Israel: The First Decade of Independence

30. The Zionist Movement and the State of Israel,1948-1952: A Formation of Normal Interrelations*

30 YOSEFGORNY______________________________________ The Zionist Movement and the State of Israel, 1948-1952: A Formation of Normal Interrelations* The explanation for the decline of the World Zionist Organization lies primarily in the fact that it was routed by its own success in Israel and among the Jewish people. Zalman Aranne, 1952 The establishment of the State of Israel was a turning point in the Jewish history . This profound change immediately gave rise to the question of "normality ." Which meant: have the Jewish people become again a "normal" nation which has a national state connected with a Diaspora of co-religionists, as it was in the period of the "Second Temple," or as it exists in the present in the relations between the Americans of Irish and Italian origin and their mother countries. The issue had a very significant ideological and political meaning. The question was as follows: Since Jews have now the free choice between living in their own country or staying outside it-has the involuntary Exile become a free Diaspora? Those who answered positively actually said that the Jewish existence is primarily normal again, but it has some uniqueness which derives from the Jewish religious faith and historical fate. I would call this approach "distinctive normalization." The other answer to that question was that in spite of the basic changes the Exile has not vanished, and it remains the historical distinctiveness of the world Jewish existence. In this approach the Exile became the expression of a "Jewish normality," because the feeling and ideology of Galut (Exile) is the essence of the Jewish national belonging. As for the political aspect, the main problem was, to what extent does the state of Israel belong to world Jewry as well?. Or, does the State of Israel have a political "dual obligation" and the Diaspora Jewry a "dual loyalty?" This problem of "dualtity" was intrinsic to the Jewish situation and culminated in the crystallization of the Zionist ideology and movement. *This article is based on a chapter of my book: The State ofIsrael in Jewish Public Thought: The Questfor Collective Identity (NYUP, 1994) 683 684 YosefGorny Once the Jewish state had come into being, Zionism was forced to reevaluate its role and its tasks. In the course of its history, it had passed through three stages: the spiritual era ofHibat Zion (the Lovers ofZion); the essentially political and organizational stage, dominated by the personality of Theodor Herzl; and the stage of political constructivism, headed by Chaim Weizmann and the labor movement. Now Zionism was in its fourth era, focusing endeavors on reviving Jewish sovereignty. After decades in which political energies and resources had been invested solely in the existential national struggle-it was only natural that political triumph followed ideological confusion. Because of the urgent need for economic aid to the young state, which faced the gargantuan task of absorbing floods of immigrants, the question of "what to do next" was not yet relevant. But the question of "what to become" was being raised in intellectual circles, and was particularly pertinent for American Zionists. American Zionists had always considered themselves partners in the Zionist dream, but had not contemplated putting the dream into practice. Led in tum by Solomon Schechter, Louis Brandeis, Stephen Wise, and Abba Hillel Silver, the movement had evolved a twofold attitude to Zionism. Through helping to consolidate the Zionist project in Palestine, it could bolster its own Jewish image, without coming into conflict with its American identity. Thus, the main contribution of American Jews lay in the financial and the political spheres, particularly during the years of political constructivism. This was reflected in the mass mobilization of U.S. Jews on behalf of Zionism towards the end of the First World War, under Brandeis' leadership, and towards the end of the Second World War, led by Silver. Ironically enough, it was the political gains and triumphs ofZionism, transforming it into a leading force, which left the movement without purpose and hence, without distinctiveness. The dilemma facing Zionism in the Diaspora and in Israel stemmed not only from its own successes, but also from the very fact of its existence, Israel posed a challenge to Jews. It bestowed on them the freedom to choose between their countries ofbirth and their ancient homeland, and, because of its pressing needs, demanded self-actualization through immigration. The questions which now surfaced were simple yet profound, and challenging in their plain logic. They centered on three issues: the distinction between Zionists and non-Zionists...