Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:42:55.724Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Authority without Sovereignty: The Case of the National Centre of the Jewish Community in Palestine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Dan Horowitz  and
Moshe Lissak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

THE PROCESS WHICH CHARACTERIZED THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF THE Jewish community in Palestine was a process of the formation of a non-sovereign political centre which progressively increased its authority through the exercise of control over the mobilization and distribution of resources. The bearer of this process was a power conscious elite – oriented on the formation of an institutionalized national centre. The mobilization of resources outside of the system enabled this centre to allocate more resources than it had to extract from its periphery. Thus, a dynamic equilibrium was created in which progressively increasing demands were balanced by an increased mobilization of resources. The operation of the system was dependent upon a division of functions between an evolving coalitionary national centre and various particularistic sub-centres. The lack of sovereignty paradoxically contributed to the development of ‘rules of the game’ which made the resolution of conflicts possible within a quasi-parliamentary framework.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , 01 January 1973 , pp. 48 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Jewish community in Palestine was called the Yishuv. The ordinary meaning of the word is settlement, but it is used also to describe an ethnic community living in a certain territory.

2 For general historical, sociological and political surveys see the following publications: (a) historical, sociological and political surveys: Bein, Alex, The Return to the Soil: A History of the Jewish Settlement in Israel, Youth and Hechalutz Department of the Zionist Organization, 1952.Google Scholar Eisenstadt, Shemuel N., Israeli Society, Basic Books, New York, 1968.Google Scholar Joseph, Bernard, The British Rule in Palestine, Public Affairs Press, Washington, 1948.Google Scholar Weintraub, Dov, Lissak, Moshe, Azmon, Yael, Moshava, Kibbutz and Moshav: Patterns of Jewish Rural Settlement and Development in Palestine, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1969.Google Scholar Fein, Leonard J., Politics in Israel, Part I, Little Brown & Company, Boston, 1967.Google Scholar Esco Foundation for Palestine, Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, Vol. 2, Yale University Press, 1947. Palestine Royal Commission Report, Cmd. 5479, July 1937. Government of Palestine, A Survey of Palestine, Prepared for the Information of the Anglo‐American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine, 2 Vols., Jerusalem, 1946. (b) economic surveys: Horowitz, David and Hinden, Rita, Economic Survey of Palestine, The Jewish Agency, 1938.Google Scholar Nathan, Robert, Gass, O. and Creamer, D., Palestine: Problems and Promise, Public Affairs Press, Washington, 1946.Google Scholar Szereszewski, Robert, Essays on the Structure of the Jewish Economy in Palestine and Israel, Falk Institute, Jerusalem, 1968.Google Scholar Malul‐Klinov, Ruth and Halevi, Nadav, The Economic Development of Israel, published in co‐operation with the Bank of Israel by Praeger, F. D., New York, 1968.Google Scholar (c) demographic and other statistical data: Government of Palestine, Office of Statistics, Statistical Abstract of Palestine, Jerusalem 1937–1943. Gurevich, David and Gertz, Aaron, Statistical Handbook of Jewish Palestine, Jewish Agency for Palestine, Jerusalem, 1947.Google Scholar

3 See for example, S. N. Eisenstadt, op. cit. Segre, V. D., Israel: A Society in Transition, Oxford University Press, London, 1971 Google Scholar, Chaps. 3–4. Israel Kolat, ‘From a Community of Workers to a Nation‐State’, Lamerchav, 15 January 1971 and 22 January 1971. Horowitz, Dan, ‘Between Pioneer Society and Normalization’, Molad, Vol. 19, No. 146–7, 10 1960, pp. 413–31.Google Scholar Seliger, Martin, ‘Positions and Dispositions in Israeli Politics’, Government and Opposition, Vol. 3, No. 4, Autumn 1968, pp. 465–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 There were a few attempts to establish central political institutions of the Jewish community before the first world war. All these attempts failed. Worth mentioning in this context is the initiative of the Zionist leader Menachem Ussishkin who convened in 1903 an ‘Assembly of the Yishuv’ in Zichron Yaakov which formed the central organization which existed for less than a year. There was also the ‘Palestine Office’ of the World Zionist Organization established in 1908, headed by Arthur Ruppin. The ‘Palestine Office’ and its director played a crucial role in the development of agricultural settlements in Israel, in particular the establishment of the first Kibbutzim.

5 The main office of the WZO was in London, the location of the Executive of the WZO, headed for many years by Prof. C. Weizmann.

6 The term National Institutions refers to the World Zionist Organization (WZO) Executive (in a later period to the Jewish Agency Executive) and to the National Council of Knesset Israel (The Community Organization of the Jewish Population in Palestine). For a detailed description of these institutions see: Moshe Burstein, Self Government of the Jews in Palestine since 1900, Hapoel Hazair, Tel Aviv, 1934. The Jewish Agency for Palestine, The Jewish Case before the Anglo‐American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine, Jerusalem, 1947. Attias, Moshe, Knesset Israel in Palestine: Its Foundation and Organization, Havaad Haleumi, Department of Information, Jerusalem, 1944.Google Scholar

7 See Palestine Royal Commission, op. cit., Article 4, p. 35.

8 The activities of the Vaad Leumi on the other hand were based on: (i) Article 83 of the 1923 order in Council in which it was said that ‘each religious community shall enjoy autonomy for the internal affairs of the community subject to the provisions of any Ordinance or Order issued by the High Commissioner’. See Drayton, Robert H, Laws of Palestine, Waterlaw, London, Vol. III, 1934, p. 2588;Google Scholar (2) on the 1926 Religious Communities (organization) Ordinance. This provided that ‘if any religious community in Palestine makes application under this Ordinance, the High Commissioner may, with the approval of a Secretary of State, make rules for its organization as a religious community and its recognition as such by the Government of Palestine’. See Drayton, R. H., op. cit., p. 1292.Google Scholar

9 The elections were based on proportional representation and consequently there was a proliferation of competing political parties and ad hoc candidates' lists which took part in the elections. Elections were held in 1920, 1925, 1931 and 1944.

10 For a detailed description of this underground military organization see: Dinur, Ben‐Zion et als. (eds.), The History of the Hagana, Vol. 2, Part 2, Maarachot Publication House, pp. 1053–72.Google Scholar See also Bauer, Y., ‘From Cooperation to Resistance – the Haganah 1938–1948’, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 2, 1966, pp. 182–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Lissak, Moshe, ‘Patterns of Change in Ideology and Class Structure in Israel’ in Eisenstadt, S. N., Bar‐Yosef, Rivkah and Adler, Chaim (eds.), Integration and Development in Israel, Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, 1970, pp. 141–61.Google Scholar Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Israel Society’, op. cit., pp. 143–53.Google Scholar Ben‐David, Josef, ‘Professions and Social Structure in Israel’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, Vol. 3, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1959.Google Scholar

12 On the attitude of the National Council to Jewish labour see Attias, Moshe, The Book of Documents of the National Council of Knesset Israel: 1918–1948, Jerusalem, 1953, pp. 139, 178, 203, 204.Google Scholar Sussman, Z., The Policy of the Histadrut with Regard to lrage Differentials: A Study of the Impact of Egalitarian Ideology and Arab Labour on Jewish Wages in Palestine, PhD Dissertation, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1969,Google Scholar Chap. 3. Ben‐Gurion, D., The Renovated State of Israel, Vol. 1, Am‐Oved, Tel Aviv, 1969, pp. 41–6.Google Scholar Berslavsky, Moshe, The Labour Movement in Palestine, Vol. II, Hakibbutz‐Hameuchad, Tel Aviv, 1954, pp. 28–32.Google Scholar Rosenstein, Zvi (Even‐Shoshan), The History of the Labour Movement in Palestine, Am Oved, Tel Aviv, 1955, pp. 75–83, 147–54, 246–7.Google Scholar Esco, op. cit., pp. 559–62.

13 The labour movement embraced several Zionist‐socialist workers parties which co‐operated within the Histadruth (The General Federation of Jewish Labour), which was established in 1920. The Histadruth functioned not only as a trade union but also as an economic entrepreneur which eventually established some of the biggest enterprises in Palestine. In addition to it the Histadruth provided comprehensive health and welfare services for its members. The biggest party in the 1920s was Achdut Haavodah (The United Labour Party). This party united a smaller party—Hapoel Hatzair (The Young Worker) in 1930 and established Mapai (Palestine Jewish Labour Party).

14 On the differences between the Jewish and Arab economics see for example: Nathan, Gass and Creamer, op. cit., Chap. 12. Z. Sussman, op. cit., Chap. 3. Horowitz, D., The Development of the Palestine Economy, Bialik Institution, Tel Aviv, 1954, pp. 9–12, 117–18, 165–76.Google Scholar Abramovitz, Zeev and Gelfat, Itzchak, The Arab Economy in Palestine and the Mediterranean Countries, Hakibbutz Hameuchad, Tel Aviv, 1944, pp. 98ff.Google Scholar

15 This expression is taken from the title of D. Ben‐Gurion's book. See Ben‐Gurion, D., From Class to Nation, Tel Aviv, 1933.Google Scholar

16 The ‘New Zionist Organization’ is the splinter body established by Vladimir Jabotinsky in 1935 after the revisionists’ dissent from the WZO. They aimed to become an alternative to the WZO, but failed to attain this objective. After the second world war they returned to the WZO and took part in the elections to its 1946 Congress.

17 The ‘Organized Yishuv’ was an expression used to define all the political groups which abided by the authority of the National Institutions. The ‘Organized Yishuv’ did not include non‐Zionist groups, the extreme orthodox Agudat‐Israel and the communists on the one hand and the revisionists dissenters from the organized Zionist movement on the other hand.

18 Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Israeli Society’, op. cit., pp. 7–58.Google Scholar Dan Horowitz, ‘Between Pioneer Society and Normalization’, op. cit. Kolat, Israel, Ideology and Reality in the Jewish Labour Movement in Palestine, PhD Thesis, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1964.Google Scholar

19 Niv, David, Battle for Freedom: The Irgem Zvai Leumi, Vols. 1–3, Klosner Institute, Tel Aviv, 1967.Google Scholar

20 For the analysis of the role of mobilization in economic and social development see Deutsch, K. W., ‘Social Mobilization and Political Development’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. LV, 09 1961, pp. 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Modernization and Conditions of Sustained Growth’, World Politics, Vol. XVI, No. 4, 07 1964, pp. 576–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Etzioni, A., ‘Mobilization as a Macro‐Sociological Conception’, British Journal of Sociology, Vol. XIX, No. 3, 09 1968, pp. 243–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Apter, David E., The Politics of Modernization, The University of Chicago Press, 1969, Chaps. 10, 11.Google Scholar Nettl, J. P., Political Mobilization, Basic Books, 1967.Google Scholar

21 The term Ezrachim (civilians) is commonly used to refer (1) to groups outside the labour movement, usually to centrist and rightist parties and (2) to non‐party (or movement) members. The origin of the term came from an attempt made in 1919–20 to establish a political organization of the right under the name of The Citizens Association. The term has a similar connotation as that of bourgeois in France although not identical with it.

22 See Giladi, Dan, ‘Private Entrepreneurship, National Capital and the Political Consolidation of the Right’, in Eisenstadt, S. N. et als. (eds.), The Social Structure of Israel, Academon, Jerusalem, 1956, pp. 85–7.Google Scholar

23 For a theoretical discussion of exchange relationships and types of power see Blau, Peter M., Exchange and Power in Social Life, John Wiley and Sons, 1966.Google Scholar Eisenstadt, S. N., Essays on Comparative Institutions, Part III, John Wiley and Sons, 1965.Google Scholar Deutsch, Karl W., The Nerves of Government, The Free Press, 1966, Chap. 7.Google Scholar Parsons, Talcott, ‘On the concept of Power’ in Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour M. (eds.), Class, Status and Power, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 2nd edn., pp. 240–65.Google Scholar Curry, R. L. Jr. and Wade, L. L., A Theory of Political Exchange: Economic Reasoning in Political Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliff, N. J., 1968.Google Scholar Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Marton S., ‘Two Faces of Power’, The American Political Science Review, Vol. LVI, No. 4, 12 1962, pp. 947–52.Google Scholar Etzioni, Amitai, The Active Society, The Free Press, 1968, pp. 313–81.Google Scholar Lehman, Edward W., ‘Toward a Macro‐Sociology of Power’, The American Sociological Review, Vol. 34, No. 4, 08 1969, pp. 453–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 The dominant elite was fully conscious of the manipulative value of the control of resources and its impact on the authority of the central National Institutions. This consciousness is illustrated in David Ben‐Gurion's letter to his daughter and son of 7 September 1935. ‘The World Zionist Organization is not a state, it has no real governmental authority, no power to coerce, no taxation, and no ability to impose membership on anyone. This is an organization of volunteers founded on discipline based on free will, rather than on coercion. This organization, however, has a considerable capital – two funds, banks, settlements etc. It has political rights as well: representation before the Mandatory Government and the League of Nations and the allocation of immigration certificates. The Zionist Organization speaks for the nation and mobilizes the masses. But if two parties will be ousted from the Executive they will be also removed from any position of real influence on the direction of the organization's activities. They will also be denied of any rewards that can be derived from the Executive.’ Ben‐Gurion, David, Leiters to Paula, Am Oved, Tel Aviv, 1968, p. 98.Google Scholar

25 The Jewish Agency for Palestine, The Jewish Case Before the Anglo‐American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine. Statements and Memoranda, op. cit., pp. 351–9.

26 The schedules of immigration certificates issued by the Mandatory government and allocated by the Jewish Agency were of several different categories: (a) persons of independent means; (b) persons of religious occupation, students and orphans whose main maintenance was assured; (c) people with prospect of employment in Palestine (The Labour Schedule); (d) dependents of permanent residents or immigrants belonging to the former categories.

27 Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Societe, Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1967, p. 211.

28 The use of (+) to note disagreement with the rules of the game is intended to adjust the third criterion to the first two criteria so that the three (+) will indicate the highest level of conflict.

29 This category includes the right wing of the General Zionists, Hamizrachi and the Farmers Association.

30 This category includes the left wing of the General Zionists, the Hapoel Hamizrachi, the Alia Hadatha (New Immigration Party) representing mainly new immigrants from Germany.

31 This category includes the Sephardic and Yemenite organizations.

32 This category includes some non‐political notables who were socially involved with the British and Arab officials of the Mandatory government and demonstrated their reservation with regard to the activities of the so‐called ‘Organized Yithuv’.

33 This category includes the Agudat Israel and other extreme orthodox elements especially in Jerusalem.

34 This category includes Hathomer Hatzair and a small Zionist‐Marxist party called Poalei Zion Smol, and since 1944 also the Hatenna le‐Achdut Avoda, which split from Mapai.

35 Akzin, Benjamin, ‘The Role of Parties in Israeli Democracy’, in Eisenstadt, S. N., Bar‐Yosef, Rivkah and Adler, Chaim (eds.), ‘Integration and Development in Israel’, op. cit., pp. 13–18.Google Scholar

36 The ‘Party‐Political Key’ is a principle which dominated the allocation of budgets, immigration certificates, settlement sites, administrative jobs and other employment. According to this principle such resources were allocated in proportion to the relative strength of the parties and other political groups in the representative bodies of the central National Institutions. By these kinds of agreements the outcome of political elections had an impact on many spheres of life which are not considered political in the narrow sense of the word.

37 See Shils, Edward A., ‘Centre and Periphery’ in The Logic of Personal Knowledge, Routlcdge & Kegan Paul, London, 1961.Google Scholar Eisenstadt, S. N., ‘Prestige, Participation and Strata Formation’, in Jackson, J. A. (ed.), Social Stratification. Sociological Studies 1, Part I, 1968.Google Scholar