27 Spring-Summer 2017 regard is the prevention of unnecessary overlapping.5 As stated, the rather practical question of who should speak for the Jews was intensely discussed since the early years of the State. In the 1960s, I was invited to attend one of the regular sessions of a group working at the Israel President’s home, under the direction of the late Professor Moshe Davis, devoted to that precise question. Several speakers voiced different views. Eminent scholar and jurist Haim Cohn took the view that the State was best equipped to defend Jewish rights at the UN and other institutions. Others, like Professor Benjamin Akzin, adopted a different stand, claiming that the State was riding too fast on the horse of sovereignty. There were also those who argued that a coordinated effort including State spokesmen and Diaspora officials, would be the most efficient and constructive way of dealing with general Jewish issues, in which the State, as well as Diaspora communities, were involved. The question still remains open, and good will and common sense should be guiding principles. Presently, half a century after the debate in the President’s home, new situations developed, requiring some fundamental thinking on the role to be played by Jewish factors outside Israel to provide the State with support that it may have lost in the international scene as a consequence of new political trends strengthening isolationism, with profound political repercussions. There is talk of “anti-system nationalism” that may explain such trends. Such a review of the overall situation may induce the adoption of changes in the role to be played by Jewish international non-state agencies. In a world of rising nationalism and crude isolationism, a state like Israel may need to increase the role of Jewish NGOs as loyal allies tied by powerful historical and cultural affinities. Leaving aside the practical problems of representation, some theoretical matters of principle have to be discussed. First of all, it is necessary to establish the character and nature of the human group called the Jews, or the Jewish People, or the Jewish Nation. The Jews are a group, unified mainly, but not exclusively, by religion or faith that developed a system of ethical values derived from their beliefs. They lost their independent state more than two millennia ago and since then, have been dispersed all over the world. There may be different views about the nature of the Jewish people – are they a religious, ethnic, or cultural group, or a civilization? Beyond doubt, though, Jews are a rather coherent, easily identifiable group or community. The judiciary of several countries have stated that it is less important to define precisely the nature of a human group than recognize the historical ties, selfperception, and perception by others of the group – or community – as a group.6 Some sectors within Jewry may have a different, fundamentalist understanding of the meaning of being Jewish. For the purpose of this article, we shall adopt a wide, open, liberal view of Judaism or Jewry. The concept should englobe Ashkenazim and Sephardim, Jews of Ethiopian origin and all expressions of ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious differentiations that are known features of the Jewish sector of humanity. After the destruction of the ancient Jewish State, Jews maintained coherent forms of collective life, sometimes in more or less autonomous forms of coexistence, with some degrees of self-administration. They always kept strong ties between the various geographical units. Frequently, the emphasis was on the religious aspect, but not exclusively. On the whole, Jews see themselves as a nation among the nations.7 For this reason, most of the problems that Jewish spokesmen have to deal with must be tackled from the political angles, more than as a matter of principle. Since practical considerations prevail in the actions of Israeli governments, the consequence is that all kinds of maneuvers are needed in order to take up the defense of Jewish interests in international fora. The examples are many. But without surveying concrete cases, it seems reasonable to conclude that an empirical case-by-case approach is indispensable to ensure a reasonable level of protection of such interests. The matter also has tactical implications. Jews are not very good at unifying efforts or giving up sectorial interests. There are not enough serious reasons to justify the fact that international Jewish organizations were unable to create or develop the adequate instruments for a coherent, unified representation, except on limited grounds. Outstanding exceptions to this weakness were the major Jewish issues such as: defense of Israeli security; right to emigrate of 5. Id. See also my chapter on the WJC and the State of Israel in THE WORLD JEWISH CONGRESS 1936-2016 (Menachem Rosensaft ed., 2017). 6. I have dealt with the issue of the nature of groups such as Jews, Arabs, Sikhs, and others in my GROUP RIGHTS AND DISCRIMINATION IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (2003). 7. As R. J. Zwi Werblowsky noted, Jews, despite their religious origin, consider themselves a people and a member of the “family of nations.” See his Religion and Peoplehood in THE JERUSALEM COLLOQUIUM ON RELIGION, PEOPLEHOOD, NATION AND LAND (1972), at 17.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=