ADJUSTING TO NEW CONDITIONS (1951-1953)

It is in the nature of an ideological youth movement that each generation views itself as unique and the issues with which it must grapple as unprecedented. This is so despite the strong feeling of tradition and continuity with which such a movement is infused. Both attitudes are of value. The historical perception lends depth and purpose; the sense of revelation, of exploring uncharted ideological paths gives the movement its vigor and its pioneering aura. The educational process, therefore, represents an effort to amalgamate the awareness of tradition with the sensation of discovery.

To these generalizations Habonim is no exception. Nor were the years 1951-5! different, in this respect, from other years. But the movement operates in a fluid context of external events and sensitively reflects changes in this context. While the fundamental values and direction may be fairly constant, the impact of events brings about shifts in emphasis. To this extent the sense of novelty felt by succeeding generations is not an illusion.

By the time of the Baltimore convention in December of 1950, the movement had begun to show signs of serious and progressive decline both in numbers and in intensity. It was felt that this was part of the general decline in American Zionism, which had begun to manifest itself shortly after the end of the War of Liberation.

The movement was also affected and somewhat confused by the international political tensions which had intensified after the outbreak of the Korean War. The principal ideological issue at that convention was one of orientation in the cold war. Although there was no impulse toward sympathy with the communist world, nor anything but profound hostility both for its doctrine and its practice, there was at the same time a vague discomfort (and in some chaverim) an incipient disenchantment) with the trend of events in the West. This feeling reflected itself both in the evaluation of American foreign policy and in the reaction to the domestic political climate. The idea of re-arming Germany engendered in many chaverim, both as Jews and as liberals, an acute revulsion. And even those who accepted this policy did so out of a reluctant pragmatism, viewing it as an inescapable but nonetheless distasteful development.

The early dissonant chords of the McCarthyist cacophony were being heard in the land; and they grated harshly, emotionally complicating the issue of orientation. Only after a long and searching debate was a firm position adopted by the convention: that it was not enough for the movement to reaffirm its hatred for all forms of totalitarianism; it must also vigorously reject all forms of neutralism. Notwithstanding its recognition of the latent forces of reaction in the Western democracies, and despite its unhappiness with certain elements in Americans cold war policy, the movement unequivocally took its stand with the West as the force which represented, in the words of the convention resolution, "at least the potentiality for the improvement of society
and the enhancement of human dignity and freedom." Even after the convention, as new issues arose, the discussion continued. But the large outlines of movement policy had been clearly drawn.

The same convention re-evaluated the movement's attitude toward the American Jewish community and reaffirmed the traditional views that Habonim does not reject the community or seek to isolate itself from it; that if the Habonim program is to be carried to larger numbers of American Jews, Habonim must root itself in the community; that aliya-oriented Zionism does not stem from a denial of the values inherent in American Jewish life but from the fullest realization of those values. But the renewed emphasis on this facet of the movement's creed was misinterpreted in certain quarters (which had criticized the movement for being too Israel-centered) as a new and, to them, welcome departure. They concluded that henceforth Habonim would recognize, as a normative matter, the equality of the American Jewish community and aliya. During the year following the convention the movement was compelled to clarify, both internally and to its friends, that the "new departure" was essentially a reaffirmation of a well established principle, and that the movement continued to recognize the priority of aliya, both as an educational value and as a practical program.

Perhaps as a reaction to the intensive tempo and high spirit of the earlier period of mobilization, Habonim had, by 1951, acquired a mood of relative relaxation, in which madrichim and leading chaverim had begun to pay increasing attention to the fulfillment of their personal needs, often at the expense of their movement responsibilities. People were increasingly embarking on long-range programs of study and of preparation for various professional careers. This phenomenon was not essentially dissimilar from the contemporaneous development in Israel. There the intensity of the national struggle in the years immediately preceding the achievement of independence and in the ensuing year or two had engendered a spirit of self-sacrifice and patriotism of extraordinary depth. There, too, the high pitch could not be sustained indefinitely and gradually gave way to a tendency, and then a surge, of personal aggrandizement and the pursuit of self interest. This is taken for granted in most societies, but in the Zionist context it was viewed as a reprehensible betrayal of national ideals and the national interest. Gradually, both in the American chalutz movement and in Israel, the new pattern has come to be accepted as the norm. Damnation has given way to an adjustment effort aimed at preventing the new normalcy from degenerating into too-destructive a form of hyperindividualism. It is now believed that the drive for vocational self-fulfillment and career outside of the traditional chalutz forms must be channelized and directed to the greatest possible extent to serve the continuing, if less dramatic, state-building struggle of the post-liberation era.

One of the positive developments of the period in question was the marked advance in the knowledge and use of Hebrew. The movement had always stressed the importance of acquiring a knowledge of the language and had introduced the heavy seasoning of Hebrew terms into its organizational and educational vocabulary. But the level of true knowledge of Hebrew, even in the leadership, had always been woefully low. By 1952 the increasing numbers of chaverim who had been to Israel for visits or in the framework of various seminars or other projects had had the effect, quite dramatically, and in a sort of chain reaction, of raising the level of Hebrew knowledge.

The summer of 1951 witnessed the fourth consecutive season of Camp Amal, the Hebrew camp of Habonim. In addition, two experiments in the Hebraization of the Habonim camps were conducted. Camp Moshava, of Baltimore-Washington, contained a Hebrew-speaking pluga (unit), and Camp Kinneret, of Detroit, Michigan, conducted a "Hebrew-centered" camp. At the same time the movement encouraged increased emphasis on Hebrew in the program of all the camps. By now, the interest in learning Hebrew has spread to much wider circles, both of youth and adults; but in 1952 Habonim was in the vanguard.

Another important development of that period was the establishment, in September, 1951, of the Workshop program, a project through which hundreds of the older chaverim in the past decade have gone to Israel, have seen the country, have experienced life in the kibbutz, and have continued their Labor Zionist education. The theory behind the undertaking was that there is no better instrument of Zionist education than Israel itself and that exposure to Israel reality, with its virtues and its faults, is the best possible culmination to the movement experience of an individual.

Concurrently with the establishment of the Workshop, Habonim liquidated the remnants of its hachshara (training) program in America. The Workshop was seen, in part, as the means, appropriate to the time, of fulfilling some of the purposes of hachshara» The closing of the farms subjected Habonim to intensive criticism from persons both in the United States and Israel, who continued to believe that classical hachshara was sacred and irreplaceable. The leadership of Habonim, however, was convinced that the hachshara farms, in their pitifully undermanned state, could be only a demoralizing factor and could no longer make a positive contribution to the program of the movement. Though the Workshop could not conceivably fulfill all of the functions of hachshara at its optimum, it could do many things that hachshara, by the very fact of its geographical distance from Israel, could not hope to achieve.

Organization has been a chronic weakness of Habonim, and poor organization and inefficiency have undermined the potential educational results of many worthy undertakings. In the years following 1950, the registered membership of Habonim had declined. During the winter and spring of 19~2 Habonim conducted an intensive membership campaign—called Operation Koach (strength), or O.K. Drive, for short—and succeeded in enrolling some five hundred new members, as well as in bringing many peripheral chaverim closer to the life of the movement. At the same time, the national office, with a notable measure of success, attempted to improve its administrative functioning as well as that of the local machanot.

Another significant achievement of the year 1951-52 was the enhancement of the level of the merkaz by the holding of a number of forums, addressed by well-known personalities. In a youth movement, "good people" make the transition from chanichim to madrichim at an age at which their own movement education is not yet nearly complete, with the result that the process of educating others becomes a drain without replenishment; for their own education has ceased. The educational forums of the merkaz made some contribution toward the alleviation of this problem.

At the same time, an effective kupat madrichim (cooperative fund for leaders) was established, by which at least the chaverim working for the movement in New York City assumed a measure of mutual economic responsibility, thus raising their morale.

The acquisition and development of adequate moadonim (centers) continued, though it was demonstrated all too often that Habonim lacked people sufficiently experienced and mature to properly supervise the physical plant of a center. As a result, centers were not always adequately exploited.

World Habonim was formally inaugurated in 1951, and American Habonim played an active role in the undertaking. In the summer of 1951, the writer represented Habonim as its delegate to the 23rd World Zionist Congress. He also participated in the Conference of the Ichud Olami and led the American delegation to the founding convention of World Habonim.

During this period the CHAY Commission, the Commission of Chalutziut and Youth of the entire Labor Zionist movement, was strengthened with Bert Goldstein serving as chairman. In many cities the local CHAY Commissions functioned and served as an excellent instrument of interaction and mutual enlightenment for Habonim and for the "seniors," as well as a money-raising body. Among the local leadership of the CHAY Commissions there were many graduates of Habonim.

The year 1952-5! saw a slow and painful upward grade for the movement. There was recovery and a regaining of position, but it was slow-going. By the time of the Twenty-third Convention, held in Detroit in December, 19~3, the estimated membership was two thousand. The most significant development in the movement during that year was the strengthening of the Youth Workshop in Israel and the re-establishment of noar groups. Garin Gimel, which had been formed at the Toronto convention grew and was making preparations for its aliya. The garin consisted primarily of chaverim who had participated in the Habonim Institutes in Israel and in the Youth Workshop. While the first Workshop had had no definite base in Israel, the second and third groups were based at Geva and Kfar Blum, where the Workshoppers spent the major part of the year.

With the conclusion of the 1953 camp season, it was decided to discontinue Camp Amal and gradually to make all the camps "Hebrew centered." In 1953 a new, modern camp site. Camp Habonim, was purchased by the national movement at Red Hook, New York. The summer was concluded by bonim seminars in various parts of the country.

The period of 1951-53 brought its satisfactions and its frustrations, its achievements and its failures. Habonim made little progress toward the goal of reaching significantly larger numbers. But the movement sustained itself and, in some areas of its activity, recorded significant progress. In the face of formidable difficulties presented by the general decline of Zionist momentum, Habonim was still able to make a worthy contribution to the Zionist movement and Israel and to the lives of its chaverim. It is doubtful whether more than this could have been asked for.

BILLY GOLDFARB, Cleveland, 1960