It [Israel] will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the Prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the Charter of the Unites Nations. [Declaration of the State of Israel, 1948]
When the state of Israel was established in the aftermath of the Second World War, it granted rights of return to all dispersed Jews throughout the world – claiming Palestine as the Jewish spiritual homeland. Although a product of Zionism, a secular political Jewish movement, the modern state evoked the teachings of the ancient Biblical Prophets as the inspiration for its self-proclaimed egalitarianism. For its national language it adopted Hebrew; associated with the Torah and Judaism. But, despite the inclusion of symbolic religious motifs into the identity constructions of the new state, does this in fact make Israel Jewish? This question has produced a plethora of dichotomous responses, from those lauding the Jewish exclusivity of the State to criticism for not being Jewish enough. The exhaustive discussions on this contested subject are beyond the scope of this paper; instead the aim is simply to focus on a few pertinent points in order to explore the historical constructions of Judaism and Jewishness in the context of the modern State of Israel.
The Origins of Judaism
Born out of the Israelite faith (Yahwism) predominantly from the teachings of Moses, the Hebrew people or Ibrim originate either from the legendary figure, Eber, or from the fact that they, as Arameans, migrated from beyond the Great river (Eber ha-Nahar), the Euphrates. Perhaps the most eminent of all the Arameans was Abraham, considered to be the founder of the Jewish religion. Judaism as a distinct religio-ethnic phenomenon, however, does not appear until the split of the Israelites into two distinct kingdoms within the Semitic lands after the time of Solomon. In the North, the Kingdom of Israel was created culminating with Samaria established as its capital; the South saw the emergence of the Kingdom of Judah (Judea). After the Babylonians defeated the Southern Kingdom around 586 BC, Solomon’s Temple, which was within the domain of the Kingdom of Judea, was demolished and the elite of the Southern Kingdom were taken into exile in Babylonia. The invasion of the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar, was seen by the Judeans as punishment for breaking the Covenant with God after entering the Promised Land under the guidance of Moses (Deuteronomy, 1: 35-5). Despite a succession of prophets and reformers, the nation had remained unfaithful. Jeremiah beseeched the people to repent but, as Ninian Smart comments, his call remained unanswered and, inevitably, the destruction of the land was assured.
It was not until the Persian leader, Cyrus the Great, in 538 BC ordered the restoration of the Temple that the Judeans exiled in Babylonia were permitted back into Jerusalem. Ezra, their sage, reinstituted the teachings of the Torah and undertook the reformation of the people who had remained in Jerusalem. Temple worship was re-established along with fasting and the observance of Shabbat. Ezra’s reforms in the fourth century BC brought in the Judeans from the other regions of the Diaspora, namely Babylonia and Egypt. This convergence saw a conglomeration of various interpretations of Hebrew traditions, all born out of the oral Torah handed down from the teachings of Moses. It is at this point that we begin to see the origins of Rabbinical Judaism. Although Ezra is attributed with the re-establishment of the Temple at Jerusalem, the disintegration of the Northern Kingdom of Israel is held in contrast to the continuance of Hebrew tradition within the Southern Kingdom of Judea, which claimed descent from David. Hence, Cecil Roth concludes that the political and spiritual identity of the Northern Kingdom waned as the influence of the Kingdom of Judea took prominence in the character and national consciousness of the emerging New Israel. However, whilst it might be argued that Judaism derives from the religion developed among the Hebrews of the Kingdom of Judea, we could equally contend that Judaism is located in the ancient traditions of the Semitic peoples existing as a nation in Judea (Palestine) from 6 BC to 1 CE. The contending historical interpretations present two definitions of Judaism; one based on religion, the other on race. In other words, in relation to historical constructions of Judaism there are two fundamental questions: who is a Jew? And, what is a Jew? – a dialectic that has been explored in an interesting and detailed discussion by Manfred Vogel.
The implications of the dual definitions of Judaism are essential to understanding the national identity constructions of the modern State of Israel, particularly in relation to the question of its perceived Jewishness. For example, if Judaism is primarily a religion, then the validity of Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy rests on its religious scriptural edicts. That is, the where, why, when and how of Israel should be established according to the Biblical text. If on the other hand, Judaism is defined racially, how then does the nation-state determine and define its national identity particularly in terms of citizenship, the inclusion and rights of indigenous, ethnic and religious others and their Human Rights? Some suggest that Judaism is a combination of both religion and race, firstly as a religion based on the teachings of the ancient prophets descending from Abraham and Moses. This is manifested through the Scripture and laws of one God by revelatory means of a Covenant, the adherence to which is fulfilled in Gods promise of land – The Kingdom. And, secondly, as a nation born out of the Semitic races principally emanating from ancient Judea or Palestine, who are historically linked to the revelatory Covenant and promise of God, hence, the formulation of people and land. The connection of people and land is intrinsic to modern day Judaism and, perhaps more importantly, to the State of Israel’s historical claim as a sovereign nation-state. However Gods promise of land, kingdom or state is conditional to the people’s religious fidelity and adherence to their oath. In Hebrew these terms are known as Teshuvah (returning to righteousness) and Geulah (redemption through Zion, the Promised Land).
It could be argued that the religion or race debate is both over-simplified and reductionist. The reality is that Judaism has been largely shaped by diasporic and exilic Jewish experiences that reflect the diverse civilisations and different cultures of historical settlements. The Hellenisation and Romanisation of the Jews are two classic examples. However, whilst it is true that the diaspora has impacted on Judaism, resulting in a religious pluralism and diversity of doctrines based on central tenets and teachings, in recent times the assimilation disintegration of European Jews gave birth to political Zionism as a reassertion of Judaism. Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), the person accredited with the birth of the modern Zionist movement, conveyed his fears of Jewish assimilation and appealed to the national character of historical Judaism in order to redeem Jews ‘from every degradation’ as a community that he believed was ‘too noble to make destruction desirable.’ The fact that Judaism could give rise to the birth of Zionism as a political expression outside of the realm of Messianic eschatology is perhaps further evidence of the diversity of Judaism. However, many Jewish scholars agree that Judaism is neither monolithic nor homogenous and Jacob Neusner’s explanation of Judaisms is:
Judaic systems that explained the social order formed by Jews with an account of a coherent world-view, way of life, and theory of the Jews social entity or the Israel that they constituted.
As a ‘Judaism’, political Zionism constructed its own particular Israel in the form of a modern secular nation-state. But then how Jewish is the state of Israel?
Zionism as Emancipation
The establishment of the Zionist movement took its inspirations from the malaise of the nineteenth-century European Jews and its desire for the creation of Zion (the land of Israel). The situation of European Jews in that period was that of polarisation. They were either socially segregated into ghettos where their somewhat introspective Talmudic observances detached them from their non-Jewish counterparts, or they were completely assimilated into the European way of life and disconnected from their own community, religion, and culture. These responses were a reaction to the legacy of intolerance and oppression of the Jews that had existed for centuries, manifest in brutal pogroms occasionally incited by papal edicts. David Vital asserts that emancipation from the status of European underclass and a desire to freely express Jewish beliefs and traditions, through the concept of a Jewish homeland, became possible as a result of the Enlightenment. He claims that the Enlightenment’s draining away of the power of organised religion to uphold the traditional forms of authority made possible an assertion of Jewish national consciousness.
Zionism as a religious expression has always been a part of the Messianic religious teachings of Judaism and Geulah represents salvation for the dispersed Jewish nation as an eschatological understanding of Deuteronomy, 30:1-5. The advent of Geulah is generally believed to be preceded by the appearance of the Mashiach, or the Anointed One. The chronology of events, according to Hebrew tradition, teaches that Zion will be established only by the coming of the Mashiach, who will then gather the dispersed Israel and lead them into Zion. However, the arrival of the Meshiach is conditional to Israel’s Teshuvah, only then will Israel achieve Geulah Shelemah or ‘complete redemption’. Political Zionism, urged on by the rise of anti-Semitism and the problem of Jewish assimilation, wanted to make religious utopia a political and social reality. Herzl, the son of a Hungarian Rabbi, was a prolific mobiliser and proselytiser for the creation of a Jewish homeland, which he perceived as a solution to the Jewish question. He was disturbed by the devastating effects of secularisation and assimilation on Judaism and the dispersed Jewish people. As a result, he saw political Zionism as an ideological alternative to Messianic emancipation. Thus, the World Zionist Organisation that he and like-minded others established transformed their Jewish nationalism in order to appeal to religious Jews holding Messianic beliefs. Ben Halpern claims this transformation was achieved, firstly, by actively assisting Jews from the Diaspora in turning to Israel; secondly, by not proposing any new Judaism or opposing any religious expressions; thirdly, the Zionists insisted on a rational solution to the problem of Jewish exile, presented as a re-affirmation of the religious eschatology that had largely been abandoned as a myth or disregarded by western Jews. Finally, they emphasized an equal regard for the Hebrew language and Jewish religious education as traditional forms of Jewish culture.
Herzl’s Zionists, however, were unable to convince all Jewish factions that a Jewish homeland through a secular state was a workable solution to their religio-ethnic and cultural problems. Despite some opposition, the first Zionist Congress was held in Basel in 1897 and was eventually able to enlist the help of many wealthy western Jews including the banker, Baron Edmund de Rothschild, whilst also evoking the sympathies of western politicians and leaders. The organisation debated at length where the location of the new Jewish state would be: Uganda, Argentina, or Palestine. But Herzl had previously written that, ‘Palestine is our unforgettable historic homeland’. However, Palestine was then ruled by the Turks and the Sultan had already limited Jewish immigration into the region. Herzl made an open bid to the Caliph by offering to bankroll the failing Ottoman Empire saying:
If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could, in return, undertake the complete management of the finances of Turkey.
The offer was swiftly and flatly declined. However, fortunes changed after the First World War, when Palestine came under the rule of the British government as a result of the Arabs (who were British Allies) revolting against their Turkish leaders. As anti-Semitism raged through Western Europe, the rise of National Socialism gave birth to Germany’s Nazi Party, eventually leading to the formation of a fascist state. The diabolical rise of Nazism witnessed the most atrocious acts of genocide and the Jews received the brunt of Hitler’s ethnic cleansing of Europe. A Nazi holocaust ensued whilst Europe waged war. Alexander contends that the massacre of millions of European Jews was another demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz Israel the Jewish state.
Jewish immigration into Palestine increased and civil unrest between the new settlers and the indigenous Arabs escalated as the Zionists continued their political lobbying for a Jewish homeland. By 1937, a form of partition was enforced by the governing British, effectively a precursor to the Jewish state, splitting the two Semitic communities (Jews and Arabs) by creating two satellite states. This mandate was preceded by the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, which called upon the British government to recognise the Trans-Jordan (land west of the River Jordan) as a national home for the Jewish people. In November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine and on the 15th May 1948, the State of Israel was declared. Political Zionism had superseded the aspirations of centuries of Jewish dispersion and, although the Messiah had not come, for many the Messianic era had begun and the Jews finally had their state.
Israel: between Secularism and Judaism
It would appear that Herzl’s vision of a model state was as much inspired by the class struggle of revolutionary Russian peasants as by the aspirations of dispersed and assimilated Western Jews. The spread of socialism ran parallel to the emergence of Zionism in the nineteenth century and many Jews were not only influenced by socialism, but were actively engaged in the Socialist Revolution. Although Herzl’s political ideas were mild, progressive and largely based on state and democratic socialism, Vital asserts that convergence of these two ideologies did occur and the needs of the Zionists were sympathetic to the all-Russian revolutionary struggle. Although ideologically it may be argued that Herzl’s dream for a Jewish homeland relied less upon the tenets of Judaism than it did on the principles of Socialism, it is true that the state of Israel has provided an ideological and political identity for Jews globally. However, the secular socialist principles fall short of fulfilling Talmudic law as a complete way of life but Herzl had mused positively about the creation of a Jewish state inspired by the recent creation of the revolutionary Soviet State; he commented,
To create a new sovereign state is neither ridiculous nor impossible. We have seen it happen in our own day, among peoples who were not largely middle class as we are, but poorer, less educated, and hence weaker than ourselves.
These secular influences perhaps shaped the laws of the State of Israel as identified in its Declaration (1948) which, whilst clearly defining Israel as a Jewish state, also states that:
It [Israel] will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the Prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the Charter of the Unites Nations.
Orthodox Jews holding Messianic beliefs would perhaps be even less inclined to a kingdom without a king that not only recognized the beliefs of religious others but also the sanctity of those who preferred atheism. Reform Jews; however, appear to be more accepting of the secular Jewish state and Michael Prior asserts that whilst Jewish religious establishments were initially reticent in embracing Zionism, today it fully supports its achievements. He cites Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks as stating that ‘Israel is the most powerful collective expression of Jewry and the most significant development in Jewish life since the Holocaust’. Prior also points us to the contradiction of the idealism of Israel’s egalitarianism, cited in its Declaration, and the actual reality in respect of its now displaced indigenous Palestinian people. Further, he sees the destruction of Arab villages and the continued disproportionate use of force through wars and military operations as state terrorism.
Prior’s criticism of Israel’s failure to implement its Declaration of State Principles; egalitarianism based on basic human rights, highlights Israel’s problems as a multicultural, multi-ethnic and religiously plural society. In addition to the existence of cosmopolitan and multi-diverse communities already indigenous to the region before the creation of Israel, the influx of Russian, American, western European, African, Middle Eastern and Indian Jews has added extra tension to the regions fragile ethno-religious balance. Each new migrant sub-group has brought a diversity of ‘Judaisms’ and the hope of creating a monolithic national Judaism from the converging traditions will perhaps depend on how Israel accommodates religious multiplicity in a modern secular setting. The first edict of the State of Israel’s law is the principle of Oleh (immigration) as a right for every Jew. However, as a result of their exile experiences, the immigrant Jewish communities to Israel are either advantaged or disadvantaged by their relative cogency of secularism. As political Zionism was conceived in a Western secular setting, European Jews appear as the advantaged group in Israel. Western émigré Jews are generally thought to fit more readily into the states socio-political framework largely because the Judaic systems they developed in exile were a response to Europe and America’s secular environment. The Sephardim or Oriental Jews as more traditional communities emanating from Arabia, Africa and Asia are less able to integrate. This does not mean that other Judaisms are not entitled to claim Israel as theirs – rather they have yet to orientate themselves within the state. This is not an easy process, for example, hundreds of Yemeni Sanaa’ni Jews along with large numbers of Ethiopian Falasha Jews have returned to their original countries after their unsuccessful migration attempts.
Is Daniel a Brother?
In a strange circumstance that required the secular Israeli law to define a Jew in religious terms; the Law of Return (1950) came under scrutiny during the Brother Daniel case of 1962. As a Jewish convert to Christianity, Brother Daniel applied for nationality under the Law of Return, raising the age-old debate of who is and what is a Jew. Brother Daniel was indeed a Jew by virtue of his matriarchal lineage in accordance with the Law of Return, Clause 4B, which states that, for the purposes of this law, a Jew means a person who was born of a Jewish mother. However, because of Brother Daniels religious conversion his rights of return and citizenship were vetoed and consequently revoked by a judicial verdict. Brother Daniels case is interesting and offers a partial answer to our inquiry of the Jewishness of the State of Israel. If Israel is simply a modern secular state for Jews, then Brother Daniel would meet the criteria of Jewish by race or lineage. However, Clause 4B continues ‘…or has converted to Judaism and is not a member of another religion’. Judge Silberg, the presiding judge in the case, revealed some interesting Talmudic evidence which from a religious perspective appears to support Brother Daniels claim to be Jewish. One Halakah edict reads,
For even though he has converted to another religion he, none the less remains a Jew, as it is written, Israel has sinned; though he has sinned, he remains a Jew. (Prisha, Commentary on Tur, ibid., note 22.)
Judge Silberg, after carefully scrutinising rabbinical laws which included laws of marriage and divorce, had to make a clear distinction between Jewish religious law, which supported Brother Daniels claim to be a Jew, and secular law, which it was ruled denied his claim. Ironically, Jewish Rabbinical law ruled that Jewishness was by blood or race, rather than by religious profession, whereas the secular state law ruled in opposition to the claimant, instead defining Jewishness not by ethnic origin, but by religion. The implications of the ‘Brother Daniel’ case is that the question what is a Jew (vis-à-vis beliefs) is certainly not the same as who is a Jew (vis-à-vis lineage).
Another point of contention in respect of Israel’s Jewishness is the issue of its sovereign borders, particularly those agreed by the United Nations (UN) which excluded specific territories. The disputed territories were already within the borders of existing sovereign states before the creation of Israel. However, the designated UN borders do not correspond to the ancient Biblical descriptions of Israel. Although a detailed archeological discussion falls outside the parameters of this paper, we might still raise the question – how Jewish is today’s state of Israel in the light of biblical geography? The resulting wars with neighboring states had a profound effect on Jews living outside Israel, especially those who had perhaps never really identified themselves with the state of Israel. In particular, when the Six Day War in 1967 seemed to spell the destruction of the State of Israel by an allied-Arab force, American Jews, who had formed their own Judaic system unique to America’s secular political framework, began to forge strong sympathetic and supportive links with Israel. Before the war, young American Jews were strangely introspective and apparently disconnected from recent Jewish history. For example, the Holocaust and the creation of the state of Israel were events with which young Jews in America did not associate.
Nathan Glazer attributes the Six Day War with the re-awakening of the American Jews to the idea of the Land of Israel. Jewish American youth, whose views before the war were generally inclined towards socialism, realised that promoting such ideas was in fact counter-productive to the cause of Israel. Glazer further asserts that young Jews less influenced by the New Left were torn between their Jewish feelings and the hostility towards Israel by the communist bloc realising they were more Jewish than they had suspected. The Jewish feeling soon transformed into mobilization, via support of Israel, anti-Soviet activities and demonstrations, and large numbers of Jewish American immigrations to Israel. A reaction of extremism was employed by some young Jews through militant organisations like the Jewish Defence League in which hijackings, bombings, and assassinations were used as terror tactics to counteract Soviet anti-Semitism. Further, the wave of new immigrants into Israel from America saw a resurgence of the Kibbutz movement. This movement, seen by many as either religious fanaticism or extreme nationalism, has been responsible for the increased border tensions, working mostly in opposition to the Israeli state in its efforts to expand Jewish territories. Thus, it would appear that whilst the secular Israeli Government upholds agreements on disputed borders with other states, many of its citizens believe that the state boundaries should be those of the biblical description. Genesis, 15:18, reads, Unto thy seed I have given this land, from the River of Egypt unto the great river, the River Euphrates. (The Bible also contains other descriptions of Israel in, Numbers, 34:2, and, Ezekiel, 47:15-20.)
As a result of their territorial activities, the ultra-religious, nationalist Kibbutzim believe themselves to be truer to biblical Israel than the state itself. Yet it would seem that their expansionist aspirations seriously undermine the peace and security of the State, which allowed them the opportunity to settle in the land of Israel in the first instance. We might therefore argue that for the Kibbutzim, the State of Israel is not Jewish enough. But, the fact that Judaism is neither monolithic nor homogenous has caused it to continuously manifest throughout history in many varied forms and this prompts some scholars of Judaism to speak of Judaisms which have responded to their particular socio-political environments. Therefore, at times Judaisms have retracted into microcosmic communities, cutting off from the outside world as a means of self-preservation. Conversely, they have interacted unconditionally whilst participating fully within the dominant culture and society. This, it seems, has been the historical experience of the Diaspora – ghetto or assimilation.
Before the creation of the Zionist state of Israel, for most Jewish theological expressions, emancipation only occurred with Teshuvah and Geulah via the Mashiach. The unifying eschatology of Judaism is inextricably linked to the land and when Jews speak of Israel they mean both people and land. Expulsion is the price of religious infidelity and impiety, Salvation and redemption takes the shape of the Mashiach. Years of exile for the Jewish people had led to mythologizing Israel – the land. As their diasporic experiences became increasingly dire, the hope of mythological Israel intensified and political Zionism eventually realized these aspirations. Europe did not want the Jews, the Jews did not want Europe and the Zionist movement demythologised Israel through an ideological construction in the form of a nation-state. But is this national Jewish homeland Jewish? If the premise of multiple forms of Judaism or Judaisms is accepted then Zionism, despite its politicization, can be described as a Judaism even though in its early conception of a Jewish state, it was not overtly Judaic. However, once the State of Israel materialized, most Jews made a spiritual, political or metaphysical link with it as the State of Israel declared itself a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people. By its own choosing the state connected itself to the ancient Jewish Prophets and established itself within the Biblical Jewish homeland. Do these symbolic claims then make the state of Israel Jewish? Perhaps the nearest answer to this question is: not entirely. This is because the essential element in the fulfillment of Israel as a Promised Land is the Mashiach. The raised religious consciousness and awareness of belonging to a Jewish nation from around the world is one of Israel’s achievements. However, its major failing has been in the physical gathering of diaspora Jews into the Zionist entity of a nation state homeland. We could therefore argue that its disputed existence has actually been a major contribution to Judaism globally, but at what price? Finally, the problem of Israel’s exclusivity in defining a Jew, highlighted in the case of Brother Daniel and its expulsion of large numbers of indigenous Palestinians from the land, gives us a negative view which reflects a policy of racism. Through such acts Israel seems to be saying a land only of the Jews, only for the Jews. If Israel is making ancient Biblical claims for itself in connection with Judaism, then how can we as non-Jews dictate whether it is or is not? This leaves us to conclude that the Zionist State of Israel is only one of many Judaisms.
Alexander, Philip S., Judaism-Textual Sources for the Study of Religion, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 1984.
Al-Kayyali, Abdul Wahab, Zionism, Imperialism and Racism, London, Crom Helm Ltd., 1979.
Halpern, Ben, The Idea of the Jewish State, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1961.
Isaac, Rael Jean, Israel Divided, London, The John Hopkins University Press, 1976.
Lewittes, Mendell, Religious Foundations of the Jewish State, New York, Ktav Publishing House, 1977.
Nuesner, Jacob, Judaism in Modern Times: An Introduction and Reader, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers, 1995.
Prior, Michael, The Bible and Colonialism, Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press, 1997.
Roth, Cecil, A History of the Jews, New York, Schoken Books, revised edition, 1989.
Smart, Ninian, The Worlds Religions, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Vital, David, The Origins of Zionism, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1975.
Vogel, Manfred H., A Quest for a Theology of Judaism, London, University Press Of America, 1987.
Waines, David, A Sentence in Exile, Illinois, Medina Press, 1977.
Weaver, Mary Jo, Introduction to Christianity, California, Wadsworth Publishing Co., second edition, 1991.
 Cited in Alexander, Judaism-Textual Sources for the Study of Religion, 1984, p.166.
 See Roth, A history of the Jews, 1989, pp3-4.
 See Smart, The Worlds Religions, 1989, pp.208-209.
 Ibid., p.210.
 Ibid., p.211.
 Ibid., p.212.
 Roth, op. cit., p.36.
 Vogel, A Quest for a Theology of Judaism, 1987, pp.77-108.
 See, Lewittes, Religious Foundations of the Jewish State, 1977, pp.1-4.
 Ibid., p.20.
 Ibid., pp.1-4.
 See, Weaver, An Introduction to Christianity, 1991, pp.21-22.
 Alexander, Judaism-Textual Sources for the Study of Religion, 1984, p.158.
 Neusner, Judaism in Modern Times, 1995, p.2.
 Vital, The Origins of Zionism,1975, p.25.
 Ibid., p.24.
 Ibid., p.371.
 Lewittes, op. cit., pp.34-37.
 Ibid., pp.38-41.
 Ibid., p.3.
 Cited in, Alexander, op. cit., p.160.
 Halpern, The Idea of the Jewish State, 1961, p.15.
 Ibid., p.17.
 Ibid., p.17.
 Vital, op. cit., pp.321-331.
 Cited in, Alexander, op. cit., p.160.
 Vital, op. cit., p.319.
 Ibid., p.160.
 Italics are mine, Ibid., p.165.
 Waines, A Sentence in Exile, 1977, pp.71-84.
 Ibid., p.25.
 Alexander, op. cit., p.165.
 Vital, op. cit., p.316.
 Ibid., p.315.
 Ibid., p.159.
 Cited in, Alexander, op. cit., p.166.
Cited in, Prior, The Bible and Colonisation, 1997, p.172.
 Ibid., pp.172-173.
 See Neusner, op. cit., pp.1-18.
 Alexander, op. cit., p.168.
 Cited in, ibid., p.167.
 Cited in, ibid., p.167.
 Cited in, ibid., p.169.
 See Kassim, in Kayyali, (ed.), Zionism, Imperialism and Racism, 1979, pp.109-117.
 For a detailed discussion of this subject, see Isaacs, op. cit., pp.20-44.
 See Neusner, op. cit., p.6.
 Glazer, in ibid., p.225.
 Ibid., p.226.
 See Isaac, op. cit., pp.153-157.