"In certain contexts, memory
can be subversive; in others, memory can shield the status quo. When
individuals and communities become vested with memory as a form of identity
and specialness, then other suffering threatens to displace the centrality of
our experience. Instead of a bridge of solidarity to others who are suffering
in the present, suffering in the past can become a badge of honour, protecting
us from the challenges that are before us. Then our witness, originally
powerful, opening questions about God and power, becomes diluted, can be seen
as fake, contrived, even wilfully so. An industry grows up around you, honours
you, and at the same time uses your witness for other reasons. In the end a
confusion results, externally and internally, until the witness himself can no
longer differentiate between the world of interpretation he helped articulate
and the world that now speaks in his name. Is this what happened to Wiesel, or
is Finkelstein's more acerbic analysis accurate?"
is a rather broad term. It refers to a culture with many faces, varied
distinctive groups, different beliefs, opposing political camps, different
classes and diversified ethnicity. Nevertheless, the connection between those
very many people who happen to identify themselves as Jews is rather
intriguing. In the paragraphs that follow, I will try to further the search
into the notion of Jewishness. I will make an attempt to trace the
intellectual, spiritual and mythological collective bond that makes Jewishness
into a powerful identity.
Clearly, Jewishness is
neither a racial nor an ethnic category. Though Jewish identity is racially
and ethnically orientated, the Jewish people do not form a homogenous group.
There is no racial or ethnic continuum. Jewishness may be seen by some as a
continuation of Judaism. I would maintain that this is not necessarily the
case either. Though Jewishness borrows some fundamental Judaic elements,
Jewishness is not Judaism and it is even categorically different from Judaism.
Furthermore, as we know, more than a few of those who proudly define
themselves as Jews have very little knowledge of Judaism, many of them are
atheists, non-religious and even overtly oppose Judaism or any other religion.
Many of those Jews who happen to oppose Judaism happen to maintain their
Jewish identity and to be extremely proud about it. This opposition to
Judaism obviously includes Zionism (at least the early version) but it also is
the basis of much of Jewish socialist anti-Zionism.
Though Jewishness is
different from Judaism one may still wonder just what constitutes Jewishness:
whether it is a new form of religion an ideology or if it is just a 'state of
If Jewishness is indeed a
religion, the next questions that have to be asked are, "what kind of religion
is it? What does this religion entail? What do its followers believe in?" If
it is a religion, one may wonder whether it is possible to divorce from it as
much as it is possible to step out of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.
If Jewishness is an
ideology, then the right questions to ask are, "what does this ideology stand
for? Does it form a discourse? Is it a monolithic discourse? Does it portray a
new world order? Is it aiming for peace or violence? Does it carry a universal
message to humanity or is it just another manifestation of some tribal
If Jewishness is a state of
mind, then the question to raise is whether it is rational or irrational. Is
it within the expressible or rather within the inexpressible?
At this point I may suggest
to consider the remote possibility that Jewishness may be a strange hybrid, it
can be all of those things at once i.e., a religion, an ideology and a state
The Holocaust Religion
"Yeshayahu Leibowitz, the
philosopher who was an observant orthodox Jew, told me once: "The Jewish
religion died 200 years ago. Now there is nothing that unifies the Jews around
the world apart from the Holocaust." (Uri Avnery)
Leibowitz, the German born
professor, was probably the first to suggest that the Holocaust has become the
new Jewish religion. 'The Holocaust' is far more than historical narrative, it
indeed contains most of the essential religious elements: it has its priests
(Simon Wiesenthal, Elie Wiesel, Deborah Lipstadt, etc.) and prophets (Shimon
Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu and those who warn about the Iranian Judeocide to
come). It has its commandments and dogmas ('never again', 'six million',
etc.). It has its rituals (memorial days, Pilgrimage to Auschwitz etc.). It
establishes an esoteric symbolic order (kapo, gas chambers, chimneys, dust,
Musselmann, etc.). It has its shrines and temples (Yad Vashem, the Holocaust
Museum and now the UN). If this is not enough, the Holocaust religion is also
maintained by a massive economic network and global financial infrastructures
(Holocaust industry a la Norman Finkelstein). Most interestingly, the
Holocaust religion is coherent enough to define the new 'antichrists' (the
Deniers) and it is powerful enough to persecute them (Holocaust denial laws).
Critical scholars who
dispute the notion of 'Holocaust religion' suggest that though the new
emerging religion retains many characteristics of an organised religion, it
doesn't establish an external God figure to point at, to worship or to love. I
myself cannot agree less. I insist that the Holocaust religion embodies the
essence of the liberal democratic worldview. It is there to offer a new form
of worshiping. It made self loving into a dogmatic belief in which the
observant follower worships himself. In the new religion it is 'the Jew' whom
the Jews worship. It is all about 'me', the subject of endless suffering who
makes it into redemption.
However, more than a few
Jewish scholars in
and abroad happen to accept Leibowitz's observation. Amongst them is Marc
Ellis, the prominent Jewish theologian who suggests a revealing insight into
the dialectic of the new religion. "Holocaust theology," says Ellis, "yields
three themes that exist in dialectical tension: suffering and empowerment,
innocence and redemption, specialness and normalization."
Though Holocaust religion
didn't replace Judaism, it gave Jewishness a new meaning. It sets a modern
Jewish narrative allocating the Jewish subject within a Jewish project. It
allocates the Jew a central role within his own self-centred universe. The
'sufferer' and the 'innocent' are marching towards 'redemption' and
'empowerment'. God is obviously out of the game, he is fired, he has failed in
his historic mission, he wasn't there to save the Jews. Within the new
religion the Jew becomes 'the Jews' new God', it is all about the Jew who
The Jewish follower of the
Holocaust religion idealises the condition of his existence. He then sets a
framework of a future struggle towards recognition. For the Zionist follower
of the new religion, the implications seem to be relatively durable. He is
there to 'schlep' the entirety of world Jewry to Zion at the expense of
the indigenous Palestinian people. For the Socialist Jew, the project is
slightly more complicated. For him redemption means setting a new world order,
namely a socialist haven. A world dominated by dogmatic working class politics
in which Jews happen to be no more than just one minority amongst many. For
the humanist observant, Holocaust religion means that Jews must locate
themselves at the forefront of the struggle against racism, oppression and
evil in general. Though it sounds promising, it happens to be problematic
because of obvious reasons. In our current world order it is Israel and
America that happen to be amongst the leading oppressive evils. Expecting Jews
to be in the forefront of humanist struggle sets Jews in a fight against their
brethren and their supportive single superpower. However, It is rather clear
that all three Holocaust churches assign the Jews a major project with some
As we can see, the Holocaust
functions as an ideological interface. It provides its follower with a
logos. On the level of consciousness, it suggests a purely analytical
vision of the past and present, yet, it doesn't stop just there, it also
defines the struggle to come. It defines a vision of a Jewish future.
Nevertheless, as a consequence it fills the Jewish subject's unconsciousness
with the ultimate anxiety: the destruction of the 'I'.
Needless to say, a faith
that stimulates the consciousness (Ideology) and steers the unconsciousness
(Spirit) is a very good recipe for a winning religion. This structural bond of
ideology and spirit is fundamental to the Judaic tradition. The bond between
the legal clarity of the halacah (ideology) and the mysteriousness of
Jehovah or even Kabala (spirit) makes Judaism into a totality, a
universe in itself. Bolshevism, the mass movement rather than the political
theory, is built upon the same structure, the lucidity of pseudo-scientific
materialism together with the fear of the capitalistic appetite.
Neoconservative's politics of fear is again all about locking the subject in
the chasm between the alleged forensic lucidity of WMDs and the inexpressible
fright of 'terror to come'.
This very bond between
consciousness and unconsciousness brings to mind the Lacanian notion of the
'real'. The 'real' is that which cannot be symbolized i.e., expressed in
words. The real is the 'inexpressible', the inaccessible. In Zizek's words,
'the real is impossible', 'the real is the trauma'. Nevertheless, it is this
trauma that shapes the symbolic order. It is the trauma that forms our
The Holocaust religion fits
nicely into the Lacanian model. Its spiritual core is rooted deeply within the
domain of the inexpressible. Its preaching teaches us to see a threat in
everything. It is the ultimate conjunction between the ideology and the spirit
that has materialised into sheer pragmatism.
Interestingly enough, the
Holocaust religion extends far beyond the internal Jewish discourse. In fact
the new religion operates as a mission. It sets shrines in far lands. As we
can see, the emerging religion is already becoming a new world order. It is
the Holocaust that is now used as an alibi to nuke Iran. Clearly, Holocaust
religion serves the Jewish political discourse both on the right and left but
it appeals to the Goyim as well, especially those who are engaged in merciless
killing 'in the name of freedom'. To a certain extent we are all subject to
this religion, some of us are worshipers, others are just subject to its
power. Interestingly enough, those who deny the Holocaust are themselves
subject to abuse by the high priests of this religion. Holocaust religion
constitutes the Western 'Real'. We are not allowed to touch it or to look into
it. Very much like the Israelites who are entitled to obey their God but never
to question him.
The Scholars who are engaged
in the study of the Holocaust religion (theology, ideology and historicity),
are engaged mainly with structural formulations, its meanings, its rhetoric
and its historical interpretation. Some happen to search for the theological
dialectic (Marc Ellis), others formulate the commandments (Adi Ofir), some
learn its historical evolution (Lenni Brenner), other expose its financial
infrastructure (Finkelstein). Interestingly enough, most scholars who are
engaged in the subject of Holocaust religion are engaged with a list of events
that happened between 1933-1945. Most of the scholars are themselves orthodox
observants. Though they may be critical of different aspects of the
exploitation of the Holocaust, they all accept the validity of the Nazi
Judeocide and its mainstream interpretations and implications. Most of the
scholars, if not all of them, do not challenge the Zionist narrative, namely
Nazi Judeocide, yet, more than a few are critical of the way Jewish and
Zionist institutes employ the Holocaust. Though some may dispute the numbers (Shraga
Elam), and others question the validity of memory (Ellis, Finkelstein), no one
goes as far as revisionism, not a single Holocaust religion scholar dares
engage in a dialogue with the so-called 'deniers' to discuss their vision of
the events or any other revisionist scholarship.
Far more interesting is the
fact that none of the Holocaust religion scholars have spent any energy
studying the role of the Holocaust within the long-standing Jewish continuum.
From this point onward, I will maintain that Holocaust religion was well
established a long time before the Final Solution (1942), well before the
Kristallnacht (1938), well before the Nuremberg Laws (1936), well before the
first anti-Jewish law was announced by Nazi Germany, well before the American
Jewish Congress declared a financial war against Nazi Germany (1933) and even
well before Hitler was born (1889). The Holocaust religion is probably as old
as the Jews.
In a previous paper I have
defined the notion of 'Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder' (Pre-TSD) .
Within the condition of the Pre-TSD, the stress is the outcome of a phantasmic
imaginary episode set in the future, an event that has never taken place.
Unlike the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, in which stress is realised as the
direct reaction to an event that (may) have taken place in the past, within
the state of Pre-TSD, the stress is formed as the outcome of an imaginary
potential event. Within the Pre-TSD an illusion pre-empts the conditions in
which the fantasy of future terror is shaping the present reality.
As it seems, the dialectic
of fear dominates the Jewish existence as well as mindset far longer than we
are ready to admit. Though fright is exploited politically by Jewish ethnic
leaders since the early days of emancipation, the dialectic of fear is far
older than modern Jewish history. In fact it is the heritage of the Tanach
(the Hebrew Bible) that is there to set the Jew in a pre-traumatic state. It
is the Hebrew Bible that sets a binary framework of Innocence/Suffering and
More particularly, the fear
of Judeocide is entangled with Jewish spirit, culture and literature.
I would argue here that the
Holocaust religion was there to transform the ancient Israelites into Jews.
The American anthropologist
Glenn Bowman who specialised in the study of exilic identities offers a
crucial insight into the subject of fear and its contribution to the subject
of Identity politics. "Antagonism," says Bowman, "is fundamental to process of
fetishsation underlying identity, because one tends precisely to talk about
who one is or what one is at a moment in which that being seems threatened. I
begin to call myself such and such a person, or such and such a representative
of an imagined community, at the moment something seems to threaten to
disallow the being the name I speak stands in for. Identity terms come into
usage at precisely the moment in which for some reason one comes to feel they
signifying a being or entity one has to fight to defend." 
In short, Bowman stresses
that it is the fear that crystallises the notion of identity. However, once
the fear is matured into a state of a collective pre-traumatic stress then
identity re-forms itself. When it comes to the Jewish people, it is the Bible
that is there to set the Jews within a state of Pre-TSD. It is the Bible that
initiates the fear of Judeocide.
More and more Bible scholars
are now disputing the historicity of the Bible. Niels Lechme in 'The
Canaanites and Their Land' argues that the Bible is for the most part "written
after the Babylonian Exile and that those writings rework (and in large part
invent) previous Israelite history so that it reflects and reiterates the
experiences of those returning from the Babylonian exile."
In other words, being
written by home-comers, the Bible incorporates some hardcore exilic ideology
into an historic narrative. Very much like in the case of the early Zionist
ideologist who regarded assimilation as a death threat, "The communities which
aggregated under the leadership of the Yahwehist priesthood (at the time of
the Babylonian exile) saw assimilation and apostasy not only as social death
for themselves as Judeans but also as attempted deicide. They resolved to
maintain an absolute and exclusive commitment to Yahweh who they were sure
would lead them back to the land from which they had been expelled. The
prescribed blood purity as a means of maintaining the borders of the national
community, thus proscribed inter-marriage with those surrounding them. They
also established a series of exclusivist rituals that set themselves off from
their neighbours, and these not only included a surrogate form of temple
worship but also a distinct calendar which ritualistically enabled them to
exist in a different time frame than the communities with which they shared
space. All of these diacritical devices served to mark and maintain
difference, but did not prevent them from trading with and thus being able to
sustain themselves amongst the Babylonians."
Looking into Bowman and
Lechme's spectacular reading of the Bible and the Judaic narrative as a
manifestation of exilic and marginal identity may explain the fact that
Jewishness flourishes in exile but rather loses its impetus once it becomes a
domestic adventure. If Jewishness is indeed centred around an émigré
collective survival ideology, than its follower will prosper in Exile.
However, that which maintains the Jewish collective identity is fear. Similar
to the case of Holocaust religion, Jewishness sets the fear of Judeocide at
the core of the Jewish psyche, yet, it also offers the spiritual, ideological
and pragmatic measures to deal with this fear.
Book of Esther
The Book of Esther is a
biblical story that is the basis for the celebration of Purim, probably the
most joyous Jewish festival. The book tells the story of an attempted
Judeocide but it also tells a story in which Jews manage to change their fate.
In the book the Jews do manage to rescue themselves and even to mete revenge.
It is set in the third year
of Ahasuerus, and the ruler is a king of Persia usually identified with Xerxes
I. It is a story of a palace, conspiracy, an attempted Judeocide and a brave
and beautiful Jewish queen (Esther) who manages to save the Jewish people at
the very last minute.
In the story, King Ahasuerus
is married to Vashti, whom he repudiates after she rejects his offer to
'visit' him during a feast. Esther was selected from the candidates to be
Ahasuerus's new wife. As the story progresses, Ahasuerus's prime minister
Haman plots to have the king kill all the Jews without knowing that Esther is
actually Jewish. In the story, Esther together with her cousin Mordechai saves
the day for their people. At the risk of endangering her own safety, Esther
warns Ahasuerus of Haman's murderous anti-Jewish plot. Haman and his sons are
hanged on the fifty cubit gallows he had originally built for cousin Mordecai.
As it happens, Mordecai takes Haman's place, he becomes the prime minister.
Ahasuerus's edict decreeing the murder of the Jews cannot be rescinded, so he
issues another edict allowing the Jews to take up arms and kill their enemies,
which they do.
The moral of the story is
rather clear. If Jews want to survive, they better find infiltrates into the
corridors of power. With Esther, Mordechai and Purim in mind, AIPAC and the
notion of 'Jewish power' looks like an embodiment of a deep Biblical and
However, here is the
interesting twist. Though the story is presented as an historic tale, the
historical accuracy of the Book of Esther is largely disputed by most
modern Bible Scholars. It is largely the lack of clear corroboration of any of
the details of the story of the Book of Esther with what is known of Persian
History from classical sources that led scholars to come to a conclusion that
the story is mostly or even totally fictional.
In other words, though the
moral is clear, the attempted genocide is fictional. Seemingly, the Book of
Esther set its followers into a collective Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It
makes a fantasy of destruction into an ideology of survival. And indeed, some
read the story as an allegory of quintessentially assimilated Jews who
discover that they are targets of anti-Semitism, but are also in a position to
save themselves and their fellow Jews.
Keeping Bowman in mind may
throw some light here. The Book of Esther is there to form the exilic
identity. It is there to implant the existential stress, it introduces the
Holocaust religion. It sets the conditions that turn the Holocaust into
Interestingly enough, the
Book of Esther (in the Hebrew version) is one of only two books of the Bible
that do not directly mention God (the other is Song of Songs). In the Book of
Esther it is the Jews who believe in themselves, in their own power, in their
uniqueness, in their sophistication, in their ability to conspire, in their
ability to take over kingdoms, in their ability to save themselves. The Book
of Esther is all about empowerment and the Jews who believe in their powers.
From Purim to Birkenau
In an article named "A Purim
Lesson: Lobbying Against Genocide, Then and Now", Dr. Rafael Medoff shares
with his readers what he regards as the lesson inherited to the Jews by the
Book of Esther. If to be more precise, it is the art of lobbying which Esther
and Mordechai are there to teach us. "The holiday of Purim" says Medoff,
"celebrates the successful effort by prominent Jews in the capitol of ancient
Persia to prevent genocide against the Jewish people." But Medoff doesn't stop
just there. This specific exercise of what some call 'Jewish power' has been
carried forward and performed by modern emancipated Jews: "What is not well
known is that a comparable lobbying effort took place in modern times -- in
Washington, D.C., at the peak of the Holocaust."
In the article Medoff
explores the similarities between Esther's lobbying in Persia and her modern
brothers lobbying within the FDR's administration at the pick of WW2. "The
Esther in 1940s Washington was Henry Morgenthau Jr." says Medoff, "a wealthy,
assimilated Jew of German descent who (as his son later put it) was anxious to
be regarded as 'one hundred percent American.' Downplaying his Jewishness,
Morgenthau gradually rose from being FDR's friend and adviser to his Treasury
Clearly, Medoff spotted a
modern Mordechai as well, "a young Zionist emissary from Jerusalem, Peter
Bergson (real name: Hillel Kook) who led a series of protest campaigns to
bring about U.S. rescue of Jews from Hitler. The Bergson group's newspaper ads
and public rallies roused public awareness of the Holocaust -- particularly
when it organized over 400 rabbis to march to the front gate of the White
House just before Yom Kippur in 1943."
Medoff's reading of the Book
of Esther provides us with a glaring insight into the internal code of Jewish
collective survival dynamics in which the assimilated (Esther) and the
observant (Mordechai) are joining forces with clear Judeo centric interests in
According to Medoff the
similarities are indeed shocking. "Mordechai's pressure finally convinced
Esther to go to the king; the pressure of Morgenthau's aides finally convinced
him to go to the president, armed with a stinging 18-page report that they
titled 'Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the
Murder of the Jews.'"
Dr. Medoff is rather ready
to draw his historical conclusions. "Esther's lobbying succeeded. Ahasuerus
cancelled the genocide decree and executed Haman and his henchmen.
Morgenthau's lobbying also succeeded. A Bergson-initiated Congressional
resolution calling for
rescue action quickly passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee --
enabling Morgenthau to tell FDR that 'you have either got to move very fast,
or the Congress of the United States will do it for you.' Ten months before
election day, the last thing FDR wanted was an embarrassing public scandal
over the refugee issue. Within days, Roosevelt did what the Congressional
resolution sought -- he issued an executive order creating the War Refugee
Board, a U.S.
government agency to rescue refugees from Hitler."
It is clear beyond doubt
that Medoff sees the Book of Esther as a general guideline for a healthy
Jewish future. Medoff ends his paper saying: "the claim that nothing could be
done to help Europe's Jews had been demolished by Jews who shook off their
fears and spoke up for their people -- in ancient Persia and in modern
Washington." In other words, Jews can do and should do for themselves. This is
indeed the moral of the Book of Esther as well as the Holocaust religion.
What Jews should do for
themselves is indeed an open question. Different Jews have different ideas.
The Neocon believes in dragging America and the West into an endless war
against Islam. Emmanuel Levinas, on the contrary, believes that Jews should
actually position themselves at the forefront of the struggle against
oppression and injustice. Indeed, Jewish empowerment is just one answer among
many. Yet, it is a very powerful not to say a dangerous one. It is especially
dangerous when the American Jewish Committee (AJC) acts as a modern-day
Mordechai and publicly engages in an extensive lobbying effort for a war
When analysing the work and
influence of AIPAC within American politics it is the Book of Esther that we
should bear in mind. AIPAC is more than a mere political lobby. AIPAC is a
modern-day Mordechai, the AJC is modern-day Mordechai. Both AIPAC and AJC are
inherently in line with the Hebrew Biblical school of thought. However, while
the Mordechais are relatively easy to spot, the Esthers, those who act for
Israel behind the scenes, are slightly more difficult to trace.
I believe that once we learn
to look at Israeli lobbying in the parameters that are drawn by the Book of
Esther/Holocaust-religion, we are then entitled to regard Ahmadinejad as the
current Haman/Hitler figure. The AJC is Mordechai, Bush is obviously Ahasuerus,
yet Esther can be almost anyone, from the last Necon to Cheney and beyond.
Brenner and Prinz
In the opening paragraph of
this essay I ask what Jewishness stands for. Though I accept the complexity of
the notion of Jewishness, I tend to additionally accept Leibowitz's
contribution to the subject: Holocaust is the new Jewish religion. However,
within the paper I took the liberty of extending the notion of the Holocaust.
Rather than referring merely to the Shoah, i.e., the Nazi Judeocide, I argue
here that the Holocaust is actually engraved within the Jewish discourse and
spirit. The Holocaust is the essence of the collective Jewish Pre-Traumatic
stress disorder and it predates the Shoah. To be a Jew is to see the 'other'
as a threat rather than as a brother. To be a Jew is to be on a constant
alert. To be a Jew is to internalise the message of the Book of Esther. It is
to aim towards the most influential junctions of hegemony. To be a Jew is to
collaborate with power.
The American Marxist
historian Lenni Brenner is fascinated by the collaboration between Zionists
and Nazism. In his book Zionism In The Age of Dictators he presents an
extract from Rabbi Joachim Prinz's book published in 1937 after Rabbi Prinz
left Germany for America.
"Everyone in Germany knew
that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in dealings with
the Nazi government. We all felt sure that one day the government would
arrange a round table conference with the Jews, at which after the riots and
atrocities of the revolution had passed the new status of German Jewry could
be considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was no
country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as
did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We
never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our
own appeal! ... In a statement notable for its pride and dignity, we called
for a conference." 
Brenner then brings in
extracts from a Memorandum that was sent to the Nazi Party by the German
Zionist ZVfD on 21 June 1933:
"Zionism has no illusions
about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an
abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral
posture not rooted in one's own tradition ... On the foundation of the new
state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our
community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned
to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible. ... Our
acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere
relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities.
Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we,
too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the
Jewish group ... We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of
loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state ... "
Brenner doesn't approve
either of Prinz's take nor the Zionist initiative. Filled with loathing he
says, "This document, a treason to the Jews of Germany, was written in
standard Zionist cliches: 'abnormal occupational pattern', 'rootless
intellectuals greatly in need of moral regeneration', etc. In it the German
Zionists offered calculated collaboration between Zionism and Nazism, hallowed
by the goal of a Jewish state: we shall wage no battle against thee, only
against those that would resist thee."
Brenner fails to see the
obvious. Rabbi Prinz and the ZVfD were not traitors, they were actually
genuine Jews. They followed their very Jewish cultural code. They followed the
Book of Esther, they took the role of Mordechai. They tried to find a way to
collaborate with what they correctly identified as a prominent emerging power.
In 1969, Rabbi Prinz confessed that ever "since the assassination of Walther
Rathenau in 1922, there was no doubt in our minds that the German development
would be toward an anti-Semitic totalitarian regime. When Hitler began to
arouse, and as he put it 'awaken' the German nation to racial consciousness
and racial superiority, we had no doubt that this man would sooner or later
become the leader of the German nation."
Whether Brenner or anyone
else likes it or not, Rabbi Prinz proves to be an authentic Jewish leader. He
proves to possess some highly developed survival radar mechanism that fit
perfectly well with the exilic ideology. In 1981 Lenni Brenner interviewed
Rabbi Prinz. Here is what he had to say about the collaborator Rabbi:
evolved in the 44 years since he was expelled from Germany. He told me, off
tape, that he soon realized that nothing he said there made sense in the US.
He became an American liberal. Eventually, as head of the American Jewish
Congress, he was asked to march with Martin Luther King and he did so."
Once again, Brenner fails to
see the obvious. Prinz didn't change at all. Prinz didn't evolve in those 44
years. He was and remained a genuine authentic Jew, and an extremely clever
one. A man who internalised the essence of Jewish émigré philosophy: In
Germany be a German, and in
be American. Be flexible, fit in and adopt relativistic ethical thinking.
Prinz, being a devoted follower of Mordechai, realised that whatever is good
for the Jews is simply good.
I went back and listened to
the invaluable Brenner interviews with Rabbi Prinz that are now available on
line. I was rather shocked to find out that actually Prinz presents his
position eloquently. It is Prinz rather than Brenner who provides us a glimpse
into Jewish ideology and its interaction with the surrounding reality. It is
Prinz rather than Brenner who happens to understand the German volk and
their aspirations. Prinz presents his past moves as a proud Jew. From his
point of view, collaborating with Hitler was indeed the right thing to do. He
was following Mordechai, he was probably searching for an Esther to come.
Thus, it is only natural that Rabbi Prinz later became the President of the
Jewish American Congress. He became a prominent American leader In spite of
his 'collaboration with Hitler'. Simply because of the obvious reason: from a
Jewish ideological point of view, he did the right thing.
Final Words About Zionism
Once we learn to look at
Jewishness as an exilic culture, as the embodiment of the 'ultimate other' we
can then understand Jewishness as a collective continuum grounded on a fantasy
of horror. Jewishness is the materialisation of politics of fear into a
pragmatic agenda. This is what Holocaust religion is all about and it is
indeed as old as the Jews. Rabbi Prinz could foresee the Holocaust. Both Prinz
and the ZVfD could anticipate a Judeocide. Thus, from a Jewish ideological
point of view they acted appropriately. They were committed to their esoteric
ethics within an esoteric cultural discourse.
Zionism was indeed a great
promise, it was there to convert the Jews into Israelites. It was going to
make the Jews into people like other peoples. Zionism was there to identify
and fight the Galut (Diaspora), the exilic characteristic of the Jewish
people and their culture. But Zionism was doomed to failure. The reason is
obvious: within a culture that is metaphysically grounded upon exilic ideology
the last thing you can expect is a successful homecoming. In order to live for
its promise Zionism had to liberate itself of the Jewish exilic ideology,
Zionism had to liberate itself of the Holocaust religion. But this is exactly
what it fails to do. Being exilic to the bone, Zionism had to turn to
antagonising the indigenous Palestinians in order to maintain its fetish of
Since Zionism failed to
divorce itself from the Jewish émigré ideology, it lost the opportunity to
evolve into any form of domestic culture. Consequently, Israeli culture and
politics is a strange amalgam of indecisiveness; a mixture of colonial
empowerment together with Galut's victim mentality. Zionism is a
secular product of exilic culture that cannot mature into authentic homegrown
was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He is the author of two
A Guide to the Perplexed and the recently released My One and
Only Love. Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists
in Europe. His recent CD,
Exile, was named the year's best jazz CD by the BBC. He now lives
in London and can be reached at:
 Marc Ellis,
Marc Ellis on Finkelstein
 Marc H. Ellis, Beyond
Innocence & Redemption - Confronting The Holocaust And Israeli Power, Creating
Future for the Jewish People
(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990).
 Glenn Bowman-Migrant
Labour: Constructing Homeland in the Exilic Imagination, Antrhropological
December 2002 pp 447-468.