professionals and politicians: labor zionist urban men and the “new jew” in mandate palestine

!1

Matan Boord Please do not cite or circulate without permission

Professionals and Politicians: Labor Zionist Urban Men and the “New Jew” in

Mandate Palestine

Matan Boord

I woke up at 3am, and by 4am we were at “the place”. Dawn came as we left Haifa, and the car devoured the land eastward. The Zebulon Valley was still asleep. First sparkles of light were scattered over it. Darkness wrapped the peaks of the mountains of Sheikh Abreik, Haratia and Harbatz. Only the mountains of the Carmel were rising and blushing. Next to the gate leading to Sheikh Abreik on the old road, the crowd of the committee gathered, to go to tour for the first time the optional locations for the point of settlement. The police came earlier and headed to the surroundings, to protect us from Bedouins’ attacks. Our party included: Reznik and his surveyors, S. Mekler, the architect Ratner, Shaul Meirov from “the security”, Duvdevani from the Agricultural Center, several members of Kibbutz Alonim and a few others. Along came also Tabenkin. (What a contrast between his fat belly and the field and the work!). 1

The quote above is taken from the diary of Yosef Weitz, then the head of the Lands Department of the

JNF (Jewish National Fund) — The Zionist movement's organ for funding settlement in Palestine. In

this passage and the part of the diary from which it is taken, Weitz narrates the founding of Kibbutz

"Alonim" in the mostly Arab populated region north east of Haifa on June 20, 1938. Around that period,

at the height of of the Palestinian revolt of 1936-1939, the Zionist movement conducted a settlement

operation in collaboration with the British mandatory government . In his description of the Kibbutz’s

founding, Weitz makes numerous references to errors made by the security experts and leaders of the

United Kibbutz movement. Weitz views them as prioritizing military or political considerations over

agricultural ones, and thus endangering the ability of the future settlement to sustain itself. At the end of

the paragraph Weitz mentions Yitzhak Tabenkin, the charismatic leader of the United Kibbutz

Movement. and contrasts his fat body to his preaching on life of hard agricultural labor. This mockery

reflects the way in which Weitz defined himself as opposed to the men of the labor settlement

Yosef Weitz's diaries, 20.6.38, Central Zionist Archives (CZA), A246-4-37/38.1

!1

!2


movement: he, the agricultural professional who understands and loves the country and its lands and is

truly dedicated to advancing the settlement project, as opposed to them, the hypocrites who speak

highly of settlement and agricultural labor while actually motivated by extraneous calculations.

Weitz’s self-definition demonstrates how questions and expressions of masculinity were an

essential part of the Zionist project from its outset. The Zionist movement formulated central images, 2

such as “the New Jew”, “Muscular Judaism” and “the Pioneer”, in explicitly gendered terms, and

political leaders of this movement struggled bitterly among themselves over the specific form that these

images were to take. It is no wonder, then, that the two men standing at the center of this article, Yosef 3

Weitz and Shmu’el Yavni’eli, dealt in their private writings intensively with defining themselves in

contrast to other men, as well as to their wives and children. On the basis of in-depth examination of

these two case studies I will draw insights as for the construction of the masculinity of one of the most

dominant groups in the Jewish community in Palestine: the urban leadership of the labor Zionist

movement. The basic significant insight of the article is that this urban leadership defined itself most

significantly against the masculinity of the men of the labor settlements. The analysis of the writings of

the two men brings up two different ways for such self definition: that of the professional and that of the

politician. As I will demonstrate, these were not merely professional identities, but had deep

implications to the ways these men perceived their place in the world and their role in their families.

Both Weitz and Yavni’eli belonged to the group of veteran labor Zionist “Pioneers”, or

“Halutzim” in Hebrew, who came to Palestine before WWI. This group of no more than a couple of

For the two most prominent examples see: Michael Gluzman, The Zioinst Body: gender and sexuality in the new Hebrew 2

literature (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2007); Daniel Boyarin, Unheroic conduct: the rise of heterosexuality and the invention of the Jewish man, Berkley 1997.

See for example Anita Shapira’s discussion of the struggle regarding the image of the “worker” and that of the “fighter” 3

between different factions of the nascent labor Zionist movement in Palestine before WWI: Anita Shapira, Land and power: the Zionist resort to force, 1881-1948, New York 1992, pp. 71-73.

!2

!3


thousands of men (and fewer women), begot most of labor Zionist top leadership until the 1960s. 4

Weitz was a self-taught forestry and agriculture expert, who after a few years as a poor laborer started to

work as a manager in a Zionist farm. During the period in question here — the 1930s — he lived with

his wife in Jerusalem and headed the Department of Lands and Forestry of the JNF. Yavni’eli stood out 5

from an early stage in his life as an intellectual (though he had no formal higher education) and a

politician, and he held a number of senior positions in the Histadrut (The General Union of Hebrew

Workers in Palestine) , and in Mapai (The Workers of the Land of Israel’s Party) . In the 1930s he lived 6

with his wife in Tel Aviv and headed the Cultural Center of the Histadrut. In this position he was

responsible, among other things, for the organization’s education system, including several dozens

elementary schools. 7

The main sources I will use here are private letters. Weitz’s letters were sent mainly to his son

Raa’nan while Raa’nan studied agriculture in Italy in the mid-1930s. Yavni’eli's are letters sent to his

daughter Are'la, who in the second half of the 1930s joined the group which established a few years

later (in 1939) a Kibbutz in north-eastern Palestine. In addition to the letters I will use excerpts from the

diary of Yosef Weitz and contemporary newspaper articles. 8

Gur Alroey, “Journey to Early-Twentieth-Century Palestine as a Jewish Immigrant Experience”, Jewish Social Studies, New 4

Series, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Winter, 2003), pp. 28-64.

David Tidhar, (1947). Entsiklopedyah le-halutse ha-yishuv u-vonav (Hebrew) (Vol. 2, p. 858). Retrieved from http://5

www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/2/858.

Since its establishment in 1920 the Histadrut was the main Jewish labor union in Palestine and labor Zionism’s main 6

organizational instrument. Mapai establishment in 1930, as a merger of the two main labor Zionist parties so far, led to labor’s rise to dominance in the political arena of the world Zionist movement and the Jewish community in Palestine until the late 1970s.

Ibid, (Vol. 8, p. 3026). Retrieved from http://www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/8/3026.7

Weitz’s diary and some of his letters to his sons were published in Hebrew: Yosef Weitz, My Diary and my Letters to the Sons 8

(Hebrew), (Tel Aviv: Masada, 1965). However, I use here mainly the original full versions, archived in the Central Zionist Archive (CZA) in Jerusalem, since in this research I am interested also in the private and “non-important” parts that were edited off the published text.

!3

http://www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/8/3026

http://www.tidhar.tourolib.org/tidhar/view/2/858

!4


As demonstrated by George Mosse and many others who followed him, gender and masculinity

in particular played a central and decisive role in the formation of the modern national movements. 9

Following Raewyn W. Connell, many scholars have demonstrated that examining the relationship

between different types of masculinities, vying for control of material and symbolic resources, can

improve the understanding of the central cultural, social and political questions in various locations and

in different time-periods. 10

Connell coined the concept of “hegemonic masculinity”., that has since become one of the most

fundamental concepts in the study of masculinity. According to Connell, through hegemony — that is,

the control by means that institutionalizes what is legitimate and possible while denying other options

— we can understand the majority of cases of domination of certain groups of men over women and

over other men. Hegemonic masculinity is not necessarily the common masculinity in a given society,

nor in the ruling classes; rather, it is the most prestigious image of masculinity, in front of which other

forms of masculinity are articulated and according to which men and women define themselves. The

term hegemony also indicates that male domination is a historically dynamic phenomenon, with

different groups of men formulating different types of masculinity as part of the struggle for hegemony

and in accordance with changing historical conditions. Since the hegemonic masculinity in the Jewish 11

community in mandate Palestine was mostly related to the men of the labor settlements, by

understanding Weitz’s and Yavni’eli’s different attitudes towards these men and the masculine ideal

George Mosse, Nationalism and sexuality : respectability and abnormal sexuality in modern Europe, New York 1985; Ibid., 9

The Image of Man: the creation of modern masculinity, New York 1996.

See for example: Mrinalini Sinha, Colonial Masculinity: the ’Manly Englishman’ and the’ Effeminate Bengali’ in the late 10

nineteenth century, New Delhi 1997; John Tosh, A Man's Place: masculinity and the Middle-class home in Victorian England, New Haven & London 1999.

R. W Connell, Masculinities : knowledge, power and social change, Berkeley 2005.; R. W. Connell and James W. 11

Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept”, Gender and Society, Vol. 19, No. 6 (Dec., 2005), pp. 829-859.

!4

!5


they represented, I wish to advance a better and more nuanced understanding of their own masculinity,

and by extension of the leadership of the Jewish community in mandatory Palestine and in the first

decades of the State of Israel.

This article is in line with other works from the last two decades critical to the mainstream

historical writing on Zionism. First, like other areas relating to the Jewish community in Palestine in

general and to the Zionist labor movement in particular, research of gender and family relations was for

years biased in favor of rural, communal settlements, while the city as the central arena for political,

social and cultural activity have been neglected. In the early 1980s, researchers conducted 12

groundbreaking studies on gender relations in the labor movement in the cities, yet they focused mostly

on women and femininity. The social characteristics of the labor elite and its relations with its next 13

generation were studied mainly as part of the discussion about the question: why did the younger

generation fail in inheriting the political leadership of the country? In his book, “The Zionist Body”, 14

Michael Gluzman incorporated gender perspective into the study of the subject, but his research is based

exclusively on the analysis of canonical literary representations. No gender perspective was 15

incorporated to date in the research on the tension between the city and the village in Zionism in general

Tammy Razi, “The Family Is Worthy of Being Rebuilt: Perceptions of the Jewish Family in Mandate Palestine, 1918–12

1948”, Journal of Family History 35(4) (2010), p. 397.

For examples, see: Bernstein, “Human being or housewife: the status of women in the Jewish working class family in 13

Palestine of the 1920s and 1930s” in: Bernstein (ed.), Pioneers and homemakers: Jewish women in pre-state Israel (Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press, 1992) pp. 235-256; Bernstein, “Contested contact: proximity and social control in pre-1948 Jaffa and Tel-Aviv” in: Daniel Monterescu and Dan Rabinowitz (eds.), Mixed Towns, Trapped Communities, Burlington 2007, pp. 215-241.

See: Yonathan Shapiro, “Sabras in Politics”, Jerusalem Quarterly 11 (1979) pp. 112-127; Anita Shapira, “A Generation in 14the Land” (Hebrew), Alpayim 2 (1990) pp. 178-203.

Gluzman, ibid, pp. 182-208.15

!5

!6


and in the Zionist labor movement in particular. In recent years, several studies centered on the 16

formation of modern Jewish culture in everyday life in Palestine during the British Mandate. The

present article is continuing those of them which explicitly addressed masculinity in the labor

movement, even if only as a small part in other cultural contexts. 17

Relatively little is known about the role of men in family relationships, despite the importance

of such relationships to the construction of masculinities, from the most intimate dimensions to the most

public ones of work and politics. That is also true in the case of the Jewish community in Palestine 18

during the British mandate In the period that this article focuses on, the family was the object of intense

ideological debates about its role and status within the framework of the Zionist national project. The 19

tension between the family and the Zionist project has been also examined so far in historiography

mainly in the context of women, who indeed often had to choose between paid work and other activity

in the public sphere and the home and family life. I will demonstrate here that tensions existed 20

between the family and the Zionist project also in the context of men and masculinity, even if those

were different tensions, manifested in different ways.

The article adds to the knowledge about the family in the Jewish community in Palestine, but it

also uses it as a comfortable arena for the study of masculinity. One of the basic insights on which the

For example, see: S. Ilan Troen, Imagining Zion: dreams, designs and realities in a century of Jewish settlement, New 16

Haven and London, 2003, pp. 101-111.

For examples, see: Dafna Hirsch, “We Are Here to Bring the West” — Hygiene Education Within the Jewish Community of 17

Palestine During the British Mandate (Hebrew), PhD dissertation, Tel Aviv University 2006, pp. 206-208; Anat Helman, Urban Culture in 1920s and 1930s Tel Aviv (Hebrew), Haifa 2007, pp. 204-206.

Davidoff and others (eds.), The Family Story: blood, contract, and intimacy, 1830-1960, London 1999, pp. 135-158.18

Razi, ibid., pp. 401-403.19

Deborah S Bernstein, “Daughters of the Nation: between the public and private spheres in pre-state Israel” in: Judith R. 20

Baskin (ed.), Jewish Women in Historical Perspective, Detroit 1998, pp. 287-311.!6

!7


move from the study of women to the study of gender was based is that gender categories are relational;

therefore, in order to write a history of masculinity and not just a history of men, one needs to find the

places in which masculinity was defined in relations to other gender categories. In social and cultural

fields where the dominance of men was until recently taken for granted, such as military organizations,

sports, law, politics, etc., the “women's issue” has been discussed quite intensively, but there is scarce

discourse around the definition of masculinity. The family as an institution in which the roles are

gendered almost by definition (“father”/“husband”=masculinity, “mother”/“wife”=femininity, etc.),

allows me to overcome this methodological difficulty. In that it requires men to operate with and in

front of women and children, the family is an ideal site to examine the ways in which men define

themselves as men. 21

The first two parts of the article deal with the field of work and career, which was at the center of

these men’s writings. In a different part of my work I examined their relationships with their wives, and

found that they clearly defined their professional lives as masculine, in opposition the the “not-so-

important” work done by wives. Based on this premise, I will analyze the way in which their attitude to

the field of work was articulated through two kinds of relationships: of men to themselves and of men as

fathers to their children, when the later were on the verge of adulthood. The first part of the article deals

with the attitudes of these men to their own work and with the way this attitude defined for them their

place and role within the labor movement. The second part deals with the attitudes of fathers to their

children's work and to their professional training for adult life, and with the way the father’s self-

perception affected the way they treated their children. In the third and last section I discuss the practice

Davidoff and others, The Family Story, pp. 135.21

!7

!8


of letter writing as a masculine one, and the meaning of its being so to the understanding of the

masculinity of the social group in question here.

The Fathers: work, professionalism and politics

The transition to livelihood based on productive labor was one of the key values promoted by the Zionist

labor movement in the process of creating a new Jewish culture. The other side of it was the

condemnation of forms of income that were not based on such labor, mainly various forms of welfare

and the exploitation of the work of others. This was also one of the main ways through which this

political camp distinguished itself from its rivals. Women used this discourse to strengthen their 22

position in the labor movement, but their success was only partial. Income and work in general, and in

particular those jobs that were considered more lucrative and that paid better, were clearly identified with

men and masculinity. 23

Work also played a central role in the personal lives, self-perception and writings of the two men

who are at the center of this article. In the 1930s both of them already filled senior positions in their

organizations., Both positions were clerical in nature, performed mainly from an urban office while

frequently visiting the labor settlements for the purpose of training, consulting, planning and supervising.

However, there were significant differences between the ways in which the two men perceived

themselves professionally.

Robert C. Rowland and David A. Frank, Shared Land/Conflicting Identity: trajectories of Israeli and Palestinian symbol 22

use, East Lansing 2002, pp. 45-47.

Bat-Sheva Margalit-Stern, “Rebels of Unimportance: The 1930s' Textile Strike in Tel Aviv and the Boundaries of Women’s 23

Self-Reliance”, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Jul., 2002), pp. 171-194.!8

!9


The main difference was that while Weitz perceived his job first and foremost as a professional

position, Yavni’eli thought of his primarily as a political one. Of course Weitz did make political

considerations as part of his work, but again and again, in his diaries and letters to his son, he

distinguished himself from politicians and activists, as in the following example:

“You’ve asked me many questions in your last letter, questions with which I am not familiar and

in which I never took interest. Do you think I how much Dr. Levinson of Keren Hayesod [the

Foundation Fund, the Zionist movement main fundraising organization] is making? We’ve

argued on this many times, and you know my position, that is definitely negative regarding all

those who poke around in these matters. Criticizing the administration is the role of the top

management or of leaders who stand close to actions and cary the burden of those ventures.”

And later in the same letter, Weitz continues to renounce politics in the sense of self promotion, internal

criticism and partisanship: 'I want to warn you, my son, stay away of empty reproach, which yields

neither flowers nor fruits. Party hatred became so great in our people that I’m afraid it will end all we

have built in the country.” 24

Yavni’eli’s position regarding his work was different. He treated politics as an integral part of it,

and to his educational work in managing the Histadrut’s Cultural Center as a part of the construction and

strengthening of his political camp. For example, in a letter to Are’la, written when Yavni’eli was on a

sick leave, he described why he felt such an urgent need to return to work:

“Precisely because we have grown to be such a big community, the work of educating and

fortifying ourselves internally is necessary. Also in our special corner, in our education matters, a

Yosef Weitz to Raa’nan Weitz, 13.2.34, CZA, A246-812-44.24

!9

!10


fortification work is missing — a seminar for teachers is missing, which will be ready for years to

fortify the camp of educators. We have schools and kindergartens and 320 people serve in them

educating our children, and in the future that number will grow and grow, and we have no

instrument to prepare that educators material. [...] We demand and demand the establishment of

the seminar, and as for now we did not yet find a sympathetic ear. In the Histadrut’s Council we

will voice our demand again. Maybe this time we shall be heard [emphasis in the original].” 25

And in a letter from Lucerne, Switzerland, summarizing his work as part of the 19th Zionist Congress

held there, Yavni’eli wrote: The congress is over (so I hope) in easier feelings than the way it started.

There is hope for cooperation between all the parties. In recent days, we are immersed in meetings on

until late at night. But this is the job.” 26

These differences in professional roles and self-perception of the two men had implications for

their attitudes to those in the party and labor union apparatus and in the labor settlements and to their

types of masculinity. Weitz's strong professional identity, developed through the years he held

management positions, was intertwined with a distance between him and the men of the settlement

movements. He expressed this distance in strong, explicit criticism of them, as well as in different daily

practices. In contrast, Yavni’eli continued to perceive himself as part of the same public of workers that

the men of the party apparatus and labor settlements spearheaded, even though the positions he held were

no less senior or professional.

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, 8.1.36, Shmue'l Yavni’eli’s archive, Labor Movement Archive (LMA), 25

IV-104-12-4.

Ibid, 3.9.35, ibid.26

!10

!11


Weitz lived in Jerusalem, but his professional life consisted in constant traveling around the

country, including for frequent meetings with members of labor settlements leaders and communities in

actual establishment of settlements, in meetings on related subjects and in visits to existing settlements

for the training, counseling and attending of nationally important celebrations. The distance between him

and the men of the labor settlement could also be seen visually in their different forms of dress: in images

from Weitz’s visits to remote settlements he was wearing a tailored, well-pressed suit, while the activists

around him were dressed in military clothing or other rough working clothes. 27

In Weitz’s diary and letters, his approach to these people and the kind of masculinity they

represented appears within the description of these meetings, as well as in other ways. His attitude to the

people of the settlement movement was far from being completely negative. Along with criticism and

professional distance, Weitz also continued to regard himself as a part of the labor movement and as “a

man of the field”, a phrase that repeats in his writings in different variations. This is evident in his deep

emotional attitude to the forests and orchards on JNF lands, for which he was responsible as part of his

job, but also from his intimate attitude to his private garden in his urban residence. At the same time, his

professional status often led him into conflicts with activists of the labor settlements and to a virulent

criticism, as in the example that opened this article.

Weitz’s criticism of the men of the labor settlements for hypocrisy and tendency to favor political

considerations over professional ones was intertwined with a similar criticism of the party and the

Histadrut:

“Party hatred on our side is growing more and more. And I as a member of the Histadrut feel

sorry that this organization is dragged into this devil dance and uses all means available, almost

See for example, a picture from the first visit of Menachem Ussishkin, then Head of the JNF, together with Weitz to the 27

celebrated settlement of Hanita in 1938 or 1939: Weitz, My Diary, p. 224.!11

!12


like its rival parties. I would like that an organization whose members are truly the nation’s

pioneers will also be pure in the human-national sense and will rise above the others. The lust for

power is highly developed in its new leaders and they have no check for achieving it by all

means. The ways of A. D. Gordon [one of the founders and first intellectuals of the Zionist labor

movement] are long forgotten from heart and we are all going downhill and in the meantime the

government of Palestine is dividing the spoils.” 28

Like Weitz, Yavni’eli too went on long trips between labor settlements as part of his work. But in

contrast to Weitz, Yavni’eli retained close personal ties with men and women of these settlements, and

saw himself as a part of them, and as a part of the party and the Histadrut’s apparatus at the same time.

The Yavni’eli family had particularly close personal relationships with the kibbutz of Ein Harod in

general and with a few of its members in particular. For example, this is how Yavni’eli described his

short visit to Ein Harod, at his old friend's Shlomo Lavie and his young children, a visit that was a part of

“a 6 days trip in Haifa and the [Jezree’l] valley”: “As part of my stay there I spent time with Hilel and

Ilana. Just for them it is worth coming there often [...]. Afterwords Lavie came from Haifa and brought

gifts to Ilana, for turning eight. And I went on to other matters, and to older people that sometimes are

just like children; or perhaps we are all like children, not knowing what is around us and what will come

next.” 29

Thus, Yavni’eli’s criticism of the politics of the Zionist labor movement, which was similar in its

content and no less judgmental than that of Weitz, was formulated as self-criticism:


Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, 15.7.34, ibid; and for a letter in which Yavni’eli writes of a plan to celebrate Passover 29

at Ein Harod see: Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, 13.4.35, ibid.!12

!13


“How much do we know to speak a lot and do little, and how much do we know to criticize each

other without thinking too much, to tease, to underestimate the image of the other and his actions,

and how unrestrained is our mouths when we speak and our thoughts when we express them. And

how much do we know to spend our shared public time even less productively than the time of

each individual, without giving any account for what needs to be done.” 30

The children: those who would follow the fathers’ way

An examination of the relationships between Weitz and Yavni’eli and their children in this period

will enable a better understanding of the ways in which they defined the desirable masculinity in

their view and the different strategies of preserving and reproducing cultural, social and economic

status in this elite group of high labor officials.The fathers’ concern for the future of their children

was one of the major issues in the letters. Both Weitz and Yavni’eli invested much effort in

promoting their perceptions about the type of career to which their children should aspire, the

lifestyle they should adopt and the professional training required for this purpose.

This 31

investment was also reflected in practical initiation, as both men referred to their children at certain

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, 9.3.35, ibid.30

For the depth of analysis, this paper focuses on two men only. I do have, for this matter , evidence from the letters of several 31other men in social and professional standing similar to that of Weitz and Yavni’eli. For example: David Bar Rav Hai (Borovoi), a jurist and one of Labor’s prominent activists in Haifa at the time, was deeply engaged in assisting his son to meet the qualification exams to practice law, even while the son was in Europe as a soldier in the British army. See sources in: LMA, IV-124-1288-14; Shraga Netzer (Nusovitzki), who was the head of the Tel Aviv municipality workers union and was a prominent Labor activist in Tel Aviv in the 1930s and 1940s, corresponded intensively in order to remove the obstacles faced his son’s year of the agricultural boarding school “Kadoorie”, due to the eruption of the Arab revolt in 1936: LMA, IV-124-773-35; And at least in one of David Ben-Gurion’s letters to his wife from the 1930’s, the had of the Jewish Agency dealt with his son’s professional future: “I want to know what does Amos think to do. After finishing high-school, I would like him to study seamanship. He could do that in a school in England. It takes two years, than one needs to practice three years on a ship.”: David Ben-Gurion, Letters to Pola and to the Children (Hebrew), Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1968) pp. 154.

!13

!14


stages as junior colleagues: Weitz took his sons along with him on many professional tours and

assigned them tasks such as writing papers and technical programs under his supervision. Yavni’eli

demanded and received information from his children on the different activities they pursued under

the labor movement, and tried to persuade them to act according to his perceptions in these

political arenas.Alongside significant differences, Weitz and Yavni’eli shared social and

professional status and a similar lifestyle. This similarity dictated significant resemblance also in

the children's life trajectory: to name just a few key points, all the children of the two families were

born in Palestine, studied in elementary school of the “general stream” of education (i.e. that did

not belong to “Workers Stream”)

and attended a reputed high school (Yavni’eli's children went to 32

“Gymnasia Herzliya” in Tel Aviv, and Weitz’s to “Gymnasia Rehavia” in Jerusalem). One of Weitz's

children (Sharon) finished high school at the agricultural boarding school of Mikveh Israel, while

Yavni’eli's son studied there one day a week during high school. Last but not least, two sons of

Weitz's (Raa'nan and Yechia'm) and two children of Yavni’eli spent prolonged periods of study and

work in the kibbutzim Ein Harod and Mishmar Hae’mek, two of the flagships of the communal

settlement movement.Weitz and Yavni’eli, like many other fathers of their status in the labor

movement at the time, wished to see their children follow in their footsteps albeit not in an

identical manner. The ways they referred to their own career had a direct impact on how they

treated their children in this regard. Weitz, who identified with the labor movement and its values

In mandate Palestine, Zionist education was conducted within three ‘streams’, each corresponding more or less to a specific 32political orientation: The “Workers Stream” was owned and operated by the Histadrut’s center of culture; the “Religious Stream” by Hamizrahi Zionist-Orthodox party; and the “General Stream” was owned and operated by the National Committee, the supreme representative organ of Palestine's Jews, in which all political parties were represented. And see: Shimo’n Reshef and Yuval Dror, “The Hebrew education in the times of the National Home, 1919-1948” (Hebrew) in: Moshe Lisak (ed.), The History of the Jewish Community in Eretz-Israel Since 1882 (Jerusalem: The Bialik Institute Publishing, 1999) pp. 22-42.

!14

!15


but did not feel that he belonged to the settlement movement professionally or culturally,

encouraged his children to follow him as professionals whose authority is based on academic

knowledge in agriculture. This is evident in many examples in his letters, in which he consulted

with his sons Raa'nan and Sharon and advised them in professional dilemmas, while conveying to

them his decisive expectation of them to do well at school. Weitz also made sure not to command

his sons unequivocally, but asked them time and time again to write their opinion and explain it so

he could argue with their claims.

According to Weitz, the professional direction which he encouraged his sons to follow could

contribute both to the collective national effort and to the individual success of the children. He was

careful to emphasize the combination of the two, since the children showed a strong tendency to join

collective institutions that discredited the importance of the individual career, in the spirit of the time.

This is noticeable especially in relation to his youngest son, Yechia'm, who grew up at a time when

movements of the Palestine born Jewish youth have already been institutionalized and prosperous. The

attitude of Weitz to Yechia'm's youth movement activity was mostly patronizing and dismissive when the

activity in the movement interfered with learning and developing a career, as in the following quote:

“With us there’s nothing new. […] Yechia’m is studying, and is occupied too much with the business of

the Hashomer Hatzai’r (Hebrew for “The young guardsman”, one of labor Zionist prominent youth

movements)”.

In the following passage, from a letter to Raa'nan in Italy, Yosef rebuked Raa'nan harshly 33

for trying to intervene in the professional education of Yechia'm, explaining the logic that guided his

policy:“You have no justification to challenge my actions and deeds in relation to Yechia'm's work, as he

Yosef Weitz to Raa’nan Weitz, 18.12.34, CZA, A246-812-5.33!15

!16


went to work at the experiment station in Rehovot and not in a kibbutz or kvutza. And the ending proves

me right. Yechia'm returned after working twelve days and he is full of impressions, satisfaction and

contentment. He worked and earned! Labored and benefited the fruit of his labor. He could not have

enjoyed these advantages if he had worked in a kvutza under the same conditions as his friends. About

life and work in the kvutza — I have, of course, no need to take a lesson from you, I know very well the

advantages that are not small at all. But I am not blind to the shortcomings either. [...] And do not tell me:

the public, public discipline! I, too, recognize it, but not blindly. Here, going to work in order to save the

harvest by school children is done by a person who values not the objective of those who are going, but

the goal of the place to which they are going […].” 34

Like Weitz, Yavni’eli too aspired to see his children fulfill their potential personal prospects, and

saw the professional field as the obvious arena for such development, for both his son and daughter.

Yavni’eli too wished to see his children follow the way he prescribed for them. But unlike Weitz,

Yavni’eli's way was that of unquestionable compliance to collective demands — national and factional

— and these stood at top priority. Only through them did he see his children's abilities expressed, and the

contrast between private and collective aspirations that arose in his letters was much more subtle than

Weitz's. Furthermore, unlike Weitz's children, the collective tasks assigned to the children of Yavni’eli by

their father led them out of the city, to pioneering communal settlements.

In a letter he sent from the Zionist Congress in Lucerne in the summer of 1935, where he

represented the labor movement, to his daughter Are'la, then already in a communal settlement in a border

area, Yavni’eli expressed his perception about the relationship between following his way and joining the


!16

!17


collective tasks by the children: “Your company [Pluga] is one of the loci of immigrant absorption,

which is the realization of Zionism. And how great is the distance between the army headquarters here in

Lucerne, to the trenches of defense you are in, there in your company!”

Another example comes from 35

the distinct contrast between the resistance expressed by Weitz to his son’s activity in Hashomer Hatzai’r

youth movement and Yavni’eli's encouragement of his son's activity in one of Mapai's youth movements,

as he expressed it in many letters. These statements indicate that Yavni’eli addressed his children's

political activities as an integral part of the party's national effort, and regarded his children as political

activists in every respect, and thus also liable to criticism when they failed in their movement tasks. 36

However, Yavni’eli's letters also reveal a concern for the individual development of his children,

both personally and professionally, even when it clashed with the different missions they received from

the movement. For example, he encouraged Are'la to study bookkeeping and live for several weeks in

Tel Aviv, even though it meant staying away for awhile from the members of the company and her duties

there.

Another example was Yavni’eli's objection to his son Menachem's plan to join the founders of 37

kibbutz Beit HaA'rava in the isolated potash plant in the desert area of the northern Dead Sea.

Between 38

the attitude of Yavni’eli to that of Weitz there was a slight difference: both believed that giving

expression to the children's personal competence can contribute to the national mission, but whereas

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavniel’li, 28.8.35, Shmue’l Yavnieli’s archive, ILMR, IV-104-12-4.35

Se for examle: Shmue’l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, no date (probably 1936), ibid.36

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, 20.8.34, ibid.37

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, no date (1938 or 1939), ibid. 38!17

!18


Weitz's emphasis was on individual development as a tool for self- and national realization, Yavni’eli

emphasized the collective and the benefits it would produce from the improvement in the individual

abilities of its members.At this point, it is important to dwell on the difference in attitude towards girls

and boys. While Yavni’eli encouraged his daughter to learn a profession that would allow her to realize

her talent for the benefit of the national project, which resembled in principle his attitude to his son and

the attitude of Weitz to his sons, I found evidence in support of existing research on the continuity of the

perception which meant in practice a discrimination against women in this context. For example,

Yavni’eli's attitude to his daughter when she first became pregnant implies that from that moment on,

the pregnancy and the well-being of the baby moved, in his view, to the mother's top priority, and work

became secondary and subordinate. In a letter from that time he asked Are'la and her husband to come

for a relatively long visit (of a week) at the parents’ home to note the important occasion, reasoning that

“if Yehuda-le [the husband] could not be released for a whole week, he should come with you for a day

or two, and you — stay at home for a week.”

Apparently, there was no question as to the ability of 39

Are'la to be released for a whole week on the grounds of what Yavni’eli perceived as the baby's interests.

Masculine writing: on men and letters

We can learn about practices of masculinity in the family not only by looking through the letters, but also

by examining letter-writing itself. During the time in question, letters were the main way for families to

keep in touch with their children, to affect their development and to express concern, love and longing

during long periods of separation. The very fact that fathers were the ones responsible for the

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, no date (probably 1940), ibid. 39!18

!19


correspondence with the children, and wrote in most cases on behalf of all members of the family (still

writing in the singular first person voice), indicates that the relationships with the children at that stage

were highly important for the fathers. At the same time, both Weitz’s and Yavni’eli's letters dealt

extensively with writing letters in itself.The main subject arising from the letters in this context is the

constant dissatisfaction of parents with the number of letters sent by their children, their insufficient

length and details, as well as their irregularity. In the Weitz family, letters had a central place in the routine

of life, and Yosef was very strict about time and manner of sending the letters. Weitz held strong beliefs 40

about the importance of writing for practice and improvement of style. This was evident from his

meticulous writing in his diary, and also in explicit statements as in this letter to Raa'nan: "I, for instance,

love writing, by writing I can be alone with myself, through it I get to discover myself. Therefore, I am

very sorry that you don't have the inclination to write, and even worse, that you detest writing in general,

a 'virtue' I also find in your brothers [...]." 41

Another major reason for Weitz's demand that Raa'nan be more punctual in writing his letters

was that the slightest delay worried his mother, even if it was only of one day. Weitz’s wife, Ruhama, 42

did not write and was not required to write. Although she was portrayed as an anxious reader in Yosef's

letters to his sons, she was almost completely passive. Yosef was solely responsible for the

correspondence with the sons, he wrote in the name of both him and his wife, their mother, he urged

the boys to write, and, as demonstrated in the above quote, he also benefited personally from the

writing. One might speak, then, about family letter writing in the Weitz family as a masculine practice.

For examples, see: Yosef Weitz to Raa’nan Weitz, 4.12.34, CZA, A246-812-9; Ibid, 10.4.34, ibid, A246-812-30. 40

Weitz, My Diary, p. 22. 41

For one example out of many see: Yosef Weitz to Raa’nan Weitz, 17.4.34, CZA, A246-812-28.42

!19

!20


Examining the writings of Yavni’eli to his daughter may allow for the extension of this argument

beyond The Weitz family. In the Yavni’eli family correspondence one can also find, occasionally, letters

from the mother to Are’la. Interestingly, these letters touched on practical and technical issues only, as

opposed to the variety of issues Yavni’eli discussed with his daughter, from personal to broad and

abstract political, social and cultural matters. In the Yavni’eli family too the father was responsible for

the correspondence, but here he signed most of his letters in the name of the mother as well. He, too, was

continually preoccupied with reprimanding Are’la for not writing enough, as evident in the following

quote:

"Dear Are’la, Shalom! I am writing you with red ink because we ran out of black. However, it

reminds me of your school days, when I used red ink specially to correct your errors. Maybe this

letter will remind you to correct one error, the error of silence, and to write us a few words about

your whereabouts. [...] We do not want to guess the reason for your silence, but we, Mother,

myself and Menachem, all ask you to answer us immediately.”

43

The red ink and the memory it evoked put the correspondence in the context of hierarchical relationships,

and thus validated Yvnie'li's demand from Are’la to write more. The quote also illustrates how Yavni’eli

wrote in the name of the mother and brother as well as his unquestionable ownership of the

correspondence with the daughter and of managing the family's relationship with her.

Conclusion

Shmue'l Yavni’eli to Are’la Yavni’eli, no date (probably 1940), ibid. 43!20

!21


Yosef Weitz and Shmue’l Yavni’eli both held senior positions in the Zionist labor movement in the 1930s.

Their status relied both on the prestige they gained as prominent pioneers before WWI, and on the roles

they played successfully as senior officials later on. Like most members of the labor movement in their

status, they faced the contradiction between their office-work and their city-life on the one hand, and the

ideal of masculinity of the labor movement, practiced mostly by men of the labor settlements, on the

other hand. In order to explain the way in which they tried to reconcile this contradiction, I used Connel’s

term of hegemonic masculinity, and defined in this term the ideal of masculinity of the labor’s movement

(?). This ideal, and the men perceived to embody it, were the main masculinity both Weitz and Yavni’eli

faced when trying to define their own masculinity.

The main criterion for the comparison I made between the kinds of masculinity of Weitz and

Yavni’eli was their attitude to work — theirs’ and that of their children. The basic premise here, that their

perception of their work was thoroughly masculine, is based on the abundant research literature on the

subject and is evident in the contradiction in their writings between their attitude to their own work and

their attitude to the work of their wives, on which I elaborate elsewhere. It is also apparent in the

difference between their attitude to the work of their sons and daughters, as in the example from

Yavni’eli’s letters to his daughter, when after her becoming pregnant he saw her role at work as secondary

to her role as a mother.

A major organizing factor of their masculinity, work was for both Weitz and Yavni’eli the most

central and important part of their lives. Both of them identified deeply with their work, which they

perceived as a calling and not merely as an occupation meant to secure their livelihood. More indicators

for that point are their intensive writing about questions coming up from their work in their letters to their

children, and the great significance they attributed to their children’s choices when it came to their

!21

!22


careers. As such, work was also a major class and associational signifier, as evidenced in the relations

between the differences in the types of jobs Weitz and Yavni’eli held, their perceptions of the nature of

their work and their relationships with their children and with the labor settlements.

Weitz, who worked in a professional role in the JNF and perceived his role as essentially technical

and scientific, loathed the influence of political considerations on decision-making in his field. His

contempt was expressed in his distancing himself from the party and the Histadrut’s apparatus, and

particularly from the members of the labor settlements whom he regarded as motivated by political and

non-professional considerations. In his approach to the future careers of his sons, I demonstrated how

Weitz made great efforts to dissuade them from choosing the main road proposed by the labor movement

for native-born youth of their status, that is youth movement activity, practicing work at the flagship

settlements of the Kibbutz movements, and then the establishment of cooperative settlements in rural

areas and filling different political and military roles. In contrast to that, Weitz pushed his sons to

academic vocational training as agricultural experts and not as laborers, so that they could fill

professional and technical positions such as his.

In contrast, Yavni’eli, who was neither less educated nor less professional than Weitz, perceived

his role as political in essence, and saw himself an integral part of the party and the Histadrut’s apparatus.

He maintained close personal ties with men and women of the labor settlements. This was also evident in

his attitude toward his children's choices when it comes to their vocational training and career. As

opposed to Weitz, Yavni’eli encouraged his children to take an active part in labor Zionist youth

movements, to spend a large part of their childhood in Kibbutz Ein Harod and then to participate in the

construction of kibbutzim and take an active part in the political struggles of the labor movement.

!22

!23


Yavni’eli remained in the city all his life, but leaving the city for the labor settlement was the ideal on

which he educated his children, who indeed eventually fulfilled it.

Finally, in a kind of closure, the work being so masculine and so important as a signifier of

belonging also had an impact on the status of the men in the family, in front of their wives and children. I

demonstrated this by examining the practice of letter writing itself. Men were almost exclusively

responsible for managing the family’s correspondence, and most of the times they wrote on behalf of the

whole family. In addition, I showed how managing the correspondence clearly placed them in a

hierarchical position, defining the requirements on behalf of the family and scolding and reprimanding

when those requirements were not met.

My point of departure was the categories of masculinity and of hegemonic masculinity, as well as

the family as the central arena for examining historical events. These tools allowed me to get at a better

explanation as to how the urban elite group of senior officials in the labor movement defined themselves

in relation to the pioneering ideal. This reading in Weitz's and Yavni’eli’s private writings is another step

in an ongoing historiographical attempt to re-read Zionist history in gendered eyes. As such, it is based on

the elimination of the division between private and public in order to examine key issues in the social and

cultural history of the Jewish community in Palestine, such as the social and cultural characteristics of the

elite of the labor movement and its relationship with its next generation, the attitude toward work and the

tension between the city and the village in Zionism. The operation of these categories on other cases can

extend this discussion also to other central questions such as sexuality, violence and militarism,

expression of emotions, the attitude of Jews in Palestine to the Jews of Europe during the Mandate period

and the first decade of the State of Israel, and more.

!23

professionals and politicians: labor zionist urban men and the “new jew” in mandate palestine

Documents