The conference on Wednesday organized by the Humphrey Institute for Social
Research at Ben- Gurion University will deal with a very contentious topic – the
political, social and cultural role of diasporas and their links with their
countries of origin or, in the case of second and third generation diaspora
children, the home countries of their parents and grandparents.
Why do
diaspora communities, following their migration from one country to another to
create a better life for themselves or to escape persecution, expend much of
their energies in forging and constructing links with the country they chose to
leave? And why does the migrant generation, those that chose to make the move,
get annoyed when their children and grandchildren show little interest in the
“home” country and prefer instead to see themselves as fully integrated and
assimilated citizens of the countries in which they were born and grew up? What
is most perplexing is the fact that many diaspora communities have a tendency to
take on more extreme stances concerning conflicts back in their “homelands” than
do the home communities themselves. The Irish Catholic émigré community in North
America was a strong backer of the IRA during the periods of heightened conflict
in Northern Ireland, while many Jewish groups in Brooklyn, Toronto and London
often adopt the most right-wing and intransigent positions concerning Israel and
the occupied territories.
ON THE front pages of last week’s edition of
the British Jewish Chronicle there is a report on a recent speech given
by the
head of the United Jewish Appeal, the main establishment organization
supporting
Israel. The head of the UJA, Mick Davis, a South African emigrant to the
UK,
argues strongly for continued Diaspora involvement in the affairs of
Israel,
arguing that the nature of the relationships is such that neither the
Diaspora
or Israel can exist without the other and that Israeli leaders and
policy makers
should pay more heed to the messages which are coming out of the
Diaspora.
Davis does raise a real dilemma. Israel-Diaspora relations have
changed. In the past it was very much a question of “write your check
but don’t
tell us what to do. You should feel guilty at choosing to remain in the
Diaspora
and your penance is your ability to support us through your wealth. It
is your
special tax.”
But the realities have changed. On the one hand, Israel is
not a poor country and, while donations from the Diaspora community are
always
welcome, the country will survive regardless. Increasingly, the main
pro-Israel
fund-raisers, are diverting much of their funds to local community
causes, not
least the raising of Jewish identity in the face of growing assimilation
on the
part of a younger generation.
For many Jewish leaders in the Diaspora, it
is Israel which provides them with their own identity. A besieged
Israel, a
growing anti-Semitism – especially if, as now, the new anti-Semitism is
linked
in with attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel – has given rise to
a
rebirth of Jewish community activism in many countries.
While one should
not be naïve about the growth of anti-Semitic incidents in recent years,
one can
be forgiven for feeling that so many of these Diaspora institutions are
socially
constructing a much greater threat than that which really exists (the
community
fight against the proposed academic boycott in the UK is a good example
of this)
as a means of recreating themselves and raising large amounts of money
to fight
the good fight – money which could otherwise have been put to much
better causes
such as promoting Jewish education, culture and identity, or even
supporting
hospitals and welfare organizations in Israel.
Another problem is the
fact that while many Diaspora Jewish organizations have become more
outspoken,
less apologetic and more “Americanized” in the way they defend the
Jewish state
from afar, they have become less and less representative of the
communities they
represent.
They do not represent the huge pro-Israel, liberal groups of
the Left, which are now springing up in North America and Western
Europe, and
which increasingly represent a new generation of globally aware, but
more
critical, supporters of Israel.
Neither do they represent the rapidly
growing haredi communities who, while not being supportive of the state
and its
political institutions, probably have more children and relatives
studying and
living in Israel, than most of the members of the formal pro-Israel
organizations.
Nor do they represent the hundreds of thousands of Israeli
émigrés, the true Israeli Diaspora, who have chosen to live elsewhere
but retain
their strong family links back home. Rather than denigrate them as
yordim,
Israel has finally understood that these communities are an important
link to
the outside world.
INCREASINGLY, THOSE who have become the selfappointed
champions of the Diaspora Jewish communities, and insist on having an
active
voice in Israeli decision making, are in their positions because of the
power of
their checkbooks. Some of them have holiday homes in Netanya, Herzliya
and
Jerusalem, but few of them understand the complex realities of Israel
through
anything other than short visits and so-called “briefing” tours which
gives them
a very narrow and one-sided look at its daily problems. For many of
Diaspora
home-owners here, it is the perfect tax haven which saves them as much
in terms
of unpaid taxes, if not more, than what they donate to Jewish and
Israeli
causes.
Israel does need to harness its supporters in the Diaspora but it
needs to do it in such a way that it is representative of the entire and
diverse
range of views and positions, more closely reflecting the reality of the
fragmented Israeli public opinion. When the Diaspora spokesmen lobby
their
governments and media in an almost blind defense of Israel, they are
often doing
more damage than benefit.
They are seen by the foreign governments and
media as being no more than “poodles” of the state, shutting down any
form of
alternative opinion, bringing into question the nature of Israeli
democracy and
diversity and taking on a far more intransigent stance than that of most
Israeli
leaders – present government excepted.
The Israel-Diaspora relationship
is clearly not a symmetrical one. In the past, Israel needed the Jewish
Diaspora
for both finance and for political lobbying. Today, the Diaspora needs
Israel
for salving its own conscience much more than the other way round. And
if the
Diaspora leaderships of the Western world insist on continuing their
reborn
activism only through the prism of threat, anti-Semitism and the age old
story
of poor little besieged Israel, rather than through promoting the
positive, the
cultural, the religious and the educational, then their long-term
contribution
is not very significant.
It is time to sit down and reassess the nature
of Israel- Diaspora relations if we want them to be mutually beneficial
to both
sides.
The writer is professor of political
geography and dean elect at
Ben-Gurion University, and editor of the
International Journal of Geopolitics.