Interesting and daring essay by an Israeli English-language writer Yael
Lotan contradicts the well-meaning (but meaningless) mantra of 'Judaism
is not Zionism'. Yael was the editor of Arts in the socialist zionist
newspaper Al Hamishmar I had a pleasure to write for, years ago. She
lived for a long time in Jamaica, and now lives in Tel Aviv. 

ZIONISM - THE CONTINUATION OF JUDAISM BY OTHER MEANS 

by Yael Lotan 

Anyone who wishes to discuss the phenomenon of Zionism immediately runs
into the problem of how to define it. Unlike the European colonization
of the Americas, for example, or the British domination of Kenya or
India, the Jewish settlement in Palestine has been given various and
contradictory definitions. The two commonest, and conflicting,
definitions are: 1. "Zionism is the national liberation movement of the
Jewish people;" 2. "Zionism is one of the manifestations of European
colonialism in the 20th century." I shall return to these definitions,
their sources and limitations. 

I propose to show that Zionism is an essentially Jewish phenomenon, and
cannot be separated from Judaism (in the religious-historical sense of
the term), and therefore its resemblance to either national liberation
or colonialist movements is morphological rather than taxonomic, and
leaves various aspects of Zionism unexplained. 

What is Judaism? 

A prayer called Hamavdil (the Separator), said by observant Jews every
Saturday evening as the Sabbath ends, praises God who "separates the
sacred from the profane". Judaism is dominated by the idea of
separation. What are the origins and rationale of this striking
characteristic? - This question ought to be tackled with the tools of
anthropology, psychology, history and sociology. There must be various
reasons why Judaism has not been investigated with these tools, and why
the few scholars who attempted to analyze the nature of Judaism tended
to produce apologetics. One reason may be that some of the fathers of
modern anthropology were themselves Jews (e.g., Franz Boas and Claude
Levi-Strauss), and were unwilling or unable to tackle their ancestral
culture with the same tools with which they tackled exotic ones. But
then, neither did non-Jewish scholars apply to the religion which gave
birth to Christianity the same analytical methods they applied
unhesitatingly to alien cultures and religions. A rare and illuminating
exception may be found in Mary Douglas' famous book Purity and Danger,
in which she discusses the purity laws in the Book of Leviticus, placing
them in a broad anthropological context. 

But this is a rare study, and it deals only with the primeval phase of
Judaism. It can no more cover the subject of latter-day Judaism than a
discussion of the early days of the American republic can cover the
subject of the US today. It is time that someone applied the usual
anthropological methods to the Shulhan Arukh - the all-embracing
rule-book for observant Jews - in comparison with other old cultures,
from the Hindu Brahmins to Papuan tribes. But even without all these, it
is possible to outline some of the main features of Judaism. 

1. The Old Testament defines the Yahwist deity in terms of what he is
not: Jehovah is not the god of other tribes; He does not share his
dominion over his chosen tribe with any other deity; Being a deity of
the upper air, the wind and the surface of the earth, he has no dealings
with what lies under the earth, namely, the world of the dead and the
chthonic powers - which accounts for such biblical assertions as "The
dead praise not the Lord, neither any that go down into silence," and
for the injunctions against the consumption of blood and necromancy;
Jehovah requires from his followers to adopt signs to distinguish them
from other people, e.g., circumcision, and the prohibition of work or
lighting a fire one day a week. The Bible also lay down rules of
separation between different kinds of field crops, a ban on yoking
together an ass and an ox, on weaving fabrics with mixed animal and
vegetable fibres, etc. In the course of time Judaism added more and more
ritual separations, until it became totally dominated and obsessed by
the business of keeping various categories of things apart - the pure
and the impure, the sacred and the profane, kasher and taref (ritually
clean and unclean meats), meat and dairy products, leavened and
unleavened dough (during Passover), silk and cotton, men and women,
adults and minors, and so on. 

2. Judaism as we know it began to evolve in the time of the Second
Temple, i.e., the fifth century BC. Thereafter, the principal
separation, namely, between Jews and "Gentiles", became entrenched, as
the religious leaders Ezra and Nehemiah forbade inter-marriage between
Jews and other people. Even the Samaritans, who were their brothers from
the northern kingdom of Samaria, were rejected. Jews who adopted some of
the ways of the world around them were reviled and shunned by the
traditionalists (known in the New Testament as Pharisees). A Jew who
assimilated culturally and socially with the Greeks and later with the
Romans was regarded as an enemy. The Hellenistic civilization of the
Mediterranean and the Middle East, which was largely extinguished by
Christendom until the Renaissance, was utterly rejected by the Jews who
remained faithful to their tribal religion. Christianity, with its
ambivalent attitude towards Judaism, which gradually turned into vicious
enmity, made the separation that much easier. 

(It is important to distinguish between earlier examples of Jewish
hostility to strangers - e.g., the story of Moses' Ethiopian wife -
which reflected ordinary xenophobia, and the later isolationism, which
was anchored in religious law. The historical books of the Old Testament
show that up until the time of the Second Temple there was constant
inter-marriage between the Israelites and their neighbours.) 

3. After the fall of Judea and the destruction of the Temple, in the
year 70 AD, separateness became the hallmark of Judaism. Some other
nations circumcized their sons, or worshipped a single god, sometimes
even an unseen god (according to Tacitus, so did some Germanic tribes),
or prohibited the eating of pigs, but these features did not lead to a
spiritual or social alliance with the Jews. In later times Islam adopted
the main tenets of Judaism, but was nevertheless rejected. The biblical
verse "The people shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the
nations" became the motto of the Jews. Judaism adopted the Roman
principle of descent through the female, since mater semper certa est -
the mother is always known - and with it the notion that Jews are not
only set apart by their religion, but are actually made of a different,
purer, substance, which must not be defiled by mixed marriage. In a
curious way, the religion and its rituals became almost secondary,
because "A Jew, even if he transgresses, remains a Jew" - meaning, that
even if he ate pork or lit a fire on the Sabbath, he was still a member
of the chosen people, and could always return to the fold. On the other
hand, a Gentile can be circumcized and observe all the numerous rules,
yet he remains a goy, and every effort is made to discourage goyim from
trying to convert to Judaism. Thus Judaism does not really claim to be a
universal religion, like Christianity and Islam, otherwise it would have
sought to convert everyone. This is the great paradox: that the
universal deity the Jews believe in is not interested in the rest of the
human race, and maintains a separate arrangement with a particular
tribe. 

4. The Hebrew word Yahadut, which denotes both Judaism and Jewry,
demonstrates that there is no difference between the faith and the
people. The familiar Jewish saying that "It is not Israel who kept the
Sabbath, but the Sabbath that kept Israel", is perfectly true. The
religion, with its endless prohibitions and rules of ritual purity,
preserved the distinctive identity of its adherents. That was its
function. At the same time, it held out an eschatological vision
according to which at the End of Days the entire world will acknowledge
the supremacy of Jehovah and recognize Jerusalem as his abode and the
Jews as his priests - "a kingdom of priests and an holy nation." It does
not suggest that all men will become Jews! The separation is therefore a
cosmic phenomenon, and will continue even in the afterworld. In this it
differs from the Brahmin caste - which resembles Jewry in having strict
laws of purity and separation - since in the Hindu religion the
individual"s caste-identity applies only to a single incarnation, and
does not have a cosmic status. 

Modern Times and the Enlightenment 

In the 19th century the impact of the Enlightenment began to undermine
Jewish isolationism. In Europe, where the majority of Jews lived,
religious observance was visibly weakening and assimilation was
increasing. As the surrounding society grew more secular and open,
abandoning the identification of individuals by their religion, more and
more Jews came to feel uncomfortable in their isolation. But for the
violent crises which rocked European societies during that period, it is
possible that most Jews would have assimilated, leaving only a few small
Orthodox communities to cling to their traditional way of life. But the
upheavals in Europe in the late 19th century exposed all the ethnic and
religious minorities to existential dangers, and Jews were traditional
targets of popular discontent and frustration. At this time, antisemism,
whose origins were religious and whose roots went back to the Crusades,
took on a secularized and racist quality. It has been argued that Jewish
separateness provoked antisemitism, or at least exacerbated it. Even if
so, it may not matter any longer. What is certain, however, is that the
violent outbreaks of European antisemitism stimulated the mass
emigration of Jews to America and other distant lands. 

At the start of the 20th century, when assimilation was spreading from
Western Europe to the more tradition-bound Jewish communities in Central
and even Eastern Europe, there were three options for the preservation
of Jewish identity. The first was the time-honoured Orthodox way -
namely, the strict observance of the ritual laws, which amounted to a
physical barrier to assimilation, since you cannot assimilate among
people with whom you cannot share a meal or a drink, or pass your
leisure time, let alone marry them. The second option was to preserve
Jewish identity by means of "cultural autonomy", as promoted by the
Yiddishist movement known as the Bund - namely, by encouraging the
distinctive Jewish culture in Yiddish language and literature, in music
and various traditions. This popular movement could join the progressive
current, support radical ideologies, and even adopt an anti-religious
stance, for if there was a distinctive Jewish culture, it could help
preserve their separate identity, even if the walls it built around them
were not as impregnable as those of Orthodoxy. Finally, there was the
territorial option - namely, Zionism. 

Territorial Separation 

What Zionism offered was a way of maintaining Jewish separateness in the
most natural way: by a physical separation from the rest of mankind. In
a Jewish State it would be possible to preserve the tribe without having
constantly to resist assimilation. Moreover, it would be possible to
achieve a "normalization" of the Jewish people - while living apart, it
would be "a nation among nations", and like the others it would consist
of different classes - workers and capitalists, religious and secular
people - who would all be Jews. Furthermore, if masses of Jews gathered
from all over the world to live in one place, their existence would be
more secure than as minority communities in alien and sometimes hostile
societies. But for this plan to succeed it had to be located in a place
which would not only be empty of "Gentiles", but would also have
specific Jewish associations - namely, the "Land of Israel" (the
traditional Jewish name for Palestine). All attempts to create a
territorial solution in another location - e.g., in the Argentine
pampas, in Uganda or Birobidjan - were not Jewish solutions and remained
ideologically and numerically insignificant. 

During the first third of the century the Zionist option did not enjoy
much success. The Orthodox option was still well entrenched, and
progressive Jews were more attracted by the cultural, quasi-secular,
option of the Bund. The rest were people who were not averse to
assimilation, who regarded Judaism as a burden which any sensible person
would prefer to drop. There is no doubt that but for the rise of Nazism
and its consequences, Zionism would not have become in the latter half
of the century the success story that it is. 

Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the two definitions of
Zionism quoted at the beginning of this article have been prevalent, not
only in Israel but wherever the subject is raised. Secular Jews describe
Zionism as one of the national liberation movements which arose around
the turn of the century, and therefore define every Jewish community the
world over as part of the Jewish People, or the Jewish Nation; we shall
come back to the problems of this definition. Jews and non-Jews of
Marxist background usually describe Zionism as a colonial manifestation,
but this definition is not quite satisfactory either, as we shall see. 

Zionism as a Movement of National Liberation 

Zionism, then, offered to solve the problem of Jewish separateness by
territorial means. Unfortunately for it, it turned out that the
autochthonous inhabitants of Palestine, which the Zionist leadership had
described as a handful of Ishmaelite nomads who could be ignored or
driven out, were in fact a nation. Ben Gurion recalled how, when he
disembarked at the port of Jaffa in 1906, he looked around him and grew
alarmed: "What are all these Arabs doing in my country?" - Did not
Zionism promise to spare the Jews from having to build walls of
separation?! This was the start of the Middle East conflict. And not
only the conflict between Jews and Arabs. In the first decade of the
century Zionist leaders bemoaned the fact that Jewish agriculturists in
Palestine were employing "Ishmaelite men and women" in their orchards
and homes. What was the point of immigrating to the Land of Israel, they
said, if there too they had to mingle with goyim, and "Gentile" women
worked in their kitchens and looked after their children? The solution
proposed was to bring Jews from the Yemen - known from their communities
in Jerusalem as deeply religious - and employ them instead of Arabs in
the orchards and houses. This was in fact done in 1906 - the settlement
called Sha'arayim was created near Rehovot, and populated with a Jewish
community imported especially from Yemen. However, where the Ashkenazi
families in Rehovot had received four acres each, the Yemenites received
only one acre per family, thus ensuring that they would be unable to
support their families by agriculture, and would have to go to work for
their Ashkenazi neighbours. 

But the definition of Jews as a nation is extraordinarily problematic.
It"s perfectly obvious that the only common denominator between European
and Yemenite Jews, or between, say, a Jew from Cochin and a Jew from
Romania, is religion. (It is true that after two or three generations of
living together in Israel something resembling an Israeli nation has
come into being, just as an American nation and an Australian nation
emerged in their time. However, the periodic flooding of Israel with
masses of new immigrants hinders the crystallization of an Israeli
nation; but this lies outside the present discussion.) And indeed, in
Israel, after a century of local history, religion remains the framework
of society. Israel cannot cease to be a "Jewish State", or a "State of
the Jews". An editorial in the secular Israeli daily Haaretz expressed
it thus: "The State was established to provide a national home for the
Jewish people, and so it remains on the threshold of the 21st century.
The Jewish people is a unique ethnic-national entity, combining religion
and nationality... The rules governing the political scene in Israel are
derived from the axiom that this is a Jewish State... This position is
anchored in Supreme Court rulings and in the laws concerning the
Knesset, which determine that "a party may not compete in the general
elections for the Knesset if its aims or its acts oppose, openly or
implicitly, the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the
Jewish people" (12 February 1996). The formula "The Jewish people is a
unique ethnic-national entity, combining religion and nationality,"
rests on premises which cannot be rationally sustained. What kind of
"ethnic entity" can contain both Russian and Iraqi Jews? Can the term
"nationality" do so? - Clearly not. The one and only common denominator
is the religion, and with it the tradition, or myth, of a shared origin
thousands of years ago. Where religion fails, Zionism sustains the myth
of ethnic continuity by various other means - archaeology, the swearing
of soldiers in Massada or at the Wailing Wall, and so on. 

Zionism as a European Colonial Movement 

People with a Marxist background apply to Zionism the terms they regard
as universal, i.e., those of materialism, economics and class. And
indeed, Zionist history as a whole resembles that of European
colonialism. The early Zionist leadership was predominantly bourgeois
European, and had strong links with the bourgeois European governments
of the time. Moreover, it enjoyed the crucial support of powerful
capitalist elements, such as the Baron Rothschild and others. Looking at
the history of Zionism, from the imperialist "Balfour Declaration" of
1917 to the present Western support for aggressive Israel, it is easy to
draw parallels between it and, say, the French colonization of Algeria
or Indochina. All the same, it is a different story. Between the 1920s
and 1940s there was a popular Zionist slogan that often drew fire from
the progressive wing: it was a call for "Hebrew Labour" - i.e., "Employ
Jews, not Arabs!" But though it expressed indifference to the needs of
the Arab labour force, it could not be defined as racism in the usual
sense of the term, for we have seen that Yemenite Jewish labourers, who
were not "European", and did not differ "racially" or culturally from
their Moslem neighbours in Yemen, were actually imported to replace
local Arab labourers. (The Jewish credentials of the Yemenite community
were never in doubt. On the contrary - rabbis, cantors and radio
announcers of Yemenite background were highly prized for their vast
knowledge of Hebrew and its heritage.) But if not racism, what did the
call for "Hebrew labour" signify? - Quite simply, the traditional Jewish
separation from the goyim, an application of the same principles Jews
have lived by throughout the world for centuries. 

By contrast, the European colonists in the Americas, Africa and Asia
were attracted by the availability of a cheap labour force. People
migrated from Europe to various parts of the world in order to enrich
themselves by exploiting the natural resources of those countries by
means of the local labour force. The Zionist settlement in Palestine
from the late 19th to the mid-20th century was a different enterprise.
Before World War II, most of the Zionist settlers came to Palestine of
their own will, not so much driven by circumstances as impelled by
ideological fervour, often leaving behind them far better conditions
than those they encountered in the "Promised Land". Those Jews who
wished to better their condition materially emigrated to the Americas,
to Australia and South Africa. As for the money that Jewish capitalists
invested in the Zionist settlement - this was characteristic Jewish
philanthropy (i.e., dedicated to Jewish causes), enlivened with sympathy
for the new ideology. When these capitalists looked for profits, they
invested in far more promising enterprises than the Jewish settlement in
Palestine; (though they probably did hope that eventually there would be
a self-supporting Jewish community in Palestine, that might in the
fullness of time even become profitable.) 

It is hardly surprising that the Zionist movement conducted itself in
some ways like other European colonial movements, since the political
thinking of its central leadership stemmed from the European worldview
of its time. Even when these leaders proclaimed progressive views, they
continued to identify with Western colonialism. (We must not forget that
in those days even progressive people in the West believed in the
superiority of European civilization.) Certainly, as far as the Zionists
could see, colonialism was the only viable scenario, and all other
strategies must have seemed totally unrealistic. Zionism rode on the
skirts of European imperialism, and cooperated with it in order to win
its support. When Britain was the dominant power in the Middle East,
Zionism collaborated with it. Nowadays, when the dominant power is the
United States, Israel serves American interests because they serve her
own. Yet the aim of Zionism has been to serve not the interests of
Britain or the United States, but the age-old Jewish goal of a separate
existence. 

Israeli Zionism 

It is natural that the Zionist movement could contain various currents,
because they all flowed to the same destination - namely, a Jewish
state, in which separateness would be automatic. (Today even secular
Zionists are capable of describing the process of Jewish assimilation
and inter-marriage in the Western world as "a demographic Holocaust"!)
Many people believe that in a few generations the only Jews in the
world, other than a handful of ultra-Orthodox communities who maintain
their identity in the old, well-tried way, will be the citizens of the
Jewish State. The rest will assimilate and disappear among the
"Gentiles". That is why Zionism remains the common programme of nearly
all of the political parties in Israel, from Moledet on the extreme
Right to Meretz on the Left. Its principal tenet is that there must be a
separate Jewish political entity, and the only question left is by what
means this may be achieved. Right-wingers believe that it is possible to
suppress and perhaps expel the non-Jews living in Palestine, either
gradually by driving them to emigrate, or by more violent means; at the
very least they seek to confine the Palestinians to some scattered,
closed, supervised reservations. At the other end of the scale, the most
committed members of the peace camp voice a preference for a very small
Israel, within the pre-1967 borders or even smaller, provided it is "all
ours" - meaning, without any Arabs, or only a tiny minority as a
testimony to Israeli democracy. In this they closely resemble the white
Afrikaner movement in South Africa, which, since the fall of Apartheid,
has been clamouring for a separate white state in Natal Province. 

The realization that Zionism is a continuation of Judaism by other means
helps to explain how it can resemble European colonialism and at the
same time differ from it in important ways, and also resemble national
liberation movements in some aspects and be quite unlike them in others.
The Holocaust provided Jewish isolationism with a retroactive, if
paranoid, vindication, and is therefore never absent from Zionist
propaganda and apologetics. (I say "paranoid", because there is no
reason to regard the Nazi extermination policy as an ongoing threat, any
more than African-Americans are threatened with a return to slavery.)
And, as stated before, today there is little point in arguing whether or
not Jewish separateness itself provoked antisemitism. Even if it did,
then - as in cases of rape - the victim is not to be blamed. 

Today it is difficult to digest the paradoxes of the Israeli situation
unless one considers the aim of Zionism. It is difficult to understand
why in South Africa the reverse process is taking place - from Apartheid
to unification, despite all the problems and obstacles - whereas in
Israel even the popular peace-camp slogan, "Two States for Two Nations",
whose motives are ostensibly enlightened, strives towards the same goal
as the Orthodoxy. There is, of course, a basic difference between the
two main Zionist camps, but it may be illustrated by the following
metaphor: the hawkish Right wants Israel to remain a thorn in the flesh
of the Middle East, and prefers a state of hostility over a peaceable
solution, whereas the dovish Left seeks to heal the inflamed wound and
turn Israel into a kind of implant in the Middle East, something like a
cardiac pacemaker or plastic hip-replacement - an essentially benign,
non-infective foreign body. 

There is no point in giving good and bad marks to history. The question
is not whether the aim of separateness is good or bad, but what it
signifies and where it must lead. Because the supra-national empires of
Europe fell apart in the early years of this century, people often speak
of our time as being the "era of the nation state"; but in reality we
are living in an era of non-nation states. The dominant power in the
world today, the United States of America, is not a nation state, nor is
there such a state anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, from pole to
pole. Similarly, Australia, Great Britain, India, China, Russia and
Indonesia, are not nation states, and the same holds true for most of
the African states. As time goes on, there are fewer and fewer countries
whose inhabitants predominantly belong to a single ethnic-cultural
group. The mass migrations of the past century have greatly eroded the
national pattern, which was never as static as some people imagine. 

In reality Zionism, though based on the concept of a "Jewish nation",
gave birth to a state based on religion, while at the same time trying
to maintain a modern, quasi-secular, quasi-democratic guise. Yet though
there are today some vigorous theocracies and semi-theocracies - chiefly
in the Moslem world - they do have ethnic-cultural foundations to
sustain them, which cannot be said about Israel, as any visitor soon
perceives. People who believe that it will be possible in future to
maintain a "Jewish State" in Israel are deluding themselves. Not only
the Palestinian Arabs, but all of human reality will prevent this dream
from materializing. The question remains, how dearly will the
inhabitants of this land still have to pay before a solution is found. 

------------------------------------------------------------

The essay "ZIONISM - THE CONTINUATION OF JUDAISM BY OTHER MEANS by Yael
Lotan caused a few responses, including my own. Our readers found weak
points in the otherwise excellent essay. : 

From Ken Freeland, Texas 

  Dear Yael, 
  
  Thank you very much for your effort to apply anthopological analysis to
  the problem of Zionism. I peronally have benefited very much from the
  insight you have offered about the importance of the concept of
  "separation" as it relates to the political efforts of the various
  Zionist factions, as well as from the contradistinction you draw between
  Zionism and both national liberation and colonial efforts. I find your
  presentation on the whole very cogent. 
  
  There are a couple of comments you make in passing, however, that I find
  somewhat disturbing, or at least off-putting. In any case, this
  editorializing seems to me to detract from the scientific tenor of the
  rest of your piece: 
  
  1) "It has been argued that Jewish separateness provoked antisemitism,
  or at least exacerbated it. Even if so, it may not matter any longer. " 
  
  2)". . .today there is little point in arguing whether or not Jewish
  separateness itself provoked antisemitism. Even if it did, then - as in
  cases of rape - the victim is not to be blamed." 
  
  The question of the relationship between Jewish separatism and
  "antisemitism" cannot and should not be so easily dismissed. While it
  may not be fair to expect that your short essay would treat of the
  subject, I believe it is likewise unfair to opine so dismissively on the
  relevance of the question. Indeed, I personally consider this question
  to be at the heart of the "Jewish problem," of which Zionism is but a
  modern manifestation. 
  
  I consider the analogy to the rape victim far-fetched, and therefore
  posit a more appropriate comparison: anthropologists should not be
  comparing apples to oranges, but apples to apples. Let us then consider
  an example of another social group which has separated itself from the
  mainstream to see whether it has succeeded or whether it too has met
  with an antagonistic social response equivalent to "antisemitism." Let's
  look at the Amish: 
  
  The Amish are certainly a "peculiar people." Like the Hassidim, they
  wear anachronistic clothing and exist, de facto, as a people apart.
  Their separation is based on a common religious belief. Thus much for
  similarities. Two differences are to be noted: the Amish do not assert
  any supremacy over others. Naturally, they consider their spiritual
  pathway to be morally advanced, but they do not regard themselves as in
  any way inherently superior to others, and they inculcate the Christian
  values of humility and, oh yes, another vital distinction --
  nonresistance (referred to in the vernacular as nonviolence). The most
  definitely do not look forward to a day when they shall rule the world
  and other nations will pay them tribute, etc. The other difference of
  note is in the sphere of economic activity. While Jews have
  traditionally used their isolation as a kind of base for what were
  regarded as exploitive relationships to the surrounding goy community,
  focusing almost entirely on endeavors such as usurious money-lending,
  the legal profession, political intrigues, insurance, mercantile
  investment, tax farming and various other speculative and
  finance-related activity, the Amish are unexceptionably farmers whose
  natural methods make the quality of their product highly valued (almost
  eponymous), and who therefore, arguable, contribute much of positive
  value to the surrounding community, though they do not consider
  themselves part of its political structure, and are careful to see the
  well-being of their own, so as not to become wards or dependents of the
  State. It would be wrong to paint too idyllic a picture of Amish life --
  there have been some controversies connected with certain Amish
  communities, and there have been individual members of Amish communities
  who have had brushes with members of the surrounding community. But on
  the whole, the surrounding communities are accepting of the Amish,
  recognize the positive value they contribute, and nothing analogous to
  antisemitism can be said to infest the general regard for this people
  apart. Whereas, given the traditional role of Jews in serving as
  middle-men between the landed nobility and the common people, and the
  characterization of their professions as essentially parasitic (Marx
  preferred "unproductive"), antisemitism served to express the
  resentiment that festered among those who considered themselves
  victimized by this separated (but relatively privileged) segment of
  society. 
  
  Clearly, then, it is not separation itself or the peculiarity of the
  separated that incurs the animus of the surrounding community, but much
  more simply and common-sensically, it is how such separation is used by
  the separated group in order to determine its attitude towards and
  interaction with that larger community, that determines the response of
  the latter. While it may not be fair to draw major conclusions from a
  single counter-example, there are other intentional communities that
  could be adduced to make the case. The Amish are more salient and better
  known, so have been used to illustrate the point. 
  
  I would be interested in your response to this constructive criticism. 
  
  Respectfully, 
  
  Ken Freeland 

---------------------

From Yousef Salem:

  A clearer definition of zionism is "If it is good for the Jews, then
  screw everyone else". That mentality, in my opinion, makes zionism a far
  worse threat to the continuation of world peace and security, and if
  allowed to advance it will inevitably usher in a larger wave of hatred
  for Jews that may result in catastrophic physical disater to Jews
  worldwide. It is a more dangerous ideology than communism, fascism, or
  perhaps even nazism. The world populace is slowly becoming quite weary
  of the increasing level of zionist Jewish control, manipulation,
  intimation, threats, and whining demands without regard or concern for
  its effect on others. Last year the EU declared that among the five
  nations that impose the greatest threat to world freedom and security,
  so-called israel is the Number One threat, and a French official openly
  declared that it would be a shame if the world entered into WWIII, in
  effect, over a "shitty little country like israel". The quote is very
  close to his words. 

--------------------------------- 

After I forwarded Ken's and Yousef's response, Yael wrote to me:

  Your political views are not mine, indeed I find many of them 
  highly distasteful, not to say dangerous, and I do not wish to be 
  associated with your website. I criticise Israel and I criticise 
  the Jewish leadership in the West for supporting it blindly, and I'm 
  concerned that the result could be a bad anti-Semitic backlash, 
  especially in America. Such an outcome may please you - it worries and 
  frightens me. 


I replied to Yael:

  I am worried and frightened by what happens with Palestine, Iraq, Middle
  East and its peoples. You are worried about it, but only as long as it
  does not threaten your side. Objectively, you are just providing alibi
  for the Jews. You do not want to win; you want to beweep the losing
  Palestinians. I want to win this war; and the fate of Wolfowitz and
  Foxman does not cause me insomnia, while the fate of Gaza and Baghdad
  does. "The Jews" (led by the Jewish leadership) are a side in the war,
  and I am on the other side. 

---------------------------------------------------------

Actually, even mainstream Jews became aware of their religious problem: 

  It Is Time to Confront the Exclusionary Ethnocentrism in Jewish Sacred Literature 
  
  by Allan C. Brownfeld
  Issue / Winter 2000
  
  http://www.acjna.org/article_view.asp?article_id=34