![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The transnationalism literature has redefined the concept of diaspora, claiming it to be de-rooted, de-centred and detached from the nation-state rhetoric of ‘one nation, one land’, primordial belonging and common origins. In this article I revisit the Jewish diaspora, once the classic case, as it navigates the reality—and tension—of its own transformation: from myth to reality of homeland return, although most have not returned. Specifically, I analyse March of the Living (MOL), a Holocaust education programme for international Jewish youth, that seeks to resolve this tension and shape the next generation of Jewish diasporans by strategically moving between old and new understandings of identity, homeland and diaspora. Discussed in this article are the various ways in which MOL emphasises to its participants the boundaries—and centre(s)—of Jewish diasporic identity. I conclude that transnational redefinitions of diaspora fail to adequately capture the mechanisms of all diasporic processes. The Jewish case calls for an in-between form of old and new diaspora that challenges but also recognises persistent claims of ethno-diasporic identity as essentialised and ultimately rooted in the homeland.
Acknowledgements
I thank Anna Korteweg as well as Shyon Baumann, Michal Bodemann, Tal Hever-Chybowski, Patricia Landolt and John Myles for guidance in writing this paper; Jackie Feldman provided helpful comments on an earlier draft. I am especially grateful to Yael Maoz-Shai.
Notes
1. The extent to which a ‘longing for return’ defined the so-called exile from Zion is debatable (Boyarin and Boyarin Citation1993; Clifford Citation1994). There are numerous examples of Jews in this period who identified with and dreamt of return to other places where they had once lived (e.g. Spain following expulsion in 1492).
2. Diaspora- or heritage-tourism is also common in other ethnic communities, with objectives similar to MOL: shaping and reinforcing transnational identity structures between diasporic communities and homelands, helping to maintain and reproduce cultural continuity and ethno-national identity across multiple spaces, and providing forms of protest for disenfranchised minority groups (on African-Americans returning to sites of the African slave trade, see Bruner Citation1996; Timothy and Teye Citation2004; on return trips to China and Korea, see Louie Citation2000).
3. Started in 1999 and sponsored by many of the same organisations as MOL, Taglit Birthright offers free ten-day Israel trips to international Jews aged 18–26. With over 100,000 participants since its inception, the programme is ‘the most publicized “solution” to the problem of “Jewish continuity”’ (Rosenthal Citation2005: 223).
4. The educators at chaperone training were responsible for leading the majority of training sessions and are the primary guides in Poland and Israel.
5. Unless the surname is included, all names and other identifying markers have been changed.
6. Aliyah is the Hebrew word meaning ‘ascent’, denoting migration to Israel. By contrast, Yeridah—‘descent’—denotes Jewish emigration from Israel.
7. In the first two decades after Independence, Israel officially adhered to the ideology of Shlilat Hagolah (diaspora negation), which asserted that ‘the continued existence of the Diaspora was abnormal and hazardous for national survival, and that it was inferior to life in Israel’ (Sheffer Citation2005: 14–15).