DOCSLIB.ORG

Israel at a Crossroads Between Civic Democracy and Jewish Zealotocracy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Israel at a Crossroads Between Civic Democracy and Jewish Zealotocracy ORE Open Research Exeter TITLE Israel at a crossroads between civic democracy and Jewish zealotocracy AUTHORS Pappé, I JOURNAL Journal of Palestine Studies DEPOSITED IN ORE 14 July 2014 This version available at http://hdl.handle.net/10871/15198 COPYRIGHT AND REUSE Open Research Exeter makes this work available in accordance with publisher policies. A NOTE ON VERSIONS The version presented here may differ from the published version. If citing, you are advised to consult the published version for pagination, volume/issue and date of publication Israel at a Crossroads between Civic Democracy and Jewish Zealotocracy Author(s): Ilan Pappe Source: Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Spring, 2000), pp. 33-44 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2676454 . Accessed: 28/03/2014 10:32 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and Institute for Palestine Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Palestine Studies. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 144.173.152.98 on Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:32:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ISRAELAT A CROSSROADS BETWEEN CwIc DIEMocRAcY AND JEWISH ZEALOTOCRACY ILAN PAPPE MainstreamZionism (now comprisingboth Labor and Likud) is in- creasinglybeing challenged by theRight and Left.Post-Zionism has exposedthe intellectualfallacies underlying traditional Zionism's at- temptto combine ethnic segregation with an opensociety, but it is the moraland ideologicalsubstitute offered by neo-Zionism,opting for ethnicsegregation as an ultimategoal, that is mountingthe realpolit- ical challenge.This article argues that while mainstream Zionists will delineatethe space of a futureIsrael (by drawingthe borders in a settlementwith the Palestinians), the neo-Zionists will cast the ideolog- ical contentinto this space (by definingthe identity and orientation ofIsraeli society). THE VICTORY OF EHUD BARAKin theMay 1999 Israeligeneral election was hailed locallyand internationallyas the returnof theJewish state to the peace track.As theinternational media were quick to note,the final stage in thelong road begunin Oslo was at hand.And yet, thus far, we have wit- nessedthe conclusion of anotherversion of theWye accord, the Sharm al- Shaykhagreement, and preliminarynegotiations on how to negotiatethe finalstages. In short,for all thedramatic announcements and sanguineinter- pretations,there has been verylittle progress. Butmore significant, and on theface of it quitesurprising, is the virtual absence of internaldebate in Israelat this"moment of truth"in thestate's history.As thelast phase in thenegotiations supposedly gets underway, the debatethat several years ago was so heatedas to resultin theassassination ofPrime Minister Yitzhak Rabin has totallysubsided. The Israeligovernment calledupon to makethis final peace is based on a largemajority of Jewish membersof the Knesset, and eventhe opposition accepts with few reserva- tionsthe basic outlines of the settlement likely to be offeredto thePalestini- ans.From Peace Now on theLeft to GushEmmunim on theRight, there is a wide consensuson thenature of the conflict's solution. Whatis clear is thatthe old dichotomybetween Labor and Likudno longerserves as an appropriateindicator of the nature of the internal Israeli debateon thecrucial issues of national concern and particularlyon thesolu- ILANPAPur is professorof politicalscience at HaifaUniversity and academichead of the Institutefor Peace Research,Givat Haviva. He is the authorof 7he Makingof theArab- Israeli Conflict,1947-1951, amongother works. Journal of Palestine Studies XXIX, no. 3 (Spring2000), pp. 33-44. This content downloaded from 144.173.152.98 on Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:32:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 34 JOUNIULOF PALESINE STUDIES tionof the Palestine question. Indeed, Labor (the hegemonic representation of Zionismfrom 1882 untilits fall from power in the 1977 elections)and Likud(inheritor of the alternative, more ethnocentric and segregativevariant ofZionism known as Revisionismthat rose to challengeLabor Zionism as of 1922)can be said to have coalescedinto one majorideological stream. For despitethe bitter antagonism that has separatedthem historically, and de- spiteLabor's loss at thepolls in 1977,it is Labor'svision that has prevailed overRevisionism's commitment to totalsovereignty over the whole of his- toricalPalestine. It is Labor'svision, in whichLikud has essentiallyacqui- esced, thathas remainedthe principalprism through which the political centerand professionalelites in Israelview the Israel/Palestine reality. For thepurposes of thisarticle, we shallcall thisnow-shared approach main- streamZionism.1 THEIDEOLOGICAL STREAMS Despitethe convergence of thetwo megaparties into one stream,Israel, notunlike societies in theBalkans, remains very much a societytorn by ide- ology.The leadingideological outlook represented by mainstreamZionism is challengedby twoopposing streams: post-Zionism and neo-Zionism.It is our purposehere to tryto assess thesites and contoursof theideological debateunderway since the last elections, its present balance of power, and implicationsfor the future, not only on thestate of Israel, but for the future of thePalestine question. Fromthe Left, mainstream Zionism has been challengedsince the 1980s bypost-Zionism. This movement represents a cultural view that strongly crit- icizesZionist policy and conductbefore and during1948, accepts many of theclaims made by thePalestinians concerning 1948 itself, and envisionsa non-Jewishstate in Israelas thebest solution for the country's internal and externalpredicaments. As such,it represents a pointof view acceptableto largenumbers of Palestiniancitizens in Israel.Indeed, whether it can ever become a meaningfulpolitical alternative depends largely on itsability to forma lastingpolitical alliance with Israel's Palestinian national minority. Thisalliance has notbeen formed as yet,and thus we cannotnow talkabout post-Zionismas a politicalchallenge. The post-Zionistsuccess so farhas been in legitimizinghitherto taboo topicsof greatrelevance to thepresent debatein Israel:the nature of Zionism,Israel's moral conduct in 1948,the refugeeproblem, policies toward Sephardic Jews (henceforth Mizrahim), and so on.2More significant for the future will be itsinfluence in theuniver- sitiesand, more importantly, in the educational system, as willbe discussed laterin thisarticle. The mainpolitical challenge to traditionalZionism comes from the Right, froma fundamentalistZionism that Uri Ram has termed"neo-Zionism."3 Neo-Zionismis a violentand extremeinterpretation ofZionism. It existed as a marginalvariant of Zionismboth in theLabor and Revisionistcamps and This content downloaded from 144.173.152.98 on Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:32:44 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ISRAELAT A CROSSROADSBETwFx CwIc DEMOCRACYAND JEWISHZEALOTOCRACY 35 was nourishedin the teachingcenters controlled by the religiousZionist Hapoel Hamizrachi(which became the National Religious Party, Mafdal). It burstforth as an officialalternative after the 1967war, pushed forward by expansionistsamong the Labor movement, leaders of the newly established Likud,and leadingrabbis. In the 1980s,neo-Zionism widened its constitu- encyby formingalliances with the settlersin the occupiedterritories and withdeprived and marginalizedsectors of society.It is an uneasyalliance comprisingexpansionist nationalists, ultraorthodox rabbis, and ethnicspiri- tualleaders of the Mizrahi Jews, all presentingthemselves as championsof theunderprivileged Mizrahim. As an electorate,the Mizrahim until recently supportedthis alliance, but today have a farmore complicated and sophisti- catedview thatdefies placement on the ideologicalmap we are tryingto draw.Quite probably, the Mizrahim are divided,very much like the rest of theJewish community in Israel,among the three ideological streams. The ideologicaldebate in Israelinvolves a struggleover the collective memoryand thepast, the present, and thevision of thefuture. The debate overthe past primarily involves the challenge to LaborZionism's version of historymounted by post-Zionistscholars. It is herethat post-Zionism has made itsmark, having won an importantfollowing in Israeliacademia and centersof cultural production, and-despite the fact that every known histo- rianof the traditional Zionist camp has been recruitedto refutepost-Zionist theses-ithas won wide legitimacyin theWest and thereforein largeseg- mentsof Israeli society. The battlecontinues, its acuteness and indeedacri- monyundimmed because of its connection to thepolicies of the present and postureof the future. That the post-Zionists will ultimately win-indeed have alreadylargely won-is no longerin doubt. Nonetheless, as I haveaddressed thisbattle over the past in earlierarticles in thisjournal,4 we shallfocus the discussionhere on theremaining areas of contest: the present and the future. MAINSTREAM ZIomsM AND DRAWH4G
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Briefing: Labor Zionism and the Histadrut
    Briefing: Labor Zionism and the Histadrut International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network-Labor, & Labor for Palestine (US), April 13, 2010 We are thus asking the international trade unions to Jewish working class in any country of the boycott the Histadrut to pressure it to guarantee Diaspora.‖6 rights for our workers and to pressure the The socialist movement in Russia, where most government to end the occupation and to recognize Jews lived, was implacably opposed to Zionism, the full rights of the Palestinian people. ―Palestinian which pandered to the very Tsarist officials who Unions call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions,‖ sponsored anti-Semitic pogroms. Similarly, in the February 11, 2007.1 United States, ―[p]overty pushed [Jewish] workers We must call for the isolation of Histadrut, Israel’s into unions organized by the revolutionary minority,‖ racist trade union, which supports unconditionally and ―[a]t its prime, the Jewish labor movement the occupation of Palestine and the inhumane loathed Zionism,‖7 which conspicuously abstained treatment of the Arab workers in Israel. COSATU, from fighting for immigrant workers‘ rights. June 24-26, 2009.2 • Anti-Bolshevism. It was partly to reverse this • Overview. In their call for Boycott, Divestment Jewish working class hostility to Zionism that, on 2 and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel, all November 1917, Britain issued the Balfour Palestinian trade union bodies have specifically Declaration, which promised a ―Jewish National targeted the Histadrut, the Zionist labor federation. Home‖ in Palestine. As discussed below, this is because the Histadrut The British government was particularly anxious has used its image as a ―progressive‖ institution to to weaken Jewish support for the Bolsheviks, who spearhead—and whitewash—racism, apartheid, vowed to take Russia, a key British ally, out of the dispossession and ethnic cleansing against the war.
    [Show full text]
  • Forming a Nucleus for the Jewish State
    Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................... 3 Jewish Settlements 70 CE - 1882 ......................................................... 4 Forming a Nucleus for First Aliyah (1882-1903) ...................................................................... 5 Second Aliyah (1904-1914) .................................................................. 7 the Jewish State: Third Aliyah (1919-1923) ..................................................................... 9 First and Second Aliyot (1882-1914) ................................................ 11 First, Second, and Third Aliyot (1882-1923) ................................... 12 1882-1947 Fourth Aliyah (1924-1929) ................................................................ 13 Fifth Aliyah Phase I (1929-1936) ...................................................... 15 First to Fourth Aliyot (1882-1929) .................................................... 17 Dr. Kenneth W. Stein First to Fifth Aliyot Phase I (1882-1936) .......................................... 18 The Peel Partition Plan (1937) ........................................................... 19 Tower and Stockade Settlements (1936-1939) ................................. 21 The Second World War (1940-1945) ................................................ 23 Postwar (1946-1947) ........................................................................... 25 11 Settlements of October 5-6 (1947) ............................................... 27 First
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Left's Views on Israel: from the Establishment of the Jewish State To
    ‘The Left’s Views on Israel: From the establishment of the Jewish state to the intifada’ Thesis submitted by June Edmunds for PhD examination at the London School of Economics and Political Science 1 UMI Number: U615796 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U615796 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 F 7377 POLITI 58^S8i ABSTRACT The British left has confronted a dilemma in forming its attitude towards Israel in the postwar period. The establishment of the Jewish state seemed to force people on the left to choose between competing nationalisms - Israeli, Arab and later, Palestinian. Over time, a number of key developments sharpened the dilemma. My central focus is the evolution of thinking about Israel and the Middle East in the British Labour Party. I examine four critical periods: the creation of Israel in 1948; the Suez war in 1956; the Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and the 1980s, covering mainly the Israeli invasion of Lebanon but also the intifada. In each case, entrenched attitudes were called into question and longer-term shifts were triggered in the aftermath.
    [Show full text]
  • The Life and Death of Socialist Zionism
    The Life and Death of Socialist Zionism Jason Schulman (Published in New Politics, vol. 9, no. 3 (new series), whole no. 35, Summer 2003) In previous decades it was not uncommon for democratic leftists, Jewish ones in particular, to believe that the state of Israel was on the road to exemplifying—as Irving Howe once put it—“the democratic socialist hope of combining radical social change with political freedom.”1 But times have obviously changed. Today, no one would argue with the assertion that Israeli socialism is “is going the way of the kibbutz farmer,” even if the government continues to be the major shareholder in many Israeli banks, retains majority control in state-owned enterprises, owns a considerable percent of the country's land, and exerts considerable influence in most sectors of the economy.2 The kibbutzim themselves, held up as “the essence of the socialist-Zionist ideal of collectivism and egalitarianism,” are fast falling victim “to the pursuit of individual fulfillment.”3 The Labor Party is ever more estranged from Israel’s trade union movement, and when it governs it does so less and less like a social-democratic party, and its economic program has become ever more classically liberal. To many Israelis, who remember the years of Labor bureaucratic power, “socialism” means little more than “state elitism.” In examining “what happened,” it is worthwhile to ask what precisely the content of Israeli socialism was from its inception. There are essentially two narratives of “actually-existing” Labor (Socialist) Zionism. One argues that the most important of the Zionist colonists were utopian socialists who had no intent to be either exploiter or exploited.
    [Show full text]
  • Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism
    ANTI-ZIONISM AND ANTISEMITISM WHAT IS ANTI-ZIONISM? Zionism is derived from the word Zion, referring to the Biblical Land of Israel. In the late 19th century, Zionism emerged as a political movement to reestablish a Jewish state in Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People. Today, Zionism refers to support for the continued existence of Israel, in the face of regular calls for its destruction or dissolution. Anti-Zionism is opposition to Jews having a Jewish state in their ancestral homeland, and denies the Jewish people’s right to self-determination. HOW IS ANTI-ZIONISM ANTISEMITIC? The belief that the Jews, alone among the people of the world, do not have a right to self- determination — or that the Jewish people’s religious and historical connection to Israel is invalid — is inherently bigoted. When Jews are verbally or physically harassed or Jewish institutions and houses of worship are vandalized in response to actions of the State of Israel, it is antisemitism. When criticisms of Israel use antisemitic ideas about Jewish power or greed, utilize Holocaust denial or inversion (i.e. claims that Israelis are the “new Nazis”), or dabble in age-old xenophobic suspicion of the Jewish religion, otherwise legitimate critiques cross the line into antisemitism. Calling for a Palestinian nation-state, while simultaneously advocating for an end to the Jewish nation-state is hypocritical at best, and potentially antisemitic. IS ALL CRITICISM OF ISRAEL ANTISEMITIC? No. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism (“the IHRA Definition”) — employed by governments around the world — explicitly notes that legitimate criticism of Israel is not antisemitism: “Criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”1 When anti-Zionists call for the end of the Jewish state, however, that is no longer criticism of policy, but rather antisemitism.
    [Show full text]
  • History and Politics of Nomadism in Modern Palestine (1882-1948)
    History and Politics of Nomadism in Modern Palestine (1882-1948) A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Arabic and Islamic Studies By Seraje Assi, M.A. Washington, DC May 30, 2016 Copyright 2016 by Seraje Assi All Rights Reserved ii History and Politics of Nomadism in Modern Palestine (1882-1948) Seraje Assi, M.A. Thesis Advisor: Judith Tucker, Ph.D. ABSTRACT My research examines contending visions on nomadism in modern Palestine. It is a comparative study that covers British, Arab and Zionist attitudes to nomadism. By nomadism I refer to a form of territorialist discourse, one which views tribal formations as the antithesis of national and land rights, thus justifying the exteriority of nomadism to the state apparatus. Drawing on primary sources in Arabic and Hebrew, I show how local conceptions of nomadism have been reconstructed on new legal taxonomies rooted in modern European theories and praxis. By undertaking a comparative approach, I maintain that the introduction of these taxonomies transformed not only local Palestinian perceptions of nomadism, but perceptions that characterized early Zionist literature. The purpose of my research is not to provide a legal framework for nomadism on the basis of these taxonomies. Quite the contrary, it is to show how nomadism, as a set of official narratives on the Bedouin of Palestine, failed to imagine nationhood and statehood beyond the single apparatus of settlement. iii The research and writing of this thesis is dedicated to everyone who helped along the way.
    [Show full text]
  • Down with Britain, Away with Zionism: the 'Canaanites'
    DOWN WITH BRITAIN, AWAY WITH ZIONISM: THE ‘CANAANITES’ AND ‘LOHAMEY HERUT ISRAEL’ BETWEEN TWO ADVERSARIES Roman Vater* ABSTRACT: The imposition of the British Mandate over Palestine in 1922 put the Zionist leadership between a rock and a hard place, between its declared allegiance to the idea of Jewish sovereignty and the necessity of cooperation with a foreign ruler. Eventually, both Labour and Revisionist Zionism accommodated themselves to the new situation and chose a strategic partnership with the British Empire. However, dissident opinions within the Revisionist movement were voiced by a group known as the Maximalist Revisionists from the early 1930s. This article analyzes the intellectual and political development of two Maximalist Revisionists – Yonatan Ratosh and Israel Eldad – tracing their gradual shift to anti-Zionist positions. Some questions raised include: when does opposition to Zionist politics transform into opposition to Zionist ideology, and what are the implications of such a transition for the Israeli political scene after 1948? Introduction The standard narrative of Israel’s journey to independence goes generally as follows: when the British military rule in Palestine was replaced in 1922 with a Mandate of which the purpose was to implement the 1917 Balfour Declaration promising support for a Jewish ‘national home’, the Jewish Yishuv in Palestine gained a powerful protector. In consequence, Zionist politics underwent a serious shift when both the leftist Labour camp, led by David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973), and the rightist Revisionist camp, led by Zeev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky (1880-1940), threw in their lot with Britain. The idea of the ‘covenant between the Empire and the Hebrew state’1 became a paradigm for both camps, which (temporarily) replaced their demand for a Jewish state with the long-term prospect of bringing the Yishuv to qualitative and quantitative supremacy over the Palestinian Arabs under the wings of the British Empire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holocaust: Factor in the Birth of Israel? by Evyatar Friesel
    The Holocaust: Factor in the Birth of Israel? by Evyatar Friesel It is widely believed that the catastrophe of European Jewry during World War II had a decisive influence on the establishment of the Jewish state in 1948. According to this thesis, for the Jews the Holocaust triggered a supreme effort toward statehood, based on the understanding that only a Jewish state might again avoid the horrors of the 1940s. For the nations of the world, shocked by the horror of the extermination and burdened by feelings of guilt, the Holocaust convinced them that the Jews were entitled to a state of their own. All these assumptions seem extremely doubtful. They deserve careful re-examination in light of the historical evidence. Statehood in Zionist Thought The quest for a Jewish state had always been paramount in Zionist thought and action. For tactical reasons official Zionism was cautious in explaining its ultimate aims, especially when addressing general public opinion. Terms other than "state" were used in various political documents or official utterances by leading Zionist statesmen: Jewish home, Jewish National Home, commonwealth, Jewish commonwealth. But there is no reason to doubt that the ultimate aim of the Zionist mainstream was the creation of a state in Palestine. The question remained as to what methods should be used in order to reach the consummation of these hopes. One possibility was the evolutionary path, implied also in the political relations between the Zionists and leading British statesmen between 1917 and 1920. It found implicit expression in the terms and the structure of the Palestine Mandate approved by the League of Nations in July 1922.
    [Show full text]
  • Obituaries During World War II
    14 THE JEWISH LEADER, DECEMBER 18, 2015 BENJAMIN SPECTOR YOSSI SARID, LEADER OF MERETZ PARTY SEATTLE, Wash. - Benjamin L. Spector, born in Hart- By Edgar Asher, Ashernet joined the forerunner of ford, Conn. on Jan. 27, 1922, died peacefully in Seattle, Yossi Sarid , who was a member of the Knes- the Meretz party – the Wash. on Thursday, Nov. 26, 2015 with his daughter, set from 1974 to 2006 and served in the govern- Citizens Rights Move- Julie Spector, by his side. ment of Yitzhak Rabin, died on Friday evening ment. He was raised in Hartford, Conn. and attended of a heart attack at his home in Tel Aviv. He was Sarid was also an Weaver High School and The University of Connecticut, outspoken champion of followed by dental school at the University of Pennsyl- Sarid was for some time the leader of the ex- secularism and strongly vania, where he obtained his DDS. He practiced den- seventy-fivetreme left-wing years Meretz old. party. Speaking tonight opposed the privileges tistry for a short period of time of his one-time political adversary Prime Min- granted by the Israeli before enlisting in the U.S. Army ister Netanyahu said, “Although we disagreed state to ultra-Orthodox Obituaries during World War II. He served on numerous issues, I admired his dedication Jews, which include gen- as a Captain in the Philippines to his convictions, his extensive knowledge and erous subsidies to reli- and in Kyoto, Japan. In 1949, he his meticulous use of Hebrew in his words and gious schools as well as Yossi Sarid married Ebba Melrose, who pre- writings.” exemptions from mili- deceased him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Balfour Declaration Pdf
    The Balfour Declaration Pdf natheless.Unplumb and Ulysses sideways caliper Sawyere awkwardly? still overdid his dubbin blackly. Prolific and bung Barde plasticises northerly and decree his dauphines fanwise and The Balfour Declaration The Origins of the ArabIsraeli. For an expert impact on extremely biased about its seat too. The Balfour Declaration as partition became same was by letter end on 2 November 1917 by making then Foreign. Are Lone Wolves Really Acting Alone? It is intimately and america, such a fascinating story doubtless improved with their ultimate goal was sent a major streets in english hebrew arabic. Bernard Regan iThe Balfour Declaration Empire the. Word Pro The Balfour Declaration Steinlwp. The passage that Britain wronged the Palestinians with the Balfour Declaration is premised on two beliefs The ridge is that Britain acted unilaterally in. President Sadat of Egypt became habitat first Arab leader or visit the Jewish state sitting in what sign of iron new relations between doing two countries, he addressed the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. If you have access beneath a journal via a taunt or association membership, please browse to train society journal, select an ancestor to directory, and sip the instructions in value box. Feisal Agreement having regard is both Jewish immigration and drink purchase. Two weeks of talks failed to come intern with acceptable solutions to the status of Jerusalemand the right of crest of Palestinian refugees. Jews civil lord james balfour declaration, but gentiles if only those british empire, roosevelt came in fact that? Easy unsubscribe links are hence in every email. A Short History writing the Balfour Declaration book Read reviews from world's largest community for readers.
    [Show full text]
  • “Brothers and Sisters of Work and Need”: the Bundist Newspaper Unzer Tsayt and Its Role in New York City, 1941-1944
    “Brothers and Sisters of Work and Need”: The Bundist Newspaper Unzer Tsayt and its Role in New York City, 1941-1944 Saul Hankin A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF ARTS WITH HONORS DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN April 3, 2013 Advised by Professor Scott Spector TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... ii Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter One: Convergent Histories: Jewish Socialism in New York City and in Eastern Europe, 1881-1941 ................................................................................. 9 Chapter Two: The Bundist Past and Present: Historiography and Holocaust in Unzer Tsayt .......................................................................................................... 29 Chapter Three: Solving the “Jewish Question”: Anti-Zionism in Unzer Tsayt ....... 49 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 72 Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 77 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere thanks go to the following people and institutions that made this thesis possible: Professor Scott Spector, my thesis advisor, in particular for always encouraging me to engage more with primary
    [Show full text]
  • THE IDEA of MODERN JEWISH CULTURE the Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History the Idea of Modern Jewish Culture
    THE IDEA OF MODERN JEWISH CULTURE The Reference Library of Jewish Intellectual History The Idea of Modern Jewish Culture ELIEZER SCHWEID Translated by Amnon HADARY edited by Leonard LEVIN BOSTON 2008 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Schweid, Eliezer. [Likrat tarbut Yehudit modernit. English] The idea of modern Jewish culture / Eliezer Schweid ; [translated by Amnon Hadary ; edited by Leonard Levin]. p. cm.—(Reference library of Jewish intellectual history) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-934843-05-5 1. Judaism—History—Modern period, 1750–. 2. Jews—Intellectual life. 3. Jews—Identity. 4. Judaism—20th century. 5. Zionism—Philosophy. I. Hadary, Amnon. II. Levin, Leonard, 1946– III. Title. BM195.S3913 2008 296.09’03—dc22 2008015812 Copyright © 2008 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved ISBN 978-1-934843-05-5 On the cover: David Tartakover, Proclamation of Independence, 1988 (Detail) Book design by Yuri Alexandrov Published by Academic Studies Press in 2008 145 Lake Shore Road Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com Contents Editor’s Preface . vii Foreword . xi Chapter One. Culture as a Concept and Culture as an Ideal . 1 Chapter Two. Tensions and Contradiction . 11 Chapter Three. Internalizing the Cultural Ideal . 15 Chapter Four. The Underlying Philosophy of Jewish Enlightenment . 18 Chapter Five. The Meaning of Being a Jewish-Hebrew Maskil . 24 Chapter Six. Crossroads: The Transition from Haskalah to the Science of Judaism . 35 Chapter Seven. The Dialectic between National Hebrew Culture and Jewish Idealistic Humanism . 37 Chapter Eight. The Philosophic Historic Formation of Jewish Humanism: a Modern Guide to the Perplexed .
    [Show full text]