Jews, Zionism and the European Right of Blood Part V

American, British and East European Jews see and experience anti-Semitism differently.

When American Jews complain about the Anti-Semitism in the US, they classify it under "religious prejudice". A Jew who claims discrimination in hiring says that he was not hired, or that he was fired because of his "religion". In Britain, it is the same thing. When the Brits talk about anti-Semitism, they again see it as an expression of purely religious intolerance. In old British books you can still find the mention of the" Jewish race", but in today’s' politically correct Britain, all citizens are British and Jews are just a religion. Moreover the eye of an average politically correct and multi-cultural Brit can no longer tell Jews from other 'white' people. His eye may have been "trained" to distinguish a Pakistani from a Chinese person, or an African from a Burmese, or other former colonial subjects from each other, but his eye is not good at picking out a local British Jew. A hundred years ago an eye of an average Englishman probably could do it, but now it can't. There is too much ethnic mixture in Britain and the Jews got lost in the melting pot that is modern UK. The only thing that is different between a British Jew and any other Brit is again- his religion.

However, because of the people's tendency to equate one's country with "the world", awkward and incorrect reporting takes place when American and British commentators or historians start describing past or present anti-Jewish events in Eastern Europe as instances of "religious hatred". For example, recently a rabbi was assaulted in Kiev, Ukraine. Immediately, some British commentators started mentioning it as a case of "religious prejudice". In any literature describing history of the Jews in the Russian empire, again the main explanation for any persecution that they suffered seems to be that it was a purely "religious matter". Again, while the commentators and the writers may be fairly well informed of the fact that such persecutions took place, they are usually not aware of how the Jews formed a completely different nationality in those countries. Being British, they think that other countries do what the British do- namely, liberally give their nationality to various other races that happen to be under their crowns at the moment.

This has lead to tragic misunderstandings. Jews who were running from the Nazis because they ( the Jews) " were 'not' Germans", became "Germans" once they entered the British Empire and they were subsequently arrested and interned. You see, to the Brits, even a person such as Anna Frank would be a "German". Nationality = Place of Birth = Passport is the law in most present and former British domains.

In order to fully understand what was happening to the Jews in Eastern Europe and in Germany for that matter, one should have preferably gone there, spoken to the local Jews, studied the local nationality laws and not judged the local events based on the American and British models of thinking since they simply do not apply there. In America Jews are Americans! Americans like you and me, but in, say, Ukraine they are just not Ukrainians. Sorry!

Jews can never become Ukrainians or Russians or Poles. Because of that, and because they "have killed Christ" and were accused of many things that they did not do, people in those countries used to beat them up (and they still do), come into their houses, and even occasionally do things like kill their children and hang the parents upside down from the ceiling so that they could see their kids lying dead underneath them. But, most of the time they would just tell them- "Get out of our country! And sometimes,” Go back to your country!"

"But I was born here!"- The Jew would protest.

To which the reply would be something like this: "So a dog that was born in the stables is now a horse? Get out!"

The Orthodox and The Catholic Church made life impossible for Jews in Central/Eastern Europe.

The Church, especially the Catholic and Orthodox churches, were probably some of the most serious culprits in fanning anti-Jewish hatred in Central and Eastern Europe. For over a thousand years, the Jews were blamed by them for killing Jesus Christ. How can one expect the Jew to be treated well, when their Gentile neighbors are repeatedly told at church that "that accursed nation is guilty of killing your God"?

Why did you beat up this Jew?' 'I beat him up for crucifying Jesus Christ? '

The hatred for Jews as Christ-killers is another thing that people in Protestant America and in the Arab countries cannot truly relate to, and do not often mention in the media when they talk about anti-Semitism. Muslim or even Christian Arabs do not see Jews as killers of Christ and Protestant Churches did not create a "Christ-killer" propaganda of similar intensity in the countries which were largely Protestant- Sweden, the US, Canada and the UK among others as what was created in Orthodox and Catholic countries of Europe.

It does not however take away the fact that in many Protestant countries the Jews were still hated, however, the "they killed our God" type of hatred was especially evident in Poland, Russia and Romania, the countries who obeyed either the Anti-Semitic Papal authorities or the authority of very anti-Jewish Patriarch of Constantinople.

Imagine this daily reality for a Jew in Eastern/Central Europe- Hundreds of millions of Germans and Poles, and Russians, and Ukrainians treat him as an undesirable alien who " had killed their God", and many tell him to get out of their country. What did the Jews do? To counter that problem the Jews invented Zionism. "These people persecute us and do not want us here. Let's get organized and go back to our country". Americas and other immigrant societies could not take all the Jews in, so it seemed logical to these Jews that they needed to go back to where they originally came from, which, in their mind, was the place where they coalesced into the kingdoms of Judea and Israel. So they started buying land in what was at that time Palestine.

The Jewish "Khawajas" are coming to the Middle East.

When the Jews started "re-populating" Palestine, it had already been populated by various Arab tribes. And again, as I have mentioned before, Arabs have a different concept of nationality. In fact, all of them seem to have "two nationalities", as it were. Each one is an Arab and a Palestinian, an Arab and an Egyptian, an Arab and a Syrian, -a unique phenomenon. And their view of the world is also different from the way a European Jew would view it. It is quite simple in their minds, and looking out from where they are, either you are an Arab, whether Christian or Muslim; or you are a Jew (who can be an Arab, too). And then you have "Kaffirs"- the infidels- various Chinese, Japanese, or whoever is not of Jewish, Muslim or Christian faith; then, there are Africans who can also be Arabs and Muslims, provided they speak Arabic and practice Islam.

Then you have the "Khawajas"- all these people from Europe/America, etc.- they dress in pants and they wear hats. Europeans, White Americans, Australians, Brits- they are all "Khawajas".

To give you a comparison: have you ever heard a Mestizo Latin American, particularly someone from Mexico or Central America call White Americans "gabachos"? Well, it is the same "Khawaja" word, an Arab term, transferred into Spanish, to describe all those lighter-skinned people from the North- the racial terms would be "Gringos", "Honkies", "Haolies", "Whities", "Gueros", etc. If you do not wear a long piece of cloth over your head, or put on a fez, and you do not speak Arabic, and if your skin is lighter than mine, your eyes are blue- you are a "Khawaja"- a "Gringo"!

So, paradoxically and very ironically, again; while the Europeans were trying to kick the Jews out of Europe because these were 'not' Europeans but Semites; the Arabs now saw all these Jews coming from Europe, dressed in European clothes, speaking German-based Yiddish and behaving like Europeans ( at least to the Arab eyes) as "Khawajas".

Hey, there is bunch of "Gringos" coming into town!' they would probably say, and a dialogue like this most possibly took place between an Arab and Jewish Zionist:

Arab: 'Where do you come from?'

Jew from Poland:' Poland'

Arab: 'And why are you here?'

Jew from Poland:' I came back home. This is my country.'

Arab: 'How can you call this place home? Where is your father from?'

Jew from Poland: 'Poland'.

Arab: 'And where is your grandfather from?'

Jew from Poland: 'Poland.'

Arab: 'So how can you say that this is your country if your roots go back to Poland? You are Polish, a European, a "Khawaja". This is Arab, Muslim land. What are you doing here in our country?'

Jew from Poland: 'I am a Jew. This is our country.'

Arab:' "Jews" are just a religion, you are a Polack. A Khawaja. A Western Gringo, Honkie, Whitie,' etcetera, etcetera.

The Arabs' logic seems unassailable in this case, right? Well, if this Arab had gone further down the Jew's family tree, he would have discovered that his great grand-grand-grand-grand father was not from Poland, that he had lived in Germany, and before that his ancestors had lived in France, and Spain, all the way back to where they are standing and talking now. That the Jews were wonderers. Two thousand years went by, but the Jew is still clinging to the land that has now been occupied by Arabs for about a millennium. He is here because the Europeans told him to get out and well, that is why he is standing in front of you with his suitcases.

Arabs do not accept such a fantastic explanation. Ugly conflicts ensue. A war takes place. Arabs in Palestine become refugees.

Yes, an Arab sees the Jew as being just "Polish", but it is also important to realize that who is Polish and who is not Polish is not decided by the Arab. It is decided by the Polish people. Who is European and who is not European is decided by the European people, not by Arabs. And again, as I have mentioned before, those European people use "the Jus Sanguinis" principle- "the Right of the Blood"- nationality is determined by bloodline/ancestry/heritage, while the Arabs use the "What country do you come from and what is your citizenship?" principle to ascertain people's ethnic identity.

The Arabs thought that the Jews were "Russians" coming to take Arab land "based on religion"; while in reality, it was happening based on "nationality". And considering the Arab cultural perspective on the territory of Arab countries, mistaking the Jews for Russians was a mistake easy to make. The trouble with such a way of thinking was that, again, who is Russian and who is not, was not something for Arabs to decide.

This way, again the Jew became caught between the Scylla and the Harybdis as these two nationality models clashed on him- on the one hand you have East /Central Europeans who see these Jews as an alien Semitic nation and chase them out of their countries " back to where their tribe came from", and on the other hand, you have these Arabs who see the Jews as "Europeans of Jewish faith" who came to usurp their land, right during the time of the European occupation and colonization. So, the Arabs dumped these Jews in the same category with the other "Khawajas"- the French in Lebanon, the British in Egypt, and the Italians in Libya. "It is a plot by the "Khawajas" to take over our land! Let's rise in arms!"

Jews fight back. Wars, bloodsheds and deportations take place after that.

This is simply amazing! Two cultures, the European and the Arab one can look at the same group of people and see two different things based on their own perspective. And after that they proceed to categorize the group relative to their own histories, social systems, visual associations and viewpoints!

Blacks from America who went back to Africa faced similar problems as the Jews who went to Palestine.

Let's again go back to the analogy with Black Americans: In the 19th century, many Blacks from the US decided to go back to Africa. Why? Well, they were told repeatedly by white racists in the US: "Go back to Africa! Get out of here!" So, some went back. Now, when they arrived in Africa, they were met by all these different African tribes who probably asked them the same questions:

African: 'Where did you come from?'

Black man from Alabama: 'USA'

African: 'And what are you doing here?'

Black man from Alabama: 'This is my continent, I am black.'

African: 'So am I, but I am blacker than you. Your skin is lighter than mine. Your face looks strange. You are not from Africa.'

(Many Blacks in the US were mixed with whites because of rapes by their previous owners. If in America a person who is 70% black, he is still a Black man, then to an average African, a person who is 30-% White is... a White man!!! Yes, siree!)

Black man from Alabama: 'But in the USA they call me "Black" and by other bad words, and they tell me to go back to Africa. So that is why I am here.'

African: 'But here you are an American, A Westerner, a White man. You are not an African.'

Black Americans especially the ones who went on to establish Liberia over a hundred years back, had to fight several black tribes who wanted to repel them as "foreign invaders". Again, the native African Blacks could not recognize these strangers coming from the US as their Black cousins just as the Arabs in Palestine could not see the European Jews as their Semitic cousins. Most probably, the Blacks in Africa never saw themselves as having a "Black" ethnic identity. They thought of themselves in tribal terms and these people from America were not of their tribe. End of the story. Case closed.

Here is another analogy along the same lines- take Mexican-American people in the American Southwest. In the US for a long time, these were and still are called "Mexicans" by quite a few members of the white population, and are treated as such. After all, their skin is kind of brown; they have last names such as Gonzales, Ramirez and Perez. Many speak Spanish and are Catholic. These are "Mexicans" or at least "Hispanics" within the context of those states.

However, if these "Mexicans" went to Mexico proper, they would be treated as 'Americans', not 'Mexicans'. The word "Hispanic" would not be even applied to them as everybody there else is also "Hispanic". So, it happens to some groups of people that in Country A they are a "B", and in Country "B" they are an "A". A very awkward situation.

The above two analogies present cases that are similar to what happened to East European Jews in Palestine, but there is one major difference if you try to compare it to the above case with the Mexican-Americans- namely: the US is a land of immigrants. A person there can be a Mexican-American and an African-American but all are Americans, at least according to the US law. One can say that the Mexican Americans are Mexicans and not "White", but one cannot say that they are not Americans because they had been born in the US or are US citizens. However, in Europe, because of the Jus Sanguinis laws, there is no such thing as a Jewish-Pole or a Jewish-German. These are oxymorons. You can be a 'German Jew' or a 'Polish Jew' but not the other way around. Either you are a Pole- a Slav, or you are Jew- a Semite living in Poland; and one day, "you will get out of my country and go back where your Asiatic, Semitic ancestors came from".

"But he (the Jew) is a citizen of Poland/Russia/Germany!" you will say. Remember again! Those countries clearly differentiate between 'citizenship' and 'nationality'. Citizenship is your purely political association with the State. Nationality, OTOH, is ethnic/racial and comes from almost "tribal" bloodlines/heritage. Anybody can become a Polish "citizen", but becoming a Polish "national” is impossible. You have to be "born of the blood".