Between Arab and Jew: The Lost Voice of Simon Rawidowicz
David Myers, Brandeis University Press
308 pages, $35.00.
Ask any Jew you know, even one who has a university degree in Jewish studies, who Simon Rawidowicz is. I am willing bet the response will be, “Simon who?” At best, you may get, “Didn’t he once teach at Brandeis a long time ago?” That itself is sufficient cause for David Myers’s new book, “Between Arab and Jew: The Lost Voice of Simon Rawidowicz.”
Myers, a professor of Jewish history and director of the Jewish studies program at University of California, Los Angeles, has written extensively on the history of Zionism and, in particular, about the development of what he called the “Palestineocentric” construction of Jewish studies in the Israeli academy. His work offers a much-needed examination of the cultural and intellectual effects of Zionism on Israel and on the Diaspora of Jewish identity. In this lucid, informative and important book, Myers explores the life and work of a figure who is one of the most underappreciated Jewish voices in the latter half of 20th-century America. An ardent Zionist writing in America, primarily in Hebrew, Rawidowicz is also almost unknown in Israel. His commitment to Hebraism in the Diaspora was unassailable, but it has contributed to his almost total lack of recognition.
The book is based on one fairly brief, unpublished essay by Rawidowicz, titled “Bein ‘Ever le Arav” (literally, “Between Hebrew and Arab”; translated by Myers as “Between Jew and Arab”), that Rawidowicz wrote after moving to Chicago and then to Waltham, Mass., from England to begin a professorship at the newly formed Brandeis University. The essay was written sometime between 1951 and 1953 and was intended to be included as an appendix to his two-volume “Bavel ve Yerushalayim,” (“Babylon and Jerusalem”) published in 1957. For reasons unknown, Rawidowicz chose not to include this essay, which is the main underlying justification for Myers’s study.
The essay is a scathing critique of Zionism from one “who was a probing critic of Zionism without being an anti-Zionist.” But Rawidowicz was also different from other Zionist critics of Zionism, such as Martin Buber, Judah Magnus and the Brit Shalom circle. He studied in Europe with the celebrated Religious Zionist Rabbi Y.Y. Reines and Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel, who was the chief rabbi of Tel Aviv in the 1930s and a leader of the Mizrahic movement. In short, he emerges from deep inside the classical Religious Zionist tradition.
Rawidowicz was not, borrowing Buber’s term, a “Hebrew Humanist.” His criticism of Zionism was not primarily born of compassion for the Arab cause (although be believed Arabs had a right to be a part of the Jewish state); it came mostly from his firm belief in the moral virtue of a multiethnic statism and out of fear that Zionism was becoming “cruel” (in its negative relation to both the Diaspora and the Arab minority), and thus the Jewish state was founded on immorality, which he feared could “disable the Jewish national body,” undermining what he hoped Zionism would produce.
In particular, Rawidowicz attacked “The Nationality Law” passed by the Israeli Knesset in April 1952, a law Rawidowicz — among others discussed in Myers’s introduction — argued was fashioned as a discriminatory policy against Arabs living in Israel, creating unreasonable barriers to citizenship (Myers reproduces the legislation in translation). Myers argues that while the repatriation of Arabs was a central concern for Rawidowicz, “The Nationality Law” was no less troubling for him — perhaps even more so, because it indicated the way in which the Zionist commitment to ethnic “statism” undermined the moral fiber that should be at the base of any Zionism that would productively refashion Jewish identity in the modern world. On the repatriation of Arab refugees in 1948, Rawidowicz is quite explicit: “To summarize: There should not be a single refugee from the State of Israel in the world. The Arab refugees should return to their homes, and your state shall be pure, O Israel.”
Myers suggests that Rawidowicz chose to bury this essay in fear that it would detract from the larger thesis of “Bavel ve Yerushalayim,” which is a frontal attack on Ahad ha-Am’s notion of Israel as a “spiritual center” for Diaspora Jewry. Rawidowicz believed that his major contribution would be to “correct” Ahad ha-Am’s vision of Israel as a “spiritual center” by arguing that there were two traditional centers (Bavel and Yerushalayim) and, with the emergence of the state, there will again be two centers: Israel and the Diaspora, each feeding the other and benefiting from the other’s vantage point and cultural resources.
His attack against “negation of the Diaspora” Zionist ideology was unrelenting, arguing that “the solution to the Jewish question is not to be found in one country, not even in Palestine.” While Rawidowicz’s positions are reflected in, and reflective of, other thinkers, such as S. Yizhar, Aryeh Tartakower, Ya’akov Fleisher and Yizhak Epstein (names virtually unknown in the United States, albeit better known in Israel), only Rawidowicz formulated his views as a Diaspora Jew, committed to the Diaspora as a Jewish center of creativity and contributor to national rebirth.
He understood that the State of Israel “raised more problems for us Jews than it has solved,” and that the double standard endemic in Israel’s self-fashioning undermined the moral high ground Jews had occupied throughout history. He writes: “When [the Arabs] commit an outrage, it cries out to heaven. But when we commit such an act with our own hand, it is an imperative that could not have been avoided.” Such behavior, he claimed, was not only immoral but “for the first time in two millennia [gave] the haters of Israel… grounds to complain about the behavior of the Jews.”
Myers’s lengthy introductory chapters not only set Rawidowicz in his historical context, but also offer insightful and provocative analyses of the whole period in question, stressing the tumultuous ideological wars surrounding “the Arab Question” in the early years of the state. These chapters alone should be required reading for anyone who wants (or dares) to separate reality from myth in this confusing time, both his and ours.
This book is important not only because it gives voice to a Jewish scholar steeped in tradition whose jeremiad against Israel and “statist” Zionism was unheard; it is arresting because one can perhaps too easily draw a line connecting Rawidowicz’s critique and his fears in the early 1950s to the reality of the conflict in 2009. That is, from reading Rawidowicz, and Myers’s excellent assessment of him, one can surmise that the moral crisis in Israel is not the result of the war in 1967 or the intifadas in 1987 and 2000. Instead, the crisis begins in 1948, with Israel refusing to offer protection to the Arab refugees, most of whom were innocent victims of a bloody war, and then making it unreasonably difficult for those who remained to acquire citizenship in a new Jewish state that was envisioned by its architects as a model for tolerance.
True, today an open-door policy of repatriating Arab refugees and their families might threaten the “Jewish” character of the state (which Rawidowicz wanted to protect). But in 1948 that was not the case, and many at that time knew it. And now, when historians such as Benny Morris have provided evidence to undermine the Israeli myth that Arabs left Palestine primarily on the advice of their leaders (Rawidowicz and others knew this myth was untrue in the early 1950s), we Jews have much to account for.
In his epilogue, Myers gives us various reasons to read Rawidowicz today. I would like to add a few of my own. When we have in our affluent and tolerant Diaspora (where Jews are arguably treated better than at any time in historical memory) an eminent scholar from Harvard like Ruth Wisse, who writes in her book “Jews and Power” that the problem with Israel and the Jews today is that they are not militant enough, and when Martin Peretz, editor of The New Republic, proclaims that the message of Israel’s 2009 attacks in Gaza is “Don’t f–k with the Jews!” we need to seriously rethink where we have come as a people. And when Avigdor Lieberman and his quasi-fascist Yisrael Beiteinu party wins 15 seats in the Knesset and the centrist parties reject even symbolic repatriation and ignore the issue of civil rights in Israel, we should wonder if Rawidowicz’s fears in 1951 have come to pass. Survival is a wonderful thing, but selling one’s soul is a tragedy. We owe David Myers a debt of gratitude for giving us Simon Rawidowicz’s lost voice: a voice of reason, of tradition, of morality, especially at a time when we need to be brought back to our collective senses.
Shaul Magid is the Jay and Jeannie Schottenstein professor of Jewish studies and professor of religious studies at Indiana University in Bloomington.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
It should only be that "Bavel ve Yerushalayim" would be the agenda of the Jewish world today. Simon Rawidowicz presented his arguments in Hebrew. Sixty years later, it would already be unthinkable that any Diaspora Jewish intellectual would present any topic of interest to a Jewish public in a Jewish language. It would be wonderful if there were two Jewish centers, each producing a competing Jewish culture. However, culture without a Jewish language is really quite silly. If you would want, just for an example, to organize a cultural program of Jewish songs, you could sing some wonderful Yiddish songs that were written before the Holocaust, and you could have an endless choice of Hebrew songs from Israel. I simply can't think of some great Jewish song written in American English. The argument on the spiritual center of the Jewish world has come to an end. Babylonia, sadly, is Jewishly illiterate.
How nice it would be if there were a center "committed to the Diaspora as a Jewish center of creativity and contributor to national rebirth", as Rawidowicz imagined. It would be so interesting to see a Diaspora entity, a new Bavel, that would create an exemplary Jewish society that lives in ideal peace while creating its own vibrant Jewish culture. The other Jewish society, Yerushalayim, could take an example from Bavel - and give it at times some constructive criticism. Alas, no such society was ever born, and so we cannot analyze how it influences the Jewish world. Too bad. We are are only left with the much easier task of criticizing the one and only center of national rebirth, imperfectly struggling in its hostile reality.
Shaul, "survival is a wonderful thing, but selling one's soul is a tragedy"? We haven't sold our souls, far from it. We still have the most moral army in the world , showing remarkable forbearance in the face of violent racist hatred and murderous, genocidal threats. How many tens of thousands (or more) of innocent Iraquis and Afghans has your army killed, and what are you doing about it there in Indiana? Did US forces phone the Iraqis or Afghans before bombing targets in their area, to warn them to get out, as we just did in Gaza? You're worried about Arab civil rights in Israel? Do you know how many Arabs are in the Knesset? Do you know how many African Americans are in the Senate? How many are in jails? Who has a better record on civil rights? You need to feel good about your decision to live in the Diaspora? Don't do it at our expense, we can manage our moral challenges quite well on our own, without your help, thank you. Shimon Felix (yes, Shaul, that's me)
The Rawidowicz thesis, sadly, is unrealistic, and I think it is unfair to present it as morally superior to the Peretz/Wisse worldview. National life isn't "moral" in the way Mr. Magid seems to advocate. When Jews live in the Diaspora, we may evade harsh realities inherent in maintaining a Jewish national entity, but that is only because we "piggy back" on the tough decisions the countries of our citizenship make. The U.S., France, and Britain, have all fought wars in the past century that raised moral concerns. Jews residing in "Babylon," perhaps do not "sin" as Jews, but they do "sin." To hold Israel to a "higher" standard is to hold it to a lower standard. The actions of the Arabs which "cry out to heaven" are the atrocities they have committed, and by this I mean deliberate attacks on innocent civilians. With reference to forced migration, I merely point to the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Rawidowicz's voice is not one of "tradition," either--the heart of Jewish tradition is the Hebrew bible. I humbly suggest that an historical reading of that book will point one to the conclusions of Ben Gurionistic, activist Zionism.
The Rawidowicz thesis, sadly, is unrealistic, and I think it is unfair to present it as morally superior to the Peretz/Wisse worldview. National life isn't "moral" in the way Mr. Magid seems to advocate. When Jews live in the Diaspora, we may evade harsh realities inherent in maintaining a Jewish national entity, but that is only because we "piggy back" on the tough decisions the countries of our citizenship make. The U.S., France, and Britain, have all fought wars in the past century that raised moral concerns. Jews residing in "Babylon," perhaps do not "sin" as Jews, but they do "sin." To hold Israel to a "higher" standard is to hold it to a lower standard. The actions of the Arabs which "cry out to heaven" are the atrocities they have committed, and by this I mean deliberate attacks on innocent civilians. With reference to forced migration, I merely point to the 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands. Rawidowicz's voice is not one of "tradition," either--the heart of Jewish tradition is the Hebrew bible. I humbly suggest that an historical reading of that book will point one to the conclusions of Ben Gurionistic, activist Zionism.
Zionism is to Judaism as Mormonism is to Christianity. Both are rackets.
The UN General Assembly decision 188, calling for the return of Palestinian refugees, was rejected by the Arabs. Israel, on the other hand, was later accepted to the UN on the basis of her accepting the decision. Why was the decision rejected by the Arabs? It calls for the return of refugees "willing to live in peace" with their neighbors (the Jews of Israel), and obviously the Arab side wished to return the refugees without accepting Israel's right to live in peace. In short, in their view, the refugees should be allowed to return AND the struggle against the Jews will continue. So the claim of Shaul Magid that it would have been possible to return the refugees in 1948 is absolutely untrue. The refugees could have been returned only under the condition of an end to conflict. If in fact the position of Rawidowicz was to return the refugees without addressing the question of recognition and acceptance of Jewish statehood, then his position was really detached from any reality.
Speaking of reality (of an armed conflict), Benny Morris is brought into this article as proof of guilt ("we Jews have much to account for"). I think that Shaul Magid should read Benny Morris a bit more carefully. Benny Morris fully understands the dangers of the life-and-death battle of 1948, and he doesn't hesitate to justify the outcome of the war.
This article uses a new term that I have never heard before: "statism". It would seem that the purpose of the article is to introduce the idea that it was a mistake to have founded a state based on the particular Jewish peoplehood. It's the same unrealistic thinking as in the case of returning refugees before dealing with the end of animosity. First, there has to be a recognition of Jewish national legitimacy (i.e. end of conflict), and only then you can philosophize about multi-ethnic frameworks. Even intellectuals should have some contact with reality and the dangers facing the Jews.
The "lost voice" of Rawidowicz spoke of a Diaspora that no longer exists. There is no Hebrew-reading public, nor is there a Jewish community that has a Jewish national self-identity. Myers doesn't include Rawidowicz's essay on "Babylonia" in his book. I wonder why. So, we read in this book report criticism of Zionism's negation of the Diaspora, but we don't get a view of what has become of the Diaspora that Rawidowicz believed in.
the Idea of a national homeland in Palestine for jewsh is incorrect.and the refguees is the output of this incorrect idea .they will return back after the jewsh return to their real states. thats is the most suitable solutoin for the world.. I know that acorrding to the holly book and the history the jewsh bulid kingdom in Isreal,,, but that dont mean to return back in recent centuries..If we apply this equition arround the world ,,, we will see that Arabs have the rights in these days to occuiped spain and porutgal... and fance have the rights to occuiped Africa,, and Britch have the rights to occuiped America>.. and the world will be forest..Especially that Anthropologists proved that most of jewsh who lives in palestine in these days came from Eastren Europe....
Apropos to the reference to Benny Morris, it is instructive to read the interview he gave to HaAretz in 2004. Cyprus, yet another Middle Eastern hot spot was undergoing a "healing process", as it were with a plebescite where the Greeks and Turks voted on reuniting the island in the wake of the Greek Republic's entry into the EU.
Morris said that it maight have been good to remove all the Arabs to the other side of a "green line", as the Turkish Army marched all the Greeks into areas where the Greeks were the majority, leaving the Turkish Republic of . . . free of a minority. Mr. Morris asserted that if that had occured in 1948, there may have some kind of peace between Jews and Arabs, the result of "two states for two peoples", as the UN partition envisioned.
There is no way of knowing if that would have happened, though considering the internecine politics of the Palestinian Arab leadership, the State of Israel might have required International Police simply to keep the peace to protect itself from the inner struggle of the "Palestinian People".
The expulsion and destruction of the Jews of the Hijaz and Medina by the Prophet Muhammad, and more recent expulsions of nearly 1 million Jews from the Arab and Muslim countries after 1948, do not seem to weigh heavily on the conscience of most Arabs and Muslims. Certainly not as much as the flight and expulsion of some 711,000 Arabs from what became the State of Israel does on the consciences of many Jews. We Jews are expected to have a perpetually guilty conscience and always act like angels. Were Joshua and Gideon and Samson and David angels? We accepted a compromise offered by the UN back in 1947 to split the country with the Arabs that Jews had resettling since 1882, and which the League of Nations authorized as the Jewish National Home in 1922. We have made many new offers since, but all we get are either rockets or excuses for not accepting our offers in return. I fully agree that Israel's major mistake was not moving all the Arabs to the other side of the Jordan river back in 1949 after having lost 6,000 in that war yet managing to break the Arab armies without any major support from the outside. Our failure to be resolute will haunt us for generations to come.
Having a guilty conscience, Jack Garbuz, doesn't mean that we are guilty. We're not. It only means that we are a thinking people that has a highly developed sense of self-criticism. This is a source of strength, although admittedly our tendency for self-criticism makes it difficult to say a good word about ourselves. Israel is a tremendous success story. Having stated this important and obvious fact, I'd like to define the real failure. The concept of Hebrew revival and the creation of a Jewish culture based on a Hebrew-speaking society have not captured the imagination of the Diaspora. Israel is seen merely as a haven for persecuted Jews, worthy of sympathy and political support - while her impressive Hebrew creativity has remained mostly unnoticed.
zionism=another bad idea from europe.
Ziv is right: the point is academic if you're writing from one of the strongest nations in the world...Moreover, why is the Forward telling its readers "what they must think about Zionism"?
Apart from the issue of what the diaspora has become or not, isn't there something to be said regarding the ways in which Israel contributes to its problems with the Palestinians? The Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot time and time again, but surely there must be some policies on the Israeli side that could make a difference for the better. To only argue through the prism of defending against Palestinian militants leaves one with a very limited narrative.