Gabriel (Gabi) Sheffer. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Editor: William A Darity, Jr., 2nd Edition, Volume 4, Macmillan Reference USA, 2008.
Diasporas in general and the Jewish Diaspora in particular are very important complex sociopolitical entities that are playing a growing role in most states worldwide, as well as in regional, international and transnational politics. The diaspora phenomenon, including the Jewish Diaspora, is an expanding field of study.
Many people worldwide, including scholars—especially those adhering to the instrumentalist and constructivist approaches to the origins and development of ethnic groups, nations, and diasporas—consider the Jewish Diaspora as a modern or even a postmodern phenomenon. While it is true that the period since the mid-nineteenth century has seen a marked change in the entire diasporic phenomenon—including the Jewish Diaspora—the Jewish Diaspora, like other ancient diasporas, has maintained many of its “old” characteristics.
The History of the Jewish Diaspora
The Jewish Diaspora was established as a result of both voluntary and forced migrations of Jews out of their ancient homeland—Eretz Israel (the Land of Israel). Later, Jews were either exiled from their host countries (such as Spain and England in the Middle Ages and Middle Eastern states in the twentieth century) or voluntarily migrated to secondary and tertiary host countries. The forced and voluntary migrations that resulted in the establishment of the Diaspora began much earlier than what has been regarded as the “official” date of the Diaspora’s establishment, that is, the creation of the Jewish Diaspora in Babylon.
Return movements of Hebrews from Egypt (the Exodus) and other Middle Eastern countries to the Land of Israel have occurred throughout antiquity and the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, Jewish communities continued to exist in these countries after such return migrations. Hence, a Jewish Diaspora has persisted since antiquity.
The expulsion of the Israelites by the Assyrians and of the Judeans by the Babylonians only added new larger groups to the already-existing Jewish diasporic communities in various parts of the Middle East. This means that after the initial establishment of the Jewish diasporic entities in Egypt and Syria, new Jewish diasporic entities were established in various parts of the Middle East and Asia Minor and later in the Balkans. The Babylonian Jewish Diaspora served as a model because the Jews created there an “autonomous diasporic sociopolitical system,” in which the Diaspora, rather than the devastated homeland, became the national center and played the crucial role in the nation’s persistence, cultural development, and political influence.
The establishments of the Greek Empire and later the Roman Empire, both of which controlled vast territories, facilitated both the permanent settlement of Jews and the establishment of communities in various parts of these empires and the communication between the various dispersed Jewish communities.
This expansionist trend continued during most of the Middle Ages. The Jewish Diaspora spread from the eastern Middle East, Greece, and Rome to North Africa, Europe, and Asia. Later, partly voluntarily and partly because of anti-Semitism, anti-Jewishness, and hatred, Jews migrated and established diasporic entities in South and Latin America, and then they moved to the United States, Canada, Australia, and South Africa. In fact, the center did not shift back to the homeland even when the regional geopolitical situation changed.
More Recent Developments
The Zionist Movement, which advocated the return to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish independent state there, was established toward the end of the nineteenth century and during the early twentieth century. Because of growing temptations of assimilation and of integration into democratizing and secularizing host lands, on the one hand, and because of persecution, anti-Semitism, and pogroms, on the other hand, the most urgent problem then facing Jewry was how to prevent defection of individuals and groups from Judaism and from membership in the Diaspora’s communities. Thus, already at that historical juncture, the problem was how to ensure continuity and enhance the readiness of Jews to identify as such, as a basis for a solidarity that could enable Jewish diasporic joint action.
Partly because of the Diaspora’s geographic dispersion and partly because of ideological pluralism among Diaspora Jews, it was difficult to reach consensus about the preferable strategy for the nation’s survival and persistence. Hence, during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries there emerged various approaches to these questions, and virtually all shades of strategies gained adherents. These included assimilation, integration, participation in class struggle (namely, adopting the socialist and social-democratic solutions), cultural and political autonomy, and corporatism, the latter of which meant formal representation of the Jewish community vis-à-vis host governments, such as in Great Britain.
During this period, the main new facet was the birth of the separatist Zionist movement’s strategy, which called for the Jews’ return to Palestine and the reestablishment there of their own sovereign state.
Prior to World War II (1939-1945), the emerging but small Zionist movement faced tough intranational competition with other Jewish movements that had emerged in the Diaspora. Actually, prior to the emergence of Nazism and World War II, Zionism was a marginal movement in world Jewry, and its strategy did not attract the majority of Jews. The impact of that war, especially the painful realization of the full scope of the Holocaust and its disastrous consequences, created the right backdrop for a breakthrough by the Zionist movement. Many Diaspora Jews realized that the Zionist strategy was not only feasible but also an appealing solution to the problem of Jewish survival and national revival. Though the situation was ripe for the implementation of the Zionist strategy, membership in and support of the Zionist movement was still rather limited.
Debates about Fundamentals
The efforts to form consensus around the Zionist solution generated many delicate questions about central issues, some of which are still debated in the early twenty-first century. Among these, an important issue has been what should be the relations between the Zionists and other Jewish groups that opted for other strategies. Another unsolved issue revolves around reconciling the various elements in the national identity and perceptions. Because this fundamental question has not been solved, the issues of the principles that determine Israeli citizenship, and consequently the relations between Israel and certain segments in the Diaspora, have remained unsolved.
An additional debate about essentials that has not been concluded concerns the centrality of Israel versus the autonomy of diasporic communities. In two large and strong diasporic communities—the U.S. and French communities—strong inclinations toward cultural and political self-sufficiency and freedom of action have emerged vis-à-vis Israel. Connected to these trends, new attitudes have emerged concerning certain practical issues, such as loyalty to Israel versus host countries, and Israel’s “right” to influence Diaspora leaders and members in order to increase support for its endeavors.
Furthermore, there was and there still is no consensus between Diaspora and Israeli leaders concerning the role of the Diaspora in the establishment of the Israeli state. In the wake of World War II, this historical act was promoted and actually implemented by leaders and parties adopting an ideology that emphasized the predominance of the Yishuv (the Jewish community in Palestine) in the Jewish nation.
After the Holocaust, when the Jews still constituted a stateless diaspora, large segments in various Jewish communities adopted an exceptionally supportive strategy toward the Jewish state. Later this strategy changed. In most Western democracies, where Jewish communities have been able to act relatively freely, these entities have adopted a communal strategy. Essentially, this strategy means not only moderate social, political, and economic behavior, but it also has determined the nature of the organizations the Diaspora operates. On a spectrum of strategies that runs from an assimilationist poll, on the one hand, to a return to the homeland, on the other hand, the communal strategy is regarded as one that poses major threats neither to the host countries nor to the members of the Diaspora. By adopting this strategy the Diaspora members implicitly pronounce that they accept the main social, political, and economic rules of the game in the host countries and that only under extreme circumstances would they adopt dual loyalties. When fully implemented, this pattern diminishes potential and actual controversies and clashes between the Diaspora and its host lands.
The Effects of the Establishment of the State of Israel
The establishment of Israel in 1948 marked a fundamental change in the position of the Jewish Diaspora. Whereas prior to its establishment the Jews constituted a “classical stateless diaspora,” afterward the Jews dwelling outside Israel should be regarded as a “classical state-based diaspora.” Since 1948 the Jewish Diaspora has shown great similarity to other classical diasporas whose connections are with independent homelands.
After the establishment of Israel a new group joined the classical Jewish Diaspora—Israeli emigrants. Most of these Israelis emigrated to and settled in various host countries as a result of voluntary decisions, and therefore they also hardly regard their situation as exilic.
The Land of Israel is a crucial element in the ethno-national-religious identity of Diaspora Jews. Throughout history the collective memories of the homeland remained vivid in the hearts and minds of Diaspora Jews. The spiritual and emotional ties of Jews, though not all Jews, to the ancient homeland contributed to a sense of national solidarity. Later this solidarity also served as a basis for various activities on behalf of that segment of the nation that dwelled in the homeland. Such support peaked in the wake of the establishment of modern Israel, and still later during and after the 1967 and 1973 wars. Since then general support for the Jewish state has been declining.
Similar to the situation with all other diasporas, the Jews form a majority only in Israel, and only small minorities in all their host countries. In fact, the majority of the nation dwells outside the homeland—most of them in relative security, economic prosperity, and cultural bloom. These facts and Israel’s problematic security situation have raised the issue of the location of the national center, and of its corollary, the question of peripheriality in this nation. During the first two decades after the establishment of Israel it seemed as if the Diaspora recognized the new nation-state as the main Jewish center, and its policies and actions determined developments in the Diaspora.
By the early twenty-first century, there were at the least four major Jewish centers—the American, French, Russian, and Israeli. Among these centers there is implicit and explicit, continuous tacit competition about predominance in the entire nation.
In most of the host countries, especially the United States, Canada, Great Britain, France, Australia, Mexico, and Peru, there are relatively large groups of core Jews who have well integrated into these societies, political systems, and economies. These Jews—most of whom were in their forties and fifties in the early twenty-first century—obtained an academic education and became affluent. Many of the members of these well-integrated groups are in high-tech fields, academia, and other professional occupations, such as journalism, medicine, banking, insurance, and law. Some of them belong to the richer segments in these countries, but most of the members of these groups belong to the middle and upper-middle class. The main reasons for these achievements are: Jews’ determination to continue to survive and overcome actual and perceived difficulties in their host lands, their painful memories of historical deprivation and persecution, family and communal support and encouragement, a strong emphasis on education within their families and communities (education being a precondition for economic success), and the existence of Jewish communal and international networks and systems of communication.
There are, however, still many Jews permanently residing in the above-mentioned and other host lands, such as east and central European and some Latin and South American countries. These Jews are typically older and belong to lower income groups or to the working class. These poorer Jews need support from their host governments and their Jewish communities. This last factor affects the allocation of the resources that are at the disposal of the various Jewish diasporic communities. When the political and economic conditions in such host lands become more difficult, such Jews get support from the wealthier Jewish communities. This has been the case, for example, with the Jewish refugees created by World War II, with Jews in Middle Eastern and North African countries until the 1950s, and, more recently, with Ethiopian Jews.
By the early twenty-first century, the return of Jews to countries where they were persecuted and from which they were expelled had also become apparent. The “return” of Jews to host countries such as Germany, Spain, and Austria, shows that Israel is not regarded as the undisputed national center. Moreover, the majority of Diaspora Jews has stayed and will be staying in their host countries.
Despite persecution and migration to secondary and tertiary host countries, on the one hand, and acceptance by host societies and governments that result in assimilation or full integration, on the other hand, in various host countries a Diaspora core is maintained. These cores of devout Jews maintain their ethnonational and religious identity and resist assimilation or full integration.
In the past, the religious element in the Jewish identity was essential for the entire nation. Since World War II, however, this element has lost some of its significance. Though religious Jews claim that they constitute the main barrier against a sweeping assimilation that would result in the disappearance of Jewry, the ethnonational factor now serves as the basis for the continuous existence of many Jewish communities all over the world.
The Comparative Perspective
Because of its origins, endurance, and attachment to its ancient homeland, it is not surprising that the Jewish Diaspora has been considered an imperishable “classical,” “archetypal,” and “mobilized” diaspora. Some observers, however, are pessimistic about its future survival. The gist of the pessimists’ argument is that the new pluralism, multiculturalism, and tolerance toward the “others,” which prevail in the more democratic host countries, speed up the assimilatory tendencies that demographically decimate world Jewry.
This diaspora should now be regarded as an ethnonational-religious state-linked diaspora that is similar to other older and newer existing diasporas. In fact, the Jewish Diaspora fits a collective profile of ethnonational diasporas (Cohen 1997; Sheffer 2006). As applied to the Jewish case, the profile includes a number of elements.
As has been shown in the historical analysis above, the Jewish Diaspora was created as a result of voluntary and forced migration out of its homeland—Eretz Israel—and out of other host countries, and eventually as a result of its members’ permanent settlement in host countries. This diaspora has remained a rather small minority in all its host lands; after permanently settling in their host lands, the Diaspora’s members have maintained their ethnonational identity. This identity is buttressed by strong religious beliefs. The identity of this entity’s members is based on a combination of nonessentialist-primordial, psychological, and instrumental factors. The nonessentialist-primordial factors include the idea of common ancestry, biological connections, a common historical language, collective historical memories—among which the twentieth-century Holocaust is important—a discernable degree of national solidarity, a deeply rooted connection to the ancient homeland, and similar patterns of collective behavior. This identity is also based on instrumental factors concerning various benefits that derive from being members of the Diaspora. The strategy of many Jewish diasporic entities is communalist and is implemented through multiple organizations and active trans-state networks that protect and promote the diaspora’s political and economic interests. Another element of the profile is that most members of the Diaspora do not regard their existence in their host countries as exilic.
On the basis of such identity and identification, a sense of solidarity emerged and has been sustained. Such solidarity has facilitated continuous connections between the elites and active members on the grassroots level, which pertain to the cultural, social, economic, and political matters of the entire entity. In turn, these constitute determining factors in the relations among Jewish diasporans, their host countries, their homeland, their brethren in other host lands, and other international actors.
All the above-mentioned factors serve as the bases for organization and collective action. An essential purpose of these organizations and activities is to ensure the Diaspora’s capability to survive and to promote its interests in host lands and in the homeland, as well as to maintain cultural, social, economic, and political connections with the homeland and with other segments of the same nation.
Wherever and whenever they are free to choose, Jewish diasporans tend to adopt distinct strategies concerning their existence in their host lands and with their homeland. Generally, core members of the Jewish Diaspora adopt the communalist strategy, which is intended to ensure integration, rather than assimilation, in the host countries. This strategy, coupled with the wish to maintain contacts with the homeland determines the nature of the organizations that the Diaspora establishes, and also leads them to establish elaborate and labyrinthine trans-state networks.
The establishment of the Diaspora’s organizations, including the trans-state networks, and their subsequent activities, raises complex issues of loyalty. To avoid and prevent undesirable clashes between the Diaspora and its host societies and governments concerning the laws of the land and the norms of the dominant segments in the host societies, the Diaspora’s members usually accept these norms and comply with the laws. Nevertheless, during certain periods, especially when the homeland or the host country finds themselves in the midst of crises, or when the Diaspora encounters severe difficulties, certain segments in the host societies develop negative attitudes about the Diaspora’s disloyalty. On certain occasions, such tensions and clashes lead to the homeland’s intervention on behalf of its Diaspora or meddling in its affairs.
As noted above, despite certain pessimistic predictions of the demise of this ancient diaspora, all indicators show that like other similar diasporas, the Jewish Diaspora will continue to exist and even prosper.