In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

  • Loyalty and Love of Israel by Diasporan Jews
  • Leonard Saxe (bio) and Matthew Boxer (bio)

The relationship of Diaspora Jewry to Israel has been the focus of intense, sometimes bitter debate, both before and after the establishment of the State of Israel.1 The creation of Israel in the shadow of the Holocaust and the “ingathering” of Jews from around the world in its first decade muted critical voices, even those who had been ambivalent.2 In the early years of the state, what began as harsh rhetoric about shlilat ha’golah (negation of the Diaspora) and the impossibility of full Jewish life outside of Israel, moderated and Diaspora Jews learned to love Israel, without feeling guilty about not making aliya. In particular among American Jews, perhaps the most settled Jewish Diasporans, Israel became a focus of extraordinary pride. The 1967 Six Day War was an exceptional moment that promoted solidarity. Since then, levels of support and engagement with Israel have remained consistently high, although there are some perturbations in levels of support associated with periods of heightened hostility or threats to Israel.3 Despite Gabriel Sheffer’s claims about current Diaspora-Israel relations, attitudes toward Israel among Diaspora Jewry remain extremely positive. American Jews in particular are highly attached to Israel and there is little indication that recent political debates have changed the fundamental picture.

Sheffer’s thesis is that there is diminished support and loyalty toward Israel among Diaspora Jewry, reflected by mounting criticism of its policies and driven by assimilation and growing heterogeneity of Diaspora Jewish communities. Further, although support remains, he sees the traditional relationship of Israel to the Diaspora undergoing major change. Sheffer’s analysis, however, is incorrect in a number of ways. The socio-demographic picture of Diaspora Jewry is somewhat different than Sheffer imagines and he misappreciates the way in which political differences are framed outside of Israel. Nevertheless, Sheffer attempts to apply the framework surrounding the more combative social discourse in Israel to the Diaspora. [End Page 92]

United States Jewry constitutes the largest group of Jewish Diasporans and the one about which we have the most knowledge. Although Sheffer includes Jews in other Western countries in his discussion, because of the size of the community here, much of what he concludes references American Jewry. Rather than aging out and being in decline, as Sheffer and others suggest, our latest analyses indicate that the population is increasing.4 As well, interest in Israel is growing. To be sure, there is critical rhetoric about Israel and, in particular, the policies of the current government, but there is little evidence American Jews are “distancing” themselves from Israel.5 Debate among American Jews about Israel is intense, much as in Israel, and new organizations have formed, in particular because of gaps between the views of ordinary Jews and communal leaders. It is difficult to predict the future—and what transpires will depend on Israel’s ability to resolve its internal and external conflicts—but, for now, there is little evidence to indicate that American Jews are abandoning their traditional support for Israel.

We describe the contemporary American Jewish community and the ways in which it is changing. The focus then shifts to attitudinal data and the claim that political differences are causing a fissure in relationships. Finally, we describe the future prospects for the relationship of US Jewry to Israel. The portrait that emerges is quite different than that suggested by Sheffer.

Contemporary American Jewry

Underlying Sheffer’s critical assessment is his sense that Diaspora Jews are bifurcated into a group of “hardcore” Jews and others who may identify as Jews, but are “well adjusted” to their host communities and do not “sympathize” with Israel. At least in the case of US Jewry, the situation is far more complex than a community neatly divided into core and non-core. Rather than static communities, there is flux and, as Horowitz6 has noted, American Jews move in and out of engagement with their Jewish identities. To be sure, there are differences among groups of American Jews in the strength of Jewish identity, but many of the factors thought to differentiate Jews—in...

pdf

Share