At Home in Diaspora? Word from: Alieza

Eric Hobsbawm, writing in the London Review of Books ("Benefits of the Diaspora"), argues that the tensions of being a minority in the Diaspora helped propel Jews into leading roles in all the major academic fields after emancipation. He also supports the disturbing opinion that "ghettoization" of Jews in Israel will blunt this tension and therefore slow the creative drive, preventing the creation of revolutionary ideas by Jews pushing the envelope in order to prove themselves to their host communities.

Learning gemara - a text written mostly in the Diaspora- with Israeli's I realize that their experience with neutral non Jewish neighbors is non-existent. And to my dismay, in Jerusalem I encounter less diversity than say at City College, in NYC.

But is it so bad that in becoming a 'normal' country, one where we are the hosts and not the minority, we might only produce a handful of Nobel prize winners, instead of the spate of Diaspora-born winners that Hobsbawm lists? Is the discomfort of being an outsider, the awareness of your conditional acceptance into society, worth an abnormally high creative drive?

I have read several books about exiled and hyphenated identities: Eva Hoffman's "Lost in Translation," Edward Said's "Out of Place" and Said Kashua's "Dancing Arabs" ( all highly recommended). These writers long for a wholeness that they lost because of the multiple languages and multiple/minority cultures they must balance. They all, however, write in their "new" language, and write beautifully. I wonder if their sense of alienation allows them to understand their old and new worlds in delicate intricacy and ironic clarity. And yet I would never wish upon someone the experience of exile or second class status for the purpose of creativity, as I would never wish upon a writer depression or madness, even though many of the great writers were certifiable and certified at times.

What is the danger in remaining the exiled Nation? While Hobsbawm talks about the wonders of emancipation, he glosses over the Holocaust, as if the years from emancipation until today have been one Hegelian trajectory towards acceptance of minorities and Jews specifically. While he claims that Jews who adapted to their host culture were accepted and even respected, there is still an inherent bigotry in singling out the interesting Jewish race, as a group which has a surprising penchant for knowledge, and rises to the top of academic societies. [I felt quite uncomfortable reading the boastful list of Jewish accomplishments in his article.] The Jews are an oddity, exotic creatures. We saw in Germany the lightning fast choice to persecute the formerly accepted German Jewish writers, scientists, philosophers, statesmen and businessmen. While Jews may have been accepted on the surface, they were still Other enough that awe and respect of the intelligent Jew was quickly transformed into envy and hatred.

Should we choose dull our creativity for the sake of a state whose expressed purpose is to protect Jews? Or should we risk another period of persecution by giving up the idea of a ghettoized Jewish state? I don't want either. I have gained so much living in NY that I can only hope that globalization, internet, and travel will prove Hobsbawn wrong. Actually, I am curious to see how Jewish culture will develop in Israel, not in isolation from the world, but autonomously, free from the strains of being a minority in exile. Too bad Hosbawm missed the boat home, we could use him here.