Jewish Communal Structures Around the World Daniel J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JEWISH COMMUNAL STRUCTURES AROUND THE WORLD DANIEL J. ELAZAR President, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Israel In the postmodern era, all Diaspora Jewish communities are voluntary, and the first task of every Jewish community is to learn to deal with the particular local manifestation of its Jewish population's freedom to choose. Participation in the community actually defines its limits, and each is organized as a series of concentric circles around a central core of Judaism/Jewishness that draws Jews toward it in varying degrees. orld Jewry is presently at the height of ernments and government-supported Wthe second post-World War II genera through their revenue-raising and distri tion. The first, which lasted more or less from bution powers. the end ofthe war to the late 1970s, witnessed 3. Boards of Deputies pioneered by Great the reconstitution of Jewish communities Britain, government-recognized bodies throughout the world—either because of the in which all the various activifies in the necessity to reconstruct them in war-ravaged Jewish community were represented. countries, the establishment of the State of These Boards served as a central address Israel, or the need to consolidate the gains of for the Jewish community but engaged settling in on the part of Jews in the new primarily in external relations on behalf worlds that had benefited so gready from ofthe coinmunity and were supported by Jewish migration out of the old world during Jewish resources exclusively or almost so. the prior century. 4. Congregational communities, developed That reconstitution involved a series of in smaller countries, which embraced the modifications of the five patterns of Jewish Jewish community as a whole and were communal organization developed during the usually not state-recognized but relied modern epoch to reflect the opening of a new, upon voluntary affiliation and support. then as yet unrecognized, postmodern age. 5. Communities with no formal or official These following five patterns emerged be central address or framing body, no for tween the convening of the Napoleonic mal government recognition, and no gen "Sanhedrin" in 1807 and World War I. eral government support (although some fimctions might receive government aid), 1. The consistorial pattern pioneered by pioneered by the United States. France whereby all those who identified as Jews were officially organized into These models persisted more or less in their hierarchical synagogue-centered bodies original form until World War II. Most were called consistoires or some similar term. restored to some extent after the war with One way or another, all Jewish activities modifications. The central thrust of these had to be subsumed within the consistorial changes was (1) the withdrawal of formal framework. government support and (2) often the broad 2. The kultesgemeindepattem pioneered by ening of the community's framing institu Germany, in which territorial organiza tions to include religious, welfare, and com tions of Jewish communities based on, but munity relations organizations in equivalent stretching beyond, the synagogue were roles in an increasingly open environment in governed by communal boards officially which new institutions and organizations recognized and empowered by host gov could be established with relative ease and 120 Jewish Comwuna! Structures Around the IVoHd / 121 market-like competition could take place 3. Six government-recognized/assisted among them. framing institutions in a very limited That process continued into the 1980s and market situation, where the availability of 1990s as the resuh of further situational government recognition and assistance changes. First and foremost among them was fosters the distinction between recognized the collapse of the Soviet empire and then the and unrecognized organizations and en Soviet Union itself between 1989 and 1991 courages Jews to belong to the former, but and the resulting liberation of the Jews in at the same time allows room for the latter those countries. Jewries that for many years to develop; for example, Germany and had no means of functioning as organized Sweden. entities under Communist rule—at most they 4. Thirty-two communities with recognized were allowed the fiction of maintaining pup framing organizations but with a semi- pet organizations forced on them by the re open market in which one or more orga gime under which they lived—suddenly re nizations are accepted by the vast major gained the opportunity for self-organization. ity of Jews as central addresses for the With the assistance of world Jewry, they community or for specific bundles of com almost immediately reorganized themselves, munal functions or that frame communal even thougli many, if not most, of the indi activity in a manner in which other Jew vidual Jews in those countries left for Israel or ish organizations not only cannot emerge the West. This sudden release of the pent-up but also cannot become strong enough to energies of millions of Jews has had organi compete with those more formally recog zational consequences that have yet to be felt nized bodies; for example, Argentina, fully. Canada, and Great Britain. 5. Twenty-one diffused communities that CONTEMPORARY PATTERNS OF are either partially framed or unframed, COMMUNAL ORGANIZATION where an open market exists for compet ing Jewish organizations to emerge in Today we still find five types of communities every sphere and in every arena; for ex with five patterns of Jewish communal orga ample. United States, Russia, and Ukraine. nization (Table 1), but they are considerably different from the more rigid patterns of the The first two types are found principally in modern epoch. small communities of 5,000 Jews or less. Examples of the third and fourth types are 1. Thirty-one communities based on a single more likely to be found in medium-sized to local organization or congregation: This relatively large Jewish communities, espe is the simplest pattern and the closest to cially in Europe and the Middle East where its predecessor congregational-commu old patterns of government recognition and nity model. It only exists in the smallest assistance have not entirely disappeared. communities where local Jews find that Communities of the last type other than the they cannot afford the luxury of different United States are to be found where new organizations despite the "Jewish" incen Jewish communities are being developed tives for division; for example, Luxem under market conditions, particularly in the bourg and Monaco. former Soviet Union. 2. Nineteen integrated congregational com In some cases, the categorization of these munities in which several different orga communities has to be considered tentative. nizations or congregations exist but all For example, some of the communities listed are tied together around a single commu as diffused probably still see themselves as nity or congregation and operate within having government-recognized framing or that integrated framework; for example, ganizations. Some of those with govern- Gibraltar and Norway. IVINTER/SPRING 1997/98 Journal of Jewish Communal Service / 122 Table 1. Types of Contemporary Countrywide Jewish Communities Government- Government- Single Organization/ Integrated Assisted Framing Recognized Framing Consresation t31) Conereeation tl9) Institutions f 61 Organizations f321 Diffused (211 Afghanistan Bahamas Austria Argentina Australia Algeria Bosnia Germany Belgium Azerbaijan Armenia Bulgaria Iran Bohvia Belai-us Bahiain Croatia Luxembourg Brazil China Barbados Cuba Tunisia Canada Ecuador Bermuda Domincan Republic Turkey Chile Ethiopia Botswana El Salvador Columbia Georgia Burma Finland Czech Rqiublic Himgary Costa Rica Gibraltar Denmark India Egypt Guatemala Estonia Kyrgystan Fiji Honduras France Latvia Guadeloupe Martinique Greece Mexico Guyana Netherlands Antilles Ireland Netherlands Indonesia Norway Italy Russia Iiaq Phihppiues Kazakhstan Tajikistan Jamaica Portugal Lithuania Thailand Japan Singapore Moldova Ukraine Kenya Surinam Morocco Uruguay Lebanon Zambia New Zealand liiited States Malta Panama Uzbekistan Monaco Paraguay Yemen Mo7ambique Peru Namibia Poland New Caledonia Romania Slovenia Slovakia Syria South Afiica Tahiti Spain Taiwan Sweden Turkmeuislau Switzeiiand Yugoslavia Uiited Kingdom Zaire Venezuela Zimbabwe ment-assisted framing institutions are barely Judaism or the Jewish people, is an entirely that, but rather are rudimentary communities voluntary matter. Even in a community such that are government-dominated. So, too, the as Germany, in which those registered as difference between the single organization or Jews pay their share of the government-levied congregational communities and the inte church tax that is then reallocated to the grated congregational communities may vary Jewish community, one can choose to register from time to time since new congregations as Jew or not as one wishes. All of the may come into existence or old ones may communities are increasingly pluralistic; that disappear. Nevertheless, the categorization is to say, there is no establishment to impose can be seen as reasonably accurate. a single pattern, religious or communal, on What is characteristic of these new pat them, but rather people seek a way to express terns is that membership in the community, their Jewishness that they find comfortable, indeed adherence to a formal connection with even if they have to invent new ways to do so. WINTER/SPRING 1997/98 Jewish