From Jesus to Christ - by Paula Fredriksen - Book Review

This is very dense book, but it is absolutely brilliant. Fredriksen's writing style requires a high level of reader focus, indeed full attention and concentration;  I often found myself having to read some paragraphs several times, but it’s certainly worth in terms of insight. 

Fredriksen argues that the Apostle Paul viewed faith in Jesus as an alternate path for Gentiles to salvation, unlike many historians who argue that Paul viewed, what would become, Christianity, as a successor to Judaism, Fredriksen argues that Paul's faith in the Jewish Covenant was unshaken. Paul didn't believe that Gentiles were required to adhere to the Covenant to attain salvation, but Jews had to. The lashing punishments Paul received in various synagogues were an evidence of his desire to remain Jewish and not to be expelled from synagogues. 

Fredriksen also argues that Jesus was likely a Pharisee, she marshalled several points to evidence this, including Jesus's sayings on "house of prayers" suggesting that Sadducees who controlled the Jewish priestly classes and the Temple advocated animal sacrifice which the Pharisees later opposed. She suggested that the earlier gospels showed the scribes and priests opposing Jesus whereas the later gospels singles out Pharisees for blame. As only Pharisaic Judaism survived the Jewish War and the destruction of Jerusalem 70 CE, they were the one remaining Jewish voice, worshipping the same God, but not accepting Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. On this one point, I found Fredriksen less persuasive than  other historians who suggested closer alignment between Jesus's movement and the  Essenes or the Jews of the Dead Sea Scrolls who advocated communal ownership, celibacy and were vehemently opposed to the Pharisees and their non literal interpretations of the Bible. 

Fredriksen examined three questions closely and how the Apostle Paul and the four gospels dealt with them. First the issue of the end the ages and the arrival of God's Kingdom, second was why most Jews rejected Jesus and how his message received traction with the “God fearer” Gentiles and lastly is the issue of differences amongst the followers of Jesus. Fredriksen showed the changing narratives on all three areas from the earliest teachings of Paul on to Mark immediately after the Jewish War on to Matthew and Luke, almost two generations after Paul and then on to John at the end of the First Century. Fredriksen's analysis of the four gospels, taking the reader to their time and the surrounding challenges was fascinating and demonstrated how and why stories changed over time. 

There is a lot more there and I will certainly read again! 

Book Review: The Syrio Aramiac Reading of the Quran by Christoph Luxenberg

This odd book is neither accessible nor academic, it does not appear to be addressed to the ordinary reader, nor to the scientific academic community. For an ordinary reader it’s overwhelming with extensive multilingual references, scripts and footnotes. For academics it’s overreaching in scope, lacking in focus, full of opinions and not presented in a manner that lends itself to peer review. I conclude it’s a hodgepodge of opinions presented as science and designed to impress and overwhelm ordinary readers. The central hypothesis of the book, the origins and development of the Arabic language is far from proven, agreed upon or established science.

Christoph Luxenberg, the name the author wrote under, presents an unfounded assumption that the early Quran manuscripts were written in Syrio Aramaic script. This central assumption drives much of the work of the book. Yet, this assumption can’t be supported by manuscripts, archaeological or historical evidence. A critical thesis presented in the book is that the Quran was never meant to be a “scripture”, rather it’s a liturgical poems for communal recitations. The Author supports this hypothesis with linguistic analysis of the Arabic word Quran and its relation to Syriac Aramaic words and how the sound “ya” in Aramaic was confused when writing Arabic with the sound “ah”. Few other similar minor arguments led the author to jump to this conclusion as an established fact. The author chose not to address numerous differences of narratives between the Quran on one side and what the Author references as Scripture, namely the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The Author simply chose to ignore all references in the Quran to the humanity of Jesus and the Quran’s insistence that Jesus is not divine and simply convinced himself that he, the Author, is single handedly dismantling the myth of the divinity and is correcting centuries old misunderstandings of it.

The Author puts forward more thoughtful analysis into various words used in the Quran and proposes Syrio Aramaic explanations for them such as الرقيم, قسورة، عتل، زنيم. The analysis of the points or dots on the letters and the possible connections to Aramaic in the early manuscripts is interesting but clearly needs to be subjected to historical critical peer review.

One of the author most far fetched or rather more outlandish theories comes in his interpretation of the Arabic word يسر and يسرنا where the author imposes a Syrio Aramaic reading on this straight forward Arabic meaning of to easing or make easier and insists that it means “translate”. The author then proceeds to suggest interpretations that the Quran itself states that it was translated.

The Author attributed parts of the Sura of Mary, specifically Quran 19:24 to the non canonical Gospel of Pseudo Matthew.  Historians date Pseudo Matthew to around 800 AD/CE, it is therefore hard to argue that it was influential in the Mecca region nearly 160-190 years earlier. The author presented no evidence of a connection, yet proceeded to offer further interpretations to Sura 19 based on his unfounded and unsupported assumptions.

Moving beyond his stated specialty in Syrio Aramaic language, the Author proposed corrections for Arabic words that he didn’t attribute to Syrio Aramaic origins in a short chapter titled "Misread Arabic Expressions". While he offered  interesting arguments based on his logic for his “corrections” of the placement of the dots for Sura 17:64, his approach indicated a weak methodology of research. The threshold or the substantiation for altering texts whose immediate intent may have not been clear appears to become the Author’s opinion.

The Author then proceeded to state in Chapter 15: “Now that it has become clear from the preceding analysis of individual samples of the language of the Koran that already in normal linguistic usage the Koran text has been in part so misread and misinterpreted by Arabic philologists and exegetes, it will no longer be surprising it meanwhile deeply anchored notions in the Islamic tradition, indeed religious contents, have been partially based on equally misunderstood Koran text.” This one unwieldy sentence betrays an approach of antagonism towards Islam disguised as scientific critical study of the language of the Quran.

On the topic of the so-called Virgins of Paradise or حور العين , the Author offered a fascinating discussion, in what appeared as a standalone paper or essay that was incorporated in the book. His approach to this particular part appeared  more restrained,  less opinionated and more engaging. He concluded that the concept of virgins of paradise was a misreading of the original Quranic texts.

The author concluded with detailed analysis of two short Suras 96 & 108 offering cogent arguments to possible Syrio Aramaic roots and reasoned interpretations. The author then, lacking substantiation, absurdly, offered the First Epistle of Peter as a root for Sura 108 and suggested erroneously that the text is rooted in an invitation to partake in a Christian Communion and to receive a Eucharist. The Author’s failed to offer any evidence of the First Peter being particularly important in the Syriac Christian history in terms of number of Syriac manuscripts or other indication of influence. The alleged connection to Eucharist was presented with no support whatsoever.

The coming decades will no doubt present the Muslim world with an increasing number of western historical critical studies of the text of the Quran and fundamentals of Islamic history. The work in this book sadly belongs to the category of orientalist islamophobia, and is not serious scientific work. This book is essentially an expression of the unfounded opinions of one man that, presented with the ornaments of a scientific study, but is certainly not that. This work does the field of historical critical study of Islam a great disservice. 

Ayman S. Ashour

Motherland Lost - Book Review

Samuel Tadros did a superb job researching and presenting Egypt’s history from a Coptic perspective. The scope of Tadros’s coverage of the developments inside the Coptic Church was particularly enlightening. Some of the most impressive parts of this work are Tadros’s challenges to conventional wisdom: Tadros views of the inherent problems with Egyptian liberalism being fundamentally anti democratic, Egyptian liberalism that arose out of infatuation with Europe and West but turned mostly anti western. “Foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the country coincided with the birth of the constitutional movement in Egypt which would have profound effects on its future development. It would ultimately lead to love-hate relationship with the West as a source of inspiration and a model of modernity and, at the same time, the hated occupier. Egyptian liberalism would never escape this dichotomy” Tadros challenges the notion that the so-called Egypt’s “Liberal Age” was truly liberal or that it was “good” for the Copts. 

The following paragraph summarized an important thesis offered by Tadros: “The specifically Egyptian crisis of modernity, understood as a question of the compatibility of Islam with modernity, has resulted in the development of various state and intellectual approaches that have shaped the way Copts were viewed and led to their banishment from the public sphere as a community, though not as individuals. The failure of liberalism in Egypt did not result in the Copts’ current predicament. Rather, it was the very approach that liberalism took that brought about this predicament.” While I personally would have substituted the word “Islam” with “religions”, I think Tadros was clearly on to an important concept. 

Tadros cleverly captures an important trend from the Mohamed Aly era: “Egyptian liberals’ ultimate dream would be a repetition of the story of Mohamed Aly, an autocrat imposing reforms from above on a reluctant population”. 

While I highly recommend this work and rate it very highly, I have a number of criticisms for it which I will now address. 

Devotional v. historical critical study: Tadros presented much of the Coptic tradition as historical facts, starting from the story of St. Mark and his alleged role in establishing Christianity in Egypt. Modern Western studies generally challenge this view. Tadros’s admiration of St. Athanasius clearly arises out of deeply held beliefs or acceptance of the Coptic traditions, yet the vast majority of historical critical studies show Athanasius to be have been a manipulative political operator. While these aspects don’t affect the core thesis of this great work, they do detract from it. 

Apologia?: With so much discrimination against Copts over centuries of subjugation, it is refreshing to read a passionately pro Coptic work, however Tadros has a times fallen into what I’d term the genre of apologia of all things Coptic. The impassioned defense and glorification of General Yacoub who sided with French invaders along with the harsh attack against the Egyptian Conference of 1911 are examples. Labeling the Egyptian Conference of 1911 as Islamist was particularly grating and misleading. While Tadros lister the point by point demands of the preceding Coptic Conference, he failed to do the same for the Egyptian Conference, yet a simple review of these would show that Egyptian Conference adopted views that even by 21st century standards would be seen as progressive and egalitarian. 

Opinions v. Facts: Tadros presented several important ideas in the book as established facts, while in fact these often appear at best opinions or unproven theories. Lord Cromer, who was a founding member of the Society Against Women Suffrage in England was being portrayed by Tadros as a progressive liberal, with “compassion” for poor Egyptian peasants. Ahmed Lutfy El Sayed was presented by Tadros as an anti Copt agitator. Tadros failed to present sufficient facts to prove this, nor did he offer a balanced discussion that supports his conclusions. The demonization of Lutfi El Sayed was relentless, and frankly shocking. Tadros attempt at nuance when analyzing Lutfi El Sayed was limited to admitting that he and his colleagues were not “fanatics”! 

Similar but less obvious was Tadros’s dismissal of Ahmed Maher as the King’s lackey, yet at some point Tadros admitted that the King was actively trying to appeal to the Copts to counter the popularity of the Wafed Party. In the post 1952 era, Tadros suggested that Nasser came into power with an Arabist and anti Israel agenda, this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as Nasser hardly addressed either topic in his first few years. It was also ironic that Tadros blamed Nasser for the Coptic Church’s rejection of Vatican II. Tadros seemed to want to whitewash the deeply ingrained antisemitism in the Coptic traditions and history and shift the blame on to Nasser. 

Dhimmitude and 21st Century sensibilities: It was unclear which era Tadros considered was the best for Copts in Egypt other than perhaps the brief 3 year period of the French occupation at the end of the 18th & beginning of the 19th century.  Mohamed Aly and his dynasty according to Tadros were focused on their own struggles against the Turks and the Ottoman Empire and / or against the British. The British according to Tadros had no interest advancing the rights of Copts, the Liberal Egyptian movement of the first half of the 20th century didn’t either. At times it appeared that Tadros thought Copts faired best under the more traditional so called dhimi times, when according to Tadros Copts played an important role in the civil service. Tadros quoted some blatantly discriminatory and aggressive anti Copt language from a newspaper in 1908 responding to an attack from a Coptic paper on Islamic history, yet Tadros did not provide context for such language, nor did he offer any details on what the Coptic newspaper actually printed to start the episode. Contrasting some of this language with the language used by Cairo’s Rabbinical Jewish religious authorities describing Karaite Jews in 1903 "impure bastards" would show the very different sensibilities of the time. It would have been more helpful for the reader if Tadros offered more context or comparisons of the how the various minorities and sects dealt with one another at the various eras of history. 

As referenced earlier, the weaknesses and shortcomings of this work should not take away from its importance. The passion of Samuel Tadros for his church and his fellow Copts made him an outstanding advocate, but readers would definitely benefit from a more scientific approach in assessing and addressing both history and present. The challenges Egyptian Copts face are huge: discrimination, acts of violence, governments that are often complicit in discrimination or at best tolerant of it, brain drain, conflicts within the Church between reformers and traditionalists … these and more are very serious challenges and need to be addressed in an even handed fashion. 

On The 100th Anniversary of The Balfour Declaration: An Inconvenient History For Egypt And Israel

As we mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, it is, perhaps, helpful to revisit the neglected history of Egypt’s relationship with Zionism and with Israel. In this essay, I shall be looking at some interesting, yet puzzling historical facts that it would be beneficial for Egyptians, Israelis and others to explore. I shall also be exploring what Zionism meant to Egyptians in 1917 and what it came to mean later.

Egypt’s reaction to the Balfour Declaration was unreservedly favorable

Contrary to widespread belief, in 1917, and for over a decade after that, the Balfour Declaration was not seen by most Egyptian intellectuals as detrimental to Palestine. Interestingly enough, some Egyptian Muslim and Christian families held parties to celebrate the declaration. Telegrams of gratitude were sent to Lord Balfour by the then-Governor of Alexandria Ahmad Ziour Pasha, a Muslim.

“The Governor of Alexandria Ahmad Ziour Pasha – later Prime Minister of Egypt – went to a party in the city celebrating the Balfour Declaration, that culminated in their sending a telegram to Lord Balfour to thank him,” according to Leila Ahmed in “A Border Passage”.

A delegation of leading Muslims and Christians traveled to congratulate the Jews of Palestine. Many Egyptian Zionist leaders were also Egyptian nationalists and fully committed to the cause of independence from Britain.

Egyptians support of the Balfour Declaration lasted beyond 1917. The Grand Sheikh of Al Azhar officially hosted Chaim Weizmann, co-author of the draft of the declaration submitted to Lord Balfour, when he visited Egypt on his way to Palestine in 1918. The Grand Sheikh was alleged to have made a donation of 100 EGP to the Zionist cause, Egyptian academic and writer Mohamed Aboulghar in his book about the Jews of Egypt confirms the meeting but alleges that actually a donation was made by Weismann to Al Azhar. Weizmann’s cultivation of regional support for the Zionist movement extended to his efforts with the rulers of Hijaz where he executed an accord with Emir Faisal endorsing the Declaration.

The Hebrew University was one of the early dreams of the Zionist movement, in 1918 construction commenced. Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, the renowned Egyptian nationalist, political leader and first director of Cairo University joined the celebration for the grand opening of Hebrew University in 1925. In 1944, Taha Hussien, one of Egypt’s most influential literary figures also visited the Hebrew University.

As the Jewish migration to Palestine continued, tensions between the Palestinians and the migrant population increased. The hardline Zionists, referred to as Revisionist Zionists, and early Islamists such as Mufti Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, played a large part in whipping up mutual resentment, fear and anger. These tensions culminated in the 1929 Palestine Riots in late August with the massacres of Jews in Hebron, Safad among others.

The reaction in Egypt remained decidedly pro Zionism well into the first half of the 1930’s, the Government reportedly banned the word ‘Palestine’ from Friday prayers, according to the Leila Ahmed.

The Wafed Government shutdown the sole Palestinian publication with the charge of being pro Palestinian propaganda. Zionist newspapers and magazines continued to operate freely well into the late 1940’s.

Egypt’s Role in Saving Jews from Nazi Europe

The US turned back the SS St. Louis which was full of Jews escaping Germany. Many of those refugees later perished in Nazi concentration camps. Three years later, the US authorities were shamefully still turning back Jews fleeing Nazi Europe. Holocaust Museums mention these stories in detail, yet the fact that Alexandria welcomed Jewish refugees, indeed was only one of a handful of ports, globally, open to Jews escaping from Nazi atrocities that hardly got a mention. For this is another inconvenient history.

Andre Aciman, an Egyptian Jew born and raised in Alexandria, told stories narrated by his family; some Egyptian Jews were not so keen on the influx of Ashkenazi Jews into Alexandria, according to “Out of Egypt”, a memoir by André Aciman.

In readings about World War II and the horrors the Jews faced at the hands of advancing Nazi armies or nationalist partisans, whether Russians, Ukrainians, Serbians or other local populations, it is worth noting that Alexandria, the city that once had the largest Jewish population in Egypt, did not record any attacks on Jewish property and lives when Hitler’s army was just 70 miles to the west.

As the advancing Nazi’s carried out raids on the western parts and the naval port of Alexandria, the number of violent anti-British acts, by Egyptians opposed to the British occupation of Egypt, increased.

Yet no signs of hate or anger against Jews surfaced. The Jews of Alexandria worried about the advancing of the Nazi army but did not fear their Egyptian neighbors, according to Aciman. This is rather strange when so much of the hate propaganda presents Egyptians and Jews as natural enemies. While the self-proclaimed “non-violent” Muslim Brotherhood had indeed started to attack Jews in graffiti, boycotts and worse around 1937 in certain cities, there appear to have been no such attacks during the time of impending entry of Hitler’s army into Alexandria. This should be contrasted with horrible anti-semitic violence Jews witnessed in most European cities.

Joel Beinin offers a concise essay covering Egyptian Jews in the first half of the twentieth century. It is important to note that Beinin has faced relentless attacks from staunch Zionists, much of Beinin’s history can be validated by personal and family narratives such as those of Andre Aciman and others. Aciman too, who wrote a very personal memoir, has also faced attacks from the same quarters that attacked Beinin. Yet both writers’ work calls into question the supposed hate and natural animosity between Egyptians and Jews while never mincing their words on the rise of antisemitism in Egypt.

Yad Vashem, other memorials and Holocaust history in general, offers no special recognition of the role that Egypt and Egyptians played in saving the lives of Jews. A disgusting byproduct of the recent rise of anti-Semitism in Egypt with the wide circulation of books by Holocaust deniers, is that few Egyptians are even aware of this important history that Egypt and all Egyptians should be proud of.

Operation Susannah, more widely known as the Lavon Affair

In the early autumn of 1952, a few months after the July 23 Coup D’etat that led to the overthrow of King Farouk, Mohammad Naguib, Egypt’s first President, joined the celebration of the Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashana, at a Synagogue in the heart of Cairo.

Photographs of the event and Naguib’s words were widely reported in the press. Naguib’s message to the Jews of Egypt was that they had nothing to worry about from the 1948 War with Israel and that Egypt’s Jews were just as much an integral part of its fabric as their Muslim and Christian brothers. Naguib had given similar remarks on a visit to the Jewish Hospital in Alexandria among others.

In the immediate aftermath of the 1948 war, a minority of the Jews of Egypt left for Israel and those were mainly Ashkenazi Jews that had come to Egypt as refugees along with a minority of Karaite, Sephardic and other Rabbinic Jews that believed deeply in Zionism. Six full years after the establishment of the state of Israel, Egyptian Jews largely remained in place and minimal immigration had occurred from Egypt to Israel. Naguib’s strategy of fighting Zionism through attempts to integrate Egypt’s Jews further in the society showed good results.

Israeli Military Intelligence, possibly to spur Egyptian Jewish immigration, as well as attempting to derail the Egyptian American relationship, carried out a large number of terrorist attacks in Cairo and Alexandria. The Egyptian born terrorists and their Israeli handler were caught, tried and sentenced. Following Egypt’s defeat in the 1967 war, the imprisoned terrorists were exchanged for Egyptian POW’s.  Israel kept their return secret and continued its obfuscation of the Operation. In 1971, Golda Meir, the fourth prime minister of Israel, attended the wedding of one of the terrorists. In 1975, the four terrorists appeared on Israeli TV, where they recounted their story of “heroism”, they have received more honors as recently as in 2005.

Zakryah Mohyeldin, then Egypt’s Minister of Interior, used the very same language as Naguib and talked of Egypt’s Jewish sons as he reacted to Operation Susannah, according to Beinin. Yet hate speech towards Jews was growing in the Egyptian discourse; Muslim Brotherhood followers targeted all Jews regardless of their views towards Israel and intensified their language of hate.

Various attempts to rewrite the history of the Lavon affair continued even into the 21st century. The Israeli MOD continues to redact sections of their disclosures so many years later.  Israelis will at some point need to come to terms with the some of the ugly aspects of the history of their nation. Egyptians will need to learn that anti-Semitism plays into the hands of Israel’s right wing which consistently advocates exclusivity as the only way to defend Jews from ever hateful enemies.

Prior to 1967 War, no Egyptian Jews were expelled for being Jewish

Egyptian citizenship laws were first introduced in 1929 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the birth of Egypt as a modern pluralistic nation-state in 1922-1923.  Ottoman nationals and others, who were born in Egypt prior to 1914, regardless of religion, had the choice of becoming Egyptian.

Most Sephardic Jews whose families came to Egypt in the second half of the 19th century sought alternatives to Egyptian Citizenship. It should be noted that Egypt’s native Jews, whether Karaite Jews or Rabbinic (non-Ladino) Jews had roots in Egypt dating back millennia. It is unclear how many Egyptian Jews actually wanted the Egyptian nationality. Beinin talks of increasing difficulties acquiring Egyptian nationality, faced by the Jews, in the 1940’s especially after the first wave of “Egyptianization” laws introduced in 1947. Several Karaite Jews actively lobbied for the “Egyptianization” laws as a way of proving their allegiance to Egypt according to Beinin.

Leftover from the days of outright British and French domination, was a typical colonial justice system that saw local Egyptians subject to Egyptian Law and courts, while the European minorities were subject to their own laws and consular courts. Many of the more affluent Sephardic Jews living in Egypt for two or even three generations did not regard themselves as Egyptians and spoke little or no Egyptian Arabic.

Aciman details the history of typical Ladino speaking Egyptian born Jews who pursued European citizenship. Beinin writes of Jews who actually purchased French and British nationalities without ever setting a foot in these countries. The percentage of non-Karaite Jews who opted for the Egyptian Citizenship is not known but, as Beinin explored, it was limited. Aciman tells a story of a relative who pursued Italian Citizenship following a fire that destroyed Italian birth archives which enabled some Jews who had never set foot in Italy to apply for and obtain Italian citizenship.

According to Benin, “…between the Arab-Israeli wars of 1948 and 1956 a substantial portion of the Jewish elite remained in Egypt and continued to play a significant, though diminishing, role in its economic life.”

The friendly policy towards Zionism by Egypt came to an end in the period leading to and especially following the 1948 War. Once vibrant Egyptian Zionist associations and papers were banned and those openly advocating a Zionist agenda expelled or detained.

Some Egyptian Jews were fervently anti-Zionist and they were typically communists targeted by the wrath of the state and detained with other non-Jewish communists. The first wave of expulsions targeted Zionist and communist Jews who did not hold Egyptian citizenship. This does not appear to have been a large number.

Following the Suez War, citizens of France and the UK were evicted from Egypt. Some Jewish families were divided as those who held British or French citizenships, whether Jewish or not, had to leave Egypt. The third wave of departures commenced with the introduction of socialism in Egypt with the 1957 Egyptianization Laws. These culminated in a mass nationalization of private property and businesses with the 1961 Nationalization Laws which targeted foreign and Egyptian capitalists. The biggest exodus was actually Greek and Italian.

“After 1952 the Italian Egyptians were reduced – from the nearly 60,000 of 1940 – to just a few thousands. Most Italian Egyptians returned to Italy during the 1950s and 1960s,” quoting Italian emigration records.

Those wealthy Egyptians, of various religions, who could manage to escape with even a fraction of their fortunes did so. Needless to say, by end of the nationalization phase, the number of remaining Jews was greatly diminished, but as of then not a single Jew who held Egyptian nationality was forced to leave solely because he or she was Jewish.

Detention of Egyptian Jews, forced surrender of Egyptian Nationality and Expulsion

From the early hours of the 1967 war, the Egyptian authorities started rounding up scores of Jewish men on suspicion of spying for Israel. Several hundred Egyptian Jews were rounded up from all over Egypt and were imprisoned, with members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, in the notorious Abu Zaabal and Tora Prisons. Marc Khedr tells in detail of his experience from June 6, 1967, until his release over three years later. These Egyptian Jews were subjected to indefinite detention, never faced concrete charges and were never actually sentenced. They were kept in prison just on suspicion of collaboration with Israel, for being Jews.

To get out of Egypt, these Egyptians had to renounce their Egyptian Citizenship, undertake never to return to Egypt and were taken from their prison cells straight to the airport to board flights to France. Khadr’s use of language, referring to concentration camps, invites two unfortunate comparisons.

The first comparison is to the Nazi concentration camps, the other to the other political prisoners who were there before the capture of the Jews and whose detention outlasted theirs. This in no way diminishes the injustice and suffering that Mr. Khedr and other Egyptian Jews faced. Mr. Khedr, a Karaite Jew whose mother tongue was Egyptian Arabic and whose original name Mourad Amin Khedr, a typical Egyptian name, was fully Egyptian in all aspects of the word.  It was bigotry and discrimination, suspicion and mistrust by the State and fellow Egyptians that led to the loss of homeland for Egyptian Jews and the loss for Egypt of its own Jewish people.

Where are we 100 Years after the Balfour Declaration?

As mentioned above, history has been rewritten by both Egypt and Israel to suit the chosen narrative. The fact that Egyptian Jews were often in the forefront of Egypt’s liberation movement has been conveniently forgotten or ignored. The Egyptian’s support for the Balfour Declaration has been forgotten and history was rewritten to erase it. The role Islamic Nationalism has played in support of the ascendence of the uncompromising radical Revisionist Zionism can be seen clearly from the early 1920’s. Later, Revisionist Zionism came to dominate the Zionist discourse. The role Zionism played in strengthening Islamism, Islamic and Arab Nationalism as a counterbalance to it continues to our present day.

The lack of recognition of Egypt’s role in saving Jewish lives in the dark days of WWII should be an embarrassment to Egypt, Israel and world Jewry. It doesn’t fit the narrative of animosity. The narrative of Egypt throwing out Jews and the exodus of Jews from Egypt fits with the, now dominant Zionist narrative. Egypt lost a great deal from the exodus of the foreign communities whether Greek, Italian, Turkish, French or British. It is crucial to see the exodus of Egypt’s Jews for what it was and it was primarily an exodus of foreigners. The bigotry, racism and discrimination that followed several wars with Israel is abhorrent and should not be defended. However, it does not tell of ancient animosity between Egyptians and Jews, indeed it highlights the opposite. Some in Israel are beginning to question the language that has been used to describe the Jewish exodus from Egypt.

It is hard to reach a conclusion as to what the Zionist movement’s true aims were: did it really intend to protect the interests of the native Palestinian population or was Revisionist Zionism and Zionism the same all along with only some differences in outward appearance? As late as 1935, the main strand of Zionism continued to reject the idea of a Jewish state, this was the Weismann Zionism, whereas Revisionist Zionists led by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, a Russian Jewish Revisionist Zionist leader, clamored for the abandoned colonialist vision of Theodor Herzl. Was all of this just a Zionist facade?

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, did Revisionist Zionism provoke the emerging Islamic Nationalism and the Islamist movement or did the later unintentionally aid Revisionist Zionism and help it dominate the whole Zionist agenda? Were the Egyptian political elite subject to a conspiracy so that they fell for the “treachery” of the Zionists or were they supportive of a benign form of Zionism and were late in recognizing the emergence of the violent, racist, supremacist Zionism that triumphed late in the 1930’s? Answers to these questions determine how Egypt’s early support for Zionism can be viewed.

Let’s learn from the mistakes of the last 100 years. Let’s confront this inconvenient history and use it as a basis for the possibility of coexistence. Millions of Palestinians continue to live in refugee camps, millions of Palestinians continue to languish stranded under cruel occupation. The image of the Palestinians living literally underneath high speed “Israeli only” trains linking Jerusalem to neighboring “Jewish only” communities will forever stay etched the memory of many of the people who have seen it, it should be a source of shame for Israelis and Israel’s supporters.

It is time to actively work towards achieving the second half of the Balfour Declaration. Historical examples of peaceful and positive coexistence are not limited to Egypt. It is time to remember that the majority of the Jews of Hebron and Safad were actually saved from the massacres, not just by the British Army, but also by their Palestinian neighbors. It is time to uncover more inconvenient history and use it as the basis for a better future. Personal narratives of Palestinians, like those of Fay Afaf Kanafani, tell of similar stories of successful coexistence between Palestinians and Jews even into the 1940’s. Digging into the truth of what really happened on the ground may prove harder than that of Egypt because of the relatively advanced nature of the Egyptian press and political structure compared to that of British Mandate Palestine. The Egyptian experience should nonetheless help in looking at what is possible over the next 100 years.

Ayman S. Ashour

This essay was first published by Egyptian Streets here.