Against Hate -- Ahad Ha'am for Palestinians

How could a nation rooted in Palestine for well over a thousand years be so easily plucked out and chased away at gunpoint? By now I knew this wasn't because of the inherently superior intelligence or even malevolence of our enemy. What was it then?

I didn't have any answers.

Nusseibeh, Sari with David, Anthony (2007) Once Upon a Country p. 121 Farras, Straus and Giroux New York

I will try to suggest a partial answer.

David (Dolik) Horovitz (1899-1979) was the founder and then the Governor of the Bank of Israel. In 1970, at that time he was 71 years old, he published his autobiography, Ha'etmol Sheli in Hebrew, which means My Yesterday in English. In 1920 he and Meir Yaari, who later became the legendary leader of Israeli Left, were among the founders of a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz, Beytanya. The book caused a bitter controversy between the two young old men about Talmudic or dialectical shades in semi-private discussions they held 50 years before as if it happened yesterday. They recalled what transpired clearly not only because of outstanding memory and intelligence. The argument was well remembered becaust it dealt with vision and ambition of the allmost teenagers pioneers of the tiny, in present day terms, Third Immigration Wave or Aliyah, of less than 30,000 immigrants that came to Palestine in the years 1918 to 1924. These young men and women wanted to create new forms of personal, social and economic existence not only for Jews but for all humankind. The world knew nothing about them, and even within the world Zionist movement the whole Jewish population in Palestine at that time was a small minority. In spite of all that, the Third Aliyah created, in defiance to all expectations the social, political, ideological and military foundation for the future state of Israel.

The will and determination of a group of people to create new vision is the precondition for its success.

In my mind, the public understanding and poor scholarship missed the real history of the Holocaust. To exist in the Ghetto, in face of death everywhere and keep the family safe for another day called for immensely more bravery and courage than manifested by the conventional glory of military armed heroics. What was most remarkable, in spite of the knowledge that death is a day, a week, or in the best case few months away, is the fact that food and survival were not the only things that mattered for the Ghetto residents. They also created in the dreary reality theaters, schools, libraries and books. They revolted not only against the opressors but against the overpowering hate too.

Eva Sandler lost lost her two children and her husband in the Toulouse murder. In face of the disaster she remained self-composed and kept her trust in God. Furhermore, this remarkable woman obstinately refused to fall into the chaos of hate. “We, the Jews, we are not looking for revenge,” she said. Mass media, the loyal allies to terror, are much more interested in the assassin than in the mother of murdered children and their father. The God of ratings is not interested in honest courage. Mournig with no hate and lust for revenge is much more powerful than ranting of lesser human beings.

The major flaw of hatred is not faulty ethics or even deranged psychology, but the acceptance and confirmation of the alleged or true stereotype that the hated has of the hater. Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (1856 - 1927), primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am, (Hebrew: אחד העם‎, lit. one of the people, Genesis 26:10) in his essay Imitation and Assimilation written in German in 1893 dealt at length with the cultural danger of adopting stereotypes of the “other” nation. Palestinians may learn something from it, rereading it will not damages the Jews either.

Arabs and Palestinians can choose peace or war with Jews. Be their choice as it may, hatred will serve it poorly.

On individual level many Arabs in Israel are most intelligent and and successful. Some of the best doctors are Arabs. As many antisemites who prefer to be treated by Jewish doctors, know, it is not easy to compete with Jewish physicians. Arabs are certainly able of great achievements in community and in nation and state building too. Getting rid of hatred is a step in this direction.

Sari Nusseibeh believes that Jews and Arabs are natural allies. Such view may seem overoptimistic, but Arab success in the long run could become a bridge for the two nations.

Si vis pacem para bellum

maskirovka

Since time immemorial surprise and deception were an important feature of many military battles. Hannibal crossing the Alps, Allenby in Megiddo in 1918, Pearl Harbor, Operation Barbarossa, Landing in Normandy, Yom Kippur war and 9/11 terror are few examples coming to mind. It seems that surprise and deceptions are dreams of many military commanders planning an attack. Even in the largest military operation in the world, which somehow escaped public attention, in which millions of soldiers were involved on both sides, the Bagration operation of the Red Army in 1944, deception, or rather maskirovka, was one of the tenets of Stalin and the stavka. Surprise and deception in military operation are not just textbook prescription taken from manuals. They stem from the fact that battles are not only movements of soldiers and equipment exerting firepower, but are campaigns of minds of military commanders. Planning a battle and leading it involves time, efforts, intelligence and total dedication. In these respects it is not different from scientific research projects or works of art.  

Allenby - Megiddo  1918

If Israel launches an attack on Iran, its timing, scope, operational means, allies, even its objectives will be based on surprise and deception. The military commanders are working day and night on the details and on intelligence. The speculations of journalists, experts and armchair generals are by definition wrong. No journalist or expert could have envisaged a painting of a master before it was actually painted. One can simulate battles in mind or play a computer game, but the result would be similar to painting, say, Mona Lisa before is was actually painted, by computer program. The predictions in the press and on the web are worthless. The fact that they are repeated several times a day by former Generals and lobbyists do not make them more valuable.

If Israel believes that Iran by itself or through its terror allies would use nuclear weapons against the Jewish State and if it believes it has the means to destroy such weapons before they are fully developed, the decision is pretty straightforward. One can presume that the attack will take place before “it's too late”. In these circumstances the opinion of the US, or international community are of little consequence. The debate whether Iran is rational or not is also not important. Nobody is 100 percent rational. If Iran is, say, only 10 percent irrational, Israel cannot take the chance of its existence. Furthermore, the US fully agrees that Israel has the right to destroy Iran's nuclear capability and do so "it is too late." This stance stems not only from logic, friendship and political expedience but also from the belief that it is helpful in forthcoming diplomacy with the clerics. 

Israel and the US both would prefer a solution without military attack. There is, however, a built-in difference of opinion between the two countries, which has nothing to do with personalities, love and hate and politics. Israel is single minded, it wants immediate harsh sanctions. The US is a powerful empire with many interests, which Israel is both unwilling and unable to consider. Considerations of world economy, of price of oil, of relations with allies and rivals such as China and Russia make US action slower than Israel would expect. The size of the countries, the manner of decision making are different too. Those differences are well known to both sides, and both of them are trying to pressure one another in more or less amicable way. Unnamed officials leak about difficulties of military attack, about chaos, about oil prices and many other things which create public opinion against military attack by Israel. On the other hand, Israel is not ashamed to mention refusal to bomb Auschwitz, to hint about elections, to mobilize its friends and more. At this stage the US is asking Israel for two months more for engagement with Iran and for letting the sanctions work. 

The third party is Iran. Rational or not, nobody in the West knows exactly what its goals are. The system there is based on a sort of uneasy balance between the clerics and middle class. The Arab revolt, whatever its outcome is, weakened the clerics, because Islam was not the agent of change in removal of the old rulers. The revolt in Syria which is going on in spite of Hezbollah and Iran supporting Assad, strengthens the dormant middle class in Iran. Are nuclear weapons a key for survival of the clerics as rulers? Are the sanctions hurting? Is it possible to reach an accommodation with the US? Nobody knows for sure, perhaps event the clerics do not. As in many negotiations each party tries to picture itself as wearing the shoes of the other and imagining what it would do if the roles are reversed; not necessarily the best engagement strategy but quite natural, in particular when information is scant. If the roles were reversed the clerics would not have negotiated anything with a country which is hundred times weaker. Similarly, Americans think that Iranians behave as the Americans would have in their place. The most damaging characteristic of US foreign policy is the belief that the whole world is Main Street America. Enter more players, Europe, Russia, China, Turkey, and the process becomes even slower. The chance of doing something before “it is too late,” is almost non existent, except if the biting effect of the sanctions increases dramatically, or there is another major change in the region, for instance fall of Assad.

The final question is how Iran is reading the Israeli threat. Strange as it is, if Iran concludes that the threat is becoming real and imminent it will give in and stop, at least for a while, development of nukes. The old adage  si vis pacem, para bellum stands.    

Who will rule Turkey

Prime Minister and his Head of Intelligence

The arguments in the Turkish parliament about intelligence service seem to be taken from television mini series. War against terror involves agents, who infiltrate a terrorist organization. Occasionally such agents, believed to be loyal and true terrorists are ordered to commit acts of terror. Refusal may lead to exposure, consequently even if the agent remains alive, he or she becomes an useless spy. Now, if an agent engages in terror, is she immune from prosecution? Who grants the approval to act in this way and who is in charge of control? These dilemmas are usually discussed in close doors, certainly in a country like Turkey, not exactly a paradigm of government transparency. 

The public prosecutor opened a criminal investigation against no less a figure than Dr. Hakan Fidan, the head of national intelligence service (MİT), an appointee of Prime Minister Erdoğan with a rank of Undersecretary and against several other officials under him. The subject matter has been the Kurdish PKK, which is considered by Turkey a terrorist group and CKK its political arm. In response, the parliament enacted a new law, which allows the Prime Minister to grant immunity to MİT agents in exercise of their approved duties. The main opposition BDP stated that it will ask the Constitutional Court to cancel the new law.

The debate is much more than a legal bickering between factions in Government and Parliament. It represents deep power struggle among important forces that have shaped modern secular Turkey ruled by an Islamic party.

Fethullah Gülen

Fethullah Gülen is the head of a movement that exerts considerable religious, social and political power over Turkey and Turks over the world. He was the architect of making the Islamic AKP the ruling party in Turkey, and subsequently nominating Erdoğan,  its leader, the Prime Minister. Gülen followers are well established in AKP and in the Government. Presumably they maintain a forceful presence in the judiciary system.

Erdoğan's Turkey is a rather strange amalgam of nationalistic state, alliance with secular business, and moderate Islam. The state vision in its strict ethnic and language definitions is closer to right wing Poland between the wars than to Ottoman's Caliphate or even Ataturk conception of the country. Like Poland at that time, Turkey has difficulty in dealing with its sizable 20 percent minority, with facts of its recent history, and again like Poland it has imperialistic dreams toward small and weak neighbors. The alliance with business community is based on crony capitalism with ever growing disparity in distribution of national income. The Islamic foundation are more a political tool than real life force changing the secular Turkey into a religious country.

After the last elections, Turkey's relations with most of the countries around it, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Cyprus, Greece deteriorated significantly. Yet in the media an impression arose that Turkey became a regional – a word that probably Mr. Erdoğan dislikes – power and its Prime Minister a charismatic leader. It seems that Mr. Erdoğan believes that this is indeed the case and that support of Mr. Gülen is not crucial anymore. Mr. Gülen, a resident of Pennsylvania, is less impressed with the image of the Prime Minister. He probably considers him arrogant and unnecessarily argumentative. On the face of it, though, the difference in style and even minor opinions do not warrant such a grave step as public summoning and criminal investigation of the Head of Intelligence who is also a loyal confidant of the Prime Minister.

It may well be that a more important development is the reason for the recent showdown. The health situation of Mr. Erdoğan in detail is unknown. Officially he does not have cancer. Yet a second operation is not an event which necessarily implies excellent health. It may well be that a succession struggle is taking place. Ahmet Davutoglu the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Abdullah Gül the President are so far the best known contenders. Fethullah Gülen supports Abdullah Gül. He wants to remain the eminence grise who determines who will be the next Prime Minister. During the visit of Ahmet Davutoglu in the US, several American journalists wrote critically about the Gullen foundation. It appears that the timing and leaks are also a part of the ongoing struggle.

Fethullah Gülen was the only prominent Turkish religious leader who opposed to Gaza flotilla. Prime Minister Erdoğan and Foreign Minister Davutoglu aggressive stance against Israel proved to be a failure. It did not improve the relations of Turkey with other Muslim neighbors, in fact it worsened them. In maintaining good relations with Israel, Turkey had a leverage which it lost. Even the Palestinians did not become more eager to look for support under the wing of Turkey. After severing the ties with Israel Turkey became of no value to them. Israel used to have excellent relations with the Turkish military, because of that it probably did not maintain contacts with the Gülen foundation. Times are changing, it my be useful to consider this foundation a bridge for improving contacts with the AKP and the next Prime Minister.

Cultural Capital of Leftist Apartheid

Few days ago, Norman Finkelstein, a well known anti-Zionist activist,  denounced the Boycott, Divestment andSanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Here is how Wikipedia summarized his criticism:

Finkelstein "launched a blistering attack" of the BDS movement, saying it was a "hypocritical, dishonest cult" that tries to cleverly pose as human rights activists while in reality their goal is to destroy Israel. In addition, he said: "I'm getting a little bit exasperated with what I think is a whole lot of nonsense. I'm not going to tolerate silliness, childishness and a lot of leftist posturing. I loathe the disingenuousness. We will never hear the solidarity movement [back a] two-state solution." Furthermore, Finkelstein stated that the BDS movement has had very few successes, and that just like a cult, the leaders pretend that they are hugely successful when in reality the general public rejects their extreme views.

Finkelstein did not suddenly change his views and became an ardent Zionist. He has been and remains a strong pro-Palestinian voice. He slams the one state solution, not only because it is impractical, or because Israel will never agree to it, but, because, if realized, it is the worst outcome of the Palestinians.

One-state solution implies that Palestinians do not have a culture of their own, that they are not a vibrant society with its own values. It assumes that by stroke of pen one can transform the Palestinians into a sort of mini Jews and that granting them equal legal rights will make them indeed equal. For all communities and societies the path into modernity was, and to many of them still is a difficult struggle. The 1,500 hundred years long persecution of Jews under Christianity, could be considered as a sort of  apprenticeship for modern age success of the Jews. The belief that Palestinian aspirations for statehood could be achieved by becoming citizens in a state Jews created is a complete nonsense. In such state, notwithstanding equal legal rights, they would become refugees in alien culture.

The so called radical Left, which on the face of it supports multi-culture, in fact uses the existence of other culture only for its political ends. The other culture itself is never of any interest. In terms of the social scientist Pierre Bourdieu, the Left sees itself the owner of all cultural capital just like the colonial powers considered themselves in the past owners of all economic capital. The continual attack on America and Israel to certain degree stems from the Left's absolute lack of interest in what takes places in cultures it is unfamiliar with.

Edward Said was mostly right in his Orientalism, when he criticized the prejudices of the well known historians and sociologists of the Orient. Nietzsche, Bourdieu and many others had a similar views about social scholars and philosophers in general. Interestingly, every psychoanalytic practitioner is required to undergo analysis of himself or herself, but no such requirement for analysis of inbred preferences, and prejudices takes place in other areas of intellectual work. The orientalists of the past were however immensely superior to self declared present day intellectuals of the Left. The orientalists, even if prejudiced and non reflective, still were very much interested in the subject matter of their scholarship. 

Every "progressive" blogger apparently knows what democracy is and how it should be implemented in Egypt, or Syria or Libya, or any other Arab country. Such blogger is also  able in several hours to prepare a dratt constitution for those countries. She assumes that her own culture, politics and opinions are equally valid for places, cultures and people she knows nothing about. It is worthwhile to consider what G.W. Hegel thought about the attempt of leader he adored, Napoleon, to compose a constitution for Spain. The differences between Spain and France were minute in comparison to those between US and any Arab country. Here is what Hegel writes in paragraph 274 of Elements of the Philosophy of Right:

The state must in its constitution penetrate all relations within it. Napoleon, for example, wanted to give Spaniards an a priori constitution, something that went quite wrong. For a constitution is not something simply made; it is a work of centuries, it is the idea and consciousness of the rational, to the extent they have developed in a nation. ... The nation must have for its constitution the feeling of its right, if granted externally it has no meaning and no value. ...

The attempt of the Left to tell Arabs what is "good for them", is a sort of low level cultural imperialism. No wonder that the more America portrays itself as "pro democratic Islam," the more its support on the Arab mainstreet declines. The support for President Obama there is much lower than it was for the hated George Bush. 

By itself, constant bashing of Israel by the radical Left does little damage. It may even be the main reason for the growing from year to year support of Israel in America. When main street America hears and reads what haters of Israel have to say, it likes Israel even more. The attitude  of the Left however is damaging to Palestinians and to peace effort. For the Left, Palestinians exist only as victims of Israel. They do not have any existence of their own. Apart from being victims the Left has nothing to says about them, neither good or bad, as if they do not exist. It certainly keeps silence about peace. 

Still, Israelis and Palestinians must engage in new thinking of their own and find ways and means for a discourse that will support their national interests. Perhaps a solution as defined by UN 181 resolution, two states with minority in each of the other is a possible answer.   Israelis should learn more about their neighbors. Unfortunately newspapers in Israel ignore Palestinians, except in context of conflict. Reading Sari Nusseibeh might be a good start, not because he is an elitist moderate intellectual, but because he understand his community better than most. On personal level dialogue may be helpful too.  

Who Occupies Palestine

If a visitor from another planet with rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew or English had landed in New York or Jerusalem, he would have found that apart from Coca Cola, McDonald, Humus and Falafel, one of the staple words is occupation. After reading the New York Times and Haaretz on the web he, she or it would have come to the conclusion that there is a country called Palestine, which another country called Israel occupies.

Although facts are not necessarily the most important factor of postmodern life, and possibly lies, because of strange definition of freedom of expression, have an upper hand over truth, considering the real state of affairs may still have some value.

Following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in the WWI, the British Army occupied major parts of the Middle East. In the agreement executed before the war ended by Britain and France with assent of Imperial Russia, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the parties decided what belongs to whom. One of the regions under British control was Palestine which included initially the area of present day Israel, West Bank, Gaza Strip and Jordan. Those areas became the British Mandate of Palestine under a resolution of League of Nations in 1921. Shortly thereafter in 1922 the area East of the river Jordan became the Emirate of Transjordan, still under the British Mandate. Transjordan became an independent kingdom in 1946. It changed its name to Jordan.

In 1947, the UN resolution 181 called for establishment of two states on the remaining area of the British Mandate, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish state included a minority of Arabs, and the Arab state minority of Jews. Palestinians and Arab states did not accept the UN resolution 181. They waged a war at the soon be proclaimed State of Israel. The newly born Jewish state was able to defend itself against the Arab attack, and even to increase the area under its control over the one prescribed by UN 181. In 1949 after the military operations had ended Israel executed armistice agreements with Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.

Following the armistice agreement with Israel, Jordan occupied the West Bank and annexed it as an integral part of the kingdom, proclaiming East Jerusalem and the Old City as its second capital. West Bank Palestinians were not allowed any political expression of their national goals.

In 1967 Egypt, Syria and Jordan waged once again a war against Israel. They lost. The West Bank came under control of Israel. If Israel indeed became an “occupier,” it occupied a part of Jordan. In fact, since annexation of West Bank to Jordan was probably illegal, and since Palestinians refused UN 181, Israel might have occupied a part of British Mandate of Palestine, an entity not existing any more.

In 1995 Israel and Palestinians executed the Oslo Interim Agreement. Strange as it seems, Israel was the first state which controls the ground that recognized the national aspirations of Palestinians. The Oslo  agreement defines the relations between the parties. It could have called Israel, an elephant, a tiger, a horse, an occupier or anything else, but it did not.

As long as the parties and most of the “international community” consider the Oslo agreement as the document defining the relations between the Israel and the Palestinians, Israel is not and cannot be seen as occupier of Palestine.

Israel, Iran, Diplomacy and Deniss Ross

One of the arguments of Dennis Ross for giving another chance to diplomacy with Iran, is the decline of the Islamic Republic. The pro-Iranian lobby of experts of sorts, almost by definition, cannot argue that its client is in decline. Interestingly, the experts who usually cherish democracy, when discussing "engagement" with Iran, voice a strong opinion for the US guaranteeing the regime of the clerks.   

The Arab spring, or awakening or revolt – dictionaries and vocabularies are at loss in trying to suggest the right word – is certainly not a harbinger of Jeffersonian, or God forbid, Israeli democracy. It is still unclear, notwithstanding the chorus of journalists, experts and politicians, what its outcome is going to be. However, be that as it may, and even if Islamist parties or tyrannies will become the rulers, it is clear that religion, in Iranian, or al-Qaeda or in any other mantle has not been the reason for the events. Plausibly, Iran, al-Qaeda and many others are trying to jump the bandwagon, a fact which proves once again their weakness. Furthermore, the events have shown that no regime is immune against possible winds of change. a principle which does not please the ears and eyes of any ruler, and even more so of a dictatorship.

Inability of Iran with  Revolutionary Guards, with Basij, with Quds and with Hezbollah to assist quickly and effectively its embattled ally, Bashar al-Assad are not a sign of strength. The attempts to assassinate Israeli diplomats in Asia prove that Iran is unable to conduct such operations elsewhere. It had to use Iranians because apparently Hezbollah was unwilling to perform the operation out of fear of provoking Israel. The events in Syria have weakened Hezbollah too. It fears that any provocation of Israel might enrage Lebanon too. Hamas physically left Syria and virtually is distancing itself from Iran as well. 

It is difficult to figure out what is the economic situation in Iran. Those who want to dissuade Israel from attack, are trying to describe Iran's economy in grim terms. Rial on the black market is falling in value, inflation rises, but probably the situation there is still far from crisis. On the other hand the strategy of survival of the Islamic Republic, like that of many other dictatorships, is based on relative middle class freedom and large private sector. Economic fears, justified or not do play an important role in the decisions of the regime.

Almost frantic declarations and their subsequent withdrawals point to nervousness of the Iranian leadership. They are about to close the Hormuz strait, and then decide not to do it. They decide to stop partial shipping of oil, and then say the shipping will continue. They say that they develop nuclear energy for peace and then brag about progress in armaments, and so it goes on and on twice or three times every week.

Mobilizing the huge pro-Iranian lobby of experts who are trying several times a day to convince the world that sanctions against Iran are harmful, because Iranian response would be irrational, and certainly that military attack by Israel is unwarranted, also show that Iran fears both.

The main problem with byzantine courts of dictators is reliable information. Nobody, perhaps even not the clerks, eunuchs and other courtiers know for sure what is in the cards. Everybody likes to blame Western and Soviet intelligence for failure in Hitler's wars, but at least in the beginning, most Generals were against war, eventually Hitler had his way. It was not an easy task to determine whether Hitler or the Generals will win the argument. It was natural to assume that the “professionals” know better. This was a wrong, but not trivially wrong, assumption. It seems that the question mark about Iran's intentions still looms large.

Israel trusts nobody about its security matters. The country still remembers,  that, not now, but in 1948, when the new state was the darling of the whole world, when CIA and the State Department believed Israel is about to loose the war, they recommended to the President to abandon Israel. Still, there are various degrees of Israeli trust,  perhaps lack of trust is a better phrase. Israeli leaders believe that Dennis Ross is a professional whose intent and integrity are to be respected, and who will not knowingly deceive them. There are very few American officials whom they regard in similar light. Still, Deniss Ross will have to work very hard to convince the Israelis that diplomacy should be given a chance. If Iranians are serious about doing business, they will have to show something new to Ross, whom they rejected in 2009 because he is a Jew. Then there is the Obama obstacle. The President likes to hear the opinions of zillion of advisers, and usually choses the worst among them, thus spoiling a possible solution. Fortunately, election politics, might discipline him.

In any event the crack opening of the window of diplomacy and engagement -- perhaps a word better suite for premarital relations -- is short lived.   

We the (Jewish) people -- Hatred and Success

Individuals, groups and communities, who enter the space-time of modernity from premodern state, experience a stressful and difficult struggle. The whole personal and societal stance, structure and way of life are subject to change. The concept of time in rural agrarian age was a homogeneous flow of events based on natural phenomena:   day, night and seasons. In the urbanized, industrial, capitalist, secular world the tempo changes constantly in a non-linear, non-homogeneous manner. Similarly, existence in physical space, in kinship relations, in politics, in making a living and in every other social field changes dramatically. Furthermore, the number of  social roles of individuals increases immensely in comparison to the few more or less constant and fixed he or she had in premodern society.

Jews in the Christian World posed a threat and challenge to Christianity. Jesus Christ and most of his early followers were Jews. The refusal of Jews themselves to accept the tenets of Christian religion constituted a question mark as to the validity of the of the new faith. The Christian response was that the attitude of the Jews stems from grave error for which they must pay by persecution and restrictions on residence and earning rights. The Jew became a pariah, subject to constant threat of deportation, of murder and conversion to Christianity by force. To survive Christian antisemitism, Jews had to be always ready to change their residence town, country or even continent. Many times such changes entailed learning new language, customs and way of life on very short notice, or no notice at all. Only few professions were open to them, trade, money lending and few others.

To keep their religion alive they had to maintain among themselves social solidarity and education system, which was based on their holy books. Most important among them was the Talmud. The Talmud is a compendium of legal opinions by Rabbis, one can consider them legal scholars, between 200 and 800 C.E. At the beginning of the first millennium commentaries by Rabbi Shlomo Ytshaki known as RASHI and his students, called the Masters of Additions (TOSAFOT) became for all practical purposes part of the Talmud. It is a very demanding text, which deals with torts, religious rituals, contracts, marriage and divorce laws, legal jurisprudence and almost every other aspect of Jewish life. To make it even more difficult, the language is mostly Aramaic. Pupils, later to become students, started to learn the Talmud at the age of nine for about ten hours a day and continued to do so all their life, becoming Rabbis, Judges and teachers of their community. Contrary to religious masterpieces of other religions, Talmud is a practical treatise. It does not discuss abstract terms like God, nature, justice and so on. It speaks, for instance, about prayers as something to be done so many times a day in particular sequence, how and when rather than about the proper intent and personal relation to God. Both the religious obligations and those between people are treated legally in the same manner.

All modern commerce relies on law for solving disputes that may arise between the parties. In this respect Jews enjoyed, long before judicial systems in the community of nations were perfected, a clear advantage. They had their own autonomous jurisprudence which they trusted. If a Jew from Poland had a dispute with his colleague, say in Morocco, he knew that the local Rabbi in Morocco will investigate the matter on similar principles that his Rabbi in Poland would have done. Knowledge of the law and Jewish courts all over the world were a key factor in promoting trade by and between Jews.

When modernity broke out many disadvantages that Jews had because of Christian antisemitism and persecution, suddenly became an entry card into the new era, as if they had a thousand years long apprenticeship for entering the highway to success. The intense practical scholarship became a staple too. Some Jews were better than non-Jews prepared for modern science. Even luminaries like Marx and Freud were distinguished by being, or at least trying to be practical. Das Kapital still today is a practical attempt to analyze capital in modern society, starting from facts and not from preconceived principles. Freud insisted all along on practical therapy and phenomena such as dreams and jokes, before providing general structures. His dispute with Carl Jung may be considered as an argument between a practitioner and a thinker who prefers to follow abstract generalities.

The sudden success of some, relatively many Jews, evoked feelings of anger and further enhanced the preexisting religious antisemitism, thus transforming it into a new modern variety. The rise of nationalistic and racial ideas made this state of affairs much worse. The terms nation and race are meaningless unless one has a dialectical non-nation or non-race. Nation and race need the other as a condition for their validity. Jews are a ready made other for validating them. In fact, there is no need for physical Jew for this purpose, a memory of Jews can do the same job, perhaps even perfect it. Memory is a figure of imagination, which can be easily mellowed into a shape, which is an improved fancy, in comparison with  physical people, who may demand looking into facts and reality. Consequently, with practically no Jews in Poland and Germany today, antisemitism is flourishing among radical right wing groups.

Interestingly, the more Palestinians are building up their national narrative, the more frequent are antisemitic statements among them. 

The story of the state of Israel, in certain sense, is also a reflection of the paradigm of hatred and success of the Jewish nation.