DOCSLIB.ORG

Local Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Local Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine Mediators or “Collaborators”? Local Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine Abigail Jacobson1 Draft—do not use without the permission of the author On May 16 1932 an article entitled “The Arab-Jewish Conference: Understanding between Jews and Arabs in Palestine” was published in the Lebanese Hebrew newspaper al-'Alam al-Isra'ili. The article reported on an attempt of “local Jews” (al-Isar’ilin al-Watani’in), who live in Palestine and elsewhere in the Middle East, to organize a Jewish-Arab conference which would discuss the Zionist question and the relations between Jews and Arabs in Palestine. In such a conference, it was reported, the local Jews would serve as mediators between the Arabs and the Ashkenazi western Jews (al-Isra’iliin al-Ashkenaz al-Gharbi’in). The article further explained that the Ashkenazi Jews do not fully understand the Arabs, their traditions and customs, whereas local Jews can more easily reach an understanding with Palestinian Arabs, because of their cultural, linguistic and geographical proximity.2 The writer reported that in preparation to the conference a meeting took place in Jaffa with the participation of representatives of leading figures among the local Jews (zu’ama al- yahud al-watani’in). The aim of the Jaffa meeting was to discuss the organization of the Arab- Jewish conference, whose purpose was viewed as twofold: reaching a compromise between Arabs and the Zionist-Arab (al-Sahayoniya al-‘Arabiya), as well as demanding the Zionist movement to grant rights to the Jews of the East (hukuk Isra’ili al-Sharq). As would be later mentioned in the newspaper, the people behind that meeting were various lawyers, physicians, 1 This paper is part of a larger book project, entitled “Middle Eastern Jews and Jewish-Arab Relations in Mandatory Palestine,” co-authored by Abigail Jacobson, Moshe Naor and Tammy Razi. 2 “al-Mu’tamar al-‘Arabi al-Yahudi.” al-'Alam al-Isra'ili, May 16, 1932. 1 journalists and merchants from Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, including Yosef David Farhi, Salim Harari, Yosef Dashi, Yosef Lanyado, Yosef ‘Atiya, Anwar Shaul, Tawfic Mizrahi and others, all of whom are central figures among their respective communities.3 The news about this conference became the topic of a lively debate that took place between May and August 1932 over the pages of al-'Alam al-Isra'ilii, as well as in the Hebrew Haaretz newspaper. The timing of the debate is not coincidental. It is in the years after the 1929 events in Palestine that the Zionist movement realized the urgency of the evolving national conflict and its possible consequences. It was also around this time that several initiatives and attempts were made to reach an agreement between Jews and Arabs in the country. The conference discussed here should be viewed in light of this larger context. The Arab-Jewish conference which served as the basis for the debate ended up not taking place. However, in many ways, the debate about it may be viewed as a case study for discussing and demonstrating a larger set of interconnected issues, all of which came up during the different discussions in the press. Those issues include, first and foremost, the role of local Jews as possible mediators between Jews and Arabs; the question of loyalty and adherence of local Jews to the Zionist movement; the relations between local Jews and the Zionist leadership and the question of representation of local Jews within the Zionist institutions. This paper will use this conference as its departure point to discuss some of these issues, all of which are connected to the charged relations between Jews and Arabs in mandatory Palestine, and in particular the role of local Jews, “Bnei Ha-Aretz” in this relationship. It will pay special attention to some of the intellectuals, journalists and political activists who participated in the debate, and especially to Nissim Malul and Eliyahu (Elias) Sasson. Both their biographies 3 “Al-Mu’atamar al-Isra’ili al-‘Arabi,”al-'Alam al-Isra'ili, June 20, 1932 2 and various political and cultural activities demonstrate the role of local Jews within the complex matrix of Zionist-Arab relations in Mandatory Palestine. The fact that various intellectuals, political activists and journalists participated in this debate mainly over the pages of an Arabic- Jewish newspaper in Beirut is also very telling. It demonstrates the role that such newspapers, as well as their editors and writers, played as a corpus for intellectual exchange and discussion in the mixed Jewish-Arab environment of the Levant during the inter-war years. The role of Hebrew (and Zionist)-Arabic newspapers as a medium for cultural and political exchange, between local Jews around the Middle East, as well as between Jews and Arabs, will be discussed below as well. Local Jews: Loyal Zionists or Collaborators? One of the first reactions to the original publication in al-'Alam al-Isra'ili was in an article published in the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz by its editor, Moshe Glikson, who wrote under the initials M.G.. Criticizing the original article, he wrote: We, of course, have no objection to any negotiation or conference which would try to reach an agreement [with the Arabs] (as long as such an agreement does not conflict with our needs and national awakening). However, for such a negotiation [to take place] we have national institutions, the Jewish Agency and the National Bureau. Our brothers the Eastern natives of the country (yelidei ha-aretz ha-mizrachim) can and should carry an important role in this [effort]; they can advise our national institutions based on their knowledge and experience, but they cannot carry out their own external politics (politika hitzonit shelahem). Moreover, they cannot do anything that may harm our national solidarity. (…) There is no doubt that there is an anti-Zionist intrigue here, an attempt by the Arab leaders to break our national unity, and to reach an agreement with the “Eastern Jews”, bypassing the Ashkenazi Jews and against them (me’al lerosh acheihem ha- Ashkenazim ve-negdam). Our brothers the Eastern Jews (bnei ha-‘Edot ha-Mizrachiyot) are part of the people of Israel and must conform to our national unity. They cannot perform their own politics.”4 4 Haaretz, May 26, 1932. 3 This response points out to several interesting issues. First, it is worth noticing the ways by which local Jews are referred to, as “the Mizrachi (or eastern) natives of the country”. In the original article in Arabic they were referred to as “local Jews” (al-Isar’ilin al-Watani’in), and “the Zionist Arabs (al-Sahayoniya al-‘Arabiya), two terms that would be used throughout this exchange. An additional term that is often used in Hebrew by the local Jews themselves is Bnei ha-Aretz, the “natives of the country”, or Bnei ha-Mizrach, the Eastern-born. These different references to the group discussed here are important, and already indicate and allude to the way they viewed themselves, as Jews who are rooted in their local eastern, Levantine, environment, and the way they are viewed and perceived by others. Another issue to notice in Glikson’s response is the concern about a possible cooperation between those local/Eastern Jews and Arabs, “over the heads of” the Ashkenazi Jews and the Zionist movement. The writer even expresses his concern about a possible intrigue and even a set-up of the Eastern Jews by the Arabs, in an attempt to break the Jewish yishuv’s national unity. In other words, the local Jews are viewed as possible collaborators with the Arabs, and their loyalty to the Zionist movement is questioned. Why was the loyalty of local Jews put in doubt? And what made them act separately from the Zionist institutions? As we will see below, these questions are closely connected to the growing frustration of many local Jews regarding their own position within the Zionist movement, and with what they viewed as the failed Zionist policies towards the “Arab Question”. This frustration was expressed in different venues and contexts throughout the inter-war years. Some reactions to these issues can be found in several responses published by some prominent figures within the Sephradi and Maghrebi community in Palestine. One of the 4 responses was published by Avraham Moyal and Baruch ‘Uziel in Haaretz on June 2.5 They emphasized the loyalty of Sephardi Jews to the national revival of Jews in the Land of Israel and to Zionism. At the same time, they expressed their disappointment from the failure of the national [Ashkenazi] leaders in utilizing the Sephardi Jews in order to resolve the relations with the Arab neighbors. According to ‘Uziel: Our leaders have faulted in not taking advantage of the merits and virtues (hakhsharot ve- segulot) that Sephardi Jews have in order to improve our relations with our neighbors6 (…) Diplomacy is not enough in solving the evolving conflict. Rather, it is the feeling of trust, of one eastern man to another, who is not foreign (“Faranji” sic). There are several political activists who could have contributed much to the resolution of the conflict, had they been involved in the political activities. The Sephardi Jews are loyal Zionists, and would not cooperate with any anti-Zionist intrigue [‘Uziel alludes here to the conference], and would not try to act independently of the national institutions. The possible organizers of this conference may be of the unworthy among the natives of the country who are not Sephardi Jews, who are not part of the Sephardi masses.7 ‘Uziel’s piece offers some interesting insights. He goes against what he calls the “Sephardisic [separatist] ideology” (Idiologiya Spharadistanit) which did not put enough efforts into integrating Sephardi activists into the national institutions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940
    Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access Open Jerusalem Edited by Vincent Lemire (Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée University) and Angelos Dalachanis (French School at Athens) VOLUME 1 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/opje Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access Ordinary Jerusalem 1840–1940 Opening New Archives, Revisiting a Global City Edited by Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire LEIDEN | BOSTON Angelos Dalachanis and Vincent Lemire - 978-90-04-37574-1 Downloaded from Brill.com03/21/2019 10:36:34AM via free access This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the prevailing CC-BY-NC-ND License at the time of publication, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided no alterations are made and the original author(s) and source are credited. The Open Jerusalem project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) (starting grant No 337895) Note for the cover image: Photograph of two women making Palestinian point lace seated outdoors on a balcony, with the Old City of Jerusalem in the background. American Colony School of Handicrafts, Jerusalem, Palestine, ca. 1930. G. Eric and Edith Matson Photograph Collection, Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/item/mamcol.054/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Dalachanis, Angelos, editor.
    [Show full text]
  • Palestinian Citizens of Israel: Agenda for Change Hashem Mawlawi
    Palestinian Citizens of Israel: Agenda for Change Hashem Mawlawi Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master‘s degree in Conflict Studies School of Conflict Studies Faculty of Human Sciences Saint Paul University © Hashem Mawlawi, Ottawa, Canada, 2019 PALESTINIAN CITIZENS OF ISRAEL: AGENDA FOR CHANGE ii Abstract The State of Israel was established amid historic trauma experienced by both Jewish and Palestinian Arab people. These traumas included the repeated invasion of Palestine by various empires/countries, and the Jewish experience of anti-Semitism and the Holocaust. This culminated in the 1948 creation of the State of Israel. The newfound State has experienced turmoil since its inception as both identities clashed. The majority-minority power imbalance resulted in inequalities and discrimination against the Palestinian Citizens of Israel (PCI). Discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict tends to assume that the issues of the PCIs are the same as the issues of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. I believe that the needs of the PCIs are different. Therefore, I have conducted a qualitative case study into possible ways the relationship between the PCIs and the State of Israel shall be improved. To this end, I provide a brief review of the history of the conflict. I explore themes of inequalities and models for change. I analyze the implications of the theories for PCIs and Israelis in the political, social, and economic dimensions. From all these dimensions, I identify opportunities for change. In proposing an ―Agenda for Change,‖ it is my sincere hope that addressing the context of the Israeli-Palestinian relationship may lead to a change in attitude and behaviour that will avoid perpetuating the conflict and its human costs on both sides.
    [Show full text]
  • Sephardi Zionism in Hamidian Jerusalem
    “The Spirit of Love for our Holy Land:” Sephardi Zionism in Hamidian Jerusalem Ari Shapiro Honors Thesis Submitted to the Department of History, Georgetown University Advisor: Professor Aviel Roshwald Honors Program Chair: Professor Katherine Benton-Cohen May 7, 2018 1 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 2 Important Dates 3 Introduction 4 Chapter 1: Sephardi Identity in Context (5600-5668/1840-1908) 11 Sephardi Identity Among Palestinian Arabs 15 Sephardi Identity under the Ottoman Administration of Palestine 19 Chapter 2: Distinctly Sephardic Zionism (5640-5656/1880-1896) 23 Kol Yisra’el Ḥaverim and the New Sephardi Leadership 27 Land Purchase Through International Sephardi Networks 32 Land Purchase as a Religious Obligation 36 Chapter 3: Arab and Ottoman Influence on the Development of Sephardi Zionism (5646-5668/1886-1908) 43 Shifting Ottoman Boundaries and Jerusalem’s Political Ascent 45 European Liberalism, Ottoman Reform, and Sephardi Zionism 50 Sephardi Zionism as a Response to Hamidian Ottomanism 54 Chapter 4: The Decline of Sephardi Zionism in Jerusalem (5658-5668/1897-1908) 62 Aliyah, Jewish Demographics, and the Ashkenazi Ascent in Palestine 63 Palestinian Arab Opposition to Zionist Activity in Jerusalem 69 The Young Turk Revolt and the Death of Sephardi Zionism 73 Conclusion 79 Appendix 84 Glossary of Persons 85 Glossary of Terms 86 Bibliography 89 2 Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the network of family, friends, peers, and mentors who have helped me get to this point. To my parents and Esti, thanks for being such interested sounding boards for new lines of exploration at any and all hours when I call.
    [Show full text]
  • Down with Britain, Away with Zionism: the 'Canaanites'
    DOWN WITH BRITAIN, AWAY WITH ZIONISM: THE ‘CANAANITES’ AND ‘LOHAMEY HERUT ISRAEL’ BETWEEN TWO ADVERSARIES Roman Vater* ABSTRACT: The imposition of the British Mandate over Palestine in 1922 put the Zionist leadership between a rock and a hard place, between its declared allegiance to the idea of Jewish sovereignty and the necessity of cooperation with a foreign ruler. Eventually, both Labour and Revisionist Zionism accommodated themselves to the new situation and chose a strategic partnership with the British Empire. However, dissident opinions within the Revisionist movement were voiced by a group known as the Maximalist Revisionists from the early 1930s. This article analyzes the intellectual and political development of two Maximalist Revisionists – Yonatan Ratosh and Israel Eldad – tracing their gradual shift to anti-Zionist positions. Some questions raised include: when does opposition to Zionist politics transform into opposition to Zionist ideology, and what are the implications of such a transition for the Israeli political scene after 1948? Introduction The standard narrative of Israel’s journey to independence goes generally as follows: when the British military rule in Palestine was replaced in 1922 with a Mandate of which the purpose was to implement the 1917 Balfour Declaration promising support for a Jewish ‘national home’, the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine gained a powerful protector. In consequence, Zionist politics underwent a serious shift when both the leftist Labour camp, led by David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), and the rightist Revisionist camp, led by Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky (1880-1940), threw in their lot with Britain. The idea of the ‘covenant between the Empire and the Hebrew state’1 became a paradigm for both camps, which (temporarily) replaced their demand for a Jewish state with the long-term prospect of bringing the Yishuv to qualitative and quantitative supremacy over the Palestinian Arabs under the wings of the British Empire.
    [Show full text]
  • Guarding Oral Transmission: Within and Between Cultures
    Oral Tradition, 25/1 (2010): 41-56 Guarding Oral Transmission: Within and Between Cultures Talya Fishman Like their rabbinic Jewish predecessors and contemporaries, early Muslims distinguished between teachings made known through revelation and those articulated by human tradents. Efforts were made throughout the seventh century—and, in some locations, well into the ninth— to insure that the epistemological distinctness of these two culturally authoritative corpora would be reflected and affirmed in discrete modes of transmission. Thus, while the revealed Qur’an was transmitted in written compilations from the time of Uthman, the third caliph (d. 656), the inscription of ḥadīth, reports of the sayings and activities of the Prophet Muhammad and his companions, was vehemently opposed—even after writing had become commonplace. The zeal with which Muslim scholars guarded oral transmission, and the ingenious strategies they deployed in order to preserve this practice, attracted the attention of several contemporary researchers, and prompted one of them, Michael Cook, to search for the origins of this cultural impulse. After reviewing an array of possible causes that might explain early Muslim zeal to insure that aḥadīth were relayed solely through oral transmission,1 Cook argued for “the Jewish origin of the Muslim hostility to the writing of tradition” (1997:442).2 The Arabic evidence he cites consists of warnings to Muslims that ḥadīth inscription would lead them to commit the theological error of which contemporaneous Jews were guilty (501-03): once they inscribed their Mathnā, that is, Mishna, Jews came to regard this repository of human teachings as a source of authority equal to that of revealed Scripture (Ibn Sacd 1904-40:v, 140; iii, 1).3 As Jewish evidence for his claim, Cook cites sayings by Palestinian rabbis of late antiquity and by writers of the geonic era, which asserted that extra-revelationary teachings are only to be relayed through oral transmission (1997:498-518).
    [Show full text]
  • Maps and Timelines of Israel Answers
    Maps and Timelines of Israel Answers The 1800s 1. Can you locate an area called “Israel”? Can you locate an area called “Palestine”? In the 1800s there was no area designated either “Israel” or “Palestine” by the Ottoman Turks who ruled the territory. 2. Does the area shown on the map seem to be one country or many units? The area was divided into many units called sanjaks and vilayats. 3. What does “nationalism” mean? Nationalism is the belief that a people who share a common language, history, culture and sometimes ethnicity should constitute an independent nation on a particular land in which it has deep roots. 4. What events in the 1880s may have helped trigger a greater desire for Jews to have a nation of their own? What is a “pogrom”? The growth of antisemitism, the hatred of Jews and Judaism, manifested especially in violent attacks known as pogroms, occurred in Eastern Europe where millions of Jews lived. This reinforced the conviction of many that they needed a refuge from persecution where they could live in freedom. 5. What steps did Jews take to develop a state of their own? One step was to leave the countries where they were persecuted and return to their ancestral homeland, eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel). They also organized into Zionist groups in Russia and Eastern Europe dedicated to building such a homeland. 6. From which parts of the world did the Jews of the First Aliyah (immigration) come? Jews of the First Aliyah largely came from Russia, Romania and Yemen.
    [Show full text]
  • How Israeli Jewish Dissidents Attempt to Use Alternative National Identity Discourses to Connect with Their
    No Way Out: How Israeli Jewish dissidents attempt to use alternative national identity discourses to connect with their Palestinian Other Katie Attwell, B.A. (Hons) This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of Murdoch University, 2012 1 I declare that this thesis is my own account of my research and contains as its main content work which has not previously been submitted for a degree at any tertiary education institution. .................................... Kathryn Louise Attwell 2 Abstract This thesis explores the national identity dilemma arising within ethnocratic states when individuals belonging to the ‘privileged majority’ seek to rectify the privations of their ethnic Other. Ethnocratic states have been set up by activists seeking to protect those they see as belonging to the ethnic nation with which they identify. In the process, the activists marginalise those depicted as Others within the state’s borders, institutionalising a demonising discourse which justifies those Others’ lack of privilege. Dissidents from the privileged majority may seek to remodel the ethnocratic state or challenge its dominant discourse without necessarily opposing the underpinning view of the nation therein, generating dilemmas about how justice for the Other ought to look and how the Us might be reconstituted to attain it. A study of the narratives of dissident Israeli Jews employs the theoretical concepts of ethnocracy and ressentiment to understand these dilemmas. Existing literature on ethnocratic states is riddled with ‘groupism’ – the tendency to treat ethnic groups or nations as objectively real entities. This thesis emphasises the processes of reification occurring when nationalist activists institutionalise their particular discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revolutionary Potential of Mythology
    The Revolutionary Potential of Mythology: Examining the Rise of Nationalism in Judaism and Hinduism in the 20th Century And the Egalitarian, Revolutionary Communities and Thinkers Who Challenge Statism, Nationalism, and Capitalism Within these Traditions Zachary Sager Morgan Thesis Adviser: Vasudha Paramasivan Comparative Literature Department University of California, Berkeley Spring 2017 i Acknowledgements First and foremost, I have to thank the massive amount of support I have received from my close friends and family who have not only encouraged and supported me throughout this project, but have also taken their personal time to give me notes on my work, enriched my interest in the study of politics, religions, and literature, and have all around been a copious wellspring of inspiration, both personally and intellectually. More specifically I would like to thank my thesis adviser Vasudha Paramasivan for working with me closely throughout the semester. Taking her class Religions in Modern India last semester provided me with many of the initial ideas that went into forming this comparative analysis I have created. Our weekly talks were both insightful, encouraging, and allowed me to check my own personal and academic biases throughout this research project. I certainly could not have done this without her expertise in the history of Indian politics and religions. I would also like to thank my professor Gilad Sharvit who’s class in 20th century Jewish philosophy peaked my interest in the subject and made me decide to pursue the examination of nationalist Zionism in this paper, as opposed to another tradition. He also provided support with (strictly informally) editing the introductory section on Judaism.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Autochtonous Zionism in Political Discourses in Israel 1961-1967
    THE THEORY OF AUTOCHTONOUS ZIONISM IN POLITICAL DISCOURSES IN ISRAEL 1961-1967 Michal Haramati1 ABSTRACT The premise of this investigation conceives of Western colonization as the central factor shaping modern history and contemporary geopolitics. In a local context, it perceives of the Zionist project from its inception as colonial, created by European Jews, supported by western powers and based upon perceived civilizational supremacy of western modernity. The Zionist movement affected not only the fate of Palestinian Arabs, but also the native Jewish population and Jewish migrants from Muslim countries to Eretz Israel/Palestine. This research follows political organizations consisting of non-European Jews, autochthonous in the Middle Eastern region, named here Oriental and Sephardic Jews. This research examines Sephardic and Oriental political debates that resisted the colonial postulates of the Zionist state. First, the genealogy of these debates since the beginning of Zionist settlement at the end of the 19th century is presented. This is followed by a description of the fragmentation that the establishment of the state of Israel, as a European enclave in its region, caused these autochthonous Jews. Together these elements form the historical layout of sociological inquiry into a particular discourse of autochthonous Zionism in the 1960s, as it developed on the pages of “In the Battle”, a cultural-political journal. Keywords: Sephardim; Oriental Jews; Political Movements; Decoloniality. JEL Classification: N95 1. INTRODUCTION The Zionist movement was established in Europe at the end of the 19th century as a European Jewish national movement, setting the modernization of the Jewish nation as one of its objectives. It aimed to make a name for the Jews as “a people like all others”, seeking in this quest to imitate other European nations (Raz-Krakotzkin, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • Audacious Hospitality Jews of Color Educational Resource Module a Supplement to the Audacious Hospitality Toolkit
    Audacious Hospitality Jews Of Color Educational Resource Module A Supplement to the Audacious Hospitality Toolkit Building Communities. Pilot Edition Reimagining Jewish Life. Audacious HospitalityJews of Color (JOC) Educational Resource Module An Educational Resource to Help Congregations, Communities, and Groups to be Proactively Inclusive of Jews of Color and Their Loved Ones Executive Editor Cantor Shira Stanford-Asiyo Union for Reform Judaism | Audacious Hospitality | Jews of Color Educational Resource Module• 3 Audacious Hospitality Jews of Color (JOC) Table of Contents Introduction Welcome 9 Jewish Identity and Community 11 Jewish Identity and Jewish Diversity 12 Jewish Identity: Terminology FAQ 13 Where Ever You Go: The Diversity of the Global Jewish Diaspora 15 Embracing Diversity in the Jewish Community 18 Awareness and Inclusion Resources 21 Storytelling: A Self-reflection for Deepening Relationships and Engagement 22 White-Ashkenazi Awareness Checklist: Examining Privilege 24 Reconsidering Being Colorblind 26 What Are Microaggressions and How Can We Address Them? 29 Things You Can Do to Embrace Racial Diversity in Our Jewish Communities 31 Black, Jewish, and Avoiding Synagogue on the High Holy Days 33 Literacy Resources 37 Key Terms for Racial Diversity and Justice 38 Book Lists for Inclusion, Diversity, and Racial Justice for Kids and Adults 44 Union for Reform Judaism | Audacious Hospitality | Jews of Color Educational Resource Module• 5 WELCOME Union for Reform Judaism | Audacious Hospitality | Jews of Color Educational Resource Module• 7 Welcome Welcome to the Audacious Hospitality Jews of Color Educational Resource Module. This module builds on the concepts shared in the Audacious Hospitality Pilot Toolkit and focuses specifically on the knowledge base needed to meet the needs of Jews of Color.
    [Show full text]
  • The Isreali-Palestinian Conflict
    What is the Israeli – Palestinian Conflict and how do these two side’s disagree? What is the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict? • The Israeli – Palestinian conflict is an ongoing conflict between two (2) Middle Eastern groups: 1. The country of Israel (Jewish) 2. The Palestinians (Muslims that use to live in Israel) What is Zionism? Y Zionism is a Jewish political movement in Europe during the 19th / 20th Centuries Y GOALS: The spiritual and political renewal of the Jewish people in its ancestral homeland of Palestine. Founder Theodore Herzl 1860-1904 First Zionist Conference, 1897 Y Herzl writes Der Judenstaat, or The Jewish State in 1896. Y Met in Basel, Switzerland Y Creates the First Zionist Congress Y Actively court the support of the British (who are hoping for colonies in the Middle East) Y Motto: “Next Year in Jerusalem!” Palestine Was Part of the Ottoman Empire The Ottoman Empire joins the Central Powers in World War I Captain T. E. Lawrence [1888-1935] Captain Lawrence goes to Palestine to help the local Arabs rebel against Ottoman rule. He become a local / international hero. The Arab Revolt: 1916-1918 The Allied (British) Advance Against the Ottoman Turks The British & Arab Armies Meet British Forces Lawrence got the Arabs to go along with the rebellion because he promised them independence after WWI The Balfour Declaration (1917) • The formal show of support by the British to the Zionists British Promise to the Jews: Balfour Declaration, 1917 His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Sir Arthur James Balfour Palestine… Br.
    [Show full text]
  • A Murder in the Grove: Conceptions of Justice in an Early Zionist Colony
    LIORA R. HALPERIN A Murder in the Grove: Conceptions of Justice in an Early Zionist Colony Abstract Downloaded from This article offers a localized perspective on early Zionist settlers’ evolving respons- es to interethnic violence in late Ottoman Palestine. It takes as its subject the first instance of murder in the early Zionist colony of Rishon LeZion, the death of Yaakov Abramovich in 1902, presumed to have been committed by the Palestinian notable Alfred Rock from Jaffa. Drawing from local archival records and the peri- http://jsh.oxfordjournals.org/ odical press of the Palestine Jewish community and influenced by scholarship in legal and microhistory, the article resituates this community in the context of its re- lations with Ottoman authorities, Arab notables and peasants, as well as its European Jewish benefactors. It argues that the community’s behavior and reac- tions were period and context-specific, consequences of legal assumptions about the workings of the Ottoman court system and the traditional confliction resolution mechanism of sulh but also products of evolving economic motives around land purchase and sale, and particular social dynamics among surviving family members in the colony, namely the deceased man’s widow, his father, and his by guest on November 24, 2015 brothers. It emphasizes the contingent, local nature of communal interactions with the larger, overlapping social and legal structures of Late Ottoman Palestine. On Tuesday, September 23, 1902, a group of Christian Arabs from Jaffa, among them Alfred Rock,
    [Show full text]