From Zionism to Diaspora-Zionism: The History of the Zionist Youth Movements in Australia

By

Jonathan Ari Lander

A Thesis submitted to the University of New South Wales in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Philosophy in History

2012

Jonathan Ari Lander, 2012

Abstract

This thesis examines the history of four Zionist youth movements in Australia: Bnei Akiva, Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. All four movements were established in Australia in the 1940s and 1950s by European Jews who wanted to re-create the organisations they had grown up with in Europe. The movements were, originally, activist political organisations dedicated to educating Jewish youth towards immigrating to Palestine/Eretz Israel (making aliyah) in order to help build the Jewish state. While all four movements shared the same basic aim of aliyah they also possessed distinct political ideologies. The movements were inspired by a kaleidoscope of European intellectual thought, but in particular they were influenced by the German youth movement and the British scouts as well as nationalism, socialism, romanticism and fascism. Historians of Zionism and European Jewish history have written a great deal about the origins of the movements and their important role in the history of Jewish nationalism. While scholars have examined the importance of the movements in Europe, Palestine and elsewhere, current academic research is largely silent on the history of the movements since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. The historiography on the youth movements in Australia is even sparser. In this thesis I examine what the success of the movements in Australia may tell us about Jewish identity. I explore the ideological developments within the movements in Australia, their successes in convincing members to make aliyah, as well as their attempts to adapt their ideologies to suit a rapidly changing world. Originally the movements were dedicated to aliyah, but it is clear that an ideological shift has begun to take place with their embrace of a Diaspora-Zionism. This ideological development represents the most dramatic change in the ideology of the movements since their original establishment. The idea of an ideologically based Diaspora- Zionist identity raises important questions about the nature of Jewish identity in the Diaspora and the connection between Diaspora Jewry and the State of Israel. By charting the history of the movements in Australia I suggest how this complex and fascinating story highlights the uncertainty of Jewish identity in the modern world.

ii Jonathan Ari Lander, 2012

Contents

Abstract...... ii

Contents ...... iii

List of illustrations ...... iv

Acknowledgments ...... vi

Note on Transliteration ...... viii

Introduction New ways of thinking and being Jewish ...... 1

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth ...... 34

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs: The Establishment of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1939-1955 ...... 72

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour ...... 152

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation ...... 200

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism: Zionism in a Post-Rabbinic World ...... 252

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”? ...... 328

Bibliography ...... 335

List of Interviews ...... 351

Glossary of Hebrew and Technical Terms ...... 365

iii Jonathan Ari Lander, 2012

List of illustrations

Figure 1 Hashomer Hatzair’s emblem ...... 39

Figure 2: Betar Australia, Tiron Booklet 1965. (JA, Leon Kempler.) ...... 55

Figure 3 Bnei Akiva’s emblem...... 65

Figure 4: Habonim Semel July 1944. AJHS C47...... 103

Figure 5: Summer Camp Leaders: Sam Gold, Yosef Steiner, Shimshon Kamil dressed in the European military style Betar uniforms which were later made less militaristic. Woori Yallock, Victoria, 1948. (Photo Yosef Steiner. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201948.htm ) November 2011...... 113

Figure 6: Front Cover of Haderech a Betar Magazine printed in Melbourne, 1951. AJHS C49...... 118

Figure 7: Hashomer Haztair Hachsharah Camp, Toolamba, Victoria, 1964. The chicken coop (lool) on the hachsharah farm. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl) ...... 166

Figure 8: Hashomer Hatzair Hachsharah Camp, Toolamba, Victoria, 1961. Johnny Wyne driving the hachsharah tractor. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl) ...... 168

Figure 9: Summer Camp, Healesville, Victoria, 1961. Members of Hashomer Hatzair construct the kitchen that will be used during camp. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl) ...... 193

Figure 10: Summer Camp, Healesville, Victoria, 1961. Members of Hashomer Hatzair stand upon the camp migdal (watch tower) which they have built. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl) ...... 194

Figure 11: Rifle practice: Michael (Moshe) Bush and Shimshon Feder. (Photo Shimshon Feder. Woori Yallock, Victoria, 1948. (Photo Yosef Steiner. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201948.htm ) November 2011...... 239

Figure 12: "Stick defense"- Henry Kranz, Adam Fleigelman, 1952 (Photo Shimshon Feder. Courtesy of http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm) November 2011...... 239

Figure 13: Celebrating the 30th anniversary since the establishment of Betar in 1923. The picture captures the the formality of the Betar uniforms. Melbourne, 1953. (Photo Shimshon Feder. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm) November 2011...... 241

Figure 14: Summer Camp Moe, Victoria, 1962. Members of Hashomer Hatzair are gathered in formation for mizdar. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl) ...... 243

iv Jonathan Ari Lander, 2012

Figure 15: Summer Powelltown Camp, Victoria, 1958. Members of Hashomer Hatzair stand ready to have their tents inspected. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl) ...... 243

Figure 16: Sydney Habonim Camp Pre-Union. Bronte Beach, Sydney, 2003. Members of Habonim Sydney gather in a mizdar formation in 2003. (Photo Courtesy of Ben Tassie) ...... 244

Figure 17: An image form a Betar Magazine showing how members the correct way to wear their uniform. Date unknown. (JAL Betar Folder. Sourced from Betar Maon, Melbourne) ...... 246

Figure 18: The emblem of Betar Australia was altered to include a kangaroo and reflects the emergence of a distinctly Australian Betar (Photo Yosef Steiner http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201950.htm) November 2011...... 248

Figure 19: Habonim Oneg Shabbat, Sydney 1960s. Note the traditional Friday night candles and that the men have covered their heads with kippot. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman) ...... 261

Figure 20: Habonim Third Seder. Habonim Sydney, 1960s. Date uncertain. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman.) ...... 270

Figure 21: Habonim Rikudei Am (Israeli dancing) Habonim Sydney 1960s. Date uncertain. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman.) ...... 273

Figure 22: Front cover from Betar Summer Camp 1970-71 booklet with a sketch of Joseph Trumpeldor on the front cover. (Leon Kempler JAL) ...... 289

Figure 23: Image from the front cover of Haor: The Light: Official Betar Youth Journal. Summer camp issue printed in 1958/59, Melbourne. (JAL Betar Folder. Sourced from Betar Maon, Melbourne) ...... 290

Figure 24: Kinglake West Betar Summer Camp, Victoria, 1954. A member of Betar undertakes a rope swinging activity. (Picture by Yosef Steiner. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm) November 2011...... 297

Figure 25: Kinglake West Betar Summer Camp, Victoria, 1954. An article printed about Betar’s summer camp activities. (http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm. November 2011)...... 298

Figure 26: Members of Habonim on a hike. Exact date and location unknown, 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman) ...... 299

Figure 27: Members of Habonim taking part in a rope pulling contest. Exact date and location unknown, 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman) ...... 299

v Jonathan Ari Lander, 2012

Acknowledgments

This thesis is a collaborative effort and I owe a huge debt of gratitude to many people who have generously provided me with much needed support, advice, and time.

The thesis is dedicated to my wife Michala, who has provided me with moral support and encouragement when it was most needed. Michala assisted me when it seemed to me there was no end in sight to the endless hours of transcribing seventy-seven interviews. Without having her there at the end of each long day of working on this thesis it would have been impossible to complete this research.

I would like to acknowledge the assistance of my mother, Yael Shudnow, in editing a number of drafts of this thesis; she has been the most patient, responsive and meticulous editor a person could ask for. Thank you.

My father, Ken Lander, was also a source of support and encouragement.

I have also benefitted from the advice and friendship of my supervisor Dr, Julie Kalman. Throughout the process of writing this thesis Julie has read countless drafts and provided me with much guidance and support. Whenever I felt that I had lost my way with this thesis Julie was there to help steer me back on course and to ask the tough but necessary questions. She patiently shepherded me through the process of writing this thesis and was always on hand to help ensure my ideas remained coherent.

I must also thank my co-supervisor Prof. Martyn Lyons who first suggested the idea of conducting oral interviews for my thesis. Martyn also read through the last two drafts of the thesis and I am truly grateful for the detailed comments he gave me. Like Julie he asked the tough questions and ensured my argument remained as nuanced and as academically rigorous as possible.

I also want to thank Helen Bersten at the Australian Jewish Historical Society Archives, Mandelbaum House, Sydney who assisted me in finding all the files that I needed.

Marianne Dacy at the Archive of Australian Judaica, University of Sydney was also extremely helpful and made sure I gained access to all the relevant material on the Zionist youth movements held at Fischer Library.

During 2007/2008 the leaders of all the movements in Sydney and Melbourne kindly allowed me to attend their weekly meetings and to speak to various leaders about their involvement in the movements. The leaders also allowed me to access the material they had collected

vi Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 and stored in their centres. Without their assistance it would have been impossible to gather many of the most important primary sources used in this thesis

For this research I carried out interviews with seventy-seven members of the Zionist youth movements. Their memories and recollections lie at the heart of this thesis and I want to thank each of those individuals whom I interviewed for giving of their time so willingly and for being so generous in telling me their personal stories of their time in the Zionist youth movements. Each interviewee was extremely kind and helpful and every single person I interviewed suggested other people they thought I should speak to and often helped put me in touch with other ex-members. In the end it was impossible to interview all the people that were recommended to me but I thank each of my interviewees for helping me tag">get in touch with so many important ex-members. Finally, I want to single out a few of the interviewees who provided me with access to their personal archives and sent me some of the material they had collected. Thank you Dov Golembowicz, Toby Hammerman, Eliyahu Honig, Leon Kempler, Fran and Paul Pearl, Judy Shapira, Harry Stuart, Les Szekley and Ben Tassie the material you provided me with was invaluable.

Many others have also contributed to this thesis - if your name does not appear here it is due to an oversight on my part, and any errors are of course my sole responsibility.

vii Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Note on Transliteration

Throughout this thesis a simplified transliteration is used. Following the suggestion of the Chicago Manual of Style I have made distinct decisions about the transliteration of Hebrew. ’kaf). The ‘ch) כ chet) and) ח :The letters ‘ch’ (as in chalutz) represents two Hebrew letters is pronounced as in the Scottish ‘loch’. To avoid further difficulty in reading the Hebrew words transliterated I have chosen to represent both letters with ‘ch’.

tzade) and are pronounced as in the ‘ts’ in) צ The letters ‘tz’ represent the Hebrew letter hats.

hey), I have used the letter) ה Generally when a Hebrew word ends with the Hebrew letter ‘h’ at the end of a word, for example; hachsharah.

I have followed these guidelines unless quoting from a primary or secondary source which has adopted a different form of transliteration. Thus, some sources have adopted an ‘h’ for the letter ‘chet’ and thus spell the word chalutz as halutz.

Note on Interviews:

All interviews have been transcribed directly from the interviews without any alteration. I have thus avoided finishing every quote with the word (Sic).

viii Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Introduction New ways of thinking and being Jewish

Zionist youth movements were originally established in Europe and were a product of the encounter between Jews and modernity. I have focused on four Zionist youth movements which continue to operate in Australia today; Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair, Betar and Bnei Akiva.1 This thesis argues that the history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia provides a case study of the way in which the movements sought to transform the Jewish identity of their members into a nationalist identity. Each of these four movements represents a different ideological stream within the Zionist movement. While they are all dedicated to Jewish nationalism, I will argue that each movement conceives of Jewish identity in a distinct manner, and that this is a consequence of the Jewish encounter with modernity and the uncertainty this has engendered within Jewish identity. It is my contention that the history of the movements in Australia highlights the ongoing attempt by Jews to construct a Jewish identity which is compatible with modernity but at the same time enables them to retain their particularist Jewish identity. While the Zionist youth movements were originally dedicated to aliyah (immigrating to Israel)2 the reality is that only very small numbers of their members actually made aliyah and many of those who did immigrate to Palestine/Eretz Israel ended up returning to Australia.3 In response to this reality the movements have begun to undertake an ideological shift which embraces an ethnic Diaspora-nationalism. The Diaspora-Zionism of each movement remains ideologically dedicated to their different conceptions of Jewish identity. Finally, the shift towards an ideologically motivated Diaspora-Zionism is a further indication of the fact that Jewishness

1 In order to avoid confusion in this thesis I will refer to Habonim solely as “Habonim”. The movement has undergone several name changes. When Habonim was initially established its name was just “Habonim” but the movement changed its name to Ichud Habonim after joining forces with the “United Pioneering youth” in the 1950s. In 1981 Habonim merged with another movement called Dror in 1981, and in 1983 the merger “received its final approval at the world-wide conference of the movement which took place in March 1983.” Jonathan Ari Lander. Personal files. (From here on JAL), Toby Hammerman Papers. Habonim Dror: History.

2 For a complete list of non-English words and terminology refer to the Glossary page 352.

3 I am aware that choosing what to name the area between west of the Jordan River and south of modern-day Lebanon is fraught with political and ideological judgments. I will be using the term Palestine/ Eretz Israel in order to try and avoid using a name which propagandises either for Jewish or Arab claims. When I use the term Palestine or Eretz Israel on its own it is not my intention to support either nationalist narrative. The use of the term Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel) was traditionally used by Jews and was the term frequently used by the Zionist youth movements before the State of Israel was established. When I use this term on its own it will be in reference to the name used by the Zionist youth movements and their conception of the Jewish claim to this geographical area.

1 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Introduction continues to transform: this fluidity underlines the continuing uncertainty of Jewish identity at the beginning of the twenty-first century.

Scholars have largely ignored the history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia. The fact that the history of the movements has largely escaped the attention of scholars is not surprising. Australia’s Jewish population constitutes less than half a per cent of the country’s population, and of this numerically inconsequential community, only a small number of Jews have been actively involved in the movements. Why then write a thesis about the history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia? This story raises significant questions for academics examining not only the Australian Jewish community, but also Australian society, which has enabled Jews to retain their particularist ethno-religious identity while integrating into Australian culture. Zionist youth movements provide a case study of the way in which Jews have navigated their Australian and Jewish identities and would possibly yield a fruitful comparison with the experience of other immigrant communities. A history of the movements in Australia also taps into the growing literature on the creation of Diaspora communities and how they try to maintain a connection with the ‘homeland’.4 Zionist youth movements played a significant role in Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel but the current historiography has tended to focus on the formative years in Europe and Mandate Palestine. Far less research has been engaged with examining their existence in the Jewish Diaspora since the State of Israel was established. The attempt by the movements to maintain their relevance in the second half of the twentieth century is an important part of the history of Zionism. These are all valid avenues of inquiry that require further discussion and analysis and this thesis will touch upon all of these points, sometimes explicitly, and sometimes implicitly. However, this thesis focuses on the Zionist youth movements in order to illustrate the fact that Jewish identity continues to evolve and transform.

In what way does a history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia allow us to examine the fact that Jewish identity is in a state of flux and continues to transform itself? No other movement in modern Jewish history has had more of an impact on the Jewish people than the Zionist movement. The success of Zionism in establishing a Jewish state turned the Jewish people from a series of Diaspora communities into a community in possession of a territory. For the first time in close to two millennia Jews became the

4 For an excellent survey of Diaspora nationalism and the concept of homeland within a wide variety of diasporas including Jewish, Hindu, Ukrainian and Greek-Orthodox Diaspora communities see Allon Gal, Athena S. Leoussi, Anthony D. Smith, eds., The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present, (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010), passim. For a text focused on Jewish Diaspora nationalism see Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, eds., Israel, the Diaspora and Jewish Identity, (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2007), passim.

2 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction majority in their own sovereign state.5 Jewish sovereignty also had a profound impact on Jewish political life by enabling Jews to resort to the use of physical force to protect their collective interests.6 The success of Zionism in establishing a Jewish State also fundamentally altered the way Jews perceived themselves, and the way in which they were perceived by the non-Jewish world.7 While the practical realities of statehood had far reaching ramifications that have irreversibly altered Jewish history, realpolitik was only one part of the Zionist revolution. Zionism also actively sought to transform Jewish identity. Perhaps one of the most elegant and pithy summations of the revolutionary character of Zionism was provided by a former Israeli foreign minister, Shlomo Ben-Ami, who wrote that while “Most revolts are an uprising against a system, Zionism was a revolt against Jewish destiny.”8 Ben-Ami’s words provide a window into the existential manner in which many Jews view the concept of Jewish statehood, as well as the reality of the Zionist project, which not only sought statehood but also “revolutionised the very concept of Jewish peoplehood.”9 How did Zionism transform this concept of Jewish peoplehood?

The messianic dream that existed for centuries in Rabbinic Judaism believed that only through divine intervention would the Jewish people return to the Land of Israel. When the Messianic Age began, salvation would be perfect in every way: all of the Jewish people would return to the Land of Israel and they would be free from their subjugation under foreign powers, to practice the Torah in its entirety. The Jewish people, full of the love of God and Torah, would establish a perfect state which would, in turn, bring about the salvation of the whole world.10 According to Jewish tradition it was forbidden for Jews to actively seek the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty. Jews had to accept the yoke of Exile and wait until God had decided that it was the right time for the Messiah to return. The acceptance of Exile was embedded in rabbinic literature and came to be known as the Three Oaths. Scholars have argued that the Three Oaths were never seen as binding. However,

5 Anita Shapira, “Introduction,” in Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds., ‘Essential Papers on Zionism’, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 1.

6 For an excellent discussion on this exact point see Ehud Luz, “The Moral Price of Sovereignty: The Dispute About the Use of Military Power Within Zionism,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No 1. (Feb. 1987): 51-98. For an alternate view see David Vital, “Zionism as Revolution? Zionism as Rebellion?” Modern Judaism 18 (1998): 205-215.

7 Shapira, “Introduction,” 1.

8 Shlomo Ben-Ami, Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 4.

9 Shapira, “Introduction,” 1.

10 Aviezer Ravitsky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, trans. Michael Swirsky and Jonathan Chipman, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 1.

3 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

Aviezer Ravitsky has challenged this perspective and examined how these ideas served to deter the mass migration of Jews to the Holy Land and any form of collective activism that may have brought about the Messianic Age.11 Breaking these Oaths was seen by many Jews as a refutation of God’s Will. Zionism’s aim, which sought to bring about the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel without divine assistance, represents a radical break with the traditional passivity and quietism of rabbinic Judaism.

The ability of Zionist thinkers to advocate the return of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel through human action and not through divine intervention was only possible when they no longer conceived of their Jewish identity as a product of the Covenant (Brit) between God and the Jewish people. It was the emancipation which brought Jews into contact with modernity and enabled some Jews to break away from the religious intellectual framework and conceive of a secular Jewish identity.12 The Jews who established the Zionist movement were a direct product of the process of the Emancipation. The key ideological thinkers of the Zionist movement, individuals like Perez Smolenskin, Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha’am, Max Nordau, Zee’v Jabotinsky and even Rabbi Zvi Yehudah Kook, were all exposed, through their fluency in European languages, to movements like nationalism and socialism. These Zionist thinkers sought to take the best of European society to fashion a new type of Jew: Max Nordau, for example, “envisioned a new form of Jewishness, informed at its very

11 Ravitsky, Messianism, 79. According to the Talmud and midrashic literature the people of Israel took Three Oaths, “What are the three oaths? One, that Israel not ascend the wall; one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, abjured Israel not to rebel against the nations of the world; and one, that the Holy One, blessed be He, adjured the idolaters not to oppress Israel overly much.” Babylonian Talmud Ketubbot, Masechet Ketubot 111a. (Ravitsky, Messianism, 212). Whereas academics like Ehud Luz argued that this did not amount to a Halachic prohibition and that this idea was only stressed after the advent of Herzelian Zionism (Ehud Luz, Parallels Meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement, 1882-1904, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988, 308-315) recent research undertaken by Ravitsky has pinpointed how extensive and influential the idea of the Three Oaths was within European Jewry prior to the rise of modern Zionism. (Ravitsky, Messianism, 211-234). Thus prominent Chassidic rabbis such as the fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schneerson argued that Zionism’s ability to ignore the Three Oaths amounted to a refutation of God’s Will.

12 Jacob Katz, one of the foremost scholars of Jewish history in Europe, argued that the “Modern Jewish experience, to be fully understood, must be viewed under the aspect of emancipation, that process, starting in the late eighteenth century, whereby the Jews of Central and Western Europe achieved civic and national rights.” Jacob Katz, Jewish Emancipation and Self-Emancipation, (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1986), 75-76. Ismar Schorsch makes a very similar argument: Ismar Schorsch, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism, (Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1994), 51. Recent studies have argued for a more complex, diverse and nuanced understanding of the emancipation and its impact upon different Jewish communities. Nonetheless, the point remains that the encounter between Jews and modernity facilitated the emergence of secular conceptions of Jewish identity. Jay R. Berkovitz, Rites and Passages: The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Culture in France, 1650-1860, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 7. Feiner argues it is important to keep in mind the impact of specific historical events. In the case of Poland the disintegration of the Polish commonwealth and events like The Deluge had a profound effect on ability of Polish-Lithuanian Jewish communities to retain their autonomy and the traditional forms of communal leadership. Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Enlightenment, trans. Chaya Naor, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 7-13.

4 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction root by the truths of science and culture,”13 while Ahad Ha’am clearly drew from positivist thinkers and for him “Jewish Kultur was secular and rationalist.”14 The same is true for all these key figures and extends to the rest of the Zionist movement.15 While Zionist ideologues believed that the emancipation had failed, they did not sever their intellectual ties with Europe; the Enlightenment and the ideas which sprang from it remained a key source of Zionism’s inspiration.16

Zionism was also shaped by the ideas of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskalah).17 The proponents of the Haskalah, the Maskilim, provided the ideological foundation for the Zionist movement.18 Zionist ideologues were influenced by the analysis of the Maskilim who viewed the origin of the Jewish people as the product of historical processes. Being Jewish no longer required the observance of Halachah (Jewish Law) and the performance of its mitzvot (commandments). Zionism, by and large, rejected the concept of divine intervention and thus the Three Oaths were meaningless to Zionist thinkers like Herzl, Ahad Ha’am and Jabotinsky. Zionism heralded an unprecedented revolution in Jewish identity which broke with the normative definition of Jewish identity that can be traced back to the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism in late antiquity.

The fact that Zionism drew its intellectual inspiration from the Enlightenment is a point which cannot be overemphasised. As Walter Laqueur pointed out, Zionism was a

13 Michael Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky, (Berkely, CA.: University of California Press, 2001), 80.

14 Jacques Kornberg, ed., At the Crossroads: Essays on Ahad Ha’am, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983), 153.

15 Here I am referring to all the Zionist thinkers except Rav Kook. For my discussion of Rav Kook and his influence on Bnei Akiva and religious-Zionism see Chapter Five.

16 Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe, 19. Feiner makes a similar argument: Feiner, Jewish Enlightenment, 2.

17 The Haskalah is generally referred to as the Jewish Enlightenment. It can be literally translated to mean ‘the act of making intelligent’. Those who formulated and expounded upon the ideas of this Jewish Enlightenment are known as the maskilim. While the usefulness of the term ‘Haskalah’ continues to engender debate amongst historians, what concerns us here is that the Haskalah drew upon the basic intellectual formulations of the Enlightenment. Marcin Wodzinski, “Good Maskilim and Bad Assimilationists, or Toward a New Historiography of the Haskalah in Poland,” Jewish Social Studies, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Spring - Summer, 2004): 87-122.

18 Erich Haberer, Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 10 and Feiner, Jewish Enlightenment, 7-13 see also David Vital, The Origins of Zionism, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 3. Jonathan Irvine Israel’s thesis offers an analysis of the crucial role played by elites in shaping the ‘outlook of the great majority’. Israel’s thesis has implications for the continuing debate about whether the Haskalah was a top-down phenomenon or was shaped by the ‘unconscious’ actions of Jewish labourers and workers. Jonathan Irvine Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1960-1750, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 5.

5 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction product of Europe, not of the Ghetto.19 The same is also true of the Zionist youth movements. The movements represent a transformation in Jewish identity precisely because they drew their inspiration from the contemporaneous ideas, thoughts and writings in the non-Jewish world; their ideological influences derived from the entire political spectrum of nineteenth and twentieth-century Europe, from nationalism and socialism, to liberalism and fascism. The very idea of a youth movement, with the belief that youth should lead other youth, was drawn directly from the teachings of Gustav Wyneken (1875-1964), a German educator, who profoundly influenced the advent of the German youth movement. Camps, hikes, singing, dancing, uniforms and discipline were organisational tools drawn from the teachings of Wyneken as well as from Baden-Powell (1857-1941) and the development of the scouting movement.20 Jacob Katz argued that the metamorphosis in Jewish identity which the emancipation engendered was “in no way the result of internal Jewish developments, but rather the effect of political and social changes that took place in these countries.”21 While I agree that this metamorphosis was the result of the external influence of European thought upon Jews, I think it is important to emphasise the fact that the metamorphosis experienced by Jews resulted from the willingness of many of them to embrace the ideas of the Enlightenment. Zionist youth movements are an example of the willingness of Jews to merge and blend the ideas of the wider, non-Jewish society with the values and beliefs they held as Jews. The inspiration the founders of the movements drew from thinkers like Wyneken, Nietzsche and Marx meant that the Zionist youth movements ultimately presented a new way of thinking Jewish and therefore of being Jewish.

The Zionist youth movements brought to Australia an activist ideological Jewish Zionism which believed Jewish nationalism meant nothing without aliyah. Zionist youth movements sought to transform Australian Jewish youth into pioneers (chalutzim) who would make aliyah to Palestine/ Eretz Israel. The irony was that the primary success of the movements was not in producing olim (immigrants) or chalutzim (pioneers) who went to live in Israel; rather, the most profound impact of the Zionist youth movements was their enabling the creation of a space in which Jewish youth in Australia could engage with their Jewishness and construct a modern Jewish identity. In the twenty-first century the movements have begun to embrace a Diaspora-Zionism which maintains that Jewish identity is primarily national. The State of Israel is seen as the focus of Jewish cultural and political

19 Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, (New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, 1972), 592.

20 David Rechter, “‘Bubermania’: The Jewish Youth Movement in Vienna, 1917-1919,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1996): 25-26.

21 Jacob Katz, Jewish Emancipation and Self-Emancipation, (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1986), 5 (stress added).

6 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction identity and provides a source of pride and belonging.22 Nonetheless, the majority of members today have no intention of moving to Israel to live there. The Diaspora-Zionism of the youth movements remains ideological but the shift towards a Diaspora-Zionism represents an important change in the ideological raison-d’être of the movements. The movements have not yet resolved how they define the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora, nor have they truly grappled with what their shift towards Diaspora-Zionism means for their idea of a Jewish ‘Homeland’, especially if life in the Diaspora continues to be not only attractive economically and socially but also constitutes a meaningful existence for many Jews. The Zionist youth movements have only recently started to grapple with these questions and the fact that they have not yet been able to articulate a coherent response to these questions supports the central theme of my thesis. The lack of resolution, the ongoing debate and questioning is symptomatic of the encounter between Jews and modernity which has created a post-rabbinic era in which Jewish identity is characterised by its uncertainty.

At the heart of the Zionist revolution and its impact on Jewish identity was the influence of nationalism. Eric Hobsbawm, Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson are amongst the most respected scholars who propound a ‘modernist’ perspective which understands nations, nation-states and the ideology of nationalism to be a product of modernity.23 These academics understand nations as subjective, constructed and imagined identities. What caused the concept of nationalism to emerge was the process of modernisation which transformed European society from agroliterate societies into modern industrial societies. Gellner is a particularly eloquent and forceful proponent of this analysis. For Gellner it was the industrialisation process which propelled the invention of nations because the economic structure of industrial society required linguistic, cultural and educational homogenisation. The population was taught to think of itself as a nation, which provided the justification to make people work for the industrial society, thus the idea of the

22 The exact same point is made by Aviv Caryn and David Shneer in their examination of ‘Diaspora’ and whether it is a useful term to describe communities where Israel is no longer viewed as the Promised Land or the focus of Jewish identity. While Caryn and Shneer question the idea of Diaspora as an appropriate term in several Jewish communities around the globe it is clear that the concept of Diaspora is the correct term to use when discussing the Zionist youth movements in Australia. Aviv Caryn and David Shneer, New Jews: The End of the Jewish Diaspora, (New York: New York University Press, 2005), 12-13

23 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, (London: Verso, 1991), passim. Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), 47. For Hobsbawm’s analysis see Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), passim. See also: Ernest Gellner, Encounters With Nationalism, (Oxford: Wiley- Blackwell, 1994) I am utilising Smith’s categorisation of Anderson, Gellner and Hobsbawm’s theories as ‘modernist’. I believe Smith’s categorisation is appropriate due to the fact that these three scholars seek to demonstrate that it was only the advent of modernity that enabled the very concept of the nation, nation-states and nationalism to spread around the globe. Anthony D. Smith, The Ethnic Origins of Nations, (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1986), 9.

7 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction nation was invented in order to serve the economic needs of industrial societies. The process of educating a population to think of itself as a nation is the process which invents a national identity, with a particularly important role played by education and universal literacy. Gellner concluded that nationalism “often obliterates pre-existing cultures.”24

Benedict Anderson takes one of Gellner’s ideas and makes it a cornerstone of his analysis, arguing that the emergence of what he terms ‘print capitalism’ was crucial to the emergence of national identities. Linguistic diversity was immense before the emergence of print capitalism in Europe and print capitalism succeeded, in part, because it enabled communities of people who spoke a “huge variety of Frenches, Englishes or Spanishes” to communicate and understand one another; this, in turn, helped create a national identity precisely because it allowed people to see themselves as part of a broader community with a shared language and identity. Print capitalism gave a new “fixity” to language.25 This ‘fixity’ enabled a level of dialogue and an exchange of memories, experiences and ideas which were essential for the creation of the “imagined community” that is, the nation.26

Anthony D. Smith, originally a student of Gellner, disagrees with his former teacher and points out what he sees as the “limitations” of the modernist position. Smith proposes that in order to understand the emergence of nationalism it is necessary to examine the relationship between ethnic communities and nations. For Smith the emergence of modern nations is not a given of social existence, nor is it simply a result of modern economic systems and the emergence of industrialised society and capitalism. Smith argues that while industrial capitalism, the emergence of the bureaucratic state and mass secular education have heralded a transition in history comparable to the Neolithic transition, this has “not obliterated or rendered obsolete many of the cultures and identities formed in pre- modern eras”.27 Rather than modern industrial society obliterating pre-existing ways of constructing human identity, nationalism explicitly draws upon those pre-existing forms. Human society has always sought to distinguish between groups of people based on language, social customs, religion, territory and so forth; thus Smith has argued that the “The

24 Gellner, Nations and Nationalism, 47.

25 Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, (London: Verso, 1991), 43-44.

26 Ibid., 46.

27 Smith, Ethnic Origins, 3.

8 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction key to the nature, power and incidence of nations and Nationalism lies in the rootedness of the nation in kinship, ethnicity and the genetic bases of human existence.”28

Perhaps the core ideological revolution engendered by nationalism as an ideology is that it makes the idea of common origins and ethnicity sacred principles. Commonalities including language, religion, territory and social customs become highly ranked values. Nonetheless, nationalism proper, as a political ideology, subsumes ethnicity, especially in its unqualified form, through its insistence upon a territorial political entity which it can govern.29 Ethnic nationalism arose as an attempt to protect pre-existing ethnic units which possessed distinct identities. The idea of a shared past, language, territory, beliefs and customs become the basis on which a group, now defining itself as a nation, sought political independence. Ethnicism was transformed into an identity with a political program and purpose. While nationalism drew upon pre-existing ethnic identities, ethnic characteristics can be re-organised and reinterpreted, “thus becoming elements of any number of identities. National identity, in distinction, provides an organizing principle applicable to different materials to which it then grants meaning, transforming them thereby into elements of a specific identity.”30

The academic debate concerning the origins of nations and nationalism has become increasingly politicised and a source of acrimonious debate amongst scholars of Zionism. In 2009 Shlomo Sand’s book The Invention of the Jewish People was published in English. In the book Sand utilises the theories of Hobsbawm and Anderson and accuses historians like Shimoni of being blind to the fact that Zionism “invented” the “myth” of the Jewish people due to the fact they are Zionists. Sand also describes Smith as a “godsend” for historians who are Zionist.31 Israel Bartel and Anita Shapira have both written articles attacking the methodology and conclusions reached by Sand as well as his characterisation of Jewish and Zionist historiography.32 The debate has highlighted the ongoing controversy surrounding the concept of a Jewish state and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Sand, for example, explicitly acknowledges that his aim in writing his book was to advocate for a post-ethnic

28 Anthony D. Smith. Myth and Memories of the Nation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 4.

29 Gideon, Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology, (Hanover, NH.: Brandeis University Press, 1995), 4-5.

30 Greenfeld Liah. Nationalism: Five Road to Modernity, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 13-14.

31 Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People, trans. Yael Lotan, (London: Verso, 2009), 29 n. 9.

32 Israel Bartal, “Inventing an invention,” Haaretz July 6, 2008 and Anita Shapira, “Review Essay: The Jewish- people deniers: Eikh u-matai humtza ha-am ha-yehudi? (When and how was the Jewish people invented?),” The Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 28, No. 1, March 2009, 63–72.)

9 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

Israeli state which was no longer defined as being Jewish.33 Meanwhile Hobsbawm has come out in support of the book, naming it one of his books for the year in 2009.34 Other scholars have explicitly argued that there is considerable evidence to support the argument that an ancient Jewish ‘nationalism’ existed during the Second Temple period.35 This writer believes that Stanislawski, Gideoni and Shapira are correct in many of their criticisms of important aspects of the modernist theories of Benedict Anderson, Ernest Gellner and Eric Hobsbawm, and their applicability to Zionism.36 Nonetheless, the modernist theories have contributed greatly to our understanding of nationalism and raise many important questions that, in my opinion, have not yet been resolved.37 The question as to the extent to which nationalism transformed Jewish identity is ultimately irrelevant to the parameters of my argument. Whether one embraces Smith’s position or the arguments made by the modernist scholars, it is quite clear that Zionism transformed Jewish identity by stressing it was primarily a national identity. The essential point that must be appreciated is that for Zionism the nation was the crucial ingredient in Jewish identity.38

Zionist youth movements embraced the idea that the core of Jewish identity was national and this became their normative understanding of Jewishness. The existence of the Jewish nation was self-evident to both proto-Zionist and later Zionist thinkers. The Jewish nation was, to the Zionist movement, something which had existed since time immemorial. According to the Zionist historiography there had been a Jewish nation as described in the Torah: Am Yisrael (The Nation of Israel) or B’nei Yisrael (The Children of Israel.) There had also been a Kingdom in Judea, and despite the expulsion of the Jews from their ancient

33 Sand, Invention, 292-307

34 Eric Hobsbawm, "Books of the Year, 2009". The Observer, November 22, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/22/books-of-the-year-2009. (October 2011)

35 Doron Mendels, The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine, (Cambridge: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992) and David M. Goldblatt, Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

36 Stanislawski, for example, argues that the parameters of Jewish identity were never “purely religious” as the modernists have proposed and that “Modern Judaism, one might conclude, did not invent the Jewish Nation, nor did the pre-nationalist notion of nationhood coincide with its later meaning.” Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle, xviii. See also: Anthony D. Smith, “Diasporas and Homelands in History: The Case of the Classic Diasporas,” in Allon Gal, Athena S. Leoussi, Anthony D. Smith, eds., The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present, (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010), 3-25.

37 See, for example the debate at Warwick University between Smith and Gellner on October 24 1995, “The Nation: Real or Imagined? The Warwick Debates on Nationalism”. Full transcripts of the interviews are held at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/gellner/Warwick0.html (March 2011).

38 On the difficulty of defining the concept of a ‘nation’ see Hugh Seton-Watson, Nations and States: An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism, (London: Methuen & Co, 1977), 5. Hobsbawm also makes a very similar point: Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism, 5.

10 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction homeland, the Jews had retained their national identity which had been safe guarded by their religion.39 These ideas represent a radical new interpretation of Jewish identity, for traditional Judaism the Jewish people were created not through history, culture and a common ancestral territory, but through the brit (covenant) between God and His Chosen People, the ‘yoke of Torah’.40 Zionism, however, sought to “transform the transnational Jewish identity centred on Torah into a national identity.”41 The distinction between how Zionism and Orthodox Judaism conceived of Jewish identity was thus in diametric opposition. Whereas the religious stream of Zionist thought experienced “great difficulty in accommodating the concept of nationalism to their universe of discourse”, for the rest of the Zionist movement, Judaism, and the Torah was a function of the Jewish nation.42 For Orthodoxy it was the exact opposite, it was heresy to conceive of Judaism as a function of the Jewish nation, the Brit was the source of Jewish identity.

How do the Zionist youth movements fit into this story? First it is important to explain the character of the movements and the significant role they played in the history of Zionism. While they eventually became an essential part of the Zionist movement as a whole, they initially sprang up independently of the organised political and cultural institutions, which were run by the older generation. Blau Weiss (Blue-White), the first Zionist youth movement, was established in Breslau and Berlin in 1912-13 and while it was originally only “sympathetic” to Zionism, increasing levels of anti-Semitism during World War I caused the organisation to embrace Zionism completely.43 Hashomer Hatzair was established in Galicia in 1913 and became the “classic prototype” upon which the other Zionist youth movements based themselves.44 In the following decades a plethora of movements sprung up all across Europe, in particular in Eastern Europe where Jewish youth experienced far more discrimination. Several of these movements shared the same name despite not being affiliated in any way. While the movements often struggled to attract members and failed to convince the majority of Jewish youth to join the Zionist movement, the membership of the movements, by comparison to the size of the Jewish population in Europe was actually very

39 Arthur Hertzberg, ed, The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader, (New York: Meridan Books, 1960),146 and Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 26-27.

40 Yeshayahu Leibowitz, ‘The Uniqueness of the Jewish People’, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 82-83.

41 Yakov Rabkin, A Threat from Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, (London: Zed Books, 2006), 5.

42 Shimoni, The Zionist Idea, 129.

43 Laqueur, History of Zionism, 486.

44 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 223.

11 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction high and was indicative of the success of Zionism in attracting Jewish youth. By way of comparison, Laqueur estimated that at the peak of its popularity, the membership of the German youth movement did not exceed 60,000.45 In 1933, not including Saarland, the population of Germany was over sixty-five million. In comparison it is estimated the population of European Jewry on the eve of World War II was around nine million.46 At this point in time Hashomer Hatzair claimed its membership was over 70,000, which had grown from thirty-four thousand members in 1934. At the same time Betar claimed a worldwide membership of over 90,000.47 This does not include other popular movements including Bnei Akiva, Habonim, Poale Zion, Gordonia or the plethora of short-lived Zionist youth movements which had sprung up around the world during the 1930s and ‘40s.48

It is my contention that the figures attesting to membership in Zionist youth movements were inflated. This is based on my own research into the history of the movements in Australia. Youth movements are very fluid organisations which do not have a stable membership base. Youth frequently move between, or drop out of movements and sometimes return to the movements at an older age. Furthermore, the membership base in no way reflected the dedication of Jewish youth to the ideology of the movements and the vast majority of members would drift away from the movements as they got older and the focus of the movement’s education became more ideological. Very few members would actually take on leadership roles. The reports of the movements in Australia did acknowledge tough times as well as difficulties in recruiting new members nonetheless; it is clear that the numbers they presented were inflated. They were designed to impress the adult Zionist organisations and simultaneously enable the leaders to declare that they were the largest and most popular of the youth movements.49 The reports submitted by the Zionist youth movements to the Zionist Federation were not vetted and the numbers were

45 Walter Laqueur, Young Germany: A History of the German Youth Movement. Rev, Ed, (New Jersey: Transaction, 1984), xxi. The German youth movement also only existed from 1896-1933.

46 Jonathan C. Friedman, ed., The Routledge History of the Holocaust, (New York: Routledge, 2011), 8.

47 Gershon David Hundert, ed., The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe: Volume One, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 173.

48 Gordonia was established in Poland in 1923-4. It was named after the Zionist thinker A.D. Gordon and was also a leftwing movement, although it rejected Hashomer Hatzair’s Marxism in favour of “humanitarian socialism”. Gordonia eventually merged with Maccabi Hatzair in the 1930s. Laqueur, History of Zionism, 488- 9. Gordonia, like Habonim, also eventually spread to North America. Jonathan Jeremy Goldberg, Elliot King, Builders and Dreamers: Habonim Labor Zionist Youth in North America, (New York: Herzl Press, 1993), 63- 65.

49 See for example: AAJUS, (Archive of Australian Judaica University of Sydney) YF2 (Yehuda Feher Folder 2). Report of the Youth Department to the Plenary Session of the Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney, January 16th-27th, 1963, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Plenary Session, 1. See also: AAJUS, YF1 (1). Report of the Fifth Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha, Sydney, January 1952, 25.

12 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction not only rounded up to the nearest ten but the leaders submitting the reports only had a rough idea of how large the movement actually was. Furthermore, the numbers submitted in their reports were invariably drawn from summer camps which attracted far more participants than the winter camps or weekly meetings.50 Nonetheless, even if these figures are inflated the number of Jewish youth involved in the movements was exceptionally high, at least in comparison to the non-Jewish German youth movement. Zionist youth movements also played a decisive role in motivating tens of thousands of Jewish youth to make aliyah. As Laqueur noted in 1972, the vast majority of the State of Israel’s leadership had been involved in the movements at some point while they were growing up.51 Many ex- leaders who did not make aliyah played an important role in their Jewish community and this was also true of the movements in Australia.52 The importance of the movements in the Zionist movement led Mendelsohn to conclude that it gave the Zionist youth movements “an importance unprecedented in modern Jewish history and, perhaps, in the history of the people in Europe.”53

Zionist youth movements modelled themselves on the German youth movement and in the first stage in its development, the Wandervogel (1986-1919).54 The movements were particularly attracted to the Wandervogel’s idea of creating an autonomous youth culture which was supposed to be an organic expression of the will of the youth. In order to create this youth culture a key concept was that these were organisations run by youth for youth. The Wandervogel also focused on the need for discipline, physical fitness, collective living, education and the service that an individual gives back to the movement by becoming a leader themselves once they reached the appropriate age.55 The concept of the group leader was one of the most important innovations of the Wandervogel. Youth movements originally catered for individuals aged twelve to nineteen; children younger than twelve were considered too young and those who were older than nineteen were often drawn away by commitments to either furthering their education or doing their army service. The older

50 See for example: AAJUS, YF2. Report of the Youth Department to the Plenary Session of the Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney, January 16th-27th, 1963, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Plenary Session, 1. See also: AAJUS, YF1 (1). Report of the Fifth Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha, Sydney, January 1952, 25.

51 Laqueur, History of Zionism, 489.

52 Rutland, Edge, 320-1.

53 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 344.

54 Walter Laqueur, Young Germany: A History of the German Youth Movement. Rev, Ed, (New Jersey: Transaction, 1984), xviii.

55 Ibid., xviii.

13 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction members of the movements were ideally only three to six years older than the group they were leading. They were supposed to be close in age to the people they were leading in order to sympathise with their emotional and intellectual needs.56 Within the Zionist youth movements the leader became known as the madrich (youth leader). While the role of the madrich was refined over the decades, it essentially remained the same: the leader was supposed to be a figure whose authority derived from their older age, experience and maturity. They led not only by instruction, but also by example, as they embodied the values of the movement, and thus were supposed to inspire the younger members (chanichim) to become dedicated to the movement. Once chanichim became old enough they were encouraged to become madrichim themselves. This lifecycle enabled the movements to organically replace their leadership and therefore limit the need for adult instructors. Movements stressed the need to maintain their independence and create an autonomous youth culture which was not supervised by any adults.

Zionist youth movements also adopted the German movements’ division of their membership into smaller groups, what the Zionist youth movements called kvutzot.57 The idea, as it developed in the Zionist youth movements, was that smaller groups helped facilitate an intimate and honest environment where members could freely discuss their ideas and feelings. The kvutzah was supposed to be a safe haven from the wider society, which was seen as corrupt and hypocritical. In this sense the Zionist youth movements replicated the worldview of the Wandervogel, which was idealistic and romantic. Zionist youth movements were also influenced by the neo-romanticism of the Wandervogel and its protest against the materialism of mainstream society.58 The German youth movement also believed that rapid urbanisation and industrialisation had distanced human beings from both nature and from having a sense of self. The activities of the scouts and the German youth movement were supposed to teach both self-reliance and group dependence, as well as make members physically fit and inculcate a love of nature.59 It was believed that only by

56 Ibid., 26.

57 Laqueur, Young Germany, 26. Sachar describes the concept of the kvutzah as one of the most important innovations made by Hashomer Hatzair. Howard Morley Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, Rev. Ed, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), 147. Kvutzah means ‘group’ in Hebrew and was the name used in Europe by the Zionist youth movements to delineate the different age groups within the movement. Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 84. The concept of the kvutzah would also feed into the ideology of the kibbutz movement and its desire to create an “enlarged family run by consensus.” Daniel Gavron, The Kibbutz: Awakening from Utopia, (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000), 15-16.

58 Laqueur, Young Germany, 6. See also Reuven Kahane and Tamar Rapoport, The Origins of Postmodern Youth: Informal Youth Movements in a Comparative Perspective, (Berlin: Walter and Gruyter, 1979), 49-50.

59 A core component of the scouting movement was its belief that youth needed to come into contact with nature, a belief motivated by “profound feelings of disillusionment and alienation with the urban world,” Allen 14 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction leaving the city for extended periods of time was it possible to free youth from the materialistic pressures of modern society. Another dynamic within both the Wandervogel and scouting movement was the stress placed on discipline: this was realised through the wearing of a uniform, strict daily routines on camping trips, drills, marches and group processions. This organisational form received even greater ideological impetus amongst the Zionist youth movements, which had embraced the Zionist analysis of the position of Jews in Exile. According to Zionism, Jews in Europe largely worked as small traders and in finance because they had been denied ownership of land. Jews migrated to cities in order to seek out the economic opportunities which they offered. Thus, Jews had lost their connection to nature and physical labour. This had led to the collective physical and moral degradation of the Jewish people. While the organisational form was very similar in the Zionist youth movements, these activities were directed towards an even more overtly nationalist aim: Zionism sought to create a New Jew who had shed the mentality of living in the Diaspora. These New Jews were supposed to be proud and physically strong. This image was set in opposition to the Jew of the Diaspora who was viewed as weak and emasculated.60 The Zionist youth movements undertook the same activities as the Wandervogel and the scouts and also organised camps, hikes and physical training. Each movement also appropriated and developed its own uniforms, flags, anthems and slogans because they believed that the experience of Exile had robbed the Jewish people of the ability to act as a unified collective. The leaders of the Zionist youth movements saw in the ideology and activities of both the Wandervogel and the scouting movement a lifestyle which remedied everything they believed was wrong with Jewish youth and the Jewish people as a whole.

A core motivating concept for the Zionist youth movements was the ‘Idea of Youth’ or ‘Mered Ha-Ben’ (Revolt of the Youth). This was another manifestation of the New Jew, which the movements believed was required for the establishment of a Jewish state.61

Warren, “Sir Robert Baden-Powell, The Scout Movement and Citizen Training in Great Britain, 1900-1920,” English Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 399 (Apr. 1986): 397.

60 See Eliezer Don-Yehiya, “The Negation of Galut in Religious Zionism,” Modern Judaism 12 (1992): 129. Also refer to Schweid, Eliezer, “The Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist Thought: Two Approaches” in Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds, Essential Papers on Zionism, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 133-160.

61 These ideas were brought across to the Australian youth movements. On its fifth anniversary in 1945 Habonim published a magazine in which an anonymous contributor announced the following call to arms which captures the zeitgeist animating the phenomena of the Zionist youth movements during the 1940s: “We are Youth – strong, virile, unafraid... We are youth. We are strong. We are energetic. We have idealism... We are Jewish Youth in France, in England, in America to-day, endowed with the spirit and ideals of youth, filled with the desire and energy of our years... We, too, sleep, and eat, love and starve; we, too, dared the world to crush us if it could. We are Jewish Youth. And Part of the World has accepted our dare. A part of the world has taken a machine-gun in one hand, anti-semitism in the other; a part of the world is stepping on us with calloused 15 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

National independence would only come about through Jews making aliyah - immigrating to Eretz Israel/Palestine: the movements saw youth as the ideal material because they were most likely to be physically fit and sufficiently ideologically motivated to leave Europe and move to Palestine in order to help build the Jewish state. While each of the movements developed different conceptions of ‘Jewish Labour’, (avodah Ivrit), they all understood that labour and physical sacrifice were crucial to the success of Zionism. The idea of ‘Jewish Labour’ was tied to the belief that Zionism represented an opportunity for national rebirth. The word aliyah literally means ‘ascent’, and the idea of immigrating to Eretz Israel was seen by the movements as the ultimate act of a true Zionist. Making aliyah would remove Jewish youth from their abnormal existence in the Diaspora and, through participation in the process of national rebirth in the ancient homeland, enable them to become ‘complete Jews’. 62 The ‘Idea of Youth’ was motivated by the belief that the adult community had failed to respond to the needs of Jewish youth and when the movements were established in Europe they considered themselves to be in a state of revolt against the bourgeois values of the older generations. The emergent Zionist youth movements were looking for a radical shift in the status quo and very quickly many of these groups became attracted to the revolutionary politics of socialism and its promise of a new society which would end the inequalities which many Jews experienced socially and economically.

The movements were also outspoken in their criticism of the adult Zionist movement which they felt was trapped by its dedication to speeches, conferences and the belief that giving money was the best way to support the Zionist project. Zionist youth movements rejected these tactics as further evidence of the failure of the adult movement to really understand that the establishment of a Jewish state would only come about through people moving to Eretz Israel. Thus all the movements came to advocate that the only way to be truly Zionist was to make aliyah, become a pioneer (chalutz) and work to build the Land of Israel. Youth movements were activist organisations and saw themselves as the vanguard of the Zionist revolution. It is also quite easy to see in the ‘Idea of Youth’ an idea which struck a chord with Jewish youth precisely because it accorded them a primary role in the Jewish national movement. Instead of being relegated to the sidelines they were placed front and centre stage in the Zionist revolution.

feet, is squeezing the red life from our veins.... We are Jewish Youth backed by a feed, by a culture, by a will. Their nailed boots may be cruel, but we are youth and we are Jews and we believe in a life that is just and tolerant.” The article was most probably sourced from an overseas Zionist youth movement publication. JAL Habonim Folder. “Jewish Youth,” Five Years Habonim 1940-45, Melbourne, July 1945, 1, 1 A., 7.

62 Ben Halpern and Jehuda Reinharz, “The Cultural and Social Background of the Second Aliyah,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27., No 3, (July., 1991): 494.

16 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

What led the youth who joined the movements to conclude that aliyah-focused Zionism was the solution to their problems? Scholars of Zionism have long pointed out that Zionism appealed to Jews in countries like Poland and the Baltic states where antisemitism ensured that large numbers of Jews would feel there was no hope that they would ever be accepted as equal members of society.63 Despite being excluded from the Polish national movement the Zionist movement and the youth movements were inspired by the national movements of their host countries. This was due, in large part because they saw nationalism as the solution to their problems. Thus, for example, Hashomer Hatzair was influenced by Polish literature as well as the Polish nationalist movement whose texts they studied and discussed.64 Jews not only came from a different religious group and had different customs and societal norms; they also spoke a different language and occupied a specific place in the economic structure of society. The example of Poland is particularly telling: a census carried out in Poland in 1921 illustrates how far apart Jews felt from the wider society. 73.76 percent of Polish Jewry (2,044,637 Jews) declared themselves to be Jewish by nationality as opposed to seeing themselves as Polish. It is crucial to keep in mind that their concept of a national Jewish identity does not mean they all identified with modern doctrines of Jewish nationalism but it is indicative of the sense of separateness from the surrounding society felt by them.65 Whereas in countries like Hungary, France and Germany Jews stressed that their Jewish identity was solely religious, Jews in Poland saw their Jewishness as more than a ‘purely’ religious identity.

One of the key barometers of the process of acculturation and social integration was the percentage of Jews who spoke the language of their host countries. The 1931 Polish census illustrates how little the Jewish population in Poland had begun to acculturate. Data from 1931 shows that 79.9 percent of Polish Jewry declared that their mother tongue was Yiddish, and a further 7.8 percent followed the Zionist movement in (falsely) declaring that their mother tongue was Hebrew. The fact that close to 90 percent of Polish Jewry did not consider Polish to be their mother tongue is indicative of the low level of acculturation and integration that typified the experience of Jews in many Eastern European countries.66

63 For a discussion of the response of various Eastern Central European Jewish to the emancipation refer to Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe and Ezra Mendelsohn, On Modern Jewish Politics, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 40-42.

64 Elkana Margalit, “Social and Intellectual Origins of the Hashomer Hatzair Youth Movement, 1913-1920,” in Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds., Essential Papers on Zionism, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 455. For a brief discussion of the impact of Polish nationalism on Betar see Mendelsohn, Jewish Politics, 35.

65 Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe, 29.

66 Ibid, 29.

17 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

Jewish communities in places like Poland perceived themselves, and were perceived by their Polish neighbours, as a ‘people apart’.67 Polish nationalism developed into an exclusivist form of ethno-nationalism with strong antisemitic undertones, which became an insurmountable barrier to integration.68 Jews were seen as the quintessential ‘other’ who posed a serious threat to Polish unity, and elicited rising levels of violent antisemitism.69 It was precisely this sort of social milieu which facilitated the remarkable politicisation of Polish Jewry and, in particular, Jewish youth, who reacted by attempting to formulate responses to this crisis.70 Zionist youth movements offered a safe haven in this context, a space in which Jewish youth could celebrate and explore their Jewish identity. Furthermore, the ideologies of the movements offered various messages which empowered Jewish youth, by claiming that youth could play a central role in ensuring the survival of the Jewish people and the establishment of a Jewish homeland. The politicisation of Polish Jewry was replicated in Jewish communities throughout Eastern Europe. Politicisation took place because there seemed to be no other choice. Aware of their own precarious political and declining economic position, and, by contrast, the remarkable improvements in the position of Jews in Western Europe, Eastern European Jews sought innovative political and cultural responses to their predicament. 71

Concomitant with the societal rejection experienced by youth movement leaders, one of the central impulses behind the development of the movements was the desire to be both part of the modern world and celebrate a particularist national Jewish identity. The movements exemplify the willingness of Jewish youth to internalise thoughts and ideas from non-Jewish sources, a process which ultimately resulted in the transformation of Jewish

67 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 1-21. See also Magnus on the way Jews saw themselves as an alien body awaiting the redemption that would return them to sovereignty in Palestine. Shulamit S. Magnus, Jewish Emancipation in a German City: Cologne 1798-1871, (Stanford: Stanford University Press 1997), 1-4. See also David Vital. A People Apart: The Jews in Europe, 1789-1939, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

68 Ilya Prizel, Ch 2. “Polish Identity 1795-1944: From Romanticism to Positivism to Enthnonationalism,” in National Identity and Foreign policy: Nationalism and Foreign Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 38-75. Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe, 19-21.

69 Mendelsohn, Jews of East Central Europe, 21.

70 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 26-27.

71 For texts which explore the very different experience of other European Jewish communities see Vera Ranki, The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in Hungary, (New York and London: Holmes and Meier Publishing, 1999). For a discussion focused on Vienna refer to Marsha L. Rozenblit, The Jews of Vienna 1867-1914: Assimilation and Identity (New York: State University of New York Press, 1983). For a discussion of German Jewry see: David Sorkin, The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987). See Ruderman for an excellent examination of the Jewish Enlightenment in England. David B. Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key: Anglo-Jewry’s Construction of Modern Jewish Thought, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000), esp. Introduction, passim.

18 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction identity. Zionist youth movements are an example par excellence of the interaction between the Jewish and the non-Jewish worlds. Thus they also represent the continuing attempt by Jews to retain and re-define their Jewish identity while remaining part of the modern world. It was not merely that their ideas were influenced by nationalism, socialism, the Wandervogel or the scouting movement – they also sought to become New Jews in the way they lived their lives. This new way of life was embodied in the organisational form of the movements, the radical and restless mentality which animated the movements’ activities, and in their belief that aliyah was the ultimate expression of Zionism. All of the above lead me to conclude that the movements represent new ways of thinking and of being Jewish.

Habonim, Betar, Bnei Akiva and Hashomer Hatzair were all originally set up in Australia by European immigrants who brought the idea of the Zionist youth movement with them. In this sense many of the same historical forces were at play in spurring the founders to try and establish a Zionist youth movement in Australia. Habonim was first founded in Melbourne in 1940 and in 2010 celebrated its seventieth anniversary. Habonim eventually spread and set up branches in Sydney, Perth and Adelaide. Australian Habonim also forged links with branches of the movement which were set up in Wellington and Auckland in New Zealand. On 1 September 1951 Ichud Habonim (‘World Habonim’) was established in Haifa and Habonim became affiliated with it. In 2011 the worldwide movement claimed to have over 15,000 members spread across the globe in North and South America, Europe, Australasia and Africa. Betar and Bnei Akiva have both been continually operating since the end of the 1940s and are also affiliated with worldwide movements.72 Betar has branches in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane, and Bnei Akiva has branches in Melbourne, Sydney and Perth and also has with close links with New Zealand Bnei Akiva. Hashomer Hatzair was established in 1953 by a small group of madrichim who split from Habonim and it continues to be active in Melbourne. Scholars of Australian Jewish history including Suzanne Rutland, W.D. Rubenstein and Hilary Rubenstein have all contributed greatly to our understanding of the Australian Jewish experience in writing general histories examining the complex story behind the establishment of a Jewish community in Australia. These texts touch upon the

72 In 2007 Bnei Akiva held its 11th International Bnei Akiva Youth Movement convention which gathered together participants from over thirty countries. The movement claimed to have a worldwide membership of over 50,000. Camilla M. Butchins “Bnei Aki va Convenes with over 30 Worldwide Reps,” http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=46656 (Feb 2011). In 2009 the Head of World Bnei Akiva Zeev Schwartz wrote a short letter congratulating Bnei Akiva Australia on its sixtieth anniversary. Interestingly, Schwartz claimed that Bnei Akiva worldwide had 50,000 chanichim. Exactly the same number as the figure cited in 2007. Schwartz’s figure seemed only refer to chanichim and not to madrichim, including youth leaders would make the youth movement much larger. It is my contention that these figures are far from reliable but are still indicative of the popularity of the movement. According to Schwartz, in 2009 Bnei Akiva also had two- hundred and twenty shlichim and was operating in one-hundred and fifty centres (sniffim) in thirty different countries. JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Zeev Schwartz, “Message from the Mazkal of World Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Celebrates Sixty Years in Australia, 1 August 2009, Sydney.

19 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

Zionist youth movements and note their importance, particularly at the time they were established.73 However there has been no systematic history which looks in detail at how each of these four movements took root in Australia. In the early 1950s the movements were claiming that membership of the movements across Australia had reached 1,189.74 At the peak of their popularity in the early 1960s the movements stated that their combined membership spread out across Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth and Canberra stood at 2,265.75 During the late 1960s the movements in Melbourne reported that their combined membership had reached 1,410. This constituted a full twenty-five per cent of Jewish youth in Melbourne.76 Aside from Bnei Akiva, membership in the other three movements has declined, but nonetheless, all four movements are still operating in Australia.77

73 Suzanne Rutland, Edge of the Diaspora: Two Centuries of Australian Jewish Settlement, (Sydney: Collins Publishing, 2000), 32-321, Hyams, The History of the Australian Zionist Movement, (Victoria: Australian Zionist Federation of Australia, 1998), 76-86 and W.D. Rubenstein, The Jews in Australia: A Thematic History, Volume Two, 1945 to Present, (Melbourne: AE Press, 1986), 271-4, 506-7. Rubenstein argues that between the 1930s and 1960s Jewish youth groups, which included sports groups, synagogue and temple youth groups, the Bund youth group and Zionist youth movements “included, in all likelihood, the majority of Jewish youth in Melbourne and Sydney,” 271. Rubenstein also claims that in 1967 the Zionist youth movements and the Bund youth movement had a combined membership of around 1,500, 274. The figures Rubenstein utilises are the figures supplied to the Zionist Federation of Australia (ZFA) and the State Zionist Councils (SZC) by the Zionist youth movements. On my attitude to the veracirty of these figures see my discussion above. As I stated previously, these numbers must be treated sceptically and historians must realise that the movements rounded out their membership figures and often inflated them. The figures were also generally based on a rough approximation of attendance to summer camps which were not representative of the regular membership of the youth movement.

74 C48, AJHS. (Australian Jewish Historical Society Archives. Mandelbaum House, Sydney) “Report of the Australian Zionist Youth Council,” Report of the Fifteenth Australian Zionist Conference March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand (ZRANZ), March 1952, 56-59.

75 JAL Habonim Folder. Composition of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1963. The table provided detailed breakdown of the size of the membership of each movement in the various cities as well as the size of different age groups. The movements claimed the following numbers of members: Betar: 595. Bnei Akiva: 827. Habonim: 836. Hashomer Hatzair: 267.

76 Reports to the Twenty-Second Australian Zionist Congress 1966, 125, AAJUS, YF2. In 1968 the movements claimed that their combined membership - Australia-wide - had grown to 2,600. Hyams quotes the figures of the movements in the following manner: “Habonim more than 1,000, Bnei Akiva almost 600, Betar 500 Hashomer Hatzair just under 250.” Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 161. In the wake of the June 1967 War the Melbourne Habonim movements lost fifty-eight madrichim: thirty-eight went as volunteers and a further twenty made aliyah. Nonetheless the movements claimed that the three summer camps organised by the movement for the 1967-68 school break attracted 410 chaverim (members). The report also stated that the 1967 Third Seder attracted around 400 participants who were “packed into the Moshe Sharett Hall.” JAL Folder ZFA/SZC Reports. David Mittleberg, Merakez Ichud Habonim, “Report of Ichud Habonim Melbourne,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, March 2nd and March 3rd, 1968, 29.

77 For tables detailing the size of the movements which were produced by the movements refer to Appendix A: Page

20 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

In this thesis I seek to examine for the first time why the movements in Australia have been able to attract Jewish youth, despite the lack of the political and social pressures that Mendelsohn and Shimoni argued were essential to their successes elsewhere. What does the success of the movements in attracting Australian Jewish youth to their activities tell us about Zionism and Jewish identity? While the founders were from Europe, the next generation of leaders included many Jews who were born in Australia. How have the movements adapted to the Australian political and cultural context? In this thesis I will attempt to begin to provide answers to these important questions.

Rutland and Rubenstein have also examined the way in which the influx of European immigrants and refugees (both before and after WWII), led to a complete transformation not only of the demographic makeup of the Jewish community, but also to its political and religious character. European Jews brought with them their own political, social and cultural organisations. Many of these European Jews were Zionist or sympathetic to the idea of Jewish nationalism. This was arguably the biggest change wrought by the arrival of European Jews. Rutland, Hyams and Getzler all acknowledge this change in the character of the Jewish Australian community.78 However, I think this needs to be underlined even more forcefully than it is has been previously, as this transformation in the Australian Jewish community is also intimately linked to the establishment of the Zionist youth movements in this country. The movements saw themselves as a revolt against the past and wanted to play a central role in revolutionising Jewish identity. This idea was intrinsic to the character of the movements and was also present when they were established in Australia. The struggle of the movements to establish themselves underlines my argument that the ideology of each of the four movements represented a radical new approach to Jewish identity. Bernard Hyams’ history of the Zionist movement in Australia and Glenn Gordon’s research into the first Zionist youth movement in Australia, the Shomrim, provide excellent details and information but do not adequately stress the revolutionary character of Zionist ideology.79 Nor do they appreciate the fact that just as the Zionist youth movements engendered a revolution in the identity of their members in Europe, so too did the movements herald a transformation in the identity of Jewish youth in Australia.

78 Rutland, ‘Part III: Transformation. Chapter 10 Postwar Jewish Immigration: 1945-1960,’ Edge, 225-256. Hyams, Ch 4, “Transformation: The External and Internal Wars,” Australian Zionist movement, 66-49. And Israel Getzler, Ch 10, “Conclusion,” Neither Toleration Nor Favour: The Australian Chapter of Jewish Emancipation, (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1970), 110-119.

79 See Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 1-25, and Glenn H. Gordon, Guardians of Zion: The Shomrim in Australia 1939-1944, (Sydney, Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney) 1-25.

21 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

There are several important general works on the history and development of Zionist ideology.80 While my research is greatly indebted to the works of historians like Shimoni, Shapira and Vital they only focus on Zionism in Europe, the United States and Palestine. While some of the general histories note the spread of the Zionist youth movements to small Diaspora Jewish communities, there is no analysis of what this development signifies.81 While all general histories note the importance of the movements in the story of Zionism, none deal with the history of the Zionist youth movements after the establishment of the State of Israel. My thesis utilises secondary research examining the origins of the movements in the 1920s, in order to explain the character and ideology of the movements in Australia. Scholars dealing with the history of the modern State of Israel often briefly refer to the Zionist youth movements82 but, due to the fact that their importance has declined since the establishment of the state, there is very little in-depth research into the history and development of the movements in the decades following 1948.83

What has happened to the ideologies and organisational form of the Zionist youth movements in the decades since World War II? Have the movements in Australia sought to change their ideologies in order to retain their relevance? Yosef Gorny argued, that in certain respects, “Zionism was the most utopian of the national movements that emerged in Europe in the nineteenth century. The task that the other social and national movements set

80 Some of the more influential works that I have utilized include Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism, Gideon Shimoni’s The Zionist Ideology, David Vital’s The Origins of Zionism, and Shlomo Avineri’s The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State, (New York: Basic Book, 1981). Anita Shapira and Judah Reinharz also edited a collection of essays examining various historical turning points in the development of the Zionist movement Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds, ‘Essential Papers on Zionism’, (New York: New York University Press, 1996). See also: Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force 1881-1948, Shapira, Anita, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force 1881-1948, trans. William Templer, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

81 Laqueur briefly notes that the movements had spread to almost every Jewish community around the world. Walter Laqueur, A History of Zionism, (New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, 1972), 488. In a footnote Shimoni notes that the territorialist movement discussed Australia as a possible option for a future Jewish state. (Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 448, n7.) Neither Vital nor Essential Papers make any mention of Australia. Vital, Origins, passim. And Reinharz and Shapira, Essential Papers on Zionism, passim.

82 Adam Garfinkle, Politics and Society in Modern Israel: Myths and Realities, Second Edition, (New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2000), 83. Lilly Weissbrod, Israeli Identity: In search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, (London: Frank Cass, 2002), 55. Gregory S. Mahler, Politics and Government in Israel: The Maturation of a Modern State, (Landham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004) 150, 177-179. The references to the youth movements in these texts are fleeting and often do not even refer to the movements by name or give any details about their history in Israel. Many texts dealing with Israeli society do not even mention the movements see, for example Jonathan R. Adelman, The Rise of Israel: A History of a Revolutionary State, (New York: Routledge, 2008).

83 For a discussion of their declining importance in the State of Israel see Reuven Kahane, Tamar Rapoport, “Part III: The Combinative Type: Israeli Pioneering Youth Movements,” Origins of Postmodern Youth, 75-91. Even Lilly Weissbrod’s excellent discussion of Israeli identity and the chalutzic ideal barely references the Zionist youth movements. Weissbrod, Israeli Identity, 106-140.

22 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction themselves was to achieve a political or social transformation, but Zionism set to build a New Hebrew society.84 The ideologies of all four movements were formed before the establishment of the State of Israel, and Gorny’s analysis of Zionism is representative of the aims of the four Zionist youth movements researched in this thesis. After Israel was established a debate occurred within the Zionist movement about what was the role of the international Zionist movement now that the core aim had been achieved.85 Zionist youth movements in Australia have also debated the relevance of their respective ideologies but they were initially able to maintain their sense of purpose because the Jewish Agency continued to call for ideologically committed youth to make aliyah.86 The movements were all able to maintain their ideological relevance by claiming that the state may have been established but the aim to “build a new Hebrew society” remained unfulfilled and their respective ideologies were as pertinent as ever. However, Israeli identity has shifted and the core pillars of Labour Zionism - the pioneer, the Sabra and the Kibbutz - have been increasingly questioned and revaluated as the existence of a functioning state normalised these revolutionary and utopian ideas.87 The Jewish State imagined by the Zionist-socialist movement had not eventuated.88 Nor has the ideology of Revisionism or Bnei Akiva provided the ideological bedrock of Israeli society. The ideological raison d’être of the Zionist youth movements was for their members to make aliyah, however, as we shall see, very few of their members did make aliyah. Many who did immigrate to Israel ended up returning to Australia. How do the movements reconcile themselves to this reality? How do they retain historical and ideological continuity while not changing so much that they no longer have any link with their past? None of the current scholarship I am aware of has examined the manner in which the movements in the Diaspora have attempted to confront the question of the continued relevance of their ideologies.

Originally the four Zionist youth movements all represented distinct ideological streams within the Zionist movement. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were both Zionist-

84 Yosef Gorny, “Thoughts on Zionism as a Utopian Ideology,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 18, No 3, 100 Years of Zionism and the 50th Anniversary of the State of Israel. (Oct., 1998): 248.

85 S. Ilan Troen and Noah Lucas, eds., Israel: The First Decade of Independence, (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1995), 683-97.

86 The Jewish Agency still sends shlichim (emissaries) to work with the Zionist youth movements but they are also able assist with enquiries about making aliyah. There is also a Federal Aliyah Shaliach. http://www.jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Aliyah/Contact+Addresses/delegations/Australia (July 2011)

87 Weissbrod, Israeli Identity, 6-105 and Garfinkle, Politics and Society in Modern Israel, 135.

88 Even in the first decade after the establishment of the State of Israel the percentage of the population living in kibbutzim declined rapidly. In 1949 6.3 percent lived on a kibbutz but by 1960 that number had dropped to 3.6 percent. Troen and Lucas, eds, First Decade of Independence, 252.

23 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction socialist movements, while Betar was based on the ideology of Revisionism which Jabotinsky had formulated and Bnei Akiva was a national religious-Zionist youth movement. The four movements were also linked to political parties in Israel. Due to geographical distance the political connections were largely irrelevant to the day to day running of the movements nonetheless the political and ideological parentage was present. The four movements represent distinct approaches to Zionism and envisioned distinct ideas of the ideal New Hebrew society. Each movement sought to transform the identity of their members into a Betari, chalutz or religious-Zionist. This ideological splintering is a further reminder of the crisis that the encounter between Jews and modernity engendered in Jewish identity.

In order to examine how the movements were experienced by their members in Australia I have interviewed Jewish youth who were still actively involved in the movements as well as ex-members. The only way to begin to analyse what impact the movements had on the Jewish identity of their members was to utilise oral testimony. Oral testimony was essential for the analysis of the movements’ successes and failures, as well as in order to capture the dynamism and character of the Zionist youth movements in Australia. During the 1970s and 1980s historians such as Patrick O’Farrell and Louise Tilly were critical of the rising popularity of oral history.89 Tilly argued that the growing emphasis on using oral testimony in order to gain insight into collective historical experiences was “ahistorical and unsystematic”.90 Historians critical of oral history pointed out that human memory was unreliable because it was tainted by personal agenda, nostalgia and the influence of collective versions of the past. Furthermore, the personal bias of the interviewer also undermined the value of oral history.91 Defenders of oral history - including Luisa Passerini, Paul Thompson and Alessandro Portelli - have convincingly illustrated that the methodological choice of oral history offers unique opportunities for historians.92 Passerini

89 See Louise A. Tilly, “People’s History and Social Science History,” Social Science History, vol. 7 no. 4, (Fall 1983): 457-474. And Patrick O’Farrell, “Oral History: Facts and Fiction,” Oral History Association of Australia, Journal, no. 5 (1982-3): 3-9. (Previously published in Quadrant, November 1979).

90 Ronald J. Grele, “Oral History as Evidence,” in History of Oral History: Foundations and Methodology, edited by Thomas L. Charlton, Lois E. Myers and Rebecca Sharpless, (Plymouth: AltaMira Press, 2007), 54-55.

91 Alistair Thomson, “Making the Most of Memories: The Empirical and Subjective Value of Oral; History,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series, No. 9, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 291-292.

92 See: Luisa Passerini, et al. eds., Women Migrants from East to West: Gender Mobility and Belonging in Contemporary Europe, (New York: Bergahn, 2007), Luisa Passerini, Facism in Popular Memory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Passerini also collected around seventy interviews with men and women workers for her study. See also: Paul Thompson. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Third Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) and Alessandro Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).

24 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction has argued that the strength of oral history lies in the way it draws on a multidisciplinary approach to history which combines the insights of individuals while enabling scholars to chart cultural changes in communities. Individual testimony also provides a multiplicity of perspectives and appreciates the fact that individuals experience the same historical events in different ways. The multiplicity of voices offered by oral history serves to enrich our understanding of the historical processes being studied.93 For example, Zionist youth movements send many of their members to Israel for a year after finishing school. It was only by carrying out interviews that it was possible to examine the varied responses of the participants and appreciate both commonalities and the different experiences of those who partook in the programs.

The usual pitfalls that confront scholars utilising oral testimony were largely irrelevant to my research: the built in fallibilities of oral testimony were, for the purposes of my research, the strength of the oral testimony I recorded.94 I was interested in how, even decades later, these members perceived of their youth movement involvement, and the impact it had on their subsequent lives and Jewish identity. I wanted my interviewees to provide me with their subjective recollections about the impact they believed their involvement had had on them as individuals. While attempting to faithfully record what my interviewees told me, I agree with Alessandro Portelli’s conclusion that “there is no such thing as a neutral transcript” and even the choice of where to place a comma is an act of interpretation.95 Nonetheless, following the guidelines Portelli outlined for himself I have strictly followed two rules in the quotations I have used in this thesis: I have never put words in my interviewees’ mouths (brackets are used when I have inserted a word to clarify the context of the conversation) and secondly, I have tried to capture the essence of what they said in transcribing the interviews. Thus I have not made any changes to the subject’s syntax, grammar or vocabulary. Despite these strict guidelines I also acknowledge that ultimately it is impossible to “reproduce orality in writing” and that transcribing interviews is ultimately an act of translation.96

93 Passerini, et al. eds., Women Migrants from East to West, 5-6.

94 Jane Sherron De Hart, “Oral Sources and Contemporary History: Dispelling Old Assumptions,” Journal of American History, Vol. 80, No 2, Sep., (1993): 582-95. See also: Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson, eds., The Oral History Reader, (New York: Routledge, 1998), passim.

95 On the point of utilising subjective recollections as well as the issue of punctuation when transcribing see: A Alessandro Portelli, They Say in Harlan County: An Oral History, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 10- 11.

96 Ibid., 10.

25 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

Paul Thompson argues that oral history allows us to rescue voices that would otherwise be lost.97 This defence of oral history is particularly relevant to the Zionist youth movements in Australia, because the written records of their history are largely incomplete. The only way to write about how the movements were founded and how they have operated over the decades was to carry out in-depth interviews with ex-members. The oldest movement still operating in Australia, Habonim was established in Australia in 1940. Sol Encel, a founding member of Habonim in Sydney passed away in 2010. I carried out an interview with Sol in 2007 and his passing was a reminder of the urgency of collecting the testimony of the surviving founding members.

Seventy-seven interviews took place for this thesis. Some of the interviews were conducted with individuals who were still leaders in the movements when I carried out the interviews (2007/08), and some interviews were with past members. The shortest interview was forty minutes long and the longest ran at close to seven hours with most interviews lasting around two hours. Of all the individuals I personally contacted none refused to be interviewed. The only exception to this were several older women who had been involved with the movements as founding members; I interviewed their husbands (whom they had met in the movements) but they were unwilling to be interviewed for my research. Ultimately I had to turn away people who were interested in being interviewed simply due to a lack of time and a need to ensure that my thesis could focus on the individual accounts I had collected. The fact so many people wanted to be interviewed and their willingness to be interviewed at such length is indicative of the positive experience members had and their desire to contribute to an historical account of the Zionist youth movements in Australia.

Of the seventy-seven interviews, twenty-seven were female and fifty were male. The predominance of male interviewees was a result of two primary factors: many of the more active members in the movements during the 1940s and 1950s were men, and while the movements accorded women the right to be madrichot (youth leaders), the reality was that during this period the top positions in Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair, Bnei Akiva and Betar were dominated by men. Thus, for example, Betar only elected its first female mefakedet (the top position in Betar) in 1959. The movements’ printed material during this period has many contributions by female members but most of the articles and general material were written by men. The dominance of men was clearly a product of the time; nonetheless, it must be noted that female leaders played a vital role in the movements’ activities during this time period. When I asked the female interviewees active in the 1940s and 1950s about

97 Paul Thompson. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Third Edition. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2. For his defence of oral history see: 3-9. See also: Thomson, “Making the Most of Memories,” 292.

26 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction their role in the movements and how their male counterparts treated them, every single female interviewee stated that they felt that their contribution to the movements was valued and held in the highest esteem. The other key fact which contributed to this gender imbalance in the number of interviewees was due to the fact I noted above whereby several older women who had been active in the 1940s refused to be interviewed.

Of the seventy-seven interviews forty of the interviewees had been active in Melbourne and thirty-seven in Sydney. Fifteen were with graduates of Bnei Akiva, seventeen of Betar, sixteen of Hashomer Hatzair, twenty-one of Habonim, six from the Zionist Youth League (ZYL) a single member of the Shomrim, and a former president of the Revisionist Zionist Organisation in Melbourne. Some of these interviewees were also active in more than one movement. For example, Yehuda Feher, a founding member of Habonim Sydney, was also active in the Shomrim, and all the founding members of Hashomer Hatzair had also been involved with Habonim. I also carried out an interview with Shoshana Agmon who was the shlichah for Hashomer Hatzair in Melbourne from1959 to 1961. Shoshana was born in Israel and had been active in Hashomer Hatzair in Tel Aviv. While it would have been ideal to interview more shlichim, as well as members of ZYL and Shomrim the focus of the thesis was on Australian youth who attended Betar, Bnei Akiva, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. In this regards there is a clear balance between the numbers of participants from Sydney and Melbourne as well as the number of interviews conducted with participants from each of the four youth movements.

The depth of material supplied by the interviewees provides a great deal of corroborating information. For example, all the interviewees I asked about the impact the movements had on them, commented that they felt their experience not only imparted strong Jewish values but also made them better people. The interviewees commented on the leadership skills they gained, the close friendships, their exposure to politics as well as learning how to work in a team which consisted of individuals with very different personalities. The interviews also prove the powerful socialising aspect of being involved in a Zionist youth movement. Mendelsohn has provided accounts from Jewish youth involved in the movements in Poland, which illustrate that the vast majority of participants did not join the movements for ideological reasons. Jewish youth chose to attend a movement for various reasons - because they followed their friends, in order to meet members of the opposite sex, or because the movement organised the most fun activities.98 The sociological reasons for being involved in the movements were no different in Australia and the movements proved to be remarkably successful in introducing members to future spouses.

98 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 343.

27 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

The fact that so many partners found their spouses in the movements is a testament to the powerful socialising aspect of being involved with the movements. Involvement in the movements served to reinforce the desire amongst their members to marry other Jews in order to maintain their individual Jewish identity while simultaneously ensuring the continuity of the Jewish people. 99

I also asked each participant about their family background and the information provided corroborates the academic research into the Zionist youth movements made by Hyams, Rutland and Rubenstein that the membership of the movements was almost totally Ashkenazi European Jews. Not only were the vast majority of the founders born in continental Europe but the children of European Jews continued to dominate the membership of the movements even in the 1970s and 1980s. The movements were brought to Australian shores by European Jews and, aside from a few exceptions the movements were never embraced by the established Anglo-Jewish community. The idea of the Zionist youth movements remained foreign and alien.100 Within the adult Zionist youth movement there was also a lot of apathy and indifference to the idea of the youth movements. Ehud Lederberger was the first Youth Shaliach and arrived in Australia in at the beginning of 1947. According to Lederberger the movements were “seen as some kind of kindergarten and not respected... The beginning was very difficult because the Jewish community didn’t take me or the youth movements seriously - they did everything to put me in the right spot and make me feel that youth is youth and we have more important jobs to do.”101

At the same time I am cognisant of the limitations inherent in using only seventy- seven interviews in my thesis. Over the decades thousands of Australian Jewish youth

99 While examining the ideology of the movements and intellectualizing their appeal, it is important to remind ourselves that the youth movements attract members because of the positive experiences they offer their members, and because they are fun. For adolescents who come from minority groups they also offer the chance to explore their ethnic and religious identity together with their peers in an environment outside of the family structure. Jewish youth movements provide their members with a place to celebrate their ethnic and religious identity. Erik. H. Cohen, “Axioloical Typology in an International Religious Youth Organisation: The Case of B’nei Akiva,” Current Sociology, International Sociological Association, January 2009, Vol. 57 (1): 90.

100 Malcolm Isaacs. Interview Date: 27/11/07, and Shirley Isaacs. Interview Date: 27/11/07. Shirley and her husband Malcolm both came from Anglo-Jewish families. They were the exception which proves the rule and both were aware of the fact that the Anglo-Jewish community was opposed to the Zionist youth movements and their membership on the hachsharah farm. Refer to the List of Interviews on page 342 in order to read a short biography on each interviewee detailing the movement they were involved in as well as the time period of their involvement.

101 JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem. I am greatly indebted to Eliyahu Honig who kindly gave me copies of interviews he carried out with several of the early figures involved in the movements. Copies of the transcripts are held in my personal archives. Honig gave each interview a different style of heading and I have copied the title that he typed at the top of an interview.

28 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction attended activities organised by the Zionist youth movements, and the interviews utilised here are only a very small sample of the total number of individuals involved. The interviews I have carried out have invariably been with the more dedicated and ideologically committed members who went on year programs, served as madrichim and/or made aliyah. The percentage of my interviewees who went on aliyah is in no way indicative of the overall percentage of madrichim who tried to make aliyah. While the movements attracted many Jewish youth to their activities - especially their annual winter and summer camps - the vast majority did not elect to become madrichim. The testimony of the individuals I interviewed makes clear that once the focus of the movements turned more ideological, membership of the groups dramatically shrank to include only the more committed members. Consequently, this thesis is focused on these very individuals precisely because they were the most ideologically dedicated. My interviewees came from exactly the same social milieu as their counterparts who chose to leave and had also joined the movements for social reasons, but because of the profound influence the movements had on them, they became committed Zionists. I interviewed the more ideologically dedicated members because my research is concerned with the way in which the Zionist youth movements sought to transform the identity of Jewish youth in Australia.

In this thesis I wanted to place the experience of individual participants’ centre-stage in my analysis of how the movements have created a transformation in Jewish identity. Only by utilising recollections of ex-members is it possible to explain the enduring success of the movements - and the success of the Zionist movement as a whole - in enabling Jewish youth to embrace a nationalist definition of Jewish identity and Jewish history. Interviews also allowed me to grasp the fluidity of Jewish identity, which I set out to examine and capture a lived experience across time while charting the changes that have taken place in Jewish identity. This would have been impossible without carrying out interviews with both past and current members. Some interviewees may have chosen to exaggerate their role in the movements while others may have chosen to try and limit their importance. For the purposes of my argument I wanted to embrace the subjectivity of my interviewees’ memories. What interested me was the way in which the participants chose to recollect the impact their involvement had on their Jewish identity.

As nationalist organisations the history of the Zionist youth movements is inextricably linked to the broader history of Zionism and Israel. Political, social and cultural developments in both countries have had an effect on the movements in Australia. The history of the local movements provides an illuminating case study in the ongoing dialogue between Israel and Jewish Diasporas. It is clear that the Zionist youth movements in Australia are a tangible expression of a Diaspora-Zionist identity which draws its strength 29 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction from its links to Australia as well as connections to Israel and the concept of a Jewish national identity.

In attempting to examine the way in which Zionist youth movements reconfigured the Jewish identity of Jewish youth in Australia, oral testimony of ex-members tells only part of the story. No history of the movements would be complete without an examination of material produced by the movements themselves. Zionist youth movements sought to disseminate their ideology and help create a youth culture by producing a vast amount of literature, including magazines, newspapers and flyers, which discussed ideological matters as well as publicising events and weekly activities. The publications of the movements were, particularly before the 1980s, the place in which members exchanged ideas, told jokes and reminisced about their experiences in the movement. As Walter Laqueur noted, one of the difficulties in writing a history about youth movements is that their publications are not professionally produced: they appear infrequently and sometimes without pagination, without citing an author or bearing a date of publication.102 The material I have read for this research includes hundreds of publications. Some of these publications have been sourced from the archives held by the Australian Jewish Historical Society New South Wales (AJHS NSW), the archive of the AJHS Victoria, which holds its material in the Australian Manuscripts Section of the State Library of Victoria, as well as the Archive of Australian Judaica at the University of Sydney (AAJUS). Most of the material collected by these three organisations (AJHS (NSW) the AJHS (VIC) and the AAJUS) was donated by early leaders of the movements, and is thus focused on the period spanning 1940 and the late 1950s. Additional material was provided by ex-members who were very generous in giving me access to material they had personally collected. These individuals include Dov Golembowicz, Toby Hammerman, Eliyahu Honig, Leon Kempler, Fran and Paul Pearl, Judy Shapira, Harry Stuart, Les Szekley and Ben Tassie.103 Further material was obtained by visiting the various centres (Moadonim) out of which the movements operate. Each of these movements have a Sifriah (Library), and the youth leaders at the time were very helpful in providing me access to their materials and allowing me to borrow files. In 2007 Melbourne Betar was in the process of selling its Moadon and the movement was particularly generous in allowing me to take a significant amount of material, which would have otherwise been discarded. The movements are not professional organisations thus these ‘libraries’ are not

102 Laqueur, Young Germany, xviii.

103 Ben Tassie was a madrich of Habonim Sydney. Ben began his involvement as a chanich in 1997. He went on a year program to Israel in 2004. He served as NSW Mazkir in 2006. In 2007 he was Federal Rosh Chinuch. (Federal Head of Education). While I did not interview Ben for this thesis he was kind enough to provide me with several CD-ROMs which contained a wealth of material about developments within the movement’s ideological platform. I interviewed his father David Tassie for this thesis.

30 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction catalogued archives and the material was often held in boxes and folders which had no discernable order. (Sometimes material was simply dumped on the floor). It was quite clear that there were large gaps in their records and that over the decades a vast amount of material produced by the movements had, unfortunately, been destroyed. Bnei Akiva Sydney, for example, had no material of value for this thesis and the Melbourne Moadon, while far better organised, still had a paucity of material in comparison to the other movements.104 The problem posed by the lack of an organised archive which contains the majority of the material produced by the movements is a problem which confronts anyone researching youth movements. Gaps in the published records are a direct product of the character of a youth movement. However, these problems have not proved insurmountable. A great deal of the material gathered for this thesis has never been cited before and all of the material I have been able to access has provided invaluable historical data in order to examine the history of the movements in Australia.

According to Richard Crossman, before Walter Laqueur wrote his book on the German youth movement, a “large and curious gap in our knowledge of Germany remained unfulfilled.”105 Despite the small size of the German youth movement relative to the size of the German population, Laqueur hoped to fill that gap and illustrate the enduring importance of the movement in German history. The gap in the current historiography about the history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia is nowhere near as large, nor as curious. It is my hope that despite the small numbers of Jewish youth involved in Zionist youth movements in Australia, they nevertheless retain an enduring importance as a topic of serious historical enquiry. The movements are an important part of the history of Jews in Australia and the history of the Zionist movement. In this thesis I will seek to fill in as many of the blanks as possible.

Due to the limited scope of my thesis I have chosen not to discuss in any great detail the history of the Zionist Youth League, formed by a group of university students in Sydney, who were too old to join Habonim and decided to establish a Zionist group in the mid 1940s.106 I have also chosen not to examine the history of Hineni or Netzer (Noar Tzioni

104 The archive collections held at the AJHS (VIC), AJHS (NSW) and the AAJUS also held almost no material produced by Bnei Akiva.

105 R.H.S. Crossman, “Introduction,” Walter Laqueur, Young Germany, xxi.

106 While not examining the history of the ZYL in any great depth I interviewed several ex-members of the ZYL. See the list of interview subjects for names and details. The organisation was distinct from the Jewish Student Society and members had personal links with Habonim youth leaders. The movement also ran joint camps with Habonim. Diane Encel, (Previously Hovev). Interview Date 19/06/08. The first Youth Shaliach, Ehud Lederberger became very involved with the organisation. Judy Shapira (Solomon). Interview Date: 18/06/08. ZYL ceased to function sometime around 1953-4. AAJUS YF1 (1). Report to the Pegisha, AZYC, 31 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

Reformi –Reform Zionist Youth). Hineni was originally established as a synagogue youth group in Sydney in 1974 before it quickly evolved into in Zionist youth movement.107 Netzer was the last Zionist youth movement to be established in Australia and defines itself as a Progressive Zionist youth movement. It was established in Sydney in 1978.108 Both of these movements continue to organise activities in 2012 and their existence is a testament to the thriving nature of the Zionist movement in Australia. The history and development of these two movements, both of which began their lives as synagogue youth groups, is worthy of further consideration. However, the establishment of Netzer and Hineni do not fit into the long-term narrative which begins in Europe and continues in movements established by European Jews who migrated to Australia in the mid-twentieth century. 109

My story begins with an examination of the roots of the four movements in Europe before I describe how the movements were first established in Australia. In the third chapter I will consider the ideology of the Zionist-socialist movement and the way in which its key ideological innovation - the concept of chalutziut (pioneering) - captured the imagination of many Jewish youth in Australia. The fourth chapter will investigate the attempts by each of the movements to avoid becoming irrelevant by adapting and changing their ideologies. In the final section of this thesis I want to examine the relationship of these four movements to rabbinic Judaism and the observance of Halachah (Jewish Law). Yosef Salmon pointed out that one of the “central problems” which confronted the Zionist movement was its relationship with the “Jewish religious tradition.”110 Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira edited an entire collection of essays by many of the world’s most eminent historians of Zionism examining this question and the myriad range of responses to this

1953, 10. According to Ehud Lederberger the ZYL in Sydney and in Melbourne (where it was called Hatikvah) grew very quickly and was an important part of the Zionist movement in Australia. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem.

107 Hineni is a Zionist youth movement which defines itself as Modern-Orthodox, politically active and pluralist Zionist youth movement. Hineni was originally a synagogue youth group which began its activities in Sydney in 1974. http://www.hineni.org.au/?page_id=5 (February 2011).

108 “Netzer Olami evolved from networks of various synagogue youth clubs to a movement that today has sniffim (centres) in Progressive Jewish centres around the world. The initiative began in 1978 in two of these centres, Australia and South Africa.” http://www.netzerolami.org/Eng/About/History.asp (February 2011).

109 Not including these two important youth movements in this discussion in no way discredits my analysis and conclusions, and it is quite clear that the existence of these two movements actually reinforces the central outlines of my thesis.

110 Yosef Salmon, “Tradition and Nationalism,” in Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds., ‘Essential Papers on Zionism’, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 94.

32 Jonathan Ari Lander

Introduction

“problem” by the different religious and political factions within the Zionist movement.111 Scholars of Judaism such as Shaye Cohen and Daniel Boyarin have examined the way in which rabbinic Judaism emerged in late antiquity as the definitive form of Judaism. However, the process of emancipation heralded a transformation in Jewish identity as European Jewry came into contact with modernity. Modernity challenged the dominance of rabbinic Judaism and Zionism eventually emerged as one of the most important responses by Jews to the process of modernisation. Shaye Cohen explicitly argues that before the emergence of rabbinic Judaism there was a period in which the parameters of Jewishness remained uncertain. The encounter with modernity has created a post-rabbinic era in which Jewishness in once again in a state of flux. As far as I am aware, there is no research which has provided a dedicated analysis of the movements and their relationship to Judaism. In examining this complex and evolving relationship, and the questions that it raises, I hope to pinpoint the uncertainty of Jewish identity in the post-rabbinic era.112 Cohen and Boyarin’s research can help us place the history of the movements within broader historical phenomena that have their roots in the attempt by rabbinic Judaism to define the parameters of Jewishness. Each of these avenues of inquiry illuminates important aspects of the evolving nature of Jewish identity in the post-rabbinic era.

111 Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira, eds, Zionism and Religion, (London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), passim. There is a vast amount of literature on this subject but see also: David Hartman, “The Challenge of Modern Israel to Traditional Judaism,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No 3. (Oct. 1987) 229-252. Chaim I. Waxman, “Messianism, Zionism, and the State of Israel,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1987): 175-192 and Aviezer Ravitsky, Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, trans. by Michael Swirsky and Jonathan Chipman, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), passim.

112 Shaye J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 8. See also Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo- Christianity, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004).

33 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

In this chapter I will establish the historical context which enabled the movements to emerge and play such an important role in the history of the Zionist movement. This historical context is essential in order to appreciate the ideological character of the movements, their innovative organisational forms, as well as the revolutionary and radical approach each movement had to Jewish identity. Only by tracing the establishment of the movements in Europe does it become apparent that the movements are conscious attempts to reconfigure the contours of Jewish identity. Mendelsohn pointed out that all the movements were “expressions of the will of young Jews to devise radical world outlooks in order to deal with the new historical situation, and to devise new identities which would enable them to find their way both as Jews and as citizens of the modern world.”1 Mendelsohn’s argument related to the success of the movements in establishing themselves in Europe. This thesis builds upon Mendelsohn’s research and illustrates that many of the same forces were also at play in the Australian context. Once again, this point can only be appreciated if the story of how the movements were established in Europe is described in detail.

Zionist youth movements share common historical, intellectual, and cultural roots, and at the same time they also embody different approaches to Jewish identity. While the Marxist-Zionist movement Hashomer Hatzair shares a great deal with the religious-Zionist B’nei Akiva, it is also clear that they have different conceptions of Jewish identity. My discussion in this chapter will focus on Hashomer Hatzair, Betar and Bnei Akiva. Hashomer Hatzair established the ideological framework of a chalutzic Zionist youth movement which Habonim would eventually follow. For the purposes of my discussion here it is not necessary to discuss Habonim because in many ways it undertook a similar ideological journey – the synthesis of Zionism and socialism and the adoption of the central concepts of chalutzic aliyah and hagshamah atzmit.2 All the movements have different conceptions of

1 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 86.

2 One of the founding figures of Habonim in England in 1928/29, Wellesley Aron, intended to establish a Jewish scouting movement dedicated to National Judaism. However, the influence of the Zionist-socialist synthesis, He-Chalutz and Hashomer Hatzair caused the leaders of Habonim to dedicate the movement to chalutziut. Some of the founders of Habonim in Australia originally wanted to establish a branch of Hashomer Hatzair. Even in the first few months of the movement beginning to establish themselves some of the newly arrived 34 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Jewish identity and this illustrates the fluidity of Jewishness in the twentieth-century and the attempt by Jews to negotiate the boundaries between their Jewish identity and modernity.

Historians of Australian Jewish history who have discussed the movements have largely focused on detailing their activities in Australia. However, in order to understand the organisational form of the movements, as well as their respective ideologies, it is essential to also understand their historical roots in early twentieth century Europe. These historical roots continue to shape aspects of the Zionist youth movements in Australia to the present day. However, the movements have also adapted to the social and cultural contexts in Australia. This reality can only be appreciated by looking at the beginnings of the movements in continental Europe.

Hashomer Hatzair:

The Journey of a youth movement to Zionism and Radical Leftwing Politics

The story of the Zionist youth movements begins with the establishment of Hashomer Hatzair in Galicia in 1913. Galicia was still a part of the Habsburg Empire and was populated by Ukrainian and Polish-speaking peasants as well as a sizeable urban Jewish minority. While Zionist youth movements embraced the idea that ‘Youth’ possessed the power to change society, the other driving force in the establishment of the movements was their belief that antisemitism was endemic to European society and could not be eradicated. The powerful combination of these two ideas, one utopian, the other pessimistic, played a key role in the emergence of Hashomer Hatzair. Most of the founders and early members of Hashomer Hatzair had studied in non-Jewish secondary schools, spoke Polish and came from families that saw themselves as ‘Polish Jews of the Mosaic persuasion’ - a level of acculturation that was very rare in Poland.3 Nonetheless, despite attempts by these Polish Jewish families to integrate, many young middle-class Jews found that Polish society rejected the idea of a Polish-Jew. World War I had witnessed heightened levels of national euphoria and patriotism and the Jewish population quickly emerged as the scapegoat and

members had access to material produced by Hashomer Hatzair in South Africa. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Michael Doari, Kfar Hanasi. Interviewed by Eliyahu Honig on Nov. 23 1985, Kfar Hanassi, Israel.

3 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 81. 35 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth social pariah.4 Confronted by the persistence of antisemitism, the founders of Hashomer Hatzair came to the conclusion that a symbiosis between their Jewish and Polish identities was impossible.5 The idea of a separate Jewish youth movement, run by Jewish youth for Jewish youth, was thus legitimised by the reality of antisemitism.

The hopes of European Jewish youth rested on assumptions imbibed from their parents and also enshrined in the laws of the state. Deprived of their sense of social and national identity in what they had considered to be their country, the ubiquitous rejection by non-Jewish Polish society had a powerful psychological effect on the young founders of Hashomer Hatzair. Despite their high level of acculturation, the founders were, at most, one generation removed from shtetl life. While they spoke Polish or German, many were still fluent in Yiddish and were familiar with Jewish liturgy and practice, but there was clearly no place for these Jewish youth in traditional Jewish society.6 The founders of Hashomer Hatzair occupied a precise middle ground: in Mendelsohn’s words these people were, “ideal candidates for recruitment to Polish Zionism” because they were “marginal men”,7 torn between rejection by non-Jewish society and their inability to return to a religious Jewish lifestyle, which they saw as dogmatic, superstitious and irrelevant to their spiritual and physical crisis.8 The Jewish world they had come from could no longer provide the solution, and yet, at every turn, these young people were reminded that they remained apart because they were Jews. Mendelsohn concluded in his seminal study of the history of Zionism in Poland that the emergence of Hashomer Hatzair in Galicia “should be seen in the context of the general response of Polish Jewish youth to the War, to rising antisemitism and drastic economic decline, and to the failure of Jewish leadership and the Jewish family to give adequate guidance in this new situation.”9

Their rejection of a traditional understanding of Jewish identity raised the question: what made them Jewish? Adopting Jewish nationalism, in the political climate of Poland immediately before World War I, can be seen as an obvious choice for many Jewish youth:

4 The experience of Polish Jewish youth was mirrored in the experience of German Jews. German Jewish youth were forced to confront the fact that despite their official legal and social equality deep-seated fears and suspicions about Jews remained. Laqueur, History of Zionism, 486. See also Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 26- 28, and Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 223-224.

5 Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 455.

6 Ibid., 456.

7 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 338.

8 Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 455.

9 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 86.

36 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Jewish nationalism offered the chance to reclaim their self-esteem both as individuals and as Jews. The youth movements would emerge, for many Jewish youth, as the ultimate vehicle through which they would be able to find a new way to celebrate and hold on to their Jewish identity.

Mendelsohn also argued that the movements were “all expressions of the will of young Jews to devise radical world outlooks in order to deal with the new historical situation, and to devise new identities which would enable them to find their way both as Jews and as citizens of the modern world.”10 This is an important point, which cannot be overemphasised; the movements provided a conduit for Jewish youth to be a part of the modern world while retaining a strong Jewish identity. However, this Jewish identity was something radically new. Instead of seeing the Jewish people as the ‘people of the Torah’ the Zionist youth movements embraced a nationalist definition of Jewish identity and in doing so played an active role in the transformation of the “transnational Jewish identity centred on Torah into a national identity.”11 Embracing the idea that Jews were a nation provided the movements with ideological direction and explained why Jews as a whole remained a pariah group, and why they felt connected to their Jewish identity despite not being observant. Shedding dogmatic religious beliefs was possible; abandoning one’s national group, according to the movements, was not possible.

While Hashomer Hatzair initially modelled itself on the German youth movement, its own adaptations and innovations became the “classic prototype of the youth movement phenomenon, a phenomenon whose scale and historical importance cannot be overestimated in comprehending the remarkable diffusion and potency of Zionism as a national movement.”12 Hashomer Hatzair’s ideological beliefs and organisational framework changed dramatically in the first two decades of its existence.13 While the movement was not originally dedicated to Jewish nationalism or Marxism, it eventually adopted a Zionist- Marxist synthesis. Hashomer’s gradual acceptance of Zionism and Marxism provides a tangible example of how Zionism and the concept of a Zionist youth movement represent a conscious attempt to reshape Jewish identity. In this process, ideas from the non-Jewish world were internalised in order to create a Jewish identity which was secular, nationalist

10 Ibid., 86. (Stress added)

11 Yakov M., Rabkin, A Threat From Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, (London and New York: Zed Books, 2006), 5.

12 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 223.

13 The name Hashomer Hatzair only appears to have only been adopted by the movement in 1919. Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 224. 37 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth and socialist. Hashomer Hatzair’s conception of Jewish identity constitutes a radical break with traditional notions of Jewishness.

Hashomer Hatzair was the result of the fusion of two pre-existing organisations: Zeirei Zion (Youth of Zion) and Ha-Shomer (the Guards’/‘the Watchmen’). Ha-Shomer had taken its name from an organisation formed in Palestine in 1909 to defend Jewish settlements against theft and physical altercations with the surrounding Arab populations.14 From its very beginning, the movement’s role models were heroic figures of action that symbolised a rejection of Jewish passivity in the face of violence. Ha-Shomer was initially modelled on the Polish scouting organisation and possessed a “disciplinary and even paramilitary character.”15 The organisation’s focus on physical fitness, contact with nature, group dynamics and education came directly from the Wandervogel and “implanted a certain measure of national consciousness.”16 Figure 1 was eventually adopted by Hashomer Hatzair as its official emblem. At the centre of the emblem is the fleur-de-lis which is a reminder of Hashomer Hatzair’s roots in the scouting movement. It is surrounded by a blue Star of David, an expression of the movement’s belief that Zionism and socialism are intertwined. On either side of the Star of David are leaves; on the left is an oak branch for strength and on the right is an olive branch for peace. Underneath is the motto of the movement, taken from the Book of Joshua, chazak ve’ematz, which translated into English means “be strong and brave”.17

14 Shapira, Land and Power, 72. See also Yaacov N. Goldstein, “The Jewish-Arab Conflict: The First Jewish Underground Defence Organisation and the Arabs,” Middle Eastern Review, Vol. 31, No 4, October (1995): 744-754. Ha-Shomer in italics with a hyphen will refer to the original scouting organisation which merged with Zeirei Zion to create Hashomer Hatzair.

15 Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 29.

16 Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 29. See also Shimoni for his discussion on the ‘merger’ between the two youth organisations, Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 223-224.

17 “Hashomer Hatzair Australia. About Us: Symbols,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (November 2011).

38 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Figure 1: Hashomer Hatzair’s emblem

Zeirei Zion began operating in 1903 as student study groups which modelled their educational process on the European Yeshiva. However, while they appear to have studied religious Jewish texts, they were mainly interested in knowledge about the wider non-Jewish world, its history, politics and culture. By the time the organisations merged in 1913, both were already beginning to explore and express nationalist ideas.18 Even at this stage, the burgeoning Zionist youth movement was looking towards Palestine; but it would take some time before the movement would become dedicated to Zionism. The fusion of these two disparate organisations developed in a haphazard and halting manner, and it was only the War years which finally consolidated the merger, sealing the movement’s strong scouting tradition as well as its dedication to intellectual study and debate. This heritage, as we shall see later, still characterises Hashomer Hatzair in Australia today.

Hashomer Hatzair was a movement born in exile, an experience which played a profound role in shaping the character of the movement. Galicia became a front line during the First World War and the invasion of Galicia by Russia caused some 400,000 Galician Jews to flee to Hungary, Moravia and Bohemia. Around 175,000 of these Jewish refugees ended up in Vienna.19 Jewish family members were separated, many of the men and adolescent males were conscripted and younger children were often forced to find work. Jews were also expelled and subjected to pogroms and the constant spectre of violence.20 The end of the World War and the establishment of an independent Poland did not bring about an end to the plight of Polish Jewry. Jews were accused of aiding the Bolsheviks and

18 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 81.

19 Rechter, “Bubermania,” 25-26.

20 Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 29-30.

39 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Polish society was adamant in its rejection of any form of Jewish cultural autonomy or of even safeguarding the minority status of Jews in Poland. The writings of Hashomer Hatzair’s leaders during this period illustrate how virulent antisemitism and their plight as refugees were the dominant experiences of their adolescence.21 The experience of ‘exile’ infused the burgeoning movement with a grave and introspective character. The leaders of the movement compensated for their sense of dislocation by arguing that a youth movement must have a clear purpose and be possessed by love of life and nature.22

Living in Vienna also exposed them to the influence of non-Jewish writers such as Nietzsche, and Jewish thinkers including Viennese Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878- 1965). In May 1918 Buber delivered his famous speech ‘Zion and Youth’ to a massive rally of Jewish youth (Jugendtag) where he reiterated his call for youth to lead the charge for change and rebirth amongst the Jewish people. In this speech he said that Jews were “neither full nor healthy men nor full nor healthy Jews”.23 Hashomer Hatzair embraced the idea that a youth movement was the way to transform Jews and make them healthy.24 The rally was attacked by both Orthodox Jews who opposed Zionism25 as well as from left-wing Zionist youth in Poale Zion (Workers of Zion).26 This volatile political environment left an indelible imprint on Hashomer Hatzair, and it advocated with the same zeal that its own path was the only way to truly solve the plight of European Jewry.

The Marxist-Zionist Synthesis - An Inevitability?

Hashomer Hatzair would establish, by 1969, some seventy-five kibbutzim in Israel. These Kibbutzim were all part of an association known as Hakibbutz Ha’artzi shel Hashomer Hatzair (The Nationwide Kibbutz of the Young Watchmen) and were the political backbone of the Zionist-Marxist political party MAPAM (Mifleget Hapoalim Hameuhedet - The United

21 Ibid., 29-30.

22 Ibid., 30.

23 Ibid., 30.

24 The Guide for Hashomer Leaders, the official mouthpiece of the movement, took Buber’s ideas one step further, saying that Jewish youth were a “caricature of a normal and healthy person, both from a physical and spiritual point of view.” Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 82.

25 Orthodox Jews opposed the Jugendtag because it had also begun its activities on the Jewish festival of Shavuot, used organ music and also allowed women to sit on the platform.

26 Poale Zion was formed in 1901-2 and had already articulated its own synthesis of socialism and Zionism. Rechter, “Bubermania,” 32.

40 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Workers Party.) While Hashomer Hatzair eventually became a staunchly leftwing political organisation, the fact that it would embrace a synthesis of Zionism and Marxism was far from a foregone conclusion; many paths lay open to the movement and it was only towards the end of the 1920s that a Zionist-Marxist position was finally embraced. Factors at play leading to Hashomer adopting a synthesis of Marxism and Zionism in 1926-27 were exerting themselves on the Zionist movement as a whole and on the youth movements in particular.

In order to understand why leftwing political theories came to dominate the youth movements, it is crucial to return to the idea that Jews were “neither full nor healthy men nor full nor healthy Jews…” This idea found expression not only amongst many of the Zionist youth movements, but also across the Zionist movement as a whole. In some of the imagery and ideas professed by Zionists seeking to rejuvenate Jews physically it is quite apparent that antisemitic stereotypes played a crucial role in driving the Zionist disdain towards and rejection of traditional Jewish life. The idea that Jews were ‘not healthy’, expressed one of the central tenets of Zionism: in order to rejuvenate the Jewish nation the economic and social structure of the Jewish people must change.27 A Jewish homeland needed to be productive in order to be successful and would require the labour of Jews as farmers, builders, or factory workers. The focus on labour was more than a simple matter of practicality; it also expressed a deep yearning to normalise the Jewish people. Labour was the way to physically begin to build the Jewish homeland. The idealisation and romanticisation of labour within Zionism was one of the main reasons why so many of the Zionist youth movements found the ideals of leftist politics relevant.

Socialist theories’ desire to create a perfect society echoed the utopian ideals which underpinned Zionism. From the very beginning of the Zionist movement, the national solution was seen as an opportunity to learn from the mistakes and failures of Western society in order create a perfect homeland for the Jews that would be a ‘light upon the nations.’28 Herzl explicitly stated that his idea of a Jewish homeland was not an opportunity to write a piece of “romantic fiction” which was “remote from actuality”, yet there is no doubt that the vague formulations he offered were connected to the Messianic ideal: “The Jews have long dreamed this princely dream throughout the long night of their history. ‘Next Year in Jerusalem is our age-old motto.’ It is now a matter of showing that the vague dream can

27 Yosef Gorny, “Thoughts on Zionism as a Utopian Ideology,” 247. See also Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 339.

28 Gorny, “Utopian Ideology,” 241-251.

41 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth be transformed into a clear and glowing idea.”29 Zionism as an ideology fed off not only modernist optimism about the perfectibility of mankind, but also an inner impulse of deeply held beliefs and ideas about a messianic age.30 Jewish nationalism offered a reconfigured form of Jewish messianism.

An important factor which led Hashomer Hatzair towards Marxism was the fact that youth movements wanted to embrace ideas that were revolutionary and challenged the status quo. This worldview made the movements receptive to radical political philosophies. Just as Marxism spoke about creating a ‘new society’ and a ‘new man’, so too did Zionism; both ideologies believed in the perfectibility of man and mankind’s ability to create a perfect society.31 Both movements possessed a kindred spirit, which was infused with the modernist optimism of the early twentieth century. For the leftwing ideologues, Zionism offered a chance to build a state from the ground up not tainted by capitalism or bourgeois values. The appeal of socialism and Zionism was that it offered an opportunity to create a new, better world for Jews.32

The attraction of this messianic ideal must also be seen as part of a broader analysis which situates the ‘messianic impulse’ alongside other more concrete factors. Economic and political events, for example, heralded the unforeseen emergence of a large Jewish working class in Russia and Eastern Europe, a reality which played an important role in

29 Arthur Hertzberg, ed., The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader, (New York: Meridan Books, 1960), 205, 213. Herzl’s reference to the ‘age old motto’ is an allusion to the fact that at the end of various important religious commemorations, such as the completion of the Passover Seder and the Yom Kippur service, Jews customarily declare in Hebrew: “L'shanah Ha Ba Bi-Yerushalayim!” (Next Year in Jerusalem!)

30 Mendelsohn, Jewish Politics, 113. For a fuller discussion of the link between Zionism and messianism see Chaim I. Waxman, “Messianism, Zionism, and the State of Israel,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1987): 175-192. Also refer to Ravitsky, Messianism, 1-9.

31 Many of the same forces were at play in the appeal of the Bund. The Bund was officially established in 1897, the same year the Zionist movement officially established itself. Alongside Zionism the Bund was the major Jewish political movement in Eastern Europe. The Bund was a “Marxist social-democratic movement that advocated Jewish cultural autonomy based on Yiddish.” The movement was not only opposed to religion but also opposed Zionism which it saw as a “reactionary” movement because it “paper(ed) over class conflicts within the Jewish population”. For a discussion on the appeal of Bundism see: Zvi. Y. Gitelman, The Emergence of Modern Jewish Politics: Bundism and Zionism in Eastern Europe, (Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburg Press, 2003), 4, passim. The Bund was also established by European refugees in Melbourne. For a discussion of the Bund in Melbourne and how it adapted to life in Australia after WWII and the decimation of European Jewry see David Slucki, “Theorizing Doikayt: Towards a History of the Melbourne Bund”, Journal of the Australian Jewish Historical Society, 19, no. 10 (2008): 259-268. In 1950 European Jews established a branch of the youth organisation of the Jewish Labour Bund in Melbourne. The youth movement (called Skif) continues to operate in Melbourne and organises events for children aged between eight and eighteen. http://www.skif.org.au/about-us/ (January 2012).

32 Mendelsohn, Jewish Politics, 110.

42 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth making leftwing political theory attractive to so many Jews.33 It was also important that from the very beginning there were Zionists who had a strong commitment to socialist ideas.34 The existence of prominent and influential leaders with leftwing political sympathies opened the doors for other leftwing sympathisers to join, as well as allowing these prominent figures to exert their influence over younger members, who were not sure of their political sympathies.

After World War I Hashomer Hatzair debated whether it should adopt Marxism as an ideological pillar. There was no clear consensus. Some members advocated joining the General Zionists (an attempt to create a broad organisation which was neither leftwing nor rightwing), while others supported merging with Hapoel Hatzair, a non-Marxist movement which rejected historical determinism and class war while embracing the centrality of labour for Zionism. Shomrim with Marxist sympathies advocated joining Poale Zion Left, but others, who felt Poale Zion Left was too radical, supported joining Poale Zion Right.35 Another section of Hashomer leaders supported the idea of creating an independent Hashomer Hatzair political party. Other Shomrim rejected the idea that Hashomer Hatzair should become a political party and supported the right of Shomrim to decide for themselves which party to join upon making aliyah.36 Hashomer Hatzair at this point in time did not have a clear ideological or political program. Hashomer Hatzair is “the example par excellence of the kaleidoscopic ideological configurations exhibited by the Zionist movement in the course of its development.”37 Different ideological options were open to Hashomer Hatzair and the choice of a Zionist-Marxist definition was not inevitable. The decision to embrace Zionism and Marxism represents a conscious as well as subconscious reconfiguring of Jewish identity.

33 Ben Halpern and Jehuda Reinharz, “Nationalism and Jewish Socialism: The Early Years,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 8, No. 3, (Oct., 1988), 220.

34 Ibid., 233.

35 Poale Zion had split into ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ factions in 1919-1920. The Right adopted a non-Marxist ideological platform and affiliated strongly with the Second International. Poale Zion Right was essentially a Democratic-Socialist Party. Poale Zion Left remained firmly Marxist and went as far as labelling Zionists who adhered to the Second International as traitors.

36 Margalit, “Hashomer Hatzair,” 42.

37 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 224-225.

43 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Materialist Jewish Nationalism and the Ideology of the Pioneer

With the return of many of the Galician refugees to Poland after World War I, the question arose as to how to maintain the close-knit groups which had formed in Vienna. From this discussion arose deeper questions about how these introspective gatherings addressed the plight of Jews in Europe: wasn’t the internalized debate and emotional outpouring in the discussion groups merely a continuation of everything Hashomer Hatzair had criticized about traditional Jewish life? How could the movement hope to help other Jewish youth if it was so insular? A backlash quickly emerged against the emotionalism and meditative qualities of Wyneken’s ideas; prominent leaders within the movement attacked what they saw as sentimental self-contemplation for exactly these reasons.

The debate as to what could be done practically quickly developed into the idea that members should prepare themselves for a life of labour in the land of their forefathers. This was a practical solution which tied into the ideological sympathies that had long been present in the movement. It also spoke to the particular position of Polish Jewish youth, who found that at the end of the war there was no place for them in Polish society. Thus the 1920’s saw the first group of Hashomer Hatzair members making aliyah: the shift to Palestinianism was almost complete. Hashomer Haztair was becoming a pioneer Zionist youth movement.

While there were unique aspects to Hashomer as a Zionist movement, its journey towards Zionism, Marxism and chalutziut (pioneering) was far from unique. Just as Hashomer Hatzair was attempting to work out its purpose, the idea of pioneering settlement in Palestine was gaining traction amongst sections of Jewish youth across Eastern and even Central and Western Europe. Hashomer was able to look at the activities of other Zionist youth movements like Hapoel Hatzair and Poale Zion to help chart its path. Influential Zionist thinkers like A.D. Gordon, Martin Buber and Ber Borochov enabled the leaders to borrow from their writings in order to help formulate Hashomer Hatzair’s ideology.

Hashomer Hatzair grew to maturity during the period of revolutionary Bolshevism. This historical context permeated the movement’s understanding of socialism and led to a unique mix of constructive socialism, nationalism and revolutionary Marxism.38 The tensions

38 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 225. For a quick discussion of the intellectual origins of “constructive socialism” and its ideological innovations see Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 197-200. “Constructive socialism” advocated for political pragmatism and the need to establish a Jewish state as the primary goal. Constructivism was a nationalist ideology that placed supremacy on the unity of the Jewish people over the universalist ideas within socialism. Thus the Labour Zionist movement was willing to work with Zionists even if they were bourgeoisie. For a critical analysis of constructivist socialism see: Zeev Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel: 44 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth between Marxism and nationalism were resolved by utilising the theory of Ber Borochov (1881-1917), which fitted the Jewish national struggle within the rubric of class struggle and historical determinism.39 Borochov argued in his essay the The National Question and the Class Struggle (1905) that, due to the particular economic structure of the Jewish people, the only way Jews could meaningfully participate in the revolutionary struggle was for Jews to control their own economic infrastructure: Jews were landless and therefore not involved in productive labour.40 The establishment of an independent Jewish nation-state was essential to changing the economic reality of the Jewish people, because political power was rooted in the reality of economics. Jewish involvement in revolutionary politics would only be possible when there were Jewish workers and Jewish farmers who had the economic power to influence events. Thus an independent Jewish nation was the best institution through which to conduct the class struggle.41

What emerged from this complex political theorising was a ‘step theory’: the establishment of a Jewish homeland was the necessary first step. Accordingly, the Jewish state would follow a constructivist socialist program that was “vigilantly monitored by the organised labour movement.”42 To ensure the state did not lose its path, it was essential to retain the ‘revolutionary” perspective and to maintain a belief in the dialectical-material historical process. A Jewish state was required only in the first stage towards the establishment of an international socialist order.43 This ideological position enabled Shomrim to claim that “our desire is to be one-hundred-per-cent Zionists and one-hundred- percent-socialists.”44

He-Chalutz (The Pioneer) was originally founded in 1905 in the United States as a non-political organisation, but it quickly developed into a worldwide network of agricultural

Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State, trans. David Maisel, (Princeton, New Jersey.: Princeton University Press, 1998), 6.

39 For a more complete discussion of Borochov’s theory refer to Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 179-189.

40 In 1935 and English translation of Borochov’s essay was published by Farlag Borochov. The translation was provided by Levic Jessel. In 1937 Poale Zion - Zier Zion of America and the Young Poale Zion Alliance of America also published an English translation of the essay. A copy of the essay is included in Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, 355-360.

41 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 179-187.

42 Ibid., 226.

43 Ibid., 226.

44 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 292.

45 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth training farms geared to preparing Jewish youth for settlement in Palestine.45 It was open to all Jewish youth who considered Hebrew to be their national language and themselves as potential olim (immigrants), dedicated to a future as agricultural labourers in Palestine/Eretz Israel. Although internal political disagreements and debates stifled the ability of He-Chalutz to operate effectively;46 by 1935 the organisation boasted 89,500 members around the world and it is “estimated that between 1919 and 1939 about forty-five thousand of its pioneer trainees settled in Palestine, constituting one-third of all immigrants in the ‘worker’ category for those years.”47

The ideological influence of the He-Chalutz organisation resounded far beyond the confines of the organisation, and the idea of pioneering youth leading the way in establishing the future Jewish homeland became the defining ideological principle of Zionist youth movements throughout the Jewish world. By the early 1920s, Hashomer and He-Chalutz led the way in the pioneering ethos, which had become a central part of the Zionist movement, “representing the Palestinian activism and Hebraism in its purest and most fanatical form.”48 Hashomer’s identification with aliyah and the Chalutz was part of a broader social and political phenomenon which was pushing many Jewish youth towards similar ideological conclusions.

The idea of Chalutziut was a crucial component of Zionist ideological evolution: it was a concrete expression of the synthesis of socialism and Zionism and, importantly, it also put forth a practical program for the settlement of Jews in Palestine. Hashomer Hatzair embraced the ideas of Chalutziut, because it ran parallel to its own understanding of the plight of Jews in exile – that they were ‘neither full nor healthy men nor full nor healthy Jews’. The idea of the pioneer connected all the dots: nationalism as a tool of national rebirth, the need to act and not just talk, and the creation of a Jewish working class, which would build the Jewish state.

Hashomer Hatzair finally emerged in 1926-27 as a Zionist-pioneer-Marxist movement. Its journey towards this ideological position was neither linear, nor inevitable. Hashomer Hatzair proposed an idea of Jewish identity which was nationalist, modern, political and profoundly influenced by non-Jewish ideas. These ideas were internalized and

45 Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, 232. For an in-depth discussion of the He-chalutz movement see Israel Oppenheim, “Hehalutz in Poland Between the Two World Wars,” in Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, (eds), ‘Essential Papers on Zionism’, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 238-267.

46 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 54.

47 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 233. See also Oppenheim, “Hehalutz,” 240-41.

48 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 67.

46 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

‘made Jewish’ by dedicating them towards the question of Jewish revival and survival; these became part of the melting pot of ideas which informed the character of the movement. In charting the movement’s ideological development, it is possible to see how the Zionist youth movements were a product of the encounter between Jews and modernity and that the movements ultimately represent a reconfiguring of Jewish identity.

‘Sons of Kings’

The Beginnings of Betar in Europe

Hashomer Hatzair’s structure for a Zionist youth movement became the model for all other Zionist youth movements and its synthesis of Zionism and socialism was part of a broader political shift which saw Labour Zionism dominate the Zionist movement. The ascendancy of Zionist-socialism eventually provoked the creation of a movement within Zionism that opposed this dominance. Part of this response was the creation of a youth movement which sought to reclaim control of the Zionist movement from the leftwing. The name of this youth movement was Betar. While Betar shares ideological principles with the other Zionist youth movements, its understanding of Jewish nationalism reflects a different ideation of Jewish identity. Betar was seen by its founder Ze’ev Jabotinsky (1880-1940) as the training ground for a new type of Jew, the Betari, who would embody a new kind of Jewishness. In Betar, the values of discipline and dedication to the national cause were wrapped within his twin ideas of Hadar and Monism. Examining the roots of these ideas reveals that they came from a number of nineteenth and twentieth century European, non- Jewish intellectuals. Monism and Hadar once again pinpoint the profound influence of the non-Jewish world upon the Zionist movement.

Whereas the Zionist-socialist ideal was the chalutz, Betar placed far greater stress on discipline and military training. According to Mendelsohn, “The cult of the military hero, of discipline, and of military action - the great ‘legionary idea’ - was propagated by various Zionist movements, but it was most developed within the Zionist right.”49 Betar has been characterised as a “massive paramilitary youth movement”50 and represents the development, within Zionism, of an organised political movement that vehemently opposed socialism and embraced an activist, militant and ethnic nationalism. My intention here is to

49 Mendelsohn, 1993, 107.

50 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 238.

47 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth examine key aspects of Betar’s ideology and, in doing so, reveal how its ideology represents another permutation of how Zionism sought to transform Jewish identity.

Betar was established in Riga in 1923 by Jabotinsky, who was also the founder of the right-wing Revisionist movement. The name Betar was adopted by the youth movement in 1926 and the choice of the name for the movement sheds light on its understanding of Jewish history and identity. While Betar’s name looked to past heroic Jewish ‘freedom- fighters’, it also sought to connect the movement to contemporary acts of Jewish resilience and bravery.

The town of Betar was one of the last outposts destroyed by the Romans during the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-136 CE) and thus symbolizes a last stand of Jewish independence in ancient times. In its modern form, Betar is a Hebrew acronym for Brit Trumpeldor (the covenant of Trumpeldor). A highly decorated Russian soldier, Joseph Trumpeldor was the first Jew to receive an officer’s commission in the Russian army. Involved in the He-Chalutz movement, he was killed at Tel Hai in northern Eretz Israel, on 1 March 1920, during a violent clash with the local Arab population. While historians have concluded that the exact events leading to the battle at Tel Hai will probably never be known, both the Zionist- socialists and the right-wing Zionist Revisionists claimed Trumpeldor as a hero of their respective movements.51 For the Zionist-socialists he exemplified the farmer-fighter who sacrificed his life to redeem the ‘barren land’ for the Jewish people; for the Revisionist movement Trumpeldor embodied the idea of a ‘Jew as warrior’.52 According to Zionist mythology surrounding his death, Trumpeldor’s dying words were " En davar, tov lamut be'ad artzenu” (‘Never mind, it is good to die for our country’). The narrative imparted a clear moral message for Betar: the Jewish homeland would only be established if young Jews were willing to lay down their lives for it.53

51 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 238. In order to make the acronym possess the double meaning Betar had to change the Hebrew spelling of Trumpeldor, replacing the Hebrew letter tet with a tav. For a discussion of the events at Tel Hai as well as how the myth provided the Jewish community in Palestine with a myth of heroism, see Yael Zerubavel, “The Politics of Interpretation: Tel Hai in Israel’s Collective Memory,” AJS review, Vol.16, No 1/2 (Spring-Autumn,1991): 133-160 and Tom Segev, One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, trans. Haim Watzman, (New York: Metropolitan Books, 1999), 122-126.

52 For a discussion of the Zionist-socialist response to Trumpeldor’s death and the events at Tel Hai see Eliezer Don-Yehiya and Charles. S. Leibam, “The Symbol System of Zionist-Socialism: An Aspect of Israeli Civil Religion,” Modern Judaism, Vo. 1. (1981): 121-148.

53 Shapira, Land and Power, 161. In the 1940s Habonim still lionised Trumpeldor and continued to proclaim that he was the “greatest Jewish hero of modern times”. His life was seen as embodying the “Habonim promise” to sacrifice everything to ensure the Jewish State will be established. Habonim also adopted Trumpeldor as a hero because of his ties to the Zionist-socialist movement through his work for He-Chalutz. AJHS VIC, (Australian Jewish Historical Society – Victoria,State Library of Victoria). Habonim Handbook, Melbourne: Australian Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation, 4-6.

48 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Betar Ideology: Shaping the ‘Sons of Kings’

Perhaps the most crucial innovation of Betar’s ideology was the idea of Monism. Quoting in full from Jabotinsky’s own writings will help clarify how he conceived of this concept:

“The movement whose world outlook I here wish to explain adopts a standpoint in regard to social problems generally and class war in particular that we call ‘Monism.’ This means: during the process of building the Jewish state, and as long as that process continues, we firmly negate that from the point of view of Zionism any value or importance attaches to any class outlook whether it be proletarian or bourgeois… In accord with our Herzlian world outlook we do not recognize the permissibility of any ideal whatsoever apart from the single ideal: a Jewish majority on both sides of the Jordan as a step towards the establishment of that State. That is what we call ‘Monism.’54

Monism embodied the belief that the Jewish national project should not be distracted by “other abstract ideals or social programs.”55 For Betar, socialism was a distraction which would enslave the individual.56 Betar and the Revisionists argued that the Zionist-socialist synthesis would lead to a dictatorship of the proletariat and the oppression of individual freedom and thus the destruction of the Hadar-Jew ideal. Revisionism opposed socialist political and economic programs and attacked the idea of class rule, claiming that this idea was as immoral as the swastika of Nazism. From the late 1920s on the Revisionist movement was “increasingly unrestrained” in its attempts to dislodge the labour movement from its positions of authority in Palestine. Only by remaining focused on attaining a state would Jewish nationalism succeed; questions about class war and social problems in general would be dealt with after the Zionist movement had been successful in attaining a

54 Medina Ivrit: Pitaron le-She’elat ha-Yehudim, 1937, Tel Aviv. (A Hebrew State: The Solution to the Jewish Question). Cited in Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 242-243.

55 Ibid. 243.

56 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 320.

49 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Jewish state.57 Jabotinsky placed Monism at the forefront of Betar’s ideology, “The Pride and Beauty of Betar lies in its Monism, and it is that which differentiates it from all other youth movements. Betar stands for a generation that has offered its life for only one ideal: that of creating (and assuring the existence of) a Jewish state, and which recognises no other ideal before it.”58 The concept of Monism was clearly present in mythologizing Joseph Trumpeldor and his death in Tel Hai. His life and death were a clear indication to Betar members the Jewish homeland would only be established if Jewish youth were going to be prepared for many sacrifices, including the possibility of dying for the homeland.59

The Revisionist movement’s aims and ideas were clearly maximalist, and, according to Revisionism’s critics, obdurate: “we do not recognize the permissibility of any ideal whatsoever apart from the single ideal: a Jewish majority on both sides of the Jordan as a step towards the establishment of that State.”60 These words represent more than just a question of political tactics; they also indicate the ideation of Jabotinsky’s nationalist ideology. The idea of Monism took the functionalist nationalism of Herzl and made it an integral nationalism. This ideological development challenged the liberal and utopian social ideals so crucial to the Zionism of Herzl and his ideological lieutenant Max Nordau (1849- 1923).61

How does Monism represent a new conception of Jewishness? The metamorphosis that Monism engendered in Jabotinsky’s brand of Zionism must not be over exaggerated; Jabotinsky’s ideas were, in many important ways, an element in the continuum of Zionist ideology. However, Monism provides not just a different political manifesto, but, on a deeper level, a different understanding of Jewishness. Jabotinsky’s strident and demanding language (“We do not recognize the permissibility of any ideal whatsoever apart from the single idea”) was precisely the point: the New Revisionist Jew was not afraid to say exactly what he/she wanted. While the idea of Monism on its own did not constitute a transformation in Jewishness, its integration with other elements including the ideas of Hadar, the admiration of militarism and glory, the hierarchical structure in the movement,

57 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 243. See Laqueur, History of Zionism, 350-52 for a brief discussion of the Revisionist ideological attack on the socialist economic and political programs in Palestine.

58 JAL Betar Folder, Betar Library Melbourne. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, “The Ideology of Betar” quoted in Betar Award Scheme, 1980, issued by the Hanhaga Betar Australia.

59 Shapira, Land and Power, 161.

60 JAL Betar Folder, Betar Library Melbourne. Ze’ev Jabotinsky, “The Ideology of Betar,” quoted in Betar Award Scheme, 1980, issued by the Hanhaga Betar Australia. Stress in original.

61 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 244.

50 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth discipline, blind hatred of Marxism and an unwavering devotion to a single charismatic leader, contributed to a refashioned Jewish identity.

Monism must be understood as a direct outgrowth of Jabotinsky’s concept of the Nation. Jabotinsky acknowledged that the ‘means of production’ might be the defining mechanism in history; however, the ‘means’ was only a by-product of the unique character of a nation. Each nation had its own inherent characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. These intrinsic qualities were the ‘psyche’ of a nation. The psyche, as discussed by Jabotinsky, embraced not only physical and ‘genetic’ qualities, but also a nation’s creative and intellectual capabilities. Jabotinsky referred to chemical properties – what we would today refer to as genetic. Shimoni notes that this idea of ‘race’ was an idea that Jabotinsky retained until his death. He again wrote on this psychic-racial idea in 1939. The late 1930s witnessed the rise of Nazi style racism, and Jabotinsky’s attempt to refine his idea was also a chance to distance himself from the ‘racist’ implications of his definition of a nation.62 Thus he wrote in Ra’ayon Betar that “each one and every nation makes its own contribution to human culture, with the stamp of its own unique spirit.”63 Jabotinsky’s racial understanding of nations and their origins places Jabotinsky firmly within the European intellectual environment that existed in the first decade of the twentieth century.64 As Shimoni notes, this idea echoes Ahad Ha’am’s discussion of the Jewish nation’s ‘will of life’ and ‘moral genius’, A.D. Gordon’s ‘cosmic’ fusion of labour and land and even Borochov’s socialist ‘conditions of labour.’ All these thinkers came to the same conclusion: rejuvenation required Jews to return to their ancestral homeland because Eretz Israel was the source of the Jewish nation’s character.65

However, there is one crucial point on which I disagree with Shimoni. He argues that this ‘psychic-racial’ determination amounts to “little more than another variation of the standard ‘myth’ or ideological commonality of almost all schools of Zionist thought, namely, that there was a Jewish nation that originated in ancient times in the territory… of Eretz Israel.”66 Variations in ideology still led to the same conclusion about the need for Jewish autonomy in Eretz Israel. Nonetheless, despite their profound commonalities, we witness in

62 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 239.

63 JAL Betar Folder. Ra’ayon Betar; The Ideology of Betar by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, published by Betar Australia.

64 Jabotinsky’s idea of Monism also remained couched in the vocabulary and Weltanschauung of the fin-de- siècle utopians Popper-Lynkeus, Ernst Mach and Ernst Haeckel. Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle, 215-216.

65 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 241.

66 Ibid., 241.

51 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth the writings of Ahad Ha’am, A.D. Gordon and Borochov three very distinct ideas about the roots of Jewish identity. The debate is not simply a matter of politics; a different understanding of the origins of Jewish life and thought leads to different conclusions about what is the essence of a Jew. Divergent understandings of the essence of Jewishness led to different conclusions about what sort of Jewish state would be required to protect and preserve Jewish identity. Jabotinsky’s ‘psychic-racial’ understanding underpinned his idea of Monism and gave Monism its vocabulary, as well as providing its ideological basis and moral authority. The ‘psychic-racial’ theory was not simply a variation. It represented Jabotinsky’s cosmopolitan upbringing and resulted in a very different conception of Jewishness from that of the Zionist-socialists or the religious-Zionists.

Hadar: ‘Every Jew is a Prince’

Betar, like the other Zionist-socialist youth movements, believed that the lives of Jewish youth needed to be transformed. However, Betar did not believe that in order for Zionism to succeed, Jewish youth had to both undergo a process of proletarianisation that would lead to productive labour in Palestine, and that the “main justification of the Zionist enterprise lay in the creation of a just, Jewish, labour-based society in the Holy Land.”67 Whereas the Zionist-socialist movement believed labour was the means by which it would be possible to ‘normalise’ the Jewish nation, Betar wanted to bring about a new type of Jewish youth who would live by the ideal of Hadar.

Hadar was a Hebrew word which Jabotinsky described as being incapable of translation, “it combines various concepts such as outward beauty, respect, self-esteem, politeness and loyalty. The only suitable ‘translation’ into the ‘language’ of real life must be the Betari himself – in his dealings, actions, speech and thought.”68 Hadar was Jabotinsky’s attempt at creating a Jewish equivalent of the idea of the English gentleman. Jabotinsky wrote that he eagerly awaited the day when “the equivalent of the comment ‘Here is a true Gentleman’ would be ‘here is a true Betari.’”69 Hadar was meant to encompass every aspect

67 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 319.

68 Moderchai Sarig, ed., The Political and Social Philosophy of Ze’ev Jabotinsky: Selected Writings, trans. Shimshon Feder, (London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1999), 121. The Shimshon Feder who translated the writings of Jabotinsky collected in this volume was also a founding member of Betar in Australia, see Chapter One.

69 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 245 see also JAL Betar Folder. Ra’ayon Betar; The Ideology of Betar by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, published by Betar Australia, Point 9, Hadar Betar.

52 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth of a Betar member’s life, from what they thought and felt through to how they ate, spoke and dressed.

The oath for a Betar member included the following declaration: “I shall surely strive for Hadar in all my thoughts, in all that passes my lips, in all my deeds, for I am the son of kings.”70 The idea of Hadar, Laqueur argued, was profoundly influenced by aristocratic ideals, which were prevalent in parts of the German Buende during the 1920s.71 Hadar internalized and made the idea of a chivalrous gentleman-soldier the highest desideratum of the Revisionist movement. The idea that Jews were ‘sons of kings’ was a clear attempt to provide a reason for Jewish youth to be proud of their Jewishness at a time when many of them felt the increasing hostility of the surrounding society.

Jabotinsky argued that Hadar was an all encompassing idea that must shape every action in a Betari’s life: “…The Betari must strive to act with Hadar, a word with no translation but many meanings. This principle must have a profound influence on the daily life of a Betari. Everything we do must conform to the idea of ‘Hadar Betar’- every step or turn we take, every reaction, our way of speaking, all other characteristics.”72 The idea that Hadar is not translatable gave the concept both a quasi-mystical quality and reflected the integral nationalism of Jabotinsky and his belief that each nation possesses a unique ‘psychic’ character. The idea that Hadar could not be understood except in Hebrew reinforced the ethnic particularism of Betar’s integral nationalist outlook.

The anthem of Betar was composed by Jabotinsky in 1932 and celebrates the centrality of Hadar. The first stanza of the anthem is entitled ‘Betar’ and the second is called ‘Hadar’:

HADAR Even in poverty a Jew is a prince; Whether slave or tramp – You have been created a prince Crowned with the Diadem of David. In light or in darkness remember the crown – The Crown of Pride and Tagar.73

70 JAL Betar Folder. Altalena, Forum: For the Exchange of Views and Opinions Prior to the 10th Kinus Olami, 8th June 1965, Vol. VII: No: 3, Published by Betar Australia. 24.

71 Laqueur, History of Zionism, 360.

72 JAL Betar File, Betar Library Melbourne, ‘The Ideology of Betar’ – ‘Hadar’, Betar Award Scheme, 1980, Issued by the Hanhaga Betar Australia, (3) 57.

73 JAL Betar File, Betar Library Melbourne. Shir Betar, The Betar Anthem, written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, quoted in Betar Award Scheme, 1980, issued by the Hanhaga Betar Australia, (3) 57. Tagar is also seen as a word without an equivalent in English, Tagar “is another Hebrew word lacking a pure English translation. 53 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Shir Betar used powerful poetic imagery, and aimed at eliciting strong emotional responses in members of the movement, when sung in unison. The anthem is clearly responding to what Jabotinsky saw as the plight of Jews in Europe; it is a call to arms, emboldening the people to be prepared to act on behalf of the nation.

The anthem’s historical imagery ‘Crowned with the Diadem of David’ bestowed the feeling of dignity and royalty upon all Betar members. The imagery of the anthem reinforced the idea that Jews should live in accordance with this proud heritage, “In light or in darkness remember the crown.” In exile, Jews had forgotten their crown, their royal heritage and their proud and glorious past. Shir Betar’s message was that Jews in the Diaspora had failed to be proud of their Jewish identity. It was Betar’s mission to remind Jews of this heritage. The historical link between Jews in Europe and the Kingdom of David is presented by Betar as linear and real: Jews of today are viewed as the direct descendants of the Kingdom of David.

Betar, just like the Zionist-socialist movements, attracted those Jews seeking to retain their Jewish pride and identity, while living in the non-cloistered modern world. These young Jews could not identify with the ‘heroic figure’ of Orthodox Judaism, the Matmid, (Talmudic scholar); but Trumpeldor and the chalutz in general spoke to Eastern Jewry in a way the Matmid never could. It is perfectly obvious that nationalism held out the priceless gift of dignity and self-respect to those who perceived themselves as the victims of humiliation and discrimination. The Zionist Revisionists with their famous emphasis on Hadar (dignity and splendour, in Hebrew) understood this very well.”74 Both Hashomer Hatzair and Betar constituted responses to the needs of Jewish youth in Europe in the first decades of the twentieth century. The ideas of Hadar and Monism were a reaction to growing levels of antisemitism in Europe, the economic crises of the 1930s and the perception, particularly amongst sections of E astern European Jewry that the Zionist Executive had failed as a political organisation.75 Figure 2 is the front page of a Betar magazine printed in Australia in 1965. The iconography of the imagery reflects the idea of the New Jew which Betar sought to create. The figure waving the flag of Israel is masculine, strong and proud.

Tagar is about the strength of standing up and fighting for what is right, even in the face of all obstacles.” www.betar.org.za Betar South Africa website (July 2009).

74 Mendelsohn, Jewish Politics, 103-4.

75 Laqueur, History of Zionism, 338-9.

54 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Figure 2: Betar Australia, Tiron Booklet 1965. (JA, Leon Kempler.)

Through the Prism of Ze’ev Jabotinsky:

The Ideology of Betar

For many Jews, the Balfour Declaration seemed to herald the immediate establishment of Jewish autonomy in the Holy Land, but despair set in amongst sections of the Zionist movement, when the Zionist Executive failed to make any further political gains following the Declaration.76 Many Zionists felt the movement was stagnating, Britain’s stance was shifting away from Zionism, Arab opposition was increasing, and immigration of Jews to Palestine remained but a trickle. Concurrently, because life in Palestine was so tough, increasing numbers of Jews who had attempted aliyah were returning to Europe, or choosing to immigrate to the New World. The Zionist cause was also struggling financially, not having yet succeeded in gaining meaningful financial support from Jewish communities around the world. By way of example, in the years following the Balfour Declaration, Berlin’s 200,000 strong Jewish community donated more money to internal social causes than did the world’s entire Jewish community for the building of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.77 In

76 Ibid., 338.

77 Ibid., 338. 55 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth the 1920s it seemed to Zionists as though the movement was struggling to spread its message and the dream articulated in Herzl’s Altneuland was slipping away.

Polish Jews led the charge in criticising Weizmann and the Zionist leadership as indecisive and weak.78 Jabotinsky stepped into the fold and organised those opposing Weizmann into a political party. He also articulated an ideological platform which made Revisionism not merely an opposition party, but a political movement with its own ideology and solutions. The Zionist Revisionist Organisation was formed by Jabotinsky in 1925, and positioned itself as the true heir to Herzl and Nordau’s vision of the Jewish state. Thus the movement called itself the Revisionists, a return to Herzl’s vision, and argued that the Zionist Executive had been too willing to compromise on his vision and ideas. Jabotinsky’s activist political platform and outspoken style spoke to many Jews, who felt a new approach was needed if Zionism was to succeed as a political force.

When Jabotinsky created Betar, he was tapping into an extant sensibility, whereby disparate Zionist youth movements were already independently attempting to organise themselves against the dominance of the leftwing movements. These movements included Histadrut Trumpledor (Federation of Trumpeldor), Ha-Shomer Ha-Tahor (The Pure Shomer) and the avowedly anti-Socialist movement Ha-Shahar (The Dawn).79 They had already embraced Trumpeldor as their hero, were critical of the existing Zionist leadership, and stressed the need for a more militant approach to gaining Jewish statehood. The existence of these disparate movements is “an indication that a reaction was taking place among Jewish youth to the Left’s traditional dominance over activist, aliyah-oriented Zionism”.80 On a trip to Latvia and Lithuania in 1923 Jabotinsky gave a speech to members of Histadrut Trumpledor in Riga, where he was told that “he had no right to preach such views and stir up young people if he did not intend to call them to action: ‘You either keep quiet or organise a party.”81 It was a challenge he could not refuse.

Jabotinsky was a charismatic leader around whom the youth movements could unite. His decision to write an ideological platform provided further cohesion. Finally, the formalization of a political party added extra legitimacy to the youth movement’s aims. Jabotinsky clearly looked at the other Zionist youth movements as successful models he

78 Ezra Mendelsohn, “Zionist Success and Zionist Failure: The Case of East Central Europe between the Wars,” in Reinharz, and Shapira, Essential Papers on Zionism, 184.

79 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 319.

80 Ibid., 281.

81 Laqueur, History of Zionism, 346.

56 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth could emulate. Like Herzl, he established an organisational framework upon an existing popular movement which had already begun to articulate its own ideas. The candid and forceful rhetoric of Jabotinsky inspired many Jews because it presented an idea of Jewishness which was the opposite to the traditional stereotype of Jewish meekness: Betar’s ideology spoke of Jewish pride, that Jews were the ‘Sons of Kings’.82 Jabotinsky was not afraid to say that Jews should exert pressure to convince everyday Englishmen to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland, nor was he afraid of openly criticising both the General Zionists and Labour Zionism. Many Jewish youth joined Betar because they found Jabotinsky’s ideas inspirational and because he seemed to embody the idea of the New Jew.

The influence Jabotinsky exerted over the movement was considerable; no other Zionist youth movement has been influenced by one central figure to such an extent.83 While Betar was careful to maintain its independence, Jabotinsky was intimately involved in the movement up until his death in 1940. In order to understand the politics and character of Betar it is essential to appreciate Ze’ev Jabotinsky and his cultural background. A highly acculturated Russian Jew, Jabotinsky’s intellectual world was European, and his Russified, fin-de-siècle sensibility reflects the emergence of a new type of Jewishness – a product of cosmopolitan, multiethnic cities like Odessa. Jabotinsky personifies the intersection between the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds. Stanislawski characterised Jabotinsky as “the most cosmopolitan, Europeanised, Russified, Gentile-like leader that either the Zionist movement or East European Jewry as a whole would ever produce.”84 Betar’s ideological platform and the ideas of Hadar and Monism were products of Jabotinsky’s cosmopolitan upbringing.

According to Michael Stanislawski, accepted academic understandings of Zionist thinkers like Herzl, Nordau and Jabotinsky is that they lived their lives in two distinct chapters: the first as assimilated Jews and the second as Jewish nationalists. Stanislawski argues that this understanding is flawed and that Jabotinsky’s writings reveal that he remained cosmopolitan in his world outlook and applied those ideas to his Zionist writings,

82 While Jabotinsky acknowledged British support was essential to the establishment of a Jewish State he was unequivocal in his belief that Jews must exert greater political pressure in order to make the Crown acquiesce to the aims of Zionism. When Jabotinsky spoke of opposition to the British he was not speaking of violent opposition, but political opposition that would force England to change its policies. Ya’acov Shavit, “Fire and Water: Ze’ev Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement,’ in Judah Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds., ‘Essential Papers on Zionism’, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 560-563.

83Joseph B., Schectman, Fighter and Prophet, The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story: The Last Years, (New York: A.S., Barnes and Company, 1961), 419. See also Shavit, “Fire and Water,” 545.

84 Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle, xiii.

57 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

“his turn to Zionism had not replaced or superseded his decadent fin-de-siècle sensibility. Rather, at its core, his Zionism was built upon that sensibility.”85 Thus the fact that Jabotinsky became an ardent Jewish nationalist did not mean that he broke his intellectual ties with Europe. The opposite was in fact the case; his ideas for Revisionism and Betar were built upon his cosmopolitan, individualist and decadent sensibility. Betar’s ideology, written by Jabotinsky, reflects this reality. The concept of Hadar was clearly not a product of internal Jewish debate and discussion; it was, instead, a translation into Hebrew of Western European and Russian fin-de-siècle notions of manliness: “Jabotinsky did not even bother here to invent a mythologized biblical origin for his Hebraized but internally de-Judaized gentleman soldier, a bourgeois ‘Muskel Judische’ cadet immune to and ignorant of the superannuated effeminacy of the ghetto.”86

Stanislawski’s argument pinpoints the emergence of a new Jewish identity, which was Hebraized but also de-Judaized. Jabotinsky’s personality embodied this identity, which viewed Jewish intellectual and cultural history not from within but from without.87 The idea of Hadar was drawn from Western European and Russian notions of chivalry and manliness. Jabotinsky could relate to these images and ideas because his outlook was Russified and cosmopolitan. Betar’s ideas were written by a man profoundly shaped by Europe and these influences fed into Ra’ayon Betar: all the core beliefs of Betar can be traced back to European ideas. Jabotinsky’s Jewishness thus straddles the interface between the non- Jewish and Jewish worlds. Betar, with its ideas of Hadar and Monism and its integral Jewish nationalism, represents the emergence of a new type of Jewishness which had internalised non-Jewish ideas.

B’nei Akiva: The Children of Akiva

Religious Zionism and Torah ve’Avodah

The story of the Zionist youth movements is a story of transformation, change and continuity. The idea of continuity is crucial to the way all of the movements see themselves as passing on authentic Jewish knowledge and values. Unlike Betar and Hashomer Hatzair,

85 Ibid., 204.

86 Ibid., 221.

87 Stanislawski argues that this is also evident in his critique of the Haskalah and Hibbat Zion movement. According to Stanislawski, Jabotinsky’s criticisms failed to comprehend the ideational and cultural goals of the Haskalah and Hibbat Zion because he had no grounding or understanding in their internal discourse. Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle, 221.

58 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth an important tenet of the belief system espoused by Bnei Akiva is that Jewish continuity is inextricably linked to the observance of Halacha. Bnei Akiva sees itself as embodying the continuation of a Jewish tradition stretching back to Rabbi Akiva and further, to the revelation at Mount Sinai.88 The reality is that Bnei Akiva’s ideology represents a transformation in Jewish identity. As Aviezer Ravitsky argued, religious-Zionism is “not a linear continuation of the Jewish religious messianic quest. It is a modern and revolutionary ideology, signifying a clear break with the quietism of the religious belief of messianic redemption that should only occur through divine intercession.”89 At the centre of the revolutionary ideology of Bnei Akiva are the twin pillars of Torah and Labour. B’nei Akiva’s slogan of Torah ve’Avodah (Torah and Labour), its activist approach to Jewish settlement of Palestine and its incorporation of messianism heralded a revolutionary change in the identity of religious Jewish youth, within the paradigm of a nationalist conception of Jewishness.

Religious-Zionism, like other streams of Zionism, sought to position itself as heir to a linear progression in Jewish history, but the movement’s internalization of nationalist ideology, the influence of socialism, its organisation as a political party and the creation of a youth movement clearly illustrate that religious-Zionism was a modern and revolutionary movement. While Bnei Akiva’s members see the movement as part of a linear continuation of Jewish sovereignty two-thousand years after the destruction of the Second Temple. It is, in fact a modern revolutionary movement representing a major transformation in Jewish identity.

In 1922 religious youth who immigrated to Palestine as part of the Third Aliyah (Aliyah Gimel) founded Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi (The Mizrachi Worker).90 Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi was an organisation led by religious youth who were inspired by socialism and nationalism. Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi was established, in part, because they were dissatisfied with the leadership of the Orthodox Zionist party which was also called Mizrachi (Established in

88 Thus for example, an article in a Bnei Akiva Camp booklet from 1994-95 states the following: “Many people imagine that Zionist history began a few years ago, perhaps in the 1880s or 1890s… but only a very few know that Zionism started with the Jewish people, and that, in fact, Moses was the first Zionist.” JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Arnold Rosin, “Bnei Akiva It’s Up to you,” This Tick Contains Ideology: How Well do you know your Ideology?, Bnei Akiva Summer Camp 1994/5, 11. The same article was included in a booklet for madrichim from 2001. JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Hadracha Booklet 2001, Shevet Oz.

89 Shlomo Avineri, “Zionism and the Jewish Religious Tradition: The Dialectics of Redemption and Secularisation” in Zionism and Religion, Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira, eds., (London: University Press of New England, 1998), 3.

90 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 173. 1919-1923 witnessed a period of intense Zionist immigration into Palestine and is known within Zionist historiography as the Third Aliyah.

59 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

1902).91 Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi’s identification with socialism marked a radical development within the religious-Zionist camp, and the movement was castigated by the Mizrachi party for its leftwing political sympathies. Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi staunchly defended its ideological program from the attacks levelled at it by the Mizrachi party and in 1929 it established B’nei Akiva as its official youth movement in Mandate Palestine.92 In Hebrew B’nei Akiva means ‘Akiva’s Children’ or ‘Children of Akiva’. The name B’nei Akiva, just like Betar, reveals a great deal about how the movement conceives of Jewish identity. B’nei Akiva’s namesake was Akiva Ben Yosef, who lived in Eretz Israel in the 1st and 2nd centuries C.E. Rabbi Akiva is referred to in the Talmud as the Rosh la-Chachamim (Head of all the Sages) because of his contributions to the Mishnah and Midrash Halachah. According to Jewish tradition he was tortured to death by the Roman authorities, but, despite the intense pain, he did not abandon his belief in God and died reciting the Shema. 93 Aside from dying a martyr’s death he is also remembered in Jewish tradition as an illiterate shepherd who only in later life became a Torah scholar. The most defining characteristics in the tales told of Rabbi Akiva are his humility and knowledge, traits that parallel those of Moses. All these ideas and images would have had great currency and importance for the founders of the youth movement. Observant Jews who founded B’nei Akiva grew up with stories about Rabbi Akiva and their choice of such a prominent rabbinical figure was intended to show the movement’s dedication to religious law and learning. One of the founding members of B’nei Akiva, Yechiel Eliash, proclaimed Rabbi Akiva was the movement’s hero because he was “a Labourer, a shepherd, a national warrior, and a Torah scholar… We are the students of Rabbi Akiva, we are B’nei Akiva!”94 Rabbi Akiva’s early years as a shepherd resonated with

91 The Mizrachi party was established when the various factions of Orthodox Zionist Jews coalesced under the leadership of Rabbi Yitzhak Yaakov Reines (1839-1915) in order to oppose the Democratic Faction’s cultural renaissance program which was inspired by Ahad Ha’am’s writings. While Ahad Ha’am was never a member of the Democratic Faction his ideas were the bedrock of the Faction’s desire to create a “comprehensive program of cultural renaissance rooted in the Hebrew language and the development of modernized schooling.” Ahad Ha’am argued that Zionism had to not just ensure the physical survival of the Jewish people it also had to create a sustainable Jewish culture. For Ahad Ha’am religion was only one source of Jewish identity and survival, the other was the collective Jewish ‘will of life’ (hefetz ha-kiyum). His approach relegated religion to a subsidiary position which was only one of many sources of Jewish identity. This idea was diametrically opposed to the traditional conception of the origins of the Jewish people, which lay in the Brit between God and his Chosen People. Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 270-281. For a discussion of the various political factors that led the founders of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi to decide they needed to form their own independent political party which was not under the control of the Mizrachi leadership see Shimshon Zelniker and Michael Kahan, “Religion and Nascent Cleavages: The Case of Israel’s National Religious Party,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 9, No.1. (Oct., 1976): 26-29.

92 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 154, 163.

93 Observant Jews consider the Shema, which consists of sections from the Hebrew Bible, to be the most important prayer in Jewish liturgy. On Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) - the holiest day in the Jewish calendar – a story is recounted describing Rabbi Akiva’s death alongside ten other Jewish martyrs.

94 http://www.bneiakiva.net/about ( July 2008).

60 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth the pioneering ideals of the movement and the idea of returning to work the land. Finally, the selection of an ancient rabbinical figure bestowed legitimacy and continuity upon the actions of religious-Zionists in the twentieth century, by casting the members of the movement as his ideological descendants.

Prominent Chassidic rabbis were unequivocal in their attacks on Zionism and were particularly virulent in their denunciation of Orthodox Zionists, who, they stated, were even worse than secular Zionists.95 The Jewish youth who formed Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi ignored these attacks and sought to create a firmer synthesis between Orthodoxy, Zionism and socialism. The radical nature of this break is indicative of the profound impact the inter-War years were having upon Orthodox Jewish youth. However, their willingness to ignore the opinions of the most prominent Chassidic scholars of their day did not mean they abandoned their observant lifestyle. In this sense their association with religious-Zionism is illustrative of both the dynamism of their new position as well as their desire to remain within the folds of normative Halachic Judaism.

When Ha-Poel Ha- Mizrachi established B’nei Akiva it took its cue from the success of the Zionist-socialist movements and copied their organisational frameworks. Adopting the youth movement model imbued the religious-Zionist youth with similar modes of behaviour and ideas about the role of ‘Youth’ in the process of national redemption.96 Thus the newly emerged religious-Zionist youth movement did not shy away from castigating the established Orthodox leadership for their lack of understanding about the plight of Jewish youth:

We must not repeat the mistake of Orthodox Jews with regard to youth. We must understand them and their feelings, their ambitions, their desires, their way of thinking… life has created new conditions, new desires, it has put forth new demands. Modern currents have penetrated into the Jewish camp…. There is a crisis in our spiritual life.97

95 For further discussion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Shalom Dov Baer Schneerson (1860-1920) and other Charedi opponents of Zionism including Rabbi Hayyim Eleazar Shapira of Munkacs (1872-1939), The Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Joel Moshe Teitelbaum (1887-1979), Neturei Karta and the Edah Haredit, refer to Ravitsky, Messianism, 13-15, 181-206.

96 Chaim Schatzker, “Confronting the Religious Question within the Zionist Youth Movement,” in Zionism and Religion, Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira eds., (London: University Press of New England, 1998), 302.

97 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 173.

61 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrahi believed a new historical situation had emerged which had resulted in the penetration of ‘modern currents’ into the ‘Jewish camp’. Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrahi’s response to this ‘spiritual crisis’ was to embrace Zionism as the solution and create a movement for religious youth.

The reason these youth embraced Jewish nationalism was because their defining life experience was the breakdown of traditional societal structures. Whereas most Mizrachi leaders were Orthodox Rabbis with families, long established careers, as well as relatively stable economic positions, the founding members of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi were predominantly young adults from Chassidic backgrounds. WWI and the Civil War in Russia had accelerated the disintegration of traditional society and pushed these young adults into contact with the process of modernisation.98 Few of them had any formal education because of the destruction of entire Jewish communities during this period.99 While countries like Poland and Romania had formally granted their Jewish populations equal rights after the war, the reality was that antisemitism remained a prevalent force in Eastern Europe. This discrimination was, arguably, felt most keenly by religious Jews whose refusal to work on the Sabbath or eat non-kosher food placed them in an even more precarious position than Jews who were willing to forgo restrictive religious practices.100 It was these calamitous events which pushed religious youth towards Zionism and convinced many to take part in the Third Aliyah.

The failure of traditional society to provide support for religious youth led many to conclude that a more proactive response was required. Zionism was a solution because it offered both a corrective to the passivity of traditional Jewish society and a rejection of assimilation. After the horrors of World War I the message of national redemption appeared to echo the messianic impulses which animated so much of traditional Jewish imagination;101 it is clear that as far as the founders of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi were concerned, Zionism offered a reconfigured messianism.

98 Aryei Fishman, “‘Torah and Labor’: The Radicalization of Religion within a National Framework,” Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, Volume 3, Issue 2, (1982): 56.

99 Shapira, “Native Sons,” in Reinharz, Yehuda, Shapira, Anita, eds., Essential Papers on Zionism, (New York: New York University Press, 1995), 795.

100 Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 77.

101 Fishman argues that the chassidic background of the founders of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi provided them with ‘mystic channels’ which created enough ‘religious fervor’ to enable the break with the traditional patterns of religious leadership. Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 255 – 271.

62 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Non-Marxist socialist ideas which criticised capitalist greed, stressed the importance of labour and aimed to create economic equality resonated with this messianic impulse. Socialism spoke to the founders of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi because it addressed their plight as disenfranchised youth, who were part of the economic underclass and also members of a minority group which suffered discrimination. In the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution, these young Jews were receptive to the “revolutionary fervor in the air” because of the disintegration of traditional society, their own economic impoverishment and their newly acquired nationalism.102

Crucial to the leftwing political journey of many of these religious immigrants was their experience in Palestine. The Histadrut (General Federation of Labour) was founded in December 1920 and was the primary socio-cultural absorption framework of the Zionist community in Palestine. (The Mizrachi party had also attempted to establish its own absorption framework but it had proved almost totally ineffective.) The Histadrut organised farmer-worker groups, building squads and all other types of labour in its work camps. It also provided a range of social services, including employment assistance, worker-kitchens and community groups. The Histadrut introduced these religious youth to their very first experience of physical labour. Nonetheless, Zionist-socialism was highly critical of the religious observance of these youth, who, in turn, found that the radically secular environment alienated them. At the same time they were criticised by Mizrachi for their involvement with the Zionist-socialist establishment. Thus these young newcomers lacked a milieu which would support their observance of Halachah as well as their dedication to the idea of pioneering labour. It was these religious youths who came together to form Ha-Poel Ha- Mizrachi and later founded B’nei Akiva.

The Idea of Labour: ‘Torah ve’Avodah’

If the ideological innovation of Zionist-socialism was the chalutz, and Betar’s were the twin ideas of Monism and Hadar, the revolutionary idea put forward by religious-Zionism was ‘Torah ve’Avodah’ (Torah and Labour), which made the physical activity required to rebuild the nascent Jewish homeland into a sacred religious obligation. The concept of Torah ve’Avodah eventually became the slogan of Bnei Akiva. Unlike the secularised notion of labour expressed by the Zionist-socialists, Ha-Poel Ha- Mizrachi viewed the “return of the

102 Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 56-57.

63 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Jewish People in active religious terms.”103 The founding proclamation of Ha-Poel Ha- Mizrachi clearly shows the influence of nationalist, socialist and Zionist ideas:

The religious modern worker… arrived in Eretz Israel… with a deep aspiration for the renewal of the life of the (Jewish) people, here in its homeland after it had become frozen and ossified in the lands of the Diaspora… We seek a Judaism of Torah and Labour, through which Judaism can come into contact with nature, with life in its fullest sense, and with the nation, a Judaism which is more than tradition and the residue of a legacy, but also a live inner feeling stemming from the heart. We seek a return to the ancient Hebrew life, to original Biblical Judaism, based on justice, righteousness, and morality. 104

The Diaspora was seen as a wasteland, sapping the Jewish nation of its character. The solution to this ossification was ‘renewal’ in the homeland, and sat well with one of the ideological cornerstones of the Zionist movement – shelilat ha-Golah – negation of the exile. The declaration also describes a desire to seek out a “Judaism of Torah and Labour”; in other words, a Judaism which would put the Jewish people in “contact with nature”. Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi’s founding statement argued that life in the Diaspora removed Judaism from its central impulses – the laws and life described in the Torah clearly describe an agricultural lifestyle, steeped in farming and labour – their argument being that life in Exile had created a Judaism which was only a ‘residue’ of Biblical Judaism. The idea that Jews ‘returning’ to labour and nature would create a national and spiritual revival echoed ideas propounded by Zionist-socialist thinkers. The past was imagined as pure, moral and righteous. The messianic undertones of the national enterprise were a driving impulse and captured the imagination of young religious youth, who had witnessed the repercussions of Jewish passivity and who had lived as refugees on the fringes of society. All these ideas eventually became the ideological framework of Bnei Akiva.

Torah and labour are represented in the semel (emblem) of Bnei Akiva. The centre piece of the semel is two stone tablets – the Shnei Luchot Ha-Brit (two tablets of the

103 Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 57. The word ‘Avodah’ is used in the Hebrew Bible to refer to a service of the heart or prayer. Sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple were also referred to as Avodah.

104 Ibid., 58.

64 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth covenant) – these are the stone tablets upon which, according to Jewish tradition, Moses inscribed the Ten Commandments. On the right hand side of the tablets there are farming tools, while on the left hand side is a sheaf of wheat, these represent the idea of agricultural labour and the physical task of building a Jewish State. Engraved upon the two stone tablets are the Hebrew letters ‘Taf’ and ‘Ayin’, which are the first letters of the Hebrew words Torah and Avodah, as depicted in Figure 3. The above are bound together by a ribbon symbolizing the belief that labour and Torah are inextricably linked. Thus, the idea of Torah ve’Avodah was sanctified as inextricably linked to the Ten Commandments; Torah and labour became religious dictums. Religious-Zionism completely absorbed the ideology of nationalism and bestowed upon it religious significance.

Figure 3 Bnei Akiva’s emblem.

Rav Shmuel Chaim Landau (1892-1928) turned the slogan of Torah ve’Avodah into a political manifesto.105 His hope was that Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi and Bnei Akiva would become the model for all religious youth in the Diaspora and thus contrasted Torah ve’Avodah with A.D. Gordon’s maxim “the religion of Labour”.106 Landau also set the ideology of Torah ve’Avodah in contrast to the teachings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888), the father of neo-Orthodoxy. Whereas Hirsch argued that Israel was created for the sake of Torah, Landau said that ‘Torah was created for the sake of Israel.’ Landau believed Hirsch’s Universalist approach to Judaism excised the national material dimension. For Landau, a true Torah life was only possible if the Jewish people would return to Eretz Israel to live a life in accordance with Jewish law. Central to this idea of national renewal was the belief that Jews had to return to a life of labour. Landau’s sanctification of labour became the ideological cornerstone of religious pioneering ideology.107

105 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 243.

106 Ibid., 243.

107 Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 56. See also Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 155.

65 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

In order to realize this golden age of labour, Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi looked to biblical precedents which accorded with their pioneering values.

“We have not come to innovate… If we have engraved on our banner ‘Torah and Labour,’ we have done so not because it is a new concept to us, but, on the contrary … one of the few fundamentals of Judaism. ‘When you eat the labour of your hands, you will be happy’ [Psalms 128:2]… He who enjoys the fruit of his hands’? ‘labour is more worthy than the pious’ [tractate Berakhot 8a]… We are enjoined to labour by the Torah…”108

The leaders of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi and Bnei Akiva sought to portray their ideology of ‘Torah and Labour’ as a more authentic Judaism, because it returned Jews to a lifestyle of labour as described in the Torah, “our Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi world-outlook, a world-outlook in which is reflected original and integral Judaism.”109 Landau argued that the idea of Torah must be understood in two ways, one as a set of laws which guide human behaviour and secondly as a “spirit of the nation, the source of its culture and the soul of its life; the public- national foundation emanating from the Torah.”110 Landau was a Mezritch Chassid; nonetheless, his idea of ‘spirit of the nation’ was clearly influenced by the romantic and ethnic nationalism of Eastern Europe.111 Thus Landau’s understanding of Jewishness placed priority upon the idea of a national identity.

The concept of Avodah that Landau articulated was also clearly influenced by socialism, Avodah was not just about the revival of the Jewish nation, it was also about the creation of a moral society where Jews did not exploit other Jews.112 Landau wanted to make religious-Zionism a competitive alternative to the Zionist-socialist movements and argued that the way to renew traditional Judaism was to “encourage a revolution in Jewish attitudes by radically changing the Jewish occupational structure.”113 The founders of Bnei Akiva infused the idea of Avodah with Kabbalistic concepts which were drawn from their

108 Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 58.

109 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 157.

110 Ibid., 155.

111 Ibid., 155.

112 Ibid., 155.

113 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 244.

66 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Chassidic upbringing.114 Members of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrahi and Bnei Akiva dreamed of a constantly renewing process of creation and re-creation, with spontaneous personal relationships and a new social and economic order driven by personal labour. These thinkers spoke of an original ‘Hebrew socialism’, the source of which lay in ancient religious sources:

The Jewish people never accepted the notion of… a division according to classes. “Why was man created so singly? So one would not say my father is greater than yours. [Tractate Sanhedrin 38a]115

The Jewish ideal is ‘what is mine is thine and what is thine is mine’ [Chapters of the Fathers 5:13] which is a repudiation of the principle of property... man owns nothing and everything belongs to the Creator, while we are merely sojourners on the earth… The only possession that man has in the world is labour, and only that which he has acquired through labour belongs to him… Even here, however, he should always keep in mind that it is God alone who had given him strength to succeed…for thou and what is thine are His” [Chapters of the Fathers 3:8]116

The desire of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi and Bnei Akiva to trace the roots of these ideas to Biblical Judaism was in keeping with their ideological conservatism; Zionism was already being attacked by prominent rabbis and the movement did not want to be seen to be making innovations which had no religious precedents. Thus the founders claimed that they had “not come to innovate” and that Torah ve’Avodah is not a “new concept to us, but, on the contrary … one of the few fundamentals of Judaism.”117 Landau’s concept of Avodah was viewed as a continuation of Jewish values and become a normative understanding of Torah ve’Avodah in branches of B’nei Akiva branches around the world.

114 Anita Shapira, “Religious motifs of the Labour Movement,” in Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira eds., Zionism and Religion, (London: University Press of New England, 1998), 251-272.

115 Fishman, “Torah and Labor,” 59.

116 Ibid., 59.

117 Ibid., 58.

67 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

Orthodox Jews critical of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi and Bnei Akiva’s leftwing political sympathies pointed out that Halachah contained far more sections dealing with commercial occupation than with labour. Furthermore, they argued, Halachah did not consider private property immoral and it did not make any moral distinction between labourers and those in other occupations. They also argued that the Shulchan Aruch (the authoritative codification of the main laws of Judaism) did not contain any section expressly dealing with these issues because labour was not a primary Jewish value. Rabbi Yeshayahu Shapira (1891-1945) responded that these critics were mistaken in their assessment of the idea of Torah ve’Avodah and that they had never said that labour was obligated by Halachah:

But none of us said anything of the kind. If there was such an express statement in the Shulchan Aruch there would be no room for argument. All that we say is that labour is intrinsic to the Jewish ideal since, apart from its value for the reform and welfare of society, it is also regarded as a possible way of living the perfectly just life… One should learn not only from Halacha but also from Agadah (the homiletical literature)… (The value of labour) finds expression not only in Jewish law but also, and mainly, in what is beyond the strict letter of the law (lifnim mi-shurat ha-din).118

The concept of lifnim mi-shurat ha-din enabled Shapira to argue that while labour and property ownership were not explicitly discussed in Jewish law, Torah ve’Avodah was clearly in tune with normative values in Halachah. Shapira cited the cancellation of debts in the seventh year, the commandment of the Yovel (Jubilee Year), and the prohibition of interest as proof that Judaism was opposed to capitalist values.119 Life experiences of the founders of the movement led them to identify with nationalism and socialism; they then turned retroactively to religious sources to support their ideological innovations. Torah ve’Avodah heralded a transformation in Jewish identity through sanctifying the idea of labour, and articulating a way for religious Jews to merge traditional Judaism with the ideas of nationalism and socialism. Perhaps the most profound impact of Torah ve’Avodah was that

118 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 158. Shapira was one of the few ordained rabbis in the leadership of Ha-Poel Ha- Mizrachi, although he did not practice as a rabbi. His fascinating argument is illustrative of the flexibility and ways in which Halachah can be opened up and made compatible with ideas from outside of the Jewish world.

119 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 158.

68 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth it enabled Bnei Akiva to adopt an activist religious approach to the establishment of a Jewish homeland.120

Revolt and Revolution: New Jewish Identities

My discussion of the ideological roots of Hashomer Hatzair, Betar and Bnei Akiva illustrates not only political differences but also different conceptions of Jewish identity. As I argued above, the ideological splintering is significant because it indicates the challenge posed by modernity to traditional notions of Jewish identity as defined by rabbinic Judaism. The challenge posed by modernity caused some Jews to assimilate, while Ultra-Orthodox Jews rejected modernity and maintained a Halachic lifestyle. Meanwhile liberal Jewish activists in Eastern Europe, led primarily by Jewish lawyers, sought to create a politics of integration.121 Bundism and Zionism were also reactions to the impact of modernity but the ideological gap was so vast between the two movements that there was little hope for a constructive dialogue.122 Within the Zionist movements there were also vociferous political debates which split the movement. What I have attempted to illustrate here is that the creation of Betar, the religious-Zionist youth movements and the various Zionist-socialist youth movements was not just a product of differing political goals, but that each movement sought to fashion a distinct Jewish identity, the dividing lines between the movements were issues related to religion, socialism and nationalism.

Hashomer Hatzair sought to create a people of workers, chalutzim who embraced a synthesis of Marxism and Zionism. Hashomer Hatzair imagined a Jewish state which was part of the international socialist revolution. Zionist-socialism would transform the Jewish people into labourers and farmers. Betar sought to create a New Jew who would identify with the ideology of Revisionism and in doing so reject the synthesis of Zionism and socialism and embrace an integral nationalism in which the establishment of a Jewish State was given absolute primacy. Whereas Zionist-socialism had to navigate the universalism of its socialist sympathies versus the particularism of Zionism’s ethnic nationalist aims Betar focused exclusively on Jewish national claims. Betar’s concepts of Hadar, Monism, and its

120 See Chapter Five for a discussion of the impact of Gush Emunim and the rabbis Kook’s redemptive messianism.

121 This Jewish liberal movement worked to achieve Jewish civil rights through the courts, the Russian parliament and within the Jewish communities themselves. Benjamin Nathans, “The Other Modern Jewish Politics: Integration and modernity in Russia,” Bundism and Zionism in Eastern Europe, 20-35.

122Antony Polonsky, “The New Jewish Politics and Its Discontents,” Bundism and Zionism in Eastern Europe, 35-54.

69 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth paramilitary character all served to underline the particularism of Betar’s ethnic nationalism. Bnei Akiva, like Betar was also exclusively focused on Jewish national aims. The socialist ideas which Bnei Akiva embraced were utilised solely in relationship to the question of Jewish national independence. Despite the fact Bnei Akiva embraced both nationalism and socialism in the 1920s and 1930s the movement remained firmly wedded to Halachah and sought the establishment of a Jewish State governed by Jewish Law.

The issue of religion was also a clear dividing line with Hashomer Hatzair adopting a firmly anti-religious position and believed in a secular nationalist-socialist Jew. Betar’s relationship to Halachah was somewhat less clear, but the ideas informing the movement were clearly drawn from the secular world and the idea of Zionism being understood in messianic terms was anathema to the movement. Furthermore, Betar did not want to establish a state governed by Halachah.123

What tied all the movements together was that they were all nationalist movements. They conceived of Jewish identity as a national identity. The movements embraced the idea that they were a revolution, a revolt against the way they believed Jews had allowed themselves to be dominated in the Diaspora. At the same time they all believed they represented the continuation of Jewish values and peoplehood and this was expressed in the idea of returning to Zion. The Jewish State had to occupy its ancient homeland. Zionism was an expression of an eternal Jewish nation whose roots lay deep in the past.

Despite the ideological differences, the movements all saw in Zionism the way to renew the Jewish nation. Zionism offered the opportunity to transform the Diaspora Jew, which they viewed as effeminate and weak, into a rejuvenated (masculine) pioneer.124 Exile had led to the decay of the Jewish people and Jewish nationalism was the solution to the plight of European Jewry. The movements believed that Zionism was the means to stop Jewish assimilation. In the words of the Jewish historian and philosopher Gershom Scholem, Zionism sought the “rebirth of this people [the Jews] on its land, to be accomplished in a creative metamorphosis of the old form, but also, perhaps in a revolutionary new beginning.”125

123 For a discussion of Betar’s relationship with Judaism and Halachah see Chapter Five.

124 I use the word ‘effeminate’ as opposed to feminine on purpose. As Robyn Warhol points out the word effeminate unlike male/female, masculine/feminine has no binary opposite. On the usefulness of the word effeminate see: Robyn. R. Warhol, “Introduction: Effeminacy, Feelings, Forms,” Having a Good Cry: Effeminate Feelings and Pop-Culture Forms, (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2003), 1-11.

125 Gershom Scholem, On Jews and Judaism in Crisis: Selected Essays, ed. Werner J. Dannhauser, (New York: Schocken, 1976), 131.

70 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter One: Revolt and Revolution: Europe and the Creation of Zionist Youth

The drive behind the movements’ desire to create a new Jewish identity was a response to pressures being faced by Jews in Europe. The question which arises is how they would make themselves relevant in the Australian social and cultural context which was devoid of such pressures.

71 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two Birth Pangs: The Establishment of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1939-1955

Habonim, Betar, Bnei Akiva and Hashomer Hatzair all struggled to establish themselves in Australia, and in the first few years they all came close to collapsing. The story of how they were eventually able to successfully establish themselves in Australia has never been told in great detail, nor have these narratives been placed side by side. In this chapter I detail the struggle of how each movement attempted to establish itself in Australia during the 1940s and 1950s and in doing so I hope to illustrate what the desire to dedicate oneself to the Zionist cause can tell us about Jewish identity in the mid-twentieth century. Published research by academics Rutland, Rubenstein, Hyams and Gordon all note that the movements were first set up by European refugees and that their membership was attended almost exclusively by youngsters who – or whose parents – had been born in Europe. The difficulty the movements faced in establishing themselves in Australia came about because the idea of Zionist youth movements did not come naturally either to the established Anglo- Jewish community or to many of the European refugees. Zionist youth movements were a product of the Jewish experience in Europe; Zionism was a modern, revolutionary approach to Jewish identity which had to be learnt.

Why did these European Jews want to establish the movements in Australia? The original founders included individuals who had been active in the movements in Europe and passionately believed in Zionism, and they also believed in the need for Jews to make aliyah, as well as concepts like chalutziut the Betari or Torah ve’Avodah. A very important role in the successful establishment of the movements in Australia was played by local Jewish youth who embraced and idealised these ideas. Whereas academics like Shimoni, Laqueur and Mendelsohn have examined the appeal of these ideas in the European context, none of the current historiography has applied the same sort of questions to the Zionist youth movements in Australia. What was it about Zionism, chalutziut, Hadar or Torah ve’Avodah which appealed to Jewish youth in Australia? As we shall see, in the wake of World War II, conclusions reached by Zionists - that there was no longer a place for Jews in Europe - resonated with the leaders of the movements. Just as important for the success of

72 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Chapter Two: Birth Pangs the movements were the positive messages of Zionism, which struck a chord and caused many Jewish youth to embrace Jewish nationalism.

While ideological dedication was pivotal for the movements’ success it is important not to overstress the role played by ideology. The raison d’être of the movements was supposed to be aliyah, but the reality is that their primary purpose was in providing a space for Jewish youth to socialise, debate, discuss and engage with their Jewish identity. The movements were only successful because they proved their relevance in the Australian Jewish cultural context. The fact that Habonim, Betar, B’nei Akiva and Hashomer Hatzair were established in the 1940s and early 1950s, and continue to operate in Jewish communities around Australia today, is a testament to their ability to adapt and retain their relevance. Just as the movements were important in the historical development of Jewish youth in Poland, so too have they significantly influenced the history of Jews in Australia. Examining the struggle of the movements to establish themselves in Australia illuminates aspects of the Jewish refugee experience and ongoing attempts by Jews to navigate their Jewish identity in the modern world. This struggle pinpoints Zionism’s role in attempting to transform Jewish identity into primarily a nationalist identity.

Zionism in Australia

On the whole the idea of Jewish nationalism was foreign to Australian Jews. At the turn of the 19th century Jews in Australia were more concerned with the practical aspects of establishing themselves in their new homeland.1 In order to maintain a Jewish identity they were focussed on the arduous task of establishing institutions that would make a Jewish community viable in Australia; formulating utopian visions of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine was not a major concern.2

The Zionist movement struggled to maintain support and convince Australian Jews of its cause. Bernard Hyams goes as far as stating that in 1907 the Zionist movement in

1 To be precise, the first interest by Australian Jews in what was happening in Palestine goes back as far as the 1850s. In 1852 a small number of Jews were involved in the establishment of the Association for Promoting Jewish Settlement in Palestine. Serge Liberman, “Gentile Champions of Jews in Australia,” in W.D. Rubinstein, ed., Jews in the Sixth Continent: Essays in Australian Jewish History, (Sydney: Boston: Allen and Unwin, 1987, 50). However, it was only in 1893 that the “first form of action towards a goal akin to political Zionism emerged in Australia.” Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 2. See also Eliyahu Honig, Zionism in Australia: 1920 – 1939: The Formative Years, (Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, Series in Judaica, No 7, 1997), passim.

2 Israel Getzler, Neither Toleration Nor Favour: The Australian Chapter of Jewish Emancipation, (Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1970), 2-8.

73 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Sydney was “almost extinct.”3 In 1917, despite ongoing efforts of committed Zionists, the movement “had (still) not penetrated with much success into the Australian Jewish community.”4 Even an event like the Balfour Declaration, which generated a great deal of support amongst British Jewry, did little to stir the passions of the Australian community.5 Alexander Goldstein, who travelled around the world for the Keren Hayesod, reported in 1927 that in Australia there was a “widespread indifference and apathy with regard to every aspect of Zionism.”6 Goldstein’s report to Jerusalem described to the Yishuv how the Zionist movement in Australia was weak and badly organized.7 Although visiting Zionist dignitaries were often able to whip up support during their visits it was a constant struggle to actually receive money that was pledged.8 An emissary sent in 1940 to raise funds for the Zionist cause observed that little had changed, and that in Australia there were “only [the] miserable remnants of what we call an [Zionist] organization.”9

Staunch opposition within the anglicised leadership of the community was another major reason for the difficulty Zionism experienced within the Australian Jewish context. The first mention of Herzlian Zionism in the Australasian Hebrew, in February 1896, described Herzl’s aims as being “impractical” on a “dazzling scale”. The Jewish Herald was just as critical of Zionism.10

While Zionism remained peripheral to the central concerns of most Australian Jews, the British Mandate in Palestine caused Zionism to become a source of debate and contention within the community. Events such as the 1929 Wailing Wall incident and the 1930 White Paper caused Zionists in Australia to publicly criticise British policies, which they

3 Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 12.

4 Ibid., 20.

5 Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 27. In Britain, while most communal leaders were concerned that the Balfour Declaration would “impede social integration and throw into doubt the legal status of Britain’s Jews” there was still a great deal of support within the community for the Declaration. Todd Endelman, The Jews of Britain 1656 to 2000, (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), 191. In South Africa there was an even greater show of support. See Gideon Shimoni, Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910- 1917, (Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 1980), passim.

6 Refer to Honig, Zionism in Australia, 42. and A.D., Crown, and John, Shipp, eds., Early Australian Zionism: Ad Annotated Index of Records in the Central Zionist Archives (Sydney: University of Sydney, Part Two, 1901- 1970, Compiled by Marianne Darcy, Archive of Judaica, 2000), 10, 33, 34.

7 Alan D. Crown, “The Initiatives and Influences in the Development of Australian Zionism, 1850-1948, Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, Autumn, (1977), 310.

8 Ibid., 320, n. 9.

10 Rutland, Edge, 87.

74 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs felt were anti-Zionist.11 This, in turn, raised the hackles of the anglicised leadership, who felt that the secular and nationalist agenda of Zionism sought to make Jews a ‘people apart’. A clear summary of the anti-Zionist position was articulated by Alfred Harris in the Australian Hebrew Standard, when he wrote in November 1930 that,

“The nationalist propaganda of the Zionists will have to be discarded… it seeks a differentiation… it seeks to make us sojourners. It damages the Jew as much as it challenges his loyalty. We are just Jews held by our ethical gift… not by national pride.”12

Opposition of the Anglo-Jewish leadership to Zionism came to a head when Rabbi E.M. Levy of the Great Synagogue accepted the presidency of the Australian Zionist Federation. Rabbi Levy’s acceptance of the presidency and his public defence of Zionism in 1937 raised the ire of Sir Isaac Isaacs. Isaacs was an esteemed member of the Jewish community and an ex-Governor General.13 Isaacs wrote a public response where he charged that “Rabbi Levy’s beliefs are doctrines regarding Jewish nationality that seem to me might more appropriately come from a Hitler or a Mosley.”14 Samuel Cohen, another prominent Jewish figure from Sydney, was on his way to being knighted when the controversy erupted and he published a response stating that Rabbi Levy’s arguments were “highly misleading and impugning the whole-hearted loyalty of Jews as one-hundred per cent Australian citizens”.15

The debate pinpoints the nature of Anglo-Jewish identity, which stood in stark contrast to Zionist ideology. Anglo-Jewish identity was predicated on the idea that there was no national element to Jewish identity and English Jews defined their identity by the end of

11 Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 45-47. For details on the 1930 White Paper see Segev, 335-41.

12 Quoted in Rutland, Edge, 172. In November 1895 Alfred Harris (1870-1944) edited and printed the first issue of the Hebrew Standard of Australasia. It initially failed and he re-established the paper on 23 July 1897. Harris remained the editor of the paper until the beginning of 1908. In 1925 he was persuaded by Francis Lyon Cohen to resume the position as the editor of the Standard which he maintained until his death in 1944. Francis Cohen (1862-1934) supplied Harris and Isaacs with further support and was also staunchly anti-Zionist. As the leading Rabbi of the Great Synagogue he was the preeminent rabbinic figure in New South Wales.

13 Sir Isaac Isaacs (1855-1948) was appointed Chief Justice in 1930 and was sworn in as Australia's ninth Governor General on January 22, 1931. He was also the First Australian-born Governor-General.

14 Rutland, Edge, 297.

15 Ibid., 297.

75 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs the eighteenth century “almost exclusively in non-Hebraic, English terms.”16 Jewish identity was solely religious. Thus Jews could be loyal English subjects of the Jewish faith. Religious differences between Christian and Jewish subjects could be resolved by expressing loyalty to the Crown. Anglo-Jews defined themselves English Jews and therefore a part of the English nation.17 Anti-Zionists argued that defining Jews as a nation expressed the belief that Jews would always remained innately different. Australian Zionists’ criticism of British policy in Mandate Palestine proved to anti-Zionists that Zionism believed the loyalty of Jews primarily lay with other Jews. Thus Anglo-Jews in Australia who opposed Zionism sought to counteract these ideas as publicly as possible in order to show the wider community that Jews were loyal to the Crown.

As Endelman has convincingly illustrated in The Jews of Britain, English society, unlike European societies, was not obsessed with the Jewish Other. In England it was far more likely that the ‘Other’ would have been a Catholic Irishman, Frenchman, or the inhabitants of a British colony.18 Anglo-Jews were also very aware of British suspicion and distrust of anything different, English culture was not pluralistic and did not tolerate cultural difference. According to Endelman English society and, in particular, the English elite, “was inhospitable to diversity. It was ruthlessly genteel, monolithic, and exclusive, and did not include alternative modes of being authentically English. The very notion would have been beyond comprehension.”19 Anglo-Jewish identity sought to limit the differences between themselves and the wider non-Jewish society. Jews were eager to prove they could become not only loyal citizens but also a part of Anglo-Saxon society; thus they “instinctively supported unconditionally and sycophantly the royal family and prayed for their continued welfare.”20

English Jews did not have to constantly demand that they be granted civil rights they simply assumed these rights because they saw themselves as English. Underlying this sense of entitlement was the fact that English Jews fashioned an English Jewish culture

16 Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment, 7.

17 Ibid., 6-8.

18 Endelman, The Jews of Britain, 1-14.

19 Ibid., 207-208.

20 Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key, 10. Ruderman’s argument mirrors Rubenstein’s conclusions about Australian Jewry’s “exaggerated loyalty to the British Empire” which was expressed even if it “chronically undercut their Jewish identity.” W.D. Rubinstein, ed., Jews in the Sixth Continent: Essays in Australian Jewish History, (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 2. In this sense the process mirrored precisely what was occurring in France and other European countries. See, for example: Paula Hyman, The Jews of Modern France, (Berkeley, CA: University of Cambridge Press, 1998), 108.

76 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs which sought to limit the differences between themselves and the wider society. This was reflected in the rapid linguistic assimilation of the Ashkenazi Jews, who in the space or one or two generations had assimilated the English language and by the “end of the eighteenth century, most English Jews thought about their identity almost exclusively in non-Hebraic, English terms.”21 It is important to keep in mind that the creation of an Anglo-Jewish identity was not just the product of powerful social pressures to make Anglo-Jews limit their differences and assimilate into English society. Ruderman acknowledges Endelman’s analysis of English culture as ‘ruthlessly... monolithic’ but he also argues that the level of acculturation undertaken by English Jews was not just a cynical exercise in gaining acceptance and there was also a “rich blending of English elements with Jewish culture.”22 This ‘rich blending’ occurred within Jewish culture and English society did not adopt elements of Jewish culture. Democratic institutions in England were less absolutist than in Europe and the lack of rigid social structures in England created a space for social interaction between Jews and Gentiles which was more open than in continental Europe.23 The result was the development of a unique Jewish-English culture which was characterised by a weak religious elite and little support for Jewish separatist ideas. The identity of Anglo- Jews reflected the religious attitudes and behaviour of their Protestant neighbours in a manner which was quite distinct from the experience of German or Eastern European Jewries.24 The Anglo-Jewish identity in Australia was a direct product of this historical process and possessed many of the same distinguishing features.

Jews were a very small minority in Australia, and in contrast to the experience of European Jews, received comprehensive civil and political rights from the very beginning of colonial settlement.25 Attitudes to Jews in Australia had their roots in England and thus the notion of a Jewish Other was also absent in Australia. Antisemitism experienced by Jews in Australia never resulted in organised violence; it was expressed, just like in Britain, through jokes, media stories and cartoons which focused on negative perceptions of Jews as crafty usurers.26 Nonetheless Jews in England and Australia were uncertain about their level of

21 Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment, 9. The observation that Jewish students in England were educated in Jewish liturgy and sacred texts through English translations also applies to Jews in Australia.

22 Ibid., 10.

23 Ibid., 9.

24 Ibid., 7.

25 Israel, Neither Toleration Nor Favour, 11.

26 Israel, Neither Toleration Nor Favour. And Rutland, Edge, 94-7, and 144-45. See also: Andrew Marcus, “Antisemitism and Australian Jewry,” in Jews and Australian Politics, ed., Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Phillip Mendes, (Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 109-126. On the question of English antisemitism 77 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs acceptance and were aware that the societal tolerance they experienced was an anomaly. Anglo-Jews also understood that their host societies did not embrace difference and diversity. Anglo-Jewish identity was a product of this ambiguity and tension. It simultaneously created a distinct Anglo-Jewish identity which celebrated the opportunities afforded Jews while seeking to down play any aspects of Jewish religion and culture that could draw attention to the idea that Jews were different. 27

Thus Jews in Australia, just like in Britain, and just like other Australians stressed their loyalty to the Crown. During World War I, Melbourne’s Rabbi Danglow, a staunch monarchist and anti-Zionist, called upon his congregation to enlist and serve in the army, “Our young men will not falter at the prospect of death. This glorious land of liberty and freedom well deserves that her children should die for her, if need be.”28 Expressions of loyalty and patriotism were genuine but were also motivated by a desire to assuage any lingering doubts about Jewish loyalty. Jews in Australia also wanted to become “as invisible as possible within the Australian cultural polity. ‘Whiteness’ correlated ‘looking white’ with a cultural homogeneity within the dominant ‘Australian’ culture.”29 The character of the early Jewish community has thus been characterized by historians as an ‘ideology of non- distinctiveness’ or a culture of ‘Anglo-Conformity.’30

The desire not to appear too different was expressed during the arrival in Australia of large numbers of Jewish refugees from Europe before the outbreak of World War II. The Australian Jewish Welfare Society distributed a pamphlet to the refugees on 18 May 1939, which tried to ensure these refugees did not attract too much attention:

“Above all, do not speak German in the streets and in the trams. Modulate your voices… Do not make yourself conspicuous anywhere by walking with a group of persons all of whom are speaking loudly in a foreign language… see Frank Felsenstein, Anti-Semitic Stereotyping: A Paradigm of Otherness in English Popular Culture, 1660- 1830, (Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 1995), passim.

27 Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment, 215-267.

28 Rabbi Levi, J. S. “Doubts and Fear: Zionism and Rabbi Jacob Danglow” in Rubenstein, W.D. ed, Jews in the Sixth Continent, (Sydney Australia, Allen and Unwin, 1987), 83.

29 Jon Stratton, “The Impossible Ethnic: Jews and Multiculturalism in Australia,” in Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol 5, no 3, (1996): 342.

30 Refer to: Rutland, Edge, 6, and Rubinstein, Hilary, H., “From Jewish non-distinctiveness to group invisibility: Australian Jewish identity and responses, 1830-1950,” in Rubenstein, W.D., The Jews in Australia, (Melbourne: AE Press, Australian Ethnic Heritage Series 1986), 28. Also refer to Stratton, “The Impossible Ethnic,” 339- 373.

78 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Remember that the welfare of the old established community in Australia as well as of every migrant depends upon your behaviour.”31

The Australian pamphlet expressed ideas that were remarkably similar to pamphlets that were distributed by the Jewish community in Britain, urging European refugees to not speak foreign languages loudly in public, gather in large groups or dress differently.32 The pamphlets reflected the exact same fear; ‘unwanted attention’ may affect the ‘welfare’ of the established Jewish community. Both communities were motivated by the rise in prejudicial attitudes to Jews, but instead of this translating into greater sympathy for the refugees, the Jewish community wanted the newcomers to “adjust immediately and discard any foreign behaviour and become ‘one hundred per cent Australian,’”33 or one-hundred-per-cent British.

The mentality of the Anglo-Jewish communities towards European Jewish refugees reflected wider Australian attitudes about the desire to maintain a homogeneous white society and the fear that a sudden influx of refugees would disrupt the status quo.34 The fear that newly arrived Jews would disrupt the process of cultural, political and social acceptance of the established Jewish community has a long history in Jewish communities around the globe and reflects the anxiety of Jews about the extent of their acceptance.35 Thus the identity of Anglo-Jewry was antithetical to Zionism and ideas such as chalutziut, Torah ve’Avodah and the Betari. How then did the Zionist movement succeed in taking hold in Australia?

European immigration more than doubled the Jewish population in Australia. In 1933 there were 23,553 Jews in Australia and that number grew to 48,436 in 1954 and reached 59,343 in 1961. The arrival of the ‘newcomers’ did not just dramatically transform the demographics of the community; European Jews brought with them their unique cultural practices, new ways of organising the Jewish community as well as different ideas about

31 Quoted in Rutland, Edge, 186.

32 Endelman, The Jews of Britain, 216.

33 Rutland, Edge, 186.

34 Jon Stratton, “Impossible Ethnic,” 339-373.

35 Todd Endelman, “The Legitimization of the Diaspora Experience in Recent Jewish Historiography,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 11, No. 2. May, (1991): 195.

79 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Jewish identity. The move away from an Anglo-Jewish identity was the result of the pre and post-World War II immigration of European Jewish refugees.36

European refugees brought with them the idea of Zionism and the Zionist youth movements. They created a Zionist movement which was “a more sophisticated and prominent organisation wielding significant influence within and beyond the Australian Jewish community.”37 The flow of immigrants was crucial to the emergence of the Zionist movement and resulted in the diversification of the movement through the establishment of new organisations.38 The existence of these youth movements in Australia is a tangible product of the Jewish historical narrative of migration and population movement.

Why did elements of the newly arrived European Jews decide to establish Zionist youth movements in Australia? Mendelsohn argues that although Zionism failed as a comprehensive answer to the predicament Jews faced in the Diaspora, the movements flourished because they offered Jewish youth “...what might be called an oasis of Palestinianism, in a Hebrew-speaking Zionist world that offered them along with a strong Jewish national identity, cultural nourishment, a satisfying social life, and, above all, hope for a happier future far away from the economic misery and anti-Jewish chauvinism of East Europe.”39 Mendelsohn’s argument pinpoints crucial differences which help to explain the movements’ struggle to take hold in Australia. While Jewish refugees arriving in the 1940s and 1950s worked hard and struggled to establish themselves in their new homeland, there was no drastic economic decline similar to that which Jews had experienced in Eastern Europe. Unlike in Eastern Europe, Australian Jewish youth did not sense that the adult community had failed to provide a solution to the fact that “there was no future”40 for Jews in Australia. The opposite was the case: for most refugees it was apparent that there was indeed a future for Jews in Australia. Zionism in Australia succeeded because it focused on the positive message of national rebirth. European Jews who settled in Australia may have chosen to go there, but they were also well aware that migration to tolerant countries like Australia and the United States was not an option for all European Jews. Thus, as they became receptive to the idea of Jewish national sovereignty in Palestine, the message of Zionism adapted to the reality that a Jewish life in Australia was indeed viable.

36 Rutland, “Part III: Transformation. Ch 10 Postwar Jewish Immigration: 1945-1960,” Edge, 225-256.

37 Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, vii.

38 Rutland, Edge, 89.

39 Mendelsohn, Jewish Politics, 122.

40 Ibid., 121.

80 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

While some of the most important pressures which contributed to the sustenance of the Zionist youth movements in Europe were absent in Australia, core aspects of the refugee experience were conducive to the establishment of the movements. Most importantly, Australia was an alien society and the movements were, initially, the only organisations which provided the environment for European Jewish youth to gather and share their experience as refugees. Jewish youth who became involved in the movements were searching for ways to hold on to their Jewishness. The movements offered that chance, and, just as in Europe, provided an ‘oasis’ for Jewish youth to celebrate their Jewish identity and learn about Jewish nationalism while socialising with other Jews.

Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation:

Australia’s First Zionist Youth Movement 1939-1944

Towards the end of 1939 European Jewish refugees in Sydney set up the first Zionist youth movement to be established in Australia; the Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation (Shomrim).41 The organisation disbanded by the mid-1940s, with members either joining Habonim or leaving the organisation to embark on their adult lives. The existence of the Shomrim Organisation - and its eventual dissolution - highlights the Zionist movement’s struggle to create a durable youth movement, which would not break apart when older members left. The failure of Shomrim pinpoints the need for the movements to be more than a social club; if socialising were to remain the overriding raison d’être, the movements would cease to exist. Shomrim’s successes and failures show how the other movements adapted to the Australian environment and created a durable ideological organisational model that has enabled them to continue operating into the new millennium.

Beate Schlosser had arrived in Sydney with her parents and sister in 1938. Beate had come from Berlin with very little English, and soon found that Australian society was ill- equipped to help her adjust to life in her new home. The school she attended in Darlinghurst in inner-city Sydney did not have any other students who were refugees, and did not have the benefit of a language program to help young refugees adjust to life in Australia.42 It was Shomrim that provided her with a place to socialise with other Jews, and establish

41 AJHS, C50. YF1 Folder 1. Shomrim News, December1941, No. 6. Shomrim began its activities due to the initiative of two European refugees, Harry Price and Erwin Heller. Erwin Heller would later become President of the Sydney Poale Zion.

42 Beate Schlosser. Interview Date: 23/10/2007.

81 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs friendships in her new homeland. It was also through Shomrim that she met her future husband. Shomrim played a very important role in allowing young Jewish Europeans to mix with members of the opposite sex; the primary purpose of the Shomrim, as far as Beate was concerned, was social.

When somebody told me about Shomrim, it was more a social gathering than anything else. We were all Jewish, that we had in common. Most of us were migrants and we needed to find a group to belong to. It was very much needed, because when you grow up here, you’ve been to school, you’ve been to tech or something else and you feel you belong there. But when you haven’t had that, you don’t belong anywhere. So, a Jewish group was just the thing. Most of us were migrants.43

The need to connect socially with other young Jews who had come from similar backgrounds is also echoed in the words of another Shomrim member, Yehuda Feher. Yehuda had grown up in Budapest and arrived in Australia in August 1940. Yehuda’s brother also came to Australia, but his parents, who had remained in Europe, were sent to Bergen Belsen. They survived and came to Australia in 1946.

Ninety-nine percent were European. And at that time, it was more social than anything else, because during the war there was very little other activity and these people sort of automatically got together, many of them were members of youth movements in Europe. So that they started this movement.44

What Shomrim provided for European refugees who felt dislocated by their arrival in Australia was a link to their lives in Europe but, as Beate Schlosser recalled, the most important aspect of Shomrim was the Jewish identity of the members: “[Being] Jewish was

43 Beate Schlosser. Interview Date: 23/10/2007.

44 Yehuda Feher. Interview Date: 26/07/2007.

82 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs as important as being European. Being Jewish became more and more important. It became more important because it really is a way of life.”45

Shomrim was far less ideologically driven than Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair, B’nei Akiva and Betar, all of which made the concept of aliyah an ideological cornerstone. While Shomrim called itself a Zionist Youth Organisation the organisation “did not specifically determine in their aims and objectives to prepare themselves to actually settle in Palestine.”46 Shomrim published and released its own magazine called Shomrim News and it is evident from the material in the magazine that, for the most active members, the idea of Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish homeland was the most important question facing world Jewry.47 The first issue of Shomrim News circulated in June 1941, and while Shomrim was only able to circulate the magazine sporadically every magazine focused on the idea that Zionism could offer a solution to the problems Jews faced in Europe.48 From the very beginning, the organisations constructed a concept of Jewishness which made Zionism an integral part of how they conceived of Jewish history and Jewish identity. While the social aspect within Shomrim took primacy over the ideological component, the organisation’s connection to Zionism gave the group an ideological focus which enabled the organisation to exist until the mid-1940s.

When Shomrim was established it did not have strong links to the official Jewish and Zionist communal organisations but by the beginning of 1942 Shomrim had become the

45 Beate Schlosser. Interview Date: 23/10/2007.

46 Gordon, Guardians of Zion, 94.

47 The Shomrim News was published by the Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation sporadically from June 1941 until March 1942. Yehuda Feher credits David Falk with being “the main force behind the paper.” Ben Haneman and Yehuda himself would play an important role. JAL Shomrim Folder. Yehuda Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” Habonim, March April 1946, 13. A copy of the magazine was given to the author by Yehuda Feher. Yehuda Feher wrote this short history of the creation of Habonim upon relinquishing his post as President of Sydney Habonim. By July 1942 the Shomrim had joined with the Youth Section of the Zionist State Council, NSW, to publish The Young Zionist. In September 1942 the magazine was now “issued by the Youth Department of the Zionist Federation of Australia in conjunction with The Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation.” AJHS, C47. Zionist Youth Magazine December 1942. In December 1942 the name of the Magazine was retitled Zionist Youth Magazine. By 1943 the magazine had returned to the title The Young Zionist.

48 AJHS, C50. David Falk, Shomrim News, Vol. 1. No. 1. June 1941. AJHS C47. Sol Encel, “The Prospects of Zionist Youth Activities in Australia,” The Young Zionist, September 1943, 10. AJHS C47. The Young Zionist: Herzl and Bialik Memorial Issue, July 1942. AJHS C47. Yom Kippur: Extracts from an “Unfinished Essay by A.D. Gordon,” The Young Zionist, September 1943, 3 And: AJHS C50. Arranged by Jehuda Feher, “The Palestine Scene,” Shomrim News, December, No. 6., 1941, 16-19. (On this occasion Yehuda’s name is spelt as ‘Jehuda’.)

83 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

“official representative of Zionist youth.”49 Yehuda Feher’s brief history of Habonim provides a description of the early activities of Shomrim:

The programme of the Shomrim consisted of regular fortnightly meetings at which lectures were given, usually by some outsider, to be followed by discussion and Hebrew songs. Occasional hikes and social functions were also arranged. Their number increased to about eighty in their peak period. Some of the meetings were very well attended and became a well-known feature of the community as, at the time, these meetings were the only regular ones of Jewish and Zionist interest.50

The idea of young Jews gathering to discuss and learn about Zionism was a radical and new development in the cultural and political life of the Australian Jewish community. Australia, however, was removed from the vibrant ideological and political debates which were a driving force for the movements in Europe. Historians have argued that within the European context, it was practically impossible for Jewish youth to not be politicised. On the other hand, in Australia the movements would have to prove the importance of Zionism to their communities.

The Shomrim ‘Drift’

Shomrim members were aged between seventeen and thirty-two, and, at its peak in September 1942, its membership had grown to roughly one hundred.51 In Sydney, in 1942, there were only around one hundred and fifty youth involved in both the Habonim Zionist Children’s Youth Organisation and the Shomrim. The November 1941 edition of Shomrim News only lists forty members.52 It is clear that from the large influx of European Jews only

49 Gordon, Guardians, 146.

50 JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” 13.

51 JAL Shomrim Folder. As a result of Shomrim’s activities, ASIO began monitoring the organisation, and on September 1st 1942 it submitted a list of people who they said were affiliated with the organisation. Australian Archives ACT CRS A6122XR1 ITEM 154. A copy of the document was given to the author by Yehuda Feher, who had gathered the information from the ASIO Folder.

52 This number coincides with the forty-two individuals cited by ASIO as meeting in 1942 despite regulations being imposed on the congregating of ‘Aliens.’ The number of one-hundred and six Shomrim members cited in the ASIO Folder must have included many peripheral and less involved individuals. 84 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs a very small percentage became involved in the Zionist youth movements. The movements did not just have to struggle with the apathy and indifference of the Anglo-Jewish community; they also had to deal with the apathy of the vast majority of European Jews.53 Shomrim’s struggle to grow and maintain its activities was, in part, a product of the movement’s lack of purpose.

Most of Shomrim’s members came from Central Europe and were of diverse religious, political and social backgrounds. Although there are no statistical data indicating how many Shomrim had been active in the movements in Europe, it is clear that many of the older members had been involved with movements that ranged across the political spectrum:54 The organisation was aware that this diversity affected the ability of the organisation to operate, and in the August 1941 edition of Shomrim News a leading member of the organisation asked if the Shomrim had begun to ‘drift’:

Are we steering or drifting?... One of the most important achievements in this city of dead-born organisations is the very fact of our existence after nearly two years. Our critics will reply that the mere survival of an organisation is very bare achievement indeed. But have they, for one moment, given thought to even the minor difficulties we have overcome? Do they forget we came from different parts of several countries, that our education was not uniform, that our group comprises a rather wide range of ages? We are composed of people of different political schools of thought in Zionism, of orthodox and liberal members. We are a melting pot of a wide assortment of human material, from which it is not easy to produce a perfectly homogeneous compound.... Our greatest difficulty lies in our central idea – the raison-d’être of the SHOMRIM...”55

53 Yehuda Feher. Interview Date: 26/07/2007.

54 Gordon, Guardians, 1. Beate had been briefly involved with Hashomer Hatzair in Berlin, while her husband Henry Schlosser had been involved with Blau-Weiss in Vienna. Other members had been involved with Maccabi Hatzair, Habonim and Betar. AJHS C50. Report: Kevutsa “Kadimah: Jabotinsky Defended,” George Strauss, Shomrim News, Nov. No. 5., 1941, 16-17.

55 AJHS C50. John Moser, “We Steer Our Course!” Shomrim News, Aug., No. 3., 1941, 3. Capitalisation in original. John Moser was one of the most active members of the organisation and contributed regularly to the Shomrim News. He was a member of Kevutza Brenner which consisted of seven members. Moser would later on become very active in Sydney Habonim and also contributed invaluable material to the archives at the Archive of Australian Judaica at the University of Sydney.

85 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Moser’s rally cry, ‘We Steer Our Course!’ illustrates how Shomrim members were self-critical and attempted to reassess the organisation’s role and purpose. Moser’s article also highlights the difficulties Shomrim faced in terms of building a Zionist youth movement in Australia; Sydney was a city of ‘dead-born organisations’ where it was difficult to entice even small numbers of youths to join a Zionist youth organisation. Shomrim had to take it upon itself to maintain the organisation; there was no external support. Leaders within the movement saw the Shomrim as far more than a social group and they recognised the need to create an ideological framework. However, the pressures that created Hashomer Hatzair, Betar and B’nei Akiva took several years to coalesce around an ideological framework. The challenge for Shomrim was to create a cohesive social and political group despite the cultural, political and religious differences that existed between members.

The 1941 September issue of Shomrim News contained a response to Moser’s article by Gerhard Lichtenstein. Lichtenstein noted the reality that many immigrants have their time and energy consumed by trying to establish a life in Australia. He also noted the central role of Shomrim was to provide a place for Jewish refugees to meet other Jews and forge close friendship.56 Lichtenstein supported Moser’s argument that an ideological framework would provide the movement with a clearer purpose.

Most of the Zionist Youth Groups on the Continent have as their important aim – Chalutziuth.57 For the Chalutz there is only one idea, and his whole work is to prepare himself for his life as a worker and a pioneer in Eretz Yisrael. As a group at best, we have no such high ideal and therefore, our zeal and energy can only be small in comparison.58

Lichtenstein’s response reveals the extent to which the intellectual world of Europe shaped the character and politics of the organisation. The idea of the chalutz, born in the ferment of the experience of Jews in Europe, still held a powerful attraction. While the Shomrim would never embrace the chalutzic ideology, the idea was present in the organisation; it was

56 AJHS C50. Gerhard Lichtenstein, “The Shomrim as I see Them: Contribution to a discussion,” Shomrim News, Sep., No. 4., 1941, 14.

57 I have not italicised the word chalutziuth because in the original text Hebrew words were not italicised. Throughout this thesis I will not italicise Hebrew words when I quote from primary sources which did not originally use italics.

58 Lichtenstein, “The Shomrim as I see Them,” 14.

86 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs discussed, debated, and some members were obviously sympathetic to the idea. The leftist political sympathies of many members in the Shomrim would, in time, be transferred into Habonim when the two groups merged.

Crisis and Change

The outbreak of World War II resulted in many Shomrim members having to enlist in the military. War restrictions introduced in 1942, (including Section 17 (1) of National Security (Aliens Control) Regulations) placed restrictions on travel and on the meetings of large groups of new immigrants.59 Another wartime restriction which led to a serious problem for Shomrim was the limitation placed on the use of paper for printing, which forced the movement to cease distribution of the Shomrim News which had played a crucial role in raising awareness of the organisation’s activities and in generating discussion and debate.60 These wartime restrictions stopped Shomrim from undertaking its most important activities.

In March 1942 Shomrim released a Special Edition of the Shomrim News which was no more than a single page flyer. The publication noted that Shomrim had not been active for six weeks and that a special function was being held to farewell those members who had enlisted in the military. Despite the difficulties the movement was facing the newsletter noted the induction of nine new members as well as a further ten members who were awarded the Shomrim badge for their “loyalty to our Organisation by doing solid work on our behalf.”61 Nonetheless, World War II and the1942 restrictions “created a set of difficulties which could have crushed the organisation.”62

A dramatic change in the organisational model of Shomrim played an important role in ensuring the movement was able to continue to exist during the War. In the middle of 1941 “...mainly as a result of a few new members and some of the old ones who wanted to intensify their work and educate themselves further, the then ‘revolutionary’ innovation was introduced to divide most of the members into Kevutzot.”63 The concept of working in small

59 JAL Shomrim Folder. ASIO File.

60 AJHS C50. Shomrim News, December. No. 6., 1941, 24.

61 AJHS C50. Shomrim News: “Special Edition On the Occasion of a Farewell Meeting,” held on, March 14th, 1942. The three Members who were awarded Shomrim Badges and were not on the membership list in November 1941 are Norman Bersten, Eric Samuel and Magda Gergert. The ASIO Folder on the Shomrim has her name listed as Magda Gerber.

62 Gordon, Guardians, 144.

63 JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,”13. 87 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs groups called Kvutzot was modelled on the organisational structure of the movements in Europe and England, which focused upon intense activities within smaller groups.

Each group appointed a democratically elected leader and would meet at the home of a group member. A lecture would be given followed by a group discussion. Topics were selected by the members of the group and included the history of the Zionist movement, examining the writings of the various Zionist ideologues and information about current political events in Palestine. Groups would endeavour to write up a report of their discussion and learning activities, which would then be printed in the Shomrim News.64 Despite the setbacks the organisation experienced, in 1942 Shomrim acquired its first Maon. The Maon is the ‘home’, or base of organisation for a Zionist youth movement, and the Shomrim recognized the need for a Maon based on the experience of older members who had been active in Europe and thus The Young Zionist proclaimed that:

Those who came from Europe realise the important place that a home holds in the life of a youth movement. All the work can be done there. Bonds of lasting friendship are formed. There you share your dreams and ideals. It becomes a real second home with incalculable benefit to the individual chaverim who make use of the home.65

The next major undertaking of Shomrim, at the end of 1942, was to organise its first camp. The concept of camping was one of the ideological cornerstones of Baden-Powell’s scouting movement. Camping was an essential part of the scouting movement’s education program because it enabled members the chance to experience a sustained time away from

64 By the July 1941 issue the Kvutzot had not been formed. When the groups were finally formed the names included Kevutza Arzah, (Land) Kevutza Awodat Zionism (Working for Zion), Kevutza Kadimah (Forward), Kevutza Brenner, Kevutza Al Sfat Hayam (Beside the Ocean), Kevutza Tikvah (Hope) and Kevutza Halapid (The Torch). Some of the Kvutzot were dedicated in setting out study aims and submitting their reports to the Shomrim News, whereas other groups did not publish any reports. Each Kvutzah also had a semel (symbol), for example, Tikvah had a symbol of the Star of David, while Halapid appropriately chose the image of a torch.

65 AJHS, C47. “Zionist Youth Activities Report, Shomrim, Sydney,” The Young Zionist: Herzl and Bialik Memorial Issue, July 1942, Sydney, Published by the Youth Section of the Zionist State Council, N.S.W, in conjunction with the Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation, 21. The first residence the Shomrim acquired was at 51 Roslyn Gardens, Elizabeth Bay. JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,”13. Within twelve months the Shomrim had been forced to move their base of activities to the Tarbuth rooms in the city. Tarbuth means culture in Hebrew and the Tarbuth organisation was formed in 1940 by “a number of Viennese Jews. Tarbuth was to play a central role in the cultural life of Sydney in the 1940s, especially through the Tarbuth rooms.” Rutland, Edge, 303-4. The room was given to Shomrim to organise their activities by the founders of the Tarbuth who were sympathetic to their Zionist aspirations. JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” 14.

88 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs home in order to learn scouting skills such as setting up tents, tying knots and so forth. The idea behind camping was that it took youth out of the urban environment and brought them into contact with nature, where they would undertake various physical activities which would strengthen both their body and their mind while teaching them to love nature and foster civic virtue.66 The Zionist youth movements, and in particular the Zionist-socialist movements, were all influenced by this scouting tradition. Camping and tzofiut (scouting) emerged as one of the cornerstones of the educational model of the Zionist youth movements. Camps were seen by the movements as essential in creating a sense of community within the movement, because they enabled members to bond through studying, living, and eating together without the distraction of city life. Shomrim, under the influence of Habonim in Melbourne, also sought to adopt the practice of having camps.

Shomrim’s camp was held at Chelsea Park in rural NSW. Attendees were put up dormitories which possessed basic facilities as opposed to having to set up tents, “nevertheless, it was the first time that chaverim were together for a longer period and at least the famous ‘camp spirit’ was there.”67 The Maon, Kvutzot, and annual camps were introduced to Shomrim by members who had been active in European Zionist youth movements. Even the idea of calling fellow members within the movement chaverim (friends) was based upon the European practice.

Young Jewish refugees in Australia attempted, through Shomrim, to create an organisation which would provide them with a sense of community and a strong Jewish identity which was modern, largely secular, nationalist and political as opposed to being rooted in Halachic observance. As they could not relate to the Anglo-Jewish identity and were attracted to Zionist ideas, they sought to recreate the organisational models that had existed in Europe. Study groups were dedicated to socialising and discussing Jewish nationalism, not to studying traditional Jewish texts. Shomrim was clearly a product of many of the same forces which had created the movements in Europe.

The Beginning of the End

Shomrim was in contact with David Tabor, a young man who had been a key figure in Habonim in England, and was helping Habonim in Melbourne. Tabor travelled to Sydney

66 David E. Shi, The Simple Life: Plain living and High Thinking in American Culture, (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985), 206-7.

67 JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” 14.

89 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs and encouraged members of the Shomrim to focus more attention on Habonim: “...our friends in Melbourne told us we were wasting our time, by doing what we were doing. We decided we had to start from the fundamentals, start with the youngsters to educate them, to bring them up with Zionism.”68 In early 1943 both Shomrim and Habonim sent representatives to attend the first interstate Asefa (meeting) of Zionist Youth in Australia. Representatives from both groups set out to discuss common problems: particular attention was placed on creating a stronger educational framework for the movements. The Asefa also led some Shomrim members to increase their involvement with Habonim in Sydney. Sydney Habonim was experiencing difficulties due to a lack of leaders and was being run by a single youth leader, Marcel Zigalla. Feher stepped in to assist Zigalla and “later took over from him... for all practical purposes, they formed the junior and senior section of one organisation called ‘Habonim-Shomrim.’”69 In the first months of 1943 all the members of both Shomrim and Habonim were “divided into three groups and within each group, smaller groups (Kevutzot), were formed.”70 Despite the energy and hard work of some core members, Shomrim during this time was struggling to maintain itself. In December 1942 Shomrim wrote the following about its activities,

Our activities have not been such as we would have liked. Many Chaverim are absent in the forces, many are having examinations. Others have to work long hours in their war jobs. And the few who are still available after all these difficulties are engaged in connection with the J.N.F Queen Competition and the preparation for the big Hanuccah celebration.71

The actual end of the organisation came from within when several core members decided to change the focus of the Shomrim and join with Melbourne in the establishment of an Australia- wide Zionist youth movement called Habonim. In May 1944 the second interstate Zionist Youth

68 Eliyahu Honig also makes the same point that it was David Tabor who played a crucial role in helping re- organise Habonim into a proper Zionist youth movement. Eliyahu had interviewed Tabor himself about his time in Australia and involvement with Habonim. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Prof. David Tabor, 21/4/1986, at Cambridge, by E. Honig.

69 JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” 14.

70 AJHS C46. Review of Zionist Youth Movements, Flyer, 1943.

71 AJHS C47. Zionist Youth Magazine, Issued by the Youth Department of the Zionist Federation of Australia in conjunction with the Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation, December 1942, Hanuccah Edition, 20.

90 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Asefa was held in Sydney. Four representatives from Melbourne Habonim met with Sydney representatives and a representative from Brisbane.72

During the second inter-state Asefa the first ‘Habonim Charter’ was written. The Charter contained the, “principles upon which an Australia-wide Zionist youth movement should be based.”73 The charter reveals that the movement was dedicated to the concept of Jewish national independence in Palestine/Eretz Israel, educating Jewish youth to become Zionistic and the centrality of the concept of chalutziut:

WE BELIEVE in the existence of one undivided Jewish nation which should have its rightful, normal place among the family of nations returning to and re- establishing itself on its ancient soil, Eretz Israel... Recognizing that HALUTZIUT is the spearhead of the upbuilding work in Palestine. Habonim sees in Halutziut the climax of its aims.74

At this meeting it was decided that the Sydney movement would drop the name ‘Shomrim’ and the entire movement would be called ‘Habonim’.75 At the end of 1944 the first interstate Habonim camp was held at Glenfield. Around eighty chaverim from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane attended the camp, “although not without some difficulty and internal revolutions.”76 The senior group, ‘Amal-Kadimah’ left Habonim and reformed Shomrim; this small group was still in operation when Feher wrote his history of Habonim but quickly ceased operating. As Yehuda Feher recalled:

72 AJHS C50. The Brisbane Zionist youth movement, the Young Zionist League was established some time in 1941. The secretary of the movement, P. Stedman submitted a report of its activities to Shomrim News, which was printed in the December 1941 issue. Stedman claimed a registered membership of fifty members, with thirty of those members being ‘active.’ The report contains information on their first activities and the struggle to establish a youth movement within the small Jewish community in Brisbane which numbered around eight hundred at this point in time.

73 JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” 15.

74 AJHS C47. “Habonim Charter”, Magazine for Zionist Youth: 40th Anniversary of Herzl’s Death, Published by Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation, July 1944, 4. Capitalisation in the original.

75 Rubenstein incorrectly states that Shomrim was a branch of Habonim between 1940 and 1943 and that in 1943 the movement in Sydney changed its name. As the narrative I have outlined illustrates the reality was that Shomrim was originally a distinct organisation from Habonim. Rubenstein, Jews in Australia, 272.

76 JAL Shomrim Folder. Feher “Looking Back on Sydney Habonim,” 15.

91 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

The Shomrim were eighteen, nineteen and twenty year olds, not many of them joined Habonim because they are not - some of them were not interested. Only a few, a few of us had some youth movement experience before they took on extra activity apart from the Shomrim meetings to get all the youngsters and start all the small kvutzot.77

Habonim catered for youngsters aged from eleven to seventeen, while Shomrim catered for young adults aged from seventeen to thirty-five. When the two groups amalgamated in the mid-1940s the more formal group activities of the Shomrim, which had included lecturers and guest speakers, were replaced by more interactive activities for the younger members of the movement.78 The educational and organisational model of the movement shifted to the education of young children and teenagers.

The split was neither ideological nor acrimonious. Older members like Beate and Henry Schlosser got married and drifted away from the movement due to their commitment to start up a family. Their story is emblematic of the experience of other members who drifted away at this point in time. Another development crucial to the lack of involvement of veteran Shomrim members with Habonim was the fact that the new structure of the Zionist youth movement required a certain type of person who wanted to be a madrich those who did not want to become a leader left the movement.79

In his study of the history of the Shomrim Gordon argues that the movement had a large number of members who saw Shomrim as primarily a Zionist movement, whereas other members saw the Shomrim as a “social organisation with a Zionist Philosophy.”80 It was these activist and more ideologically dedicated members who became involved in the attempt to create an Australia-wide Zionist youth movement. As Sol Encel pointed out the character and purpose of Habonim was very different to that of Shomrim:

77 Yehuda Feher. Interview Date: 26/07/2007.

78 AJHS, C50. “Review of Zionist Youth Activities in Australia,” Shomrim News, December, No. 6., 1941, 23. The report states that the movement had around fifty members that gathered once a week for meetings. Habonim was divided into three age groups and “The oldest age group accepts responsibility for running the other groups,” 23.

79 Beate Schlosser. Interview Date: 23/10/2007.

80 Gordon, Guardians, 187.

92 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

...In Melbourne there was no group like the Shomrim. Shomrim was based on Central European, Germans, Austrian, Hungarians, like Yehuda. It practically had no East European members, or connections. So culturally there was a sharp difference. Shomrim were a much more adult organisation, it wasn’t interested in youth activities, most of them were interested in integrating into Australia and Shomrim was a passageway for doing it. By the time they all established themselves with professions and so on, Shomrim broke up, thus its short history.81

While the Shomrim’s activities and organisational model were similar to those of Hashomer Hatzair and Betar, Shomrim did not survive because it was not a movement. What has enabled the other movements to flourish is not merely the hard work of its leaders, a coherent ideology, or affiliation with worldwide organisations. While these are very helpful the key to their success is that they are organic communities with a ‘lifecycle’. When leaders graduate they are replaced by a new set of leaders who bring in fresh ideas but remain dedicated to the movement. The lifecycle of the movements has been essential to their continued operation because it brings individuals into the movements’ fold and makes them part of a larger community. The creation of a sense of community means the younger members rise through the ranks of the organisation and become leaders themselves, as opposed to simply abandoning the movement when they get older. In order to understand the continuing operation of the movements in Australia it is essential to appreciate how the movements create this sense of community.

The Beginning of the Builders

Chaluztic Aliyah and the establishment of Habonim

Habonim, the oldest continuously operating Zionist youth movement in Australia, was established by seven young European refugees who had arrived in Australia in May 1939.82

81 Sol Encel, Interview Date: 27/08/2008.

82 Among the founding members of Habonim Were Shmuel and Pinchus Rosenkranz, Isaac Roseby, Gedaliah Perl, Michael Porter and Walter Duffield. JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder, Material Provided by Dov Golembowicz. “Our Halutzim: How It All Began,” Oleh, August 1971, 13. Rutland states that the ‘Twenty Boys’ who arrived in 1939 under the Welfare Guardian Scheme were from Poland, (Rutland, Edge, 320). Dr. Eric Stock claimed in his address to Betar at its 50th anniversary celebration that the youth who had arrived also came from East Poland and Germany. Dr Sam Chami, who was involved with the United Zionist Revisionist 93 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

They met in February 1940 and decided to form a Zionist Youth Group which would be modelled along “European lines."83 According to Shmuel Rosenkranz the original idea to try and establish a Zionist movement began when he, Isaac Roseby and Gedalia Perlstein met with some of the older Victorian Zionists at a Channukah picnic at the end of 1939.84 Many of the original founders came from a group of young Jewish refugees who became known as the ‘twenty boys’, many of these individuals had been active in Zionist youth movements in Poland and Germany.85 The movement held its first public meeting in Herzl Hall, Carlton, Melbourne in March 1940 and called their group Habonim, which means ‘the Builders’. Many of the ‘twenty boys’ were only fourteen of fifteen and it was Isaac Roseby, one of the

Organisation (URZO) also delivered an address at the 50th anniversary in memoriam to Isaac Schwarz. Schwarz had been involved in the establishment of Betar and was the first mefaked in Betar Australia. Dr Chami had worked with Mr. Schwarz for fourteen years in the UZRO and stated in his speech that Schwarz was born in 1925 in Berezno, a small shtetl in Eastern Poland, where he had become involved in Betar. Of the “Twenty Boys” who arrived in May 1939, Chami stated that “Half the boys came from my home town Brest- Litovsk (Brisk), and the neighbouring district of East Poland, which is now White Russia.” “In Memoriam: Isaac ‘Jack’ Schwarz” Betar Fiftieth Anniversary, Address by Dr Sam Chami 1991, in Betar Australia: Evolution of a Zionist Youth Movement, Betar papers collected by Harry M. Stuart and John Goldlust, 2001, 2002.

83 JAL Habonim Folder. “Important Dates in Habonim Sydney,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946. Dr Shlomo Lowy from the JNF (Jewish National Fund) approached Shmuel Rosenkranz about setting up a Jewish youth movement along the lines of Habonim. Isaac Roseby had been involved with Hashomer Hatzair in Warsaw and originally wanted to found a branch of Hashomer Hatzair but he finally relented to Lowy’s ideas and decided to form a movement called Habonim. However, Habonim did not initially get in contact with Habonim in England or South Africa and operated as an independent movement. In October of 1940 the movement consisted of 4 groups: 1) Kifrim (11-13yr olds), twenty members, 2) Cofim (13-16) thirty members, 3) Cofim-bogrim (16-19) forty members. 4) Bogrim – about fifteen members. The two junior groups primarily consisted of Australian born Jews of European backgrounds. The older two groups were made up totally of European born Jews. JAL Habonim Folder. Letter provided courtesy of Dov Golembowicz. Dr. S. Lowy, Zionist Federation, Sydney, Re: ‘Habonim’ Melbourne, 8/10/40, Hyams notes that Dr Lowy’s letter refers to an ‘Isaac Rosencrantz’ a clear amalgamation of Isaac Roseby and Shmuel Rosenkranz, Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 78. The same point was made to me by Eliyahu Honig who had interviewed some of the founding members and also collected papers on the establishment of Habonim. Eliyahu Honig. Interview Date: 28/11/09.

84 JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Shmuel and Betty Rosenkrantz, Isaac Roseby and Mrs Roseby, Melbourne, November 1987, by Eliyahu Honig. (Honig spells Shmuel and Betty’s surname: Rosenkrantz. I have spelt his name Rosenkranz following the spelling utilised by many of the primary documents from the 1940s. It is also the same spelling used by Bernard Hyams.) Rosenkranz had joined Maccabi Hatzair in Vienna in 1935/36. In Vienna the movement was dedicated to chalutziut. Rosenkranz left Vienna for Australia in February 1938.

85 Norman Schindler was one of the ‘twenty boys’ and Eliyahu Honig conducted an interview with him in which he provided a great amount of detail about how he came as a refugee in Australia in 1939. Schindler had come from a religious family and had originally been active in Mizrachi before leaving the religious-Zionist movement and becoming actively involved in Hashomer Hatzair. His parents were born in Poland but he had been born in Essen, Germany. His family had been forced to flee Germany when the Nazis kicked them out of Essen in 1938. The Polish government refused them entry into Poland and they found themselves as refugees in a town called Zbonczyn in the district of Poznan. Schindler also provided Honig with the names of seventeen of the ‘twenty boys’. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Norman Schindler. Melbourne 24/ii/1987. Interview with Eliyahu Honig. (The error with the roman numerals is in the original. It is unclear whether the date of the interview was in February or November).

94 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs older Polish refugees, who took charge of leading the small initial meetings.86 Shmuel Rosenkranz recalled on Habonim’s fifth anniversary how the small group gathered in 1940 on the Jewish festival of Lag Ba’Omer, to issue the “first call ‘to rally to the Flag of Zion and the proud Banner of our chalutzim in Eretz Israel’” in Australia.87 However, Habonim was not founded as a movement dedicated to chalutzic aliyah. During its first five years Habonim gradually developed an educational model focused on educating young members towards chalutzic aliyah. This was a major development in the history of Zionism in Australia and signified the creation of the first proper Zionist youth movement in Australia. While Shomrim was focused on activities for older members aged seventeen and above, Habonim was dedicated to an educational model which began at the age of ten or eleven. This educational model was a radical idea in Australia and Rosenkranz recalls it was a “hard battle” to spread the idea because the Australian Jewish community did not understand the idea: “The community was not prepared to see eye to eye with ‘these foreign ideas’. Jewish education directed to youth was something entirely new and revolutionary.”88 Habonim, like the Shomrim, struggled to establish itself in Australia because the concept of a Zionist youth movement and pioneering aliyah were ideas which were not just foreign but radically different to anything which had existed in the Anglo-Jewish community till then. Habonim’s longevity was a result of the fact that, unlike Shomrim, it focused on the education of Jewish youth who would, in turn, become the next generation of leaders within the movement. It was the creation of this ‘lifecycle’ which was the key to Habonim’s success.

The first successful Habonim group for children was established in October 1942, after an earlier attempt had failed in June 1941 “due to inexperience and general communal

86 The first few meetings were held with about ten or twelve people. These first meetings were also conducted in Yiddish. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Norman Schindler. Melbourne 24/ii/1987. Interview with Eliyahu Honig. Roseby had come to Australia in 1937 and had gone to a Hebrew school near Warsaw. The town he grew up in had around 15,000 Jews and each of the different ideological streams of Zionism had their own youth movement operating in the town. Hashomer Hatzair had between six-hundred and seven-hundred members. Roseby had been active in the local branch of Hashomer Hatzair and had been a member of its Hanhaga (Executive). JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Shmuel and Betty Rosenkrantz, Isaac Roseby and Mrs Roseby, Melbourne, November 1987, by Eliyahu Honig.

87 JAL Habonim Folder. Shmuel Rosenkranz, “Five Years After,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 16. The first event held by Habonim Sydney was a Purim play at the home of Mrs Rieke Cohen in Bondi. Mrs Cohen also used her house for functions organised by the Women’s International Zionist Organisation. Habonim struggled to get parents to allow their children to attend Habonim’s programs and the fact that Mrs Cohen was a respected member of the community and had opened her doors for Habonim to use her home enabled the movement to convince some parents to let their children attend Habonim’s initial activities. The first three active madrichim in Sydney were two recently arrived German Jews: Marcel Sigalla and Mr. Himmelweiss, and a younger Polish girl named Lisa Eisenstein. (Later Greenberg.) Toby Hammerman Papers. Brief History of Habonim, Habonim’s 50th Anniversary.

88 JAL Habonim Folder. Shmuel Rosenkranz, “Five Years After,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 16.

95 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs indifference.”89 Habonim was begun by European refugees, who initially attempted to create a movement which was a replica of the European movements. They utilised the same songs, dances and activities which had proved to be so attractive in Europe, even using Yiddish in some of their presentations. As Sol Encel told me:

...The other thing is that it had long connections with the Polish Yiddish background... Its writings were in Yiddish and it looked to a European context. A lot of the - when they put on actual items, a lot were in the Yiddish language - songs, allusions that you would have found in a youth movement in Poland... Talking about people who came from Palestine as shlichim (Emissaries), for example: some of the songs they sang were songs which had been brought to Poland by the shlichim, which the Habonim movement had brought with them. And they continued to sing and dance in the traditional fashion.90

The leaders quickly found that the organisational model which had been so successful in Europe was not suited to Australia. The failure of the junior groups was not just a result of communal indifference but also a product of their own inability to adapt to the social and cultural reality of life in Australia. Some sixty years prior to my interview with him, Sol Encel wrote in the anniversary publication Five Year Habonim that the movement struggled to take root for these exact reasons:

As an imported idea, Habonim had both advantages and disadvantages. It brought with it 3 decades of Zionist youth activity in Europe, but had to undergo a process of ‘Australianization.’ Even with an understanding of the problem confronting them, which came only with time, they still lacked the technique to make the necessary adjustments to Australian conditions.91

89 JAL Habonim Folder. “Highlights of 15 Years Habonim,” Fifteenth Anniversary Souvenir Publication, Habonim Australia, 16.

90 Sol Encel. Interview Date: 27/08/2007. Eliyahu Honig also points out that early meetings organised by the ‘Polish boys’ were run in Yiddish. It was only when Honig’s generation came through the movement in the early 1940s that the all the programs started to be run in English. Eliyahu Honig. Interview Date: 28/11/08.

91 JAL Habonim Folder. Sol Encel, “Chalutzim From ‘Down Under,’” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 22.

96 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

In order to be attractive to young Australian Jews, the movement had to use songs, and dances which were not attempting to slavishly re-create movement activities of Europe. While the vast majority of Habonim members were either born in Europe or had European parents, the movement would only succeed if it could offer a dynamic model which could connect with the reality of life in Australia.

Creation of the ‘Lifecycle’

The movement’s saving grace came through David Tabor, who drastically altered the movement’s leadership and educational program. Tabor had been active in Habonim in England under Wellesley Aron, one of the original founders of Habonim in England.92 Under Tabor’s direction Habonim began to place great emphasis on bringing in young members aged ten or eleven; these younger children were organised into groups of twenty to twenty- five, and their activities replicated English Habonim’s meetings.93 They partook in hikes, talks, dancing, picnics and “scoutcraft”, which was based on skills and values of the scouting movement, but included “Jewish themes”. These young children were not actually considered eligible for membership in Habonim until they had passed a number of tests. The focus of these tests was to ensure new members had a ‘minimum’ of scouting knowledge and a ‘minimum’ Jewish knowledge, including Jewish history, “Palestinography,” Hebrew songs, and Hebrew terminology. According to Tabor this programme was successful because it meant that Habonim members acquired a desire to learn voluntarily.94

Under Tabor’s guidance Habonim’s educational programs were very detailed about their educational aims and gearing them so they were appropriate for each age group. The

92 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder, Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. Greer Fay Cashman, “50 Years of Habonim Down Under,” Jerusalem Post, 5/10/1990, Ehud Lederberger had been actively involved in the activities in Maccabi Hatzair and brought the knowledge he gained in Germany and Austria to Australia. He also utilised skills and ideas he picked up from serving in the Haganah. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem.

93 JAL Habonim Folder. David Tabor, “Five Years of Education in Habonim,” Five Years Habonim: 1940- 1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 18.

94 Tabor, “Five Years of Education in Habonim,” 18. Habonim continued to award membership badges when members completed higher levels of education as late as the 1960s. For example, Habonim organised a chagiga (celebration) in which they awarded membership badges and entertained parents and friends with dance troupes, singing performances, plays as well as updates on Habonim’s achievements and activities. Toby Hammerman Papers. “Chagiga Invitation,” Ichud Habonim Zionist youth Movement of Australia. The chagiga was held at in the Great Synagogue Hall, Sydney on the 30th of June 1962.

97 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs programs had a clear ideological agenda and idealised life on kibbutz and the concept of the kvutzah.95 In the 1940s an individual was not considered a member (Boneh, “Builder”) until they had successfully completed an initiation test to ensure they had the appropriate level of knowledge. A new member was called a Tiron (Newcomer). The Hakdasha Test included knowledge of Hebrew, the Habonim anthem, the Hatikvah (Israeli national anthem), geography of Palestine/Eretz Israel as well as basic scouting knowledge such as tying knots and first-aid. Upon successfully completing the Hakdasha Test the Tiron was awarded a badge and made a Boneh of Habonim.96

While Habonim did not have coercive powers to make its young participants learn, it is clear that pressure to gain acceptance through acquiring the ‘correct’ type of knowledge helped create group solidarity. The knowledge Habonim valued (scouting, Hebrew terminology, Zionist history, etc.), were unique in the Jewish community: Australian Jews did not learn Hebrew songs and dances, or about Zionism, unless they went to Habonim. According to Tabor, the younger members were eager to be initiated into the movement and join older members of Habonim. What the songs, dances and Hebrew terms did was create a ‘secret world of knowledge’; an ‘oasis’ of Zionism. The tests worked to create a sense of belonging within the movement: those who knew the songs and Hebrew terms became part of the movement because they had the correct knowledge and knew the appropriate ways to behave.

The second most important change to take place under Tabor was training the leaders to become madrichim who understood the educational framework of a Zionist youth movement which was based on informal education and the idea that leaders led by example. As Tabor wrote about his aims in 1946: “The second fundamental educational influence in the development of the movement has been the effect of the responsibilities of leadership on the outlook of senior chaverim. This is completely divorced from all ideological questions; it is almost entirely a matter of simple psychology.”97

95AJHS-VIC (SLV). The Boneh’s Guide to Madregah Shlishit, Melbourne: Youth Depart., Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 1944. And: AJHS-VIC (SLV). The Solelim Shichva, Melbourne: Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation Australia. Solelim was the youngest group in Habonim in the 1940s and catered for members aged nine to eleven. The term was translated by Habonim to mean “The Foundation-layers”. The programs for Solelim were designed to explain the importance of the term solel, (“Foundation-layer”.)

96 AJHS-VIC (SLV). The Habonim Handbook, Melbourne: Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation Australia. Habonim continued to award members badges as members completed higher level of education as late as the 1960s.

97 Tabor, “Five Years of Education in Habonim,” 18.

98 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Habonim was an organisation with few financial resources and the youth leaders running its activities were volunteers with no formal teaching experience. Nonetheless, by 1955, the movement had developed a sophisticated educational model. Habonim believed that in order for a political youth movement to succeed it needed to begin educating its members at a young age in order to make being part of the movement a ‘natural’ part of their life. Members (Bonim/builders) were divided into four age groups (shichvot) in order to create age appropriate programs: “each group has its own sections and symbols and structure, adapted to the psychological needs and desires of the young person at his different levels of development.”98

Habonim’s educational programs were informal and were designed to be enjoyable and exciting. The youngest group was called Giborim (heroes) and was for Bonim (builders) aged ten to twelve. Habonim aimed to educate these young Jews within a Zionist atmosphere, and in doing so provide Giborim with a “feeling of Judaism, and towards sincerity, love and nature, love of fellow beings and co-operation.”99 Even though programs included games, stories and theatrical re-enactments, it was also clearly a political education, intended to make members dedicate themselves eventually to chalutzic aliyah. In order to explain to parents who sent their children to Habonim how informal education worked, the Fifteenth Anniversary Souvenir Publication (1955) described how members could learn about the geography of Israel by making a model or map of Israel. Focus for the Giborim was Jewish history, “covering the desert period” through to the destruction of the First Temple, games and other activities were intended to make young Giborim enjoy learning about Jewish history and Zionism. Giborim were also taught simple Hebrew reading and writing skills. The intention was to create a “springboard” for young members to begin to feel connected to the Jewish people and pioneering settlement in Palestine.100

The second age group was called the Tzofim (Scouts) and was for Bonim aged between thirteen and fifteen. Tzofim’s education focused on scouting and what the movement called “Jewish Character Development”. Educational programs were supposed to focus on outdoor activities and practical skill building. The focus on scouting was about fashioning the ideal candidate for chaluztic aliyah; scouting was “not only a matter of knots and construction and pioneering, but is rather the tool to becoming the Jew who is capable of adapting himself to and conquering his environment, and being able to care for himself

98 JAL Habonim Folder. “What We Are,” Fifteenth Anniversary Souvenir Publication, Habonim Australia, 4.

99 Ibid., 4.

100 Ibid., 7.

99 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs and his nation.”101 Camps were seen as an important way for members to have a practical experience of a “Jewish self-run community”. Camps aimed to make a practical connection between scouting, pioneering and the “settlement of Israel”.102 It is clear that these concepts were drawn directly from the Zionist-socialist synthesis established by Hashomer Hatzair in Europe.

The oldest age group educated by the madrichim were called the Shomrim (watchmen) and were fifteen to sixteen years old. The Anniversary Publication notes that the name for the group comes from the chalutzim who guarded Jewish settlements during the first years of pioneering settlement in Palestine. The name Shomrim was chosen to connect members to these acts of ‘bravery and valour’ and “emphasise that these chaverim are the guardians of the future Jewish people and Israel”. Education for the Shomrim was supposed to be far more rigorous and detailed. While the focus was on Zionism, Israel and learning Hebrew, Shomrim were also expected to embrace a wider education which included sociology, literature, science and art. Although Habonim wished Shomrim to identify primarily with the Jewish people, the universal humanism of the movement was maintained by asking Shomrim to be aware of the “common struggle of all peoples.”103

The oldest group in Habonim was called the Vatikim (seniors), and were generally aged seventeen and over. Vatikim were the leaders of the movement, who, nonetheless, were expected to continue their Zionist education and meet to discuss important topics, in particular, political developments in Israel and the Kibbutz movement. They were also supposed to continue to incorporate informal activities including songs, dances and theatre, all of which would create a strong social dynamic within the leadership. By the age of eighteen members were also expected to decide their “personal future and acquire a clear concept of our goal of Chalutziut”.104 Habonim regarded its leaders as the vanguard of the Jewish people, youth who were willing to “grapple with the problems with which we are faced, ready to point the way, to lead, direct and follow as part of the change that must take place to continue the Jewish people.”105 Habonim’s educational program was intended to lead members towards the conclusion that chalutzic aliyah should be the ultimate aim for all Bonim. The ideal type of chalutzic aliyah was undertaken by a group going to start life

101 Ibid., 7.

102 Ibid., 7.

103 Ibid. ,7.

104 Ibid., 7.

105 Ibid., 7.

100 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs together on a kibbutz: each group is called a garin (seed).106 Habonim’s leaders understood that it would survive through creating a strong social dynamic. The creation of a garin would be far more likely if members of the Vatikim saw their fellow members as part of their ‘Habonim family’.

Habonim succeed in creating a Zionist youth movement in Australia because it was able to adapt to the social and cultural realities of Australian Jewish life. It utilised an educational and leadership model which had been developed in England; cultural similarities between England and Australia meant that this model was the right one for Australia. Furthermore, unlike that of the Shomrim, the educational model of Habonim created a ‘lifecycle’ - members joined the movement at a young age and were able to develop close social bonds with their fellow group members. The movement also sought to inculcate loyalty to the movement, and while members may not have been willing to take the ultimate step of making aliyah, they were often willing to give back to the movement and become leaders themselves.

The language of the Anniversary Publication is impassioned, idealistic and political. Habonim in the 1940s and 1950s had embraced the idea that the movement needed to fashion a new type of Jew, the chalutz, who was dedicated to the continued building of a successful Jewish State. The language, ideas and aims articulated in the publication are an expression of the radical, revolutionary character of the movement. Habonim represents an important shift in the Australian Jewish community because it shows that the connection between Zionist youth in Australia and the worldwide Zionist youth movement was deepening and that Australian Jewish youth were eager to embrace the idea of chalutziut and the Zionist youth movement model. As we shall see, the fact that Habonim embraced chalutzic aliyah and a Zionist youth movement model was not a foregone conclusion. The fact that chalutziut proved so durable illustrates how the idea was able to resonate and connect with Jewish youth all over the world.

Habonim Embraces Chalutzic Aliyah

While it is clear that Habonim in Australia was established by European Jews who had been involved in Zionist-socialist movements, when Habonim was founded in Australia it did not explicitly dedicate the movement to chalutzic aliyah, as Rivka Berkon write in 1946:

106 For a discussion of the centrality of the concept of the kibbutz see Chapter Three and the purchase of a hachsharah farm by Zionist youth in Australia in order to prepare member for going to live on a kibbutz.

101 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

“There was no set aim such as we formulated later but the general aim was the Zionist education of Australian Jewish youth; to tell Jewish youth of the work done in Eretz by our chalutzim, to tell them of our proud heritage, to tell them of our people’s suffering through the ages and that only in Eretz we can find a free and happy life as a nation.”107 Even when Ehud Lederberger arrived in Australia as the first Youth Shaliach in Australia from Israel in 1947, he did not set out to make Habonim a proper chalutzic youth movement: “I had my limits and our limits. But what I thought was to be able to create the beginning of a Chalutz movement that later on would develop.”108 Just as it was not a foregone conclusion that Hashomer Hatzair would become a Zionist-Marxist movement, it was not inevitable that Habonim would become a movement dedicated to chalutziut.

In 1943 Habonim organised for leaders from Sydney and Melbourne to come together in Melbourne for the ‘First Australian Zionist Youth Conference’. The conference was held at Emerald Camp and the Habonim Charter was drawn up with the movement “recognizing that Chalutziut is the spearhead of the up-building work in Palestine. Habonim sees in Chalutziut the climax of its aims.”109 In the 1940s the distance between Sydney and Melbourne seemed vast and insurmountable. Zionist youth movement leaders had little contact with each other and the interstate conference was an attempt to create personal ties and help establish an Australia-wide Zionist youth movement with chalutziut as its ideological aim. The first interstate conference was a success but the ideological direction of the movement still needed further refining. During 1944 Habonim branches were also established in Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide. Leaders within the movement decided that the movement needed to meet again to further consolidate Habonim’s ideological purpose and ensure the new centres of Habonim activity were integrated into the movement. Another conference was organised at Camp Glenfield in NSW. A ‘Leadership Training Course’ was held to try and create a national curriculum and educational platform for all centres of Habonim to follow. A further interstate asefah was held in Melbourne in July 1945 in which the movement finally adopted a formal ideological platform. A Platform for Australian Habonim was written by Sol Encel and presented to the other leaders at the conference. The Platform declared that Habonim was dedicated to making its members proud of their Jewish heritage: “By Jewish education we understand the teaching of Judaism as a spiritual

107 JAL Habonim Folder. Rivka Berkon, “One Step Nearer,” Five Years of Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 24.

108 JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem.

109 JAL Habonim Folder. “Highlights of 15 Years Habonim,” Fifteenth Anniversary Souvenir Publication, Habonim Australia, 16. And: AAJUSYD. YF1 Folder 3.2nd Interstate Asefa Sydney on the 21st-24th May, Habonim: Magazine of Zionist Youth, July, 1944.

102 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs heritage of which every Jew should be proud, including a knowledge of Hebrew. We regard Zionism as the inevitable consequence of Jewish life in the Diaspora and as the only solution to its abnormality.”110

The semel chosen by Habonim captures the movement’s ideological dedication to chalutziut and the establishment of an independent Jewish state in Palestine. As depicted in Figure 4, the Semel was built around the Hebrew letter Bet. Bet is the first letter in the word Bonim, which means builders. Part of the letter Bet was coloured to show that it was constructed of bricks in order to illustrate the idea that the movement was dedicated to physically building a Jewish State in Eretz Israel. A Star of David sits prominently at the centre of emblem and to the left of the Star are a map of Israel and a drawing of a date- palm. The Judean date-palm was also a staple in the diet of the populations which lived in the Judean desert and eventually came to have rich symbolic meanings in Jewish liturgy.111

Figure 4: Habonim Semel July 1944. AJHS C47.

110 AAJUSYD YF1 Folder 3. “A Platform for Australian Habonim,” Written by Sol Encel with a foreword by Yehuda Feher, December 1944. Proposed as the Interstate Asefah in Melbourne July 1945.

111 For a discussion on the intricate symbolism of the date-palm see: Ariel A. Bloch. “The Cedar and the Palm- Tree: A Paired Male/Female Symbol in Hebrew and Aramaic,” in Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff, eds., Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semetic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 13-19.

103 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

According to Sol Encel, the reason he wrote Platform was in order to spell out the movement’s ideological aims and its links to socialism. For the movement to survive it needed to have a coherent ideological platform which was accepted by the leadership body as the official ideological charter. He recalled:

It wasn’t the nationalist part, it was the socialist part, the whole point of this – before that there was a tiptoeing around the issue, is this a socialist movement as well? - And one of the reasons I wrote the thing (the Charter), is that if you are going to accept the ideal of the Kibbutz, as a sort of ideal way of life, you are talking about a socialist ideal.112

Habonim’s platform embraced a Zionist-socialist analysis of history: life in the Diaspora was abnormal and Zionism provided the solution because it sought to establish a Jewish homeland. The concept of the chalutz was seen as the means by which to establish a Jewish state. The logic, as spelled out by the leading members of the movement, was that chalutziut embodied the aims of Zionism because it did not just aim to create a state but a Jewish state that was a ‘light unto the nations’.

Thus it is the task of a halutz movement to convince it members that the logical end of Zionism for a young Jew is halutzuit. The argument may be summarized as follows:

1. Zionism means the rebuilding of a Jewish homeland in Eretz Israel.

2. The State we build must justify its existence by being not merely another state but a better state.

3. Zionism therefore embodies our ideals of a better world.113

112 Sol Encel. Interview Date: 27/08/2007.

113 JAL Habonim Folder. Sol Encel, “Chalutzim From ‘Down Under,’” Five Years Habonim 1940-45 Melbourne, July 1945, Habonim Itonim, 1, 1A., 23.

104 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

The idea of the chalutzic aliyah was a product of the European political and social context but it is clear that the idea resonated with the leading members of Habonim. Why was the idea of chalutzic aliyah able to resonate with Jews in Australia? And what does the fact that chalutztiut resonated with Jews in Australia tell us about Jewish identity in the twentieth century?

The ideology of chalutziut succeeded due to practical reasons. Chalutziut was brought to Australia by the European founders of Habonim and the shlichim and was eventually strengthened through the connection with Habonim in England and the international network of Habonim. According to Sol Encel Habonim Australia was aware that it was part of a worldwide movement and that the links between the different sniffim (centres) were strong:

But the links were there with other Zionist youth movements. In the other English speaking countries, so, for example, this was the prevailing ideology of Habonim in England, which adopted the idea of chalutziut very early on and that was just transmitted directly. Also the United States Habonim was there too and it also sent members on aliyah, it established groups in various Kibbutzim, so that was an international thing… It (Habonim Australia) was certainly very strongly linked with the other Habonim groups in other English speaking countries.114

Another important factor was the hard work of a dedicated group of dynamic leaders. Youth leaders played a crucial role in inspiring the younger members with the idea of chalutziut. These younger members became the next generation of dynamic Habonim leaders who in turn inspired their chanichim with the idea of the chalutz and Zionism.

Just as important as these practical developments was the fact that the idea of the chalutz struck a chord because of the way it tapped into the zeitgeist that existed amongst Jewish youth after World War II. Chalutziut fitted perfectly with the desire to create a better world for Jews and for all humanity, thus Sol Encel proclaimed in a Habonim paper in 1945 that “Zionism therefore embodies our ideals of a better world.”115 When Zionism spoke about youth playing a vital role in creating a society free of social and economic oppression,

114 Sol Encel. Interview Date: 17/08/07.

115 Sol Encel, “Chalutzim From ‘Down Under,’” 23.

105 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs it connected with a generation which had just endured the horrors of a World War and which was becoming aware of the destruction of European Jewry. The utopian ideas which animated the Zionist movement in Europe were also a driving force behind the establishment of the Zionist youth movements in Australia. Just as Zionism connected with Jews in Europe because it offered a reconfigured messianism, Zionism connected with Jews in Australia for very similar reasons.

The extent of the destruction of European Jewry at the hands of the Nazis and their collaborators was not yet fully known, Israel had not yet come into existence and Yom Ha- Shoah, (Holocaust Memorial Day) was not as yet being taught in Jewish day schools nor commemorated; yet, in 1945, when Habonim celebrated its fifth anniversary, the growing knowledge of what had befallen European Jewry was a powerful galvanising force. Shmuel Rosenkranz wrote in 1945 about the extermination of European Jewry and noted the existence of “execution squads” and “gas chambers” (which he incorrectly thought operated in France):

Just before the outbreak of the present war when we had not heard of execution squads in Poland, of gas chambers in France, of underground movements in Europe, a handful of young people, brought up in the hearth of Youth movements in Poland and Germany, found themselves in Australia. This land of plenty and ease, untouched as yet by the difficulties that Youth experienced on the Continent, this Australia with its small community, became after the 3rd of September, 1939, one of the few Jewish communities left to carry on the struggle for Israel’s right and Zion’s struggle.116

The impact of the destruction of European Jewry, according to Rosenkranz, is that Australian Jewry, despite being small in number, now had to play a larger and more proactive role in ensuring the establishment of a Jewish State. In the wake of the Holocaust, Eretz Israel was seen by Habonim leaders as the only place to settle the masses of European Jews who had survived. The founders of Habonim argued that the mass slaughter of European Jewry made the establishment of a Jewish State both a moral and practical necessity. Alec Masel thus wrote in 1945:

116 JAL Habonim Folder. Shmuel Rosenkranz, “Five Years After,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1945, 16.

106 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Habonim must carry on a vigorous educational campaign among those young Jews who still display a lamentable lack of knowledge and understanding of Zionism and its aims and aspirations. To-day, when our uprooted and homeless brethren in Europe call for help and salvation, a heavy responsibility rest on us who live in freedom and security.117

According to Habonim’s leaders, the destruction of European Jewry meant that Habonim needed to be at the forefront of educating Australian Jews about the importance of Zionism. Alec Masel, like Rosenkranz, argued that the impact of the destruction of European Jewry left Australian Jews with the ‘heavy responsibility’ of ensuring that European Jews find a safe haven in Palestine. Zionism, according to Habonim, also provided a practical solution for the masses of European Jews who now had no home. The negative message of Zionism - that the emancipation had failed and Europe would never accept Jews - became far more reasonable and understandable. Zionism shifted, for many Jews, from a radical and impractical idea to the only practical solution. The Holocaust resulted in a profound shift within Jewish communities around the world who began to see in Zionism the only movement with an ideological response which made sense of the catastrophe.118 The negative message of Zionism – that there was no place for Jews as a minority group in the Diaspora - also became far more powerful in the wake of the Holocaust. Habonim’s leaders believed that the destruction of European Jewry had forced Jews in Australia to start to think of themselves as part of the Jewish nation scattered throughout the world. In 1945 Isaac Roseby wrote on this exact theme:

Major changes were wrought by the war in the Australian Jewish community. The disaster which was brought upon our people in Europe has done much to sharpen our national consciousness in our youth, in this country. In fact, it will

117 JAL Habonim Folder. Alec Masel, “Youth and Community,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 8, continued on 21.

118 C. Friedman, ed., The Routledge History of the Holocaust, (New York: Routledge, 2011), 414. The impact of the Holocaust on the Zionist movement and world Jewry is a topic which continues to generate a great amount of debate and controversy. For a perspective on how the Holocaust has shaped Israel see Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, trans. Haim Watzman, (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993), in particular 514-15.

107 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

be no exaggeration to say, that for the first time our younger generation in Australia was forced to think in terms of national community with the rest of the nation, in the countries of the Gola (Diaspora), and in Eretz Israel.119

As the horrors of what had happened in Europe seeped into the consciousness of Jews living in Australia, it was clear that many Jewish youth were searching for an idea which would provide a vision for a brighter future. Chalutziut resonated with some Jewish youth because that was precisely what it offered. Chalutziut connected with Jewish youth because it offered them a prominent role. Instead of feeling helpless in the face of historic events like the Nazi genocide, Chalutziut argued that Jewish youth had a crucial role to play in the building the Jewish state and providing a safe haven for European and world Jewry. The positive message of chalutzic aliyah is crucial in explaining the success it had amongst European Jews in Australia.

Historians such as Gideoni, Mendelsohn and Laqueur have written brilliant, detailed and comprehensive histories examining reasons for the emergence of the Zionist youth movements in Europe. However, their story has focused on explaining Zionism in the European context. The establishment of a Zionist youth movement in Australia, too, dedicated to Chalutziut tells us a great deal about Jewish identity in the twentieth century. Jews in Australia were exposed to similar impulses that existed in Europe. While the negative impulses were crucial for Zionism in Europe, it is also important not to underestimate the positive attraction of the Zionist idea. The establishment of Habonim in one of the smallest Jewish communities in the New World shows how attractive and powerful the idea was to some Jews. Finally, while Habonim was shaped by its roots in Europe and the United Kingdom, it also adapted to the Australian cultural and social context. Australian Habonim, which was both a product of Zionist ideology and its Australian context, came to develop its own unique character and imparted a strong Jewish identity to many young Jews in this country; it is another example of the remarkable fluidity of Jewish identity in the twentieth century.

119 JAL Habonim Folder. Isaac Roseby, “Keeping the Flame,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946, 10.

108 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

The Creation of an Australian Betari

While Habonim’s success helped legitimise the concept of the youth movement in the Australian Jewish community, Betar still had to start from scratch. This was because Betar is not just a different political stream of Zionism, but it also represents a different approach to Jewish national identity. Betar, like Habonim, was foreign to Anglo-Jews, as well as many of the European immigrants, thus Betar had to explain the relevance of its ideology. The first issue of Betar Bulletin, written in June 1949 by Sam Gold, had the title: ‘Calling Jewish Youth’ and it set out to explain Betar’s aims and ideas.120 Betar was a largely unknown entity which had to prove that its ideology and approach to Jewish identity were relevant in 1940s Australia.

Ex-Betar members have gathered together the memories of the movement’s founders and these writings illuminate the almost insurmountable odds they faced in trying to establish a new movement in Australia.121 In detailing this struggle it becomes clear that Betar’s successful establishment has less to do with the Revisionist ideology and more to do with the dedication members felt towards Australian Betar and the opportunities, experiences, friendship and memories that the movement provided. Ideology is an important element in explaining the longevity of the Zionist youth movement phenomenon, but ultimately this is secondary to the sense of community and belonging which the movements create. Through exploring the struggle to set up Betar in Australia I want to illustrate that it was not inevitable that the movement would be successfully established, let alone that it would still be operating in the twenty-first century.

120 Sam Gold, “Calling Jewish Youth,” The Bulletin: Issued by the Brit. Trumpeldor in Australia, Volume 1, Number 1, Melbourne Australia, June 1949, http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201955/1948- 001%20Bulletin.JPG, (July 2007).

121 Shimshon Feder and Jack Mirjam, The History of Betar Australia: Betar Australia, Evolution of a Zionist Youth Movement: 1948-1953, 2001 (THOBA) Betar Australia, material collected by John Goldlust and Harry Stuart, Betar Australia, 2001. (Feder would become one of the key personalities involved in re-establishing Betar in Australia and his recollections form the core of the material gathered in THOBA.)

122 JAL Habonim Folder. “Important Dates in Habonim Sydney,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946. Bernard Hyams dates the first official meeting of Betar as May 1939, however, the ‘Twenty Boys’ who established Betar only arrived in May 1939. (Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 81). According to Eric Stock it was a few months after Habonim was established that some of the European founders split from Habonim to form Betar. The beginnings of all the movements are murky and the UZRO may have worked with some younger European Jews early in 1939, but the exact chronology of the events remains unclear. Shimshon Feder maintains that references to Betar were made in the Jewish press prior to the War. Shimshon Feder. Interview Date: 07/08/08. Erwin Lamm believes that Betar was still operating when he became involved with the adults Revisionist organisation in 1944. Interview Date: 06/11/08. According to Norman Schindler, Alec Katz, Joseph Scwartz and Alvin Spiegel were the three initial figures in 1940 who decided to leave Habonim in order to try and establish Betar in Australia. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Norman Schindler. Melbourne 24/ii/1987. Interview with Eliyahu Honig.

109 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Habonim was established in Melbourne in February 1940. Within a few short months this initial group split and a number of members left to found a branch of Betar. These individuals had been involved with Betar in Eastern Europe. In April 1942 Betar and Habonim attempted to reunite but by June the union dissolved.122 The exact details of how the union between Betar and Habonim was brokered and how it fell apart is unclear, but it appears that the Europeans who had been involved with Betar were unhappy about the idea of being involved with a movement that was drifting towards Zionist-socialism. The union was unworkable because the needs of Zionist youth in Melbourne could not be served by a single youth movement. European Jews did not just bring the idea of the Zionist youth movement to Australia, they also brought with them ideological debates and schisms. The failure of the union between Habonim and Betar is representative of the political diversity which was brought to Australia by the European Jews.

In 1940 Betar set up its headquarters in the premises used by the Revisionist Organisation in Faraday Street, Carlton, Melbourne which was renamed Jabotinsky Hall.123 Betar held meetings at Jabotinsky Hall and also orchestrated its first public function, which was a commemoration of Jabotinsky’s death on 4 August 1940. Eric Stock claims that Betar numbered around sixty.124 It’s impossible to verify the accuracy of the figures supplied by Stock, who was himself involved as a madrich, however, the fact remains that Betar was established in 1940 and appeared to be gathering a small but growing number of members. Betar’s initial activities also benefited from the ideological and organisational support provided by adults, European Jews who had arrived in Australia and wanted to establish a Revisionist presence in Australia.

Stock’s narrative emphasises the political nature of the activities undertaken by Betar. Stock maintains it was Betar which “organised the first march in Australia under the

122 JAL Habonim Folder. “Important Dates in Habonim Sydney,” Five Years Habonim: 1940-1945, Melbourne, July 1946. Bernard Hyams dates the first official meeting of Betar as May 1939, however, the ‘Twenty Boys’ who established Betar only arrived in May 1939. (Hyams, Australian Zionist movement, 81). According to Eric Stock it was a few months after Habonim was established that some of the European founders split from Habonim to form Betar. The beginnings of all the movements are murky and the UZRO may have worked with some younger European Jews early in 1939, but the exact chronology of the events remains unclear. Shimshon Feder maintains that references to Betar were made in the Jewish press prior to the War. Shimshon Feder. Interview Date: 07/08/08. Erwin Lamm believes that Betar was still operating when he became involved with the adults Revisionist organisation in 1944. Interview Date: 06/11/08. According to Norman Schindler, Alec Katz, Joseph Scwartz and Alvin Spiegel were the three initial figures in 1940 who decided to leave Habonim in order to try and establish Betar in Australia. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Norman Schindler. Melbourne 24/ii/1987. Interview with Eliyahu Honig.

123 Eric Stock, “The First Decade of Betar Melbourne,” (THOBA). Three of the key leading personalities during this time were Kalman Parasol, Isaac Schwarz and Menachem Shifman.

124 Ibid.

110 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs blue and white flag through the streets of Melbourne”. Betar was also involved in organising public demonstrations against the Nazi persecution in Europe, as well as the British Mandate’s policy which restricted the numbers of Jews allowed to immigrate into Palestine.125 The fact that Betar organised public protests during the war is crucial to understanding the character of the movement.

While the Zionist leadership argued it was their democratic right to publicly criticize the positions taken by the British government, they stressed the fact that any objections they had should not be misconstrued as being anti-British and affirmed their loyalty to King George VI. The position of the Revisionist movement was far less equivocal; they were scathing in their attack of British policy which had shut off Jewish immigration to Palestine. Betar’s position quickly attracted attention within the Jewish community. Samuel Wynne, the president of the Victorian Zionist Organisation - perhaps in an attempt to distance the mainstream Zionist movement from Betar’s rhetoric - denounced the movement in the Australian Jewish Herald in January 1941 as a semi-militaristic organisation, “which had made nuisances of themselves in other parts of the world.”126 Betar was denied use of Herzl Hall, which Habonim used as its centre of operations, and Wynne went as far as calling for Betar to be disbanded. The fact that Betar and the Revisionist Organisation organised public meetings protesting restrictions placed on Jewish immigration is illustrative not only of the very different political culture that existed between the established Anglo-Jewish community and the new immigrants but also of the distinct weltanschauung that existed within the Revisionist wing of the Zionist movement. The key question, however, was whether or not this political stance would attract supporters in Australia.

In Bernard Hyams’ work on the history of the Zionist movement in Australia he writes that “In the second half of 1942, the group, (Betar) which had at first been confined to the Carlton area, opened a St Kilda branch. It also ultimately spread to Sydney, but not until the second half of 1948.”127 What Hyams does not note is that Betar actually ceased to operate sometime around 1943.128 Betar’s existence is a fascinating story of false starts and near

125 Ibid.

126 Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 82.

126 Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 82.

127 Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 82. Australian Betar celebrates its anniversary year as 1941 while olim from Betar who live in Israel have chosen to recognise a later date for the establishment of Betar and on 29 June 1989, close to one-hundred ex-Betarim who had made aliyah gathered in Israel to “celebrate forty years of consecutive Betarian activity in that far off land, Australia.” (THOBA), 2.

128 Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 81-82.

111 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs collapses. The movement’s collapse was ultimately due to the fact that the idea of Betar failed to prove its relevance for Jewish youth in Australia. The attempt to re-establish Betar is just as telling: Habonim was not able to appeal to everyone and Betar’s concepts of Hadar, Monism and military discipline were attractive to some Jewish youth.

1948: The Reestablishment of Betar

In late 1948 several older Betar members gathered in order to try and re-establish the movement. One of the young Jewish youth who attended the meetings at Toorak Synagogue Melbourne in the lead up to the summer camp was Shimshon Feder. Feder describes the meetings as an attempt to “inject new blood into a withering movement”.129 The three individuals who took charge of organising the camp were Shimshon Kamil, Sam Gold and Yosef Steiner. All three had close links with Betar and the Revisionist movement. Kamil had been a Betari in Austria and had joined the Jewish Brigade in Palestine, then after demobilisation he came to Australia to live closer to his parents.130 Steiner had come to Australia only a short time before the camp began and had been the mefaked of Betar in Stuttgart. Sam Gold was born in Australia but had been involved during the first incarnation of Betar in the early 1940s. His father had also been a member of the Revisionist organisation in Melbourne.131 Steiner was a driving force behind organising the camp but his English was not good enough to communicate with the younger members of Betar so the Mefaked HaMachaneh (Camp Commander) was Shimshon Kamil. The camp held in Woori- Yallock over December-January 1948-49 ended up attracting one hundred and nine youth. The Melbourne campers were also joined by a small contingent from Sydney Betar. The Betarim from Sydney were led by Hans Dryer who had independently established a branch of Betar in Sydney in the latter half of 1948.132 While Feder describes the camp programs as lacking in depth, “for some reason the camp spirit was excellent.”133 Despite being organised in a short amount of time the camp appeared to herald a new, reinvigorated stage in Australian Betar’s existence. However, excitement and energy created by the Woori-

129 (THOBA), 8.

130 Feder, (THOBA), 8.

130 Feder, (THOBA), 8.

131 Yosef Steiner, Interview Date: 17/07/08. And Shimshon Feder Interview Date: 07/08/08.

132 Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 82

133 Feder, (THOBA), 8.

112 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Yallock camp did not lead to the establishment of regular meetings for the various age groups and Betar’s second attempt to establish itself almost ended before it began.134

Figure 5: Summer Camp Leaders: Sam Gold, Yosef Steiner, Shimshon Kamil dressed in the European military style Betar uniforms which were later made less militaristic. Woori Yallock, Victoria, 1948. (Photo Yosef Steiner. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201948.htm ) November 2011.

A number of important points are raised by Feder’s story. The first point of interest is that Hans Dryer had independently set up a branch of Betar in Sydney with the support of several European families in the Strathfield area.135 Zionist youth movements are fluid

134 After the camp a small group of European Betarim formed a group called “Otzaron Betar.” This group was made up of more senior members, “the last remnants of the European era of Betar.” However, by June 1949 this group had also ceased to function and the only leaders remaining active were Kamil, Gold and Steiner. In the coming months Kamil and Gold drifted away and it was basically Steiner running the movement alone. Feder, (THOBA), 8. While Sam Gold born in Australia the rest of the madrichim were born in Europe. Shimshon Kamil made aliyah to Mandate Palestine on a Youth Aliyah program from Austria. He had been involved with Betar in Austria, when World War II broke he was mobilised into the Jewish Brigade. His parents came to Australia and once he was demobilised he joined them in Australia. Kamil remained active in the Australian Zionist movement after he left Betar and later served as the President of the State Zionist Council of Victoria. Shimshon Feder. Interview Date: 07/08/08.

135 Ron Sekel. Interview Date: 14/07/08. Many of the families involved in setting Betar up in Sydney came from China. These Jewish youth had been involved with Betar in China, which had established itself in cities like Tientsin (Tianjin). The founders of Betar Sydney also found their attempts to establish the Revisionist movement were not only opposed by anti-Zionists in the Jewish community but also by Habonim and prominent figures in the adult Zionist movement. Larry Sitsky. Interview Date: 13/11/08.

113 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs organisations; the founders of the movements in Australia did not have to ask for permission to set up branches of the movement, nor were they organised by a central committee in Palestine or Europe. The fact that Betar was set up at the same time in Sydney and Melbourne by two unrelated groups of people is further evidence of the change taking place within Australian Jewry due to the influx of European immigrants. The establishment of Betar in both cities was an organic expression of the desire by some Jewish youth to establish an alternative to the Zionist-socialist movements which dominated the scene in the 1940s.136

Arguably the most important development at the camp was the demographic shift which meant that according to Feder “while the leadership was still predominantly European orientated, for the first time, the young participants were Australians”.137 The founding leaders had personal experience of the way Betar operated in Europe but did little to educate the emerging leadership on Betar’s organisational structure or even its ideology. In August 1949, only eight months after beginning their involvement in Betar, Steiner, Feder and his close friend Jack Mirjam were the only members remaining in Melbourne Betar. Feder and Mirjam were only teenagers but they were put in charge of establishing the first junior group (Chashmoniam) in Herzl Hall.138 Their attempts to run meetings failed to attract any participants and in the end they had to build up the Chashmoniam group by bringing in their own siblings. Today the movements have an organised structure which supports new madrichim but in the first years of Betar, Mirjam and Feder were all alone.139

Betar Australia succeeded in establishing itself in Australia because it was lucky enough to possess a small, but talented, group of leaders who were willing to dedicate themselves to establishing the movement in the face of both communal opposition and the indifference of the vast majority of the Jewish community in Australia to Revisionism. The madrichim also excelled at creating a sense of community within the movement. Anne

136 Unfortunately Feder and Mirjam’s account focuses on the story of how Betar came to be funded in Melbourne with scant detail on the ‘Sydney story’. The tensions between Sydney and Melbourne almost tore the movement apart at the 1952 summer camp which was held in Sydney. (THOBA), 21-36.

137 Feder, (THOBA), 8.

138 Steiner had attempted to train a new set of leaders after the summer camp of 48-49. Initially there were six individuals involved but within a few months only Feder and Mirjam remained and Betar was once again on the verge of collapse. The other four in the leadership course were David Barkman, Sally Burstin, Michael Oberman and Isi Plachinsky. Eric Stock also came and gave a single lecture on the subject of the ‘Psychology of leadership.” Feder writes that “This was his first and last appearance.” Feder, (THOBA), 12. Despite Wynne’s earlier opposition to the movement operating out of Herzl Hall, Betar was ultimately able to use Herzl Hall to run their activities.

139 Feder, (THOBA), 4.

114 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Goutman was a child Holocaust survivor who found that Melbourne Betar in the 1950s created an environment which accepted people and did not impose itself upon its members:

At that stage I was MacRob’s Girl’s School. I was fifteen, and I wanted to meet (Jews), and that seemed to be a good and safe choice and there I sort of, I found myself. Because there was no religious stress I didn’t have to do anything, I wasn’t out of anything. It was so totally accepting of everything that I was that I suppose I fell in love with it.140

Throughout Mirjam and Feder’s narrative they are surrounded by countless numbers of people who drifted in and out of the movement but never chose to dedicate themselves to Betar. In 1949, while they decided to stay involved after they completed the leadership seminar organised by Yosef Steiner, the other four participants chose to leave Betar. The decision to leave or stay was the result of a confluence of pressures that are very hard to pin down. From Feder and Mirjam’s writings it is clear that the social structure of the movements was something that appealed to their personalities and that the character of Betar, with its maximalist political ideology and paramilitary qualities, was a world they could ‘fit into.’ Betar was lucky that talented individuals like Feder and Mirjam connected with the nationalist definition of Jewish identity which the movement articulated.

Betar also succeeded as a movement because there were enough Jews in Australia who wanted to find an alternative to the Zionist-socialist movements. Clive Kessler was a member of Sydney Betar who had attended meetings of Habonim and B’nei Akiva but neither movement had grabbed him. For Kessler it was the ideological purity of Betar which attracted him:

When I think about the contingent things of why I didn’t like Habonim, I didn’t get into a Zionist youth movement to fulfil my socialist aspirations and I found all this socialist pretensions going on, people talking about Hegel’s dialectics of nature, I thought this was crap, what has this got to do with the idea of Jewish nationalism? I also came from a religiously knowledgeable family as well... Zionism wasn’t a religious movement and it wasn’t a socialist

140 Anne Goutman. Interview Date: 12/10/07.

115 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

movement whatever socialists and religious-Zionists may have thought. And therefore that part of the Zionist movement which recognised the Zionist movement as the national movement was where your natural home was and that was how I became a Betar person.141

Betar’s focus on discipline and the need for Jewish unity and strength was also an idea which connected with some of the Betar members whose families had been decimated in the Holocaust. Ron Sekel recalled the impact the Holocaust had on the politics of his mother who shifted from being a member of Hashomer Hatzair to supporting the establishment of Betar in Sydney:

My mother was involved in Hashomer Hatzair in Europe. She was quite radical and she had wanted to go to Spain with the war – she actually did law in Poland, which was very unusual for a woman and very unusual for a Jew as well. She went to university in Warsaw. She was, always, all her life, a very dynamic person. She lost most of her family in the Holocaust, as did my father... I think they agreed with the ideology and they couldn’t see any future in a non-militaristic protection of the residue of the Jewish people.142

Aaron Ninedek became involved with Betar in Melbourne in 1952 and also found that in the wake of the Holocaust and the1948 Israeli War of Independence Betar’s firm stance on the necessary use of force was a message which resonated with him:

If you don’t look after yourself - one of the ideologies propounded by Jabotinsky you know was criticising the Ghetto mentality of the European Jews and all that sort of stuff. Stand up for yourself, fight for your rights, fight for yourself, that sort of thing. From my point of view the only reason Israel exists is because people fought for it. And the reason they’ll keep it is

141 Clive Kessler. Interview Date: 04/09/07.

142 Ron Sekel. Interview Date: 14/07/08.

116 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

because they are going to fight for it. And if they sort of relax it they’ll lose it. I still feel that way.143

Betar and Revisionist Zionism were responses to specific political events within the Zionist movement after World War I. Jabotinsky’s integral nationalism and his elevation of militarism tapped into a growing vein of resentment within the Zionist movement at the failure of the Zionist Organisation to make any further gains in the wake of the Balfour Declaration. The longevity of his movement was only possible when he provided his movement with an ideological platform. In Chapter One I discussed how historians like Mendelsohn observed why Jabotinsky’s concepts of Monism and Hadar inspired and captured the imagination of Jewish youth in Europe. In Australia Jews were not confronted with the same virulent antisemitism, nor did they experience the same disenfranchisement from the wider society. Nonetheless, the history of Betar in Australia shows us is that even in Australia, a small but vocal group of Jewish youth were also drawn to his ideas and found in Revisionism an appropriate response to the calamity of the Holocaust. Even more important was the fact that Betar provided a safe but challenging environment for Jewish youth to gather together to engage with their Jewish identity. Betar never became a political and cultural force as it did in Eastern Europe and central Europe. Betar Australia was never able to attract large numbers of Jewish youth and it was always a smaller movement than Habonim or Bnei Akiva. As we shall see in Chapter Four, Betar was only able to succeed when it had adapted to the cultural and political realities of life in Australia.

The front cover of a Betar magazine printed in Australia demonstrates several of Betar’s core ideological beliefs. In Figure 6 the face of Jabotinsky looms over a collection people who are symbolic of the Jewish people arriving in the Land of Israel. In this image Jabotinsky is the father figure looking over his people and is almost God like in his omnipresence. The idea that Jabotinsky was a guiding figure of the Jewish people with almost prophetic abilities was something that the more ideologically dedicated members in the movement embraced, in the words of Yosef Steiner: “Anything he [Jabotinsky] said was practically holy to us. Jabotinsky’s way of thinking was the way we wanted to see it... 144 The quote below the image from Jabotinsky expresses the integral nationalism of Betar: “If you want to serve entire humanity – serve your Nation and build for it a laboratory of its own.” The image in the top left corner radiating out beams of light is a map of Israel which

143 Aaron Ninedek. Interview Date: 04/09/07.

144 Yosef Steiner. Interview Date: 17/07/08.

117 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs includes both sides of the Jordan and demonstrates the belief that the State of Israel should include both sides of the Jordan River (Shtei Gadot La’Yarden). The fact that official publications of the movement continued to reiterate so many of the movement’s core ideological belief is also telling.

Figure 6: Front Cover of Haderech a Betar Magazine printed in Melbourne, 1951. AJHS C49.

B’nei Akiva: Torah Ve’Avodah in Australia

At the end of 1999 Melbourne Bnei Akiva celebrated its fiftieth anniversary and proclaimed in its anniversary booklet that it was the “largest Jewish youth movement in Australia”.145 In the first decade of the twenty-first century Bnei Akiva centres in Melbourne, Perth and Sydney continue to flourish and the movement maintains it has the largest number of chanichim, the largest number of members taking place in year programs in Israel, and the highest number of ex-madrichim making aliyah. Nonetheless, Bnei Akiva, just like Habonim and Betar, struggled for the first few years of its existence, and its struggle mirrors

145 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. About Bnei Akiva, Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 11.

118 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs the experience of the other movements in several important ways. However, as a religious- Zionist youth movement it also faced additional challenges unique to itself.

It is no accident that Bnei Akiva was established in Australia in the wake of increasing levels of European post-war immigration. As we have seen in the case of the other Zionist youth movements, European Jews brought with them their political, cultural and social institutions to Australia. While many of these European Jews were not Orthodox, a large enough percentage of them were religiously observant and they played a crucial role in strengthening the local Orthodox community.146

An Orthodox Jewish lifestyle requires the community to be organized to help support Jewish religious practices. A couple of examples will help illustrate this point: The laws of the Sabbath prohibit Jews driving or catching public transport on Saturday. The influx of new European immigrants created a need for new centres of worship so Jews observant of the laws of Shabbat (shomer Shabbat) could walk to a synagogue on the Sabbath. A synagogue close to a place of residence is also important because it enables Jewish men to attend morning services in the presence of a minyan (A quorum of ten men necessary to conduct the complete service).

Another difficulty for observant Jews relates to the dietary laws. The growth of the Orthodox community drove the desire to ensure that there was appropriate supervision of kashrut and shechitah (the ritual slaughter of certain animals to ensure their suitability for kosher consumers).147 It also created the need for shops which provided kosher food. Without this complex religious and commercial infrastructure it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, for an Orthodox Jew to lead a religiously observant lifestyle.

Before the influx of Jewish refugees in the 1930s and 1940s, the Orthodox community in Australia was very small and the arrival of religiously observant Jews after the war enabled the community to create these new institutions to support a more observant lifestyle. Nonetheless, despite the growth of an Orthodox community in Australia, living a Halachic lifestyle was still very difficult and the Orthodox community was in its infancy when Bnei Akiva established itself in Melbourne and Sydney. It also remained very difficult for the Orthodox community to ensure religious Jewish youth were being brought up to be literate in Jewish texts and liturgy. A Jewish day school system was beginning to emerge, and a Sunday school system existed, but the level of Jewish literacy and learning was still quite low, even amongst the more Orthodox members of the Jewish community. This was

146 Rutland, Edge, 211-212.

147 Ibid., 341.

119 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs especially the case in Sydney. 148 The organisational infrastructure of yeshivot and schools of Jewish learning which had flourished in Europe had no counterpart in Australia.

Johnny Wise was a founding member of Bnei Akiva Sydney, and he recalls that in the 1940s in Sydney there was no real chance for a Jewish person to engage with their Yiddishkeyt. The community simply did not have the means to enable young Jews to learn and engage with Jewish learning in any meaningful manner. According to Johnny Wise when Bnei Akiva was established in 1953, many of the recent European Jews who were Orthodox joined the movement not only because it offered a place for them to gather together, but because it also provided some semblance of Jewish learning:

You’ve got to remember, after the War there was an influx of immigrants – when we came in 1939, to Sydney, there was no Yiddishkeyt at all. It just didn’t exist... And after the war all of a sudden you get a lot of refugees coming, and they brought their kids with them, the survivors and the children of survivors and it wasn’t hard to get these people to come in and join (Bnei Akiva).149

Lionel Link was involved with Bnei Akiva in Sydney as a young chanich when it was first established in Sydney and he acknowledges that the movement attracted people primarily because of social and religious reasons, rather than because it was a Zionist youth movement:

“...people would have gone to Bnei because it was a chance to mix with other religious kids, rather than the Israel element, because there was no alternatives, there was no Adass,150 there was no other religious group where

148 Johnny Wise. Interview Date: 30/06/08. Lionel Link. Interview Date: 11/10/2007.

149 Johnny Wise. Interview Date: 30/06/08.

150 Lionel Link is referring to Adass Yisroel (Congregation of Israel). The name was originally chosen by Orthodox German congregations to differentiate themselves from Reform dominated congregations. “The adoption of the Adass Yisroel became an expression of their concept of authentic [Torah True] Judaism.” The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion, Second Edition, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 18. s.v. "Adass Jeshurun." An Adass congregation was established in Melbourne in 1939-1940 with a prominent role played by Viennese and German Jews. (They called themselves Adass Israel) http://www.skhs.org.au/skhschurches/adass%20israel%20congregation.htm (Jan 2012). Johnny Wise is incorrect in stating there was no Adass Yisroel congregation in Sydney. A congregation calling itself Adass 120 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

young religious kids could mix in. So parents were happy to send their kids to a religious setting, those that wanted it. The religious aspect attracted kids more than the Israel element.151

Isi Leibler was a leading member of Bnei Akiva Melbourne in the early 1950s. When he was involved, Bnei Akiva was still a small breakaway movement struggling to establish itself, and it was not concerned about whether or not its members were religious and actually embraced the idea that the movement could make non-religious members more observant (chozrim betshuvah): “We were looking to anyone who would join. Anyone... When B’nei Akiva started it was a tiny, tiny breakaway... Our objective was to bring people with Kiruv - to bring people in from outside and many people became chozrim betshuvah because of B’nei Akiva.152

Bnei Akiva, like the other movements, believed that a positive role model was essential and that a madrich had to lead by example. Whereas the code of conduct for a Hashomer Hatzair madrich was set out in their Ten Dibrot, for a Bnei Akiva madrich, the code of conduct was set by living a religious lifestyle. The standard for Bnei Akiva at this time was for a madrich to observe the laws of kashrut and Shabbat. When Lionel Link was involved in Sydney Bnei Akiva during the 1950s the movement and its leadership were Orthodox, but it also attracted many Jewish youth who were not observant to its camps, however, the standard was that a madrich had to observe kashrut and Shabbat:

Formerly, we didn’t take people we did not take someone who was not dati, not shomer mitzvot, not shomer Shabbat. Now there might have been some minor exceptions, but they really would have been really minor exceptions that a madrich would be someone who didn’t keep Shabbat. That was the most important thing... It would have been rare certainly someone who was

Yisroel was established in 1943 under the leadership of a Sydney Business man Abraham Rabinovitch. However, it was small congregation which operated out of Rabinovitch’s house for many years.

151 Lionel Link. Interview Date: 11/10/2007.

152 Isi Leibler. Interview Date: 18/09/08.

121 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

clearly mechalel Shabbat (desecrating Shabbat by not observing the laws of Shabbat) wouldn’t have been taken as a madrich.153

While Bnei Akiva Melbourne celebrated its official establishment in 1949, the exact date of its inception remains unclear.154 The Mizrachi organisation began its activities in the early 1940s, and in 1943 acquired a small property in the suburb of Carlton in Melbourne where it tried to start Bnei Akiva.155 The group did not survive and was quickly replaced by a new group called Young Mizrachi. Young Mizrachi consisted of two distinct groups: an older group which catered for young adults aged between twenty and thirty, and a younger group for children aged between eleven and fifteen.156 Young Mizrachi was run with the assistance of Rabbi Silver (who had recently arrived from Lithuania) and some ex-detainees from the Tatura internment camp, who had been involved with setting up German Bnei Akiva.157 In 1946 Young Mizrachi’s activities primarily consisted of meeting in various private homes. All the movements submitted updates to Zionist youth magazines to inform the rest of the Zionist community of their activities. A report by Young Mizrachi to the Zionist Youth Bulletin in 1946 stated the movement’s activities consisted of the following: “We meet regularly every second Sunday night and have a membership of nearly 50, the ages ranging from about 18- 30. We usually have a small lecture by one of our own Haverim or by an outside speaker and this is followed by singing of Hebrew songs and Yiddish traditional songs and dancing the Hora.”158

153 Lionel Link. Interview Date: 11/10/2007. Even in the 1970s very few of the chanichim in Bnei Akiva Sydney observed the laws of the Sabbath. Garry Lavan. Interview date: 18/06/08.

154 Hyams dates the establishment of Bnei Akiva as 1943 but notes that the proper structure as a youth movement was only established by 1949, Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 120. Hyams does not note that the movement actually ceased operating in the mid 1940s. Rutland sets the date for the establishment of Bnei Akiva as 1949, Rutland, Edge, 321. This is the only reference to Bnei Akiva in Edge of the Diaspora. Rubenstein incorrectly states that Bnei Akiva was established in 1953. Rubenstein, Jews in Australia, 274.

155 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Reuben Wein, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 17.

156 Ibid., 17.

157 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Sam Meerkin, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 21. After Australia declared War on Germany and her allies Austria and Hungary Jewish refugees who had arrived just before World War II were interned as ‘enemy aliens’ because it was feared they would spy for the Nazis. One of the camps where Jews were interned was in Tatura, Victoria. For further details refer to Rutland, Edge, 193-4.

158 SUJA, YFI (1). Young Mizrachi Report, Zionist Youth Bulletin, No 6, Feb/March 46, 5. The description of Young Mizrachi’s activities mirrors the description given by Meerkin. JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Meerkin, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 21. Young Mizrachi’s activities in reports to the Zionist youth paper Banatif throughout 1948-49 show the movement’s activities continued to be very similar. 122 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Unlike the Zionist youth movements’ camps, those of Young Mizrachi were originally run by adults. One of the adults present at Summer Camp in December 1948 was a Dr Hans Ruskin. Ruskin had been involved with Bnei Akiva’s parent movement Bachad in London, and he suggested to Sam Meerkin and his close friend Bernie Pushett who were attending the camp as chanichim that they should re-establish Bnei Akiva.159 Meerkin and Pushett agreed, and proceeded to organise meetings at the Haskolah Talmud Torah on the Sabbath. Meerkin and Pushett himself had very little hadracha or much knowledge about Bnei Akiva.160 It was fortuitous that when they attempted to re-establish Bnei Akiva, two young sisters, Eva and Marta Weiss, arrived in Melbourne. The Weiss sisters had been involved with Bnei Akiva in Czechoslovakia as chanichot and they brought with them basic knowledge about Bnei Akiva, which Meerkin and Pushett did not possess, including Bnei Akiva’s anthem Yad Achim (A Brotherly Hand) and the song Anachnu Bnei Akiva (We Are Bnei Akiva).161

For the first few weeks, the four leaders of Bnei Akiva found that their meetings were attended by only two or three children, but they persevered and the group began to grow.162 A second major development that bolstered Bnei Akiva was the decision of a small group to break away from Young Mizrachi and establish a movement called Tora V’Avoda, which saw Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi as its inspiration. Sam Meerkin recalled for Bnei Akiva’s 50th Anniversary booklet the following:

See, for example, “Local News: Young Mizrachi Melbourne,” Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, Vol. 3, No. 6, December, 1949, 15. Some editions of the magazine spelt the name of the magazine as Banativ.

159 Louis Waller claims to have attended Bnei Akiva activities which also involved Young Mizrachi in 1947. How this incarnation of Bnei Akiva ceased to operate is not totally clear. JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Louis Waller, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 19. See also Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 120. Hyams only notes the role of Pushett and Meerkin in setting up the movement but they were quickly joined by several other young dedicated leaders who played just as important role in establishing the movement. Some of the people involved included the Weiss sisters, Arnold Bloch and Elaine Freedman. Bachad is the acronym for Brit Chalutzim Datiyim (Union of Religious Pioneers) which was affiliated with the Mizrachi religious-Zionist organisation and was active in parts of Europe including Belgium and Holland, Rivka Knoller, The Activities of Religious Zionist Youth Groups in Europe during the Holocaust, 1939-1945: A Summarized Review of Limited Archive Sources, (Israel: Bar-Ilan University, Arnold and Leona Finkler Institute of Holocaust Research, Faculty of Jewish Studies, 1993).

160 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Meerkin, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 21.

161 Ibid., 22.

162 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Meerkin, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 22. Bnei Akiva’s report to the Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha states that they had restarted in Feb 1949. The report notes that the movement was re-establishing itself after years of inactivity. It notes that the movement had grown from fifteen members to sixty. SUJA, YFI (1). The Third Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha Jan 1950, 11.

123 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Our movement began in August 1950 when the more youthful section of Young Mizrahi considered that more intensive work in the sphere of chalutziut and study should be done. To obtain this objective we formed a Movement which has very close ties with Bnei Akiva (its de facto younger group) and we adopted completely the idea of Hapoel Hamizrachi.163

Reuben Wein was one of the twenty or so members who left Young Mizrachi to found Torah V’Avodah, and he recalls that the decision was made because “we were disenchanted with Y.M. [Young Mizrachi] as we had little in common with the other section. They had no chalutzic aspirations, nor intention. Hence we formed our own new group called TORAH V’Avodah, which had approx 20 members.”164 The decision to break away from Young Mizrachi was motivated by the desire to be involved in a movement which embraced the idea of chalutziut. Torah V’Avodah members were slightly older than the leaders of Bnei Akiva and after a debate within the organisation they decided to approach Bnei Akiva about running a joint summer camp in December 1950. At the beginning of 1951 they held an Asefah Klalit at the newly acquired Bet Mizrachi in Carlton, which resulted in the merger of the two groups under the banner of Bnei Akiva. For the first time the movement elected its leadership democratically. It also ratified a formal constitution which Arnold Bloch had written and he was elected as the first Merakez.165

Bnei Akiva’s struggle to establish itself resembles the struggle the other movements faced, in several remarkable ways. Bnei Akiva, like Betar before it, was initially established with support from older European Jews - but it collapsed, only to be re-established by a small group of motivated Australian-born Jews. Both B’nei Akiva and Betar were initially established by a young leadership with little or no knowledge of their movement’s ideology or history. The young leaders also had little experience with leading a movement, and had to learn how to run programs as they went along. Bnei Akiva’s continued existence, like that of

163 Torah V’Avodah also noted that they ran a camp combined with Bnei Akiva and that the movement had run education programs on feudalism, capitalism as well as the impact of socialism and communism on Judaism. In 1950 Bnei Akiva claimed to have seventy members in Carlton, and a further twenty in St Kilda, Melbourne. In December 1950 they also acquired the Bnei Akiva uniform. In the same year they also established a Bnei Akiva Library and small newspaper (iton). SUJA, YFI (1). The Fourth Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha 1951, 31-32.

164 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Reuben Wein, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 17. Capitalisation in original. Wein spells the organisations name TORAH V’Avodah, I have chosen to go by the spelling the movement used when submitting reports in 1951 to the Pegisha. The reports in Banatif make it appear that Bnei Akiva was originally just a junior section of Young Mizrachi. AJHS C37. “Local News, Young Mizrachi and Bnei Akiva,” Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, July 1947, 30.

165 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Reuben Wein, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 17.

124 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs the other movements, was largely the result of the hard work of its small, but committed leadership.

The split with Young Mizrachi has some interesting parallels with the Shomrim and Habonim scenario in Sydney. Just as Shomrim was more of a Jewish social club with a Zionist philosophy, so, too, Young Mizrachi was primarily a social group.166 Those members who left Young Mizrachi to join Bnei Akiva did so because they wanted to create a youth movement which espoused a stronger educational framework, engaged in hadracha and would be focused on the concept of chalutziut. The chalutzic ideal became the vehicle by which they could provide an ideological focus and transform the group from being a social club into a movement; it transformed Zionist ideology from a theoretical idea into a concrete political aim. Bnei Akiva sought to create an edah (community) through the functions and activities it organised. This differed greatly from the activities Young Mizrachi organised.167 Young Mizrachi, like Shomrim, had no ‘lifecycle’ and was not organised around the education of young children, with teenage madrichim leading the younger chanichim, and its camps were primarily organised by adults. Just as Shomrim ceased to operate once its social purpose had been fulfilled, so too did Young Mizrachi quietly fade from the scene.168

While it was easy for Bnei Akiva to declare it wanted to embody the ideals of a Zionist youth movement, the question the leaders faced was how to create a ‘proper’ youth movement. Bnei Akiva’s leaders were aware of the challenge they faced and actually described their organisation as a branch of Bnei Akiva only in name: “For a number of years

166 Bnei Akiva had little contact with Young Mizrachi after the split and also saw it as a club. “There is not a great deal of contact with Young Mizrachi for the simple reason that Young Mizrachi caters for older groups and consequently its work and its problems are entirely different. Young Mizrachi, moreover, is organised as a Club and not a Movement, which means that is does not have Hadracha or the same nature as our own.” JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. (Collected from the Bnei Akiva Maon in Melbourne). Authors unknown, Bnei Akiva Australia, 6. Bnei Akiva like the other movements, produced itonim, unfortunately none of these have been stored in the various archives or in the libraries of Melbourne and Sydney Bnei Akiva. However, Bnei Akiva madrichim in Melbourne composed a detailed report of the movement’s struggle to establish itself in Melbourne. The pamphlet appears to date from early 1951 and refers to details which are supported by the Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary while providing greater detail on the struggle the madrichim faced in establishing the movement. The pamphlet was written to show other movements in Australia as well as Bnei Akiva centres overseas the “great amount of effort which has been put into the building up of the Movement even to its present moderate proportions.” 8.

167 Melbourne Young Mizrachi appear to have operated on and off for several years. A Zionist youth paper describes the organisation being “revived” in 1951. SUJA, YFI (1). Zionist Youth Bulletin, No 6, Feb/March 46, 5. In 1951 the organisation claimed to have eighty to one hundred members. SUJA, YFI (1).Report to 4th Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha 1951.

168 According to the shaliach Gershon Epstein, in 1952 Young Mizrachi carried out a “few activities and last year ceased to function all together,” SUJA, YF 7 Folder 1. Gershon Epstein, “Report to Executive of the Zionist Federation – Youth Shaliach,” 1953, 2. Epstein arrived in Australia in December 1951. Originally his time as a shaliach was supposed to end in December 1953 however he extended his time in Australia until February 1954.

125 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs several Orthodox Jewish young men and women ran weekly meeting on Shabbat or Sunday afternoons, and called themselves ‘Bnei Akiva’. There were songs, games and handicrafts, but very little in the way of sichot and with no characteristics which could be pointed to as being those of a MOVEMENT...”169 Like Habonim and Betar, Bnei Akiva was self-critical, and was constantly assessing both its successes and failures. The leaders of the movement noted that the group had eventually managed to attract quite large numbers of youth but there “was no loyalty to the organisation.”170 The young leadership was unable to provide a strong educational framework and the result was the near collapse of the movement.171

In order to transform Bnei Akiva into a viable youth movement the leaders focused their efforts on activities which would help create the appropriate spirit of a Zionist youth movement. The founding leaders of the movement stated:

“Bnei Akiva began to develop ideologically, although it could still by no means be called a Zionist Youth movement. Meetings began to be held in a more organised fashion and the spirit became the spirit of a Youth Movement. The programme reflected this development-there was a greater emphasis upon the Sichah and much closer attention to Zionism, its history and ideals.”172

Bnei Akiva’s leaders realised that they needed to place much greater emphasis on the sichah. Sichah, which means discussion in Hebrew, is crucial to the movement’s activities in making the movement a place for ideas, discussion and debate. Because Melbourne did not have a strong religious-Zionist movement in 1940s and 1950s, Bnei Akiva struggled to gain recruits.173 While the leadership wanted the movement’s education to focus on chalutzic aliyah, most of their energy was expended on simply getting Jewish youth to attend their programs. Bnei Akiva was faced with similar problems that had beset Habonim and Betar in their struggle to gain members: the idea of religious-Zionism was foreign. Bnei Akiva’s concept of Torah ve’Avodah was introducing to Australia a new approach to Jewish identity and Zionism and had to build the movement from the ground up. While some Orthodox

169 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Authors unknown, Bnei Akiva Australia, 1. Capitalisation in original.

170 Ibid., 1.

171 Ibid., 1.

172 Ibid., 2.

173 Ibid., 2.

126 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs families were supportive of sending their children to mix with other Orthodox Jewish youth, they did not understand what Bnei Akiva stood for.174

In 1951 Habonim was a much bigger and better organised movement, and Bnei Akiva’s leadership was envious of the educational programs which Habonim organised and the depth of knowledge Habonim madrichim possessed.175 The Zionist Youth Council in Victoria actually facilitated for a Habonim madrich (Itamar Schneiweiss) to help Bnei Akiva run an educational course for new leaders at the movement’s second annual camp in 1950.176 In 1951 Habonim possessed all the qualities of a youth movement that Bnei Akiva desired: a strong hadracha program, multiple centres of activity that were growing, large numbers of madrichim going to Israel to attend the Institute for Youth Leaders from Abroad (Machon L'Madrichei Chutz La'Aretz) and increasing numbers of members making aliyah. They also had a shaliach from Israel who provided the movement with a strong guiding hand.177 While Bnei Akiva found its feet as a movement, they lost a lot of chanichim to Habonim. Nonetheless the founders had no intention of abandoning their project and joining Habonim. They were dedicated to the establishment of a flourishing religious-Zionist youth movement in Australia.

Why has Bnei Akiva survived and continued to flourish more than four decades later? The ability of Bnei Akiva to set down roots in Australia and establish itself in Melbourne, Sydney and later in Perth, was a result of the hard work of religious Jewish youth who wanted to be involved in a Zionist youth movement. These Jewish youth received vital support from individual adults and various adult organisations but this assistance was far less important than the resolve and tireless dedication of the individuals who first set up the branches of Bnei Akiva in Australia. The idea of religious-Zionism struck a chord with many Jewish youth who became involved with the movement. As Aviezer Ravitsky pointed out, Zionism confronted religious Jews with an historical situation which was unprecedented: Zionism had returned Jews to the Holy Land. However, it had not done so as part of a

174 The movement also attracted many non-religious chanichim. The leaders of the movement were concerned this could undermine the religious character of the movement. “In certain of the Gedudim there is almost a majority of non-religious chaverim. Admittedly Bnei Akivah at all times has tried to bring them back to Torah,” Authors unknown, Bnei Akiva Australia, 7. JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Isi Leibler also noted that during this period the movement was also keen to attract non-religious youth in the hope of making them more religiously observant. Isi Leibler. Interview Date: 18/09/08.

175 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Authors unknown, Bnei Akiva Australia, 6.

176 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Reuben Wein, 1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 18 and Authors unknown, Bnei Akiva Australia, 6.

177 While the shaliach was supposed to assist all the movements the reality was that the secular Zionist-socialist shaliach could offer the religious-Zionist Bnei Akiva very little practical support. Gershon Epstein, “Report to Executive of the Zionist Federation Youth Shaliach G. Epstein,” 1953, 4. AJHS YF 7.

127 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs messianic process enacted by God; instead the movement was being led by Jews who were, by and large, anti-religious and avowedly secular. The revolution which Zionism had engendered was not something Orthodox Jews could be neutral about. Ravitsky’s work canvasses a range of different responses, but it is clear that the majority of Orthodox Jews have come to strongly identify with the Zionist movement and the successful establishment of an independent Jewish State which has enabled Jewish life to flourish in the Holy Land.178 Evyatar Friesel has termed this process ‘Zionisation’, whereby large majorities of Jewish communities have adopted certain Zionist concepts. This process has differed and varied within different Jewish Diaspora communities.179 The message of Zionism clearly resonated with many religious Jewish youth for the same reasons that it captured the imagination of Habonim’s members. The Nazi genocide of European Jewry and the triumphant victory of the State of Israel in the 1948 War were both historical events which played a powerful role in causing Jewish youth to identify with the State of Israel and the idea of Jewish nationalism.180 Bnei Akiva’s existence in Australia was a not only a product of the migration of European Jews to Australia, it was also representative of a profound shift occurring within Jewish communities the world over and the growing identification of Orthodox Jews through a gradual process of ‘Zionisation’.

Ideology also provided an important role in enabling Bnei Akiva to succeed: it provided a framework around which the movement could organise its activities and also furnished the teenagers running the activities with a sense of purpose. They were not simply gathering together for social reasons, they were coming together to learn about Zionism, Israel, chalutziut and Judaism. Adopting the ideology of Bnei Akiva enabled the organisation to develop into a proper youth movement. Thus, just as Habonim slowly evolved into a proper youth movement which had a ‘life cycle’, so too did Bnei Akiva. Having madrichim guide younger members towards becoming madrichim themselves created an autonomous community which could replenish its leadership body itself. Concepts like madrichim and chanichim, camps and weekly meetings (tochniot) all helped create a sense of community around the idea of Bnei Akiva. Ideology was important, but far more decisive for Bnei

178 Ravitsky, Messianism, 207.

179 Evyatar Friesel, “The Meaning of Zionism and its Influence among the American Jewish Religious Movement,” in Zionism and Religion, Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira eds., (London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 183.

180 These two events were commented on not only by many of my interviewees who were active in the movements during the 1940s and 1950s but also by the shaliach Ehud Lederberger who noted that the1948 War caused many individuals in the community to become more positive in their attitude towards Zionism. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem.

128 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Akiva’s enduring success was the sense of community and belonging that the movement was able to create. In order to explain why Bnei Akiva has survived it is essential to understand that it has served a need within the Jewish community. Religious Jews wanted to mix with other religious Jews who shared similar beliefs and practices, like observing Shabbat and kashrut. Jews who either were observant or wanted to be more observant gravitated to Bnei Akiva because it offered that social opportunity. While the socialist-Zionist movements tended to be antagonistic towards religion and Betar was ambivalent, for Bnei Akiva it was unthinkable that Zionism should be divorced from Judaism and Halachah.181 It was impossible for them to join with either Habonim or Betar.

Hashomer Hatzair: The Chalutzic Idea

Hashomer Hatzair was established in 1953 in Melbourne by several leaders who split from Habonim. ‘The split’ is one of the most fascinating episodes in the history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia and while the exact causes of the split remain a source of contention they highlight the intersection of politics, ideology and personalities. Although Hashomer Hatzair continues to exist in Melbourne it has always remained one of the smallest movements and failed to establish any other enduring centres of activity in Australia. In this discussion of Hashomer Hatzair I want to focus on why the movement has only succeeded in Melbourne and link this discussion to the difference between the Sydney and Melbourne Jewish communities as well as the limited attraction of Hashomer Hatzair’s more strident leftwing politics. In discussing the establishment of Hashomer Hatzair I also want to explain the attraction of chalutziut in Australia in the 1940s and 1950s.

Why did the Habonim members split from Hashomer Hatzair? According to Zvi Solow a large garin aliyah had formed which included members from Sydney, Melbourne and Perth Habonim (and also possibly members from Adelaide). The garin would ideally make aliyah to the same kibbutz, however, a debate developed over which kibbutz the group should choose. The split in Habonim began when a small but influential part of the garin believed the group should make aliyah to a Kibbutz Artzi which was affiliated with Mapam.182 Solow

181 In Chapter Five I will discuss in greater detail how Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair related to the question of religious observance.

182 On the character of Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Artzi see Eliezer Ben Rafael, Crisis and Transformation: The Kibbutz at Century's End, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997), 130-131. While Hashomer Hatzair was initially a youth movement which was a product of Europe in Palestine it developed into a political settler movement and established its own kibbutz federation in 1927 (Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Artzi, Nationwide Kibbutz) Hashomer Hatzair originally attempted to avoid creating a political party but eventually relented to its necessity and in 1946 established Hashomer Hatzair Workers Party of Palestine. Mark A. Tessler, A History of the 129 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs explains that his reason for advocating for aliyah to a kibbutz Artzi was an ideological matter; he wished to join a movement with far stronger leftwing politics than those advocated by Mapai or its kibbutz movement:

It was purely ideological. At the time. Kibbutz Artzi was political. It was pure Mapam. It was very much for Arab Jewish co-operation and for coexistence. It practiced the ideology of Hashomer and we were sympathetic to its point of view. It was a lot more left and that spoke to me.183

In 1953 there were two shlichim in Australia working with the Zionist youth movements: Gershon Epstein and Moshe Deutsch. Both were affiliated with the pro-Mapai kibbutz federation and they strongly advocated the garin make aliyah to the pro-Mapai Ichud Ha- Kibbutzim (Union of Kibbutzim) which had been established in 1951.184 Mapai (an acronym for Mifleget Poalei Eretz Yisrael. Lit. Worker’s Party of the Land of Israel) was founded in 1930 and was the dominant left-wing party in the Yishuv and the State of Israel in the 1940s and 50s.185 In 1953 Mapai, under the leadership of the Prime Minster David Ben Gurion, had formed the Third Government of the State of Israel.

Solow argues that the desire of the shlichim to guide Habonim towards pro-Mapai kibbutzim must be understood against the ideological and political conflict in Israel between Mapai and Mapam as well as the various schisms within the kibbutz movement.186 Mapai and Mapam were rival political parties in Israel. In the first Knesset election Mapam had garnered nineteen seats which made it the second largest party in the Knesset after Mapai.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994), 200. In 1948 the Workers Party merged with Ahdut Ha-Avodah (Labour Unity) to form Mapam (The United Workers Party). Hashomer Hatzair, in the final analysis, gave priority to Zionism, but under the guidance of Meir Ya'ari (1897–1987) it was to the left of the social democratic Mapai and during the 1940s and 1950s it remained a “powerful advocate of Marxism” and was “unstinting” in its admiration of the Soviet Union. Joseph Heller, The Birth of Israel, 1945- 1949: Ben-Gurion and his Critics, (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), 197.

183 Zvi Solow. Interview Date: 23/07/08.

184 Eliezer Ben Rafael, Crisis and Transformation: The Kibbutz at Century's End, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1997), 36. Mapai, led by political figures like Ben-Gurion, clearly subordinated socialist ideas to nationalist aspirations. Shimoni, Zionist Idea, 201. Mapai (an acronym for Mifleget Poalei Eretz Yisrael) was founded in 1930 and was the dominant left-wing party in the Yishuv and the State of Israel until its merger with other social democratic parties in 1968 which became the Israeli Labour Party.

185 Mapai merged with other social democratic parties in 1968 and became the Israeli Labour Party in 1968.

186 Zvi Solow. Interview Date: 23/07/08.

130 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

However, Mapai refused to include Mapam in its governing coalition. Following the 1951 election Mapam was again not a part of the governing coalition. Solow believes the shlichim were concerned that the small group advocating aliyah to a Kibbutz Artzi would take control of the group and lead it towards supporting the pro-Mapam Kibbutz movement. Thus, as far as the shlichim were concerned, making aliyah to a Kibbutz Artzi would bolster the opposition and possibly develop into a situation whereby all future garin aliyah from Habonim Australia would go to Mapam kibbutzim.

The other important development taking place in Israel that affected Australian Habonim were the splits within the kibbutz movement which left World Habonim as the sole Zionist youth movement supporting the pro-Mapai kibbutz faction.187 The splits within the kibbutz movement created a situation whereby the different Zionist youth movements chose which kibbutz federation they wished their members to make aliyah to. Both Dror, (which was based in Europe), and Hechalutz Hatzair, (which was based in South America), chose to remain allied to Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad. The only worldwide Zionist-Socialist movement which allied themselves with the new pro-Mapai Kibbutz Federation was World Habonim. Ichud Ha-Kvutzot Ve-Ha-Kibbutzim was faced with a situation whereby no new olim would be coming from Latin America and Europe. World Habonim was formed in 1951 and the head offices stated that all English speaking Habonim centres should make aliyah to Ichud kibbutzim. In August 1951 the Federal Executive of Australian Habonim rejected the proposal and did not join the world movement. Australian Habonim wanted to remain outside of the political debates and did not advocate for its members to support any particular labour Zionist political faction. The Platform for Australian Habonim explicitly stated that its members were free to choose to make aliyah to either Mapai or Mapam kibbutzim: “At present it is best that we regard the Histadrut, and not any specific party, as our guiding line.”188 However, both Solow and Dov Golembowicz believe that the two shlichim (Gershon Epstein and Moshe Deutsch) were given strict instructions to force Habonim Australia to make sure its members would make aliyah to Ichud Ha-Kvutzot Ve-Ha- Kibbutzim. 189 According to Solow:

187 In 1951 Ichud Ha-Kibbutzim had split from Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad (The Unified Kibbutz) to join with Chever Ha-Kvutzot (The Kvutzah Association) in the establishment of a new pro-Mapai Kibbutz federation called Ichud Ha-Kvutzot Ve-Ha-Kibbutzim (Union of Small Kibbutzim and Kibbutzim). For a more detailed discussion on the splits within the kibbutz movement see Ben Rafael, Crisis and Transformation, 36. See also Christopher Warhurst, Between Market, State, and Kibbutz: The Management and Transformation of Socialist Industry, (London: Mansell Publishing, 1999), 69.

188 YF Folder 3 Box 1. Sol Encel, “A Platform for Australian Habonim,” Original Draft, Pamphlet 1944, December, Proposed at Interstate Asefah in Melbourne in July 1945, 3.

189 Zvi Solow, Interview Date: 23/07/08. And Dov Golembowicz. Interview Date: 25/06/08.

131 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

And they were simply fanatical about not losing them because otherwise they wouldn’t have any youth movements in the Golah and it would have been a very hard blow. So the shlichim who came to Habonim in Australia had strict instructions, ‘you are going to keep these people in Habonim, not Kibbutz Artzi, not kibbutz Ha-Meuchad but in Kibbutz Ichud.’190

The shlichim and their supporters argued that group advocating for aliyah to a Kibbutz Artzi were seeking to turn Habonim into Hashomer Hatzair. Golembowicz maintains that they never intended to turn Habonim into Hashomer Hatzair and were loyal to Habonim. Golembowicz was the editor of the Habonim paper Mishmar and he points out that he was open about his attraction to Hashomer Hatzair and whenever he included in Mishmar material from Hashomer Hatzair papers his name was always attached:

We were using material of Hashomer Hatzair in our educational programs. We identified. But then everybody could do what they wanted – everybody had their own opinions... Habonim wasn’t as organised as Hashomer Hatzair as an educational movement. They brought out tonnes of material, Hashomer Hatzair. You had programs and all kinds of material on all kinds of different subjects. Habonim as a movement, didn’t really have any sort of a centre.... Hashomer Hatzair was much more defined and clear, probably even more professional and appealed much more.191

In 1953 Habonim was the only large Zionist youth movement in Australia and thus it catered to a broad social, political and religious clientele. Amongst the more ideologically dedicated members there were different levels of identification with socialist or Marxist ideas. Golembowicz and Solow represented the leftwing of Habonim. However, according to the shlichim, Golembowicz’s use of Hashomer Hatzair’s educational material was further proof

190 Zvi Solow, Interview Date: 23/07/08.

191 Golembowicz, Interview Date: 25/06/08. Originally Mishmar was called Herut (Freedom). The name was derived from the name of Golembowicz’s Habonim group. A few editions later it was renamed Mishmar. JAL Hashomer Hatzair File, written note from Golembowicz. Between 1943 and 1995 Hashomer Hatzair and MAPAM published a paper in Israel called Al Hamishmar (Lit. On Guard.)

132 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs of his desire to make Habonim a branch of Hashomer Hatzair. The shlichim led the charge in convincing several leaders within the movement to pass a resolution which would not allow people who were sympathetic to Hashomer Hatzair to be members of the movement. After the resolution was passed the madrichim who were supportive of making aliyah to a Kibbutz Artzi left the movement.192 In the end the situation spread to Sydney and a leading member of Sydney, Sophie Caplan, was eventually forced to leave Habonim. Several of her close friends chose to leave the movement in protest.

The split was acrimonious and led to the leadership body in both Melbourne and Sydney losing some of its most dedicated madrichim.193 From the interviews and the archival research I carried out it is clear that aspects of the narrative as well as the aims and motivations of the various participants remain disputed. Individuals within Melbourne and Sydney Habonim supported the decision to expel leaders who they felt were trying to turn Habonim into Hashomer Hatzair. Shlomo Etzioni, a leading member of Habonim at the time wrote in 2000 that he had been correct to support Epstein in 1953 and that Epstein engineered the split in order to “prevent Habonim being turned into Hashomer Hatzair”. Epstein disputed the assertion that Epstein and Deutsch had been sent on a ‘mission’ to purge Habonim of Hashomer Hatzair sympathisers.194

What is clear from the contesting narratives is that the shlichim played an important role in engineering the split. The truth of what motivated the shlichim to engineer the split will most likely never be absolutely clear, but the political situation in Israel, in my judgement, appears to have played a crucial role in causing the shlichim to engineer the split. The shlichim may not have believed that Caplan and Golembowicz were planning to set up Hashomer Hatzair but it seems very probable that they were concerned about the possibility of the movement drifting further left and future garinim making aliyah to Kibbutz Artzi. Israel in 1953 was a newly formed state and the political and ideological debates in the kibbutz movement were of crucial importance to dedicated ideologues like Deutsch and Epstein. The question over which kibbutz movement Australian Habonim should support was just as important. For the Ichud kibbutz movement in Israel it was ideologically and politically essential that it retain strong ties with a world Zionist youth movement and continue to be a part of the process of youth aliyah. While it is possible that Epstein and Deutsch were not

192 Zvi Solow, Interview Date: 23/07/08.

193 Mark Baker wrote an honours thesis which detailed the complicated narrative which led to the split Mark Baker, Children of Builders: Australian Zionist Youth in Habonim, 1940-1953, unpublished BA (Hons), Thesis, Melbourne University, 1982.

194 Shlomo (Sol Woodman), Eztioni, “Other Recollections of a Stormy Time,” AJHS Journal, Vol XV Part 2, June (2000), 270.

133 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs sent on a mission to ensure all future garin aliyah went to a Kibbutz Ichud, from material I have read as well as the interviews I conducted it appears that Solow and Golembowicz are correct in asserting that Australian Habonim became a pawn of the ideological debates taking place in Israel.

Birth Pangs: Establishing Hashomer Hatzair in Australia

Golembowicz and Solow have gathered a great detail of information detailing the struggle of Hashomer Hatzair to establish itself in Melbourne and the story of Hashomer Hatzair’s early years mirrors the story of the other movements. When Hashomer Hatzair opened for its first meeting on May 3rd in Herzl House it was attended by a single chavera, “The first meeting was at Herzl Hall, but was terribly disappointing. One chavera turned up – and she had been found before! It was not a very good beginning, and our determination was being put to the test.”195 By 14 June the record attendance for a Hashomer Meeting at Herzl House was five attendees.196 However, by 1963 Hashomer Hatzair would be running meetings for over two hundred members in five centres all over Melbourne. The movement had also just begun to try and establish a sniff in Sydney which had around forty members.197 The narrative of Hashomer Hatzair’s struggle to establish itself and the fact its first activities only attracted one or two members replicates the experience of the other movements. The movement was only able to grow because to the dedication and perseverance of its leadership. The dedication of the founding members to establishing the movement in Australia indicates that ideology played a very important role especially during the first few years.

The five leaders who established Hashomer Hatzair worked hard to try and advertise the activities of the movement and to organise functions which would attract Jewish youth. However, most of these early functions failed to attract any large numbers of Jewish youth. An important role was played by European Jews who had been active in Hashomer Hatzair in Europe. A large number of ex-members of Hashomer Hatzair came out in support of the movement by attending a neshef organised on 12 May in honour of the twelfth anniversary

195 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder, Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. Dov Golembowicz, July 1953, 1.

196 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder, Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. “Timeline,” Thirtieth Anniversary of Hashomer Hatzair, 1982.

197 YF Folder 1 Box 1, AJHS. “Hashomer Hatzair Report,” Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand: Plenary Session 1963, 1-2.

134 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs of the establishment of the Palmach.198 Out of this event came the decision to form a branch of Mapam in Australia. While a relatively short-lived phenomenon it gave the leadership of Hashomer Hatzair a sense they were not alone politically.199 Hashomer Hatzair grew because the madrichim went out and actively brought in new members, they also used their meagre financial resources to pay for small English, Hebrew and Yiddish advertisements in the Jewish press. These advertisements sought to attract Jewish youth by showing the dynamism and fun activities undertaken by the movement. In order to support these activities and pay for the advertisements the leaders who worked contributed a percentage of what they earned to the movement.200

The crucial question for the movement was how to differentiate itself from Habonim. In order for Hashomer Hatzair to exist in Australia it had to prove its relevance and show it offered something distinct from Habonim. While the activities organised by Hashomer Hatzair were very similar and consisted of tzofiut, dances, camps, weekly meetings etc, the content was infused with the radical and revolutionary outlook of Hashomer Hatzair and was more overtly influenced by Marxism and Borochov than Habonim. This radicalism fed into the maximalist aims of Hashomer Hatzair. According to Zvi Solow the difference between Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair was the following:

ZVI SOLOW: Firstly in terms of Zionism. We said Hashomer Hatzair is a Tnuar Maxima. (Movement maxima) We will go on aliyah. Aliyah and kibbutz. That is the aim of the movement... And we were more radically socialist. In fact we had relations with the Eureka Youth League and we had relations with the Trades Council – and we participated at least once, maybe twice in May Day marches in Melbourne.201

198 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder, Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. Dov Golembowicz, July 1953, 2.

199 The Mapam organisation eventually turned into a parents committee which played a crucial role in supporting the movement in later years.

200 YF1 (1) AJHS. “Hashomer Hatzair – 10 Years of Hashomer Hatzair in Australia,” published by Hashomer Hatzair Zionist Youth Movement, September 1963, vol 2. No 2, 9-10.

201 Zvi Solow, Interview Date: 23/07/08. Paul Pearl also recalled attending May Day parades while in Hashomer Hatzair. Interview Date: 24/06/08. Hashomer Hatzair’s involvement with May Day marches during this early period is an indication of the movements’ strong leftwing political position as well as the desire to remain involved with wider political concerns. Leaders like Dov Golembowicz were concerned that the movement could distract itself from its focus on aliyah and Israel if madrichim sought to become involved in every cause that leftwing political parties adopted. Golembowicz, Interview Date: 25/06/08. The fact that the movement did not maintain its involvement in the May Day marches is indicative of the movement’s focus on setting itself up in Australia as well as the fact that leftwing political organisations during the 1950s became 135 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

The small size of the movement and its radical reputation within the Jewish community as a Marxist or communist movement also shaped the character of Hashomer Hatzair. The founders also wanted the movement to be absolutely dedicated to aliyah and Zionist- socialism. This sort of ideological focus and radical socialism was attractive to a small number of Jewish youth in the 1950s and 1960s. Individuals I interviewed that had been involved with Hashomer Hatzair in 1950s commented on the fact that they were attracted to the movement precisely because it seemed far more ideologically serious that Habonim.202

Solow recalls that during his time as a chanich in Habonim it was almost assumed members would make aliyah, as he got older a shift occurred and Habonim began to drift away from its chalutzic principles and become much more of a social club.

Oh it was very Zionist at the time- I was talking to this with Dov (Golembowicz), just several days ago. At that time Habonim was much more militant aliyah orientated, than it is today. That is all movements. Including Hashomer. It was almost taken for granted that the bogrim would go on aliyah... So this was the atmosphere in Habonim then. It was almost taken for granted that everyone is going on aliyah in the senior shichva. The only argument was ‘should we go to a kibbutz? Or should we not go to kibbutz?’203

Golembowicz also remembers that during his time as a madrich in Habonim the groups could get quite large, but once the focus of group meetings became the question of aliyah large numbers of chanichim drifted away from the movement:

Look, I was part of a group of about twenty-five young people. I had a group- I took a group with another madricha, whom I still know and lives in Haifa, I think there were also about twenty-five kids there. I think Habonim was a increasingly antagonistic towards Zionism. For a further discussion of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s predicament in terms of becoming involved in wider events and issues see page 263, n. 48.

202 Fay (Rozenblum) Morris. Interview Date: 22/06/08 and David Rothfield, Interview Date: 18/02/08.

203 Zvi Solow. Interview Date: 23/07/08.

136 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

very big organisation. Look, kids, people came along for social reasons... when things got serious – serious in that you had decide what you were going to do. They were big groups, but they whittled when the issue became personal, in other words, ‘are you going to Palestine/Israel or not?’ And then of course they dropped out.204

Habonim’s original charter declared the movement was dedicated to chalutzic aliyah. Nonetheless, the organisation attracted many individuals who were not dedicated to Zionist- socialist ideas. At the 1951 Veida the more ideological members of the movement wanted to reinvigorate the ideological focus of Habonim and guide the movement back to the question of aliyah. These ideologues wanted to create a situation whereby a chaver had to declare they were going to make aliyah by the age of eighteen. If they did not want to make aliyah they would have to leave the movement. This resolution became a source of debate and was not finally adopted, however the more ideologically committed members of the movement “felt that our ideology had become too elastic, and wanted to return to an active Labour Zionism and to the old standards.”205 Golembowicz saw Hashomer Hatzair as the “real Habonim” because they were simply adhering to the principles of the movement.206 Nonetheless, the movement they were creating possessed a character which was very distinct from Habonim. One of the most important aspects was the idea that Hashomer Hatzair was a ‘Movement Maxima’ which did not waver from its dedication to kibbutz, aliyah and socialism.

Why was Hashomer Hatzair able to appeal to Jews in Melbourne in the 1950s? When Hashomer Hatzair was established there were still a number of Jewish families from Poland with strong leftwing sympathies. Some of these families had been involved with Jewish communist parties in Poland or with Hashomer Hatzair.207 Many of the children who joined Hashomer Hatzair came from families with these sorts of political views. Some of these families were very supportive of sending their children to an organisation like Hashomer Hatzair, others were indifferent but they were not disturbed by the idea. To be sure Hashomer Hatzair did lose some members because their families looked askance at the

204 Dov Golembowicz, Interview Date: 25/06/08.

205 YF Folder 1 Box 1, AJHS. “Report of Habonim” to the 5th Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha, Sydney, January 1952, AZYC.

206 Dov Golembowicz, Interview Date: 25/06/08.

207 Refer to Chapter One for a discussion on the attraction of left wing politics for Jews from Poland and Eastern Europe.

137 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs leftwing politics of the movement. 208 Just as Bnei Akiva relied on the existence of an Orthodox community in Melbourne, however, Hashomer Hatzair was able to gain members because a large enough contingent of Jews in Melbourne had leftwing political attitudes which made them supportive of Hashomer Hatzair.

Paul Pearl came from a family which had also been very active with the communist movement in Poland and his parents had originally sent him to the Mount Scopus Jewish day school in 1949. They quickly withdrew him when they found the school too religious. His parents were, however, supportive of him going to Hashomer Hatzair. Paul Pearl’s experience is similar to many of the other members of the movement in the 1950s. Hashomer Hatzair was the perfect organisation for these Polish Jews because it was tune with their communist sympathies as well as their secular conception of Jewish identity.209 The existence of these families in Melbourne was crucial to the ability of Hashomer Hatzair to attract Jewish youth.

It is also important to note that some of the families with communist sympathies were ideologically opposed to Hashomer Hatzair and the concept of Jewish nationalism. Fay Morris’ father was opposed to her attending Hashomer Hatzair on ideological grounds. Nonetheless, Fay was curious about the movement. Zionism was originally a foreign concept to her but after being introduced to the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair and the writings of Borochov she discovered in the movement a worldview she could connect to because it celebrated both Jewish identity and strong leftwing politics.210

I do not wish to overstate the political character of Hashomer Hatzair; many of its members were primarily attracted to the movement because it offered a social atmosphere which was supportive and nurturing. The ideology of the movement was present but it was also approached by many members in a relaxed and non-doctrinal manner. Paul Pearl recounted a story to me in order to illustrate what he believes defined the character of the movement during the time he was involved:

I can tell you a quick story when we were there. We were having the yearly Veida, it must have ‘57, ‘58, it must have been really early because we were

208 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder, Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. Uri Kresier, “Happy Days in Hashomer: 1955-1962,” Hashomer Hatzair Yearbook 1988.

209 Paul Pearl. Interview Date: 24/06/08.

210 Fay (Rozenblum maiden) Morris. Interview Date: 13/08/08.

138 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

very young at the time. And I remember, somebody got up, one of the leaders, it would have been someone like Dick Flantz, or somebody like that, said, ‘right, we should be singing The Internationale’ and it turned out nobody knew how to sing The Internationale. (Laughs) So that was sort of the spirit of the place. And it was very much directed at aliyah, we were very strongly encouraged, but that became much stronger as we got older... I remember, for example, we were supposed to know something about Borochov, but nobody knew anything about him. So it was sort of a standing joke.211

Paul Pearl’s story captures the flavour of the movement and while ideology was a core aspect of the movement most members did not attend Hashomer Hatzair for ideological reasons.

Melbourne Vs Sydney

Although the vast majority of members appear to have approached the ideology of the movement in a relaxed manner it is clear there was an ideological urgency and fervour behind the movement. When Caplan and her supporters left Habonim in Sydney they made a half-hearted attempted to establish a branch of Hapoel Hatzair, but after fifteen months the organisation disappeared. While many of the leaders in Sydney would later become dedicated members of the Jewish community, after the split they drifted away from the youth movement scene and focused on their work and educational commitments.212 The individuals who split from Habonim in Sydney did so in support of Caplan and had never been ardent admirers of Hashomer Hatzair. Whereas the Melbourne leaders wanted to create a movement sympathetic to Mapam and dedicated to chalutzic aliyah the Sydney group had no such ideological raison d’être. The initial meeting held at the Zionist Youth Office in Melbourne was attended by an individual from Sydney who was supportive of their aims, but the leadership in Melbourne lamented the fact that there was no real support for establishing a branch of Hashomer Hatzair in the group in Sydney:

211 Paul Pearl, Interview Date: 24/06/08.

212 Sophie (Kemp) Caplan. Interview Date: 17/10/07. And Josie Lacey. Interview Date: 29/11/07.

139 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

We found that the situation in Sydney was not so perfect, there were not enough chaverim who knew our ideas, nor had the courage to strike out alone, and we had to accept a mild Mapam Youth group, which contained rather diverse and questionable elements.213

A crucial difference between the two groups was their backgrounds. The founders of Hashomer Hatzair in Melbourne were either born in Poland or their parents were often Polish. On the other hand Jewish immigration to Sydney was predominately from Central Europe, including a large number of Hungarian Jews.214 It appears as if this background fed into the radical leftwing sympathies of the Melbourne group. The Zionist background of the Sydney leaders was far less radical, maximalist and leftwing.

In order to appreciate why Hashomer Hatzair was able to successfully establish itself in Melbourne but failed in Sydney it is crucial to appreciate the different history of the two communities. All the movements were originally established in Melbourne and the Sydney branches of Habonim, Betar and Bnei Akiva were all much smaller and took their lead from the Melbourne branch of the movement. The statistical data also makes it clear that the membership of all the movements has been much larger in Melbourne than in Sydney. Reports to the ZFA and SZCs also make clear that the vast majority of olim come from the Melbourne community. A large part of the cultural, religious and political difference between the two communitites must be traced back to the different demographic makeup of the two communities. Where as originally many Eastern European Jews immigrated to Sydney by the 1920s the vast majority of Eastern European Jews chose to settle in Melbourne instead of Sydney. Bteween 1920 and 1931 68 per cent of Polish Jews settled in Melbourne as opposed to nineteen per cent in Sydney.215 The Polish Jews who arrived in Sydney quickly set up cultural and religious institutions to support the continued use of Yiddish and Hebrew.216 While the numbers were still quite small the communal and cultural institutions

213 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Dov Golembowicz, July 1953, 1. Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. Author unknown.

214 Rutland, Edge, 265.

215 Ibid., 147.

216 This is represented in the establishment of Kadimah (Forward) in Melbourne in 1911 to “promote Yiddish culture through the organisation of cultural functions and the provision of a library.” (Rutland, Edge, 92.) Melbourne also witnessed the establishment of a Yiddish theatre and the Bund. These Yiddishist activities were not replicated in Sydney and are a further indication of the difference between the two communities.

140 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs they established served to create an infrastructure and community with stronger connections to cultural, political and religious expressions of Jewish identity.

A key difference between Sydney and Melbourne was also the greater influx of strictly Orthdox Jews to Melbourne. These Orthodox Jews set up religious learning centres which did not have a parallel in the Sydney Jewish community during the same time period. Johnny Wise recalled that when he was involved in Bnei Akiva in the 1950s, when the movement was first being established, there was a marked difference between Sydney and Melbourne and that the Melbourne members were far more learned and engaged in their Jewish practice than the Sydney members of Bnei Akiva.217 Later on, when Bnei Akiva became more strictly observant it was Melbourne Bnei Akiva that first began to become more strictly observant and Sydney largely followed its lead. Orthodox Jews and Polish Jews became aware that Melbourne provided more opportunitites for a sustainable Jewish life. Melbourne Jewry gained a reputation as a stronger Jewish community and this in turn served to encourage more Eastern European Jews to settle in Melbourne than in Sydney. Orthodox Jewry thus had a far greater impact in Melbourne than in Sydney where they were far smaller numerically and more dispersed geographically.218

During the 1940s and 1950s many of the movement leaders in Melbourne looked down upon the Sydney groups as less organised and ideologically dedicated. This rivalry was present in all the movements and almost tore Betar apart. While some of the leaders in Sydney were incensed by the attitude of the Melbourne leaders, which they saw as patronising, many of the leaders were envious of the size of the movements in Melbourne as well as their organisational capacities.219 Personalities played an important part in these tensions but the cultural difference between the communities also played an important role.

One of the most important shifts to take place in the Jewish community was in the attitude to Zionism. The influx of European Jews played a decisive role in this communal shift.220 As historians like Ezra Mendelsohn have pointed out, Zionism flourished in Eastern European countries because these countries provide a fertile political context in which Jewish nationalism could offer a solution to the predicament faced by Jews. Zionism was far less successful in Jewish communities that were cultuarlly, socially and politically integrated.

217 Johnny Wise, Interview Date: 30/06/08.

218 Rutland, Edge, 208.

219 Johnny Wise, Interview Date: 30/06/08.

220 For a comprehensive discussion of the changing communal attitudes and the ascendancy of Zionism within the Australian Jewish community see Rutland: “The Zionist Idea: Conflicting Interpretations in the 1940s and 1950,” 295-323.

141 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Thus the fact that more Eastern European Jews immigrated to Melbourne than to Sydney meant that the Zionist movement was far larger, stronger and better organised in Melbourne than in Sydney. This reality was replicated in the development of the youth movements. Bnei Akiva, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were all originally established in Melbourne and the fact that they were much larger in Melbourne than in Sydney meant that the Melbourne branch of the movement was frequently much more dominant. While some leaders from Sydney comment that during their time the leadership in Sydney was much more dedicated ideologiocally the general impression from the interviews I carried out was that the movement’s tended to be more ideologically militant in Melbourne than in Sydney.

Rutland also argues that Melbourne’s Jewish community was far more politically and religiously diverse. According to Rutland part of the reason for the greater diversification in Melbourne was the fact it was established by free settlers and attracted a larger number of immigrants who were more “intensely Jewish”. Melbourne also possessed a much more religious Christian community with “stronger intellectual traditions”. The result was a much more intellectual city. Geography also played an important role as well as the colder climate in Melbourne which “discouraged outdoor activities while in Sydney the external beauty of the city led to a more materialistic approach to life.”221 Rutland also notes that the pattern of migration between the two cities was very different. The European Jews who came to Australia included a large number of Holocaust survivors as well as individuals who had been lucky enough to arrive in Australia before the outbreak of World War II. Jewish immigration to Sydney primarily consisted of Central European Jews who tended to be more assimilated, cosmopolitan and less concerned about the issue of antisemitism.222 The Jews immigrating to Melbourne included a large number of Jews from Poland. The biographies of the founding members of the Zionist youth movements corroborate this analysis. Almost all the founding members from Melbourne were either born in Poland or their parents were. The founding members from Sydney include some members who came from a Polish background but many individuals were of German and Hungarian heritage. As we saw in Chapter One Polish Jewry during the inter-war years was far less assimilated than Western European Jews and were largely excluded from the wider society. The economic plight of Jews and their alienation from the wider society created a very different Jewish identity and Jewish community. Antisemitism was far more prevalent and while many Polish Jews were no longer traditional and lived in cities like Krakow or Warsaw they were only removed by

221 Rutland, Edge, 356-7.

222 Rutland, Edge, 265-6. On the difference between the Sydney and Melbourne Jewish communities and the Polish character of the Melbourne community see: W.D., Rubenstein, The Jews in Australia, (Melbourne: Australian Ethnic Heritage Series, AE Press, 1986), 61-66.

142 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs one or two generations from life in the shtetl. The focus for most of the Polish Jews arriving in Melbourne was to rebuild their lives. Many of the new immigrants were apolitical, while others wanted to distance themselves from their Jewish identity. At the same time many Polish Jews sought to rebuild the cultural, religious and political institutions which they had active with in Europe. Yiddish culture and politics flourished and Zionism was also a growing political force. While Polish Jews clearly adapted to life in Australia these ideas and conceptions were brought across to their new homeland and created a very different Jewish community. Thus the Melbourne Jewish community showed a strong support for Yiddish culture whereas in Sydney it was largely irrelevant.223 The Zionist youth movements flourished in Melbourne in comparison to Sydney for precisely the same reasons. The idea of Zionism was foreign to many Polish Jews and some were also opposed to Zionism, however, there was still a large segment of the community that was very supportive of Zionism and the Zionist youth movements. The different demographic makeup of the communities helps explain why Hashomer Hatzair was successfully established in Melbourne but not in Sydney. However, this is only part of the story.

In 1962 Golembowicz returned as the shaliach for Hashomer Hatzair and he led the way in establishing a branch of the movement in Sydney. However, the Sydney branch collapsed after a few years due to a lack of dedicated leaders. Hashomer Hatzair in Sydney relied on madrichim in Melbourne coming up to serve as ‘shlichim’ for the movement. Sydney Hashomer Hatzair never created a leadership body trained in hadracha who passed the baton on to the next generation of leaders. The leaders sent up from Melbourne attempted to set up hadracha programs but they failed to attract any youth. The Sydney branch also failed to send any leaders on programs to Israel.224

The branch in Sydney was primarily made of Jews who fled Poland following the easing of restrictions of Jewish emigration under the Polish communist leader Wladyslaw Gomulka. The influx of Polish Jews into Sydney and Poland around 1958-59 included many Jews who had little or no connection to Jewish religious observance and appear to have come from families that were by and large indifferent to Zionism.225 The social, political and religious life of Polish Jewry after World War II was very different to the flourishing centres of Jewish activity which had existed before the Holocaust. Polish Jewry had numbered around three and a half million before the Holocaust, constituting roughly ten percent of the

223 Rutland, Edge, 256.

224 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. Jacqui Boymal, Hashomer Hatzair Year Book, 1993.

225 Leon Mantel. Interview Date: 13/07/08. And Rothfield, Interview Date: 18/02/08.

143 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs population.226 At the end of World War II over ninety percent of Polish Jewry had perished. The young Polish Jews who arrived in the late 1950s had grown up in a very different Jewish society than the Polish Jews who arrived in Australia both before and after World War II. In post-War Poland the vibrant centres of Jewish political, cultural and religious life had ceased to exist.227 The failure of Hashomer Hatzair in Sydney to make any of the new immigrants dedicated leaders of the movement was a result of Hashomer Hatzair’s limited organisational capabilities in Sydney, but it was also a product of the social and political background of the Polish immigrants who arrived at the end of the 1950s.

Hashomer Hatzair primarily functioned as an organisation which assisted them in adjusting to life in Australia.228 Once they had adjusted to life in Australia they drifted away from the movement. In Melbourne the situation was very different because the movement was much better organised and had a well trained leadership body. David Rothfield recalls that his Hashomer Hatzair group during this period had around a dozen members, the majority of whom were from the recently arrived group of Polish Jews. The original group numbered between twenty and thirty. According to Rothfield seven of the Polish Jews became leaders in the movement and were active well into their twenties. While most of the Polish Jews arriving drifted way from Hashomer Hatzair a core group stayed involved and four of them made aliyah with Rothfield.229 In Sydney Hashomer Hatzair failed to convert any of these new arrivals to the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair and none of the Polish Jews in Sydney decided to dedicate themselves to the movement and its survival.230 Hashomer Hatzair was a Zionist youth movement and in the 1950s this meant being dedicated to aliyah. The aim of the founders of the movement in Australia was to create a movement which was dedicated to the principles of chalutziut. The irony was that the movement’s chief success was not in producing chalutzim but providing a space for newly arrived Jewish

226 Leni Yahil, The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987) 136-7.

227 The Bund had been forced to disband in 1948-49 and the Zionist movement was also non-existent. Ultra- Orthodox Polish Jewry had its own cultural and political institutions and these too had been destroyed in the Nazi genocide. The last activity of the Zionist movement in Poland was the assisted immigration of 100,000- 120,000 Jews to Israel. This immigration, which was largely illegal, is known in Zionist historiography as the Briha (The Flight). For a brief discussion of the Briha see Segev, Seventh Million, 124-6.

228 Leon Mantel. Interview Date: 13/07/08. In 1976-77 Hashomer Hatzair reported to the SZCV that it was planning to re-establish the branch in Sydney over the next two to three years but nothing appears to have come from this venture. JAL Report Folder. “Ichud Habonim”, Report to the Twenty-Eighth Biennial Conference: 1976-1978, Melbourne Victoria, Zionist Federation of Australia, 136.

229 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08. Three of them had been active leaders in Hashomer Hatzair and the fourth person to make aliyah was the wife of one of these leaders.

230 In 1963 Hashomer Hatzair claimed to have fourty-seven members, but only two of them were madrichim. JAL Habonim Folder. Composition of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1963.

144 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs immigrants from Europe to adjust to their new life in Australia. The majority of Polish Jews arriving in Australia were clearly not attracted to an ideology which strongly advocated that they needed to uproot their lives again and go and live in Israel. The economic and political opportunities offered by Australian society were far too attractive. The radical leftwing nationalist politics of Hashomer Hatzair and its demands to create a New Jew – the chalutz – were ideas which only resonated with a small number of the Polish Jews who arrived in the late 1950s.

To create a new movement requires a substantial amount of dedication. Despite many setbacks the group in 1953 persevered and did not give up. The existence of a core of dedicated leaders is essential to the survival of the movement. The question is, why did the founders feel the need to establish Hashomer Hatzair in Australia and what does that tell us about the appeal of the chalutz in Australia?

The Appeal of the Chalutz

Golembowicz explained that he was attracted to Hashomer Hatzair for several core reasons:

We were left wingers, we identified very much with the halo of Hashomer Hatzair – I mentioned the history of Hashomer Hatzair in Europe, the heroes of Hashomer Hatzair, the kibbutzim of Hashomer Hatzair the educational programs of Hashomer Hatzair. Look, they were the model of doing it the right way - or the left way - but the right way.231

Golembowicz’s comments have some remarkable parallels with the arguments used by Mendelsohn to explain the attraction of Zionism in Europe. The founders of Hashomer Hatzair were the post-war generation and while a great deal of silence surrounded the events in Europe there was a broad understanding that Jews had not ‘put up a fight’.232 However, leading figures from Hashomer Hatzair such as Chaike Grossman (1919-1996) and Mordechai Anielewicz (1919-1943) had played an important role in the Białystok and

231 Dov Golembowicz. Interview Date: 25/06/08.

232 Segev, Seventh Million, 109-110.

145 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Warsaw ghetto uprisings as well as the activities of the Jewish Combat Organisation. (Chaike Grossman was actually sponsored by the Parents and Friends of Hashy to come to Australia in 1963 and helped raise funds for the purchase of a Moadon)233 Many of the Jewish youth who did fight back were members of Hashomer Hatzair and these individuals were clearly inspired by the ideas and message of Hashomer Hatzair. These Jews seemed to embody the ideal of the New Jew; they had fought for Jewish dignity and against the Nazi war machine. The actions of Chaika Grossman and Mordechai Anielewicz offered the post- war generation heroes who appeared to have taken a different path to ‘traditional Jewish passivity’.

Just as important were the actions of the kibbutzim in Palestine and Israel. Kibbutz Artzi played an important role in the 1948 War and events such as the battle of Kibbutz Mishmar Ha’emek were idealised as examples of Israeli heroism and bravery in face of insurmountable odds.234 The kibbutzim had also become the bedrock of the Haganah and its elite fighting force the Palmach. Many members of Hashomer Hatzair and Kibbutz Artzi fought or were killed in the 1948 War. They became war heroes. The events in Israel/Palestine continued the narrative of the New Jew and the ability of Hashomer Hatzair to transform the Jewish nation into a people of fighters, farmers, and heroes. Just as Hadar held out the priceless gift of dignity to Jews in Eastern Europe the actions of Hashomer Hatzair members also offered Jews role models which the post-war generation could admire.

Many Polish Jews held onto their leftwing political opinions after the war and brought those sympathies with them to Australia. This was the milieu that the founders of Hashomer Hatzair grew up in. Just as important was the global political scene which also served to animate their leftwing politics. Zvi Solow commented that this political awareness coupled

233 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Material provided by Dov Golembowicz. “Timeline,” Thirtieth Anniversary of Hashomer Hatzair, 1982. There are varied spellings of Chaika’s name including Chayka and Haika, in keeping with my transliteration of the Hebrew letter chet I have chosen to spell her name in the manner chosen above. The role of Parents and Friends Associations was crucial for the movements; especially in raising funds to enable each movement to purchase its own moadon as well help bring shlichim to Australia. Thus, for example, in Sydney the SZC wanted the movements to operate out of a shared moadon, however, the Parents and Friends Association’s of both Bnei Akiva and Habonim (which made up three-quarters of the representation on the Zionist Youth Movement membership in NSW) were adamant that the movements have their own separate moanim. Toby Hammerman Papers. “Minutes of Special Youth Meeting Held 22nd May, 1968, Re Youth Moanim,” State Zionist Youth Council, 1. Toby Hammerman’s papers provide further in-depth detail describing the work of the Parents and Friends Association in finding a suitable location, securing the finances and working with the local council to enable Habonim to purchase its own moadon in Sydney. The movement continues to operate out of this location today. Material I collected from the Betar moadon also makes the clear the central role the supportive parents made in helping the movement finance shlichim and purchase its moadon on Melbourne. The purchase of the moanim was impossible without the assistance of the Parents and Friends Associations.

234 For an analysis of the battle see Benny Morris, 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, (New Haven, Con.: Yael University Press, 2008), 133-137.

146 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs with the sense that humanity was at an historical juncture was what attracted him to the ideology of Hashomer Hatzair:

I already once called it the messianic period... We knew what was going on, we heard what was going on. The state of Israel was fighting for its life. That’s the background. I can’t analyse myself, but I obviously identified very strongly with the Jewish people, the state of Israel. On the other hand we had very strong socialist feelings. And that was the Cold War. Russia or the Soviet Union was considered the bastion of the new era. All this as a background, it’s like the end of days, the apocalypse, you know we’re coming to the big boom. So some young people were very much caught up, myself as well, we were caught up in the spirit of those times and very strongly identified so we stayed. I mean, I identified completely.235

The concept of a ‘messianic period’ played an important role in attracting Jewish youth to leftwing politics. These same ideas had also animated the authors of the Platform for Australian Habonim.236 There was a sense that after World War II, the Holocaust and the ‘miraculous’ establishment of the State of Israel that humanity had reached a turning point and there was the real possibility of a better and brighter future. In this historical context some Jewish youth were attracted to the idea of a leftwing revolution which promised to create a society in the entire human race would end oppression and suffering. The broader historical context helped generated the strong ‘messianic’ feelings which drove the founders of both Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim to connect with socialist ideology.

Of great importance to the founders of Hashomer Hatzair was the question of the treatment of Arabs. The slogan of the Mapam paper Al-Mishpat was Le’Tzionut, Le’socialism, Le’Achvat Am. (For Zionism, For Socialism, For Love Between the Nations). Hashomer Hatzair recognised the nationalist claims of Arabs in Palestine and both Hashomer Hatzair and Mapam had originally opposed the partition plan and advocated for a

235 Dov Golembowicz, Interview Date: 25/06/08.

236 Sol Encel, Interview Date: 17/08/07. The political attraction to the Soviet Union and the desire, in the wake of World War II, to portray it as a source of political and moral salvation was also present in the newly established Jewish State in the late 1940s and the early 1950s. Anita Shapira, “Native Sons,” in Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, eds., ‘Essential Papers on Zionism’, (New York: New York University Press, 1996), 811.

147 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs bi-national state.237. According to Fay Pearl the educational programs run in the 1950s were highly critical of the Israeli government’s treatment of the Arab population inside Israel’s borders and adopted a progressive attitude to the ‘Arab Question’.

We were already talking at that time the Israeli government’s attitude to the Arab population. I remember doing our sichot at that time and hearing how cruel, how discriminatory the Israeli government politics were to the Arabs. And that it would lead to disaster... In fact, I could honestly say I was more aware of that than I was about Jewish history.238

The movement’s educational material from the 1950s addressed the question of the discrimination against Arabs in Israel and an educational booklet from 1955 stated that “Palestine is by its very nature a bi-national country... It is the homeland of the Jewish people returning to it and to the masses of the Arab People who live there.”239 Mapam’s approach to the ‘Arab Question’ appealed to Solow, Fran Pearl and other Hashomer Hatzair members because it was loyal to Jewish nationalism while advocating for rights and equality for Arabs in Israel.240

Hashomer Hatzair was founded by a small group dedicated to the ideology of the movement, and while many members were not so ideologically certain they still connected with the central message of the movement. The social activities and sense of belonging that the movement supplied were very attractive but underlying the powerful social forces was an intellectual and emotional sympathy for the ideas of Zionism and the New Jew of chalutziut. Chalutziut spoke to them for many of the same reasons which enabled the ideology to spread throughout Jewish communities in Europe between the two world wars: Chalutziut was an ideology which offered the vision of a new better and brighter future for the Jewish people. Rather than appearing reactive against antisemitism the message of the chalutz

237 In 1951 Mapam was the first Zionist Party to have an Arab Knesset member. Mapam had also advocated for the Histadrut to accept Arab workers and had opposed the martial law which put areas with large Arab populations under military governance. Tom Segev, 1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, trans. Jessica Cohen, (London: Little, Brown, 2007), 88.

238 Fran Pearl. Interview Date: 24/06/08.

239 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. “The Arab Policy of Mapam, From the Tochnit Hishtalmut of Kibbutz Artzi,” 1955, The Arab Minority in Israel, Spring 1955, Hashomer Hatzair, 7.

240 Zvi Solow. Interview Date: 23/07/08. And Fran Pearl. Interview Date: 24/06/08.

148 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs appealed to many Jewish youth around the world precisely because it was a positive ideology.

Chalutziut made sure the movements were not esoteric intellectual organisations but political organisations with practical political aims. It told Jewish youth what was needed of them and provided a blueprint of action. This was very attractive to some Jewish youth. The important role of the kibbutzim and the youth movements in the establishment of the State of Israel provided further proof of the necessity of the movements. As I pointed out in Chapter One, Zionism and socialist politics possessed a kindred spirit, both movements believed in the perfectibility of man. Chalutziut was the perfect synthesis between the ideas of socialism and Jewish nationalism. The success of chalutziut can be traced back to the fact that it plugged into these sentiments. In Australia there were also sections of the Jewish community who were receptive to these ideas. Despite the remarkable adaptability of chalutziut, the question in the decades following the establishment of the State of Israel was whether or not its ideology was still relevant, and whether or not it still resonated with Jewish youth in Diaspora communities where Jews had become very successful. This was the question which would emerge in the coming decades in Australia.

Survival or Collapse?

The history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia is littered with examples of the failure to establish a successful youth movement. The list of failed attempts includes some of the movements I have already mentioned such as: Shomrim, Zionist Youth League (Sydney), Young Mizrachi, Hapoel Hatzair and Torah V’Avodah. It also includes movements I have not mentioned such as the Zionist Youth League “Hatikvah”, Poale Zion, Kadimah Youth Organisation and Hapoel.241 As I have illustrated in this chapter Betar, Bnei Akiva, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair also faced periods when they came close to collapse. The first few years of activity were particularly tough in terms of attracting Jewish youth to their activities and setting up the framework of a proper Zionist youth movement.

I have highlighted several key elements which appear to have been crucial to the survival of the movements in Australia. The first element was the role played by dedicated individuals who gave their time and energy to ensuring the movement did not collapse. Interestingly, many of these individuals had little understanding of the ideology of the

241 Zionist Youth League “Hatikvah”, Poale Zion, Kadimah Youth Organisation and Hapoel were all active in Melbourne. Each of these movements also submitted sporadic reports about their activities to various editions of Banatif in the late 1940s.

149 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs movement, this was particularly so in the case of Bnei Akiva and Betar. Secondly, the social activities and the structure of the Zionist youth movements were very successful in providing a safe space for Jewish youth to gather together socially. The movements were able to succeed because they were able to provide a sense of community and belonging. This was especially important in the case of newly arrived refugees who wanted to mix with other Jewish youth but had no social networks of their own. The sense of community and belonging was important but, as we saw in the case of Shomrim and Young Mizrachi, the movements had to be more than a social organisation if they were to endure.

The third important factor that enabled the youth movements to endure was the fact that their ideologies were able to capture the imagination of some Jewish youth in Australia. It is telling that people like Shimshon Feder or Jack Mirjam – who initially had no knowledge of Betar’s ideology – came to identify with the ideology of the movement they help set up. As I stated before, the ideology of chalutziut and Betar appealed precisely because it gave youth a central role. Although the idea that Zionism meant nothing without aliyah alienated many members of the movements and drove them away it was also attractive to many Jewish youth precisely because it spelt out what Jewish youth needed to do. Utopian socialist ideas, the kibbutz ideal, and aliyah captured the imagination of some Jewish youth because they claimed Jewish youth had a key role to play in setting up the Jewish State. Educational material produced by the movements stressed the role the youth movements had played in setting up the State of Israel. The images that the movements included in their camp flyers and magazines during this period frequently included pictures of kibbutzim, chalutzim, Israeli soldiers and so forth. While the movements did exaggerate their importance they had played an important role in convincing tens of thousands of Jewish youth around the world to make aliyah. Furthermore, large numbers of the political, military and intellectual elite in Israel were previous members of the youth movements.

All the core ideological concepts were taken from the movements in Europe. The Australian branches of the movements made no new ideological innovations. At the same time the movements adapted to suit the social and cultural context of Australian Jewry. This is most clearly evidenced by the dropping of Yiddish, the educational framework David Tabor set up, or Betar toning down its militaristic character. The movements adapted in order to survive in Australia.

Jewish youth in the movements were cognisant of political events on the world stage. They knew of the destruction of European Jewry and the role played by the Soviet Union in liberating the Nazi Death camps. They were also aware of the 1948 War and many believed that the Jewish State was still facing existential threats. Chalutziut, Monism and Hadar, and

150 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Two: Birth Pangs

Torah ve’Avodah were able to resonate because they articulated a response to these historical events. The response gave Jewish youth in the movements a sense of purpose and pride.

I also noted in my discussion the differences between the Sydney and Melbourne Jewish communities and the way in which the post-war Jewish immigration meant that the Zionist movement was larger, better organised and more politically and religiously diverse than in Sydney. Jewish immigration to Melbourne included a far larger number of Polish Jews, many of whom had been active in the Zionist movement in Europe. While the founders of the youth movements often operated under their own initiative the support of adults who had been active in Betar, Beni Akiva or Hashomer Hatzair was helpful. During the1940s and 1950s the movements in Sydney did receive support from the older generation but rarely to the same extent that existed in Melbourne. Thus, during this period, all the sniffim were larger in Melbourne than in Sydney.

It is my assessment that all of these factors played an essential role in enabling these four youth movements to establish themselves and eventually flourish in Australia. The importance of adaptation to suit the realities of Jewish life in Australia, the appeal of ideology, or the energy of a few individuals was comparatively the same for each movement. The details behind the establishment of the movements differ only in the names, dates and personalities involved. The causes for their success and failures were the same. The history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia is a single social phenomenon with far more commonalities than differences.

151 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Zionist-socialism was an all-encompassing, utopian ideology1 and, like Marxism, it was a ‘total’ or ‘extreme’ ideology, because it attempted to transform not only social and political life, but to create a new society in Eretz Israel.2 Chalutziut and the New Jew were the ideological bedrock of this new society. Chalutziut, or the ideology of pioneering, sought to transform the nation of Israel into a people of labourers and farmers. This transformation was supposed to be physical and mental. The idea that Jews needed to be transformed into a nation of pioneers was a direct refutation of the traditional Jewish ideal: the Talmid Chacham (wise student), the Jew who devoted themselves to study and prayer. Chalutziut was an activist ideology which believed Jews needed to immigrate to Palestine/Eretz Israel in order to physically build the Jewish State with their own hands. Eretz Yisrael, ‘The Land of Israel’ was viewed in romantic terms. The relationship between the Jews and the Land of Israel was understood as an autochthonous and organic relationship. These romantic ideas of the Land even influenced the materialism of the Marxist-Zionist ideologue Ber Borochov.3 For the Zionist-socialist youth movements it was essential that the Jewish people establish a state in its ancient homeland. When Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were established in Australia, they adapted to the local context but retained the core ideological pillars of Zionist- socialism - chalutziut, the kibbutz and socialism.

Academics have examined in great detail the origins of chalutziut in Europe, as well as its importance in the unfolding of Israeli history. Despite the importance of chalutziut in Australian Jewish history, the historiography is much sparser. Broader historical works by Rutland and Rubenstein make almost no reference to the concept, and while both briefly refer to the hachsharah farm, they do not deal with the phenomenon in any detail. William Metcalf’s paper on the history of the hachsharah farm, as well as Bernard Hyams’ History of the Australian Zionist Movement provide some excellent historical context; yet the existing research does not appreciate the profound role chalutziut represents in the transformation of Jewish identity. This chapter will examine, for the first time, how deeply chalutziut has been

1 Yosef Gorny, “Thoughts on Zionism as a Utopian Ideology,” 248.

2 Mostafa Rejai, Ideology: Comparative and Cultural Status, (Chicago: Aldine Transaction, 2009), 1-30.

3 Shimoni, Ch 8: “The Right to the Land: Labor Zionist Formulations”, Zionist Ideology, 361-366.

152 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour internalised by Zionist youth and thereby shed light on the attempt by the Zionist-socialist youth movements in Australia to create a new approach to Jewishness.

He-Chalutz and the Purchase of the Farm

Chalutziut and the kibbutz embraced the belief that an ideal Jewish life should be dedicated to tilling the soil of Eretz Israel. In order for a member to embrace chalutzic aliyah it was believed they were required to undergo a process of transformation called hagshamah atzmit (self-realisation). The concept of hagshamah atzmit was not concerned with individual self-fulfilment but the realisation by Zionist youth that they needed to undergo this process in order to dedicate themselves to a life of labour in Eretz Israel. This transformation was supposed to be a personal choice that fused the individual’s personal desires with the needs of the Jewish nation.4 However, the Kibbutz required a very different set of life skills than those needed for suburban life in Sydney or Melbourne, so in order to prepare Jewish youth for kibbutz life and make the leap less dramatic, a group within Habonim formed a branch of He-Chalutz in Australia. He-Chalutz was an association of Jewish youth which sought to train members to settle on kibbutzim by purchasing training farms (hachsharah farms) in their country of residence. For several months, young people would live on these farms and replicate aspects of kibbutz life: they would live communally, work in fields and with livestock, and, after work, study topics such as Zionism, socialism and Hebrew.5 The hachsharah farm was thus a ‘pseudo-kibbutz’ which prepared Jewish youth for the actualities of a life on kibbutz and inculcated appropriate attitudes towards labour.6 It was also thought by the leaders of the Zionist-socialist movements that hachsharah farms helped ensure only the best candidates were supported in making aliyah.7 He-Chalutz believed that without a hachsharah farm it would be impossible for Habonim to be truly chalutzic.

4 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 234.

5 C37 AJHS. Sol Encel, “New Pathways for Australian Zionist Youth: Discussion of Professional and Technical Workers’ Aliyah,” Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, July 1947, 15-16.

6 YF1 (F1) SUJA. 10 Years Hachshara in Australia, Published jointly by Hachshara Department of the Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Federal Mazkirut of Hechalutz, Australia, The Chevra of the Hachshara 1955, 2. Members of He-Chalutz understood that while the hachsharah would attempt to replicate the life of a kibbutz, it would not be “an exact replica of a kibbutz in Israel, it is of such a size as to provide a sufficient work for all chaverim there.” C48 AJHS. Report of the Hachshara Department’, 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 57.

7 William J. Metcalf, “Hachshara: An Australian Kibbutz,” Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal, Volume XVII, Part 2, (2006): 208. 153 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

The purchase of a hachsharah farm in Victoria, and the fact it existed for twenty-two years is one of the most important events in the history of the youth movements in Australia. Details behind buying the farm, as well as the difficulties in maintaining its operation, pinpoint the determination of Zionist youth to make sure the farm succeeded. Chalutziut was originally an activist ideology and the actions of He-Chalutz illustrate how deeply Zionist youth believed in the ideology. The hachsharah farm proves that Zionist youth movements, and the ideology of chalutziut, were successful in transforming the identity of Australian Jewish youth.

The first recorded date for the Mazkirut Hechalutz in Australia is 24 September 1944, and the organisation immediately set about trying to find a way to purchase a farm in Victoria, which could be turned into a hachsharah farm.8 On 11 March 1945 the organisation held its first general meeting in which it declared the principles of the organisation:

1. Hechalutz embraces all Jews of eighteen years and older whose aim is to realise their Zionist ideals by personally proceeding to Eretz Israel and actively participating in its upbuilding.

2. Every member of Hechalutz must undergo a certain period of Hachsharah (training) prior to his or her aliyah.

3. Recognises the principles of a) Hebrew b) self-labour c) Histadrut d) Learning Hebrew.9

He-Chalutz looked at a number of farms in Victoria but ended up choosing an eight- and-a-half-acre chicken farm forty minutes from Melbourne near Springvale Road.10 He- Chalutz purchased the farm in April 1945, and on 21 May 1945 the first three members moved on to the farm.11

He-Chalutz did not possess any financial resources or knowledge about farming, nor did they let the Zionist Federation know about their plans. The farm was purchased in June 1945 for £2,600; however it was only at the January 1946 plenary session that the Victorian

8 YF (F2), SUJA. Hamagashim, Melbourne, Issued by Hechalutz Australia, Melbourne, May/June 1945. No. 3.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 193.

154 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Zionist federation was officially notified that the hachsharah has been established.12 He- Chalutz z privately sought support from the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem - which was refused – so the organisation bought the farm with a loan from Union Bank, which they were able to secure because of private loans from two local supporters - Joseph Yoffe and Yehuda Berkon.13 The Jewish youth who had set up the Mazkirut He-Chalutz were teenagers and young adults in their early twenties, but they were tireless in their search for financial support and a suitable farm.

The fact He-Chalutz did not seek support from the Zionist Federation appears to have been motivated by a calculated decision by the founders of He-Chalutz that the Zionist Federation would not support the idea. While the movements utilised the support of the adult Zionist organisations to keep their operations running, there was also a culture within the youth movements which looked upon them with disdain because they were ‘armchair Zionists’ interested in raising funds but unwilling to make aliyah. The idea of Mered Ha-Ben, that the movements were a revolt against the bourgeois and antiquated notions of the older generations, was discussed in Australian youth movement publications at the time, and the purchase of the hachsharah farm represents that spirit of rebellion.14 Contributors to the magazines in the 1940s stressed the need to create an autonomous youth culture and to remember the revolutionary nature of the Zionist youth movements. Yehuda Feher wrote in Kol Habonim in 1946 describing what he saw as the character of a proper Zionist youth movement:

However, we must be careful that their parents [of the chanichim] will not infringe on our liberty of action and it is important that we should remain absolutely free... The object of the Youth Movement generally speaking is to form a community of young people to fulfil their social and cultural needs but always having an ideal in view towards which it tends to mould its members... ‘What should be the ideals of the Youth movement? First of all that ‘community’ mentioned above, should be a free and frank expression of the Youth. It should not be a servile expression of the Youth. It should not be a servile imitation of the existing society around us, either in it way or in its

12 YF1 (1), SUJA. Habonim: Senior Magazine, Issue dedicated to the Hachshara, March/April 1947, Second Issue.

13 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 193.

14 JAL Habonim Folder. Isaac Roseby, “Keeping The Flame,” Five Years of Habonim 1940-45 Melbourne, July 1945, Habonim Itonim,1A., 9. For a discussion of Mered Ha-Ben see Chapter One, 15-16.

155 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

mentality. Youth must find its own ways of life, not just copy it from elders. Youth therefore must be revolutionary in many ways... Above all youth must not have that aspect of the so-called ‘middle-class mentality.’15

He-Chalutz did not ask the older generation to grant permission for their plans to establish a hachsharah farm because chalutziut was an activist ideology which believed Youth should go out and put the ideology into practice. If the older generation was upset by actions which were creating a strong chalutzic youth movement this was simply further proof that the movement was on the right track.

The purchasing of the farm may have been an expression of youthful enthusiasm and a ‘go-get-it’ attitude, but their lack of knowledge and experience about farming and finances almost derailed the project from the very start. Springvale was quickly found to be far too small to suit the purposes of He-Chalutz. The group needed a mixed farm to make the venture financially viable and allow them to diversify their training. They also discovered that the 1,200 chickens on the farm were sick and that the previous owner who had promised to stay and help as an advisor had vanished. Within weeks of opening, the hachsharah farm was faced with bankruptcy and was only saved by an input of funds from the Zionist Council of Victoria.16 However, by the end of 1946 the farm was again facing a financial crisis.

The Zionist Council of Victoria (SZVC) was originally unwilling to support the farm, but eventually relented under the condition that the Council would be able to see what use had been made of the funds they had contributed the previous year. In 1947 the SZCV entrusted the farm to a sub-committee that was composed of members elected by the Council as well as the original trustees.17 Ultimately the council, with the assistance of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem, contributed funds to bail the farm out of its financial troubles.18 The Zionist Federation also decided to support the hachsharah with an £250 annual subsidy.19 Over the

15 YF1 (1), SUJA. Yehuda Feher, Kol Habonim, July 1946, 1-2.

16 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 194.

17 C48 AJHS. “Report of the Hachshara Department,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 36.

18 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 197.

19 A breakdown of the funds supplied by the Zionist Federation to assist the youth movements illustrates the considerable level of their support. Youth Department: £1,550. Youth Envoy Shaliach travel expense: £980. Chagam £150. Hachshara £250. Youth expenses Vic £395. C48 AJHS. Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand Report 14th Annual Australia Zionist Conference, Nov 1949, 64.

156 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour years various members of the ZFA (Zionist Federation of Australia) and SZCV questioned whether the farm was worth the financial investment. These individuals also questioned the relevance of hachsharah training, the level of religious observance and whether or not inappropriate sexual relations were taking place on the farm. By 1949, with the tensions largely resolved, the ZFA nonetheless sought to exert control by naming the farm the ‘Zionist Federation’s Hachshara Farm at Springvale.’

Despite substantial financial investment by the adult Zionist movement, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair leaders still felt that these supporters were opposed to the farm. Dov Golembowicz was a founding member of Hashomer Hatzair and returned in 1961 as the movement’s shaliach. His personal involvement with the Zionist organisations led him to believe that not only did they not identify with chalutziut, but they also disapproved of the farm: “The Zionist movement weren’t too happy, they didn’t think too much about the hachsharah. I mean, the hachsharah was too much of an expense for them, they didn’t identify with hachsharah and the chalutz movement at all.20

Leaders within the movement may have been disappointed by the lack of real ideological identification by the Zionist leaders with chalutziut, but they were also aware that the movements survived in large part because of the financial support supplied by the ZFA and SZCV. Zionist organisations run by the older generation provided the organisational and financial capabilities to pay for various movement activities, including crucial financial support for the hachsharah.21 While the attitude persisted amongst certain members about the need for the movements to maintain their independence and revolutionary spirit, the support of the adult Zionist movement played an important role in watering down the concept of Mered Ha-Ben. In Australia it became redundant for the movements to see themselves as an expression of youthful revolt when the older generation played such a supportive and constructive role in assisting the movements.

Moving to Toolamba and Continuing Difficulties

In April 1950 a new eighty acre farm in Toolamba was purchased to replace Springvale. At a He-Chalutz meeting held on 11 May 1950 the members described the farm

20 Dov Golembowicz. Interview Date: 25/06/08. The first shlichah (Shoshana Agmon) came to work for Hashomer Hatzair in 1959 and stayed with her husband in Australia until 1961. Shoshana also recalled the opposition and indifference that the SZCV showed towards the hachsharah farm. Shoshana Agmon. Interview Date: 31/07/08.

21 C37 AJHS. The hachsharah also held functions on the farm to help raise funds. Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, Vol. 2, No. 8, March, 1949.

157 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour as an “81 acre orchard at Toolamba, excellent equipment, small house, barely sufficient water... no electricity...”22 Springvale had proved too small for hachsharah groups, and the Hachsharah Department, which was a department within the ZFA, convinced its parent organisation that a larger mixed farm site would be more successful financially. The decision was also based on the belief that the climate and soil in Toolamba were closer to those in Israel. Toolamba was also further from Melbourne, and He-Chalutz believed the distance would enable groups on the farms to more easily develop an independent communal life. The Jewish Agency also promised to contribute £4,000 to the purchase over four years. Springvale was sold and the chevra on the farm began to move across to the new farm in May and June of 1950.23

The Hachsharah Department also reorganised how the chevra managed the finances of the farm in order to try and reduce the financial losses.24 Nonetheless, the farm continued to lose money and in 1952 it reported a loss of £1,830.0.06. The Hachsharah Department defended its financial position arguing that a “depreciation of capital” had dramatically increased the farm’s losses. While the Department acknowledged the importance of the farm’s financial situation they also stated that the primary raison d’être of the farm was not to make money but to prepare members for aliyah and in this regard the hachsharah had proved an overwhelming success.25 While the Hachsharah Department constantly hoped to make the farm financially viable, reports to the ZFA and SZCV reveal that until the farm was sold on 3 December 1966 it consistently lost money.26 The financial burden weighed heavily on the ability of the farm to operate; however, this did not dissuade members of the movement dedicated to chalutziut from continuing to volunteer right up until the farm was sold.

The willingness of the ZFA and SZCV to back the hachsharah was a product of the good relations between the youth movements and the adult organisations as well as lobbying carried out by the youth movements for the adult Zionist movement to maintain their

22 YF1 (F1) SUJA. 10 Years Hachshara in Australia, 3.

23 C48 AJHS. “Report of the Hachshara Department,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 36.

24 The hachsharah claimed this was a “revolutionary step” which was undertaken because it “Found it necessary to separate the financial requirements of the chevra as such on one hand and the financial management of the farm on the other.” C48 AJHS. “Report of the Hachshara Department,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 7.

25 C48 AJHS. “Report of the Hachshara Department,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 37-38.

26 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 207.

158 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour support for chalutzic youth. Australia’s first shaliach, Ehud Lederberger, arrived in 1947 and worked hard to convince the Federation and state Zionist councils of the important role played by the farm in the life of the Zionist movement. Lederberger organised well-received presentations with hachsharah members at Zionist conferences in order to show what the farm was achieving.27 Additionally, Zionist youth leaders did not shy away from using the various conferences as a platform to call upon the Zionist community to support chalutziut in Australia. For example, a report from the Youth Department to the ZFA in 1948 demanded support for chalutziut: “This conference instructs the incoming Executive to give its utmost support and assistance to the Chalutz Movement in Australia, which is training chaverim to follow the path of ‘Hagshama Atzmit’ – Self-realisation – in Israel.”28

Leaders of the Federation and state Zionist councils may not have been willing to make aliyah themselves, and were often exasperated by some of the youth movements’ activities, but they were also aware of the vital contribution the youth movements were making to the success of the Australian Zionist Movement. Another important factor influencing their decision to back the farm was the fact that practically all of Israel’s political elite in the 1940s and 1950s came from the Labour Zionist movement. Many of them - including Prime Minister David Ben Gurion - had made aliyah as chalutzim. The message from Israel was that the hachsharah farm should be subsidized and the Jewish Agency provided valuable funds for purchasing the farm at Toolamba.29 Backing the farm was thus entirely in tune with the Zionist cause.

Chalutziut as the Ultimate Ideal

The first step in the process of hagshamah atzmit was education. Youth movements understood it was essential to begin Zionist education at a young age because it held values and ideas that were in opposition to those of the wider society. Zionism was an ideological

27 Lederberger also screened short films about the first five Australian chalutzim who made aliyah and life on the hachsharah. According to youth movement representatives these were received extremely well: “It was abundantly clear that the whole Zionist movement was proud of the hachsharah and its achievements.” C37 AJHS. Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, July 1947, 3. The film was used throughout the 1940s when Habonim organised fundraisers. The film of the edited footage was called The Path to Fulfilment. Toby Hammerman Papers. “Habonim Zionist Organisation Annual Function,” Programme, Crystal Palace, 590 George Street Sydney, Sunday 1st September, 1946.

28 YF3 (3), Perspective Folder, Shelf List 1, SUJA. “Report: Youth, Chalutziut, Hachshara and Aliyah, Proposed by the Youth department of the Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand,” Executive of the Zionist Federation and New Zealand, 14th Conference, November 1948, 7.

29 C48 AJHS. “Report of the Hachshara Department,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 41.

159 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour revolution and had to be taught: the entire organisational model of the movements was about putting the ideas of Zionism and the New Jew into practice. Zionist youth movements were organised such that young Jewish adults could dedicate themselves as volunteer leaders who imparted the values of Zionism and chalutziut to Jewish youth. Zionist youth magazines published in Australia sought to enthuse members about chalutziut by romanticising the idea. An example of such material is in an issue of Banatif from 1947-48 which included a text by the poet Chaim Nachman Bialik called ‘The Chalutz Commandment’.

Ages will come when you will be spoken of... songs will be sung and dramas written about you by those who still do not know... Exile is the place of our national decay, a place without hope and from which there is no outlet. In Eretz Israel, on the other hand, all that we foresaw has been confirmed to a degree which has surpassed our expectations... There is no way out except Eretz Israel.30

‘The Chalutz Commandment’ stated that life in the Diaspora was a life of ‘decay’ - chalutziut was the solution and Jewish youth who embraced the idea would one day be seen as the heroes of Jewish history. The only solution to the Jewish problem was aliyah to Eretz Israel as a chalutz.

In 1953 the Habonim paper Mishmar included an article on the chalutz which expressed how deeply these ideas gripped the imagination of some leaders within the movement:

To free itself from the clutches of this social and economic crisis Israel to-day needs chalutzim... Chalutziut uncovers unbidden forces in man, spiritual strength, will-power, intelligence, chalutziut directs the efforts of man, selects and judges his deeds and joins his spirit to a higher purpose.31

30 C37 AJHS. Chaim Nachman Bialik, “The Chalutz Commandment,” Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, Vol. 1, No. 7, December, 1947/January, 1948, 21.

31 YF1 (F2), SUJA. Mishmar, June, Organ of Habonim Australia, 1953.

160 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Chalutziut was cast as the mental, physical and even spiritual saviour of the Jewish people. Chalutziut - as represented in Mishmar - was infused with the concept of the New Jew. The movements were the conduit through which these ideas were spread amongst Australian Jewish youth.

Educational material in the magazines was only one aspect of the youth movement education. The most important role was played by madrichim who were supposed to educate their chanichim about chalutzic aliyah and guide them towards the process of hagshamah atzmit. Hardcore ideologues were deeply committed to the cause and attempted to adhere consistently to the tenets of the chalutzic belief system and it was these individuals who lamented the lack of ideological dedication within Habonim’s leadership ranks. In 1947 an issue of Habonim’s official magazine Habonim set out what it saw as the educational aims of the movement in terms of educating members towards chalutzic aliyah:

According to our charter, Habonim in Australia regards Halutziut as the climax of its aim. We have tried to shake Jewish Youth out of their indifference, to get them to identify themselves with their people and to educate them towards the ideals of Haluzuit. Most of our Menahelim [senior members. Lit. principals.] have failed to realise that, in order really to help a haver on the way towards Halutzuit, he has to assist that haver also in his choice of occupation. Many haverim who, at the age of 16 or 18 years have felt the need of turning towards Halutziut and the Kibbutz way of life, and by the time started some study or training which would be of little or no use in kibbutz life, could have been saved many difficult inner struggles if they had been given the proper guidance before the commencement of their training even though, at that time their ideas on hagshama atzmit had still been very vague. Education towards the careful choice of occupation should start in the Solelim and Bonim Shichvot [the names of two junior groups] where chaverim have to be taught the right attitude to life and the land, to manual work and to good craftsmanship. In most cases a constant fight against regarding a university degree as a sine qua non for a Jewish boy or girl has to be fought. In other cases haverim have to be shown that to become a businessman is against all our belief and principals and to be warned against drifting into their father’s business.32

32 YF1 (1) SUJA. Habonim: Senior Magazine, Issue dedicated to the Hachshara, March/April 1947, Second Issue, 5. In 1953 leaders within Habonim continued to express disappointment about the lack of dedication 161 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

This extract reveals the extent to which the ideologues within the Habonim wanted to ensure the movement remained dedicated to chalutzic aliyah. The idea of chalutziut in the 1940s was both anti-capitalist and opposed to a ‘middle-class’ or bourgeois university education. The writer notes that some chaverim faced ‘difficult inner struggles’ when they had to choose either making chalutzic aliyah or attaining their dream of becoming a teacher, architect or doctor. In order to avoid this conflict and ensure members would go on chalutzic aliyah, the writer advocated that madrichim guide chanichim to undertake studies which would be useful on a kibbutz. This education, according to the writer, should commence with the youngest age group in the movement: Bonim members were aged from nine to twelve years old; this would eliminate any future conflict between their professional aspirations and their desire to settle on a kibbutz.

Shirley Isaacs recalls that during the early 1950s it was understood that chalutzim needed to make aliyah immediately because Israel’s need for chalutzim at that time was great:

By giving up every single thing that we knew, our careers, our university to work, you didn’t have to go to university, if you wanted to go you had to give that up, not every movement, but chalutzim in Australia didn’t encourage people to go to University they wanted people to go to Israel immediately, to take a plough in their hands and work the land, and that was how Israel was established and not by praying... That’s how Israel was established, by people working the land and forming a movement that would grow and running around looking for arms and for money to keep the country going and all the rest of it, that’s what we thought, that was the great ideal.33

Her comments pinpoint the activist nature of the ideology and the way in which labour was idealised; Jews had to work the land in order to build the state. This activist impulse derided the idea of prayer and viewed religious observance not only as superstitious but also problematic because of the way it relied on divine intervention. In the worldview of the

amongst the madrichim for chalutziut: “It is undeniably true that we have the wrong type of madrichim, in that most of them are not personally chalutzic” YF1 (F2) SUJA. Mishmar, June, Organ of Habonim Australia, 1953, 10. (stress in original) Solelim literally means trailblazer/pavers and Bonim means builders.

33 Shirley Isaacs. Interview Date: 27/11/07.

162 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour movement a university education was irrelevant to kibbutz life and a possible distraction which could derail a person’s plans to make aliyah.

Habonim gradually shifted away from the idea that madrichim should not attend university. However, Hashomer Hatzair, which was far more staunchly chalutzic, continued to look down upon members going to university throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Paul Pearl claims that while he was a chanich in Hashomer Hatzair the shaliach attempted to convince him not to go to university:

But Hashy was changing at the same time as we were changing. I mean, when we started off at Hashy the thought that you would go to university was frowned upon and the shlichim discouraged it. And I remember my parents got into a real argument with the shaliach who was trying - Because he was trying to convince me not to go university that I should go to immigrate to Israel. Go on aliyah. And hachsharah was a step in that direction and that’s why they were so opposed to it. My mother and step-father were intent I should go to university.34

In Paul’s case the shlichim were unsuccessful in trying to make him abandon his parents’ plans for him to study at university. Paul had also wanted to go on Machon to spend a year in Israel after school but his parents’ also forbade him from going on the program.

Movement leaders were aware that making chalutzic aliyah was a tough option which required complete ideological dedication. In April 1946 Betty Doari was one of the first five Australian youth movement members to make aliyah to a kibbutz.35 After making aliyah, Doari wrote letters to Australian Habonim and the Zionist Youth League in which she called upon Australian Jewish youth to make the necessary sacrifices and become chalutzim:

Here the new Jew that Zionism has formed, the new life which the Jew has created is a reality... In essence halutziut embodies the ideal service – the

34 Paul Pearl. Interview Date: 24/06/08.

35 The Zionist Federation of Australia refused to support the first five chalutzim financially and they ended up “getting stuck in Bombay.” Habonim had to collect money in order to pay for them to get to Palestine. JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem.

163 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

individuals preparedness to do all that the nation demands – no matter how unpleasant the task. No matter what the personal inconvenience...36

Betty Doari’s writings embody the official position of the Zionist-socialist movements which saw chalutziut as the highest expression of Zionism. Chalutzic aliyah was very difficult; however, a true chalutz who had undergone hagshamah atzmit was willing to make the sacrifices the Jewish nation needed.

Hachsharah: A Life of Labour

Hachsharah was a crucial part of the self-realisation process and Australian He- Chalutz declared that time on the farm was a period during which members embraced the idea that physical labour was the highest expression of self:

His time on the hachshara is probably one of the most valuable periods in a chaver’s life. For not only does he learn what it means to lead a communal life, and accept the responsibilities that go with it, but he also lives an intensely active and healthy life, both mentally and physically.37

Time spent on the hachsharah was designed to prepare members for the reality of communal living which was radically different to the traditional nuclear family.38 The physical work and closer contact with nature was also viewed as a more healthy reality which was an essential part of transforming Jewish youth into chalutzim. While the movement magazines

36 YF3 (3), Perspective Folder, Shelf List 1, SUJA. “Letter From Betty,” Official Organ of the Z.Y.L. Vol. 1. No. 5. 3 May, 1946, 8. Yehuda Feher, for example, wrote the following in Kol Habonim (voice of Habonim): “Youth must regard itself as the carriers of the Zionist Movement and be ready to be at its service even at the cost of personal sacrifice... If these ideals are carried out to their logical conclusions i.e. the idea of freeing ourselves from social convention and fulfilling the truest Zionist principals naturally chalutziut is the final aim of a Zionist Youth Movement.” YF1 (1) SUJA. Yehuda Feher, Kol Habonim, July 1946, 1-2. During this period the Zionist-socialist youth movements advocated for the creation of an Israeli society in which both genders had equality. The use of the masculine pronoun to refer to groups consisting of both men and woman was in common usage during the period that this material was written (1940s-1960s). By the 1990s both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair, under the influence of Feminist thought on “sexist Language”, would start to avoid using the masculine pronoun. On the issue of sexist language see: Deborah Cameron, Feminism and Linguistic Theory, Second ed. (London: Macmillan, 1992), esp. 102-105, passim.

37 YF1 (F1) SUJA. 10 Years Hachshara in Australia, 9.

38 Eliezer Ben-Rafael and Sasha Weitman, “The Reconstitution of the Family in the Kibbutz,” European Journal of Sociology, Volume 25, Issue 01, Published online: 28 July (2009): 3.

164 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour lionised the chalutzim on the hachsharah, they were also self-critical about the farm. Physical exhaustion and apathy were a constant threat to the intellectual and cultural dynamism that the farm sought to create. In an issue of Habonim: Senior Magazine (1947) dedicated to the hachsharah farm, an anonymous editor made the following statement about the difficulties of life on the farm and the need for persistent vigilance to ensure members do not become apathetic:

It means a persistent effort all the time. And how easy it is to slip. How easy to drop your alertness to anything wrong... with getting up at 6am, a lack of sleep does occur occasionally... sleep tiredness, outside interests and a bit of apathy now and then have the result that culturally and intellectually this hachshara is not quite what it should be, though we realise it.39

The hachsharah, just like the movements, sought ideological and practical perfection. While the objectives of He-Chalutz may have been impossible to attain, they never ceased to try and make their members work harder and achieve more. This constant self-criticism is a further indication of how seriously the ideologues within the movements took the task of chalutziut.

David Rothfield recalls that during his time on the farm in 1963 the hachsharah had changed a great deal, but nonetheless members had to work long hours in a range of different capacities. Rothfield’s description also illustrates the skills members developed living on the farm. Working on the orchard, or working with cows and chickens offered an experience which was vastly different to the urbanised suburban life which Jewish youth were leading in Sydney and Melbourne:

The meshek (farm), it was modified, when in those days when there were twelve or more on the farm it was monoculture, it was an orchard, peaches, pears and apples I think. There was a lot of manual labour. Eighty acres I think it was, a moderately sized orchard. None of them experienced farmers, so a lot of hard labour. By the time I was there it was mixed farm. Only a very small orchard. Only ten acres. Most of it was pasture. I think we had twenty bearing calves. It was actually increased in my time from sixteen to

39 YF1 (1) SUJA. Habonim: Senior Magazine, Issue dedicated to the Hachshara, March/April 1947, Second Issue, 4.

165 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

forty. Close to forty. We also had a lool (chicken coop) with chooks, a lool. It was much easier to run that. Refet, (cow shed) could be run with one person the lool could be run with one person. The Orchard, the mata, [orchard] had one full-timer, that’s actually we had it, one was merakez Lool, [head of the chicken coop] one was merakez Refet, (head of the cow shed) one was market mata... There were two women, one was merakez bayit, (head of the house) she did the cooking and the laundry. In the mata, I think there were two guys... I had two jobs. I was merakez lool; I also went and worked in the pasture. Because I was an engineer, I was put in charge of the irrigation. So I also made the irrigation work and helped looked after the pasture...40

Figure 7: Hashomer Haztair Hachsharah Camp, Toolamba, Victoria, 1964. The chicken coop (lool) on the hachsharah farm. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl)

During the week members were also supposed to continue their personal education. This education was a crucial part of fashioning the New Jew. Hachsharah was not just about creating the correct attitude to labour (avodah) but also about the experience of living together (chalutziut) and the principle of education (Tarbuth). Thus for six nights after work each week the chevra on the farm was supposed to learn about a wide range of subjects including elementary psychology, socialism, the history of music, the history and appreciation of art, Hebrew, and the history and politics of Zionism.41 Gershon Epstein arrived in Australia in December 1951 as the Youth Shaliach and split his time between the hachsharah and assisting the movements in Melbourne. Epstein played an important role in the Tarbuth on the farm, teaching Hebrew and giving lectures on life in Israel and imparting

40 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

41 YF1 (F1) SUJA. 10 Years Hachshara in Australia, 11.

166 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour as much knowledge as he could in order to prepare the chevra for the difficulties of life on kibbutz. Epstein saw his work on the hachsharah as his most important duty as a shaliach.42 The shlichim were supposed to serve all the youth movements but during this period they invariably came from the Labour Zionist movement and ideologically supported chalutziut, thus they viewed the hachsharah as the best way to prepare Australian Zionist youth for aliyah to a kibbutz.

Life on the farm was tough and offered none of the amenities members were used to having in Melbourne and Sydney. In the 1940s conditions on the farm were particularly rough with uncomfortable living quarters and communal areas, no hot water, and sewerage problems.43 While improvements were made before the farm was closed, conditions on the farm remained far from ideal.44 Nonetheless, these conditions did not discourage volunteers.

During Malcolm Isaacs’ time on the hachsharah in the early 1950s the ZFA demanded that the volunteers attend the farm for a minimum of eighteen months in order to try and ensure they received adequate training. Malcolm recalls that He-Chalutz had few financial resources and the workers were forced to use old equipment, including a tractor made in the 1940s that was very difficult to operate. The schedule was also very tough and the workers had to rise before dawn and study Hebrew for an hour before beginning their work.45 Figure 8 is a photo taken of Johnny Wynne driving the hachsharah tractor in 1961. Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim both sent their members on camps in order to introduce them to life on the farm and in the hope that once the chanichim were old enough they would become fulltime members of the hachsharah before finally making chalutzic aliyah.

42 YF7. (F1) SUJA. “Report to Executive of the Zionist Federation – Youth Shaliach G. Epstein,” 1953, 1.

43 AJHS C37. Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, Vol. 2, No. 8, March, 1949.

44 YF2 SUJA. “Report of the Hachshara,” Reports to the Plenary Executive Meeting Melbourne, March 1964, 16.

45 Malcolm Isaacs. Interview Date: 27/11/07.

167 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Figure 8: Hashomer Hatzair Hachsharah Camp, Toolamba, Victoria, 1961. Johnny Wyne driving the hachsharah tractor. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl)

Zvi Solow remembers it required long days of hard work to keep the farm going without outside assistance. The work was tough but it taught him to work as a physical labourer and prepared him for the realities of kibbutz life:

We had a local instructor, a farmer, and we worked from morning to night. We refused to take hired help that was against the ideals of hachsharah, so we worked very hard. And we really learnt to work very hard. In fact when we came to Nirim I went to work very naturally in the orchard, because I knew 46 the work. I learnt to drive a tractor. To use a tractor.

Any member who made aliyah shortly after completing eighteen months on the farm was promised financial assistance by the ZFA.47 The hachsharah group also met to discuss whether they thought the individual was suitable for kibbutz life and thus eligible for the financial assistance. Judy Shapira was a member of the farm in 1951-52 and she was the first graduate that a hachsharah group decided was not suitable for chalutzic aliyah, she

46 Zvi Solow. Interview Date: 23/07/08.

47 C48 AJHS. “Report of the Hachshara Department,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 42.

168 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour described to me how she felt when she found out the group had decided she was not suitable to make chalutzic aliyah:

[It was] Shattering, because at the end of everybody’s time on hachsharah, the group would sit around and discuss that person, to decide how suitable they were to go on aliyah. They say it to your face. And I was the first person who had ever been told, ‘no, you’re not good enough.’ I was absolutely shattered. Just, just – I don’t know why, I was a bit older than the other girls and the boys. It was a funny chevra. A really strange chevra. None of the others had any education beyond high school and they were suddenly experts in – I don’t know what. Whatever. I felt the ground had been cut from 48 under me.

The decision was made in the presence of the candidate after a group discussion which evaluated the member’s time on the farm. The process could be cruel but it reflected how seriously the ideology was taken by the young adults on the farm. A person may have been deeply hurt by the process, but the pain caused to an individual was secondary to the idea that only the most ideal candidates - a person who had embraced the correct attitude to labour, communal living and Jewish education - should make aliyah to a kibbutz. As an autonomous community the group on the farm was empowered to decide if the candidate had undergone the process of hagshamah atzmit.

The farm was a radical way of preparing Jewish youth for chaluztic aliyah. Chalutziut was a practical ideology which required people to actualise its aims and physically go out and work on a farm. As Sol Encel wrote in 1945, chalutziut was an intrinsically practical ideology: “Youth is inherently radical and attracted by radical ideas. The great distinction between Halutziut and other radical ideas is that its acceptance automatically implies practical realisation as well as theoretical agreement.”49 Hachsharah farms were crucial to the activities of the Zionist-socialist movements because they enabled them to actualise their ideological aims. The fact the farm operated for twenty-two years and produced around one

48 Judy Shapira. Interview Date: 18/06/08.

49 YF (F2), SUJA. Sol Encel, “What Halutzuit Means to Habonim,” HaMapil, September 1945, 9.

169 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour hundred and fifty olim represents the pinnacle of the ideological dedication to chalutziut which existed within the Zionist-socialist movements.50

One of the primary motivators of the kibbutz movement was the desire to create a new society which would end the subjugation of women. According to the founders of the kibbutz movement the subjugation of women was the result of two primary factors: the first was their economic dependence on their husbands and the second was the ‘biological tragedy of the women’ (ha-tragediya shel ha-isha). According to kibbutz ideology, the fact that women gave birth meant that in marriage women were invariably made the primary carers of children. This meant they had limited time to apply themselves to professional, intellectual and artistic pursuits. Kibbutzim attempted to solve this ‘tragedy’ through collective services which would alleviate the women’s responsibility as the primary carer. The most important of these services was collective education from a very young age which was supposed to enable women to work during the day and partake in the kibbutz’s intellectual, cultural and artistic activities which took place at night. 51 The issue of childhood was irrelevant to the hachsharah, which was not catering for families and children. However, the hachsharah made a concerted effort to embrace the idea that women should be equal contributors in the labour force and that every individual played a crucial role in operating the farm. Hagshama atzmit was supposed to be gender-blind. The hachsharah thus attempted to create a society in which all members contributed:

The farm is administered on completely democratic lines, with the fullest and equal participation of every member of the chevra... positions are rostered so that by the time a chaver has completed his time on hachshara he will have 52 taken almost all the responsibilities on the farm.

Labour tasks on the farm were to be rostered amongst all the workers, with kitchen duties shared by both men and women. Shirley Isaacs eventually made aliyah to Kibbutz Tzora and recalled that the work roster was organised in the same way as the kibbutz work roster and ensured all members worked in different areas on the farm, “it was like kibbutz,

50 On the source of my figure of one hundred and fifty olim see below.

51 Melford E. Spiro, Children of the Kibbutz: A study in Child Training and Personality, Sixth Edition, (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), 16-17. See also Ben-Rafael and Weitman, “The Reconstitution of the Family in the Kibbutz,” 1-2.

52 YF1 (F1) SUJA. 10 Years Hachshara in Australia, 11.

170 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour you had a work roster that was in charge of work. It was exactly the same as kibbutz, work roster, where you worked, what hours, the change in rotation of work... It was exactly the same as on kibbutz.53

Both men and women were required to work in the orchards and partake in the harder physical labour such as digging the irrigation. Although there was an attempt to ensure all the members on the farm did both manual labour and kitchen work the reality is that it was the women who worked more frequently in the kitchen and men worked on the farm doing the harder physical work.54 Rothfield’s description of the hachsharah in the early 1960s also describes how the women on the farm invariably became the merakezet bayit (head of the kitchen).55 Judy Shapira recalls that while everyone took part in different types of labour and that she also worked in the orchard, women on the farm were more frequently put in charge of kitchen duties. “We were in the early years of the orchard. We had to learn orcharding. Fruit growing. And the girls of course had to do kitchen and the washing and so on. I worked the harvest in the orchard. All hands on deck... everyone had to work.”56 On an ideological level, the hachsharah attempted to challenge the traditional place women occupied in Western society. Members involved on the hachsharah tried to make sure both sexes shared the different forms of labour equally but this ideal seems to have been compromised by the physical realities of farming life.57

Barriers to Chalutziut

Those planning on making aliyah In the 1940s had to leave their families in Australia and move to a new community struggling to survive under very adverse conditions. When Doari wrote her letter in 1946 it was not even certain that the Zionist project would succeed in establishing a Jewish State. Australian Jews were alert to the growing conflict between the British colonial authorities and the Jewish and Arab populations. From newspaper

53 Shirley Isaacs. Interview Date: 27/11/07.

54 Metcalf also quotes members on the farm who recall that while there was an attempt to ensure equality between the sexes traditional women’s work (washing cleaning, cooking, etc) was more frequently done by the females on the hachsharah. Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 207-208.

55 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

56 Judy Shapira. Interview Date: 18/06/08.

57 For a discussion of the reality of life for women on kibbutzim see Ruth Kark, Margalit Shilo, and Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds., Jewish Women in Pre-state Israel: Life History, Politics, and Culture, (United States of America: Brandeis University Press, 2008) And Gavron, Awakening from Utopia, 24-24, 134-135.

171 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour reports it was quite clear Palestine could descend into further violence and turmoil.58 The movements were aware that individuals making aliyah were making a great sacrifice by moving to Eretz Israel at a time of such uncertainty. A 1945 article in Hamagashim included the following comment on the life of the chalutzim in Mandate Palestine:

There are some in the towns who enjoy their comfortable life but the Chalutzim and those who live by earning their bread by their work have to pull themselves together and work harder than the average worker in Australia. You must always remember that Eretz Israel is a country in a state of colonisation and that all the advantages of Australia have to be created slowly 59 by our own work.

Life in Australia, however, was ripe with political and economic opportunities. Even in the late 1960s and 1970s members of the movement were aware of the fact that standards of living were far tougher in Israel than in Australia.60 A Zionist had to be willing to sacrifice the stability of life in Australia for the uncertainty of life in the Palestine/Israel.

A further barrier was the fact that the distance between Australia and Palestine was vast. Travel and communication were slow and expensive. Before aviation travel became affordable chalutzim who made aliyah did so with the knowledge that they perhaps would not see their friends or family for many years. From the interviews I carried out with past members of Habonim it is clear that a large percentage of Habonim members came from families which had been devastated by the Holocaust. Many of these survivors viewed Australia as a safe haven where they could rebuild their families. Les Szekely recalls the conflict and tension that arose when he informed his parents he was planning on making aliyah:

As time went on it became a total standoff. When it got to the stage when I went home, I don’t remember what age, and I said, ‘guess what, I’m not going to live here, I’m the only child, you survived the Holocaust, I’m the only thing

58 Rutland, Edge, 170-173.

59 YF (F2) SUJA. Hamagashim: First Anniversary of Hechalutz, Melbourne, Issued by Hechalutz Australia, Melbourne, July/Aug 1945. No. 4, 15.

60 Phil Levy. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

172 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

you value in the world, you gave it all for me and I’m leaving.’ It was probably in first year uni after I came back from Israel. That was a not nice two or three years...61

Eli Grossman, a member of Betar whose family had also survived the Holocaust, identified strongly with Israel but he could not face the idea of abandoning his family which had survived such hardships: “I could see myself spending time there, but my connections were too strong here, family and I suppose that whole guilt thing, Holocaust survivor parents, I am a child of the Holocaust. That had a huge impact on me.”62 Many parents opposed their children migrating to Palestine and saw aliyah as an abandonment of the family. Family pressures against making aliyah were very strong. Hilda Metzler, a member of Melbourne Habonim in the 1950s and 1960s, recalls that the pressures from her family persuaded her and her future husband not to even consider aliyah an option. 63

Shirley Isaacs did not come from a European background but her parents also failed to understand why she would leave her family and Australia for Israel. She recalled:

None of our parents were [supportive]. The most blatant Zionists from Melbourne, their children, they thought their children were going to die. It was the worst thing that could happen. And they were the Zionists, big Zionists. Nobody wanted their child to go. Nobody encouraged then. Nobody. And they were openly hostile towards their children that went to Israel... It was devastating for them. Now when my daughters left kibbutz and came to Australia, I can understand what my mother must have gone through.64

According to Ehud Lederberger, when he was working as a shaliach the end of the 1940s he faced considerable opposition from parents wherever he worked but the opposition in Sydney was particularly strong. Valda Symonds was a member of the ZYL and her father made an “official complaint” that there was a man in Australia from Israel who was trying to kidnap children and send them to live in Israel. In his interview with Eliyahu Honig

61 Les Szekely. Interview Date 9/11/07.

62 Eli Grossman. Interview Date: 4/12/07.

63 Hilda (Metzler) Brisson. Interview Date: 8/12/07.

64 Shirley Isaacs. Interview Date 27/11/07.

173 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Lederberger went on to claim that the “secret police” went to his office and told him that they had a “big file “ on him and had been following his activities with the youth movements for some time. They disapproved of his attitude to the British Government and the lectures he was giving and suggested that he should consider leaving the country.65 Despite the opposition from her father, Valda eventually made aliyah to kibbutz Ein Dor.66

The tension encountered by Les Szekely when he announced his intention to make aliyah was shared by many other individuals whose families also opposed them leaving the family to live in Israel. When David Rothfield returned from Machon in 1960 and made it clear he was making aliyah his parents “ordered” his younger brother out of Hashomer Hatzair: “They weren’t going to lose a second son” to the Zionist cause.67

Opposition from families was a key reason why many potential olim did not make aliyah. As Shirley Isaacs noted, some of the families which opposed their children making aliyah were very involved with the Zionist movement in Australia, but nonetheless they did not want to ‘lose’ their children to Israel. In all the interviews I have carried out with past movement members it is clear that almost no families were supportive of their children making aliyah. The fact that individuals did make aliyah is a testament to the powerful ideological identification they felt towards Zionism and the chalutzic ideal.

Success or Failure? Closure of the Hachsharah

The purpose of the hachsharah was to train movement members to make aliyah to a kibbutz. Was the farm a success? While it is impossible to ascertain the precise numbers of people who were trained on the hachsharah, Metcalf claims the farm was “responsible for several hundred young Australian Jews making aliya”.68 It is my contention that claiming “several hundred” members made aliyah is a slight exaggeration. By the end of 1959 He- Chalutz claimed one hundred and twenty chaverim had made aliyah. Between 1960 and 1962 He-Chalutz claimed a further seventeen graduates from the farm made aliyah. For most of 1963 there were only five people on the farm. In 1964-65 there was a slightly larger

65 JAL Eliyahu Honig Interviews. Interview with Ehud Lador (Lederberger) May 16 Jerusalem. Interview by Eliyahu Honig. 15/05/1985, Jerusalem.

66 Diane Encel, (Previously Hovev). Interview Date 19/06/08.

67 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

68 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 201. For example: in 1948 nine chaverim made aliyah and another fifteen the following year. YF1, (F2), SUJA. Mishmar, June, Organ of Habonim Australia, 1953.

174 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour group of fifteen members. Many of the members in these last groups made aliyah; nonetheless, the figures available show that the maximum number of hachshara members making aliyah is closer to one hundred and fifty. Of the one hundred and sixty-six Australians and New Zealanders to make aliyah between 1946 and 1956, one hundred and six of them were trained on the hachsharah. At the Zionist Plenary held in January 1960 He- Chalutz claimed that one-hundred and twenty members from He-Chalutz had made aliyah.69 He-Chalutz’s report also went on to state that “In the two years which have elapsed since the last conference, aliyah through the He-Chalutz has reached figures higher than ever before in the history of the Hechalutz in Australia.”70 Many of these members went on aliyah to kibbutz.71 Between 1960 and 1962 twenty chaverim graduated from the farm, seventeen of whom made aliyah.

Unfortunately precise figures of how many graduates of the farm made aliyah are unknown. Nonetheless we have enough archival material to gain a rough approximation of how many members from the farm did make aliyah. There is however, no data on how many graduates actually made chalutzic aliyah to kibbutz, nor is there any information on how many of those olim eventually left the kibbutz movement. Another crucial gap in the records relates to the number of olim who returned to Australia or emigrated from Israel to live elsewhere. Despite the gaps in the available data, it is clear that the vast majority of Zionist youth who made aliyah while the farm was operating were members of the hachsharah. It is also clear from the available evidence that the time spent on the hachsharah was not incidental to an individual’s decision to make aliyah but was a formative part of crystallising the desire within Zionist youth to make immigrate to Israel. The proof of the importance of the hachsharah in convincing members to make aliyah is borne out by the testimony of those individuals I interviewed as well as the archival statements made by Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair during the period when the farm operated. The fact that the available data indicates that the vast majority of Zionist youth who made aliyah had also attended the farm reinforces this conclusion. Bill Metcalf’s research into the hachsharah farm led him to make the same conclusion. Furthermore, the research of other writers makes clear that they also see the hachsharah farms as playing a vital role in convincing Jewish youth to make aliyah.72 From the existing evidence it is clear that the hachsharah

69 YF2 SUJA. “Report of the Hechalutz,” Zionist Federation of Australia and NZ Plenary Session, Jan 30th-Feb 1st, 1960, 24.

70 Ibid, 24.

71 Ibid, 24.

72 The list of academics who argue that the hachsharah farms played a central role in causing individuals to make aliyah includes such eminent historans as Walter Laqueur, Gideon Shimoni and Israel Oppenheim. For 175 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour was a success in being the primary reservoir of Australian olim during the twenty-two years of its existence.

It is also clear that the farm played a positive role in preparing its members for kibbutz life. While there were individuals who chose to leave the farm the overwhelming majority of people who elected to go to the hachsharah completed their time on the farm.73 One of the roles of the shlichim like Gershon Epstein was to help the group on the farm resolve any difficulties that arose from communal living, “…helping and advising the chevra in resolving their many problems of communal life and generally trying to show them the best way to prepare themselves for their chalutzic life in Israel.”74 Despite the difficulties of living in close quarters in small groups the hachsharah proved remarkably effective in helping convince members of their chalutzic aspirations. Rather than being discouraged by the difficulties of life on the hachsharah the experience appears to have proved to an important part of the process of deciding to make aliyah.

Habonim proclaimed the hachsharah was the pinnacle of its achievements and that without it the movement was ‘nothing’. Why then did the farm close? The numbers of chaverim on the farm fluctuated greatly and there were periods - even in the early 1950s - when the hachsharah struggled to attract enough members. A report by Habonim in 1952 stated that the farm had almost collapsed: “It must be stressed that during the last year the hachshara has weathered many storms, and at times was very close to extinction.” 75 There were also years when the small size of the chevra on the farm exacerbated the ability of the farm to run efficiently.76 When labour demands were too great, the Zionist-socialist

specific texts which discuss the importance of the farms see for example: Oppenheim, “Hehalut,” 238-267. New York: New York University Press, 1996. And Goldberg and King. Builders and Dreamers, various.

73 The youth magazines make references to individuals leaving the farm, for example the Bulletin noted that “Sarah and Ahron decided to leave the chevra for personal reasons” YF (F2), SUJA. Bulletin: Hachsharah Report, Published by the Youth department Zionist Federation of Australia and NZ, July/August 1949, 1. During David Rothfield’s time on the farm in 1963 two members left due to personal reasons. Interview Date: 18/02/08. Metcalf also notes that in 1961 fifteen youth movement members originally joined the farm however “five soon left because of incompatibility with communal living.” Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 209.

74 YF7 Folder 1, SUJA. “Report to Executive of the Zionist Federation – Youth Shaliach G. Epstein,” 1953, 1.

75 YF Folder 1 Box 1, SUJA. “Report of Habonim” to the 5th Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha, Sydney, January 1952, AZYC, 6. Reports from the He-Chalutz also note that that the organisation frequently ceased operating and had to be re-started, often by the shaliach. YF Folder 1 Box 1, SUJA. “Hechalutz Report,” Report to the Pegisha 1953, 7.

76 In 1949 there were eighteen members on the farm. YF1 (F2) SUJA. Mishmar, June, Organ of Habonim Australia, 1953. It was expected that there would be twenty members in 1950. YF3 (3) Perspective Folder, Shelf List 1, SUJA. Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand Report 14th Annual Australia Zionist Conference, 12-15th Nov 1949, 64. In 1951 however there were only nine members on the farm for most of the year and that number had been reduced to eight when a chaver chose to leave the farm. YF Folder 1 Box 1, SUJA. “Hechalutz Report” 5th Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha, Sydney, January 1952, AZYC, Federation of 176 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour movements would often send their chanichim as volunteers to help during fruit picking season, but calls for assistance often failed to attract any real support. A report by the He- Chalutz to the other movements lamented this lack of support: “Interest in the farm is very limited... A practical instance of this was the response (or lack of response) to the call of the AZYC for chaverim to assist in the urgent apricot picking. It is hoped that this situation will be remedied in the coming year.”77 During David Rothfield’s time on the farm in 1963 there were initially seven people on the farm. However, because two people left, five members ran the farm for most of the year. The group was made up of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair members from across Australia and also a Habonim member from New Zealand. Rothfield’s experience on the farm was very positive, “If you wanted to ask one of the highlights of my life, I would say that was the year on the hachsharah; that was a year that I thoroughly enjoyed...” His experience consolidated his ideological dedication to aliyah.78 While the size of the orchard had been drastically reduced in order to create space for the cow paddock, the crop was still too large for the small group on the hachsharah and they relied on Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair to send up volunteers to help pick the fruit.79

Rothfield wanted to spend longer on the farm but was only able to work on the hachsharah for a year because Hashomer Hatzair needed him to help keep the movement running in Melbourne. In 1964 and 1965 Hashomer Hatzair was unable to send any members to the hachsharah and Habonim was forced to run the hachsharah on its own.80 Although there were years in which the hachsharah struggled to attract interest, ultimately it was not shut down because of lack of interest by Australian youth. In 1965 there were fifteen members on the farm and the report from the hachsharah to the Plenary Executive in Melbourne was positive about the prospects for the farm as well as its continued importance for the youth movements.81 In the years following the closure of the farm individuals from Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair who had been trained on the hachsharah credited their time

Australia and New Zealand. Johnny Tenna, the hachsharah’s first full-time shaliach made a report to the Zionist Federation in which he stated there were only eight people on the farm in 1962. YF 2 SUJA. Report of the Youth department to the plenary Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney Jan 25th-27th 1963.

77 YF (F1 Box 1) and C37 AJHS. “Hechalutz Report” 5th Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha, Sydney, January 1952, AZYC, Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 18.

78 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

79 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

80 YF3 (F3) Shelf List 1, SUJA. “Report 22ND Biennial Conference 1966,” The Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 137.

81 YF2 SUJA. “Report of the Hachshara,” Reports to the Plenary Executive Meeting Melbourne, March 1965, 16. 177 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour on the farm as crucial to their decision to make aliyah. In their report to the SZCV in 1968 Hashomer Hatzair expressed its hope that the hachsharah would be re-established:

Over half the people who went on Aliya in 1967 (11 Hashomer members made aliyah in ‘67) were trained on the Hachshara. It is hoped that although the Hachshara is not working now, that it will start again soon. Its example is missed and also its good training is needed so that the chaverim who go on aliyah can speedily integrate into Kibbutz.82

Hashomer Hatzair remained dedicated to the concept of the Hachsharah and continued to believe it played a crucial role in preparing individuals for chalutzic aliyah. The closure of the farm was a blow to the movement’s ideological program.

The primary reason the farm was shut down appears to have been financial, with losses the farm had accrued having become untenable. Criticisms included the farm having outlived its usefulness and that there had been insufficient Hebrew and Zionist training.83 Throughout the years of the farm’s operation the Zionist movement had poured funds into restructuring the farm and attempting to improve its living conditions. Despite this, in 1965 He-Chalutz was still requesting extra funds to improve the farm and its living quarters.84 The farm appeared to its critics to have been a bottomless pit, which was a drain on the limited financial resources of the Australian Zionist movement. The growing consensus within the Zionist movement was that supporting the farm was untenable due to its financial cost. However, Golembowicz also suggests that the adult Zionist movement in Australia was never truly supportive of the farm and did not identify with chalutziut. It is possible that for some members of the Zionist movement the financial losses of the farm were simply an excuse to close a project which they did not support ideologically.

In 1948 the Zionist movement began to support a program called the Palestine Scholarship Scheme which paid for movement members to spend a year in Israel. Programs for the chalutzic movements offered the chance to spend an extended period of time on an actual kibbutz. As early as 1955 the Zionist Federation concluded that “The

82 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Report of Hashomer Hatzair,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, 2rd -3rd March 1968, 30.

83 Metcalf, “Hachshara,” 209.

84 YF2 SUJA. “Report of the Hachshara,” Reports to the Plenary Executive Meeting Melbourne, March 1965, 16.

178 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Scholarship Scheme may well be considered the most effective way of forging a living link between Israel and the Golah (Diaspora).”85 The hachsharah was supposed to prepare chaverim for the realities of life on kibbutz, and the Scholarship Scheme, as far as the Zionist movement was concerned, offered the same opportunity but on a real kibbutz. Most importantly, sending chaverim to work on a kibbutz in Israel was far less expensive than trying to keep the hachsharah operating. There was also no controversy about sending young adults to work on a real kibbutz as opposed to working out in rural Victoria with no real adult supervision. The ability to send large numbers of movement members to Israel enabled the adult Zionist movement to continue to support the chalutzic aspirations of the movements without the burden of the farm, which had also started to attract scrutiny within the broader Jewish community.86

Archival material around the time of the sale of the farm reveals a remarkable silence: it appears that there was no attempt by the youth movements to stop its closure or even to protest it. Mered Ha-Ben may have been watered down over the years, but other episodes during the 1960s and 1970s indicate that the youth movements did not shy away from confronting the adult Zionists when they felt they were failing to support them. The silence in the archival material may be an indication that some leaders within the movements had come to the conclusion that the farm was no longer essential when so many members were able to spend time on a real kibbutz in Israel.

The Impact of the Year Programs in Israel

One of the most important innovations by the Zionist movement was the decision to create, and financially support, year programs so that youth movement leaders could come and experience life in Israel after completing school. In 1946 the World Zionist Organisation established in Jerusalem the Machon L'Madrichei Chutz La'Aretz (Institute for Youth Leaders from Abroad). Around the world the course has come to be known colloquially within the youth movements as Machon. Machon involved intensive class-based courses and ran for half the year, covering a wide variety of topics including leadership training, Hebrew, Jewish history and Zionism. It ran in two cycles in order to cater for leaders from both the Northern

85 YF3 (F3) SUJA Shelf List 1, SUJA. “Report Plenary Session,” Sydney 13th August- 14th August, Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Minutes of the Plenary Session of the Executive of the ZFANZ, Melb, Jan 29-30, 1955, 4.

86 YF2 SUJA. “Report of the Hachshara,” Reports to the Plenary Executive Meeting Melbourne, March 1964, 16.

179 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour and Southern hemispheres. Madrichim from Australian movements attended Machon with leaders from South Africa and Latin America. After completing Machon participants separated into their respective movements and members of the Zionist-socialist movements would spend the second half of the year working on kibbutzim. After their year in Israel the participants would return home to share the knowledge and skills they had gained on Machon with their movements.

The World Zionist Organisation subsidised attendance on Machon, but still required attendees to pay a small fee, purchase their own airline tickets and ensure they had sufficient pocket money for living expenses. The Zionist Federation of Australia made the important decision in 1948 to create the Palestine Scholarship Scheme, which paid for the entire program as well as travel costs. The only thing not included in the scholarship was spending money. The vast majority of youth movement members in the 1940s and 1950s were either born in Europe or came from families which had arrived in Australia as refugees. They did not have the financial resources to send their children to study in Israel for a year. The Scholarship Scheme enabled Jewish youth to go to Israel on the program.87

While the selection process for the Scholarship Scheme underwent many changes over the years, the description given to the Youth Pegisha in 1953 illustrates the length to which the Australian Zionist movement went in order to try and ensure only the best candidates went on the program: “...the suitability of candidates was first discussed by the AZYC (Australian Zionist Youth Council), and their recommendation forwarded to the Federal Scholarship Committee upon whose final selection one candidate was subsequently chosen.”88 With limited financial resources, the ZFA offered only a small number of scholarships. The ZFA supported the Scheme for first time in 1948 and only sent three movement leaders to Israel.89 These numbers remained fairly consistent and in 1951 six leaders were selected for the course, while only three went in 1953.90 By the early 1960s the number of leaders selected for the Scholarship Scheme had only increased marginally.

87 The recipients of the scholarship were required to be committed leaders of their movements for two years after their return. While the scholarship scheme no longer exists and most families now pay the full amount for their children to attend the year programs the idea that individuals who go on a year program should serve as madrichim for a minimum of two years after returning to Australia has emerged as a tradition amongst all the movements.

88 Box 1 YF3 SUJA. “Report to the fourth Australian Zionist Youth Pegisha,” 1953 AZYC, 5. and YF Folder 1 Box 1, SUJA. Shimshon Feder, Report to the Pegisha 1953, 5,

89 YF1 (F2) SUJA. “15th Anniversary Timeline,” Hatzofeh, October 1955, Organ of the Shichvah Hatzofim, Habonim Sydney.

90 YF Folder 1 Box 1, SUJA. “Report to the Pegisha 1953,” 7.

180 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Eight leaders were chosen in 1962 and five in 1963:91 these small numbers were split both across all the movements and all the states. For example, the Machon cohort in 1962 included a single Melbourne Bnei Akiva leader, one Betari from Sydney, one Melbourne member from Hashomer Hatzair, three Melbourne Habonim leaders and two more Habonim madrichim from Sydney and Adelaide. The fact that the scholarships were divided between all the movements meant it was possible for some states - or even entire movements - to miss out on sending any leaders on the program in any one year. Realising the worth of Machon, the movements competed for their leaders to go on the program. With so few scholarship positions available potential candidates within the same movement often vied for the honour of being considered for the scholarship.

The movements valued Machon greatly because it produced leaders with a far greater level of knowledge. Leaders returning from the programs were also enthused by the experience and eager to bring back what they had learned in Israel. Hashomer Hatzair’s report to the SZCV in 1968 shows how the movements valued the education Machon provided:

Machon: At present one chaver is on Machon in Israel, due to return in early 1969. Seven candidates for the ’69-70 Machon have been selected in the Movement, more than any other Movement. This high number is indicative of the rapidly rising standard in the Movement. The Hanhaga wishes to stress the importance of Machon graduates in the running of the movement and views with concern that many capable and willing candidates are prevented from going on Machon by lack of places in Australia.92

Hashomer Hatzair was also proud that so many of its members had been selected for Machon because this was a measure of the ‘high quality’ of its leaders. This problem was partially solved by the fact that many of the Zionist youth movements offered their own year programs. Louis Paper, for example, attended a program in 1952 which was organised by Betar. The courses that Paper learnt clearly indicate the ideological agenda of the year

91 In 1963 the candidates selected included a member of Betar, two members from Habonim Sydney and one member from Hashomer Hatzair. YF2 SUJA. Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand Plenary Session, August 24th-25th, 1963, Report of the Youth department to the plenary Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Sydney Jan 25th-27th 1963, 2.

92 “Report of Hashomer Hatzair,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, 30th November -1st December 1968, 45, JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports.

181 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour programs to inculcate support for Betar and the Revisionist movement. 93 Bnei Akiva members would also sometimes go to Israel to study on Yeshivah or take part in the B’nei Akiva Scholarship Institute courses (B.A.S.I.). However, the programs were not subsidised, which limited their appeal. The fact the Betar program was much less well organised than Machon also affected its ability to attract any further support from Australian Betar leaders.

One of the biggest changes to affect the year programs was the demographic shift taking place within the European Jewish population. The Jewish migrant population was becoming much more financially established and in 1970 Habonim introduced a program which was not subsidised called Shnat Hachsharah (Year of Training). 94 Shnat Hachasharah was an alternative to Machon and was open to all Habonim madrichim. Places on Machon continued to be limited and thus only the most promising leaders were selected for the program. Shnat Hachsharah, however, was open to all Habonim madrichim and when Tony Freeman went on the program it cost around six hundred dollars. The cost was still prohibitive to some families but it was still heavily subsidised and increasingly large numbers of madrichim were now able to go on year program to Israel. 95

The major difference between Machon and Shnat Hachsharah was that those on the Shnat program spent the majority of the year on kibbutz. This kept the cost of the program down but, more importantly, it offered Habonim members the chance to experience life on kibbutz for an extended period of time.96 Phil Levy went to Israel on the Shnat Hachshara program in 1978 when Machon was still selective. He was not interested in the Machon program and wanted the chance to experience living on kibbutz as opposed to another year of study after finishing school. Programs like Shnat Hachshara succeeded because they offered an experiential alternative to the more intellectually based Machon. Phil Levy recalls that he did not want to go on Machon and was excited by the opportunity of spending an

93 Louis Paper kept a list of the courses that were taught on the course: “Drill, songs, field craft and scouting. Club decorating. General and Israeli education. Methods of education. Lectures on Jabotinsky. Economic problems of Israel. Zionist history. Betar history. Ivrit. Hebrew Folk dancing. Israel’s neighbours. Other political and youth movements. Palestinian demography. Sheret Betar, as in Service to Betar. History of Eztel...” Interview Date 14/07/08.

95 Thus, for example, by 1978 seventy participants were taking part in the year programs provided by the movements. In 1978 forty-five of those participants were from Habonim. JAL Report Folder. “Ichud Habonim”, Report to the Twenty-Eighth Biennial Conference: 1976-1978, Melbourne Victoria, Zionist Federation of Australia, 136.

96 It was at the end of 1969 that Habonim in Australia was first informed of the decision by the world movement to start “to bring chaverim for a twelve month program which would include ulpan, (studying Hebrew) and various seminars, interspersed with holidays and tours; also full time work on kibbutz.” Toby Hammerman Papers. Minutes of the Parents and Friends Association Meeting: Held on Tuesday, 11th November, 1969.

182 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour extended period on an actual kibbutz: “We went to Kfar Hanassi, I was on Shnat it wasn’t Machon. One year on kibbutz... I didn’t want to go on Machon, it was more study, I wanted to work on kibbutz and see what that was like.”97 Shnat Hachsharah’s extended period of time appealed to members of the Zionist-socialist movements who wanted to dedicate a year to experiencing kibbutz life. With the closure of the Hachshara farm this alternative became particularly attractive to members of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair contemplating chalutzic aliyah.

The year programs quickly emerged as an essential part of a madrich’s education and all the movements encouraged their members to take a year off after to school to go on a program. Reports by the movements bear witness to the ever increasing numbers of youth leaders taking part in year programs. By the early 1970s Habonim was sending more than twenty members on the program each year to work on Israeli kibbutzim. The leaders who returned were seen as a ‘vital force’, enriched by their year in Israel. Habonim, in its 1973- 74 report to the SZCV, stated what it hoped the year programs would achieve:

We hope to create a feeling of Jewishness and identity with Israel in our members by expecting all our senior chaverim to spend a year in Israel. As a result of this, we now have a group of twenty-three people from Melbourne in Israel on Shnat Hachshara and two on Machon. We hope that the returning Shant Hachshara-Machon groups come back to the movement with a vital force to uplift and perpetuate the movement.98

According to their 1974-75 report to the SZCV Habonim sent thirty-two leaders on year programs to Israel: twenty-seven on Shnat Hachshara, and five on Machon.99 The reports by the movements reveal that sending such large numbers of madrichim to Israel often crippled their ability to operate effectively: “Many members of this group have held active and responsible positions in Ichud Habonim and it is not without some difficulty that we have

97 Tony (Salter) Freeman. Interview Date: 08/12/07.

98 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Ichud Habonim,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1973-1974, 73.

99 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Ichud Habonim,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1974-1975, 82. In 1976-77 the number of movement members on programs in Israel increased to fifty- three. Habonim sent thirty-one members, twenty-two of which came from Melbourne. JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Ichud Habonim,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1976-1977, 86.

183 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour been able to replace them.”100 Nonetheless, the movements persisted in sending large groups because they wanted their leaders to partake in the experience of living together as a chevra in Israel. Hashomer Hatzair also struggled when large groups went on the year programs or made aliyah. In 1973 two leaders decided to stay in Israel not to return and lead as madrichim. For a small movement like Hashomer Hatzair the loss of two madrichim was a blow to its ability to operate effectively, but, nonetheless the primary goal of the movement remained aliyah to a kibbutz. “At present we have seven chaverim in Israel on shnat schemes – six on shnat hachshara and one attending Machon. Five chaverim have made aliyah this year including two on shnat who have decided to stay. Although this loss of manpower will hamper our activities we are extremely happy to see them realize the movement ideal of aliyah to kibbutz. Also two former members have volunteered during the recent crisis [October 1973 War] and are contemplating staying permanently.”101 Group dynamics were an important part of the youth movement ethos and it was understood that the experience of going away for a year with a Habonim group to work on a kibbutz increased the chances of a garin aliyah forming. Les Szekely describes how the concept of the garin was understood as central to the idea of making aliyah to a kibbutz:

Literally as you know it garin means seed. The idea was that it was a group of people, generally people who had known each other for a long time and were friends and had committed themselves to making aliyah as a group, and living together as a group in Israel, generally on kibbutz, although later on some people toyed with the idea of the garin going to the City, known as an Irbutz, the whole idea was that by making aliyah and going to kibbutz as a group it would be easier to realise your personal mission as a human being where the ideologies all around are about hagshamah: self-realisation. Self- realisation was not carte blanche; it was geared towards living a communal lifestyle in Israel, as transitioned from the capitalist nuclear family lifestyle to that lifestyle on a kibbutz. The idea was that a garin, a little group of good

100 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Ichud Habonim,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1974-1975, 82. The same problem occurred again in 1975: “Throughout 1975 our movement was considerably restricted and its activities impaired by a severe shortage of madrichim. On a number of occasions we discussed this situation which had arisen as a result of sending a large contingent to the Machon and Shnat Hachshara. This contingent numbered 31 members of our movement, and although considered a worthy achievement, had nevertheless, depleted the ranks of our senior movement of some of its most active workers and most talented madrichim.” JAL Box 2 SZC Reports. ‘Ichud Habonim’ Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1975-1976, 87.

101 JAL Box 2 State Zionist SZC Reports. ‘Hashomer Hatzair,’ Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1973-1974, 71.

184 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

friends, sharing the belief would make a better transition. That’s the concept, generally garin were formed after the people came back from their year in Israel on Shnat on Machon. The core would start there and they would form a year or two later, the commitment being that as people finished their studies or whatever they had to do, they would go over to the same place and look to live and work together.102

The Zionist-socialist movement saw the kibbutz as a means to reconfigure the traditional family structure.103 The garin was seen as the beginning of that process.

Going away for a year as a group was also viewed as a way to create a more cohesive leadership body. With Habonim operating in Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide the chance for leaders from the different states to get to know each other was of vital importance. The larger the group the more the movement was able to boast to the Zionist movement how successful they were. Hashomer Hatzair’s report to the SZCV in 1975 illustrates the desire of the movement to report to the Zionist movement how successful the movement was in terms of producing members who were making aliyah:

At present we are waiting the return, in January 1975, of six chaverim who have spent the past year at the Machon in Jerusalem and on Kibbutz Revadim and Kibbutz Lahav. The return of these chaverim will help alleviate the loss of manpower caused by the departure of 7 chaverim to the Machon and 5 who will be participating in Shnat Hachshara programs in 1975. We also hope to farewell two senior members early next year, who will be realizing the movement’s ideal of aliyah to kibbutz…104

Machon and programs like Shnat Hachshara succeeded because the response of participants was overwhelmingly positive. However, the year programs would only succeed if the movements could convince parents to send their children to live in Israel for a year after completing high school. Henry Sharpe went on Machon in 1978. His mother had lived as a child on a kibbutz after fleeing Europe and was supportive of her son going on a

102 Les Szekely. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

103 Spiro, Children of the Kibbutz, 6.

104 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Hashomer Hatzair,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1974-1975, 80.

185 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour program to Israel. However, she was also fearful he would make aliyah and leave the family. These tensions and ambiguities played out in different ways within individual families. For many parents their support for Israel won out and they sent their children on the programs because they wanted their children to have a strong connection to Israel. Henry Sharpe recalled how strong these pressures were:

My mother was in Europe during the war, she was a young girl, from Romania, she didn’t go to any of the camps, luckily, but she left Romania on Youth Aliyah, after the war. After the war they collected a lot of the kids. Her mother had died died of natural causes, and her father was not at home, so she joined Habonim and she connected. She was only thirteen. They said they were taking kids and she went to Israel, to a kibbutz and lived there about a year, year and a half and then went to live with a cousin in the city. My mother had kibbutz knowledge, and she loved it, so she was always very positive. But she was always worried that I would make aliyah and therefore I would be somewhere else, even though she loved Israel and was very Zionistic.105

The shlichim also worked hard to convince parents to allow their children to go on the programs. Over the years, as more and more madrichim returned from the programs and spread positive stories about their experiences fewer parents were willing to oppose their children’s desire to go on the programs. A culture emerged within the movements where the programs became an essential part of a madrich’s education in the movement. Parents who allowed their children to go to the movements were thus often aware of the fact that their involvement included a year of further training and education in Israel after school. The impact of the June 1967 War also had a powerful effect on the Jewish community and many Australian Jews became supportive of Zionism and the youth movements; Israel had come to occupy a central part of Australian Jewish life.106 The year programs grew in popularity in the post 1967 environment because parents were able and willing to pay for their children to spend a year living in Israel.107

105 Henry Sharpe. Interview Date: 9/12/07.

106 Rutland, Edge, 160.

107 186 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

While the year programs provided an excellent education, the key to their success was that they enabled Zionist youth to gain a firsthand knowledge of Israel. The World Zionist Organisation (WZO) funded Machon because it saw it as an opportunity not only to educate movement leaders but to create personal connections with Israel. The ZFA also saw the year programs as the best way to forge this link. The leaders on the program had come through the education system of the movements. However the ‘Israel’ that they had learnt about existed solely in their minds. It was an imagined place. In order for the leaders to become true Zionists they had to not only appreciate the worth of Jewish nationalism intellectually but also to have a personal and emotional connection. A person who identified both emotionally and intellectually with Israel was not only a better leader but also more likely to make aliyah.

The participants of the year programs had often just finished school. Many of them had never left Australia before and now they were on the other side of the world, living with their closest friends, and without any parental supervision. Part of the success of the year programs was the thrill and excitement of this new found independence. Phil Levy went on Habonim year program in 1978 and told me the following:

... I think the prospect of going on Shnat, when you’re in year eleven, year twelve, you’ve got that to look forward to. Going overseas for a year and spending a year away from your family. I mean had never been to Israel before. I really didn’t have a great affinity, closeness, affinity with Israel, I mean, Israel was this thing, being Jewish, it was some other place, it had Jerusalem, that’s all we knew. If you’ve never been there and all you hear about it is very different to actually going there.108

Phil Levy’s recollection of the excitement he felt on being in Israel also touches upon the key reason why the movements supported the year programs: While he had been involved with Habonim he still did not feel any real connection to Israel. It was only going to live in Israel for a year that made him feel connected to Israel.

108 Phil Levy. Interview Date: 26/11/07.

187 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

A Transformative Experience

The experience of the year programs was highly individualised; while some participants did not enjoy the year programs and did not connect with Israel it is clear from the interviews I have carried out that for many participants the year in Israel was a transformative experience and a real turning point in their identification with Israel and Zionism. For leaders from Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair the chance to work and experience life on kibbutz gave them the sense that they were chalutzim playing a constructive role in helping build Israeli society. Phil Levy described how his year in Israel gave him a strong emotional connection to Israel:

I loved it, best year of my life. The lifestyle, it probably had something to do with the fact that I was on my own as a nineteen - my first time ever to make my own decisions, did my own thing. Away from my mother and the rest of the family – that was part of it. But also, the fact that, you know, you go to work, put in a hard day’s work, come home, have your food, your clothing, washing and everything provided. You really don’t have to worry about anything as long as you go to work. I just enjoyed it, I enjoyed the outdoors, I was working in tractors, farms, coming from Sydney, when do you get to do anything like that? I loved it so much I made the decision - I don’t when exactly, then and there, anyway the Shnat year finished that I would come back (to Israel)... The whole chalutz thing – I don’t know maybe it built on it, it grew on me while I was in Israel. But the whole idea of chalutz, working the land, building the place, helping the Jewish people in the Jewish homeland.109

David Zyngier went on the year program with Hashomer Hatzair in 1969 and his group’s experience on the kibbutz led to the formation of a garin aliyah called shachar (dawn) which had nine members. With the closure of the hachsharah the year program was crucial training to prepare them for life on kibbutz. It was a chance to actually be a chalutz and develop the correct attitude to labour. However, unlike the hachsharah farm the time on kibbutz offered the chance to ‘work the land ‘of Israel and be part of the process of ‘rebuilding the Jewish nation’. Despite the difficulties of life in Israel for David Zyngier the exposure to life on kibbutz was a powerful and rewarding undertaking:

109 Phil Levy. Interview Date: 26/11/07.

188 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Just arriving in Israel was an incredible experience, the emotion of being in Israel, just after the ‘67 War. In ‘69 you could travel freely everywhere you liked, as a Jew, and everything was safe. We were spending time in Hebron, time in Jericho. We would go on a tiyul wherever we liked, so those were pretty exciting times. Working in the fields. We loved to work. We didn’t expect payment, we didn’t get payment, we got a taktziv (budget) from the kibbutz, which we thought was overly generous and we put it into a kupa (communal money pot for all members in the group).110

Sonia Goutman went on Machon in 1991 and her reflections on what the program gave her mirrors some of the same themes that Levy commented on. For Sonia her trip to Israel with Habonim was crucial to her decision to make aliyah because it was during this year that she was able to form a personal connection with Israel:

I went on Machon with them [Habonim]. That gave me a lot. It gave me an Israel connection that was mine, it wasn’t connected to my parents, it was my experience, it was my struggles it was my ideas. It was me as the individual. And through Habonim I affiliated with Israel. I went hoping that it would be social, but it wasn’t, but, it was also a way - I was able to affiliate with Israel.111

The strong personal bond was also a product of the fact that the participants were young people on the verge of adulthood. The year away provided a series of formative experiences that were indelibly connected to the country in which they took place. The life- changing experiences that movement members had on the year programs were linked to a country which had profound religious, cultural and historical significance. The education of the movements continued to be focused on the idea that Israel was the only real place in which Jews could feel complete. Members of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were brought up with an education that taught about the beauty and wholesomeness of life on kibbutz, so that when the opportunity came to go and spend time on an actual kibbutz for a year many members leapt at the opportunity.

110 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

111 Sonia Goutman. Interview Date: 8/11/2007.

189 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

David Tassie was a member of Habonim in the 1960s and early 1970s, and he remembers how the ideal of kibbutz life was placed at the forefront of the educational process in Habonim. I asked David Tassie if the idea of going to live in kibbutz was something which was taught in Habonim from a young age:

LANDER: In terms of saying stuff like when you go and live on kibbutz, was that something that you recall having been taught at quite a young age?

DAVID TASSIE: Yes, when they would say you will go and live, it was sort of, you know ‘aspire to this guys, this really is your destiny should you choose to embrace it. Those that are strong and with fortitude will make it and we need to push for that, because that’s what we should do, that’s the right thing to do.’ Those that are strong and with fortitude will make it and we need to push for that, because that’s what we should do, that’s the right thing to do. It was certainly presented with very rosy pictures, so there wasn’t one hell of a lot I could say was wrong with it.112

The movements had to decide how much tolerance they should show to leaders who were not dedicated to aliyah. At a veida held in 1964 at the Hachshara, Habonim continued to reaffirm the idea that leaders must be dedicated to chalutziut:

Ichud Habonim demands of its members once they reach the Ma’apalim shichva (Senior group. Illegal Immigrants) and allowing for individual differences in madrich education they clarify their position regarding the Hagshama Atzmit i.e. Hachshara and aliyah, to the Hanhaga of their respective Meracez. By the Age of 21, a chaver of the Movement must make a final decision by becoming a member of Hechalutz, unless otherwise approved by the Hanhaga.113

While the movement tolerated some form of “individual differences in madrich education”, the drive was for madrichim to become members of He-Chalutz and go to the hachshara

112 David Tassie. Interview Date: 11/11/07.

113 YF 7 Folder Beginnings, SUJA. “Ideological Platform of Ichud Habonim Australia,” (As drawn up at the Veida held at the Hachshara June 1964), 2, The name Ma’apalim was the name in Hebrew given to the illegal immigrants who smuggled themselves into Palestine during the British Mandate despite the attempts by the British to stop Jewish immigration into Mandate Palestine. The name is a further reminder of the ideological character of the movements.

190 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour farm. The platform even stated a madrich must join He-Chalutz unless the Hanhaga gave approval for the leader not to join the organisation. The reality was that the movements were not able to exert this much control, but the platform indicates that in the mid 1960s the ideologues within the movement still sought to impose a compulsory aliyah upon its madrichim. The guiding belief was that if aliyah was a tough option it was necessary for the movement to have a firm hand in making members explicitly dedicate themselves to aliyah.114

Les Szekely was a madrich in Sydney Habonim in the 1970s during a time when the educational aims of the movement were still firmly directed towards chalutzic aliyah. According to Szekely a madrich was considered successful if they guided a chanich towards realising that chalutzic aliyah would fulfil their purpose in life.

The definition of success was your chanich came in one end, with whatever views and ends up going to Israel on a garin to live in kibbutz. That was absolutely sharply defined. That was the objective. And along the way they shouldn’t do it because you told them they should do it because of hagashamah atzmit, personal –realisation of his place in the cosmos. Which he knew what it was we just had to help him realise it.115

While David Zyngier was involved in Hashomer Hatzair, he remained firmly dedicated to chalutzic aliyah and had no place for members who were not dedicated to the ideology:

As youth we were not prepared to compromise, especially as radical socialist- Zionist youth we were definitely not prepared to compromise one iota. It was aliyah or nothing. And that was one of the biggest problems for Hashomer, aliyah was very difficult. And problematic, so if you don’t go on aliyah and if you don’t want to go on aliyah, Hashomer became, through its ideology its

114 It is clear from the interviews I have carried out that the push to convince members to make aliyah was much stronger in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s than it was in later decades. Nonetheless, despite the strong educational push the majority of members never made aliyah. Furthermore, many of those who did attempted to make aliyah returned to Australia. For Habonim’s 50th anniversary Habonim’s Parent and Friends organisation asked ex-movement members to send in a short bio about their time in Habonim, what they have done since and how to contact them at their present address. Over a hundred ex-members sent in their contact details. One or two were still living in Israel but the rest of the contributions came from individuals who were still living Australia most of whom never attempted to make aliyah. Toby Hammerman Papers. “Wonder Where Whats-His Name is These Days?” Habonim Dror 50th Anniversary 1990.

115 Les Szekely. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

191 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

own worst enemy... During my time if you didn’t want to make aliyah, if you weren’t committed to going on aliyah there was no place for you in Hashomer Hatzair.116

The educational program of the movement sought to promote kibbutz life and to bring aspects of kibbutz life into the way the movements ran their activities in Australia. Thus, for example, Hashomer Hatzair camps sought to create an imaginative space in which the campers could imitate the life of the first pioneers in Palestine. David Zyngier recounted how strong this chalutzic ideal was when he was in Hashomer Hatzair during the 1960s and 1970s:

Our camps were really pioneering, real chalutziut. Not just ohalim (tents), not just the tents, but we also had to build a mitbach (kitchen), we had to dig the hole for latrines, we actually had a pioneering camp. The bogrim would go and actually construct the infrastructure for the camp. Often clearing land. It was if you were going onto barren land in Eretz Yisrael and creating a kibbutz for two or three weeks. So it was very, very much a pioneering ethos. Hashy was known for scorning any bourgeois comforts. It was tough on kids, the first camp I went to I got very homesick and I went home. I couldn’t stand the dirt and the flies and the really strict regime.117

Fran Pearl took several pictures at Hashomer Hatzair camps she attended, which capture the pioneering atmosphere of the Hashomer Hatzair camps which David Zyngier described. In Figure 9 members of Hashomer Hatzair construct the camp kitchen from pieces of timber:

116 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

117 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

192 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Figure 9: Summer Camp, Healesville, Victoria, 1961. Members of Hashomer Hatzair construct the kitchen that will be used during camp. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl)

Figure 10 is a picture taken by Fran Pearl of the camp tower which members of Hashomer Hatzair built.

193 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Figure 10: Summer Camp, Healesville, Victoria, 1961. Members of Hashomer Hatzair stand upon the camp migdal (watch tower) which they have built. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl)

During the 1960s and 1970s Jewish festivals and dances in Hashomer Hatzair were also drawn directly from the experience of madrichim who had spent time on kibbutz. David Zyngier went onto tell me:

Anything that the kibbutz celebrated in the kibbutz we celebrated. They would spend time on the kibbutz and bring that back and we would parody it and emulate that in Melbourne. We would learn dances about bringing the sheaves; we went camping in the fields, similar to Succot which was an agricultural festival we learnt about. We would go for overnight hikes and build a bivouac. That was our Succah.118

Hashomer Hatzair was operating in the Diaspora thousands of miles away from Israel so the movement sought to maintain its chalutzic character by emulating any aspect of kibbutz life they could. They celebrated Jewish festivals in a similar way, used the same dances and songs, taught about the history of the kibbutz movement and ran camps that

118 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

194 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour were pioneering. The ability to bring aspects of kibbutz life to Australia was made possible because of the year programs. Once the movements started to send large numbers of madrichim to Israel it meant that the majority of the leadership had a personal experience of working on kibbutz and living in Israel. This was a development that changed the entire dynamic within the movements. Zionist movement reports after the closure of the hachsharah are still filled with an ideological enthusiasm for aliyah to kibbutz and aliyah in general. The year programs were the wellspring of this enthusiasm. Habonim’s report to the SZCV in 1968 places chalutzic aliyah at the core of the movement’s ideological purpose:

Aliyah remains our primary aim. Since the Six Day War, we have had an increasing rate of aliya. At the moment we have two groups of olim numbering 10 and upwards, who will be going on aliyah within the next two months. An aliya Seminar was held in May of this year whose climax was in the formation of Garin Shachar. This garin totals 15 chaverim and is now making plans to go on aliyah in the near future.119

Habonim’s report notes that three groups of garin aliyah had formed. Not all the members of the garin aliyah would end up immigrating to Israel but large numbers of the senior movement were involved in seriously discussing and preparing for aliyah.

Hashomer Hatzair’s report from the same year echoes Habonim’s dedication to chalutzic aliyah. Aliyah to Kibbutz remained the movement’s highest goal: “Last year eleven of our members fulfilled one greatest aim that of Aliya to ‘Eretz Israel’. They are now living on Kibbutz Galon. Also during the crisis six of our chaverim went to help Israel.”120 Both of these reports were made in the wake of the June 1967 War which generated a wave of Zionist euphoria and excitement and led to large numbers of movement members making aliyah or going to Israel to work as volunteers. Habonim alone sent thirty-eight volunteers

119 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Report of Ichud Habonim,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, 30th November -1st December 1968, 42.

120 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Report of Hashomer Hatzair,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, 2rd -3rd March 1968, 30.

195 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour and twenty members made aliyah.121 Hashomer Hatzair also had a large group make aliyah and sent a group of madrichim to work as volunteers.122

The June 1967 War played a major role in motivating large numbers of madrichim to make aliyah and the AZYC subsequently claimed that around one-hundred and fifty members and graduates of the movements went to Israel in order to assist Israel. The report also noted that “the vast majority have settled their permanently.”123 The Zionist movement was unable to calculate the exact number of olim but the AZYC claimed that the figure of one-hundred olim was a “conservative” estimate. The AZYC report provided the breakdown of olim from each movement and I added the extra data on the size of the movement to give some context to these figures. Because the movements claimed that at least another sixty graduates from the movement made aliyah it is impossible to calculate even an approximate percentage of the aliyah rate in 1967-68. The figures during this period were obviously greatly inflated due to the impact of the June 1967 War and during the following years the movements explained that the aliyah rate from was low due to the fact that so many members made aliyah in 1967-68.

Table 1: Aliyah Figures 1967/68124

Movement Aliyah Figures Total Membership 1968

Betar 5 500

Bnei Akiva 11 630

121 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Report of Ichud Habonim,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, 2rd -3rd March 1968, 29.

122 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Last year eleven of our members fulfilled one greatest aim that of Aliya to ‘Eretz Israel’. They are now living on Kibbutz Galon. Also during the crisis six of our chaverim went to help Israel.” “Report of Hashomer Hatzair,” Reports to the Annual Assembly of the State Zionist Council of Victoria, 2rd -3rd March 1968, 30.

123 “Reports of the Australian Zionist Youth Council,” The Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Report to the 23rd Biennial Conference 1968, Melbourne, St Kilda, 39. JAL Folder ZFA/SZC Reports.

124 “Report of the Australian Zionist Youth Council,” The Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Report to the 23rd Biennial Conference 1968, Melbourne, St Kilda, 91. JAL Habonim Box.

196 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Habonim 21 1,040

Hashomer Hatzair 5 245

TOTAL: 42 (The movements TOTAL: 2,415 claimed another 60+ olim also made aliyah who were previously members of the movements but the Zionist movement did not have access to precise figures)

Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim reports in the 1970s show that the movements remained dedicated to chalutziut after the initial euphoria had passed. Hashomer Hatzair’s report from 1975-76 shows that the synthesis of Zionism and socialism remained at the core of their conception of Jewish identity:

We again reaffirmed our ideal of aliyah to kibbutz in Israel. During the year our movement has noted with some disdain the trend in the Jewish community to regard Zionism and ‘leftist-philosophy’ as mutually exclusive. This is a fallacy and we believe that socialist-Zionist synthesis in no way a contradictory to Judaism and that a human solution to the Palestinian issue is indeed embodied in the essence of Zionism.125

Hashomer Hatzair remained dedicated to chalutziut throughout the decade. In the movement’s report the following year the movement made clear that it still saw aliyah to kibbutz as the only true expression of Zionism: “This year 3 of our madrichim of our senior

125 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Hashomer Hatzair,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1975-1976, 85.

197 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour movement have, in accordance with our ideology, gone on Aliya, in absolute terms, the only meaningful commitment to Zionism”126 Socialism, leftwing political causes and chalutziut were far stronger ideologically within Hashomer Hatzair than within Habonim, and during the 1970s the movement savoured its radical political ideology. David Zyngier recalled:

We were far more left than Habonim, we prided ourselves on being the most extreme left group in the Zionist movement. Someone had to be there. We held fast to our ideology. Ideology, political theory was part and parcel of Hashomer Hatzair. As we became older we learnt about the political foundations of Hashomer Hatzair, Ber Borochov’s political theories, how he was able to merge both Zionism and Marxism together. It made sense to us back then, from a theoretical political perspective. We wanted to implement it in practice. We adhered to our Ten Dibrot (commandments) as religiously as Orthodox Jews, to the 613 Mitzvot. (commandments)127

Habonim was a larger and more populist movement than Hashomer Hatzair. Nonetheless, Habonim’s report to the SZCV in 1973-74 shows that the movement still maintained an ideological synthesis of socialism, Zionism and Judaism. Habonim’s proudest achievement was the fact that fifteen of its leaders had made aliyah to a kibbutz in the Golan Heights. Habonim’s Annual Report to the SZCV in 1973-74 stated the following:

The aim of Icud Habonim is to achieve the ideals intrinsic in Judaism, Zionism and socialism. The departure of a garin for Israel is a step towards the achievement of such ideals. In these terms, the part year has been very rewarding to us. The year began with the departure of a group of fifteen to settle on Mevo Chama, a new kibbutz on the Golan Heights, and has ended with the formation of a new garin hoping to leave in 1975-76.128

126 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Hashomer Hatzair,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1976-1977, 84.

127 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

128 JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Ichud Habonim,” Annual Reports: State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1973-1974, 73.

198 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Three: Chalutziut and the Ideal of Labour

Chalutziut, as Sol Encel wrote in 1945, was a practical ideology. Proof of chalutziut’s success lay in the large numbers of movement members who went to work on the hachsharah over a twenty-two year period in order to prepare for chalutzic aliyah. Further proof of the continuing strength of the ideology is testified to by the hundreds of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair members who volunteered to work on a kibbutz for a year after school throughout the 1960s and 1970s. Finally there are the youth movement members who chose to make aliyah. Through examining the archival material and the testimony of past youth movement members it is clear that chalutziut was alive and well in the movements until the end of the 1970s. The majority of movement members did not join the movements for ideological reasons; they came and they stayed for social reasons, and because of the fun and exciting atmosphere that the movements created. Nonetheless, the evidence shows that many of the Jewish youth who initially attended the movements for social reasons eventually embraced the ideology of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. The fact that the revolutionary ideas of Zionist-socialism were internalised is testified to by their actions. Their Jewish identity was shaped and transformed by Zionist-socialist ideology.

199 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

The concepts of chalutziut, Hadar and Torah ve’Avodah were the products of very specific political, cultural and social contexts, and while the local movements adapted these to conditions in Australia, they did not make any ideological innovations: they remained firmly wedded to the core values and ideas of the Zionist revolution. Historians of Zionism have helped construct a complex and nuanced picture of the development of the movements in Europe and Palestine, with most of the historical writing focused on the establishment of the movements and far less research into how the movements have developed in the years since the establishment of the State of Israel.1 When historians of Australian Jewish history have mentioned the movements it has generally been in the context of when and how they were established.2 There has been no research detailing how the movements in Australia have sought to respond to a world that is radically different to the context which gave birth to their ideologies. This chapter begins to trace some of the ways in which the movements have tried to maintain their relevance and adapt their respective ideologies over the decades.

As stated previously, the original ideological raison d’être of the movements was aliyah; if madrichim were not making aliyah then it was considered that the movement was failing as a Zionist youth movement. Chalutzic ideology developed before the establishment of the State of Israel and, like the Zionist movement in general, its primary purpose was the establishment of the Jewish State. How has this ideology adapted to the reality of the State of Israel? Has chalutziut been successful in proving its continued relevance since the establishment of the State of Israel? Both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair continue to define themselves as Zionist- socialist youth movements, and maintain ideological pillars such as chalutziut and Hagshama Atzmit. While chalutziut and hagshama atzmit have proved to be remarkably resilient and adaptable, it is clear that by the end of the twentieth century chalutzic ideology has begun to decline. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair are aware of the problems facing their ideologies and continuously re-evaluate their ideological platforms at federal and international conferences, a

1 See, for example, Mendelsohn, Zionism in Europe, Reinharz and Shapira, eds., Essential Papers, Laqueur, History of Zionism or Shimoni, Zionist Ideology.

2 Rutland, Edge, 32-321, Hyams, Australian Zionist Movement, 76-86 and W.D. Rubenstein, The Jews in Australia: (Melbourne: AE Press, 1986), 116-118.

200 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation process which has led both movements to embrace different understandings of Zionism, socialism and Judaism than those of the 1940s or 1970s. Bnei Akiva was, originally, also dedicated to chalutziut. Bnei Akiva’s ideological transformation saw it shed the Zionist-socialist synthesis and this illustrates the willingness of the movements to adapt as well as the failure of chalutziut to connect with religiously observant Jews in Australia. The character and ideology of Betar has also changed since it was first established in Australia. In Australia, Betar shifted away from its paramilitary roots, and also abandoned a maximalist approach to aliyah. The ideological changes within each movement are not only testament to their adaptability, but are also further proof of the fluidity and changing nature of Jewish identity.

The Question of Chalutziut: Ideological Decline?

In 1948 the Youth Shaliach Ehud Lederberger wrote in Banatif that Zionist youth needed to strengthen their dedication to chalutziut and that more members needed to volunteer for hachsharah: “By no means have we reached the stage where we can say that the number of chalutzim, or those wishing to go on hachsharah is satisfactory.”3 In the late 1940s Habonim was led by members dedicated to chalutziut and the movement demanded that at the age of eighteen members should explicitly commit themselves to aliyah. However, even in the 1940s individuals were questioning whether Habonim had to be totally dedicated to Zionist-socialism. In 1948-49 Ephraim Ehrmann, Mr. R. Rechter and Ralph Sander engaged with Lederberger and his supporters in the pages of Banatif about the practicality and desirability of chalutziut and the demand that members must explicitly dedicate themselves to aliyah or leave Habonim. The questioning and criticisms of chalutziut and Habonim took place in the official magazine of Zionist youth and reflect the critical and enquiring nature of the youth movements.4 The debate continued in the early 1950s and an ideological tussle emerged between those wanting Habonim to be even more chalutzic and those wanting a less dogmatic approach to aliyah.5 While the debate was initially won by the ideologues, the point I want to stress is that from the

3 C37 AJHS. Banatif, Vol. 1, No. 11, May, 1948, 3

4 C37 AJHS. Ephraim Ehrmann, “Open Forum: Chalutzuit and the Australian Zionist,” Banatif, Vol. 1, No. 11, May, 1948, 7. C37 AJHS. R. Rechter., “Open Forum Zionism or Socialism,” Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, Vol. 2, No. 4, October, 1948, 10. And: C37 AJHS. Ralph Sander, “Our Place in Australian Jewish Life,” Banatif: Organ of Australian Zionist Youth, Vol. 3, No. 6, December, 1949, 12.

5 Dov Golembowicz. Interview Date: 25/06/08.

201 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation very beginning there were individuals within the movement who sought a more pragmatic approach to aliyah. This questioning portended a trend which would grow stronger over the decades.

While the debate that took place on the pages of Banatif reveals there were voices within the Zionist youth movement questioning the ideology, it also testifies to the seriousness with which the ideology was taken by the movements. It is clear that between the 1940s and the 1970s the Zionist-socialist movements were dedicated to chalutziut. However, by the beginning of the 1970s an ideological shift was beginning to take place and the allure of the ideology was fading.

All the movements democratically elected their leaders, but, at the beginning of the 1970s when Les Szekely put himself forward as a candidate to lead Sydney Habonim, his candidacy generated a great amount of debate because he did not plan to make aliyah to live on a kibbutz. Szekely recalled the controversy:

I decided by the time I was eighteen or nineteen - that was before I was in Israel - that didn’t want to live on a kibbutz. I looked at my peer group and thought there was no way that the kibbutz needs eight lawyers, eight doctors, eight accountants, I’d formed the view that a lot of that was a wank. Certainly I wasn’t going to live on a kibbutz; it didn’t complement my educational and professional aspirations... I wasn’t in the garin, which was a major ideological issue, I contested the situation and became mazkir because I felt very, very strongly, what needed to be done in the movement and whether Mark (his opponent also running for the position of mazkir) was the best person to do it. And that was a big issue and I remember many long deep and meaningful discussions with my peers about, do you really want to do this, and how can I vote for you if you’re not in garin, notwithstanding what I might think about you and Mark as individuals, these were real issues. It was the rest of your life we were deciding about, in the sense of the garin.6

6 Les Szekely. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

202 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Les Szekely’s story illustrates how important chalutzic aliyah remained for the movement. Even before Szekely had gone to Israel and spent time on kibbutz, he had come to the conclusion that he did not want to live on a kibbutz. His experience on kibbutz did not change his mind. Szekely was open about his decision and did not join the garin aliyah, which had formed amongst his leadership cohort. Szekely’s friends in the movement were thus caught in a bind: they may have felt Szekely was the best candidate for mazkir but they were also concerned about the movement being led by an individual who was not fulfilling the highest aims of Habonim. For the leaders who had become members of the garin aliyah this was a ‘real issue’ and cut to the core of Habonim’s purpose as a Zionist-socialist movement.

Les Szekely’s story reveals that an ideological shift was taking place in Habonim. The primary reason he did not want to make aliyah to a kibbutz was it did not marry with his professional aspirations. He wanted to study at university and did not want to become a physical labourer. Furthermore, he saw it as ridiculous that his fellow madrichim planned on making aliyah to a kibbutz when they were trained as white-collar professionals. Habonim’s educational platform had originally tried to steer members away from university but this had proved to be impossible practically and too ideologically dogmatic. However, the abandonment of this educational ethos meant many Habonim members forsook their plans for aliyah to a kibbutz when it conflicted with their professional ambitions.

In the strictest sense, Szekely was not conforming to the values of chalutziut because chalutziut believed Zionist youth must place the needs of the Jewish nation above their own personal desires and make aliyah to a kibbutz. However, it is clear that Szekely was an ideologically dedicated and motivated leader. Leaders like Szekely simply had a more pragmatic approach. They believed in the State of Israel and wanted to support the country by going to live in Israel but they no longer felt it was necessary for Zionist youth to make chalutztic aliyah. Szekely’s ideological position raised serious questions for Habonim Sydney but ultimately he was successful and the leaders voted for him because they considered him the best candidate. Pragmatism trumped ideology. The final point that needs to be stressed is the debate surrounding Szekely’s candidacy was taken very seriously. Chalutziut and the decision not to join a garin aliyah remained a divisive issue in Australian Habonim in the 1970s precisely because members continued to sincerely believe in the ideology.

By the 1980s it was no longer controversial for leading members in the movement to have no plans to make chalutzic aliyah. Joe Gubbay was a member of Habonim Sydney in the 1980s

203 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation and eventually served as mazkir of the movement and he recalls some of the reasons why he never seriously contemplated aliyah to a kibbutz:

...I can’t remember the name of the kibbutz. It was up North... I went there for a few weeks when I was on Shnat. It had no appeal to me, I thought, ‘I don’t want to live here.’ I didn’t like the location. The kibbutz started to die after that as well. I think we also – The idea of going to the kibbutz diminished. We were going to go and join mainstream society... I guess if you’re looking at ideologically knowledgeable and committed and all of that. We weren’t there. Not in terms of the labour side of it... I think the problems of the kibbutz movement were becoming apparent. I think the idea of the ‘inverted triangle’7 it doesn’t apply. If you look at society in general now it doesn’t apply. Machinery has taken that position. You no longer have eighty-five percent of the population in rural areas. And really, there is a paranoid view of the Jew as something that is abnormal that has to be normalised, rather than accepting and being proud of the fact that we have an intellectual tradition.8

Gubbay’s comments reveal several important reasons behind the decline of chalutziut. Youth who made aliyah in the 1940s or 1950s did so in the belief that the kibbutz movement would be the vanguard of a new Israeli society. However, the society envisioned by the kibbutz movement had not eventuated.9 The revolutionary ideas underpinning the kibbutz came from a specific context, and in the 1980s Borochov’s concept of the inverted triangle appeared to leaders like Gubbay as both utopian and irrelevant to Israeli society. Israeli society was not agrarian and it had embraced market capitalism. The fact that the kibbutz movement seemed increasingly less relevant in Israeli society weakened the imperative of chalutzic aliyah. Added

7 Gubbay’s comment about an ‘inverted triangle’ is a reference to an influential argument made by Ber Borochov which is more commonly referred to as the ‘inverted pyramid’. Borochov’s concept of the ‘inverted pyramid’ was the idea that the ‘class structure’ of Jews was unlike any other people. Whereas in other nations most people worked in peasant and proletarian occupations most Jews worked in commercial, intellectual and professional positions. The only way for this “inverted” class structure to be corrected was through Jews governing their own state in which they created a working class. The chalutzim were to be the vanguard of this working class revolution.

8 Joe Gubbay. Interview Date: 14/11/07.

9 Gavron, Awakening from Utopia, 143-158 and Stanley Diamond, “Kibbutz and Shtetl: The History of an Idea,” Social Problems, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Autumn, 1957): 71-99.

204 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation to this was the ever increasing number of Israelis leaving kibbutzim, which was a development of that both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were aware.10

Whereas historically Zionism had criticised and disparaged Jewish intellectual traditions, Gubbay rejected this characterisation of Jewish history and was proud of the fact that Jewish culture has a strong intellectual tradition. The critical attitude adopted by Zionism vis-à-vis Judaism and belief that the Jewish people needed to be ‘normalised’ was the product of the European context in which the movements originally emerged. Gubbay rejected the narrative of Diaspora abnormality and believed Jews should be proud of their intellectual traditions. His perspective illustrates how the relevance of the traditional Zionist argument of shelilat ha-Golah. (Negating the Exile) has waned. The ideas that underpinned chalutziut were increasingly being questioned, critiqued and even rejected by Zionist youth.

The broader international context also had a profound impact on weakening the socialist ideas within the movement. In the decades immediately after World War II socialist ideas struck a chord with Jewish youth craving a better society. During the 1940s and 1950s many of the Jewish youth were attracted to Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair because of their leftwing political sympathies. In 1945 Sol Encel described the attraction to socialism for the Zionist youth movements:

There is no denying the fact that any fight for a better world is now inseparably bound up with the socialist movement, and unless we, too, identify ourselves with it we shall lose many invaluable haverim who feel that their ideals are better satisfied by other socialist organisations.11

As we saw in the previous chapter the post-war historical context bolstered the enthusiasm of Zionist youth for leftwing political ideologies. However, affinity with socialist ideas declined amongst Zionist youth due to a number of factors. This decline is also part of a wider Jewish disenfranchisement with leftwing politics. Philip Mendes has argued that a number of important fators have played a part, including the destruction of the Labor Bund in Poland during World War II, the estbalishmen tof the State of Israel which has “tended to unite rather than divide

10 Joe Gubbay. Interview Date: 14/11/07. Gavron, Awakening from Utopia, 8-9.

11 YF (F2) AJHS. Sol Encel, “What Halutzuit Means to Habonim,” HaMapil, September 1945, 9.

205 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Jews, and so served diminish the importance of internal class distinctions that still might have attracted Jews to the left”, growing awareness of the persecution of Soviet Jewry and the successful economic intregration of Jews in Australia which has lead to an “overwhelming” middle-classing of the Jewish Australian population.12 Zionist youth are also aware of the fact that many of Israel’s staunchest critics are leftwing and there is a sense that the criticism of Israel and Zionism is frequently another form of a modern or ‘new antisemitism’.13 If chalutziut declined because of the growing irrelevance of the kibbutz movement in Israel, the fact that Jews in Australia flourished within a liberal capitalist society also diminished the power of the ideology to attract Australian Jewish youth. Chalutziut’s message of a new Jewish society struck a chord with Jewish youth who were struggling economically. The ever-increasing economic prosperity of Australian Jewry undermined the appeal of chalutziut.

Whereas the chalutzim in previous decades were gripped by an overwhelming enthusiasm for the kibbutz project, Gubbay’s comments reveal that an increasing number of madrichim were cynical and despondent about the kibbutz ideal. These attitudes were strengthened by economic and ideological difficulties that created a crisis in the kibbutz movement during the 1980s.14 Many members of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair whom I interviewed enjoyed their experience on kibbutz as part of the year program but they were also critical of the kibbutz system and had no desire to live on a kibbutz. The irony is that exposure to the complexities and hypocrisies of life on a kibbutz alienated many participants from the kibbutz ideal. Sidra Moshinsky was a member of Hashomer Hatzair and spent time on kibbutz in 1987 and her experience convinced her not to make chalutzic aliyah: “I could never see myself living in an

12 Philip Mendes, “Jews and the Left” Levey, Geoffrey Brahm and Phillip Mendes, eds., Jews and Australian Politics, (Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 69-70. On the impact of Soviet antsemitism see Rutland, Edge, 386-389. The movements were very aware of the persecution of Soviet Jewry and this became one of their most important political causes during the late 1980s and early 1990s.

13 The subject of leftwing antisemitism and anti-Zionism is a topic which has excited much debate and discussion, with academics arguing over the legitimacy of the term ‘New antisemitism’ as well as whether or not the charge of anti-Semitism conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism and thereforse serves to silence criticism of Israel. The fact remains that many Zionists clearly view the strident critism of Israel and Zionism as one-sided and anti-Semitic. Philip Mendes supports this position when he argues that many cases of leftwing criticism of Israel is “outright anti- semtism”. A similar argument is made in Robert Wistrich, From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews and Israel (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, for the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012), passim.

14 In the beginning of the 1980s Israel was gripped by hyperinflation which had a huge economic impact on the kibbutzim and precipitated an ideological crisis within the movement. Uri Leviatan, Hugh Oliver and Jack Quarter, “Introduction to the Kibbutz in Crisis” in Crisis in the Israeli Kibbutz: Meeting the Challenge of Changing Times. eds., Uri Leviatan, Hugh Oliver and Jack Quarter, (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1998), vii-xvi. And Ben Rafael, Crisis and Transformation, 38-40.

206 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation agricultural community. I don’t think I would have liked my life ruled by committees and things. That part of the ideology didn’t resonate with me.”15

Romy Feldman was a member of Melbourne Habonim and began leading in the movement in 1983. Romy’s parents had tried to make aliyah to a kibbutz, and their negative experience informed Romy’s own anti-kibbutz position.16 Romy’s parents’ experience reflected that of many other members of the Zionist youth movements who had made aliyah to a kibbutz but left due to their own negative experience, thereby contributing to the overall decline of chalutziut. Some of these chalutzim stayed in Israel while others returned to Australia and this created a growing awareness within Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair about the difficulties of kibbutz life. Whereas in the 1940s and 1950s it was possible to idealise kibbutz, this became increasingly impossible due to the large number of Australian olim who abandoned the kibbutz project.17 Chalutziut’s original message was that it could solve all the problems facing the Jewish people, but the fact that kibbutz life was far more complicated and difficult undercut the idealised rhetoric of the ideology. Chalutzic aliyah became even less attractive to Jewish youth when they became aware of the problems within the kibbutz movement.18

While individuals like Sidra Moshinsky had a negative experience living on kibbutz other participants had a far more positive exposure to the kibbutz lifestyle. In 2003 Romy Zyngier joined the Hashomer Hatzair program after four months of travelling independently in Europe and spent time living on Kibbutz Nir Oz. Her experience of living on the kibbutz was very favourable. However, she was also aware that the kibbutz ideal was largely irrelevant to her own lifestyle choices and she would be unlikely to actually make aliyah to a kibbutz after her

15 Sidra (Kranz) Moshinsky. Interview Date: 13/07/08.

16 Romy Feldman. Interview Date: 8/11/07.

17 Unfortunately there is no data on the numbers of chalutzim who left kibbutzim and returned to Australia.

18 The increasing awareness amongst members of Zionist youth movements of the difficulty of kibbutz life and the fact that many olim left the agricultural settlements clearly had an impact on the ideology of chalutziut. Thus, for example, while two-thirds of pre-1948 olim from North America lived for at least some time on an agricultural settlement between 1950 and 1966 only a minority went to live on kibbutz. Chaim Isaac Waxman, American Aliya: Portrait of an Innovative Migration Movement, (Michigan, Wayne State University Press, 1989), 86-87. The decline in the appeal of kibbutz life clearly had an impact on the attractiveness of both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair in North America. This development was also replicated in Australia. See Goldberg and King, Builders and Dreamers, 291-295 and Ariel Hurwitz, ed. Against the Stream: Seven Decades of Hashomer Hatzair in North America, (Israel: Association of North American Shomrim in Israel in conjunction with Yad Yaari, 1994). Hurwitz notes that at its peak Hashomer Hatzair in North America may have had up to three thousand members. For most of the time the membership was between fifteen hundred and two thousand and was spread across fifteen branches, 194.

207 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation experience on Kibbutz Nir Oz. Hashomer Hatzair had educated her on the virtues of kibbutz life and had idealised the kibbutz lifestyle. Her time on kibbutz was a chance to experience kibbutz life firsthand as opposed to preparing her to make chalutzic aliyah. This represents an important ideological shift in the reasoning for sending members to spend an extended period living on kibbutz. The fact that the programs continue to send participants to live on kibbutz has less to with preparing them to make chalutzic aliyah and is more of an ideological holdover from the movement’s original ideological raison d’être to create chalutzim who were prepared to make aliyah to a kibbutz. The reason members of the movements go to kibbutz today is not to prepare themselves for chalutzic aliyah but because it offers the chance to live on a kibbutz and experience a lifestyle very different to their urban existence in Sydney or Melbourne. Romy Zyngier recalled her experience on kibbutz in 2003:

I loved and I found it [living on kibbutz] very challenging at the same time. Coming from four months [travelling] independently, to pretty much being locked down because of the situation [The Second Intifada]. I found it emotionally challenging... We mixed a lot with the kibbutzniks and I am still in contact with my little brother and sisters from the kibbutz family... look it [kibbutz] is passé, at that the same time our kibbutz supplies a lot of produce successfully, there was a paint factory so it was a little more industrialised. Growing up as a kid you grow up with a more romanticized idea of the kibbutz, through grade Four and Five. When I got there it was great. I was laying irrigation piping. Working in the field, coming home absolutely disgustingly dirty. I really got kicks out of being that chalutzic.19

Loni Gersh became the mazkir of Melbourne Habonim in 2007 despite not planning on making aliyah or believing in the ideology of the movement. Whereas Szekely’s decision to run for mazkir generated a great amount of debate within Habonim, Gersh’s ideological position did not generate any controversy; the fact that his position was not controversial is further proof of the declining importance of the ideology in the movement:

19 Romy Zyngier. Interview Date: 9/12/07.

208 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

I don’t think I would say I believe in the ideology of Habonim because I think it entails certain life choices to go and live in Israel and to go and live there in a certain way – in some sort of kvutzah or kibbutz.20 I think my identity is strongly shaped by a certain conception of Zionism which is close to Habo’s and a certain political outlook which I think, is somewhat like a socialist political outlook. I wouldn’t say I believe in the ideology, I would say that the ideology informs my identity and has a lot of say but I’ve got big, big issues with socialism and the way Habo conceives of Zionism. I don’t plan to make aliyah.21

Gersh was passionate about the movement and his time in Habonim shaped his understanding of Zionism as well as providing a leftwing political outlook. His election as mazkir was ultimately a matter of practicality. Just as Szekely ran for mazkir because he felt he was better suited to leading the movement than his more ideologically committed opponent Gersh also made the decision to run because he felt what he could contribute as a leader was more important than his lack of ideological commitment.22 Gersh’s comments also reveal a clear ideological continuation. Both socialism and kibbutz remain part of the movement’s ideology. The idea of the kibbutz has also been expanded to include the idea of a kvutzah in which chaverim live as a group in an urban environment. The concept of the kvutzah has been urbanised and the idea of an urban based kvutzah is now part of the movement’s ideological platform: “Habonim Dror believes in the practical manifestation of its Socialist Zionism platform by educating chaverim towards living in communities in Israel based on the structures of Kibbutz and kvutsah, be it urban or agricultural, which are societies that exist according to the ideals of Socialist Zionism.”23

It was unthinkable for the leaders of Hashomer Hatzair in the 1950s and 1960s to elect a youth leader who was not committed to aliyah, but a similar situation also developed within Hashomer Hatzair during the late 1970s. The movement was founded in order to create a more staunchly left-wing movement which was uncompromising in its attitude to aliyah and kibbutz.

20 ‘Habonim Dror Australia's Ideology’. The latest ideology was updated at Veida on Chazon Seminar in September 2010. http://www.hdoz.com/2010%20Ideology.pdf (December 2010). For an academic discussion of the urban commune see Gavron, Awakening from Utopia, 245-258.

21 Loni (Elon) Gersh. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

22 Loni (Elon) Gersh. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

23 JAL Habonim Folder. http://www.hdoz.com/2010 Ideology.pdf

209 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

However, in the twenty-first century it is clear that this ideological imperative no longer governs the movement. Aaron Bloch became the leader of Hashomer Hatzair in the same year as Loni Gersh and while committed to the movement had decided against making aliyah:

I contemplated it. I don’t think that aliyah is for me personally. I definitely have looked at the idea, that when I finish my medical degree I plan on going over there and working in a hospital and living there for a year or two... I would say that the way I think about it is – that I support the state of Israel and the State of Israel is very important to me. I think if I had been in my dad’s situation and immigrated to Israel I probably would have made aliyah.24 That was when Israel was being fought for to exist. That was when there were literally battles and each one - whether it was won or lost - would mean the continuation or the end of the State and that was a real pressing urge. You’re going to make such a difference if you come... For me it is not such an urgent problem now and I don’t think I could contribute as much as I could, I guess I don’t feel it is that important for me to contribute as much as I could. I guess I ideologically I don’t feel as strongly as that. I prefer my way of life here.25

Bloch’s reasons for not making aliyah pinpoint one of the other reasons that spurred people to make aliyah in the 1940s or 1960s: the sense of historical urgency in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust. When Betty Doari made aliyah in 1946 it was in the belief the Jewish community in Palestine needed every ounce of human capital. Peter Keeda and the other members of the movements who flew to Israel in the wake of the 1967 War were possessed by a similar urgency.26 The leaders of the movement the 1990s and in the new millennium have no similar historical forces at work. Sixty years later, Israel is in many ways a success story, and Jewish youth no longer feel that if they do not make aliyah the state will cease to exist.

24 Aaron Bloch’s father was from South Africa and had made aliyah before leaving Israel to come and live in Australia.

25 Aaron Bloch. Interview Date: 04/12/07.

26 Peter Keeda. Interview Date: 26/9/07.

210 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Bloch’s reasons for not making aliyah are also personal. Australia is a society rich in economic, cultural and political opportunities. It is also home. While he has a strong connection to Israel, and Zionism is an important part of his Jewish identity, his ideological beliefs are not strong enough to make him leave the comforts of life in the Lucky Country. Whereas chalutziut originally asked Jewish youth to place the needs of the Jewish nation before their own, most youth movement leaders today are far less willing to accept the idea that they have to make personal sacrifices for ideological reasons. The individual’s needs have become increasingly more important than the demands of Zionist-socialism.27

In the 1980s there were leaders within the movement who continued to try and maintain an ideological dedication to chalutziut. In order to reinvigorate the ideology leaders within the movement decided to create a garin aliyah which they called Mizrah. Garin Mizrah decided that they need a Meshek Ya’ad (adopted kibbutz) and chose a new Kibbutz called Kadarim in 1982.28 The concept of the Meshek Ya’ad was that all Habonim members making chalutzic aliyah would go to Kadarim. A Perth Habonim Year Book from 1987 described the aim of the Meshek Ya’ad:

Kadarim is an important venture and the first of its kind for a long time. It has provided a focus for Australian Habonim Aliyah and most importantly members can see that Habonim does not end in Australia. Its logical conclusion is working and living in Eretz Yisrael. Our chaverim can see a real and tangible example of people who have made Aliyah, some of them their madrichim, who are fulfilling the ideal of Habonim Dror.29

The connection between Australian Habonim and Kadarim appears to have been quite successful and between 1982 and 1987 twenty Habonim members made aliyah and settled on

27 Lukes argued that the term individualism, more than any other word, captures the spirit of the times at the end of the twentieth century. Bloch’s comments reveal the centrality of the individual as opposed to the collective which the movements once traditionally stressed as paramount. See: Steven Lukes, Individualism, (Colchester, UK: European Consortium of Political Research, 2006), 2.

28 Kadarim was originally situation near Safed overlooking the Kineret (Sea of Galilee). The kibbutz had to move due to continued work in the quarry and built a completely new site only a kilometre from its original site. The kibbutz moved on the 17 July 1987.

29 JAL Habonim Dror Folder. Richard Milecki, “Habonim in the Galil,” Habonim Dror Perth, Yearbook 1987.

211 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation the kibbutz.30 By 1990 over thirty Habonim members from Australia and New Zealand had made aliyah to Kadarim. While some of the chalutzim had left the kibbutz, the majority were still living on Kadarim and constituted a large part of Kadarim’s small membership.31 Feeding off the enthusiasm generated by Garin Mizrah another garin aliyah called Ofek (horizon) was formed the following year in August 1988 with the assistance of the Aliyah Shaliach Yossi Shamir. Around fifteen members joined the Garin and all of them pledged to make aliyah no later than 31 December 1992 to Kadarim. The ideological framework of the Garin continued to be embraced by members of Habonim and their stated ideological goals could have been written by the first chaluztim who made aliyah from Australia in 1946: “we feel that we are fulfilling the ultimate aim of Zionism – Aliya.”32 The chalutzim who went to Kadarim illustrate how the ideology continued to endure within the movement. However, whereas in 1951-52 the leaders committed to chalutziut won the debate and Habonim remained dedicated to the Zionist-socialist ideology in the 1990s it is clear that a growing percentage of madrichim were either disillusioned or unwilling to commit to chalutziut and kibbutz.

By the end of the twentieth century the ideology was only paid lip-service. In 1991 another garin aliyah was formed and was named Ma’ayan, but unlike the earlier Garinim it did not lead to a large number of Habonim members making aliyah.33 Sonia Goutman recalls that when she was working in Habonim Melbourne the madrichim in Garin Ma’ayan talked a great deal about aliyah but none of its members actually immigrated to Israel:

They talked a lot about ideology. They did talk. But that’s all it was. Because I look at them now and the majority of them are not here. I think it was the cool thing to talk about. And they had a great time on their year away, but when push

30 Ibid.

31 JAL Habonim Dror Folder. Jack Steiner, “Kibbutz Kadarim – The Meshek Ya’ad: Habonim History Booklet,” 1990, 14. In 1990 there Kadarim had a membership of thirty-eight including three children.

32 JAL Habonim Dror Folder. Habonim Dror, Letter from Garin Ofek to Aliyah Shaliach Yossi Shamir: Aliyah Shaliach, 7 December 1988. At the time of the letter two members of the Garin had already made aliyah and another two were going to leave in early 1989. Garin Ofek’s constitution also declared its dedication to chalutzic aliyah and hagshamah atzmit. (The Garin included members of Australia and New Zealand.) By January 1993 some of the members had still not made aliyah. Others had left the kibbutz to live elsewhere in Israel. Some members had also returned to Australia. Unfortunately the material does not provide any precise figures.

33 “History of Habonim Dror in Australia,” http://www.hdoz.com/historyinfo.asp. The formation on Garin Ma’ayan is mentioned but the timeline does not list any members of the Garin actually making aliyah.

212 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

comes to shove, and I see the way they live now – they’re not here... When I was in Israel they set up a Garin. It was reported about in the Jewish News, they had a bogrim seminar and they stayed up all night talking about it. I think they set up a Garin. Or they spoke about setting up a Garin. But nothing happened.34

The decline of chalutziut is also revealed in the publications of both Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim. Whereas publications from the previous decades focused on aliyah, E-Newsletters and newspapers circulated by the movements in the 1990s and 2000s rarely focused on aliyah and chalutziut. During the 1980s Hashomer Hatzair struggled to regularly produce an iton but at the end of 1991 the movement re-launched its paper which it called Al HaMishmar. The articles and pieces in the paper show a movement with a vibrant intellectual atmosphere in which members discussed and debated Jewish identity, the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, local political issues and maintaining a secular Jewish identity. However, very few articles from Al Hamishmar discussed aliyah.35 Hashomer Hatzair sent out nine E-Newsletters during 2009/2010, but only one of the E-Newsletters even referred to aliyah.36 The sole reference to aliyah was in the July 2009 E-Newsletter which contained a short article farewelling an ex- merakez who was immigrating to Israel. The ex-merakez (Nicky Rose) was the only member of Hashomer Hatzair to make aliyah during these two years. Indicative of the ideological changes, the E-Newsletter even translated for its readership what the term aliyah meant:

Ex-merakez (head) Nicky Rose is about to make aliya (move to Israel) where he will train as an English teacher. The whole movement wished him luck at a small but moving ceremony on camp and continues to wish all the best for him. Nicky leaves in less than a week.37

34 Sonia Goutman. Interview Date: 8/11/2007.

35 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Al Ha-Mishmar Hashomer Hatzair Australia, 1991-1992. The same is the case for later papers circulated by the movement, for example: Hashy Iton 2007: Shmutz, A Collection of Intellectual Pieces and Current Hashy News,

36 Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 1 2009, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 1 2010, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 2 2009, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 2 2010, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 3 2009, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 3 2010, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 4 2009, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 5 2009, Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 6 2009 www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=359 (February 2011).

37 Hashy E-mail Newsletter No. 4, 21st July, 2009, www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=359, (February 2011). The brackets translating the Hebrew terms merakez and aliyah are in the original document. 213 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

The 2009 Hashomer Hatzair E-mail Newsletter’s single reference to aliyah stands in stark contrast to the report made by the movement at the beginning of 1966 which lamented the fact that in the previous two years only six members had made aliyah: “It is because Hashomer Hatzair regards chalutzic aliyah the pinnacle of achievement that we must report with regret that only six chaverim of the movement fulfilled this aim in the period 1964-65.”38 The lack of references in the newsletters reveals the movement’s ideological focus has shifted away from aliyah.

In 2000 Habonim celebrated its sixtieth anniversary in which it published an anniversary booklet to commemorate the event. The Year Book included a timeline of major events in Habonim’s history, and a timeline of Habonim Australia’s history, which included the establishment of various garinei aliyah and the fact that three madrichim had just made aliyah. No mention is made of any members who may have made aliyah during the previous four years.39

The garin aliyah formed by Habonim in 2004 consisted of one Perth member and two Sydney members.40 During the 1960s and 1970s the Zionist-socialist movements created garin groups which were five to ten times larger. The ideological statements made in the newspapers of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair between the 1940s and 1970s prove how committed the movements were ideologically. The magazines and newsletters circulated by the movements in the 1990s and 2000s no longer utilise the same sort of rhetoric or make ideological statements which place aliyah, Kibbutz and chalutziut at the centre of the movement’s ideology.

When Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were established, their raison d’être was to support Israel through aliyah. Zionism at this point in time, meant nothing without aliyah. The clearest proof that chalutziut is no longer the raison d’être of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair is the rapidly declining numbers of their madrichim making aliyah. While both movements are critical of specific Israeli policies they remain Zionistic and supportive of the State of Israel; however, it is quite clear that the vast majority of leaders do not feel it is necessary to make

38 YF Collection 3 (F3) SUJA. 22nd Biennial Conference 1966, 139. In the previous four years eight members of Hashomer Hatzair had made aliyah. JAL Habonim Folder. Composition of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1963.

39 JAL Habonim Dror Folder. Habonim Dror Australia: 60th Anniversary Year Book 2000, 5-6.

40 “History of Habonim Dror in Australia,” http://www.hdoz.com/historyinfo.asp (February 2011).

214 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation aliyah. Garin Mizrah and Ofek were the last successful attempts by Habonim to create large groups which made aliyah. The decline in the dedication to aliyah is reflected in the drop in the number of members within the movements who are willing to immigrate to Israel.

In 2004 the Australian Zionist Youth Council Journal released figures on the numbers of madrichim making aliyah from the youth movements over the previous five years:41

Table 2: Aliyah Rates: 1999-2004

ALIYAH RATES: (In the Last 5 Years)

1. Bnei Akiva 30+ 4. Betar 4

2. Netzer 5 5. Hineni 5

3. Habo 5 6. Hashy 2

Total: 51+

In 1963 the movements published a document detailing how many of their members had made aliyah in the previous four years.42 The document reveals that a much greater number of madrichim were graduating the movements and making aliyah in previous decades:43

41 JAL Habonim Dror Folder. “Aliyah Rates: (In the Last Five Years),” Australian Zionist Youth Council Journal, Winter 2004. The most dramatic change has been in the numbers of Bnei Akiva olim going to live in Israel. In 1963 Bnei Akiva claimed that in the previous four years only eight members had made aliyah, seven from Melbourne and a single member form Sydney. At this time Bnei Akiva stated that it had a membership base of five hundred and fifty-two. Betar figures for this period were three olim from Melbourne and eight from Sydney. Betar claimed a membership base of almost six-hundred. JAL Habonim Folder. Composition of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1963.

42 Unfortunately the movements did not regularly produce this sort of date or the material has been lost. While the ZFA and State Zionist Councils produced data on aliyah rates they did not inidicate how many of the Australian olim were graduates of the Zionist youth movements. However the ZFA&NZ report from 1968 provides the following important figures on aliyah figures from Australia: “1964-65 - Over four-hundred aliyah cases were interviewed in the N.S.W. and Victoria and other State offices and processed, of whom, during the two years, a total of 259 actually went on aliya. 1966-67 – In 1966 alone – before the upsurge after the Six-Day War – 300 cases were dealt with by the same offices, and over 250 of them went on aliya, showing that in 1966 already the aliya of Australians had almost doubled.” (sic) The report then goes on to state that it is “extremely difficult” to calculate aliyah rates in 1967. However, the Aliyah Department did process over 1,000 volunteers in the lead up and aftermath of the June 1967 War. The Department also estimated that three-hundred Australians made aliyah during this period. The figure includes seventyindividuals who originally went as volunteers but decided to stay in Israel. 215 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Table 3: Composition of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1963.

Melbourne Sydney Brisbane Adelaide Perth Canberra Number of Olim (Last 4 Years)

Betar 246 219 113 - - 17 11

Bnei 370 182 - - - - 8 Akiva

Habonim 457 232 - 113 34 - 25

Hashomer 220 47 - - - - 8 Hatzair

Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total: Total 52 1293 680 113 113 34 17

The report notes the increased rate of aliyah was a result of the June 1967 War and the important role played by the Zionist youth movements in causing Australians to immigrate to Israel. JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. (JAL Box 2 State Zionist Council Reports. “Reports of Departments: Report of the Aliya Department”, The Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Report to 23rd Biennial Conference 1968, Melbourne.) Refer to the Appendix for a Table which provides information complied for the ZFA on Australian aliyah but which unfortunately does not provide any information on how many olim were from the youth movements.

43 JAL Habonim Folder. Composition of Zionist Youth Movements in Australia, 1963.

216 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

The Table provides several important pieces of information but it is important to note the limitations and problems in the document. Firstly, the document does not state whether it was printed at the beginning of 1963 or at the end of the year. Thus it is impossible to accurately state whether the previous four years includes 1963 or whether the document was printed at the very beginning of 1963 and thus refers to the period from 1962 to 1959. Furthermore, the data illustrates why we are unable to accurately calculate the percentage of olim from the movements during previous decades. The Table claims to provide the correct number of olim from each of the four movements during the previous four years but only appears to provide the membership base of the movements in 1963. The reality if that the size of the movements shifted considerably from year to year. For example, the movements claimed that their combined membership had grown from 1,020 in 1949 to 1,189 in 1951.44 The Table from 1963 claims the total membership of all movements in Australia had reached 2,250. Presumably the size of the movements had grown during the previous four years. The Table also does not provide any data on the number of madrichim and it would be more accurate to calculate the aliyah rate based on the size of the leadership body, it is problematic to calculate the aliyah rate if it includes ten and fifteen year olds who are not in a position to make aliyah. In order to accurately calculate the aliyah rate it would be necessary to know exactly how many graduates of the movement made aliyah each year and what the size of the leadership was during each of the previous four years. Nonetheless, the data does indicate that while members from the movements did make aliyah it was only a very small percentage of the membership base. If we maintain that the membership was static over the previous four years and divide the number of olim by four we can calculate the following annual percentage rate of aliyah:

Table 4: Percentage of Olim from the Zionist youth movements: 1959/60-1963.

Movement Australia wide Annual aliyah rate Percentage of membership members making

44 “Distribution of Organised Zionist Youth In Australia and New Zealand – December 1951,” 15th Australian Zionist Conference, March 1952, ZFA & NZ, AJHS C48.

217 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

aliyah

Betar 595 3-4 0.46%

Bnei Akiva 552 2 0.36%

Habonim 836 6 0.74%

Hashomer Hatzair 267 2 0.74%

Despite the limitations and problems inherent in the data, the table from 1963 does provide information on the number of olim from each movement as well as the approximate size of each movement in 1963. I have included this Table in order to illustrate that the percentage of members making aliyah each year was extremely small and the reality is that only a very small percentage of the movement’s membership ever immigrated to Israel. Zionism was originally an absolutist ideology which believed Jews must immigrate to Israel, the reports by the ZFA and State Zionist Councils indicate that the adult Zionist movement also embraced the idea that aliyah remained the core aim of Zionism. The 1990 Report to the Bienniel Conference of the State Zionist Council of NSW thus declared: “The aims of Zionism are... The ingathering of the Jewish People in its historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through Aliya from all countries.”45 Ezra Mendelsohn pointed out in his history of the Zionist movement in Poland that the Zionist youth movements failed to convince Jewish youth to abandon Europe and immigrate to Palestine/Eretz Israel. The same is also true of the youth movements in Australia and the available data indicates that only a very small percentage of the Jewish youth who were involved in some compacity with the movements ever immigrated to Israel.

45 “The Jerusalem Program,” Report to the Biennial Conference 1990, State Zionist Council of NSW. AJHS AB82.

218 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

The data contained in the Tables from 1963 and 2004 also indicate that the number of members making aliyah has decreased dramatically for Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. In 1963 four times as many members of Hashomer Hatzair made aliyah, twice as many Betarim and five times as many members of Habonim. Only Bnei Akiva had a far higher level of aliyah in 2004 than in 1963. The number of Bnei Akiva olim was four times as high in 2004 than in 1963. The fact that Bnei Akiva’s aliyah rates have increased dramatically indicates that Australian Jews are still willing to make aliyah.46 In the next section of this thesis I will argue the reason why the aliyah rate and membership base of both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair has decreased is because they are struggling to prove their ideologies remain relevant to Australian youth in the twenty-first century.47

Ideological Stagnation

Despite the drop in the number of madrichim making aliyah, both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair continue to define themselves as Zionist-socialist youth movements. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair are both struggling to create platforms which have a level of ideological continuity with their past but are still relevant to Australian Jewish youth. The question confronting both movements is whether or not they can legitimately claim to be socialist simply because they have a leftwing political ethos. Are they Zionist if very few members actually go on aliyah? How can the platform for the movement claim to believe in the idea of the kvutzah and communal living if so few members actually embrace these ideas and go to live on kibbutzim, Irbutzim or other new models of communal living?48 How much can both movements change their ideology and still claim to be Zionist-socialist youth movements? These are crucial questions that the leaders in both movements continue to confront, but their inability to solve the question is not only a product of the difficulty of the question. It is my contention that the concepts of chalutziut and hagshamah atzmit are retained because the movements are proud of

46 In Chapter Five I will discuss why I think this change has occurred.

47 See Table 1 in the “Introduction” which provides some data on the decline in the membership base of the movements in 2012 as opposed to previous decades.

48 An irbutz is a co-operative urban settlement that operates upon similar principles to a kibbutz.

219 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation their past and because the ideological continuity provides them with a unique identity and purpose. At the same time it is quite clear that there is a lack of ideological innovation.

Part of the reason behind the ideological stagnation can be traced back to the success of the youth movement model. While it is increasingly difficult to attract Jewish youth to their activities, the movements are still able to bring Jewish youth together for their weekly meetings on Saturday or Sunday afternoons. The educational structure whereby youth leaders (madrichim) lead members (chanichim) who are only a few years younger, has proved to be both resilient and adaptable. While the character of the movements has clearly changed over the decades, and the idea of informal education has also undergone further development, the ‘life cycle’ of the movements has been maintained and the movements operate in a very similar manner to the way they did fifty or sixty years ago. The success of the youth movement model has shielded them to some degree from having to find a solution to their ideological problems.

It is important to remember that while many of the leaders are dedicated to their movements, they juggle their commitment as madrichim alongside other commitments such as university and work. All of the movements operate on a threadbare budget and have limited financial resources. Hashomer Hatzair and Betar have also struggled due to a lack of manpower. The work necessary to run weekly meetings, special events and summer and winter camps is very demanding. The ideological questions are important but they are most often only debated at national and international conferences which bring members of the federal movement together to discuss such issues. The large amount of work the movements undertake leaves the organisations little time to engage with these questions and many madrichim are less interested in ideological questions than in the difficult task of ensuring they continue to run programs which are dynamic and educational.

Perhaps the clearest expression of the ideological stagnation affecting the movements is represented in the platforms of both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. Habonim’s ideological platform was most recently updated in September 2010. Under the heading ‘Socialist Zionism’ the platform of Habonim Dror states that the movement seeks to build a state which is founded on the values of Zionist- socialism and that “the socialist practices of common ownership, collectivism and equal opportunity and democracy are essential in the creation of any community”.49 Habonim Dror’s ideology also includes sections which reaffirm the centrality of chalutziut and hagshamah atzmit. In regards to chalutziut the platform states “Habonim Dror

49 “About Habonim Dror Australia: Ideology,” http://www.hdoz.com/about-ideology.aspx, (February 2010).

220 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation believes that chalutziut incorporates both the methods for realising the movement’s ideology as well as being a value in and of itself.”50 Hagshamah atzmit continues to be seen as an actualisation of the movement’s ideology by an individual, a “process of personal fulfilment of all movement aims; thus turning the vision outlined in Habonim Dror’s ideology into a reality.”51 Most importantly, the platform still supports chalutzic aliyah as its highest goal:

Habonim Dror believes in the practical manifestation of its Socialist Zionism platform by educating chaverim towards living in communities in Israel based on the structures of Kibbutz and kvutsah, be it urban or agricultural, which are societies that exist according to the ideals of Socialist Zionism... Habonim Dror believes that making Chalutzic Aliyah, whilst embracing one's Jewish identity, is the highest expression of Hagshama; building a community in Israel holding paramount the values.52

Even though the ideological framework has been tweaked and re-thought in some very crucial aspects, nevertheless there is a remarkable level of intellectual continuity with Australian Habonim’s stance in the 1940s. Whereas Zionist-socialism and its concepts of chalutziut and hagshamah atzmit were originally revolutionary they have now become the ideological orthodoxy. There is also an intellectual conservatism present in the platform of Habonim; the movement has undertaken no new ideological innovations. Most of the core concepts outlined by the platform (chalutziut, Kvutzah, hagshamah atzmit, kibbutz) can be traced back to pre- World War II Europe. The only real innovation is the idea that chalutzic aliyah can also include making aliyah to an urban collectivist community (kvutzah). Perhaps the most startling aspect of Habonim Dror’s platform is that it still wishes to see the State of Israel being built upon the values of Zionist-socialism. In this regard the platform of Habonim seems to be completely at odds with the political, social and economic realities of life in Israel.

The ideological platform of Hashomer Hatzair is even more staunchly leftwing than that of Habonim and continues to classify capitalism as an “oppressive force” which “prevents people from realizing their full potential”. Socialism is seen as “not only an alternative to this type of

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

221 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation society, but an entirely new and revolutionary one that can stand on its own.”53 Hashomer Hatzair’s platform also maintains a belief in a universal socialist revolution whereby the current political and economic systems are replaced by a “world of small, cooperative communities made up of individuals and groups who practice intentional, free, egalitarian, and intimate relationships. We believe that these communities must have a balance between the individual and the collective – that the collective is actually a force that will free the individual.”54 The platform does not specify how this world is supposed to be created, nor does it grapple with the fact that their vision for the future of humanity is anathema to the ideals of many societies and cultures, including many Israelis. The platform specifies that its primary concern is to first create this society in Israel. In this sense it retains the legacy of Borochov’s Zionist-Marxist synthesis which focused on the socialist revolution for the Jewish people as the first step towards a worldwide revolution. Hashomer Hatzair’s platform, while undergoing many changes since the 1950s, is shaped by a similar leftwing revolutionary political outlook. Like Habonim, its ideology is totally at odds with the broad political, economic and cultural trends in Israel and Jewish communities in countries like Australia or the United States.55

While Zionist-socialism was one of the ideological foundations of the State of Israel, Israeli society today clearly does not adhere to the values or ideas that inspired the chalutzic youth movements. Zionism was originally a very ideological movement however, in Israeli society the revolutionary ideas have been normalized and become less explicit.56 Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair have been able to maintain an ideological approach because they exist in the Diaspora and are removed from the inhering of Zionist ideology that Israelis experience in their day to day

53 “About Us: Ideology,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010).

54 Ibid.

55 For two perspectives on this point see Sol Encel’s discussion of the support for the Australian Labour Party in Australia and Philip Mendes discussion of Jews and radical leftwing politics in Geoffry Brahm Levey and Phillip Mendes, eds., Jews and Australian Politics, (Brighton Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 53-65 and 66-85. Hurwitz also argues that being a member of Hashomer Hatzair and dedicated to Zionist-socialism in North America made a person an “outcast” and a “pariah”. Hurwitz, Against the Stream, 263. The same point was made by several of the subjects I interviewed about the attitude of the wider Australian Jewish community to the movements before the June 1967 War, this was particularly the case amongst Betar members. (For example: Clive Kessler, Interview Date: 04/09/07. Johnny, Zeigler. Interview Date 29/07/08. And Larry Sitsky, Interview Date: 13/11/08.) Members of Betar and Hashomer Hatzair were particularly sensitive to the idea that the wider community was opposed to their respective political positions. While these feeling have waned in relationship to Betar Hashomer Hatzair’s dovish/leftwing position on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has made leaders in the movement feel like they are still viewed as being too radical and on the fringe of the Zionist movement. This point was made by several members of Hashomer Hatzair including Pablo Brait, Interview Date: 10/08/08 and Aaron Bloch, Interview Date: 4/12/07.

56 Garfinkle, Politics and Society in Modern Israel, 135.

222 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation lives. The platforms of both movements continue to read like the fantasies of Zionist-socialists before the State of Israel was established because the leaders of the movements have not had to deal with the realities of attempting to implement their ideology as independent adults living in Israel.

The clearest indication that Habonim is suffering from ideological stagnation is that the movement maintains its highest aim is chalutzic aliyah although very few members actually make aliyah. Chalutziut was an ideology that is inherently practical; believing in the ideology meant fulfilling it by making aliyah to a kibbutz. While Australian Habonim is smaller than it was at the peak of its popularity during the 1960s and 1970s the movement is still large enough to send between forty and fifty madrichim on its shnat programs each year.57 The size of Habonim’s leadership has remained quite large while the percentage of madrichim making aliyah has continued to drop. Chalutziut remains the movement’s ideology but only on paper. In this sense the movement has become everything the founders attacked the Zionist establishment for: Jews who support the State of Israel but are unwilling to make aliyah. Habonim has not adapted its ideology to the realities of Zionism in the twenty-first century.

It is clear Hashomer Hatzair is affected by the same ideological calcification. In 2003 the mazkir of Hashomer Hatzair Matti Rose admitted that “we are meant to be Marxists but none of us are... A lot of bogrim (graduates) and a lot of older kids would consider themselves left- leaning or socialist, but as a movement I didn’t think we would proclaim that anymore.”58 Bloch led the movement four years after Matti Rose but held a similar opinion and also questioned the relevance of socialism for the movement in Australia in the twenty-first century.59 In 2004 Nimrod Dolev wrote a piece for the AZYC Journal in which he expressed his belief that aliyah and Zionism remained inextricably linked:

...It comes back full circle: Aliyah and Zionism go hand in hand. Have we not always preached that the highest goal for a Zionist is to make Aliyah? If so, then what is holding back the Jewish youth of Australia from making this much

57 Loni (Elon) Gersh. Interview Date, 11/12/07. And Dalit Kaplan. Interview Date: 18/07/08.

58 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Alana Rosenbaum, “Hashy@fifty,” Outlook, The Australian Jewish News, Friday, July 25, 2003.

59 Aaron Bloch, Interview Date: 04/12/07.

223 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

celebrated step? Today one could easily accuse the bogrim body of hypocrisy when it preaches to out chanichim the importance of Aliyah. Why are we ourselves not willing to make the move?60

Dolev’s article cuts to the core of the ideological predicament of the chalutzic movements. The ideology means nothing without putting it into practice. Furthermore, if madrichim are stressing the importance of aliyah but not immigrating to Israel it makes the madrichim hypocrites. This is a serious problem for the idea of the madrich. A madrich is supposed to lead by example, or, as the concept came to be known in the movements: dugmah ishit (Leading by personal example).61 Madrichim were supposed to inspire their fellow leaders and their chanichim through fulfilling the ideological aims of the movement and making aliyah. If chanichim could see that their leaders were not practising what they were teaching it would undermine the idea that the movements were an authentic expression of the beliefs of Zionist youth. The question is, have the movement’s maintained an ideology which is largely irrelevant to the day-to-day concerns of Jewish youth in the Diaspora? Has the ideology of the Zionist-Socialist youth movements also failed to adapt to the realities of Israeli society in the twenty-first century?62

60 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Nimrod Dolev, “Aliyah: The HIGHEST Expression of Hashy’s Zionism,” Australian Zionist Youth Council Journal, Winter 2004.

61 The joke in the movements was that ishit could also be pronounced as ‘is-shit’. Leading by example may be tough but it was essential to the ethos of the youth movements.

62 Very little has been written by academics about whether or not the ideology of the movements’ is still relevant in the twenty-first century. Goldberg and King comment on the issue several times in their history of Habonim in North America (Dreamers and Builders) but do not offer a sustained discussion of the issue. In a short article by Ofer Nur on Hashomer Hatzair he touches upon the issue of whether Hashomer Hatzair’s ideology continues to be relevant by pointing out the movement’s declining membership both in Israel and the Diaspora but does not question whether the decline is a result of the fact that the ideology of the movement no longer ‘speaks’ to Jewish youth in Israel and in the Diaspora. Ofer N. Nur, “The Relevance of Countercultures and Visions of the Future: Examining the Historical Example of Hashomer Hatzair,” in Revisiting Youth Political Participation Challenges for Research and Democratic Practice in Europe, Joerg Forbrig, ed, Council of Europe, March 2005, 37-43. http://youth- partnership-eu.coe.int/youth- partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/Citizenship/Research/Revisiting_youth_politica.pdf (January 2012). Several of my interviewees who had been active in both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair also expressed doubts about whether the ideology of Zionist-socialism is still relevant in the twentieth century, for example: Dov Golembowicz. Joe Gubbay, Les Szekley, Loni Gersh and Aaron Bloch. In my interview with Ron Weiser, Ron also questioned the relevancy of both movements. Hashomer Hatzair also had a Blog operating in 2011: Hashomer Hatzir Australia: Intellectual/ideological pieces written by members of Hashy Australia. Founded in 1953, Hashomer Hatzair Australia is a Socialist-Zionist, secular Jewish youth movement based in East St Kilda. Several of the contributions made by members of Hashomer Hatzair addressed whether the movement continued to be relevant to Jewish youth in the Diaspora. http://hashyaus.blogspot.com.au/2011_02_01_archive.html (December 2011). An article in Haaretz shows that this ideological questioning was also present in branches of Hashomer Hatzair around the globe: Fadi Eyadat, “Never-ending Story: Debating Hashomer Hatzair Ideology,” Haaretz, 224 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

These questions arise because the movements appear to be affected by an ideological dissonance. The platforms of both movements state they continue to believe Israel should be shaped by Zionist-socialist ideology; however, few of their members are willing to make aliyah in order to create that society.63 The ideological position is thus out of tune with the ideas and priorities of the vast majority of Jewish youth and this is reflected in the declining membership of both movements and the fact that few leaders within the movements strongly identify with the ideology.

Ideological Transformation?

While both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair are struggling with the issue of ideological decline and stagnation, in many ways they remain vibrant and dynamic organisations. They have undertaken ideological adaptations and changes which have created organisations which are different to what existed in the 1940s or 1970s. The most crucial change that has taken place is their shift away from focusing on aliyah. Habonim Dror, and, in particular, Hashomer Hatzair’s ideology illustrates that the movements have come to embrace a conception of a Zionist identity which is strongly linked to the Diaspora. Considering that the Zionist youth movements were originally founded as organisations dedicated to aliyah this is a profound change which ultimately represents a different conception of Zionism and Jewish identity. It also reveals the emerging pragmatism within the movements which acknowledges the reality that very few Jewish youth will make aliyah. This evolution has been a gradual process that has taken several decades and is still unfolding. Both movements conceive of a Jewish identity which is primarily national. However, while their conception of Jewishness centres on Israel their identity is also Diasporic.

The clearest proof of the ideological transformation taking place in Hashomer Hatzair is embodied in the changes made to the movement’s ideology. In 2008 one hundred and forty

18/05/08, www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/never-ending-story-debating-hashomer-hatzair-ideology-1.246003, (March 2011).

63 A similar point is made by Goldberg and King in their history of Habonim in North America when they write: “Labor Zionis represents an outdated ideology of draining swamps and throwing up kibbutzim overnight. This ideology seems irrelevant to most members today.” Goldberg and King go on to argue that the meaning of Zionist- socialism has shifted into a progressive Zionist ideology whereby Habonim seeks to create members who are “progressive” and thus concerned with social action, gender equality and a just solution to the conflict in the Middle East. Builders and Dreamers, 260.

225 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation members of Hashomer Hatzair from all over the world gathered in Israel, on the 95th anniversary of the establishment of the movement, to ratify a new ideological platform. Individuals at the conference acknowledged this ideological change stating that “Israel needs the Diaspora no less than the Diaspora needs Israel.”64 Vika Olshansky, a twenty-three year old graduate from the Ukraine who attended the conference, stated to the Israeli paper Haaretz that "The Zionist movement has fulfilled the goal of aliyah. The process brought problems and ghettoization to Israeli society. We need to educate toward aliyah cautiously.”65 Olshanky’s fear was that aliyah was being stressed at the expense of the Diaspora and this had created a mentality that sealed Israeli society off from the rest of the world. Hashomer Hatzair’s socialist ideology stresses the idea that the movement needs to engage with the wider non-Jewish world and to work with any section of society which needs their support. Thus, aliyah, instead of being the highest goal now had to be approached ‘cautiously’ in order to not further ingrain the idea that Israel needed to be sealed off from the rest of the world. The Hashomer Hatzair World Movement Ideology which was ratified in 2008 shows that the movement no longer views aliyah as its sole ideological raison d’être.

While the three pillars of the movement remain Zionism, socialism and secular Judaism the definition of these three pillars has changed. The movement no longer places aliyah at the centre of its conception of Zionism. In the 2008 Hashomer Hatzair defined its approach to Zionism in the following manner:

Hashomer Hatzair’s vision for Israel is a state that strives to maintain the complex balance between a Jewish society and a pluralistic society that ensures social justice for all. While we recognise that the dialogue between Israel and the Diaspora includes criticism, especially when Israel fails to fulfil the unique challenge of this balance, Hashomer Hatzair continues to support Israel and seeks a peaceful end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We strongly encourage

64 The Statement was made by Jamila Garfinkel, who was a member of Hashomer Hatzair in Argentina before making aliyah to Kibbutz Holit. Fadi Eyadat, “Never-ending Story: Debating Hashomer Hatzair Ideology,” Haaretz, 18/05/08, www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/never-ending-story-debating-hashomer-hatzair-ideology- 1.246003, (March 2011).

65 Fadi Eyadat, “Never-ending Story: Debating Hashomer Hatzair Ideology,” Haaretz, 18/05/08, www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/never-ending-story-debating-hashomer-hatzair-ideology-1.246003, (March 2011).

226 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

students to form a personal, highly educated and meaningful relationship with Jewish history, Zionist history and Israel today.66

The definition of Zionism makes no mention of aliyah, nor is there any mention of kibbutz or any other form of communal/socialist collectives. The focus is on the creation of an Israeli society which retains its Jewish identity while remaining secular and pluralistic and thus able to provide ‘justice for all’ its citizens. Furthermore, Hashomer Hatzair takes the position that while this is a very difficult balance it is the duty of the movement - as part of the Diaspora - to engage with Israeli state policy in a critical manner when the movement feels it is not adhering to these principles. Stress is also placed on the idea that a peaceful solution must be found to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The key omission here is of any reference to aliyah either as a moral dictum or an ideal appropriate for some members. Instead the movement advocates for a strong personal bond which is based upon being educated about the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel. The platform does not specify the character of this ‘connection’ but implies it is quite possible for the connection to be maintained in the Diaspora.

Hashomer Hatzair’s ideology also contains a modern, secular and Zionistic Aseret Ha’Dibrot (Ten Commandments). These Ten Commandments were obviously modelled on the the Biblical Ten Commandments, which according to Judaism, were given by God to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai. Hashomer Hatzair’s Ten Commandments are the guidelines for correct behaviour for members of Hashomer Hatzair.67 A member of Hashomer Hatzair is referred to as a ‘Shomer’ or guard; this is a reference to the original Jewish group in Palestine, which inspired the European founders of the movement but it is also a reference to the idea that the members of the movement are the guardians and protectors of the movement’s ideology. The following are the third and sixth commandments of the movement:

3. The Shomer/et finds meaning in his/her relationship to work and fights to create a world where labour is a productive expression of human creativity and freedom.

66 “About Us: Ideology,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010).

67 For a discussion of the ‘religious’ significance of the ‘Ten Commandments’ see Chapter Five, 246.

227 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

6. The Shomer/et actively develops and maintains relationships which are intentional, free and honest within the kvutza and the whole Shomeric community. He/She takes the responsibility to look after his/her chaverim.68

In these two commandments it is quite easy to trace the Marxist and romantic roots which inspired the founders of the movement in Galicia. The ‘Ideal of ‘labour’ is still present as well as the concept of the kvutzah as a place of emotional and intellectual honesty. However, once again, no mention is made of chalutziut or aliyah. A copy of the Ten Dibrot from the 1980s reveals how the movement has moved away from its traditional chalutzic ideology: “3. Shomrim are able to live by the toil of their own two hands, they realise their ideals in the shomer kibbutz of Israel.”69 The sifriah of the Hashomer Hatzair moadon in Melbourne contains many copies of the Ten Dibrot with a multitude of different permutations. Unfortunately it is often impossible to date when they were written and whether or not they were ratified by the World Movement at an international conference. Thus it is impossible to trace the change and date when the idea of chalutzic aliyah was dropped from the Ten Commandments. What is clear is that the movement has continued to re-write the Commandments in an attempt to ensure they retain their relevance. Thus copies of the Ten Commandments from previous decades explicitly refer to the idea that a member of Hashomer Hatzair has to make chalutzic aliyah. Today, however the Ten Commandments have removed references to any form of aliyah.

The last section in Hashomer Hatzair’s ideological platform is called ‘Hagshamah’ and it is the only place where the concept of chalutzic aliyah is referred to in the movement’s ideological platform. In 2008 the concept of hagshamah is no longer solely tied to the idea of making aliyah to a kibbutz, now the movement “sees many ways to self-realisation”.70 The process of hagshamah is also undergoing a constant process of re-evaluation and in 2008 the

68 ‘About Us: Ideology, Ten Dibrot’, http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010). This newer version betrays a more egalitarian sensitivity to the issue of gender in language and ensures both sexes are addressed directly in the text. In Hebrew there are two genders, masculine and feminine and the language differentiates in the form of address between the sexes. The word Shomer (guard) refers to a member of Hashomer Hatzair, but it is the masculine form of address. Shomeret is the feminine form of address. Earlier versions of the Ten Dibrot only employed the masculine form of address. This latter version of the text addresses both men and women through the designation Shomer/et. Habonim’s ideogical platform also takes care to be gender inclusive when referring to its members. JAL Habonim Folder, Ben Tassie Material. “How We Express Our Judaism.” Judaism – Habonim Dror’s JUDAISM Platform. Habonim Secretariat: World Veida: 1998.

69 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. “Ten Dibrot”.

70 “About Us: Ideology,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010).

228 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation platform included a list of “examples” of hagshamah in order to “inspire” members of the movement. At the top of the list were the two following examples:

Aliya that affects positive change in all of Israeli society (individually or kvutzati)

Aliya to work in the Shomeric community and strengthening the Tnua Olamit (world movement) directly or indirectly.71

These are the only two references to aliyah in the entire ideological platform of the movement. Further down the list there are also two references to kibbutz and other forms of communal living which members could undertake.72 These references are only included as “examples” and no special emphasis is placed upon these concepts. Hagshama atzmit has been almost totally divorced from its original ideological context and is so broad that it can include any act that can be construed as assisting the Jewish people in some way. Thus the list includes “exploring alternative ways of life and living together” and “Striving for personal growth and improvement.”73 Nonetheless, it is still possible to see in this list Hashomer Hatzair’s continued belief that the concept of hagshamah atzmit needed to be realised through practical actions. These examples are supposed to be tied to the three ideological pillars and actions like ‘striving for personal growth and self improvement’ can be linked back to the idea of creating a movement which is constantly self-critical: only by having members who are self aware would it be possible to ensure that the process of critical enquiry was motivated by honest and true ‘Shomeric’ values’.

Hashomer Hatzair has embraced a form of Diaspora-Zionism and examples of hagshamah now include acts which involve working as a “Zionist activist” in the Diaspora. Diaspora-Zionism supports the existence of the State of Israel as crucial to the survival of a distinct Jewish identity. However, it also affirms the idea that the Diaspora is essential for the survival of the State of Israel. In this equation Israel and the Diaspora are mutually dependent.

71 Ibid.

72 The two examples from the hagshamah list are the following: “Collectivist structures of socially conscious individuals like kvutzot, Communa, Urban Kibbutz, Kibbutz and the re-interpretation of classical kibbutz structure.” And: “Create and live in alternative communities, Kibbutz, Communa, etc.” “About Us: Ideology,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010).

73 “About Us: Ideology,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010).

229 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Furthermore, Diaspora-Zionism rejects the idea that a Diasporic existence offers a less meaningful Jewish life than that lived by Jews in the State of Israel. Diaspora-Zionism seeks to affirm the idea that the contribution of Jews in the Diaspora is not relegated to a second-class status.74 Finally the Diaspora-Zionism of the Zionist-socialist youth movements remains tied to its ideological roots and maintains an understanding of Jewish identity which is nationalistic. However, that nationalism is no longer only served by living in Israel, it is now possible to be a Zionist in the Diaspora and the examples of hagshamah in the platform provide a practical way in which to put this idea into practice.

Ultimately this Diasporic Zionist identity is strengthened by the personal experience of being involved in a movement. Zionist youth movements were originally absolutist ideological organisations, and in terms of their original ideological aims they have clearly failed, however, they did succeed in creating a safe haven across the globe for hundreds of thousands of Jewish youth to engage with their Jewishness and formulate a modern Jewish identity.75 The strong Jewish identity that many members possess cannot be separated from the positive experience of being involved in a movement. Their Jewishness is intertwined with the close friendships that they formed in the movements as well as their experiences on camps and as part of year programs in Israel. In this sense the movements have become cultural, social and political organisations that serve a need within the Australian Jewish community to provide organisations which perpetuate and strengthen Jewish identity.

I began my discussion of the changes taking place in chalutzic ideology by referring to some of the critical and questioning voices within Zionist youth movement in the 1940s. The Diaspora-Zionism of Hashomer Hatzair mirrors several of the ideas raised by Ehrman, Rechter and Sander. The primary reason for being involved with the movements has always been social and the latest ideological change is an explicit recognition of this reality. While Habonim maintains its core aim is chalutzic aliyah, the reality is that Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair are now primarily dedicated to the perpetuation of Jewish identity that is Diasporic, secular/cultural, and nationalistic. This transformation is still taking place and the Zionist-socialist movements are still navigating how they understand the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora. The transformation is a testament to the ability of the movements to adapt and change. Shifting

74 For a discussion of the concept of Diaspora-Zionism in the thinking of Modercai Kaplan see Emanuel S. Goldsmith, Mel Schult, eds., Dynamic Judaism: the Essential Writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1985), 26-29.

75 Mendelsohn, Modern Jewish Politics, 123.

230 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation away from the original raison d’être of aliyah and embracing a Diaspora-Zionism is also further proof of the fluidity of Jewish identity. The Zionist-socialist youth movements originally saw themselves as the vanguard of a revolution in Jewish identity. They were the most ideological and activist of Zionist organisations. In some respects it is possible to see them in the same manner: they are now the vanguard of a Jewish identity that is Diasporic but still remains ideologically leftwing and firmly nationalistic.

Bnei Akiva and the Question of Chalutziut

In the 1940s and 1950s the chalutzic ideal was so powerful that it also shaped the religious-Zionist youth movement. The founders of Bnei Akiva Australia were inspired by the synthesis of Judaism, socialism and nationalism and they declared that “Chalutzic Aliyah is the very aim and life blood of Bnei Akiva”.76 As we saw in Chapter One Bnei Akiva’s ideology of Torah ve’Avodah was radical because it provided an activist ideology which enabled orthodox Jews to merge traditional Judaism with nationalism and socialism. However, a fascinating transformation has taken place; Avodah has been shorn of its chalutzic roots and now refers to any sort of ‘work’ which assists the Jewish State. Chalutzic aliyah was a foreign concept to Australian Jews and needed to be inculcated through a strong educational program. Madrichim also needed to lead by example. Despite declaring “Chalutzic Aliyah is the very aim and life blood”, the movement failed to actualise its aims and few members went on aliyah to kibbutz. Bnei Akiva’s ideology evolved and shifted away from chalutziut. Why has Bnei Akiva’s ideology evolved in this way? Bnei Akiva’s move away from chalutztic ideals is clearly linked to development within Israel and Zionist ideology and broader Cold War politics. However, I would like to suggest that the primary reason for this shift reflects the internalisation by movement members of the synthesis of nationalism and Judaism, but not the concept of socialism. Ultimately the chalutzic idea was lost because socialism was too radical, too impractical and was also irrelevant to the primary concerns of religious-Zionist youth in Australia. Zionism divorced of the chalutzic idea allowed religious-Zionists to focus on the crucial questions of Jewish national survival.

In the 1950s the leadership of Bnei Akiva lamented the lack of ideological dedication to chalutzic aliyah amongst its members:

76 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Authors unknown, Bnei Akiva Australia, 5. Date unknown.

231 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

... very few of the Madrichim have serious intentions of Aliyah, of these few, only one or two intend to go on Chalutzic Aliyah. This has had of course an extremely important affect upon the Movement. It means that Madrichim have been diffident in their approach to discussion concerning Aliyah for fear of being thought hypocritical. It has meant that the question of chalutziut has been consistently shelved and Bnei Akiva has been deprived of the enormous benefit in activities in enthusiasm and in moral purpose which is brought about by the existence of leaders who themselves intend to go on Chalutzic Aliyah.77

The leaders of the movement wanted Bnei Akiva to produce chalutzim. These individuals saw in chalutziut the best way to create a Jewish State and thus they complained about the lack of ideological dedication. Although all the movements bemoaned the fact more members were not making aliyah Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were still sending members to train on the Hachsharah and producing large groups of garinei Aliyah while Bnei Akiva was not. As far as I have been able to ascertain only one member of Bnei Akiva may have attended the farm. His name was Solly Manns and he volunteered on the hachsharah around 1951-52 while Judy Shapira was on the farm.78 No other member of the Hachsharah that I interviewed recalled there ever being a member of Bnei Akiva on the farm. According to Johnny Wise, when he was involved in Bnei Akiva Sydney in the early 1950s, like the other movements, sent chanichim to help on the farm when they needed extra assistance.79 While Bnei Akiva’s education taught about chalutziut and the kibbutz, the movement did not discuss the issue of socialism and chalutziut was not pushed. Thus members were not encouraged to go and work on the Hachsharah in order to prepare themselves for aliyah to a kibbutz. While the ZFA demanded that the farm observe Shabbat and kashrut the reality was that Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair members ran the farm and life on the Hachsharah would have been difficult for a religiously

77 Ibid., 4.

78 Shapira was not sure if Solly Manns was a member of Bnei Akiva but he was shomer Shabbat and kashrut and while he was on the farm the members learnt to bench (say Grace) after meals. According to Shapira the other members of the farm who were socialists and atheists were opposed to religion and made life difficult for Manns, nonetheless Manns eventually made aliyah. Shapira also noted that Rabbi Dr Israel Porush, who was the Chief Rabbi of the Great Synagogue in Sydney, visited the farm to give talks and was very enthusiastic about the work being carried out on the farm. (Porush was the Rabbi of the Great Synagogue between 1940 and 1972). Judy Shapira, (Solomon). Interview Date: 18/06/08.

79 Johnny Wise. Interview Date: 30/06/08.

232 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation observant Jew. Most importantly, Wise recalls that while he was involved in Bnei Akiva, the movement received a lot of opposition from parents who did want Bnei Akiva to encourage their children to make aliyah.80 Sam Frydman became involved in Bnei Akiva in 1953, eventually serving as the Merakez of the Melbourne Sniff from 1960-63. Frydman made aliyah in 1964 and according to him he was the first Merakez from Melbourne to make aliyah and during his time in the movement it was very rare for a member of the Mizrachi community to immigrate to Israel.81 In this environment the idea of going to spend a year or more on the farm in order to prepare for chalutzic aliyah was never going to take root. Whereas for Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair the synthesis of Zionism and socialism was central to their understanding of Zionism for Bnei Akiva socialism, hachsharah and chalutziut were never as central to the ideology of the movement in Australia.

Nonetheless, Suzanne Rutland, who was a member of Sydney Bnei Akiva during the 1960s, recalls how the concept of avodah was strongly linked to the kibbutz and the chalutz. In 1961 Rutland went to Israel on the Israel Scholarship Scheme and a large part of the program was spent on a kibbutz established by Bnei Akiva. She recalled:

I was on a B’nei Akiva kibbutz... In B’nei I was completely brought up with the concept of Torah ve’Avodah and the concept of avodah was a socialist concept of avodah… I was – when you were on a B’nei Akiva kibbutz, whether it was Lavi, or Stay Eliyahu, obviously I was Ein Tzurim, we’d learn every kibbutz and the history of every kibbutz and we taught that then as madrichim. There is no doubt that in my mind that in B’nei Akiva in the 60s, the kibbutz was central to my B’nei Akiva, for me B’nei was simply an Orthodox Habonim. 82

Chalutziut was still present in the movement in Melbourne during the 1970s. Susan Boltin was a madricha in the early 1970s and she recalls how these ideas were still an important part of

80 Johnny Wise. Interview Date: 30/06/08.

81 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Sam Frydman, “1950s Bnei Akiva,” Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, 28.

82 Suzanne Rutland. Interview Date: 15/08/08. Lavi, Stay Eliyahu and Ein Tzurim are names of religious-Zionist kibbutzim.

233 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Bnei Akiva’s educational program: “That was the idea – Torah ve’Avodah. That was the motto. Oh yeah absolutely. That was the idea of the chalutz and of going to kibbutz. Absolutely.”83

During Lionel Link’s time in the movement during the 1950s and early 1960s the kibbutz was clearly linked to Judaism and religious observance. It was seen as the best way to live a life dedicated to Torah values because it enabled Jews to practice the agricultural commandments (mitzvot) which are described in the Torah while providing time to study Torah. The kibbutz was also idealised as a community which encouraged human beings to interact in a way which encourages the idea of loving your fellow man (Beyin adam le’chavero). Lionel Link describes the concept of Torah Ve’Avodah and its links to the kibbutz and socialism in the following manner:

Torah ve’Avodah, it was a religion and socialism and the ideal for the kibbutz was where one should end up in. That was the ideal, one should make aliyah to kibbutz because the best expression, as we believed at the time and as we taught, of living the life that allowed you to be committed to Torah values and values of establishing a state.... Working the land ourselves, and having time free under this sort of system to study and to learn and to be committed and to keep mitzvoth. And many of the mitzvot that we have are tied to the land and living on the kibbutz meant you could keep those mitzvot. The interaction between people, Bein Adam le’chavero, (between man and his fellow) these are easier, and more likely to be implemented in a kibbutz environment. At least that’s what we believed at the time. Were we indoctrinated with that? I don’t know, but that’s the way we saw it.84

While Rutland, Link and Boltin recall the chalutzic idea being present in Bnei Akiva, other members of the movement never saw the ideas as integral to the movement. Isi Leibler was a leading member of the movement in Melbourne during the 1950s, and he claims that while he was involved, the idea of the chalutz was never an integral part of the movement’s ideology or

83 Susan Boltin (Bloch). Interview Date: 11/12/07.

84 Lionel Link. Interview Date: 11/10/2007. Link’s reference to Bein Adam le’chavero is the idea that there are two major categories of commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah: “bein Adam la’Makom” (between man and the Omnipresent) and “bein Adam le’chavero” (between man and his fellow).

234 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation its educational programs.85 Johnny Wise was a founding member of Bnei Akiva in Sydney and during his time avodah was about making aliyah and working in any capacity as opposed to making aliyah to a kibbutz. According to Johnny Wise during his time in Bnei Akiva Sydney the idea of Torah ve’Avodah was not linked to a religious interpretation of the socialist chalutzic idea:

...for us here in Sydney, no. Avodah was to go to Israel, to get a profession, very similar to Betar. Betar never pushed the land either, but they pushed the professions. You know, work in that profession and build up the country, rather than go out on the land and till the soil.86

Bnei Akiva was able to shift away from chalutziut because socialism and the kibbutz were not core ideological values which defined the character of the movement in the same way that they defined Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. The kibbutz and the chalutz were idealised and taught, but they were secondary - far more important was the link between Zionism and Judaism. Zionism was divorced from the idea of the chalutz and the idea gradually faded from the movement so that by the late 1960s Avodah was solely understood as any form of labour for the State of Israel.

Bnei Akiva’s socialist ideas were never as politically radical as in the Zionist-socialist movements;87 nonetheless a tension existed between the revolutionary ideas of socialism and the ideological conservatism of Orthodox Judaism. In Chapter Two we saw the way in which Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi sought to navigate this tension by denying it was making any new innovations. The movement did not want to be seen as socially or politically radical. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were both staunchly leftwing organisations and while Bnei Akiva’s membership has included some members with leftwing political views the majority of its members have not been attracted to leftwing political causes. Whereas Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were very involved with leftwing political issues, Bnei Akiva was a much more

85 Isi Leibler. Interview Date: 18/09/08.

86 Johnny Wise. Interview Date: 30/06/08.

87 Dr Ian Kern. Interview Date: 17/10/2007.

235 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation insular organisation.88 The shift away from socialism was, in part, I believe, a result of the conservative nature of Orthodox Jewry in Australia. The socialist ideas were foreign and tainted by their radical political associations as well as their critical positions on religion. While a synthesis was clearly possible, it was far more fraught, complicated and ambiguous. The shift away from chalutziut made the ideological message of Bnei Akiva clearer; for Bnei Akiva Zionism meant: ‘The nation of Israel in the land of Israel according to the Torah of Israel’.

Bnei Akiva’s decision not to make the chalutz an integral part of its ideology was because it was not important to the majority of religious youth in Australia. Religious-Zionism was able to solve the primary social, economic, political and religious concerns of its members without socialism. According to Bnei Akiva, Zionism had provided a physical and spiritual haven to the Jewish people by making Jews sovereign in their ancient homeland. Bnei Akiva absorbed Jewish nationalist ideology and made it an integral part of its Jewish identity. It did not make socialism an integral part of that synthesis and thus was able to lose the concept of the chalutz.

The Creation of an Australian Betari:

The Question of Militarism

One of the defining differences between Betar and the other youth movements was its paramilitary character. 89 Jabotinsky argued that the Arabs would never be willing to accede to the establishment of Jewish State.90 Furthermore, the life of Jews in the Galut had created a people who refused to resort to violence in order to defend themselves against acts of violence. Jabotinsky decried this passivity and saw Betar as the instrument to create a New Jew who would be strong, not just mentally, but also physically.91 For Jabotinsky the lessons of the Diaspora had taught him that the fact Jews did not have power and were weak made them easy targets. Betar was the tool which would help rebuild the Jewish people. Thus Betar was originally established as a paramilitary youth movement and its ideology stressed the idea of

88 Ron Weiser. Interview Date: 29/09/07.

89 Shimoni, Zionist Idea, 238.

90 Avi Shlaim. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, (New York: WW Norton, 2000),13.

91 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 320.

236 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation group discipline and the need for Jews to be prepared physically to fight for the establishment of a Jewish State.92 While Betar’s forceful rhetoric and its militaristic character alienated many sections of the Jewish community the ideology also connected with Jewish youth, particularly in counties like Poland where Jews were frequently subjected to acts of violence motivated by anti-Semitic attitudes. On the eve of World War II the movement boasted that its worldwide membership was 90,000.93

While Australian Betar was shaped by Jabotinsky’s ideas as well as crucial events in Europe and Palestine/Israel, one of the most fascinating aspects of the movement’s history is how it has evolved and adapted to the realities of Jewish life in Australia. The creation of a distinct Australian Betar is a point which cannot be overemphasised. Betar Australia’s founders may have been born and raised in Europe but the children who would grow up to become the leaders of the movement were born and raised in Australia. While they retained a distinct Jewish identity their mother tongue was English and they were influenced by the lifestyle, culture, politics and geography of Australia. The most important changes undertaken by Betar were their approach to aliyah as well as toning down the more overt militaristic aspects of the movement. To be sure, the movement retained aspects of its paramilitary roots, but compared to branches of Betar in Poland or Israel, the Australian branch, was far less militaristic or stringent about issues relating to discipline.94 This process of adaptation was irrevocable for all the movements. The history of the Zionist youth movements thus provides a tangible example of the way in which a distinct Jewish-Australian sensibility has emerged and how this sensibility has shaped its cultural and political organisations.

When Feder first attended the Betar functions at Toorak Synagogue in Melbourne in 1948, the leaders who had been involved with the movement came dressed in the Betar uniforms they had brought with them from Europe, Feder wrote in his History of Betar Australia: “they (the madrichim) all wore a uniform pockets and collar-points trimmed in blue. They also wore black ties, jodhpurs and riding boots. This was, I was later to learn, a relic of European Betar. In the free and easy-living Australia it seemed somewhat out of place.”95 The Betar

92 Joseph B. Schechtman, The Life and Times of Vladimir Jabotinsky: Rebel and Statesman, (United States of America: Aronoff Foundation, 1986), 154.

93 Hundert, ed., The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, 173.

94 Yosef Steiner, Interview date 17/07/08. Louis Paper. Interview Date: 14/07/08. And Ron Sekel, Interview Date: 14/07/08.

95 Feder, (THOBA), 8. 237 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation uniform was originally brown but the fascist implications of ‘brown shirts’ caused the movement to start wearing a blue uniform.96 While the movement toned down the uniform and got rid of the jodhpurs and riding boots the uniform was still seen as a source of pride and it helped set Betar apart from the other Zionist youth groups.

When Betar was originally established in Australia it also retained many of the military drills and exercises utilised by Betar in Europe and in Palestine. Betar Australia in the 1940s and early 1950s actually trained members in how to shoot rifles, see Figure 11. Training members how to handle arms was based on Jabotinsky’s argument that the Arabs in Palestine would never accept the idea of an independent Jewish State in Palestine. Thus Jews had to transform themselves into a nation of soldiers who were prepared to defend themselves and utilise military force if necessary.97 The idea of a nation of soldiers not only valourised the notion of military force but also tied into the New Jew that Betar wished to fashion. Betar members during this period also took part in ‘stick fighting’ exercises. Before World War II Betar members would often patrol Jewish villages and suburbs dressed in their Betar uniforms and armed with sticks in order to protect Jews against acts of violence. The fact that Betar Australia’s activities in the 1950s included rifle training and ‘stick fighting’ was a product of the movement’s paramilitary roots. During the 1940s Habonim also organised ‘stick fighting’ but both movements eventually dropped these more overtly militaristic exercises. Figure 12 is a picture of the stick fighting training which Betar still undertook in the early 1950s. While Betar Australia would retain the focus on drills, discipline and a neat and tidy uniform, the militaristic aspect of the movement was toned down in comparison to branches of the movement in Europe or Palestine/ Eretz Israel.

96 Ron Sekel. Interview Date: 14/07/08.

97 It also appears that rifle training also took place in Sydney throughout the 1950s. Ron Sekel undertook rifle training at the camps but does not recall the precise dates but he was involved in Betar until the end of the 1950s and believes that this sort of training still took place. Ron Sekel. Interview Date: 14/07/08. Anne Goutmean also recalled training with rifles but found she was very uncomfortable with the activity. Anne Goutman. Interview Date: 12/10/07.

238 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Figure 11: Rifle practice: Michael (Moshe) Bush and Shimshon Feder. (Photo Shimshon Feder. Woori Yallock, Victoria, 1948. (Photo Yosef Steiner. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201948.htm ) November 2011.

Figure 12: "Stick defense"- Henry Kranz, Adam Fleigelman, 1952 (Photo Shimshon Feder. Courtesy of http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm) November 2011.

The uniforms and structure of the movement also informed the character of the movement. A member from Melbourne Betar in the 1950s and 1960s, John Goldlust, recalls 239 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation how Betar saw the uniforms as symbolic of the movement’s distinct character. As a chanich he was too young to realise the uniforms were militaristic:

...Because I was never in any other movements, it’s hard for me to... I thought of Habonim and Hashomer (Hatzair), as being looser. You know, the uniforms, the idea of the Betar uniforms were quite attractive. That they were militaristic didn’t occur to me they just appeared to be neat and a little more uniformish. I later got embarrassed about this, but at the time I thought they were attractive…98

Both Goldlust and Feder’s comments hint at why the character of Betar Australia was less overtly militaristic. Feder noted that in the Australia cultural context which was quite relaxed and carefree the uniforms seemed out of place; Goldlust, once he began to see the militaristic roots of the movement, was uncomfortable with the association. In Australia the ideas which underpinned “The Betar Idea” seemed extreme and far too severe.

While the Betar members may not have been aware of the paramilitary character of the movement, Betar’s militarism was enshrined in its constitution, “the Trumpeldor Organisation is a part of the future Jewish Legion that is to be formed in Eretz Israel.”99 A 1971 Handbook printed by Betar Melbourne reveals how aspects of Betar’s paramilitary roots continued to shape the movement. The Handbook stated that the significance of Tilboshet (uniforms) was that they “distinguished identity. Pride in uniform illustrates pride in movement.”100

Betar, like Habonim, divided its members into different age groups and each age group was given a name. In Betar the different age groups were made apparent by the uniform. The Handbook describes the uniform of the youngest two groups, Chashmonaim, and Kanaim (Zealots) as including a shirt, hat, blue lanyard, scarf, woggle, Tiron badge, black Betar buckle, khaki skirt, and trousers/shorts. Boys were expected to wear dark short or long socks, girls wore white long socks and both sexes were expected to wear black shoes. The Tiron Badge was the sniff (group location) badge and was supposed to be “worn L.H.S Three fingers down

98 John Goldlust. First Interview: 10/10/07.

99 Shimoni, Zionist Idea, 145.

100 JAL Betar Folder. Betar Seminar Handbook, Madrichim, Phillip Zavelsky, David Frey. The handbook appears to have produced by Betar Brisbane.

240 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation from shoulder. Worn only after completing successfully Tironut [service].”101 The leaders, (madrichim) had a badge signifying they were a leader, as well as a white lanyard. The madrichim also wore different coloured lanyards to signify their ‘rank’. Madrich Gimmel Bet Nai, the lowest level of madrich, wore a 2 x ¼ inch loos around the outside edged of the epaulettes, higher ranked madrichim levels which were ‘Madrich Gimmel Kavour’ ‘Madrich Bet Kavour’ and the ‘Madrich Alef Kavour.’102 The Handbook goes on to describe the uniform of the mefaked as well as madrichim serving on the Hanhaga Betar (the elected leadership body). The stress placed by the movement on the Betar uniform was a way to create a hierarchical structure within the leadership and amongst the chanichim. Betar understood how a uniform could be used to help create a sense of community and give its members a tangible way to express pride in Betar. The emphasis on neatness and appearance was drawn from the idea of Hadar. Figure 13 shows a group of Australian Betarim dressed in their uniform for a formal occasion.

th Figure 13: Celebrating the 30 anniversary since the establishment of Betar in 1923. The picture captures the the formality of the Betar uniforms. Melbourne, 1953. (Photo Shimshon Feder. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm) November 2011.

101 Ibid.

102 Gimmel, Bet and Alef are the first Hebrew letters of the alphabet and can also signify numbers, the first letter Alef, Representing the number ‘one’, Bet, signifying ‘two’ and Gimmel, ‘three.’

241 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Alongside the focus on uniform Betar members also took part in processions, marches, pseudo war games and drills. Combined with the movement’s own himnon (anthem), and flag, all the paraphernalia was in place for the creation of a movement with a strong nationalist outlook. When I asked Goldlust how he would define the character of Betar he said the following:

As I said, I think you sort of have the defining things, like the assemblies were more formal. You’d line up, at camps, they would be good examples - you had what they called mizdar. Where everybody would line up in front of their tents and there would be a leader out in front, like in a military parade. And you’d salute the flag, you’d sing Shir Betar (the Betar anthem). Maybe not every day but... you’d have this activity called Tass (targilei seder), which they called Tass, which was drill not in a very serious way, yet it was there and you’d have uniforms that would have caps and epaulettes, lanyards. People would blow whistles, there’d be a kind of order I suppose. There’d be that sort – the contrast was first with the uniforms, the Habonim and Hashomer people were always perceived as being a bit slouchy, having their shirts out and having bits of string it rather than a tie, that sort of thing. There was more of that sort of feeling of a strong organisation, strong expectations and a little bit of discipline.103

Goldlust’s recollections capture the intensity of the movement as well as the discipline which existed in Betar. Mizdar and tent inspections were also part of the other youth movement’s activities. The roots of the Zionist youth movements in the Wandervogel and the scouting movement left their imprint upon all of the movements. Nonetheless, unlike the other movements, Betar’s ideology, based on Jabotinky’s own pronouncements, was unequivocal in its admiration for militaristic discipline and this made the movement far stricter than the other Zionist youth movements. Figure 14 and Figure 15 shows that members of Hashomer Hatzair underook the same activitites described by John Goldlust. While mizdar and tent inspections were part of the other youth movement’s activities it is clear that in the Zionist-socialist movements the attitude was more relaxed. The images of Hashomer Hatzair’s mizdar in 1962

103 John Goldlust. First Interview: 10/10/07.

242 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation show that while some members were in uniform the majority were not and many individuals were barefoot and shirtless. Even in the 1950s and 1960s the atmosphere in Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair was less formal than in Betar during the same time period.

Figure 14: Summer Camp Moe, Victoria, 1962. Members of Hashomer Hatzair are gathered in formation for mizdar. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl)

Figure 15: Summer Powelltown Camp, Victoria, 1958. Members of Hashomer Hatzair stand ready to have their tents inspected. (Photo courtesy of Fran Pearl)

243 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

Mizdar is still a part of functions organisation by the Zionist youth movements in 2012. Figure 16 is a photo of a mizdar of Habonim Sydney taken in 2003.

Figure 16: Sydney Habonim Camp Pre-Union. Bronte Beach, Sydney, 2003. Members of Habonim Sydney gather in a mizdar formation in 2003. (Photo Courtesy of Ben Tassie)

There was order and formality in Betar’s activities but some of these activities were carried out in a half serious manner, like Tass. The Tass drills were a product of the political situation in Europe and Palestine which made these sorts of activities appear more urgent and relevant. In Australia these aspects of the movement were retained, however they were carried out in a far less serious manner and were eventually dropped. Likewise the focus on the uniform has, over the decades, become increasingly relaxed and is less specific than what was outlined in the 1971 Handbook.

In 1980 the shaliach of Betar, Amos Doron, initiated a Betar Award Scheme in an attempt to strengthen the movement’s educational program. Each of the different age groups was supplied with a short curriculum which included elements such as basic scouting knowledge, history of Betar, Hebrew vocabulary as well as paying attention to appearance and uniform. The awards were designed to be worn on the Betar uniform in order to establish the level of

244 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation education achieved by the Betari.104 The way in which the awards were to be worn was quite detailed. While the award scheme was designed to “appreciate that there may be a wide difference in the level of understanding or ability shown by the individual Betari” the ultimate aim was to encourage chanichim to deepen their knowledge about Betar and to maintain the appropriate level of discipline as well as paying attention to their appearance and uniform, Amos Doron went on to write in the Betar Award Scheme booklet: “...it is our intention to maintain the hierarchy within the group. The difference in level will motivate people to achieve the top level.”105 Even in the early 1980s Betar continued to emphasise rank and hierarchy. However, it appears the impact of Amos’ Award Scheme was short-lived, and by the 1990s the educational curriculum had become less rigorous and chanichim were no longer assessed on how they conducted Tass or wore their uniform. Deborah Liebhaber who attended Betar camps in the mid 1990s, recalls that chanichim did not even wear a uniform at camp:

...chanichim weren’t forced to wear anything. It was just the madrichim. But you saw your madrichim wearing it and you wanted to buy one, you saw them wearing the uniform and it was – “where do you get a uniform and I want to buy one.” We still (in 2007) do mifkad every morning and mizdar every evening. We sing Shir Betar and Hatikvah in the evening.106

Australian Betar found that those aspects which were not relevant dropped away and ceased to be a part of the movement. Deborah served as the Rosh Hanhaga Artzit, the head of Australian Betar. The head of Betar was originally called the mefaked but the title was changed in order to

104 Amos Doron attempted to reintroduce Tass for the most senior Betar group which was now called the Chalutzim. (Previously it had been called B’nei Etzel. Lit. Sons of Etzel). Etzel is another name used to refer to the Irgun Tzvai-Leumi, or Irgun. The Irgun was a military organisation operating in the British Mandate of Palestine from 1931 to 1948. The name Etzel is an acronym of the movement’s Hebrew name. The name of the Betar group is a clear indication of the ideological agenda and bias of the movement which lionised Etzel while the Zionist-socialist movements saw Etzel as “fascistic” and “terrorists”. Betar Australia had a magazine called Altalena which derived its name from a violent clash between the Irgun and the IDF in June 1948 and became known as the “Altalena Affair”. The material on the Altalena Affair used by Betar Australia adopted the Revisionist narrative whereby Etzel were innocent victims in the clash with the IDF. For a brief discussion of the ‘Altalena Affair’ see Morris, 1948, 271-272.) The educational material that I have collected from the Betar Maon in Melbourne does not contain any material after 1980 which refers to Tass still being a part of Betar’s educational program. JAL Betar Folder. Amos Doron, Betar Shaliach, Betar Award Scheme, Booklet Issued by the Hanhaga Betar Australia 1980.

105 JAL Betar Folder. Doron, Betar Award Scheme, 1980.

106 Deborah Liebhaber. Interview Date: 13/12/07.

245 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation be less militaristic.107 The organisation remains strongly nationalistic and proud of its Betar history and continues to sing the Betar anthem as well as the anthem of the State of Israel (Hatikvah). A formal structure during the day is retained and just as mizdar was a crucial part of the camp structure in the 1950s it continues to be important for Betar in the twenty-first century. Nonetheless it appears that mifkad and mizdar are shorn of their militaristic roots. They have become the way Betar ‘does things’, part of the movement’s history and identity.

Figure 17: An image form a Betar Magazine showing how members the correct way to wear their uniform. Date unknown. (JAL Betar Folder. Sourced from Betar Maon, Melbourne)

It is remarkable to consider that the 1971 Handbook’s attention to the uniform and discipline represents a toning down of Betar’s paramilitary roots. Nonetheless, it is clear that

107 Peter Keeda (formerly Peter Cohen). Interview Date: 26/9/07.

246 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation even in the 1950s Australian Betar was more relaxed about these matters than Betar in Europe or Israel. Steiner had been actively involved in Betar in Europe and he saw Betar Australia as a smaller organisation which was less disciplined and militaristic than the movement was in Germany.108 The fact that Betar Australia was less militaristic is indicative of the social and cultural context which was shaping the movement in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Louis Paper had joined Betar in 1951 and was one of the movement’s early leaders alongside Feder and Mirjam. In 1952 he attended a program in Israel with Betar and the ideological intensity of the movement in Israel caused him and Feder to try and create a less militaristic Betar in Australia. Of particular concern to Louis Paper was the need to create an education program in Australia which, unlike what he had witnessed in Israel, was less dogmatic ideologically:

Speaking personally, I felt from the beginning an aversion to propaganda and dogma. This attitude felt by Shimshon [Feder] and me at the time was the start of a specific Australian Betar attitude to the movement: the desire to sift fact from fiction and the will to seek proper methods of education; a fair and complete understanding of our movement and other movements and why our Zionistic approach was preferable; a more easy going attitude to Betar’s military structure, though not against discipline.109

Peter Keeda made aliyah in 1972; however he chose not to send his children to Betar in Israel, which due to its proximity to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has retained its ideological intensity, “They (my children) went to scouts. Betar in Israel is not a youth movement, it’s pathetic. Right wing, again, because the whole politics in Israel, much more extreme... in Israel it is so intense.”110

While Betar was originally a product of the European political and social context it evolved and adapted to the realities of Jewish life in Australia. The movement adapted as a matter of necessity, when Betar failed to adapt it ceased to exist. When Feder and Mirjam became Betar madrichim they were forced to educate themselves on the movement’s ideology

108 Yosef Steiner. Interview Date: 17/07/08.

109 Louis Paper. Interview Date: 14/07/08.

110 Peter Keeda. Interview Date: 26/9/07.

247 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation and history and were thus open to adapting the movement to suit the realities of life in Australia. The result was the establishment of a Betar movement that was simultaneously a part of the worldwide Betar movement and distinctly Australian. At the same time core elements of Betar ideology remained intact and its focus remained the question of Jewish national survival and renewal. Despite Betar adapting in some ways to life in Australia the movement retained aspects of its disciplinarian and militaristic character as well as core components of Jabotinsky’s ideology. Ruderman argued that the cultural and political character of English society allowed for the emergence of a distinct Anglo-Jewish Enlightenment which was a “rich blending of English elements with Jewish culture.”111 The emergence of a distinctly Australian version of Betar was also the product of a rich blending of Australian elements with Jewish culture. The evolution of an Australian Betar is emblematic of the experience of all the movements, the movements only succeeded when they were able to adapt to the realities of life in Australia and provide a way for their members to create and preserve a modern Jewish identity while living in the wider society.

Figure 18: The emblem of Betar Australia was altered to include a kangaroo and reflects the emergence of a distinctly Australian Betar (Photo Yosef Steiner http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201950.htm) November 2011.

111 Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment, 10.

248 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation

From Zionism to Diaspora-Zionism

The material produced between the 1940s and 1960s makes it clear that from the very beginning the Zionist youth movements in Australia debated the relevance of their respective ideologies and questioned the dedication of their madrichim to Zionism. While leaders in the movements lamented the lack of ideological dedication in the 1940s and 1960s, it is apparent that the movements are far less ideologicaliy inclined today than they were in the past. The clearest evidence of this ideological decline is the steady decrease in the numbers of chanichim coming to weekly events as well a drop in the number of leaders making aliyah.112 The ideologies of all four movements were a product of inter-war Europe and possess a utopian character; all imagine a perfect Jewish State which is governed by their respective ideological principles. The fact that the State of Israel is not governed by any of their ideological positions means the movements have to confront the relevance of their respective ideological platforms.

The movements are also confronting the issue of ideological stagnation. The ideology of Betar, chalutziut and Torah Ve’Avodah were once radical and revolutionary ideas and they attracted Jewish youth precisely because of their newness, they seemed to be offering a solution to the pressing needs of Jewish youth. In 2012 the movements have, by and large, made no new ideological innovations. Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim continue to define themselves as Zionist-socialist youth movements while Betar Australia continues to focus on the concept of Hadar and Tagar. Bnei Akiva continues to use the same slogans which were first coined in the 1930s: Torah Ve’Avodah and Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael al pi Torat Yisrael. All the movements continue to refer to the same ideological founders: Jabotinsky, Ahad Ha’am, Ber Borochov, A.D. Gordon and Rav Kook. However, few madrichim actually read the writings of their ideological forefathers. The ideologies of the movements have thus become the ideological orthodoxy. Furthermore, the organisational form of the movements has also largely remained unchanged since the movements were first established in Australia in the 1940s and 1950s.

In this chapter I have argued that the Zionist youth movements are beginning to embrace a form of Diaspora-Zionism. The Zionist youth movements continue to define Jews as

112 The decline in regular attendees is particularly apparent in the case of Betar and Hashomer Hatzair. Betar came close to collapsing in Sydney around 2006-8.

249 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation a national group, and the Land of Israel remains central to their understanding of Jewish identity. The State of Israel is viewed as essential to the unity of the Jewish nation and is an expression of the Jewish national will. Israel is a source of pride, belonging and a focus for Jewish identity. Despite the centrality of Israel the movements are dedicated to enriching the lives of Jewish youth in Australia. I discussed the shift taking place in Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair but the same change is also beginning to take place in Betar and Bnei Akiva. The website of Betar states that its aims are the following:

What is Betar? Aims: In Betar, we strive to create a fun atmosphere for our chanichim, aiding in their social and personal development with high quality role models. We maintain a strong emphasis on core ethical values. Our activities instil a sense of Jewish identity through the unique Jewish community that Betar supports. We affirm all streams of Judaism, catering to all of them at our camps and functions. Furthermore, we teach our chanichim about the importance of Zionism as well as Israeli history, culture and contemporary politics... Betar has a strong focus on ethical values together with Zionist ideals in a time of growing apathy. First and foremost, Betar is a Zionist youth movement, meaning that we support the existence and development of the Jewish state of Israel.113

No mention is made of aliyah and instead the website states that as a Zionist youth movement it is dedicated to supporting the “existence and development of the Jewish state of Israel.” The website also acknowledges the history of Betar in Australia and is clearly proud of the existence of the movement in Australia after so many decades. While Jabotinsky once famously proclaimed: “If you will not liquidate the Galut, the Galut will liquidate you!” today Betar Australia is wedded to its existence in Australia.

The shift towards a Diapora-Zionism is weakest within Bnei Akiva, a Hadracha Booklet from 2004 still stressed the idea that aliyah was the only way to lead a complete life as a religious Jew: “It is the aim of Bnei Akiva to instil within its chanichim (junior members) its madrichim (leaders) and its Bogrim (graduates) the idea that the highest form of ones expression of Zionism, love for Judaism and Israel is that of making Aliyah (migration to Israel)

113 http://betar.org.au/about-betar/about-betar (February 2012).

250 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Four: Decline, Stagnation and Transformation and live life according to the ideals and Mitzvot (commandments) of the Torah, many of which cannot be fulfilled whilst living outside Israel.”114 Interviews with past madrichim indicate that the attitudes of the leaders are far more varied and many leaders are less dogmatic in their approach to Zionism and the idea that it is necessary for religious Jews to make aliyah in order to lead a meaningful Jewish life. The website of Bnei Akiva Australia also states the following:

Bnei Akiva, is dedicated to bringing the messages of Torah Va’Avodah and Aliyah to the Jewish youth of Australia. Torah Va’Avodah is an outlook on the world which synthesizes a religious life of Torah with the labor and production in order to bring about a national renaissance of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Our wide range of programs are designed to foster personal, familial, and communal commitment to the ideal of “Am Yisrael, Be’Eretz Yisrael, al pi Torat Yisrael.”115

The movement maintains that it seeks to ‘bring the messages of Torah Ve’Avodah and aliyah’ to Australian Jewish youth but it also realises the focus of its work is to “strengthen the Jewish identity and commitment of our young people of Australia.” Thus the movement lists as its primary activities all the events that the movement organises in Australia.116 The movements are beginning to embrace the reality that Jews in the Diaspora can lead meaningful and enriching lives as Jews. Israel remains the focus of Jewish identity but the Zionist youth movements are also beginning to acknowledge the reality that Australia is also a homeland for many Jews. The Diaspora-Zionism of the youth movements remains engaged with Jewish history, Israeli politics, Judaism and Jewish continuity. The transformation is only beginning to take place but the Diaspora-Zionism that is emerging in the youth movements is clearly ideological and nationalistic.

114 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. “Handout 2: B.A. Ideology”, Bnei Akiva Hadracha Choveret 2004. I have not added in the translation of words like Aliyah and Mitzvot, the parentheses are in the original. It is interesting to note that the document translates words which almost all leaders would understand the meaning of.

115 http://bneiakiva.com.au/about-us/ (February 2012).

116 Ibid.

251 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five The Question of Judaism: Zionism in a Post-Rabbinic World

In this chapter I want to explore the attitude of each of the Zionist youth movements to Judaism. For religious-Zionists the correct path for a Jew was clear: they should live a life guided by the framework of Jewish law (Halachah). For the rest of the Zionist movement, shaped by external, modernising ideologies such as nationalism, liberalism and socialism, the relationship with Judaism was far less clear. The notions of divine revelation and the transcendental origin of the Jewish people were not only open to examination but also to ridicule.1 All the non-religious streams of Zionism agreed that the driving force of Jewish history was the nation, of which religion was simply one facet. What Zionist-socialism and Revisionism were both seeking was a renaissance of Jewish identity which would reassert the dominance of the nationalist component of Jewish identity. Zionist youth movements believed Zionism would create a modern Jewish identity that would also generate a Jewish cultural renaissance. However, what actually constituted the core components of a Jewish national culture was a source of great debate, controversy and disagreement and all four movements possess different attitudes to the notion that Jewish identity is primarily a religious identity. How have the movements in Australia related to the observance of Jewish law and ritual as well as the study of sacred Jewish texts? Perhaps most importantly, how do the movements understand the origins of the Jewish people?

The different approaches of the movements to Jewish belief and observance is perhaps the most radical and revolutionary aspect of the movements’ ideological program. In the previous chapter I concluded by writing that the movements remained activist, ideological organisations in their attempt to articulate a Zionist-Diasporic Jewish identity. This intent is most clearly seen in their attempt to create a modern understanding of Jewish beliefs and ritual practices. Their modern approach to Jewishness, which no longer viewed Jewish identity as primarily a religious identity, is the most radical innovation of the Zionist youth movements.

1 See, for example, Max Nordau who took a staunchly anti-religious position that was most clearly illustrated in his “vitriolic denunciation of the Jewish Bible” and Christianity which was published in 1883. Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin de Siecle, 26.

252 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Research associated with this work makes it clear that the ideology of the movements was a powerful force in shaping the identity of many young Jews in Australia, who, through their involvement in the movements, came to embrace – consciously or subconsciously – underlying assertions made by Zionism. Chalutziut, Hadar, or the motto Torah ve’Avodah, have all proven to be to be powerful ideas which have resonated with Australian Jewish youth. However, in this chapter I would like to argue that the most enduring impact of the movements has been their modern approach to Jewish identity.

In the second chapter of this thesis I quoted Ezra Mendelsohn’s argument that all the movements were “expressions of the will of young Jews to devise radical world outlooks in order to deal with the new historical situation, and to devise new identities which would enable them to find their way both as Jews and as citizens of the modern world.”2 While Mendelsohn’s observation was made about the movements when they were founded in Europe, it is clear that his conclusion is just as relevant for the movements in Australia. The Zionist youth movements in Australia were also attempting to “devise new identities” which were modern but also celebrated having a strong Jewish identity. Their story is thus a continuation of events which began in Europe before World War II.

It is interesting to reflect upon, and then extrapolate from Shaye Cohen’s seminal work From the Macabees to the Mishnah, in which one of the core questions faced by Jews in antiquity was how to maintain their Jewish identity while living within a Hellenistic culture. As Cohen points out, Jews did not have a choice about whether to Hellenise or not – but it was within their power to choose how much to Hellenise.3 The question which followed was perhaps the most crucial: how much could Jews borrow from Hellenistic culture while retaining their particularist Jewish identity? Jews in antiquity were aware that their culture could be enriched and enhanced through their encounter with the Hellenised world, but Jewishness could also be dissolved and destroyed in an encounter with a dominant civilisation. Jews in antiquity answered this question in many ways - some chose to become totally Hellenised and abandoned their Jewishness, but the Jews who chose to remain Jewish employed a variety of responses.4

The situation described by Cohen can also be used to examine the position of Jews after the emancipation. Cohen argues that Jews in antiquity could not reject Hellenisation;

2 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 1981, 86.

3 Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2nd ed, (London: Westminister John Knox Press, 2006), 37.

4 Ibid., 29.

253 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism similarly, after the emancipation Jews did not have the choice to reject modernity.5 How much could Jews utilise and internalise the ideas of modernity without losing their Jewishness? How could they use modernity to enrich and fructify Jewishness without it being obliterated? Cohen’s final two points are also mirrored in the experience of Jews in the twentieth century: just as Jews in antiquity had utilised a variety of responses to Hellenisation, so too have Jews responded to the impact of modernity in diverse ways. (It should be noted that the impact of globalisation has meant that Israeli Jews have had to face these questions just as profoundly as Jews living as a minority in the Diaspora.) Zionism’s desire to reshape Jewish identity within a nationalist framework was itself a direct product of the Jewish encounter with modernity. Youth movements, with their differing ideologies and approaches to Judaism, represent one aspect of a broader story of the attempt by Jews to articulate a Jewish identity which is compatible with modernity while retaining a Jewish particularism.

I opened this chapter by stating that its focus would be the approach of the movements to Judaism. What is meant by the term Judaism? While the historical development of Judaism as a religion and a working definition of Jewish identity continue to court controversy, I would like to utilise both Cohen and Daniel’s Boyarin’s research into the emergence of rabbinic Judaism to help provide a solid theoretical basis for my discussion. Boyarin argues in his influential work, Border Lines: the Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, that the project of the Rabbis in antiquity, marked by the final redaction of the Babylonian Talmud, was a response to the emergence of Christianity and an attempt to define the boundaries between Jew and Gentile.6 Rabbinic Judaism’s project was a success and its profound transformation of Jewish identity became the cultural, political and religious norm. For rabbinic Judaism, the Jewish people were created not through history, culture and a common ancestral territory, but through the Brit (covenant) between God and His chosen people which bestowed upon the Jewish people malchut shamayim (‘yoke of heaven’ or the ‘yoke of the Torah’).

Zionism, however, sought to “transform the transnational Jewish identity centred on Torah into a national identity.”7 For the Zionist movement at large Judaism and the Torah

5 Ibid., 37.

6 Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines, 7, 29. In this thesis I have adopted the guidelines of when to capitalize the word ‘Rabbis’ as set out by Boyarin: The word will be capitalised when referring to the specific group of religious leaders who flourished from the second century until approximately the end of the sixth century in Babylonia and Palestine. It was during this period that rabbinic Judaism produced its most significant literary texts, the Midrashim and Talmuds. Lower case will be used when referring to religious functionaries in general. Daniel Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), xi.

7 Rabkin, Threat From Within, 5. 254 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism were a function of the Jewish nation. For Orthodoxy it was the exact opposite, it was heresy to conceive of Judaism as a function of the Jewish nation, the Brit was the source of Jewish identity.8 As the seminal Jewish thinker Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994) argued, Jewish identity had never derived its source from history, language or territory, it was a product of the yoke of Torah and its commandments:

The Jewish people as it existed in history, is only definable by its reference to its Judaism – a Judaism that was not a mere idea in the mind but the realization of a program of living set forth in the Torah and delineated by its mitzvoth. This way of life constituted the specific national content of Jewishness or, in other words, the uniqueness of the Jewish people... Unlike the identities of the peoples that are characterized by race, language, territory, or state, the national identity of the historic Jewish people is Judaism, the actuality of that life is Judaism.”9

This traditional conception of Jewish identity was largely a product of rabbinic Judaism and, according to Cohen, it was the impact of the Emancipation which created uncertainty in defining the nature of Jewish identity:

The Emancipation and the restructuring of European society meant the collapse of the intellectual, political and social boundaries that traditionally kept the Jews ‘in’ and the Gentiles ‘out’…. The uncertainty of Jewishness in antiquity curiously prefigures the uncertainty of Jewishness in modern times. The ancients lived in the pre-rabbinic world, we live in a post-rabbinic world.10

This uncertainty was a direct product of the encounter between Jews and modernity. Modernity challenged the traditional belief that the Jewish people were a product of divine intervention and presented the idea that Jewish identity was a product of social, historical and scientific processes. Aside from the national-religious Zionists, all the other branches of

8 On the threat of Zionism to traditional Judaism see Yosef Salmon, “Zionism and Anti-Zionism in Traditional; Judaism in Eastern Europe,” in Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira, eds., Zionism and Religion, (London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 25-44.

9 Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “The Uniqueness of the Jewish People,” Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, (United States of America: Harvard University Press, 1992), 82-83. (Stress in Original).

10 Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness, 8.

255 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Zionism were profoundly shaped by this idea and came to understand the Jewish people as the product of evolving sociological processes which human investigation could explain. While these ideas preceded Zionism, it is clear that the encounter between Jews and modernity enabled Zionism to emerge.11 Modernity enabled Jews to view their Jewish identity as the product of historical process as opposed to the result of divine intervention, and Zionism was a movement which was originally led by a range of Jewish intellectual and political thinkers who embraced these core ideas.

Perhaps the most important reasons behind the emergence of secular, national and cultural definitions of Jewish identity were the tensions and ambiguities within the way Judaism itself defined Jewishness. Cohen points out that while both Christianity and Judaism claim to be the ‘true Israel’, Christianity is a faith community whereas Jewishness is a product of heredity, Christians can be made whereas Jews are born.12 Daniel Boyarin’s Borderlines argument mirrors some of the conclusions made by Cohen. Boyarin argues that until late antiquity Christianity and Judaism were not “fully formed, bounded, and separate entities and identities.”13 The boundaries that came into existence were established by the heresiologists who sought to define Christian identity. This process triggered a matching project on the part of the Rabbis of the 2nd and 3rd centuries to “transform Judaism into a Church.”14 Despite this process the Rabbis acknowledged that being a Jew broke the ‘religious’ boundaries as defined by the Christian heresiologists.15 The dictum, “an Israelite, even though he sin, remains an Israelite” (b. Sanhedrin 44a) becomes the principle of Jewish identity.16 Boyarin argues that this means that there was “now virtually no way that a Jew can stop being a Jew, since the very notion of heresy was finally rejected and Judaism (even the word is anachronistic) refused to be, in the end, a religion.”17 The point is that Jewish identity confounds the traditional definitions of ‘religion’ and contains an ethnic- territorial component which can be traced back to its tribal Israelite origin.18 Thus when

11 Shimoni, Zionist Idea, 270.

12 Shaye, J.D. Cohen, Why aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005), 102-103 and Footnote 24, 249.

13 Boyarin, Border Lines, 7.

14 Ibid., 29.

15 Thus Christianity invented religion and provided a space in the Christian empire for Judaism to exist as “a genuine, though wrong religion from which conversion was possible.” Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines, 218.

16 Boyarin, Border Lines, 224.

17 Ibid., 224 (Stress in Original).

18 Shaye, Maccabees to the Mishnah, 41.

256 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Jewish identity was challenged by modernity the pathway was open for Jews to identify as Jews without believing in the idea that Israel was a product of divine intervention.

To return to the question I articulated earlier: If the source of Jewish identity was no longer divine, what was its core? Zionism proposed it had the answer: the core of Jewishness was national. However, this answer was far from clear-cut. Rabbinic Judaism had created a complex and rigorous system of religious laws, beliefs and practices, which, over a period of centuries dating back to late antiquity, became the means by which Jewishness was delineated and defined. If these texts and ideas were abandoned it meant that there was no longer any certainty about what constituted the boundaries of Jewishness or what was the essence of a Jew. What was the role of religious observance in the Zionist revolution? What was the relationship between Zionism and the sacred religious texts? If Zionism rejected rabbinic law as codified in texts like the Mishnah as divine, should the matrilineal principle - which had become so crucial to defining Jewishness – also be abandoned? If Judaism was viewed as a culture that was a product of historical processes: What was Jewish culture? Was it observing the Sabbath? Was it praying three times a day? Or was it singing Hebrew songs and going on hikes and becoming a chalutz? Is it Jewish to have a third Passover Seder (such as those organised by Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair) which inverts the message of Pesach and teaches Marxist or socialist principles? For the purpose of our discussion: What is Jewish about the Zionist youth movements?

Habonim: Cultural-Nationalist Judaism

How have Australia’s Zionist-socialist youth movements related to Judaism? While both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair share a great deal ideologically - and organised similar cultural-national events which I will discuss below - they adopted two very different approaches to Jewish identity, a reminder of the complexity and fluidity of Jewish identity.

The education pamphlets produced by both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair over the decades clearly indicate that the focus of both movements was not religious education. Neither movement was interested in teaching students Mishnah or Gemara but they did want their chanichim to learn about Zionism and Israeli history. As Zionist-socialist movements they sought to fashion Zionist Jews dedicated to chalutzic aliyah, kibbutz and Zionist- socialism.

Habonim’s Fifteenth Anniversary booklet views Jewish identity solely from within a secular Zionist-socialist ideological framework. The pamphlet which Hashomer Hatzair

257 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism published on its tenth anniversary portrays a similar ideological focus.19 Both movements believed Jewishness to be essentially nationalist: their understanding of Zionism and Jewish identity was shaped by cultural Zionism’s desire to create a synthesis of Judaism with modernity. Any aspect of Jewish ritual or belief that was seen as anachronistic or incompatible with modernity was jettisoned. Thus when Habonim commemorated its fifteenth anniversary, the achievements the movement chose to celebrate were its dedication to educating chanichim about Zionism, chalutziut and the kibbutz movement. No mention was made of God or the study of religious texts like the Mishnah or Gemara.20 The Jewish identity that they attempted to fashion remained tied to certain religious practices but it was also post-rabbinic; the Mishnah and Gemara were not considered divine and were largely ignored by the movement. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s relationship with Judaism was clearly shaped by their ideological and historical roots in two antireligious movements, the Haskalah and socialism.21

At various times during its existence Habonim has adopted either an antagonistic attitude towards religion, or a more respectful view of religious observance, largely due to the presence of observant madrichim.22 With time, the movement has come to define its approach to Judaism as a “cultural Judaism.”23 During the 1990s a great deal of discussion took place within Habonim concerning the movement’s relationship to Jewish liturgy and observance. The ideological platform written in 1995 “redefined” Habonim relationship to Judaism. The 1995 platform saw Habonim embrace the centrality of the Tanach as a source of Jewish identity. Habonim’s approach to Tanach placed Jewish liturgy within its existing ideological framework and thus the platform stated that Tanach could play a central in the process of hagshamah atzmit:

The past twelve months in Habo have seen the ideological platforms revamped. For the Judaism platform, perhaps more than any other platform,

19 AJHS, YF1 (1). “Hashomer Hatzair – 10 Years of Hashomer Hatzair in Australia,” published by Hashomer Hatzair Zionist Youth Movement, September 1963, vol2. No 2. 9.

20 Habonim: Fifteenth Anniversary Souvenir Publication, 1955. JAL Habonim Folder.

21 Anita Shapira, “The Religious Motifs of the Labor Movement,” in Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira, eds., Zionism and Religion, (London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 251.

22 Les Szekely. Interview Date: 9/11/07 and Henry Sharpe. Interview Date: 9/12/07.

23 JAL Habonim Folder, Ben Tassie Material. “How We Express Our Judaism.” Judaism – Habonim Dror’s JUDAISM Platform. Habonim Secretariat: World Veida: 1998. And: “About Habonim Dror Australia’s Ideology,” http://www.hdoz.com/about-ideology.aspx (February 2011).

258 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

this has meant a considerable number of changes and additions. In effect, Judaism at Habo has been given a whole new focus, one which is well-suited to Habo today. The major shift has been returning to our sacred texts and sources, primarily the Tanach, “as a guide towards Hagshama Atzmit (self- realisation)”. Defining Jewishness according to the Tanach recognises this source as a powerful and relevant learning aid.24

Nonetheless, despite the return to Tanach the concept of a cultural Judaism still remains quite amorphous and without a firm ideological definition. In 2011 Habonim’s ideological platform and its description of cultural Judaism does not attempt to mark the divide between cultural and religious observance. The platform for Habonim includes the following points defining the concept of cultural Judaism:

1. Habonim Dror believes in Cultural Judaism - a holistic approach to Judaism as a culture in which religion and nationality are interwoven and integral parts...

6. Habonim Dror recognises and strives towards the basic solidarity of the Jewish people, which has a common destiny transcending geographical and cultural barriers. We are One People - Am Echad, characterised by mutual, collective responsibility.

7. Habonim Dror believes that a Jew is a person of Jewish descent or any person who declares himself or herself to be a Jew and who identifies with the history, ethical values, culture, civilization, community, and fate of the Jewish people.25

Habonim has made a concerted effort to define cultural Judaism. It defines Jewish identity as both national and religious, maintaining that national identity emerges through Jews

24 JAL Habonim Folder, Ben Tassie Material. “Judaism: Putting Principle into Practice,” Habonim Dror’s JUDAISM Platfrom 1995. Capitals in original. The platform went on to describe ways in which the movement was actively trying to reengage with Tanach and prepare more material for madrichim to use in weekly meetings that dealt with Jewish festivals, Shabbat and the Hebrew Bible. Whether or not the new focus on Jewish liturgy would be embraced by the different centres of Habonim around the world depended very much on the local madrichim and what sort of programs they wanted to run.

25 Ibid.

259 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism identifying with one another. However, the platform still does not actually provide a working definition of what it means by cultural practices. The concept of cultural Judaism raises questions about how and why Habonim chooses to observe some cultural practices but ignores other important Jewish practices. By way of example, my interviews indicate that while Shabbat has been observed on Habonim camps it does not include the reading of the weekly portion of the Torah. The Torah was viewed by many leading Zionist-socialists, including David Ben-Gurion, as the product of a national Jewish identity.26 Why would a cultural Judaism not include one of the key practices undertaken by Jews for many centuries? Many similar questions arise in terms of why Habonim chose to celebrate some Jewish practices but ignore others.

Perhaps the most radical statement made in the platform is Habonim’s definition of a Jew: “a Jew is a person of Jewish descent or any person who declares himself or herself to be a Jew...” Jewish identity remains tied to descent but the document also appears to claim that Jewish identity is not conferred through any process of conversion, but simply through the act of an individual identifying with the Jewish people. The definition remains vague in terms of how it defines Jewish civilisation, Jewish history or ethical values. What are Jewish ethical values? This question appears particularly appropriate in light of the fact that Habonim ignores many of the religious ethical dictums laid down in the Tanach. Habonim’s definition of a Jew also ignores many of the core rabbinic requirements, crucial for a non- Jew to become part of Israel: these include circumcision, immersion pool (miqvah), and a process of education that includes learning Hebrew, attending synagogue, and other basic religious practices. The process of conversion was one of the most important developments undertaken by the Rabbis in order to define Jewishness.27 Thus, because Habonim rejected these documents as divinely inspired and viewed Jewish identity as primarily a national- cultural identity, it was prepared to say that a person became a Jew when they identified with the Jewish people. The fact that Habonim proved so willing to ignore the rabbinic precedent which had defined Jewish identity for centuries is very telling.

26 For a discussion of the importance of the Bible in the Labour Zionist movement see Anita Shapira, “The Religious Motifs of the Labor Movement,” in Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira, eds., Zionism and Religion, (London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 260-262. A pamphlet from Habonim in the late 1940s also illustrates that the Biblical narratives were taught as historical fact, and one of the core components of the Hakdasha Test which enabled one to become a member of Habonim was to recount “The Story of Our People.” This story began with the story of creation and then moved on to summarise the Hebrew Bible and the story of the Hebrew patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) before quickly discussing important historical events such as the destruction of the First and Second Temples as well as the completion of both the Mishnah and the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds. It concluded this history with the triumph of Zionism and the work of the Yishuv and the JNF in establishing the Jewish State. AJHS-VIC (SLV). The Habonim Handbook, Melbourne: Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation Australia, 1-7, 14-15.

27 Cohen, Why aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised?, 185-186, 99-101. 260 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Nonetheless, the concept of cultural Judaism has enabled the movement to create a vibrant and tangible approach to Jewish observance and practice. While the term cultural Judaism was not initially used by Habonim to describe its approach to Jewishness, from its inception the movement sought to try and create a cultural approach to traditional Jewish practices. Thus, for example, during the 1940s and 1950s Habonim used to organise Ongei Shabbat in order to celebrate the Jewish Sabbath.28 The term was borrowed from the Halachic concept of Oneg Shabbat (The joy of the Sabbath). An Oneg Shabbat was a time when Halachically observant Jews would gather to eat, sing psalms and religious songs and have discussions which elevated the enjoyment of the Sabbath.

Figure 19: Habonim Oneg Shabbat, Sydney 1960s. Note the traditional Friday night candles and that the men have covered their heads with kippot. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman)

Their instituting the Ongei Shabbat is an illuminating example of the desire by Habonim to fashion a modern national identity which still drew its inspiration from ancient Jewish customs. Habonim borrowed the concept of gathering together to sing songs and celebrate the Sabbath, but it secularised the practice. Habonim’s Ongei Shabbat severed the idea of Shabbat from the belief that the observance of Shabbat, the seventh day of the week, was divinely ordained and represented a day of rest as described in the Book of Genesis. Habonim’s Oneg Shabbat celebrated the Shabbat as a national-cultural event.

28 JAL Habonim Folder. “What We Do: Onegim, Neshefim and Chagim,” Habonim: Fifteenth Anniversary Souvenir Publication, 1955. Publications form the 1940s also noted that Habonim held Ongei Shabbat, see for example: C62 AJHS. Kol Ha-Noar: The Voice of the Youth, Monthly Bulletin Issued by the Melbourne Jewish Youth Council, Vol. 3, No. 3. Feb. 1945, 9.

261 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Shabbat became a way to create a Jewish national identity. Habonim’s Ongei Shabbat were not concerned with the minutiae of Jewish law, which described the correct manner in which Shabbat should be observed. Habonim’s practice of organising secular-Zionist Ongei Shabbat was in turn adopted by the founders of Hashomer Hatzair. David Rothfield, a member of Hashomer Hatzair during the 1950s and 1960s, recalls how the idea of an Oneg Shabbat was clearly inspired by the religious practice:

....Certainly at summer camp it [Shabbat] was celebrated. There was a special atmosphere [on Shabbat]. Yes, I think the flavour of oneg Shabbat certainly comes from the religious tradition. To a certain extent we embraced that sort of atmosphere. We embraced the togetherness. The cleanliness, putting on a clean white shirt. The candles were probably lit. We probably had sort of Kiddush, some sort of blessing over the candles. But I don’t remember that clearly, but it would have been something secular. That was special for camp and not done during the year. There would have been some singing, they would have been songs about peace and harmony, Zionism, there would have been a story, some sort of literary reading, something from Bialik.29

The concept of a secular Zionist Oneg Shabbat was not unique to Australian Habonim. Berl Katznelson (1877-1944), the influential Zionist-socialist thinker, had strongly advocated for Zionist-socialism to undertake this revolution and transform Shabbat - which he saw as a national-cultural tradition that had allowed the Jewish nation to survive - into a cultural- national practice. Katznelson argued that in order for a durable and dynamic secular Jewish identity to emerge, it needed to preserve the rituals and practices of transcendental Judaism while secularizing them so they imparted values and ideas in line with the nationalist socialist ethos of the Labour movement. Katznelson believed that in order for the Zionist project to succeed in renewing the Jewish nation it had to acknowledge its roots and history. How this secularized religion would emerge, Katznelson argued, would be a matter of gradual evolution, “I do not judge and stipulate rules on the question of the form the festivals should take... A living feeling in the heart and the revival of the spirit will give rise to the appropriate forms.”30 While none of Habonim’s archival material during this period refers to Katznelson

29 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

30 Shimoni, Zionist Idea, 311.

262 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism explicitly, it is clear that his ideas had filtered through into Australia and influenced the concept of Habonim’s Ongei Shabbat.31 Habonim remained part of a wider transnational movement which was seeking to transform Jewish identity.

While Habonim’s attitude to Judaism was to some extent determined by its ideological roots in the Zionist-socialist movement,32 far more crucial to this was the influence of the family backgrounds of Habonim members. When Habonim was first established it was the only Zionist youth movement in Australia, and the family backgrounds of Habonim’s membership, particularly in the 1940s and 1950s, were diverse. They included individuals whose backgrounds were Zionist, religious, traditional, Bundist, secular as well as communist and anti-Zionist. Many of Habonim’s members also came from a background which, in the wake of the Holocaust, viewed religion and Judaism in a negative light. The vast majority of families who sent their children to Habonim were new immigrants and refugees, many of whom had come to Australia with nothing. The focus of the family was to establish themselves in their new home country. Les Szekley’s family arrived in Australia after the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and he recalls how religious observance had to take a backseat to the tough reality of life as an immigrant to Australia. While aspects of Szekley’s story are unique, the struggle his family experienced is emblematic of the experience of many of the families who sent their children to Habonim:

While my grandmother was alive the household was kosher. Being refugees, it was more a case of survival. The priorities were – having working – my father started work at 6am until 9pm. It was much more the day to day life and migrant experience that were the issues. The whole issue of religion was extremely secondary. My parents weren’t shule goers except on Rosh Hashanah Yom Kippur - obligatory stuff... but it wasn’t the central focus for survival, getting re-established, striking down roots was the issue.... 33

31 Material gathered by Habonim in later decades did contain quotes from Katznelson explaining his approach to Judaism and the need for a revolution in Jewish liturgy and practice in line with the values of Labor Zionism. See for example: JAL Habonim Folder, Ben Tassie Material. “Judaism - Yahadut,” Habonim Dror’s JUDAISM Platform. Habonim Secretariat: World Veida: 1998.

32 The founders of the Zionist-socialist movement included individuals like Nachman Syrkin and Ber Borchov who were influenced by the antireligious attitudes of both socialism and the Haskalah. Shimoni, Zionist Idea, 293-5.

33 Les Szekley. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

263 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

The circumstances of the Jewish immigrants meant that Habonim served a crucial function in providing a place for parents to send their children to mix with other Jewish youth and to learn a little about Jewishness. While a Jewish day school system had been established in both Sydney and Melbourne and some European immigrants were able to send their children to the day schools, for many families the cost of a private education was far too high.34 The majority of Habonim members did not go to Jewish day schools, and attendance at Habonim was viewed as a viable alternative to a formal Jewish education. Henry Sharpe was involved in Melbourne Habonim in the 1960s and 1970s, and he recalls that these influences were still very much at play while he was involved in the movement:

Most of our parents, the ones I was with, were immigrants after the war, so there were either immigrants who came straight here or like my family went from Europe to Israel and then here, so they were ex-Holocaust survivors or variations of that. I think their emphasis constantly to their children was, you know, mix with Jewish kids, be Jewish, get involved without necessarily being religious. That’s where I think they [Habonim] also catered. They [parents] emphasised and pushed us to bring home Jewish kids, get friendly with Jewish kids.35

With the dramatic increase in the number of Jewish children attending Jewish day schools there has been a corresponding decline in the overall percentage of Jewish children attending youth movements. Many of the interviewees who attended the movements noted that their parents sent them to the movements precisely because they did not attend a Jewish day school and the movement acted in place of a formal Jewish education. While many children who attend the movements have done so despite attending a Jewish day school the interviews I have carried out and the statistical data suggests that the decline in the membership of the movements is linked to the rising percentage of Jewish youth attending Jewish day schools. The anecdotal information I have gathered indicates that many parents do not see the need to send their children to a Zionist youth movement when they feel that their children are being provided with that education and socialising

34 For a discussion of the school system, in particular the two largest Jewish day schools in Australia Moriah War Memorial College in Sydney and Mount Scopus in Melbourne see Rutland, Edge, 346-352. In Sydney in 1970 seventeen percent of Jewish children attended Jewish day schools. From 1976 to 1986 that number leaped to around fifty percent. Rutland, Edge, 371. In 2001 seventy percent of Jewish children attended a Jewish day school. John Goldlust, “Ch. 1. Jews in Australia: A Demographic Profile,” in Jews and Australian Politics, ed. Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Phillip Mendes, (Great Britain: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 129.

35 Henry Sharpe. Interview Date: 9/12/07.

264 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism environment as school. This also means that many Jewish children do not feel the need to be involved in a Zionist youth movement because they attend a Jewish school and thus they do not need to find a place which provides them with a forum to mix with Jews of a similar age. As I made clear in Chapter Two many of the Jews who joined the movements in the years after World War II came from refugee backgrounds or were the first generation of their family born in Australia. Many Jewish youth joined the movements because they offered a safehaven in which they could gather together with other Jewish youth who came from similar cultural backgrounds. The movements were particularly important because the parents were frequently busy working long hours trying to establish a new life in Australia and the movements were a place in which Jewish youth could occupy themselves, meet new friends and explore their links to Zionism and Jewishness. The social and demographic reality of the Australian Jewish community is very different today and the membership of the movements is no longer made up of newly arrived migrants struggling to find a place in a new homeland. Schools have replaced the social function that the movements served in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s and this is part of the reason behind why the membership of the movements has declined over the decades.

While the rising percentage of Jewish children attending Jewish day schools is not the sole factor affecting the membership of the youth movements it is clear that the success of the Jewish day school movement has played a decisive role. Nonetheless, other factors have also had a profound impact on the decline in the number of Jewish youth attending the movements. I argued in the previous chapter that the ideology of chalutziut is facing a crisis. The society imagined by Zionist-socialism has not eventuated and very few members of the movement now make aliyah to a kibbutz. Both Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim continue to debate whether they should still define themselves as socialist and Hashomer Hatzair has explicitly moved away from stating that aliyah is the only way for Jewish youth to express their dedication to Zionism and the State of Israel. The decline in the membership of Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair can, in part, be traced back to the fact that their ideology resonates with a smaller and smaller percentage of Jewish youth in the twenty-first century. For example, in 1968 Hashomer Hatzair claimed it had over 240 members while in 2012 the membership of Hashomer Hatzair is less than 100.36 The leftwing movements have also felt the impact of the shift of the Jewish community away from leftwing politics.37 Betar has also struggled to maintain the relevance of its ideology. While Jewish youth do not elect to attend the movements because of ideological considerations it is clear that ideology remains crucial

36 “Report of the Youth Department,” The Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Report to the 23rd Biennial Conference 1968, Melbourne, St Kilda, 63. JAL Habonim Box.

37 See Mendes, “Jews and the Left”, 69-70 and my above discussion on page 203-4.

265 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism in motivating Jewish teenagers to elect to lead in the movement. While members may query or critique individual aspects of their movement’s ideology most madrichim choose to sacrifice their time and energy to lead in a Zionist youth movement because they believe their movement continues to be meaningful and relevant. The movements are now finding it increasingly difficult to convince Jewish youth to remain involved as madrichim and this is due to the fact that their ideology is unable to capture the imagination of Jewish youth in the same way that they did in the 1940s or 1960s. As we saw in earlier chapters the ideology of chalutziut or the Betari captured the imagination of Jewish youth due to specific historical events such as the Holocaust, World War II, the establishment of the State of Israel, and the June 1967 War. These sort of historical events convinced many Jewish youth that they needed to be actively involved in the Zionist cause. In 2012 the ideology of chalutziut or the Betari seems increasingly irrelevant to the needs, hopes and aspirations of Jewish youth in Australia. Thus the movements are finding it increasingly difficult to attract children to their weekly meetings. Netzer eventually decided around 2007/8 to run its meetings on a fortnightly basis precisely because the movement was unable to attract enough Jewish youth to weekly meetings. The struggle of the movements to attract chanichim to weekly meetings is also a product of the fact that Jewish youth have many other social activities available to them. Whereas in previous decades many Jewish youth went to the movements because there was ‘nothing else to do’ Jewish youth now have much more disposable income and thus they are able they go to the movies, play video games, go to shopping malls and organise their own social activities. Declining membership in the movements has, in turn, made the movements a less attractive place for Jewish youth to gather together socially and this has created the impression that the movements are no longer ‘cool’ or ‘popular.’ This perception has also had an impact on the ability of the movements to attract Jewish youth to their activities. Whether the decline in the popularity of the movements is an irreversible trend that will eventually see the movements collapse remains to be seen. What is clear is that the individuals who do lead in the movements are as passionate and dedicated to the movements as the madrichim who led in previous decades.

As noted above, Habonim served the needs of the community. Josie Lacey was a member of Sydney Habonim in the 1940s until the split in 1953 and while she was involved some of her madrichim were religious and this influenced the character of the movement because it meant the movement had to cater for its more observant members. Thus, for example, Lacey’s group would not hold meetings on Shabbat because her madrich was observant of the Shabbat and its laws (shomer Shabbat) which this prohibited him partaking in certain activities on the Jewish day of rest. Josie Lacey recalled that:

266 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

It was Zionist, it was traditional education. They [Habonim] didn’t run cheder (Jewish Sunday School). We sang songs in Hebrew. We had Hebrew chugim (activities) and a lot things that happened which were educational. We had the Schneiweisses, Isamar [Schneiweiss] was my madrich and we never met on Shabbat and everything was absolutely observed because Isamar was shomer Shabbat. He was totally Orthodox, there was no B’nei Akiva and there were people like the Schneiweiss brothers and people who were secular but we all strongly identified with being Jewish and we were all strongly identified with Israel... They were from the very secular to the very religious... We had everything and everything in between, they influenced each other, mostly the religious influenced the other because they had more to give.38

Although Habonim’s ideology was shaped by its Zionist-socialist ideological roots, in Australia the movement’s approach to Jewish identity was tempered by the fact that it catered to a very diverse membership. To be sure, those who came from religious backgrounds were always in the minority: nonetheless, their influence was clearly felt and played a role in introducing a more traditionalist and respectful attitude towards religion. While Habonim in the 1940s was not as radical as other branches of the Zionist-socialist movement, it still represented a concerted attempt to forge a new Jewish identity centred upon the concept of the nation as opposed to religious observance. The ideology of the movement clearly viewed Judaism through the lens of Zionist-socialist ideology.

Habonim’s desire to create a modern Jewish identity is perhaps most clearly seen in the celebration of Passover.39 Passover, the festival commemorating the ending of slavery in Egypt and the Hebrews journeying to the Holy Land, with its wealth of cultural, historical and national symbols was quickly recognized as a festival that should be celebrated by the Labour movement. Katznelson wrote that “I know of no other single ancient memory... which serves as a better symbol of our present and our future than the memory of the exodus from Egypt.”40 The central ritual of Passover is the Seder (order), an impressive ritualised meal, usually shared with family and friends. There is a structure to the meal which is organised

38 Josie Lacey. Interview Date: 29/11/07.

39 For a discussion of the importance of Passover within the Zionist-socialist youth movements and the gradual development of a new modern Haggadah see Shapira, “The Religious Motifs of the Labor Movement,” 266- 269.

40 Eliezer Don-Yehiya and Charles S. Leibam, “The Symbol System of Zionist-Socialism: An Aspect of Israeli Civil Religion,” Modern Judaism, Vo. 1. (1981): 126, 137.

267 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism by the Haggadah (The Recounting), a small volume which tells the story of the Exodus and is basically a book of instruction, especially for young children. Kibbutzim quickly produced their own Haggadot and eventually introduced sedarim which reflected the ethos and values of the Labour movement. There was no uniform text and the Haggadah produced by each kibbutz was reflective of their political position; thus the more Marxist oriented kibbutzim placed greater emphasis on the idea of class and revolution. The more moderate kibbutzim stressed the nationalist and agricultural aspects of Passover.41 As Eliezer Don-Yehiya and Charles Leibam pointed out, the Zionist-Socialist movement “utilized symbols of traditional religion, transforming them and transvaluing them to suit its purposes.”42

Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s ideological ties to the He-Chalutz and kibbutz movement meant they drew upon the kibbutz movement’s approach to how a new secular Jewish identity could be articulated. Passover was celebrated with a special Third Seder. Introduced in the first years of Habonim’s existence, it continues to be a major event in Habonim’s annual calendar and is a memorable event for many of the people involved in Habonim. When Hashomer Hatzair was established in 1953 it also adopted the tradition of organising a Third Seder for movement members.43 During the 1960s and 1970s Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair had a similar relationship with the kibbutz movement and both took their lead from the kibbutz movement about how to celebrate Jewish religious festivals. Les Szekley described the relationship in the following manner:

Very much there is a sort of alignment and attitudes or ideology prevailing in the kibbutz at the time and Habo. To some extent, at least theoretically, a parent child relationship and, Habonim we celebrated all the significant Jewish chagim (festivals) they, they were celebrated as nationalist and cultural holidays not as religious holidays. So, a lot of the symbols would have been the same but adapted... In the narrow sense of a religion. It ranged from neutral to openly hostile, reactionary to it. It was very much a Jewish movement, but it was very much a cultural Judaism, it mirrored what kibbutz did in effect. There is an ideological parentage or connection there. It was a case of wanting a Jewish state not a theocracy, that means a Jewish state which is founded on Jewish cultural values, Jewish history, Jewish

41 Ibid., 138.

42 Ibid., 126.

43 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08. Betar has also sporadically organised a Third Seder over the decades.

268 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

symbolism. We celebrated all the chagim... From time to time the place would blow up, for example, if you’re doing seder, Third Night Seder, would you have milk with your coffee? The prevailing attitude during my time was neutral to hostile attitude to Orthodoxy but with a lot of cultural and nationalist fervour.44

This ideological parentage is still acknowledged by the movement two decades later. In 1998 members of Habonim from all over the world met at the World Veida (conference) in order to discuss and debate the movement’s ideological platform. At the conference the issue of how Habonim “expressed” its Judaism was discussed. The final draft of Habonim’s ideological platform included the following statement: “Our celebrations are similar to those which can be found in Israel today, especially like those which one finds in kibbutzim. The kibbutz movement has greatly contributed to modern Israeli society by revitalizing the calendar, keeping the significance, the symbolism and the history of the holidays while anchoring them in the daily reality which was their origins – the natural cycle of the Israeli year.”45

All Habonim Haggadot include the traditional prayers that praise God as the creator of the universe and describe the miraculous events of the Ten Plagues and the Exodus from Egypt as the result of divine intervention by God on behalf of the Children of Israel. Nonetheless, there are many radical changes to the basic structure of the celebration. A 1999 edition of the Habonim Haggadah contains a Seder service which is greatly truncated with many of the more esoteric passages having been removed; here the best known and loved songs are sung in the traditional manner, while others are translated into English and sung to non-Jewish tunes such as ‘Oh My Darling Clementine.’46 Figure 20 is a picture from a Habonim Third Seder in Sydney. The banner above the people dancing reads: From Slavery to Freedom” and expresses the argument made by Borochov that the message of Passover is that Jews are “incapable of being slaves.’”47 In the picture Habonim members have begun to dance in circle or Hora, a practice not part of a traditional Seder service but derived from the practice of the kibbutz.

44 Les Szekley. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

45 JAL Habonim Folder, Ben Tassie Material. “How We Express Our Judaism.” Judaism – Habonim Dror’s JUDAISM Platform. Habonim Secretariat: World Veida: 1998.

46 JAL Habonim House Melbourne, Habonim Folder. Habonim Dror Third Seder Haggadah 1999.

47 Don-Yehiya and Leibam, “Symbol System of Zionist-Socialism,” 137.

269 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Figure 20: Habonim Third Seder. Habonim Sydney, 1960s. Date uncertain. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman.)

A large part of the traditional Passover Seder is structured so that the younger generation may question aspects of the service in order to understand the meaning behind the Seder itself. This is represented in the original text of the Haggadah by the ‘Four Sons’ who ask questions of their father. The teaching of the younger generation comes from the biblical verse “And you shall instruct your son on that day...” (Exodus 13:8) The Haggadah is about educating the younger generation about the Exodus from Egypt. The Habonim Third Seder attempts to make the Seder a more interactive process and contains lists of questions for the participants to ponder, “What is the meaning of Matzah to you? How do you keep Pesach and why? Share an experience where you celebrated Pesach overseas (Israel). Was it a different feeling to celebrating in the Diaspora?”48 The 1999 Habonim Seder also asked those in attendance to help compile Habonim Australia’s modern day Ten Plagues. As a guide, it referred to Habonim North America’s listed Ten Plagues, which included ‘Apathy, Environmental Degradation, Poverty, Racism, Sexism and War.’ The attempt to make the Haggadah politically and emotionally relevant also extended to reinterpreting and including new symbols on the Pesach Seder Plate. This included eating a potato to remember the Holocaust and olives because “Olives constitute part of the

48 Ibid.

270 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Arab/Palestinian cooking and eating basics. We are placing olives on our Seder plate as a reminder of our similarities and solidarity with Palestinians.”49 The modern Ten Plagues and the addition of new symbols on the Seder plate illustrate a willingness to reinterpret and add to the established tradition in an attempt to ensure Passover remained meaningful.50

The Habonim Third Seder is a clear attempt to help foster a secular Jewish national identity. For the Zionist movement Passover echoed the modern day struggle of the Jewish people. Living in the Diaspora, as far as Zionism was concerned, was living in slavery; Zionism would lead the Jewish people from a place of subjugation in Exile to Freedom. Freedom, according to the Zionist discourse could only be had when Jews were able to decide their own destiny in their ancient homeland.

Passover is the festival that Habonim has most consistently engaged with. At times, other festivals were also commemorated, but the Third Seder stands alone in its centrality to the movement’s cultural Jewish celebrations. Despite the ideological affiliation between Habonim and the kibbutz movement, there was also no sustained attempt to copy the innovations made by the kibbutz movement in Israel in regards to the other agricultural festivals Shavuot (Pentecost) and Succoth (Tabernacles).

49 Ibid. While many Ashkenazi Jews already eat the potato as part of the Passover service Habonim has created an entirely new meaning symbolic meaning for the consumption of the potato as a reminder of the Nazi genocide.

50 The ideological agenda of the Habonim Seder touches upon the desire of both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair to be involved in progressive/leftwing political causes as well as their aspiration to create chanichim who are passionate about social justice and social action. Many members of both movements later went on to work as teachers, social workers and lawyers involved in supporting progressive political causes. All the interviewees who went on to do this sort of work said to me that they credit their involvement in Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair with creating this motivation to work in an occupation which they felt had a positive social outcome. Both Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair have taken ‘leftwing’ positions on political events such as the Vietnam War, opposing South African Apartheid and the War Against Terror. Both movements have also taken up progressive political concerns such as the environment, refugee rights, LGBT rights and supporting equality between men and women. At times there was a struggle within both movements between those who felt that focusing on these issues distracted members from focusing on Israel, aliyah and Zionism and those who felt it was essential for the movement to engage with wider political and social issues and events. Nonetheless, it is clear that the movements have maintained an active engagement with wider events and conflicts which concerned the leadership of the movement. The tension over whether the movement had to solely focus on Israel and aliyah or whether the movement should be concerned with wider world events was a product of fact that both movements have roots in a particularist nationalist movement, as well as Marxism and socialism, which have a more Universalist political perspective. The fact that the movements in Australia have remained involved with these issues is indicative of their engagement with Australian society and their desire to be a part of the wider social and political conversation. It is also a further reminder of how the movements have embedded themselves in the Australian political and social landscape. The movements do not see themselves as being solely concerned with Zionism and aliyah but also with world events and events particular to Australia and the Australian Jewish community. There are several topics which I have not had enough time to address in this thesis and the issue of how the movements have applied their ideology to universal conflicts/events is a topic worthy of further discussion. The fact that I only have time to mention this important point in passing is further proof, I think, of the fascinating and complex history of the youth movements and the need for further study into their history.

271 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

While back in the 1940s and 1950s Habonim organised, during the year, many Ongei Shabbat as part of their regular activities, these events became increasingly rare and now Shabbat is only celebrated in a secular fashion when chanichim attend camps. David Tassie remembers that during his involvement in Habonim in the 1960s and 1970s, Shabbat was celebrated in the following manner:

Friday night was special. Part of the equipment you took to camp was a white shirt or something like that, for Shabbat night. There would be an extra effort to cook something vaguely Shabbat orientated. Schnitzel or something. Challah (special bread consumed on the Shabbat) for sure. A very, very quick Shabbat service. And lots of Shabbat songs, before and after dinner. Very, very light on the formal religious side... Kiddush, yeah. Challah and ha’motzi (blessing over the bread) and wine and... I don’t think there was much else in a religious sense.51

Sidra Kranz was a member of Hashomer Hatzair during the 1980s and her recollection of how Shabbat was celebrated illustrates how the practices of both movements were remarkably similar:

Shabbat at camps was a nice meal, Saturdays weren’t any different, but Friday night we would do something. White shirts, maybe the leaders served us. There would be no prayer services, we might have some songs, like ‘machar Shabbat, machar Shabbat...’ (Tomorrow is Shabbat) I don’t think we said prayers. Might have been candles and challah but I’m not sure. It probably depended on where we were.52

Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair continued to maintain these traditions throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Members would still come to Friday night services dressed in clean white shirts, and the movements still try to honour the idea of Shabbat by serving better food, holding a truncated Friday night service and trying to create a festive Friday night spirit through songs and dancing. Friday night on camp was not concerned with observing Shabbat as a religious dictum demanded by a sacred religious text, but as a cultural-national celebration.

51 David Tassie. Interview Date: 11/11/07.

52 Sidra (Kranz) Moshinsky. Interview Date: 13/07/08.

272 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s Friday night practices are thus remarkably in tune with the ideas that Katznelson articulated several decades earlier. Figure 21 is a picture of Habonim members in their white shirts dancing after a Friday night dinner.

Figure 21: Habonim Rikudei Am (Israeli dancing) Habonim Sydney 1960s. Date uncertain. (Photo courtesy of Toby Hammerman.)

The Zionist youth movements have sought to provide a clear answer to the uncertainty of Jewishness, by embracing a Jewish identity which is modern, nationalist, socialist and cultural. Habonim acknowledges that its concept of a cultural Judaism must be traced back to the kibbutz movement. Today the movements remain firmly leftwing in terms of their approach to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as well as adopting progressive attitudes to issues relating to rights for women, homosexuals, refugees and Indigenous Australians. The creation of a ‘Habo’ or ‘Hashy’ sub-culture with its camps, songs, weekly meetings, uniform and other paraphernalia has emerged as the conduit for the creation of a sustainable Jewish youth culture. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair have become, in themselves, the expression of a modern Jewish identity.

Les Szekley recalls that while he was involved with Habonim there would be arguments about the boundaries of respect for religious observances: an example he cited was whether or not milk should be served with coffee after the Third Seder meal. A Seder almost always includes the consumption of meat and the laws of kashrut forbid eating meat and milk together. The question of whether coffee should be served with milk during the Third Seder raised a key issue: if Habonim was organising a Seder in honour of Pesach should it observe the laws of Kashrut which prohibit eating milk and meat products together?

273 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

The inability to provide a clear answer is revealing: Habonim’s relationship with Judaism evolves and changes. Boyarin argued that the Rabbis who redacted the Talmud ultimately rejected the idea that Jewishness was a religious identity in the same way as Christianity: the ability for a cultural Judaism to emerge can be traced back to this decision. For Habonim the question of whether or not its Third Seder should allow milk to be added to coffee was a question that defied an easy answer and the movement continues to struggle with creating a working definition of what the boundaries are for a sustainable and meaningful cultural Judaism. It is impossible to provide a clear answer to the question as to how Habonim relates to Judaism, because it is a relationship which continues to change and evolve. The uncertainty of Jewish identity, and the process of continually arguing and debating about the contours of Jewishness, has become a core part of Jewish identity in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Hashomer Hatzair: A Secular Nationalist Judaism

Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim share the same ideological roots whereby both movements attempt to create a Jewish identity which is modern, nationalist and socialist. As illustrated above, observance of traditional Jewish occasions such as Passover and Shabbat by Hashomer Hatzair is very similar to Habonim’s, because it also draws on practices of the kibbutz movement. Nonetheless, Hashomer Hatzair’s conception of Jewishness differs from that of Habonim, representing a more radically secular and humanistic approach to Jewish identity.

David Zyngier, a member of Hashomer Hatzair from the late 1950s until the mid 1970s, recalls that while he was a madrich the organisational framework followed the principles of democratic centralism and it strictly enforced the idea that leaders had to conform to the ten dibrot which dictated the correct behaviour of for a shomer:53

As I said earlier, we expelled people from the movement who did not keep the Ten Dibrot. We held a court of the bogrim and we would decide whether they should be expelled... We were meant to be pure of mind and body. Makeup was bourgeois, smoking was not permitted. You were expelled from camp. You had to front up to a panel, a veidah to explain why you shouldn’t be expelled.... It was not unlike the kinds of things going on in the Stalinist Party.

53 See Chapter Four for a list of some of these Ten Commandments which Hashomer Hatzair madrichim were supposed to live by, 218-219.

274 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Hashomer Hatzair was very Stalinist, in the way it was organised, democratic centralism. It was based on Lenin’s principle of democratic centralism. You have a small group of people who decide what is to be done and everyone had to follow that. Regardless.54

The invocation of the Ten Commandments is essential to understanding the ideological rigour of Hashomer Hatzair during this period. Just as Bnei Akiva would expel leaders who were not observant of Shabbat or other religious dictums, Hashomer Hatzair set down a code of conduct that madrichim needed to observe ‘religiously’. Hashomer Hatzair utilised the symbolism of the Ten Commandments, but replaced the religious dictums such as belief in God and observing the Sabbath, with its own code of moral conduct. Just as religious Jews took the observance of the Biblical Ten Commandments very seriously, so too did Hashomer Hatzair take the idea of its Ten Dibrot very seriously. The movement understood that its purpose as a chalutzic movement was only possible if it enforced the observance of its new Ten Commandments. Hashomer Hatzair’s conception of Jewish identity was totally secular and thus they had no problem with the idea of creating a new set of commandments for its leaders to observe.

The Labour Zionist movement understood that if it discarded Halachah it had to replace it with something just as substantial. Berl Katznelson was, in particular, aware of this problem, and the idea of drawing upon Jewish religious symbols such as the Ten Commandments was undertaken because he knew how much these symbols resonated and “could call forth the patriotism of the youth.”55 The leaders of the labour movement stressed the idea that their Jewish identity and practice of Judaism in the kibbutzim was not just as authentic as traditional Judaism, but even more so. David Zyngier recalls how seriously the ideological debates were taken by the madrichim in the movement. This was seen as proof of the fact that Zionist-socialism and Hashomer Hatzair’s ideology were a reservoir of intellectual thought which deserved discussion. Thus, just as stories from the Mishnah described how Rabbis in antiquity debated religious matters until dawn, so too would Hashomer Hatzair’s leaders. According to David Zyngier:

54 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

55 Anita Shapira, “The Religious Motifs of the Labor Movement,” in Shmuel Almog, Jehuda Reinharz and Anita Shapira, eds., Zionism and Religion, (London: Brandeis University Press, 1998), 258.

275 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

We often had debates. And we had factions within our own tnua (movement), with our own shichvot (groups), we had ultra-left factions, which I belonged to, and there were more conservative left factions, we would strongly debate things and stay up all night like Rabbi Akiva and stay up and debate until sunrise.56

This attitude was clearly derived from Hashomer Hatzair’s links to the kibbutz movement. The kibbutzim viewed themselves as the re-creation of a more pure Judaism because kibbutz enabled Jews to work the land and observe the agricultural festivals in the correct manner. 57 Dov Golembowicz’s reflections on this idea clearly encapsulate this belief system.

We taught and we went on about Jewish history but it was all history culture, Israel, kibbutz, there was nothing about identification with religion. You know the kibbutz is also Jewish. I mean, it celebrates the festivals more than anybody who goes to shule. Because all they can do there is pray. Yet the religious think that we’re not religious. But I mean, we’re more Jewish, in my opinion, probably than they are. We’re more authentically Jewish than they are... We were Jewish in the historical, cultural sense.58

The founders of Hashomer Hatzair wished to create a movement that was less populist than Habonim and was dedicated to chalutzic aliyah. The founders were more leftwing than the majority of Habonim and their links to Kibbutz Ha-Artzi only strengthened the leftwing politics of the movement. My interviews indicate that Hashomer Hatzair’s leftwing position tended to attract Jewish youth who came from families which had been involved in leftwing political organisations in Eastern Europe, including the Communist Party of Poland. These factors helped create a far more leftwing movement than Habonim, and this, in turn, shaped the movement’s more radical secular and humanist approach to Judaism.

Part of the complexity of charting the attitude of the movement to Judaism was that it depended greatly upon the group dynamics of the individual year groups (shichvot). Paul Pearl, who was involved in the movement during the 1950s and 1960s, remembers that

56 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

57 Spiro, Children of the Kibbutz, 384-391.

58 Dov Golembowicz. Interview Date: 25/06/08.

276 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism during his time, the movement had no link to organised religious institutions and Judaism was viewed with “disgust.”59 David Zyngier recalls that the 1970s Hashomer Hatzair group adopted just as strong an anti-religious position, which also had a firm ideological basis. Religion was rejected and viewed not only as archaic and superstitious, but also seen as an obstacle to the creation of a secular nationalist and socialist Jewish identity. David Zyngier described the attitude of Hashomer Hatzair in the following manner:

We didn’t get involved in anything religious. We rejected religion. The Third Seder was a celebration of nationhood. It became a festival of liberation. And we celebrated that as an American might celebrate Independence Day, or an Indigenous Australian would celebrate reconciliation.... There was nothing to be learned from Gemara, but there was much to be learnt from the study of Marx... Absolutely anti-religious. We would eat non-kosher, we wanted to express the fact that we rejected religion, whereas today Hashomer goes out of its way to not offend people. We would offend... We would go to hadracha camp with B’nei Akiva and bring up pork sandwiches. We would do it davka (on purpose). To antagonise. We wanted to express our difference, our individuality, because Hashomer Hatzair was not going to compromise, and we never compromised our positions. And therefore we were prepared to be expelled from the State Zionist council, from the AZYC on the basis of our principles. We drew the line and that was it.60

David Rothfield’s recollections of how Hashomer Hatzair approached Judaism during the 1950s and 1960s reveal a very different attitude.

We were certainly non-religious. But I don’t think we could have been regarded as anti-religious. But we certainly didn’t have sichot (programs/discussion) against religion. But I guess there would be many religious people who would construe that by the fact we didn’t encourage religion we were anti-religious. We didn’t feel we were anti- religious, but it would have been very difficult for someone who is religious to be a member.

59 Paul Pearl. Interview Date 24/06/08.

60 David Zyngier. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

277 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Partly because some activities were on Shabbat. But that applied to Habonim as well. Partly because we didn’t attempt to keep kosher.61

Rothfield’s comments reflect not only the diversity within the movements, but also their prevailing ethos. It would have been unthinkable to observe the laws of Shabbat or make the camp kitchen kosher. Whereas for the religious-Zionist movement these observances lay at the very heart of Jewishness, for Hashomer Hatzair these issues were irrelevant. While Rothfield does not recall the movement being anti-religious during his time, it was clearly anathema to Hashomer Hatzair’s leaders that religious dictums such as kashrut should have been imposed on the movement. Finally, Rothfield’s comments indicate that this was never an issue for the movement - Hashomer Hatzair’s clientele was not religious and thus the issues of kashrut or Shabbat never arose.

One of the key differences between Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim is that Hashomer Hatzair never had to deal with what to do about religious members. Thus the movement never had to develop the more accommodating attitude that existed in Habonim. Habonim’s cultural Judaism also led to occasions in which several leaders did become more observant. During Szekley’s time as a madrich in the 1960s and 1970s, one leader did become observant and while this did generate a lot of debate and controversy, the movement decided to cater for this leader’s religious beliefs:

He wasn’t that religious when he started in the movement, but he became, certainly from a Habonim point of view, very frum, (observant) he would easily have been as frum, frumer than most of the B’nei Akiva madrichim. I’ll never forget I was rosh machane (head of camp) at camp, after many, many debates and arguments in the hanhalah (executive committee) we agreed that we were doing the camp kosher-kosher... there was empathy, there was a feeling you can’t exclude a guy because he was dati (religious). That was contrary to our ideology. The debate was how much does everyone else have to give into one individual? We ended up saying camp was going to be properly kosher because Harry wants to eat. I went down with a couple of guys the day before, you can imagine saying to the caretaker of the campsite

61 David Rothfield. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

278 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

that we were going to go through his kitchen with boiling water and blow torches, you try doing that!62

This was not an isolated incident. While Henry Sharpe was a member of Melbourne Habonim in the 1970s, a whole group of leaders became more observant.63 Ilan Bloch was heavily involved with Habonim Melbourne during the 1980s and 1990s, and while he was a junior madrich he started to become more observant and eventually left the movement during his year program in 1995 in order to establish a branch of Hineni in Melbourne.64 However, while he was in Habonim, the movement did create a space for him to be more observant.65 The key difference is that in Habonim these more observant leaders found a movement that had a conception of Jewishness which was flexible enough to include religious members. None of the archival data or the interviews I have carried out indicate that Hashomer Hatzair ever had to deal with a similar issue.

Hashomer Hatzair, like Habonim, has sought to define its position on how it relates to Judaism. There are many similarities to the Habonim charter, but, there are also key differences. Hashomer Hatzair was aware of the concept of cultural Judaism but eventually the Hashomer Hatzair Charter defined its approach as a Secular Judaism:66

Secular Judaism: Hashomer Hatzair’s Judaism is a stream of Judaism and is based on the Jewish culture and our humanistic approach. We place the individual in the centre of our Jewish worldview. Our morals derive primarily from our sense of responsibility and respect to humankind. We believe in and practice a form of active Judaism that encourages everyone to give personal meaning to their Judaism within the Shomeric community.

62 Szekley’s comments in regards to boiling water and a blowtorch is referring to the requirements in Jewish law for making a kitchen which has been used for cooking non-kosher food a kosher kitchen. (These practices are undertaken by Bnei Akiva before camps in order to enable food to be cooked at the camps sites). Les Szekley. Interview Date: 9/11/07.

63 Henry Sharpe. Interview Date: 9/12/07.

64 Hineni is a Zionist youth movement which defines itself as Modern-Orthodox, politically active, & pluralist Zionist youth movement. Hineni was originally a synagogue youth group in Sydney in 1974. http://www.hineni.org.au/?page_id=5 (February 2011).

65 Ilan Bloch. Interview Date: 02/12/07.

66 Previously the Charter had defined the movement’s approach as a secular cultural Judaism. JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Matti Rose, “Does Questioning our Ideology in a Serious Way (beyond weekly peulot) Pose a Danger to ‘Hashy’?” Merakez, 2003, 13.

279 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Our Judaism draws upon the vibrant culture, tradition, history and legacy of the Jewish people and connects us to our heritage. We view Jewish sources as inspiration and open for critical interpretation.

Our approach stems from a thorough understanding of Judaism and the development of a contemporary, meaningful way of expressing our Judaism.67

As in Habonim, the concept of Jewishness is divorced from the idea that Jewishness is a religious identity. Judaism is a cultural, historical heritage which is a product of peoplehood. Thus, while the movement draws upon Jewish religious practices such as Shabbat or Passover its approach is critical and the ultimate desire is to create a Judaism which is modern.

Aaron Bloch served in the top position within the movement in 2007 and his reflections on his sense of Jewish identity are clearly drawn from his experience in Hashomer Hatzair. The ideological platform of the movement is not simply words on a page, as he explained:

I would say, personally, I am a secular humanist Jew. I subscribe to those ideas, very, very strongly and I still attend shule on Yom Kippur and there are elements of that which I am attracted to. But I am very attracted to the idea of being a secular humanist Jew and defining that in a positive sense. I think my outlook on Israel is very much framed by the Hashy ideology, in that I am strong Zionist but that the best thing for Israel is a State which is socially just, which has a strong welfare system and that the state comes to a just a peaceful solution with Palestinians. But is a state which is a viable and equitable state. That is very much part of what we believe.68

This idea of a secular and modern Jewish identity is lived and breathed in the movement. While the belief in chalutziut and aliyah has declined what has emerged from the movements is a vibrant secular and Diasporic-National Jewish identity.

67 “About Us: Ideology,” http://www.hashy.org.au/?page_id=81 (February 2010).

68 Aaron Bloch. Interview Date: 4/12/07.

280 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

From the interviews I have carried out, and from the various magazine and newspaper articles which Hashomer Hatzair has published, it is clear that the movement has always approached the question of Jewish identity and its relationship with Judaism very seriously. Just like the original Zionist thinkers, members of Hashomer Hatzair are wedded to their Jewish identity; however, the Jewishness that they are seeking to articulate is divorced from a belief in God or the sanctity of Jewish religious texts such as the Torah. Booklets published by the movement to celebrate its 40th and 50th anniversary included articles written by members of the movement which sought to confront and question the idea of secular/cultural Judaism.69 Hashomer Hatzair celebrated the fact it encouraged an environment of debate and critical enquiry and that it seemed to be successful in creating leaders who approached issues with a broad and open mind. Romy Zyngier was a leader of the movement in the 2000s, and her description of the activities she was involved in organising captures how the movement sought to create a cultural-secular Judaism:

I’m sure it would be very different to every person you talk to. Culture, tradition, family, food. Judaism and Zionism are so closely intertwined that I find it difficult to separate it out. What do we say we are? Cultural, secular, traditionalists. We have Shabbat on camps, we talk about the chagim... In terms of the succah, it’s more of a tzofiut challenge. Can the kids the actually build a succah.70 That’s how we tie it back in. We will sit down and talk about the religion, they’ve had those inter-movement discussions, and they have been absolutely fantastic, the kids have benefited so much from it and we do challenge their Judaism more and we do get into the religion. I find that we’ll take the festival and if somebody is a hardcore feminist they are going to say well, ‘how do we approach this festival from a feminist perspective,’ what research is there? What angle can we bring, we don’t just take the Halachah, but we will discuss the Halachah in relationship to human rights, or something like that. We do see the importance of maintaining a deep Jewish understanding.71

69 JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Hashomer Hatzair: 40 Years in Melbourne, 80 Years Worldwide 1993, JAL- Hashomer Hatzair Folder. And JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Matti Rose, “Does Questioning our Ideology in a Serious Way (beyond weekly peulot) Pose a Danger to ‘Hashy’?” Merakez, 2003, 13. And JAL Hashomer Hatzair Folder. Joel Zyngier, “The Members of Hashy Must Critically Analyse the Ideology and reflect on its Relevance,” Merakez, 2002 in Hashomer Hatzair 50th Anniversary.

70 A Succah is a temporary booth which Orthodox Jews build for the week-long festival of Succot. The hut is used to commemorate the wandering in the forty years of wandering in the desert after the Exodus from Egypt.

71 Romy Zyngier. Interview Date: 9/12/07. 281 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

The games, camps, hikes and weekly meetings were focused on creating an exciting, educational and fun environment for its members, thus enabling Jewish youth to come together and explore their Jewishness both directly and indirectly. Hashomer Hatzair’s approach to Judaism is a variation on a theme. While it is possible to talk about a Zionist-socialist approach to Jewish identity there has always been a great deal of diversity within the movement. While both movements have created their own unique sub-culture, Hashomer Hatzair remains distinct from Habonim. The Jewishness which both Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim embraced through the structure of a youth movement was not just intellectual but also social. The movements sought to create a fun, dynamic and exciting environment in which Judaism and Jewishness were celebrated. Ultimately Hashomer Hatzair, like Habonim, became an expression in and of itself of Jewish identity. The ability of Hashomer Hatzair to offer its own variation and for it to resonate with Jewish youth is another example of the diversity which exists within modern Jewish identity.

Betar and the Question of Judaism

Betar’s understanding of Jewish identity differs from that of both the Zionist-socialist movements and that of Bnei Akiva, and this, in turn, has, created a distinct approach to the ‘Question of Judaism’. However, many of the same tensions and ambiguities that continue to confront Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair are also present in Betar.

The Jewish state would be founded on pillars which had their sources in the Bible, Mishnah and the writings of Maimonides. In 1935 the NZO was in the process of facilitating the establishment of an Orthodox faction within the organisation; Whether or not Jabotinsky underwent a legitimate ideological transformation during the 1930s that allowed him to embrace these religious ideas remains a point of conjecture amongst historians.72

Just as the anti-religious writings of Zionist-socialist ideologues shaped the attitude of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair to Judaism, so too did Jabotinsky’s concept of the Sancta of Torah help fashion Betar’s approach and understanding of Jewish identity. While Betar was not a religious movement, it was more respectful of religious practices and beliefs than

72 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 313-314. These ideas appear to sit in stark contrast with the acculturated and Russified Jew described by Stanlisawki, see Chapter One, 57-58.

73 Toni Pinkus. Interview Date: 28/11/07.

282 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism the Zionist-socialist movements. This can clearly be traced back to Jabotinsky’s discussion on the positive influence of Jewish tradition.

Betar in Australia also adopted a respectful attitude to Jewish religious customs and beliefs, as reflected in the educational material produced by the movement. Toni Pinkus was a member of Betar in Sydney during the 1970s and her recollection of Betar’s attitude to Judaism was that it was both respectful and traditional: “With Betar it was always, kashrut was a big thing, keeping Shabbat was a big thing – in a traditional sense. Keeping the chagim (Jewish festivals). All of that.”73 Peter Keeda was involved in Betar Sydney in the decade before Pinkus and he also recalls how Betar camps and functions created an atmosphere which sought to cater for both observant and less observant Jews. According to Keeda there was “absolute respect for anyone who is religious, from any denomination.” Even though many members of Betar were not shomrei kashrut, the camps were kosher as a sign of respect for Jewish custom and tradition and in order to enable Jewish youth who did observe kashrut to come to the camps. After meals Betar would also recite Birkat Ha’mazon (grace after meals).74 The situation in Melbourne Betar was no different. Betty Levy was a member of Betar in the 1950s and 1960s and during her time she recalls that the fact Betar was traditionally observant and also respectful of Judaism meant that she felt the movement had far more in common with Bnei Akiva than with Habonim or Hashomer Hatzair.75

Betar Australia has sought to define its stance on Jewish observance by engaging with the idea of whether or not the movement is “liberalist” or “pluralist” in its approach to Jewish practice. Deborah Liebhaber was the head of Betar in 2007, and according to her the movement still attempts to create an environment which can accommodate as many different approaches to Jewish observance as possible in order to enable Jewish youth from diverse backgrounds to attend Betar’s events. At the same time, Leibhaber acknowledges there is an unresolved tension over how the movement understands the notion of Zionism and the concept of a Jewish State. Betar’s approach attempts to be as open as possible to all streams of Judaism but places the individual at the centre of its approach. Thus the movement does not seek to dictate the level of observance of its members.76 This approach to Jewish practice constitutes a development completely in line with Jabotinsky’s concept of

73 Toni Pinkus. Interview Date: 28/11/07.

74 Peter Keeda. Interview Date: 26/9/07.

75 Betty Levy (Brissen). Interview Date: 25/10/07.

76 Deborah, Liebhaber. Interview Date: 13/12/07.

283 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism the Sancta of Torah. While Betar’s approach to Jewish identity remains primarily nationalistic, Judaism and its practices continue to be respected since Jewish identity is seen to have an important religious component.

Perhaps the most important comment by Liebhaber is that, for Betar, Jewish observance and belief is a “personal thing”. This individualist approach to Jewish observance is a modern evolution which runs counter to the core of rabbinic Judaism which has never embraced the idea that Halachah was simply a ‘personal matter’ and that observance of different strictures was up to the individual. Rabbinic Judaism does not accommodate the idea that it is up to individuals to choose what they believe or practice. Betar’s sanctification of an individualistic approach to Judaism can be traced back to Jabotinsky’s own ambivalence about Judaism as well as his liberal views which celebrated the idea that “every individual is a king”.77 The argument has been made that it was the Gospels which first truly acknowledged the truth worth of the individual whereas Judaism was more focused on the collective as embodied in the People of Israel. Whatever the merits of these arguments, the very word individualism, as well as its attendant notion of the dignity of man, are clearly a product of nineteenth century Europe.78 The fact that Betar places the individual above the laws promulgated by the rabbis is indicative of a profound transformation in Jewishness which was engendered by the encounter between Jews and modernity.

Anne Goutman became involved in Betar in Melbourne in the mid 1950s, when she was around thirteen years old. Her experience illustrates how this approach to Judaism enabled non-religious Jewish youth to engage with their Jewish identity in a positive manner. Goutman was a child survivor of the Holocaust, who was not aware she was Jewish until she was nine, she recalled: “I arrived in Australia at the age of nine a full blown practicing Catholic.” In her words, “the religious scene was totally alien.” Due to her family background and personal experiences, “I was extremely ambivalent about my Jewishness.”79 Betar offered an environment that identified strongly as Jewish, but this idea of Jewish identity did not centre on religious observance or belief. Anne Goutman went on to describe Betar’s approach to religious practice:

77 Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle, 210.

78 Lukes, Individualism, 19, 51. For a nuanced analysis of the relationship between Judaism and the individual see: Leibowitz, “The Individual and Society in Judaism,” Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, 88-95.

79 Anne Goutman. Interview Date: 12/10/07.

284 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Well, first of all, they didn’t expect anything of me that I couldn’t give. I’m talking about religious wise. Because of my background - I’m very sensitive to any form of religious coercion. If someone said you should do this, you should do that it switches me off automatically. But there they didn’t set a benchmark you could give whatever you could give. Even though – at camp they had Shabbat and they had the singing and I liked all of that, they didn’t expect anymore than I could give.80

Essential features of religious rituals such as Shabbat and kashrut were observed, but, since Betar’s conception of Jewishness did not derive from a belief in God or the Brit, the movement was never concerned with the minutiae of Halachah. The entire concept of imposing religious beliefs or practices was foreign to Betar and its understanding of Jewish identity. Betar did not refer to a rabbi or to the religious texts in order to ensure Shabbat and kashrut were observed according to the letter of Jewish law. In this sense, Betar Australia, probably not deliberately, interpreted the idea of the Sancta of Torah exactly in the way Jabotinsky had had in mind: it was a norm-bound concept of Jewish morality which was flexible and more about a cultural understanding of Jewish observance as opposed to a theistic belief mandating that Jewish law be strictly observed.

Whereas Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair embraced the idea that Zionism offered the opportunity to radically re-configure Jewish identity within a secular, socialist and nationalist framework, Betar never adopted this idea. Several factors influenced Betar to reject the project of creating a new cultural, secular Judaism. The first relates to Betar’s concept of Monism, which stressed the idea that the ideological focus of the movement must be aliyah and the establishment of a Jewish State:

…the Jewish nation must build its state… Jewish Youth must, therefore, devote itself completely to this sole task, all other ideas, though they be beautiful and humane, should influence us only as they do not hinder the rebuilding of a Jewish State. When one of these ideas becomes, even if indirectly, an obstacle on the road to a Jewish State, it must be mercilessly sacrificed in favor of one ideal.81

80 Anne Goutman. Interview Date: 12/10/07.

81 JAL Betar Folder. Ra’ayon Betar: The Ideology of Betar, Complied by Chaim Mizrachi, 1979, Betar Australia.

285 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

This maximalist and dogmatic ideological platform precluded the idea of devoting time and energy to the question of how Betar defined its relationship to Judaism and the project of creating a modern, nationalist Judaism.

2. Is there any necessary contradiction between educating towards Aliyah and education for the purpose of Jewish survival: Is there any danger inherent in trying to achieve both objectives?...

4. Do you feel that parts of the Ideology of Betar are outdated or unrealistic? What changes would you suggest?...

6. Is the objective of ‘Shtei Gadot HaYarden’ fundamental to our Ideology or is it, too, subject to interpretation and change?”82

The questionnaire also included questions about camp organisation, the level of education within the leadership body and how to improve the Meonot of Betar Australia. Views and Opinions also included several responses from members of the movement to each question. The range of responses and the level of engagement with the issues raised by the questionnaire illustrate how strongly members felt about their movement. It is also illustrative of the wide range of political and ideological opinions within Betar. Madrichim were not afraid of being critical or sceptical about the movement’s activities or Betar’s ideology. The responses also illustrate how strongly many of the members identified with the ideology.83 What is fascinating is that not one of the twenty-four questions engaged with the ‘Question of Judaism’. It was simply not something that concerned Betar’s members.

Betar and the Role of History

Betar conceived of Jewish identity as primarily a nationalist one and its approach to history is testament to this nationalistic conception of Jewishness. Judaism as a religion was

82 JAL Betar Folder. “Views and Opinions Questionnaire,” Views and Opinions, Published by the Va’ad Bechirot of the 10th Kennes Artzi of Australian Betar, June 1962.

83 Betar also published a magazine called Altalena an issue of the magazine from 1965 also included several contributions which were critical of what they saw as an ideological crisis within the movement. Altalena was also silent on the matter of the ‘Question of Judaism’. JAL Betar Folder. Clive Kessler, ‘Crisis in the Ideology of Betar,’ and John Goldlust, ‘What are the Faults in our Educational System?’ Altalena, Published by Betar Australia, Melbourne Victoria, 8th June 1965, Vol. VII: No. 3. For a brief discussion about the significance of the name ‘Altalena’ see Chapter Four, 236 n. 96.

286 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism far less relevant to the movement and this is reflected in the educational material produced by the movement as well as in the recollections of past members. The idea that history provided the formative bedrock of Jewish identity was a product of the Jewish encounter with modernity, and it clearly shaped Betar’s approach to Judaism.84 Jewish identity was conceived of as broader than the practice of Halachah; Judaism was simply one component of a broader Jewish national identity. It was therefore possible to separate being Jewish from Jewish observance and Judaism.

Academics such as Anthony D. Smith have highlighted the importance of history in the construction of all forms of nationalism. Smith argues that nationalist ideologues and historians understood that in order to transform an ethnie into a nation they needed to create a common history. This common history drew from “shared ethnic memories” but also sought to endow these memories with the belief that the ethnie also shared a destiny.85 These historical memories created heroes, stories of bravery and sacrifice as well as stories which imparted moral and ideological lessons. The educational material produced by Betar in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s testifies to the creation of this kind of historical memory. Stories surrounding religious festivals such as Pesach or Channukah were utilised in a similar manner precisely because they had nationalist connotations, and thus proved that Jewish identity was national.86 The way in which history was utilised in Betar highlights the fact that for the movement being authentically Jewish was not derived from the observance of Halachah. A Jew could be just as authentically Jewish and not even care about its observance. This was the radical evolution in the Jewish identity of the movements. The way history was taught in Betar elevated the role of history as a core component of Jewish identity.

The leaders of the movement were involved in the process of teaching a version of history that fits in with Smith’s definition of an ideologically motivated nationalist history. This

84 Schorsch, From Text to Context, 5.

85 Anthony D. Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 191.

86 At the same time academics like Cohen and Boyarin have illustrated that Jewish identity did not fit within a classic Christian definition of a religious identity. Historians of Zionism have argued that the national components of Judaism enabled Zionism to emerge: “As far as national consciousness is concerned, we may reasonably maintain that on the threshold of modern times the Jews were better prepared for a national movement than any other ethnic group in Europe” Jacob Katz, Jewish Emancipation and Self-Emancipation, (New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1986), 91. Mendelsohn agrees with Katz’s assessment and wrote, “I have tried to show that in Eastern Europe at least, Jewish nationalism made perfect sense because the Jews there did possess many if not all of the characteristics of a modern nation and because a modern national Jewish identity was the obvious solution for a Jewish youth dissatisfied with the ghetto but could not, or did not want to, claim the national identity of the gentile nations among whom they lived.” Mendelsohn, Jewish Politics, 103.

287 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism education was not simply about imparting historical information - its aim was to embed in Jewish youth the idea that Jews had a shared past and therefore a shared destiny.

Leon Kempler recalls that, while he was involved in the movement, Betar had a strong educational basis, which sought to teach its members a vast range of topics:

Well Betar was very much centred on being educative, based on the writings and teaching of Ze’ev Jabotinsky. You would have a strong emphasis on Jewish history, a strong emphasis on the history of Israel in ancient days till modern days, strong emphasis on the Dreyfus case and the Jews in the ghettos in Western Europe and strong emphasis on the Enlightenment and Jabotinsky and his parents and his grandfather... the influence on his life that led him to Zionism as a solution to the Jewish Problem... We would learn about the First Aliyah, the Second Aliyah, we would learn about the Jewish Legion, Tel Hai, ‘Tov Lamut Be’ad Atrzenu’ (It is good to die for one’s country)...87

The emphasis on teaching history came about precisely because the movement understood the importance of history in creating a national identity amongst Jewish youth.

History taught in Betar was politically partisan, and although Betar’s educational material shows that the movement did discuss Zionist-socialist thinkers, its focus was on the life of Jabotinsky, the history of Betar, the Irgun and the Revisionist political party. The Betar Shaliach, Gad Pedhazur, brought to Australia a range of material including booklets on the history of the Irgun which he had published in 1960. One of the booklets proclaimed that the achievement of the Irgun was “in our proving to the whole world that Jews have not lost the knowledge of strength...”88 When Betar taught about Jabotinsky, Trumpeldor or the activities of the Irgun, it lionised and romanticised their lives and achievements. When Kempler refers to Betar teaching its members about the events at Tel Hai, he quotes what was widely taught in the Zionist movement at the time: that Trumpeldor died with the words ‘Tov Lamut Be’ad Atrzenu’ on his lips. As discussed in Chapter Two, historians have illustrated how Trumpeldor was deliberately turned into a national hero.89 Kempler’s recollections of the

87 Leon Kempler. Interview Date: 6/12/07.

88 JAL Betar Folder. Gad Pedhazur, The History of the Irgun Zvai Leumi, Booklet II, (Eretz Israel, Shilton Betar Department of Education, December 1960), 76.

89 For discussion of Trumpeldor and the events at Tel Hai see Chapter One, 48.

288 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism education he received as a young teenager exemplifies not only that Betar Australia imparted the same mythology, but how deeply these ideas resonated, and thus ex-Betar members can recall even decades later how they were taught these stories.

The educational material shows that history was made to serve ideological purposes. A 1958 Junior Camp program described Trumpeldor in the following manner: “[a] One armed Hero... from his first battle Trumpeldor was a fearless soldier, frequently taking part in dangerous missions, in which he displayed unusual bravery and coolness.”90 In 1970-71 Betar organised a summer camp dedicated to Trumpeldor which celebrated these same ideas.91

Figure 22: Front cover from Betar Summer Camp 1970-71 booklet with a sketch of Joseph Trumpeldor on the front cover. (Leon Kempler JAL)

The attempt to create a national consciousness was not only manifested in teaching about the leaders and heroes of Zionism, it was also embodied in the iconography and visual representations produced and circulated by Betar Australia. The image on the front of the Betar Melbourne magazine, Haor (The Light), which was printed in 1958, showed a

90 JAL Betar Folder. Betar: Junior Camp Programme 1958: Nili and Trumpeldor, Printed by the Netzivut Betar Australia, November 1958, 15. The references to Trumpeldor are representative of similar judgments made about Jabotinsky or Menachem Begin. (Trumpeldor lost his arm while in the Russian army in 1904)

91 JAL Betar Folder. Trumpeldor: Betar Summer Camp, 1970-71.

289 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Maccabee holding the flame of a lit menorah.92 Standing next to him was a drawing of a Betari in his uniform holding a flaming torch. The Betari is cast as the historical descendant of the Maccabees. Just as the Macabees fought for Jewish independence and sacrificed everything for the Jewish people, so too should the Betari; just as the Maccabee was a light unto the Jewish nation, so too should the Betari set an example for Jewish youth to follow.

Figure 23: Image from the front cover of Haor: The Light: Official Betar Youth Journal. Summer camp issue printed in 1958-59, Melbourne. (JAL Betar Folder. Sourced from Betar Maon, Melbourne)

A famous Betar song which was included in the educational program for Betar’s 1961 summer camp was a song called Hora Mezra and a stanza from the song explicitly states that Betarim are the grandchildren of the Maccabees:

92 JAL Betar Folder. HAOR: The Light, Official Betar Youth Journal, Melbourne, 1958-59.

290 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

“And if the road is strewn with thorns, And Full of the enemy, The grandson of the Maccabbim, Will never surrender.93

The iconography and message of the song also reflected Jabotinsky’s idea of the unique “psychic” properties of each nation. Not only was the Betari a direct descendant in genealogical terms, he also represented the passing on of Jewish national properties, which included heroism and bravery.

Jewish history imparted by Betar was not merely an intellectual exercise, but it was meant to be owned by the individual because it was about them as much as about the past. Many of the subjects I interviewed focused on the profound impact Betar’s teaching of history had had on them. Their recollections of Betar’s educational program capture the idea of a personalized history and the concept of a shared living memory. Anne Goutman’s experience is particularly telling on how history taught in Betar created a Jewish identity she could relate to and be proud of:

I suppose I fell in love with it, I found out there that Jews were just an ordinary people like other people. They had their heroes, they had their history, they had their writers, and their musicians and their literature because I liked to read and I fell for the whole thing.94

Ron Sekel, a member of Sydney Betar in the 1950s also recalls how the impact of Betar’s historical education was empowering: “To be Jewish and not to be hidden. I learnt not to hide my Judaism. I’m proud of my history. I’ve got a history of people who have gone before me.”95 The educational program also created an historical narrative which tied together the festivals and modern history of the Jewish people. It was, as Betty Levy, put it, an “ongoing historical” narrative which connected the chanichim and madrichim on a personal level, and shaped their historical

93 JAL Betar Folder. Material supplied by Leon Kempler. Betar Educational Publication: Educational Programme for the Junior Camps, Part 11., December. 27th 1961 – January. 8th 1962, From the Forerunners of Zionism to the Israeli Army, Issued by the Netzivut Betar Australia.

94Anne Goutman, Interview Date: 12/10/07.

95 Ron Sekel. Interview Date: 14/07/08.

291 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism consciousness so that they would see themselves as part of a link in the ongoing story of the Jewish people:

…Then there would have been a shiur, (lesson) something generally to do with some religious festival that was on at the time, but also some Zionist type and history, modern Jewish history as well. Or they would alternate depending on what time of the year it was, if it was Pesach, (Passover) then of course we would do something on Pesach, but then at other times of the year, we did things on modern Jewish history and what was happening. So there was an ongoing historical analysis that went through the year, to do with the Bible, and also an ongoing historical narrative to do with modern Jewish history.96

Betar’s educational model was also far less prescriptive, and according to Evie Katz, the chanichim were invited to debate, ask questions and engage with the material critically.97 Many Jewish youth were clearly hungry for a meaningful Jewish education and the youth movement model offered a dynamic and vibrant forum for Jewish youth to engage with Zionist and Israeli history. Aaron Ninedek’s reflections on his experience in Betar capture the powerful effect that the educational process in the movement had on the Jewish identity of its members: “...you learnt more about Jewish history than you learnt from any other source. At that time anyway... I learnt more about being a Jew in Betar than from any other source. Including Talmud Torah times, I learnt it all there. I think it was a very, very beneficial experience.”98

At the beginning of this chapter I pointed out that the Zionist movement was profoundly shaped by modernity and a scientific approach to historical enquiry. Betar’s educational model illustrates how deeply the movement had internalised a modern approach to the origins of the Jewish people. While Jabotinsky spoke about the Jewish state being founded on the pillars of Torah, Mishnah and Maimonides, the reality, as far as Revisionism was concerned, was that the pillars of Jewish identity were largely secular, nationalist and historical: Judaism was a source of Jewish identity together with language, the territory (the Land of Israel), shared historical memories and a shared destiny.

96 Betty Levy (Brissen). Interview Date: 25/10/07.

97 Evie Katz. Interview Date: 01/09/07.

98 Aaron Ninedek. Interview Date: 4/9/07.

292 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

The Sancta of Torah?

All the movements understood that Judaism was a vital source of Jewish identity. Judaism provided ideas, myths, symbols, customs and texts which had defined Jewish identity for centuries. Even a thinker as Russified and acculturated as Jabotinsky appeared to realise that if Zionism removed all vestiges of Judaism, very little Jewish identity would remain; furthermore, it was essential to his conception of an integral ethnic nationalism to stress language and religion because they “strengthened the distinctive profile of the nation.”99 Thus Ra’ayon Betar is full of Biblical and religious allusions and symbols. The third section of Betar’s ideology deals with the belief that the aims of Zionism would only be achieved when there was a Jewish majority in Eretz Israel on both sides of the Jordan and in order to sanctify this idea Jabotinsky invoked the idea that this idea was a “Torah”:

‘From Zion shall go forth Torah’, signifies a ‘Torah’ not merely in the religious sense. Zionism is a tremendous, overwhelming important task, the boundaries of which our generation cannot as yet envisage. The first step, that deed without which there can be no Zionism, or a Jewish State, or a real Jewish nation, is the creation of a Jewish majority in Eretz Yisrael on both sides of the Jordan.100

The essential part of this quote is the concept of a ‘Torah’ which is “not merely (a Torah) in the religious sense.” This reflects the radical idea that there is a Torah which is not exclusively related to the divine revelation at Mount Sinai as described in the Five Books of Moses. But what exactly was this Torah? The word Torah in Hebrew means “instruction”, and it appears that Jabotinsky is using the idea that there is a higher instruction than what is contained in the Hebrew Bible - the need to establish a Jewish state with a Jewish majority

99 Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation, 191.

100 JAL Betar Folder. Material supplied by Leon Kempler. Ra’ayon Betar: The Ideology of Betar, Complied by Chaim Mizrachi, 1979, Betar Australia. Betar Australia never completely embraced the concept of Shtei Gedot. The reality of the existence of the Kingdom of Jordan as an independent nation-state made the idea of returning this area to Jewish sovereignty far too extreme for many members of Australian Betar. The shift away from this key ideological concept is indicative of the way in which Betar Australia toned down the more militaristic and maximalist aspects of Betar’s ideology. By contrast the Revisionist movement in Israel/Palestine, following Jabotinsky’s explicit statements on the matter rejected the concept of partition and continued to support the concept of Shtei Gadot La’Yarden (both sides of the Jordan). In the wake of the 1948 War Menachem Begin continued to call for Jewish sovereignty over “Greater Israel”. Benny Morris, One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict, (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 72-78.

293 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism on both sides of the Jordan. Jabotinsky invokes these symbols in the service of a nationalist ideology. The question this raises for us is what does this mean for Betar’s approach to Judaism?

It appears that the same contradictions which plagued the Zionist-socialist concept for a cultural or secular Judaism also confronted Betar. Betar had adopted a more respectful attitude to Jewish observance, but this did not answer the question of what was the movement’s relationship with Jewish religious practices. Jabotinsky stated that the Bible and the Mishnah would be pillars of the Jewish state, but, at the same time, maintained a belief in separation of Church and State. Thus, in what practical way would the Jewish State draw on the Mishnah and Bible? It is clear that Jabotinsky and many of his followers did not see them as divinely inspired documents, thus the questions which confronted the Zionist- socialist movement also confronted Revisionism: What parts should be utilised and what parts should be discarded? And on what basis and in what manner would Betar decide to keep some customs and beliefs while rejecting others? Betar’s approach to the Question of Judaism remained unclear.

The issue was further confused because Betar retained a respectful attitude to religious tradition, customs and beliefs. The ambiguity of this position was highlighted when Betar Australia, like Habonim, experienced periods when madrichim became more observant.101 The movement in turn became more observant of the rules of kashrut and of Shabbat. The question which confronted Betar was why did the movement only become more observant when some of its leaders became more religious? Betar, like Habonim, adopted the idea that the level of observance was dictated by the level of observance of the strictest member in Betar. While a useful practical solution, it failed to explain why some traditions were observed but others were ignored. This situation shows Betar was ultimately unclear about its relationship to Judaism.

The legacy of this ambiguous position is evident in Betar Australia. Deborah Liebhaber, the Rosh Hanagah Artzit in 2007 acknowledges that Betar remains “confused” in its approach to Judaism:

...there is a debate, are we pluralist or are we liberalist? Are we going to cater for the highest denomination we get, or are we going to cater for everyone? As we stand we do cater for the highest denomination: on camps there are always two services, we have a cultural and an Orthodox service...

101 Eli Grossman. Interview Date: 4/12/07.

294 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

There are tricky times - last winter camp there wasn’t anyone who really knew the (Shabbat) service well. We had to go through it... to see what we could skip and still keep it halachically okay. It is really hard to cater. It seems to work out so far. We don’t have a Torah on camp we just print our own siddurim. We are kosher, all the camps and the Maon we recently started having a mashgiach (a religious Jew who ensures the laws of kashrut are strictly observed) coming up before camp that is factored into the budget... In all reality if we got a very Orthodox kid on camp it wouldn’t be suitable for them, what does it mean? Are we really catering for the highest denominator? We don’t have a religious audience.102

I have argued that Betar represents a very distinct approach to Jewish identity and thus a unique approach to what I have termed ‘The Question of Judaism’. While the context has shifted to the experience of Jews in Australia in the second half of the twentieth century, as well as the beginning of the twenty-first century, Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair continue to debate and attempt to clarify their respective positions on Jewish belief and practice. While the original encounter between Jews and modernity began in the eighteenth and nineteenth century the fact that Betar is also uncertain about the nature of Jewish identity is a further reminder of Shaye Cohen’s argument that we live in a post-rabbinic era in which Jewishness is defined by its uncertainty.

Zionist Youth Movements: A New Judaism

In order to understand how each movement approached the question of Judaism I utilised their ideological platforms, their printed materials, as well as testimonies of past madrichim. More important than the ideological platforms are the actual practical activities organised by the movements. In many respects this task is harder, as it is almost impossible to capture the dynamism, energy and excitement that can be generated by youth movement activities, which include the weekly meetings, summer and winter camps and the Israel year programs. The printed materials from the movements are full of jokes, skits and funny stories that are nestled alongside more serious intellectual articles and discussions. The way Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar understood their Jewish identity was totally integrated with their character as youth movements. A flyer for Betar’s 1956 summer camps clearly captures this:

102 Deborah. Liebhaber. Interview Date: 13/12/07.

295 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

The values of camping are many and worthwhile. We believe that it is important for Jewish Youth to live in a Jewish and Zionist atmosphere, from which they can imbibe freely those values which form the basis for the Code of Jewish Youth... Significant, too, is the fact that campers experience, many for the first time, a measure of independence and responsibility. The result of having campers actively participate in various aspects of the running of the camp, creates the feeling of self-reliance. The activities of camp include mental and physical exercise in the forms of discussion, hikes, swimming and sport… it is a pleasant thought that more and more parents realize that a perfect holiday for Jewish youth, combining recreation and physical activity with truly Jewish atmosphere and teaching can be found only in Betar camps.103

The success of the youth movements’ educational model lay in the way their ideological aims were expressed through the very act of going to camp, leading as a madrich, or coming to weekly meetings as a chanich. The author of the flyer clearly saw the camps as more than simply a chance to have fun, and thus the pamphlet emphasises the idea that camps had an ideological foundation. They were about bringing together Jewish youth to “live” in a Zionist and Jewish “atmosphere”. The stress placed on self-reliance and physical training came from the historical development of the Zionist youth movements, and its roots in the scouting movement which believed that youth needed discipline.104 Figure 24 and Figure 25 show Betar members partaking in physical activities. The members of Betar who took part in the activities often enjoyed the challenge on a purely physical level but these sorts of tasks also refelected of the ideological impetus of the Zionist youth movements and their desire to bring Jews into contact with nature and to undertake physically arduous tasks.

103 “Betar: Special Camp Issue,” Camp Brochure 1961, The History of Betar Australia, Part 3: Publications, 2002, Harry M. Stuart, John Goldlust. (The brochure is headlined as Camp Brochure 161, however, the flyer refers to camps being held in January 1956, meaning the flyers were circulated in late 1955)

104 Warren, “Sir Robert Baden-Powell,” 386. Habonim during the 1940s also stressed the importance of group discipline, and, just like Betar, it believed that this discipline had to come from within. While proclaiming the fact that Habonim was a disciplined movement Habonim also stressed the fact that this did not make the movement militaristic: “Habonim is a disciplined movement. This does not mean its members are under rigid rule of a military company; on the contrary their discipline is all the stronger because they desire to be disciplined, because that way they know they can learn better, learn more, and enjoy their play to the full.” AJHS-VIC (SLV). The Habonim Handbook, Melbourne: Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation Australia.

296 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Figure 24: Kinglake West Betar Summer Camp, Victoria, 1954. A member of Betar undertakes a rope swinging activity. (Picture by Yosef Steiner. http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm) November 2011.

The Zionist movements embraced these ideas but infused them with a far more overtly nationalist raison d’être. However, participants at the Betar camp in 1956 were not thinking that they were partaking in sporting activities in order to make them the ideal material for aliyah. The educational process was experiential, and if the youth involved did not understand the ideological influences underpinning the idea of a camp in the Australian bush, it did not negate or detract from the idea of a youth movement camp.

297 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Figure 25: Kinglake West Betar Summer Camp, Victoria, 1954. An article printed about Betar’s summer camp activities. (http://www.162smilingfaces.com/The%20Past%201954.htm. November 2011).

Betar’s 1956 camp flyer stated that the camps created a “truly Jewish atmosphere.” What did this Jewish atmosphere actually consist of? It was reflected in the way Betar sought to honour Shabbat, the observance of some form of kashrut discussion groups, through its songs and dances, the use of Hebrew terms and, most importantly, the way these different elements came together to create an experience of Jewishness which was lived. This conclusion is just as relevant for Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair and the camps they organised. Figure 26 and Figure 27 show members of Habonim taking part in hikes and a rope pulling contest. Habonim, along with the other movements, organised similar activities for precisely the same reason as Betar. As the movements in Australia have shifted further away from their scouting roots, the camps have nevertheless retained an ideological purpose, which is to bring together Jewish youth in order to strengthen their Jewish identity. This is not something most of the participants, who benefit from the positive socialising experience of attending camp, acknowledge or of which they are even aware.

298 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Figure 26: Members of Habonim on a Figure 27: Members of Habonim taking hike. Exact date and location unknown, part in a rope pulling contest. Exact date 1960s. (Photo courtesy of Toby and location unknown, 1960s. (Photo Hammerman) courtesy of Toby Hammerman)

The original ideological raison d’être of the movements was to educate Jewish youth in Zionism and ultimately convince them to make aliyah. As we saw from the printed material and the testimonies of past-madrichim, this idea was taken on by some members with a religious fervour and dedication. Zionism and its idea of a New Jew became their New Judaism. However, only a small percentage of movement members totally embraced the Zionist idea but even for members who did not make aliyah, it was quite clear that their involvement in the movements as madrichim became the way in which they expressed their Jewish identity. The madrichim of Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar were mostly not concerned in their daily lives with the rigorous application of Halachah or the study of Torah. The new mitzvot of Zionism were realised through belonging to a youth movement. Rather than studying Torah or going to shule, Jewish youth involved in the movements showed their dedication to being Jewish through volunteering their time as madrichim: this meant organising weekly meetings, coordinating camps and keeping the movements running on both a state and federal level. The energy, enthusiasm and time involved in keeping the

299 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism movements running was enormous and the hard work expended by leaders throughout the decades is a testament to their strong identification with their movements.

Today the Jewish identity of the Zionist youth movements is clearly a form of Diaspora-Zionism. While the original founding members of the movements included many European Jews who did not define themselves as Australian, the vast majority of the membership of the movements today clearly identify as Australian.105 Australia is their home but they also feel a very strong connection to Israel. Their Jewish identity also includes a nationalist component. This feeling is expressed through their involvement in the youth movements. Mendelsohn argued that the fact the Zionist-socialist movements emerged in places like Galicia must be understood in the context of Jews experiencing a “drastic economic decline”, rising levels of antisemitism, and the “failure of Jewish leadership” to provide any guidance.106 The situation in Australia is precisely the opposite and the membership of the movements is not made up of “marginal men” who were driven to Zionism.107 The movements succeeded in attracting Jewish youth in Europe because the situation was so dire while in Australia the movements have prevailed precisely because Australia offers so many economic, cultural and political freedoms. 108 The successful integration of Australian Jewish communities has not replaced the sense among some Jewish youth that their identity is also national and linked to Israel. The Diaspora-Zionism of the movements thus serves as a conduit in which to express this Jewish identity.

From the interviews I carried out it is apparent that many members felt loyalty to the Australian branch of Betar or Habonim. They did not actually identify ideologically but they volunteered as a madrich and gave their time and energy because they felt they owed the Australian branch of the movement their loyalty for everything it had given them. Aaron Ninedek had left Betar in 1962 but in 1968 the movement in Melbourne was struggling and he was called upon by the leadership body to come back and help save Betar. He recalled the reasons why he came back to help Betar in Melbourne:

105 Many members who I interviewed who had been born in Australia but had been active in the 1940s and 1950s acknowledged that they identified as Australian. The interviews of more current members makes the same point clear that they identify themselves as Australian but also connected to a Jewish nation which has its homeland in Israel.

106 Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland, 86.

107 Ibid., 338.

108 Ben-Moshe estimated in 2004 that the movements attracted around 1,500 Jewish youth to their weekly activities. From the interviews and data I have gathered this may be a slight exaggeration, nonetheless, the movements do continue to attract sizeable numbers of Jewish youth. Danny Ben-Moshe, “Pro-Israelism as a Factor in Australian Jewish Political Attitudes and Behaviour,” in Jews and Australian Politics, eds., Geoffrey Brahm Levey and Phillip Mendes, (Brighton, Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2004), 129.

300 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

I could see that the movement was going to collapse. They had all these young guys ready to jump in and nobody to sort of nurse them through... So I did that in 1968, and then in ‘69 we ran the camp and just after that, the beginning of 1969, Jack Jacobi came to me and said, ‘I think I’m ready to take over,’ and I said ‘okay, it’s all yours’ and left... It wasn’t ideological, it was loyalty to the movement – but not for ideological purposes. It had been a big part of my life, I got a lot out of it, I gave a lot to it, and I thought that it would be a shame for it to lapse. So I just wanted to keep it resurrected.109

Ninedek was by then working professionally as a teacher, but he came back to ‘resurrect’ Betar not because he was concerned about ensuring the political ideology of Betar remained alive in Australia but because the movement had given him so much as a Jew and a human being.

Judaism was traditionally lived through Halachah and the performance of its mitzvoth. As the famous biblical scholar James Kugel points out, Judaism is “notoriously long on deeds and short on doctrine.”110 The Zionist youth movements’ expression of Jewishness was not focused on issues relating to doctrine and religious belief: rather, they concentrated on getting youth deeply engaged in their activities. The very form and structure of youth movements, with their games, songs, dances and the idea of youth leading youth became the way in which the young Jews involved in the movements connected with their Jewish identity. Josie Lacey’s thoughts on the atmosphere within Habonim during the 1940s and 1950s is mirrored in the recollections of countless other madrichim who were involved in the Zionist youth movements in Australia; it also testifies to the way Jewish youth craved a place in which to express their Jewish identity in a modern manner. Actually being involved in a movement was the way in which many Jewish youth sought to express their Jewish identity. Josie Lacey commented on the way in which she believed Habonim celebrated the Jewish identity of its members:

...We celebrated our Judaism. We felt proud, and we celebrated Israel, and the creation of the state of Israel and I think that’s probably what I remember most, it gave us a tremendous amount of self-confidence, self-awareness as

109 Aaron Ninedek. Interview Date: 04/09/07.

110 www.jameskugel.com/read.php (May 2011).

301 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Jews and tremendous pride. The sort of thing you didn’t get from the outside world.111

Bnei Akiva:

The New Orthodoxy

At first glance it would seem that Bnei Akiva is not confronted by the ‘Question of Judaism’ because the movement remains dedicated to the perpetuation of rabbinic Judaism and, unlike the other movements, has not attempted to create a new approach to Jewish identity, which asserts that homeland, language and ethnicity are the core components of Jewishness.

While secular Zionism embraced a modern understanding of the roots of the Jewish people, religious-Zionism maintained that the origin of the Jewish people is a result of divine intervention. Bnei Akiva, unlike the other Zionist youth movements, does not view Zionism as an ideological revolution which reconfigured the Jewish identity within a nationalist paradigm. However, from a modernist historical perspective, it is quite clear that the ideological synthesis of religious-Zionism - which Bnei Akiva has embraced - is a profound transformation. To borrow a phrase from Gershon Gorenberg’s analysis of religious- Zionism, the Judaism of Bnei Akiva, under the influence of Rabbi Kook’s ideology, has “swallowed nationalism whole.”112 Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Cohen Kook (1865-1935) was the first rabbinical figure to articulate a comprehensive ideological position which saw Zionism in messianic terms.113 Kook’s redemptive Zionism must not be misunderstood as bestowing authenticity upon a conservative social structure; rather, it bestows legitimacy upon a radical innovation, which is Jewish sovereignty.114 Just as cultural and secular Judaism were products of the encounter between the Jewish people and modernity so too is the ideology of religious-Zionism. When secular Zionism was established in Europe it offered a reconfigured messianism for persecuted Jews that largely ‘got rid’ of God;

111 Josie Lacey. Interview Date: 29/11/07.

112 Gershon Gorenberg, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, (New York: Times Books, 2006), 106.

113 For a comprehensive discussion of Rav Kook’s messianism see Ravitsky, Messianism, 79-145.

114 Yoel Finkelman, “On the Irrelevance of Religious-Zionism: Jewish National Culture from a Religious- Zionist Perspective,” Tradition 39, no. 1 (Spr. 2006): 82.

302 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism religious-Zionism offers a reconfigured messianism which internalises nationalist ideology. This is the new orthodoxy of religious-Zionism.

While the other movements struggled with the ‘Question of Judaism’ there is no such dilemma for Bnei Akiva: ultimately, Bnei Akiva wishes to see an Israel which is governed by Halachah.115 Bnei Akiva’s slogan is ‘Am Yisrael b'Eretz Yisrael al pi Torat Yisrael, which means: The Nation of Israel, in the Land of Israel, according to the Laws of the Torah. A magazine produced by Bnei Akiva for its summer camp in 1994-95 included an article by Rabbi Sol Roth which touched upon this exact issue. Rabbi Roth argued that while all the other streams of Zionism focused on creating a political state religious-Zionism realised that a state was “only a partial fulfilment of its ultimate vision.” Rabbi Roth went on to state that religious-Zionism sought the ideal of “al pi Torat Yisrael”, an Israel governed by Halachah. Rabbi Roth concluded that the focus of religious-Zionists must be to ensure there is an ever increasing commitment to Torah amongst Jews in the State of Israel.116

Despite Bnei Akiva advocating the idea that Israel should be a State committed to Halachah, this fundamental issue is not something the movement grapples with in any meaningful manner. Bnei Akiva is very vague about how a Halachic system would actually be implemented against the will of a large percentage of the state’s population and also against the ethos of the political and cultural institutions in the State of Israel. While both World Bnei Akiva and Bnei Akiva Israel believe that the state should be governed by Halachah there is no practical discussion of how it could actually be implemented. The fact that Bnei Akiva, and religious-Zionism in general, have not articulated a meaningful response to such an important issue pinpoints the radical nature of the Zionist enterprise and the inability of the rabbinic system to totally adapt to the reality of the establishment of the State of Israel.

While Bnei Akiva’s relationship to Judaism appears straightforward, it is clear that since its establishment in Australia at the end of the 1940s the movement has become far more religiously observant. Academics like Harvey Cox and Peter Berger were both

115 Nadav G. Shelef, Evolving Nationalism: Homeland, Identity, and Religion in Israel, 1925-2005, (New York: Cornell University Press, 2010), 245 n. 145. The footnote discusses how leaders of the religious-Zionist movement “consistently lamented the fact that Israel was not governed by the rules of Torah.” This included leaders within Bnei Akiva, Mizrachi and Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi. In interviews I carried out with ex-Bnei Akiva members it was clear that many of them also wished the State of Israel to incorporate more Halachah into how the state is governed.

116 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Rabbi Sol Roth, “The Vision and the Reality: An Introduction”, This Tick Contains Ideology: How Well do you know your Ideology?, Bnei Akiva Summer Camp 1994/5, 1-4. The article by Rabbi Roth was taken from a magazine Morasha, which means ‘heritage’. No other details are provided on the source of the short article by Rabbi Roth. The same article was included in a booklet for madrichim from 2001. JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. Hadracha Booklet 2001, Shevet Oz.

303 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism prominent proponents of the argument that one of the hallmarks of modern societies was the decline of religion. In 1965 Cox wrote that “The rise of urban civilization and the collapse of traditional religion are the two main hallmarks of our era and are closely related movements.”117 It was during the 1950s and 1960s that historians and sociologists came to define this thesis as the “secularisation theory”; however, Cox and Peter Berger have both conceded that their original position was mistaken. Berger has gone as far as saying that the secularisation theory is “false” and that instead of modernity inevitably leading to an all- encompassing process of secularisation, the world is as “furiously religious as ever.”118 Thus, even within societies defined by their ultra modernity, religions have proven their remarkable ability to adapt, renew themselves and flourish.119 Orthodox Judaism has adopted a range of responses to modernity but the increasing levels of Halachic observance within Bnei Akiva and its ability to continue to attract Jewish youth in Australia must be located within a very specific historical context which appreciates developments in Israel that have served to strengthen and reinvigorate Bnei Akiva and its religious-Zionist ideology.120 This is a further reminder of the links between Jewish Diasporas and Israel. Bnei Akiva’s increasing observance of Jewish law also feeds into a discussion of why the movement flourishes in Australia and continues to produce by far the largest number of members making aliyah.

While Bnei Akiva was always religiously observant in Australia, the character of the movement was influenced by the fact that many of the chanichim were not strict about their Halachic observance. The standards were shaped by the attitudes of the surrounding Orthodox community, norms in Australian culture and norms within the Zionist youth movements. Thus during the 1950s and 1960s Bnei Akiva madrichim were expected to be shomrei Shabbat but they also took part in rikudim (dances) and had a mixed gender dance troupe because this was one of the most important activities for all the Zionist youth

117 Harvey Cox, The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 1.

118 Peter L. Berger, ed., The Desecularisation of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, (Washington DC: Ethics and Public Policy Centre, 1999), 2.

119 Rudi Laermans, Bryan R. Wilson, Karel Dobbelaere, Jaak Billiet eds., Secularization and Social Integration: Papers in Honor of Karel Dobbelaere, (Louvin: Leuven University Press, 1998), 263-274. For a critical discussion of the issue of whether or not secularisation is an inexorable process and the unique situation in the United States see David Hempton, “Protest Migration: Narratives of the Rise and Decline of Religion in the North Atlantic,” in Secularisation in the Christian World, eds., Callum G. Brown, Michael Snape, (England: Ashgate Publishing 2010), 41-56.

120 Barry Freundel, Contemporary Orthodox Judaism Response to Modernity, (New Jersey: KTAV Publishing House, 2004), 88-89.

304 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism movements during this time period.121 Men and women went swimming together at the beach and on camps in the lakes as part of the ‘Australian lifestyle’ of sun, surf and sand.122 However, over the decades, these attitudes have shifted and the movement has become stricter, in particular in terms of how men and women dress and ensuring that female and male leaders avoid any sort of physical contact.

Bnei Akiva eventually came to demand that all madrichim must not only be shomrei Shabbat and shomrei kashrut but they must also observe the laws of shomer negiah and tzniut. The concept of shomer negiah relates to the Halachic dictum that unmarried men and women should not have any physical contact as a safeguard against the development of improper relationships and pre-marital intimacy. The standard of behaviour between observant boys and girls will involve no touching, and certainly no kissing or hugging, until they are married.123 Tzniut relates to the concept of appropriate clothing that is modest for both men and women: women wear long skirts and long-sleeved tops while men wear long pants and long-sleeved shirts.

The reality is that many madrichim have not been either shomrei negiah nor observers of tzniut in their private lives. Nonetheless, it is clear that overall the movement has become far stricter in its attitudes, and many of the madrichim do observe these laws. During Johnny Wise’s involvement in the movement in the 1950s it was very different - males and females wore any sort of clothing, including singlets and shorts, and also went swimming together:

121 Thus, for example, Bnei Akiva Sydney still entered dances troupes in the 1965 Dance troupe competition. Toby Hammerman Papers. Zionist Youth Council of New South Wales 1965 Festival of Israeli Folk-Dancing. The activity of Israeli folk dancing has largely been abandoned by all the movements. Israeli dancing classes continue to be organised in Sydney and Melbourne and many attendees include ex-members of the movements who were originally exposed to Israeli folk-dancing through the movements. Folk dancing became an important part of the movement’s activities in Europe due to the influence of the Wandervogel and romanticism. Dancing also became an important part of the activities on kibbutzim and moshavim. The participants claimed that the folk dancing undertaken by chalutzim was proof that their members had transformed into the New Jew. Dancing was seen as an expression of the new, more pure spirit being created by kibbutz life. Kaschel, Elke. Dance and Authenticity in Israel and Palestine: Performing the Nation, (Leiden: Brill, 2003), for the discussion of dancing and the New Jew see: 47-56 and for the point about the influence of the Wandervogel and romanticism: 176.

122 Douglas Booth, Australian Beach Cultures: The History of Sun, Sand, and Surf, (London: Frank Cass, 2001), 1-16.

123 The words "shomer negiah" mean: "shomer" - one who observes/guards, and "negiah" - [the laws of] touching. Thus the concept of shomer negiah designates one facet of a person's level of observance, just as shomer Shabbat indicates one's commitment to observing the laws of Shabbat.

305 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

It was a normal relationship, nothing was separated. Today it is different I understand... There was no dress code... I mean the concept of long skirts and this sort of thing. Girls wore shorts and sleeveless tops and whatever. It didn’t seem to worry anybody in those days. You can see pictures of my wife at the beach in her singlet top down at the beach. We were swimming together at the beaches...124

During Garry Lavan’s time in the movement, Bnei Akiva still held mixed dances and parties, organised a dance troupe and there was no problem with madrichot wearing pants.125 When Mark Schneider was a leader in the early 1980s the issue of shomer negiah was not present, and Bnei Akiva Sydney still allowed mixed swimming, while Bnei Akiva Melbourne did not. The issue of tzniut was also beginning to become an issue and madrichim did go out on dates but “Obviously we were very discreet when kids were around...”126

The process of becoming stricter was a gradual process that evolved over time and the recollections of past madrichim pinpoint how this process unfolded. By the late 1980s and early 1990s these practices and attitudes were firmly in place. By the 1990s Bnei Akiva’s concept of Dugmah Ishit – the appropriate behaviour for madrichim - included the idea that while leading in the movement madrichim have to be shomrei negiah and dress in accordance with the laws of tzniut. Those madrichim who were not shomrei negiah or tzniut in their private lives would not flout their lack of observance about these laws in front of their chanichim. While leading in the movement leaders would avoid touching members of the opposite sex and dress with the appropriate level of modesty. When Avi Cohen was a madrich in Melbourne Bnei Akiva during the 1980s it was already clear that madrichim had to dress appropriately while leading in the movement:

Basically shomer Shabbat and shomer kashrut [were the standards]... Look there wasn’t an expectation you would only wear skirts out, but that while you were involved in the movement you would. There was always a conflict in terms of who was doing what. Certainly there were those who were doing more and those who were doing less so.127

124 Johnny Wise. Interview Date: 30/06/08.

125 Madrichot is the plural for female leaders. Interview Garry Lavan. Interview Date: 18/06/08.

126 Mark Schneider. Interview Date: 04/08/08.

127 Avi Cohen. Interview Date: 21/08/2008. 306 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

It is apparent that a culture has developed within the movement that respects and ultimately embraces this stricter observance. This is a clear change in the character of the movement since the 1940s or even the early 1970s.

The Impact of the Yeshivah Programs

What has motivated this change in the movement? The increasing levels of Halachic observance can be traced back to the impact of the year programs and the religious education that Bnei Akiva members experience in Israeli yeshivot. Susan Boltin was a madricha in Melbourne during the 1970s, and it was during her time as a leader that B’nei Akiva Melbourne discouraged activities such as dancing, that required boys and girls to touch. Susan Boltin herself pinpoints the fact that the shift can be traced back to the influence of the year programs:

It was also less strict in my time and it only started to change around the time I was a madricha. There was much more mixing of the boys and the girls. You know, dancing and all that sort of thing, which stopped later on. That mainly changed when more substantial numbers started to go to Israel for a year and they were exposed to the yeshivah environment and started to learn more and when they came back they sort – the whole sort of religious, not the ethos so much as the practice, it stepped up. I thought that was sort of a shame, the dancing and everything was so much fun.128

During the 1960s Bnei Akiva members often spent time on a religious-Zionist kibbutz. Even in the late 1970s Bnei Akiva’s year program (Hachsharah) continued to send members to Israel on a program which combined time on yeshivah with time working on a kibbutz.129 With the passing years a greater focus has been placed on Bnei Akiva year programs such as MTA (Midreshet Torah ve’Avodah. Lit. School of Torah and Labour.), where ten to eleven months are spent studying in a yeshiva or midrasha.130

128 Susan (Bloch) Boltin. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

129 JAL Reports Box. “Bnei Akiva,” Annual Reports, State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1976-767, 82.

130 Bnei Akiva also organises year programs which spend less time on yeshivah and provides a more diverse program including time on kibbutz, volunteer work, an army ‘experience’ and a host of other activities. The program has undergone several name changes but during the 1990s and early 2000s it was known as Tafnit 307 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

One of the most important innovations made by rabbinic Judaism was the establishment of the yeshivah as an educational institute and the development of the idea that study was a form of worship in and of itself.131 The desire to want to go and learn in yeshivah is built into the cultural system of rabbinic Judaism. Thus, unlike other streams of Zionism, religious-Zionism never denigrated the idea of sustained Jewish intellectual study. The mainstream of religious-Zionism refused to view the yeshivah student as an example of the physical and spiritual degradation of the Jewish people in Exile.132 Studying the Talmud and other Jewish sacred texts remained a cornerstone of Jewish practice for the religious- Zionist movement. Just as members of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were excited at the prospect of living on a kibbutz and experiencing a chalutzic lifestyle firsthand, many Bnei Akiva madrichim were excited about the chance to spend an extended amount of time studying in yeshivah or midrasha. Religious families are also supportive of their children’s desire to spend a year in yeshivah or midrasha before beginning university.133 Bnei Akiva madrichim electing to spend a year studying in yeshivah understood that spending time studying Torah was a cornerstone of Jewish belief and practice. The fact that they brought back a stricter interpretation of Jewish practice was akin to the ideological intensity that gripped many members of Habonim who returned from a year on kibbutz reinvigorated and committed to the ideology of Labour Zionism.

In Chapter Four I discussed the profound impact of the year programs on members of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair. The experience of many Bnei Akiva madrichim was just as transformative. Shana Boltin went on the MTA program after school but she also

(Turnaround). The program is far less popular than MTA (Midreshet Torah Ve’Avodah), and is generally viewed as the less serious option and many madrichim are encouraged to go on MTA. The majority of Bnei Akiva’s merakzim are graduates of MTA as opposed to Tafnit. During Alon Franklin’s time there were problems with the participants on the program and the program has a reputation for attracting less religiously and ideologically dedicated participants. Alon Franklin. Interview Date: 19/011/07.

131 Boyarin, Border Lines, 152.

132 To be precise, within religious-Zionism there did exist an idea about a distinction between the Galut Jew and a religious Jew living in the land of Israel, however, this New Jew did not dismiss the centrality of Torah study. Dov Schwartz, Religious-Zionism: History and Ideology, trans. Batya Stein, (Brighton: Academic Studies Press, 2009), 4.

133 Jewish day schools in Australia have played a major role in facilitating the cohesion of the Australian Jewish community. For example, it was estimated that in 1985 seventy-five percent or more of Jewish children attended a Jewish day school. Rubenstein, Jews in Australia, 70-72. Many of the largest Jewish day schools are Orthodox but the vast majority of their students are not Orthodox. These schools are also Zionistic in the sense that Jewish history focuses on Israel, Modern Hebrew is taught in class and Israeli national holidays such as Yom Ha’atzmaut (Day of Independence) are commemorated. The schools run by the Chabad movement were originally non-Zionist and did not provide an education about Zionism or commemorate the establishment of the State of Israel. Despite the Jewish education supplied in the day schools Orthodox families which were Zionistic were very supportive of furthering the education of their children by sending them for a year to study in yeshivah after school. See also Rutland for her discussions on the largest Jewish day schools, Moriah War Memorial College in Sydney and Mount Scopus College in Melbourne. Rutland, Edge, various.

308 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism attended a Bnei Akiva program called Kfar which ran for four months, in 1998, at the end of Year 10. Kfar was run in conjunction with South African Bnei Akiva and the cohort of chanichim who went on the program included members from both countries. The girls spent time studying at Kfar Pines while the boys studied at Kfar Ha’roeh. Here they studied Bnei Akiva’s ideology, Jewish religious texts and the history of Zionism. Shana Boltin states that her experience strengthened her resolve to make aliyah as well as her dedication to Bnei Akiva and its ideology. Her four months in Israel also increased her level of religiosity and she came back keeping the laws of tzniut. Her time on the program also influenced her politically and she came back far more rightwing.134

When I interviewed Alon Franklin and asked about the impact of his year away in Israel, he stated the following:

Tremendous. It gave me time to really focus – I would say that prior to my year program I was kind of toiling with different aspects of religion. But I don’t think I was solid in – yeah, I was keeping Shabbat and that kind of stuff, but in terms of believing this was the right way? My year program gave me that.135

For Yossi Dinnen the impact of his time on MTA in 2004 was just as profound in cementing his connection with Israel as well as his dedication to a religiously observant lifestyle:

I learnt a hell of a lot about Israel. Up until then – since this was my first time there – it was a mystery, and folklore kind of thing. When I went there I learnt a lot about being there... I learnt a lot about myself as my first time away from home for a year, my first time in Israel, first time not at school. All that stuff. It had a heavy impact on my own – it kind of cemented my Zionism and even my religious ideals.136

The intensive study and the religious environment in yeshivah and midrasha are very conducive to making participants of MTA become far more religiously observant. Many madrichim come back to Bnei Akiva Australia enthused and dedicated to a more religious lifestyle as well as to the idea of making aliyah. It was the participants of MTA who made

134 Shana Boltin. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

135 Alon Franklin. Interview Date: 19/011/07.

136 Yossi Dinnen. Interview Date: 04/07/08.

309 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Bnei Akiva Australia more religiously observant and more dedicated to providing a strong religious education. The madrichim willingly embraced the idea that if Bnei Akiva claimed to be Orthodox it had to place greater focus on Torah study and observe laws such as shmirat negiah and tzniut, which they had learnt about in yeshivah.

The year programs have not only strengthened the link between Bnei Akiva Australia and Israel but they have also shaped the ideology and religious character of the movement. The strength of the link between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora is clearly illustrated by the increasing level of orthodoxy within the movement. Another example of how important this link is can be is illustrated by the impact the Gush Emunim movement in Israel has had on Bnei Akiva Australia.

The Impact of Gush Emunim: Akiva’s Children Embrace Messianism

Bnei Akiva Australia’s constitution states that the movement is a politically non- partisan Zionist youth movement and that its main objective is to “combine the concepts of the Nation of Israel (Am Yisrael), the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), and the Law of Israel (Torat Yisrael) into one ideal.”137 Bnei Akiva conceives of the Jewish identity as a national identity and thus central to this shared Jewish identity is the Land of Israel which “represents the unity of all Jews around the world as one nation with a common vision.”138 Bnei Akiva, just like the other movements, views Jewish identity as a national identity and therefore the movement demands sovereignty over the Land of Israel. What sets Bnei Akiva apart from the other movements is that it looks to Jewish Law in order to “define this shared vision as well as to accomplish our purpose as the Jewish Nation.”139 The ideological platform contains no reference to any political party, nor does it articulate a position on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. While the platform indicates Bnei Akiva has shifted away from chaluztiut, it does not reveal that the movement has become increasingly influenced by the messianism of Rav Kook (Kook the Elder) and his son Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook (Kook the Younger), (1891-1982).

137 http://www.bnei.com.au/about.php (October 28 2010). The slogan in Bnei Akiva is “Am Yisrael, Be'Eretz Yisrael, al pi Torat Yisrael." (“The Nation of Israel, in the Land of Israel, according to the Torah Israel,”) The slogan also indicates the movement’s belief that the State of Israel should be Halachically observant.

138 http://www.bnei.com.au/about.php (October 28 2010).

139 Ibid.

310 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Originally Torah observant Zionists sought to distance themselves from the idea that Zionism had any messianic implications. Even before Rabbi Reines founded the Mizrahi party he was unequivocal in making a “clear-cut separation” between the Zionist organisation and belief in the messianic era.140 The founders of Bnei Akiva - even more than Mizrachi - relegated messianism to the periphery of its ideology.141 The political program of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrahi and Bnei Akiva focused on the practical implications of Zionism in terms of addressing the plight of Jews in Europe and the issue of Pikuach Nefesh (saving of life).

Rav Kook rejected the theological position of the Mizrachi movement and instead sanctified the Zionist movement, bestowing upon it messianic and metahistorical implications.142 Kook the Elder and his son explicitly stated that the establishment of the State of Israel would be the first stage in the beginning of the messianic redemption:

An ideal State, one that has the highest of all ideals engraved in its being … the most sublime happiness of the individual... this shall be our state, the State of Israel, the pedestal of God’s throne in the world, for its only aim shall be that the Lord be acknowledged as one and his name one, which is truly the highest state of happiness.143

According to the rabbis Kook, Zionism represented a new phase in the history of the Jewish people which released Israel from the Three Oaths.144 Jews who attacked Zionism failed to realize it was not humans who were ‘forcing the End’ rather it was the ‘Master of the House, the Lord of the Universe’ using secular ideology to teach Jews that they were all a part of the Congregation of Israel. Kook the Elder argued that the actions of secular Zionists - even those who were rabidly anti-religious - were being guided by Divine Providence. The religious-Zionism of the rabbis Kook is a clear-cut break with traditional understandings of Jewish quietism in relation to the messianic redemption. This break was only possible when they incorporated a nationalist definition of Jewish identity which placed sanctity upon the

140 Ravitsky, Messianism, 34. Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 141-142.

141 Shimoni, Zionist Ideology, 154.

142 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 21-23 and Ravitsky, 1996, 79-14.

143 These words were included in Orot Ha-Kodesh (Holy lights) published in Jerusalem 1964. Cited in Ravitsky, Messianism, 5.

144 For a discussion on the Three Oaths see Chapter One, 4, n. 11.

311 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Jewish State.145 The radical innovation of the rabbis Kooks’ redemptive messianism was that it provided theological legitimacy to Jewish nationalism and its demands for sovereignty over the Land of Israel.

Kook the Elder was an influential figure within the religious-Zionist camp however, Bnei Akiva originally did not embrace his redemptive messianism. The fact that messianism has begun to influence Bnei Akiva Australia is a direct product of Bnei Akiva’s links with yeshivot in Israel. In the mid-1960s Kook the Younger managed to attract a small group of Bnei Akiva graduates who were looking for a yeshivah which was dedicated to serious Torah study but was also strongly Zionistic. This group of Bnei Akiva graduates called themselves Gahelet (Lit. Embers, but also an acronym for Nucleus of Torah-Learning Pioneers) and had originally tried to become an influential element within the NRP (National Religious Party) in 1964. When they were rebuffed by the leaders within the party, they gravitated to Kook the Younger while also embracing his redemptive messianism.146

In the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, during the spring of 1974, this disparate group eventually emerged as a powerful grass roots political movement which called itself Gush Emunim (Block of the Faithful). The decision to create a grass roots movement to ensure that the territories of Judea and Samaria and Gaza remained under Israeli control was a response to the 1973 War, a cataclysmic event which Israelis came to refer to as ‘the earthquake’.147 Gush Emunim aspired to make Israeli society and the state more religiously observant. It also sought to influence the government’s policy to ensure it would not relinquish the territories conquered in June1967 War.148 The majority of the founders of Gush Emunim were influenced by Rav Tzvi Yehudah Kook’s ideology.149

From its very inception, Gush Emunim had strong links with Bnei Akiva Israel and Merkaz HaRav.150 The Gahelet group spread their messianic ideas beyond the confines of

145 Ravitsky, Messianism, 80.

146 Gahelet also included many future leaders of the Gush Emunim movement such as Rabbi Chaim Druckman, Rav Moshe Levinger and Eleazar Waldman. Both Druckman and Levinger were graduates of Bnei Akiva and studied at Merkaz HaRav. Ian S. Lustick, For the Land of the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, (New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1988), 34.

147 For greater detail of how the movement was established see Ian S. Lustick, “The Evolution of Gush Emunim,” in For the Land of the Lord, 42-71.

148 Ibid., 44-45.

149 Ibid., 45.

150 In 1924 Rav Kook the Elder founded a yeshivah called Merkaz HaRav. Upon Rav Kook’s passing in 1935 it declined in its standing, and the yeshivah struggled to attract any meaningful sized membership: up until the 1960s it had only around twenty students. Lustick, Land of the Lord, 34.

312 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism the Merkaz HaRav and began to try to influence Bnei Akiva Israel to support the movement. Aviezer Ravitsky, Gideon Aran and Yoel Finkelman have, in fact, examined the way in which Kook the Younger turned his father’s political and religious writings into a political movement and how these ideas began to exert a profound influence throughout the Israeli religious school system.151 Kook the Elder was an eclectic thinker who never synthesised his disparate writings or ideas. The genius of his son was to transform his father’s philosophical musings into a political movement with tangible goals.152 The idea of the messianic age was no longer a far off mystical age; it was given a particular time, place and historical context; the present day State of Israel. The messianic ideology filtered into the school system affiliated with Bnei Akiva and began to feed directly into the movement and its publications.153 Bnei Akiva in Israel began to embrace the idea that Zionism was the beginning of a messianic process which was unfolding before their eyes. Bnei Akiva Israel eventually served as the “largest recruitment poll for Gush Emunim activists and leaders.”154 Gush Emunim’s message of national religious rejuvenation and a return to the lands of Judea and Samaria clearly tapped into a rich vein of sentiment within the religious-Zionist movement. Gorenberg argues the ideology of the settlement movement captured the imagination of so many religious-Zionists because it enabled the movement to step out of the shadows of the secular Zionist movement and create their own narrative of heroism which placed them at the centre of the story.155 The shift within Bnei Akiva Israel towards the redemptionist messianism of the rabbis Kook is thus the result of a calculated attempt to influence the movement as well as a product of the political and cultural zeitgeist in Israel in the wake of the 1967 and 1973 wars. As early as the mid-1970s Bnei Akiva members from Australia began electing to make aliyah to the Gush settlements,156 the connection to the

151 Ravitsky, 1996, 123-124, Gideon Aran, “From Religious-Zionism to Zionist Religion: the Roots of Gush Emunim,” Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Indiana University Press and the Institute for Contemporary Jewry, Vol. II, 1986, 116-143 and Yoel Finkelman, “Irrelevance of Religious-Zionism,” 26.

152 Ravitsky, Messianism, 123-124.

153 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 92-93. In Israel, Bnei Akiva has its own yeshivah school system which combines secular subjects with the sustained study of Jewish religious texts in a dormitory environment. This school system was one of the first to begin to feel the impact of Kook’s messianism.

154 Lustick, Land of the Lord, 166.

155 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 94. For a similar conclusion on the reasons behind the success of the settler movement see, Lustick, Land of the Lord, 44.

156 In 1974 one such garin aliyah had formed which planned for all its members to make aliyah by 1976 to Gush Etzion. Three members of the garin aliyah (Oizer, Leah and Amichai Zowler) planned to immigrate to Israel in the summer of 1974 and live on Kibbutz Rosh Tzurim. JAL Reports Folder. ‘Bnei Akiva,’ Annual Reports, State Zionist Council of Victoria, 1974-1975, 78.

313 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Gush was further strengthened when programs such as MTA, under the guidance of Bnei Akiva Israel, opted to start sending its members to study in Yeshivat Har Etzion.

Yeshivat Har Eztion is located in the Gush Etzion block of settlements in the West Bank and is a hesder yeshivah, which means its students partake in a program that combines intensive study in yeshivah with service in the IDF (Israel Defence Forces).157 Har Etzion Yeshivah is one of the largest hesder yeshivot in Israel. It was founded on 27 September 1967 when Rabbi Yehudah Amital (1924-2010) was approached by Channan Porat and Rabbi Yoel Bin-Nun to set up a yeshivah in one of the recently established settlements. Yeshivat Har Etzion “was conceived both as a memorial to the heroic sacrifices of the past and as a vehicle for creating and realizing a vision of the future.”158 While Gorenberg describes Yeshivat Har Etzion as a far less radical organisation than the group led by Moshe Levinger, it is clear that the founder of the yeshivah, Rabbi Yehudah Amital, viewed service in the IDF as a sacred religious duty.159 The yeshivah sees the Hesder program as a fulfilment of its duty to produce talmidei hachamim (Talmudic scholars) who also serve as soldiers in defence the State of Israel. The website goes onto state that its students “regard this dual commitment as both a privilege and duty; who, in comparison with their non-hesder confreres love not Torah less but Israel more.”160 In this declaration of support for the Hesder program it is possible to see Gorenberg’s analysis in practice: religion has swallowed nationalism whole. The state has become an embodiment of the Will of God and therefore it becomes a sacred duty to defend that homeland. The MTA program has enabled madrichim to attend other yeshivot, but many of these other yeshivot have also been influenced by the ideology of the rabbis Kook.161 The permeation of the idea that the State of Israel is an embodiment of the Will of God that has messianic implications is a direct result of sending members to yeshivot and midrashot which had embraced the redemptive messianism of the rabbis Kook and the settler movement.

157 The quote comes from a famous talk given by Aharon Lichtenstein, a Rosh Yeshivah at Yeshivat Har Etzion. Aharon Lichtenstein, “The Ideology of Hesder: The View from Yeshivat Har Etzion,” Tradition, 19 (3), Fall 1981, Yeshivat Har Etzion Virtual Beit Midrash Project (VBM).

158 http://www.haretzion.org/about-us/history, (February 8 2011). Both Porat and Bin-Nun became leading figures in the Gush Emunim movement.

159 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 207-208.

160 www.haretzion.org/about-us/ideology-of-hesder (February 8 2011).

161 See, for example the website of Yeshivat Eretz HaTzvi (Jerusalem) which has been part of the MTA program. ‘Mission Statement,’ http://www.yehatzvi.org/introduction.php, (February 8 2011).

314 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Knowledge of Rav Kook’s Theology

What is remarkable is that despite the profound influence exerted by Rav Kook, very few of Bnei Akiva’s members in Australia have actually read Rav Kook’s writings. This is also true amongst Bnei Akiva madrichim in Israel.162 Whether it was the founding members of the movement in the 1940s and 1950s or members from the 1960s or 1970s, none of the madrichim I interviewed was intimately familiar with Rav Kook’s teachings. When Lionel Link was involved in Bnei Akiva Sydney in the 1950s, the movement was aware of the importance of Rav Kook and they taught about him alongside other important individuals in the movement. However, there were never any programs which actually required members to read what he wrote. The knowledge was far more diffuse and was passed on orally.163 Avi Cohen was a madrich during the 1980s and acknowledges that none of his fellow leaders would have delved into Rav Kook’s original writings: “In Bnei certainly the name you were thrown was Rav Kook. Torah im derech Eretz164 and stuff like that. How much you went and actually learnt the sources, learnt Rav Kook? Never. But that was the name we knew.”165 Despite Bnei Akiva programs selecting yeshivot which were influenced by Kooks’ theology the yeshivot and midrashoth did not actually teach any in-depth courses on the Rabbis Kook and their writings. Alon Franklin, who went on a year program with Bnei Akiva in 1991, recalls that there was a weekly shiur which dealt with Bnei Akiva’s ideology and touched upon Rav Kook’s teachings but the knowledge imparted was threadbare and somewhat limited, a fact which Alon lamented as something lacking in the movement’s education:

...In terms of learning Rav Kook, people are not learning Rav Kook in the same way they are learning other types or religious texts. Where does one derive the knowledge of Rav Kook? The derivation occurs from one madrich, from father to son, from father to son. As you heard from your madrichim you

162 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 302-303.

163 Lionel Link. Interview Date: 11/10/07.

164 Lit. Torah with “the way of the land.” The term is ambiguous but Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch’s interpretation came to play a formative role in Modern Orthodox Judaism. According to Rabbi Hirsch the verse meant living a life compatible with modernity but also acting in a polite and respectful manner when interacting with other people.

165 Avi Cohen. Interview Date: 12/08/08.

315 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

pass onto your chanichim. That’s kind of how it was, but no one actually found that proof in the texts themselves.166

The knowledge was not derived by anyone actually reading his work but through madrichim hearing some ideas and then teaching these ideas to their chanichim who then passed on those ideas when they become leaders themselves. Mark Schneider’s recollections mirror Franklin’s experience, and illustrate the same point: Rav Kook’s ideas were presented by the madrichim in an incidental way in the programs they organised rather than teaching his ideas through a thorough textual analysis:

We were certainly taught his ideas, but it was only much later in life that I picked up one of his books... The whole idea of ‘Am Yisrael, b’Eretz Yisrael, al pi Torahat Yisrael’ was very much part of what we were taught about, very much so, but it was informal and experiential, the education. We didn’t go through texts.167

Schneider’s comments pinpoint the reality of the movement’s various educational programs: they were not based on texts but were “informal and experiential”. Madrichim wanted to educate their chanichim, but the programs were run for young children and teenagers who had come on their weekends. Chanichim, by and large, did not want to sit down and read complicated theological or political texts. This was the same dilemma facing all the other movements - the writings of Jabotinsky, Borochov and the rabbis Kook were precisely these sorts of texts. The rabbis Kooks’ redemptionist messianism drew upon a complex synthesis of Kabbalah, Halachah and nationalism, which was a response to events in Europe and the Middle East. In the first decades of Bnei Akiva’s existence the writings of the rabbis Kooks were not readily available in English, and even if they had been they were difficult, scholarly texts with ideas far beyond the intellectual maturity of the young membership of Bnei Akiva Australia. The same conclusion can be reached about the writings of Jabotinsky or the Zionist-socialist thinkers. Thus the movements settled on distilling the essence of their founding ideologues. The movements’ experiential educational programs concentrated on the core messages. It was easy enough to teach Bnei Akiva chanichim the ideas of “Am Yisrael b’Eretz Yisrael, al pi Torahat Yisrael” or ‘Torah ve’Avodah’, but they rarely, if ever, went any deeper into the complexity and nuance of these ideas or their ideological roots.

166 Alon Franklin. Interview Date: 19/11/07.

167 Mark Schneider. Interview Date: 04/08/08.

316 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Rav Kook’s ideas were present in Bnei Akiva Australia and their presence prepared the ground for Bnei Akiva madrichim to embrace these ideas when they went and studied in yeshivah or midrasha. The yeshivot and midrashot chosen by Bnei Akiva for the Australian madrichim to attend were institutions which had rabbis and teachers who had embraced these ideas and in turn taught them to the participants in the MTA programs. Shana Boltin recalls that while she was studying in Midreshet Harova, in Jerusalem, the teachers taught the young leaders to see Israel in messianic terms, and these ideas were brought back to Australia. Attendees at Harova were taught that because of the sacred nature of the Land of Israel it was not the right of the Jewish people to ‘give away’ any of the land. Not all rabbis stressed these ideas. Those rabbis that did infused their political and religious ideology with a messianism which taught that the beginning of the messianic age was imminent. While Shana no longer embraces these ideas while she was in the Midrasha Harova she and many of her fellow participants were gripped by these messianic ideas.168 Yossi Dinnen also recalls that when he studied at Yeshivat Har Etzion (the Gush) in 2004 the rabbis would teach about Israel in messianic terms, and the redemptionist ideology was the “accepted hashkafah” (religious ideology) and that his own hashkafah “was in line with what Gush was telling us as well.169 Most importantly, Dinnen also notes that these ideas were accepted by the participants on MTA, who then brought these ideas back to Bnei Akiva Australia. Dinnen went on to state that he saw the establishment of the State of Israel as a fulfilment of God’s plans to bring about the coming of the Mashiach (Messiah):

Throughout Jewish existence there has been the whole messianic yearning for the Messiah the whole ‘ani ma’amin be’eumnah shelmah.’170 Every day, you know, Mashiach is going to come. From what I’ve learnt in the texts and from what I’ve understood - what’s been taught to me as well - it has to be something that you don’t sit back and expect to be given to you, it is something that you go out and take. It’s something which you have to claim for yourself. I believe what’s happened in the past hundred years, concerning Israel, it's what we’ve done. We’ve gone there and we’ve claimed the land and we’ve worked hard to make something of it. And combined with that,

168 Shana Boltin. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

169 Hashkafah means ‘perspective’ but in Dinnen’s use of the term it can also mean religious ideology. The religious ideology of the yeshivah was to see the State of Israel in messianic terms and this idea was taught by the rabbis. Yossi Dinnen. Interview Date: 04/07/08.

170 Dinnen is referring to the Thirteen Principles of faith written down by Maimonides. He is quoting the first half of the twelfth principle which reads completely as “I believe with perfect faith in the coming of the Messiah, and even though he may tarry, nonetheless, I wait every day for his coming.”

317 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

God has played His hand He’s performed the miracles here and there to help it along its way. And it fits with Rav Kook’s – Rav Kook fits that in with how the Messiah is going to eventuate. How it starts off. There is opposition from the charedi world where they say ‘because it was started off through secular hands, the state is secular, then it can’t be holy, nothing holy can come out of it.’ But lots of commentators, lots of stuff that I’ve read, actually say that things start off that way, just because things starts off that way doesn’t make - for an apple to grow, you’ve got have the dirt, the tree, you’ve got to have the tree. Ideologically it fits in with where I am.171

There are several important points being made here that need to be addressed. Firstly Dinnen embraces the idea that instead of Jews waiting for the Messiah they need to play an active role in bringing about his return. Dinnen notes that charedi Jews argue that because of the secular nature of Zionism it cannot be an expression of God’s will. However, Dinnen refers to commentators and texts he has learnt that argue even though Zionism was begun by secular Jews this does not prove that Zionism is not an expression of God’s will. As Dinnen correctly notes, these ideas fit in with how Rav Kook explained and justified his support of Zionism. These messianic ideas were all part of the religious ideology (hashkafah) of Yeshivat Kfar Etzion. They were all ideas which Dinnen ultimately came to believe in.

The messianic concepts were sometimes delivered as part of shiurim (lectures) given by rabbis, but sometimes these ideas were also imparted through the actions of the rabbis. Alon Franklin recalls an event on his MTA program that captures the intensity of the religious feeling which drove the settler movement: A rabbi from the yeshivah took them to an “outpost yishuv somewhere overlooking Jericho” and then had the group recite a blessing which is said upon seeing the rebuilding of something that has been destroyed: “He was saying that the Land of Israel that people were living in was destroyed and now we’re going to actively bless God for the fact that the rebuilding is happening.”172 The blessing recited by the rabbi and the MTA group was utilised to express the miraculous nature of the historical events taking place in modern Jewish history. Reciting this blessing illustrated the idea that the establishment of the State of Israel is an expression of the Will of God. The rabbis were often brilliant and inspiring teachers and their teachings and actions often served to instil these messianic ideas in participants of the MTA program.

171 Yossi Dinnen. Interview Date: 04/07/08.

172 Alon Franklin. Interview Date: 19/11/07.

318 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

During Jonathan Samuels’ year in Israel he notes the messianic ideas were present but they were not the main focus of the learning on yeshivah. Nonetheless, when the issue of the holiness of the Land of Israel was raised, the rabbi in charge of their program stressed the need for religious Jews to love the Land of Israel and make aliyah:

All our Zionist shiurim, our main Rabbi, he was a like a B’nei Akiva rabbi and he had such a love for the country, just thought it was the best place in the world... a lot of your Zionist shiurim were related to, you cannot leave Israel for any reason, if your parents tell you can’t make aliyah, you can still go, there’s no kibud av ve’em (Honour your father and mother) when it comes to aliyah... I’m a bit more cynical and a bit more questioning as I – beyond that year. But I was very much taken in.173

Samuels’ comments touch upon the intensity of the year experience. Gorenberg notes that Yeshivat Etzion is an “intimate institution” which offers a “kind of post-family family, complete with a charismatic father-scholar, who embraces young people freshly away from home.”174 MTA participants are young, idealistic and eager to absorb everything they can while on their year studying in yeshivah. They are aware that their intensive year in yeshivah/midrasha is likely to be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn under some of the most knowledgeable and respected rabbis in the Jewish world. The recollections by Samuels, Boltin, Dinnen and Franklin illustrate how participants can internalise the ideas being taught by the rabbis.

The experience of learning in an institution like Yeshivat Etzion can be a life changing experience and many participants embraced not only the learning but also the religious- Zionist ideology which underpinned the yeshivot selected for the MTA program. The impact of this influence was felt very quickly by Bnei Akiva Australia. Avi Cohen recalls that in the 1980s when he was a leader the movement believed that the most ideal sort of aliyah was to go and live in the land they called Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and many members did choose to make aliyah to the settlements: “There was also a sense you had to go to Israel. That was the reality. Certainly it was the message we got from B’nei, you know – even at that point in time it almost had to be a West Bank aliyah. You know, that was the notion of what we were doing.”175

173 Jonathan Samuels. Interview Date: 14/08/08.

174 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 207-208.

175 Interview Avi Cohen. The idea that aliyah should focus on living in the settlements was also present when Mark Schneider was a madrich. 319 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

A hesder yeshivah, like Kfar Etzion, is part of a political and religious movement. Its hashkafah is directly influenced by ideas about the sanctity of the land and need for Jews to settle the areas conquered in 1967. Participants on MTA may disagree with these ideas, but it appears that many madrichim, at least while they are on the program, are in agreement with the ideology of Gush Emunim. When I asked Yossi Dinnen if he was aware of the political statement being made by attending a yeshivah that is in the West Bank, land which the international community by and large views as illegal for Jews to settle on, he acknowledged that this was not an issue ever really addressed or discussed. Ultimately it was not discussed because the lands conquered in 1967 are seen as part of the Jewish national birthright: “I guess my belief then, and it is the same now, that we have a right to be there and there shouldn’t be a problem with me spending time learning there as opposed to anywhere else.”176

In Chapter Four I examined Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s shift away from the kibbutz ideal. Today their leftwing ideology is primarily focused on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. The year programs of both movements attempt to create relationships and dialogue with Palestinian Arabs living inside the State of Israel or in the Occupied Territories. In order to facilitate this sort of interaction both movements organise volunteer work in Arab villages. Both movements are ideologically opposed to the settlements and thus no part of their year programs requires the participants to live or spend time in the Occupied Territories. Bnei Akiva programs like MTA focus on the study of Torah. Bnei Akiva programs do not facilitate any activities that provide the participants the chance to interact with Palestinian Arabs. Ultimately, the idea of organising activities to engage with Palestinian Arabs does not concern either Bnei Akiva Olami or Bnei Akiva Australia, who take their lead from Bnei Akiva Israel. Bnei Akiva Australia has no desire to alter the program in order to create these sorts of opportunities because, unlike Habonim or Hashomer Hatzair, the perspective is that Jews should not leave the settlements.

Bnei Akiva Australia has clearly been influenced by the developments within Bnei Akiva Israel and its ties to the settler movement. However, the ideological fervour that exists in Israel cannot be replicated in Australia. The same forces are not at work. Living in Australia as an Orthodox Jew is a very different religious, cultural and political existence. Many participants find that once they are no longer living in yeshivah they are far less ideologically fervent in their beliefs or ideas. It would be too easy, and far too simplistic, to make some of the quotes in this discussion of Bnei Akiva speak too loudly or too universally for the diverse range of individuals who have been members of Bnei Akiva in Sydney or

176 Yossi Dinnen. Interview Date: 04/07/08.

320 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Melbourne. This caveat is essential in order to keep in mind the complexity of the movements which are made up of individuals with their own personalities, ideas and beliefs. At the same time, it is clear that Bnei Akiva Australia is intimately linked to Israel. The nature of Bnei Akiva’s religious-Zionism has clearly been shaped by its connections with Israel. The Diaspora community of religious-Zionists have an intense and enduring connection with the State of Israel but it is also an ongoing dialogue.

Religious-Zionism: A New Nationalist Religion

In previous chapters I have touched upon the issue of declining numbers of madrichim in the various movements willing to make aliyah, which, generally speaking is an issue of push and pull factors. In the case of Australian Jewry, there are no push factors. Members of the movements who did make aliyah did so because of ideological reasons. The fact that these days far fewer Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar members make aliyah relates to the issue of ideological stagnation and the creation of a Diaspora-Zionist identity. The ideology of Zionist-socialism and Revisionism are no longer sufficiently powerful to motivate large numbers of Australian Jewish youth to make aliyah. To many Jewish youth their ideologies appear irrelevant to the political reality of both Australia and Israel. Bnei Akiva Australia now produces more olim than all the other movements combined several times over. Why is it that Bnei Akiva continues to produce so many more olim?

The first interesting point to note is that in the early years, Bnei Akiva actually produced very few olim. As we saw in Chapter Two, the founders of Bnei Akiva were eager to follow in the footsteps of Habonim and become a movement with madrichim committed to chalutzic aliyah. However, the movement at that time lamented the lack of ideological dedication to aliyah within its leadership body. The first olim from Bnei Akiva actually returned to Australia in 1959 after two years of living in Israel.177 This means that for the first decade of the movements’ activities in Australia no members made aliyah. Some of the founding members of the movement made aliyah later, but during the 1950s, when the other movements were producing some of their largest numbers of olim (percentage wise), almost no members of Australian Bnei Akiva were making aliyah. Garry Lavan recalls that when he was involved during the 1960s and 1970s, the concept of aliyah was not stressed at all.178

177 JAL Bnei Akiva Folder. ‘Norman Lourie, 1950’s,’ Bnei Akiva Melbourne’s 50th Anniversary, (Melbourne: Starset Printing Service), 23.

178 Garry Lavan. Interview Date: 18/06/08.

321 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

To be sure, Bnei Akiva was very proud of its members making aliyah: for example, in 1969, Bnei Akiva reported to the ZFA that over the previous twelve months almost a dozen of its members had made aliyah.179 By the time Jonathan Samuels was involved as a madrich in Bnei Akiva Melbourne he recalls that aliyah was “pushed very hard” and that many of his madrichim, and the people he led with, now live in Israel.180

However, the large numbers of religious olim was not always a product of ideology. Rather, the high number of Bnei Akiva members making aliyah was originally a product of push factors not experienced by the non-religious movements. Despite the growth of the Orthodox community a religious lifestyle in Australia remains far more difficult to pursue than in Israel. The ease of a religiously observant life in Israel played an important role in motivating religious Jews to make aliyah.181 The considerable opportunities of a religious life in Israel are very attractive for religious Jews. These considerations play an important role in motivating Torah observant Jews to make aliyah.

One of the core reasons for the decline in the number of Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s members making aliyah relates to the Palestinian/Israel conflict. As early as the 1950s, Hashomer Hatzair was engaging with the issue of Arabs living in Israel in a critical manner. Since the 1967 War these questions have become even more pertinent. Both movements have adopted political positions which embrace a two-state solution and thus they oppose the ideology which drives the settlement of the West Bank. Many leaders remain firmly committed Zionists but the conflict clearly tarnishes the desirability of aliyah. The sorts of questions which may plague leftwing Zionists do not disturb someone who has reached the conclusion that Israel is not an occupier and that Jews have a moral and historical right to return to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). As Lustick and Gorenberg have shown, the 1967 War opened up the question of Israel’s borders again and also tapped into a deep seated desire within the religious-Zionist movement to pick up where the secular Zionist movement left off and lead the way in settling the land and expanding the borders of Israel.182 Conquering the territories thus actually served to reinvigorate the idea of aliyah for those Jews who embraced the idea that the state needed Jews to immigrate and live in those areas.

179 JAL Reports Box. ‘Bnei Akiva, Report to the 23rd Biennial Conference 1968, Melbourne, The Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 94.

180 Jonathan Samuels. Interview Date: 14/08/08.

181 Jonathan Samuels. Interview Date: 14/08/08. Alon Franklin. Interview Date: 19/11/07.

182 Lustick, Land of the Lord, 44-45. Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 92-93.

322 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

I have argued that Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair were attempting to fashion a secular or cultural Judaism, largely discarding the foundations of rabbinic Judaism which had evolved over close to two millennia. Boyarin and other academics contend that rabbinic Judaism actually emerged in an environment alongside other forms of ‘Judaisms’ including different forms of rabbinic Judaism, and that what is now termed rabbinic Judaism emerged over several centuries.183 Rabbinic Judaism thus had several centuries to develop the Talmud, as well as a particular process of exegesis that provided a rich and complex intellectual tradition, and institutions such as the yeshivah. The rabbinic Judaism which ultimately emerged as the victor in this contest was a resilient, malleable and dynamic cultural and intellectual system. The weaknesses and problems plaguing Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair’s cultural/secular Judaism can be put down, partially, to the fact that they are both very new to the game. Just as problematic is their attempt to graft onto an ancient cultural system modern notions like nationalism, ethnicity and humanism. The task becomes all the more difficult and problematic when the individuals involved in creating this New Judaism have very little knowledge about the cultural system (rabbinic Judaism) which they are attempting to radically change.

The attempt to fashion a cultural or secular form of Judaism is an astonishing and important development in Jewish history. However, many of the participants involved in creating this New Judaism are not entirely aware of the radical nature of what they are attempting to do. It also appears that they lack the same sort of ideological dedication which proved so crucial to the emergence of rabbinic Judaism. It is also clear that few Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair members actually continue to practice the secular/cultural Judaism of the movements once they leave the movement.

David Zyngier spoke about how, when he was involved in Hashomer Hatzair, the madrichim would stay up late debating Zionist-socialist ideology and politics just as the Rabbis are described as doing in the Gemara. Zyngier’s point was that the intellectual traditions of Hashomer Hatzair were taken just as seriously as religious Jews took Talmudic debate and discussion. Today, however, it is apparent that the secular Zionist movements are no longer animated by a similar ideological intensity. While the relevance of debating Marxist-Zionism until dawn has faded into irrelevance, Bnei Akiva madrichim continue to go to yeshivot and midrashot where they study Torah from early in the morning until late at night. (The average learning day for a yeshivah or midrasha will start at around 7 a.m. and

183 Boyarin, Border Lines, 116, 164, 289 n. 28. See also Jacob Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice, (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2002), 9-11. For a critical engagement with Neusner’s concept of ‘Judaisms’ see Seth Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 8-11.

323 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism finish around 10 p.m.) The Talmud remains the ideological pillar upon which religious- Zionists define their identity, and their mode of living continues to be expressed through the performance of mitzvot. The same is clearly not the case for Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair: Zionist-socialism and the writings of Borochov or Syrkin do not define the very core of who their members are as Jews and human beings.

The subject of whether or not secular/cultural forms of Judaism will prove as enduring as rabbinic Judaism is beyond the scope of this discussion. What is essential to my argument is that relative to rabbinic Judaism these new forms of Judaism are in their infancy. As I stated at the beginning, religious-Zionism is not attempting to get rid of rabbinic Judaism; rather, religious-Zionism represents a new form of Judaism which has internalised nationalism. Bnei Akiva and religious-Zionism ultimately represent a new “nationalist religion” but “like many other radical religious innovations, claimed to be returning to old-time faith.”184 The nationalist and religious components each serve to augment the ideological intensity of the other. The New Judaism of Habonim and Hashomer has not served the same ideological purpose in convincing cultural and secular Jews that in order to live a truly Jewish life they must make aliyah. This is partly due to the fact that the ideas of the chalutz and sabra have become less relevant to Israel in the decades since it was established.185 Religious-Zionism also believes that a truly religious Jew should live in Israel, however it has proven far more persuasive in convincing religious Jews to make aliyah and this is due, in large part, to the fact it draws upon centuries of rabbinic tradition to give these ideas intellectual support and meaning. When Gush Emunim and Bnei Akiva call upon religious- Zionists to embrace its redemptive messianic ideology, it has a deep wellspring of images, ideas, symbols and texts upon which to draw.

The stories from participants on MTA I have recounted in this chapter illustrate how this “new nationalist religion” can capture the imagination of young Jewish youth. The rabbis are able to evoke a sacred blessing that refers to witnessing the rebuilding of something which was destroyed and link it to the religious-Zionist ideology, or they refer to the religious dictum that it is a sacred duty to live in Israel and that the importance of this commandment is illustrated by the fact it even trumps the commandment to honour one’s parents. Religious commandments are utilised to serve the needs of this new nationalist religion. The speech made to Shana Boltin by her rabbi on midrasha about the Amidah resonated, in large part, because it spoke a language she could understand. The Amidah prayer was something she was infinitely familiar with and she was already on a journey of religious self-discovery and

184 Gorenberg, Accidental Empire, 207.

185 Weissbrod, Israeli Identity, 71-105.

324 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism education. The reason these messages resonate with individuals studying in yeshivah or midrasha is because day and night they are studying religious texts. Many of these sacred texts refer repeatedly to the sanctity and centrality of the Land of Israel for the Jewish people. When the rabbi states that aliyah trumps the commandment of honouring one’s parents the statement rings with the authority of a divinely sanctioned truth.

The success of religious-Zionism reflects a trend which is also witnessed in other ultra-modern societies. While religion has been robbed of its power as a “unifying symbolic system,” the forces of a globalised economy and mass media have actually pushed individuals to search for communal, social bonds while at the same time collective social institutions – like Bnei Akiva – have sought to renew their purpose and meaning.186 As the authors of Strong Religion note, the resurgent strength of religious-Zionism in Australia and Israel mirrors trends in other religions and communities around the globe which have also witnessed the rise of religious movements, even in ultra-modern societies where the “odds are pretty much against them.”187 While a global perspective does illuminate some important similarities,188 it is important to locate my discussion of Bnei Akiva in a very specific historical context which illuminates the relationship between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora.189

We have seen how members of the other movements could be just as ideologically dedicated. However, few madrichim from the other movements express themselves in the 2000s with the same ideological intensity which gripped the leaders of the movements in the 1940s and 1950s. Within Bnei Akiva many madrichim and ex-madrichim are gripped by the ideology of the movement and dedicated to aliyah. Yossi Dinnen sees himself as a person who is dedicated to religious-Zionism and believes strongly in the need to make aliyah. (A short time after my interview with him, Dinnen went to Israel to try to establish himself there.) He said:

I’d say, on a pure Zionist level, I support the State of Israel. I believe that we have a right to exist in the land of Israel. That’s the way the Jews – or the

186 Rudi Laermans, Bryan R. Wilson, Karel Dobbelaere, Jaak Billiet eds., Secularization and Social Integration: Papers in Honor of Karel Dobbelaere, (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998), 261.

187 Gabriel Abraham Almond, R. Scott Appleby, Emmanuel Sivan, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms around the World, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), 30.

188 For a text which engages with the rise of religious fundamentalism with a global perspective that touches upon the settler movement and the rabbis Kook see Almond, Appleby and Sivan, “Fundamentalism: Genus and Species,” Strong Religion, 90-115.

189 Weissbrod, Israeli Identity, 106-140.

325 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism

Zionist Jews express their love and passion for Israel. And again our right to exist there. For a number of reasons I would identify myself as a religious- Zionist as opposed to other streams of Zionism. For me that’s where it stems from. Our connection to the land, religiously and historically. You know, what’s listed in the Torah and also the mitzvot. That’s our connection to Israel....190

In the years since taking part in the MTA program Avi Cohen has shifted ideologically and he would no longer make aliyah to live in the settlements. At the same time the deep emotional, religious and nationalist connection to Israel is still very strong and Cohen plans to return to live in Israel: “I have a far more universal view of the world than I once did, so I don’t feel that I can only contribute in Israel, but I also think the world is a smaller place and I think I can make a universal contribution from Israel.” 191

Shana Boltin also continues to feel Israel is the “best place” for a Jewish person to live. Sovereignty over the Land of Israel is crucial to her sense of Zionism and Jewish identity. Her belief in making aliyah is motivated by her understanding that the State of Israel is an expression of the will of the Jewish people. In order for her to have a say in the direction the Jewish people are taking she feels she would need to live in Israel. As she related to me in my interview: “I am still contemplating making aliyah because I still believe it is the best place for the Jewish people and it’s the right place for the Jews to be living... It is our own sovereign land, we can have it, so we should.”192

There is a slogan that has circulated within Bnei Akiva for some time which goes as follows: “Bnei Akiva born, Bnei Akiva bred, Bnei Akiva dead.” The rhyme is a joke but it also represents an aspect of the movement’s belief in itself. Bnei Akiva does not simply see itself as a movement which one leaves when one ceases being a madrich. Bnei Akiva’s ideology is supposed to be something which provides guidance for the rest of a person’s life. For Alon Franklin, Bnei Akiva has given him a derech in life. Derech in Hebrew means ‘path’ or ‘way’ and Franklin continues to define his approach to life as one guided by the concept of Torah ve’Avodah because it articulates a belief in Jews being dedicated to Torah but also being part of the modern world. Torah ve’Avodah ideology also embraces the centrality of both Torah and the Land of Israel and for Franklin ultra-Orthodox Jews who ignore the

190 Yossi Dinnen. Interview Date: 04/07/08.

191 Avi Cohen. Interview Date: 21/08/2008.

192 Shanna Boltin. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

326 Jonathan Ari Lander

Chapter Five: The Question of Judaism centrality of the Land of Israel, or secular Jews who ignore the centrality of Torah, are both missing out on an essential part of being Jewish.193 Years after leaving Bnei Akiva, the ideology of the movement continues to supply Franklin with a derech in life.

Mark Schneider, even decades after being a madrich, also remains committed to the ideology of the movement and he sees his involvement in Bnei Akiva as giving him a great deal personally. The realities of life have got in the way of making aliyah but he remains very supportive of Israel and his sense of Jewish identity is linked to the State of Israel. As a father, one of the things he is most proud of is the fact that all his children are involved in Bnei Akiva, and his eldest son plans to make aliyah in the near future. Around twenty-five years after being involved as a madrich, the impact of being involved in Bnei Akiva continues to shape his life.194 The slogan that one who goes through Bnei Akiva dies dedicated to Bnei Akiva is a rhyming joke, and it clearly does not apply to all ex-members, but it is also an expression that has a strong element of truth.

The nature of Judaism as a cultural system has enabled religious Jews to internalise nationalism while remaining dedicated to rabbinic Judaism. Rabbinic literature, Jewish liturgy and the Hebrew Bible are full of statements which evoke the centrality of the Land of Israel for the Jewish people. The redemptionist messianism of the rabbis Kook has its roots in rabbinic Judaism but stresses the autochthonous nature of the connection between Am Yisrael (the nation of Israel) and Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel). For a truly religious Jew every part of their life is governed by Torah. A religious Jew is supposed to love the study of Torah. The yeshivot and midrashot that Bnei Akiva send their members to all have it in their mission statement that they seek to instil a love of Torah and learning as well as a love of Israel. Thus the idea of aliyah becomes more than just a matter of personal ideology or belief. It becomes a matter of fulfilling the needs of the Jewish people in accordance with the wishes of God. Religious-Zionism draws upon the fervour and intensity of feelings which animate both nationalism and religion. This is the strength of religious-Zionism and why Bnei Akiva produces more olim than all the other movements in Australia combined. While religious-Zionism stresses its intellectual authenticity it clearly represents a profound transformation in the traditional character of rabbinic Judaism. Religious-Zionism in this sense is also a response to the encounter between Jews and modernity and the uncertainty of Jewish identity in a post-rabbinic world.

193 Alon Franklin. Interview Date: 19/11/07.

194 Mark Schneider. Interview Date: 04/08/08.

327 Jonathan Ari Lander

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”?

One of the most fascinating aspects of the Zionist youth movements is that their story spans the globe. The ideology and organisational forms of Betar, Bnei Akiva, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair have their origins in Continental Europe, England and Palestine. Furthermore, the zeitgeist which initially animated the youth who founded the movements in Eastern Europe was firmly rooted in World War I and its aftermath. The story which I have been relating finally arrives in twenty-first century suburban Melbourne and Sydney. In 2011 all four movements still operate in Australia. Compared to the heyday of their popularity in Eastern Europe before World War II, membership and the overall percentage of Jewish youth involved in the movements has declined; but, nonetheless, all four movements are part of successful organisations with branches all over the globe. The movements in Australia, despite being far less popular than they were in previous decades, still hold regular meetings, run camps and send members to Israel for year-long programs. The original founders in the 1940s and 1950s never believed that the movements would still be operating in 2012. Anniversary booklets released by the movements in the 1950s or 1960s bear witness to the fact the leaders were astonished that the movements had proved so successful and had existed for a decade or more. It is also clear that for the immediate future all four Zionist youth movements will continue to organise activities that attract Jewish youth. However, an important ideological shift is beginning to take place within the Zionist youth movements which underlines the core argument of this thesis.

When the movements were first established in Europe they saw themselves as the vanguard of a political and ideological revolution in Jewish history and Jewish identity. The original dream which underpinned the Zionist youth movements was to create an autonomous youth culture, which would produce Jewish youth who embodied the ideals of the New Jew and would make aliyah because they had realised this was the ultimate expression of being a Jew. As Mendelsohn argued, the movements were the most activist, radical and ideological Zionist organisations. For the youth movements Zionism meant nothing without aliyah.

In 2012 the movements in Australia continue to claim that they are Zionist youth movements; however their ideological raison d’être has clearly begun to shift. While the movements maintain their independence and are run by volunteer youth leaders, the concept of creating an autonomous youth culture has largely been abandoned as an ideological aim. Furthermore, the belief that the movements need to create a New Jew who should make aliyah because they have undergone a process of self-realisation (hagshamah atzmit) has also, by and large, been discarded. The concept of the New Jew and the chalutz 328 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”? no longer resonate in the same way as they did in previous decades. While the movements maintain that they are dedicated to aliyah, the reality is that far fewer members of Betar, Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair are making aliyah than in previous decades. Although individual year groups may produce a large number of olim, it is apparent that the idea of the garin aliyah is no longer a driving ideological force in the movements today. The large numbers of Bnei Akiva madrichim that continue to make aliyah is indicative of the growing strength of the religious-Zionist movement in recent decades. How have the movements confronted the reality that very few of their members actually fulfil the ideological aim of a Zionist youth movement? Are the movements continuing to operate despite the fact it appears that the majority of Australian Jewish youth consider their ideological positions both anachronistic and irrelevant?1

The fact that the movements have proved so successful in Australia and still organise activities in 2012 raises important questions, which I feel, have not been adequately addressed in the existing historiography. Many of the most prominent scholars of Zionism have done much to help us understand why the movements were able to connect with Jewish youth in Europe and Mandate Palestine and my research is greatly indebted to the work of historians like Mendelsohn, Shimoni, Margalit, Shapira and Laqueur. Many of their observations and ideas have informed my own research and I consider this history of the Zionist youth movements in Australia a small contribution to our growing understanding of the importance of the movements in the story of Zionism. It is also my belief that many of the arguments I have made about the appeal of movements in Australia could also be applied to the successful establishment of the movements in Jewish communities around the globe in places as diverse as England, South Africa, India, South America and North America. The interconnected nature of the spread of the movements into Jewish communities around the world is a history which requires further analysis and is unfortunately beyond the purview of this thesis. I wanted to utilise their observations to try and explain, for the first time, the appeal of the Zionist youth movements in Australia, and in doing so, examine what their continued existence may tell us about Jewish identity in the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first.

Oral testimony has proved to be an invaluable resource in attempting to engage with the core questions of this research. Archival material has provided important information and details, but without the oral testimonies I have gathered it would have been impossible to examine the impact the movements have had on the Jewish identity of their participants.

1 This is clearly proved by the declining percentage of Jewish youth involved in the movements as well as the declinning rate of aliyah. In particular the number of Jewish youth attending weekly activities has declined significantly since the 1950s or 1960s.

329 Jonathan Ari Lander

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”?

The interviews I conducted have revealed the diversity and complexity of Jewish-Diasporic identities that archival research alone would have missed. Archives provide us with the official pronouncements and positions taken by the movements but the interviews reveal how current and past madrichim related to the ideology of the movement they were involved in. Alessandro Portelli pointed out oral history offers unique challenges and opportunitities. Oral historians utilise material gathered from interviews and this material often consists of memories and stories which have been retold countless times and thus altered and embellished. Furthermore, the testimonies begin as oral stories before being transcribed and then the interviewer has to select what they see as the most appropriate quote to support their argument. While oral history offers the chance to gain first-hand testimony Portelli also believes that the problems inherent in oral history highlight the elusive nature of trying to capture any form of “historial truth.”2 Thus, according to Portelli, the question becomes what kind of truth does the historian want? The quotes I have selected offer historians not only eye-witness testimony but the ‘truth’ of a lived experience across the decades in which people have reflected upon their time in the youth movements and the impact they believe their involvement had on their lives. The value in the oral testimony I have collected lies in its very subjectivity. As Luisa Passerini argued, the significance of oral testimony does not depend on its historical veracity but on the way in which it enables historians to see how people “choose to remember and represent the past, the way in which it gives form to the past.”3

In order to begin to sketch some of the reasons behind the enduring appeal of the movements, I examined the ideology of the movements as well as the powerful social dynamic which attracted many Jewish youth. The vast majority of youth who attended the movements did so not because of ideological conviction but because the movements provided an environment rich with social opportunities. Jewish youth who elected to stay involved in the movements often did so because of the close friendships and relationships they formed in the movement. Nonetheless, the movements had to be far more than a social club and many members, while not necessarily being prepared to make aliyah, formed a strong emotional and ideological connection with Zionism and the State of Israel. The movements would never have succeeded in operating for so many decades if they did not have a political and ideological purpose. Jewish youth also attended the movements because they wanted to learn about Zionism, Israel, Jewish history and Judaism. Zionist youth movements provided a place in which Jewish youth could socialise and, at the same

2 Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli, vii-ix.

3 Luisa Passerini. ed., Memory and Totalitarianism, 3rd Ed., (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005), xiii.

330 Jonathan Ari Lander

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”? time, engage with their Jewish identity. For many ex-members, their experience in the movements was a formative period, which cemented a positive connection with their Jewish identity.

What was this Jewish identity which the participants connected with? As I have argued in this thesis the Jewish identity of all four movements was a product of the encounter between Jews and modernity and represents a radical shift in the nature of how members perceived their own Jewishness. What enabled the young participants to connect with the Jewish identity advocated by the movements was the fact that it was a modern conception of Jewishness. In Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar the focus of Jewish learning was the idea that Jews were a nation with an autochthonous relationship with the Land of Israel that gave them the right to claim sovereignty over their ancient homeland. Judaism as a religion defined by beliefs, rituals and the obligation of religious study was seen by these three movements as a product of the Jewish nation. Jewishness was defined by acknowledging the connection with the collective Jewish nation which the movements believed was embodied in the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. Being authentically Jewish did not require observance of Shabbat or daily study of the Torah but was achieved through identifying with the State of Israel and making aliyah. The members of Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar could not relate to rabbinic Judaism, and the concept of religious observance was to a large extent irrelevant to their sense of Jewishness. At the same time these Jewish youth wanted to hold onto their Jewish identity. The movements provided a conduit in which they could connect with their Jewishness precisely because the Jewish identity being offered by Habonim, Hashomer Hatzair and Betar was not a religious identity. Although Bnei Akiva’s conception of Jewish identity remained firmly within the rabbinic framework, the movement was also a product of the encounter between Jews and modernity. Bnei Akiva embraced many of the same ideas as the other movements and the programs organised by Bnei Akiva madrichim also sought to be exciting and fun and rarely consisted of any actual textual learning. While Bnei Akiva has increased the opportunity for members to engage with the study of Torah, the movement’s educational focus remains on generating support for the Zionist idea of a Jewish State. The movement’s dedication to Jewish nationalism and the youth movement model enabled Bnei Akiva to attract members precisely because it was dedicated to the same pressing concerns which animated the other Zionist youth movements. The primary achievement of the movements was never that they produced Jewish youth who made aliyah, because only a small percentage of members actually ever had any serious intention of immigrating to Israel. I would like to suggest that the most profound impact that the movements had on Jewish youth was the modern Jewish identity which they imparted to their members.

331 Jonathan Ari Lander

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”?

It is thus my contention that the movements’ conception of Jewish identity has begun to embrace a Diaspora-Zionist approach to Jewish identity.4 What does the concept of a Diaspora-Zionism mean for the movements today? This is perhaps the most important ideological shift to take place within the movements and it is only beginning to unfold on an ideological level. As I have stated previously the movements were originally activist organisations in which Zionism meant nothing without the concept of making aliyah. Now the movements in Australia have adapted, or are beginning to adapt to the reality that the vast majority of their members will not make aliyah. This shift also has its roots in developments within Israeli society and other Diaspora communities.5 The change has been slow precisely because it cuts to the core ideological raison d’être of the movements. Nonetheless, the movements have begun to accept the idea that aliyah is not the only true expression of being a Zionist and that Zionism can also be expressed through forming close links between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Whereas the idea of shelilat ha-Golah originally denigrated and dismissed the life lived by Jews in the Diaspora as incomplete in comparison to life in Israel, Diaspora-Zionism reasserts the centrality of the Diaspora experience while maintaining strong links to Israel and the concept that Jewish identity is a national identity. Today the movements illustrate the interconnected nature of Jewish communities in the Diaspora with the State of Israel and are an expression of an ethnic Diaspora nationalism.6

The very concept of a youth movement is that it is supposed to move and change with the times. In Australia the movements have clearly attempted to adapt to a rapidly changing world. Part of what has enabled the movements to continue to exist is the fact that they have been animated by ideological debates, arguments and schisms. The challenge posed by the ideological changes taking place between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora offers the possibility for the movements to be animated once again by one of the core questions facing world Jewry: the relationship between Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. Can Zionism acknowledge the central role played by the Diaspora in Jewish history as an enriching and meaningful experience? Is it possible for Zionism to acknowledge the fact that

4 For a discussion of Diaspora-Zionism in various Jewish communities around the globe including the United States of America, Latin America, Russia, South Africa and the United Kingdom refer to: “Part II: Diaspora- Zionism: Achievements and Problems,” in Moshe Davis, ed, Zionism in Transition, (New York: Arno Press, 1980), 45-232.

5 Danny Ben-Moshe, Zohar Segev, eds., Diaspora and Jewish Identity, passim.

6 Anthony D. Smith, “Diasporas and Homelands in History: The Case of the Classic Diasporas,” in Allon Gal, Athena S. Leoussi, Anthony D. Smith, eds., The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present, (Leiden-Boston: Brill Academic Publishers, 2010), 6.

332 Jonathan Ari Lander

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”? the Jewish historical experience has been defined by the existence of a multiplicity of homelands?

The Zionist youth movements have only recently started to grapple with these questions and are far from resolving their approach. The fact that they have not yet been able to articulate a coherent response to these questions supports the central theme of my thesis. The lack of resolution, the ongoing debate and questioning is symptomatic of the encounter between Jews and modernity. Modernity has created a post-rabbinic era in which Jewish identity is characterised by its uncertainty. Shaye Cohen argued that in late Antiquity Jews did not have the option of ignoring the process of Hellenisation - it was only a matter of how much they chose to Hellenise. I have proposed that the same is also true for Jews in the modern era: there is no possibility of ignoring modernity. It is apparent that both Zionism and Diaspora-Zionism are products of the encounter between Jews and modernity and thus express the central theme of this thesis. The movements are an attempt by Jews to articulate a Jewish identity which embraces modernity while retaining a particularist Jewish identity.

Daniel Boyarin has argued for the creation a “Diasporized Israel” that is embodied in a multinational and multicultural state which renounces any form of “near-exclusive Jewish hegemony.”7 Within the Jewish world his ideas remain controversial and on the fringe. My intention in raising his ideas here is not to make a moral or political judgment about Zionism and its ideological aims or of the legitimacy of Boyarin’s ideas; instead I want to utilise an important part of Boyarin’s argument in A Radical Jew which I feel is pertinent to the questions I have just raised. Boyarin points out that within Judaism, within the very Bible itself, there are two approaches to the Land of Israel: one of these narratives advocates that people and lands have an organic connection, while the other acknowledges that although God promised the Land of Israel to His Chosen People the land once belonged to another people and that there exists a “bad conscience at having deprived the others of their land.”8 Boyarin argues that Israel and Israelite religion thus unsettles any traditional or simplistic notion of autochthony. Boyarin also suggests that perhaps the most important contribution made by Judaism is not monotheism but the concept of Diaspora. The Jewish Diaspora, according to Boyarin, proves that it is possible to have a strong cultural identity that does not require controlling land and therefore dominating another people. Boyarin is clearly critiquing the moral and political implications he believes are embedded in an ethnic form of

7 Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 260. Boyarin’s fleshes out his argument in Chapter 10: “Answering Mail,” 228-260.

8 Ibid., 258.

333 Jonathan Ari Lander

Conclusion: “Diasporising Zionism”? nationalism like Zionism. Boyarin’s thought provoking analysis deserves further debate and discussion.

I want to concentrate on what these ideas suggest for the changes taking place within the Zionist youth movements. Boyarin notes that within Judaism’s socio-cultural traditions two approaches to the concept of land exist, I want to suggest that a third relationship to Land is also embedded in Judaism which is expressed in Diaspora-Zionism. In this third option an organic connection to the Land of Israel is maintained but Jewish identity is also deeply connected to existence in the Diaspora.9 The Australian-Jew sees both Australia and Israel as important parts of their identity; both homelands play a role in forming their Jewish identity.

Zionism has traditionally attempted to suppress the memory of homelands outside of the Land of Israel, nonetheless a profound shift is beginning to take place within Zionism and the movements are playing a part in this ideological transformation. The gradual change taking place in the movements indicates that within the Zionist movement there are many who are prepared to acknowledge the idea that there is a multiplicity within the Jewish experience of the concept of ‘The Homeland.’ Israel can be home but Melbourne and Sydney are also home. In this conception of the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora, Israel is enriched by the Diaspora and vice versa. The leftwing movements like Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair also acknowledge the idea that Israel is the homeland of Jews and Palestinians as well as other groups that claim the Holy Land as their birthright. Boyarin’s concept of a Diasporized Israel remains anathema to the youth movements and the Zionist movement at large, but at the same time his arguments pinpoint a third way which is currently being carved out by the movements. In this third path Jewishness is expressed as part of an ethnic Diaspora nationalism. For the Zionist youth movements the meaning of Zionism has begun to change. Jewish identity remains in a state of flux.

9 Jews survived in the Diaspora not only as a cultural group but also as a theistic one. Rabbinic Judaism has proved remarkably resilient and dynamic in maintaining Jewish identity over the centuries. The notion of a Diaspora-Zionism idea is a product of the modern context and has not yet withstood the test of time. Whether or not the notion of a Diaspora-Zionist identity will be enough for Jews to survive in an open society remains to be seen. My intention here is not to make historical predictions – which I believe is beyond the purview of a historian’s role – but simply argue that Diaspora-Zionism represents another profound shift in Jewish identity.

334 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Archival Sources

The Archive of Australian Judaica at the University of Sydney Library (SUJA):

Shelf List 1: Source Yehuda Feher. Seven Boxes: YF 1-7.

Shelf List 56: Source John Moser. Box 1942-1949; 1960’s.

Shelf list 39: Source Eliyahu Honig. Housing: 5 boxes Period: 1919-1996.

Australian Jewish Historical Society New South Wales (AJHS):

AB 169: State Zionist Council Papers, minutes, lists1970s-1980s1 box.

AB 239: State Zionist Council Papers1980s, 90s1 box.

AB 29: State Zionist Council Correspondence1953-621 box.

AB 82: State Zionist Council Minutes1948-571 box.

AB 85: State Zionist Council, Vic Reports1950s-1980s1 box.

C37: Banativ Australian Zionist Youth, Melbourne.

C46: Australian Zionist Pioneer; Australian Zionist; Youth Zionist Council Bulletin, Australian Zionist Federation of Australia.

C47: Sydney Zionist Society Annual Report; Young Zionist; Magazine for Zionist Youth.

C49: Betar; Haderech Betar, Melbourne.

C50: Shomrim News Shomrim Zionist Youth, Sydney.

C70: B'nei Akiva Newsletter B'nei Akiva, Sydney.

335 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Bibliography

C78: State Zionist Council of NSW Information Bulletin, State Zionist Council of NSW

Australian Jewish Historical Society Victoria (State Library of Victoria, SLV):

The Boneh’s Guide to Madregah Shlishit, Melbourne: Youth Dept., Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 1944.

The Habonim Handbook, Melbourne: Australian Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation.

The Solelim Shichva, Melbourne: Australian Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation.

Sichot on Labour Zionism. Melbourne: Habonim Zionist Youth Organisation, 194?

Manual: Zionist Youth leaders Seminar, January, 1949. [Melbourne?]: Youth Dept., Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, 1949.

Zionist Youth Magazine. [Melbourne]: Issued by the Youth Dept. of the Zionist Federation of Australia in conjunction with the Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation.

Hachshara: 10 Years. [Melbourne]: Hachshara Department of the Zionist Federation of Australia and New Zealand, Federal Mazkirut of Hechalutz, the Chevra on Hachshara 1955.

Becky, Aizen. Hashomer Hatzair: Fifty Years of Movement Life: Melbourne 1953-2003, Balaclava, Vic: St Kilda Historical Society, 2004.

Personal Archives (Jonathan Ari Lander. JAL):

As noted in my introduction Zionist youth movements do not preserve the materials they produce. I am indebted to several ex-madrichim who allowed me to access their papers and photocopy some of the material they had collected. I am also indebted to the madrichim of the movements who allowed me to access the material that the movements had preserved in their moadonim.

336 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

I have organised the material from the movements into several personal files and in doing so I have also attempted to indicate the original source of the material. Material that is not noted as having come from an individual person was procured through the movement’s moadon.

Secondary Sources

Adelman, Jonathan R. The Rise of Israel: A History of a Revolutionary State, New York: Routledge, 2008. Aran, Gideon. ‘From Religious Zionism to Zionist Religion: the Roots of Gush Emunim’, Studies in Contemporary Jewry, Indiana University Press and the Institute for Contemporary Jewry, Vol. II, (1986): 116-143. Almog, Shmuel, Reinharz, Jehuda and Shapira, Anita, eds., Zionism and Religion, London: University Press of New England, 1998. Almog, Oz. Translated by Haim Watzman, The Sabra: The Creation of the New Jew, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000. Almond, Gabriel Abraham, R. Scott Appleby, Emmanuel Sivan, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism, London: Verso, 1991. Avineri, Shlomo. The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State, New York: Basic Books, 1981. Avineri, Shlomo. “Zionism and the Jewish Religious Tradition: The Dialectics of Redemption and Secularisation”. In Zionism and Religion, edited by Shmuel Almog, Yehuda Reinhardz, Anita Shapira Anita, 1-12. London: University Press of New England, 1998. Baker, Mark. Children of Builders: Australian Zionist Youth in Habonim, 1940-1953, unpublished BA (Hons), Thesis, Melbourne University, 1982. Bartel, Israel. The Jews of Eastern Europe: 1772-1881, Translated by Chaya Naor, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press, 2005. Bauer, Yehudah. The Death of the Shtetl, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Beinin, Joel. “Knowing Your Enemy, Knowing Your Ally: The Arabists of Hashomer Hatzair’, (MAPAM),” Social Text, No. 28. (1991): 100-121. Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin. Original Sins: Reflections on the History of Zionism and Israel, London: Pluto Press, 1992. Ben-Ami, Shlomo. Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

337 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Ben-Moshe, Danny and Zohar Segev, eds. Israel, the Diaspora and Jewish Identity, Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2007. Ben-Rafael, Eliezer. Crisis and Transformation: The Kibbutz at Century's End, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997, Ben-Sasson, H.H. ed., Translated by George Weidenfeld, A History of the Jewish People, Cambridge, Mass.: Nicolson, 1976. Berger, Peter L., ed. The Desecularisation of the World: Resurgent Religion and World Politics, Washington DC.: Ethics and Public Policy Centre, 1999. Berkovitz, Jay, R. Rites and Passages: The Beginnings of Modern Jewish Culture in France, 1650-1860, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004. Bloch., Ariel A. “The Cedar and the Palm-Tree: A Paired Male/Female Symbol in Hebrew and Aramaic.” In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semetic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, edited by Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Booth, Douglas. Australian Beach Cultures: The History of Sun, Sand, and Surf, London: Frank Cass, 2001. Boyarin, Daniel. Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004. Breur, Edward. “Creating Traditions of Language and Texts: The Haskalah Cultural Continuity,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 16, No. 2. (May., 1996): 161-183 Brown, Callum G., and Michael Snape, eds, Secularisation in the Christian World, Aldershot, UK.: Ashgate, 2010. Browning, Christopher R., The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Policy, September 1939-March 1942, with contributions by Jurgen Matthaus, (Lincoln, Nebraska University of Nebraska Press 2004 Burns, Michael. Dreyfus: A Family Affair, 1789-1945, New York: Harper Collins, 1991. Caryn, Aviv and David Shneer, New Jews: The End of teh Jewish Diaspora, New York: New York University Press, 2005. Cameron, Deborah. Feminism and Linguistic Theory, Second ed. London: Macmillan, 1992. Cohen, Erik. H. “Axioloical Typology in an International Religious Youth Organisation: The Case of B’nei Akiva,” Current Sociology, International Sociological Association, January 2009, Vol. 57 (1): 89-111. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. Cohen, Shaye J.D. Why aren’t Jewish Women Circumcised? Gender and Covenant in Judaism, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.

338 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Cohen, Shaye J.D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 2nd ed, London: Westminister John Knox Press, 2006. Cox, Harvey. The Secular City: Secularization and Urbanization in Theological Perspective, New York: Macmillan, 1965. Crown, Alan D. “The Initiatives and Influences in the Development of Australian Zionism, 1850-1948,” Jewish Social Studies, Vol. 39, No. 4, Autumn, 1977): 299-322. Crown, Alan D., and John Shipp, General eds. Early Australian Zionism: And Annotated Index of Records in the Central Zionist Archives, Part Two, 1901-1970, Compiled by Marianne Darcy, Sydney: Archive of Judaica, University of Sydney, 1993. Dawidowicz, Lucy S, The War Against the Jews, 1933-1945, New York: Bantam Books, 1975. Davies, Norman. “Great Britain and the Polish Jews,” 1918-1920, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 8, No. 2. (April., 1973): 119-142. Davis, Moshe, ed. Zionism in Transition, New York: Arno Press, 1980. Diamond, Stanley. “Kibbutz and Shtetl: The History of an Idea.” Social Problems, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Autumn, 1957): 71-99. Don-Yehiya; Eliezer, and Charles S Liebman. ‘The Symbol System of Zionist-Socialism: An Aspect of Israeli Civil Religion’, Modern Judaism, Vol. 1, No. 2. Sep., (1981): 121- 148. Don-Yehiya, Eliezer. ‘The Negation of Galut in Religious Zionism’, Modern Judaism 12 (1992): 129-155. Dubnow, Simon. Nationalism. and History: Essays on Old and New Judaism, ed. Kopel S. Pinson, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. Eisenstadt, S.N. “Youth, Culture and Social Structure in Israel,” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 2, No. 2. (Jun., 1951): 105-114. Elon, Amos. The Pity of It all: A History of Jews in Germany, 1743-1933, New York: Metropolitan, 2002. Endelman, Todd. ‘The Legitimization of the Diaspora Experience in Recent Jewish Historiography’ Modern Judaism, Vol. 11, No. 2. (May, 1991): 185-209. Endelman, Todd. Jews of Georgian England 1714-1830: Tradition and Change in a Liberal Society, United States of America: University of Michigan Press, 1999. Endelman, Todd. The Jews of Britain: 1656-2000, Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 2002. Elazar, Daniel, J. ‘The Jewish Frontier Experience in the Southern Hemisphere: The Cases of Argentina, Australia, and South Africa, Modern Judaism, Vol 3, No. 2 (May, 1983): 129-146. Etkes, Emmanuel. “Immanent Factors and External influences in the Development of the Haskalah Movement in Russia.” In Jacob Katz ed. Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Model, New York: Transaction: 1987, 13-30. Feiner, Shmuel. Translated by Chaya Naor, The Jewish Enlightenment, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002.

339 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Felsenstein, Frank. Anti-Semitic Stereotyping: A Paradigm of Otherness in English Popular Culture, 1660-1830, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995. Finkelman, Yoel. “On the Irrelevance of Religious-Zionism: Jewish National Culture from a Religious-Zionist Perspective,” Tradition 39, no. 1 (Spr. 06): 21–44. Fishman, Aryei. “‘Torah and Labor’: The Radicalization of Religion Within a National Framework,” Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, Volume 3, Issue 2, (1982): 255 – 271. Fishman, Aryei. “Judaism and Modernization: The Case of the Religious Kibbutz,” Social Forces, Vol. 62, No. 1. (Sep., 1983): 9-31. Fishman, Aryei. Judaism and Modernization on the Religious Kibbutz, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Freundel, Barry. Contemporary Orthodox Judaism Response to Modernity, Jersey City, CJ: KTAV Publishing House, 2004. Friedman, Jonathan C., ed., The Routledge History of the Holocaust, New York: Routledge, 2011. Friedman, Richard Elliot. Who Wrote the Bible?, New York: Summit Books, 1987. Gager, John, G. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. Gal, Allon, Athena S. Leoussi and Anthony D. Smith, eds., The Call of the Homeland: Diaspora Nationalisms, Past and Present, Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2010. Gartner, Lloyd, P. “Emancipation, Social Change and Communal Reconstruiction in Anglo Jewry 1789-1881,” Proceedings of the Academy for Jewish Research, Vol. 54 (1987): 73-116. Garfinkle, Adam. Politics and Society in Modern Israel: Myths and Realities, Second Edition, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2000. Gascoigne, John. The Enlightenment and the Origins of European Australia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Gavron, Daniel. The Kibbutz: Awakening from Utopia, Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2000. Getzler, Israel. Neither Toleration Nor Favour: The Australian Chapter of Jewish Emancipation, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1970. Gellner, Ernest. Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Gellner, Ernest. Encounters With Nationalism, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1994. Gilman, Sander, L., and Steven T. Katz, eds. Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, New York: New York University Press, 1991. Gitelman, Zvi. Y. ed., The Emergence of Modern Jewish Politics: Bundism and Zionsim in Eastern Europe, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburg Press, 2003. Goldberg, Jonathan Jeremy and Elliot King. Builders and Dreamers: Habonim Labor Zionist Youth in North America, New York: Herzl Press, 1993. Goldblatt, David M. Elements of Ancient Jewish Nationalism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

340 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Goldlust, John. Ch. 1., “Jews in Australia: A Demographic Profile.” In Jews and Australian Politics, edited by Geoffrey Brahm Levey, and Phillip Mendes, 11-28. Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2004. Goldsmith, Emanuel S., Mel Schult, eds. Dynamic Judaism: the Essential Writings of Mordecai M. Kaplan, New York: Fordham University Press, 1985. Goldstein, N, Yaacov. ‘The Jewish-Arab Conflict: The First Jewish Underground Defence Organisation and the Arabs, Middle Eastern Review, Vol. 31, No 4, October (1995): 744- 754, Gordon, Glenn Howard. Guardians of Zion: The Shomrim in Australia 1939-1944, Sydney: Mandelbaum Trust, University of Sydney, 1995. Gordon, Glenn. “The Origins and Activities of the Shomrim Zionist Youth Organisation,” Journal of the Australian Jewish Historical Society, Vol 12. Pt 2., (June 1994): 624-630. Gorny, Yosef. “Thoughts on Zionism as a Utopian Ideology,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 18, No 3, 100 Years of Zionism and the 50th Anniversary of the State of Israel. (Oct., 1998): 241-151. Gorenberg, Gershon.The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977, New York: Times Books, 2006. Goutman, Rodney. “Was it Ever So? Anti-Semitism in Australia 1860-1950?,” In Bigotry and Religion in Australia 1865-1950, Humanities Research, Vol. XII, No1, 2005, Australian National University E Press http://epress.anu.au Retrieved 19/05/06. Graham, Colin. The Distant Exodus: Australian Jews Recall their Immigration Experiences,Crows Nest, Sydney: ABC Enterprises for the Australian Broadcasting Commission, 1990. Greenfeld Liah. Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992. Grele, Ronald J. “Oral History as Evidence,” in History of Oral History: Foundations and Methodology, eds. Thomas L. Charlton, Lois E. Myers and Rebecca Sharpless, Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2007. Haberer, Erich. Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Halliday, Fred. Nation and Religion in the Middle East, London, Saqi, 2000. Halpern, Ben and Jehuda Reinharz. “Nationalism and Jewish Socialism: The Early Years,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 8, No. 3, (Oct., 1988): 217-248. Halpern, Ben and Reinharz, Jehuda, “The Cultural and Social Background of the Second Aliyah,” Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 27., No. 3, (July., 1991): 487-517. Hartman, David, “The Challenge of Modern Israel to Traditional Judaism,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No 3. (Oct. 1987): 229-252. Harshav, Benjamin. Language in Time of Revolution: Jews and Other Differences, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Heller, Joseph. The Birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and his Critics, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000.

341 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Hertzberg, Arthur, ed. The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader, New York: Meridan Books, 1960. Hertzberg, Arthur. “Gershom Scholem as Zionist and Believer,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 5, No. 1, (Feb., 1993): 3-19. Honig, Eliyahu. Zionism in Australia: 1920-1939 The Formative Years, Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing, Series in Judaica, No 7, 1997. Hobsbawm, Eric. Nations and Nationalism since 1780, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hersch, I.H., “The French Revolution and the Emancipation of the Jews,” The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Apr., 1907): 540-565. Hundert, Gershon David, ed. The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe: Volume One, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008. Hurwitz, Ariel, ed. Against the Stream: Seven Decades of Hashomer Hatzair in North America, Givat Haviva: Association of North American Shomrim in Israel in conjunction with Yad Yaari, 1994. Hyman, Paula. The Jews of Modern France, Berkeley, CA: University of Cambridge Press, 1998. Hyams, Bernard. The History of the Australian Zionist movement, Victoria: Australian Zionist Federation of Australia, 1998. Israel, Jonathan Irvine. Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity 1960-1750, New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Jupp, James. Understanding Australia Multiculturalism, Canberra: Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies, Australian National University, Australian Government Publishing Services, 1996. Kadish, Sharman. “Constructing Identity: Anglo-Jewry and Synagogue Architecture,” Architectural History, Vol. 25 (2002): 386-408. Kahane, Reuven, and Tamar Rapoport. The Origins of Postmodern Youth: Informal Youth Movements in a Comparative Perspective, Berlin: Walter and Gruyter, 1979. Kark, Ruth., Shilo Margalit and Galit Hasan-Rokem, eds. Jewish Women in Pre-state Israel: Life History, Politics, and Culture, Lebanon, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2008. Kaschel, Elke. Dance and Authenticity in Israel and Palestine: Performing the Nation, Leiden: Brill, 2003. Katz, Jacob. Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times, London: Oxford University Press, 1980. Katz, Jacob. Jewish Emancipation and Self-Emancipation, New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1986. Katz, Jacob. ed., Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Model, New York: Transaction, 1987. Katz, Yossi. “The Religious Kibbutz Movement and Its Credo,” 1935-1948, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, (Apr., 1995): 253-280. Kimmerling, Baruch and Joel, S. Migdal. The Palestinian People: A History, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003. 342 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Kirby, Michael. “Sir Isaac Isaacs: A Sesquicentenary Reflection,” Melbourne University Law Review, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2005/27.html#fn1 Accessed 20/05/06 Kohn, Hans. The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins and Background, New York: Macmillan, 1994. Korazim, Malka, Esther Katz, and Vladimir Bruter, Survey of the Jewish Population in Moldova Jerusalem: JDC-FSU Division and the Jewish Community of Moldova, 2002. Kornberg, Jacques, ed. At the Crossroads: Essays on Ahad Ha’am, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1983. Knoller, Rivka. The Activities of Religious Zionist Youth Groups in Europe During the Holocaust, 1939-1945: A Summarized Review of Limited Archive Sources, Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University, Arnold and Leona Finkler Institute of Holocaust Research, 1993. Laermans, Rudi, Bryan R, Wilson, Karel Dobbelaere and Jaak Billiet, eds. Secularization and social integration: Papers in Honor of Karel Dobbelaere, Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1998. Laqueur, Walter. A History of Zionism, New York: Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, 1972. Laqueur, Walter. Young Germany: A History of the German Youth Movement, 2nd ed. New Brunswick NJ: Transaction, 1984. Lee, Godfrey. “The Battle of Scholars: The Debate Between Sir Isaac Isaacs over Zionism During World War II’, The Australian Journal of Politics and History, Special Issue: On Being a German-Jewish Refugee In Australia Experiences and Studies, Konrad Kweit and John A. Moses, eds., Vol, 31(1): 128-134. Leibowitz, Yeshayahu. ‘The Uniqueness of the Jewish People’, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Leff, Lisa, Moses. Sacred Bonds of Solidarity: The Rise of Jewish Internationalism in Nineteenth-Century France, Standford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2006. Levey, Geoffrey Brahm and Phillip Mendes, eds., Jews and Australian Politics, Brighton, UK: Sussex Academic Press, 2004. Levi, J. S. “Doubts and Fear: Zionism and Rabbi Jacob Danglow.” In Jews in the Sixth Continent, edited by W.D. Rubenstein, 151-68. Sydney: Allen and UNwin, 1987. Levi, John, S., Rabbi Jacob Danglow: The Uncrowned Monarch of Australian Jewry, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 1995. Levi, John, S. Australian Genesis: Jewish Convicts and Settlers 1788-1860, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2002. Leviatan, Uri, Hugh Oliver and Jack Quarter, ed., Crisis in the Israeli kibbutz: Meeting the Challenge of Changing Times, Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998. Levine, Dov. Translated by Adam Teller. The Litvaks: A Short History of the Jews in Lithuania, New York: Berghahn Books, 2001. Liberman, Serge. “Gentile Champions of Jews in Australia.” In Jews in the Sixth Continent: Essays in Australian Jewish History, edited by W.D. Rubinstein, 76-100. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1987.

343 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Lukes, Steven. Individualism, Colchester, UK: European Consortium of Political Research, 2006. Luz, Ehud. “The Moral Price of Sovereignty: The Dispute About the Use of Military Power Within Zionism,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No 1. (Feb. 1987): 205-215. Luz, Ehud. Parallels Meet : Religion and Nationalism in the early Zionist movement 1882-1904, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988. Lustick, Ian, S. For the Land of the Lord: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1988. Magnus, Shulamit, S. Jewish Emancipation in a German City: Cologne 1798-1871, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1997. Mahler, Gregory S. Politics and Government in Israel: The Maturation of a Modern State, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2004. Mallory. J.R. “The Appointment of the Governor General: Responsible Government, Autonomy, and the Royal Prerogative”, Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Feb., 1960): 96-107. Margalit, Elkana. “Social and Intellectual Origins of the Hashomer Hatzair Youth Movement, 1913-1920,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 2. (April., 1969): 25-46. Margalit, Elkana. “Social and Intellectual Origins of the Hashomer Hatzair Youth Movement, 1913-1920”. In Essential Papers on Zionism’, edited by Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, 454-472. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Medding, Peter, Y. From Assimilation to Group Survival: A Political and Sociological Study of an Australian Jewish Community, Melbourne: F.W. Cheshire, 1968. Mendes-Flohr, Paul and Judah Reinharz, ed. The Jew in the Modern World: A Documentary History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995. Mendels, Doron. The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism: Jewish and Christian Ethnicity in Ancient Palestine, Cambridge UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1992. Mendelsohn, Ezra. Zionism in Poland: The Formative Years: 1915-1926, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981. Mendelsohn, Ezra. The Jews of East Central Europe Between the Wars, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1983. Mendelsohn, Ezra. On Modern Jewish Politics, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Metcalf, William, J. “Hachshara: An Australian Kibbutz,” Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal, Volume XVII, Part 2, (2006): 191-216. Meyer, Michael A., The Origins of the Modern Jew: Jewish Identity and Europe, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1972. Meyer, Michael A., Judaism within Modernity: Essays on Jewish History and Religion, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001. Mills, S. “The Australian Republic: The Failure of the Minimalist Model and the Next Steps Forward,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, Volume 61, Number 2, (June 2002): 10-18.

344 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Morris, Benny. 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War, New Haven, Conn.: Yael University Press, 2008. Morris, Benny. One State, Two States: Resolving the Israel/Palestine Conflict, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009. Near, Henry. “Experiment and Survival: The Beginnings of the Kibbutz,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 20, No. 1. (Jan., 1985): 177-197. Neusner, Jacob. Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice, Louisville, KY: John Knox, 2002. Nimni, Ephraim, ed. The Challenge of Post-Zionism; Alternative to Israeli Fundamentalist Politics, London: Zed Books, 2003. Nur, Ofer N., “The Relevance of Countercultures and Visions of the Future: Examining the Historical Example of Hashomer Hatzair.” In Revisiting Youth Political Participation Challenges for Research and Democratic Practice in Europe, Joerg Forbrig, ed, Council of Europe, March 2005, 37-43. http://youth-partnership-eu.coe.int/youth- partnership/documents/EKCYP/Youth_Policy/docs/Citizenship/Research/Revisiting_yout h_politica.pdf (January 2012). O’Farrell, Patrick. “Oral History: Facts and Fiction,” Oral History Association of Australia, Journal, no. 5 (1982-3): 3-9. Oppenheim, Israel. “Hehalutz in Poland Between the Two World Wars”. In Essential Papers on Zionism’, edited by Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, 238-267. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Oren, Michael, B. Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Middle East, New York: Random House, 2002. Passerini, Luisa. Facism in Popular Memory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Passerini, Luisa. ed. Memory and Totalitarianism, 3rd Ed., New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2005. Passerini, Luisa, Dawn Lyon, Enrica Capusotti and Ioanna Laliotou. eds., Women Migrants from East to West: Gender Mobility and Belonging in Contemporary Europe, New York: Bergahn, 2007. Paine, Robert, “Behind the Hebron Massacre,” Anthropology Today, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Feb., 1995): 8-15. Perks, Robert and Alistair Thomson, eds. The Oral History Reader, New York: Routledge, 1998. Alessandro Portelli, The Death of Luigi Trastulli and Other Stories: Form and Meaning in Oral History, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991. Portelli, Alessandro. They Say in Harlan County: An Oral History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Porter, Roy, The Enlightenment, New York: Palgrave, 2001. Prizel, Ilya. National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russia and Ukraine, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

345 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Rabkin,Yakov M. A Threat From Within: A Century of Jewish Opposition to Zionism, London and New York: Zed Books, 2006. Ranki, Vera. The Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion: Jews and Nationalism in Hungary, New York and London: Holmes and Meier Publishing, 1999. Ravitsky, Aviezer., Messianism, Zionism and Jewish Religious Radicalism, Translated by Michael Swirsky and Jonathan Chipman, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Rechter, David. “Bubermania’: The Jewish Youth Movement in Vienna, 1917-1919,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 16, No. 1. (Feb., 1996): 25-45. Reinharz, Yehuda, and Anita Shapira, eds. Essential Papers on Zionism, New York: New York University Press, 1995. Reinharz, Yehuda. “Chaim Weizmann, The Shaping of Zionist Leader before the First World War,” Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 18, No. 2. (April., 1983): 205-231. Reinharz, Yehuda, “Ideology and Structure in German Zionism, 1882-1933”. In Essential Papers on Zionism, edited by Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, 454-472. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Rejai, Mostafa. Ideology: Comparative and Cultural Status, Chicago: Aldine Transaction, 2009. Robinson, Ira. “Kabbala and Science in ‘Sefer Ha-Berit:’ A Modernization Strategy for Orthodox Jews,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Oct., 1989): 275-288. Rozenblit, Marsha, L. The Jews of Vienna 1867-1914: Assimilation and Identity, New York: State University of New York Press, 1983. Rubenstein, W.D. The Jews in Australia, Melbourne: AE Press, Australian Ethnic Heritage Series, 1986. Rubinstein, W.D., ed. Jews in the Sixth Continent –Essays in Australian Jewish History, Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1987. Rubenstein, W.D. The Jews in Australia: A Thematic History: Volume Two 1945 to Present, Melbourne: William Heinemann, 1991. Rubenstein, Hilary, L., “Zionism and Australian Spiritual Leaders 1896-1950,” The Journal of Australian Jewish Historical Society, Vol. 9. No 5. (1983): 128-134. Ruderman, David, B., Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key: Anglo-Jewry’s Construction of Modern Jewish Thought, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000. Rutland, Suzanne, Edge of Diaspora: Two Centuries of Australian Jewish Settlement, 2nd Ed., Sydney: Collins Publishing, 2000. Rutland, Suzanne “Postwar Anti-Jewish Refugee Hysteria: A Case of Racial or Religious Bigotry?”Sojourners and Strangers, Journal of Australian Studies, No 77, (2003): 69-79. Rutland, Suzanne and Carlos Antonio Gariano, Survey of Jews in the Diaspora: An Australian Perspective. Final Report, The Australian Jewish Agency in Conjunction with the Zionist Federation of Australia, March 2005. (Unpublished) Sachar, Howard Morley. A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, Rev. Ed, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996.

346 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Salmon, Yosef. “The Emergence of Jewish Nationalist Consciousness in Europe During the 1860s and 1870s”, Association of Jewish Studies Review, Vol. 16, No.1/2 (Spring- Autumn, 1991):107-132. Salmon, Yosef and Carol Kutscher. “Yehiel Pines: From the Visions of Zionism to the Reality”, Modern Judaism, Vol. 8, No. 1. (Feb. 1988): 65-82. Salmon, Yosef. “Tradition and Nationalism”. In Essential Papers on Zionism’, edited by Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, 94-118. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Salmon, Yosef, “Zionism and Anti-Zionism in Traditional Eastern Europe”. In Zionism and Religion, edited by Shmuel Almog, Yehuda Reinhardz, Anita Shapira Anita, 25-43. London: University Press of New England, 1998. Sand, Sholmo. Translated by Yael Lotan, The Invention of the Jewish People, London: Verso, 2009. Sarig, Moderchai, ed. The Political and Social Philosophy of Ze’ev Jabotinsky: Selected Writings, Translated by Shimshon Feder, London: Vallentine Mitchell, 1999. Segev, Tom. The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust, Translated by Haim Watzman, New York: Hill and Wang, 1993. Segev, Tom. One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate, Translated by Haim Watzman, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2000. Segev, Tom. 1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East, Translated by Jessica Cohen, London: Little, Brown, 2007. Seltzer, Robert, M., “Coming Home: The Personal Basis of Simon Dubnow’s Ideology,” AJS Review, Vol. 1 (1976): 283-301. Sela, Avraham. “The ‘Wailing Wall’ Riots (1929) as a Watershed in the Palestine Conflict,” Muslim World, Vol. 84, Nos. 1-2 (1994): 60-94. Seton-Watson, Hugh. Nations and States: An Enquiry into the Origins of Nations and the Politics of Nationalism, London: Methuen & Co, 1977. Schectman, Joseph, B. Fighter and Prophet, The Vladimir Jabotinsky Story: The Last Years, New York: A.S., Barnes and Company, 1961. Schechtman, Joseph B. The Life and Times of Vladimir Jabotinsky: Rebel and Statesman, Silver Spring, MD: Aronoff Foundation, 1986. Schechter, Robert. Obstinate Hebrews: Representations of Jews in France, 1715-1815, Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 2003. Scholem, Gershom. On Jews and Judaism in Crisis: Selected Essays, Edited by Werner J. Dannhauser, New York: Schocken, 1976. Schorsch, Ismar, From Text to Context: The Turn to History in Modern Judaism, Hanover, N.H.: Brandeis University Press, 1994 Schweid, Eliezer. “The Rejection of the Diaspora in Zionist Thought: Two Approaches”. In Essential Papers on Zionism’, edited by Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, 133- 160. New York: New York University Press, 1996. Schwartz, Dov. Religious-Zionism: History and Ideology, Translated by Batya Stein, Brighton, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2009.

347 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E., Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. Scult, Mel. Judaism Faces the Twentieth Century: A Biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1993. Shahak, Israel and Norton Mezvinsky, Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, New Edition, London: Pluto Press, 2004. Shapin, Steven. The Scientific Revolution, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1998. Shapira, Anita, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force 1881-1948, Translated By William Templer, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Shavit, Ya’acov. “Fire and Water: Ze’ev Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement”. In Essential Papers on Zionism’, edited by Jehuda Reinharz, and Anita Shapira, 544- 566. Ithaca: New York University Press, 1996. Shelef, Nadav G. Evolving Nationalism: Homeland, Identity, and Religion in Israel, 1925- 2005, New York: Cornell University Press, 2010. Shi, David E. The Simple Life: Plain living and High Thinking in American Culture, Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1985. Shimoni, Gideon. Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967, Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 1980. Shimoni, Gideon. The Zionist Ideology, Hanover, NH.: Brandeis University Press, 1995. Shlaim, Avi. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, New York: WW Norton, 2000. Silber, Michael. “The historical experience of German Jewry and its impact on Haskalah and Reform”. In Toward Modernity: A European Jewish Model, edited by Jacob Katz, 107-158. New York: Transaction Inc, 1987. Slucki, David. “Theorizing Doikayt: towards a history of the Melbourne Bund”, Journal of the Australian Jewish Historical Society 19, no. 10 (2008): 259-268. Smith, Anthony, D. The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Smith, Anthony D. The Ethnic Origins of Nations, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986. Smith, Anthony, D. Myths and Memories of the Nation, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Sorkin, David. The Transformation of German Jewry 1780-1840, New York: Oxford University Press, 1987. Sorkin, David. “The Case for Comparison: Moses Mendelssohn and the Religious Enlightenment,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 14, No. 2. (May., 1994): 121-138. Spiro, Melford, E. Children of the Kibbutz: A study in Child Training and Personality, Sixth Edition, New York: Schocken Books, 1970. Stanislawski, Michael. Zionism and the Fin-de-siècle Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky, Berkely, CA.: University of California Press, 2001. Star, Leonie. Julius Stone: An Intellectual Life, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1990.

348 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Sternhell, Zeev. Translated by David Maisel, The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State, Princeton, New Jersey.: Princeton University Press, 1998. Stratton, Jon. “The Impossible Ethnic: Jews and Multiculturalism in Australia,” Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies, vol 5, no 3, (1996): 339-373. Gallou, Laura. A Bibliography of Australian Judaica. Compiled by Serge Liberman. Sydney: The Mandelbaum Trust and the University of Sydney Library, Sydney 1991. Tec, Nechama. Resilience and Courage: Women, Men and the Holocaust, New Haven, CT: Yael University Press, 2003. Tessler, Mark A., A History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994. Thompson, Paul. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Third Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000 Thomson, Alistair. “Making the Most of Memories: The Empirical and Subjective Value of Oral; History,” in Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 291-304. Royal Historical Society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Tilly, Louise A. “People’s History and Social Science History,” Social Science History, vol. 7 no. 4, (Fall 1983): 457-474. Troen, Ilan S, and Noah Lucas, ed. Israel: The First Decade of Independence, Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. Tydor, Judith, Tova Cohen. eds. Gender, place, and Memory in the Modern Jewish Experience: Re-placing Ourselves, Portland, Or.: Vallentine Mitchell, 2003. Ury, Scott. “Who, What, When, Where, and Why Is Polish Jewry? Envisioning, Constructing, and Possessing Polish Jewry,” Jewish Social Studies vol. 6, no. 3 (2000): 205–28. Vital, David. The Origins of Zionism, New York: Oxford University Press, 1975. Vital, David. “The Future of the Jewish People as Envisaged by the Ideologues of Early Zionism,” In Major Changes Within the Jewish People in the Wake of the Holocaust, edited by Y. Gutman, Y., and A. Saf, Jerusalem: Yad Vashem, 1993. Vital, David. A People Apart: The Jews in Europe, 1789-1939, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. Vital, David. “Zionism as Revolution? Zionism as Rebellion?” Modern Judaism 18, no. 3. (Oct, 1998): 205-215. Warhol, Robyn. R., “Introduction: Effeminancy, Feelings, Forms,” Having a Good Cry: Effeminate Feelings and Pop-Culture Forms, Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2003. Warren, Allen. “Sir Robert Baden-Powell, The Scout Movement and Citizen Training in Great Britain, 1900-1920”, English Historical Review, vol. 101, no. 399 (Apr. 1986): 376- 398. Warhurst, Christopher. Between Market, State, and Kibbutz: The Management and Transformation of Socialist Industry, London: Mansell Publishing Limited 1999.

349 Jonathan Ari Lander

Bibliography

Waxman, Chaim I. “Messianism, Zionism, and the State of Israel,” Modern Judaism, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1987): 175-192. Weissbrod, Lilly. Israeli Identity: In search of a Successor to the Pioneer, Tsabar and Settler, London: Frank Cass, 2002. Wistrich, Robert. From Ambivalence to Betrayal: The Left, the Jews and Israel, Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, for the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Antisemitism, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2012 Wodzinski, Marcin. “Good Maskilim and Bad Assimilationists, or Toward a New Historiography of the Haskalah in Poland,” Jewish Social Studies, New Series, Vol. 10, No. 3 (2004): 87-122. Yahil, Leni. The Holocaust: The Fate of European Jewry, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987. Zelniker, Shimshon. Kahan, Michael, “Religion and Nascent Cleavages: The Case of Israel’s National Religious Party,” Comparative Politics, Vol. 9, No.1. (Oct., 1976): 26. Zerubavel, Yael. “The Politics of Interpretation: Tel Hai in Israel’s Collective Memory,” Association of Jewish Studies Review, vol.16, no 1/2 (Spring-Autmn,1991):133-160. Zipperstein, Steven, J. “Between Tribalism and Utopia: Ahad Ha’am and the Making of Jewish Cultural Politics,” Modern Judaism, vol. 13, no. 3 (Oct., 1993): 231-247.

350 Jonathan Ari Lander

List of Interviews

Note on Interviews: The dates supplied in the brief biographies below are based on the recollections made by the interviewees during the interview. The nature of oral testimony leaves open the possibility of human error in recollecting dates from events which took place years or decades previously. Thus the dates below must be considered as indicative of the general date as opposed to be absolutely accurate.

Maiden names are in brackets.

Agmon, Shoshana. Shoshana was the Hashomer Hatzair shlichah from 1959-1961. However, while she was the shlichah of the movement in practical terms the Zionist movement in Victoria in the 1950s did not want a female shlichah, her husband Dov Agmon acted as the ‘official’ shaliach and represented Hashomer Hatzair to the ZFA and AZYC. Shoshana’s primary role while in Australia was working as the educational shlichah while Dov did a lot of the organisational work (camps, seminars, tiyulium, hachshara). Shoshanna lives on kibbutz Nirim and had been a member of Hashomer Hatzair in Tel Aviv. (The interview was conducted in Hebrew with the assistance of Zvi Solow who served as the translator). Interview Date: 31/07/08.

Bloch, Aaron. Hashomer Hatzair Melbourne madrich. Aaron began his involvement in the first year of high school in 1999-2000. He continued his involvement throughout high school and spent a year in Israel upon completing school on the Hashomer Hatzair program in 2005. In 2007 he was elected Federal Merakez Interview Date: 4/12/07.

Bloch, Ilan. Habonim madrich Melbourne and founder of Hineni Melbourne. Ilan was born in Jerusalem in 1977. His parents had made aliyah from Australia and returned in Australia for a two year ‘sabbatical’ in 1978. They ended up staying in Australia. Ilan became involved with Habonim in grade three at around the age of eight. Ilan went on a year program with Habonim in 1995 but while in Israel swapped to the Hineni program. When he returned to Australia in 1996 he began to establish a branch of Hineni in Melbourne. Ilan made aliyah in 2003 and currently lives in Israel. Interview Date: 2/12/07.

Boltin (Bloch), Susan. Madricha Melbourne B’nei Akiva. Susan began her involvement in 1960 at the age of seven. Susan graduated in 1969 but did not attend a year program. She continued her involvement with the movement as a madricha and took positions on the B’nei Akiva Hanhaga in the early 1970s. Interview Date 11/12/07.

Boltin, Shanna. B’nei Akiva madricha Melbourne, Shana began her involvement in Grade 3 and was involved with the movement until 2005. She attended the Kfar program in 1998, while in year 10, a four month program in Israel. Shana went on MTA in 2001. She served as a madricha from 2002-2005, as Rosh PR in 2002, and Rosh Tochnit of Summer Camp in 2003, as mazkira for senior Federal Camp in 2004, and in 2005 she worked as a madricha in New Zealand. Interview Date 11/12/07.

Brait, Pablo. Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. Pablo began his involvement with Hashomer Hatzair in 11991 and was involved with the movement until 2001. In 1996, 351 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Interviews while in Year 11 he began to lead as a junior madrich. Pablo went on a year program to Israel in 1998. In 2000 he was co-merakez of Hashomer Hatair Australia. Interview Date: 10/08/08.

Caplan (Kemp), Sophie. Habonim madricha Sydney. Sophie is a children survivor of the Holocaust. She arrived in Australia from Europe at the age of fourteen in September 1947. She became involved with Habonim a couple of months later in 1947 and eventually became a madricha for Habonim until the split in Habonim in 1953. After the split in Habonim she was involved in the attempt to established Hapoel Hatzair in Sydney, however, the group only existed for around eighteen months. She is a Holocaust historian and continues to research and write and to take a keen interest in Jewish genealogy. She met her future late husband, Leslie Caplan through Habonim. Leslie was also very involved in the Jewish community serving as president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the roof body of Australian Jewry, and the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. Sophie lives in Sydney. Interview Date 17/10/07.

Cohen, Avi. B’nei Akiva madrich Melbourne. Avi began his involvement in B’nei Akiva in Johannesburg, South Africa. In 1972-73 he attended his first B’nei Akiva machane at the age of nine or ten. In 1982 Avi, together with thirteen other South Africans, attended the first MTA program which focussed on time in Yeshivah. He immigrated to Australia in 1983. He was involved as a madrich in B’nei Akiva until 1985 and played a formative role in helping MTA become a program for Bnei Akiva Australia. In 1984 Avi was the Merakez of Bnei Akiva Melbourne. He made aliyah in late 1986, early 1987. He returned in 1989 for two years, going back in 1991 to live in Israel for 5 years. Currently in Melbourne, Avi plans to return to live in Israel in the coming years with his family. Interview date: 21/08/2008.

Dinen, Yossi. B’nei Akiva madrich in Sydney. Yossi began attending B’nei Akiva as a chanich in 1995. During 2002 he worked as a junior madrich for the movement. In 2004 Yossi went to Israel on the MTA Yeshivah focussed program with B’nei Akiva where he studied at the Gush Yeshivah. In 2007 he served as Merakez of Sydney B’nei Akiva, Yossi was also involved for a fourth year as a madrich in 2008 leading the year 12 group. After completing his studies Dinnen went to live in Israel where he currently still resides. Interview Date: 04/07/08.

Encel (Hovev), Diane. Zionist Youth League, Sydney. Diane is unsure about dates but would have started getting involved in the Zionist Youth League slightly before Judy Shapira. Diane was also involved as a madricha for Habonim when they did not have enough madrichim to run the movement. Through her involvement in Habonim Diane met Sol Encel her future husband who was very active in Habonim. Diane and Sol attempted to make aliyah to Kfar Hanassi in 1949 but returned to live in Australia eighteen months later. Sol Encel passed away on 23 July 2010. Interview Date 19/06/08.

Encel, Sol. Habonim madrich, Sydney. Encel’s family came to Australia from Poland. His mother became involved with the Zionist movement in Melbourne, and he joined Habonim at the age of fifteen. During World War II Sol served in New Guinea in the RAF for eighteen months. Upon returning from New Guinea, at the age of twenty-one, Sol became a madrich in Habonim and remained involved for some time, after which he made aliyah in 1949. He stayed in Israel for eighteen months but returned to Australia. 352 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Sol went onto have a career as one of Australia’s most prominent and well respected sociologists. Sol passed away on 23 July 2010. He was a foundation president of UNSW. Interview date 27/08/08.

Feder, Shimshon. Betar madrich Melbourne. Shimshon became involved with Betar in 1948. Shimshon played a crucial role with the re-establishment of the movement in Melbourne. In 1953 Shimshon went on Machon as the first candidate from Betar Australia. In 1956 he made aliyah. He was involved with Betar Melbourne until 1956. He returned in 1961 to serve as Betar Australia’s shaliach until 1964. Shimshon remained very involved with the Revisionist movement after making aliyah and translating Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s writings into English. Shimshon met his wife, Leah, through Bertar. Interview Date: 07/08/08.

Feher, Yehuda. Shomrim member and Habonim madrich in Sydney. Yehuda had been involved with Habonim in Leeds, England. He played a crucial role in organising and creating Sydney Habonim during the 1940s. Yehuda Feher later became head of the Youth Department in the Zionist Federation and continued to be actively involved in the Zionist movement long after he had left the Zionist youth movement. Yehuda also his wife through Habonim. They still live in Sydney. Interview Date: 26/07/2007.

Franklin, Alon. B’nei Akiva madrich in Sydney. Alon served as a junior Madrich in 1988 after arriving from South Africa in August 1988. Alon had been a chanich in South Africa since he was a young child. Franklin went with B’nei Akiva on the MTA program based in the Gush in 1991. In 1992 Franklin served as a madrich and Rosh Minyan. The following year he took on the responsibility of Rosh Chinuch while leading a year group, and in 1994 he took the position of merakez, while continuing to lead as a madrich. Interview Date: 19/11/07.

Felman, Romy. Habonim madricha Sydney. Romy’s father was French and her mother was Polish-Russian. Her parents had both been active in Habonim and also spent a year on the Hachsharah. They made aliyah to Kibbutz Yizre’el in north-eastern Israel where they lived for almost a year before coming back to Australia. When Romy was eight her parents tried to make aliyah again. Romy began her involvement in Habonim Sydney as a chanicha at the age of eleven in the mid 1970s. Romy began to lead as a madricha in 1983 and led for four to five years in Habonim Sydney. She is married to Joe Gubbay who was also an active member in Habonim Sydney. Interview Date: 8/11/07.

Freeman (Salter), Tony. Habonim Melbourne. Tony began her involvement at around the age of eight or nine. Tony went to Israel on a year program to Israel in 1970. After returning from her year in Israel she led as a madricha for two years. Tony was a member of a garin which formed in Habonim and that had roughly forty members. Tony met her hasband through Habonim. They married and made aliyah in 1977 to kibbutz but only lived in Israel for a year. Tony lives in Melbourne. The interview was conducted together with Allan Goly. Allan was on the same shnat program as her husband. Interview Date: 08/12/07.

Goldlust, John. Betar Melbourne 1955/6-1960s, Goldlust became involved in the movement at the age of nine and became a madrich at the age of fifteen or sixteen. At the age of eighteen he went to Israel on a year program and returned to lead in the

353 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews movement for several more years. Goldlust led in the movement under Feder who had returned in 1961 as a shaliach for the movement. First Interview 10/10/07.

Golembowicz, Dov (Frank). Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. Dov was a founding member of Hashomer Hatzair after the ‘split’ in 1953. Dov was born in Poland and came to Australia in 1939. He began his involvement with Habonim just after his Bar Mitzvah in 1944 and began leading as Madrich around the age of seventeen. From 1951 to 1952 Dov spent just over a year on the hachshara farm. In 1951 while on the hachsharah he was a member of the Federal mazkirut, merakez chinuch and was in charge of all educational material. In 1955 he made aliyah to kibbutz Nirim. Dov returned as the second shaliach for Hashomer Hatzair in 1961 for three years. During Dov’s stewardship as the shaliach he was involved in the attempt in 1962 to establish a ken of Hashomer Hatzair in Melbourne. He was instrumental in the purchase of Hashomer Hatzair’s Ma’on, Beit Anileweicz in 1964. Dov still lives on Kibbutz Nirim. Interview Date: 25/06/08.

Goly, Allan. Habonim madrich Melbourne. Allan became involved with Habonim after his Bar Mitzvah around the age of fifteen in 1967. Allen studied for a year in university before going a year program to Israel in 1971. After returning from his year in Israel he led as a madrich for two years. Allan was a member of a garin which formed in Habonim which had roughly forty members. Allan made aliyah, ending up in Haifa where he lived for two and a half years after which he returned to Melbourne. The interview was conducted together with Allan Goly. Allan was on the same shnat program as her husband. Interview Date: 08/12/07.

Goutman, Anne. Betar madricha, Melbourne. Anne began to get involved in Betar around 1954-55. Anne was a child survivor of the Holocaust who had arrived in Australia in 1948, she was nine years old. Her family came from Cracow, Poland. Her involvement in Betar began at around the age of fifteen. She ceased her involvement while sitting her final year of exams in school in 1957 after which she drifted away from Betar. At the age of twenty-two she went to Israel on her own and lived there for nine years. Interview Date 12/10/07.

Gubbay, Joe. Habonim madrich Sydney. Joe began his involvement in Habonim Sydney in 1979. In 1984 Joe went to Israel on the Machon program but left in protest after several Habonim members were asked to leave the Machon program, Upon returning from Israel Joe served as a madrich for four to five years in the movement. During his time as madrich he also served as the merakez of Habonim. He is married to Romy Feldman. Interview Date: 14/11/07.

Hammerman, Toby. Habonim madrich Sydney. Toby became involved in Habonim around 1956. Toby spent a year in Israel in 1963. He led for several years in the movement and in January 1967 took over leading the group Ha-Carmel which had about twenty-five members. After both he and his wife completed Master’s Degrees in psychiatric and social work he and his wife made aliyah to kibbutz Yizreel. Toby met his wife Judy in Habonim where she had also led as a madricha They eventually returned to Australia and Toby became a member of the Parents and Friends Association of Habonim. Interview Date: 12/11/07.

Honig, Eliyahu. Habonim, madrich Melbourne. Eliyahu’s grandmother was from Hebron but came to Australia as a baby. His father was born in Jerusalem and came to 354 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Australia as a late teenager. Eliyahu was born in Australia and became a chanich in Habonim around 1943-44 around his Bar Mitzvah. He was a member of the hachsharah from January 1951-December 1951. Eliyahu met his wife trhough Habonim and they both still live in Israel. He is currently the Associate Vice President of the Hebrew University. Interview Date: 28/11/09.

Isaacs, Malcolm. Member of the Zionist Youth League Sydney. Both of Malcolm’s parents were Anglo-Jews who were members of the Great Synagogue and staunchly anti-Zionist. They proudly identified as Australian and supported the British Monarchy. After two to three years of involvement in ZYL he joined the Hachsharah farm in 1952/53. He trained for eighteen months on the farm and made aliyah to Kibbutz Tzorah where he continues to live with his wife Shirley. Interview Date: 27-11/07.

Isaacs, Shirley. Shirely’s mother was a member of the Great Synagogue and involved with its youth group Great Synagogue Youth (GSY). She was not anti-Zionist but was indifferent to the ideology of Zionism. While she was brought up in a very Jewish household her father was not involved with the Jewish community at all. Shirley was not involved with any Zionist youth movement but became involved with the hachsharah farm and lived on the farm for eighteen months during 1952-53. She made aliyah and is married to Malcolm Isaacs. They live on Kibbutz Tzora. Interview Date: 27/11/07.

Kaplan, Dalit. Habonim, Madricha Melbourne. Dalit began her involvement in Habonim in 1995-96. Dalit was also involved in Bnei Akiva from Grade three (roughly age eight) until Grade 10 (roughly age fifteen). She was also briefly involved with Hineni. Dalit went on a year program with Habonim in 2000. She led for a madricha for two years. Dalit’s husband, Raphael Dascalu was a member of Bnei Akiva Sydney and they lived in Jerusalem before getting married in Melbourne. They moved to the United States where Raphael is completing a PhD at the Chicago Centre for Jewish Studies, University of Chicago. Interview Date: 18/07/08.

Katz, Evie (Skall). Betar Madricha, Melbourne. Evie’s parents were from Vienna but had fled in 1939 to Shanghai. Evie was born in 1943 and began her involvement in 1955-6. She attended the Machon program in Israel in 1961 and upon returning served as a madricha . She ceased her involvement around 1964. She made aliyah in 1967 where she met her husband in Ulpan, they left Israel after a couple of years and returned to live in Australia. Interview Date: 01/09/07.

Keeda, (formerly Cohen), Peter. Betar Sydney. Peter’s mother was as born in Germany and fled in 1938. She received her VISA to enter Australia sometime around 1939. His father was born in South Africa but had come to Australia at the age of five. Peter’s parents married in 1940 and he was born in 1943. Peter was involved in Betar from the late 50s (1957-58). Peter Keeda went on the Israel year program in 1962. In 1964 He was mefaked in 1964 and again in 1966. In 1967 he was Rosh Hanhafa HaArtzit (Federal Leader) of Betar Australia. Peter was also in charge of Betar Australia in 1967 until he left half way through to volunteer in Israel during the June 1967 War. Peter returned to Australia and ended up making aliyah in 1972. After living in Israel for over three decades he returned to Australia. His mother still lives in Israel. Interview Date: 26/9/07.

Kessler, Clive. Betar Madrich Sydney. Clive began his involvement with Betar at the age of fifteen in 1952. By 1956 he was heavily involved in the movement and attended 355 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Machon in 1960. He returned and led as a madrich for a couple years but was no longer affiliated with the movement by 1964-65. Clive is an Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of New South Wales. Interview Date: 04/09/07.

Kern, Ian Dr. B’nei Akiva madrich Sydney. Ian was born in London in 1937 and had been involved with Bnei Akiva in London for around three year before he came to Australia in 1949. Ian was present at the camps which established Bnei Akiva Sydney in 1953. Cyril Smith was the first merkez of Sydney B’nei Akiva and a driving force behind the establishment of the movement in Sydney. After Cyril Smith left Ian became the second merakez of Sydney Bnei Akiva. Ian lives in Sydney. Interview Date: 17/10/2007.

Kingsley, Yotti. Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. Yotti became involved with Hashomer Hatzair in 1988-89 when he was in Grade 2, he was around six or seven years old. Yotti became involved originally because his older siblings and cousins went to the movement. He finished his involvement in 2002 when he took a year group to Israel. Interview Date: 30/08/08.

Lacey, Josie. Habonim madricha Sydney. Josie was born in Romania but her parents managed to escape before the start of WWII. (Her parents were from Bukovina when the area was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Their mother tongue was German, which Lacey spoke alongside Romanian when she was a child. Her father had been a leader in teh Revisionist movement in Romania. She arrived in Australia in 1939. She began her involvement in the 1940s and was involved with Habonim until the split in 1953. Lacey voted against the accusation that her friend Sophie Caplan was attempting to turn Habonim into Hashomer Hatzair. Her husband, Ian came from an Anglo-Jewish family and was not involved in the Zionist youth movements. Later he became an active member in the Australian Zionist movement. Josie lives in Sydney. Interview Date: 29/11/07.

Lamm, Erwin. Erwin was born into an Orthodox family in Vienna. His family had no connection to the Zionist movement but his older brother became a leading figure in the Revisionist movement in Pressburg. After the invasion of Hungary by the German forces he fled to Czechoslovakia and eventually found safe passge to London before finally coming to Australia. He was in London before he was interned as an “enemy alien” and eventually came to Australia aboard the Dunera. He was interned in Australia until he joined the Australian army at the age of twenty-one. In Melbourne he met his future wife, Ilsa, (who also came from Vienna) and her father was the President of the Revisionist Organisation in Melbourne. Erwin became involved with the Revisionist Organisation from around 1944 when he was around twenty-three years old. The Organisation changed its name to Friends of Likud to avoid being associated with the Revisionist historian movement. Erwin took over the presidency of the Friends of Likud from his father-in-law and served as its president from 1981. Erwin lives in Melbourne. Interview Date: 06/11/08

Lamm, Danny. Bnei Akiva madrich Melbourne. Danny, teh son of Erwin Lamm, became involved with Bnei Akiva around 1956-57at around the age of eight. He was involved with Bnei Akiva throughout school and during his first year of university, he ceased his involvement at the end of 1967. Danny did not go on a year program with the movement. Danny Lamm currently serves as the President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (2011-2012). Interview Date: 04/11/08. 356 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Lavan, Garry. B’nei Akiva madrich in Sydney. Garry began his involvement in 1966 when he was around twelve years old. Gary was born in Australia but both of his parents were Holocaust survivors. He left Bnei Akiva in 1968 after an accident on camp and rejoined in Year 11, 1971. The same year also served as an assistant madrich and later volunteered as a senior madrich from 1973-76. Garry lives in Sydney. Interview date: 18/06/08.

Leibler, Isi. B’nei Akiva madrich, Melbourne. Isi’s family were were supporters of the Mizrachi movements and religious Zionism. They arrived in Australia just before the start of Woerld War II. Isi hwas born in 1934 and began his involvement in 1948-49 at the age of twelve. He was one of the movement’s first chanichim. He continued his involvement until around 1956. Leibler also served as the meracez of B’nei Akiva Melbourne, leading the movement with Jonathan Shank. (He is not sure which year but it was around 1952- ‘53) Leibler also made aliyah and currently lives in Israel. Interview date: 18/09/08

Levy, Phil. Habonim madrich Sydney. Phil was born in Sydney and began his involvement in 1975. He led for a year as a madrich in 1977 and in 1978 went on a year program to Israel with Habonim. He returned and led as madrich for a couple more years. He made aliyah in 1983 but returned in Australia in 1985. Whe I interviewed him he was the gizbar (treasurer) of the Habonim Parent’s and Friends Association. Three of his children were also involved in Netzer. Interview Date: 26/11/07.

Liebhaber, Deborah. Betar Melbourne Madricha. Deborah was born in Australia and began her involvement in Betar the mid 1990s. She spent a year in Israel after school in 2004 and served as the head of Betar (Rosh Hanagah Artzit) in 2007. Interview Date 13/12/07.

Link, Lionel. B’nei Akiva madrich Sydney. Lionel’s parents were both German Jews who had fled to London. Lionel was born in London in 1942. His family arrived in Australia in 1949. He started his involvement with the movement when it was established in Sydney in 1953. He served as the merakez of the movement for two consecutive years in the early 1960s. He met his wife through B’nei Akiva - she was the merkazet in 1965. Lionel attempted to make aliyah with his wife in 1966 but returned shortly afterwards when it proved too tough. He made aliyah soon after retiring and still lives in Israel. Interview Date: 11/10/2007.

Mantel, Leon. Sydney Hashomer Hatzair. Leon arrived in December 1959 from Poland at the age of thirteen. Leon was involved from 1962/3-1964 in the Sydney ken as a chanich and a madrich, he ceased his involvement at the age of eighteen once he finished school. Once in university Leon became involved with Tzionah, a university Student’s organisation with Zionist sympathies. Leon made aliyah in 1969 and still lives in Israel. Interview Date: 13/07/08.

Masnick, Keith. Betar madrich Sydney. Keith’s mother was of Polish background but was born in England. His father was born in Russia but had come to England at the age of four. Keither was born in 1945 and his family came to Australia in 1949. He began his involvement in Betar around 1959 at the age of fourteen. Keith underwent the leadership course under Shimshon Feder who was the shaliach in Australia from 1961- 1964. In 1965, after finishing university in Sydney, Keith went to Melbourne for work and assisted Peter Keeda by being involved in running Betar in Melbourne. Peter Keeda had 357 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews been asked to run Betar but only took on the position once Keith said he was in a position to assist Peter by helping out with Melbourne Betar. Keith still lives in Australia. Interview Date: 11/9/08.

Metzler (Brisson), Hilda. Habonim madricha Melbourne. Hilda parents arrived in Australia before the war and she was born in Melbourne. Hilda began her involvement with Habonim at the age of twelve in 1958-59. Hilda led her group as a madricha in Elsternwick. Hilda did not go on Machon program for a year of study in Israel after school. Since she was not contemplating aliyah she left the movement in the early 1960s at the age of eighteen. (The interview was conducted together with her husband Meir) Interview Date: 8/12/07.

Metzeler, Meir. Habonim madrich Melbourne. Meir was born in Israel and came to Australia in 1958 at the age of thirteen. Both his parents were born in Poland before they immigrated to Plaestine. Meir joined Habonim in 1958-59. Meir had been born in Israel and came to Australia at the age of thirteen in 1958. Meir led his group as a madrich in Kew, Melbourne. Meir did not go on Machon program for a year of study in Israel after school. Since he was not contemplating aliyah he did not go to the hachshara farm and left the movement study at university at the age of eighteen. By 1965 he had nothing to do with Habonim. (The interview was conducted together with his wife Hilda) Interview Date: 8/12/07.

Morris, Michal. Hashomer Haztair, madricha Melbourne. Michal became involved with Hashomer Hatzair in 1981, she continued her involvement with the movement until 1991. Michal went on a year program to Israel in 1987. Interview Date: 02/10/08.

Morris (Rozenblum), Fay. Hashomer Haztair, madricha Melbourne: 1955-1960. Fay was born in 1938 in Chelm Poland. Her family had been very involved with the Jewish communist party in Poland and in Australia were also active in the Progressive Jewish Centre in Melbourne. In 1955, at the age of fifteen she became involved with Hashomer Hatzair and was an active madricha from 1956. While never attending the Machon program in Israel or becoming a member of the hachsharah Fay played a crucial role as madricha during the early years of the movement and led a large group of Polish Jews who arrived in Melbourne in 1957-58. Interview Date: 22/06/08.

Morrisher, Esther. Zionist Youth League, Sydney. No interview took place. Esther recorded a tape of her memories of her time as a member of the Zionist Youth League as well as the year she served as the part-time paid secretary of the AZYC. Esther was the first part-time paid secretary of the Australian Zionist Youth Council, in Sydney in 1950. She was involved as a member of ZYL from 1948-9 until 1952.

Moshinsky (Kranz), Sidra. Hashomer Hatzair madricha Melbourne. Sidra’s parents were both born in Poland and survived the Holocaust, they arrived in Australia after WWII. Sidra was born in Melbourne and began her involvement in 1980. She went to on the Machon program to Israel in 1987. Upon returning served as a madricha for three years. Sidra currently lives in Australia. Interview Date 13/07/08

Ninedek, Aaron. Betar Madrich Melbourne. Both of Aaron’s parents were Polish, Aaron was born in 1936 in Australia and started his involvement with Betar at the age of fifteen in 1952. In 1956 he attended the Machon program in Israel. Upon returning at the beginning of 57 he led as a madrich and in 1959 he ceased his involvement because he 358 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews was posted in the bush as a teacher. Melbourne Betar was struggling and in 1960 he was called up by the madrichim to help with the summer camp and ended up serving as Natziv in 1961. After his stint as Natziv he drifted away from the movement until he was called back to help the leadership which was struggling after a large number of leaders left the movement in the wake of the June 1967 War to assist in Israel. Aaron currently lives in Australia. Interview Date: 04/09/07.

Paper, Louis. Betar Melbourne. Both of Louis’ parents were Polish and arrived in Melbourne around 1929. Louis was born in 1932 and began his involvement in 1951. In 1952 he attended a Betar educational program run by Betar in Israel which took place in Nordia. He ceased his involvement in 1953-4. Louis currently lives in Australia. Interview Date: 14/07/08.

Pearl, Paul. Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. Paul’s parents were both Poloish and were active in the Polish Communist party. Paul’s father passed away in 1954 a committed communist and in 1956 Paul’s mother decided to go back to Poland in order to help build a communist state. Shortly after arriving in Poland she realised she had made a mistake and spent the next nine moths struggling to get out before finally being able to return to Melbourne. Paul became involved with Hashomer Hatzair in 1956 and later led as a madrich. He was involved with the movement until the mid 1960s. (The interview was conducted together with his wife Fran Pearl) Interview Date 24/06/08.

Pearl (Zukierman), Fran. Hashomer Hatzair madricha Melbourne. Fran’s parents left Poland in the early 1930s and lived in New Zealand for fifteen years until they could make their way across to Melbourne. Fran became involved with Hashomer Hatzair in 1955 and was involved until the mid 1960s. Fran Zuckierman attended the Machon Program in 1960, she was the second person sent by Hashomer Hatzair in Australia. (The interview was conducted together with her husband Paul Pearl) Interview Date: 24/06/08.

Perry, Yael. Betar madricha Sydney. Yael began her involvement with Betar in 1994. In 2000 she went on a year program with Betar. Upon returning to Australia she led for two years as a madricha. Interview Date: 19/08/08.

Pinkus, Toni. Betar madricha Sydney. Toni’s paremts were both from Egypt and were she was raised in a strictly observant Sephardi household. Toni was born in 1953 and began her involvement in Betar from a very young age, at around six or seven years old. She stayed involved in Betar throughout the 1960s and went to Israel on the Machon program in 1972. She returned and led as a madricha in the movement for a couple of years. Toni met her husband through Betar. Interview Date: 28/11/07.

Rothfield, David. Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. David’s mother had been active in Habonim in England and had planned on making aliyah. She became reomantically involved with David’s mother and while actively involved in leftwing politics and sympathetic to Zionism he did not want to go to Palestine and they ended up coming to Australia in 1938. Rothfield was born in 1941 and was a chanich in Melbourne Habonim for five years but left to join Hashomer Hatzair. He was involved with Hashomer Hatzair from 1956-1965. He went on Machon in 1959, upon his return to Melbourne form Israel he was Meracez of Hashomer Hatzair for three years until he went to the Hachsharah farm in 1963. Rothfield made aliyah in 1965 but eventually

359 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews returned decades later to Melbourne, where he currently still lives. Interview Date: 18/02/08.

Rosing, Danny. Betar madrich Sydney. Danny began to get involved with Betar in 1953, when he was eighteen years old. Danny’s father had been involved with Betar in Lithuania and his parents made aliyah in 1932. Danny was born in Tel Aviv but his family left Palestine in 1946. Danny originally became involved with the movement while in university in Sydney after meeting some students who had been active in Betar in China. He did the madrich training course under Shimshon Feder. He was involved with the movement until 1958. Danny decided to make aliyah and left Australia, on the way he stopped in Canada and was asked to restart Betar in Toronto. He left Canada and made aliyah in 1961. Danny still lives in Israel. Interview Date: 30/07/08.

Rutland, Suzanne. B’nei Akiva madricha Sydney. Suzanne was born in Sydney and grew up on the North Shore. She originally attended meetings and camps with Betar. She began her involvement in 1960 at the age of 16. In 1964 she went to Israel on the Machon program. She returned to Australia and led as a madricha until 1966, taking a leading role in the educational programs run at B’nei Akiva. Suzanne’s family was very strongly Zionistic. Her uncle Max Freilich was born in Lesko, Central Galicia and arrived in Australia in 1928. He became a leading figure in the Zionist community in Australia and after the death of Suzanne’s father when she was nine, played a formative influence on her life. Suzanne’s older brother, also named Max, made aliyah in 1962. Suzanne Rutland is a Professor in the Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies at the University of Sydney. Suzanne plans on making aliyah once she retires. Interview Date: 15/08/08.

Samuels, Jonathan. B’nei Akiva Madrich Melbourne. Jonathan’s family on his father’s side had been in Australia for several generatiosn while his motehr’s family was from Poland. Jonathan was born in Melbourne. He began his involvement in B’nei Akiva in 1984 while in Grade 3 around the age of 8. He continued his involvement throughout primary and high school, going to Israel on the MTA Yeshivah program in 1995. He was a madrich for three years. His first year back he was rosh minyan, his second he was gizbar (treasurer) and was the Year 12 madrich. The last year he only led as a madrich. Jonathan currently lives in Sydeny with his wife, who he met through Bnei Akiva. Interview Date: 14/08/08.

Schneider, Mark. Bnei Akiva madrich Sydney. Mark began his involvement with Bnei Akiva in Cape Town, South Africa in early 1979. Upon arriving in Australia in 1979, at the age of fourteen Mark immediately became involved with Sydney Bnei Akiva. In 1983, in his first year out of high school he was merakez of Sydney Bnei Akiva. In 1984 he was a senior madrich under DJ Schneiweiss. As merakez he was Bnei Akiva’s representative on the AZYC (Australian Zionist Youth Council). In 1985 he left the movement to take on the role as the youth director at the Great Synagogue. Mark still lives in Sydney and remains an active member of the Jewish community. He served as the president of Moriah College between 2005 and 2008. He was again elected as president in 2011. Interview Date: 04/08/08.

Schlosser, Mark. Habonim madrich Sydney. Mark was born in Sydney and began his involvement with Habonim in 1964 and went to his first camp in 1966 when he was aged ten. He ended his involvement in 1979-80. He went on Machon in 1972. He was a member of Garin Makor which was formed around 1974-75. Schlosser now lives in 360 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Sydney. His mother Beate Schlosser was a member of the Shomrim and his father had been involved with Blau Weiss in Vienna. Mark currently lives in Sydney. Interview Date: 04/09/07. (The last members of Garin Makor left for Israel in 1977 where they gathered in Kibbutz Nir Eliyahu to begin their Ulpan program. JAL Report Folder. “Ichud Habonim”, Report to the Twenty-Eighth Biennial Conference: 1976-1978, Melbourne Victoria, Zionist Federation of Australia, 136.)

Schlosser, (Furth) Beate. Shomrim member Sydney. Beate was born in Berlin, Germany and came to Australia in 1938 at the age of sixteen. Shortly after arriving in Australia she joined the Shomrim. Her parents had tried to leave Germany in 1937 and went to Palestine to see for themselves what sort of opportunities there were but the difficulties of life in Palestine caused them to abandon that option. She met her future husband in the Shomrim; he had been involved with Blau-Weiss in Vienna. Both of them remained involved with both the Shomrim and Habonim while the two movements began their merger. They left the Zionist youth movement scene upon getting married in 1945. They sent all their children to Habonim. Interview Date: 23/10/2007.

Schneiweiss, Yoachim. Zionist Youth League, Sydney. Yoachim was born in Hanover, Germany in 1927 and arrived with his family in Sydney in 1939. He was President of the ZYL in Sydney. In 1950 Yoachim was chairman of the AZYC and 1951 he was co-chair with Dr Moss Cass. Yoachim currently lives in Sydney. Interview Date: 01/07/08.

Danny Schwarz. Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. Danny started getting involved in Hashomer Hatzair in 1979. He stayed involved in the movement until 1988-89. He went on a year program with the movement in 1985. Danny currently lives in Melbourne. Interview Date: 29/07/08.

Sekel, Ron. Betar madrich Sydney. Ron began his involvement when he was 10 years old 1951-2 and ceased his involvement around 1958-59. His involvement as a chanich occurred at the movement began to establish itself in Sydney. His mother was from Poland and his father was from Czechoslovakia and had escaped Europe on the eve of WWII in 1939. Sekel’s mother who had been very involved with Hashomer Hatzair came to identify with the Betar ideology and was very supportive of the movement’s establishment in Sydney. Sekel’s parents alongside the the Zeilger family, the Bishoperders and the Kitcheners played an active role in establishing the movement in Sydney, with further assistance supplied by Hans Dryer from Melbourne. Ron currently lives in Sydney. Interview Date: 14/07/08.

Shapira, (Solomon), Judy. Zionist Youth League, Sydney. Judy was born in Sydney. She was involved in the Zionist Youth League from 1947-1951. She attended the hachsharah Farm 1951-52. Judy married Miron Shapira. Miron had a diploma had lived in Israel and was a graduate of the Hawkesbury Agricultural college with a diploma in Agricultural science and horticulture. He commenced his employment in January 1951. Initially he worked for four months as a probationary period before signing a contract to work as the manager of hachsharah for two years. Miron was the hachsharah manager from 1951-53 and a part-time advisor until 1957. Miron eventually moved to Sydney with his wife Judy and passed away in 2005. Judy still lives in Sydney. Interview Date 18/06/08.

Sharpe, Henry. Habonim madrich Melbourne. Henry began his involvement in Habonim in 1967 at the age of eight. Henry was born in Israel but came to Australia as a two year 361 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews old. Henry went on the Machon program and returned to Australia at the end of 1978. He led in the movement for three years. Henry married Ruth Zandel who was also a member in Habonim and they made aliyah in 1987. They returned to Australia a short time later. They currently live in Melbourne. (The interview was conducted together with his wife Ruth) Interview Date: 9/12/07.

Sharpe (Zandel), Ruth. Habonim madricha Melbourne. Ruth began her involvement with Habonim in 1969 at the age of eight. Ruth drifted in and out of the movement in her teenage years but became involved again before going on Machon. Ruth returned from Machon in late 1979 and worked as a madricha for two years. Ruth married Henry Sharpe and they made aliyah in 1987, however, they returned a short time later. (The interview was conducted together with her husbandHenry). Interview Date: 9/12/07.

Sitsky, Larry. Betar madrich Sydney. Larry was born in 1934, Tientsin (Tianjin) China. His family had fled from Russia around 1920. Betar was the only Zionist youth movement in Tientsin and the small Jewish school basically operated as a conduit for Betar with most students of the school also being members of Betar. Larry came to Australia with his family in 1951. Shortly after arriving in Australia he became involved with the newly formed Betar which was establishing itself in Sydney. Bob Steinmann was mefaked of Betar Sydney and a leading figure in the movement in the mid 1950s and Larry played a crucial role in assisting Bob in running the movement. He eventually served as mefaked of Betar for a short time before he left the movement in 1958 to pursue his studies as musician in San Francisco. Larry Sitsky was a founding member of the Canberra School of Music, Australian National University. Interview Date: 13/11/08.

Solow, Zvi. Habonim and Hashomer Hatzair Melbourne. Zvi was born in 1934 in Poland and moved to Mandatory Palestine (Jerusalem) in 1941. He had been a chanich of Hashomer Hatzair in Jerusalem. Zvi arrived in Australia in 1947 and began his involvement with Habonim in 1948. He was involved in Habonim until 1953 when the ‘split’ happened and he left Habonim at the age of eighteen to help found Hashomer Hatzair with Dov Golembowicz and others (the group which founded Hashomer Hatzair numbered around 10 or 11 individuals). He was involved with Hashomer Hatzair until 1959, when he made aliyah to kibbutz Nirim. He was merakez of Hashomer Hatzair during 1957 and 1958. Zvi currently lives on Kibbutz Nirim. Interview Date: 23/07/08.

Steiner, Yosef. Betar madrich Melbourne. Before coming across to Australia towards the end of the in 1940s Yosef was the Mefaked of the Betar ken in Stuttgart Germany. In 1951 Yosef was the first member of Australian Betar who went on the Machon program to Israel. In 1957 Yosef and his wife Dora made aliyah. He did his Giyus service for Betar upon making aliyah and spent two years in the United States 1963-64 as a shaliach. Yosef currently lives in Israel. Interview Date 1707/08.

Stuart, Harry. Betar Madrich Melbourne. Both of Harry’s parents were from Europe they fled the rise of Nazism and arrived in November Australia in 1938. Harry began his involvement in the movement at the age of ten around 1955-56. He cased his involvement with Betar in 1965 at the age of twenty once. Harry served as a madrich for five years. While he served as a madrich he was mazkir of machoz Betar for three years and also served for trhee years as mazkir of netzivut Betar. Harry currently lives in the United States of America. Interview Date: 15/8/07.

362 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Szekley, Les. Les arrived in Australia in 1956 after his parents, both Holocaust survivors, fled the 1956 Revolution in Hungary. In the mid 1960s he began attending Habonim. After finishing school he attended the Machon program in Israel. In the early 1970s (1971-1972) he was the Mazkir of Sydney Habonim. Les still lives in Sydney. Interview Date 9/11/07.

Tassie, David. Habonim madrich Sydney. David was born in 1951. Both of his parents were Sephardi Jews who had come from India to Australia after the fall of the British Raj. David began his involvement in Habonim Sydney around 1965. David’s family had come across to Australia from Calcutta, India, shortly after the establishment of an independent India. David finished school in 1969, while never taking a more conventional leadership position he was heavily involved in organising the logistical side Habonim in terms of camps and other logistical requirements. David was involved with the movement for four to five years after finishing school. During late 1973-74 he was also involved in Garin activities. (This was probably Garin Makor – Lit. Source). David met his Wife Ronit (Musleah) through Habonim. Both of Ronit’s parenst were from Calcutta, India. Ronit was born in Israel and her parents had made aliyah from India after setting up Habonim in Calcutta. Ronit’s family came to Australia in 1959. Interview Date: 11/11/07.

Weiser, Ron. B’nei Akiva Sydney madrich. Ron was born Sydney, the son of Holocaust survivors. He began his involvement 1968. Ron Weiser began serving as a madrich in B’nei Akiva in Year 11 and served as a leader for B’nei Akiva for eight years, leading groups and well as serving as Rosh Machane on several occasions. On two occasions he refused to take the top leadership position in B’nei Akiva Sydney because he was not totally committed to the idea of aliyah. Ron Weiser is a past president of the Zionist Federation of Australia. He currently lives in Sydney. Interview Date: 29/09/07.

Wise, Johnny. B’nei Akiva Sydney Melbourne madrich. Johnny’s family was English and only came to Sydney in 1939. Johnny was a founding member at the age of fifteen when the movement was established in Sydney in 1953. He was involved as a madrich until 1956. Johnny made aliyah in 1983 and still lives in Israel. Interview Date: 30/06/08.

Zeigler, Johnny. Betar madrich Sydney. Jonny was born in 1942 and began his involvement with Betar around 1953-54 when was around ten or eleven years old. His parents were both from Vienna. He was actively involved until 1962, but when he began to study medicine he eased back the level of his involvement with Betar. While he was a madrich he also served as mefaked of Sydney Betar. He maintained close links with Betar through the 1960s and later served as president of the Zionist Youth Council in 69/70. When Betar was establishing itself in the Western suburbs the movement was run out of Johnny’s parent’s home. Interview Date 29/07/08. Interview continued 08/08/08.

Zyngier, David. Hashomer Hatzair madrich Melbourne. David was born in 1951. Both his parents had been involved in Hashomer Hatzair in Poland before WWII. Zyngier began his involvement in 1958-9. He was selected for the Machon program in 1969. Upon returning from Israel David led for three years as a madrich and served a fourth year as the merakez in 1972-73. He was also very active in radical Zionist politics at university and formed the Radical Zionist Alliance. He made aliyah in late 1973 to Kibbutz Lahav and returned to Australia to marry a Hashomer Hatzair madricha in late 1975. His three children all were madrichim in Hashomer Hatzair and all also went on 363 Jonathan Ari Lander

Interviews

Machon. They all served as merakezim of Hashoemr Hatzair Melbourne. Interview Date: 11/12/07.

Zyngier, Romy. Hashomer Hatzair madricha, Melbourne. Romy began her involvement with Hashomer Hatzair in 1992-3 when she was around eight years old. In 2003 instead of attending Machon Romy spent four months in Europe travelling to different Hashomer Hatzair centres (kennim) all over Europe. She then joined the Hashomer Hatzair year program and spent time working on Kibbutz Nir Oz. She returned to Australia and led as madricha from 2004-2007. Romy Zyngier was merakezet throughout 2005 and for half of 2006. Romy is David’s daughter. Interview Date: 912/07.

364 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary of Hebrew and Technical Terms

Aliyah. [Lit. Going up/the act of ascending.] In traditional Judaism the term is used to refer to the honour bestowed upon a man who is called up to recite a blessing before the Torah reading. In Zionist discourse the term came to refer to immigration to the Land of Israel. The idea that aliyah constituted an ‘ascension’ had clear ideological implications. One who left Israel was called a yerida (lit. the act of descending.)

Am Yisrael. [Lit. The Nation of Israel.]

Am Yirael be’eretz Yisrael, al pi Torat Yisrael. [Lit. “The Nation of Israel, in the Land of Israel, according to the Torah Israel.”] An ideological slogan of Bnei Akiva which also indicates the movement’s belief that the State of Israel should be Halachically observant.

Asefah. [Lit. Meeting/AGM.]

Ashkenazim. Jews from Western and Eastern Europe and their descendants.

Avodah Ivrit. [Lit. Jewish Labour.] Refers to the Zionist ideological belief that Jewish owned institutions had to hire Jewish workers.

Bar Mitzvah. [Lit. Son of the Commandment.] Upon reaching thirteen a Jewish boy is expected to observe the commandments as stipulated by Jewish law. Bar Mitzvah is also the term used to name the ceremony marking this occasion.

Betari. A member of the Betar movement.

B’nei Yisrael. [Lit. The Children of Israel.]

Bogrim. [Lit. Graduates.] An affectionate term used for madrichim, as well as referring to individuals in the immediate years after they have left the movement.

Bonim. [Lit. Builders.] Name given to members of Habonim, which means ‘The Builders’.

Brit. [Lit. Covenant.] Refers to the covenant made between the God of the Bible and the Patriarchs of the Bible, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The circumcision of Jewish males is thus called a Brit Milah [Covenant of circumcision].

Chag [pl. Chagim. Lit. Festival.]

365 Jonathan Ari Lander z2274580 Glossary

Chalutz. [pl. Chalutzim. Lit. Pioneer.] Refers to a person who dedicated themselves to achieving the goals of Socialist-Zionism and made aliyah to a kibbutz or communal settlement. Chalutzim was also used as a name for various year groups in the movements, including Betar.

Chalutziut. “Pioneering spirit” derived from the word chalutz (pioneer). This required a desire and willingness to engage in manual labour in order to establish the Jewish State. Pioneering was mainly associated with agricultural settlements.

Challah. Portion of bread dough set aside for priests and then burnt as a sacrifice to God. Today it is more commonly used to describe a braided loaf of bread which is consumed on Shabbat.

Chanich [pl. Chanichim. Lit. Trainee/pupil.] The general term used for younger members of the movements who are not leaders.

Charedi. [pl. Charedim.] The term is now used to desribe conservative Orthodox Jewish groups which reject any form of secularism or accommodation with modernity. The word means “he who is anxious about, and/or fearful of, the word of the Almighty”.

Chassid. [pl. Chassidim.] A pietistic sect of ultra-Orthodox Judaism that originated in Eastern Europe in the second half of the 18th century.

Chaverim. [Lit. Friends.] Used by the movements to address their membership.

Dror. [Lit. “Freedom/Liberty”]. A Zionist youth movement which was founded in Poland in 1915. The original founders included members of Zeirei Zion (Youth of Zion) which had merged with an organisation called Hashomer to establish Hashomer Hatzair in 1913. The members who remained outside of this union established a Zionist youth movement called Dror. Like Hashomer Hatzair and Betar Dror was involved in organising uprisings in both the Warsaw and the Bialystok Ghettos. During the 1940s and 1950s Dror was aligned with Kibbutz Ha-Meuchad while Habonim was aligned with Ichud Ha-Kvutzot Ve-Ha-Kibbutzim. In the early 1980s the two kibbutz movements merged and so did their respective youth movements, Dror and Habonim. The name of the movement after the union became Habonim Dror.

Eretz Israel. Heb. Eretz Yisrael. [Lit. Land of Israel.] The Biblical name of the territory roughly corresponding to the area encompassed by the southern Levant. Also known as Canaan and Palestine, Promised Land and Holy Land.

366 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Gemara. From the Aramaic word gamar; literally, "[to] study" or "learning by tradition". Whereas the Mishnah contains the text, the Gemara, the second part of the Talmud contains the commentaries. The Gemara thus serves as a form of a ‘glossary’ for the Mishnah.

Garin Aliyah. [pl. Garinei Aliyah. Lit. Seed.] In the context of the Zionist youth movements a Garin Aliyah referred to a settlement group which immigrated to Israel/Palestine together.

Giborim. [Lit. Heroes.] Name given to an age group in Habonim.

Golah/Galut. [Lit. Exile.] A pejorative term used to describe life outside of Israel as a life bereft of the spiritual and physical connection of living in Eretz Israel.

Goy. [pl. Goyim. Lit. Nations.] A term used to refer to non-Jews or gentiles. It is generally used in in a pejorative manner to imply an outsider. Goyische means acting in a “non- Jewish manner” and is also a pejorative term.

Hadar. See pages 52-54. Jabotinsky maintained the word defied translation.

Hadracha. [Lit. Training/guidance.] Refers to guidance along the correct path. The term is also used within Kabbalah (a Jewish mystical tradition).

Hachsharah. [pl. Hachsharot. Lit. Training]. Refers to training farms set up in the Diaspora to prepare chalutzim/pioneers for life in a communal agricultural settlement.

Haggadah [Lit. The Recounting.] Small volume which tells the story of the Exodus and is the central part of the Passover Seder. Basically a book of instruction, especially for young children.

Hagshamah Atzmit. [Lit. Self-realisation.] Refers to the ideal within Zionist-socialism that members would come to the realisation that immigrating to Israel in order to live in a communal setting (ideally a kibbutz) fulfilled both their personal and national needs.

Halachah. [Lit. The Walk/Pathway.] The entire legal system of Judaism consisting of the 613 Commandments in the Torah, as well as rabbinic laws and customs.

Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi: [Lit. Mizrachi Workers.] HaPoel HaMizrachi was formed in 1922. The party’s slogan was "Torah ve'Avodah" (Torah and Labour). HaPoel HaMizrachi was a religious-Zionist party which supported the establishment of religious kibbutzim and moshavim that were governed by Halachah. In 1955 it joined with Mizrachi and became the National Religious Front. In 1956 the merger of the two parties was made permanent and the name was changed to the National Religious Party (NRP). The NRP is still active in Israeli politics. 367 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Haskalah. The Haskalah is generally referred to as the Jewish Enlightenment. It can be literally translated to mean ‘the act of making intelligent’.

Histadrut. [General Federation of Labour.] Founded in Haifa in 1920 to look out for the interests of Jewish workers.

Iton. [Lit. Newspaper.]

Irbutz. [pl. Irbutzim.] A co-operative urban settlement that operates upon similar principles to a kibbutz.

Kosher/Kashrut. Jewish dietary Laws as proscribed by Jewish Law.

Kupa. Communal money pot for all members of the group. This practice was undertaken by the Zionist-socialist movements as part of the preparation for living in a communal environment.

Kvutzah. [Lit. Group.] The name used in Europe by the Zionist youth movements to delineate the different age groups within the movement.

Machane. [Lit. Camp.]

Madrich [pl. Madrichim. Lit. Guide/Instructor.] General term used for the youth leaders in the movements. The root of the word in Hebrew denotes the idea of teaching a person the right path.

MAPAI. (Acronym for Mifleget Poalei Eretz Yisrael. Lit. Worker’s Party of the Land of Israel) Founded in 1930 Mapai was the dominant left-wing party in the Yishuv and the State of Israel in the 1940s and 1950s. Mapai merged with other social democratic parties in 1968 and became the Israeli Labour Party in 1968.

MAPAM (Mifleget Hapoalim Hameuhedet - The United Workers Party) Mapam was formed by a January 1948 merger of the Hashomer Hatzair Workers Party and Ahdut HaAvoda Poale Zion Movement. In 1992 Mapam joined with two other Israeli parties to form Meretz, a Zionist left-wing, social-democratic and pro-peace alliance.

Maon. [Lit. Home.] Word used by the movements to describe their ‘club house’.

Maskil [pl. Maskilim.] The Jewish intellectuals who formulated and expounded upon the ideas of the Jewish Enlightenment [Haskalah.]

Mata. [Lit orchard.]

368 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Mazkir. [Lit. Secretary.] The name given to the top position in the leadership body of Habonim Dror Australia. Mazkir NSW would refer to the top position in the State of New South Wales, while Federal mazkir would refer to the top position in the movement Australia- wide.

Mefaked. [Lit. Military Commander.] The title was originally used by Betar for its top position although its usage was eventually dropped.

Merakez. [Lit. Organiser.] Title given to senior positions withinashomer Hatzair and Bnei Akiva Australia. Merakez NSW would refer to the top position in the State of New South Wales, while Federal merakez would refer to the top position in the movement Australia- wide.

Mered Ha-Ben. [Lit. Revolt of the Youth.] The slogan of the movements in Europe, it referred to the idea the idea that the movements were a revolt against the bourgeois values of the older generation.

Midrasha [pl. Midrashot.] An institute of Jewish studies for women. The word midrasha is generally translated as seminary. In Israel, it is often an Orthodox institution that caters solely to women, and is roughly the equivalent of a yeshivah for men.

Mifkad. All over the world Zionist youth movements start or end their meetings with mifkad, a half-circle shaped assembly where announcements are made, members are counted and basic beliefs are enthusiastically reaffirmed.

Mitzvah/Mitzvot. [pl. Mitzvot.] Generally translated a ‘Commandment’. The word is used in Judaism to refer to the 613 Comandments given in the Torah.

Mishnah. [Lit. Repetition.] An anthology of legal statements on various topics produced by the Rabbis of the second century CE and edited by Rabbi Judah the Patriarch. The Mishnah is organised into six sections, each section contains tractates. Any individual paragraph of the Mishnah is also called a Mishnah.

Mizrachi. [Acronym for Merkaz Ruchani. Lit. Religious centre) The Mizrachi party was established under the leadership of Rabbi Yitzhak Yaakov Reines in Vilnius in 1902. In 1955 it joined with Mizrachi and became the National Religious Front. In 1956 the merger of the two parties was made permanent and the name was changed to the National Religious Party (NRP).

Moadon [pl. Moadonim. Lit. Clubhouse.] Another name used for the base of operations from which a movement organises its activities.

369 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Monism. See pages 49-51 for Jabotinsky’s definition of this term.

Moshav. [pl. Moshavim. Lit. Settlement/Village.] A particular type of cooperative agricultural community of individual farms. Moshavim were originally established by the Labour Zionist movement during the Second Aliyah (Aliyah Bet. 1904-1914.) Both Betar and Bnei Akiva have been active in establishing moshavim alongside the Zionist-socialist youth movements.

Oleh. [pl. Olim. Masculine. ] Someone who “makes aliyah”.

Oneg Shabbat. [Lit. The Joy of the Sabbath.] Originally refers to the practice of Orthodox Jews gathering together to express the inherent happiness of the Sabbath generally through eating, singing, dancing and learning Torah. The practice was co-opted by the cultural- Zionist movement and its youth movements.

Poale Zion. [Lit. Workers of Zion.] Poale Zion was a Marxist Zionist which was established in various cities of the Russian Empire in 1901-2. Poale Zion was originally established in the wake of the Bund rejecting Zionism. Poale Zion split into Left and Right factions with the Poale Zion Right becoming a socialist-democratic party under the leadership of David Ben- Gurion.

Sabra. Term used to describe a Jew born in Israel, usually inclusive of Jews born during the period of the establishment of the sState of Israel. The word is in both Arabic and Hebrew. The allusion is to the sweet fruit of a tenacious, thorny desert plant, which has a thick outer skin that conceals the sweet, softer interior, suggesting that even though the Israeli Sabras are ‘thorny’/rough and masculine on the outside, they are delicate and sensitive on the inside.

Seder. [Lit. Order.] Shorthand used to refer to the Passover meal and the ritual ceremony that surrounds it.

Semel. [Lit. Symbol.]

Shabbat. The Hebrew word for Sabbath. Day of rest commemorating the seventh day of creation as described in the Book of Genesis. The Sabbath is a day of rest which begins on Friday at sunset and concluding on Saturday at sundown when three stars are visible in the sky.

Shichvah. [pl. Shichvot. Lit. Age group/year group.]

Shir Betar. [Lit. Song of Betar.] The name of the Betar anthem.

370 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Shomer. [pl. Shomrim. Lit. Watchmen.] Name given to members of Hashomer Hatzair. Also a name for a senior age group in Habonim.

Shomer Kashrut. [Lit. Guarding Kashrut.] Refers to Jews who observe Jewish dietry laws as defined by Rabbinic Judaism. A person who observes these laws is shomer kashrut.

Shomer Negiah. [Lit. Guarding touching.] Refers to Jews who observe the Halachic dictums that forbid or restricts physical contact with a member of the opposite sex (except for one's spouse, children, siblings, grandchildren, parents, and grandparents). A person who observes these laws is shomer negiah.

Shomer Shabbat. [Lit. Guarding the Sabbath.] Refers to Jews who observe the laws and rituals of the Sabbath as defined by Rabbinic Judaism. A person who observes these laws is shomer Shabbat.

Shule. Yiddish word for Synagogue.

Sichah. [pl. Sichot. Lit. Discussion.] A core part of the programs run by the movements. Programs run by the movements would generally conclude with an informal group discussion about the subject matter of the educational program.

Sifriah. [Lit. Library.]

Shavuot. [Lit. Festival of weeks.] (Also referred to in the Christian religion as Pentecost.) A spring grain festival which also commemorates the giving of the Torah at Sinai.

Shaliach. [pl. Shlichim. Lit. Emmisary.] Another Hebrew term of biblical origin, in the Zionist movement the word is used to describe emissaries which are sent to assist the movements in their activities and provide a physical connection with Israel. The role of the shaliach is also to help prepare potential immigrants prepare for aliyah.

Shelilat ha-Golah. [Lit. Negation of the Exile.] In Zionist discourse this originally referred to the idea that life in the Diaspora was without meaning due to the lack of national autonomy and the fact that Jews were not living close to the soil of Land of Israel.

Shomer Shabbat. [.Lit. Guard the Sabbath.] Refers to a person who observes the laws of the Sabbath.

Shiur. [pl. Shiurim. Lit. Lesson.] A lesson a topic related to any Torah topic whether it be Gemara, Mishnah or Halachah.

371 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Shulchan Aruch. [Lit. Set table.] The most authoritative codification of the main laws of Judaism. It was authored in the city of Safed, Israel/Palestine, by Yosef Karo in 1563 and published in Venice two years later.

Sniff. [pl. Sniffim. Lit. Centres.] The Hebrew word used in the movements to describe a branch of the movement. For example, Betar in Sydney could be called the Sydney sniff.

Succah. [pl. Succot. Lit. Booth.] Temporary hut built for use during the week-long Jewish festival of Succot. (Succot is also referred to as the feast of Tabernacles in the Christian religion)

Tanach. The Hebrew name used to refer to the entire canon of the Hebrew Bible. The name Tanach is an acronym formed from the first three Hebrew letters of the Masoretic Text’s traditional subdivisions: The Torah, Nevi’im (Prophets) and Ketuvim (Writings).

Tass/Targilei Seder. [Lit. Order of Exercises.] The semi-militaristic drills undertaken by Betar.

Torah. [Instruction/Law.] First five books of the Bible, also known as the Five Books of Moses.

Torah ve’Avodah. [Lit. Torah and Labour.] The slogan of the religious-Zionist youth movement Bnei Akiva

Tzofim. [Lit. Scouts.] Also the name for an age group in Habonim.

Tzofiut. [Lit. Scouting.]

Tzniut. [Lit. Modesty/privacy.] Relates to the appropriate level of modesty and dress as defined in Halachah.

Ulpan. [Lit. Studio/Teaching/Instruction]. A school for the intensive study of Hebrew.

Vatikim. [Lit. Seniors.] Name given to a senior age group in Habonim.

Veida. [Lit. Convention/Conference.]

Yeshivah [pl. Yeshivot. Lit. "sitting".] A Jewish educational institution devoted chiefly to the study of rabbinic literature and the Talmud. In Israel the term is used only in relationship to institutions in which men learn. Study is usually done through daily shiurim (lectures or classes) and in study pairs called a chavrutah (Aramaic for “companionship” or "friendship"). Chavruta-style learning is one of the unique features of the yeshivah.

372 Jonathan Ari Lander

Glossary

Yiddishkeyt (Often spelt Yiddishkeit). Derived from the word Yiddish it literally means ‘Jewishness’ but refers to a ‘Jewish way of life’. The term is used by Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews to refer to a Halachic way of life, as well as by secular Jews to refer to more secular expressions of Jewish identity such as Jewish culture, language and food.

Yishuv. [Lit. settlement.] Refers to the organised political and cultural body of Jewish residents in the Holy Land before the establishment of the State of Israel.

373 Jonathan Ari Lander