Analysis

To what extent can Jewish political theories define the nature of the State of Israel and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast?

The political development of the State of Israel and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast is less about national narratives and more about political theories
Published by
Central Office
on May 5, 2022
on May 5, 2022
Image Source:
History Today
Image Description:
The Declaration of the State of Israel proclaimed by David Ben-Gurion on May 14th, 1948

The way in which Jewish nationalism can be defined in comparison with other nationalist movements in Europe is difficult to quantify[1]. Not only because there is no categorical and uniform model of European nationalism with which Jewish nationalism can be compared, but also within the Jewish movements there are different cultural and political thoughts on the right path to follow for Jewish social rebirth.[2] For one part there are modernist and secular tendencies to define Jewish nationalism based on a shared territorial aspiration, language, a common past, legacy and descents.[3] This is the way most (but not all) European nationalist movements defined as the primary of their national activism.[4] This perception might be accurate for the Jewish national movement through a shared territorial desire, Palestine, the land where the Jewish identity was formed, the revival of Hebrew, the biblical language, and the continuity with the people of Ancient Hebrew and myths of Ancient Israel.[5] However, such a perception that Jewish nationalism fits the norm of other European national movements has been disputed by those who articulate the nature of the Jew as a product of the Diaspora, rather than a descendant of biblical myths.[6] For those who put forward such a perception, the way in which Jews have been separated and scattered in the Diaspora for centuries makes it difficult to apply historical, cultural, linguistic, and especially territorial particularities to a group of individuals defined by the differences between the societies in which they live.[7] On the other hand, there are those who share the idea of ​​a land-based solution to all the problems that contemporary Jews face, only that they do not identify this imaginary territory with the rebirth of the biblical language, Hebrew, or with a continuity with the ancient period in terms of the territory of destiny, Palestine, or descent from the Ancient Hebrew people.[8] Proponents of the first category fall into the sphere of Zionism, while the second are representing the Diaspora Nationalism, and the third are activists of what is called Territorialism. All are clusters of the same philosophical thinking aimed at improving the character of the Jews, but the way each one is defined will characterize the differences between two present political projects, the State of Israel in the Middle East, and the former Soviet Union`s Jewish Autonomous Region, nowadays the Russian Federation`s Jewish Autonomous Oblast.[9]

Zionism fits perfectly into most European nationalist movements.[10] There is a predestined land, the biblical land of Israel in the Middle East where the first Temple was built and the old fortress of King David is located (city of Jerusalem), the very same place where Zion (from which the national movement Zionism is derivates) has its roots.[11] And there is a language, Hebrew, the language of religion that survived over the years and which justifies the connection of contemporary Jews with the Ancient Hebrew, thus giving a sense of continuity and descent.[12] For Zionists, there is also a combination between the wish for modernization and the romantic idealization of the past, a fusion between a conservative way of thinking and a social revolutionary way of acting that might bring memories of the old past and agricultural land that symbolizes the return to origins.[13] For the fathers of modern political Zionism, especially Theodor Herzl, Zionism as a Jewish national movement emulates European nationalist ideals.[14] There is therefore a contagion effect in the way Zionism evolved alongside other European nationalist movements. Herzl himself emphasized the `like-other-nations` reason for the purpose of Zionism, making himself clear that the Jewish people should follow the example of other nations in Europe in achieving territorial independence to nurture their own culture and identity within a modern, secular, and progressive society formed on the way the European Enlightenment principles framed other modern nations.[15] This Zionist `like other nations` thought represented the philosophical thinking behind the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 based on the Zionist preoccupation with the Jewish community of pre-state Israel and its contradiction to the uniqueness, chosenness and purposeness of the Jewish people at the expense of their assimilation as any other nation by placing Judaism above statehood.[16] [17]

The Jewish Autonomous Region, also known as `Project Birobidzhan` was established by the Soviet government in 1934 with the purpose of solving the Jewish problem within the Soviet Union through the formation of a national homeland for the Soviet Jewish.[18] Unlike the establishment of the State of Israel in the Middle East a decade and a half later, the Soviet-sponsored project came to encompass the other two movements in opposition to Zionism, Diaspora Nationalism and Territorialism. But to what extent could `Project Birobidzhan` be an accurate and clear example of any of these? Diaspora Nationalism put forward the need for the Jewish people to seek autonomy (political and cultural) within the societies in which they are found in the Diaspora.[19] For the Diaspora nationalists (contrary to Zionists) the revival of the Jewish people was to be based inside the society they have been living for years (and not somewhere within a promised land as envisioned by Zionism), and to seek to reinvigorate themselves within those societies.[20] Therefore, in opposition to Zionism, the Diaspora Nationalism emphasizes the nationhood at the expense of statehood and the uniqueness of the Jewish people rather than their similarity with others with the purpose of statehood.[21] How much does the Birobidzhan Project fit this pattern? The Soviet government sought to establish a Jewish homeland in the Far East as a solution to the Jewish problem within the USSR in the form of an Autonomous administrative entity and encouraged the relocation of the Soviet Jews from the Western part of the Union to the Eastern side as part of their concentration within a territorial entity where they are free to pursue their identity, emphasizing nationhood at the expense of statehood.[22] So far, so good for the Birobidzhan Project within the framework of Diaspora Nationalism. But as far as Diaspora Nationalism sought cultural autonomy and the reinvigoration of the Jewish people within the living territories, the process of how this Jewish territorial entity and therefore the cultural practices pursued by the Soviet Jews within it, were controlled by the Soviet government which envisioned this territorial homeland for the Jewish people as definitely soviet in culture.[23] [24] The Soviet empowered the Yiddish schools in the region to uniformize a set of norms and ideas in the Jewish conscience of Birobidzhan more on the Soviet-imposed ideology of class struggle and less on the Jewish traditional education and cultural autonomy.[25] The distortion of Jewish history in favour of a strictly imposed soviet culture through propaganda means made even more difficult for the Soviet Jews to reinvigorate their culture within an authoritarian environment they live in.[26]

How much of Birobidzhan as a product of Territorialism? The USSR-created Birobidzhan Projects fits perfectly within the framework of Territorialist concepts such as the practice of Yiddish language (as opposed to Hebrew as promoted by Zionists), a continuity of the Jewish -European- lifestyle (contrary to Zionists who sought a break from the decades-long Jewish lifestyles in the Diaspora in favour of a continuity with the memory of Ancient Israel), a preoccupation with the economic situation of the Jews living in Russia and a land-based solution to the Jewish problem.[27] [28] What departures Birobidzhan Project from Territorialism (and Zionist) norms is the role of that land-based solution. If the Zionists envisioned a land-based solution on the biblical land of Israel, Territorialists sought a land-based solution outside Ancient Israel.[29] But while both Diaspora Nationalists and Territorialists were looking forward to achieving political and cultural autonomy, the Territorialist went even further in looking for civil autonomy and even sovereign independence.[30] Soviet Birobidzhan fits perfectly within the framework of increased autonomy through planned settlement and mass immigration as the Soviet government promoted Jewish relocation to the Far East to work the lands of Birobidzhan, integrate within the Soviet society and contribute to the building up of the socialist economy (and revolution).[31] What the USSR would have never allowed was the planned settlement and mass immigration of Jews to first populate that land and then make their own.[32] Moreover, Territorialism opposed the concept of a binational lifestyle in favour of Jewish particularism within a defined territory.[33] This did not suit Birobidzhan where the Soviet government imposed a bilingual society with both Yiddish and Russian as the institutional, public, and the language of education.[34] Territorialism was not opposed to Jewish religious traditions even though it was a secular movement.[35] This runs contrary to what the Soviet government would have allowed to Birobidzhan where religion was out of order and the Jewish history and traditions distorted by the uniformization of a Soviet culture through propaganda means.[36] [37]

Analysing all those political theories in the light of Jewish movements, we can better define the nature of their philosophical products, the State of Israel in the Middle East, and Russia-located Jewish Autonomous Oblast (Project Birobidzhan). The State of Israel is not only the clear and accurate product of Zionism but is the political example of European national ideas developed during the 19th century (the century of European nationalism) that clearly influenced the fathers of Zionism (especially Theodor Herzl).[38] As such, the establishment of Israel is based on concepts such as political independence, territorial concentration, progressive society, secularism and modernity, peculiarities of any nation-state framed by the European Enlightenment.[39] Contrary to that, Project Birobidzhan was a hybrid product of Diaspora Nationalism and Territorialism. Even though it represented more of a Diaspora Nationalist concept, rather than a Territorialist idea put in practice, it is still far from being classified as the clear and accurate product of any of them.

 

Bibliography:

 

  • Ben-Israel, Hedva, `Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects`, Israel Studies, Vol 8, No 1, 2003.
  • Rovner, Adam, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014.
  • Weinberg, Robert, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley.
  • Wharton, Annabel Jane, `Jerusalem`s Zions`, Material Religion, Vol 9, issue 2, 2013.

[1] Hedva Ben-Israel, `Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects`, Israel Studies, Vol 8, No 1, 2003, p. 91.

[2] Ibidem.

[3] Ibidem, pp. 91-92.

[4] Ibidem.

[5] Ibidem, p. 91.

[6] Ibidem, pp. 91-92.

[7] Ibidem.

[8] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, pp. 4-7.

[9] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, pp. 7-10.

[10] Hedva Ben-Israel, `Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects`, Israel Studies, Vol 8, No 1, 2003, p. 94.

[11] Annabel Jane Wharton, `Jerusalem`s Zions`, Material Religion, Vol 9, issue 2, 2013, pp. 218-243.

[12] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, p. 91.

[13] Ibidem, p. 92.

[14] Ibidem, pp. 93-94.

[15] Ibidem.

[16] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, p. 7.

[17] Hedva Ben-Israel, `Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects`, Israel Studies, Vol 8, No 1, 2003, p. 93.

[18] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, p. 13.

[19] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, pp. 8-9.

[20] Ibidem.

[21] Ibidem, p.9.

[22] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, pp. 16-24.

[23] Ibidem, p. 13-16.

[24] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, p. 9.

[25] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, pp. 59-64.

[26] Ibidem, p. 64.

[27] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, p. 7.

[28] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, pp. 16-19.

[29] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, p. 7.

[30] Ibidem, p. 9.

[31] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, pp. 18-19.

[32] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, p. 9.

[33] Ibidem.

[34] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, pp. 59-64.

[35] Adam Rovner, `Introduction` in In the Shadow of Zion – Promised Lands Before Israel, New York University Press, New York, 2014, pp. 9-10.

[36] Robert Weinberg, `The Birobidzhan Project` in Stalin`s Forgotten Zion: Birobidzhan and the Making of a Soviet Jewish Homeland: An Illustrated History, 1928-1996, University of California Press/Berkeley/Los Angeles/London/Judah L. Magnes Museum/Berkeley, p. 14.

[37] Ibidem, p. 64.

[38] Hedva Ben-Israel, `Zionism and European Nationalisms: Comparative Aspects`, Israel Studies, Vol 8, No 1, 2003, p. 94.

[39] Ibidem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Short description

Social

© Copyright 2021 | www.asianatlas.org
magnifiercross