The Israeli Revolution

 

By: Jonathan Seidel

                                                            The Israeli Revolution

Revolutions are fought for change. Modern democracy emerged from bloody wars. The vision and ideal of equality inspired many to combat the hierarchical inequity advocated by the classist system. Yet not every revolution was a success. Some revolutions had dire consequences that led to terrible futures. There are two revolutionary models: the American Revolution and the French Revolution. This essay will use the Israel independence war as a test case. 

The American Revolution drew from colonial distress with the British monarchy. England believed they owned the colonies and taxed them heavily. Colonists grew weary as the distance and development increased over time. Colonists grew more independent and Britain despised it. Britain attempted to impose greater control. Britain asserted the colonies were indebted to them for saving them during the French and Indian War a decade earlier. British debt layered heavy taxes with the infamous stamp act of 1765 on the colonies. Colonial protest grew and Britain did not respond well. The Boston massacre elevated colonial ire. They were not treated fairly and the colonists wished to be liberated from British imposition. The colonists were not represented despite taxation. Sparking rebellion, Britain responded by hurting all the colonies to compensate for the rebel’s mess, only angering and isolating more colonists. The nail in the coffin was King George’s speech that the colonies were rebelling. Now there was no turning back. 

The power of this revolution lies in the inalienable rights the colonists believed they were endowed. Yet, their source in the Bible seems to have not only prompted their rebellious nature, it led to a proper transition to a democratic country. Byrd demonstrates the colonial use of Scripture to endorse the war. Not just as a justification but as an immanent force in battle. God was with them. Thomas Paine’s famous “Common Sense” pamphlet references the Bible to empower his point. He used the story of anointing a king in place of the prophet Samuel to disengage from the British monarchy. Despite Samuel’s clear discomfort and anger, his response is affirmative but conditional. Despite Pain’s personal antagonism to the Bible, he recognised its importance under the circumstances. Religious leaders could inspire rebellion for liberation. Clergy intensified meaning for patriots. 

The French Revolution on the other hand arose from social inequality. The classist system needed to be marred and erased. Wealthy commoners called the bourgeoisie wished for more political power over the dynastic aristocracy. The power of enlightenment philosophy promoted liberty and equality, affecting many peasants who sought this fair play. Economic issues spread across the country furthering the crisis and disturbance. The peasants suffered but the nobility thrived. The nobility unsuccessfully curbed the financial crisis yet retained their wealth and lavish style.

The enlightenment and philosophy pervaded French liberation. They rushed their lives to implement the enlightenment ideals. Philosophers drew the ire of the French people and inspired them with utopian ideals. They inspired citizens to choose their destinies and the social construct. Philosophy’s role was dominant in its attempt to restructure French society. Rousseau’s philosophy led substantially to the revolution. He was so popular and France. His support for the revolution only gave more prowess to the patriots. His social contract empowered peasants done with the feudal system living in horrid conditions. The French rebellion was headed by enlightenment ideas.

These two revolutions had divergent results. The American Revolution led to a stable democratic state and the French Revolution led to a bloody following called the reign of terror. The position of this author is due to the grounding in bible vs philosophy. Philosophy is important and empowering but philosophers must be careful. Rousseau’s mistake was promoting a utopian dream that could only lead to inevitable oppression. Marx made the same mistake. Equalising and liberation via philosophy regards autonomy as the primal force of ethical conduct. The greedy will take advantage of the weak. The rebels will steal power and make it for themselves. It is too anthropocentric. The result led to Napoleon’s tyranny. The French Revolution attempted to start anew. To reject the old for the new. Starting from scratch forcefully only condemns others and coerces them. 

The American Revolution alternatively, employed the Bible. Yet, it is more than just the Bible but the traditions and attitudes. Washington did not seek revenge but liberty. An honour and respect. The stories of old inspired hope and integral values to persist. They valued the old in the form of chain novel-like style. The old will be re-envisioned into the new. The patriots sought a new reality that protected based on the old stories. 

Which category does Israel fall into? Despite the socialist strands of Israel, there is a mark of biblical power that emanates from the top. Disregarding Ben-Gurion’s own biblical-historical opinions, it is more about the war and revolution’s ideals. Thinkers such as Ahad Ha’am promoted cultural zionism. Zionism was not just about survival but Jewish return and renewal. The surge of Jewish independence was prompted by biblical prowess. Zionism utilised the bible as the core of their past and future. Zionism cared more for the Bible than the Talmud. Ben Gurion became more enamoured by the bible. Finding more meaning in its study and resolution. He quoted the bible to advocate for Israeli agricultural growth. Jewish spirit was more empowering than the minute Jewish weapons. Ben Gurion cited prophetic teachings and spiritual verses to bolster Israel. His Zionistic thinking overshadowed his socialistic ideology. Prior to the Sinai war, he centred on zionism totally. He even eschewed the zionist philosophy of Herzl, instead opting for biblical narratives of Joshua and David. 

Ben Gurion is not the end all be all of Israeli thinking but as the prime minister and leader for many years his philosophy was very persuasive. He differed from Ha’am and other Jewish thinkers. The result of the war led to a biblically centric country. Ironically the left had authority for most of Israel’s early history. Not until the 80s did the right become prominent. The socialist powerhouse did not negate the Jewish rotes. The jewish spirit continued to formulate under the common law parliamentary model. Israel uniquely did not adopt a written constitution, its values were central to its growth. The political structure does not mitigate the cultural merits. Its democratic core inspired by its biblical roots enforces ethical implementation.