Jean LIBERMAN is a journalist and Secretary General of the Centre Juif Laïque (Secular Jewish Center).
From 22 to 25 September, the 5th Congress of the International Federation of Secular and Humanistic Jews was held in Moscow.
The American Sherwin Wine, a leading figure — alongside the Israeli Yehuda Bauer — of that proud secular Jewishness which dares to choose itself freely on the basis of its cultural patrimony alone, had every reason to display his joy at the close of the 5th Congress of the International Federation of Secular and Humanistic Jews held in Moscow. Its leaders had clearly nailed their colors to the mast, and the historic ambition of the movement, in choosing Moscow. “To celebrate the liberation of the Jews of the former USSR and to express on the spot our support for the development in that country of this viable alternative to traditional Judaism that is the humanistic and secular path.” It was nonetheless a veritable wager to entrust — in that unsettling Moscow where arrogant nouveaux riches and destitute traffickers rub shoulders — the weight of organizing such a congress to the Russian association of the Federation. The Federation has certainly crossed a threshold exceeding its hopes. In at least two respects: its rapid taking-root in the Judaism of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States, the former USSR), visibly in tune with its “secularized” form, but also an openness and a rejuvenation of language, marked both in the debates and in the final declaration, and to which the French delegation (never so large) will have largely contributed. Let us specify that, of 180 participants, there were some 80 Americans, 20 French, 10 Israelis, one Latin American (Uruguayan), one Englishman, and from 60 to 65 members of the CIS, of whom 20 Russians, with delegations coming from Saint Petersburg, Kharkov, Kazan, Alma-Ata, Tbilisi, Volgograd and elsewhere (15 cities, though some were missing from the roll call).
The lessons of Jewish experience.
Of course, the choice of themes, revolving around the question “What does it mean to be Jewish?” (that is, to lead a Jewish life), arose first and foremost from the burning questions that ex-Soviet Jews ask themselves in their quest for a new Jewish identity. So much so that the classic problems raised in the sessions — such as “the lessons of Jewish experience” (from the Bible to modernity) or “how to live a Jewish life?” (from the festivals to Jewish studies, and as far as fundamentalism), on which, among others, professors Yaakov Malkin or Yehuda Bauer of Israel, the Uruguayan Egon Friedler or Albert Memmi shone — were in part focused on the question central here of “Jewish experience in Eastern Europe.” “If it is true that Judaism was created by our people, we recognize ourselves not only in the books of the past, but above all in the experience of this people,” recalled Sherwin Wine at the outset — a “secular rabbi” by vocation — explicitly setting the keynote of the congress: “Not to forget the lesson of the past is to affirm our solidarity with the rebirth of the Jewish community of Russia”… before yielding the floor to the “star” of these days: Semyon Augustevitch, the popular president of the Russian association of the Federation, an impetuous little-bearded man much applauded, who painted the highly problematic picture of reconstituting a secular Jewish movement. Despite the laborious weaving of a network of groups covering a good part of the regions and numbering several thousand people, and the parallel training of dozens of activists, success remains “relative,” he said modestly. Cultural interest in this type of Judaism and the will to work at it are perceptible, he reckons, but for lack of opportunities for information and of material means, the gaps are considerable. “Only a more advanced cooperation among the centers and the indispensable support of friends abroad can get us off the ground…”
The Jewish renaissance in the former USSR.
Delegates from Ukraine, Belarus and elsewhere came in their turn to describe, as simply as poignantly, a significant will to restore Judaism, grappling on the one hand with the hemorrhage of Emigration and on the other with the terrible economic and political crisis that fosters the ever-present antisemitic resurgences — graffiti on buildings or synagogues. One of the leaders of the Israeli organization, the academic Zev Katz, who was one of the most active promoters of this renaissance, shares with us its most original underpinnings. “It was in 1991, near Kiev, that the creation of a first nucleus of ‘Jhi’ (Humanistic and Secular Jews) was decided, meant to spread throughout the CIS. Then training seminars, providing certificates of competence, trained lecturer-facilitators.”
It was necessary, he explains, “to legitimize the principal idea that one does not need rabbis or synagogues to constitute a Judaism which is, beyond religion, the culture and the civilization of the Jewish people. Did not great thinkers like Dubnow say as much a century ago already? Today, three years after the launch of the initiative, we count thirty-five centers, whose facilitators are often very cultivated people, highly placed in the local community. Many non-Jews are, moreover, drawn to our activities. In the essential domain of the production — nonexistent — of literature, we have already brought out two works — out of a program of six — in which it is as much a question of the Bible as of Spinoza or the Orthodox, seen by our thinkers. Of course, despite the some 700,000 Jews who have left in recent years, there is plenty on our plate with the (roughly) 2 million who remain. The principal obstacle is obviously a most precarious economic situation, with derisory wages (500 French francs a month for many). And so sponsorship by foreign groups is vital.” And the future? “It would take a much greater investment, but the considerable volunteer work attests to the desire to return to Judaism.” Let us add that two Jewish magazines close to the movement, with a print run of 10,000 copies, appear — one in Moscow (La Gazette internationale de Moscou, the Moscow International Gazette) and the other in Saint Petersburg (Mon Peuple, My People) — and that a resurgence of editorial production on subjects such as the Shoah bears witness to this reawakening of memory. One of the finest moments, and most moving, of the Congress was the grand banquet held in the sumptuous Hotel Cosmos, where we were able to mingle fraternally and converse with the country’s delegates before a tableful of distinguished guests: democratic members of parliament, representatives of the government, of the Jewish Agency, of the Joint, etc. The president of the Vaad (a kind of CRIF of the CIS), the anthropologist Mikhail Chlenov, gave there, on the theme “Pluralism and Judaism,” an address of high quality on the components of Jewish civilization — people and nation — that Sherwin Wine would surely not have disowned.
Another form of Judaism.
From another angle, while the sessions on Jewish experience and Jewish life were marked by profound presentations, reviving the Federation’s critical position and allowing the validation of another Judaism, one may nonetheless regret in them a certain lack of positioning on the questions currently under debate. A shortcoming that contrasted happily with the intentions of the French delegation — essentially the Association pour un Judaïsme Humaniste et Laïque (Association for a Humanistic and Secular Judaism) and the secretaries general of the Centre Bernard Lazare and of the Centre Juif Laïque. Thus Yehuda Bauer proceeded above all to the re-legitimization, in the face of the new cult of the Messiah, of the free choice — religious or not — of the Jews (noting that the contemporary cultural explosion owes very little to religion), while the very erudite Yaakov Malkin set about once more desacralizing the Shabbat, the synagogue and the Torah. Particularly pugnacious, Albert Memmi was for his part more constructive, proposing, in the face of the failure of rabbinic thought (with respect, for example, to the Shoah or to mixed marriages), a radical reform of Jewish thought. Demanding also, at one and the same time, another cultural creativity — “When will the two enormous events of the twentieth century, the Shoah and Israel, be made into a continuation of the Bible?” — and another political strategy, more courageous, aimed at finally democratizing communities still led by notables. Bracing remarks of a French-style secularism, and indeed favorably received by many, notably on the Russian or Israeli side. Thus Y. Malkin: “Memmi’s pragmatism seems to me very realistic. To be a secular Jew, one must deal with the present and with the facts that predominate in it, such as mixed marriages or the ignorance of Jews regarding their classics. But this educational effort can also concern the Bible or the Talmud, which I do not see as necessarily religious texts, but as an ancient Jewish literature — showing, moreover, that pluralism was not absent from it.”
A concern for present times just as pronounced in the intervention of Izio Rosenman — in the name of the AJHL — who, referring to Lévinas’s thought on the fundamental responsibility toward the other in Judaism, laid stress on the urgency of a reflection on ethics, which, he underscored, has no need of a religious foundation and ought to ease matters today at the levels of education and transmission. These preoccupations of the French delegation contributed greatly to amending positively — relative to initial drafts, too normative for its taste and insufficiently pluralist — the text of the final declaration. Thus one finds in it, notably, a reformulated acknowledgment of the wish to construct a contemporary form of Jewishness and a broadened recognition of pluralism (“There is no single path to being Jewish”) understood within the Federation. An acknowledgment, too, of the experience and creativity of other cultures and, in the matter of languages, the primordial study of Hebrew — but not exclusive of that of other Jewish languages such as Yiddish or Judeo-Spanish. The notion of Israel’s centrality was likewise modified to that of attachment to the State of Israel. Reference is also made, on the ethical plane, to the defense of human rights for all peoples. “The leadership has incontestably become more aware of the diversity of the movement and of the varied forms of the secular struggle in each country,” observes Violette Attal-Lefi, Vice-President of the AJHL. One can understand that, in their conclusions, Sherwin Wine and Yehuda Bauer expressed their satisfaction at this balance sheet. “We have,” they observed, deepened the understanding of our mission toward the Jews of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, who are no longer the poor of the world community, but our brothers.” The question of their material support is thus clearly posed… And they announced the site of the next congress, in 1996: Paris. — □
This text was also published by Regards.