Key Theme for 5757 and 5758:

"The Centenary of the first Zionist Congress
&
Fifty Years since the Establishment of the State of Israel"

Director-General Circular

4. Goals and Objectives / III. The Theme of Israel-Diaspora Relations

One of the topics where there have been many ups and downs in terms of people's collective attitudes is the area of Israel-Diaspora relations.

1. The Significance of Terminology

In Hebrew, the field of debate is marked by terms denoting focal concepts, such as "Aliya," "Yerida," [see above]; "Golah/Galut" (Exile), "Tefutza" (scattering), or "Pezura" (dispersion) - which are all value-laden and emotive.

• The complexity and controversiality of the subject are also reflected at deeper levels:
  • - Myths on which earlier generations of Israelis were educated, such as the myth of the "new Hebrew," the "New Jew," the "new Sabra," the Palmach fighter, and the person who works the land.
  • - This myth itself was mainly constructed from the contrast between that "new" man and another myth concerning the "Galut Jew." For a long time, the figure of the "Galut Jew" was treated with disdain in the Yishuv and later in Israel, while the "pioneer" or the "Zionist" was treated with respect and highly valued. The upshot was that anybody who did not come on aliya to Israel was perceived as a traitor to the cause. The rejection of the Diaspora was unequivocal, and a Jew from Israel generally blamed a Diaspora Jew for not joining in and taking part in the rebuilding of the Jewish people's national home.


• Most of the dialogues that took place between Israel and the Diaspora were based on shaky ground, the Jews of the Diaspora being accused by Israelis of not coming on aliya. Financial donations made to the State were perceived as being by way of compensation for this.


• In this way, an ambivalent relationship developed. If Diaspora Jews were viewed as unwilling to come to Israel, Israelis themselves were nevertheless prepared to accept their money.


• It should, however, be pointed out that contributing money to those resident in Zion was also accepted practice in earlier times ("haluka" or charity distribution money), and the funds contributed in this way were greatly needed in order to redeem land and bring Jews to Israel.

2. The Essence of the Idea

The Zionist idea is essentially composed of two pillars:

a) a sovereign Jewish state in Eretz Israel, and
b) the ingathering of the exiles.

• The first part of the idea was fulfilled by the establishment of the State of Israel.
• As for the second part, there are many facets to the manners and methods of achieving this.

Basically, the State of Israel sees itself as responsible for the fate of every single Jew, anywhere in the world, and hence it opens its gates and brings within it everyone who wishes to come and live there.

The most obvious expression of this is the Law of Return.

In this connection, no distinction is made between:

• Jews who have immigrated to Israel for Zionist-Jewish reasons, and the many Jews who were expelled from their countries of residence;
• those who were compelled to leave where they had been living;
• or those who were Holocaust survivors;
• yet others who to this day have escaped from the dangers of war or antisemitism.

Israel sees itself as carrying undisputed, unequivocal responsibility for all these people.

3. Issues Today

The remaining fundamental questions are:

• A. How should the State of Israel and the Jews who live there relate to the millions of Jews who live elsewhere and choose not to immigrate to Israel?
• B. What should be the basis of the relationship between Israelis and those Jews who do not define themselves as Zionists, or those who define themselves as Zionists and do not come to live in Israel?
• C. In the awareness that not all Jews will come to live in Israel - because ever since First Temple times there have been and always will be Jewish communities outside Israel - what should be the goals - both aspired to and realistic - in respect of the vision of the ingathering of the exiles, and what are the central questions to be addressed in this connection?
• D. Should/must there be an acceptance in ideological terms of the fact that there will always be Jews who will choose for personal or ideological reasons to live outside the State of Israel?
• E. Should there be acknowledgment of the approach according to which it is important and right that there should be two centers - "New York" and "Jerusalem" (as the historic "Babylon" and "Jerusalem") - where the tension between them acts in a creative, constructive fashion,
  or
  should Jerusalem continue to be seen as the spiritual center of the Jewish people from which "Torah" will go forth? What is the significance and what are the implications of accepting either of these approaches?
  And - in the same respect - should Israel be seen as a spiritual center only, or as a place for Jews to live in?
• F. Should Israelis continue to maintain and focus on aliya as the basis of their link, or should they mobilize their resources towards the efforts of Jewish communities who argue that their primary concern is "Jewish Continuity"?
  What are the implications of each of these approaches for the role of the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency today?
  
• G. Is it right to continue collecting donations for Israel from the Jewish people, or should the State of Israel -- as a sovereign Jewish state that assumes responsibility for the Jewish people -- instead only provide financial or other assistance to help Diaspora communities with education and Jewish observance, as is already done in part today?
• H. Looking back on one hundred years of Zionism, it must be remembered that the ideal and utopian solution for the Jewish problem always was Zion - Israel. But in difficult and dark days, other solutions, such as Uganda and Argentina, have been considered, and after the Holocaust, any country which was prepared to open its gates to the Jews.
  • Times and circumstances have changed. What about views? And realities?
  • The Jewish people can return to Zion, but it is doing so only in part; how can - or should - this situation be tackled?
  • Is it necessary to search for solutions, or is it possible to come to terms with this state of affairs?
• I. How does the religious population living outside the State of Israel deal with the commandment to live in Israel?

4. Responses and Messages

For each of the above questions, as well as many others, it is possible to advance a number of answers. In Israeli society, as well as among the broader Jewish people, there are those who express a variety of views, which sometimes contradict and conflict with each other.

These questions should be put to students, who should be encouraged to express their views, to contribute what they know about the range of opinions, to express the problems into precise terms, to weigh up the arguments, so that ultimately the students can work out their own positions on a matter which is so vital and so bound up with the very existence of the Jewish people.

• For extended periods, the relationship between those living in Israel and the Jews in the Diaspora was based on the feeling of the former that they were the "force" which "went before the camp," which the others should join. This was the message which shlichim (emissaries) were sent to convey to the Jews of the Diaspora.
• Would it not be a good idea today to choose a different terminology, such as:
  getting to know, learning about, partnership, reciprocity, symmetry, mutual respect,
  all of this based on an dialogue between equal partners --
• Or should the message to Diaspora Jewry be, instead, that the Jews of Israel on their own bear the burden of building up the home of the entire Jewish people?
• One of the most important ways of working out a position is to get to know the Jewish people. It is important to get to know the history of our communities, the contexts of peoples' lives as Jews, the links between them and the local population and the government of the country in which they live, their ties with Israel, and so on.
• Another area which is worth exploring is the longing for Eretz Israel and the deep bond - emotional but not always practical - of the Jews for their country, beginning in the earliest periods and continuing to the present. The longing for Zion did not begin with one hundred years of Zionism. The Zionist movement was able to translate the prayers and the earlier efforts of settlement in Eretz Israel into a mighty deed of national proportions

5. Implementation

• In the educational system, in addition to discussion, examination and the adoption of positions, great importance should also be attached to means of implementation.
• When it comes to the issue of Israel-Diaspora relations, it seems to us that it is most important for the class to discuss this area in such a way that each student can actually implement and put into practice the position that he or she has developed.
• It is highly recommended that great thought be given among the staff and in discussions with students to the subject of the tie between Israel and the Diaspora, and to try to work out practical proposals for the purpose of generating real dialogue between Israelis and Diaspora Jews, in which all views and positions can be expressed.
• It is equally important that there be a hands-on vehicle to translate from the cerebral into experience, so that positions which have been worked out in respect of another group can be checked out with that "other" group in person.

[Previous] [Next] [TheZionist Century] [Homepage]