The Relevance Of Zionism: Views From Israel And The Diaspora

American Jewish Committee
Thursday, 8 May 1997

The current relationship, some might say battle, between Israel and the Diaspora - in all its religious and cultural aspects - is being played out the same today as it was one hundred years ago when modern Zionism began, perhaps even more vehemently, according to a noted academic and Jewish historian.

Professor Arthur Hertzberg, Bronfman Visiting Professor of Humanities at New York University, was joined today by Professor Avishay Braverman, President of Ben Gurion University and a distinguished economist, at a discussion entitled "The Relevance of Zionism for the Next Century." The meeting, chaired by American Jewish Committee President Robert S. Rifkind, was part of the agency's 91st Annual Meeting, which takes place through Friday at the Capital Hilton Hotel.

Prof. Hertzberg, looking back at history, noted that "when Herzl convoked the first World Zionist Conference, there was a short burst of Zionist unity inspired by his message that Jews of all opinions would work together to create the Zionist State. Those who dissented from Herzl were silenced for a brief moment."

Prof. Hertzberg added that a similar burst of unity was evident from 1945 until the aftermath of the Six-Day War in 1967 with the additional and broader arenas of war and international politics. "In its earliest years, the State of Israel had few friends and few protectors among the powers of the world. The attitude of the Diaspora, then, that Israel needed to be secured without any distraction of partisanship among Jews abroad, was an appropriate policy of which Theodore Herzl would have approved."

However, after the victory in 1967, Prof. Hertzberg stated that Israel could no longer be portrayed to Jews around the world as "a tender young plant in imminent mortal danger. On the contrary," he added, "it had proved that it was the dominant regional power and that it had become a functioning state and society. At that point, the question of the nature and quality of Israel's inner life inevitably came to the forefront. The battle for power in shaping Israeli society became ever sharper and more pointed."

Turning to the present, Prof. Hertzberg commented that "those who want a modern, essentially secular, Jewish society and those who demand that the Orthodox tradition set the rules for any Jewish society are in a battle that neither side can afford to lose.

"The Jews of the Diaspora are not sitting by and watching these struggles from afar. They are in the battle," he contended, "as they were a century ago. These questions do not belong to Israel alone. They are concerns with which every caring Jew anywhere in the world is deeply and very personally involved."

Looking toward the future, Prof. Hertzberg concluded: "The relationship of Israel and the Diaspora will not be one relationship but many. Each school of thought and each of the strongly held values that are present in the Jewish world as a whole will draw closer to its counterparts in Israel and the Diaspora. The greatest task of Jewish statesmanship is to find a way to make this complicated, very plural, and often very angry set of factions reach some lasting accommodation. At this very moment, each group and opinion is fighting hard for its own program and slogans, but the time will come, in a decade or two, when the need for peace with each other may well end up among all the warring groups. A reconsideration of the history of Zionism, and of ways to work together, which conflicting ideologies did once find, may help to create a more hopeful future."

Professor Braverman focused much of his remarks on what he termed the "new socio-economic phase of Zionism," noting that Israeli success, both economically and militarily, has always been astonishing but never more so than in the past seven years. At the same time, he lamented that Israel also faces a lack of social cohesion and increasing problems of inequality which, he believes, may well threaten "our survival as Jews."

"The first socio-economic phase of Zionism in Israel was an outgrowth of the Socialist experiment, but it was evidenced as the most creative, humanistic and successful one. The spirit of strong personal participation in the growth of the nation and in the survival of the Jewish people was the glue that secured this phase.

"Today," he noted, "we face a falling-away from this critical spirit of volunteerism and sense of community. In Israel, we see the dangerous expansion of the cultural, economic and social gaps that are rooted in past history, creating a divisiveness and lack of mutual purpose."

Prof. Braverman admitted that there are certain conditions beyond anyone's ability to rectify. For example, the push of the extreme ultra-Orthodox to create a Halakhic state allows them no compromise, he said, even though their theocratic desires create conflicts with accepted Israeli forms of western democracy. Even so, he added, the conflict must be managed in a way which does not endanger the state, but allows both sides equal means of expression.

"Concerning religious pluralism within the Jewish people," he stressed, "it is imperative that any changes that are instigated in Israel due to political considerations would be made in consultation with our brothers and sisters around the world, reflecting on their concept of Judaism according to their beliefs. This will enable Israel to remain a true home for world Jewry."

Another rift that he stressed needs to be addressed is the economic and educational inequalities that exist between the Oriental and the European Jews, as well as the new immigrant class.

"These problems cannot be addressed in the old manner since the Socialist phase of Zionism in Israel is over, and rightly so. The next phase, in the process now, must give birth to a benevolent, humane and uniquely Israeli capitalism."

On the one hand, he stated that it is necessary to speed up the privatization process, namely, that which reinforces competition and decentralization of economic control. "The private sector will lead the future economic growth of Israel."

On the other hand, Prof. Braverman said that Israel must not seek to totally follow the socio-economic path of American capitalism but rather adopt certain successful elements of the American philosophy such as entrepreneurship, utilization of competitive forces in the market, support of the private businessman, and adoption of a national constitution to ensure equality for all, citizen rights, and protection of individual freedoms.

In conclusion, Prof. Braverman said: "To achieve a high standard of living and limit inequality will require, above all things, an investment in education. Not merely education to acquire knowledge, but to lead the drive to attack inequality, to teach tolerance and justice, to acquire focus as a people, and to educate youth from early childhood through university of what it is to be a Jew in the 21st century so that we will live as concerned citizens within our borders and with our neighbors. Recalling the words of David Ben-Gurion, 'it will not be enough for Israel to be strong…we must be just.' I would add that if Israel will be just, then we will be strong."

For more information, or to contact American Jewish Committee, see their website at: www.ajc.org