U-mah ho'ilu hakhamim be-taqqanatam?

The new Obama administration seems to be keen on renewing the efforts to achieve an agreed settlement of the conflict in the Land of Israel. It's nice that someone is still optimistic that peace could be achieved, and indeed we can only hope that there is any possibility to end the conflict. I am very pessimistic, and I have an old story that can clarify my source of pessimism:

Once upon a time, a poor wretched man was given a choice of punishments to be meted out to him. He could eat rotting fish, OR he could be whipped, OR he could be chased out of town. It seemed to him that being chased out of town was "out of the question", so he decided to eat the rotting fish. As soon as he bit into the fish, he was absolutely overwhelmed by the horrible taste. He changed his mind in a moment, and asked to be whipped instead. But the pain of the whipping was just torture. It was simply unbearable. "I agree to being chased out of town..." So, in the end, he ate some rotting fish, AND he received some blows of the whip AND he was chased out of town.

There is a possibility that this little story will be translated into a very tragic political-military reality:

Israel will face three possible scenarios: She could negotiate with the Palestinians, knowing that the talks might end unsuccessfully (and Israel will probably be held accountable for this failure, the price of her being the stronger party). OR another scenario could be that the Palestinians shall renew the terrible suicide bombings. OR, of course, the third possibility could be a continuation of the present status quo. Well, everyone seems to think that the status quo is "out of the question". So, Israel will negotiate, obviously, particularly under the pressure of the Obama administration. The talks will indeed end up in failure, but the Islamic Jihad and/or the Hamas will be eager to renew the suicide bombings to be certain that there will be no atmosphere of peace-making. In the end, Israel will find the military solution to bring the new wave of suicide bombings to its end, and to re-establish the former status quo. So, we will have failed negotiations, AND we probably will have to go through another round of suicide bombings, AND we will end up continuing the present status quo. U-mah ho'ilu hakhamim be-taqqanatam?

Defining Jewish Peoplehood

According to our ancient texts, the existence of a common Jewish peoplehood is a self-evident fact. We recite in synagogue: "…Who has chosen us from all peoples, and has given us His Torah". In this prayer (that we all learned preparing for bar-mitzva), we declare ourselves to be one of the peoples of the world – an ancient people that has its own religious tradition. The prophet Jeremiah (31:34-35) promises the continued survival of our peoplehood which he defines as "the seed of Israel", clearly presenting the Biblical perception of common descent. Similarly, the rabbinic tradition defines the Jews as an "umma" (a people or nation) and a "lashon" (a language), one of seventy peoples and languages into which humanity is traditionally divided. It is of importance to note that the term "umma" is derived from the very same root as the word "imma" (mother), indicating yet again that the Jews defined themselves as a people sharing a common descent.

A visit to the local university library will demonstrate that our ancient self-perception is also an obvious fact in the modern world of academics. Next to many books entitled "The History of the Jewish People", we will not find any books entitled "The History of the Catholic People" or "The History of the Lutheran People"; rather, we will find books such as "The History of the Polish People" or "The History of the Armenian People" or "The History of the American People".

The Yiddish-speaking world of Eastern Europe before the Holocaust was a reality in which Jewish peoplehood was a clear fact of life and the substance of one's core identity. The Jews spoke their own language which was a clear reflection of their living in their own society. They were one of the peoples of Europe, defined as a national minority group in Poland, in the Soviet Union and elsewhere – not merely a religious community. The Jewish society in Israel today is the direct continuity of this destroyed Yiddish world. Modern Hebrew has replaced Yiddish, national majority status has replaced minority status – but the essence remains the same. The Jews speak their own language, live in their own society, create their own cultural life and understand their place in the scope of Jewish history.

Is the American Jewish world another way of expressing a Jewish peoplehood continuity? Well, bar-mitzvah boys continue to declare that we are a people, chosen from among the peoples. The smashing of a glass at every Jewish wedding together with the cry "if I forget thee, O Jerusalem…" would seem to indicate that our central historic memories remain relevant in our lives. Yet, sadly, the social reality of American Jewry broadcasts a very different message, negating the very content of an ancient civilization. American peoplehood has replaced the historic Jewish peoplehood, limiting the Jewish experience to religious ceremonies for a mostly irreligious community. The drama of American history is alive and very familiar, whereas our own story is simply foreign and mostly unknown. It's such a well-to-do community that knows no persecution, and yet Jewish education is so unimpressive. There is no Hebrew creativity; most don't even know the alef-bet.

The American Jewish public at large seems to be unaware that something has gone very wrong, and that there has been a dramatic break in Jewish continuity. Crisis, so it seems, is elsewhere in the Jewish world where a seemingly unsolvable historic conflict fills our agenda. Yet, that dramatic crisis should not overshadow the urgency of the crisis in Diaspora Jewry: the collapse of an ancient identity. Some might argue that this crisis of identity is unsolvable, and the unseen sociological forces of the dynamic and impressive American world are simply too overwhelming. Yet, with just a bit of old-fashion Jewish self-criticism, and with a renewed willingness to be comfortable in our own distinctiveness, perhaps we could try to take a first step back from more than a century of assimilation – returning to a primary Jewish identity based on our peoplehood.

In addition to a tradition of common descent, peoplehood always includes a narrative that the community cherishes. Jewish education must include a serious encounter with the central chapters of our history. The circumstances that brought about the creation of Biblical literature, the impact of the destruction of the Temple on the shaping of Jewish civilization, the medieval Jewish community, the crisis of modernity, Exile and Return – all these memories and more should be the self-evident basics of every educated Jew.

There is no Jewish peoplehood without our own language. The aim of Jewish education must be the renewal of Jewish creativity in Hebrew. The Hebrew language and the culture that it carries distinguish us as a civilization, connect us to our past - and with all other Jews.

Finally, peoplehood includes a homeland. All peoples in the world feel a connection to a particular territory which they see as theirs. Therefore, the American Jewish community must renew the concept of exile. It is self-evident that our homeland is the Land of Israel, the memory of which has shaped the Jewish world. Some of us live in the homeland, and some of us live in exile from it. Homeland and exile are two sides of the very same essence, enabling all Jewish communities to share a common awareness and a common heritage.

And the most urgent issue of all is worthy of repetition: American Jewry must be self-critical. There has to be a general recognition of the multi-generational failure to provide quality Jewish education. This self-criticism is the vital tool for returning to ourselves.

"Making Hebrew a Priority"

The Forward newspaper accepted an article of mine for publication ("Making Hebrew a Priority"). Generally, there is very little criticism of the American Jewish experience in the Forward, so I am pleased that it was possible to analyze one particular failure (Hebrew language achievements) and to propose a possible solution (Hebrew immersion schools). Here's the main argument:

"In the not-too-distant past, Jews typically lived in a bilingual environment. Within the family and the community, Yiddish was the spoken language of Ashkenazic Jewry during the course of the last thousand years. For contact with the non-Jewish society, one would communicate in the local non-Jewish language. By and large, the immigration to America brought an end to this historical reality: Instead of replacing Russian or Polish (one’s second language), English replaced Yiddish (one’s primary language), and Jewish bilingualism came to an end.
"The loss of our own language was not without precedent. In the quest for full integration in Western and Central Europe throughout the 19th century, the Jewish public chose to adopt the territorial languages as their vernacular. In the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire, for example, many Jews vacillated between the German language of the crown and the Czech or Hungarian languages of the local nationalism. Often there were those who protested the abandonment of Yiddish, claiming that the Jewish people would lose its unique content, its very soul, with the loss of its own language - but it was all to no avail. The eagerness to take on the American identity overwhelmed even the Yiddish-language Forward, which urged its readers to adopt English, an editorial position that would seem to negate its own best business interests.
"Many would argue that the Americanization of the Jews has been a tremendous success, while perhaps a few still express pain and mourning over the loss of an irreplaceable cultural uniqueness. It is obvious that both these perspectives are true. Indeed, together with its sense of pride in many realms of endeavor, American Jewry seems to have given up on the possibility of any Jewish creativity in a Jewish language. In so doing, it has turned its back on the legacy of an ancient civilization that had almost always expressed itself in Hebrew characters.
"In many places around the world, school systems produce high school graduates who are comfortable in two or even three languages, including the ability to read good literature in these languages. In Israel, for example, we often hear harsh criticism about the achievements of the school system — and justifiably so — and, yet, it has always been self-evident that an educated Hebrew speaker is also literate in English. If a society attaches importance to language skills, there will always be results.
"That is the historic failure of American Jewry: So very few understand that language is the central carrier of culture, and so very few are aware of the power of a Jewish language in establishing individual and collective identity.
If there were a Jewish public in North America interested in the re-establishment of a Jewish identity that would include a living Jewish language as a mark of distinction and definition, it could be done. It is a matter of motivation.
"Surely, a Jewish day school or charter school system in which Hebrew is the language of instruction for all subjects and activities from the very first day of kindergarten until the completion of school would bring about the desired result: bilingual graduates whose cultural point of reference would be the natural familiarity with the Jewish text. The Tarbut Hebrew school system of pre-Holocaust Poland and Lithuania is an outstanding example of such an immersion education. Similarly, a movement that would encourage substantial numbers of American Jewish students to do their academic studies at the Hebrew language universities of Israel could also create a significant public in the American Diaspora that would be culturally expressive in a historically Jewish language.
"American Jews are a well-to-do group that claims to value education, and yet Jewish identity remains an uphill - and too often a failing - battle. The return to a situation in which a spoken Jewish language is a self-evident fact of life would re-create a reality in which Jewish self-awareness is likewise self-evident. The challenge of Jewish educators is to aspire for the very best, and not to be resigned to a Jewish cultural reality as it is. The Hebrew language, the very key to the world of Jewish sources past and present, is the very best. It is both the symbol and the tool of Jewish continuity".

Breaking with the Past

I often try to explain to American Jews my general observation of the Jewish experience in North America: their American identity is a primary identity, and their Jewish identity is a secondary identity. This truth is obvious to me, but many reject this observation. This week, I had an interesting debate which gave me a rare opportunity to win one "battle" in what appears to be a lost "war".
An American Jewish guest in my home countered my observation by noting that his identity is a "synthesis". It is composed of many elements, and there is no component of this identity that is first or second, major or minor. He's an American, and he's a Jew - in addition to other aspects of awareness. Well, as always, I argued that one's American education is always very substantial, whereas the time spent in a Jewish educational framework is generally so brief. It simply can't be that the two cultural worlds are equal. Although no one would know the answer, still I asked him: "What percentage of American Jews would know the names of the Five Books of Moses?" On the spot, he admitted that he himself doesn't know the names, just as he doesn't even know the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet. In short, so I argued, he doesn't have any Jewish educational background, so surely Jewish culture is quite foreign to him. His reaction was that it shouldn't be dictated what one has to study in order to be culturally Jewish. People have a right to choose for themselves the content of their cultural world (and no one would be entitled to define such a cultural world as having mere secondary importance in life).
It occurred to me to ask my guest if he felt that studying the US Constitution should be obligatory in the American school system. His immediate answer was "yes" - it is very central". So it turns out that there are aspects of education that are so very important that they should even be dictated to the public. But why would he have such standards for his American society, but there is no need for any standards in his Jewish life? The answer is that American life is important, and hence it justifies educational standards. Jewish life is not really important, and hence one doesn't have any real intellectual expectations from the Jewish public. "Important", so I claimed, "can be translated to 'primary', whereas unimportant can be translated to 'secondary'". Much to my surprise, this line of logic was convincing - he accepted the fact that his American identity is primary, and his Jewish identity is only secondary.
It's very rare to have an ideological debate that ends with an admission that the one side is right. Seemingly, I should be pleased - but I'm not pleased at all! My central claim in this whole blog has been that the American Jewish community lacks a tradition of self-criticism. Everything is just fine, and there is no sense of failure or crisis that must immediately be addressed. This above debate is no different. My logic was that a Jew who recognizes that Jewish identity is merely secondary would be very interested to examine ways to change such a sad and disappointing reality. After all, it is a break with the entire history of the Jewish people. However, this was not the conclusion that was drawn from the above new understanding of identity. There was no sense of emergency, no pondering what could be done to remedy this problem. On the contrary. The fact was simply accepted as a reality, about which there is absolutely no value judgment. I can only wonder what would be the Jewish crisis in America that a "simple Jew" would understand as unusual and deserving of some serious soul-searching. So far I haven't found it.

A few years ago, there was a conference at the Hebrew University that dealt with the issue of Jewish peoplehood: "Is Jewish peoplehood a fact or a fiction?" There was participation of Jewish intellectuals from the Diaspora, and obviously there were the Hebrew University professors from the Department of Contemporary Jewry. The main disagreement was exactly along the lines of where one lives. The Diaspora Jews claimed that Jewish peoplehood is a fact (all Jews in the world are a single people), and the Israeli intellectuals expressed grave doubts as to the continuity of a clear peoplehood in the reality of today's Jewish experience. The Israelis spoke in more traditional sociological terms. "Peoplehood", in addition to narrative and descent, includes one's language and its unique social codes - and it includes a homeland. The loss of a Jewish language as well as the clear sense of belonging to other societies would indicate the ongoing disintegration of a common Jewish peoplehood. The Diaspora intellectuals, on the other hand, claimed that Jewish peoplehood means the "sharing of common values". In this view, Jewish peoplehood is a thriving identity, being expressed by so many Jewish writers and thinkers.

I identified with the Israeli intellectuals who expressed sincere worry about the future of the Jewish experience. I felt that the Diaspora intellectuals simply "changed the rules" - they re-defined peoplehood so that today's reality could be presented as a non-crisis continuity. At the same time, I was doing an MA in Jewish studies at Gratz College. One day, my professor commented that he lives in a "Jewish neighborhood" in Philadelphia. I found that quite surprising since I had thought the phenomenon of the Jewish neighborhood had ended in the 1950's. My parents grew up in the 1930's in Cleveland, and indeed they lived in a Jewish neighborhood. I have seen their high school yearbooks (a public high school in walking distance from home) - and literally everyone was Jewish, including the teachers. So, I asked innocently my Gratz professor: "Are there still Jewish neighborhoods in today's America?" His answer was: "Yes, my neighborhood is 15% Jewish!" My next comment was a bit less innocent: "Do the other 85% know that they also live in a Jewish neighborhood..."

This topic of neighborhoods is not too important, but I'd like to state what it is that I observed in this surprising conversation. There is a tendency in American Jewry to re-define the terminology in such a way as to create an illusion of continuity. The Jewish neighborhood hasn't disappeared; rather, we re-define the term as "a neighborhood that has a larger than average Jewish presence".

Not too long ago, I was giving an introduction to Jewish history, so I asked my students: "Who are the Jews". Generally, this can be a discussion that lasts well over an hour, since indeed it's not an easy question. American Jews mostly define themselves in terms of "religious community", and my task in the class discussion is to bring the children to an understanding that there is a Jewish peoplehood. A student raised her hand, and she gave the answer that I was expecting to hear at the lesson's end: "The Jews are a people". Well, I was caught by surprise. The discussion seemed to be over in less than half of a minute. I didn't have a chance to present my old ploys. Generally, I ask American Jews if there are books entitled "The History of the Russian People", "The History of the Greek People", "The History of the Jewish People", "The History of the American People", and more. The answer is "yes, of course". Then, I ask if there are books entitled "The History of the Catholic People", "The History of the Lutheran People", etc. "No", they answer, "there is no such thing as 'the Lutheran people'. There might be a book about the history of the Lutheran Church, but there is no Lutheran peoplehood". Thus, through their instinctive understanding of historical realities, they can be brought to understand that religion is not the sole definition of Jewishness. There is a Jewish people which is a parallel term to "Polish people", and not just "Judaism" which is parallel to "Christianity" or "Islam".

Well, in one particular class, as I was telling, the "correct" answer was expressed at the very first moment, and seemingly the discussion was "ruined". It negated a career-long experience in which American Jews articulate their Jewishness as a religion. Then, suddenly, I remembered my Gratz professor and his very strange definition of "Jewish neighborhood". Obviously, my student has a new "dictionary" in which "a people" means something else entirely. "Apples are a type of fruit. Oranges are another type of fruit. Now, you claim that the Jews are a people. What would be another example of a people", I asked. And her answer was "the Christians"! In short, she also defines the Jews as a religious group which, strangely, became her definition of a people.

Obviously, I don't wish to draw conclusions from the conceptions or misconceptions of children. However, I have just finished reading a very interesting book by Dr Erica Brown and Dr Misha Galperin, entitled "The Case for Jewish Peoplehood". A friend of mine from work had the book, and she asked me to read it and comment on it. There is a note in the book asking not to quote from it (it's not yet the final edition), so I won't give any real quotes; rather, I'd like to share here some of my impressions, all of which are in the realm of the tendency to re-define terms in an attempt to present American Jewish life as a continuity - and not as a break with the Jewish past.

I started the book with a sense of optimism that it would present an identity that all Jews in the world could understand. Dr Galperin spoke of his immigration from the USSR thirty years ago. He tells us that he very much wanted to be an American. Moreover, as he tells us proudly, his daughter was born in the USA, and she has a hyphenated Russian-American-Jewish identity. This was the first troublesome aspect of the book for me. If we wish to define a peoplehood identity, it should be a peoplehood identity that makes sense to all Jews. Wanting to be an American and proudly passing on to one's daughter a Russian identity are certainly not a "Jewish peoplehood identity" that a Jew in Jerusalem or a Jew in Buenos Aires could embrace as meaningful. So, between the lines, we are learning that "Jewish peoplehood" is within the framework of belonging to the American people. This is a new definition of peoplehood, designed for Jews who have an American identity.

The book deals with the question of language, a very typical issue of any peoplehood discussion. Again, I started reading the chapter with a feeling of optimism that there will be a call for serious Hebrew language achievements. Hebrew should be the tool for dealing directly with the wealth of Jewish sources, it could connect Jews with other Jews as a common language - and it would provide a common unique identity for all Jews that is independent of the identity of other peoples and cultures. Again, I was caught by surprised by the definition of "language". The book tells us directly that American Jews do not know Yiddish or Hebrew, so these languages are not on the agenda at all. American Jews must develop their own common vocabulary of "continuity" and "community". "Language" has now been re-defined. In the past, Jews spoke their own languages, so language meant "Yiddish" or "Ladino" or "Hebrew". Now, the Jewish language is "holding a conversation with your fellow Jew about matters of Jewish community life". Instead of facing the simple truth and saying that language in America is a failure that must be addressed, we simply change the rules - and "Jewish language" is now alive and well. It seems so simple to solve such major issues by changing the dictionary. It should be noted that the book calls for adult education to improve Jewish literacy; yet, Hebrew (or Yiddish) remains irrelevant in this proposed Jewish peoplehood. It is not "Jewish peoplehood", a peoplehood for all Jews; rather, the book is addressed to American Jewry and its English language reality.

When dealing with questions of identity, one often looks at the "other" in order to understand oneself. Who is the "other" in this book about peoplehood? They are almost always called "Christians". The book is promoting a renewed commitment to Jewish community life and adult education in Judaism. This is a worthy goal, of course - but "Jewish peoplehood" is not the right term for it. If the Jews were a peoplehood, the "others" would be the "Americans", or the "Arabs", or the "Russians". But the book is clear: The Jews are mainstream Americans, and the issue at hand is the quality of their religious community life. Dr Galperin tells a story of his identity card in the USSR in which his "religion" was written. He is now glad to be in America where he can give real content to this religion, and not just having a meaningless lable of a bureaucrat. Unfortunately, all this is misleading. It's true that in the Soviet ID, one was listed "Yevrey" (Jew) or "Yevreika" (Jewess) - but it wasn't one's religion! It was one's national identity. Other possibilities in the USSR were "Russian", "Estonian", "Armenian", "Uzbeki" etc. It was a peoplehood entry in the ID card. The Jews were a national minority in the USSR. Dr Galperin knows this - so why does he mislead us into thinking that the clerk registered his religion? Because this book is meant for an American Jewish audience - not for the Jewish people everywhere - and for American Jews, "Jewish" is understood as religion, not as a peoplehood. The book is promoting a commitment to the Jewish religious community (which is very worthy) - but the authors have decided to call this commitment "peoplehood". This definition is, however, a new definition. It is meant to leave us an illusion that this is the continuity of the historic Jewish peoplehood.

Peoplehood also includes territory. However, since this book is meant for American Jews, the territorial issue has to be dismissed as irrelevant. The Birobidzhan experiment is mentioned as proof that territory is unimportant in the Jewish experience. Looking eastward for two thousand years - but not arriving - is noted a positive experience. "Wandering" has a message that we should always be yearning for a better world. So, although Israel is part of today's Jewish identity, it cannot be presented as ideal. The return to Israel has only been a 20th century story, so it's not really central in our "Jewish peoplehood", the book seems to be saying. I found that terribly hypocritical. If American Jews don't know a Jewish language (that's a 20th century phenomenon, too), then language is not part of the Jewish experience, and that's just "fine". In today's reality, Jewish identity in Israel based on the Hebrew language and the Land of Israel encompasses half of the Jewish people. How can it be disregarded as "new", and thus irrelevant, in promoting a Jewish peoplehood identity.

Dr Erica Brown tells a story of Israelis from Haifa who came to Boston. There, in Boston, they go to synagogue and "find God". Her message is that Israelis might have territory, but the American Jewish experience has the real essence of Jewish life. I've grown tired of this widely accepted nonsense. Much more Israelis live a traditional or religious Jewish life than American Jews. They have a homeland, and a language, and a community, and a narrative, and Jewish literacy - and many go to synagogue. Moreover, you don't have to explain to them that the Jews are a people. It's simply obvious. In the American Jewish experience, American peoplehood has replaced the historic Jewish peoplehood identity. Instead of dealing with this serious issue and searching for ways to restore Jewish distinctiveness (which is hard work), it's easier to re-define peoplehood by inventing a new dictionary. Problems, however, will not be solved by changing wording. There is a need to admit that Jewish peoplehood in America has collapsed, and then a real solution must be sought.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to spend the day with a group of Reform Movement rabbis from the USA. They took an interest in my work with American Jewish teenagers, and so within a short time, we were having some discussions about Jewish identity in general. I find these discussions to be terribly frustrating since it is nearly impossible to make a statement that is understood just as I mean it to be understood. Language is imperfect, because another person's understanding is under the impact of a whole different life's experience. However, the conversation was unavoidable.
My first observation was that my American Jewish students see Israelis as foreigners. For me, this is disappointing, I noted, since in my ideal view of Jewish identity, all Jews are a single peoplehood. Much to my further disappointment, the rabbis agreed that for an "American" an "Israeli" is a foreigner, adding that a Jew in Venezuela is also a foreigner - "only religion makes a connection with an American Jew". As always in such discussions, they commented that "not all Israelis are Jews". I explained that "Israeli" is a Jewish identity, receiving in return raised eyebrows of astonishment. Citizenship (a legal status) and identity (how one defines oneself and is defined by one's society) are not the same. A non-Jew might have Israeli citizenship, but he will never call himself "Israeli" - he'll only call "Israelis" the Jews of Israel. I explained further that the Jews of Poland before the Holocaust were Polish citizens, but they were not "Polish" (which is an identity of Polish speakers of Polish ethnic descent) - they were Jews (an identity of the Yiddish speaking population and an identity of ethnic descent). In America, a Jew is not only a citizen of the USA, he actually sees himself as an American. His Jewish identity is no longer primary, as was the case of his Yiddish speaking immigrant great-grandfather. It is merely religion.
Well, the rabbis tried to explain to me the reality of American society. "A Jew would have felt very uncomfortable defining himself as an 'other'. Distinctiveness makes sense in a reality in which the Jews are rejected, but not in an open society". Obviously, I didn't agree. I don't see the survival of Jewish peoplehood as a negative phenomenon, a result of rejection by other peoples; rather, Jewish peoplehood stands as a sociological and cultural equal with others. Moreover, I claimed that the social reality of America is clear to me. The issue that I am raising is one of a value judgment: Is what has happened to American Jewish identity a positive or a negative development? If it is negative, then what could be done today educationally in order to try and return the Jews to the former historical identity? Here is the problem: there is no value judgment. One doesn't hear real criticism that "maybe something is wrong". On the contrary, in this conversation it was claimed that Jewish peoplehood distinctiveness throughout history is an indication of the failures of others ("rejection of Jews").
The rabbis raised their perception of Jewish religious centrality in the defining of Jewish identity. Therefore, it was claimed that there is a problem actually in Israel, not in American Jewry. The Israelis whom they know, so it was stated, are uninterested in religious life. This is a claim that I hear very often. There seems to be a very popular misconception that Israelis are very non-traditional. Yet, there is no doubt that the Israeli public is the most traditional Jewish community in the world. I asked them, just for an example, what percentage of American Jews go to synagogue on Shabbat. "For a bar-mitzvah?", they asked. No, what percentage simply go to synagogue regularly? I ventured a guess of 5%. "It's probably less than that", was their guess. I don't know if they caught the irony of their own estimation, but for my readers I'd like to state it in clear words. They define the Jewish public in Israel as not interested in religion, leaving the hint that the Jewish public in America is different. But their public doesn't go to synagogue. I asked them to give an estimate as to the percentage of Israelis attending synagogue on Shabbat. Well, who knows - but I imagine that it could be well over 30%.
What is the conclusion of all this silly debate? The rabbis were arguing that Jewish peoplehood is not really important. "It is the Jewish religion that really matters" - but their public is not really interested in religion. Jewish peoplehood has been abandoned, and religion is not so important - and yet the only focus of criticism was on Israelis. When did self-criticism go away? How can we restore it?
I tried to put my finger on the trends that have caused the collapse of Jewish identity. I mentioned that there are a number of elements of peoplehood that are now missing in the American Jewish community. First of all, the abandonment of Yiddish has created a new essence. Language carries identity. Yiddish carried a Jewish peoplehood identity, and American English carries the identity of another peoplehood. Secondly, the Jewish narrative has been abandoned. Jews simply do not know our story, simply because their Jewish education is so meagre. Finally, the American Jews have abandoned the homeland. A Jewish community that sees itself in exile is a community that has a homeland which it shares with all other Jews. Today, there is no exile as far as the American Jews are concerned. They are Americans living in America, and so exile is now a meaningless concept. Hence, "Israelis are foreigners" - the point of reference has shifted from the Jewish historic experience into the realm of the American world.
"What about the Russian-speaking non-Jewish population in Israel?" - that was the counter argument! I don't know how to present the failures of American Jewish life without antagonizing my listeners. All I wish to do is to present these failures in the hope that action can be taken to correct something. Improvement can be achieved only if there is a recognition of failure. Well, instead, I found myself discussing a success story. The descendants of these Russian-speakers will be Hebrew speakers. This phenomenon is happening in front of our eyes. They will send their children to the Israeli school system where they shall learn the narrative of the Jewish people. They will also marry other Israelis throughout the coming generations; therefore, the descendants will be speaking a Jewish language, they will see themselves as continuing the Jewish narrative, they will be sharing with us this homeland, and they will see themselves as sharing a common descent with other Jews. Language, narrative, ethnicity, homeland - obviously, they will be part of the Jewish peoplehood. What more could one ask for? I was hoping for a some soul-searching in the American Jewish scene so that its Jewish community will remain part of the historic Jewish peoplehood - and that we should not become foreigners to each other.

The message of the 2009 elections

I am writing this blog in order to express some constructive criticism about the American Jewish experience. In order to solve problems, as I have claimed, one must first admit that there are problems, then define their true nature, and finally one could try to propose some reasonable remedy. However, today, I shall devote some time to the recent elections in Israel. The results are quite unusual: the Qadima Party has received the largest number of seats in the Knesset, yet it seems quite obvious that the Likud Party will be asked to form the next government. Yet, beyond the strangeness of the results, I believe that some important observations can be made regarding the reality of Israel's society as expressed by its voters.

In the elections of 2006, the Qadima Party got its main support from traditional Likud supporters. Therefore, the Likud dropped to a mere 12 seats. Its voters gave their trust to Qadima that had essentially broken off from the Likud (a handful of Labor politicians had also joined, including Shim'on Peres, but generally speaking the new party was a moderate version of the right-wing Likud). Now, the Likud is back. Its voters returned in massive numbers. So, how did Qadima manage to win more seats than Likud? Where did its voters come from?

Qadima drew its support from the traditional Zionist left - Labor and Meretz! Tzipi Livni succeeded in defeating the left, not the right. What has happened?

The Israeli left wing since the Six-Day War promoted two main ideas: 1) holding onto the territories captured in that war is not in our interest; 2) the conflict can be solved by offering the Arabs a fair and generous proposal. It turns out that the left has succeeded in convincing our public that the continued Israeli presence in the territories is indeed not in our interest, but the public has rejected the idea that it's our initiative and our initiative alone that will bring the conflict to an end.

Obviously, the right wing had a different view after 1967. Keeping all the territories was its central theme, and it had very little faith that the Arab side would be placated. I remember hearing a dramatic speech of Menahem Begin in 1972 at Bar-Ilan University. He was convinced that masses of Jews would settle in Israel, and hence we would keep the territories and maintain a solid Jewish majority in the Land of Israel.

However, since the Oslo Agreement (and in spite of its failure), the mainstream Israeli public has adopted the first leftist position. It believes that it is in our very best interest to be rid of the territories. Only a smaller state can preserve a Jewish majority. With the end of the massive immigration of Soviet Jewry, the drama of aliyah has come to an end. There is no illusion, no hope whatsoever, that significant numbers of western Jewry will take upon its shoulders the burdens of the Jewish collective existence. The main reason is, obviously, that Jewish identity is no longer their primary identity; rather, the American identity is central in their lives. Adopting an American identity means that the exile has come to an end (a person with a primary American identity, living in America, is not a "Jew in exile yearning for redemption"). Israel, therefore, is the home of its Jewish population, and only here and there will a handful of idealists join us (in addition to the unpredictable case of Jewish refugees fleeing some terrible regime). In short, the public understands that we will be a minority in our own land unless we go in the direction of partition. Here, the left has won the debate: the right wing Likud and even Yisrael Beitenu want to be rid of the territories!

This, now, explains the seemingly strange fact that left-wing voters gave their support to Qadima, a party which has its main roots in the Israeli right. These former left-wing voters understand that the question of partition has been resolved. There is no fear whatsoever that the territories will be annexed or that any mainstream political party will avoid negotiations with the enemy. This issue has been resolved satisfactorily. The questions that remain are: "Can we placate the enemy? Is the end of conflict a possibility? Is it solely an issue of our offering a generous peace proposal?"

In these questions, the right wing of Israel has won the debate. There is little faith that the conflict can be resolved - and it's not because of us. The Hamas position, just for an example, regards our state as illegitimate, and it regards the armed struggle as a matter of principle. A nation such as Iran has made it clear that the disappearance of Israel is its official state policy. It has no grievances merely about "occupation" or "refugees", etc. Even the moderates of Palestinian society (who are willing to negotiate with Israel) are keen to conduct talks with us only for pragmatic reasons - not because we have any legitimate rights. The conflict is not coming to an end, so it seems, and the Israeli public has essentially expressed in its vote that it has accepted the traditional right-wing position in this regard.

To summarize: The right wing of Israel is no longer the right wing of the past. The dream of the entire Land of Israel has been abandoned. Hence, the left wing could vote for Qadima. Some probably voted for the Likud as well which likewise is not proposing to keep the captured territories. The issue that remains is the issue of "ending the conflict". Since many have abandoned the belief that we could convince the enemy to end the hostilities through some generous offer, they have now casted their votes for the right wing which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as more capable of "conflict-management". The Zionist left (Labor and Meretz) has been reduced to 16 members of Knesset.