It is still a very small snowball indeed. But - it is growing. For the first time I read an aliyah story from the Goldene Medine where the economic motive is mentioned. It is BIG change.
Laurie and Martin Gates had toyed with Aliyah since 2005. As the U.S. economy started to slide in 2008, Martin, a chemist, had trouble finding work in his field. “Our friends tried to talk us out of it at first,” acknowledged Laurie. “But as the economy tanked people viewed it more positively,” she added. Martin, a tall affable man with a large smile, is optimistic. “I’m much more likely to find something in my field in Israel than in Skokie.”
28 comments:
That last sentence says a lot more about Mr. Gates and Skokie than it does America or Israel. Skokie is a small suburb of greater Chicago. Had he been willing to look in the whole greater Chicago area, or even better, the whole country, he could have found something. He is rationalizing his underlying desire to make aliyah (or perhaps just to leave the U.S.). Not everyone may share a similar desire.
J, you minimize Israel's problems when you crow over these statistically insignificant aliyah stories. Israel is a tiny strip of resource-poor, scorching desert surrounded on all sides by savage enemies and the sea. It has no allies but the U.S., which everyone knows is in decline. Its Jewish population growth since the end of significant emigration from Russia comes mostly from ignorant, uneducated haredim who suck up government handouts like vacuums. And, witness the recent demonstrations, Israel's economy isn't so hot right now, and living conditions aren't wonderful for young families due to high real estate costs (kept high partly by insane regulations which likely aren't going away, lost on the demonstrators).
Eppour si muove, in other words, yet here he is coming. Thousands of Israelis move to America to look for jobs, so a contrarian is very remarkable. I have little confidence in statistics, only believe in my personal experience. When I left Argentina, its living standard was way higher than Israel, where there was still a black market for eggs (!) and no Nescafe. Look now, and destitute Argentine Jews are coming to Israel by their thousands. No one could imagine Israel's current prosperity.
If a Jew in Argentina has no choice but to leave his country of origin or face destitution, then Israel is likely to gain him because it is the only place that presents minimal barriers to entry. Only those with specialized skills or a lot of money can emigrate to locations of choice. Of course, that says nothing about whether the emigrant will also face destitution in Israel as well, in which case he might as well have stayed home.
The American Jew in the article is a member of a specialized profession, a chemist. He probably could have found something in the U.S. or even in greater Chicago but chose Israel. My point is that this guy (who I think is crazy) has other interests in the place than job opportunities. Those interests may not apply to the vast majority of American Jews.
You can gloat over Israel's position all you want. I am happy things are going well for you there, but I also maintain that the political and military challenges facing Israel could quickly change things for the worse, possibly the worst (destruction of the state).
Aristotle said, one swallow does not a summer make, , nor does 1 person make a snowball.
Zionists have for some reason always seen Aliyah as validation of their claims. Methinks you doth protest too much. The French for example, do not base their national pride on how many Quebecois which to return to the motherland, nor does Germany wish to lure "home" the millions of American of German descent, etc. Israel is a valid nation among nations whether no more Jews move there or all of them. From the POV of Israel's survival, honestly you are better off with us American Jews right where we are.
K
Zion is being created not for the Jews living here but for all of them. The idea is that the existence of the Jew in the Diaspora is precarious and insecure and unnatural. This idea, exposed by Herzl a hundred something years ago, has proved itself once and again all over the Diaspora. Except the Anglosaxon countries, where Jews are tolerated and assimilated. Let see what happens in another hundred years.
Although most Diaspora ventures ultimately end tragically, history is full of tragedy anyway. In the meantime, there were many places where generation after generation lived and died peacefully. In any case, given that Israel itself is not exactly a peaceful Garden of Eden - it is in a bad neighborhood to say the least, the verdict is still out as to whether Herzl's alternative was really the better one in the long run. Even if it is, it is surely better not to put all your eggs in one basket. One of the reasons the Jewish people survived for 2,000 years was the very fact that they were dispersed so even if one community was destroyed there were others that thrived.
K
Well-said, K. Putting all our eggs in one basket in an era of widespread nuclear proliferation is unwise.
The diaspora has existed for well over two thousand years, and even before the destruction of the Second Temple, there were more Jews living outside of Israel than in it. It's difficult to accept Herzl's idea that the diaspora is unnatural for the Jews given its persistence. Diasporas are actually not so rare - witness Greeks, Armenians, Volga Germans, Lebanese in West Africa, etc.
Being a minority is bad for one's character as well as physical security. I dont want to convince anyone because I think reality is a better teacher.
Being a minority is bad for one's character as well as physical security. I dont want to convince anyone because I think reality is a better teacher.
I'm not sure the likely upcoming war will be good for Israelis' physical security, either, although if Israel wins, it would be less awful than being pushed into the sea or turned into radioactive ash. Point being that long-term, Israel may not be good for the Jews' physical security either. As K said, the verdict is still out.
I suspect the movement of Jews between the US and Israel will fluctuate according to the relative economic opportunities afforded by each country.
I have, however, made the point before that it is not prudent to have everybody concentrated in a small, vulnerable territory, with nuclear-armed adversaries full of hatred, only a small rocket-launch away.
The lower the Jewish population in the US, moreover, the less the US will be inclined to support an increasingly unpopular Israel.
Anon.
Diaspora is horizontal transmission which evolves virulence.
Even if it is, it is surely better not to put all your eggs in one basket. One of the reasons the Jewish people survived for 2,000 years was the very fact that they were dispersed so even if one community was destroyed there were others that thrived.
...
I have, however, made the point before that it is not prudent to have everybody concentrated in a small, vulnerable territory, with nuclear-armed adversaries full of hatred, only a small rocket-launch away.
Even if there were multiple Jewish states outside of Israel throughout the world that were independent, exclusive states, you could always worry that all those concentrations might get nuked.
Thus in order to have a diaspora strategy that avoids this risk, you need to disperse into non-Jewish territories and be able to move between non-Jewish territories. In order to do this you need to liberalize citizenship, residency, migratory, etc. laws. You need to be able to violate potentially everybody else's right or desire to live in their own exclusive state.
And if you don't want independent, exclusive Jewish states outside of Israel, and those non-Jewish territories ultimately can't be exclusive states for their particular nations, then what this diaspora strategy is really aiming for is to have populations serve as shields or buffers and be under enough control and influence to enable favorable citizenship, residency, migratory, etc. laws. The populations can't have full sovereignty.
This is basically what anti-Semites say that Jews do.
The survival of the Jewish people is uncertain, as is the survival of every other people. The difference is in the quantity and quality of thinking and debate that Jewish survival is focusing. The fact is that Israel's wars had no demographic impact at all. And as recently Luttwak said, the cost of Arab violence to Israel is zero. Israel has been growing continuously for a hundred years, while the Diaspora is shrinking and weakening. Should we say that facts and history are nothing, but the only reality is some phantom of a nuclear holocaust. Should we run away and disperse because we are afraid of ... Ahmedenijad's nonexisting bomb?
You should not run away, but you should build shelters, and you should be able to counter-strike. These things you are doing anyway.
And you should not concentrate your entire people in one small place, since it invites hard-core anti-Semites to make dangerous plans.
Anon.
In order to do this you need to liberalize citizenship, residency, migratory, etc. laws.
Nonsense, many nations have harbored Jews over the centuries with no "liberalism" involved whatsoever.
Nonsense, many nations have harbored Jews over the centuries with no "liberalism" involved whatsoever.
By "liberalize" I don't mean "liberalism" in the contemporary understanding of the term with all its baggage.
I simply mean favorable or amenable enough.
How "liberal" the citizenship, residency, migratory, etc. laws, is going to vary according to the particular situation or environment.
At minimum it has to be favorable or amenable enough to Jewish citizenship, residency, migration, etc.
If you're completely devoted to the diaspora strategy working, then you have to secure this minimum, but it may not always be prudent or possible to just secure this minimum. It may be more politically expedient or safer to try to get something greater than this minimum.
Funny, but citizenship for all men, freedom of movement, etc. are the basic ingredients for prosperity so it is not exactly a hardship to adopt these "Jew friendly" policies nowadays. In any case, right now all the Jews are pretty much where they want to be for the moment, so there is no pressing need to liberalize (for example) immigration laws on their behalf.
K
In fact, the opposite is true; there is a pressing need to tighten immigration rules, in the interests of the Jews, especially in Europe where some very unfriendly people indeed have been freely let in, and which has resulted in, to nobody's surprize, a resurgence of anti-Semitism in that continent.
Anon.
citizenship for all men, freedom of movement, etc. are the basic ingredients for prosperity
This isn't true.
And even if it were, mere material prosperity wouldn't justify "freedom of movement" considering its effects such as population replacement and genocide.
there is a pressing need to tighten immigration rules, in the interests of the Jews, especially in Europe
For the diaspora strategy to work, these rules and laws can't be completely illiberal. They have to be liberal enough to secure the minimum of being favorable or amenable to Jewish citizenship, residency, migration, etc.
Some say that in multi-ethnic societies, antisemitism cannot prosper. I am not convinced: for example, Spain in the 15th Century expulsed all Jews in search of homogeneity. Anyway, I am a Zionist who rejects the Diaspora. Talking about geopolitical strategies, we should follow the British policy of breaking up neighboring countries. Of course No one follows my opinion.
The anti-Diaspora Anonymous forgets that for most of the duration of the Jewish Diaspora and in most locations, Jews were considered permanent foreigners rather than citizens or ordinary subjects and lived under stifling restrictions on occupation and property rights as well as suffered exorbitant taxation and threats of violence. Despite this, the Diaspora survived for centuries up to the point in time in the mid-19th century that the situation for Jews started to improve.
Population replacement and genocide is a bit extreme to ascribe to the Jewish Diaspora in and of itself, though some of the more hysterical WN's and neo-Nazi types like to assert it. That dire outcome is more descriptive of the European settlement of the Americas vis a vis the natives, but in writing that I do not intend it as a moral judgment. Anyway, in the modern era, the Diaapora is not exclusively an undigested rock in the midst of a surrounding society. Nowadays, a proportion of even the historically stubborn Jewish population is willing to assimilate to the customs of the surrounding culture.
Some say that in multi-ethnic societies, antisemitism cannot prosper.
I don't think there's a hard and fast rule. It really depends on the situation. One can be vulnerable as the lone minority amidst a homogeneous majority, and one can be vulnerable as one minority in a society with many.
Talking about geopolitical strategies, we should follow the British policy of breaking up neighboring countries. Of course No one follows my opinion.
The British strategy was to prevent one power from dominating and having "hegemony" over Europe.
The US has inherited this basic strategy and seeks to prevent one power or alliance from dominating and having "hegemony" over Eurasia.
The anti-Diaspora Anonymous forgets that for most of the duration of the Jewish Diaspora and in most locations, Jews were considered permanent foreigners rather than citizens or ordinary subjects and lived under stifling restrictions on occupation and property rights as well as suffered exorbitant taxation and threats of violence.
I am not "anti-Diaspora" per se. Just trying to work out the implications.
This was a general feature of pre-modern societies. There wasn't a uniform status for all. Most everyone, Jew and gentile, was a subject with varying privileges and restrictions. There were of course restrictions and violence and other injustices, but there were also certain privileges, monopolies, protections.
Population replacement and genocide is a bit extreme to ascribe to the Jewish Diaspora in and of itself
I didn't ascribe them to the Jewish Diaspora, but to liberal "freedom of movement" policies as a tool for "prosperity" which generally mean large migrations to lower labor costs, not small numbers of superstar scientists moving to provide expertise or technology to raise the productivity of the existing labor inputs, therefore having more signficant and serious effects on the population composition.
Anyway, in the modern era, the Diaapora is not exclusively an undigested rock in the midst of a surrounding society. Nowadays, a proportion of even the historically stubborn Jewish population is willing to assimilate to the customs of the surrounding culture.
If a diaspora completely assimilates into a larger population, then it ceases being a diaspora population. For a diaspora strategy to work then, the diaspora population cannot be completely assimilated and thus lost into a larger population.
There is no "diaspora strategy" per se. No conclave of elders meets and decides that a certain subset of the population should move to a different place but continue to exist apart. Individuals and small groups decide to move for whatever personal or economic reasons. However long group cohesion lasts creating a diaspora, if some members decide to defect, there is no controlling authority stopping them and reminding them that their actions aren't according to plan. Regardless, all that is required for the establishment of diaspora is that not all members of the community assimilate. The fact that some members choose to assimilate, however, is suggestive of a less hostile orientation to the surrounding population from the diaspora population.
I didn't say there was some conscious top-down diaspora strategy.
I'm trying to work out what the implications of a successful diaspora strategy as a means for Jewish survival would be.
There are certain logical implications that a successful diaspora strategy as a means for survival entails.
Any diaspora, including individuals and small groups moving for personal or economic reasons, is going to share some of these implications if it ends up being a successful diaspora for Jewish survival.
To: Anonymous
My name is Laurie Gates and I am the woman in the article. Your comment: "Had he been willing to look in the whole greater Chicago area, or even better, the whole country, he could have found something." He did LOOK!
For 3-5 years. There was NOTHING! He had a masters degree and 16+ years of experience. He was either over qualified, there were hiring freezes at most companies, and the few (poorly paying) jobs were in the middle of nowhere. Fortunately he was able to make a living as a handyman. We are now living in Beit Shemesh and Martin is working as a Chemist (supervisory position) for OMRIX
biopharmaceuticals LTD. And for the record: My husband is perfectly sane :-)
Post a Comment