PREFACE
Sivan 29th was the Yahrzeit of Profeser
Dr. Yakov Yisroel De-Haan Z”L
Fifty years have passed since he was deliberately struck
down by the murderous bullets of the Zionists appointed
for this assassination.
His fight against Zionism was so determined because
his devotion to Torah Judaism was so deep and although
he was repeatedly warned of the danger, selflessly and
fearlessly he went forth to do battle with the prime
adversary envisaged as the salvation of the whole Jewish
People; a consoling dream yearned for; a hope awaited.
Professor De-Haan understood Zionism for what it really
is. He sensed it, he recognized it and made hiss life
a mission to combat it. It is this life of Professor
De-Haan which true Religious Jews will never forget;
his tragic death they will always remember.
He was, perhaps, not rightly appreciated in his lifetime.
He had opposition from his own circles. The Aguda, under
whose banner he fought and whose creation was primarily
to combat Zionism, was already showing the seeds which
are now so apparent. The tendency to go along with the
stream had started-if not yet in full swing as now,
at least not too far behind. The "Israelite"
of Frankfurt, the cradle of that deep misconception
of a fusion of Torah and Western culture, could not
appreciate nor even understand the straightforward Messiras-Nefesh
of De-Haan whose soul alone defied and overpowered the
narrow avenues of worldly thought with which this Professor
of International law was so well acquainted but which
he had transcended and left behind completely.
The Zionists, however, did appreciate that great man
to the full. They saw in him their implacable opponent:
in his devotion to true Judaism-a challenge: in his
outstanding ability-a supreme danger: in his determination
their cue for action. They concluded that only their
murderous bullets would rid them of that problem and
they had recourse to them. cowardly and in cold blood.
Professor De-Haan should be remembered the more at this
juncture when the all-embracing Zionist Tummoh has become
so established, so popular and so universally acclaimed.
When all hands are dropped, when all strength is exhausted,
when all truth is gone, when klall Yisroel is ruled
by stupidity and lies, Professor De Haan's memory should
be given more and more prominence. His body, pouring
blood, carried in the darkness of night should be pictured
on every wail. The last feeble beats of his pure heart
should forever sound with the rhythm of re-awakening
and revival.
Many thanks to Mr. E. Marmorstein who was willing, and
indeed found it his duty, to write down in this narrative
the facts about the life and death of Professor De-Haan
in a moving and descriptive manner. 8y now, when Zionism
is moving slowly but surely in the realm of the past
it is even more important that the facts about this
episode in Jewish history should be known.
Professor De-Haan was a message. His martyr's death
demands constant awareness. It is a ceaseless voice
piercing the heavy silence into which we are sunken.
His grave echoes a call to the living not to forget
that we are Jews whose Jewishness has set out to eliminate
and to destroy. The tragic end of Professor De-Haan
Z”L is a lasting memorial of the opposition to
Zionism, to its achievements, to its State and to all
that goes with it.
Many have died, unfortunately, for the cause of the
Zionist idol. He is one who gave his life to defy it.
There were others who gave much in the fight against
this all pervading Tummoh. He gave his all. And when
the Zionist achievements will be gone and forgotten,
when his murderers will have vanished from the face
of the earth, the name of Reb Yaaakov Yisroal Ben Yitzchok
Isaac De-Hann will stand out supreme-a shining star.
His is the place of honour forever, amongst the great
of our People.
Shvat 5735 (1975)
Tomchei Neturei Karta
London, England
A MARTYr'S MESSAGE
According to Tudus of Rome (T.B. Pesachim 53b) the
plague of frogs inspired Hananiah Mishael and Azariah
to court death in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3): since,
they reasoned, the frogs, who were not commanded to
lay down their lives for the sanctity of the Divine
Name, entered the ovens of Egypt, we who have been so
commanded must surely emulate them. This argument was
questioned by Rabbi Jonathan Eybeschutz on the grounds
that the frogs were also obeying orders-"and they
shall go up and come into your house and into your bedroom
and upon your bed and into the house of your servants
and upon your people and into your ovens and your kneading-
(Exodus 8,3). In reply to his own question, he suggested
that the frogs were not divided into separate detachments,
each with its specific objective: all were therefore
free to prefer the luxury of Pharaoh's bedroom, where
they could croak in his ears all night in comfort, to
the heat of the ovens; and only from those who chose
the most dangerous way of obeying the Divine Will did
Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah derive their a minori
ad majus conclusion.
On the analogy of the frogs, we who would rather discuss
and describe the Wars of the Lord than participate in
them -I mean of course, myself- are constantly challenged
and rebuked by the heroism of Jacob Israel De-Haan.
Granted, however. that a sense of guilt partly underlines
my initiative in arranging a modest celebration of the
fiftieth anniversary of his death, it hardly accounts
for the fascination he has held for me since the morning
not long past my fifteenth birth day-when the words
"De-Haan ist ermordet" greeted my father on
our arrival at prayer, I was soon to hear more of him
in Galanta, where I spent part of the summer holidays
under the instruction of Reb Leib Deutsch , the son
of my father's former teacher, Reb Mandel Deutsch' who
then lived in Jerusalem-he was the (second) father-in-law
of Rabbi J. H. Sonnenfeld. I was told, in considerable
detail, how Reb Mandel had defied the direst threats
to deliver a eulogy at the graveside, as well as something
of the character and nature of the man for whose sake
menaces were ignored. But it was not until my own arrival
in the Holy City (1934) that I could form a more distinct
impression of him. Long conversations with people whose
recollections of him were still quite vivid-Muslims
and Christians as well as Jews-revealed "a small,
plump, blond-bearded man in his early forties",
a congenial companion as well as a talented poet and
witty feuilletonist, whose passion for truth endeared
him to his friends and raised a host of enemies. Furthermore,
I gained a superficial knowledge of his background and
professional career.
He was born in Smilde (Holland) in 1881 and spent his
childhood in Zaandam, where his father was employed
as cantor and teacher by the local community. His early
development roughly resembles that of many of his Western
and Central European contemporaries, clever boys born
into conventional Judaism and estranged from it shortly
after leaving the parental home in the pursuit of wider
opportunities of advancement. While training for the
teaching profession, he began to attract attention in
literary circles. Among the admirers of his poetry was
a (non-Jewish) physician, Johanna van Marseveen, whom
he subsequently married. She subsidized his legal studies,
which led to his appointment as a university lecturer.
He joined the Social Democrats: his membership of a
party delegation to Russia resulted in a book on the
condition of political prisoners in Tsarist jails; and
in February 1918 he attended the conference in Amsterdam
at which the forthcoming peace negotiations came under
review. Soon afterwards he renounced Socialism. The
publication of Het Joodsche Lied (the Jewish song) had
marked the start of his return to a Judaism more fervent
than that of his childhood environment. He was now attached
to a group of religious Zionists associated with the
Mizrachi, which, towards the end of 1919, feted him
as the first Dutch Jew to settle in Palestine under
Zionist auspices. There he earned his living as correspondent
of the Amsterdam Algemeen Hdndelsblad and (from 1923)
the London Daily Express. He also lectured at the Government
Law College in Jerusalem.
Throughout his first year, his popularity as a speaker
proved an asset to the Mizrachi, which had recently
established branches. Nevertheless, in the latter half
of 1921, he was writing to the effect that adherence
to it was justified anywhere in the world except Palestine
or, in other words, that the party's approach to Judaism,
dominated as it was and is so largely by feelings of
ethnic solidarity, could be no more than a prelude to
the personal experience of the Divine that meticulous
observance of the commandments in the Holy Land can
offer. The breach with the ideals of the Zionist movement
was drawing nearer, and it was aggravated by his satirical
comments on its leadership's political judgements and
tactics-he shared the Western intellectual's contempt
for less sophisticated varieties of the secular pattern
of thought.
To describe him as coming under Rabbi Sonnenfeld's influence
would be a dilution of the rare quality of a disciple's
humble submission to his master. In total surrender
to the overriding claims of the Holy Torah, pride was
stripped from him as, under the master's guidance, he
became increasingly sensitive to the enormity of guilt
and the boundless compassion inherent in the Divinely
granted power of reconciliation through contrition.
"Let the wicked forsake his way and the man of
iniquity his thoughts" (Isaiah 55, 7). The moralists,
to whose writings he was now directed, laid special
emphasis on repentance from sinful thoughts on the grounds
that they were sooner forgotten and neglected than sinful
actions. One of their remedies was to record sins of
thought as well as deed on paper and inspect the list
regularly in order to atone for the past and resist
in future. De-Haan became an exponent of creative confession.
In addition to prolonged prayer and rigorous fasting,
he refined his conscience by illustrating the war of
the impulses and the contest between faith and unbelief,
in fact, the struggle for his own soul, in moving quatrains.
He could certainly have said, with the Psalmist (.51,
3), "my sin is ever before me". His penance
was completed by his public life in the few years left
to him, when he might well have echoed the Psalmist
in another context: "I have become a stranger to
my brethren and an alien to my mother's children, for
zeal for Thy house has consumed me and the reproaches
of those who reproach Thee have fallen on me" (69,
8 and 9). He was in need not only of "delivery
out of the mire lest I sink' but also of protection
"from those that hate me" (69, 14).
Rabbi Sonnenfeld, for his part, had reason to regard
De-Haan's allegiance as providential. The community,
which he had been practically coerced into leading,
was formed under a regime headed by a Zionist High Commissioner
and pledged to implement the Balfour Declaration. Whatever
else that document may or may not have implied, it certainly
recognized Jews as a national entity rather than, as
in Ottoman times, a religious body; and it thereby paved
the way for the conquest of the communities, which would
seem to have been the primary aim of the Zionists in
the early years of the Mandate. They did, in fact, achieve
it to a very considerable extent: with government encouragement,
deriving not only from their constitutional position
under the mandatory regime but also from the general
tendency of British colonial policy to prefer indirect
to direct rule, they created ostensibly representative
institutions in preparation for a single Jewish community
under their control. More surprising, in view of the
fall in numbers and resources as a result of war-time
privation, was the extent of opposition on the part
of the pre-war inhabitants. In a letter dated 22nd February,
1922, Artur Ruppin, who had been sent to direct Zionist
activity in the country in 1907, noted that a Zionist
newspaper's campaign against their schemes was attracting
support "particularly among the Orthodox and the
Sephardim, who were Zionism's open opponents in the
past and are now its concealed opponents. Owing to the
opposition of the Orthodox and the Sephardim, the Elected
Assembly has had to he adjourned, and it is in the nature
of things that this has immediately brought about a
recognizable decline of its authority. I fear that thus
the organization of the Jewish population of Palestine,
which was proceeding well, has again been impeded. The
hope that the Jewish population-as an organized community-would
be empowered to levy taxes has also been disappointed
once more: were it fulfilled, the foundation stone would
be laid for the Jewish population's independence of
aid from abroad in respect of the financing of its communal
institutions" (Pirqe Hayyay, Tel Aviv 1968, III
p.32). Subsequently, many of the Orthodox and most of
the Sephardim, who then together constituted a majority,
succumbed to the familiar mixture of inducement and
intimidation, leaving Rabbi Sonnenfeld and his following
almost isolated. Indeed, with the exception of the Agudah,
whose Jerusalem branch their community virtually became,
they had not a single avowed ally anywhere in the world.
Rabbi Sonmenfeld, who together with many of his contemporaries,
had been denouncing Zionism on theological grounds ever
since it had first come to his notice, was now compelled
to defend his community's right to provide the facilities
which every organized Jewish community makes available
to its members; and since administrative policy and
practice were usually involved in the issues under discussion,
he required a loyal and well-versed lawyer to plead
in the courts, advise delegates to conferences, draft
petitions and memoranda, study proposals and precedents
and explain the general situation in answer to sympathetic
inquiries. For instance, the Zionists attempted to secure
the automatic transfer of the real estate with which
Jewish religious and charitable institutions had been
endowed, from the Qadi’s supervision, where it
had safely rested under Ottoman rule, to that of their
own Rabbinate; but the publication of the text of the
decree in the official gazette aroused such a storm
of protest -including a cable to the Colonial Office
from Rabbis Sonnenfeld and Diskin- that it was amended
to exempt institutions registering within a year at
the Public Trustee's office. Rabbi Moses Blau, the faithful
assistant of Rabbi Sonnenfeld and his first biographer,
reports that several institutions unconnected with his
community took advantage of this arrangement (Amuda
di-Nehora, Jerusalem 1932 p,75). Another issue on which
Rabbi Sonneafeld felt strongly was that of a separate
Shehitah. Here there were no legal restrictions, but
hundreds of families had banned meat from their homes
before the administrative pretexts that prevented the
community from organizing its own meat supply in Jerusalem
were set aside (ibid. p.76). The third issue arose when,
after the Zionist-controlled councils had been granted
the power of taxation, a tax of two piasters on every
rutl (three kilos) of unleavened bread was levied. Rabbi
Blau's detailed description of the resistance to it
highlights the year-long court case and the plebiscite
conducted by the District Commissioner among the 1.600
householders listed as members of the community. The
first was lost, with defense counsel, De-Haan, paying
the hundred pound fine out of his own pocket, but the
second resulted in an award to the community of a share
in the tax proceeds calculated on the basis of its proportion
of the Jewish population-despite its objection on principle
even to this indirect form of partnership. It took seven
years for the government to annul the tax throughout
the country (ibid. 77-79).
The struggle centred round the proposed Communities
Ordinance, and the community waged it from a weak legal
position. Jews seeking to opt out of the community organized
for them by the Zionists could hardly appeal either
to the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed only “the
civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish
communities”, or to the text of the Mandate, whose
fourth article recognized the Zionist Organization as
an official agency and entrusted it with the task of
advising the Government about everything connected with
the realization of `the National Home'. Nevertheless,
the petition drafted by De-Haan and signed on the community's
behalf by Rabbis Bernstein and Jungreis began by thanking
the League of Nations for its "approval of that
magnificent declaration which promises to give to the
suffering and wandering Jewish people- the possibility
of returning and rebuilding a faithful home in the land
of its two thousand years' yearning to which it has
been devoted notwithstanding its compulsory separation
there from for nigh twenty centuries." Moreover,
this preamble was relevant to the "observations"
which it heralded. They were to the effect that the
reconstruction of the country was hampered by the Jewish
Agency's refusal to co-opt a representative of the million
orthodox Jews enrolled under the banner of the Agudah
and by the denial of religious freedom to "the
pioneers of the present settlement and its institutions",
who "have been led to organize their community
independently, being convinced that only by this course
could the future preservation of the Jewish religion
be assured in the country, and that by independence
alone could disputes and quarrels be avoided".
This petition, which was discussed during the seventh
session of the League's Mandates Commission, was moderately
successful: although the requests for amendments to
Article 4 of the Mandate were never granted, the appeal
to natural justice, religious freedom and the smooth
performance of the most difficult of the Mandate's tasks
eventually resulted in a modus vivendi whereby Jews
in the Holy City could opt out of the general community
and lead an independent communal life in accord with
their consciences. But it was a long-drawn-out affair.
De-Haan was actively engaged in it to his last hour,
and many of the faithful have believed that he sacrificed
his life for it.
The Zionist press campaign against him would seem to
have begun with Lord Northcliffe's visit to Jerusalem.
Ruppin, who, together with three other leading Zionists,
spent half-an-hour with him, noted in his diary (7.2.22)
that his recent stay in India had instilled in the press
magnate's mind the view that "Islam was a great
power" and that Zionism was one of the many causes
of British unpopularity among the Muslims. Judging from
Ruppin's solitary comment that "this conversation
will not have the slightest effect-either to the advantage
or disadvantage of Zionism" (Pirqe Hayyay III p.31),
Northcliffe was not considered a serious menace in Zionist
circles. Yet when he received delegates of the independent
Orthodox Community, De-Haan, who had made the arrangements,
was furiously denounced as a `traitor'. This agitation
provoked Rabbi Sonnenfeld to issue, for the first time,
a statement to the press. After acknowledging that the
delegation bad been formed on his instructions and spoken
"words that need to be said", he reaffirmed
his own devotion to the sacred cause of Jewish settlement
in the Holy Land and the conviction of his adherents
that it would be best promoted by “a just law
granting complete freedom to all communities and religions”.
The delegation's purpose, he continued, was to “oppose
the Zionist leaderships desire to subdue the communities
and administer us with the sceptre of rulers against
our will and our opinions” and to join in the
World Aguda's protest against the Zionist denial of
its right to he represented in the Jewish Agency for
Palestine; and the statement ends with a brief summary
of the doctrine attributing Exile to sin and Redemption
to penitence (Amuda di-Nehora pp.70-72). The identity
of the delegates' pleas as expressed here in Hebrew
with those subsequently formulated in English in the.
petition to the League of Nations tends to support my
inference that Rabbi Sonnenfeld himself decided the
community's policy and strategy.
So does the delegation he led in person to the Sharif
Husayn. Its intent was, in accordance with tradition,
appeasement of a ruling family in hope of a measure
of future protection. There was an exchange of courtesies
rather than views: the Rabbi recited the customary benediction
on beholding human majesty, and the Sharif conferred
on him membership of the Order devised for such occasions.
An immediate result was the renewal of press agitation
against De-Haan and his entry into Zionist mythology
as `the Jewish Lawrence'. As this ridiculous comparison
survives up to the time of writing, I might perhaps
report that my own investigations revealed neither Arab
nationalist feelings on his part nor, notwithstanding
questions designed to ellicit it, a breath of scandal.
Admittedly, he was then remembered among Arab acquaintances
for his affable manner, lively conversation, diligent
study of literary Arabic and insight into the social
and political conditions of the region. Yet his repeated
argument in the course of negotiations with the authorities
that the grant of taxation rights to the Zionist councils
would lead the Arab Executive to demand similar powers
is hardly one that an Arab partisan would put forward.
At that time, indeed, when he warned Colonel Kisch of
the Zionist Executive (in a letter dated 16th May, 1923)
that "the Arab problem becomes more and more serious
every day" and that therefore "troubles amongst
the Jews should be avoided" (Central Zionist Archives,
file S25/583), his efforts to cultivate the friendship
of Arab notables, as well as Rabbi Sonnenfeld's approval
of them, were prompted by grave anxiety for the fate
of Orthodox Jews, whose proximity to Arab quarters and
sheer helplessness singled them out as the readiest
victim of outbreaks of violence. Unfortunately, their
fears were justified.
Religious hatred, which, owing to our many sins, found
paths in several lands abroad, had no place in this
land, which is hallowed above all other lands. He who
makes peace in His heights spread His tabernacle of
peace over the land and city which He chose, and there
was neither outbreak nor outcry in our streets. Neighbouring
notables respected Jews, and Jews felt friendship and
esteem for the rest of the inhabitants, and in no few
cases was one section helped by the other, as is fit
and proper among peaceful neighbours who together desire
the success of the land where they dwell.
(Amuda di-Nehora, p.86).
These are the opening words of a message entitled "Words
of Peace and Truth" which Rabbi Sonnenfeld composed
under the shadow of the 1929 massacres. No doubt today
they are liable to be dismissed as a timely expression
of nostalgia on the part of an octogenarian whose experience
of insecurity and oppression during the sixty of his
years spent in the Old City was now mercifully obliterated
by a medley of sweeter memories; but the evidence of
his clarity and steadfastness to the last favours their
acceptance as his assessment of the relationship between
Jews and Muslims at its best or, at any rate, his appreciation
of instances of kindness and consideration shown to
a defenceless group at the mercy of an excitable populace.
Deprived, to his sorrow, of his trusted and skilful
intermediary, the Rabbi felt stirred to make a personal
appeal for good-will and restraint, based on traditional
aversion to quarrels with the peoples of the world as
well as on traditional fear.
The final paragraph in the above-quoted letter to Kisch
ran as follows:
I got a letter (in a government envelope) telling me
that I shall be killed if I do not leave Palestine before
the 24th. I know that the question whether it is advisable
or not to kill me is seriously discussed in the circles
which you have the honour to represent".
De-Haan was not intimidated: he had predicted his assassination
by the Zionists to the Tharaud brothers when they visited
him several months before, and he appears to have cherished
his dismissal from the Law College (in the wake of Zionist
hooliganism at his lectures) and the pressure on the
Dutch newspaper to sever its connection with him as
signs that his penitence was acceptable. Yet while,
on his friends' testimony, he spent his last year on
earth in calm and deliberate preparation for martyrdom,
he did not interrupt his work or vary his daily routine.
On Monday, 30th June, 1924, he had completed his arrangements
to accompany an Aguda delegation, as legal adviser,
to London in order to present the community's objections
to the proposed Communities Ordinance at the Colonial
Office. After despatching his last message to the Daily
Express (6.5 p.m.) he made his way to the synagogue
in the Sha'arei Sedeq Hospital where he prayed twice
daily.
When the evening service was over and the worshippers
had reached the hospital gates, three shots rang out.
De Haan fell to the ground. His devoted friend, Dr.
Wallach, the hospital's founder and director, rushed
out to attend him, but his soul had already fled from
his blood-stained body. "When news of the murder
reached Rabbi Sonmenfeld", wrote another friend,
H. A. Goodman, "he tore his clothes in mourning.
De-Haan's funeral on the Mount of Olives was a demonstration
of the entire religious population against this strange
murder, for this was the first time in our generation
that Jew stretched out his hands against Jew. Rabbi
Sonnenfeld and many other Rabbis and communal leaders
came to grant him the final honour, all of them outraged
by the murder. During the seven days of mourning, representatives
of the Arab Executive and the Muslim-Christian Association
paid visits of condolence to Rabbi Sonnenfeld"
(Jewish Post, 6th May 1960). Furthermore, among the
eloquent eulogies published in the communal fortnightly
was a (translated) tribute from Musa Kazim Pasha al-Husayni,
the Mayor of Jerusalem.
Expressions of shock at the crime by the Government
and the Zionist Executive (who were also represented
at the funeral) were matched by their concern to prevent
the discovery of the criminals. The only Zionist of
note to publish an unequivocal condemnation, albeit
in a periodical with a restricted circulation, was Moses
Beilinson, who settled in the country at about that
time.
The movement's flag should not be stained by the blood
of either the innocent or the guilty. Otherwise, our
movement will be in bad way. For blood always attracts
bloodshed after it. Blood is always avenged, and if
a step is taken on this path, there is no knowing where
it might extend. We are strong enough to allow our enemies
to remain alive and, if they use illegitimate means,
to regard them with contempt; but we are not strong
enough to adopt methods of war liable to involve moral
destruction in the movement. Political sensitivity,
concern for the purity of our movement and moral feeling
compel us-irrespective of De Harm's personality or the
motives of the perpetrators of this action-to issue
a severe verdict on De-Haan's murder.
Most Zionist editorial writers found it easier to condemn
De-Haan: admittedly, the more `liberal' tended to pronounce
the victim -not his murderers- insane as they sorrowfully
shook their heads over the tragedy of -to descend to
their jargon- a man of education and talent falling
under the sway of mediaeval obscurantists. All evidently
agreed that in papers read exclusively by Jews there
was little point in pretending that the assassination
had been instigated, planned and carried out by non-Jews.
(For external consumption, the event was generally reported
as "shrouded in mystery"). A change came with
the hurried publication of a little book, by a party
hack with the effrontery to re-name himself Ben-Yishai.
The term ‘sublimation’ had obviously not
yet reached the ‘enlightened’ circles of
his home-town. Accordingly, be felt free to impute to
De-Haan the sins which the poet's Kwatrijnen were designed
to dispel even from his unguarded phantasy. This unscrupulous
propaganda line, which was calculated not only to defame
the murdered man but also to divert the murder-hunt
to Arab quarters, met with some success in the secularist
camp. Arnold Zweig relates how on 6th March 1932 he
was, to his surprise, convinced that “De Haan
war gar nicht von Arabern ermordet, sondern von einem
juden, einem politischen Gegner, einem radikalen Zionisten,
den viele Leute im Lande kennen und der noch dort lebt”
(Sigmund Freud-Arnold Zweig Briefwechsel, Berlin 1968;
p. 55f). The next day Zweig began dictating his unilluminating
novel on the subject, “De Vriendt kehrt heim”,
which was published in Berlin at the end of 1932.
Among the faithful, however, no amount of Zionist propaganda
could shake De-Haan's credentials. They had themselves
witnessed his meticulous observance of the Divine precepts
and could testify to his flawless conduct, humility,
compassion and contrition. What proof could be more
valid than his adherence to, and acceptance by, their
spiritual leaders, his arduous endeavours in obedience
to their instructions and, above all, his death at the
hands of their enemies? I wish I could reproduce the
tone of reverence and affection in which he was mentioned
by the select hand of friends and admirers whom I was
twice priveleged to accompany to his grave on 29th Sivan.
And he is still commemorated-particularly by the Guardians
of the City, whose frail periodical has never allowed
this anniversary to pass without a hagiographical memoir.
Nor has the Other Side grown indifferent to him: over
the years its press agents continue to write about him
from time to time, their dreary and inaccurate articles
betraying ignorance of the nature of both penitence
and poetry and, more generally, reinforcing De-Haan's
disdain for their puny culture. Take the Haganah's eventual
confession in its official history (Toledoth Ha-Haganah,
Vol. 11 Part 1 1964 pp.251-3). The order allegedly came
from Joseph Hecht, who instructed Zachariah Urieli,
the Jerusalem commander, to have De Haan killed by the
smallest possible group; and a couple of (anonymous)
immigrants, too recent to have heard of De-Haan, answered
Urieli's call for volunteers. From this account, the
Haganah would appear to have been an autonomous force
free to inflict the death penalty without the Zionist
leadership's consent or even knowledge-and all on the
authority of a single individual, for the writer gives
us no indication of the composition of the court which
passed the sentence. He is content to cite the case
of Colonel Redl, an Austro-Hungarian staff officer who
was blackmailed into selling military secrets to the
Russians, and to assert, without a shred of evidence,
that De-Haan had been similarly induced to collaborate
with the Arab Executive. Analogies, however far-fetched,
with the peoples of the world are, of course, part of
the Zionist mystique; but the comparison with Redl is
even more ludicrous than that with T. E. Lawrence, who
at least shared with De-Haan an acquaintance with the
Arabic language. Published verses on the Divinely-contrived
conflict in the human heart scarcely expose the poet
to blackmail; Zionist secrets, whether military, political
or economic, were inaccessible to him; and the idea
of anyone 'using' Rabbi Sonnenfeld is as conceivable
as a plan for manipulating Mount Everest. De-Haan may
perhaps be haunting the inward points of his enemies'
souls and demanding to be exorcised by their acknowledgement
of the Truth.
However, the quality of Zionist propaganda is of very
minor importance to us; that our heroes are their villains
and vice versa lies at the root of our situation; and
we ought to be more perturbed by efforts to blur the
differences. Fundamentally De-Haan was murdered for
publicizing these differences, for advertising to the
world what the Zionists want to suppress, the fact that
there are Jews who love Zion passionately and hate Zionists
as defilers and despoilers of Zion. Accordingly, our
homage is to be paid to the penitent who rose from the
idol's feet to spit in its face and sacrificed his life
to rescue the faithful from its clutches. In these uncertain
times when Satan, having lavishly fullfilled his side
of the bargain, is feared to be about to exact his price,
the martyr's intercession is sorely needed. May the
memory of his sacrifice mount to the Throne of Glory,
arouse Heaven's compassion for the Remnant of Israel
and hasten the Redemption of Zion, Amen.
BACKGROUND NOTES
1. The Zionist furore over Rabbi Sonnenfeld's visit
to the Sharif Husayn must be understood in the light
of Arab nationalism's liberal phase. Most of the anti-Zionist
declarations drawn up by Arab leaders in the early twenties
distinguished between Jews and Zionists; and the generosity
of their sentiments induced some Oriental Jews to add
their signatures to anti-Zionist petitions. In 1923,
a group of them met in one of their synagogues to protest
against Zionist rule and call for Jewish-Arab friendship.
The Zionist leadership was shocked and alarmed by this
demonstration, which it managed to keep out of the newspapers.
However, the 1929 outbreak put an end to this development:
their own losses forced the vast maiority of Zionism's
Jewish opponents, both European and Oriental, to rely
on Zionist ‘protection’.
2. Zionist newspapers have named the assassins as Abraham
Krichevski (Giora) and Abraham Silberg (Tahomi)-the
former is said to have died in Tel Aviv in 1942, the
latter to have emigrated to California-and identified
Isaac Ben-Zwi, his wife, Rachel Yanait, Moses Eisenstadt
and Aviezer Yellin as prominent in the Haganah's Jerusalem
branch at the time. Hecht, to whom the Haganah's historian
ascribes the sole responsibility for the order to kill
De-Haan, was dismissed from his command by the Zionist
leadership as the result of an investigation into the
Haganah's failure to give prior warning of the 1929
outbreak.
|