Zohar Segev, Haaretz, December 2006

In his address to the Zionist Actions Committee in 1942, David Ben-Gurion, then chairman of the Jewish Agency, observed: "New Zealand and Australia are the young offspring of England. While the English government cannot obligate them to take its advice, the English in New Zealand and Australia, and presumably the English in Canada, look toward England and do as England does. However lame the comparison, I can also see this applying to Eretz Israel. The heart of American Zionism can be seen in Eretz Israel." (The transcript of this meeting is in the Central Zionist Archive in Jerusalem.)

Ben-Gurion made these comments about the primacy of Israel over 65 years ago, but this outlook has continued to play a central role in Israeli life and in the relationship between the State of Israel and Jewish communities around the world. "Mi hamanhig" ("Who Governs the Jewish People"; in Hebrew), by Gabriel Sheffer and Hadas Roth-Toledano, traces the intricate mosaic of relations between Israel and the Jews of the Diaspora, with special emphasis on the American Jewish community.

Advertisement The contribution of this book goes beyond historical description, however important that may be in itself. What makes the book unique is already evident in the title, which translates literally as "Who's the Boss?" The title alludes to the fact that the long-standing relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry has ultimately been a tug-of-war. In effect, the authors claim that including this component in the discussion is the only way to understand the relationship and create a solid and healthy basis for future relations. David Ben-Gurion singled out American Jewry in his speech, reflecting the predominance this community has had from the 1940s until today. Hence our own focus on that community.

The first three chapters take a look at fundamental aspects of the Israel-Diaspora relationship, point out the major changes that have taken place in the Diaspora in modern times, and discuss the centrality of the State of Israel for the Jewish people. The next six chapters map out the political standing of the Jews, including an evaluation of how various governments treat them and how policies are reached within the Jewish community. In the final chapter, the authors summarize their findings and propose strategies for maximizing collaboration between the Jewish communities, taking into account such factors as decentralization, wide dispersion, vagueness about what constitutes a Diaspora community, and the decline in Israel's status as a key component of ethnic and national identity.

The authors point out that Israel-Diaspora relations have soured as Jews around the world have stopped recognizing the centrality of the State of Israel. They write about the importance of shaping and preserving Jewish identity, and promoting solidarity with the Jewish people and Israel. The establishment of a Jewish state was indeed the primary objective of the Zionist movement, and founding such a state in 1948 was an enormous achievement. But the issue is more complex than that, as the statements of American Zionist leaders in the 1940s and 1950s will attest.

Unconventional rhetoric

In 1955, for example, at a lecture delivered in honor of Theodor Herzl's birthday, Emanuel Neumann - president of the Zionist Organization of America, and a political advisor and personal friend of American Zionist leader Abba Hillel Silver - deviated from the conventional rhetoric in support of the young state. Taking advantage of the symbolic date, he presented an alternative model for Israel-Diaspora relations. He said that Herzl's tremendous importance in Zionist history derived not only from the fact that he was the "visionary of the state," but from the new models of Jewish life he envisaged. A by-product of the gargantuan effort of world Jewry to build a Jewish national home was building a world Jewish community with political clout, shared goals and active institutions. The establishment of the State of Israel did not terminate this reality or turn the clock back, said Neumann. Diaspora Jewry would continue to operate as a public entity and a political force even after a sovereign Jewish state was in place. The State of Israel, Neumann insisted, was not the only legitimate path in the evolution of Jewish history.

Another challenge to the conventional perception of Israeli nationalism came from Abba Hillel Silver himself. A reform rabbi and one of the leading American Zionists of the 1940s, Silver downplayed the models of Jewish nationalism championed by Herzl and his heirs. In an article published in a special edition of The New Palestine in 1929, Silver sided with opponents of Herzl who sought to emphasize the moral and spiritual components of Jewish nationhood, rather than focusing only on the political process with its territorial and national goals, which were deemed alien to the spirit and essence of the Jewish people.

Silver was glad that the political phase of Zionism was nearing its end, with the establishment of a Jewish national home, and expressed the hope that there would be no further need for stressing Jewish nationalism. Both Silver and Neumann offered a Zionist alternative that accentuated prophetic, moral and universal values, played down the political dimension of Herzl's thought, and proposed a different approach to Jewish existence in the Diaspora. While the State of Israel would continue to be important, it would only be part of the whole in modern Jewish life.

This kind of public opposition to the classic Zionism perception of the status of Diaspora Jewry was very rare among the American Jewish leadership. But reading documents that were not widely circulated, such as the protocols of closed meetings, and carefully scrutinizing the relations between the largest Diaspora community and Israel, before and after statehood - we see that there was resistance to the idea of Israel's primacy. It was manifested in the clear disagreement over accepting Israeli authority on a wide range of issues, some discussed in the book, from control over the donations collected in the United States and responsibility for Holocaust restitution funds, to criticism of Israeli government policy, beginning with the first Lebanon War and continuing until today.

It is no coincidence that the points of friction between Diaspora Jewry and the State of Israel crop up mainly in the American Jewish context. The economic, political and demographic importance of American Jewry is clear to everyone. Beyond that, this community represents the sole alternative to the state in terms of Jewish integration in the modern world. Nevertheless, Israel in 2006 has nothing to fear from the American-Jewish model. On the contrary: The variety of lifestyles offered by Diaspora Jewry, and by the American Jewish community in particular, can be a good source of cross-pollination.

Improving bureaucratic networks for the Israel-Diaspora liaison, recognizing that Israel's status has declined in the eyes of world Jewry, and employing a variety of means to combat this, from Web sites to educational programs - this is all crucial (albeit insufficient) for coping with the challenges of the 21st century. Only adopting a perspective that recognizes the differences and views them as an advantage rather a disadvantage, will create a solid foundation for Israel-Diaspora relations. To accomplish this, academic research and public discourse must relate to American Jewry as an integral part of American society. Jews in the United States do not live in a historical, cultural and political vacuum. Their political behavior, their attitude toward the State of Israel and the way they live their lives, in general, is bound up with their identity as Americans. The Jewish component also plays a part, but in most cases, not a major one (voting pattern studies, for example, show that Jews are much more likely to vote Democrat regardless of the candidates' policy on Israel).

"Who Governs the Jewish People" is a pioneering piece of research, well written and packed with valuable information. In addition to a comprehensive bibliography and detailed index, the appendix, with its theoretical data and comparisons, provides background information on what makes the Diaspora unique. This is an important and welcome addition to the academic bookshelf, which anyone interested in the subject, scholar or student, will find hard to put down.