The
Zionist Century - Concepts - Israel Diaspora Relations
Israel-Diaspora Relations
PART I
Introduction
Discussion of Terms
Any discussion of Israel-diaspora relations needs to start with a
examination of terms, which form the crux of our discussion.
Two terms are used to describe the Jewish world outside of Eretz
Yisrael. They are very different in meaning although they relate
to the same physical reality. The word DIASPORA, originating from
a Greek word meaning scattering, is a value free word that describes
objectively the Jewish world as a world in which Jews live in many
different countries. Another word, describing exactly the same reality
in a value laden sense, is GALUT [or GOLA], meaning literally
exile.
The use of the term Galut or exile to describe the Jewish communities
of the world indicates that these communities live an unnatural
and undesirable existence. When people are in exile, the assumption
is that they are living for some reason in the wrong place - it
would be far more natural for them to be living in their homeland.
In other words, the use of the term Galut to describe the scattered
Jewish communities of the world indicates an attitude towards that
world, based on disapproval and - often - of the hope that this
unnatural state of affairs will come to an end, and that the people
in Galut will be enabled to return to their homeland.
Making a Distinction
The conventional separation between the two terms is to use them to
describe two different objective situations that have occured at different
times in Jewish history.
In those periods when there has been Jewish sovereignty in Eretz
Yisrael (First Temple Period, Second Temple Period, modern State
of Israel), the convention has been to refer to the areas outside
of the areas of sovereignty as a diaspora - while in those periods
when there has been no such Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel,
the convention has been to refer to the Jewish communities as being
in Galut. The implication is that in the first context the scattering
of the Jews is voluntary (because they have the option of living
in Israel) whereas in periods of non-sovereignty, no such choice
necessarily exists and this is therefore regarded as a period of
exile.
In conventional Jewish theological terms, Galut was seen as a
outcome of Divine punishment. God, it was believed, punished the
Jews for their sins, as forewarned in the Torah, by dispersing them
among the nations of the world. The task of the Jews was to try
and reverse the Divine decree, by removing God's anger, thus allowing
the process of Galut to be reversed and the Jews to return to their
own land. This distinction will be used here for purposes of clarity.
It must, however, be emphasised that this distinction is certainly
not rigid - nor is it universally accepted.
The Importance of Terminology Today
In any discussion of Israel-diaspora relations, it is important to
make clear that it is entirely possible for Jews around the world
to consider themselves as living in diaspora (i.e. a voluntary situation
desirable to the individual) while other Jews might consider them
to be living in an undesirable and unnatural state of Galut. This
situation, which has characterised certain Jewries, has led to considerable
confusion, resentment and tension between different group of Jews.
This tension, however, appears to be a modern phenomenon. Up to
the beginning of the era of emancipation (the late eighteenth century
in western Europe) most Jews seem to have been willing to accept,
at least outwardly, the idea that in periods without sovereignty,
they had been living in a situation of Galut. The whole nature of
the relation of the outside Jewish communities towards the land
of Israel for thousands of years was based on that supposition.
Now let us examine the situation chronologically.
|