Eastern Jews vs. Western Jews: the Ahad Ha’am–Herzl dispute and its cultural and social implications

The conflict between Herzl and Ahad Ha’am encapsulated the cultural divide that separated the two, as well as it reflected the political and ideological rift separating East from West. The Eastern block wished Zionism to maintain strong ties to a sense of Jewish continuity (if not necessarily to traditional Jewish practice). The Western one was more cosmopolitan and assimilationist in its bent. From the first Zionist Congress onward, Ahad Ha’am assumed the role of Herzl’s chief opponent. At first, he was a voice crying in the wilderness, but within seven years, he headed a united front whose members sought to remove Herzl or at least force him into a minority. The point of no return was reached in a clash known as the “Alteneuland Affair,” whose personal side was as strong as its other aspects, if not more so. For after this episode concluded with this defeat and Herzl’s victory, Ahad Ha’am bowed out of all active Zionist political life.     

The Conversion of the Beta Israel in Ethiopia: A Reversible "Rite of Passage"

Before Zionism entered the political arena, Theodor Herzl (1860–1904) struggled with many issues concerning his appearance, which were connected with the contemporary dilemmas of Jewish emancipation and stereotypes about the Jewish look. Herzl identified with the Vienna cultural circle and manifested a full approval of its values, for example, by wearing sideburns distinctively modelled on those of the Emperor Franz Joseph. But during his stay in France (1891–1896) Herzl began to consider Austrian anti-Semitism as a new political power. Along with the shift of his views on the Jewish Question, Herzl changed his appearance. He cut off his sideburns and grew a long, black, Assyrian beard instead. This new look alluded to ancient Jewish roots which had gained interest within the context of Orientalism that had become popular thanks to the archaeological discoveries in the Middle East, especially those of images of Assyrian rulers. Thus, the phenomenon of Orientalism understood in aesthetic and historical categories was an important factor behind the formation of Jewish identity. This conclusion constituted a significant argument on the way to embracing elements of Eastern culture and identifying them with Jewish elements in a new, Zionist, incarnation.     

How Hebrew were the Hebrew Christians?

This article demonstrates how Hebrew Christians – or Jews who converted to Christianity but retained Jewish identity – resonated with the claims of the Zionist movement in its first decades, particularly with regard to its notion of Hebrew identity. In their espousal of Zionist ideals and their attempts to join Zionist efforts, Hebrew Christian notions of Hebrewness reflected the multivalence of Hebrew identity in the Zionist movement itself, and particularly the understanding of Hebrewness as racial, ethnic, and cultural. The influence of the Zionist movement upon Hebrew Christians was especially evident in Hebrew Christian attempts to form their own institutions. These organizations promoted Jewish national culture dissociated from Judaism, expressed assertive and even aggressive motivations (what I term “Muscle Hebrew Christianity”), and recognized the ineluctability of anti-Semitism regardless of Jewish religious beliefs. Examining the somewhat obscure movement of Hebrew Christianity can ultimately help us to better understand the ways Zionism was interpreted in its formative stages, especially in light of its own divisions and various emphases.     

Gentile reception of Herzlian zionism, a reconsideration

This paper examines the gentile reception of Herzlian Zionism in its first decade as reflected in the journal Die Welt and in the writings of three supporters of Herzl. Despite defining itself as the party of Autoemancipation, Herzlian Zionists avidly sought to demonstrate gentile concern, thereby cultivating a different kind of philosemitism from that cultivated by the Jewish mainstream. The cases of the missionary Protestant Carl Friedrich Heman, the literary radical Hermann Bahr, and the novelist Bertha von Suttner offer examples of how various misreadings of Herzlian Zionism enabled individuals to enlist as supporters of the movement. Herzl's own receptivity to gentile enthusiasm and his willingness to gloss over points of difference emerges as an effective and probably necessary tactic for a leader committed to propelling Zionism to world prominence. This revised version was published online in June 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

1890s Zionism reconsidered: Joseph Marco Baruch

Some years before the 1896 appearance of Theodore Herzl Der Judenstaat, Joseph Marco Baruch (Istanbul, 1872–Florence, 1899) articulated his own brand of Zionism. His life and work provide alternative Jewish geographies for the study of Zionism that complicate established categories, such as the cultural/East and political/West, a binary that also posits Jewish identity and political action as disjoined spheres. Neither premise applies to the work of Joseph Marco Baruch. Conceptually, his social vision juxtaposed realpolitik and a national-historical Jewish identity, and his activism was well received in European and Mediterranean circles. As in all similar movements, Zionism was shaped by power struggles between leaders and ideologues; biographical contrasts between Theodore Herzl and Joseph Marco Baruch draw attention to personal privilege and its role in influencing the institutional course of Zionism at a critical historical juncture. The case of Joseph Marco Baruch invites discussion of the early 1890s as an important, but overlooked, period in the development of political Zionism.Paula Daccarett: I would like to thank the Tauber Institute for the Study of European Jewry and Brandeis University GTR grants for the funds that allowed me to undertake research at the Central Zionist Archives, the Machon Ben Zvi, Hebrew University and the Machon Jabotinsky. Special appreciation is in order for Prof. Eugene Sheppard and Sylvia Fuks Fried at the Tauber Institute for their warmth and encouragement of this project. They, alongside Prof. Benjamin Ravid, provided feedback and editorial magic on earlier drafts. Prof. Tony Michels and Prof. Kenneth Stow offered unflagging assistance and support that pulled me out of numerous dead ends on final drafts. I would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers of this article and the attendants at the 2003 WJSA Conference for valuable input.     

ZIONIST IMMIGRATION POLICY PUT TO THE TEST

This article tackles the multifaceted question of why Israel adopted an open immigration policy in 1948 and adhered to that policy in spite of the proven difficulties it inflicted on the state. The main supposition made is that the immigration policy of the young State of Israel did not constitute a drastic change from earlier Zionist approaches and practices. It was, rather, the implementation of Zionist policy that emerged in the 1930s and heightened in the 1940s, but could not be carried out as long as the Zionist Organization lacked sovereignty and the British controlled the gates of Palestine. The article elaborates on the motivation for the futile attempt made at the end of 1951 to employ some measures of regulation in immigration. It suggests that they stemmed not only from the lessons of the mass immigration of 1948–1951, but also from the fact that in late 1951 the Jewish people and Zionism were not suffering a period of national emergency as the very existence of Israel was no longer in jeopardy and no Jewish community around the world was under acute threat. Finally the article interprets the criticism of the attempts at regulation as utilizing a Zionist rationalization, expecting Israel to act differently from other immigrant states.     

The Roles of Religion in National Legitimation: Judaism and Zionism's Elusive Quest for Legitimacy

Why and how do nations turn to religion to justify claims for statehood? This article addresses this question in both theory and practice, showing that religion plays multiple legitimating roles that shift dynamically according to the success they yield for national movements. I posit four legitimating models: (1) nationalism instead of religion (“secular nationalism”), (2) nationalism as a religion (“civil religion”), (3) religion as a resource for nationalism (“auxiliary religion”), and (4) religion as a source of nationalism (“chosen people”). Empirically, I analyze the roles of religion in Zionist efforts to legitimate a Jewish state in Palestine. I argue that Zionism has responded to persistent delegitimation by expanding the role of religion in its political legitimation. The right of self‐determination, which stands at the core of the “secular Zionism” legitimation, has given way to leveraging Judaism, which in turn has been eclipsed by constructing a Zionist civil religion and a “chosen people” justification.     

FORWARD,TO THE EAST: NAPTHALI HERZ IMBER'S PERCEPTION OF KABBALAH

Naphtali Herz Imber is famous as the author of the Jewish national anthem, “Hatikvah” (“The Hope”). He is also quite well known for his non-conformism, vagabond lifestyle, and excessive drinking. However, his interest in the occult and Kabbalah are much less known. Imber wrote several articles on Jewish mysticism, translated some kabbalistic texts, and published the first journal on Kabbalah—Uriel: A Monthly Magazine Devoted to Cabbalistic Science (of which only one issue appeared). Although much scholarly literature has been devoted to Imber and his famous poem, his interest in the occult and Jewish mysticism has not been investigated. This article will discuss Imber's encounter with late-nineteenth-century esotericism, specifically the doctrines of Laurence and Alice Oliphant and the Theosophical Society. It presents Imber's notions concerning Jewish mysticism and examines the impact that the Theosophical Society and the Oliphants' principles had on his perception of Kabbalah. Finally, it discusses the connection between Imber's Zionism and his interest in Kabbalah and shows that his perception of Jewish mysticism, which was greatly influenced by Western esoteric ideas, was shaped in the framework of fin de siècle Orientalism and Jewish nationalism. Imber's positive evaluation of Jewish mysticism and its nationalistic interpretation anticipates the position of later Zionist scholars of Jewish mysticism, whose vision of Kabbalah and Hasidism largely shaped the way Jewish mysticism is perceived and studied today.     

GERSHOM SCHOLEM’S DIALECTIC OF JEWISH HISTORY

Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856–1941) evolved from a political liberal, committed to free competition, hard money and honest government, to become in his maturity a social liberal chiefly pursuing social justice and free speech. In the Supreme Court (1916–1939) he remained faithful to his liberal and progressive parameters. Since about 1905 he evolved from being a half-assimilated Jew to an identified Jew and a Zionist. His original concept of Zionism was as a mission to achieve higher social goals. However, from about the mid-1920s he intensified his Zionism as a vital goal in itself. His synthesis of Progressivism and Zionism gradually came to be the classic tradition of all major American Zionist and pro-Israel trends.     

Preface

In contrast to the image popularized by the post‐Zionist polemic in Israel, Zionist historiography in its formative age between the 1930s and the 1960s did not share a unified view of the Jewish past. Various historians researched Jewish history from the nationalist point of view as well as that of a scientific research project, with the goal of understanding and describing the Jewish past. This complexity in the view of the Jewish past became even more evident in the second generation of Zionist historiography. An inquiry into the Zionist view of the past as reflected in the education system of Eretz Israel during this period also reveals that alongside the formation of an activist Zionist approach that aspired to transform history into a nation‐building enterprise, educators also taught Jewish history from a pedagogical point of view.     

FORCES OF TOMORROW

This article examines the social experience of belonging to the British section of the international Socialist Zionist youth movement, Hashomer Hatzair. The study is based on interviews conducted with 10 former activists across four generations and focuses primarily on the movement in London. It will be argued that Hashomer Hatzair represented a unique alternative youth culture based on a model developed by the movement's founders in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This model synthesized Robert Baden-Powell's Scouting, the Jugendkultur of the German youth movements, Socialist Zionism and Marxism. Imported to Britain by young German and Austrian refugees from Nazism, this youth culture was reproduced initially in the English countryside, and after the war plugged into the pre-existing politics of Jewish radicalism in London and the general Zionist fervour that anticipated the establishment of Israel. Hashomer Hatzair emphasized autonomy from adult society. By creating autonomous youth spaces, the movement opened a portal for young Jews to shape their own identities. Through a process of politicization and education, the movement's adherents would identify life on Israeli kibbutzim as an ideal future in adulthood. In tandem with the projection of heroic Jewish role models, this process encouraged Hashomer Hatzair's followers to define their Jewishness in secular and existential terms, in opposition both to contemporary consumerist and urbanized capitalism, and to the traditional communal associations of the past.     

PAINTING A STORY: ARS‐POETICA AND IDEOLOGY IN A STORY BY BENJAMIN TAMMUZ AND A PAINTING BY NAHUM GUTMAN

The article discusses the story “Our National Artist” by Benjamin Tammuz, in which the hero is an artist and a pioneer whose ideas do not conform to Zionist ideology. The present author’s claim is that this is an implied ars poetic‐ideological story in which Tammuz hints at his own beliefs regarding Zionism, namely his severe reservations about it. He allows his artist hero to express what he himself could not openly express at that time. The article goes on to discuss a well‐known painting by Nahum Gutman which Tammuz chose for the cover of his collection, The Bitter Scent of Geranium, in which “Our National Artist” appears, and which serves as an allusion to the “non‐Zionist” nature of this collection. Tammuz’s choice of Gutman’s painting testifies to his conception: in this painting he “reads” the pre‐Zionist or the non‐Zionist space as a dominant “text”, thus shifting attention from the Zionist consensus to its margins and beyond.     

MODERN ORTHODOXY IN POST-SECULAR TIMES

Post-secularism in Israel is expressed, among other ways, by the growing public acceptance of identities that are neither religious nor secular. This paper is predicated on research of individuals located on the boundaries of Orthodox Religious Zionism. It explores their attitudes on a range of issues and argues that they reflect their post-secularist identities. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with young men and women who chose to abandon the strictures of a Religious Zionist lifestyle as well as those who still remain within its bounds. Various late-modern and post-secular modes of thought and expression were identified in interviewees’ narratives. These included pluralism, relativism, egalitarianism, the personalization of relationships with God, and a disregard for theological arguments based upon scientific findings. It is argued that these attitudes are related to two late-modern social processes: (1) the rise of individual expressivism and (2) the belief in the liberal human-rights ethic. These tendencies cut across the social divide between interviewees who left Religious Zionism and those who chose to remain within the fold, traversing the previously dominant religious–secular social divide and thus serving as yet another indication for the blossoming of new post-secular spaces in Israeli Jewish society.     

The Messiah and Rabbi Jesus: Policing the Jewish–Christian border in Christian Zionism

For all their ostensible difference and separateness, Judaism and Christianity have a long history of mutual engagement and profound entanglement. I take Daniel Boyarin's assertion that ‘…the borders between Christianity and Judaism are as constructed and imposed, as artificial and political as any of the borders of the earth’ (2004, 1) as my starting point. But what Boyarin sees as an ongoing process of differentiation between Judaism and Christianity and distinct identity-building in late antiquity, I look for still today in Christian Zionism. The busy border crossing continues to separate people and ideas at the same time as it serves as the meeting place between them, the uncomfortable place where Judaism and Christianity rub up against each other. This paper examines some constructions of the Jewish–Christian border by way of two case studies of prominent religious leaders, each firmly at home in their respective communities, Jewish and Christian, who ventured out to the borderland of Christian Zionism. This is the story of what happened when they returned home to find themselves examined by those who monitor the Jewish–Christian border, and deemed to be over the limit with intoxicants brought over from the ‘other side’.     

THE BLANK PAGE (FROM LAST TALES)

This essay explores the representation of the modern Jewish city in Palestine, envisioned in two fin-de-siècle futuristic tales: Theodor Herzl's Altneuland (1902) and Violet Guttenberg's A Modern Exodus (1904). Focusing on the northern port city of Haifa, transformed by the Jews from a poor Oriental town into a thriving Europeanized metropolis, both novelists employ the city's spatial, cultural, and human features to present radically different views concerning the national Jewish rejuvenation: for Herzl, it becomes a utopian triumph; for Guttenberg, a deplorable failure. Notwithstanding their different assessments of the Zionist vision, both authors share certain anti-Semitic assumptions about the nature of “the Jew” (greedy, intolerant, vulgar), which are inscribed into the urban space. Herzl's ideal Haifa is designed precisely to reform the diaspora Jew by introducing such modern urban measures that would render these detestable Jewish traits obsolete. Guttenberg's disordered city, in comparison, reflects an inability to alter the Jewish character: no wonder that London, not Haifa, becomes the final destination of her “Modern Exodus.”     

DAVID BEN‐GURION ON PLATO

The purpose of this article is to clarify the relationship between David Ben‐Gurion’s political thinking, his political practice and his interpretation of some aspects of Plato’s political philosophy. Ben‐Gurion ascribed to Plato three main political values: activism, or the ability to reject existing norms and mold society after the moral laws of man; a striving to create a unified society; and the ideal of a society based on justice. These values also form the bedrock of Ben‐Gurion’s Zionism. The “Jewish Revolution”—as he called the profound changes brought by the Zionist movement—is an active effort to control Jewish destiny. Its main goal is to create a unified people and realize moral norms. Activism and unity were also, as the article tries to demonstrate, the central guiding principles of Ben‐Gurion’s practice as a political leader, as exemplified in his reliance on pioneering and in fostering a strong political centre of authority.     

Religion,Statelessness, and Belonging

Before 1948, and stretching back more than 1800 years, the Jewish people suffered all the problems of statelessness. The Zionist movement, 1897–1948, strove to end the condition of Jewish exile and statelessness. The great historical irony and tragedy is that the establishment of the State of Israel brought about the Nakba, the catastrophe, of the Palestinian people. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians see themselves as the victims of the conflict. They seem to be competitors in what I call a “suffering sweepstakes.” One of the problems with victimhood is that it prevents victims from assuming responsibility for their actions, including the victimization of others. In the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, both sides are victims and both sides are victimizers. The least helpful thing people can do – and regrettably many well‐meaning people do this – is to portray the situation in terms of a zero‐sum game, in which, if you’re pro‐Palestinian, you must be anti‐Israeli, and vice versa. We must be both pro‐Palestinian and pro‐Israeli, because we are pro‐people and, therefore, pro‐peace. The achievement of peace necessitates a two‐state solution based on some recognition of the two narratives. The best fulfilment of Zionism will come when there is a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel.     

Is there still a “Jerusalem School?” Reflections on the state of Jewish historical scholarship in Israel

This essay examines the study of Jewish history in Israel at the juncture of two currents: the ongoing expansion of an international community of Jewish studies scholars and the waning interest in the field in Israel itself. Mindful of the latter trend, it is easy to adopt a declensionist narrative, according to which the “Jerusalem School,” with its monolithic and Palestinocentric view of the past, has run its course. And yet, that framing occludes a number of novel tendencies in Israel, arising in the present “post-post-Zionist” moment, that expand the contours of Jewish historical scholarship in productive ways. They include: the well-known and controversial work of the “New Historians;” the work of a succeeding generation of scholars who have brought new intellectual and methodological openness to the study of Zionism; the work of Israeli scholars who have introduced a new measure of reflexivity through careful examination of the history of Jewish historiography; and the work of Israeli scholars who have eschewed the once-regnant view of an “immanent causality” in Jewish history. In conclusion, the article suggests that kernels of these trends were present in the founding generation of scholars at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, though the current generation of scholars is both more critical toward the Zionist nationalist narrative and more global in its orientation.     

Brith Shalom��s uniqueness reconsidered: Hans Kohn and autonomist Zionism

Most studies dealing with Kohn (1891?C1971), a central Zionist figure in Prague, emphasize his resistance to the idea of a Jewish nation-state in Palestine and his consequent binationalism as indications of an exceptional position with respect to the contemporary Zionist mainstream. This representation is embedded in one of the fundamental conventions of Zionist historiography that the movement was intended exclusively to create a Jewish nation-state in Palestine. This convention, however, is the outcome of the misleading, teleological tendency to observe pre-1948 Zionist history through the retrospective lens of the establishment of the State of Israel. In fact, pre-state sources show that Kohn??s binationalism was not exceptional. Kohn, the radical members of ??Brith Shalom,?? and even the Zionist mainstream shared a basic outlook regarding Palestine??s future political complexion, which I call autonomist Zionism and which rested on an autonomist interpretation of national self-determination. Statehood in Palestine was envisaged within a confederational political framework embracing both a Jewish and an Arab autonomous entity. A common governing body would deal with civil and territorial matters, but would refrain from intervening in purely national-cultural matters that would be the exclusive perview of the respective autonomous authorities.     

Linkage of Oedipal Dangers and Mastery to Theodor Herzl's Zionism

This paper demonstrates that Herzl's development of political Zionism was largely a reflection of his improved mastery of Oedipal dangers. Before his Zionism, he had been a total assimilationist. This was manifested in the nature of his disdainful attitude towards the Jewish masses and in idealization of selected non-Jews, as well as in his conflicted Jewish identity. In his thirties, various external events undermined the assimilationist approach; other events, plus ego maturation, allowed a more effective mastery of Oedipal dangers. Thus, he was able to react more appropriately and creatively to intensifying anti-Semitism by developing Zionism that reflected increased honor, manliness, and reconciliation.