spised by the townsmen as a gentileninvention — and lectures to his disillusionednlisteners on the importance ofntime.nFor most Eastern European Zionists,nthe group that founded (and, despitenthe present Oriental Jewish majority,nstill politically dominates) thenstate of Israel, Herzl was a “cold” andn”alien” presence, the embodiment of anGerman-Jewish ethos unrelated tontheir cultural experience. More typicalnof later Zionists were cultural nationalistsnlike Achad Ha-Am (Hebrew pseudonymnof Asher Hirsch Ginzberg),nwho stressed Hebrew education andnethical religion. Though not politicalnnationalists, such thinkers influencednthe socialist pioneers who went tonIsrael from Eastern Europe early in thencentury. In time, a Zionist nationalismnarose that combined the socialist agrarianismnof Eastern European politicalnradicals with Hebrew culture as a vehiclenof Jewish national consciousness.nThe third model, although one neglectednby Jewish intellectuals,nand discussed by Leshem only in passing,nmay have been the most important,nbased as it was on the vision of thenEastern European Jewish masses finallynembracing the idea of a Jewish homeland.nThough tensions grew betweennthe rabbinical magisterium and the Zionistnleaders who were generally contemptuousnof religious orthodoxy, mostnEastern European Jews, Leshem stresses,nassociated any specifically Jewishnstate with the continuation of an EasternnEuropean Jewish community, freednof gentile persecutors. Though thesenmasses distrusted the German Jews whonsought to Westernize them, they alsonnever fully accepted the secular, educationistnZionism of their own radicalizednintellectuals.nIt may be fair to say, though Leshemnnever carries his analysis quite farnenough, that the present Israeli Kulturkampfnrepresents a clash between twonEastern European concepts of Zionism.nWhile Herzl’s model never gainednground in Israel owing to the marginalitynof German-Jewish cultural and politicalnideas, it did nevertheless influencenthe thinking of American Jewry.nIf expressions of Jewish hostility towardn”Christian America” have grown loudernand more obsessive in recent years,nthis may be partly due to the disappear­n30/CHRONICLESnance in America of the old German-nJewish establishment. Like the lacecurtain-Irish,nthis establishment actednas a moderating force on later andnmore socially resentful immigrants. Itnstressed civility and patriotism andnwould have shunned the present competitionnamong American Jews andnothers for the top spot on the federalngovernment’s list of socially accreditednvictims.nThe war between Israeli secularistsnand the embattied Orthodox is beingnwaged almost, entirely among the descendantsnof Eastern European immigrants.nThe intervention of AmericannOrthodox Jews, like Rabbi MeirnKahane and most of his followers, doesnnot call this judgment into question.nThe same Jewish war that has brokennout in Israel has long been raging innAmerica between the two sides of anstruggle that began in Eastern Europe:nthe rigidly Orthodox, many of whomnhave become militant Zionist annexationists,nand the secularist, socialistnJewish intelligentsia. In America, thensecond group is by now more typical ofnthe Jewish population as a whole; innIsrael, by contrast, most Jews havenceased to identify actively with eithernmilitant minority, though both remainnpolitically powerful on account of theirnorganizational and electoral skills.nUnlike Leshem, who writes as anpartisan secularist fearful that his ownnside may be losing, I suspect that thenconflicts he describes may soon benpasse in Israel. The majority of thencountry, as sociologist David Elazarnnotes, is made up of Sephardim, Mediterraneannrather than Eastern EuropeannJews. Though Sephardim havenstrong communal ties, they have nevernbeen as zealously and legalistically Orthodoxnas their Eastern European coreligionists.nThey also bear no resentmentnagainst the Ghristian West,nlooking to that civilization as a naturalnally against the Arab Moslems, whonexpelled them and their families fromnthe Levant and North Africa. Sephardim,nmoreover, have never had a romancenwith Marxisrh or socialism andndespise even the watered-down collectivismnpreached by the Israeli LabornParty and by Histadrut (an umbrellanunion organization). Israeli Sephardimnvote for the right, as Leon Hadar (anSephardic political analyst) shows, becausenof their treatment as social out­nnncasts by the Labor Party leadership andnbecause of the vicious persecution theynsuffered in Arab states. Sephardim,nmost importantly, do not fall into eithernof the two warring carnps thatncame out of Eastern Europe and arenstill to be found in Israel and America.nThat fact, at least, should bode well fornthe future of Israel.nPerhaps it may be necessary to callnattention here to Leshem’s unfortunatenhabit of treating religion as annexpendable aspect of human life. Particularlynin the last chapter, but also elsewhere,nhe suggests that Israel will improvenits political position by becomingnimmaculately secularist. He is full ofnpraise of American Jews for strugglingnto raise the wall of separation betweennchurch and state at home; and evennregards their behavior as patriotic, sincenhe believes America is about “pluralism”n(which he equates with drivingnreligion from public life). His views innthis respect overlap those of AmericannJewish liberals who likewise link politicalnconflict to religion. Like him, theynbelieve that the first will die out only ifnthe second can be disposed of Liberalsnin general have always blamed religionnfor the perpetuation of social, racial, andnsexist injustices, which they identify asnthe fundamental causes of war. Therefore,nthey seek to supplant religion withnvarious humanist formulas that theynbelieve Judaism, despite its historicallynpatriarchal, theocentric, and nationalisticnnature, must somehow convey. In annanguished statement deploring the directionnof Israeli politics, Jewish liberalnactivist and movie star Richard Dreyfusnhas observed: “I was raised to believenthat Jews have to be better than others,nto be the ultimate moral example to thenworld. We cannot be silent. Being silentnforty years ago meant being a goodnGerman.” Going beyond the obligatorynreference to a German nation of robotsnand to the “lesson of the Holocaust,”nDreyfus here engages in the characteristicallynJewish liberal practice of linkingnthe idea of Jewish superiority to annanti-political universalism. PresumablynIsrael’s geopolitical difficulties could bensolved by bringing Israeli soldiers to anparty at the swimming pool wherenDreyfus holds his next interview. Therenthey could listen to his oracular autotherapeuticnassortment of dangling participles.nMeanwhile, Leshem could in-n