DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond the Nation-State: the Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond the Nation-State: the Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion' H-Nationalism Behar on Shumsky, 'Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion' Review published on Monday, December 9, 2019 Dmitry Shumsky. Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben- Gurion. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. 320 pp. $40.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-300-23013-0. Reviewed by Moshe Behar (University of Manchester) Published on H-Nationalism (December, 2019) Commissioned by Cristian Cercel (Ruhr University Bochum) Printable Version: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=53474 In a thought-provoking, evidence-based study, Dmitry Shumsky sets out to defend one principal contention: that contrary to the prevailing view in both scholarly and activist-oriented circles, the “fathers” of Zionism were far from being interested in the single overriding idea of establishing a (Jewish) state. They instead entertained several alternatives to secure what they understood to be Jewish national life—including a federation, a binational state, or a multinational democratic state comprising Jewish and Arab parliaments. The conceptualization by Zionism’s “fathers” of national self-determination was thus far from being confined to the familiar model of a Jewish nation-state. To appreciate the originality of Shumsky’s quest it is worth noting that scholars of Palestine/Israel ordinarily know something about pre-1948 movements or organizations that offered alternatives to the twin ideas of Palestine’s territorial partition and establishment of a Jewish state. These include organized Sephardic/Mizrahi (non-European) Jews who supported, since the 1908 Young Turk revolution, a shared Jewish-Arab homeland; Brit Shalom (1925-33); Kedma-Mizraha (late 1930s); the Ichud/Union (1942-48); and some Marxist currents that since the early 1940s began to entertain socialist binational arrangements. Intriguing as these groups, their members, and ideas were—and remain—they have all occupied a peripheral position and sociopolitical space in Ottoman and mandatory Palestine vis-à-vis the Zionist-Palestinian nationalist currents surrounding them; the latter have ultimately suffocated all those bottom-up alternatives. Shumsky’s major contribution is that he discusses nothing that could earn the label marginal or peripheral. His study instead implants the discussion of alternatives to the notion of a Jewish nation- state directly in the heart of the Zionist ultra-mainstream. Equipped with knowledge of Hebrew, Russian, German, and Polish, masterful historical-archival work, and meticulous attention to detail, Shumsky analyzes the five most important activist Jewish thinkers, hailing from the Habsburg and Russian Empires, who probably have had the greatest impact on the shaping of the ideology of Zionism. These are Leon Pinsker (1821-91), Ahad Ha’am (Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg, 1856-1927), Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), and David Ben-Gurion (1886-1973). As Shumsky devotes a full chapter to each of these individuals, they can also be read as separate, self- contained texts—methodological organization and structuring that make the book distinctively friendly for teaching purposes. In terms of methodology and explanatory approach to the study of Zionism, as one manifestation of Citation: H-Net Reviews. Behar on Shumsky, 'Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion'. H-Nationalism. 12-09-2019. https://networks.h-net.org/node/3911/reviews/5529146/behar-shumsky-beyond-nation-state-zionist-political-imagination Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-Nationalism the global phenomenon of nationalism, Shumsky carries his readers both “backwards” and “forwards” simultaneously. By “backwards” I have in mind his full-blownreturn to the dominant tradition that typified the study of Zionism during the second half of the twentieth century, that is, an analysis that chiefly highlights the study of the ideational realm—of writings, doctrines, texts, ideologies, intellectuals, etc. Since the turn of the millennium, the dominance of the ideational school in the study of Jewish (and incidentally also Arab) nationalism has shrunk when compared to approaches that emphasize non-ideational domains, including bottom-up societal and economic changes, power and politics, institutions and organizations, technological change and transformation of collective consciousness, settler-colonial approaches, and more. Yet in carrying readers “backwards” by reembracing ideationalism, Shumsky introduces to the older studies of this type countless revisions, insights, and uncharted essays and op-eds that his five protagonists published—sources that have earned insufficient scholarly attention. In doing so, Shumsky carries his readers exponentially “forwards” in substantive terms as he is successful in complicating to a huge extent the dominant narrative that singularly governed the study of the Zionist quest for sovereignty and self-determination, which were always assumed to adhere to Jewish state formation. Shumsky’s exclusive focus on the history of ideas ultimately weakens the impact of his otherwise momentous study. When the Zionist movement was embryonic and weak and enjoyed little demographic, political, and economic power—both generally and within world Jewry—it is little surprising that the five Zionist leaders were willing to entertain ideas that Shumsky is perhaps incorrect to term “beyond the nation-state” (his book’s title): the term “beyond” unleashes connotations of a “progressive” “inclusive” post-national(ist?) disposition that he suggests occupied center stage among his five protagonists. Yet their respective considerations of alternatives to a Jewish nation-state seem to emerge less from conviction and candid commitment to non-nationalist political configurations and much more from the simple straightforward lack of power to materialize their otherwise desired standard nation-state model. Shumsky himself accepts that by 1936-37 the model of a Jewish nation-state became exclusive. When one is in a state of sociopolitical weakness, scarcity, and starvation, adherence to the notion that “half a loaf is better than no bread” is not surprising and thus does not originate from candid commitment to sub-state alternatives. Shumsky’s readers will ponder to what extent alternative ideas to the Zionist nation-state notion were followed by sociopolitical activism and advocacy in order to materialize them, presumably up to the maximal point of abandoning altogether the idea of a fully sovereign Jewish state. Empirical non- ideational history of Zionism does not indicate modestly sufficient attempts to concretize ideas for a Jewish non-nation-state. By way of illustration, think of a man who self-declares himself a feminist and who had additionally spoken and written widely on pro-feminist subjects. Would such an ensemble of oral and written feminist declarations testify to this man’s commitment to feminism or to his self-declaration that he is a feminist? Suppose further that in—say—fifty years a scholar of Shumsky’s caliber would have accessed all of this man’s feminist ideological material. Could this scholar then suggest to future readers that this man’s feminism was meaningful or that he was indeed a feminist? I would think that the answer is no. To determine how serious of a feminist this man was, one would probably need to examine the extent to which he hadacted upon his elaborate ideas, ideology, or written plans in order to materialize them concretely. One way to arrive at this end would be to interview this man’s wife, daughters, or female work colleagues, or to ideally study what they had Citation: H-Net Reviews. Behar on Shumsky, 'Beyond the Nation-State: The Zionist Political Imagination from Pinsker to Ben-Gurion'. H-Nationalism. 12-09-2019. https://networks.h-net.org/node/3911/reviews/5529146/behar-shumsky-beyond-nation-state-zionist-political-imagination Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 H-Nationalism written about this man’s feminist credentials. Briefly put, it is one thing for a leading Zionist ideologue to write about alternatives to the idea of a Jewish nation-state; profoundly more critical is the question of the ideologue’s action upon this non-statist idea—alone or with fellow Zionists—for the purpose of materializing it empirically in Ottoman or mandatory Palestine. It would be legitimate for one to suggest that the absence of this dimension in Shumsky’s book is not at all as critical as I deem it. It will be, however, harder to counter the claim thatsub -state ideas of the five intellectuals Shumsky studies (not their “beyond” ideas) were not followed by modestly meaningful activism. That certainly was not the case after 1937 (as Shumsky concurs) but more critically also not earlier. One final contextual proposition that far exceeds Shumsky’s book itself deserves a mention: his book is to a great extent driven by contemporary developments and considerations more than by historical scholarly curiosity. The twenty-first-century trajectory of Israel/Palestine renders this book highly important. Shumsky is one of the foremost public intellectuals who has regularly penned op- eds in leading Hebrew dailies analyzing astutely Israel/Palestine’s post-Oslo condition. As territorial partition to two states seems highly unlikely due to Israel’s relentless colonization, the key
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Firkowicz, Forgeries and Forging Jewish Identities
    chapter 9 On Firkowicz, Forgeries and Forging Jewish Identities Dan D.Y. Shapira This paper is a—necessarily short—report on the great project of the publica- tion of forged tombstone inscriptions in a Crimean Jewish-Karaite cemetery, by which (together with other spurious evidence) Avraham Firkowicz (1787– 1874) attempted to establish a myth of the origin of the Karaite Jews. In order to appreciate his efforts it is necessary to briefly sketch the various trends of ideas among Jews and Gentiles on the ancient history of Hebrews as current in the early nineteenth century in Russia and elsewhere. Avraham, son of Shemuel Firkowicz, was to a large degree a medieval char- acter. Born in 1787 in Łuck (Lutsk, Lutzk; Volhynia) in a tiny Turkic-speaking community of Jewish religious dissidents, the Karaites, as a subject of the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, in the epoch of the early Jewish Enlightenment, he lived through the emergence of the Jewish Reform Movement, the heyday of the Wissenschaft des Judenthums, and the emergence of both the specific Russian-Jewish civilization and Yiddish literature. He died in 1874 after an active life up to his last day, only a few years before the Pogroms of 1881–82 which prompted the massive Jewish emigration to America, the emergence of the first Palestinophile (or proto-Zionist) organizations and the important book Autoemancipation by Leon Pinsker, the son of a friend and colleague of his, Śimhah Pinsker. When young Firkowicz began to read his Hebrew Pentateuch, he found himself under Russian rule, following the third partition of Poland in 1795.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Balfour Declaration's Territorial Landscape: Between Protection and Self Determination
    The Balfour Declaration’s Territorial Landscape: Between Protection and Self Determination Karin Loevy, NYU (very rough first draft, please do not circulate) The Balfour Declaration as it was published in The Times on November 9, 1917 Famously declaring British support for the establishment of a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine, the Balfour declaration (November 1917) is commonly understood as the first international instrument recognizing the right to self-determination for the Jewish people in Palestine, and the first step towards the 1948 establishment of the State of Israel. Based on analysis of the declaration’s drafting process and its international law background in 19th century practices of imperial protection, the paper challenges this perception. The framers of the Balfour declaration, Zionist activists as well as British officials, did not envision nor did they wish to establish a sovereign jurisdictional Jewish state in Palestine. What they had in mind was a space of protection for Jewish ‘homelessness’ under the auspices of a European Power. The legal framework that they imagined drew on such 19th century precedents as Ottoman autonomous zones, British and French protectorates and other mechanisms that sustained both rule and expansion in multi- national empires. Reframing the Balfour declaration as a document of protection may contribute to the study of the colonial context of contemporary post-colonial international norms such as that of self- determination of nations. But more importantly it may contribute to the legal and political discourse about the region’s national conflicts by enriching our perspective over their territorial past. 1 Table of contents: I. Introduction: Balfour’s Territory II.
    [Show full text]
  • Eliezer Schweid: an Intellectual Portrait
    ELIEZER SCHWEID: AN INTELLECTUAL PORTRAIT Leonard Levin Prelude: The Background of Spiritual Zionism Eliezer Schweid will be remembered to posterity as the voice and con- science of spiritual Zionism (especially its Gordonian variant) in the age of the fulfillment of the State and the onset of postmodernism. To shed light on this characterization, I will first provide a historical sketch to situate “spiritual Zionism” within the panorama of modern Jew- ish ideological movements. Jewish thought has always presented a per- petual dialectic of universalistic and particularist themes and tendencies. In the modern period, the pioneers of modern Judaism—thinkers such as Moses Mendelssohn, Abraham Geiger, and Samson Raphael Hirsch— first responded to the Western Enlightenment, a universalistic move- ment within modern Western thought, by emphasizing the universalistic themes of Judaism, in order to justify Judaism’s existence in the modern world. In effect, their philosophies were a continuation of the medieval Jewish-Christian disputation in modern guise, arguing that Judaism was perhaps the highest representation of the universal monotheistic religion at the heart of Western culture, or at the very least a worthy exemplar of it. Thus, for them the task of Jewish philosophy was to articulate the world- view of the Jewish religion in terms that were intellectually respectable by the standards of the Western philosophical tradition. This task assumed a common intellectual consensus: that all discussants agreed that some form of the Western biblical monotheistic religion was normative, and that Jewish existence was defined religiously as adherence to the Jewish religion, which was a variety of Western biblical monotheistic religion.
    [Show full text]
  • Copy of Copy of IHS ED GUIDE TEMP WIZ
    WHAT IS ZIONISM? Section 1: Additional Resources Anita Shapira, Israel: A History, Part 1, Chapter 1 Arthur Herzberg, The Zionist Idea, Introduction Gil Troy, The Zionist Ideas, Introduction Jewish Virtual Library, “Israel: Zionism,” https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionism Micah Goodman, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkBYF4KAir8 Daniel Septimus, https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/questioning-zionism/ Zack Beauchamp, “What is Zionism?” https://www.vox.com/2018/11/20/18080010/zionism-israel-palestine Section 2: Discussion Questions Daniel Septimus notes that when Zionism was formed, it was knocked from the Reform left because the Reform movement viewed Judaism as a religion and not a people, and it was knocked from the right because the religious community viewed Zionism as blasphemous because the “Zionists were revolting against God’s will.” If the Jewish people accepted Zionism earlier on, do you think history would have played itself out in the same way or in a different way? One of the fundamental disputes between Jabotinsky and Herzl was on the impact Zionism would have on anti-Semitism. Herzl believed Zionism would end anti-Semitism, while Jabotinsky believed Zionism would serve as a protection from anti-Semitism. While it seems like anti-Semitism is not going away, what role do you see the Jewish state playing in combating anti-Semitism, and who do you think is responsible to stop anti- Semitism? If Zionism can simply be understood as the Jewish national liberation movement, why do you think some people are opposed to the idea of Zionism? Now that Zionism has reached a major goal of developing a Jewish state, what role do you see Zionism playing? All Rights Reserved Jerusalem U Israel Education Media Lab 2018 Section 3: Review 1.
    [Show full text]
  • ONE HUNDRED YEARS of ZIONISM: Vision and Reality — Reality and Vision
    ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF ZIONISM: Vision and Reality — Reality and Vision ALVIN I, SCHIFF, PH.D. Irving Stone Distinguished Professor of Education, Yeshiva University and Chairman, American Advisory Council, Joint Authority for Jewish Zionist Education As the national liberation feature of Zionism comes to a close, it is time to turn to the historical. Judaic vision of Zionism. Each component—the Hebrew language, the Jewish religious tradition, and the land ofIsraeli-must become operative principles of Jewish life. Then Zionism can become a unifying factor, creating a sense of Jewish peoplehood with a common heritage and a common destiny. wo guiding principles serve as the frame Jews exiled to Babylonia. And, since that Tofreference for this article: (1) the vision time, Jews, young and old, would recite be­ and the reality of Zionism must be viewed as fore grace after their weekday meals: "By the an historic continuum, and (2) there always waters of Babylon, there we sat and cried has been and continues to be a mutual intrin­ when we remembered Zion" (Psalms 137:1). sic relationship between Jews in the Diaspora and Jews in Eretz Yisrael concerning the THE VISION OF ZIONISM vision of Zionism and its fulfdlment. AND MESSIANISM The term "Zionism" was first used in 1892 The vision of Zionism, expressed as the by Nathan Birnbaum at a meeting in Vienna coming of the Messiah, suffuses the entire (Laquer, 1972). Yet, the concept of Zionism Judaic tradition. It was this fervent belief that is another matter. The idea of Zionism is lightened the yoke of exile for generations.
    [Show full text]
  • Herzl and Zionism
    Herzl and Zionism Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl (1860-1904 ) "In Basle I founded the Jewish state...Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.” Theodor (Binyamin Ze'ev) Herzl, the father of modern political Zionism, was born in Budapest in 1860. He was educated in the spirit of the German-Jewish Enlightenment of the period, learning to appreciate secular culture. In 1878 the family moved to Vienna, and in 1884 Herzl was awarded a doctorate of law from the University of Vienna. He became a writer, a playwright and a journalist. Herzl became the Paris correspondent of the influential liberal Vienna newspaper Neue Freie Presse. Herzl first encountered the antisemitism that would shape his life and the fate of the Jews in the twentieth century while studying at the University of Vienna (1882). Later, during his stay in Paris as a journalist, he was brought face-to-face with the problem. At the time, he regarded the Jewish problem as a social issue Herzl at Basle (1898) (Central Zionist Archives) In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was unjustly accused of treason, mainly because of the prevailing antisemitic atmosphere. Herzl witnessed mobs shouting "Death to the Jews". He resolved that there was only one solution to this antisemitic assault: the mass immigration of Jews to a land that they could call their own. Thus the Dreyfus case became one of the determinants in the genesis of political Zionism. Herzl concluded that antisemitism was a stable Herzl with Zionist delegation en route to Israel (1898) and immutable factor in human society, which (Israel Government Press Office) assimilation did not solve.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction Sander L
    Á Introduction Sander L. Gilman Theodor Lessing’s (1872–1933) Jewish Self-Hatred (1930) is the classic study of the pitfalls (rather than the complexities) of acculturation. Growing out of his own experience as a middle-class, urban, margin- ally religious Jew in Imperial and then Weimar Germany, he used this study to reject the social integration of the Jews into Germany society, which had been his own experience, by tracking its most radical cases. This early awareness of the impossibility of acculturation into what he saw as an inherently antisemitic world led him early to become a Zion- ist (at least a cultural if not a political Zionist) and concomitantly a ra- bid opponent to the rise of German fascism. A failed academic (because of, in his view, the antisemitic a itudes of both the institutions and the faculty—he was not completely wrong), his writing before and a er World War I spanned the widest readership in Germany, from theater criticism to works on the philosophy of history. As one of the most visi- ble Jewish opponents of the Nazis, he had fl ed immediately a er Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in January 1933 to Czechoslovakia, where in March of that year he was assassinated by German-speaking Nazis. Certainly his work that most captured the a ention of both his contem- poraries and our own world is this study of Jewish antisemitism.1 Lessing’s case studies refl ect the idea that assimilation (the radical end of acculturation) is by defi nition a doomed project, at least for Jews (no ma er how defi ned) in the age of political antisemitism.
    [Show full text]
  • ORIGINS and EVOLUTION of ZIONISM by Liora Halperin
    JANUARY 2015 ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION OF ZIONISM By Liora Halperin Liora R. Halperin is an Assistant Professor in the Department of History and the Program in Jewish Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder. Her research focuses on Jewish cultural history, Jewish-Palestinian relations, language ideology and policy, and the politics surrounding nation formation in Palestine in the years leading up to the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. She is the author of Babel in Zion: Jews, Nationalism and Language Diversity in Palestine, 1920-1948 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2014). In 2012-2013 she was an Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies and Judaic Studies at Princeton University Halperin received her Ph.D. from UCLA's history department. This essay is based on a lecture she delivered to FPRI’s Butcher History Institute on “Teaching about Israel and Palestine,” October 25-26, 2014. The Butcher History Institute is FPRI’s professional development program for high school teachers from all around the country. One of the key forces in shaping the history of Palestine was the Zionist movement. This movement emerged from and is rooted in political developments in Europe, but it changed and developed as it evolved from a political movement in Europe to a settlement and nation-building project in Palestine. Thus, we need to step outside the physical context of the Middle East to understand a force that ultimately changed the Middle East. This article focuses on Jewish history and Jewish politics and thought; other texts in this collection complement and complicate the picture I give with perspectives from the Arab, Palestinian, and imperial perspectives.
    [Show full text]
  • A History of Zionism
    ‘The Invention of a Nation’ — A History of Zionism Independent scholar, Thomas G. Mitchell, discusses the origins of Zionism by reviewing a little-known work, “The Invention of a Nation: Zionist Thought and the Making of Modern Israel” (Columbia University Press, 2003, 289 pp.) by Alain Dieckhoff — a French political sociologist who heads the political science department at Sciences Po (Institut d’études politiques de Paris): The Jews had it much tougher than the other European nationalist movements when it came to obtaining their independence. For one thing, they were scattered throughout Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. Dr. Alain Dieckhoff First, the early Zionists had to convince their fellow Jews that they were a people and a potential nation and that resurrecting that nation was the answer to anti-semitism, which broke out throughout the Russian Empire in the early 1880s in a series of vicious pogroms. Then the Zionists had to decide that their nation should be established in Ottoman Palestine rather than somewhere else. Leon Pinsker, who is normally considered to have been the first Zionist, but was in fact the first Territorialist, argued that the Jews should establish their state anywhere but in the Holy Land. He contended that it was the holiness of the land that had driven the ancient Jews crazy and led to their loss of independence at the hands of the Romans. Theodor Herzl was indifferent as to whether the state should be established in Argentina or elsewhere in South America or in Palestine. But it was the Ostjuden—the Jews of Eastern Europe—who decided for Herzl that the nation-state must be reestablished in Palestine and nowhere else.
    [Show full text]
  • Reconstituted Masculinities in Jewish-Russian Literature (1903 – 1925)
    New Men for a New World: Reconstituted Masculinities in Jewish-Russian Literature (1903 – 1925) by Ethan Calof B.A., Dalhousie University, 2013 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies © Ethan Calof, 2019 University of Victoria All rights reserved. This thesis may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. ii New Men for a New World: Reconstituted Masculinities in Jewish-Russian Literature (1903 – 1925) by Ethan Calof B.A., Dalhousie University, 2013 SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE Dr. Serhy Yekelchyk, Supervisor Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies Dr. Helga Thorson, Department Member Department of Germanic and Slavic Studies iii ABSTRACT This Master’s thesis explores Jewish masculinity and identity within early twentieth-century literature (1903-1925), using texts written by Jewish authors in late imperial Russia and the early Soviet Union. This was a period of change for Russia’s Jewish community, involving increased secularization and reform, massive pogroms such as in Kishinev in 1903, newfound leadership within the 1905 and 1917 Revolutions, and a rise in both Zionist and Revolutionary ideology. Subsequently, Jewish literary masculinity experienced a significant shift in characterization. Historically, a praised Jewish man had been portrayed as gentle, scholarly, and faithful, yet early twentieth century Jewish male literary figures were asked to be physically strong, hypermasculine, and secular. This thesis first uses H.N. Bialik’s “In the City of Slaughter” (1903) and Sholem Aleichem’s “Tevye Goes to Palestine” (1914) to introduce a concept of “Jewish shame,” or a sentiment that historical Jewish masculinity was insufficient for a contemporary Russian world.
    [Show full text]
  • First Zionist Congress
    First Zionist Congress Chair: Peter Mikulski Hello delegates, I’m Peter Mikulski, chair of the First Zionist Congress at LYMUN 2020. We’ve been waiting for you all summer long and we’re so glad you’re finally here! We are about to embark on a deep dive into the exciting world of Zionism in the late 19th century. I simply cannot wait! But first, a little about myself. I am a sophomore and serve on LTMUN’s underclassmen board. At last year’s LYMUN, I was the vice chair of the Trump’s Cabinet ad hoc committee. I’m interested in Islamic history, amateur radio, and music. In this committee, you will assume the role of the men (and one woman) present at the First Zionist Congress held in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland. Zionism -- the belief in the necessity of Jewish statehood -- is multifaceted. Many men believing very different things called themselves Zionists, so I hope your research is thorough and you come to LYMUN VII with a good grasp of the issues discussed at the First Congress. Well done research will make participating in debate and the resolution writing exponentially easier. It’ll also make the 1 committee’s outcome more interesting for everyone! The following background guide I’ve written will be a good place to start, but, of course, it should not be your only source. Every delegate must complete a position paper (one page for each topic) to be eligible for awards in this committee. Additionally, I hope each of you will speak up in our session at least once.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ideological Test of Ahad Ha'am: the Struggle Over the Character Of
    The ideological test of Ahad Ha‘am: the struggle over the character of Bnei Moshe Yossi Goldstein ariel universitY, israel abstract Zionist historiography and historical scholarship typically portray Bnei Moshe as a secret order, consisting of a homogenous group of young intellectuals who zealously espoused the national cultural-Zionist world-view and doctrine of their leader and mentor Ahad Ha‘am. In this article I establish that this group – whose prominent members included well-known figures such as Haim Nahman Bialik, Yehoshua Hana Ravnitzky, Elhanan Levinsky, Chaim Weizmann, Meir Dizengoff, and others – was actually plagued by deep ideological rifts, with some of its members pushing for the adoption of the national religious values associated with Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, and others viewing the order as an elitist branch of the Hibat Tsiyon movement and its successor organization, the Odessa Committee, led by Moshe Leib Lilienblum and Leon Pinsker. Only after a protracted struggle did the group ultimately accept Ahad Ha‘am’s position and world-view. Rumours of dissonance his article focuses on a group of young Russian Jewish intel- T lectuals who, in Odessa in the summer of 1888, founded the secret order Bnei Moshe (‘The sons of Moses’). Ahad Ha‘am (Asher Zvi Ginzburg’s nom de plume),1 the order’s founder and ideologue, had joined the Hibat Tsiyon movement five years earlier, approximately two years after the first Zionist associations began to sprout up across Russia and Romania. Inspired by their enlightened intellectual (maskilim) leaders, which included Leon Pinsker and Moshe Leib Lilienblum of Odessa and Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever of Bialystok, these associations sought to establish a national movement to settle Jews in Palestine and to strive to set up a national autonomy there.
    [Show full text]