Assimilation, oh what a show...

The Conference on the Future of the Jewish People met recently to discuss the current problem of assimilation amongst Diaspora Jewry. Their solution is to stress Jewish education and further connection to Israel via Birthright. Both of these are good ideas as far as they go. Jewish education has always been the solution to assimilation (see Max I. Dimont's Jews, God and History)- Ezra instituted tri-weekly Torah readings, the Rabbis of the Talmud provided free universal education (circa the 1st century C.E.)- so it should come as no surprise that education might again be a valuable tool in the preservation of Jewish identity. Indeed, and not to sound at all bitter, the Torah itself seems to stress this point- ' and these words shall be on your heart, and you shall teach them to your children.' If it is on your heart, (i.e. you identify with them) the only way forward, the only way to inculcate the next generation, is to TEACH THEM.

The Birthright trip has shown certain results of increasing active Zionism, and Jewish affiliation, but I think think tanks need to be aware of two points that are dangerous in these statistics. Firstly, many of those who go on Birthright are already highly identifiable Jewishly. Not all, perhaps not most; the some who are, are also the most likely to be affected by it. Secondly, while identification with Israel as the Jewish homeland, and home to many Jews, may be a positive attribute, it is still a rather hollow identification as it pertains to Jewish identity. Many Diaspora Jews who associate with Israel associate with Israeli, and not Jewish culture. Furthermore, many Diaspora Jews come to think of Tel Aviv as the only city, and the only mentality, that exists in Israel.

A show of these effects is the hollow worship that many Diaspora Jews have for hummus, falafel, schwarma and the like. None of these are even Israeli, (except that Israel, then still Palestine, was the first to put falafel into pita) but to the Diaspora Jew who has fallen in love with Israel, they are adopted as quickly as possible. Many cultural affinities are Middle Eastern and not Israeli at all. Granted, they are certainly part of the culture of Israel, but to the extent that Israel has absorbed its culture from other sources.

What is the problem, then, if Israel has already absorbed these foreign cultures into their own? Why can't Jewish identity be extended to Israeli identity. For two main reasons- Israel does not negate the existence of the Diaspora, and Israeli culture is often the possession of those who are Jews by virtue only of their blood. I admit to falling trap towards part of the first fallacy, in that, though I don't identify with Tel Avivian culture, I still fail to see anywhere outside of Israel as my home. However, and this is the important part to emphasize, that does not negate the truism that is the existence of a Diaspora. A Diaspora has existed almost as long as the Jewish people have, and it is naive to declare its end with one fell swoop of regaining nationhood. American Jewish culture, for example, is something that can AND DOES exist completely outside the confines of Israeli culture.

But perhaps more important that the narrow definition of identity achieved by Birthright, is the false identity achieved by birthright. As noted before, much of Israel's culture has nothing to do with Jewish culture. By this, and I cannot stress this enough, I do not mean that Israel is not religious enough for it to count as Jewish culture. Although I think it is a truism that Jewish culture (and therefore identification) can never be wholly divorced from Judaism, my point here is something much simpler- many Israelis identify themselves as Jews only by heritage. This is a further emphasis of the point made above-that much in Israel culture is not Israeli-but now the point is that much in Israeli culture, even though adopted by Jews, is not Jewish. Israel, to a certain extent, was founded by those who wanted to cast a completely non-'Jewish' identity for Jews. The common perception is that Zionism is the movement for a Jewish homeland; that is one angle, taken by the likes of Ahad Ha'Am. However, Herzlian Zionism is considerably different. Herzl's aim, having realized that non-Jews would never accept Jews, even assimilated, in their countries, wanted the Jews to have their own country in order that they be like all other nations. Indeed, his goal was that Israel should end up feeling completely like Switzerland.

If Herzl's vision had succeeded, Israel, and the Jewish identity contained within, would be nothing more than an extension of Western identity. However, surely whatever identity Jews choose to attach to themselves, ought to be 'good' enough to be considered Jewish identity? Such an objection, however, fails to understand that the underlying assumption of the conference is precisely the opposite- why should anyone bother about keeping Jewish identity distinctive, if it does not contain anything original, anything unique? Certainly Jewish continuity for the very sake of Jewish continuity is pointless. What do Jews bring to the table? The religious dimension is an obvious answer, but just as obviously not a solution that the majority of Jewry will accept- a cultural identity, based on the conscious, and unconscious, decision of Jews, unique from non-Jewish culture, is the only possible answer. Granted, culture does not develop in a box, and Jewish culture, inevitably, will always have 'outside' influences; outside influences are different than the sum totality of the culture.

Luckily, Herzl's vision has not, so far at least, succeeded. However, to deny that it is a strong current within Israeli society actively misses the point. For many Israelis Israel is the some total of Jewish identity. If that translates to Diaspora Jews, and forges the sum total of their identity, they might as well be Japanese, or Greek. Furthermore, identifying one's Jewishness with Israel may work fine for an Israeli- he's there, it's kind of hard to throw it aside- but for a Diaspora Jew, such identity is only flimsy. Why should he not cast aside this country identity in order to identify with America, or France, etc.? The very fact that this Jew isn't immigrating to Israel shows how very weak this identity is. Nonetheless, the Birthright trips certainly have their place, and are quite valuable for what they do accomplish- reinforcing an already present Jewish identity.

But far from this rant against the division within Israeli society, and vacuousness that occur when people overemphasize 'Israel as Jewish identity,' there is a much more serious issue that this conference seems to have completely failed to address. The conference was framed in (basically) these terms- assimilation is rampant, as evidence by lack of synagogue affiliation, (most Jews are not affiliated with any synagogue) intermarriage, (more than half of all Jews intermarry) etc., and what can be done to stop assimilation. The damning evidence actually points to a conclusion wholly different from the one they have drawn. Or rather, a more important battle needs to be fought.

The battle, in the conference's terms, is a battle against assimilation. By definition that battle is only concerned with those that already associate themselves with the Jewish community- how do we stem the tide of expatriation? However, the figures used in support of asserting rampant assimilation also tell the dark story of those for who this battle has already been lost. Over 50% of Jews already don't associate with the broader Jewish community. The more important question, as it is much wider in scope, and perhaps more of an immediate threat, ( as someone who barely registers their Jewish identity as part of their life can hardly be expected to pass that on to the next generation) is what to be done to bring those Jews, those myriads of Jews, back into the fold.