|
Back to
Zionism main page
* Introduction
* The Origins of Judaism
* Zionism as Emancipation
* Israel: between Secularism and Judaism
* Is Daniel a Brother?
* Conclusion
Introduction
It [Israel] will foster the development of the country for
the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and
peace as envisaged by the Prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete
equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants
irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of
religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard
the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the Charter
of the Unites Nations. [Declaration of the State of Israel, 1948][1]
When the state of Israel was established in the aftermath of the Second
World War, it granted rights of return to all dispersed Jews throughout
the world: claiming Palestine as the Jewish spiritual homeland.
Although a product of Zionism, a secular political Jewish movement, the
modern state evoked the teachings of the ancient Biblical Prophets as
the inspiration for its self-proclaimed egalitarianism.[2]
For its national language it adopted Hebrew;
associated with the Torah and Judaism. But, despite the inclusion of
symbolic religious motifs into the identity constructions of the new
state, does this in fact make Israel Jewish? This question has produced
a plethora of dichotomous responses, from those lauding the Jewish
exclusivity of the State to criticism for not being Jewish enough. The
exhaustive discussions on this contested subject are beyond the scope of
this paper; instead the aim is simply to focus on a few pertinent points
in order to explore the historical constructions of Judaism and
Jewishness in the context of the modern State of Israel.
The Origins of Judaism
Born out of the Israelite faith (Yahwism)
predominantly from the teachings of Moses, the Hebrew people or Ibrim
originate either from the legendary figure, Eber, or from the fact that
they as Arameans migrated from beyond the Great river (Eber ha-Nahar),
the Euphrates. Perhaps the most eminent of all the Arameans was Abraham,
considered to be the founder of the Jewish religion.[3] Judaism as a
distinct religio-ethnic phenomenon, however, does not appear until the
split of the Israelites into two distinct kingdoms within the Semitic
lands after the time of Solomon.
In the North, the Kingdom of Israel was created
culminating with Samaria established as its capital; the South saw the
emergence of the Kingdom of Judah (Judea).[4] After the Babylonians
defeated the Southern Kingdom around 586 BC Solomons Temple, which was
within the domain of the Kingdom of Judea, was demolished and the elite
of the Southern Kingdom were taken into exile in Babylonia.[5] The
invasion of the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar, was seen by the
Judeans as punishment for breaking the Covenant with God after entering
the Promised Land under the guidance of Moses (Deuteronomy, 1: 35-5).
Despite a succession of prophets and reformers, the nation had remained
unfaithful. Jeremiah beseeched the people to repentance but, as Ninian
Smart comments, his call remained unanswered then inevitably the
destruction of the land was assured.[6]
It was not until Persian leader Cyrus the Great
in 538 BC ordered the restoration of the Temple that the Judeans exiled
in Babylonia were permitted back into Jerusalem. Ezra, their sage,
reinstituted the teachings of the Torah and undertook the reformation of
the people who had remained in Jerusalem. Temple worship was
re-established along with fasting and the observance of Shabbat.
Ezras reforms in the fourth century BC brought in the Judeans from the
other regions of the Diaspora, namely Babylonia and Egypt. This
convergence saw a conglomeration of various interpretations of Hebrew
traditions, all born out of the oral Torah handed down from the
teachings of Moses. It is at this point that we begin to see the
origins of Rabbinical Judaism.[7] Although Ezra is attributed with the
re-establishment of the Temple at Jerusalem, the disintegration of the
Northern Kingdom of Israel is held in contrast to the continuance of
Hebrew tradition within the Southern Kingdom of Judea, which claimed
descent from David. Hence, Cecil Roth concludes that the political and
spiritual identity of the Northern Kingdom waned as the influence of the
Kingdom of Judea took prominence in the character and national
consciousness of the emerging New Israel.[8]
However, whilst it might be argued that Judaism
derives from the religion developed among the Hebrews of the Kingdom of
Judea, we could equally contend that Judaism is located in the ancient
traditions of the Semitic peoples existing as a nation in Judea
(Palestine) from 6 BC to 1 CE. The contending historical interpretations
present two definitions of Judaism; one based on religion, the other on
race. In other words, in relation to historical constructions of Judaism
there are two fundamental questions: who is a Jew? and what is a Jew? -
a dialectic that has been explored in an interesting and detailed
discussion by Manfred Vogel.[9]
The implications of the dual definitions of
Judaism are essential to understanding the national identity
constructions of the modern State of Israel, particularly in relation to
the question of its perceived
Jewishness. For example, if Judaism is primarily
a religion, then the validity of Israels sovereignty and legitimacy
rests on its religious scriptural edicts. That is, the where, why, when
and how of Israel should be established according to the Biblical
text.[10] If on the other hand, Judaism is defined racially, how then
does the nation-state determine and define its national identity
particularly in terms of citizenship, the inclusion and rights of
indigenous, ethnic and religious others and their Human rights? Some
suggest that Judaism is a combination of both religion and race, firstly
as a religion based on the teachings of the ancient prophets descending
from Abraham and Moses. This is manifested through the Scripture and
laws of one God by revelatory means of a Covenant, the adherence to
which is fulfilled in Gods promise of land - The Kingdom. And, secondly,
as a nation born out of the Semitic races principally emanating from
ancient Judea or Palestine, who are historically linked to the
revelatory Covenant and promise of God, hence, the formulation of people
and land.[11] The connection of people and land is intrinsic to modern
day Judaism and, perhaps more importantly, to the State of Israels
historical claim as a sovereign nation-state. However Gods promise of
land, kingdom or state is conditional to the peoples religious fidelity
and adherence to their oath. In Hebrew these terms are known as
Teshuvah (returning to righteousness) and Geulah (redemption
through Zion, the Promised Land).[12]
It could be argued that the religion or race
debate is both over-simplified and reductionist. The reality is that
Judaism has been largely shaped by diasporic and exilic Jewish
experiences that reflect the diverse civilisations and different
cultures of historical settlements. The Hellenisation and Romanisation
of the Jews are two classic examples.[13] However, whilst it is true
that the diaspora has impacted on Judaism, resulting in a religious
pluralism and diversity of doctrines based on central tenets and
teachings, in recent times the assimilation disintegration of European
Jews gave birth to political Zionism as a reassertion of Judaism.
Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), the person accredited with the birth of the
modern Zionist movement, conveyed his fears of Jewish assimilation and
appealed to the national character of historical Judaism in order to
redeem Jews from every degradation as a community that he believed was
too noble to make destruction desirable.[14] The fact that Judaism could
give rise to the birth of Zionism as a political expression outside of
the realm of Messianic eschatology is perhaps further evidence of the
diversity of Judaism. However, many Jewish scholars agree that Judaism
is neither monolithic nor homogenous and Jacob Neusners explanation of
Judaisms is:
Judaic systems that explained the social order formed by
Jews with an account of a coherent world-view, way of life, and theory
of the Jews social entity or the Israel that they constituted.[15]
As a Judaism, political Zionism constructed its
own particular Israel in the form of a modern secular nation-state. But
then how Jewish is the state of Israel?
Zionism as Emancipation
The establishment of the Zionist movement took
its inspirations from the malaise of the nineteenth-century European
Jews and its desire for the creation of Zion (the land of Israel). The
situation of European Jews in that period was that of polarisation. They
were either socially segregated into ghettos where their somewhat
introspective Talmudic observances detached them from their non-Jewish
counterparts, or they were completely assimilated into the European way
of life and disconnected from their own community, religion, and
culture.[16] These responses were a reaction to the legacy of
intolerance and oppression of the Jews that had existed for centuries,
manifest in brutal pogroms occasionally incited by papal
edicts.[17] David Vital asserts that emancipation from the status of
European underclass and a desire to freely express Jewish beliefs and
traditions, through the concept of a Jewish homeland, became possible as
a result of the Enlightenment. He claims that the Enlightenments
draining away of the power of organised religion to uphold the
traditional forms of authority made possible an assertion of Jewish
national consciousness.[18]
Zionism as a religious expression has always
been a part of the Messianic religious teachings of Judaism and
Geulah represents salvation for the dispersed Jewish nation as an
eschatological understanding of Deuteronomy, 30:1-5.[19] The advent of
Geulah is generally believed to be preceded by the appearance of
the Mashiach, or the Anointed One. The chronology of events,
according to Hebrew tradition, teaches that Zion will be established
only by the coming of the Mashiach, who will then gather the
dispersed Israel and lead them into Zion.[20] However, the arrival of
the Meshiach is conditional to Israels Teshuvah, only then
will Israel achieve Geulah Shelemah or complete redemption.[21]
Political Zionism, urged on by the rise of anti-Semitism and the problem
of Jewish assimilation, wanted to make religious utopia a political and
social reality. Herzl (1860-1904), the son of a Hungarian Rabbi, was a
prolific mobiliser and proselytiser for the creation of a Jewish
homeland, which he perceived as a solution to the Jewish question.[22]
He was disturbed by the devastating effects of secularisation and
assimilation on Judaism and the Jewish people. As a result, he saw
political Zionism as an ideological alternative to Messianic
emancipation.[23] Thus, the World Zionist Organisation that he and
like-minded others established transformed their Jewish nationalism[24]
in order to appeal to religious Jews holding Messianic beliefs. Ben
Halpern claims this transformation was achieved, firstly, by actively
assisting Jews from the Diaspora in turning to Israel; secondly, by not
proposing any new Judaism or opposing any religious expressions;
thirdly, the Zionists insisted on a rational solution to the problem of
Jewish exile, presented as a re-affirmation of the religious eschatology
that had largely been abandoned as a myth or disregarded by western
Jews. Finally, they emphasized an equal regard for the Hebrew language
and Jewish religious education as traditional forms of Jewish
culture.[25]
Herzls Zionists, however, were unable to
convince all Jewish factions that a Jewish homeland through a secular
state was a workable solution to their religio-ethnic and cultural
problems. Despite some opposition, the first Zionist Congress was held
in Basel in 1897 and was eventually able to enlist the help of many
wealthy western Jews including the banker, Baron Edmund de Rothschild,
whilst also evoking the sympathies of western politicians and
leaders.[26] The
organisation debated at length where the location of the new Jewish state would
be: Uganda, Argentina, or Palestine. But
Herzl had previously written that, Palestine is our
unforgettable historic homeland.[27] However, Palestine was then ruled
by the Turks and the Sultan had already limited Jewish immigration into
the region.[28] Herzl made an open bid to the Caliph by offering to
bankroll the failing Ottoman Empire saying:
If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us
Palestine, we could, in return, undertake the complete management of the
finances of Turkey.29]
The offer was swiftly and flatly declined.
However, fortunes changed after the First World War, when Palestine came
under the rule of the British government as a result of the Arabs (who
were British Allies) revolting against their Turkish leaders. As
anti-Semitism raged through Western Europe, the rise of National
Socialism gave birth to Germanys Nazi Party, eventually leading to the
formation of a fascist state. The diabolical rise of Nazism witnessed
the most atrocious acts of genocide and the Jews received the brunt of
Hitlers ethnic cleansing of Europe. A Nazi holocaust ensued whilst
Europe waged war. Alexander contends that the massacre of millions of
European Jews was another demonstration of the urgency of solving the
problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz Israel
the Jewish state.[30]
Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and
civil unrest between the new settlers and the indigenous Arabs escalated
as the Zionists continued their political lobbying for a Jewish
homeland. By 1937, a form of partition was enforced by the governing
British, effectively a precursor to the Jewish state, splitting the two
Semitic communities (Jews and Arabs) by creating two satellite
states.[31] This mandate was preceded by the Balfour Declaration of
November 1917, which called upon the British government to recognise the
TransJordan (land west of the River Jordan) as a national home for the
Jewish people.[32] In November 1947, the United Nations General
Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish
state in Palestine and on the 15th May 1948, the State of Israel was
declared.[33] Political Zionism had superseded the aspirations of
centuries of Jewish dispersion and, although the Messiah had not
come, for many the Messianic era had begun and the Jews finally had
their state.
Israel: between
Secularism and Judaism
It would appear that Herzls vision of a model
state was as much inspired by the class struggle of revolutionary
Russian peasants as by the aspirations of dispersed and assimilated
Western Jews. The spread of socialism ran parallel to the emergence of
Zionism in the nineteenth century and many Jews were not only influenced
by socialism, but were actively engaged in the Socialist Revolution.
Although Herzls political ideas were mild, progressive and largely based
on state and democratic socialism,[34] Vital asserts that convergence of
these two ideologies did occur and the needs of the Zionists were
sympathetic to the all-Russian revolutionary struggle.[35] Although
ideologically it may be argued that Herzls dream for a Jewish homeland
relied less upon the tenets of Judaism than it did on the principles of
Socialism, it is true that the state of Israel has provided an
ideological and political identity for Jews globally. However, the
secular socialist principles fall short of fulfilling Talmudic law as a
complete way of life but Herzl had mused positively about the creation
of a Jewish state inspired by the recent creation of the revolutionary
Soviet State; he commented,
To create a new sovereign state is neither
ridiculous nor impossible. We have seen it happen in our own day, among
peoples who were not largely middle class as we are, but poorer, less
educated, and hence weaker than ourselves.[36]
These secular influences perhaps shaped the laws of the State of Israel
as identified in its Declaration (1948) which, whilst clearly defining
Israel as a Jewish state, also states that:
It [Israel] will foster the development of the
country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom,
justice and peace as envisaged by the Prophets of Israel; it will ensure
complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants
irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of
religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard
the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the Charter
of the Unites Nations.[37]
Orthodox Jews holding Messianic beliefs would
perhaps be even less inclined to a kingdom without a king that not only
recognized the beliefs of religious others but also the sanctity of
those who preferred atheism. Reform Jews; however, appear to be more
accepting of the secular Jewish state and Michael Prior asserts that
whilst Jewish religious establishments were initially reticent in
embracing Zionism, today it fully supports its achievements. He cites
Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks as stating that Israel is the most powerful
collective expression of Jewry and the most significant development in
Jewish life since the Holocaust.[38] Prior also points us to the
contradiction of the idealism of Israels egalitarianism, cited in its
Declaration, and the actual reality in respect of its now displaced
indigenous Palestinian people. Further, he sees the destruction of Arab
villages and the continued disproportionate use of force through wars
and military operations as state terrorism.[39]
Priors criticism of Israels failure to
implement its Declaration of State Principles; egalitarianism based on
basic human rights, highlights Israels problems as a multicultural,
multi-ethnic and religiously plural society. In addition to the
existence of cosmopolitan and multi-diverse communities already
indigenous to the region before the creation of Israel, the influx of
Russian, American, western European, African, Middle Eastern and Indian
Jews has added extra tension to the regions fragile ethno-religious
balance. Each new migrant sub-group has brought a diversity of Judaisms
and the hope of creating a monolithic national Judaism from the
converging traditions will perhaps depend on how Israel accommodates
religious multiplicity in a modern secular setting. The first edict of
the State of Israels law is the principle of Oleh (immigration)
as a right for every Jew. However, as a result of their exile
experiences, the immigrant Jewish communities to Israel are either
advantaged or disadvantaged by their relative cogency of secularism. As
political Zionism was conceived in a Western secular setting, European
Jews appear as the advantaged group in Israel. Western migr Jews are
generally thought to fit more readily into the states socio-political
framework largely because the Judaic systems they developed in exile
were a response to Europe and Americas secular environment. The
Sephardim or Oriental Jews as more traditional communities emanating
from Arabia, Africa and Asia are less able to integrate.[40] This does
not mean that other Judaisms are not entitled to claim Israel as theirs,
rather they have yet to orientate themselves within the state. This is
not an easy process, for example, hundreds of Yemeni Sanaani Jews along
with large numbers of Ethiopian Falasha Jews have returned to their
original countries after their unsuccessful migration attempts.
Is Daniel a Brother?
In a strange circumstance that required the
secular Israeli law to define a Jew in religious terms; the Law of
Return (1950) came under scrutiny during the Brother Daniel case of
1962.[41] As a Jewish convert to Christianity, Brother Daniel applied
for nationality under the Law of Return, raising the age-old debate of
who is and what is a Jew. Brother Daniel was indeed a Jew by virtue of
his matriarchal lineage in accordance with the Law of Return, Clause 4B,
which states that, for the purposes of this law, a Jew means a person
who was born of a Jewish mother.[42] However, because of Brother
Daniels religious conversion his rights of return and citizenship were
vetoed and consequently revoked by a judicial verdict. Brother Daniels
case is interesting and offers a partial answer to our inquiry of the
Jewishness of the State of Israel. If Israel is simply a modern secular
state for Jews, then Brother Daniel would meet the criteria of Jewish by
race or lineage. However, Clause 4B continues ...or has converted to
Judaism and is not a member of another religion.[43] Judge Silberg, the
presiding judge in the case, revealed some interesting Talmudic evidence
which from a religious perspective appears to support Brother Daniels
claim to be Jewish. One Halakah edict reads,
For even though he has converted to another religion he, none the less
remains a Jew, as it is written, Israel has sinned; though he has
sinned, he remains a Jew.
(Prisha, Commentary on Tur,
ibid., note 22.)[44]
Judge Silberg, after carefully scrutinising
rabbinical laws which included laws of marriage and divorce, had to make
a clear distinction between Jewish religious law, which supported
Brother Daniels claim to be a Jew, and secular law, which it was ruled
denied his claim. Ironically, Jewish Rabbinical law ruled that
Jewishness was by blood or race, rather than by religious profession,
whereas the secular state law ruled in opposition to the claimant,
instead defining Jewishness not by ethnic origin, but by religion. The
implications of the Brother Daniel case is that the question what is a
Jew (vis--vis beliefs) is certainly not the same as who is a Jew (vis--vis
lineage).[45]
Another point of contention in respect of
Israels Jewishness is the issue of its sovereign borders, particularly
those agreed by the United Nations (UN) which excluded specific
territories. The disputed territories were already within the borders
of existing sovereign states before the creation of Israel. However,
the designated UN borders do not correspond to the ancient Biblical
descriptions of Israel. Although a detailed archeological discussion
falls outside the parameters of this paper, we might still raise the
question - how Jewish is todays state of Israel in the light of biblical
geography?[46] The resulting wars with neighboring states had a
profound effect on Jews living outside Israel, especially those who had
perhaps never really identified themselves with the state of Israel. In
particular, when the Six Day War in 1967 seemed to spell the destruction
of the State of Israel by an allied-Arab force, American Jews, who had
formed their own Judaic system unique to Americas secular political
framework, began to forge strong sympathetic and supportive links with
Israel.[47] Before the war, young American Jews were strangely
introspective and apparently disconnected from recent Jewish history.
For example, the Holocaust and the creation of the state of Israel were
events with which young Jews in America did not associate.
Nathan Glazer attributes the Six Day War with
the re-awakening of the American Jews to the idea of the Land of
Israel. Jewish American youth, whose views before the war were
generally inclined towards socialism, realised that promoting such ideas
was in fact counter-productive to the cause of Israel. Glazer further
asserts that young Jews less influenced by the New Left were torn
between their Jewish feelings and the hostility towards Israel by the
communist bloc realising they were more Jewish than they had
suspected.[48] The Jewish feeling soon transformed into mobilization,
via support of Israel, anti-Soviet activities and demonstrations, and
large numbers of Jewish American immigrations to Israel. A reaction of
extremism was employed by some young Jews through militant organisations
like the Jewish Defence League in which hijackings, bombings, and
assassinations were used as terror tactics to counteract Soviet
anti-Semitism.[49] Further, the wave of new immigrants into Israel from
America saw a resurgence of the Kibbutz movement. This movement,
seen by many as either religious fanaticism or extreme nationalism, has
been responsible for the increased border tensions, working mostly in
opposition to the Israeli state in its efforts to expand Jewish
territories.[50] Thus, it would appear that whilst the secular Israeli
Government upholds agreements on disputed borders with other states,
many of its citizens believe that the state boundaries should be those
of the biblical description. Genesis, 15:18, reads, Unto thy seed I
have given this land, from the River of Egypt unto the great river, the
River Euphrates. (The Bible also contains other descriptions of Israel
in, Numbers, 34:2, and, Ezekiel, 47:15-20.)
As a result of their territorial activities,
the ultra-religious, nationalist Kibbutzim believe themselves to
be truer to biblical Israel than the state itself. Yet it would seem
that their expansionist aspirations seriously undermine the peace and
security of the State, which allowed them the opportunity to settle in
the land of Israel in the first instance. We might therefore argue that
for the Kibbutzim, the State of Israel is not Jewish enough. But,
the fact that Judaism is neither monolithic nor homogenous has caused it
to continuously manifest throughout history in many varied forms and
this prompts some scholars of Judaism to speak of Judaisms which have
responded to their particular socio-political environments. Therefore,
at times Judaisms have retracted into microcosmic communities, cutting
off from the outside world as a means of self-preservation. Conversely,
they have interacted unconditionally whilst participating fully within
the dominant culture and society. This, it seems, has been the
historical experience of the Diaspora - ghetto or assimilation.
Conclusion
Before the creation of the Zionist state of
Israel, for most Jewish theological expressions, emancipation only
occurred with Teshuvah and Geulah via the Mashiach.
The unifying eschatology of Judaism is inextricably linked to the land
and when Jews speak of Israel they mean both people and land. Expulsion
is the price of religious infidelity and impiety, Salvation and
redemption takes the shape of the Mashiach. Years of exile for
the Jewish people had led to
mythologizing
Israel
- the land. As their diasporic experiences became increasingly dire, the
hope of mythological Israel intensified and political Zionism eventually
realized these aspirations. Europe did not want the Jews, the Jews did
not want Europe and the Zionist movement
demythologised
Israel
through an ideological construction in the form of a nation-state. But
is this national Jewish homeland Jewish? If the premise of multiple
forms of Judaism or Judaisms is accepted then Zionism, despite its
politicization, can be described as a Judaism even though in its early
conception of a Jewish state, it was not overtly Judaic. However, once
the State of Israel materialized, most Jews made a spiritual, political
or metaphysical link with it as the State of Israel declared itself a
Jewish homeland for the Jewish people. By its own choosing the state
connected itself to the ancient Jewish Prophets and established itself
within the Biblical Jewish homeland. Do these symbolic claims then make
the state of Israel Jewish? Perhaps the nearest answer to this question
is: not entirely. This is because the essential element in the
fulfillment of Israel as a Promised Land is the Mashiach. The
raised religious consciousness and awareness of belonging to a Jewish
nation from around the world is one of Israels achievements. However,
its major failing has been in the physical gathering of diaspora Jews
into the Zionist entity of a nation state homeland. We could therefore
argue that its disputed existence has actually been a major contribution
to Judaism globally, but at what price? Finally, the problem of Israels
exclusivity in defining a Jew, highlighted in the case of Brother Daniel
and its expulsion of large numbers of indigenous Palestinians from the
land, gives us a negative view which reflects a policy of racism.
Through such acts Israel seems to be saying a land only of the
Jews, only for the Jews. If Israel is making ancient Biblical
claims for itself in connection with Judaism, then how can we as
non-Jews dictate whether it is or is not? This leaves us to conclude
that the Zionist State of Israel is only one of many Judaisms.
* Mohammad Seddon is a Research Fellow at the
Islamic Foundation in Markfield, Leicester. He is also a PhD research
student in Religious Studies at Lancaster University.
Bibliography
Alexander, Philip S., Judaism-Textual
Sources for the Study of Religion, Manchester, Manchester University
Press, 1984.
Al-Kayyali, Abdul Wahab, Zionism,
Imperialism and Racism, London, Crom Helm Ltd., 1979.
Halpern, Ben, The Idea of the Jewish State,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961.
Isaac, Rael Jean, Israel Divided,
London, The John Hopkins University Press, 1976.
Lewittes, Mendell, Religious Foundations of
the Jewish State, New York, Ktav Publishing House, 1977.
Nuesner, Jacob, Judaism in Modern Times: An
Introduction and Reader, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1995.
Prior, Michael, The Bible and Colonialism,
Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Roth, Cecil, A History of the Jews, New
York, Schoken Books, revised edition, 1989.
Smart, Ninian, The Worlds Religions,
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Vital, David, The Origins of Zionism,
Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1975.
Vogel, Manfred H., A Quest for a Theology of
Judaism, London, University Press Of America, 1987.
Waines, David, A Sentence in Exile,
Illinois, Medina Press, 1977.
Weaver, Mary Jo, Introduction to
Christianity, California, Wadsworth Publishing Co., second edition,
1991.
[1] Cited in Alexander, Judaism-Textual Sources for the Study
of Religion, 1984, p.166.
[2] Ibid.
[3] See Roth, A history of the Jews, 1989, pp3-4.
[4] See Smart, The Worlds Religions, 1989, pp.208-209.
[5] Ibid., p.210.
[6] Ibid., p.211.
[7] Ibid., p.212.
[8] Roth, op. cit., p.36.
[9] Vogel, A Quest for a Theology of Judaism, 1987,
pp.77-108.
[10] See, Lewittes, Religious Foundations of the Jewish State,
1977, pp.1-4.
[11] Ibid., p.20.
[12] Ibid., pp.1-4.
[13] See, Weaver, An Introduction to Christianity, 1991,
pp.21-22.
[14] Alexander, Judaism-Textual Sources for the Study of
Religion, 1984, p.158.
[15] Neusner, Judaism in Modern Times, 1995, p.2.
[16] Vital, The Origins of Zionism,1975, p.25.
[17] Ibid., p.24.
[18] Ibid., p.371.
[19] Lewittes, op. cit., pp.34-37.
[20] Ibid., pp.38-41.
[21] Ibid., p.3.
[22] Cited in, Alexander, op. cit., p.160.
[23] Halpern, The Idea of the Jewish State, 1961, p.15.
[24] Ibid., p.17.
[25] Ibid., p.17.
[26] Vital, op. cit., pp.321-331.
[1][1][27]
Cited in, Alexander, op. cit., p.160.
[28] Vital, op. cit., p.319.
[29] Ibid., p.160.
[30] Italics are mine, Ibid., p.165.
[31] Waines, A Sentence in Exile, 1977, pp.71-84.
[32] Ibid., p.25.
[33] Alexander, op. cit., p.165.
[34] Vital, op. cit., p.316.
[35] Ibid., p.315.
[36] Ibid., p.159.
[37] Cited in, Alexander, op. cit., p.166.
[38]Cited in, Prior, The Bible and Colonisation, 1997,
p.172.
[39] Ibid., pp.172-173.
[40] See Neusner, op. cit., pp.1-18.
[41] Alexander, op. cit., p.168.
[42] Cited in, ibid., p.167.
[43] Cited in, ibid., p.167.
[44] Cited in, ibid., p.169.
[45] See Kassim, in Kayyali, (ed.), Zionism, Imperialism and
Racism, 1979, pp.109-117.
[46] For a detailed discussion of this subject, see Isaacs, op.
cit., pp.20-44.
[47] See Neusner, op. cit., p.6.
[48] Glazer, in ibid., p.225.
[49] Ibid., p.226.
[50] See Isaac, op. cit., pp.153-157.
|
