The religions that are most liable for the current political crisis are Judaism and Christianity. Some may find fault with this statement. They will say religions are irrelevant; today politics are part of a secular world. This is in spite of the fact that the religions of Judaism and Christianity prop up the far Right’s nationalist aspirations. Alternatively, the religious will say that their particular religion is on the side of righteousness. In this view, everyone who disagrees with them, meaning the secular world, is evil.
(more…)Tag: Zionism
-
Political Zionism is an Anachronism
Political Zionism Morris Jastrow1 wrote in 1919 that Israel is a ‘glorified ghetto’. When you think about it, the conditions of Jewish life before the Enlightenment have been perfectly reproduced in Palestine. It’s no wonder the Israelis and their allies are cracking up. Political Zionism is an anachronism.
Many Israeli leaders have claimed religious sanction for their treatment of the Palestinians. At the center of the current bombardment of Gaza is Benjamin Netanyahu, who claims to be following the admonition of Moses (Deut. 25:12–19) that “The Eternal will be at war against Amalek throughout the ages.”
This implies that Israel is commanded to wage a holy war of extermination against Amalek (Deut. 25:12–19), for in the early days “the wars of Israel” and the “wars of the Lord” were synonymous expressions (cf., e.g., Judg. 5:23).
But, unfortunately for Netanyahu, even his supporters did not buy his analogy. His supporters don’t necessarily object to the carnage, just the rhetoric. They worry that announcing a holy war is not a good look for him. But his use of a story from ancient Israel to justify his war reveals the central mistake of the Zionists.
Zionism does not understand the Hebrew Prophets or Jesus
The use of the Old Testament in this way reveals that Zionism is a movement out of place and time. According to Morris Jastrow, this movement ignores what was accomplished by the Hebrew Prophets and Jesus. Jastrow calls Jesus the successor of the Prophets.
Political Zionism is an anachronism
Jastrow had sympathy for religious and economic Zionism. But as a political measure, Zionism was an anachronism. However, the political aspect has dominated since 1897. (p. 31) The only way the Zionists could have pulled this off is by ignoring or denying the religious aspect.
The Prophets: From Ancient Israel to Judaism
If Christians and Jews understood how the Old and New Testament fit together they would reject Zionism immediately. But instead, they are led by dramatic verses taken out of context, such as the story of Amalek. In fact, the Zionist movement itself is out of context.
The Zionists seem unaware that the Prophets made major changes in the religion of ancient Israel. These changes are recorded in the Old Testament. The central concept that resulted from their teachings had to do with nationality and citizenship.
Antiquity interpreted religion in terms of nationality. The basis of nationality and citizenship was a nation’s language and gods. This influenced the organization of religion, including the ancient Hebrew religion.
The Hebrews had a national deity, whom they called Yahweh. He was their protector within the boundaries of their own territory. Within those borders, they were the chosen people of Yahweh. The groups around them were no different. They had been chosen by some other god.
What was the message of the Prophets?
However, for the Hebrews the ancient concept of religion changed with the rise of the Prophets. The Prophets taught that Yahweh is unlike other gods. His concern is conditioned on the obedience of his followers to certain principles. These principles involved ethical distinctions between right and wrong.
But, this was not a theoretical lesson on ethics. The Prophets announced that Yahweh had rejected his people because of the oppression of the poor by the rich, the injustice in the courts of justice, and rampant crime. They said Yahweh would punish the people for their sins unless they would mend their ways.
The Prophet Amos was the first to preach this message. He was followed by Hosea, who made the same prophecy. Then came Isaiah. Isaiah emphasized that sacrifices and tribute are an abomination to Yahweh, and that he does not want his worshippers to defile his holy place by coming there with unclean hands.
These teachings represented a new (religious) language. Their significance lay in the emphasis on the conduct of the individual as the test of religion. From this point onward, the group was considered to represent an entity composed of individuals.
In this process, the national Yahweh was transformed into a universal Jehovah. In other words, Judaism made its first appearance at that time. Judaism is a religion based on a monotheistic conception of divine government, which makes the conduct of the individual the test of religious life. But this transformation would soon be tested.
The effect of the Babylonian exile
Hebrew nationalism was made extinct after a Babylonian monarch, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the Jewish state. As a result, the Hebrew religion changed. It came to worship a God who was no longer tribal and confined to a specific territory. It worshipped a God who was universal, a God who was concerned for all mankind. The experience of exile and the new understanding of God that accompanied the exiles cut the bond between religion and nationality. The transformation into Judaism was complete.
It is a fact of the utmost significance that the great contribution of the Jews to the world’s spiritual treasure was made not while the national life was flourishing, but as it was ebbing away. The Prophets with their revolutionary doctrines made their appearance when the northern Kingdom was beginning to show symptoms of decline, and the movement reached its height after this kingdom had disappeared and the national existence of the southern Kingdom was threatened. The religion of the Prophets is the swan song of ancient Hebraism, and the example of a people flourishing without a national background had to be furnished to the world in order to bring the new conception of religion to fruition, which divorced religion from nationality and made it solely the expression of the individual’s aspiration for the higher life and for communion with the source of all being. The ancient Hebrews disappeared. It was the Jews, as we should call the people after the Babylonian Exile, who survived, and they survived despite the fact that they never recovered their national independence in the full sense of the word.
Jastrow, p. 38The theocratic state
Judaism changed the people from a political to a religious unit. However, this process proved to be too much for the masses and they yearned to go back to their nationalistic ways. Jastrow defines what they were going through as the ‘wrenching of the political from the religious life’. He thought the strange phenomenon of a Prophet who is also a Priest was a response to this difficulty. But it was a step backward.
The Prophet-Priest Ezra created a new code. Ezra’s code was combined with the two earlier codes in Exodus and the Book of Deuteronomy. This framework of early traditions and tribal experiences became the Pentateuch. The Pentateuch served as the basis of religious life. It also recognized the solidarity of the Jews as a political unit. The result was that Israel was so dominated by the priestly ideal that a theocratic state came to be.
The ministry of Jesus
Second Isaiah and the other ‘writing’ Prophets after the Babylonian exile opposed this development because the theocratic state led the Jews to focus on national aspirations.
Beginning with Amos, the Prophets before the exile had envisioned a time when the Jewish people would set an example for the world to worship the ‘supreme Author of all being‘. But the theocratic state reattached the religion to what remained of the national life. This was the situation Jesus confronted in his lifetime.
The universal Jehovah had not entirely put aside the rule of the tribal Yahweh. Yahweh was still viewed as the special protector of His chosen people by the side of His traits as the God of universal scope. The crisis came in the days of Jesus, who, as the successor of the Hebrew Prophets, drew the logical conclusion from their premises and substituted for the national ideal that of the ‘Kingdom of God…Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s’. By such a single saying Jesus broke definitely with all nationalistic aims, which even during the period of Roman control, strict and complete as it was, the Jews did not entirely abandon.
Jastrow, pp. 41-42According to Jastrow, it is an error to suppose that the Jews rejected the religious teachings of Jesus. They could not have rejected his teachings. Jesus taught in the same spirit as their own Prophets. What they rejected was Jesus’s uncompromising insistence that religion was a matter between the individual and his conscience. They were prevented from accepting this idea both by their own traditions and attitudes and by the religious concepts that surrounded them.
When St. Paul came to give the doctrinal setting to the teachings of Jesus, and to interpret the meaning of his life with its tragic end, he laid the chief emphasis on the salvation of the individual through the acceptance of the belief in Jesus. The sins of the world were washed away through the blood of Jesus as a vicarious offering for mankind. Every individual was offered the opportunity of securing salvation for his soul by accepting Jesus as his saviour…
Jastrow p. 45Did something similar happen to Christianity?
However, Jastrow also identifies a continuing tendency to connect religion and nationality among Christians. He blames this on the Church’s ‘Zionistic temptation’ to become allied with Rome. I hesitate to bring this up because of the fear that some denominations will feel justified in their criticism of Catholicism. But it’s important to remember that many Protestant denominations built forts around their own theology. If I’m not misunderstanding Jastrow, I think this Zionistic tendency can be interpreted differently.
It could be argued that it was the Roman emperors who first legalized Christianity and then made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. If the Church fathers agreed to this, perhaps they mistook it as a universalistic alliance. Jastrow does say (p. 45) that this alliance appeared in a form that at first appeared international.
Conclusion
This article demonstrates that political Zionism is anachronistic. Christian and Jewish Zionists are trying to carry out a scenario that no longer exists, and can’t be defended in the scriptures. In fact, they are going in the opposite direction to what their own Prophets intended. If we look again at Netanyahu’s use of the story of Amalek as justification for bombing Gaza, it becomes clear that a tribal Israel ruled by a nationalistic God is a thing of the past. The wars of Israel and the wars of the Lord are no longer synonymous. Israel’s God became a universal God when the Israelite nation was destroyed and the people were carried away to Babylon. Then Jesus, as the successor to the Prophets, reinforced the Prophetic teachings.
Christianity, as we have seen, broke at its foundation with Jewish nationalism. It definitely cut the thread that bound religion to the limitations inherent in associating religion with the group.
Jastrow p. 44Next it will be necessary to understand the difference between the religious practice of Christian Zionists, orthodox Christians and Jews.
- Morris Jastrow Jr. Ph.D, LL.D, Zionism and the future of Palestine: the Fallacies and Dangers of Political Zionism, The Macmillan Company, NY, 1999 ↩︎
-
Defeating Zionism
I recently wrote about Morris Jastrow‘s 1919 book about Zionism. In the last century, events have transpired with no relation to the understanding he tried to convey. The result is that in spite of his efforts, Zionism has prospered. But, as I read his words, I am certain that his voice still matters. Jastrow’s book is an important source for defeating Zionism.
Relgious belief or geopolitical maneuvering?
Readers may think Jastrow’s approach is too simple, that it merely deals with mistaken notions which led Jews to accept Zionism. Some prefer to focus on manipulation by Western imperialists. In my opinion, geopolitical maneuvering is important, but it should not be the first priority. I suspect changes in Jewish religious beliefs are central to the success of Zionism.
I’m not implying that we should be led by Jastrow alone. But his experience and education provide important information about the changes that took place in European and American Judaism in the late nineteenth and early 20th century. This is important because we may be seeing the effects of these changes today.
However, an important misunderstanding about his religious views might distract from his usefulness. Therefore, before I talk about Jastrow’s book I will share my understanding of where he stood in relation to changes taking place in Judaism in his lifetime. I’m not an expert on this period of Jewish history, so I’m using an article that explains this relationship. I encourage the reader to check the article for accuracy.
Did Jastrow repudiate traditional Judaism?
A key aspect of Jastrow’s development, his relationship to Judaism, was misunderstood in his lifetime. According to Wikipedia, Jastrow repudiated traditional Judaism in 1886. But the The New York Times article cited by Wikipedia might be misleading, especially for gentile readers.
The two most important factors in Morris’s experience were rising anti-Semitism in Russia, the U.S., and Germany, and the situation of liberal Judaism in America. Jastrow took issue with the influences on his religion during this period. Both Morris Jastrow, Jr. and his father, Marcus Jastrow, held similar opinions on this. Marcus, who had a PhD from Halle and was the rabbi of Philadelphia’s Rodef Shalom congregation, defended Judaism from both uncritical adherence to tradition, and extreme radicalism. Therefore, the NYT article is misleading when it says Morris Jastrow Jr. repudiated traditional Judaism.
Morris Jastrow’s education and professional background
In 1881, Jastrow earned a baccalaureate from the University of Pennsylvania. Then he sailed for Breslau to attend its Jewish theological seminary. His plan was to return to the United States after completing his education. Then he would prepare to take the place of his father.
When Morris returned to Philadelphia, he began a rabbinical apprenticeship, but it only lasted for a year. One Sabbath, he gave the final sermon to his congregation. This is the speech mentioned by the NYT. According to this account, it was a long and pessimistic speech.
He did not say in the speech what he would do next. But it turned out he had already accepted a professorship in Semitics at the University of Pennsylvania.
This would not have been a surprise to his father. His reasons had to do with the forces he had encountered in Europe and America, and the role of Jews and Jewish learning in the late 19th century university.
Jastrow’s response to secularization
The process of secularization influenced several Jewish scholars in Jastrow’s generation. Some moved away from liberal Judaism, but for Jastrow, religious considerations were central in his choices. Leaving the rabbinate did not mean he would disengage with religion.
Careful parental nurturing, a combination of an American and a European education, an apprenticeship under their father’s supervision, all helped cultivate a generation which would complete the evolution of an alternative to Orthodoxy and indifference.
Wechsler, Harold S. “Pulpit or Professoriate: The Case of Morris Jastrow.” American Jewish History, vol. 74, no. 4, 1985, pp. 338–55. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23882681. Accessed 3 Dec. 2023.Jewish life in the late 19th century
During the late 19th century, Western institutions of education did not admit Jews. Applicants were required to be members of a denomination. In addition, religious instruction was limited to dogma. But in Jastrow’s lifetime, these institutions were undergoing a process of liberalization. Many Jews were being offered academic positions in this period.
This was a critical time in world Jewry. But there were differences between American and European liberalization. In America, Jewish life was congregational. In Europe it was communal. This meant that America was more open to liberal Judaism than Europe.
The political situation
The political situation also influenced Judaism. Increasing nationalism was one of Jastrow’s concerns. On the one hand, he couldn’t understand how people could give up their right to popular government or recognize anyone as superior due to birth position. He could not identify at all with the German brand of nationalism. At the same time, he thought nationalism was a healthy corrective for German materialism.
Jastrow also had a conflicting interpretation of Treitschke’s claim that the ‘Jews are our misfortune’. Jastrow himself blamed the German Jews for a type of materialism that he observed during his stay in Europe. Therefore, he attributed Treitschke’s criticism to a lack of patriotism and idealism among German Jews. However, he also disagreed with the German idealists who identified German Jewry with Judaism. In his opinion, there was a drastic contrast between the Jewish Religion and the Jews in Germany.
Jastrow also disapproved of the Jewish pursuit of the professions for the purpose of material gains, honor, influence and power. His own conception of idealism was that the only legitimate rewards for the professional are the benefits to mankind.
Due to his experiences and observations in Europe, Jastrow concluded ‘that Germany will not be the land whence Jewish thought and Jewish enthusiasm for and attachment to the Jewish religion will spring‘. For a while, he was more optimistic about America. It all depended on the quality of Jewish leadership.
But during his years in Europe this outlook changed. He was especially concerned about the rise in America of Isaac Mayer Wise. When Wise finally ‘cast his lot’ with the organized Reform movement and assumed its leadership, Reform’s universalism became the outlook of one faction, and American Jewry was permanently divided. Unity became impossible.
The competing influence of Isaac Mayer Wise
Before Jastrow left for Europe, Isaac Mayer Wise organized a domestic seminary for the education of American rabbis. Jastrow’s father had criticized Wise’s extreme liberalism and considered his personality inappropriate for leading America’s only seminary. It was partly due to Wise’s influence in America that Jastrow’s father sent him abroad for his education.
When Jastrow Jr. returned home, he volunteered his services as a lecturer at the University of Pennsylvania. This gave him a year to think about his future. By the end of the year, he had decided to leave the rabbinate. In the speech reported by the NYT, he shared with his congregation his observations about the rising generation of American Jews.
-
Zionism Has Ruined the Jewish People
The Trap of Zionism Zionism Has Ruined the Jewish People
The world blames Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians. However, Israel’s inhabitants are pawns. This is the trap of Zionism. Zionism has ruined the Jewish people.
(more…) -
The Trap of Zionism
Zionism was premised on anti-Semitism
Zionism has ruined the Jewish people. Today, the world blames Israel for what has happened to the Palestinians. However, the inhabitants of Israel are pawns. Zionism is based on the belief that the Jews are part of a cohesive race of people who want nothing more than to live in Palestine. Ironically, this belief is basic anti-Semitism. A united Jewish ‘race’ was a phantom when Zionism was invented, yet this belief has resulted in the people of Israel proclaiming they own Palestine. What a terrible transformation.
In this context it makes sense that concerned citizens of the world demand a Palestinian state. But they make this demand in spite of the fact that a Palestinian state has been rejected for more than 70 years by everyone in a position to make it happen. This is the trap of Zionism.
A history of meaningless destruction
This history is long and tragic, and it’s been written many times. Unfortunately, we don’t have time to educate ourselves about the causes of the current conflict in Israel. But for those who are aware of the history, it is clear that military solutions are no solutions at all. Yet, in Israel, the horror of October 7 and everything that followed it seems normal. This military regime has no memory of civilization.
The last real civilization that was known in this region was the Ottoman empire. Unfortunately, the reforms of the Young Turks introduced a spirit of Turkish nationalism, and their handling of foreign affairs resulted in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
There were other factions working against the Empire besides the Young Turks. These included provincial governors, Palace officials and the Freemasons. According to Hanioglü, M. Şükrü, the activism of the Freemasons in the Ottoman Empire can be traced back to the 1870s.1 All things considered, it’s hard to imagine how the current regime in Israel could be an improvement over Ottoman ‘absolutism’.
But we still need to explain how the Jewish people became entangled in Palestine. The Young Turks, Turkish Jöntürkler, was a coalition of various reform groups that led a revolutionary movement against Sultan Abdulhamid II between 1889 and 1908. During the British Mandate in the Ottoman Empire, there were rumors that the Jews were involved with the Young Turks and Freemasons.2 The British overseers apparently believed the rumors about Jewish involvement, and later this belief rendered Britain defenseless against the idea of Zionism. Then, World War II and the Holocaust made Palestine seem like an attractive refuge from the world’s hatred. Today, modern Israel is evidence that the fear of being hated, was never dealt with.
Plans for a Palestinian State are based on the wrong premise
In the face of Israel’s brittle militarism, it is clear that any solution would have to heal the effects of ostracism and persecution on its victims. However, that kind of thoughtfulness is unheard of in this world. Victims are expected to figure everything out on their own. This blindspot has allow Zionism to ruin the Jewish people. All we can say is that if we had had our wish this would have been the first step to a solution. Instead, we have the present horror.
Considering that a Jewish state was not the solution to the real problem of anti-Semitism, it follows that even our best utopian plans for a Palestinian state are based on the wrong premise.
Since we insist on ignoring the step of healing, the only other solution would require the ability to go back in time and tell the Freemasons and Young Turks to appreciate what they have. This is obviously ridiculous, but what do you call the belief that Israel will some day give the Palestinians a state?
Meanwhile, the Palestinians are dying and all the grownups in the world have gone mad. And they’ve had plenty of assistance in their madness from contemporary Zionists. So, what can be done? It may seem like wishful thinking, but the first solution remains a possibility.
This might seem like the biggest fantasy of all. Hatred pretends to erase the possibility of healing. However, hatred is not all-powerful. Love is the most powerful force on this planet, and it is always a possibility. Furthermore, the hope for love never dies in the hearts and minds of the most despised among us.
Can God see the Palestinians through our eyes?
When there seems to be no earthly help for the helpless, it’s natural for believers to petition God. What can he do, you ask? After all, the existence of modern Israel is based on religious ‘history’ and defended by the United States and its allies. Who would petition God on the side of Israel’s enemy? The answer depends on your understanding of God.
I saw a video on YouTube. There were several Palestinians standing in line. They had no baggage of any kind– just the clothes on their backs. One man was looking at the camera as it recorded his defeat. His eyes were not asking for anything, or even hoping for anything. I saw this and understood it, and it took my breath away.
I don’t think God sees everything with his own eyes. Sometimes he sees through our eyes. It occurred to me that God saw those people like I did, and he had compassion for them.
I’m not suggesting God is choosing sides. I think he he saw those Palestinians and their need, and he is going to help them.
- Hanioglü, M. “Notes on the Young Turks and the Freemasons, 1875-1908.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 25, no. 2, 1989, pp. 186–97. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4283298. Accessed 17 Oct. 2023. ↩︎
- Kedourie, Elie. “Young Turks, Freemasons and Jews.” Middle Eastern Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 1971, pp. 89–104. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282360. Accessed 19 Oct. 2023. ↩︎
-
Is Freemasonry Behind the Attack on Assad?
My theory about Friday’s bombing of Syria is that Freemasonry was running the show. Some articles I’ve read assume, as I do, that it had something to do with Freemasonry because of the date, April 13, which fell on a Friday this year—Friday the 13th. It was a Friday the 13th in 1307 when the Knights Templar were rounded up to be tortured and burned at the stake. And the Knights Templar are associated with Freemasons. But the articles don’t deal with alliances between individual Freemasons. It’s those alliances that might explain what we’re seeing.