The relationships of the state of Israel with the Jewish world have reached a crossroads.
Since the establishment of Israel and until the 1967 Six Day War, the Jewish world was united in supporting Israel (except for the un-Zionist part of it, of course), and the relationships were warm and without restriction.
This reality is over, and in recent years we see more and more Jews who are not feeling that Israel has a significant part, if any, in their personal and in their community’s lives.
Some people claim that this results from the bad public relations Israel has, because its leaders are not doing a good enough job of explaining Israel’s case to the world and to the Jewish people in it.
Partly because of that, one side product of the world’s de-legitimization of Israel is the damage caused within the Jewish communities around the world whose members either are being convinced by the arguments against Israel, or who are just getting tired of defending it to friends and colleagues.
These people contend that if only the Jews of the world would know the facts about Israel better, than the trend will change from alienation to identification.
Other people claim that the root of the problem lies in Israel’s policies — in issues of war, occupation, religious pluralism, etc. Israel is thereby a cause of embarrassment and shame, and many Jews feel that they have to choose between their values and their loyalty to Israel.
By this argument, if only Israel will change its policies and line up with the ideology of most of the Jewish world, than the relationships can be rebuilt.
Both claims have truth in them. The global Jewish community can benefit from knowing more about Israel and have a wider and more comprehensive picture; and Israel should reevaluate its policies for various issues. Nevertheless, it seems there is more to it than that.
Rabbi Donniel Hartman, Ph.D. and president of the Shalom Hartman Institute in Israel, has an interesting view of those relationships. [See the January 2012 Chronicle.]
In his opinion, this current distance happened because the two communities stopped inspiring each other and failed to create a new spirit that will reach all corners of the Jewish people.
From the day Israel was established, the relationships between the world Jewry and Israel were based on a narrative of a crisis that related to the fragile existence of Jews in Israel and all over the world.
We had the young state of Israel and the constant threats to it on one hand, and on the other a world Jewry that doesn’t feel safe after the Holocaust.
One of the Holocaust lessons was the understanding of the danger of not having a land for the Jews, and that there has to be a safe sanctuary place for Jews around the world.
The immigration of millions of Jews from the Arab states, from the former Soviet Union, from Ethiopia, and more emphasized this need well. And in the context of the crisis narrative, supporting Israel was taken for granted.
However, this crisis narrative, although not completely outdated, no longer reflects Jewish life. Jewish life, especially in North America, is successful, powerful, and flourishing.
The new generation didn’t grow on the Holocaust as a genuine life-threatening experience. In Israel as well, and without undermining the dangers that it’s still experiencing, the military and technological development enable many to seeing it not as a leaf blowing in the wind.
The crisis narrative is fading, but throughout the years the Jewish community did not create a new and more relevant language, and in finding a new, justified cause for the connections between Israel and the Diaspora. While focusing on the crisis, not much room was left for other common grounds, and now that the sense of crisis is gone — the distance is getting wider and wider.
Why were we unsuccessful in redefining these relationships in a way that would suit our new reality? Hartman believes that the crisis narrative is so well rooted in our 2,000 years tradition, in our two perceptions of geula — redemption — and galut — exile.
Since the exile after the distraction of the second temple, Jews lived outside of Israel and prayed and dreamed to go back there. We still say “Next year in Jerusalem.”
The inspiration to go back to Jerusalem was supposed to mark the end of the exile. Meaning, redemption and exile cannot co-exist, although today the “exile” is not a real one, since the Jews all over the world see themselves at home where they live. They are not looking for a redemption shaped as the state of Israel. Especially since Israel itself is not the ideal, perfect place we would want our redemption to be.
But because these paradigms are still very common, although they’re not the accurate lenses through which to view the reality, the relationships become more complicated.
In order for us to release the old paradigms, we need to make a cultural, educational, and institutional effort, both in Israel and in the Diaspora. Both communities can learn and enrich each other by redefining the narrative and finding a new, vital connection.
Michal Makov-Peles and Ro’ee Peled are co-emissaries from Israel to Milwaukee.
Loading ...