Diaspora Nationality vs Diaspora Nationalism: American Jewish Identity and Zionism after the Jewish State
2009; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 15; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/13537120902734434
ISSN1743-9086
Autores Tópico(s)Race, History, and American Society
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. Jacob Glatstein, excerpts from a Yiddish poem, ‘The Beginning’, translated by Etta Blum, Commentary (September 1950), p. 214. 2. Israel Knox, ‘Is America Exile or Home? We Must Begin to Build for Permanence’, Commentary (November 1946), pp. 401–405. 3. Israel Knox, ‘Is America Exile or Home? We Must Begin to Build for Permanence’, Commentary (November 1946), p. 402. 4. Daniel J. Boorstin, ‘A Dialogue of Two Histories: Jewish Contributions to America in a New Light’, Commentary (October 1949), pp. 311–316. 5. Leo S. Baek, ‘The Task of Being and American Jew: The Modern Rediscovery of Jewish Life and Faith’, Commentary (March 1951), p. 218. 6. Evyatar Friesel, ‘Criterion and Conception in the Historiography of German and American Zionism’, in Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira (eds.), Essential Papers on Zionism, London, 1996, p. 307; Howard Sachar, A History of the Jews in America, New York, 1993, pp. 117, 274–294; Eric Rosenthal, ‘Five Million American Jews: Progress in Demography’, Commentary (December 1958), pp. 499–507; Jacob R. Marcus, Background for the History of the American Jew, Cincinnati, 1969, pp. 195–203. Nathan Glazer, ‘What Sociology Knows About American Jews: Many Problems, Some Studies, Few Conclusions’, Commentary (March 1950), p. 276; Jacob Javits, Jacob Javits: The Autobiography of a Public Man, Boston, 1981, pp. 174, 175. Population and immigration figures quoted by various sources are disparate owing to a range of issues in counting strategies. 7. Daniel J. Elazar, Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, Philadelphia, 1976, pp. 4, 5, 14. 8. Daniel J. Elazar, Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, Philadelphia, 1976, p. 7. 9. Arthur Goren, The Politics and Public Culture of American Jews, Bloomington, 1999, pp. 3, 13; Ofira Seliktar, New Zionism and the Foreign Policy System of Israel, London, 1986, pp. 43–47. 10. Arthur Goren, The Politics and Public Culture of American Jews, Bloomington, 1999, pp. 3, 13; Ofira Seliktar, New Zionism and the Foreign Policy System of Israel, London, 1986, pp. 43–47; Jonathan Sarna, ‘The Ever Vanishing American Jew’, The International Jerusalem Post, 18 June 2004. The pessimism about Jewish survival in America was reflected in the lack of attention to American Jewish history as a discipline. In the early 1970s there were only five tenured positions in the whole of the US in this field. Its foremost academic advised Sarna, ‘American Jewish history can be summarised…: “The Jews came to America, they abandoned their faith, they began to behave like Gentiles, and after a generation or two they intermarried and disappeared. That is American Jewish history—all the rest is commentary”’. The discipline has since grown. 11. Goren quotes Israel Friedlander in ‘The Problems of Judaism in America’, Past and Present: A Collection of Jewish Essays, Cincinnati, OH, 1919, pp. 277–278. There has been an ongoing debate over influence of European patterns on American Jews and the degree of uniqueness in the American Jewish experience. 12. Marcus, Background, pp. 203, 204. 13. Marcus, Background, pp. 203, 204 14. Friesel, ‘Criterion and Conception’, pp. 307–308; Marcus, Background, pp. 211–212. 15. Goren, Politics and Public Culture, p. 203, quoting Harold Weisberg, ‘Ideologies of American Jews’, in Oscar Janowsky (ed.), The American Jews: A Reappraisal, Philadelphia, PA, 1964, pp. 347–356. 16. The same phenomenon existed in Great Britain, though the Jewish community was not as active or visible. 17. Oscar Handlin, Adventures in Freedom: 300 Years of Jewish Life in America, New York, 1954, pp. 213–217; Marcus, Background, pp. 205, 206. 18. Milton Himmelfarb, ‘Ben Gurion Against the Diaspora: Three Comments’, Commentary (March 1961), p. 197. 19. Steward E. Rosenberg, ‘American is Different’, in Peter I. Rose (ed.), The Ghetto and Beyond: Essays on Jewish Life in America, New York, 1969, p. 83. 20. Glazer, ‘What Sociology Knows’, p. 282. ‘Assimilation’ was a term that implied specific polemics. Zionists accused non-Zionists of being assimilationist, while non-Zionists sometimes returned the favour. Yiddish speakers tended to feel the same way about non-Yiddish speakers. Quantitative approaches used intermarriage as a measure. 21. Rosenberg, ‘America is Different’, pp. 88, 89. 22. Glazer, ‘What Sociology Knows’, pp. 277–279. Notions such as the ‘marginal man’, the ‘pariah’, the ‘urban type’ were products of sociology and attempts by practitioners to understand social types. The majority of sociological studies fell into this category at the time. Glazer argued that the notion of the ‘marginal man’—one who lives in two cultures—was the most helpful, although reliance on ideal types obscured through generalization more than it revealed particularly about the unique character of Jews in America. Studies that were not ‘apologetic’ revealed that American Jews advanced more quickly than other ethnic immigrant groups arriving in America at the same time and, in spite their prosperity, showed little inclination to assimilate. 23. Rosenberg, ‘America is Different’, pp. 83, 85; Lucy Dawidowicz, On Equal Terms: Jews in America, 1881–1981, New York, 1982. Dawidowicz identified 1945–1967 as a ‘Golden Age’ for Jews in America. 24. Rosenberg, ‘America is Different’, pp. 83, 85, Rosenberg, ‘America is Different’. 25. Handlin, Adventures, pp. 215–217, 225. 26. Boorstin, ‘A Dialogue’, p. 313. 27. B.B. Lieberman, chairman of the Commonwealth Conference, Israel, 17 July 1950. Opening Statement, Archives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, ACC3121-C14.34.1, Palestine and Eretz Israel Committee, 1950–1957, Greater London Record Office, Farringdon, London. 28. J. Halevi, Jewish Agency to Commonwealth Conference, Israel, 17 July 1950, meeting minutes, BDBJ, ACC3121-C14.34.1, GLRO. 29. Survey, Arnold K. Israeli, ‘Pro-Arab Propaganda in America’, written for the American Zionist Council, February 1952, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, Israel, Z6-586, Papers of Nahum Goldmann. 30. Dorothy Thompson, ‘American Demands a Single Loyalty: The Perils of a “Favourite” Foreign Nation’, Commentary (May 1950), pp. 210–219. 31. Lucy S. Dawidowicz, ‘Jewish Survival and the American Council for Judaism’, review of Elmer Berger, Judaism or Jewish Nationalism: The Alternative to Zionism, in Commentary (October 1957), pp. 366–370; Dr. James G. Heller, President Labour Zionist Organization of America, Member Executive Committee American Zionist Council, Paper, ‘An Analysis of the American Council for Judaism’, Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, Israel, Z6-795, Papers of Nahum Goldmann, General Correspondence, 1953. 32. Clement Greenberg, ‘Self-hatred and Jewish Chauvinism: Some Reflections on “Positive Jewishness”’, Commentary (November 1950), pp. 426–433. 33. Not all anti-Zionists were liberal in the religious sense. Orthodox anti-Zionists were not visible in the political debate until early-mid 1950s but were active in attempting to prevent Israel's statehood. 34. Lieberman, Opening Statement. Dorothy Thompson and those like-minded were noteworthy given the post-war context in which they were operating. 35. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, ‘American Zionism at an Impasse: A Movement in Search of a Program’, Commentary (1949), p. 344. To a delegation of American Zionists in Tel Aviv Ben-Gurion said, ‘Although we realised our dream of establishing the Jewish State, we are still at the beginning…. The greater part of the Jewish people are still abroad. Our next step will not be easier than the creation of the Jewish State’. David Ben-Gurion, A Personal History, New York and Tel Aviv, 1971, pp. 384, 396. The cost of absorbing one immigrant was $2500. The average Israeli produced $600 yearly. 36. Benno Weiser, ‘Ben Gurion's Dispute with American Zionists: Why They Reject the “Duty to Emigrate”’, Commentary (August 1954), pp. 93–101. 37. Letter, Ben Gurion to Rabbi Simon Dolgin, Commentary (September 1953), pp. 233–240. 38. Judd Teller, ‘America's Two Zionist Traditions: Brandeis and Weizmann’, Commentary (October 1955), pp. 349–351. 39. Harold Rosenberg, ‘Jewish Identity in a Free Society: On Current Efforts to Enforce “Total Commitment”’, Commentary (June 1950), pp. 508–514. 40. ‘The American Jewish Committee in Retreat’, Louis Lipsky, Chairman of the American Zionist Council, CZA, Jerusalem, Israel, Z5-5626, The Jewish Agency for Palestine—American Section, 1939 onwards. 41. Weiser, ‘Ben Gurion's Dispute’, pp. 93, 94; Trude Weiss-Rosmarin, ‘Israel and the Diaspora’, Zionist Yearbook, 5719 (1957–1958), pp. 309–316. The Israel–Diaspora debate of the 1950s dated to the Babylonian captivity. The golah was always the counterpoint to the Yishuv. Consequently Jewish customary law came to govern that relationship which said: there was equality, in the human sense, between golah and Yishuv; Eretz Israel was supreme—‘the country and the soil—over any other country of Jewish settlement; The golah had special obligations to the yishuv—material support and spiritual submission. The notion of exile, as something that a Jew could be ‘of’ as well as ‘in’ was very modern—‘Jewish alienation’ was terminology that came with ‘emancipation’ and ‘assimilation’ and did not exist before. 42. Dr. S. Levenberg, ‘The 24th Zionist Congress: Background and Problems’, Zionist Yearbook, 5716 (1956–1957), pp. 140–152. 43. Press release, Rose Halprin, Acting Chairman of the Jewish Agency, on behalf of the Jewish Agency in New York, 21 October 1951, CZA, Jerusalem, Israel, Z5-5626, Jewish Agency for Palestine, American Section, 1939 onwards. 44. Oscar Handlin, ‘Ben Gurion Against the Diaspora: Three Comments’, Commentary (March 1961), pp. 193; Letter, William Frankel, American Jewish Committee, to S.D. Temkin, Anglo-Jewish Association, 2 February 1950, Anglo-Jewish Archives, Archives of the Anglo-Jewish Association, Hartley Library, University of Southampton, File AJ37 6/5/8, American Jewish Committee, 1950; Draft Letter, Neville Laski to American Jewish Committee and Alliance Israelite Universelle, 2 November 1953, Archives of the Anglo-Jewish Association, File AJ37 6/5/9 American Jewish Committee. 45. Itzhak Raphael, Head of the Jewish Agency Immigration Department, ‘Future Sources of Immigration’, Zionist Information Office, Weekly News Digest, Supplement, 7 November 1951. Compiled and published by the Information Office of the Jewish Agency, London. 46. Itzhak Raphael, Head of the Jewish Agency Immigration Department, ‘Future Sources of Immigration’, Zionist Information Office, Weekly News Digest, Supplement, 7 November 1951. Compiled and published by the Information Office of the Jewish Agency, London 47. Maurice Samuel, ‘The Sundering of Israel and American Jewry: Has the New State Rejected Its Jewish Past’, Commentary (September 1953), pp. 199–206. 48. Rabbi Charles Shulman, ‘Ben Gurion Against the Diaspora: Three Comments’, Commentary (March 1961), p. 200. 49. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, ‘American Jews through Israeli Eyes: A Traveler's Report on some Current Attitudes’, Commentary (January 1950), pp. 1–7. 50. Shulman, ‘Ben Gurion Against the Diaspora’. 51. Hertzberg, ‘American Jews’. 52. Marcus, Background, p. 219. 53. Teller, ‘America's Two Zionist Traditions’; Teller explained that Jews always took responsibility for fellow Jews in need. But American Jewish identity and purpose became community defence and philanthropy. Chaim Weizmann called this ‘the degradation of the [Zionist] movement’. 54. Milton Himmelfarb, ‘Emancipation as Villain’, review of Ludwig Lewisohn, The American Jew: Character and Destiny, 1950, Commentary (May 1951), pp. 504, 505. 55. S.Z. Shragai, Jewish Agency Executive Council member to Editor of Commentary, July 1950. 56. S.Z. Shragai, Jewish Agency Executive Council member to Editor of Commentary, July 1950 57. Himmelfarb, ‘Emancipation’. 58. Weiser, ‘Ben Gurion's Dispute’, p. 94. Americans emigrating from Israel were: 1949—325; 1950—438; 1951—375; 1952—190; 1953—110. 59. Teller, ‘America's Two Zionist Traditions’. 60. Teller, ‘America's Two Zionist Traditions’; Melvin Urofsky, ‘A Cause in Search of Itself: American Zionism After the State’, American Jewish History (September 1979), pp. 85, 86. What appeared to be a lapse in foresight was the consequence of Brandeis’ ascendance in 1921 within American Zionism and his support of a secular Zionism that wed social reform with political and philanthropic support for Israel. He differed from Chaim Weizmann significantly on the issue of galut in the same way that Ben Gurion and most Israelis later disagreed with Americans on the topic. 61. Knox, ‘Is America Exile or Home?’, p. 403. 62. Urofsky, ‘A Cause in Search of Itself’, pp. 79–91. 63. Dawidowicz, ‘Jewish Survival’, p. 367. 64. Judd L. Teller, ‘American Zionists Move Toward Clarity: To Be or Not Be “Ingathered”’, Commentary (November 1951), pp. 444–450. 65. Hal Leherman, ‘Turning Point in Jewish Philanthropy? New Perspectives in Community Giving’, Commentary (September 1950), pp. 201–214. 66. Dr. Robert Weltsch, ‘Israel, Human Rights, and American Jewry: New Roles in the Centuries-Old Struggle’, Commentary (April 1950), pp. 354–358. 67. Jacob Blaustein, AJC to Berl Locker, Chairman of Jewish Agency Executive, 20 March 1951, Archives of the Anglo-Jewish Association, File AJ37 6/5/8. 68. Jacob Blaustein, AJC to Berl Locker, Chairman of Jewish Agency Executive, 20 March 1951, Archives of the Anglo-Jewish Association, File AJ37 6/5/8 69. Weiser, ‘Ben Gurion's Dispute’, p. 96. 70. Note, Unknown to Lord Barnett Janner, June 1954, Archives of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Greater London Record Office, ACC3121 B6/1/3 Coordination in Foreign Affairs. 71. Dr. Schneider Levenberg, ‘The Zionist Executive will discuss the participation of all Jewish forces in the work of reconstruction’, Davar, 29 June 1953, Papers of Dr. Schneider Levenberg, Archives, British Library of Political and Economic Science, London School of Economics and Political Science, London. Levenberg held various positions in the Jewish Agency in London ‘Friends of Israel’. Ben-Gurion had suggested ‘Friends of Israel’ as an alternative for ‘former’ Zionists who would not immigrate to Israel. 72. Schneider Levenberg, ‘The 24th Zionist Congress: Background and Problems’, Zionist Yearbook 5716 (1956–1957), pp. 140–152. 73. Dr. Nahum Goldmann, Statement, ‘Jewish Agency's Tasks After the Jerusalem Conference’, Zionist Information Office, Weekly News Digest, 9 October 1951. 74. ‘Status of the Jewish Agency’, Draft Bill Before Knesset, ZIO, Weekly News Digest, 12 May 1952. David Ben-Gurion, ‘Zionism and the State’, speech before the Knesset introducing the draft bill defining the status of the Zionist Organization, ZIO, Weekly News Digest, 21 May 1952. The Israeli government and Zionist Organization established a formal relationship because of the declining influence of Diaspora Zionists—their failures detailed in the Knesset bill. Israel's function was ‘confined to the state… to the rule of the country… development, absorption of new immigrants and their settlement’ would be down to the Jewish Agency. The Bill of Status was seen as an infusion of prestige into the movement as a technical basis for operation. Ben-Gurion said, ‘This enactment is intended to maintain, to confirm, and to give legal force and State recognition’. ‘Law on the Status of the Zionist Organisation’, ZIO, Jewish Agency, Weekly News Digest, 10 December 1952; Statement, Organization Department, Executive of the World Zionist Organization, ZIO, Jewish Agency, Weekly News Digest, 31 December 1952. Berl Locker, Executive Chairman, said ‘It is clear to all of us that the Law does not contain a reply to all our questions. It is but a framework which enables us to arrive at a settlement and a normalization of our relations with the State and the Government’. 75. Goldmann, ‘Jewish Agency's Task’. 76. Ben-Gurion, ‘Zionism and the State’; Minutes, ‘Zionist General Council “Appreciates” Government Bill’, ZIO, Weekly News Digest, 21 May 1952 (emphasis added).
Referência(s)