At Home in Exile: Why Diaspora Is Good for the Jews

by Alan Wolfe

An eloquent, controversial argument that says, for the first time in their long history, Jews are free to live in a Jewish state—or lead secure and productive lives outside it  Since the beginnings of Zionism in the twentieth century, many Jewish thinkers have considered it close to heresy to validate life in the Diaspora. Jews in Europe and America faced “a life of pointless struggle and futile suffering, of ambivalence, confusion, and eternal impotence,” as one early Zionist philosopher wrote, echoing a widespread and vehement disdain for Jews living outside Israel. This thinking, in a more understated but still pernicious form, continues to the the Holocaust tried to kill all of us, many Jews believe, and only statehood offers safety.    But what if the Diaspora is a blessing in disguise? In At Home in Exile, renowned scholar and public intellectual Alan Wolfe, writing for the first time about his Jewish heritage, makes an impassioned, eloquent, and controversial argument that Jews should take pride in their Diasporic tradition. It is true that Jews have experienced more than their fair share of discrimination and destruction in exile, and there can be no doubt that anti-Semitism persists throughout the world and often rears its ugly head. Yet for the first time in history, Wolfe shows, it is possible for Jews to lead vibrant, successful, and, above all else, secure lives in states in which they are a minority.   Drawing on centuries of Jewish thinking and writing, from Maimonides to Philip Roth, David Ben Gurion to Hannah Arendt, Wolfe makes a compelling case that life in the Diaspora can be good for the Jews no matter where they live, Israel very much included—as well as for the non-Jews with whom they live, Israel once again included. Not only can the Diaspora offer Jews the opportunity to reach a deep appreciation of pluralism and a commitment to fighting prejudice, but in an era of rising inequalities and global instability, the whole world can benefit from Jews’ passion for justice and human dignity.   Wolfe moves beyond the usual polemical arguments and celebrates a universalistic Judaism that is desperately needed if Israel is to survive. Turning our attention away from the Jewish state, where half of world Jewry lives, toward the pluralistic and vibrant places the other half have made their home, At Home in Exile is an inspiring call for a Judaism that isn’t defensive and insecure but is instead open and inquiring.

Genres: Jewish, Judaism, Nonfiction, Judaica

281 pages, Kindle Edition

First published October 28, 2014

About the author

Alan Wolfe is professor of political science and director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College. The author and editor of more than twenty books, he is a frequent contributor to the New York Times, Harper's, and the Atlantic. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Reviews

[jordan · Rating 1 out of 5]

No recorded diaspora has been longer than that of the Jews. Consider the Elephantine papyri, uncovered some hundred years ago near Aswan in Upper Egypt. These included a cache of 5th Century BCE Aramaic documents produced by a community of exiled Judean who lived in Abu, a fortress town in upper Egypt. The documents opened a window into the past. They dealt with topics from the quotidian - contracts, property transfers, divorces - to the extraordinary. Several fragments were of correspondences between Jews of Abu and the reestablished Jewish commonwealth. In one, Hananiah, a leader in Judea, details Passover practice for Yedaniah, a leader in Abu. In another, Yedaniah pleads to the governor in Judea. Abu’s Jewish temple had been razed in a riot led by Egyptian priests. The diasporic community begs assistance so that they might rebuild their sanctuary.

The Elephantine papyri came to mind while reading Alan Wolfe’s, At Home in Exile: Why Diaspora is Good for the Jews. It is worth recalling that the current Diaspora is not the Jews' first. Even before the Roman Exile, Jewish communities thrived across the Mediterranean world. Far from passive, these disparate communities actively contributed to both Jewish and the broader Roman culture. Philo, the synthesizer of Torah and philosophy, was born in Alexandria, Egypt. The apostle Paul was a child of the Jewish community of Tarsus, a major trading city in what is now southern Turkey. Even the Talmud was codified not in Israel, but in Babylon. Diaspora can be dangerous, but it also fueled and fuels Jewish creativity; maintaining competing community centers only strengthened Judaism. The Second Exile reinforced this trend.
Wolfe has little interest in the Diaspora’s history. Instead he argues that the Diaspora (or at least some of it) is far better than most Jews appreciate [think, or imagine]. Unfortunately, among a series of shortcomings, his book never answers the implied question of his subtitle: what exactly does it mean to be “good for the Jews”? Wolfe writes:

In the years after World War II, the most important development in the three-thousand year history of the Jewish people took place. I am not referring to Israel’s birth in 1948, significant as that event was. I mean instead that a vibrant, successful and above all else secure life has, for the first time ever, become possible in a state in which Jews are, and will always be, in the minority… That Jews can live among gentiles without living in fear is an epochal accomplishment…Most remarkable of all, it is rarely remarked [on].

“Ever,” of course, is an awfully strong word (to say nothing of the hyperbolic “most important…in three-thousand year history”). As this passage hints, Wolfe’s primary concern lies with the Western Diaspora, especially that of American Jews (Western Europe gets a chapter, but the rest of the world receives only fly-by consideration). Other Jewish communities that fared less well in the postwar period receive little to no attention. Nothing is said of the Iraqi community, midwives of the Talmud, long-established when Mohammed rode out of Arabia, now obliterated. Nor does Wolfe discuss Persian Jewry, a community which predates even the first exile, now a mere shadow. No, the rich diversity of the Jewish world is of little interest to Wolfe, save where he can find opportunities to scandalize. Nor is he much interested in Jewish history. Wolfe instead seeks to atomize Judaism into a facile duality. For Wolfe that which he approves of he labels “universalist” while what he finds questionable he declares to be “particularlist.”

It is often said that there exists within Judaism a tension between particularism and universalism…particularists believe that Jews should be primarily concerned with their own, while universalists insist that they are under special obligation to spread the light of reason to as many people as possible… Statehood promised a final solution to the Final Solution: now that they had achieved it, Jews would finally constitute a nation like the others, able to speak in its own name and defend its interests…Nor, despite a dynamic economy and numerous efforts at outreach, has it been able to appeal to all Jews: roughly half of world Jewry has made Aliyah [emigrated to Israel]…As it increasingly becomes clear that the Diaspora is not a disaster and that the security offered by statehood has proven to be precarious, the lost universalism that has so much a part of the Jewish tradition may well be prepared for a comeback.

What source makes Wolfe imagine Jews are under a “special obligation to spread the light of reason?” He never says. One imagines he is referring to Jews being a “light unto the nations.” Yet surely reason wasn't what Isaiah had in mind. Instead he the prophet refers to the nations following the examples of the Jews “righteousness” and their embrace of monotheism. Nor is Wolfe's lack of biblical literacy the only problem with the passage. Here, as he does elsewhere and frequently, Wolfe plays fast and loose with history and facts. It is simply wrong that half of world Jewry has made Aliyah. Yes, around half of world Jewry now lives in Israel (Just over 40%). That is not the same thing as claiming “half of world Jewry” immigrated to Israel. Israel’s rising percentage results more than anything from the American Jewish population either flattening or actually declining. That lack of growth in the American Jewish population is the result of assimilation. Is this an attempted sleight-of-hand by Wolfe to conceal something about the state of Diaspora Jewry or mere sloppiness? And in a book so awash in errors of basic history and fact, which would be worse?

Given his focus on actions considered particularist and universalist one might well wonder: which actions for Wolfe count as particularist? Which as universalist? Israel offering sanctuary to a diversity of Jews, Soviet, Ethiopian, and more recently Ukrainian is likely, for Wolfe, particularist. Israel is also at the forefront of medical and technological innovation: does being at the forefront of trying to cure Ebola count as universalist? What about Israel welcoming Vietnamese and Bosnian refugees? Or Israel sending first responders to Haiti after the earthquake and offering similar post-quake aid to Iran, a nation committed to its destruction? Nation-states, by their nature, are particularist institutions. The primary concern of each is its citizens (or should be). Yet, by any standard, Israel continues to demonstrate Jewish civilization’s “universalist” commitments. Wolfe charges again and again that the founding of Israel somehow smothered world Jewry's universalist commitment. This claim, however, ignores the degree to which Israel has become a lens through which Jews throughout the world – whether though financial support or joint research or business assistance – often focuses their universalist imperative.

Those modern acts are less interesting to Wolfe than the idea that the enterprise of building a Jewish state must necessitate the destruction of the Diaspora Jewish community. While he is correct that this concept underlay the pre-state period of Zionism, it is certainly not a prevalent notion in the modern world. Besides, is it really surprising that thinkers like Jabotinsky and Ben Gurion, born under the Tsar, could easily imagine their fellow Jews taking flight en-mass? The Jews they imagined coming were departing not the Brooklyn, but Bialystock, not Maryland but Minsk. As fate would have it, most European Jews would not have the opportunity. The world that resulted, however, just isn't that historically atypical. Two major centers competing for the status of most important Jewish cultural font. This competition is sometimes friendly, sometimes less so, as each criticizes and praises the other. And, as has likewise been historically the case, each exists in both a “universalist” and “particularlist” frame.

In Wolfe's analysis, it is anti-Semitism pushed and continues to push Jews towards “particuarlism.” In the wake of the Holocaust, of course, this would hardly be surprising. It might even be considered simply human. However, he offers scant evidence that it continues to the present day. The possibility that the scars left by genocide might have inspired Jews to take such a strong part in justice movements like Civil Rights also receives only scant attention. Moreover, given the tendency of Jews to struggle in the universal realm of social justice, there is little evidence that Wolfe’s poles are in any way mutually exclusive. Yet Wolfe seeks evidence of a simple dichotomy. Unfortunately, in this search for evidence he commits factual errors too numerous to consider here. For example, he writes “…Maimonides thrived in medieval Spain,” medieval Spain being a Jewish community often held up, to use Wolfe’s description of the United States as for Jews, “vibrant, successful, and above all else secure.” Unfortunately, that was not the great rabbi’s experience. When the ascendant Almohad dynasty demanded that all non-Muslims choose between conversion and banishment, the adolescent Maimonides was forced to flee to Egypt. Perhaps Wolfe is simply unaware of Maimonides actual biography.

Another issue is Wolfe’s choice to never offer a clear definition of anti-Semitism. The closest he gets is quoting Karl Marx’s infamous description of LaSalle as a “Jewish nigger” (which, thankfully, he does recognize as anti-Semitism). Instead, in a section considering various self-described “anti-Israel Jews,” Wolfe offers up and shoots-down definitions of anti-Semitism used by others. In the end Wolfe defaults to the ultimate straw man, attacking the canard that someone, somewhere, claims that any criticism of Israel is definitionally anti-Semitic. As you will soon see Wolfe demonstrates extraordinary selectivity in quoting figures accused of letting their animus towards Israel tip over into anti-Semitism. Such cherry-picking gives his case studies a deceptive air of moderation. In doing so, it undermines Wolfe’s argument and smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

Consider the example of the journalist Philip Weiss, who runs a leading anti-Israel websites. The best, tepid criticism Wolfe can muster against Weiss is that he has had “flirtation” with a figure that the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as the “neo-Nazi’s favorite academic.” Even this Wolfe forgives, claiming that in his pursuit of universalism, Weiss has “…shown something of a blind spot towards unsavory figures.” Now consider Weiss’s own words, absent in Wolfe: “…over half the money given to the Democratic Party comes from Jews. Obama’s top two political advisers are Jewish, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. The news lately has been dominated by Obama aides Kenneth Feinberg and Larry Summers. And what does it mean that the Treasury Sec’y gets off the phone with Obama to confer immediately with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman and Jamie Dimon of Morgan (Dimon’s Jewish; Blankfein would seem to be)?” (Weiss, Mondoweiss, Oct 22, 2009).

And there you have it. Since poll after poll shows a majority of American citizens support Israel, something nefarious must be at work. All that is missing is the graveyard venue. Weiss seeks shelter beneath the weak shield of posing his conspiracy theory as a question (“what does it mean…?”), but that hardly reduces the obvious implication. One can further point to Weiss’s penchant for maintaining lists of Jewish journalists as evidence for his claims. As it happens, Weiss has long exhibited a fetish for conspiracy theories (he spent much the 90s claiming that dark forces lay behind Vince Foster’s tragic suicide. Were those dark forces Jewish?). Certainly Wolfe is correct that the Diaspora is for Jews a place of intellectual and spiritual vitality. Yet n failing to discuss – and perhaps even hiding – the full breath of thinkers like Weiss, he betrays the weakness of the other half of his thesis: that the Diaspora is truly safe.

In his effort to prove his thesis that stateless Jews in the Diaspora serve the “universalist” – as opposed to those “particularlist” Jew struggling and eventually succeeding to reestablish a homeland – Wolfe reaches back to the great German Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn. At first blush, this seems an obvious choice: Mendelssohn, the autodidactic German Jewish philosopher and critic was the founder of the 18th Century Jewish Enlightenment movement. Mendelssohn likewise urged Jews to shed the insular aspects of Jewish life in favor of full participation in Jewish society. Moreover, given Wolfe's discomfort with Jewish orthodoxy, it is only natural that he should reach back to the intellectual godfather of the Reform Movement. Yet, as elsewhere, Wolfe's discussion betrays a shallow understanding of the topic. For example, it is a far stretch to claim that Mendelssohn “paved the way for separation of church and state, religious toleration, the idea that the rights of Jews were best protected where the rights of all were most honored.” Our understanding of separation of church and state traces back at least to Locke and is most indebted to Montesquieu discussions written years before Mendelssohn birth.

Yet putting aside such errors, Mendelssohn and the Reform movement were also not quite the “universalist” that Wolfe chooses to conjure; yes, they did shed parts of Judaism to engage in the broader culture, but they saw this very much as an effort to engage German culture. “Germans of the Mosaic Faith,” as they called themselves, were less concerned with establishing universal justice as they were in integrating themselves in the majoritarian German culture. Indeed, it was not long before jokes began that their real effort was to prove themselves more German than any other German. Wolfe obviously perceives no relationship between these efforts and German Jewry's final fate. Whether because of ignorance or lack of interest, he does not consider the rising tide of anti-semitism that rose concurrently with Jewish integration in German life and the birth of the unified German state, typified famously in the writings of Richard Wagner. That these sentiments ran from German nationalists on the Right to Marx on the Left, speaks volumes. Yet perhaps the most stinging of indictment of Mendelssohn's thought comes not from the response of Germans or not what the future held for the descendants of his fellow German Jews; of his six children, five converted to Christianity. By the rise of Nazism, none of his descendants would count themselves as Jews. At least for his family's Jewish identity, the path Mendelssohn chose proved self-annihilating.

Nowhere do Wolfe’s arguments go so far off the rails as when he wishes to claim that American Jews do not appreciate their unparalleled freedom and opportunity. Wolfe writes, “…Jews seem lacking in the confidence that would enable them to become a little more appreciative of just how securely this one part of the Diaspora has offered them a home.” A provocative statement to be sure. As a social scientist, one might expect Wolfe to evidence his claim with polling data on the opinions of American Jews. No such luck. Indeed, he offers no empirical evidence. He might have sought support in quotes by Jewish community leaders and intellectuals but presents none. Another option would have been to look to the practice of temples and synagogues (though in my experience this would have gone against his claim, American Jewish institutions being in fact effusive in their patriotism)

Instead, Wolfe offers a rather tortured case study of Yale University’s ending its long standing policies of excluding Jews. To be sure, the end of restrictive quotas by elite universities has been a great advance for Jews, (and, of course, other minority groups). Why did Yale choose to open its doors? Most likely it resulted from the broad shift towards a more meritocratic admissions system that ran across the previously insular world of elite American higher education; Yale (or any Ivy) that failed to keep pace would surely have been reduced to little more than a second rate social club. Wolfe, another narrative in mind, gives this obvious motivation only passing consideration. They were, for Wolfe, motivated by “justice.”

The seeker of justice on whom Wolfe focuses is R. Inslee “Inky” Clark, Yale’s Director of Undergraduate Admissions. To increase the pool of Jewish and ethnic applicants, Clark began bypassing elite prep-schools in favor of urban public schools that attracted elite children of immigrants, like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science. After Clark left Yale in 1971, he became Head Master of the Horace Mann School in Riverdale, a wealthy Bronx enclave. When Clark spotted Amos Kamil, a poor Israeli kid, pitching a baseball game, he recruited Kamil to Horace Mann and paid for his scholarship. Decades later, Kamil wrote a New York Times Magazine article exposing Horace Mann’s terrible secret: during Clark’s tenure, a cabal of teachers had sexually preyed on students. Clark certainly oversaw the cover-up. Worse still, legal filings implicate him as an abuser.

For Wolfe, Kamil’s brave decision to reveal this abuse and make healing possible was neither brave nor universalist. It was instead churlish. “Far from showing gratitude, at least one Jew [Kamil] who was the recipient of Inky Clark largesse turned to accusations… [even though Clark] thought they [people like Kamil] deserved the chance to have opportunities once denied their parents and grandparents.” It is worth mentioning that Horace Mann’s current leadership saw fit to rename the athletic field formerly dedicated in Clark’s honor. Perhaps Wolfe imagines that, like Kamil, they just failed to appreciate Clark’s less predatory qualities.

In the end, this book suffers more than anything from the superficiality of Wolfe’s knowledge of Jewish history and Judaism. His errors – factual, historical, even statistical – abound. Even where he correctly invokes Judaism, it serves only to support his preconceived world view. What he likes, he labels “universalist” (good). What he finds troubling, he declares “particularist” (bad). The tradition’s beauty, however, is not in either extreme but in the tension between. One of the greatest Jewish sages, Hillel – born ironically in the Second Temple period Diaspora – summed up Jewish ethics in an aphorism so famous as to be almost cliche: “If I am not for myself, than who will be for me? But if I am only for myself alone, what manner of person am I? And if not now, when?” In that three sentence distillation, Hillel offers the ultimate retort to the notion that particularlism and universalism cannot cohabitate in the same heart. Those three sentences refute the argument Wolfe strains to build in more than two-hundred pages. Besides, once one strips away all the errors and generalities, little of those pages remain.

A very old joke comes to mind. When traveling through Czechoslovakia between the wars one encountered three sorts of people. Most were Czechs. Fewer were the Slovaks. By far the smallest group were those who declared themselves “Czechoslovaks,” every one a Prague Jew. Now Czechoslovakia has been dissolved and its Jews are spread onto the wind. Theirs was a peculiar sort of universalism, a powerless people struggling for identity in a hostile world. I suspect most Jews prefer their current, far less beleaguered, communities. In the Diaspora, its members marched with King and march still for social justice. In Israel, they send aid to the downtrodden and strive to cure disease and lessen hunger. Of course, I have no hard data to prove that most Jews share my preference. And unlike Wolfe, I am willing to admit this shortcoming in my assumptions.

Open Letters Monthly Dec. 2014

[Fredrick Danysh · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author debates Jewish immigrations, displacements, and the the idea of a Jewish homeland. He looks at the question of how the Jewish people feel about Diaspora but doesn't clearly explain what is meant by the term.

[Angie Reisetter · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's easy to have knee-jerk reactions to pieces of Wolfe's book, including, I have to say, the condescending-sounding sub-title, but I deeply enjoyed reading the arguments he presented in this book. On the face of it, or, rather, on the back of the book, this is simply a defense of Jews who choose to live outside Israel. While it has been suggested by others (as Wolfe documents well) that it is not possible to live a wholly Jewish life outside Israel, Wolfe believes that defining a wholly Jewish life is not so simple and can be achieved anywhere in the world. He's not anti-Israel, he just thinks it's okay for Jews to live anywhere they please.

Okay, I gotta say that this argument sounds characteristic of a milquetoast (and that may be the first time I've every actually written that word...), even if he documents every statement from the last 100 years from folks who say otherwise. But I had started this book hoping that it would actually include something much richer, and I was rewarded. There's great depth to his argument.

I'll just go ahead and say here that I'm not Jewish. But I'm fascinated with questions of identity, and the Jews, precisely because they have been living in exile for so long, have struggled with questions related to identity more thoroughly than any other people. I know I'm not alone in being deeply interested in Jewish arguments about identity because they provide important insight for all of us. [If nothing else, I present as proof the publication this year of [book:To Rise Again at a Decent Hour|18453074].]

The most important argument in the book was the dichotomy he drew between universalism and particularism. That is, the duty of Jews living their faith to fight injustice and oppression on behalf of all the peoples of the world (personified best, but not exclusively, by the Jews in the diaspora), and the duty to ensure their own survival (personified by Zionists). This isn't just about where Jews live, it's about their values and passions. Wolfe summarizes the central question of the book as "whether a concern only with themselves or with the needs of all is the best way to carry Jewish traditions into the future."

There are all kinds of complicated questions wrapped up in this that I really relish. And there are a couple of arguments that the author clearly wanted to make about how the debate is carried out, which were not questions I would come up with but were clearly important. He's disgusted by the equivalence drawn by some between the Holocaust and assimilation (saying that modern assimilation in the diaspora will accomplish the elimination of Jewish culture), and he wants to be able to criticize Israel without being called anti-Semitic. I gotta say I was with him on these two side issues -- his points seemed reasonable to me. But again, I'm really an observer here more than a participant.

The author does a great job of breaking down the big questions and presenting the arguments of Jewish scholars from many different viewpoints, while always making his own bias clear. It's a rather academic debate (I mean that in a good way), so it's not exactly chatty, but it's well written. I feel much more informed on the status of this debate, and it gave me a lot to discuss with others. It's not what I would call an easy read, but a very rewarding one.

I got this from the Goodreads giveaway program.

[Betty · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book covers a lot of ground, but I think each individual reader will take away something different from it. Some aspect of it will stir something inside you. For me, it was the issue of particularism versus universalism. While the book seems to be marketed as supporting those Jews who choose to live outside Israel, it has a lot to offer those who live in Israel also.

In the introduction Wolfe makes the statement that “It is more important what Jews think than where they live.” As expected, the book argues a good case in support of that statement. There are universalists in Israel just as there are particularists in the Diaspora. You are probably asking, “What is this “universalist” and this “particularist”? The universalist is one who believes that Jews must be that voice of consciousness that looks at issues from the viewpoint of mankind. They must stand up for those being treated unjustly and those oppressed. The particularists look at issues from a group self-survival mindset. “Take care of our own first.” It does not matter where one lives; it is more about their values.

Wolfe looks at the level of compassion among Jews. In the Diaspora, compassion was necessary at one time in order to survive. But in the State of Israel where Jews are the majority, compassion is taking a backseat to military strength and in physical might. The particularist has no compassion for the plight of the Palestinians whereas the universalist sees them as people too. The universalist sets the same standard for behavior on both sides. I believe the statement “The notion that all Jews ought to be a light unto all nations only means that they ought to please their own God in the hope that gentiles will learn from them” applies to the universalist belief.

Wolfe makes a case for looking at your own group with a critical eye. Many call this self-hatred when instead it is a way of keeping your group strong. One bad apple starts to rot the others. Self-examination is necessary from time to time.

Wolfe also looks at the history of intermarriage of Jews and non-Jews. He makes an interesting argument of how the “enlarged Jewish population” is a positive potential of intermarriage. Hmmm…stills thinking about that one.

In his discussion of anti-Semitism he makes note of the need to separate criticism of Israel from hatred of the Jews. I definitely agree with him there. One can be critical of actions being taken by the Jewish state while still loving the Jewish people. There is an interesting discussion of the current anti-Semitism in Europe.

There is a discussion also of secular Jews and how, while not being “religious”, still have a commitment to social justice. This seems to be a “hard-wired” component of many Jews, religious or not.

Wolfe presents quite a few issues Jews throughout the world are struggling with currently. I can’t say I agree with all his conclusions, but he certainly makes me think. And I suspect this was his intent.

[Ashley · Rating 3 out of 5]

When I began reading this argumentative novel, I was initially put off. Especially because in the very first paragraph, the author is cited as saying that the birth of Israel occurred in 1948. Historically, on the point of "arriving" in the current world, I guess that makes sense, sure. In terms of the Hebrew Bible, however, Israel was the first nation that was present, as Israel was the home of YHWH's chosen people of which there were many covenants. Including and not limited to the Mosaic covenant, which took place before the deportation and destruction brought by the Babylonian empire. It was then that the Diaspora term was coined.

I do take similar stances with the author, but as his argument is situated within the states, and not necessarily where it all began, I have to step back and wonder why Wolfe chose the era he did, rather than extending his argument to show that the initial Diaspora was the basis of importance for the Jewish community.

Wolfe makes a strong argument, I just wanted a little more history.

All in all, it's a rich history. I do recommend reading it.

[Barbara Adde · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thought provoking.

"By bringing back to life the universalist ideals developed during their long residency in exile, a new generation of Jews can offer the best hope for a revival of the Jewish future."

"...I prefer a Judaism that is special but not chosen to one that is chosen but not special. Jews survive best, for themselves and for the gentile world around them, when they do more than live but live up to an ideal."

[Kenn Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

I received this book as a Goodreads giveaway.

Very informative. I learned a lot of the Jewish people reading this book. It made me think differently of how important Israel is, both Jewish and non-Jewish people. There are places where Jews can live peacefully and prosper and other where it is a question.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating highly readable book that tells us much about where Diaspora Jews -- particularly in America -- have been and how things are changing even as some people don't understand and thing they can turn back the tide.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not an easy read, but a fascinating one. It exposed me to many Jewish thinkers and strains of thought that I had not previously encountered, as well as put into a more clear context many who I have previously encountered.

[Miracle Emery · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fascinating and educational. I truly enjoy any book that provides me with knowledge and a deeper understanding of the subject discussed within.

[Jennifer Collins · Rating 5 out of 5]

The controversy over the Jewish Diaspora is something I've only been familiar with in passing, and yet I found that Wolfe's work was not only readable and clear, but offered with depth and insight. In some cases, I'm positive I would have gotten more out of his arguments if I'd had more background, but for the most part, I felt Wolfe did an impressive job of balancing his writing to benefit a variety of readers. Wolfe's argument that Diaspora has, in large part, been a good thing for Jews -- despite many scholars and religious leaders arguing the opposite -- is delivered thoughtfully and with real depth, and offers a lot of inspiration for further discussion and thought.

All told, I'd have to recommend this work to anyone interested in the subject, or in religion at large.