The Land Of Purple

THE MIDDLE AGES:

It is worth reviewing the relationship of Beth Israel to the land-in-question as time progressed.  In Late Antiquity and into the early Middle Ages, many Levantine Jews actually headed east, BACK INTO Mesopotamia.  (This was, after all, where the major Talmudic academies had been established.)  Others opted for northern Africa (Egypt and the Maghreb)—from Elephantine, through Numidia, to Mauretania Tingitana.  This diaspora was especially active under Byzantine Emperor Phokas, who undertook pogroms against Jews within his domain in the first decade of the 7th century.  They were thus compelled to migrate beyond the frontiers of Rome.

Through the Middle Ages, the Muslim lands of the Middle East were actually more hospitable for Jews than was the Roman Catholic dominion.  (It is no surprise, then, that during the Reconquista of Andalusia at the end of the 15th century, exiled Sephardic Jews fled from the Iberian peninsula toward the Levant—as, by then, it was under Ottoman rule.)

By the time Islam emerged as an Arab power, the majority of the world’s Jews were primarily in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece. (Barring the Samaritans, the oldest continuous Jewish community in the world, the Romaniotes, trace their origins to Greece, not to the Levant.) Others could be found in Anatolia (esp. in Pamphylia, Cilicia, and Bithynia). During Late Antiquity, practitioners of the Abrahamic Faith from Canaan (Samaritans, Jews, and Christians) were often referred to as “Nazarenes”. However that label later came to be associated exclusively with the followers of Jesus of Nazareth (i.e. the early Christians). The fact that LEVANTINE Jews warranted their own moniker indicates that they were considered an atypical subset of Beth Israel. It would have made no sense to refer to them as “Israelites” when designating their homeland, as ANY Jewish community would have been considered such. {17}

From the earliest days of the Arab conquest of the Levant (in the 7th century), the land west of the Jordan River was known as “Jund Filastin”…because, well, that’s what it had been known as since the earliest days of the Roman Republic…and on into the Byzantine era.  (As we’ve seen, the Romans adopted the moniker from the earliest Canaanites…and the Egyptians…and the Assyrians.) 

Interestingly, the 8th-century Islamic hagiographer, Ibn Ishaq referred to Palestine as “Syria”.  This seems to have been common practice amongst Muslims of the time; as the onomastic “Palestine” was associated with the (Christian) Byzantines; and the Muslims preferred to use terminology that was not so overtly Hellenic or Roman.  So, ironically, it was initially MUSLIMS who had some compunctions about the onomastic, “Palestine”.  In any case, “Syria” would have made sense, as the lingua franca for the majority of people in the region—including the Arabs—had been SYRIAC since Late Antiquity.

Throughout the Middle Ages, “Israel” was considered a general moniker (per things pertaining to the Jewish people), with no affiliation to a specific place. This is illustrated by the fact that Turkic (Oghuz) warlord, Seljuk “Beig” (who–until his conversion to Islam c. 985–was a vassal of the Jewish [k]Hazars) opted to name his sons Moses, Jonah, Michael, and Arslan Israel [Lion of the Jewish people]. Clearly, when Seljuk used “Israel” as a given name, he did not have a tract of land in the Levant in mind. (As a vassal of the Judaic [k]Hazarain Empire, his scope of concern was limited to the Eurasian Steppes–namely: Khorasan and Transoxiana.) There was nothing odd about this; as the medieval tradition of “Israel” being used as a given name amongst Gentiles is well-attested. (Case in point: the European writer, Israel the Grammarian, who was born in the late 9th century. Needless to say, he was not named after a tract of land in the Middle East. He was named for after the Faith community of which we was a part.)

Following the Second Temple period, the vast majority of “Beth Israel” was not in Canaan. Tellingly, Greek historians do not mention any Jews in connection with Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Levant in the 4th century B.C. We hear only about the governor of Samaria, Sanballat III, who was Samaritan. (His father and grandfather were governors before him; which means that Samaritan rule went back to at least the late 5th century B.C.) {18}

Recall that it was “Babylonia” (Mesopotamia) that was home of the “Reysh Galuta” [alt. “Resh Galvata”]–that is: the Jewish leaders known as the Exilarchs. Later, Babylonia would be home to the “geonim” [Talmudic scribes / scholars] and their academies (most notably, at S[h]ura, Pum-bedita, Nehardea, and Pum-Nahara). As mentioned, there was also a Jewish presence in Nippur.

This was the case through Late Antiquity. From the Bar Kokhba Revolt of the 130’s until 1948, none of the centers of Judaic activity were in Canaan. During the Middle Ages, the most important Jewish communities emerged in Andalusia. Moses [ben Jacob] ben Ezra was from Granada. Solomon [ben Judah] ben Gabirol was from Malaga; and studied in Zaragoza. Judah ha-Levi was from Toledo. Moses ben Maimon (a.k.a. “Maimonides”) was from Cordoba. Hasdai ben Abraham Crescas was from Barcelona. Joseph Albo was from Aragon. Comparatively few Jews were Palestinian. {17} {19}

It is somewhat ironic that one of the only places where there were NOT regular pogroms against Jews was in the (Muslim-held) Levant, where there existed a few small Jewish / Samaritan enclaves. It therefore would have made much more sense for Jews to migrate to (Abbasid / Fatimid / Seljuk) Palestine…until, that is, the turbulent epoch of the Crusades. And EVEN THEN, the travelogues left by Benjamin of Tudela (in the 12th century) tell us that the Levant and Mesopotamia were quite hospitable to Jews in Muslim areas. (During the Crusades, it was the Christians who engaged in the majority of anti-Jewish pogroms.) Yet during the Middle Ages, the Jewish diaspora DID NOT engage in any “aliya” [migration] to the Levant; and instead opted for a variety of distant lands–notably Occitania and Andalusia. Why? There is only one explanation: Most of them did not see Palestine as their homeland.

By the Renaissance, many European Jews had disposed of Hebrew surnames in favor of their Greco-Romanized equivalent (as with Kalonymos / Kalonymus)…or Arab, French, Spanish, and Portuguese (for the Sephardim)…or Turkic, German, and Slavic for the Ashkenazim.

And so it went: Over the course of the Middle Ages, the Jewish diaspora scattered farther and wider–westward across the Mediterranean basin and eastward across Mesopotamia. Jews the world over considered wherever they settled a “heimat” (homeland)…be it “Ashkenaz” (eastern Europe) or “Sephard” [the Iberian Peninsula] or, well, anywhere else.

Of all the renown geonim between the Classical Antiquity and the modern age, only TWO operated in Palestine: one in the 8th century (A[c]hai of Shabha) and one in the 10th century (Aaron ben Meir). The rest were in Andalusia, Occitania, the Maghreb, Egypt, and–of course–Mesopotamia (where the major Talmudic academies were located). After the Ashkenazim established themselves as a community in the 11th century, major Jewish figures also started emerging in eastern Europe.

By the time of the Seljuk (then Ottoman) Empire, Palestine had become relatively hospitable to Jews–as attested by the traveler, Benjamin of Tedula in the 12th century. Even so, the prominent Jewish figures who operated in Palestine were few and far between–as with Moses ben Jacob Cordovero and Isaac ben Solomon Luria in the 16th century; then Abraham Amigo in the 17th century. Palestine would only become a point of obsession in the advent of Zionism. That was not until the late 19th century.

In his “Nations and Nationalism”, Eric Hobsbawm note: For the diaspora, at no point did Jewish identity entail “a serious desire for a Jewish political State, let alone a territorial State, until a Jewish nationalism was invented at the very end of the 19th century by analogy with the new-fangled nationalism. It is entirely illegitimate to identify Jewish links with the ancestral land of [Judea], the merit deriving from pilgrimages there, or any hope of return there when the Messiah came…with the desire to gather all Jews into a modern territorial state” (p. 47-48).

Beth Israel, scattered as it was across the Western world, was–to put it mildly–multi-ethnic. More to the point, it was only marginally Semitic. Very few were even acquainted with Classical Hebrew…let alone with Mishnaic Hebrew or Babylonian Aramaic. And virtually everyone considered their homeland to be–well–wherever they happened to be; and spoke the local language (which was deemed THEIR OWN language). “Yehudim” were defined by a dedication to the Halakha (that is: commitment to Mosaic law, and fealty to the Abrahamic deity). In other words: the designation was based on piety, not on ethnicity.

Jewish-ness was NOT based on (perceived) membership in a specific ethnic group; it was based on fidelity to a creed. Indeed, for most of Judaism’s history, a person’s identity as a Jew was Faith-based; and had nothing to do with blood and soil.

Revisionist Zionism would seek to change this. {20}

It is also telling that the Great Sanhedrin–which existed until 425 A.D.–was referred to in all sources–Judaic and Gentile–as the “Patriarchate Palaestina[e]”, rather than as the Patriarchate of, well, anything else. We might also look to the Talmudic record. Lo and behold: In the Mishnah and Gemara, the term “Yisrael” is always used as an ethnonym for the diaspora. That is: the moniker refers to the Jewry of the world–who, it was recognized, consisted of myriad nationalities yet shared the same Abrahamic legacy. It was a commitment to Mosaic law that they shared; and that’s about it. Thus the Tanna-im (of the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D.) and the Amora-im (of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries A.D.) BOTH used this nomenclature.

The point is that there were MYRIAD “lands” of “Israel” (i.e. places where Jewish people resided, and called home); most of which were not in the Levant. Hence the use of “homeland” (a purported “moledet” of ALL the world’s Jewish people) in Revisionist Zionist propaganda is extremely misleading. It used to be that to protect “Israel” was simply to protect the world’s Jewish people…wherever they happened to be. Now it means the endorsement of the political power of a particular nation-State in a particular geographical place–replete with any and all its policies, no matter how opprobrious.

The present essay has shown the claim that “Beth Israel” has a singular “moledet” is historically fallacious. As we’ve seen, not even in Hebrew scripture is “Israel” used in reference to a clearly demarcated territory. Alas, such moledet-fetishism is de rigueur in ANY ethno-nationalism. Hence the obsession with “lebensraum”.

We needn’t use “homeland” in the sense of the German “ur-heimat” [original home]. For when it comes to most ethnicities, the ideation is nonsensical. Why? Because ANY GIVEN ethnic group is derivative of antecedent groups. The taxonomy is invariably arbitrary, as it depends on how far back one wishes to go into the past (that is: which national origin myth one opts to adopt).

When the Mongols decided how far back their Grand Narrative went, they drew the line as the occasion warranted. They did not harken back to their Xiongnu forebears any more than the Hebrews harkened back to the Shasu (who were either Amorites or Edomites). For Tengri-ism had little to do with the heyday of Xian-bei; just as Judaism had little to do with the Amorites. (If we go back far enough, the “ur-heimat” of all mankind is Africa!) So it is an open question where any given group’s designated place of origin might be. It depends on how far back one opts to extend the relevant timeline. Ultimately, we are ALL AFRICANS. And all etiologies are social constructs anyway–reflecting the exigencies of the time and place in which they were constructed. Their starting point is typically placed at an auspicious time–that is: whichever pivotal juncture happens to serve the favored narrative.

The understanding of “Israel” as referring to a certain group of people–wherever they happened to reside–continued on through the Middle Ages with other communities as well. This is attested by the title of the Koran’s 17th Surah: “Bani al-Isra” [The Tribe of Israel]. This moniker is not referring to a place; it is referring to a people–as is made clear in 17:104. Even Christians living in Canaan referred to the land as “Palaestina[e]”–as attested by renown chroniclers like Georgios “synkellos” of Tekoa and Eusebius of Caesarea Palaestina[e]. In fact, “Bani al-Isra” referred ESPECIALLY to the Arabian Jews (e.g. those living in Himyar and Yathrib) as well as those living in Mesopotamia.

We will end this historical survey with the First World War (i.e. the downfall of the Ottoman Empire); as absolutely nothing the British did afterward was legitimate (either geo-politically or ethically).  In the advent of the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Levant experienced a tempest of power-grabs and turf wars, all amongst avaricious parties that were jockeying for power.  This did nothing to establish anything resembling rightful ownership.  (Case in point: Lord Balfour’s infamous “Declaration”.)  Territorial disputes along ethnic lines invariably ensued.  After the Second World War, the situation only got worse. {33}

The British treatment of the situation proved to be a case of strange bedfellows; as Arthur Balfour was a rabid anti-Semite who was avidly pro-Zionist.  He referred to Jews as “an alien and hostile people”; and insisted they all be shipped off to some faraway place so that Europe might be rid of them.  (A decade later, the Nazis would support Zionism for the same reason.)  Meanwhile, the sole Jewish man in Parliament at the time, Edwin Montague, dissented—accurately calling (Revisionist) Zionism a “mischievous political creed” which should be denounced by cosmopolitan thinkers.  The fact that right-wing Zionists today tend to EXTOL Balfour’s perfidious proclamations is the height of irony.

This was around the same time that what had begun as a laudable endeavor (to provide a place of sanctuary for Europe’s persecuted Jews) began to exhibit fascistic traits: colonialist designs, the segregation of Jews into (what were effectively) bantustans, and the couching of EVERYTHING in ethno-centric terms by everyone involved.  It is no surprise, then, that “Agudat[h] Israel” in Silesia pledged its fealty to Hitler in October of 1933.  They agreed that Jews must never be integrated into the Gentile world, and should self-segregate somewhere outside of Christendom.

And so it went: Revisionist Zionism became a mutant (right-wing) form of the original (secular-socialist) Zionism, as it had been originally conceived by the Hungarian Neolog, Theodor Herzl.  As a secular Jewish thinker, Herzl had believed that European Jews should INTEGRATE into European society (while retaining their Jewish identity), not partition themselves off from the rest of human civilization.  He was not looking to purge Europe of Jews for the sake of some global “aliyah”; he simply wanted to provide a safe haven—as an OPTION—for Jews who were contending with persecution / oppression in their home countries.  It’s a long way from “Let’s find a safe haven amongst the indigenous Palestinians” to “Let’s engage in an ethnic cleansing of Palestine.”

Herzl’s vision was admirable.  Those participating in the endeavor would peaceably set up socialist communes (“kibbutz-im”) in the Galilean and Judean countryside—living a humble agrarian life in relative harmony amongst their non-Jewish neighbors (as they had been for centuries).  So much for that.  In the advent of 1947, “Zionism” mutated into a Messianic (read: fascistic) movement engaged in ethnic cleansing; replete with the a brutal occupation of Palestine and the violent persecution of its indigenous (non-Jewish) population.  In a staggering twist of irony, its agenda was comprised of calls for racial purity and “lebensraum” for god’s chosen people.  This irony was not lost on Ze’ev Jabotinsky—a rabidly anti-socialist, racist ideologue who became obsessed with visions of a theocratic ethno-State after the Levant had been purged of goyim.