See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/299880700

Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East

Chapter · December 2012

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199934249.003.0007

CITATIONS READS

0 974

3 authors, including:

Motti Inbari
University of North Carolina at Pembroke
41 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ideological Change and the Making of Modern Jewish Identity View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Motti Inbari on 14 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East

Sami Shalom Chetrit, Intra-Jewish Conflict in Israel: White Jews, Black Jews, trans.
Oz Shelach. London: Routledge, 2010. xii + 298 pp.

Intra-Jewish Conflict in Israel: White Jews, Black Jews is Sami Shalom Chetrit’s
account of Mizrahi resistance, over a 60-year period, to the Ashkenazic hegemony in
Israel. From the time of their mass arrival in the 1950s, Mizrahi Jews who had mi-
grated from Arab and Muslim countries struggled against discrimination on the part
of the Ashkenazic Zionist establishment. Chetrit aims to show what Mizrahi con-
sciousness is and how it developed throughout years of struggle. He identifies four
stages of opposition developing along different lines, all of which are presented as
being in some way radical. The most radical direction was that espoused first by the
Wadi Salib rebels in the late 1950s and later by the Black Panther movement in the
early 1970s. In contrast is the Shas party, established in 1983, which is defined by
Chetrit as a radical religious party. Finally, there are intellectual radicals, among
them those belonging to the Democratic Mizrahi Rainbow Movement (Hakeshet
Hademokratit Hamizrahit) and other, smaller, organizations.
Chetrit begins with a theoretical section that defines two archetypes of resistance:
integrationists and nationalists (pp. 7–8). This division is based on models designed
by Sidney Tarrow and Herbert Haines to explain the history of African Americans’
struggle against racism in the United States, according to which integrationists (such
as Martin Luther King, Jr.) sought to subvert or change the system from within,
whereas nationalists (such as Malcolm X) opted for more radical or violent grass-
roots activism.1 Chetrit applies this theoretical platform to the case of Mizrahim in
Israel, claiming that their struggle may be understood as a battle against Israeli
racism.
After setting out the socio-historical background in Israel, Chetrit defines and
identifies Mizrahi moderates and radicals. Moderates (integrationists) are those who
worked within the hegemonic Ashkenazic Zionist establishment, in particular during
the 1950s and 1960s. Among them were a number of Knesset members and govern-
ment ministers, including Bechor Chetrit (minister of the police, 1948–1967) and
Yisrael Yeshayahu (minister of postal services, 1967–1969, and speaker of the Knes-
set, 1972–1977). According to the theoretical model, radical resistance develops at a
later stage. Chetrit, however, includes among the radicals the Wadi Salib protesters of
1959, even though their activities took place during “the first decade of shock” in
which the mass of newly arrived Mizrahim were engaged mainly in acclimating to
their new surroundings and were mostly absent from the political scene.

352
Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East 353

Chetrit’s theoretical analysis initially leads us to understand that the radicals were the
“good guys” as opposed to the “bad guy” integrationists. This dichotomy, however,
gradually fades away as the analysis proceeds to a detailed description of Mizrahi
movements, parties, and leaders. At this point, it becomes difficult to classify the various
actors via Chetrit’s suggested models and terminologies, and one is left questioning the
worth of his theoretical approach. Regarding the Black Panthers, for instance, Chetrit
presents them first as radicals who led a social protest in Israel but then shows how they
gradually crossed over to the integrationist camp. Yet while describing them at one point
as “Ashkenazified bourgeoisie” (p. 21), he nonetheless seems eager to preserve the
Black Panthers’ perceived historical role as the most radical movement since the estab-
lishment of the state of Israel. The theoretical approach is even more problematic in the
case of Shas; after extensively comparing it to the Iranian revolution, Chetrit concedes
that existing models on political movements do not succeed in explaining its success. In
any event, he concludes, Shas is not even a movement, but rather a political party.
In the last section of the book, Chetrit demonstrates the shift of emphasis on the
part of Mizrahi activists from awareness to organization, providing brief descriptions
of a number of small organizations (Bimat Kivun Hadash, Apiryon, Hila, Kedma,
and Hakeshet Hademokratit Hamizrahit), that began functioning in the late 1980s
and 1990s. Chetrit, who has been personally active in several of these groups, lauds
their political effectiveness.
In his conclusion, Chetrit correctly observes that Mizrahi activism, no matter how
radical or accommodating, is based on a common desire to have Mizrahim incorpo-
rated into the national ethos of Israeliness (yisreeliyut). Furthermore, neither the rad-
icals nor the integrationists can claim sole credit for bringing about any political or
social change; as previously demonstrated by Haines and others, such change comes
about through a combination of the two forces, even if there is no practical coopera-
tion between them. Thus change, as Chetrit puts it, is eventually the outcome of a
situation in which “one shakes the tree, another picks the fruits” (pp. 8–9).
HENRIETTE DAHAN KALEV
Ben-Gurion University

Note

1. Sidney G. Tarrow, Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics

(Cambridge: 1989); Herbert H. Haines, Black Radicals and the Civil Rights Mainstream,
1954–1970 (Knoxville: 1988).

David Ohana, Political Theologies in the Holy Land: Israeli Messianism and Its
Critics. London: Routledge, 2010. xvii + 179 pp.

Political Theologies in the Holy Land is a book of great importance. It discusses the
attitude of David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, on the question whether
Zionism and the establishment of the state of Israel represents a messianic realization,
354 Book Reviews

and the contrasting attitude of major Israeli intellectuals. The book presents a compli-
cated picture: it offers many possible definitions of messianism as well as a spectrum
of possibilities for its actualization. However, it also raises a few unanswered ques-
tions.
David Ohana begins his account with a chronology of four stages of political mes-
sianic development: the Zionist movement; the Mandate-era state-in-the-making; the
newly founded state of Israel; and Israel following the Six-Day War of 1967. In his
first chapter, which discusses the rise of secular messianism, we are introduced to
two major forms of messianism: transcendental and Promethean. Whereas transcen-
dental messianism is an expectation for the end of days that would be brought about
by God, Promethean messianism requires humans to take control of their salvation.
Pre-modern movements anticipated a miraculous salvation by God; modern political
movements would try to create their own utopia.
Ohana reviews messianic movements in Jewish history, and correctly focuses on
the change that the modern period brought with regard to messianic expectations.
Following this, he provides an overview of Zionist ideologists that emphasizes the
utopian overtones of their thinking. The chapter ends with the messianic idea in the
thought of David Ben-Gurion. I felt the chapter could have benefited from an intro-
duction of the idea as it was articulated by the Jewish Reform movement, which
revived the kabbalistic notion of tikun ’olam, whereby the role of the Jewish people
is to promote an ongoing process to make the world a better place. Ben-Gurion’s
vision, I believe, was inspired by that concept.
The second chapter deals with the specifics of Ben-Gurion’s messianic ideas,
which, as Ohana shows, were already part of his early writings. This chapter portrays
Ben-Gurion as a sophisticated figure: on the one hand, a rigid philosopher who was
inspired by romantic nationalism, and on the other, a sound and pragmatic statesman.
In accordance with the messianic myth, Ben-Gurion’s theology contained short- and
long-term goals. In the short run, he believed, the mission of Zionism was to re-
gather Jewish exiles and establish a territorial homeland. From there would come a
more utopian phase in which the messianic message of the Jewish people as a “light
unto the nations” would go forth from the land of Israel. This myth also included an
apocalyptic phase that was realized with the rise of Fascism, Nazism, and the Holo-
caust. In terms of the Jews, statism (mamlakhtiyut), the fusion of all ethnic groups
into one mixture, was the essence of Ben-Gurion’s utopian vision.
The third chapter presents the sober analysis of messianism offered by two great
historians, Jacob Talmon and Gershom Scholem. Both Talmon, who studied modern
totalitarian ideologies, and Scholem, who wrote a major work on the Sabbatian
movement, saw a great danger in the fusion of utopian ideas and politics, not just in
the Jewish context but also in the more universal frame of reference. Talmon warned
against the attempt to realize messianic vision by force, fearing that Ben-Gurion’s
messianic vision could not be actualized without violence (as Ohana notes, Talmon
also rejected the political platform of Israel’s sixth prime minister, Menachem Begin,
who advocated retention of “Greater Israel”—those lands captured during the Six-
Day War). Scholem, for his part, was concerned about the overly nationalist aspect of
Ben-Gurion’s vision, and even more troubled by the religious Zionist messianic
blend that was created by the followers of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook.
Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East 355

The fourth chapter focuses on Yeshayahu Leibowitz, a major Jewish intellectual

whose influence grew in the decades following the Six-Day War. Ohana reviews
Leibowitz’s critique on messianism, which for him did not represent “true” Judaism.
In Leibowitz’s view, the core of Judaism lies in its emphasis on religious observance;
he opposed the mediation between man and God. Moreover, according to Ohana,
whereas Leibowitz was a true Zionist, he was also a humanist who had a high regard
for universalism. Therefore he opposed the Israeli occupation of lands captured
during the Six-Day War, denied any identification of Zionism with messianic re-
demption, and rejected the sanctification of the state and the land. In fact, Leibo-
witz’s early writings support the idea of establishing a Torah state that would become
a Jewish utopia. Ohana does not mention these writings, and thus misses the chance
to discuss the transformation in Leibowitz’s ideology.
The fifth chapter discusses Nietzsche’s influence over Israel Eldad, an extreme
right-wing Israeli ideologue. This is a fascinating historical and intellectual review of
an important scholar who is much neglected by academics. However, Ohana’s dis-
cussion overlooks Eldad’s more specific messianic ideology, as articulated in nu-
merous writings about the “kingdom of Israel” (malkhut yisrael) that appeared in
Sulam, a revolutionary journal he published. Because Ohana does not deal with this
material, the chapter on Eldad appears to be flawed and out of place.
Finally, the sixth chapter, titled “The Critique of Political Theology,” gathers a
group of thinkers with different perspectives. The discussion starts with Martin
Buber’s support of Ben-Gurion’s ideas—Buber, Ohana notes, tended to be drawn
into the utopian vision of Israel’s role of being “a light unto the nations.” From there,
Ohana presents the views of selected modern Orthodox intellectuals, including
Baruch Kurzweil and Akiva Ernst Simon, and contrasts these views with the “Mercaz
Harav” philosophy promoted by the followers of Kook. Whereas Kook’s disciples
sanctified the land and the state of Israel, these thinkers, like Leibowitz, drew a clear
distinction between the sacred aspects of Judaism and the secular nature of the mod-
ern Jewish state.
In sum, Political Theologies in the Holy Land offers a major contribution to the
understanding of how the messianic myth influenced Ben-Gurion’s ideology, as well
as how this ideology was critiqued from both the right and the left. There is still place
for discussion of how this mythology influenced later developments in Israeli history.
MOTTI INBARI
University of North Carolina at Pembroke

Todd Samuel Presner, Muscular Judaism: The Jewish Body and the Politics of
Regeneration. London: Routledge, 2007. xxiv + 279 pp.

During the Second Zionist Congress (1898), Max Nordau called for the inauguration
of a “muscular Judaism” to counter stereotypic images of Jews as weak and unhealthy.
This call became part of the Zionist ethos that promoted the notion of a “new Jew”: one
who could take on the physical (and cultural) task of resettling the land. In Muscular
356 Book Reviews

Judaism: The Jewish Body and the Politics of Regeneration, Todd Samuel Presner pro-
vides a profound and wide-ranging analysis of Nordau’s concept and the way in which
it evolved and became incorporated into the larger Jewish national movement. Presner’s
basic assumption is that many of Nordau’s ideas can be traced back to ideologies and
processes that were initiated in Central Europe, mainly in Germany, at the end of the
19th century.
Each chapter of the book is dedicated to a different theme. The first focuses on the
rhetoric surrounding the term “regeneration,” with an emphasis on the obvious link
between Max Nordau’s reference to Jewish degeneration and the need for “muscular
Judaism” (as a modern expression of physical regeneration) and the opinions expressed
by such thinkers of the time as Christian Wilhelm Dohm, Julius Langbehn—despite
the differences between him and Nordau—and antisemitic thinkers such as Arthur de
Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Presner also focuses on aesthetic aspects
of the term, with an emphasis on two central figures: the philosopher Martin Buber
and the artist Ephraim Moses Lilien. Buber equated Jewish regeneration in art (as
manifested in Jewish artists’ depictions of the body, in contrast to prevailing notions
within Jewish tradition) with regeneration of the national spirit; Presner notes the ev-
ident association between Buber’s ideas and those of Friedrich Schiller, who believed
that art was a means of promoting moral and national values. And Lilien’s paintings,
according to Presner, are the most tangible expression of Buber’s ideas. In a lengthy,
in-depth analysis, Presner shows how Lilien was not only greatly influenced by the
decadent art of his time but was also a pioneer in Zionist art.
The central chapter of the book is dedicated to the link between 19th-century con-
cepts of the gymnastics movements with respect to national identity and Michel Fou-
cault’s notion of “bio-power,” which links power of the state and society with control
over the body and sexuality. German gymnastics movements founded by Friedrich
Ludwig Jahn treated body cultivation as cultivation of the nation as a whole and as a
means of enhancing national hygiene and improving the race. Such notions also en-
couraged the establishment of a Jewish gymnast movement, Jewish youth move-
ments, and Jewish student movements—as Presner shows by means of numerous
examples, Jewish gymnast journals often contained references to the prevailing Ger-
man ideology of the time.
Another issue treated at length in this chapter is the importance ascribed to
“hygiene,” not only in the sense of physical activities (such as gymnastics), nutrition,
and disease prevention, but also as the maintenance of “racial purity.” Among those
subscribing to such views was a Jewish physician named Felix Teilhaber, who
warned that, as a result of mixed marriages, the Jewish race could disappear. Presner
also points to the International Hygiene Exhibition in Dresden (1911), which fea-
tured a number of rooms devoted to “Jewish” hygiene, as the most salient expression
of the association between national hygiene and the maintenance of racial power or
degeneration.
In a chapter dealing with the historic connection of the Jews with the sea, and the
influence of the European colonialist image on the Zionist settlement, Presner out-
lines Hegel’s ideas on the link between national and cultural hegemony and argues
that Jewish colonialism in Mandatory Palestine was influenced by the European no-
tion of “cultivating” the East. The last chapter, titled “Soldiers of the Regeneration,”
Zionism, Israel, and the Middle East 357

returns more closely to the theme of muscular Judaism as it focuses on the concept
with respect to Jewish fighters—specifically, German Jewish soldiers of the First
World War, whose fighting skills were lauded by Jewish nationalists as exemplifying
a revival of the ancient heroic past of the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba. Special empha-
sis is placed in this chapter on the newly emerging image of the pilot in Germany as
a reflection of the modern fighter who integrated physical and mechanical prowess,
and the impact of this image on the aspirations of Jews to become pilots.
Muscular Judaism soundly establishes its central and highly innovative thesis re-
garding the link between Nordau’s slogan and German notions of national regenera-
tion (and degeneration). However, there is a serious gap between the broader subject
of the Jewish body in national regeneration and Presner’s more specific, but overly
narrow, perspective.
Presner provides ample documentation to support his claim that the source of var-
ious aspects of muscular Judaism, including much of the terminology associated
with it, lies in German culture. Yet the actualization of the Zionist regeneration en-
deavor was far more the product of efforts made by Jews from Eastern Europe, and it
took place mainly in the Jewish settlement in Mandatory Palestine. To be sure, The-
odor Herzl and Max Nordau—both of them products of German culture—are ex-
tremely important figures in the initial inception and later shaping of the Zionist
movement. However, a majority of the leaders who succeeded Herzl and Nordau
were from Eastern Europe, among them Zeev Jabotinsky, David Ben-Gurion, Berl
Katznelson, Nachman Syrkin, Ber Borochov, and A.D. Gordon. While these leaders
and others similarly sought to transform the image of the Jew, their main points of
reference (and objects of criticism) were the diaspora (galut) and traditional Judaism
rather than Central European ideas or specific German ideologies regarding race,
hygiene, degeneration, and colonialism. In addition, most of the Jewish writers that
Presner cites extensively (among them, Felix Teilhaber, Elias Auerbach, Max Grun-
wald, and Heinrich Loewe) were unknown to the majority of Jews from Eastern
Europe who joined the Zionist movement; the impact of these writers’ ideas on the
national regeneration endeavor were extremely limited outside of German culture.
A much more significant factor in the transformation of the physical image of the Jew
was the new Hebrew culture that originated in Eastern Europe and evolved mainly in
Mandatory Palestine. Hebrew writers and poets such as Hayim Nahman Bialik,
Shaul Tchernichovsky, and Yosef Hayim Brenner, who all dealt with the new Jewish
body in their writings, had little if any connection with German culture.1
Indeed, the new Jew in Mandatory Palestine—as crystallized in the image of the
“sabra”—was far more likely to be identified either as a farmer working the land or
as a soldier rather than as a Jew engaging in sports, “hygiene,” or some form of cul-
tural endeavor aimed at providing the backward East with European values. Simi-
larly, the more recent image of the Israeli soldier fighting for his land may reflect the
military dimension of the new Jewish body better than the older image of the German
Jewish soldier seeking to prove his bravery in response to antisemitic accusations.
Thus, even if “muscular Judaism” was initially a concept based on German and Cen-
tral European notions, these did not materially influence the later stages of the na-
tional Jewish regeneration project, and it is doubtful that its principal architects were
even aware of its German origins.
 358 Book Reviews

In conclusion, a technical comment: although there are endnotes and an index in

Muscular Judaism, there is no bibliography. This is problematic, because dozens
of citations in the book include abbreviations of sources, and there is no list for
decoding them.
HAIM KAUFMAN
Wingate College

Note

1. See Michael Gluzman, Haguf hatziyoni: leumiyut, migdar uminiyut basifrut ha’ivrit
hah.adashah (Tel Aviv: 2007).

View publication stats