Pardo 2004 Al e Ahmad Velayat

Eldad J. Pardo, "Israel as a Role Model for the Iranian Left in the 1960s," (in Hebrew) Iyunim Bitkumat Israel (Studies in Israeli and Modern Jewish Society) 2004, pp. 337-365. Abstract Aspects of the cultural relations between Iran and Israel in the 1960s are examined through the perspective of official visitors from Iran to Israel. An annotated translation to Hebrew of a large excerpt from the Iranian writer Jalal Al-e Ahmad’s travel notes, first published in Iran in 1964, follows. The fascination of Iranian intellectuals with Israel as a successful, authentic, socialist and Eastern country is discussed in the first part, which serves as an introduction to the translation. A description of the Universalist dimension of Zionism as reflected in the writings of David Ben-Gurion, the founder of modern Israel, is presented. BenGurion believed that the redemption of the Jewish people and the deliverance of the entire world could not be separated from one another. Based on the vision of the Hebrew Bible’s prophets, Ben-Gurion called for the creation of an ideal society in Israel and the dissemination of the Israeli experience around the world, especially in the Third World. This effort, he believed, would lead to world peace and with it, peace in the Middle East. It is argued that Israeli ideological fervor influenced the Iranian visitors. A discussion of the Iranian cultural situation follows, focusing on the search for identity and authenticity alongside the budding reconciliation of leftist modernists with religion and the clergy. It is argued that one possible purpose of Al-e Ahmad in writing his Israel travel notes had been to convince both the clergy and the leftists in Iran that a fusion of national authenticity, religiosity, socialism, democracy and modernity is workable and Israel could serve as a fine example. Hence, he describes the Israeli leadership as heirs to the prophets. Finally, the text itself is rendered preceded by a discussion on the sources as well as an introduction to the term velayat chosen by the writer to describe the State of Israel. The manifold semantic fields of this term, religious and secular, are touched upon (guardianship, government, state, love and loyalty of and to the Shi’I Imams, among others). A suggestion is raised as to a possible inspiration of Al-e Ahmad’s description of Israel as velayat to the concept of a clergy-run theocracy, velayat-e faqih (the Guardianship of the Jurisprudent), later to be developed by Ayatollah Khomeini.

1

Jalal Al-e Ahmad

A Trip to the Velāyat of Israel Translated and annotated by Eldad J. Pardo Source: Jalal Al-e Ahmad’s “Safar beh Velāyat-e Esrā’il.” Published in Iran as Safar beh Velāyat-e ‘Azrā’il in 1984. Written while/following a trip, which took place in 1962 and originally published in an Iranian journal Andisheh va Honar in 1964.

Introduction When I refer to velāyat, I am using the term with two meanings: First, the polity (or government, hokūmat)1 of the Jews in the land of Palestine is a form of “velāyat” and not a “state” (doulat). This is the polity of the new auliā’ of the Children of Israel in the Promised Land. It is not the polity of the inhabitants of Palestine governing Palestine. The first contradiction emanating from the very existence of the polity of Israel is as follows: it is a nation (mellat) or a people (qoum),2 observers of a religion, survivors of the twelve tribes3 – or whichever attribute you choose – that throughout history, tradition and myths4 has undergone vagabonding and cherished aspirations that it finally managed to fulfill by settling down in a land that is neither especially hospitable 1

Throughout this translation hokūmat was rendered either as “polity” or as “government,” according to what appeared best suiting the context. 2 Qowm (qawm in Arabic) is used in the Qur’an for the Children of Israel, often when addressed by the prophets, such as Abraham and Moses, also mentioned in this text. Quran, 2:54, 60, 67; 29:16; 61:5, and in the context of the Holy Land, 5:20-21. 3 The twelve tribes, davazdah-ye sabt, is the expression used in the original text (as published in Andisheh va Honar. p. 380). In the Shams edition (p. 47), the expression is darvazah-ye sabt, the gate of the tribe or the gate of the tribes. While the latter is most likely a typo, one cannot entirely rule that possibility either, especially since the Shams edition is based on the original handwriting. The Gate of the Tribes, Bab al-Asbat in Arabic, is a gate in North-Eastern corner of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, through which, according to the local tradition, the twelve tribes of Israel used to enter the Temple Mount to pray in the Temple before its destruction. The gate is situated close to Ma’dhanat BaniIsra’il (The Israelites Tower) and Birakat Isra’il (the Israel Pond). This area of Jerusalem, however, was part of Jordan during Al-e Ahmad’s visit to the city. 4

In Persian: dar tul-e tarikh va sonnat va asatir.

2

nor even so “promised.” This fulfillment was brought about by the pressure of the times, the political need, or the foresight of the auliā’ 5 and maybe because of the economy and uninterrupted investments – I will touch upon all these in due course. Now, it should be noted that while one may not dare to compare Israel’s new statesmen to Abraham, David, Solomon, and Moses,6 may they rest in peace, one can still comfortably call them, if not prophets (anbiyā’) then at least aulia’, and equate them with the rest of the one hundred and twenty four thousand prophets of Israel (peyghambar-e Esrā’il),7 of which we have picked out St. George as an example of miracles that never materialized.8 But look: in our own day and age a veritable miracle has been indeed wrought: and these are not just empty words for foreign consumption.9 Neither Ben-Gurion10 is inferior to Idris11, nor Moshe Dayan inferior to Yo’av,12 and these new auliā’, each with his prophecies or at least his foresighted visions, established in the land of Palestine a velāyat, opening its gates to invite into its midst all the Children of Israel, of whom two million live in New York and another eight million in other parts of the world. The crux of the realization of this miracle is that the Velāyat of Israel, with its two-plus million inhabitants of its long and narrow land, like it or not, rules and acts in name of twelve million Jews that are scattered around the globe. If one has to choose one example, we will point to the trial of Eichmann, whom Israeli agents captured in South America, brought to Israel, judged and executed him, and threw his ashes into the sea.13 And not only that; all this was done in the name of the six million Jews who had become the victims of the furnaces of Europe—contaminated 5

Leaders, saints, guardians, friends. Al-e Ahmad uses the Qur’anic forms of Ebrahim, Daud, Suleiman, and Musa. 7 Prophethood, according to Islam, started simultaneously with the creation of mankind. The large number of prophets in Islam—8,000, 24,000 or 224,000 anbiya’—emanates from the characterization by the Qur’an of many Biblical figures as prophets and the inclusion of additional unnamed prophets believed to be sent to various communities before Islam. Yohanan Friedman, Prophecy Continues: Aspects of Ahmadi Religious Thought and Its Medieval Background, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989, 50-53. 8 The author probably alludes to the Persian expression miyan-e peyghambaran jerj¥s ra entekhab kardan (to choose St. George among the prophets), which means to pick out the wrong example. In this context, Al-Ahmad probably suggests that some Iranians or Muslims prefer to pick and choose the negative (St. George /Jerj¥s) when describing Israel or the Jews instead of appreciating the abundant positive (offering the world 124,000 prophets). 9 In the oroginal: va bi hich lafi dar ghortbati. Al-e Ahmad alludes to the expression: laf dar ghorbat, avaz dar bazar-e mesgaran (boasting in foreign lands is like a sound in the coppersmiths’ market). 10 David Ben-Gurion, the founder of modern Israel, was Prime Minister during Al-e Ahmad’s visit. 11 In Islamic Shi’ite tradition, Idris is associated with Elija (Elias) and Elisha. 12 Al-Ahmad uses the original Hebrew form Yo’av (in Persian-Arab letters) for the Biblical Joab, King David’s commander in chief. 13 Adolf Eichmann’s trial began in Jerusalem on April 11, 1961. He was executed on May 31, 1962. Beginning Thursday, August 22, 1963—few months before the preparation of Velayat-e Esra’il—three of Tehran’s cinema theaters, Plaza, Royal and Sa’di, began showing a documentary on Eichmann’s trial, which included the entire presentations of the judge and prosecutor with Persian dubbing. The documentary is said to have left an enormous impact on the audiences who packed the theaters for the 1954 Israeli film Giv’ah 24 Einah ‘Onah (Hill 24 Doesn’t Answer) featuring a story from Israel’s War of Independence. Zvi Rafiah,’s report, no. 192, Aug. 23, 1963, Israel State Archives 14/3434/HZ. 6

3

by the leprosy of Fascism14—in the years prior to the establishment of the Velāyat of Israel, under the orders of a polity that today, even the Germans themselves are ashamed to mention its name, laws and customs. And this is what I call a miracle: something that is contrary to the common law and custom (‘orf va ‘ādat), to the common international law and to the custom of governments that even when assassinating Trotsky in Mexico,15 with a hammer blow, of a terrorist, a fanatic, they finish the job on the spot. 16 Be it as it may, there is no way around viewing Israel as a “velāyat” and its leaders as “auliā’,” because they march in the light of something that is superior to the Declaration of Human Rights.17 It is as if the spirit of YHWH 18 moves within their minds, and these prophecies... Moses, had he not killed a soul and had he not laid his head down in the desert, would not have found in his heart the brand of prophethood. 19 This is the Velāyat of Israel in one sense, as I said. In another, it means that Israel, the territory as it is, does not resemble anything reminiscent of a country, if by country we mean what we understand by this term, namely, something like a continent. In that sense, the Velāyat of Israel is a piece of land about the size of a span, similar to the province (velāyat) of Saveh20 in Iran, that is, less than eight thousand square miles. And how cruel is this land! If Moses, may he rest in peace, knew to what rocky wilderness he was leading his people and what kind of mockery the Jordan River is compared to Nile, he would probably never have entered his mind to label this “the promised land.” He would never have dragged his people along this torrid suffering for years and years.

14

Interestingly, Al-Ahmad follows the Soviet example of lumping together Nazism and Fascism under the title Fascism. Lev Davidovich Trotsky (Bornstein) (1879-1940), a prominent ideologue and leader of the October Revolution in Russia was assassinated August 21, 1940 in Mexico City by an acquaintance who is generally assumed to have acted on Stalin’s orders (EJ, Vol. 15, 1405). Trotsky was known for his opposition to Moscow’s hegemony and his call for a worldwide socialist revolution. This particular example reflects Al-e Ahmad’s owm disappointment with Soviet-style communism and the Iranian Tudeh party, which he and his mentor, Khalil Maleki, left in 1947 (?). 16 Al-e Ahmad’s sarcasm is clear: he begins his sentence describing how Eichmann’s illicit abduction contradicts “common law and custom,” but then describes this law and custom as a straightforward political assassination, without bothering about a proper trail. The Trotsky example he chooses allows him to send an arrow of criticism to the Soviet Union. 17 The reference here is probably to the original August 26, 1789 French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and not the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. In Gharbzadegi (p.19) he states that Western democracies are based on the principles of the French Revolution. 18 Al-e Ahmad here uses the Hebrew tetragrammaton YHWH (the Biblical God) in corresponding Arab-Persian letters. 19 Moses killing a man: Qur’an, Surat al-Qisas (28), 15-23, Exodus, 11-16. On the firebrand, in Persian: dagh-e peyambari bar sineh-ye khod nayaft. Compare: Qur’an, Surat al-Shura (42), 24, yakhtumu ala qalbika and Qur’an, Surat al-Tah (20), 25 referring to Moses, qala rabb, ishrah li sadri. The allusion appears to suggest, again, that while Israel is not perfect, sometimes, as in the case of Moses, higher spiritual cause may require doing things otherwise unacceptable. 20 Saveh used to be a velāyat (province) during the Qajar era. Today it is a county (shahrestān). 15

4

In our day and age, however, there are some tiny, but reputable (!) 21 countries such as Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Qatar, Kuwait, and the Principality of Monaco, and this soil-span of Israel is located at a distance of an outstretched hand from us—as we are part of the East too—like a fist on the table of the Fertile Crescent, it is a source of power and—for the same reason—a source of danger. Power or danger? The answer depends on how you look at the world. If you look at it through the eyes of the Arab leaders, Israel is in fact a danger to the prospects of establishing an indivisible Caliphate, which is a dream so many cherish since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. However… If you look at it through the eyes of an Easterner, such as myself—with no fanaticism, high rhetoric, or spirit of vengeance—and worried as I do about the future of the East, which stretches from Tel Aviv on the one side to Tokyo on the other, 22 and this is the very East that will be the arena of future events, a place of hope for a world tired of the West and Westoxication, in the eyes of such an Easterner, Israel, with all its flaws and all the contradictions hidden within it, constitutes a basis of power, a first step on the road to the glad tidings of a future that appears not to be that far away any more. These are the two meanings I refer to when I call Israel a “velāyat.” In this notebook, I will try to describe what I have learned about that “velāyat.” This is by no means for propagandistic purposes or to return the favor of having feasted in that velāyat. [I also have no intention of guiding the duplicitous policy of the Iranian government toward Israel, nor of hurting the Arabs—I do not do politics—]23 and this is not a travelogue or a diatribe log. My one and only goal is to inform you as to the position, the words, and the buts of a penman from this part of the world—a Persian speaker—vis-à-vis the existence of the new polity of the Children of Israel in a corner of the East. 24 But frankly, I would say right from the outset that if we put aside the tradition and the myths and all those old promises, and if we put aside all that transpired immediately before Israel established itself as a polity in this province (velāyat), which is a subject to be studied by historians, the polity of Israel in its current condition, as seen through the eyes of me, an Easterner, constitutes, for one, a sound bridgehead for the flow of Western investments into the East.25 The West that has reappeared in the East in a new form and under a new guise since World War II. I do indeed have a large bone to pick with Israel on this issue. Moreover, this constitutes a coarse embodiment of the 21

No question mark in the original Anidshe va Honar edition (p. 381). For a definition of the ancient Middle East, including the Jews (yahud), Gharbzadegi, p. 26. 23 The sentence in parenthesis does not appear in the original Anidshe va Honar edition (p. 381), and instead three dots were inserted […]. Arguably the reason for that is the expression “duplicitous policy” (siyasat-e doduzeh), which may have been deemed by somebody too bold for the times. 24 Elsewhere he describes Iran as “a corner of the East” (ma, ya’ni gushe’i az sharq). Gharbzadegi, p. 17. 25 Compare with Gharbazegi (pp.19-20) on the worldwide influence of Western “machinist” Western international companies in need for “bridgeheads.” 22

5

expiation for the crimes the Fascists committed during the war years in Dachau, Buchenwald, and the other furnaces. Note well: this is a crime, and the perpetrator of this crime is the Westerner, and I, the Easterner, have to pay the price. The Westerner exports the capital and I, the Easterner, provide the base. In this matter, too, I have much to say. Still, if we want to know the truth about all of this, Christianity made of Israel a curtain that it stretched out to separate itself from the world of Islam so that I would not see the real danger—that is how the Arabs were kept preoccupied.26 I must also take issue with the Arabs. The truth of the matter is that the refugees of Palestine, which have become a ball for the polo-stick of Arab politicians,27 it has been years since they have grown accustomed to living a parasitic life.28 But take another look and you will realize that it has now been more than ten years since this same Palestinian refugee has been paying for crimes that— in this hellish Balkh29—somebody else committed. Of the carved-up Ottoman Empire, this is the last chunk—Palestine— that had been put aside, a luscious morsel, and now it lies there like a “big stick” on a tablecloth stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Nile River. 30 Or maybe it is a scarecrow that keeps an eye out to make sure that no one tries to reach a hand or leg beyond his allocated place mat? I am also prepared to take another small step and ask: if, one day, the polity of Israel just vanishes, to what will the Arab leaders cling as the only obstacle to the establishment of Arab unity? Isn’t it true that very presence of Israel, as well as that fear, which they have instilled in the hearts of the Arabs, have become a reason for the border guards in this part of the world to hold onto despised unities and for conserving the internal integrity of their [countries]?31

26

Al-e Ahmad conveys a similar idea in his travelogue on his pilgrimage to Mecca a few years later, in 1964. Describing his thoughts one day during the Hajj, he says that the West made Israel its “faults blocker” (sattar al-‘uyËb) or concealment tool (vas¥leh-ye ekhtefå’). “They planted Israel in the midst of the Arab lands, so that the Arabs, in the presence of its inconveniences would forget the fundamental inconvenience and would not remember that the water and the fertilizer for the Israeli tree come from the Christian West: French and American capital as well as the support that the Pope of Rome has given them in the matter of taking away from them the curse of Christ, I think in a fatwa by John the twenty second.” Jalãl Ãl-e Ahamd, Khasi dar Miqãt [Lost in the Crowd], Tehrãn: Nil, 1966, 105. (My translation) Al-e Ahmad probably refers to the Nostra aetate, initiated by Pope John XXIII (1881-1963), but promulgated only on October 28, 1965, namely during the Papacy of Paul VI. Obviously Al-e Ahmad could not have reflected upon this document during his hajj, which took place before the promulgation. This paragraph, however, attests even more to Al-e Ahmad’s view of the West as a Christian force confronting Islam. For an English edition see Jalãl Ãl-e Ahamd, Khasi dar Miqãt [Lost in the Crowd], Tehrãn: Nil, 1966, translated by John Green, Washington, DC: Three Continents Press, 1985. 27 Since the Polo game, most likely invented by Iranians Polo-stick hitting a ball is a 28 For a similar attack on Arab politicians and the dragging of the solution of the refugee problem, see in Khasi dar Miqãt. 29 Al-e Ahmad has apparently alludes here to the Persian expression: hokm-e in divan-e Balkh ast, meaning “the judgment of this (evildoing) court (of the city) of Balkh.” 30 In Gharbzadegi (48-9), Al-e Ahmad compares the Middle East regimes to “big sticks” made out of the bones of the devoured Ottoman state in order to avert any possible popular uprising in Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon. 31 A criticism of Nasserism and pan-Arabism that also betrays a belief in pan-Islamism on the part of Al-e Ahamd. He criticizes “despised” unities, but also questions the legitimacy of maintaining the internal inner integrity of the countries concerned.

6

Another point is that, granted, I do see in this overly-displayed martyrdom of the Jews following the war massacres, the other side of the coin of Fascism, and basing [one’s argument] upon a racism that has taken its place. And yet, I also see that if you are fated to become a base [for the West], you should learn from Israel for it has sold itself expensively! If you are fated to marry faraway neighbors, ditto! And if you are fated to play the democratic game in a land that since the time God became God has been trampled under the boots of Godly and earthly Pharaohs [dictators] … again ditto. In any event, for myself as an Easterner, among all the examples that I see, Israel is the quintessential example of how to do business with the West. With spiritual might of a martyrdom how can we milk Western industries, how can we collect reparations, and how can we use the West’s investment monies for the development and prosperity of the country. Thus, for the price of few mornings of political dependency, we can consolidate our newly-established undertaking.32 And my last point is that this Persian-speaking Easterner has a view of the Jews that emanates from the depths of history. In the ancient days of Darius (Daryush) and Ahasuerus (Khoshayarsha),33 it was I who put Esther on her throne, chose Mordecai to be the Vizier, and gave the order to rebuild the Temple. 34 And even if sometimes, in the alleys and bazaars of Rey or Nishapur, and sometimes at the instigation of this or that governor out of spite, or for the benefit of a ruler, I was also involved in Jew-killing 35 (johūdkoshi), still the tomb of the prophet Daniel in Susa continues to work miracles, and that of Esther and Mordecai in Hamedan36 is no second to any true-born emāmzādeh.37 But let us not engage in the practices of holding under obligation and placing the burden of silly egoism on the shoulders of the People of God. I will only say that it is me, that this very prophet Daniel was a Vizier during a certain period of my

32

In Gharbzadegi (25-6) he provides a similar analysis for Japan, criticizing the Iranians for failing to follow that example. Al-e Ahmad’s Japan tried to compete with Russia and the West, economically and militarily, and ended up being punished by a nuclear attack. Now, Americans are investing in the Japanese industry both in search for new markets and in order to clean their conscience. 33 Khshayarsha, Xerxes I (485-465 BCE) the son of Darius I, is one possible historical figure to be the Book of Esther’s King Ahasuerus. Mordecai and Esther are the two protagonists of the Book of Esther, which serves as a basis for the Jewish holiday of Purim,, especially important among Persian Jews. 34 Darius I (522-486 BCE), considered himself an heir of Cyrus the Great (559-529 BCE) and hence was instrumental in the resumption of the construction of the second Temple (Ezra, 4-5). The Cyrus Declaration of 538 BCE constitutes a major turning point in Jewish history: it allowed the exiled Jews in Babylon to return to Palestine and rebuild the second Temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra, 1, 2-4; ibid., 6. 3-5). 35 The prophet Daniel (Danial), was, among other things, a close advisor to King Darius the Mede according to the Book of Daniel and prophesized about the coming of Cyrus. He features in many other sources from both the Jewish Islamic traditions. He is believed to be buried in Susa, Shustar, in the province of Khuzistan. Amnon Netzer and Parviz Varjavand, “The Prophet Daniel,” ,” in Houman Sarshar (Ed.), Esther’s Children, Los Angeles: Center for Iranian Jewish Oral History 2002, pp.13-18 36 Esther and Mordecai, the protagonists of the Book of Esther, are believed to buried in Hamedan in the province of Khusistan. Elias Yassi Gabbay, “Esther’s Tomb,” in Sarshar, Esther’s Children, pp.19-30. 37 An emåmzådeh (lit.: offspring of an Imam) is a shrine for a descendent of a Shi‘i Imam. The sentence has a somewhat bitter undertone to it since Jalal Al-e Ahmad and his wife, who struggled in vain to have children, visited these holy shrines, which, like the Western medicine, proved helpless.

7

history, and [beyond that] I am not in the least interested in knowing [who was his Shah]38.

38

The words in parenthesis do not appear in the original Anidshe va Honar edition (p. 383), and instead three dots were inserted […]. Arguably, again, the dismissive attitude toward a “Shah” may have been deemed by somebody too bold for the times.

8