Michael Barnett is University Professor of International Affairs and Political Science at the George Washington University. His research interests include the Middle East, humanitarian action, global governance, global ethics, and the United Nations. Among his many books are Eyewitness to a Genocide: The United Nations and Rwanda; Dialogues in Arab Politics: Negotiations in Regional Order; Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism; Rules for the World: International Organizations in World Politics (with Martha Finnemore). Currently, he is an Associate Editor of International Organization. Professor Barnett is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the recipient of many grants and awards for his research.
This exchange focuses on his most recent book, The Star and the Stripes: A History of the Foreign Policies of the American Jews (Princeton University Press). Part 1 can be found right here.
***
Dear Professor Barnett,
Near the end of your book you describe a deep disparity between US and Israeli Jewry when it comes to the Universalism vs. Tribalism question. According to you, “Israel and the United States offer two ways for Jews to be in the world.” While Israeli Jews are presented as “unapologetic nationalists” who “do not need to make excuses for their concern about the needs of their own (Jewish) citizens and the Jewish people,” US Jews “did not have to choose between their communal identity and their universal aspirations; they could have both.” The condition of American Jews, which are both grounded in their Jewish roots and get to enjoy their hopeful universalism, is presented as “the best of all worlds.”
My question: is there any way to take this in any way other than other than a clear statement in favour of the American mode of being a Jew in the world? And is there any way in which “the Israeli way of being” can contribute to the Jewish American conversation on universalism and tribalism (besides being an example of a society in which tribalism takes the upper hand)?
***
Dear Shmuel,
Good question, and I welcome the opportunity to offer a bit more nuance, though without retreating from the observation. As I speculate in the book, imagine that there is a scale for measuring universalism, where 10 is completely universal and 1 is completely tribal. I then ask how different Jewish communities might score. My claim is that American Jews would score higher than Israeli Jews. Assuming I am right, what accounts for the desire by American Jews to be more universal than tribal? Historically, I argue that it is because of their national experience – they are integrated as Jews into the “golden land.” The American experience has shaped a Jewish identity that is more parts universal than tribal.
But the wrinkle is that the American experience poses a distinct threat to the Jewish communal identity: assimilation. The challenge for American Jews has always been how to avoid shedding their Jewish identity. Jewish nationalism, Zionism, and Israel have helped put a brake on assimilation for American Jews. This is, in fact, one reason many American Jewish leaders began to turn to Zionism after World War I; Zionism would help keep American Jews from slipping away. And those arguments can be heard today – American Jews need these expressions of nationalism in order to retain some meaningful notion of Jewish peoplehood and communal commitments. It is because of these expressions of particularism (and at times tribalism) that American Jews have felt safe reaching for the universal. So, Zionism and Israel have allowed American Jews to fly close to the sun, without worrying that they might fly so close that they melt into a universalizing pool. Jewish nationalism has allowed American Jews to have their “cake and eat it too.” And isn’t this the best of all possible worlds? It certainly has been for many American Jews (though not all).
But the ability of Zionism and Israel to play that role depends in part on how American Jews view Zionism and Israel. American Jews are most comfortable with a Zionism and an Israel that approximates their own mixture of particularism and universalism – or at least does not become too tribal. So, American Jews have needed a Jewish nationalism and an Israel that retains clear commitments to the universal values that have become part of their identity.
American Jews have needed a Zionism and an Israel to help them retain a strong foot in the particular. But what happens if Zionism and Israel become seen as too tribal by American Jews – if Israel no longer appears to be acting in ways that are consistent with their values? One possibility is that they will increasingly distance themselves from Israel. And if they distance themselves from Israel, what will be the implication for American Jews? Will this hasten their assimilation? Or will they find some other way to express their Jewish identity, one that is not so nationalistic? The book suggests that this is one reason why American Jews have turned to tikkun olam. But, a reasonable question to ask is: will tikkun olam provide a firm basis for retaining the particular, for creating a strong Jewish identity that can withstand the pull of assimilation? You can have your cake and eat it too, but an all-cake diet can be toxic. Israel has helped American Jews to remember to eat their vegetables. But what if Israel starts serving vegetables that also seem unhealthy?
One last point. Israel has contributed mightily to the American Jewish identity, and in ways that are loud and inaudible. As I have suggested, it has enabled American Jews to feel more comfortable, and even more proud, of their Jewish identity. But the converse also is true: when Israel acts in ways that are seen as inconsistent with American Jewish values, it causes American Jews to define their Jewishness in ways that marks a clearer separation from Israel.
As the history of the Jewish people clearly demonstrates, there is no “best of all possible worlds.”
More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.