In the summer of 2015, I was privileged to take up a Senior Visiting Fellowship at the Kenyon Institute, Jerusalem. My research project was to explore how debate about Israel among Jewish communities in the Diaspora, differs to that of Jewish communities in Israel. The main purpose of the project was to investigate the conjecture that public debate about Israel among Jewish communities is widening in its scope in the Diaspora, whereas it is narrowing in Israel.
The basis for this project was that it was previously considered ‘conventional wisdom’ that the debate within Israel about the relationship between themselves and with Palestinians was always greater than in the Diaspora, where the main role of public discourse was to support Israel’s rights to make its own decisions. Diaspora Jews were not expected to seriously challenge the decisions of the Israeli government. Whilst there has always been debate amongst Jewish Diaspora communities about Israel, as the peace process slowed to a crawl, and for all intents and purposes came to a stop, it appeared as though Diaspora Jews were becoming increasingly vocal in calling for the Israeli government to make peace, rather than to let the process die. Moreover, there was increasing concern in the Diaspora about the state of Israeli public discourse with regards to the local Palestinian population, both inside and outside the Green Line.
In Israel, however, the opposite appears to have occurred. Views hardened as some Israelis seemed to decide that there was no ‘partner for peace’. Moreover, it could be argued that there was an increasing public tolerance, if not outright acceptance, of visibly racist anti-Arab discourse from leading politicians. Whereas there had once been a wide-ranging debate about peace with the Palestinians and how to achieve it, there has since been a growing general acquiescence that conflict management, and not peace, was the future.
I sought to explore the extent to which these general observations could be backed up with evidence. However, between my proposal to the CBRL and my taking up the Fellowship in Jerusalem, the 2015 Israeli elections took place. In my opinion, the elections seemed to support my hypothesis that debate in the Diaspora is widening, whereas in Israel it is narrowing. This is, perhaps, most clearly evidenced by the moral outcry in much of the Diaspora Jewish media about Prime Minister Netanyahu’s last minute ‘race-baiting’ tactics that, arguably, helped him to win the election. As is often the case with contemporary research, the ground was shifting.
Fortunately, in this instance, current events did not undermine the foundations of my research hypothesis. It was not the results of the 2015 Israeli election by themselves (with Netayanu’s Likud Party gaining 12 significant seats), as much as it was the public discourse during the election when combined with the electoral results. Netanyahu’s call to the polls as a duty, in the face of Arabs voting, was not viewed with much chagrin within Israel, whereas outside of Israel, and especially in North America, it was. Thus, my research question needed to change. It was no longer sufficient to conduct a comparative analysis—my research now had to include analysis of meaning, identity and values.
As a consequence, over the summer, my research shifted to involve significantly more interviews than originally planned. These interviews demonstrated several significant points. Firstly, it appeared to me that it was difficult for Israelis to be critical of Netayanhu’s ‘race baiting’, or at least to view it as a mere political tactic that should not be taken too seriously. Secondly, it became apparent that although a significant amount of critical voices of the administration remain within Israel, little successful leadership persists to provide an alternative to the discourse of Netanyahu and the right- wing. Thirdly, it is not clear what voice or role Israelis see the Jewish Diaspora as having for Israel. Finally, and perhaps not unexpectedly, it is evident that Israelis and Palestinians not only have little trust in each other, but also that they understand current political events in dramatically different ways.
Of these four points, the first was deeply troubling, the second was interesting and raised questions about the future of the Israeli left, the fourth was unsurprising, but it was the third that my research largely came to focus on. In multiple discussions it was evident that Israelis know little about Jewish life in the Diaspora; they do not appreciate (even if they are aware of) the diversity of Judaism that exists in the Diaspora but not in Israel (or to be more precise, not to the same degree); many continue to view the Diaspora as a place of danger and insecurity (this is especially the case in regard to France); when they think of what Jews in the Diaspora can do for Israel, they think largely in American terms of lobbying their representative in Congress or Senator. Jewish identity and, as a consequence, an understanding of what constitutes Jewish values, can be dramatically different in Israel than in Diaspora countries.
Nevertheless, for many Diaspora Jews a connection with Israel remains very important for their sense of self. The imbalance in this relationship is immediately noticeable. Israel provides Diaspora Jews with some kind of meaning, but this is not reciprocated. Diaspora Jews do not offer Israel any similar resources for meaning and values on which to draw, but the Diaspora is rather viewed as a place to escape from (although in a few cases a place to escape to), or to expect support from.
What conclusions can be drawn from these observations? My research is ongoing in this regard, but first, for Diaspora Jews, Israel functions very much like an amusement park. Jews travel to Israel as a form of romantic escapism that serves to recharge their Jewish batteries without necessarily having to get hands dirty in the process. What is suggestive in this way of understanding the relationship between the Jewish Diaspora and Israel is that the relationship is not ideologically based but phenomenological. Israel functions in a phenomenological way in that it provides a form of meaning for Diaspora Jews (at least for those who want it), that contributes to the construction of Jewish identity. Interestingly, Israelis are aware that their country matters for Diaspora Jewry, but are unclear about what exactly this means for Israelis. A second point is that whereas Israelis see their security policies in terms of the national interest, it is easier and more common for Diaspora Jews to understand Israeli security policies in light of Jewish values. Thus, it could be argued that if Israel is to escape from the mentality of accepting a security policy of conflict management, it may need to take more seriously the critical voices coming out of the Diaspora.
The different character of debate in Israel, and in the Diaspora about Israel, reflect these differences. For Diaspora Jews who view Israel in value-laden terms that are tied to their sense of being Jewish, what Israel does carries significant normative repercussions for their sense of Jewish identity and Jewish values. For Israelis, government decisions are framed in terms that closely align with an idea of the national interest. In other policy areas, however, we can see Israel paying greater attention to Diaspora views, albeit slowly. One such area is in events such as marriage and divorce, and where religious activities are concerned. There are signs that Israelis are challenging the hegemony of the orthodoxy and are turning to Diaspora ways of Jewish religiosity and spirituality, and to non-orthodox approaches to such life events.
My stay at the CBRL was invaluable in providing the opportunity to develop my research into the Diaspora’s relationship with Israel, and my time in Jerusalem opened up new avenues of thought and helped to dramatically shape the future of my work—especially in regard to theory. These preliminary conclusions form the basis of my next monograph, and current article drafts. I have benefited extraordinarily well from the Fellowship and am indebted to the CBRL for supporting my research on a controversial subject.