The Damascus Affair: Blood Libel, Empire, and the Birth of Jewish Internationalism – Explaining History

In 1840, a monk disappeared in Damascus, and the ancient, deadly accusation of "blood libel" was levelled against the city's Jewish community. This event, known as the Damascus Affair, became a pivotal moment in 19th-century Jewish history, sending shockwaves from the Ottoman Empire to the capitals of Europe.In this episode of Explaining History, Nick continues his exploration of Jonathan Frankel's Crisis, Revolution, and Russian Jews. We examine how this crisis mobilized Western Jewish leaders like Moses Montefiore and Adolphe Crémieux, who launched an unprecedented international campaign for justice. But this wasn't just a story of Jewish solidarity; it was deeply entangled with the imperial ambitions of Britain and France. Why did Lord Palmerston advocate for Jewish restoration to Palestine decades before Herzl? And how did the liberal ideals of the French Revolution clash with the realpolitik of the Ottoman East?Key Topics:The Damascus Affair: The origins of the crisis and the torture of Jewish community leaders.The Liberal Response: How Western Jews used the press and public opinion to fight for their brethren.Imperial Meddling: Lord Palmerston, the Rothschilds, and the geopolitical chess game in the Middle East.Proto-ZionismZionism Full Description:A modern political ideology and nationalist movement that advocates for the establishment and maintenance of a Jewish state in Palestine. Critically, it is defined as a settler-colonial project that necessitates the systematic displacement, dispossession, and erasure of the indigenous Palestinian population to establish demographic and political supremacy. Zionism emerged in Europe not merely as a response to antisemitism, but as a colonial movement adopting the racial and imperial logic of the 19th century. It posited that Jewish safety could only be guaranteed through the creation of an ethno-state. Because the target territory was already inhabited, the ideology was fundamentally built on the “logic of elimination”—the requirement to transfer, expel, or subjugate the native Arab population to create an artificial majority. Critical Perspective:Structurally, Zionism functions as an exclusionary ideology. By defining the state exclusively as the expression of self-determination for Jewish people, it inherently renders indigenous Palestinians as demographic threats rather than citizens. Critics argue that this necessitates a permanent state of violence, apartheid, and military occupation, as the state must constantly police, cage, and destroy the native population to prevent them from reclaiming their land and rights. Further Reading The End of the British Mandate: Imperial Withdrawal and the Onset of War The UN Partition Plan of 1947: A Spark in a TinderboxThe 1948 War: Nakba and Independence Plan Dalet: A Blueprint for Conflict The Palestinian Nakba: A National Trauma Arab States’ Intervention and the Widening War The Palestinian Refugee Crisis The 1949 Armistice Agreements: A Frozen Conflict Israel’s Transformation: State-Building and Immigration The Arab World After 1948: Political Upheaval The Legacy of 1948: The Politics of Memory : The early stirrings of the idea that Jewish safety might lie in a return to Palestine.Books Mentioned:Crisis, Revolution, and Russian Jews by Jonathan FrankelThe Damascus Affair by Jonathan Frankel (referenced contextually)Explaining History helps you understand the 20th Century through critical conversations and expert interviews. We connect the past to the present. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe and share.▸ Support the Show & Get Exclusive ContentBecome a Patron: patreon.com/explaininghistory▸ Join the Community & Continue the ConversationFacebook Group: facebook.com/groups/ExplainingHistoryPodcastSubstack: theexplaininghistorypodcast.substack.com▸ Read Articles & Go DeeperWebsite: explaininghistory.org Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

For the Jewish communities of 19th-century Europe, and particularly in the Russian Empire, politics was not the business of managing a state—they had none—but the business of survival. In this week’s podcast, I revisited Jonathan Frankel’s excellent collection of essays, Crisis, Revolution, and Russian Jews. Frankel argues that for a stateless diaspora, “crisis” plays the same role that war and revolution play for sovereign nations. It is the engine of change, the force that shatters old assumptions and births new ideologies.

The Shock of the New

Throughout the mid-19th century, Jewish life in Russia was caught in a tug-of-war. On one side stood Traditionalism—the religious, insulated world of the shtetl, governed by rabbinical authority. On the other stood the forces of Assimilation (or Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment), which urged Jews to integrate, learn Russian or German, and become modern citizens of their host countries.

However, a series of external shocks—the Damascus Blood Libel of 1840, the forced conversion of the Mortara boy in Italy in 1858, and the recurring violence in Romania—began to challenge the assimilationist dream. These events reminded even the most acculturated Jews that, in the eyes of their neighbors, they remained “other.”

As I mentioned in the episode, Primo Levi later articulated this tragedy perfectly in If This Is a Man. He noted that before Auschwitz, he was an Italian; afterward, the world would only ever let him be a Jew. Persecution places a unique stress on the identity of the assimilated. It asks the terrifying question: “Do we belong here? Can we survive here?”

1881: The Turning Point

The definitive rupture came in 1881-1882. Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II, a wave of pogroms swept through the Pale of Settlement. The violence was not just physical; it was psychological. It shattered the liberal hope that progress and education would eventually end antisemitism.

Frankel argues that this crisis created a dialectical shift. The thesis (Traditionalism) and the antithesis (Assimilation) gave way to a new synthesis: Auto-Emancipation.

This was the birth of modern Jewish politics. If the host nations would not protect them, Jews would have to protect themselves. This realization splintered into various revolutionary directions:

• Zionism: The belief that Jewish safety could only be guaranteed in a sovereign Jewish state.
• Socialism/The Bund: The belief that Jewish liberation was tied to the overthrow of capitalism and the Tsarist autocracy alongside the Russian proletariat.
• Territorialism: The search for a safe haven, whether in Palestine or elsewhere.

The Modernity of Tradition

Interestingly, historians like Ben-Zion Dinur have argued that this wasn’t a complete break from the past. The impulse to return to Zion had deep religious roots, dating back to aliyah movements in the 1700s. The novelty of the late 19th century was fusing this ancient religious yearning with the modern, secular language of nationalism.

As Benedict Anderson explores in Imagined Communities, the 19th century was the era of nation-building. It is hardly surprising that amidst the rising ethno-nationalism of Poles, Ukrainians, and Russians—nationalisms that were often xenophobic and exclusionary—Jews began to formulate a nationalism of their own.

Conclusion

The tragedy of this period is that these debates were not academic; they were existential. The rise of these movements—Zionism, Bundism, Autonomism—did not overthrow the old order but existed alongside it, creating a vibrant, chaotic, and desperate political marketplace.

Ultimately, the 20th century would resolve these debates in the most horrific way possible. But to understand the trajectory of Jewish history, and indeed the history of the Middle East and modern Europe, we must look back to the crucible of the Russian Empire in the 1880s. It was there, in the shadow of the pogroms, that the modern Jewish political soul was forged.