By Eli Cohen
Eli Cohen is a resident of Ein Yaakov and a leading member of the Partnership 2000 Limmud Galil Team.
Jews of the Diaspora have been involved in Israeli existence and in issues that shape the characteristics of the Jewish society within the country since the establishment of the state of Israel (or maybe since the exile...) by expressing deep feelings of longing for deliverance, by taking religious tours to the holy land and by aiding the pioneers in different eras. This involvement took various forms and for many ages evoked mixed feelings both in the hearts of the Diaspora Jews and in those of the Jews living in Israel. On the one hand, guilt mixed with pride and a mystical bond on the side of the Jews who do not live here, and on the other hand, wounded pride and a desire for independence, together with a strong attraction to the old traditions from "there", on the side of the Israeli Jews.
When the Jewish Agency set a target not only to encourage Aliya but also to preserve and strengthen Jewish identity and the distinctiveness of Jewish communities around the world, it had in fact stated the recognition (on both sides) of the essentiality of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora. The way from here to the realization that both Jewish "entities" - the Israeli one and that of the Diaspora Jews - must meet in a symmetrical and mutual place, was rather short and clear.
There is a story about Yaakov Yaakov, the late Mayor of Maale Yosef regional council, who had a meeting with the leaders of the British Jewish community. The British Jewish community, which had always been highly involved in the Zionist activity in Eretz Israel had expressed a motivation to adopt one region in the country and concentrate all its efforts and resources in it. The community leadership had to choose between Maaleh Yosef and other councils in the north. So, the British presented their desire and their willingness to invest (a lot of money, too) to Mr. Yaakov, and took some time for internal discussions. After a while they had gathered again with Yaakov Yaakov and before they had the chance to tell him their decision, he stood up and announced that: "we have decided to adopt you".
Anyone who knew the man knows that this "diplomatic" manner was not at all surprising. He was a man of actions, and like men who do a lot, his short words were full of significance. The late Mayor had expressed the new perception of the Israel-Diaspora relationships: you support us and help us to exist, but we are here to "adopt" and embrace you and assure your Jewish existence. "We have decided to adopt each other" is the expression that serves as a milestone to "Partnership 2000" between Israel and the communities in the Diaspora.
The "Partnership 2000" program was created and shaped by the Jewish Agency together with the UJIA and "Keren HaYesod", to deal with the challenges that the Jewish Nation face, both in Israel and in the Diaspora. The two main goals of the program are: to develop high priority regions in Israel - the Negev, the Galilee, and Jerusalem - and to build inter-relationships between members of the Jewish communities in the Diaspora and residents of those areas in order to strengthen their shared Jewish identity.
So far, there are 550 Jewish communities around the world that are in Partnership relationships with 42 regions in Israel.
The "Partnership 2000" programme reflects, as had been said before, a shift in the presumption of the nature of the formal relationships between Israel and the Diaspora: no longer the philanthropic traditional model of Israel and the Diaspora on which the "Shikum Shechunot" project was based on, where one side receives while the other gives, but rather a bilateral model of partnership and mutual benefit. This model tries to address the needs of both sides: to allow progress and development of the high priority regions in Israel by creating opportunities for growth, on one hand, and on the other hand to deal with the issue of assimilation and strengthening affiliation to Judaism and to Israel. The Partnership tries to fulfill this vision by having Jews around the world participate in promoting national goals, by keeping them involved in social processes that occur within it, and by nurturing relationships that are based, above anything else, on personal connections between members of the communities on both sides.
This profound change in the perception of the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora stems from a prolonged and deep change of the environment in which both sides of the connection work. The fundraising system, which served for many years as the firm ground of the relationship between the State and the Diaspora, had indeed answered legitimate needs. The young state of Israel, struggling for its existence and with capabilities which were barely enough to absorb the thousands of immigrants that filled the country in its early days, truly needed this aid, which also provided Diaspora Jewry with a way to sympathize and to take part in the efforts to stabilize the desired Jewish state.
But, as the state of Israel grew and developed, the view that the relationships between Israel and the Diaspora can be based only on fundraising became weak and irrelevant. The "institutionalized" policy of "handing out money" was gone. It became anachronistic because of the success of Zionism, since Israel could no longer be presented as a poor and underdeveloped country. The young and fresh leadership of the country, which became an economic empire with sophisticated production and export of technology and agriculture, had to come up with a new statement to the world's Jewry - a more attractive and suitable one.
At the same time, the leaders of the Jewish communities around the world had realized that the "campaign" to maintain Jewish identity in their own home could no longer raise the flag of the common messages of holocaust memories and lessons, the struggle for the Soviet Jewish prisoners or the aid to the poor country of Israel, surrounded by its enemies. As soon as Diaspora leaders joined the battle to keep "Jewish continuity" and the fight against assimilation, they realized that more resources must be aimed inward, to strengthen their own communities.
Since these resources were no longer exclusively financial, the state of Israel and especially residents of the regions that are in partnerships with the Diaspora's communities became givers as much as they were receivers. Moreover, the separate needs of each side had become similar and mutual needs. The question of Jewish identity, the definition of the modern Jew, nationality and religion in times of globalization and unclear borderlines, not only of states but also of categories and groups of belonging and identification - all these questions are no longer "Diaspora issues". These questions are rising, and in full magnitude, also in Israel, where Jewish identity is supposedly clear and obvious.
Therefore, the view of relationships between Israel and the Diaspora must address the dual and common need of all this nation's sons, both in Eretz Israel and in the communities outside of it - the need to redefine the common denominator that unifies us all as Jews and at the same time the need to distinguish us from many other nations.
The Jewish identity of the Israelis is by no means more clear or solid than that of a Jew who lives in the Diaspora. On the contrary, sometimes this identity is perceived as obvious and suffers from neglect, which soon leaves it empty without meaning or essence. The individual identifying Jew who lives in the Diaspora is constantly required to make an active choice - "if I want to be Jewish, I need to put forth some effort. I need to provide my children with a Jewish education, I define what level of kosher I will observe, and I may even carry some visual signs to define myself". The individual Jew in Israel, on the other hand, does not have to choose - things are set and done for him, and he or she is about to be included within the Jewish definition that the majority (the state's authorities, basically) choose for them. Will this definition be suitable for them? Will it fit their views and principles? Supposing that the individual Israeli Jew does have principles on these matters, one may guess that he will not accept the general definition of Judaism as one that gets along with his individuality. He was not involved in the process of making this definition, and it is strange to him, for it never took his needs or wishes into consideration.
For the Jewish person in the Diaspora it will always be easier to fulfill a Jewish lifestyle and include some Jewish aspects in his personal identity, if he is a member of an organized community (usually referred to as "Shul", which is not only a synagogue but the formal structure of the entire community). To belong to a community is a choice. In fact, it is the basis for the active choice required of Jewish people in the Diaspora.
The Jewish person in Israel must also make a choice. He must choose to be actively involved in the consolidation of his own Jewish identity. He must raise questions, look for sources and demand answers. And as the psychological process of building the "self" is intensified and progresses through facing challenges and crises - so must the Jewish identity of the individual evolve from experiences, positive as well as painful, and from active participation in experiences that actualize this identity.
Anyway, the best way to explore your identity is through interpersonal relationships, which immediately and directly bring theoretical identity into action, just by these shaping experiences. This interpersonal relationship system is the community.
It turns out, that both the Israeli Jew and the Jew who lives in the Diaspora need their community membership in order to stabilize their own Jewish identity and to keep it adaptable and capable of surviving difficult processes and constant changes.
A community is a dynamic system of events whose first basic principle is aimed towards someone else. The individual does not need the community structure for what he does for himself. It is true that if someone is socially active within the community he may gain some things - quality of life, meaning and social environment - but the social act is never directed towards the "self". Therefore, a community is an open system, which constantly looks for new contexts and associations to turn to. Belonging to a community provides a space that is safe enough to allow the individual to make some connections outside of the community. Moreover, belonging to the community actually provides opportunities for these connections.
A stable community is a pluralistic one. It allows the "other" to exist within it and take advantage of its facilities, in the same way that it allocates resources towards the "other" outside of the community. Only from within the community is it possible to have a dialogue with anyone who may be different from who I am, and yet I put all my efforts in trying to find the common basis of our being sons of the same father.
Our local community, the one that circumstances in this country have given the name - "the confrontation line community", is our space to enhance this dialogue between us and our partner community - British Jewry. Each of the communities is trying to connect the "others" within it and bring them into making an active choice of belonging. Each of the communities is trying hard to preserve its borders as an open and safe system that allows individuals among it to experience and confront their choices. Each one of the communities needs the relationships with the other community in order to stabilize its members' Jewish identity, through the personal, two-sided mirror, that reflects the individual's face on one side and his friend's face on the other side of the bridge.