THE IDEOLOGICAL SEMINAR

The forthcoming ideological seminar of Habonim, to be held at the end of March, will be devoted to the discussion of ideological issues and the re-examination of the bases upon which Habonim stands. It is not inappropriate for a movement which has enjoyed a measure of success in the realization of its aims to attempt a re-evaluation. Indeed, perhaps because of certain successes this re-evaluation is so pertinent.

Since the birth of the state ten years ago, large sections of the Zionist movement have been debating the essential meaning of Zionism. In recent months Ben-Gurion has stated his position most cogently. It is interesting that there was no debate in Yemen, in Iraq, or in North Africa on the meaning of Zionism. There was no such debate in the DP camps in Germany after World War II. In those places the creation of the state posed no theoretical questions; it was synonymous with personal aliya. Only in countries where aliya assumed mere symbolic proportions was the debate significant. Habonim in the United States and Canada placed aliya at the core of its Zionism. In this respect it differed from the majority of its compatriots; and it could add a special nuance to the debate, at least where Habonim was concerned.

One may agree with Ben-Gurion or disagree with him, but no one can ignore the challenge he has flung at the Zionist movement. Certainly Habonim cannot ignore it. We in Habonim could say, when Ben-Gurion's accusing finger was pointed at America, "He doesn't mean us. We believe in aliya. It's those others." But could we say such a thing, in all good conscience, after looking over our aliya figures for the past few years? Are we really so different from "those others?"

The serious lack of older leadership in Habonim and the low aliya figures are not coincidental. Contrary to a sometimes popular notion that the lack of mature leadership in Habonim is a result of a siphoning off process that draws leadership from the ranks and deposits it in Israel, it could be argued more readily that when there is little aliya, there is also little incentive to remain active in the movement beyond the Workshop period. The dearth of aliya weakens the movement morally and, in corollary fashion, numerically, too. We must reorient ourselves regarding aliya so that we can grapple with the larger theoretical issues before the Zionist movement as a whole and with the moral and very practical issues before us as members of Habonim.

The day of doctrinaire socialism in Habonim passed long ago, and in its stead a more pragmatic social orientation has evolved and gained acceptance. The evolved product has less luster than the original article. It does not come in so neatly tied a package. In fact, we are often hampered by the frayed edges of its inconsistencies and are obliged to meet each new development with some improvisation. The "easy" solutions offered by a preconceived system of dogma are no longer there to help us. In an uncharted sea one is apt to founder; and Habonim has done just that, partly because it has been unable to keep pace with changing values, a changing America, and a changing membership. We may agree that the complex social and economic issues of our time must be dealt with individually and realistically, but we must be guided also by a set of fundamental principles. These principles must be starkly simple and clear. They must be few, but inviolable. They must have the broadest application, but they must also be applicable to ourselves in our own lives.

In the discussion of specific problems we should be able to find answers that have a general validity. In this manner we shall rediscover and re-evaluate the vital elements in the Habonim program. The forthcoming seminar will provide us with this opportunity. It will serve as an arena where we can sit in responsible judgment over ourselves.

From FURROWS, February, 1958