The Left’s Hatred of Israel Began with Karl Marx

Karl Marx (1818 - 1883)

The Jews were the first people to produce a single cohesive book which predicts “The End of Days.” The study of the different predictions regarding “the end of days” is called eschatology. In this essay, I would like to analyze Marx’s writing predicting future events. Marx “prophesied” a vision of the way the world will look at the end of time. In this area, Marx’s ideas function like a religious faith. Both the Hebrew prophets and Marx foresaw an era of peace as the climax of history, but their visions were incompatible. Marx created a rival eschatology, and a rival redemption, to the Hebrew prophets. In Jewish prophecy, the redemption begins with the restoration of the nation of Israel. In Marxism, the “redemption” begins with the end of the nation-state. Hence, the restoration of Israel can be viewed as physical proof that the predictions made by Marx regarding the end of days are false, which by extension would mean that all of his claims are false. In this essay, I would like to argue that the left’s hatred of Israel is rooted in a clash of rival eschatologies between Marx and the Hebrew prophets. This rivalry expresses itself in a real life campaign to undo the creation of Israel in order to prove Marx to be the superior visionary.

Please note, this essay is longer than the average blog, as it requires a certain amount of background information to compare both the theories of Marx and the Hebrew prophets.

Marx’s views on the Jews were shaped by what happened to his father as well as the Enlightenment attack on religion.

Karl Marx was born in Trier, Germany in 1818. Starting in 1723, his father’s family line had produced Trier’s rabbis. Karl’s grandfather was named Meier Halevi Marx, likewise he was appointed the town Rabbi, and this position was passed down to Karl’s uncle. Karl’s father’s birth name was Herschel Levi. Breaking from tradition, Karl’s father was the first to receive a secular education. But Herschel was barred from the practice of law because he was Jewish. In response, he converted to Lutheranism, as well as changed his name to one that did not sound Jewish: Heinrich Marx. Subsequently, Karl was baptized at the age of six and attended a Lutheran elementary school. In adulthood, Marx rejected both Judaism and Christianity and became an atheist.

One of the greatest ideas of the Enlightenment was the principle that everyone should be granted equal citizenship, that is, that they should be emancipated. The question remained whether the Jewish people should be granted these same rights, which Marx addressed in his essay, “On The Jewish Question.” Sadly, the essay contains a painful contradiction. Political Science Professor Shlomo Avineri explains the tension contained inside the essay, “In it he says some terrible things about Judaism; on the other hand, he argues for equal rights for Jews.” In order to understand why Marx petitioned for equal rights for the Jewish people, then it requires analyzing the story of Marx’s father.

In 1814, Marx’s father qualified as a lawyer in the German Rhineland during a period in which its Jews were free to practice law and hold government positions. However, in 1815, the Rhineland came under the control of the Prussian Empire, including Marx’s home town of Trier, and subsequently the Jews were stripped of full citizenship. Marx’s father petitioned for exemption without success, so he converted to Lutheranism to retain his profession as an attorney. In sharp contrast, Marx’s uncle remained the local rabbi of the community. Professor Avineri imagines that Marx’s parents would have explained to him why his uncle was a rabbi, and why his father was, “a nominally Christian lawyer.”

Professor Avineri brings to light, “the trauma which was unique to Jews in the Rhineland: Living for almost 20 years, really a generation, as equal citizens, and then being denied equal citizenship, is a very different experience than not having equal rights. It leaves a mark, and this pushed quite a number of young Jewish intellectuals, or people of Jewish origins like Marx, to a very radical position vis a vis the society which de-emancipated their families.” So the story of Marx’s father accounts for why Marx believed passionately that Jewish people should be granted equal rights.

Unfortunately, Marx’s appeal for equal rights is only one redeeming aspect of the essay, the other part of the essay portrays Jews as a group of sneaky con men. Marx described Judaism as created to make money. Marx linked Jews and money making together as synonymous. Marx flung the following accusations, “What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering.” And, “Money is the jealous god of Israel.” Even worse, “The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange.”

The Enlightenment was characterized by attacks on religion, Marx picked up some of these negative theories, which helps account for his horrific characterization of Jews. Marx expressed the sentiment of the season, “For Germany, the criticism of religion has been essentially completed.” First, if religion is characterized by the idea that God can be revealed in a book, then the Enlightenment was characterized by the idea that God could be discovered in reason. Second, if religion is characterized by the idea that moral laws can be found in a book, then the Enlightenment was characterized by the idea that morality could be found in reason. Marx also borrowed from the Enlightenment thinker Ludwig Feuerbach, who viewed religion as being created as a projection of man’s needs. Marx took this view to its logical conclusion and declared, “Man makes religion.”

For Marx, man created religion for two purposes: 1) to justify the authority of the ruling class as being granted from God and, 2) to invent a fairy tale to act as a drug to pacify the suffering of the exploited class so they would not rebel. In Marxism, man has no spirit, no ability to transcend, his primary relationship to life is physical and expressed by a relationship to his economic class. Marx reduced humanity into two categories: the ruling class and the exploited class. The religious authority system mirrored the political system and justified the economic exploitation system. Perhaps a simple example is that the Pope would place the crown on the head of the new king. Since religion was created to pacify the exploited class to accept their suffering without rebellion, then it provided a type of fake happiness.

In another essay Marx argued, “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering.” For Marx, the goal was emancipation from suffering in this world, hence the physical liberation of the exploited class was conditional on their liberation from fake spiritual religion. Marx wrote, “The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness.” And, “It is, therefore, the task of history, once the other-world of truth has vanished, to establish the truth of this world… Thus, the criticism of Heaven turns into the criticism of Earth, the criticism of religion into the criticism of law, and the criticism of theology into the criticism of politics.”

In the essay on the Jewish question, Marx puts forward the notion that the Jewish people did not survive the diaspora because they were united by a tight bond of monotheism; rather their religious faith was a tool they could manipulate to fit their particular situation. In order for Jewish people to travel all over the planet and survive under any condition, they had to be completely focused on self-interest. Jewish people represented the selfish practical need for one group to survive at all costs. Marx mocked, “The monotheism of the Jew, therefore, is in reality the polytheism of the many needs.” Marx argued that Jewish nationalism was not tied to the land of Israel, but rather tied to money, which is what allowed them to be fluid. Marx decried, “The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant.” Jews had no real essence, instead, “the subjective basis of Judaism,” was, “practical need.” In other words, Jews only existed to make money, which is why they could exist anywhere.

Since Jews represented the “practical need” of one group, it meant that Judaism taught one group of people how to be selfish at the expense of all others. Because of its selfish nature, Judaism could not create a new world.” Hence, Marx argued that emancipation was good for the Jews, not because it would make them equal citizens, but because it would help them to vanish. Humanity should be moving away from one group’s particular interests towards universal interests. For Marx, the Jews stand in the path of mankind being able to unite as a single unit. Hence, the world will be a better place when the Jews finally disappear. Marx described the end goal, “The social emancipation of the Jew is the emancipation of society from Judaism.” Finally, “the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

Again, religion was created to justify the exploitation of the oppressed. Likewise, Judaism was not created to connect to God, but rather from the selfish desire of one group to justify their own special nature and to prosper. Mankind needs to be emancipated from religion in order to be truly liberated. Hence, if the Jews were liberated from Judaism, then they would be free. Chairman at the Ayn Rand Institute, Yaron Brook summarized Marx’s essay on the Jews, “the problem of the world is that Jews are self-interested and therefore capitalist.” Therefore, “we need to eliminate Jewishness from the world, which means we need to eliminate self-interest and capitalism from the world.”

Perhaps, while Marx was living in Christian Europe, Judaism was an easier target for him to attack than Christianity, because what Marx said in general terms regarding the abolition of religion, he stated in specific terms regarding the dismantling of Judaism. It is possible that Marx’s depiction of Judaism as the corrupting spirit of mankind would have also applied equally to Christianity, but perhaps it was not socially acceptable for him to attack Christians. But, since Marx only described the Jews in nearly demonic terms, his attack on the Jews created a paradox. Ironically, Marx was hated by anti-semites for being Jewish by blood, and the source for the claim that Jews created communism to corrupt society, but simultaneously quoted by anti-semites to demonstrate that Jews are capitalists and exploiters of the people.

 

Marx’s own life story paralleled the story of the Enlightenment. Marx’s father rejected Judaism for Christinianity as a ticket to be granted equal rights during the time of emancipation. Marx personally rejected Christianity for atheism. Likewise, Marx wrote that the belief in Heaven served as a distraction from the suffering of the physical world, which is why man needed to be liberated from religion in order to become free. Marx expressed the final break from the historical authority of religion and the victory of materialist philosophy. Thus, Marx can be seen as the culmination of the Enlightenment.

Marx gave birth to a new archetype of secular anti-semitism: The Jews as capitalists.

Marx piggybacked on older forms of anti-semitism. Marx’s structure of anti-semitism mirrors the ancient structure of Christian anti-semitism. Within the historical Christian anti-semitic tradition, the Jews were seen as the embodiment of evil for rejecting Christ, and the Jews stood in the way of the universal vision that all of mankind would become Christian. Similarly, Marxist ideology created a parallel structure, the Jews were the embodiment of evil for their selfish nature, and the Jews stood in the way of the universal vision that all of mankind would become communist.

During the Middle Ages, an anti-semitic archetype emerged of the Jews as corrupt moneylenders. Marx took this archetype a step further; he didn’t specifically say that all Jews are capitalists, but he described the Jews as having all of the characteristics of the worst capitalists. Marx’s writing helped create a new economic archetype of anti-semitism: The Jews as greedy capitalists. Describing the Jews as the embodiment of the greedy capitalists is different from describing Jews as money lenders. The capitalists control society and keep people down. Likewise, ideas began to emerge that Jews control society and keep gentiles down. The Medieval depiction of Jews as money lenders did not include the concept that Jews secretly controlled society. Hence, Marx’s depiction of the Jews helped set the stage for propaganda theories that Jews control the government, society, banks, and the media. In addition, if the Jews are the capitalist class, and the capitalist class has to be destroyed, then the Jews have to be destroyed. British Journalist Daniel Johnson shows the outcome, “Marx was the most important begetter of left wing anti-semitism. His imagery of the Jew as a worshiper of money, and his demand for the emancipation of society from Judaism still pollutes the mainstream of European thought.”

Considering Marx’s view that all of mankind should be united, a reader of his work might assume he loved all races. Yet, Marx’s writings are not just anti-semitic, they sound like a guy sitting in his underwear typing conspiracy theories about the Jews running the banks on the internet. Yet, supposedly, communism is not a racist ideology. In fact, the left views itself as the champion in the fight against racism. Leftists claim that Marx showed humanity the path that will lead humanity to a brave new world. If Marx showed humanity the path to redemption, and no one else has come along to replace him, then for leftists he is still the greatest moral example of how a human being should act.

With that in mind, since Marx thought it was morally acceptable to describe Jews as con-men, then why would his followers think it is wrong to portray Jews as exploiters? The student will not contradict the master. In fact, Marx disliked a Jewish socialist named Ferdinand Lassalle, who had dark features. In a letter to Engels, Marx called Lassalle a, “Jewish nigger.” Engels wrote back and called Lassalle, “a greasy Jew.” Thus, it makes perfect sense that Marx’s followers carry his torch of anti-semitism. While the Christian world has made some gestures to reflect on their history of anti-semitic hatred throughout the centuries, there has been no effort to repent for how the left created its own unique form of anti-semitic archetype.

Marx’s goal to create a world without nations.

There is a false image of Marx as simply a bookworm, who was never involved in real activism. But, this image is false. Marx was a real activist, he was involved in revolutionary political parties. In 1847, The Communist League was formed in London. A year later, this group commissioned Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to write, “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” more commonly known by its shortened title, “The Communist Manifesto.” This means that Marx was writing on behalf of a greater revolutionary group. The preamble to the Manifesto starts, “Communists of various nationalities have assembled in London and sketched the following manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.” The purpose of the Manifesto was to summarize the goals of the communists. Marx was writing at a time of unprecedented political, industrial, and social change. America and France both had major revolutions in the 1700s. Likewise, these men truly believed that they were going to create a new world through revolution.

Marx grounded his theory on the idea that multiple systems of economics had clashed together and passed away during history. Marx shouted, “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.” He broke economic history into roughly five time periods: 1) tribal societies, which he considered primitive communism, 2) slavery societies, 3) feudalism, 4) capitalism, and, 5) finally, all of those economic systems would be replaced by communism.

To illustrate his theory, feudalism was a system in the Middle Ages in which the King owned all of the land. The King would grant an estate to a Lord, who in exchange would provide services such as knights for battles and farmers for the land. A serf was a laborer who was bound to work on his lord’s estate. The feudal system was slowly replaced by the merchant system, which turned into capitalism, or an economic system based on the freedom of private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism was divided into two classes: the capitalist class, who owned the means of production and the workers. Marx argued that capitalism was economically unsustainable. It was incapable of improving the living standards of the population because employers constantly lowered wages, hence the workers would always remain poor.

After the Middle Ages, large kingdoms had been gradually replaced with the modern nation-state model. Although these nations may have appeared to be a form of liberation from despotic kings, for Marx, the merchant class had only defeated the feudal system in order to set up their own system of exploitative capitalism. The nation-state was forged by one group of people for selfish purposes to gain material resources. Marx wrote, “Practical need, egoism, is the principle of civil society, and as such appears in pure form as soon as civil society has fully given birth to the political state.” Thus, both the state and the different economic classes were designed to exploit the workers.

No worries, Marx predicted that the “workers of the world” would all unite and revolt against the capitalist system. They would claim communal ownership over the means of production. Private property expressed in the form of the means of production would be replaced by co-operative ownership in a socialist society. The new socialist economy would not base production on the goal of gaining private profits, but rather on satisfying each person’s needs. Marx argued that history would end with a period of equality where different economic classes would dissolve and everyone would contribute, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

The Manifesto outlines how the expansion of trading networks among nations would eventually help break down barriers between them and lead to the emergence of a global economy. The Manifesto demonstrates, “National differences and antagonisms between peoples are vanishing gradually from day to day, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, (and) to freedom of commerce, (and) to the world market.” Ironically, the global economy would work against itself by uniting workers from all over the world, who would later revolt and set up a communist system, in which even nation-states would be overthrown. They encourage, “The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.” And, “the worker has no country, he does not take part in the life of the nation, (and he) has no share in its material and spiritual wealth.”

In the Manifesto, the State does have a temporary purpose – it acts as an agent to collect all of the means of production. Marx wrote, “The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class.” However, in later polemical works, Engels explained how the state would be replaced by administrators who would distribute resources. Engels wrote, “The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished,’ it withers away.” This process would lead to a more glorious age, in which nation-states will “wither away” and be replaced by the communist party. Hence, even the model of the nation-state would eventually have to disappear to be replaced by a world wide communal system.

An additional source for Marx’s vision of history progressing towards a final goal came from the Enlightenment Philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel still believed in God, but not in the way that God was described in Church. God or Spirit was the force driving everything in existence forward to a greater understanding of reason and knowledge. In 1807, Hegel published, “The Phenomenology of Spirit.” In the book, Hegel argued that God was pushing history forward as a progressive movement in stages, which meant in some ways Hegel’s philosophical vision retained a religious feel.

Hegel made a break with the historical Christian-European view of God, but he still retained a concept of God. Marx went one step further and completely dropped God. At the same time, Marx borrowed directly from Hegel’s concept that history was progressing, and therefore re-instituted the idea of a future redemption. However, Marx made an adjustment. History was not progressing through the movement of the Spirit, but rather through the forces of material invention and the clashes it caused between the owners of the means of production and the exploited working class. The last war would be the communist revolution, the workers would overthrow the class systems.

Finally, a new world order would arise in which the economy would not be controlled by individuals competing to sell goods, but rather by communists parties who would plan the economy and determine how many products to manufacture. Afterwards, a new era of redeemed history will arise with no exploitation, inequality, or war. History would conclude with a new communist society, a classless and stateless society with common ownership over the means of production. Although Marx attempted to ditch God, the reality is that his belief that history was progressing towards a redemption still functions like a religious faith.

Communism created a rival concept of justice to the Biblical concept of justice.

Judaism teaches the right to own private property and generally teaches that wealth is a blessing. Both the Bible and the Talmud contain extensive laws concerning private property, employer and employee relationships, as well as theft and damages. The Jews managed to apply these laws even in the diaspora for centuries. Communism created a rival concept of justice to the Biblical concept of justice regarding wealth in three areas: 1) a rival view of private property, 2) a rival view of business skills, and, 3) a rival view of the accumulation of wealth. The Bible protects private property and praises business skills. A chapter in Proverbs describes the ideal wife as “a woman of valor.” Proverbs praises her as a keen business woman, “She considers a field and buys it; out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.” Finally, “She sees that her trading is profitable.” In today’s terms, the Bible describes the ideal wife as a good “capitalist.” For an ancient book, if a woman was praised for making money based on excellent business, then how much more would men be honored for excellent business skills?

Praise of talented business skills does not mean that the Bible gives employers the freedom to abuse their workers. The Bible is deeply concerned with maintaining fair treatment in business deals and completely against the exploitation of workers. In addition, the Bible demands the protection of widows, orphans, and strangers. One of the most beautiful verses to describe the protection of the weak is Leviticus 19:14, which commands, “Do not insult the deaf.” Technically, a deaf person cannot even hear when someone insults him, and yet, the Bible commands someone not to insult the deaf. If the Bible commands someone not to insult a person who cannot even hear the insult, then clearly the Bible is concerned with fair treatment of the vulnerable. Taking a divergent stance, Communism holds a negative view of private property. Marx’s philosophy had no real capacity to account for wealth generated through honest business skills.

It should also be mentioned that the only agent listed in the Bible to bring about ultimate justice at the end of history is the Messiah. Yet, Marx taught that the communist party will be the agent to bring justice to the world. Marx created a different rival agent to the Messiah who will give birth to a new world: The Communist Party. In Marxism, the communist party collects all of the means of production and physically redistributes all of the wealth. It would require a powerful party to intervene into society and artificially restructure everything in a way to create a world without economic differences. That being said, this vision is a relatively new invention. The authors of the Bible never imagined the creation of a central committee that collects all of the public wealth and redistributes it. In this sense, communism created a rival concept to the concept of the Messiah as the agent who will bring about ultimate justice on earth.

The legacy of communism has transformed into the modern concept of social justice. Social justice is a watered-down version of communism and effectively has the same goal. In 2006, The United Nations issued a report called, “Social Justice in an Open World: The Role of the United Nations.” The report explained, “social justice is a relatively recent concept, born of the struggles surrounding the industrial revolution and the advent of socialist… views on the organization of society.” And, “Some proponents of social justice—though significantly fewer since the collapse of State communism—dream of total income equality.” Finally, “Social justice is not possible without strong and coherent redistributive policies conceived and implemented by public agencies.”

Obviously, the term “redistribution of wealth” does not come from the Bible, which means the Bible created one concept of justice while communism produced a second rival concept of justice. Both concepts of justice cannot be the path to attain justice in the world. The modern left views itself as literally “progressive.” The left views itself as progressing towards a future without economic inequality or nations. Hence, the modern left rejects the restoration of Israel, since it appears to them as regressive.

Jewish people are in the way of any universalizing ideology.

In Marxist philosophy religion is invented for selfish reasons, likewise groups form together as nations for selfish purposes, hence why both religion and the nations need to perish. In contradistinction, the Bible never calls for the destruction of religion and all nations. God built the world with a hierarchy and order. God created the family unit, the tribe, and the nation as part of His wisdom. In fact, nations will even exist in the redeemed age. After a great war, Zechariah 14:16 states, “it will come to pass that everyone left of the nations who came up against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to prostrate himself to the King.” In this sense, communism created a rival negative view of the nation established by the Bible.

Communism seeks the elimination of all distinct groups as they merge into a single humanity. In opposition, the Jews view themselves as the eternal nation. This is why Jewish people present a problem for communism. Author Melanie Phillips spells out the dilemma, “Jews are always in the way of any universalizing ideology. We are the people of one book alone and of one land alone.” In 70 C.E., the Romans destroyed the Temple. Aftwards, Jews were slowly scattered throughout the four winds. For all intents and purposes, after the Jews lost their land they should have disappeared as a people. Against the odds, the Jews did something unthinkable, the Jewish people have learned to survive with or without a land. In the diaspora, the Jews under Christian-Europe lived in separate communities and functioned in some ways as a nation within a nation. Professor of Pathology and Genetics Harry Ostrer draws a picture of the past, “Within those communities, Jews were linked by religion, customs, marriage and language.”

The Jewish situation remained relatively the same for centuries, until the time of the Enlightenment, when they started to be granted equal rights, but they were never fully swallowed up into the greater society. The fact that the Jews have not disappeared as Marx imagined represents a problem for his followers. The Jewish people still remain when all other groups disintegrate over the generations. The Jews are unbreakable. All other groups eventually give up, so if the left can break the Jews, then the left can break any group, and that is why the left has a special hatred for Israel.

Today, British Labor Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn’s comments are a perfect example of how the left has a unique focus on trying to break Israel. Corbyn has never said that Spain should be destroyed and replaced with a different country. In contrast, although thinly veiled as support for Palestinian rights, Corbyn stated specifically that he wanted to see Israel erased and replaced with a different country called, Palestine. Corbyn said, “What we’re in favour of is a Palestine [to replace Israel] where everyone can live, they can’t live if you’ve got Zionism.” In his own words, Corbyn stated that Zionism needs to disappear. Like their father, leftists need the Jewish people to dissolve in order to create a new world.

The Hebrew prophetic vision of redemption.

The ancient world was filled with black magic and witch doctors. Pagan prophets told people about their future. For example, in the famous story of Socrates and the Oracle at Delphi, the Oracle proclaimed Socrates the wisest man alive. Despite all of their powers, the ancient pagan prophets did not create a complex set of predictions regarding the end of times. The Jews were the first people to produce a single cohesive book which predicts “The End of Days.” Although not divided into sharp divisions within the Bible, the Jews invented the idea that God created history with a beginning, middle, and end. History begins with Adam, progresses with the promise to Abraham, and it finally climaxes with the redemption of the Messiah. The Messiah regathers the Jewish exiles, builds the third Temple, and re-establishes the Kingdom of Israel. Afterwards, the Messiah rules from a throne in Jerusalem and teaches God’s law to the rest of the nations.

The Messianic vision is summarized in Isaiah 2:1-4:

“it shall be at the end of the days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be firmly established at the top of the mountains, and it shall be raised above the hills, and all the nations shall stream to it. And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, ‘Come, let us go up to the Lord’s mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths,’ for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

In contrast, the Greeks did not invent a vision that a Greek Philosopher King would show up at the final chapter of the story, set up a throne in Athens, and teach the Platonic Forms to the rest of the nations. Christian theologians noticing these themes in the Hebrew Bible called it, “Salvation History.” It might be easy to take this idea for granted, because nowadays it is such a common notion, nonetheless the Hebrew prophets were the first people to invent the idea of “Messianic History.” Another variation of this theme is called dispensationalism, which views Biblical history as divided into dispensations. Dispensationalists believe that the progress of God’s revelation to humanity takes place through a series of several distinct stages which culminate in a final redemption.

Marx versus the Hebrew Prophets: Marx established an alternative “Messianic History.”

After the Jews invented messianic history, other religions invented alternative versions of redemptive history. For example, Islam developed a rival eschatology. Ironically, it includes the second coming of a non-divine Christ, who converts people to Islam. It also includes a great war where the Muslims defeat the Jews. In the same way, Marx created a rival messianic history. Marx effectively prophesied how the end of time would climax. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker declared Marx to be a, “philosopher who thought into the future.” Marx believed that salvation history would come through the proletariat revolution. Marxism came into the world to predict a more glorious future, which would be based on the death of God, as well as the end of nation-states, capitalism, and class differences. For communists, Marx is essentially their “prophet.” In this sense, Marxism functions almost like a religious faith.

In Marx’s “prophecy” there is no Judaism, there is no Messiah, and there is no nation of the Jewish people when the curtain closes. Marxism came into existence in order to make Judaism – and all religions – obsolete. Both Marxist and Jewish predictions cannot be true. There can only be one accurate eschatology: either the Hebrew Prophets were correct or Marx was correct. Compare some quotes which demonstrate the irreconcilability of Marxism and Religious-Zionism. Marx wrote,The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant.” Engels wrote, “The state is not ‘abolished,’ it withers away.” These statements are the antithesis of quotes from one of the founders of Religious-Zionism, Rav Kook who proclaimed, “Our state, the State of Israel, the foundation of God’s throne in the world – her whole desire is that God will be one.” These statements represent extreme polar opposites. According to Religious-Zionists the redemption begins with the creation of the State of Israel, in contrast, according to communism, the redemption begins with the end of the state. Any sign that the Hebrew prophets predictions are true and that Marx was a false prophet is a danger to leftists. Indirectly, Marx predicted that Israel would never be restored.

The Jews are expected to die out, not to restore their nation. The restoration of Israel goes against Marx’s prediction of historical progress. Marxism does not have the doctrinal capacity to accept the restoration of the State of Israel. The restoration of Israel can be viewed as physical proof that the predictions made by Marx regarding the ends of days are false, which by extension would mean that all of his claims are false. In effect, the physical restoration of Israel is a real world threat to all of the claims made by Marx.

In conclusion, the conflict between Marxism and Judaism is a conflict over rival predictions of the end times, a rivalry over eschatologies. The left is still hoping that modern Israel is a temporary bump in the road that will vanish and make way for the glorious future with no nations. In simple terms, the leftist-world is upset because their prophecies did not come true. This motivates them to act with aggression towards Israel to prove that their prophet is true. All of this explains why the leftist world has so much difficulty making peace with Israel. In a physical sense, they want to see Israel undone so that their prophet’s predictions will come true. This rivalry expresses itself in a real life campaign to undo the creation of Israel to prove Marx to be the superior visionary.

This attempt to destroy isn’t just an empty threat. It has several sources, but one of the most powerful came from the Soviet Union. Izabella Tabarovsky is a scholar on Russian history. In her essay, “Soviet Anti-Zionism and Contemporary Left Anti-Semisitm,” she explains, “It was the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, however, that really intensified Soviet anti-Zionist campaigning.” And, “By the mid-1970s the KGB felt the Zionist threat was so acute that it warranted establishing a special department to focus specifically on Zionism.” Tabarovsky exposes them, “the Soviet anti-Zionist campaign of 1967-1988 was a campaign of propaganda and disinformation.” In 1975, several years of propaganda by the Soviets led to the passage of the nefarious UN resolution declaring, “Zionism is a form of racism.” Tabarovsky explains that the resolution, “succeeded at emptying Zionism of its meaning as a national liberation movement of the Jewish people.” In other words, the declaration that Zionism is racism by the collective representatives of humanity was literally the physical attempt to undo the State of Israel.

Tabarovsky continues, “The messaging emanating from today’s far-left anti-Zionist camp is strikingly similar to the messaging of the Soviet anti-Zionist campaigns. From the claims of Zionist collaboration with the Nazis in the Holocaust, to the idea of Zionism as an inherently racist and oppressive ideology, to the concept of Israel as a settler-colonialist state that engages in genocidal behavior and apartheid – all of these ideas were part and parcel of the Soviet anti-Zionist narrative.” Today, Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda is quoted word-for-word by groups like the Democratic Socialists of America, Students for Justice in Palestine, and American Muslims for Palestine. All of these organizations officially endorse a movement to boycott Israeli products called, the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanction (BDS) movement.

The goal of the BDS movement is the destruction of Israel poorly disguised as a campaign for Palestinian rights. The BDS movement makes three demands on Israel: 1. The end of the occupation. 2. Equal rights for Arabs in Israel. 3. The Palestinian Right of Return. The “Palestinian Right of Return” refers to the Arab refugees of The 1948 War. The idea is that Israel should be boycotted until, “the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes,” is implemented inside Israel. But the demand goes beyond the original refugees and asserts that anyone who is the descendant of Palestinians refugees has the right to citizenship in Israel. The Palestinian Right of Return demands that millions of Palestinians should be granted citizenship in Israel.

The principle behind the right of return is that Palestinians should have the right to decide who becomes a citizen of Israel, instead of the Jewish people. Or, in reality, that Palestinian self-determination should replace Jewish self-determination in the territory of Israel. The end result would be the removal of the sole Jewish State, and its replacement with the twenty-third Arab state. In other words, The Palestinian Right of Return is a euphemistic way of calling for the destruction of Israel without sounding violent. Even President Obama stated, “the right of return would extinguish Israel as a Jewish state.”

Again, the attempt to destroy Israel isn’t just an empty threat, to this very day there is an ongoing international campaign to bring about the downfall of the State of Israel. Students for Justice in Palestine has 200 chapters, their stated goal is the destruction of Israel and its replacement with Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. The campaign to undo Israel is still alive and kicking, it comes from different directions, but the left’s hatred of Israel began with Karl Marx.

Sources:

  1. The Communist Manifesto
  2. On The Jewish Question
  3. Marx’s view on religion is contained in the introduction to his essay, “A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right.”
  4. For more information on Marx and his relationship to the Jewish people:
  1. Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews: By James Carroll 
  2. A History of the Jews: By Paul Johnson
  3. Crash Course in Jewish History: By Ken Spiro

 

About the Author
Daniel Swindell is a Zionist. He has a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Missouri, and has studied in Yeshiva.
Comments