“The ‘Revival of the East,’ Pan-Semitism and Pan-Asianism within Zionist

Discourse“

Thesis submitted for the degree of

“Doctor of Philosophy”

By Hanan Harif

Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem

9.2013

This work was carried out under the supervision of

Prof. Steven Aschheim and Prof. Israel Bartal

“The ‘Revival of the East,’ Pan-Semitism and Pan-Asianism within Zionist

Discourse“

Ph.D. Abstract

Hanan Harif

II

One thing is sure: even a partial realization of

those grandiose dreams would shake the fabric

of the present world (Theodore Lothrop

Stoddard, "Pan-Turanism.")

This study is dedicated to various attitudes within Zionist realm – from the 1880’s onwards -

towards the Oriental world and civilizations. Spurred by the traumatic experience of growing

anti-Semitism and pogroms in Eastern Europe, post-assimilatory Jewish intellectuals began to

challenge the former standard European-oriented model and their political views concerning

Jewish existence changed dramatically. It is within this context that several Zionist thinkers

constructed the ‘East’ (‘Mizrach’) – namely, the Middle East and Asia - as an answer to their

search for cultural belonging. Not unlike numerous non-European intellectuals across the

Ottoman Empire and the colonial world in the age of high imperialism, these thinkers and

writers adopted an ‘Orient-oriented’ identity, rejecting Europe’s claim for hegemony over the

non-European. Articulated in different ways and under varying cultural influences, these

endeavors were characterized by ‘Philo-Islamic’ sentiments corresponding with a pessimistic

view of European civilization; the adoption of a racial pseudo-scientific discourse, which

underlined the ‘Semitic’ origins of the Jewish people; and a belief in the possibility, and

necessity, of the ‘Revival of the East.’ All these can be viewed as examples of the ‘pan-Eastern’

tendency that existed within Jewish national culture. As this study shows, pan-Eastern

attitudes were deeply rooted in Zionism, although it never actually formulated a specific

position towards ‘the East’ – neither politically nor culturally.

Given the distinct characteristics of the ‘pan-Eastern’ strand of Zionist thought, one of

the pivotal aspects of my work is the study of this phenomenon against the context of pan-

III

ideologies. While generally left outside the boundaries of the study of Jewish nationalism, pan-

ideologies and pan-movements actually constitute a fruitful perspective for the study of

Zionism: in general, as a ‘pan-Jewish’ movement, but mainly for analyzing the above mentioned

trends within it. Emerging during the last third of the 19th century - the ‘golden age’ of pan-

movements - Zionism actually requires such analysis. Thus, these two global developments –

the pan-ideologies on the one hand, and the Eastern response to Western colonialism on the

other – mark the conceptual frame of this study. Focused on Zionist thinkers from Eastern

Europe, Central Europe and Palestine/Eretz-Yisrael, it introduces and analyzes, for the first

time, the diverse history of Zionist “pan-Eastern” thought.

The work is structured around three of the central expressions of that history:

I. ‘Love of Zion’ and the ‘Semitic East:’ the “Revival of the East” within Hibbat-Zion

circles in 1880’s and 1890’s Russia

II. Zionist “pan-Semitism” during the first half of the 20th century.

III. Zionist “pan-Asianism” from post-World War I Vienna to British Mandatory Palestine

I. ‘Love of Zion’ and the ‘Semitic East:’

The first part of the dissertation (chapters 1-4) explores the discourse around the idea of

the ‘Revival of the East’ and scrutinizes the impact and ideological weight it had among proto-

and early-Zionist writers in Eastern Europe. The internalization by several Jewish thinkers of

the late 19th century categorization of the Jews as “Semites” and, as such, racially strangers in

“Aryan” Europe, moved several early Zionist writers to attempt to re-conceptualize the

meaning of Jewish foreignness in Europe in light of contemporary Eastern transnational

IV

discourse. Influenced by this trend of thought, as well as by the Jewish-Oriental racial pride of

Benjamin Disraeli and his “pro-Ottoman” attitude in relation to the “Eastern question” (i.e. the

future of the Ottoman Empire), the writers under discussion developed a unique identification

with the Orient and/or the Ottoman Empire. Writers such as Moshe Eismann (1847-1893),

Yehuda Leib Levin (1844-1925), Mordechai Ze’ev Feirberg (1847-1899) and others, all

associated with Hibbat Zion circles, stressed the connection between the future return of the

Jews to their homeland and the larger region in which this land is located. These “post-

Maskilic” Jewish thinkers rejected the assimilation and emancipation projects and “replaced” it

not only by a national outlook but also by a new, universal destination – the ‘Revival of the

East.’

Returning to half-forgotten texts, and offering a new outlook regarding more famous

and widely read ones, these chapters give a fresh outlook on the early stages of the

development of the Zionist world view. Among the ideas under discussion here are national-

Jewish reflections on Christianity and Islam, ‘the clash of civilizations’ and the cultural

proximity between the two ‘Semitic brothers’ – Arabs and Jews. This part’s basic claim is that

regional perspective and feelings of affinity towards the Orient, its inhabitants and its

cultures were immanent within proto and early Zionist thought. Locating ‘Eretz-Yisrael’

at the center of Jewish national discourse had a broad cultural context: while aspiring for a

homeland for the Jewish people, several Zionist thinkers also considered the larger region

within which the Jews were destined to realize their hopes for national revival – the East.

II. Back to the Semitic origins: ‘Pan-Semitic’ Zionism

V

As mentioned above, fin-de-siècle regional thought was closely associated with the realm of

pan-movements and ideologies. A central example for pan-Eastern thought within Zionism is

discussed in the second part of the work (chapters 5-6). This part analyzes ‘pan-Semitic’

Zionism by focusing on the figure of Yehoshu’a Radler-Feldmann (‘Rabbi Binyamin,’ 1880-

1957) a prolific writer, journalist and political activist. Feldmann, a lifelong fighter for Arab-

Jewish fraternity, coined the term “pan-Semitism” in his early writings (1903). In his political

outlook, ‘Herzlian’ Zionism was integrated into transnational thought with a strong emphasis

on the ‘racial’ bond and on cultural, as well as religious, proximity between Jews and Arabs, the

‘Semitic peoples.’ Unlike mainstream national views, pan-Semitism did not strive for an

exclusive national definition and/or establishment of political sovereignty. More specifically, it

is not only the Jewish people that pan-Semitism had in view, but rather, the two parts of the

‘Semitic race’ (that is – Jews and Arabs). Zionism therefore, has to move beyond the borders of

the Jewish people towards inclusion of the Arabs of Palestine as equal partners in the revival of

the land and the region. Despite his influential role within the Zionist republic of letters and its

ideological scope, Feldmann’s work and political activity still await a comprehensive study.

Thus, the second part of the work constitutes an original contribution to the field of Zionist

cultural research.

The discussion in this part of the dissertation is divided into two chapters – one for the

Ottoman period and the other for Mandatory Palestine – following the story of pan-Semitic

Zionism through the figure of Radler-Feldmann, his writings and activity, as well as some of

his ideological partners. At the same time, the broader political context in which pan-Semitism

functioned is also taken into account by presenting and analyzing a few reactions to it from

within Zionist circles, as well as corresponding voices from the Arab side, regarding the notion

of ‘Semitism’ and the chances for a ‘Semitic fraternity.’

VI

This part of the work paints a unique picture of a continuing process of self-fashioning

in light of the ‘other’ and of a now-forgotten cultural-political discourse which provides a new

perspective regarding enduring political and cultural challenges.

III. The Jews as an Asian Nation: Pan-Asianism and Zionism

Expanding upon my previous published work,1 the third part of the dissertation

(chapter 7) offers an exploration of ‘pan-Asian Zionism.’ Originating in post WWI Vienna, pan-

Asian Zionism was the life-project of the writer, poet and reporter Eugen Hoeflich (i.e. Mosche

Ya’acov ben-Gavriel, 1891-1965). Hoeflich, who immigrated to mandatory Palestine in 1927,

enthusiastically propagated the idea that the Jews, as an Oriental people, must take part in the

wide pan-Asianist movement. As the Jewish national movement, he claimed, Zionism must

connect itself to Asia and its peoples by rejecting European diplomacy and system of interests.

Unlike several of his friends and early mentors (such as Martin Buber and Hans Kohn),

Hoeflich rejected the idea of the Jews as a ’bridge’ between Europe and Asia; for him, only as an

integral part of the Asian world – politically and culturally – would the Jewish people find the

way to re-integrate into the Arab-Jewish Palestine, ‘the gate of the East,’ as states the title of

1H. Harif, “AsiatischeBrüder, EuropäischeFremde: EugenHoeflich und der „PanasiatischeZionismus“ in Wien”, in: ZeitschriftfürGeschichtswissenschaft, Heft 7-8 (2012), pp. 646-660; ibid.,"Pan-Asianist Zionism – between orientalist aesthetics and Transnationalism" (in Hebrew), in: Chidushim:Studies in the History of German and Central European Jewry, 15 (2011), pp.77-96.

VII

his book from 1923.2 The reverse was also true: a peaceful Arab-Jewish Palestine would pave

the way for the re-integration of the Jews in the East, in Asia.

Epilogue: The On-Going Quest for a Regional Orientation

The work concludes with some reflections on further ‘pan-Eastern’ developments

within mandatory Palestine, the Jewish ‘Yishuv’ and the early state of Israel, where many

writers and thinkers strove for a new, wider Zionist perspective. Influenced by a wide range of

ideas and concepts, these men and women, most of whom were born after the ‘Balfour

Declaration,’ experienced an acute gap between the hegemonic Zionist establishment and their

own mentality and life experience as natives to the land of which their parents had dreamt.

This ‘new generation’ sentiment found several different expressions. One of these expressions

was the formation of a group of writers and political activists who assumed the name: ‘Ba-

ma’avak’ (‘In Struggle’) and beginning in the late 1940’s, promoted the idea of the future, post

mandatory state as a secular, Hebrew-Arab state, an integral part of the Middle East. The

group articulated a ‘nativist’ anti-imperial attitude, stressing the ‘natural’ actual sovereignty of

the two native peoples over the land. It is the foreign powers – first and foremost the British

Empire – who must leave. This attitude had a variety of manifestations, and one finds it in

remote ideological circles, e.g. among ‘Lechi’ (‘Stern Gang’) members as well as in communist

circles. It marks, however, a meaningful moment in the history of the striving for an oriental

perspective within and around Zionist discourse.

2Eugen Hoeflich (MoscheYa’akov ban-Gavriel), Die Pforte des Ostens(Das Arabisch-JuedischePalaestina von PanasiatischenStandpunktaus), Wien 1923.

VIII

Another related phenomenon to be discussed is the ‘Levantine’ idea, underlining the

significance of the Mediterranean Sea in the creation of Jewish identity. Similarly to earlier

‘pan-Eastern’ outlooks, ‘Levantinism’ also created somewhat surprising inter-generational

connections between such seemingly totally disconnected figures as, for example, Shlomo D.

Goitein (1900-1985) on the one hand and Jacquelyn Kahanov (1917-1979) on the other. The

‘Levantine’ approach is fascinatingly related also to contemporary political-cultural strands in

the modern Arab world, such as the thought of the famous Egyptian writer and intellectual

Taha Hussein (1889-1973), and many others.

All these world views are a part of the continuous search for a regional-Oriental orientation

within the borders of modern Jewish political thought and culture.

The study offers an original insight of the history of Jewish encounter with the Orient

in the modern period and its role in the formation of the new Jewish national culture. This

analysis sheds light on the uniqueness of the Zionist case while, at the same time, locating it

against the backdrop of non-European thought and of colonial ‘Orientalist’ thought regarding

the East and its place vis-à-vis the West. The regional, inclusive concepts explored in this

dissertation challenge the assumption according to which the establishment of a national state

was the only goal of Jewish nationalism. Indeed, wide historical developments during the 20th

century have virtually annulled these aspirations. However, pan-Eastern thought must not be

viewed and estimated anachronistically, but, rather, in light of its actual impact and presence

before history took a different course. Furthermore, as mentioned above, pan-Eastern

tendencies did not disappear from Zionist realm of thought also after the official decision for a

one-nation state and its establishment. Today, in the second decade of the 21th century, these

IX

trends of thought seem to have the potential for inspiring and diversifying our thoughts

regarding the place that the state of Israel has to take within the region and the ways in which

it can approach local, as well as regional, challenges.

Contents

3

INTRODUCTION —————————————————— Between Exclusivism and Inclusivism:

Race, Nationalism and Regional Identity ——————————————————

5

7

“Pan-Eastern  Thought”:  the  transnational  context   . . . . . . . . . .

The  work’s  structure     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

9

11

I. “Eastwards,  eastwards!”  – Hibbat Zion, Semitic brotherhood and the revival of the East .

II. Rabbi  Binyomin  and  “pan-Semitic  Zionism” . . . . . . . . . . .

III. From Europeanism to Asianism? . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 PART I —————————————————————

“Eastwards,  eastwards!”  – Hibbat Zion, Semitic Brotherhood and the Revival of the East —————————————————————

14 From Europeanism to despair from Europe: Moshe Leib Lilienblum . . Chapter one

29

“Semitic  civilization”,  Monotheism  and  “pan-Abrahamism”:  Moshe  Eismann . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Chapter two

40 Hibbat  Zion  and  “the  new  crusade” . . . . . . . . . . Chapter three

40

46

I. “The  great  Asian  mystery”:  Yehuda  Leib  Levin . . . . . . . . . .

II. Tancred within early Zionist discourse: a matter of complicated reception . . . .

59 Mordecai  Ze’ev  Feierberg:  “Eastwards,  eastwards!” . . . . . Chapter four

71 PART II ———————————————————

Rabbi  Binyomin  and  “Pan-Semitic  Zionism” ———————————————————

71 Pan Semitism at the End of the Ottoman Period . . . . . . . Chapter five

71

77

83

97

104

111

118

I. Old-new Jew: Judaism, muscles, political-Zionism and transnationalism . . . . .

II. “Pan-movements”:  comparative  outlook . . . . . . . . . . . .

III. A hidden question and forgotten answers: between philanthropic paternalism and Semitic brotherhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. Pan-Semitism and Arabism: points of contact . . . . . . . . . . .

V. Semitic religions and Germanic myth: Disraeli, Renan, Nietzsche . . . . . .

VI. Prophetic  pathos  and  exilic  mentality:  “Arabia  prophecy”,  Yizkor and early criticism on Rabbi Binyomin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII. Romantics  and  Politics:  between  the  “Revival  of  the  east”  and  pan-Semitis . . . .

125 Pan-Semitism in the British Mandate period . . . . . . . Chapter six

125

133 138

141

148

149

151

154

I. 1920’s:  The  way  to  the  margins . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Arabs, Bible and Zionism: two cultural-political outlooks . . . . . . . .

III. Towards  an  inclusive  Zionist  culture:  the  “Semitic  association” . . . . . . .

IV. Between Bi-nationalism and pan-Semitism . . . . . . . . . . . .

V. Pan-Semitism in Zionist thought after WWI . . . . . . . . . . .

- Yizhak Epstei . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- Ya’acov  Tahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

- Chaim Margalit Kalvariski . . . . . . . . . . . . .

163 “Ner”  and  shadows . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epilogue

165 PART III

—————————————— From Europeanism to Asianism? ——————————————

165 Eugen  Hoeflich  (Mosche  Ya’akov  Ben-Gavriel)  and  “pan-Asian  Zionism” . Chapter seven

166

173

176

179

187

191

I. Social democracy, cultural Zionism and Autonomism . . . . . . . . .

II. Pan-Asianism  and  other  “pan-Ideologies”  in  Vienna . . . . . . . . .

III. Pan-Asian-Zionist thought and cultural activity . . . . . . . . . .

IV. Okakura Tenshin, The Ideals of the East and The Gates of the East . . . . . .

V. Pan-Asianism, pan-Islamism, Zionism . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VI. Jewish Fin de siècle, Japanese Fin de siècle . . . . . . . . . . .

193 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Epilogue .

197 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

214 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .