Keren Hajesod lädt zu einem Konzert ein, namens Hatikvah – die wahre Geschichte der Hymne Israels. Aus der Einladung entnehme ich, dass dort die Geschichte des Entstehen der Melodie von Hatikwá erzählt wird, nicht des Textes. Also einige Zeilen zum Entstehung des Textes.
Es wurde öfters bemerkt, dass weder G”tt noch die jüdische Tradition und die jüdische Geschichte in der Hatikwá vorkommt. Der Grund dafür ist aber nicht, weil der Autor die Themen auslassen wollte, sondern weil, als die Hatikwá als zionistische Hymne aufgenommen wurde, nur das die erste Strofe und das Refrain zur Hymne wurde, das dann auch noch für die politische Zwecke der Zionistischen Bewegung geändert wurde. Aus “um zu das Land unseren Vätern zurückzukehren, zu die Stadt in der David weilte” wurde “ein freies Volk in unserem Lande zu sein, im Lande Zion und Jerusalem”.
In der ursprünglichen Fassung von Naftali Herz Imber war das Hatikwá mit neun Strofen wesentlich länger und mit reichen Themen versehen. Anbei das originelle, vollständige Hatikwá, dass damals noch Tikwaténu hieß:
Mikolot Mayim Rabbim 
But I wonder whether that one line they did change was ideologically motivated. Removing David is less compelling; while the typical Zionist was non-observant, much of Aliyah-Bet did see themselves as writing the next chapter of Tanakh. On the other hand, “frei” is Yiddish idiom for “non-observant”, and one might wonder whether “am chafshi” is intentionally about putting halakhah behind them along with Galut Mentality Judaism.
I have been pondering this for a while and would love to see evidence. Are there minutes from the committee that adapted and adopted Hatikva at the Zionist Congress?
I was speculating, not asserting. My “might wonder” isn’t just to tone down the criticism. Tp cut them slack, I doubt even the typical Aliyah-Bet qibbutznik would claim that we dreamed for the past two millennia of being a secular nation. And if it’s about dumping Galut Mentality Judaism, why mention the two millennia of galut?
BTW, in my parents’ day, many Bnei Akivaniks said “lihyot am qodesh be’artzeinu” instead.
I think that it is fairly clear that some ideological principle was at work. The question I am pondering for years is, which one. It could be that they wanted to emphasize freedom, or newness (not David’s city, but our land here and now), or the Yiddish usage of “frei” for secular, or that they wanted to dissociate themselves from the galutiyut and the downtrodden status of European Jewry. I don’t know which one it is, but one doesn’t bother rewriting poetry for no reason.
Their focus wasn’t on David’s City, but the country as a whole. So the question I should have asked wouldn’t have had the word “David”, but rather the mention of our forefathers.
You are reading me too literally. I was simply citing that line from Imber’s original refrain. But yes, I agree with you, that is definitely one of the possible reasons that someone saw fit to change the refrain’s wording.
It should also be pointed out that while the editing of the refrain was likely an ideological act, the shortening of the song was likely nothing of the sort. It was likely limited to one strofe and one refrain so that people could easily remember it and sing along.
Come to think of it, how many Frenchmen know the entire Marseillaise? I think proportionally, many more Jews know Hatkva by heart, because it is brief and easy to remember.