WORLD HABONIM

The foundation of World Habonim climaxes a long process of evolution and demonstrates the triumph of reality over slogan. The Habonim movements began independently, on different platforms and in differing circumstances; they have each evolved their individual traditions. Yet, despite all surface differences of formula and circumstance, acquaintance proves their basic similarity.

Each of the Habonim movements evolved within a Jewish community in the milieu of a free, "Anglo-Saxon" culture. In every country Habonim has based its outlook and education on a feeling of responsibility for that community and of identification with the whole of the Jewish people and its tradition. In each country, Habonim has gradually oriented itself toward chalutz-centricity, toward education of its members to self-realization in the hityashvut ovedet (cooperative settlement movement) in Israel. This process has not been one of compulsion but of free choice. Habonim everywhere bases its chalutz education on attraction to the positive values of creativity and collective living in Israel rather than on a negation of the Diaspora. The educational tradition of Habonim in all countries rejects the dogmatism and the concept of ideological collectivism, just as, in its vision of society, it rejects all dictatorships, seeking to build a society based at once on socialist economics and morality and on personal freedom and the democratic process.

This basic identity of the Habonim movements has provided Lishkat Hakesher (Contacts Office) with a basis for common action during the ten years of its existence. In whatever words the platform of World Habonim will find expression, these educational values and goals will be its underlying reality.

The history of our evolution toward unity covers ten years. It begins with the first joint concentration of chalutzim from English and American Habonim in Kibbutz Anglo-Balti, forerunner of Kfar Blum. In 1941, while the group was still at Binyamina, a conference of Habonim graduates in Israel was called, which decided that unity of the Habonim movements in the English-speaking countries was eminently desirable. In order to prepare the ground for such a union, a period of mutual acquaintance of the movements was needed; and, as the first step, Lishkat Hakesher was established.

Its immediate task was the establishment of contact both among the various movements and between the movements and Kibbutz Anglo-Balti in Eretz Israel. The central tools of the Lishkat Hakesher at that period were the typewriter and mimeograph machine, and its first institution was the periodical Hamekasher. The Lishka, as conceived at Binyamina, was then to progress to an office "to represent the interests of the Habonim movements before the national institutions in Eretz Israel; to negotiate with these institutions on all questions affecting the work of the Zionist youth movements in the English-speaking countries; to assist the national movements in the sphere of cultural activities, information on Eretz Israel, etc.; to deal with the question of shlichim [emissaries] to the various movements; to arrange for the absorption of Habonim olim [immigrants]; to keep their obligation toward Eretz Israel before the attention of the movements in the various countries; and to unite the movement in support of Kibbutz Anglo-Balti."

The ultimate task of Lishkat Hakesher was "to pave the way for the amalgamation of the Habonim movements into a world-wide organization, at a world conference to be called at the earliest opportunity."

The ten years of delay between that declaration of intentions at Binyamina and the final calling of that world conference are a legacy of war. The work of contact which had been so well begun and the discussions on the nature and task of Habonim provided by the first issues of Hamekasher bore little fruit, for the more-than-five-year gap in aliya drove a deep wedge between the movement generation which first built Kfar Blum and the later generations to reach Israel.

The long-awaited post-war aliya brought life and drive to Habonim in Israel and re-established the line of contact between the movements and Israel. At the same time, it brought with it an atmosphere of stand-off suspiciousness among the movements, based less on actual differences than on a difference of outlook between the generation of vatikim (veteran settlers) and the various groups of new immigrants. . The latter brought with them the outlook of the movements overseas, with their jealous guardianship of their particular movement traditions.

The key issue was the "political affiliation" of the American movement. What, at Binyamina, had been dismissed as a minor difference, or was characterized as "the greater political maturity" of the American movement, became a more complicated problem after the split of Mapai (the Israel Labor party) and the emergence of the Tnua L'achdut Ha'avoda (a left-wing splinter group). The split in the labor movement had given birth to a bitter and ugly struggle, which had split and well-nigh finished off the chalutz movements of Europe. The revulsion of English Habonim against any whisper of party affiliation in the youth movements had its basis in the destructive process it had witnessed. The successful union of Mishmar Habonim (a union of all the splinters of the refugee, "Continental" chalutz movements in England during the war) and English Habonim, on a "general" platform of conscious non-affiliation, had raised lack of political definition to the status of a cherished educational principle. And, despite all the efforts of the veteran members of English Habonim, the movement refused to amalgamate with American Habonim as long as the latter retained its affiliation with Poale Zion.

A further complication had arisen in the formation of the Tnua Meuchedet, which, in the eyes of the American leadership and the whole movement generation rooted in Israel, appeared as the logical and necessary Israeli wing of the projected world movement. The Tnua Meuchedet, although completely autonomous and very similar to Habonim in its approach, its goals, and its educational process and values, was also looked upon by the English and the South African movement as an "identified" movement, having been born in the political split of the old youth movement Machanot Olim and then united with the politically-affiliated Gordonia movement. On the other hand, a good deal of pressure from various sources was being exerted on American Habonim to unite with Tnua Meuchedet—if possible, as part of World Habonim; if not, then independently. Such a union would inevitably have tended to pull both American Habonim and the Tnua Meuchedet into a sphere of orientation with the politically-affiliated movements of Europe and South America and would have ended all possibility for World Habonim.

This was the "ideological" problem which occupied the center of the stage at the conference of Lishkat Hakesher, meeting at Kfar Blum in the spring of 1947. Yet, underneath this problem ran the substratum of basic similarity of the movements and the great need for concrete action. The old leadership retained its faith that mutual experience and acquaintance would in time do the job with the new generation as it had with the old and that a formulation would in time emerge of itself. For this reason they rejected the idea of compromising on the establishing of a "Federation of Habonim Movements" and advocated instead that discussion on World Habonim be indefinitely postponed and that the practical work continue within the loose and undefined framework of Lishkat Hakesher.

In the sphere of practical work the need was fresh and urgent. The aliya had assumed relatively large proportions, raising many new problems of absorption. The phenomenon of garinim (nuclei for settlement) had blossomed in the movements, with their special problems of training, absorption and the search for suitable partners in settlement—all of which added to the work of the Lishka. There were the post-war shlichim (emissaries) to be recruited, brief ed, trained, and put through the routine of the institutions; Bet Habonim began in earnest; and, soon afterwards, the Habonim Institute moved to Israel and became international in its make-up. There were, in addition, all the by-products of the state and free immigration: the absorption of all those who had come to Israel as volunteers during the War of Independence and wanted to settle there, the activity connected with the various summer courses and institutes, etc. There 
was the problem of acquiring sufficient influence in the various institutions to achieve the cooperation which we needed for all of this. Lishkat Hakesher moved from Kfar Blum to Tel Aviv and steadily increased in scope, prestige, and activity.

Almost imperceptibly, the Lishka became an informal international executive committee. The movements soon began to work smoothly in harness, and the suspicions gradually disappeared. The leadership-training courses were an important factor in this process, for they provided a constant, living link with the movements overseas. Certain differences exist to this day and will continue to exist after the achievement of formal unity; but once again we know and understand the basic, unifying similarity of our approaches, our goals, and our needs.

What is to be gained by the change-over from the informal understanding of the Lishkat Hakesher setup to a formal world movement? Strangely, this is not an easy question to which to provide a concrete answer. Probably the first practical effects will be felt in Israel, and will be felt by the average chaver of the movement overseas only very indirectly. After all, most of the practical powers of a world executive have already been wielded by the Lishka for some time. Nor, on the other hand, will changing the name mean that any major action will be taken without the agreement of the national movements.

Still, there are various areas in which the establishment of World Habonim marks significant progress. First in significance is the fact that the world movement will have an Israeli wing, with all that this means both practically and psychologically; this could not have been done under the tenuous arrangements of a contacts office. The existence of a world movement is a very powerful lever in the whole delicate but important fabric of our relationships with and influence on the various Israeli institutions. It also increases our status in negotiations with the various settlements of our own movement, particularly in the "mixed settlements," an important factor in our efforts to mobilize movement graduates for the work of the movement.

One advantage of formal unity will be immediately and directly felt by the movements. This might be characterized as the democratization of Lishkat Hakesher, that is, the participation of the movement leadership overseas in the formation of policy and in the selection of the executive of the international movement. The Lishka, although it was a body authorized by the movement overseas, was, in effect, an organization of the Habonim graduates in Israel, in which the actual movement leadership did not participate actively. In the world movement the highest authority will be the international convention, at which delegations of the movements overseas will participate personally in the deliberations and decisions.

Furthermore, the movement in Israel has become too big a business to work only through informal understandings and tradition. "We already boast ten Habonim settlements plus garinim in Israel; in addition, the movements overseas have begun to lean more and more heavily on Israel in such matters as leadership training, "work and study courses," etc. A clear, efficient, integrated structure is essential to the work.

Nothing happens overnight in a movement, where all real development is not legal and formal, but organic and evolutionary. The effects of membership in World Habonim may not be experienced by a chaver in England or America or South Africa for some time to come. But the creation of a platform and structure of the world movement is another step in the progress to our common goal of increased chalutz aliya to Israel from the English-speaking countries, the successful establishment of Habonim settlements, and the quickened and more stable adjustment of our immigrants to constructive participation in Israeli life.

YOLA LEE, Gesher Haziv, 1951