Handbook of Israel: Major Debates

Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Julius H. Schoeps, Yitzhak Sternberg, Olaf Glöckner, Anne Weberling, Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Julius H. Schoeps, Yitzhak Sternberg, Olaf Glöckner

• Publisher: De Gruyter Oldenbourg
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9783110383386
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Middle Eastern History
• Index: History

The Handbook of Israel: Major Debates serves as an academic compendium for people interested in major discussions and controversies over Israel. It provides innovative, updated and informative knowledge on a range of acute debates. Among other topics, the handbook discusses post-Zionism, militarism, democracy and religion, (in)equality, colonialism, today's criticism of Israel, Israel-Diaspora relations, and peace programs. Outstanding scholars face each other with unadulterated, divergent analyses. These historical, political and sociological texts from Israel and elsewhere make up a major reference book within academia and outside academia. About seventy contributions grouped in thirteen thematic sections present controversial and provocative approaches refl ecting, from different angles, on the present-day challenges of the State of Israel.

Other Major Works by the Editors:

Eliezer Ben-Rafael
Is Israel One? Religion, Nationalism and Ethnicity Confounded, Brill (2005)
Ethnicity, Religion and Class in Israel, Cambridge University Press (paperback) (2007)

Julius H. Schoeps
Begegnungen. Menschen, die meinen Lebensweg kreuzten. Suhrkamp (2016)
Pioneers of Zionism: Hess, Pinsker, Rülf. Messianism, Settlement Policy, and the Israeli-Palestinan Conflict. De Gruyter (2013)

Yitshak Sternberg
World Religions and Multiculturalism: A Relational Dialectic. Brill (2010).
Transnationalism. Brill (2009)

Olaf Glöckner
Being Jewish in 21st Century Germany. De Gruyter (2015, with Haim Fireberg)
Deutschland, die Juden und der Staat Israel. Olms (2016, with Julius H. Schoeps)

Part A: Cleavages

Topic I: Israel – West, East, or Global?

Introduction

Israel’s culture is a topic arousing discord among analysts and researchers, and the reason is the very heterogeneity of the influences impacting on its evolution. Israel’s declared self-definition as the Jewish home explains why Judaism has a strong presence there. And yet extensive layers of its society, certainly among the founding generation, were secular and influenced by the cultures of their countries of origin, the general ideologies that flourished there, and possibly most of all by societal models that spread from the Western hemisphere throughout the world. Also influential were the kinds of experiences immigrants brought with them to Israel, firstly as Jews of whom many had survived the Holocaust, but also as “regular” immigrants who moved to a new environment and confronted the need to adapt to it. Worth remembering too is the impact on patterns of behavior and life values stemming from the actual conditions of life in the country at various periods, including the reality of protracted conflict with neighboring countries. What further compounds the difficulty of overviewing and analyzing Israel’s culture are the numerous origins of the population, including its non-Jewish minorities (Muslim and Christian Arabs, Druze and others). These multiple facets of Israel’s culture or cultures permit many divergent – even contradictory – analyses and interpretations. The following texts illustrate this discordance.

Zohar Shavit and Yaacov Shavit emphasize the link of Israel’s culture to religion but also underline traits – values, life experiences, or artistic orientations – that are typically Israeli. Though the public discourse is multi-faceted, one may still speak of an “Israeli culture.” The general picture is a dual one: a picture of pluralism, even of syncretism, and a picture defined by a common denominator. The core is “Jewish-Israeli” and consists of components of Jewishness and Israeli Jewishness, alongside others that are “Israeli” per se. Linking this core to the religious principle is what enables the concomitant evolution of cultural pluralism.

David Ohana reminds readers of the Zionist project’s belief that the Jew in his homeland would be transformed into a Hebrew: geography would change history. For more radical thinkers, the meaning of that rebirth was a return to “Hebraism,” not to Judaism. The founding fathers wished to cut the umbilical cord that bound them to Jewish religious tradition. However, changes throughout the 1960s to 1990s have shown “the victory of the Jews over the Israelis.” Taken together, symbols like the Akkedah, Nimrod, and Herod have forged Israel’s synthesis. Canaanism, Hebraism, or Judaism may each try to drive one of those aspects to the extreme, and exacerbate splits within the common identity.

Uri Ram, from another perspective, assesses that the 1970s and 1980s saw an intensification of the political struggle between Right (Likud) and Left (Labor), that coalesced into mounting tension between Mizrahim and Ashkenazim, and to some extent into the religious-secular rift as well. All this created a sense that the initial common national frame had disintegrated, and that a society torn by sociocultural cleavages set apart by worldviews and lifestyles was taking shape. A plural – or multicultural – interpretation of Israeli culture emerged, and replaced the previous “melting-pot” ideology. Multiculturalization was actually one facet of the Americanization and globalization that Israel has gone through since the 1990s.

Alek D. Epstein underscores that Israel’s Jewish population exceeded six million in 2014, and ever since the Jewish state is home to the world’s largest Jewish community. Many groups within it remain influenced by their cultures of origin, making the Jewish state an archipelago of communities. To survive, a common culture needs to incorporate symbols and contents from very different traditions. Many examples of constructive dialogue are indicated by the author, who shows how they affect Israel’s cultural mosaic and lay the groundwork for an Israeli culture still to come.

Ines Sonder focuses on the question of the modernism of Israeli society by studying the evolution of the modernist architecture that appeared in 1930s Palestine. She grounds her analysis on the works of architects and scholars who have subjected the “Bauhaus-style myth” of Tel Aviv, the so-called “White City,” to a process of deconstruction. She studies the historical sources from which stemmed that image of modern architecture in Palestine to finally question the present-day challenges pertaining to the preservation of the city’s heritage – the boom of realestate prices, huge increases in housing rent, and the loss of social living space.

Alexandra Nocke turns to an altogether different facet of Israel’s culture. She contends that after years of marginalization, the Mediterranean Sea has become an important element in the formation of Israeliness. It is expressed in the recent rediscovery of Tel Aviv as a part of a wider re-evaluation of the important role of “space and place” for Jewish cultural practice. She acknowledges that the parameters that describe Israel’s identity are the subject of heated debate but, in her eyes, the Mediterranean Idea can eventually become an implementable frame of reference, with the potential for bringing Israel and its foes in the region closer to each other. A Mediterranean paradigm would offer Israel prospects for becoming integrated within the Middle East without being cut off from the West.

Hence, Zohar Shavit and Yaacov Shavit see Israel’s culture as firstly fueled by the contemporary endeavor and life circumstances. Israeliness, as they see it, develops as a common envelope for groups of people otherwise distinct from each other by their different original cultures. David Ohana speaks of “the victory of the Jews over the Israelis,” but emphasizes that divergent trends are at work that may bring about far-reaching crises of identity. Uri Ram insists on the dilution of Israeli culture’s uniqueness under the simultaneous impacts of multiculturalization and Americanization. Alek D. Epstein underscores that multiculturalism may occasion dialogues leading to the enrichment of culture. Ines Sonder brings back the discussion about Israeli culture to a perspective on modernity as it developed in Israel under the pressures of divergent interests. One way out for Israelis from such obsessive preoccupations, however, is, according to Alexandra Nocke, to emphasize the cultural value of their environment, and above all, the countries along the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. It is a resource, as she notes, that Israelis share with their neighbors and perhaps together they can elicit the best from it.

1.Israeli Culture Today: How Jewish? How Israeli?

Zohar Shavit and Yaacov Shavit

This paper was completed in September 2015.

Background

Most cultural examinations of the State of Israel aiming to define that state’s identity focus chiefly on the relationship between its “religious” and “secular” strata (often perceived as a relationship between religion and state). The general conclusion of such analyses is that the relationship is not one of two distinct extremes, but that instead “there exists [in the state] a continuum ranging from those ‘who are scrupulous about observing the Commandments’ to those ‘who do not observe the Commandments at all.’”18 That continuum is determined by a number of elements defining “religiousness” (in the Jewish context) and/or a religious way of life. In contrast, scarce attention is paid to elements that may characterize “secularism”; instead the latter is generally defined in negative terms as the simple absence of religion.19 This definition, which we maintain is incorrect, originates in the fact that by its very nature “secularism” has no Shulhan Aruch (codex of laws); nonetheless we contend that it possesses unique and defining traits.

Moreover, these definitions have dealt principally with “secularism” rather than with “culture as a whole,” and have neglected to examine the value-systems or lifestyles of non-religious Israelis – or, on the other hand, the extent to which religious Israeli Jews interact with and participate in “non-religious” culture.

In this essay we argue that it is incorrect to view culture in Israel as simply a continuum between “religiosity” and “secularism,” or to define a linear scale of religiosity. It is instead necessary to describe and analyze the differences between the cultures of “religious” and “non-religious” Jews and how both cultures are manifested in Jewish society in the State of Israel. In other words, we argue that on the one hand religious Jewish culture comprises more than “Torah and mitzvot,” while on the other, non-religious Jewish culture extends beyond “secularism.” We thus begin by examining what characterizes these two strata (or, more appropriately, spheres) of Israel’s culture, each of which constitutes a subculture within it – where one may be termed “Israeli-Jewish” and the other “Jewish-Israeli.” We then examine the degree to which each of these spheres is present and involved in the sum total of the culture of the Jewish population of the State of Israel.

The first section of this essay deals with the theoretical aspects of our discussion and endeavors to define the basic concepts it involves; these are often vague concepts laden with various and ever-evolving interpretations. The second section seeks to describe specific differences between the Israeli-Jewish and Jewish-Israeli subcultures and to examine the most notable among them; the final part of the essay deals with the elements of each subculture that may seem to define it, while also emphasizing the many elements the two subcultures share. It is worth recalling, however, that even when certain elements are common to both subcultures, what nevertheless creates two distinct and different spheres is the differing status and function of each element within them, in addition to the existence of elements distinctive to each.

In conclusion we explain why, in our opinion, it is the subculture we call “Israeli-Jewish” that is hegemonic within Israel’s culture as a whole, in contrast perhaps to the prevalent view (or even consensus) that the hegemonic culture is that of the “Jewish-Israeli” sphere.

We must emphasize that this essay deals with neither the political nor the material culture of Israel’s non-Jewish minority. Nor does our interest lie in the question of “cultural essence” – which stems from an essentialist perception – but rather in culture as defined by the sum total of those elements that characterize a specific community. It is also important to remember that behind any discussion on the history of Jewish culture (or of the various cultures of various groups of Jews) lie questions of continuity, connection to the past, and unity – and that, in the context of the “Jewish state” in particular, one often encounters questions about the connection between culture and the way in which territorial Jewish nationalism is realized within Israel.

What is cultural identity?

“Culture” is a concept both vague and elusive; it occurs in various contexts and bears a multitude of definitions and connotations. There seems little point in tackling this cluster of definitions, which are frequently characterized by obfuscation, ambiguity, and elusiveness. Instead we prefer to search out the “real culture”20 that characterizes a specific community, a search we believe has two objectives: the first, to determine the common denominator and typical traits that delineate and signify the singular nature of a given cultural identity at a given historical period; the other, to describe the multiplicity and cultural stratification that characterize those traits. Contrary to the holistic perception that all components and manifestations of culture stem from a single source (a “collective genius,” say) or from a formative principle (in the Jewish case, “monotheism”) and that they are furthermore bound by mutual affinity,21 we maintain that the various manifestations of a specific culture never create an “organismic,” holistic, static system. Instead they create a cultural system that, while clearly distinct from other cultures, is nonetheless multifaceted, nonhomogeneous, and dynamic. For our purpose, “culture” is not an “essence” but rather a defined, shared, and comprehensive system of outlooks concerning the world and humanity; a cluster of values; a corpus of formative texts; a set of codes of behavior; shared symbols and shared perceptions of the past; and more. It is furthermore a system of everyday practices that includes among other things festivals and ceremonies, literary and artistic creation, customs, and lifestyles. All these determine and shape attitudes to place; perceptions and divisions of time; and systems of social relationships. Such components create a shared culture and cultural tradition in both the collective and the private spheres.

There are few subjects more elusive than the theme of this essay, both in the general theoretical context and particularly in the Israeli context, and it is no accident that it has been the focus of long-running polemical debate and of an extensive body of literature beyond the scope of thi...