in historical perspectives that influence current practices and activities. From within this diversity, common threads emerge with much to contribute to agrarian social movements and scholarship. Jewish values of returning (_t_’_shuvah_), releasing (_shmitah_), and repairing (_tikkun_), along with theories of _doikayt_ (an anti-zionist movement around “hereness”) and radical diasporism, animate JAM’s critical engagement with agri-food systems. As researchers (...) who have both studied and participated in Jewish agrarianism in a variety of U.S. and Canadian contexts, we solidify a series of themes and tensions that emerge from JAM: diaspora and indigeneity, modernity and tradition, Jewish agroecological knowledge production, and lived religion. We argue that, while JAM has not yet been examined thoroughly within critical food scholarship, it has the potential to contribute to broader debates and frameworks within sub-fields such as radical food geographies, critical agrarianism, and decoloniality. Without consideration of JAM as a part the study of food and agriculture, there are risks of marginalization of farmers, activists and researchers of Jewish identity. (shrink)

This article explores the role of the Britons Society, a small racial nationalist sect founded in 1919, in the propagation of conspiracist antisemitism in the United Kingdom in the aftermath of the First World War. It focuses on its ideological output, aimed at cultivating an antisemitic ‘Jewwise’ mindset that viewed the fight against ‘the Jew’ as an eternal eschatological struggle. During its comparatively long life, the Britons published a voluminous quantity of antisemitic literature, including over eighty editions of _The Protocols (...) of the Elders of Zion_, two during the Second World War, before it finally closed its doors in 1983. The article explores some of the Britons’ trans-national networking and concludes with several thematic case studies (anti-Bolshevism, imperial decline, antisemitic anti-Zionism) to highlight how conspiracist antisemitism formed an analytical lens through which readers could be made to understand the supposed role of the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ in world affairs. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Strangers in the Land: Blacks, Jews, Post-Holocaust AmericaKeith P. Feldman (bio)Eric J. Sundquist. Strangers in the Land: Blacks, Jews, Post-Holocaust America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2005. 662 pp.Strangers in the Land: Blacks, Jews, Post-Holocaust America provides a wide-ranging, rich, and nuanced cultural history of what Eric J. Sundquist terms the "black-Jewish question" (2). In doing so, the book serves as both culmination and corrective to an already-expansive scholarly (...) literature on blacks and Jews generated since the late 1960s. Much of this scholarship has operated within a U.S.-centered paradigm to chart interethnic relations, laboring as it does to unpack, complicate, theorize, and otherwise come to understand the changing texture of black-Jewish relations and, in Sundquist's wods, its "intermixture of empathy, anxiety, and Hostility' (3)." Strangers in the Land stretches this paradigm to its limit, even as the diasporic imaginaries treated therein persistently escape a U.S. national imaginary and signal other possibilities for conceptualizing this tense and tender history.In its five hundred–plus pages of text, one hundred–plus pages of endnotes, and countless detailed footnotes (that are themselves illustrative and evocative), Sundquist has assembled a voluminous archive of textual material to show how works of the imagination by blacks and Jews have been "produced in a dynamic, multilayered historical matrix" that reveals the paradoxes of American liberalism (9). From the well-known and well-trodden (novels by Bellow, Roth, Malamud, and Morrison all play key roles) to the newly discovered and underappreciated (John A. Williams's Sons of Darkness, Sons of Light; Paule Marshall's The Chosen Place, the Timeless People; Gloria Naylor's Bailey's Café; William Melvin Kelley's A Different Drummer; Jon Michael Spencer's Tribes of Benjamin; Lore Segal's Her First American), Sundquist's careful historicism reveals how works of the imagination can serve as both microscopic and telescopic lenses through which to examine the vicissitudes of what he calls black and Jewish "interdependent self-conceptions" in the United States (5).Along with addressing a thick textual archive with subtlety and patience, Sundquist's major analytical innovation is that, unlike many of his predecessors, which frequently [End Page 63] positioned their analyses within the scarred domestic terrain of post–civil rights polarization, Sundquist's voracious curiosity dwells in the archive's heterogeneous details, allowing him to linger in examples that routinely exceed the simple polarization of blacks and Jews. The complex racial geography of New York boroughs and greater Chicagoland, for instance, is overlaid by Auschwitz and Egypt and Jerusalem, Ghana and Kenya and the Caribbean. In these settings, Sundquist spends time with figures only glimpsed in passing in other works: Arab Jews, Afro-Zionists, and anti-Zionists; Jews and Black Jews; Black Panthers, Israeli Black Panthers, Holocaust survivors, Holocaust deniers, Black Power advocates, and their Jewish Power doppelgangers. In a lengthy meditation on Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird, Sundquist charts the novel's refractions of the problem of American racial equality in the wake of the Holocaust. Similarly, the careful readings of novels by Naylor, Williams, Spencer, and Kelley exemplify the rich results of Sundquist's method.This deeply historicist and intertextual project echoes Sundquist's 1993 epic work To Wake the Nations: Race in the Making of American Literature, which strenuously and quite effectively demonstrated how African American literature is constitutive of American literature, and not merely a minor subset of it. If this earlier work revealed the continued paradox of racial slavery in American conceptions of democracy, Strangers in the Land serves as something of a sequel. The book places another massive racial project, the systematic genocide of Europe's Jews, at the heart of twentieth-century American life. "The Holocaust," writes Sundquist, "became the benchmark against which at least one other case, African American slavery and its aftermath, has been judged" (6). By placing Jewish genocide at the center of his analysis, Sundquist importantly reminds us of the conclusion reached almost simultaneously by both Hannah Arendt and Aimé Césaire, that the Nazi racial project had its ideological origins in nineteenth-century European imperialism, and that this legacy bears indelibly on the present... (shrink)

For English-speaking readers, this book serves as an introduction to an important French intellectual whose work, especially on the issues of antisemitism and anti-Zionism, runs counter to the hostility shown toward Jews by some representatives of contemporary critical theory. It presents for the first time in English five essays by Éric Marty, previously published in France, with a new preface by the author addressed to his American readers. The focus of these essays is the debate in France and (...) elsewhere in Europe concerning the "Jew." The first essay on Jean Genet, one of postwar France’s most important literary figures, investigates the nature of Genet’s virulent antisemitism and hatred of Israel and its significance for an understanding of contemporary phenomena. The curious reappearance of St. Paul in theological and political discourse is discussed in another essay, which describes and analyses the interest that secular writers of the far left have shown in Paul’s "universalism" placed over and against Jewish or Israeli particularism. The remaining essays are more polemical in nature and confront the anti-Israeli attacks by Alain Badiou and Gilles Deleuze. (shrink)

This article discusses George Orwell’s attitude to Zionism and the Palestine question, a controversial and emotional subject in left-wing circles in his time and since. There have been a number of studies on Orwell’s attitude to Jews and anti-Semitism and some of these have touched upon Orwell’s approach to Zionism. However, his stance on the Palestine question specifically deserves further exposition. This is so, not least because on this subject too Orwell’s views—largely anti-Zionist—differed from the prevailing, (...) passionate beliefs of most left-wing intellectuals of his time, including some of his closest friends and political allies. Furthermore, Orwell’s views were expressed at a time when the Palestine conflict peaked during the last decade of the British Mandate with results which resound to this day. (shrink)

The attachment for download here merely references my 5,500-word final and extended article, criticising those who seek to justify Israeli attacks on Gaza. The article is published online by Daily Philosophy, 5th January 2024, link shown below. -/- After a background of facts (probably well-known by readers concerned about the matters), the article examines typical arguments much used in the media as attempts to justify Israel’s determined destruction of Gaza, involving well over twenty thousand Palestinians killed, hundreds of thousands suffering (...) appalling injuries and two million having their lives and livihoods shattered. -/- I expose inconsistencies, poor reasoning and immoralities of those who support Israeli actions. There is a final touch of Kant and Nietzsche - and use of the saying attributed to Jesus: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? (shrink)

This essay revisits the significance of Kaufmann's Toledot ha-emunah ha-yisre'elit in Jewish intellectual history, as its reception has hitherto been somewhat reductive. His work is generally viewed as an anti-Christian polemic with a Zionist agenda that sought to glorify the formative period of his people. A closer look at his intellectual background, as well as his theoretical framework, leads us to a different understanding of his work in general and of its alleged nationalistic features in particular. The essay shows, (...) inter alia, that Kaufmann was already making a Diltheyan hermeneutic turn decades before others in his field. (shrink)

There are seminal works in historiography which, while significantly furthering our comprehension of a certain age or topic, have also the merit of opening new avenues for research. The books and studies of Professor Leon Volovici dedicated to modern anti-Semitism and Jewish cultural life in Romania do represent such fundamental works, bringing key contributions to the knowledge and understanding of intellectual anti-Semitism and the debates circumscribed to the Jewish-Romanian circles. The works dedicated to intellectual anti-Semitism focused on (...) the second decade of the inter-war period offer a complex and nuanced image of the relationship between the anti-Semitism ideas and stereotypes and the evolution of the nationalistic ideology in Romania. In what concerns the topic of intellectual life in Romania, Leon Volovici observes and analyses the multitude of issues brought to the fore by the Jewish cultural phenomenon from Romania, constantly questioning both its causes and long-lasting consequences. Insightful observer of the status of Jewish intelligentsia, the historian highlights in his work the acculturation process and the socio-cultural integration of an important part of Romanian Jewish community. At the same time, he proposes an analysis of cultural dilemmas provoked by the aspirations of those Jewish intellectuals keen to become Romanian writers, fully integrated into the Romanian culture. As a conclusion, it can be noted that the dilemmas of the Jewish intellectual did affect Leon Volovici himself. The historian admitting in fact that his latest book De la Iasi la Ierusalim si inapoi (From Iasi to Jerusalem and backward) is an attempt of self-understanding, selfidentification, a return to the Jewish circle from which he originates and a rediscovering of his cultural roots. (shrink)

Hermann Cohen (b. 1842, d. 1919), more than any other single figure, is responsible for founding the orthodox neo-Kantianism that dominated academic philosophy in Germany from the 1870s until the end of the First World War. Earlier German philosophers finding inspiration in Kant tended either towards speculative, metaphysical idealism, or sought to address philosophical questions with the resources of the empirical sciences, especially psychology. In contrast, Cohen’s seminal interpretation of Kant offered a vision of philosophy that decisively maintained its independence (...) from empirical psychology, without at the same time simply lapsing back into uncritical metaphysics. Cohen brought these attitudes to bear on a wide range of topics, writing systematically about epistemology, philosophy of science, ethics, law, political theory, and aesthetics. His anti-psychologism became a defining commitment not only of the Marburg School of neo-Kantianism, founded by Cohen himself, but of orthodox neo-Kantianism more generally. Indeed, that commitment ultimately defined the philosophical context from which, in the early twentieth century, both phenomenology and logical positivism emerged. No less significant than his influence on academic philosophy, Cohen was his generation’s preeminent German-Jewish public intellectual and religious philosopher. His philosophical ethics and political theory provided the foundation for a non-Marxist, Kantian democratic socialism that informed his more popular and topical writings. He argued publicly for universal suffrage and for the rights of workers to organize democratically-constituted collectives. He also saw deep points of connection between ethics and religion, and developed a view of Judaism as a fundamentally ethical system of belief and practice. He argued that monotheism was the historical source of the idea of universal ethical laws, and thus that Judaism offered the world its first model of a universalist morality. This view of Judaism’s ethical significance ultimately informed Cohen’s public defense of the Jews’ place in Germany not only against anti-Semitic attacks, but also against the arguments of early twentieth-century Zionists. However, Cohen’s influence on Jewish thought extends far beyond debates within Imperial Germany: his late religious writings inspired a broad renewal in twentieth-century Jewish ethics and philosophy of religion. (shrink)

T. G. Masaryk’s thought is famous for his concept of the Czech nation as well as his ideals of humanity. As a philosopher, sociologist, and politician, he was confronted with Czech anti-Semitism, and after Czechoslovakia was founded, with issues of the Jewish national minority. He tried to solve all the questions with respect to his ethical conviction and the ideals of democracy and equality. The most difficult personal situation for Masaryk emerged with the ‘Hilsner affair’, when his brave stance (...) against anti-Semitism caused animosity and even hatred from the public. As a consequence of that Masaryk had to abandon his public activities including lecturing at university for some time. The philosopher Jan Patočka analysed Masaryk’s involvement in this case and the following events in his study Masaryk’s struggle against anti-Semitism. Patočka pointed out that there is an interconnection between Masaryk’s involvement in this affair and his engagement in the question of Czech nationality, as Masaryk intended to improve the ethical level of the nation by disposing of bias and namely the ritual murder myth. The second part of the present contribution is focused on Masaryk’s views on Zionism and the assimilation movement and his ambiguity in relation to the issue. It seems that Masaryk’s concept of the Czech nation, formed for the struggle against the Habsburg monarchy, became inadequate in the new republic, as it was not inclusive of the many minorities, the Jewish one included. On the other hand, Masaryk’s ideals of humanity provide a certain solution on the level of ethics. (shrink)

Israel has always mattered to American Christians. They are among the strongest supporters of the State of Israel in the United States. The paper argues that the support that was extended by American Christians in general and the Christian Right in particular, to Israel and the Jewish people is the continuation of a long tradition in conservative American Christians rooted mainly in their theological doctrine. However, the study shows that the Christian Right is ambivalent in its view on Jews. On (...) the one hand, Jews are considered to be God’s chosen people and to have a special Biblical status and role. On the other hand, the Christian Right is allegedly anti-Semitic, as it views Jews as a condemned nation for their rejection of Christ as the Messiah, the reason for which they are unsaved and need to be converted to Christianity. Interestingly, both views, love and hatred of Jews, are based on the Biblical teachings and grounded in conservative Protestant theology; their paradoxical views on Jews are not a new phenomenon among conservative American Christians. Nevertheless, the study found that the support of the American Christians of the establishment of the State of Israel goes beyond theological doctrines or values. In fact, the humanitarian considerations of the liberal Christian and secular organizations in particular, were significant in contributing to the establishment of the Jewish state. (shrink)

Following the eclectic itineraries of ‘Near East’ expert, R. M. Graves, this article tells a story of an ongoing Nakba (catastrophe) of small and large legal decisions. Without reducing the human catastrophe of the event of the Nakba (the 1948 Palestinian forced exodus), it engages with it as a legal event that crosses (in this story at least) from Cairo to Jerusalem, from the League of Nations’ era (1920–1946) to the United Nations’ era (1945–), from the governance of labour and (...) gender, to labour partition, and finally to the governance of municipalities through law and expertise. Graves’ relationship to both Cairo and Jerusalem was materialized through different forms of affective legal governance. Graves, who in his own dichotomous words was ‘neither a Zionist nor an anti-Semite’, managed Jerusalem across national lines in the wake of the UN Partition Plan (1947), and as the old empire was withdrawing right before Jerusalem itself became a site of the catastrophe—right before the Nakba. (shrink)

This paper re-contextualizes Karl Popper's thought within the anti-nationalist cosmopolitan tradition of the Central European intelligentsia. It argues that, although Popper was brought up in an assimilated Jewish Viennese household, from the perspective of the Jewish Enlightenment or Haskalah tradition, he can be seen to be a modern day heterodox Maskil (scholar). Popper's ever present fear of anti-Semitism and his refusal to see Judaism as compatible with cosmopolitanism raise important questions as to the realisable limits of the cosmopolitan (...) ideal. His inability to integrate an understanding of Jewishness in his cosmopolitan political ideal resulted in his strong opposition to Zionism and the state of Israel. By comparing Popper's positions with those of Hermann Cohen, another neo-Kantian philosopher, I argue that although their solutions fall short in certain respects, their arguments have continuing purchase in recent debates on cosmopolitanism and the problem of the integration of minority groups. In addition, the arguments of the Jewish Enlightenment thinkers offer important insights for the current debates on minority integration and xenophobia. (shrink)

Established in Jerusalem by the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden, the first Teacher Training Seminar is a fascinating case study of the rapid change within the Jewish communities in late Ottoman Palestine. This essay focuses on the 1907 conflict between the Seminar’s management and its Eastern-European students concerning training and teaching in the modern Hebrew, a development which would later nourish the so-called “War of Languages” in 1913. These conflicts reflected the gap between immigrants who had fled anti-Semitic riots in (...) Eastern Europe and witnessed Socialist revolutions, and the experiences of Jerusalem-born students familiar with the activity of philanthropic Jewish organizations within the local children’s education system. The chasm between the nationalist educational goals of the Hebrew yishuv and the Hilfsverein’s aims of modernization and professionalization led to mutual radicalization and the establishment of a separate Zionist education system by Zionist Organisations. The staunch position in favor of teaching in Hebrew expressed the Hebrew and secular national consciousness of the immigrant student, and was evidence of their professional pedagogical goals. (shrink)

In Good Jew, Bad Jew Steven Friedman argues that the meaning of anti-Semitism favoured by the Israeli government and its allies prioritises loyalty to the Israeli state over identification with the Jewish people. On this view, ‘good Jews’ are those who support the Israeli state, and ‘bad Jews’ are those who criticise Zionism. This framing reflects a discursive transition over decades linked to the desire to make Israel part of Europe politically and culturally. Not only has the Zionist (...) version of anti-Semitism inverted traditional notions of Jewishness but it has transformed ‘Jewishness’ from the ‘other’ to whiteness, to an ally of white supremacists. This racial embrace goes hand in glove with the brutal practice of colonial violence evident in Gaza. Friedman makes his case drawing on the work African scholars such as Biko, Fanon and Mamdani, Southern scholars such as Ashis Nandy, as well as established scholars of the North. (shrink)

Conventional wisdom holds that Judaism is indifferent or even suspiciously hostile to the visual arts due to the Second Commandment's prohibition on creating "graven images," the dictates of monotheism, and historical happenstance. This intellectual history of medieval and modern Jewish attitudes toward art and representation overturns the modern assumption of Jewish iconophobia that denies to Jewish culture a visual dimension. Kalman Bland synthesizes evidence from medieval Jewish philosophy, mysticism, poetry, biblical commentaries, travelogues, and law, concluding that premodern Jewish intellectuals held (...) a positive, liberal understanding of the Second Commandment and did, in fact, articulate a certain Jewish aesthetic. He draws on this insight to consider modern ideas of Jewish art, revealing how they are inextricably linked to diverse notions about modern Jewish identity that are themselves entwined with arguments over Zionism, integration, and anti-Semitism. Through its use of the past to illuminate the present and its analysis of how the present informs our readings of the past, this book establishes a new assessment of Jewish aesthetic theory rooted in historical analysis. Authoritative and original in its identification of authentic Jewish traditions of painting, sculpture, and architecture, this volume will ripple the waters of several disciplines, including Jewish studies, art history, medieval and modern history, and philosophy. (shrink)

This is a reply to objections by the distinguished German philosopher Georg Meggle to Honderich's moral defence of Palestinian terrorism. It has to do with (1) the Principle of Humanity, (2) Zionism, Neo Zionism, a Palestinian moral right to terrorism within historic Palestine, (3) Just War theory and the Principle of Humanity, (4) terrorism in general defined as causing fear, (5) terrorism in general defined as the killing of innocents, (6) objections to the Palestinian moral right, (7) the (...) case of Palestine and the Principle of Humanity, (8) anti semitism, Meggle, Jurgen Habermas, and the publisher Abraham Melzer. There is also another reply to objections , in this case by Tamara Meisels, of Tel Aviv University. (shrink)

This essay provides a general introduction to the special number on Jacob L. Talmon (1916–1980). The essay sketches the outlines of Talmon's intellectual biography, beginning with his study of the origins of totalitarian democracy, moving through his analysis of nationalism and political messianism, and ending with his study of the ideological clash of the 20th century. The essay raises the question of whether Talmon should be seen as a thinker wishing to defend existing traditions (i.e. a “priest”), or as a (...) radical anti-authoritarian skeptic (i.e. a “jester”). Moreover, being both an anti-nationalist liberal, and a zionist at the same time, Talmon, the essay shows, was aware of the fact his own stance was problematic and at times even paradoxical. The last section of the essay presents the seven essays, which are included in the special issue. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Max Nordau, Madison Grant, and Racialized Theories of IdeologyJohannes Hendrikus BurgersRecently, Jonathan Spiro has undertaken the Herculean task of recovering the ghost of the conservationist and anti-immigrant racist Madison Grant from a very limited archival record. Spiro’s biography is an invaluable resource that covers, in as much detail as possible, Grant’s life and thought. Although largely forgotten now, in the first half of the twentieth century Grant was (...) a leading figure in the eugenics movement that sterilized thousands of people deemed unfit to reproduce. He was also a prominent advocate of immigration restriction, and he helped southern racists ban miscegenation.1 Like other scholars before him, Spiro argues that Grant arrived at many of his views through the work of such racial scientists as Arthur de Gobineau, Francis Galton, and Houston Stewart Chamberlain.2 While he and other scholars are certainly correct in drawing such a lineage, one unlikely and hitherto unexplored parallel to Grant’s thought specifically, and American eugenics in general, was that of Hungarian cultural critic and later Zionist leader, Max Nordau. By elucidating their intellectual kinship, this paper seeks to reveal the extent to which early twentieth-century transatlantic racial discourse involved widely different actors who were at times unknowingly espousing quite similar racial views for entirely different ends. [End Page 119]The reasons why Nordau’s name has not appeared in relation to Grant are several. First, there is a lack of biographical material on Madison Grant: much of his personal correspondence was purloined or destroyed.3 Consequently, evidence that Grant had been influenced by or even read Nordau is largely circumstantial and inferential, and cannot be verified through archival documentation. Secondly, despite a recent Nordau renaissance,4 and notwithstanding certain key publications, he still remains a somewhat marginal figure in the narrative of late nineteenth century history, especially in the American context.5 Thirdly, and more importantly, after the death of Theodore Herzl, Nordau became the most prominent leader of the Zionist movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. Certainly, someone as committed to Jewish advancement and Jewish emigration to America as Nordau, was hardly likely to share similar racial views with a white supremacist, anti-immigration propagandist, and vicious anti-Semite like Grant. In fact, the only indirect textual connection between the two thinkers is the verbatim use of one of Nordau’s articles by Grant’s racist disciple Lothrop Stoddard; a connection that has only been explored very briefly in a footnote by Nordau biographer Meir Ben-Horin.6 Otherwise, there has been no attempt to see these two thinkers in the same context. Hence, contrary to current scholarly opinion about both writers, this paper will show that they both operated within the same racial framework. While making no claim here of a direct causal relationship between Nordau and Grant, I do contend that during this period there is enough intellectual crosspollination of racial theories to create a significant, not merely coincidental, overlap of ideas. Simplifying early twentieth-century racial thinking into two distinct camps of non-racists and racists is conceptually flawed, even if, as in this case, the ostensible disparities could not be greater.The idea Nordau helped introduce to America, and the idea Grant used later, was that there was a hereditary link between race and ideology. Both believed a person’s racial makeup directly influenced their political ideology. Grant and other anti-immigration nativists used this logic to justify the [End Page 120] exclusion of non-Anglo-Saxon foreigners. Unhealthy, degenerate, foreign bodies presented a danger to the body politic, not just because they were not as productive as the white “Nordics” and therefore caused a drain on the system, but, more significantly, because their inferior type made them susceptible to radical anti-American ideologies like socialism and anarchism. Accordingly, their degeneracy was both an economic strain and a political danger to post-World War I America. The tragic irony is that Nordau’s contribution to the late nineteenth-century racial science was intended to combat increasingly virulent European anti-Semitism. Instead, it ended up in the hands of anti-Semitic propagandists. In fact, at the time that Nordau was urging Jews... (shrink)

The relationship of Marxism to the "Jewish Question" is far more complex than many have assumed. Despite the Jewish backgrounds of several Marxists, many showed a sense of indifference toward a sense of "Jewishness." Yet an increasingly virulent anti-Semitism - affecting sections of the working class and culminating in the Holocaust and in the growing strength of Zionism - became a problem that numerous Marxist thinkers were compelled to consider. In addition to examining the works of Marx, Karl (...) Kautsky, Leon Trotsky, Ber Borokhov, Abram Leon, and figures associated with the Frankfurt School, Traverso also investigates the actual policies in the socialist and communist movements and sensitively explores the unique history of the Jewish workers' movement in various countries. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Happiness in Premodern Judaism: Virtue, Knowledge, and Well-BeingDaniel H. FrankHava Tirosh-Samuelson. Happiness in Premodern Judaism: Virtue, Knowledge, and Well-Being. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 2003. Pp. xi + 596. Cloth, $50.00.Franz Rosenzweig tried hard to convince the neoKantian Hermann Cohen of the merits of Zionism and the normalization it would bring to Jews and Jewish life. His attempt met with this response from Cohen: "Oho! So the (...) gang now wants to be happy, does it?" For those ignorant of the history of Jewish philosophy, one might imagine that Jewish philosophers, no less than their non-philosophical kinsmen, were so weighed down by the burdens of history and persecution that happiness could play no role in their theorizing. But happiness plays a key role in the history of Jewish moral and political philosophy, especially in the premodern period. Even Spinoza, the last of the medievals and the first of the moderns, the great critic of the rabbinic tradition and of Maimonides in particular, is concerned in his Ethics with identifying those activities that together constitute human well-being and the good life. Only lately, since the Enlightenment and Kant, has non-eudaimonism been a live option for Jewish thinkers. Only with the rise of (modern) Orthodoxy, and its predilection for construing goodness as rectitude and rule-following, has eudaimonism fallen out of favor. But with Tirosh-Samuelson's weighty volume on happiness in premodern Judaism, there can be no excuse in the future to imagine that all Jews are, or must be, closet Kantians, strict deontologists. To think otherwise seems to come close to taking on the classical (anti-Semitic) dichotomy of legalistic Judaism vs. spiritual Christianity. In it own way, Happiness in Premodern Judaism is a critique of such a one-sided, monochromatic view of Judaism, whether from the Christian or even from the Jewish side.Tirosh-Samuelson writes explicitly as an intellectual historian, rather than as a philosopher. She understands herself and her project as one that presents just the facts, without evaluating them. While one may cavil at a lost opportunity, in the present case this would be churlish, given the enormous erudition on display. After an introductory chapter outlining the foundational moral theories of Plato, Aristotle, and the Hellenistic philosophers, the text presents the (Greek-inspired) areteic wisdom literature of the Second Temple period, the teleological theocentrism of the rabbis, the Greco-Arabic Islamicate culture that nurtured Jewish philosophers from Saadia in the tenth century to Maimonides in the twelfth, the rabbinic and kabbalistic critiques of the philosophical ideal of happiness commencing [End Page 338] with the translation (into Hebrew) of Maimonides' Guide of the Perplexed at the beginning of the thirteenth century, and finally, very important and the focus of much recent scholarly work, the transformation of Jewish eudaimonism through direct contact with Christian Scholasticism and later with the humanist Renaissance. All in all, a millennium and a half of Jewish intellectual history is presented in a sober and scholarly way.Not surprisingly Maimonides plays a pivotal role in the story that Tirosh-Samuelson relates. A Janus-like figure, he represents the culmination and height of accommodation with Greek and Greco-Arabic philosophical culture. However, with the gradual worsening of the socio-economic condition of European Jewry in the thirteenth century, his accommodationism seemed traitorous, and as a result generations of thinkers, mystics and philosophers alike, strove to critically distance themselves from Maimonidean Aristotelianism. Tirosh-Samuelson is admirably clear in pointing out that such anti-Maimonidean tendencies are ill-characterized as anti-philosophical. Hasdai Crescas in the late-fourteenth and early-fifteenth centuries launched a massive critique of Maimonides' physics, metaphysics, and moral philosophy, but did so in as rigorous a manner as any philosopher would. The picture that enfolds over the course of the text is one of vigorous dialectic between partisans of 'alien' (Greek) wisdom and those who viewed such wisdom with considerable suspicion. Such a dialectic parallels, not surprisingly, developments in Christian philosophy.The trajectory of the story of premodern Jewish musings on happiness is from the centrality of reason and intellect, and the contemplative activity that is reason's preeminent actuality, to the primacy... (shrink)

Drawing on personal experience, the author discusses the vicissitudes of Jewish identity formation in the last two decades of Communist Poland and the first two decades which followed. He addresses the role of religion in the Jewish revival which occurred in that period, and sets it against other models of Jewish identity – Zionist, Yiddishist and assimilationist - on one hand, and the twin pressures of anti- and philosemitism in Polish society at large. This discussion is placed within the (...) broader framework of the Polish political transformation. He finally suggests that the survival and revival of the Jewish community in Poland offers a more general lesson for the continuation of Jewish peoplehood. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Theodor Herzl once contemptuously remarked that he regards Freiland as a joke. This statement surprises if one compares his novel Altneuland to Theodor Hertzka's Freiland. To say the least, both utopias share many themes and narratives structures. While Altneuland became the world-renowned manifesto of Zionism, Freiland cherished popularity only at the time of its publication. Both novels are products of Vienna's fin-de-siècle modernism. Herzl's utopia is set in Palestine, Hertzka places Freiland in the empty space of East Africa. (...) His vision of a new civilization in Africa coincided with European colonialism, nationalism and the surge of anti-Semitism in Vienna. In the following, the essay investigates if Hertzka merely criticizes the culture of fin-de-siècle Vienna, or, if he produces a unique alternative? (shrink)

ArgumentThis article focuses on the specific ways in which Zionist scientists studying malaria in Mandatory Palestine presented their work to international scientific circles, moving between the transnational aspects and the local aspects of their work on malaria while suffusing that work with nationalist meanings. This slippery yet seemingly unproblematic movement between the general and the specific, between the colonial world and Palestine, was a necessary mechanism of scientific exchange. In the Zionist case the work on malaria for these scientists was (...) both a marker of their belief in progress and also a sign of their devotion to a specific political and social project. The knowledge imparted by Zionist malariologists and the international reception it received lent scientific legitimacy to the Zionist project while it advanced the goals of settling the land and defining the communal borders within Palestine between the Arab population and the Jewish one. In this way, the Zionist anti-malaria project in Palestine holds a unique place in malaria research of the time. (shrink)

La volonté présente du christianisme de nouer un dialogue fraternel avec le judaïsme pose au premier le problème de reconnaître exactement l'identité du second, et d'interpréter correctement la judaïté de Jésus et la notion de « texte commun », présupposées à la base de cette rencontre. La religion de Jésus n'était pas encore ce qui allait devenir, après l’instauration du rabbinisme, la religion des juifs actuels, fondée sur la rédaction d'une Torah orale. Le judaïsme moderne et le christianisme sont à (...) la fois en rupture et en continuité herméneutique avec l'Ancien Testament, mais ils ne le lisent pas avec la même clé d'interprétation, le second le lisant à partir de son « accomplissement » dans le Nouveau, le premier en fonction de son « ouverture » à une autre nouveauté, qui sera le Talmud. L'idée d'un « patrimoine commun » aux juifs et aux chrétiens est née, dans un premier temps, de l'idéologie des Lumières, créatrice d’une culture commune, «judéo-chrétienne », au prix d'une lecture « scientifique » et désacralisante de la Bible. Dans un second temps, l'Holocauste, qui détournait les juifs, orthodoxes ou sionistes, de cet « héritage commun », conduisait inversement de nombreux chrétiens à le revendiquer, dans un aveu de culpabilité à l'égard de l'antisémitisme, mais aussi dans la méconnaissnce de la différence inéluctable du peuple juif. L'idéologie du « commun » peut être un facteur de fermeture là où elle ne se vérifie pas ou d'assimilation indue là où elle efface la singularité de l'un et de l'autre. On peut espérer du dialogue entre juifs et chrétiens qu’il suscite une authentique théologie de la rencontre.Today, the desire of Christianity to engage in a fraternal dialogue with Judaism poses the problem of encountering precisely the identity of the latter, and of interpreting correctly the Judaism of Jesus and the notion of « common text » which is presupposed at the basis of this encounter. The religion of Jesus was not yet that which it was to become after the installation of rabbinism, the religion of present day Jews, which was founded on the composition of an oral Torah. Modern Judaism and Christianity are, at the same time, in rupture and hermeneutic continuity with the Old Testament. But they do not read it with the same key of interpretation : Christianity’s reading sees its « accomplishment » in the New Testament, Judaism in function of its « opening » to another newness, which will be the Talmud. The idea of a « common patrimony » for Jews and Christians was born, in the first instance, of the ideology of the Enlightenment, creator of a common culture, « Judeo-Christian », at the price of a « scientific» and profane reading of the Bible. In a second stage, the Holocaust, which turned Orthodox and Zionist Jews away from this « common heritage », inversely led numerous Christians to vindicate it in an acknowledgment of culpability as regards anti-Semitism, but also in ignoring the ineluctable difference of the Jewish people. The ideology of the « common » can be a factor of closing dialogue when it is not verified or of undue assimilation when it wipes out the singularity of each one. One can hope for a dialogue between Jews and Christians that promotes an authentic theology of encounter. (shrink)