HHMI Newsgroup Archives
From: heb_roots_chr@mail.geocities.com
To: "Hebraic Heritage Newsgroup"<heb_roots_chr@geocities.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 00:56:41 +0000
Subject: JUICE Judeophobia 7
>From JUICE Administration juice at INTERNET
juice@jer1.co.il
To: phobia at INTERNET
phobia@jer1.co.il
Subject: JUICE Judeophobia 7
Sender owner-phobia@jer1.co.il
========================================================================
WZO Student and Academic Department
Jewish University In CyberspacE (JUICE)
juice@wzo.org.il birnbaum@wzo.org.il
http://www.wzo.org.il
========================================================================
Course: The Nature of Judeophobia
Lecture: 7/12
Lecturer: Gustavo D. Perednik
email: gustavop@jazo.org.il
You may be wondering whether this "valley of tears" we have been discussing had a parallel in the Islamic world,
and whether Christian Judeophobia was equally rampant within the two main branches of Christianity, Catholic
and Protestant.
Islam and Protestantism are similar in that both sought the validation of the Jews, and became Judeophobic out of
frustration when they were rejected.
But unlike Christianity, Islam did not emerge out of Judaism. Its founder was not Jewish, and it did not claim
to be the realization of the promises of the prophets. Therefore its encounter with Jewry was far less tense.
Jews in the Islamic world seldom suffered the tortures, expulsions and burning at the stake that typified Jewish
life under medieval Christian rule. However, their life under Islam was usually tainted with degradation and
insecurity.
In 7th century Medina, at the time of the beginnings of Islam, there lived a Jewish population from whom Mohammed
learned many practices of his new religion (to pray in the direction of Jerusalem, which was eventually changed
to Mecca; dietary laws; the Day of Atonement which was later replaced by the fast of Ramadan). But when Mohammed
failed to convince the Jews to accept him as a new Moses, he turned against them. His angry reaction was recorded
in the Koran, giving millions of Muslims throughout history divinely based antipathy to the Jews.
The Pact of Umar of 720 was the Muslim legal code which prescribed the treatment of Dhimmis, or non-Muslim
monotheists. The Dhimmis were required to acknowledge their subservient position to Muslims - they must not
manifest their religion publicly, they must rise from their seats if Muslims wish to sit, avoid riding horses,
wear different clothes. During the 11th century, the Caliph Hakim of Egypt ordered Jews to wear balls weighing
five pounds around their necks, to commemorate the calf's head which their ancestors had worshipped. Yemen was the
only Muslim country with a Jewish minority, that was never ruled by an European power. In 1679 nearly all
Yemenite Jews were expelled from their cities and villages. The synagogue of San'a, the capital, was
converted into a mosque which still exists and is called "the Mosque of the Expulsion"). Until their departure
from Yemen in 1948, all Jews were compelled to dress like beggars, and Jewish children were forced to convert to
Islam when their fathers died.
When the Turks occupied Yemen (1872) they asked an assembly of Muslim leaders to stop Muslim children
throwing stones at Jews. The answer was that the practice was an old religious custom called "Ada," and
could not be forbidden.
In 1840 a blood libel in Damascus introduced the myth into the Arab world. Only after international protest
were the Jews who survived their tortures released. But the libel became popular among Muslims, who often
attacked the Jews (mostly in Egypt and Syria) for drinking Muslim blood. The present Minister of Defense
of Syria, Mustafa Tlas, is the author of "The Matza of Zion," a book in which he documents the blood libel. The
pamphlet was published in 1983 (!) and distributed to all delegates at the United Nations.
So much for Islam. Let's go back to Christianity, specifically to its Reformation, started by Martin Luther
in 1517. One of the principles of the Protestant Church was to bring Christianity back to its Jewish sources
rather than the Hellenistic interpretation. Initially many Protestants approached Judaism, expecting Jews to
finally accept the new faith when it was lovingly presented and stressing its Jewish components. But again,
when this expectation proved false, the reaction was Judeophobic. Luther's last book was "On the Jews and
Their Lies" (1543) in which he called the Jews the anti-Christ. "It is harder to convert them than Satan
himself."
Luther called for the violent expulsion of Jews from all Germany. He addressed European noblemen: "Let me give you
my honest advice. First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered
or spread over with dirt... And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God
may see that we are Christians, and that we have not willingly tolerated or approved of such public lying,
cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians... Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and
destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be
put under one roof or in a stable... Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayerbooks and Talmuds in which
such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught. Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of
death to teach any more... God's rage is so great against them that they only become worse and worse... To sum up,
dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better
one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews." This was the
theologian and founder of the new trend (one of the most brutal Nazi Judeophobes, Julius Streicher, argued in his
defense at the Nuremberg trials that he had merely repeated what Luther had said about the Jews).
So far we have seen the development of Judeophobic mythology pass through three stages: Antiquity (Jews are
lepers and ass-worshipers, misogynists and lazy), Early Middle Ages (the Jewish people is deicidal and, through
its suffering, a witness of Christian truth) and Late Middle Ages (Jews drink Christian blood, poison wells,
and are partners with Satan). The main difference between pagan and Christian myths is that the former were mainly
cultural, whereas and the latter were mostly theological: "God hates them" became a common belief.
But what do I see on the horizon? It looks like the salvation of the Jews from the accumulated myths,
discrimination and disdain, the lies and legends. It is 18th century Europe: rationalism and Encyclopedism are in
the air, free-thinkers scorn superstitions and plan the religion of reason in a world of brotherhood. Surely the
Enlightenment will put an end to the discrimination and violence caused by gratuitous hatred.
JUDEOPHOBIA AND ENLIGHTENMENT
Emile Zola wrote in 1897 "The Jews such as they are today are our work, the work of our 1,800 years of idiotic
persecution." To free the Jews from their oppression meant to free the Christians from their prejudices
against them. But, alas, those who held high the banner of the ideological revolution turned to be Judeophobes
themselves.
Denis Diderot, the principal writer of the famous Encyclopedie (1765) pointed out some Jewish virtues, for
example that the Jews are the oldest nation and never succumbed to polytheism. At the same time he wrote about
the Jews as being "ignorant and superstitious," capable of any villainy. Paul D'Hollbach went further. In "The
Spirit of Judaism," he claimed that Judaism is evil, that its corruption led to the creation of Christianity, that
Moses was the most harmful legislator ever, who taught hatred for mankind and parasitism. The Jews' God is
blood-thirsty and causes them to commit genocides, the patriarchs were lascivious liars, the prophets a bunch of
fanatics, and so on. The Jews were the vilest people on earth. (It is paradoxical that after two millennia of
Jewish suffering under Christian domain, D'Hollbach and others now blamed the Jews for having created
Christianity).
On the whole, Montesquieu favored the Jews and empathized with their sufferings ("Judaism is a mother who has given
birth to two daughters who have struck her a thousand blows... If you do not want to be Christian, at least be
human") he also warned that "wherever there is money there are Jews." Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a noteworthy
exception to the rule and adopted a stand consistently favorable to the Jews.
The most ill-mouthed of all Enlightened Judeophobes was none other than the man who incarnated the ideas of the
French Revolution based upon "liberty, equality and brotherhood." Voltaire, champion of the Enlightenment,
enemy of the Church, wrote a Philosophical Dictionary. In more than a quarter of all the entries in the Dictionary,
Voltaire insulted the Jews "the most imbecile people on the face of the earth, enemies of mankind, most obtuse,
cruel absurd..." The longest entry of the book is "Jews" and there we read: "The Jews never were natural
philosophers, nor geometricians, nor astronomers..." Is it possible that Voltaire had not heard of Maimonides or
Spinoza? No, but Judeophobia had the power to twist the reasoning of even this most reasonable man. And he
touches the nerve. If there was an area in which Jewish accomplishment was outstanding it was education. Wrote
Voltaire: "So far away were they from having public schools for the instruction of youth that they have not a
term in their language to express such an institution."
This great liberator from superstition actually approved of the endless persecutions and massacres of the Jews and
supported the blood accusation ("your priests have always sacrificed human victims with their sacred hands.") And
it is not acceptable that "Voltaire struck at the Jews to strike at Christianity," as some claim, because Voltaire
also attacked the Church openly. He did not need to do it via the Jews. He signed his letters with " crasez
l'infame" ("destroy the infamous" referring to the Church), except for letters sent to Jews (where he signed
"Christian gentleman of the very Christian king's chamber"). "In short," ends the Dictionary, "we find in
them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable
superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched. Still, we
ought not to burn them."
Voltaire's Judeophobia was commonplace among freethinkers. As with the Church Fathers, they expressed
hatred and disdain whenever they referred to the Jews. The English were exceptional in their Judeophobia-free
outlook, with the likes of John Locke and John Toland. However, full Emancipation in England did not arrive
until 1858 when Baron Lionel de Rothschild took his seat in Parliament, taking an oath specially formulated for
the occasion.
Modern Judeophobia was basically a reaction to the Emancipation of the Jews, which took the form of three
trends, each one respectively exemplified in three countries, namely: the socioeconomic (France), the racial
(Germany) and the conspirational (Russia).
In France the revolutionaries' National Assembly debated whether the principle of "Liberty, Equality and
Brotherhood" should apply to the Jews. After two years, in September 1791, Jews were granted civic freedom, and
Napoleon then saw it as his task to make good Frenchmen of the Jews.
Incensed by complaints from Alsace about Jewish usury, Napoleon called for an Assembly of Jewish Notables,
holding sessions from July 1806 to April 1807. The Assembly was made up of 111 rabbis and community leaders,
who had to respond to twelve questions about Jewish habits namely: polygamy, divorce, marrying out, French
patriotism, relationship towards the Gentiles, obedience to French law, rabbis' appointment and authority,
forbidden professions, and usury. During the last months of the sessions, 71 Jews, mostly rabbis, were appointed
to translate the answers of the Assembly into religious binding laws. This was called the Napoleon Sanhedrin.
This same year the first modern Judeophobic myth was born. The Jesuit Augustin Barruel claimed that this
Sanhedrin had been "brought out to light" after having been underground for almost fifteen centuries, during
which it exercised powerful control over Europe. Napoleon's Sanhedrin was dissolved.
The pre-Emancipatorial Judeophobic atmosphere again reared its ugly head. The term "Sanhedrin" was a
misnomer which could be understood to imply that it had the legal power to enforce its decisions. However, this
was clearly not the cause but rather an arbitrary detonator (Judeophobia finds excuses everywhere). Pope
Pius VII believed Barruel, and in the Papal States and in Germany, the downfall of Napoleon (1815) undid the
Emancipation. Those few years had sparked a wave of assimilationism among Jews, many of whom had desperately
knocked on the doors of gentile society long before it was open to them. The vanguard of the assimilationists
was in Berlin. Hugo Valentin wrote in his book "Anti-Semitism" that "more German Jews were baptized between
1800 and 1818, than in the previous 1800 years put together".
It was now that the Jews learned to their sorrow that Judeophobia was not neutralized by a mere governmental
decree, nor by theories of Enlightenment, nor by assimilation. There was rising agitation against Jews in
many German towns and in 1819 it reached a new point of violence with the cry "Hep, hep, death to the Jews!"
accompanying the riots. The authorities argued that Emancipation should be withheld from Jews because of the
ill-will it caused the masses.
In France several philosophers turned this Judeophobic reaction into their ideology. Francois Fourier (d. 1837)
established a school of social reform, and pursued his aim with passionate dogmatism and intolerance. For
Fourier "commerce was the source of all evils and Jews the incarnation of commerce." It had been a big mistake
to emancipate slaves and Jews, "the most despicable nation." His disciple Alphonse Toussenel wrote in 1845 a
two-volume work "The Jews, Kings of the Epoch," which served as the inspiration for a conservative, rural
Judeophobia that eventually developed into a political movement. Toussenel warned the reader that in his book he
used "the word Jew in the sense of banker, usurer," but he openly supported the persecutions that the Jews had
previously suffered as a people. This semantic manipulation allowed him to include under the "Jewish"
epithet even the Protestant countries.
This type of pun can be misleading. It is true that Toussenel was anti-Protestant too, but the fact that he
blames the Jews for everything he disliked illustrates the essence of Judeophobia. He limited himself to
reproving Protestant influence, but not want to destroy the Protestants as a group. In the same vein, it is
misleading to claim that D'Hollbach was as Judeophobic as he was anti-Christian, or that Stalin was as Judeophobic
as he was anti-religious, or that Hitler was Judeophobic as he was anti-Communist. It is one thing to express
reservations about an idea (even if that idea is Judaism!) and a very different one to attack a group who
incarnate any "evil" idea which the attacker chooses to deride.
The hostile atmosphere in France was the backdrop for another book which was a watershed in Judeophobic
history: "La France Juive" by Edouard Drumont (1886) described France as subjugated to the Jews in the
political, economic, social, and cultural spheres. In a short time it had over a hundred editions. In 1889
Drumont founded the Anti-Semitic League (remember Marr's league in our first lesson?) and a few years later he was
elected to the chamber of deputies. This paradigm describing Jews dominating the nation was oft-repeated,
regarding any number of nations. The usual way is to mention the names of Jewish bankers, newspaper editors,
top industrialists and so on, and then bundle all this power together as claiming it belongs to "the Jews."
(Everyone would see the absurdity in attributing financial power to "the short" because many bankers are 5
ft 2'', or to claim that the press is in the hands of the "visually challenged" because many journalists wear
glasses. And this is the strategy: to note Jews in key positions and to imply that they are secretly coordinated
- "the Jews.") That many Frenchmen are still infected by this, was apparent last March when Jean-Marie Le Pen, a
French opposition leader who is supported by 15% of the population, claimed that the President of France is
controlled by "the Jews."
Jews govern everything. This is a modern myth, which was almost absent in previous Judeophobia and which we will
consider further in our ninth lesson. In France, the peak of the Judeophobic trend was the Dreyfus affair.
Alfred Dreyfus was an officer in the French army who was arrested in 1894 and tried before a court-martial on the
charge of treason. A secret military document (the "bordereau") sent by a French officer to the military
attach of the German embassy in Paris, had fallen into the hands of the French Intelligence Service. Dreyfus'
conviction, his degrading demotion, imprisonment on Devil's Island, and ultimate acquittal in 1906 was
traumatic for France and the entire Jewish world. During the decade of the trial and retrial, accusation and
counter-accusation, top French leaders were accused of complicity in this Judeophobic scandal. This divided the
French into Dreyfusists (mostly Liberals and Socialists) and anti-Dreyfusists (monarchists, the reactionary and
the Catholic Church).
The most striking aspect was not whether Dreyfus was guilty, nor the injustice of putting an innocent Jew in
prison, not even if it was merely because of his being a Jew. The appalling aspect was the mass reaction of enmity
towards "the Jews" as a whole, slandering a whole population, cries of "Death to the Jews," caused by the
relatively minor indictment of one Jew. And all this in the country of equality of rights.
Jews everywhere were shocked that this could take place in France, the "homeland of liberty and the Great
revolution," and that Judeophobia still prejudiced the behavior of much of the French people, even when the
Jewish victim was completely assimilated. This seemed to prove that assimilation was no defense against
Judeophobia. At least these were the impressions of one journalist who came to Paris as a correspondent for his
Viennese newspaper to cover the Dreyfus affair, and partly in reaction decided to create the World Zionist
Organization, Dr. Theodor Herzl.
Echoes of the Dreyfus affair continued to reverberate in France for over a generation. During W.W.II its
consequences were still recognizable in the line that divided the Vichy government from the Free French. And it
was the leader of the latter, Charles de Gaulle who in 1967 publicly called the Jews "a elitist people, self-
confident and proud." The President of France uttered such an expression only twenty years after he fought the
regime which had murdered one third of this "elite."
In France Judeophobia became mainly economic and political. It was less cultural (as in the pagan world)
and not theological (as in the Middle Ages). Also it was not based on racial prejudice, unlike in Germany. The
German trend will be the subject of our next lesson.
- Flannery, pages 160-178.
- Prager and Telushkin, pages 127-136.
- "From Prejudice to Destruction: Anti-Semitism 1700-1933," Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge Mass., 1980.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosted by Virtual Jerusalem (www.virtual.co.il). The Jewish SuperSite
with over 8 million hits monthly, 100+ email lists and 100,000 subscribers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
�2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.