The CSJO conference in May 1998 included several sessions relating to the 50th anniversary of the state of Israel. The speakers at the three sessions are all respected in their fields. They come from a politically left/left of center perspective, and they all expressed pessimism about prospects for Israel because of the direction coming from the Netanyahu government.

Allen Glicksman is a sociologist who deals with ethnic communities in America; he has written several analyses about the recent demographic survey of American Jewry. Rabbi Brian Walt's congregation, Mishkan Shalom, is known in the Philadelphia area for being in the vanguard of the fight for social justice; he spoke about prospects for peace. Jerry Kutnick is associate professor of history at Gratz College and head of its Israel studies program; he is an expert on the history of Zionism in America. He also has a brother and sister active in the kibbutz movement, and he merged their stories with his discussion of crisis in the kibbutz movement.

The three summaries here are based on tapes of the sessions and on my participation in the kibbutz session. In a few spots I have added material in order to flesh out the points made by the speakers.

Tapes of individual sessions can be ordered for $5 per tape plus $1.50 shipping from Roberta Feinstein, executive director rifke@earthlink.net

Secularism is a shell which takes on meaning only when content is poured into the shell - such was the message of Allen Glicksman in his workshop on "Secular Contributions to the State of Israel."

Allen focused on the changing nature of Labor Zionism through the 20th century. A member of Hashomer Hatsair, the last of the old Labor Zionist movement to stick with its early ideology, he outlined the history of the struggles within the Labor Zionist movement as the Jewish settlements in Palestine and later in Israel unfolded.

He traced the inspiration for secular nationalist Zionism to Italian nationalism of the mid-19th century, a movement that invigorated new nationalist movements all over Europe. The image of the fighting nationalist made its way into the ideology of all brands of Zionism, from the fighting chalutz (pioneer) on the kibbutz to the right-wing Vladimir Jabotinsky, a founder and hero of a militaristic Zionism.

Labor Zionism was avowedly secular; it rejected the rabbis and their orthodoxy as tied to a Diaspora mentality. This anti-religious bent remained with Labor Zionism, even as it shed most of its socialist ideology. In the Declaration of Independence in 1948, only one vague reference was allowed to God, and even this had to be forced on Ben Gurion. Ben Gurion as prime minister forged an alliance with the orthodox, but he never embraced them or their ideas.

Once Ben Gurion took over as leader in the 1930s, he moved further and further away from the socialist ideology that had been propounded by the founders of his faction. He opposed the General Zionist movement of Weizmann as too tied to diplomacy and not close enough to the people; he opposed Henrietta Szold, Hadassah, and a number of intellectuals who spoke of a bi-national state; and he fought the various factions of the right-wing, which openly called for military conflict.

According to Glicksman, secularism degenerated into a spoils system, devoid of idealism but eager to reward its followers. In this mode it followed closely the tradition of Polish Jewry. By the time Labor was forced from office in the 1970s, it was nothing but an organization devoted to sharing out the goodies obtained by being in power. It retained some prejudices, such as its anti-religious program, but it had no real message.

Glicksman summarized by noting that Israel was built on Labor Zionism. The movement first threw out traditional learning and replaced it with socialism; then it threw out socialism and found no replacement.

Brian Walt, a Reconstructionist rabbi and a social activist in the Philadelphia area, addressed himself to the peace process in Israel. Unfortunately, he feels, the peace process is dead, killed by the Netanyahu circle.

Walt was very pessimistic about the chances for peace under the current government. He gave a number of examples of the strength of the settlers, who play on the theme that no Jew can ever be removed from the land. By creating small settlements in the heart of Palestinian areas, they force the government to provide massive security details to protect them and to create new Jewish territories.

He related a number of incidents from his recent sabbatical year in Israel, where he felt truly divided. When he went into Palestinian areas (as an observer and as a demonstrator), he could see and feel the injustice done to the Palestinians and feel their anger and pain. When he returned to Jewish areas, he was exhilarated and inspired by the notion of a Jewish state.

Jerry Kutnick is a popular guest at continuing education programs of the Sholom Aleichem Club not only because of his extensive knowledge of Jewish history but also because of the enthusiasm which he brings to his subject. His years in the Zionist youth group Habonim led him to make aliyah after two years of college. He completed his undergraduate studies at the Hebrew University. Later he returned for his Ph.D. in Jewish history at Brandeis University and has lived in North America ever since. He has a sister and a brother living on kibbutzim.Jerry noted that the "crisis" in the kibbutz became apparent to all in the 1990s when for the first time the total population of the 240 kibbutzim began to decline. People have been speaking for the last two decades of the economic crisis of the kibbutz of the "graying" of the kibbutz population (a population growing older) and of the increasing move into manufacturing industry by the kibbutzim, but now for the first time the absolute number of members is lower each year.

Other "crises" have affected the kibbutz movement over the decades since the founding of the first settlement (Degania) in 1909. In the 1960s an ideological divide was crossed when most kibbutzim made the decision that pre-school age children would live with their parents rather than in children's houses. Later developments saw the arrival of individual kitchens so that members would not have to eat every meal communally.

In more recent times over 80%t of the kibbutzim have decided to institute the secret ballot at their general meetings, a retreat from the ideology that downplayed the individual in favor of group consensus. And from another point of view, the extensive use of hired labor created an owner (member) class and a distinct, inferior class (non-members imported for day labor).

Still, as late as the 1980s surveys showed extreme satisfaction by kibbutz members when they could realize their own aspirations, which often coincided with the program of the kibbutz. To accommodate individual needs, members usually controlled a personal budget, which they were able to use for their own particular consumption patterns.

The latest "crisis" is on a par with the earlier ideological debate about using hired labor; it involves perhaps the greatest breach with the older communitarian tradition of "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." Some kibbutzim have introduced differential pay for different jobs. For the first time kibbutz members are being rewarded for their technical or managerial skills. The "boss" of the factory will earn much more than the kibbutz member worker.

"Differentiated pay" has taken on various forms. In some places, the kibbutz member will retain 100% of his/her earnings (minus taxes); the family will then have to purchase everything. In others, individuals will retain 20% or 40% of what they earn. In turn, members will have to purchase various items as defined by the kibbutz - e.g., food, clothing, even their own apartments.
What happens to the unemployed kibbutz member? It is too soon to know. Some kibbutzim have decided to support the unemployed for six months - and then? Will they be turned out? It has not happened yet.

Foreigners, including American Jews, continue to imagine the kibbutz in some ideal light as the realization of socialism on earth, as a place where individual foibles are overcome as all work together for the common good; the kibbutz is seen as utopia.

The face of the kibbutz is changing. This does not surprise Israelis, but it certainly seemed novel to the American audience. The kibbutz is not the same as we thought it was, and the kibbutz tomorrow will not be the same as the kibbutz today.