'.,~ £' ..• ,,,(''1' .. I c, '1.\ "'­ ., . l,'". , / . ,?')?.' -1-'./, 6: I/f ,.,; .-",'"

.~~ ~t, ,d~" /' ":J ! f .O} j. )J/, , I , '( ..,( -<~, ,.". "

( {f L K';L.L)

The Impact of on the American Jewish Community

CHAIM 1. WAXMAN

DURING THE LAST dozen years, only once did the annual number of American who migrated to -"made aliyah"-rise above 3,000. In all the other years, fewer than 3,000-and since 1985 fewer than 2,000- went on aliyah. Indeed, in the forty years since the founding of the State of Israel, there was only one year, 1971, during which slightly than one-tenth of 1 percent of the American Jewish population, 7,364 American Jews, went on aliyah. 1 There seems no reason to doubt that the determinants of the size of American Jewish migration to Israel are to be found in both the and Israel. Put simply, American Jews, individually and collectively, are rather comfortable in the United States materially, physically, and in terms of being able to express their Jewishness, and they do not feel impelled to sacrifice their comfort by migrating to Israel, where material conditions are much more restricted. American Jews are undoubtedly quite aware ofboth the significant numbers of American Jews who have gone on aliyah only to return to America and the large numbers of who have emigrated from Israel, many of whom have settled in the United States. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that there would be an increase in American aliyah if there were some fundamental changes in the ways organized aliyah efforts function, both institutionally and interpersonally.

179 180 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE

THE ALIYAH SYSTEM Jewishness, including Jud very differently in Israel Institutionally, aliyah policies and efforts are designed and operated often, the shaliach arrives by the Aliyah Department ofthe Zionist Organization (WZO). edge of American Although it may be argued that that organization represents the disdain for the American collective will ofaffiliated Zionists both in Israel and the world over, about a year to acquire su the fact is that the headquarters of the World Zionist Organization and another year to beco are in , the Zionist congresses and other bureaucratically American Jewish sphere. E important meetings take place in Jerusalem, Israelis are dispropor­ forward to his return to [ tionately represented in decision-making positions, and the heads activities here. Obviously n of the organization's various departments are all Israelis. The Ali­ the Aliyah Department att­ yah Department of the World Zionist Organization appoints direc­ chim, but such instances ar. tors for its aliyah departments in various countries, and appoints Not only are the shlichim emissaries (shlichim) to service aliyah needs at regional and local of American culture and the levels. All of these appointees are Israelis who volunteer to serve in also frequently unfamiliar .. communities for two or three years. One consequence of and culture, such as specific this arrangement is that, essentially, all of the policies and pro­ housing, employment, educ: grams designed to stimulate and foster aliyah from the Diaspora to potential olim.2 As Gerald B Israel are designed and implemented not by the communities of with and opinions about shli potential olim (immigrants to Israel) but by Israelis. The sources of this arrangement are to be found both in Israel A full one-half of the resl= and in the Diaspora communities of the free world. On the one mation they received as t hand, both before the establishment ofthe State ofIsrael and during etc., and one-fourth refen its early years, Jewish leaders in the Diaspora communities of the shaliach regarding the r West were more than happy to leave the task of aliyah promotion to dissatisfaction mentioned the WZO and Israelis. They, after all, were rather comfortable in dling of various types of . their Diaspora communities and did not want to become involved in ping, loans, and others), l any activities that might have put their loyalty to their own coun­ the shaliach, and personal tries and communities in question. Although there was greater receptivity to aliyah after the Six Day War, the situation concerning Aliyah is not the only are; aliyah promotion did not change, because by then the WZO had The Youth and Hechalutz [ grown suspicious of Diaspora leaders, did not believe that they local Zionist youth movemel would sincerely promote aliyah, and had become very protective of community programs. The ~ the element that it deemed to be the of , aliyah. The ligious and secular, send sh WZO came to believe that it had a rightful monopoly over aliyah told, the WZO sends some promotion. All of this presented problems and complications on another 455 to other countr] several levels. the functions of the WZO. It Beginning with the emissary (shaliach) himself (or herself), the and within. Inside Israel, th, very fact that he is an outsider in the community to which he is are carried out by its arm cal assigned limits his ability to carry out his assignment productively. In February 1981, the boa Israel and the United States are very different countries, and met at the Ho ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 181

Jewishness, including , is institutionalized and organized very differently in Israel than it is in the United States. All too >rts are designed and operated often, the shaliach arrives in the United States with little knowl­ i Zionist Organization (WZO). edge of American culture and even less of and more t organization represents the disdain for the American Jewish community. It frequently takes h in Israel and the world over, about a year to acquire sufficient working understanding of these Ie World Zionist Organization and another year to become acclimated to working within the les and other bureaucratically American Jewish sphere. By then, the shaliach is already looking lsalem, Israelis are dispropor­ forward to his return to Israel and beginning to wind down his dng positions, and the heads activities here. Obviously this is not always the case. When feasible, .ents are all Israelis. The Ali- the Aliyah Department attempts to recruit American olim as shli­ Organization appoints direc­ chim, but such instances are the exception rather than the rule. rious countries, and appoints Not only are the shlichim often unfamiliar with important aspects h needs at regional and local of American culture and the American Jewish community, they are lelis who volunteer to serve in also frequently unfamiliar with important aspects of society ee years. One consequence of and culture, such as specific regulations and procedures concerning " all of the policies and pro­ housing, employment, education, and other matters important to !r aliyah from the Diaspora to potential olim.2 As Gerald Berman found in his study ofexperiences d not by the communities of with and opinions about shlichim, but by Israelis. .re to be found both in Israel A full one-half of the respondents complained about the infor­ f the free world. On the one mation they received as being vague, inaccurate, insufficient, :the State ofIsrael and during etc., and one-fourth referred to the indifferent attitude of the Diaspora communities of the shaliach regarding the respondent's aliyah. Other areas of he task of aliyah promotion to dissatisfaction mentioned somewhat frequently were poor han­ 1, were rather comfortable in dling of various types of arrangements (visas, housing, ship­ want to become involved in ping, loans, and others), unavailability and inaccessability of .eir loyalty to their own coun­ the shaliach, and personal qualities ofthe shaliach.3 Although there was greater War, the situation concerning Aliyah is not the only in which the WZO utilizes shlichim. ~cause by then the WZO had The Youth and Hechalutz Department sends shlichim to service rs, did not believe that they local Zionist youth movements and to represent Israel in Jewish had become very protective of community programs. The WZO's education departments, both re­ heart of Zionism, aliyah. The ligious and secular, send shlichim to serve in Jewish schools. All ightful monopoly over aliyah told, the WZO sends some 277 shlichim to and ()blems and complications on another 455 to other countries. Providing shlichim is only one of the functions of the WZO. It has many others, both outside Israel iach) himself (or herself), the and within. Inside Israel, the activities and programs of the WZO he community to which he is are carried out by its arm called the . t his assignment productively. In February 1981, the board of governors of the Jewish Agency rery different countries, and met at the Dan Caesarea Hotel to deal with a number of organiza­ 182 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE

tional problems that had plagued the Agency for years. These headed by former Israeli ch: problems were felt to be particularly acute by the Agency's "non­ system and to recommend c Zionist" partners, that is, the heads of community federations and , submitted in Decembel other fund-raising institutions in the Diaspora, especially the the system of Zionist shlichz United States. Among the complaints of the Diaspora leaders was fied weaknesses in the SYStl that they were not true partners. They expressed a sense of power­ aliyah shlichim. With respe lessness and decried Israeli domination in areas where they offi­ was critical ofpolitical preSSl cially had decision-making powers. As a result of this meeting, the as a shaliach. The America board ofgovernors undertook a process of internal review that came most common complaints ab to be known as the "Caesarea Process." The plan was to carefully United States, along with . review the operations of the Agency and to arrive at a systematic Bernice Tannenbaum, chair method of making changes in its overall governance, management, was a consensus on nine poin and budget, as well as in the ways it performed its functions of education and aliyah.4 1. There are too many shl One of the commissions established in the Caesarea Process, and headquarters ofthe WZ( the one that most directly bears on the subject ofthis paper, was the and some of them do cle Commission on Aliyah. Cochaired by Irwin Field, who had served field. as general chairman and president of the 2. Each shaliach may cm before becoming chairman of the , and Yosef personnel might be able Shapiro, an official of the WZO Aliyah Department and a political cost. activist from Israel's , the commission 3. Most shlichim are not Sl declared that aliyah from all countries, free or not, "is of equal arrive, and it takes m importance to individuals, to Diaspora Jewish communities and to effective linguistically. Israel."5 It recommended that an interdepartmental committee be criterion of selection. established within WZO to coordinate all aliyah resources and 4. Shlichim are not adequ~ activities. Its major recommendation was for what might be called frequently have no cha "maximum feasible participation" of Diaspora communities in pro­ They often have to start moting aliyah and in providing assistance to olim from their respec­ 5. Political-party affiliatioJ tive communities.6 Within that , the Council of Jewish Fed­ Appointments should b. erations undertook to help establish five aliyah pilot projects-in qualifications. Atlanta, , , Milwaukee, and Toronto-with the 6. Whenever possible, shli active participation offederation leaders in those communities. How WZO within a much the WZO and federations will actually cooperate and the est. impact that these pilot projects will have remain to be seen. At the 7. Shlichim are often unin very least, the principle ofmutual responsibility for aliyah has been of the American Jewisb established. and cultural pluralism t The Caesarea Process was not the only recent critique of the come with religious all Jewish Agency and the WZO. Responding to the tremendous ex­ effectiveness to others w pense and the growing complaints in both the United States and be intensively educated Israel about the shlichim system, the chairman of the WZO execu­ States prior to their arri tive, Arye Dulzin, in September 1984 appointed a commission, 8. Meetings in Israel with _ ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 183

be Agency for years. These headed by former Israeli chiefjustice , to study the acute by the Agency's "non­ system and to recommend changes. The Landau Commission's re­ tf community federations and port, submitted in 1985, called for sweeping changes in he Diaspora, especially the the system of Zionist shlichut ("emissaryism").7 Many of the speci­ 3 of the Diaspora leaders was fied weaknesses in the system were related to factors other than ,y expressed a sense of power­ aliyah shlichim. With respect to aliyah shlichim, the commission ion in areas where they offi­ was critical ofpolitical pressures to have a particular candidate sent 3 a result of this meeting, the as a shaliach. The on the WZO executive related the s of internal review that came most common complaints about the system as it functioned in the s." The plan was to carefully United States, along with their recommendations. According to and to arrive at a systematic Bernice Tannenbaum, chair of the WZO-American Section, there all governance, management, was a consensus on nine points: it performed its functions of 1. There are too many shlichim based at 515 Park Avenue (the _in the Caesarea Process, and headquarters ofthe WZO-American Section in New City), 3 subject ofthis paper, was the and some of them do clerical work rather than working in the - Irwin Field, who had served field. oQf the United Jewish Appeal 2. Each shaliach may cost $75,000-$100,000 annually. Local ited Israel Appeal, and Yosef personnel might be able to perform many oftheir duties at less _h Department and a political cost. 5'ious Party, the commission 3. Most shlichim are not sufficiently fluent in English when they -ies, free or not, "is of equal arrive, and it takes many of them a full year to become -a Jewish communities and to effective linguistically. Fluency in English should be a basic ~rdepartmental committee be criterion of selection. 3.te all aliyah resources and 4. Shlichim are not adequately briefed prior to their arrival and was for what might be called frequently have no chance to meet with their predecessors. Diaspora communities in pro­ They often have to start learning the from scratch. 3.nce to olim from their respec­ 5. Political-party affiliation is not a sufficient basis for selection. xt, the Council of Jewish Fed- Appointments should be based on personal and professional five aliyah pilot projects-in qualifications. _ukee, and Toronto-with the 6. Whenever possible, shlichim should be used to represent all ~rs in those communities. How WZO interests within a community rather than a single inter­ 1 actually cooperate and the est. lave remain to be seen. At the 7. Shlichim are often uninformed about the structure and style ponsibility for aliyah has been of the American Jewish community, and about the religious and cultural pluralism that exists in the United States. They fa only recent critique of the come with religious and/or political biases that limit their nding to the tremendous ex­ effectiveness to others who believe as they do. Shlichim should 1. both the United States and be intensively educated about the totality of life in the United chairman of the WZO execu­ States prior to their arrival. '84 appointed a commission, 8. Meetings in Israel with American olim from the community to 184 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE

be served would help the shaliach better understand the prob­ any inadequacies in the Uni lems ofthat particular community. not be at least equally prel 9. Frequently, the number ofshlichim is out of proportion to the most American Jewish orga numbers of people they will be serving.s fessing support for aliyah IE completely loyal to THE AMERICAN ATTITUDE lose their tax-exempt status. Another cause of the lad It is still too early to determine whether the recommendations of promotion has been the feal the Landau Commission will be implemented by the WZO. However, Jewry by helping Israel siph even if one were to forget the long history of that organization and of the American Jewish con assume that the recommendations will be implemented, it is doubt­ number of presumptions, thE ful that any or all ofthe changes will influence the rate ofAmerican aliyah possess greater leade aliyah. The reality is that many of the constituent organizations of mine the plausibility, let II the American Zionist Federation (AZF), the regional branch of the pertinent to review the avail: WZO, do not actively promote aliyah. Most pay only lip service to it, social characteristics ofArne] while some don't do even that. It is not mere coincidence that, in conjunction with the AZF's First Zionist Assembly in January 1987, the AZF produced a button that read "Real Zionists Pay Dues." PROFILING THE AMERI( Manifestly, this slogan was part of the rhetoric involved in the Regional Origins campaign to enlist new members in Zionist organizations, which was one facet of the political struggle that played itself out in the American immigrants to ISj subsequent . But the slogan also revealed a American Jewish population. basic truth of American Zionism, namely, that to be a "real Zionist" which they come (see Table : one need not go on aliyah nor even be committed to aliyah as an imperative; one need only pay dues to an American Zionist organi­ zation. As that assembly turned out, the direct involvement of such Table 1 aliyah activist organizations as Tehillah, Telem, Hamagshimim, Regional Origins of American Tagar, and the North American Aliyah Movement, as well as the Americar leadership of the Israel Aliyah Center, resulted in the AZF's coor­ Jewish dinating one of the largest and most explicitly aliyah-oriented populatiol national conferences in its history. If it takes such pressure to move Region 1981 (%) official Zionist organizations to clearly affirm and support aliyah, it Northeast 56.9 would indeed be surprising ifthose that are not officially Zionist did North Central 11.6 South 16.3 so. West 15.1 It is difficult to imagine that aliyah will ever be a high priority on Thtal 99.9 the American Jewish communal agenda. It also seems highly im­ Sources: Fbr the American Jewish POptl probable that there will be any radical increase in the number of American Jewish Committee, 1982), p. 1 American Jews who go on aliyah. Most American Jews probably "American Aliyah: Sociological and Dell American Society (: Behrman He agree that a strong aliyah orientation entail&-as Israel's senior S. Berman, The Experience ofAliyah Am. sociologist, S. N. Eisenstadt, said of in general-a Hebrew University, Work and Welfare R figures total 92 percent because they do 1: sense of dissatisfaction with one's present setting.9 They do not feel Canadians. ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 185

L better understand the prob­ any inadequacies in the United States or, at least, any that would y. not be at least equally present in Israel. Moreover, the heads of im is out of proportion to the most American Jewish organizations probably resist publicly pro­ rving.8 fessing support for aliyah lest they be accused of being less than completely loyal to the United States and lest their organizations lose their tax-exempt status. Another cause of the lack of communal involvement in aliyah :her the recommendations of promotion has been the fear that aliyah might weaken American nented by the WZO. However, Jewry by helping Israel siphon off the best of the future leadership tory of that organization and of the American Jewish community. That fear was based upon a I be implemented, it is doubt­ number of presumptions, the first being that Americans who go on nfluence the rate ofAmerican aliyah possess greater leadership potential than others. To deter­ ~ constituent organizations of mine the plausibility, let alone the validity, of that fear, it is "), the regional branch of the pertinent to review the available empirical evidence relating to the Most pay only lip service to it, social characteristics ofAmerican olim. lOt mere coincidence that, in st Assembly in January 1987, PROFILING THE AMERICAN OLIM Ld "Real Zionists Pay Dues." the rhetoric involved in the Regional Origins Zionist organizations, which ! that played itself out in the American immigrants to Israel tend to be representative of the lut the slogan also revealed a American Jewish population as a whole in terms ofthe regions from ely, that to be a "real Zionist" which they come (see Table 1). Although Antonovsky and Katz, in >e committed to aliyah as an

I an American Zionist organi­ ;he direct involvement of such Table 1 illah, Telem, Hamagshimim, Regional Origins of American OHm ah Movement, as well as the American r, resulted in the AZF's coor­ Jewish American American >st explicitly aliyah-oriented population, olim, olim Region 1981 (%) 1969-70 (%) 1970-74 (%) .t takes such pressure to move "{ affirm and support aliyah, it Northeast 56.9 66.2 56 North Central 11.6 12.8 10 ~t are not officially Zionist did South 16.3 9.7 6 West 15.1 11.3 20 will ever be a high priority on Total 99.9 100.0 92 :ida. It also seems highly im­ Sources: Fbr the American Jewish population, American Jewish Thar Book 1982 (New York: ~l increase in the number of American Jewish Committee, 1982), p. 169; for American olim, 1969-70, Calvin Goldscheider. "American Aliyah: Sociological and Demographic Perspective," in M. Sklare, ed., The in lost American Jews probably American Society (New York: Behrman House, 1974), p. 359; for American olim, 1970-74, Gerald on entails-as Israel's senior S. Berman, The Experience ofAliyah Among Recently Arrived North American Olim (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Work and Welfare Research Institute, 1977), table 1, p. 19. The 1970-74 f immigration in general-a figures total 92 percent because they do not include the 8 percent of Berman's sample who were sent setting.9 They do not feel Canadians. 186 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE their study of pre-1967 American olim, reported that they came country of residence was t1: disproportionately from the area,lO Goldscheider about 77 percent, were bon compared the regional origins of 1969-70 olim with the regional American immigrants and distribution of the U.S. Jewish population at that time and found 1986, 84.6 percent were born them to be "remarkably" similar, about 65 percent of the olim age of American-born amon coming from the northeast, 12.5 percent from the north central their relatively young ages, region, 10 percent from the south, and 12 percent from the west.u increasing size of the native­ In 1976, Gerald Berman conducted a study of North Americans ing percentage of the Amer: (about 8 percent ofwhom were Canadians) who had arrived in Israel born. between 1970 and 1974, and found a significant increase in the percentage of those from the west-20 percent-and decreases in Age the percentages of those from other regions of the United States.12 Comparing his findings with the regional distribution ofJews in the As Goldscheider points out, United States in 1981, we notice that the percentages of American to be young, and there is har. olim from the northeast and north central regions are almost ages of the American and 0­ exactly the same as the percentages of the Jewish population living olim are usually under 35. T in those regions. On the other hand, the west is overrepresented and can olim was 25.9, compar. the south is underrepresented. The reasons for this are unknown. population in the United St. Perhaps because the west is a newer region for American Jews, those then, the disparity has grO\ who live there are less tied to it and more likely to contemplate percent of the immigrants E moving. Similarly, because the south is generally regarded as more America were younger than conservative than the west, southern Jews may be less likely to grants and potential immigrE venture on aliyah. The different of aliyah may also reflect of the American Jewish popul regional differences in what Antonovsky and Katz termed Zionist and Jewish variables. All ofthis, of course, is speculation. Sex Antonovsky and Katz reporte Generational Status ofpre-1967 American immigz: Data from a number of surveys suggest that the vast majority of North American olim, the m/: American olim are American-born, and that the size ofthat majority ever, since he was studying c is increasing. Thus Goldscheider found 30.4 percent ofthe American was a purposive rather than immigrants in his 1969-70 study to have been "first ," of his sample accoUJ that is, not native-born Americans.13 Harry Jubas conducted a study findings with respect to oth. of olim in 1967-71 using a much larger, though not necessarily post-1967 studies have found more representative, sample than Goldscheider's, and he found that that in the younger age gro­ 25 percent were not "native-born American men and women."14 grants tend to be concentrate Kevin Avruch, surveying American olim in Jerusalem in 1968-76, but that among immigrants : found that 14 percent were not native-born.I5 Berman's study of older, males predominated. F 1970-74 olim found that 9 percent were not native-born.16 According reau of Statistics indicate t to Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, there were 74,775 immi­ potential immigrants througI­ grants and potential immigrants between 1948 and 1986 whose last males than females.22 ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 187

im, reported that they came country of residence was the United States. Of those, 57,564, or rk City area,10 Goldscheider about 77 percent, were born in the United States. Of the North >9-70 olim with the regional American immigrants and potential immigrants who arrived in .ation at that time and found 1986,84.6 percent were born in North America.l7 The high percent­ .bout 65 percent of the olim age of American-born among these olim is understandable, given rcent from the north central their relatively young ages, as will be indicated shortly. Also, the ad 12 percent from the west.n increasing size of the native-born group probably reflects the grow­ a study of North Americans ing percentage of the American Jewish population that is native­ ~ans) who had arrived in Israel born. a significant increase in the 20 percent-and decreases in Age -egions of the United States.12 mal distribution ofJews in the As Goldscheider points out, immigrants to Israel, in general, tend ~ the percentages of American to be young, and there is hardly any difference between the average a central regions are almost ages of the American and other immigrants. Thus the American ~fthe Jewish population living olim are usually under 35. The median age of the 1969-70 Ameri­ be west is overrepresented and can oHm was 25.9, compared to the median age of the Jewish 18 ~easons for this are unknown. population in the United States in 1957, which was 36.7. Since :lgion for American Jews, those then, the disparity has grown considerably wider. In 1984, 68.6 _d more likely to contemplate percent of the immigrants and potential immigrants from North is generally regarded as more America were younger than 35, and the median age of all immi­ n Jews may be less likely to grants and potential immigrants was 23.4, whereas the median age 19 ~es of aliyah may also reflect of the American Jewish population in 1982 was 49. ,,"sky and Katz termed Zionist lurse, is speculation. Sex Antonovsky and Katz reported a majority of females in their study ofpre-1967 American immigrants.2o In Berman's survey of 1970-74 21 gest that the vast majority of North American olim, the majority, 60.1 percent, was male. How­ J.d that the size ofthat majority ever, since he was studying olim who were employed full-time, his _d 30.4 percent ofthe American was a purposive rather than a representative sample. The special nature of his sample accounts as well for the variances in his I have been "first generation," Harry Jubas conducted a study findings with respect to other demographic characteristics. Most arger, though not necessarily post-1967 studies have found female majorities. Goldscheider found ldscheider's, and he found that that in the younger age groups, those in which American immi­ \merican men and women."14 grants tend to be concentrated, there were more women than men, :>lim in Jerusalem in 1968-76, but that among immigrants in early middle age and those 65 and :ive-born.15 Berman's study of older, males predominated. Recent data from Israel's Central Bu­ =re not native-born.16 According reau of Statistics indicate that, among young immigrants and tics, there were 74,775 immi­ potential immigrants through age 9, there are also somewhat more 22 oveen 1948 and 1986 whose last males than females. 188 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE

The persistence offemale predominance in all except the youngest are still a relatively small m: and oldest age categories would seem to call into question the view ever, according to the 1986 d~ of Antonovsky and Katz that American Jewish males are less likely more than half of North Ame than females to undertake aliyah because they are engaged in grants 20 and older that yem studies and careers. In recent years American Jewish females have young and singles among Am been no less engaged.23 The educational and career activities of reflects the fact that the youn American Jewish males and females do not seem to be sufficiently ofmovement. Greater freedon different today to account for the overrepresentation of females is a larger proportion of wido among American olim. olim.27 Alternatively, the overrepresentation of females among the In view of the fact that the American immigrants to Israel may be related to the possibility low compared to what it wa that American Jewish women are more supportive than men of the birthrate,28 it is interesting th policies of the government of Israel. As Jay Brodbar-Nemzer found olim is larger than the ave] in his analysis of Steven Cohen's data from the 1981-82 National family size for all olim is 3.0, Survey ofAmerican Jews. Education . . . in groups in which we would expect this sex difference to disappear (the highly liberal, the nonobservant, the young, the If the educational attainmenl highly educated, full-time participants in the labor force), we compared to the average of I: still find that a higher proportion of women than men profess ment ofpost-1967 olim is ever attitudes that are consistent with current Israeli government have achieved high levels of e policy.... the educational attainment 0 The women in this sample were more likely than men to that ofthe overall Jewish PoP\ manifest a fundamental insecurity over the status of American and Katz, young American Je1 Jewry. Women were less likely than men to agree that "there is would seem least likely to e: a bright future for Jewish life in America" (66 percent versus "the relatively small number 75 percent), and that "virtually all positions of influence in any real quantitative impact America were open to Jews" (28 percent versus 38 percent).24 tivity on the American Jewis: compare the educational attai If American Jewish women are in fact more supportive and less American Jewish population ~ critical of Israeli government policy, and if they are in fact less as well as of other olim. WhE optimistic about the future of Jewish life in America, Brodbar­ percentage of the Jewis Nernzer may have provided an explanation for the greater receptiv­ college was 5.6; among all ad ity ofAmerican Jewish women to aliyah. Jewish population in the Unit adult American olim it was 4] The educational attainme] and Family surprising when we compare i As might be expected from the relative youthfulness of American Jewish population similar t( olim, there is a greater proportion ofsingles among them than there status. While there are no reI is in the Jewish population of the United States. Even with the broken down by age and gene] increasing rate of singles in the American Jewish population, they from the Jewish comn ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 189

.ance in all except the youngest are still a relatively small minority.25 Among American olim, how­ 1 to call into question the view ever, according to the 1986 data ofthe Central Bureau of Statistics, an Jewish males are less likely more than half of North American immigrants and potential immi­ because they are engaged in grants 20 and older that year were single.26 The high proportion of American Jewish females have young and singles among American olim, according to Goldscheider, ;ional and career activities of reflects the fact that the young and single have the greatest freedom do not seem to be sufficiently ofmovement. Greater freedom ofmovement also explains why there overrepresentation of females is a larger proportion of widowers than of widows among American olim.27 ;ation of females among the In view of the fact that the current birthrate of American Jews is r be related to the possibility low compared to what it was in the past and to the overall U.S. )re supportive than men of the birthrate,.28 it is interesting that the average family size ofAmerican As Jay Brodbar-Nemzer found olim is larger than the average for all olim. While the average _ta from the 1981-82 National family size for all olim is 3.0, for North American olim it is 3.6.29

Education expect this sex difference to "lonobservant, the young, the If the educational attainment of pre-1967 American olim was high ;>ants in the labor force), we compared to the average of Israeli society, the educational attain­ of women than men profess ment ofpost-1967 olim is even larger. We know that American Jews _current Israeli government have achieved high levels of education,3o but it does not follow that the educational attainment of American olim would be as high as :-e more likely than men to that ofthe overall Jewish population since, according to Antonovsky

r over the status of American and Katz, young American Jews committed to education and careers n men to agree that "there is would seem least likely to emigrate. As Goldscheider points out, America" (66 percent versus "the relatively small number of olim from United States precludes all positions of influence in any real quantitative impact of educational and occupational selec­ rcent versus 38 percent).24 tivity on the American Jewish community."31 Nevertheless, we can compare the educational attainment ofAmerican olim to that ofthe fact more supportive and less American Jewish population and of the Jewish population in Israel, r, and if they are in fact less as well as of other olim. When we do so we see that, in 1970, the ish life in America, Brodbar­ percentage of the adult Jewish population in Israel that graduated for the greater receptiv- . college was 5.6; among all adult olim it was 17.7; among the adult yah. Jewish population in the United States it was 32.5; whereas among adult American olim it was 41.7.32 The educational attainment of American olim does not seem surprising when we compare it to that of segments of the American _tive youthfulness of American Jewish population similar to the olim in age and generational singles among them than there status. While there are no recent national Jewish educational data United States. Even with the broken down by age and generation cohorts, such data are available lerican Jewish population, they from the Boston Jewish community in 1965 and 1975. They reveal 190 / CONTEMPORARY IJEWISH LIFE that, in Boston in 1965, the percentage of college graduates among Table 3 those 21-25 and 25-34 was extremely high, some 90 percent. of Origin and OCCI Precise comparisons with 1975 are difficult since the age cohorts Over, 1986 are not identical (in 1975 the cohort was 18-24), but the 1975 data La suggest increasing educational attainment.33 The trend manifested Occupation AD in Boston may reflect that in the national Jewish population. Scientific and academic Other professional, technical, related Occupations Managers, clerical Sales, service Along with high educational attainment, American olim come to Agriculture Israel with high occupational status (see Table 2). In 1970, there Skilled was a considerably higher percentage of both male and female Unskilled professionals among American olim than among all olim and among Unknown the Jewish population in the United States in 1970. While figures Total employed for the American Jewish population in the are not yet availa­ Total unemployed Unknown ble, those for all olim in 1986 are, and they indicate a continuing if not growing high percentage of professionals among the North Total I Source: Adapted from Israel Central Bur American olim (see Tables 3-4). Series No. 808 (Jerusalem, 1987), table 21,

Political Behavior

Table 2 That the majority of the Am Occupational Distribution of American Olim, 1970 Democrats is also not surpris: American Jewish population in the Un: American Total Jewish small size of the Republican I: olim (%) olim (%) population (%) 1975 studies of American oliI: Occupation Male Female Male Female , Male Female had been Democrats; about 4­ majority tending toward the Professionals 29.3 23.8 62.5 66.9 39.0 47.3 been Republicans. Almost 40 pated in peace or antiwar derr Managers and proprietors 40.7 15.5 4.1 0.7 1.8 4.7 While America's Jews have Clerical 3.2 41.7 5.1 27.2 11.1 29.0 ical behavior, there was an among American olim. GitelI: Sales 14.2 8.3 10.3 1.1 16.0 2.9 the political beliefs and behav -col1ar 11.0 7.6 17.9 4.1 32.1 16.1 to determine whether the I= reason they might not be typ Unknown 1.7 3.1 their aliyah decisions during ­ Total 100.1 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 criticism, especially among 1 Sources: Adapted from Sidney Goldstein, "Jews in the United States," American Jewish learBook when identification with the F 1981 (New York: American Jewish Committee, 1981), table 9, p. 54, and Calvin Goldscheider highly educated American Je\ "American Aliya: Sociological and Demographic Perspective," in M. Sklare, ed., The Jew in American Society (New York: Behrman House, 1974), table 11, p. 372. However, that does not se ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 191

1ge of college graduates among Table 3 mely high, some 90 percent. Continents of Origin and Occupations Abroad, OUm Aged 15 and difficult since the age cohorts Over, 1986 was 18-24), but the 1975 data North - nment.33 The trend manifested Occupation America America Africa Total .onal Jewish population. Scientific and academic 157 364 630 112 1,267 Other professional, technical, related 147 366 458 146 1,118 Managers, clerical 81 127 283 133 627 Sales, service 82 77 136 119 414 ment, American olim come to Agriculture 2 9 18 4 33 3 (see Table 2). In 1970, there Skilled 38 58 200 112 408 3.ge of both male and female Unskilled 2 1 24 4 31 han among all olim and among Unknown 74 161 219 275 731 States in 1970. While figures 'Ibtal employed 583 1,163 1,968 905 4,629 .n the 1980s are not yet availa­ 'Ibtal unemployed 535 603 1,146 752 3,046 Unknown 1 7 9 20 43 they indicate a continuing if 'ofessionals among the North 'Ibtal 1,119 1,773 3,123 1,677 7,718 Source: Adapted from Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Immigration to Israel 1986, Special Series No. 808 (Jerusalem, 1987), table 21, p. 26.

Political Behavior That the majority of the American immigrants in the were mOUrn, 1970 Democrats is also not surprising, given the political patterns of the Jewish population in the United States.34 However, the extremely American Total small size of the Republican minority is surprising. In his 1972 and olim (%) olim (%) .) 1975 studies of American olim, Zvi Gitelman found that 57 percent - e Male Female Male Female had been Democrats; about 41 percent had been independents, the -- majority tending toward the Democrats; and only 2 percent had 62.5 66.9 39.0 47.3 been Republicans. Almost 40 percent stated that they had partici­ pated in peace or antiwar demonstrations.35 4.1 0.7 1.8 4.7 While America's Jews have had a tradition of liberal-to-left polit­ 5.1 27.2 11.1 29.0 ical behavior, there was an overrepresentation of such among American olim. Gitelman's are the only studies available of 1.1 10.3 16.0 2.9 the political beliefs and behavior ofAmerican olim, and it is difficult 17.9 4.1 32.1 16.1 to determine whether the patterns he found were typical. One reason they might not be typical is that these olim probably made - their aliyah decisions during the , when there was widespread 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 criticism, especially among the young, of American society, and , United States," American Jewish 1'l!ar Book when identification with the Republican party among young, urban, 1), table 9, p. 54, and Calvin Goldscheider highly educated American Jews was very low. erspective," in M. Sklare, ed., The Jew in table 11, p. 372. However, that does not seem to explain the very low rate of 192 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE

Table 4 studies indicating that those Occupational Distribution of North American Olim and Israeli organizations were in the min. Jewish Labor Force, 1984 1969-70 survey, only 50.7 per North American Jewish been members of Zionist organ Occupation olim (%) Israelis (%) tive. The rate of Zionist-organi Scientific and academic 33.3 8.7 ationally to a point where, am Other professional, technical, related 33.4 15.9 60.4 percent had been nonmen Administrators and managers 1.5 5.1 by Jubas, the decline was eV' Clerical and related 9.2 19.8 percent indicating that they 1: Sales 6.2 7.9 40 Service 1.2 12.0 Zionist organizations. By the Agriculture 1.0 4.4 of 1970-74 and 1976 North AI Skilled blue-collar 6.1 23.3 been members ofZionist organ Semiskilled and unskilled 0.3 2.9 On the other hand, Kevin k. Unknown 7.8 from the years 1968-76 who VI Total 100.0 100.0 percent to have been either Sources: Adapted from Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, Immigration to Israel 1984, table 18, p. 22, and Statistical Abstract ofIsrael 1984, no. 35, table X1IJ17, pp. 348-349. Zionist organizations and onl: bers.42 However, it is to Jerusalem are not representat affiliation with the Republican party, since most of the American nothing else, the Jerusalemit olim in Gitelman's surveys were not radicals. On the contrary, they .expect a higher rate ofZionist- tended to have somewhat conservative political views. For example, The declining rate of Ziot the vast majority agreed that "blacks in America have gone too far American olim is probably a : in their demands," and most of the 1972 respondents agreed that has been an overall steady dec "everything considered, life in the U.S. was better ten years ago."36 tion along generational lines i: Also, there is some evidence that the patterns Gitelman found of Zionist organizations in the were not unique to those years. In my own study of Americans who who did not see their futures' immigrated to Israel to early 1984 and who settled in , nity probably saw no reason , or the , not one stated that he or she had been organization. They didn't ne a Republican; virtually all had been Democrats, , indepen­ operationalize their Zionism; t: dents, or unaffiliated.37 It appears that American Jews affiliated aliyah. with the Republican party are much less likely than Democrats to go on aliyah. Why this is so, if in fact it is so, remains to be explained.

A common finding of all stud Zionist Organization Membership Israel with more extensive Je' Even among pre-1967 American olim, there was evidence of a Jewish population in the UnitE decline, from prestate to early-state years, in the rate of member­ can Jewish children receive n ship in Zionist organizations while in America. Up to the mid­ less than 20 percent ofAmeric 1960s, the majority of olim had been members of Zionist organiza­ 26.3 percent of that 40 percel tions.3s For the post-1967 olim, there is conflicting evidence, some received some formal Jewish e. ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 193

studies indicating that those who had been members of Zionist ~erican Olim and Israeli organizations were in the minority. Among those in Goldscheider's 1969-70 survey, only 50.7 percent stated that they had previously North American Jewish been members of Zionist organizations, 11.4 percent of them nonac­ olim (%) Israelis (%) tive. The rate of Zionist-organization membership decreased gener­ 33.3 8.7 ationally to a point where, among third-generation American olim, 33.4 15.9 60.4 percent had been nonmembers.39 For the 1967-71 olim studied 1.5 5.1 by Jubas, the decline was even sharper, with approximately 60 9.2 19.8 percent indicating that they had not previously been members of 6.2 7.9 40 1.2 12.0 Zionist organizations. By the 1970s, in surveys by Gerald Berman 1.0 4.4 of 1970-74 and 1976 North American olim, only about a third had 6.1 23.3 been members of Zionist organizations.41 0.3 2.9 On the other hand, Kevin Avruch, in his study of American olim 7.8 from the years 1968-76 who were residents of Jerusalem, found 61 100.0 100.0 percent to have been either active or not-so-active members of 3.tistics, Immigration to Israel 1984, table 18, table XIII17, pp. 348-349. Zionist organizations and only 39 percent to have been nonmem­ bers.42 However, it is fair to assume that Americans residing in Jerusalem are not representative of all American olim in Israel. If ty, since most of the American nothing else, the Jerusalemites tend to be older, and one would radicals. On the contrary, they expect a higher rate ofZionist-organization affiliation among them. ve political views. For example, The declining rate of Zionist-organization affiliation among tS in America have gone too far American olim is probably a reflection of both their youth-there : 1972 respondents agreed that has been an overall steady decline in Jewish organizational affilia­

A common finding of all studies is that American olim arrive in ) Israel with more extensive Jewish education than is typical of the tlim, there was evidence of a Jewish population in the United States. About 60 percent of Ameri­ ~ years, in the rate of member­ can Jewish children receive no formal Jewish education, whereas 3 in America. Up to the mid­ less than 20 percent ofAmerican olim had none. On the other hand, n members of Zionist organiza­ 26.3 percent of that 40 percent of American Jewish children who ~e is conflicting evidence, some received some formal Jewish education in 1974-75 were enrolled in 194 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE day schools, while more than a third of the olim had at least a day­ Table 5 school education.43 Denominational Distribution c Olim

Denominational Affiliation u.s. In analyzing the denominational affiliations of America's Jews in Jewry, 1971, Bernard Lazerwitz found that 11 percent identified with the 1971 Denomination (%) Orthodox, 42 percent with Conservative, 33 percent with Reform, and that 14 percent had no denominational affiliation. By contrast, Orthodox 11 Conservative 42 both Goldscheider and Juhas found that 37-42 percent of the Amer­ Reform 33 ican olim in their surveys identified as Orthodox. The percentage of Other/nonaffiliated 14 Orthodox among these American olim is also higher than among No answer those in Engel's 1950-66 sample and much' higher than among Total 100 prestate American olim. The reasons for the high proportion of Sources: u.s. Jewry, from Chaim I. Waxma: Orthodox among American olim relate to the condition of Orthodox University Press, 1983), pp. 184-185; H, Aliyah: Sociological and Demographic J>e, Judaism in the United States, but that is beyond the scope of this Society (New York: Behrman House, 1974), • article.44 ''The Adjustment Process ofAmericans and Society," (Ph.D. diss., Department of Sec: There is also an overrepresentation of persons self-defined as University, 1974, tahle 4.13, p. 105; 1970-0;; "other" (neither Conservative nor Reform) or nonaffiliated among of North American Immigrants in Israer Research Institute, 1978), table 3, p. 30. E the American olim-20 percent, compared to the 14 percent nonaf­ 4.9 percent who identified as "traditional" I filiated in the American Jewish population. On the other hand, there is an underrepresentation of Conservative and, especially, Reform Jews among the olim (see Table 5). In their study of older immigrants in Israeli society, Sheldon attendance and observance of; Lache and colleagues found that almost three-fourths ofthe middle­ and dietary regulations was aged and retired North American olim they interviewed classified pared to the rates for the Jewi= themselves as "religious." However, these researchers used the prev­ Data from Israel's Central ~ alent Israeli categories "religious," "traditional," and "nonreli­ the disproportionate religiosit: gious."45 This categorization is inappropriatefor American Jewry, proportion of the religiously c among whom Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform might identify 80 North American olim, a m; themselves as "religious." On the other hand, since it is doubtful selves as "religious," 20.8 per that an Israeli researcher would classify most Conservative and "not very religious," and only: Reform Jews as "religious," the data ofLache and colleagues confirm It has been reported that "of that a disproportionately high percentage of American olim are arrived from the United Sta Orthodox. Orthodox Jews and the remaiJ Goldscheid~r found that patterns among the American olim "of religiously observant, etc."4S T: overconcentration and selectivity among religious and Orthodox of the assistant director of t: Jews relative to the American Jewish population"46 also manifested Zionist Organization-Americ themselves in their patterns of attendance and ritual with that department, that a~ observance. Specifically, among the olim the rate of synagogue olim are Orthodox.50 ~ ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 195 d of the olim had at least a day- Table 5 Denominational Distribution of U.S. Jewry and North American OHm North U.S. U.S. U.S. American Jfiliations of America's Jews in Jewry, olim, oUm, oHm, t 11 percent identified with the 1971 1969-70 1967-71 1970-74 rative, 33 percent with Reform, Denomination (%) (%) (%) (%) :lational affiliation. By contrast, Orthodox 11 42 37 37.1 that 37-42 percent ofthe Amer­ Conservative 42 24 29 26.2 Reform 33 14 12 10.5 as Orthodox. The percentage of Other/nonaffiliated 14 20 20 26.1 ·lim is also higher than among No answer - 2 and much' higher than among 'Ibtal 100 100 100 99.9 ons for the high proportion of Sources: u.s. Jewry, from Chaim 1. Waxman, America's Jews in Transition (Philadelphia: Temple ate to the condition of Orthodox University Press, 1983), pp. 184-185; 1969-70 olim, from Calvin Goldscheider, "American Aliyah: Sociological and Demographic Perspective," in M. Sklare, ed., The Jew in American that is beyond the scope of this Society (New York: Behrman House, 1974), table 14, p. 380; 1967-71 olim, from Harry Lieb Jubas, "The Adjustment Process ofAmericans and Canadians in Israel and Their Integration into Israeli Society," (Ph.D. diss., Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Michigan State tion of persons self-defined as University, 1974, table 4.13, p. 105; 1970-74 olim, from Gerald S. Berman, The Work Adjustment ~eform) or nonaffiliated among of North American Immigrants in Israel (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Work and Welfare Research Institute, 1978), table 3, p. 30. Berman's sample includes 8 percent Canadians. Also, npared to the 14 percent nonaf­ 4.9 percent who identified as "traditional" are here included among "other." opulation. On the other hand, =- Conservative and, especially, ble 5). nts in Israeli society, Sheldon attendance and observance ofsuch rituals as fasting on Yom lost three-fourths ofthe middle­ and dietary regulations was disproportionately high when com­ ,lim they interviewed classified pared to the rates for the Jewish population of the United States. ~hese researchers used the prev­ Data from Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics likewise indicate ." "traditional," and "nonreli­ the disproportionate religiosity ofAmerican olim and the increasing ~propriatefor American Jewry, proportion of the religiously observant among them. Of the 1978­ ve, and Reform might identify 80 North American olim, a majority, 54.0 percent, identified them­ ,ther hand, since it is doubtful selves as "religious," 20.8 percent as "traditional," 11.3 percent as lassify most Conservative and "not very religious," and only 13.9 percent as "not religious at all."47 ofLache and colleagues confirm It has been reported that "ofthe [approximately] 1,900 [olim] who centage of American olim are arrived from the United States [in 1986] more than 1,200 are Orthodox Jews and the remainder defined themselves as somewhat among the American olim "of religiously observant, etc."48 This report is consistent with estimates mlOng religious and Orthodox of the assistant director of the Aliyah Department of the World h population"46 also manifested Zionist Organization-American Section,49 and others connected lagogue attendance and ritual with that department, that about 60 percent of current American e oHm the rate of synagogue olim are Orthodox.50 196 / CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE I

A CHANGE OF HEART? NOTES In sum, we see that American olim are relatively young; highly 1. The figures for American aliy educated, both Jewishly and secularly; and have very strong Jewish in table 1 in my book, American A commitments. We can thus understand the fears of the American Movement (Detroit: Wayne State l­ Jewish communal leadership that this was depriving the all of the data and analyses in t community offuture leaders, not unlike the "brain drain" ofBritish which was inspired by Yehuda Ros­ doctors to the United States during the and 1960s,51 and the 2. Gerald S. Berman, The Expe; more recently discussed "brain drain" of Israelis who study in the North American Olim: The Role of United States,52 although the evidence suggests that the impact of sity, Work and Welfare Institute, 1 these "brain drains" was much less than initially anticipated.53 3. Ibid., pp. 12-13. With the Caesarea Process and the launching of the five aliyah 4. For a detailed analysis ofthe pilot projects by the Council of Jewish Federations, the situation Alysa M. Dortort, eds., Understa (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for I changed significantly. For the first time, aliyah was officially defined 5. Report and Recommendatio~ as strengthening rather than weakening American Jewry. And the salem, October 1983), p. 3. available evidence indicates that this new definition of aliyah is in 6. Ibid. I borrowed the term fro­ fact correct. American Jews who go on aliyah tend to retain their U.S. Economic Opportunity Act of ties with friends and relatives in the United States. They also tend 7. "Report of the Public Commi1 to retain and even strengthen their self-identification as Americans. System of the World Zionist Organ As an elite group in Israel, they have the potential for introducing salem, December 1985), typescript American norms and values into Israeli society, thereby reducing 8. Synopsis of letter from Ben: the culture gap between American Jewry and Israel. In a variety of Zionist Organization-American S other ways, they increase the ties between American Jews and 1985. Israel, which, in turn, tends to increase the Jewish identification 9. S. N. Eisenstadt, The Absorp; Kegan Paul, 1954), pp. 1-2. and communal involvement of American Jews. And, if and when 10. Antonovsky and Abr; American olim return to the United States, they become assets to (Jerusalem: Jerusa 54 the Jewish communities where they live. Whether the expressions 11. Calvin Goldscheider, "Ami of support for aliyah by American Jewish communal leaders are graphic Perspective," in M. Sklare sincere remains to be seen. If the past is any indication, their new York: Behrman House, 1974), pp. support may be based on their awareness that aliyah from the ings are not that different from tI United States will probably remain small in any event. indicated that the oHm were dis}; Even with the most sincere of intentions and the strongest moral and other big cities because they i and material support of aliyah, it is reasonable to predict that there geographic dispersion and, especia will not be any dramatic changes in the patterns of American actually was at the time. aliyah. American Jewish communal support will not convince any­ 12. Berman, Experience ofAliyc 13. Goldscheider, "American AI one without the strong desire to do so to undertake aliyah. And 14. Harry Lieb Jubas, "The Adjl most American Jews do not have that strong desire, both because of dians in Israel and Their Integr their structural and cultural ties to American society and because Department of Secondary Educati of the structural and cultural realities of Israeli society. Neverthe­ versity, 1974), p. 98. less, even ifcommunal aliyah supports do no more than enable those 15. Kevin Avruch, American ITt who do wish to undertake aliyah to realize their dreams, they are Change (: University ofC}: more than worthwhile. 16. Berman, Experience ofAliYl :E ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 197

NOTES im are relatively young; highly xly; and have very strong Jewish 1. The figures for American aliyah from 1950 through 1987 may be found in table 1 in my book, American Aliya: Portrait ofan Innovative Migration 3tand the fears of the American Movement (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989). In fact, virtually his emigration was depriving the all of the data and analyses in this article are derived from that work, nlike the "brain drain" ofBritish which was inspired by Yehuda Rosenman, A.H. ~ the 1950s and 1960s,51 and the 2. Gerald S. Berman, The Experience ofAliyah Among Recently Arrived :lin" of Israelis who study in the North American Olim: The Role ofthe Shaliach (Jerusalem: Hebrew Univer­ ,mce suggests that the impact of sity, Work and Welfare Institute, 1977), table 15, p. 35. than initially anticipated.53 3. Ibid., pp. 12-13. the launching of the five aliyah 4. For a detailed analysis ofthe Jewish Agency, see Daniel J. Elazer and ~wish Federations, the situation Alysa M. Dortort, eds., Understanding the Jewish Agency: A Handbook (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1984). ~ime, aliyah was officially defined :ening American Jewry. And the 5. Report and Recommendations ofCaesarea Commission on Aliya (Jeru­ salem, October 1983), p. 3. :lis new definition of aliyah is in 6. Ibid. I borrowed the term from Title II, Part A, Section 202 (a) of the '0 on aliyah tend to retain their U.S. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. :le United States. They also tend 7. "Report of the Public Committee for the Examination ofthe Emissary self-identification as Americans. System of the World Zionist Organization," draft English (Jeru­ ::lve the potential for introducing salem, December 1985), typescript. :sraeli society, thereby reducing 8. Synopsis of letter from Bernice S. Tannenbaum, chair of the World Jewry and Israel. In a variety of Zionist Organization-American Section, to Moshe Landau, . 4, !s between American Jews and 1985. -crease the Jewish identification 9. S. N. Eisenstadt, The Absorption ofImmigrants (: & lerican Jews. And, if and when Kegan Paul, 1954), pp. 1-2. 10. Aaron Antonovsky and Katz, From the Golden to the ~d States, they become assets to 54 Promised Land (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1979), p. 26. llive. Whether the expressions 11. Calvin Goldscheider, "American Aliyah: Sociological and Demo­ 1 Jewish communal leaders are graphic Perspective," in M. Sklare, ed., The Jews in American Society (New )ast is any indication, their new York: Behrman House, 1974), pp. 358-359. Actually, Goldscheider's find­ wareness that aliyah from the ings are not that different from those of Antonovsky and Katz. The latter small in any event. indicated that the olim were disproportionately from the New York area ;entions and the strongest moral and other big cities because they incorrectly assumed the American Jewish i reasonable to predict that there geographic dispersion and, especially, de-urbanization to be greater than it s in the patterns of American actually was at the time. . 1support will not convince any­ 12. Berman, Experience ofAliyah, table 1, p. 19. :10 so to undertake aliyah. And 13. Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," p. 361. at strong desire, both because of 14. Harry Lieb Jubas, "The Adjustment Process of Americans and ­ dians in Israel and Their Integration into Israeli Society" (Ph.D. diss., o American society and because Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum, Michigan State Uni­ ties ofIsraeli society. Neverthe­ versity, 1974), p. 98. rts do no more than enable those 15. Kevin Avruch, American Immigrants in Israel: Social Identities and o realize their dreams, they are Change (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), pp. 40-41. 16. Berman, Experience ofAliyah, p. 19. 198 I CONTEMPORARY JEWISH LIFE

17. State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, Immigration to Israel 41. Gerald S. Berman, "Why No 1986, Special Series No. 808 (Jerusalem, 1987), table 5, p. 9, and table 11, Journal ofSociology 21 (December p.15. 42. Avruch, American ImmigraJ 18. Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," pp. 362-363. 43. For American Jewry, see WE. 19. State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, Immigration to Israel 187-189. For the American olim, E 1984, Special Series No. 773 (Jerusalem, 1985), p. xi and table 10, p. 13; 377-379; Jubas, Adjustment Proce. Neil C. Sandberg, Jewish Life in Los Angeles (Lanham, Md.: University 44. Waxman, American Aliya, c: Press of America, 1986), p. 22. 45. S. Y. Lache, Dorota Tecznic: 20. Antonovsky and Katz, From the Golden to the Promised Land. Absorption Problems of Older Irr 21. Gerald S. Berman, The Work Adjustment of North American Immi­ Institute, 1976), p grants in Israel (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, Work and Welfare Research 46. Goldscheider, "American AI Institute, 1978), table 1, p. 19. 47. State oflsrael, Central Bur 22. See Goldscheider, "American Aliyah"; Immigration to Israel 1984, Immigrants: Immigrants of the Se table 9, p. 12; and Immigration to Israel 1986, table 12, p. 16. The designa­ Special Series No. 771 (JerusalE DellaPergola, "Demographic Tren tion "early middle age" is used because there is some question about those Laikin Elkin and Gilbert W Me~ 30-35. Goldscheider's age cohort that shows an overrepresentation of America (Boston: Allen & Unwin, males, 54.2 percent, is 35-44. The Central Bureau of Statistics age cohorts 48. : A Journal of . showing an overrepresentation of males run from 30 to 44. 4, Spring 1987, p. 408. 23. Chaim I. Waxman, America's Jews in Transition (Philadelphia: Tem­ 49. Interview with Bobby Browl ple University Press, 1983), p. 14. 50. The fact that these reports E 24. Jay Y. Brodbar-Nemzer, "Sex Differences in Attitudes of American age of Orthodox among Americar.: Jews Toward Israel," Contemporary Jewry 8 (1987): 55; emphasis in original. considered along with Steven Coh 25. Steven M. Cohen, American Modernity and Jewish (New York: of attachment to Israel during the Tavistock, 1983), pp. 116-117. can Jews, and a sharp detensificati 26. Immigration to Israel 1986, table 13, p. 17, and table 18, p. 22. American Jews, with the level ofat 27. Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," pp. 365-366. Jews remaining more or less the 28. Waxman, America's Jews in Transition, pp. 166-173. Cohen, Ties and Tensions: The 15 29. Immigration to Israel 1986, table 18, p. 22. Toward Israel and Israelis (New Yo 30. Waxman, America's Jews in Transition, pp. 144-146. Relations, American Jewish Comn: 31. Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," p. 367. 51. See, for example, F. Bechhoi 32. Ibid. and Sidney Goldstein, "Jews in the United States: Perspectives Drain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh Uni from Demography," American Jewish Year Book 1981 (New York: American 52. Paul Ritterband, Education Jewish Committee, 1981), p. 49. Comparative Perspective (Cambridl 33. Cohen, American Modernity, table 4 (1), p. 81. 53. Ibid., pp. 120-122. 34. For the political patterns of America's Jews, see Waxman, America's 54. Chaim I. Waxman and Mich Jews in Transition, pp. 98-103, 147-151. Aliyah and Return Migration (N Institute on American Jewish-Isra 35. Zvi Gitelman, Becoming Israelis: Political Resocialization of Soviet icanAliya. and American Immigrants (New York: Praeger, 1982), p. 209. 36. Ibid. 37. Waxman, American Aliya, chap. 10. 38. Ibid., chap. 5. 39. Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," p. 377. 40. Jubas, Adjustment Process, table 4.11, p. 102. 'E ISRAEL AND AMERICAN JEWRY / 199

. of Statistics, Immigration to Israel 41. Gerald S. Berman, "Why North Americans Migrate to Israel," Jewish m, 1987), table 5, p. 9, and table 11, Journal ofSociology 21 (December 1979): 135-144. 42. Avruch, American Immigrants, pp. 50-51. t," pp. 362-363. 43. For American Jewry, see Waxman, America's Jews in Transition, pp. . of Statistics, Immigration to Israel 187-189. For the American olim, see Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," pp. ~m, 1985), p. xi and table 10, p. 13; 377-379; Jubas, Adjustment Process, table 4.17, p. 108. Angeles (Lanham, Md.: University 44. Waxman, American Aliya, chap. 8. 45. S. Y. Lache, Dorota Teczniczek, Beatriz Mann, and Ron , The Golden to the Promised Land. Absorption Problems of Older Immigrants in Israeli Society (Jerusalem: djustment ofNorth American Immi­Henrietta Szold Institute, 1976), pp. 48-51. liversity, Work and Welfare Research 46. Goldscheider, "American Aliyah," pp. 381-382. 47. State of Israel, Central Bureau of Statistics, Survey ofA bsorption of .liyah"; Immigration to Israel 1984, Immigrants: Immigrants of the Seventies-The First Three lears in Israel, e11986, table 12, p. 16. The designa­ Special Series No. 771 (Jerusalem, 1986), pp. 14-15. Also see Sergio e there is some question about those DellaPergola, "Demographic Trends of Latin American Jewry," in Judith at shows an overrepresentation of Laikin Elkin and Gilbert W Merkx, eds., The Jewish Presence in (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987), p. 126. Itral Bureau of Statistics age cohorts 48. Barkai: A Journal ofRabbinic Thought and Research (Hebrew), no. 's run from 30 to 44. 4, Spring 1987, p. 408. ws in Transition (Philadelphia: Tem­ 49. Interview with Bobby Brown, Dec. 30, 1986. 50. The fact that these reports suggest a rather big jump in the percent­ ifferences in Attitudes of American age of Orthodox among American olim is not altogether surprising when 'ry 8 (1987): 55; emphasis in original. considered along with Steven Cohen's findings of a clearcut intensification ernity and (New York: of attachment to Israel during the years 1983-86 among Orthodox Ameri­ can Jews, and a sharp detensification ofattachment to Israel among Reform ~ 13, p. 17, and table 18, p. 22. American Jews, with the level ofattachment among Conservative American ," pp. 365-366. Jews remaining more or less the same during those years. See Steven M. lsition, pp. 166-173. Cohen, Ties and Tensions: The 1986 Survey of American Jewish Attitudes ~ 18, p. 22. Thward Israel and Israelis (New York: Institute on American Jewish-Israeli lSition, pp. 144-146. Relations, American Jewish Committee, 1987), pp. 19-21. ,"p.367. 51. See, for example, F. Bechhofer, ed., Population Growth and the Brain IS in the United States: Perspectives Drain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969). U!ar Book 1981 (New York: American 52. Paul Ritterband, Education, Employment, and Migration: Israel in Comparative Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Ie 4 (1), p. 81. 53. Ibid., pp. 120-122. 3rica's Jews, see Waxman, America's 54. Chaim I. Waxman and Appel, Th Israel and Back: American 1. Aliyah and Return Migration (New York: American Jewish Committee, s: Political Resocialization of Soviet Institute on American Jewish-Israeli Relations, 1986), and Waxman, A mer­ Praeger, 1982), p. 209. icanAliya.

10.

," p. 377. 4.11, p. 102.